Preface: This was written for my Advanced Theology class when I was a student of Bible & Ministry and submitted October 3, 2001.
God’s Attributes: Actual or Condescending?
There are certain things in the Bible that trigger huge debates, such as the topic of the literal (as opposed to figurative) application of humanlike attributes to God, in the cases as they are actually stated in the Bible. Many believe that repentance by God, in addition to many other similar emotions, is ‘our’ (fallible, small-minded humans) attributing to God human feelings and actions to the Deity. This ‘application’ is also known by the more commonly used term, anthropomorphisms. This topic has puzzled me, depending on whom I am discussing it with. Some think that God is ‘talking down’ to us in order for us to understand his point. I have heard that the word was mistranslated and, “We do not really know what He was trying to say.” Others assert that, “Yes, in fact God did experience that feeling.” I personally can accept the fact that these attributes (material and immaterial) applied to God were written the way He wanted them to be. There was nothing lost in translation and we can take them as literal. This however, is not an exhaustive explanation for me, as there are still verses to discuss with respect to different attributes in order to come to a complete conclusion.
Can God repent? Genesis 6:6-7 says, “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” This seems to clearly mean that He can repent, and this is only one verse of many that are considered anthropomorphisms. So where is the problem? First off, the word ‘repent’ means “to feel regret…change one’s mind” So, the question becomes: Can God change His mind? Since, God is moving in time with us now and does not know what will happen tomorrow, then He can. Change His mind. If he does and did not predestine me to do anything as an individual, then He logically could not have predestined His own thoughts and feelings, right? Therefore, it is only logical to think that God in his infinite power can literally do whatever He wants, whether or not He would choose to, including changing His mind. However, Scofield says, “When applied to God the word is used phenomenally according to the O.T. custom. God seems to change His mind. The phenomena are such as, in the case of a man, would indicate a change of man.”” Scofield is in a roundabout way saying that God in fact does not change His mind; we just think He does because He seems to. This logic is illogic to me to be honest. The thoughts behind most who sway this way started with the foundation that Plato created. Plato once said, “The perfect does not change. God is perfect. God does not change.” On the other hand, this sounds completely logical also, does it not? God is in fact perfect, which I believe we would all agree on. However, God is not imperfect for changing His mind. That, to me, makes Him an even more awesome and more powerful God since He is actually dealing with us on an interactive and immediate level. Wouldn’t it be much easier to predestinate everything and then sit back and watch it all happen? We, as humans, can barely handle our own finite lives with the amount of people we deal with. Imagine having to deal with all the people from all time and at all times. This is a definite demonstration of what my God can do. As humans, we cannot fathom that idea, so some choose to say it isn’t so by following the seemingly logical thoughts of Plato, which in the long run I feel minimizes God’s overall abilities with our (Him and us) interactions.
Depending on what you feel is the more rational way to view God and his interactions with man that will determine how you view the necessity and purpose of any verses containing anthropomorphisms. I believe that the verses are not used in a condescending manner as E.W. Bullinger says, nor an exaggeration of the truth to make a point to the readers as I have heard others say. The Holy Spirit will work in us to make the point; we do not need for God to exaggerate one word in a verse. In the cases of the use of the parables, that is an obviously more clear purpose of getting a point across to the readers, but what would the use of the word “repent” in a verse do? I do not see any other purpose but to take those instances literally and to try to understand the complexity that our God works in to the point that He can repent because he is able to when we, as free will agents, have not done what we are supposed to have done. With that in mind look to Exodus 32:14, “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” This is when Moses changed God’s mind to not “wax hot against them [Israel].” (Ex. 32:10) In this instance, God did literally change His mind (repent), as he did not put His wrath upon the people. Another example of God’s ability to repent is in 1Samuel 15:11 and 35, “It repenteth me [God] that I have set Saul to be king…” and “…the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.” An interesting verse is 1Samuel 15:29, ”And also the Strength of Israel [God] will not lie nor repent for he is not a man, that he should repent.” Here, most Calvinists have argued that this plainly states that God cannot repent, so the other verses must be exaggerations or ones of condescension. I urge you, however, to re-read the passage. It does say that God ‘should’ not repent; it does not say that he cannot, will not or does not. I feel this verse is saying that God should not have to repent, the same way that I should not have to tell my children more than once to clean their room, because they know what they need to and should be doing it. This does not mean that I will not tell them more than once, and that God will not repent.
Our understanding of God can be hindered by the use of these anthropomorphisms, if our foundation for understanding is not on stable ground to begin with. If one does not understand that God has not predestined the world and its events before time, then the idea of God is as preposterous to them as it would be to me to say the God could not change His mind. The topic of anthropomorphisms is so translucently clear if the foundation is the right one. God is not seeing yesterday and tomorrow right now as he watches me type. He only can see what I have done once I do it and my heart. He does not know if I will ever turn in this writing to fulfill my assignment. He does however; conclude based on my past actions and my oh-so-obvious human predictability as to whether or not I will. With that in mind, it is not the anthropomorphism that will hinder my understanding of God, but rather my understanding of God that may hinder the purpose or meaning of the anthropomorphism.
Many times I have come to notice that people read the Bible and put culture or presuppositions into it. We need to pull from the text and apply it to our lives, not add into it to make it fit our lifestyle. People often do this with God. They want to put our limited understanding onto what He can do. It should be the opposite. God can do all things, and we cannot. So, for God to be able to rejoice (Isa. 62:5), have sorrow and grief (Judges. 10:16), to love (Prov. 3:12), to repent (2Sam. 24:16), have anger and vengeance (Nah. 1:2), be comforted (Ezek. 5:13), have jealousy (Ex. 20:5) and many more immaterial feelings are very seemingly possible. We have them, so why can’t God? Has He put limits on Himself? What about the idea that we are made in His image? What if we have our feelings because we got them from His image, just like everything else? We must sway away from putting our limitations onto God. He has no limitations of this sort.
With those that say an anthropomorphism is just a word that was mistranslated and, “We do not really know what He was trying to say” take away from the whole point of inspiration in the Bible, which is a huge and vital part of it. There are many random thoughts on this topic, but I do not believe (nor understand) such random theology. I believe only in grounded, logical and biblically correct concepts. For that reason, the anthropomorphism is not a ‘problem’ for me as it would be to others. On the contrary, it is the epitome of the awesomeness of what my God can do. If I were to discount the verses in question, what would that do to the quality and validity of the rest of the Bible?
1 - Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, pg. 992, ©1994 by Merriam-Webster, Inc.
2 - The Scofield® Reference Bible, Zechariah 8:14 note on pg. 972 © 1909, 1917; copyright renewed 1937, 1945 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Emphasis his.__________________________________________
© 2001 Shannon Yáñez
