Q&A: The Christian Conception of God as Experiencing Suffering
The Christian Conception of God as Experiencing Suffering
Question
Hello,
I came across this in the book Kuzari, in one of the commentaries of our generation on the book, where in the introduction to the first essay he presents the Christian conception. He presents there the Christian view that God became incarnate in human form in order to identify with the suffering of human beings.
Of course, suffering in our world has a purpose, and therefore God cannot stop the suffering in the world, so all that remains for Him is to identify with those who suffer by also experiencing suffering Himself.
I wanted to ask the Rabbi: what does the Rabbi think of this conception? Does it sound reasonable?
Personally, I thought about the idea and did not find any “logical” flaw in it. Granted, it seems to me that such an idea would require broad factual support on the ground, which it does not seem to me the Christians have enough of (if any at all)… But as a theoretical conceptual idea, I did not find a flaw in it. It does sound strange, but not all that far-fetched. So I am asking you what you think about it.
Also, this does not necessarily mean that God actually became incarnate, because just as what feels through the body is the soul, so too when the body dies this does not mean that the soul also dies, but rather it may continue to exist. So one could likewise say that God is not tied to the body (is not the body), but rather became connected to a body and thereby experienced suffering. And when he died, that would mean only that his body died.
Baruch.
Answer
This is the kind of claim that claims nothing at all. I have nothing to say about it. By the same token, I could say that God stands on one leg (even though He has no leg) out of identification with demons that have no legs. Since He cannot give them legs, because otherwise they would become human beings, He prefers to identify with them. Do you see any logical flaw in that argument?
Discussion on Answer
You can’t.
What does that have to do with the claim you brought? When someone does something, he wants something from it, and it is reasonable to assume he will advance his purpose. What is illogical or arbitrary about that?
And when someone creates suffering that he cannot prevent, and therefore shows identification with his creatures, is that really so far-fetched and unreasonable?
I didn’t say it’s far-fetched. I said it may be true and it may not be, and there is no way to determine anything about it. I’m done.
And if the Rabbi were to hear of a tradition that claims this—that indeed God wanted to identify with the suffering of the people of the world—
why would he reject it? (I assume you do reject it—Christianity.)
What does it mean, a tradition that claims this? This is a conception or an interpretation, not a fact. What does that have to do with tradition?
By the way, I don’t reject things just because they are Christian.
Christians have a broad tradition from several thousand people that Jesus walked on water, along with several disciples close to him who passed on his words.
Their main claim is that Jesus is the incarnation of God, whose purpose is to experience suffering in order to identify with all the people of the world who daily experience necessary suffering that cannot be eliminated.
And we also see that many people in their time accepted the words of the disciples and regarded them as reliable.
Why does the Rabbi not accept this tradition?
Thank you very much,
but in the end, how can one evaluate the strength of arguments?
For example, in the fifth notebook the Rabbi mentions that there may be revelation because it makes sense that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world for some purpose, and it is apparently a religious one (through our free choice, something He could not do Himself). On that claim too, the Rabbi could say that it is the kind of claim that says nothing at all…