Metaphors for God 
		The Plural "us" in Cultural Context
    	Dennis Bratcher          
    	The Importance of Culture
		It is easy to forget, or never to be aware, just how much our 
		surroundings influence how we see, understand, and talk about the world. 
		The time and place in which we live provides us with conceptual 
		categories, a frame of reference, in which we make sense of our life and 
		events in it. Our cultural and historical context provides us with the 
		language or languages we speak, the symbols and metaphors we use, the 
		kind of literature we read, a sense of place, identification with a 
		racial or ethnic group, a nationality, an economic system, a political 
		system (or lack of one), a set of religious beliefs, as well as a whole 
		range of cultural and ethical customs that tell us how to interact with 
		others and establish us within a social group.  
		For example, unless they have visited the Far East or had some other 
		reason to encounter eastern culture, many in the western world remain 
		unaware of the vast differences between eastern and western modes of 
		thought. This can be most easily identified in the differences between 
		individualistic and communal attitudes (see 
		Community and Testimony). But this only hints at the larger issue in 
		terms of biblical interpretation.  
		At the beginning, we need to affirm that cultural and historical 
		distance, the barriers created by dealing with writings separated by 
		2,000+ years and half a world, do not render it impossible to understand 
		Scripture or suggest that it is no longer relevant today. But it does 
		mean that we must put forth deliberate and constant effort to 
		keep in mind that reading the Bible is not the same as reading a modern 
		history book or Streams in the Desert. We cannot let the 
		historical distance prevent us from hearing the word of God for today. 
		But then neither can we forget that the Bible was not written for us. To 
		do so will almost guarantee that we will misunderstand it, or, at best, 
		never hear its richness and depth as a means to facilitate our growth in 
		grace or to proclaim a full-orbed message of grace. 
		There are many examples that we could examine to illustrate the 
		importance of understanding these contexts in order to understand 
		Scripture adequately. The unique aspects of various historical contexts, 
		such as the Patriarchal roots in Aram-Naharaim, the dominance of the 
		Egyptian Empire, the rise of Assyria and 
		the subsequent invasions of Israel and Judah, the crisis of the
		Babylonian invasions and the destruction 
		of Jerusalem and the exile, the domination by the
		Persian Empire and later by the Greeks and 
		Romans, the rule of the Hasmoneans and Herods, 
		the destruction of Herod’s temple, and the setting of the larger Roman 
		Empire all figure prominently into the biblical narrative. These 
		contexts not only provide the background for the biblical text, they 
		also provide the catalyst for much that happens throughout the Bible. 
		As important as these historical aspects are, of more immediate 
		concern for many biblical texts are the ordinary elements of culture 
		that are alien to the modern mind. These show up unobtrusively in the 
		biblical texts yet often carry a significant amount of the meaning of 
		the passage. These would include the symbolic use of numbers, dragons 
		and serpent-like beasts, water, darkness, and fire. It would include 
		things like inheritance and marriage customs, the significance of 
		certain foods, and the details of life reflected in obscure laws. It 
		would also include a range of cultural features that could be used a 
		tools of communication, but which make little sense to us outside of 
		that culture (several examples of this are given in the articles
		Speaking the Language of Canaan and
		Sons of God and Giants, such as the use of 
		different kinds of "water" to symbolize both creation and destruction). 
		The Metaphor of "us"
		For our purposes here, let me use one brief example from the Old 
		Testament. There are four familiar Old Testament passages in which God 
		speaks using a first person plural, "us".  
		Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make 
			humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let 
			them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of 
			the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the 
			earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 
			1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he 
			created them; male and female he created them. 
		Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "See, the 
			man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and 
			now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of 
			life, and eat, and live forever"-- 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent 
			him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he 
			was taken. 
		Gen 11:7 Come, let us go down, and 
			confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one 
			another’s speech." 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from there 
			over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 
		Isa 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord 
			saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" And I 
			said, "Here am I; send me!" 
		Since we are not used to thinking or hearing symbolic language, from 
		our perspective we immediately hear these first person plurals as 
		descriptive, even though we know that the Old Testament is fiercely 
		monotheistic (Deut 6:4). As a result, in order for us to make easy sense 
		of these passages, and without knowing how else a first person plural 
		pronoun could be interpreted in these contexts, we assume that this must 
		be some pre-Christian reference to the Trinity. 
		Not only does such a move invoke, or affirm, certain ideas about the 
		nature of Scripture that are highly questionable, it destroys any 
		meaning that the Old Testament had for a thousand years (or more) until 
		the coming of Jesus. If these texts are a reference to the Trinity, then 
		the people who heard them during those thousand years would have had no 
		idea what they meant. That makes the Old Testament a secret book, which 
		violates what it affirms itself to be as a witness to 
		God! 
		So, how could an understanding of the cultural and historical 
		background of the Old Testament help us understand these first person 
		plurals? As explained in some detail in the article
		Sons of God and Giants, ancient Israelites 
		used metaphors to talk about God drawn from the culture in which they 
		lived (see also Speaking the Language of Canaan). 
		While we sometimes want to make the Israelites radically different from 
		the people surrounding them, the fact is that on the level of culture 
		the Israelites were hardly distinguishable from the surrounding peoples. 
		While they were different in terms of their conception of God, they 
		shared the same general cultural pool with most Middle Eastern peoples 
		even when the details differed. 
		As a result, there are many places preserved in Scripture where the 
		Israelites used metaphors and symbols drawn from the cultural pool of 
		other ancient peoples to talk about God. In some cases, the Israelites 
		used the same titles that the Canaanites used for Baal to refer to YHVH. 
		For example, in Psalm 68:4 : 
		68:4 Sing to God, sing praises to his name; 
			lift up a song to him who rides upon the clouds--his name is the 
			LORD-- be exultant before him. 
		Here, God is called "Rider of the Clouds," an important Canaanite 
		title for Baal (the Babylonian equivalent of Baal, Marduk, also rides on 
		a chariot of clouds; see line 50 of Tablet IV of 
		The Enuma Elish).  
		In virtually all cases the Israelites gave these metaphors a 
		different content to refer to YHVH, the God of Abraham, rather than the 
		gods of the Canaanites. That is, the similarity was on the level of 
		poetic language and not in any ontology. Yet, the words, symbols, 
		metaphors, and conceptual models that they used were often the same as 
		those used by the Canaanites. 
		In that culture, the primary metaphor for power was that of a monarch 
		or king, since in the ancient world monarchs held absolute power over 
		their kingdoms. This symbol was so strong that most peoples in the 
		Ancient Near East used the metaphor of king to talk about their gods. 
		The gods were conceived in terms of a king who was attended by his royal 
		court. In Canaanite mythology, the high King (El or El Elyon, a title 
		used in the Old Testament for God, for example, in Gen 14:18-22) was attended by 
		the lesser gods who comprised his royal council. In turn, the 
		lesser gods had attendants, messengers, and servants that together 
		comprised the royal court. All of these are metaphors drawn from the 
		cultural and historical context with which the people were already 
		familiar. 
		So, God is frequently portrayed in Scripture as a high king with 
		attendants ("messengers" is the Hebrew term, not "angels") who carry out 
		his wishes. He is referred to metaphorically as seated on a throne 
		surround by a council of advisors with whom he converses. One example of 
		this is 1 Kings 22:19-22: 
		22:19 And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the 
			word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the 
			host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his 
			left; 
		We tend to romanticize the "host of heaven" into a picture of white 
		robed angels without ever asking what the metaphor is really saying. Yet 
		here is a rather clear example of the use of a metaphor drawn from 
		ancient ideas of monarchy to describe God. We cannot attempt to 
		rationalize this away by talking about lesser created beings as if this 
		were a physical and ontological picture of what God really does. It is 
		obviously metaphorical; otherwise it would be polytheistic, something 
		that the Old Testament is careful to avoid.  
		A similar example occurs in Job 1-2, where the setting is once again 
		God presiding over a heavenly council as the high king. There are other 
		passages that use this same metaphor 
		Psa 82:1 God has taken his place in the 
			divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: 
		Psa 89:6 For who in the skies can be 
			compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the 
			LORD, 89:7 a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and 
			awesome above all that are around him? 
		Jer 23:18 For who has stood in the council 
			of the LORD so as to see and to hear his word? Who has given heed to 
			his word so as to proclaim it? 
		Once again, we cannot immediately jump to the conclusions that this 
		is a physical description and ask what other gods might be present in 
		the heavenly council, or who the "sons of God" (heavenly beings) are. 
		This is poetic metaphor, not physical or ontological description. 
		So, with some careful attention to cultural and historical context, 
		the cultural and historical roots of this metaphorical description of 
		God become more obvious. From this understanding, we have a means of 
		understanding the use of the first person plurals in those four familiar 
		passages. They are part of this same metaphorical way of speaking about 
		God. They are not a reference to the Trinity in some ontological way, 
		but are metaphorical references to God as the high king conversing with 
		his heavenly council.  
		Note that the Isaiah passage is a vision, introduced by the 
		metaphor of God as a king seated among his heavenly council: 
		Isa 6:1 I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, 
			high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple. 6:2 
			Seraphs were in attendance above him 
		In all four of those passages, it is God alone who acts, which is 
		really the point of the passages. 
		Gen 1:27 So God created humankind . . . Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him. . . Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them . . . Isa 6:9 And he [God] said . . . 
		So, the conclusion is that "us" used in Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, and 
		Isaiah 6:8 is a culturally conditioned metaphor that we cannot 
		understand without knowing something of the cultural and historical 
		background of the text. If this fact is obvious in this text, it should 
		remind us that the same need to understand such contexts is just as 
		important in other places where it is not so obvious. 
      -Dennis Bratcher, Copyright ©        
      2018, Dennis Bratcher - 
All Rights Reserved See Copyright and User Information 
Notice
    
      |