Ceci n'est pas un blog
Does God have body parts, and did he create in six days?
Have a quick look at this, and then read on:
An idea... We could speak about different "domains" of reality. Some of these domains are readily accessible to our senses, and some are not. Let D be a domain of reality. Then in the world of the Hebrew Scriptures, we could have one of the following:
- D is readily accessible to our senses, so It is appropriate to speak about D in simple language to describe how it actually is.
- D is not readily accessible to our senses, so It is appropriate to speak about D only in terms of images and metaphors.
My suggestion is this. In two parts.
1. It is (or should be) obvious that when the Scriptures speak about God having body parts, it is using images and metaphors. And the reason it is (or should be) obvious is not because of the genre of the passage, but because the nature of God is a domain of reality about which it is appropriate to speak only in terms of images and metaphors.
2. What other domains of reality might fit into the same category? Could it be that the process of the creation of the cosmos fits into the same category? In other words, that whenever the Scriptures speak about the process by which God created everything, it is (or should be) obvious that it is speaking in images and metaphors, whatever the genre of the passage?
Taking the two categories above, my guess (and it's a complete guess, with no supporting evidence—yet!) is that we could have the following:
- Domains of reality that can be described in simple "this-is-how-it-really-is" language: historical events, ordinary things that can be seen.
- Domains of reality that can be described only in images and metaphors: the nature of God himself, the process of creation, the structure of those parts of the world and cosmos inaccessible to ordinary observation, the inner workings of a person (heart, soul, mind, "bowels", etc.).
It's just a guess. And it's a guess based on which bits of the Bible I want to take "literally" and which bits I don't. Some people might not like that approach! But the idea makes a bit of sense to me, and I think it's worth trying out...
Thoughts?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Anthony on 7 Mar 2012 at 10.43 am, and is filed under Christian. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
I live in York and I 
Loading ...
about 1 year ago
Read Henri Blocher's magisterial In the Beginning, if you haven't already: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginning-Opening-Chapters-Genesis/dp/0877843252
A brilliant evangelical treatment of the first chapters of Genesis, textually, culturally and theologically sensitive, and dealing mostly with the issues you raise.
I would go into further detail, but don't wish to do the book an injustice!
about 1 year ago
And eschatology, although that's often counted as a genre in itself.
I think a place to go to would be the way language works more generally. In literature more widely, many of the things you mention are described analogically or metaphorically: why drop this when we come to Scripture?
about 1 year ago
I almost put "the future" in the second category, but that is sometimes spoken about in simple terms (if it's something God reveals in simple terms) and very often spoken about in images.
I really need to read a few extra-biblical writings from the ancient near-east. Not sure where to start though.
about 1 year ago
Tom - sorry, you were trapped as spam. Just rescued you. I've read Blocher's book, and found it very valuable indeed.
His argument is mostly based on the literary/genre aspects of Genesis 1-3. But as I've been pondering it for the past few years, I'm not sure that is enough.
Exodus 20:11 reads, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." That's ordinary prose, as far as I can tell. No careful repetitions and artistry.
Now, if it is the literary features of Genesis 1 - and only the literary features - that lead one to think that Genesis 1 is not a straightforward account of the events that happened, then when it comes to Ex. 20:11 the thinking must go like this:
(1) This is a summary of Genesis 1. (2) Genesis 1 has literary features that lead me to interpret in a non-straightforward way. (3) Therefore, Ex. 20:11 should be interpreted in a non-straightforward way.
I think that's putting too much weight on the literary features. This is especially true when you consider that the Ten Commandments were given a matter of days after the Exodus, and the Sabbath was presented after the Exodus (Ex. 16) apparently as something not widely practised (or not known at all). That leaves Moses a matter of days in which to come up with the Genesis 1 way of telling the story of creation, and to spread it among the whole nation, so that when God speaks Ex 20:11 the people can immediately make the logical steps above involving association with the Genesis 1 account and its literary features, in order to interpret that verse correctly. This strikes me as a crazy idea.
An alternative would be to see Ex 20:11 as a later addition to what God actually said in giving the Ten Commandments, noting that it doesn't appear in Dt. 5, but I'm not 100% comfortable with that. And one would still need to make those steps of interpretation whenever the Ten Commandments are recited.
I'm trying something different (new?) here, which doesn't rely on the literary features of Genesis 1 as the only factor guiding interpretation, but which takes the subject matter (the process of creation) as implying that, whatever the literary features/genre, this is speaking in images and metaphors. That could apply to Exodus 20:11, even before Genesis 1 was composed.
about 1 year ago
May I point you to this page on my site?
http://www.thain.com/bible/creation/seven-year-lunar-cycle.htm
In itself it doesn't prove a six-day creation. But it's quite good corroborative evidence of the Divine Hand at work, and therefore of the literal truth of what that Hand has written, on the page and in the heavens.
about 1 year ago
Ian - thanks for the link. I think the seven-"year" cycle demonstrates that 354 is not a multiple of 7. Whether it demonstrates anything else is very doubtful. (Especially as a year is more than 354 days, and 29.5 is not the same as 29.53.)
about 1 year ago
Anthony,
The granularity of Biblical chronology is a year which depends upon the both lunar period and the weather. It doesn't work according to modern notions of nano-seconds and you cannot time it with a clock. The festal year is actually reset every Passover by the barley sprouting (not that modern rabbis know that, whose ancestors adopted the methods of Babylon during the captivity) and for the purposes for which it was designed it works perfectly. Its precision was demonstrated by the various long intervals in scripture which terminated at their appointed time "on the very day", and is still being demonstrated by the no less traumatic events of modern times which correspond with absolute precision to the high days of the Mosaic festal calendar.
Neither, for that matter, was this cycle designed to prove anything, least of all to sinful men. Science demands proof, and correctly so, but faith rejoices in its absence. Especially is this so when faith comes across signs of its Beloved's handiwork, as a man rejoices when he finds some silent piece of work by his beloved wife. He doesn't ask for proof that it was done by her; he just recognises immediately the work of one he loves. The sabbath was an integral part of creation (as the prophets tried repeatedly to remind everybody, and as the people just as frequently forgot, and still do), and this cycle reflects that perfectly.
Faith alone can enter into the Holy of Holies; reason must always kneel in subject reverence outside the door. We shall never understand God; but human ignorance of God is no hinderance to faith in Him. Smith Wigglesworth was an illiterate plumber, but he healed uncounted thousands in the Name of Jesus, and in the same name raised at least fourteen people from the dead. He was still doing so when I was born.
(Sorry if this post reads like a sermon!)
Ian
about 1 year ago
Why is it that I always spot a typo just after I have hit "send"? The first line of the above post should have read,
"The granularity of Biblical chronology is a year which depends upon both the lunar period and the weather."
Ian
about 1 year ago
I'm not actually sure I agree with the original article that you start from! I don’t think the examples given are anthropomorphisms at all. For example, I don't see why "God saw" is an anthropomorphism. There is a distinction between having the ability to see and possessing certain means by which one sees. If one reads "God saw" and concludes that God has "eyes with pupils and retinas", the reader has clearly gone wrong somewhere, but where? One might say that he's reading the text too literally and that the text is using human things to describe what God does (anthropomorphism). However, all that the text actually says is that God can "see". The error of the reader is in using reasoning along the lines of:
1. God can see
2. Humans see with eyes
Therefore
3. God has eyes
The problem with this is that it assumes that the human way of doing things is the only way. "Seeing" is about being able to perceive what is around you. The way humans do this uses eyes, but the way bats do this is with their ears. We don’t know exactly how God perceives things, but I don't see any problem with the idea that God is able to perceive what is around Him. Whether he does this with an eye or not doesn't seem to be very relevant; he can do it somehow. The text shows that God is able to do something, but says nothing about the means by which he does it. Therefore all we can get from the text is that God is able to "see", but we aren't told how he does this.
The other examples in Genesis 1 are similar. God “speaks”. No, he doesn’t have vocal cords, but he can speak. He has audible conversations with various people in the Bible.
I’m not saying there are no anthropomorphisms in the Bible. Proper anthropomorphisms seem to me to be when God is said to have a physical attribute. For example, 1 Peter 3:12 says:
“For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”
This is clearly an anthropomorphism. It should be interpreted as “the means by which God sees are on the righteous”, etc.
As the Genesis examples are only talking about what God did and not the means by which He did it, and so are understandable non- anthropomorphisms, it would seem to fit into the “just say it as it is” category.
P.S. I'm one of those people you refer to in your last paragraph!
about 1 year ago
Jeremy - you're right, of course
And yes, there are plenty of proper anthropomorphisms, even some speaking of God actively doing things with his body parts: stretching out his arm, sending things out of his nostrils, etc. And we interpret them (rightly, I suggest) as speaking figuratively about God acting without body parts.
Thanks for the comments!
about 1 year ago
As my comment passed the Anthony test, I made a similar one on the original article. It's been published.
about 1 year ago
Ooh, famous!