THE NATURE OF THE BIBLICAL GOD

The movement of perennial logic leads to the One: a Oneness of Pure Spirituality, an Undifferentiated Unity. Its impassive and perfect nature appears to be the definitive statement on the nature of ultimate reality. It is the necessary extension of considering the nature of reality as a derivative of the maxim "the most inclusive (universal) is the most real.." It means that Oneness is all of being; it is an abstraction, a state of perfection, of abstract Otherness. In the face of this conclusion, biblical philosophy offers an entirely different question: "What if ultimate reality is a being, not pure being itself, not Pure Spirituality, but an awesome, majestic, mysterious, immortal agent - a unique, sovereign, personal Someone Who Acts?"

The consequences of following this suggestion are entirely different from classical mysticism. They introduce the strange subject of reality as existing within the dominion of an "anthropomorphic" being. The term "strange" applies here because serious suggestions of anthropomorphism seem naive and archaic; to consider reality in the hands of a "human-like" god is the proper subject matter for historians, not philosophers. It seems that by committing ourselves to this idea, we have started up a blind alley or perhaps a yellow brick road toward a very mortal Wizard of Oz! However, given our assumptions, the discipline of logic and consistency make it a necessity to do so; in accepting the biblical text as the source for the system, biblical philosophers must also accept that the Bible speaks of God as a wondrous, anthropomorphic being. Clarifying terms, Cherbonnier notes:

By anthropomorphism I mean any theology that conceives of God in terms of those characteristics which are distinctively human: the capacity for discriminating judgment, the exercise of responsible decision and choice, the ability to carry cut long-range purposes. Such a God is appropriately (and literally) described in the language of personal pronouns and transitive verbs, such as "possess," "love,""judge," "promise," "forgive," and the like.⁽¹⁾

In the same vein, Kirkpatrick has written:

...God can be partially but truly understood straightforwardly ['literally'] as an Agent whose intentional action brings other agents and non-agents into being, sustains them, affects them in their situations, and redeems them. (I say 'partially' because there may be many things about God that are not capable of being 'literally' understood, including some aspects of how God acts. But I also say 'truly' because there is a real, literal, basic sense in which

(1) Cherbonnier, "The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism," Harvard Theological Review, LV (1962), p. 187.

God is an Agent, and not just symbolized metaphorically as one.)⁽²⁾

When the Bible was in its formative stage, the religion of Israel could be considered in competition with all the traditions and cults then existing in the Near East. In general, these rival faiths each contained a pantheon of divine beings who were thought to be in control of the forces and events occurring in the natural world. The prayers made to the gods, therefore, were often prayers to do something, to make something happen. It was a worship that depended upon results. In some cases, it was believed that these results could be forced from the god by way of magic; in other instances, the faithful offered up sacrifices in order to induce the divinity to grant their special request. These gods were individual beings; they were gods of action. They had the power to affect the conditions of the natural world and the freedom to either accept or reject the appeals of their followers. In this sense, they were personalities; they were anthropomorphic. One can conclude that what made the early gods of the Mediterranean world "human-like" was their ability to act. Like human beings, they were conscious and active; they were superior in knowledge and ability, but similar in their modes of conduct. Zeus and Osiris were free agents in the same fashion humanity is thought of being free, with the important powers of creation and immortality reserved only for them.

A Unique Being

(2) F. Kirkpatrick, Together Bound: God, History, and the Religious Community (New York: Oxford, 1994), p. 61. Please see the subsite containing Dr. Kirkpatrick’s papers.

How did the Lord of Israel differ from the pantheons that were contemporary to the Hebrews in Canaan? The mystical answer is immediate: the Hebrew God was "wholly other." It is to the credit of the biblical sages that they perceived the essential differences between God and mortals, that they considered God as the one, absolute deity. In fact, there are references to this idea within the Bible that point in the direction of perennialist opinion: "For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst" (Hosea 11:9). Perennial philosophy attempts to make the Hebrew God at least complementary to the mystic's hierarchy of reality. However, the God of Israel was never considered ontologically "wholly other." Like Zeus, he⁽³⁾ was a God of action; he had a personality that was grounded in the belief that he was a free agent. What separated the "Holy One" from other gods was not that he was somehow far removed from human beings or that he was somehow far removed from the world, but that he was capable of sovereign success. The condemnation leveled against the idols of neighboring peoples by the Hebrew leaders was not founded on their anthropomorphic qualities, but that they were powerless, that they could not fulfill their promises, that they were not to be trusted, that they were not anthropomorphic enough because they had fewer abilities than mortals. Cherbonnier notes:

In this sense of the term, the God of the Bible is quite as anthropomorphic as any in the Greek and Roman pantheon. Logically, He has more in common with these Olympian deities than with Plato's "Being" or Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover." The difference between Yahweh and Zeus is not logical or formal, but factual and "existential." The prophets do not charge the pagan deities with being anthropomorphic, but with being insufficiently anthropomorphic. At their best, they are counterfeit persons. At their worst, they are frankly impersonal.⁽⁴⁾

It is in this sense that the Bible indicts them: "They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see; they have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell." (Ps. 115: 5,6). It is not that God does not share the same qualities, but that he is supremely a being

(3) "As symbols of God reflecting their cultures, words such as 'Father' and "He' were used in holy writings and in prayers by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Male symbols conveyed a personal God in language acceptable to those peoples. 'It' or 'She' would have failed to communicate their experiences of God. The intention was never to equate God with a mortal male or a 'man in the sky.'"-- from Titus, Smith, and Nolan, Living Issues in Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 385f. In this text we shall use the masculine designation, because to do otherwise tends to be an unnecessary distraction from the discussion.

(4) Cherbonnier, "The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism," p. 187.

of action who can exercise his power in the world and make things happen. The Bible, therefore, is boldly anthropomorphic. Even the passage cited from Hosea that seems to imply a feeling for the "other worldliness" of God through the analogy of a man whose wife has "played the harlot," is ascribing to the Lord a very personal and very human emotion.

There are, therefore, two distinct images of ultimate reality. In perennial systems, it is an unconscious, immobile state of spiritual perfection often enfolding all of existence in one huge cosmic dream. In the biblical system the tangible elements of the finite world are not less real, insignificant, or illusory. All reality is under the sovereignty of an active, creative, and free agent who imparts reality to both humanity and the world by giving them life. An essential difference can be described as a passive state compared to an active one. Whereas the perennial universe is only real in the dormant mind of Being, the biblical world is in a constant state of motion and change; existing from the Word of God, it has direction and purpose.

The Anthropomorphic Challenge

It would appear to some that the biblical view is much more attractive, but less sophisticated. In fact, the reason that considerations of any anthropomorphic being have often been ignored is its seeming naivete; to many philosophers it seems absurd to speak of such a Supreme Being. That prejudice, however, begins to break down when placed in the light of objective criticism.

Assuming that the biblical image of God is valid, what convincing objections can be raised to refute his nature on logical grounds? Generally, such objections have been offered only as blanket denials, asserting that such a being is impossible. There has been a curious lack of serious discussion of its validity. As Cherbonnier notes:

There is no a priori reason why this metaphysical hypothesis should not receive the same consideration as any other. The present writer, however, has made a careful search for a single rational refutation of it. His findings are exhausted by a catalogue of phrases like "subjective," "projection," "wishful thinking," "narrow," "crude anthropomorphism," "primitive superstition," "beneath a philosopher's dignity," "a fog of absurd notions," and other similar epithets, none of which contributes a great deal to testing the Biblical answer to the metaphysician's question.⁽⁵⁾

If logical arguments are raised against it, they center on a main premise: that a single, creative, personal agent as the force behind reality lacks the power to be in charge of the universe; he is too human, too Oz-like, to be divine. This, of course, is based on the

(5) Cherbonnier, "Is There A Biblical Metaphysic?", p. 459.

assumption that what is finite and what is divine are totally separated, that some disabling gulf exists between the two realms.

In answering this type of objection, however, biblical religion can match perennialism on the grounds of logic. For example, a valid criticism of the anthropomorphic gods is that they can be controlled; like the gods of ancient times they can be manipulated by magic or sacrifice. Such gods forfeit claims to divinity, because their real authority is in the hands of human beings. In meeting this criticism, biblical religion first answers that the indictment is true, insofar as it applies to the early pantheons of the Near East. Indeed, it was the same conviction that allowed the Hebrew thinkers to reject the other gods as poor imitations of God. They could be controlled, but Yahweh could not. To make this interpretation clear, one can consider a very essential component to early Hebraic thought: the importance of names.

In the centuries after the Exodus and before the birth of Christ, it was a common belief among the different racial groups around Mesopotamia that a person's name had special significance.⁽⁶⁾ Great care was given to the selection of a name for a newborn baby, and the blessing passed on by the father to his children often involved invoking their names. In this way, having the name of a god or spirit in one's possession was to have some sort of power over him. By calling on his name, one could force him to respond. Divine names, therefore, had a certain magic attached to them.

The one exception to this practice was the religion of the Hebrews. Although other peoples used the names of their gods freely, the religious leaders of Israel strongly maintained the mystery of their God. The famous encounter between Moses and God at the burning bush embodies this concept for Hebrew thought. When Moses asked God for his name, the answer he received was intentionally evasive; God did not pronounce his name to Moses, for to have done so would seem to have given Moses some power over him. In Exodus 3:13-14 God identifies himself as "YHWH" (much later conveyed as "Yahweh" and later deemed too sacred to be vocalized). A clarifying annotation is helpful here.

Moses' second question assumes a polytheistic environment; thus he must know the identity of the God who is dealing with him. On the name, see Gen 32.27 n. 14: I AM WHO I AM is an etymology of the cultic name for the God of Israel, YHWH, probably pronounced Yahweh. (The NRSV, following ancient synagogue practice, substitutes "the Lord" ... YHWH is treated as a verbal form derived from "to be" and formulated in the first person because God is the speaker. Actually YHWH is a third person form and may mean "He causes to be." The name does not indicate God's eternal being but God's action and presence in historical affairs. 15: The

(6) Raymond Abba, "Name," in the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George A. Buttrick (New York-Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), Vol. 3, pp. 500ff.

name is here introduced for the first time.⁽⁷⁾

(7)The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York: Oxford, 1991), p. 72.

Often translated "I Am Who I Am," the name has received attention from modern scholars and is better represented as "It Is He Who Creates What Comes Into Existence" or similar active translations, such as in the previous quoted paragraph.⁽⁸⁾ "He who brings into being whatever comes into being" is another rendition faithful to the living God of the Hebrew experience.⁽⁹⁾ Elsewhere one reads "'I will be what tomorrow demands,' that is, God emphasizes that he is capable of responding to human need."⁽¹⁰⁾ Anderson comments succinctly:

It is tempting, at first glance, to suppose that the narrator refers to God's changeless being - that is, he is the God who eternally is, who is not affected by the flux and flow of time. The ancient Greeks, who struggled philosophically with the problem of the changing and the changeless, would have favored such a view. But in Israel's faith the emphasis is upon divine activity, not passive, eternal being. Just as a person discloses himself to another through his words and deeds, so God reveals himself by what he does. The Hebrew verb has a dynamic meaning that cannot adequately be rendered by our verb "to be"; in fact, often it is best translated "it came to pass" or "it will come to pass." The late Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber, maintained that in the present instance the verb has the dynamic meaning. "I will be present" - that is, God is the one who is actively present with his people, even as he had promised Moses "I will be with you" (3:12). Other scholars construe the enigmatic expression in 3:14 to mean, “I cause to be what is” [or, “what happens” - that is, natural phenomena and historical events have their origin in the will of the God who is Creator and Lord.⁽¹¹⁾

Clearly, "Yahweh" was not intended as the unchanging, suprapersonal, Pure Spirituality of classical mysticism/perennial philosophy. To impose a perennial/mystical context upon any interpretation of Yahweh is to visit an alien and misleading perspective upon the God of Abraham and Jesus. Perhaps the name YHWH is as close as the ancient Hebrew mind came to abstract thinking.

The God of Israel was not in the hands of his followers or any other human beings. The biblical conviction is that the Sovereign of the Universe cannot be manipulated. He

(8) See W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (New York: Doubleday, 1968), p. 148.

(9) "Yahweh" in Gedes MacGregor, Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy (New York: Paragon, 1989), p. 671.

(10) The Torah: A Modern Commentary (New York: The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981), p. 405.

(11) Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1966), p. 39. See also the Abridged Fourth Edition (1998), pp. 56-9.

can respond favorably to an appeal if he chooses to do so, but he can also react in an unexpected fashion. Unlike magic, where results are guaranteed by the correct use or a formula, God is always uncertain; he is unpredictable. What is known about God must be knowledge after the fact, when the results of his action are visible, but nothing can be stated with certainty in advance. The mystery of God is preserved and biblical philosophy maintains this mystery as an assurance that God cannot be mistaken for a Zeus or an Odin.

Yahweh and the New Testament. Is it legitimate to refer to the "biblical God?" Did the New Testament fundamentally alter "God?" As one scholar has noted,

The New Testament offers no new doctrine of God, but simply proclaims that the Old Testament God has now acted definitively. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is now the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Even the fatherhood of God is not new (Isaiah 64.8). Thus all Old Testament theology is implied in the New Testament: God is the creator and Lord of history, the God who acts, who calls Israel into covenant, who promises the redemption of his people. The New Testament proclaims that there promises have now been fulfilled, or rather are now in the process of being fulfilled.⁽¹²⁾

God Is Personal

An essential difference between the mystical One and the biblical God is the difference between what is unconscious and passive, and an agent who is conscious and active. It can be stated as well that biblical philosophy considers God to be personal. This is a direct corollary to his nature as an anthropomorphic being. It means that he deals in the personal, that he has the ability to form judgments and act on them, to exercise a mental process in confronting decisions. In short, God is human-like in character. God is Someone, not something. However, God is not merely a human being writ large. The Creator "does not share human size or time limitations. God does not meet with people as peers."⁽¹³⁾

It is necessary to differentiate the term "personal" from some of its associated meanings. It is tempting to say that God is not personal in the same sense that people are personal, but that he is extra-personal, "supra-personal." The use of this qualification by perennial thinkers is an attempt to maintain some ontological division between the natural world and God's nature. The difficulty is that this already admits to the divine anthropomorphic condition; it simply implies that God is more human than mortals. If carried to an extreme, this type of qualification process becomes absurd; it accepts the central fact of

(12) Reginald H. Fuller, "The Doctrine of God (Theology)," within "Biblical Theology" in The Oxford Companion To The Bible, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford, 1993), p. 87.

(13 House, p. 111.

God's personality but is confused by the question of degrees. It is possible to say, however, that the influence of perennial philosophy encourages this kind of process, gradually transforming the personal nature of God until it bears no relationship to the world of humanity. To resist this process, biblical philosophy can call perennial thinkers to account for making God "subpersonal." If Deity has no emotions, no reason, no consciousness, then he must be unthinking, less than human, and more closely analogous in nature to a rock or piece of wood; he must be "subpersonal." The burden of proof rests on the critic to disprove the possibility of God's being truly personal. Supporting the biblical position are two statements by Cherbonnier and another by Dilley that clarify the position that God is a personal being:

The most appropriate word for such a God is the word "Person." Do not the doctrines of the "imago dei" and of the Incarnation proclaim from the housetops that "veritas" is not "esse," but rather a Person ("I am the truth")?⁽¹⁴⁾

(14) Cherbonnier, "Biblical Metaphysics and Christian Philosophy," Theology Today, IX (1952), p. 368.

Is God "wholly other" than man? If so, then only negatives may be applied to him. Or is he the most all-embracing essence? If so, we must call him "Being-itself," the "Absolute." Or is he a God who speaks? In that case, tho truest words which can be applied to him, by analogy, derive from the only other realm of our experience in which we encounter true speech. Truer than anything else which might be said about a God who speaks, and certainly truer than saying nothing at all, is the frankly anthropomorphic conception of God as a free agent, a self, a Person.⁽¹⁵⁾

The categories which come to the fore in this interpretation of God's nature are person and the various qualities essential to personality, namely metaphysical separation from other persons (yes, God is a being alongside other beings, although their creator), mind, emotions, and the ability to act. God is literally related to his creation, affecting and being affected by it, is literally involved in space and time, literally suffers and literally intervenes in the historical order to bring about the accomplishment of his purposes so far as he can. God is a free, personal being with various super powers. ... God has all the essentials which constitute personality.⁽¹⁶⁾

A Clarification of God's Nature

In mystical traditions, the divine was always a contradiction. Because it was the "ground of being," its truth was diffused into every aspect of existence; it was diluted into equal portions of any contradictory situation. Consequently, the images of yin and yang, the light and dark, and, the good and evil, are especially powerful in perennial systems. It means that what human beings perceive as contradiction is only illusion, elements of the dream which ultimately become part of the greater Oneness. It is impossible, therefore, for mere mortals to understand the nature of ultimate reality through reason. They must simply accept the condition of the finite world and hope to receive enlightenment. If that expectation is fulfilled, then the mystic solves the mystery by becoming one with God; indeed, in the moment of ecstasy, (s)he is God. The sole purpose of the divine, therefore, is to exist, to keep the dream going and to permit enlightenment. The Sacred Ultimate of perennial thought is inactive; it cannot move by definition; it cannot enter into relationship or contact with anything external to itself; it cannot violate its infinite and immutable nature as the "ground of being." "God," then, is a passive mystery that keeps the illusion in motion until the mystic has time to discover its secret.

With this interpretation in mind, one can conclude that the negative injunctions found in perennial philosophy are reversed in the biblical. Although the mystical One

(15) Cherbonnier, "The Theology of the Word of God," The Journal of Religion, XXXIII, No. 1 (1953), p. 25.

(16) Frank B. Dilley, "Is Myth Indispensable?", The Monist, L (1966), p. 589.

cannot do things, the biblical God has complete mobility. As in the biblical text, he is a God of active verbs -- i.e., he judges, speaks, acts, and feels. As Cherbonnier states:

As Creator, he exercises his dominion with an authority which is difficult to ascribe to a nonpersonal deity; as Judge of the nations, he can cause the mighty to tremble at the day of reckoning. As free, purposive agent he is forever doing some new and unpredictable thing.⁽¹⁷⁾

The natural world is God's creation, his conscious act. It has its own reality conferred by the Creator. Because it is a product of God's will, it stands in a direct relationship to Him. There is a reciprocal activity passing between the finite and God. It is the function of God not just to exist, but to be active in the care and management of his creation. His anthropomorphic qualities, therefore, take on new meaning when seen in the perspective of a single, active agent.

If God exists as the Bible portrays him, and if the finite world is his creation, then, his actions can be defined on a functional basis. For example, although reason is a hindrance to the mystic, it is essential to the biblical philosopher. Whereas the silent Oneness or Pure Spirituality can say nothing to the human condition, God can speak directly to his situation. The Bible, then, becomes a partial record of his words and actions. Reason for mankind is preserved, because it is not directed toward the non-personal from which there can be no response. In the biblical sense, the words of God pass directly to the natural world as the reaction of God to human events. This does not imply that every word spoken by God is clearly understood or accepted, nor are we advocating a biblical literalism, but it does mean that at the very least there is the possibility for trustworthy communication between the world of humanity and the person of God.

A God of Moral Judgment and Historical Intervention

The contradictions inherent in and acceptable to perennial philosophy are rejected by biblical standards, because God can judge. Like human beings, he can make qualitative decisions; he can place a value on something. Whereas in yin and yang opposite forces ultimately co-exist on equal terms, the Bible makes a distinction between that which is good and that which is bad. To make this kind of statement runs the risk of calling up visions of "Christian" morality, which some people see as nothing more than an arbitrary code of ethical prohibitions. The Bible, however, goes much deeper; it means that in the chaotic condition of human life, where individuals appear to be at the mercy of constant change, there is some central core of unchanging values. In a strict sense, this would be impossible under a perennial system in which murder and compassion may be accorded equal ultimate

(17) Cherbonnier, "The Word of God," in The Empirical Theology of Henry Nelsen Wieman, ed. Robert W. Bretall (New York: Macmillan, 1963), p. 269.

value within the encompassing One. Ethical codes, therefore, are more of an amendment to the perennial approach, while a sense of the moral is inherent in biblical religion; morality is a consistent extension of interpreting God as a being capable of making value judgments. The necessity for recognizing this attribute of God is part of seeing his full personhood.

The questions remain: How is it possible to assume that God's judgments are correct? Is it not an arbitrary decision on the part of biblical religion to elevate a moral God over an immoral God? If God is anthropomorphic, can he be evil rather than good? These appear to be pointless questions, but they are important within the framework of logic and consistency. In the mystical system no real distinction can be drawn between ultimate good and evil. That the biblical God communicates, however, removes man from the unstable state where one god is as good as another. The mystery of God is preserved in the biblical approach; nothing can be known about him in advance, through human meditations or ponderings, only after the fact, a posteriori.

Within biblical categories, then, humanity has empirical evidence for the nature of God. This "evidence," however, is not absolute; it is not a way to know fully and hence to control God, but only a method by which human beings can come to understand the intentions of God. The Bible records (within myths, legends, and providentially interpreted history) words and deeds God has done in the world. From this information humans begin to draw conclusions about the workings of God. The Lord of Creation does not disclose all of himself or set down magic formulas by which he can be conjured; he continues to affect the course of history, to cause things to happen to fulfill his purpose (without overriding human freedom).

In perennial thought everything has a particular kind of static certainty. One knows that the world is an illusion, a seeming-to; one knows that mankind is trapped in the endless cycles of time and change; and one knows that, because Oneness is constant, things will continue as they have been ad infinitum. Humanity, therefore, has no real freedom in mystical religion. Humans cannot alter the course of events; they cannot enter into communication with the divine except in a moment of ecstasy when, losing their individuality, they merge with Pure Spirituality, the Absolute. The patterns in perennialism are fixed. What is known is known in the beginning a priori, without regard to empirical events.

In sharp contrast, the hallmark of biblical religion is that God confers significant degrees of freedom upon human beings. The movement of God's hand through history is not heavy; it does not manipulate or control human events like pieces on a chess board (hence God's acts are often difficult to detect and subject to outside criticisms). This is true because of human freedom. Biblical texts, especially those of the prophets, are full of the conflicts between God and man. It is possible for human beings to choose a course of action that is directly contrary to the will of God. History, therefore, is a chronicle of the interaction between two sources of personal decision: God and human beings. Both are active and free agents; that God allows man to operate with significant autonomy means

that his relationship to the world is not grounded in an impersonal process, but in the personal. History becomes much more difficult to predict; no decision is automatic or predetermined. Implied is that the course of events is left open, that things can happen to alter developing situations. Moreover, it means that mankind has a unique partnership with God in working out the future; and this is a partnership of two distinct personalities. This partnership and personal interchange contrasts sharply, as Cherbonnier explains, with theologies that praise human or divine self-sufficiency:

The Bible, by contrast, regards self-sufficient isolation as destructive and the desire for it as one of the means by which sin perpetuates itself. The pursuit of salvation in terms of independence or "unrelatedness" is something to be delivered from. Salvation consists precisely in a special quality of relation between men and between man and God. The structure of human freedom, which entails a relation beyond the self, is thus neither destroyed nor "transcended," but fulfilled. Even God himself, as triune, finds his own beatitude, not in self-sufficiency, but in love.⁽¹⁸⁾

There is no way for a human being to "become" or, losing individuality, to be absorbed into God. Nevertheless, the movement between the finite and the divine is an active interchange, a dialogue, an activity that is either complementary or in opposition. In the end, any attempt to understand the intention of God is placed in the field of the personal. It is an attempt to understand motivation, to discover what God is trying to do. This is difficult, because God refuses to make all decisions for mankind. By leaving room for freedom, he also leaves room for confusion, doubt, rejection, and misunderstanding. These are the necessary consequences of a free and open relationship between any two persons. Consequently, there are moments when everything seems perfectly clear, and other times when things appear confusing or unacceptable. Ultimately, biblical religion asserts that God is known only through his intervening acts, perceived as such by the faithful.

It is not sufficient to isolate a few events from the biblical narratives and hold them up as final proofs. Seeing the destruction of Jericho as proof of God's alleged blind anger is like citing a single instance when a person lies and then concluding that the person is essentially a chronic liar; a single instance remains an example and not a conclusion. In this context, it is important to interpret the biblical God as Someone; his words and actions are interpreted as aspects of a vastly complex life. That the Bible alludes to the emotions of God underscores his "personhood." It means that the personal, anthropomorphic God has feeling as well as reason.

God's sovereign actions and words indicate that he is consistently concerned with

(18) Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart (New York: Doubleday, 1955), p. 127.

the betterment of mankind. He does not glorify strife, demand human sacrifice, or condemn people for being less than perfect. He has given freedom to humanity; he allows individuals and peoples to reject him; retaining his sovereignty, he offers them fellowship. It is difficult to avoid making long pronouncements on God's nature or essence; such an understanding of God is ultimately a personal matter and, consequently, there are many different views of his essential nature. What can be generally stated for biblical religion is twofold: First, coming to understand God is a discovery; it is an individual exploration into the narrative of the Bible, a journey to meet the Word beneath the words.

Mystical versus Biblical

In establishing the perfection of ultimate reality, a perennial philosophy may speak of it as being Unknowable. It is common to both biblical and mystical approaches to speak of God as a mystery. In perennial philosophy, however, the One is a mystery because it is far removed from the natural world; it is otherworldly, out of reach for mankind. However, it is not a perfect mystery; like some buried treasure, Oneness remains silently in its realm until discovered by the mystic. When this occurs, the mystery and the mystic dissolve into a single state of unitive knowledge; the perennial "God" falls into the hands of the seeker. In sharp contrast to this position, biblical religion understands the mystery of God as by choice, not condition. Through his personhood, God exercises freedom to hold something back from humanity; he does not choose to reveal everything at one time. This implies that the initiative rests with God; there is no way that he can be found out by human scrutiny, unless he freely decides to reveal Himself. The mystery, therefore, remains, so long as God intends it. Commenting on this issue, Cherbonnier states:

For the Bible, mystery is correlative with freedom. Though free to withhold himself, God can also make Himself known. The mystery resides in the fact that what He will say or do remains absolutely unpredictable. The small voice that spoke to Elijah continues to confound human expectations.⁽¹⁹⁾

The perennial Wholly Other is thought of as a complete unity; it is therefore unlimited by definition. The essential point, however, is that the One must remain inactive. If it attempts to enter into any action, it admits the existence of something outside itself and forfeits its definition of perfection. The biblical God is unlimited not in ontological definition, but in action. As sovereign Lord, there is nothing he cannot do, including the act of creation. This means that God shares reality with those things he creates, but preserves his ability to act on them.

Another contrast between perennial and biblical systems centers on the term "Infinite." In a broad sense, this category can encompass most of the characteristics

(19) Cherbonnier, "The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism," p. 204.

already discussed; but used in a more specific way, it means "timeless" or "without change." This definition fits in neatly with the perennial philosophy; any concept of time implies change, temporality, and is, therefore, a direct contradiction to the One. The influence of perennial thinking can be clearly seen in reference to God as eternal and unchanging. The perspective of the biblical narrative, however, is different. It is true that passages do refer to God's immortality, that he can outlive his creatures, but they also carry another important quality beyond a question of life-span. For the biblical thinker, to be alive is to change, and to be active is to affect that change; God does this. What is "changeless" about God is his devotion and love. God can be trusted; unlike the gods of Olympus, he is steadfast and reliable. Supporting this contention, Cherbonnier stated:

Where the deities of paganism are fluid, fickle, schizophrenic, Yahweh is steadfast, constant of purpose, a definite, determinate personality. It has been said that of all the graphic portraits in the Bible, the most vivid and concrete is that of God himself.⁽²⁰⁾

This kind of trust is impossible, then, for both the fickle Olympian gods and for the static, lifeless Absolute.

In an effort to elevate Oneness beyond the reach of the finite, the mystic may refer to it as "transcendent." This implies that Pure Spirituality is outside the context of space and time; it exists in an entirely different realm of its own. It also means that Oneness is somehow diffused throughout existence. By being transcendent, it can defy the natural laws of matter and space and filter into every element of the lower realm; therefore, mysticism speaks of God as being everywhere at once. This admixture of transcendence and pantheism is contradicted by the biblical use of the term. God is considered transcendent in terms of his sovereignty and authority. He is not, however, alien to the conditions of space and time. God can move within their perimeters, but he is never restricted by them as are mortals. Unlike the diffused character of Pure Spirituality, God is "immanent" in the world through history. He does not somehow inhabit all the finite world, but exercises his influence over it as its designer and caretaker. This makes his relationship to the world much less a matter of cold necessity and more of a free, personal involvement. Cherbonnier summarizes this point by noting:

The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation. Having conferred existence upon all things, He can also take it away. Having granted freedom to men, He can also overrule them. He is Lord and Master.⁽²¹⁾

(20) Cherbonnier, "A. J. Heschel and the Philosophy of the Bible," Commentary, XXVII (1959), p. 25.

(21) Cherbonnier, "The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism," p. 201.

The Trinity⁽²²⁾

A developed trinitarian doctrine does not appear in the Bible. Trinity was first used by Theophilus of Antioch about 180 AD. The doctrine of the Trinity has been worded in many ways, some excluded as inadequate by historic Church Councils. Each rendition tries to systematize the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament. Some accepted interpretations influenced by ancient Greek (perennial/ mystical) philosophy are theologically complex and puzzling. In language harmonious with biblical thought, one might reflect on the Trinity in this way: God is Father (loving creator of the universe), Son (revealer of New Covenant Life), and, Holy Spirit (provider of strength, comfort, healing and inspiration). This reflection deliberately leaves unresolved the likeness between Jesus and the Son and does not include formulations invented under the influence of Greek philosophy.

(22) Sermons on the Trinity are available within the “Reflections” subsite.

Transcendence And Immanence⁽²³⁾

The mystery of God is preserved in the Bible; nothing can be known about the Creator in advance, through human meditations or ponderings, but only after the fact, a posteriori. His mysteriousness is analogous to the mystery of all persons in relation; one cannot completely know other individuals, only that which they are willing to disclose. God's transcendence may be understood biblically as God's "other-than-humanness."⁽²⁴⁾ To infer an unarticulated, intuitive ontological transcendence in the minds of the Hebrew authors appears unjustifiable from the biblical text. Moreover, that metaphysical transcendence is essential to all religion is open for discussion.⁽²⁵⁾

As Wright has observed:

In the Old Testament, therefore, and in the New as well, the problem of transcendence and immanence in the relationship of God to his creation was not keenly felt. Consequently, it was not a major issue to the faith in the sense that it was later to become in Judaism and Christian philosophy.⁽²⁶⁾

Another scholar has commented, "From the earliest Christian teaching, indeed, the conception of transcendence of God is absent."⁽²⁷⁾ Hatch also notes that ontological

(23)"Transcendence" is not a biblical word, yet biblical scholars employ the expression to denote God's sovereign majesty and holiness. By doing so, it may appear that they are implying a classical philosophical transcendence, an ontological dualism unknown to the biblical authors.

(24) House, p. 111.

(25) For a contemporary discussion see D. Z. Phillips and Timothy Tessin, ed., Religion Without Transcendence? (New York: St. Martin's, 1997).

(27) Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1966; reprint of the 1895 publication), p. 251.

transcendence entered Christian theology from extra-biblical, Hellenistic sources.

God and Language. The perennial discussion of religious language continues.⁽²⁸⁾ With regard to biblical expressions of God, one approach is that "in the Bible the comparative forms of figurative language - simile, metaphor, analogy, parable - are most often used for God."⁽²⁹⁾ However, is it possible to make any literal statements about God? Within a biblical perspective, at least two scholars (Dilley and Kirkpatrick) claim that at least the following literal statements about God can be made - without exhausting the magnificence and meaning of any Divine activity or attribute: God creates, loves, self-discloses, judges, forgives the penitent, empowers, redeems, and suitably protects and provides; as such, God is holy, glorious, awesome, majestic, personal, knowing, good, flawless, independent, incomparable, inexhaustible, gracious, just, merciful, purposeful, generous, invisible, everlasting, consistent, present, powerful, and sovereign. The assertion here is that the biblical authors meant these attributes to be understood literally, that they were not in the categories of equivocal figurative language.

Other Qualities

Source of Absolute Value. Like women and men, the biblical God can make qualitative decisions; he can judge, that is, place a value on something. The Bible makes a distinction between that which is good and that which is bad. To make this kind of statement runs the risk of calling up visions of religious legalism. The Bible, however, goes much deeper; it means that in the chaotic condition of human life, where individuals appear to be at the mercy of constant change, there is some central core of unchanging values. Jesus summed up that core in his words, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Mt 22:37-40) The necessity for recognizing this attribute of God, the source of unchanging fundamental values, is part of comprehending his full personhood. That God reveals his will removes humans from the relativistic, unstable state where one god is as good as another.

Additional Qualities. Elaborations of God as Someone vary, but all point to the unique Holy One of Scripture. One biblical scholar notes these characteristics as God Ever Active (who creates and blesses, who calls the fathers, who rescues); God Inexhaustible, beyond human measure, unteachable, beyond images, as King, Warrior, and Restorer."⁽³⁰⁾ House

(28) See Philip A. Rolnick, Analogical Possibilities: How Words Refer To God (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1993).

(29) Leland Ryken, et al., gen. eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), p. 332.

(30) John J. Scullion, "God In The Old Testament" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. II, pp. 1043 ff.

titles his chapters in like manner: The God Who Creates, The One God Who Delivers And Instructs, ... Who Is Holy, ... Who Expects Faithfulness, ... Who Renews The Covenant, ... Who Gives Rest In The Land, ... Who Disciplines And Delivers, ... Who Protects, Blesses and Assesses, ... Whose Word Shapes History, ... Who Saves, ... Who Enforces The Covenants, ... Who Is Present, ... Who Keeps Promises, ... Who Rules, ... Who Is Worth Serving, ... Who Reveals Wisdom, ... Who Extends Mercy To The Faithful, ... Who Oversees Male-Female Sexuality, ... Who Defines Meaningful Living, ... Who Is Righteous and Faithful, ... Who Protects The Exiles, ... Who Protects, Discloses, And Rules, ... Who Restores The Remnant To The Land, and, The God Who Elects, Chastens and Restores.(31) House takes these to be actual personal traits of the one living God, not as analogical language that points to a "God Beyond God."

Summary of the Biblical God's Nature

Taking all of these factors into consideration, it should be possible to gain an insight into the kind of God that biblical religion upholds. On the traditions and chronicles of the Bible, it draws out those elements of thought, both explicit and implicit, as they pertain to the nature and function of God. In doing so, the biblical worldview makes a radical departure from the various versions of perennial philosophy.

Although not a crude projection of a mere mortal, God is self-disclosed and experienced in clearly anthropomorphic ways. He is the awesome, majestic, mysterious, immortal Someone: the unique, personal, sovereign creative intelligence who fashions reality and reveals his purpose for humanity through chosen agents and events. A criticism of mystical views of the biblical God is that they contort the nature of God to fit their own, preconceived context, one radically different from the Bible's. Their notion that the biblical vision is intellectually naive and must be enhanced by some form of classical mysticism is sheer prejudice.

By following original experiences of ultimate reality found among the early narratives of the Bible, biblical thinkers have discovered an essential truth about God in the form of personal freedom. They propose that God must be a free and conscious agent. The state of existence, therefore, is not split into a duality with one realm distant and abstract and the lower world illusory - or somehow a "lesser" order of reality - and trapped into an endless cycle. Rather it is the active relationship between the Creator and his creatures, between two kinds of personalities, and between Creator and the rest of his creation. Therefore, the nature and purpose of God are to be discovered in history. It is a working out of an intention in the world of humanity. In this process, nothing is set down as an inevitable absolute for human beings; they are free to act on their own, to accept or reject the will of God and to interpret their destiny as they see it. What is certain, however, is

(31) House, 5f.

that God remains steadfast and constant. He will not betray any trust that is placed in him. What he offers women and men is a chance to make changes within time and space, to leave the endpoint of human history open for development. To this end, he reveals himself to mankind without overwhelming people; he supplies them with encouragement and direction. Ultimately, the result of this effort lies not just with God or humankind, but with both working together to make God's vision come to fruition. Wright succinctly notes:

None of (God's) attributes are understood as static qualities like the Greek conceptions of the transcendent good, truth, and beauty. The biblical attributes express, for the most part, the nature of God's activity: his love and grace, his righteousness and justice, his jealousy and wrath. His relationship to the world was therefore an active rather than static one, so that the gulf which his holiness set between himself and his creatures was constantly bridged by his own mediums of revelation.⁽³²⁾

SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR WORSHIP

Within many versions of perennial philosophy “Pure Spirituality” or similar notions is the Sacred Ultimate. In its most sophisticated form, prayer rises above any notion of a human being praying to Someone. Utter silence, like a “dreamless sleep,” is among the most profound types of non-theistic prayer. Less profound are rituals that employ words and music referring to historical events or personages. (See the section “Religious Knowledge” in “Mystical Religion or Perennial Philosophy” within the subsite “The Perennial Philosophy.”)

By way of contrast, most Jewish, Christian, and Muslim prayers and orders of worship are theistic, grounded in Holy Writ believed to incorporate the self-disclosure of the one and only personal God. An observer of Christians gathered for worship might well assume that the lay and ordained congregation shares this notion of God. At a Service they may be heard praying together "Glory be to God on high...," "We believe in one God...," "Most merciful God, we confess that we have sinned against thee...," and, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts: Heaven and earth are full of thy glory. Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High." Surely, all of these worshipers must be theists!

(32)G. Ernest Wright, "The Faith of Israel," p. 387.

For clarification, "Theism (often used as a synonym for monotheism) is belief in a personal deity."⁽³³⁾ Or as another scholar has written:

The English term "theism" is derived from the Greek word theos, meaning "God," while its opposite "atheism" is derived from atheos, meaning "without God." Theists believe that there is a God who created the cosmos, preserves it, is in existence, and has an active role in human history. ... Christian theism is shaped by biblical revelation, religious experience, and theological and philosophical reflection. The core of Christian theism views God as an imperishable, ultimate reality who is not derived from other beings.⁽³⁴⁾

Prayers, said and sung in Christian (Jewish and Muslim) worship, do not refer to an "It." Moreover, the implied relationship between worshipers and God presupposes a personal I/We(human)--Thou(God) quality. The assumption that people at prayer are all theists, however, could be erroneous. One clergyman, representing an unknown number, is convinced that theism as a way of conceiving of God has become inadequate, and that the God of theism not only is dying but also probably cannot be revived. For such clergy and laity there is no God external to human life. Instead, “God” is the inescapable depth and center of all that is (whatever this means), not a being superior to all other beings, but the Ground of Being itself (whatever this means). They maintain that within life itself there is a transcending reality present which we label “God.” They do not regard God as a personal "Someone" in any significant sense. Yet the communing with the Ground of Being, on the part of the human, might in their view be personal - perhaps of an "I(human)--It(Pure Spirituality)" variety. Although a version of the perennial philosophy, this view is certainly extra-biblical.

In an unpublished, preliminary exploration received in recent years by this writer Dr. Frank G. Kirkpatrick raises a number of significant issues (paraphrased here). Does an ordained professor of philosophy of religion use the word “God” in the classroom very differently from when (s)he prays? When using the intellect or teaching, is “God” a supra-personal (or non-personal) “Ground of Being” or a “God Beyond God,” but when (s)he prays - perhaps while leading worship - is “God” employed in a very personal way. Clearly the wording of the prayers is personalized, such that God is Someone. But does the Reverend Professor really believe in the God portrayed in the prayers? Is there a “problem

(33) John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990), p. 5.

(34) Charles Taliaferro, "Theism," in A New Handbook of Christian Theology, ed. Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), p. 477.

of double discourse” evident in the clergy-professor - two very different understandings of “God” in the classroom and in the liturgical setting? Is there confusion and ambiguity in the word “God” as such individuals move between the languages of liturgy, scriptural narrative, creedal affirmation, poetry, scholarly discourse, and personal prayer? Does the use of reason inevitably take the academic Christian to two Gods, one of the classroom, the other of prayer?

Several years ago this writer asked a clergyman known to have become a non-theist whether he still led worship in Christian congregations. He replied that he did so with great respect for the sociological and psychological benefits that such words provide. One wonders whether the congregation knew that their ordained leader had abandoned the theism implied in the words he uttered liturgically and in the pulpit.

Biblical religion/philosophy knows of no “Pure Spirituality” (or fuzzy Transcendence) that is in any way superior to Yahweh. Instead, the Psalms and other prayers and songs of Scripture are directed toward Yahweh: the personal God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims; the Father of Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammad; the Holy One who has chosen to be in our midst.