Is Jehovah's refence to Himself as a King anthropomorphic?

[Evacuated]

Is Jehovah's refence to Himself as a King anthropomorphic?

"Because we cannot see God with physical eyes, he uses certain anthropomorphic expressions to help us to understand and appreciate things about himself." Insight 1 p349

"anthropomorphic usage, that is, the attributing of physical and human characteristics to God to facilitate understanding" Insight 2 p1007

[JW Insider]

 

@Eoin Joyce Wow! I was just thinking about this same point last night for the current thread on Christ's power and authority. In order for us to get a sense of Jehovah's majesty, there must be some extent to which we need certain images in our head, like a crown, a throne, royal garb, a scepter, etc. Jehovah must know that these images are helpful to understand his Sovereignty. The images of a kingdom --with all the glorious splendor of a central palace, a sizable realm, along with an innumerable entourage of soldiers, servants, slaves, messengers at the king's command-- probably carries about the same meaning from the time of the earliest empires until now.

Clearly there is an element of anthropomorphism in the imagery, because a perfect spirit being needs nothing physical.

But the fact that Jehovah is a Sovereign or King is important to the concept of his Sovereignty and Kingdom. That Jehovah is at the top of a heavenly hierarchy and is all-powerful is conveyed immediately with these images.

As Jesus is also a heavenly spirit creature, the same would be true of his Kingdom, too. Obviously, many of the disciples had trouble "spiritualizing" some of the concepts about God's Kingdom through Christ. They considered the physical seat of the Kingdom to be earthly Jerusalem, rather than the Jerusalem above. He spoke of his Father's house as having many mansions, but he also had to remind them that hierarchical positions in that kingdom were not given the same meaning that they might have on earth. Heaven is a place "not made with hands."

Clearly, the same goes for the term "Bride of Christ" too. In heaven, where "in the resurrection there is neither male or female," Jesus marries a good number of "male virgins." Marriage carries with it the idea of union, love, closeness, loyalty, and an unbreakable bond. The physical concepts of marriage do not apply.

Therefore, even terms like "Father" and "Son" carry an element of anthropomorphism.

[ComfortMyPeople]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The images of a kingdom --with all the glorious splendor of a central palace, a sizable realm, along with an innumerable entourage of soldiers, servants, slaves, messengers at the king's command-- probably carries about the same meaning from the time of the earliest empires until now.

Therefore, even terms like "Father" and "Son" carry an element of anthropomorphism.

You (JWI and Eoin) are absolutely right! Regarding this, I like the conceptual design selected in our “Revelation…climax” book, where the heavenly Jerusalem is drawn as a modern city, with skyscrapers, do you remember? I conveys the idea of complexity and advanced organization, as in a modern city. And this has scriptural base: (Heb. 11:10) “For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, whose designer and builder is God.”

[Anna]

It’s impossible for us physical beings to even imagine what it’s like to be a spirit being. Those who will go to heaven won’t know until they get there. Obviously it’s a totally foreign dimension to us, hence anthropomorphic expressions are helpful. However most of Christendom’s adherents imagine heaven like what physical paradise earth will be; trees, streams, mountains etc.One of my Bible studies, a scientist, knew that a spirit universe couldn’t be anything like a physical universe. It’s scientifically impossible. She told me that she could never understand how people could think that when they went to heaven they would be playing cards with their grandpa.....and the harp. I guess she forgot that not everyone thinks like a scientist. The strangest thing of all is that the Mormons believe that the physical person, literally flesh and blood, will go to heaven....(and own a planet) I don't think even the Catholics think that, but they do believe they will have wings

[b4ucuhear]

Anthropo (man/human) as in anthropology - a study of man and morphe/morpho (form or shape) is the basis for the idea of anthropomorphic expressions. It’s a fancy expression to describe a simple idea: that of imputing physical attributes to something that is not human. It’s easier to grasp for some people using cartoon characters like Mickey Mouse as an example. We know that mice don’t wear gloves, have fingers, talk, drive cars etc. But giving them human form, shape, (anthropomorphic) characteristics makes them appealing as cartoon characters. But in the context of a Biblical discussion, it is the attribution of human form or shape to God for instance. People who take these so-called anthropomorphic expressions literally refer to Genesis 1:26, 27 where it says “Let us create man in our image...” Therefore, when the Bible refers to “God’s finger “ or his “hand, arm” or that he “sees/hears/smells...” they take that to be a literal description.  Of course, as we know, that is a very self-serving and arbitrary application - “cherry-picking” only those verses that support their point of view. Whereas with equal validity, the scriptures also refer to/describe God as a “shield...a burning fire...a sun...a rock...as having eagles’s wings...as being a spirit.  Not to mention the logical absurdities to which their conclusions would lead if God was in fact like a human in the heavens. Simply put, the Bible uses anthropomorphic expressions to help us humans who live in a 3 dimensional physical world to understand spiritual realities we can’t see. Much like the temple and it’s sacrifices helped us to understand spiritual arrangements/realities using physical representations.