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
