God is Spirit

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Well, if you're coming from a Stoic perspective, what Tertullian said is about as close to an immaterial God as you can get! But I agree with you. Tertullian is not the guy to go to for this. He was a lawyer, not a philosopher, and his use of philosophical concepts is all over the map and often paradoxical (although very nicely argued, as a lawyer should). On top of it all, he's the one who asked, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

It has been a while. I survived last semester, one to go. God willing, I'll complete a PhD application tonight for Durham University, over in England. How are things with you?

Things are going very well here! Good luck with your application. I'm sick of school, personally.

[rhinomelon]

3. Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Ha! I was just thinking about this verse in the shower this morning (one of the best places for theological reflection, in my opinion). Here's what popped into my head.

In this passage, as well as the Colossians passage, Christ is singled out as the image of God in a unique way. Because of this, I don't think the reference to "image" refers to a physical form. After all, aren't we all made in God's image? If that's the case, what's so special about the incarnate Son? Was there something different in his physical makeup? Scripture seems to suggest the opposite, with Isaiah referring to Christ prophetically as someone humble in appearance, definitely not an eye-catcher.

Seen in this light, Christ is the image of God in a way none of us are, and since he shared the physical attributes of the rest of humanity, Christ being the "express image" of God refers to something different than physical appearance, something more. For me, this language points more to Christ "incarnating" God's love, mercy, glory, perfection, holiness, etc., bringing it to humanity in a new and unique way. To put it another way, he perfectly "imaged" the qualities of the invisible God in his person.

What do you think?

Take care, y'all

[Zakuska]

One verse I need your input on it:

Col 1:13-16

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

I added the other verses not just verse 15 so we could see the person of context is Jesus...

Wouldn't this mean that the Father is invisible, maybe a Spirit? IHS jim

The word in the Bible that is often transalted as "Invisible" is better translated as "unseen". Just becasue you have never seen me does not mean I am Invisible.

[rhinomelon]

Things are going very well here! Good luck with your application. I'm sick of school, personally.

Boy, I hear you there! Last semester just about did me in. I think this was the first Christmas break that ended much too soon for me. Usually I get the "school itch" in the first week of January or so, but I wanted another two weeks of break this time around. Thankfully, this semester is much easier. One pass/fail class in German, another class with no large paper or final exam, and just one class with a large paper. I think I can handle it, so far...

EDIT: Wow, weird double post.

[rhinomelon]

The word in the Bible that is often transalted as "Invisible" is better translated as "unseen". Just becasue you have never seen me does not mean I am Invisible.

True, but it doesn't mean you're no invisible either. There's some six foot tall white rabbit following me around, but no one else can see him. He is both unseen and invisible. Darn pookah...

[Sargon]

Ha! I was just thinking about this verse in the shower this morning (one of the best places for theological reflection, in my opinion). Here's what popped into my head.

In this passage, as well as the Colossians passage, Christ is singled out as the image of God in a unique way. Because of this, I don't think the reference to "image" refers to a physical form. After all, aren't we all made in God's image? If that's the case, what's so special about the incarnate Son? Was there something different in his physical makeup? Scripture seems to suggest the opposite, with Isaiah referring to Christ prophetically as someone humble in appearance, definitely not an eye-catcher.

Seen in this light, Christ is the image of God in a way none of us are, and since he shared the physical attributes of the rest of humanity, Christ being the "express image" of God refers to something different than physical appearance, something more. For me, this language points more to Christ "incarnating" God's love, mercy, glory, perfection, holiness, etc., bringing it to humanity in a new and unique way. To put it another way, he perfectly "imaged" the qualities of the invisible God in his person.

What do you think?

Take care, y'all

I can understand where you are coming from.

I just happen to see it differently. I think a special emphasis is placed on Christ being in the image of God the Father simply because God the Father literally provided the male chromosomes for Christ's body, in miraculous fashion. It parallels Seth being in the image of his father Adam. I think a case can be made that this is what the writer of Hebrews had in mind, when he called Christ the Son of God in verse 2, and then described him as being the "express image of his person".

All the best!

[rhinomelon]

I can understand where you are coming from.

I just happen to see it differently. I think a special emphasis is placed on Christ being in the image of God the Father simply because God the Father literally provided the male chromosomes for Christ's body, in miraculous fashion. It parallels Seth being in the image of his father Adam. I think a case can be made that this is what the writer of Hebrews had in mind, when he called Christ the Son of God in verse 2, and then described him as being the "express image of his person".

All the best!

Does LDS theology teach that God also provided the male chromosomes for Adam's body? Or Eve's body, for that matter? I think the answer to this question would determine whether we are made in the image of God, or in the image of Adam, within the limits outlined in your post.

If God did provide the chromosomes for Adam's body, then why isn't Adam considered to be "the express image" of God's person? Or all human beings, for that matter?

Just wondering here. Take care

[Zakuska]

True, but it doesn't mean you're no invisible either. There's some six foot tall white rabbit following me around, but no one else can see him. He is both unseen and invisible. Darn pookah...

Hey, Moses and 70 others saw Pookah...

Ex. 24: 10-11

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

I would venture a guess that these people saw the same thing...

Amos 9: 1

1 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

Luke 1: 11

11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense

D&C 110: 2

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

[soren]

In the debate over the corporeality of God the Father, John 4:24 is usually a focus:

Many non-LDS Christians make a big fuss over the phrase "God is spirit". To them, that is the clencher. To them, this precludes the possibility that a God who is spirit could also be a God who is body. To them, the two are mutually exclusive.

Hold your horses!

In this verse, man who is born of the spirit IS SPIRIT.

According to the logic proffered by many non-LDS Christians, this precludes the possibility of man also being body.

What?

I offer this observation as an addition to the usual perfectly good responses to our critic's use of John 4:24 (God is love, fire, etc.).

What your verse shows (and also 1 Cor 15:45) is that interpreting "spirit" in the sense of "spiritual" or "having a spiritual nature/function" is a grammatically possible way to read John 4:24. It does not, however, establish that that is what John 4:24 in fact means. That is a question that must be answered from context. That context is: The Samaritan woman mentions the debate between the Jews and Samaritans as to where God is to be worshipped, in Jerusalam or on Mt. Gerazim. Jesus bypasses the question and says that the Samariatans are ignorant of God's nature, and then says "God is Spirit." Jesus, then is saying "God is spirit" in order to answer the question "What is God?" By answering this question, he is indirectly answering the question of where God is to be worshipped, because as a spiritual being he is omnipresent, and so true worshippers will worship "in spirit and in truth." Thus the verse shows that God is spiritual inthe sense that that defines what he is and that his spiritual existence involves omnipresence.

If you are to defend the alternative that Jesus is saying that God, as a dual being, has a spiritual part, or that his primary identity is of spirit, or some other formulation of Mormon teaching, you must show why such an assertion would answer the question raised by the Samaritan woman, and why it solves the question of "What is God?" which Jesus treats as prior. If you can do that, then you will have a real defense of your belief.

[rhinomelon]

Hey, Moses and 70 others saw Pookah...

Ex. 24: 10-11

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

I would venture a guess that these people saw the same thing...

I'm fine with these kinds of visions, and believe that they happened. But they are accounts of an event or occurence, and as such can only indirectly touch on doctrinal issues. By the same token, we have writings of the apostles and other holy men, who tell us that no one has seen God at any time, etc. These are definite statements, which thereby serve to interpret indefinite ones.

These visions tell us what the people saw; they cannot tell us what the nature of God actually is, because that is not stated as part of the vision.

And good points, soren.

Take care, everyone

[Sargon]

That context is: The Samaritan woman mentions the debate between the Jews and Samaritans as to where God is to be worshipped, in Jerusalam or on Mt. Gerazim. Jesus bypasses the question and says that the Samariatans are ignorant of God's nature, and then says "God is Spirit." Jesus, then is saying "God is spirit" in order to answer the question "What is God?" By answering this question, he is indirectly answering the question of where God is to be worshipped, because as a spiritual being he is omnipresent, and so true worshippers will worship "in spirit and in truth." Thus the verse shows that God is spiritual inthe sense that that defines what he is and that his spiritual existence involves omnipresence.

Good points soren. Unfortunately, I couldn't agree less! It seems absolutely clear to me that the question Jesus is addressing is not "What is God?". Instead, Jesus is clearly answering the question "Where do we go to worship God?"

19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet.

20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

Jesus follows the question with this answer:

21 Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

The answer to that question is clearly not, "Well, it doesn't matter where you worship because God is omnipresent and so no matter where you are God is there too." That is not at all what Jesus says. The only angle I see for you is to argue that verse 22 is in reference to God's metaphysical nature. I just don't see how that could be given the fact that it is sandwiched between two verses that talk about the place and the manner in which we worship god, and say nothing about God's metaphysical nature.

Instead, the answer that Jesus gives is, "Well, it doesn't matter where you worship, because what God really cares about is how you worship....in spirit and truth." Verse 23 should inform the way we read verse 24. Verse 23 introduces us to the concept of what "kind of worshipers the Father seeks." Verse 24 merely elaborates on that.

24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

If you are to defend the alternative that Jesus is saying that God, as a dual being, has a spiritual part, or that his primary identity is of spirit, or some other formulation of Mormon teaching, you must show why such an assertion would answer the question raised by the Samaritan woman, and why it solves the question of "What is God?" which Jesus treats as prior. If you can do that, then you will have a real defense of your belief.

I don't think Jesus is making any theological statements at all about God's metaphysical nature.

As I said above, I think you've got the wrong question in mind. I'll flip your challenge around and ask you something instead. As I understand your view, the conversation goes essentially like this:

Samaritan: We worship on the mountain, you Jews worship in Jerusalam.

Jesus: You have got it wrong because you don't understand that God is spirit (omnipresent). And because God is spirit (omnipresent), he wants you to worship him in spirit(not omnipresent) and truth.

Jesus is committing the fallacy of equivocation here by switching the meaning of "spirit" midway through his sentence. If Jesus was teaching the omnipresence of God (as you have claimed), why does that have anything to do with the "kind of worshipers the Father seeks"? What does the way (as opposed to the place) that we worship the Father have to do with that?

[Zakuska]

I'm fine with these kinds of visions, and believe that they happened. But they are accounts of an event or occurence, and as such can only indirectly touch on doctrinal issues. By the same token, we have writings of the apostles and other holy men, who tell us that no one has seen God at any time, etc. These are definite statements, which thereby serve to interpret indefinite ones.

These visions tell us what the people saw; they cannot tell us what the nature of God actually is, because that is not stated as part of the vision.

And good points, soren.

Take care, everyone

I agree... but what makes John's reiterpretation more Authoritative than Moses', Jacob, Amos, or Luke?

[rhinomelon]

I agree... but what makes John's reiterpretation more Authoritative than Moses', Jacob, Amos, or Luke?

In what way does Luke disagree with John? Just thought it was an interesting name in your list there.

But as to the question, don't you believe in continuing, progressive revelation? I don't consider John's teaching to be a "reinterpretation". I think that "God spoke in many diverse ways" to humanity in the past, including visions, appearing in human form (as well as fire, a still small voice, a disembodied hand, etc.). But as to seeing God as He really is, John (and others) say nobody has, and I don't see people in the OT definitively saying that they did indeed see God as He really is, according to His actual nature. They never get that specific.

Take care, everyone

[Sargon]

I'm fine with these kinds of visions, and believe that they happened. But they are accounts of an event or occurence, and as such can only indirectly touch on doctrinal issues. By the same token, we have writings of the apostles and other holy men, who tell us that no one has seen God at any time, etc. These are definite statements, which thereby serve to interpret indefinite ones.

These visions tell us what the people saw; they cannot tell us what the nature of God actually is, because that is not stated as part of the vision.

And good points, soren.

Take care, everyone

Question: Aren't doctrinal statements by "apostles and other holy men" partly based on the their personal experiences also? In other words, Moses sees God, and subsequently writes about God's corporeality. Paul doesn't see God, and subsequently believes that God can't be seen.

What makes one account more reliable than the other? Are you suggesting that things learned by the spirit take precedence over things learned by other, more concrete senses? That, of course, wouldn't be terribly problematic for me.

[Zakuska]

In what way does Luke disagree with John? Just thought it was an interesting name in your list there.

I listed Luke because he saw the Angel standing by the altar. (In the John the Baptist Story) of course, maybe I shouldn't have listed him... it was an Angel. But then Again the OT calls the Angel in the Bush "God". And Paul calls him An Angel.

But as to the question, don't you believe in continuing, progressive revelation?

Of course I do.

I don't consider John's teaching to be a "reinterpretation". I think that "God spoke in many diverse ways" to humanity in the past, including visions, appearing in human form (as well as fire, a still small voice, a disembodied hand, etc.). But as to seeing God as He really is, John (and others) say nobody has, and I don't see people in the OT definitively saying that they did indeed see God as He really is, according to His actual nature. They never get that specific.

They described what it was they saw when God appeared to them. Some of them seem to be at a loss of words when they try to describe it, they veil what they saw in flowery ambiguous words. While others, such as the Numbers verse listed above, are definatley not what I would call ambiguous.

[aletheia]

I'm terribly late on this discussion, but I'd like to put in my two cents worth and add a question.

Genesis 1:26-27 tells us that we are in the image and likeness of God and later, in Genesis 5:3, we are told that Seth is in the image and likeness of Adam. This parallel structure of the scriptures gives good indication that God the Father (though not Christ, at that time) has a tangible body. James 3:9 tells us that we are made after the similitude of God. This means that we are similar to him and vice-versa. Christ was made perfect or, rather, he was perfected after ..his atonement and resurrection (Hebrews 5:8-9). We know that Christ was resurrected with a tangible body (Luke 24:36-40), and that he could not have laid it down again (Hebrews 9:27 crossed with James 2:26). Philippians 2:6 informs us that Jesus is in the form of God and equal with God. If Christ has a body (Philipians 3:21 says He does also), and He is in the form of God and equal with him, then must not God also have a body?

[James Banta]

Thanks for you input Jim.

I actually view this passage as teaching the exact opposite of how you see it. Sure, it says that God is invisible, but also says that Jesus is the "image" of this invisible God. What is an image if not something that can be seen? Whatever "image" that Jesus is, that is the "image" that the Father is. Given that Paul definitely saw Jesus Christ as a tangible, physical person we can conclude that this is the "image" in which the Father is also.

Why is God called "invisible" then? Well, it is simply because he chooses to be. He didn't come down and reveal himself the way Jesus Christ, God the Son, did. God is invisible by choice, not by nature. You could just as appropriately say that Sargon is the "invisible poster". You can't see me.

I think you are combining this description of the "invisible God" with the description of a God who "is spirit" and concluding that spirit is invisible. I don't see any reason to do that.

The verse you brought up should be read alongside Hebrews 1:1-3:

Again, Jesus is described as being in the image of his Father. Likewise is Seth described in Genesis as being in the image of his father Adam. It is simply a matter of a son looking like his Father. In Jesus' case, his father is "invisible" because he isn't around for us to see!

So God is visible invisible... Sorry my friend but that makes no sense... IHS jim

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

So God is visible invisible... Sorry my friend but that makes no sense... IHS jim

Actually, it makes a lot of since. The greek word actually means "unseen" not "invisible" in the sense of not being able to be seen. So, yes, he is invisible in the sense that he is unseen by us. He is not invisible in the since that he had no image that can be seen, however.

[Zakuska]

John 5: 37

37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Christ's words intimate that unlike those he was speaking to... He had heard God's voice and seen his "Shape".

[James Banta]

Actually, it makes a lot of since. The greek word actually means "unseen" not "invisible" in the sense of not being able to be seen. So, yes, he is invisible in the sense that he is unseen by us. He is not invisible in the since that he had no image that can be seen, however.

The Greek can be translated either way.. This is a argument neither of us can win..

Home > Lexicons > Greek > Aoratos

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 517 Browse Lexicon

Original Word Word Origin

ajovrato

[Anijen]

So God is visible invisible... Sorry my friend but that makes no sense... IHS jim

Actually, Sargon's post made very good, sound, logical sense. Perhaps a reread is due?

[Chris Smith]

Seen in this light, Christ is the image of God in a way none of us are, and since he shared the physical attributes of the rest of humanity, Christ being the "express image" of God refers to something different than physical appearance, something more.

Jewish theologians in the Second Temple period found that the Platonic conception of God as transcendent and incorporeal made perfect sense of the Law's proscriptions against idolatry and the worship of other gods. This created a problem, because according to Platonic reasoning a transcendent and incorporeal God cannot be active or directly implicated in the material world. It was therefore necessary to have a mediatory entity that would bridge the immaterial God and the material world. This entity would have to be derived from God in some passive way, proceeding from or being reflected by him without really having been actively or deliberately created. The Apocrypha find such a being in Wisdom:

For wisdom is more moving than any motion: she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness.

For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her.

For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.

And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets.

For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom.

For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it.

(Wis. of Sol. 7:24-9)

Notice here how Wisdom "flows" from God's glory and "remains in herself" (i.e. retains a modicum of transcendence) even while acting on the world. Notice also that she is conceived as Spirit in the Stoic sense: very pure matter, such that she "goeth through all things by reason of her pureness." In a nod to Genesis, we are told that she is the "breath" of God, and a mirror or "image" of his goodness. We are also told that she precedes the light, which of course is the first thing created in Genesis 1. There are strong affinities between "Wisdom" here and the Stoic concept of "Logos," which for Stoics was the rational principle that animates the world and gives life and reason to humankind. Later Jewish authors made the identification of Logos and Wisdom more explicit, pointing out that before there is light in Genesis 1:3 there is Word, because "God said, 'Let there be light.'" These Jewish writers therefore assert that Logos/Wisdom was the principle through which the world was ordered. By uniting the active Logos of Stoicism to the inactive and incorporeal God of Platonism, these Jews brought harmony to philosophy in a way that seemed to have been suggested by the Scriptures themselves.

The early Jewish philosopher Philo interpreted Genesis 1 as a spiritual pre-creation and Genesis 2 as the actual physical creation. In Genesis 1 God creates the Platonic "forms"-- those ideal types after which all material things are patterned. Genesis 1:27 reads, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Philo interpreted this archetype of humanity-- this "divine man"-- as the Reason/Logos/Wisdom of God by which all else was created. Other Jews of the day seem to have made similar connections, thereby hypostatizing and personifying the Logos, making him the active and personal "image" of an inactive and incorporeal God. John 1 represents the next stage in this development: the personified Logos becomes incarnate in a material body in order to make possible the contemplation and knowledge of the incorporeal Father and the transformation into purified, spiritual beings.

Best,

-Chris

[Sargon]

So God is visible invisible... Sorry my friend but that makes no sense... IHS jim

As others have said, my post makes very good sense.

Why don't you tell us how an image can be invisible. And, be sure to explain with more than one dismissive sentence why my explanation doesn't make sense.

[soren]

Good points soren. Unfortunately, I couldn't agree less! It seems absolutely clear to me that the question Jesus is addressing is not "What is God?". Instead, Jesus is clearly answering the question "Where do we go to worship God?"

I won't respond to anything you wrote beyond this point yet, because it all presupposes this more fundamental issue. When I say Jesus is answering "What is God?" I am not at all denying that he is talking about where God is to be worshipped. The point is that the first question implies the second, and the same insight into God answers both. Jesus is answering the question "What is God?" in order to answer the question of where is he is to be worshipped, which could not be answered apart from a correct preunderstadning of God's nature. The point he is making is that the question raised by the woman would be superfluous if she understood God nature. If you know what God is, then it is immediately evident where he is to be worshipped. Hence Jesus says, "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." When Jesus then answers the question, he uses the nature of God, the "What" of God that the Samaritans misunderstand to define where and how God is to be worshipped: "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

I think there is significance in the fact that the question of temple worship is central here, because of Solomon's acknowledgement upon the completion of the Temple that God is not confined to its space: "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!" (1 Kings 8:27)

[Sargon]

Hi soren.

Let me ask you to clarify something. If you are suggesting that Jesus is teaching that God is omnipresent, are you suggesting that Jesus also says that the Jews understand that God is omnipresent but that the Samaritans don't understand that God is omnipresent?

If Jesus is correcting a false understanding of God's metaphysical nature that the Samaritans had, what do we know about that false understanding?