Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 - Gilkey-Cosmology, Ontology PDF
1 - Gilkey-Cosmology, Ontology PDF
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Religion.
http://www.jstor.org
COSMOLOGY, ONTOLOGY, AND THE TRAVAIL OF
BIBLICAL LANGUAGE
LANGDON B. GILKEY*
ing the empiricist or positivist demand other event in space and time. Now if
that we give a naturalistic, empirically this event is validly to be called a
verifiable meaning to these theological mighty act of God, an event in which
words, a meaning outside the context he really did something special-as op-
of faith and commitment. I am asking posed to our just believing he did,
for a confessional-theologicalmeaning, which would be religious subjectivism
that is, a meaning based on thought and metaphysical naturalism-then,
about our faith concerning what we ontologically, this must in some sense
mean by these affirmations of faith. be more than an ordinary run-of-the-
The two affirmationsI especially wish mill event. It may be epistemologically
to consider are, first, "God has acted indistinguishable from other events to
mightily and specially in history for those without faith, but for those of
our salvation, and so God is he who faith it must be objectively or ontologi-
acts in history." And second, "Our cally different from other events. Oth-
knowledge of God is based not on our erwise, there is no mighty act, but only
discovery of him but on God's revela- our belief in it, and God is the God who
tion of himself in historical events." in fact does not act. And then our theo-
My point is that, when we analyze logical analogies of "act" and "deed"
what we mean by these theological have no referent, and so no meaning.
phrases, we can give no concrete or But in current biblical theology such
specifiable content so that our analo- an ontologically special character to
gies at present are empty and mean- the event, a special character known
ingless. The result is that, when we perhaps only by faith but really "out
push the analysis of these analogical there" nevertheless, is neither specified
words further, we find that what we ac- nor specifiable. For in the Bible itself
tually mean by them contradicts the that special character was understood
intent of these theological phrases. to be the very wonders and voices
Let us take the category of "mighty which we have rejected, and nothing
act" first. Perhaps the most important has appeared in modern biblical
theological affirmation that modern thought to take their place. Only an
biblical theology draws from the Scrip- ontology of events specifying what
ture is that God is he who acts, mean- God's relation to ordinary events is
ing by this that God does unique and like, and thus what his relation to spe-
special actions in history. And yet cial events might be, could fill the now
when we ask: "All right, what has he empty analogy of mighty acts, void
done?" no answer can apparently be since the denial of the miraculous.
given. Most of the acts recorded in Meanwhile, in contemporarybiblical
Scripture turn out to be "interpreta- theology, which dares to stray into the
tions by Hebrew faith," and we are sure forbidden precincts of cosmology and
that they, like the miracles of the Bud- ontology only far enough to deny mira-
dha, did not really happen at all. And cles, all that can be said about the
the one remaining objective act, the event leaves the analogy of the mighty
Exodus, becomes on analysis "the East act quite empty. We deny the miracu-
wind blowing over the Reed Sea," that lous character of the event and say its
is, an event which is objectively or on- cause was merely an East wind, and
tologically of the same class as any then we point to the unusual response
AND BIBLICAL
ONTOLOGY,
COSMOLOGY, LANGUAGE 201
of Hebrew faith. For biblical theology, tablished: then God is already known,
that which remains special about the faith has already arisen, and so God's
event, therefore, is only its subjective work can be seen by faith in the out-
result, namely, the faith response. But wardly ordinary events of Hebrew ex-
if we then ask what this Hebrew re- istence. But can the rule that revela-
sponse was to, what God did, we are tory events are only discerned by faith
offered merely an objectively natural be equally applied to the event in
event. But this means merely that the which faith takes its origin? Can it, in
Hebrews, as a religious people, were other words, provide a theological un-
unusual; it does not mean that the derstanding of originating revelation,
event to which they responded was un- that is, of God's original self-manifes-
usual. One can only conclude, there- tation to man, in which man does not
fore, that the mighty act of God is not discern an already known God but in
his objective activity in history but which God reveals himself to men who
only his inward incitement of a reli- know nothing of him? Certainly it is
gious response to an ordinary event logical to contend that faith cannot be
within the space-time continuum. If presupposed in the event which pur-
this is what we mean, then clearly we portedly effects the originationof faith.
have left the theological framework of When we considerthe descriptionthat
"mighty act with faith response" and biblical theology makes of the origina-
returnedto Schleiermacher'sliberalism, tion of faith, moreover,the problems in
in which God's general activity is con- this view seem vast indeed. Theologi-
sistent throughout the continuum of cally it is asserted that God is not
space-time events and in which special known through general, natural, his-
religious feeling apprehends the pres- torical, or inward experience. Thus
ence of God in and through ordinary presumably the Hebrews fled from
finite events. Thus our theological anal- Egypt uncognizant of God, having in
ogy of the mighty act seems to have no their minds no concepts at all of the
specifiable referent or meaning: like transcendent, active, covenant deity of
the examples of God's speaking, the later Hebrew religion. How, then, did
only case turns out on analysis to be they come to know this God? The an-
an example, not of God's activity at swer of contemporary theology, of
all, but of Hebrew insight based on course, is that at this point the East
their religious experience. wind over the Red Sea rescued the He-
A similar problem arises when we brew people from the Egyptians, and
ask what is meant by "revelation"in a so, according to Wright, their faith
modern mighty acts theology. The cor- arose as the only assumptionthat could
relation of ordinary event and faith re- make sense of this great stroke of good
sponse is basic for contemporarytheol- fortune: "They did not have the power
ogy: no event, we say, becomes revela- themselves (to effect the rescue); there
tory (i.e., is known to be revelatory) was only one explanation available to
unless faith sees in it the work of God. them. That was the assumption that a
Now this correlation of ordinary event great God had seen their afflictions,had
with discerning faith is intelligible taken pity on them. . . ."4 Thus He-
enough once the covenant relation be- brew faith is here presented as a hu-
tween God and his people has been es- man hypothesis, a religious assumption
202 THE JOURNALOF RELIGION
arising out of intuition and insight into the admission at this vital point that
the meaning of an unusual and crucial Hebrew faith was a daring human hy-
experience. pothesis based on a natural but un-
One can only wonder at this state- usual event is very puzzling. For it in-
ment. First of all in what sense can one dicates that despite our flowery theo-
speak of revelation here? Is this not a logical language,our actual understand-
remarkably clear example of natural ing of Hebrew religion remains inclosed
religion or natural theology? The origi- within liberal categories. When we are
nation of Hebrew faith is explained as asked about what actually happened,
a religious assumption based on an un- and how revelation actually occurred,
usual event but one which was admit- all we can say is that in the continuum
tedly consistent with, of the same order of the natural order an unusual event
as, other events within the nature-his- rescued the Hebrews from a sad fate;
tory continuum. In what way does this from this they concludedthere must be
faith come from God and what he has somewhere a great God who loved
done rather than from man and what them; thus they interpreted their own
he has discovered, or even just poeti- past in terms of his dealings with them
cally imagined? It seems to be only the and created all the other familiar char-
religious insight and imaginationof the acteristics of Hebrew religion: cove-
Jews that has created and developed nant, law, and prophecy. This under-
this monotheistic assumptionout of the standing of Hebrew religion is strictly
twists and turns of their historical ex- "liberal": it pictures reality as a con-
perience. And second, why was there sistent world order and religious truth
"only one explanation available" to as a human interpretationbased on re-
them? Why was this response so inevi- ligious experience.And yet at the same
tably tied with this event as to make us time, having castigated the liberals,
feel that the response was revealed in who at least knew what their funda-
the event? Why could not the Hebrews mental theological principles were, we
have come to believe in a god of the proclaim that our real categories are
East Wind, or a benevolent Fate, or orthodox: God acts, God speaks, and
any of the thousands of deities of un- God reveals. Furthermore,we dodge all
usual events that human religion has criticism by insisting that, because bib-
created? Surely on neo-orthodox prin- lical and Christian ideas of God are
ciples, the theological concept or re- "revealed," they are, unlike the as-
ligious assumptionleast available to the sumptions and hypotheses of culture
imagination of men who knew not God and of other religions, beyond inspec-
was that of the transcendent, covenant tion by the philosophicaland moral cri-
God of history--exactly the assumption teria of man's general experience.
now called "inevitable" when an East What has happenedis clear: because
wind had rescued them. of our modern cosmology, we have
Furthermore, we should recall that stripped what we regard as "the bib-
for biblical theology the entire mean- lical point of view" of all its wonders
ing of the concept of revelation through and voices. This in turn has emptied
divine activity rather than throughsub- the Bible's theological categories of di-
jective experience or insight hangs on vine deeds and divine revelations of all
this one act of divine revelation. Thus their univocal meaning, and we have
ONTOLOGY,AND BIBLICALLANGUAGE
COSMOLOGY, 203
made no effort to understand what liberal religion. For if there is any mid-
these categories might mean as analo- dle ground between the observable
gies. Thus, when we have sought to deed and the audible dialogue which we
understand Hebrew religion, we have reject, and what the liberals used to
unconsciously fallen back on the liberal call religious experience and religious
assumptions that do make some sense insight, then it has not yet been spelled
to us. What we desperately need is a out.
theological ontology that will put intel- In the cases both of the mighty act
ligible and credible meanings into our of God and of the speech of God, such
analogical categories of divine deeds a spelling-out is an lenterprisein philo-
and of divine self-manifestationthrough sophical theology. While certainly this
events. enterprise cannot be unbiblical, it must
Our point can perhaps be summa- at least be ontological and philosophi-
rized by saying that, without such an cal enough to provide theological mean-
ontological basis, the language of bib- ing to our biblical analogies of divine
lical theology is neither univocal nor deeds and words, since today we have
analogical but equivocal, and so it re- abandoned the univocal, literal mean-
mains empty, abstract, and self-contra- ings of these words. One example may
dictory. It is empty and abstract be- illustrate. Commentingon the "biblical
cause it can provide us with no con- view," Wright says: "He [God] is to
crete cases. We say the biblical God be known by what he has done and
acts, but we can give neither concrete said, by what he is now doing and say-
examples nor an analogical description; ing; and he is known when we do what
we say he speaks, and no illustrative he commandsus to do.'5 Unless we can
dialogues can be specified. What has give some analogical meaning to these
happened is that, as modern men pe- concepts "do," "say," and "command,"
rusing the Scriptures,we have rejected we are unable to make any confession-
as invalid all the innumerable cases of al sense at all of this sentence, since
God's acting and speaking; but as neo- every actual case of doing, saying, or
orthodox men looking for a word from commanding referred to in the Scrip-
the Bible, we have induced from all ture has for us vanished into subjective
these cases the theological generaliza- Hebrew religious experience and inter-
tion that God is he who acts and pretation. One might almost conclude
speaks. This general truth about God that without a theological ontology,
we then assert while denying all the biblical theology is in danger of becom-
particular cases on the basis of which ing a version of Santayana's poetic
the generalizationwas first made. Con- view of religion, in which believing man
sequently, biblical theology is left with paints the objective flux of matter in
a set of theological abstractions, more the pretty subjective pictures of reli-
abstract than the dogmas of scholas- gious language and myth.
ticism, for these are concepts with no Two changes in our thinking can, I
known concreteness. Finally, our lan- believe, rescue us from these dilemmas.
guage is self-contradictory because, First of all, biblical theology must take
while we use the language of ortho- cosmology and ontology more serious-
doxy, what we really mean is concepts ly. Despite the undeniable but irrele-
and explanations more appropriate to vant fact that the Hebrews did not
204 THE JOURNALOF RELIGION
think much about cosmology, cosmol- fact to be true or not. Then there is the
ogy does make a difference in herme- other task of stating what that Word
neutics. When we say "God acts," we might mean for us today, what we be-
mean something different cosmologi- lieve God actually to have done. This
cally than the writers of JED and P, is confessional and systematic theology,
or even than Calvin, did. Thus the and its object is what we believe the
modern discipline of "biblical theol- truth about God and about what he has
ogy" is more tricky than we perhaps done to be. To use Wright's language,
assumed when we thought we could we must distinguish between Hebrew
just lift out theological abstractions recital (biblical theology) and our re-
(God speaks, God acts) from the nar- cital (confessional or systematic theol-
ratives of Scripture and, calling them ogy) if our confessions are to make any
"the biblical point of view," act as if sense at all. To confuse the two, and to
they were the only theology we needed. try to make a study of what the bibli-
If in doing this we pretend that we are cal writers said also and at the same
"just letting the Bible speak for itself," time an attempt to say what we believe
we are fooling no one but ourselves. to be true about God, is fatal and leads
Actually we are translating the biblical to the kind of confusions we have out-
view into our own, at least in rejecting lined.
its concrete content of wonders and Second, it is clear that throughout
voices and so changing these categories this paper our central problemhas been
from univocal concepts to empty analo- that, in the shift of cosmology from an-
gies. But we have done this translating cient to modern, fundamental theologi-
without being aware of the change we cal concepts have so changed their
have made and thus without thinking meaning as almost to have lost all ref-
out the problems in which this shift in erence. The phrases "God acts" and
cosmology and the resultant translation "God speaks," whatever they may ulti-
of biblical language involve us. Hence mately mean to us, do not signify the
the abstractness and self-contradictory wonders and voices of ancient days. As
character of our categories in present we have seen, it is no good repeating
"biblical theology." To speak the bib- the abstract verbs "to act" and "to
lical word in a contemporarysetting is speak," if we have no intelligible ref-
a difficult theological task as well as a erents with which to replace the van-
difficult existential task. ished wonders and voices; and if we
This means in turn that two very use these categories as analogies with-
different enterprises must be distin- out any discussion of what we mean by
guished in Christian theology, for they them, we contradict ourselves over and
cannot be confused without fatal re- over. When we use the analogies
sults. First there is the job of stating "mighty act," "unique revelatory
what the biblical writers meant to say, event," or "God speaks to his people,"
a statement couched in the Bible's own therefore, we must also try to under-
terms, cosmological, historical, and stand what we might mean in system-
theological. This is "biblical theology," atic theology by the general activity of
and its goal is to find what the Bible God. Unless we have some conception
truly says-whether what in specific of how God acts in ordinary events,
instances the Bible says seems to us in we can hardly know what our analogi-
COSMOLOGY, ONTOLOGY, AND BIBLICAL LANGUAGE 205
cal words mean when we say: "He acts ology has long been recognized and is
uniquely in this event" or "this event is obvious, the dependence of an intelligi-
a special divine deed." Thus if we are ble theology that is biblical on the cos-
to give content to the biblical analogy mological and ontological inquiries of
of a mighty act, and so to our theologi- believing men, while now less univer-
cal concepts of special revelation and sally accepted, is nonetheless real.
salvation, we must also have some un- There is no primary discipline in the
derstanding of the relation of God to life of the church, for all of us-bibli-
general experience,which is the subject cal scholars and theologians-live and
of philosophical theology. Put in terms think in the present and look for the
of doctrines, this means that God's spe- truth in documents from the past. And
cial activity is logically connected with
for all of us, a contemporary under-
his providential activity in general his-
torical experience, and an understand- standing of ancient Scriptures depends
as much on a careful analysis of our
ing of the one assumes a concurrentin-
quiry into the other. For this reason, present presuppositions as it does on
while the dependenceof systematic and being learned in the religion and faith
philosophical theology on biblical the- of the past.
NOTES
1. G. E. Wright, Books of the Acts of God 1957), pp. 47-49.
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1959), p. 3. Wright,op. cit., p. 86.
18. 4. Ibid., p. 73.
2. B. Anderson, Understandingthe Old Testa- 5. Ibid., p. 32.
ment (EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall,Inc.,