In an
attempt to refute, using the Bible, the historicity of the First Vision,
Christina Darlington wrote:
[B]iblical scripture contradicts his claim to
see God when it teaches that no man has ever seen God at anytime. (Christina R.
Darlington, Misguided by Mormonism But
Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 66)
There are
many problems with this.
Firstly,
there are instances of people seeing
God (the Father) in the Bible. One prime example is that of Stephen seeing the
Father in Acts 7:55-56:
But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed
intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right
hand of God; 56 and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the
Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (NASB)
The attempts
to “answer” this passage are, frankly, pathetic, such as the phrase “right hand”
is not speaking of the spatial relationship between Jesus and the Father, but
instead is a metaphorical, similar to one claiming the vice president is the
president’s “right-hand man” (I kid you not: Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine
pulled this eisegetical stunt in their 1995 book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons, for e.g.) For an
exegesis of this passage and how it clearly teaches the Father was (1) seen and
(2) as a three-dimensional form, see:
As for John
1:18, the text is not stating that
no one has ever seen God the Father; instead, it means that no one has fully
grasped/seized him. This is not the perspective of Latter-day Saints merely,
but even Trinitarian commentators. Let us quote from a few.
In his commentary on John 1:18, Adam Clarke noted that the passage does not mean no one has ever seen God (the Father), but instead, no one has fully grasped/perceived Him:
No man hath seen God at any time - Moses and others heard his voice, and saw the cloud and the fire, which were the symbols of his presence; but such a manifestation of God as had now taken place, in the person of Jesus Christ, had never before been exhibited to the world. It is likely that the word seen, here, is put for known, as in John 3:32; 1 John 3:2, 1 John 3:6, and 3 John 1:11; and this sense the latter clause of the verse seems to require: - No man, how highly soever favored, hath fully known God, at any time, in any nation or age; the only begotten Son, (see on John 1:14; (note)), who is in the bosom of the Father, who was intimately acquainted with all the counsels of the Most High, he hath declared him, εξηγησατο, hath announced the Divine oracles unto men; for in this sense the word is used by the best Greek writers.
In a recent work by a Catholic that, in part, seeks to defend the Trinity (largely against Oneness Pentecostals), there is the following that affirms that, in some real sense, people have, and can, “see” God, albeit in a limited way (and, in this instance, within a Trinitarian framework, so of course, caveat lector):
Surely it is not possible for us to comprehend the nature of God. Consequently, the Bible speaks of our inability to “see” God (e.g., John 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16). On the other hand, some individuals are privileged to “see” God, at least in a “dark cloud” or by way of some visible appearance that God may temporarily assume, sometimes called a theophany. To complicate matters further, our heavenly hope is to “see God” (Matt. 5:8). If we seek to harmonize these various ideas, we are pushed to grant that, in some meaningful sense, humans have been given insight into God’s nature but that this insight must be qualified as far short of a full grasp of the infinite God. Our hope is that the limited knowledge we now have of God will be far surpassed in the life to come. In light of these distinctions, it is possible to say some men have “seen” (i.e., partial insight) God but, at the same time, none have “seen” (i.e., full comprehension) God. (Mark A. McNeil, All in the Name: How the Bible Led Me to Faith in the Trinity and the Catholic Church [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2018], 42-43, italics in original)
17th-century Reformed theologian, Matthew Poole, offered the following comments on John 1:18 and the question of man "seeing" God the Father:
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
No man hath seen God at any time; no man hath at any time seen the essence of God with his eyes, John iv. 24; nor with the eyes of his mind understood the whole counsel and will of God, Matt. xi. 27; Rom. xi. 34. Moses indeed saw the image and representation of God., and had a more familiar converse with God than others; upon which account he is said to have talked with God face to face; Numb. xii, 7. 8. God saith he would speak unto him mouth to mouth, even apparently; but he tells us how in the same verse, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold; and God, who had spoken to the same sense, Exod. xxxiii. 11, saith verse 20, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live. Now to whom he did not discover his face, he certainly did not discover all his secret counsels. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father; but he who is the only begotten and beloved Son, hath such an intimate communion with him in his nature, and such a free communication of all his counsels, as it may be said, he is continually in his bosom. He hath declared him; hath declared him, not only as a prophet declareth the mind and will of God, but as the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy-work, Psal. xix. 1; being the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, Heb. i.3. So as the Father can only be seen in his Son; nor is so full a revelation of the Father’s will to be expected from any, as from the Son. (Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, volume 3: The New Testament [1685; repr., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1963, 1990], 280, emphasis in bold added)
What is also interesting is that Poole speaks of man not seeing God with "the eyes of his mind"; this should remind Latter-day Saints of the use of "spiritual eyes" by some early Latter-day Saints that have been grossly misrepresented by the likes of Grant Palmer to denote a mere visionary experience; the reality is that it is used of tangible supernatural events. For more, see:
and
Such conclusions about the true meaning of John 1:18 (contra Darlington's superficial, eisgetical treatment) also fits other passages. For instance, commenting on 1 John 4:12 (“No man hath seen [θεαομαι] God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us”), Trinitarian
to behold, view attentively, contemplate, indicating the sense of a wondering regard involving a careful and deliberate vision which interpets its object. It involves more than merely seeing (Mt. 6:1; 11:7; 22:11; 23:5; Mk. 16:11, 14; Lk. 5:27; 7:24; 23:55; Jn. 1:14, 32, 38; 4:35; 6:5; 8:10; 11:45; Acts 1:11; 8:18; 21:27; 22:9; Rom. 15:24; 1 Jn. 1:1; 4:12, 14). (Spiros Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible [Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 1984, 1990], 1839)
As Latter-day Saints have not claimed to have seen God the Father in this way, this and other similar “proof-texts” critics often use against the First Vision are based on eisegesis.
As for 1 Tim 6:16, another text some critics appeal to as biblical evidence against the First Vision, see: