Theological term
Anthropomorphism
37 sermons · All terms
The Rejection of the True Prophet of God
1 Kings 22:1–28 presents a confrontation between Ahab, king of Israel, and Micaiah, the lone true prophet of Yahweh, whose faithful message Ahab despises precisely because it refuses to flatter him. The sermon traces Ahab's long pattern of rejecting God's word, his assembly of 400 pliable false prophets, and the fearless integrity of Micaiah, who declares he is in bondage to whatever Yahweh speaks regardless of the cost. Micaiah's heavenly throne-room vision is interpreted anthropomorphically — not as God counselling with creatures, but as a gracious revelation of Ahab's spiritual situation before the battle. The passage calls hearers to prize the unvarnished truth of God's Word over any message tailored to felt needs, and to pray for and support faithful preachers who will not compromise under pressure.
1 Kings 9
1 Kings 9 functions as a theological hinge in the narrative of Solomon's reign, positioned between the golden era of chapters 5–8 and the decline traced in chapters 10–11. God's second appearance to Solomon confirms his approval of the completed temple while issuing a sobering conditional warning: faithlessness — above all, idolatry — will cost Israel its land, its temple, and its Davidic dynasty, precisely as the covenant curses of Deuteronomy 28 stipulate. The second half of the chapter catalogues Solomon's political pursuits in foreign affairs, defense, worship, and trade, each carrying subtle narrative signals of the decline to come. The sermon closes by tracing how Christ fulfills what Solomon forfeited: the land recovered through the Abrahamic promise, the temple realized in his body, and the throne secured forever in the Davidic covenant.
2 Samuel 22
Psalm 18's twin text, 2 Samuel 22 presents David not as a great military king but as a theologian of grace, ascribing every victory to Yahweh alone. The sermon examines the deliverance of God's servant (vv. 1–20), then takes up the harder exegetical question of David's assertion of his own righteousness (vv. 21–31), arguing from Psalms 32, 51, and 65 and from Romans 4 that David's righteousness is the imputed righteousness of Christ, received through faith, not a claim to sinless perfection. The sermon closes by grounding David's confidence in the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7 and calling the congregation to the same exuberant, theologically informed praise.
2 Samuel 7:18-29
David's prayer in 2 Samuel 7:18–29, offered in response to the Davidic covenant, models the proper shape of Christian prayer: confession of unworthiness before God, ascription of greatness to God alone, and petition grounded in God's own promises rather than personal merit. The sermon traces how David's prayer moves from humble acknowledgment of grace, through a declaration that God's incomparable greatness is displayed in Israel's redemption and preservation, to specific petitions that mirror the structure of the Lord's Prayer. Particular attention is given to the scope of the Davidic covenant as a charter for all humanity — elect from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation — fulfilled ultimately in the Lord Jesus Christ. The sermon calls hearers to bring God's promises back to Him in prayer, to prioritize praise before petition, and to understand redemption as liberation unto possession, not liberation unto autonomy.
1 Samuel 15, Part 2
Divine impassibility — the classical Christian doctrine that God does not undergo emotional changes — stands at the center of a textual tension in 1 Samuel 15: verses 11 and 35 record that God 'greatly regrets' making Saul king, while verse 29 declares that the Strength of Israel 'will not lie nor relent, for he is not a man that he should relent.' This study argues that there is no contradiction, paradox, or problem in the text, but that the apparent tension is resolved by understanding anthropopathism (the ascription of human emotions to God in Scripture as accommodated language), the priority of divine-essence texts in interpretation, and the inseparable relationship between impassibility and immutability. The practical stakes are high: to modify impassibility is to unravel divine simplicity, omniscience, independence, and eternity, and ultimately to rob God of his divine nature and religion of its firm foundation and assured comfort.
1 Samuel 5
1 Samuel 5 records the Ark of the Covenant's journey through Philistia after its capture at Ebenezer, where the God of Israel systematically humiliates Dagon and devastates every city that receives the Ark. The chapter is structured as a deliberate polemic against idolatry: Dagon is twice found prostrate before Yahweh, then stripped of head and hands, while Yahweh's 'heavy hand' of judgment moves from Ashdod to Gath to Ekron. The passage calls for reverent, humorous recognition that idols must be propped up by their worshippers, whereas the living God carries His people. The sermon draws out the perennial relevance of this account by connecting it to Isaiah 44, Isaiah 46, Psalm 106, and Romans 1, arguing that modern idolatry — whether of self, money, sexuality, or ideology — is the root disease for which the gospel of Christ is the only cure.
Divine Impassibility (2LCF 2.1)
Divine impassibility — the classical Christian teaching that God does not undergo inner emotional changes of state, whether from without by his creatures or from within by himself — is the subject of this exposition of 2nd London Baptist Confession chapter 2, paragraph 1. The confession's phrase 'without passions' is shown to be an entailment of divine immutability, simplicity, and aseity: a God who could be moved, excited, or disturbed would be neither most absolute nor self-sufficient. Biblical texts establishing divine immutability ground the argument, while the phenomenon of anthropopathism in Scripture (God 'grieved in his heart,' God 'crying out like a woman in labor') is explained through the category of revelatory condescension — God lisping, as it were, to finite creatures — not as evidence of genuine emotional change in the divine being. The doctrine is shown to yield concrete pastoral fruit: it protects the uniqueness of the incarnation, grounds the believer's comfort in a God who is most loving without ebb or flow, and fuels doxology.