Mormon doctrine teaches that God is corporeal:
“God has a body that looks
like yours . . .” (lds.org basic beliefs; also cf. D&C 130:22).
Evangelicals say that
John 4:24 contradicts this teaching. If this were true it would prove that the
Mormon teaching about God is aberrant (so it would seem). Thus Mormons have to
harmonize this verse with their doctrine of God. In an effort to harmonize this
verse with their doctrine, Mormons are quick to point out that the KJV translation of
this verse is wrong since there is no indefinite article in Greek. “We LDS
understand that the verse should be translated ‘God is Spirit’, not ‘God is a Spirit,’
for there is no indefinite article (a, an) in the Greek Language. The consensus
among competent, experienced biblical scholars is that there should NOT be an
indefinite article in John 4:24. . . . Bible scholar C. H. Dodd insists that ‘to translate
[John 4:24] ‘God is a spirit’ is the most gross perversion of the meaning.’” (email
from L. Ara Norwood, Feb. 7, 2008).
However, that there is no indefinite article in the Greek is NOT the reason
why competent, experienced biblical scholars believe that there should NOT be an
indefinite article in John 4:24. For in the English language there are indefinite
articles. Thus πνευμα can be translated “a spirit” or “spirit.” The general rule for
translation is that an “a” may be inserted if there is no definite article and it makes
better sense in English.
There are two reasons for not inserting the indefinite article in John 4:24.
Bible scholar C. H. Dodd (along with many other competent, experienced biblical
scholars) basis his deleting the indefinite article on theological reasons: “‘A spirit’
implies one of a 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” (The
Interpretation of the Forth Gospel, 225). Stated another way; “God is not one
Spirit among many. This is a declaration of His invisible nature. He is not confined
to one location. Worship of God can be done only through the One (Jesus) who
expresses God’s invisible nature (1:18) and by virtue of the Holy Spirit who opens
to a believer the new realm of the kingdom (cf. 3:3, 5; 7:38-39)” (Blum, “John” in
The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 2, 286). The second reason will be presented
below under “Priority of the Original Language.”
II. Statement of the Problem
It is generally agreed upon that πνευμα ό θεός should NOT be translated
“God is a spirit” (KJV, ASV). Neither should the sentence be translated “A spirit is
God” since God is the subject in the sentence. The difference of opinion, however, is
in defining how the word “spirit” is used in “God is Spirit,” and the phrase “in spirit
and truth.” There are two different views.
III. Proposed Solutions
There are two ways that Mormons side step this passage so as not to be
confronted with the truth. Some Mormons point to the Joseph Smith Translation of
John 4:24, their “Inspired Version of the Bible,” which states, “For unto such hath
God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in
truth.” This provides a convenient way to disregard the straight forward teaching
of this verse. There is therefore no need for these Mormons to be alerted that the
Bible contradicts their doctrine for Joseph Smith has “corrected” this particular
verse.
Other Mormons redefine the meaning of “spirit” and reinterpret John 4:24 in
a way that harmonizes the verse with their doctrine. A few have even pointed to
“Christian” resources to make their case. It would seem that Mormons would be
hard pressed to find a “Christian” resource that could give credibility for a way of
harmonizing this verse with their doctrine. Surprisingly, a few can be found. The
two views are as follows:
A. The Roman Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown (The Gospel According to
John I-XII, Anchor Bible, 172) states:
This is not an essential definition of God, but a definition 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” (I John i 5), and “God is love” I 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).
Brown is espousing the Roman Catholic view as can be see from the notes on
this verse in the Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible (New York:
Catholic Book Publishing Co, 1970, 108): “In Spirit and truth: This is not a
reference to an interior worship within man’s spirit. The Spirit is the Spirit of truth
(Jn 14, 16f), the Spirit given by God which reveals truth and raises up men to
worship God on the appropriate level. This idea presupposes the “begetting by
Spirit” in Jn 3, 5.” [It also presupposes a different view of the Holy Spirit than that
of Mormons. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the trinity].
Those also holding this view include Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A
Commentary, Translated by G. R. Beasley- Murray, 190; and G. R. Beasley-Murray,
“John” in Word Biblical Commentary, v.36, 62 (obviously influenced by Bultmann’s
work).
Two things should be noted concerning the “eminent” Raymond E. Brown (as
well as Beasley-Murray and Bultmann): 1. Though he does not believe this verse is
a definition of God’s nature, it is certain that, as a Roman Catholic, he holds that
God is incorporeal. 2. He (they) writes from a theologically liberal perspective and
not from a conservative, evangelical p