Navigation
RSS Syndication
Coptic Forums
The official forums of the Coptic Media Network, focusing on Coptic hymns, Orthodoxy, spirituality, friendship, and member experiences.
mark 13:32
geomekhaiel
posted on Feb 17, 2008 - 05:57 AM
I remember having a really long talk at the monastery about this verse with one of the fathers and we went into great detail about how the accurate translation for it would be, "I know but I am not going to tell you."
There are many members here who are profound in Greek...maybe oen of them can go and look it up and let us know for sure.
George Mekhaiel
Origenos
posted on Feb 17, 2008 - 06:27 AM
From geomekhaiel:Actually Peter, and everyone else,
If you go back to the original greek in which the Gospel was written in you will find that a more accurate translation of that verse is, "I know but I don't want to tell you."
Also, by saying that he knew in His divinity but not in his humanity you are divinding the nature of Christ. This is a no no.
Christ knew/knows when the end is to come.
I am not sure if the original greek text states this meaning...
Actually, St. Basil the Great explains the original text in saying that it implies the following: .... nor the Son if not the Father. meaning that the knowledge will only be through the Father.
The explanation which you gave is consistent with St. Augustine's teachings as he considers God's knowledge equivalent to his revealing of the knowledge.
He says that God is omniscient, so whenever it states in the Bible that He knew it actually meant he revealed His knowledge.
So according to this explanation the verse will mean : Only the father will reveal the time of the second coming
As for the teachings which state that he was speaking as a human - it is very Orthodox and was supported by many late as well as contemporary church fathers
St Athanasius as well as St. Gregory of Nazianzus supported this teaching by saying that he knew as a God and knew not as a human. Since one of the properties of the human nature is to be ignorant and He took a FULL human nature.
which if understood in an orthodox manner it actually does not contradict with many parts of the scriptures such as speaking about Christ's growth in wisdom and stature.
This is to stress what lowlyman has quoted
_________________
Maran Atha
Origenos Piremrakoti
Origenos
posted on Feb 17, 2008 - 06:29 AM
Pope Athanasius. Against the Arians. Third Discourse
43. Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious where He has been silent; for 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor Romans 11:34 ?' 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 deficiency, but of that human nature 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 things,' nor before He became man did He say it, but when 'the Word became flesh John 1:14.' 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 Your Son,' 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 man, 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 ignorant, to say 'I know not,' that He may show that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh. 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.
Origenos
posted on Feb 17, 2008 - 06:31 AM
From geomekhaiel:I remember having a really long talk at the monastery about this verse with one of the fathers and we went into great detail about how the accurate translation for it would be, "I know but I am not going to tell you."
There are many members here who are profound in Greek...maybe oen of them can go and look it up and let us know for sure.
George Mekhaiel
The same verb was used for angels. So will this imply that the angels knew but didn't want to say?
_________________
Maran Atha
Origenos Piremrakoti
mikokiko
posted on Feb 18, 2008 - 04:49 AM
I don't know, I still am not sure about this. It's starting to make a little more sense but not completely. For example, Christ here refers to Himself as the Son, in relation to the Father, He says even the Son does not know, but only the Father. I can't help but feel here He is not speaking in the flesh, for then we would be dividing Christ, something as Miaphysites we cannot do. Rather know that He was sinless, and as such would not teach anything, which at heart, is false.
Rather, if He tells them something as the Son of God, He cannot say that He does not know in the Absolute sense He is talking in. For if we decide to divide Him as some would have, as a Man, He could not know anything about the details of the last day and the final judgment but immediately preceding this statement. So does it make sense, for the Son of God, this One Person, (not that we only refer to His Divine "side" when we call Him the Son of God, but Who He is as a whole, that is the God-Man, in Whom the Godhead and Manhood are fully united without mingling), to say something as if He was only Man, and then to espouse false teachings as a Son to the Father? I think what geomekhail said makes perfect sense, the making known.
As all commandments eternally originate in the Father and are later eternally begotten in the Son, this is the Divine subordination, not that Christ is less than Him., for as the Scriptures reveal, as a Son to the Father, He is a heir to everything the Father has, but in eternal "age" He is younger and less than Him, as He Himself said "My Father is greater than I" but again reassuring His equality with His Father, He says "All things that are the Father's are Mine", and "I and My Father are One" and that He would be revealed sitting at the Right hand of the Majesty on High, regining as a Co-Ruler of the Universe with God Himself (not that He really has a right hand, but this is Imagery that Christ gave us), so that as these statements the High Priest tore His clothes in believing Him to be blaspheming. And what did the Jews do when He said that He is One with the Father? They threw stones at Him, "for He make Himself equal with God."
Therefore if all this overwhelming evidence supports Christ as the Son of God, and equal with Him in Nature and Essense, how can He not know? Of course He does know. The language here must be implied differently in the Koine Greek, to make known. Just as "the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son." Is no more a denial of the Divinity of the Father, but a matter of roles.
Origenos
posted on Feb 18, 2008 - 05:54 AM
Well, when we say that the Father knows when will the time come... it is a relative statement since for God, there is no future being timeless; above the time.
So saying that God knows the future is just from our point of view.
As for the Son of God, Christ, the visible image of The Unseen, He "willingly" took a flesh and willingly put himself under the time.
Being a complete human, he grew in stature and in wisdom, though he is the Wisdom of God.
He went into a temporary state and accepted to be under the time, accepted to leave his Glory.
He was speaking as the Logos who became a full man. and humans are not timeless, humans are not omniscient.
As St. Athanasius said: 'For this as before is not the Word's deficiency, but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant.'
That is different from separating the one Nature of Christ. Dividing Christ into two separate natures implies that He did some actions by his divinity and some actions by his humanity.
There is only one nature from two natures of the Incarnated God.
That is why He said: My Father is greater than I. Which is clearly different from subordination which teaches that He was always less than the Father. But when Christ said my Father is greater than I, it was said at the time of His incarnation.
mikokiko
posted on Feb 18, 2008 - 06:35 AM
But you see that's just it isn't it. When we start speakin gof the Logos as if some things He said were as a Man, and some things as Divine, then we are dividing Him. And if we decide to say that all His statements were spoken as a Man, then we would not have known Him to be the Son of God the Father. If the Lord Jesus was 'limited' by His humanity He could never say anything which pertained only to His Divine and Infinite knowledge (i.e. the End of Times, theological truths of Himself), these things He says as the Begotten Knowledge and Wisdom of God.
For as He grew in Wisdom, He chose to "reveal" His Divine Wisdom in capacities limited by the flesh so that others could perceive Him. But this is not to say that He was speaking as a Man only. Rather His Divinity united with His Humanity allowed Him to reveal bodily His Divinity.
When I say He is less than the Father, I do not mean in Divinity. For in Divinity there is no greater or lesser, but One Infinite Absolute.
Rather He is less than the Father in Eternal "Age", made a Son out of the eternally "older" Unbegotten and Unproceeding God and Father of all, so that whatever the Father does is "later" begotten in the Son as command. He Who being in the form of God, did not think be equal with God a thing to be grasped, but rather He came in the form of men, still remaining what He was, yet emptying Himself as regards His revelation in the flesh, for in Him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And in Him we see God, for He is the invisible Image of the invisible God, made visible for us, so that we who are visible may unite with He Who is invisible. Please, we are in urgent need of Koine Greek experts who know what this means.
In this as a Son, that is being in an assymetrical relationship to the Father, He is not equal in Age but less. Again to clarity, not less in Divinity, for I am not less than my Father or of less worth than him, or less human than him, but I follow his commandments. So too Christ says "All authourity has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." Just as Isaiah calls Him the Servant before He was incarnated, and the voice of the Logos, the Wisdom of God Himself came to Jesus, the son of Sirach saying: "Then the Creator of all gave Me His command, and He Who formed Me chose the spot for my tent, Saying, 'In Jacob make your dwelling, in Israel your inheritance.' (Sirach 24:8)
Here it specifically says that the Wisdom of God takes commandment from Him, just as the sunbeam takes command from the Sun itself were it should be directed. For the Wisdom of God reveals nothing else from that which it comes from, that is, Who God (the Father) is. This is what Wisdom (the Son, who being equally Divine) does. Just as He says to St. Philip, "f you have seen Me, you have seen the Father", not that "if You have seen Me, you have known what the Father looks like, but 'if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father." Meaning that He is the very Image of God Himself, not of similitude, but an effluence flowing from the Almighy as King Solomon describes Him in His book of Wisdom saying: "For Wisdom is more moving than any motion: She passeth and goeth through all things by reason of Her pureness. For She is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into Her. For She is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness. And being but one, She can do all things: and remaining in Herself, She maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, She maketh them friends of God, and prophets." (Wisdom 7:24-27)
Just as St. Paul similarly write of Him in His epistle to the Hebrews saying: "Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:3) So He does not look LIKE the Father, He IS what the Father looks like, meaning that as the Logos, He does not think like the Father, rather He IS what the Father thinks. This is what is meant when He says that He does the will of the Father Who sent Him, not that He should have a separate existence from His Father, but One Will, not one of His own separate from His Father's.
I feel the hesistance on the part of some who are not willing to accept some of these claims of Divine subordination as if Christ is being degraded to the rank of creature, or less than His Father in Power and Might and Godhead. Far be it, for the One Who begets is not Greater than what He begets in essence and nature. Power begets Power and Majesty Majesty, He is Light of Light and True God out of True God. But as the Son, the Image and Logos of God, He represents the will of God. And this is what I mean by the father-son relationshop being assymetrical. When I say symmetrical I mean like that of two brothers. If A is a brother to B, B is likewise a brother to A. But not so with the Begetter and the Begotten.
If A is a father to B, B is a son to A, but not vice versa. A cannot be a son to B, and B a father to A, or both either or, this too applies to the Divine Family. But this does not take away from Their Being One in Essence and therefore Equal in rank. Just as King David the Psalmist shouts in prophetic parallelism saying: The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” (Psalm 110:1) You see both are David's Lord, and One says to the other, sit at My right hand. The Incorporeal has no right hand, but in this imagery David speaks in prophecy. For no prophet can sit at the right hand of throne the Blessed Himself, ruling and reigning side by side. Just picture Moses or Elijah sitting there!
Only the Son of the Father, and the heir of the Kingdom could sit Him, and under Whose feet is all creation subject. And know this, that when when Divine revelation comes, it comes only by means of the Son of the Creator. For as Christ says: "If you believed in God, you would have believed in Me." If you have found God, you have found Him BY the Son. For He being the Word of God, is the Perfect Revelation of God, not the Bible, or any written word, that we would mistake ink, but all inspiration and Revelation is completed and perfect in the Image of God Himself, and His Perfect Revelation, our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ. So too, all the prophets who heard a tangible voice call to them, so that they could write in words and in speech by "seeing" and "hearing" the word of God, did not "see" the Father, for no one has seen the Father at any time, the Only-Begotten God Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. So that all the prophets when they see God, and understand His revelation, they see His Son, His Logos, and the Reason, with which we understand Him. If we have the Logos, we have God.
God Bless
Origenos
posted on Feb 18, 2008 - 06:42 AM
From mikokiko:
Rather He is less than the Father in Eternal "Age", made a Son out of the eternally "older" Unbegotten and Unproceeding God and Father of all, so that whatever the Father does is "later" begotten in the Son as command.
That's actually the Arian explanation of the verse
God is timeless so you cannot use time as a reference for Him
+++++
When we say that Christ hunger and thirst, are we dividing His nature?
No, but we are speaking about God who became Man; who accepted to be under the laws of human nature.
The same principle applies to Mark 13:32
He accepted to 'temporarily' be under the state of limited knowledge - as the Incarnate God
_________________
Maran Atha
Origenos Piremrakoti
mikokiko
posted on Feb 18, 2008 - 07:13 AM
No it is not, because I point out specifically that He is ETERNALLY older. When we say Begotten do we not think of it temporally as humans? As One a Father, Who is older than His Son? So too we clarified this against the Arians in the Athanasian Creed saying: "Begotten of the Father, BEFORE ALL AGES" So too the Father is older than the Son NOT temporally but Eternally, this is how we distinguish between the two. Brotherhood in the Godhead only lands in Polytheism, for this sense in Equality divides the Godhead between two Equal ones, in which there is no room to express the Reason of the One. The Son is the begotten Reason of God.
mikokiko
posted on Feb 18, 2008 - 04:00 PM
Before we call it inaccurate you really have to evaluate what your are condemning as false here. When we say Father and Son, we are using anthropomorphic ideas to understand Who God is, and how it is He exists. But even along with these words are many other connotations. As the Father does, so does the Son do also. The Father, as is implied by the name itself, is older. The Son is begotten, and is younger. But because this all takes place in eternity, there was never a moment when the Son was not and when the Father was.
Just as there is not a time when the Sun is without its Sunlight, so too there is not a moment when the Father is without His Son, as He eternally emanates from Him. When we say this, we begin to understand what is meant by His Being an Image of the Father. For the Son is the exact representation of His Glory, as St. Paul and King Solomon put it, and as Christ put it in anthropomorphic terms, I can do nothing of My own except what I see the Father do, that is what is meant by His being the Logos of God. And by using anthroporphic terms, we imagine a time where the Father begets the Son, and gives Him commandment, except this goes in eternity, not as we would understand it temporally.
I am only going by what the Fathers and the Scripture says, I am not inventing anything here. Read those in the Apostolic Era and see how they speak of Christ. Read St. Ignatius of Antioch, Master Origen, St. Justin Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria, and all these fathers. They do not say that Christ is less in essence or nature, no, far be it, of course I fully accept the Creed. But we need to understand the meaning of Father and Son, and not ignore every statement Christ makes of Himself as doing what the Father does, or doing what the Father tells Him, or as the Reason and His representation, doing what the Father 'first' does, not that this should be distinguished temporally. Of course the Son is not less Divine than the Father in any sort of way, both are equal, but we assign roles to each in the Godhead. For God does all things BY His Son and IN His Spirit. And God is in the Son, (The Father in Me and I in the Father), and obviously, in His own Spirit.
So that this Triune God Who exists in His Wisdom, and His Spirit, is represented by His Reason, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who "does nothing of His own, but what He sees the Father do", I hope I have clarified what I mean by all this. I am far from being any sort of Arian, and I profess nothing different from what the entire bulk of the Church Fathers have said.
Origenos
posted on Feb 18, 2008 - 09:18 PM
I am not questioning your orthodox belief, I am just objecting to the terminology you used.
Saying that the Son is younger than the Father can either be an Arian expression or a meaningless one; since as you said this is in Eternity so younger/older does not make any sense.
I am certain that none of the orthodox fathers described the relation between the Father and the Son in this manner. I would be interested to read if you have any supporting texts.
_________________
Maran Atha
Origenos Piremrakoti
mikokiko
posted on Feb 18, 2008 - 09:56 PM
The terminology I am using is inferred the idea of Begetting and Being Begotten. One is the Father and the Unbegotten Source of the Other. When I say one is older, I refer to the Unbegotten Father, and when I say one is younger, I refer to the Begotten Son. This is simply my inference, and when any of the Fathers say or refer to the Father as being greater than the Son, they of course to do not refer to His being greater in Divinity, but in role, so to speak. One gives command the other follows as the Son, the relationship between one older and another younger. When they say that the Father is greater than the Son, they refer to His Being Unbegotten and Begetting the Son.
mikokiko
posted on Feb 19, 2008 - 01:40 AM
that's fine, I was simply trying to clarify it more for people to understand the Unbegotten/Begotten relationship in the Godhead. It's just that some people always re-iterate that verse as always meaning that the Son was created by the Father, because He is less than Him in rank, when St. John elsewhere in his Gospel tells us that Christ claimed He was equal with His Father.
So I tell some that the word 'greater' here, as is often used in both ancient literature and in many other languages today can mean older or something that you can attribute to Christ's Father. Like when I say in Arabic: "Laa da Mathieu Akbar minni bi arba3 sinin", literally translated as "Mathieu is bigger (or greater) than me by five years." Not that he is of a different nature than me or less or more human, or even that he has more special powers than me. But I will drop the terminology unless its absolutely neccessary to use it.
Anyway, weren't we discussing that passage in Mark? We still await the Koine Greek translation if anyone knows it, has it, or understands it. Thanks.
Truth.Seeker
posted on Feb 28, 2008 - 02:56 AM
This verse is causing me a lot of problems:
St. Severus of Antioch (one of the most ardent defenders of Non-Chalcedonian Christology, attributed the "Son not knowing" to the fact that the Son is perfect man). This causes me trouble because the book I read this in doesn't have St. Severus ellaborating on it. The implication is that this saying was according to His humanity (which divides His natures).
It seems that any answer which attributes this to His "humanity" and not His divinity, divides Christ into "human" and "divine," which is a Chalcedonian thing. We've always been adamant that we cannot attribute certain actions of Christ to His "humanity" or "divinity," because He has one complex nature. The only thing we can do, is "when we contemplate" on certain of His actions, we can think of some of having to do with humanity and others with divinity.
The fact that St. Athanasius says something similar to St. Severus doesn't give me as much trouble because St. Athanasius was dealing with a completely different controversy (defending against Arianism), so he would not need to ellaborate on the other Christological implications.
I might have to just track down the document St. Severus wrote this in and see what he meant, because I cannot think of anyway where that theology is consistent with Miaphysitsm.
__________
About the other question of why Christ didn't show more of His "divine" side:
He showed a lot of it. They were going to stone Him on several occasions because of "blasphemy," after calling Himself the Son of God. He publicy said people's sins were forgiven. He certainly thought He was God (if you'd like, I can post all the verses, but that's a lot of work, so I'll only do it if you specifically ask me to 
).
More specifically about Him "showing" His powers...He raised people from the dead. What more can they ask for? Indeed, they never questioned whether He did miraculous things, they just accused Him of doing it by the help of beelzebub (the devil), and that's when He said "a house divided against itself cannot stand," i.e. that's crazy talk.
Some people are just not willing to believe, that doesn't mean more was needed to be done, that just means no matter how much is done, they will not believe. I once read a funny quote from an Christian apologist talking about an atheist, "If the heavens were to open, and Christ were to come forth and say, 'I am here,' he [the atheist] will find a way to explain it away."
Truth.Seeker
posted on Feb 28, 2008 - 02:58 AM
I must agree with Origenos, the term "younger" should never be used. In orthodox theology we say that the Son is "perpetually" begotten of the Father. It didn't start at any one point. Since the begetting was in perpetuity, there's no time element, hence...no "younger."
mikokiko
posted on Feb 28, 2008 - 04:29 AM
When I say eternally "younger" I am referring to the fact that the Son is Begotten. Begotten itself, if not specified, is considered an act that takes place in time. The very fact that the Logos of God is called Son, implies a sort of "youngerness" from the Father. A Son cannot be older than His Father, and the Father cannot be younger than the Son, this is what the very naming implies. But at the council of Nicaea it was cleared up to show that this nomenclature of begetting and being begotten is taking place in eternity, not that there really was a time when the Son was not. I made it clear that this naming is used only in a sense to help people understand what Christ meant when He said: "My Father is greater than I", like when I say in Arabic: "Abuya Akbar minni." Akbar is translated as "greater" but it means older and it means thta in my father-son relationship, he is the Unbegotten begetter, and he gives me command, just as God the Father begets His command in His Reason, so that the Reason that we see here on earth in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ represents exactly the eternal thought of God, and so we say God was manifested in the flesh. He does the will of the Father, in keeping with His role as His Image and His exact representation as St. Paul the Apostle said to his disciple St. Timothy.
I just had to use this analogy of my own when a Muslim would point to this verse showing me that Christ is not Divine, ignoring explicit verses showing Christ's equality with His Father. I understand it has not been used before, and I have no trouble dropping the terminology, not that I use it frequently in prayer or anything.
Truth.Seeker
posted on Feb 28, 2008 - 04:42 AM
The concept of perpetual begetting takes us out of the realm of time. God exists outside of time and space, and the Son existed before time and space. So, all elements of time are removed and there's no "younger." There was no time when the Son "was not."
You do bring up Nicea, which basically says what I just said (after some deduction). So, I'm not exactly sure where you're getting at, i.e. what you were saying to the Muslim.
Did you "grant" the premise of the Muslim that a father is always "older" than his son, then explain to him why it doesn't apply to Christianity? I would have just went straight to perpetual begetting.
When Christ said "my Father is greater than I," Christ was talking about the fact that the Logos "lowered Himself" to our level and took on the inferior state of a man. I think it had more to do with that than the Son being begotten of the Father.
Truth.Seeker
posted on Feb 28, 2008 - 05:58 AM
Can you point me to their texts? If we take the incarnation out of the picture (since the Son is begotten in perpetuity, which would mean before incarnation), we are only left with the Father and the Logos having the same divine essence, where is the "greater than I" aspect in this?
In other words, we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal because of their same divine essence. The thing that "changed" is that the Son lowered Himself and became man. In my opinion, only at that time would He say "My Father is Greater than I."
Note the context of God's words:
John 14
25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[e] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.
In other words, Christ is telling them to rejoice because He is going back to His rightful place - at the right hand of the Father, in Heaven, where He belongs. It is in that context that He says the Father is greater than Him. To me, He's crystallizing that it was lowering Himself to take the human form, but that He is now going to where He has always been.
Return to the Forum Index
Powered by the coptichymns.net Network of Coptic Hymns and Coptic Orthodox Sites.
Forum Statistics
| Total | Daily | ||
| Topics: | 7190 | 3.99 | |
| Users: | 6120 | 3.40 | |
| Posts: | 60541 | 33.59 | |
Online Members
| mikhail90 |
315 unlogged users and 1 registered user online now.
Already a member? Log in above.
Not a member? Register your unique identity to participate more fully in our site!