Historically, the "language of appearance" goes under the name
"principle of accommodation". In view of the way people treated
the Bible in the 19th Century, I am not sure that "accommodation"
is the best word. However, some comments on the principle:
The geocentricity/heliocentricity controversy is the most notable
example of accommodation relating to appearances. The sun rises
and sets; the Earth shall not be moved; etc. Do the Scripture
give us technical information here? To say that the Bible uses
the language of appearance is effectively to answer "no". We see
the sun rising and setting, but that does not tell us either that
the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it, or that
the sun is stationary and the earth moves around it spinning on
its axis.
Other examples will be found. For example: do rabbits "chew the
cud"? (Leviticus 11:6). This has created problems for those who
know that rabbits appear to chew the cud but are not actually
ruminants! Another example concerns the classification of bats:
both Leviticus 11:19 and Deuteronomy 14:18 refer to bats at the
end of a long list of undoubted birds. This raises the question:
why associate bats with birds - when they are taxonomically so
different? If we look for technical precision here, we are
liable to struggle. The reason the bat is in the list is that
it shares with birds the ability to fly.
More generally still (for "the language of appearance" is a
subset of the broader principle known as "accommodation"), it is
worth noting that the words used in Scripture are non-technical.
Language itself is an accommodation. God is using human language
to communicate with us. The first chapter of the Bible gives us
important instruction on the type of words God uses. In this
chapter, God names various things he makes. He gives the names
"day" and "night"; and in verse 8 he names the "sky". These are
words describing appearance rather than physical nature. The
words are phenomenological, not technical. "Atmosphere" would be
a possible technical word - but a technical word here would have
all sorts of ramifications. For example, birds fly in, not
across, the atmosphere (compare with verse ..). And what shall
we say of the stars? Technical words require a precision of
usage which God could easily have employed - but he chose not
to do so. Instead, he chose words which are adapted to human
limitations and which are based on perception. Such words
introduce no errors and do not deceive - and they are meaningful
throughout human history.
A third aspect relates to purpose and meaning. It is not rare
to find passages of Scripture referring to God's purpose
apparently being frustrated, and this must be considered in the
light of clear teaching that nothing can frustrate God's will.
Similar tensions may emerge when we read of God "repenting" of
something he did - when we know that God's omniscience is such
that he never needs to change his mind about anything. Such
examples are best approached with the principle of accommodation
to hand.
I've written longer on this than I anticipated - because only
today there is an example of what happens when this third aspect
of the principle is by-passed. The communication was from Lloyd
Eby:
"I think that God (usually if not always) *needs* (in a strong
sense of `needs') human response and co-operation in order that
divine providence can be advanced, at least divine providence for
human life, development, and salvation. There are numerous
scriptural passages which suggest the view I am espousing. One
is Jonah's preaching to Nineveh, whereby the Ninevites repented
and converted, and the predicted divine retribution on their city
was averted. Another is ... 2 Chr. 7:14, RSV. ... [Another is
] Matt. 23:37, RSV -- suggesting that the divine plan for
salvation of the people of Jerusalem (Israel) was contingent on
their response to Jesus. There are no doubt hundreds of other
scriptures that imply, or at least suggest, the notion of divine
contingency I'm putting forth here."
No doubt there's more to be said on these matters. This aspect of
Biblical hermeneutics seems to warrant more attention than it seems
to have received to date.
I've just noted Mark Kalthoff's recommendations for reading. I can
endorse "God and Nature" - I found it highly stimulating. "Science
and Religion" is a book I've not yet investigated. Thanks for the
info Mark.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***