Is Jesus Omniscient?

[KenH]

First it defines God by an attribute

How do you define God, @JonC?

 

[KenH]

Second, it chooses one of many attributes (omniscience) and ignores others not manifested by Christ.

I don't see how not being omnipresent while in a human body negates Christ Jesus from being omniscient while being in a human body.

 

[KenH]

The second is that you are denying Scripture.

I am not denying the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures teach that Christ Jesus on this earth was fully God and fully Man. Where have I denied this?

 

[JonC]

You will need to provide me your definition of "Nestorianism" if you want me to respond. I tried to look up what you are talking about and there seems to be differing ideas about what Nestorius taught and what Nestorianism eventually settled into as a doctrine.

I don't think it was narrowed down to a specific doctrine (there were varients).

I'd keep it simple and define it as Jesus having two seperate natures - the Son of Man and the Son of God.

 

[JonC]

I don't see how not being omnipresent while in a human body negates Christ Jesus from being omniscient while being in a human body.

It doesn't. But God is omnipresent, Spirit as opposed to flesh, omniscient, and immutable. Why settle on omniscient?

The reason we will not agree is we hold different views. You reject the orthodox understanding of Christ by separating His natures (the Son of Man did not know, the Son of God knew).

 

[KenH]

So I read all three commentaries. They all say Jesus is fully omniscient (as we all agree), but both Robert Hawker and Matthew Henry fail to actually look at the verse while declaring Jesus full omniscience. (At least it seems to me that they dance around the verse.)
You simply requoted Gill without trying to explain what Gill is saying. To me, it seems that Gill is dividing Jesus into Son of Man versus Son of God in an attempt to explain the verse. Am I misunderstanding what Gill is saying? What is your personal exegesis of the verse, Ken?

Not sure I will succeed, but I'll give it a go.

I don't think it was narrowed down to a specific doctrine (there were varients).

I'd keep it simple and define it as Jesus having two seperate natures - the Son of Man and the Son of God.

Christ Jesus while on earth did have two natures - fully God and fully Man - in one human body. I really don't see how this statement can be controversial in mainstream Biblical theological circles such as Baptist Board.

 

[KenH]

Why settle on omniscient?

Because that is the title of this thread.

 

[JonC]

I am not denying the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures teach that Christ Jesus on this earth was fully God and fully Man. Where have I denied this?

Those isn't true. You ARE denying that the Son didn't know something ONLY the Father knew. That by definition is denying Scripture.

But that's fine. We all have our understandings and this particular topic is not one that fits into human reasoning.

 

[JonC]

Because that is the title of this thread.

It is. BUT why say Christ is omniscient or He is not God when Christ was not omnipresent or immutable?

 

[KenH]

You ARE denying that the Son didn't know something ONLY the Father knew.

Sounds like you are saying that God may know something and not know something at the same time.

 

[KenH]

It is. BUT why say Christ is omniscient or He is not God when Christ was not omnipresent or immutable?

I'm not saying that at all. Christ Jesus was certainly immutable on earth. And, while His human body was not omnipresent, well, in His Divine nature...

John 1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

(emphasis mine)

 

[KenH]

So I read all three commentaries. They all say Jesus is fully omniscient (as we all agree), but both Robert Hawker and Matthew Henry fail to actually look at the verse while declaring Jesus full omniscience. (At least it seems to me that they dance around the verse.)
You simply requoted Gill without trying to explain what Gill is saying. To me, it seems that Gill is dividing Jesus into Son of Man versus Son of God in an attempt to explain the verse. Am I misunderstanding what Gill is saying? What is your personal exegesis of the verse, Ken?

Well, I am sort running out of ways to express what I am saying. Christ Jesus lived in a human body, just like we do. He had to in order to die as a propitiation for the sins of His people and save His people from their sins. God cannot die. A human body can die. While living in a human body, Christ Jesus was fully God and fully human - two natures(I have no other terminology at hand to express this any other way) - a Divine Nature(God) and a human nature(Man), yet without sin in His human nature. He was never a sinner, He never sinned, the sins of His people were imputed to Him, yet without making Him into a sinner. He was never not God while He lived in a human body, including all that being God encompasses.

I was looking to see how this issue may have been explained in the past by others and there was the Council of Chalcedon that made a declaration in 451 A.D. I found an English translation of it that reads in part as to what we are discussing:

"We...all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten...of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary...according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us..."

I hope this helps.

Note: I probably should add that quoting a portion of the declaration from the Council of Chalcedon does mean I am going along with Roman Catholic Church doctrine. This declaration concerned the subject matter at hand and since my previous attempts at explaining my viewpoint were evidently not succeeding, I thought maybe a writing on the subject from 1,571 years ago might help.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…John Gill excerpt on Mark 13:32 -

"neither the Son; Christ, as the son of man; though he did know it as the Son of God, who knows all things, and so this; but as the son of man, and from his human nature he had no knowledge of any thing future: what knowledge he had of future things in his humanity, he had from his deity; nor, as man, had he any commission to make known, nor did he make known the day of God's vengeance on the Jews."

Gill aligns well with my own observations, except that he seems not to understand the limitations applied to the incarnation, namely that the Son of God would live as a man totally dependent on the Father as the Son of Man.

Therefore, what knowledge he had of future things in his humanity, he had from the Father.

John 9:16ff gives indication of how Jesus was operating from the Father.

 

[AustinC]

Well, I am sort running out of ways to express what I am saying. Christ Jesus lived in a human body, just like we do. He had to in order to die as a propitiation for the sins of His people and save His people from their sins. God cannot die. A human body can die. While living in a human body, Christ Jesus was fully God and fully human - two natures(I have no other terminology at hand to express this any other way) - a Divine Nature(God) and a human nature(Man), yet without sin in His human nature. He was never a sinner, He never sinned, the sins of His people were imputed to Him, yet without making Him into a sinner. He was never not God while He lived in a human body, including all that being God encompasses.

I was looking to see how this issue may have been explained in the past by others and there was the Council of Chalcedon that made a declaration in 451 A.D. I found an English translation of it that reads in part as to what we are discussing:

"We...all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten...of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary...according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us..."

I hope this helps.

Note: I probably should add that quoting a portion of the declaration from the Council of Chalcedon does mean I am going along with Roman Catholic Church doctrine. This declaration concerned the subject matter at hand and since my previous attempts at explaining my viewpoint were evidently not succeeding, I thought maybe a writing on the subject from 1,571 years ago might help.

So, if I understand you correctly, one nature (fully God) is omniscient, while the second nature (fully human) only knew what God the Father revealed to the human, Jesus.

Is that accurate?

Presently, are the two nature's now one nature since Jesus is now glorified?

 

[AustinC]

Gill aligns well with my own observations, except that he seems not to understand the limitations applied to the incarnation, namely that the Son of God would live as a man totally dependent on the Father as the Son of Man.

Therefore, what knowledge he had of future things in his humanity, he had from the Father.

John 9:16ff gives indication of how Jesus was operating from the Father.

I have no idea how John 9:16 is relevant to this discussion. Anyone care to explain this?

 

[JonC]

Sounds like you are saying that God may know something and not know something at the same time.

No, that isn't what I am saying.

I am saying that the Son did not knowvthe hour but the Father (only) the Father did.

 

[JonC]

I'm not saying that at all. Christ Jesus was certainly immutable on earth.

How was Jesus immutable on earth?

 

[AustinC]

How was Jesus immutable on earth?

New topic. Please create one and leave this to Jesus omniscience.

 

[JonC]

New topic. Please create one and leave this to Jesus omniscience.

No. It applies. We all know Jesus was not immutable as Scripture states He grew in wisdom and stature.

But if this is true then it has a direct bearing on omniscience.

I was just awaiting @KenH 's reply before making that connection.

Now that we are there - how could Jesus learn if He was already omniscient? How could Jesus grow in wisdom?

 

[AustinC]

No. It applies. We all know Jesus was not immutable as Scripture states He grew in wisdom and stature.

But if this is true then it has a direct bearing on omniscience.

I was just awaiting @KenH 's reply before making that connection.

Now that we are there - how could Jesus learn if He was already omniscient? How could Jesus grow in wisdom?

Jon, I am the OP. Take the topic of immutability to another thread as it is addressing a different topic of the Godhead. So, as the OP, I am telling you to take your topic to a new thread and address it there.