OK, now to a post more directly linked to this past week's Sunday School lesson. We briefly introduced the subject of God as spirit this past week. Among other things we mentioned that Scripture seems to indicate rather clearly that God is invisible. I'd like to expand the issue a little and propose that Scripture also indicates that God is non-material, i.e. He has no body or material substance that is an essential part of His being. In Luke 24:39, Jesus claims that he is not merely a spirit, because a spirit alone does not possess "flesh and bones." This comment is in response to the disciples' unbelief regarding whether the figure they see really is Jesus in bodily, resurrected form. It wouldn't make any sense unless it meant that there is something material about a body that a spirit does not have. Thus, among other things, we can conclude from this statement that spirits don't possess material bodies. And this would apply to God as well, since His essential nature is spirit (John 4:24).
Along the lines of this topic, here is a link to a site called the "Skeptics Annotated Bible," where the author takes up the seeming contradiction of how the Bible can say that God is only spirit and at the same time talk about how God has body parts. He lists several verses as proof of the contradiction. What is your first impression of this seeming contradiction?
Once you've read this, here are two sites listed that provide a short response to the issue from an orthodox Christian perspective: site #1, and site #2. I think these might help us think biblically about this topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Though I know it will probably come up under Christology, I think the incarnation also has significant bearing on this topic. Jesus is God and Jesus has a body. While the Father may be Spirit, the Son is Spirit and Flesh. No suprises here theologically speaking, but teasing out the implications of such a huge event in the history of redemption must have some theological significance.
Hey, I remember when you brought this up after class a few Sundays ago. I was especially challenged when you mentioned the prospect of how the incarnation of Jesus might affect the 2nd commandment, which prohibits making idols or images of any kind. (For those just joining the discussion, we're not thinking so much about real idols as we are paintings and pictures of Jesus, movies of Jesus etc etc. How does the second command relate to these things?) I mentioned Deut. 4:15ff in class, where God prohibits images at least in part b/c He has no form.
How do you think the incarnation might impact this prohibition? Any further thoughts since we last talked?
nothing concrete, but if the father son and spirit are coequal in substance, the incarnation again raises some questions in my mind. Sorry, it seems unethical to raise questions without at least offering some kind of answers, but I guess I'm just thinking out loud.
Incarnation should not and must not impact the prohibition of the 2nd commandment because if Jesus is in heaven and He is, then 2nd commandment is still in effect if I understand your question. Read the whole 2nd commandment in Exodus 20:4 and I believe it is self-explanatory.
Thomas at one time said to Jesus to show them the Father. Jesus replied "you've seen me then you've seen the Father." After resurrection they saw Jesus unchanged by sight yet in glorified bodily form and recognized Him.
Remember theopanies? "Every theophany wherein God takes on human form foreshadows the incarnation, where God took the form of a man to live among us as Emmannuel, 'God with us'(Mat1:23)."Got Questions.org.
Conclusion: God the Father through the Holy Spirit chose Jesus to represent Him in bodily form for our own good and for His glory although God is spirit.
Corollary: We can not and must not "make any graven image or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above."
jeremy, I mean if I understood your question correctly.
corollary 2? There are many more secrets, mysteries? yet unrevealed to us but what we know now is sufficient for God's will for us and that is to reconcile us to Him. Is it possible that now as part of the mysteries we vaguely understood that God has now a body in Jesus, a glorified body? Answer is yes to me because Jesus Himself said they, The Father and Him are one. Pardon me if I am heretical though all my arguments are Biblical and I am just drawing opinions (conclusion and corollaries?)from them.
Josias,
I see what you're driving at, and appreciate the feedback. In reply to your observation, I would have to say that the prohibition in Ex. 20:4 specifically applies to objects or beings found in creation. The threefold emphasis in the verse ("heaven above..., earth beneath..., waters below") seems to designate all of the created order. In a less poetic way, we might say it refers to everything in the sky (esp. sun, moon, stars), everything on land, and everything in water (i.e. rivers, lakes, oceans etc.). If you compare a similar passage in Deut. 4:15-20, you'll find the same ideas are in mind when Moses prohibits idol worship ("men, birds, animals, fish, sun..moon..stars" etc.) Pagan religions worshiped these objects of creation, and God's people were to have no part in it, as nothing in creation can ever do justice to God's form in any way. So the passage is describing created things within creation, rather than things in heaven as the dwelling place of God.
So the question about whether images of Jesus are ok doesn't stem so much from this. Rather, it is the notion that God is not to be equated with any created form whatsoever (Deut. 4:15-20) b/c in His being He is formless, and yet when Jesus comes along, the 2nd person of the Godhead suddenly takes upon Himself a human body! Now if Jesus retains his human form from the moment of the incarnation onward, we're faced with the question, does God suddenly have a form? Put a different way, if we're not to make and worship images of God in the form of men (among all the other things listed) and Jesus now IS a man - the God-man - would it still have been wrong e.g. to take a Polaroid of Jesus and claim that it accurately represents Him b/c of the second commandment (or Deut. 4:15ff)? Has there been a change in the reality behind the command due to the incarnation?
Well, the issue is becoming more and more complex. As Nate said, we might deal with this in more detail when we discuss the doctrine of Christ in class. Sorry this is long, Josias. Hopefully it helps somewhat rather than confuses the matter.
Post a Comment