Divine Accommodation: The Hermeneutical Necessity of Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Language in Scripture
The interpretive challenge of Scripture’s vivid descriptions of God has persisted throughout church history. When Moses describes God’s “mighty hand and outstretched arm” (Deuteronomy 26:8), or when the psalmist speaks of taking refuge “in the shadow of your wings” (Psalm 17:8), how should we understand such language? The history of interpretation reveals a fundamental tension between literal and figurative readings that continues to shape theological discourse today.
Historical Foundations and the State of the Question
Early patristic interpretation established the foundational paradigm for understanding anthropomorphic language. Augustine laid crucial groundwork in De Trinitate, arguing that such expressions serve as divine accommodations to human cognitive limitations. “God speaks to us in a human way,” Augustine contends, “because we are human.” This pedagogical understanding became central to orthodox interpretation.
The medieval period saw Thomas Aquinas refine this approach through analogical theology. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas distinguishes between univocal, equivocal, and analogical predication when speaking of God. Divine attributes, he argues, are known analogically—neither identical to human qualities nor completely different from them. This framework provided theological precision to patristic insights.
The Reformation brought renewed focus to biblical exegesis. Calvin’s Institutes develops the concept of divine “lisping” (balbutire). “God must descend far beneath his loftiness,” Calvin writes, “in order to accommodate himself to our capacity.” This accommodation theory became fundamental to Reformed hermeneutics, particularly in Calvin’s treatment of anthropomorphisms in his biblical commentaries.
Post-Reformation Reformed orthodoxy further systematized these insights. Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics synthesizes patristic, medieval, and Reformation perspectives. Bavinck argues that anthropomorphic language is neither literal description nor mere metaphor, but analogical revelation that genuinely communicates divine reality within the bounds of human comprehension.
The Critical Problem: Literalism versus Spirituality
The interpretive crisis emerges from Scripture’s apparent tension. On one hand, vivid anthropomorphic descriptions pervade biblical literature. God’s “eyes” survey the earth (2 Chronicles 16:9), his “hands” shape creation (Isaiah 45:12), and his “face” shines upon the faithful (Numbers 6:25). Zoomorphic imagery compounds this complexity—God spreads protective “wings” (Psalm 91:4), roars like a “lion” (Hosea 11:10), and rides upon the wind (Psalm 18:10).
Yet Scripture simultaneously affirms God’s invisibility and incorporeality with equal force. John declares definitively: “God is spirit” (John 4:24). Paul calls God “the invisible” (aoratos, Colossians 1:15) and “dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). The apostle John emphasizes: “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18).
This tension creates what we might call the hermeneutical dilemma of divine description. Literal interpretation of anthropomorphic language leads to anthropomorphism—reducing God to creaturely categories. Yet dismissing such language as merely figurative risks evacuating biblical revelation of its revelatory content. The challenge is maintaining both the reality of divine revelation and the transcendence of divine being.
Anthropomorphic Imagery
The breadth of anthropomorphic language in Scripture requires systematic examination. Each category reveals particular aspects of divine character while maintaining analogical rather than literal reference.
Eyes and Ears: Divine Omniscience and Attentiveness
Scripture frequently attributes sensory organs to God, conveying his comprehensive knowledge and responsive care. Second Chronicles 16:9 declares: “For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him.” The Hebrew ‘ayin (“eyes”) here functions as a synecdoche for divine omniscience and providential oversight.
Psalm 34:15 reinforces this imagery: “The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous and his ears toward their cry.” The parallel structure between ‘ayin (“eyes”) and ‘ozen (“ears”) emphasizes God’s comprehensive awareness of both visible circumstances and audible prayers. This anthropomorphic pairing communicates divine attentiveness without implying physical sensory organs.
The theological significance becomes clear when contrasted with John 4:24’s assertion that “God is spirit” (pneuma ho theos). The Greek pneuma definitively establishes God’s incorporeal nature, indicating that references to divine “eyes” and “ears” function analogically rather than literally.
Hands, Fingers, and Arms: Divine Power and Creative Activity
Biblical authors consistently employ manual imagery to describe divine action. Exodus 31:18 records that the stone tablets were “written with the finger of God” (‘etsba’ ‘elohim). The Hebrew ‘etsba’ typically denotes precise, deliberate action. Applied to God, it emphasizes the careful, intentional nature of divine law-giving without implying literal divine digits.
Isaiah 52:10 proclaims that “the Lord has bared his holy arm (zeroa’) before the eyes of all the nations.” The Hebrew zeroa’ carries connotations of strength and military might. This anthropomorphism communicates God’s powerful intervention in history, particularly in redemptive contexts.
The creative dimension appears in Isaiah 45:12: “I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands (yad) that stretched out the heavens.” The Hebrew yad encompasses not merely the physical appendage but the entire concept of agency and power. Divine “hands” represent God’s active involvement in creation and providence.
Face and Back: Divine Presence and Glory
Facial imagery in Scripture conveys divine presence and blessing. Numbers 6:25 pronounces: “The Lord make his face (panim) to shine upon you and be gracious to you.” The Hebrew panim literally means “face” but functions theologically to represent divine favor and presence.
The complexity of this imagery emerges in Exodus 33:20-23, where Moses requests to see God’s glory. God responds: “You cannot see my face (panim), for man shall not see me and live… I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back (‘achor), but my face shall not be seen.”
This passage demonstrates sophisticated theological reflection. The Hebrew ‘achor (“back”) represents God’s revealed presence in distinction from his essential being (panim, “face”). Calvin interprets this as divine accommodation—God reveals himself truly but not exhaustively. The anthropomorphic language preserves both divine condescension and transcendence.
Heart and Mouth: Divine Emotion and Speech
Biblical authors attribute psychological and communicative organs to God. Genesis 6:6 states that “the Lord regretted (nacham) that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart (leb).” The Hebrew leb represents the center of emotion and decision-making. Applied to God, it communicates genuine divine response to human moral behavior without implying divine changeability.
Deuteronomy 8:3 teaches that “man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth (peh) of the Lord.” The Hebrew peh (“mouth”) represents divine communication and revelation. This anthropomorphism emphasizes the reality of divine speech without implying physical vocal organs.
John Owen’s treatment in The Holy Spirit helps resolve the apparent tension. Owen argues that anthropopathisms like divine “regret” or “grief” communicate God’s genuine moral responses within the framework of divine immutability. God truly responds to human action, but this response flows from his eternal nature rather than temporal change.
Walking, Sitting, and Sleeping: Divine Activity and Rest
Scripture describes divine movement and posture in thoroughly anthropomorphic terms. Genesis 3:8 records that Adam and Eve “heard the sound of the Lord God walking (halak) in the garden in the cool of the day.” The Hebrew halak suggests purposeful movement and covenantal presence rather than literal locomotion.
Isaiah 6:1 presents the prophet’s vision: “I saw the Lord sitting (yashab) upon a throne, high and lifted up.” The Hebrew yashab conveys royal authority and judicial function. This anthropomorphism communicates divine sovereignty through imagery of enthroned majesty.
Psalm 44:23 contains the striking plea: “Awake! Why are you sleeping (yashen), O Lord? Rouse yourself!” The Hebrew yashen literally means “to sleep,” but functions rhetorically to express the psalmist’s perception of divine inactivity during crisis.
The corrective appears immediately in Psalm 121:4: “Behold, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber (num) nor sleep (yashen).” The parallel Hebrew terms num and yashen definitively negate literal divine sleep, indicating that such language functions as analogical expression of divine care and vigilance.
Clothing, Armor, and Throne: Divine Majesty and Authority
Scripture employs imagery of divine attire and equipment to communicate aspects of God’s character and rule. Psalm 93:1 declares: “The Lord reigns; he is robed (labash) in majesty.” The Hebrew labash typically describes putting on clothing, but here conveys the manifestation of divine glory and royal dignity.
Isaiah 59:17 presents God as a divine warrior: “He put on righteousness as a breastplate (shiryon), and a helmet (koba’) of salvation on his head; he put on garments (beged) of vengeance for clothing (tilboshet), and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak (me’il).” This extended metaphor employs military imagery to describe God’s moral attributes and salvific action.
Revelation 4:2-4 provides the most elaborate throne imagery: “At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne (thronos) stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne… Around the throne were twenty-four thrones (thronos), and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders.” The Greek thronos represents governmental authority and cosmic sovereignty rather than literal furniture.
Zoomorphic Imagery
Scripture’s animal imagery for God complements anthropomorphic language by emphasizing particular divine qualities through creature characteristics.
Wings, Feathers, and Maternal Care
Avian imagery frequently appears in protective contexts. Psalm 91:4 promises: “He will cover you with his pinions (‘ebrah), and under his wings (kanaph) you will find refuge.” The Hebrew terms ‘ebrah and kanaph derive from bird anatomy but function metaphorically to express divine protection and security.
Deuteronomy 32:11 develops the imagery: “Like an eagle (nesher) that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings (kanaph), taking them, bearing them on its pinions (‘ebrah).” The Hebrew nesher (eagle) represents strength combined with nurturing care, communicating God’s powerful yet tender relationship with his people.
Matthew 23:37 presents Jesus employing similar imagery: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem… How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen (ornis) gathers her brood under her wings (pterux), and you were not willing!” The Greek ornis (hen) and pterux (wings) emphasize maternal protection and care, revealing the character of divine love.
Predatory Animals: Divine Strength and Judgment
Scripture employs powerful animal imagery to communicate God’s sovereignty and judgment. Hosea 11:10 declares: “They shall go after the Lord; he will roar (sha’ag) like a lion (‘aryeh).” The Hebrew ‘aryeh represents royal power and commanding authority, while sha’ag suggests the commanding call that summons and directs.
Amos 3:8 reinforces this imagery: “The lion (‘aryeh) has roared (sha’ag); who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken; who can but prophesy?” Here the animal metaphor directly parallels divine speech, indicating that God’s word carries the authority and compelling power of a lion’s roar.
Hosea 13:7-8 presents more complex predatory imagery: “So I am to them like a lion (shachal), like a leopard (namer) I will lurk beside the way. I will fall upon them like a bear (dob) robbed of her cubs.” This sequence of Hebrew animal terms (shachal, namer, dob) communicates various aspects of divine judgment—stealth, speed, and fierce protection of what belongs to him.
Divine Warrior Imagery
Habakkuk 3:8 presents elaborate zoomorphic warrior imagery: “Was your wrath against the rivers, O Lord? Was your anger against the rivers, or your indignation against the sea, when you rode (rakab) on your horses (sus), on your chariot (merkabah) of salvation?” The Hebrew terms sus (horses) and merkabah (chariot) represent divine power manifested in cosmic warfare and salvation.
Psalm 18:2 employs horn imagery: “The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn (qeren) of my salvation, my stronghold.” The Hebrew qeren derives from animal horn imagery but represents strength and defensive power.
Pastoral and Sovereign Care
Psalm 23:1 provides the most familiar zoomorphic imagery: “The Lord is my shepherd (ra’ah), I shall not want.” The Hebrew ra’ah encompasses the entire concept of pastoral care, guidance, and protection. This metaphor communicates intimate divine care combined with wise leadership.
Isaiah 27:1 presents God as conqueror of cosmic chaos: “In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan (livyathan) the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon (tannin) that is in the sea.” The Hebrew livyathan and tannin represent primordial chaos, while God’s role as their conqueror communicates ultimate sovereignty over all opposing forces.
Corrective Scriptural Affirmations: The Divine Nature
Scripture’s extensive use of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic language occurs alongside equally emphatic assertions of God’s spiritual and invisible nature. These corrective passages provide the hermeneutical key for proper interpretation.
Spirit and Invisibility
John 4:24 provides the foundational declaration: “God is spirit (pneuma), and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” The Greek pneuma definitively establishes divine incorporeality. The context of Jesus’ conversation about worship locations emphasizes that God’s spiritual nature transcends physical limitation.
First Timothy 1:17 reinforces this: “To the King of the ages, immortal (aphthartos), invisible (aoratos), the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.” Paul’s doxology employs aoratos (invisible) as a fundamental divine attribute. The term indicates not merely hiddenness but essential incorporeality.
Colossians 1:15 describes Christ as “the image of the invisible (aoratos) God.” The application of aoratos to the Father emphasizes that divine visibility comes only through incarnational revelation, not essential divine nature.
No One Has Seen God
Exodus 33:20 establishes the principle: “You cannot see my face (panim), for man shall not see me and live.” The Hebrew panim here represents God’s essential being in distinction from his revealed presence. This passage provides the interpretive key for understanding apparent divine visibility elsewhere.
John 1:18 reinforces this: “No one has ever seen (horao) God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” The Greek horao indicates direct visual perception. John’s statement definitively excludes literal divine visibility while affirming revelatory communication through the incarnate Son.
First John 4:12 reiterates: “No one has ever seen (theaomai) God; if we love one another, God abides in us.” The Greek theaomai suggests contemplative observation. John’s emphasis on divine invisibility directs attention to moral and spiritual rather than visual divine manifestation.
Omnipresence and Non-Corporeality
Jeremiah 23:23-24 provides crucial clarification: “Am I a God at hand (qarob), declares the Lord, and not a God far away (rachaq)? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill (male’) heaven and earth? declares the Lord.” The Hebrew terms qarob (near) and rachaq (far) combined with male’ (fill) emphasize divine omnipresence that transcends spatial limitation.
First Kings 8:27 expresses a similar understanding: “But will God indeed dwell (yashab) on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain (kul) you; how much less this house that I have built!” Solomon’s rhetorical question employs yashab (dwell) and kul (contain) to emphasize divine transcendence of spatial categories.
Acts 17:24-28 provides New Testament confirmation: “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live (katoikeo) in temples made by man… In him we live and move and have our being.” Paul’s Areopagus address uses katoikeo (dwell) to emphasize divine transcendence of physical location while affirming intimate divine presence.
Contrast with Idols
Deuteronomy 4:12, 15-16 establishes the anti-idolatrous principle: “Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form (temunah); there was only a voice… Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form (temunah) on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves.” The Hebrew temunah (form/shape) emphasizes divine formlessness as the foundation for proper worship.
Isaiah 40:18-25 develops this theme extensively: “To whom then will you liken (damah) God, or what likeness (demut) compare with him?… To whom then will you compare (damah) me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One.” The repeated Hebrew terms damah (liken) and demut (likeness) emphasize divine incomparability and transcendence of all creaturely categories.
Isaiah 46:5 reiterates: “To whom will you liken (damah) me and make me equal (shawah), and compare (mashal) me, that we may be alike (damah)?” The accumulation of Hebrew comparison terms emphasizes absolute divine uniqueness and transcendence.
Contemporary Critical Engagement and Linguistic Analysis
Modern biblical scholarship has largely affirmed the analogical interpretation while adding linguistic sophistication. Brevard Childs’ canonical approach recognizes anthropomorphic language as integral to Scripture’s theological witness rather than primitive mythological residue requiring demythologization.
James Barr’s semantic studies demonstrate that Hebrew anthropomorphisms function as genuine theological statements. Barr argues that yad (“hand”) carries semantic ranges including “power,” “activity,” and “agency.” When applied to God, such terms evoke divine attributes without implying physical characteristics.
Recent cognitive linguistics research supports this interpretation. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s work on metaphorical cognition shows that anthropomorphic language represents fundamental human cognitive patterns rather than deficient literal description. Applied to biblical studies, this suggests that anthropomorphic language is epistemologically necessary for communicating divine reality to finite minds.
Theological Synthesis: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives
Augustine’s foundational insight in De Doctrina Christiana establishes the hermeneutical principle: Scripture accommodates divine truth to human capacity without compromising divine reality. This accommodation is not deception but revelation—God genuinely communicates his character through language that finite minds can grasp.
Aquinas develops this insight through analogical predication theory. In Summa Theologica I.13.5, he argues that when we predicate attributes of God, “the mode of signification is not perfect, but the thing signified is perfect.” Applied to anthropomorphisms, this means that while the linguistic mode is creaturely, the reality communicated is genuinely divine.
Calvin synthesizes patristic and medieval insights within a consistently exegetical framework. His treatment of Exodus 33:20-23 in the Institutes (I.11.3) shows how apparent anthropomorphisms actually preserve divine transcendence. Moses sees God’s “back” but not his “face”—indicating that divine accommodation reveals God truly but not exhaustively.
John Owen’s contribution in The Holy Spirit addresses the challenge of anthropopathisms. Owen argues that divine emotions like “regret” or “grief” communicate God’s genuine moral responses within the framework of divine immutability. God truly responds to human action, but this response flows from his eternal nature rather than temporal change.
Bavinck completes this development by integrating these insights with modern theological method. His discussion of divine attributes (Reformed Dogmatics 2.149-151) shows how anthropomorphic language functions as analogical revelation that is neither a literal description nor an empty metaphor, but a genuine communication of divine reality within the bounds of creaturely comprehension.
Practical Implications for Biblical Interpretation
This hermeneutical approach yields several practical principles for biblical interpretation. First, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic language should be read as analogical revelation that genuinely communicates divine reality without implying physical limitation. When Scripture describes God’s “mighty hand,” it reveals genuine divine power through imagery comprehensible to finite minds.
Second, such language serves primarily theological rather than descriptive functions—revealing God’s character and activity rather than his essential nature. The imagery of divine “wings” communicates protective care rather than avian anatomy. Understanding this distinction prevents both literalistic misreading and reductive spiritualization.
Third, the interpretive key lies in understanding how these expressions function within their broader canonical context. Scripture’s consistent affirmations of divine invisibility and incorporeality provide the framework for interpreting anthropomorphic passages. The canon interprets itself, preventing both anthropomorphic reduction and mystical abstraction.
Conclusion: The Glory of Divine Accommodation
The biblical use of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic language represents neither primitive anthropomorphism nor empty metaphor, but divine accommodation that preserves both transcendence and immanence. When Scripture describes God’s “mighty hand,” protective “wings,” or royal “throne,” it communicates genuine divine activity through language that finite creatures can comprehend without reducing God to creaturely categories.
The interpretive tradition from Augustine through contemporary biblical scholarship shows remarkable consistency on this point. Divine accommodation through analogical language allows Scripture to communicate God’s character truly while preserving the mystery and transcendence that Scripture equally affirms. This hermeneutical approach avoids both the literalism that reduces God to physical categories and the spiritualism that empties biblical language of revelatory content.
The comprehensive biblical data examined here demonstrates the sophistication of scriptural anthropomorphic and zoomorphic usage. From the divine “eyes” that survey the earth to the protective “wings” that shelter the faithful, from the creative “hands” that shape history to the royal “throne” that governs all creation, Scripture employs vivid imagery to communicate the reality of divine character and action.
Understanding this language as divine accommodation ultimately enhances rather than diminishes biblical authority. Scripture’s vivid descriptions of God emerge not from primitive theological reflection, but from sophisticated understanding of how infinite reality can be genuinely communicated through finite categories. The God who “lisps” to his people in Scripture is the same God who “dwells in unapproachable light”—and it is precisely this accommodation that allows finite creatures to know the infinite God truly, if not exhaustively. The anthropomorphic and zoomorphic language of Scripture thus becomes not an embarrassment to mature theology, but a testimony to divine condescension and the gracious accommodation by which the invisible God makes himself known to his people.
List of Anthropomorphic Language About God
| Anthropomorphic Language | Example Passages | Contradictory / Corrective Passages (if literal) | Explanation / Analogical Meaning |
| Eyes / Seeing | 2 Chr 16:9; Ps 34:15; Gen 6:8; Ps 11:4; Ps 33:18 | John 4:24; 1 Tim 1:17; 1 Tim 6:16 | God’s “seeing” expresses omniscience and moral perception, not physical vision. |
| Ears / Hearing | Ps 18:6; Isa 59:1; Num 11:18; 1 Sam 8:21; Ps 5:1; Ps 10:17 | Ps 115:5–6; John 4:24 | God “hears” all through his perfect knowledge, not through auditory organs. |
| Nostrils / Smelling | Ex 15:8; Ps 18:8, 15; Gen 8:21; Amos 5:21 | John 4:24 | God “smelling” represents acceptance, wrath, or pleasure metaphorically. |
| Mouth / Lips / Tongue / Voice | Deut 8:3; Ps 33:6; Isa 30:27; Ps 89:34; Heb 1:1–2 | John 1:18 | God speaks eternally through the Word; speech is not vocalized physically. |
| Hands / Fingers / Palms | Ex 31:18; Ps 8:3; Isa 48:13; Luke 11:20 | Luke 24:39; John 4:24 | Denotes divine action and creative authority, not literal limbs. |
| Arms | Deut 4:34; Isa 52:10; Isa 53:1; Ps 138:7 | Num 23:19; Hos 11:9 | Symbolizes strength, deliverance, and protection. |
| Back | Ex 33:23 | John 1:18; Col 1:15 | God’s “back” is a mediated revelation; his essence is unseen. |
| Feet / Toes / Soles | Ex 24:10; Isa 66:1; Ps 110:1 | 1 Kgs 8:27; Acts 7:48–49 | Signifies rule and presence, not literal extremities. |
| Face | Ex 33:11; Num 6:25; Ps 27:8; Ps 80:3 | Ex 33:20; John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16 | Presence and favor expressed metaphorically; no one sees God’s essence. |
| Heart / Inward Parts | Gen 6:6; Jer 31:20; Ps 7:9 | Num 23:19; James 1:17 | Expresses emotion, will, and covenantal love, not human organs. |
| Laughter / Roar / Shout / Voice of Thunder | Ps 2:4; Joel 3:16; Isa 5:26; Ps 29 | 1 Tim 6:16 | Describes divine power and majesty metaphorically. |
| Walking / Standing / Sitting / Descending / Rising | Gen 3:8; Lev 26:12; Isa 6:1; Ps 47:8; Ps 68:4 | Jer 23:24; Acts 17:24–25 | Expresses presence, judgment, and activity; not literal locomotion. |
| Sleeping / Awakening / Stirring | Ps 44:23; Ps 121:4 | Isa 40:28; 1 Tim 6:16 | Represents delayed judgment or intervention; God never tires. |
| Clothing / Robes / Armor | Ps 93:1; Isa 59:17; Ps 104:2 | 1 Tim 6:16; John 4:24 | Symbolizes holiness, righteousness, and glory. |
| Throne / Crown / Scepter | Ps 45:6; Isa 6:1; Rev 4:2–4 | Jer 23:24; Acts 17:24–25 | Metaphor for sovereignty; God is not spatially confined. |
| Wings / Feathers / Eagle / Hen | Ps 91:4; Deut 32:11; Ruth 2:12; Isa 40:31; Matt 23:37 | Deut 4:12; 1 Tim 1:17 | Represents protection, care, and deliverance. |
| Lion / Bear / Leopard / Horse / Horn / Leviathan Conqueror | Hos 11:10; Amos 3:8; Joel 3:16; Isa 31:4; Hos 13:8; Hos 13:7; Hab 3:8,15; Ps 18:2; Isa 27:1; Ps 74:13–14 | John 4:24; 1 Tim 6:16; Col 1:15 | Symbolic of judgment, strength, cosmic authority. |
| Shepherd | Ps 23:1; Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:11–16; John 10:11 | 1 Tim 1:17 | Indicates care and guidance; God is not literally a shepherd. |
Passages Emphasizing God’s Invisibility and Spirituality
- Spirit, unseen by human eyes: John 4:24; 1 Tim 1:17; 1 Tim 6:16
- Invisible: Col 1:15; Heb 11:27; John 1:18
- No one has seen God: Ex 33:20; 1 John 4:12; John 1:18
- Fills heaven and earth: Jer 23:23–24; 1 Kgs 8:27; Acts 17:24–28
- Not like idols / corporeal things: Deut 4:12, 15–16; Isa 40:18–25; Isa 46:5
Theological Commentary
- Anthropomorphisms are accommodations: they use human traits to communicate divine reality.
- They describe God’s actions, attitudes, or relations, not his material existence.
- Direct statements about invisibility and spirituality (John 4:24, 1 Tim 6:16) consistently teach that God has no body or physical form.
- Scholars like Augustine (De Trinitate I.1) and Calvin (Institutes 1.13.1) emphasize these images as a kind of divine “lisping,” helping finite humans understand infinite God.
Divine Imagery of God – Chart
| Imagery | Scripture References | Theological Meaning |
| Face | Ex 33:11; Num 6:25; Ps 27:8 | God’s presence, favor, intimacy |
| Eyes / Eyelids | 2 Chr 16:9; Ps 34:15; Prov 15:3; Ps 11:4; Ps 32:8 | Omniscience, watchfulness, moral discernment |
| Ears | Ps 18:6; Isa 59:1; Ps 5:1; 10:17; Num 11:18; 1 Sam 8:21; 2 Kgs 19:16 | Attentiveness to prayer and suffering |
| Nostrils / Breath | Ex 15:8; Ps 18:8; Ps 18:15; Job 33:4; Ps 33:6 | Wrath, power, life-giving breath |
| Mouth / Lips / Tongue / Voice | Deut 8:3; Gen 1; Ps 33:6; Ps 29; Isa 30:27; Heb 12:26 | Creation’s word, revelation, power, commanding voice |
| Hands / Fingers / Palms | Ex 31:18; Isa 49:16; Ps 95:5; Ps 8:3; Ex 8:19; Luke 11:20 | Creative authority, covenant, intimate involvement |
| Arms | Ex 6:6; Ex 15:16; Deut 4:34; Deut 33:27; Isa 52:10 | Power in rescue and redemption |
| Back | Ex 33:23 | Partial revelation of glory |
| Feet / Toes / Soles | Ex 24:10; Ezek 43:7; Isa 66:1; Ps 110:1 | Sovereign rule, divine ground |
| Shoulders / Neck | Isa 9:6; Ps 81:6 | Leadership, bearing of glory |
| Legs / Loins | Job 38:3 | Strength, readiness |
| Bosom / Chest | Isa 40:11; Num 11:12 | Tender compassion, nurturing care |
| Heart / Inward Parts | Gen 6:6; Hos 11:8; Jer 31:20 | Emotional engagement, grief, covenant love |
| Laughter / Roar / Whistle | Ps 2:4; Joel 3:16; Isa 5:26 | Sovereign disdain, power, summons |
| Walking / Standing / Sitting | Gen 3:8; Lev 26:12; Amos 9:1; Isa 6:1; Ps 47:8 | Imminent presence, holiness, judgment |
| Clothing / Armor / Light | Ps 104:1–2; Ps 93:1; Isa 59:17; Ps 104:2 | Majesty, holiness, warrior readiness |
| Crown / Throne / Scepter | Rev 14:14; Ps 45:6; Isa 6:1 | Royal authority, sovereign reign |
| Wings / Feathers / Eagle | Deut 32:11–12; Ex 19:4; Ps 17:8; Ps 91:4; Ruth 2:12; Isa 40:31 | Protection, swift deliverance, spiritual renewal |
| Hen / Mother Bird | Matt 23:37 / Luke 13:34 | Yearning love, sheltering mercy |
| Lion | Hos 11:10; Amos 3:8; Joel 3:16; Isa 31:4 | Majestic power, judgment, authority |
| Bear | Hos 13:8 | Protective ferocity |
| Leopard | Hos 13:7 | Stealthy, sudden judgment |
| Moth | Hos 5:12 | Quiet, corrosive decay |
| Horn (Horn of Salvation) | Ps 18:2; Luke 1:69 | Strength, deliverance |
| Horse / Rider imagery | Hab 3:8, 15 | Warrior victory, divine campaign |
| Shepherd (via sheep metaphor) | Ps 23:1; Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:11–16; John 10:11 | Guidance, care, sacrificial protection |
| Leviathan / Serpent slayer | Isa 27:1; Ps 74:13–14 | Sovereign over chaos, cosmic power |
| Rock / Fortress / Shield | Deut 32:4; Ps 18:2; Prov 30:5 | Stability, refuge, strength |
| Fire / Light | Deut 4:24; Heb 12:29; Ps 104:2; 1 John 1:5; Isa 6:1 | Holiness, purity, revelation of divine presence |
| Fiery Loins / Radiant Splendor | Ezek 1:27; Rev 1:15 | Theophanic majesty, otherworldly glory |
Donnie's Dogmatics 