# Did Jesus know who was elect during His earthly ministry?



## earl40 (Sep 28, 2015)

I assume most Christians would say yes because of this...."And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?"

I would say no unless The Holy Spirit somehow was communicating directly into His ear who was elect and who was not.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 28, 2015)

John 6:64 seems to indicate that he did know. "But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him."


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 28, 2015)

I would suggest his human nature did not, but his divine nature surely did. The Confessions maintain Christ is one person with two natures and two wills.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 28, 2015)

Jimmy the Greek said:


> I would suggest his human nature did not, but his divine nature surely did. The Confessions maintain Christ was one person with two natures and two wills.



Indeed I should had phrased my question "according to His humanity". For though He did not know the day or hour in His humanity we can say Jesus did know the day or hour and who was elect according to His divinity. I am wondering if His knowledge of who was elect something that was granted by The Holy Spirit? Or was it His divine nature communicating such?....6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:....I tend to think it was The Holy Spirit somehow communicating this information....be it by human discernment that we can have to an extent, which of course falls short of His human discernment.


----------



## Justified (Sep 28, 2015)

I think that he was _able_ to know who the elect were if he desired to. Jim is right that our Lord had two distinct natures. These natures do not communicate any of their essential properties to one another. For example, pace our Lutheran cousins, the divine nature doesn't communicate omnipresence to our Lord's human nature(or any of that nature's incommunicable properties). Nevertheless, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that the divine nature is capable of communicating certain knowledge to the human nature that it otherwise isn't capable of knowing (e.g., other people's thoughts). Obviously, the divine nature could only communicate knowledge that a human nature is capable of knowing.

So with regard to your question: sometimes our Lord may have known those who are elect, and at other times he did not.


----------



## timfost (Sep 28, 2015)

Calvin may be of help:



> When it is said that the Word was made flesh, we must not understand it as if he were either changed into flesh, or *confusedly intermingled with flesh*, but that he made choice of the Virgin's womb as a temple in which he might dwell. He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, not by *confusion of substance, but by unity of person*. For we maintain, that the *divinity was so conjoined and united with the humanity, that the entire properties of each nature remain entire, and yet the two natures constitute only one Christ*. If, in human affairs, any thing analogous to this great mystery can be found, the most apposite similitude seems to be that of man, who obviously consists of two substances, neither of which however is so intermingled with the other as that both do not retain their own properties. For neither is soul body, nor is body soul. Wherefore that is said separately of the soul which cannot in any way apply to the body; and that, on the other hand, of the body which is altogether inapplicable to the soul; and that, again, of the whole man, which cannot be affirmed without absurdity either of the body or of the soul separately.(_Institutes_ 2.14.1)



I think to compartmentalize this into His human nature and that into His divine nature past what is clear in scripture is vain speculation and would almost suggest that we believe in two Persons of Christ. Calvin continues in the next two sections to speak to what is clear concerning what belongs specifically to one nature or the other.

I think we have to accept that the Person of Christ and His unity is incomprehensible. Let's stand in awe and reverence believing that He is actually beyond comprehension (Isaiah 9:6).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2015)

timfost said:


> Calvin may be of help:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim,

I'm not sure why you quoted Calvin as he distinguished between the natures and did not merely stand "in awe" of the Person of Christ but was able to speak about what attributes are appropriate to each nature without confusing them. It is beyond human comprehension, to be sure, to understand how a human body/mind in the Logos incarnate is hypostatically united to the Divine Logos (Who retains all the attributes of Deity). That said, there are important matters of orthodoxy that have been settled historically on this point. Chalcedon was very clear in strssing the unity of the Person in its formula but it was also very clear in condemning the monophysite, monothelite, and Nestorian heresies.

It is not improper to think of Jesus Christ, the man. It is not inappropriate to ask whether He had a truly human mind and will. After all, it was Appolanarias who denied that Jesus' had a real human mind and will. It is not inappropriate to consult Scripture to determine if Jesus knew all things as a man or whether His knowledge was limited to human capacity. It is not improper to inquire as to the nature of Christ's humanity and whether, in the Lord's Supper, the divine nature is capable of communicating the attribute of ubiquity to the human nature (as Roman Catholics and Lutherans believe). While the Reformed have seen the Lutheran conception of the Lord's supper as a form of monphysitism, the Lutherans see the Reformed view as a form of Nestorianism (this was especially the issue in Luther's sharp critique of Zwingli).

So, returning to the OP, I don't believe that omniscience is an attribute of humanity. If Christ was fully human (which I believe He was) then I don't believe He had Divine knowledge but knew things by _learning_. He not only studied the Scriptures but received illumnination by the Holy Spirit to understand them and, as empowered by the Holy Spirit, was able to perform wonders and know things by immediate Revelation from the Spirit.


----------



## Jack K (Sep 28, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> John 6:64 seems to indicate that he did know. "But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him."



But I'm not sure this settles the question. The comment applies to a limited group of disciples. One could figure that Jesus, as a sinlessly keen observer of human behavior and a Spirit-enlightened prophet, would be able to tell which of his disciples didn't truly believe. Yet he might not be able to say the same of others he met and knew less well. Passages such as the one about the day and the hour suggest the Spirit may not have communicated such hidden things to Jesus.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 28, 2015)

Jack K said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > John 6:64 seems to indicate that he did know. "But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him."
> ...



Perhaps, but it does say that he knew from the beginning, before such character assessments could reasonably be made.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 28, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...



Well "from the beginning" could be from early on.


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2015)

John 13:18, "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."

2 Timothy 2:19, "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."


----------



## timfost (Sep 28, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> So, returning to the OP, I don't believe that omniscience is an attribute of humanity. If Christ was fully human (which I believe He was) then I don't believe He had Divine knowledge but knew things by _learning_. He not only studied the Scriptures but received illumnination by the Holy Spirit to understand them and, as empowered by the Holy Spirit, was able to perform wonders and know things by immediate Revelation from the Spirit.



But we need to keep in mind that the Jesus that was incarnate was _also_ divine. He was fully human _and_ fully divine. Your wording above and the wording of the OP seems to separate the two as if Christ incarnate was fully human and _not_ also divine. Omniscience is certainly _not_ an attribute of humanity, but Christ incarnate was not _only_ human, and therefore was also omniscient in a way that is beyond the human comprehension _precisely because we do not also have a divine nature_.

Do you understand my concern?


----------



## MW (Sep 28, 2015)

timfost said:


> and therefore was also omniscient in a way that is beyond the human comprehension _precisely because we do not also have a divine nature_.



Omniscience is beyond human comprehension, but you say it is true of God; therefore you must be able to predicate certain things of the divine nature even though they are beyond your comprehension.


----------



## timfost (Sep 28, 2015)

MW said:


> Omniscience is beyond human comprehension, but you say it is true of God; therefore you must be able to predicate certain things of the divine nature even though they are beyond your comprehension.



Yes, His incommunicable attributes are to be accepted by faith, not because we can relate to them. I simply want to caution against the idea that Christ incarnate was only His human nature. I thought the scriptures you quoted above drive this point home. Thank you!


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 28, 2015)

timfost said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Omniscience is beyond human comprehension, but you say it is true of God; therefore you must be able to predicate certain things of the divine nature even though they are beyond your comprehension.
> ...



Tim,
Rich is much more orthodox and astute than that. He is just echoing Chalcedon, which states that each nature retains it's own attributes. This is why we Protestants, along with the RC's, say that Mary was _Theotokos_, the "God bearer"...... Certainly, they (the RC's)have gone to a place where our systematic and biblical theology won't let us go.........


----------



## Jack K (Sep 29, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Jack K said:
> ...



Right. "Early on" is also how I would tend to read that comment. Yet, I'm mindful of the fact that John opens his gospel by speaking of Christ existing "in the beginning," which could make this a reference to the eternal foreknowledge of God. Although I lean towards saying Jesus did not have knowledge of all who were elect during his ministry on earth, I acknowledge it to be a difficult matter to say with certainty.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 29, 2015)

"Rich is much more orthodox and astute than that" — Indeed! Although I disagree with Rich on some lesser matters, I find him refreshingly clear and insightful in this and in the "does God love the reprobate" thread.

I must admit I tire of quotes from the Reformed divines, as they speak with nuances, and in other places appear to contradict themselves, when in truth they don’t—they are just easily misunderstood by many who think to use them to buttress their views. Rich keeps it simple and concise, as does Rev MW.

Thanks, Rich, I see your studies are paying huge dividends.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 29, 2015)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> "Rich is much more orthodox and astute than that" — Indeed! Although I disagree with Rich on some much lesser matters, I find him refreshingly clear and insightful in this and in the "does God love the reprobate" thread.
> 
> I must admit I tire of quotes from the Reformed divines, as they speak with nuances, and in other places appear to contradict themselves, when in truth they don’t—they are just easily misunderstood by many who think to use them to buttress their views. Rich keeps it simple and concise, as does Rev MW.
> 
> Thanks, Rich, I see your studies are paying huge dividends.




Indeed, and here was a post from another Elder that I found very helpful. We are all blessed here at the PB and I pray it be continued till Jesus comes again. 

"Jesus, in becoming the Last Adam, operated in the world according to his humanity. He submitted to his Father's will, as man should submit in everything to God. He acted in all cases not directly by his divine ability or prerogatives, but by means of the Spirit's power, even as Christians ought to act.

For this reason, he would not be swayed by the devil's temptation to turn stones into bread in the wilderness--although he certainly could have done so, and satisfied his human hunger. But the Spirit had driven him INTO the wilderness. Jesus knew he could not be obedient to the Father, and feed himself. He was to wait, and wait he did, until the angels were sent to minister to him.

Jesus was living the perfect human life. That is why he does nothing of himself or for himself, but is completely dependent upon the Spirit's power for his ministry activity, and upon the will of the Father for his direction. 


Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2015)

This is not quite the topic at hand but illustrates the point. Keep in mind that the Reformed have made contributions to Christology that we believe preserve the definition of Chalcedon. The idea that the "finite cannot contain the infinite" is discussed here and relates to omniscience.

That said, we don't use pronouns in the place of "natures" but of persons. Thus, if it be asked "did He know who the elect were?" the answer is "yes". Did He die on a cross? Yes.

If it be asked, touching His humanity did the Son know all things? No. Touching His Deity did the Logos die? No.



> Luther had introduced the novel view (though similar in some respects to Cyril’s formulation) that the characteristics (or attributes) of Christ’s divine nature are communicated to the human nature.57 Therefore, Christ can be present bodily at every altar because his human nature shares in the omnipresence of his divine nature. “Even as the one who is exalted at the right hand of God, Jesus Christ is still present on earth according to his divine and human natures.”58 Not only is Jesus Christ in his humanity omnipresent; he is also omniscient.59
> From a Reformed perspective, this view threatened to roll back the ecumenical consensus achieved at Chalcedon. While affirming Christ’s presence in the Supper, the Reformed held that he could not be present bodily anywhere on earth until his return in glory. Therefore, in the Supper the Spirit who unites us to Christ feeds us with the whole divine and human Christ, but in a mystical and heavenly manner. To Lutheran ears, talk of Christ being omnipresent as God but not omnipresent according to his humanity sounded like a Nestorian division of natures. Yet Reformed theologians heard in the Lutheran doctrine a Monophysite confusion of natures: allowing the humanity to be absorbed by the divinity.
> Like the earlier controversy between Alexandria and Antioch, the meeting between Luther and Zwingli at Marburg was doomed to end in failure, in part because Zwingli defended something close to a Nestorian position. For example, in one place the Zürich Reformer writes, “We must note in passing that Christ is our salvation by virtue of that part of his nature by which he came down from heaven, not of that by which he was born of an immaculate virgin, though he had to suffer and die by this part.”60 Unlike Nestorius, Zwingli tended to divide the natures in favor of Christ’s divinity, but the apportioning of salvation to one nature over another was just as apparent and would be as decisively rejected by Calvin and other Reformed leaders. It was their view rather than Zwingli’s that defined the Christology articulated in the Reformed confessions, catechisms, and dogmatics. Nevertheless, they just as resolutely opposed Luther’s view.
> First, the Lutheran-Reformed debate turns on the question of the communication of attributes (communicatio idiomatum). From the Reformed perspective, this refers to the fact that by virtue of the hypostatic union the attributes of either nature belong to the one person. Hodge explains:
> ...


----------



## timfost (Sep 29, 2015)

Rich,

I see your concern. I definitely want to acknowledge a distinction between the divine and human natures. As Horton says above, "the Reformed do not separate the natures." This is what I was trying to promote.

The OP asked:



> Did Jesus know who was elect during His earthly ministry?



With an answer in the negative:



> I would say no unless The Holy Spirit somehow was communicating directly into His ear who was elect and who was not.



It seems to me that this line of thought represents the incarnate Christ as only possessing a human nature.

The qualification



> Indeed I should had phrased my question "according to His humanity"



doesn't seem to address the problem because we end up with this:

"Did Jesus know who was elect during His earthly ministry according to His humanity?"

To the question, I think we have to answer "yes" since He was also divine during His early ministry (John 13:18). The idea that He didn't know who the elect were according to His humanity does not seem to acknowledge that the incarnate Christ had more than just a human nature. 

I'm not trying to argue over words. I'm just trying to understand how we are acknowledging the Person of Christ in the incarnation in this conversation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> To the question, I think we have to answer "yes" since He was also divine during His early ministry (John 13:18). The idea that He didn't know who the elect were according to His humanity does not seem to acknowledge that the incarnate Christ had more than just a human nature.



Tim,

I don't know if you are just articulating things very poorly but the Logos Incarnate has a true human nature. Touching His humanity, the Logos Incarnate was ignorant of things that His Deity knew. It is to confuse or mix the natures to insist that Jesus the *MAN* had divine attributes. As articulated, the finite cannot contain the infinite. If you are speaking of the PERSON then the Son is both God and man so, as Mike put it, He was ignorant and omniscient at the same time. Jesus, the man, had a human mind and will.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 29, 2015)

Chalcedon provides the answers, a la negativa, about the Incarnation:

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this _mystical union_ (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union (hypostatic union) is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (*Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians*);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (_anomoios_) with the Father (*semi-Arianism*);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (*Apollinarians*);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (*Dynamic Monarchianism*);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (*Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church*);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (*Eutychianism/Monophysitism*);
7. two distinct persons (*Nestorianism*);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (*docetism*);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (*kenoticism*);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (*Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper*); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (*Adoptionism*).


----------



## timfost (Sep 29, 2015)

Rich,

It's highly possible that I'm articulating things poorly.

I cannot see the difference between



> I would say no unless The Holy Spirit somehow was *communicating* directly into His ear who was elect and who was not



and



> 10. a view that there was a *communication* of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper)


----------



## Justified (Sep 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> Rich,
> 
> It's highly possible that I'm articulating things poorly.
> 
> ...


The Holy Spirit communicating a particular bit of _knowledge_ is not the same as communicating divine attributes to the human nature. In the first case knowledge is being communicated, not an attribute.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> Rich,
> 
> It's highly possible that I'm articulating things poorly.
> 
> ...



The difference is that a man does not need to be God in order to be a prophet. The Scriptures reveal that Christ, as man, accomplished His ministry in the power of the Spirit. Jesus as man did not simply "tap into" the divinity of the Divine Logos in order to know things. Jesus, the man, knew things by learning them - He _really_ did grow in stature and wisdom. 

Derek Thomas once asked the question: How did Jesus know He was the Messiah?

The answer, in part, is that He believed it.

When Christ was sweating drops of blood in the garden it was not a charade. I believe the Logos Incarnate went to the Cross not with Divine foreknowledge but as a true Man trusting His Father's Word concerning Him and the promise that He would be raised again.

Thus, as man, when I say that the Spirit communicated some things immediately to Him I mean that He knew it by the Spirit's revelation. Thus, one can say that the Son knew what was in man both as man by the Spirit's Revelation and illumination and as God because He knew everything.


----------



## timfost (Sep 29, 2015)

Evan,

Still confused... was the incarnate Christ also divine?


----------



## earl40 (Sep 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> > I would say no unless The Holy Spirit somehow was *communicating* directly into His ear who was elect and who was not



I can understand what you are getting at here and I overstated in that Jesus could have had the knowledge of who was elect in other ways as I communicated. The one way I believe He knew was by His perfect unfallen human nature which "heard" The Spirit and Father in some way that supersedes our ability to do anything close to what we do or know. I do know He did not know by having the divine attribute (which He had) of omniscience being exercised. The post above by Rev. Bruce is quite helpful here in my thinking. Now we do not know who is elect, but He did, and I suspect it came from a perfect sinless human nature that worked and knew who He came for to save. To think beyond this possible explanation I do fear to tread, because I suspect in my fallen nature I cannot comprehend His perfect humanity as much as His divinity.


----------



## Gforce9 (Sep 29, 2015)

Justified said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Rich,
> ...



To add to this, _communication_ is used in two different ways:

1- Sharing info (as in talking)
2- For things (attributes) to move, journey, translate to another, nature,.....

It would appear information was given to the human nature from time-to-time (Jesus knew Judas would betray, He knew Peter would deny, He knew their hearts..), but Omniscience, for example, never became part and parcel to the human nature (only the Father knows the hour,...). The Chalcedonian definition is the only safe place to rest.....a step in any direction is a step off the cliff.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> Evan,
> 
> Still confused... was the incarnate Christ also divine?



Of course! I think your confusion may stem from the fact that you are accustomed to confusing the natures so that Jesus was sort of a man sometimes but could just tap into His divine nature whenever He wanted. Remember, Jesus had a real human body and a real mind and a will that was distinct from the Divine will. We can only say that the Son was both ignorant and omniscient when we keep the Person singular but distinguish between the natures and remember that they were not separated, confused, or mixed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 29, 2015)

Some things are too wonderful for me to understand. I do appreciate the pursuits though if they help me be holier.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2015)

Incidentally, Tim, I'm having a hard time understanding how you can appreciate the idea that Christ's human body was not ubiquitous but you somehow attribute to His mind/will characteristics of His divine nature. One of the reasons the early Church was so intent on protecting not only the real Divinity but the real humanity of Christ was the insistence that He could not heal what He did not assume. If Christ the man was some sort of hybrid then He was not man.


----------



## timfost (Sep 29, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Evan,
> ...



If the natures "were not separated," how can we answer the question "did Christ know...?" It seems that the only way to answer the OP question in the negative is to _separate_ the natures and explain that the incarnate Christ encompassed the human nature _alone_. If the natures are united, in a very real sense the incarnate Christ was also omniscient, since the incarnate Christ was _also_ divine.

How Christ can be 100% God and 100% man is beyond my comprehension. Since it is beyond my comprehension, I try not to entertain questions where I have to reduce Christ so that He is comprehensible to me. Since the incarnate Christ was both fully human and fully divine, I cannot separate his omniscience from His Person since He is the God-man. How was it that He learned (human nature) while being omniscient (divine nature) is above my pay-grade, but I'd rather relate it as mysterious than imagine Him as less than divine (and omniscient), even in the incarnation.

Even though the divine nature could not be _seen_ physically by those who looked upon Christ, it does not follow that He in human form was not also divine. Since we don't know what it is to experience two separate and distinct but united natures in one person, isn't it better not to entertain questions that would divide His Person?


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2015)

timfost said:


> How Christ can be 100% God and 100% man is beyond my comprehension. Since it is beyond my comprehension, I try not to entertain questions where I have to reduce Christ so that He is comprehensible to me.



You seem to know enough to be able to say He is fully God and fully man, and you must mean something by those affirmations. It must be appropriate to say He is unlimited as God and limited as man. Then, it must be proper to say that His knowledge is unlimited as God and His knowledge is limited as man. All one is doing in this case is honestly explaining what is meant by the terms being utilised.


----------



## Justified (Sep 29, 2015)

Yes, the _person_ of Christ was both divine and human. I was answering your question on how the two things quoted above are any different, and that's what I thought I did. If you want to talk about the _person_ of Christ, then, yes, Christ knew who all the elect were.

This discussion requires a proper understanding of the _communication idiomatum_, the communication of properties. What can be predicated of either natures can be predicated of the person of Christ, but what is predicated of either nature cannot be necessarily predicated of the other nature. So if we're talking about whether Christ's human nature knows who all the elect are, we must consider what properties can be communicated and which cannot.

Certain types of knowledge, knowledge befitting our creaturely intelligence, I believe could be communicated to Christ's human nature and indeed was at several times during our Lord's ministry. Certain properties peculiar to the divine nature remain in the respective nature's possession alone (e.g., omniscience); that property obviously cannot be communicated to the human nature. Notice the sharp difference of what is being communicated in each instance: in one case knowledge that a creature is capable of understanding is communicated (think of how a prophet works), and on the other hand we are talking about a property that is incommunicable, i.e., a property that we as humans cannot have.

I hope I clarified what I meant. I'm mostly reiterating a lot of what has already been said.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 30, 2015)

timfost said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > timfost said:
> ...



Tim,

It seems your problem is with historic orthodoxy on the subject. I agree with Matthew that you talk about things strongly: "Oh, I know it can't mean that!" but then you retreat to: "Well He's fully man and God and I'll leave what that means to _mystery_."

Your objection that we cannot say (even though Scripture teaches it) that Jesus, the man, grew in wisdom and stature) that Jesus learned things because, after all, whenever we speak of Jesus we have to predicate everything of the entire Person and involve His Deity is absurd.

Did Jesus eat? Well, we are talking about His Person now so we can't really understand how His Divine nature eats. Mystery!

Did Jesus die on a Cross? We can't answer that question because we can only talk about the Person and the Person includes a divine nature. Mystery!

Your approach leads to total absurdity. If you're ignorant of this theological distinction then learn it but don't tepidly step into what is revealed about the Incarnation in Scripture and tell everyone that we can say nothing about the hypostatic union except what you're comfortable with.

I also find it a bit troubling how, in discussions regarding the free offer, you seem quite free in having a solid grasp of how God loves the reprobate and don't consider such things "above your paygrade". Interestingly, I find you far too speculative about those things that aren't revealed where we have a clear case of things that are revealed about the humanity and divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity but you want to insist we can say little to nothing about them.


----------



## timfost (Sep 30, 2015)

Rich,

Point taken. I will study.

Thanks,


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 30, 2015)

What is man, that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,[a]
8 putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

If he as a man was lower than the angels for a time, then I doubt he knew all things. But I'm very sure since he was in communication with the divine, he was privy to the knowledge the divine wanted him privy to as a man.

I wonder if we could think of Christ knowing who some of the elect were in some instances just as Paul knew a handful of people whose names were written in the Book of Life? Christ knew who to pick as his elect disciples and knew to pick Judas as his betrayer. He during his crucifixion he knew the one man beside him would see him in paradise and the other would not. I think we see this sprinkled throughout the Gospels. Paul seems to have done the same at least once here: "I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. 3 Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life."

I think both Jesus the man and Paul received their information from the same source, and although they knew quite a bit (Jesus more than Paul) they didn't know all things. It would be impossible for a human's brain to contain ALL known information since there is no end to what God knows. I do believe Jesus knew much more than any human being, but his human nature still does not know what his divide nature knows since he's still fully man and fully God.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 1, 2015)

I think we do very well to recognize the hypostatic union and agree that we cannot fully grasp it's inner reality (boy that sounds Kantian when I read it!). It is a revealed truth, therefore, we believe it, but we must admit the limitations of our finite cognition. I also think that we pastors can bring much comfort to God's hurting people by stressing the brutal reality of the Incarnation. Hebrews and Philippians are most essential in this regard. Now, I think Jesus learned he was the Christ by studying and meditating on Holy Writ. He became fully human and humans generally learn in a logocentric manner. This is a great encouragement to the Christian to study, study, study. To The Torah! 
Now, if Jesus of Nazareth learned of his Christhood in this manner, then the impact of the Incarnation is nothing less than mind-numbing. Think of the moment it all dawned on Jesus, possibly when he was studying Isaiah 52/53 or Psalm 22. Now think of what he must have felt as a man--knowing the Father would crush him for the likes of you and me. This is a great tonic to the "babe in a manger sentiment" that's just around the corner.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 1, 2015)

Clark-Tillian said:


> I think we do very well to recognize the hypostatic union and agree that we cannot fully grasp it's inner reality (boy that sounds Kantian when I read it!). It is a revealed truth, therefore, we believe it, but we must admit the limitations of our finite cognition. I also think that we pastors can bring much comfort to God's hurting people by stressing the brutal reality of the Incarnation. Hebrews and Philippians are most essential in this regard. Now, I think Jesus learned he was the Christ by studying and meditating on Holy Writ. He became fully human and humans generally learn in a logocentric manner. This is a great encouragement to the Christian to study, study, study. To The Torah!
> Now, if Jesus of Nazareth learned of his Christhood in this manner, then the impact of the Incarnation is nothing less than mind-numbing. Think of the moment it all dawned on Jesus, possibly when he was studying Isaiah 52/53 or Psalm 22. Now think of what he must have felt as a man--knowing the Father would crush him for the likes of you and me. This is a great tonic to the "babe in a manger sentiment" that's just around the corner.



Although we would agree that our Lord in His humanity was not omniscient and learned to e.g. talk and read as a boy, I don't know that would entail Him not knowing and believing that He was the divine Christ. 

This kind of lack of knowledge/ lack of belief/ doubt/ unbelief is often posited of Christ by liberal theologians, reflecting their own unbelief.

I don't believe it is reflected in the Gospels and don't know if is compatible with Christ's unipersonality and sinlessness. Granted as Christ grew into manhood, a greater understanding of what He already knew and believed about Himself would develop.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 1, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> > I think we do very well to recognize the hypostatic union and agree that we cannot fully grasp it's inner reality (boy that sounds Kantian when I read it!). It is a revealed truth, therefore, we believe it, but we must admit the limitations of our finite cognition. I also think that we pastors can bring much comfort to God's hurting people by stressing the brutal reality of the Incarnation. Hebrews and Philippians are most essential in this regard. Now, I think Jesus learned he was the Christ by studying and meditating on Holy Writ. He became fully human and humans generally learn in a logocentric manner. This is a great encouragement to the Christian to study, study, study. To The Torah!
> ...



Lack of knowledge is not co-referential with unbelief or sin. Very often evangelicals refuse to realistically make valid inferences from Christ's Incarnation for fear of reducing his glorious divinity--which is impossible.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 1, 2015)

Also, while the hypostatic union is a revealed truth, and, as I mentioned, quite beyond our finite comprehension, we often under-emphasize his humanity. This is to the church's detriment because only his humanity suffered, bled and died; by definition his divinity cannot undergo those experiences. 

_Heb. 2.10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings._ Irrespective of his unipersonality and sinless divinity, it would be heterodox to assert that his divine nature was in need of perfecting--or completion as the Greek can connote. 

_Heb. 2.17-18 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted._ 

Notice the phrase _in all things_. This leads to the inference that Christ developed through intellectual learning because the elect learn in that manner. Also, our acquired knowledge is often followed by pride of accomplishment etc. Therefore, The Christ would have experienced this temptation...but he never bent, much less broke.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 1, 2015)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Also, while the hypostatic union is a revealed truth, and, as I mentioned, quite beyond our finite comprehension, we often under-emphasize his humanity. This is to the church's detriment because only his humanity suffered, bled and died; by definition his divinity cannot undergo those experiences.
> 
> _Heb. 2.10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings._ Irrespective of his unipersonality and sinless divinity, it would be heterodox to assert that his divine nature was in need of perfecting--or completion as the Greek can connote.
> 
> ...



Great incites. What we can also assume is that any knowledge the human nature of Jesus acquired and retained was perfect and held steadfastly without error as only The Last Adam can do as befitting to a person born without a sinful nature.


----------



## timfost (Oct 1, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Tim,
> 
> It seems your problem is with historic orthodoxy on the subject. I agree with Matthew that you talk about things strongly: "Oh, I know it can't mean that!" but then you retreat to: "Well He's fully man and God and I'll leave what that means to mystery."



Could you recommend reading that illustrates what I'm struggling to understand, particularly in relation to how divine omniscience related to His incarnation?

I'm not suggesting that it is mysterious that Jesus ate food or died on the cross. *He had (and still has) a human nature*. I'm saying that the _relationship/union_ is beyond my comprehension. Because this is beyond my comprehension, I want to guard myself against speculation in regards to what He knew or didn't know since He was also divine. This is not to say that I wrap everything about the two natures into mystery.



> He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, *You know all things*; You know that I love You.” (John 21:17)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 2, 2015)

Tim,

A Puritan Theology has some good stuff on this subject. I know I keep referring to this work but it is really good.

Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective is also very good. It has a few odds and ends I don't like but it is a good work overall.

I don't want to give you the impression that you can walk away from this confident that you have a lock on the Hypostatic Union. It is beyond human comprehension.

That said, there have been some things that the Christian Church has historically insisted around the person of Christ that sort of center around the idea of "What kind of Christ is it that can save us?"

The idea that Christ has two wills answers part of that question. If Christ only has a divine will then He has no human will and it is not a human will that obeys the Father. The classic formula is: Whatever is not assumed is not healed. If Christ only assumes our flesh and not our mind/will then we are not "healed" by Him because He never fulfills righteousness as fully human.

Thus, negation is a lot easier because you can exclude ideas like whether the Logos has only one will or where He is really human or whether He is two Persons. Yet, after all we can say He's not, it's really hard to understand how a human nature and divine nature are one Person. The study even goes so far as to note that normally a person is defined by having a soul/body (which Jesus has) but the soul/body that Jesus had didn't have it's own "personhood" or the Incarnation would consist of Jesus and the Son of God being two different persons.

Finally, answering your question about "how can Peter say: 'You know all things....'". It's the same reason that Thomas can say: "My Lord and my God." Either we would have to conclude that Jesus (and other parts of Scripture) are being somewhat untruthful when it is said that Jesus doesn't know something or we have to harmonize this passage theologically. The theological answer is that He (the Person) does know all things. It's the same reason we can say "the Son of God dies on a Cross" without saying that Deity died. Of course, this drives Muslims crazy because they refuse to follow our distinctions but Christians ought to be able to understand that whatever is accomplished by either nature is accomplished by the Person. If Christ touches a man then the Person is touching a man even though Deity is immaterial. The Person ate because Jesus the man was real flesh and blood even though Deity is immaterial.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 2, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> > Also, while the hypostatic union is a revealed truth, and, as I mentioned, quite beyond our finite comprehension, we often under-emphasize his humanity. This is to the church's detriment because only his humanity suffered, bled and died; by definition his divinity cannot undergo those experiences.
> ...



I would certainly assent to that proposition. His mind and memory were unfettered by the debris of sin. How wonderful that will be once we cross Jordan.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 3, 2015)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Also, while the hypostatic union is a revealed truth, and, as I mentioned, quite beyond our finite comprehension, we often under-emphasize his humanity. This is to the church's detriment because only his humanity suffered, bled and died; by definition his divinity cannot undergo those experiences.
> 
> _Heb. 2.10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings._ Irrespective of his unipersonality and sinless divinity, it would be heterodox to assert that his divine nature was in need of perfecting--or completion as the Greek can connote.
> 
> ...



I agree with all these valuable points, Kevin, and I know this is somewhat off topic, but I don't see evidence in the Gospels of the oft-made claim that Jesus sometimes did not know who He was as divine Christ, or was not sure, or doubted who He was. 

In the temptation the Devil in a real sense tries to get Him to forget/deny who He is, without success.

As regards the OP, Christ, being omniscient, in His divine nature knew everyone He was dying to infallibly save. In His human nature, however many of those He knew individually, it is clear from the Gospels He did not believe He was dying to save everyone who lived.


----------

