I hope this paper is of interest, personally I found it remarkable. Abraham Heschel has always been a favorite of mine.
There is another block to Jewish theology. This danger is a more insidious one. I refer to the
Hellenization of Jewish theology… To oversimplify the matter: this approach would have Plato and Moses, for example, say the same thing. Only, Plato would say it in Greek and Moses in Hebrew. Consequently, you can say that Moses was a sort of Hebrew Plato. This view has had a great impact on much of
Jewish medieval philosophy. They talk about God in the language of the Greeks.
We are inclined to think in non-Jewish terms. I am not discouraging exposure to the non-Jewish world. I am merely indicating that it is not biblical thinking. It is not rabbinic thinking. It is not Hassidic thinking. It is non-Jewish thinking. A non-Jewish philosophy is fine. But
we would also like to have in our thinking a Jewish view of things… If you take biblical passages or biblical documents or rabbinic statements, and submit them to a Greek mind, they are often absurd. They make no sense… May I say to you personally that this been my major challenge, ever since I began working on
my dissertation; that is: How to maintain a Jewish way of thinking?
In the second part of The Prophets, as in several other places, Heschel explained why he rejected the Greek God of complete actualization or being, instead introducing God as an omnipotent but passable God of Pathos, in need of man. As he wrote,
“Plato thinks of God in the image of an idea; the prophets think of God in the image of personal presence. To the prophets God was not a Being of Whose existence they were convinced in the way in which a person is convinced of the truth of an idea. He was a Being Who is supremely real and staggeringly present.”48 Heschel did “not offer a systematic essay in metaphysics,” as Shai Held states; “he was content, instead, to point out that
the metaphysical principles Maimonides simply took for granted are in fact historically conditioned—of Greek rather than biblical provenance.”49
To give a comprehensive overview of his rejection is beyond the scope of this essay; I will only point briefly to the way Heschel went about discrediting the
Greek approach as unbiblical and why he deemed that vital. It should first be stated that Heschel did not intend to go so far as to claim a conceptualization of God’s essence:
“The idea of divine pathos is not a personification of God but an exemplification of divine reality, an illustration or illumination of His concern. It does not represent a substance, but an act or a relationship.”50 In fact, to make such a contention would be to misunderstand the root of Heschel’s issue with Greek thinking.
According to the celebrated statement of Xenophanes, ‘If oxen and horses and lions had hands or could draw with hands and create works of art like those made by men,
horses would draw pictures of gods like horses, and oxen of gods like oxen…
’ The essential error is not in how man depicts God, but in depicting Him at all. The great revolution in biblical faith was to regard any image of God as an abomination.51
Microsoft Word - Lieblich (hakirah.org)
It's not part of their theology, while the OT IS part of the Christian theology. 
