On the Human Knowledge of Christ, Part 5

ESCHATOLOGY
This centers on Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:34-36 in the phrase "ουδε ο υιοσ," "neither the son." Some feel that this phrase was added later (it does not appear in all manuscripts) to smooth over the apparently incorrect short-range prediction made by Jesus in Matthew 10:23; Luke 21:32; Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Mark 13:30; and Luke 9:27.
Jesus said "this generation" (γενεα) would not pass away until "all this" came to pass.
Some say that Jesus was simply wrong. Others say that Jesus as God knew the time but as a man he did not. Others say Jesus was not authorized to tell us what he knew, others that it was an Arian interpolation. Some say that "γενεα" refers to the end-time generation. Possibly the best explanation is that the knowledge of the end time was available to Jesus but for two reasons he chose not to take it up. A human could not have such knowledge and the knowledge of the end time was not necessary for the fulfillment of Jesus' mission. (And perhaps the coming of the "kingdom of god" meant something else to Jesus than his hearers understood. In Jewish theology any "signal event" in history was regarded as God coming in history. All of the Twelve lived to see the Transfiguration, and only Judas died before seeing the Resurrection. Many, myself included, believe the Resurrection, to be THE SIGNAL EVENT in history.)
Another event, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., which the Baptist theologian, Frank Stagg, pointed out was entirely foreseeable, was witnessed by some, but not all.

On the Human Knowledge of Christ, Part 4

The question of Jesus' human knowledge is important in much of modern Christology, especially in that centered on Phillipians 2:5-11, the "kenosis" passage.
Thomasius (1655-1728) declared "he emptied himself" (εκενωσεν) to mean that Jesus emptied himself of the "relative attributes" of divinity (omniscience, omnipotence, etc) and retained only his "essential attributes" (holiness, love, justice, etc). The assumption is that, upon his ascension, Jesus resumed his divine attributes. If pushed to far, this could imply that Jesus was God, became man, and then ceased to be man in order to once again become God.
In response to Thomasius, H. Brash Bonsall, who defines an attribute as an essential characteristic, says that if Jesus gave up any of the divine attributes, he ceased to be God. Bonsall feels that the incarnation involved the temporary laying aside of the divine attributes and prerogatives but not the abnegation of the possession of them (John 17:5; Philippians 2:6-8; Hebrews 2:5-10.) This idea is based on the orthodox christology od The Council of Chalcedon (Jesus has two has two distinct and unmingled impersonal natures in one person with a communion of the attributes of the two. The twoo natures could not be mixed without changing the nature of each. Therefore, if Jesus as a man did not have limited knowledge then he was not truly a man. If, as God, he did not have full divine knowledge, he was not God.
Before discussing two general categories of Bible verses implying either limited knowledge or superhuman knowledge on the part of Jesus, it would be good to zero in especially on two "problem areas."

Dynamic Monarchism

     In my post yesterday on The Green Pastures I mentioned Dynamic Monarchism, which held that Jesus was merely a man into whom the Divine Christ (Holy Spirit) descended at Jesus's baptism.  Some Dynamic Monarchists denied that Jesus possessed any of the divine nature.

    The first important Dynamic Monarchist was Theodotus (fl 190 CE, in Rome), a tanner from Byzantium (modern Istanbul, Turkey).  He was excommunicated as a heretic by Bishop Victor of Rome (189-198).