HTCG 02f

Chapter 2 continues.

Section D: The Impression of God

Part 1: The Israelite Image of God

Boman starts off introducing the term “theriomorphic” — having the form of a beast. He talks about the Old Testament representation of Jehovah paganized in the Golden Calf. Apparently he never understood the common Mesopotamian concept of an invisible deity seated upon said calf, bullock or whatever. The various Semitic nations never worshiped the cow itself. The image was used in worship of various manifestations of Baal and other major figures in Semitic mythology. The symbolism is not obvious to an outsider.

For the Greeks, that would be confusing; their images are meant to portray the deity in a more literal sense. But Boman at least recognizes that Jehovah was never captured in the Scripture’s rhetoric of animals or man. Those were merely expressions used to indicate something about how He acts in this world. Still, he believes that Jeroboam’s shrines called for worship of gold-plated bull sculptures themselves, not as the beast upon which “Jehovah” rode. He also correctly notes that the Scripture referring to these idols as “calves” instead of mature bulls (the image actually used) is mocking their impotence.

Reviewing the imagery of Psalm 18, he notes that you cannot build a coherent image of God from the description, nor are you meant to visualize from it. Rather, it’s all about piling up symbols of power. Then he points out God riding on a cherub and upon the wind, and how that cannot be easily reconciled in concrete terms; rather, you are supposed to recognize that God moves faster than we can imagine.

After stumbling around a bit trying to distinguish the comparative ages of Bible passages (Documentary Hypothesis again), he notes correctly that none of the anthropomorphic of theriomorphic images were descriptions of what the prophets actually saw in their visions. Rather, the prophets themselves were choosing symbolic language to convey the impression they received of ineffable things.

Thus, when God’s nostrils are mentioned, it portrays wrath. The right arm or hand portrays purpose and power. Various hand motions portray invitation, joy, etc. The eyes symbolize perception and clarity. The ear represents paying attention to someone or something. The Hebrew shem is often translated as “name” or “appearance” — probably better as “reputation” or “title” in some contexts. This is the whole point of all these anthropomorphisms: We must pay careful attention to God’s reputation, His glory and recognition.

Thus, when Moses on the mountain asks to see God’s glory, what he gets is a declaration of His kindness and His sovereign will. Boman gets lost here because he doesn’t recognize the Ancient Near Eastern notion that heart is a separate faculty from the conscious mind. He talks about how Jehovah will not show His face lest Moses die, but then gets tangled up in the five senses, and seems wholly unaware that the ANE folks believed that your heart could perceive things directly by itself in moral terms.

Moral perception is what the Scripture is referring to, not some hybrid sensory perception. The Scripture uses symbolic language to tell us God was going to let Moses receive a direct impression in his heart. That is inherent in the ANE outlook on things; the Hebrew terminology in the passage would have been recognized that way by anyone in that region. They would not have expected a pictorial visualization of the event.

He does get right the idea that “face” (Hebrew panim) is more a verb used in place of a noun, referring specifically to dynamic action of being turned to gaze upon something or someone. When used referring to the “face of the earth” it’s the part you encounter directly, the part that is turned toward you. For Greeks, the concept is more static — the earth is not alive; it’s “face” is the part merely seen passively.

Boman never quite gets around to telling us that for Moses to be someone who conferred with God face to face signifies a shocking level of privilege. ANE people entered the presence of any mere human ruler with their eyes averted, looking down and not daring to see his face. This language of God speaking to Moses face-to-face is a symbol of Moses being treated as a personal friend, something precious few humans ever experienced even with human rulers.

In his summary, Boman again tried to indicate that the Hebrews moved from a primitive to a more developed understanding of God, but his idea of “more developed” is more like the Greek, of course. He fails to see that at least some of that greater sophistication was actually moving farther from the truth of divine revelation. I’m not suggesting that change is inherently wrong, and that there was no improvement in the Hebrews’ theology, but that improvement was mixed with adulterations that Jesus condemned. Boman seems blind to that. He fails to see that the latter convergence of Hebrew scholars into Hellenism was precisely the thing Jesus condemned.