#65954 The perfection of Christ

[Fredjikrang]

Moderator note to add link: Question 65954

I think that the answer was well thought out, but I strongly disagree with some of the foundational statements.

Specifically, perfection of knowledge. I would argue that Christ did not have a perfect knowledge during his life. This seems pretty obvious to me if you read the New Testament. Especially in how "perfect" is at least frequently used.

For instance, let's go to Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Now, look at the footnote on the word "perfect." It says: "complete, finished, fully developed." Complete. Finished. Fully developed.

And so, using this definition of "perfect" and applying it to knowledge we would understand that in order to have a perfection of knowledge, it should be complete, finished, and fully developed. (Of course, this is just the general idea of the word in Greek, so there is some leeway as to the extent of this, but it does clarify significantly the intended meaning.) Honestly, I don't believe that during his life Jesus had a perfection of knowledge, in this sense. (See the scripture that No Dice cited, Luke 2:52.) Second of all, the discussion that No Dice pointed to in Jesus the Christ actually supports my side of the issue:"Clearly this Son of the Highest was not endowed with a fullness of knowledge, nor with a complete investiture of wisdom, from the cradle."

Another example. We hold God as a being who is Omniscient. This means, "all knowing," or, to rephrase slightly, "having a complete, finished and fully developed knowledge" or a "perfect knowledge." I believe that this applies to everything. (For an interesting comparison, read Alma 32: 34-36 which explains the difference between having a perfect knowledge of something, and having a perfect knowledge, which I feel refutes rather soundly No Dice's definition.)

I also do not agree with how No Dice used the quote from Elder Uchtdorf. I completely agree that Jesus was, is and forever will be our perfect example, as Jehovah as much as as Jesus. But I don't think that Elder Uchtdorf was saying in anyway that Jesus had, for example, a perfection of knowledge.

I strongly believe that Jesus Christ was perfect in that he was completely obedient to his father. I strongly believe that he was perfectly pure before God, free from all and any sin. I know that there is no more perfect example for us in our lives than the one that he gave us.

So basically, I disagree with No Dice's definition of "Perfection of Knowledge." He may have a point on the perfection of the Savior's physicality, I'll have to think about it a bit more.

What do you all think?

[No Dice]

Fredjikrang,

Happy to see discussion on this start. I think you take good exceptions to my answer, and I'll answer them in order.

I think your adopting of "the actual meaning of the Greek word traditionally translated as 'perfect'" as your operational definition of "perfect" is a little strange, but it's a good place to start. What I guess is wanting here is an instance in the New Testament where Christ's knowledge is shown to be anything less of "complete, finished, fully developed." I suppose the point I was trying to make here is that Christ was never asked anything he didn't know the answer to. He never needed knowledge he didn't have. Did Christ, in 33 A.D., know the score of today's Jets-Giants game? No, of course not. Does that mean his knowledge was imperfect? Was it less than complete, unfinished, less than fully developed? I don't see how having the compendium of every fact ever in your head is requisite for having a perfect knowledge. As I wrote in the answer, "As I see it, perfection in knowledge is having a perfect understanding of the task at hand and how to accomplish it." You may disagree with this characterization, but I don't see how your appealing to "complete, finished, fully developed" evidences that Christ had less-than-perfect knowledge. As I note also in my answer, if Christ had imperfect knowledge at birth, but perfect at death, somewhere along the way he obtained perfect knowledge. When?

I suppose I'm just unwilling to say of the God who, at twelve, told his mother, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" that he had incomplete or only partly developed knowledge. Happy to see examples of an imperfect knowledge, though, if they are "obvious" from a reading of the New Testament.

You're right--the Talmage commentary is a counterpoint more in line with Eirene's original objection to my answer; I included it as a resource offering a slightly different perspective. At the same time, is a "fullness of knowledge" "perfect understanding" or "perfect knowledge"? Even if we accept Elder Talmage's characterization, who are we to say when the Savior obtained this knowledge?

I think your point about God (the Father) being omniscient is a good one, but we accept Jesus as being one with the Father in all meaningful characteristics (including knowledge), right? If Christ had a perfect knowledge at his fingertips only by receiving revelation from the Father, is this really any different from having a perfect knowledge outright? They are one in knowledge. Period.

I don't understand your appeal to Alma. Are you suggesting that Jesus had faith instead of a perfect knowledge? I don't think so; the word "faith" is not used in conjunction with the Savior anywhere in the Gospels (I didn't search the Book of Mormon). I don't think Jesus exercised faith in the way that we exercise it (though, semantically, he exercised it as a power of the priesthood, sure). I don't think the Son of God, one with the Father, ever had to go, "I'm exercising faith and hoping this works out." Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but I fail to see how this "soundly refutes" any part of my answer.

You can take issue with the Elder Uchtdorf quotation (it was used, as I'm sure you saw, in the context of humility). But I don't think what he meant was, "Jesus is our perfect example in all things except in knowledge when he was on the earth and didn't know everything yet." I've never heard any member of the Brethren qualify a statement on Jesus' perfection; if one has and I am unaware of it, I would be glad to be pointed to the reference.

I hope I'm not coming across as combative; I think you've taken a hard line against my answer and I'm always one for a spirited discussion. Happy to see this continue.

No Dice

[Marduk]

Yes, the answer was in many ways flat out wrong.

First, knowledge in an eternal sense IS power; one cannot be omnipotent without omniscience. So in proceeding from grace to grace as he did, he gained knowledge, which was spiritual power. In this sense yes, he lost (or rather, was veiled from) knowledge he once had in his previous state of existence. Christ, as we, must "remember" our former state and with it the knowledge, or power, we once possessed. One of the key elements in Christ's perfecting process was the atonement; his descending below all things caused him to grow in understanding and empathy for every creature in existence.

Second, no, his physical body was NOT perfect. Pain is a result of an imperfect state. Christ, as we, had to be resurrected in order to achieve a perfected physical state. Before this he suffered the pains, hungers, sadnesses, and IMPERFECTIONS that mortals are all subject to. Without this, or rather, if he had had a perfect body, the atonement would have been impossible, his immortal body preventing him from feeling the physical pains and sorrows brought by the fall. Yes, he chose to give up the ghost, his Godly parentage giving him that right, but it was through the catalyst of physical suffering instantiated though his mortal heritage that demonstrates that imperfection.

A small correction to the original question: I think No Dice was bothered by a turn of phrase he mistook in your question. He seems to have thought that you asked in which ways Christ was not perfect (a question that is perfectly legitimate for reasons I won't go into at the moment, but one which bothered No Dice) when you actually asked in what ways WAS he perfect.

Lastly, key to anyone's perfection is the ability to have eternal increase in glory and dominion. Christ did not have this capability until he completely passed from the mortal coil to a state of resurrected perfection.

As an aside, a note from the doctrine of Marduk. Christ was certainly perfect in the sense that he was without spot or blemish. In nothing did he ever sin; he was never unkind, he had no vice or avarice, he loved perfectly with the knowledge that he had at any given moment. But at any given moment that perfection was only one sin away. We are only ever as good as our last unresolved mistake. In the alternate direction, our perfection in that sense is only repentance away. One of the most critical lessons I think that Christ's life can teach us, if we let it, is that perfection is a process that is undertaken day by day, hour by hour, choice by choice. His priesthood power came from strength drawn from resistance to sin, and so does ours. In this sense, perfection of knowledge and perfection of power are processes of how we respond to the choices we make today, and the choices we made yesterday, rather than a state we will eventually obtain.

Let us not fail to fill our lamps.

[Defy V]

I don't have much to say on this, but I just wanted to add more scriptures for the discussion.

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 93, we read:

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John.

So, we don't know all the answers, but it seems pretty clear that Jesus did not know everything from the getgo. Perhaps by the time of His baptism He had perfect knowledge, but probably not before that.

[No Dice]

Thanks to Marduk and Defy V for their thoughtful responses, particularly Defy V for the passage from D&C 93, which I did not read while writing the answer.

I think it's becoming clearer that I should have been more explicit in my original answer than I was when I said, "Certainly Jesus grew in knowledge and understanding." I think the plain message of D&C 93, together with Luke 2:52 and Elder Talmage's commentary, is that the Savior did not fully understand his mission or have a full knowledge of all things at all points in his life. I try to make the case that this does not mean his knowledge is imperfect. Consider this analogy: if I am assigned, by the Lord, five good deeds to do, and I do them all, with no prior history of any deed, I am perfect--right? This is despite not having done every good deed there is, or even having done every good deed I will do in my lifetime. Similarly, despite Jesus not possessing all knowledge at birth, he possessed all requisite knowledge for any task assigned him. Elder Talmage talks about freshmen and sophomores being perfect "in their spheres," then moving on to other spheres. I think that's what I'm driving at here. Jesus' knowledge was perfect in every one of his spheres--far more perfect than we could ever be in that given sphere. Certainly looking back, his knowledge increased, but this doesn't (in my mind) necessarily mean that his knowledge was somehow imperfect or incomplete at any given point in the progression. Others seem to disagree with me, and that's fine. I agree with Marduk that any knowledge Jesus lacked was because of the veil and not some personal imperfection, of course.

I'd like to return to the discussion on Jesus' body a bit. Marduk makes the case that Jesus' body was imperfect because he suffered pain, but then notes that because of his "Godly parentage" he chose to give up the ghost. I think the follow-through to that is that, also because of his Godly parentage, Jesus chose to suffer pain and affliction whenever he did. He always could have chosen not to suffer it. His body always could have remained without pain and without death. He had all power to resist the imperfections of this world. Because he was the literal offspring of Deity, he did not have to die or suffer physical pain or hunger or sadness or imperfections. When Jesus completed the Atonement, he did not become imperfect for our sake. He, a perfect being, suffered the pains of our imperfections. Similarly, when Jesus' body suffered the pains of mortality, it was not because his body per se was somehow flawed or imperfect, but because Jesus suffered his perfect body and soul to bear the imperfections of all of us and not of him. As I mention in footnote three in my answer, it seems right to differentiate Jesus' resurrected body from his unresurrected one, but making this differentiation by calling one "perfect" and the other "imperfect" is not the correct one, because it suggests that there was something the matter with his unresurrected body. Which there only was when Jesus chose to suffer the pains of mortality. Jesus was resurrected so that we all could be resurrected, right? When Marduk says that "it was through the catalyst of physical suffering instantiated [through] his mortal heritage that demonstrates that imperfection," I assume he/she means our imperfections, and not Jesus'. Jesus didn't suffer for himself. He suffered because the law required penance for death and sin.

On the omniscience/omnipotence note: I see everyone's point, but if we are still to identify Christ and God the Father as one, then all of their attributes are shared. Perhaps the qualification on this should be, ". . . except from the ones from which Jesus was veiled for a time." I suppose that works. But, as I understand it, Jesus didn't become omniscient or omnipotent because of his life. Obviously, he possessed those attributes before his birth as Jehovah. But correct me if I'm wrong.

One quick correction to Marduk's correction: I didn't misunderstand Fredjikrang's question. I provided several examples, with links, to ways Jesus Christ is perfect, which was his question. Fun search, by the way. Lots of Primary stuff. But then I wanted to challenge the premise--if the question is, "Which things in life was Jesus perfect at?" then the premise is "Jesus was perfect at some things but not others." That's what I took issue with--the question that could be implied by the premise. Apologies if this was ever unclear.

I'm interested in additional insight into the connection Marduk establishes between righteous works and knowledge or power. Was Jesus knowledgable because he did good things, or did he do good things because he was knowledgable? I suspect the answer is, "Both," but I'm unsure how this might bear on the questions we're addressing.

I suppose what I was trying to get at with my answer was that if you handed me a pad of paper and said, "Write down all the things Jesus was perfect at," I would write down "All things." And if you asked me to write down anything in which Jesus was imperfect, I wouldn't write down anything. I really do think it's that simple, and my point in footnote 1 is just that splitting hairs over when Jesus gained some bit of knowledge won't help us, in my book, become more as he is. It seems once again that Marduk and I differ on the usefulness of these sorts of questions, but I am eager for you all's responses.

And Merry Christmas! I am waiting up because I can never ever sleep on Christmas Eve.

Cheers to all,

No Dice