Does the Bible Teach Divine Ignorance?

0:11 How do you contend with the argument for 0:13 divine ignorance which leans on 0:16 scriptures proposed to present Jesus as 0:18 ignorant where God is all knowing? 0:21 This question was originally posed to me 0:23 as an objection to the coherence of the 0:25 Bible and the divinity of Jesus based on 0:29 his supposed ignorance revealed in John 0:31 10 regarding the content of Psalm 82. 0:35 However, that objection functions more 0:38 as a gateway than as a pillar of 0:40 skepticism because it's easily 0:42 dismantled by a careful reading of the 0:44 immediate context, as I'll demonstrate 0:47 shortly. The more challenging and 0:49 interesting question that is asked by 0:51 serious skeptics reading passages 0:54 indicating limited knowledge of Jesus is 0:56 this. Does scripture present Jesus as 0:59 lacking omniscience? And if so, how does 1:02 that affect his divinity and our 1:04 Christianity? 1:06 The process of forming my response to 1:08 this question has led to an unexpectedly 1:11 substantial deepening of my appreciation 1:14 for God's incarnation. 1:17 Not merely intellectually but also 1:19 emotionally and spiritually. 1:21 My God expresses not a cold intelligence 1:25 or a blindly emotional ego but a 1:28 perfectly complete brilliance of mind. 1:32 Now that I've summarized my mind's 1:34 response to the revelation of God's mind 1:36 in the incarnation, 1:38 allow me to show you how I arrived at 1:40 that conclusion from the question of 1:42 divine ignorance. 1:45 For the sake of this discussion, I'm 1:47 granting the presuppositional framework 1:50 of the integrity of scripture 1:52 categorically and reliability of the 1:55 gospel accounts. Not because I haven't 1:57 considered alternatives, but because the 1:59 objection itself depends on these 2:02 presuppositions to maintain a meaningful 2:05 existence in genuine theological 2:07 discussion. The distilled version of the 2:10 original question is this. Did Jesus 2:13 misunderstand the original meaning of 2:15 Psalm 82 when he cited it in John 10:34? 2:20 In the original discussion, the claim 2:22 was that Psalm 82 refers to divine 2:25 beings of a pantheon rather than to 2:27 human judges. Yet Jesus treats the term 2:31 gods as applicable to human recipients 2:34 of God's word. 2:36 This would suggest that Jesus or at 2:38 least the gospel writer did not 2:40 correctly understand the psalm's 2:42 original meaning. 2:44 If New Testament authors could 2:46 misinterpret earlier Hebrew scriptures 2:49 that had been in circulation for 2:50 centuries, this raises broader concerns 2:54 about whether such texts were being 2:56 reinterpreted to support newly 2:59 developing Christian claims between the 3:01 first and third centuries. If this is 3:04 the case, Jesus's recorded application 3:07 of Psalm 82 could reflect contextual 3:10 misunderstanding 3:12 rather than authoritative 3:13 interpretation. 3:16 If Psalm 82 originally referred to 3:18 divine beings in the heavenly council 3:21 rather than human judges, does Jesus's 3:24 use of it suggest that he was mistaken 3:26 about its context? Or that the gospel 3:29 writer attributed an incorrect 3:31 interpretation to him by mistake? 3:34 How does this affect christologology? 3:36 How we understand, explain, and defend 3:39 the identity and nature of Jesus Christ? 3:42 What does this mean for the Christian 3:44 faith? 3:45 The following is my response to this 3:47 argument. 3:49 The objection rests on a 3:51 misunderstanding of Jesus's logic 3:53 recorded in John 10. He makes a lesser 3:56 to greater argument that does not hinge 3:59 on whether the Elohim, in this case, 4:02 little G, gods, as some would say, in 4:05 the psalm are spiritual beings or human 4:09 beings, both of which fall within the 4:12 semantic range of the word. the range of 4:15 common intended meanings for Elohim. 4:18 Jesus's reasoning is about the logic and 4:20 authority of scripture. If the title 4:23 Elohim can apply even to lesser beings 4:26 or human judges, as some translations 4:28 say, who act under God's commission, how 4:32 much more can he apply it to himself, to 4:36 the one who truly does the father's 4:38 work? 4:40 The claim of divine ignorance in this 4:42 particular case assumes that the 4:44 objecting reader's interpretation of the 4:47 Old Testament and grasp of the 4:49 historical and linguistic context is 4:52 more accurate than those present in the 4:55 ancient days and the one who breathed 4:57 out the scriptures which is a logically 5:00 unsustainable position. 5:04 This is because the issue can only even 5:06 just initially make sense as an 5:09 internally consistent objection if you 5:12 consider the Gospel account of John to 5:14 be legitimately reliable and the Old 5:17 Testament writings to be scripture. 5:20 Otherwise, if you argue that the Bible 5:22 is not reliable, then it doesn't 5:24 logically follow to treat the record in 5:27 John 10 as a historical account to be 5:30 held against the Old Testament. And if 5:33 you argue that the Old Testament is not 5:35 scripture, then you wouldn't have a 5:37 reason to hold it up as the standard by 5:39 which to judge the gospel. That's why I 5:42 said earlier that in dealing with this 5:44 issue, I'm presupposing the reliability 5:47 of scripture rather than first spending 5:49 time proving that point. That would be 5:52 for another episode. But in my opinion, 5:55 the reliability of scripture is even 5:58 easier to prove than the answer to the 6:00 question that I want to pose next. 6:04 The real challenge of this discussion 6:06 isn't whether Jesus misread a psalm. The 6:10 real challenge is whether scripture 6:12 itself presents Jesus as possessing 6:14 limited human knowledge and if so, what 6:18 that means for his divinity. 6:21 If Jesus is truly divine, how do we 6:24 account for passages in the New 6:25 Testament where he appears to lack 6:27 knowledge or wisdom? Do such moments 6:31 reflect faulty records of the gospel 6:33 writers or indicate genuine limitations 6:37 in his knowledge? 6:39 I've heard a lot of skeptical questions 6:40 over the years, but none without good 6:43 answers. Today's question is no 6:45 exception. 6:48 I'm Jacob Mlan and this is Questions in 6:50 the Crucible, where I invite skeptical 6:52 questions about God, the Bible, or 6:55 Christianity to be offered to The 6:56 Crucible for refinement to produce 6:59 thorough responses that I hope will be 7:01 beneficial. So, let's put our thinking 7:04 caps on and consider this issue 7:06 carefully. 7:08 Before we commence to discover an answer 7:11 to the question of divine ignorance, I 7:13 want to establish for the sake of this 7:15 discussion a key concept of Christian 7:17 theology that we should hold prior to 7:20 entering fully into this discussion 7:22 since it's primarily an internal 7:25 discussion within Christianity. 7:27 Philosophy is formed after exesus rather 7:32 than enforcing isogesus. 7:35 Notice what this means for the method of 7:37 approaching the argument. We anchor and 7:40 organize our way of thinking on the 7:43 foundation of truth revealed through 7:45 scripture rather than starting from a 7:48 position of personal philosophies. 7:51 We cannot be so committed to man-made 7:54 philosophies or conclusions that we feel 7:56 we must invent new interpretations to 7:59 rescue religion or even worse to correct 8:03 scripture itself. either 8:06 result in us no longer sitting under 8:08 scripture but placing scripture under 8:10 our feet. Those methods of evaluating 8:13 the Bible are an arrogant elevation of 8:16 man to our own detriment because it robs 8:19 the scriptures of their ability to 8:21 correct us as needed. 8:24 For those of us who claim to be 8:25 Christian, we must acknowledge that God 8:28 is perfect in his wisdom and that we are 8:31 prone to fallacies because of our 8:33 limitations. 8:35 Reverent questions are welcome and 8:37 appropriate. But anytime that you find 8:40 yourself in defiant opposition to God, 8:43 you are the one in the wrong. 8:46 You and I are never in the right to 8:49 raise a fist to God in judgment or 8:51 opposition. 8:54 As with the original objection, the 8:56 broader question of divine ignorance 8:58 also requires that we grant the same 9:00 presuppositions, 9:02 the integrity of scripture, and the 9:03 reliability of the gospels. That said, 9:07 let's move on to the response. 9:10 I'll first provide you with a summary of 9:12 the response to the objection of divine 9:14 ignorance. Following that, I will build 9:17 a more thoroughly detailed case to help 9:19 you understand how the response to this 9:22 objection was formed. In summary, 9:25 consider the following. The argument for 9:28 divine ignorance only holds under the 9:30 following conditions. The incarnation is 9:33 ignored or misunderstood. That God truly 9:36 became human, not just in appearance, 9:38 but in lived experience. 9:40 Second, the union of Jesus's divine and 9:44 human natures is denied, treating him as 9:46 either only God or only man rather than 9:50 both. 9:52 Thirdly, the son's role is flattened, 9:55 ignoring that Jesus willingly lived in 9:57 submission to the father as an example 9:59 for godly living to us during his 10:02 earthly life. And finally, if scripture 10:06 is treated as internally confused rather 10:08 than as a coherent witness that speaks 10:11 with depth, not contradiction. 10:15 The biblical and historical 10:16 understanding of the incarnation is that 10:19 Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, 10:24 fully divine and fully human with no 10:27 critical components of either nature 10:29 missing. 10:31 Without this, we would not lack a we 10:34 would not only lack a perfect example to 10:36 look up to as we attempt to follow the 10:39 directive to seek the holiness of God, 10:42 but we would also lack the revelation of 10:44 the depth of character that Jesus's 10:47 self-humiliation provides for us. 10:51 We would be even less able to fathom how 10:54 great the Father's love for us. 10:56 I admit that the dual nature of Jesus is 10:58 difficult to comprehend and that we have 11:01 not been provided with a mechanistic 11:03 explanation of precisely how it works. 11:06 But that doesn't automatically prove 11:08 that it's impossible and it doesn't 11:10 prove that the Bible is contradictory. 11:13 The Bible is perfectly consistent on 11:16 this matter as it is on every other 11:18 matter when read fairly with all context 11:22 considered. 11:24 The supposed proof text for divine 11:27 ignorance is found in Mark 13:32 11:30 and paralleled in Matthew 24:36. 11:34 However, I've noticed that Mark 13 is 11:37 referenced far more frequently. 11:40 This seems to be historically due to 11:43 Mark's account being the earliest, 11:45 clearest, least textually disputed, and 11:49 therefore most easily weaponized against 11:52 traditional Christian doctrine. 11:55 In the modern discussion, this may have 11:58 become a subconscious tradition in pop 12:01 culture online skepticism where 12:04 according to my observations, people 12:06 seem to mostly just repeat whatever 12:09 they've been taught to say without being 12:11 able to demonstrate a well-rounded 12:13 understanding of their own beliefs or 12:16 the arguments for other positions. 12:19 To be fair, this is not a trait unique 12:22 to online skeptics. 12:24 Rather, it's an unfortunately common 12:27 error for humanity as a whole to 12:30 substitute careful consideration with 12:32 lazy assumption. 12:35 In any case, I want to focus on the 12:37 argument centered in Mark 13 because if 12:40 I can explain the passage that is 12:42 considered to be the toughest example of 12:44 a contradiction between human limitation 12:47 and divine omniscience, then the other 12:50 passages will likewise be found to fall 12:52 in place. 12:57 I've highlighted Mark 13:32 on screen 13:00 for your reference. 13:04 This verse records Jesus saying that no 13:06 one knows about that day or hour, not 13:10 even the angels in heaven, nor the son, 13:13 but only the father. This is the 13:16 flagship text for certain beliefs, some 13:19 more problematic than others. 13:22 Unitarianism uses this text to propose 13:25 that Jesus was not ontologically God, 13:29 not of the same divine nature of God. 13:32 Dosetism uses this text to propose that 13:35 Jesus only appeared as human. 13:38 Certain formulations of two- mind 13:41 christologology use this text to propose 13:44 that Jesus's human mind was separate 13:47 from his divine mind which is close to 13:50 the biblical incarnation but still can 13:53 fall critically short of the truth 13:56 depending on how that is precisely 13:58 defined which will be clearer soon 14:01 enough. 14:03 These belief systems have been developed 14:05 to attempt to explain Jesus seeming to 14:08 lack total omniscience across all time 14:12 because of how clear it is in certain 14:14 instances, especially Mark 13, that 14:17 Jesus did not at all times experience 14:20 omniscience. 14:21 In this case, as it relates to 14:23 esquetological timing, the exact timing 14:26 of end time events, because that day, as 14:31 stated in Mark 13:32, is a reference to 14:34 the day of the Lord and the events 14:37 surrounding it, which Jesus was 14:39 discussing just prior to this verse. 14:43 This smuggles a psychological projection 14:46 of assumption from their argument onto 14:49 God, which is that to have knowledge 14:51 requires continually active attention to 14:55 that knowledge. 14:57 That assumption confuses possession with 15:00 use. You can test this understanding of 15:03 knowledge for yourself right now. Do you 15:06 actively attend to everything that you 15:09 have knowledge of at all times? 15:13 No, of course not. 15:15 Why should we think that omniscience as 15:18 a natural trait requires constant 15:21 exercise of all knowledge at all times? 15:26 That logically or that assumption isn't 15:29 logically or biblically required which 15:33 matters since once again the framework 15:36 for the question of divine ignorance 15:38 depends on the integrity of scripture 15:41 pertaining to the aforementioned various 15:44 belief systems regarding the 15:46 incarnation. Teachers holding to the 15:48 orthodox understanding of the 15:50 incarnation, 15:51 not denominational orthodoxy but 15:54 historic theological orthodoxy will say 15:57 that we can disagree on many things but 16:00 we lose Christianity entirely if we lose 16:03 concurrent complete divinity and 16:06 humanity of Jesus Christ. I agree with 16:10 that conclusion. But I still consider 16:12 this essentially an in-house discussion 16:15 for the following reason. 16:18 I know that there are also many people 16:21 who genuinely believe that Jesus is 16:24 their savior and the way to God, but yet 16:27 still believe in an unbiblical version 16:30 of the incarnation. 16:32 People are quite capable of maintaining 16:34 inconsistent beliefs. I'm not saying 16:37 that's good, but it's undeniably 16:40 possible. And it's not my place to judge 16:43 another person's eternal destiny, 16:46 especially if my only evidence comes 16:49 from witnessing a challenging 16:50 circumstance such as appearing to claim 16:53 a Christian label while experiencing 16:56 difficulty in trying to understand the 16:58 incarnation of God in the flesh, which 17:01 I'll admit is quite a challenging 17:03 process to fully comprehend when you try 17:06 to consider mechanistically the 17:08 limitation of human experience being 17:11 ascribed to the one who we also know as 17:14 the all knowing God. 17:18 I might conclude that if a person 17:20 doesn't fully agree with all of my 17:23 beliefs regarding the incarnation 17:26 that they aren't Christian. But only God 17:30 has the ability to authoritatively 17:32 determine the true state of their soul 17:35 and judge their faithfulness considering 17:38 their cognitive ability to understand 17:40 the degree of truth revealed to them. 17:44 In any case, aside from internal 17:47 disagreements within the church, this 17:50 text is also used often by Muslims to 17:53 support the teaching that Jesus was 17:55 merely a human prophet because he lacked 17:58 the essential attribute of omniscience. 18:02 Unfortunately for Islam, to make that 18:05 argument from the gospel account, they 18:07 must first grant the fact that the 18:09 biblical text is accurately representing 18:13 Jesus's statements, which perfectly 18:16 aligns with Christianity, but utterly 18:18 refutes the Islamic teachings regarding 18:21 who Jesus was for one inescapable 18:24 reason. 18:25 Immediately after he says that no one 18:28 knows that day about that day or hour, 18:31 he progresses stepwise from humans to 18:34 angels and then again from angels to say 18:37 that even the son doesn't even know but 18:41 only the father does. The ordering of 18:44 humanity first followed by angels and 18:47 finally not even the son but only the 18:52 father strongly asserts a hierarchy 18:56 describing Jesus categorically above the 18:59 angels in a unique relationship with the 19:01 father. 19:03 The phrase not even is a linguistic clue 19:07 pointing us to an unexpected exclusion. 19:11 The son being excluded in this moment 19:14 from the father's fornowledge 19:17 which is only a sensible expectation if 19:20 the son was expected to know 19:22 esqueological timing due to his divine 19:25 nature. 19:28 This verse can't reasonably be 19:30 interpreted to refer to Jesus as merely 19:32 a human son of God. Even setting aside 19:36 the historical understanding of the term 19:38 son of God, Jesus is clearly placing 19:41 himself first above humanity and 19:43 stepwise above the angels only in 19:46 submission to the father. This is an 19:48 implicit equivalence to divinity. 19:52 What is above angels categorically other 19:55 than God himself? 19:58 It's well known that common Jewish 20:00 belief at that time was that angels 20:02 comprise the highest category of created 20:05 beings. The only category of being above 20:10 angel is divinity occupied solely by 20:13 God. Hebrews will re reveal more 20:16 pertaining to that later. 20:19 It's also worth briefly noting a rather 20:22 revealing trend regarding the handling 20:24 of Mark 13 and categorical natures. 20:28 An intellectually honest skeptic should 20:31 proceed from questioning the Son to 20:33 questioning the Holy Spirit as well 20:36 since Jesus said that only the Father 20:39 knows the day and the hour. 20:42 The fact that I have yet to see evidence 20:45 of this discussion in skeptical 20:47 interpretations of Mark 13:32 20:50 further reveals that the selective 20:52 pressure on this verse is not careful 20:54 enough to consider deep trinitarian 20:57 implications. 21:00 It's an interpretation from a surface 21:02 level reading aimed narrowly at Jesus. 21:07 Digression aside, the hierarchy that 21:09 Jesus presents with the son being 21:11 categorically above humanity and angels 21:14 is already an unavoidable problem for 21:17 Islam because one of their core 21:19 teachings is that Jesus was merely a 21:21 human prophet and that he did not claim 21:25 to be the divinely begotten son of God. 21:28 Because of this, when Islam meets 21:30 thorough apologetics, it tends to 21:32 default to the non-evidenced pathy that 21:35 the Bible has been corrupted over time. 21:37 So, it can't be trusted to be accurate 21:39 in its current form. 21:41 But yet, they will inexplicably trust 21:44 that Jesus indeed claimed to not know 21:47 the day or the hour without specific 21:49 evidence indicating which verses are 21:52 corrupted and in what ways. The only 21:56 reasoning they honestly possess is that 21:57 whatever disagrees with their beliefs 22:00 must be wrong. But that's not 22:02 evidence-based faith so much as circular 22:05 reasoning. 22:07 That kind of argument is essentially 22:09 saying that you're wrong because I'm 22:12 right without being able to prove 22:15 either. 22:16 and disagreeing on this particular 22:18 tenant of Islam is an offense punishable 22:21 by death under their laws 22:24 because fear and silence are the only 22:26 real arguments that work for Islam. 22:30 That aside, if we consider the framework 22:33 that treats scripture as authoritative, 22:36 the fact that in this one statement, 22:38 Jesus seems to claim both that there is 22:40 something that he did not know at this 22:42 point in time and that he was above the 22:45 angels with the father leaves us with 22:48 only a few plausible conclusions about 22:51 Jesus. 22:52 Either he is a lunatic to esteem himself 22:56 above angels to the level of divinity, a 22:58 liar making false statements to deceive 23:01 people, or he's correctly identifying 23:04 himself as the divine son of God. 23:08 Upon considering further historical 23:10 context, it's not plausible to classify 23:13 Jesus as a lunatic because he was seen 23:16 to be a wise teacher, demonstrating 23:19 consistently sustained, coherent, and 23:22 high ordered reasoning with moral 23:24 clarity and deliberate self-control. 23:28 These qualities can't all coexist with 23:30 delusion over time, especially under the 23:32 frequent adversarial pressure as Jesus 23:35 was constantly experiencing. 23:38 A lunatic also wouldn't have been able 23:41 to intellectually evade the numerous 23:44 attempts at logical and legal traps in 23:47 conversation that the religious leaders 23:49 brought against him. 23:51 It's also irrational to conclude him a 23:53 liar because liars don't willingly and 23:56 without protest against their accusers 23:58 suffer the torments up to the 24:00 crucifixion as described in multiple 24:03 historical records within and outside 24:06 the biblical texts. The histories both 24:09 biblical and extrabiblical only make 24:12 sense if Jesus is who he said that he is 24:16 God in the flesh. 24:18 At this point, we've been shown that 24:21 Jesus can affirm both human limitation 24:24 and divine nature in the same breath. 24:27 Meaning that omniscience as an attribute 24:30 does not require continuous conscious 24:33 access in every moment. 24:36 Every other passage presented in support 24:38 of the divine ignorance argument is 24:41 essentially downstream of this one. So 24:44 once this one is understood, the rest 24:46 begin to fall into place naturally. 24:49 However, before we conclude, we need to 24:51 let scripture finish what it began in 24:54 Mark 13. 24:58 One of the most rhetorically strong 25:00 arguments against Jesus's divinity, as 25:02 it may be presented, is that God is 25:05 omnisient. Jesus is not, and therefore 25:09 Jesus is not God. An honest rewrite of 25:12 that syllogistic argument that reveals 25:16 the critical hidden premise is this. God 25:20 must always exercise 25:23 the maximal experience of omniscience. 25:27 Jesus does not always exercise the 25:30 maximal experience of omniscience. 25:33 Therefore, Jesus is not God. 25:38 The weakness of this reasoning is that 25:40 it depends on imposing an unproven 25:42 philosophy and limited understanding as 25:46 a rule for God. That syllogism isn't 25:49 taught through scripture or acceptable 25:52 as a secondary issue for Christians. 25:56 This essentially requires you to argue 25:58 that the human incarnation is impossible 26:01 because it requires you to say that God 26:03 cannot take on all of the necessary 26:06 characteristics of humanity while 26:09 maintaining all necessary 26:11 characteristics of divinity. 26:15 One approach that some people use to 26:17 deal with this issue is to say that the 26:19 concerning portion of Mark 13:32 is 26:22 merely a figure of speech and that Jesus 26:25 is only saying that it's not his 26:27 authority to say the day or the hour, 26:30 which is conveniently lacking in 26:32 internal consistency. 26:34 In addition to attributing omniscience 26:37 to God, scripture also attributes all 26:40 authority to God, such as in Daniel 4:35 26:45 and Psalm 115:3. 26:48 Therefore, the logical framework of the 26:50 aforementioned syllogism merely 26:53 relocates the problem from omniscience 26:56 to authority rather than solving it. 27:00 Unbiblical solutions lead to shifting or 27:03 multiplying problems, not honest clarity 27:06 or resolution. 27:10 Regarding the proposition of mere figure 27:13 of speech, such was the inclination of 27:16 even certain prominently influential 27:19 ancient figures such as Augustine and 27:23 Martin Luther. 27:25 While those men may have done much good 27:28 for the church, this is one issue in 27:30 which they demonstrated error because it 27:33 is not a justifiable reading of the text 27:36 so much as it is avoiding having to 27:38 accept and explain the dual nature of 27:41 Jesus as both fully man and fully God, 27:45 truly human and truly divine. Which 27:48 leads me to the final theory that I want 27:50 to discuss, the biblical incarnation. 27:55 In this next section, I'll be working 27:57 toward a scripture that doesn't merely 27:59 allow for this interpretation. It 28:02 explicitly confirms it unequivocally. 28:06 The church has always affirmed both the 28:08 deity and humanity of Christ. Maybe not 28:11 every member or even every local 28:14 gathering, but this teaching has been 28:16 consistent orthodoxy, 28:19 a teaching genuinely generally 28:21 considered to be true and in alignment 28:23 with scripture since the first 28:25 generation of disciples. 28:28 Agreeing with the true theory of the 28:30 biblical incarnation requires that we 28:32 accept the fact that this is simply how 28:35 the incarnation of Christ works. 28:37 Not just because we're told to, but 28:40 because it's what all of the scriptures 28:42 inevitably point to. In fact, the 28:45 narrative of scripture requires 28:48 something of us that I worry may be 28:51 understated in many circumstances. 28:56 That is that we need to not only defend 28:58 the deity of Christ but also the 29:01 humanity of Christ 29:04 which requires that God limited not his 29:06 divinity in the incarnation but his 29:09 exercise of his divine mind power and 29:12 authority. 29:14 What this does not mean is that Jesus 29:17 lacked the ability to use divine 29:19 omniscience or omnipotence if it was his 29:22 will. What it does mean is that he 29:25 temporarily chose to not exercise full 29:29 use of divine powers so that he could 29:31 not only take on the physical form of a 29:34 man but also the experience of living as 29:37 a man, growing as a man, and suffering 29:40 as a man. 29:43 To help us paint a less abstract picture 29:46 of self-limitation, allow me to present 29:49 to you an analogy. 29:51 If I close my eyelids, I cannot see what 29:53 is in front of me. But it would be wrong 29:56 to conclude that I therefore lack the 29:58 ability to see. I still possess the 30:01 ability to see, which I can resume use 30:04 of at any point by opening my eyes. I 30:07 have simply voluntarily and temporarily 30:10 limited my access to my ability to see 30:12 by closing my eyelids. 30:15 Closing one's eyes does not remove the 30:17 faculty of sight. It limits what is 30:20 presently accessed and provides the 30:22 temporary experience of living as a 30:25 blind man. 30:27 Yet the capacity itself remains whole, 30:31 even while its exercise is willingly 30:33 restrained. This is the clearest analogy 30:36 of any that I've encountered or imagined 30:39 to describe approximately how Jesus's 30:41 self-imposed limitations could 30:44 effectively enable God to live as a man 30:48 lacking only sin which is a typical 30:51 characteristic of human life but not an 30:53 essential characteristic of humanity. 30:56 If sin was ne was a necessary 30:59 characteristic of humanity, then Adam, 31:01 Eve, and all people since were not human 31:05 until their first act of sin. 31:08 Nature indeed influences decisions, but 31:12 that doesn't mean that decisions define 31:14 nature. They are evidence, but not 31:18 proof. 31:19 I don't want to digress too much, but I 31:21 will acknowledge that I indeed just 31:23 implied a difference between sin nature 31:26 and the guilt of sin itself. 31:30 That would be a topic for another 31:31 discussion for those who want to argue 31:33 whether we are guilty of sin simply by 31:35 virtue of our nature. Digression aside, 31:39 let's return to the concept of the two 31:41 nature incarnation. 31:44 Certain texts such as John 7:5 reveal 31:48 that Jesus's family, especially his 31:50 siblings, had a hard time believing in 31:53 his divinity, which reasonably implies 31:56 that he did not obviously act divine as 31:59 a child, and therefore must have been 32:01 limiting his observable exercise of 32:04 divine abilities. 32:06 There's no conceivable way that a child 32:09 could manifest omniscience at all times 32:12 and be mistaken as a mere man by their 32:15 local community as with Jesus in Mark 32:18 6:es 1-3 unless they lived a life full 32:22 of lies and misdirection which would 32:25 also contradict the nature of God. 32:29 The reaction and confusion of Jesus's 32:31 family and childhood community is 32:34 consistent with the gospel accounts 32:36 presenting the first miracle of Jesus 32:38 since the virgin birth occurring near 32:40 the start of his third decade living as 32:43 a man on earth. 32:47 This is yet another piece of evidence 32:49 for divine inspiration and fornowledge. 32:52 Jesus began his public ministry at about 32:54 30 years old, the same age that Levites 32:57 began their priestly duties. Joseph 33:00 entered the service of Pharaoh and David 33:02 became king of Israel. 33:05 Clearly, God appreciates poetic 33:07 parallels in historical narratives. 33:10 Returning to the main point, the divine 33:12 authority of Jesus would have indeed 33:15 allowed him to command angel armies to 33:17 descend on his enemies or to throw the 33:19 moon across the sky without requiring an 33:21 infinity stone. But by his will, 33:24 perfectly in sync with the father, he 33:27 limited himself to his human abilities 33:30 for a time and yet still lived in 33:32 sinless perfection. 33:35 This wouldn't be nearly as meaningful 33:37 for us if he had been exercising divine 33:39 powers in a more observably inhuman way. 33:43 People would look at him as at an alien, 33:46 something different from us. It would 33:48 not relate to him the way that we can 33:50 when we visualize our human savior. 33:54 It wouldn't have been as meaningful for 33:55 him to live perfectly and take our sins 33:58 upon himself to the cross if he didn't 34:00 truly live as a man. The incarnation 34:04 would have been incomplete and all but 34:07 pointless without God's choice to 34:09 self-limit humbling himself to our level 34:12 despite his fornowledge of the suffering 34:15 that he would experience between birth 34:17 and resurrection. 34:20 The humanity emphasizes the sacrifice 34:23 which allows us to better understand the 34:25 depth of God's love for us. 34:28 that the only begotten one incarnated in 34:31 flesh while maintaining his nature, his 34:34 ontological being through a life of 34:37 sinless perfection to willingly set 34:39 aside the option to exist through 34:42 eternity without the experience of pain 34:44 or limitation and live as a man yet 34:47 still being God all through the word as 34:50 Jesus Christ. 34:53 Scripture itself explicitly forces this 34:56 interpretation of the incarnate son 34:59 remaining fully divine through the 35:01 inspired record in Hebrews 1, which 35:05 leaves no ambiguity. 35:07 In this passage of scripture, God the 35:09 Father explicitly places the Son above 35:12 the angels, commands that they worship 35:14 him, and specifically names him God, 35:18 which directly relates to Mark 13 35:20 because Jesus distinguishes himself 35:22 above humanity and angels and in unique 35:25 relation to the father. 35:27 Let's consider the word itself on this 35:30 matter as I read Hebrews 1:es 35:34 1-12. 35:39 Long ago, at many times, and in many 35:41 ways, God spoke to our fathers by the 35:43 prophets. But in these last days, he has 35:46 spoken to us by his son, whom he 35:48 appointed the heir of all things, 35:50 through whom he also created the world. 35:53 He is the radiance of the glory of God 35:55 and the exact imprint of his nature. And 35:58 he upholds the universe by the word of 36:00 his power. After making purification for 36:03 sins, he sat down at the right hand of 36:06 the majesty on high, having become as 36:08 much superior to angels as the name he 36:11 has inherited is more excellent than 36:13 theirs. For to which of the angels did 36:16 God ever say, you are my son today I 36:20 have begotten you. Or again, I will be 36:23 to him a father and he shall be to me a 36:25 son. And again, when he brings the 36:28 firstborn into the world, he says, "Let 36:31 all God's angels worship him." Of the 36:34 angels, he says, he makes his angels 36:38 winds and his ministers a flame of fire. 36:42 But of the son, he says, "Your throne, 36:45 oh God, is forever and ever. The scepter 36:48 of uprightness is the scepter of your 36:50 kingdom. You have loved righteousness 36:53 and hated wickedness. Therefore, God 36:56 your God has anointed you with the oil 36:59 of gladness beyond your companions. 37:02 And you, Lord, laid the foundation of 37:05 the earth in the beginning, and the 37:07 heavens are the work of your hands. They 37:10 will perish, but you remain. They will 37:13 all wear out like a garment. Like a 37:15 robe, you will roll them up. Like a 37:17 garment, they will be changed, but you 37:20 are the same, and your years will have 37:23 no end. 37:27 Whatever else is said about Jesus, it 37:29 must agree with what we've just read in 37:32 Hebrews chapter 1. So, let's take a 37:34 moment to carefully consider the most 37:37 crucial elements for this discussion. 37:40 God the Father asserts possession of the 37:42 angels, then implies that the son also 37:46 possesses the angels. When the father 37:48 says that he Jesus makes his angels 37:52 wins. 37:54 This makes it rather difficult to invent 37:56 a linguistic loophole for the command 37:59 that all God's angels are to worship 38:01 Jesus. 38:03 Only God is the possessor of angels and 38:06 the father includes the son in that 38:08 possession. 38:10 Semantic range provides possibilities, 38:13 but the context dictates the message 38:16 unapologetically 38:18 and unequivocally. 38:20 I cannot fully fathom how this 38:22 incarnation and the internal 38:24 relationships of the Trinity actually 38:26 work in the fullest sense. Nor can I 38:29 fathom the depth of the love for me and 38:31 for everyone else in creation that is 38:33 required for a perfect being in need of 38:36 nothing to take on the shame of sin and 38:39 death for all of us. 38:41 What I can fathom though is that without 38:44 the divine incarnation into human flesh, 38:47 I would be even more clueless of the 38:49 depth of his love and consideration for 38:52 his creations because I wouldn't have a 38:55 relatable human savior. 38:57 And salvation without paying the price 38:59 of sin and death would require an 39:01 imperfect justice from a perfectly just 39:05 God, 39:07 which would never happen with the God of 39:09 the Bible. Consider the poetic symmetry 39:12 of this. The humanity of Adam is 39:16 important because he drags us into the 39:18 curse of sin and death by representing 39:21 the soul and initiating the consequences 39:24 of judgment for us all. 39:26 The humanity of Jesus is important 39:30 because he lifts us up out of the curse 39:32 by representing us all and suffering for 39:35 us the consequences of sin despite being 39:38 the one and only man to ever live a life 39:41 spanning decades of sinless perfection. 39:47 Think about this for a moment and let 39:50 this humble you to tears if it must. 39:54 Jesus proved beyond a shadow of a doubt 39:57 that with all essential elements of the 40:00 human nature present, life can still be 40:02 lived in sinless perfection. 40:05 And yet God said through Paul in Romans 40:08 3:23 40:09 that all have sinned and fall short of 40:12 the glory of God. 40:14 This is where theology becomes personal. 40:19 How often have I sinned? Despite the 40:22 fact that my inclinations to temptations 40:25 do not actually force me to commit sin. 40:30 If you believe in free will, as do I and 40:33 most other Bible believing Christians, 40:35 you have to recognize 40:38 that you are responsible for your sins 40:41 because they are each and every one of 40:43 them a result of your own choices. 40:49 Jesus was incarnated to live as a man 40:51 for many reasons, I think. And one of 40:54 those is to help me understand how 40:57 inescapable the responsibility for sin 41:00 is. Because in every experience of 41:03 temptation, my God-given gift of free 41:05 will provides me the opportunity to 41:08 resist and avoid committing sin. 41:11 And yet so often I fail. 41:16 That's why I need Jesus and why I 41:19 appreciate him so much more than I can 41:22 describe because I am completely 41:24 responsible for every stain of sin that 41:27 exists in the choices that I have made 41:30 throughout my life. And there is 41:32 absolutely nothing that I can do to 41:34 remove those stains of my own power. 41:38 I cannot pay the price of sin, which is 41:41 separation from the eternal holy 41:43 presence of God 41:45 and recover to then spend another 41:48 eternity in heaven. I have no right to 41:52 eternity, not even the mercy of 41:54 annihilation, 41:56 of ceasing to exist entirely so as to 41:59 avoid the experience of the permanence 42:02 of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. 42:06 The moment you stained yourself with 42:07 sin, you forfeited your right to exist 42:10 within the light of heaven. Because 42:12 nothing dark, unclean, or unholy can 42:15 persist in the presence of God's 42:18 perfectly holy and cleansing light. You 42:21 lost any leverage that you could imagine 42:23 to even suggest that God offer you 42:26 salvation. 42:28 Yet his response is to send his only 42:31 begotten son to live and suffer under 42:34 the curse of the first Adam to show us 42:37 how to live better to give us a clearer 42:39 visualization of God through a relatable 42:42 human form and to pay the price of our 42:45 frequent rebellions against God's 42:48 holiness. 42:50 You and I were made to be holy, set 42:53 aside by our creator God for our holy 42:56 God. Yet we live as though to set 42:59 ourselves aside for ourselves. 43:02 The problem with this is that we are not 43:05 the sustainers of our own lives. 43:08 By our own power and authority, we will 43:11 find only ruin. 43:13 According to the monotheistic model 43:15 revealed from the Genesis of the Old 43:18 Testament, it is only God who is the 43:20 creator and sustainer of all things. And 43:23 as we just read in Hebrews chapter 1 of 43:25 the New Testament, God the Father calls 43:28 God the Son the creator and sustainer of 43:32 all things. 43:34 The divinity and humanity of Jesus are 43:38 both equally undeniably expressed 43:40 through scripture. And since scripture 43:42 is breathed out by God, you don't have 43:45 to understand every aspect of it to 43:48 believe it and trust in it. 43:51 This will sound foolish to those who 43:53 believe that God in the Bible are 43:54 disproven through other arguments. But 43:57 for those of you who have experienced 43:59 God personally and undeniably, and for 44:02 those of you who have sought out 44:27 Yet very few can really begin to explain 44:30 the physiological mechanisms that 44:33 directly cause those outcomes. 44:36 An even more relatable example is 44:39 consciousness. 44:41 How many people do you know who can 44:43 thoroughly and mechanistically explain 44:46 consciousness without resorting to 44:49 either claiming it's a miracle or it 44:52 just is what it is. 44:55 Not being able to understand the how 44:58 doesn't prove a miracle or an 45:00 impossibility. 45:03 Sometimes it is thus with God as well. 45:06 Love it, hate it, accept it, deny it. 45:09 Your response to the truth doesn't 45:12 change the truth itself. 45:15 If you need to take a moment to wrestle 45:17 with that, now might be a good time to 45:19 do so before participating with further 45:21 theological discussions. 45:25 As for this discussion, I'll next pivot 45:27 to considering how we might more 45:29 carefully explain the functional 45:31 voluntary self-limitation of the 45:34 incarnation of God in the flesh to the 45:36 best of my ability. 45:43 Since Jesus was in constant 45:45 communication and submission to the 45:47 father, it's plausible to describe his 45:50 self-limitation as thus. 45:54 Having a human body, he could close his 45:56 eyes, so to speak, to divine omniscience 45:59 and limit himself to use of his human 46:02 faculties. The father, another person 46:06 within the same trinitarian being, could 46:09 have provided direct messages to Jesus 46:11 such as he did for the prophets. Or he 46:14 could have instructed Jesus when and how 46:16 to use his own access to divine 46:20 omniscience so that he experienced only 46:22 the divine knowledge that was 46:24 pre-ordained. 46:27 Remember that since Jesus is God, being 46:30 of the godly nature, he is also eternal. 46:33 Before Jesus was born into the 46:35 incarnation, he was the word with the 46:38 father from before the beginning as is 46:40 clearly taught in John chapter 1. He 46:44 already knew the plan for all time and 46:47 knew what he would go through when he 46:49 stepped into time and space to save us 46:51 from our sin. 46:54 This is how we begin to understand the 46:56 incarnation. Not perfectly as only God 46:59 does, but well enough to realize that 47:02 the entirety of scripture is in 47:04 agreement on this and it's logically 47:06 consistent with everything that we know 47:09 about God. 47:11 His love is shown through the sacrifice, 47:13 his joy through the relation of father 47:15 and son, his peace through the 47:18 willingness to reconcile. His patience 47:21 through the timing of it all. His 47:23 kindness through the considerate 47:25 expression. His goodness through the 47:28 uncompromising ethos. His faithfulness 47:31 through the fulfillment of prophecy. His 47:34 gentleness through the tender approach. 47:37 His self-control through the restraint 47:40 of power. 47:42 The deeper you go, the more you reveal. 47:47 Now, for the weeds of functionality 47:50 versus ontology, 47:53 for those not yet comfortable with these 47:55 terms, don't worry. This is worth the 47:57 effort to consider and much less 48:00 confounding than some make it out to be. 48:03 To frame this issue, notice the 48:05 difference between the following ideas. 48:08 It's one thing to say that God in the 48:10 flesh had an ability to do something and 48:13 simply chose not to, which is a 48:16 description of a functional kinosis. 48:19 A word referring to the concept of Jesus 48:21 emptying himself to take on humanity. 48:25 It is quite a different doctrine to say 48:28 that he divested himself of divinity or 48:32 gave up his divine characteristics to 48:34 become human which is a heretical 48:37 ontological kinosis involving the 48:40 removal of divinity. 48:43 This view tends to lean on the wording 48:45 of Philippians 2:es 6-7 which says that 48:49 Jesus emptied himself to humbly dawn the 48:53 likeness of humanity before the cross. 48:56 The root word of the Greek term 48:58 translated to emptied in that passage is 49:02 kinos which is where the label for the 49:04 doctrine of kinosis was derived. 49:08 It's not a word that was invented from 49:09 scratch to describe a new doctrine. It's 49:12 a word that naturally occurs as a 49:14 concept from the original language in 49:17 multiple New Testament passages, one 49:19 that has unfortunately been hijacked by 49:22 common usage to favor an unorthodox 49:25 interpretation. 49:27 I don't want to provide opportunity for 49:29 the skeptical objection that Christians 49:31 merely ignore what is inconvenient for 49:33 their beliefs. It is precisely because 49:36 of this that instead of disregarding 49:39 kinosis entirely as heresy, I want to 49:42 redeem an appropriate understanding of 49:45 it by distinctly categorizing the two 49:48 possible interpretations 49:50 and why only one of them is acceptable 49:53 logically and biblically. 49:57 If you encounter the word kinosis being 49:59 used by itself referring to Jesus, it's 50:02 likely referring to ontological kinosis, 50:05 the heresy, rather than functional 50:08 kinosis, which allows for the nuanced 50:10 understanding of self-imposed 50:12 limitation, 50:14 temporary 50:16 limitation. 50:18 So, be sure to clarify what kind of 50:20 kinosis a person is referring to before 50:22 you try to argue with the doctrine. 50:26 Back to the Bible, 50:28 let's consider what Philippians 2 says 50:31 from verse 1- 11 so that we can 50:34 appreciate the context of this 50:36 discussion rather than simply 50:38 cherrypicking a single verse uh single 50:41 phrase out of a passage which is how 50:43 most supposed Bible contradictions seem 50:46 to be formed and presented. 50:52 So if there is any encouragement in 50:54 Christ, any comfort from love, any 50:57 participation in the spirit, any 50:59 affection in sympathy, complete my joy 51:03 by being of the same mind, having the 51:05 same love, being in full accord and of 51:08 one mind. Do nothing from selfish 51:11 ambition or conceit, but in humility 51:14 count others more significant than 51:15 yourselves. Let each of you look not 51:18 only to his own interests, but also to 51:21 the interests of others. Having this 51:23 mind among yourselves, which is yours in 51:26 Christ Jesus, who though he was in the 51:28 form of God, did not count equality with 51:31 God a thing to be grasped, but emptied 51:34 himself by taking the form of a servant, 51:37 being born in the likeness of men, and 51:39 being found in human form. He humbled 51:43 himself by becoming obedient to the 51:46 point of death, even death on a cross. 51:49 Therefore, God has highly exalted him 51:51 and bestowed on him the name that is 51:54 above every name, so that at the name of 51:56 Jesus, every knee should bow in heaven 52:00 and on earth and under the earth, and 52:03 every tongue confess that Jesus Christ 52:05 is Lord to the glory of God the Father. 52:11 Considering the purpose and message of 52:14 this passage as a whole reveals with 52:16 more than sufficient clarity why we 52:19 can't read the strictest literal 52:21 definition of the root of the verb into 52:23 verse 7 and then conclude that Jesus 52:26 actually lost any of his divine nature. 52:32 The purpose of this passage is to 52:34 provide a specific kind of encouraging 52:37 message by describing the humility of 52:40 our prime example in Jesus, which is why 52:44 you see the header 52:46 for this passage of scripture labeling 52:48 this section as Christ's example of 52:50 humility. 52:52 Furthermore, the meaning of the Greek 52:54 term for emptying in verse 7 has both 52:58 literal and figurative meanings. 53:01 which is evident right away when 53:03 referencing a word study tool such as 53:06 Strong's concordance. 53:09 To insist that Philippians 2:7 can only 53:12 be interpreted to mean literal removal 53:14 of divine quality to allow for the 53:17 incarnation requires an unreasonably 53:20 rigid interpretation of this text to 53:23 have a very particular meaning that 53:26 doesn't fit with the rest of the 53:28 biblical context or the historical view 53:31 of the church as we'll discuss in more 53:33 detail shortly. 53:36 This is important to understand because 53:39 it allows us to realize that the 53:41 conclusion and explanation of 53:43 ontological kinosis attempt to answer 53:46 one apparent problem but create another 53:49 more serious problem. 53:51 Because if ontological kinosis was true, 53:54 then it would prevent Jesus from being 53:56 concurrently fully God and fully man and 54:01 would indicate inconsistency with what 54:03 other portions of scripture consistently 54:06 state as true, which is not acceptable 54:09 within Christianity or determined by the 54:12 evidence. 54:15 You have to be careful when trying to 54:17 create theology from ethmology, the 54:21 study of the origin of words and their 54:22 meanings. Etmology is not a judge, 54:26 making authoritative rulings 54:28 independently. It's a flashlight, useful 54:31 when needed, but revealing little beyond 54:34 the narrow scope of its beam. 54:38 Let me paint the picture from a 54:39 different angle. Consider this a 54:42 realistic hypothetical scenario. 54:45 When a person talks about emptying their 54:48 mind, you don't take that to mean that 54:50 they literally threw their mind out the 54:52 window. 54:53 Either you subconsciously presume or you 54:56 think to yourself they can't literally 54:58 divest themselves of their mind. So, 55:01 they must mean that they intentionally 55:02 limited their use of it temporarily for 55:05 some specific purpose. 55:08 Don't let yourself become the 55:10 hypocritical reader who understands 55:13 normal use of figurative and context 55:16 dependent language in modern daily life 55:20 yet acts like it can't exist in 55:23 historical and theological literature. 55:27 While I could spend more time exhausting 55:29 the topic of Philippians 2, I think that 55:32 most people at this point will be able 55:35 to clearly see that the syntax of verse 55:37 7 doesn't force ontological kinosis. To 55:41 misinterpret the text that way, you must 55:43 ignore the figurative side of the 55:45 semantic range and read it as a very 55:47 literal emptying rather than considering 55:50 just the immediate context within this 55:53 letter to the Philippians. 55:55 Not to mention the other passages 55:57 through scripture that clearly maintain 56:00 Jesus's divinity. 56:02 The gospel of Christ and the coherence 56:05 of scripture as a whole requires not 56:07 just one nature or the other. And it 56:10 doesn't allow for a mixing either 56:13 because mixing implies changing the 56:15 unchangeable nature. 56:18 Scripture requires completeness of both 56:21 natures. 56:23 We have to accept both the deity and 56:26 humanity of Christ regardless of our 56:29 limited ability to understand it 56:31 mechanistically. 56:36 As much as many people, myself included, 56:39 would like for it to. Scripture does not 56:42 explain the incarnation mechanistically. 56:45 It doesn't detail the precise process by 56:48 which God joined humanity and divinity 56:50 in the incarnation. But it does present 56:52 it as a clear reality when all passages 56:56 about Jesus are considered together. The 56:58 doctrine of the two natures is not 57:01 imposed on the Bible by theologians. It 57:04 is the only way to read the Bible 57:06 without either ignoring or perverting 57:09 one side of its testimony. 57:12 Jesus is spoken of as fully God and 57:15 fully man. Sometimes in the same breath 57:18 as in Hebrews 1. There's a degree of 57:21 mystery to it and that's all right. I 57:25 believe that God has the answer to every 57:27 question, but I also believe it would be 57:30 immensely arrogant to think that we have 57:32 a right to demand answers from the 57:35 sovereign God of all creation. 57:38 The Bible already gives us far more than 57:41 is necessary for confident belief. If 57:44 you can't wrap your mind around that and 57:46 think that you therefore can't believe 57:48 in the biblical incarnation because it 57:50 would be a blind faith, remember this. 57:54 We can have faith for what we do not 57:56 understand 57:58 because of the insurmountable truths 58:00 that we do understand. 58:03 Those come both in the form of textual 58:05 evidence and more importantly for each 58:09 individual believer in the form of the 58:12 genuine personal experiences of God in 58:15 their life. 58:17 Furthermore, 58:19 not understanding how one aspect of 58:22 God's existence works is not proof that 58:25 it's logically impossible. 58:27 It's only proof that you don't yet 58:29 understand. 58:31 We tend to crave full mechanistic 58:34 explanations for everything such as we 58:37 attempt to provide through the 58:38 scientific method. But questions that we 58:40 cannot answer with the observation of 58:42 proof provide an opportunity for a 58:45 different sort of blessing as well. This 58:47 is clear in John 20 29 in which Jesus is 58:52 recorded to say that because you have 58:53 seen me, you have believed. Blessed are 58:56 those who have not seen and yet have 58:59 believed. 59:01 Neither you nor I have the right to 59:04 demand an explanation from God for 59:07 anything. 59:08 And yet he has provided ample evidence 59:11 in creation and throughout the history 59:14 of humanity with miracles and scriptures 59:18 that cannot be reasonably explained by 59:21 anything other than the one true God of 59:23 the Bible who mysteriously incarnated 59:26 himself through one of his three aspects 59:28 into the person of Jesus Christ. 59:32 I don't say that as an assumed 59:34 conclusion. 59:36 I've spent time exploring other 59:38 possibilities and pressure testing other 59:40 belief systems. But when you unveil the 59:43 mystery of any other worldview, it 59:46 simply dissolves in the light of 59:48 observable evidence and careful 59:50 philosophy. 59:53 Now that we've spent a little time in 59:54 the ancient text of scripture, let's 59:57 consider a slightly less ancient 59:59 document well known for addressing the 1:00:01 topic of how church history has impacted 1:00:04 our pedagogy of ontological 1:00:06 christologology. 1:00:08 Our methods of teaching the nature of 1:00:11 Jesus Christ. 1:00:16 This is where church history becomes 1:00:18 clarifying rather than distracting. It's 1:00:21 not about outsourcing interpretation or 1:00:24 appealing to authority. It's about 1:00:26 recognizing continuity through history. 1:00:30 The subject of this portion of the 1:00:31 discussion is the Council of Calcedon 1:00:34 from 451 AD. The records from this 1:00:38 rather momentous gathering are freely 1:00:40 available online if you would like to 1:00:42 examine them yourself. 1:00:44 Before I present the decidedly relevant 1:00:47 details of that event, let me provide 1:00:49 you a brief overview of some 1:00:52 historically relevant major events in 1:00:54 the timeline of the Christian church to 1:00:57 orient this discussion historically and 1:01:00 to prevent some possible 1:01:01 misunderstandings before they occur. 1:01:09 What you see on the screen now is a 1:01:11 graphic that I made to show the specific 1:01:13 historical events that I consider 1:01:15 relevant for this portion of the 1:01:18 discussion. You can refer to it anytime 1:01:20 throughout this section to help you 1:01:22 anchor this brief history lesson 1:01:24 visually. 1:01:26 I'll soon walk through this step-wise, 1:01:29 but for now, let's start before the 1:01:32 first marked event on this timeline with 1:01:34 the incarnation of the sun to establish 1:01:37 the historical anchor of continuity. 1:01:40 Jesus lives and dies at the turning of 1:01:42 the calendar from BC to AD. His 1:01:45 disciples go out and make other 1:01:47 disciples far and wide, establishing the 1:01:50 early church in the first century. A few 1:01:53 centuries later, several major 1:01:55 ecumenical councils, groups consisting 1:01:58 of members of multiple branches of the 1:02:00 church from different geographical 1:02:02 locations were formed to discuss issues 1:02:05 of theology that were under attack in 1:02:07 their cultural setting. 1:02:11 What they did not do was invent theology 1:02:15 as many internet myths would have you 1:02:17 believe, especially regarding the 1:02:20 Council of Nika in 325 AD. The council 1:02:23 that you will most likely hear the most 1:02:25 discussion of yet with the least 1:02:28 accuracy and clarity, 1:02:30 but it's not the one that's most 1:02:32 relevant to this discussion. 1:02:37 After Nika, there was the council of 1:02:40 Constantinople in 381 AD, the council of 1:02:44 Ephesus in 431 AD, and finally the 1:02:48 council of Calcedon in 451 AD. Up to 1:02:53 this point, the church had been 1:02:54 relatively unified in its doctrines 1:02:57 compared to what we see now with modern 1:02:59 denominational divides. In those days, 1:03:03 if you use words like orthodox or 1:03:06 Catholic, people understand these to 1:03:09 refer to correct doctrine and the 1:03:12 entirety of the faithful Christian 1:03:14 church. These days, when you use those 1:03:18 words, among others, most people think 1:03:20 you're referring to specific modern 1:03:22 denominations. 1:03:24 This is one of numerous unfortunate 1:03:27 consequences of denominational 1:03:30 segregation in the church today. 1:03:34 Regarding the council of calcedon, it 1:03:36 did not invent a new christologology. 1:03:39 Rather, it labored to clearly explain in 1:03:42 summary what the whole of scripture 1:03:45 teaches about the nature of the 1:03:47 incarnation of the word made flesh, 1:03:49 Jesus Christ, and everything that the 1:03:52 early church had considered correct 1:03:54 doctrine as it relates to his nature and 1:03:57 relational position within the Trinity. 1:04:01 Shortly after that, there was a group 1:04:03 who denounced the Caledonian definition 1:04:06 of christologology, biblical 1:04:08 christologology, 1:04:09 and formed the Oriental Orthodox Church. 1:04:13 Much later, the great schism of 1054 AD 1:04:17 results in the Caledonian branch 1:04:20 splitting further into Eastern Orthodox 1:04:23 and Roman Catholic churches. 1:04:26 This is important to remember because it 1:04:28 places the setting of the council of 1:04:30 Calcedon half a millennium prior to the 1:04:34 establishment of the Roman Catholic 1:04:36 branch of the church. So even though 1:04:38 some Roman Catholics may refer to it as 1:04:41 a Catholic council, it's only Catholic 1:04:45 in the sense of the original meaning of 1:04:46 the word relating to the entirety of 1:04:49 Christendom 1:04:51 or the entire Christian church. pre- 1:04:54 major denominational schism. 1:04:57 That's not to say that there weren't 1:04:59 other offshoots in the earlier 1:05:01 centuries, but they didn't result in the 1:05:03 formation of any of the major 1:05:04 denominations that we're concerned with 1:05:07 in the scope of this discussion. 1:05:10 Proceeding from the great schism, we 1:05:12 have the final major event, the 1:05:14 Protestant Reformation in the 16th 1:05:17 century AD, leading to the formation of 1:05:20 the Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed 1:05:23 Christian churches. 1:05:25 So to summarize the key points, the 1:05:27 council of Calcedon was formed well past 1:05:30 the days of the early church at which 1:05:32 point all necessary doctrine had already 1:05:35 been established and the entirety of the 1:05:39 canon of scripture recognized by most to 1:05:41 be closed. 1:05:43 It was also early enough to occur prior 1:05:47 to any major schisms, which is 1:05:50 appreciable considering most or 1:05:52 considering that post schism events in 1:05:56 writings are more prone to confusion of 1:05:59 authority and bias. 1:06:05 Now let's discuss the relevant result of 1:06:08 the council of Calcedon, the famous 1:06:11 Calcedonian christologology. 1:06:14 This understanding of Christ's nature 1:06:16 was summarized by a man referred to as 1:06:19 Reverend Archbishop Leo who asserted 1:06:22 that Jesus was fully God and fully man. 1:06:27 The count the record of this council 1:06:29 often references the 318 at Nika and the 1:06:34 150 at Constantinople who unanimously 1:06:38 agreed on their statements of faith. 1:06:41 If only we could have that kind of unity 1:06:43 in the church today. 1:06:45 Anyway, the attending bishops of the 1:06:48 Calcedonian Council overwhelmingly 1:06:51 affirmed that the definition of the 1:06:53 faith that they were subscribing to was 1:06:55 a quote confirmation of the faith of our 1:06:59 fathers end quote. 1:07:02 Only a portion of the eastern bishops 1:07:05 later clearly disagreed with the 1:07:07 Caledonian christologology and separated 1:07:09 to form the oriental orthodoxy. 1:07:13 The council of Calcedon frequently 1:07:15 references the 318 and the 150 of the 1:07:19 prior councils because they did not see 1:07:22 their theology as innovative but as 1:07:25 linguistic clarification and theological 1:07:28 continuity with the faith of their 1:07:31 forefathers to combat the innovations of 1:07:34 the enemy seeking to sow discord through 1:07:37 heretical preaching. 1:07:40 This still occurs today, especially in 1:07:43 online cultures where ideological echo 1:07:46 chambers form quickly and perpetuate 1:07:49 deception and confusion faster than can 1:07:51 be realized and corrected. 1:07:55 Regarding the Calcedonian response to 1:07:57 the heresies of the fifth century, the 1:08:00 crystallized verbiage of the definition 1:08:03 of christologology comes from the 1:08:05 following three main points in the 1:08:08 council records. 1:08:10 Quote, "Jesus Christ is one person, the 1:08:14 only begotten son, fully God and fully 1:08:17 man. He possesses two complete natures, 1:08:21 divine and human, united in one person 1:08:24 without confusion and without change, 1:08:28 and yet without division and without 1:08:29 separation. His divinity is not 1:08:32 diminished by becoming human. and his 1:08:34 humanity is not swallowed up by his 1:08:37 divinity. In him, the fullness of God 1:08:40 and the fullness of man remain perfectly 1:08:43 joined, perfectly distinct, and 1:08:46 perfectly one." 1:08:48 End quote. 1:08:50 This is perfectly in line with the 1:08:52 establishment of scripture and the 1:08:54 authoritative doctrines of the early 1:08:56 church. This was not a new definition, 1:09:00 just new language to sharpen the sword 1:09:02 of truth against the agents of deception 1:09:05 who are spreading false teachings about 1:09:07 Jesus Christ. 1:09:09 This definition also agrees with the 1:09:12 interpretation of Mark 13:32 that I 1:09:14 presented prior. It's the position of 1:09:17 scripture, the position of the early 1:09:19 church, the position of the famous 1:09:21 Caledonian christologology, and the 1:09:23 position that I will die before 1:09:25 denouncing 1:09:27 This is not a secondary issue. Among 1:09:30 certain other facts, Christianity lives 1:09:33 or dies on the character and nature of 1:09:37 Christ. So, we need to do our best to 1:09:40 understand it and explain it well as we 1:09:43 evangelize and disciple according to the 1:09:46 mission of Christ. 1:09:49 I've placed a link in the description 1:09:51 for this video to a website that 1:09:53 provides a free translation of the 1:09:54 council record for anyone who would like 1:09:57 to reference it directly. 1:09:59 For now, let's get back to the Bible. 1:10:03 Besides Psalm 82, the subject of the 1:10:06 original question, other scriptures that 1:10:09 are not so explicit as Mark 13:32, are 1:10:12 sometimes similarly mistreated to assume 1:10:16 ignorance, as though Jesus wouldn't or 1:10:19 couldn't ask a question unless he 1:10:21 genuinely did not know the answer, which 1:10:24 parents and teachers regularly 1:10:26 contradict when they ask their children 1:10:28 or students questions for the sake of 1:10:31 the one being taught a lesson. 1:10:35 When presenting these other passages as 1:10:37 evidence, the real question being asked 1:10:40 may often be less of a verse specific 1:10:42 issue and more of a broad philosophical 1:10:45 inquiry when ignorance isn't really 1:10:49 explicit or even necessarily strongly 1:10:52 implicit in the text. The broader 1:10:55 question may be stated as follows. Can 1:10:58 Jesus be truly divine if he appears to 1:11:01 possess limited or contextabound 1:11:04 human emotion, knowledge, understanding, 1:11:08 or wisdom? 1:11:10 The god-forsaken cry in Mark 15:34 is 1:11:15 used not only to argue a case for 1:11:17 cognitive misunderstanding or confusion, 1:11:20 but also emotional weakness. 1:11:24 However, this text is addressing a 1:11:26 different category of the human 1:11:28 experience than Mark 13. It's not a 1:11:31 confession of misunderstanding, but an 1:11:34 articulation of genuine suffering. 1:11:38 As I've said before, without suffering, 1:11:40 the incarnation would be hollow because 1:11:43 it would not be a relatable human 1:11:45 experience and the experience of the 1:11:48 cross would be meaningless. 1:11:52 Mark 15:34 is also a record of Jesus 1:11:55 quoting Psalm 22, which begins with 1:11:58 anguish, but ends with vindication, 1:12:03 righteous victory. 1:12:05 So it's quite poetically appropriate for 1:12:08 Jesus to refer to the anguish of the 1:12:10 ancient scripture when he was in the 1:12:12 middle of the tortuous experience of the 1:12:14 crucifixion which was followed by the 1:12:17 victory of the resurrection that he had 1:12:20 already proclaimed to his disciples. 1:12:24 I hope that you can see now that once 1:12:26 you understand the framework of the 1:12:28 biblical context as well as the 1:12:30 Caledonian definition of christologology 1:12:33 and you deal with Mark 13, you've 1:12:36 essentially already handled the core of 1:12:37 the arguments brought against most any 1:12:40 other passage of scripture such as Luke 1:12:43 2:52 1:12:45 where it says that Jesus increased in 1:12:46 wisdom or John 11:34 where it says that 1:12:50 he asks where they laid the body of 1:12:52 Lazarus. Consider 1:12:55 this. Parents and teachers often have 1:12:57 conversations with students in which 1:13:00 they set aside the fact that they 1:13:01 already understand the situation 1:13:03 perfectly in order to have guided 1:13:06 interactions that will involve and 1:13:08 benefit the audience. 1:13:12 This could resolve some questions 1:13:14 arising from certain situations even 1:13:17 less mysteriously than the two nature 1:13:19 christologology. Consider the story 1:13:22 recorded in Mark 5:30 and Luke 8:45 in 1:13:27 which Jesus asked who had touched him 1:13:29 when he felt power flow out of him, 1:13:32 which could be assumed to mean that he 1:13:34 lacked knowledge of what had happened, 1:13:36 but could also have been a question 1:13:38 asked not out of ignorance, but to offer 1:13:41 the woman who touched him an invitation 1:13:43 to respond and interact with him more 1:13:46 personally. 1:13:48 To be clear, I'm not advocating for that 1:13:51 as the best interpretation or even the 1:13:54 most likely because that's not the 1:13:56 point. 1:13:58 I'm merely presenting a possible 1:14:00 alternative explanation that fits within 1:14:02 the proper christoologgical framework 1:14:05 and the reasonably possible room for 1:14:08 interpretation in the passage of a less 1:14:11 challenging question after we've already 1:14:14 considered the toughest question and 1:14:16 resolved it with a biblical and 1:14:18 historically traditional understanding 1:14:21 of the incarnation. 1:14:24 I could extend this discussion even 1:14:26 further to delve into that passage to 1:14:29 see whether it forces the circumstance 1:14:30 of limited knowledge on Jesus. But we 1:14:33 don't need to spend time on that for 1:14:35 this discussion. 1:14:37 As I stated in the in the introduction 1:14:39 and again just a moment ago, we don't 1:14:41 have to worry about the weaker examples 1:14:43 proposed for divine ignorance. If we can 1:14:45 deal with a loadbearing pillar of the 1:14:48 entire heretical christologology, which 1:14:51 we did already with Mark 13. 1:14:56 Before I conclude this episode, I want 1:14:59 to briefly discuss a few specific voices 1:15:02 that are relevant when studying the 1:15:04 modern argument for divine ignorance. 1:15:07 The reason that I will not be addressing 1:15:08 them each in depth at this point is that 1:15:11 I essentially already have implicitly. 1:15:15 I don't have to invent new answers to 1:15:17 every objector because a good 1:15:19 understanding of scripture as revealed 1:15:21 by the Holy Spirit is sufficient to 1:15:24 answer the substance of them all. 1:15:28 Be assured there is no question, 1:15:31 objection, or consideration that God was 1:15:34 not already fully aware of before the 1:15:38 foundation of the world was laid. 1:15:40 He is the source of inspiration, 1:15:43 the true author of scripture, and he 1:15:46 wrote his word into creation already 1:15:48 having considered every bit of wisdom 1:15:51 that would be needed to uphold the 1:15:52 faith. 1:15:54 That said, let's discuss an overview of 1:15:58 other views. 1:16:00 The following are unitarian objections 1:16:03 arguing for divine ignorance. 1:16:07 These men directly argue that Jesus 1:16:09 lacked divine attributes because he is 1:16:12 not divine. 1:16:14 The reason that I'm addressing them by 1:16:15 name is that they are the modern voices 1:16:18 whom I have found to have developed the 1:16:21 most systematic form of the argument 1:16:23 against the biblical christologology 1:16:25 that I've been explaining throughout 1:16:27 this episode. 1:16:28 However, systematic does not equal 1:16:32 correct and their system relies on 1:16:35 unproven assumptions while contradicting 1:16:38 proven principles within scripture. 1:16:42 The Unitarian essential attribute 1:16:44 argument is used by men such as Dale 1:16:47 Tuggy and Anthony Buzzard. The core 1:16:51 claim is that Jesus appears to lack 1:16:53 essential divine attributes. A being who 1:16:56 lacks essential divine attributes cannot 1:16:58 be God. Therefore, Jesus is not God. The 1:17:02 underlying assumption supporting this 1:17:04 position is that divine attributes must 1:17:07 be fully exercised at all times. 1:17:12 This assumes that God cannot temporarily 1:17:15 or voluntarily limit himself in any way, 1:17:19 which is not a position established 1:17:21 through scripture so much as it is by a 1:17:24 rigid personal philosophy. 1:17:27 That's self-led is Jesus, not Bibleled 1:17:32 exesus. 1:17:34 In reading through Tuggy's 1:17:35 argumentation, I noticed a shotgun 1:17:37 skepticism approach in which he launched 1:17:40 a barrage of interpretations of short 1:17:45 statements taken out of their context 1:17:48 somewhat with shallow explanation and 1:17:51 support that mostly relied on 1:17:53 assumptions not supported by the text. 1:17:56 Furthermore, he is forced to reinterpret 1:18:00 the texts where God the Father clearly 1:18:03 refers to Jesus as God, such as Hebrews 1:18:07 chapter 1. 1:18:09 Tuggy tries to circumvent Hebrews 1 by 1:18:11 reclassifying terms one at a time. But 1:18:15 this doesn't work when you consider in 1:18:17 context the entire description of Jesus 1:18:20 by the Father. He is called God said to 1:18:23 be the creator of all things and 1:18:25 sustainer of all things. And he is 1:18:27 worshiped by the angels. 1:18:30 Only the one true God is the creator and 1:18:34 sustainer of all things. And only the 1:18:36 one true God is to be worshiped. 1:18:40 Besides, 1:18:42 if I can temporarily and voluntarily 1:18:45 limit my ability to see by closing my 1:18:47 eyelids 1:18:49 and empty my mind without tossing my 1:18:52 brain, surely the Almighty God of all 1:18:55 creation can limit his access to his 1:18:58 omniscience temporarily and voluntarily 1:19:01 in one expression of his divine nature, 1:19:05 incarnated in the flesh, to give us the 1:19:07 relatable human savior of Jesus Christ. 1:19:11 Regarding Anthony Buzzard, he seems to 1:19:14 believe that the two nature argument for 1:19:16 Jesus is merely verbal slight of hand, 1:19:19 which indicates to me that he perhaps 1:19:22 thinks far too highly of himself. If he 1:19:25 concludes that since he can't understand 1:19:27 it, then God can't do it. 1:19:32 I don't think that he would explicitly 1:19:34 make that claim, although I don't know 1:19:37 him well enough to say that he wouldn't 1:19:39 either. But even as a subconscious 1:19:42 assumption, this is a dangerous 1:19:44 elevation of the human mind to a level 1:19:47 of understanding that we have not been 1:19:48 granted by our creator. 1:19:52 In both of these cases, it seems that 1:19:54 these men don't believe in the biblical 1:19:57 incarnation because they can't imagine 1:19:59 how it works mechanistically. 1:20:02 Or at least that's the best explanation 1:20:04 I can think of for a person trying to 1:20:07 honestly evaluate Jesus and yet so 1:20:10 consistently mishandling scripture and 1:20:12 philosophy on this matter. 1:20:17 Not being provided the mechanism doesn't 1:20:19 mean that the result is logically 1:20:20 impossible. The Bible may not describe 1:20:23 the two nature incarnation in such 1:20:26 concise words, but there's a reason that 1:20:28 the core of the church since the 1:20:30 earliest days of Christianity 1:20:32 has believed and taught the complete 1:20:35 human and divine natures of Jesus 1:20:36 Christ, resulting in him being 1:20:38 simultaneously truly God and truly man. 1:20:43 The last anti-caledonian view of 1:20:46 christologology that I'll mention is 1:20:48 represented in this discussion by Kermit 1:20:51 Zarley, an author who argues that Jesus 1:20:54 was a mere man with god-given authority. 1:20:58 The core claim is that two natures 1:21:00 language is incoherent and unbiblical. 1:21:04 The underlying assumption is that one 1:21:07 being equals one center of 1:21:09 consciousness. 1:21:11 But that's assuming that God's internal 1:21:13 architecture must necessarily be exactly 1:21:17 the same as ours 1:21:19 and fit within the rather small realm of 1:21:23 our ability to imagine and comprehend. 1:21:27 We can't place God in a box to limit him 1:21:30 to existing within our ability to 1:21:33 comprehend. 1:21:34 That's glorifying the mind of man and 1:21:37 disrespecting the mind of God. 1:21:42 Claims of divine ignorance only stand if 1:21:44 we misunderstand what scripture actually 1:21:47 teaches about the incarnation about who 1:21:50 Jesus is about how he lived and about 1:21:53 the internal consistency of the Bible. 1:21:57 I'm aware that I don't know everything 1:22:00 and I'm always open to fair criticism. 1:22:02 But before you try to push back on this 1:22:05 traditional view of christologology, 1:22:07 know this. 1:22:09 I'm confident enough after all of the 1:22:12 many hours that I've spent testing this 1:22:14 christologology against scripture, 1:22:16 history, competing and competing 1:22:18 explanations 1:22:20 that I am willing to bet eternity on my 1:22:23 understanding of who Jesus is and what 1:22:26 he has done. 1:22:29 Are you? 1:22:32 If you want to change my mind on this 1:22:34 particular subject, 1:22:36 you're going to require irrefutable 1:22:38 evidence to force a different 1:22:41 conclusion. 1:22:42 That's not because I'm confident in 1:22:44 myself so much as I am in God and his 1:22:47 word. 1:22:49 That said, feel free to share your 1:22:51 thoughts on this matter, even if you 1:22:53 disagree with me. Discourse is the only 1:22:57 way for us to facilitate mutual 1:22:59 understanding after all. 1:23:02 I hope that this response is beneficial 1:23:04 to you. But if you find that your 1:23:07 heart's response to good answers is that 1:23:09 it can't accept them, no matter how 1:23:11 solid the logic is, or you just jump 1:23:14 straight to the next question, as though 1:23:16 the last one doesn't matter anymore, I 1:23:18 would encourage you to consider whether 1:23:20 the barrier between you and God truly is 1:23:23 a question of reason. 1:23:26 It might just be the condition of your 1:23:27 heart. 1:23:29 And that's something that God alone can 1:23:31 heal, which he will if you submit your 1:23:34 heart to him. If you have skeptical 1:23:37 questions or doubts, leave them in the 1:23:40 comment section. I'll never be able to 1:23:42 answer them all, but I'll respond to as 1:23:44 many as I can over time. 1:23:47 You can subscribe to get notifications 1:23:49 if you want to be updated when a new 1:23:51 question is being discussed as well. 1:23:55 For now, may the Lord bless you and may 1:23:58 you begin to recognize how blessed you 1:24:01 are.