Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Did he or Did he not know?
Mark 13:32
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
I have been getting alot of different responses, on whether Christ as a human, knew when the last day will be. Maybe somebody can clear it up, Thanks.
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
I have been getting alot of different responses, on whether Christ as a human, knew when the last day will be. Maybe somebody can clear it up, Thanks.
Comments
i am not sure how to personally answer this question...the answer to me is clear within myself, but i cannot explain it.
however, Orthodox11, if Jesus "chose" to empty Himself, and i understand it to mean that He chose to not know certain things about the future, freely choosing to limit His knowledge and thus not being inferior or superior to God the Father in any way, it sounds based almost on arianism.
Note that i do not know how to explain myself or if you are correct or not, therefore, if you could give me the references to your materials Orthodox11, i would love to read up on it.
GBU all
mg
Note that i do not know how to explain myself or if you are correct or not, therefore, if you could give me the references to your materials Orthodox11, i would love to read up on it.
Let me give a slightly more detailed answer using quotes from the Fathers. Basically Christ4Life is right.
Saint Athanasios the Great:
"Of that day or that hour no one knows, not even He Himself - that is, when viewed according to the flesh, because He too, as human, lives within the limits of the human condition. He said this to show that, viewed as an ordinary man, He does not know the future, for this is a human characteristic. Insofar as He is viewed according to His divinity as the Logos Who is to come, to judge, to be Bridegroom, however, He knows when and in what hour He will come....Viewed according to His divinity, He knows, and there is nothing which He does not know." [ Discourses Against the Arians, Third Discourse, Ch. XXVIII(46), Nicene 2nd Ser. IV:419).]
St Basil the Great explains it in another way:
"The words of Mark, when compared to Matthew [24:36], appear distinctly to exclude the Son from the knowledge. My opinion is this: No man knows, neither the angels of God; nor yet the Son would have known unless the Father had known; that is, the cause of the Son's knowing comes from the Father. To a fair hearer there is no violence in this interpretation, because the word 'only' is not added as it is in Matthew. Mark's sense, then, is as follows: of that day and of that hour no man knows, nor the angels of God; but even the Son would not have known if the Father had not known, for the knowledge naturally which is Hi was given by the Father." ["Letter CCXXVI, To Amphilochios," in Nicene, 2nd Ser., VIII:277.]
These quotes were taken from the footnotes in the Orthodox New Testament - they also have quotes from Saint Hilary and Blessed Theophylact, but I think the two above quotes are sufficient.
Hope that helps.
St. Severus of Antioch further clarifies the Christological reasons underlying Christ's ability to know the hour. According to St. Severus, Christ was omniscient according to His humanity, yet He carefully qualified this by asserting that Christ was not omniescient by virtue of His humanity. Ultimately, the human mind that Christ received was a true and real human mind like the human mind of any human being; unlike any other human being however, the human mind of Christ was hypostatised by God the Word, and hence it instantaneously received all the information held by the Divine Word upon the hypostatic union.
The fact that Christ was not ignorant bears some seriously significant soteriological implications which I will withhold from discussing in accodrance with the fact that such an issue is merely incidental to the primary inquiry of this thread. I am more than happy to pursue discussion of this issue if anyone particularly wants me to however.
Ultimately, the human mind that Christ received was a true and real human mind like the human mind of any human being; unlike any other human being however, the human mind of Christ was hypostatised by God the Word, and hence it instantaneously received all the information held by the Divine Word upon the hypostatic union.
Given this explanation, I do not believe there to be any conflict with this and the explanation given by St Athanasios, since Christ could be said to know this only by virtue of the hypostatic union of His humanity with His divinity and so not by the nature of His humanity itself. This might not have been what St Athanasios meant, but the two can be reconciled - atleast in my mind.
Its interesting how in this case the Antiochian Father, St Basil, seems to convey a line of thought which is more Alexandrian, whilst the Alexandrian Father seems to work along the Antiochian school of thought.
if Christ was not ignorant, is He just stating the He, within the human mind, although having His divine nature, was limited to a human understanding of His own free will?
Or is it because of the FACT that He had a human mind that it must be limited so that He may remain human yet still be divine?
And please elaborate on the soteriological implications...which i assume to be that Christ must remain human as well as divine to save us?
GBU
mg
Here are some more interpretations i found
(1) St. Ambrosius says, that the Lord Christ, the Condemner, who presented the
signs of His coming, could not be unaware of that knowledge. If the day of His
coming, is the true ‘Sabbath’, in which God and His saints would rest, so how could
He, being “the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mt. 12: 8)., be unaware of it ? !
(2) St. Augustine believes that the Lord Christ knows the day, yet, proclaims
otherwise; in the sense, that He does not know it, in a way to reveal it. He may mean
by that, what a teacher does, if asked to reveal the questions of his examination, his
response would be that he does not know; in other words, it is a secret that he could
not reveal. Likewise, if a father of confession was questioned about the confession
of someone, he would pretend not to know it.
St. Augustine says: [Indeed, the Father does not know anything that the Son does
not know; as the Son is the knowledge, the Word, and wisdom of the Father
Himself. But it would not be for our own interest, to know what is not good for us
to know ..... He, as a teacher, teaches us certain things, but not other things, that would harm us to no of.
Just a quick point
IF the Son revealed the end of the time, Satan could have made those around Christ fall, for he too could have known the time.
How could satan know the end of time?
also what does this have to do with making those around Christ fall???
Kristina123
I should stress however, that although the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, neither is heretical as such. They're both plausible interpretations to hold within an Orthodox Christological framework, I just think that St. Basil's interpretation helps to explain other fundamental and difficult Christological issues, such as the issue of whether or not Christ had the ability to sin. St. Basil was a cappadocian, and in theological terms, the cappadocians were in a league of their own.
dear iqbal
if Christ was not ignorant, is He just stating the He, within the human mind, although having His divine nature, was limited to a human understanding of His own free will?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "limited to a human understanding of His own free will". In any event, the purpose behind Christ's statement was, according to St. Basil, to steer the attention of the Apostle's away from such worthless concerns. Christ knew the hour according to both His divinity and His humanity, however, for the sake of the salvation of the Apostles and the world, He told them He didn't know so that they don't get caught up over the issue.
I was actually referring to the soteriological implications of the fact that Christ was never ignorant at any point in time. According to our anthropology, sin is the product of a corrupt natural will, which is in turn the product of deceit, which is in turn the product of ignorance. The fact Christ was never once ignorant, explains the perfect morality according to which He lived His life. The soteriological significance of this concerns the fact that the essential element of our human nature that needed to be healed, was the natural human will. Christ had to exercise that will in perfect submission to the Father, in order that we may do likewise and consequently re-discover the perfect image of God within us, and progress towards His likeness.
Here are some more interpretations i found
(1) St. Ambrosius says, that the Lord Christ, the Condemner, who presented the
signs of His coming, could not be unaware of that knowledge. If the day of His
coming, is the true ‘Sabbath’, in which God and His saints would rest, so how could
He, being “the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mt. 12: 8)., be unaware of it ? !
(2) St. Augustine believes that the Lord Christ knows the day, yet, proclaims
otherwise; in the sense, that He does not know it, in a way to reveal it. He may mean
by that, what a teacher does, if asked to reveal the questions of his examination, his
response would be that he does not know; in other words, it is a secret that he could
not reveal. Likewise, if a father of confession was questioned about the confession
of someone, he would pretend not to know it.
St. Augustine says: [Indeed, the Father does not know anything that the Son does
not know; as the Son is the knowledge, the Word, and wisdom of the Father
Himself. But it would not be for our own interest, to know what is not good for us
to know ..... He, as a teacher, teaches us certain things, but not other things, that would harm us to no of.
Nice; was this taken from one of Fr. Malaty's commentaries on the Gospels?
Orthodox11,
The impression I am getting from St. Athanasius, is that Christ may be said to know the hour only with respect to His divinity. He never implies that Christ knows according to His humanity by virtue of the hypostatic union. He unequivocally declares the Son's ignorance in His humanity.
I should stress however, that although the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, neither is heretical as such. They're both plausible interpretations to hold within an Orthodox Christological framework, I just think that St. Basil's interpretation helps to explain other fundamental and difficult Christological issues, such as the issue of whether or not Christ had the ability to sin.
Even if Severius of Antioch's interpretation is mutually exclusive to that of St Athanasios (although I personally don't see it as such), there is certainly no conflict between Ss. Basil and Athanasios, despite their differing approaches. St. Basil, unless I've read it wrongly, is saying that Christ knows only by virtue of the Father knowing (i.e. because He is one in essence with Him according to His divinity), and so St Basil does not seem to conflict with what St Athanasios states about Christ only knowing in (or by virtue of) His divinity. I am aware that he is one of the three Cappadocian Fathers, I just always assumed that the schools of thought were divided into two - Alexandrian and Antiochian - and the Cappadocians belonged to the latter. I guess I was wrong.
you noted:
St. Severus of Antioch further clarifies the Christological reasons underlying Christ's ability to know the hour. According to St. Severus, Christ was omniscient according to His humanity, yet He carefully qualified this by asserting that Christ was not omniescient by virtue of His humanity. Ultimately, the human mind that Christ received was a true and real human mind like the human mind of any human being; unlike any other human being however, the human mind of Christ was hypostatised by God the Word, and hence it instantaneously received all the information held by the Divine Word upon the hypostatic union.
Hence, i assume that the Human mind that Christ received was limited as our mind is limited. Is this what is being said?
so was this of Christ's own free will that the human mind was limited or because it IS a human mind that it HAD to be limited?
thank you and GBU
mg
so was this of Christ's own free will that the human mind was limited or because it IS a human mind that it HAD to be limited?
The humanity Christ assumed was exactly like ours in every aspect but sin. If Christ's 'human mind' was infinite, it would not be human, it would be divine.
In a sense both is correct. Christ's 'human mind' was limited because He out of His free will chose to assume a mind that 'HAD to be limited' because it was a human one.
But, of course, one must remember that Christ's humanity and divinity were inseperably united in a single Person/Hypostasis, and so we cannot really speak of them separately.
hence this answers my next question which was going to be how can Christ be omniscient yet still be limited.
can i ask where this reference is to st Cyril?? where can i obtain it?
but now it makes a lot more sense
thank you Iqbal and Orthodox11 and all GBU
mg
hence this answers my next question which was going to be how can Christ be omniscient yet still be limited.
This is really the same as asking "how can Christ be both God and man?" All we can really say on this issue is that He truly was fully God and fully man and that His divinity and humanity were at no point confused, nor separated - but united in a single Person of the Logos Incarnate.
As for the "how," this is, in the words of St Paul, a mystery. St Cyril's commentary on Luke 2:40 seems to demonstrate the point Iqbal made:
"To say that 'the little Child was growing and showing Himself strong in the spirit, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him,' are things spoken of concerning His humanity....He is said also to have advanced in wisdom, not as receiving added wisdom....but because God the Logos gradually manifested His wisdom proportionably to the age which the body had attained. The body then advances in stature, and the soul in wisdom; for the divine nature is capable of increase in neither one nor the other, seeing that the Logos of God is all perfect." [ Commentary, P.G. 72:136D-137C (cols. 505, 508).]
(The above quote is given as it appears in the footnotes of the Orthodox New Testament - bold emphasis my own).
When we are born, we are born ignorant. During our life however we engage with certain people and things by which our knowledge develops and increases. We read books, we watch TV, we speak with friends, we listen to our teachers i.e. we aacquire knowledge via engagement with external sources of information.
On the contrary, the source of information retained by Christ's human mind, was an internal source - His very Person i.e. The Word. Unlike the external sources of information for our minds, The Word of God encompasses infinite and perfect knowledge.
Applying the principle I have stipulated in my previous post however (re: Christ being subject to human limitations as far as He consents to such subjection), we can nonetheless conclude that Christ could will His human mind to be ignorant. St Cyril's homilies on the Gospel of Luke are a good start. Admittedly, my readings from this work in particular have been of quotations provided in secondary sources (Ancient Christian Commentary and certain textbooks). I'm not sure if the primary work itself has been translated into english as an independent work. I don't think it has actually.