Monday, March 16, 2020

Christological Issues and the Person of Jesus Learning New Information


In the New Testament, we see that Jesus learns new things in the then-present:

But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all. (Matt 12:15)

Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? (Matt 16:8)

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? (Matt 22:18)

When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. (Matt 26:10)

In all these instances, the term translated "knew"/"understood [it]" is γνοὺς. As John Nolland notes about Matt 12:15, Matthew creates a specific connection between Jesus' awareness of the plotting of the Pharisees and his subsequent withdrawal (The Gospel of Matthew [New International Greek Testament Commentary, 2005], 491).

A related text is that of Rev 1:1, speaking of Jesus post-ascension and after his hyper-exaltation (cf. Phil 2:6-11):

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. (Rev 1:1 NRSV)
In this verse, not only is there a distinction between "God" (not simply the person of the Father) and "Jesus” (something that is not tolerated in Trinitarianism) but also God has to give Jesus a revelation (not simply commission him to speak His words as his agent).


Why is this important?

In Trinitarian Christology, Jesus, while having two natures and wills (being both fully human and fully divine), is a single person (notwithstanding many Protestants being functionally Nestorian in their Christology). For Trinitarians, the person of Jesus was omniscient, but these texts indicate that Jesus was, until he learned such information, was ignorant thereof—the person of Jesus learned new things, in other words. What they must do is argue that this is speaking of the humanity of Jesus, but by doing such it makes the humanity of Jesus as something/someone distinct from the person of Jesus. Further, Matthew et al. never made such a distinction, always predicating ignorance of topics (such as the time of the parousia) and Jesus learning new things and even growing in wisdom in the eyes of both man and God (cf. Luke 2:52) on his unitary person, not one his alleged two natures.


Latter-day Saint theology, especially if one holds to a kenotic model of Christology, helps answer such issues, including our rejection of the two natures doctrine as dogmatised at 451 at Chalcedon. For a fuller discussion of LDS Christology, see:

Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus