Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that there was ignorance in Christ. For that is truly in Christ which belongs to Him in His human nature, although it does not belong to Him in His Divine Nature, as suffering and death. But ignorance belongs to Christ in His human nature; for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 21) that "He assumed an ignorant and enslaved nature." Therefore ignorance was truly in Christ.

Objection 2: Further, one is said to be ignorant through defect of knowledge. Now some kind of knowledge was wanting to Christ, for the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:21) "Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made sin." Therefore there was ignorance in Christ.

Objection 3: Further, it is written (Is. 8:4): "For before the child know to call his Father and his mother, the strength of Damascus . . . shall be taken away." Therefore in Christ there was ignorance of certain things.

On the contrary, Ignorance is not taken away by ignorance. But Christ came to take away our ignorance; for "He came to enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death" (Lk. 1:79). Therefore there was no ignorance in Christ.

I answer that, As there was the fulness of grace and virtue in Christ, so too there was the fulness of all knowledge, as is plain from what has been said above (Question 7, Article 9; Question 9). Now as the fulness of grace and virtue in Christ excluded the "fomes" of sin, so the fulness of knowledge excluded ignorance, which is opposed to knowledge. Hence, even as the "fomes" of sin was not in Christ, neither was there ignorance in Him.

Reply to Objection 1: The nature assumed by Christ may be viewed in two ways. First, in its specific nature, and thus Damascene calls it "ignorant and enslaved"; hence he adds: "For man's nature is a slave of Him" (i.e. God) "Who made it; and it has no knowledge of future things." Secondly, it may be considered with regard to what it has from its union with the Divine hypostasis, from which it has the fulness of knowledge and grace, according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw Him as it were the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"; and in this way the human nature in Christ was not affected with ignorance.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ is said not to have known sin, because He did not know it by experience; but He knew it by simple cognition.

Reply to Objection 3: The prophet is speaking in this passage of the human knowledge of Christ; thus he says: "Before the Child" (i.e. in His human nature) "know to call His father" (i.e. Joseph, who was His reputed father), "and His mother" (i.e. Mary), "the strength of Damascus . . . shall be taken away." Nor are we to understand this as if He had been some time a man without knowing it; but "before He know" (i.e. before He is a man having human knowledge)---literally, "the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away by the King of the Assyrians"---or spiritually, "before His birth He will save His people solely by invocation," as a gloss expounds it. Augustine however (Serm. xxxii de Temp.) says that this was fulfilled in the adoration of the Magi. For he says: "Before He uttered human words in human flesh, He received the strength of Damascus, i.e. the riches which Damascus vaunted (for in riches the first place is given to gold). They themselves were the spoils of Samaria. Because Samaria is taken to signify idolatry; since this people, having turned away from the Lord, turned to the worship of idols. Hence these were the first spoils which the child took from the domination of idolatry." And in this way "before the child know" may be taken to mean "before he show himself to know."

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in christo fuerit ignorantia. Illud enim vere fuit in christo quod sibi competit secundum humanam naturam, licet non competat secundum divinam, sicut passio et mors. Sed ignorantia convenit christo secundum humanam naturam, dicit enim Damascenus, in III libro, quod ignorantem et servilem assumpsit naturam.

Ergo ignorantia vere fuit in christo.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, aliquis dicitur ignorans per notitiae defectum. Sed aliqua notitia defuit christo, dicit enim apostolus, II Cor. V, eum qui non novit peccatum, pro nobis peccatum fecit.

Ergo in christo fuit ignorantia.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, Isaiae VIII dicitur, antequam sciat puer vocare patrem suum et matrem suam, auferetur fortitudo Damasci.

Puer autem ille est christus. Ergo in christo fuit aliquarum rerum ignorantia.

Sed Contra

Sed contra, ignorantia per ignorantiam non tollitur. Christus autem ad hoc venit ut ignorantias nostras auferret, venit enim ut illuminaret his qui in tenebris et in umbra mortis sedent.

Ergo in christo ignorantia non fuit.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in christo fuit plenitudo gratiae et virtutis, ita in ipso fuit plenitudo omnis scientiae, ut ex praemissis patet.

Sicut autem in christo plenitudo gratiae et virtutis excludit peccati fomitem, ita plenitudo scientiae excludit ignorantiam, quae scientiae opponitur. Unde, sicut in christo non fuit fomes peccati, ita non fuit in eo ignorantia.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod natura a christo assumpta potest dupliciter considerari. Uno modo, secundum rationem suae speciei.

Et secundum hoc dicit Damascenus eam esse ignorantem et servilem.

Unde subdit, nam serva est quidem hominis natura eius qui fecit ipsam, dei, et non habet futurorum cognitionem.

Alio modo potest considerari secundum illud quod habet ex unione ad hypostasim divinam, ex qua habet plenitudinem scientiae et gratiae, secundum illud Ioan. I, vidimus eum, quasi unigenitum a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis.

Et hoc modo natura humana in christo ignorantiam non habuit.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod christus dicitur non novisse peccatum, quia nescivit per experientiam.

Scivit autem per simplicem notitiam.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod propheta ibi loquitur de humana christi scientia. Dicit ergo, antequam sciat puer, scilicet secundum humanitatem, vocare patrem suum, ioseph, qui pater fuit putative, et matrem suam, scilicet mariam, auferetur fortitudo Damasci.

Quod non est sic intelligendum quasi aliquando fuerit homo et hoc nesciverit, sed, antequam sciat, idest, antequam fiat homo scientiam habens humanam, auferetur vel, ad litteram, fortitudo Damasci et spolia Samariae, per regem Assyriorum; vel, spiritualiter, quia, nondum natus, populum suum sola invocatione salvabit, ut Glossa Hieronymi exponit.

Augustinus tamen, in sermone de epiph., dicit hoc esse completum in adoratione magorum. Ait enim, antequam per humanam carnem humana verba proferret, accepit virtutem Damasci, scilicet divitias, in quibus Damascus praesumebat in divitiis autem principatus auro defertur. Spolia vero Samariae iidem ipsi erant. Samaria namque pro idololatria ponitur, illic enim populus ad idola colenda conversus est. Haec ergo prima spolia puer idololatriae detraxit.

Et secundum hoc intelligitur, antequam sciat puer, idest, antequam ostendat se scire.