Did Jesus Know He Was God?: Game Theory Approach

James McGrath asked the question of Did Jesus Claim to be God? in a recent post that was quickly followed up by many comments and a helpful response from Doug Chaplin.  The question 'Did Jesus Claim to be God?' might better be phrased as 'Did Jesus Claim Divinity?', or even further 'What did Jesus claim about Himself?'. These are all good questions and the response could obviously be turned into a full 500 page book. I could have tried to engage the debate and completely immerse myself in it, but I thought it might be more interesting, and more fun, to try out some applied mathematics in the world of theological questions. First, I had to make sure I was asking the right question.

I think that a significant yet simple way to phrase the question is 'Did Jesus Know He Was God?', forget what he did or did not claim for just a minute in order to allow this experiment to work, and evoke a way of thinking about what Jesus probably knew about his own divinity.

Game theory can be used this way. It is most often used in economics but it also has been found to work in politics, biology, philosophy, sociology, etc. If it can be used in all these areas of thinking, then why not theology, if only for arguments sake. Essentially, game theory is a formulaic way of finding out what is the most advantageous scenario when players are given a number of choices. Its most basic form, the strategic form, is what I used in the to answer the question 'Did Jesus Know He Was God?'.

I will save you the eyesore of viewing my original MSPaint drawing that looks like a freehand nightmare a pre-schooler might have done and share this more legible chart I developed. (which also resmebles that of an artistically inclined pre-schooler)

If your staring in confusion, please don't give up now, it is really very simple and all based on logic, allow me to explain. The 'game' is to find out which scenario (KNOW indicated by K and DON'T KNOW indicated by DK) will be most advantageous to the players (Jesus v. God). Each player is has only two options, in this case either they know Jesus is God or they don't know Jesus is God.

God, being omniscient, must know that Jesus is divine, represented by the green 3 in the bottom left hand corner. (Number 3 represents the most advantageous scenario to that player, and 0 the lowest). If God does not know it is least advantageous, therefore 0 in the top right corner. Now, the strongest scenario for Jesus (in his humanity) is to know he is God, in the top left corner, where both Jesus and God know Jesus is God. God gets a 2 because it is the second best option in God's favor. It is least advantageous to Jesus if God knows and he doesn't so Jesus gets a 0 in the bottom right.

Leaving only the bottom right corner, where both Jesus and God don't know that Jesus is God, to be the third most advantageous option for both players. However, say that the players make this move in an attempt to be harmonious towards one another, they are then in a sense equal in their knowledge of Jesus' divinity. Here is where it gets interesting.

By way of Nash Equilibrium, the players can decide to change their position after the fact of moving into the harmonious 1, 1. Say Jesus decided that he now actually knows he is God, but God does not know, Jesus receives a 2 and God 0. Jesus wins and game over, however, this is illogical in the situation at hand and therefore is an impossibility. Say that God changes his mind that he now knows Jesus to be God, and Jesus remains not knowing, God receives a 2 and Jesus receives a 3.

Solution: The best possible scenario for each player, by way of Nash Equilibrium, is for God to know Jesus is God and for Jesus to not know. Both players end in the box where they each have no incentive to change; and because God is a good God I am sure you can see why he would want the best for both of them. Of course it can get much more technical, and maybe when I have more time I will try a more elaborate method.