Topic: so called ignorance of christ Matthew 24:36

[marlo]

how do eastern orthodox respond to this verse Matthew 24:36, which shows the so called ignorance of christ

 36 "No one knows about that day or hour. Not even the angels in heaven know. The Son does not know. Only the Father knows.

thanks
marlo

[ialmisry]

how do eastern orthodox respond to this verse Matthew 24:36, which shows the so called ignorance of christ

 36 "No one knows about that day or hour. Not even the angels in heaven know. The Son does not know. Only the Father knows.

thanks
marlo

For the moment:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LXXIV.html

[recent convert]

In the Orthodox Study Bible, the note (refering to a homily St. John Chrysostom) says that Jesus Christ is basically telling us that we are not allowed to know this and that His saying He does not know is a figure of speech clarifying this prohibition in that He will not tell us.

[LizaSymonenko]

It doesn't say "the Son does not know" in the King James version.

    34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

    35  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

    36  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

    37  But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.



Nowhere did Christ say that He did not know. 

I could be sharing a secret with someone and tell you that you don't know my secret, neither do the neighbors, only my Mom.  Which might mean that I know and she knows it.

I am truly offended at the word "ignorance" ever being used in any association with Christ.

[Heorhij]

Pani Lizo, He said it in Mark 13:32. But you are right, of course, the term "ignorance" does not quite apply here.

[ialmisry]

It doesn't say "the Son does not know" in the King James version.

    34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

    35  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

    36  But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

    37  But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.



Nowhere did Christ say that He did not know. 

I could be sharing a secret with someone and tell you that you don't know my secret, neither do the neighbors, only my Mom.  Which might mean that I know and she knows it.

I am truly offended at the word "ignorance" ever being used in any association with Christ.

Check Mark 13:32

[LizaSymonenko]

Ahhhh...  thanks, guys!

Still, don't use the word "ignorant".   

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Is it possible that in His omnipotence Our Lord chose not to know? Perhaps it was part of His "kenosis?"

Selam

[marlo]

the same word was used by chrysostom himself
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LXXIV.html

Pani Lizo, He said it in Mark 13:32. But you are right, of course, the term "ignorance" does not quite apply here.

[marlo]

my standpoint in this, is that since christ is the knowledge of God and know all things,
surely that he should know the year, month, decade,  but how come with respect to the hour and time.
he said "Neither the Son"

but since in Acts 1:7 "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority".

it follows only that the Father has not yet set the Time and Day yet (maybe during that time)
therefore its true that Neither the Son know, since there is no date and time that the Father has given yet.

your take?

Is it possible that in His omnipotence Our Lord chose not to know? Perhaps it was part of His "kenosis?"

Selam

[Theophilos78]

First, the New Testament teaches that Jesus knows everything:

Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” (John 21:17)

Second, I read somewhere that Jesus' supposed ignorance of the Day and Hour is identical with His not "knowing" the sinners on the Day of Judgment:

Later, the other virgins came too, saying, ‘Lord, lord! Let us in!’ But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I do not know you!’ (Matthew 25:11-12)

Third, most scholars argue that Jesus said He did not know the Day and Hour because the Father did not choose to reveal this knowledge through the Son in human flesh. (This theory has already been brought up by some posters here).

Fourth, Jesus once likens His second coming to a wedding banquet prepared by the King for the Son (Matthew 22:1-2). Thus, it is natural that only the Father know the date of the wedding as he is the one organizing the wedding.

Finally, Jesus is almighty, but once He denies that He has the right to determine who will sit at His right and left:

He told them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right and at my left is not mine to give. Rather, it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” (Matthew 20:23)

This is a simiar case to the one concerning Jesus' knowledge of the Last Day. In both cases Jesus denies ability and refers to the Father as the sole wielder of authority. Why does Jesus say this? In both instances Jesus' denial shows humility and implies that different requests of men (to know the Day and sit at Jesus' right and left) cause Him to ignore certain things. However, the important thing is that in both cases the central person is Jesus rather than the Father since Jesus is the one to come on the Day of Judgment as the Lord of the House and Jesus is the one at whose left and right the disciples want to sit. It is highly likely that Jesus denied these abilities because He did not want to glorify Himself, but wanted only the Father to glorify Him.

[marlo]

I believe that limiting christ ability due to his human nature is a heresy on the Eastern Orthodox

It is highly likely that Jesus denied these abilities because He did not want to glorify Himself, but wanted only the Father to glorify Him.

[admiralnick]

I believe that limiting christ ability due to his human nature is a heresy on the Eastern Orthodox

It is highly likely that Jesus denied these abilities because He did not want to glorify Himself, but wanted only the Father to glorify Him.

Its not limiting christ's ability, its the idea that if he is one of as, he was like us in every way except sin, he would not know. He has on many occaisions kept his Divine ability separate from his human abilities. Not to say that either exist or do not exist because he is both fully human and fully divine, but he choses actions based as a human. The shortest verse in the Gospels, "Jesus Wept" this refers to him in his humanity, his divine self would not have wept because his divine self knew that Lazarus would be raised. Another example of Jesus keeping his divine actions separate, when he says to Simon Peter that he should sheath his sword that if he willed he could have 10,000 legions of angles descend from the heavens. Even when he is hanging on the cross, he has the ability to free himself from the cross but he choses not to ignoring the part of him which has the capabilities.  In conclusion while his divine part may have known the day, he was not able to reveal it in his humanity.

-Nick

[marlo]

i've read something like this on an orthodox council declaring it as a heresy, i'll go find it

In conclusion while his divine part may have known the day, he was not able to reveal it in his humanity.

-Nick

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

i've read something like this on an orthodox council declaring it as a heresy, i'll go find it

In conclusion while his divine part may have known the day, he was not able to reveal it in his humanity.

-Nick

Well in OO Christology we reject the idea that Our Lord did certain actions as a man and other actions as God. We affirm that in all His actions He acted with the inseparable oneness of humanity and divinity.

Selam

[Athanasios]

One way I've always explained it is that it is a reflection on Jesus being the bridegroom and the Church as His bride.

In the ancient Jewish culture, the wedding took on a more elongated form than we do today. At first there was the betrothal, at which time the couple were married in the eyes of the law. However, the man and woman were not yet living together. The man must go home and build a house for his bride. But, it is not the man but his father who is the overseer of the construction -- you can imagine a young husband would quickly put up a shack to bring his honey home. Only when the father says that the house is completed may the man fetch his bride. And you can imagine that he isn't going to waste any time in fetching her -- even if it is at midnight. This explains parables such as the bridegroom coming at night.

So, this is referencing this wedding custom and Jesus as the bridegroom doesn't know when He shall fetch His bride, only the Father knows when.

Make sense?

[EkhristosAnesti]

i've read something like this on an orthodox council declaring it as a heresy, i'll go find it

In conclusion while his divine part may have known the day, he was not able to reveal it in his humanity.

-Nick

Well in OO Christology we reject the idea that Our Lord did certain actions as a man and other actions as God. We affirm that in all His actions He acted with the inseparable oneness of humanity and divinity.

Selam

To add another OO opinion into the mix:

I must agree that, notwithstanding the significant progress made between our two (EO and OO) Communions in pursuit of a common understanding as to what constitutes Orthodox Christology, the Christology presented by Nick is irreconcilable with an authentically OO Christology.

Nick, the problem with your assessment is that which I think was the main underlying concern of OO's since time immemorial: you're too caught up in the realm of theory. Consequently, you analyse the Humanity of Christ as if it were an independent nature, rather than within its practical context of the hypostatic union--the context in which, and the only context in which, it bore reality and existence. In one sense the Humanity of Christ was like that of us all in that it was consubstantial with ours--this is the Humanity of Christ considered in and of itself. But the Incarnation, the context of the reality of Christ's Humanity, renders the Humanity of Christ not a thing which stands in and of itself. Thus, we may say that in another sense the Humanity of Christ was not like ours at all insofar as it was a Humanity that was realised by a Divine Person and in a mysteriously inseparable union with perfect Divinity. This understanding has far-reaching implications for how we approach specific questions as the one at hand. Breaking Christ down into Two Natures may provide a quick, simple and digestible answer to such questions, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most accurate.

^Just to stress, not trying to impose an OO perspective on anyone; just raising it for reflection.

[Athanasios]

Well in OO Christology we reject the idea that Our Lord did certain actions as a man and other actions as God. We affirm that in all His actions He acted with the inseparable oneness of humanity and divinity.

Selam

How would the OO view Scriptures such as Luke 2:52 -- And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man. (RSV)

How could Jesus' divinity increase in wisdom or favor with God?

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Well in OO Christology we reject the idea that Our Lord did certain actions as a man and other actions as God. We affirm that in all His actions He acted with the inseparable oneness of humanity and divinity.

Selam

How would the OO view Scriptures such as Luke 2:52 -- And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man. (RSV)

How could Jesus' divinity increase in wisdom or favor with God?

Well that's an interesting question. Others such as Ekhristos will be able to answer it better than I can. But for now I will just say that these things are mysteries. If we try to apply rigid logic to holy mysteries then not only will we tangle ourselves up in a myriad of contradictions, but we will also miss the spiritual meaning of these mysteries. For example, we know that Christ is God. So how can God increase in favor with Himself? But if we apply rigid logic to this verse, then we end up saying such things. 

What the verse teaches us is the mystery of the Incarnation. God became a man, born as an infant Who grew and developed as we too grew and developed. He "learned" to walk and talk, not because His omnipotence or omniscience was hindered, but because He embraced the fullness of humanity without discarding His divinity. I shall not try to apply my finite logic to such things, I shall only prostrate myself before this glorious mystery and give God praise.

Selam

[LBK]

Folks, many answers to the questions on this thread can be found in the liturgical text for the Orthodox Vigil  for the feast of Lazarus' Saturday. Perhaps the most well-known passage from this feast, and, for many people, one of the most problematic, is the shortest verse in the Bible: Jesus wept.

Make the effort to find the Vigil text. Please take the time to read and absorb it. It is stuffed with theological and doctrinal riches.

[PeterTheAleut]

Folks, many answers to the questions on this thread can be found in the liturgical text for the Orthodox Vigil  for the feast of Lazarus' Saturday. Perhaps the most well-known passage from this feast, and, for many people, one of the most problematic, is the shortest verse in the Bible: Jesus wept.

Make the effort to find the Vigil text. Please take the time to read and absorb it. It is stuffed with theological and doctrinal riches.

Would you care to explain to us what these texts say and how they apply to this discussion?

[LBK]

Folks, many answers to the questions on this thread can be found in the liturgical text for the Orthodox Vigil  for the feast of Lazarus' Saturday. Perhaps the most well-known passage from this feast, and, for many people, one of the most problematic, is the shortest verse in the Bible: Jesus wept.

Make the effort to find the Vigil text. Please take the time to read and absorb it. It is stuffed with theological and doctrinal riches.

Would you care to explain to us what these texts say and how they apply to this discussion?

My dear PtA, the feast of the Raising of Lazarus squarely addresses the mystery of Christ's humanity and divinity. Some selections from Matins:

Second sessional hymn after the reading from the Psalter:

O Fountain of wisdom and foreknowledge, You asked the companions of Martha when You came to Bethany: Where have you laid my friend Lazarus? Shedding for him tears of tender love, You called to him in Your compassion and raised him by Your voice, though he was four days dead; for You are Giver of Life and Lord.

Ode 1, second canon:

In the beginning You brought all creation out of nothing, and You know the secrets of our hearts; and now as Master You foretold the falling asleep of Lazarus to Your disciples.

O Christ, You became man, taking human nature from the Virgin, and as man You asked where Lazarus was buried, although as God You were not ignorant of this.

Ode 3, first canon:

Displaying Your two energies, O Saviour, You made manifest Your two natures: for You are both God and man.

Though You are the Abyss of knowledge, You asked where they have laid the body of Lazarus. For it was Your purpose, O Giver of Life, to raise him from the dead.

Going from one place to another as a mortal man, You have appeared circumscribed; but, as God uncircumscribed, You fill all things.

Ode 3, second canon:

O Lord who works miracles, standing in Bethany by the tomb of Lazarus, You shed tears for him in accordance with the law of nature, confirming the full reality of the flesh which You have taken, O Jesus my God.

Ypakoi:

The sisters of Lazarus stood beside Christ and, lamenting with bitter tears, they said to Him: “O Lord, Lazarus is dead.” And though as God He knew the place of burial, yet He asked them, “Where have you laid him?” Coming to the tomb, He called Lazarus that was four days dead; and he arose and worshipped the Lord who had raised him.

Foreknowing all things as Creator, You warned the disciples at Bethany, saying: “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep today.” And, though You were not ignorant, You asked: “Where have you laid him?” Weeping as a man, You prayed to the Father; You called Your friend Lazarus from hell, O Lord, and raised him when he had been four days dead. Therefore we cry to You: Accept, O Christ our God, the praise we dare to offer, and count us all worthy of Your glory.

Ode 4, first canon:

You prayed to the Father, not because You are in need of any help, but to fulfil the mystery of Your Incarnation; and so, almighty Lord, You raised up a corpse that was four days dead.

Co-eternal with the Father, the Word that was revealed from the beginning as God, now offers prayers as man, though it is He that receives the prayers of all.

Ode 6, second canon:

You who are by nature uncircumscribed was circumscribed in the flesh; coming to Bethany, O Master, as man You weep over Lazarus, and by Your power as God You raise him on the fourth day from the dead.

Ode 8, first canon:

As mortal man You asked where Lazarus was buried; as Maker, You raised him from the dead by Your royal command. Hell was afraid of him when he cried out to You: “Praise the Lord and exalt Him above all for ever.”

Ode 8, second canon:

As man You pray to the Father, as God You raise Lazarus. Therefore, O Christ, we sing Your praises forever.

Ode 9, second canon:

You walk and weep and speak, my Saviour, showing the action of Your human nature; and, revealing Your divine nature, You raise Lazarus.

In ways beyond words, my Master and Saviour, You have brought about my salvation by the free will exercised in each of Your two natures.

From the Praises:

O Christ, who is the Resurrection and the Life of man, standing by the tomb of Lazarus You have confirmed our faith in Your two natures, O forbearing Lord, proving that You were born from the pure Virgin as both God and man. For as man You asked, “Where is he buried?” and as God by Your life-giving command You raised him from the dead on the fourth day.

You have granted to Your disciples, O Christ, tokens of Your divinity, but You have humbled Yourself among the crowds, wishing to conceal it from them. Foreknowing all things as God, You have foretold to the apostles the death of Lazarus; yet at Bethany, when in the presence of the people, You have as man asked where Your friend was buried, being ignorant of this. But then You raised him four days after he was dead, and so he rendered manifest Your power as God. O almighty Lord, glory to You.

[admiralnick]

Folks, many answers to the questions on this thread can be found in the liturgical text for the Orthodox Vigil  for the feast of Lazarus' Saturday. Perhaps the most well-known passage from this feast, and, for many people, one of the most problematic, is the shortest verse in the Bible: Jesus wept.

Make the effort to find the Vigil text. Please take the time to read and absorb it. It is stuffed with theological and doctrinal riches.

Would you care to explain to us what these texts say and how they apply to this discussion?

My dear PtA, the feast of the Raising of Lazarus squarely addresses the mystery of Christ's humanity and divinity. Some selections from Matins:

Second sessional hymn after the reading from the Psalter:

O Fountain of wisdom and foreknowledge, You asked the companions of Martha when You came to Bethany: Where have you laid my friend Lazarus? Shedding for him tears of tender love, You called to him in Your compassion and raised him by Your voice, though he was four days dead; for You are Giver of Life and Lord.

Ode 1, second canon:

In the beginning You brought all creation out of nothing, and You know the secrets of our hearts; and now as Master You foretold the falling asleep of Lazarus to Your disciples.

O Christ, You became man, taking human nature from the Virgin, and as man You asked where Lazarus was buried, although as God You were not ignorant of this.

Ode 3, first canon:

Displaying Your two energies, O Saviour, You made manifest Your two natures: for You are both God and man.

Though You are the Abyss of knowledge, You asked where they have laid the body of Lazarus. For it was Your purpose, O Giver of Life, to raise him from the dead.

Going from one place to another as a mortal man, You have appeared circumscribed; but, as God uncircumscribed, You fill all things.

Ode 3, second canon:

O Lord who works miracles, standing in Bethany by the tomb of Lazarus, You shed tears for him in accordance with the law of nature, confirming the full reality of the flesh which You have taken, O Jesus my God.

Ypakoi:

The sisters of Lazarus stood beside Christ and, lamenting with bitter tears, they said to Him: “O Lord, Lazarus is dead.” And though as God He knew the place of burial, yet He asked them, “Where have you laid him?” Coming to the tomb, He called Lazarus that was four days dead; and he arose and worshipped the Lord who had raised him.

Foreknowing all things as Creator, You warned the disciples at Bethany, saying: “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep today.” And, though You were not ignorant, You asked: “Where have you laid him?” Weeping as a man, You prayed to the Father; You called Your friend Lazarus from hell, O Lord, and raised him when he had been four days dead. Therefore we cry to You: Accept, O Christ our God, the praise we dare to offer, and count us all worthy of Your glory.

Ode 4, first canon:

You prayed to the Father, not because You are in need of any help, but to fulfil the mystery of Your Incarnation; and so, almighty Lord, You raised up a corpse that was four days dead.

Co-eternal with the Father, the Word that was revealed from the beginning as God, now offers prayers as man, though it is He that receives the prayers of all.

Ode 6, second canon:

You who are by nature uncircumscribed was circumscribed in the flesh; coming to Bethany, O Master, as man You weep over Lazarus, and by Your power as God You raise him on the fourth day from the dead.

Ode 8, first canon:

As mortal man You asked where Lazarus was buried; as Maker, You raised him from the dead by Your royal command. Hell was afraid of him when he cried out to You: “Praise the Lord and exalt Him above all for ever.”

Ode 8, second canon:

As man You pray to the Father, as God You raise Lazarus. Therefore, O Christ, we sing Your praises forever.

Ode 9, second canon:

You walk and weep and speak, my Saviour, showing the action of Your human nature; and, revealing Your divine nature, You raise Lazarus.

In ways beyond words, my Master and Saviour, You have brought about my salvation by the free will exercised in each of Your two natures.

From the Praises:

O Christ, who is the Resurrection and the Life of man, standing by the tomb of Lazarus You have confirmed our faith in Your two natures, O forbearing Lord, proving that You were born from the pure Virgin as both God and man. For as man You asked, “Where is he buried?” and as God by Your life-giving command You raised him from the dead on the fourth day.

You have granted to Your disciples, O Christ, tokens of Your divinity, but You have humbled Yourself among the crowds, wishing to conceal it from them. Foreknowing all things as God, You have foretold to the apostles the death of Lazarus; yet at Bethany, when in the presence of the people, You have as man asked where Your friend was buried, being ignorant of this. But then You raised him four days after he was dead, and so he rendered manifest Your power as God. O almighty Lord, glory to You.

I agree with your thought process on posting this, but I will offer 2 thoughts on posting this.

1) It only speaks of Christ's "not knowing" of the place where they laid Lazarus and repeats this over and over and over again. Its not the only example of places where Christ uses one nature or the other.

2) Hymnography is not theology or law in matters of the church and is hard to be used as a basis for an opinion without further supporting research.

All said, I am glad you were able to post these lovely hymns.

-Nick

[LBK]

My dear Nick

You are sadly and greatly mistaken in your comment of "Hymnography is not theology or law in matters of the church and is hard to be used as a basis for an opinion without further supporting research".

The consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church is found in its purest and most succinct form in its liturgical and iconographic deposits. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Other feasts which ponder on the mystery of the divine and human natures of Christ are the Circumcision of the Lord, and the Meeting of the Lord. The latter feast is particularly evocative and moving.

[ozgeorge]

I don't think this is about the Two Natures, one "knowing" and the other "not knowing". Rather, it is about two different relationships: the Son as He relates to the Father, and the Son as He relates to us.
What if His answer to the disciples had been: "I know, but I'm not going to tell you" ? These friends, His disciples, with whom He had shared everything- food, shelter, discussion, would be sorely grieved if He had said "I'm not telling you". So instead, He answers the way a Father answers when his children ask if he has a sweet for them before they've done their homework. To end speculation, He answers "No, I don't have anything for you", which means they'll just have to wait and do their homework first. The Son, as He relates to the Father knows exactly when He will return, but the same Son as He relates to us, wills not to tell us when He will return, so in relation to us, it is the same as though He does not know.

[admiralnick]

My dear Nick

You are sadly and greatly mistaken in your comment of "Hymnography is not theology or law in matters of the church and is hard to be used as a basis for an opinion without further supporting research".

The consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church is found in its purest and most succinct form in its liturgical and iconographic deposits. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Other feasts which ponder on the mystery of the divine and human natures of Christ are the Circumcision of the Lord, and the Meeting of the Lord. The latter feast is particularly evocative and moving.

So you're telling me that theology is based on hymns? I would argue that hymns are based on theology. As long as I receive Episcopal approval, I can put anything I want into a piece of liturgical music. Does that mean I can rewrite theology?

-Nick