|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE |
LIBRARIES |
BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | BOOKSTORE | FREEWARE |
|
|
Translated by Bl. Jackson.
St Basil the Great Resources Online and in Print
|
This Part: 129 Pages
Page 36
Letter CCXXXVI. [2975]
To the same Amphilochius.
1. Enquiry has already frequently been made concerning the saying of the gospels as to our Lord Jesus Christ's ignorance of the day and of the hour of the end; [2976] an objection constantly put forward by the Anomoeans to the destruction of the glory of the Only-Begotten, in order to show Him to be unlike in essence and subordinate in dignity; inasmuch as, if He know not all things, He cannot possess the same nature nor be regarded as of one likeness with Him, who by His own prescience and faculty of forecasting the future has knowledge coextensive with the universe. This question has now been proposed to me by your intelligence as a new one. I can give in reply the answer which I heard from our fathers when I was a boy, and which on account of my love for what is good, I have received without question. I do not expect that it can undo the shamelessness of them that fight against Christ, for where is the reasoning strong enough to stand their attack? It may, however, suffice to convince all that love the Lord, and in whom the previous assurance supplied them by faith is stronger than any demonstration of reason.
Now "no man" seems to be a general expression, so that not even one person is excepted by it, but this is not its use in Scripture, as I have observed in the passage "there is none good but one, that is, God." [2977] For even in this passage the Son does not so speak to the exclusion of Himself from the good nature. But, since the Father is the first good, we believe the words "no man" to have been uttered with the understood addition of "first." [2978] So with the passage "No man knoweth the Son but the Father;" [2979] even here there is no charge of ignorance against the Spirit, but only a testimony that knowledge of His own nature naturally belongs to the Father first. Thus also we understand "No man knoweth," [2980] to refer to the Father the first knowledge of things, both present and to be, and generally to exhibit to men the first cause. Otherwise how can this passage fall in with the rest of the evidence of Scripture, or agree with the common notions of us who believe that the Only-Begotten is the image of the invisible God, and image not of the bodily figure, but of the very Godhead and of the mighty qualities attributed to the essence of God, image of power, image of wisdom, as Christ is called "the power of God and the wisdom of God"? [2981] Now of wisdom knowledge is plainly a part; and if in any part He falls short, He is not an image of the whole; and how can we understand the Father not to have shewn that day and that hour--the smallest portion of the ages--to Him through Whom He made the ages? How can the Creator of the universe fall short of the knowledge of the smallest portion of the things created by Him? How can He who says, when the end is near, that such and such signs shall appear in heaven and in earth, be ignorant of the end itself? When He says, "The end is not yet." [2982] He makes a definite statement, as though with knowledge and not in doubt. Then further, it is plain to the fair enquirer that our Lord says many things to men, in the character of man; as for instance, "give me to drink" [2983] is a saying of our Lord, expressive of His bodily necessity; and yet the asker was not soulless flesh, but Godhead using flesh endued with soul. [2984] So in the present instance no one will be carried beyond the bounds of the interpretation of true religion, who understands the ignorance of him who had received all things according to the oeconomy, [2985] and was advancing with God and man in favour and wisdom. [2986]
[2975] This letter is also dated in 376, and treats of further subjects not immediately raised by the De Spiritu Sancto: How Christ can be said to be ignorant of the day and the hour; Of the prediction of Jeremiah concerning Jeconiah; Of an objection of the Encratites; Of fate; Of emerging in baptism; Of the accentuation of the word phagos; Of essence and hypostasis; Of the ordaining of things neutral and indifferent.
[2976] Mark xiii. 32.
[2977] Mark x. 18. i.e. in Adv. Eumon. iv. vide Proleg.
[2978] The manuscripts at this point are corrupt and divergent.
[2979] Matt. xi. 27.
[2980] Matt. xxiv. 36.
[2981] 1 Cor. i. 24.
[2982] Matt. xxiv. 6.
[2983] John iv. 7.
[2984] cf. Ep. cclxi. 2. The reference is to the system of Apollinarius, which denied to the Son a psuche logike or reasonable soul.
[2985] oikonomikos, i.e. according to the oeconomy of the incarnation. cf. note on p. 7.
[2986] cf. Luke ii. 52.
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/basil/letters-3.asp?pg=36
