Traduction
Masquer
Four Discourses against the Arians
45.
But for them, when they thus blaspheme the Spirit, they must expect no remission ever of such irreligion, as the Lord has said 1; but let us, who love Christ and bear Christ within us, know that the Word, not as ignorant, considered as Word, has said ‘I know not,’ for He knows, but as shewing His manhood 2, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on flesh that was ignorant 3, being in which, He said according to the flesh, ‘I know not.’ And for this reason, after saying, ‘No not the Son knows,’ and mentioning the ignorance of the men in Noah’s day, immediately He added, ‘Watch therefore, for ye know not in what hour your Lord doth come,’ and again, ‘In such an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh 4.’ For I too, having become as you for you, said ‘no, not the Son.’ For, had He been ignorant divinely, He must have said, ‘Watch therefore, for I know not,’ and, ‘In an hour when I think not;’ but in fact this hath He not said; but by saying ‘Ye know not’ and ‘When ye think not,’ He has signified that it belongs to man to be ignorant; for whose sake He too having a flesh like theirs and having become man, said ‘No, not the Son knows,’ for He knew not in flesh, though knowing as Word. And again the P. 419 example from Noah exposes the shamelessness of Christ’s enemies; for there too He said not, ‘I knew not,’ but ‘They knew not until the flood came 5.’ For men did not know, but He who brought the flood (and it was the Saviour Himself) knew the day and the hour in which He opened the cataracts of heaven and broke up the great deep, and said to Noah, ‘Come thou and all thy house into the ark 6.’ For were He ignorant, He had not foretold to Noah, ‘Yet seven days and I will bring a flood upon the earth.’ But if in describing the day He makes use of the parallel of Noah’s time, and He did know the day of the flood, therefore He knows also the day of His own coming.
-
Or.i. 50, n. 7. ↩
-
It is a question to be decided, whether our Lord speaks of actual ignorance in His human Mind, or of the natural ignorance of that Mind considered as human; ignoranceinorexnatura; or, which comes to the same thing, whether He spoke of a real ignorance, or of an economical or professed ignorance, in a certain view of His incarnation or office, as when He asked, ‘How many loaves have ye?’ when ‘He Himself knew what He would do,’ or as He is called sin, though sinless. Thus it has been noticed,supr.ii. 55, n. 7, that Ath. seems to make His infirmities altogether only imputative, not real, as if shewing that the subject had not in his day been thoroughly worked out. In like manner S. Hilary, who, if the passage be genuine, states so clearly our Lord’s ignorance,de Trin.ix. fin. yet, as Petavius observes, seems elsewhere to deny to Him those very affections of the flesh to which he has there paralleled it. And this view of Athan.’s meaning is favoured by the turn of his expressions. He says such a defect belongs to ‘that human naturewhose property it is to be ignorant;’ §43. that ‘since He was made man, He is notashamed,because of the flesh which is ignorant,to say,“I know not;”’ ibid. and, as here, that ‘asshewingHis manhood, in that to be ignorant isproperto man, and that He hadput ona fleshthat was ignorant,being in which, Hesaidaccording to the flesh, “I know not;”’ ‘that He mightshewthat as man He knows not;’ §46. that ‘asman’ (i.e. on thegroundof being man, not in thecapacityof man), ‘He knows not;’ ibid. and that, ‘Heasksabout Lazarus humanly,’ even when ‘He wason His wayto raise him,’ which implied surely knowledge in His human nature. The reference to the parallel of S. Paul’s professed ignorance when he really knew, §47. leads us to the same suspicion. And so ‘forour profitas I think, did He this.’ §§48–50. The natural want of precision on such questions in the early ages was shewn or fostered by such words as οἰκονομικῶς , which, in respect of this very text, is used by S. Basil to denote both our Lord’s Incarnation,Ep.236, 1 fin. and His gracious accommodation of Himself and His truth,Ep.8, 6. and with the like variety of meaning, with reference to the same text, by Cyril.Trin.p. 623. andThesaur.p. 224. (And the worddispensatioin like manner, Ben. note onHil.x. 8.) In the latterEp.S. Basil suggests that our Lord ‘economizes by a feigned ignorance.’ §6. And S. Cyril.Thesaur.p. 224. And even inde Trin.vi. he seems to recognise the distinction laid down just now between the natural and actual state of our Lord’s humanity; and so Hilary,Trin.ix. 62. And he gives reasons why He professed ignorance, n. 67. viz. as S. Austin words it, Christum se dixisse nescientem, in quo alios facit occultando nescientes.Ep.180, 3. S. Austin follows him, saying, Hoc nescit quod nescienter facit.Trin.i. 23. Pope Gregory says that the text ‘is most certainly to be referred to the Son not as He is Head, but as to His body which we are.’Epx. 39. And S. Ambrosede fid.v. 222. And so Cæsarius, Qu. 20. and PhotiusEpp.p. 366. Chrysost. in Matt.Hom.77, 3. Theodoret, however, but in controversy, is very severe on the principle of Economy. ‘If He knew the day, and wishing to conceal it, said He was ignorant, see what a blasphemy is the result. Truth tells an untruth.’ l. c, pp. 23, 4. ↩
-
§48. ↩
-
Matt. xxiv. 42, 44 . ↩
-
Matt. xxiv. 39 . ↩
-
Gen. vii. 1 . ↩
Traduction
Masquer
Vier Reden gegen die Arianer (BKV)
45.
Doch sie, die so wider den Hl. Geist lästern, mögen sich keine Hoffnung machen, je einmal für diese Gottlosigkeit Verzeihung zu erlangen, wie der Herr gesagt1. Wir aber, die Christus lieben und Christus in uns tragen, wollen erkennen, daß das Wort, insoweit es Wort ist, nicht aus Unwissenheit gesagt hat: „Ich weiß nicht“ — es hat ja Kenntnis —, sondern indem es seine menschliche Natur zu erkennen gab, weil es den Menschen eigen ist, nicht zu wissen, und weil es nicht-wissendes Fleisch anzog und in ihm nach Art des Fleisches sagte: „Ich weiß nicht“. Damals also hat er gesagt: „Auch der Sohn weiß nicht“ und führte beispielsweise die Unwissenheit der Menschen zu Noes Zeit an und fügte dem sogleich bei: „Wachet also, weil auch ihr nicht wißt, zu welcher Stunde der Herr kommt“2, und wieder: „Zu der Stunde, da ihr nicht glaubt, kommt der Menschensohn“3. Denn euertwegen ward auch ich euch gleich und sprach: „auch der Sohn nicht“. Er hätte aber, wenn er es als Gott nicht gewußt hätte, sagen müssen: „Wachet also, weil ich es nicht weiß“, und „zu S. 303 der Stunde, da ich nicht glaube“. Nun aber sprach er nicht so. Indem er aber gesagt hat: „Ihr wisset nicht“, und: „zu der Stunde, da ihr nicht glaubt“, hat er gezeigt, daß es den Menschen zukommt, nicht zu wissen, derentwegen er auch selbst ihr ähnliches Fleisch hatte und Mensch geworden sprach: „Auch der Sohn weiß nicht“. Er weiß nämlich dem Fleische nach nicht, obschon er als Wort Kenntnis hat. Auch das Beispiel von der Zeit Noes beweist wieder die Unverschämtheit der Christusfeinde. Denn auch da sagte er nicht: „Ich erkannte es nicht“, sondern: „Sie erkannten es nicht, bis die Flut kam“4. Denn die Menschen erkannten nicht, wohl aber der, welcher die Flut herbeiführte — dies war aber der Heiland. Er kannte den Tag und die Stunde, wo er die Schleusen des Himmels öffnete und die Abgründe aufschloß und zu Noe gesagt hat: „Geh du mit deinen Söhnen in die Arche!“5 Hätte er es aber nicht gewußt, dann hätte er nicht dem Noe vorhergesagt: „Noch sieben Tage und ich bringe die Flut über die Erde“6. Wenn er aber bei dem Bilde von der Zeit Noes den Tag angibt und den Tag der Flut kannte, dann weiß er doch auch den Tag seiner Ankunft.
