Jesus' knowledge of His divinity

[Pugsly]

Quick question (with a potentially long answer haha):
Did Jesus know of His divinity during His whole life on Earth, or did he “discover” it along the way?
Does the Church have any official teaching on this?

Thanks in advance

A fully aware zygote seems monsterous…“our God is a God of order”. I believe that Jesus poured everything out to take on human flesh…but poured out where? Was the Holy Spirit the recepticle of His Divinity? “It is better for you that I go to the Father” so that I can send you my Spirit…???

 

[POJIUJH]

A fully aware zygote seems monsterous…“our God is a God of order”. I believe that Jesus poured everything out to take on human flesh…but poured out where? Was the Holy Spirit the recepticle of His Divinity? “It is better for you that I go to the Father” so that I can send you my Spirit…???

Smells like heresy.

 

[VirtusTransitus]

Kids become self aware as they grow up. The older they get the more they are aware of what it means to be who they are.

Seems logical that Jesus would’ve been aware of who he was as his human self-awareness unfolded. Much like a child knows he’s a human and not a dog, Jesus would’ve know he was devine and not merely human.

We’ll never know how this impacted him. But it seems to me he may have had this understanding all along, but as his human brain developed, he was able to access more and more of his divine nature.

I’m sure I could be terribly mistaken. But I don’t see how that kind of thought process falls afoul with the Church.

I highly doubt the four-day old Christ was fully aware of his own divinity yet unable to keep from soiling his diaper! I expect, rather, that his divinity was there and as his development as a human progressed, he had access to more and more of his divinity.

As I said - I’m sure I could be horribly mistaken…

 

[POJIUJH]

Kids become self aware as they grow up. The older they get the more they are aware of what it means to be who they are.

Seems logical that Jesus would’ve been aware of who he was as his human self-awareness unfolded. Much like a child knows he’s a human and not a dog, Jesus would’ve know he was devine and not merely human.

We’ll never know how this impacted him. But it seems to me he may have had this understanding all along, but as his human brain developed, he was able to access more and more of his divine nature.

I’m sure I could be terribly mistaken. But I don’t see how that kind of thought process falls afoul with the Church.

I highly doubt the four-day old Christ was fully aware of his own divinity yet unable to keep from soiling his diaper! I expect, rather, that his divinity was there and as his development as a human progressed, he had access to more and more of his divinity.

As I said - I’m sure I could be horribly mistaken…

I would be quite careful about thinking in this way. I think what you seem to be describing is a human soul, if I’m not wrong this isn’t far from the 4th century heresy of Apollinarism.

Jesus nature is undivided, fully God and fully man. I don’t think it is something we as mere men are ever able of understanding. Atleast I say that about myself.

Maybe this quote from the Catechism will help:

III. True God and True Man
464
The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.
465
The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God’s Son "come in the flesh."87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father,” and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God “came to be from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father.88
466
The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council at Ephesus in 431 confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."89 Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh."90
467
The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin.” He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.91

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.92

468
After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople in 553 confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity."93 Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."94

469
The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:

“What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed,” sings the Roman Liturgy.95 And the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: "O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!"96

 

[pjbuckley]

To deny Our Lord Jesus’ knowledge of His Divinity is to diminish His sacrifice in being incarnate. Our Lord, while all knowing and omnipotent, became a dependent baby, at each moment aware of the littleness He chose.

 

[VirtusTransitus]

I would be quite careful about thinking in this way. I think what you seem to be describing is a human soul, if I’m not wrong this isn’t far from the 4th century heresy of Apollinarism.

Jesus nature is undivided, fully God and fully man. I don’t think it is something we as mere men are ever able of understanding. Atleast I say that about myself.

Maybe this quote from the Catechism will help:

Thanks. As you would imagine on a subject like this, it’s still unclear to me. Which I’m good with, because I’m certainly not making any definitive statements about this.

On the one hand, it’s understandable to me how Jesus would have complete cognizance of his divinity and retain all his divine understanding while “enduring” incarnation in human form. On the other hand, “enduring” human incarnation might have included the limitations of the human intellect during human development?

But I’m quite certain I have this wrong. Just interesting to ponder.

 

[Pugsly]

Smells like heresy.

The Son of God “learned obedience” according to St Paul. He “grew in wisdom” according to St John.

It is not heresy to say that God is One…and, therefore, as the Son set aside His great powers and glory He had with the Father…to ask WHERE did He set it aside? Obviously, the Holy Spirit was with Jesus the entire time of His earthly stay…working to heal and raise the dead and comfort.

Then, Jesus ascends to the Father and makes this curious statement…“it is better for you that I go” so that we can fully recieve His Spirit.

I believe Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father are One God…but it is quite interesting how They operate in salvation.

 

[tskrobacz]

Quick question (with a potentially long answer haha):
Did Jesus know of His divinity during His whole life on Earth, or did he “discover” it along the way?
Does the Church have any official teaching on this?

Thanks in advance

He likely did not know it until his baptism when God spoke from on high, This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased…only at that moment did he fully grasp his relationship to the divine.

 

[Pugsly]

To deny Our Lord Jesus’ knowledge of His Divinity is to diminish His sacrifice in being incarnate. Our Lord, while all knowing and omnipotent, became a dependent baby, at each moment aware of the littleness He chose.

Jesus pouring out Himself to become a zygote of flesh…that would develop into a very aware child of 12…reminds me of a person jumping into water (holding their breath and slowly opening their eyes amidst the cloudy bubbles)…then rising back up to the surface and taking in that breath.

Question: was the person who jumped into the water NOT BREATHING? Similiarly, God jumped into humanity and rose to the surface by 12 years old…fully aware (by the Gospel text). For an eternal God, it was a split-second of time those few years.

 

[Pugsly]

Smells like heresy.

Did not God put the story of Jesus being found in the Temple precisely for us to know that Jesus was growing in knowledge, obedience and wisdom? Is not the story’s unique placement designed to show us the depth of Jesus sacrifice in setting aside His powers?

PS…before throwing the word “heresy” about…please remember that the heresy we are to be most concerned with is that God did “NOT” take on human flesh in the Person of Jesus. What I’m suggesting here is that Jesus is fully God in the flesh…but He chose to set aside His glory and powers (which is a given in Catholic theology).

 

[Pugsly]

In JESUS OF NAZARETH, Pope Benedict XVI makes it quite clear that Jesus always saw the Beatific Vision. He grew up as a man in His Father’s presence. He knew His Father intimately.

How could Jesus always see the Beatific vision…and then God the Father sends the vision of a mere angel to…“strengthened by an angel” in the garden of Gethsemane?

 

[POJIUJH]

Did not God put the story of Jesus being found in the Temple precisely for us to know that Jesus was growing in knowledge, obedience and wisdom? Is not the story’s unique placement designed to show us the depth of Jesus sacrifice in setting aside His powers?

PS…before throwing the word “heresy” about…please remember that the heresy we are to be most concerned with is that God did “NOT” take on human flesh in the Person of Jesus. What I’m suggesting here is that Jesus is fully God in the flesh…but He chose to set aside His glory and powers (which is a given in Catholic theology).

All heresy is heresy. Even a 99% truth is a 100% lie. I’m not saying so to start an argument, only for our own sake. We (me especially) a lot of the time aren’t able to draw inerrant conclusions, its for that reason that we have to align ourselves to what God gave us as a remedy for human error: His Church.

He didn’t strip Himself of His Divinity, He restrained Himself intentionally. Please read the first page of this thread again to get a little bit of a perspective on this. He is both completely human and completely Divine. He has acquired and experimental knowledge at the same time as knowing everything, always. His nature is double and undivided. It isn’t something we can comprehend fully, but it is the truth as defined infallibly.

Did not God put the story of Jesus being found in the Temple precisely for us to know that Jesus was growing in knowledge, obedience and wisdom? Is not the story’s unique placement designed to show us the depth of Jesus sacrifice in setting aside His powers?

His conversation in the temple is indicative of exactly what we are talking about, His dual nature. His answers and questions = full, complete and inerrant knowledge of God. His “growing in knowledge, obedience and wisdom” = His human experimental knowledge. This was a God-child, He would not have had that knowledge and wisdom if He set aside His divinity.

There is also no reason to doubt His complete knowledge even in the womb going by this, as since His wisdom was greater than all men and far above the capacity of a child here, it follows that He must have been this way since His incarnation for the reason that He never inherited His Divine nature, He simply was Divine.

What I’m suggesting here is that Jesus is fully God in the flesh…but He chose to set aside His glory and powers (which is a given in Catholic theology).

This is where it seems your misunderstanding comes in. The Church doesn’t teach that He set aside His Divinity. Rather that He restrained it.

God could not set aside (as in, take away from Himself) the powers and attributes of God without ceasing to be God. As such He would not have a Divine nature, only a human one. He wouldn’t be God, He would be fully man. This isn’t the case though, there is no separation between His human and Divine nature. He caused miracles by His own authority. He didn’t have to borrow the Divinity of the Holy Spirit to work miracles as He Himself was already Divine and capable of anything. He always has the full dominion of God, He only intentionally lived as a man for our sake.

 

[POJIUJH]

Jesus pouring out Himself to become a zygote of flesh…that would develop into a very aware child of 12…reminds me of a person jumping into water (holding their breath and slowly opening their eyes amidst the cloudy bubbles)…then rising back up to the surface and taking in that breath.

Question: was the person who jumped into the water NOT BREATHING? Similiarly, God jumped into humanity and rose to the surface by 12 years old…fully aware (by the Gospel text). For an eternal God, it was a split-second of time those few years.

The problem here is that you aren’t thinking of God here in this person. You are drawing a comparison the inability to breath with the full and complete knowledge of God, this just cannot work logically as God cannot ever by His nature be ignorant. That is the one false premise in this example.

It’s also worthwhile to point out that by working from the understanding you gave of His knowledge and the interpretation of the “continued to grow in knowledge” verse, He wouldn’t have been fully aware at 12 years old, or indeed ever, since a human finite knowledge cannot ascend to an infinite one.

 

[POJIUJH]

How could Jesus always see the Beatific vision…and then God the Father sends the vision of a mere angel to…“strengthened by an angel” in the garden of Gethsemane?

Not to stride over another topic which requires a lot of understanding, but Gethsemane was the beginning of His passion. It’s my understanding that He didn’t have the Beatific vision since we was bearing the sins of the world.

The angel also likely wasn’t sent just to be looked at. I would guess (again, fallibly) that it came to give Him some kind of assistance.

 

[Glacies]

Not to stride over another topic which requires a lot of understanding, but Gethsemane was the beginning of His passion. It’s my understanding that He didn’t have the Beatific vision since we was bearing the sins of the world.

The angel also likely wasn’t sent just to be looked at. I would guess (again, fallibly) that it came to give Him some kind of assistance.

Ludvig Ott has taken both of these matters into account in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by answering that the Church Fathers imply the Beatific Vision of Christ was perpetual, and that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the soul of Christ remained sensitive to unhappiness in Gethsemane. It is noted that bodily anguish specifically could be felt through the lower sensitive powers of the soul.

The Fathers implicitly teach the doctrine that Christ’s soul always enjoyed the Beatific Vision by reason of the fact that they teach that Christ as man had fullness of knowledge as a consequence of the Hypostatic Union.

Immediate Vision of God effects supreme happiness in creatures endowed with reason. From this the question rises: How can the profound sorrow and sadness which Christ felt in the Garden of olives during His Agony, and in His Desertation by God on the Cross be reconciled with the perfect happiness which flows from the Beatific Vision?

a) The fact of Christ’s bodily suffering is easily reconciled with His scientia beata, as bodily sorrow is felt with the lower sensitive powers of the soul, while spiritual sorrow is felt with the higher spiritual power of the soul. By Divine ordinance the joy deriving from the Beatific Vision was in Christ limited to His spiritual soul. The overflow of the bliss into the body does not belong to the nature of the glory, but is merely an accidental consequence of it, which in this case was suspended. Cf. S. th. III, 15, 5 ad 3.

b) The main difficulty lies in the compatibility of spiritual joy and spiritual sorrow. Melchior Cano, O.P. ( 1560) sought to solve the difficulty by assuming in the act of the immediate vision of God a real distinction between the confirmation of the reason (visio) and the activity of the will (gaudium, delectatio), and by teaching that the vision of God possessed by a miracle of the Divine Omnipotence. (De locis theol. XII 12.) Against this suspension theory it is objected that heavenly bliss necessarily proceeds from the vision of God.

According to the teaching of St. Thomas, the miraculous intervention of God consisted only in that the bliss proceeding from the immediate vision of God did not overflow from the ratio superior (=the higher spiritual knowledge and will directed to the bonum creatum) nor from the soul to the body: dum Christus ear viator, non fiebat redundantia gloriae a superiori parte in inferiorem nac ab anima in corpus (S. th. III, 46, 8). Christ’s soul, therefore, remained sensitive to sorrow and sadness./

 

[Waiting]

How could Jesus always see the Beatific vision…and then God the Father sends the vision of a mere angel to…“strengthened by an angel” in the garden of Gethsemane?

I am not one to argue with one far superior to me in theological knowledge. If Pope Benedict XVI says Jesus could always see the Beatific Vision, I accept his statement. I know that the Pope wasn’t speaking ex cathedra, but he didn’t leave any doubt that his statement was accurate. You are free to doubt that Jesus was able to see and speak directly with His Father. I believe that God the Father was always a true Father to His Son, and anything less than a complete loving companionship would be contrary to a real father-son relationship.

Jesus wasn’t just seeing a vision of an angel in the Garden of Gethsemanee. The angel was truly present to Him to comfort Him. If Padre Pio’s Guardian Angel was constantly visible to the saint, following the dictates of St. Pio, why would Jesus be any less able to see and use the services of angels?

 

[POJIUJH]

Ludvig Ott has taken both of these matters into account in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by answering that the Church Fathers imply the Beatific Vision of Christ was perpetual, and that St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the soul of Christ remained sensitive to unhappiness in Gethsemane. It is noted that bodily anguish specifically could be felt through the lower sensitive powers of the soul.

I didn’t know this! Thanks!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

How could Jesus always see the Beatific vision…and then God the Father sends the vision of a mere angel to…“strengthened by an angel” in the garden of Gethsemane?

That is a fair question. My take is that he wanted to impress upon us that he was indeed suffering physical and psychological pain in his human nature - that he was suffering as we would suffer.

And that Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence is a teaching which most theologians hold and which Pius Xll stressed and pronounced in Mystici Corporis ( 1943). And it is taught indirectly in the CCC # 473.

Also this is a reasonable conclusion from the fact that in Jesus Christ there is only One Person. And since the Second Person is God, the human nature would enjoy whatever was proper to the Second Person and this would include the Beatific Vision.

 

[Margarite]

That is a fair question. My take is that he wanted to impress upon us that he was indeed suffering physical and psychological pain in his human nature - that he was suffering as we would suffer.

And that Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence is a teaching which most theologians hold and which Pius Xll stressed and pronounced in Mystici Corporis ( 1943). And it is taught indirectly in the CCC # 473.

Also this is a reasonable conclusion from the fact that in Jesus Christ there is only One Person. And since the Second Person is God, the human nature would enjoy whatever was proper to the Second Person and this would include the Beatific Vision.

Another way to see this, is that Christ’s human nature was strengthened by the angel. Christ was fully and completely human and that human nature could feel the fear and dread that everyone of us can feel, but he would never despair. So, in the same way that he could feel fear, so also could he be comforted. It is like on the cross why he cries out asking why he has been abandoned by God. He is God, so he could not possibly be abandoned by God. He is Truth, so he could not possibly be speaking something untrue. He is God’s understanding of himself in the Word, so he could not simply be misunderstanding God. Really, his human nature was feeling the utter desolation of being abandoned by God despite never losing the Beatific Vision. It is really difficult to explain, and I hope that what I am saying helps and does not serve to only confuse the issue more.