The way early Trinitarians tried to get around the clear biblical fact that the Son is said to lack knowledge of “all things” [ta panta] is by creating the doctrine of double nature at the council of Chalcedon in 451AD. The ESV Study Bible note on Mat 24.36 is particularly enlightening, since it seeks, but fails, to teach what frankly cannot be taught. Here I quote it in full:
“In his incarnate life, Jesus
learned things as other human beings learn them (cf. Luke 2:52; Heb. 5:8). On the other hand, Jesus was also fully God,
and, as God, he had infinite knowledge
(cf. John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17). Here
he is apparently speaking in terms of
his human nature. This is similar to other statements about Jesus which could be true of his human nature only, and
not of his divine nature (he grew and became strong, Luke 2:40; increased in stature, Luke 2:52; was about 30 years old, Luke 3:23; was weary, John
4:6; was thirsty, John 19:28;
was hungry, Matt. 4:2; was
crucified, 1 Cor. 2:8).
Taking account of these verses,
together with many verses that affirm Christ's deity, the Council of Chalcedon
in A.D. 451 affirmed that Christ was ‘perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man.’ Yet it also affirmed that Jesus was ‘one Person and one Subsistence.’ With
regard to the properties of his human nature and his divine nature, the
Chalcedonian Creed affirmed that Christ was to be ‘acknowledged in two natures,
inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union,
but rather the property of each nature being preserved.’ That meant the properties of deity and the properties
of humanity were both preserved. How
Jesus could have limited knowledge and yet know all things is difficult, and
much remains a mystery, for nobody else has ever been both God and man. One
possibility is that Jesus regularly lived on the basis of his human knowledge
but could at any time call to mind anything from his infinite knowledge.”
But a big monkey wrench is thrown in the works once
we analyze the text. For example Mat
24.36 says “of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone”. In other words, it cannot be argued from the
doctrine of double nature that in this instance Jesus is “speaking in terms of
his man/human nature” since neither the “man” or “human nature” are in view
here [equated with “Jesus Christ, son of man”], only the “God/divine nature” [“the Son”].
Just like the word “genesis” in Mat 1.1, 18,
the problem [called a “mystery” by the ESV
note above] this posed for the Chalcedon component of the doctrine of the
Trinity is reflected in the textual history of Mat 24.36. According to textual critics, the “longer reading” in
Matthew [“nor the Son”] appears only in “some important witnesses, including early Alexandrian and Western
mss.”[1]
Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the NT, says that
a shorter reading without “nor the Son…appears
in the majority of the witnesses of
Matthew, including the later Byzantine text [due to the] doctrinal
difficulty” the longer phrase exposed. (The NET Bible refers to it as an “intentional change on the part of
the author [given its] theologically significant issue”.) But
the majority of NT scholars today support “the originality of the [longer]
phrase” [Metzger again] not only due to the appearance of it in the Markan
text [Mar 13.32, which is uncontested] but simply on contextual
consistency alone.
“That the phrase in Matthew was seen as problematic by Christian scribes is
demonstrated with particular clarity by the history of codex Sinaiticus. The
original hand of the manuscript included the phrase, a corrector erased it, and a second corrector restored it. The
reason scribes in general found the
phrase problematic should be
self-evident: it suggests that the Son of God is not all-knowing [ta panta]...”[2]
(Similarly, Jesus doesn’t know the name of the “unclean
spirit” [“demon”, Legion] who identifies him as “Jesus, the Son of the Most High God” [Mar
5.7; Luke 8.28]. NOTE: later on Jesus
does not know who touches him [Mar 5.30;
Luke 8.45]. For other examples where ‘Jesus only’ is in view see Mar 9.16; John 11.34; 21.17.)
No comments:
Post a Comment