The Mortal Probation Is Necessary For Exaltation To Godhood

[cksalmon]

Luke 13:32

"And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."

The verse tells us that being perfect is much more than simply being without sin. Christ, who was sinless-was not perfected until after His resurrection.

I believe that Christ is declaring that once He is resurrected He will be completed (perfected) which the greek definition supports.

â?¦

But, is there evidence that your interpretation is more valid than mine?

â?¦

I have given you my reasoning for my interpretation using the greek. I would really appreciate your reasoning (other than opinion). Why is my interpretation less valid than yours?

...

Hi bluebellâ??

(1) This passage does not refer to the resurrection.

We can determine this from the context. Below is the passage youâ??ve cited with its surrounding verses (in two translations):

KJV

The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Nevertheless I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

ESV

At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you."

And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.

Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.'

(Note how ESV handles teleioo here. We shall return shortly to some other modern translations and their respective handling of same.)

Jesusâ?? words are in response to the Phariseesâ?? warning that Herod wanted to arrest and kill him. Jesusâ?? reply is powerfully direct. My expanded paraphrase: Tell that fox Herod that Iâ??ll be doing miracles today and tomorrow and on the third day I finish up.

In other words, Jesus wanted his hearers to know that, bluster and threaten though he may, Herod had absolutely no power to cut Jesusâ?? ministry short. While Herod might threaten death, Jesus knew that only he had the authority to lay down his life. And he would do it at the appropriate time according to his own schedule.

John Piperâ??s paraphrase is, to my mind, instructive:

Here was the lion of Judah being warned that a fox was out to get him. So he says, "Tell that fox that I have ministry to do and I have a plan. I cast out demons, I perform cures, and on the appointed dayâ??not before and not afterâ??I reach my goal." In other words, "Nobody takes my life from me. I lay it down of my own initiative."

Because the passage clearly stipulates that on days one and two of this three-day reference Jesus is alive and well and going about his ministry, we can safely conclude that the third day in question is not a reference to the resurrection. I know it is tempting to conclude that the â??third dayâ? must refer to that momentous event, if for no other reason than the fact that the resurrection is the culmination of the NT gospel narratives. Itâ??s the easiest association to make. Still, I donâ??t think one can conclude, based merely on an easy textual association, that this verse refers to the resurrection. You have drawn that conclusion without reference to the surrounding context, which tends to preclude it.

If the passage does not, in fact, refer to the resurrection, the fact that teleioo can mean â??to completeâ? is a moot point. Or, better, it has no bearing on the metaphysical change I believe you have eisegetically read into this passage.

(2) Many modern biblical scholars and translators generally agree that the literal translation â??I am being perfectedâ? (pace KJVâ??s future passive â??I shall be perfectedâ?) doesnâ??t do justice to the passageâ??s meaning in English.

Thus:

NIV

He replied, "Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.'â?

ESV

And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.â??â?

NASB

And He said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.'â?

HCSB

He said to them, "Go tell that fox, 'Look! I'm driving out demons and performing healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will complete My work.'â?

Wycliffe recognized this as well:

And he said to them, Go ye, and say to that fox, Lo! I cast out fiends, and I make perfectly healings [and I make perfectly healths], to day and to morrow, and the third day I am ended.

Why, other than easy association do you believe that this statement, in context, refers to the resurrection?

Best.

CKS

[BCSpace]

But that's contrary to the Bible which teaches the plurality of Gods.

No it's not.

The Bible teaches about the plurality of God.

No such verse or verse set. On the other hand we have verses such as Jesus himself declaring that he has a God.....

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17

And of course beside the scripture testimony there is also the testimony of the early Fathers whose doctrine is in direct opposition to any notion of a triune God.

[bluebell]

Hi bluebellâ??

(1) This passage does not refer to the resurrection.

I disagree.

And i'll explain why-

We can determine this from the context. Below is the passage youâ??ve cited with its surrounding verses (in two translations):

(Note how ESV handles teleioo here. We shall return shortly to some other modern translations and their respective handling of same.)

Jesusâ?? words are in response to the Phariseesâ?? warning that Herod wanted to arrest and kill him. Jesusâ?? reply is powerfully direct. My expanded paraphrase: Tell that fox Herod that Iâ??ll be doing miracles today and tomorrow and on the third day I finish up.

Christ's work was not complete until He was resurrected.

Therefore, it is impossible for Him to 'finish up' until His resurrection-and His resurrection was the moment when His work was completed and finished-

So, if 'perfected' here means to finish up or is in reference to the moment when His work would be done-then it must be referring to His resurrection because that is the moment His work was done. It was not done one moment sooner.

In other words, Jesus wanted his hearers to know that, bluster and threaten though he may, Herod had absolutely no power to cut Jesusâ?? ministry short. While Herod might threaten death, Jesus knew that only he had the authority to lay down his life. And he would do it at the appropriate time according to his own schedule.

As i said before, this we are in agreement on.

Because the passage clearly stipulates that on days one and two of this three-day reference Jesus is alive and well and going about his ministry, we can safely conclude that the third day in question is not a reference to the resurrection.

Since Jesus was using the words 'today' and 'tomorrow' in a symbolic sense and not literally, i see no reason to conclude that His use of the term 'the third day' cannot be symbolic of His resurrection. In fact, based on my previous statements-that conclusion seems to me to be the only plausible one.

Or is there some other event that signaled the conclusion of Christ's Mission in mortality other than the resurrection?

I know it is tempting to conclude that the â??third dayâ? must refer to that momentous event, if for no other reason than the fact that the resurrection is the culmination of the NT gospel narratives.

No, i see no reason to make that leap.

However, since the resurrection is the culmination of Christ's work or mission, then yes-it is not only tempting but the only logical conclusion to make.

Itâ??s the easiest association to make. Still, I donâ??t think one can conclude, based merely on an easy textual association, that this verse refers to the resurrection. You have drawn that conclusion without reference to the surrounding context, which tends to preclude it.

Not at all.

The surrounding text with Christ's use of symbolism to prove His point, in my view, supports my conclusion.

If the passage does not, in fact, refer to the resurrection, the fact that teleioo can mean â??to completeâ? is a moot point.

But if it DOES refer to the resurrection then the point is not moot at all-so this statement here does not aid in our discussion.

(2) Many modern biblical scholars and translators generally agree that the literal translation â??I am being perfectedâ? (pace KJVâ??s future passive â??I shall be perfectedâ?) doesnâ??t do justice to the passageâ??s meaning in English.

Of course they don't believe it is the best translation-

They are presented with options in how to interpret this verse based on the greek word used. Is it any surprise that they favor the interpretation that fits with their theology and beliefs?

It's like asking a group of protestants to interpret what 'believe' means in Romans 10:9 and then proclaiming that because they all agree their interpretation must be correct.

[moriancamur]

Some very good points here. it is difficult to reconcile without doing a bit of mental gymnastics. I would say that there are such gymnastics to do if you believe in the trinity too, which proves one thing to me. That is that we don't haave a complete understanding, but so long as we know the atonement is effective in our life it doesn't matter that much.

To answer a little

1. The Father was mortal once and possibly a Christ to His world

2. Jesus was the only begotten who was the one being who would never sin. He was God before His earthly ministry so I can see where you are coming from. He dwells in eternity and was seen by my names sake with a body before He actually received one. This was by faith and protestants say that the seeing God face to face by Moses refers to seeing Christ in the body by faith since He hadn't yet received it. Time travel? I dunno, but there has to be an explanation and we aren't privy to all answers.

3. That was answered by Brigham Young who thought Adam is the Holy Ghost who is not yet resurrected. There food for thought??????

[cksalmon]

Christ's work was not complete until He was resurrected.

Hi bluebell--

Well, at least that much is obvious to both of us.

Obviously, we disagree about the nature of that completion. I don't mind seeing this as an oblique reference to the Christ's endgame, I just don't agree that Jesus himself experienced a metaphysical transformation such that he became fully divine post resurrection. I certainly don't agree that that interpretation is warranted by this text.

Though we disagree, I would point you to Heb 2.10 and 5.9 as additional ammunition for your argument here.

Best.

CKS

[bluebell]

Hi bluebell--

Well, at least that much is obvious to both of us.

Obviously, we disagree about the nature of that completion. I don't mind seeing this as an oblique reference to the Christ's endgame, I just don't agree that Jesus himself experienced a metaphysical transformation such that he became fully divine post resurrection. I certainly don't agree that that interpretation is warranted by this text.

Though we disagree, I would point you to Heb 2.10 and 5.9 as additional ammunition for your argument here.

Best.

CKS

It's always a pleasure to be able to agree to disagree so pleasantly.

[e=mc2]

moriancumr:

1. The Father was mortal once and possibly a Christ to His world

O.K., just so we are aware of something, since I am producing a few podcasts on this subject, involving the trinitarian ideas as well, Blake Ostler agrees with this, but with this understanding.

He notes that the Eternal Father was *always* God before his own incarnation into mortality, exactly as the Son Jesus did, giving up his Godhood voluntarily (there was still an eternal Godhood in the Godhead running the universe while the Father also experienced mortality so no, the universe was not at the whims of a godless situation), and that is what Joseph Smith meant when he noted that God has not always been God. While in his own mortality, God the Father would have voluntarily given that up to experience what mortality was like. This is the meaning of the scripture that the Son can do nithing but what he has seen the Father do. This is in Ostler's very amazing text Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, Kofford books, 2006: chapter 12.

The point is that God has always been the Eternal God, but at one time gave that up (Phillippians says of the Son that he "emptied himself" of his Godhood), and therefore, ceased to be God in totality for his mortal probation. It is not that the Father was once mortal and then eventually became Divine. The scriptures don't teach that, but they say God has forever been such, and through adoption we may acquire what God has, i.e. divinity.

[Lachoneus]

O.K., just so we are aware of something, since I am producing a few podcasts on this subject, involving the trinitarian ideas as well, Blake Ostler agrees with this, but with this understanding.

He notes that the Eternal Father was *always* God before his own incarnation into mortality, exactly as the Son Jesus did, giving up his Godhood voluntarily (there was still an eternal Godhood in the Godhead running the universe while the Father also experienced mortality so no, the universe was not at the whims of a godless situation), and that is what Joseph Smith meant when he noted that God has not always been God. While in his own mortality, God the Father would have voluntarily given that up to experience what mortality was like. This is the meaning of the scripture that the Son can do nithing but what he has seen the Father do. This is in Ostler's very amazing text Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, Kofford books, 2006: chapter 12.

The point is that God has always been the Eternal God, but at one time gave that up (Phillippians says of the Son that he "emptied himself" of his Godhood), and therefore, ceased to be God in totality for his mortal probation. It is not that the Father was once mortal and then eventually became Divine. The scriptures don't teach that, but they say God has forever been such, and through adoption we may acquire what God has, i.e. divinity.

Ostler believes this, but he is wrong. Even he has cautioned against taking the John 5:19 statement too far, but without giving any idea of how to decide just how far to take it. On the other hand, Joseph Smith clearly limits his comparison between The Father and the Son to living a mortal life and resurrecting. He does not extend it to being divine prior to mortality. Ostler's interperetations of scripture and the statements of Joseph Smith to the contrary are interesting, but hardly persuasive.

[alter idem]

Cks, your suggestion that in LDS theology, the Godhead had to have mortal bodies to be perfected might point out one reason for Brigham Young's speculations in the Adam God theory.

His theory suggested that our Godhead did already have mortal bodies.

The LDS church never fully accepted that theory; after Brigham Young's death it fell out of favor and has since been discarded (even branded a heresy). Though his theory was rejected, I don't believe the idea that God had a mortal body at one time is rejected.

I think you will find that many LDS do believe that God was once a mortal, however, we don't spend much time wondering how long ago this was or other particulars. I suspect most LDS would agree that in order to get an immortal body, one must first have a mortal body.

As Charity explained, I'd say most LDS believe the Holy Ghost doesn't have a body but will get one (some LDS have other theories but they are not orthodox so those of us who espouse them don't often share our "heresies".)

[Maidservant]

(stamps on a standard heretical disclaimer)

I do not have the answer to the OP's kernal question -- whether or not mortal probation (passing through the Fall) is strictly necessary to our progression and specifically to become a God (other than to point to the canon in its entirety which seems to be a pretty loud yes). I am currently asking God this very thing. I have come at it (in my prayer to Him) at this angle: WHAT about the Fall/ mortality is necessary? So my understanding is changing at the moment or at least being elaborated upon. One personal belief which I think concurs with LDS doctrine is that a body is necessary in order to reach full potential as beings and that this does include all the persons we are nomenating God: the Father; God, the Son; and God, the Holy Ghost.

However, I think I can tighten the perspective that should (?) be assumed in which the question is being asked by pointing out several needed elements or differing elements. Some of these points have already been made very well by previous posters. (Not only do LDS persons have differing beliefs in some instances from other religions; there are also some deeper paradigms within the Restored Gospel that one must be careful to take into account when swimming in the waters of comparative religion ).

The first point I make is the use of the word 'divine'. 'Divinity' is not merely a semantic difference; it is a paradigmal difference. LDS do not use the word 'divine' or 'divinity'. Of course, if you ask one a simple question in this manner: "Is God divine?" the simple answer is "Yes." As well, it is a good word to use in poetry and hymns. But beyond that, LDS do not think in terms of divinity. It is not a definitional doctrinal crux. The word and concept that does hold the LDS paradigm of God's nature and life is exaltation, and paradigmally it does not match 'divinity'. Going along with this, determining divinity for those who go by this is a yes or no -- yes divine (God) or not divine (humans). Exaltation is, among other things, slightly more fluid, going along with the word and concept of progression.

Secondly. The Godhead is a Presidency. No more. No less. Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are presiding over this earth (and other earths and world systems). They are presiding over the work/ Their work. It is an unfolding work and it is a mortal probation work -- the Fall to Exaltation; (previous to Fall and beyond Exaltation are not offered as subject proper of The Work, although obviously God is not confined in activity to what is happening here in our week of mortal probation). The implication of this definition/ paradigm of Presidency (and as mentioned by previous posters) there is not a strict requirement as to the point in their progression the personage would need to be in to hold that office; of course, no reprobates need apply ; obviously if this is Heavenly Father's plan that he is administering and he selects His Son and he selects the Holy Ghost, one can imagine that He has selected beings who are full of light, or whatever description one wishes to offer of their Goodness and suitablity to be selected and to carry out their missions. Also, posters keep using the word 'status' which I think is a non-concept and perhaps this explanation is what they were trying to get at with the use of that word.

Thirdly. Heavenly Father's progression is considered as being complete (at least to any degree that we can ascertain or what would matter to the present); Heavenly Father is an Exalted Man; a Holy Man; a Resurrected, glorified Being; and He is the literal Father of our spirits. Jesus Christ's and the Holy Ghost's progression are considered as being tied to this earth -- meaning at least that they need bodies from this earth.

Okay . . . I took notes of what I wanted to say in purple crayon while listening to Spice Girls, so I can no longer read all of my wonderful thoughts . . . hmm . . .

Well here are a couple of other minor ones.

I wanted to ask about that Greek word "teleiovw". Is one of those components "tele" (or not?)? If so . . . doesn't "tele" mean a crossing, or a movement across distance??

Elohim is a council of Gods. I prefer to refer to the individual often meant by that word as Heavenly Father or simply Father. ( I teach my children that we (all on earth) are the race of the Gods.)

I also think that the Holy Ghost is a calling and that several have fulfilled it, allowing others to be born.

Also speaking of Steuss's remark regarding whether or not God is progressing in knowledge -- here is my personal belief (not tying it to anything LDS or doctrinal): I currently think that God is NOT progressing in knowledge . . . . but here is why: all knowledge is one (and can be folded up and unfolded; covered and uncovered). It can be opened with a key(s). God has that key. There is no knowledge that is inaccessible to him. I also would be so bold as to suggest that many (if not all!) of Heavenly Father's children (including you, Steuss) already possess that key (having received it at some point in what is termed the First Estate; or alternately, (but not my favorite) it is not as mysterious as we make it to be, and the key to all knowledge is a 101 for being an intelligence) -- so already possess the key and all knowledge and we just have a veil, right? Or, here is a thought -- maybe the Fall is that key, eh? as might be suggested in the story of Adam and Eve. Of course, with knowledge we Become and with knowledge we Create -- and the Creations are endless -- so perhaps that will tickle you, Steuss, to constantly be applying and manifesting knowledge in infinite forms?

[solomarineris]

Hi LOAP--

If my view doesn't cut "it," what view does cut "it?" (I assume "it" is "the mustard," but I could be wrong.)

And, just so as not to confuse the natives, I'm typically referred to as "CKS"; "CK," on the other hand, is some EV loser hailing from California.

I'd greatly appreciate your clearing up my confusion in this regard as you understand it.

Best.

CKS

It's not that your view "doesn't cut it!". It shouldn't.

We do have latter Day Prophets. I would suggest reading and listening their own interviews and speeches.

[Paul Ray]

No such verse or verse set. On the other hand we have verses such as Jesus himself declaring that he has a God.....

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17

And of course beside the scripture testimony there is also the testimony of the early Fathers whose doctrine is in direct opposition to any notion of a triune God.

You and I won't resolve this issue by appealling only to the scriptures.

The only way to know God is to know God, personally, just as you must get to know any other being to know them.

I believe there is only one God just as there is only one Man, and also as there is only one fish.

If a being acts like fish do and exactly like only fish do is that being fish or some other being?

I know there are many individuals who are rightfully referred to as fish, and there are many forms of fish in existence, but I say there is only one fish just as I say there is only one God, and I hope you and I will agree.

... and, of course, you are also free to disagree, if you want to.