The Unknowable God of the Church Fathers and the Relational God of the Bible

One of the most significant processes in the history of Christian theological reflection is a phenomenon that, from the perspective of EBBS, may be described as interpretive drift. It consists in a gradual shift of emphasis from experiential and narrative data toward abstract conceptual models which, over time, begin to function as more fundamental than the original sources. In theology, this means a movement from God acting in history to God defined primarily through metaphysical attributes.

The biblical narrative presents God in relational and historical terms. In the Book of Exodus, Moses enters into dispute with God over the fate of Israel, and the text states that “So then Yahweh was grieved,—over the calamity—which he had spoken of inflicting on his people” (Exod 32:14 EMB). In the prophetic tradition, the same pattern of conditional divine decision reappears: “(...) if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned” (Jer 18:8 NIV). These passages are not merely illustrations of the religious language of their time; they form the core of the biblical mode of knowing God—through events, decisions, and the history of a community, rather than through a definition of His essence.

In patristic reflection, however, a gradual interpretive shift takes place. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, in Mystical Theology, emphasizes that God surpasses all knowledge and can be approached only through the “rejection of everything that is knowable.” In The Divine Names, he adds that God “is neither being nor life nor mind,” since He transcends all categories of the created world. Gregory of Nyssa describes the knowledge of God as a journey into the “divine darkness,” where reason becomes aware of its own insufficiency. Augustine likewise warns that if a person thinks he has comprehended God, he has grasped only his own concept, not God Himself.

From the perspective of EBBS, this development is not merely doctrinal maturation but precisely interpretive drift. Narrative data describing a God who reacts, decides, and enters into dialogue are subordinated to a metaphysical model in which divine change must be interpreted as pedagogical imagery rather than genuine relationality. The biblical text ceases to function as the primary basis for reconstructing the image of God and instead becomes material requiring adjustment to an ontological model of the absolute.

At this point a fundamental methodological difficulty becomes apparent: the two models of God are, in their logical structure, difficult to reconcile .

An ontologically immutable absolute cannot enter into a decision-making process dependent on history, since dependence implies change. Conversely, the biblical God—responding to prayer, entering into covenant, and modifying actions—cannot be described in terms of complete immutability without radical reinterpretation of the source texts. What is at stake, therefore, is not a tension resolvable through subtle distinctions, but a conflict between cognitive models formed in different cultural contexts.

Christ in the Wilderness – Ivan Kramskoy | Public Domain

The consequences of this interpretive drift are not limited to the history of doctrine. From the EBBS perspective, a change in the model of God leads to a change in the model of religiosity. If God is radically transcendent and inaccessible, relationship with Him becomes difficult to operationalize within communal practice. A natural tendency toward mediation then emerges. Saints, patrons, and intercessory figures begin to function as accessible points of religious contact.

The development of this form of piety in late antiquity responded to the need for religious proximity and concreteness that abstract theology could not provide. Saints became “closer” figures—capable of response, intervention, and care—precisely those features that the biblical narrative had attributed directly to God.

One may therefore hypothesize that interpretive drift led not only to a change in theological language but also to a transformation of religious practice.

The relational God of covenant was gradually replaced by a metaphysical absolute, and the function of relationship was in practice transferred to a system of patrons and mediators.

From the EBBS perspective, the issue is not a metaphysical verdict but an analysis of systemic consequences. The model of an unknowable God stabilizes doctrine but weakens relational operability. The model of a relational God strengthens communal dynamism but generates tension with classical ontology. Contemporary Christianity often functions in a hybrid mode: it professes faith in a personal God while practically operating through a system of substitute relationality in which patrons and mediating structures serve as accessible religious interfaces.

If so, interpretive drift is not merely a historical fact but an ongoing process. Its analysis may help explain why contemporary religiosity more often organizes itself around mediation than around the direct covenantal relationship described in the biblical texts.

Sources

1. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Mystical Theology, I, 1.
2. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, The Divine Names, V, 8.
3. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, II, 163–169.
4. Augustine, De Trinitate, VIII, 2; cf. also V, 1.