And I, John, bear
record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt
in the flesh, and dwelt among us. And I, John, saw that he received not of the
fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the
fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a
fulness; (D&C 93:11-13)
Commenting on the Christology of this
pericope, Nicholas J. Frederick noted:
First, readers learn
that Jesus has not always possessed fullness. According to verse 12, Jesus didn’t
have the fullness “at the first,” and this lack of fullness is mentioned again
in verse 13. It is unclear if “first” refers to the premortal Jesus, the
creator and sustainer of the universe, or the mortal Jesus who “came and dwelt
in the flesh.” Based upon the placement of these verses, it seems likely, based
upon the duplication of “at [the] first,” that John wants to emphasize that
this ante-fullness was merely temporary—only at the beginning of his time on
earth did Jesus lack fullness.
The process between
Jesus lacking and securing fullness can be seen in two key phrases from verses
12 and 13: “grace for grace” and “grace to grace.” The first, “grace
for grace,” is also present in the Gospel of John, where its meaning is
debated. Is John saying that (some) grace is given in addition to (other) grace—that
is, blessings follow one after the other—or is he saying that grace is given
(by God) as a reward for the grace shown (by his children) (See discussion in
Carson, Gospel according to John, 131-34)? Some modern translations
(NIV, NRSV) follow the former, interpreting the expression as a demonstration
of how God compounds his blessings. But this makes little sense in the context
of Doctrine and Covenants 93, which is about the process by which Jesus
receives fullness. If we look at how the Book of Mormon uses this particular
phrase—and others like it—we see that the latter interpretation has precedent
for restored scripture: “And may God grant, in his great fulness, that men
might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored
unto grace for grace, according to their works” (Helaman 12:24).
This language suggests
something of an exchange of grace. As we repent and perform good works, we
receive grace in exchange for our acts of grace. The use of restored links
this verse with Alma’s discourse to Corianton, in which he teaches a similar
idea: “O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration
is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for
devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous;
just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful” (Alma 41:13).
If this idea of restoration
is used as a lens, Doctrine and Covenants 93:12 seems to state that Jesus
attained a fullness by receiving blessings from the Father as he himself did
what the Father asked—grace was granted to him in exchange for his grace. While
this notion of exchange is foreign to the Gospel of John, it fits nicely with
the overall trajectory of Doctrine and Covenants 93” (“The idea of grace being ‘in
return for’ something else, a kind of quid pro quo, is alien to the New
Testament in general and to John in particular.” Carson, Gospel according to
John, 131).
The second phrase, “grace to grace,” is a little more complicated. This phrase appears nowhere in the Bible or in Restoration scripture outside of Doctrine and Covenants 93:13 (Grace to grace does appear in the writings of Methodist founder John Wesley in the context of sanctification: “From the time of our being born again, the gradual work of sanctification takes place . . . We go on from grace to grace.” The Works of the Rev. John Wesley [London: John Mason, 1829], 6:46). The similarity between “grace for grace” and “grace to grace” suggest that John views them both as acting somehow in tandem, with the shift in prepositions from for to to being the key in how they act differently. Rather than an exchange, as suggested by for, to may suggest a progression of sorts—that is, the idea that Jesus advanced from one stage to another while in mortality. This is the view taken by Stephen E. Robinson, who argues that “the key to this verse is the word to, indicating that here are levels of grace, or degrees to which one may enjoy the grace of God and act graciously toward others. Thus, from birth on, we move forward in a process of learning and responding to God’s grace” (Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004], 3:183). Both verse 12 and verse 13 thus portray Jesus as progressing. In verse 12, this progress is shown by way of individual moments of exchange between Jesus’s righteous actions and the Father’s subsequent blessings. In verse 13, however, this progress is narrated with wider scope, emphasizing the resulting movement as each divine exchange advanced Jesus to a new level of grace. Thus, taken together, verses 12 and 13 narrate Jesus’s development to the point where he was ready to receive the fullness of the Father. Indeed, according to the revelation, Jesus’s sonship is a direct result of this developmental process: “and thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not the fulness at first” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:14; emphasis added). In the process, section 93 has shifted subtly from an incarnation Christology to an exaltation Christology (Some have seen in these verses in Doctrine and Covenants 93 evidence that Latter-day Saints embrace Arian ideas when it comes to the person and nature of Jesus Christ. For a response, see Brian D. Birch, “Mormonism and the Heresies,” in Let Us Reason Together: Essays in Honor of the Life and Work of Robert L. Millet, ed. J. Spencer Fluhman and Brent L. Top [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016], 249-63). (Nicholas J. Frederick, “Incarnation, Exaltation, and Christological Tension in Doctrine and Covenants 93:1-20,” in Rachel Cope, Carter Charles, and Jordan T. Watkins, eds., How and What You Worship: Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith—The 49th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium [Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020], 11-41, here, pp. 28-30, emphasis in original; for a refutation of Latter-day Saint Christology being "Arian" see Is Latter-day Saint Christology "Arian"?)
