Jesus (in his humanity) didn’t seem to know there were seeds smaller than the mustard seed, that the earth is a globe, that people did not actually think from their heart, etc. So I struggle to think he would’ve known of a scientific theory yet to be conceived. His explanation of human origins comes from his Bible. We’re not even sure what historical precision he assigned to those stories.
No specific passage (how could there be?), but I’m assuming Jesus et al. assumed the general perception of the world in their day (as they use similar cosmological language and references to a three-tiered universe), including a world that didn’t go much beyond Spain to the West.
Wikipedia, at least, seems to disagree with you. They may not have known about the Americas, but they might have known the earth was a globe. Spherical Earth - Wikipedia
Whew! I suspect I’ve been far more sheltered in my upbringing than even I thought. I’ll have to look into this more. It’s still so bizarre to me, though, even with pretty clear precedent.
Yes, the non-omniscient part would have been hotly denounced in my old church. At the time, I would have probably said it was a denial of Jesus’ divinity, and therefore not Christian. I doubt I would have been much swayed by someone saying he chose to compartmentalism His knowledge.
Nothing there lets us know what first-century Palestinian Jews would’ve known or believed.
I’m not an expert on this, but my understanding is that, while Greek intellectuals, for several centuries BC, had proffered a spherical globe, this was not a common understanding (especially for a Palestinian Jew). I recall Augustine (several centuries later) stating he thought the earth probably was a globe–indicating it was still an unsettled issue in his day–but that there definitely were not people on the other side (antipodes).
The language of the NT–if we are to use this as evidence of their beliefs–speaks quite similarly as the OT in terms of three-tiered universe, heaven being above, and the world (or at least its human population) being relatively limited to the region.
Not a big deal if it turns out I’m wrong here (after all, it was one of several points to a broader point), but my sense is that the NT language does give us a sense of their literal beliefs (not metaphorical as we sometimes use some similar-sounding phrases).
You are the first theologian (are you?) I know to admit Jesus didn’t know the earth was a spheroid or the mustard seed wasn’t the tiniest in the world. Others try to wriggle around it, using sometimes flimsy adhoc arguments. However, I think its nearly unbelievable that he wouldn’t know these thing even in his humanity considering he had access to his divine nature.
Again this is highly unlikely. Its very hard to believe that Jesus would not have known how human beings really came into existence, considering that he came to die for them. The Bible is unambiguously clear that Jesus came to redeem the mankind, implying that mankind was previously in a state that had no need for redemption. That pre-redemption state must have existed at and shortly after man came into existence. Jesus knew about this pre-redemption state, so it follows he must have known the creative process that produced pre-redemption mankind.
If he knew that man and chimp share a common ancestor, then he would also know that that common ancestor equally shared a common ancestor with another species existing in its time and the ball keeps rolling that way into the deep past. I can agree he may not have known all aspects of evolutionary theory, but he must have known about common descent which explains the origin of man, whom he came to redeem.
It was an evangelical reformed Calvinist church. Much in the tradition of John MacArthur. In fact, I think they have church planting ties somewhere in the past.
To be honest, I would have expected you to hold similar beliefs, so I was somewhat taken aback that you didn’t have a problem with hidden omniscience. I guess growing up in a single tradition blinds one to the diversity out there.
This may be way off topic, but do you think Jesus was aware He had hidden His omniscience? Was He able to access that knowledge at will (there are passages seemingly referring to knowing the Pharisees’ thoughts, etc).
If I recall correctly, it is part of Loke’s model that Jesus is aware of his omniscience and can access it at will. (Though that could be optional - perhaps his divine subconscious is in some way superintending his use of his divine knowledge, so he can only access it when doing so accords with his divine subconscious intent.)
Sort of funny since I have also been raised in a Reformed /Calvinist tradition and still am in a similar church. But in Jesus human nature he still had to grow in knowledge and I remember talking about why Jesus did not know the hour, etc. Now I want to look back and see what specifics were taught about Christology. But I hadn’t heard of MacArthur until I was an adult and personally am sickened by his pronouncements of politics from the pulpit. That’s getting off topic though. I don’t know the implications of all that’s being talked about so I would have to learn more before I say I agree with any position on this aspect of Christology.
I’ve always been curious about specifics of other traditions. Matt on the Ten Minute Bible Hour youtube channel has a series. Very interesting. I just think that we all might be like the churches in Revelation. Making sure to go back to the Bible instead of relying on tradition.
Oh no, this is pretty well understood in my world of evangelical scholarship.
The orthodox position is that Jesus is omniscient in his divinity, but did not “tap into” (access) that in his humanity (this is similar to the conscious/subconscious language @Andrew_Loke and @swamidass mention…which frankly is not language I’ve seen before so still need to wrestle with it). However, the biblical Jesus did, at times, “access” more-than-human knowledge. So, I continue to wrestle with how that worked. But, at simplest level, the human Jesus tended to not “take advantage of” his full divine capacities (Phil 2:6). I don’t really know how all this works (or how to use the right language), but Christian orthodoxy is trying to maintain Jesus’ full divinity while being honest with his full humanity, which includes the lack of advantage of the divine characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.
I don’t understand (or agree) with the disconnect you’re feeling here. Why does Jesus need to understand evolutionary history in order to die for them?
Agreed. I guess I’m not seeing the connection to evolution here. Maybe you can help me see/feel what you are.
I was trying to look up the hypostatic union and omniscience to see what others say.
I thought this article was helpful. @SlightlyOddGuy it mentions Calvin’s view so I’m not sure why this seems at odds with what your church taught?
Notice that, for Calvin, the Son does not surrender his divine attributes in order to become a human being. Instead, each nature “retained its own properties.” To be sure, during Jesus’ earthly ministry his divinity was “in repose,” or, as the Latin version of Calvin’s commentary puts it, “the divine nature was kept, as it were, concealed; that is, did not display its power.” But the divine nature was not lost or even turned off, so to speak, during Jesus’ earthly ministry. Instead it was hidden, or concealed. Thus Calvin suggests a kryptic Christology (from the Greek, krypsis , “concealing”) rather than a kenotic Christology (for more on krypsis as a Christological category, see Oliver Crisp, Divinity and Humanity, 118-53).
But notice also that Calvin clearly affirms the real human limitations placed upon Christ in his earthly ministry as the mediator. For Calvin, both omniscience and ignorance can be attributed to the same person at the same time: “There would be no impropriety, therefore, in saying that Christ, who knew all things, was ignorant of something in respect to his perception as a man ” (emphasis added). The key is the hypostatic (i.e. personal) union of two distinct natures in Christ. In his divinity, Christ knows all things, but in his humanity, Christ was limited in knowledge. Attributes from each of the two natures can be predicated of the one person of Christ, but the natures retain their integrity; they are not changed or blended together. In his interpretation, Calvin is simply providing a faithful rendering of the Christological consensus established at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
So, to bring the matter back to Matthew 24:26, we can say that, in his humanity, Christ was limited in knowledge, and at that point in his earthly ministry, the Father had not yet revealed the day of judgment to the Son in and through his human mind. But at the same time, I think we can say that, in his divinity, the Son of God most certainly did know the day and the hour of the final judgment. How can we say otherwise, if Christ remains divine?
But it was interesting that Augustine and Aquinas disagreed, as explained in the article. I think it’s a concept that’s easy to make the wrong assumptions about.
There are some interesting debates and disagreements here. What does not make any sense at all is to infer that WLC is denying the divinity of Christ. That is what Ken Ham is claiming here.
I thought it was poorly written by him - the inference was there, but if he was going to say so, I would have preferred more directness. As written, I think it is difficult for WLC to respond to.
Its surprising because Christian apologetics I have read on the matter (like saying the mustard seed is the smallest in the world) don’t take this approach of saying “human” Jesus could not access his divine nature.
This seems far-fetched. In fact, Jesus being able to have “more-than-human” knowledge makes the proposition that he did not tap into his divine side much more unlikely.
Jesus did not need to understand all of evolutionary history, but he needed to know the aspects that led to the creation of man because that knowledge would be crucial to deciding if man needed redemption or not.
If humans diverged with chimps from a common ancestor millions of years ago, then it obviates the need for redemption. However, if the Genesis account of the fall of man happened (either YEC or GAE way), then there is a need for redemption.
This is why I think it highly improbable that Jesus would be unaware of how man came into existence.