Excerpts from Thomas Jay Oord, A Systematic Theology of Love, Volume 1: God and Creation

  

GOD ISN’T AN IMMATERIAL SPIRIT

 

In affirming God’s composition as an incorporeal spirit, many theologians say deity must therefore be immaterial. This leads to absolute philosophical distinctions between matter and spirit, between physical and mental entities, between the spiritual and the worldly. Charles Hodge illustrates this when he says, “Spirit isn’t matter, or matter spirit . . . In revealing to us that God is a Spirit, [the Bible] reveals that no attribute of matter can be predicated of the divine essence.”

 

Claiming the Spirit as immaterial puts God in a realm with other immaterial beings, if such beings. People typically view creatures and creation, by contrast, as material. According to some theologians, humans represent a mix of matter and spirit: they are, or have, material bodies with immaterial souls. This way of thinking implies a mind-body dualism famously articulated by Rene Descartes, in which humans have material bodies and mental souls/minds.

 

Two impulses prompt theologians to say the divine Spirit must be immaterial. We have the biblical claim that God is invisible. If the Spirit were material, goes the thinking, God could be seen. Behind the other impulse lies a philosophical framework built primarily by Plato, which prioritizes abstract forms and ideas. Augustine and Aquinas united the invisible God of scripture with Plato’s philosophy to argue that God is an immaterial substance who is timeless, formless, and unchanging.

 

Claiming God is immaterial deity could interact with material creation. An immaterial/spiritual God would be different in kind, after all, from material/physical creatures. The problem of how an immaterial God might interact with a material world mirrors the mind/body problem. Traditional theologians claim to solve this by saying that because an immaterial God supernaturally created matter, divinity can act upon it. These theologians rarely explain “how” this acting happens, however, and they often employ the hand-waving phrase “in such a way.”

 

A second problem with divine immateriality involves questions about how humans perceive the Spirit. Theologians typically regard claims about accessing God with our five senses as symbolic rather than literal. “No one has seen God,” says John’s gospel (Jn. 1:18), and most think biblical references to hearing God’s voice are metaphorical. By the modern era, many scholars shifted from saying humans directly perceive deity to believing humans only infer God’s existence from observations of the world. The question of how a creature could directly perceive God remained unresolved, although some appealed to spiritual senses.

 

Positing an immaterial God creates a third problem of separating of reality into what is important—the spiritual—and the unimportant—the material. If people of faith believe an immaterial God is of the highest value, they will understandably be likely to reject the material world and want to unite with the immaterial One. The influential spirituality of Thomas a Kempis in The imitation of Christ, for example, consistently criticizes the material world and calls readers to the spiritual.

 

Believing God must be immaterial easily undermines the appreciation of, and care for, creation. Thinking only the spiritual is ultimately significant inclines to many to neglect the material care and needs of the poor and oppressed. After all, their salvation would be thought spiritual and not also material. The hard spiritual/material distinction can incline us to think the climate crisis and ecological concerns are unimportant, and to denigrate the human body, gender, and sexuality in general.

 

When theologians strip God of materiality, problems ensue. (Thomas Jay Oord, A Systematic Theology of Love [SacraSage Press, 2026], 1:96-98)

 

 

To say God has a material dimension may lead us to ask why we can’t perceive it with our five senses. But God can be invisible and yet have a material aspect. We know of creaturely entities, such as molecules, that have materiality but are unseen. The elements of the periodic table we affirm as real, but some can’t be seen. And phenomena like gravity can exert real causal influence without being seen. So does dark matter. (Thomas Jay Oord, A Systematic Theology of Love [SacraSage Press, 2026], 1:99)

 

 

Some theologians quote Jesus to establish God’s immateriality. “Spirit has no flesh and bones” says Jesus in reference to his resurrected body (Lk 24:39). Most biblical translators use the term “ghost” instead of “spirit” in this passage; however, saying Jesus isn’t a ghost here has nothing to do with God being immaterial. Many creaturely objects have materiality without having flesh and bones. This verse doesn’t establish divine immateriality. (Thomas Jay Oord, A Systematic Theology of Love [SacraSage Press, 2026], 1:99)

 

 

The phrase “the steadfast love of the Lord endures forever” makes no sense if creatio ex nihilo were true. Everlasting love for creatures isn’t possible if God once existed alone and then created something from nothing. Hesed for creatures isn’t essential to an independent One who once existed without creatures. By contrast, the creation theory that says God, in love, everlastingly creates out of, or in relation to, creation well fits this oft-repeated phrase, “the steadfast love of the Lord endures forever.” (Thomas Jay Oord, A Systematic Theology of Love [SacraSage Press, 2026], 1:303)

 

 

Some Christians appeal to the idea of the social Trinity as a metaphysical foundation for saying God always, and essentially, loving. Essential hesed doesn’t require this claim, because it says God always and essentially loves creatures and creation. But neither does essential hesed deny the trinity. Christians who embrace the social Trinity should also embrace essential hesed. Doing so allows one to say God everlastingly expresses love among members of the Godhead and everlastingly loves creation. (Ibid., 1:303 n. 33)

 

Anthony R. Meyer on the Relationship between אדוני and יהוה in the Great Isaiah Scroll

  

The relationship between אדני and יהוה in 1QIsaᵃ deserves special attention because of the context in which the scroll was produced. The scribe who copied 1QIsaᵃ was also the copyist of the yahad composition Rule of the Community (1QS). The material evidence of scribal editing, therefore, needs careful consideration. Most scholars agree that the Tetragrammaton was read as אדני, but written by the 1QS scribe as יהוה, except where he confused the two designations when they occurred near each other. This situation is well illustrated by the example of 1QIsaᵃ 3.24–26 (Isa 3:17–18). In line 24, the scribe cancels אדני and inserts יהוה, but in line 25 the scribe cancels יהוה and inserts אדני; this seems to be a contradiction. For the sectarian scribe copying 1QIsaᵃ, writing the Tetragrammaton itself is not a problem. Skehan provided one possible explanation for this situation, although his theory depends almost entirely on a hypothetical scenario in which the reader of the scroll warned the copyist everytime he was about to encounter the Tetragrammaton in the biblical source text. Skehan describes the process as follows:

 

. . . both he and his reader pronounce Adonay for both יהוה and אדני. When he hears Adonay, unless somehow warned, he automatically writes יהוה...[the copyist] has no problem with the name Yhwh as such, which he writes in his ordinary script. He always has a problem with the name אדני, and when that name occurs in close conjunction with Yhwh, a secondary problem arises for the tetragrammaton. (Skehan, “The Divine Name,” 41 n. 14)

 

In particular, regarding the seemingly contradictory corrections in 1QIsaᵃ 3.24–26, Skehan writes:

 

There are false corrections; unfortunately for readers’ impressions, the first, in 3:17, is the most botched. Warned that אדני occurred in the verse ... the scribe wrote it correctly, then within the same verse and the same line of script, where יהוה should occur, he wrote אדני [see image above: second from the last word in the first line]. Learning (from the 2 אדני in one verse) that he had made an error, he “corrected” the first אדני by writing יהוה above it and placing 5 dots below it. He thus left both names wrong. (Skehan, “The Divine Name,” 41 n. 14)

 

The best way to account for the mistakes or corrections that entered this manuscript is to assume that אדני was read for the Tetragrammaton. And to this extent, we can agree that the divine name was avoided in speech. We should take caution, however, with the degree to which this scenario becomes a model to understand divine name variants more broadly. It is no surprise that the divine name was avoided in the production of this text, at the hands of the same scribe of 1QS. But how do we make sense of the textual evidence itself, the contradiction of writing and cancelling the divine name? (Anthony R. Meyer, Naming God in Early Judaism: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek [Studies in Cultural Contexts of the Bible 2; Leiden: Brill, 2022], 139-40)

 

Anthony R. Meyer on the Use of the Divine Name in Colum XI of Papyrus Amherst 63

Papyrus Amherst 63

 

The diverse collection of Aramaic-Egyptian prayers and psalms written on Papyrus Amherst 63 (P. Amh 63) originated also in Upper Egypt. Similar to the Elephantine material, this papyrus is thought to be the product of Aramean and Judean mercenaries who were stationed near Egypt’s southern border. It was written in the late fourth or early third century BCE and contains twenty-one columns, 422 lines of text. Richard Steiner describes the papyrus as a poetic “liturgy of the New Year’s festival of an Aramaic-speaking community in Upper Egypt, perhaps in Syene.” He supposed that this community was deported from Babylonia to Bethel by the Assyrians, where they picked up the worship of YHWH before migrating to Egypt. One of the most remarkable features of P. Amh 63 is the striking parallel between Column XI and Psalm 20. Some parts of this column in P. Amh 63 contain nearly identical wording to Ps 20, but in the former, the Tetragrammaton does not occur. Instead, we find the typical three-letter Aramaic form of the divine name, syncretized with Horus as “Horus-YHH”:

 

Table 5 Comparison of Column XI and Psalm 20 in P. Amh 63

 

P. Amh 63 col. XI, 11-19

Ps 20:2-7 (MT)

May Horus answer us in our troubles May Adonai answer us in our troubles O crescent (lit. bow) Bowman in heaven, Sahar shine forth; send your emissary from the temple of Arash, and from Zephon may Horus help us. May Horus fulfill— may Adonai not fall short in satisfying— every request of our hearts. Some with the bow, some with the spear; But (lit., behold) as for us—Mar is our god; Horus-Yaho, our bull, is with us. May the lord of Bethel answer us on the morrow. May Baal of Heaven, Mar grant a blessing bless you; to your pious ones your blessings.

May YHWH answer you in time of trouble. May the name of the God of Jacob keep you out of harm’s reach. May he send you(r) help from the sanctuary and from Zion may he sustain you. May he accept the reminders of your meal offerings and accept the fatness of your burnt offerings. May he grant you your heart’s desire and may he fulfill your every plan May we shout for joy at your victory and in the name of our God raise our banners. May YHWH fulfill all your requests. Now I know that YHWH will give victory to his anointed . . .

 

Numerous features of this papyrus continue to be debated, including direction of influence between column XI and Ps 20, the singular versus plural pronouns, and especially the significance of the “name theology” of Ps 20 compared with the plethora of divine designations in P. Amh 63: Horus, Mar, El, El Bethel, Baal of Heaven, Adonai, and Horus-YHW. Important for the current study is the Aramaic divine name, which appears in apposition to Horus, the chief sky-king deity of the Egyptians. Horus and YHWH are paralleled in Ps 20:2, 5, 6, which was likely facilitated by their similar spheres of authority.

 

The use of the divine name in P. Amh 63 is analogous to the Elephantine material in that other deities are mentioned alongside YHW, in similar expressions.  In one instance from Elephantine, the name of the Jewish deity is combined with Anat: “Anat-YHW.” While these naming practices are similar, there are also important differences. For example, the community that produced P. Amh 63 does not explicitly identify themselves as yehudin, as do the authors of the Elephantine material. In summary, this document shows the continued use of the divine name, during the fourth or early third century BCE in Upper Egypt. (Anthony R. Meyer, Naming God in Early Judaism: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek [Studies in Cultural Contexts of the Bible 2; Leiden: Brill, 2022], 64-67)

Addison Pratt Recounting a Theological Discussion with an English Missionary (Protestant) (Septmeber 16, 1845)

Recounting a discussion with Mr. Crowzey, an English missionary (Protestant):

 

He wisht to know what sect I belong to. I told him to the Latter-day Saints. He wisht to know why we were called so. I told him because we bore a strict resembleance to the former-day Saints, or like the church that was established by Jesus Christ and his apostles. He asked if I taught from the Bible. I told him I did teach from that strictly and as Jesus and his apostles taught the gospel.

 

He asked if I had not got another book I called the Bible. I told him I had not. He asked if I had not some book in which our principles were taught. I told him I had. He asked its name. I answered the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. He wisht to see it and I shewed it him. He asked if the Saints were building a city they called the New Jerusalem. I told him “No.” He asked what they were building. I told him a place of residence, like all other civilized citizens of the world. He asked if we believed in a New Jerusalem? I told him we did, but John told us it should come down from God out of heaven. He then asked about the gathering, and I quoted various passages from Genesis, Deuteronomy, and various of the prophets, which he allowed to be all figurative. Said I, “Then what portion of the Bible is there that is not figurative. Is all that Jesus Christ said figurative?” I then turned to Mark and read in the 16th chapter from the 14th to the 19th verses. “Is that figurative?” “Oh! but that was in the days of the apostles.” “So it was,” said I, “But the promise was to all that believed and are you not a believer?” “But do they all follow you?” said he. “If they do then let me hear you speak in tongues. Come, let us talk German together, or if you like Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin” and then boasted of his great learning. I told him I had no great learning to boast of, the Bile was all I was sent out to know. “But, if you have all those gifts you can speak in tongues.” “All of these gifts are in the church, and I am a witness to it, but I did not tell you that I possess’t them all.” I then turned to the 12th chapter of 1 Cor. and read a part of it, and shewd him that these were to be divided among the members of the Church. “But which of them do you possesst?” said he. I told him I did not feel under any obligation to tell him which of them I possess. Two of the American brethren were standing by, listening to the conversation, at this moment, for the first time, they both spoke, and said they were witness to a number of sick people being healed by the laying on the hands of Br. Pratt. (Addison Pratt, Journal, September 16, 1845, in The Journals of Addison Pratt, ed. S. George Ellsworth [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1990], 240-41, spelling in original retained)

 

Addison Pratt on the Arrival of Protestant English Missionaries on the Island of Tubuai and their Claims Against LDS Theology (September 16, 1844)

While serving as a missionary on the Island of Tubuai in French Polynesia, Addison Pratt (1802-1872) recorded the following:

 

[London Missionary Society Missionaries Appear]

 

16th, Sabbath. This morning erly, it was rumored that another vessel was in sight. I hastily wrote a line to Brother Hills and told him if there was any news of importance to write a line and let me know what it is. I dispatcht a messenger with it, and soon after commenced my morning service. Near the close of it, there came in a rummer from Mataura, and after service was over I asked him, “What news?” He said the last vessel had landed 4 English missionaries, and I was wanted immediately. But he brought no letter, and I knew these to be a people easily excited. The weather rainy also. I consulted King Tommatooa who had come over to the see, and he said, “Wait till you get a letter,” and I attended to the farthermore services of the day. In the evening, returned my messenger bearing a letter from Br. Hills stating that those missionaries had been on shore telling the people all the scandalous reports that had ever been reported about the Mormons &c. Stateing that Joseph Smith is a liar and a false prophet and the Book of Mormon is a lie, that his followers worshipped him, and they also worshipped the Virgin Mary and the Saints and there was no differance between the prophet and the pope and much of such like stuff and the church members wished me to come there without fail on the morrow, for they would be there. (Addison Pratt, Journal, September 16, 1844, in The Journals of Addison Pratt, ed. S. George Ellsworth [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1990], 191-92, spellings in original retained)

 

One was reminded of other British Protestants, thosebrainlets from Reachout Trust (Mike Thomas and Tony Brown); as the French would say, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." Furthermore, reminded me of the following clip from one of my fave TV shows of all time:

John Day on the Switch from dāgâ (female fish) to dāg (male fish) in the Hebrew of the Book of Jonah

  

A further pointer to the hand of a redactor within Jonah ii occurs with the use of the feminine form of the word fish, dāgâ, in part of the verse introducing the psalm in ii 2 [ET ii 1], whereas the masculine form dāg is found in ii 1 [ET 117] and ii 11 [ET 10]. If both come from the same author it would be very strange, but if the redactor who added the psalm also added the words “from the belly of the fish (dāgâ), and he said” immediately before the psalm by way of introduction, the discrepancy becomes explicable. Accordingly, we may plausibly suppose that the text originally proceeded directly from ii 2a [ET 1a] to 11 11 [ET 10]. Moreover, starting from one verse further back, ii la [ET i 17a], we find in wv. 1a.b, ii 2. 11 [ET i 17a.b, ii 1.10] a chiastic structure ABBA centring on the Lord — Jonah — Jonah — the Lord, thus further supporting the view that the psalm is a later addition, since it disturbs the sequence. The original text thus ran, “And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God, and the Lord spoke to the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.” (John Day, “Problems in the Interpretation of the Book of Jonah,” in In Quest of the Past: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature, and Prophetism. Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet, 1988, ed. A. S. Van Der Woude [Oudtestamentische Studiën 36; Leiden: Brill, 1990], 41-42)

 

H. G. L. Peels on Psalm 58:1 (Hebrew: v. 2) Containing a Reference to “Gods”

  

‎ לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ אַל־תַּשְׁחֵ֗ת לְדָוִ֥ד מִכְתָּֽם׃  הַֽאֻמְנָ֗ם אֵ֣לֶם צֶ֭דֶק תְּדַבֵּר֑וּן מֵישָׁרִ֥ים תִּ֜שְׁפְּט֗וּ בְּנֵ֣י אָדָֽם

 

<To the chief Musician, Altaschith, Michtam of David.> Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? (KJV)

 

 

 

The interpretation of the psalm is dependent upon the answer to the question who is meant in vs. 2f. How is the word אֵלֶם in vs. 2 to be understood?

 

1.     ‘quiet’; the Masoretic vocalization אֵלֶם hardly makes sense: ‘to silence’, ‘in quiet’ (? cf. Ps. 56:1). Aquila translates with ἀλαλία (= אֵלֶם).

2.     ‘yet’; LXX (ἆρα), Peshitta and Hieronymus (utique) read the adverb אֻלָם (= אֻלָם) ‘yet’, ‘all the same’, ‘nevertheless’. From a syntactic perspective this reading would be striking.⁴⁷⁵

3.     ‘congregation’; an ancient translation (Symmachus, Kimchi, Calvin, SV, KJV) is ‘congregation’, derived from אֵלֶם I ‘to bind’. However, this would be a hapax.

4.     ‘mighty ones’; the word אֵלֶם must be read as אֵילִם (= אֵילִים) ‘rams’, in the figurative sense ‘mighty ones’ (Exod. 15:15; 2 Kings 24:15; Ezek. 17:13, 31:11 and 32:21). This would fit well, but the presupposed double scriptio defectiva within one word weakens this option.

5.     ‘gods’; many exegetes (J.D. Michaelis as the first) accept the conclusion that אֵלֶם is to be read as ‘gods’ (= אֱלֹהִים).

 

The last reading is probably the correct one. Tipping the scales in favour of this choice is not only the realization that the reading ‘gods’ provides the simplest solution, but especially the great affinity between Ps. 58 and Ps. 82.

 

Assuming that in vs. 2 it is gods who are addressed, the question must still be answered as to their precise identity. Two opposing views are defended.

 

According to most exegetes, the speaker in vs. 2f. addresses people, and the designation ‘gods’ is an allusion to judges or officials who enact justice. The word ‘gods’ is understood as either an honorary title for those who uphold justice in God’s name (cf. Deut. 1:17; Rom. 13:1) or as an expression of sarcasm. However, this interpretation is not entirely convincing. Aside from the question whether the presupposed parallel texts can carry the burden of proof for this use of the word ‘gods’, this exegesis does not do justice to the clear correspondence between the beginning and the end of the psalm, as well as the comparisons with Ps. 82, where an interpretation of ‘gods’ as judges would appear to be forced (note especially vs. 6f.).

 

In Ps. 58:2 the word אֵלֶם appears to refer to gods rather than to people. It refers to gods who do not properly exercise their assigned task, the administration of justice amongst the people (בני־אדם), but instead of justice they perpetrate violence (חמס) on earth. In a heavenly tribunal, they are called to accountability by God (אלהים, vs. 12). Ps. 82 contains the same imagery, only there the forensic situation is clearer. The gods are condemned by God in a gathering of the gods because of their unjust judging. Extra-biblical literature, especially Ugaritic, provides illuminating parallels for this complex of ideas.

 

With the determination that the word אֵלֶם refers to gods and not people, everything is not yet said. The most important question is how this element functions in the psalm. The address in vss. 2-3 is usually interpreted in a realistic sense. The psalmist would then be seeking the reason for corruption of justice and the general breakdown of society in the heavenly sphere. The transcendant origin is indicated with the (lower) gods who do not act as God’s functionaries of justice but manifest themselves as demonic powers. If the godless on earth can simply go their own way, something must be wrong in heaven!

 

This realistic interpretation, however, clashes with the seamless transition from ‘gods’ (vss. 2-3) to ‘godless’ (vs. 4ff.) and with the fact that no word is spoken about a punishment of the gods. Evidently, the psalmist is not thinking of gods but people. Vss. 2-3 should be viewed, therefore, as a mytho-poetic fragment, which the writer employs to typify the diabolic driving force of the godless. Just as the psalmists and prophets could rework the mythological material of the chaos struggle (e.g. Ps. 74:12ff.; Isa. 51:9f.), so too the writer of Ps. 58 (and that of Ps. 82) does the same with mythological descriptions of a heavenly tribunal where God judges the unrighteous gods. These descriptions are well-suited to be applied to the people who, by their abuses of justice, destroy the foundation of society, so that the question of theodicy arises. The anti-godly dimension of the godless receives a particular emphasis through this mythological illustration.

 

The complaint lodged against the godless in vss. 4-6 is metaphorical and stereotypical. That is also true of the prayers and wishes for cursing in vss. 7-10. It is certainly justified to assume that this terminology reflects ancient, well-known curse formulae. The conclusion of the psalm speaks about the results of God’s punishing intervention: the joy of the righteous (vs. 11) and the theodicy (vs. 12).

 

The צדיק, the opposite of the רשע, is the unnamed subject of the complaint and prayer in vss. 4-10. That is the one who is oppressed and persecuted, who sees justice on earth being destroyed by the fury of the unrighteous, yet he does not grasp at vengeance himself but in the midst of his deepest need he calls upon God, his God who is the Judge of the earth. It is a situation of ‘do or die’. Is there still a God who does justice on earth? Does it still make sense for the צדיק to trust in Him, or does evil ultimately triumph? The foundational principles of existence are on trial.

 

It is against this background that the joy (שמח) of the righteous in vs. 11 must be understood. Following this exegesis of vs. 2f., the joy expressed at the witnessing of vengeance can no longer be explained – somewhat apologetically – as rejoicing over the fall of the demonic powers. Nor is this rejoicing a form of personal malice. The righteous one rejoices when God comes in vengeance to break the rule of the wicked, to punish injustice and through this restoration of justice to put to rest all doubts and questions. It is the joy and the eternal relief to see (היה) the liberation, the restoration of justice, and the acquittal of God.

 

This motif has a secure place in the Old Testament. Vs. 11b, so offensive to modern ears, simply intends to employ a powerful image, borrowed from the all too realistic situation of the battlefield following the fight (wading through the blood), to highlight the total destruction of the godless.

 

The subject of דם in vs. 11 is not the righteous one himself, but God. The righteous one had prayed for God’s vengeance. Through the vengeance of God, who punishes the evil ones, it appears that the case of the צדיק is a righteous one, which bears fruit. Vs. 12 is the conclusion of the psalm and expresses its scope; apart from vs. 12, vs. 11 would be unintelligible. In the mythology, the gods commit injustice on earth; in reality the godless commit injustice on earth; but in faith the צדיק knows that there is a God who does justice on earth. ‘The cry of the afflicted he does not forget’ (Ps. 9:13): God is God and justice is justice. When that finally becomes evident in the vengeance of God, he rejoices. (H. G. L. Peels, The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root NQM and the Function of the NQM-Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament [Oudtestamentische Studiën 31; Leiden, Brill, 1995], 215-19)