In the Bible
Many verses in the Bible reflect a belief in an anthropomorphic God; in other words, the Lord has a body which has a head, limbs, and so forth. This concept is attested in the whole Bible both explicitly and implicitly. It is clear from early sources that in the biblical period, laymen and prophets believed that God had a figure which can be seen and described. Already in the story of creation it is written (Gen 1:26-27). That is, man was created in the image of God (and other heavenly beings). Thus, we see that God has a figure form, a head, etc (J. M. Miller, ‘In the “Image” and “Likeness” of God’, JBL, 91 (1972), pp. 289-304). An anthropologist or a philosopher might say that man was not created in the image of God but vice versa, but this concept – not necessarily modern – is not attested to in the Bible, and even contradicts it (Hans W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament SCM Press, London 1974, pp. 159-165; E. Shapira, Selem Elohim we Am Segula, Zemora – Bitan – Modan, Tel Aviv 1981 (Hebrew); A. Altmann, Panim shel Yahadut Am Obed, Tel Aviv 1983, pp. 11 ff). It is not surprising, therefore, that the prophet said (Isa 48:13): ‘my hand laid the foundation of the earth’, since by hand man creates new artifacts. This concept continues, if God has a hand and a body, He has also a bow, as it is written (Gen 9:13): ‘I set my bow in the cloud’. Therefore, one who has a bow has also arrows and a sword (Deut 32:42), especially when ‘The Lord is a man of war’ (Exod 15:3).
Not only do the hands of God make war, but they also write as is written that the Tablets of the Covenant were ‘written with the finger of God’ (Deut 9:10). We also find that God has feet (Exod 24:10), and He stands (Exod 17:6), or sits (Ps 2:4), on His throne (Isa 66:1). It goes without saying that God has a face (Deut 31:17), eyes (Prov 15:3), a nose (Num 11:33), and a back (Exod 33:23). However, according to an ancient belief it was forbidden to see God (Exod 33:20): ‘for man shall not see me and live’. In other words, though one is not allowed to see God, He does have a figure like a man.
In sum, there is no reason to confine Biblical attitudes towards an anthropomorphic God to a certain layer of sources in the Biblical literature or to see it influenced by Hellenistic concepts (M. Smith, ‘The Image of God’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 40 (1958), pp. 473-512; Jarl E. Fossum, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology, Universitätverlag Freiburg, Schweiz – Vandenhöck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1995, pp. 13-39; Stephen D. Moore, ‘Gigantic God: Yahweh’s Body’, JSOT, 70 (1996), pp. 87-115).
In Rabbinic and Mystic literature
It seems that in Talmudic sources there are fewer anthropomorphic concepts of God in comparison with the Bible. However, it may be said that this is because of the literary difference between the sources. Nonetheless, scholars have already claimed that rabbinic sources reflect anthropomorphic concepts, and this belief was probably shared by the common people in the Land of Israel and in Babylon in the first centuries c.e (A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, II, London 1937). 1 2 In b. Sanh. 38b, just before mentioning Metatron ‘which his name is like the name of his Lord’, there is a legend about the creation of Adam ( A. Altmann, Panim shel Yahadut, pp. 31 ff). In other words, during the creation of Adam, God pointed with His small finger and burned angels, and later on He put His hand on Adam and made him small. So according to Rab, one of the most eminent rabbis of his era, God has a hand and fingers, and He used them during the process of creating Adam. The difference between the two stories is that while the second story – reducing in size by laying on the hand – seems as a development of a Biblical notion by using a common idea (Ex. 10:22; 17:11; 2 Sam 24:16). The first story – burning by means of the small finger – is an independent concept which is unrealistic (Peter Schäfer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur, JCB Mohr, Tübingen 1981, #67 (Hereafter: Schäfer). [English translation by P. Alexander in: James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Doubleday & Company, New York, 1983-85) I, p. 300). So it seems that what we have here is not a mere use of the ancient sources, but the creation of new ideas by the rabbis concerning God’s hand and small finger.
For b. Erub. 21a, the Amoraim tried to calculate the gigantic size of the Torah by taking into account certain verses. They measured the scroll that Zechariah the prophet saw by cubits, and calculated these cubits by the ‘span’, literally: the small finger, that is mentioned in Isaiah, and came into some conclusion (40 x 20 x 4 = 3200). At first glance this text has nothing to do with the issue in hand, the anthropomorphic God, since in none of the Biblical verses cited above is any hint of the body of God. However, if we examine the commentaries on this pericope we reveal a much different understanding of the text. Rashi, ad loc., comments as follows: ‘Twenty cubit – according to the cubit of the Holy one, Blessed be He’. It is quite clear that Rashi is correct in his interpretation since the sage based his calculation on the small finger with which God created the universe, that is the small finger of God was the span of the ‘sky’ (or universe). In other words, the whole universe is like the small finger of God, but the heavenly Torah is 3200 times bigger than the universe.
In the Middle Ages
- It seems that Jews of the post-Talmudic period looked at Talmudic texts with embarrassment because of two major changes in their world view: one was theological and the other was philosophical. To the best of my knowledge, in no polemics between Jews and heretics mentioned in the Talmud, is there any reference to the anthropomorphic concept. However, Christian sources on the one hand, and Zoroastrian sources on the other condemned Jews for this belief.28 To this external polemic, the Karaites joined internally by condemning Rabbanism per se, and an anthropomorphic God in particular.29 So it seems that post-Talmudic rabbis found themselves between an external and internal war. These attacks, coming from different theological and philosophical attitudes made, apparently, the rabbis withdraw from this religious belief, especially when it was not considered fundamental to Jewish belief (or might even cause damage to it). It seems that not only did these theological attacks on Jews change the Jewish concept concerning an anthropomorphic God, but it also influenced the Talmudic text.
- The evidence for the persistence of an anthropomorphic God among Jews is found in a letter of Bishop Agobard of Lyons stating that Jews in his time, the ninth century, believed in an anthropomorphic God (R. Bonfil, ‘The Cultural and Religious Traditions of French Jewry in the Ninth Century, a Reflected in the Writings of Agobard of Lyons’, Studies in Jewish Mysticism Philosophy and Ethical Literature, Presented to Isaiah Tishby, The Magnes Press, Jerusalem 1986, pp. 327- 348). Some three centuries later in Egypt Maimonides wrote in his code (Teshuva 3:7) that there were Jews who said God had a figure. In other words, in 12th century Provence (even) learned rabbis did not see anything wrong in believing in an anthropomorphic God (See also: A. Altmann, ‘Moses Narboni’s “Epistle on Shiur Qoma”‘, idem., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1967, pp. 225-288). That is to say that Jews in France, Provence and southern Germany, which means under the reign of Christians, continued to believe in an anthropomorphic God, just as their own forefathers of Biblical and Talmudic periods.