Omnicience and omnipresence of Christ

Jesus did not cease to be God during His earthly ministry BUT, and this is very important, He lived His life fully as a man. He learned how to walk, talk, dress Himself, etc. exactly the same as a perfect man who wasn't God would. He followed the leading of the Holy Spirit exactly as a man would if a man would do so 100% of the time. He saw, heard, tasted, felt, and smelled with the senses of a man. He knew what He knew because He learned it or it was revealed to Him by the Holy Spirit. He was our example, our teacher who could say, "Do as I say AND do as I do." If He did anything because He was God then we could not say "What Would Jesus Do?", we could not point to Jesus and say, "Here is how it is to be done." This does not detract from His position in the trinity it is actually an impressive display of His abilities. Just think He could go for 33 years and experience life as a man without stopping being God.

 

One thing to remember in this discussion is that omniscience, omnipotent and omniprescence are greek philosophical labels that Christians have historically applied to describe our understanding of the characteristics of God.

 

IMO:

In contrast to such as Erickson, Lewis, and Demarest I hold that the deity of Christ never lost the use of any divine attribute. He could not as God is immutable. He could not because to lose the use of attributes would be to lose the divine essence. He could not because to do that would render Him less than the Father, but less than God is not God!

Even incarnate, God the Son was not limited to His humanity but was still holding the universe together ( Col 1). There was not a change in His deity or in His divine qualities as omniscience or omnipresence effected by His being enfleshed there rather was the addition of a human nature replete with a human body, mind, and will. This nature was and always will be limited. And any limitations are to be predicated to that human nature not to the deity--which cannot have limitations.

So, it was not, EG, the omnipotent divine nature which wearied at Jacob's well. It was not the omniscient divine nature which needed to learn things or which did not know the time of His return.

At times Christ acted through or is described by qualities of His divine nature and at times Christ acted through and is described by qualities of His human nature. One Person , but with two experiencing and acting natures (as I say, all IMO).

I think the deity of God the Son did not shrink so as to be confined by His humanity.

[ June 10, 2005, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Yes, He was both and Artimaeus did a good job of it. so instead of waxing eloquent I will

 

While Jesus walked on earth He was fully God and fully Man, with the exception of His human nature being without sin. He retained all the attributes that belong to Him as Deity, though He did agree to "lay aside" His equality with the Father while on earth, for the office of being a Servant. Since God cannot cease to be God at any time, nor "reduce" any of His attributes, He was as much God while on earth, then He was before the Incarnation.

One of the best Scriptures that is very clear on the fact that Jesus, though not omnibody, was indeed omnipresent. John 3:13 shows that while Jesus was on earth speaking with Nicodemus, He was as the same time, "in heaven" (and no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, the Son of Man Who IS in heaven). The use of the present tense "on" (is), is done so for the purpose to show that Jesus was "spiritually" in heaven, though He was actually in body on earth. The majority of Modern Versions omit this clause, pretending that the older manuscripts do not contain it. It is rather that the enemy made sure that he removed it because of what it teaches.

 

Philippians 2:5-8 seems to infer that when Christ was here on earth, He voluntarily laid aside at least some aspects of His divinity.

When He took on human form, obviously He would have had to confine His presence to some particular locality, which would seem to indicate that He was not then omnipresent (everywhere, and at the same time fully present).

How much of His omniscience (all-knowing) He surrendered is not certain. Luke 2:52 states that "Jesus increased in wisdom ...." If He was already all-knowing, how could He increase in wisdom? On the other hand, John 6:6 seems to indicate that He already knew He was going to perform a miracle.

Moreover, in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, Jesus knew ahead of time that 1) one of His disciples would betray Him, and that 2) Peter would deny Him three times.

IMO, the difficulty arises in our finite minds how we can harmonize the fact that when He was here on earth, He was both 100% man and 100% God.

I doubt that any of us can state with absolute certainty how much of His omniscience He retained while He was here on earth.

To me, what's more important is that He did everything He set out to do while here on earth and is now seated at the right hand of the Father, "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25)

H A L L E L U I A !

 

Either He retained all or He laid aside something, you can't have it both ways.

I'm sorry but, if this is true (in the sense that it seems to me that you mean) then I am not impressed with anything that Jesus did while on this earth. I am not impressed with a healthy man riding in a wheelchair and I am not impressed with a God who is "acting" like a man.

 

Maybe he retained all but voluntarily laid aside some.

 

===

I slap my knee and say, "AMEN"!

THAT is why IMO we must predicate all apparent limitations to His human nature!

If we do not, then His human nature cannot consist of "true man."

But if He is/was not true Man, then He cannot undergo the testings as we do.

But Hebrews says He did!

Yet God cannot be tempted. So, the humanity was tempted. But that requires a humanity replete with human mind and will NOT a diminished God acting like a Man---shades of Apollinarianism and Eutychianism.

I think the truth is NOT the deity changing into humanity BUT the ADDING, the labon, the taking on of humanity with NO diminishing of the deity.

Let's look at Phil 2 and see that ALL obedience occurs AFTER the incarnation, NOT before it!

And that which is not experiencing omniscience/omnipresence etc....

.. is NOT omnipresent/omniscient etc.!


All IMO

Bill

 

People tend to get very confusing when they try to explain the two natures of Jesus. Bottom line:

Is it possible that someone could have asked Jesus a question to which He could honestly reply, "I don't know"? I think the answer is, "Yes". The answer would have been "No' prior to the incarnation and the answer would be, "No" after the incarnation.

 

IMO after the ascension the humanity remains human and is not deified. As it is not deified it is not omniscient.

 

I don't think he laid aside his equality. He laid aside his glory and stature as God because he came as a man. I think even though he added the human nature, his equality to God was always there because he did not cease to be God and was never inferior.

Boy, this thread and the one on the Sonship of Christ are some heavy stuff!

 

So are you saying that the risen Christ is not omniscient? Just trying to clarify what you are stating.

 

Artimaeus says:

“Either He retained all or He laid aside something, you can't have it both ways”

Marcia says:

“I don't think he laid aside his equality. He laid aside his glory and stature as God because he came as a man. I think even though he added the human nature, his equality to God was always there because he did not cease to be God and was never inferior”


We are here dealing with a very difficult doctrine, the Person of Jesus Christ. While we have much taught to us in the Bible, yet our limited human understanding forbids us to fully comprehend the Holy Trinity

Having said this, we have do have some very clear teaching from Scripture which will help us to understand to some degree the Person of Jesus Christ

In the first place, we have to agree to the fact that Jesus Christ is the Second “Member” (if we may use such language) of the Holy Trinity. The word “Trinity” is not actually used in Scripture, though the the doctrine is clearly taught. This doctrine is that God is One Supreme Being, as we can see from such passages as Deuternomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, is one Lord”. The Hebrew for “God”, is “elohim”, which is the masculine plural. Some suppose that this is used for a “plural of majesty”, but, Scriptures like Genesis 1:26, “let US make man in OUR image”, clearly shows that plurality of Persons is meant, since man is made in the image of “elohim”. Without going into the doctrine of the Trinity, it may be said that there is clear Biblical teaching that besides the Father, there are other “Persons” that are also equally Deity to Him. We have Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, both of Whom Scripture refers to as Almighty God. We are for our present time concerned with Jesus Christ, and especially with His Incarnation, which was His time one earth.

That Jesus is Almight God, is evident even from the Old Testament, where, for example in Isaiah 9:6 He is called “the Mighty God” (not as the liberals suggest, “Mighty Hero”, or the Jews, “God is Mighty”. In Isaiah 10:21, the same Title, “el gobbor”, is used for the Father, yet it is always translated as “Mighty God”. So, why not when it is used for Jesus? Jesus Himself claimed Deity for Himself, when He said, “I and the Father, We are one”. “I and the Father” (Two Persons), which is also found in “we are” (masculine plural, inapplicable for one Person only), then the sentence terminates in the neuter, “hen” (one), that is “one thing”, or, “essentially one”. Not mere “unity of will” as some suppose, but, as the context shows, “unity of essence”. For, in verses 28-29, Jesus claims equal absolute power with the Father, for Himself.. By “one”, Jesus refutes the heresy of Arianism, and by “we are”, the heresy of Sabellianism.

This aside, we must conclude that since Jesus is Almighty God in every respect, the following has to be true. That He is “from everlasting to everlasting”, without beginning, not created or generated from the Father. That He, like the Holy Spirit, is, coequal, coessential, and coeternal with the Father. That, even though He was “sent” by the Father, that this “sending” was done so by agreement of Himself, and not something that was imposed upon Him. That, as Almighty God, Jesus cannot change, nor at any time cease to be God: “Jesus Christ the same: yesterday, and today and forever”. We cannot reduce the Deity of Jesus Christ in any way. We must reject the doctrine of demons, that which says that, according to Philippians 2:7, that He “emptied” Himself of His Divine Form. This is impossible for God to do.

We know from John 1:14, that the eternal Word of God (1:1), “became flesh”, that is, “took upon Himself human nature”. He did NOT “change” into flesh, but “added” this human nature to is Divine Nature. We know from Matthew 1:16 and Luke 1:35 (KJV), that His human nature was real, like our own (see also Hebrews 2:14). We also know from Romans 8:3, that this human nature was without sin. We know from 2 John 7, that to deny the reality of the human nature of Christ, was the work of the devil.

John 14:28 tells us, that while on earth, the Father was “greater” than Jesus, since He came “to serve”, and made Himself “subject” to the Father. Hebrews 2:7 tells us that this “subordination” was only for “a little time”, which was during His time on earth. We know from Jesus’ own words in John 17:5, that the “glory” that He equally shared (so the force of the Greek) with the Father, was “surrendered”, and here He asks for it to be “restored” on His Ascension. We know from Philippians 2:5-11, that Jesus always “existed in the form of God”, where “morphe” is NOT was some lexicons, like Thayer’s defines it, for the “outward glory”, but that in its use here, refers to the “essential nature” of Deity. (Form of God, Form of Man). We also know from this passage, that Jesus did not consider His “being on equality” with the Father, something to be held on to, but “emptied Himself”, (that is, did not hold on to it), of His glory, which was rightfully His as Almighty God. We also see here, that he “took upon Him the form of a servant” (real human nature), which did not “replave” His Divine nature, but was “added” to it. We know that the “likeness of man” that Paul refers to, is not that He was not really “man” (human), as some suppose, but, that, since Jesus’ human nature was without sin, it is only this respect that it differed from ours.. We also see from this passage, that after His Ascension, Jesus once again takes His equal place with the Father and Holy Spirit. Paul here in verses 10-11, quotes from Isaiah 45:23, which is used for YHWH, and applies it to the Risen Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. The only aspect of His Deity that Jesus “gave up”, was that of being “equal” to the Father and Holy Spirit while on earth. He never at any time “gave up” His attributes as God, but did not “exercise” them at all times, but did so at will.