Must believe? I have encountered a wide range of beliefs regarding the accuracy and/or literalism of the OT.
Well, I did say
orthodox. The idea that God
literally has limbs and passions is the "anthropomorphite heresy".
Again, I am not sure how wide this belief actually is even if it is highly regarded. Certainly none of the Christian experiences I have had personally have been anything close to this.
Well, this is just a logical consequence of thinking that the Bible is the word of God. It follows from this there must have been some good reason why the Bible describes God as having hands, feet, nostrils, etc.
Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of anthropomorphism. Note that they're saying the same thing as Eusebius, and the same thing that I attributed to the orthodox:
The Bible, especially the Old Testament , abounds in anthropomorphic expressions. Almost all the activities of organic life are ascribed to the Almighty. He speaks, breathes, sees, hears; He walks in the garden; He sits in the heavens, and the earth is His footstool. It must, however, be noticed that in the Bible locutions of this kind ascribe human characteristics to God only in a vague, indefinite way. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature the same as man's ; and human defects and vices are never even figuratively attributed to Him. The metaphorical, symbolical character of this language is usually obvious. The all-seeing Eye signifies God's omniscience; the everlasting Arms His omnipotence ; His Sword the chastisement of sinners ; when He is said to have repented of having made man, we have an extremely forcible expression conveying His abhorrence of sin. The justification of this language is found in the fact that truth can be conveyed to men only through the medium of human ideas and thoughts, and is to be expressed only in language suited to their comprehension.
So you see it's their doctrine that the anthropomorphic language is not to be taken literaly but that there's still a good reason for it being in the Bible.
And
here's a Protestant theologian saying the same thing:
Finally, we are faced with Scripture referring to God's "hands", "eyes", "ears", and so forth (e.g., Deut. 33:27; Ps. 11:4; Isa. 59:1). We see also that God is at times represented as if He had specific locality (e.g., Genesis 11:5,7; Psalm 2:4). Some teachers and sects draw from such passages the notion that God "has a body." However, that this is not the case can be easily seen when we consider the whole of Scripture. It should be evident from the many clear statements cited above that such language cannot be taken literally.
Such statements are called anthropomorphisms - these are metaphorical expressions used by God as an accommodation (or, condescension) to our finite understanding. Simply put, God speaks to us on our finite level, chiefly because we cannot ascend to His infinite level. (11) In the same way, God is represented as "discovering" information, "repenting," and so forth. That God has revealed truth about Himself in this way should not surprise us. Paul recognized this very fact in 1 Corinthians 13:12. To literalize such language is the ancient error of the sect known as the Anthropomorphites (Greek, anthros = man, morph = form).
It is interesting to note that Eusebius lived in the fourth century, a time when Anthropomorphites (Audians) had some following. So he had a motivation to put forward the use of such metaphorical language in the OT as being an example of a
good idea and one of the
admirable features of Hebrew thought, as he does in the passage we're discussing.
™ Version 4.2
