 |
| 
Surrender
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 2/20/2010 2:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/20/2010 4:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Surrender
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 2/20/2010 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Tom, but it's Mt. 24:36 I'm interested in, not Mt. 26:36.
:-) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/21/2010 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 2/21/2010 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Surrender,
I don't think this passage is particularly troubling for the Open View. I find this verse very hard to comprehend within the framework of a interpretive stance that necessitates every line to be taken literally.
The entire section has a specific point, and Jesus is trying to make that point by way of analogy:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
I suppose we could use this passage to infer a number of things about the trinity. Namely, it suggests that the Son does not posses knowledge concerning future events that the father posses specific knowledge of. Thus it would follow that the three persons of the trinity are not equal in the content of their knowledge. (Do we really want to say that?)
However, such an interpretation demands that the text lack any analogous properties and be completely deprived of poetic imagery. Which is something of a dilemma, because this is usually considered to be part of the apocalyptic style. Which is highly symbolic and uses a lot of imagery. In other words, to deny the passage has any poetic or symbolic nature is to deny the style in which it is presented, and thus the passage deconstructs into a passage that deals more with trinitarian relations then with the nature of the future itself.
To directly answer the implicit question of "If the Father has decided the hour, then he obviously knows the future, right?" Well, it doesn't have to be that simple. I can decide that after I pay off all of my school loans I'm going to go buy an ice cream cone. I don't have exhaustive, or even close to exhaustive, knowledge of future events. But I'm moving towards a goal. Thus, the "when" doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted as a specific time, but maybe a set of conditions that God has determined must be met before the Son of God will return in glory.
I take it as a poetic way of saying 'no one knows when it's going to happen, so don't even bother trying to predict it'. (So much for all the Dispensationalist-premillennialists who thought Tony Blair was the anti-christ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/21/2010 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting take, Daniel. I like it. (I like it a lot. I think I'll use it and take full credit, ousting your brilliance to a light far more subdued than mine!)
Nice job,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 2/21/2010 9:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey PotOnWheels,
I think most constructions of intratrinity relations are purely speculative. I think we might be reaching beyond our epistemological limits. We're just scratching the surface of how a human being understands itself. How can we possibly think we can understand the inner workings of the trinity That being said, there are certainly clues of how the trinity relates to itself, but I don't think this specific text can be used as such.
You might be right that the Father is the source of knowledge within the trinity (Although, I have no idea how that would work because it would mean that the other persons of the trinity do not posses omniscience as a primary trait, they merely receive the knowledge that the Father shares with them). But I don't think that is what this passage is talking about, and it might be unfair to the text to extract such speculations.
The text in question is:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
If we are to take that line literally it suggests that the Son is not omniscient. And I don't think this statement only pertains to the Sons human existence. The statement seems to be one that suggests, if take literally, that the knowledge is simply inaccessible to the Son.
I see no reason to employ such a literal interpretive stance, but if you do employ such a stance, I don't see how you can get around that dilemma.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 2/21/2010 9:25:36 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Surrender
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 2/22/2010 2:34 PM (GMT -6) | | | Thank you Daniel! That was very helpful! :-) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/22/2010 7:49 PM (GMT -6) | |
Daniel M said...I see no reason to employ such a literal interpretive stance I agree. i don't take it literally either; I take it to be reflecting levels of authority -- levels that have their meaning in context.
Another context passage would be in John where the Spirit Only does what the Son says -- that's not literal either.
But they are meaningful.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/24/2010 2:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Couple things:
1) I favor the view that limits the Son's ignorance spoken of here to the incarnate Son, Jesus, in his kenotic limitations. There's as much (actually more, I think) a plain, matter-of-fact feel to Jesus' words as there is an apocalyptic flavor. He has turned to his listeners and is explaining himself. But in any event, what is its being apocalyptic/poetic supposed to mean for the interpretation of "not even the Son knows"? What's "not knowing" MEAN apocalyptically as opposed to non-apocalyptically? I haven't the faintest clue. So I don't know what its being apocalyptic gets us.
2) I agree though that by "day or hour" is meant the Father knows what combination of factors will determine the right time (as Daniel described). When those factors are to combine isn't even on the calendar yet. It's open. But remember that THIS is what the Son (qua Son as divine OR, in my view, the incarnate Son in his kenotic limitations) does not know, i.e., he doesn't know what those factors even are, and THAT is a very strange thing to attribute to the unincarnate Logos. Depending on what/who you think the Logos/Son is, it's a big deal to say the Father knows something that the Son "as Son" (kenotic limitations of the incarnation aside) doesn't. I can't say it.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 2/24/2010 1:48:12 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/24/2010 1:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/24/2010 3:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/25/2010 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | | John 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."
In view of Jesus' statement above and the complexity of just trying to understand who Jesus really was (which lasted for several centuries after His time on earth), it isn't out of the question for Jesus not to have expanded upon "not even the Son knows." That is, there were several things in which Jesus could not explain about the God in general, the Father the Son, the Holy Spirit, etc., not just when the end would come.
So just because Jesus did not expound upon, or during, His earth-bound limitations, it's not a problem to understand in hindsight that He was simply not going to try to explain what His audience simply couldn't comprehend.
Further, we leave the Son in a state of flux after His resurrection and ascension by not allowing Him to be filled back up that of which He emptied Himself when becoming earth-bound (Phil 2)—I can't imagine someone asking Jesus right now when the end is to come and having Him point to the Father, saying something like, "I don't know. Ask Him."
The most I will go is to say that is if all, in fact, does proceed from the Father to and through the Son, the Son cannot be "behind" said knowledge; He must be right along side of it in continual progression with and contemporary with the Father's knowledge. This means that whatever the Father knows, the Son must also know. If what the Father knows is that the end of certain things has not been decided, then Jesus would have to know this as well. And if this is the case, then Jesus could simply have answered the disciples question about when the end would come by saying, "It hasn't been determined yet," avoiding any ambiguity or confusion about His earth-bound limitations.
Finally, if we take the position that the end is open (not determined) and that it is the Father who makes the final decision, this would have to be the case with all as-of-yet undecided actions; for everything would proceed from the Father to and through the Son. I suppose this is possibly the case, but, again, Jesus could have been more clearer, if this be the case, when He answered the disciples questions about the end to come.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/1/2010 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Starkman,
Starkman: So just because Jesus did not expound upon, or during, His earth-bound limitations, it's not a problem to understand in hindsight that He was simply not going to try to explain what His audience simply couldn't comprehend.
Daniel: Sure. I can roll with that. But I just don't see how it's applicable to this text. Let me explain why I think reading the "nor the Son" as a literal expository of reality suggesting that the Son in his limited human capacities simply isn't capable of accessing that information, does not add up for me
We have the verse that says : ""No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (ESV)
First, we have "No one Knows the day or the hour". Now, it's not because "No one" (whom ever that might be) is in a specific state of being at the time of this utterance that they do not know the "day or hour". It is simply because they do not know.
Second, we have "not even the angels in heaven". Now, the angels in heaven do not know, not because of a specific state of being at the time of this utterance, but because they do not know.
Third, we have "Nor the son". Why, all of a sudden, should we suggest that the Son does not know because of a specific state of being at the time of this utterance? The only way we come to that conclusion is if we bring it to the text with us. If we're taking the verse as a literal description of the dispersal of knowledge concerning the end, why do we not interpret the first two clauses like the third? Or why do we bring in conditions for the third clause, when there is not even a hint of there being conditions within the text?
The verse seems to be suggesting that the Son does not have this knowledge because he is not the Father. Not because he is in a specific state of being.
Starkman: The most I will go is to say that is if all, in fact, does proceed from the Father to and through the Son, the Son cannot be "behind" said knowledge; He must be right along side of it in continual progression with and contemporary with the Father's knowledge. This means that whatever the Father knows, the Son must also know. If what the Father knows is that the end of certain things has not been decided, then Jesus would have to know this as well. And if this is the case, then Jesus could simply have answered the disciples question about when the end would come by saying, "It hasn't been determined yet," avoiding any ambiguity or confusion about His earth-bound limitations.
Daniel: Honestly, I'm not comfortable speculating on specific intra-trinity relations. We can certainly discuss intra-trinity relations in general terms such as love, grace, mercy, etc. Why? Because those things are revealed to us. I can't think of any passages where someone gives an exposition on the dispersal and origin of knowledge in the Godhead.
This passage is clearly Apocalyptic. It is set within the larger content of the Apocalypse of Matthew (which is generally identified as Mathew 24-25). And Apocalyptic is always murky, poetic, and highly symbolic.
The point of this passage is clearly not to discuss the dispersal of knowledge within the Godhead. The point is rather obvious, because the end of the paragraph gives us the point: "Therefore, you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect". Everything in the paragraph is leading up to that point. Given that most of the paragraph is analogy and imagery, I see no reason why the first sentence should stand alone as a literal ontological description concerning the dispersal of knowledge in the Godhead.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 3/1/2010 3:38:44 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/1/2010 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Daniel,
First, I think you make too much out of the poetic aspects of the apocalyptic when you try to apply such to Jesus' very clear statement: no one knows, not even the Son. I mean, what interpretation is to be found different with or without the poetic ascription? It's like when people say that when God changed His mind He was only speaking anthropomorphically, but the question is still: what did He mean, regardless of the anthropomorphism?
Further, I don't think I brought anything to the text that wasn't allowed, namely in what Paul said (in Phil 2) about Jesus emptying Himself—of what did He empty Himself? I'm not completely sure, but I see no reason to believe that said emptying did not included aspects of omniscience, particularly in view of other passages that talk about Jesus growing in knowledge.
Further, you yourself said, Namely, it suggests that the Son does not posses knowledge concerning future events that the father posses specific knowledge of. Thus it would follow that the three persons of the trinity are not equal in the content of their knowledge. (Do we really want to say that?) I certainly am not about to "say that"!
And that's why I noted an acceptance of what also you said after that: To directly answer the implicit question of "If the Father has decided the hour, then he obviously knows the future, right?" Well, it doesn't have to be that simple. I can decide that after I pay off all of my school loans I'm going to go buy an ice cream cone. I don't have exhaustive, or even close to exhaustive, knowledge of future events. But I'm moving towards a goal. Thus, the "when" doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted as a specific time, but maybe a set of conditions that God has determined must be met before the Son of God will return in glory.
You yourself lay emphasis on the Father, not the Son, being the originator of when the end is to come. Now that happens to fit fine from the Orthodox perspective, and I'm not necessarily against the belief; it does address the matter of the final say about the end times being in the the Father's hand, just as Jesus said, so that works for me.
Regardless, though, of whether the Father originates, what happened after Jesus resurrected and ascended MUST restore that of which He emptied Himself, or, I would contend (at least for the moment), that He is not fully restored to the glory He had prior to the incarnation—that glory worked contemporaneously with regard to knowledge, all knowledge; as the Father decides (just to stick with your example), the Son cannot possibly be left behind, or we'd have those "trinity" problems you mentioned.
So I'm all for Jesus truly not having known the time of the end while He was on earth, and maybe He didn't know the time of the end because it just hadn't been decided. But if what Jesus meant was that the the time of the end WAS known by the Father (thus decided), then we are going to have to deal, sooner or later, with when Jesus is going to be back to being what He was prior to the incarnation. Myself, I think that took place after He resurrected (yes, I know that he's technically not "Omnipresent" if His body limits that, but that is easily gotten around through His relationship with the Spirit, who is omnipresent).
Thanks Daniel,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|