T(r)oy's Marbles

There are a few ways of looking at this. I will explain them briefly. (Bear with me, we are getting to your specific question: “Was Jesus fully aware of his divinity when he was a child or did his God-consciousness develop to full maturity as he got older?”)

The development of Christian thought about this issue culminated in the year 451 when the church fathers convened a council in Chalcedon to address this issue. Here is their finding (note the parts I’ve underlined):

“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, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; 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, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, 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.”

The extension of this way of looking at Christ’s two natures with regard to our specific topic is this: Jesus Christ was always fully God and fully man and he was always and at all times fully aware of this.

This finding was a further clarification of thinking done in the centuries before the Council of Chalcedon.

For example, Tertullian (ca. 196) put together the two natures of Christ in this fashion: “One then has to ask how the Word was made flesh—whether it was transformed into flesh or whether it put on flesh. The answer is emphatically that it put on flesh.” To help understand his concept, we could draw the analogy of someone getting dressed. To Tertullian, the “clothing” Jesus wore was “human flesh” while the essence of the man underneath the clothes was divine.

In contrast, Eusebius (ca. 323) thinks of it the other way around: “…the humanity in its entirety was swallowed up by the divinity.” To use our analogy, Eusebius would think of Jesus the man, putting on the clothes of divinity. Eusebius, it is important to note, does not say that Jesus put on divinity sometime later in his life; rather, he affirms that Jesus (from the moment of conception) put on divinity. (In other words, Eusebius is not a “grandfather to Mormonism”, which is really a form of “Arianism”—a 3rd and 4th century heresy condemned at the council of Nicea, which taught that Jesus was not God).

You can see that, in either case, both Tertullian and Eusebius would be within the bounds of “orthodox” (i.e., “correct”) belief: both would affirm Jesus’ total humanity and total divinity at all times, and both would affirm his awareness of this for his entire life.

You can also see that the Council of Chalcedon (451) is merely a further explanation of the slightly contrasting views of Tertullian and Eusebius in previous centuries.

Now, let’s skip ahead in time and take a look at what modern theologians say about the issue: by and large, modern theology affirms this ancient belief with the exception of one group: the liberal theologians. This, by the way, is the main reason the issue is being raised again in the 20th and 21st century.

Specifically, liberal theology is based on modernism—a belief that our understanding of truth and reality is established chiefly (if not solely) by empirical evidence and scientific exploration. As such, modern liberal theologians tend to separate the word “Jesus” from the word “Christ.” Specifically, modern liberal theologians talk about “the Jesus of history” (science) and “the Christ of faith” (religion). This has led them to “revise” the New Testament record about Jesus. They try to explain his miracles in light of science (which causes them to not so much “explain” his miracles, as much as it causes them to “explain away” his miracles).

They also try to explain his teachings about himself in light of science. Specifically, in light of science and “reason”, they try to explain that Jesus was just a man like everyone else but that he possessed a certain Messianic quality (as do all of us, they claim) that is dependant on our faith. In other words, they claim that Jesus becomes God because we want him to be God; they claim that our faith makes Jesus God. But for others who choose not to believe that, Jesus can just be a human.

In response to the liberal theologians I would say this: Jesus is the Christ whether we choose to believe it or not. Jesus’ divinity is not dependant on our faith. He either is God or He isn’t. If He isn’t God, our believing He is doesn’t change that fact. But if He is God our unbelief doesn’t change that fact either.

I mention the modern liberal theologians, because, in light of this view of the person of Jesus, they formulate their Christology in this fashion: at times they see Jesus acting as a man and thinking like a man (the “Jesus of history”), and at other times they see him acting as God and thinking like God (the “Christ of faith”). The analogy of clothing might be helpful. Modern liberal thinkers say something like, “Jesus has two outfits in his closet: one human and one divine. Sometimes you see Jesus putting on the human outfit and other times you see him putting on the divine outfit.”

This is where the question at hand comes in: “Did Jesus ‘put on his divine outfit’ when he got older? Was Jesus’ humanity more dominant when he was younger and his divinity more dominant when he got older?”

You can see that, compared to the Church’s definitive council on this matter, to answer “yes” to those questions is outside the bounds of orthodoxy. Jesus is fully God and fully man and he was always fully aware of this.

We’ll stop there for today. That should be enough “food for thought” for now! Tomorrow, we’ll move on to the biblical record concerning this matter.

Love,
Troy