How would you respond to this argument about Jesus' human ignorance?

[TryingToLearn]

So, I was just thinking about Luke 2:52, "And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man", which of course means he did so in his human nature with his human mind, not with his divine nature. But I was also thinking about some liberal theologians that I had seen argue that Jesus was wrong about the six days of Creation, for example, which led me to consider this possible argument. My question is, how do we respond to the argument that Jesus could have been wrong and incorrect about some things in his human nature? Certainly after his resurrection, he knew all things (John 21:17) and all authority had been given to him (Matthew 28:18), but I'm unsure what verses I'd go to or what argument I'd make to show that while he didn't know everything in his humiliation, what he did know, he couldn't be wrong about. Or is that even the right way to think about it, or is it rather possible that he could've been wrong about things, but nothing that the Scriptures touch (for example, could he have done a math problem incorrectly?)

Any thoughts, or any resources that try to address this?

 

[RamistThomist]

Hypothetically, He could be ignorant about x without holding an incorrect view about x. The former doesn't entail the latter.

 

[TryingToLearn]

True, but I was wondering what scripture (or argument from scripture) we could go to to try to show he held no incorrect views to begin with, as it makes me wonder how we'd define that, like I asked, was it then impossible for him to have incorrectly done a math problem? Or, for example, many people back in his time believed the elements of matter were made of earth, water, fire, and air, is it incorrect to think that it's possible Jesus could have believed that?

He clearly learned things growing up as an infant into a man and it's hard for me to see how one could learn something without previously holding an incorrect view about it that has to be adjusted. Though I suppose his knowledge could've always been correct as soon as he was taught something and that he simply didn't think about the things he didn't know so as to prevent him from having incorrect views about it.

 

[RamistThomist]

True, but I was wondering what scripture (or argument from scripture) we could go to to try to show he held no incorrect views to begin with, as it makes me wonder how we'd define that,

Why would you even accept that burden of proof? They are the ones implying he had incorrect knowledge. Let them demonstrate it.

and air, is it incorrect to think that it's possible Jesus could have believed that?

Maybe, maybe not. What matters is the actual evidence. Otherwise it is speculation.

He clearly learned things growing up as an infant into a man and it's hard for me to see how one could learn something without previously holding an incorrect view about it that has to be adjusted.

I see what you are asking. THat's a bit different from your earlier implication that liberals said he held incorrect views like six days, two genders, etc. BUt let's take the ancient view that there are four elements. The average uneducated person doesn't believe that and probably never heard of it. I doubt Jesus held to it, rightly or wrongly.

 

[TryingToLearn]

I guess I'm just trying to find out what the orthodox position on Jesus' limited knowledge would be. How exactly must we define it? Surely, he was always correct in all that he taught about the Scriptures and about God, which can even be said of every other inspired prophet. I suppose I just wanted to find out whether it's theologically possible or just complete heresy to say that Jesus could have possibly held incorrect beliefs (such as the composition of the elements) or that he was fallible in his own knowledge (if he could have failed math problems). Seems like we both agree that it is a theological possibility.

 

[RamistThomist]

I guess I'm just trying to find out what the orthodox position on Jesus' limited knowledge would be. How exactly must we define it? Surely, he was always correct in all that he taught about the Scriptures and about God, which can even be said of every other inspired prophet. I suppose I just wanted to find out whether it's theologically possible or just complete heresy to say that Jesus could have possibly held incorrect beliefs (such as the composition of the elements) or that he was fallible in his own knowledge (if he could have failed math problems). Seems like we both agree that it is a theological possibility.

The Reformed have always confessed that Jesus was finite in human knowledge. Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran disagree with us. Rome takes a midway view.

As to his holding incorrect beliefs, since we have zero evidence one way or another, it is a moot question.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is what Thomas Aquinas said on the matter.

Thomas posits an archetypal theology within the union of the God-man, saying “from the moment of his conception Christ saw God’s essence fully” (3.7.3). This is important for Thomas, for on his gloss, “The soul of Christ had to be perfected by a knowledge which would be its proper perfection” (3.9.1). Indeed, the soul of Christ is perfected with the beatific knowledge. Thomas isn’t saying, however, that the soul/human nature of Christ simpliciter sees the divine essence.

 

[VictorBravo]

My question is, how do we respond to the argument that Jesus could have been wrong and incorrect about some things in his human nature?

I think Jacob answered this well. Why would we entertain a hypothetical that has no evidence?

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man"

I think the gist of this is simply that Jesus, as a person, learned from human experience what humans learn being human.

Hebrews 4:15: For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

But there is also the knowledge he had from constant communion with the Father. By the Word. His human mind incorporated and applied the Word of God daily. In his human nature this necessarily came sequentially, so he "increased in wisdom...." So, speaking of the human state, at points perhaps he was ignorant of some things in the immediate sense, but he always knew fully the source of knowledge. That means he was not "incorrect".

 

[JH]

The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. — Deuteronomy 29:29

There are some doctrines contained within the word of God that God has been pleased not to give a full explanation of, nor could our finite minds ever comprehend.