Skip to main content

REBLast week I read a little book by New Testament scholar Raymond E. Brown Jesus: God and Man.

It’s a short little book, 2 chapters in fact, each of which first appeared in journals in the mid-1960s, about the time I was going to first grade with my Monkees lunch box.

In the first chapter, Brown looks at whether the New Testament calls Jesus God, and what that even means. I’ll try to get back to that at some point.

In the second chapter, Brown answers the question, “How much did Jesus know?” I simply found what he had to say very interesting and helpful.

The issue lurking in the background for Brown is the common Christian assertion (Brown, who died in 1998, was a Roman Catholic), that Jesus, being divine, knew everything–at least everything of religious importance.

Brown goes through every relevant text in the Gospels and shows how the biblical evidence is a lot more–wait for it–diverse than can be captured in simplistic assertions.

Brown looks at Jesus’s knowledge about ordinary affairs of life, religious matters, the future, and his own self-knowledge and of his mission.

In working through these categories, Brown shows where Jesus is at times ignorant and at times displays superhuman/extraordinary knowledge, at times clear and at times uncertain, and at times expressing himself in terms of common expectations of the day.

For example, the Gospels include scenes where Jesus knows what is happening elsewhere or what others are thinking (e.g., Mark 2:6-8; Mark 11:2; John 1:48-49). But even in these examples (and others Brown gives), we need to be careful, he tells us, “about any theological assumption that would trace such knowledge to the hypostatic union…” (i.e., the Christian belief that the human Jesus was also fully divine, p. 49).

The Old Testament attributes the same kind of knowledge to Old Testament prophets, like “Ezekiel living in Babylon [who] has visions of events occurring in Jerusalem” (p. 49).

In other words, extraordinary knowledge like this is not an argument for Jesus’s divinity, especially since he also displays ignorance of things as well. And those two features–extraordinary knowledge and ignorance–are not mutually incompatible, since we see them both in the Old Testament prophets.

In his conclusion, Brown reminds us that his evaluation of the Gospel evidence “does nothing to detract from the dignity of Jesus.”

If in the Gospel reports his knowledge seems to have been limited, such limitation would simply show to what depths divine condescension went in the incarnation–it would show just how human was the humanity of Jesus (p. 100).

Here again we are reminded of the offense and humiliation, indeed the mystery, of the incarnation–our discomfort, if we’re honest, with a Jesus who was fully human andI&I2 therefore participated in the limitations of being human.

Here is Brown’s conclusion to the book, where he addresses a reaction to all this that I’ve heard plenty of times:

But when all is said and done, the great objection that will be hurled again and again against any exegete (or theologian) who finds evidence that Jesus’ knowledge was limited is the objection that in Jesus Christ there is only one person, a divine person.

And so, even though the divine person acted through a completely human nature, any theory that Jesus had limited knowledge seems to imply a limitation of the divine person.

Perhaps the best answer to this objection is to call upon Cyril of Alexandria, that Doctor of the Church to whom, more than to any other, we are indebted for the great truth of the oneness of the person in Christ. It was that ultra-orthodox archfoe of Nestorianism (two persons or powers in Christ) who said of Christ, 

“We have admired his goodness in that for love of us he has not refused to descend to such a low position as to bear all that belongs to our nature, INCLUDED IN WHICH IS IGNORANCE.” (my formatting; emphasis original; pp. 101-2).

And then in his epilogue, Brown writes:

A Jesus who walked through the world knowing exactly what the morrow would bring, knowing with certainty that three days after his death his Father would raise him up, is a Jesus who can arouse our admiration, but still a Jesus far from us.

He is a Jesus far from mankind that can only hope in the future and believe in God’s goodness, far from a mankind that must face the supreme uncertainty of death with faith but without knowledge of what is beyond.

On the other hand, a Jesus for whom the future was as such a mystery, a dread, and a hope as it is for us and yet, at the same time a Jesus who would say, “Not my will but yours”–this is a Jesus who could effectively teach us how to live, for this is a Jesus who would have gone through life’s real trials.

Then we would know the full truth of the saying: “No man can have greater love than this: to lay down his life for those he loves” (Jn 15:13), for we would know that he laid down his life with all the agony with which we lay it down.

We would know that for him the loss of life was, as it is for us, the loss of a great possession, a possession that is outranked only by love.” (my formatting; pp. 104-5).

For Brown, much is at stake theologically for Jesus not knowing everything. I’m with Brown on this.

Pete Enns, Ph.D.

Peter Enns (Ph.D., Harvard University) is Abram S. Clemens professor of biblical studies at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania. He has written numerous books, including The Bible Tells Me So, The Sin of Certainty, and How the Bible Actually Works. Tweets at @peteenns.

No Comments

  • Bill Barman says:

    For Brown, much is at stake theologically for Jesus not knowing everything. I’m with Brown on this.

    Not being a formally trained Bible student, I don’t know if my view of Jesus humanity/divinity is a formal teaching or not, but it seems to me that a lot of what Jesus knew was based in His reading and believing scripture — including Genesis 1-11. With His access to the Word of God, with a sinless nature and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit from birth, He had all the necessary components to partake in the divine nature that He laid aside when He became incarnate. In other words, Jesus humanity shows us we too can partake in His divine nature, having been born again, if we read and believe God’s Word by His Spirit.

    • Chris Falter says:

      Seems very insightful to this half-baked theologian! I think it would be useful to elaborate this further by stating that Jesus showed that we can partake in God’s divine nature by loving the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength; by loving our neighbor as ourselves; by reading and believing God’s Word by His Spirit; etc.

      • Kim Fabricius says:

        Bill, Chris, the problem with your comments, which are both modest and earnest, is that they do not address either the question “Did Jesus know everything?” nor the answer that Raymond Brown suggests and that Peter endorses. And that means that instead of joining the conversation and engaging the issue you are ignoring it, which, notwithstanding the evangelical fervor of your faith, is kind of discourteous. Your interventions remind me of an advertisement (albeit one about “partaking of the divine nature”) suddenly obtruding in the narrative of a good film.

        • Bill Barman says:

          And that means that instead of joining the conversation and engaging the issue you are ignoring it, which, notwithstanding the evangelical fervor of your faith, is kind of discourteous.

          If I were omniscient and knew where the conversation was going, I could have anticipated your objections and covered it in my comment which turned out to be the very first comment to the post. In that way I would have avoided offending you all by being discourteous. But alas, I’m human with an inherited sinful nature. So sorry.

          • Stuart Blessman says:

            Can I ask the scary question: what if a lot of Jesus’ (and OT prophets’) knowledge about other places came after the fact, when everything was written down and stories were shared and commonly known?

            What if, like so many things nowadays, evidence of God’s workout comes in hindsight and through faith?

          • Somebody get the tranquilizer darts. *phoot*

          • HenryC says:

            He did not know everything, the human mind is incapable of holding that much knowledge. He was just right about everything. God knows everything, but Christ is only part of god, not the full Godhead.

          • Ross says:

            Good point, If I understand you correctly. The Gospels are some retelling after the event (I believe CNN wasn’t even in it’s infancy then), and the prophets, well who knows what they were up to, or when.

            This God bloke really needs to sort himself out and be a bit clearer over what he means. Or is he trying out some game where we have to seek him instead?

        • Chris Falter says:

          Hi Kim,

          Hope you’re having a great Friday.

          Since Bill didn’t directly address Raymond Brown’s thesis, I didn’t see the need to directly address it either. I suppose I could have thrown a flag at Bill and told him he was discourteous, but I chose instead to engage the substance of his remarks.

          I think you could even make a case for the discussion of Jesus’ relationship with Scripture as being an investigation of an important detail. Brown painted his canvas in broad strokes–or at least, Pete cited the broad strokes–but Bill chose to examine a corner of the canvas with a magnifying glass. I pointed out that other parts of the canvas are, IMO, more important. But we’re all talking about the same canvas.

        • Bill Barman says:

          the problem with your comments, which are both modest and earnest, is that they do not address either the question “Did Jesus know everything?” nor the answer that Raymond Brown suggests and that Peter endorses.

          Let me have a do over:

          The answer to the question “Did Jesus know everything?” seems to be “No” which I think is what Brown and Peter are saying — it’s difficult for me to get the gist of what you all are saying, much less understand exactly what you all are saying. But I’m not saying this as a fervent evangelical advertiser who is trying to get in your face. I’m saying this a retired engineer/information technology professional, who in looking at the recorded history of Jesus’ life, has come to the conclusion that Jesus set aside His “knowing everything” to knowing only that which a human being would know through what is told or written to Him. But having a sinless nature, He can actually discern that communication which is of God versus that which is of fallen mankind. So, in reading scripture (including Genesis 1-11) He can receive the thoughts that He encoded by His Spirit though His prophets to be decoded by Himself and boot strap Himself up — as it were — to understanding who He really was and what His purpose for becoming incarnate was.

          Warning — advertisement follows: And it was this spiritual communication and his obedience to His own Word that resulted in the sweet communication with His heavenly Father — that is, being at one with each other but separated by a distance (similar to quantum entanglement?). And now access to this fellowship is also available to all who believe as He believed. But alas, some would rather spend their lives straining out gnats while swallowing whole camels instead of believing the Bible as Jesus believed.

          Closing verse: “The righteous shall live by faith”

          Advertisement finished.

        • louismoreaugottschalk says:

          when I went to the picture show
          I always felt a cartoon is necessary before the main feature!

  • Brown is just great. His commentaries on John are terrific. Restored my faith in commentaries.

    Before the Trinitarianerds get in here to complain, I think the Gospels consistently portray Jesus as a Spirit-annointed man. I’m open to correction, but I can’t think of a single thing in the Gospels that requires Jesus to be divine with the possible exception of the logos/sophia thing in John 1. Even outside of the Gospels, while I believe there are strains that indicate Jesus’ divinity, they are very slight and debatable.

    For me, the consequences come from how much meaning is missed if we write up everything in the Gospels to Jesus being divine. We lose the important OT threads of Jesus’ role as Christ, what that means, and how that is to be demonstrated when it all gets collapsed into, “Of course Jesus could heal that guy. He’s God.”

    • Richard Goulette says:

      Hi Phil, I tend to agree with you. The eternal God the Son intersected with time and added humanity as a nature unto himself. His miracles and prophecy were Spirit-filled in ways unparalleled, yet quite clearly the gospels mention amazement, lack of knowledge, and even draining of power to not subtract from that amazing paradox. Even the concept of a zimzum where God pulls back some part of himself so we can radically interact in a genuine way is not a foreign concept here.

      • Stuart Blessman says:

        Even Jesus didn’t give 110%…

      • dogged says:

        The Greek gods (e.g.) were divine beings who would frequently masquerade as humans (an illusion.) For anyone to be truly human, that person would experience all human limitations. The Scripture confirms that Jesus had all such limitations–except sin. It is apparent that the Godhead chose to be limited while within the human race.

    • Dale Tuggy says:

      “I’m open to correction, but I can’t think of a single thing in the Gospels that requires Jesus to be divine with the possible exception of the logos/sophia thing in John 1.”

      Wise words, in my view. And I think John 1 requiring Jesus to be God/divine melts away upon careful analysis. In brief, the Logos is in him; he, the man, isn’t the logos. More needs to be said, but here’s a first pass. http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-episode-70-the-one-god-and-his-son-according-to-john/

      • Well, I think the way forward through that bit of theological forestry is to figure out how Jesus gets caught up in the Jewish wisdom tradition. In my opinion, Jesus doesn’t need to be divine to be the embodiment of the wisdom of God. The connection with the Greek logos idea is just so dicey; I’m not sure what to make of it, honestly, but I sure wouldn’t want to build a key doctrine off of it.

        • Chris Bourne says:

          Phil, I have seen your comments on Andrew’s blog but have never commented here before. I still go back to the simple old saw, which is far from exhausted. Where does the explanatory power arise? Also, where does that explanatory power reveal persistent questions? The framing of the statement that Jesus is divine, it seems to me, tells us almost nothing about Jesus (as if divinity were somehow obvious and fully explicated) but it could tell us a great deal about divinity because of the narratives about Jesus. It seems to me, especially in modern thoughtlessness, that this is commonly reversed. Jesus is made mystically impenetrable instead of divinity being made concretely apprehendable.

          • Oh, hi Chris! Good to see you over here, too, especially since Andrew has played a big role in making me revisit my thoughts on this issue.

            I like your take on it and am certainly more comfortable with defining divinity by seeing what Jesus was like as opposed to starting with abstract propositions about what divinity means and trying to make those apply to Jesus.

            But then the nasty hook of that route becomes: is there really any difference then between divinity and ideal humanity? And if so, how would we come to know the difference?

            I think we have to take into account the revelation of YHWH before Jesus comes on the scene.

          • Andrew Dowling says:

            To that question, I think divinity outside of the human experience is unknowable by humans. I think there IS aspects of the transcendent that transcend human knowledge, but that becomes simply a fun exercise in philosophizing. WE can only know what we know. As Dirty Harry eloquently stated “a man’s got to know his limitations.”
            So for now, I see the divine in those amazing moments of pure love we are fortunate enough to experience in this life. Like my daughters’ giving me an unasked for hug or the nuzzles from a happy dog. In those times, I feel they emanate from something greater than pure reductionist structuring.

          • Ch Hoffman says:

            first – define who you believe Jesus was. Was he a man with a mission or an extension of God.

            If he was a man – he knew what he had learned, experienced, or was told by God
            If he was an extension of God – his knowledge was as infinite as his power

          • I’m not sure this clears it up. God is a god with a mission.

          • Chris Bourne says:

            A big yes to that. There comes a point, and we are reluctant to admit how early it comes, when we must hesitate and then rapidly fall silent. The ontological assumptions are flawed because they have to be, (we cannot cross the divine interval and see from above, no matter what we do with Greek influences) and the epistemological assumptions just don’t get us over that hurdle. But you put the question in an interesting way.

            It becomes so interesting, and wonderful, then, that we have to live with both ‘the fullness of the Godhead, bodily’ of Coll 2:9 and the ‘firstborn among many brethren’ of Rom 8:29. And, indeed, the conclusion of the Collosians sentence, ‘and we are complete in him’. And this is to say nothing of the issues of finitude, of Being and beings, of the nature of true transcendentals all of which take a long time to develop through the patristic periods and become gloriously convoluted in medieval metaphysics. (I guess this is why we need people like Hart!)

            I suspect, though, that you are as troubled as I when it comes to the impoverishment of late modernity, when the ontological assumptions are presented as if they were ever descriptive of an actual pathology, as if we had both God and Jesus under some sort of spiritual MRI scanner. So we return, as we must, to admit that the only functional language of metaphysics is poetry.

    • Ross says:

      A very good point, however for me the “divine mystery” that God visited us, in the person of Jesus, is very compelling. I admit that a “questioning reading” of the NT will find this elusive, in the Gospels at least. But from someone who would like to “see God face to face”, I’m really coming round to seeing him in Jesus. I can’t really relate to an ever non-present divinity, but seeing the man Jesus (who possibly looked like a young Yasser Arafat) turn to me and tell me he is G*d here and now is something I may perchance relate to.

      • Well, I definitely think when we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father. We just might haggle a little over how that’s true.

        • Ross says:

          I’m not sure about haggling, cos I haven’t the faintest idea how it’s true! Personally the intro to the Gospel known as John stirs me more than anything else I know and sums up the “divine” nature of Jesus. The mechanics of the thing I don’t know.

          • Andrew Dowling says:

            It’s helped me to think about this in the context of the earliest Christian proclamation and what the incarnation meant in the 1st century. Incarnation was already a common concept in ancient Rome; Caesar was incarnato. If you were going to preach Jesus, saying he was a man who walked on water and did miracles would’ve gotten shoulder shrugs. The tales of the emperors and other wonder workers were filled with even greater divine feats. What the selling point lied was a question of VALUES. What does God look like to you? Does he look like Caesar, preaching power, loyalty, military strength? Or is it Jesus preaching humility, compassion, forgiveness. That was the fundamental question and that is the heart of incarnation. Debates about what divine powers Jesus had or didn’t have is missing the point entirely.

        • louismoreaugottschalk says:

          I have read you and see Jesus in your words.

      • cken says:

        Jesus was half man and half God, kind of like Hercules, so he probably only knew half of everything. If Jesus was the only son of God then we cannot be sons of God but must be His grandchildren. But that would mean Jesus created us. I am so confused. Somebody explain this please.

    • Veritas says:

      Jesus said that if we have seen him, we have seen the father, “for the father and I are one” and also, to quote Thomas “my Lord and my God”
      These are pretty clear statements of Jesus’ divinity, no?

      • No.

        If you have seen Christians, you have seen Jesus because of the unity we share by the Spirit. If you had seen Adam, you would have seen the Father because Adam was the image of God (he is even called the Son of God in Luke). Jesus is the image of the Father.

        He prays that the disciples would be one as he and the Father are one. He did not intend for the disciples to actually become one being. They were, instead, separate beings united by the Spirit. I am 95% sure that your first two examples are not indicators of divinity anymore than calling us the “body of Christ” or the “image of God” means we are divine.

        Thomas’ declaration is trickier; I’ll give you that. I’ll drop this one to 75%. But his declaration could have easily been meant to glorify God upon seeing the resurrected Messiah.

  • Wayfaring Michael says:

    I was fortunate enough to meet Brown at a Christian bookseller’s convention in the late 90s, and as I write this I am looking at a signed copy of his Introduction to the New Testament. I was still a Catholic then, and had not yet read a whole lot of the Bible, or seriously studied theology at all. (Yes, Catholics are weird that way, though some of them are getting better about that.) After a conversion experience and a switch toward a more Baptist-oriented belief, because I had Brown’s Introduction, that was one of the first works of its kind that I read. I was later somewhat surprised to find Brown being quoted favorably by heavy-hitting Protestant Old Testament and New Testament theologians.

    (Baseball analogy intentional.)

    FWIW to the non-academics reading this, getting a tenth anniversary edition published of a book like Inspiration and Incarnation is a sure sign that the author is a heavy hitter.

    I will certainly try to get my hands on this little gem. Thanks, Pete, for the reference.

  • hecansing@yahoo.com says:

    This is actually very moving and a fair and balanced view of Jesus as man and Lord. However I don’t think even with Jesus’ seemingly limited knowledge that he was ignorant of what awaited him after death…He must have had an inkling being aware of both angelic beings (Garden of Gethsemane) and the company of Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration. He may have dreaded the physical pain of the manner of his death and certainly the spiritual harshness of bearing our sin but I doubt he was ignorant of what awaited him ‘on the other side’.

  • Dean Hawkins says:

    Acknowledging the fact that Jesus is 100% human (along with being 100% divine) seems to be hard for a lot of Christians. I’ve expressed to friends before that we often neglect the human side of Jesus, the only side we can relate to.

    But ultimately, I always get the same reaction. “Well, we have to be careful about that. We wouldn’t want to fall into any heresies by focusing too much on Jesus’ humanity.” The irony is that this kind of belief begins leaning toward a modern-day Docetism.

    Acknowledging Jesus’ full humanity makes Christians uncomfortable for some reason, as if by suggesting any kind of limitations on his part would offend him, or something.

    • Stewart Felker says:

      // The irony is that this kind of belief begins leaning toward a modern-day Docetism. //

      We don’t have to qualify this with “modern-day”: as much as they insisted otherwise, even those like Athanasius were basically docetists re: Jesus’ human nature. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say they were _exegetical_ docetists: they explained away all of those inconvenient, all-too-human episodes in Jesus’ life in various ways: explaining them as Jesus giving teaching lessons in combating future heretical Christologies, adopting alternate translations to avoid the scandal of his ignorance, etc.

      • Camo Star says:

        Ew! You like the Monkees? You know they don’t write their own songs.

      • Andrew Dowling says:

        Yes despite it being formerly condemned docetism has been a live factor in much of ‘orthodox’ Christianity since the 3rd century. Humans not liking any ‘weakness’ or vulnerability in the object of their worship is not a new dilemma.

    • Gary says:

      I find many present-day believers (in the wake of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy) obsessed with the divinity claims so much to attach limited belief to the humanity claims. I’ve heard what once would been considered outright Docetism from the pulpit a number of times over the years. Nobody really cares. I think it’s less concern about offending a man (humans do take offense) and more about propping up against the angst of popular just-a-man claims.

  • Christy says:

    Nice post. Thanks.

  • Ian Paul says:

    Peter, thanks for this, which is really important.

    One observation, not least on the discussion below, is that there is a distinct difference between the UK and the US. In the US, an insistence on Jesus divinity simpliciter does lead to the kind of docetism which Brown is keen to avoid. This is much less obvious amongst evangelicals in the UK–though perhaps we correspondingly struggle with Jesus’ divinity…

  • 4 WIW says:

    The real mystery in the question of what Jesus knew is how is it that God can limit His own knowledge – even for a short interlude of 33 years? As the Nicene Creed states regarding Jesus: “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”

    As stated in the WCOF Chapter 8 Christ as Mediator: “2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.”

    It is apparent from the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament that Jesus, in human form, did limit His knowledge – for a season. This is not a hard concept to accept, once you get past the idea that God would condescend to live as a mortal to actually experience death – on our behalf. That is the harder concept to accept – because we are not worth it.

    • Andrew Dowling says:

      The question is are all of the assumptions of Nicaea found in the Gospel writings; I think most biblical scholars would concede they are not.

    • I was wondering when someone would get around to bringing up the WCF.

      • 4 WIW says:

        Greetings Phil. The first time I read the WCF (in the old English) I concluded by thinking that those guys really had it together. Upon further reflection, I realized how arrogant I was for thinking that way. As I have become more familiar with the work of the Westminster Divines and the make-up of the group of pastors and their deliberations, I have developed a sincere appreciation for their efforts. Their work is definitely scholarly and I believe Spirit -lead. Their work product is certainly worth more esteem and consideration than anything any individual would put out today as far as theological commentary or discourse.

        Thus that is why I brought it up in regard to this discussion topic. For those not familiar with the concept of Jesus being all man and all God and of one substance with the Father, the WCF is a good starting point for understanding what the long-standing English Reformation view has been. Everyone is free to believe what they want – the only question to always consider is: “Is what one wants to believe – worth believing?”

        • peteenns says:

          4 WIW, if I may…I’ve been around the block with WCF and the catechisms and have had my own process of seeing strengths and weaknesses. The real problem with it is when it is looked upon as a standard of some sort. That arises out of and breeds great arrogance, particularly when it’s particular social and historical setting is forgotten. As some of us used to say (as students), “Yes, the WCF is absolutely and without question the best sectarian, regicidal confession the Reformation produced.”

          • 4 WIW says:

            I agree. We are perfectly capable of making anything an idol, even a confession of faith. All extra-Biblical tools miss the mark, but some are useful.

          • Mike Kendall says:

            Wow! I need to read this book! I love the idea of a God who gave up being G-d just so that He could relate with us in the most intimate way! It’s like saying that God isn’t God because of His omnipotence or omniscience or even His omnipresence, but because of His capacity to love.

          • louismoreaugottschalk says:

            hi steve i have been trying to get on your website with my android tablet.
            No Go nothing works.
            no activation when I touched the screen on my tablet.
            please advise
            Thx!

          • Try here as it is my main body of work and material, I checked it seemed ok – the steverobertz.net is more a splash page to my main tumblr site – thanks for letting me know 😉

            http://steverobertz.tumblr.com/

          • louismoreaugottschalk says:

            no no go on either. I was really hoping to get on your blog, get a conversation going with you. I think I’ve been reading your posts for quite a while now. just last night you stood out to me as someone with a voice. I think it was one of Brian zahnd’s
            post about George MacDonald. McDonald has been mountain in my landscape of intellectual and spiritually evolution. have you ever his phantastes, lilith or
            at the back of the Northwind?
            God bless!

          • Hill Roberts says:

            Brother, I wish I had known of this little book a couple of years ago when I presummed to teach a bible class on the humanity of Jesus. As Brown and you note, so much is at stake (in the good way) on a Jesus who does NOT “know” everything. A Jesus who knows everything is not the Jesus I see wondering in the garden if maybe he’s gotten this thing all wrong after all. That’s a dying Jesus I can see being my savior as “one like me in every way”.

          • rking111 says:

            I have been having a hard time convincing my pastor that Jesus when He said only my father knows was saying with that statement that He didn’t know everything. The argument ensues as all pastors now say that no one can know the time of His arrival. Jesus never said you cannot know. At the time He said what He said, only the father did know. God the father did place the timing in the book of Daniel 12:4 this timing can be found in a book at http://www.thejudgmentofbabylon.com Thank you Hill Roberts also for your comments and lead to this book.

      • I’m not sure what the WCF has to to with this, but it does bear the question, how long would Jesus last with Ronda Rousey?

  • Norm Oliveau says:

    Two things that immediately come to mind are: 1. Jesus said Himself, when asked by His disciples, that He did not know when he would return and that only the Father knew that information. 2. The Apostle Paul states in a few places that “the mystery” had been hidden and was not made known until it was revealed to him.

    Although Jesus makes references to what would occur after His ascension, I don’t think He knew the details of “the mystery”, i.e. the Gentiles being fellow heirs and members of the Body, “Christ in you, the hope of glory”, and I believe remission of sin is included by the Apostle Paul, as well. I believe Jesus had an idea of the magnitude of what would occur, but, again, I don’t think He knew the details.

    The word “mystery” is from the Greek ‘musterion’ and can be translated “secret”. It is from the root word ‘muo’ which means “to shut the mouth”. I believe when scripture says “had the princes of this world known (the mystery), they would not have crucified the lord of glory”, it emphasizes the delicate and highly classified nature of the information. I think God kept His mouth shut until it was spoken to Paul. Whether Jesus knew as soon as the redemption was a done deal is a lingering question of mine.

    I also believe that He still has no idea when He will return, but that is still information only the Father has and He keeps it to Himself…..hopefully, one day we’ll all be clued in and we’ll get to see who was right!

    • louismoreaugottschalk says:

      hi steve i have been trying to get on your website with my android tablet.
      No Go nothing works.
      no activation when I touched the screen on my tablet.
      please advise
      Thx!

      • Try here as it is my main body of work and material, I checked it seemed ok – the steverobertz.net is more a splash page to my main tumblr site – thanks for letting me know 😉

        http://steverobertz.tumblr.com/

        • louismoreaugottschalk says:

          no no go on either. I was really hoping to get on your blog, get a conversation going with you. I think I’ve been reading your posts for quite a while now. just last night you stood out to me as someone with a voice. I think it was one of Brian zahnd’s
          post about George MacDonald. McDonald has been mountain in my landscape of intellectual and spiritually evolution. have you ever his phantastes, lilith or
          at the back of the Northwind?
          God bless!

  • Mike Kendall says:

    Wow! I need to read this book! I love the idea of a God who gave up being G-d just so that He could relate with us in the most intimate way! It’s like saying that God isn’t God because of His omnipotence or omniscience or even His omnipresence, but because of His capacity to love.

  • Hill Roberts says:

    Brother, I wish I had known of this little book a couple of years ago when I presummed to teach a bible class on the humanity of Jesus. As Brown and you note, so much is at stake (in the good way) on a Jesus who does NOT “know” everything. A Jesus who knows everything is not the Jesus I see wondering in the garden if maybe he’s gotten this thing all wrong after all. That’s a dying Jesus I can see being my savior as “one like me in every way”.

Leave a Reply