 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Anthropomorphism, Part III | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/29/2001 9:08 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all-
Pia inquired into a short article I'm writing for an Arabic study Bible targetting Muslim readers. Thought I'd post it and get comments. I understand Pia has slightly modified her views on anthropomorphisms. Would love to hear them. Here's the article (mind you, these articles are not highly academic or technicle; we target average North African/Middle Eastern readers):
Anthropomorphism in the Bible
Like a beautiful carpet containing different colors and patterns, the Bible is a book woven together with many different literary forms that together complete one beautiful message. One can read in the Bible historical and dramatic narratives, poetry, apocalyptic, letters, parables, metaphors, similes, symbolism and other types of literature and literary expressions. Just as we employ many different ways of speaking and communicating among ourselves, so God employs different ways of speaking to us in his Word. These "ways" constitute the literary forms of the Bible.
Anthropomorphism is one form of metaphor we find in the Bible. Anthropomorphism can simply be understood as the ascription to God of some human physical trait or attribute. For example, God “sits on his throne” (Rev. 3.21), “bares his arm” (Ex. 6.6), and is described as a “rock” (Ps. 18.2) and a “fortress” (Ps. 18.2). Sometimes the comparisons even extend to the animal world, as in Ps. 17.8, which speaks of God’s “wings.” All these are non-literal, metaphorical ways of speaking about God, his actions, or his relationship to the world.
That God should employ such language to communicate to us should not come as a surprise. Although he is self-sufficient and transcendent, God does wish to communicate to us in a personal way, for he is personal. In fact, our being persons is part of what it means for us to bear his image. Metaphorical language, then, helps us understand things with which we are initially unfamiliar by making comparisons we are familiar with [JS]. We understand what God is like through the idiom of Scripture and its various metaphors, and through them we relate to God [JS].
Anthropomorphisms describe God in a role he obviously cannot perform literally, such as being a “husband” (Isa. 54.5) or “father” (Jer. 31.9) to Israel, being a “rock” (Ps. 18.2), covering us with his “wings” (Ru. 2.12; Ps. 17.8), or as having “eyes” (Heb. 4.13), “hands” (1Sam. 5.11; 2Ch. 30.12), or a “face” (Psa. 42.2). These represent things obviously not literally true of God. He is not a rock, does not have wings, and does not possess body parts. The truth these metaphors communicate regarding God is not found in a literal understanding of them, but rather in discovering the specific point of comparison being made between the metaphor itself and God who is being described.
We usually understand such points of comparison without consciously thinking about them. For example, we intuitively understand what the sentence “God is my Rock” communicates about God. We immediately realize that a comparison between “rock” and “God” is being made and that this comparison mediates to us some truth about God. We have only to investigate the specific metaphor being used to discover what is being communicated. In the case of “rock,” we understand easily enough that God is strong, dependable, steadfast or trustworthy. In the case of “God’s eyes,” for example, we understand his intimate and exhaustive knowledge of all we think and do. Similarly, God “hiding his face” generally signifies his displeasure or the absence of his presence, while God “showing his face” signifies his favor and blessing. When attempting to understand anthropomorphic descriptions of God such as these, we simply need to ask, Where is the point of comparison? Some metaphors are universal and so are immediately understood. Others require some study of the original cultural and language of the Bible in order to understand. But once we understand where the point of comparison is, the truth behind the metaphor becomes clear.
There is another group of passages in the Bible that describe God as experiencing changing states of mind and emotion. Some understand these passages in precisely the same way they understand the metaphorical anthropomorphisms we have just mentioned, but it is unlikely that they are, properly speaking, metaphors. For example, in Gen. 6.6 we read, “God regretted that he made man on the earth; it grieved his heart.” Here God is said to “regret” a decision he made and to “grieve.” Are these mere anthropomorphisms of the same kind as “God is a rock” or “God sits on his throne”? It is rather unlikely. Consider also Isa. 5.1-2 where God expects sweet fruit (obedience and worship) from the Israelites but is disappointed when the people yield only sour grapes (disobedience and idolatry). Here God is described as hoping or waiting for something to occur. Note also Jer. 3.7 where God says, “I thought that after Israel had done all this, she would return to me, but she did not.” And again in Jer. 3.19-20 God declares, “I thought you would call me ‘Father,’ and would not turn from following me, but you were like a faithless wife.” Here God declares that his expectations did not come to pass. God is elsewhere said to change his mind in response to the prayers of men (Ex. 32-34; 2Ki. 20.1-6), to “rejoice over us” (Isa. 62.5) and experience “anger” (Ex. 4.14), “compassion” (Deu. 30.3), and “love” (Jer. 31.3).
What are we to make of such language? Does it describe God as he actually is, or just as he appears to be? It is obviously true that God does not have material “eyes,” “hands,” or a “throne” upon which he “sits,” but is it the case that God cannot feel “regret,” “sorrow,” “joy,” or “compassion”? Can he not change his mind in response to the prayers and actions of men? Many theologians believe God is incapable of such things. They argue that God is eternally unchanging in every conceivable respect, and so they view descriptions of God changing his mind or experiencing emotion in the same way they view passages which describe God as having “eyes” or “wings,” that is, as metaphorical anthropomorphisms, and so they claim such passages describe God not as he actually is but only as he appears to us to be.
This restricted view of God, however, is problematic. It leaves us with an impoverished view of God. Consider that although metaphorical anthropomorphisms are non-literal ways of describing God, they remain “reality-depicting” nonetheless. That is, though it may not be literally true that God has “eyes,” it is true that the truth contained in this particular metaphor genuinely describes God as he is and not merely as he appears to be. Some abiding truth about what God is actually like is being communicated. In this case the abiding truth is that God has perfect and exhaustive knowledge of all things. All anthropomorphisms communicate some such truth about God. Even if the language itself is non-literal, it remains “reality-depicting.”
When we consider passages which describe God as “grieving over sin” and “regretting” his decision to make man (Gen. 6.6), or as disappointed that what he hoped would come about did not come about (Isa. 5.1-2; Jer. 3.7, 19-20), let us ask ourselves what abiding truths about God stand behind these descriptions. If God is in fact incapable of experiencing changing states of emotion, what can it then mean for the Bible to describe him as “grieving” over our sin or “rejoicing over us with gladness”? If God is incapable of changing his mind, what abiding reality then stands behind passages like Ex. 32.11-13 where God responds to Moses’ intercession on behalf of rebellious Israel and changes his mind about the destruction he intended bring upon them? There are many similar passages where God is described as having a genuinely reciprocal give-and-take relationship with humans (Jer. 18.1-10), a relationship that is open to possibilities and change. It is very difficult to understand such passages as communicating about God anything other than what they actually say. Hence, when we interpret metaphorical language, let us not make the mistake of believing God incapable of experiencing such emotions or changing his mind in response to the actions and prayers of men.
In conclusion, metaphorical anthropomorphisms attribute to God some human physical trait or attribute. Examples of such language abound in the Bible and are a rich source of truth about God, provided one does not seek to interpret them literally. There is usually a single point of comparison that exists between the metaphor and God and this point of comparison reveals some truth about God, his actions, or his relationship to the world. Other passages, however, which describe God as experiencing emotions such as joy, regret, compassion, love, or anger, or as changing his mind and adopting a new course of action in response to people, are not anthropomorphic in the strict literary sense. The truth they describe is not found in comparing God in a non-literal way to something obviously impossible for him to do, but rather in what is actually being said about God in a straightforward manner.
-------------------
Fire away!
Tom 
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight
Edited by - TGB on 07/30/2001 02:10:13 AM
Edited by - TGB on 07/30/2001 02:11:39 AM
Edited by - TGB on 07/30/2001 02:13:58 AM
Edited by - TGB on 07/30/2001 02:16:19 AM
Edited by - TGB on 07/30/2001 02:18:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:54 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|