R. Norman Lamm, The Shema: Spirituality and Law in Judaism, pp. 113, 125:
[I]f indeed God commands us to love Him, does that not in some way betray a need in Him to be loved? And does that not imply some lack, some vulnerability or imperfection, in God? And does that not, in turn, run counter to the teaching of the Jewish tradition that God is perfect, absolute, totally autonomous, and in need of nothing or no one?… [W]e acknowledge that from the point of view of ultimate reality–understood fully only by God and only asserted philosophically but never fully comprehended existentially by human beings–we can never attribute such imperfections as need, injury, vulnerability, and loneliness to God; God is beyon all emotion, including love. Nevertheless, in our daily lives as thinking, feeling, and active beings, we relate to God psychologically as a sentient, feeling, reacting Being.
Approaching God this way respects Onkelos’s and Maimonides’ strictures against anthropopathisms (and certainly anthropomorphisms), yet allows us to go beyond the realm of metaphor, to nurture our relationship to God in an existentially and psychologically more meaningful way than merely poetic or metaphoric analogy. The Cordoveran paradigm [distinguishing between divine and human perspectives] resolves the conflict between the philosophers and those ordinary religious folk (and some extraordinary ones as well!) for whom prayer is more than poetry, and love more than metaphor. It allows us to keep our hearts without losing our heads. And it tells us that, yes, God need our love as surely as we need His. If this understanding emerges as only “from our point of view,” so be it, for it is quite presumptuous–and impossible-to view anything “from God’s point of view.”