[49] divine qualities which by far surpass the reality of this actual nation. The nation, then, is not seen empirically and is not meant in the ordinary sense of the word "nation," but it stands for that which is the TRUE ultimate and symbolizes, but it does so in an idolatrous^a way. If success is the ultimate concern, it is not the natural desire of actualizing one's possibilities, which we ALL have, but it is the readiness to sacrifice all other values of life for the sake of a position of power^b and social predominance. The anxiety^c, which I find in so many young people in our period, of not being a success, is an idolatrous^d* form of the anxiety of divine condemnation. One is not afraid of the possibility of divine condemnation, in the original sense of the religious tradition, but one IS afraid of being condemned to non-being by not being a success! In such a feeling, success is grace^e (again, a religious word); lack of success is final judgment. In this way, concepts which designate ordinary realities (such as nation, money, success), become idolatrous symbols of ultimate concern. They become divine beings, they become idols. The reason for this transformation of concept into symbols^f is the character of ultimacy^g, based on the nature of faith^h. That which is the TRUE ultimate transcends the realm of finite reality infinitely, and therefore no finite reality can express it directly and properly. I want to express this in a seemingly very paradoxical way. I want to say: GODⁱ TRANSCENDS HIS OWN NAME. God transcends His own Name. This paradoxical situation is the [reason] why the use of the name of God EASILY, becomes an abuse--or, as the word says, a "blasphemy^j." Therefore the fear of the people of the Old Testament to use the right name of God, because if they use His name in any way in which it is brought down to the level of ordinary objects besides [beside?] which He ALSO can be found, then His name is abused and one speaks, in using it, a blasphemy. Whatever we say about that which concerns us ultimately, even if we call it "God," has a symbolic character. It points beyond itself, but at the same time (as we have seen last time), it participates in that to which it points. Faith can express itself adequately in no other way. The language of faith^k, the language of religion^l, is the language of symbols^m, and there is no other languageⁿ for religion! If faith were what we have declined and strongly rejected (the acceptance of *We shall replace "idolatric" with "idolatrous," hereinafter. (Ed.)