I was contemplating the humanity of Christ this morning and was thinking through him being perfect as a man. When we discuss or describe the perfect humanity of Christ we are making reference to his sinlessness. His perfect humanity does not include making mistakes (I would have to assume he made some mistakes growing up as a child). The one danger I suppose I can find here is that if Christ was prone to making mistakes (which I think he was) could he have made mistakes in his understanding of the Father and the kingdom of God? I think that we must allow Jesus to be fully human and this would include the possibilities of making mistakes.
I don’t believe that Jesus made any mistakes in his understanding of the kingdom of God, nor his grasp of the Father. I don’t think that is possible for a few reasons. One that has already been stated is that Christ was of a sinless nature and was not corrupt in his humanity the way the rest of us are. Second, I think that due to his divinity he was able to comprehend things that we couldn’t or possible even know. Third, he was completely filled, empowered and led by the Spirit of God. Lastly, his life was a life of discipline and obedience to the Father. I think that these factors combined made it impossible for him to be mistaken in his comprehension of the Father and the kingdom of God.
I was just going to write this in my journal and continue thinking through it, but I thought I would share and get some further input.
the archives near Emmaus 
Yes, the doctrine of the Impeccability of Christ is always the trump card, when we look at the divine-human Jesus. Note here St, Cyril’s miaphysite doctrine. Mia, means ‘one’ in oppostition to many, in opposition to division into parts, and in ethical matters to dissension: to be united most closely ‘one virtually by union’, ‘one and the same’, ‘one in respect of office and standing.’
For Cyril it is ‘one incarnate nature of God the Logos.’ And by ‘one’ he means one nature out of two natures the distinction between them is ‘in thought alone’.
Thus simply miaphysite is the doctrine that Christ has one united nature out of two: divinity and humanity. The one nature of God the incarnate Logos/Word.
“He being one Son, dual in nature, not dual in Person. Wherefore, we do confess, preaching the truth that Christ our God is perfect God and perfect Man.” Orthodoxy
Even in the midst of the creeds we must consider what it means for Christ to have human limitations. Whereas the Fourth Gospel could lead someone to see Jesus as human in a much less limiting sense in the Synoptics we have statements about Jesus growing in wisdom and knowledge and even not knowing the time of the Second Coming. While I don’t know if this should lead us to leap to the possibility that Jesus made any significant mistakes it does seem to suggest there were times prior to the resurrection where he could not speak to issues, or at least fully speak to them, because the Father had not revealed the truth via the Spirit as of yet.
Any kenosis of Christ must always be seen as conscious act of Christ’s divine action itself. God can never be not God, even as incarnate. So if Christ did not “know” something, it was in the act of divine-human consciousness, or simply humility, etc.
Robert,
Can you clarify what that means? Do you think Jesus, in the incarnation, had to choose not to know something that if he had wanted to know it he could have known it? That seems to contrast the idea that all things come from the Father first, no?
Brian,
Yes, God becoming man was not some ontological limitation. And the divine order of the Trinity is the Fatherhood of God first, and Christ the Son is the eternal generation of the Father, and the Spirit always “proceeds” from the Father alone. So the Incarnate life of Christ is still the trinitarian life of God.
The subject of whether or not Christ (during His incarnation) was omniscient or not has been some thing that I have been studying for a few weeks myself. Obviously, he was not omnipresent or omniscient during his human life, so why do we tend to attribute omniscience to Him? The hymn found in Philippians 2:5-11 indicates that He relinquished Hid divine attributes for his ministry.
N.T. Wright dealt with this subject concerning Jesus’ self-knowledge in “Jesus and The Victory of God”;
“Speaking of Jesus’ ‘vocation’ brings us to quite a different place from some tradition statements of gospel christology. ‘Awareness of vocation’ is by no means the same thing as Jesus having the sort of ‘supernatural’ awareness of himself, of Israel’s god, and of the relation between the two of them…Jesus did not, in other words, ‘know that he was God’ in the same way that one knows one is male or female, hungry or thirsty, or that one ate an orange an hour ago. His ‘knowledge’ was of a more risky, but perhaps more significant, sort: like knowing one is loved.” Jesus and The Victory of God pp. 652-653
Ben Witherington III also addresses Jesus’ humanity and the relinquishment of omniscience in his book “The Indelible Image”. Unfortunately, I left the book at work last night so I can’t quote what he says (although I do know that it is on pp. 194-195).
I’ve been planning to write a post in a week or so on the subject of Jesus’ omniscience, especially concerning what He might or might not have known about the nature of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment. Your post, as well as the comments (so far) have given me additional food for thought.
I meant “he was not omnipresent or omnipotent during his human life”. I am still questioning the omniscient part.
I really need to start reading my comments before I hit “submit” ;0
I do not see any reason to see Jesus as being omniscient.
Randy, good thoughts. I personally have problems with the use of the word “relinquished” only in that it may imply other ideas of his divinity and humanity. I personally prefer to state it this way “that Jesus did not take advantage of his divinity to assist him with his humanity”. He didn’t leave behind (as relinquish might imply) his divinity, he just chose to not invoke his rights as the holy divine Son of God to assist in his humanity. I know exactly what you are saying but when I teach I need to be careful which singular words I used to describe various aspects, so I tend to be as specific as humanly possible as we all know that even in our best comprehension there is still so much mystery about it.
Writing on this subject Gordon Fee explains it this way:
…Rather, he “poured himself out”, with the salvation of humankind as his goal…From Paul’s perspective, this is how divine love manifests itself in its most characteristic and profuse expression…He entered our history not as κύριος (Lord), which name he acquires at his vindication (vv. 9-11), but as (slave), a person without advantages, with no rights or privileges but in servanthood to all” Gordon Fee “Pauline Christology” pg. 385
A great small book on this subject is by Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler “Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective”
The divinity of Christ has all the attributes of God, foreknowledge, etc. (John 1:48) And the text of Phil. 2:5-11. Note, verse 6, “in the form of God” really refers to the preexistence of Christ, and equality with God. And in verse 7, this is contrasted with the “form of a servant”. So Christ’s humility was real, but never a full “kenosis”. Christ hide His deity often, but He never stopped being God, even when incarnate. His “emptiness” was in becoming man or human, not giving up any part of his real or true deity. He veiled himself often, but He was always God Incarnate. Thus Christ’s humility as God enfleshed even unto death, is the greatest act ever, in the sense of complete humiliation in death, but as Luther would say, God dying Himself!
I fear that this sort of explanation of the kenosis makes certain human struggles of Christ more or less a charade. It seems to undermine his reliance on the Father as true reliance and his reliance on the Spirit as genuine human. It seems to make his needs more or less acting as if he had need rather than needing.
Brian,
I fear you are speaking more from a human perspective, rather than a Trinitarian one? This is my goal, both christocentric and theocentric..and the Triune God! This is the essence of God in the Scripture. And sadly often, this gets lost in the theological search & scholarship.
Robert,
Of course, I cannot speak from a perspective other than a human one! I am not trying to rationalize it though. Rather, I am trying to understand how your model fits with the biblical narrative that seems to depict Christ (at least in the Synoptics) as restrained in his humanity as well as in reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
The Fourth Gospel does seem to blur the lines a bit more to the point where I can see what you are saying as having some ground in the narrative, but I still think it creates an odd situation where Jesus is “tempted in all ways like we are” but not really. Also, I fear that it does risk a Nestorian Christology where Jesus’ deity and humanity do not do the same actions but there are times when Jesus can switch into a sort of “god mode” and then back to a “human mode”.
And I may have misspoke. I am trying to rationalize it, but I am not trying to be a rationalist about it. 😉
Fr. Robert,
not speaking for Brian, but I think the point of not a having a full kenosis, ignores his learning obedience, and full reliance on the Holy Spirit for a complete Spirit-led life. Although always God, and man, yet never invoking his divine rights in such a way that would nullify his true humanity.
I think that Klauss Issler sums it up nicely:
“Without an appreciation of the dependence Jesus exercised in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, it is not possible to understand how Jesus can be our genuine example — this is a critical missing ingredient for a robust imiatio Christi.” Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, p189
Brian,
This is where we need to look at the Gospels as a whole in my opinion, i.e. Four Views of Christ! And each of the Synopic Gospel’s has its own vision of Christ. Matthew – the King, Mark – the Servant, Luke – the Son of Adam or Son of Man. And finally, John – the Son of God. I know rather simple, but seen too within the Church Fathers. The loss of the spiritual truth and use of the Scripture is often seen in the western church. And here we need the Eastern Orthodox traditions and church also.
Robert,
This is why I spoke of St. Cyril of Alexandria, there is never a Christ who is not both God & Man, together as One! And as Luther said, ‘God died on the Cross’. So I would never diminish the humanity of Christ over his deity. This is not my meaning, but the One Christ Son of Man/Son of God.
Robert,
I think that you are right in using “Jesus did not take advantage of his divinity to assist him with his humanity” rather than “relinquished”. It would seem to me that, although Jesus still had at His disposal all of His omniscience, omnipotence and even omnipresence, He simply chose not to take advantage of His divine prerogatives. His temptation by Satan in the wilderness seems to make clear that He could have used His divine attributes, but chose not to. In order to complete His mission on earth, He had to live a life subject to all of the same limitations that every man before Him had, which would indicate, as Philippians 2:5-11 seems to point out, that He emptied Himself of those attributes in order to accomplish His mission.
Instead of relying on his Divinity to accomplish the task set before Him, He instead fully relied on the Holy Spirit and God. If He was relying on omniscience, there would no need to go to the Father in prayer or to allow Himself to be led by the Spirit. It seems to me that He was setting the example for us to follow; that is placing our full reliance on God for all things. The Apostle Paul seems to me to indicate this by his preface to the hymn in Philippians when he begins in verse 5 by admonishing us to ” make our attitude that of Christ”.
Christ was never just a mere man alone. Or just a man filled with the Holy Spirit. He was God incarnate…God & Man in One, filled with the Spirit, as both Man, and also the Son of God. This is the biblical & historical (creedal) Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus.
Randy, yup.
I believe that is exactly the point that Paul was trying to make us understand. When he wrote:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name… Phil. 2:6-9 TNIV
That is the context that he writes in, and lays the ground work previously telling the Philippians that they should not do anything “out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. Phil. 2:3-4
Of course that is what Christ did by not taking advantage of his divinity, he humbled himself. How? By becoming a servant. Here is the picture of the divine Son of God, who has become the greatest of all by becoming the servant, and being fully obedient to the Father. That is why God exalted him. This all ties nicely with the Gospels, and Christ’s message about being a servant, and fulfilling his call.
This is the pattern and point that I think Paul is trying to make, and it is to me one of the most inspiring letters in the New Testament. For me personally it speaks volumes to the very good and selfless nature of God and how we should allow God to change us and it is clear about what we should strive for. I better stop, I feel like I’m preaching one of my sermons 😉
I don’t know why Near Emmaus posts show up so late in my reader but it’s annoying! I hate coming to conversations like this so late since I can’t possibly respond to everything I’d like to respond to. So I’ll say this:
I don’t think that Jesus’ impeccability or peccability has any real bearing on the issue of him being mistaken since mistakes aren’t properly sins. Some can be but we can’t say that there’s a one to one correspondence between the two. Having said that, I find it highly unlikely, to the point of impossible even, that Jesus would have been mistaken about the Father or the kingdom of God. Why? Not because he was divine—although it is true that he was divine—and not even because he was a perfect man—although it’s equally true that he was a perfect man—but rather because of his unique sonship. “Knowbody knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son reveals him.” (Matt. 11:27) He was conscious of his unique relationship with the Father (and according to John he was aware of that relationship as it was before the world even existed – John 17:5) and he was the one who truly revealed the Father to the world. He was intimately aware of the Father’s will for him and in every Gospel account he is depicted as complying with the Father’s will out of love and reverence for the Father. So that’s my two cents on that.
On the kenosis issue I like to use this analogy: Michael Jordan can teach a 6th grade basketball camp if he so chooses. Were he to teach this camp then he could choose to dunk on all the kids, hit a bunch of threes, and block all the kids’ shots, or, he could show the kids some moves and allow the kids to score on him for the purpose of teaching them and helping them to improve their games. He wouldn’t have lost or given up any of his skills in doing this, he just would have chosen not to exploit them for a greater cause. Same with Jesus. He always had access to divine attributes but he willingly cooperated with his human limitations in order to identify with us and set an example for us (hence Paul begins the so-called Carmen Christi by telling the Philippians to have the same mind/attitude that was in Christ Jesus). When we see Jesus doing/saying something that appears divine it’s not because he’s accessed his divine nature; it’s because even in his state of willing humiliation he’s empowered by the Spirit of God to perform the task that the Father has set before him. This doesn’t mean that we don’t see evidence of his deity all over the NT, we do, but we don’t see it exploited.
Nick, are you using Google Reader? If you can’t fix it you can always sign up to get an email every time there is a new post. But that can be annoying in a different kind of way, especially if you don’t check emails everyday.
Robert,
My point was that we in the west have had this perspective of looking at the humanity of Christ alone, or in some kind of separation or division. And this is simply foreign to the true doctrine of Christ as always both divine/human. The Incarnation is itself One Christ, one Son, dual in nature, not dual in Person.
Fr. Robert, the funny thing is that I only recently started to really contemplate the humanity of Christ. It has been an area that I had chosen to just ignore, although always acknowledging that he was both God and man. But as I began to study more in this area I came to the similar conclusion that Brian has come to. Where we see Jesus being filled and led by the Spirit, and being in full obedience to the Father, and as Nick stated “He was conscious of his unique relationship with the Father “. Which both attest to his divinity and humanity.
I know that we are in agreement that he was both God and man, but what I find interesting is peoples difficulty in excepting his true humanity (not saying you don’t).
A few months ago, I blogged on the humanity of Christ. It was following my rethinking of the ‘humanity’ of Scripture, and so led into rethinking the humanity of Christ.
I think Christ could have missed a question in school, forgot where he placed his sandals, had morning breath, etc, etc, as part of being a full human. For some, that feels weird to say. I think it is in Jesus and the Victory of God, though I haven’t been able to read it yet, I believe even N.T. Wright would say Jesus was never fully certain that he was the Son of God. He simply knew he was embodying in himself the role of Israel’s Messiah. Something of that sort.
And as I think we rethink the full humanity of Christ and what that means, it will also ask us to rethink our understanding of Scripture as being both divine and human.
Robert,
Yes, we agree on the basic idea. But, I can’t help seeing the western utilitarian way of seeing this in division or separation, as to the two-natures of Christ. And my point being this is really a false dichotomy. The two natures of Christ are in this One Divine Person…always! When is HE not both God & Man? i.e. never! To focus on the humanity of Christ, is also to see His divinity.
Fr. Robert,
Yes two natures one person. I don’t think that focusing on his humanity is in anyway ignoring his divinity. You must address each nature within the one person and not mix them.
ScottL
The Scripture is always the vox Dei, the veritable “voice of God”, the authority of God! And both Christ & the Church are His incarnation, He lives in both His Word & His Church!
Robert,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysite
This might be helpful? I tend toward the view of St. Cyril of Alexandria here. See also the Orthodox Churches (Oriental, Coptic, Syriac).
Funny you should mention Cyril, I just reviewing some of his work 😉
Robert,
This subject is profound, but we must beware of Nestorianism, that stressed the complete difference between the divine and human natures in Christ, to the point that it seemed to see two persons, separate (one divine, one human) in the same body. I hope this is not your position? There are again, two “natures” in the One Christ, who is always divine & human together.
Fr. Robert,
never would that be my position of Christ being two persons. As I said earlier two natures, one person, who is always divine and human. Yes Cyril had quite the correspondence with Nestorius.
Fr. Robert,
I understand your concern, it is the same concern that Thomas F. Torrance had regarding the west, but rest assure us here in the west do hold to a very orthodox view of Christ, and the Trinity.
Robert,
Forgive me, since I was very close to the Orthodox in England. I was certainly influenced by them. I even thought about going ‘Orthodox’ at one time. This subject is one of their main places! And yes, I am always kinda Catholic and High Church friendly (having been in both, raised R. Catholic, and then a High Church Anglican). Perhaps it is my Augustinianism that keeps me closer to the Reformed? But, I am a Catholic & Reformed Anglican, which keeps me close to the “Catholic” history also, via-media!
Christology is ever so humbling! The closer to Christ, the ever more little we “know” it seems?
Robert,
Yes old Tom Torrance was one of my mentors along the way! RIP..
Fr. Robert,
Christology is the most humbling topics of all. The more I understand the deeper I come to appreciate what he accomplished for us. While at the same time realizing how much more there is to learn. “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” HCSB
I love this quote because it puts so much in perspective.
Robert,
One can not go wrong reading T.F. Torrance! Today the Academy is all over the place. But not men like Torrance. We must always have our Judeo-Christian presuppositions! Torrance always said his Father & Mother were his first and best teachers in theology! Missionary Christians, they were.
Robert,
Thanks, yes that is one sweet quote from Macleod. Have you read Don Macleod’s: Jesus Is Lord, Christology Yesterday and Today? (Christian Focus Pub. 2000) The chapter on: The Doctrine of the Incarnation in Scottish Theology, is worth the book. H.R. Mackintosh, Donald Baillie, James Denney, T.F., etc.
“Christ’s manhood has a personality, not of its own, but of the Godhead.” (Samuel Rutherford)
Fthr Robert –
I think it might be healthy to recognise that the Spirit of God is the ultimate voice of God, at least as Scripture testifies. Now, the Scripture is God-breathed, so it has authority in our life. But if the Spirit had not breathed it out, speaking through it, then it would have no authority.
ScottL
Indeed Holy Scripture is its own presupposition, and certainly “breathed-out” by God (2 Tim. 3:16). However, today this is certainly under-fire, and even in the so-called Church. In some regard, there is the human author, but in the finality it is the Word of the Living God! The Church must always reverence and even venerate God’s Holy Word!
Fr Robert –
In some regard? It is in every regard from human authors. But also in every regard inspired by the Spirit. Both fully in the Living Word, Christ. Both fully in the written word, Scripture.
ScottL
My point was the “mystery” of the human author being God’s vessel.