When Did Jesus know that He was to be our savior?

[ktn4eg]

Philippians 2:7-8 seems to indicate that when Jesus Christ became a man He voluntarily laid aside many of His attributes as the second person of the trinity.

Although as a man He remained sinless, I have often wondered exactly what attributes He laid aside as a man. John 6:6 seems to infer that He still retained at least some degree of His omniscience.

Specifically, what I would like to know is if, as a human, Jesus always retained the knowledge of His divine purpose here on earth--even as a small child.

Luke 2:41-47 seems to infer that at least by age 12 Jesus was at least to some degree aware of His mission here on earth, but I cannot find any passage that clearly states that as a man He ALWAYS knew why He came to earth.

Maybe some of my Baptist Board friends can shed some light on this question.

 

[GODzThunder]

well I don't know if you mean in his early days (pre baptism) or entire life but I do know that many scrpitures state Jesus knew of the bitter cup he came to drink. He also stated that the son of man came to seek and save that which was lost. There are numerous references to his death in his ministry.

His prayer in the garden before his arrest shows that he truly knew that something big and burdensome was about to take place. As for being a child I really do not know as the Bible is quiet about the first years of his life mentioning only one indicent when he was twelve, possible his barmitzvah was why he was at Jerusalem at the time????

While I do not know the answer to your question I cannot imagine just what he gave up for us... Imagine the cost. The God who spoke all creation put himself into a position where he could not even feed himself without his mother giving him a bottle as a baby. What love and devotion to put yourself so low for the sake of a sinner such as I!

 

[Bob Krajcik]

I'm not able to answer the question now, but today with lunch I read a passage in Luke that speaks of the decease.

Luke 9:28 (KJV) And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

 

[Artimaeus]

Since scripture is silent as to the exact time, we can only make suppositions. He started out as a baby with a clean slate and "learned" the things that he learned it much the same way that we can learn. He was taught by his parents, teachers, and others, but for the really spiritual matters he was taught by the Holy Spirit in (I am just guessing) much the same manner that prophets, and men of God had learned since Adam. It seems that these things were revealed to him as the Father determined. this would make him the ultimate example for us. If he just "knew" them because he was God it doesn't make for a very good example to follow.

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by ktn4eg:
[QB] Philippians 2:7-8 seems to indicate that when Jesus Christ became a man He voluntarily laid aside many of His attributes as the second person of the trinity.

===

IMO God the Son laid nothing aside. He went on having the form of and the equality with God. He did not shrivel up to be contained in humanity instead of filling the creation . He did not become ignorant instead of being omniscient. He was not exhausted in Samaria at the well (Jo 4) instead of having the omnipotence to hold together the universe (Col 1).

I think God cannot change in nature or attributes.

What He did do , IMO, is take the form of a servant: true humanity. The metaphoric emptying is defined by the taking ( the modal participle 'labon')--not by a losing of anything.

"True humanity" would include, I understand, the addition of human mind and will. If it does not, how is Jesus "human"?

Then, if I'm right, Christ has two "minds" and wills: human and divine. At issue is what does the human know...not what the divine knows.

The human nature of Christ, I think, developed much as ours does (Lk 2:52) except that it matured in conjunction with the deity. The precise nature and effects of that conjunction are not clear except that it cannot be a blending of natures IMO.

It seems that certainly by 12 (Lk 2:41-52) the human nature , Jesus as a Man, grasped both His destiny and His Personhood.

I am so thankful for the humanity of Jesus as without it, how could He be tested as I am (Heb 2:18;4:15,16). BUT I am unwilling to suppose that the price of His humanity was the forsaking of any aspect of His deity.

By His deity He grasps the Father's hand and by His humanity He grasps ours. Without both true and whole natures in Christ we are lost.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

I thought I would jump in here very quickly. There are three major ways to view this question that forces one to specify the hypostatic union:

1) Two minds, wills, etc. This is the historical orthodox position and has some merit to it. For a modern, logical explanation of this view consult Thomas V. Morriss's "The Logic of God Incarnate."

2) Kenotic View: This was more popular in the 19th Century, but still has some advocates today. There are some extremes to this view that are plainly false (like the Word "giving up" essential divine attributes, and the like). However, the "refined" kenotic view is more tame because it says that we need to carefully define "divine omnipotence" and "divine omniscience" so that those attributes include the ability to temporarily limit their usage while Jesus was on earth. I think even this refined view has problems when one considers the resurrection and asks if these are still limited today, but it's another view.

3) Mind-Body Dualist Anthropology: Consult John Cooper's book "Body, Soul, and Live everlasting" (forgive me if the title is slightly different). Here, one may see little difference from the kenotic view, but the big distinction is what it means to have a human nature. A firm mind/body dualist would say that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a person and a soul. Therefore, the "Word" took on flesh and as such His divine nature was joined to a human body. This process included quite a change for the "Word" (or Son, if you like). This may be a modern form of Apollonarianism, but those who hold this view say that the Church Fathers simply had their anthropology all wrong (two minds for a person is a mind too many). As to how the Word had to change to take one flesh? They would discuss omnipotence and omniscience. For instance, omnipotence must include the ability to restrain it. Omniscience is dispositional and episodic, and Christ maintained dispositional omniscience, but chose to limit His episodic omniscience.

How would these three models answer the question: When did He know that He was to be our saviour?

1) The divine nature always knew, but the relationship between the divine mind and human mind is an asymmetrical accessing relationship, so the human mind would only know what the divine mind allowed. Thus, Christ's human mind may have had access to this knowledge sometime during His childhood, but Scripture does not say when.

2) I cannot speak so well for the kenoticist, but perhaps, they would say that God revealed this information to Him during His baptism or something like that. I am speculating so don't take my word for it.

3) Dispositionally, He always knew.

I hope this may help.
Blessings,
BJ

 

[UZThD]

Good info BC. re #2 , Erickson , Lewis, and Demarest reflect the milder kenotic view. I disagree as that IMO requires an ontological change in the Son as well as in the Trinity.

re #3 neither can I see it possible that the Word metamorphized into flesh or that the Word takes the place of the human soul as Apollinarius, and Athanasius somewhat incautiously, (and IMO Buswell teach) .

So, I espouse the first position as taught by (my understanding of) Theodoret, the Damascene, Leo, Shedd, Grudem, Calvin, Constantiople , Chemnitz, Hodge, Reymond, AB Bruce, and others, that there are in Christ two natures and that each is capable of experience, thought, will, and act .