Balancing Analogies and Human Language in Describing God's Attributes
Scripture consistently affirms that God transcends human categories while simultaneously employing human language to reveal divine realities. Genesis declares that God created humanity "in His image" [1], establishing both a fundamental likeness and an unbridgeable ontological distance. Job's repeated questioning—"Can man be compared with God, even though he were of perfect knowledge?" [2]—underscores this tension: we bear God's image yet cannot be "justified" or measured against Him [4].
The Necessity of Anthropomorphic Language
Biblical writers routinely describe God using human terms and experiences, a practice theologians call anthropomorphism. When Exodus speaks of sacrifices as a "pleasing aroma" to God, this language conveys "God's delight in an appropriately offered sacrifice" through analogy to human sensory experience [5]. Similarly, Luke's reference to "the hand of the Lord" describes divine action in John's life through physical metaphor [9]. These expressions do not reduce God to human limitations but provide accessible points of contact for finite minds engaging infinite reality.
The divine names themselves reflect this dynamic. Hebrew terms like El (connoting strength) and the plural Elohim gesture toward God's nature through linguistic forms that humans can grasp, while the name Jehovah (rendered "LORD" in English translations) points to self-existence beyond creaturely categories [3]. Language about God thus operates analogically: it affirms genuine correspondence without claiming exhaustive comprehension.
Image and Representation
The concept of humanity as God's "image" establishes the theological foundation for analogical speech. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown note that man is created "in God's 'image,' first and directly," serving as "the representative of God's 'glory'"—an ideal "realized most fully in the Son of man" [7]. This representative function means human language, though finite, can genuinely refer to divine attributes because humans themselves reflect, however imperfectly, the divine nature.
Yet this same commentary tradition distinguishes carefully between image and essence. When discussing Christ's divine nature, Philippians 2:6 speaks of Him "subsisting in the form of God"—not the divine essence itself, but "the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence" [8]. Even scriptural language about the incarnate Son employs "form" to mediate between divine reality and human comprehension.
The Limits of Systematic Precision
Calvin, reflecting on Genesis, acknowledges various patristic and medieval attempts to map the imago Dei onto specific human faculties—memory, understanding, and will corresponding to Father, Son, and Spirit. While he grants "there is something in man which refers to the Father and the Son, and the Spirit," he insists that "a definition of the image of God ought to rest on a firmer basis than such subtleties" [6]. His caution highlights a perennial challenge: systematic theology's drive toward precision can overreach what Scripture warrants, mistaking analogy for equation.
Matthew Henry's introduction to Psalm 104 demonstrates how genre shapes theological language. Where Psalm 103 celebrated God's "goodness and tender mercy" in "soft and sweet style," Psalm 104 addresses "his greatness, and majesty, and sovereign dominion" in "the most stately lofty" register [11]. The shift in literary style reflects different aspects of divine character, suggesting that no single mode of speech exhausts God's nature. Analogies must multiply and vary because each captures only a facet of the whole.
Theological Humility and Doxological Purpose
Adam Clarke's reflection on Genesis 1:28 moves from God's blessing of humanity to acknowledgment that "a large volume would be insufficient to contain what we know of the excellence and perfection of man, even in his present degraded fallen state" [10]. If finite human nature exceeds complete description, how much more does the infinite Creator? Analogical language functions not to domesticate mystery but to enable worship. We speak of God's "hand," His "delight," His "glory" not because these terms define Him comprehensively, but because they allow creatures to respond rightly to His self-revelation—with praise, obedience, and trust.
Human language about divine attributes thus walks a narrow path: affirming real knowledge without claiming total comprehension, using creaturely terms without reducing God to creaturely measure, multiplying analogies without fragmenting divine simplicity.
Sources
- Genesis “Genesis 1:27 (YLT) — And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.”
- Job “Job 22:2 (DRC) — Can man be compared with God, even though he were of perfect knowledge?”
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: God — (A.S. and Dutch God; Dan. Gud; Ger. Gott), the name of the Divine Being. It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew 'El, from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of 'Eloah_, plural _'Elohim. The singular form, Eloah, is used only in poetry. The plural form is more commonly used in all parts of the Bible, The Hebrew word Jehovah (q.v.), the only other word generally employed to denote the Supreme Being, is uniformly rendered in the Authorized Version by "LORD," printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argume”
- Job “Job 9:2 (Geneva1599) — I knowe verily that it is so: for howe should man compared vnto God, be iustified?”
- Exodus (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Exodus 29:18: 29:18 pleasing aroma: Such language is anthropomorphism, describing God with human terms and experiences. God’s delight in an appropriately offered sacrifice is like a human’s enjoyment of a pleasing smell.”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 5.31: and fourteenth books on the Trinity, also the eleventh book of the “City of God.” I acknowledge, indeed, that there is something in man which refers to the Father and the Son, and the Spirit: and I have no difficulty in admitting the above distinction of the faculties of the soul: although the simpler division into two parts, which is more used in Scripture, is better adapted to the sound doctrine of piety; but a definition of the image of God ought to rest on a firmer basis than such subtleties. As for myself, before I define the”
- 1 Corinthians (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 1 Corinthians 11:7: Argument, also, from man's more immediate relation to God, and the woman's to man. he is . . . image . . . glory of God--being created in God's "image," first and directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God's "glory" this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man (Psa 8:4-5; compare Co2 8:23). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare Jam 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare H”
- Philippians (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Philippians 2:6: Translate, "Who subsisting (or existing, namely, originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, 'to be') in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence). The divine nature had infinite BEAUTY in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was 'the form of God'; as 'the form of a servant' (Phi 2:7), which is in contrasted opposition to it, takes for granted the existence of His human nature, so 'the”
- Luke (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Luke 1:66: 1:66 the hand of the Lord: This anthropomorphism (describing God with human characteristics, cp. 1:51) meant that God was at work in John’s life.”
- Genesis (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them - Marked them as being under his especial protection, and gave them power to propagate and multiply their own kind on the earth. A large volume would be insufficient to contain what we know of the excellence and perfection of man, even in his present degraded fallen state. Both his body and soul are adapted with astonishing wisdom to their residence and occupations; and also the place of their residence, as well as the surrounding objects, in their diversity, color, and mutual relations, to the mind and body of this lord of the creation. The co”
- Psalms (Nonconformist/Puritan) “Matthew Henry on Psalms 104 (introduction): It is very probable that this psalm was penned by the same hand, and at the same time, as the former; for as that ended this begins, with "Bless the Lord, O my soul!" and concludes with it too. The style indeed is somewhat different, because the matter is so: the scope of the foregoing psalm was to celebrate the goodness of God and his tender mercy and compassion, to which a soft and sweet style was most agreeable; the scope of this is to celebrate his greatness, and majesty, and sovereign dominion, which ought to be done in the most stately lofty st”