When Did Jesus Fully Comprehend His Divinity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Grey_Goose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Grey Goose:
During a recent Parish Council meeting my pastor informed our group that Jesus did not fully understand his divinity until after his resurection from the dead. I have always been under the impression that at least since the start of his ministry on earth Jesus knew he was one person with two natures - fully devine and fully human. I quoted a couple of scripture verses such as John 10:16, “I and the Father are one” and John 8:58, “before Abraham was I Am” in order to demonstrate that it would appear that Jesus did fully comprehend His divinity. But at this my pastor simply said that Jesus did not fully comprehend His divinity until after His resurection and that’s just the way it is. I dropped the matter as it did not seem that Father was “in the mood” to help us understand what he meant and I did not think it appropriate to say anything that might undermine him in front of the council.

Can anyone help me? Is there any way or in any sense that it could be understood that Jesus did not fully comprehend his own divinity until after his resurection?
Click to expand...
He knew His divinity from a young age…Dave Armstrong and I are on the same page. Even Mary knew of Jesus’s divinity at the Annunciation. Even Jesus stated, “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18) He also said, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:22-33).

Dave goes on to say… “Neither Jesus nor Mary “grow in awareness” or “gradually figure out” Who He is. Such a teaching is theological liberalism and heterodoxy. Jesus knew all along what would happen (including His Resurrection). See. e.g., Mt 16:21-23, Mk 8:31-33, Lk 9:21-22.”

Read the rest at the following…I believe I posted it earlier.:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ39.HTM
 
🙂 I was taught (and still believe) that Jesus is God, and since he is God, he knew always that he was divine.

Read the CCC and you will see get some wonderful info on this very subject! 👍
 
Can anyone help me? Is there any way or in any sense that it could be understood that Jesus did not fully comprehend his own divinity until after his resurection?

Yeh, no problem.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was with God… and the Wod was God.

Jesus ALWAYS (literally – in the eternal meaning of the word) knew Himself as God.

Just because when He came to Earth as a human and personally took on human nature, didn’t mean that He lost His awareness of Himself as God, as well.
 
More quotes to ponder…

HEBREWS 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

JOHN 7:28-29 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. (29) But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

JOHN 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

JOHN 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

TIMOTHY 1:17 . . . the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, . . .

ROMANS 1:20 . . . his eternal power and Godhead . . .

JOHN 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

JOHN 6:40 . . . every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

JOHN 10:17-18 . . . I lay down my life, that I might take it again. (18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

JOHN 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, . . .

MATTHEW 6:8 . . . your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

MATTHEW 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

MARK 2:8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? {cf. Lk 5:22}

JOHN 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

JOHN 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

JOHN 13:10-11 . . . ye are clean, but not all. (11) For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

JOHN 16:30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

JOHN 2:24-25 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all {men}, (25) And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

JOHN 18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, . . .
 
40.png
agname:
A very good article…

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ39.HTM
Click to expand...
This pertains to Mary’s knowledge of her Son. It’s from the article aganame recommends:

Fr William Most writes, " Would God ask her to consent in the name of the whole human race, and still withhold from her knowledge of that to which she was consenting? . . . We are not permitted to give Holy Communion to children who do not know what they are receiving. Would Mary be given this far greater Communion in ignorance of what she was receiving?..
 
As I understand it, the Christology of St. Thomas Aquinas (via Fr. Brian Mullady, OP) asserts that Christ’s human knowledge comes from His human soul, which is the most perfectly created thing. Therefore He must possess the kinds of knowledge that all human creatures can perfectly possess:

(1) Infused (2) Acquired (which is limited) (3) Beatific.

There is a tendency to either deny (1) and (3) at the expense of preserving (2), or to deny (2) at the expense of preserving (1) and/or (3). The former tendency seems to be common today, while the latter tendency, according to Fr. Mullady, was more common during Middle Ages. St. Thomas was able to integrate all three together, which is quite a feat.

My theology professor once said that most “little old ladies” in the U.S. today have a Apollinarian streak (I guess by denying Christ’s limited and acquired human knowledge). On the other hand, contemporary theology in certain quarters seems somewhat Adoptionistic (by denying Christ’s infused knowledge and Beatific Vision).

St. Thomas’s perspective is paradoxical, yet offers a richness that is lacking in either of the two tendencies: that Christ knew all that Divine Revelation reveals to Man and “whatever pertains to human sciences,” yet discovering the the way of speaking Aramaic from Joseph and Mary, all the while possessing the Beatific Vision from the moment of His conception.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this Thomistic richness in 472 (limited and acquired human knowledge) 473-474 (Infused and Beatific, although the Catechism isn’t precise in distinguishing the two).

And to get back to the subject, St. Thomas would argue that while Christ’s human intellect cannot comprehend (i.e. intellectually exhaust) everything in the Divine essence, Christ’s human intellect can still know the infinite. I’m not very clear on St. Thomas’s reasons, but he seems to argue that just as the Saints in Heaven can’t comprehend the infinite God, yet can still know the infinite God, so can Christ in an even greater degree. Now, since Christ’s human intellect possessed the Beatific Vision from the moment of his conception (*via * the Hypostatic Union), then He knew, but did not comprehend, the infinite, which includes His divine identity. This corresponds to the Catechism’s statement, quoting from St. Maximus the Confessor, that “[t]he 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.”

My impression is that St. Thomas wouldn’t think that the Resurrection modified Christ’s human intellect in regards to the knowledge of his divinity. I’ll have to look this up further, but from my preliminary reading of St. Thomas, while Christ assumed certain defects of body (death, hunger, and thirst), He didn’t assume the defect of intellectual ignorance. Therefore, the Resurrection doesn’t change anything intellectually in Christ as it changed his body.
 
Dear Grey,

In the light of your question, it would be helpful if you understand fully the two natures of Jesus, that is–human and divine. They are enseparable, since the time He was conceived and into eternity. To say that he didn’t know His divinity when he was human is also equivalent to saying that He was “separated” from His divine nature until He ressurected from the dead. It’s dangerous and heretical. It isn’t “uncommon” to hear from some catholic priests or even bishops who have a different and heretical view. That’s why the Catholic Church is very much secured and guided by the Holy Spirit so that she will not teach errors when in comes to expounding doctrines or dogmas thru the Magisterium and the Pope when speaking “ex cathedra.”

A very good example parallel to this particular subject is the Council of Ephesus (I recommend you read them thru EWTN website), where the Catholic bishop Nestorius was anathemized for spreading a theological error separating the two natures. We only believe in ONE Jesus Christ, and truly there is only One Begotten Son, to say otherwise is heretical. Jesus fully assumed our humanity, but didn’t leave behind His divinity—and that means He knows very well who He is.

:blessyou:
Pio
 
Grey Goose:
During a recent Parish Council meeting my pastor informed our group that Jesus did not fully understand his divinity until after his resurection from the dead. I have always been under the impression that at least since the start of his ministry on earth Jesus knew he was one person with two natures - fully devine and fully human. I quoted a couple of scripture verses such as John 10:16, “I and the Father are one” and John 8:58, “before Abraham was I Am” in order to demonstrate that it would appear that Jesus did fully comprehend His divinity. But at this my pastor simply said that Jesus did not fully comprehend His divinity until after His resurection and that’s just the way it is. I dropped the matter as it did not seem that Father was “in the mood” to help us understand what he meant and I did not think it appropriate to say anything that might undermine him in front of the council.

Can anyone help me? Is there any way or in any sense that it could be understood that Jesus did not fully comprehend his own divinity until after his resurection?
Click to expand...
Church teachings from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott
“The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment on conception” [de fide]

also
Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of existance.
Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and free from error.
From the beginning of Christ’s life, His soul possessed infused knowledge.
 
St. Thomas explains that He did not, if one defines Faith (the theological virtue) as assenting to a “Divine thing not seen”.

Since Christ possessed the Beatific Vision from the moment of His conception, as St. Thomas argues, then Christ saw “Divine things”. Therefore, St. Thomas concludes, Christ did not have the theological virtue of Faith.

The obvious difficulty is that if Christ did not live by faith, then He can’t expect us to live by faith. St. Thomas deals with a similiar objection, replying,
The merit of faith consists in this–that man through obedience assents to what things he does not see, according to Rm. 1:5: “For obedience to the faith in all nations for His name.” Now Christ had most perfect obedience to God, according to Phil. 2:8: “Becoming obedient unto death.” And hence He taught nothing pertaining to merit which He did not fulfil more perfectly Himself.
Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P comments,

St. Thomas does not teach that Christ had the merit of faith, but He had what constitutes the reward of our faith, which is perfect obedience to the loving commands of God.
So, it appears that St. Thomas’s reply would place the accent on obedience, which constitutes the merit of Faith. Since Christ obeyed perfectly, He can (and does) give us the Grace to live the obedience of assenting to “Divine things not seen”.

This may not be totally satisfactory, but it’s worth considering in depth.
 
  • To say that he didn’t know His divinity when he was human is also equivalent to saying that He was “separated” from His divine nature until He resurrected from the dead.*
No one has yet argued that Jesus did not have a perfect human knowledge of his divinity. I think that we all agree on that point.

The question that was asked, was this: “When did Jesus FULLY comprehend his divinity?”

This question is just another way of asking if Jesus was a human being whose intellect was omniscient (Jesus is omniscient in his divine nature, and only God in his omniscience can FULLY comprehend his own divinity). The answer is no, Jesus was not omniscient in his human nature. For if Jesus was omniscient in his human nature, he wasn’t a true human being, he was God the Son that was merely wearing human flesh like a suit of clothes.

The question that has been asked is one of the most difficult questions in theology, and there have been some very bad answers posted to this thread.

Vincent

My theology professor once said that most “little old ladies” in the U.S. today have a Apollinarian streak (I guess by denying Christ’s limited and acquired human knowledge).

The Apollinarian streak is being trumpeted loud and clear on this thread, but I don’t know if those who are doing the trumpeting are little old ladies. But thanks for your posts. Great stuff, as usual. 👍
  • My impression is that St. Thomas wouldn’t think that the Resurrection modified Christ’s human intellect in regards to the knowledge of his divinity.*
We will still have our human intellects when we see the beatific vision. But we will no longer need the theological virtues of faith or hope once we see the beatific vision. Our intellects can be perfected by grace, for grace perfects nature.

Before Jesus died on the Cross, he was a man of both faith and hope, just as we must be men and women of faith and hope before we see the beatific vision. Jesus was a human being like us in all things except sin. He lived by faith, and he lived by hope, and that truth is denied when one asserts that Jesus was omniscient in his human nature. If Jesus was omniscient in his human nature, then it would have been impossible for Jesus to grow in wisdom, nor would Jesus have ever needed the theological virtues of faith or hope.

And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.
Luke 2: 51-52
 
Vincent
  • Since Christ possessed the Beatific Vision from the moment of His conception, as St. Thomas argues, then Christ saw “Divine things”. Therefore, St. Thomas concludes, Christ did not have the theological virtue of Faith.*
I have never heard that Jesus possessed the beatific vision throughout his life. I know that it is taught that Jesus saw the beatific vision at his conception, and with that, I have no problem. But to what degree did Jesus see the beatific vision at his conception? Every human and angel in heaven sees the beatific vision with greater or lesser degrees of clarity.Did Jesus, in his human nature, see the beatific vision with infinite perfection, or did Jesus, in his human nature, see the beatific vision finitely, as all humans do – even humans in heaven?

I have heard some theologians argue that the souls of all humans get a glimpse of the beatific vision at their conception. Saints on earth are granted glimpses of the beatific vision, but only as through a dark looking glass - more of a refection of the beatific vision, than a direct gaze upon the face of God.

It is interesting to read that Aquinas did not believe that Jesus had the theological virtue of faith. Is that a doctrine of the faith? I find this very hard to believe. When Jesus suffered the agony in the garden, he was going through something like the dark night of the soul. What got Jesus through his dark night, other than his faith?
 
Matt16_18:

The Beatific Vision that Christ possesses would have to be finitely perfect, since, as I understand it, the subject of the Beatific Vision is the created intellect, and created intellects can never be infinite. Yet, even though His human intellect would be more powerful than ours, and hence, His Beatific knowledge would exceed ours, it would still be finite.

I’m not sure to what degree “Jesus not having the theological virtue of faith” as such is a doctrine of the faith, but I’ve read that it was considered the common teaching of theologians during the Medieval period, and perhaps until quite recently. According to Dr. Ludwig Ott, that Christ possessed the Beatific Vision from conception is “theologically certain”. Pope Pius XII wrote about it Mystici Corporis:

But the knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love.
By deduction that would eliminate the theological virtue of Faith, since those who possess the Beatific Vision have no need of Faith (and Hope). But does that deduction have the same theological grade of certainty? I don’t know.

Your question as to how to reconcile Christ’s agony with His Beatific Vision is a very good one. And there are other good questions that flow from this paradox. For the moment, though, perhaps we can say that Jesus’s awareness of “The Happy Ending” *via * His Beatific Vision and/or Infused knowledge, “got Jesus through”. That certainly didn’t make His pain any less; if anything it increased His suffering to an intensity that far exceeds what any of us will ever experience. With His theological virtue of charity, He perfectly willed obedience to the Father in the face of knowing perfectly, with excruciating detail, just how sorrowful the Passion would be.
 
Vincent

Thanks for another great answer. I don’t quite understand what mean when you say this: “For the moment, though, perhaps we can say that Jesus’s awareness of “The Happy Ending” via His Beatific Vision and/or Infused knowledge, “got Jesus through”.”

But that is OK. I never have expected to understand what it means to have both a human nature and a divine nature. The truth of the hypostatic union is something I accept by faith, not by understanding. As a human, I can understand what having a human nature is about, and God the Son became true human being. I can relate to Jesus as a human being that experienced the trials an tribulations of a human being – while at the same time accepting by faith that he was also God, and that his divine nature did not “overwhelm” his human nature to the point that his human nature was trivialized.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Phil. 2:5-8

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Why art thou so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer;
and by night, but find no rest.
Psalm 22: 1-2
 
I agree with a few of the comments here…some are a bit off.
There is no doubt to me Jesus fully understood his divinity. I heard the other day…an individual refer to his two natures…as if he was schizophrenic. Some individuals are unable to understand that he had two natures…and the fact that his human nature was perfect…free from error. I don’t believe in the bottleneck theory.

I agree with the following:

"cmom:
Church teachings from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott

“The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment on conception” [de fide]

also
Christ’s soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of existance. Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and free from error. From the beginning of Christ’s life, His soul possessed infused knowledge."

and…

"Veronica Anne:
Jesus ALWAYS (literally – in the eternal meaning of the word) knew Himself as God.

Just because when He came to Earth as a human and personally took on human nature, didn’t mean that He lost His awareness of Himself as God, as well."

and…

HEBREWS 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

(John 5:18) He also said, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:22-33).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117).
“In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever” (n. 7; PG 5.988).
“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Origen (185-254). “If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority…There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father” (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
“For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
“Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification…” (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
 
Fully understood his divinity…that is…in the way…I believe Grey is implying in his question.
 
agname
  • I’ve heard numerous borderline heretical beliefs…and fallacious arguments made by Protestants…[such as] …Jesus didn’t know his destiny until his mother told him how he was conceived…and showed him what he needed to know via scripture.*
Let me play the devil’s advocate with this one. Is this really so strange a thing to say? One difference between angels and humans, is that angels have full use of their intellect at the moment of their creation. To assert that Jesus knew his mission in life from the moment of his conception is to assert that Jesus was an incarnated angel. To be a true human being, Jesus would have to have acquired knowledge through the process of learning, since human nature necessitates learning. The reason that angels cannot be saved from sin, and that humans can be saved from sin, hinges on this difference between angels and humans.

Scriptures testify that Jesus grew in wisdom, and that he was subject to his parents. Is it so very wrong to think that Jesus learned from Mary and Joseph what it meant to be a Jew? And that in that process of learning what it meant to be a Jew, that he learned what the Messiah must suffer? Who taught Jesus Psalm 22?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top