Knowing the Day, and Growing in Wisdom

Since these things are so, let us now look into the words, “But of that day and that hour no one knows, not even the angels of God, nor the Son.” For they are deeply ignorant about these words, and their heads swim over them, and they think they have in them a strong argument for their heresy. But when the heretics bring the passage forward and arm themselves with it, I see in them the giants once more, fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, through whom all things were made, has to argue his case before them about a day and an hour. The Word who knows all things is accused by them of not knowing a day, and the Son who knows the Father is said not to know an hour of a day. What could be said that is more contrary to sense, or what madness could compare with this? Through the Word all things have been made, times and seasons, night and day, and the whole creation; and is the Maker of all said not to know his own work? The very context of the passage shows that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying, ‘nor the Son,’ he tells the disciples what comes before the day, saying, ‘This and that will happen, and then the end.’ But he who speaks of what comes before the day certainly knows the day too, which will appear after the things foretold. If he had not known the hour, he would not have pointed out the events before it, since he would not have known when it would be. Suppose someone, pointing out a house or a city to people who did not know it, gave an account of what comes before the house or the city, and after describing it all said, ‘Then at once comes the city,’ or ‘the house.’ He would of course know where the house or the city was. Had he not known, he would not have described what comes before it, for fear that out of ignorance he would lead his hearers far out of the way, or in speaking would go past the place without realizing it. In the same way the Lord, telling what comes before that day and that hour, knows exactly when the hour and the day are at hand, and is not ignorant of it. [a]

Now why, though he knew, he did not tell his disciples plainly at that time, no one may pry into where he has kept silent; for “Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” But why, though he knew, he said, ‘not even the Son knows,’ I think none of the faithful is unaware. He said this, like those other statements, as man, because of the flesh. For this too, as before, is not a lack in the Word, but in that human nature to which not knowing belongs. This again will be clearly seen if we honestly examine the occasion, when and to whom the Savior spoke this way. He did not say it when the heaven was made by him, nor when he was with the Father himself, the Word ‘setting all things in order,’ nor before he became man, but when “the Word became flesh.” For this reason it is reasonable to ascribe to his humanity everything that he says in a human way after he became man. For it belongs to the Word to know what was made, and not to be ignorant of either the beginning or the end of these things, for the works are his. He knows how many things he made, and the limit of their existence. And knowing the beginning and the end of each, he surely knows the general and common end of all. Certainly when he says in the Gospel about himself, in his human character, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son,” it is plain that as the Word he also knows the hour of the end of all things, though as man he does not know it. For not knowing belongs to man, and especially not knowing these things. Moreover, this belongs to the Savior’s love for humankind. Since he was made man, he is not ashamed, because of the flesh, which does not know, to say ‘I do not know,’ so that he may show that he knows as God, and that it is only according to the flesh that he does not know. That is why he did not say, ‘not even the Son of God knows,’ lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, ‘not even the Son,’ so that the not knowing might be the Son’s as one born from among men. [c]

For this reason he mentions the angels, but he did not go on to say, ‘not even the Holy Spirit.’ He was silent, and so gave a double hint. First, that if the Spirit knew, much more must the Word know, considered as the Word, from whom the Spirit receives. Second, by his silence about the Spirit he made it clear that he said ‘not even the Son’ of his human ministry. And here is a proof of it: when he had said in a human way, ‘not even the Son knows,’ he still shows that divinely he knew all things. For the same Son whom he declares not to know the day, he declares to know the Father: “No one,” he says, “knows the Father except the Son.” And everyone but the Arians would join in confessing that he who knows the Father knows much more the whole of creation, and in that whole, its end. And if the day and the hour have already been fixed by the Father, it is plain that they have been fixed through the Son, and he himself knows what has been fixed through him; for there is nothing that has not come to be and been fixed through the Son. So he, being the Maker of the universe, knows of what nature, of what size, and within what limits the Father has willed it to be made; and in the ‘how much’ and ‘how far’ its time span is included. Again, if all that is the Father’s is the Son’s (and he himself has said this), and it belongs to the Father to know the day, it is plain that the Son too knows it, having this as his own from the Father. Again, if the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is clear that the Son, being in the Father and knowing the things of the Father, himself also knows the day and the hour. And if the Son is also the Father’s very Image, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son has this likeness to the Father too, that he knows them. It is no wonder if he, through whom all things were made and in whom the universe holds together, himself knows what has been brought into being, and when the end of each and of all together will be. What is to be wondered at is that this audacity, fitting as it is for the madness of the Ario-maniacs, should have forced us to make so long a defense. For by ranking the Son of God, the eternal Word, among things that have come into being, they are not far from daring to maintain that the Father himself is second to creation. For if he who knows the Father does not know the day or the hour, I fear that knowledge of the creation, or rather of the lower part of it, would be greater, as they in their madness would say, than knowledge of the Father. [d]

As for them, since they blaspheme the Spirit in this way, they must expect no forgiveness ever for such impiety, as the Lord has said. But let us, who love Christ and carry Christ within us, know this: the Word said ‘I do not know,’ not as being ignorant, considered as the Word, for he knows, but to show his humanity. For not knowing belongs to man, and he had put on flesh that does not know; and being in it, he said according to the flesh, ‘I do not know.’ And for this reason, after saying, ‘not even the Son knows,’ and mentioning the ignorance of the people in Noah’s day, he at once added, “Watch therefore, for you do not know at what hour your Lord is coming,” and again, “At an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man is coming.” ‘For I too, having become like you for your sake, said “not even the Son.”’ Had he been ignorant divinely, he would have had to say, ‘Watch therefore, for I do not know,’ and, ‘At an hour when I do not expect.’ But in fact he has not said this. By saying ‘you do not know’ and ‘when you do not expect,’ he has shown that not knowing belongs to men. It was for their sake that he too, having flesh like theirs and having become man, said ‘not even the Son knows’; for he did not know in the flesh, though he knew as Word. Again, the example of Noah exposes the shamelessness of Christ’s enemies. For there too he did not say, ‘I did not know,’ but, “They did not know until the flood came.” Men did not know; but he who brought the flood, and that was the Savior himself, knew the day and the hour in which he opened the floodgates of heaven and broke up the great deep, and said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household.” For had he been ignorant, he would not have foretold to Noah, “Yet seven days, and I will bring a flood upon the earth.” But if in describing the day he uses the comparison of Noah’s time, and he did know the day of the flood, then he also knows the day of his own coming. [f]

Moreover, after telling the parable of the virgins, he again shows more clearly who they are who do not know the day and the hour, saying, “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.” He who said a little before, ‘No one knows, not even the Son,’ now does not say ‘I do not know,’ but ‘you do not know.’ In the same way, then, when his disciples asked about the end, he fittingly said at that time, ‘nor the Son,’ according to the flesh, because of the body, so that he might show that as man he does not know; for not knowing belongs to man. But if he is the Word, if it is he who is to come, he who is to be Judge, he who is to be the Bridegroom, then he knows when and at what hour he is coming, and when he is to say, “Awake, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.” For just as, on becoming man, he hungers and thirsts and suffers with men, so with men, as man, he does not know; though divinely, being in the Father as Word and Wisdom, he knows, and there is nothing he does not know. In the same way, too, he asks about Lazarus in a human way, he who was on his way to raise him and knew from where he would call back Lazarus’s soul. And it was a greater thing to know where the soul was than to know where the body lay; but he asked humanly so that he might raise divinely. So too he questions the disciples on coming into the region of Caesarea, though he knew the answer even before Peter gave it. For if the Father revealed to Peter the answer to the Lord’s question, it is plain that the revelation came through the Son; for “No one knows the Son,” he says, “except the Father, nor the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him.” But if the knowledge both of the Father and of the Son is revealed through the Son, there is no room to doubt that the Lord who asked had first revealed it to Peter from the Father, and then asked in a human way, to show that while he asked according to the flesh, he knew divinely what Peter was about to say. The Son, then, knew, since he knows all things and knows his own Father, and no knowledge can be greater or more perfect than that. [g]

This is enough to refute them. But to show still further that they are hostile to the truth and enemies of Christ, I would like to ask them a question. The apostle writes in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, “I knew a man in Christ more than fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know; God knows.” What do you say now? Did the apostle know what had happened to him in the vision, though he says ‘I do not know,’ or did he not know? If he did not know, take care that, being used to error, you do not fall into the wrongdoing of the Phrygians, who say that the prophets and the other ministers of the Word know neither what they are doing nor what they are announcing. But if he knew when he said ‘I do not know,’ since he had Christ within him revealing all things to him, is not the heart of God’s enemies truly perverted and “self-condemned”? For when the apostle says ‘I do not know,’ they say that he knows; but when the Lord says ‘I do not know,’ they say that he does not know. For if Paul, since Christ was within him, knew what he says ‘I do not know’ about, does not Christ himself know much more, though he says ‘I do not know’? The apostle, then, knew what happened to him, since the Lord revealed it to him; that is why he says, ‘I knew a man in Christ.’ And knowing the man, he knew also how the man was caught up. So too Elisha, who saw Elijah, knew also how he was taken up. Yet though he knew, when the sons of the prophets thought that Elijah had been cast down by the Spirit on one of the mountains, he, knowing from the first what he had seen, tried to persuade them. But when they pressed him, he was silent and let them go and search for him. Did he not know, then, because he was silent? He did know; but as if he did not know, he let them go, so that once convinced they might no longer doubt about the taking up of Elijah. So much more did Paul, being himself the one who was caught up, know how he was caught up. For Elijah knew; and had anyone asked him, he would have said how. And yet Paul says ‘I do not know,’ for these two reasons, as I at least think. One is, as he has said himself, so that because of the abundance of the revelations no one should think of him beyond what he saw. The other is that, since our Savior had said ‘I do not know,’ it was fitting for him also to say ‘I do not know,’ so that the servant would not seem to be above his Lord, nor the disciple above his Master. [h]

So he who gave Paul to know, much more knew himself. For since he spoke of what comes before the day, he also knew, as I said before, when the day and when the hour would be; and yet, though he knew, he says, ‘not even the Son knows.’ Why, then, did he say at that time ‘I do not know’ about what he knew as Lord? As far as we may guess by searching, he did this for our profit, as I at least think; and may he grant a true meaning to what we now put forward! On both sides the Savior secured our advantage. He has made known what comes before the end, so that, as he said himself, we might not be startled or frightened when these things happen, but from them might expect the end that follows. And about the day and the hour he was not willing to say, according to his divine nature, ‘I know,’ but according to the flesh, ‘I do not know,’ for the sake of the flesh, which did not know, as I have said before. He did so lest they should question him further, and then either he would have to grieve the disciples by not speaking, or by speaking might act to the harm of them and of us all. For whatever he does, he does entirely for our sakes, since it was for us too that “the Word became flesh.” For us, then, he said, ‘not even the Son knows.’ He was not untruthful in saying so, for he said humanly, as man, ‘I do not know’; nor did he let the disciples force him to speak, for by saying ‘I do not know’ he stopped their questions. And so in the Acts of the Apostles it is written that when he went up upon the angels, ascending as man and carrying up to heaven the flesh he bore, the disciples, seeing this, asked again, ‘When will the end be, and when will you be present?’ And he said to them more clearly, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in his own power.” He did not then say, ‘not even the Son,’ as he had said before humanly, but, ‘It is not for you to know.’ For by now the flesh had risen, had put off its mortality, and had been deified; and it was no longer fitting for him to answer according to the flesh when he was going into the heavens. From then on he was to teach in a divine manner: “It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father has put in his own power; but you will receive Power.” And what is that Power of the Father but the Son? For Christ is “God’s Power and God’s Wisdom.” [j]

The Son, then, did know, being the Word. For he implied this in what he said: ‘I know, but it is not for you to know. For it was for your sakes that, sitting on the mountain, I said according to the flesh, “not even the Son knows,” for the profit of you and of all. It is profitable for you to hear this much about both the angels and the Son, because of the deceivers who will come later. Then, even if demons should disguise themselves as angels and try to speak about the end, you should not believe them, since they do not know. And if the Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, “I am the Christ,” and should try in his turn to speak about that day and end to deceive the hearers, you, having from me these words, “not even the Son,” may disbelieve him as well.’ Moreover, not to know when the end is, or when the day of the end is, is good for men. Otherwise, knowing it, they might grow careless of the time in between, waiting for the days near the end; for they would argue that only then must they look to themselves. For this reason too he has kept silent about the time when each one will die, lest men, puffed up by the knowledge, should at once neglect themselves for most of their time. So the Word has hidden from us both the end of all things and the limit of each of us (for in the end of all is the end of each, and in the end of each the end of all is contained), so that, since it is uncertain and always ahead of us, we may advance day by day as though summoned, “reaching forward to the things ahead and forgetting the things behind.” For who, knowing the day of the end, would not be slack in the meantime? And who, not knowing it, would not be ready day by day? That is why the Savior added, “Watch therefore, for you do not know at what hour your Lord is coming,” and, “At an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man is coming.” He said this, then, for the advantage that comes from not knowing. For in saying it he wants us always to be prepared. ‘For you,’ he says, ‘do not know; but I, the Lord, know when I am coming, though the Arians do not wait for me, who am the Word of the Father.’ [k]

So the Lord, knowing what is good for us better than we do, safeguarded the disciples in this way; and they, so taught, set right the Thessalonians when they were likely to fall into error on this point. But since Christ’s enemies do not give way even to these considerations, I wish to ask them again about this, though I know that their hearts are harder than Pharaoh’s. In Paradise God asks, “Adam, where are you?” And he asks Cain too, “Where is Abel your brother?” What do you say to this? If you think he did not know and asked for that reason, you already belong to the party of the Manichaeans, for this is their bold notion. But if, afraid of that open name, you force yourselves to say that he asks while knowing, what is there absurd or strange in the teaching that you should stumble like this, on finding that the Son, in whom God asked then, the same Son who is now clothed in flesh, asks the disciples as man? Unless, perhaps, having become Manichaeans, you are willing to find fault with the question put to Adam then, and all the rest, so that you may give full play to your perversity. For though you are exposed on every side, you still mutter about the words of Luke, which are rightly spoken but badly understood by you. And what these are we must state, so that their corrupt meaning too may be shown up. [l]

Luke says, “And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in grace with God and men.” This, then, is the passage; and since they stumble over it, we are compelled to ask them, as the Pharisees and the Sadducees were asked, about the person of whom Luke speaks. The case stands like this. Is Jesus Christ a man like all other men, or is he God bearing flesh? If he is an ordinary man like the rest, then let him advance, as a man. This, however, is the view of the man from Samosata, which in effect you hold too, though in name you deny it because of men. But if he is God bearing flesh, as he truly is, and “the Word became flesh,” and being God he came down upon earth, what advance had he who existed equal to God? Or how could the Son increase, being always in the Father? For if he who was always in the Father advanced, what, I ask, is there beyond the Father from which his advance could be made? Next, it is fitting to repeat here what was said on the point of his receiving and being glorified. If he advanced when he became man, it is plain that before he became man he was imperfect, and that the flesh became the cause of his perfection, rather than he of the flesh’s. And again, if he advances as the Word, what more has he to become than Word and Wisdom and Son and God’s Power? For the Word is all these. If anyone can somehow share even one ray of these, as it were, such a man becomes all-perfect among men and equal to angels. For angels and archangels and dominions and all the powers and thrones, as sharing in the Word, always behold the face of his Father. How then does he who supplies perfection to others himself advance later than they? For angels even ministered at his human birth, and the passage from Luke comes after the angels’ ministering. How, then, can such a thing even enter a man’s mind? Or how did Wisdom advance in wisdom? Or how did he who gives grace to others advance in grace? For Paul says in every letter, knowing that grace is given through him, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.” Either let them say that the apostle is untruthful, and dare to say that the Son is not Wisdom; or else, if he is Wisdom, as Solomon said, and if Paul wrote, “Christ, God’s Power and God’s Wisdom,” what further advance could Wisdom admit? [m]

For men, being creatures, are able in a certain way to reach forward and advance in virtue. Enoch, for instance, was taken up in this way; Moses increased and was made perfect; Isaac “by advancing became great”; and the apostle said that he “reached forward” day by day to what lay ahead. For each had room to advance, looking to the step ahead of him. But the Son of God, who is one and only, what room had he for reaching forward? For all things advance by looking at him; and he, being one and only, is in the only Father, from whom again he does not reach forward, but in whom he remains forever. To men, then, belongs advance. But the Son of God, since he could not advance, being perfect in the Father, humbled himself for us, so that in his humbling we on our side might be able to increase. And our increase is nothing other than giving up the things of the senses and coming to the Word himself, since his humbling is nothing other than his taking our flesh. It was not, then, the Word, considered as the Word, who advanced, he who is perfect from the perfect Father, who needs nothing, and who rather brings others forward to advance. But here too he is said to advance humanly, since advance belongs to man. That is why the evangelist, speaking with careful exactness, has mentioned stature along with the advance. But being Word and God, he is not measured by stature, which belongs to bodies. The advance, then, is the body’s; for as the body advanced, the showing forth of the Godhead also advanced in it to those who saw it. And as the Godhead was more and more revealed, so much the more did his grace as man increase before all men. For as a child he was carried to the temple; and when he became a boy he stayed there and questioned the priests about the law. And as his body gradually grew, and the Word showed himself in it, he is confessed from then on, first by Peter and then by all: “Truly this is the Son of God.” Yet the Jews, both those of old and these of today, willfully shut their eyes tight, so as not to see that to advance in wisdom is not the advance of Wisdom itself, but rather the humanity’s advance in Wisdom. For “Jesus advanced in wisdom and grace”; and, if we may say what explains as well as what is true, he advanced in himself. For “Wisdom built herself a house,” and in herself she made the house advance. [o]

(What else, moreover, is this advance that is spoken of but, as I said before, the deifying and the grace given from Wisdom to men, as sin and the corruption within them are blotted out, according to their likeness and kinship to the flesh of the Word?) For in this way, as the body grew in stature, the showing forth of the Godhead also developed in it, and it was made plain to all that the body was God’s temple and that God was in the body. And if they urge that the Word made flesh is called Jesus, and apply the word ‘advanced’ to him, they must be told that this does not lessen the Father’s Light, which is the Son, but still shows that the Word has become man and bore true flesh. And as we said that he suffered in the flesh, hungered in the flesh, and was tired in the flesh, so he may also reasonably be said to have advanced in the flesh. For the advance, such as we have described it, did not take place with the Word outside the flesh. The flesh that advanced was in him, and it is called his; and this, as before, so that man’s advance might stand firm and not fail, because of the Word who is with it. So neither was the advance the Word’s, nor was the flesh Wisdom; but the flesh became the body of Wisdom. Therefore, as we have already said, it was not Wisdom, as Wisdom, that advanced in respect of itself. It was the humanity that advanced in Wisdom, rising by degrees above human nature, being deified, and becoming and appearing to all as the instrument of Wisdom for the working and shining forth of the Godhead. That is why he did not say, ‘The Word advanced,’ but ‘Jesus,’ the name by which the Lord was called when he became man; so that the advance belongs to the human nature, in the way we explained above. [q]