Was Jesus unsure of His identity and mission?

[JackiB]

I have lived most of my life as an Evangelical Protestant. I have recently come into the Catholic Church through reading CS Lewis; Chesterton; Aquinas; Newman; Belloc; Scott Hahn,and listening to Catholic radio and watching EWTN. I started RCIA at my local parish this fall. At a recent meeting the teacher said that she took comfort in knowing that even Jesus was unsure of his identity and mission. (I don’t understand why this is comforting.) I said that I was uncomfortable with the idea that Jesus might have been unsure of his identity since that would imply ignorance, which would imply imperfection in God. She said that Matthew and Luke more expressed Jesus’s humanity and John his divinity. What is the truth?

 

[Odell]

(Lk2:49) “and he said to them why were you looking for me did you not know that I must be in my Fathers house?”

Jesus even as a boy knew who he was.
But verse 52 says "and Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and favor before God and man. As the man Jesus he had to learn things like how to eat how to make a table and if Im not mistaken as man he had to learn his mission because we see him praying before the crucifixion he at first did not desire it. I think I have some problems with this last part. maybe someone can help us both.

 

[water]

Because He loves us so much, He decides to become flesh like us. As a human being, He was like us and had to learn like any child.

However, there is no doubt that He knew all along that He was the Son of God and God Himself. Thus, He knows very well of His Divinity, His Identify, and His Mission. But why He didn’t perform miracles when He was a child? It is because His time had not come yet? Do you remember that He told our Virgin Mary that His time had not come at the wedding when the wine ran out?

I believe He knew exactly His Mission and Identity when Virgin Mary said “Yes” - The Word became Flesh.

 

[Maranatha]

This may be coming from Ann Rice’s book Christ the Lord, Out of Egypt. I read the book. As far as I could tell it followed an orthodox line for about as far as an historical fiction about Jesus can. The book takes place before Jesus is found by his parents in Lk 2:49. She does raise some interesting questions. If Jesus’ body developed normally, then as a 1 month old, his brain could not have been developed enough to recognize anything much. At that point could he have known who and what he was? At what point did he come to understand his mission. We know that by the time he was twelve, Lk 2:49 occurred. At sometime before that occasion, he understood.

The best part of the book was her personal faith journey described in the appendix. She was married to an atheist and circulated in anti-religious academia. For her profession she was used to research and for a long time she was going further and further back in history for one project or another. Untimely she realized what she was really reaching toward. When she started researching the historical Jesus she was prepared to find fault with Christianity. Ultimately, her research lead her right in to the Catholic Church and the fullness of truth.

 

[Fidelis]

When in doubt, always find solace in official Church teaching.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**Christ’s soul and his human knowledge **
471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.[100]

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,[101] and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.[102] This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.[103]

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.[104] “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.”[105] Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.[106] The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.[107]

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.[108] What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.[109]

100 Cf. Damasus 1: ds 149.
101 Lk 2:52.
102 Cf. Mk 6 38; 8 27; Jn 11:34; etc.
103 Phil 2:7.
104 Cf. St. Gregory the Great, “Sicut aqua” ad Eulogium, Epist. Lib. 10, 39 PL 77, 1097A ff.; ds 475.
105 St. Maximus the Confessor, Qu. et dub. 66: PG 90, 840A.
106 Cf. Mk 14:36; Mt 11:27; Jn 1:18; 8:55; etc.
107 Cf. Mk 2:8; Jn 2 25; 6:61; etc.
108 Cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:18-20, 26-30.
109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.

 

[Jeanette_L]

When in doubt, always find solace in official Church teaching.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.[100]

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,[101] and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.[102] This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.[103]

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.[104] “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.”[105] Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.[106] The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.[107]

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.[108] What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.[109]

100 Cf. Damasus 1: ds 149.
101 Lk 2:52.
102 Cf. Mk 6 38; 8 27; Jn 11:34; etc.
103 Phil 2:7.
104 Cf. St. Gregory the Great, “Sicut aqua” ad Eulogium, Epist. Lib. 10, 39 PL 77, 1097A ff.; ds 475.
105 St. Maximus the Confessor, Qu. et dub. 66: PG 90, 840A.
106 Cf. Mk 14:36; Mt 11:27; Jn 1:18; 8:55; etc.
107 Cf. Mk 2:8; Jn 2 25; 6:61; etc.
108 Cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:18-20, 26-30.
109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.

This is why I fell in love with the Catholic Church!

Thanks for this post.

 

[Fidelis]

This is why I fell in love with the Catholic Church!

Thanks for this post.

You’re welcome — And welcome to the Church! :tiphat:

 

[Epistemes]

(Lk2:49) “and he said to them why were you looking for me did you not know that I must be in my Fathers house?”

Jack Miles makes an interesting observation about this scene in Luke’s Gospel: namely that Jesus, at the age of twelve, appears to be learning more about himself than at age ten or eleven. No doubt Mary and Joseph attended the festival every year, so why hadn’t Jesus run off to the temple on earlier occassions? Why wait until age twelve? Was it self-discovery of his divine nature?

By the time Christ reached maturity, I’m sure he was fully aware of his nature and purpose, but one has to consider what it must’ve been like as a child, especially an infant. If Christ was fully human, then wouldn’t that necessitate him having the same innocent oblivousness to the world as all human infants are?

 

[water]

Jack Miles makes an interesting observation about this scene in Luke’s Gospel: namely that Jesus, at the age of twelve, appears to be learning more about himself than at age ten or eleven. No doubt Mary and Joseph attended the festival every year, so why hadn’t Jesus run off to the temple on earlier occassions? Why wait until age twelve? Was it self-discovery of his divine nature?

By the time Christ reached maturity, I’m sure he was fully aware of his nature and purpose, but one has to consider what it must’ve been like as a child, especially an infant. If Christ was fully human, then wouldn’t that necessitate him having the same innocent oblivousness to the world as all human infants are?

Jesus knew He is God even before He was born.

 

[VociMike]

Did your “teacher” explain how God could not know He is God? I’d like to hear that explanation.

 

[FillTheVoid]

No, do not fall for those lies.

He knew who he was even before he was born.

 

[Hegesippus]

I believe Pope St. Piux X wrote on this subject, but i am not sure. If someone could help finding a link it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[tdgesq]

Did your “teacher” explain how God could not know He is God? I’d like to hear that explanation.

I would agree that Jesus knew that he was God, but I think the question is at what point did Jesus know that he was God. The man Jesus truly had a human nature. He also had a divine nature. The issue as I see it is how the human nature and the divine nature in the hypostatic union work together. Did Jesus really know before He was born that He was God? It seems improbable to me. The divine nature certainly knew, but what about the human nature of Jesus? I do not understand how the “whole person” of Jesus, divine and human, had full knowledge of divinity prior to birth, or even shortly thereafter. My conclusion is tentative, and I am fully willing to accept correction on this issue.

 

[Epistemes]

Jesus knew He is God even before He was born.

I’m sorry, but can you supply a Church dogma to back up what you’re saying?

No doubt the Son of God was well-aware of His divintiy before assuming the flesh of humanity, but as part of the Hypostatic Union, each of Christ’s natures possessed their own respective will. I am not saying that the divine nature was unaware of its being God, but that the human nature may have been unaware of the divine nature.

 

[Epistemes]

I would agree that Jesus knew that he was God, but I think the question is at what point did Jesus know that he was God. The man Jesus truly had a human nature. He also had a divine nature. The issue as I see it is how the human nature and the divine nature in the hypostatic union work together. Did Jesus really know before He was born that He was God? It seems improbable to me. The divine nature certainly knew, but what about the human nature of Jesus? I do not understand how the “whole person” of Jesus, divine and human, had full knowledge of divinity prior to birth, or even shortly thereafter. My conclusion is tentative, and I am fully willing to accept correction on this issue.

I’ve searched through Ludwig Ott’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Dogma and read nothing which says that Christ’s human nature was aware of the divine nature from the get-go, but (like you) I stand to be corrected if necessary…

 

[FillTheVoid]

I believe that even as a child Jesus referred to God as his Father.

He knew who he was the whole time.

 

[VociMike]

I’ve searched through Ludwig Ott’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Dogma and read nothing which says that Christ’s human nature was aware of the divine nature from the get-go, but (like you) I stand to be corrected if necessary…

The problem here, I suggest, is that you are speaking of natures when you should be speaking of persons. Natures do not know anything, only persons do.

 

[Epistemes]

I believe that even as a child Jesus referred to God as his Father.

He knew who he was the whole time.

A child is different than an infant, especially in terms of human cognitive awareness.

 

[Epistemes]

The problem here, I suggest, is that you are speaking of natures when you should be speaking of persons. Natures do not know anything, only persons do.

The natures decides what a person can or cannot do, the person performs what the natures **can **do. The person possesses the nature, not vice versa. As such, my human nature dictates that I can raise my hand, that I think rationally, etc. and it is my person who performs these actions. It is also my human nature which inhibits me from flying, laying an egg, or being omniscient.

Why again should I be speaking of “persons” and not “natures”?

 

[Fidelis]

As the Catechism reference provided in Post #5 infers, Jesus, in his human nature, grew in, was informed by, and became cognizant of his identity by his divine nature to the extent his comprehension and ability as a human person grew. Thus, when he was an embryo, for example, he had an embryo’s understanding. When he was a toddler, he had a tot’s understanding. When he was 12, and found in the Temple, he had a 12 year-old’s understanding. Finally, when he was a full-grown mature adult, he had the fullest understanding possible.

This was, at all those stages, accellerated, fuller and more intense, of course, than would be possible for us because Jesus did not have to struggle against the clouds of sin and confusion other humans do, plus he had the fullness of grace and divinity subsisting within his very person.

As of other questions which treat of the mysterious nature of God, the **HOW **of the matter is unquestionably above our puny comprehensions.