Regarding Moses' fear, see NOAB Ex 3:6 n. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew word here for "afraid" carries the meanings of both dread and reverence. It is pronounced "yaw-ray", which sounds a great deal like Yahweh. That may not be significant, but it is interesting. The German roots of Schweitzer's word for reverence (Ehrfurcht, as in reverence for life -- see the essay on Ethics) mean "glory fear".
The ancient name Yahweh, perhaps introduced in this Exodus passage for the first time in Scripture, derives from the verb to be. See NOAB Ex 3:14 n, Ex 6:2-3 n, and Gn 4:26b n regarding the introduction of the divine Name.
An additional note (Scr.2000): The Hebrew translated "I AM Who I AM" is in imperfect tense, and the Hebrew tenses do not distinguish past from present incomplete actions. The name could also be translated "I am the One Who is Becoming," and is one of the most profound and challenging of all Biblical texts to interpret. [See, for example: Everett Fox. Genesis and Exodus: A New English Rendition. New York: Schocken, 1991] Though I refer to a pronounciation for "Yahweh," in Hebrew tradition the word is considered to sacred to pronounce, and is sounded simply with an aspiration (breath !), or a substitute word is used.
When we say that a strict literal interpretation robs the burning bush of contemporary meaning, we do not say that literalists find it of no significance. We are saying that the self-proclaimed literalist who does find contemporary meaning in the story is adding an interpretative ("mythic") meaning, perhaps unconsciously. The modern fundamentalist movement does, of course, include many profoundly spiritual people. However, my observation (and personal experience) is that spirituality (which must be sharply distinguished from "piety") occurs in spite of, not because of, a literalistic orientation.
----
Even though a glossary is provided, it is appropriate to review here some of the more commonly used technical terms which theologians use to frame the concept of the divine. Omnipotent means all-powerful. Omnipresent means everywhere present. Omniscient means all-knowing.
The theist sees God as "A Being" distinct from our being. The polytheist sees many gods. The pantheist sees God as "Being" which exists in everything. Panentheism sees "God in all things and all things in God", melting the distinction between God and creation. A transcendent God is wholly distinguishable from material creation. An immanent God dwells in, and is active in, material creation.
My own formulation is "the radical immanence of the Transcendent". Creation (spacetime) is radically and contingently enfolded into the divine, but the divine is transcendent, encompassing many dimensions beyond spacetime (see the following essay).
The theories in physics of dimensions beyond spacetime will require us to reconsider our definitions of what is natural and what is supernatural. Do we assign the "superforce" and its derivative dimensions beyond spacetime to creation or to the realm of the divine? Such a question belongs to some future essay.
Even if the superforce is the "divine force," systems theory (Essay Five) would lead us to speculate that there are "emergent" characteristics at the "divine level", making the idea "God" represent more than the superforce and its derivative dimensions of creation. I can not entirely escape a concept of the divine as transcendent. However, no single formula is adequate. Ideally, we would learn to experience the divine in all possible manifestations of being, and seek to understand the experiences of those whose formulas differ from ours. [minor editing for Scr.2000]
Throughout these essays, I have used the term God as it is used conventionally in Christian writing. However, I have also spoken of God as "the divine" to emphasize that I do not wish to frame a concept which, ultimately, cannot be framed.
Here is a summary of Adler's modern cosmological argument, which he believes to be shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, if not with certainty.
To begin by assuming that the universe came into existence out of nothing requires us to posit God's existance as the cause of creation, but that begs the issue; God's existence is what we are trying to prove. We have first to see whether there might be reason to believe in God if the universe has always existed. Then, if we can believe that, we may also believe in a supreme being (God) if the evidence points to the universe's having a beginning.
CASE A: Assuming an everlasting universe -- (1) An effect requires a cause; (2) The cosmos as a whole exists; (3) The cosmos needs a cause to continue its existance (even if it did not require an initial cause); (4) The necessary cause must be supernatural (since no natural cause can cause something in nature to appear from nothing).
Adler's Case A hinges on being able to prove statement (3) above. He defends it as follows: (a) there is no reason to think that the existing laws of nature are the only possible laws; (b) the cosmos (as it exists as a whole) isonly one of several possible universes; (c) a cosmos which can be otherwise than it is can also NOT be; (d) the cosmos therefore requires a cause to continue its existence. (It is thus said to be "radically contingent".)
(In defending statement (4), presumably Adler would state that the virtual particles seen in quantum physics appear, not from nothing, but from the "something" of the created spacetime field of forces.)
CASE B: Assuming a universe with a beginning -- (1) to bring into existance out of nothing something that could not otherwise exist is to exnihilate; (2) to preserve in existence that which could not otherwise continue to exist is also to exnihilate; (3) neither form of exnihilation is within the power of natural causes; (4) a supernatural cause must exist to accomplish either result.
Scr. 2000: Adler's argument still seems attractive, in 20th Century terms. But after another decade of thinking about the implications for theology of nonlocal reality and quantum theory, I find that Adler's attempt at a logical "proof" of God, and all other such attempts, are seeming more and more quaint. The base concepts of causation and "First" cause need completely to be rethought for a nonlocal probabilistic universe. I suspect that even the cherished contemporary idea of a "Big Bang" will come under further strain in the first half of this new century. But instead of thinking that "the universe has always existed," it is more attractive for me to think of a universe which, within "the divine milieu" (Teilhard de Chardin), is new in each moment, but whose origin is undefinable in time. See my Time for Eternity and related "nuocontinuum" papers.
References
Adler, Mortimer. How To Think About God: A Guide for the Twentieth Century Pagan. NY: Macmillan, 1980.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Abington, 1977.
[ Return to Chapter Two ] , [ Glossary ]
[ Contents: Religion Confronting Science ] , [TOP]
_