Christian only please: Did Jesus commit suicide? (crucifixion, incarnation, Commandment)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

Monothelitism and the closely related heresy of Monophysitism seem to deal more with the nature of Go in relation to his actions and to his wills. Monothelitism, as I understand it, said that Jesus had but one divo-human nature.

No, that's monophysitism. Monothelitism, in it's classical form, was that Christ had only a Divine will.

The Church teaches that Jesus has two natures human and divine which act in concert so that the actions of Christ are the result of both natures. The result of saying that Jesus only had one nature is also that He had only one knowledge, as stated by Severus.

And this is my point. Saying that Christ had a lack of knowledge of His Divinity is to imply that He didn't have a complete Divine nature. I admit that what you described isn't precisely monothelitism (which is why I added the more or less) but that's the closest heresy I can think of to what your priest said. In any case, though, the idea of Christ being anything short of complete God and complete man, is a Christological heresy.

The priest whom I spoke of was not teaching this. This was actually in a class on Catholic theology that we where discussing this topic and we had just discussed the two natures of Jesus. What was in question is Jesus' knowledge. Did Jesus KNOW that he was God? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Jesus understood the divine plan that he must die, but it does not follow that He knew He was himself divine (CCC #474). The catechism also says that when Jesus took on human nature he took on human knowledge as well in this way he could grow in knowledge and understanding (CCC #472, Lk 2:52). So what this priest was teaching was not necessarily opposed to Church teaching. In fact, if Jesus knew that he was God then his death on the cross would have been a farce! He would have known He could not die and this knowledge would infringe on the free will choice of his human nature to willingly sacrifice his life.

Christ's self-sacrifice on he cross is not affected by His knowledge and what you suggest might not be opposed to RC teaching but if so I've just seen the gulf that would need to be crossed for a reconciliation widen considerably. What you suggest here is heresy from our point of view, so how could we even contemplate reconciling with you if this belief may be held by RCs?

I don't think that this priest has taught anything contrary to Church teaching because the Church clearly states that Jesus had human knowledge. And the argument that knowing He was God would have infringed on his free choice in His human nature, and thereby detract from the act of sacrifice, is a good one.

Nobody denies hat he had human knowledge. What your priest appears to have been denying is that He also had Divine knowledge. But how could knowledge impinge on free choice and what difference does it make to His sacrifice? I really don't understand your argument here at all. Then again, I guess that if you put way too much emphasis on the Crucifixion rather than on the Incarnation as a whole and if you go from an Incarnational model of soteriology (which is indubitably that implicit in each of the seven Ecumenical Councils) to one based on juridical concepts, this is the sort of thing you might end up believing in.

Might I suggest following the link through from my signature and reading that article? I think it would give you a beter idea of where I'm coming from with this. We are saved by who Christ is, not what He did.

James

[Runlikethewind]

Thanks for pointing me to the article James it was truly excellent and was a big help for me. I left a post in the thread to the article expressing my gratitude. But I don't want to give up just yet on this idea of Jesus' knowledge of his divinity. I am preparing a response in light of the article on soteriology and I'll post it when I'm done (want to make sure it's done right). Hopefully you will be able to clear up some more questions that came to me while reading that absolutely wonderful article.

PeAcE

[Victor]

Thus far, I agree with James completely.

[Runlikethewind]

Here are some statements in the article BEYOND JUSTIFICATION: AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE cited by James, (wonderfully article by the way...) that I would like to point out and discuss.

For we must first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.”[32]

For the East the restoration of human nature to its prelapsarian potential (justification) explains why the Son of God took on humanity’s fallen human nature

Maximos distinguished between 1) the “natural” human will, which is a characteristic of human nature; it is oriented toward God and continues to exist and operate even after the Fall, and 2) the “gnomic” will, a personal property, or personal mode of expressing the natural will which is peculiar to fallen human beings and is characterized by opinion and deliberation because the fallen human person lacks true knowledge of where the Good lies.[43]

not because it was simply “fitting” for God to become fully human in order to “pay the price” for other humans, but because it was ontologically necessary for God to become human.

Full ontological participation of God in our human life is necessary if we are to know the same quality and degree of participation in his divine life.[78]

It seems that if the nature of Christ was ontologically necessary for him to be fully human and make a fully human free choice to offer himself up then God could not have anticipated Jesus' choice and if Jesus knew he was God then he would have anticipated his choice and hence his human free will would have been outraged. I guess the important question being was it more important that God took on humanity or that God became fully human? Because if it is more important to be fully human then it seems that he shouldn't have known he was God otherwise taking on humanity would have been like putting on a cloak and taking it off again at the cruxcifiction....

A main point in the Eastern soteriology seems to be that who Jesus was was a bit more important than what he did. Jesus was the divine taking on the fullness of the fallen human nature in the incarnation, a nature that is defined by its uncertainty as Maximos says it is "characterized by opinion and deliberation because the fallen human person lacks true knowledge of where the Good lies." The article uses the analogy of sailing through a storm and being oriented to the voice of God yet due to the storm unable to tell in which direction the voice originates. Jesus had to orient himself to God in the storm just like the rest of us if He where fully human. His divine nature could have acted as a sort of internal compass so that he was always oriented to God but if He was not in the storm then he was not truly human, if he knew he was God then he didn't really become human he only took on the appearance of being human.Ontologically it was more important for Jesus to take on the full fallen human nature to reconcile it with God than it was for him to retain his divinity in the fullest sense. In fact it seems that if he retained the fullness of his divine nature then he could not have even died on the cross or died in any other way at all because God cannot die...

This idea that Jesus did not have full divine knowledge of his divinity is intricately tied to the incarnation. God became fully human (while maintaining his divine nature and will) and to be fully human requires human free will which becomes outraged if God knows what choice we make....It just seems that if it what Jesus was is more important than what he did then being fully human was very important and if Jesus knew he was God then He knew that He was not really human....

Then again my opinions might be unknowingly biased by a lifetime of viewing the issue of soteriology through the western lenes. And don't get me wrong, I'm kind of playing 'devils advocate' on this question. I'm just reaching for wisdom and clarity on this (and maybe whether I should begin to question this priest friend of mine on his questionable theology....) Any clarification that you might be able to lend on this would be greatly appreciated.

[Victor]

This may be useful to the discussion:

#3.
The fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."

[Runlikethewind]

I just thought that I might take a moment to apologize to FEO CARITAS. The original question was whether or not Jesus committed suicide and I kind of turned it into a question of whether He knew He was divine or not. I guess it kind of ties together, but I just felt bad for swinging the conversation into an unintended direction. (especially since FEO, being of the churh of Later Day Saints,...I'm not sure how they stand on the issue of Christ's divinity???)

[Runlikethewind]

Originally Posted by Victor

This may be useful to the discussion:

#3.
The fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."

I am not sure if it does help Victor. I am not saying that what was done by His human nature is not attributed to His divine nature. What I am asking is how aware of this was He? All that He did had to be attributed to the two natures working in concert, but it still doesn't seem to prove that He knew He had a divine nature.

I think that we can conclude from scripture that his divine nature was at least slightly limited, in Lk 2:52 it is said that Jesus advanced in wisdom before God. This doesn't seem to make any sense if Jesus, having divine knowledge already had wisdom. In fact as the LOGOS was He not wisdom itself??? And if Jesus had the fullness of the divine nature then he couldn't have existed in space and in time and He certainly could not have died. His divinity had to be limited in order to take on humanity at all. What I would like to know is just how limited his divinity was. And I don't know if we can ever know this untill we can ask Him ourselves, God willing we get the chance...

[Runlikethewind]

St Thomas argues in the Summa Theologica (third part question 10 article 1) that Jesus in his human nature did not comprehend the divine essence. If this is the case that Jesus could not comprehend the divine essence then could he comprehend that He was a part of that which He cannot comprehend? Now of course St Thomas is not the end all, final word on this, but if St. Thomas was limiting Jesus' comprehension of his own divine essence that he possessed, then to say that Jesus may not have been completely aware of his divinity may not be so heretical....The more I argue for this position the more it starts to make sense to me....I don't know.

[zenzero]

Freinds,
Please pardon me like all good christians if you feel that this response is not welcome:
Like to state that Jesus was as much human as we all are. He realised something which most humans do not and so he had given pointers or ways for all to have the similar understanding and experience.
Unfortunately even to this day after two centuries we are wasting time and energy in debating instead of trying and understanding what religion is all about. Is God different for people practicing differnt religion?
Love & rgds