John 4:24 And The Corporeality Of God
By Bro. Nathan
Ang John 4:24 is ang commonly misused na passage by the critics of the Church para Idisprove ang teaching about sa corporeality ni Heavenly Father, that He has a perfect physical body of Flesh and bones. Ang critics only appeal sa phrase na "God is Spirit" then just go there without even looking at the context and conclude na against Ito sa teaching ng church.
First, let us review muna yung mali-maling exegesis ng mga protestants and other groups about sa "God is Spirit" sa John 4:24. first, ang greek ng verse ay :
πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν. (Jn. 4:24)
Ang phrase sa context na πνεῦμα ὁ θεός (pneuma o Theos), sa greek, grammatically, ay isang qualitative nominative predicate na hindi tumutukoy sa physical composition but someones qualities. if babasahin nila yung main theme ng context, Jesus here teaches how men should worship God. prinesent ni Jesus ito sa isang Samaritan woman kasi naging problem between sa Jews at Samaritans yung place of worship nila. ang Samaritans ay nakaprivelege sa Mount Gezirim samantalang ang Jews naman ay sa Temple sa Jerusalem (v.20) then Jesus then tells the woman na huwag na siyang magaalala dahil ang Dios can be worshipped anywhere dahil hindi Siya nakakulong sa iisang lugar lang (v. 21-24) He is omnipresent through his spiritual influence. ang worship kay God must be done spirit to Spirit (cf. Phil. 3:3)
Ang teaching na may physical body si Heavenly Father at Jesus Christ is found throughout the Bible. consider the following passages mula sa Bible :
" Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen. 1:26-27) NKJV
The hebrew reads :
יֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַֽעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעֹוף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם בְּצַלְמֹו בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתֹו זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָֽם׃
Ang hebraism sa verse na ito as the hebrew word dito for image denotes na ang man have the same "image" and likeness to God, and says na ang physical likeness ng tao is the same lang sa Dios (cf. Gen. 6:9; Eph. 4:24; Jm. 2:9) thus saying that Heavenly Father has a physical body. one scholar commented :
[T]he Hebrew word for ‘image’ is also employed by P of Seth’s likeness to Adam (Gen 5.3), following a repetition of Genesis 1’s statement that humanity was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5.1), which further supports the notion that a physical likeness was included in P’s concept. It is also noteworthy that the prophet Ezekiel, who was a priest as well as prophet at a time not too long before P, and whose theology has clear parallels with P’s, similarly speaks of a resemblance between God and the appearance of man. As part of his call vision in Ezek. 1.26, he declares of God, ‘and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form’ (the word demut, ‘likeness’, is used, as in Gen. 1.26). Accordingly, there are those who see the image as simply a physical one. However, although the physical image may be primary, it is better to suppose that both a physical and spiritual likeness is envisaged, since the Hebrews saw humans as a psycho-physical totality.
The use of selem elsewhere in Genesis and of demut in Ezekiel certainly tells against the view of those scholars who see the divine image in humanity as purely functional in nature, referring to humanity’s domination over the natural world that is mentioned subsequently (Gen. 1.26, 28), an increasingly popular view in recent years. Although the two ideas are closely associated, it is much more likely that humanity’s rule over the world (Gen. 1.26-28) is actually a consequence of its being made in the image of God, not what the image itself meant. (John Day, From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 13-14).
Ito ay supported ng mga pericopes na nagpapakita sa verses 21-25:
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. And God blessed the, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (לְמִינָהּ), cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:21-25) KJV
According to this pericope dito sa context, bawat klase ng mga nilalang ay ginawa "after its kind" (alternate translation can be species - מִין)." Subsequently, ay binigyan sila ng duty na humayo at magpakarami at punuin ang mundo. yung aso di magiging kamukha ng kabayo, yung daga, di magiging magiging kamukha ng ibon, vice-versa etc., dahils sila ay ginawa after their own kind. may kanya kanya silang species. This is important as plays an important exegetical role vis-a-vis the relationship between God at ang physical nature ng tao sa mga susunod na verses sa context na sinundan din ng pericope in the previous verses in the context :
And God said, Let us make man in our image (צֶלֶם), after our likeness (דְּמוּת): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image (צֶלֶם), in the image (צֶלֶם) of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen. 1:26-28) KJV
Sinabi ng isang scholar :
" By setting the image-likeness formula in the context of sonship, Genesis 5:1-3 contradicts the suggestion that the image idea is a matter of representative status rather than of representational likeness or resemblance. For Seth was not Adam's representative, but as Adam's son he did resemble his father. The terminology "in his likeness" serves as the equivalent in human procreation of the phrase "after its kind" which is used for plant and animal reproduction and of course refers to resemblance.
- Meredith G. Kline, “Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit” Westminister Theological Journal, 39 [1976/77]: note 34)
Kline, on this theme, also comments that "the traditional avoidance of the visible corporeal aspect of man in formulating the imago Dei doctrine (in deference to the noncorporeal, invisible nature of God) has not reckoned adequately with the fact of theophanic revelation and in particular has missed the theophanic referent of the image in the Genesis 1 context" and that "the theophanic Glory was present at the creation and was the specific divine model or referent in view in the creating of man in the image of God."
Interestingly, Kline (correctly) rejects the idea that Gen 1:26 is evidence of a plurality of persons within the "one God", On Gen 1:26 in the same article, he wrote:
In Genesis 1:26 it is the plural form of the creative fiat that links the creation of man in the image of God to the Spirit-Glory of Genesis 1:2. The Glory-cloud curtains the heavenly enthronement of God in the midst of the judicial council of his celestial hosts. Here is the explanation of the “let us” and the “our image” in the Creator’s decree to make man. He was addressing himself to the angelic council of elders, taking them into his deliberative counsel.
This understanding of the first-person-plural fiat is supported by the fact that consistently where this usage occurs in divine speech it is in the context of the heavenly councilor at least of heavenly beings. Especially pertinent for Genesis 1:26 is the nearby instance in Genesis 3:22, a declaration concerned again with man’s image-likeness to God: “Man has become like one of us to know good and evil.” The cherubim mentioned in verse 24 were evidently being addressed. In the cases where God determines to descend and enter into judgment with a city like Babel or Sodom, and a plural form (like “Let us go down”) alternates with a singular, [30] the explanation of the plural is at hand in the angelic figures who accompany the Angel of the Lord on his judicial mission. [31] When, in Isaiah’s call experience, the Lord, enthroned in the Glory-cloud of his temple, asks, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8), the plural is again readily accounted for by the seraphim attendants at the throne or (if the seraphim are to be distinguished from the heavenly elders, as are the winged creatures of the throne in Revelation 4) by the divine council, which in any case belongs to the scene. (A similar use of the first person plural is characteristic of address in the assembly of the gods as described in Canaanite texts of the Mosaic age.)
Note the following about the ANE background to "image" and "likeness" from two Old Testament scholars:
The idea fundamentally laid down in Gen 1:26f., that humans—and only humans, in contradistinction to the animals—are in the image of God must go back to Egyptian influence where especially the ruler appears as the “image of god.” The throne names and epithets of Egyptian kings perpetuate their “image of god-ness.” Tutankhamun (twt-‘nḫ-Ymn) means ‘living likeness of Amun’. New Kingdom seal amulets (scarabs) have been found in Palestine/Israel as well; on them, the name of Thutmoses III and other pharaohs are provided with the annotation tyt R’, tyt Ymn, or tyt Tmn R’ ‘image of Amun/Re’. But being in the image of God could also refer to human creatures in general. According to the Instruction of Merikare, which says of humanity that “They are his images, who came from his body” (snnw.f pw prn m ḥ’w.f), the relationship rests on the fact that humanity came from the body of the god. The connection is clear, and it is clearly suggested in the Egyptian language. The Egyptian numeral snw ‘two’ (Heb. šanah, šenim) is at the core of a broad semantic field to which among others, the following concepts belong: snwy ‘the two’ (dual); šnnw ‘second, companion, associate, colleague’; šn ‘brother’, šnt ‘sister’; šny ‘resemble, copy, imitate’, šnn ‘statue, image, icon’, šnnt ‘similarity’. “Similarity” is accordingly based on physical relationship and actually refers to a sort of “second edition” or “duplicate.”
Additional background for “being in the likeness of God” in Gen 1:26f. is the belief, throughout the Orient, in the potent corporealization that an image repreents. The statue or stela of an Egyptian, Assyrian, or Babylonian king, set up in a distant province of the empire, represents the king’s power on the spot. The image of the god in the temple represents the presence of the god. The Hebrew word ‘image’ (ṣelem) points linguistically to the Mesopotamian cultural area. It can designate sculptures, statues, or reliefs, but primarily emphasizes their representative function. The Akkadian word ṣalmu has a similar semantic spectrum. Like the Egyptian rulers, the Assyrian kings of the ninth to seventh centuries B.C. were often designated “image” (ṣalmu) of a god: it is clear that the notion of “being in the image of God” clearly developed from the conception of a representative image and was then probably abstracted. The word “likeness/form” (demut), which supplements ṣelem in 1:26f., designates the similar connection of the copy with the model. It alludes to the content of the image, and inner similarity in nature between human and God. (Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer, Creation: Biblical Theologies in the Context of the Ancient Near East [trans. Peter D. Daniels; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015], 142-43)
Such conclusions are strongly consistent with Latter-day Saint theology ng physical body ni Heavenly Father at Jesus Christ.
Sa isa pang passage sa Acts 7:55-56, we read na nakita ni Stephen si Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ when he gazed up to Heaven :
" But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:55-56) NKJV
At sa letter ni Apostle Paul sa mga Hebrews, when nagsasalita si Paul about sa greatness ni Jesus Christ, doon banda sa proluoge ay ganito ang mababasa :
" 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 at the right hand of the Majesty on high," (Heb. 1:3) NKJV
(cf. Jn. 12:45; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15)
Latter Day Saint apologist D. Charles Pyle commented :
There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.
Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.
Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek kai kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα aapaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.
Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”
In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.
Supporting the claim that απαυγασμα is passive in Heb 1:3, note the following non-LDS sources:
The meaning of απαυγασμα in Heb 1:3 is disputed. Actively, the word can denote radiance or effulgence (Phil, Spec. Leg. iv.123), or passively, reflection or the light that is reflected (Wis 7:26; Philo Op. 146; Plant. 50). The sentence structure in Heb 1:3 favors understanding απαυγασμα and → χαραχτηρ as synonyms and, therefore, interpreting απαυγασμα as pass.: Christ “reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature.” Both predicates characterize the Son as the perfect image of God and thus correspond to the expression → εικων του θεου (Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4). (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 1, eds Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990], 118)
3a. The divine Son’s relation to the Father is expressed as a ‘reflection’ (apaugasma) of the Father’s glory and a ‘stamp’ or ‘imprint’ (charaktēr) of his nature. Apaugasma has been variously interpreted in an active sense (‘radiation, emanation’ of light) and in a passive sense (‘reflection’ of a luminary’s light on another surface). The active sense was the one commonly accepted in early exegesis, with conclusions at times orthodox, at times pantheistic or gnostic, but the parallel with charaktēr indicates that it is the passive sense which is intended by our author. Charaktēr is the imprint of a seal, the mark of one thing found in something else. ‘Glory’ is the form of God’s manifestation (Ex 24:16; 33:18; 40:34;cf Jn 1:14), and in late Judaism often meant God himself. Hypostasis is essence, substance, nature; to try to make the clear-cut metaphysical or speculative distinctions of a later theology is out of place; the word is chosen on the basis of theological imagery and metaphor. Without pressing these images further than the author intends, we may say that ‘reflection of his glory’ denotes the Son’s divine origin and perfect similarity to the Father, and ‘stamp of his nature’ that similarity qualified by his distinction from the Father. ‘Upholding the universe by his word of power’: pherōn has the double sense of maintaining the existence of creation and of governing, directing the course of history. The ‘word’ here is the dynamic OT ‘word’ which produces the physical or historical effects, and ‘word of power’, of course, is a Semitism for ‘powerful word’. (Dom Aelred Cody, “Hebrews” in Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1969], 1224, emphasis in bold added)
