Simple question. While the Deuteronomists and later writers of the Bible condemned the use of images of Yahweh, they at the same time imagined him and described him in text as a man in the sky with bow and arrows or riding a chariot drawn by cherubs or sitting on a throne. If the former is a dishonor, ought not the latter be as well?
Images
by peacefulpete 6 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
enoughisenough
if you believe the Bible, the writers didn't imagine him, but were given visions which they wrote down what they saw...or they were inspired to write the descriptions. I can't think where I ever read they created items from the inspirations and bowed down to them...as they did in the case of false gods.
-
peacefulpete
Enough...ok rewording the question, would it seem consistent for God to give visions of himself and have these described in text while simultaneously condemn drawing a picture to represent him? Are both not human creations to assist praying or conceptualizing God? Would a God who rejects earthly visualizations of himself provide visualizations in earthy forms? Why is the one blasphemous and not the other?
Tangentially, is it coincidental their visions were identical with iconography of other gods?
-
EdenOne
In one of the most intriguing passages of the OT, we read:
Exodus 24:9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
Not only Moses, but more than 70 of the elders of Israel saw YHWH and describe seeing at least some anthropomorphic traits (his feet) that were as real as the precious blue pavement he stood upon. And the scribe goes to lengths to explain that they were not slain by 'seeing the God of Israel'.
Now, this is intriguing, because later on, on a more well known passage, we read:
Exodus 33:18 - "Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.” 19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” 21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock.22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
The author of Exodus can't make up his mind about YHWH; He writes that Moses asked to see YHWH's "glory", and it's YHWH that replies by attributing to himself anthropomorphic traits, such as "face", "hand" and " back". And then says that no man can see his face and live. Well, that's clearly at odds with what was said on chapter 24. Plus, the face is so real that seeing it can cause someone to die. It's as real as it gets, for the author of Exodus.
In other recorded story in Genesis 18, Abraham converses with Yahweh who appears to him in an anthropomorphic shape; and in Judges 13, Manoah and his wife saw Yahweh (and were persuaded that they would surely die because they had seen him), but that wasn't the case. The author of Judges writes that it was the "angel of the Lord", but the story eventually goes on to imply that it was Yahweh himself.
So, there is one strain of tradition within the OT (possibly a layer that is older than the Deuteronomistic) that has no problem in attributing anthropomorphic traits to Yahweh, and even depicting him walking and interacting with mankind, and representations of divinity weren't prohibited. Why did David kept an anthropomorphic idol in his house and wasn't even rebuked by it? (1 Samuel 19) It must have been an acceptable way to depict YHWH in its time, before idolatry because anathema in later times and retroprojected into ancient Israelite history.
-
Hopeless1
Perhaps the Almighty God was using an anthropomorphism to get a point across?
To depict or describe a quality about himself to the receiver of such visions, which could not be understood from a human perspective (such as his ability to act as a mighty warrior on behalf of his devotees).
Or could the visions depict analogies? Describing the unseen and unknown in terms more easily understood by humans, - but not meant to be taken as literal.
-
peacefulpete
First thanks for all responses.
EdenOne...it is almost as if there was more than one author.
Hopeless1...Your post raises another point. If the anthropomorphisms in the visionary descriptions ought be regarded as metaphorical and allegorical word pictures, mustn't these narratives where YHWH interacts with humans in human form then be viewed as the same? The narrative itself be merely an allegory?
The point remains that at the most fundamental level there is a contradiction. The anthropomorphic depiction and descriptions against the higher theological notion that the absolutely indescribable transcendent God cannot and ought not be reduced to the likeness of humans or anything else.
-
Hopeless1
Hmmmmmm….
possibly?, …. Quite likely?
Okay, don’t know, not sure I care right now, depends perhaps on what the Almighty wants to communicate to his faithful, and whether he wants to conceal the real truth from the less than worthy in his eyes.
(I just thank God I can even contemplate such questions now 🤪)