From: dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood)
Subject: Re: Maimonides on the Trinity  - (was( old) Question For Rob Levene)
Organization: VTT
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:12:59 GMT

In article <9209251201.AA29681@aplpy.jhuapl.edu> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes:
>dah@tko.vtt.fi writes:
>
>...
>> Maimonides, the greatest rabbi and codifier of your "fundemental principles"
>> of Judaism - stated that it was false that the Christian concept of the
>> Trinity involved "belief in another diety,"
>
>I think you're confusing what's permitted for Jews to believe
>and what's permitted for gentiles to believe.  To which
>statements of Maimonides do you refer?
>
>Some codifiers would say that for gentiles, belief in a mandatory
>intercessor or "assistant" to G-d would be OK, others still call that
>idolatry.
>
>R
>
\\\\\\\\\\\
Actually, you are confusing issues more by omitting the relevant context
of my reply, and by some speculative confusion of other notions.

I meant what I said, responding to a mistaken but traditional polemical
criticism of Christianity, reiterated by H.M. Which context you omitted.

If you remind me, I will research the reference when I return home from
overseas (in a few weeks). Maimonides was correcting uninformed Jewish
criticism, in this passage - he knows that Christians do not believe
in more one than one God, and that it is unfair to make this (bogus) criticism
of their religion. Frankly he is intellectually honest, far more than nearly
all anti-Christian or anti-Jewish polemicists. His love of God is also
a love of the truth; Rashi is interesting for tradition, but Maimonides is
incomparable among the rabbis for his love of the truth. Surely he is
mistaken about Christ. But I believe he was a friend of God, nevertheless.

I know that he has other criticisms of the concept of the Trinity, and
it would be idolatrous to worship Jesus (if he were not God). But a chief
difficulty is that Judaism claims that it cannot conceive of how God might
become also a human being. This despite the fact that some ancient jewish
tradition imagines that the Messiah is pre-existent, but also is to be
a human being. Anyway, God is God, and can do far more than we can
conceive. Indeed you have to presume against God, to claim that the
Incarnation is impossible for Him. Period. A much more interesting
question is why would God become a man? I have only to remind you that
the people of Israel could not approach God directly - they were terribly
afraid, and uncomprehending, of Him. Only Moses could stand in His presence.
Moses was their intercessor. (By the way, some people complain - why does
Christ have to come down from heaven again? I remind them that Moses also
had to come down from Mt Sinai, and the presence of God, twice, and when
came down again his appearance was radiant, making the people reverent
to obey and listen to him. So Christ is to come again in glory, so everyone
may know that he has authority of God (as He said, This is my Son - listen
to him.). Why then not Moses? Moses is not Christ. If Moses and his Torah
were enough for life with God, then there would be no need for the Messiah.
But Moses, a great but mere human being, could not carry out the intention
of God. In fact, he could not enter the Promised Land which he could
envision from afar - both literally and spiritually, because he betrayed
the nature of God in the sight of all the people. (He did not speak to
the people's hard hearts as he was commanded to speak to the rock. He was
violent with them, as if God needs violence to perform miracles, whether
to bring forth water from a rock, or to bring forth tears of repentance
from the hard-hearted.) Jesus spoke to the people's hearts a new Torah,
without violence.s




I already know about these other notions, but they were not my subject,
and I don't intend to comment on them, except to agree that there is
ambiguity in the NT concerning the intercessory role of Christ. It is
clear that Christians are told to pray to God Himself who will hear them,
as they are Christians, reconciled with God through Christ. This much
is fairly clear, and has an aspect of intercession. But it is also clear
that there are other "intercessory" figures, which are borrowed from
ancient Judaism in order to explicate and persuade of the Christian faith.

Two of the most prominent of these intercessory figures are "the prophet
like Moses" who gives a new Torah, and who intercedes in Exodus between
God and the people, who actually urge him to intercede because they
are (said to be) made afraid of God's manifest presence (which is 
traditonally said to be unnerving, as anyone might imagine). So Moses
interceded then, and subsequently did the priests. This does not mean that
Jews would pray to Moses or others - of course, they did not. The second
prominent intercessory figure (or pre-figure, if you like) is that of
the High Priest, who would intercede between God and the people, in 
sacrificial atonement of their sins. Especially, he would like Moses
enter into a place of God's presence, the innermost sanctuary, unvisited
by ordinary people, once a year, where according to tradition he would
appeal to God for forgiveness and blessing, hopefully with some divine
manifestation of God's acceptance. The New Testament book of Hebrews
adopts this Biblical figure of High Priestly intercession, expect that
it envisions Christ as the High Priest of a "heavenly Temple" (envisioned
David, and Moses traditionaly), of the order of Mechizedek! There are
many issues here which I don't have time to discuss, but I might note
Melchizedek is also High Priest in heaven according to a pre-Christian
Qumran text. Other issues have to do with failures of priestly lineages,
according to the prophets (who did not get along with priests, very
often). However, some contemporary (sectarian) tradition sought to
find a pre-existent High Priest, who was faithful, serving in the
heavenly Temple. And the book of Hebrews identifies this figure also with
Christ. (Actually, according to some contemporary (sectarian) tradition
there were two Messianic types - one Davidic, the other High Priestly,
and these were identified by NT writings, employing various traditional
Biblical figures of the time.)
	(Isaiah, who was a priest, tells of his calling by God
to be a prophet, when it saw the glory of God in the Temple, which
frightened him. You may know that according to the Gospel of John, Jesus
identifies himself with the glorious manifestation seen by Isaiah. This
is an important clue - it associates the Messiah with eternity and with
manifestation of God's glory. He also says that his "Day" was seen by
Abraham - the "Day" was a first-century Jewish Christian figurative
expression of the manifestation of Christ in God's glory; it is derived
of course, from the prophetic figure of "the Day of the Lord." This
became, for Christians, a manifestation of God with Christ, hence the
parallelism of expression, with some grammatical ambiguities, found in 
the New Testament. The grammatical ambiguities make it difficult to
determine whether the authors are referring to Jesus as God, or whether
they refer to one revelation of Jesus with God. Anyway, this is the
origin of the figure.)

This will have to be my last posting for some time. It takes too much
time from my work, and these disputes are mostly futile anyway. As it
is said: I would like to speak, then be silent. (As if I had a choice
about it ;-)

D.H.