an apocalyptic prophet. According to this picture, Jesus saw himself as an agent, who is ushering in the end of the age. It was to be a literal kingdom of God, where the forces of wickedness will be overthrown, and a new set of values will dominate the community. Now if this picture of Jesus is right, then it is long way from the omniscient Jesus of the classical Christology. For Ehrman, Jesus did not think he was God; he was not omniscient; instead, he was mistaken in many ways. However, if the Incarnation of the Wisdom of God does not require an omniscient Jesus or even a Jesus as intelligent as Einstein, then perhaps this “deluded” Jesus might still be that embodiment of God, that is, once we concede that there are things of which Jesus was not aware, one of which could be his own divinity.
Like every human being, Jesus is limited by the culture into which he is born. Yet those closest to him recognized in him an encounter with God. They also struggled with their expectations. The idea of “messiah” carried a set of connotations that Jesus constantly evaded. However, as Larry Hurtado has pointed out, these monotheistic Jews still found themselves worshiping the God embodied in this person.31 For all the limitations of the man, the divine came shining through. Questions about the intelligence of Jesus or whether Jesus was inaccurate in his predications about the end of the world or even the knowledge of Jesus about his own status and access to the Father are now relegated to a secondary status. Indeed one could argue that it is important for the embodiment of the Divine Sophia to have these limitations.32 The coming of the Spirit promises to take us further into the mystery of God; Jesus is a definitive disclosure of God (a control on our theology), but not a comprehensive disclosure.
Conclusion
The question was simple: Is it possible for the Eternal Word to be made manifest in a person with Down’s Syndrome? The answer I have suggested is an overwhelming affirmative. It is indeed possible. It is possible because the classical expectation of divine omniscience in Jesus is mistaken; it is possible because we recognize that underpinning the logos language is Sophia language; it is possible because wisdom is different from knowledge of countless propositional facts; and it is possible because a person with Down’s is a complete form of humanity.
Turning from possibility to what God actually did in Christ, the delightful conclusion of this article is that we need to worry less about defending a particular account of Jesus. Jesus need not meet the classical expectations for his life; he can be who he was. It is still perfectly possible that a person with a limited cultural horizon could bring to us the Wisdom of God. This is the Christian claim; this is the Christian affirmation.33
Notes
1 1 In many ways, this is an exercise in what Oliver Crisp would call “analytic theology” or perhaps “philosophical theology”.
2 2 For a good discussion see Kristin Johnston Largen, Baby Krishna, Infant Christ: A Comparative Theology of Salvation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books 2011), 41. She explains that “Krishna is not only the most powerful god, the supreme god of the universe, but is also exceedingly beautiful, which is a central part of his perfection”.
3 3 It is important to note that the conviction that the Incarnation of God could have been a person with Down’s Syndrome should not be considered the basis for affirming the intrinsic dignity of persons with Down’s Syndrome. The imago Dei (the image of God) is the basis for affirming the intrinsic dignity of all people, especially those with special needs.
4 4 The Sermon on the Mount is a good illustration of Jesus making an argument. The contrast between the Torah and the teaching of Jesus is powerful.
5 5 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1968), 333 n24.
6 6 Jasper Hopkins and Herbert Richardson, eds. and trans, Anselm of Canterbury Vol. 3 (Toronto and New York: Edwin Mellen Press 1976), 135. I am grateful to Daniel Deme for his good summary of Anselm’s position, which put simply is that “the man Jesus will never have ignorance with regard to his humanity. … [T]his man will be omniscient, even if he will not always manifest it in public.” See Daniel Deme, The Christology of Anselm of Canterbury (Aldershot, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing 2003), 158.
7 7 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST), 3a.9.2.
8 8 Aquinas, ST, 3a.9.3.
9 9 Aquinas, ST, 3a.11.1.
10 10 Aquinas, ST, 3a.9.4.
11 11 Michael Gorman is helpful here. The perfections are in Christ insofar as it furthers the salvific mission. Therefore, Gorman points out when it comes to knowledge: “Christ’s human knowledge was as extensive as human knowledge could be: he had the beatific vision, full infused knowledge, and full acquired knowledge. Of his possession of the beatific vision, Aquinas notes that this enabled Christ to be, in virtue of his humanity, the source of truth for other humans. He also had a human will and the ability to perform authentically human actions.” See Michael Gorman, “Incarnation,” in Brian Davies and Eleonore Stump, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas (New York: Oxford University Press 2012), 430.
12 12 Aquinas, ST, 3a.9.4.
13 13 Corey L. Barnes, Christ’s Two Wills in Scholastic Thought: the Christology of Aquinas and Its Historical Contexts (Toronto, ON: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 2012), 213.
14 14 One solution that I am not discussing in this article is to build on the two natures distinction embedded in the Definition of Chalcedon. On this view one confines omniscience to the divine nature of Jesus and limited knowledge is then part of the human nature. A number of writers take this line. Thomas Morris in The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press 1986), 103ff, argues for the “two minds view.” This also seems to be line in Gerald O’Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009), 240. Collins explicitly writes, “With respect to his divinity Christ is omniscient, but with respect to his humanity he is limited in knowledge”.
15 15 Pannenberg, God and Man, 329.
16 16 In our post-Kantian age, I do accept that every experience entails interpretation. However, I do think the sense of the spiritual needs to be experienced in ways that do not allow the filters of reductionist materialism to obscure the true nature of experience. Without romanticizing children, I do think that often children can see and know things in ways that adults could see and know, but fail to do so because a crude empiricism dominates the adult realm of knowing. I am grateful for the clarifying help of my colleagues Joyce Mercer and James Farwell on this point.
