Varieties Of Mythic Experience Dennis Patrick

Slattery Glen Slater download

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-mythic-experience-
dennis-patrick-slattery-glen-slater-52957166

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Varieties Of Seventeenth And Early Eighteenthcentury English

Radicalism In Context Ariel Hessayon

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-seventeenth-and-early-
eighteenthcentury-english-radicalism-in-context-ariel-
hessayon-47377900

Varieties Of Democracy Measuring Two Centuries Of Political Change

Michael Coppedge

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-democracy-measuring-two-
centuries-of-political-change-michael-coppedge-47834980

Varieties Of Cooperation Mutually Making The Conditions Of Mutual

Making Clemens Eisenmann

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-cooperation-mutually-
making-the-conditions-of-mutual-making-clemens-eisenmann-48065132

Varieties Of Secularism In Asia Anthropological Explorations Of

Religion Politics And The Spiritual Nils Bubandt

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-secularism-in-asia-
anthropological-explorations-of-religion-politics-and-the-spiritual-
nils-bubandt-48846540
Varieties Of Qualitative Research Methods Selected Contextual
Perspectives Janet Mola Okoko

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-qualitative-research-
methods-selected-contextual-perspectives-janet-mola-okoko-48990032

Varieties Of English Volume 1 The British Isles 1st Edition Bernd

Kortmann

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-english-volume-1-the-
british-isles-1st-edition-bernd-kortmann-49412266

Varieties Of Russian Activism Statesociety Contestation In Everyday

Life Andrei Semenov Editor

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-russian-activism-
statesociety-contestation-in-everyday-life-andrei-semenov-
editor-49459126

Varieties Of Capitalism Secondgeneration Perspectives Thomas Palley

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-capitalism-
secondgeneration-perspectives-thomas-palley-49895650

Varieties Of Postclassical And Byzantine Greek Klaas Bentein Editor

Mark Janse Editor

https://ebookbell.com/product/varieties-of-postclassical-and-
byzantine-greek-klaas-bentein-editor-mark-janse-editor-50266744
 VARIETIES OF MYTHIC EXPERIENCE

ESSAYS ON RELIGION, PSYCHE AND CULTURE

Varieties of Mythic Experience

Essays on Religion, Psyche and Culture

Edited by
Dennis Patrick Slattery and Glen Slater

Q
DAIMON
VERLAG
 We are grateful to the Rubin :tvluseum of Art in New York for
permission to reproduce the Mandala ofVajrayogini on p. 134

ISBN 978-3 -85630 -725 -7

Copyright© 2008 Daimon Verlag, Einsiecleln
and Pacifica Graduate Institute, Carpinteria, California

All rights reserved. This booh, or parts thereof; may not be mJ1rorlucerl in any
form 111it!t o11! wrillw ju:rmis.\ion j imn th e Jn1 /Jli.~/un;

Cover illuslralion: l.~'lizflbeth Fe1g11.1':Jerm, "Mytho/mesis", oil on hide, 5.5' .\' 5 '.
wwwfe1g ll sj(!(f.11..com

Printed i11 Canada

Dedication

To all of our students, /1ast, present and

future, who have joined us, challenged
11s and confirmed to us the hn/1ortance of
cultivating a mythic consciousness in the
world today.
Inci/Jil

As regards the origin of the Creel< gods, we need not al pres-

ent seell an ojJinion. But the whole army of our instances
leads lo rt conclusion something Lille this: It is as ~l there
were in the lnwwn consciousness a sense of reality, a .feel-
ing of objective jJresence, a perce/Jtion of what we uwy call
'somethiug there,' ·morn deep and 111.ore general than any of
the sjJecial and Jmrticu.lar 'senses' by which the current ji:,y-
chology S'l(.jJjJoses existent ·realities lo be originally rnvealed.

- vVilliamJames,
The V((.rielies of Religious Exj1erience, 61
 Contents

Foreword g
Robert Sardella
Introduction
Glen Slater ancl Dennis Patrick Slatte,y

Religi,on
1. The Myth of Biblical Monotheism 27
Christine Downing
2. The Heart of Hindu Mythos: Yogic Perspectives on Self-
Realization 65
Patrick Mahaffey

Ritual ancl Symbol

3. Ram bu Solo': the Toraja Cult of the Dead and Embodied
Imagination 101
Laura S. Grillo
4. Mandala of the Naropa Dakini :
Archetypal and Psychological Commentary 135
V: Walter Odajnyk

Literature ancl Film

5. Oedipus at Colonus:
Pilgrimage from Blight to Blessedness 161
Dennis Patrich Slatte,y
6. Aliens and Insects 189
Glen Slater

Psychology ancl PhilosojJhy

7. How is Psychology a Mythology? 211
Ginette Paris
8. Legencle-lmage: The Word/ Image Problem 230
Dewiel L. M.iller

Contributors 249
 Foreword
Robert Sardella

The chapters of this exciting volume are extremely varied.

This exuberance of expression already gives us a clue to the
nature of myth. It likes to propagate. It likes to exist in the
richness of complexity. It is not interested in one version being
the top dog. It is play-in-action. It is alive; even as it is talked
about, you can still feel the teeming life bursting through.
The editors of this volume are quick to point out that while
science is still loathe to see the myth in its own constructs,
it cannot keep myth down. Myth is far too mercurial to be
arrested by simplistic rationality. But, to get a real feeling for
myth, one must find the way into mythic feeling, into mythic
awareness. As long as our thinking is dualistic - awareness
of myth, rather than field-phenomenological - mythic-aware-
ness, we are through such limited thinking working against
myth while trying to speak for it. Thus, the orienting ques-
tion I want to pose as a possible way of reading this impressive
collection of essays is: "What is mythic awareness like?"
It is somewhat limiting, I think, to argue that while myth
belongs to times past, the psyche still needs myth for its own
being. I also think it is limiting to tie myth only to the imagi-
nation, literature, metaphor, depth psychology, and the hu-
manities. All those connections are certainly true, but today
in a period of cultural chaos and breakdown, there exist
perhaps more urgent and pressing reasons for the necessity
of what myth provides: we need a sense of myth for our indi-
vidual and collective equilibrium. Sanity itself may be tied to

9
 Roher! Sarddlo

having some kind of lively imagination so that one can feel

the strange fantasies that continue to insist themselves into
consciousness in both waking and dreaming states, as well as
similarities within the images and the language of myth.
Far more importantly, moreover, ,ve lose the sense of our
own embodiment in the absence of mythic awaren ess and
in the prevalence of abstraction. Such a condition outlines
the contours of our collective insanity. Myth, however, heals
because my th embod ies. I wa n t to emphasize such an effe ct
of reading these papers more than I am interested in argu-
ing for th e importa nce of th e fields th at m ake use of myth,
b ecause once we have lost the sense of body and imagination
in any form, v,1hen it is given any credence at all, it is simulta-
neously taken into a rarifiecl realm of abstraction.
It is easy to travel within unending circles of abstraction,
trading one form and one level of abstraction for another,
by suggesting that myth is at the heart of being embodied
human beings. Body, as currently imagined, is itself already a
very abstract notion, usurped by biology and physiology and
medicine, fields lhat now tell us what our body consists of. Ye t
such a vision of the body is based exclusively on quantifica-
tion. This is not the body I mean.
Rather, I am addressing the felt sense of bodying~ body as
activity open to the world, not that confined shape I see in
the mirror. Bodying as ex-isling. Myth brings us back to that
felt sense of bodying because myth, not philosophy or meta-
physics, is the living language of ex-isting. Myth, therefore, is
not a content at all; rather, it is an open field of the bodying
forth of th e world. The e ditors of this volume point out such
an alli tu dc of bo<l)'i 11g fonli i11 their inli o clucLion wh e n the)'
v,1isely introduce th e difference bet\veen the ineffable realm
of myth, and mythology. Mythology can be heard as the sto-
ries of how myth bodies in infinitely multiple ways , giving the
gods an earthly home, the home of our being.
Myth-ing as bodying forth the world brings us directly to
the chapters of this volume. If readers grasp the sense of
 Forew01d

what I am addressing about myth, then they will also be quite

astounded with these writings because taken collectively, this
collection expresses with deep conviction and insight how the
bodying of myth forms into stories that differentiate, but do
not ever separate out, from the dynamic unity of the whole.
While the mythological stories are therefore as diverse as the
chapters of this book, readers will find themselves equally
drawn to them all because the draw, the strange attractor,
is that unspeakable dynamic activity of the whole that it is
impossible to be satiated by - in large measure because it is
so life-giving and life-affirming.
Reading this grouping of diverse papers, written by highly
articulate people, people of the word, is accompanied by the
interesting challenge of attempting to refrain from reading
about one or another myth and taking it as merely interesting
information or an engaging story. Rather, the task would be to
enter into the felt sense of the myth that backs the mythology
that supports the critical reflection provided by each author.
To do so does not ask the reader to do anything more, or at
least not much more, than was accomplished at some level by
each of the authors. Suggesting approaching the following
collection in this manner is, I know, unusual. However, doing
so is therapeutic, not only in a personal, but in a world way.
If myth can be awakened in the felt sense of bodying, then it
also releases into the wider world, for, finally, the body is an
open system and thus porous to mythic awareness.
It is fascinating, for example, to read Christine Downing's
highly-developed and thorough chapter, and in the process
allow oneself to feel that most basic and foundational aspect
of Biblical Myth as the wholeness of the One, i.e., how we are
within the One and the One is within us. It does not matter
one wit if one is Christian or not. We all participate in this
mythic awareness. And, it is extremely freeing and relieving
to feel that place of the One. For at the same time, it is a place
that is no place; it is always here but cannot be pointed to, and
it offers readers a sense of being some-One. This awareness

11
 Rober/ ,Sardel/o

is sensed, felt bodily and lived in immediacy; one tends to

forget it only when the ·world becomes disembodied and slips
back into the posture of abstraction. At just such a moment,
then, we need Christine Downing Lo remind us of this myth
that is, always.
,i\lhen, moreover, Laura Grillo begins her essay by sug-
gesting that "... myth is a symptom of the wrestling Lhat
human beings do in light of what is both our most prized and
poignant condition: self-awareness," she steps directly into
the center of mythic awareness. The '"'Ording tells the v,1hole
story - seflawareness. She does not say "awareness of oneself,"
or "knowing who you are," but chooses instead this particular
expression, which I understand as: knowing the god-being
one is. Through extrapolation, it is easy to understand that
myth, the picturing of the actions of the gods, can open to
participation only through the god-action we are. That is to
say, each individual is an embodied god, is as ·well the body-
ing forth of the gods. (admitte dly, embodying the gods seems
to limit their powers, alas. That limitation, however, is due to
a shared disbelief in our mythic nature.)
It should be no surprise, then, that this chapter focuses
on the embodied imagination, for what is stated here brings
to the foreground an insight that myth is ahvays sensuous,
intangibly tangible, and, it is always, in one form or another
enacted. Thus, myth cannot be separated from ritual; the
entanglement of the two is a basic expression of myth as
bodying.
Another aspect of Gri11o's chapter that reveals a further
facet about the nature of myth concerns her illustration that
in the Toraja rituals for the dead, this world and Lhe world
across the threshold share a likeness, are indeed similars.
Here, then, is a wonderful expression of that unity of myth,
where multiple worlds also testify to one world. Even more,
when on e grasps the felt-sense of this unity, and then includes
one's self within that unity rather than hold to the attitude of
an outside observer, s/he arrives at a powerful insight con-

12
 Foreword

cerning myth and mythology: Mythology is the fiction that

puts outside of us, in the forms of image and metaphor, a
picture of what we are living all the time - our own being.
Mythology is thus the fiction that there is another world, or
other, multiple worlds. Myth may be understood as the uni-
fied, polyvalent bodying forth of the whole of the world. Such
is myth's encompassing power and presence.
My intention is to suggest an approach to reading this
stimulating collection of musings on myth in such a way that
the action works into and changes readers by making them
aware of being a being of world-unity, while in the same in-
stant not losing a sense of their individuality. Then, myth
and mythology become therapeutic rather than additional
information for the intellect. Myths' sweep is much grander
than mind alone can encompass.
The insightful and novel aspects of this book is that such
a ,vide and diverse range of mythologies are worked with in
great detail Such a collection makes it possible to feel the
wonder of being a body in the way that I am describing: body-
ing as a field of felt presence of the coming-into-being of the
whole of the world in its exciting particularities, a process
that occurs unceasingly each moment.
A minor but important suggestion: as the reader peruses
each chapter, notice the bodily sensations that occur; notice
the one or two things that particularly astound and arrest
your reading, where you are compelled to linger for a mo-
ment. With this felt sense, try to enter into an imagination,
an active fantasy, of the mythic feeling that is expressed in
the reflection on the particular mythology being read about.
Then allow that feeling to be fully present; carry it and let
it return through the day. That is, let the myth embody.
Treat this book as a manual for the development of mythic-
awareness as well as for the information and accompanying
insights each essay develops.
The reader will find, for example, that she suddenly feels
the full sense of what Yoga contains, for example, in Patrick

13
 R11l11irl Srmlello

Mahaffey's chapter. It may be that the reader will not have

words for it, not right away, but as this one instance of hmv
all of the chapters are written, namely, with so much of a real
felt sense of the myth, it is possible to enter into any of the
mythic realms described throughout the collection with this
same approach. With one or more of the mythologies dis-
cussed, readers, I am convinced, will be inspired then to go
to the mythologies themselves. For example, in one sentence
Mahaffey opens up Lhe movemenL from pre-Vedic lunar my-
thology, to the Vedas, to the Upanishads as one whole, vital
motion. At the same time, a central aspect of our being also
opens - the oneness of being as being-alone, of being all-one,
all one in multiplicity.
I admit to feeling liberated to speak in this way about
myth, even to address directly scholars who might question
this approach. I am led to such an understanding by a small
comment in V. Walter Odajnyk's chapter: "My academic and
scholarly approach to the mandala is pursued primarily with
that experiential goal in mind. Precisely such a blend of
scholarly and experiential approaches characterizes Mytho-
logical Studies at Pacifica Graduate Institute." If thinking
about myth is therefore not accompanied by some authentic
mythic-embodiment, then this volume and readers too may
be contributing to the cultural problem of the loss of feel-
ing.
Another very powerful sentence in the same chapter states:
"The Tibetan tangkas speak to Tibetans in the same manner
as the Odyssey and the Iliad spoke to the ancient Greeks, the
Mahabharata and Ramayana to the ancient Indians, and the
Divine Comedy to Renaissance C hristians." Odajnyk offers
an amazing sentence that immediaLely brings the body into
resonance with the Tibetan myth. Once that resonance is
felt, a strong impulse to ingest and to contemplate what th e
author describes follows. Readers may find the mselves fully
engaged, when perhaps a first impression and impulse might
be: "well, maybe I' II skip this chapter because Tibetan myth

14
 Foreword

does not interest me." Such a response would cheat readers of

both an experience of myth as well as insights into compara-
tive mythology.
Furthermore, a central essay of this book is Dennis Pat-
rick Slattery's "Oeclijms at Colonus: Pilgrimage from Blight to
Blessedness." I suggest it is central because Oedipus is an
embodied image of a mythic moment in the evolution of
culture, that mythic moment in which a dawning awareness
concludes: to be human is to be a mythic being. That is to say,
without this felt sense of the bodying forth of the world as
myth, we are not human beings at all, but doubles of human
beings. Slattery definitely conveys this felt-sense of human-as-
mythic with the realization that excess itself is the signature
of myth. Taken in and felt bodily, this sense of excess means
that we are so teeming with creative power that perhaps the
main question of life is how to fit something so large into the
equally valid dimension of the smallness of being human.
Slattery gives us the way of living this paradox - wounded-
ness/blesseness, which is both a condition as well as an at-
titude that Oedipus finally arrives at and is the essential task
of the mythic human.
Glen Slater's essay continues and amplifies the felt pres-
ence of the ongoing presence of myth, the now of it. He as-
sumes the almost unwieldy task of arguing that there is no
escape from myth. He further develops the idea that one of
the modern senses of myth is our mythology of extraterrestri-
als, which further verifies and testifies that excess is the mark
of myth. More than that, I grew to appreciate his introducing
mythic monsters, particularly in relation to outer space. This
juxtaposition informs us that myth also always concerns the
unknown. It is not as if myth is finished and exists in some
archetypal landscape waiting to be discovered.
One senses when he enters mythic awareness because it
is the moment of no-longer-knowing. That is to say, myth is
necessarily alien and cannot be tamed. It is necessarily and
perhaps intrinsically, monstrous. It is thus beyond our imagi-

15
 Rober/ Smde/lo

nation, but since it is sensuous, it will appear as alien beings

that are all-body, which for a culture that has excluded body,
presents itself as all-consuming. The essay is profound in its
insights as well because it furthers the sense that I have been
developing throughout: myth as bodying-forth of world has
nothing to do with our current sentimentalized imagination
of body as natu.raL. Slater's essay also invites us to look at 'alien
abductees' as those figures who have been taken over to the
side of m.ylh. Thal is, Lhc image of the 'alien' is the central
mything aspect of our being.
I admit at this juncture that I have always disliked the
spate of books that either have the title or carry the sense
of "the gods in me." Ginette Paris redeems this oversimpli-
fied popular cliche to attract readers interested in myth
by directing them exactly to where I am in this Foreword:
Mythic thinking is always "Who, What, and "How" thinking
rather than explanatory "VVhy" thinking. But, as is so well
conveyed by Paris, we have to be vigilant not to convert V\lho
into a version of Why. If we approach myth mentally, then
such confusion is inevitable. The "Who" question is one that
concerns the realm of feeJing - feeling not as "what did that
make me feel," or "my feeling." Rather, I am addressing feel-
ing as a mode of knowing, a way of knowing something that
cannot be achieved or gained any other way. Such a truth
is so self-evident that it can be missed. There is no fiction
without feeling; myth is the supreme god of fiction.
David Miller addresses directly perhaps the largest prob-
lem of all. The reader sits with the book, reading about myth.
In th is process the wordless, the speechless, the non-verbal is
L1a11sfo1111ed in Lu words. Myll10s becomes Logos. ImmediaLely
at the outset, Miller declares such an accepted division false.
Instead, he relocates the problem into the correct sphere.
Thinking is itself myth. Hmv cou ld it not be? Only if one
excludes the realm of thinking from the bodying forth of
the world. The two, however - mythos and logos - will always
seem to be in opposition until the moment that the word too

16
 Foreword

is felt. What Miller develops in this chapter is the notion of

there being a semiotics of felt sense. He is not explicit about
this, but it is present implicitly throughout the essay.
This meeting place of mythos and logos in the felt dissolves
in one instant any seeming contradiction between image and
word. There is no image without the felt sense and there is no
living work without the felt sense. Mythology - mytho-logos,
is the arena which invites both to speak in unison.
As I reflect on the collection of attitudes and approaches
to the study of myth contained in this volume, a joint effort
by the faculty of Mythological Studies at Pacifica Graduate
Institute, something becomes very clear: there exists an amaz-
ing collection of lively people who are asking a fundamental
question: what is it to be a mythic human being? This book
is one aspect, one version, of how this group of scholars work
within this question. That they, with this publication, wish to
enlarge the community holding such a question is a major
contribution to scholarship and a significant step forward in
the study of myth. Academics, their students and lay people
interested in the mythic substratum of being will benefit
immeasurably by reading and imagining the possibilities
contained herein.

Robert Sardella
Benson, North Carolina

March 2007

17
 Introduction
Glen Slater and Dennis Patrich Slatte1y

Approaching myth requires an embrace of paradox. From

one perspective mythic themes may be located at almost every
level of human endeavor: poets and artists repeatedly dip into
the well of myth for the metaphors and images that shape
their works; psychologists and social critics tie spirit and soul
to mythic characters and movements; scientists render alter-
native cosmologies by turning new eyes to old mythologies.
For those who seek such quarry, myth's shapes may be found
in every drama, life passag·e, heroic act, ritual, passionate
undertaking and all manner of love's multiple gestures. We
turn to myth to convey the depth and breadth of life. Myth is
a baseline, a ground, and place of eterna l return.
From another perspective, however, myths may be regard-
ed as hangovers of ancient, p1·e-scientific worlds, irrational
attempts to describe the workings of the cosmos, giving them
for some an air of falsity. Viewed in this manner, myth is
opposed to what is real and is thereby regarded as without
substance. For those involved in the serious study of myth,
however, such a blanket dismissal is untenable as well as naive.
YPt t·hi~ unreal, untrue view of myth harbors some validity:
The contents of myths are supernatural and fantastic, even
as the origins of a given myth are never fully traceable, ver-
sions are varied and incomplete, and meanings are multiple
and seemingly unending. Hold a myth too tightly and it slips
through one's fingers with the consistency of mercury. In light
of such attributes, myth is fragmentary, skittish, and other-

18
 lntrnductio11

worldy. Its essential Protean nature defies manhandling or

neat packaging. No wonder then, as Kevin Shilbrack observes
for example, "contemporary philosophy shows little interest
in the study of myths." If indeed, he goes on to suggest, that
"Myths disclose alternative worlds ... a belief in these mythic
worlds [has been seen] as an aspect of culture that was soon
superseded" (Thinking Through Myths 1). Myths become fussy
when not accepted on their own terms.
The essential paradox is this: Myth points to a baseline
that can never be fully drawn; there exists no lowest layer
for myth. As Sallustius suggested in the fourth century, and
mythologists have paraphrased ever since, myth always is, but
never was. Myths show universality, yet they only appear in
culturally specific ways. Myths draw us into the past, yet their
significance comes from new and renewed contact with the
present. Myths are simultaneously substantial and insubstan-
tial, like quarks in physics.
To accommodate the paradoxical qualities of myth, its
approach requires a different way of knowing, another angle
or inflection to the ordinary sense of knowledge. Beyond
the need for an interdisciplinary foundation, studies in
mythology force us from the narrower confines of everyday
consciousness into the poetic, metaphoric and more affec-
tive realms of the imaginal. Only in the imagination does
myth find its fitting medium, for only the imagination can
negotiate the fusions, feats and enchantments of myth and
dream into the significance of these states. At the same time,
however, myth saves the imagination from being direction-
less and arbitrary. The structures and forms of mytho/Joesis
create resonances that cross cultural and temporal divides to
carry the imagination beyond the merely whimsical. Just as
myth requires the language of imagination, the imagination
finds its weight and bearing in myth. Entering the paradox
of 1nyth calls forth the 111:undus imaginalis. In this imaginal
realm, myth has a spaciousness to cook in its own juices. It
need not be fixed to places, peoples or times, nor reduced to

19
 Glen Sinter rwd Dennis Prilrirh S/r11/P1)'

any theoretical structure in order to insti11 wisdom or incite

thought.
The paradoxical and necessarily imaginal ground of myLh
has consequences for a more formal study of mythology in
the academy. Mythology is the faithful companion of almost
every discipline in the humanities, yeL its dedicated or con-
centrated study is a rare pursuit. Although works on myLl1ic
traditions are many, academic programs in mythology are
few. The sludy of myth has tended to be subsumed under Lhe
study of comp,mnive religion or folklore, or engaged as an
offshoot of art, literature, history or cinema. Myth therefore
served as handmaiden, a byproduct of sorts to "authentic"
disciplines of study. Nevertheless, this contrast between the
omnipresence of myth in cultural expression and the largely
absent fornial means to approach its study fuels a fire in those
who have come to sense the essential role of myth in human
discourse. Such a sensibility leads not only to a careful con-
sideration of traditional mythologies, but also lo an appli-
cation of mythological perspectives to contemporary social
phenomena. Far from being an anachronistic preoccupation
with an antiquated worldview, current mythological studies
are passionately dedicated to the philosophical, psychologi-
cal and sociological topics that define the present era.
Fully reflecting the above considerations, this volume
gathers writings by one group dedicated to the study of
myth and the interpretation of mythic forms in traditional
and contemporary culture. All contributors are present or
past members of the Mythological Studies faculty at Pacifica
Graduate Institute. \1\Thile the essays range widely and show a
pa 11oply of approaches to mythology, all convey an awareness
of myth as a taproot, both anchoring a11d sustaining religion,
psychology, literature and culture. All of these contributions
reveal myth as a cultural constant, a means 1.0 align oneself
wiL11 the cosmos, woven into the ways we approach reality ;.md
the acts of imagining that forge theoretical ideas and artistic
visions. Bearing witness to this presence of mythos in Lhought

20
 lntrod11clio11

and action, pointing out the weave of this elemental means

of apprehension and comprehension, largely comprises the
spirit of the chapters that follow.
One particularity of these authors and their work is a
sustained engagement with the perspectives and concepts of
depth psychology. Portraying the manner in which the mod-
ern study of mythology has dovetailed with theories of the
unconscious, particularly C.G. Jung's notions of the collective
unconscious and its archetypal patterns imbedded therein,
these essays are also peppered with psychological insights,
be they at a cultural or individual level. This confluence of
mythological and psychological perspectives may itself be
traced back to the imagination, which is also regarded as the
psyche's primary mode of expression, an understanding that
finds initial expression in Freud's work, becomes pivotal for
Jung, and has been further and more fully elaborated on by
James Hillman.
Moreover, the comparative studies of mythology by Joseph
Campbell and his reading of myth alongside philosophies
of life owe much to the psychology of archetypal forms. In
a sense, mythologies present their own psychologies, drives,
and complexes to help us insight myth just as heroes and
tricksters help us insight psyche. Thus, just as myth and
imagination are codetermined, myth seems equally tethered
to the deeper reaches of the psyche - an understanding well-
delineated in the following pages.
The essays that comprise this volume first appear to be
extremely diverse, not unlike myths themselves. However, the
contributions are united through a skein of threads that also
intertwine several essays. Many of their themes address my-
thology in the context of religious texts and practices, while
others extract and comment upon mythic themes found in
literature and film. Still others explore cultural phenom~
ena through myth or by means of philosophical concerns in
the study of mythology and Depth Psychology. Each essay,
therefore, begins with a short "Preface" in which the author

21
 (;/I'll Slain and De1111is Palrid1 S/111/111)'

advances his or her stand on myth, one's own angle on Lhe

study of myth and mythopoiesis, followed by an exploration
of a mythic theme that that reflects that stance.

The Essays

The most prevalent theme of the volume is the consider-

aLion of ·myth iu religious lmdition: Christine Dowuing's essay,
"The Myth of Biblical Monotheism," addresses Biblical mono-
theism by regarding the Hebrew Lradition from a mythic
perspective; Laura Grillo's "Rarnbu Solo: The Toraja Cult of
the Dad and Embodied Imagination" studies the indigenous
religion of the Toraja of Indonesia and so demonstrates the
role of myth in embodied ritual; Patrick Mahaffey offers an
overvie"v of Hindu yoga in "The Heart of Hindu Mythos:
Yogic Perspectives in Self-Realization" by revealing how the
competing aims of embracing the world and withdrawing
from it coalesce in this tradition. '"'alter Oclcc~jnyk enters the
world of Tibetan Buddhism in "IVlanclala of the Naropa Da-
kini: Archetypal and Psychological Commentary" to provide
a Jungian interpretation of a traditional mandala. Each of
these writings shed light on the complex and complementary
dance of religion and myth.
Commenting on mythic themes i.n li.tem,tu:re arulfilm is a popu-
la1· mainstay of applied mythological studies, whether such
themes are explicit or implicit in the works considered, In
either case, the perdurance of mythic forms and their endless
guises guides the work at hand. Dennis Patrick Slattery's essay
0 11 Sophocles' "0,1dijJU ,\ (I/. Culonu:;: Pilg1 i111c1gt: fr 0111 Bliglii

to Blessedness" takes an overtly mythic drama and deepens

our appreciation of its movements and dilemmas by turning
the tragedy over with fresh insight. Glen Slater steps into the
broad genre of mythic monsters in "Aliens and Insecls" and
applies this to the contemporary fascination with alien space
invaders, exemplified most particularly in the cinematic arts,

22
 lutroduction

To the extent scripture may be regarded as literature, Down-

ing and Mahaffey's essays also show facets of a mythological
hermeneutic at work.
Ginette Paris engages psychology with a mythological sen-
sibility in "How is Psychology a Mythology?" to persuasively
suggest how life ex/Jeriences, theories and cultural /Jhenomena m.ay
be cmnfJ'rehended by seeing through to their mythic and archetypal
undercurrents. Paris observes that "events never become her-
metically sealed," but can be reimagined, reinterpreted and
resituated in differing mythic currents. The spirit of icono-
clasm found in her essay surfaces once more in David Miller's
treatment in "Legende-Image: The Word/Image Problem" of
the often uneasy alliance between word and image by enter-
taining jJhilosojJhical concerns as they pertain to mythological
studies. Informed by a half-century in the academy as well as
a vigilant gaze over theoretical debates in depth psychology,
Miller's chapter demonstrates the wariness of certitude es-
sential in approaching mythology. Elements of the essays by
Downing and Grillo also question theoretical assumptions as
they engage their respective topics.
Each chapter in this volume, therefore, demonstrates
how a sense of myth is given new life by holding lightly the
theories and concepts we bring to mythological studies, and
by keeping the text, phenomenon or tradition under consid-
eration immediate and ultimately irreducible. Perhaps this
attitude of topical reverence, as well as much that is expressed
above, is contained within the difference between the terms
"myth" and "mythology." As the irreducible and irrefutable
mode of imagining that generates the motifs and figures of
traditional narratives, myth always remains largely beyond in-
tellectual reach. Mythology, the logos of myth, pertains to the
narratives themselves immediately alongside the understand-
ings and interpretations they generate, be they traditional
stories, literary works or even present-day renditions of old
tales. Myth faces clown into the unfathomable reaches of
cosmos and soul; mythology also reaches up into culture and

23
 lJlm Slater nnd De1111i.\ l'utril'k Slal/e1_l'

mind through expression in language, arl, or other forms of

embodying the myth. Thus one looks through mythology towards
myth, as looking "through a glass darkly" in slriving to perceive
and articulate essences that must remain, finally but hardly
futilely, inaccessible. Nol a need for certitude or an absolute
response but rather "a willing suspension of disbelief," so thal
one can indeed believe, is the more efficacious companion
on the royal road of mythos.
For these reasons, mythological studies aim beyond Lhc
mere familiarization with mythic narrative towards an ap-
preciar-ion of mylhos as an inextricable dimension of human
consciousness and out into contemporary culture in search
of myths surfacing· in everyday life. The ultimate aim of
mythological studies is not simply to recite traditional narra-
tives but to perceive with a capacious mythic eye in order to
e ngage the phenomenal world with a mythological sensibi1ity,
one attuned outward to the universal and storied qualities of
our surroundings, as well as inward to the essential narrat ive
nature of our being. In such a receptive attitude, we learn to
participale in the longing, evident in soul and creation alike,
to rest in the cradle of mythic imagining. We hope that this
gathering of essays aids the readers of this vol.ume to gain
greater access to mythology's multiple layers of wonder and
mystery.

24
Religion
 1.
The Myth of Biblical Monotheism
Christine Downing

Wendy Doniger has said that it is imjJossible to define myth, but

cowardly not to try. In my own teaching I seem lo be as dedicated lo
mahing my students less sure they know what myth is than lo confirm
their jJre-establishecl views or to J;ersuade them of mine - and in the
J;rocess I have become more and more aware of how much my own is
still in jJrocess and will, I believe, be likely to remain so.
What I have loved about teaching in a mythological studies pro-
gram is how it has forced me to look with new eyes at m.aterial I had
imagined myself to be deeply familiar with - be that the Hebrew Bible
or Greek literature, Nietzsche or Freud, romanticism or feminism -
how it has encourage me to discover how a mythological persjJective
might clifferfrom a religious studies persj;ective or a de/1th j}Jychologi-
cal or /JhilosofJhical one.
From the beginning what has seem,ed clear to me is that myths
are stories. Like Nietzsche, I see them, as stories we tell to helf> us
confront and at the same thne elude - and illude - meaninglessness,
sujfe1ing, ineluctable cm~flict, and death. I am also deej;ly aware
that such stories - especially when we fmget they are stories and tahe
them, literally, that is, come to believe them. - can be used to do terrible
damage to the soul and to our relationshif;s with one another and lo
the world around us.

27
 Christine Downing

When I agreed to teach a course on the monotheisms in

the mythological studies program at Pacifica, I felt at least
relatively qualified: I had written my doctoral dissertation on
Martin Buber with an especial focus on his translation of the
Hebrew Bible into German and his biblical commentaries
and during my first ten years of teaching back east I regu-
larly taught courses on both Hebrew Scripture and the New
Testament - though I never did so during the nearly twenty
years I taught a t Sa n Diego State University. In retrospect the
hiatus has come to seem a blessing, for it helped me return to
once familiar materials in a fresh ,vay, ready to try to discover
what looking at them from a mythological studies perspective
would require - and reveal.
I knew that for probably most of our students there would
be enough emotional engagement with this myth system that
it might be difficult to approach it in the same ways they had
learned to adopt when studying the myths of ancient Egypt
or Greece, Hindu or Buddhist mythology, or the mythic
traditions of the First People of our hemisphere or of con-
temporary Africa.
The challenge as I understood it vmuld be to look at mono-
theism itself as a myth (not just as one including little bits
and pieces of myth here and there) - and to approach this
myth not with belief or disbelief but imaginally. This would
mean nol (Lo begin with anyway) focusing on Gritique.s of this
myth - from polytheistic or feminist or depth psychological
perspectives - but rather trying to enter into the myth, into
how the world looks from its perspective. Not, of course, that
we can wholly succeed in doing this, any more than we can
really r cspo11d Lo G ree k lragecly as ils S11 ' c Alhenia n aud ience
did. Our engagement can only be dialogical, that empathic
engagement with another's world that Dilthey sav,, as charac-
teristic of all Geisteswissensd,r~/i.en.
So I knew I would have to begin by trying to clarify -
bolh to myself and to my students - my own relation to this
material. vVould I be approaching it as an "insider" or an

28
 1. The Myth of Biblical Monotheism

"outsider"? As usual with such either/or's, I found myself con-

founded. I'm a pagan, a polytheist - but not exactly: I don't
really "believe in" or worship the Greek gods and goddesses
to whom I owe so much; rather I find them (to borrow a
phrase from Levi-Strauss) "good to think with" or (to borrow
this time from James Hillman) to "see through." Yet the bibli-
cal stories, particularly the Genesis stories, live in me almost
as natively as do the Greek myths.
As I put it in an essay I wrote a few years ago, when I reread
how in his Good And Evil Buber explores what the biblical
myths might have to say to us "latecomers of the spirit" who
have outgrovm these myths but are still accessible to them,
I became aware of how important these stories are to my
self-understanding, how although for me the biblical mythos
is a broken one with no automatic authority, it is nonetheless
still illuminating and challenging. Indeed, in a strange ,-vay,
this mythos seems more powerful after having· been rejected
as the mythos. It's as if the biblical god, YHVH, has become a
necessary figure in my pantheon, part of a polytheistic system
that needs this upstart young god who claims to be the only
one, this god who keeps calling us to be response-able, to
turn away from evil, to choose the good. There's a tradition
in Greek mythology that Dionysos was a late-appearing god
who so clearly represented a form of divine energy with which
none of the other gods were associated that the Greeks had
to recognize he was, indeed, a god and so had to make room
for him in their pantheon as one of the Twelve Olympians.
I'm trying to say something similar, that YHVH clearly is a
god, different from any of the others, and has to be recog-
nized, honored, included, not as the god, but nonetheless as
god (Downing, "It's Not So Simple" 51).

29
 Christine Dow11i11g

1VIyth Become Text

Long·, long ago I was an undergraduate literature major

and my approach to myth still bears traces of that: I am
drawn to myth become text, become literature. Thus I knew
my focus in approaching the myth of monotheism would
be directed to the Hebrew Bible, the foundational text for
all three of the living monotheisms, Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam. I hoped that I and my students might b e able Lo
read the Bible as though we had never encountered it before,
might come to appreciate the foreignness of this long-ago
world. Doing so, I was convinced, would come from recogniz-
ing how much of this worldview is expressed through the
formal qualities, the artistry, of its most important literature.
The so-called "historical books" of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis
through II Kings) may well be the first great prose narrative
of Western literature. 1 The choice of prose is significant; it
probably represents a deliberate rejection of the poetic epic
form associated with the cultic recitations of Babylonian
polytheism. 2 Reading the biblical texts well means reading
them attentive to their formal structures, their language and
imagery, their delight in word play and folk etymology? their
pungent concreteness; 4 it means noticing the gaps and con-
tradictions'' and the repetitions and variations.ti It is in large
measure through these formal aspects that the meaning is
commu nica tee!.
Such a literary approach implies a respect for the edited
text, the text as given its almost final shape by the Priestly
writers of the late exilic period (3rd and 2 nd centuries BCE).
Scho lars oflen re fer i,o Lhis g ro up of ediiors as "R" fo r Re d ac-
tor, but Buber liked to imagine that the R stood for Rabbenau.,
our teacher, so respectful was he of the genius evident in this
weaving together of material representing a diversity of per-
spectives clrav,,n from many different periods, an interlacing
that creates a whole that honors the parts out of which it is
composecl.7 The editors made no sustained attempt to smooth

30
 1. The Myth of Biblical Monoth eism

out the discrepancies or to hide them; the component parts

are viewed as essentially complementary, not contradictory;
all belong to a full telling. This whole is achieved in large
measure through a taken-for-granted procedure in the an-
cient near eastern world of cutting scrolls and sewing in new
material - a practice very similar to the cut-and-paste kind of
editing our computers make possible. 8
But of course as a student of myth I am also interested
in the component parts that are brought together in the re-
dacted text - in how exploration of their sitzen-im-leben makes
visible the different concerns dominant in different periods
of Hebrew history. Early on "source theory" arose as a kind
of attack on the Bible. In the late 18 th c. the recognition that
the use of different names for God, Elohim and YHVH, and
different names for the mountain of revelation, Sinai and
Horeb, implied different authorship and thus human authors
served to challenge orthodox belief in divine authorship.
Now, however, it enhances our appreciation of the artistry of
the Bible's parts and whole, of its mythic power - and enables
us to watch the develojJJnent of this myth system, to discover
how a particular way of retelling the story reflects the needs/
fears/hopes/experiences of a particular community at a par-
ticular time.
In the Book of Exodus, for example, the earliest strand (la-
beled 'T' by biblical scholars because this writer consistently
speaks of Goel as YHVH - or JHVH) presents Moses as a
prophet/liberator figure who had the courage to challenge
the Pharoah 's exploitation of the Hebrew slaves - as the
writer may have hoped someone might be brave enough to
confront a contemporary Israelite king's oppression of his
own people. For another slightly later strand (by an author
referred to as "E" because here Goel is called "Elohim")
Moses is primarily a miracle-worker, like the kind of leader
who seems desperately needed as the Northern Kingdom
finds itself under threat from the Assyrians. A century later,
after the Northern Kingdom has been destroyed the "Deu-

31
 Chrisli11 e Dow11i11g

teronomists" (or "D") picture Moses as a lawgiver, as having

provided a detailed account of bmv God expects his people
to live - in the hope that living thus 111.ight protect the belea-
guered Southern Kingdom from the expanding Babylonian
empire. It doesn't work, however;Jerusalem is overtaken, the
temple destroyed, the community's leaders deported to Baby-
lon. After the Habylonians are themselves defeated by the
Persians and the exiled Israelites are allowed to return, the
so-called Priestly w.-ilen; ("P") imagined yet another Moses,
one through whom Goel had shared how he wanted to be
worshipped, for now Israel is primarily a religious community
rather than an independent political nation. The redactors
wove all these strands together as if to say: Moses is all of
these and (implicitly) can provide us with an image of what-
ever new kind of leader ,,ve'll need in the new situations we'll
confront. There is no one "real" Moses; it is the ongoing re-
irnag·ining, remything that makes him so important a figure. 9
,~Te can discover a very similar process with respect to David
as we take note of how the complex ambiguous David of I and
fl Sam:uel is transformed in the hagiographic representation
of Chronicles (written when there are no longer I ebrew kings
and David has come to be seen not only as the Ideal King
of a nostalgically viewed past but also as the model of the
Messiah, the longed-for future leader).
This kind of attention to the literary reshaping of the tra-
ditions opens us to an appreciation of how here as elsewhere
it is remything that keeps the myth alive.

Tiu: 1Hyt.h 1f Mylhless Muuuiheis;n

For my concern, of course, is not with the Bible as litera-

ture /Jer se, but as mylhic lite rature - with biblical monotheism
as a mythology.
Though this is something - as seems important to ac-
knowledge at the outset - that is not generally recognized by

32
 1. The iHyth of Biblical Monotheism.

either the adherents or the detractors of monotheism, nor by

most students of myth. Monotheisms are myth-less, all seem
to agree. For instance, neither the Larousse Encyclopedia of
J\llythology nor Yves Bonnefoy's J\llythologies include Hebrew or
Jewish or Christian or Muslim myths. Indeed, as Ivan Stren-
ski and Bruce Lincoln have helped us see, from Max Muller's
onwards myth study has tended to valorize the mythic and
mystical religion of the "Aryans" as over against the ritual
and institutional aspects of religion and has denigrated the
"Semitic" monotheisms as non-mythic and thus inferior. 10
As Jean-Pierre Vernant puts it, the 19 th c. scholars of myth
"invented the mythical figures of the Hebrew and the Aryan"
to whom they ascribed opposing though sometimes comple-
mentary roles:
The Hebrew undeniably had the privilege of monotheism in
his favor, but he was self-centered, static and refractory both
to Christian values and to progress in culture and science. The
Aryan, on the other hand, was invested with all the noble virtues
that direct the dynamic of history: imagination, reason, science,
arts, politics.
The Hebrew was troublesome, disturbing, problematic: he stood
at the very foundation of the religious tradition with which the
scholars in question identified, but he was also alien to that
tradition. . . . On him, therefore, focused the tensions, repu-
diations, and hostilities that the image of the Other elicits from
individuals, as well as nations. 11

Christianity was imagined as the great synthesis of these

two clearly distinguished perspectives: the static monotheism
(viewed as originating in a passive response to revelation,
rather than as a product of the human mind) of the Hebrews
with the more dynamic and imaginative energy of the Aryans
(Olender 102).
But not only the detractors viewed biblical monotheism as
myth-less! The dominant understanding within post Diaspora
Judaism (and Christianity and Islam) has been in agreement.

33
 Christiue Downing

In response to the influence of Greek rationalism, Jewish

interpreters since late antiquity have "attempted to qualify,
filter, or othenvise reinterpret the anthropomorphic and
anthropopathic depictions of God in the Hebrew Bible, and
thus save Scripture from the merest tint of mythic irrational-
ity and its so-calle d imaginative excesses" (Fishbane 3-4).
When there was no temple anymore , no priests, no land,
what made the Jews Jews, whal enabled them to survive as a
separate people living in the rnidsl of others, was their litera-
ture and the distinctive lifestyle it recommends - that is , the
law. Beginning in the early Common Era the religious lead-
ers were the rabbis, lay students of scripture whose authority
came from their role in interpreting Torah regulations in
a way that made those irtjunctions relevant in the predomi-
nantly urban Hellenistic world in which mostJews now lived,
a world radically different from that of early Israel. In this
new context ritual is made into legal obedience and severed
from any intimate relation to myth; the prophets not the
priests become the important forerunners. This anti-mythic
attitude within Judaism was reinforced in the early modern
era when (in response to the influence of the Enlightenment
and Protestantism) ·w estern European Jews adopte d an ani-
conic, anti-ritual, rationalistic, ethics-focused view of genuine
religiosity. Thus mostJewish scholars see myth as not fitting
their conception of authentic Judaism.
Nevertheless both Jewish and Christian biblical scholars
recognize that there are mythic elements in the Hebrew Bible
(and even more so in the "oral tradition," the Mischnaic and
Talmudic elaborations of Biblical laws and stories) - though
Lhey Lenci lo view Lhese as foreign lo Lhe Dible's own aulhen-
Lic perspective, as borrowed from neighboring cultures and
then "improved." Once one moves beyond belief in the lit-
e ral divin e authorship of the Bible and can pick and choose
·wh at is "authentic" or "essential," the disconcerting mythic
elements can be acknowledged but then dismissed as not
intrinsic to monotheism . Thus much biblical scholarship has

34
 I. Th e Mylh of Biblical 1\ilonolheism

been directed to examinations of how the biblical writers

transformed adopted mythic images and narratives, with (for
example) how the creation story in Genesis 1 is a reworking of
the Babylonian epic, the Emuna Elish, how the story of Noah
and the flood echoes the flood story in the Gilgamesh, and
with how in the prophetic texts old mythical images become
only metaphors.

Rabbinic Nlythmaking

Those who see myth and monotheism as antithetical are

likely to see the mythical element in Judaism as present pri-
marily in the midrashic "oral" tradition and to dismiss the
mythic elements as superstitious folk religion, old wives tales
or as esoteric and consciously metaphorical as in Kabbalistic
texts. Such scholars recognize that in midrash exactly what
the 2nd c CE canon-makers tried to suppress flourishes, and
view this as a clouding of "real" pure monotheistic Judaism.
This dismissive view adopts the tactic of sep'a rating out the
mythic elements within midrash so as to reach the authentic
non-mythic "core" by emphasizing the distinction between
halakah (law) and haggadah (legend). The legends are seen as
separate from the central pure monotheism that is affirmed
as having "always"' been the essence ofJudaism.
Thus in Louis Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews (and also in
Graves and Patai's Hebrew Nlyths), 12 only non-canonical mate-
rials (from midrashic, medieval, and early modern periods)
are assembled as "Hebrew Myth" - as though Lilith were
mythic and Eve not. Ginzberg makes a clear distinction be-
tween the legal and legendary aspects of the Talmudic tradi-
tion and strongly believed that the mainspring of Judaism's
genius lay in halahah; he devoted his life to disentangling this
legal material and making it available to modern scholars.
The legends were then sort of the leftovers from his siftings,
gleanings that he then decided to publish separately for a

35
 Cltrislin e Oo11111i11g

more popular audience than the scholars addressed by his

"real" work. Ginzberg is not afraid to acknowledge his delight
in the playful, imaginative exuberance of this legendary ma-
terial, although he sees it as clearly contrary to the austere
monotheism of biblical faith. But from his perspective once
the old gods are safely dead, there's no danger in allowing
us to ertjoy these mythic elal.>oraLio11s. "Living 1eligion," lie
says, "requires the courage of images." He wants somehow
to hang on to the vit;:i.1ity without impairing the purity of
biblical monotheism.
Thus almost against his own ·will Ginzberg gives voice
to a recognition that mythmaking keeps the tradition alive
and to an acknowledgment that alongside the more abstract
philosophical and legal developments there was always also
creative mythmaking going on. It is of course this recogni-
tion that lies behind Judaism's conviction that the so-called
"oral law" (particularly in its written version in the Mishna
and Talmuds) is an intrinsic part of the Torah. Thus there is
a rabbinic tradition that Goel dictated the Torah to Moses by
day and by night explained it. These "explanations," m.idrash,
are what keeps the Bible alive.
Most literally, in Hebrew "mid rash" means "to study," "to
go in pursuit of"; by extension it is used to mean interpreta-
tion or exegesis. The valorization of midrashic elaboration
grows out of a deep conviction that the Bible invites these
expansions: scripture calls for meditation and application.
"The rabbis said Solomon had 3000 parables to illustrate
each and every word of Scripture and 1005 interpretations
for each and every parable." Rabbinic mythmaking v,1as the
product of the :scholars of early Judaism, not the untutored; it
was always linked to scripture (though the "proof-texts" are
often taken radically out of context) as inspired, imagina-
tive exegesis. Midrash often seems transgressive, to go way
beyond the biblical text, but its aim is to keep the Bible open
and relevant; not to establish what the text meant then but
what it might mean now. It means reading with "charity." 13

36
 1. The Myth of Biblical Monotheism

The term "mid rash" is often used to refer specifically to

rabbinical interpretation going back to the intertestamental
period and continuing into late medieval era (with Rashi,
in the 11 th c., and Maimonides in the 12 th ) but it is also used
more broadly to refer to an ongoing tradition of elabora-
tion of and argument with the tradition. 14 Its close readings
and intense questioning engage the imagination and reveal
the concerns and conflicts dominant in postexilic and later
medieval Judaism - for like all myth-making and remaking
midrashic elaboration has an ideological aspect.
Dialogue with one another and with generations both
before and after is at the heart of the midrashic impulse.
Even the written oral law is structured as conversation; it is
the dialogue that is authoritative not any particular view.
Interpretation as a social, conversational process matters in
a way any particular interpretation doesn't. Midrash involves
a tradition of face-to-face transmission between teachers and
their disciples; then the record of these encounters becomes
the focus of later ones; it is a never-ending process.
Even when we come upon loving appreciation of midrashic
mythmaking- as in Howard Schwartz's new book, Tree ofSouls:
The Mythology ofJudaism - we often still find a reluctance to
acknowledge that monotheism is itself mythic, often perceive
a subtle avoidance of presenting the central affirmation -
there is one god - as a myth. Thus Schwartz puts forward a
broad encompassing definition of myth:
Myth refers to a people's sacred stories about origins, deities, an-
cestors, and heroes. Within a culture, myths serve as the divine
charter, and myth and ritual are inextricably bound. (xliv)

and explicitly rejects the notion that myth means "not

true," affirming instead that myth articulates profound psy-
chological and existential truths in symbolic language. In his
introduction he writes:
Every aspect of Goel was open to mythic speculation; God's size

37
 Chri.1ti11 e Downing

and appearance, what God does during the clay and the night;
what god's voice was like to those who heard it at mount Sinai;
what god's relationship is like with his bride; how god prays; how
god grieved over the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
- despite the fact that he permitted that destruction to take
place ...

Despite the second commandment, he says, "rabbinic lit-

erature is full of anthropomorphic imagery of god, of god's
hands, of god's eyes and ears, god walking, sitting, and speak-
ing." He quotes Henry Slonimsky:
Nowhere indeed has a Goel been rende red so utterly human,
been taken so closely to man's bosom and, in the embrace, so
thoroughly changed into an elder brother, a slightly older fa-
ther, as here in the :tvliclrash. The anthropomorphic tendency
here achieves its climax . God has not merely become a man, he
has become a.Jew, an elderly, bearded.Jew. 1"

Nevertheless, the examples of biblical and rabbinic my-

thology that Sch,,vartz provides focus on the relatively rare
instances where God is referred to in the plural - the use of
the plural noun, Elohim, as a name for Goel; the "let us then
go clown and confound their speech" of the Tower of Babel
story - or on stories about God's relation to the Shehinah (his
female counterpart) as erotic or as conflictual. In the section
of the main body of the book that focuses on "Myths of Goel"
Sclnvartz includes almost nothing from the Bible itself - only
Isaiah 6 and Daniel 7. Instead, almost all the selections are to
anthropomorphizing elaborations from the miclrashic tradi-
tion: references to God 's eyes and size, his breath, his face, his
hands and a r ms, his voice and sword, his Lears and prayers.
Though Schwartz clearly relish es th e vividness of these
images, he seems ultimately to understand them as allegory
or m e taphor. I miss Mich ael Fishbane's forthright question:
What lead s u s to read biblical refe rences to Goel riding on
a mighty chariot with a sword of lightning in his hand or to
Goel as delighting in the sweet smell of sacrifice as metaphori-

38
 1. The JWyth of Biblical Mo11oth eis111

cal and to read these same images as literal when we come

across them in Greek or Mesopotamian myth? (Fishbane 17).
I am also struck by how all the passages Schwartz includes
speak of God's love and sympathetic grief - not his anger, his
favoritism, or his impetuosity. This one-sided God is not to
my mind a full-fledged mythic (or literary) character. Thus
it is not at all clear that even for Schwartz myth is intrinsic to
monotheism.
Whereas for Michael Fishbane rabbinic mythmaking is a
continuation of biblical mythmaking. He writes at length, for
example, about how the rabbis elaborate the simple sentence
from the creation story in Genesis of God separating the
,,.,,ater which was below from the water which was above into
a complex narrative of the waters crying out in complaint at
this painful separation, of their desperate attempts to find
one another and mate, of their threats to destroy the world,
of God finally subduing them and trampling them with his
feet. But, he says, all this is no more mythic than the original
biblical proclamation, "Let there be an expanse in the midst
of the water that it may separate water from water" (Fish bane
112-131).

The Myth That Early Hebraic Faith was 1\1/onotheistic

Those who see myth and monotheism as antithetical often

support what we might call a "myth of evolutionary progress"
in the direction of universal ethical monotheism. They tend
to posit a three-stage development from polytheism to tribal
henotheism to universal monotheism, from a mythic relig-ion
like those of surrounding people to a tribally specific cult
focused on "our" god to a view of this god as the only "real,"
"true" god. Until very recently, however, the dominant view
has been that the decisive shifts happened early - although
afterwards there was often "back sliding," "whoring after
other gods," syncretism. Now it is more generally acknowl-

39
 Christine Downing

edged that it's a "myth" (in the sense of an untruth) that

monotheism really v,1as the living religion oflsrael in the pre-
exilic period.
Note how even in the Decalogue what was commanded
was really monolatry: "Have no other gods before me" - not
"There are no other gods." Indeed, Lhe very necessity of mak-
ing a covenant only makes sense in a polytheistic context.
BuL even monolatry, even tribal henotheism, seems not to
be a good descripLion of what was really going on in Lhe
early periods of Israelite hist.01·y ·when there was no sense of
an exclusive Yahwism.l!' I am convinced by the scholarship
that claims it is even inappropriate to describe the relation
between worship of YHVH and of Canaanite deities as syn-
cretism, since that would imply they ,vere to begin with dis-
tinct systems - whereas there seems to be no evidence that El,
Baal, or Asherah were objects of Israelite religious devotion
separale from the cult of YHVH. Rather, these other deities
were seen as part of the same religious system. The move
toward monolatry represented a break with Israel's own past,
a retrospective denial of her own earlier history.
Mark Smith describes the two processes involved in this
gradual move: convergence and differentiation. The positive
characteristics and powers, even some of the titles, earlier
associated with other divine beings came to be attributed to
YHVH; at the same time features clearly part of early Israelite
cult were later - particularly after the fall of the Northern
Kingdom, a disaster attributed to royal patronage of the Baal
cult - rejected as Canaanite. As Ronald Hendel puts it, "The
old-time religion became stigmatized as the foreign Other"
(Remembering Abraham 2'7).
Because the focus on YHVH was primarily political, en-
joined to validate transtribal loyalty to the central monarchy
and weaken the influence of local fertility cults, matrilineal
bonds and clan loyalty, th e kings strongly encouraged the
convergence, the inclusion of the attributes of other deities
into the cult of the national cult. But for most people most

40
 1. The Myth of Biblical M.011otlteis111

of the time even during the monarchical period (not just the
peasants but also the kings and priests - as the introduction
of altars and statues of other deities even into the Jerusalem
Temple makes clear), worship of YHVH and other deities,
perhaps particularly goddesses, was felt to be cornpatible. 17
That is, monotheism (in contrast with monolatry) is a late
development; though upheld by some preExilic prophets, it
essentially develops during the Exile, especially as a theory,
a theology.
This doesn't mean that YHVH wasn't the most important
god earlier on - but simply that he was not the only god and
that worship of him did not entail an exclusion of the worship
of other deities. To begin with, YHVH was primarily a na-
tional god, a warrior god, a god whose primary function was
the protection of the nation against foreign incursion. There
was so much of human life that fell outside his jurisdiction:
the fertility of crops and human families, connection be-
tween the living and the dead, the sacred aspects of sexuality,
epiphanic dreams. Thus it is not surprising that, particularly
in times of peace, people turned to gods (and especially god-
desses) associated with these aspects. It was primarily only in
response to an inescapable threat to the continued existence
of this people as a people in the 7th c. that "most important"
became "only."
As primarily a warrior god, it is not surprising that
YHVH was almost invariably described in masculine terms,
imagined as a male figure, as a father (in powerful positive
and negative ways) or as a warrior or king - or even as a
husband whose bride is Israel. Some of the later prophets
try to envision YHVH in tra ns-sexual, trans-gender terms,
as not embodied, and there are a few late passages where he
is described as female or as mother; but almost always he is
emphatically male - but asexual, since as the only god there
is no other deity with whom he might have intercourse. The
Talmud introduces the image of the Sheldnah, god's indwell-
ing 1xesence in the world; much later in kabbalistic myth the

41
 Chrislitu• /J11w11i11g

Shellinah comes to be spoken of as the feminine aspect of the

divine. God and the Shekinahcome to be viewed as two aspects
of one divine being ""ho as the god includes male and female
qualities. And sometimes the Shehina.h comes perilously close
to acquiring mythic independence. There's a wonderful story,
for instance, according to which she gets so angry at God's
allowing Lhejernsalem temple to be destroyed Lliat she leaves
God and goes into exile with "her"(!) children.

Monotheism as Inherently Mythic

In contrast to Ginzberg or even Schwartz, Martin Buber

insists: to dismiss the mythic elements as not intrinsic to
monotheism entails the loss of the life-giving element in
monotheistic religion. "Every living monotheism is filled
with the mythical element and remains alive only so long
as filled with this element" ("l'vlyth in Ju<l,1ism'' 19). Buber
cautions against not making our definition of myth too nar-
row to include Hebraic monotheism. Jewish myth, he says,
is continuous with and yet distinct from other mythologies.
Because Jewish monotheism views all things and events as
utterances of God, the Jev,, of antiquity could tell a story only
mythically: an event was only worth recounting when grasped
in its divine significance.
In the chapter on myth in his The Great. Code: The Bible And
Literature, Northrop Frye offers a definition of myth broad
enough to include biblical monotheism. He reminds us that
myths take place in a mythology, as part of an interconnected
group of myths in contrast wilh folktales, which remain
nomadic, don't imply one another and are not specific to a
particular community as myths are. The real interest of myth,
he says, is to draw a circumft'.rence around a human commu-
nity and help shape its ongoing history (37). In this sense the
Bible as a whole is clearly a myth-system: it presents us with
a mythology that defines a community - we are the people

42
 1. The Myth of Biblical IH011otlteis111

who tell these stories. It follows then that YHVH is a mythic

figure, is the stories told about him, the rituals dedicated to
him.
That the biblical God (like all gods) is a mythical figure,
an actor in a narrative, is sometimes recognized as true of
the Genesis narratives - where God is described as physically
present in the garden of Eden or as coming to Abraham's
and Sarah's tent as an anonymous messenger or to Jacob as
a threatening stranger - or even in Exodus where he speaks
to Moses out of a fire-struck desert bush - but asserted no
longer to be true for the prophets. Their God, it is claimed,
is not a mythical figure: the God of the universe no longer
walks to and fro in the garden nor wrestles with Jacob; he is
no longer visible as a concrete physical presence; he is only a
voice. Nonetheless, he is still experienced as active and pres-
ent, as having feelings and intentions, as demanding and
responsive. This, too, is clearly still a myth.
Biblical monotheism is a myth, albeit in some ways a
unique form of myth. Buber calls it "the myth of the I and
Thou, the caller and the called, the self and the other." The
Bible, he says, presents human life as a condition of being
spoken to, addressed. We are created as response-able. God
calls "YOU ... " and we respond "Here I am," or, perhaps more
often, "Please not me; please find someone else." The Bible,
Buber says, presents the history of humankind as a conversa-
tion with God, as "the encounter of a group of people with
the Nameless Being whom they, hearing his speech, and
speaking to him in turn, ventured to name" (Myth 99). The
Bible is not just an account of God's activities and how they
affect humans, but also of how humans in turn affect God.
The relationship to humankind is central to this God, not
incidental as in most mythologies. He wouldn't be who he is
apart from this relation.
Once you begin to think about it, you realize that this
emphasis on the relation between God and us is an absolutely
necessmy and central correlative of the essential affirmation of

43
 Christi 111: Downing

monotheism, "The Lord our Goel, the Lord is One" - as Jack

Miles makes evident in his wonderful book Goel: A B-iograj,hy.
Miles, reminding us that the Bible opens with God talking to
himself, provides a poignant picture of the loneliness of this
god and helps us see how monotheism implies loneliness.
Without spouse or brother, parent, friend or child , this i.rnd
needs us. Furthermore, Miles suggests that the interdepen-
dence of this god and humankind may lead almost inevitably
Lo their endless complaints about one another (25). This god
wants too much from us; he gets extraordinarily angry at
what are supposedly his chosen people. In Deuteronomy 28 he
utters horrifying threats against Israel if she fails to obey his
commandments with joy and gladness: mothers will eat their
newborn babies and the aflerbirth because of their desperate
hunger; the men will be put up for sale as slaves and no one
will buy. Just moments after his cruel unbending rejection
of his own people because of the golden calf episode, he
describes himself as "Lhc lord! the lord! a god compassion-
ate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in kindness and
faithfulness." vVhat an extraordinary contradiction! No won-
der Miles views him as a "multiple personality."
For Miles the biblical god is a complex and ambiguous
literary character who represents an amalgam of several
personalities, a character suffering from an anxiety-inducing
tension bet\veen his unity and his multiplicity. Miles describes
the emergence of monotheism from polytheism. as the story
of a single god struggling with himself, a god who seems to
act differently under his different names. He shows how as a
result of a highly complex historical and literary process (I
would, of course, say a highly complex 111ylh-muhing process)
several gods (the Canaanite High Goel El, a Midianite moun-
tain God YHVH, the Canaanite Storm God Baal, the Meso-
potamian personal god) are imagined into a unity dynamic
with unresolved tensions. The biblical god is these tensions,
these inner contradictions. The literary result is a character
with a multiple personalily who gradually becomes more uni-

44
 1. The 1Wyth of Biblical Monotheism

tary and more ethical. (Fishbane agrees, the multiple biblical

names for God indicate a recognition of the volatility of the
divine nature.)
Although it is important not to fall for the simple Christian
antithesis between the wrathful Old Testament god and the
loving god of Christianity (what, after all is so loving about the
god of Matthew or the Book of Revelations?), it is important
to recognize that this god is both the bitterly disappointed
and punitive god of Amos and the forgiving god of Hosea
- it is also important to acknowledge that the god of the
Hebrew Bible is not an unambiguously attractive god. The
rabbis imagined YHVH as a god who needed to pray, "May
it be My will that My mercy overcome My anger and that My
mercy dominate My attributes" (Schwartz 36). YHVH is a god
quick to anger and slow to forgive, a god who plays favorites,
supports the patriarchal oppression of women, gives humans
dominion over the earth and condones genocide.
One of the most troubling stories in the Bible to my mind
is the one which tells of God's unbending rejection of King
Saul. The tale really begins when shortly after Saul has been
anointed as the first king oflsrael, YHVH orders him to kill all
the Amalekites, men and women, infants and sucklings, and
all their flock. A surprisingly easy victory leads Saul to decide
to spare King Agog and some of the herds, whereupon God
announces: "I repent I made Saul king." From one day to the
next Saul discovers he has been completely cut off from God
(who has already chosen David to take his place.) He tries
desperately to make some kind of contact, through prayer,
dream, the consultation of oracles, all to no avail. Although
Saul had earlier in response to God's demand expelled all
the mediums and wizards from the kingdom, in his utter
desolation in the dead of the night he makes his way to the
house of a reputed "wise woman" and, overcoming her initial
resistance, persuades her to call up the ghost of Samuel from
the world of the dead. When Samuel comes up out of the
earth, he cries out to Saul: "Why have you disturbed me?

45
 Chriiti11c Downing

You've got to accept it: God has cut you off as he said he
v,1oulcl. Because you did not obey, did not carry out his fierce
wrath. He has given your kingdom to David and will give you
and your house to be slain by the Amalekites."
Miles, as I have noted, envisions this volatile, unreliable,
arbitrary god as having a multiple personality. In Answer lo
Job Jung writes about the many biblical passages which pres-
ent contradictory images of YHVH, images of his wisdom
and obtuseness, his rage and j ealousy, his love and cruelty,
his creativity and destructiveness. Everything is there, he
says, and nothing is an obstacle to anything else . This god
is not split; he's an antimony, a totality of inner opposites
undifferenLiated from one another. Jung acknowledges that
pagans, polytheists, are at ease \-Vith divine inconsistency, but
clearly believes that this god needs to become conscious, to
distinguish his light and dark sides - a process that may ini-
tially issue in a one-sided identification with the light side as
in Christianity but which ultimately requires a more mature
integration (Answer to Job§ 741). I'm less persuaded: to me
what makes YHVH a god is the complexity. \Ale don't call
Aphrodite a multiple personality because she can both wreak
havoc on Hippolytus and almost fall apart in her grief over
the death of Adonis - nor Artemis because she ruthlessly ex-
pels Callisto but nurses the orphaned bear-cub at her breast.
The world that confronts us is beautiful and terrifying; how
can its god be less? A mythic god, it seems to me (as distinct
from a theological or philosophical god- and the Bible is not
theology or philosophy, though theologies and philosophies
can be and have been abstracted from it) will need to be
complex and ambiguous, a god wilh a shadow. 01.herwise
won't we have to invent an AntiGod, a Satan, to move to a
dualism? Monotheism is so fragile; the very attempt to make
its god too unified strangely leads to its dissolution!
Of course we'd like a just god and a just world, but that
I believe is an eschatological vision: at the end of time Goel
will be at one with himself and the world will be at p eace.

46
 1. '11, e Myth of Biblical Monoth eism

Meanwhile, if God is personlike (which is after all what a

mythic view of God affirms) he will be jJerson-lihe - not har-
moniously integrated but in sometimes-painful conflict with
himself as Freud imagined all persons to be. He ,,viii have sent
the Israelites into exile as punishment ancl will sorrowfully go
to Babylon with them. He will feel "it is incumbent on me to
make restitution for the fire I kindled," and will announce,
"it is only fitting that I appease Jerusalem since I transgressed
the law." As Fishbane sees, here "the assertion of the weakness
and failure of God is transformed from a heathen blasphemy
into a personal lament." That is, this recognition of divine
limitation and need is implicit in the biblical view. God needs
us; but "if Scripture did not say so it would forbidden to say
it" (Fishbane 172).
For Jung YHVH seems to be a god with no reflective con-
sciousness, a god who only feels he exists through his relation
to another. Because so totally lacking in self-reflection, he
needs the connection to conscious humans and when he
doesn't get it, is overcome with rage and painful loneliness.
It is his unutterable longing for connection that helps make
him begin to be conscious of himself. Miles says something
very similar: this god needs us not only because he wants
company, but because he wants a self-image. For Miles the
biblical plot-line begins with this desire: God made us in his
image so that he could see himself mirrored, come to know
himself. Thus he hacl to create us as having free will, as obey-
ers and disobeyers, as interesting characters.
The emphasis on the interactions between Goel and not
just humankind, but between Goel and particular human
individuals, can be seen as correlated with the formal choice
to present this mythic perspective in prose rather than verse.
Because prose is freer than poetry of fixed formulaic pat-
terns and more flexible, it is more open to the representation
of truly individual characters who can't be consistently de-
scribed with one adjective and who can change in response
to the challenges they confront. 18 (Think of the powerfully

47
 Chrisli11e Downing

individualized portraits of the women in Genesis - Sarah,

Hagar, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel - and of the ambiguous
depths and inner tensions attributed to Jacob andJoseph and
David.) Clearly in a monotheistic system, if there's going to be
polyphony it will be on the human plane. And if humans are
going to be imagined as response-able beings, as having free
will, there will be an emphasis on their inner struggles. As
Robert Alter notes, "The story of David is probably the great-
est single narrative representation in antiquity of a human
life evolving by slow stages through time, shaped and altered
by the pressures of political life, public institutions, family,
the impulses of body and spirit, the eventual sad decay of
the flesh" (The David St01y ix). Initially we see David only as
othe rs (Samuel, Saul, Jonathan, Michal) see him, only from
outside - a subtle invitation to us to wonder about the empti-
ness ·within this charismatic, manipulative youth who later
is so unaware of ·w hat is going on in his own family and is so
easily manipulated by Bathsheba a nd Nathan.
Some of the most powerful stories are extraordinarily com-
pact - the account of Abraham's readiness to sacrifice Isaac,
Jacob's nightlong wrestling with the mysterious stranger - in
a ,vay that communicates an intense focus on transformative
moments. The emphasis on dialogue in these narratives sug-
gests a conviction that the most important things between
people happen as speech and echoes the biblical emphasis
on the word, on a God ,vho creates by speaking and who cre-
ates us humans as speech partners. Correlative with this is an
awareness of how speech can be used to deceive or conceal
not just reveal, how what is said aloud may be in tension with
the speaker's inner thought (what's being said lo one 's heart).
Many of the stories leave room for conf1icting interpretations
of motive and character; it is not only Goel who is presented
as having a complex and ambiguous personality, not only
God who is puzzling even to him self.
God 's most powerful self-definition comes in response to
Moses' demand: "'i\'ho are you? Who shall I tell them sent

48
 1. The Myth of Biblical Monotheism

me?" God first answers by invoking the past: "I am the God of
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." But this clearly isn't sufficient,
so he adds: "eheyeh asher eheyeh. "Famously mistranslated in the
King James Version as "I am that I am" (which leeches the
Hebrew of its future-focused and dynamic implications), the
phrase more nearly means: "I will be as I will be" Obviously
this is not a name, it's a verb-phrase, a promise (or a threat?)
Miles paraphrases it to mean: "I will be as I'll discover along
the way who I am. You'll find out who I am." (99) Buber trans-
lates it as: "I will be with you as I will be with you," (ScrijJture
ancl Translation 87) so that the dialogical implication is pres-
ent in the name itself. As is also the implication: I promise
relationship, but you'll never know ahead of time how or
where I'll appear.
This strange name calls upon us to renounce reliance on
any fixed image of this god. I think of the two "Go Forth "s
directed to Abraham: the first calls him forth from the past,
the world of the fathers, to a land that God will show him,
·where he will make him the father of a great people. Thus
Abraham goes forth toward a future that exists only in the
imagination, a future that for a long time seems chimerical,
for how can he be the father of a great people if he doesn't
have even a single son? Then finally he has a son only to be
told once again to "go forth" and sacrifice this son, who is
of course the only evidence so far of God's trustworthiness.
Thus now Abraham is called to go forth from the future as
something to hold on to. Eheyeh asher eheyeh, indeed! One
god, on whom we can and can't rely, a god who seems always
to pull us away from anything secure, knowable, imaginable.
As Franz Rosenzweig once wrote: "The people who wrote
the Bible seem to have thought of God in a way much like
Kafka's" (ScrijJture and Translation 219).
It may be difficult, especially for those who come to the
Hebrev,7 Bible with Christian assumptions, even cl·iscanled
Christian assumptions, to realize how radically open-ended
it is. At the end of Genesis the ancestral family is in Egypt

49
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
expect any other to come with that character since our Saviour;
whereas the Jews did, and many of them were perverted thereby to
their own ruin; but it is intimated here, that the elect people, which
was among them, should be kept from being deceived by them,
inasmuch as they were chosen to obtain salvation, and therefore
should believe in Christ by the gospel.
There is also another scripture, which seems to give countenance
hereunto, where the apostle shews, that God had not cast away his
people, Rom. xi. 2. to wit, the Jews, that is, he had not rejected the
whole nation, but had made a reserve of some who were the objects
of his special love, as chosen to salvation; and these are called, A
remnant according to the election of grace, ver. 5. and this seems
still more plain from what follows, ver. 7. What then? Israel hath not
obtained that which he seeketh for, that is, righteousness and life,
which they sought after, as it were, by the works of the law, which,
as is mentioned in the foregoing verse, is inconsistent with the
attaining it by grace; but the election, that is, the elect among that
people have obtained it; for they sought after it in another way, and
the rest were blinded, that is, the other part of the Jewish nation,
which were not interested in this privilege, were left to the blindness
of their own minds, which was their ruin.
To this let me add one scripture more, Rom. ix. 6, 7. where the
apostle, speaking concerning the nation of the Jews, distinguishes
between the natural and spiritual seed of Abraham, when he says,
All are not Israel that are of Israel, that is, there was a remnant
according to the election of grace, who were chosen to eternal life
out of that people, who were in other respects, chosen to be made
partakers of the external privileges that belonged to them, as God’s
peculiar people. The sum of this argument is, that though, it is true,
there are some scriptures that speak of the church of the Jews, as
separated from the world, by the peculiar hand of divine providence,
and favoured with the external means of grace, yet there are others
in which they are said to be chosen to partake of privileges of an
higher nature, even those which accompany salvation; therefore
election, in the Old Testament, sometimes signifies God’s purpose,
relating to the salvation of his people.
2. We shall proceed to consider how election is taken in the New
Testament, in opposition to those who suppose that it is there used
only to signify God’s bringing persons to be members of the
Christian church, as being instructed in the doctrines relating
thereunto by the apostles:[188] The principal ground of this opinion is,
because sometimes whole churches are said to be elected, as the
apostle speaks of the church at Babylon, as elected together with
them, to whom he directs his epistle, 1 Pet. i. 2. compared with
chap. v. 13. by which it is supposed that nothing is intended, but
that they were both of them Christian churches. If this be the sense
of every scripture in the New Testament, that treats of election, then
we must not pretend that the doctrine we are maintaining is
founded on it: But on the other hand, we think we have reason to
conclude, that when we meet with the word in the New Testament,
it is to be understood, in most places, for God’s eternal purpose
relating to the salvation of his people. I will not pretend to prove an
universal negative, viz. that it is never taken otherwise, but shall
refer to some scriptures, in which it is plainly understood so, and
endeavour to defend this sense thereof.
The first scripture that we shall refer to, is in Eph. i. 4. He hath
chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should
be holy, and without blame before him in love; and, in ver. 5. he
speaks of their being predestinated to the adoption of children by
Jesus Christ; that this respects not the external dispensation of God’s
providence, in constituting them a Christian church, or giving them
the knowledge of those doctrines, on which it was founded; but their
being chosen to salvation and grace, as the means thereof,
according to God’s eternal purpose, will very evidently appear from
the context, if we consider that they who are thus chosen, are called
faithful in Christ Jesus, which implies much more than barely to be in
him by external profession: they are farther described, as blessed
with all spiritual blessings in Christ, in ver. 3. or blessed with all
those blessings which respect heavenly things; grace, which they
had in possession, and glory, which they had in expectation; and
they are farther described, as having obtained redemption through
the blood of Christ, and forgiveness of sins; and all this is said to be
done, according to the riches of his grace, and the good pleasure of
his will, who worketh all things after the counsel thereof; and
certainly all this must contain much more than the external
dispensation of providence relating to this privilege, which they
enjoyed as a church of Christ.
Again, in 1 Thess. i. 4. the apostle says concerning them, to whom
he writes, that he knew their election of God. That this is to be
understood of their election to eternal life, is very evident; and,
indeed, he explains it in this sense, when he says, God hath, from
the beginning, chosen you unto salvation, through sanctification of
the Spirit, and the belief of the truth, Whereunto he called you by
our gospel, to the obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2
Thess. ii. 13, 14. the gospel is considered as the means of their
attaining that salvation, which they are said to be chosen to; so that
their election contains more than their professed subjection
thereunto as a church of Christ: Besides, the apostle gives those
marks and evidences of this matter, which plainly discover that it is
their election to salvation that he intends; accordingly he speaks of
their work of faith, labour of love, and patience of hope, in our Lord
Jesus Christ, and of the gospel’s coming not in word only, but also in
power, 1 Thess. i. 3, 5. by which he means not the power that was
exerted in working miracles, for that would be no evidence of their
being a church, or of their adhering to the doctrines that were
confirmed thereby, since every one, who saw miracles wrought, did
not believe; therefore he means, that by the powerful internal
influence of the Holy Ghost, they were persuaded to become
followers of the apostles, and the Lord, and were ensamples to
others, and public-spirited, in endeavouring to propagate the gospel
in the world. Certainly this argues that they were effectually called
by the grace of God, and so proves that they were chosen to be
made partakers of this grace, and of that salvation, that is the
consequence thereof.
There is another scripture, in which it is very plain that the apostle
speaks of election to eternal life inasmuch as there are several
privileges connected with it, which the Christian church, as such,
cannot lay claim to: thus, in Rom. viii. 33. Who shall lay any thing to
the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Now if justification
or freedom from condemnation, accompanied with their being
effectually called here, which shall end in their being glorified
hereafter, be the result of their election, as. in ver. 30. then certainly
this includes in it more than the external privileges of the covenant
of grace, which all who adhere to the Christian faith are possessed
of, and consequently it is an election to salvation that the apostle
here intends.
Object. It is objected, that it is more than probable, when we find,
as we sometimes do, whole churches styled elect in the New
testament, that some among them were hypocrites; particularly
those to whom the apostle Peter writes, who were converted from
Judaism to Christianity, whom he calls elect, according to the fore-
knowledge of God the Father: notwithstanding they had some in
communion with them, concerning whom it might be said, that they
had only a name to live, but yet were dead; and he advises them, to
lay aside all malice, guile, and hypocrisy, envies, and evil speaking,
and, as new born babes, to receive the word, if so be they had
tasted that the Lord is gracious, 1 Pet. ii. 1. which makes it more
than probable, that there were some among them who had not, in
reality, experienced the grace of God; so when he says, that there
should be false teachers among them, whose practice should be as
vile as their doctrine, and that many amongst them should follow
their pernicious ways. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2. it seems to argue that the
whole church he writes to, were not chosen to salvation; therefore
their election only signifies their being chosen to enjoy the
privileges, which they had, as a professing society of Christians.
Answ. It is certain that there was a very considerable number among
them who were not only Christians in name; but they were very
eminent for the exercise of those graces, which evinced their
election to eternal life; and particularly he says concerning them,
Whom having not seen, ye love; and in whom believing, ye rejoice
with joy unspeakable, and full of glory; receiving the end of your
faith, even the salvation of your souls, 1 Pet. i. 8, 9. which agrees
very well with the other character given them of their being elect,
through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of
the blood of Jesus Christ, ver. 2. Therefore the only thing that seems
to affect our argument is, that this character did not belong to every
individual. But supposing this should be allowed, might not the
church be here described as chosen to salvation, inasmuch as the far
greater number of them were so? Nothing is more common, in
scripture, than for a whole body of men to be denominated from the
greatest part of them, whether their character be good or bad; thus
when the greatest part of the Jewish church were revolted from
God, and guilty of the most notorious crimes, they are described as
though their apostacy had been universal, They are all grievous
revolters, walking with slanders, Jer. vi. 28. whereas it is certain,
there were some who had not apostatized: some of them were
slandered and reproached for the sake of God, and therefore were
not included in the number of them that walked with slanders,
though their number were very small; as God says by the prophet
Ezekiel, I sought for a man among them that should make up the
hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land that I should not
destroy it, but I found none, Ezek. xxii. 30. whereas at that time, in
which the people were most degenerate, there were found some
who sighed and cryed for all the abomination that were done in the
midst of them, chap. ix. 4. So on the other hand, when the greater
number of them kept their integrity, and walked before God in
holiness of life, the whole church is thus characterized, I remember
the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou
wentest after me in the wilderness; Israel was holiness to the Lord,
Jer. ii. 2, 3. whereas it is certain, that, at that time, there were a
great many who rebelled, murmured, and revolted from God, and
were plagued for their iniquities; yet because the greater number of
them were upright and sincere, this character is given in general
terms, as if there had been no exception. And the prophet looked
back to some age of the church, in which a great number of them
were faithful; and therefore he speaks of the people in general, at
that time, as such, and accordingly calls them, The faithful city, Isa.
i. 21. and the prophet Jeremiah calls them, The precious sons of
Zion, comparable to fine gold, Lam. iv. 2. yet there never was a time
when there were none among them that rebelled against God.
Therefore may not this be supposed concerning the first gospel
churches that were planted by the apostles; and accordingly, when
they are styled elect, to whom the apostle Peter writes, 1 Pet. v. 13.
as well as the church at Babylon, why may not this be supposed to
signify, that the greatest part of them were really sanctified, and
therefore chosen to sanctification? And consequently their character,
as elect, does not barely signify their being chosen to be made
partakers of the external privileges of the gospel. We might also
consider, that it is very agreeable to our common mode of speaking,
to denominate a city, or a kingdom, from the greater number
thereof, whether we call them a rich, or a wise or a valiant people,
we never suppose there are no exceptions to this character;
therefore why may we not, in this instance, conclude, that the
apostle Peter, when he describes this church as elected, intends their
election to salvation? Thus we have endeavoured to prove that
election, in scripture, is not always taken, in the Old Testament, for
the external privileges which the Jewish nation had, as a church; nor
in the New Testament for those who belonged to the churches,
namely, such as professed the Christian faith. And probably that
learned author, before mentioned, was apprehensive that this
observation of his would not hold universally true; and therefore he
has another provisionary objection against the doctrine of particular
election of persons to eternal life, and says, as Arminius and his
contemporaries before did, that all those scriptures, which speak of
this doctrine, contain nothing more than God’s conditional purpose,
that if a person believes, he shall be saved. It is necessary for us to
consider what may be said in answer hereunto; but inasmuch as we
shall have occasion to speak to this when we consider the properties
of election, under a following head, we shall rather chuse to reserve
to that place, than be obliged to repeat what might be here said
concerning it.
Thus having premised something concerning election in general, and
the sense in which it is to be understood, in scripture, we shall
briefly mention a matter in dispute, among divines relating to the
objects thereof, as they are considered in God’s eternal purpose: and
here we shall take notice of some different opinions relating
thereunto, without making use of those scholastic modes of
speaking, which render this subject much more difficult, than
otherwise it would be: and shall take occasion to avoid, and fence
against those extremes, which have only had a tendency to
prejudice persons against the doctrine in general.
The object of election is variously considered by divines, who treat of
this subject.
1. There are some who, though they agree in the most material
things in their defence of this doctrine yet they are divided in their
sentiments about some nice metaphysical speculations, relating to
the manner how man is to be considered, as the object of
predestination: accordingly some, who are generally styled
Supralapsarians, seem to proceed in this way of explaining it,
namely that God from all eternity, designed to glorify his divine
perfections, in some objects out of himself, which he could not then
be said to have done, inasmuch as they did not exist; and the
perfections, which he designed to glorify, were, more especially, his
sovereignty and absolute dominion, as having a right to do what he
will with the work of his hands; and also his goodness, whereby he
would render himself the object of their delight; and, as a means
conducive to this end, he designed to create man an intelligent
creature, in whom he might be glorified; and since a creature, as
such, could not be the object of the display of his mercy, or justice,
he farther designed to permit man to fall into a state of sin and
misery, that so, when fallen, he might recover some out of that
state, and leave others to perish in it: the former of which are said
to be loved, the other hated; and when some extend the
absoluteness of God’s purpose, not only to election but reprobation,
and do not take care to guard their modes of speaking, as they
ought to do, but conclude reprobation, at least predamnation, to be,
not an act of justice, but rather of sovereignty; they lay themselves
open to exception, and give occasion to those, who oppose this
doctrine, to conclude, that they represent God as delighting in the
misery of his creatures, and with that view giving being to them. It
is true, several, who have given into this way of thinking, have
endeavoured to extricate themselves out of this difficulty, and denied
this and other consequences of the like nature, which many have
thought to be necessary deductions from this scheme; whether they
have done this effectually, or no, may be judged of by those who are
conversant in their writings[189]. I cannot but profess myself to set a
very high value on them in other respects, yet I am not bound to
give into some nice speculations, contained in their method of
treating this subject, which renders it exceptionable; particularly, I
cannot approve of any thing advanced by them, which seems to
represent God as purposing to create man, and then to suffer him to
fall, as a means by which he designed to demonstrate the glory of
his vindictive justice, which hath given occasion to many to entertain
rooted prejudices against the doctrine of predestination, as though it
necessarily involved in it this supposition, that God made man to
damn him.
There are others, who are generally styled Sublapsarians[190], who
suppose, that God considered men as made and fallen, and then
designed to glorify his grace in the recovery of those who were
chosen, by him, to eternal life; and his justice in them, whom he
designed to condemn, as a punishment for their sins, which he
foreknew that they would commit, and purposed not to hinder; and
he designed to glorify his sovereignty, in that one should be an
object of grace, rather than another, whereas he might have left the
whole world in that state of misery, into which he foresaw they
would plunge themselves.
That which is principally objected, by those who are in the other way
of thinking, against this scheme, is, that the Sublapsarians suppose
that God’s creating men, and permitting them to fall, was not the
object of his eternal purpose. But this they universally deny, and
distinguish between God’s purpose to create and suffer men to fall;
and his purposes being considered as a means to advance his
sovereignty, grace, and justice, in which the principal difference
between them consists. We shall enter no farther into this
controversy, but shall only add, that whatever may be considered, in
God’s eternal purpose, as a means to bring about other ends; yet it
seems evident, from the nature of the thing, that God cannot be said
to choose men to salvation, without herein considering them as
fallen; for as no one is a subject capable of salvation, but one who is
fallen into a state of sin and misery; so when God purposed to save
such, they could not be considered as to be created, or created and
not fallen, but as sinners.
2. There are others who deny particular election of persons to
eternal life, and explain those scriptures, which speak of it, in a very
different way: these suppose, that God designed, from all eternity, to
create man, and foreknew that he would fall, and, that, pursuant to
this eternal foreknowledge, he designed to give him sufficient means
for his recovery, which, by the use of his free will, he might improve,
or not, to the best purposes; and also, fore-knowing who would
improve, and who would reject, the means of grace, which he
purposed to bestow, he determined, as the consequence thereof, to
save some, and condemn others. This method of explaining God’s
eternal purpose is exceptionable, as will farther appear, in the
method we shall take, in prosecuting this subject, in two respects.
(1.) As they suppose that the salvation of men depends on their own
conduct, or the right use of their free will, without giving the glory
which is due to God, for that powerful, efficacious grace, which
enables them to improve the means of grace, and brings them into a
state of salvation,
(2.) As the result of the former, they suppose that nothing absolute
is contained in the decree of God, but his fore-knowledge, which is
rather an act of his understanding, than his will; and therefore it
seems to militate against his sovereignty and grace, and, to make
his decrees depend on some conditions, founded in the free-will of
man, which, according to them, are not the object of a peremptory
decree. Thus having considered intelligent creatures, and more
particularly men, as the objects of predestination.
IV. We proceed to the farther proof and explication of this doctrine;
and, in order thereto, shall insist on the following propositions.
1. That it is only a part of mankind that were chosen to salvation.
2. That they who were chosen to it, as the end, were also chosen to
sanctification, as the means thereof, And,
3. That they were chosen in Christ; which propositions are contained
in that part of this answer, in which it is said, that God has chosen
some men to eternal life, and the means thereof.
1. That some were chosen to salvation; not the whole race of
mankind, but only those that shall be eventually saved: that the
whole world is not the object of election appears from the known
acceptation of the word, both in scripture, and in our common
modes of speaking; since to choose, as has been before observed, is
to take, prefer, or esteem, one thing before another, or to separate a
part from the whole, for our own proper use, and what remains is
treated with neglect and disregard: accordingly it is not a proper way
of speaking, to say that the whole is chosen; and therefore it
follows, that if all mankind had been fore-ordained to eternal life,
which God might have done if he had pleased, this would not have
been called a purpose, according to election.
But there are other arguments more conclusive, than what results
barely from the known sense of the word, which we shall proceed to
consider, and therein make use of the same method of reasoning,
which we observed, in proving that God fore-ordained whatever
comes to pass, with a particular application thereof to the eternal
state of believers. As we before observed, that the decree of God is
to be judged of by the execution of it, in time; so it will appear, that
those whom God in his actual providence and grace, prepares for,
and brings to glory, he also before designed for it. Were I only to
treat of those particular points in controversy, between us and the
Pelagians, I would first consider the method which God takes in
saving his people, and prove that salvation is of grace, or that it is
the effect of the power of God, and not to be ascribed to the free-
will of man, as separate from the divine influence; and then I would
proceed to speak concerning the decree of God relating hereunto,
which might then, without much difficulty, be proved: but being
obliged to pursue the same method in which things are laid down, in
their respective connexion, we must sometimes defer the more
particular proof of some doctrines, on which our arguments depend,
to a following head, to avoid the repetition of things; therefore,
inasmuch as the execution of God’s decree, and his power and grace
manifested therein, will be insisted on in some following answers,
we shall, at present, take this for granted, or shall speak but very
briefly to it.
(1.) It appears that it is only a part of mankind that are chosen to be
made partakers of grace and glory, inasmuch as these invaluable
privileges are conferred upon, or applied to no more than a part of
mankind: if all shall not be saved, then all were not chosen to
salvation; for we are not to suppose that God’s purpose, relating
hereunto, can be frustrated, or not take effect; or if there be a
manifest display of discriminating grace in the execution of God’s
decree relating thereunto, there is, doubtless, a discrimination in his
purpose, and that is what we call election. This farther appears from
some scriptures, which represent those who are saved as a remnant:
thus when the apostle is speaking of God’s casting away the greatest
part of the Jewish nation, he says of some of them notwithstanding,
that at this present time also there is a remnant according to the
election of grace, Rom. xi. 5. that is, there are some among them
who are brought to embrace the faith of the gospel, and to be made
partakers of the privileges that accompany salvation: these are
called a remnant; as when it is said, in Rom. ix. 27. Though the
number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is no
more than a remnant of them that shall be saved. He doubtless
speaks in this and other scriptures, concerning the eternal salvation
of those who are described as a remnant, according to the election
of grace.
Here it will be necessary for us to consider, that this remnant
signifies only a small part of the Jewish church, selected, by divine
grace, out of that nation, of whom the greater number were rejected
by God; and that the salvation, here spoken of, is to be taken not for
any temporal deliverance, but for that salvation which the believing
Jews should be made partakers of in the gospel day, when the
rejection of the others had its full accomplishment. That this may
appear, we shall not only compare this scripture with the context,
but with that in Hosea, from whence it is taken: as to what respects
the context, the apostle, in ver. 2. expresses his great heaviness,
and continual sorrow of heart, for the rejection of that nation in
general, which they had brought upon themselves; but yet he
encourages himself, in ver. 6. with this thought, that the word of
God, that is, the promise made to Abraham relating to his spiritual
seed, who were given to expect greater blessings, than those which
were contained in the external dispensation of the covenant of
grace, should not take none effect, since, though the whole nation
of the Jews, who were of Israel, that is, Abraham’s natural seed, did
not attain those privileges; yet a part of them, who are here called
Israel, and elsewhere a remnant, chosen out of that nation, should
be made partakers thereof; the former are called The children of the
flesh, in ver. 8. the latter, by way of eminence, The children of the
promise; these are styled, in ver. 23, 24. The vessels of mercy, which
he had afore prepared unto glory, to whom he designed to make
known the riches of his glory, namely, those whom he had called;
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, which he intends by
that remnant, which were chosen out of each of them, for so the
word properly signifies.[191] And this sense is farther confirmed, by
the quotation out of the prophecy of Hosea, chap. i. 10. compared
with another taken out of the prophecy of Isaiah, chap. x. 22. both
which speak only of a remnant that shall be saved, when the
righteous judgments of God were poured forth, on that nation in
general; and the prophet Hosea adds another promise relating to
them, which the apostle takes notice of, namely, that in the place
where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be
said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God, which plainly
respects this remnant; for he had before prophesied concerning the
nation in general, Ye are not, that is, ye shall not be my people, and
I will not be your God; so that here is a great salvation foretold,
which, they, among the Jews, should be made partakers of, who
were fore-ordained to eternal life, when the rest were rejected.
Object. The prophet seems to speak, in this scripture, of a temporal
salvation, inasmuch as it is said, in the words immediately following,
Then shall the children of Judah, and the children of Israel, be
gathered together, and shall appoint themselves one head, and they
shall come up out of the land, viz. of Babylon, for great shall be the
day of Jezreel. Therefore this remnant, here spoken of, which should
be called the sons of the living God, respects only such as should
return out of captivity, and consequently not the election of a part,
to wit, the believing Jews, to eternal life: for it is plain, that, when
this prediction was fulfilled, they were to appoint themselves one
head, or governor, namely, Zerubbabel, or some other, that should
be at the head of affairs, and help forward their flourishing state, in,
or after their return from captivity.
Answ. It seems very evident, that part of this prophecy, viz. chap. iii.
5. respects the happiness of Israel, at that time, when they should
seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and should fear the
Lord and his goodness, in the latter days; therefore why may not
this verse also, in chap. i. in which it is said, that they shall be called
the sons of the living God, have its accomplishment in the gospel-
day, when they should adhere to Christ, who is called, David their
King? The only difficulty which affects this sense of the text is, its
being said, that they shall return to their own land, under the
conduct of a Head, or governor, whom they should appoint over
them, which seems to favour the sense contained in the objection:
but the sense of the words would be more plain, if we render the
text, instead of [THEN] And the children of Judah, &c. as it is
rendered in most translations, and is most agreeable to the sense of
the Hebrew word.[192] According to our translation, it seems to
intimate, that the prophet is speaking of something mentioned in the
foregoing verse; and inasmuch as the latter respects their return
from the captivity, therefore the former must do so; whereas if we
put and, instead of then, the meaning of both verses together is
this: there are two blessings which God promised, namely, that a
part of the Jewish nation should be made partakers of the saving
blessings of the covenant of grace, which was to have its
accomplishment when they were brought to believe in Christ, by the
gospel, or when this remnant, taken out from them, should be
saved; and there is also another blessing promised to the whole
nation, which should be conferred upon them, when they returned
from the Babylonish captivity.
If it be objected, to this sense of the text, that their return from
captivity is mentioned after that promise, of their being called the
sons of the living God, therefore it cannot be supposed to relate to a
providence that should happen before it; I need only reply to this,
that it is very usual, in scripture, for the Holy Ghost, when speaking
concerning the privileges which the church should be made
partakers of, not to lay them down in the same order in which they
were to be accomplished; and therefore, why may we not suppose,
that this rule may be applied to this text? And accordingly the sense
is this: the prophet had been speaking, in the tenth verse, of that
great salvation, which this remnant of the Jews, converted to
Christianity, should be made partakers of in the gospel-day; and
then he obviates an objection, as though it should be said, How can
this be, since the Jews are to be carried into captivity, and there
broken, scattered, and, as it were ruined? In answer to this, the
prophet adds, that the Jews should not be destroyed in the captivity,
but should be delivered, and return to their own land, and so should
remain a people, till this remnant was gathered out of them, who
were to be made partakers of these spiritual privileges under the
gospel-dispensation, as mentioned in the foregoing words.
Thus having endeavoured to prove, that this remnant, spoken of in
Rom. xi. are such as should be made partakers of eternal salvation,
we may now apply this to our present argument. If that salvation,
which this remnant was to be made partakers of, be the effect of
divine power, as the apostle says, in Rom. ix. 16. It is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God, that sheweth mercy;
and if it be the gift of divine grace, as he says elsewhere, in Eph. ii.
8. By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves,
it is the gift of God; then it follows from hence, that God designed,
before-hand, to give them these blessings; and if he designed them
only for this remnant, then it is not all, but a part of mankind, to wit,
those that shall be eventually saved, that were chosen to salvation.
(2.) The doctrine of election may be farther proved, from God’s
having foreknown whom he will sanctify and save. It will be allowed,
that God knows all things, and consequently that he knows all things
that are future, and so not only those whom he has saved, but
whom he will save. We need not prove that God fore-knew all
things, for that is not denied by those who are on the other side of
the question, or, at least, by very few of them; and, indeed, if this
were not an undoubted truth, we could not depend on those
predictions, which respect things that shall come to pass; and these
not only such as are the effects of necessary causes, or things
produced according to the common course, or laws of nature, but
those which are contingent, or the result of the free-will of man,
which have been foretold, and consequently were fore-known by
God; and if it be allowed that he fore-knew whatever men would be,
and do, let me farther add, that this foreknowledge is not barely an
act of the divine mind, taking a fore-view of, or observing what
others will be, or do, without determining that his actual providence
should interest itself therein; therefore it follows, that if he fore-
knew the salvation of those who shall be eventually saved, he fore-
knew what he would do for them, as a means conducive thereunto;
and if so, then he determined, before-hand, that he would bring
them to glory; but this respects only a part of mankind, who were
chosen by him to eternal life.
In this sense we are to understand those scriptures that set forth
God’s eternal purpose to save his people, as an act of fore-
knowledge: thus, in Rom. xi. 2. God hath not cast away his people,
whom he fore-knew, that is, he hath not cast them all away, but has
reserved to himself a remnant, according to the election of grace.
That he either had, or soon designed, to cast away the greatest
number of the Jewish nation, seems very plain, from several
passages in this chapter: thus, in verses 17, 19. he speaks of some
of the branches being broken off, and ver. 22. of God’s severity, by
which we are to understand his vindictive justice in this
dispensation: But yet we are not to suppose, says the apostle, that
God has cast them all away, as in ver. 1. and so he mentions himself,
as an instance of the contrary, as though he should say, I am called,
and sanctified, and chosen, though I am an Israelite.
Moreover, God’s not casting away his remnant of the Israelites, being
the result of his fore-knowledge, does not barely respect his knowing
what they should be, or do, whom he had chosen to eternal life, for
it is represented as a discriminating act of favour; whereas, in other
respects, they, who are rejected by him, are as much the objects of
his knowledge, as any others, since the omniscience of God is not
the result of his will; but it is a perfection founded in his nature, and
therefore not arbitrary, but necessary.
Again, the apostle, in 1 Pet. i. 2. speaks of some who were elected,
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto obedience,
&c. that is, not chosen, because of any obedience performed by
them, which God foreknew; for this is considered, as the result of his
fore-knowledge, not the cause of it; and this word is yet farther
explained in another place, where it is used, when the apostle says,
in 2 Tim. ii. 19. The Lord knoweth them that are his. He had before
been speaking of the faith of some, who professed the gospel, being
overthrown; nevertheless, says he, that foundation of hope, which
God has laid in the gospel, is not hereby shaken, but stands sure;
the faithful shall not be overthrown, for the Lord knoweth them that
are his, that is, he knows who are the objects of his love, who shall
be kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation; so that God’s
fore-knowledge, considered as a distinguishing privilege, is not to be
understood barely of his knowing how men will behave themselves,
and so, taking his measures from thence, as though he first knew
what they would do, and then resolved to bestow his grace; but he
knows whom he has set apart for himself, or designed to save, and,
with respect to them, his providence will influence their conduct, and
prevent their apostasy.
God’s knowledge, in scripture, is sometimes taken for his approving,
or loving, those who are the objects thereof: thus he says unto
Moses, in Exod. xxxiii. 17. Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I
know thee by name, where one expression explains the other, and
so it imports a knowledge of approbation; and, on the other hand,
when our Saviour says to some, in Matt. vii. 23. I will profess unto
you, I never knew you, it is not to be supposed that he did not know
they would behave themselves, or what they would do against his
name and interest in the world; but I never knew you, that is, I
never approved of you, and accordingly, it follows, Depart from me,
ye that work iniquity; and when it is said concerning knowledge, as
applied to man, in John xvii. 3. This is life eternal, that they may
know thee, the only true God; no one supposes that a speculative
knowledge of divine truths will give any one ground to conclude his
right to eternal life; therefore to know God, is to love, to delight in
him: and the same is applied, by the apostle, to God’s loving man,
when he says, in 1 Cor. viii. 3. If any man love God, the same is
known of him, that is, beloved by him. Now if God’s knowing his
people signifies his loving them, then his fore-knowing them must
signify his determining to do them good, and to bestow grace and
glory upon them, which is the same as to choose them to eternal
life: he fore-knew what he designed to confer upon them; for he
prepared a kingdom for them, from the foundation of the world,
Matt. xxv. 34. which is the same with his having, from the beginning,
chosen them to salvation.
Object. As all actions, performed by intelligent creatures, as such,
suppose knowledge, so their determinations are the result of fore-
knowledge, for the will follows the dictates of the understanding;
therefore we must suppose God’s fore-knowledge, to be antecedent
to, and the ground and reason of his determinations. This the
apostle seems to intimate, when he says, in Rom. viii. 29. Whom he
did fore-know, he did predestinate, that is, he had a perfect
knowledge of their future conduct, and therefore determined to save
them.
Answ. I do not deny that, according to the nature of things, we first
consider God as knowing, and then as willing: but this does not hold
good, with respect to his knowing all things future; for we are not to
suppose that he first knows that a thing shall come to pass, and
then wills that it shall. It is true, he first knows what he will do, and
then does it; but, to speak of a knowledge in God, as conversant
about the future state, or actions of his people, without considering
them as connected with his power and providence, (which is the
immediate cause thereof) I cannot think consistent with the divine
perfections.
As for this scripture, Whom he did fore-know, them he did
predestinate, we are not to suppose, that the meaning is, that God
fore-knew that they, whom he speaks of, would be conformed to the
image of his Son, and then as the result hereof, determined that
they should; for their being conformed to Christ’s image, consists in
their exercising those graces which are agreeable to the temper and
disposition of his children, or brethren, as they are here called; and
this conformity to his image is certainly the result of their being
called: but their calling as well as justification and glorification, is the
consequence of their being fore-known; therefore God’s fore-
knowing here, must be taken in the same sense as it is in the
scriptures, but now referred to; for his having loved them before the
foundation of the world, or chosen them to enjoy those privileges
which are here mentioned.
(3.) It farther appears, that there is a number chosen out of the
world to eternal life, from the means which God has ordained for the
gathering a people out of it, to be made partakers of the blessings
which he has reserved for them in heaven. This is what we generally
call the means of grace; and from hence it appears, that there is a
chosen people, whose advantage is designed hereby. For the making
out of this argument, let it be considered,
1st. That there always has been a number of persons, whom God,
by his distinguishing providence, has separated from the world, who
have enjoyed the ordinances, or means of grace, and to whom the
promises of eternal life have been made. We do not say that these
are all chosen to eternal life; but it appears, from the design of
providence herein, that there have been some, among them who
were ordained to eternal life. If God gives the means of grace to the
church, it is an evident token that some are designed to have grace
bestowed upon them, and consequently brought to glory.
2dly. They who have been favoured with these means of grace, have
had some peculiar marks of the divine regard to them. Thus we
read, in the early ages of the world, of the distinction between
those, who had the special presence of God among them, and
others, who were deprived of it; as Cain is said, to go out from the
presence of the Lord, Gen. iv. 16. as one, who, together with his
posterity, was deprived of the means of grace, and also of God’s
covenant, in which he promised to be a God to some, from which
privilege others were excluded: thus he was called the God of Shem,
chap. ix. 16. and afterwards of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Exod. iii.
6. whose descendants were hereby given to expect the ordinances
and means of grace, and many instances of that special grace, which
a part of them should be made partakers of: and would he have
made this provision, for a peculiar people, in so discriminating a way,
if there had not been a remnant among them, according to the
election of grace, to whom he designed to manifest himself here,
and bring to glory hereafter? No, he would have neglected, or over-
looked them as he did the world; whereas both they and their seed
had the promises of the covenant of grace made to them which
argues, that there was a remnant among them, whom God designed
hereby to bring into a state of grace and salvation, and, in this
respect, they are said to be the objects of divine love.
This leads us to consider the meaning of that text, which is generally
insisted on, as a very plain proof of this doctrine, in Rom. ix. 11, 12,
13. The children being not yet born, neither having done any good
or evil, that the purpose of God according to election, might stand;
not of works, but of him that calleth: It was said unto her, the elder
shall serve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau
have I hated. Here is an express mention of the purpose of God,
according to election, and Jacob is, pursuant thereunto, said to be
the object of divine love. For the understanding of which, let us
consider the sense that is given of it, by those on the other side of
the question; and how far it may be allowed of, and what there is in
the words to prove this doctrine, and wherein our sense of them
differs from their’s.
It is supposed, by those who deny particular election, that Jacob and
Esau are not here considered in a personal capacity, but that the
apostle speaks of their respective descendants, as referring to two
divine predictions; in one of which, Gen. xxv. 23. God told Rebekah,
before her two sons were born, that two nations were in her womb;
and the elder, that is, the posterity of Esau, should serve the
younger, namely, that of Jacob; and in the other, Mai. i. 2, 3. he
says, I loved Jacob, and hated Esau, and laid his mountains waste;
so that if, in both these scriptures, referred to by the apostle,
nothing else be intended but the difference that should be put
between them as to the external dispensations of providence, or that
Jacob’s family, in future ages should be in a more flourishing state
than that of Esau, we must not suppose that he designed thereby to
represent them as chosen to, or excluded from eternal life.
This seems a very plausible sense of the text; but yet the apostle’s
words may very well be reconciled with those two scriptures, cited to
enervate the force of the argument taken from it; and at the same
time, it will not follow from thence, that there is no reference had to
the doctrine of eternal election therein. Therefore,
1. We will not deny, when it is said, Jacob have I loved, and Esau
have I hated, that their respective descendants were intended in this
prediction, yet it will not follow from hence, that Jacob and Esau,
personally considered, were not also included. Whoever reads their
history, in the book of Genesis, will evidently find in one the marks
and characters of a person chosen to eternal life; whereas, in the
other, we have no account of any regard which he expressed to God
or religion, therefore he appears to have been rejected; yet,
2. So far as it respects the posterity of Jacob and Esau we are not to
suppose that God’s having loved the one, and rejected the other,
implies nothing else, but that Jacob’s posterity had a better country
allotted for them, or exceeded Esau’s in those secular advantages, or
honours, which were conferred upon them. This seems to be the
principal sense, which they, on the other side of the question, give of
the apostle’s words; when comparing them with those of the
prophet Malachi, who, speaking concerning Esau’s being hated,
explains it, as relating to his lands being laid waste for the dragons
of the wilderness. This had been foretold by some other prophets,
Jer. xlix. 17, 18. Ezek. xxxv. 7, 9. Obed. ver. 10. and had its
accomplishment soon after the Jews were carried captive into
Babylon, from which time they ceased to be a nation; but, certainly,
though this be that particular instance of hatred, which the prophet
Malachi refers to, yet there is more contained in the word, as applied
to them by the apostle Paul. It is true, the prophet designs, in
particular to obviate an objection which the Jews are represented as
making, against the divine dispensations towards them, as though
they had not such an appearance of love, as he supposes them to
have had, therefore they are brought in as speaking to this purpose:
how canst thou say, that God has loved us, who have continued
seventy years captives in Babylon, and since our return from thence,
have been exposed to many adverse dispensations of providence?
The prophet’s reply is to this effect: that, notwithstanding, they still
remained a nation, and therefore were in this respect, more the
objects of the divine regard, than the posterity of Esau were, which
is represented as hated, for they never returned unto their former
state; or what attempts soever they made to recover it, they were all
to no purpose. This the prophet alleges, as a sufficient answer to the
Jews’ objection, in the same sense in which they understood the
words, love or hatred; but, doubtless more than this was contained
in the prediction before Jacob and Esau were born, and in the
apostle’s application of it, in the text before-mentioned. If nothing
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com