Is there a doctrine that teaches that the baby Jesus was full of wisdom—realizing that he can do anything and doesn't need anything because he knows he is God? If so, what theological traditions hold this doctrine?

I encountered this on a forum where some members say that this baby, soon after being born, realizes that he is God. This human baby realizes that he knows everything (infinite knowledge), that he can do anything (infinite ability and power), that he is wise (infinite wisdom), and that he is infinitely great.

  • 1
    This question is boarderline topical. It only hangs on by a thread because you asked about whether this exists, but I added more specifically about who holds such a view. In the mean time 90% of the question is really just you arguing your personal view of a case, that really doesn't help frame a question, it stakes out a view. That kind of question formulation really just invites more opinions in answers and that's now what this site is for. This site isn't for debating what view is right, only documenting what is believed. Please consider narrowing the focus of any future questions. – Caleb Jan 3 '18 at 13:33
  • @Caleb, I admit that I pose my own personal opinion. But I thought it will help for my readers to know why I ask the question. To make the question simple, to me it's OK if the moderator delete all my personal opinion but leave the first two paragraphs :). Thank you. – karma Jan 3 '18 at 17:04
  • Actually I think that makes it a lot better. Letting readers know why you asked the question is great because that helps get more targeted answers, but the second paragraph does that already. After that all the content was your answer to a question that would be off topic for this site anyway, "What is the truth about the hypostatic union?". That content doesn't answer the question of what Christianity says about this, nor does knowing your interpretation help people give better answers to the question that was asked, it would just invite discussion/debate type answers which we don't want. – Caleb Jan 4 '18 at 8:33
  • His birth would not make a difference to his omniscient ability from a Catholic perspective, the same Jesus on the cross is the same 14 cell Jesus in the fallopian tube of Mary. – aska123 Jan 5 '18 at 14:46

An extremely comprehensive treatment of the historical position and evolution of this issue from the Catholic Church perspective is here. It is impossible to summarise it in this space without copying from there in extenso. Some remarks:

Christology argues that Jesus has two natures, namely divine and human. Therefore, theologians have differentiated between Jesus' divine knowledge and human knowledge. While the former is assumed to be infinite, the latter does not need to be so. Several NT texts shows a Jesus either ignorant of certain things, e.g. date and hour of End of Times, Mark 13:32:

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

or learning through life, e.g. Luke 2:52, in the context of Jesus as a boy aged 12:

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

The conclusion from the article is that the view of Jesus's human knowledge and its relation to his divine knowledge has varied over times. In fact, in the Catholic Church, there is no explicit dogma about it (as far as I know).

The current version of the Catechism expresses the official position of the Catholic Church in the matter (not very explicit, as you can see), in numbers 472-4:

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 favour with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person. "The 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." Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

(see associated footnotes in catechism page)

I finish with the conclusion from the aforementioned article:

The picture that emerges from these data points is of a shift away from the medieval consensus and a return to streams of thought found among the Church Fathers.

Our own age is like theirs in that orthodox theologians are split. Some, such as von Balthasar and Ratzinger, have held Christ’s human knowledge was more restricted than the previous consensus did. Others, such as the late Father William Most, defend the more expansive understanding of Christ’s human knowledge.

The latter is still a possibility, for the Magisterium has not condemned that view. At the same time, there has been a marked shift in the way the Magisterium treats the subject, as illustrated in the Catechism, the audiences of John Paul II, and the approval of the PBC and ITC documents we’ve reviewed.

If advocates of the traditional position are still free to propose their view, they cannot count on the support of the Magisterium in the same way or advance their arguments as if nothing has changed.

  • Would you please explain it to me of these two sentences ? (1) "Jesus has two natures, namely divine and human". As I thought God's nature is divine and human nature is not divine ---> So, "Jesus has two natures, namely divine and not divine" . Please correct me if I'm wrong to understand your sentence. (2)"learning through life, e.g. Luke 2:52". Do you mean He pretends learning something (X) while actually He already knew X since He was a baby even before He was born ? He realize that he doesn't need to learn anything as He already knows everything. Please CMIIW. Thank you lunchonacho. – karma Jan 3 '18 at 17:40
  • @karma The issue of the two natures refers to the belief that Jesus is both God and man. The technical concept is here. Not all agree though. Some self-denominated Christians do not believe in the Trinity, e.g. that Jesus is God. Regarding 2), some theologians like Augustine and Aquinas did think so, but not all. For example, see here. – luchonacho Jan 4 '18 at 8:16
  • 2
    @karma (most) trinitarians actually believe that, as weird as this sounds, Jesus has two minds, a divine mind and a human mind. His divine mind knows all things, but his human mind does not, and also can learn. This is because he is a complete divine being, and a complete human being, not some combination like a human body but only a single divine mind. So, in his human nature, he is truly learning, not pretending. What gets complicated is the limitations on the sharing of knowledge and thoughts between the minds - I don't think anyone really has a solid explanation, except that it's complex. – curiousdannii Jan 4 '18 at 13:34
  • @curiousdannii, "So, in his human nature, he is truly learning, not pretending" ---> do you mean this baby, realizing that He has two natures, this baby choose when He want it to be ? For example the baby know that "the answer is 144, uncle", but the baby choose His human nature where human newly born baby can not talk or answer a question or know who is the person asking - that's why this baby doesn't want to respond to the question. On the other hand, if this baby choose His God's nature and want to respond the question, then He can just utter the answer. Please CMIIW. – karma Jan 5 '18 at 4:17
  • @karma I don't know of any denominations that have firm theologies of how the hypostatic union functioned while Jesus was a baby, so this is just my guess: the human nature of baby Jesus was not aware that he had a divine nature, nor was he aware of what the divine nature knew. Note also that each nature has its own will, so it's not compatible with this theology to say that the baby choose which nature. – curiousdannii Jan 5 '18 at 4:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.