“God is a Spirit” John 4:24a
“Since you mention it, son, that was one of the first Scriptures you memorized as a small child. Do you understand something of it now?” “A little, I think, Dad. One of our teachers the other day handed out to us this ‘Xeroxed’ sheet. Note the quote from the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1561), Art. I, “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness.” Also this, Dad: from the Westminster Confession (1647), chap. II, sec. I, “There is but one only living and true God. who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure Spirit, invisible. without body, parts or passions” “Well, that’s Reformed, beautiful, clear and plain, isn’t it?” “At first our class thought it was plain, until we were assigned to read page 54 in the Reformed Dogmatics, where we were shown that Scripture speaks of the eyes of the Lord, His face, head, hair, eyelids, ears, nose, mouth, lips, tongue, back, arm, hand, finger, bowels, bosom, foot, heart, mind, will, spirit and soul. Also Scripture mentions God’s affections and such feelings as, repentance, tender-heartedness, grief, groaning, desire (Hos. 6:6), love, pity, hate, anger, jealousy, joy, etc. So then, what is meant by these Reformed creeds where they state that God is without body, parts of passions? And, please, Dad, no long sermon!” Father lovingly rumpling and tousling his son’s head at that remark and replied,” So you prefer short answers to short questions, hey? Well, I’ll try to be brief. These good creeds do not argue such things in God as materiality or change, but rather His spirituality. Where the Lord ascribes to Himself bodily members, He does so mindful of our human frailty’ and finite capacity to teach us of His incommunicable attributes. So, His eyes represent omniscience and universal providence; His ears, omnipresence; His arm, omnipotence. Then as to His communicable attributes, His face represents intelligence; His heart, center of His being; His bowels, tender-mercy; His mouth, the revelation of His will; His nostrils, pleasure in and acceptance of our prayers of thanksgiving. But enough, for the moment. How’s that for a short answer?” “Super, Dad; but would you mind repeating all that?” “Not at all, son; and for the benefit of your brothers and sisters as well, gladly I’ll repeat anything as many times as you request.
‘But now look, young fellow. Where God is said to repent, we must understand that repentance is not properly in God. Repentance implies a lack of foresight, or ignorance of what could be a bad turn of things, a mistake that hindsight has caused to be regretted. God’s repenting, according to Scripture, is nothing like this, since His foresight (knowledge) is infallible (incapable of failure or error). The Bible teaches that in repenting God does will changes, yet at the same time He never changes His will. What this means is that God’s repentance may never be thought of in a way that destroys His immutability! You’re a pretty good catechumen —you ‘dig’ immutability?”
“Yes, I do; and dig is the word, Dad. We have to dig to mine out the meaning of God’s attributes, don’t we? Well, would what you’ve said apply also to God’s feelings? Then there’s no proper grief in God?” “That’s correct. For God is the ever blessed, eternally happy God. Nothing can impair or diminish His firm and steady state of heavenly bliss. But just as God’s repentance is God in His immutability willing change(s), so God’s grief is His infinite holiness expressing His eternal aversion to sin and wrong. Now read to me out of your note-book something you’ve taken down in catechism class.”
“O.K., I have this: ‘God, to help us understand Himself speaks to us in terms of our nature. There are many things in God which have a resemblance in us. There are similarities between us and Himself. So God speaks to us in terms of the body and of our feelings. From these we learn something of the nature of God.’” Father responded to this with, “Say, that’s good enough to have typed and pasted somewhere inside your Bible! You’d better do that!” “I will. But Dad! Isn’t there a problem here? The Scriptures speak of God having bodily parts and emotions, while these two Reformed creeds deny He has ‘body, parts or passions’! That’s a little hard for me.” “I understand, my boy. Well, you’re learning to think. But the answer to your problem lies in what I said awhile ago, which I’ll repeat.” Father then did so beginning with, “These good creeds . . .” adding, “Also go back to read and re-read that note I recommended imprinting in your Bible. Remember, too, that these figures of speech, descriptive of God and His actions, are to be understood spiritually!”
“I guess our teacher in Christian High knows the real meaning of Jn. 4:24. He told us that there were heretics in the fourth century known as Anthropomorphites, who believed that God exists in a body.” “Glad you’re learning that. Yes, and those heretics are still with us in the Mormons.” “I know; we had a couple of classes in school on Mormonism. Know what? Mormons believe ‘God is an exalted man, once a man on earth as we are now’ with ‘a body of flesh and bones.’
“Incredible, isn’t it? But that heresy cannot stand in the face of, ‘God is a Spirit,’ which, in the original language, reads something like this: ‘Spirit is God.’ Notice, the predicate object comes first and the subject last. We could translate, if you remember the pastor’s lately preaching on this, ‘Essential Spirit is God.’ God is essentially Spirit, not having a body; not having a figure, flesh or dimensions of a body. God is more spiritual than angelic or human spirits. He is ‘the Father of spirits.’”
“Dad, talk about ‘waters to swim in’ (Ezek. 47:5)! I’m close to drowning in the depths you’re getting me into!” “Oh, you’re only wet behind the ears yet. Now answer this question, What attribute of God do the Mormons deny with their God-has-a-body-of-flesh-and bones heresy?” After some profound thought for a moment, the response came, “Is it God’s invisibility?” (cp. Belgic Confession, Art. I). “That’s it! A body can be seen and handled, as Jesus taught, ‘Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have’ (Lk. 24:39). But as for God in His essential being, ‘no man hath seen nor can see’ (I Tim. 6:16).
“So when Scripture speaks of God’s eyes and arm, what does that mean?” “As you say, Dad, God’s omniscience and omnipotence are presented under these figures.” “Very well put! and remember that Scripture makes clear that God’s eyes are not eyes of flesh (Job 10:4), and that His arm is no arm of flesh (II Chron. 32:8); nor does God literally have feathers and wings (Ps. 36:7). In fact, even when it is said God ‘comes down’ (Gn. 11:5), the meaning is that He makes a new approach to man with more of His Self-revelation.
Later, on a Sabbath, father and son were discussing the impossibility of pictures of Jesus (God). They appealed to the passage in I Timothy where it is said, God dwelleth in inapproachable light, so that no man (human being) has seen or is able to see God. How could inaccessible light be pictured? or penetrated in order to see and “paint God”? How can any material substance represent pure Spirit? How could any picture of Jesus present Him in His simplicity, eternity, infinity, invisibility and incorruptible being? “Son, I wouldn’t like a picture of me that presents me far less than I really am, would you?” “I think I get your point, Dad. No, I wouldn’t. Aren’t pictures of Jesus, then, an insult to Him?” “They certainly are. Like ‘common grace,’ contrary to, and debasing of, God’s nature! Really, all this is to ascribe to God our corrupt nature. Therefore such pictures (along with Romish statues) are lies (Jer. 10:8, 14). God’s glory must not be sunk into such sham and nothingness. No picture of Jesus would be as honoring to Him as a representation of our President would be in the image of a frog!” “Oh, I get it, Dad. That was the very sin of the Israelites, wasn’t it, when they tried to represent God by a calf!” “Exactly, son; the sin of disgracing the spiritual nature of God!” “Then, Dad, doesn’t the artist who produces these pictures of Jesus (or even of saints) have in his mind in the first place unscriptural, unworthy and unspiritual conceptions of God?” “So true! and very good, young man. I could hardly put it better myself. No human imagination can represent God. Therefore our natures are inclined to wrong ideas of God. We are by nature of the same idolatrous bent as Aaron, Laban, the Philistines with their fishy Dagon, and Jeroboam, who with the apostate Israelites, ‘changed their Glory (their God!) into the similitude of an ox’ (Ps. 106:20).”
At this point Mother joined the conversation, stating that “whatever thought comes into our mind, we must not think, ‘That is God!’ We must rather say, ‘This is not God.’ For we must let God tell us Himself in His own Word what He is. If we do not do this, if, instead, we cling to ‘pictures’ (such as people hang on the walls of their homes, or the walls of their minds), if we hold false teaching (like ‘common grace’, the worst of all), then with these idols we corrupt the worship of God. Then in the house of God we would be polluting the pure worship of God. ‘God is a Spirit; and they that worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth.’”