How can Jesus be divine if He lacks knowledge of His return in Mark 13:32? The Text in Question and Its Integrity Mark 13:32 reads: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” The clause “nor the Son” (οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός) is present in every extant Greek manuscript family—Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine—attested as early as 𝔓⁴⁵ (c. AD 200). Patristic citations (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.28.6; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3.6) quote the verse exactly. Text–critical consensus therefore accepts the wording as original. The question is theological, not textual. Christ’s Divinity Explicitly Affirmed Elsewhere 1. Omniscience: “He knew all men…He Himself knew what was in man” (John 2:24-25; cf. 16:30). 2. Eternal pre-existence: “In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God” (John 1:1). 3. Direct confession: Thomas—“My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). 4. Creator: “By Him all things were created” (Colossians 1:16). 5. Worship received (Matthew 14:33; Hebrews 1:6). Any interpretation of Mark 13:32 must harmonize with these unambiguous declarations (John 10:35, Scripture cannot be broken). One Person, Two Natures (Chalcedonian Definition, AD 451) Jesus is fully God (essential attributes undiminished) and fully man (assuming every non-sinful limitation of humanity). This “hypostatic union” means: • Essential (ontological) attributes—omnipotence, omniscience—belong to His divine nature. • Relational or experienced attributes may be variably expressed through His human nature. Thus a statement of human limitation does not negate divine essence; it reveals the authentic incarnation. Functional, Not Essential, Self-Limitation (Kenosis) Philippians 2:6-7: “Who, existing in the form of God…emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.” The Greek ἐκένωσεν (“emptied”) speaks of refraining from the independent exercise of divine prerogatives, not ontologically divesting them. The Son voluntarily accepted: • Hunger (Matthew 4:2) • Fatigue (John 4:6) • Locality (John 11:15) • Gradual human learning (Luke 2:52) Mark 13:32 fits this pattern: during His earthly ministry the Son chose not to access certain divine knowledge, functioning instead in complete submission to the Father’s temporal plan (John 5:19). Jewish Wedding Idiom and Apocalyptic Context First-century Galilean weddings employed the phrase “no one knows the day or the hour, only the father” regarding the unannounced return of the groom. Jesus, speaking as the Messianic Bridegroom (Mark 2:19), used a culturally familiar expression to stress vigilance, not to disclose a metaphysical defect. His audience would hear covenant faithfulness more than abstract ontology. Post-Resurrection Re-assumption of Full Royal Prerogatives After resurrection, Christ declares: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matthew 28:18) and identifies Himself as “the First and the Last” (Revelation 1:17), titles of omniscience (Isaiah 41:4). In Acts 1:7 He replies, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has set,” moving the focus from His incarnational limitation to their covenant responsibility. Nothing in Acts 1 hints that the glorified Christ Himself remains uninformed. Early Church Reception Athanasius (On the Incarnation §54) argued that Mark 13:32 shows true humanity, “yet He remained what He was—God.” Augustine (Tractate 49 on John) saw it as pedagogical: Christ “knew by nature, but did not know by commission to reveal.” The orthodox consensus for 1,600 years has read the verse as functional limitation, never as evidence against His deity. Philosophical Coherence: Essential vs. Accidental Properties Omniscience is essential to divinity; being actively omniscient at every moment is not. Just as omnipotence does not require God to always exercise power, omniscience does not demand constant disclosure or conscious use of all knowledge through every faculty. The incarnate Son operated through a truly human mind, which may refrain from accessing the omniscient database of the divine mind (analogous to a king traveling incognito without abdicating). Addressing Common Objections 1. “If He is ignorant, He cannot be God.” Answer: ignorance in the human faculty voluntarily embraced does not alter the divine nature any more than hunger cancels omnipotence. 2. “Omniscience cannot be partitioned.” Answer: It can be mode-restricted. Before encryption technology was known, Scripture presents the divine mind using “sealed scrolls” (Daniel 12:4; Revelation 5). Partition is biblical. 3. “The verse contradicts John 21:17 (You know all things).” Answer: John 21 is post-resurrection; Mark 13 occurs pre-Calvary. Chronological development resolves the tension. Practical Implications • Vigilance: If even the incarnate Son deferred to the Father’s timing, disciples must remain watchful (Mark 13:33). • Comfort: The crucified-yet-all-knowing Savior empathizes with human limitation (Hebrews 4:15). • Worship: Realizing that the omniscient God chose experiential limitation magnifies His condescending love (Philippians 2:10-11). Summary Mark 13:32 records the incarnate Son’s voluntary, functional non-disclosure of eschatological scheduling, consistent with: • the manuscript record; • the broader scriptural witness to His deity; • the doctrine of the hypostatic union; • the kenotic self-limitation described in Philippians 2; • ancient Near-Eastern wedding idiom; • post-resurrection declarations of omniscient authority. Therefore the verse poses no threat to Christ’s divinity; it showcases the authentic humanity of the Word made flesh who, without ceasing to be God, became truly one of us to accomplish our salvation. |
    |