Question: Could Jesus Have Gotten a Math Problem Wrong?

Ken G. –
Of all the respondents, God has put you on my heart. True Christ-follower’s decision making is not only interesting (your sarcasm duly noted), it is guided by the supernatural! Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. God who? Why the one who created the heavens and the earth and loved you and me so much that He sent his only Son to die on the cross and pay the penalty for our cosmic treason (sin). Without faith it is impossible to please God, for He who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. The experiences recorded by all of the saints through history -Ireanus, Justin Martyr, Augustine to those in this blog-those who have accepted God’s free gift of salvation by faith- a faith based on knowledge -given by grace not as a result of works or mental gymnastics. Their experience is that the Word of God IS inerrant and totally sufficient to guide us to grow in favor with God and men in matters of morality, the nature of God the nature of Man, the nature of evil and what it takes to be a person of integrity and character as we fulfill the unique purpose that God designed for us before we were even born (He loved us even then). The Bible teaches the most effective way the message of Christ’s love reaches us is not through talk alone, but by loving relationships with other people who live, act and speak with the same attitude and spirit that was in Christ. Sad thing is today’s church has lost the loving relationship part. Re: earlier dissing of the relevance of Paul asking someone to bring his cloak – THAT is what we have LOST! You can’t separate the message of the love of Christ from the intimate relationships that existed and were modeled for us in the epistles: relationships of love that spread the Gospel like wildfire. My prayer is that we as a church return to the ancient way of spreading the real Christ by the character of truth and love modeled in our conduct and speech at home…

Jesus didn’t even know enough about the physical world we can all see to get it right on relative seed size…

Hypothetical scenario: Jesus knows about the sizes of all seeds that exist, have existed or will exist. Does he still use the mustard seed as a simile? I would say he does. What we know of Jesus’ teaching tells us that he liked to use everyday examples to allow his audience to more easily connect with his message. To use a seed that his audience would be unfamiliar with would certainly tell us that he had unusual knowledge, but also that he was an asocial pedant. I, for one, am glad that my God is not an asocial pedant.

” To use a seed that his audience would be unfamiliar with would certainly tell us that he had unusual knowledge, but also that he was an asocial pedant”

Or…

That he was *actually* divine.

Instead we have nothing, whatsoever, in the way of historically relevant and verifiably documented to suggest that he was anything but a human. And we have blatant errors to show positively that he was NOT divine.

What more could one ask for?

Ken G,

I haven’t been involved in this conversation but I have been reading it.

I would like to just pass on one thought to you. You may very well have heard it before, but if so, that is alright. I want to ask my question again if that is the case.

If you are correct and Jesus was not anything but a human, you have nothing at all to lose. And neither does anyone else.

But if He was God as the Bible claims Him to be and as many of us are convinced He was, we have everything to gain and you have everything to lose.

Are you so sure of yourself on this issue that you are completely willing to bet your eternal soul that you are right? What if you are not??

Cherylu,

On the contrary. Is it fair to say that you are ignorant of 99.9% of the religious texts, messiah’s, and beliefs in the world? Probably so (unless you have multiple doctoral degrees in world religion and speak several hundred languages, which isn’t even cognitively possible).

So. Now. You could be right, and dedicate your life to one man who claimed to be Messiah from a small middle-eastern village. Or you could be wrong.

One of the tens of thousands of other religions could be right, and maybe N. Americans won’t find out about the real religion for centuries.

Perhaps in the real religion, whichever of those thousands it might be, believing in Christ and trusting an inaccurate and outdated book as the Bible will be a sin damnable for eternity.

Now do you really think you know with such certainty that you’d risk that?

Or…

That he was *actually* divine.

If we imagine Jesus saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest that a man took and sowed in his field…” what do we end up with? We no longer have a meaningful parable to the people listening, and in fact the whole purpose of the parable disappears into wondering what plant and location Jesus is talking about. It’s entirely irrelevant and even counterproductive to his mission of reconciliation. And for that, how many people would suddenly believe that Jesus was divine if he presented this factoid or another like it? If one is committed to Jesus not being divine, it would be a simple matter to assume that he was a world traveler and sophisticated botanist in his youth. At least that theory would be more realistic than the swoon hypothesis.

Instead we have nothing, whatsoever, in the way of historically relevant and verifiably documented to suggest that he was anything but a human.

We have a plethora of surviving documentation of eye-witness testimony to the resurrection, and a radically unique community built around these numerous eye-witnesses. That’s historically relevant and verifiably documented. If you wish to reject this evidence that’s another discussion, but it just won’t do to say it doesn’t exist.

What more could one ask for?

A holy, loving God that humbles Himself to pursue relationship with us.

1. “We no longer have a meaningful parable…”

Convenient excuse for Jesus to be wrong.

2. “We have a plethora of surviving documentation of eye-witness testimony to the resurrection…”

Really? Perhaps you could share… Because last I checked we had NO verifiable records written down by ANY eyewitnesses. What we do have are religious pamphlets (gospels) written decades after the fact by unknown authors, and some letters by a man who very clearly states that he saw visions (Paul), but did not experience interaction with a physical Jesus.

3. “If you wish to reject this evidence that’s another discussion, but it just won’t do to say it doesn’t exist.”

Actually, repeating what you’ve inhereted as the Western tradition of Christianity without actually having any relevant, verifiable documentation does *not* constitute evidence.

But you are welcome to pretend it does. Just don’t expect the rest of us to.

Ken G,

Many of us are risking exactly that every day so I guess we must be convinced with such certainty, right?

The mustard is a tree that birds most certainly roost in however it’s seed is not the smallest of seed.

Nothing wrong with mere contradiction, but here’s a link so that it need not go on. Mustard is not a tree, and is incapable of bearing the weight of a bird (I suppose a hummingbird might be able to light near the center, but certainly not in the barely-existent branches).

However, mustard is an anciently cultivated plant, and its seeds have been referred to throughout all recorded history as the models of smallness. I personally am not sure why; poppy seeds are smaller and also have ancient commercial use as seeds (unlike orchids, which were not available). Nonetheless, mustard seed is the standard for size comparison in the ancient world; Buddha is quoted to have used it to measure the age of the cosmos.

So Jesus used a common metaphor of smallness. And what grew from that seed was something huge, something totally unlike a mustard plant. Either Jesus was trying to teach us about horticulture and was disasterously wrong, or Jesus was not trying to teach about horticulture, and was trying to make a point about something that was about to happen that nobody would expect, given the tiny size of the start.

The orchid holds that distinction. For that reason alone, it is reasonable to not use the label innerrancy to describe one’s position to those outside the faith.

That’s probably wise; I don’t see any need to spread my faith in the Bible’s perfect accuracy. I defend the Bible’s historical reliability, not its perfect accuracy. This is something that can be cross-checked against other sources.

-Wm

Steve Martin, in comment #39

You’re thinking of the other time Jesus mentioned the mustard seed. I’m talking about the parable of the mustard tree, as in Mark 4, not the mention of “faith as a mustard seed”.

The interpretation I’ve given it isn’t explicit in the text; but Jesus defines most of the elements earlier. The seed is either the Gospel of the Kingdom or the people Jesus sends to proclaim it; the ground is the world; and the plant is the result of productive growth in the Kingdom. The birds (if the images are similar to the other parables) are messengers of the evil one. The surrounding parables contain other warnings like this: the enemy will sow tares.

-Wm

Many use that he was a man to live as us so he would have been wrong. While he may have been wrong, i don’t know, but he had perceptions that normal men did not have, he perceived many times what the pharisees were thinking by the spirit in him. Therefore, we know he used his perks, not to mention the raising of his friends from the dead. i think he likes the perks myself. At twelve he was stumping the lawyers. I wouldn’t say he lived exactly like us like when we were twelve, he had and used his perks.

Thanks, William.

I appreciate your explanation.

– steve

The answer is simple. Yes! He fed 5000 with two fish and five loaves and had twelve baskets left over. That does not compute!

Convenient excuse for Jesus to be wrong.

But it wasn’t wrong within the context of that cultural scope. If Jesus had information about botany outside of that cultural scope (though there is no solid expectation within Christian theology that he did), it still would have served his purposes better to stay within that cultural scope so as to communicate effectively. That’s not an excuse, that’s choosing a message over nitpicking trivia.

Really? Perhaps you could share… Because last I checked we had NO verifiable records written down by ANY eyewitnesses. What we do have are religious pamphlets (gospels) written decades after the fact by unknown authors, and some letters by a man who very clearly states that he saw visions (Paul), but did not experience interaction with a physical Jesus.

Dismissing the Gospels as ‘religious pamphlets’ is an inadequate treatment as they are thoroughly in the genre of ancient histories, akin to, say, Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. This is especially true for the Gospel of Luke. The fact that the Gospels were written only decades afterward the ministry of Jesus is not a bug, but a feature when it comes to ancient history. A few or even several decades is within the window when first-hand accounts of events are still available. For something that happened two thousand years ago, four separate and complete histories researched and written within the lifespan of the eyewitnesses is a great deal of documentary evidence. Plus, we have a bunch of letters written by members of Jesus’ inner circle or those closely connected to them (e.g. Paul). That kind of material is also a great documentary source for any historian. What more could you reasonably expect?

I’m not sure if trackbacks work but here is the link to my blog and my potential answer: http://opusculartheology.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/could-jesus-have-ever-been-wrong-about-a-maths-problem/

1.”But it wasn’t wrong within the context of that cultural scope…”

Is this the same excuse you use for the Bible’s acceptance of slavery? Or rape? (Pardon me, forced marriage).

2. “they are thoroughly in the genre of ancient histories, akin to, say, Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.”

I would *welcome* you to actually apply the same standards that we apply in the historical analysis of Thucydides’ work. You would then be compelled to plainly admit biased authorship, dishonesty, outright fabrication of facts, exclusion of relevant information, and failure to sight adequate sources. Because we recognize all of that in his History…

But somehow I get the feeling you didn’t mean to imply this?

3.”The fact that the Gospels were written only decades afterward the ministry of Jesus is not a bug, but a feature when it comes to ancient history…”

Really? Considering the how much distortion occurred within the lifespan of the very beloved Greek war general you just cited, its incredible that you could pretend that is true. Especially given the fact that we still don’t know who wrote most (all?) Of the content of the Gospels, or whether they even ever spoke with eyewitnesses.

4. “several decades is within the window when first-hand accounts of events are still available”

I take it you are blissfully unaware of any studies performed demonstrating the blatant unreliability of individual and group memory of important events over multiple year spans.

5. “What more could you reasonably expect?”

Much, much more. External documentation, proper source references, identification of authorship at the time of authorship, internal consistency, and the list goes on (for a while… Funny that you didn’t know this?).

The fact that you (and Christians in general, so it’s not a personal knock) actually think the Gospels are well supported history is a sad reflection of a massive lack of knowledge in ancient history or the…

Hey folks, have not been able to keep up with this, but just noticed that the last comment seems to evidence that this has gotten way off topic in a way that needs to be addressed. Please keep things on topic… Whether or not Christ could have failed a math test (or just gotten one question wrong!).

Thanks so much.

“Could Jesus have ever been wrong about a math problem?”

My wife’s gut reaction was, “Not likely, he was the son of a carpenter.” Cracked me up.

My thought was, would his knowledge of math have so exceeded our understanding he’d run into trouble when it comes to method? The reason for this thought (however silly) was that I constantly ran into trouble with my middle school algebra teacher for get the right answers but not using her method to get there (I thought some of her steps were redundant…I was probably wrong, but I valued efficiency over imitation at the time…she didn’t). I ran into a similar problem in seminary, where a teacher (for whom I have tremendous respect) often marked students’ answers down for not being word-for-word repetitions of points made in class even when the idea and thought given in the answers were dead-on conceptually. Students who had a great grasp and understanding sometimes got covered in red ink regardless. Conceivably, such a thing could happen with Jesus in a classroom, considering that’s not so different from some of his confrontations with the Pharisees.

One thing is for sure, I don’t see Jesus pretending to be ignorant or taking a dive as a cover of his intelligence. He didn’t in the temple with the rabbis and priests.

Only if He wanted to. God could have came as Jesus, never slept, ate or cried if He so chose, but that would have defeated the purpose. He CHOSE to limit Himself, and I think that would have carried over into a paradox such as this one. He’s still God because He can’t NOT be God, not because of some pre-existing criteria. There were no other applicants for the job.

Not to sound too “anti-intellectual” but, who cares?

Really. There are three answers–yes, no, maybe

And all of those answers are pretty meaningless (at least to me). If the answer is yes… don’t care. If no… still don’t care. If maybe…REALLY don’t care.

Sorry for the negativity.

90% of the blog posts on this site are great, not sure what is to gain with this one.

Is it some kind of atheist riddle you are trying to solve?

I think this post is, in fact, very valuable. It forces us (me) to think about both the divinity and humanity of Christ. It can roll right off the tongue to say Jesus was fully God and fully man, but this thought exercise makes us search the scriptures to try and understand the depth of that antinomy — and when a blog post takes us to searching scripture and thinking critically, I think it’s a good post.

I like that, SPP. The phrase rolls right off the tongue, and that’s what it was meant to do. The church couldn’t really resolve the question of Christ’s humanity & divinity, so it invented a phrase that seems to cover all bases. We can repeat it like a mantra even without understanding what it could possibly mean.

sorry for the late respone, i love this question.

first, we can’t know for sure- clearly.

yes, i do think he could have gotten a math question wrong. it’s not a sin!

no, i don’t believe he could have done any less than His best. that would have been a sin.

no, i don’t believe that God is very concerned about the same types of errors that man is.

depends on who’s grading

The answer is “NO” whatever Jesus says or does is right! Who are we finite creatures to question His authority?