What is an anthropomorphism?

It is usual for scientists to seek to throw a stigma on the teaching of Gen. 1 and ii. by high-sounding phrases intended to throw people off the track. Listen to Professor Geddes: — "Evolution supersedes those cruder anthropomorphisms of arbitrary creation and of mechanical contrivance which present the universe as an aggregate of finished products." But long words prove no arguments, and here like the discolourations of the cuttlefish only serve to cover a retreat. Anthropomorphism literally means the imputation of the form of man to God; though it is sometimes applied to scriptural expressions such as "And God said," etc. But what the sceptic insinuates is that such terms are less illustrative of the majesty and power of God than the formulae of evolution. In other words, for man to be created in immediate response to the words "Let us make man in our image" is too crudely anthropomorphic, too human a way of doing it. We submit, however, that it is much more after the manner of men, to represent the Deity experimenting on various forms of life from the amoeba upwards, "trusting to the chapter of accidents for variation," only to arrive at the ideal after untold millenaries. This smacks more of human weakness than of infinite power. We might learn from the Gospels that, when the deed followed the word without the medium of ordinary causes, it was not a "crude anthropomorphism" but a Divine act. This expression therefore, as well as others in the above quotation, is loose, inaccurate, and misleading; yet it is a fair sample of the shifts evolutionists resort to in order to obtain a hearing for their theory of creation.

The difference of Genesis 1 and 2 is evident. I do not understand how the infidels make any difficulty or inventions about it. Evidently in chapter I he takes his place in the creation, the work of God as God amongst the creatures, male and female, like the other animals (only paired especially, and that noticed), whereas in chapter 2 it is in his whole moral constitution and being, and place, and relationship in the counsels and ways of God, as He has had to say to men, that he is noticed. Yet in one sense, as a creature, he is distinguished from all others; God thinks about the way of creating him, and has pleasure in that which is like Himself and His image. To this no creature could aspire. But it is not relationship, but God's delight in Himself and creation after it. Not the new creation (as often remarked) of Ephesians 4, that would never do; it could not fall - ought not. It is not mere creation of a being, but a nature communicated - partakers of the divine nature. Nor is it anthropomorphism (i.e., being the form of His body); that were poor and no purpose worthy of God, and pretentious too in man to think of. What is insisted on, however, is the image, not the likeness. So Genesis 9:6 But in James 3:9, "likeness," not "image." But "likeness" must, I think, come first for him to be so, as "image" must in the birth of Seth. As I have said elsewhere, an image "represents," a likeness is "conformed to." Seth did represent Adam on the earth, had his place, though not the first in it, or he could not be an image, but alas! he was in his likeness, too, a fallen sinner.

So when man's blood was to be shed it was not his moral goodness but the place he held and dignity, his representing God as he had been set, but which made it unfit he should be killed. James will not have man cursed, and here "likeness" is the fit word; we bless what God is and curse His likeness - man, who was made in it, for so he speaks. Hence (as I have said elsewhere) He formed man spotless, sinless, free, with a will to be for ever used in the sphere he was placed in, and the centre of all the affections and reverence of the sphere he was placed in, and he stood alone as the centre of it all, the image of God. Christ will be, though far more, yet this, perfectly; being One that in the highest sense fully partakes of the divine nature.

This, then, God's likeness and image in Adam was not; but what was it? I reject anthropomorphism; that is, its being in the form of his body. It is lowering God Himself and even Adam's position, and is confusion only, though an early error; though it be true that, as incarnate and anticipating manifestations, God took this form. That is a blessed mystery, but refutes the idea as to Adam. For it is incarnation — and this the creation of Adam was not, though doubtless in view of it. What was then this likeness and image, and what the difference of the two? We are renewed in (into) knowledge after the image of Him that created us. This itself shews it was not Adam's. It is the ὁ νέος, the wholly new man which is this. And it is a καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, a new kind of man too.

Our idea of spirit is not material, when we think without reasoning, but when I reason to prove, the character of my present nature necessarily comes in, and as I can only think actively according to my present structure of being, I can have no idea of positive existence, but corporeal existence. But the first thoughts which are not reasoning, and often the justest, do recognise the existence of being, without corporeal existence. If I think of a man's dying, I heed not whence the thought comes, I have the thought of an immaterial principle separated from the body; if I begin to ask "what is it"? I can only form an idea according to my present existence and structure, which is the union of body and thinking and a moral principle. If I say "I will," I am exercised, not thinking of any material body at all; if I begin to ask, "what is this I?" I am brought down to the order of apprehension in which I exist. Now reasoning or formed thought is, and must be, subject to this, or we should not be what we are, but thought is not. If I say, God - "I am" - I have no thought of anybody; if I seek to form an idea in my mind, I am necessarily an anthropomorphist or something like it, for anthropomorphism is my nature, and the necessary form consequently of my thought. But I readily distinguish between "I" and all matter - "I will leave the room" - "I am come," or "the doors are locked and I cannot."

"And Jehovah said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." He is speaking here just after the manner of men. Jehovah adopts the familiar language of common life, and deigns to adapt Himself to that which every one could understand in a man. It is wholly above our comprehension how God knows all things at once, without inquiry or investigation. He condescends here to speak so that Abraham might be thoroughly free in His presence.

[* God is not a man, that He should repent as to His eternal and unchangeable counsels and unconditional promises, which "are without repentance." But in His grace He may repent of, i.e., not carry out, a threatened judgment, as in the case of Nineveh. We must remember, that the Spirit of God condescends to express Himself after the human way of speaking, on account of our infirmities.]

(2) All the time while they regard not God, He is regarding them. Patiently He searches among them so as to know if there be one that understands or seeks after Him. This anthropomorphism as to God is beautiful. Put it how you will, you must not believe that the living God is careless of His creatures. He will not judge hastily, or in a lump, but with careful discrimination.

(3) The divine word announces to the prophet the failure of Saul once more. "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following me, and has not performed my words." God speaks as man that we may understand Him. He would rather have His wisdom called in question than His holiness. His repentance is one of act, founded on His reprobation of sin. The news "kindles" the fervent spirit of the prophet, and he cries to God all night.

Again. 'The attribution to the Deity of wisdom and goodness is every whit as much anthropomorphosis as the attribution of limbs and passions.' But why so? He does not tell us.

We shall hear yet more when we come to a fresh revelation, not of man's creation as its head simply, but of the moral relations in which he is shown to have been set; but here there is ample evidence of the dignity conferred on the race. "Let us make men in our image, after our likeness." Nothing is more opposed to the Bible than the anthropomorphism of Greek and Roman mythology, which degraded their deities to fallen males and females with like passions and lusts, and gave the sanction of religion to the basest immorality. And what philosophers of Greece or Rome ever ventured to claim so noble a prototype? Here Moses was inspired to give it as the holy declaration of the Creator. How far from the brute at length evolving man, a theory suggested by Satan to brutalise the race! It is the simple yet wondrous truth: not God brought down to the human level, but men alone created after a divine pattern.