All God-talk, all theology, even ours, is metaphorical, describing God in terms that properly belong to the human sphere. It cannot be otherwise, as human words, like human thought, belong this side of creation, and cannot begin to describe its other side, God as he is in his own interior life. Such knowledge as we have of God is not of God as he is, but as he shows himself towards human beings.… When we say that God saves, redeems, pities us, is our Father, our shepherd, our King, we are using metaphors or images drawn from human life and experience. In other words, we are using anthropomorphisms, ascribing to God human actions and human feelings.—J. C. L. Gibson,
Language and Imagery in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 22; cited in
Conformed to the Image of His Son, 28
<idle musing>
Starting a new book today, Conformed to the Image of His Son. I picked it up at AAR/SBL a few years ago, and it languished on my bookshelf until recently.
Today's snippet might seem to contradict the previous post from Tozer about God being near, but not really. We use anthropomorphisms, but they accurately reflect God to a degree. The danger is to forget they are metaphorical, trying to describe what is beyond human comprehension.
</idle musing>
No comments:
Post a Comment