Letter 236

236. To the same Amphilochius.

The saying in the Gospel about our Lord Jesus Christ being ignorant of the day of the end and the hour has already been a matter of inquiry among many, and is especially put forward continually by the Anomoeans for the overthrow of the glory of the Only-begotten, as proof of his being unlike in substance and of an inferiority in dignity—as though one who does not know all things could not have the same nature, nor be conceived in a single likeness, with him who comprehends the knowledge of all things by his foreknowing power that reaches out to things to come. This question has now been put to us by your discernment as something new. The things, then, that we heard from childhood from the fathers, and that, from love of what is good, we accepted without scrutiny, these we are able to say—not as untying the shamelessness of the enemies of Christ (for what argument could be found stronger than their impulse?), but as furnishing, perhaps, sufficient assurance to those who love the Lord and possess, in their preconception from faith, something stronger than proof from argument.

The word 'no one' seems to be universal, so that not even a single person is excepted by this expression; yet it is not so used in Scripture, as we have observed in the case of 'No one is good except one, God.' For not even there does the Son say this in order to set himself outside the nature of the good; rather, since the Father is the first good, we believe that 'no one' is said with 'first' understood. So too 'No one knows the Son except the Father.' For not even there does he charge the Spirit with ignorance, but he testifies that the knowledge of his own nature belongs first to the Father. So too we hold that 'No one knows' is said in the sense of referring the first knowledge, both of things present and of things to come, to the Father, and of pointing men through all things to the first cause. For how else can the saying agree with the rest of the testimonies of Scripture, or accord with our common notions—we who have believed that the Only-begotten is the image of the invisible God, and an image not of bodily form but of the very deity, and of the greatnesses conceived as belonging to the substance of God, an image of power, an image of wisdom, in the sense in which Christ is called the power of God and the wisdom of God? And knowledge is plainly a part of wisdom, which he would not image forth in its entirety if he fell short in any matters. And how is it that the Father, through whom he made the ages, did not show him the smallest part of the ages, that day and that hour? Or how is the maker of all things lacking in the knowledge of the smallest part of the things created by him? And he who says that, near the end, such and such signs shall appear in the heaven and in the regions of the earth—how is he ignorant of the end itself? For when he says, 'The end is not yet,' he speaks not as one in doubt but as one who knows and defines. And again, to one who considers fairly, the Lord says many things to men from the human side: for example, 'Give me to drink' is a voice of the Lord fulfilling a bodily need. And yet he who asked was not flesh without a soul, but deity making use of ensouled flesh. So too now, if anyone takes the matter of ignorance as belonging to him who took all things upon himself by the dispensation, and who advanced before God and men in wisdom and grace, he will not be carried outside a reverent understanding.

It would be a task for your diligence to set forth the sayings of the Gospel and to compare with each other those of Matthew and of Mark. For these alone appear to be in agreement with each other on this passage. Now the text of Matthew runs thus: 'But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, except the Father alone.' And that of Mark: 'But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, except the Father.' What, then, is worthy of note in these passages? That Matthew said nothing about the Son's not knowing, but seems to agree with Mark in meaning, by saying, 'except the Father alone.' We, however, hold that 'alone' is said by way of contrast with the angels, and that the Son is not included with his own servants in respect of ignorance.

For he who said, 'All things that the Father has are mine,' does not lie. And one of the things he has is the knowledge of that day and hour. Passing over, then, his own person in silence in the text of Matthew, as a thing agreed upon, the Lord said that the angels do not know, but that the Father alone knows—saying, by what is left unspoken, that the Father's knowledge is also his own, because he has said in another place, 'As the Father knows me, I also know the Father.' And if the Father knows the Son wholly and through and through, so as to know all the wisdom laid up in him, then in equal measure he will also be known by the Son—that is, together with all the wisdom that is in him and the foreknowledge of things to come. We claim, then, this consolation for the words that stand in Matthew, 'except the Father alone.' But as for Mark's text, since it plainly seems to cut off the Son also from knowledge, we understand it thus: that 'no one knows, neither the angels of God, nor even the Son knew, except the Father'—that is, the cause of the Son's knowing is from the Father. And this interpretation is without strain for one who hears fairly, since 'alone' is not added, as it is in Matthew. The sense, then, in Mark is this: but concerning that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels of God, nor would the Son have known, except the Father; for from the Father the knowledge was given to him as his own. And this is a most reverent and God-befitting thing to say concerning the Son: that from him whose substance he shares he has also his knowing, and his being beheld in all the wisdom and glory befitting his deity.

Concerning Jechoniah, whom the prophet Jeremiah says was made an outcast from the land of Judaea when he said, 'Jechoniah was dishonoured like a vessel for which there is no use,' and that he was cast out, both he and his seed, and there shall not rise from his seed one sitting on the throne of David, a ruler in Judah—the explanation is plain and clear. For when Jerusalem had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the kingdom was dissolved, and there were no longer hereditary successions of the rulers as there had been before; but at that time the descendants of David spent their lives from the beginning in captivity. And when those of Salathiel and Zerubbabel returned, they led the people in a more popular manner, the rule having passed thereafter to the priesthood, because the priestly and the royal tribe were mingled together. Hence the Lord is both king and high priest in the things pertaining to God. And the royal tribe did not fail until the coming of Christ, yet the seed of Jechoniah no longer sat upon the throne of David. For by 'throne' is plainly meant the royal dignity. And you surely remember the history, that all Judaea was tributary to David, and the land of Idumaea and the Moabite country, and as much of Syria as bordered on it and what lay farther off as far as Mesopotamia; and on the other side as far as the river of Egypt. If, then, none of those who came after appeared in so great a dignity, how is the word of the prophet not true, that none from the seed of Jechoniah shall any longer sit on the throne of David? For no one from him appears to have taken hold of this dignity. The tribe of Judah, however, did not fail, until he came for whom it was reserved—who himself did not sit upon the bodily throne either, the Jewish kingdom having passed thereafter to Herod, the son of the Ascalonite Antipater, and to his children, who divided Judaea into four governments, while Pilate was governor and Tiberius held the whole power of the Roman empire. But by the throne of David, on which the Lord sat, Scripture means the indestructible kingdom. For he is the expectation of the nations, not of the smallest part of the world; 'For there shall be,' it says, 'the root of Jesse, and one who rises to rule the nations; on him shall the nations hope.' 'For I have set you as a covenant of the race, as a light of the nations.' And 'I will establish,' it says, 'his seed forever and ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.' So, then, he remained a priest also, even if he did not take up the sceptres of Judaea, and God is king of all the earth, and the blessing of Jacob was confirmed: 'And in his seed shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed, and all nations shall call Christ blessed.'

To the subtle Encratites, in answer to their solemn problem—why do we not also eat all things?—let this be said: that we even loathe our own bodily wastes. For in respect of worth, meat is to us as the herbs of the field; but in respect of distinguishing what is beneficial, just as among herbs we separate the harmful from the suitable, so among meats we distinguish the harmful from the useful. For hemlock is a herb, just as vulture's flesh is meat; yet no one in his right mind would eat henbane, nor touch a dog unless great necessity pressed him—though one who did eat would not break the law. As for those who say that human affairs are governed by fate, do not seek arguments from us, but wound them with the proper barbs of rhetoric; for the problem is longer than my present infirmity allows.

Concerning the rising up in baptism, I do not know what led you to ask, if indeed you accepted that the immersion fulfils the figure of the three days. For it is impossible to be baptized three times without rising up as many times.

The word 'glutton' we accent on the penult.

Substance and hypostasis have this difference, which the common has to the particular—as, for example, animal has to such-and-such a man. For this reason we confess one substance in the deity, so that we may not give a varying account of being, but a particular hypostasis, in order that our notion of Father and Son and Holy Spirit may be in us unconfused and made clear. For if we do not conceive the distinct characters belonging to each—such as fatherhood and sonship and sanctification—but confess God from the common notion of being, it is impossible to render the account of the faith soundly. We must, then, adding the particular to the common, confess the faith thus: the deity is common, fatherhood is particular; and joining them together, say, 'I believe in God the Father.' And again, in the confession of the Son, do the like, joining the particular to the common, and say, 'I believe in God the Son.' Likewise also concerning the Holy Spirit, shaping the utterance according to the sequence of the expression, say, 'I believe also in the divine Holy Spirit'—so that throughout both the unity may be preserved in the confession of the one deity, and the particularity of the persons may be confessed in the distinction of the properties conceived as belonging to each. But those who say that substance and hypostasis are the same are compelled to confess only different persons, and, in shrinking from saying three hypostases, are found not to escape the evil of Sabellius, who himself also, confounding the notion in many places, undertakes to divide the persons, saying that the same hypostasis is transformed to meet each need that arises.

And concerning the things you asked—how the middle and indifferent things are dispensed in our regard, whether by some chance occurrence or by the just providence of God—we say this: that health and sickness, wealth and poverty, glory and dishonour, in so far as they do not make their possessors good, are not among the natural goods; but in so far as they furnish some ease to our life, the preferred ones are more choiceworthy than their opposites, and have a certain value when so reckoned. These things, however, are given by God to some for the sake of a dispensation, as to Abraham and to Job and such men; but to the baser sort they are a summons to be improved in their conduct, since one who, after so great a welcome from God, persists in his wrongdoing, undeniably renders himself liable to condemnation. The just man, however, neither turns toward wealth when it is present, nor seeks it when it is absent; for he is not one who enjoys what is given, but one who administers it. And no one with sense rushes into the burdensome business of distributing the goods of others, unless he looks to the glory of the many, who admire and envy those established in some position of power. But sickness the just receive as a contest, awaiting great crowns for their endurance. And to set some other power over the management of these things is not only out of harmony but also impious.