Scriptural Mormonism: Refuting Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley on JOhn 4:24

Reformed Protestants Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley wrote the following:

Some object that God must have a body, for he appeared to people like a man or a glorified man. The Mormon Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, teaches that God the Father is a deified man. Joseph Smith (1805–1844) wrote, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” Smith added, “He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.” Lorenzo Snow (1804–1887) said, “As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be.” God thus supposedly created man in his own image in a very literal and physical sense (Gen. 1:26).

Though Mormonism started in the nineteenth century, this notion is an ancient error, being taught by some Socinians, and before them by the followers of a fourth-century monk named Audaeus. Recently, biblical scholar Terence Fretheim and theologian Clark Pinnock have suggested that the God of the Bible might be embodied, or at least has some form like a man. They proposed this as part of the revisionist agenda of open theism, though not all open theists have received it.

In reply, we observe that this doctrine contradicts the teaching of Jesus Christ: “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24). The contradiction is so clear that when Smith made his own revision of the Bible, he changed “God is a Spirit” to read, “Unto such hath God promised his Spirit”—a reading with no basis in the Greek text. Smith’s audacity in altering the Word of God shows the extremes to which some men will go to equate God and man, which is blasphemy. (Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, 4 vols. [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2019], 1:610-11)

Beeke, for someone who is highly esteemed in Reformed theological circles, is pretty piss poor in terms of his exegetical skills on this and other topics in his systematic theology. The following is my discussion of John 4:24, taken from Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment where I also address other pertinent texts (e.g., Gen 1:26-27; Heb 1:3):

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)

John 4:24 is one of the most common proof-texts used against the Latter-day Saint belief that God the Father is embodied. However, from the get-go, one must note the irony that most critics who raise this verse are Trinitarians. Why? In this verse, there is a differentiation, not just between the persons of Jesus and the Father, but between Jesus and God (θεος)! Notwithstanding, there are some elements on this verse that are often overlooked by critics.

Firstly, the Greek of this verse is:

πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν

The phrase, often translated, “God is spirit” is in bold. In Greek grammar, this is a qualitative predicate nominative, which deals with, not composition, but one's qualities. Furthermore, from the context, this refers to man’s worship of God, not the composition of deity. Jesus is addressing a Samaritan, whose theology privileged Mount Gezirim, while the Jews privileged Jerusalem, one of the many disputes between them. Jesus, instead, echoing the universalism of the New Covenant, states that proper worship of God will not be localised in one place. In other words, this verse does not address God's physiological nature--only the means by which men communicate with God. Such must be done spiritually (i.e., spirit to spirit), and must develop a spiritual nature.

Furthermore, taking the absolutist view of this verse to its "logical" conclusion, one would have to state that it is a requirement that men are to shed their physical bodies in order to worship God--if God is only spirit and this passage requires men to worship God "in spirit," then men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology is to claim that men cannot worship God as mortal beings, which is ludicrous. It would also akin to absolutising 1 Cor 15:45, and stating that Christ currently exists in an unembodied spirit, notwithstanding Christ's corporeal ascension (Acts 1:11) and His being depicted as embodied in post-ascension visions of Jesus (e.g., Acts 7:55-56).

A related criticism that has been raised by some opponents (e.g., Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?) is that if God were to possess a physical body, this would make divine omnipresence impossible as God would be rendered "limited" or "finite" by that body. Therefore, God, in LDS theology, could not be omnipresent, something required by this verse. However, Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that his body has him. The Father is corporeal and infinitely more, and if a spirit can be omnipresent without being physically present, then so can a God who possesses a body and a spirit.

Indeed, the Bible affirms that, though the Father has a body (e.g., Heb 1:3), His glory, influence and power fills the universe (Jer 23:34). He is continually aware of everything in the universe and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Psa 139:7-12).

Furthermore, a question that is begged is that “spirit” is immaterial. However, many early Christians believed that “spirit” was material (e.g., Origen, On First Principles, Preface 9 and Tertullian, Against Praxaes, 7), something consistent with LDS theology (D&C 131:7). This is all the more telling when Origen did not hold to "divine embodiment"--instead, he rejected such. Notwithstanding, unlike modern Evangelical critics, he realised that John 4:24 does not support such an interpretation. As one scholar, Maurice F. Wells, noted about the early Christian interpretation of John 4:24:

Finally, and most distinctively, we have in iv. 24 the words ‘God is Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth’. Origen fully recognises the importance of this text. It has, he says, every appearance of being a definition of the ουσια of God. But if we were to take it as such we would be committing ourselves to the view that God is σωμα. In its literal sense πνευμα is as physical a word as fire or light. Its use is therefore just as metaphorical in this case as in the others. The significance of the metaphor is this. Just as the literal πνευμα around us provides the essential breath of physical life, so God is called πνευμα because it is he who leads men to real (αληθινος) life (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John 13, 21-23). So for Origen the assertion that God is πνευμα is not a straightforward assertion of the incorporeal nature of God. Rather God is incorporeal, in spite of the fact that he is called πνευμα (Origen, Con. Cel. 6, 70). In the second half of the text he does allow that the appropriate contrast with worship in the spirit is bodily or fleshly worship, but this is based more on the total context and on the conjunction with worship in the truth than on the inherent meaning of the word πνευμα itself (Origen, De Principiis, 1, 1, 4; Con. Cel. 6, 70).

Tertullian agrees with Origen in asserting a physical element in the literal meaning of πνευμα. He writes ‘Who will deny that God is a body, although “God is a Spirit”? For Spirit is body of its own kind, in its own form’ (Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 7, 8) The conclusion is the exact opposite of that of Origen, but the premises are identical. (Maurice F. Wells, The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960], 67-68)

Another related verse that is often raised by critics is that of Luke 24:39. However, as with John 4:24, this is another example of eisegesis. What Evangelical critics fail to note is that the converse of the statement is not true. A living physical body most definitely does have a spirit. In fact, it is physically dead without one (James 2:26). A spirit alone does not have a physical body. But if God has a physical body, he also has a spirit. Therefore, even though God is corporeal, it is appropriate to say that God "is spirit" (as in John 4:24), for spirit is the central part of His nature as a corporeal being.

As Daniel Smith wrote on this passage and its underlying theology:

Are We Seeing a Pneuma?

Having Peter, the primary witness of the appearance traditions, verify the empty tomb is a significant development, since it narrowly limits how the appearances can be interpreted. It requires complete bodily continuity between the dead Jesus in the tomb and the risen Jesus who appears—which is very different from the complete transformation Paul envisioned. Of all the Gospels, Luke is the most explicit about the mode of Jesus’ postresurrection bodily existence. When he appears suddenly among the Eleven and the rest (24:36), Jesus himself explains that he is not a spirit (Gk., pneuma), for he has flesh and bones as a spirit cannot . . . In Greco-Roman antiquity, it would not be out of the question to see someone who was dead . . . Although such an apparition could be interpreted as some aspect of the dead person—that is, the soul, shadow, or daimon—becoming visible to living persons. We would call this a ghost—as ancient Greek and Latin speakers would as well, with varying terminology—or possible, a “post-mortem apparition.” In fact, most current translations render pneuma here in Luke 24:39, 39 not as “spirit” but as “ghost.”

According to ancient thinking, certain types of people were more likely to appear after their death in ghostly manifestations. As noted, the typical view was that those who had died young (or before marriage), those who had died violently, and those whose bodies were not given proper burial or cremation were more likely to have a restless post-mortem existence and to cause trouble for the living. Jesus, executed as a criminal, would of course all into the category of those dead by violence. Virgil (70-19 BCE) held that among those doomed to a restless afterlife, excluded for a time from rest in Hades, were people unjustly executed or who took their own lives. Lucian (c. 125-80 CE) has one of his characters number the crucified (or impaled) among those especially given to appearing in ghostly manifestations: “such as, if a person hanged himself, or had his head cut off, or was impaled on a stake, or departed life in some other way such as these” (Lucian, Philops, 29) . . . An outsider could have concluded that followers of Jesus who were talking about his post-mortem appearances had simply seen his ghost. As it seems, this would not have been considered unusual or extraordinary. But Luke makes it clear to his readers that however the appearances of Jesus could have been interpreted, they were epiphanies of someone who had been raised from the dead—with an empty tomb. As already seen, this is confirmed by Peter himself when he finds the tomb empty except for the grave clothes . . . Another potential concern arises, however, in view of the interpretation of the resurrection appearances as ghostly apparitions . . . The corpus of spells and incantations called the Greek magical papyri attests to this, in particular to the ways that body parts could be used to control the ghosts of the dead—and the shade or spirit (often called a daimōn) of a person who died by violence would be particularly powerful if controlled. (Daniel A. Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Early History of Easter [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010], 106-7)

Further evidence for such an interpretation can be seen in Ignatius to the Symrnaens 3:2. The Ante-Nicene series renders the text as:

When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit." And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. (ANF 1:87)

However, the Greek underlying "and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit" is actually:

καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον

And see that I am not a bodiless demon

While it is still debated if Ignatius is dependent upon Luke 24:39 or an oral tradition concerning Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to the Apostles, it is clear that he understood, as most exegetes do, that Jesus was negating the claim he was a ghost/demon, as most exegetes argue is happening in Luke 24:39.

The apologetic value of this to Latter-day Saints can be seen by the fact that some critics tie Jesus’ words in Luke 24:39 with John 4:24 as “proof” that God cannot be embodied. Apart from the fact that Jesus is assuring his followers in Luke 24:39 that he was not a ghost, critics are guilty of eisegesis of John 4:24, too.

Moreover, it would not be appropriate to say that God is only a spirit based on this verse--here, Christ clearly has a spirit and a physical body. His spirit had just been recombined with His perfected and glorified physical body in the resurrection, a point He took great pains to demonstrate (Luke 24:41-43). He was not, however, "a spirit" in the sense of being only a spirit.

In unique LDS Scripture, we find something similar to John 4:24 echoed in D&C 93:33-35:

For man is spirit, The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

In this pericope, man is said to be “spirit,” though such does not preclude embodiment.

Biblical scholars would also disagree with the common eisegesis of John 4:24. New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:

It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)

On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:

Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).

Note: Origen in this passage understood it unwise to appeal to John 4:24 "at face value" to support God not being embodied, notwithstanding his use of such a verse in On First Principles to support God (the Father) not having a body. Origen is not a witness for divine embodiment, but only a witness that early Christians, including those who would use John 4:24 as evidence that the Father does not have a body, would not go "beyond what is written" about this text (Origen is, sadly, very complex, in comparison to other early Christian authors).

This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:

[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)

Alan Kerr offered the following comments on John 4:24:

6.6.4 God Is Spirit Commentators generally agree that this statement is not a philosophical proposition but a message about God in his relation to people. Two similar sentences about God in 1 John bear a similar sense: God is light (1:5) and God is love (4:8). It is also generally agreed that ‘Spirit’ here captures the Old Testament nuances of רוח as the life-giving creative power of God. The decisive issue for John is summed up in the stated purpose of the Gospel: ‘These things are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you might have life through his name’ (20:31). The goal is life (ζωή), and it is God the Spirit who gives life (6:63). This life is traced back to being born of the πνεῦμα, the life-Giver (3:5). In some way this life is bound up with knowing—knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (17:3)—that is, knowing the truth.Given this statement—πνεῦμα ὁ θεός—we must interpret ἐν πνεύματι in the light of it. It cannot refer to any spirit, but only to the Spirit that is God. While the primary emphasis of ἐν πνεύματι is on the life-giving and creative power of the worship, there is also a secondary significance intimated by 3:8 where πνεῦμα is the unconfined, uncontrolled and uncomprehended wind/Spirit that blows where it wills. The presence of God who is πνεῦμα is not to be confined to Jerusalem or Gerizim. The true worshipper should therefore not be confined by spatial limitations.
On the other hand, for John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. This emerges most clearly in the pronouncement about the Johannine Paraclete, who extends and communicates the presence of Jesus while Jesus is away. So in Jn 14:18 Jesus can say, ‘I am coming to you,’ and refer directly to the Spirit Paraclete in the previous verses (14:16, 17). C.F.D. Moule succinctly comments on how Christology dominated pneumatology in early pneumatic experience, a comment that aptly sums up the entwinment of the Spirit and Jesus in John: ‘The Spirit is Christified; Christ is Spiritualized.’ So given Johannine pneumatology it would be in order to say that worshipping ‘in Spirit’ would be partially equivalent to worshipping ‘in Jesus’. (Alan Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John [New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 192-94)