The Same Old Minnesota Winter

My last utterance on this site regarding so-called climate change was quite a while ago.  Having perused that post, my opinions haven't changed.  I stand by everything I wrote at that time.  Interestingly, that post was inspired by an article written by local meteorologist Paul Douglas who made several of what I considered to be unfounded statements about drastic climate changes.  Well, another article has come to bear this week, entitled "The New Minnesota Winter?" citing Douglas as its main source, which has similarly raised questions in my mind, both stemming from what he said in the article, and also from new information I've learned in my layman's study of climate science.  By all accounts, Paul Douglas is a wonderful, conservative Christian man, and I have no desire to berate him or be uncharitable to his opinions.  Nevertheless, I have several thoughts and questions based on his most recent submission to the climate change conversation.

Before I get into my questions (and statements) about climate change, I want to state a couple things about where I'm coming from: 1) I am not a climate scientist, nor do I pretend to fully grasp the mechanics and workings of climate science.  The conclusions I draw here could very well be based on ignorance.  If you think so, please correct me or show me how I have erred.  I would welcome dialogue.  2) I completely and unequivocally reject the label of "climate-denier" or any other such title that asserts that I reject climate science out of pure ignorance, or because I have some sort of stock in the lack of a belief in climate change.  I hold no stock or interest in any energy companies that would be negatively impacted by new policy set forth in order to protect the planet.  Nor do I have any political reasons to doubt climate change theory.  My doubts about climate change theory are, as far as I can tell, based on the evidence (or lack thereof).  In fact, I would challenge those who say "the science is clear" when it comes to climate change theory to consider the potential need for a bit more self-awareness about how they evaluate and interpret scientific data.  Can we at least agree that the science is, in fact, not clear, and that we can have a dialogue about this?  I hope so.  If we can't agree on that, then there can be no dialogue.  There can be no tolerance (yes, I use that word intentionally).

One of the things I have learned about climate science - actually it's not so much new information to me, but rather that I have learned more about it - is that there are different types of climate data that inform climate change theory.  These different types of data, however, do not necessarily agree.  For instance, there is surface temperature data, satellite data, ice core data, polar ice cap data, and so on, with several more types of data of which I'm not even aware.  The point is that these different types of data each present unique pictures of climate change and how it is allegedly affecting our planet.  The difficulty is that these different types of data are difficult - if not impossible - to synthesize.  That is, they don't work together very well.  To make matters more confusing, many climate change theorists assert that only one type of data does not tell the entire climate change story.  For instance, climate change theory cannot stand on surface temperature data alone, as surface temperature data does not necessarily support climate change theory - it must be synthesized with another type of climate data.  One of my questions, then, is as follows: how do we know which climate data supports climate change theory and which does not?  How do we know which sets of data are appropriate to synthesize and which are not?  Is it possible for one set of data to "cancel out" another set of data?  Why, or why not? (For instance, does the fact that polar ice has been increasing work as evidence against supposed increases in global surface temperatures?)  These are genuine questions that I have, and they potentially expose my ignorance in how climate science "works."  If someone could help me figure out these apparent contradictions in my own analysis of the data, I would appreciate it.

One example of this difficulty in interpreting data that supposedly supports climate change theory was demonstrated recently in Leonard DiCaprio's Oscar-acceptance speech.  In it, DiCaprio cites surface temperature data as to why climate change is an imminent global threat.  But, a careful analysis of the data he cites seems to indicate that no such threat exists - at least based on that data, and when considered in light of other types of climate data (such as satellite data, in this instance).  For a moderately thorough analysis of DiCaprio's claims with links to data, read this article.  So the question is, who is right?  DiCaprio's interpretation of and conclusion from surface temperature data, or the author's interpretation of satellite data?  How are the two types of data synthesized?  I genuinely would like to know.

Paul Douglas makes similar claims, citing similar evidence, and I honestly just don't see how the evidence he uses can be interpreted in such a way as to make these claims.  In the article, Douglas comments that the winter season Minnesota has had in 2015-16 (which has been unseasonably warm and lacking in snow) is, perhaps, the new norm for Minnesota winters.  In other words, Douglas asserts that a warm winter like we've just experienced, will be the norm from now on.  In order to back this claim, Douglas cites surface temperature data, particularly that Minnesota averages 23 sub-zero nights per winter, but this winter has only seen 10 sub-zero nights.  Douglas further asserts that average Twin Cities snowfall is around 54 inches, whereas this winter's snowfall has only been around 30 inches.  On March 8, 2014, there was 16 inches of snow on the ground, whereas on March 8, 2016, people were wearing shorts and flip-flops.  These shorter, warmer winters will become the new norm, Douglas says.  We'll still have the cold snowy winters of old, but they will be much fewer and farther between.  Douglas says, "It's not a theory, you don't have to like it, but can we acknowledge it's not your grandfather's weather?"

No.  I can't.  And the reason I can't is that the evidence Douglas cites does not seem to (to me, at least) at all support his conclusion.  In fact, if anything, Twin Cities surface temperature data seems to overwhelmingly support the notion that this weather is exactly identical to my "grandfather's weather."

The Minnesota DNR's website has surface temperature data records that go back to 1872, and snowfall data that goes back to 1884.  Just skim the data from both pages and try to form an argument that the winter of 2016 is a statistical aberration.  As far as I can see, it can't be done.  Here are just a few examples that jumped out to me, but a more in depth analysis of the data shows that these examples are the norm, rather than the exception.  For example, the snowfall totals for the years 1887-1893 were: 62.3, 47.2, 14.7, 37.0, 11.1, 32.7, and 59.1 inches, respectively.   (Note that this is during an age when all of the alleged causes of climate change didn't even exist, such as automobiles).  Look at those totals over seven years - that's amazing!  Can you imagine a winter in Minnesnowta with only 11 inches of snow?!  Were the Minnesotans in 1890 predicting a "new norm" for Minnesota winters based on that data?  Certainly not.  Then, why are we?

Want some more-recent evidence?  Here are the snowfall totals from 2011-2015: 86.6, 22.3, 67.7, 69.8, and 32.4 inches, respectively.  And if all continues as it probably will in 2016, we'll probably end up with 30-34 inches.  From what I can tell, this warm, snowless Minnesota winter of 2016 is a lot like my grandfather's winter.

And if you're thinking that I picked the one aberration in the data to support my theory, think again, and analyze the data for yourself.  You'll find aberrations like this throughout the whole time that surface temperature data has been recorded.  And you'll find similar aberrations in temperature data - not just in snowfall totals.  Based on these patterns, why should we conclude that the supposed warming pattern we find ourselves in right now is any different than warming patterns of 100 years ago?  I would love to have a conversation about this with someone in the know.

Some will certainly argue in response to my claims that my view is too narrow - that I shouldn't be making assertions based on one type of evidence (surface temperature data), in such a small sample area (the state of Minnesota).  OK.  I'll agree with that.  But then somebody needs to tell Paul Douglas to play by those same rules.  If I can't make conclusions about climate change using one data source from a small sample area, then neither can he.  The problem is that those rules and limitations don't apply to those who would advocate for climate change theory - they only seem to apply to those of us who haven't drunk this particular batch of kool aid.  Why is that?  Again, this is a genuine question, and I would love to hear a response.

So there it is, at least in part: based on the way the evidence is interpreted and reported by the media, I just don't see how it proves climate change theory.  To be sure, what I've touched on here is only part of the story, but I think my observations here apply to other types of data that supposedly support climate change theory.

One of the points I made in a previous post on climate change is that it is impossible to interpret data and analyze evidence in a vacuum.  That is, none of us looks at data completely objectively - we are always being influenced by outside factors that color our interpretation of data.  To deny this reality is to be intellectually dishonest, and I think that's also a part of the friction that is caused by this debate. So then, has this been a warm and snowless winter?  Sure.  Is it due to climate change?  Well, based on the evidence that Paul Douglas likes to cite, no more so than it was in 1968 when we had similarly high temperatures and only half the snow (17.5 inches!) we had this year.

Finally, let me reiterate my desire for an open dialogue on this issue.  As I've noted earlier, I am hardly the last word on this topic, nor am I particularly qualified to be commenting on it, as there are many ways in which my analysis could be off, most of which I'm probably not even aware.  I am very open to correction and would welcome interaction, either in the comments or by email.

Jesus, Dogs, and Racial Slurs

This past Wednesday our adult Bible study looked at Mark 7.14-30.  Verses 14-23 expound upon verses 1-13, in which Jesus declares that man-centered traditions have no bearing on the commandment of God, and usually serve to muddy the waters when it comes to actually obeying what God has said to do.  He then goes on to declare that "There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."  This principle is illustrated by verses 24-30 when he has an encounter with a gentile woman and heals her daughter of a demon possession.

This is one of Jesus' lesser-known miracles, and one that contains an odd saying.  When the woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter he says, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (verse 27)  This is an odd saying, and its proper interpretation is significant.  What is clear is that the "children" in Jesus' statement refers to the children of Israel.  What is less clear is whether or not Jesus was referring to this gentile woman - and all gentiles - as dogs.

If the latter is what Jesus was intending, then he was using what was akin to a racial slur, as dogs were lowly, bothersome pests in first century Jewish culture.  They certainly were not the domesticated animals that we enjoy today.  To refer to someone as a dog would have been highly offensive.

A second option for interpretation of this phrase is that Jesus is referring to an order in his ministry - that he came, first, to seek and to save that which was lost (the children of Israel) and that his primary ministry is to them, and to gentiles secondarily.  This, to me, is the preferred and more likely interpretation.

Unfortunately there are many Christians who have entertained the notion of Jesus using racial slurs (and therefore sinning by being a racist) in perceived attempts to accentuate his humanity, presuming that Jesus was so human that he was even caught up in cultural racial snares.  Surprisingly, they don't realize the drastic effects this has on the rest of their theology, and how it essentially negates the sufficiency of his atonement.  Put simply, if Jesus was a racist (a sinner) then his sacrifice was not sufficient, nor was his righteousness pure.  Put even more simply, if Jesus was a racist, he can't be the Messiah nor the Son of God.  (For an unfortunate analysis that affirms an interpretation identifying Jesus as a racist in this situation, see this treatment of this text)

But there are, I think, good reasons to not interpret Jesus' statement as a racial slur but instead a statement of the order of his ministry.  Those reasons are as follows:

1. It is clear throughout scripture that Jesus has come first and foremost for the Jews.  Indeed, his appearance on the scene at all was in fulfillment of a promise to Abraham and the Jewish nation - that Jesus would bless Israel, and the world, through her (see Genesis 12).  And when Jesus says that he has come to seek and to save that which was lost, he is referring to the nation of Israel (see Luke 19).  Furthermore, Jesus speaks about Israel as his sheep, and as himself as their shepherd (see John 10).  The examples go on and on.  Put simply, it is clear from both testaments that the primary ministry of the Messiah was to reconcile God's people to himself.  And it is also clear that gentiles were a secondary concern in his earthly ministry.  This fact is easily observed throughout the gospels.  The rest of the context of the narrative between Jesus and this woman exposes this - and the woman gets it.  In fact, it's her grasp of this reality that exposes her faith in him.  What Jesus means by this expression is that his primary purpose is to feed his children (Israelites).  His secondary purpose will be to feed others. (In the example he used, this would refer to "dogs."  Note: there is some question as to the Greek word translated "dogs," in that it might be better translated "puppies."  If nothing else, this should lessen the effect of the use of the word for those who think that Jesus was using a racial epithet.)

2. The notion that Jesus would be prejudiced against gentiles flies in the face of his actual interaction with gentiles in the gospels - including his treatment of the Syrophoenician woman.  In other words, it is clearly observable that Jesus was not prejudiced against gentiles because his interaction with them says differently.  If he didn't like them, then why did he go to such great lengths to serve and minister to them?  The testimony of Jesus' interaction with gentiles adequately argues against the perception that he was prejudiced against them.

3. Finally, as I've already alluded to, if Jesus was a racist, then Christian theology and the message of the gospel is doomed and is not salvific.  In other words, if Jesus sinned by being a racist, then I have no hope of salvation through his life and death.  He cannot give me his righteousness, because it is stained with sin.  He cannot pay my sin debt, because he would have to pay for his own.  If Jesus is a racist, the gospel goes away.  But this notion is so unbiblical (and by "unbiblical" I mean that it flies in the face of the rest of the Bible) as to be absurd.  If anyone thinks that Jesus has sinned, then they haven't read the rest of the Bible or even the rest of the gospels.

So no, Jesus was not a racist, and he didn't use a racial slur against the Syrophoenician woman.  There is a mountain of evidence (and common sense) to support that.

Living Life in Crisis Mode

Being the pastor of a church, it is common for me to encounter people in crisis.  Most people (rightly) turn to the church when life gets difficult and when they are in need.  At least once a week, I would say, I talk to someone - either over the phone or in person - who is the midst of a crisis.  Many of these people are from our own church, but many also come in for help from outside of the church.

Experiencing a crisis is a unique challenge, because in general, it can't be prepared for.  There's not much we can do to get ready for it.  Unexpected difficulties wouldn't be unexpected if we could prepare and plan for them to happen.  For instance, people don't usually anticipate being laid off from their job or being diagnosed with a debilitating illness, so we don't typically plan for those kinds of things in our regular, daily lives.  And so, when a crisis hits, we are usually left feeling like we're standing on the edge of a cliff, getting ready to be pushed off, all the while struggling to find answers and resources to help.

While it is certainly true that we don't know what is coming up around the bend on the road of our lives, the Bible tells us that it is wise to prepare for unexpected and difficult times in life.  We may not be able to anticipate the physical resources we will need to navigate difficult waters, but the Bible gives us more than enough to prepare our hearts and minds for uncharted territories.

Jesus experiences something of a crisis in Luke 4 when the Spirit leads him out into the wilderness.  (Listen to the sermon on this text here) He's there for 40 days, in an inhospitable place having not had any food.  To top it all off the devil is there, pestering him with temptations.  Considering the desolate landscape of the wilderness, the fact that he hasn't eaten for 40 days, and the temptations of the devil, Jesus must have been miserable.

But there's a significant way in which Jesus deals with this crisis - he calls to mind the word of God.  Three separate times in this narrative Jesus remembers things that God has said in his word.  This knowledge helps him to overcome temptation and deal with the generally bad circumstances of his condition.  Specifically, the scripture that Jesus recalls to mind reminds him of God's provision, God's faithfulness, and God's presence.  Incidentally, these are the main aspects of God's character that we are likewise tempted to doubt when we find ourselves "in the wilderness" or in a time of crisis: we are tempted to doubt that God will provide for us, that God will do what he has said, and that God is actually there with us in the midst of our difficulty.  And as Jesus demonstrates in Luke 4, knowing God's word can help us to fight that temptation.

But here's the rub: in order for God's word to be most beneficial during a time of crisis, we have to know it before the crisis occurs.  Knowing God's word will help us to look at times of crisis through a biblical filter that will help us to see that God is faithful and will provide even in difficult times.  Waiting until the crisis happens to study what the Bible says about God's providence is faithfulness is, quite frankly, too late.

Think of it like this: if I'm going on a camping trip, I will anticipate my needs that will arise during the trip by packing accordingly.  I'll bring a tent, some extra blankets, sufficient food and water, and also a first aid kit in case of any accidents.  I prepare now for what I will need later.  This is very similar to how Christians should be preparing for hard times and crises: we should be getting ready now for when life gets harder down the road.  And the way we do that is to study what the Bible says about God's provision now so that in lean times we can fight the temptation to think that God will not provide.  We should study what the Bible says about God's faithfulness now so that when things get difficult we can know that, no matter what, God will always keep his word.

Also, it behooves Christians to perform some thought experiments about future difficulties.  What I mean is that it is perhaps a beneficial and healthy thing to think about what I would do if the unthinkable happened.  For instance, how would I respond if I were diagnosed with a fatal disease?  What scriptures would I turn to?  What if I lost my job?  What scriptures could I turn to in order to be assured that God will provide?  Think of it like military training: soldiers train, and train, and train so that they will know how to react in a given situation (and most times, those situations never even happen, but at least they're ready).  This is a picture of how Christians should be "training" to handle the crises that are likely to rise in life.

The key to all of this is to start your training now.  Don't wait for the crisis to occur before you start training (that would be like an army just beginning to train after the war started!).  Unfortunately, many Christians wait for the crisis to occur before they ever begin studying the Bible intently.  Instead, immerse yourself in the Bible so that you'll be able to remind yourself of the truth of God when life gets hard.  You'll be able to weather the storm and simultaneously fight off any temptations to fight the provision, faithfulness, and goodness of God.

A Synoptic Head-Scratcher

Our mid-week lesson at Riverview this week was on Mark 5.21-43, in which Jesus heals the woman with the issue of blood and raises Jairus' daughter from death.  After our usual lesson time in the adult group, we usually open it up for comments and questions regarding what we just studied.  This week a member of the group made an observation that perplexed me at the time, and continues to do so.

The Mark account of these miracles begins with Jairus as having approached Jesus on behalf of his ailing daughter who will die without the divine intervention of Jesus.  After Jesus agrees to go and see Jairus' daughter, he is "interrupted" by the woman with the issue of blood.  Jesus takes the time to heal this woman, and it is then revealed by those in the ruler's household that Jesus' services are no longer needed, as his daughter has died in the meantime.  Jesus continues his journey anyway, and raises Jairus' daughter from death.  It's a remarkable account of his power, authority, and compassion.

The perplexing bit comes in that Matthew's parallel account of these same miracles, the chronology of events is just a little bit different (the chronology of Luke's parallel account agrees with Mark's).  You can read Mark's account here, Matthew's here, and Luke's here.  

The discrepancy between Matthew and Mark (and also Luke) is the order of the interactions between Jairus and Jesus, and the woman and Jesus.  In Mark's account, Jairus makes an initial contact with Jesus, in which it appears his daughter is still alive and he needs Jesus' help in order to keep her that way.  After this initial interaction, the woman with the issue of blood is healed.  Then Jesus and Jairus receive word that in the meantime the girl has passed away.  Jesus continues to her house anyway, and raises her from the dead.  Matthew's account, however, has a different order of events: he reports that the first interaction between Jesus and Jairus is when it is revealed that his daughter is dead, and then the woman with the issue of blood is healed, and then Jesus continues on to do what he had started to do: raise a girl from death.  If we put the events of these narratives into a flow chart it would look like this, moving from left to right (click to enlarge):

As you can see, there's a discrepancy between the order of events and communication between Matthew and Mark (and Luke, which has the identical order as Mark).  Does Jesus learn that Jairus' daughter has died before or after he heals the woman with the issue of blood?  This morning I shared the conundrum with my fellow pastors and we each set to checking our commentaries to find a scholarly explanation, but to no avail.  In fact, between the three of us, we checked more than a half dozen commentaries but this discrepancy was not noted in any of them (other than one commentary whose author asserted the possibility that the healing of the woman with the issue of blood and the raising of Jairus' daughter were two unique situations and were only crammed together in the gospel accounts at a later date, but this interpretation is unlikely at best, for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here).  So without any scholarly support, we came up with two possible reasons why there is a difference in chronology between Matthew's and Mark's accounts of these miracles.

1. It is possible and even likely that Matthew wasn't concerned with chronology in his recounting of these miracles.  He simply wanted to get the story out there in as few words as possible.  The exact order in which Who said What wasn't important to him.  What was important was that he told the story of these two miracles, and relayed how they proved his Lordship and status as the Messiah (which is the ultimate goal of Matthew's gospel).  He wanted to communicate the facts: A girl died; Jesus went to raise her from death; in the process, he healed a woman with an issue of blood; then he raised the girl from death.  That's it.  

2. A second possibility is that the language used by Mark and Luke refer to the state of death in meaning but are translated literally as indicating that she was still suffering from the illness that presumably caused her death.  For example, in Mark 5.23 Jairus says, "My little daughter is at the point of death.  Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well and live."  What is Jairus saying in this statement?  Is he saying that his daughter is very sick?  Is he saying that she only has 6 months?  Is he saying that her condition is "moment to moment," meaning that she could die at any second?  Is he saying that she's "as good as dead"?  Or, is it possible that he is communicating that she is already dead?  Also note that Jairus says that he needs Jesus to do something in order for his daughter to "live."  Could it be that in Mark 5.23 Jairus is declaring to Jesus that his daughter is dead?  If so, then it accords well with Matthew 9.18.  (Note: a similar interpretation can be made of Jairus' statement as it is recorded in Luke if one examines the grammar of the Greek.)  The problem with this interpretation is that if Jairus is declaring her as being dead in Mark 5.23, then why do people from his household come to tell him in Mark 5.35 that she has died and not to trouble the Teacher any further?

Of these two possibilities, I'll appeal to Occam's Razor in leading me to go with the former as an explanation for the discrepancy between Matthew's and Mark's accounts of these miracles.  That is, I believe that Matthew was simply concerned with communicating the facts of the story, rather than recreating a precise chronology.  It should be further noted that this discrepancy does not at all call the reliability of the Bible into question, as I have raised two worthy explanations as to why the difference exists.  When we think about context and the author's purpose in writing, most difficulties in the text can be reasonably explained.  

A Fully God, Fully Human 12 Year-Old

Luke 2 offers us an extremely unique glimpse into the life of Jesus that is not found in any of the other gospels.  Both Matthew and Luke offer infancy narratives, and of course, all four gospels talk about Jesus’ life as an adult.  But only the gospel of Luke says anything at all about Jesus as a young boy, and that information is contained in the last 12 verses of Luke 2. 

These verses can show us a lot about what Jesus was like as a 12 year old boy, and they certainly show us that even at a young age he was clear as to the purpose of his mission: to be doing everything the Father told him to do.  As believers, we can and should follow the example of 12-year-old Jesus and take seriously the call upon our lives to “be about our Father’s business,” and to not allow other competing desires draw us away from that call.  Listen to the sermon on this passage here. 

But at the same time, the boyhood narrative of Jesus in Luke 2 raises some interesting – and perhaps hard to answer – questions.  The purpose of this blog post is to ask and hopefully answer two of those questions. 

1. Was Jesus disobedient to his parents?

The whole narrative described in Luke 2.41-52 is set up by Jesus and his parents being in Jerusalem for the Passover celebration.  After the celebration is over, his family packs up and begins to go home, but after a time they realize their son is not with them.  They end up having to go back to Jerusalem and look for him for three days. 

Now, any parent who has had small children know what it’s like to – even momentarily – lose track of your child.  It can be a scary few seconds to not know where your young child is and what has happened to them.  But that’s usually all it is – a few seconds – because we are usually able to locate the missing child quickly and determine that they are safe and unharmed.  This was not the case for Mary and Joseph, however.  They called Jesus’ name over and over to no response.  They checked with friends and family members, but no one had seen him.  They searched all over the city of Jerusalem to no avail.  Finally, they find him in the temple, dialoguing with the rabbis about deep theological subjects.

And it goes without saying that when they do finally find the boy Jesus, they are relieved – but also angry.  “Son, why have you treated us so?” asked his mother.  “Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.”  The implication of these questions asked by Mary is that Jesus is in the wrong for doing what he has done by staying behind in Jerusalem to wax theological with the local rabbis.  The implication here is that Jesus has sinned against his mother and father. 

But how can that be?  Doesn’t the Bible teach that Jesus was perfect in everything – that he never sinned?  After all, that’s also why the Bible says that his eventual self-sacrifice was sufficient – because he was perfect.  But how can he be perfect if he violated the fifth commandment and did not honor his mother and his father? 

We can say with certainty that Jesus did not sin against his parents by remaining behind in Jerusalem to engage with the rabbis, and the reason for this comes from a proper understanding of his life’s mission.  When Mary and Joseph expressed anger that Jesus had remained in Jerusalem, he responds to their feelings with surprise, saying to them, “Why were you looking for me?  Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”  In other words, Jesus is saying, “Where else would I be?” as though this were something that Mary and Joseph should have known about him.  The most important thing that Jesus (or you or I, for that matter) could ever be doing is to do what the Father wants him to do.  This trumps all other obligations, commitments, and relationships.  But at the same time, it does not give us license to be rude or discourteous to others or to treat them badly.  Since the Bible tells us that Jesus was indeed perfect in all his actions throughout his life, we must therefore conclude that in this instance Jesus’ obedience to the mission the Father gave him was his primary obligation, and that, by being obedient to his heavenly Father, he was not subsequently disobedient  to his earthly parents.  In fact, to disregard his heavenly mission by not staying in Jerusalem but to instead leave with his parents would have been sinful, since his primary obligation is obedience to God.

2. What did Jesus know as a child?  Was he omniscient?  Did he learn just like everyone else?

Luke 2.46-47 states: “After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.  And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.”  Moreover, verse 52 says that over time Jesus “grew in wisdom.”  These verses seem to imply that the boy Jesus was with the rabbis and dialoguing with them on theological topics as a student would with a teacher.  The main form of Jewish instruction in the first century was structured in a question/answer format.  In other words, teachers and students asked questions of one another and then formulated answers to the questions using scripture, theology, and wisdom as their foundation.  But why would Jesus need to ask questions and think through the answers if he were the all-knowing God?  If he is learning from rabbis at the temple, then doesn’t that mean that he is not omniscient? 

These verses present to us one of the dichotomies of the Incarnation that seek to understand how the all-knowing God can become limited in his knowledge, or how the ever-present God limits himself to space and time in the form of a human body.  In a mysterious way that we will never understand this side of heaven, God the Son self-concealed the full extent of his power and understanding when he came in human form (see, for example, Mark 13.32). 

For example, Jesus didn’t emerge from the womb with the ability to walk, talk, and use the bathroom for himself.  He had to learn those things, because although he was fully God, he was also fully human.  To have those abilities as a result of his divine nature would undercut his humanity.  Again, this interplay between the divine and the material is one that we will never fully be able to grasp.  I would also imagine that as a human being, he would likewise learn about circumstances that brought about pain or discomfort (such as when a child puts a hand on a hot stove, he or she has learned that stoves are hot and not to be touched). 

So then, what was there for Jesus to “learn” from the rabbis at the temple?  Apparently not much, as it seems that his expressed understanding of theological matters was off the charts (hence Luke 2.46-47).  I imagine that the questions he asked the rabbis at this time were very similar to those he asked the religious leaders in passages like Matthew 21.23-27, and 22.41-46, etc.  The boy Jesus probably was asking questions that no one was able to answer. 

So did Jesus learn?  Was he omniscient, even as a 12 year-old?  What we can say for sure is that Jesus was as knowledgeable as a 12 year-old fully God, fully human person could be.  Did he have to learn things?  Yes.  He had to learn what a fully God, fully human person would have to learn.  What were those things?  I have no idea! 

What we can say for certain is this: even at 12 years old, Jesus had a clear knowledge of his mission and purpose in life, which was to be about his Father’s business, and he conducted himself in a way that demonstrated that he was committed to his mission.  This should be our focus as well.