Accurate information about the Being of God must come through Divine Revelation. Some truths are clearly revealed in nature for those with a searching heart (cf. Romans 1), while more specific information must be found within the pages of Scripture. In this article I am going to focus on the fact that Scripture teaches that God is incorporeal - that is, He is non-material, intangible, and without locality or body; and that He is invisible - that is, He cannot be seen with human eyes.

THE CREATOR VS. THE CREATURE

To start with, we are specifically told in Scripture that God is not "a man" :

"God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent ... " (Num. 23:19; cf. 1 Sam. 15:29)

"I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I [am] God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city." (Hosea 11:9)

God is fundamentally different from humanity :

"These [things] hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether [such an one] as thyself: [but] I will reprove thee, and set [them] in order before thine eyes." (Psalm 50:21)

"Now the Egyptians [are] men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together." (Isaiah 31:3)

"Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I [am] God? but thou [shalt be] a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee." (Ezekiel 28:9)

In fact, Jesus (as Isaiah above) specifically drew a contrast between the Father and "flesh and blood" :

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17)

Likewise, the Apostle Paul described the Gentile nations as having "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" (Romans 1:23). Note that to represent God after a human image is a perversion. Paul was simply affirming the repeated teaching of the Old Testament (Deut. 5:8; Isaiah 40:18; 44:13). Again, Paul exhorts us, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device" (Acts 17:29).

The teaching is clear. The Creator is nothing like His creatures, nor like any physical substance. Rejection of this Biblical teaching is the foundation of the sin of idolatry :

"Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day [that] the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that [is] on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that [is] in the waters beneath the earth ... " (Deut. 4:15-18; cf. v. 12)

The fact that God is an incorporeal, invisible Spirit is the very reasoning behind the Scriptures' repeated condemnation of idolatry. This is why we see the "God vs. gods" theme running throughout Scripture (sometimes called the "antagonism motif") - God is at war with all false "gods." On what basis? God is the Creator and not to be compared with creation in any sense. The Reformer John Calvin enlightens us :

"We see how plainly God declares against all figures, to make us aware that all longing after such visible shapes is rebellion against him. Of the prophets, it will be sufficient to mention Isaiah, who is the most copious on this subject (Isaiah 40:18; 41:7,29; 45:9; 46:5), in order to show how the majesty of God is defiled by an absurd and indecorous fiction, when he who is incorporeal is assimilated to corporeal matter; he who is invisible to a visible image; he who is a spirit to an inanimate object; and he who fills all space to a bit of paltry wood, or stone, or gold. Paul, too, reasons in the same way, 'Forasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device,' (Acts 17: 29)." (1)

GOD IS "SPIRIT"

How, then, is God described in Scripture? Jesus made a clear statement to the Samaritan woman at the well when He stated, "God is (a) Spirit (Grk. pneuma)" (John 4:24). As seen above, "spirit" is not in any sense "flesh." Webster's Dictionary defines a "spirit" as "a being having an incorporeal or immaterial nature." This is entirely consistent with Scripture. It is significant that both the Hebrew (ruach) and the Greek (pneuma) words for "spirit" are often used for "wind" or "breath" as well - subjects just as immaterial and invisible.

The key passage is Luke 24:39, where Luke reports Jesus as saying, "a spirit (Grk. pneuma) has not flesh and bones." This is a clear statement about God's essential Being - He is "a Spirit" (cf. 2 Cor. 3:17; Heb. 9:14). He has no earthly counterpart in constitution (Ex. 20:4; Deut. 4:15-23; Isa. 40:25). The word "is" is especially significant when contrasted with humanity; man has a spirit (Genesis 2:7), but God is a Spirit (John 4:24) - this distinction makes all the difference in the world.

Some protest that, after all, we are created in God's "Image" and His "Likeness" (Genesis 1:26). But is this in reference to our physical constitution? Where in Scripture is the phrase "image of God" ever used in reference to us as material persons? Samuel Bacchiocchi, Seventh-Day Adventist scholar and Professor of Theology at Andrews University, answers this notion :

"Elaborate attempts have been made to define what the 'image of God' is in which man was created ... Some contend that it is a physical resemblance between God and man ... The problem with this view is that it presupposes that God has a corporeal nature similar to that of human beings. This idea is discredited by Christ's statement that 'God is Spirit' (John 4:24), which suggests that He is not bound by space or matter as we are. Moreover, the Biblical terms for the physical aspect of human nature (bashar, sarx-flesh, body) are never applied to God." (2)

Note especially the significant fact that the terminology used in Scripture for physical, corporeal human beings is never used in reference to God. This fact alone poses serious problems for any who would maintain that God has a "body" like us with "body parts", and so forth.

Another problem is the fact that Scripture seems to represent man's "image" as something less than God's Image subsequent to the fall of Adam. This can be seen in Genesis 5:1-2 where it is twice-emphasized that what is being said is within the context of the day that God created man, and then in verse 3 we are told that "Adam ... begat (a son) in his (Adam's) own likeness, after his (Adam's) image ... " Thus, fallen man no longer bore the Divine Image as he did when first created - a fact further supported by the NT teaching that our redemption is essentially a recovery of the Divine Image (e.g., Romans 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10). (3) The significance of this for our present topic is this: Although fallen and no longer bearing the Image of God in a complete sense, man is still a physically embodied being. Therefore, whatever is meant by the "image" and "likeness" of God (a much-debated subject) - it is not a reference to the material body of man.

GOD IS INVISIBLE

Scripture also teaches us that God is invisible :

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead (i.e., Deity) ... " (Romans 1:20)

"Who [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature ... " (Col. 1:15)

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen." (1 Timothy 1:17)

"By faith [Moses] forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible." (Hebrews 11:27)

The Greek word aoratos is used in all four of these passages, and simply means "unseen, or that which cannot be seen, e.g. invisible," - just as it has been uniformly translated in most English versions of the Bible. (4)

Yet Scripture gets even more specific by teaching that God cannot be literally "seen" by humans :

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]." (John 1:18)

"Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." (John 6:46; cf. 5:37)

"Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto [symbolized in Rev. 1:16-17; cf. Psalm 104:2]; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen." (1 Timothy 6:16)

"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." (1 John 4:12)

But wait! Wasn't God "seen" in the OT, by Abraham, Moses and others (e.g., Gen. 12:7; 17:1, 22; 26:2; 35:9; Ex. 24:10; 33:18-20)? Well ... yes and no. They saw God the same way we do - in manifestation (cf. Gen. 18:1- 20, 33; Ex. 3:1-2,4; 34:5; Joshua 5:13-15; Dan. 5:1,4-6; John 1:32). Sometimes as a man, an angel, a burning bush, a pillar of cloud, and so forth (called 'theophanies'). This was the case even in the OT visions where God is "seen" (e.g., Ezekiel 1:26). John Chrysostom rightly observed :

"Why does John say, 'No one has ever seen God'? So that you might learn that he is speaking about the perfect comprehension of God and about the precise knowledge of him. For that all those incidents [of God being 'seen' in visions] were condescensions and that none of those persons saw the pure essence of God is clear enough from the differences of what each did see." (5)

Even so, we are often told that believers will "see God" (e.g., Matt. 5:8; Rev. 22:4) This has led some to imagine that we will indeed "see" God in eternity. But I see nothing in Scripture to indicate that anyone will ever see God as He is - His "face" (cf. Ex. 33:20). When we compare all of the relevant passages, we find that - given the clear statements of John 1:18 and 1 Tim. 6:16 - no one has ever "seen" God in this sense (cf. Gen 32:30; Ex. 24:10; Deut. 5:24; Judges 6:22; 13:22; Isa. 6:5), nor can they!

The Jewish Rabbi Jehudah explained :

"Of that divine glory mentioned in the Scripture, there is one degree which the eyes of the prophets were able to explore; another which all the Israelites saw, as the cloud and consuming fire; the third is so bright, and so dazzling, that no mortal is able to comprehend it; but should anyone venture to look on it, his whole frame would be dissolved." (6)

Likewise, the Church Father Origen wrote :

"John says in the gospel, 'No one has at any time seen God,' clearly declaring to all who are able to understand, that there is no nature to which God is visible, not as if he were indeed visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer creature, but because he is by nature impossible to be seen." (7)

GOD REVEALED IN CHRIST

How, then, will believers "see God"? Answer: in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), for it is He Who is the Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4) in a unique way - "the express image of His person" (Heb. 1:3). It is Jesus Who declares and reveals God to us (Matt. 11:27/Luke 10:22; John 1:14,18; 8:19; 12:45; 14:6; 15:24; 1 John 1:1; 5:20). This is why, when Philip asked to see the Father, Jesus answered by saying : "He that has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:8-9). Christ is quite literally God made visible - that is, "God manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). This is the way in which we - who cannot "see" God (1 Tim. 6:16) - will see God after all! Because Christ rules as God forever and we shall "see His face" (Rev. 22:3-4; cf. 1 Cor. 13:12; 1 John 3:2).

John Owen, after drawing an analogy from the sun and its light, explains :

"So is it with this eternal beam or brightness of the Father's glory. We cannot bear the immediate approach of the Divine Being; but through him, as incarnate, are all things communicated unto us, in a way suited unto our reception and comprehension." (8)

This brings us to another important point. Any notion that God is a corporeal, physical being with a body like us makes a mockery of the Incarnation. Why would it be necessary for God to become man (be "made flesh") - to have an "express image" (= Jesus, cf. Heb. 1:3) - if He were already a corporeal, material Being? If God is, in essence, a physical being perfectly capable of being seen "as is" -- then the Incarnation is made redundant and wholly unnecessary. Such an idea approaches blasphemy. Scripture explicitly teaches that Jesus took on another form in becoming man :

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Phil'p. 2:6-8)

This is precisely why the author of Hebrews likens Christ's flesh to the "veil" in the Jewish Temple which hid God Himself (Heb. 10:20). Likewise, Col. 2:9 makes it obvious that Deity does not possess a "body" by stressing the fact that in Jesus dwelt "all the fulness of Deity bodily." Jesus is "the Image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15). In this same connection, Athanasius correctly observed that :

" ... the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world [i.e., in incarnation]" (9)

Some, such as the Mormons, attempt to stand this obvious fact on its head. "Jesus is God," they say, "and He has a body ... therefore, God has a body" (see below). But this bit of twisted reasoning ignores the obvious teaching of Scripture regarding the Incarnation and entirely misses the point altogether - God became a man in Christ, God became visible by anthropomorphizing Himself. Perhaps none have described this better than St. Gregory Thaumatourgos :

"O, immaculate and inexplicable mystery! That One, Who before the very creation of the world was the Only-Begotten, Without-Compare, Simple, Incorporeal, is incarnated and descends (into the world), clothed in a perishable body, so that He be visible to all. For if He were not visible, then by what manner would He teach us to keep His precepts and how would He lead us to the invisible reality? It was for this therefore that He became openly visible, to lead forth those of the visible world to the invisible. Far more so do people reckon their eyesight as more credible a witness than mere hearsay; they trust that which they see, and doubt that which they see not. God willed to be visible in body, to resolve and dispel the doubts." (10)

GOD IS OMNIPRESENT

Another point in Scripture is the fact that God is omnipresent -- that is, equally present everywhere and at all times.

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?" (1 Kings 8:27; cf. 2 Sam. 7:5; 2 Chron. 2:6; 6:18)

"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." (Psalm 139:7-10)

"Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?" (Isaiah 66:1; quoted in Acts 7:48-49)

"Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 23:23-24)

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." (Acts 17:24-28)

"One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all." (Ephesians 4:6)

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." (Rev. 20:11)

Our God cannot be contained in a specific locality. Of course, this would not be the case if God had "a body." A body would imply specific locality, as shown by the fact that anthropomorphite teaching always includes a denial (implicit or explicit) of God's omnipresence. For instance, angels and Satan have a spiritual form of sorts - they are not omnipresent. This is not the case with God at all. We see from the above that God encompasses all that is. Not that "everything is God," as the pantheists would have it! No, God has distinct eternal existence apart from His creation. But, nevertheless, He maintains presence everywhere - literally.

ANTHROPOMORPHIC LANGUAGE

Finally, we are faced with Scripture referring to God's "hands", "eyes", "ears", and so forth (e.g., Deut. 33:27; Ps. 11:4; Isa. 59:1). We see also that God is at times represented as if He had specific locality (e.g., Genesis 11:5,7; Psalm 2:4). Some teachers and sects draw from such passages the notion that God "has a body." However, that this is not the case can be easily seen when we consider the whole of Scripture. It should be evident from the many clear statements cited above that such language cannot be taken literally.

Such statements are called anthropomorphisms - these are metaphorical expressions used by God as an accommodation (or, condescension) to our finite understanding. Simply put, God speaks to us on our finite level, chiefly because we cannot ascend to His infinite level. (11) In the same way, God is represented as "discovering" information, "repenting," and so forth. That God has revealed truth about Himself in this way should not surprise us. Paul recognized this very fact in 1 Corinthians 13:12. To literalize such language is the ancient error of the sect known as the Anthropomorphites (Greek, anthros = man, morph = form). (12)

John Cassian wrote :

"For we ought to see that the limbs signify the divine powers and boundless operations of God, which can only be represented to us by the familiar expression of limbs: by the mouth we should understand that His utterances are meant, which are of His mercy continually poured into the secret senses of the soul, or which He spoke among our fathers and the prophets: by the eyes we can understand the boundless character of His sight with which He sees and looks through all things, and so nothing is hidden from Him of what is done or can be done by us, or even thought. By the expression 'hands,' we understand His providence and work, by which He is the creator and author of all things; the arms are the emblems of His might and government, with which He upholds, rules and controls all things. And not to speak of other things, what else does the hoary hair of His head signify but the eternity and perpetuity of Deity, through which He is without any beginning, and before all times, and excels all creatures?" (13)

Shaw writes in his exposition of the Westminster Confession :

"The Confession affirms that God is a pure Spirit, according to the Scriptures, and in opposition to an ancient sect of heretics, who, understanding everything spoken of God in a literal sense, held that God has bodily parts and a human form. These heretics are called Anthropomorphites; a name compounded of two Greek words,–the one signifying human, and the other, shape or form. That corporeal parts and bodily members,–such as eyes, ears, hands, and face, are ascribed to God in the Scriptures is certain; but such language is used in accommodation to our capacities, and must be understood in a way suitable to a pure spirit. Were the great God to speak of his essence and perfections as he is in himself, instead of being informed, we would be confounded. He, therefore, employs human properties and actions as emblems of his own spiritual perfections and acts. We become acquainted with persons and things by seeing them or hearing of them; and to intimate the perfect knowledge which God has of his creatures, eyes and ears are ascribed to him. It is chiefly by our hands that we exert our bodily strength; and hands are ascribed to God to denote his irresistible power. We look with an air of complacency and satisfaction on those whom we love; and God's face denotes the manifestation of his favour." (14)

That such passages employ metaphorical, and not literal, language is easily established on several fronts. First and foremost is the fact that the various passages examined in the previous sections represent clear statements about God's Being. God is a "Spirit," which is by definition incorporeal. He is also "invisible," and cannot be "contained." He is present everywhere simultaneously. It seems rather obvious that such statements cannot be true if anthropomorphic references to God are taken literally. Yet there are other reasons that such literalism will not hold water.

For instance, "the arm of the Lord" is used as a reference to Messiah (e.g., John 12:38), and cannot be a literal "arm" on God's "body"! Furthermore, other expressions are used in the same way. Consider the metaphorof God's "feathers" and "wings" (Ps. 57:1; 91:4) - certainly such are not meant to be taken literally (God is not a bird!). When the OT uses terms like "the blast of God's nostrils" (Ex. 14:21; 15:8), are we to understand this literally? Of course not! Likewise, references to God being a "lion" or a "rock." These are expressions and simply must be understood as such if we are to accept the clear teaching of Scripture concerning God's Being (discussed above). One passage directly refuting any idea of a corporeal God is 2 Corinthians 5:1 :

" ... we have a building of God, a house made not with hands ... "

Furthermore, there is a highly significant fact that is rarely mentioned in this connection. If anthropomorphic language represents literal truths about God's Being, the near (cf. Luke 11:20) absence of such language in the NT is strange indeed! But if we understand that anthropomorphisms simply represent God as acting after a human fashion as an accommodation to our understanding, then it makes perfect sense. There was no need for such language in the NT, as God had quite literally anthropomorphized Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ (see above).

CHURCH HISTORY & THE INCORPOREAL GOD

It is interesting that Judaism has always left much room for speculation regarding the Person of God, with but two strict stipulations: that God is 1) one; and that He is 2) incorporeal. So the Jews understood the OT to teach , even as orthodox Christians have also. It is significant to remember here that the Jews did not have the "clearer revelation" of the NT, yet nevertheless understood clearly that God is incorporeal and that the language of human anatomy applied to Him is not literal, but anthropomorphic. (15)

The historic Christian Church has always taught that God is a Being "wholly other" than ourselves. That is, He is not a human being, physical/material, or visible. God does not have a tangible "body" nor specific locality in a spatial sense. He is a Spirit - incorporeal, invisible, and omnipresent. Among the Fathers of the early Church, we find that God's spiritual nature was consistently upheld as part and parcel of orthodoxy (all bold emphasis is my own) :

"Let us proceed, then, O King, to the elements themselves, so that we may demonstrate concerning them that they are not gods, but corruptible and changeable things, produced out of the non-existent by Him that is truly God, who is incorruptible and unchangeable and invisible, but who sees all things and changes them and alters them as He wills." -- Aristides of Athens in 140 (16)

"God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the Maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things ... " -- Tatian in 170 (17)

"Is it not unreasonable to apply the name of atheist to us, who distinguish God from matter and teach that matter is one thing and God another, and that there is a great difference between them, the Deity being unbegotten and eternal, able to be known by reason and understanding alone, while matter is produced and perishable? ... we acknowledge one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, uncontainable ... " -- Athenagoras in 177 (18)

"The form of God is ineffable ... in glory He is uncontainable ... it belongs to God, the highest and almighty and the truly God, not only to be everywhere, but also to overlook all things and to hear all things, and yet, nevertheless, not to be contained in space ... " -- Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd century (19)

"Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligent, all reason ... " -- Irenaeus in 189 (20)

"Being is in God. God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable, and the cause of what exists." -- Clement of Alexandria in 200 (21)

"What is God? 'God,' as the Lord says, 'is a Spirit.' Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself ... " -- Clement of Alexandria in 200 (22)

"Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind." -- Origen in 225 (23)

"God the Father, founder and creator of all things, who alone knows no beginning, who is invisible, immeasurable, immortal, and eternal, is one God." -- Novatian in 235 (24)

"Whence came the polytheistic error of the Greeks? God has no body: whence, then, the adulteries alleged among those whom the Greeks call gods?" -- Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 (25)

"God is simple and of an incomposite and spiritual nature, having neither ears nor organs of speech. A solitary essence and unlimitable, he is composed of no numbers and parts." -- Didymus the Blind in 362 (26)

"First it must be remembered that God is incorporeal. He does not consist of certain parts and distinct members, making up one body. For we read in the gospel that God is a spirit, invisible, therefore, and an eternal nature, immeasurable and self-sufficient. It is also written that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. For these are the members of a body consist, and of these the substance of God has no need. God, however, who is everywhere and in all things, is all-hearing, all-seeing, all-doing, and all-assisting." -- Hilary of Poitiers in 365 (27)

"God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. Nothing can be added to him. He has in his nature only what is divine, filling up everything, never himself confused with anything, penetrating everything, never himself being penetrated, everywhere complete, and present at the same time in heaven, on earth, and in the farthest reaches of the sea, incomprehensible to the sight." -- Ambrose of Milan in 379 (28)

"And thus we see that God is not a body. For no inspired teacher has yet asserted or admitted such a notion, nor has the sentence of our own Court allowed it." -- Gregory Nazianzen in 383 (29)

"Reject also the opinion of those who say the body is in the image of God. For how were it possible for the visible to be close to the invisible? How the corporeal to the incorporeal? How the tangible to the illimitable?" -- Ephiphanius in the 4th century (30)

" ... but be all taught of God; so that the very things which you have learned and believed by means of lessons and sermons supplied from without regarding the nature of God, as incorporeal, and unconfined by limits, and yet not rolled out as a mass of matter through infinite space, but everywhere whole and perfect and infinite, without the gleaming of colors, without the tracing of bodily outlines, without any markings of letters or succession of syllables,--your minds themselves may have the power to perceive." -- Augustine in the 5th century (31)

"When the divine Scripture presents sayings about God and remarks on corporeal parts, do not let the mind of those hearing it harbor thoughts of tangible things, but from those tangible things as if from things said figuratively let it ascend to the beauty of things intellectual, and rather than figures and quantity and circumscriptions and shapes and everything else that pertains to bodies, let it think on God, although he is above all understanding. We were speaking of him in a human way, for there is no other way in which we could think about the things that are above us." -- Cyril of Alexandria in 429 (32)

"For the Deity alone in reality is immaterial and incorporeal." -- John of Damascus in the 7th century (33)

These quotes are but a sampling of what was, with the possible exception of Tertullian (see below), held uniformly among the Church Fathers. This same view of God continues in the Reformers, the Puritans, and among the majority of Christians ever since (whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox). I have already quoted the likes of Calvin and Owen above. The Reformed tradition is more generally represented in the Westminster Confession, which describes God as "infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions ... " (34)

BELIEVERS IN A CORPOREAL GOD

In spite of the clear Biblical evidence and the historical witness to it, there have been some who have denied orthodoxy and instead asserted that God "has a body" and is, in some sense, "a being with parts like us."

The Latin Church Father Tertullian (160-220 AD) apparently held to the "corporeal God" idea late in his life, as expressed in his treatise on human psychology entitled De Anima. Augustine makes mention of " ... the ravings of Tertullian. For he insisted, that as the soul is corporeal, so likewise is God." (35) The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Tertullian's "notion that all things, pure spirits and even God, must be bodies, is accounted for by his ignorance of philosophical terminology." (36)

The Anthropomorphites, mentioned above, literalized the anthropomorphic language of the OT and set forth a corporeal and material view of God. This view enjoyed brief popularity among monks of the fourth century in Egypt until the heresy spread to Constantinople in AD 399, resulting in something of a stand off between the anthropomorphite monks and the Origenian monks. The controversy was settled in favor of orthodoxy by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria (with unsolicited help from an orthodox monk named Abbot Paphnutius). (37)

In the ninth century, we find the Spanish Bishop Hostegesis promoting anthropomorphic views of God. Hostegesis served as Bishop of Malaga in Spain from 845-864. He and his followers were refuted by the Abbott Samson. Little more is recorded concerning this conflict. (38)

The Jewish Cabalists (as in The Kabbalah, post-temple Jewish occultism) taught this also, adopting a literalism that was a clear departure from classic Jewish understanding (see above). The late Philip Hughes enlightens us :

"It was alien philosophical concepts, syncretistically adopted by the Hebrew mystics of a later age, which promoted the conclusion that what are commonly regarded as anthropomorphisms are in fact theomorphisms. The cabalistic scholars maintained that references in the Old Testament to the arm of the Lord, for example, meant that God actually has an arm, the true and original arm, since, in their perspective, the human body with its members is but the copy or temporal projection of the reality which is the divine archetype. Even the most sacred divine name, the tetragrammaton JHVH, was held to disclose the human form of God when its four Hebrew letters were written vertically, from the top down." (39)

This same heresy was embraced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) after showing up in some of Joseph Smith's (founder of the LDS) later writings (NOTE: this teaching is not found in the Book of Mormon), most notably the alledgedly inspired Doctrines & Covenants. Smith went a bit further than those above, actually asserting that God possesses "a body of flesh and bones." (40) Mormon anthropomorphism is identical to other expressions of the doctrine, with but one difference - the LDS teaches that God was once a mortal man, therefore creating a strong motivation for their literalization of anthropomorphic passages. Another motivation is that Joseph Smith allegedly saw God the Father as a "flesh and bones" Being in his vision (41). The idea remains a part of Mormon "orthodoxy" to this day, and is vigorously defended by LDS "apologists." (42) LDS apologists defend their teaching by refusing to properly distinguish the two natures of Christ (i.e., "Christ is God and He is a man - therefore, God is a man"), and consistently misdefining God's "image" in their use of both Genesis 1 and especially Hebrews 1:1-2 (see above on God's Image).

A growing sect of ex-mormons calling themselves the New Covenant Church of God (43) have retained the doctrine of a corporeal God, though rejecting many formerly held LDS distinctives. The NCCG uses similar reasoning to other anthropomorphites. Basically, "God's Image" is defined in corporeal terms and false logical constructs are built around comparisons of Christ and the Father which fail to recognize the fact of Christ's two natures, an error which causes them to massacre the context of select passages (e.g., Since Christ only did what He saw the Father doing, and He was resurrected - then the Father must possess a resurrection body also). (44) On an interesting side note, there is some evidence that the Kabbalah was a significant influence in the development of early LDS theology. (45)

The late Finis J. Dake (1902-1987) was a "holiness" preacher known for memorizing vast amounts of Scripture, earning him the title "the walking Bible." Dake's teachings have been popularized in holiness, pentecostal, and charismatic churches through his bestselling study Bible. (46) While the Dake Annotated Reference Bible does contain many excellent notes concerning the customs and culture of Bible times, and an extensive cross-referencing system - nevertheless, there are some very serious deviations from orthodoxy contained therein as well. These would include works-salvation, "word of faith" type teachings, tritheism, sinless perfection, a Christology that is unorthodox at several points, and the idea of a "corporeal God." Dake consistently makes statements like the following :

"What we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the sense that each human being, angel, or any other being has his own body, soul and spirit."

"Is God bodiless? If so we can conclude that man is also bodiless."

"He (God) has a personal spirit body, shape, form, image and likeness of a man, bodily parts such as, back parts, heart, hands and fingers, mouth, lips and tongue, feet, eyes, hair, head, face, arms, loins, and other bodily parts. He has bodily presence and goes place to place in a body like all other persons. He has a voice and countenance. He wears clothes, eats, dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a material planet called heaven."

"The expressions which tell us that God has bodily parts are real and literal and not figurative." (47)

Dake's "corporeal God" teaching is simply the same anthropomorphic heresy we find in past Church history (see above). His reasoning is that of a hyper-literalist when interpreting the anthropomorphic statements contained in the OT. In fact, Dake goes a bit further than some (including even most Mormons) by teaching that the Holy Spirit has a body as well (see above, first quote)! Unfortunately, Dake's Bible has become the most popular study Bible in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles, especially among televangelists (thereby providing an even wider audience for these doctrinal deviations).

Those significantly influenced by Dake's heterodox teachings include ministers like Jimmy Swaggert, Benny Hinn, and Kenneth Copeland. In fact, it would not be stretching it at all to state that both the idea of a corporeal God, and its inevitable theological result, tritheism (48), are at this time commonly taught among many Charismatics. (49)

Benny Hinn, by far the most popular televangelist at this time, has repeatedly inserted his foot into his mouth theologically. His constant retractions only seem to give way to more serious deviations. Hinn has admitted the influence of Dake on his teaching to Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute. (50) Hinn's commitment to the "corporeal God" notion is spelled out very clearly in his bestselling book, Good Morning, Holy Spirit, where he originally described the Father as having

"the appearance ... of a man ... To my amazement I found that God has the likeness of fingers and hands and a face" (51)

Hinn revised/edited his book after being corrected on this by Hanegraaff and others. Yet his teaching was not eradicated from the book, but simply watered-down and made more ambiguous. The revised version still makes comments like this :

"But what about the Holy Spirit? Does He also have a mind, a will, and emotions? Does He have a body? He certainly does." (52)

Likewise, Word of Faith televangelist Kenneth Copeland has so imbibed the heresy of a "corporeal God" that he finds in Isaiah 40:12 the notion that God has a "handspan" like that of a man. He even goes on to casually give God's "height" and "weight"! (53)

Unfortunately, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible has also influenced lesser known ministries on the worldwide web. (54)

This idea of a corporeal God, then, has appeared from time to time in heretical sectarian settings. The more frightening fact, however, is the appearance of such false doctrine among Charismatic groups of believers in recent times. This ancient error seems to have become popularized among believers in our time by the Dake Annotated Reference Bible, and presently is being dissemenated through books, radio, tapes, and television by many prominent Charismatic teachers. Not surprisingly, many of these teachers are associated with the Word of Faith movement - the same teachers who promote the prosperity gospel, tritheism, "revelation knowledge," and other abberant teachings. As demonstrated throughout this article, the idea of a corporeal God with a body is simply one more heresy to add to that list.

CONCLUSION

God is altogether different from us -- He is, as Jesus plainly said, "a Spirit." He cannot be seen with our eyes, He is invisible and revealed to us only in Jesus. He is omnipresent. That God is truly incorporeal and invisible is necessary to a proper understanding of His otherness. As Thomas Aquinas wrote,

"Hereby is destroyed the error of the first natural philosophers, who posited none but material causes. The Gentiles also are refuted, who set up the elements of the world, and the powers therein existing, for gods; also the follies of the Anthropomorphite heretics, who figured God under bodily lineaments; also of the Manicheans, who thought God was an infinite substance of light diffused through infinite space. The occasion of all these errors was that, in thinking of divine things, men came under the influence of the imagination, which can be cognisant only of bodily likeness." (55)

The modern anthropomorphites are no different from the ancients. Their writings tend to mock orthodoxy's repeated stand on passages like John 4:24, but no answers are ever forthcoming. These teachers begin with the faulty presupposition that anthropomorphic statements about God in the OT are to be taken literally - even though they would never think of literalizing other passages in the same way (e.g., Psalm 91:4). They then interpret clear statements (e.g. John 4:24) in light of their misinterpretations of the anthropomorphic passages. Such were sternly rebuked by Sir Thomas Browne :

"St. Paul saw things in a vision which himself could not utter: and therefore they are verye bold with God, who dare to picture him in any shape visible to the eye of mortality, which Daniel himself behelde not, but in a rapture and an extatical vision; unlesse they can answere that staggering question, 'To what will you liken me?'" (56)

In contrast to such teachers, we should give Scripture's clear statements about God's Being priority in our formulation of our view of Him. Such statements are contained in both the Old and New Testaments, as we have seen. The anthropomorphic statements are not at all hard to understand once it is recognized that they are always set within the context of God acting in history, and must necessarily be cast in language for our finite minds (again, the concept of accommodation). It is the Sadducee who would deny the existence of "spirit" (Acts 23:8), not the one who would believe the Scriptures! Beyond this, we must also treat the NT for what it in fact is - "the more sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19), giving its clear statements the ultimate priority. As we have seen, the NT is very clear: "God is (a) Spirit."

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk1, ch11, #2

2. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? (Biblical Perspectives, 1999)

3. This is a grand theme in Scripture that is pregnant with enough truth to fill a lifetime full of serious contemplation. For more detail see Philip Hughes, The True Image (Eerdmans, 1989), and Arthur Custance, The Doorway Papers Vol. III - Man in Adam and in Christ (Zondervan, 1975), Part III, pp. 100-133 <online>. From the Jew FAQ website: "Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of God, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that God is incorporeal and has no physical appearance. Maimonides points out that the Hebrew words translated as 'image' and 'likeness' in Gen. 1:27 do not refer to the physical form of a thing. The word for 'image' in Gen. 1:27 is 'tzelem', which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Psalm 73:20, 'you will despise their image (tzel'mam)'. You despise a person's nature and not a person's physical appearance. The word for physical form, Maimonides explains, is 'to'ar', as in Gen. 39:6, 'and Joseph was beautiful of form (to'ar) and fair to look upon'. Similarly, the word used for 'likeness' is 'demut', which is used to indicate a simile, not identity of form. For example, 'He is like (damuno) a lion' in Ps. 17:12 refers not to similar appearance, but to similar nature."

4. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (Greek Dictionary #517). This straightforward definition is borne out in every reference that I have seen thus far, including Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Baker, 1977), and several English Bible versions (NIV, NAS, KJV, NKJV, YLT, RSV, DARBY - all using 'invisible').

5. Against the Anomoians, 4:3 <source>

6. Sepher Cosri (P. iv. 3.)

7. Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:8 <source> See also Augustine's similar statements in his Letters, letter #148 - "From Augustine to Fortunatianus"; and, On the Trinity, bk. 3.

8. John Owen, Christologia, Prefactory part b

9. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, chapter 2

10. St. Gregory Thaumatourgos, Discourse On the Nativity of Christ; see also Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, part 3, question 1, article 1.

11. cf. New Dictionary of Theology (Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 3. Also see my online article "Our Mysterious God" for more detail. The concept of accommodation is prevalent in the writings of the Church Father John Chrysostom (c. 344-407), and later in Reformer John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

12. See the following: The Catholic Encyclopedia; John Chrysostom, Homily LXVI. John 12:8; John Cassian, The Conferences, bk 1, conf. 10; Rufinis, Apology, bk 1; Jerome, To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem; Gennadius, Illustrious Men (Supplement to Jerome); Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, chap. 23; Augustine, Letters, letter 148; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk 1, chap. 13 and bk4, chap. 17; Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, Part II, Question 188, Article 5; John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, part 4; David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779); The Second Helvetic Confession, chap. 3; John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, chap. 3; Sir Thomas Browne, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, Part V, chap. XXII, #14; Edgar C. S. Gibson, Prolegomena (1894); Francis Bacon, Valerius Terminus - of the Interpretation of Nature, chap. 16.

13. John Cassian, Institutes of the Coenobia, bk VII, chap. 4

14. Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith - An Exposition Of The Westminster Confession Of Faith, chap. 2

15. cf. Gary Lloyd Gottlieb, "An English Summary of the 13 Principles of Faith" webpage; "Judaism" at the Religious Tolerance site; "What Do Jews Believe?" at the Jewish FAQ site; and Lawrence J. Epstein, The Theory and Practice of Welcoming Converts to Judaism: Jewish Universalism, Part 1 - "The Theory of Jewish Universalism". Deut. 13:5 tells us to "hold fast to God." Torah scribes asked, "How can a human being hold on to God? God is incorporeal! God is pictured as a raging fire!" The answer given is this: "We hold onto God by imitating God and God's ways." (Sotah 14a) Judaism has always recognized both the fact that God is incorporeal, and also the legitimate function of the anthropomorphic statements made about Him in Scripture.

16. Apology 4 <source>

17. Address to the Greeks 4 <source> Dr. G.L. Prestige, patristics scholar & author, considers Tatian's view of God to be the representative view of the Fathers (cf. James White, "Did the Early Church Believe in the LDS Doctrine of God?")

18. Supplication for the Christians 4 <source> and 10 <source>

19. To Autolycus 1:3 and 2:3 <source>

20. Against Heresies 2:13:3 <source>

21. On Providence (extant fragment) <source>

22. ibid. <source>

23. Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 <source>

24. The Trinity 31 <source>

25. Catechetical Lectures 6:11 <source>

26. The Holy Spirit 35 <source>

27. Commentary on the Psalms 129[130]:3 <source> Hilary further comments in another place: "He is always beyond location, because He is not contained; always before the ages, because time comes from Him....God, however, is present everywhere; and everywhere He is totally present ... God is invisible, unutterable, and infinite." (On the Trinity 2:6 <source>).

28. The Faith 1:16:106 <source>

29. Oration XXVIII. - The Second Theological Oration, IX. <source>

30. Against All Heresies 70:5 <source>

31. Lectures on the Gospel of John, Tractate 96 <source>

32. Commentary on the Psalms 11[12]:3 <source>

33. Man as God's Creation <source>

34. The Westminster Confession, chap. 2 - "Of God, and of the Holy Trinity"

35. Augustine, A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin, bk II

36. The Catholic Encyclopedia, under "Tertullian."

37. Edgar C. S. Gibson, Prolegomena (1894); See also Graham E. Gould, "The Image of God and the Anthropomorphite Controversy in Fourth Century Monasticism," Origeniana Quinta, ed. R.J. Daly (Louvain, 1992): 549-557; and The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Anthropomorphism, Anthropomorphites".

38. cf. The Catholic Encyclopedia, under "Cordova," "Malaga," and "Spain."

39. Hughes, Philip, The True Image (Eerdmans, 1989), p. 12. Also: Hughes, Philip, "The Jewish Cabala and the Secret Names of God" in Philosophia Reformata (Kampen, 1956), p. 86.

40. As stated in Doctrines & Covenants 130:22. See also 88:12-13. Doctrines & Covenants is one of three books written by Joseph Smith and accepted by the LDS as "inspired Scripture," the other two being The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price. Concerning these other two books of "scripture," apologist Francis J. Beckwith has written, "the Book of Mormon (first published in 1830) seems to teach a strongly Judaic monotheism with modalistic (God is only one person manifesting in three modes) overtones (see Alma 11:26-31, 38; Moroni 8:18; Mosiah 3:5-8; 7:27; 15:1-5), while the equally authoritative Pearl of Great Price (first published in 1851) clearly teaches that more than one God exists (see Abraham 4-5). This is why a number of Mormon scholars have argued that their theology evolved from a traditional monotheism to a uniquely American polytheism. (10) <FOOTNOTE #10: James B. Allen, "Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought," Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980):43-61; Thomas G. Alexander, "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progression Theology," Sunstone 5 (July/August 1980):32-39; Boyd Kirkland, "The Development of the Mormon Doctrine of God," in Bergera, 35-52.>" (from Beckwith's article "Philosophical Problems with the Mormon Concept of God," Christian Research Journal, Spring, 1992, Page 24). It is a fact that Joseph Smith originally described the Father as a "personage of spirit," and even contrasted Him with the Incarnate Christ, Whom he described as "flesh." This was stated by Smith in 1835 in Lectures on Faith, Lecture Fifth, p. 53; originally, these lectures were included in Doctrines & Covenants when the book was first published in 1835. However, this portion was deleted in 1921, as the statement began to cause problems for Mormonism's doctrine of a "corporeal God." <see Mormon Claims Answered, chap. 2 - God>

41. Pearl of Great Price, J. S. History 1:16-17

42. e.g., Kerry A. Shirts ("Mormonism Researched"), Gary James Bergera (Line Upon Line: Essays in Mormon Doctrine), Sterling M. McMurrin (various publications), FARMS, and others.

43. The New Covenant Church of God is a body of ex-mormons who want to attain fellowship among Evangelicals. In my own judgment, they are to be commended for their search for truth, and for their astounding progress toward orthodoxy. However, having stated this, it is also true that they unfortunately yet cling to certain LDS distinctives - one of these being the corporeality of God.

44. The NCCG has seemingly rejected the temple rites, the idea of the deification of man, salvation by works, and the revelations of Joseph Smith in particular. They are also very close to an orthodox Trinitarian theology, having rejected Mormon polytheism. However, the three "Mormon distinctives" still embraced are an open canon of Scripture (though they seem to hold to a 'lesser inspiration' kind of idea), polygamy, and a corporeal view of God (see "Is God a Spirit?" for their teaching).

45. cf. Lance S. Owens, Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection; Lance S. Owens, Joseph Smith: America's Hermetic Prophet; Eugene Seaich, Kabbalah & Joseph Smith: Ideas and Notes; D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987); John L. Brooke, The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994). It seems that many Mormons have no problem with the Smith-Kabbalah connection, based on the above LDS sources. However, there is certainly some disagreement - see the Mormon article, "'Everything Is Everything': Was Joseph Smith Influenced by Kabbalah?"

46. The Dake's Annotated Reference Bible contains perhaps more notations and commentary than the Bible text itself, and represents an extreme literalist hermaneutic, even by dispensationalist standards. According to the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, "(Dake's) ‘notes’ became the ‘bread and butter’ of many prominent preachers and the ‘staple’ of Pentecostal congregations." More than 30,000 of these reference Bibles continue to be sold each year.

47. The quotes from Dake are from Dake's Annotated Reference Bible and God's Plan for Man, as quoted in Jeff Spencer's excellent online article, "The Jesus of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible." See also: "The Pentecostal Study Bible — Dangers of the Dake Bible" in The Quarterly Journal, Personal Freedom Outreach, Vol. 12, #4.

48. The heresy of tritheism sets forth a belief in three separate gods in place of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. It often occurs in among believers when the distinction between the three "persons" of the Trinity are overstated and overemphasized. One who sets forth a corporeal God cannot help but be a tritheist, as demonstrated by the modern examples cited. cf. Michael Bremmer, "The Trinity" for a brief explanation and contrast.

49. It should be noted, however, that the classic Pentecostal denominations such as the Assemblies of God have rejected these concepts and have done an excellent job of preserving orthodoxy within their ranks - at least officially.

50. cf. Christianity Today, Oct. 5, 1992, "Benny Hinn's Duplicity." When asked by Hanegraff about his statement that "the Holy Spirit was at that moment teaching him that God originally designed women to give birth out of their sides," Hinn hedged about with denials that he had ever made such a statement. When Hanegraaff persisted with documentation, Hinn finally admitted making the statement. At this point, "when (Hanegraaff) reminded Hinn that he had credited the Holy Spirit with the teaching, the evangelist chuckled and said he had actually picked up the teaching from the (1963) Dake's Annotated Reference Bible."

51. Benny Hinn, Good Morning, Holy Spirit (Thomas Nelson, 1990 - first edition), p. 82.

52. Benny Hinn, Good Morning, Holy Spirit (Thomas Nelson, 1990 - revised edition), p. 84. See Robert M. Bowman, Jr. and Paul Carden, Book Review column from the Christian Research Journal, Spring 1991, p. 36.

53. cf. "Unbiblical Doctrines, Teachings and Phenomena of the Third Wave Counterfeit Revival Movement";

54. e.g., Ryan Hicks Ministries. Mr. Hicks follows Dake's error in many areas, including the idea that each "member" of the Trinity has "a body." Ironically, Hicks continually trashes the many Word of Faith teachers that most consistently and completely carry on Dake's heterodox theology! Mr. Hicks was furious when he read this article refuting his views, and has actually sent the author e-mails stating clearly that I am "unsaved" and "going to hell" and so forth. He claims to have reached his own conclusions apart from Dake, though Dake is splattered all over his website. I have attempted to dialogue with Mr. Hicks on these issues, but have received only sarcastic and judgmental rhetoric. He has written an article (in "response" to this one, I assume) called "Scriptures Teaching That God Can And Has Been Seen By Men." In the article, he basically restates the literalistic misinterpretations refuted above. He attempts to deal with John 1:18 by claiming that the word "see" means "to understand." However, this is a makeshift intepretation designed to preserve Hicks' pet doctrine - the ancient heresy of the anthropomorphites. The verse is clear; no one has seen God - ever. Rather, this is the very reason that Christ came - to make God "visible" by revealing God in human flesh. Hicks' definition is also strange when we consider the vast number of saints before Christ which apparently - according to Hicks - did not "understand" God! Likewise, Hicks attempts to navigate through the troubled waters of 1 Timothy 6:16 by saying that God "cannot be seen" only as long as He dwells within the "light which no man can approach unto" (i.e., His "glory"). The first problem with this is exegetical - Paul is making some general statements about God: 1) God "only has immortality"; 2) "dwelling in unapproachable light"; 3) "Whom no man has seen, nor can see." Now, God does not possess exclusive immortality only in this "light," does He? Of course not! Paul is making three general statements about God. These statements are independent, and cannot be shown grammatically to depend on one another, as Hick wants us to believe. Second, note that Hicks' objection here stands or falls with his anthropomorphite view! He is engaging in circular reasoning by assuming a specific locality for God. Yet Scripture teaches that God exists in omnipresence - i.e., He always dwells "in unapproachable light"; God cannot be separated from His glory (see above)! Hicks writes, "Moses asked to see this glory and was refused because no one can see the Lord's face in His glory and live (Exodus 33:18-23). Outside of this glory Moses did see God's face (Exodus 33:11)." Very true, because to "see" God apart from His glory is to see Him in manifestation and not literally as He is by nature. I would urge all of my readers to read Hicks' article carefully, and note that he ignores the vast majority of this article. Note also his link to Dake material, which certainly seems to demonstrate the Dake-Hicks connection quite clearly.

55. Thomas Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, bk. 1, chap. 20 - "That God is Incorporeal"

56. Sir Thomas Browne, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, Part V, chap. XXII, footnote #27.