Is Jesus Omniscient?

[AustinC]

how could Jesus learn if He was already omniscient? How could Jesus grow in wisdom?

These questions are on topic.
Which of the 3 options, from the OP, best express how this could be?

Here they are again:

1. Jesus continued to exercise some dimensions of omniscience while on earth and the full exercise of his omniscience was subject to God the Father’s parameters;
2. Jesus never failed to function on the level of the moral attributes, but frequently does not display the amoral attributes such as omniscience as these seemed to be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and come to the human conscious level at the Spirit’s choosing (Dan Wallace’s view).
3. In his incarnation, Jesus laid aside the use of his attribute of omniscience.

 

[KenH]

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.

Pretty close, but I guess maybe I have a different take on the Trinity. The Trinity is composed of three, obviously, but I am not sure I go along with that idea that God the Father knows things that God the Son doesn't know, or that God the Holy Spirit doesn't know things that God the Son knows. Now, granted, I have never really sat down and did a deep dive on if there are differences in the knowledge base among the persons of the Triune God so that one of the Trinity has to pass along information to another of the Trinity, but it seems a bit odd to me. But what do I know in my puny little life in my attempts to contemplate almighty God.

 

[KenH]

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

Never really given much thought to that question. There is this verse - 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

(emphasis mine)


Is that verse perhaps relevant to that question?

 

[KenH]

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

Do you think that Christ Jesus, in His Divine nature, changed His mind about anything while He was on this earth?

As I quoted earlier in referencing Matthew Henry's commentary on Mark 13:32 - "Christ, as God, could not be ignorant of any thing; but the divine wisdom which dwelt in our Saviour, did communicate itself to his human soul, according to the divine pleasure, so that his human nature might sometimes not know some things; therefore Christ is said to grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52), which he could not be said to do, if the human nature of Christ did necessarily know all things by virtue of its union with the divinity."

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

Looking into Nestorianism, the accusation is that it holds there must be two distinct persons, not just two natures. Having the two natures is considered the orthodox view.

On the other hand,

Nestorius had been anathematized at the Second Council of Ephesus in 431 for denouncing the use of the title Theotokos (“God-Bearer”) for Mary, insisting that this compromised the reality of Christ’s human nature.
Nestorianism | Definition, History, & Churches
​

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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

The reference was to John 9:16ff. The "ff" means "and verses following," to the end of the chapter. If it had been just "f" that would have meant "and the verse following." HTH.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

Oh, come on, man. Don't you like watching those two butt heads?

 

[JonC]

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.

With all due respect, it does not matter that you are the OP. I am not changing the topic from omniscience (specifically whether or not Christ was omniscient, or exercised omniscience).

Omniscience and immutability are directly related in this case. If Christ was mutable in wisdom then how could He be omniscient (how can one be omniscient yet grow in wisdom)?


But, if you believe it off topic then report it.

 

[JonC]

These questions are on topic.
Which of the 3 options, from the OP, best express how this could be?

Here they are again:

1. Jesus continued to exercise some dimensions of omniscience while on earth and the full exercise of his omniscience was subject to God the Father’s parameters;
2. Jesus never failed to function on the level of the moral attributes, but frequently does not display the amoral attributes such as omniscience as these seemed to be subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and come to the human conscious level at the Spirit’s choosing (Dan Wallace’s view).
3. In his incarnation, Jesus laid aside the use of his attribute of omniscience.

I'd lean towards the 3rd. As evidencevId note that Jesus did nothing of His own accord, depended on the Spirit (and the ministry of angles), ect.

This is where immutability comes in. He became like us in every way.

 

[JonC]

Do you think that Christ Jesus, in His Divine nature, changed His mind about anything while He was on this earth?

As I quoted earlier in referencing Matthew Henry's commentary on Mark 13:32 - "Christ, as God, could not be ignorant of any thing; but the divine wisdom which dwelt in our Saviour, did communicate itself to his human soul, according to the divine pleasure, so that his human nature might sometimes not know some things; therefore Christ is said to grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52), which he could not be said to do, if the human nature of Christ did necessarily know all things by virtue of its union with the divinity."

I don't know. Maybe as a child he asked for a fig cake but changed his mind in favor of dried figs.

The danger with this topic is looking at the Son as if He were the Father to an extent there is no actual humanity left.

 

[JonC]

Looking into Nestorianism, the accusation is that it holds there must be two distinct persons, not just two natures. Having the two natures is considered the orthodox view.

On the other hand,

Nestorius had been anathematized at the Second Council of Ephesus in 431 for denouncing the use of the title Theotokos (“God-Bearer”) for Mary, insisting that this compromised the reality of Christ’s human nature.
Nestorianism | Definition, History, & Churches
​

I would classify the idea that Jesus did this as the Son of Man but did that as the Son of God into this category.

Sometimes we hear people say Jesus did this "in His humanity" but that "in His divinity". Same error.

Some get the two nature thing but not the inseparable part which has the effect of two persons.

If Jesus did not know something as the Son of Man, but knew it as the Son of God, then we are talking about two persons.

 

[AustinC]

With all due respect, it does not matter that you are the OP. I am not changing the topic from omniscience (specifically whether or not Christ was omniscient, or exercised omniscience).

Omniscience and immutability are directly related in this case. If Christ was mutable in wisdom then how could He be omniscient (how can one be omniscient yet grow in wisdom)?


But, if you believe it off topic then report it.

I did report it! To you...the moderator. My goodness Jon. Please voluntarily remove yourself from moderator role if you won't even abide by the very rules you are to moderate.

 

[Deacon]

There seems to be a whole lot of bluster without anyone taking a firm stance.

There are only 2 votes (and I was one of them…and I’m wiggly on where I stand)… lol

Rob

 

[percho]

The 4th(Biblical) option is that Christ Jesus was always God while on this earth and always Man while on this earth and thus always had all of the attributes of God 100% of the time while also being in a human body 100% of the time while on this earth.

Isn't he presently also man?

 

[JonC]

There seems to be a whole lot of bluster without anyone taking a firm stance.

There are only 2 votes (and I was one of them…and I’m wiggly on where I stand)… lol

Rob

I lean to the 3rd. I'm wiggly anytime I lean.

 

[JonC]

I did report it! To you...the moderator. My goodness Jon. Please voluntarily remove yourself from moderator role if you won't even abide by the very rules you are to moderate.

Thank you. If the post is off topic early in the thread I'll delete it. (Policy is after a couple of pages to allow for what Squire calls "thread drift").

 

[percho]

I wonder if the Father has told the Son, yet? If not umm

 

[KenH]

Isn't he presently also man?

See my post #83 in this thread.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I did report it! To you...the moderator. My goodness Jon. Please voluntarily remove yourself from moderator role if you won't even abide by the very rules you are to moderate.

Thank you. If the post is off topic early in the thread I'll delete it. (Policy is after a couple of pages to allow for what Squire calls "thread drift").

Discussing posts being off-topic is itself off-topic. (Isn’t there a way to report and PM?) But since we’re there, we may need a link to a policy thread explaining what off-topic means on this board.


If bringing to bear a directly related aspect of doctrine is to be considered off-topic, hardly anything will be resolvable, and division and even unorthodoxy will result.

This is a major problem with being consistent in theology, the inability or unwillingness to regard the “big picture.”

We have to keep in mind that, because we are not God, our perspectives are limited. Ultimately, the ability to see the big picture is beyond us, as are the inner workings of the divine.

It is not wrong to hit the limit of our understanding and admit that certain matters remain mystery.

If we think we have it all figured out, then we may be well into the realm of heresy.

 

[Van]

What does it mean to be "omniscient?" To know all things, past, present and future? So when scripture says Jesus knows all things (John 21:17) that must mean Jesus is "omniscient." So when Jesus says He does not know the time of His return, that means He is not omniscient. Sounds like we are being double minded.

I see another ploy being hoisted, that God the Father is omniscient, knowing everything imaginable, but Jesus put some of His omniscience in a lock box while incarnate. But God said "now I know" when testing Abraham which means God, no matter the Person, is all powerful enough to put omniscience in a lock box. (Genesis 22:12)