/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

From the OSB:

"According to St. John Chrysostom, Christ tells of the angels being unaware of the exact day of His return "so that men should not seek to learn what angles do not know," and to forbid them not only from learning the day, but from even inquiring about it. According to Mark 13:32, and in Chrysostom's Matthew text, Jesus declares that the Son also does not know the day of His own return. Chrysostom teaches this is not to be understood literally, but is a figure of speech meaning that Christ, though He revealed all the signs that will accompany His return, will not reveal the exact day to anyone, and that believers should not be so brazen as to inquire of Him." [OSB, note pa 1316]

Or he was ignorant because he humbled himself. So the human nature is capable of ignorance, and so He chooses to be ignorant that we may not seek to know it. This is perhaps the best interpretation without incurring any offense against patristic tradition or Biblical tradition.

But then God the Son is/was ignorant?

>>686677

I find John chrysostom's interpretation worrying.

Best explanation I have found so far. It also fits with the interpretation of st. John Chrysostom.

>>686679

Why?

>>686678

Or, it's a figure of speech like St. Chrysostom said.

My Father only: because from eternity He had determined in His own mind, and appointed this day, which He keeps secret. Now by the word only, the Son is not excluded, neither the Holy Ghost, for They know the day and the hour of the Judgment equally with the Father, since They have all the same essence, majesty, will, mind, power, understanding, and knowledge. For it is a theological principle, that if the word “only” be added to any of the essential attributes of the Godhead, such as wisdom, and be ascribed to one of the Divine Persons, it does not exclude the other two Persons, but only creatures, which are of a different nature and essence. But in Personal Attributes, the expression “only” does exclude two of the, Divine Persons, as when it is said, “The Father only begets;” “The Son only is begotten.”

You will say, Mark adds (xiii. 32), neither the Son, for so it is in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Egyptian, Ethiopic. Various answers are given. The best is that which is common among the Fathers. It is that the Son, both as God and as man, by infused knowledge, knows the Day of Judgment and of the end of the world, for it pertains for Him to know this, inasmuch as He has been appointed the Judge of the world. But Christ denies that He knoweth this as man, and as He is God’s messenger to us, because He did not know it so that He could reveal it to us, or because He had not been commissioned by the Father to reveal it to us. As an ambassador who was questioned concerning the secrets of his prince would reply that he did not know them, although he did know them, because he did not know them as an ambassador. For an ambassador declares only those things which he has a commission to declare.

Christ’s meaning then is, “God only knows what year and day and hour the end of the world and the Judgment shall be. And although God has caused Me, Christ, as I am man, to know the same, as I am that one man who is united to the WORD; yet as I am the Father’s ambassador to men, He hath not willed Me to make known that day, but to keep it secret, and to stir them up continually to prepare themselves for it.” There is a like mode of expression in S. John xv. 15.

There are some who explain thus: that Christ, qua man, knoweth not the Day of Judgment; but that He knoweth it as He is the God-man. That is to say, Christ as man knoweth it not by virtue of His humanity, but of His divinity. So S. Athanasius (Serm. 4, contra Arian.), Nazianzen (Orat. 4, de .Theolog.), Cyril (lib. 9, Thesaur. c. 4), Ambrose (lib. 5, de Fide, c. 8).

Maldonatus gives another explanation. He says that Christ, even as He is God, knoweth not the Day of Judgment in, as it were, an ex officio sense, because it is the office of the Father, alone to predestinate, decree, and determine the Day of Judgment; and, by consequence, that He knows it, and reveals it when He wills. For providence, in which predestination is included, is a special attribute of the Father. But this explanation is somewhat too subtle and abstruse.

>>686717

But it doesn't say he knows it and simply keeps it secret. It also doesn't say Jesus doesn't know it but the Son knows it. It simply says neither the Son knows it, nor the angels, but only the Father. It doesn't mention the Holy Spirit, so perhaps he doesn't know either.

>>686674

God made it so Jesus would not have the day and the hour revealed to him until it was time for him to return. God can do things like that.

>>686722

There's many things Jesus said and did that is not listed in the scriptures.

>But of that day and hour. By this sentence, Christ intended to hold the minds of believers in suspense that they might not, by a false imagination, fix any time for the final redemption. We know how fickle our minds are, and how much we are tickled by a vain curiosity to know more than is proper. Christ likewise perceived that the disciples were pushing forward with excessive haste to enjoy a triumph. He therefore wishes the day of his coming to be the object of such expectation and desire, that none shall dare to inquire when it will happen. In short, he wishes his disciples so to walk in the light of faith, that while they are uncertain as to the time, they may patiently wait for the revelation of him. We ought therefore to be on our guard, lest our anxiety about the time be carried farther than the Lord allows; for the chief part of our wisdom lies in confining ourselves soberly within the limits of God's word. That men may not feel uneasy at not knowing that day, Christ represents angels as their associates in this matter; for it would be a proof of excessive pride and wicked covetousness, to desire that we who creep on the earth should know more than is permitted to the angels in heaven.

>Mark adds, nor the Son himself. And surely that man must be singularly mad, who would hesitate to submit to the ignorance which even the Son of God himself did not hesitate to endure on our account. But many persons, thinking that this was unworthy of Christ, have endeavored to mitigate the harshness of this opinion by a contrivance of their own; and perhaps they were driven to employ a subterfuge by the malice of the Arians, who attempted to prove from it that Christ is not the true and only God. So then, according to those men, Christ did not know the last day, because he did not choose to reveal it to men. But since it is manifest that the same kind of ignorance is ascribed to Christ as is ascribed to the angels, we must endeavor to find some other meaning which is more suitable. Before stating it, however, I shall briefly dispose of the objections of those who think that it is an insult offered to the Son of God, if it be said that any kind of ignorance can properly apply to him.

>As to the first objection, that nothing is unknown to God, the answer is easy. For we know that in Christ the two natures were united into one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the Divine nature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, whenever it was necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of Mediator. There would be no impropriety, therefor in saying that Christ, who knew all things, (John 21:17) was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man; for otherwise he could not have been liable to grief and anxiety, and could not have been like us, (Hebrews 2:17.) Again, the objection urged by some–that ignorance cannot apply to Christ, because it is the punishment of sin – is beyond measure ridiculous. For, first, it is prodigious folly to assert that the ignorance which is ascribed to angels proceeds from sin; but they discover themselves to be equally foolish on another ground, by not perceiving that Christ clothed himself with our flesh, for the purpose of enduring the punishment due to our sins. And if Christ, as man, did not know the last day, that does not any more derogate from his Divine nature than to have been mortal.

>I have no doubt that he refers to the office appointed to him by the Father as in a former instance, when he said that it did not belong to him to place this or that person at his right or left hand, (Matthew 20:23; Mark 5:40.) For (as I explained under that passage) he did not absolutely say that this was not in his power, but the meaning was, that he had not been sent by the Father with this commission, so long as he lived among mortals. So now I understand that, so far as he had come down to us to be Mediator, until he had fully discharged his office that information was not given to him which he received after his resurrection; for then he expressly declared that power over all things had been given to him, (Matthew 28:18.)

>t. John Calvin

>>686674

He was tight-lipped about it because we are supposed, not to look for Him, but to always be doing our duty in case He returns right then.