John 5.19

[diglot]

As per Calmoriah's request on another thread, here are my thoughts on John 5.19.

I have seen a few LDS point to John 5.19 as some sort of proof-text regarding the idea that God the Father once was a man who died, was resurrected, and subsequently exalted to godhood. This notion is apparently able to be derived from Jesus' statement: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing." The idea that some LDS seem to propagate (as I understand it) is that Jesus chooses to die and be resurrected because it is something he has seen the Father do.

I mentioned on that other thread that I am quite skeptical as to whether Jesus actually said this (seeing as it is found in John's Gospel, which isn't exactly the most reliable source for garnering the actual words of the historical Jesus). However, this is largely irrelevant to the interpretation of this verse, because regardless of whether the historical Jesus actually uttered these words, the author of the gospel had a literary intention in providing them. The question is, are Mormons correct in reading into this verse the idea that Jesus lets himself die and be resurrected because he saw God the Father do the same?

(16) And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. (17) But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” (18) This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (19) So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. (20) For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. (21) For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. (22) The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son. (24) Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life

This pericope deals with the accusation of Jesus breaking the Sabbath (a recurring them in the Gospel of John). Jesus is healing on the Sabbath. The Jews accuse him of breaking the Sabbath. Jesus responds with, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." This is further delineated in verse 19, "the Son can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing." What has Jesus seen the Father doing? Working on the Sabbath. Is this a reference to seeing the Father working on a Sabbath while the Father was a man before he was exalted to Godhood? No, the author's intentions are not quite so esoteric as that.

What is the meaning of the verb εργαζεται ("is working") in reference to God? There was a popular Rabbinic idea that God never ceased from working after creation, but has been actively working all this time in maintaining the cosmos. I don't think, however, that this is the Johannine understanding of the working of God. The usage of "work" in relation to God throughout the Gospel (e.g. 4.34, 6.29, 10.37-38) is identified with redemptive works. In other words, Jesus is answering their accusations against breaking the Sabbath by saying, "Hey! It isn't breaking the Sabbath to participate in the same saving works that the Father performs". Later on in the Gospel, the author has Jesus using this same logic to silence further accusations of his working on the Sabbath (in 7.22-24) - Jesus exposes the hypocrisy of their accusations of breaking the Sabbath by stating that they think it is OK to circumcise on the Sabbath, yet it is not OK for him to heal someone's entire body on the Sabbath. In other words, Jesus is stating in vv. 16-19 that his works (or healings) are in fact keeping with the true meaning/spirit of the Sabbath. This is the purpose behind the phrase, "the Son can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing". i.e., the author is providing reasoning for Jesus healing on the Sabbath, not that Jesus is about to let himself die because he saw the Father doing it.

How on earth anyone can derive from John 5.19 that the Father was once a man who died, was resurrected, and exalted to Godhood, is beyond me. That is the result of trying to find biblical verses to support one's already assumed theological beliefs. However, it is simply reading too much into the verse and shows no attempt to understand this verse in the broader context of the gospel and Johannine theology. As I said on the other thread, it is as bad as Catholic apologists who read their beliefs of the papacy back in Matthew 16.18.

Calmoriah, assuming you utilize John 5.19 in the same manner I have seen other LDS do so, how would you answer the following two questions:

(1) How can you read into this verse the idea that the Father was once a man who was exalted to godhood when vv. 19-20 are talking about what God is doing in the present tense? "...the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing."

(2) Would you also say that Jesus only ate, slept, wept, cried, excreted waste, talked, etc., because he saw the Father doing it? If not, why not? If you are going to read into this verse the idea that Jesus let himself be slaughtered because he saw the Father doing it himself (when he was a man), then why stop there? Why not take it to its logical conclusion and say that the only reason Jesus ever did anything was because he saw the Father doing it?

Edited October 26, 2011 by diglot

[Log]

And (supporting the OP) why attach that meaning to that verse, when you clearly wouldn't attach that meaning to Jesus' words in John 14:12? Will each believer perform an universal atonement, as Christ did?

Detracting from the OP, I have only ever seen one other Mormon use John 5:19 to support that erroneous reading - Blake Ostler. It doesn't appear to be a common reading.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

I don't understand your question.

[Vance]

Detracting from the OP, I have only ever seen one other Mormon use John 5:19 to support that erroneous reading - Blake Ostler. It doesn't appear to be a common reading.

As I recall, Joseph Smith used it (in the King Follet sermon, as I recall).

[Log]

As I recall, Joseph Smith used it (in the King Follet sermon, as I recall).

That's not clear to me. For reference: http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

Edited October 26, 2011 by Log

[altersteve]

That's not clear to me. For reference: http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

He didn't use John 5:19, but he expressed the same idea:

I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power." To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.

[altersteve]

(2) Would you also say that Jesus only ate, slept, wept, cried, excreted waste, talked, etc., because he saw the Father doing it? If not, why not? If you are going to read into this verse the idea that Jesus let himself be slaughtered because he saw the Father doing it himself (when he was a man), then why stop there? Why not take it to its logical conclusion and say that the only reason Jesus ever did anything was because he saw the Father doing it?

Jesus did not "let himself be slaughtered because he saw the Father doing it." He was given the power to lay down His life and take it back up again and He was given this power by His Father, who had the same power as Joseph Smith taught. Jesus did nothing and will do nothing except that which He has seen the Father do, i.e., that which His Father has given Him the power to do. Saying that Christ merely "let himself be slaughtered" completely misses the point.

[Vance]

That's not clear to me. For reference: http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

Well, here is what I was think,

. . .

God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.

. . . What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power." To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, . . .

. . .

What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before. It is plain beyond disputation.

. . .

Sounds a lot like,

Jn 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

to me.

Just saying.

[Vance]

Calmoriah, assuming you utilize John 5.19 in the same manner I have seen other LDS do so, how would you answer the following two questions:

(1) How can you read into this verse the idea that the Father was once a man who was exalted to godhood when vv. 19-20 are talking about what God is doing in the present tense? "...the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing."

I don't see the problem here.

1) Jesus' actions (doing what the Father is doing) was not yet complete, (nor will it ever be complete, because the works of the Father continue forever).

2) As I understand it, Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic (which I understand to be a form of Hebrew). And (as I understand it) Hebrew only has two tenses, the complete and the incomplete. Since Jesus' mission was not complete, there was no other choice than to represent it as incomplete.

(2) Would you also say that Jesus only ate, slept, wept, cried, excreted waste, talked, etc., because he saw the Father doing it? If not, why not? If you are going to read into this verse the idea that Jesus let himself be slaughtered because he saw the Father doing it himself (when he was a man), then why stop there? Why not take it to its logical conclusion and say that the only reason Jesus ever did anything was because he saw the Father doing it?

I don't see a problem with throwing these things in, but I don't see the value of doing so.

So, in summary, I still don't see what the problem is.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Vance

[zerinus]

As per Calmoriah's request on another thread, here are my thoughts on John 5.19.

I have seen a few LDS point to John 5.19 as some sort of proof-text regarding the idea that God the Father once was a man who died, was resurrected, and subsequently exalted to godhood. This notion is apparently able to be derived from Jesus' #39; statement: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing." The idea that some LDS seem to propagate (as I understand it) is that Jesus chooses to die and be resurrected because it is something he has seen the Father do.

I mentioned on that other thread that I am quite skeptical as to whether Jesus actually said this (seeing as it is found in John's Gospel, which isn't exactly the most reliable source for garnering the actual words of the historical Jesus). However, this is largely irrelevant to the interpretation of this verse, because regardless of whether the historical Jesus actually uttered these words, the author of the gospel had a literary intention in providing them. The question is, are Mormons correct in reading into this verse the idea that Jesus lets himself die and be resurrected because he saw God the Father do the same?

<snip.>

I do not blame you for being confused by this. That idea comes from something that Joseph Smith taught in one of his sermons, known as the King Follett discourse. It is a funeral sermon that Joseph Smith preached at the funeral of the guy by that name. Here is the quote:

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do we believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible.2 The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

* * *

How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory.

Now I agree that it is a bit unreasonable to expect a non-Mormon to accept this as doctrine; and it is not a reasoning I would employ to persuade a non-Mormon to accept LDS beliefs. It is okay for a Mormon to accept this as doctrine, because it requires a leap of faith to accept it, and a Mormon can be reasonably expected to make that leap of faith. But it is unfair to expect it from a non-Mormon; and I personally would not employ such an argument while debating with non-LDS. I would find other biblical reasonings that would better resonate with their theological background, than quoting them a difficult-to-perceive reasoning that Joseph Smith preached to his faithful followers, but which would require a leap of faith to accept by non-LDS.

Edited October 26, 2011 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

I am quite skeptical as to whether Jesus actually said this (seeing as it is found in John's Gospel, which isn't exactly the most reliable source for garnering the actual words of the historical Jesus).

You've said this before, and while I read your explanation, it seems to boil down to the fact that Luke copied Matthew and Matthew Mark, and John didn't copy any of them. Thus John has things in it that are not in the synoptic Gospels, so you (nearly) reject it.

This is outlandish. I can read the four Gospels in about an hour. They essentially cover a three-year period of a Man's life (although, to be fair, they focus on a few weeks). I won't look it up right now, but one of the four says "I wrote this so you'd get the picture. If everything He did were written down, there is no library big enough to hold the record." And that's the point: we do not have that all-inclusive record. To reject John because his Life of Jesus is not a parroting of Mark's is not justifiable.

Each Gospel was written to a different target audience. Matthew, for instance, was writing to Jews (that's why there are so many Old Testament references). John's audience was the I Saints: he wrote to reinforce their faith in Christ. He told different stories because the missionary tracts of Mark and Luke were insufficient for further study.

I attribute more weight to John than to the others, not because they were less inspired, but because John wrote to people more like me: with a testimony of the divinity of Jesus, and who are ready for more details and "meat".

Lehi

[diglot]

I do not blame you for being confused by this. That idea comes from something that Joseph Smith taught in one of his sermons, known as the King Follett discourse. It is a funeral sermon that Joseph Smith preached at the funeral of the guy by that name. Here is the quote:

Now I agree that it is a bit unreasonable to expect a non-Mormon to accept this as doctrine; and it is not a reasoning I would employ to persuade a non-Mormon to accept LDS beliefs. It is okay for a Mormon to accept this as doctrine, because it requires a leap of faith to accept it, and a Mormon can be reasonably expected to make that leap of faith. But it is unfair to expect it from a non-Mormon; and I personally would not employ such an argument while debating with non-LDS. I would find other biblical reasonings that would better resonate with their theological background, than quoting them a difficult-to-perceive reasoning that Joseph Smith preached to his faithful followers, but which would require a leap of faith to accept by non-LDS.

Thanks, that was helpful.

[diglot]

You've said this before, and while I read your explanation, it seems to boil down to the fact that Luke copied Matthew and Matthew Mark, and John didn't copy any of them. Thus John has things in it that are not in the synoptic Gospels, so you (nearly) reject it.

No that isn't quite why higher-criticism finds John to be a source whose historical value cannot be compared with that provided by the Synoptics.

I don't have time right now to lay out the case for as to why this is so, but hopefully tomorrow I can throw something together on this issue.

[Log]

Well, here is what I was think,

Sounds a lot like,

to me.

Just saying.

As I said, it is unclear to me. Would you agree that it is far from definitive?

[Log]

He didn't use John 5:19, but he expressed the same idea:

Whether he was expressing the same idea that was contained in John 5:19 is the entire point at issue, and I would say that the idea that Joseph is expressing is far beyond that expressed in John 5:19. Would you not agree?

[diglot]

So, in summary, I still don't see what the problem is.

So what in the immediate context of that verse, or the larger context of the gospel, leads you to believe that the idea of the Father once being a man can and should be read into John 5.19?

I would have to echo Log's statement above: "I would say that the idea that Joseph is expressing is far beyond that expressed in John 5:19."

[Vance]

So what in the immediate context of that verse, or the larger context of the gospel, leads you to believe that the idea of the Father once being a man can and should be read into John 5.19?

I don't need to look at the immediate context. It is right there in verse 19. I see it there because I have the LDS world view glasses on. You don't see it there because you don't. I don't have a problem with you not seeing it, it isn't like it is obvious or something.

I would have to echo Log's statement above: "I would say that the idea that Joseph is expressing is far beyond that expressed in John 5:19."

Of course it is beyond (but I think the word "far" is unwarranted). It is rather common for prophets to expound upon/expand/explain previous scripture. The NT has numerous examples of this approach.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Vance

[Storm Rider]

As per Calmoriah's request on another thread, here are my thoughts on John 5.19.

I have seen a few LDS point to John 5.19 as some sort of proof-text regarding the idea that God the Father once was a man who died, was resurrected, and subsequently exalted to godhood. This notion is apparently able to be derived from Jesus' statement: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing on his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing." The idea that some LDS seem to propagate (as I understand it) is that Jesus chooses to die and be resurrected because it is something he has seen the Father do.

Forgive me, but I got hung up on the assumption you made above. As a LDS I believe that God the Father was always God. There was never a time when he was not God. Just as Jesus was always a member of the Godhead and came to earth, it is evident IMO that the scriptures tell us that the Father did something very similar. God does not individually progress, his glory expands, but he does not progress. We progress through the Atonement of Jesus; we become one with the Father and the Son and will serve him eternally in whatever capacity they choose for us. Peace,

[Log]

God does not individually progress, his glory expands, but he does not progress.

To not be progressing is to be damned, by definition, and I doubt you'd agree God is intellectually or mentally damned.

When we have lived millions of years in the presence of God and

angels ... shall we then cease learning? no, or eternity ceases.

If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed

any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent

and reflecting mind. God himself is still increasing and progressing

in knowledge, power and dominion, and will do so world without

end. it is just so with us.

The document from whence these were gleaned is interesting. Ref: https://docs.google....C-crtbdmw&pli=1

As to how God can be progressing in knowledge, I suggest it is because intelligences have libertarian free will, and that what may be termed "complete" knowledge of the future is logically impossible. But that's probably a topic for another thread.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Log

[altersteve]

So what in the immediate context of that verse, or the larger context of the gospel, leads you to believe that the idea of the Father once being a man can and should be read into John 5.19?

I would have to echo Log's statement above: "I would say that the idea that Joseph is expressing is far beyond that expressed in John 5:19."

It's not simply the idea of the Father once being a man; it's much more than that. Once again, Christ received His power from His Father (as the New Testament explicitly tells us elsewhere), which would logically suppose that the Father had the same power, to lay down His life and take it back up again, which in turn suggests that the Father, at one point, passed through mortality (was born, died, and resurrected) and was exalted to a higher plane of existence just like His Son. This is a power which we obviously do not have, since we can only achieve this through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. But the fact is that saying simply that the Father was once a man completely misses the point: He was once a man in the same sense that the Son was once a man. That is what Joseph Smith taught, and that is what critics utterly fail to understand.

Edited October 27, 2011 by altersteve

[jo1952]

Jesus did not "let himself be slaughtered because he saw the Father doing it." He was given the power to lay down His life and take it back up again and He was given this power by His Father, who had the same power as Joseph Smith taught. Jesus did nothing and will do nothing except that which He has seen the Father do, i.e., that which His Father has given Him the power to do. Saying that Christ merely "let himself be slaughtered" completely misses the point.

I would just add that Jesus was doing the will of Father. As such, He was not letting Himself be slaughtered, He was fulfilling the Plan of Salvation. If He had not died and Atoned for our sins, it would not have been possible for us to be forgiven. The reason Jesus rebuked Peter and said, "Get thee behind me Satan" was due to the fact the Peter loved Jesus so much, that he didn't want Jesus to die. Jesus jumped on Peter because it was NECESSARY for Jesus to die; and to die innocent of the accusations made against Him.

Regards,

jo

[altersteve]

I would just add that Jesus was doing the will of Father. As such, He was not letting Himself be slaughtered, He was fulfilling the Plan of Salvation. If He had not died and Atoned for our sins, it would not have been possible for us to be forgiven. The reason Jesus rebuked Peter and said, "Get thee behind me Satan" was due to the fact the Peter loved Jesus so much, that he didn't want Jesus to die. Jesus jumped on Peter because it was NECESSARY for Jesus to die; and to die innocent of the accusations made against Him.

Regards,

jo

+1

[jo1952]

So what in the immediate context of that verse, or the larger context of the gospel, leads you to believe that the idea of the Father once being a man can and should be read into John 5.19?

I would have to echo Log's statement above: "I would say that the idea that Joseph is expressing is far beyond that expressed in John 5:19."

I do not think you can extricate everything from just this one verse. No single verse in the Bible can portray the whole picture. However, with the rest of scripture, we can look at one verse and merge all other verses with it which pertain to the subject at hand and thus glean a more complete and compatible interpretation. When Jesus tells us that He does only what He saw the Father do (and, BTW, Jesus also teaches us that He taught us only what the Father wanted Him to teach us even though Jesus admits that He knows more than He taught), it is not necessary to put this verse into a box; nor should it put into one. If everything Jesus did is what He saw the Father do, then look at Jesus' entire existence that we are aware of.....not only in His mortal time on the earth; but also with respect to the fact that Jesus is the God of Abraham AND Jesus is the one who created our world. Jesus' purpose for coming in the flesh was so that He could Atone for the sins of mankind. Since He DID Atone for our sins, it is then easy to understand that He was still doing what He had seen Father do by virture of the fact that this is something Jesus did (and He only did what He saw Father do).

Now, it is also shown in the Bible how Prophets from time to time (a great example is John the Beloved) were transported through time as we reckon it, by way of vision to the past, to the present, and into the future. In this very same way, it would have been very easy for Father to have transported Jesus into the past so that He could observe what Father had done.

I do not think it is a leap at all to interpret this verse in this way. In fact, I believe it is a more accurate interpretation to include ALL of what Jesus did----not only in His ministry as a mortal; but also as the God who created our world and was the God of Abraham, suffering death, being resurrected, etc., as things He saw Father do in other worlds.

Even if one does NOT accept this interpretation, how would it effect WHO Father is or who Jesus is to us in OUR world? Father is still the Supreme Being and will always be so, and Jesus is still our Beloved Savior and will always be so.

Regards,

jo

[diglot]

It's not simply the idea of the Father once being a man; it's much more than that. Once again, Christ received His power from His Father (as the New Testament explicitly tells us elsewhere), which would logically suppose that the Father had the same power, to lay down His life and take it back up again, which in turn suggests that the Father, at one point, passed through mortality (was born, died, and resurrected) and was exalted to a higher plane of existence just like His Son.

I don't think John is suggesting that in the slightest. It's simply reading into the text an idea that isn't present whatsoever.

I find it strange that mainstream Christians get lambasted when they read Trinitarian doctrine back into various biblical texts, but apparently it's alright for LDS to read their later theology back into a text where it simply isn't found.

[altersteve]

I don't think John is suggesting that in the slightest. It's simply reading into the text an idea that isn't present whatsoever.

I find it strange that mainstream Christians get lambasted when they read Trinitarian doctrine back into various biblical texts, but apparently it's alright for LDS to read their later theology back into a text where it simply isn't found.

CFR that the idea I've described "isn't present whatsoever." Prove it.