Question: Could Jesus Have Gotten a Math Problem Wrong?

Math has nothing to do with my salvation. Albiet God knows his math. Did the infant Christ know fractions…no. Could he teach you a thing or two now..yes! Will it matter (or be the same) in the new heaven and earth..probably not..so..??

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Chalcedonian Christology asserts that Christ was both truly God and truly man, in all things like unto us, save sin. Being human it’s only natural that he would have been wrong about certain things at certain times. Being wrong is not akin to committing sin so there’s no worry of violating our Chalcedonian sensitivities. Likewise, Luke 2:52 tells us clearly that Jesus advanced/increased in wisdom as he grew older. Part of the learning process for humans is trial and error. I see no good reason to believe that Jesus’ advancement was significantly different than any other true human’s.

I agree with the three comments I see above me: yes, Jesus was incomplete in knowledge and could err.

However, He did not sin, and I believe that includes intellectual laziness; so I strongly suspect that had He been in class, he would have produced few or no errors, since a proper part of homework is checking your work.

I rather suspect this was part of Jesus’s “speaking with authority, not as the scribes” — Jesus knew what He was talking about, and did not talk about things on which He hadn’t studied well.

But that doesn’t always lead to perfection. Not all the tables Jesus constructed would always be perfect (multiplication tables OR wooden ones), because humans cannot check ALL their work.

-Wm

We could easily ask if Jesus learned how to walk? Or was He walking from the moment he got out of His swaddle? Once he was walking did He ever stub his toe or fall down and scrape His knee? Now move on to learning concepts. Did Jesus learn how to speak? I mean did he progress from “mama” and “dada” and “no” and “yes” to “mom, can I have some more water, please”. ?

All of these questions are the same as asking “could Jesus have got a math problem wrong?”

I would have to say yea he could have. I would say yea, He had to learn how to speak, and I have no reason to doubt he didn’t fall down when He was learning how to walk (as all human babies do.)

We are not dealing with some Gnostic Jesus that was doing magical things as a child as (as extra-biblical Gnostic text would have us believe). We are dealing with a fully human Christ. He was human in ever way we are with the exception of one thing. He was not a sinner.

Now the question is, is having to learn things or not knowing things or even getting things wrong before you have learned them sufficently, sinful in some way?

Are we to suggest that not knowing how to speak a full sentence until you are two, or that falling down when learning to walk as a 1 year old is in some way sinful? Are we to suggest that failing to recognize 1 + 1 = 2 or getting it wrong a few times until you get it down pat is in some way sinful?

I don’t think so.

If we are forcing a wrong understanding of “perfection” on Christ’s humanity then we are gonna get in trouble.

In the case of thinking that as He was growing up God it in some way meant His humanness was extraordinary we can get into trouble. It is more or less blending His divinity with His humanity and that goes off into what’s called a Christological heresy (or wrong belief of Who and What Jesus actually is). In particular this is getting into the Eutychian heresy – which called for a blending of the divine nature and the human nature of Christ. It’s easily enough done when we fail to devote serious thought to the subject. But that is why it’s so important to devote serious thought to the subject.

That I suppose is why Michael is asking the question. And I suppose that is why he devotes so much time developing material to help people think through these things.

Good blog topic boss. 🙂

Yes.

The answer to any “Is this possible” question is almost always yes.

All kinds of things are possible. Just use your imagination!

Well it is not only possible but also plausible Boz. So I think that is where Michael is going with this. 🙂

Yes, it seems rather obvious, but many evangelical Christians love to assert that Jesus is divine, but forget that he is human.

Jesus while walking on earth, didn’t have complete and exhaustive knowledge, and any assertion that he did borders on at best a bad teaching and at worst a heresy.

I believe, as a child He would have been very much like any child and it is possible He had to pay attention to score good in studies -not only in Maths but all subjects.

When you have a moment please stop by for some Coffee with Jesus

~NRIGirl

Let’s jump in the deep end…
As an adult, could Jesus have been mistaken about something, say, something in history? Might he have believed in something that was a common belief in that day, but which we now know is not true, say, a flat earth?

“Chalcedonian sensitivities”!

I am with you Carrie Hunter. But one could argue that the process of learning is not actually error. And variations of spelling and speaking are not errors.

The choice of a maths problem points to there being a correct answer and an incorrect one. Jesus could be ignorant about a topic, but to be mistaken is somewhat different.

Michael, I have not thought this out thoroughly, though I also wonder whether there could be a difference pre-baptism and post baptism. Did the Spirit prevent Jesus the man from erring post baptism?

Dave Z, the knowledge of the sphericity of the earth long antedates Jesus.

Yes he could have got a math problem wrong. Because their is something to the “laying aside,” and possibly even the recapitulation of man. Jesus while fully god and fully man only used his divinity as required for the fulfillment of his mission. He didn’t heal everyone and even seems to not be omniscient at times. He only “retained” (bad word i know) that which was necessary all other “perks” of being god were “laid aside.” And yes this is poorly worded…but I think you get the idea.

Anselm-

“Jesus while fully god and fully man only used his divinity as required for the fulfillment of his mission.”

Interesting thought. My question would on the topic: where do certain mistakes (math) differ from other mistakes (theology)? So your thoughts may help define that a little better.

CMP –

Next week, here is a possible a new question to formulate for discussion:

Most of my commenters acknowledged that Jesus could have got a math problem wrong. Because the Son of God was fully human and had to grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52), we recognise this as part of the incarnational reality of the Son of God.

Therefore, noting what we have above, can the Scripture, which is also both fully divine and fully human, have a mathematical error (or historical or cosmological, etc)?

That might provide for even better discussion.

————-

By the way, I like what Nick Norelli (#3) commented above. What I think we have to be willing to recognise is that there is a difference between certain terms we use in discussion. I believe that there is a difference between truth and fact. I believe there is a difference between error and deception/falsehood, or a difference between error and sin. Most of us don’t distinguish, but I think these terms are distinguished. So, Jesus, in his incarnation, could have erred, but he would not do anything from a deceptive, evil and falsifying perspective.

Well, not exactly math, but rather natural sciences, Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds (Mark 4:31) and as we all know (ahem), “certain epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest produce the world’s smallest seeds” [sic].

So, did Jesus know he was wrong, was he being hyperbolic, or was he ignorant to seeds outside his native country? I think the latter.

In fact, I’d go a step further and say he didn’t know, when encountering schizophrenics (Mark 8) that they were actually disorders of the brain and not demons at all.

So, yes, I believe he could have got a math problem wrong and not known it unless it was revealed to him by the Father.

On the point about Biblical errors, I don’t see why not. I was brought up to believe ‘every word’ was inspired… which never sat very well with me. If the Bible was written by men, then surely it has the ability to be fallible. The ‘message’ on the other hand is inspired, in that it is what God wanted… on that note, if God wanted errors, He might well have inspired them to come about.
The fallibility and mistakes in the Bible (such as the numerous mistakes Stephen makes in Acts 7) make the Bible even more believable for me.

ScottL-

“…can the Scripture, which is also both fully divine and fully human, have a mathematical error (or historical or cosmological, etc)?”

That is the position Peter Enns takes. However, it becomes tricky defining what parts of Scripture are fully divine, and what parts are fully human.

Rick –

Yes, I just did a two part review of Enns’ book (part 1, part 2).

However, it becomes tricky defining what parts of Scripture are fully divine, and what parts are fully human.

Are we to ask the same of Christ in his incarnation? Or can we note that he was BOTH fully divine and fully human? What do we pick apart?

I like that Scripture says it is God-breathed, not God-spoken or God-dictated. There are specific statements that are specific words of the Lord (i.e. through prophetic utterances). But Paul telling someone to bring his cloak has no relevance in the sense of teaching us the words of God. So, we could try and ‘pick apart’ things. But, just as with our recognition of Christ being both fully God and fully human, can we not identify the whole tenor the canon of Scripture with that terminology?

This is the single most moronic question I have ever heard. Do you or don’t you believe that God is Omnipotent?
The question is do you BELIEVE in THE CREATOR?
Get real or go home.

I don’t care, but let me expand on that.

I don’t think this has any relevance to who Christ was as a man or as God. This is kind of a waste of time in a theological sense. Furthermore, we can’t really test it. We can just speculate. I’d rather spend my time pondering things that are relevant and solvable.

I like that Scripture says it is God-breathed, not God-spoken or God-dictated.

Yay!

Bethyada, regarding a flat earth, I was just coming up with an example at 11 PM on my way to bed. My point is whether Jesus’ general knowledge was somehow supernaturally complete or was it comparable to that of an average Jew in those days.

I think the issue is whether simple error is sin. I say no. Scripture says only that Jesus was sinless, many Christians tend to project that into “perfect in every way.” I don’t think the text supports that.

Kinda funny, we claim scripture is inerrant, but we don’t necessariy hold Jesus himself to the same standard.

@Paul, I understand your point, but discussions like this can help us avoid error in our understanding of who Jesus is/was. Specifically, such discussion can help us steer clear of the heresy of Docetism and help us truly recognise Christ’s full humanity.

Yes he could have.

It’s sorta like the mistake people make when they say that they’re “only human.” There’s nothing in Humanity itself as God created it, that is predisposed to sin and moral failure. What we see here is a mutant species that’s been twisted and perverted on itself for the last six thousand years or so.

When we say something/someone is perfect we are generally just being really sloppy. One can be morally perfect without being intellectually perfect – in fact that pretty much describes the saints in heaven and all of us in eternity. We won’t know everything in heaven, part of being human (or any created being) is being limited and having to grow and mature.

Jesus could have gotten a math problem wrong when he was alive on earth, just like I will be getting some math problems wrong when I take an advanced linear algebra course when I get to heaven. Not everyone learns and understands everything immediately. That’s not a result of the Fall or sin, but of being a creation.

We had this discussion at the Biologos forum awhile ago under Kenton Sparks’s postings. Obviously, the math problem is like asking about whether Adam and Eve ever had the hiccups; but the larger question of error in terms of a Spirit-breathed teaching either directly from Christ or now in the Scripture may indicate one’s misunderstanding of the Person of Christ. Christ is not a vacuous person with two natures. He is a divine Person with a divine and human nature. So the question becomes can He teach error, and is teaching error, according to Scripture, a sin? Of course, I’m not referring to mustard seeds, but to what He is actually teaching, the point being made. I personally think the mustard seed comment is a matter of language and communication, and we cannot conclude that it was an error based on the evidence we have from the text; but can Christ TEACH something false and not be in sin?

Yes.

After all, if you believe the Gospels, he thought he was divine. He believed Zoroastrian and Greek mythology about Hades was true, and that mental diseases were th result of demons… If he could be convinced of that he could probably be convinced of an incorrect math solution.

ScottL-

“But, just as with our recognition of Christ being both fully God and fully human, can we not identify the whole tenor the canon of Scripture with that terminology?”

We can, but we all have to be on board with either an institution that tells how how to interpret the canon, or we have to all agree to use a certain hermeneutical method.

Actually, Jesus solved a math problem that can only be completed once. Multiplication with zero:
0 * Infinite Truth and Love = Creation
That being said, I have to respectfully disagree with the observations that Jesus misdiagnosed schizophrenia as demon possession and the other assertions of inaccuracy in the Bible. The Word of God is divinely inspired and inerrant – much study and many manuscripts, plus fulfilled prophecy bear witness to the accuracy of today’s Bible being a reliable accurate representation of the original manuscripts- which the apostles cite as “Scritpture” – the authoritative, “godbreathed” inerrant Word of God. When the Bible addresses history, science and the nature of man and God, it is accurate. Be very careful interpreting it to fit the naturalistic / materialistic world view that has infected many Christians and deceived many seekers today. Christ forces us to make a choice. Several occasions the scripture records Christ talking with the demons prior to casting them out. He was either lying, deceived (a lunatic) or HE was, is and always will be LORD and God, savior and Messiah. We all are faced with the choice to reject Him or accept Him. Our loving God gave us an accurate loving instruction manual to Know He exists and created Heaven and earth, to know our purpose, to discover His provision for restoring our relationship with Him, loving other people unselfishly unconditionally and how we shall then live. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart the God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. He who has the Son has the Life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the Life.

No.

Do the math:

. 1 Human Nature
+ 1 Divine Nature
______________
Cannot Err

🙂

Yes.

I’ll throw in my 2 cents. This has already been said in different ways but maybe some will be helped by hearing it rephrased.

Jesus was meant to play a certain role in the Father’s plan for the salvation of man. If the fulfilling of that role involved correctly solving a certain math problem then he would not have failed to do so. If the math problem was unrelated to the point of him taking on a human nature then all bets are off.

So there are 2 kinds of math problems with this line of thinking: those essential for the Father’s plan of salvation and those not. It was possible for Christ to incorrectly solve those in the latter group. And I’m sure that anyone who believes that Christ had a complete human nature could think of SOME math problems that would fit in the latter group, right? =)

Oh, and for anyone who cares, for the substance dualist, demon possession isn’t in the least incompatible with brain disorder.

[…] Christology Leave a comment Over at Parchment and Pen Michael Patton asks the question as to whether Jesus could have gotten a math problem […]

Yes, he could have gotten a math problem wrong. And he could have also sawed wood and made an angled cut when he meant to cut it straight. It happens to me all the time! Using a handsaw is tricky.

Unfortunately, I can’t really elaborate my reasoning without going beyond your question to the “Abiathar archiereos” thing in Mark (a memory slip?) or Jesus’ quoting of the Ten Commandments.

And, if you’re heading in that direction, I want to let you do it at your pace. And if you’re not heading in that direction, I don’t want to take the comment thread off topic.

Luke 2:52…”And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.” (ESV)

If Jesus grew in wisdom and (this is the really unfathomable part) in favor with God, then I would guess it’s pretty safe to assume he also grew in his ability to do algebra, trigonometry and calculus. If he grew, that presupposes a time when he wasn’t as advanced, and surely could have gotten a question wrong.

No.

(Not unless he was a product of the L.A. Unified School District)

No, I think if He could teach scribes at twelve then he could answer the math questions. Even when His earthly parents chastised Him for staying behind and worrying them His response was as such that He was doing His Fathers work. He did this without sinning which I wish I could do when I am being chastised. :o)

This question is not about sin. People can be in error without sinning.

It is touching on the reliability of Christ as a man, and our answer in relation to the reliability of what Jesus teaches in Scripture.

And the mustard seed question is irrelevant, Jesus is illustrating a point by using something small that grows into something large. Mustard seeds belong to the category of small seeds. Next we will be debating the truth of the Samaritan woman’s statement saying Jesus told her all she ever did, in light of the fact Jesus didn’t mention every meal she has ever eaten.

The Word of God is divinely inspired and inerrant – much study and many manuscripts, plus fulfilled prophecy bear witness to the accuracy of today’s Bible being a reliable accurate representation of the original manuscripts

It might be worth noting that the Bible never claims to be inerrant… inspired, of course, but not inerrant.
We also make the assumption that there were “original manuscripts” yet these have never actually been found. What we have today is a collection.

My view of inspiration is that what we have was meant to be. Errors included. God breathed, yes, but He breathed through fallible men.

It seems that Jesus could have normal human experiences like getting a cold, learning math (including have calculation errors), cutting himself when using tools improperly, forgetting something on an errand for his mother, and other common occurrences that happen as a child “grows in wisdom and knowledge”.

His perfection was the kind that meant holiness and innocence. His power was given by God (Father), and he could even summon angels to him, but he would (sometimes paradoxically) choose not to do this. He would function as 100% man. (and be 100% God)

Physically, he died early on at the cross mostly from his terrible beating by the Romans. His body and his mind were not a Superman version, but the Holy Spirit was in him, and this gave him power to do miraculous things like healing, multiply food for a crowd, and raise the dead.

This method in which he came to us, makes his sympathy for us that much more genuine and powerful as we start to know him, and as we understand Jesus the Christ to be bother (in humanity) and Savior (in deity).

Androo,

Exactly!

Inerrantists quite often turn the Bib le into a Christian Koran.

‘In the begining was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God’

Something doesn’t seem quite right there. And for obvious reasons.

The Bible does not have to be inerrant, because the Word is inerrant.

Might he have believed in something that was a common belief in that day, but which we now know is not true, say, a flat earth?

Others have added “or demon possession.” I’ve been studying this with regards to the Bible for a while… My answer is that yes, Jesus might well have believed something false, due to being taught nothing else. However, Jesus only did what His Father told him to do; therefore, Jesus would not have taught as doctrine that which was false. When Jesus promised that his Apostles would be able to cast out demons, He meant that there were demons to cast out (although I concede that there’s still a matter of interpretation to be done, and I’m not arguing that).

When Jesus talked about the Gospel’s growth, he compared it to a mustard seed — but was he teaching us about a mustard seed? If you insist that he was, you have to take note that not only is the mustard seed not the world’s smallest, it also doesn’t grow into a tree that birds can perch in (it’s a medium single-stalked herb). This is strong evidence that Christ was talking about small progressing to huge beyond belief, not about vegetation.

-Wm

“When Jesus talked about the Gospel’s growth, he compared it to a mustard seed —”

Huh??

He was talking about ‘faith’ (not gospel growth).

Faith, and how little of it we have.

“If you had the faith the size of a mustard seed, you could …”

Steve Martin,

In the begining was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God’

I have been around people that believe the Bible is inerrant all of my life and no one, I repeat NO no one would ever come anywhere close to believing that statement.

All of them would, I am certain, be quite scandalized at such a thought, and rightly so.

I think your characterization is frankly, quite unfair and way over the top!

Rick –

I commented: “But, just as with our recognition of Christ being both fully God and fully human, can we not identify the whole tenor the canon of Scripture with that terminology?”

You commented: We can, but we all have to be on board with either an institution that tells how how to interpret the canon, or we have to all agree to use a certain hermeneutical method.

That is your conclusion. But I don’t believe that has to be the conclusion. It’s not helpful to argue that, because of A, we will also have to hold to B, C, D, etc.

Christians have such *interesting* decision-making attitudes.

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

Yet you are willing to trust that he wasn’t wrong about all kinds of supernatural and post-mortem events that we can’t see, to put your entire belief in him…

Strange how he was wrong on the one set of things we can see, huh?

But of course you all justify that in your own minds…

Cherylu,

That is a good thing (that many disagree with that).

Unfortunately, there are a great many who do view the Bible that way, even if they would not verbalize it as such.

Steve,

Even if someone believes the Bible to be God’s Word and that it contains no errors and therefore needs to be trusted and obeyed as such does not mean they believe that makes the Bible God. After all, God is ever so much more then any words He speaks that could be recorded on any scroll or piece of paper!

Sure they believe the Bible is God speaking His words to them through the men that wrote it, but then don’t you too???

I don’t believe that the Bible is inerrant, or that it needs to be.

But I do believe that God’s Word is inerrant, and that Word is certainly made known in the Bible.

In short, the book is not perfect, but the message of the book…IS.

“The finite contains the infinite.”

wm tanksley,
The mustard is a tree that birds most certainly roost in however it’s seed is not the smallest of seed. 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. I prefer infallible as a better descriptive although inerrancy is certainly reasonable for me in discussions among fellow Christians.

[…] – C. Michael Patton wants to know if Jesus could have gotten a math problem wrong. […]

Cheryl, I gotta say, I’ve talked to people who treat the Bible just as Steve says. They may not use his restatement of John 1:1, but they act as if that’s what they believe. If there is a possible way to err, some folks will find it. Steve may have used some hyperbole, but his point is certainly and sadly true.