Wednesdays with Wright: Did Jesus Know He was ‘God’?
In response to whether Jesus of Nazareth would have been aware of his own “deity” N.T. Wright says the following (from Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 653):
“Jesus did not….’know that he was God’ in the same way that one knows one is male or female, hungry or thirsty, or that one ate an orange an hour ago. His ‘knowledge’ was of a more risky, but perhaps more sufficient sort: like knowing one is loved. One cannot ‘prove’ it except by living it. Jesus’ prophetic vocation thus included within it the vocation to enact, symbolically, the return of YHWH to Zion. His messianic vocation included within it the vocation to attempt certain task which, according to scripture, YHWH had reserved for himself. He would take upon himself the role of messianic shepherd, knowing that YHWH had claimed this role as his own. He would perform the saving task which YHWH had said he alone could achieve. He would do what no messenger, no angel, but only the ‘arm of YHWH’, the presence of Israel’s god, could accomplish. As part of his human vocation, grasped in faith, sustained in prayer and doubt, and implemented in action, he believed he had to do and be, for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture, only YHWH himself could do and be. He was Israel’s Messiah; but there would, in the end, be ‘no king but God’.”
In other words, pre-resurrection, the incarnation had to be understood seriously in that Jesus would not have been aware of deity as we understand it now. Rather, he would have seen himself as an ‘embodiment’ of YHWH. This would be that which upon later Christology could build.
Thoughts?
I actually just got done listening to a series of lectures from Wheaton College that centered around NT Wright. One of the discussions revolved around this idea and used this exact quote.
It’s a topic that I’ve thought about a lot, but have yet to come to any type of conclusion. Considering I’m a twenty-eight-year-old with only a bachelor’s degree, so I’m not sure if I’m smart enough to have a conclusion yet.
I look forward to reading this discussion!
Wright once again steps aside of Scripture & Church Tradition (note Lk. 2:49, etc. “His mother kept all these things in her heart.”) She, the Theotokos…’God-bearer’. Certainly Christ knew He was the “eternal Son of the Father”..and very early! (Note, too.. Matt. 11:23-27, etc.)
@Chris: One of the most interesting points of contact from the Wheaton meetings was this argument and how it relates to John’s gospel. Wright seems to know it is in tension. John seems to indicate Jesus knew more. But I think it works well with the Synoptic depiction.
@ Fr. Robert: I don’t think it is that easy. Yes, Mary kept those things in her heart, but I don’t know that she would have known that the child born inside her was YHWH incarnate. The “Son of God” as Messiah didn’t necessitate deity. Also, Mark 3.21-35 seem to indicate there was a point where Jesus’ family serious doubted his insanity, and the narrative includes Mary herself. Jesus even responds harshly saying that his followers are his true family, indicating that if his biological family denies him they are not part of his new, messianic family.
I think it’s ultimately hard to really know if Jesus knew He was God. Even in the Synoptics, Jesus conducts His ministry in such a deliberate way that it makes you wonder, but at the same time, it could just mean that He knew He was God’s messiah. It’s a tough one to figure out and I don’t think whether He knew it or not makes much of a difference; He shows that He doesn’t know everything (Mark 13:32), so it’s not farfetched at all to say He didn’t know He was God.
And yet I can’t get past how Mark constructed His narrative of Jesus; he has John the Baptist arrive to the scene with declarations of a “stronger one” coming (which according to Gerd Theissen didn’t have messianic connotations, but rather God-coming connotations) and then he gives his version of Jesus’ narrative, which has made me wonder if it might have been an implicit message from the author of Mark to say, “Jesus is God and here’s what I know.”
reading nietzches book twilight of idols, the anti-christ, he gives the notion that jesus was crucified for his guilt, implying his ‘unassuredness’ of his own deity, and men through some form of ‘twisted’ belief make jesus a hero by using him as vehicle to take on our doubts and ‘sins’; respectively.
i find these thoughts interesting, your above stated passage and nietzches thoughts on christ because they seem to harmonize, however without having the time to abstract on the thoughts, it creates for me a pandora’s box of sorts…
i am seeing such a necessity of faith for these thoughts, if not, then, we are merely using a man to suffice our issues, compiling doubt onto doubt… a mature christian belief is no easy task to walk into, why believe in a man who is is charged for his own guilt of ‘unknowingness’?
Brian,
I think Mary knew, but she underwent certain tests and trials, and of course her knowledge somewhat increased. But she was herself the Virgin Mother of God! Note the Magnificat, and Lk. 2:35, etc. Again, we must stay in the place of faith also. We really know nothing without faith!
@Jeremy: These are good observations. It does seem hard to draw the line between Jesus and his evangelist. Did Jesus “enact” the works of YHWH, that his post-resurrection disciples began to recognize as more of an actual “embodiment”, which leads naturally into the Christian doctrine of the incarnation or did Jesus have a knowledge of himself as the actual incarnation of YHWH? Even if he did, in what sense did he view himself as sharing with the Father before time? And if we see him as knowing he is God in a sense deeper than what Wright suggest, what does this do to Paul’s kenosis.
Juven: I think Nietzsche’s accusation is misguided because it seems to see Jesus as doubting his divinity in a sense that leads to him being crucified. I do not think that makes much historical sense.
Jesus did several things that led to being crucified. One was his messianic claims which his opponents made seem like his was a challenge to Caesar (“We have no Lord bu Caesar.”) and this would be a political claim. Also, Wright notices an interesting use of Ps. 110 and Dan. 7. If there was any merging of these two we have the messianic figure sharing YHWH’s glory as seating being seated in heaven. This statement would tie him closely to deity (though not saying he was deity), but not in the sense Nietzsche seems to be criticizing.
Nietzche also said, ‘the last Christian died on the Cross’. That has a wee but more sense and profundity!
@Fr. Robert: Again, I do not think that this concludes that Mary knew the one in her womb was somehow God incarnate. Mary had no Logos doctrine, no kenosis as far as we can tell. Even John and Paul say these things in retrospect post-resurrection. The only person who may have been “in the know” in a great sense, before the resurrection, is the Beloved Disciple. That is an interesting discussion in and of itself.
Mary could have had faith without knowing these doctrines of which post-resurrection reflection make more sense.
@ brian – i am most likely doing a poor job representing nietzches view on christ, not withstanding what issues arise from jesus’ ‘ignorance’ of his own deity? what are the implications for a believer….
@ robert – yes, nietzches view on christ is pretty profound. the major feeling i got from ‘twilight of idols’ was that jesus was unsure or maybe unaware of his own deity and died with the sense of guilt for it, knowing that others believed he was the christ. he acted on his own axioms of being, staying true to the ‘divine’ within himself…
@Juven: The Scriptures already present us with this conundrum so if it is problematic it is because our doctrine, not the message given to us. In Mt. 24.36 the Son knows that there are things only the Father knows. In Acts 1.7 Jesus says something very similar even after the resurrection. In Phil. 2.5-11 we have the pre-existent Son emptying himself of divine attributes in order to be a real human. We can assume that this emptying must have included any sort of pre-birth/incarnational existence and whatever he recovered was still in the incarnation because the Father revealed it to him by the Spirit.
@ brian – thank u, i genuinely feel such depth of love in the thought of christs “emptying” his divine for us. and you are right that the doctrine (one’s own) is problematic not the message given! such food for thought!
Brian,
We can ask her if we can get close enough to the Throne of God & Glory…in the glory! I plan on seeking her near the Throne in heaven!
This aspect of doctrine cannot be expressed without faith, with Holy Scripture.
Juven and Brian,
One implication that arises if Jesus died doubtful of His own divinity is that Jesus lived a life of faith as to whether He was only a mere human being or something more. The “doubt of divinity” implies that there was at least an idea of that Jesus was divine in the first place. So for Jesus to have these doubts and go to the cross with them, not knowing fully whether He was divine, shows a life of faith. I agree with Brian that if that is Nietzsche’s view then it is probably misguided, but that’s one implication I can think of.
Yet, it is hard to ignore Larry Hurtado’s argument that Jesus is worshipped as God very early—within 20 years after His death. Furthermore, the church’s inclusion of Jesus into the divine identity of YHWH (á la Bauckham) says something as well. That these people who very well knew Jesus personally were willing to die for their worship and “deification” of Jesus tends toward confirming Jesus’ divine status. To add to that, we have documents with very high Christologies like the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews that were in circulation among and accepted widely by the churches, and under scrutiny eventually brought into the canon.
@Juven: Agreed, I think it brings us to worship the mystery of a God who in becoming man was so human he opened himself to our discussing how he could be divine!
@ Fr. Robert: I am agnostic about that. Maybe Mary will have an important place like you say here, maybe it is overblown in our traditions. The main focus will be on Christ.
Brian,
As you already know I stand within the Anglo-Catholic and Anglo-Orthodox place/position with Mary Theotokos/Mother of God, and Mother of the Redemption/Redeemed. It is a place of faith for me, but also a place of existential certainty! Mary and I have been close for years!
And I even see her hand in bringing me back to Orthodoxy!
I also really disagree with the position of Christ as always subordinate! The Gospel of John and I John certainly do not teach that!
Fair enough. But what do we make of the “I AM” passages?
TC,
I see, like J.A.T. Robinson, an early date and tradition for the Gospel of John (see his book: the Priority of John…if ya can find a copy?). So we just stand in awe of the “I AM” passages! There is more obviously, but I just cut to the chase. Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, and the Father’s image!
I am pretty traditional and patristic on St. John. 
@TC: That is a great question. Again, I think this is why Wright had admitted that the Gospel of John is the one he has the hardest time understanding. Off the top of my head I have to proposals:
(1) Jesus was being revealed more as he went along in his ministry and the Father was revealing more about their relationship. Jesus began to realize he shared a nature with the Father and this is something we see in John’s gospel that we do not see in the Synoptics because the Beloved disciple character really did know Jesus in a way that other did not know him and Jesus really did provide insight to the Beloved that he did not to others (e.g. kind of like how the Gospel of Judas depicts Jesus pulling Judas aside).
(2) Jesus said things that could be understood this way only through a post-resurrection lens. Of course, this is a troubling proposal because it would indicate Jesus did not intentionally mean to knowingly say he was the “I AM”, but rather he said things about himself (e.g. I am the way, the truth, and the life.) that the evangelist reinterprets post-resurrection to provide a fuller meaning. One example would be how Caiaphas said it would be better if one man die rather than if the whole nation perish. In its historical context, this is purely political, but for the evangelist it had a “deeper” meaning that provided a sort of atonement theology.
Brian,
What if as J.A.T. Robinson, the Gospel of John has a different tradition, and actually stands earlier than the Synoptics? And with verses like Matt. 11: 26-27, etc. the Johannine is central there also. Certainly it is the Spiritual Gospel, but who says it is last and just fills in the Synoptics? Something to think about! I wish I still had my copy ‘The Priority of John’ (JAT R.)
Brian,
We could consider Caiaphas utterance differently without such an outcome (But more on that another time.)
Okay, let’s consider a text outside the Fourth Gospel: Mark 2:5-11. I mean, what are the inferences to be drawn from these verses? Besides, we only have ae three-and-half years of ministry to work with. What in these years as reported by the Evangelists would lead to such? For now, I’m not totally convinced of Wright’s proposal.
@ Fr. Robert: I have not engaged Robertson’s work. It seems to have fallen from the favor of scholarship (which doesn’t mean much, except that it is hard to find). I know JohnDave Medina has been working with Paul Anderson at George Fox University to investigate the relationship between the earlier forms of the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, which sounds similar to Robertson’s thesis except that Anderson doesn’t see it as a final form of the gospel that was early, but rather earlier forms and the developing Johannine tradition.
@TC: I am not convinced that we must read Mk. 2.5-11 as stating directly something like the incarnation. It is very possible that the evangelist understood the situation in a similar matrix to the one I proposed above regarding the Johannine interpretation of the greater significance of Caiaphas’ statement. This is not necessary though. While I am favorable toward that reading, it could very well be that Jesus’ authority as the Messiah, as one whose activities became the center of YHWH’s activity, much like John’s baptismal ministry had been before Messiah arrived, protested the temple cult more than anything. If this is the historical context, Mark saw Jesus’ ministry as being the embodiment of YHWH’s actions in reconciling Israel, so the temple cult was not necessary, but honoring his Son is necessary (again, Ps. 2 influences such thought for me).
Does that mean that the Pharisees knowingly said Jesus was claiming to be God incarnate? I am open to being convinced, but I don’t think it probable. I think it was more nuanced than that. Nevertheless, I will say that I accept a dogmatic reading of this text as contributing something to the discussion of who Jesus was in his incarnation because I think we can read to (1) construct a historical scenarion; (2) to reconstruct the message of the evangelist; and (3) to provide dogmatic meaning to the church today as having been led by the Spirit toward catholicity.
Since we know from Johannine and Pauline thought that Jesus was more than just the one who acted out YHWH’s return to Zion, and since the church, led by the Spirit, created “founding documents” in the canon from which all theological discussion rises, it is possible to say in this situation that since it is the Jesus of the church that we discuss for doctrine, Mk. 2.5-11 take on new meaning in (a) relation to canon and (b) relation to the Spirit-led church.
Brian,
First, I have myself been in the Academia, years ago now.. and then I chose to go with the pastoral and Church ministry. I am always first and foremost a priest-pastor-teacher. I would rather be seen in this biblical place than the Academy. I could see years back that the Anglican Academia was loosing ground and slowly but surely loosing orthodoxy. Certainly there are many personal exceptions somewhat, from the now famous Tom Wright, to others not even on the radar. Though to my mind, Tom Wright is not really that Catholic or conservative, but in some places doing good biblical and theological work, i.e., the Gospels, etc. But the Anglican Communion, note the Archbishop of Canterbury, has little to no real spiritual and doctrinal substance anymore. It is like a spiritual cafeteria, one picks and chooses as they may. And this is not Catholicism, nor Orthodoxy! This is my position at least!
Now as to J.A.T. Robinson, his book: Redating the New Testament is still in print with WIPF and Stock Pub. And it speaks for itself! With other scholars quoted and in support, from James Moffatt, to C.F.D. Moule, and then Bo Reicke. There are other moderns, or people now, but I will not quote.
I would hope that you would read Robinson’s Redating, etc.?
@ Fr. Robert: It is possible that I may read it someday. We will see. There is no way I can read every book related to every subject I discuss on this blog. I wish I could do it, but I can’t, so I must be choosy. I think this blog allows me to have conversations that will provide similar enrichment while allowing me to maintain attention on the small world of scholarship that I hope to occupy.
Brian,
While there are obvious similarities between how both John and Jesus viewed their respective ministries, there are also key differences (even John highlights this).
Yes, there’s no doubt in my mind that Jesus saw himself as YHWH’s Messiah to Israel and consequently to all nations. But we’re talking more than ministry here. We’re talking about how Jesus view his very nature.
Consider this: not a few scholars and commentators have argued for an I AM at a text like Matthew 14:27. In fact, this is how the CEB renders the Greek egw eimi.
Well, on other occasions the Pharisees have so understood Jesus’ words. Consider their reaction at Matthew 27:61-68. At this point, I consider these Pharisees better interpreters of their own Scripture than you and I.
But you run the danger here of asserting that the Evangelists and the early church are the ones who actually “fabricated” the divinity of Jesus, if a cognizant reality of such is evident in the texts pre-Easter.
TC,
Nice text, Matt.14:27! Since it is a statement from Christ “walking on the water/sea” (verse 26)… the “I AM” is profound!
@TC: Indeed, I am not trying to say Jesus and John are equal. I am only pointing out that the particular reference to Jesus’ ministry functioning as the new cult, rather than the temple hierarchy, connects with something even John did when he moved the cult from the temple to his own baptismal ministry or something that Teacher of Righteousness did in Qumran.
Jesus’ self understanding is very complex. As regards Mt. 14.27 I can see how it may function like it does in the Fourth Gospel, but I am sure you are aware that it could also be something that the evangelist did not intend to say anything more than that it was Jesus (and as regards the walking on the water and the commanding of the sea, Daniel Kirk just posted something worth reading here: http://www.jrdkirk.com/2011/01/10/david-and-god/).
I don’t doubt that a canonical reading of the First Gospel could provide a new “meaning” and that the Spirit is behind this, but I do not think it was the authorial intent, per se. I could be wrong and I am open to that.
In Mt. 27.61-66, if that it the passage you intended to note, I think I am missing the point. Maybe you meant another chapter? I don’t know if I see Jesus’ promise to raise himself from the dead as necessitating knowledge of deity. Is that what you are suggesting? Maybe you can unpack that for me.
While I do see how it could be that my attempt to read Scripture through the lenses of (a) historical event; (b) authorial intent; and (c) canonical compositional context could lead to the thought that I am saying that the evangelist fabricated deity, I don’t think it necessitates that. For one, there is much that the disciples did not know about Jesus before the resurrection, and seemingly that Jesus himself may not have know, that the resurrection revealed. I think this is why Paul emphasizes the resurrection so much. Also, we Christians assume that the Spirit had continued to lead us (we confess the doctrine of the Trinity knowing that the Scriptures provide merely a foundation on which we built a more elaborate explanation). I don’t know why it would be wrong to assume the church was lead by the Spirit to solidify right doctrine through the leading of some key figures (e.g. the Beloved disciple; the Apostle Paul) that help recontexualize others (the Synoptic evangelist; James the brother of Jesus).
I appreciate this interaction TC. I find it helpful to wrestle with the matter.
Sorry for not reading all of the comments above, but with respect to this post…
I have not read other writings of this NT Wright. I’ve noticed several posts around here about him so I know a number of folks here do know who he is quite well. So, I speak not in direct criticism of NT Wright, but in criticism of the theme presented in this quote. If I read it correctly he is saying Jesus Christ did not know his true identity as the incarnation of God. On the one hand I find such a thought laughable. On the other… it’s the sort of heresy a deist or gnostic or worse would say. I find it troubling that such an opinion would predominate so much thought among the Christian religious elite. In the gospel accounts Jesus is reported making many claims of his identity, in several places referring to himself in the same name given to Moses – I AM. Why would Jesus claim to be “before Moses was, I AM” if he did not know this to be a fact? No, I would much prefer to heed someone like John MacArthur who speaks plainly of Jesus as Lord. Am I wrong about how I read this?
@Lance: I think the comments are worth reading because there have been people asking similar things. I think we must realize that Wright is not saying something that is out of the blue. The Synoptics do present a very, very human Jesus. We must continually ask ourselves if certain language meant to the evangelist what it means to us (i.e. does ‘Son of God’ equate to a incarnate Messiah or did it have another meaning at that time?). I can guarantee Wright is not a deist nor a gnostic.
@Brian – with regard to other comments and your guarantee, fair enough. I’ll leave it at that.
I would agree that the Synoptics do affect a presentation of the humanity of Christ much more so than does John. Yet, they do contain various specific claims of the divinity or deity of Jesus. It is almost as though they pursue showing the humanity of Jesus to clarify diverse oral traditions popping up about Jesus being a divine being to the exclusion of his humanity. John’s gospel assumes the humanity and seeks to present and clarify the divinity of Jesus as the Christ, yet if you read John’s first letter it is as though he assumes the divinity and argues for the humanity of Jesus. Hebrews opens with a vivid description of the divinity of Jesus. It is almost as though the different NT writers were each facing a range of heresies they were led to combat, writing at the direction of the Holy Spirit both for those specific audiences and to the benefit of all of ever since.
Amen Lance,
You and I are on the same page! And as I have noted, Jesus gave “Johannine” witness in the Synoptics…Matt. 11:25-27. This is simply a profound quote, and matches, and even deepens, the Johannine revelation! And also TC’s fine quote, of the “I AM” in Matt. 14:27…profound! Yes, certainly Jesus knew who He was…the “I AM”, and the eternal Son of the Father!
@Lance: I would agree that Christology is being addressed from various angles by these various authors. I am not closing the door to the Synoptics having a “high Christology”. In fact, either this summer or fall I intend on my last class in my current program being dedicated to such an investigation. That being said, I think there are many times where certain passages in the Synoptics that do not necessitate deity are said to be proof text of such a thing and we need to be careful not to squeeze the text too hard in order to get from it what we wish.
Brian,
You know I think this a false trail here! And I am quite aware of what passes in the so-called Christian academia today. As I wrote over at TC’s, the Apostolic Church is the “High Christology” behind all of the Gospels!
@ Fr. Robert: Um, no one is on trial here.
Brian: I diagree, you have put Holy Scripture there, as like so many today! Though perhaps unwittingly?
Though thankfully Scripture can take it, but maybe not every student of Scripture? Scripture is holy ground, it is God’s Word, and the Church’s testimony! This is now too often forgotten in academia.
*disagree
@ Fr. Robert: I am sorry you think this. If you have kept up with the comments you would see I proposed that there is a way in which these passages may address the divinity of Christ but not from the angle that many do. Yes, in canonicity and catholicity it contributes to a “high Christology”, but there are other ways to read these Scriptures, both in search of the Christology of the evangelists and the historical events that are being theologized.
Brian,
I read the comments! But I still see what I do. The problem is that mere historical method, and so-called theology cannot find the mind and method of God, alone. It must be a disciplined tool! But it has gone far from this I am afraid. Btw, note Sir Jim West’s quote by Ames today…grand!
Brian,
My point is that we cannot do real “theology” without ‘Spirit & Truth’, the regenerate heart is a must! (1 Cor. 2: 12-16) As I told TC, you should know my MO by now!
I am always the conservative & Churchman!
Brian — “we need to be careful not to squeeze the text too hard in order to get from it what we wish.” … Amen. This is a great concern to me. I appreciate your response here. Proof texting is a temptation easy to fall into.
Brian, I am intrigued by your post as I am in dialogue with a friend of mine about this very subject. I definitely respect NT Wright’s work as a scholar and would like to hear more. The person with which I am talking with does not consider the NT as authoritative; therefore, my dilemma in the conversation. I would draw my evidences from scripture, which I can see that there are points along his path where he may not have discovered his deity; yet, I am having trouble carrying this much beyond the point where he began his ministry.
@Dave: Wright, Bauckham, and Hurtado would be names that come to mind if you are looking for someone who can give you information that would equip you for a conversation where the authority of Scripture is denied. I have read much Wright, some Bauckham, and very little Hurtado, but these are the most respected names that come to mind.