 |
| 
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/3/2003 2:09 PM (GMT -6) |   | So I was writing on another thread and, quoting a book I recently read "Beyond the Bounds" edited by John Piper, Justin Taylor, and Paul Kjoss Helseth, and I decided to start a thread about Anthropomorphisms and more particularly, several vesrses that reveal to us finite humans as either contradictory, especially in the eyes of OVists.
Numbers 23:19. "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"
1 Samuel 15:28,29. So Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent."
Isaiah 41:21:24 . "'Present your case,' says the LORD. 'Bring forth your strong reasons,' says the King of Jacob. 'Let them [false gods] bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former thins, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods; Yes, do good or evil, That we may be dismayed and see it together. Indeed you are nothing, And your work is nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination."
I think Isaiah specifically speaks to people as God knowing the future. Not just making Predictions about what He thinks might happen given different people and the characters that they have developed within themselves. elsewhere in Scripture it says that God declares the beginning from the end, the former things, and all that jazz. In this passage God is mocking the false gods, telling them to come forward and speak things of old and things to come so that He may know that they are gods. if God himself can't know the future than why in the world would He demand it of false gods? in the words of Stephen Charnock, "such a fore-knowledge of things to come, is here ascribed to God by God himself, as a distiction of Him from all false gods..." One might point at such verses and say counteract them with such verses that say "God relented" "God had a change of heart" and the like, but these aren't really "self-revelations" of God about Himself and if viewed through the scope of Anthropomorphisms and a compatablist view of God.
I just thought i would run this by anyone who wants to take the precious moments of their lives to perhaps respond to such a thought. as of now, i do not believe a thourgh exegetical work or explanation has been made of these verses from an OVists point of view.
blessings to all of you,
grace and peace,
borg
The Prayer of a Puritan
"In whose hand is my life and whose are all my ways,
Keep from fluttering about religion; fix me firm in it, for i am irresolute; my decisions are smoke and vapour, and i do not glorify thee, or behave according to thy will..."
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/3/2003 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Borg,
Tight schedule here . . . minimal amount of time to chat.
Here's the deal. When we say something such as, "God's hand is might," we obviously know God doesn't have a hand. THAT'S the anthropomorphic; however, the point made about God's control is NOT anthropomorphic. It's very real.
Well, take, for example, God's statments about how He changes His mind. The MIND part--as if God's got a mind inside of a brain as we do--is anthropomorphic; the point is not. I mean, what else can it possibly mean when one says, "I change my mind" than to mean . . . "I change my mind"? The anthropomorphic is not in the changing process, but in the vehicle used to communicate that there can be and is change.
Always try to differentiate between the vehicle carrying the real, true point: the anthropomorphic from the point itself, respectively. That will help to clear up some issues, I believe.
Got to go. Time's a wasting!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/3/2003 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | borg-
Here are some good talks we’ve had about anthropomorphism. I don’t think we left anything unsaid! It's all there! A treasure chest. The first one is the best (long and very thorough). I’ll follow by posting #5. It’s short and easier. It’s an article I wrote for an Arabic Study Bible I’m involved in. Have fun!
1. “Summary and Critical Review of the Anthropomorphic Debate”
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22&whichpage=1&ARCHIVE=
2. “Jonah and Anthropomorphism”
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=53
3. “Is God a Chess Player?”
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=155
4. “Anthropopathisms”
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=772
5. “Anthropomorphism”
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=380
6. “Anthropomorphism”? Symantic Gymnastics”
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1704
If you visit the CVM homepage, the section on Open Theism, you'll find explanations and comments on the passages you asked about.
Tom 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/3/2003 5:52 PM (GMT -6) | | 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. 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, God’s actions, or his relationship to the world.
That God should employ such language to communicate to us should not come as a surprise. Although God is self-sufficient and transcendent, he 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. We understand what God is like through the idiom of Scripture and its various metaphors, and through them we relate to God.
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. God 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 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 anthropomorphisms of the same kind as “God is a rock” or “God sits on the 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.
---------------------
Sorry for the length. The article got edited and shortened big-times.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/3/2003 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Also John Sanders does a good job responding to several of the cited verses in "Does God Have A Future."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/4/2003 10:24 AM (GMT -6) | | borg-
Get this and don't forget it, OK? Anthropomorphism is so crucial, so central, to this debate, you ought to give it a full year. Read everything about metaphor, the nature and limits of language used to talk about God, and just go over it again and again. Suspend judgment until you get a good grip on it. This issue right here is what brought me into the Openness camp. Give it time my friend. It'll take more than a post or thread or two.
borg: Numbers 23:19. "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"
Tom: Take it in steps and keep an eye on the context. Check out the following verses or two.
In this chapter Balak, Israel’s enemy, hires Balaam to curse Israel. The altars are prepared and Balak is waiting for Balaam to arrive. But God has already spoken to Balaam and told him what to say. He is to bless Israel. Balaam arrives, blesses Israel instead of cursing them, and ticks Balak off. Balak tries again. Sacrifices are prepared at a different site and Balaam is summoned. “Try to get it right this time,” Balak says to Balaam, “you’re supposed to curse them, not bless them.” God speaks to Balaam and tells him what to say. Balaam shows up and delivers God’s messages, only part of which you quoted.
It seems pretty clear to me that God’s “not repenting” or changing his mind here is to be understood not as “God is incapable of changing his mind because he eternally knows certainly what shall come to pass” but rather as “God’s not going to change his mind with regard to his promise to bless Israel. God’s not like you humans who lie and change their minds, committed now to bless and now to curse, back and forth. He can’t be bought the way you humans can be bought. God’s committed to bless Abraham’s seed, and you’re wasting your time if you think he’s going to change his mind.” Here the stipulation simply amounts to the claim that God can’t be bribed. He’s not fickle. He’s not changing his mind THIS TIME.
I submit that this need NOT be understood, actually, given the context, ought not to be understood as meaning God is incapable of changing his mind. We’re told only two or three times God is not a man that he lie or change his mind, but we’re told some 40x times (can’t remember exactly) either that God is willing to or has changed his mind.
borg: 1 Samuel 15:28,29. So Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent."
Tom: Context, context, context. Check this out: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=3&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=587
borg: Isaiah 41:21:24…I think Isaiah specifically speaks to people as God knowing the future. Not just making Predictions about what He thinks might happen given different people and the characters that they have developed within themselves.
Tom: As far as I know all open theists agree with you here.
borg: In this passage God is mocking the false gods, telling them to come forward and speak things of old and things to come so that He may know that they are gods. if God himself can't know the future than why in the world would He demand it of false gods?
Tom: Context, context, context! If God is challenging the false gods to declare the future, i.e., might it not be that God is asking them to “declare” their intentions and then “do” something? Anything? “OK you false gods, announce that tomorrow you’re gonna make it rain.” Can they do something as simple as willing to perform and then performing? Guess not. God wins.
borg: …in the words of Stephen Charnock, "such a fore-knowledge of things to come, is here ascribed to God by God himself, as a distiction of Him from all false gods..." One might point at such verses and say counteract them with such verses that say "God relented" "God had a change of heart" and the like, but these aren't really "self-revelations" of God about Himself and if viewed through the scope of Anthropomorphisms and a compatablist view of God.
Tom: And how do you know these verses are not self-revelations of God? By what right do you take God’s own declaration, for example, in Jer. 18.1-10 in which God announces his willingness to change his mind, or relent of previously announced intentions, and say these do NOT tell us anything about God? Where did you learn this? And if ALL our language about God is human language, how do you know “God loves us” is not as anthropomorphic as “God changes his mind”? Do you have a privileged inside view on God?
Of course, “if viewed through the scope of a compatibilist view of God” passages that describe God aren’t self-revelations. I see. It’s like this:
1. Decide what you believe.
2. Find those passages that support your believe and label those “revelatory” of God.
3. Then find those verses that don’t fit your preconceived notion of God and label those “anthropomorphic” and “non-revelatory.”
OK, I can do this too. If viewed through the scope of open theism, both types of passages (those that show God determining the future and those that show God changing his mind) equally reveal God! Both are true. In your view, a very great portion of the Bible’s description of God actually tells us zip, zero, nada about God because they’re not “self-revelations” of God. And you know God well enough before opening the Bible to know which verses reveal him and which verses don’t.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:54 PM (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 |
|
|