TCA: Theophany, Christophany, and Anthropomorphism

 A. Introduction

Inaasahan ng writer na sa paper na ito ay magkaroon ng common understanding ang readers sa paggamit ng terms na theophany, Christophany, and anthropomorphism (TCA) lalu na sa theological discussions, formal or informal.

B. Definition of Terms

1. Theophany

Elwell defines theophany as, 

“the manifestation of God that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period often, but not always, in human form (e.g., a flame in the burning bush (Exod. 3:2-6); or fire, smoke, and thunder on Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:18-20).” 

Sa secular understanding ng theophany, ito ay defined as,

“the manifestation of deity in sensible form. The term has been applied generally to the appearance of the gods in the ancient Greek and Near Eastern religions but has in addition acquired a special technical usage in regard to biblical materials.” (Britannica)

Importante na i-emhasize dito na habang ang term na “theophany”ay ginagamit commonly by Christians to refer to God, it must also be  acknowledged na ang non-Christians ay ginagamit din ang term na ito to refer to false gods.” Ipapaliwanag sa ibaba kung bakit ito mahalaga. 

3. Christophany

Michael Bird defines Christophany as “an appearance of the preincarnate Son in angelic form (e.g., the fourth man who looked like a “son of the gods” in Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace beside the three friends, Dan 3:25).” 

2. Anthropomorphism 

Theopedia defines anthropomorphism as “personification or prosopopeia–the attribution of human characteristics to inanimate objects, animals, forces of nature, and others.” 

Ganito dinescribe ni Michael Bird ang anthropomorphism:

“Depictions in Scripture of God changing his mind, regretting, or relenting are anthropomorphic depictions of God—that is, they describe God’s actions in a humanlike way (e.g., Gen 6:6; Exod 32:9-14; Isa 38:1-6; Jonah 3:10).”

Sa mga definitions na ito ay ipinapakita ng writer ang fact na ang term na “anthropomorphism” ay isang accepted vocabulary sa field of theology. So, kung ginagamit ng non-Christians ang term na “theophany” para sa false gods, ay ginagamit din ng Christians, or ng Bible to be precise, ang “anthropomorphism” para i-describe ang true God with certain characteristics of a human. Dito pumapasok ang semantics. 

C. Semantics

Sa libro ni Gardinerand and Engler ay ganito ang paliwanag nila sa “semantics” in relation to the study of religion: 

“Scholars of religion also typically seek to explain why religious persons and groups do what they do, believe what they believe, etc. Thus both main tasks of the discipline presuppose that its data are things that carry semantic significance—that they mean something rather than something else, and that there are better and worse ways of capturing those meanings.”

Si George Yule naman ay dinefine ang “semantics” as “the study of the meaning of words, phrases and sentences.” Dinagdag pa niya ang mga sumusunod: 

“In semantic analysis, there is always an attempt to focus on what the words conventionally mean, rather than on what an individual speaker (like George Carlin) might want them to mean on a particular occasion. This technical approach is concerned with objective or general meaning and avoids trying to account for subjective or local meaning.”

In other words, sa paggamit ng terms na “theophany,” “Christophany,” and “anthropomorphism” (TCA) in relation to the doctrine of God, ay may ilang dapat i-consider bago simulan ang intelligent ang discussion na nakapaloob dito:

• The terms TCA  deal with semantics. 
• Ang terms na TCA  ay dapat tignan sa ibig sabihin nito “rather than something else.” 
• Ang terms na TCA ay hindi naka-focus sa gustong ipakahulugan ng interpreter kungdi sa conventional meaning ng mga ito. 
• Ang take or meaning ng iba sa terms na TCA ay pwedeng “better or worse” depende sa objectivity or subjectivity ng interpreter. 

So, since ang term na “anthropomorphism” ang may dalang meaning na maaaring subjective para sa ibang Christians, dito naka-focus ang mga sumusunod na discussion. 

1. Anthropomorphism as a Way of Describing God

Bukod kay Michael Bird na ginamit ang term na “anthropomorphism” bilang description sa Dios, Si Andrew Dearman, isang senior professor of Old Testament sa Fuller Seminary, ay ginamit din ang term na ito, and I quote, “the anthropomorphic presentation of God in theophany.” 

Kapansin-pansin dito ang expressions ng semantics dahil may meaning dito ang writers (i.e., Bird and Dearman) ayon sa kanilang objective perception. 

2. “Anthropomorphism” Associated With False God and Heresy

Na-mention sa itaas na ang term na “theophany” ay ginagamit din ng non-Christians to describe false gods. Isa sa maraming examples ay ang wooden cult figurines ng Central and Northern Europe–the “Anthropomorphic wooden cult figurines, sometimes called pole gods.” 

Braak Bog Figures, Wikipedia

Mapapansin na hindi "theophany" ang ginamit na term sa "pole gods" ng Germans kahit ito ay god in human-like form. Bukod dito ay na-associate din ang term na “anthropomorphism” sa heretic beliefs ni Audius. “Audius took the text of Genesis 1:27 literally and held that God created humans to resemble his physical form (i.e., God in human form–anthropomorphism).” (Wikipedia)

Dahil dito, ang isang normal Christian ay maaaring magkaroon ng egocentric response or cognitive bias sa term na “anthropomorphism” dahil ito ay nagagamit para sa false gods and heresy. 

Dito pwedeng idagdag ang ‘triangulation argument” ni Davidson. 

3. Triangulation Argument

Sa article nila Myers and Verheggen ay na-mention nila ang triangulation argument ni Davidson, and I quote, “Towards the end of his philosophical career, Donald Davidson put much emphasis on what he called "triangulation", the thesis that only someone who has interacted linguistically with another person and the world they share could have language and objective thought.”

So, sa paggamit ng sinuman sa term na “anthropomorphism,” ang reader o listener na kasama sa conversation, kung ayaw niyang maging bias o subjective sa kanyang understanding sa term, ay dapat makipag-interact linguistically sa speaker at ma-immersed sa discussion hanggang sa ma-reach ang objective thought; that is, “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering facts” (Grammarly), but rather, as a result of trying to understand where the speaker is coming from. 

4. Anthropomorphism as a Metaphor

Sa isang Q & A ay sinagot ni Craig ang tanong tungkol sa, for example, ay “paglakad” ng Dios sa Garden of Eden. Ito ang kanyang response: 

“…the descriptions of God in Genesis 2-3 as a humanoid deity are inconsistent with the transcendent concept of God in Genesis 1 and are therefore not to be taken literally. Rather these descriptions are figurative anthropomorphisms, descriptions of God in human terms, a style of speaking with which we’re all accustomed, as when we say, for example, “God’s eyes are upon the righteous and His ear is open to their prayer.”

Ginamit ni Dr. Craig ang term na “anthropomorphism” in a figurative or metaphorical way doon sa manifestation ng Dios sa Garden of Eden (e.g., “walking”). Para sa kanya, ito ay hindi “Theophany” dahil walang “appearance” ng Dios, as in, hindi Siya nagpakita in a form of man tulad ng pagpapakita Niya kay Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. 

5. Not Ignoring Both the Danger and the Need for the Usage of the Term “Anthropomorphism”

Marami pang examples ang pwedeng ipakita doon sa mga scholars na gumamit ng term na “anthropomorphism” in an objective way, pero dapat ding ipakita ang danger ng paggamit ng term. Ito ang warning ni Michael Houdmann sa kanyang article, 

“Yet anthropomorphisms can be dangerous if we see them as sufficient to portray God in limited human traits and terms, which could unintentionally serve to diminish in our minds His incomparable and incomprehensible power, love, and mercy.” 

Pero hindi siya natapos dito. Dagdag pa niya,

“Christians are advised to read God’s Word with the realization that He offers a small glimpse of His glory through the only means we can absorb. As much as anthropomorphisms help us picture our loving God, He reminds us in Isaiah 55:8-9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Dagdag pa ni Bird, 

“These anthropomorphisms express the prerogative of God with respect to a specific situation (e.g., Gen 6:6; Exod 32:9-14; Isa 38:1-6; Jonah 3:10).”

Conclusion

So, mismong ang Dios, sa kanyang prerogative bilang Sovereign God, ang gumamit ng human-like characteristics para i-describe ang Kanyang sarili. Ang Scripture ang nag-provide sa atin ng idea na: 

• Ang Dios ay naging visibly present sa Old Testament in human or angelic form (Theophany or Christophany). 
• Ang Dios ay nagpahayag in human-like expressions of deliverance and judgment (figurative anthropomorphism) para ipakilala ang sarili na loving and just.  
• Ang Dios-Anak, finally, ay nag-manifest in human form through our Lord, Jesus Christ para sa isang specific purpose na i-offer ang Kanyang sarili bilang “Lamb” of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Yes, kulang ang human characteristics para i-describe ang perfect God and it is dangerous to assume na sufficient ito. Maling isipin na ang carved, human-like images ay dios (anthropomorphic human cult figurines).  Maling isipin na ang incarnate Word means na si Jesus ay created being or tao lang at hindi Dios (false belief ng Arianism, Iglesia ni Cristo, etc.). At naipakita sa paper na ito na pinili ng Dios na magpakita Siya visibly, marinig Siya audibly, maramdaman ang Kanyang love and wrath emotionally, at mahawakan Siya physically tulad ng isang tao from OT to NT. And yet He remains to be transcendent and incomparable with anyone. He will “appear” for the second time visibly in human form in the glorified body of Jesus Christ, His Son at iyon ay glorious day para sa lahat ng nananalig sa Kanyang Anak na si Jesus!

Application

Joshua 5:13-14 ESV  When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?”  (14)  And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, “What does my lord say to his servant?”

Bob Utley’s commentary (theophany):

“We learn from this account that the man was an angel or a physical form of God (theophany, cf. Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp. 191-92). It is significant that the term for “man” is not the normal term “adam” (BDB 9), but the term “ish” (BDB 35), which can refer to a spiritual being (cf. Exo 15:3; Isa 42:13). The same imagery of an angel with a drawn sword is also in Num 22:31 and 1Ch 21:16. Apparently the drawn sword was to reassure Joshua that YHWH would fight for them (cf. Deu 1:30).”

John Gill’s commentary (Christophany): 

“...not a mere man, nor a created angel in an human form, but a divine Person in such a form, even the Son of God, who frequently appeared in this manner to the patriarchs; as is clear from the worship paid unto him by Joshua, by his calling him Lord, and owning himself to be his servant; and by the ground on which he stood, being holy through his presence, as well as by his title, the Captain of the Lord's host.” 

By using Dearman’s term, “the anthropomorphic presentation of God in theophany” and the idea of Bird, “God’s prerogative with respect to a specific situation,” the writer of this paper argues that God could have chosen to speak to Joshua only in an anthropomorphic way; that is, a voice from heaven, but He didn’t. God chose to speak to Joshua anthropomorphically (human characteristics of speaking) in theophany or Christophany (human or angelic form holding a sword).