The Two Minds Theory

In past blog posts, I’ve discussed both simple and complex things.  Some ideas are easy to grasp, others are harder.  I came across this theory, The Two Minds Theory, last year while reading Thomas Morris’s book The Logic of God Incarnate (1986), although “tastes” of the concept – that Jesus acted as man at times and as God at others – are almost as old as the church.

I think an explanation of the Two Minds Theory is more easily explained if I start with the problems it solves.  The Church has historically taught that Jesus is fully God and fully man.  While most theologians see this in Scripture, they have problems with Jesus not knowing the time of His return (Mark 13:32), being tempted (Heb. 4:15), and growing in wisdom (Luke 2:52).  The problems are how could God be omniscient and not know when He would return, how could a holy God be tempted to sin, and how could God grow in wisdom?  These are human frailties.

One answer to this is that Jesus turned over the use of His attributes as God to the Father when He took on human form.  This would mean He was not all-knowing, didn’t know He couldn’t sin, and so could be tempted, and grew in wisdom as any other human.

Morris’s book makes a distinction between being merely human and fully human, between being merely God and fully God.  What he means by these terms is that we are probably merely human.  We believe we will become something greater: 1 Cor. 15:51-52 (ESV)  Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, ⁵² in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. At that time, says Morris, we shall be fully human.  So, we currently don’t have the full set of attributes or don’t have the attributes fully that someone who is fully human has.

Being merely God and fully God is similar, according to Morris.  If Jesus turned over the use of His attributes to the Father, and no longer acted as God, was He merely God?  Did He qualify as God by nature, but was not the ruler of the universe for those 33 years He walked the earth?  Historic Christianity says “no.”  Jesus is fully human and fully God.

With that in mind, Morris asks how Jesus could be fully God (exercising all the attributes and powers that qualifies a being to qualify as fully God) yet could be tempted, not know when He would return, and grow in wisdom.

Humans have finite minds. If Jesus is fully human, He would need to have a finite mind to go with that.  If He is fully God, He would need an infinite mind to go with that.  These seem contradictory.  Morris again says “no.”  As the omnipotent God (the Son), Jesus could reserve a finite mind within the infinite mind of God and give His human nature access to it.

Sometimes when we dream, we know we are sleeping and can even affect the way the dream goes.  Our mind is in two places: we are aware we are asleep in bed, but there is also a portion of our mind that is aware of our dream.  Morris says this is how the two minds could work.  God the Son would be fully aware of all that is usual for His being fully God and allow for a finite portion of His mind to be aware to His human nature.

There is a heresy known as Nestorianism which states Jesus was two persons: a human person and a divine person.  This is not that.  Morris is saying Jesus and God the Son are the same Person.  In philosophy we say they are numerically identical.

Why is this important?

The Two Minds Theory seems to solve a lot of incarnation problems faced by theologians over the centuries.  Jesus’ human nature had a finite mind and so could be tempted, not knowing He couldn’t sin, grow in wisdom, and not know when He would return.  At the same time, the same Person, God the Son, would be fully God and rule the universe as usual. Morris is attempting to solve that.

There isn’t a lot written on this.  Morris’s book as well as Davis and Yang’s book An Introduction to Christian Philosophical Theology are the only books I’ve seen on the topic. 

Theories like this need peer review and criticism. I haven’t found that yet. So, take this with a grain of salt. Some theologian may find an issue, pull on it, and the entire house of cards collapse. I just thought it would be interesting enough that the theologians among you would like to consider the theory.