Whose God is God?

Moses in the third chapter of Exodus, upon having come before the Burning Bush was ordered by "God" to stand right where he was, to come no closer and take the shoes from off his feet, for he had entered upon holy ground . . .

[13] And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
[14] And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Consider the nature of that answer from "God". Think of the millions who have puzzled over the meaning of it. "I am that I am"--? What's that? Or what's with the "that"? As Thomas Aquinas observed it, he thought to translate it, "I AM WHAT AM". But what if you were to do a little mixing and matching between the two to come up with "I AM WHAT I AM"--what do you wind up with then? Is it the retort of rather a churlish god who doesn't like his business being looked into so closely? Or would it be more like a sort of crash course in theological instruction being sternly stated to the effect of saying, "Don't hang any of your silly man-made names on me! I am what I am. Take your names, Moses and stick 'em where this Burning Bush don't shine."

But because that would seem to be the most obvious, most plain, most literal interpretation (which takes no interpretation at all) of this text, it incensed the vanity of the priests from generation to generation who came to read it, holy men who place a whole lot of superstitious stock in whatever pretended powers they imagine may come of name invocation, conjuring, oath swearing and the like. Thus in order to preserve such idolatrous traditions intact, they instate and enforce a prohibition against making utterance of that phrase at all. And they call it the sacred or secret "name of God" when in fact it is nothing of the kind at all! When in fact it is the direct opposite, and no name at all, at God's insistence--and note that I have kept the quotes off God this time because this and only this is the nature of a god that such a one as myself can believe in: the kind of God who would refuse to be named, and therefore be owned, by any particular people of this tongue or that, this tradition or that.

And now, what would be the consequences of this for the ontology (philosophy that investigates Being, nature and kinds of being, supreme, mundane or otherwise) that might be understood from this? In another place, at the scene of the giving of the Ten Commandments, the children of Israel receive there the heretofore unrecognized Eleventh Commandment--in Exodus, the 20th chapter . . .

[25] And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

Think how relevant that is to God's refusal to be honored with any raiment, decoration or engraving of names. But man being what he is, soon finds a way to get around the commandment and soon contrives a sort of Talmud full of ways to devise a complex of interpretations to get around it. In the 27th Chapter of Deuteronomy . . .

Deut 27

[4] Therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaister them with plaister.

But why would not their understanding of God's 11th Commandment have been perfectly clear to them? How very devious of man, as always, to suppose that by pouring plaster over the stone or stones (as they take it from stone to 'stones' in case their lusts, greed for advertising and making large their piety should drive them toward the building of a temple), in this way they can avoid the prohibition by raising their tools upon the plaster that is poured over the stone, and avoid cutting into the stone.

Think of what the consequences of this has been for the preservation of a Hebrew archaeology! Think of what rain does to plaster. See the peculiar fact that of all the bronze age and later ancient cultures of the world, it is the Hebrew that is most bereft of all in the catalog of discovered artifacts. Observe also the peculiar anthropological or sociological result in the manner that man lays a trap for himself the moment he complicates what should have been so simple, literal and clear. What originally had been nothing more than an abolition against idolatry, of engraving images to represent the divine being, no sooner is that perverted from stone to plaster, than it is by overreaction extended to any sort of art work altogether. And you might well wonder how that works, except one is to understand that man is all the while conscious of the fact that he is messing with the 11th Commandment, is going against the will of God in the pouring of that plaster; underneath it all he knows this, and in one more effort to get around it and feel real righteous all the while he's going about it, what does he do? He goes God one better, so he would suppose, to declare in all reverence and piety that all art is forbidden.

That's how it works. That's how crazy man is. That's how his guilt works on him as he remains unavoidably under the consciousness of his original sin in pouring that damned plaster because he so wanted to gussy up the one thing that demands not to be prettied up and that is God. Deuteronomy goes on . . .

[5] And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them.
[6] Thou shalt build the altar of the LORD thy God of whole stones: and thou shalt offer burnt offerings thereon unto the LORD thy God:
[7] And thou shalt offer peace offerings, and shalt eat there, and rejoice before the LORD thy God.
[8] And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.

You may say that these people are hardly to be blamed for wanting to preserve to their posterity the words of the Law that was given of God. But of course! And God had said nothing to prohibit it, that they might pour all the plaster they liked over the tablets upon which they may raise their tools to inscribe the Law. God was cool with that. But as to any altar they should be moved to build for the offering of sacrifices--don't mess with it, God said.

And why? What's the big deal about that with God? Look at the very ritual of blood sacrifice itself and see, that by this God was saying, "Look at what you're doing! What on earth causes you to think I would order anything like that? No! Don't you DARE dress it up with gold and all manner of finery to make yourselves feel better about the barbarity you practice. Leave it plain, so the stain of blood is the only terribly smelly kind of painting that stone will ever receive. Maybe then the point will get across, after you've lived with the stench long enough? (See the accounts of Diaz, of his experience in the temples of the Aztecs, where the mighty conquistadors were throwing up all over the place.) Not with the gold or plaster to make a slippery surface to which this bloody business will not adhere.

There's something quite crazy about it. There has to be. Because it's through the crazy things that the will of God to uncomprehending man, most often would become known. Moses (or some later priest writing in the name of Moses) for some crazy reason cannot shake this voice from his head that is saying, "Don't dress up the stone. Don't do that!" THAT'S AS CLOSE as he can get to discerning what really is the will of God. What do people think? That God actually speaks to man with an audible voice? Nonsense! But something somehow moves a man to get but the vaguest glimmer what the will and wisdom of God might really come down to . . .

That at first in Ex.3, God is saying, "And IF thou wilt make me an altar of stone . . ."

But as time and the centuries have worn on, so late as in Deuteronomy 27, it has come now to, "And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD . . ."

How did it get from "if" to "shall" except SOMEBODY messed with the word of God? Note the earthshaking importance in the difference between the two. In the first and most original text, God is saying, "Well, IF you are going to indulge yourselves in this absurd bloody business, then keep it just as ugly as it is: no decoration! Got that?"

In the latter text, not only is the bloody ridiculous nonsense being commanded but the words change from "altar of stone" to "altar of the LORD"! To the altar of WHAT? How did the sloppy, gooey plaster of that NAME "Lord" get in there? How did it go from 'stone' to 'Lord'? I'll tell you how it got there. It got there by disobedience to absolutely the most fundamental teachings that the religion of Moses owns; it comes by wearing your damned shoes in the presence of the Burning Bush; by calling God a name he won't have because he is no damned earthly lord or king, and WILL NOT be compared to such. Worse! it comes by pouring the plaster of new scripture over the stone of the old.

Every instance of that name as applied to God in the Bible is a slap in the face to God, and a violent, all too obvious contradiction to what he commanded man, back toward the very beginning of the Bible, where thank God it yet remains; where fear of God at least has worked to preserve it, despite the dogmatic nonsense that has attended that phrase, JHVH to change it in doctrine to a superstition and a false understanding, even an out and out misrepresentation, to a "sacred and hidden name" of God.

There is no "Lord" in heaven, no fat rich king. There is God who would have to be known that if he is like anything upon the earth, then he is as one unhewn stone, like a rock whose beauty is all its own.
--
END PART ONE

*The above painting, Exodus Burning Bush by Marc Chagall