Divine beyond Concept: David Bentley Hart, Jean-Luc Marion, and the Apophatic Challenge

My Master’s program at UIC was my initiation into philosophical discourse. Since my discipline was English, I engaged primarily with continental philosophy. We explored the works of Marx, Weber, Saussure, Lukács, Adorno, Bourdieu, Deleuze, and Derrida—not to discuss literature, but to examine how language relates to the structure of society. We questioned whether a signifier truly signifies a universal meaning or whether society is merely following a predetermined script, being reiterated by the superstructure of our infrastructure which is really the problem. Looking back, I now recognize that much of what I studied falls under what John Milbank critiques as presenting us with an “ontology of violence,” where being or difference is viewed as inherently violent.

At the time, however, without this critical perspective, encountering Jean-Luc Marion was like a breath of fresh air. His phenomenology, while deeply engaged with the dominant discourses of continental philosophy, was not confined by them, offering in their stead a radically new way of understanding the world. Marion’s "phenomenology of givenness"—the idea that we are given to ourselves and that certain experiences, such as the saturated phenomena of revelation, disrupt our established conceptual frameworks—challenged the sufficiency of Marxist, post-structuralist, and deconstructionist theories to fully account for lived experience. It was like opening a window in a room I hadn’t realized was stifling, reintroducing the importance of paying attention to and valuing subjective experience.

The Influence of Hart’s Metaphysical Framework:

Some years later, I find myself thinking more like David Bentley Hart than Jean-Luc Marion when engaging with difficult theological issues. By this, I mean that I follow a Late-Antique, Neoplatonic view of reality that is slightly Aristotelian and partly Stoic—a framework rooted in the Christian thought of Maximus the Confessor. This perspective on reality is deeply metaphysical.

While this metaphysical framework now shapes much of my theological thinking, Marion remains indispensable, particularly in an aspect of theology that Hart sometimes overlooks—the way God’s revelation can transcend and transform our understanding beyond what is conceptually foreseeable. Marion’s phenomenological approach, especially his concept of the "saturated phenomenon," allows us to bracket not just the natural attitude but also our preconceived notions about the divine. In doing so, it opens up a space where the experience of God’s revelation is not fully comprehensible or articulable, disrupting and rearranging our entire understanding of the world.¹ It preserves an apophatic attitude, recognizing the limits of human understanding when faced with the divine mystery.

Challenges of the Analogia Entis:

The divergence between Hart and Marion is most apparent in their treatment of the analogia entis—the analogy of being—which is central to Hart’s theological framework. This concept allows for the affirmation of both the similarity and the infinite dissimilarity between God, as Being itself, and created beings. Hart’s metaphysical approach, deeply rooted in a kind of Thomistic Neoplatonism, depends on this analogy to preserve divine transcendence while allowing creation to reflect the divine nature, albeit imperfectly.

However, Hart's reliance on the analogia entis introduces significant challenges, particularly when contrasted with Marion’s approach. Hart has been notably critical of Marion, often expressing impatience with what he sees as Marion’s narrow focus on overcoming modern metaphysics with phenomenology. Yet by asserting that the human mind, when sufficiently elevated, can ultimately provide adequate concepts for understanding the divine, Hart risks diminishing the radical otherness of God. He writes, “The very act of any finite intention is already contingent upon a more primordial intentionality of the mind toward a transcendental object of rational desire” (28).²

While this is a significant claim, it suggests that the infinite desire of the transcendental mind might make the ego fit to possess or constitute God as an object of knowledge. This approach implies that the divine can be fully captured within human conceptual frameworks, potentially reducing the mystery of God to the limits of human reason. If the analogia entis is treated as sufficient for comprehending the divine, it may inadvertently lead to conceptual idolatry, where God is confined to the categories of human thought, blurring the distinction between God and beings and rendering the relationship more univocal than analogical.

Hart’s critique of Marion reflects his frustration with what he perceives as Marion’s neglect of the broader metaphysical tradition in favor of a phenomenological focus. According to Hart, this neglect fails to fully engage with the ontological implications of divine transcendence. However, Marion’s emphasis on the experiential aspect of divine revelation offers a necessary corrective. He underscores that God’s revelation can disrupt and transcend our conceptual frameworks, expanding and reconfiguring our intellects in ways that go beyond analogy. While Hart’s metaphysical approach draws richly from early Church traditions, it can sometimes overlook the transformative power of encountering the divine as something not fully comprehensible or articulable. Marion’s phenomenology, though more narrowly focused, complements Hart’s theology by ensuring that our understanding of God remains open to the mystery that continually challenges and transcends our finite grasp.

Marion’s Corrective to Hart:

Marion’s critique of the adequacy of human concepts to fully capture the divine serves as a crucial corrective to Hart’s approach. Marion contends that the divine, especially as it manifests in what he terms the “saturated phenomenon,” far surpasses the capacities of human reason and conceptualization. These encounters with the divine overwhelm the mind, revealing aspects of God that cannot be fully grasped or reduced to human understanding.

Marion’s approach resonates with the deeper theological tradition articulated by Maximus the Confessor, who distinguishes between two types of knowledge: one based on reasoning and concepts, and another based on direct, experiential participation in the divine. As Maximus writes:

The knowledge of divine realities is twofold… There is relative knowledge based only on reasoning and concepts, and lacking the actual perception of what is known through experience, and it is this knowledge that we use to order our affairs in this present life. On the other hand, there is knowledge that is true and properly so called, which is gained only by actual experience—without reasoning and concepts—and provides by grace through participation, a whole perception of the One who is known… For those who are wise say that it is impossible for reasoning about God to coexist with the direct experience of God, or for concepts about God to coexist with the immediate perception of God.³

This teaching from Maximus underscores the fundamentally equivocal nature of the uncreated.⁴ Marion’s emphasis on the "saturated phenomenon" aligns with this view, suggesting that while reasoning and concepts can offer a relative knowledge of divine realities, they are inherently limited compared to the true, experiential knowledge that comes through direct participation in the divine. This approach allows for a sense in which God configures our intellects (nous) for divine things, grounding theology in the experience of that which is beyond concept—a reality that is properly God and thus bears an equivocal and analogical relation to our understanding.

Integrating Hart and Marion: Toward a Balanced Theological Perspective:

While Hart’s metaphysical rigor provides a robust framework for understanding the relationship between God and creation, it is Marion’s phenomenological insight that ensures theology remains open to the transformative encounter with the divine. By integrating these approaches, we can develop a more balanced theological perspective—one that respects the limits of human understanding while remaining open to the ways in which God continually challenges and transcends our finite grasp. This integration acknowledges the importance of metaphysical reflection while also affirming the necessity of grounding our theology in lived experience, where God’s revelation can disrupt and expand our conceptual frameworks.

Epilogue: Personal Reflections on the Encounter with the Divine:

For me, the experience of revelation—what Jean-Luc Marion might describe as a "saturated phenomenon"—has consistently been marked by profound tension. In his recent work Revelation from Elsewhere, Marion delves into the inherent tension of these divine encounters, and I find myself deeply resonating with his insights⁵ My own encounters with the divine have always come from elsewhere—unexpected, even when deeply yearned for—because they transcend all expectation. In these sacred moments, I find myself both conquered and humbled by God's holiness. His light exposes dimensions of myself that I had never seen or could not see on my own. Yet, simultaneously, I am embraced by a peace, a light, and a love so beyond comparison to this-worldly phenomena that it expands my very being. This love is excessive, beyond anything I could have imagined experiencing through mere intuition or intellectual anticipation.

In these moments, I cannot help but recognize the profound depth of Marion's insight into the disruptive mechanics of revelation. To allow God to be more than my concepts and to give more of Himself to me than I can conceive is to encounter Him in a way that stretches me beyond my natural limits. This expansion is not simply a natural process but is initiated by the uncreated—a reality that transcends the analogical and enters the realm of the truly equivocal. It is the unknown and unanticipated presence of God, breaking into my understanding and reshaping it in ways that defy my previous knowledge.

Though by nature we are called to become gods, this transformation is effected not by our own efforts but by the uncreated energies of God—energies that are not merely analogical but are direct encounters with the divine that surpass our finite comprehension. These experiences do more than expand my conceptual framework; they transform my very being, providing a glimpse of something far greater than what can ever be fully articulated by even the most precise theological terms, such as Being.

This reflection underscores the necessity of maintaining a theology that remains perpetually open to the mystery of the divine. It is crucial to recognize that God’s self-revelation continually challenges, disrupts, and transcends our finite understanding. In the tension between what is known and what remains beyond comprehension, we are invited to grow in our participation in the divine life—a life that is, by its very nature, an unending mystery.

1. Marion, Jean-Luc. Revelation Comes from Elsewhere, Stanford University Press, 2024. Being Given: Toward a Phenemonlogy of Givenness, Stanford University Press, 2022.

2. Hart, David Bentley. “Remarks Made to Jean-Luc Marion regarding Revelation and Givenness.” Theological Territories, Notre Dame Press 2020.

3. Ad Thalassium 60

4. The relationship between creator and created, Being and contingent beings, understood by the analogia entis denies univocality of Being and beings (them being the same), but it cannot avoid presenting itself as such if their is not an equivocal, not analogical or univocal relation between Creator and created.

5. See first few chapters of Revelation Comes From Elsewhere.