So which kind of understanding did the God-Man Jesus have?
Köberle means by "human understanding" our fallen human understanding.
Of course. That's understood. So what kind of understanding(s) did the God-Man have?
The only truly human understanding - completely unwarped by Satanic lies - because it was also the understanding of God. This is why He so often didn't "get" what people asked Him; and why so often people didn't "get" what He said. He spoke from the perspective of absolute love and obedience and so from absolute freedom.
???????Jesus didn't/doesn't understand sinners? His perfection limited His understanding?
The fundamental irrationality of sin which he "knows" (comprehension) without "knowing" (participating in). I don't know how else to get at that.Let me try to explicate. Divorce. There are times when we, using our fallen reason, look at two people's relationship and realize: "Man, that is just toxic. You two are better off splitting rather than trying to hold this together." It seems to make perfect sense to us.But our Lord is not one for giving up on relationships; and thus what makes perfect sense to us makes no sense to Him whatsoever. "What God has joined together, let not man separate." True, He grants the exemption for marital infidelity, but He is the very incarnation of Him who spoke before by the prophet: "My soul hates divorce." He "knows" the reality of sin without "knowing" sin personally, including our sinful exercises of reason to contradict the divine Scriptures.
So Jesus does "get it" when people ask Him things, yes? He just sees the eror of their way of thinking, which error they are unable to perceive.So Jesus has a human understanding made pure by its perfect union with the divine understanding? (In fact, Jesus incarnates the divine understanding, doesn't He, because that's what LOGOS means.)
No, our Lord doesn't "get it" precisely in the sense that it doesn't "make sense" to Him. Thus there is a distinction between fallen reason and the Divine Reason that is the Logos. It is not as though we can pretend that our mind (in the sense of our thinking) also have not been corrupted (as though the fall effected only our body and its desires). I was particularly struck by this in the epistle last week: "among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires *of the body and the mind,* and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Eph 2:3
But surely He understands why it makes sense to sinners? Yes, of course there is a distinction between fallen human reason and divine reason. Yet did not Christ unite them both in His one Person, sanctifying, purifying and perfecting the former in Himself by its union with the latter?
I would never say that Christ united FALLEN human reason and divine reason in His person; He united a pure human reason (human reason as it was meant to be) with divine reason in His person. In the same way I'd say that He assumed human nature, but not fallen human nature. To Lutheran ears "fallen" always implies sinful.
Ah, so that is where we part ways. We insist that Jesus was like us in all points except blame.We also insist that "What is not assumed is not healed," therefore, He inherited from his mother her own fallen nature, including fallen understanding. "Fallen" meaning LIABLE to sin, prone to it, and suffering the effects of it, such as being capable of dying.And we say He sanctified that FALLEN human understanding, purified and perfected it, in His own Person at least, at His conception, by uniting it to the Divine understanding.Moreover, we say with the Apostle, "We have the mind of Christ." Therefore, for the Christian, there is no opposition between human and divine understanding; it's all one in the Christian, so long as he remains faithful.
Post a Comment