Danny ChaiOK, so in that Wright book I’m reading, he writes something so bold about Jesus being both human and divine that I’m inclined to say it’s heretical, but he’s so well respected even in evangelical circles (J.I. Packer has a quote on the cover, he speaks at places like Calvin Theological Seminary) that it makes me think maybe my understanding has been wrong for a long time.
What he says is, Jesus didn’t know he was God in the sense that we know that something is hot or cold. Rather, he knew that he was called to do something, in the same way that, for example, some people know that they’re called to be teachers, and his calling involved actions that were reserved for God alone. That’s the extent to which he knew he was God, and is what it meant for him to be fully man and fully God. And Wright specifically mentions that many Christians get this idea wrong.
Is that right? His knowledge of being God extends to just feeling called to do things meant for God alone? I dunno, that seems not that far from the Last Temptation Of Christ, where Jesus is presented as fully human but not really certain of his divinity until he finished his work on the cross. And that movie was super controversial. This idea seems pretty similar, and I’m not sure if there’s been similar controversy. Or maybe it’s not controversial and I’m the one who misunderstood things? Anyway, it was just a surprising thing to read.