Images of God

In the Summa theologiae (1.1.9), Thomas argues that “it is more fitting that divine matters should be conveyed under the figure of lowly bodies than of noble bodies.” Rocks are better figures for God than ideal forms. Thomas gives three reasons for this preference: First, if “lowly” bodies provide the figures for God, no one will be tempted to think that the figure is a literal description of God. Second, because lowly bodies are more fitting as means for knowledge in our current conditions of knowledge – that is, prior to the beatific vision: “what God is not is clearer to us than what God is. Therefore likenesses drawn from things farthest away from God form within us a truer estimate that God is above whatever we may say or think of God.” Third, because such figures hide God’s revelation “from the unworthy.”

I have some reservations about this, but on the whole I think it very shrewd, and too often forgotten. After all, which figure of God has done the most theological mischief – “God is a rock” or “God is the Wholly Other”? “God is a Shepherd” or “God is the Supreme Being”?