Does Matthew 24.36 ('the Son doesn't know the day or hour') rank Father and Son?

[S. Rey]

Dear all,

I was pondering on the meaning of Mat. XXIV: 36:



But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.


Does this verse draw a distinction between the Father and the Son with respect to importance (if the Father knows something that the Son doesn't know, the Father must be greater, and the Son is no longer whole and one with the Father) and therefore break the unity between Father and Son? Certain manuscript do not have "nor the Son," but it remains that "only the Father" knows, which doesn't change the meaning. So how do we understand this verse? Is there truly something that the Son, Christ Himself, doesn't know?

[Andreas Moran]

The explanation is given by St John Chrysostom (Homily LXXVII on Matthew) and the Blessed Theophylact (the latter's commentary being really a summary of the former's). Of course, Christ knows the Day when He will come. In chapter 24, He has told the disciples, and so us, much about the last times. But it is not good for us know 'the hour' because we must always be in a state of readiness - we must watch. Christ honours the disciples but at the same time curbs any enquiry as to the hour by saying that if even the angels and He don't know the hour, but only the Father, they should be content and not ask about it. As Blessed Theophylact puts it, it is as if Christ, says, 'I know, but I do not wish to tell you'. St John Chrysostom cites similar passages from scripture, as when, at the Fall, Adam and Eve hid themselves, God called out, 'where are you?' Obviously God knew where they were.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

The words "nor the Son" do not appear in Robinson and Pierpont's 2005 Byzantine Textform New Testament, which is based on the consensus of Greek manuscripts. It would appear, then, that "nor the Son" is a minority reading.

On the broader issue of what Christ knew, the Fathers are fairly consistent that He was omniscient and only asked questions to prompt answers He already knew. But there is a way to understand His omniscience that would allow from temporary ignorance, by analogy to the modern computer, which operates with two sets of memory, ROM and RAM. The Son's infinite knowledge is like ROM, but His human knowledge is like RAM, because the human brain has a finite number of brain cells and so can only contain a finite amount of knowledge. Christ could therefore call to mind any information He wanted, without actually having it all in His human mind at the same time. Paradoxically, if He willed, He could leave Himself ignorant of a fact until such a time as He wished to retrieve the information.

This is purely conjecture on my part. I like it because it makes Christ more human and, in a sense, more honest. He isn't just pretending not to know; He doesn't humanly know at the particular moment.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Herman Blaydoe]

When Christ was born, He did not get up out of the manger, dress Himself and feed Himself. Perhaps He could have if he desired, but He didn't do it. He was cared for, changed, nursed, His human body had to learn to walk, speak, and do the things we do, even though He is God. Evidently aspects of His Godhead where certainly not brought to the fore in His humanity, while other things were. If He chose that He had to learn how to walk, I suppose He could also choose to not be "humanly" aware of other things.

Sorry but that is about as far as this bear of little brain can take it, I look forward to the contributions of better minds than mine.

Herman the Pooh

[Andreas Moran]

We've already had the contributions of better minds than ours - those of St John Chrysostom and Blessed Theophylact. This forum is about Orthodoxy through patristic study, not through the proffering of personal opinions.

[S. Rey]

Thank you all very much for your replies, it helped a lot. Perhaps I should read St. John Chrysostom and get a better understanding of the matter.


The words "nor the Son" do not appear in Robinson and Pierpont's 2005 Byzantine Textform New Testament, which is based on the consensus of Greek manuscripts. It would appear, then, that "nor the Son" is a minority reading.

This is one of the things I was puzzled about. The version that I have includes these words. But the meaning of the verse remains the same, it seems, whether they are included or not.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Forgive me, Andreas, but you seem to be telling us to shut up. Surely you don't believe that all we are to do is quote the Fathers, and not to try understand them better or add to what they believed? The Fathers weren't perfect, didn't know everything, hadn't seen everything, and didn't agree on everything. They don't have the answers to all questions, and if you do a search, I'm sure you will find scores if not hundreds of "IMHO" in the posts of our most respected contributers. I've offered my humble opinion, plainly marked as such. If you disagree, tell us why. Don't just say opinions aren't welcome.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Andreas Moran]

I couldn't see the point in speculating about an answer to this question when there is already an answer from very high patristic authority.

[Angelos]

Hebrews 45:15 "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin". Jesus was 100% human, in everything except sin. That means that he had human limitations. We see Jesus in the Gospels asking for information (asking his disciples to find loaves to help feed the 5,000), being surprised, being tempted, struggling between the human and divine will. To say that the human incarnation of the Son had no limitations is to deny his humanity.

Also in Luke 2:40 "And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him." The Son's human incarnation grew in wisdom like all humans do.

Why did the Son lower Himeself to become finite like us? St. Paul gives us the answer.

Philippians 2:6-9 "(Jesus) Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross!"

So the Son is not lower than the Father, but of course the human incarnation of the Son has limitations that the Father does not have, and that includes limitations in knowledge

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Amen, Angelos. It only stands to reason that Christ as God could have known anything at any time, but as man could not have known everything at once.

It's another question whether God the Father reveals everything to the Son eternally, which would mean that the Son, like the Father, is absolutely omniscient. Equality with the Father would seem to require that this is so, and that seems to be the assumption behind the claim of omniscience for Christ made by the saints cited above.

But it's still another question whether the Son's absolute omniscience as God requires the Son's absolute omniscience as man. My computer analogy above suggests a way to understand how Christ could have known everything as God but not as man. This is not errant speculation. Our Lord Himself speaks as if He does not always know everything. If, on the contrary, we assume that Christ always did know everything, we raise the question of whether Christ was truly man — whether He would have been more a man if He had faced death not knowing everything, having to simply trust the Father for some things.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Olga]

Amen, Angelos. It only stands to reason that Christ as God could have known anything at any time, but as man could not have known everything at once.

It's another question whether God the Father reveals everything to the Son eternally, which would mean that the Son, like the Father, is absolutely omniscient. Equality with the Father would seem to require that this is so, and that seems to be the assumption behind the claim of omniscience for Christ made by the saints cited above.

But it's still another question whether the Son's absolute omniscience as God requires the Son's absolute omniscience as man. My computer analogy above suggests a way to understand how Christ could have known everything as God but not as man. This is not errant speculation. Our Lord Himself speaks as if He does not always know everything. If, on the contrary, we assume that Christ always did know everything, we raise the question of whether Christ was truly man — whether He would have been more a man if He had faced death not knowing everything, having to simply trust the Father for some things.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

A careful examination of the Vigil for Lazarus' Saturday should shed light on the "paradox" of Christ's omniscience.

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear friends,

It is probably best not to delve too much into this now (we should wait until Holy Week and Pascha are past; our hearts and minds have enough to dwell on in these days!); but in terms of the patristic understanding, it is essential that we confess that Christ is omniscient in His humanity - i.e., that He is never not omniscient, but that His omniscience, like everything else, is experienced by Him in the incarnation humanly, with all the limitations of humanity. So we cannot say that He is not omniscient, but that omniscience is lived out humanly (paradoxically, in a limited, developmental way).

As Olga says, this is also very clear in the hymns of various feasts.

INXC, Hieromonk Irenei

[Olga]

Some selections from the Lazarus' Saturday vigil:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You have prayed and glorified the Father, for Your power is not opposed to His. To confirm the faith of the multitude that stood around You, You thanked Your Father, O longsuffering Lord, and then raised Lazarus by Your command.

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 to all ages.

[Sean M.]

Some interesting posts, I liked Fr Dcn Mitchell's analogy with the computer. I have often thought of it like the scene in superman were superman willingly gives up some of his power to become more human. You could also maybe argue that it was Christ speaking of his human nature and not of his divine nature.

[Kelil]

Ver. 36. No man knoweth ... but the Father alone. The words in St. Mark (xiii. 32.) are still harder: neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father. The Arians objected this place, to shew that Christ being ignorant of the day of judgment, could not be truly God. By the same words, no one knoweth, but the Father alone, (as they expound them) the Holy Ghost must be excluded from being the true God. In answer to this difficulty, when it is said, but the Father alone, it is certain that the eternal Son and the Holy Ghost could never be ignorant of the day of judgment: because, as they are one and the same God, so they must have one and the same nature, the same substance, wisdom, knowledge, and all absolute perfections. 2. It is also certain that Jesus Christ knew the day of judgment, and all things to come, by a knowledge which he could not but have, because of the union by which his human nature was united to the divine person and nature. See Colossians ii. 3. And so to attribute any ignorance to Christ, was the error of those heretics called Agnoitai. 3. But though Christ, as a man, knew the day of judgment, yet this knowledge was not due to him as he was man, or because he was man, but he only knew the day of judgment, because he was God as well as man. 4. It is the common answer of the fathers, that Christ here speaks to his disciples, only as he was the ambassador of his Father; and so he is only to know what he is to make known to men. He is said not to know, says St. Augustine[5], what he will not make others know, or what he will not reveal to them. (Witham) --- By this Jesus Christ wished to suppress the curiosity of his disciples. In the same manner after his resurrection, he answered the same question: 'Tis not for you to know the times and the moments, which the Father has placed in his own power. This last clause is added, that the apostles might not be discouraged and think their divine Master esteemed them unworthy of knowing these things. Some Greek manuscripts add nor even the Son, as in Mark xiii. 32. The Son is ignorant of it, not according to his divinity, nor even according to his humanity hypostatically united to his divinity, but according to his humanity, considered as separate from his divinity. (Bible de Vence)
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id42.html

[Paul Cowan]

Forgive me. I am still struggling with this. So he basically told a white lie. ?

[Ben Johnson]

At times I have stopped people from telling me something so that I would not know it. Of course, I am finite while Jesus is infinite. Even though Jesus is infinite, I wonder if He could choose not to know something?

[Olga]

Even though Jesus is infinite, I wonder if He could choose not to know something?

Ah, but isn't that a feature of the mystery of Him being both fully God and fully Man, which the hymnody of the Raising of Lazarus vigil deals with? Or so it seems to this she-bear of little brain ...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

At times I have stopped people from telling me something so that I would not know it. Of course, I am finite while Jesus is infinite. Even though Jesus is infinite, I wonder if He could choose not to know something?

This is exactly what Christ chooses to do through His incarnation. He purposely chooses to accept the limitations of the human condition (in this case as it relates to knowledge) but in order to restore it to its original purpose as created by God.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Evan]

I think we must say that He did (and does) know the day and the hour, as God, but He voluntarily assumed our poverty of the same knowledge as Man. Just as He was never literally forsaken by the Father on the cross, or indeed was ever apart from His presence, but nonetheless cried out as one cursed and forsaken by God. It's not as if He was putting on a pretense (telling a white lie) or donning a mask on either of these occasions-- He experienced the conditions of abandonment and ignorance in a a way that we cannot fully comprehend, sanctifying the experiences of being evilly treated by sinners and being ignorant of the final vindication of God's righteous historical purposes, rendering those experiences salvific for those who suffer with Him and in Him and wait for the consummation of the world with eager expectation and endurance without being able to count the days.

I think of the the little Baby nursing at His Mother's breast while holding the universe in the palm of His hand. And then I stop thinking that I can ever think enough to penetrate the mystery.

St. Ambrose, from his "Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke":

"He knows the end of time, not through the nature of man, but through the Nature of God... How can the Son not know what the Father knows, when the Son is in the Father, and the Spirit also searches out the depths of God, when the Son Himself is the height of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God?... He also knows the hour, but He knows it for Himself; He does not know it for me."

In Christ,
Evan

[Robert Rager]

The way I was able to make sense of the passage... I could be totally off base, Christ had to be Fully Man, in his incarnation. What could more human than NOT KNOWING all the answers?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The way I was able to make sense of the passage... I could be totally off base, Christ had to be Fully Man, in his incarnation. What could more human than NOT KNOWING all the answers?


Yes- this is correct. But in the sense that Christ as God allows His humanity to retain the sinless limitations of its own nature.

In other words as God, Christ does know all things including 'the day and hour' of the End.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Christina M.]

Here's a blog article which was posted today that deals nicely with this topic:
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/05/was-jesus-ignorant-of-time-of-his.html

I wonder if John was inspired by this thread... :)

[Ioan]

The words "nor the Son" do not appear in Robinson and Pierpont's 2005 Byzantine Textform New Testament, which is based on the consensus of Greek manuscripts. It would appear, then, that "nor the Son" is a minority reading.

On the broader issue of what Christ knew, the Fathers are fairly consistent that He was omniscient and only asked questions to prompt answers He already knew. But there is a way to understand His omniscience that would allow from temporary ignorance, by analogy to the modern computer, which operates with two sets of memory, ROM and RAM. The Son's infinite knowledge is like ROM, but His human knowledge is like RAM, because the human brain has a finite number of brain cells and so can only contain a finite amount of knowledge. Christ could therefore call to mind any information He wanted, without actually having it all in His human mind at the same time. Paradoxically, if He willed, He could leave Himself ignorant of a fact until such a time as He wished to retrieve the information.

This is purely conjecture on my part. I like it because it makes Christ more human and, in a sense, more honest. He isn't just pretending not to know; He doesn't humanly know at the particular moment.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

I don't believe the RAM and ROM analogy is adequate. Christ's Divine Nature fully dwelt in His Human Nature without limitation. The only "limitation" was Christ's intention to humble Himself before mankind, to show us that He is like us and to call us to be like Him (deification), what we now call the infinite process of theosis; again, our human (physical) nature is not in anyway limiting our capacity for theosis, and Christ wanted to prove the very contrary.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Dear Mr. Ioan,

Analogies, of course, can only be carried so far. I would not carry my RAM/ROM analogy so far as to limit Christ's Divine Nature, but the Incarnation is all about Christ accepting and experiencing human nature, which is limited and not infinite. That's mostly what we see Him doing in the Gospels — walking about like the rest of us instead of flying through the air, for instance.

That said, I don't understand your objection to my analogy. Perhaps you can explain it a little more.

In Christ,

Dn Patrick

[Ioan]

Dear Mr. Ioan,

Analogies, of course, can only be carried so far. I would not carry my RAM/ROM analogy so far as to limit Christ's Divine Nature, but the Incarnation is all about Christ accepting and experiencing human nature, which is limited and not infinite. That's mostly what we see Him doing in the Gospels — walking about like the rest of us instead of flying through the air, for instance.

That said, I don't understand your objection to my analogy. Perhaps you can explain it a little more.

In Christ,

Dn Patrick


It's not that Christ's Divine Nature "could not fit in His Human nature", but that's not even to be thought about because it is a Mystery the mind cannot comprehend. He could be both Divine and Human at the same time. He did walk around like all of us, but He also performed many miracles including raising the dead which cannot be explained by brain chemistry ( or the ram/rom analogy). Our teaching is that God The Son dwelt fully in a Human Body and proved that our body is not a limitation in the way of deification (theosis). The only difference for us is that we become gods by Grace, whereas Christ is God Himself, and of course, the process of theosis is endless, but still we are called to it and it continues forever. So, one may still ask, why was it that Christ seemed like all of us on the planet? It was because He CHOSE to humble Himself, not that He couldn't do anything He wanted, for The Son of God and The Son of Man were One and The Same Person (though the two natures are distinct). Also, just because we are to become gods by Grace doesn't mean that we will ever lose our bodies, and same with Christ, just because He became man, doesn't mean He will ever cease to be God.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Ioan,

Your answer seems to me to deny any real definition to human nature by denying any real limit to it. I don't think that's what the saints mean when they speak of theosis. I don't expect that in the next life the sanctified will be omniscient. They will know what God wants them to know, but they will not know all that God knows. They can't and still be human.

As for miracles, the Apostles were empowered to perform virtually all the miracles that Christ Himself performed, but their power came from God, not from their own human nature. Likewise, Christ's unlimited power of knowing came from His divine mind and not from His human brain, which could not contain all knowledge. The ROM/RAM analogy merely suggests how His divine mind managed His naturally limited human intellectual capacity.

In Christ,

Dn Patrick

[Anna Stickles]

but their power came from God, not from their own human nature. Likewise, Christ's unlimited power of knowing came from His divine mind and not from His human brain, which could not contain all knowledge.

Yes and no. While certainly man is not omniscient, I think that we have to remember that in Orthodox theology the grace of God restores man to his state before his fall in paradise, at least to whatever extent is allowed by God and according to the person's love and humility.

Here is a quote from St Seraphim of Sarov summarizing the teaching of the earlier Fathers on the state of man in Paradise.

Adam was created to such an extent immune to the action of every one of the elements created by God, that neither could water drown him, nor fire burn him, nor could the earth swallow him up in its abysses, nor could air harm him by its action in any way whatsoever. Everything was subject to him as the beloved of God, as the king and lord of creation, and everything looked up to him, as the perfect crown of God's creatures. Adam was made so wise by the breath of life which was breated into his face from the creative lips of GOd the Creator and Ruler of all, that there never has been a man on earth wiser or more intelligent than he.... When the Lord commanded him to give names to all the creatures, he gave every creature a name which completely expressed all the qualities, powers and properties given it by God at its creation. Owing to this very gift of the supernatural grace which was in fused into him by the breath of life, Adam could see and understand the Lord walking in Paradise, and comprehend His words, and the conversation of the holy angels, and the language of all beasts, birds, and reptiles and all that is now hidden from us fallen and sinful creatures, but was so clear to Adam before his fall. ....

So yes the power comes from God, but when one pays attention to the nature of miracles, one notices that all these miracles happen according to the nature that God put into things when he created them. Jesus multiplies bread and fish - it is in the nature of wheat and oil and fish to be fruitful and multiply. Jesus did not turn a stone into bread, because it is not in the nature of the inorganic to be organic and living.

So too we see in the various miracles of the saints that they are always according to the nature that God gave man at the beginning. We see the martyrs who suffer and yet cannot be killed and how this witnesses to the lordship of Adam in paradise and the restoration of this state in Christ. The clairvoyance of the elders, or the friendship they have with wild animals such as St Seraphim himself had, witnesses to this also. So too does the state of some ascetics and saints who rarely feel hunger or need food, or are unaffected by heat and cold. Every miracle witnesses to this same reality of how God created man in the beginning.

What we see here is that man is not limited by his physical body in the way that you imply. Otherwise man could know and see and hear nothing after the soul is separated from the body. But as it is, the Fathers teach that the soul itself is actually able to know and sense. The knowledge of man is not limited by the number of his synapses. I am not saying that your analogy may not be good. I actually like it, just making a comment on the fact that maybe it is better to say that while the power of the saints comes from God, still is is according to what human nature already potentially had if it had not been stripped of grace. And the Fathers do teach that this potential is unlimited, but they also teach that it will never reach the perfection and completeness of God. Maybe a good analogy is limits in mathematics, where you are always approaching and yet never reach...

And then the Fathers say that deification as offered in Christ is actually something beyond even what Adam had in paradise....

[Ioan]

Like Anna said, the Saints had and have powers beyond physical human nature (being in multiple places, knowing all people) and that's because the human person is not just physical but also spiritual and we can't talk about one without the other; but the spiritual leads the physical, while the physical should not limit in anyway the spiritual since we are made in the image and likeness of God, which means that we are given a very high dignity and task, that of being more and more like God. And how could this be possible if we were limited by something?

And, there is actually one human person who is by Grace what God is by Nature, who is fully deified (so-to-speak), and that is The Theotokos. In the Akathists we even call Her All-Powerful, Empress of Heaven and Earth, incomparably superior even to the highest Angelic ranks, so on, though, this has not been dogmatized by The Church. Well, believe it or not, we are called to the same, just that we will always remain in more of a child phase, never actually getting there, always infinitely far, yet firmly on the way. :)

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Ioan, I don't know what you mean by "fully deified," and I'd rather not get into the issue of how deified the Theotokos is. We've argued over that enough already.

Anna, I don't believe the Fathers taught all that you say they taught. They certainly didn't deny the finite reality of human nature, which is what you seem to be doing. They taught that all things are possible with God because they understood man as finite and only God as infinite. God is defined by His natural infiniteness, but man is defined by his natural limits. Denying those limits is tantamount to denying his identifiably human existance. If man can be anything, then man is nothing.

As for miracles, Our Lord changed water into wine. Water is inorganic, but wine contains organic compounds, so your point about stones vs. fishes doesn't really hold. It also puts you in the position of saying that Christ could not have turned stones into bread. Do you really want to say that?

[Ioan]

Ioan, I don't know what you mean by "fully deified," and I'd rather not get into the issue of how deified the Theotokos is. We've argued over that enough already.

Anna, I don't believe the Fathers taught all that you say they taught. They certainly didn't deny the finite reality of human nature, which is what you seem to be doing. They taught that all things are possible with God because they understood man as finite and only God as infinite. God is defined by His natural infiniteness, but man is defined by his natural limits. Denying those limits is tantamount to denying his identifiably human existance. If man can be anything, then man is nothing.

As for miracles, Our Lord changed water into wine. Water is inorganic, but wine contains organic compounds, so your point about stones vs. fishes doesn't really hold. It also puts you in the position of saying that Christ could not have turned stones into bread. Do you really want to say that?

Well, the state we are in right now is called fallen humanity; man has lost noetic communion with God and now thinks that he is pretty much what mainstream science teaches about humanity -- a reasoning animal. But, the Church teaches that man is also spiritual and even goes in depth about things like "descending the mind into the heart", "the nous", which are spiritual things that transcend physical human nature in and of itself, but these rely solely on God's Grace. Otherwise, I strongly hold to my other views and Anna's, as well. I believe you misunderstand how man is both physical and spiritual, and you understand the physical aspect of man to be the entire human nature.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I believe you misunderstand how man is both physical and spiritual, and you understand the physical aspect of man to be the entire human nature.

Nonsense. All spirits are not created equal, so having a spirit does not make us equal to God — omniscient, omnipotent, etc. I expect that our human spirits are limited just as our human bodies are limited, because we are human, because we are not God. Even when "deified" we are not God; we are still just creatures, albeit godlike creatures.

[Anna Stickles]

They certainly didn't deny the finite reality of human nature, which is what you seem to be doing. They taught that all things are possible with God because they understood man as finite and only God as infinite. God is defined by His natural infiniteness, but man is defined by his natural limits. Denying those limits is tantamount to denying his identifiably human existance. If man can be anything, then man is nothing.

I think we are having a misunderstanding.

We know that a baby when born at first perceives the world mostly as a blur of noise, sound, feeling - without distinctions or understanding, but as he grows his understanding and acuity of perception grows. Take a baby, a 14 yr old and a 30 yr old to a business meeting and certainly the 30 yr old is going to have a greater degree of understanding of what is going on and notice more and with more understaning then the 12 yr old, likewise the 12 yr old will notice more then the baby. The baby probably will not notice or understand much beyond the person holding them and a glint of light or color here and there that catches his interest.

In our current experience older people start to regress - their perception, memory and reasoning abilities start to corrupt. But God did not make it this way in the beginning. In giving man immortal life, he also gave him the ability to continue to learn and grow as a person for the whole course of that eternity.

Certainly no matter how long man knows God he will never apprehend the totality therein, nor have the acuity to see the full depths thereof. God is infinite and man can never plum this infinity fully.

So what I am saying is that there is never a point at which man will have learned all he is capable of and after this for the rest of eternity be static, never more growing in knowledge.

By using the analogy of mathematical limits I was trying to show that the fact that there is no limit to our growth does no make us equal to God nor unlimited beings. To be always growing in knowledge does not mean we ever become all-knowing, for with God there is always more to know.

Hopefully this clears things up.

[Nika]

An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith; Book III; chapter 21:

''He assumed, it is to be noted , the ignorant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm) and servile nature. For it is man's nature to be the servant of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), his Creator, and he does not possess knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of the future. If, then, as Gregory the Theologian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07010b.htm) holds, you are to separate the realm of sight from the realm of thought, the flesh is to be spoken of as both servile and ignorant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm), but on account of the identity of subsistence and the inseparable union the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of the Lord was enriched with the knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of the future as also with the other miraculous powers. For just as the flesh of men is not in its own nature life-giving, while the flesh of our Lord which was united in subsistence with God the Word (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm) Himself, although it was not exempt from the mortality of its nature, yet became life-giving through its union in subsistence with the Word, and we may not say that it was not and is not for ever life-giving: in like manner His human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) nature (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) does not in essence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) possess the knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of the future, but the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) of the Lord through its union with God the Word (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm) Himself and its identity in subsistence was enriched, as I said, with the knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of the future as well as with the other miraculous powers.

Observe further that we may not speak of Him as servant. For the words servitude and mastership are not marks of nature but indicate relationship, to something, such as that of fatherhood and sonship. For these do not signify essence (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) but relation.''



the people, who claimed that Jesus didnt know the time of the second comeing by his human nature, were known as Agnoits and were considered as heretics. Christ's human nature alone, isnt able to know the future, but after the incarnation, the human nature was enriched, Christ knew the future.

[Ioan]

I am returning to this thread with some ideas -- as Son of Man, Christ did not know the day of the end, His humanity alone was not enough to know such a thing. As God, though, He knew everything, of course. It's probably important to stress that it's not just that He didn't want to know the day of the end as Man, but that He literally couldn't know the day of the end as Man -- it was even beyond the reach of His own humanity. Now, another question that comes to me is after the Resurrection and Ascension, He is able to run the universe both as God, and also as Man. In what way is His "current humanity" limiting His Divine will? He is now seated at the right hand of The Father in Heaven, as Man. How do all these facts connect. Maybe too brave of a question. (sorry, just returning to this thread as I believe I have misunderstood/exaggerated a few of my previous ideas, though some valid points have also come up)

[Nika]

"He knows the end of time, not through the nature of man, but through the Nature of God... How can the Son not know what the Father knows, when the Son is in the Father, and the Spirit also searches out the depths of God, when the Son Himself is the height of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God?... He also knows the hour, but He knows it for Himself; He does not know it for me."

In Christ,
Evan

his human nature alone isnt able to know the future, but through his divinity, the human nature is enriched, so the son's human nature, after the incarnation is enriched with the knowldge of the future, so as st Ambrose admits, he knows the day of the second comeing through the nature of god, that means the human nature is enriched through the nature of god. the idea that the son didnt know the future after the incarnation, was considered as a heresy in the Orthodox chrurch. please read an exposition of the orthodox faith, Book III, chapter 21.

[Ioan]

his human nature alone isnt able to know the future, but through his divinity, the human nature is enriched, so the son's human nature, after the incarnation is enriched with the knowldge of the future, so as st Ambrose admits, he knows the day of the second comeing through the nature of god, that means the human nature is enriched through the nature of god. the idea that the son didnt know the future after the incarnation, was considered as a heresy in the Orthodox chrurch. please read an exposition of the orthodox faith, Book III, chapter 21.

I believe you may be wrong in the way you say that His Human nature was enriched by The Divine. It's true, but we cannot assume that His Human nature automatically knew everything the Divine did. As Man, Jesus had to be born, to grow, to learn, and to humble Himself to human stature in every way, except sin.
He knew the day of the end as God, not as Man; there still remains a distinction, even though the two Natures are united. That He could know the future and perform miracles as Man on account of His Divine Nature and through the Grace of The Holy Spirit that had descended upon Him at Baptism (as Man) is true, and saints can do this, too, in various levels. But the day of the end The Son of Man did not know; so, He wouldn't lie or pretend, but confessed that even for Him as Man the day of the end was beyond His reach.

[Angelos]

@Nika; see Luke 2:52 And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.

Also Philippians 2:5-7 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

Jesus had limitations due to its human nature....

[Paul Cowan]

@Nika; see Luke 2:52 And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.

Jesus had limitations due to its human nature....

I Don't agree with this. He was fully human AND fully God. He "revealed" Himself in incriments just as He did on Tabor. Had the child Jesus in the Temple when Mary and Joseph were 3 days in the caravan, revealed to the elders of the church more than just "mere astonishment of understanding of the Law" then He would have made Himself out to be a freak of nature. He revealed Himself in such a way, all were in awe of His knowledge and wisdom beyond His years but not so much that He was considered not worth listening to. He had no limitations other than what He put upon Himself in order to "fit in" with the creature He now had become to be with.

Paul

[Ioan]

I Don't agree with this. He was fully human AND fully God. He "revealed" Himself in incriments just as He did on Tabor. Had the child Jesus in the Temple when Mary and Joseph were 3 days in the caravan, revealed to the elders of the church more than just "mere astonishment of understanding of the Law" then He would have made Himself out to be a freak of nature. He revealed Himself in such a way, all were in awe of His knowledge and wisdom beyond His years but not so much that He was considered not worth listening to. He had no limitations other than what He put upon Himself in order to "fit in" with the creature He now had become to be with.

Paul

That's not true, Paul. Jesus had many limitations due to His Human Nature, just as we do. He had to be born a baby, He had to learn how to speak, how to walk, He had to be taught the law, He could not speak all the languages on the earth, He did not know what was going on in all parts of the world, He did not know all history. He assumed the most that a human being can assume, that is His own place, culture, mission, occupation. As God He knew everything and because of it He was the most perfect Man, He could impress even when He was 12 and He could perform many great miracles, He gave off an air of great authority, but He was still a Man. He did not reveal Himself in increments, He had to grow in increments Himself. If we don't believe this, then we run into many problems such as 'He could not redeem what He did not assume' -- He was not hungry, He did not need sleep, He did not suffer pain, He did not fast and was not really tempted, which are not true. Having been myself confused about this I recently heard a podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko who confirmed just what I said above. I can't find that podcast, but if I do I will let you know. As Angelos quoted, "Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace"; it does not say He gradually revealed Himself, but that He actually advanced. As God He wanted to reveal Himself, yes, but as Man He had to lift up His own Human Nature to a point where people would understand that He was both God and Man, but not exactly a mix, or a total fusion of the two. The Divine Nature is infinitely above the Human, it can be perceived through the Human, but not contained by the Human. So, when we see Jesus Christ in icons we know He is God, but we only see a Man, and we know that there is more to God than just that Man.

[Angelos]

Paul, just to clarify you don't agree with Luke??? Are you saying that Luke was wrong, on this one? or that he tried to mislead us, somehow?

[Daniel R.]

And again; But Jesus increased in stature and wisdom and grace with God and men.- Holy Evangelist and Apostle of the Seventy Luke

I feel in this there is something of both being right, as Mr Ioan said Christ as perfect Man had to grow and learn even as do all men. But as Paul I think shows more clearly this was by His will and wisdom not as bound by anything being perfect God.

Saint Cyril's the great theologian and defender of Orthodoxy writes of this passage in his commentary,

'And the Child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him. And again; But Jesus increased in stature and wisdom and grace with God and men."

TO say that the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him, must be taken as referring to His human nature. And examine, I pray you, closely the profoundness of the dispensation: the Word endures to be born in human fashion, although in His divine nature He has no beginning nor is subject to time: He Who as God is all perfect, submits to bodily growth: the Incorporeal has limbs that advance to the ripeness of manhood: He is filled with wisdom Who is Himself all wisdom. And what say we to this? Behold by these things Him Who was in the form of the Father made like unto us: the Rich in poverty: the High in humiliation: Him said to "receive," Whose is the fullness as God. So thoroughly did God the Word empty Himself! For what things are written of Him as a man show the manner of the emptying. For it were a thing impossible for the Word begotten of God the Father to admit ought like this into His own nature: but when He became flesh, even a man like unto us, then He is born according to the flesh of a woman, and is said also to have been subject to the things that belong to man's state: and though the Word as being God could have made His flesh spring forth at once from the womb unto the measure of the perfect man, yet this would have been of the nature of a portent: and therefore He gave the habits and laws of human nature power even over His own flesh.

Be not therefore offended, considering perchance within thyself, How can God increase? or how can He Who gives grace to angels and to men receive fresh wisdom? Rather reflect upon the great skill wherewith we are initiated into His mystery. For the wise Evangelist did not introduce the Word in His abstract and incorporeal nature, and so say of Him that He increased in stature and wisdom and grace, but after having shown that He was born in the flesh of a woman, and took our likeness, he then assigns to Him these human attributes, and calls Him a child, and says that He waxed in stature, as His body grow little by little, in obedience to corporeal laws. And so He is said also to have increased in wisdom, not as receiving fresh supplies of wisdom,----for God is perceived by the understanding to be entirely perfect in all things, and altogether incapable of being destitute of any attribute suitable to the Godhead:----but because God the Word 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 Word of God is all perfect. And with good reason he connected the increase of wisdom with the growth of the bodily stature, because the divine nature revealed its own wisdom in proportion to the measure of the bodily growth.

[Paul Cowan]

Paul, just to clarify you don't agree with Luke??? Are you saying that Luke was wrong, on this one? or that he tried to mislead us, somehow?

I was saying I did not agree with him. I would never suggest anyon on these boards would try to deliberately deceive anyone else.

Well, I can't necessarily say that about all the yarns I spin, but they are not important to our faith.

I do appreciate Daniel finding this quote from St. Cyril. Especially paragraphs 3&4. They say exactly what I was trying to say.

[Ioan]

There is a podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko in which he discusses very cleary how Jesus had to grow in every human way, and how this is important so that the Incarnation is a real thing.
Link: http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_childhood_of_jesus
(from minute 28 it becomes very relevant to this topic)