# Where did Jesus get his knowledge?



## Citadel

I was talking with a pastor recently, whom I don't trust very much doctrinally and theologically, and the question was raised regarding where Jesus learned. I don't recall who posed it originally.

We were ultimately meeting over the idea of over-study. He was basically arguing against any book other than the Bible, using Solomon's words at the end of Ecclesiastes as a springboard. I held to Spurgeon's admonishment that "He who will not use the thoughts of other men’s brains, proves that he has no brains of his own. You need to read." Plus Solomon was not talking about Biblical study, but worldly study 

Anyways, where did Jesus learn? I'd never studied that, and the pastor is more Socratic than anything it seems, so he just mainly asked questions. The scriptures don't seem to detail his early life and development so much. I would just kind of assume that being God, and being the Word, Christ wouldn't need to read the scriptures or get access to books or scrolls.

Pastor in question did not cede this point. Thoughts? Anyone able to point me in a good direction for study, etc?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

I believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. He is very special and has knowledge no one else has. His teaching the teachers in the temple at 12 years old is proof of that.


----------



## Citadel

Great point, I think I forgot to bring that up  It's frustrating to have someone I once really respected let me down. I med this pastor about two years ago when I had God "on the shelf." I guess I should be thankful he didn't really teach and imbue much doctrinal understanding that I'm having to undo 

As I've progressed in my learning and found a church that actually preaches the Bible faithfully, I've grown more and more to dislike his views. He's very bent to liberation theology and is with the local UMC in the middle of "rich-ville"


----------



## athanatos

Citadel said:


> The scriptures don't seem to detail his early life and development so much. I would just kind of assume that being God, and being the Word, Christ wouldn't need to read the scriptures or get access to books or scrolls.



In Luke 2:52
"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (NIV)
"And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature[a] and in favor with God and man." (ESV) [or _years_]

I think this shows that during his time in the synagogue He learned.


----------



## Philip

Citadel said:


> Anyways, where did Jesus learn?



Where any other Jewish boy of the time would have learned: probably at the local synagogue.



Osage Bluestem said:


> I believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. He is very special and has knowledge no one else has. His teaching the teachers in the temple at 12 years old is proof of that.



But how do the two relate? Infinite knowledge is an essential characteristic of God, yet finite knowledge is an essential characteristic of man.


----------



## athanatos

Citadel said:


> He's very bent to liberation theology and is with the local UMC in the middle of "rich-ville"



I'm sorry, brother.


----------



## Peairtach

Christ in His humanity on Earth had to learn like any other man, except that He was without sin, and had a special body and reasonable soul prepared for Him in God's providence for the task.

Certain things were also revealed to Him supernaturally for His task and His divine knowlege was sometimes allowed to be used by Him.

It is a deep mystery that as to His divinity Christ is omniscient, whereas as to His humanity He is not.

While in His state of humiliation He knew all that He needed to live as a man, and yet communicate the Truth with perfect accuracy.

There is no record of Jesus being in error but, in His humanity, there were things He didn't know just as all other humans are limited in their knowledge.

*E.g.*


> And he said to them, "How many loaves do you have? Go and see." (Mark 6:38, ESV)





> And Jesus asked his father, "How long has this been happening to him?" (Mark 9:21)





> And he said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to him, "Lord, come and see." (John 11:34)





> "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matt 24:36)





> And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" (Luke 24:41)


----------



## Jack K

Citadel said:


> The scriptures don't seem to detail his early life and development so much. I would just kind of assume that being God, and being the Word, Christ wouldn't need to read the scriptures or get access to books or scrolls.



But in the single account we do have of Jesus' early life, we find him being incredibly devoted to studying the Scriptures, staying behind for three whole days in Jerusalem to be among the teachers. So if we know anything about his formative years, it is that study of God and the Bible was very important to him. Of course, the account shows he also had an awareness of his position as the Son of the Father, plus spiritual answers that may be a glimpse of his divine omniscience. But clearly he still had a passion to study and learn the Scriptures.



Osage Bluestem said:


> I believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. He is very special and has knowledge no one else has. His teaching the teachers in the temple at 12 years old is proof of that.



Yes, but we must keep in mind that Luke's account does not say the boy Jesus was teaching in the Temple. Later, as an adult, it clearly says he was. But in Luke 2 Jesus is "sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions" (Luke 2:46). He was also giving them amazing answers. This suggests the typical behavior of a student, not a teacher. He was seated at the feet of his teachers, listening, questioning and responding in the dialogue-type learning manner of the day. The understanding shown in his questions and answers may indicate he was mature enough to be teaching. But the text doesn't say he was actually taking that role.

I realize that some popular preachers, failing to see the submission side of Jesus evident all through this passage ("I must be in my Father's house"), have taken the interpretation that Jesus was teaching. But the passage is actually one of our best accounts of the obedience and submission of Jesus despite his superiority. He understands his purpose in life far better than Mary and Joseph do, yet he goes home with them and obeys them. He has amazing understanding of the Scriptures, yet he eagerly studies under the teachers.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Jesus will always be mysterious to us because he is so special.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ps. 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It's been noted already, but just to underline that Jesus was fully man and it is heterodox to assert that Christ's nature was a mixture of humanity and divinity or that Christ was a human body with a divine mind.

I can't imagine how wise or learned we might be if we were not sinful. I believe knowledge is a result of natural and special revelation. This divine revelation is accomodated to creaturely capacity and is true knowledge. What distorts the revelation that God reveals to us through creation and His Word is our sinful proclivity to distort what has been revealed.

Imagine, then, Christ who was without sin how He would be able to apprehend fully and accurately the body of natural and special revelation taught Him from the light of nature as well as the Scriptures themselves. Imagine a mind that fully loved the things of God and devoured wisdom. Imagine a mind that did not twist the created things but understood the relationship of the created order to the Creator Himself.

It's not as if Christ could only know some of the things He did because He was God but He knew many things because, in His humanity, His mind was not defiled by sin and ethically hostile to the things of God. That meant that every bit of revelation was received and apprehended as it was intended to be apprehended by men.

So, the short answer is that Christ learned by revelation accommodated to human capacity just as any other human that every walked on the earth but Christ is the only Person who had an undefiled mind that could properly apprehend the revelation that was given Him.


----------



## Prufrock

Rich, I would never attempt to assume the posture of teaching you, so please do not take this as a correction, but rather an addition. While we want to protect the fact of Christ's human nature, we also do not want to underplay the effect of the hypostatic union upon that nature. In addition to Christ possessing a mind uncorrupted by sin, the human nature assumed by the Logos received inestimable benefit thereby: on account of its union with the Second Person (and because of the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity), the Holy Spirit worked upon Christ's human nature in a way above anything we can understand. So beyond the sinless perfection of his mind, the union with the Logos provides further blessing unto the human nature than this, all while not confusing the properties particular to each. Does this sound agreeable to you? (Sorry to all that I cannot currently provide any references on this topic; I am just passing through the library on my way to a meeting).


----------



## VictorBravo

Paul, I was thinking similarly, particularly Luke 2:40: "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him."

Owen, in his work on Hebrews, contrasting the OT prophets with Christ (Volume 19, p. 37--I think):



> All other prophets, even Moses himself, receiving their revelations by transient irradiations of their minds, had no treasure of truth dwelling in them, but apprehended only that particular wherein they were enlightened, and that not clearly neither, in its fullness and perfection, but in a measure of light accommodated unto the age wherein they lived.


----------



## Philip

And of course, Paul, we have to unequivocally affirm the unity of the Person of Christ.

So many pitfalls to avoid when discussing this topic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Prufrock said:


> Rich, I would never attempt to assume the posture of teaching you, so please do not take this as a correction, but rather an addition. While we want to protect the fact of Christ's human nature, we also do not want to underplay the effect of the hypostatic union upon that nature. In addition to Christ possessing a mind uncorrupted by sin, the human nature assumed by the Logos received inestimable benefit thereby: on account of its union with the Second Person (and because of the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity), the Holy Spirit worked upon Christ's human nature in a way above anything we can understand. So beyond the sinless perfection of his mind, the union with the Logos provides further blessing unto the human nature than this, all while not confusing the properties particular to each. Does this sound agreeable to you? (Sorry to all that I cannot currently provide any references on this topic; I am just passing through the library on my way to a meeting).


 
Sure! I appreciate the humility in your approach and don't feel like I can't learn a lot on this. I think I was reflecting primarily on the human nature of Christ. I think many of us might default to the idea that the reason why Christ knew something, as a man, was because He was God. I suppose I was trying to meditate on His humanity and reflect upon the capacity He would have had as a sinless man while certainly not rejecting the hypostasis of His Person. I have much to learn about this topic and there is much that is beyond my grasp to understand. I've never quite grasped the empowering role of the Spirit on Christ's humanity wondering why He would not draw His spiritual succor from His divine nature but I have to admit haven't studied it in great depth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think this presentation by Muller is very helpful:



> 5.4 Theology of Union: Christ’s Knowledge of God
> 
> A. The Positive Doctrine—Issues and Problems Addressed by the “Theology of Union”
> 
> 1. Underlying christological issues. The problem of the theology of Christ according to his human nature, which enters the theological prolegomena of the Protestant orthodox with Junius’ De vera theologia (1594), is an essentially christological issue with a long history of its own apart from the development of theological prolegomena. The church fathers prior to the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) examined the texts in Scripture where Christ is said to know all things (Matt. 11:27; John 21:17) and those texts where his knowledge is described as limited in some way (Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52), and had either referred the former to Christ’s divinity and the latter to his humanity or, on the assumption of a communion of the divine with the human in the hypostatic union and a communication of proper qualities (communicatio idiomatum) from the divine to the human nature, endeavored to explain the limitation of knowledge as a hiding of omniscience rather than as an actual lack of knowledge.
> 
> The tendency of Western Christology following Augustine was to deny a communication of divine attributes to Christ’s human nature and to assume the finitude of his human knowledge. This view raised the further question of the character of Christ’s human knowledge which, albeit finite, must nevertheless be higher and more extensive than the knowledge afforded to sinners. Aquinas could argue, on the basis of Jesus’ sinlessness, that Jesus possessed the beatific vision and, on the basis of the hypostatic union, that Jesus’ visio Dei was virtually infinite. The alternative perspective, resting upon the communication of divine attributes to Christ’s humanity, reappeared in the Lutheran Christology of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These two perspectives—the Thomist and the Lutheran—appear as negated views in the Reformed discussion of the theologia unionis.
> 
> The historical debate, however, only accounts for the forms and patterns of christological argument, not for the presence of the argument in the prolegomena to theological system. To this question we can only offer a tentative answer. The discussion of the theologia unionis arises at least in part out of the scholastic drive toward completeness of definition. Christ’s knowledge of God, in view of the uniqueness of his person, represents a separate category of theology to be contrasted with the theology of angels and of men either in via or in patria. As a separate and unique category, it demands discussion as a part of the definition of theologia and the isolation of theologia nostra. It would also seem, moreover, that the discussion of theologia unionis takes on systematic importance in view of the Reformation’s tendency, witnessed for example in the epistemology of Calvin’s Institutes, to define knowledge of God in terms of Christ.
> 
> 2. Theologia unionis in the orthodox Reformed definitions. The theologia unionis appears as a basic epistemological category in theology that identifies the difference on the one hand between the knowledge of God given to the human Jesus and the ultimate divine self-knowledge belonging to all the persons of the Trinity and, on the other, between Jesus’ knowledge of God and the knowledge of God available to believers. Thus, in brief,
> 
> The theology that we call [theology] of union [is] the entire wisdom of divine things communicated to Christ the God-man, that is, as the Word made flesh, according to his humanity.
> 
> The concept of theologia unionis was taken directly from the medieval scholastics, notably from Alexander of Hales.
> 
> The idea of a theologia unionis does not, therefore, indicate the presence of archetypal theology, known to God alone but somehow delivered in the finite form of Jesus’ humanity. Rather, it refers to the knowledge of God available to Christ as our Mediator, according to his human nature. The Reformed orthodox affirm, of course, that the Word, the second person of the Trinity, retains the theologia archetypa in its union with the human nature. There is no kenotic emptying out of divine essence in the incarnation; the sapientia Dei remains an attribute of the Word. The issue is that the infinite sapientia Dei or theologia archetypa cannot be communicated to a finite mind, even to the sinless mind of Christ Jesus. Alsted refers to the theology of union as one suitable to the position and purpose of Christ’s person—a theologia mediatoris or theologia oeconomica, that is, a theology of the mediator or a theology suited to the economy or divine dispensation of salvation. Of course, the reason that Christ’s human knowledge of God is both finite and most exalted of all finite forms is that it rests on the union of the two natures: the divine nature, knowing the archetype, communicates the ectype directly in the union—neither by vision nor by revelation, both of which imply separation of object and subject.
> 
> In defining the efficient cause of theology, Walaeus first notes that the appointed end of things, the creaturae rationalis extrema beatitudo & Dei gloria, cannot be attained in us unless God himself communicates with us. This communication of divine wisdom is accomplished in three forms: by the hypostatic union, by intuitive vision (per visionem ut vocant intuitivam), and by revelation strictly so-called. The first of these—the theology of union—is that sapientia most fully communicated to the human nature of Christ, the fullness of which both represents the greatest knowledge of God possible in a creature and that knowledge necessary to the work of the mediator between God and man. This communication does not mean—as the ubiquitarians would have it—that infinite divine wisdom is transformed into a human intellect. Rather Christ’s mind was enlightened extraordinarily by the Holy Spirit because of the power of union (ex vi conjunctionis illius cum natura divina) with the divine nature.
> 
> This limitation of theologia unionis as finite knowledge and, therefore, as a form, albeit exalted, of ectypal theology, rests upon two basic principles: no proportion can be given or made between the finite and the infinite (finiti ad infinitum dari proportio non potest) and there can be no confusion of natures or transfusion of properties in the hypostatic union. Both of these principles can be stated in terms of the frequently cited Reformed maxim finitum non capax infiniti (“the finite is not capable of the infinite”). We note that the argument is both philosophical and christological and that the philosophical side of the argument reflects both epistemological and ontological issues. On the philosophical side, Junius’ language concerning the absence of analogy or proportion between the finite and the infinite, like his basic distinction between theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa, reflects late medieval models, specifically the nominalist dictum finiti et infiniti nulla proportio according to which reason cannot move from the finitude of revelation to the infinite being of God.
> 
> The christological problem follows as a result of the philosophical: if the human nature of Jesus, as finite, is incapable in itself of comprehending the infinite knowledge of the theologia archetypa, then any equation of the theologia unionis with archetypal theology must involve some alteration of the human nature of Jesus. For Jesus to be possessed of an infinite divine wisdom according to his humanity, there would have to be either a communication of divinity to humanity or a transference of divine attributes to Jesus’ humanity within the hypostatic union. But that union takes place without comixture or comingling, without a confusion of the natures, and thus without either a communication of divinity to humanity or a transference of the divine attributes to the human nature. Thus Jesus has two natures, two wills, two intellects—a divine and a human—and each has the knowledge that is proper to it. Christ has knowledge or wisdom, then, according to two modes, the divine and the human, the former being essential and incommunicable, the latter being habitual and communicable.
> 
> These arguments do not, of course, mean that the Reformed in any way diminish the quality or extent of the knowledge given to Christ. They view it as the most exalted form of human knowledge of God, higher than either the theology of the blessed in heaven (theologia beatorum) or the theology of human beings before the fall (theologia viatorum ante lapsum).
> 
> Therefore this theology is the wisdom of divine things communicated from heaven in the Spirit of God to man, without measure, for the sake of the enlightenment of all those who are created according to the image of God.
> 
> Such a communicatio sine mensura, however, cannot be found among all creatures. Indeed, Junius argues, when the definition passes from consideration of the theologia unionis in se to consideration of this theology as it actually exists in subiecto, the measureless wisdom of the Spirit appears as an inaccessible source (fons inaccessus) and a great abyss (abyssus magna) beyond the capacity of angelic and human subjects. Only Christ our Savior can approach such knowledge in his sinless humanity through the work of the Spirit, for “the Father loves the Son and has given him all things in his hand.”
> 
> This concept of a theologia unionis draws upon the christological concepts of a communicatio apotelesmatum, the communication of mediatorial operations, which bring to completion the work of the two natures, and of the dona extraordinaria finita, the extraordinary finite gifts bestowed by the Spirit on Christ’s human nature for the sake of his mediatorial work. In the hypostatic union, Christ is both anointing and anointed (ungens et unctus), the divine nature consecrating the human both by uniting with it and by bestowing the gifts of the Spirit. The wisdom of divine things known to Christ, moreover, is a wisdom bestowed in accord with his mediatorial work so that it provides a basis for the ultimate enlightenment or illumination of rational creatures, just as Christ’s work of salvation provides the foundation of their redemption. The “enlightenment of all those who are created according to the image of God,” then, occurs in Christ—so that the theologia unionis provides the immediate foundation of our theology, even as the theologia archetypa provides the immediate foundation of the theology of union. The theology of union represents a soteriological or mediatorial principle in the basic epistemology of Reformed system.
> 
> Thus, over against the archetypal theology, the theologia unionis is to be recognized as ectypal, finite, created, and habitual (habitualis), but nonetheless as “truly absolute according to the manner of created nature” (absolutissima secundum naturae creatae modus) because of the light of the divine nature united to the human as its principium or foundation. In relation to us, therefore, the theologia unionis is “as if infinite and close to the infinite” (quasi infinita & infinitae proxima). Compared to the measure and limited scope of our wisdom, it appears infinite and can only be called finite in the company of the essential and infinite wisdom of God. Thus Scripture can attribute both growth in wisdom and ignorance to Christ (Mark 13:32; Luke 2:52); and can also say that Christ knows all things (Matt. 11:27; John 21:17)—the former being said in recognition of the finitude of his knowledge, the latter being said in relation to our ignorance.
> 
> 
> Muller, R. A. (2003). Post-Reformation reformed dogmatics: The rise and development of reformed orthodoxy; volume 1: Prolegomena to theology (2nd ed.) (248–252). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.


----------



## Jack K

Rich, that insight as to how a sinless human would've received the teaching of God is great insight! I'd not heard it or considered it before. Very helpful!


----------



## Peairtach

Jack K said:


> Rich, that insight as to how a sinless human would've received the teaching of God is great insight! I'd not heard it or considered it before. Very helpful!





I should have mentioned as has been since indicated that Christ's holy humanity always had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a way that hadn't been the case since Adam was in the Garden. 

He had "the Spirit without measure", and in a particular sense after His baptism and the commencement of His ministry.



> For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.(John 3:34, ESV)


----------



## dudley

The pre-resurrection Jesus, the incarnation had to be understood seriously in that Jesus would not have been aware of deity as we understand it now. Rather, he would have seen himself as an ‘embodiment’ of YHWH. This would be that which upon later Christology could build.

On several occasions in the Gospels, we are told that Jesus knew something or heard something. Frequently, such an assertion is made by way of the aorist or perfect adverbial participle

Matthew 12:25“Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them” (NIV), “He knew what they were thinking and said to them” (NRSV), 

The human Jesus had to learn carpentry I am sure from Joseph. However we need to remember that Jesus always was with the Father…his knowledge transcends from the Father and He does the will of the Father….our difficulty is always that we view everything from the perspective of our finite minds….Jesus with the Father always was ….the infinite we can not really comprehend…the Devine nature of Jesus had His knowledge with the Father and transcending from the Father…


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

dudley said:


> The pre-resurrection Jesus, the incarnation had to be understood seriously in that Jesus would not have been aware of deity as we understand it now. Rather, he would have seen himself as an ‘embodiment’ of YHWH. This would be that which upon later Christology could build.


 Src: Wednesdays with Wright: Did Jesus Know He was ‘God’? « Near Emmaus

You could perhaps draw upon a wee bit better, and actually more correct, source than this, especially given the author's, er, _perspective_. 



> On several occasions in the Gospels, we are told that Jesus knew something or heard something. Frequently, such an assertion is made by way of the aorist or perfect adverbial participle Matthew 12:25“Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them” (NIV), “He knew what they were thinking and said to them” (NRSV),


For the complete context, see: When Did Jesus Know? The Translation of Aorist and Perfect Participles for Verbs of Perception In the Gospels | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

AMR


----------



## discipulo

Geerhardus Vos on The Self-Disclosure of Jesus: The Modern Debate about the Messianic Consciousness has pretty good writing on the topic.

It is quite above my league so to speak, so I can't even remember much, but when I read I made a lot wows  so I highly recommended it

Amazon.com: The Self-Disclosure of Jesus: The Modern Debate about the Messianic Consciousness (Student Library) (9780875525044): Geerhardus Vos, J.G. Ed. Vos, Johannes Geerhardus Vos: Books


----------

