An article I recently wrote and posted in one of the discussions on the "Luther and positive confession thread" probably best expresses my thoughts on this matter. Although it is concentrating specifically on a few verses in general, the same issues are relevant. I shall include it here, if I may:
---
Did God really speak when creating?
Some advice for spotting and handling biblical anthropomorphisms
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. But did He really do it in an audible voice (Gen. 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26)? It is, when we stop to think about it, impossible to accept the idea that God literally spoke words in the original act of creation. A spoken word requires air in which to speak it and organs with which to produce the sound. Granted, a God who is in control of air molecules could set up the necessary vibrations with a thought, but even God the Almighty cannot produce vibrations in a gaseous medium that doesn't exist yet. That is nonsense.
We may wonder, then, why the Genesis account repeatedly records the creative acts with the words, God said, as opposed to God thought or some other language that might better befit Gods dignity and true nature. Wouldnt that have been preferable? Isnt the choice of words a little crude and irreverent in describing the actions of this transcendent spirit? I believe the answer to both of these questions is no. There are good reasons for preferring God said to God thought, and there are also good reasons for abstaining both from literalisms and criticisms of biblical anthropomorphisms in general.
Firstly, in order to correctly interpret the aforementioned verses in Genesis, we must observe that speech is the revelation of thought. In a human being, breath is released from the lungs and passed through the mouth. The sound of the words is determined by the various things to which the air is subjected before it departs between your lips. Essentially, a man wills to think about something and his breath carries the thought outside of himself and manifests it in the form of sound waves. "Speech is the index of what is thought, willed and done". It is a fitting analogue for Gods work in the beginning. God didnt merely ponder the act of creation - He willed to think creative thoughts, and those thoughts were indeed, in a sense, carried by Gods breath; the Holy Spirit. God made something outside of Himself. His will was wrought in substance! To record that "God said" is a vastly more appropriate means of recalling each creative act than to say merely, "God thought".
It shouldn't be too surprising that human speech is employed as a useful analogy in Genesis 1, (no more than that, but no less), as long as we maintain our grasp on two important touchstones. Firstly, like the Roman coin in Mark 12:16-21, stamped with the image of Caesar, man has been created in the image and likeness of God. Nevertheless, a coin does not contain the true nature of the person in whose image it was made. This is the second point. That God is both like us (Gen. 1:26) and unlike us is indisputable (Jer. 10:6-7). He amply testifies to both throughout scripture, and frequently has to remind us that He is not as akin to human beings as we often imagine Him to be! (Num. 23:19; Isa. 29:16; Acts 17:24-30)
For the benefit of all mankind, the Bible frequently frames Gods thoughts and actions in human terms. The Infinite describes Himself in language composed out of the stuff of human life, which we can all readily relate to. Because man is in Gods image, there is sufficient God-likeness within him and even in creation in general for the Absolute to draw upon. But if we also hold within our minds the counter-balancing truth, essential to a worshipful and reverential mind, that God is also unlike us, that He is higher than us, that He is, in fact, a transcendent being and not a man (Isa. 55:8-9), we are not at risk of taking the analogue and making an idol out of it. For the good philosopher knows how earth-bound human language is, carved out by experience in the realm of the five physical senses, yet indispensable in describing the realities that exist on higher plains. There is no difficulty in relating a historical account of the appearance of earth and sky, vegetation and animal life in quite literal terms (cf. Gen. 1-2). But what about the higher matters? When we wish to discuss mental things we are obliged to borrow almost all the words we apply from the material world. "Learning enlightens the mind, because it is to the mind what light is to the eye, enabling it to discover things before hidden"[1]. In this way, by appropriating phraseology from a lower sphere, we are able to discuss the metaphysical together. And this holds true for the ways and workings of the divine too, which we perceive as through a glass, darkly. But only let there be in our minds proper notions of God, and the tropical language we must and ought to employ in speaking of divine things will derive no taint of error from its original application to their human analogues[2]. Our assurance of Gods omnipresence in Psalm 139 forbids us to take literally the image of the earth as a stool for His feet to rest upon (Is. 66:1). Our belief in Gods omniscience (Job. 37:16) prevents us from interpreting Gods repentance in Genesis 6:6 as the admission of an error in divine wisdom. And note this assertion: God does not really whistle when He wants to send a plague of flies (Is. 7:18) - anymore than He literally speaks words when He creates! The kingdom of heaven is like a farmer sowing a seed, or "a merchant looking for fine pearls", but will you really push these similes to the point of absurdity?
How indeed can the Bible tell you and me, simple fellows that we are, anything at all about God and the unfamiliar, without drawing upon the familiar? What other bridge is there over which we may pass to the unknown? To demand that the description precisely conform to the reality of the thing described is to end with nothing higher than our own thoughts and experiences - no God at all, in fact, and no faith.
For this reason, a slavish literalism is inexcusable when the Holy One is in the hotspot of biblical revelation. When the God of the Bible condescends to describe His thoughts and actions to us, stooping into the realm of human language and scooping up the earthly materials of our experiences to compound them into a beautiful mosaic of images that bear the likeness of the appearance of different shapes and pattern we have witnessed in creation, let us be careful not to press the language under our feet and trample on the divine nature by thoughts of God that are no higher than our muddy boots.
---
[1] Websters dictionary
[2] Albert Barnes Commentary
Dakes refers to Jesus being baptized in the spirit when he received his power. But maybe hes wrong, how many miracles did Jesus do before that? Also, Dakes never says he wasn't GOD at anytime. When he was baby he was GOD but also man. Christ is in reference to title.
