Christ's Human and Divine Knowledge

[Scott]

Is the official position of the Catholic Church correct on Christ's knowledge? From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

Interesting...I'll need to read up on this and am curious for others to answer...

 

[Herald]

I am measuring my words here....

I don't have a basic problem with this particular quote from Roman teaching.

To quote the old axiom:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
Is the official position of the Catholic Church correct on Christ's knowledge? From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

While I appreciate the obvious desire to affirm the true humanity of Christ, I'm not sure they have correctly exegeted the Philippian pericope that is referenced in terms of the "emptying" (evke,nwsen) of the second person of the Trinity. A number of kenÅsis theories have always been something of a subject of controversy in Christological formulations. The all-important question is - just what exactly did the second person of the Trinity lay aside when He became the incarnate Christ? I think most of the Reformed would emphasize that Christ laid aside the *exercise* of certain divine prerogatives, but as always I stand to be corrected by one possessed of a better understanding than myself. While we do know that Christ's knowledge was limited in some respect during the days of His flesh (Mark 13:32), there are other indications in the Gospel records which seem to attribute to Christ a knowledge such as only can be explained in terms of Deity.

e.g., John 2:24-25
24 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, 25 and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.

One walks a very fine line in such discussions/formulations, lest one errs in failing to do justice to both the full deity and the full humanity of the God-man, Christ Jesus. It was just these kind of questions that provide the background for the first four ecumenical councils of the early church, all of which addressed Christological controversies.

DTK

 

[Scott]

How may souls does Christ have?

What is the relation between the limited knowledge of His human soul and Christ's unlimited divine knowledge?

Where does the divine knowledge reside, since it does not reside in His human soul?

[Edited on 5-5-2006 by Scott]

 

[larryjf]

As Christ is one person i would think He has one soul. As such, i would think that as the person of Christ is one yet the nature of God and the nature of man are hypostatically joined in Him, that the same could be said of His soul.

Perhaps the difficulty in questions like this is that we are dealing with communicable attributes (knowledge). Therefore we see the attribute residing in both of Christ's natures at the same time. That makes it harder for us to grasp.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by larryjf
As Christ is one person i would think He has one soul. As such, i would think that as the person of Christ is one yet the nature of God and the nature of man are hypostatically joined in Him, that the same could be said of His soul.

Perhaps the difficulty in questions like this is that we are dealing with communicable attributes (knowledge). Therefore we see the attribute residing in both of Christ's natures at the same time. That makes it harder for us to grasp.

For what it's worth, the Reformed have historically distinguished between archetypa theology (that which only God can know or that known only as God can know it) and ectypal theology (that known as humans can know it).

Over against the Lutherans who confess that what can be said of Jesus person can be said of either nature and thus that Jesus possessed archetypal theology in his human nature, the Reformed denied that Jesus possesses archetypal knowledge in his human nature.

Jesus does have extraodinary knowledge, but as David (Rev King) noted, he also experienced limitations. That extraordinary knowledge is not archteypal, i.e., it is capable of being known by a true human without divinization/theosis.

We want to maintain the Chalcedonian and Biblical balance by affirming his true, immutable, divinity and his true, mutable, complex, humanity in one person.

Muller's discussion of this distinction in his dictionary of theological latin and greek is excellent.

There are references here

Cheers,

rsc

 

[DTK]

As always, so very helpful Dr. Clark. I was hoping you would clarify things for us.

DTK

 

[Scott]

Dr Clark: I did not see any references to Muller in the link your provided. What books or resources would you recommend on these issues?

Thanks

 

[Scott]

As Christ is one person i would think He has one soul. As such, i would think that as the person of Christ is one yet the nature of God and the nature of man are hypostatically joined in Him, that the same could be said of His soul.

Isn't the case that the divine second Person of the Trinity took on to himself a fully human soul? That seems to be the thrust of Shorter Catechism 22:

Q22: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A22: Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body,[1] and a reasonable soul,[2] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her,[3] yet without sin.[4]

 

[Scott]

Over against the Lutherans who confess that what can be said of Jesus person can be said of either nature and thus that Jesus possessed archetypal theology in his human nature, the Reformed denied that Jesus possesses archetypal knowledge in his human nature.

Does this mean that one person (Christ) has two sets of knowledge?

What is the relation of Christ's archetypal knowledge to his ectypal knowledge? Does one take precendence over another in certain circumstances? For example when Christ said He did not know something, was the archetypal knowledge being supressed in favor of the ectypal knowledge?

Where does the ectypal knowledge reside - the human nature, the human soul, the single mind of Christ, or something else?

Thanks

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Scott
Dr Clark: I did not see any references to Muller in the link your provided. What books or resources would you recommend on these issues?

Thanks

The basic work would be his Dictionary of Theological Latin and Greek publ. by Baker.

You might want also to read his Post-Reformation Ref'd Dogmatics, vol. 1

The best place to start is probably an essay by W. van Asselt in the Westmister Theological Journal a few years back on this topic. Your reference librarian at your local library can help you find and order it via inter-library loan (tell him/her to check the ATLA database and it will pop right up). It will probably not cost you anything. Many public libraries offer this as a free (well, it's tax-funded) service.

Cheers,

rsc

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Does this mean that one person (Christ) has two sets of knowledge?

Yes. He also has two wills - monothelitism was condemned in the early church.

Jesus has two natures. These natures have distinct properties. The deity is not "humanified" nor is the humanity deified (contra Eutychianism); but not so that he becomes, is, or is said to be two persons (contra Nestorianism).

What is the relation of Christ's archetypal knowledge to his ectypal knowledge?

I think Mr Murray used to say "two sources of consciousness, one self-consciousness."

Does one take precendence over another in certain circumstances? For example when Christ said He did not know something, was the archetypal knowledge being supressed in favor of the ectypal knowledge?

Well, any attempt to explain so precisely the relation between the two natures verges on rationalism. In the nature of the case, where we witness the most wonderfully intimate relations between the divine and the human, if we could say exactly how the two natures relate, we wouldn't be Chalcedonian or Christian anymore.

The Definition of Chalcedon (451) says:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man,

Please note how Jesus' true humanity is described:

consisting also of a reasonable soul and body;

Then it continues:

of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures,

Note the conclusion contra the Eutychians:

without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,

Here is the rejection of the Nestorians:

but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

So, in answer to the question:

Where does the ectypal knowledge reside - the human nature, the human soul, the single mind of Christ, or something else?

Of course God knows what we know, but we don't know what he knows nor do we know it the way he knows it. So God the Son knows ecytpal theology in his deity and in his humanity. The proper location, if you will, of ectypal theology is the humanity. Only the deity has archetypal (divine) theology.

There are sub-divisions of ectypal theology:

theology of pilgrims (theologia viatorum) -> what we have in this life in the church militant;
theologia beatorum (theology of the blessed, experienced by the church triumphant);
theologia angelorum (theology of the angels);
theologia unionis - theology of God the Son incarnate. What the Son knows in his incarnation.

We can say that the human nature never knows archetypal theology. The deity necessarily knows it.

rsc

 

[py3ak]

Scott,

I was just reading about this yesterday in John of Damascus' Dogmatic Chapters --book 3. If you can get past the long section on Christ having two energies, the rest was helpful. He had some interesting ways of proving the orthodox doctrine of two wills.

 

[Scott]

Thanks, Dr. Clark. That is helpful as always.

Is it prioper to say that Christ has a divine soul (in addition to his human soul)?

Thanks

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by Scott
Thanks, Dr. Clark. That is helpful as always.

Is it prioper to say that Christ has a divine soul (in addition to his human soul)?

Thanks

I don't think so. The traditional language is that he has a "rational soul." The second part of the Athanasian Creed says:

He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh;

There is more to be said about this than I can say now, but this must do.

rsc

 

[Scott]

Thanks. It sounds like the "rational soul" describes the human nature. It sounds silent on whether there is a divine soul. I am not suggesting that there is.