-255x309.jpg "Wikipedia")
There has been a lamentable devaluing of the mystery of Jesus that has been going on for 40 years in the Church.
People have looked on Jesus as just a good man who is identified with God in some way. This has led to the positive teaching that Jesus simply learned like any other man. He had to discover he was the Messiah through investigation. Or perhaps he needed to be taught by others that he was the Messiah.
The question of the knowledge of Jesus is a reflection of what one thinks about the Incarnation, and it has been a puzzling one throughout the centuries. Only in the latter part of the 20th century did Catholics begin to think that Jesus had faith and ignorance like any other man. The solution to this question is obviously of paramount importance for any true picture of Christ.
At the outset, one must state that this question is not about the knowledge of Christ as God in his divine nature. He had two natures and so two intellects. This is a question of the knowledge enjoyed by his human intellect.
The question of the human knowledge of Christ is a very difficult one. Though the Gospels state that “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52), this was always interpreted to mean that he showed the wisdom characteristic of his age.
In fact, whatever Jesus assumed when he became man must fit into his mission, and the tradition of the Church was always that ignorance would not contribute to his perfect, loving obedience.
Until the 1960s, the common teaching of the Church enunciated most clearly by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century was that Jesus enjoyed three kinds of human knowledge: ordinary knowledge based on sense experience, a special knowledge of the “eternal plans he had come to reveal” (Catechism, 473), and the unique knowledge of his Father that St. Thomas said was the Beatific Vision of heaven.
Why was each of these kinds of knowledge posited by theologians about Christ? They were acting on the idea that if it was fitting and possible then Christ as a perfect man must possess it. All three of these kinds of knowledge are fitting and possible.
The Fathers of the Church and the Scholastic philosophers (such as Sts. Anselm, Albert the Great, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas) posited the fact that Christ had the Beatific Vision from the moment of his conception for several reasons.
First, if he did not have it he could have sinned. The Gospels do not record any sin on the part of the Christ. In fact, it was just the opposite — and it would not have been fitting for his mission of perfect obedience.
Second, if he did not have the vision of heaven, he would have to merit it for himself. Church tradition is clear that Christ came to earth only to merit for us.
The second kind of knowledge was fitting to Christ because he did not have to learn he was the Messiah. In fact, Paul is clear that Christ exercised obedience from the moment he was conceived in Mary’s womb (Hebrews 7:5-7).
He had a knowledge that God infused into his human mind from above of his mission and all it entailed. Some people made much about the fact that Christ said he did not know certain things about his mission, but as the Catechism (474) remarks: “What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal” (Mark 13:32, Acts 1:7).
Finally, many of the Scholastic theologians thought that if Christ had these two sources of knowledge it would be superfluous to think that he had to know like we do, through the everyday experience of the five senses.
Aquinas thought this in his youth, but in his more mature work, he concluded that if Jesus was to have the perfect use of all kinds of human knowledge open to the human race that he also had to be able to experience knowledge, just as the rest of the human race does.
Jesus kept the knowledge he received from higher sources from affecting his life precisely so he might suffer. For this reason he is often described as both a pilgrim on his way to heaven and a comprehensor — one who already understands heaven.
There are many theologians today who speak of Jesus having faith. This does not correspond to the Scriptures or the Tradition of the Church.
Faith, which is a virtue by which we experience knowledge of things we cannot directly know, “the essence of things unseen” (Hebrews 11:1), is attributed to all sorts of people in Scripture. It is never attributed to Christ.
Some contemporary thinkers hold that if Jesus experienced the vision of God on earth, he lost it on the cross and merely gave himself up to God in darkness and absurdity. This is simply not possible.
Christ came to earth to reverse our unloving disobedience. For this to occur, he has to make a strong and informed choice of the cross, not in itself, but as the fitting means to redeem the human race.
Many think this picture of the knowledge of Christ is fantastic or impossible. One could answer that there are examples of human genius in which certain unique individuals have precocious abilities which go beyond ordinary human knowledge.
If Mozart could compose little pieces of music at the age of 4, it does not seem fantastic that the Son of God made man could know in his mother’s womb that he was the Son of God. Eastern icons depict this theological teaching by presenting the infant Christ not as the bambino (little baby) of the Renaissance, but as a baby with an adult face.
Dominican Father Brian Mullady has a doctorate in sacred theology. He is a mission preacher and adjunct professor at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut. Parts 1 and 2 of the series are found here and here.
Matthew Warner: Ask Fr. Barron: What gives you hope for future of the Church?
Edward Pentin: Pope Writes Op-Ed on Meaning of Christmas
Comments
Post a Comment
I understand that artists, in general, did not develop and use the techniques necessary to paint or draw a realistic picture of a child until long after the painting of Eastern Icons. Using the philosophy herein discussed, they would feel free to paint an image of the Christ Man/child.
I have wrestled with this a long while, so help me out. Christ was like us in all things except sin. Could he not have been like us in needing faith? in needing to learn things as we do? When He emptied himself, not grasping at divinity as something to be cling to, could he not, as God, have given up his knowledge of everything—temporarily—to assume manhood? It was by becoming like us that he redeemed our weak flesh. Would he not have shared that weakness, that humility, taken on that frailty, by emptying himself of power and knowledge, to fully share our lot here on earth. Yet by divine grace, never sinned, so he could fulfill his mission. And on the cross, could he not have surrendered even his communion with the father, so that lacking in all consolation, only in pure faith and will was his sacrifice completed still with love, for he felt so alone and abandoned.
I would love to hear your take on these thoughts I have long wondered in prayer about.
Jesus evidently had knowledge outside of human experience for when Nathaniel questioned Jesus saying “how do you know me’? Jesus replied, “before Phillip called you, I saw you under a fig tree.” This reply shocked Nathaniel who then became a follower of Christ. The gospel writers saw this to be extraordinary event hence it is included as a testament to the divinity of Jesus.
Another fine article upholding the fullness of truth about Truth Himself, our Savior Christ Jesus. Fr. Mullady is here, as always, straight to the point, and unapologetic when it comes to the faith. If you get a chance to hear Fr. Brian Mullady in person or hear a mission talk or audio course by him, do not pass up the opportunity to deepen your knowledge of the faith, which leads to living out that faith all the more.
I agree with Donna Maria above. That observation by Jesus that he saw Nathaniel under the fig tree before Phillip called him certainly shocked Nathaniel. I must say though that Jesus’ answer that only the Father knows when the end of the world will come, always seems a rather strange one because Jesus also says that the Father and he are one. So how can the one know, and the other, not know? Of course they are two distinct Persons, although only one Being and one can say, I presume, that what is proper to one Person is not proper to the other. It was Jesus, not the Father, who died on the cross for us and it was the Holy Spirit, who descended as parted tongues of fire on the Apostles, not the Father and not Jesus. That is what I mean when I say that what is “proper” to one Person, is not “proper” to the other two Persons. So, it is “proper” to the Father that He knows when the end of the world will come and it is not proper to the other two Persons to “know” when this will happen.
“If he did not have it (beatific vision) he could have sinned.”
This does not seem to be a correct statement. Since sin is committed by persons, and Jesus was a divine person only (i.e., he did not have human personhood, contrary to the teaching of the heretic Nestorius), then it seems as though we must attribute his sinlessness to the fact that he was a divine person (as such he could not sin) rather than to say that he did not sin because he had the beatific vision in his human nature.
@JARay: “I must say though that Jesus’ answer that only the Father knows when the end of the world will come, always seems a rather strange one becaue Jesus also says that the Father and he are one. So how can the one know, and the other, not know?”
I think this problem is resolved by recognizing that Jesus could “know” in either his human nature or his divine nature. For example, he says in reference to his divine nature, “The Father and I are one” (Jn 10:30) and he says in reference to his human nature, “The Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28). His human nature was finite; hence, his human intellect could not know all things. Therefore, he could say as man that he does not know something, even though as God he must know all things. In Mt 24:27,30, 37, he refers to himself as the Son of Man, which points to his human nature. In verse 36, speaking as man, he says “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son [of man], but the Father only.” Again, Jesus is a divine person, so he must know all things in his divinity; however, the same is not true of his humanity.
You state that Jesus had the Beatific Vision. This implies relative omniscience and perfect bliss. However, there is no basis in Scripture or the Patristic Tradition that Jesus had the Beatific Vision. Scholastics who wanted to attribute every possible perfection to the human nature of Jesus maintained that He had the beatific vision. It is not an infallible teaching of the Church although it has even been mentioned in an Encyclical of Pius XII. Two points should be considered. First, the evidence in the New Testament of the limitation of Jesus’ knowledge, e.g. regarding the Parousia “no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” For many examples see Raymond E. Brown, S.S., An Introduction To New Testament Christology. Second, “How admit that Christ could really have suffered in his human nature the terrible trial of the Passion if he already possessed the beatitude reserved for the elect in heaven? How, too, could we take the agony of Gethsemane and the dereliction of Calvary seriously? Since the entire process of the Incarnation is oriented towards the work of the Redemption, the beatific vision must be excluded from Jesus’ earthly life. … He did not have the immediate vision or the beatitude of the vision.” Jean Galot, S.J., Who Is Christ? That Jesus had extraordinary knowledge is evident from the Gospels and that would be understood as the limited infused knowledge necessary for his mission. To say that Jesus had the Beatific Vision would mean that he had perfect bliss and thence could not experience true suffering. This is contrary to the Bible and the Creed.
The second kind of knowledge was fitting to Christ because he did not have to learn he was the Messiah. In fact, Paul is clear that Christ exercised obedience from the moment he was conceived in Mary’s womb (Hebrews 7:5-7).
Is Hebrews 7:5-7 the correct reference in this paragraph? The NAB (Heb 7:5-7) passage does not seem to refer to Christ in Mary’s womb.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.