The Life of Biblical Words

An Introduction to the Bible for Thoughtful Readers

Martin J. Buss

Ch. 1. An Invitation

There is not just one list of books that is considered “Bible.” On the contrary, Jews and Christians have different lists. Even Christians do not agree on a single list. However, the present introduction is concerned specifically with the Hebrew Bible, which is all of the Bible for Jews and a large part of it for Christians, who have called it “Old Testament.” Since this body of material is “Bible” for both groups, I will sometimes simply call it “Bible.”

The word “Bible” means “books”. This implies that it consists of written words. Do these words have life? That is, do they mean something of significance, or are they simply squiggles on a page? Perhaps everyone will agree that they had life at one time, that in a distant past they meant something. So, we need to ask: do they still have significance? Yes, indeed. Even today they mean a lot to some people. We can then ask how that is so.

In order to understand the importance of the Hebrew Bible we need to look at its place in history. We will see that it is regarded highly by three religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and has also made an impact on other traditions. Rightly or wrongly, it is probably the most widely influential book in the world.

a. The Bible in History

The Hebrew Bible was produced during a thousand-year period ending about 200 BCE (“Before the Common Era” = BC). At that time, the use of writing was still fairly young. Rudimentary and often cumbersome writing had begun two or three thousand years earlier. The development of an alphabet about 1000 BCE made writing more widely accessible, since it was relatively easier to learn. Yet even during the biblical period only some people could read or write. Before then, there had been many thousands of years during which verbal communication had been only oral.

The Bible thus represents a transition from oral to written forms of expression. There are some differences between written forms of religion and those that are oral, which continue to exist. Nevertheless, there are also many similarities—for instance, between oral and written forms of a sacred story. In any case, the Bible represents a form of religious speech that was crystallized in writing and was for that reason preserved in a way that is not possible for oral forms.

During the same period, many other written materials were produced in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, India, China, and Greece. Quite of few of these ancient writings remain important to the present day. The reason for their continuing importance is that later writings presuppose earlier ones to a large extent. Indeed, every generation does not need to start from scratch but can build on previous insights and endeavors. In some fields, such as physics and biology, subsequent analyses absorb earlier ones so completely that it is usually no longer important to give attention to earlier ones. However, in other fields—including religion, philosophy, literature, the arts, and other considerations of the human self and society—past formulations often remain significant.

Of course, there have been major changes in society during the last two thousand years. For instance, the institution of royalty has largely given way to more-or-less democratic organization. In recent years, a movement toward sexual equality has been powerful. In fact, a serious limitation of virtually all writings until quite recently was that they were produced in patriarchal cultures; thus women’s voices have been underrepresented in almost all writing prior to recent times. We will discuss later the possibility that biblical tradition was one of the contributors to the decline of royalty and perhaps also to the rise of the women’s movement. Yet, even if that is true, it is important to recognize that our current situation is different from the earlier one. Thus, two kinds of mistakes need to be avoided: one that emphasizes only a difference between past and present and one that does not recognize change.

In looking over the writings that appeared during the biblical period and their later influences, one can make a geographical distinction. Specifically, one can draw a dividing line west of India. Cultures on the west side interacted heavily with each other for the next two thousand years, so that they came to constitute almost a single culture complex, of which more will be said. On the east side, India and China produced several traditions that remained in part independent of each other, although they sometimes interacted with each other and with the West. For the sake of interpreting the Bible, this observation is important, for, despite some notable differences, there are definite parallels between the contents of the Bible and themes present in India and China. These parallels are especially interesting since they represent largely independent developments. They thus show some features that are generally human and perhaps—since human beings are a conscious form of existence—may point to features that characterize all forms of existence.

During the last several hundred years, interactions between the culture complex west of India and the traditions of India and China have increased sharply. Furthermore, cultures without written traditions have been largely overwhelmed by European and US military, commercial, religious, and intellectual expansions. At the same time, Europe and the US have also absorbed considerable influence from both written and nonwritten traditions. This whole process cannot be described here. However, the point to be made here is that the impact of the Hebrew Bible now extends worldwide, propelled especially by Christianity, Islam, and Marxism (which adapted much of biblical ethics in an atheistic way), while, at the same time, worldwide culture has made an impact on Europe and the US. Thus, a knowledge of the Hebrew Bible is important not only for an understanding of “Western” religion, literature, art, and society, but also for understanding other parts of the world.

b. Religion and the Intellect

Within the geographic area west of India, a major distinction can be made. Greece is known especially for its emphasis on intellectual knowledge, while Israel is known for the religious emphasis found in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, the religious perspectives that were formulated in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, and Persia were partly absorbed and partly transformed by the Hebrew Bible, and the major religions of the large area west of India—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—acknowledge a basis in this material, even while, on the intellectual side, they are indebted to Greece.

Given this distinction between a religious and an intellectual tradition, we need to ask, what is meant by “religion.” Different definitions have been given for this word, but I will provide the following two: (1) it is an orientation toward reality as a whole, and (2) it looks to something greater than the individual. These two definitions readily go together, for reality as a whole is necessarily greater than oneself.

What accounts for the fact that religion has been very widespread? Probably the simplest answer is that human beings have the capacity for large thoughts. For one thing, they know that they were born and that they will die. Furthermore, most of them realize that they cannot know or control everything. Some people think that for this reason we should stop having large thoughts, but doing so would turn us into something less than human. Nevertheless, it is true that not every individual gives much attention to wide-ranging concerns. Thus it is useful to think of religion as one thinks of music. Members of all societies have enjoyed music, but not everyone is especially musical. Similarly, religion is a human potential, but not everyone has a strong interest in it.

If religion is an important aspect of human life, why is it not taught extensively in the public schools of the US? One reason is that there are a number of different religious traditions in the US and, since many human beings are passionate about religion, it is difficult to teach neutrally about this topic in a way that avoids major conflict or the imposition of a majority’s point of view. Another reason for keeping the teaching of religion for the most part out of public education is that religious persons are committed to something greater than government, so that many of them do not wish the government to regulate religious teaching. In other words, religion is side-stepped in public education in large part precisely because it is important. Since much education in the US proceeds along this line, an unfortunate consequence is that many persons—both defenders and critics of a particular religion—do not have an educated view of religion.

There are, however, many who have good intellectual comprehension of almost every aspect of life other than religion and who wish to understand this aspect, also. Some of these persons do not consider themselves religious. Others profess a religion but do not comprehend it intellectually very well. The present introduction to the Bible is addressed to both of these kinds of persons.

c. The Path to be Taken

In introducing the Bible, at least three different paths can be taken. One is to furnish a summary of the text. A drawback of proceeding this way is that the richness of the text is easily lost. It is better to read the Bible (or part of it) oneself, as I hope readers will do in conjunction with the present introduction. I will, indeed, make some suggestions for such reading.

Another path that can be taken is to furnish precise information about the historical circumstances of the Bible. There are, however, three problems with this procedure. One is that most historical judgments in regard to the Bible are quite controversial. Another is that detailed historical information—in contrast to a large-scale view that places the Bible into the context of human history and beyond—rarely adds much to an understanding of the Bible. A third problem is that this approach makes readers dependent on the opinion of experts, so that it undercuts their ability to read the Bible on their own. I will thus not make small-scale historical matters the primary focus, although relevant items will be mentioned from time to time.

Another path, which I will emphasize instead, is to pay attention to the dynamic structure of the text, so as to recognize its “life.” The easiest way to do that is to consider three aspects of a text. One of these aspects (which can be called its “language”) consists of the words that are used and of the way they are joined together. (For instance, one can see that the word “God” appears quite frequently.) The second aspect of the text (its “content” or “thought”) represents the meaning of these words and of their arrangements. (For instance, what does the word “God” mean?) The third aspect is the significance of this work for human life (does a belief in “God” make a difference?).

For dealing with the first of the three aspects of a text, its language, it can be useful to know Hebrew. However, English translations have a high degree of reliability. It is true, the Hebrew text is sometimes obscure or has a nuance that is hard to translate into English. However, if one consults more than one translation, the meaning of the Hebrew—including the ambiguity it would have for a Hebrew reader—usually becomes quite clear.

The second aspect of the text, its thought, includes a “surface” or “literal” meaning. This is readily recognized by readers if they have experience in reading other texts and in watching plays or movies either on their own or in the context of high school or college classes. Yet there can be more meaning than lies on the surface, for some speech is highly symbolic and refers to something other than what at first appears to be said. That is especially true for religious speech, since it deals with things that cannot be mastered or grasped but can be described only indirectly.

In fact, the theme that ultimate reality as such cannot be known in a way that can be adequately expressed has been stated by quite a few religious thinkers. For instance, the great classic of Chinese Daoism (written in the third century BCE) begins with these words: “The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao; a name that can be named is not an eternal name. Nameless, Dao is the origin of everything; named, it is the mother of all things.” In other words, one cannot really “name”—describe—the eternal aspect of what is called Dao, even though Dao has a “namable”—describable—aspect as the “mother” of all things. Almost two thousand years later, in Western Europe, the early Protestant leader John Calvin said that “God’s essence is incomprehensible” and that the Bible’s description of divine attributes represent not God as such but what God “is to us” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, v, 1; x, 2). Similar declarations have been made by many others. Especially important among these is the Jewish medieval philosopher Maimonides. According to Maimonides, God can be spoken of only in terms of what God is not and in terms of God’s actions, in other words, in terms of God’s practical effects (Guide of the Perplexed, I, 58). In fact, it is often said (with partial justification) that what is important in Judaism is not so much right belief as right practice.

We are then led to the third aspect of a text, its relation to life. To understand this, an acquaintance with a variety of religions is helpful, especially since religions are more similar to each other on the practical level than they are on the level of words and ideas, although some differences can be observed on that level as well. Furthermore, a knowledge of psychology and sociology can be useful. To be sure, most readers are not very up-to-date in their knowledge of these fields, and the insights that have been gained in them still leave much to be desired. Fortunately, however, readers can draw on their own experience, and often their untrained observations are better than what can be found in books. In any case, readers can be, and need to be, personally involved in order to assess the significance of a text.

Part of the challenge and fun in dealing with texts this way is that one can see how specific verbal patterns are characteristically connected with certain ideas, and that these, in turn, have practical applications. In short, the three aspects of a text—language, ideas, and practical implication—are not joined haphazardly. To be sure, there is not an absolutely necessary connection between the three aspects. For instance, a given theme can be indicated in more than one verbal way and can have more than one application.

As one deals with the life of biblical texts in this way, it becomes apparent that they readily fall into types and that the Bible is ordered according to such types. Origin stories, ethical and ritual directions, royal records, prophecies, proverbs, more-or-less skeptical reflections, prayers, and love poems are for the most part each grouped together in one or more biblical book. Each of these literary types represents a variety of life, with its own way of thinking and speaking. Not all of the types mentioned are religious in a narrow sense. Rather, the Bible, as a set of “books,” is inclusive in its coverage of life.

Most of the types also appear in other traditions, both written and oral. Thus the Bible provides a window into religious and secular literature in general. Biblical literature certainly has its own peculiarities, but it also has many similarities with what has been said or written otherwise if one compares laws with laws, love poetry with love poetry, and so forth.

The present introduction, then, deals with “the life of biblical words.” You are invited to take part in the journey.

Ch. 2. Receiving (Including Listening) and Achieving

a. Receiving and Achieving in the Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew Bible gives attention both to receiving and to achieving something. This fact is shown in the very way in which Jews have organized the Bible (see Table 1).

Table 1

The Hebrew Bible in its Standard Jewish Organization

1. Torah (Pentateuch: “Five Books”)

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

2. The Prophets

A. (“Former Prophets”; that is, the first division of “Prophets”): Joshua, Judges, I

Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings

B. (“Latter Prophets”, the second division): Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve

(Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk,

Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)

3. The “Writings” (= “Other Writings”?)

Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther,

Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, I Chronicles, II Chronicles

The first two parts of the Jewish Bible contain to a large extent speeches by God and reports of what God has done. This means that human beings are recipients of divine words and of divine actions. In contrast, the third part rarely represents God as speaking in the first person and does not often report actions by God. It features, rather, hymns and prayers that address God, advice on how to live a successful life, somewhat skeptical reflections about life, love poetry, and reports on how some people have acted successfully. At least one book does not even mention God.

God’s acting (including speaking) and human activity (including thinking) are thus highlighted in different parts of the Hebrew Bible. Yet this distinction represents only a difference in emphasis, not an actual separation of the two sides. As we will see in detail, human activity does play a significant role in the first two parts of the Bible, and acknowledgments of God take place also in the third.

Incidentally, in the Hebrew Bible, women and men are not pictured altogether differently in this respect. On the contrary, members of both sexes are portrayed as both active and receptive.

It is now useful to try to understand what is meant by receiving and achieving. Especially the aspect of receiving is perhaps not well recognized by many people in the US, since our educational institutions tend to emphasize the active side of life.

b. Receiving, or “Listening,” in Human Life

All beings, from the smallest to the largest, both receive input from other beings and in turn have an effect on others. However, only some—especially human—beings are aware of receiving something and of having an effect. In other words, only they can be consciously receptive or active. We will see how that works in biblical literature.

As has already been mentioned, the Bible often represents God as speaking. This means that human beings are listening or should listen. It is true, human beings do not usually receive with their ears a literal sound that tells them that God is saying something. However, people often have a sense that they receive from a higher reality an insight or a challenge. I will use the word “listening” as a metaphor for being open to such a process.

Listening does not need to be directed only toward God. Rather, it is possible to listen to—be receptive toward—other beings, including human friends and flowers. This process can be illustrated as follows. When I walk outside the house in such a way that I am open to reality, I have a sense that trees “speak” to me. When I read the newspaper about a child being abused or neglected, I have a sense that the child “speaks” to me and tugs at my heart. In fact, when I am open—not preoccupied with specific goals of my own—the world just seems to be full of such voices. Is that not also true for you? If you do not have such a sense, you will find the Bible to be exceedingly strange. Then you may just read the material in order to find out what kind of sense others have had.

In the Hebrew Bible there is a close association between receptivity toward God and receptivity toward ordinary beings. Specifically, as will be seen, the biblical God asks one to be sensitive to, and care for, these beings.

An emphasis on receptivity, that is, respectful openness to others, is not peculiar to the Hebrew Bible. This theme is quite strong not only in Judaism (based on the Hebrew Bible) but also in Christianity and Islam (the very word “Islam” means “submission”). It has also been quite prominent in the religions of India and China, as a few examples can show. In India, Jainism is moved very strongly by the suffering of all beings, including those that are inanimate, so that it seeks to be nonviolent toward all of them. Hinduism holds that all beings are deeply connected with one another, so that none are isolated. Buddhism undermines self-centered craving by opposing the very idea that one has a self to be concerned about. In China, the Confucian Mencius (fourth century BCE) wrote: “No [human being] is devoid of a heart sensitive to suffering. Such a sensitive heart [has] manifested itself in compassionate government.” Mencius illustrated compassion by the spontaneous reaction of someone who sees a young child on the verge of falling into a well (Mencius, III A 6). Chinese Daoism advocates yielding (this includes going with the flow), instead of striving.

Eastern religions are unfamiliar to most of us, but part of the experience of Zen Buddhist meditation can be produced by listening to deliberately random music in an appropriate setting. By listening to such music for a little while, one becomes aware of all sorts of sounds around one, many of which one had previously tuned out since they were not relevant for one’s desire to “master” the world. Such an attitude has implications for social interaction, too. A number of years ago, I paused within an informal discussion with a group of students to play some random music in conjunction with meditative words. After that playing, the discussion was quite different. Instead of just trying to make points, participants listened to each other. They had learned to become receptive.

In our “modern” world, many people have adopted a purely secular (nonreligious) attitude and have rejected receptivity as a kind of weakness. They place emphasis almost entirely on activity, that is, on what they can achieve and how they can master the world. At the same time, however, television has encouraged a way of life that is passive, both physically passive as one sits in front of the screen and mentally passive, letting images and words come to one.

The Hebrew Bible values both acting and receiving in its own way. In its way of thinking, receiving comes first; activity comes or should come as a response to this.

Ch. 3. The Figure of God and Its Meaning

The primary reality from whom one receives, according to the Bible, is God. Of course, one also receives from parents, friends, and other beings. However, these are thought of as creatures of God and their acts can be treated as indirect acts of God. In fact, according to much of the Hebrew Bible, God is actively involved in everything. It is thus important to look closely at the figure of God.

a. Terms and Characterizations for God

God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible by a number of designations. Two of these, elohim and yhwh, are used especially often and deserve close attention.

Elohim refers to the kind of being God is. Perhaps the best way to capture this sense in English is to use the word “deity.” Theoretically, of course, there can be several such beings. The word elohim is, in fact, plural in form. Sometimes it does refer to multiple deities that are worshipped or to beings with a low grade of divinity, which can be called “angels.” More frequently, however, the term elohim is used for a single deity, especially in such expressions as “my deity,” “your deity,” or “the deity of Israel.” If the term appears without such a qualifier as “my” or “your,” it refers to all of divine reality.

Yhwh is a personal name. Since it includes four consonants, it is known as the “tetragrammaton.” When the Bible was written, Hebrew had no symbols for vowels, although the signs for the consonants “w” and “h” could also be used for long vowels, especially at the end of a word. Ancient Greek transcriptions indicate that the original pronunciation of yhwh was probably “Yahweh.” However, soon after the biblical period ended, Jews decided to avoid pronouncing the personal name of God and to use substitutes, such as edonay, meaning “lord” (more literally, “my lords,” with a plural of majesty). Thus, when the fifth century CE (“Common Era”= AD) editors of the Hebrew Bible indicated vowels by means of dots and lines placed around the older consonantal letters, they placed around yhwh signs for the vowels of edonay. Many English translations adapt this practice by writing “Lord” when the name yhwh appears in the Hebrew text. In order to make clear that the word “Lord” then represents the Hebrew word yhwh, most of such translations will use small capital letters for “ord,” so that the word looks like this: “LORD.”

There were, then, these two major ways of referring to God: Elohim as a general term for deity, and yhwh as a particular personal name. Of course, if there is only one god, their meanings come to coincide. Yet there is a difference in emphasis. Where the word elohim is used, the orientation often has a cosmopolitan outlook, one that ranges beyond Israel to all of humanity and to the whole world. When the name yhwh is used, the focus is usually on Israel specifically. Nevertheless, the distinction is not absolute, and sometimes there appears the combination yhwh elohim. In practice, this duality implies that the Hebrew Bible has both a universal and a particular outlook. In some ways, all of reality is seen as being connected under one God, but different groups are also thought each to have their own legitimate religious path.

According to the Hebrew Bible, only one deity is to be worshipped. By itself, this law does not necessarily assert that there is only one god. In fact, at least one passage seems to imply a multiplicity. Thus, Deut. 32:8 speaks of ‘elyon, the “Most High,” who “fixed the boundaries of peoples” and who allotted Israel to yhwh, who is perhaps thought of as a son of ‘elyon. The same chapter, however, also represents yhwh as saying, “There is no god beside me” (verse 39). On the surface, this statement seems to contradict the earlier one in verse 8. However, one must look at the chapter from a pragmatic point of view. Verse 8 indicates that different people have different names or personifications for deity and that they are all legitimate. Verse 32 asserts that there is to be no competition between gods (playing one god off against another); Israelites should give allegiance to yhwh alone (what that means will be seen later).

In the passage just cited, the name ‘elyon was used for the chief deity. This name for God is also used in a number of other biblical texts and is reported as the name that is used by a non-Israelite king in Gen. 14: 18-20, probably referring to a supreme deity. The fact that the same name is used both inside and outside of Israel implies that the Hebrew Bible’s God is thought to be comparable to the supreme god that is worshipped by others.

Still another designation for God in the Hebrew Bible is el (a short, singular version of elohim). This was the name of the chief deity that was worshipped by people who lived in “Canaan”—that is, in the area taken over by the Israelites—as well as to the north of it, in the area known as “Phoenicia” in the Greco-Roman world. In Canaanite/Phoenician religion, el had a consort—that is, a wife or female counterpart—asherah by name, and at least two important male descendents, baal (the word means “lord”) and mot (“death”). Baal had two consorts: astarte and anat. The stories of that religion tell how these figures cooperated with and fought against each other.

What happens in the Bible, then, is that it identifies its god with the chief deity of other religions and locates in this one god the roles that were distributed over several figures in Canaanite (and other) religions. That means two things. One: biblical religion is in many ways comparable to other religions, especially (although not only) to beliefs in a chief god. Two: the Bible’s image of God is quite complex. Specifically, it includes both male and female imagery, and it incorporates both harmony and strife.

Let us look first at how the Hebrew God is pictured in both male and female terms. In assessing male imagery, it is hard to know whether it is specifically male or not. After all, there are quite a few terms and images that are—as linguists say—“unmarked;” that is, they do not necessarily indicate a sex. These can include pronouns. Thus, the Hebrew pronoun hu is used not only when the reference is to a male but also whenever the sex is indeterminate (“he” or “she”). The same holds true for verbal forms that contain the pronoun in themselves. In recent years, most of us have come to limit the use of the English word “he” to males, in order to give greater prominence to the role of women by using “she” more frequently. That is appropriate, but we should not project our use of the word “he” back to ancient times. Of course, the fact that the masculine pronoun did double-duty for both “male” and “male or female” reflects a patriarchal culture, but the usage represents the predilection of a culture as a whole, not specifically its view of God.

Two arguments speak against the possibility that the Hebrew Bible thinks of God as simply male. The first is that the Hebrew God would have been a strange kind of male, one that does not have a partner. (Israel or an Israelite city, it is true, is sometimes spoken of as a “wife” of yhwh, but Israelites include, of course, both women and men; thus the image of “wife” refers to something other than biological sex. There are also ancient texts that show that some Israelites thought that yhwh had a divine wife, but that is not true for the Bible itself.) A second, perhaps more important, reason for holding that the Hebrew Bible does not think of God as simply male is that female imagery is used from time to time, especially, although not only, in Isa. 46:3; 66:13. (Similarly, in Africa and China a male/female duality for a supreme deity has been expressed repeatedly.)

A strong argument for holding that God was not thought of simply as male appears in Gen. 1:26-27, as can be seen from a careful translation of the Hebrew, in which the grammatical masculine is translated “he/she”:

Elohim [the noun is plural] said [the verb is singular], ‘Let us make humanity in our image, in our likeness . . . . So elohim created humanity in his/her image. In the image of elohim, he/she created them; male and female he/she created them.

One should not read too much into the plurals “us” or “our,” which may be simply stylistic. Yet in the phrase “in the image of elohim” the word elohim may well be generic or plural (“in the image of deity” or “in the image of divine beings”), since it refers to both males and females as in the image of God. In any case, it should be noted that the text is not really interested in the theoretical nature of God but in the practical point that both male and female human beings are in God’s image and are thus presumably endowed with comparable worth and reponsibilities.

A similar situation appears in the fact that both pleasant and unpleasant actions are attributed to God. Such a duality is almost necessary if one believes in only one God who rules in life, for life clearly contains both what human beings like and what they do not. The Hebrew Bible does not know of an “evil” force that is almost equal in power and contrary to a “good” (or “nice”) God. In the book of Job, an unpleasant member of the heavenly court is called ha-satan, that is, “the accuser,” but he plays the role of a police officer or prosecuting attorney rather than that of a independent force in opposition to God. In I Chron. 21:1, which repeats the content of II Sam. 24:1, the anger of God to which II Samuel refers is personified as satan, since the instruction given by this anger—or by satan—is one that incites David to do wrong. Indeed, one of the recurring themes of the Hebrew Bible is how God is present not only in happy events, but also in sickness, death, war, and judicial actions.

b. Psychological and Social Aspects of Belief in God

One can then ask, what are the practical implications of a belief in a God of this sort? There are several implications. In order to begin to understand them, it is useful to look at how this God is experienced in human life.

First of all, the Bible holds that there is one God on whom everything else depends. Thus an appropriate attitude toward this God is receptivity, which can express itself in thanksgiving and praise.

Secondly, the Bible holds that God responds to, “hears,” the cries of those who are suffering. This means that human beings can be active toward, and even have an effect on, God—they can “cry.”

Thirdly, the Bible asks one to come close to God’s perspective and be similarly ready to “hear” the world’s cries. In other words, individual beings are to be considered to have intrinsic value, value that does not consist in their usefulness, although at times they may also be useful or helpful for some one else. For instance, Maimonides said (on the basis of the Hebrew Bible) that all beings are, according to God’s plan, ends in themselves, not simply means to some other end.

One is the issue of whether the “cries” or concerns of other beings are legitimate. The biblical position is that the concerns of others are indeed legitimate and deserve attention. This can be a practical meaning of statements that God “made” those beings and “hears” them.

The second issue involves the problem that it is not humanly possible to respond to the concerns of all. The Bible implies that only God (who hears all cries) deserves complete respect and that only partial respect should be extended to limited beings.

A special case of this partial respect involves oneself. One of the major effects of biblical religion is to convey a sense of worth to oneself as an individual and as a member of the community to which one belongs. This sense of worth is unconditional. It is thus closer to what psychologists call “self-acceptance” than to so-called “self-esteem,” which depends on what one can accomplish. A sense of unconditional worth can ground one’s ordinary activities. Nevertheless, it is limited by the worth of others.

Finally, one can ask what is the practical significance of believing in a chief deity and in that one alone. The primary difference appears to lie in an increased concern for the weak or downtrodden. A supreme god is concerned with all, not just with some people, such as with the person who prays at a particular time. When there is a belief in lesser deities or spirits, they can be called upon to give support to competitive endeavors, in which a more powerful person or group can overpower another. Ps. 82 makes this point in the form of an imaginative drama. The psalm presents elohim (“God”) as pronouncing judgment on lesser elohim (“gods”) for failing to support “the wretched . . . the orphan . . . the lowly . . . the poor . . . and the needy” against actions by “the wicked.” God condemns these other figures—who had been thought to be “sons of the Most High”—to “die like human beings.” It is true, concern for the weak is not altogether lacking in polytheism. Rather, in such a system, one god—such as a chief deity that is not otherwise deeply involved in day-to-day affairs—is often concerned especially with the weak. In the Hebrew Bible, such a concerned god is the only one there is or, at least, the only one to whom one should give attention.

Indeed, the Bible almost constantly expresses support for the weak and the downtrodden. This support is by no means always peaceful but can take the form of violent action against the powerful. Thus, as religions engage in conversation with one another, the theme of supporting the oppressed is an important biblical contribution. This contribution has, in fact, already been heeded by many, at least in part.

A recognition of the worth of all still leaves unclear just how one will decide between the various needs of human beings, as well as of the nonhuman world. The Hebrew Bible provides some specific guidance in laws, proverbs, and (indirectly) in other forms of writing on how to proceed in response to such needs.

In short, then, the Bible asks one to accept God’s point of view, that is, to respect all beings, including oneself, and extend active support especially to those who are downtrodden politically or otherwise.

There is a problem, to be sure, if one thinks that one can fully know God’s mind. In that case, one does not listen, for listening involves a differentiation between oneself and the other—in this case, between oneself and God. Unfortunately, some adherents of monotheistic faiths have come to believe that they really know God’s mind. They insist that they, and others who believe like them, are the only ones to have the truth. Such overconfidence is expressed within the Bible itself at times, when it becomes—it seems—excessively critical of rivals. Some critics have charged that monotheistic religions are especially prone to dogmatism and to imposing their views on others. I do not think that is true. Yet caution is in order. Although it is appropriate to seek to persuade others, any attempt at persuasion should be done with an awareness that, according to religious judgments, God is shrouded in mystery and that any human statement can therefore express only a partial view.