Nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh

[Bernard Gui]

Quote

Alma 7: 12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

I’ve always thought that Alma’s interjection in verse 13 -now the Spirit knoweth all things- is unnecessary in this exposition on the Atonement. Why is it here?

As I read this again today, I thought more about the next word nevertheless. It seems to me that Alma is asking why God, who knows all things, wouldn’t already know how to succor his people. How could he not know this?

I have also had this question. Why did Jesus have to experience suffering according to the flesh when He knows all things. Is he learning something new? 

It occurs to me that Alma can’t answer the question because he follows it with the word nevertheless, repeats his assertions, and bears his testimony that these things are true…even if he doesn’t know how it all works. Yes, Jesus knows all things, but for some reason he must have this experience in order to complete the Atonement. 

Any thoughts?

Edited April 3, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Hamilton Porter]

One evangelical scholar (one of those more educated ones), Craig Blomberg, said that although Christ was omniscient he still needed experiential knowledge through the incarnation. There are things you cannot know without experience.

The passage would make more sense if 13 and 12 were reversed. The original author probably scrambled the two.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve always thought that Alma’s interjection in verse 13 -now the Spirit knoweth all things- is unnecessary in this exposition on the Atonement. Why is it here?

As I read this again today, I thought more about the next word nevertheless. It seems to me that Alma is asking why God, who knows all things, wouldn’t already know how to succor his people. How could he not know this?

I have also had this question. Why did Jesus have to experience suffering according to the flesh when He knows all things. Is he learning something new? 

It occurs to me that Alma can’t answer the question because he follows it with the word nevertheless, repeats his assertions, and bears his testimony that these things are true…even if he doesn’t know how it all works. Yes, Jesus knows all things, but for some reason he must have this experience in order to complete the Atonement. 

Any thoughts?

I think it is because the Sprit knows all things, but the Spirit clothed in the veil of flesh does not, until He learns them in the flesh, or mortality. Then He brings this all back with Him in the resurrection. I am reminded of Elder Corbitt's talk yesterday (why did God have to die?). I was reading Matthew 26:54 this morning ("thus ii must be") and it reminds me that Jesus, though God, had to die as part of descending below all things and then overcome and conquer them. Also, His mission as Exemplar was to demonstrate the extent of His Father's commandments and the absolute extent to which we must keep them, no matter how difficult.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why did Jesus have to experience suffering according to the flesh when He knows all things. Is he learning something new? 

Do you think there's a difference between knowing that you'll be burned if you touch a hot stove versus having touched (even accidentally) a hot stove?  I think it's obvious that there is a difference between the intellectual knowledge that it's not good to touch hot stoves versus the experiential knowledge you've received after touching the stove as well as experiencing the healing process.  I think too that one who has been burned developes empathy for those who experience the same. 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think that you have all of the important parts - the issue is to understand this as a dialogue.

Alma has been teaching the bit in verse 12 to the people at Gideon. The part that you bold is important in that it suggests that there was something necessary to the process of salvation that is learned by Jesus during His mortality that allows Him to relate to the mortal condition experienced by all of humanity. The people at Gideon responded to this (this is the missing dialogue) by arguing that it shouldn't be necessary if the Spirit (and by extension Jesus) already knows all things. And Alma responds to this argument - first by recognizing that it is there, and then by suggesting that even if this is true, and that Jesus didn't need to learn how to succor His people through His mortal experience, it was still necessary for Jesus to experience mortality and "suffer according to the flesh" in order for salvation to occur - and for Jesus to be able to "blot out" the transgressions of humanity.

So you ask:

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why did Jesus have to experience suffering according to the flesh when He knows all things. Is he learning something new?

Alma comes back to this question more than once in the text - which means, I think, that he too does not think that his answer is really satisfactory here. We see it in Alma 12-13 and we see it again in Alma 34. I think that Alma ends up believing that Jesus would learn through his suffering the need for and the place of mercy (see Alma 34:14-16) - it is this mercy that is the blotting out of sin.

Mormonism's teachings aren't entirely consistent on this issue - but, I would suggest that when Jesus experiences the sins of mankind, it puts Him in a position to be able to extend either mercy or judgment as the circumstances warrant - and makes Him immune to the argument that Jesus couldn't understand the suffering that an individual went through or the question of whether or not that individual was 'tempted above that which [he] can bear' (see Alma 13:28). Or to put it in terms of 2 Nephi 2, it allows Jesus to make an undisputed claim of when a person was acting or being acted upon. It is also important to recognize that the Book of Mormon has at least a limited perspective on the two natures of Jesus - His divinity and His humanity, and makes the argument that it was necessary that it was the human nature that suffered, since such suffering would likely be irrelevant to the divine nature. Further, the suffering had to be complete - as we see in Mosiah 3:7 - "And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death...". This adds weight to the idea that Jesus learns something through his mortal and human experience of suffering - and that this experience (this knowledge) is relevant to His role as the mediator of mankind before the Father.

[CV75]

It is also interesting to me that Alma calls Jehovah both "the Spirit" and "the Son of God" -- this in a way tells me that the difference between our spirit and our soul is very significant, to the point of becoming new beings as we progress from estate to estate (the same as when we enter the resurrected estate). We don't forget who we are or our origins, but we do become new creatures.

Edited April 3, 2023 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

54 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

One evangelical scholar (one of those more educated ones), Craig Blomberg, said that although Christ was omniscient he still needed experiential knowledge through the incarnation. There are things you cannot know without experience.

The passage would make more sense if 13 and 12 were reversed. The original author probably scrambled the two.

Thanks. Is Blomberg saying God may be omniscient but he does not have all kinds of knowledge? That experiential knowledge is of a nature that cannot be transmitted from the Father to the Son? Where else might he be lacking? The experience of death, for one, maybe. Perhaps having this experience was the final step in Jesus becoming fully God?

Some say God the Father was a Savior in another creation, which is why Jesus said in John 5:19,

Quote

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.

It still appears to me that Alma is saying he can’t explain it.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it is because the Sprit knows all things, but the Spirit clothed in the veil of flesh does not, until He learns them in the flesh, or mortality. Then He brings this all back with Him in the resurrection. I am reminded of Elder Corbitt's talk yesterday (why did God have to die?). I was reading Matthew 26:54 this morning ("thus ii must be") and it reminds me that Jesus, though God, had to die as part of descending below all things and then overcome and conquer them. Also, His mission as Exemplar was to demonstrate the extent of His Father's commandments and the absolute extent to which we must keep them, no matter how difficult.

See my response to Hamilton Porter. What do you think?

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you think there's a difference between knowing that you'll be burned if you touch a hot stove versus having touched (even accidentally) a hot stove?  I think it's obvious that there is a difference between the intellectual knowledge that it's not good to touch hot stoves versus the experiential knowledge you've received after touching the stove as well as experiencing the healing process.  I think too that one who has been burned developes empathy for those who experience the same. 

Yes, for us mortals. For me me that raises the question of whether God’s omniscience has experiential limits. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

See my response to Hamilton Porter. What do you think?

I think experiential.knowledge cannot be transmitted because it requires individual, personal agency in the respective estate to obtain or realize it.

I take omnisciene to mean God knows everything as far as I am concerned, certainly relative to me. I take His foreknowledge to be a form of faith, and He exercises all faith relative to what I can muster.

I think we are all saviors when we follow our Savior (e.g., saviors on Mt.Zion). Jesus does what His Father does by choosing rightly, by having divine investiture of authority, being One with Him, etc.

[Bernard Gui]

40 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

 

I think that you have all of the important parts - the issue is to understand this as a dialogue.

Alma has been teaching the bit in verse 12 to the people at Gideon. The part that you bold is important in that it suggests that there was something necessary to the process of salvation that is learned by Jesus during His mortality that allows Him to relate to the mortal condition experienced by all of humanity. The people at Gideon responded to this (this is the missing dialogue) by arguing that it shouldn't be necessary if the Spirit (and by extension Jesus) already knows all things. And Alma responds to this argument - first by recognizing that it is there, and then by suggesting that even if this is true, and that Jesus didn't need to learn how to succor His people through His mortal experience, it was still necessary for Jesus to experience mortality and "suffer according to the flesh" in order for salvation to occur - and for Jesus to be able to "blot out" the transgressions of humanity.

 

Yes, it could be part of a dialogue. 

While some blessed individuals who have seen beyond the veil comprehend the Atonement while still on the earth, most of us will not until the next life, even though we receive its benefits here.The actual workings of Atonement remain a mystery to us which we probably will not understand until the veil is removed.

Quote

 

Alma comes back to this question more than once in the text - which means, I think, that he too does not think that his answer is really satisfactory here. We see it in Alma 12-13 and we see it again in Alma 34. I think that Alma ends up believing that Jesus would learn through his suffering the need for and the place of mercy (see Alma 34:14-16) - it is this mercy that is the blotting out of sin.

 

The great Plan laid out before the foundation of the world provided for this suffering (justice) and mercy (forgiveness). Since Jesus asked for and received the Father’s approval to be the mediator, he must have had knowledge of how it would play out; nevertheless, it was necessary for him to go through this “to fulfill all righteousness,” just as he had to be baptized for the same reason.
 

Quote

Mormonism's teachings aren't entirely consistent on this issue - but, I would suggest that when Jesus experiences the sins of mankind, it puts Him in a position to be able to extend either mercy or judgment as the circumstances warrant - and makes Him immune to the argument that Jesus couldn't understand the suffering that an individual went through or the question of whether or not that individual was 'tempted above that which [he] can bear' (see Alma 13:28). Or to put it in terms of 2 Nephi 2, it allows Jesus to make an undisputed claim of when a person was acting or being acted upon.

Perhaps this mortal experience is the final step in becoming completely at-one with the Father and with us. He has seen all the Father does, but he must take this mortal course himself.

Quote

It is also important to recognize that the Book of Mormon has at least a limited perspective on the two natures of Jesus - His divinity and His humanity, and makes the argument that it was necessary that it was the human nature that suffered, since such suffering would likely be irrelevant to the divine nature. Further, the suffering had to be complete - as we see in Mosiah 3:7 - "And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death...". This adds weight to the idea that Jesus learns something through his mortal and human experience of suffering - and that this experience (this knowledge) is relevant to His role as the mediator of mankind before the Father.

Yes, it leaves no doubt of his qualifications and competence to be the Mediator. No one can claim to be excused because “he couldn’t possibly know because he never felt it.” There must be some reason the the Father cannot impart this knowledge upon the Son.  I think that is what Alma could not explain.

Today Sister Gui observed that it is so curiously comforting when we are having a hard time and someone says to us, “I understand because that happened to me too.” To have someone who can say, “I have done all that and so much more that you cannot even imagine, and I did it for you,” should be of supreme comfort to us.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think experiential.knowledge cannot be transmitted because it requires individual, personal agency in the respective estate to obtain or realize it.

I take omnisciene to mean God knows everything as far as I am concerned, certainly relative to me. I take His foreknowledge to be a form of faith, and He exercises all faith relative to what I can muster.

I think we are all saviors when we follow our Savior (e.g., saviors on Mt.Zion). Jesus does what His Father does by choosing rightly, by having divine investiture of authority, being One with Him, etc.

Thank you. This is why “there is no other way.”

I believe the brother of Jared, Abraham, Moses, Enoch, Joseph Smith and perhaps Enos, perhaps Alma later in life, and a few others were given revealed knowledge of how this is worked out on the universal and individual scales. I’m still at the nevertheless stage…it’s true but I don’t comprehend all that it entails.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, for us mortals. For me me that raises the question of whether God’s omniscience has experiential limits. 

I'm not sure why the same process of learning by experience wouldn't apply to God.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, for us mortals. For me me that raises the question of whether God’s omniscience has experiential limits. 

You don’t know what it is like to ride the explosion of a supernova on a spaceboard until you are actually there doing it.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you. This is why “there is no other way.”

I believe the brother of Jared, Abraham, Moses, Enoch, Joseph Smith and perhaps Enos, perhaps Alma later in life, and a few others were given revealed knowledge of how this is worked out on the universal and individual scales. I’m still at the nevertheless stage…it’s true but I don’t comprehend all that it entails.

Thankfully we understand enough to exercise faith as evidenced by progress in spiritual stature from one year to the next. 

In terms of having to die, I think Moses 6: 56 - 63 was taught premortally, so the elements of water and blood were things in that spirts could comprehend, at least at the level of faith and hope if not at the level of knowledge. Water and blood symbolize many things but are also tangible contributors to mortal birth and death respectively (the spirt constituting the ever-present life or intelligence in terms of both mortal and immortal life, or physical and spiritual life, or temporal and eternal life). The soul no longer surrounded by water means you were born. The soul surrounding blood means you're going to die. Sometimes both happen at once. Perhaps Ether 3:14 was more of a reminder to the brother of Jared than something the brother of Jared had not seen (by faith) or known (by precept) in the previous, pre-mortal estate, where flesh and blood (death) were comprehended but not yet actualized. The Spirit Jesus seemed to comprehend these principles so fully that He, in relation to the brother of Jared, could display His body (to the brother of Jarred, a lesser intelligence) as actualized flesh and blood.

Edited April 3, 2023 by CV75

[Pyreaux]

Yes, there are things Jesus didn't know, He "grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).

Edited April 3, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

think experiential.knowledge cannot be transmitted because it requires individual, personal agency in the respective estate to obtain or realize it.

 

Nvm my original comment if you saw it…I just realized what you meant…very good point.   You can’t experience another’s life fully vicariously if you lack their agency to make choices, but are just along for the ride. You can experience agency by only living your own life. 
 

So what does that mean for those who are not accountable before death?

Edited April 4, 2023 by Calm

[Hamilton Porter]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Is Blomberg saying God may be omniscient but he does not have all kinds of knowledge? That experiential knowledge is of a nature that cannot be transmitted from the Father to the Son? Where else might he be lacking? The experience of death, for one, maybe. Perhaps having this experience was the final step in Jesus becoming fully God?

I'll find the exact quote and context for you. It's been a while since I've read it, but I still have the book.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Nvm my original comment if you saw it…I just realized what you meant…very good point.   You can’t experience another’s life fully vicariously if you lack their agency to make choices, but are just along for the ride. You can experience agency by only living your own life. 
 

So what does that mean for those who are not accountable before death?

I think we had moral agency in the premortal life suitable for the conditions there; Adam and Even had moral agency added when they were given bodies in the Garden of Eden (suitable for the conditions there), and we all carried the moral agency obtained and added in previous estates into mortality, where it is further added upon.

So, a person we deem unaccountable in this life still has eternal mortal agency and their spirits register their own experience for future processing and application in the spirit world and the resurrection. I think "unaccountable" is used broadly for determining ordinance work and membership administration, but between the person and the Lord, there may be some spirit/fundamental exercise of moral agency at some level that is imperceptible to us.

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Yes, there are things Jesus didn't know, He "grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52).

This, of course, refers to his childhood and maturing years. Alma was talking about his central roll in the Atonement

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure why the same process of learning by experience wouldn't apply to God.

The Spirit knoweth all things.  

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Spirit knoweth all things.  

Yes, but my point was that knowing something is different than having experienced something.  I know that it's bad to go to prison, I've had people tell me that, but I've never experienced it.  I can sympathize with someone who has spent time in prison, but I can't empathize with them.

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You don’t know what it is like to ride the explosion of a supernova on a spaceboard until you are actually there doing it.

What? You haven’t done that? 😳

I’ve been everywhere, man!
 

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/3/2023 at 2:13 PM, The Nehor said:

You don’t know what it is like to ride the explosion of a supernova on a spaceboard until you are actually there doing it.

Here I am on the Ring Nebula.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/3/2023 at 7:17 AM, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve always thought that Alma’s interjection in verse 13 -now the Spirit knoweth all things- is unnecessary in this exposition on the Atonement. Why is it here?

As I read this again today, I thought more about the next word nevertheless. It seems to me that Alma is asking why God, who knows all things, wouldn’t already know how to succor his people. How could he not know this?

I have also had this question. Why did Jesus have to experience suffering according to the flesh when He knows all things. Is he learning something new? 

It occurs to me that Alma can’t answer the question because he follows it with the word nevertheless, repeats his assertions, and bears his testimony that these things are true…even if he doesn’t know how it all works. Yes, Jesus knows all things, but for some reason he must have this experience in order to complete the Atonement. 

Any thoughts?

Brilliant question!

To me, it is not about HIM knowing or not knowing, it is about US  knowing what he went through FOR US.

Even if it is all a parable ( I do not believe it is) the FUNCTION of the belief itself illustrates the tremendous exalting EMPATHY we must have in order to emulate the life of Christ.

We must "give up" our lives ( in service) to others, making every sacrifice we possibly can to achieve the life course of The Ideal Human, modeled by Christ.

I believe that is the purpose FOR the belief in the atonement, based on pragmatic logic alone, but then the spirit can take that belief and confirm it- and then it takes on the character of direct spiritual confirmation and has the power to change our lives.