Experience
QUESTION
Did God have to become man in order to experience everything we experience here, did he need to experience anything to gain knowledge of it?
“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;” (Hebrews 5:8)
Here's a quote "this verse is not talking about obedience of experience in the sense that he could now know what we experience", He is God, nothing is hid from him. It is foolishness to think God has to have an experience like we do before he can be aware of what it is like and can feel what we do."
What are your thoughts?
ANSWER
An interesting question that requires precise handling…
Did God have to become man in order to experience everything we experience here,
Here we must be careful with what we have under consideration. It is certain that God did have to become a man in order to experience everything we experience here AS A MAN. In other words, to actually experience a human experience firsthand, one must be in possession of humanity. It follows that apart from the incarnation of Christ, there would be no “first-hand experience” with the things of humanity.
This observation may make some bristle, likely because of our tendency to regard “first-hand experience” as a “superior experience or understanding” of some matter when compared to “second-hand experience” or “lack of direct experience.” This rule of thumb holds true in many instances, which is likely why we are inclined to it, but it is not true in every case. Someone can know that abusing drugs will wreck your life without having personally experienced that first-hand. A doctor may know the ravages of some disease without contracting it. These are temporal examples, and I’m sure that some could take issue with them, but they seem at least directionally correct in affirming that first-hand experience is not required to be well-acquainted with truth. In the case of an omniscient God, we can be certain that God has comprehensive knowledge of our suffering as humans, even to a greater degree that we claim to possess, having acquired it through first-hand experience. Nevertheless, “the word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) and “we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). These observations undermine the common objection that might be raised: “Yeah, I know that God knows, but I’ve lived it first-hand.” In the incarnation, Christ likewise lived it first-hand and this objection is laid to rest. While this demonstrates one important ramification of the incarnation of Christ, I think it is secondary to a greater truth, namely that Christ “took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” (Hebrews 2:16) Jesus Christ was made flesh so that he could be a worthy substitute and sacrifice and bear the sins of his people (Matthew 1:21).
did he need to experience anything to gain knowledge of it?
Again, we must be careful. The incarnation of Jesus Christ was necessary for him to acquire “first-hand knowledge” of human experience. But we must resist the false notion that “first-hand knowledge” is superior knowledge. I believe that Christ’s “first-hand knowledge” of human experience is a benefit of the incarnation in that it removes one of our primary objections, but more importantly it proves that Christ was a “worthy” lamb to be slain in our stead (Revelation 5:12).
“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;” (Hebrews 5:8)
Again, this is in reference to “first-hand experience” as a human, not to some increase of knowledge in the Godhead. An omniscient God cannot increase in knowledge. On the other hand, a God who enters time as a man, can acquire “first-hand experience” with human life.
As a sidebar, I suspect that this answer will trigger reactions that reveal our unnecessarily high esteem for “first-hand experience.” When considered alongside an omnipotent God, that high esteem should be reconsidered.
Here's a quote "this verse is not talking about obedience of experience in the sense that he could now know what we experience. He is God, nothing is hid from him.”
That statement is a bit clunky, but if I understand it correctly, I’m not offended by it. I take it to mean:
God knows all.
As such he knows our experience.
The incarnation was not needed to acquire this knowledge.
< I would add to that >
the incarnation was needed to EXPERIENCE this truth “first-hand”
In so doing no additional knowledge was acquired by God, only experience.
That may be tough to wrap one’s mind around. But it arises of necessity from the omniscience of God.
It is foolishness to think God has to have an experience like we do before he can be aware of what it is like and can feel what we do.
I agree. Consider this: does God know about sin? Yes. Does he know about it far more than we do? Clearly. Has he ever “experienced sin first-hand”? Nope. That observation alone should be sufficient to prove that experience is not required for comprehensive knowledge. God has no “first-hand experience” with sin, nor shall he ever, yet he knows more about it than anyone and is the only one who could deal with it unto the salvation of his people who were hopelessly trapped in it.
- Elder Daniel Samons