Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
|  | |
 | Texts Explained; Eleventhly, Mark xiii. 32 and Luke ii. 52. Arian explanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei; and against the context. Our Lord said He was ignorant of the Day, by reason of His human nature. If the Holy Spirit knows the Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son knows the Father, therefore He knows the Day; if He has all that is the Father's, therefore knowledge of the Day; if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father; if He created and upholds all things, He knows when they will cease to be. He knows not as Man, argued from Matt. xxiv. 42. As He asked about Lazarus's grave, &c., yet knew, so He knows; as S. Paul says, 'whether in the body I know not,' &c., yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not for our profit, that we be not curious (as in Acts i. 7, where on the contrary He did not say He knew not). As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows[as God]. Again, He advanced in wisdom also as man, else He made Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him more fully as time went on.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXVIII.—Texts
Explained; Eleventhly, Mark xiii. 32 and Luke
ii. 52 Arian explanation of the former text is against the
Regula Fidei; and against the context. Our Lord said He was ignorant of
the Day, by reason of His human nature. If the Holy Spirit knows the
Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son knows the Father, therefore He
knows the Day; if He has all that is the Father’s, therefore
knowledge of the Day; if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father;
if He created and upholds all things, He knows when they will cease to
be. He knows not as Man, argued from Matt. xxiv. 42. As He asked about Lazarus’s
grave, &c., yet knew, so He knows; as S. Paul says, ‘whether
in the body I know not,’ &c., yet knew, so He knows. He said
He knew not for our profit, that we be not curious (as in Acts i. 7, where on the contrary He did not say
He knew not). As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so
the Son knows[as God]. Again, He advanced in wisdom also as man, else
He made Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead
was manifested in Him more fully as time went on.
42. These things being
so, come let us now examine into ‘But of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son3097
| 3097 Mark xiii. 32. S. Basil takes
the words οὐδ᾽
ὁ υἱ& 231·ς, εἰ μὴ
ὁ πατήρ, to
mean, ‘nor does the Son know, except the Father knows,’ or
‘nor would the Son but for, &c.’ or ‘nor does the
Son know, except as the Father knows.’ ‘The cause of the
Son’s knowing is from the Father.’ Ep. 236, 2. S.
Gregory alludes to the same interpretation, οὐδ᾽ ὁ υἱ&
232·ς ἢ ὡς ὅτι ὁ
πατήρ. ‘Since
the Father knows, therefore the Son.’ Naz. Orat. 30, 16.
S. Irenæus seems to adopt the same when he says, ‘The Son
was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the
Father;’ Hær. ii. 28, n. 6. as Naz, supr. uses
the words ἐπὶ τὴν
αἰτίαν
ἀναφερέσθω. And so Photius distinctly, εἰς ἀρχὴν
ἀναφέρεται. ‘Not the Son, but the Father, that is, whence
knowledge comes to the Son as from a fountain.’ Epp. p.
342. ed. 1651. | ;’ for being in great ignorance as
regards these words, and being stupefied3098
| 3098 σκοτοδινιῶντες, de Decr. §18 init.; Or. ii. 40, n.
5. |
about them, they think they have in them an important argument for
their heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare themselves
with it, see in them the giants3099
| 3099 γίγαντας
θεομαχοῦντας, ii. 32, n. 4. | again fighting
against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom all things were
made, has to litigate before them about day and hour; and the Word who
knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day; and the
Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day;
now what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be
likened to this? Through the Word all things have been made, times and
seasons and night and day and the whole creation; and is the Framer of
all said to be ignorant of His work? And the very context of the
lection shews that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though
the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying,
‘nor the Son,’ He relates to the disciples what precedes
the day, saying, ‘This and that shall be, and then the
end.’ But He who speaks of what precedes the day, knows certainly
the day also, which shall be manifested subsequently to the things
foretold. But if He had not known the hour, He had not signified the
events before it, as not knowing when it should be. And as any one,
who, by way of pointing out a house or city to those who were ignorant
of it, gave an account of what
comes before the house or city, and having described all, said,
‘Then immediately comes the city or the house,’ would know
of course where the house or the city was (for had he not known, he had
not described what comes before lest from ignorance he should throw his
hearers far out of the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond
the object), so the Lord saying what precedes that day and that hour,
knows exactly, nor is ignorant, when the hour and the day are at
hand.
43. Now why it was that, though He knew, He did
not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious3100
where He has been silent; for ‘Who
hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor3101
?’ but why, though He knew, He said,
‘no, not the Son knows,’ this I think none of the faithful
is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man
by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word’s
deficiency3102
, but of that human nature3103
whose property it is to be ignorant. And
this again will be well seen by honestly examining into the occasion,
when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when the heaven was
made by Him, nor when He was with the Father Himself, the Word
‘disposing all things3104
,’ nor before
He became man did He say it, but when ‘the Word became flesh3105
.’ On this account it is reasonable to
ascribe to His manhood everything which, after He became man, He speaks
humanly. For it is proper to the Word to know what was made, nor be
ignorant either of the beginning or of the end of these (for the works
are His), and He knows how many things He wrought, and the limit of
their consistence. And knowing of each the beginning and the end, He
knows surely the general and common end of all. Certainly when He says
in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, ‘Father,
the hour is come, glorify Thy Son3106
,’ it is
plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the
Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to
man3107
| 3107 Though our Lord, as having two natures, had a human as well as a
divine knowledge, and though that human knowledge was not only limited
because human, but liable to ignorance in matters in which greater
knowledge was possible; yet it is the doctrine of the [later] Church,
that in fact He was not ignorant even in His human nature,
according to its capacity, since it was from the first taken out of its
original and natural condition, and ‘deified’ by its union
with the Word. As then (supr. ii. 45, note 1) His manhood was
created, yet He may not be called a creature even in His manhood, and
as (supr. ii. 14, note 5) His flesh was in its abstract nature a
servant, yet He is not a servant in fact, even as regards the flesh;
so, though He took on Him a soul which left to itself had been
partially ignorant, as other human souls, yet as ever enjoying the
beatific vision from its oneness with the Word, it never was ignorant
really, but knew all things which human soul can know. vid. Eulog.
ap. Phot. 230. p. 884. As Pope Gregory expresses it,
‘Novit in natura, non ex natura humanitatis.’ Epp.
x. 39. However, this view of the sacred subject was received by the
Church only after S. Athanasius’s day, and it cannot be denied
that others of the most eminent Fathers seem to impute ignorance to our
Lord as man, as Athan. in this passage. Of course it is not meant that
our Lord’s soul has the same perfect knowledge as He has as God.
This was the assertion of a General of the Hermits of S. Austin at the
time of the Council of Basel, when the proposition was formally
condemned, animam Christi Deum videre tam clare et intense quam clare
et intense Deus videt seipsum. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. p. 42. Yet
Fulgentius had said, ‘I think that in no respect was full
knowledge of the Godhead wanting to that Soul, whose Person is one with
the Word: whom Wisdom so assumed that it is itself that same
Wisdom.’ ad Ferrand. iii. p. 223. ed. 1639. Yet, ad
Trasmund. i. 7. he speaks of ignorance attaching to our
Lord’s human nature. | , and especially ignorance of these things.
Moreover this is proper to the Saviour’s love of man; for since
He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is
ignorant3108
, to say ‘I know not,’ that
He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the
flesh3109
| 3109 And
so Athan. ad Serap. ii. 9. S. Basil on the question being asked
him by S. Amphilochius, says that he shall give him the answer he had
‘heard from a boy from the fathers,’ but which was more
fitted for pious Christians than for cavillers, and that is, that
‘our Lord says many things to men in His human aspect; as
“Give me to drink,”…yet He who asked was not flesh
without a soul, but Godhead using flesh which had one.’
Ep. 236, 1. He goes on to suggest another explanation which has
been mentioned §42, note 1. Cf. Cyril Trin. pp. 623, 4.
vid. also Thes. p. 220. ‘As he submitted as man to hunger
and thirst, so.…to be ignorant.” p. 221. vid. also Greg.
Naz. Orat. 30, 15. Theodoret expresses the same opinion very
strongly, speaking of a gradual revelation to the manhood from the
Godhead, but in an argument where it was to his point to do so; in
Anath. 4. t. v. p. 23. ed. Schulze. Theodore of Mopsuestia also
speaks of a revelation made by the Word. ap. Leont. c. Nest
(Canis. i. p. 579.) | . And therefore He said not, ‘no, not
the Son of God knows,’ lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but
simply, ‘no, not the Son,’ that the ignorance might be the
Son’s as born from among men.
44. On this account, He alludes to the Angels,
but He did not go further and say, ‘not the Holy Ghost;’
but He was silent, with a double intimation; first that if the Spirit
knew, much more must the Word know, considered as the Word, from whom
the Spirit receives3110
| 3110 Or. i. 47; Serap. i. 20 fin. | ; and next by His
silence about the Spirit, He made it clear, that He said of His human
ministry, ‘no, not the Son.’ And a proof of it is this;
that, when He had spoken humanly3111
| 3111 Leporius, in his Retractation, which S. Augustine subscribed,
writes, ‘That I may in this respect also leave nothing to be
cause of suspicion to any one, I then said, nay I answered when it was
put to me, that our Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant as He was man,
(secundum hominem). But now not only do I not presume to say so, but I
even anathematize my former opinion expressed on this point,’
ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 210. A subdivision also of the Eutychians
were called by the name of Agnoetæ from their holding that our
Lord was ignorant of the day of judgment. ‘They said,’ says
Leontius, ‘that He was ignorant of it, as we say that He
underwent toil.’ de Sect. 5. circ. fin. Felix of Urgela
held the same doctrine according to Agobard’s testimony, see
§46, n. 2. Montfaucon observes on the text, that the assertion of
our Lord’s ignorance ‘seems to have been condemned in no
one in ancient times, unless joined to other error.’ And
Petavius, after drawing out the authorities for and against it, says,
‘Of these two opinions, the latter, which is now received both by
custom and by the agreement of divines, is deservedly preferred to the
former. For it is more agreeable to Christ’s dignity, and more
befitting His character and office of Mediator and Head, that is,
Fountain of all grace and wisdom, and moreover of Judge, who is
concerned in knowing the time fixed for exercising that function. In
consequence, the former opinion, though formerly it received the
countenance of some men of high eminence, was afterwards marked as a
heresy.’ Incarn. xi. 1. §15. | ‘No, not
the Son knows,’ He yet shews
that divinely He knew all things. For that Son whom He declares not to
know the day, Him He declares to know the Father; for ‘No
one,’ He says, ‘knoweth the Father save the Son3112
.’ And all men but the Arians would
join in confessing, that He who knows the Father, much more knows the
whole of the creation; and in that whole, its end. And if already the
day and the hour be determined by the Father, it is plain that through
the Son are they determined, and He knows Himself what through Him has
been determined3113
| 3113 Or. ii. 41, iii. 9, 46. | , for there is
nothing but has come to be and has been determined through the Son.
Therefore He, being the Framer of the universe, knows of what nature,
and of what magnitude, and with what limits, the Father has willed it
to be made; and in the how much and how far is included its period. And
again, if all that is the Father’s, is the Son’s (and this
He Himself has3114
said), and it is
the Father’s attribute to know the day, it is plain that the Son
too knows it, having this proper to Him from the Father. And again, if
the Son be in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father
knows the day and the hour, it is clear that the Son, being in the
Father and knowing the things of the Father, knows Himself also the day
and the hour. And if the Son is also the Father’s Very Image, and
the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son has
this likeness3115
| 3115 Basil. Ep. 236, 1. Cyril. Thes. p. 220. Ambros.
de fid. v. 197. Hence the force of the word ‘living’
commonly joined to such words as εἴκων,
σφραγίς,
βουλή,
ἐνέργεια, when speaking of our Lord, e.g. Naz. Orat. 30, 20, c.
Vid. §63, fin. note. | also to the Father
of knowing them. And it is not wonderful if He, through whom all things
were made, and in whom the universe consists, Himself knows what has
been brought to be, and when the end will be of each and of all
together; rather is it wonderful that this audacity, suitable as it is
to the madness of the Ario-maniacs, should have forced us to have
recourse to so long a defence. For ranking the Son of God, the Eternal
Word, among things originate, they are not far from venturing to
maintain that the Father Himself is second to the creation; for if He
who knows the Father knows not the day nor the hour, I fear lest the
knowledge of the creation, or rather of the lower portion of it, be
greater, as they in their madness would say, than knowledge concerning
the Father.
45. But for them, when they thus blaspheme the
Spirit, they must expect no remission ever of such irreligion, as the
Lord has said3116
; but let us, who
love Christ and bear Christ within us, know that the Word, not as
ignorant, considered as Word, has said ‘I know not,’ for He
knows, but as shewing His manhood3117
| 3117 It is
a question to be decided, whether our Lord speaks of actual ignorance
in His human Mind, or of the natural ignorance of that Mind considered
as human; ignorance in or ex natura; or, which comes to
the same thing, whether He spoke of a real ignorance, or of an
economical or professed ignorance, in a certain view of His incarnation
or office, as when He asked, ‘How many loaves have ye?’
when ‘He Himself knew what He would do,’ or as He is called
sin, though sinless. Thus it has been noticed, supr. ii. 55, n.
7, that Ath. seems to make His infirmities altogether only imputative,
not real, as if shewing that the subject had not in his day been
thoroughly worked out. In like manner S. Hilary, who, if the passage be
genuine, states so clearly our Lord’s ignorance, de Trin.
ix. fin. yet, as Petavius observes, seems elsewhere to deny to Him
those very affections of the flesh to which he has there paralleled it.
And this view of Athan.’s meaning is favoured by the turn of his
expressions. He says such a defect belongs to ‘that human
nature whose property it is to be ignorant;’ §43. that
‘since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the
flesh which is ignorant, to say, “I know
not;”’ ibid. and, as here, that ‘as shewing
His manhood, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that
He had put on a flesh that was ignorant, being in which,
He said according to the flesh, “I know not;”’
‘that He might shew that as man He knows not;’
§46. that ‘as man’ (i.e. on the ground
of being man, not in the capacity of man), ‘He knows
not;’ ibid. and that, ‘He asks about Lazarus
humanly,’ even when ‘He was on His way to raise
him,’ which implied surely knowledge in His human nature. The
reference to the parallel of S. Paul’s professed ignorance when
he really knew, §47. leads us to the same suspicion. And so
‘for our profit as I think, did He this.’
§§48–50. The natural want of precision on such
questions in the early ages was shewn or fostered by such words
as οἰκονομικῶς, which, in respect of this very text, is used by S. Basil
to denote both our Lord’s Incarnation, Ep. 236, 1 fin. and
His gracious accommodation of Himself and His truth, Ep. 8, 6.
and with the like variety of meaning, with reference to the same text,
by Cyril. Trin. p. 623. and Thesaur. p. 224. (And the
word dispensatio in like manner, Ben. note on Hil. x. 8.)
In the latter Ep. S. Basil suggests that our Lord
‘economizes by a feigned ignorance.’ §6. And S. Cyril.
Thesaur. p. 224. And even in de Trin. vi. he seems to
recognise the distinction laid down just now between the natural and
actual state of our Lord’s humanity; and so Hilary, Trin.
ix. 62. And he gives reasons why He professed ignorance, n. 67. viz. as
S. Austin words it, Christum se dixisse nescientem, in quo alios facit
occultando nescientes. Ep. 180, 3. S. Austin follows him,
saying, Hoc nescit quod nescienter facit. Trin. i. 23. Pope
Gregory says that the text ‘is most certainly to be referred to
the Son not as He is Head, but as to His body which we are.’
Ep x. 39. And S. Ambrose de fid. v. 222. And so
Cæsarius, Qu. 20. and Photius Epp. p. 366. Chrysost. in
Matt. Hom. 77, 3. Theodoret, however, but in controversy, is
very severe on the principle of Economy. ‘If He knew the day, and
wishing to conceal it, said He was ignorant, see what a blasphemy is
the result. Truth tells an untruth.’ l. c, pp. 23, 4. | , in that to be
ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on flesh that was
ignorant3118
, being in which, He said according to
the flesh, ‘I know not.’ And for this reason, after saying,
‘No not the Son knows,’ and mentioning the ignorance of the
men in Noah’s day, immediately He added, ‘Watch therefore,
for ye know not in what hour your Lord doth come,’ and again,
‘In such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh3119
.’ For I too, having become as you for
you, said ‘no, not the Son.’ For, had He been ignorant
divinely, He must have said, ‘Watch therefore, for I know
not,’ and, ‘In an hour when I think not;’ but in fact
this hath He not said; but by saying ‘Ye know not’ and
‘When ye think not,’ He has signified that it belongs to
man to be ignorant; for whose sake He too having a flesh like theirs
and having become man, said ‘No, not the Son knows,’ for He
knew not in flesh, though knowing as Word. And again the example from Noah exposes the shamelessness of
Christ’s enemies; for there too He said not, ‘I knew
not,’ but ‘They knew not until the flood came3120
.’ For men did not know, but He who
brought the flood (and it was the Saviour Himself) knew the day and the
hour in which He opened the cataracts of heaven and broke up the great
deep, and said to Noah, ‘Come thou and all thy house into the
ark3121
.’ For were He ignorant, He had not
foretold to Noah, ‘Yet seven days and I will bring a flood upon
the earth.’ But if in describing the day He makes use of the
parallel of Noah’s time, and He did know the day of the flood,
therefore He knows also the day of His own coming.
46. Moreover, after narrating the parable of the
Virgins, again He shews more clearly who they are who are ignorant of
the day and the hour, saying, ‘Watch therefore, for ye know
neither the day nor the hour3122
.’ He who said
shortly before, ‘No one knoweth, no not the Son,’ now says
not ‘I know not,’ but ‘ye know not.’ In like
manner then, when His disciples asked about the end, suitably said He
then, ‘no, nor the Son,’ according to the flesh because of
the body; that He might shew that, as man, He knows not; for ignorance
is proper to man3123
| 3123 The
mode in which Athan. here expresses himself, is as if he did not
ascribe ignorance literally, but apparent ignorance, to our
Lord’s soul, vid. supr. 45. n. 2; not certainly in the
broad sense in which heretics have done so. As Leontius, e.g. reports
of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that he considered Christ ‘to be
ignorant so far, as not to know, when He was tempted, who tempted
Him;’ contr. Nest. iii. (Canis. t. i. p. 579.) and Agobard
of Felix the Adoptionist that he held ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ
according to the flesh truly to have been ignorant of the
sepulchre of Lazarus, when He said to his sisters, ‘Where have ye
laid him?’ and was truly ignorant of the day of judgment;
and was truly ignorant what the two disciples were saying, as
they walked by the way, of what had been done at Jerusalem; and was
truly ignorant whether He was more loved by Peter than by the
other disciples, when He said, ‘Simon Peter, Lovest thou Me more
than these?’ B. P. t. 9. p. 1177. [Cf. Prolegg. ch.
iv. §5.] | . If however He is
the Word, if it is He who is to come, He to be Judge, He to be the
Bridegroom, He knoweth when and in what hour He cometh, and when He is
to say, ‘Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and
Christ shall give thee light3124
.’ For as, on
becoming man, He hungers and thirsts and suffers with men, so with men
as man He knows not; though divinely, being in the Father Word and
Wisdom, He knows, and there is nothing which He knows not. In like
manner also about Lazarus3125
He asks humanly,
who was on His way to raise him, and knew whence He should recall
Lazarus’s soul; and it was a greater thing to know where the soul
was, than to know where the body lay; but He asked humanly, that He
might raise divinely. So too He asks of the disciples, on coming into
the parts of Cæsarea, though knowing even before Peter made
answer. For if the Father revealed to Peter the answer to the
Lord’s question, it is plain that through the Son3126
was the revelation, for ‘No one
knoweth the Son,’ saith He, ‘save the Father, neither the
Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him3127
.’ But if through the Son is revealed
the knowledge both of the Father and the Son, there is no room for
doubting that the Lord who asked, having first revealed it to Peter
from the Father, next asked humanly; in order to shew, that asking
after the flesh, He knew divinely what Peter was about to say. The Son
then knew, as knowing all things, and knowing His own Father, than
which knowledge nothing can be greater or more perfect.
47. This is sufficient to confute them; but to
shew still further that they are hostile to the truth and
Christ’s enemies, I could wish to ask them a question. The
Apostle in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians writes, ‘I knew
a man in Christ, above fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do not
know, or whether out of the body I do not know; God knoweth3128
| 3128 2 Cor. xii. 2. S. Augustine
understands the passage differently, i.e. that S. Paul really did not
know whether or not he was in the body. Gen. ad lit. xii.
14. | .’ What now say ye? Knew the Apostle
what had happened to him in the vision, though he says ‘I know
not,’ or knew he not? If he knew not, see to it, lest, being
familiar with error, ye err in the trespass3129
| 3129 παρανομίαν, §2, n. 5. | of
the Phrygians3130
| 3130 Cf.
Jerome, ‘He speaks not in ecstasy, as Montanus, Prisca, and
Maximilla rave;’ Præf. in Naum. In like manner
Tertullian speaks of ‘amentia, as the spiritalis vis qua constat
prophetia;’ de Anim. 21. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. v. 16.
Epiphanius too, noticing the failure of Maximilla’s prophecies,
says, ‘Whatever the prophets have said, they spoke with
understanding, following the sense.’ Hær. 48. p. 403.
In the de Syn. 4. Athan. speaks of the Montanists as making a
fresh beginning of Christianity; i.e. they were the first heretics who
professed to prophesy and to introduce a new or additional
revelation. | , who say that the
Prophets and the other ministers of the Word know neither what they do
nor concerning what they announce. But if he knew when he said ‘I
know not,’ for he had Christ within him revealing to him all
things, is not the heart of God’s enemies indeed perverted and
‘self-condemned?’ for when the Apostle says, ‘I know
not,’ they say that he knows; but when the Lord says, ‘I
know not,’ they say that He does not know. For if since Christ
was within him, Paul knew that of which he says, ‘I know
not,’ does not much more Christ Himself know, though He say,
‘I know not?’ The Apostle then, the Lord revealing it to
him, knew what happened to him; for on this account he says, ‘I
knew a man in Christ;’ and knowing the man, he knew also how the
man was caught away. Thus Elisha, who beheld Elijah, knew also how he was taken up; but though knowing,
yet when the sons of the Prophets thought that Elijah was cast upon one
of the mountains by the Spirit, he knowing from the first what he had
seen, tried to persuade them; but when they urged it, he was silent,
and suffered them to go after him. Did he then not know, because he was
silent? he knew indeed, but as if not knowing, he suffered them, that
they being convinced, might no more doubt about the taking up of
Elijah. Therefore much more Paul, himself being the person caught away,
knew also how he was caught; for Elijah knew; and had any one asked, he
would have said how. And yet Paul says ‘I know not,’ for
these two reasons, as I think at least; one, as he has said himself,
lest because of the abundance of the revelations any one should think
of him beyond what he saw; the other, because, our Saviour having said
‘I know not,’ it became him also to say ‘I know
not,’ lest the servant should appear above his Lord, and the
disciple above his Master.
48. Therefore He who gave to Paul to know, much
rather knew Himself; for since He spoke of the antecedents of the day,
He also knew, as I said before, when the Day and when the Hour, and yet
though knowing, He says, ‘No, not the Son knoweth.’ Why
then said He at that time ‘I know not,’ what He as Lord3131
, knew? as we may by searching conjecture,
for our profit3132
| 3132 This
expression, which repeatedly occurs in this and the following sections,
surely implies that there was something economical in our Lord’s
profession of ignorance. He said with a purpose, not as a mere plain
fact or doctrine. [But see Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.] | , as I think at
least, did He this; and may He grant to what we are now proposing a
true meaning! On both sides did the Saviour secure our advantage; for
He has made known what comes before the end, that, as He said Himself,
we might not be startled nor scared, when they happen, but from them
may expect the end after them. And concerning the day and the hour He
was not willing to say according to His divine nature, ‘I
know,’ but after the flesh, ‘I know not,’ for the
sake of the flesh which was ignorant3133
, as I have
said before; lest they should ask Him further, and then either He
should have to pain the disciples by not speaking, or by speaking might
act to the prejudice of them and us all. For whatever He does, that
altogether He does for our sakes, since also for us ‘the Word
became flesh.’ For us therefore He said ‘No, not the Son
knoweth;’ and neither was He untrue in thus saying (for He said
humanly, as man, ‘I know not’), nor did He suffer the
disciples to force Him to speak, for by saying ‘I know not’
He stopped their inquiries. And so in the Acts of the Apostles it is
written, when He went upon the Angels, ascending as man, and carrying
up to heaven the flesh which He bore, on the disciples seeing this, and
again asking, ‘When shall the end be, and when wilt Thou be
present?’ He said to them more clearly, ‘It is not for you
to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own
power3134
.’ And He did not then say, ‘No,
not the Son,’ as He said before humanly, but, ‘It is not
for you to know.’ For now the flesh had risen and put off its
mortality and been deified; and no longer did it become Him to answer
after the flesh when He was going into the heavens; but henceforth to
teach after a divine manner, ‘It is not for you to know times or
seasons which the Father hath put in His own power; but ye shall
receive Power3135
| 3135 Vid.
Basil. Ep. 8, 6. Cyril. Thes. p. 222. Ambros. de
fid. v. 212. Chrysost. and Hieron. in loc. Matt. | .’ And what is
that Power of the Father but the Son? for Christ is ‘God’s
Power and God’s Wisdom.’
49. The Son then did know, as being the Word; for
He implied this in what He said,—‘I know but it is not for
you to know;’ for it was for your sakes that sitting also on the
mount I said according to the flesh, ‘No, not the Son
knoweth,’ for the profit of you and all. For it is profitable to
you to hear so much both of the Angels and of the Son, because of the
deceivers which shall be afterwards; that though demons should be
transfigured as Angels, and should attempt to speak concerning the end,
you should not believe, since they are ignorant; and that, if
Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, ‘I am
Christ,’ and should try in his turn to speak of that day and end,
to deceive the hearers, ye, having these words from Me, ‘No, not
the Son,’ may disbelieve him also. And further, not to know when
the end is, or when the day of the end, is expedient for man, lest
knowing, they might become negligent of the time between, awaiting the
days near the end; for they will argue that then only must they attend
to themselves3136
| 3136 Vid.
Hilar. in Matt. Comment. 26, 4; de Trin. ix. 67; Ambros.
de Fid. v. c. 17. Isidor. Pelus. Epp. i. 117. Chrysost.
in Matt. Hom. 77, 2 and 3. | . Therefore also has
He been silent of the time when each shall die, lest men, being elated
on the ground of knowledge, should forthwith neglect themselves for the
greater part of their time. Both then, the end of all things and the
limit of each of us hath the Word concealed from us (for in the end of
all is the end of each, and in the end of each the end of all is
comprehended), that, whereas it is uncertain and always in prospect, we may advance day by day
as if summoned, reaching forward to the things before us and forgetting
the things behind3137
. For who, knowing
the day of the end, would not be dilatory with the interval? but, if
ignorant, would not be ready day by day? It was on this account that
the Saviour added, ‘Watch therefore, for ye know not what hour
your Lord doth come;’ and, ‘In such an hour as ye think
not, the Son of man cometh3138
.’ For the
advantage then which comes of ignorance has He said this; for in saying
it, He wishes that we should always be prepared; ‘for you,’
He says, ‘know not; but I, the Lord, know when I come, though the
Arians do not wait for Me, who am the Word of the Father.’
50. The Lord then, knowing what is good for us
beyond ourselves, thus secured the disciples; and they, being thus
taught, set right those of Thessalonica3139
when likely on this point to run into error. However, since
Christ’s enemies do not yield even to these considerations, I
wish, though knowing that they have a heart harder than Pharaoh, to ask
them again concerning this. In Paradise God asks, ‘Adam, where
art Thou3140
| 3140 Gen. iii. 9; iv.
9.
This seems taken from Origen, in Matt. t. 10. §14. vid.
also Pope Gregory and Chrysost. infr. | ’ and He inquires of Cain also,
‘Where is Abel thy brother3141
| 3141 S.
Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Pope Gregory, in addition to the instances
in the text, refer to ‘I will go down now, and see whether
they have done, &c., and if not, I will know.’
Gen. xviii.
21.
‘The Lord came down to see the city and the tower,
&c.’ Gen. xi. 5. ‘God looked down
from heaven upon the children of men to see,
&c.’ Ps. liii. 3. ‘It may
be they will reverence My Son.’ Matt. xxi. 37; Luke xx.
13.
‘Seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, He came, if
haply He might find, &c.’ Mark xi. 13. ‘Simon,
lovest thou Me?’ John xxi. 15. vid. Ambros.
de Fid. v. c. 17. Chrys. in Matt. Hom. 77, 3. Greg.
Epp. x. 39. Vid. also the instances, supr. §37.
Other passages may be added, such as Gen. xxii. 12. vid. Berti
Opp. t. 3. p. 42. But the difficulty of the passage lies in its
signifying that there is a sense in which the Father knows what the Son
knows not. | ?’ What
then say you to this? for if you think Him ignorant and therefore to
have asked, you are already of the party of the Manichees, for this is
their bold thought; but if, fearing the open name, ye force yourselves
to say, that He asks knowing, what is there extravagant or strange in
the doctrine, that ye should thus fall, on finding that the Son, in
whom God then inquired, that same Son who now is clad in flesh,
inquires of the disciples as man? unless forsooth, having become
Manichees, you are willing to blame3142
the question
then put to Adam and all that you may give full play3143
| 3143 νεανιεύησθε, vid. Decr. 18 init. de Fug. 4.
b. | to your perverseness. For being exposed on
all sides, you still make a whispering3144
| 3144 τονθορύζετε, vid. Decr. 16. |
from the words of Luke, which are rightly said, but ill understood by
you. And what this is, we must state, that so also their corrupt3145
| 3145 διεφθαρμένη, §58 fin. | meaning may be shewn.
51. Now Luke says, ‘And Jesus advanced in
wisdom and stature, and in grace with God and man3146
.’ This then is the passage, and since
they stumble in it, we are compelled to ask them, like the Pharisees
and the Sadducees, of the person concerning whom Luke speaks. And the
case stands thus. Is Jesus Christ man, as all other men, or is He God
bearing flesh? If then He is an ordinary3147
man as the rest, then let Him, as a man, advance; this however is the
sentiment of the Samosatene, which virtually indeed you entertain also,
though in name you deny it because of men. But if He be God bearing
flesh, as He truly is, and ‘the Word became flesh,’ and
being God descended upon earth, what advance had He who existed equal
to God? or how had the Son increase, being ever in the Father? For if
He who was ever in the Father, advanced, what, I ask, is there beyond
the Father from which His advance might be made? Next it is suitable
here to repeat what was said upon the point of His receiving and being
glorified. If He advanced3148
| 3148 De
Syn. 24, n. 9, vid. supr. §39; Orat. iv.
11. | when He became man,
it is plain that, before He became man, He was imperfect; and rather
the flesh became to Him a cause of perfection, than He to the flesh.
And again, if, as being the Word, He advances, what has He more to
become than Word and Wisdom and Son and God’s Power? For the Word
is all these, of which if one can anyhow partake as it were one ray,
such a man becomes all perfect among men, and equal to Angels. For
Angels, and Archangels, and Dominions, and all the Powers, and Thrones,
as partaking the Word, behold always the face of His Father. How then
does He who to others supplies perfection, Himself advance later than
they? For Angels even ministered to His human birth, and the passage
from Luke comes later than the ministration of the Angels. How then at
all can it even come into thought of man? or how did Wisdom advance in
wisdom? or how did He who to others gives grace (as Paul says in every
Epistle, knowing that through Him grace is given, ‘The grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all’), how did He advance in
grace? for either let them say that the Apostle is untrue, and presume
to say that the Son is not Wisdom, or else if He is Wisdom as Solomon
said, and if Paul wrote, ‘Christ God’s Power and
God’s Wisdom,’ of what advance did Wisdom admit
further?
52. For men, creatures as they are, are capable in a certain way of reaching
forward and advancing in virtue3149
| 3149 It is
the doctrine of the [medieval and modern] Church that Christ, as man,
was perfect in knowledge from the first, as if ignorance were hardly
separable from sin, and were the direct consequence or accompaniment of
original sin. Cf. Aug. de Pecc. Mer. ii. 48. As to the limits of
Christ’s perfect knowledge as man, Petavius observes, that we
must consider ‘that the soul of Christ knew all things that are
or ever will be or ever have been, but not what are only in
posse, not in fact.’ Incarn. xi. 3, 6. | . Enoch, for
instance, was thus translated, and Moses increased and was perfected;
and Isaac ‘by advancing became great3150
;’ and the Apostle said that he
‘reached forth3151
’ day by day
to what was before him. For each had room for advancing, looking to the
step before him. But the Son of God, who is One and Only, what room had
He for reaching forward? for all things advance by looking at Him; and
He, being One and Only, is in the Only Father, from whom again He does
not reach forward, but in Him abideth ever3152
.
To men then belongs advance; but the Son of God, since He could not
advance, being perfect in the Father, humbled Himself for us, that in
His humbling we on the other hand might be able to increase. And our
increase is no other than the renouncing things sensible, and coming to
the Word Himself; since His humbling is nothing else than His taking
our flesh. It was not then the Word, considered as the Word, who
advanced; who is perfect from the perfect Father3153
, who needs nothing, nay brings forward
others to an advance; but humanly is He here also said to advance,
since advance belongs to man3154
| 3154 Vid.
Serm. Maj. de Fid. 18. | . Hence the
Evangelist, speaking with cautious exactness3155
,
has mentioned stature in the advance; but being Word and God He is not
measured by stature, which belongs to bodies. Of the body then is the
advance; for, it advancing, in it advanced also the manifestation3156
of the Godhead to those who saw it. And, as
the Godhead was more and more revealed, by so much more did His grace
as man increase before all men. For as a child He was carried to the
Temple; and when He became a boy, He remained there, and questioned the
priests about the Law. And by degrees His body increasing, and the Word
manifesting Himself3157
| 3157 It is
remarkable, considering the tone of his statements in the present
chapter, that here and in what follows Athan. should resolve our
Lord’s advance in wisdom merely to its gradual manifestation
through the flesh [but he says expressly ‘the Manhood advanced in
wisdom!’] and it increases the proof that his statements are not
to be taken in the letter, and as if fully brought out and settled.
Naz. says the same, Ep. ad Cled. 101. p. 86. which is the more
remarkable since he is chiefly writing against the Apollinarians, who
considered a φανέρωσις
the great end of our Lord’s coming; and Cyril.
c. Nest. iii. p. 87. Theod. Hor. v. 13. On the other
hand, S. Epiphanius speaks of Him as growing in wisdom as man.
Hær. 77. p. 1019–24. and S. Ambrose, Incarn.
71–14. Vid. however Ambr. de fid. as quoted supr.
§45, n. 2. | in it, He is
confessed henceforth by Peter first, then also by all, ‘Truly
this is the Son of God3158
;’ however
wilfully the Jews, both the ancient and these modern3159
, shut fast their eyes, lest they see that to
advance in wisdom is not the advance of Wisdom Itself, but rather the
manhood’s advance in It. For ‘Jesus advanced in wisdom and
grace;’ and, if we may speak what is explanatory as well as true,
He advanced in Himself; for ‘Wisdom builded herself an
house,’ and in herself she gave the house advancement.
53. (What moreover is this advance that is spoken
of, but, as I said before, the deifying and grace imparted from Wisdom
to men, sin being obliterated in them and their inward corruption,
according to their likeness and relationship to the flesh of the Word?)
For thus, the body increasing in stature, there developed in it the
manifestation of the Godhead also, and to all was it displayed that the
body was God’s Temple3160
| 3160 Or. ii. 10, n. 7; iii. 58. | , and that God was
in the body. And if they urge, that ‘The Word become flesh’
is called Jesus, and refer to Him the term ‘advanced,’ they
must be told that neither does this impair3161
the Father’s Light3162
, which is the Son,
but that it still shews that the Word has become man, and bore true
flesh. And as we said3163
that He suffered in
the flesh, and hungered in the flesh, and was fatigued in the flesh, so
also reasonably may He be said to have advanced in the flesh; for
neither did the advance, such as we have described it, take place with
the Word external to the flesh, for in Him was the flesh which advanced
and His is it called, and that as before, that man’s advance
might abide3164
and fail not, because of the Word
which is with it. Neither then was the advance the Word’s, nor
was the flesh Wisdom, but the flesh became the body of Wisdom3165
. Therefore, as we have already said, not
Wisdom, as Wisdom, advanced in respect of Itself; but the manhood
advanced in Wisdom, transcending by degrees human nature, and being
deified, and becoming and appearing to all as the organ3166
of Wisdom for the operation and the shining
forth3167
of the Godhead. Wherefore neither said he,
‘The Word advanced,’ but Jesus, by which Name the Lord was
called when He became man; so that the advance is of the human nature
in such wise as we explained above.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
