Justina's Writing Corner

Maimonides’ The Guide for the Perplexed presents a very rigorous philosophical interpretation of religious law. He emphasizes that the highest form of worship is intellectual rather than practical. His figurative interpretation of the Torah maintains that when the literal meaning of scripture contradicts reason, it must be interpreted metaphorically so that it can align with the rational truth. This raises a fundamental question: who holds the authority to determine the correct interpretation of the Torah? For Maimonides, this authority resides in philosophers (which includes himself). He believes that only those capable of grasping deeper metaphysical and logical truths can correctly interpret the Torah.

The presupposition behind this view is that the author of the Torah possessed philosophical knowledge. This further implies that religious texts contain esoteric wisdom accessible only to those with the requisite intellectual capabilities. Maimonides values both literal and figurative interpretations, but he acknowledges that the literal reading of scripture can undermine its own authority. For example, the claim that God has a body is contradicted by the figurative interpretation because it holds that God is incorporeal. This discrepancy suggests that the Torah’s function is not simply to relay truth, but also to guide individuals according to their level of understanding.

Maimonides’ palace parable illustrates the varying degrees of proximity to true worship. The masses, situated outside the city or within it but turned away from the palace, hold either no belief or incorrect beliefs about God. Those inside the city but searching for the palace wall are individuals who follow religious laws without deeper comprehension—‘ignorant’ observers of commandments. A step closer are the rabbis who seek to interpret religious law and determine correct action. However, even practical reasoning about divine commandments does not constitute true worship. The highest level of understanding is reserved for those in the antechamber and inner chamber of the palace—philosophers who actively engage in mathematics, logic, natural sciences, and metaphysics. True worship is not action-based but intellectual. Even if one’s action of worship if much greater than another’s intellectual worship, the intellectual one actually holds the true worship. 

This framework challenges conventional religious practice by suggesting that God cannot be worshipped through actions or faith alone. Worship based on imagination is false worship as it is directed toward a human-created image rather than divine truth. Only intellectual apprehension of God allows for genuine worship. This means that most people are incapable of true worship because they lack the philosophical acumen necessary for intellectual apprehension of God.

The concept of intellectual love of God follows from this principle. Love is proportionate to knowledge. A person can only love God to the extent that they understand Him. Faith relies on belief rather than knowledge. Therefore, faith is insufficient for true love. The reward for worshipping God is not external; it is found in the intellectual enlightenment itself.

Maimonides’ interpretation of the commandments follows this logic. The practical laws of the Torah do not serve to please God but to redirect individuals away from worldly distractions and ready for intellectual contemplation. Prayer does not function to communicate with God in a literal sense but to focus the mind. If true worship is purely intellectual, then practical action becomes irrelevant to one’s religious standing. This could lead to a moral crisis, suggesting that ethical behavior is not inherently necessary. Maimonides’ solution to this problem is secrecy. The esoteric meaning of the Torah should remain hidden and only accessible to philosophers. 

This secrecy raises the question of whether truth should be universally disclosed. If truth is inherently non-dangerous, then concealing it is unnecessary. However, if philosophical truth threatens to undermine societal stability, its restriction may be justified.