A- A A+

Article from:

Creation  Volume 27Issue 2 Cover

Creation 27(2):46–47
March 2005

Free Email News
The Genesis Account
by Jonathan Sarfati

US $35.00
View Item
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $14.00
View Item
The Human Body: Solutions & Tests
by Dr Jay L Wile

US $16.00
View Item
The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis
by Bill Cooper

US $29.00
View Item
Complete Works of Flavius Josephus
by William Whiston, AM (Translator)

US $60.00
View Item
The Annals of the World, hardcover
by James Ussher

US $70.00
View Item

Does God have body parts?

If Genesis is meant to be taken literally …


Creation of Adam

Artistic masterpieces?

Michelangelo took biblical anthropomorhism to extremes when he depicted God as a patriarchal figure in his Creation of Adam, part of which is shown above. It is the centrepiece of 33 paintings Michelangelo did on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, Rome, from 1508 to 1512. Christians would generally question whether God should be represented in this way.

Recently I was talking to a Bible Society translator and happened to mention the concept of a literal Genesis. He immediately challenged me with, ‘What about the anthropomorphisms?’

So what are anthropomorphisms? And what do they have to do with a literal Genesis?

God and human characteristics

Anthropomorphisms (from Greek ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) = man/human + μορφή (morphē) = form) are figures of speech which represent God as having human characteristics, form or personality. They are symbolic descriptions, which help to make God’s attributes, powers and activities real to us.

For example, Genesis talks about:

  • God speaking (e.g. Genesis 1:3). But does this mean that God has vocal cords?
  • God seeing (Genesis 1:4). Does God have eyes with pupils and retinas?
  • God walking (Genesis 3:8). Does God have legs?
  • God making clothes for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21). Does God have hands?
  • God smelling a sweet savour from Noah’s sacrifice (Genesis 8:21). Does God have a nose and olfactory receptors?

If we say we take Genesis ‘literally’, doesn’t that mean insisting that these descriptions are literal, too? And if not, doesn’t this undermine our claim that Genesis is meant to be taken literally?

The author’s intention

To answer these questions we must first consider the intention of the author—in this case Moses, under the direction of God’s Holy Spirit.1 It is clear that Moses’ purpose is to tell us what God did on these occasions in a way that we can understand, and not to give us any physical pen-pictures of God. Moses does this, in the examples above, by portraying God’s actions in terms of their human counterparts; namely voice, sight, companionship, work and satisfaction.

On the subject of God speaking the creation into existence (e.g. ‘And God said, “Let there be light”’, on Day 1, with a similar form of words on each of Days 2 to 6), God was expressing His will that the creation events happen. He chose to do this by way of commands which expressed and illuminated the fact that it was at His initiative that creation occurred, and not, for example, as the result of chance random processes.


Throughout history, mankind has sought to depict its false deities with human (as in this statue of Zeus) or animal-like attributes. This is in contrast to the true Creator God who has told us He is spirit and has no form as we know it.

The repeated phrase ‘and it was so’ tells us that there was an immediate fulfillment of each creation command. Also, there was God’s objective assessment, ‘and God saw that it was good’, before the relevant day closed. This clearly refutes long-age/progressive creation and theistic evolution theories. It is also obviously more emphatic than if the record had merely stated, ‘And it was good’. The extra words ‘God saw’ suggest a careful assessment by a competent authority, who brings down a reliable verdict. Moses’ intention in describing God’s activity in this way is clear.

In chapters 2 and 3, Genesis tells us about God’s interaction with Adam and then with Eve. God walks in the garden in the cool of the day, He has personal conversation with Adam, and then an interview with Adam and Eve. What should we make of all this? How could human beings see God, especially after they had sinned, but also even in their non-fallen state?


God is free to manifest Himself in any locality, in apparent human appearance, and in less-than-plenary form, if He so chooses. Such a temporary visitation is called a theophany (from Greek theos = god + phainō = shine). This is what happened in the Garden of Eden.

Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the person appearing in this way is sometimes referred to as ‘the angel of the Lord’.2 This is often taken to refer to the second person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Indeed, such manifestations prefigured the coming of the Son of God in full bodily form at the Incarnation.

Historically true and accurate

So how does this affect our understanding of the literalness of Genesis?

Moses’ use of anthropomorphisms in Genesis is no obstacle to taking the account to be what the author so obviously intended, namely straightforward history.

Answer: In Genesis, God has given us a record of events and details which actually occurred. The events described are not allegories, theological poetry, or camp-fire stories composed many centuries later, but are historically true and accurate.3 The Lord Jesus Christ and all the New Testament writers always took them thus.

Moses’ purpose is to record these historical events and details. In doing this he uses, where appropriate, figures of speech about God—as though He were a man—which help us understand better what he means to convey.

Interestingly, the church leaders dealt with this matter as early as the 4th century ad, and said that such statements should be understood in a ‘God-befitting’ manner. Thus, St John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) states: ‘When you hear that “God planted Paradise in Eden in the East,” understand the word “planted” befittingly of God: that is, that He commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that Paradise was created and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it.’4 That is, for created things, take the plain sense, as his rough contemporary St Basil the Great (329–379) said:

‘There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense.’5

It is clear that Moses’ use of anthropomorphisms in Genesis is no obstacle to taking the account to be what the author so obviously intended, namely straightforward history. That is why the church took it that way for most of its history, until the erroneously perceived need to compromise with long-age ‘science’.6

God is spirit

In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ tells us that ‘God is spirit’ (John 4:24). This indicates that God is not material and does not have a body, so He is not visible to, or discernible by, our bodily senses. Nevertheless, He is personal, and has transcendent life and being. This means that God is independent of the limitations of the material universe.

All this is beyond the grasp of human reason and so defies human depiction, because man has no words to describe such a transcendent deity, other than in terms of our own human characteristics. Hence, the Bible uses anthropomorphisms to help make God real to us and to express His various powers, interests and activities. Such use is justifiable, because God speaks about Himself in this way in the Bible, i.e. He authorizes and uses it. And also because God has made man in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26–27), so that between God and man there is some similarity — as well as, of course, a huge dissimilarity.

In view of the above, when Christians talk about Genesis, rather than using the term ‘literal’ (without some clarification), it is probably better to use the terms ‘plain’ or ‘grammatical-historical’.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Concerning the authorship of Genesis, see Grigg, R., Did Moses really write Genesis?, Creation 20(4):43–46, 1998. Return to text.
  2. E.g. Genesis 22:11; Judges 6:11; 2 Kings 1:3; Isaiah 37:36, etc. Return to text.
  3. See Grigg, R., Should Genesis be taken literally?, Creation 16(1):38–41, 1993. Return to text.
  4. John Chrysostom, Homilies in Genesis 13(3):106, quoted from Rose, S., Genesis, Creation and Early Man, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, pp. 87–88, 2000. Return to text.
  5. Basil the Great, Hexaëmeron (= ‘Six Days’) Homily IX. Return to text.
  6. Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, ch. 3, 2004. Return to text.

Derek C. wrote: “This is an awesome website. As a Christian who’s finally just turning my life over to God (for good), I needed somewhere to look for answers when I had no one to ask.” Help keep the ‘awesome’ going! Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Available only from day of publication.
Readers’ comments
Jeremy S., United Kingdom, 6 May 2012

I wonder whether you are unnecessarily conceding ground to the person who asked you the question in the first place. I don’t think the examples given are anthropomorphisms at all. For example, I don't see why "God saw" is an anthropomorphism. There is a distinction between having the ability to see and possessing certain means by which one sees. If one reads "God saw" and concludes that God has "eyes with pupils and retinas", the reader has clearly gone wrong somewhere, but where? One might say that he's reading the text too literally and that the text is using human things to describe what God does (anthropomorphism). However, all that the text actually says is that God can "see". The error of the reader is in using reasoning along the lines of:

1. God can see

2. Humans see with eyes


3. God has eyes

The problem with this is that it assumes that the human way of doing things is the only way. "Seeing" is about being able to perceive what is around you. The way humans do this uses eyes, but the way bats do this is with their ears. We don’t know exactly how God perceives things, but I don't see any problem with the idea that God is able to perceive what is around him. Whether he does this with an eye or not doesn't seem to be very relevant; he can do it somehow. The text shows that God is able to do something, but says nothing about the means by which he does it. Therefore all we can get from the text is that God is able to "see", but we aren't told how he does this.

The other examples given from Genesis are similar (apart from “walking”, though this can be translated as “moving about” (NET)). In one of the examples, God “speaks”. No, he doesn’t have vocal cords, but he can speak. He has audible conversations with various people in the Bible.

I’m not saying there are no anthropomorphisms in the Bible. Proper anthropomorphisms seem to me to be when God is said to have a physical attribute. For example, 1 Peter 3:12 says:

“For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,

and his ears are open to their prayer.

But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

This is clearly an anthropomorphism. It should be interpreted as “the means by which God sees are on the righteous”, etc. The presence of anthropomorphisms therefore can’t be used to question the interpretation of these passages, as there actually aren’t any.

Douglas B., United States, 8 March 2012

Regarding “God is spirit”—Angels are spirits, as well, yet they have a distinct form in Heaven that can be manifested to the sight of men. In one instance, God allowed Moses to see part of His form, but did not allow His face to be seen. In another instance, Moses, Joshua, and 70 elders of Israel saw the lower half of God seated on His throne, come down upon Mount Sinai.

Jesus is God, and is in Heaven. He has an actual, physical (albeit resurrected and glorified) human body. Man was made in God’s image and likeness. It seems to me that, yes, God the Father also has a form, like that of a man.

Jonathan Sarfati responds

Dear Mr B.

Thank you for your comments. You raise interesting and important issues.

I must admit that I doubt that God the Father has any physical form, e.g.

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? Numbers 23:19

There are some anthropomorphisms, as the article said, but they no more prove that God has a physical form like a man than biblical ornithomorphisms prove that he’s like a bird:

“He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.” Psalm 91:4

When people saw God in the Old Testament, it was either the Shekinah glory or a Christophany, rather than an appearance of God the Father (a patriphany?). (See also The Incarnation: Why did God become Man?.)

The “image of God” also has connotations of being God’s representative. E.g. consider Jesus’ famous command, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” This was in reference to a coin bearing Caesar’s image, thus belonging to him, and representing him. This is a contrast with man, made in God’s image, thus representing God and belonging to Him. (See also The use of Genesis in the New Testament.)

Another idea is based on the fact that Christ predated creation, as did the book of Life. Thus the Incarnation was pre-ordained before creation. This meant that God would take on human nature, becoming a descendant of Adam. Yet because of the fore-ordination, God decreed that His Son would take on a certain nature, and it was Adam who was made in the image that the future Incarnate Christ would possess.

Copied to clipboard
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.