Jesus in the Temple at 12?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Southern Presbyterian

Puritan Board Doctor
Is there any sense, given a proper understanding of the hypostatic union, in which Jesus did not know/understand who He was at any point in His earthly life?

I heard a sermon (by a prominent evangelical preacher) where it was stated that the purpose of Jesus' questioning the Rabbis was to help Him figure out who He was. I don't believe that to be true.

As God, He knows all things. As man, He had to "grow in wisdom and understanding" like all children. Am I missing or misusing any thing here?
 
My understanding is that Jesus' omniscience in His human form was potential. He had access to any knowledge that He needed via His divine nature (as, for example, he divined the hearts of the Pharisees), yet he did not have all knowledge immediately in his human form (and so could say that no man, not even the Son, but the Father only knew the hour of His return).

I would point out also Jesus' response to his parents' concern when they found him--"Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" He knew who He was, He knew who His Father was, and He knew what His Father's business was.
 
I believe Jesus always knew who he was. Even at 12 whilst in the temple he knew he was in his father's house. The sermon you mentioned is the type of thing I have heard from liberals or new age thinkers who would try to say Jesus didn't know who he was and had to develop some sort of God consciousness which he found on his travels in India sitting at the feet of some guru. But they would deny his deity or at least would deny it in the way we would understand it.

The human Jesus was limited in knowledge; the divine Jesus was omniscient. Orthodox Christology teaches that the two natures in one person did not interfere with each other. In reading the gospels, Jesus always seemed to know exactly who he was and never at any time was he unsure or indecisive -even at the age of 12 he seemed to know who he was.
 
I've been doing some reading this afternoon and according to Berkhof, this "unipersonality" of Christ is a mystery. One which defies explanation via human reason and must remain so because it is the "miracle of miracles" and has been consistently recognized as such by the church. Why then does he spend several more pages trying to explain it? Why are there pages, chapters and even books written on the subject? Would it not be enough to identify what is error in regard to the person of Christ and leave it at that since that is apparently what Scripture does? In short, why all these attempts to explain the unexplainable?
 
I think they don't so much try to explain the unexplainable as set constraints around it. Because not all of it is unexplainable. Some of it, God has explained to us. Therefore it's necessary to lay out clearly what has been revealed so as to see more accurately where the mystery lies.
 
It is a mystery and must be left at that. One cannot adequately explain the Trinity or Christ's two natures in one person. One cannot put God in box and say this is he all fully understood and explained. What Berkhof is doing is not so much explaining him but stating what other people/theologians believe along with their pros and cons of such views. People are naturally inquisitive and want honest answers to honest questions. A person wants to find out as much as possible about God, faith, doctrines etc. Some questions can be answered definitively, some questions may have different interpretations of the answers according to ones view whilst some questions just cannot be answered.

If I asked a question and was just told it is a mystery then I would not be satisfied. If however I examined all possible answers and then concluded that it is a mystery then I would be satisfied. I am reminded of a number of RCs I have met who have asked me plenty of questions because when they asked their priests they were told not to ask as it was a mystery.

Inquiring minds are great, but there are limits.
 
Christ did not know the day nor the hour of His return while He was on the earth it appeared either.

If you escape the problem of Jesus getting lost at 12....move the age back to 8 or 6 or 4 or 2... at some point we must say that Jesus, too, was ignorant and learned how to talk and didn't come springing from Mary's womb with full adult intellect.
 
Early on, many errors arose concerning the relationship of Christ as God and Christ as fully man. Defining what we can know and developing an orthodox standard has been a crucial role for the church over the years. As an individual believer, I want to know as much about my savior as I can. I don't think God is offended that I ask questions and seek to understand as long as I'm humbly reliant on His illumination and ready to accept what limits God may impose on that knowledge.
 
Christ did not know the day nor the hour of His return while He was on the earth it appeared either.

If you escape the problem of Jesus getting lost at 12....move the age back to 8 or 6 or 4 or 2... at some point we must say that Jesus, too, was ignorant and learned how to talk and didn't come springing from Mary's womb with full adult intellect.

Right. Chalcedon affirmed that Jesus is fully human, not only in his body but also in regard to his mind and soul. So as a fully rational and spiritual human being, he had to learn about the Father and develop a relationship with the Father.

I've been working through this passage because I actually have to teach on it tomorrow morning. I'll say there may have been some of the divine nature peeking out when he was at the Temple at age 12 (I think especially of the insight that God was, to him, "my Father'). But the passage is bracketed by two mentions of how Jesus grew in wisdom and favor with God. Growth belongs to his human nature. So we ought to see his amazing dedication to learning godly truth, his great sense of purpose and his Father-first priorities as human acheivements, albeit coming from a person who is the sinless God.

I would add that having to grow in favor with God, and having to learn who he was as he gained the intellect to do so, does not necessarily make him indecisive.
 
I would point out also Jesus' response to his parents' concern when they found him--"Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" He knew who He was, He knew who His Father was, and He knew what His Father's business was.

Jesus spoke King James English? Heh, heh...
 
From my understanding of what scripture teaches, Jesus limited His power to that of a man. His miracles were done through the Holy Spirit. It was a part of Him becoming man, and becoming lowly.

So while Jesus knew many things and knew who He was and who God was and His mission, some things were limited due to His human nature. (Not denying His deity of course)
 
Regarding the penchant that man has to explain the unexplainable and the almost always resulting heretical statements and theologies I am always reminding of my fathers wise words from another context, 'Son, sometimes it's best to just leave well enough alone.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top