Anthropomorphisms -- Their Impact to Systematic Theology  

In his large work "Figures of Speech used in the Bible,"  E.W. Bullinger provides a more thorough discussion of anthropomorphism:

            Anthropopatheia.  Greek, anthropopatheia, from anthropos, man, and pathos, affections and feelings, etc.  This figure is used of the ascription of human passions, actions, or attributes to God.

            The Hebrews had a name for this figure, and called it DERECH BENAI ADAM, the way of the sons of man.

            The Greeks had another name for it: SYNCATABASIS, from syn, together with, kata, down, and bainein, to go: a going down together with: i.e. God, by using this figure, condescends to the ignorance and infirmity of man.

            Hence, the Latin name for it was CONDESCENSIO, condescension. [3]

Benjamin Keach says:

            Anthropopatheia is a metaphor by which things properly belonging to creatures, especially man, are by a certain  similitude attributed to God and divine things.  It is likewise called condescension, because God in His holy word descends as it were, so low as our capacities, expressing His heavenly mysteries after the manner of men.... [4]

Finally A.A. Hodge states:

            Anthropomorphism (anthropos, man; morphe, form) is a phrase employed to designate any view of God's nature which conceives of him as possessing or exercising any attributes common to him with mankind. [5]

"Anthropomorphic metaphors have tended to be depreciated, even denigrated, in the history of Judeo-Christian thought and OT scholarship in particular." [6]   The widely used "Unger's Bible Dictionary" reveals this attitude when it says "Traces of this [the anthropomorphic metaphor] are found in Scripture." [7]   Indeed, the Bible abounds with anthropomorphic metaphors rather than mere "traces."  As we investigate the impact of anthropomorphic metaphors to various areas of theology we shall see further evidence of this denigration.

TYPES OF ANTHROPOMORPHISMS

Fundamentally we are dealing with two types of anthropomorphisms: material and immaterial.  This is to say that when we break down all the human metaphors used in conjunction with God we observe that there are those that consist of a physical or material characteristic (i.e. hand, face, etc.) and those that consist of a mental or immaterial characteristic (i.e. love, jealousy, anger, etc.).  Here is a list (not to be understood as exhaustive) of these two types:

From this list it can be observed that there are numerous anthropomorphic usages and I cannot stress enough that this is just a sampling of them (I'd suggest the reader use a computerized Bible and search for more).  These alone tell us one thing: metaphors matter.  We must ascertain from the anthropomorphic metaphors the proper impact they have to systematic theology.

IMPACT TO REVELATION

How are we to understand anthropomorphic metaphors in the area of Revelation and its sub-topics, inspiration and interpretation?  It is commonly taught that passages having anthropomorphic characteristics are to be understood as containing language of accommodation.  The language of scripture is accommodated to our ideas of things. 

Bernard Ramm, in his classic book, "Protestant Biblical Interpretation" states:

            Holy Scripture is the truth of God accommodated to the human mind so that the human mind can assimilate it....Through such accommodation the truth of God can get through to man and be a meaningful revelation.  Stated another way, revelation must have an anthropomorphic character. [8]

Contemporary writer R.B. Thieme agrees:

            For the sake of clarity, therefore, when describing the character and function of infinite God, the Bible often resorts to language of accommodation.  In other words, to make certain that His thoughts, policies, decisions, and actions are lucidly explained, God takes into account our inherent limitations and basic ignorance.  He graciously describes  Himself as having human feelings, human passions, human thoughts, human anatomy -- even human sins [9] -- in order to communicate things to us for which otherwise we would have no frame of reference. [10]

Thus according to Ramm and Thieme, anthropomorphisms are to be understood as God communicating to man in man's language.  However, what are we to understand by the anthropomorphism?  Are we to understand that in inspiration, God put things in human terms so that we would understand, yet the attribute communicated by the anthropomorphism isn't what God is like?  It seems that this is what some scholars mean.  Thieme states; "Of course, God possesses none of these characteristics..." [11]   Bullinger also; "Human affections and feelings are attributed to God: not that He has such feelings; but, in infinite condescension, He is thus spoken of in order to enable us to comprehend Him." [12]

I shall comment later about the implications this proposal has concerning God's attributes.  But regarding inspiration we have the following obstacle confronting us if we accept this proposal: Anthropomorphisms do not really aid us in our understanding of God if, in seeking to accommodate, God presents Himself in a manner that He is not.  Shouldn't He have known that this would be the case (i.e. that we would figure out that the anthropomorphism does not describe an attribute of God) and simply told us about Himself without confusing metaphors? [13]   Besides, if He isn't what the metaphor teaches, then who is He and where do we find the evidence to substantiate what He is? [14]   The veracity of God presented by inspiration demands that we let anthropomorphic metaphors teach us about God.  Truly, "God cannot be captured by any of them," [15] but we must reinvestigate what God wanted to communicate to us when He is said to: rejoice; have sorrow or grief; receive comfort; display anger and hatred; be jealous; and repent.  It was the God given, cognitive abilities of language and thinking that were the channels God used to communicate revelation to man.  Therefore, words must mean what they say or else they are meaningless.

Fretheim has observed:

            It is ironic that OT interpretation should have problems with these concrete ways of depicting God.  To understand this language in a purely figurative sense would mean that it is thought finally to stand over against the concreteness and realism commonly said to be characteristic of OT thought.  A figurative interpretation buys abstraction at the expense of concreteness.  A further irony can be noted in the fact that anthropomorphic metaphors predominate in Israelite talk about the deity in a way that is not the case elsewhere in the ancient Near East (cf. the use of animal-human hybrids).  This preponderant tendency is thus a point of distinctiveness in the OT understanding of God, which many would try to explain away. [16]

Thus the impact of anthropomorphisms to God's revelation is significant.  If we view these metaphors as divinely inspired data, given to us by God Himself to communicate to us His person, then we must examine them to see what they teach us about God.  If we say that they really don't mean what they metaphorically express, then God is liable of mis-communication and we become exposed to the potential of idolatry -- creating God according to our own image. 

IMPACT TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF GOD'S ATTRIBUTES

If we take the anthropomorphic metaphors for what they express then we will discover a profound impact upon our understanding of God's attributes.  However, this must be done while guarding against two extremes: over simplification and denigration.

Oversimplification results when a metaphor is taken in an exaggerated sense.  An example would be picturing the "hand of God" as some massive five fingered object.  It is not that simple.  Another would be understanding God's jealousy in a weak, almost sinful way.  Over-simplification occurs primarily with the material type of anthropomorphisms.

Denigration occurs when the interpretation of the "hand of God" fails to acknowledge the God can and does work in a situation (cp.  Josh. 4:24;  "That all the people of the earth might know the hand of the LORD, that it is mighty: that ye might fear the LORD your God for ever.").  Another very common example of denigration is the treatment of the repent passages.  The Hebrew word for repent (NACHAM) is used some 35 times in reference to God.  Yet when most commentators deal with God's repentance they decline (and even forbid) any notion that the metaphor may have bearing upon our understanding of the future and God's knowledge of that future.  

Denigration occurs primarily with the immaterial anthropomorphisms.  And in some writings the issue is closed and no room is left for fresh discussion on the matter.  Yet it is inescapable, anthropomorphisms challenge us in many ways and the sailing between the two extremes of over simplification and denigration calls for a brave new theological approach.

Since the doctrine of God's attributes is large, and the scope of this essay is limited, I will confine my discussion of anthropomorphisms to a specific attribute:  God's love.  Here is a listing (with selected quotes) of many verses (KJV) that mention God's (or the LORD's) love:

Deut. 7:8:  "But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."   Cp. 1 Kings 10:9; 2 Sam. 12:24; Isa. 48:14; Deut.  23:5; 2 Chr. 9:8; Ps. 87:2

Ps. 37:28:  "For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off."  Cp. Ps. 11:7

Ps. 146:8:  "The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous."  Cp. Isa. 61:8; 2 Chr. 2:11;

Prov. 3:12  "For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth."

2 Cor. 9:7  "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."

John 3:16  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  1 John 4:16

1 John 4:8  "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."  Cp. 4:11; 2 Cor. 13:11

The love of God is not often viewed as an anthropomorphism, yet it clearly is.  This becomes apparent when we compare these verses with those that talk about God "hating." 

Ps. 11:5  "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."

Deut. 16:22  "Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth."  Cp. 12:31; Mal. 2:16

Both love and hate are found in a very theological passage; Rom. 9:13:

            "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated."

God is said to love and to hate, both of which are human emotions.  How are we to understand these anthropomorphisms?  Furthermore, the scripture also states that "God is LOVE."  That is to say that God describes Himself via an anthropomorphism, AGAPE.

Those who accept the idea that anthropomorphisms are "language of accommodation" and that they do not apply to the attributes of God are faced with a problem.  On one hand they accept the thought that God loves, yet on the other they reject the idea that God hates (or can be jealous, have sorrow or grief, or even change His plan).  This type of theological dualism is not being Biblically or theologically consistent.  R.B. Thieme acknowledges this problem of inconsistencies and because of his denigration of anthropomorphisms concludes that God does not "love the world."  Observe what he says:

            God does not love Satan.  God does not love the world.  God does not love fallen man.  All we can offer Him are sin and human good, but both are equally objectionable to His absolute righteousness (Isa. 64:6; Tit. 3:5).  What the righteousness of God rejects, the justice of God condemns.  Therefore, God can no more love us than He can be angry, jealous, impatient, or changeable.  "Love," in John 3:16 is simply an anthropopathism. [17]

This may be an extreme example, but I feel it is a logical conclusion if the anthropomorphisms are denigrated and thought to be incompatible with the "true" essence of God.  We must face the challenge that anthropomorphisms, and specifically the immaterial anthropomorphisms present to us: How can we accept the fact that God can love; yet deny the equally conspicuous impressions that the other immaterial anthropomorphic metaphors present?

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Scholars throughout the centuries have wrestled with the impact of anthropomorphisms to Systematic Theology and have come to conclusions that I find inadequate.  They have tended to accept the ideas conveyed by material anthropomorphisms but have denigrated the immaterial anthropomorphisms.  Most [18] deal with them inconsistently: accepting the ideas presented in the anthropomorphism of God's love while slighting the impact of the rest.

By way of definition, an anthropomorphism is God communicating to man in language drawn from the human sphere.  The Bible is full of anthropomorphic metaphors and these metaphors matter.  God intended for this communication to disclose truth about Himself, truth that impacts the readers as to who and what He is like.

In the start of this essay, I quoted Fretheim as saying; "Anthropomorphic metaphors have tended to be depreciated, even denigrated, in the history of Judeo-Christian thought and OT scholarship in particular."  I have attempted to show that this has indeed been the case.  Yet the anthropomorphic metaphors are perhaps one of the largest resources (untapped) that we posses conveying God's person and nature.

To aid us in our understanding the anthropomorphic metaphors, God's love provides us with a clear motif as to how the immaterial anthropomorphisms can be rightly understood.  The problem seems to be in our reluctance in honestly allowing them to impact our Systematic Theology.

There is an abundance of material to study.  I believe that we must come to grips with what God has revealed about Himself in the anthropomorphisms.  Such a study may be intimidating to our current understanding of God.  If that is so, we must face such  intimidation with boldness, knowing that He understands and delights in our pursuit of a clearer awareness of Him.

            But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.  (Jer. 9:24)