The following was once posted on greektheology by me:
Dear list-members,
While we were talking about the dual nature of Christ the past few days, something crossed my mind: the issue of Christ's Omniscience or lack thereof. In Mark 13:32, we read: PERI DE THS hHMERAS EKEINHS H THS hWRAS OUDEIS OIDEN OUDE hOI AGGELOI EN OURANWi OUDE hO hUIOS EI MH hO PATHR.
The NIV translates the Greek:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
My question is--does this passage teach that the LOGOS become flesh was absolutely ignorant of the day and the hour mentioned in Mark 13:32 (Matt. 24:36)? First, it would be helpful to define "absolute ignorance." But before we do that, let me pose my query in this way. If Jesus existed in two natures in the days of his enfleshment (and still does subsist in this manner, according to orthodoxy), how could he have been absolutely ignorant of the day and the hour that is only privy to the Father? If he did not know as man, it seems that he should have known the day and the hour as God. But there is an escape hatch, some may say.
Commenting on Matt. 24:36, Ralph Earle writes:
"The oldest Greek manuscripts add this ["Nor the Son"] after "angels of heaven," so Matthew agrees with Mark (13:32) in reporting Jesus as saying that He did not know the time of his second coming. This is part of His KENOSIS--His self-emptying (see Phil. 2:7, NASB)--connected with his incarnation" (Earle 22).
Thus Earle's "escape hatch" is that Jesus did not know the day or the hour because he emptied himself when he came to be in the likeness of finite men and women. In the incarnation--the Son supposedly did not subtract his deity, but simply added humanity. His "ignorance" of the time when his Father would initiate pivotal eschatological events associated with his PAROUSIA was due to his self-emptying: it did not mean that the Son was not Almighty God the second Person of the Trinity). But does this "escape hatch" really serve Earle's purpose?
There are two objections that I have to Earle's proposition. One, if Jesus existed in two natures and had two wills, how could he be totally ignorant (as Mark 13:32 implies) of the day and the hour known only by the Father? Secondly, there seems to be indirect proof that Christ was not Omniscient in his pre-existence. This fact would seem highly problematic for those who affirm Christ's "Deity." Besides, I have argued elsewhere that the temporary relinquishing of divine attributes is highly problematic.
As for absolute ignorance, I will expound on that term if others want to discuss this issue. Suffice it to say for now that I define "absolute ignorance" (in this case) as total unawareness of a fact or some particular datum (or set of data).
Best regards,
Edgar Foster
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Was Christ Absolutely Ignorant of the Day and Hour? (Matthew 24:36)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi Edgar.
"...This is part of His KENOSIS--His self-emptying (see Phil. 2:7, NASB)--connected with his incarnation" (Earle 22). Thus Earle's "escape hatch" is that Jesus did not know the day or the hour because he emptied himself when he came to be in the likeness of finite men and women. In the incarnation--the Son supposedly did not subtract his deity, but simply added humanity..."
Yes the "...empt[ying]..." ( without ) "...empt[ying]..." theory.
An obvious contradiction.
Plus the ( inconsistency ) of Tri{3}nitarian's arguing that his many "...miracles..." and misinterpreted so-called "...I AM..." statements, and other proof texts taken out of context, are miss-used as supposed proof for "...the deity/divinity..." which was supposed to be "...emptied..."!
A wanting to have your tri{3}nitarian cake and eat it conundrum.
Good points, Mt 13. I've also heard some argue that the Word did not really "become" flesh. In other words, to use the language of becoming is just a human way of speaking about a timeless deity.
Hi Edgar.
I did a post touching what your talking about. It has the earliest references I could find to Matt 24:36, Mark 13:32, Acts 1:7, in Patristic writers.
It may or may not be of use.
http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.co.nz/2011/11/matt-2436-mark-1332-acts-17-nor-son-but.html
Origen in his Commentary On Matthew 55, has a big section on Matt 24:36. I haven't been able to find an English translation of the text. I think it would make an interesting read.
The word “know” (in that passage) is a causative verb it’s used in a declarative sense. It’s the same as when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:2: Paul isn’t saying that he chooses to know literally nothing else. He’s talking about declaring nothing else but Jesus. That’s what Christ is saying as well. He’s alluding to the Jewish wedding custom where it was the prerogative of the Father to declare the exact time the son would get his bride. It doesn’t mean the son wasn’t cognitively aware of that. It’s a way of giving respect to the patriarch of the household. Jesus was a rabbi, who incorporated existing cultural phrases, idiosyncrasies and verbiage into his sermons to make them more relatable. This is to be expected because most people during this time were illiterate. They lived in an oral culture. And furthermore, after Jesus says this, He literally starts describing things that will happen, and making comparisons.
We've talked about this some before, but I see plenty of holes in the foregoing statements. What about the occurrence of μόνος in Matthew 24:36 and how the angels are excluded from knowing and the holy spirit is not even mentioned. See also Matthew 24:42; 25:13.
Additionally, how do we know Jesus meant his words causatively? Whatn grammatical, contextual or historical factors justify this interpretation? Why apply a susposed marriage practice to Matthew 24:36: it's talking about the Son of Man coming to execute judgement.
A.T. Robertson
Matt 24:36
Not even the Son (ουδε ο υιος). Probably genuine, though absent in some ancient MSS. The idea is really involved in the words "but the Father only" (ε μη ο πατηρ μονος). It is equally clear that in this verse Jesus has in mind the time of his second coming. He had plainly stated in verse 34 that those events (destruction of Jerusalem) would take place in that generation. He now as pointedly states that no one but the Father knows the day or the hour when these things (the second coming and the end of the world) will come to pass. One may, of course, accuse Jesus of hopeless confusion or extend his confession of ignorance of the date of the second coming to the whole chain of events. So McNeile: "It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Jesus as Man, expected the End, within the lifetime of his contemporaries." And that after his explicit denial that he knew anything of the kind! It is just as easy to attribute ignorance to modern scholars with their various theories as to Jesus who admits his ignorance of the date, but not of the character of the coming. Matt 24:36
See the dissertation here: https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/5692/Prairie_sbts.pdp_0207A_10360.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Start at page 71.
Post a Comment