While some critics of Latter-day Saint theology argue that the First Vision is an impossibility, as God the Father cannot be seen, such is based on eisegesis of many texts. Indeed, the Bible, when read contextually, affirms that no one can see the fullness of God the Father’s glory and person, not that no one has “glanced” or “seen” God the Father in some limited sense (in 1 Tim 6:16, see James Stutz,
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 interprets 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.
17th-century Reformed theologian, Matthew Poole, offered the following comments on John 1:18 and the question of man "seeing" God the Father:
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 brighteness 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
