# The immaterial nature of God



## Mathetes (Apr 10, 2008)

Hello all,

I had a question about God being immaterial - that is, not composed of physical matter, but is instead a spirit. Or, as Steve Hays describe it, a timeless mind. Does the only support for this notion come from John 4:24? This is usually what I see quoted to support the notion that God doesn't have any empirical qualities, but I wonder if there are any other passages that help to bolster this idea. Thanks for any help.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 10, 2008)

God is certainly incomprehensible, and I feel safe in saying that what I mean by that is that He cannot be wholly comprehended. However, I feel it is error to say that God is incomprehensible in any observable way at all. 

To say that God bears no empirical quality is to ignore His work, i.e. Creation. I think that's a strong empirical quality, but maybe I'm wrong.

Also, it would see many OT passages such as Moses' encounter with Him, as well as Isaiah, would contradict that.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 10, 2008)

Mathetes said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I had a question about God being immaterial - that is, not composed of physical matter, but is instead a spirit. Or, as Steve Hays describe it, a timeless mind. Does the only support for this notion come from John 4:24? This is usually what I see quoted to support the notion that God doesn't have any empirical qualities, but I wonder if there are any other passages that help to bolster this idea. Thanks for any help.



Who is Steve Hays, and why in the world would he describe God in such a truncated manner as being a "timeless mind"? 

I don't even know where to start with all of the things which are wrong with that oversimplification, not the least of which is its implicit rejection of a Trinitarian understanding of God's existance.


----------



## danmpem (Apr 10, 2008)

Mathetes said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I had a question about God being immaterial - that is, not composed of physical matter, but is instead a spirit. Or, as Steve Hays describe it, a timeless mind. Does the only support for this notion come from John 4:24? This is usually what I see quoted to support the notion that God doesn't have any empirical qualities, but I wonder if there are any other passages that help to bolster this idea. Thanks for any help.



I have often wondered if John 4:24 is all we have.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 10, 2008)

Here are a few passages worth considering:

Numb. 16:



> 22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, *the God of the spirits of all flesh*, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?



2 Cor. 3:



> 17 Now *the Lord is that Spirit*: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.



1 Tim. 1:



> 17 Now unto *the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God,* be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.



Heb. 12:



> 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
> 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
> 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the *Father of spirits*, and live?



Other passages such as Acts 14.15, Deut. 4.15-16, 1 Tim. 6.16, 1 John 1.18 and 1 John 4.12 come to mind as well.


----------



## Davidius (Apr 10, 2008)

Zenas said:


> God is certainly incomprehensible, and I feel safe in saying that what I mean by that is that He cannot be wholly comprehended. However, I feel it is error to say that God is incomprehensible in any observable way at all.
> 
> To say that God bears no empirical quality is to ignore His work, i.e. Creation. I think that's a strong empirical quality, but maybe I'm wrong.



God's qualities may be somehow evident in creation, but the question is whether God himself is at all corporeal. That God _is_ the creation is pantheism. 



> Also, it would see many OT passages such as Moses' encounter with Him, as well as Isaiah, would contradict that.



This is a good point. I've always wondered who it was that those OT saints were talking to. It may be that God can assume a human form whenever he wants, but this does not change the fact that the divine nature itself is immaterial.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 10, 2008)

As Andrew pointed out, there are more texts than John 4:24. That that one is so often used is due to its extreme clarity. Compare it with Luke 24:39
_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._


----------



## Mathetes (Apr 11, 2008)

Zenas said:


> God is certainly incomprehensible, and I feel safe in saying that what I mean by that is that He cannot be wholly comprehended. However, I feel it is error to say that God is incomprehensible in any observable way at all.



While I agree that there are aspects of God that are incomprehensible - such as his timeless, eternal nature - I think the question of whether or not He has a corporeal body is within scope of understanding.



> To say that God bears no empirical quality is to ignore His work, i.e. Creation. I think that's a strong empirical quality, but maybe I'm wrong.



His work has an empirical quality, of course...we can taste, touch, smell, see, and hear the world around us. However, this doesn't mean that God Himself has any empirical qualities - setting aside the Incarnation for the moment.



> Also, it would see many OT passages such as Moses' encounter with Him, as well as Isaiah, would contradict that.



These are easily explained as theophanies, though.



Archlute said:


> Who is Steve Hays, and why in the world would he describe God in such a truncated manner as being a "timeless mind"?



Steve Hays is a Reformed apologist, and he runs an apologetics blog named Triablogue. A fair amount of folks here are familiar with it because Paul Manata posts there. It's a good site! I highly recommend going through the archives and reading through the articles that have been posted over the years.

And why describe God as a "timeless mind"? Because it's true? God is eternal, so that would make Him timeless, and He is immaterial or incorporeal - so, lacking a body, that would make Him a spirit or mind.



> I don't even know where to start with all of the things which are wrong with that oversimplification, not the least of which is its implicit rejection of a Trinitarian understanding of God's existance.



I don't think I'm the one who's wrong here. The immaterial nature of God in no way rejects a Trinitarian understanding of God's existence. In fact, I think it enforces it. After all, if the Trinity were physical, then I would have a very hard time seeing that work...because it's very rarely, if at all, in the physical world that we see elements blend into a unity but still remain distinct. But with immaterial concepts like universals and particulars, we can see very much how some elements can be united in one way and distinct in another.

Anyways, the notion that God is not a physical being is a fairly standard view and shouldn't be raising any alarms.

Also, not every simplification is an oversimplification.



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Here are a few passages worth considering:
> 
> Numb. 16:
> 
> ...



Thank you, those are good, especially the Corinthians one. I think there's also reinforcement in the fact that the Old Testament shows God condemning the use of graven images, demonstrating that He is not like created things. He is invisible, and should not be mistaken for the things of the Earth.


----------



## joeholland (Apr 11, 2008)

James Henley Thornwell has done some good work on the spirituality of God, found in his systematic theology lectures. His work has direct bearing on the discussion of God's immateriality. 

Thornwell argues that God's spirituality is both negative and positive. It is negative because it defines him as not material--ie not created. In addition to the verses above we can simply go to Genesis 1:1 and remind ourselves that in the beginning God created _ex nihilo_. This makes him distinct from the created material world. Two appropriate words for this distinction are "immaterial" or its synonym "spiritual".

But secondly--and this is where Thornwell gets good--God's spirituality is positive. It is positive because spirituality implies personality. We don't use the word spiritual to describe nonpersonal immaterial beings. Other religions use other words for nonpersonal immaterial beings like "the life force or "the transcendent reality" but they aren't called spirits. This has direct bearing on the discussion about whether or not God's immateriality can lead to a denial of the Trinity. 

Negatively put, God is uncreated and immaterial. Postively put, God is immaterial personal spirit--or more distinctly put, God is tri-personal immaterial spirit.

Anyway, I found Thornwell particularly helpful on this point and thought that it might be helpful in this discussion


----------



## Zenas (Apr 11, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > God is certainly incomprehensible, and I feel safe in saying that what I mean by that is that He cannot be wholly comprehended. However, I feel it is error to say that God is incomprehensible in any observable way at all.
> ...



That was exactly my point. An empirical quality is one that can be evidenced from something. God has many empirical qualities that are evident because of what He has done. All of them are completely observable.


----------



## Mathetes (Apr 11, 2008)

Zenas said:


> That was exactly my point. An empirical quality is one that can be evidenced from something. God has many empirical qualities that are evident because of what He has done. All of them are completely observable.



I would counter-argue that these empirical qualities are by-products of God's creative effort and not a part of God Himself. I do not deny that we can see and touch trees, rocks, water, etc., all of which sprang forth from God's...imagination, I guess. However, the Being that is God cannot be touched or seen or smelled, etc. Those places in Scripture where He appears as a burning bush or as a man, etc., are, I think, easily explainable as theophanies.

However, joeholland has some good remarks. And that brings me to an off-topic question...you mentioned systematic theology, but I've never been clear on what the difference is between systematic theology and biblical theology. Isn't biblical theology where an author present material showing where in the Bible we derive certain theological ideas? That is, a chapter on omnipotence (for example) would go through the verses that describe God's omnipotence, etc. Sorry for the derail, but it's something I've always wondered about.


----------



## joeholland (Apr 11, 2008)

> However, joeholland has some good remarks. And that brings me to an off-topic question...you mentioned systematic theology, but I've never been clear on what the difference is between systematic theology and biblical theology. Isn't biblical theology where an author present material showing where in the Bible we derive certain theological ideas? That is, a chapter on omnipotence (for example) would go through the verses that describe God's omnipotence, etc. Sorry for the derail, but it's something I've always wondered about.



The way I learned it is as follows.

_Systematic Theology_ tries to answer the question, "What does the Bible have to say about X topic?" The typical categories are prolegommena, theology proper, anthropology, christology, soteriology, eccleisiology, and eschatology.

_Biblical Theology_ is a little trickier to define. Most folks--like Vos et al--mean to answer by it, "What does the Bible have to say about X topic/theme as examined throughout Biblical/redemptive history?" I prefer to call this Redemptive Historical studies. Examples of this usually fall under the title "typology". 

Another way to use the term _Biblical Theology_--the way I use it--is to use it to ask the question, "What does a particular Bible author have to say about X topic?" For example, Paul and James use the term "justification" in different ways. Biblical Theology would be employed to examine those differences. Or another example would be Paul's use of the faith/hope/love triad.

In the end, of course, all theology is biblical theology because it is based on the bible. These are just specialized terms to define more specific study.


----------



## Mathetes (Apr 11, 2008)

Thanks, Joe...that clears it up greatly.


----------



## joeholland (Apr 11, 2008)

Glad to be of service. You can thank Dr. Cara at RTS, Charlotte for drilling it into my head.


----------

