Cherry-Picking in the Orchard of God's Word: John 4:24

by Darryl L. Barksdale

When I was eight years old, I lived in a tiny house on a quiet side street in Downey, CA. My best friend was a rough-and-tumble tomboy from across the street named Maria. I can still remember sitting on the cinderblock fence that separated my backyard from the parking lot of our ward building and talking religion with her. Maria attended a Catholic school, and while I don't remember much about those discussions, one of the things that stands out quite painfully was that I always lost. Always. She was deadly.

Although the details of those exchanges have long since escaped me, one of the passages that I do remember her drilling into my forehead was that, "God is spirit." Now, to an eight-year-old whose entire religious repertoire at that time was a smattering of the Articles of Faith, this was devastating stuff. My understanding of scriptural exegesis at that point in my Primary experience was insufficient to the task. My religious training was not a total loss. I was fairly comfortable with "Jesus Wants Me For a Sunbeam."

It would be nearly 25 years before I would again think about that experience. It happened one lonely night in Richmond, VA, when I had logged onto AOL, a new Internet service, for the first time. One of the posts I was reading stirred these memories of my friend Maria. The author was using the very same passage Maria had used years before to "prove" that God did not--could not--have a physical body. "God is spirit," he said, "therefore, the Bible says conclusively that Mormonism is flat wrong."

As I grew in my acquaintance with the scriptures, the writings of the early church fathers and other sources, I discovered a fascinating pattern. In debating with me, many detractors used the same isolated scriptures over and over again to condemn the Church. I also discovered that as I researched these arguments, I found abundant evidence from scripture, often from the same passage from which they quoted, that contradicted these arguments. I wondered how these people could consider these passages to be valid evidences to support their position.

Being, or Not, Indwelt with the Spirit

Often, the rational used by my debating partners to explain why I did not understand their application of scripture to a doctrine was that I simply was not "indwelt with the Holy Spirit." Apparently, if I was "indwelt with the Holy Spirit," then the "right" interpretation was very clear, and I should accept it, regardless of what the rest of scripture had to say. It seemed that 'being indwelt by the spirit' was defined by if I understand their interpretation.

Where did this doctrine of "indwelt" arise? Until fairly recently, some denominations (such as the Southern Baptists) have embraced a doctrine called "Soul Competency" or "Sufficiency." This doctrine is closely tied to the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers, and teaches that each believer has the ability and the "right" to interpret the Bible correctly for himself:

Soul Competency means that Baptists are competent to interpret scripture according to the dictates of conscience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.¹

This doctrine is not to be confused with the doctrine of being guided by the Spirit, as taught by Latter-day Saints. This doctrine is used to rationalize the fact that the Baptist has core beliefs different from their Methodist brother, who believes differently than the Presbyterian brother, etc. Certainly, no Latter-day Saint that I am aware of would argue against our individual right and ability to read and interpret scripture under the influence of the Holy Ghost. However, there is an important distinction separating the doctrine of "Soul Competency" from being "guided by the Spirit." Latter-day Saints believe the Holy Ghost will lead us to truth. Being guided by the Holy Ghost means the Latter-day Saint has an objective moment defined by the physical manifestation of the Holy Ghost bearing witness or leading the saint to truth. In contrast to the 'soul competency' doctrine, Latter-day Saint doctrine means that our conscience has little to do with 'scriptural interpretation.' Truly being guided by the Holy Ghost should bring all men to the same conclusion. Radical, conflicting differences in core beliefs imply the Holy Ghost is not evident in at least one of the arguments.

Reading Well

A rationale to 'read into scripture the dictates of our own conscience' has been addressed by many scholars. The German biblical scholar Werner Stenger warned against this tendency very clearly by observing that:

Theologians belong to that group of poor readers who find in texts only what they already know. What echoes back to them from Scripture [are] the very words that they themselves have shouted into its forest. Any theologian seeking to avoid finding only himself or herself in scripture must...exercise "caution, patience, and delicacy" in "the art of reading well."²

With amazing consistency, opponents of the Church are guilty of not reading very well. Shouting extra-biblical ideas and theologies into the forest of scripture, they find and accept only those passages that seem to support the latest pet theories, theologies and dogmas, ignoring all the other clarifying and defining truths that are available, even within the same canon.

Peter H. Davids, a professor of biblical Studies and New Testament at the Canadian Theological Seminary, commented at length about this tendency towards a "functional canon" that exists in many belief systems today.

We do not believe that one has any real authority if he or she removes material from its context. To snatch a few paragraphs from this chapter and read them out of the context of the whole would be to distort their meaning.

To look at Paul in isolation from the teaching of Jesus is to distort Paul's message and thus not to draw from biblical authority at all.

But before we quickly condemn a particular school of thought, it is important to realize that for each community there is probably some such canon within a canon functioning. The difference is that some are conscious of it, and others are not.³

Professor Davids describes how this practice can manifest itself. See if any of this strikes a chord of familiarity:

One example of this is found in ways a particular tradition uses biblical sections. For example, if a tradition's canon centered on Paul, one might find that Gospel texts were rarely preached on, and when they were used in sermons they functioned mainly as illustrations of an underlying Pauline text. That would mean that the teaching of the Gospels themselves would rarely if ever be heard in that community. The Church might assert that the Gospels were fully authoritative, but the Gospels would not function as authorities in its preaching.

Another example might be the use a church makes of certain books or parts of books. The epistle of James is a case in point. Because it is difficult to reconcile it with Paul, it has tended to be sidelined and ignored in many churches. But within that book some passages are even more thoroughly ignored.

For example, James 5:14-18 argues that if a person in a church is ill the elders should come and pray and that this prayer of faith will heal the sick individual. Furthermore, Christians are to confess their sins to each other and pray for one another that they may be healed. A year or so after I completed a doctoral thesis on James it occurred to me that I had never in over twenty years in the church heard of an instance in which James 5:14 had been followed, although there was no lack of sick people in the churches I had known. In other words, while the text in James was in the Bibles that the hundreds of Christians and dozens of elders I had known had in their homes (and as often as not in their hands every Sunday), it had apparently not functioned as an authoritative text for them. It was not that anyone has chosen to disobey the text. It was simply that it had been ignored in teaching and preaching. When the Scripture was read, it simply was not seen. For all practical purposes it was not in the canon...

Each tradition has its own group of "Texts To Ignore." This is never stated explicitly for if it were the texts would not be ignored. Rather, the focus of the community or the tradition is such that some texts are never read, or if they are read they appear irrelevant and are passed over quickly. The texts have their own intrinsic authority, but in that community they have no extrinsic authority.

Hermeneutical discussion assists one in discovering how one is interpreting scripture and thus what one might be filtering out of scripture. Interaction with the full world of critical scholarship means that one is looking at Scripture from a variety of angles and traditions, many of which will be different from one's own. The result will be a tendency to see one's own blind spots and correct the shortcomings of one's theology.⁴

Don't we all wish our opponents would sit up and take notice of what this author is attempting to convey? For that matter, don't we wish our own members would do the same?

John 4:24 "God is Spirit"

As I mentioned before, one of the passages I remember Maria drilling into my head to "prove" the Trinity was "God is spirit" (John 4:24). Since this passage clearly states that God is spirit, she said, it is impossible to even begin to believe that God has a body.

Maria's argument was an example of this kind of "poor reading," or "canon within a canon." In this case, the context and a careful examination of the other writings of this author clarify the meaning of the passage immediately. One has but to read the rest of the verse to get a clear understanding of what the author meant: "God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."⁵

It is not uncommon for people to quote only the first phrase of this passage and leave out the rest as an attempt to "prove" that God cannot possibly have a physical body. Why? Because it completely refutes the meaning they insist on "shouting into the orchard" here.

My fellow protagonists assert this passage to teach (1) God is only a spirit and (2) spirits are not beings of material substance. Therefore, because God is a spirit, God has no form or ontological being. Consider some of the statements of today's more prominent theologians. Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes state:

It is the uniform teaching of Scripture that God is spirit. And a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Hence, it is incorrect to think of God as a physical being.⁶

John 4:24 indicates that God is spirit. Luke 24:39 tells us that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Conclusion: since God is spirit, he does not have flesh and bones.⁷

Just because God made male and female does not mean that he is male and female. "God is Spirit" (John 4:24), yet he made people with bodies.⁸

The Bible is clear that "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24). And "a spirit does not have flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). So, God does not have a physical face.⁹

John Farkas and David Reed state; "...what we read in scripture teaches us that God is of an entirely different form altogether: while man is mere flesh and blood, 'God is a Spirit' (John 4:24) or 'God is Spirit' (NIV, RSV)"¹⁰ Finally, Dr. Robert Morey makes the statement that "God cannot have a body because He is infinite spirit."¹¹

Definition or Attribute?

Not all theologians are universal in this logic. Even non-LDS biblical scholars reject the notion that John 4:24 refers to a definition of God's person or being. Rather, they note that they represent various attributes of God in much the same way that other passages state that "God is love," and "God is light." For example, scholar Raymond Brown rejects the common Evangelical interpretation of this passage, and commented that John 4:24 "is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealings with men."¹²

Brown argues that John 4:24 indicates that far from being the quintessential definition of God's being, it merely describes the fact that God has a spiritual nature. Even Evangelical scholar Craig Blomberg reluctantly wrote, "John 4:24 declares 'God is Spirit,' which by itself does not prove that God might not have a 'spiritual body.'"¹³

While agreeing that this passage is not the definitive statement that some scholars think it is, they cannot agree on what it does represent. To Blomberg, this passage teaches (through making several major assumptions) of the "omnipresence" of God. To Brown, it focuses on the Christ-centered nature of true worship (although, to make his interpretation "fit," Brown does have to change the phrase "spirit and truth" to "Spirit of Truth").

"Adding To" God's Word

Many of the arguments used to interpret John 4:24 are straw-man arguments. These arguments seek to explain the passage in terms of what God is not; that is, God not having anthropomorphic characteristics. This logical fallacy of interpreting scripture according to a pre-defined concept of God's physical characteristics ("God is spirit"), instead of explaining the doctrine according to context is an example of poor reading.

Another problem with this interpretation involves the addition of the word only to the biblical text. This passage does not say that God is "only" spirit or that He is even "infinite spirit." To arrive at these interpretations, one has to "add to" God's Word concepts and words that do not appear either in the English or the Greek. It would seem that if one is "indwelt with the spirit," the dictates of conscience allows adding to God's Word.

Furthermore, the passage itself gives us great insight into the very truths to which our opponents have been blinded, and which fortify the argument against them, namely that man has both a physical and spiritual nature. The balance of John 4:24 states that "they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." This passage clearly reveals that man has both a physical and a spiritual nature, which coexists simultaneously; neither one is exclusive of the other. We are not only spirit, nor are we only body; we are both. Since Genesis 1:26, 27 clearly teaches us that we were created in the image and likeness of God, does it not stand to reason that God also could be a combination of spirit and body? After all, this is exactly what Christ taught us in his appearance to the apostles in the upper room.

Finally, if one goes about wantonly adding words to scripture to meet the dictates of our conscience, to fit it to one's personal theology, must one not also extend that practice to any other passages written by the same author that follow the same stylistic or literary pattern or structure? This would change "God is love" from a description of an attribute of God's dealings with men to an absolute definition of God's very being, which is not warranted and which is completely inappropriate. It is possible to carry the concepts used to teach the "God is Spirit" doctrine down a slippery slope, yet it does raise the question of where draw the line.

The Role of Textual Criticism

One of the more important hermeneutical rules for determining the author's intent of a passage is to examine not only the same author's usage of the same words in different places, but also of the same author's style and literary structure in different places.

Ironically, it is through allowing "scripture to interpret scripture" that we can expose the fallacies of these arguments. By examining other writings of John, particularly his epistles, we discover a distinct pattern in his writings regarding God's dealings with man, our responsibility towards Him, and the rewards that follow our obedience. For example, John clearly utilizes the following construct in several instances:

1. Declaration of God's attribute
2. Description of God's expectation in regard to our performance or behavior in reference to that attribute, and
3. Declaration of our reward, if we succeed.

In other words, it follows a "God is x; whoever does x will receive y" format.

It is clearly evident from John's writings that it was not his intention for "x" to be taken literally in any of these instances as a defining declaration of God's actual being.

In I John 4:16, John states that "God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God." This verse demonstrates this structure perfectly, and shows a strikingly similar pattern with John 4:24.

1. God is love
2. If we dwell in love
3. We dwell with God.

John also repeats this pattern beginning in I John 1:5:

God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.¹⁴

Again, this passage follows this pattern precisely, although it is a bit more complex:

1. God is light and in him is no darkness at all.
2. If we walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is the light,
3. We have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Clearly, a literal definition of God's being is not what John intended in any of these passages. Proper hermeneutics dictates that we "always interpret according to the known purpose of the author."¹⁵

Luke 24:39 as a "Proof-text" of a Literal Interpretation of John 4:24

As cited in some of the passages gleaned from anti-Mormon works, Luke 24:39 is often used to support their literal interpretation of John 4:24. The passage reads:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.¹⁶

This passage raises an entirely new set of problems for those who would interpret John 4:24 literally. Believers of the "God is Spirit" doctrine also usually hold to the doctrine that Jesus is the same ontological being (albeit with a different personality) as God the Father. If God is only a Spirit, then Jesus Christ is obviously not God, since he is not only a spirit. He has a resurrected, glorified body of flesh and bone as well as a spirit. He ate a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb to prove it, as well as inviting His disciples to come forward and feel His hands and side. If God is truly only a spirit, then Jesus Christ could not be Him. "For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

Another interesting problem is explaining why Christ, who they believe to be "fully God," could have a spirit and a glorified, resurrected body, and clearly be "fully God," while they deny the same possibility of the Father.

And finally, the most profound passage in relation to this issue is found in the epistle to the Hebrews, where Christ's glorified, resurrected body is called the "express image" of the Father's person: "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person."¹⁷

How could Christ be the "express image of the Father's person" with a spirit and a glorified, resurrected body if the Father is only a spirit? If God, as Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes insist, does not have a face, how could Christ, who arguably did have one, be the "express image of [the Father's] person?"

Geisler and Rhodes even refute themselves within two paragraphs, when they assert that Christ is "fully God" and thus "as much God as is the Father," while at the same time admitting "The Father--who in his divine nature is spirit (as is Jesus in His divine nature)--never became incarnate (as Jesus became incarnate), and hence does not have a human body as does Jesus."¹⁸

Summary

Taking scripture out of context is one of the most common foibles in scriptural interpretation. John 4:24 stands as a prime example of misinterpreted passages in Holy Writ. The rules of proper hermeneutics demand that we do the following to properly arrive at the most likely intended meaning of the author. In order to "read well," we must remember:

• That the speaker or writer sometimes states just what he wanted to accomplish by speaking;
• To carefully consider the immediate context;
• That the Bible, being the truth of God, must harmonize with itself;
• That light may be thrown upon a doubtful or difficult passage by comparing it with other statements of the author on the same subject.
• To examine the statements of other writers on the same subject who are of equal authority;
• To use common sense respecting the things which we know of ourselves; and
• That which is figurative must be interpreted according to the laws that govern figurative speech.¹⁹

We, as apologists, must face the reality that our own flock has the very same tendency sometimes. As apologists, our task is three-fold. First, "wasting and wearing out our lives in bringing to light the hidden things of darkness wherein we know them."²⁰ Secondly, correctly exegeting the texts that our brothers in alternative faiths insist on misusing. Finally, we must also educate our own members, open their eyes, and assist them in discovering the depth, richness, and beauty of scripture, and how to "read well" the truths found therein.

Notes

¹ Bill J. Leonard, "Priesthood of All Believers," Southern Baptist Historical Society, www.baptisthistory.org/hottopics.htm

² Werner Stenger, Introduction to New Testament Exegesis, translated by Douglas Scott (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 1994), 2.

³ Peter H. Davids, "Authority, Hermeneutics, and Criticism," New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing, 1991), 32.

⁴ Ibid, 32-33.

⁵ John 4:24.

⁶ Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1997), 283-294.

⁷ Ibid., 22.

⁸ Ibid., 23.

⁹ Ibid., 30.

¹⁰ John Farkas and David Reed, Mormons: Answered Verse By Verse (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Publishing, 1992), 38.

¹¹ Robert A. Morey, Battle of the Gods: The Emerging God of the New Age (Southbridge, Massachusetts: Crown Publications, 1989), 189.

¹² Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1990), 172 fn.

¹³ Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide (Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 97.

¹⁴ I John 1:5-7.

¹⁵ Dr. D.R. Dugan, Hermeneutics: A Text-Book, 3rd ed., (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1900) chapters VII and VIII, as quoted in Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994), 37.

¹⁶ Luke 24:39, emphasis added.

¹⁷ Hebrews 1:1-3.

¹⁸ Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1997), 284. How Did The "Spirit Only" Concept Evolve? Richard Hopkins theorizes that the vilification of anything material or physical was straight out of Greek Hellenistic neo-platonic thought. One of the earliest evidence we have of this misinterpretation of scripture is from both Philo of Alexandria and Tatian. In true Hellenistic form, Tatian writes "God is a spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things…" [Tatian, Address to the Greeks, as quoted in Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994), 131.]

As Hopkins points out, Tatian, of course, fell into apostasy as a natural result of this and other heretical theologies he espoused. For example, Tatian was largely responsible for promoting the Gnostic Basilides' doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). Tatian, born a pagan who converted to Christianity in AD 150, later left the Church to form a Gnostic group. [Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Ben Lomond, California: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999), 100-101.]

¹⁹ Dugan, as quoted in Hopkins' Biblical Mormonism, 37.

²⁰ D&C 123:13.

FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

If you like what FAIR does and you agree with our mission, we invite you to support FAIR in any way you are able. You can make a donation, or visit our Membership page for additional support ideas. FAIR only succeeds through the efforts of our gracious volunteers.

Welcome | Topical Guide | FAIR Publications | Join & Support FAIR | Message Boards
FAIR LDS Bookstore | News | FAIR Links | Contact FAIR | Home

Last Updated June 12, 2006
Copyright © 2010 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research. All Rights Reserved.
No portion of this site may be reproduced on any other Web site or in any other print publication
without the express written consent of FAIR. You may freely link to this information, however, or you
may print out copies to give to others, provided this copyright notice is included in your printout.

You can send comments/suggestions using our contact page.