And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam. (2 Ne 9:21)I find this scripture interesting; particularly given the popular belief among some Christians (including some Latter-day Saints) that when we sin, we add to the pain and suffering of the Christ.
Jacob is saying that Jesus suffered the pains of all who belong to the family of Adam. Considering not everyone will repent of the sins s/he commits, one must assume that Jacob also means Jesus suffered for all sins.
In light of the recent post on the omniscience of God, and the ability for us to choose between righteousness and sin, I am left pondering how the suffering panned out. How could the Saviour suffer for our sins when they had yet to be committed and we still had the choice to avoid the sins for which He potentially suffered? Did He suffer for every possible sin? If God knows every possible decision we can make and every possible thread of our futures based on those decisions—as I asked in my previous post—perhaps then Jesus also could also suffer for every possible sin.
4 comments:
One can definitely take this verse too far as I once did. I was on my mission read unauthorized material (Doctrine of Salvation) when I came across JFSII's statement that Christ redeemed the earth along with us. I don't remember how much of what follows came from him and how much came from me, but I eventually concluded thusly:
Since Christ had to suffer the pains of everything which He redeems that means that he has suffered all the tortures which men have endured. (I had a companion who actually described the bamboo shoots under the finger nails to describe the pain of the atonement.) He also must have endured the suffering of all animals. He also must have endured the suffering of the earth, including the nuclear weapons we have detonated on it.
Wow! I concluded, Christ sure suffered a lot!
Is there anybody who actually buys this?
Suffering is only in proportion to a creatures consciousness, both pain-sensing nervous system and in terms of failed expectations. Animals don't have much in the second regard and the earth has none at all.
In this context it is appropriate to mention Clousen's view on the atonement, which I am not totally in concurrence with. He suggests that the atonement is not quid-pro-quo. It was not some much suffering for so much sin. It was infinite. So he felt that the image of "how many drops were spilt for me?" is misleading.
I personally do not think that Christ suffered as much as everybody combined. I also don't agree with the idea of infinite suffering. He really did only suffer so much for so long. I prefer to think that He suffered more than anybody else could or will.
Good point, Jeffrey.
I think it is is good that Jacob specifies that Jesus suffered for all creatures who belong to the family of Adam.
Unless one goes on to extrapolate that somehow giraffes, walruses, maggots, rocks, ferns and so forth are part of the family Adam...
I'm not sure the Saviour's suffering is quantifiable. 2 Nephi 9 and Alma 34 are emphatic that the atonement was infinite. That's usually my answer to the "we add to Christ's suffering with every sin" position: we can't add to what was, by definition, an infinite suffering:
2 Nephi 9:7 "Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement--save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption..."
Alma 34:10 "For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice." [emphasis mine]
Alma 34:12 "...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world."
Stephen Robinson does a good job of explaining this too, in Believing Christ. I'm too lazy to look up the exact reference (I know the scriptures a lot better =) but he essentially says that's why Christ remains perfect no matter how many of our sins he atones for: infinity minus anything is still infinity; a limited amount of atonement (no matter how large) might not cover it all.
To what does "infinite" refer?
I am doubtful it refers to the number of sins for which the Christ suffered. After all, if the number of mortals is finite, than so must be the number of sins those mortals committed.
Post a Comment