Jesus the Fallible

I am told there is a very interesting painting of an Jesus at London's Tate gallery called Christ in the Home of His Parents It depicts a 11 year old Jesus who has a cut on his hand, likely the result of attempting to pull out a nail from a piece of wood on the bench. He is being comforted by Mary and Joseph.

This brings up the question was Jesus fallible? To be human is to be fallible. We learn from our mistakes. Could it be when he was learning to be a carpenter, he made slightly wobbly chairs? Or if he learned to be a stone mason, his first attempts at building a wall were a little crocked? Could Jesus have stubbed his toe while learning to walk?

Did Jesus make mistakes? I would argue it was quite possible, but that does not constitute moral error on the part of Jesus. To me, he had to experience trial and error. It is a part of being human. I would say if he didn't we fall into the trap of Docetism which says Jesus only appeared to be human.

What are your thoughts?

(I linked to a video of that painting because it shows the depiction up close.)

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I can't see anything controversial, or even really debatable, about saying that Jesus would have made errors about simple facts or procedures. If he needed to speak to one of the disciples, for example, and someone had told him that they saw the guy in the marketplace twenty prior, Jesus might very well go over to the marketplace, but not with full knowledge that the disciple would still be there.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    It is possible to read the story of the woman with a demon-possessed daughter as showing Jesus' fallibility. He brushes her off and insists his mission is only to the children of Israel--until she persuades him to change his mind.

    Mind you, there are other ways to read the texts, such as Jesus doing this deliberately to teach a point to the disciples, etc. I think that may be the problem with the question. What may seem like Jesus' fallibility may look different from another perspective. For example, the marriage at Cana. Yes, Jesus turns water into wine, but he makes it a far superior grade of wine than what had been served. Mistake? Deliberate? It could easily be argued either way.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited March 14
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am told there is a very interesting painting of an Jesus at London's Tate gallery called Christ in the Home of His Parents It depicts a 11 year old Jesus who has a cut on his hand, likely the result of attempting to pull out a nail from a piece of wood on the bench. He is being comforted by Mary and Joseph.

    This brings up the question was Jesus fallible?
    Does it? Are being hurt attempting to pull a nail out of a piece of wood, or making wobbly chairs or stubbing a toe really indications of fallibility? This seems to me to stretching the meaning of “fallible,” or at the least it begs the question of fallible in exactly what way.

    I think most people would think of Jesus’s fallibility and infallibility, and of Jesus’s perfection, as being related to wisdom, his relationship to/with God and to sin—he was tempted in every way we are, but without sin. And I don’t see what any of the examples you give have to do with sin, wisdom or relationship to/with God.

    Like @stetson, I’m afraid I don’t really see any actual topic of debate here.

    Meanwhile, I think the nail wound in Jesus’s hand in “Christ in the Home of His Parents” has a lot more to do with the crucifixion than it does with any reflection of error or fallibility on Jesus’s part.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Apologies for the double post, but I did a little reading on the painting and read that when it was first exhibited, it was not given a name, but the text of Zech. 13:6 (KJV, of course) was shown next to it in lieu of a title: “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.”


  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    I can believe that Jesus made cognitive mistakes although not those based on wilful bias. The problem with saying Jesus was in error in his dealings with the Syrophoenician woman is that that looks to me like a moral error and that's hard to agree with: either it's saying Jesus wasn't sinless or it's saying that an exclusionary attitude only becomes sinful if one clings to it when challenged which is problematic in a number of ways.
  • Just note that the Markan story is a transition from feeding the 5000 Jews with crumbs left over to the feeding of the 4000 gentiles.

    Matthew changes the gentile Syphoenician woman to a Canaanite woman and his Jesus does not cross into gentile territory, and even his feeding of the 4000 remains in the Jewish territory.

    This is consistent with the Matthean Jesus sending his disciples only to Jews, but some gentiles being able to be admitted to Israel through their faith.
  • Although this is not kerygmania, I thought it valuable to check if the story is or is not about Jesus being fallible, or if it can or cannot be used for support.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Although this is not kerygmania, I thought it valuable to check if the story is or is not about Jesus being fallible, or if it can or cannot be used for support.

    I quite agree. I think it is safe to say that none of the stories are about Jesus being fallible. My point was just that, depending on the perspective the reader brings to the story, certain things could be thought of as mistakes made by Jesus. ("He chose Judas as an apostle? Whoa, misjudgment!") It has more to do with reader bias than with Jesus.
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    Just note that the Markan story is a transition from feeding the 5000 Jews with crumbs left over to the feeding of the 4000 gentiles.

    Matthew changes the gentile Syphoenician woman to a Canaanite woman and his Jesus does not cross into gentile territory, and even his feeding of the 4000 remains in the Jewish territory.

    This is consistent with the Matthean Jesus sending his disciples only to Jews, but some gentiles being able to be admitted to Israel through their faith.

    Of course not everyone would agree that Matthew “changed” events that are reported in his gospel at all. I know this is your position, but I think pointing out that not everyone believes this, and that so far as I know the Christian Church has not traditionally taught this, is important.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    I don't really believe in the subconscious, but to entertain the idea for the sake of discussion...

    Would it be possible for Jesus to be subconsciously prompted into sin? To take the most everyday example of psychoanalytical shenanigans...

    Suppose Jesus is engaged in consolatory prayer with a
    man who has been shunned by his family for obesity, and instead of saying "We ask you, Lord...", he says "We ask you, lard", thus augmenting the victim's initial humiliation.

    Assuming Jesus said "lard" because some part of his lower iceberg wanted to, is he guilty of a sin? Or is the scenario impossible because Jesus' subconscious would never want that in the first place?
  • If he is, as he presents himself, truly human and yet wholly free from the infection of sin, then that would apply to all of him, subconscious included. You wouldn’t get so-called “Freudian slips” that actually betray crappy attitudes. There’d be no crappy attitudes to betray.

    Though I think you might be mixing up another issue, which is the question of whether it’s a sin to hurt somebody’s feelings (or always a sin to do so, intentionally or not). I’m sure he caused hurt feelings to some people, but I don’t think he ever did it because he took pleasure in the pain.
  • Z
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Just note that the Markan story is a transition from feeding the 5000 Jews with crumbs left over to the feeding of the 4000 gentiles.

    Matthew changes the gentile Syphoenician woman to a Canaanite woman and his Jesus does not cross into gentile territory, and even his feeding of the 4000 remains in the Jewish territory.

    This is consistent with the Matthean Jesus sending his disciples only to Jews, but some gentiles being able to be admitted to Israel through their faith.

    Of course not everyone would agree that Matthew “changed” events that are reported in his gospel at all. I know this is your position, but I think pointing out that not everyone believes this, and that so far as I know the Christian Church has not traditionally taught this, is important.

    Is there such a thing as the Christian Church's traditional teachings,?
    Haven't there been many differences all along? Maybe one group took predominance with Constantine, but more splits occurred later anyway.

    Haven't there been many changes within the multiple branches on things like creation, the earth being the centre of the universe, the age of the earth, the doctrine of discovery, evolution, gender differences (that's OTTOMH).
    I think scholarly analysis of the literature of the canons(sic) of the bible is yet another part of Christian Unrest, which is the subject of this site.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Though I think you might be mixing up another issue, which is the question of whether it’s a sin to hurt somebody’s feelings (or always a sin to do so, intentionally or not). I’m sure he caused hurt feelings to some people, but I don’t think he ever did it because he took pleasure in the pain.

    Well, that's why I used the example of someone being mocked for their weight. If you consciously do that to someone in a way that you know they'll find insulting, I think it's pretty clearly a sin.

    (When Jesus hurt people's feelings by telling them not to be hypocrites or vainglorious in their worship styles, that was quite a different matter.)
  • Right, I agree. I don’t think it’s a thing he would have done, hurried into it or not.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Z
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Just note that the Markan story is a transition from feeding the 5000 Jews with crumbs left over to the feeding of the 4000 gentiles.

    Matthew changes the gentile Syphoenician woman to a Canaanite woman and his Jesus does not cross into gentile territory, and even his feeding of the 4000 remains in the Jewish territory.

    This is consistent with the Matthean Jesus sending his disciples only to Jews, but some gentiles being able to be admitted to Israel through their faith.

    Of course not everyone would agree that Matthew “changed” events that are reported in his gospel at all. I know this is your position, but I think pointing out that not everyone believes this, and that so far as I know the Christian Church has not traditionally taught this, is important.

    Is there such a thing as the Christian Church's traditional teachings,?
    Haven't there been many differences all along? Maybe one group took predominance with Constantine, but more splits occurred later anyway.

    Haven't there been many changes within the multiple branches on things like creation, the earth being the centre of the universe, the age of the earth, the doctrine of discovery, evolution, gender differences (that's OTTOMH).
    I think scholarly analysis of the literature of the canons(sic) of the bible is yet another part of Christian Unrest, which is the subject of this site.
    I think the key is in what exactly you seemed to be saying. You wrote:
    “Matthew changed the gentile Syphoenician woman to a Canaanite woman.” I took that to mean Matthew substituted one woman for another woman, much as if Mark had said “a French woman” and Matthew had changed it to “a German woman.” It’s clear from his reference to whether “Matthew ‘changed’ events” that @ChastMastr took it that way too. And I’m not aware of any Christian tradition that has said that.

    Nor is that what I understand modern criticism and analysis to say. Canaanites were gentiles. And my understanding is that the difference between “Syrophoenician” and “Canaanite” is that the former identifies where she’s from/where she lives, while the latter identifies her ethnic background. Both words can be used to identify the same person.

    Both Mark and Matthew want to convey to their different audiences that this woman should be seen as an outsider. Mark does this by focusing on where she’s from and her culture (Syrophoenician and Greek) because he knows his audience will understand those descriptors to mean “outsider.” Matthew focuses on her ethnicity (“Canaanite”) because he knows that’s what will say “outsider” to his audience.

    But there’s no changing of the woman. The changes are to how she’s described.


  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited March 16
    Regards Nick's reply: now where is that damn like button?
  • ChastMastrChastMastr Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Regards Nick's reply: now where is that damn like button?

    Seconded!

    And @Lamb Chopped’s too! ❤️
  • 'Peter speaks through @Nick Tamen!' 😉

    Yes, spot on in each post here.

    I've seen the painting of Christ in the home of his parents in the Tate on numerous occasions. It's obviously meant to prefigure the crucifixion.

    Are we going to argue that getting himself crucified was a 'failure' on Christ's part?

    I think @Gramps49 has answered his own question by saying how we need to avoid Docetism.

    Once we've agreed that then I'm not sure what else there is to say other than to second Nick's insightful comments.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    Abridged from Wikipedia:

    In the history of Christianity, docetism was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Broadly, it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.

    Life on the Ship requires a larger and larger vocabulary!
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Jesus was a human being of his time. So maybe he believed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth? Or a three story universe in which one ascended into heaven and descended into hell? The creeds from almost four centuries later seem also to assume the three story universe. Ascended and descended seem to be literal rather than metaphorical.

    Are such beliefs fallible? Was Jesus as ignorant about the nature of the universe as his contemporaries? And does it matter?

    My answer is probably not. In the dictionary, “fallible” does include the meaning of being wrong. But I sense the intention of the word in scripture is “capable of sin” rather than capable of factual error about the nature of things.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Come to think of it, I’m not sure fallible is a biblical word. Error is.
  • What would it profit the disciples to hear about Copernican planetary movement or general relativity?
    Jesus and the Gospel writers had to use the language of contemporary understanding.
    We may have to recontextualise to make sense to our contemporaries.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Jesus was a human being of his time. So maybe he believed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth? Or a three story universe in which one ascended into heaven and descended into hell? The creeds from almost four centuries later seem also to assume the three story universe. Ascended and descended seem to be literal rather than metaphorical.

    Are such beliefs fallible? Was Jesus as ignorant about the nature of the universe as his contemporaries? And does it matter?

    My answer is probably not. In the dictionary, “fallible” does include the meaning of being wrong. But I sense the intention of the word in scripture is “capable of sin” rather than capable of factual error about the nature of things.

    The Greeks had already determined the earth was round in 500BCE, but for all we know Jesus was not concerned about the circumference of the earth.
  • Well, Jesus is nothing if not focused and practical.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Augustine was not convinced that the earth was round; I think a Roman liberal education didn't include enough mathematics to understand the evidence.
  • Heck, mine didn't...
  • So you're not convinced the world is round either, @Lamb Chopped?

    😉
  • Wtf?
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    He did put in a smiley face. I think he is joking and being playful.
  • Thank you.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    He did put in a smiley face. I think he is joking and being playful.

    Well, in truth, I was a little confused as to LC's response myself. I had mentioned the Greeks pretty well knew the earth was round well before Jesus was born, but I did not think Jesus was focused on that fact. Dafyd mentioned Augustine was not convinced, but he doubted the liberal Roman education would not have included that factoid. Then LC said hers did not.

    That was a straight man's--or gal's, in the case of LC--for GG's reply. I had thought about making that reply too, but GG beat me to the punch.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited March 19
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    He did put in a smiley face. I think he is joking and being playful.

    Well, in truth, I was a little confused as to LC's response myself. I had mentioned the Greeks pretty well knew the earth was round well before Jesus was born, but I did not think Jesus was focused on that fact. Dafyd mentioned Augustine was not convinced, but he doubted the liberal Roman education would not have included that factoid. Then LC said hers did not.
    The bolded was not what @Dafyd said he doubted. He said “I think a Roman liberal education didn't include enough mathematics to understand the evidence.” And I understood @Lamb Chopped to be saying her liberal education likewise didn’t include enough mathematics to understand the evidence that the world is not flat.

    I can assure you that my certainty that the world is not flat has absolutely nothing to do with me understanding the evidence for that from a mathematical standpoint. That doesn’t mean I’m not certain the world is not flat. But the math is over my head.


  • Nick has it right. I took math up to calculus (not well, but still) and was never introduced to the ways of calculating stuff about the flatness or otherwise of the earth. Or about other astronomical facts, for that matter. I don't see that Augustine is unusual, I doubt one in a thousand moderns could pull this sort of thing out of their back pocket, mentally. I suspect we could all mostly FOLLOW it, if someone else walked us through it.
  • I understood the point LC was making of course. @Nick Tamen expands on that.

    But yes, I was teasing as @Gramps49 recognised.
Sign In or Register to comment.