Common use of Paraphrase Clause in Contracts

Paraphrase. Philo has explained in the preceding passage, Deus 33–50, that ‘bethinking’ (ἐνεθυμήθη and διενοήθη used in Gn. 6:6) does not mean that God changed his mind, but that God always contemplates the nature of all things he created and specifically whether they follow the order he has intended for creation or not. Philo has concluded that only humans are free to choose whether they will do so or not and that therefore only humans can obey or disobey God, and only they can be commended when they obey or punished if they do not. Before discussing (in Deus 86–121) whether Noah should be considered as praiseworthy, because he is said to have found grace, Philo first explains in Deus 51–85 the meaning of the statement that God became angry (in Gn. 6:7) and why anthropomorphic descriptions of God are used in the Bible in general. 263 This grammatical detail is that Gn. 6:12 states that ‘all flesh destroyed his way (τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ) throughout the earth.’ As Philo explains in Deus 141–142 ‘flesh’ (σάρξ) in Greek is a feminine noun, so ‘his’ (αὐτοῦ) cannot refer to the flesh destroying its own way. Rather, ‘his’ must refer to something masculine; Philo maintains that this must be God, concluding that all flesh attempts to destroy the way of God. — Philo’s doctrine of God — Philo begins his discussion of anthropomorphic descriptions of God by emphasising that in truth God is not like humans at all (Deus 51–59). Human souls who are fully oriented towards immaterial and divine things are able to grasp this essential truth. They see God as singular existence. They apply no other characteristics to God, especially no imagery based on created things. God in truth cannot have emotions such as wrath or anger. Philo reasons that emotions are part of the body, and God has no body. The parts of the body serve the several needs of human beings; God, having no such needs, needs no body. Anthropomorphic descriptions of God are essentially false, and are used in the Bible only for pedagogical reasons. As Philo explains (in Deus 60–69), God is described in the Bible like humans, because God also wants to reach human souls that are primarily oriented towards material and earthly things. Such souls can only think of God in earthly and bodily terms. They need anthropomorphic imagery to gain at least some conception of God. The Bible presents God as a wrathful Lord for such earthly human souls, so that through fear of punishment they will better their ways. Philo compares this approach to that of physicians who pedagogically use untruths so that patients will accept their treatment. After these preliminary remarks, Philo brings forward what he thinks the statement means that God became angry for having made man (Deus 70–72). Philo reasons that humans are always condemnable under God’s judgement, for no human being can go through life without ever sinning. It is fitting, therefore, to say that God is always angry with the human race – although anger should still be seen as a metaphor, for it is a human emotion. God’s anger should not be seen as the result of a change of mind. However, if God can righteously condemn the whole human race, how then can the human race still subsist? In response to this question, Philo adds (Deus 73–76) that God tempers his righteous judgement by mixing it with mercy. Philo further explains (Deus 77–85) that God is experienced in such a mixed way when seen from creation. Philo compares this difference to how God tempers the rays of the sun with cool air, preventing them from burning humans by the time they reach them. Philo emphasises that God’s judgement only appears as tempered when seen from the human perspective. In truth and from God’s perspective his judgement remains unmixed and unaltered.