Only The Father Knows

by Harold F. Carl, PhD

Historical and Evangelical Responses to Jesus' Eschatological Ignorance

in Mark 13:32

INTRODUCTION

Mark chapter thirteen, and especially Mark 13:32, is among the most
difficult passages in the New Testament. Volumes have been written debating the
authenticity and compilation of chapter thirteen centered around the “little
apocalypse” theory of some New Testament scholarship, as well as other theories
about the chapter.[1] Ralph Martin rightly characterizes the theological
controversy surrounding Mark 13:32 among those who have supported the historic,
orthodox Christology of Chalcedon.

The admission, attributed to Jesus (in 13:32), that “about

that day or that hour no one except the Father knows,
neither the angels in heaven nor the Son,” has been an
exegetical embarrassment from the beginning. Its
trustworthiness as part of Jesus’ teaching has been
impeached partly on the ground that it seems to betray
the very truth which an orthodox Christology
championed.[2]
Any real lack of knowledge on the part of “the Son,” in any sense, was so
abhorrent to early Christian writers that a number of means were employed to
either dismiss the idea of the Son’s ignorance all together, or reinterpret it in a
completely metaphorical or symbolic way. Others used the verse to dismiss any
idea of true deity in the Jesus of history.

This article is an attempt to ask a number of questions about this passage:

How do those who hold to a Chalcedonian understanding of the two natures of
Christ interpret Mark 13:32? Have ancient and reformation theologians addressed
the key issues? How have modern evangelicals approached the same issues? Do
theological solutions and discussions applied to other problems in the two-natures
context (like the weakness and omnipotence of Christ) really work for the
knowledge of Christ (his omniscience and ignorance)? How are we to understand
key phrases in Mark 13:32 such as “no one knows,” “nor the Son,” and “only the
Father?” How are we to understand the title “the Son” in the context of the
widening circles of verse 32, chapter 13, the Gospel of Mark, and the New
Testament as a whole? Would some of our modern evangelical answers to these
questions sound like Nestorianism, an over-separation of the two natures to the
point of a division of the person of Christ, to those who lived during that
debate? These are just some of the issues that confront us. The approach of this
article will be a survey of the interpretation of this verse from ancient Christianity
through modern evangelicalism, followed by discussion of key exegetical and
interpretive issues. Then we will attempt some evaluation of interpretations and to
draw some tentative conclusions.

HISTORICAL CONCERNS

ANCIENT CHRISTIAN SOLUTIONS

 The church fathers developed interpretations of Mark 13:32 mostly in
response to the Arians, and others, who used the verse to argue that if there was
something that the “Son” of God did not know, then He must not possess a full and
complete divinity. Athanasius (295-373) devotes most of chapter 29 in his
discourses against the Arians to the proper interpretation of Mark 13:32. He
follows a number of lines of biblical/theological reasoning that are paralleled by
other church fathers and are later picked up by reformation and modern
theologians.

Athanasius’s answer to the problem of the ignorance of the Son is that

when Jesus said that the Son did not know, He spoke according to his humanity,
not his divinity. “Son” refers to the humanity of Christ in this passage, not to the
deity.

He made this, as well as those other declarations as man,

by reason of the flesh. For this as little as the others is
the Word’s deficiency, but of that human nature whose
property it is to be ignorant. . . Moreover this is proper
to the Savior’s love of man; for since He was made man,
He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is
ignorant, to say “I know not,” that He may show that
knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the
flesh.[3]

Athanasius argues this on a number of biblical grounds. The Word created all
things, including the times and seasons, night and day. Is the “Framer of all said to
be ignorant of His work?” In the immediate context, Jesus related many details of
the approaching day. Certainly if he knows the antecedents of the day, the Word
knows the day itself.[4] Athanasius also argues that if “nor the Son, but only the
Father” applies to the divine economy, then the implication is that the Holy Spirit
is also ignorant of the day and the hour.[5] (The issue of the Holy Spirit’s
omniscience or implied ignorance, repeated by others, may be a key to the
interpretation of the passage.) He also appeals to the relational language of Jesus
in Matthew and John. He who knows the father as no one else knows the Father,
must know what the Father knows (Matt 11:27). If all that belongs to the Father
belongs to the Son (Jn 16:15; 17:10), this includes knowledge; then the divine Son
knows. If the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son (Jn 14:10-11), then the
divine Son knows. He also makes his case from theological descriptions of the
divine Son’s being. If the Son is the Father’s very image (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3), then
he shares the likeness with the Father of knowing the day and the hour.
[6] Athanasius argues that it is not unusual in Scripture that both human and
divine traits are ascribed to the Savior. One would not attribute Jesus spitting, or
stretching out his hand, or speaking with his human voice to his divine
being. Neither should one attribute ignorance to it. Both natures are sometimes
seen simultaneously. He asked where Lazarus was, then He raised him from the
dead. He told His mother His hour had not yet come, then turned water into
wine. These all show that Jesus Christ is a person with two natures, who is
sometimes described by traits of one or the other nature.[7]

Hilary of Poitiers (315-367) appears to take a very different

approach. Hilary argues using many of the same passages and arguments as
Athanasius for the omniscience of the Son. But Hilary argues them for the whole
person of Christ, not just the divine nature. The ignorance of Christ expressed in
Mark 13:32 is strictly an economic or apparent ignorance. There is no deficiency
whatsoever in the knowledge of the person of Christ.

Whenever God says that he does not know, He professes

ignorance indeed, but is not under the defect of
ignorance. It is not because of the infirmity of
 ignorance that He does not know, but because it is not
yet the time to speak, or the divine Plan to act . . . This
knowledge is not, therefore, a change from ignorance,
but the coming of the fulness of time. He waits still to
know, but we cannot suppose that He does not know:
therefore His not knowing what He knows, and His
knowing what He does not know, is nothing else then a
divine economy in word and deed.[8]

Christ, in both natures, does not know only in the sense that it is not yet time to
declare a thing or that it is not deserving of His recognition.[9] It cannot be said
that any infirmity exists in the Son so that He does not know.

For since His ignorance is due to the economy of hidden

knowledge, and not to a nature capable of ignorance,
now that He says the Father alone knows, we cannot
believe that He does not know; for, as we said above,
God’s knowledge is not the discovery of what He did
not know, but its declaration. The fact that the Father
alone knows, is no proof that the Son is ignorant: He
says that He does not know, that others may not know:
that the Father alone knows, to shew that He Himself
also knows.[10]

Gregory of Nazianzus (330–389) interpreted the verse solely in terms of

the two natures of Christ. The divine is omniscient, the human is ignorant.

Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and

knows not as Man; - if one may separate the visible
from that which is discerned by thought alone. For the
absolute and unconditioned use of the Name “The Son”
in this passage, without the addition of whose Son, gives
us this thought, that we are to understand the ignorance
 in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the
Manhood, and not to the Godhead.[11]

Gregory goes on into a lengthy discussion of the names and titles of the Son. He
clearly identifies the title “Son” with the divine nature and never explains how it
can be used to denote the human nature in Mark 13:32.[12]

Ambrose (339-397) takes an even stronger approach to battle the Arian use
of Mark 13:32. He attributes the phrase “neither the Son” to an Arian
interpolation.

It is written, they say: “But of that day and that hour

knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father only.” First of all the
ancient Greek manuscripts do not contain the words
“neither the Son.” But it is not to be wondered at if they
who have corrupted the sacred Scriptures, have also
falsified this passage. The reason for which it seems to
have been inserted is perfectly plain, so long as it is
applied to unfold such blasphemy.[13]

No reference is made to which Greek manuscripts Ambrose is referring. Ambrose

goes on to state that if the Evangelist did in fact write these words, that the name
“Son” embraces both natures.

The name “Son” embraces both natures. For He is also

called Son of Man, so that in the ignorance attached to
the assumption of our nature, he seems not to have
known the day of the judgment to come. For how could
the Son of God be ignorant of the day, seeing that the
treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God are
hidden in Him?[14]
Ambrose then states, in similar fashion to Athanasius, that the divine Son must
know the day and the hour of the Lord’s return.[15]

Augustine (354-430) understood the ignorance of Christ in a very limited

and unusual sense. In numerous contexts, Augustine says Christ is ignorant of the
day and hour of His return only in the figurative sense that others do not learn this
from Him. It is a sort of derived ignorance. Two passages sufficiently illustrate
what Augustine means:

What comes then of the Son’s even not knowing

this? Which of course is said with this meaning, that
men do not learn this by the Son, not that He by Himself
doth not know it . . . When therefore the Son is thus said
not to know this day: not because He knoweth it not, but
because He causeth those to know it not, for whom it is
not expedient to know it, that is, He doth not show it to
them[16]

He said, that “of the day not even the Son of Man
knew,” because it was not part of His office as our
Master that through Him it should become known to
us. For indeed that Father knoweth nothing that the Son
knoweth not; since that is the Very Knowledge of the
Father Itself, which is His Wisdom; now His Son, His
Word, is “His Wisdom.” . . . Now thus according to a
certain form of speech, the Son is said not to know what
He does not teach: that is, in the same way that we are
daily in the habit of speaking, He is said not to know
what He causes us not to know.[17]

A number of these ancient ways of reasoning are later used by reformers and
modern theologians.
REFORMATION SOLUTIONS

Martin Luther’s solution for Mark 13:32 can be found in a disputation

with Schwenkfeld on the deity and humanity of Christ. Schwenkfeld contended
that since Jesus claimed not to know the day and the hour, He was not omniscient
and therefore could not be God. Luther’s answer was that in this case, Jesus was
speaking with regard to His human nature.

Argument: God knows all things. Christ does not know

all things. Therefore Christ is not God. I prove the
minor premise from Mark, where Christ says that he
does not know the last day. Response: The solution is
that Christ there speaks after a human manner, as he also
says: "All things have been given to me by the
Father." Often he speaks of himself as if simply of God,
sometimes simply as of man. The Father does not will
that the human nature should have to bear divine
epithets [ut humana natura debeat gerere dicta divina],
despite the union, and yet sometimes [Christ] speaks of
himself as of God, when he says, "The Son of Man will
be crucified." To be crucified is a property of the
human nature, but because there are two natures united
in one person, it is attributed to both natures. Again,
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." There he
speaks of the divine nature. Or again, "They crucified
the Lord of glory," where he speaks of the property of
the humanity.[18]

Here Luther develops the interpretive principle that later becomes know as the rule
of predication, where a divine title (the Lord of glory) is often in Scripture
connected with a human attribute or activity (crucifixion). This is a very common
mode of thinking for Luther. For Luther, this is possible through
the communicatio idiomatum of the two natures in the one person.
 From the moment when deity and humanity were united
in one Person, the Man, Mary’s Son, is and is called
almighty, eternal God, who has eternal dominion, who
has created all things and preserves them “through the
communication of attributes” (per communicationem
idiomatum), because He is one Person with the Godhead
and is also very God.[19]

If asked how the divine-human person of Christ might be both omniscient and
ignorant at the same time, one might expect Luther to say this was possible
because the Godhead was often hidden in the flesh.

For from the very beginning of Christ’s conception, on

account of the union of the two natures, it has been
correct to say: “This God is the Son of David, and this
Man is the Son of God.” The first is correct because His
Godhead was emptied and hidden in the flesh. The
second is correct because His humanity has been
completed and translated to divine being.[20]

Elsewhere Luther speaks of the humiliation and Incarnation of Christ as a non-use

of his divine attributes. Explaining Philippians 2, Luther writes, “He says that
Christ emptied Himself of the divine form; that is, He did not use His divine might
nor let His almighty power be seen, but withdrew it when he suffered.”[21] Luther
understands apparent deficiencies in the divine attributes of the incarnate person of
Christ to be attributed to the concealing of or non-use of divine attributes that were
always present during the humiliation.

John Calvin addresses Mark 13:32 in his Harmony of the Evangelists. He

writes that many, driven by the misuse of this passage by the Arians, employ a
subterfuge and a contrivance when they say that Christ is ignorant only in the sense
that He did not choose to reveal this information to humankind. Calvin combines
the idea of the non-use of the divine omniscience (repose) and an appeal to the two
natures of Christ to solve the difficulty.

For we know that in Christ the two natures were united

into one person in such a manner that each retained its
own properties; and more especially the Divine nature
was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself,
whenever it was necessary that the human nature should
act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself,
in discharging the office of Mediator. There would be
no impropriety, therefore, in saying that Christ,
who knew all things, (John xxi.17,) was ignorant of
something in respect of his perception as a man; for
otherwise he could not have been liable to grief and
anxiety, and could not have been like us, (Heb.
ii.17.) . . . And if Christ, as man, did not know the last
day, that does not any more derogate from his Divine
nature than to have been mortal.[22]

In the Institutes, Calvin attributes this to the “communication of properties” (rule

of predication). Divine titles and human characteristics are often interchanged due
to the union of the two natures in the person of Christ.

The scriptures speak of Christ: they sometimes attribute

to him what must be referred solely to his humanity, and
sometimes what belongs uniquely to his divinity; and
sometimes what embraces both natures but fits neither
alone. And they so earnestly express this union of the
two natures that is in Christ as sometimes to interchange
them. This figure of speech is called by the ancient
writers “the communicating of properties.”[23]
 What Christ said about himself- ‘Before Abraham was, I
am’ - was far removed from his humanity . . . therefore
they and their like apply exclusively to his divinity. But
he is called “the servant of the Father”; he is said to
have ‘increased in age and wisdom . . ., ‘not to know the
Last Day’ . . . All these refer solely to Christ’s humanity
. . . But the communicating of characteristics or
properties consists in what Paul says: ‘God purchased
the church with his blood’ [Acts 20:28], and ‘the Lord
of glory was crucified’ [1 Cor 2:8]. John says the same:
‘The word of life was handled’ [1 John 1:1]. Surely
God does not have blood, does not suffer, cannot be
touched with hands. But since Christ, who was true
God and also true man, was crucified and shed his blood
for us, the things that he carried out in his human nature
are transferred improperly, although not without reason,
to his divinity.[24]

When Calvin says “communication of properties,” he does not mean that the
properties of either nature are communicated to the other. He means that since the
person of Christ has both a human and divine nature, what can be said of either the
human or the divine can be said of the whole person. The practical ramification of
this in Scripture, as Calvin and others after him so clearly demonstrate, is that a
divine title (Lord of Glory) can be used with a description of a human attribute
(was crucified), or, more pertinent to this discussion, a divine title (Son) may be
used with a description of the human nature (ignorant). This is the totality of what
Calvin means by the communication of properties.[25] This idea is developed by
later theologians.

MODERN EVANGELICAL SOLUTIONS

The majority of modern evangelical interpretations of Mark 13:32 fit into

three or four broad categories with some overlap. However, at least two minority
understandings are worth mentioning for the sake of discussion. In his
controversial article “The Subordination of the Son” in JETS in 1994, John Dahms
cites Mark 13:32 as one of several passages which “possibly” imply the eternal
subordination of the Son. Dahms argues that the title “Son” when used absolutely
implies that the deity of Christ is in view. This being the case, there is something
that the divine “Son” does not know that the Father does know. This verse stresses
the subordination to the Father. Dahms concludes, “It is probable that the eternal
subordination of the Son is reflected in Mark 13:32.”[26]

Another minority explanation of the passage is what W. G. T. Shedd dubs

Christ’s “official ignorance.” In volume one of Shedd’s Dogmatic
Theology,Shedd outlines a position closely parallel to that of Augustine, even
quoting Augustine. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ. Yet Mark 13:32 says He is
ignorant of the day of judgment. While some attribute this ignorance to the
humanity of Christ, a better approach is that Christ knew, but was not
commissioned to reveal, the day or the hour of the final judgment. This is official
ignorance.

To “know” means to “make known,” . . . A particular

Trinitarian person is officially the one to reveal another,
and in this reference the others do no officially reveal,
and so are officially “ignorant.” . . . When it is said that
“the Father only” knows the time of the day of
judgment, this must be harmonized with the truth that
the Holy Spirit is omniscient, and “searcheth the deep
things of God,” 1 Cor. 2:10. The Holy Spirit is not
ignorant of the time of the day of Judgment, but like the
incarnate Son he is not commissioned to reveal the
time . . . Again, it is not supposable that Christ now
seated on the mediatorial throne is ignorant, even in
respect to his human nature, of the time of the day of
judgment, though he is not authorized to officially make
it known to his church.[27]
 The perplexing thing about Shedd is that in the second volume of
his Dogmatic Theology, he sets forth a highly developed explanation of the
relationship between the finite human mind of Christ and the omniscient divine
mind of Christ. There he attributes the ignorance of Mark 13:32 to the human
nature of Christ.[28] The only other modern author found, and he not so modern,
to espouse the “official ignorance” view is Lewis Sperry Chafer. Chafer wrote,

Of Mark 13:32 where it is recorded that Christ declared

that He did not know the day nor the hour of His return,
it may be observed that the passage is not unlike 1
Corinthians 2:2 where the Apostle wrote, “For I
determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus
Christ, and him crucified.” The thought is not to make
known, or not to cause another to know. The truth
mentioned was not then, as to its time, committed either
to the Son or to the angels to publish.[29]

This again is very similar to Augustine’s argument.

The other three ways of explaining the ignorance of Christ all have several
things in common. They all attribute to the incarnate Christ a full and proper deity
and humanity. They all describe the ignorance of Christ as real and concrete as
opposed to metaphorical or “official.” And they all attribute this real ignorance of
Christ to the human nature alone. How they describe the possibility of an
omniscient divine mind and a finite human mind is what separates them, although
there is some overlap. The non-use and two-natures approaches are both ways of
dealing with the problem of how Christ could be both omniscient and
ignorant. The rule of predication explains how a divine title may be used to
describe a human nature or trait.
 The least common of the three focuses on the idea of some sort of non-use
of divine omniscience. Both Luther and Calvin sometimes explain the ignorance
of Christ in this way. Charles M. Horne, in an exposition of Philippians 2,
describes the “true kenosis” as not a loss of divine attributes, but a giving up of
their independent use.

During the Son’s earthly sojourn the divine attributes of

omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence remained
potential or latent, existent but no longer at the center of
His consciousness and in conscious exercise, but
undestroyed and capable of manifestation in appropriate
circumstances. The Son of God as one
Person possessed of two natures determined according
to the eternal counsels of the Godhead to draw upon the
attributes inherent in His divine nature only as such was
clearly the will of the Father. And although “all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Him,” He
determined during the brief span of His earthly career to
employ those treasures only when, where, and in a
manner ordained by the Father, as mediated through the
Holy Spirit. “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father
hath taught me, I speak these things” (John 5:19). See
also John 8:28; 11:15 ; Mark 13:32. This is the true
meaning of the kenosis..[30]

R. C. H. Lenski describes this non-use of divine omniscience by the incarnate Son

in its relationship to the Trinity.

In their essential oneness the three persons know all

things, but in his humiliation the second person did not
use his divine attributes save as he needed them in his
mediatorial work. So the divine omniscience was used
by Jesus only in this restricted way. . .How the incarnate
Son could during his humiliation thus restrict himself in
 the use of the divine attributes is one of the mysteries of
his person; the fact is beyond dispute.[31]

More recently, Thomas Oden employs the non-use of eternal foreknowledge to

describe how the eternal Logos could be both omniscient and finite in knowledge,
and experience a complete human development.

This troublesome point is greatly illuminated by the

triune premise (and confusing without it): the divine
Logos eternally experiences full awareness of the
cosmos, yet as incarnate Logos united to Christ’s
humanity he has become voluntarily subjected to human
limitations, ignorance, weakness, temptation, suffering
and death. As eternal Son he is equal with God in
knowing and foreknowing, but in the mystery of his
humiliation he is servant, obedient, willing to be
vulnerable to time and finitude. As conceived in the
womb, as born of Mary, as child of Joseph, the eternal
Logos gave up or constrained or temporarily abnegated
the full and independent exercise of eternal
foreknowing, so as to become a little child.[32]

A fourth group of solutions could be classified as “two-natures” or

“hypostatic union” solutions. The most unique of these is W. G. T. Shedd’s
second solution which he proposes under his discussion of the theanthropic person
of Christ. The divine nature, not the human nature, is the basis for Christ’s
person. The second person of the trinity had a personal subsistence prior to the
Incarnation. To this pre-existent person, a human nature was added at the
miraculous conception and Incarnation. (The Word became [took on]
flesh). Because of this, the divinity, not the humanity, is the “dominant and
controlling” factor in Christ’s person. The divine Logos regulates the acts of
power of Christ. The divine nature also regulates the knowledge of the human
nature. Therefore, the human mind of Christ could not know any more than the
divinity allowed and communicated to it.

As the prophet Isaiah could know no more of the secret

things of God than it pleased the Holy Spirit to disclose
to him, so the human mind of Christ could know no
more of these same divine secrets than the illumination
of the Logos made known.[33]

While the Logos knew precisely when the day of judgment was, the human mind
of Christ knew only what the Logos revealed, and He did not reveal this.

The Logos in himself knew the time of the day of

judgment, but he did not at a particular moment make
that knowledge a part of the human consciousness of
Jesus Christ. In so doing, he limited and conditioned his
own manifestation of knowledge in the theanthropic
person, by the ignorance of the human nature.[34]

The ignorance is attributed solely to the human nature of Christ because the human
nature is dependant upon the divine for the amount of its knowledge.

B. B. Warfield develops the classic reformed two-natures understanding of

the knowledge of Christ in his article, “The Human Development of
Jesus.” Warfield writes that Reformed theology has never shrunk from the idea
that Christ, as a man had a finite knowledge, that as a man he grew in wisdom and
knowledge, and that Christ’s human knowledge will continue to be finite
forever. A human nature is not and can never be infinite in wisdom as a divine
nature. There is no danger in confessing this.[35] Problems arise when we so
emphasize the humanity of Christ that we attenuate his deity. Both are clear from
Scripture. Scripture teaches that Christ has two natures and two kinds of
knowledge.

Along side of these clear declarations and rich

indications of his true and complete humanity, there
runs an equally pervasive attribution of him of all that
belongs to deity . . . If, for example, he is represented as
not knowing this or that matter of fact (Mark xiii.32), he
is equally represented as knowing all things (John xx.17;
xvi.30) . . . If he is represented as acquiring information
from without, asking questions and expressing surprise,
he is equally represented as knowing without human
information all that occurs or has occurred - the secret
prayer of Nathaniel (John i.47), the whole life of the
Samaritan woman (John iv.29), the very thoughts of his
enemies (Matt. ix.4), all that is in man (John ii.25). Nor
are these two classes of facts kept separate; they are
rather interlaced in the most amazing manner . . .
everywhere, in a word, we see a double life unveiled
before us in the dramatizations of the actions of Jesus
among men; not in deed, in the sense that he is
represented as acting inconsistently, or is inconsistently
represented as acting now in one order and now in
another; but rather in the sense that a duplex life is
attributed to him as his constant possession.[36]

What are we to do with this double set of facts Warfield asks? The quick and dirty
method is to grasp one set and negate or neglect the other. A second method
involves destroying both sets by combining them into some kind of new middle
being. The only solution that makes sense of all the data is the historic church’s
doctrine of the two natures of Christ. All others fail to do justice to the data found
in Scripture. In Christ there dwells both an infinite and finite mind, “both at every
moment of time knows all things and is through out all time advancing in
knowledge. . . There is mystery enough attaching to the conception; but it is the
simple and pure mystery of the Incarnation.” Warfield concludes, “It may be much
to say that it is because he is man that he is capable of growth in wisdom, and
because he is God that he is from the beginning Wisdom Itself.”[37] Warfield
spent his life demonstrating that the conclusions of critical scholars were no more
“scholarly” than his own, but simply were based on other assumptions and
presuppositions, usually assumptions that simply negated the possibility of a divine
nature in Christ or the miraculous actions of Christ.

More recently, Wayne Grudem addresses the ignorance of Christ in his

discussion of the person of Christ. He writes that the distinction of two centers of
consciousness in Christ helps us understand how he could both learn things and yet
know all things. On the one hand, Jesus knew all things (Jn 2:25; 16:30;
21:17). On the other hand, he had limited knowledge (Mk 13:32; Lk 2:52).

Now this is only understandable if Jesus learned things

and had limited knowledge with respect to his human
nature but was always omniscient with respect to his
divine nature, and therefore he was able any time to
“call to mind” whatever information would be needed
for his ministry. In this way we can understand Jesus’
statement concerning the time of his return . . .(Mk
13:32). This ignorance of the time of his return was true
of Jesus’ human nature and human consciousness only,
for in his divine nature he was certainly omniscient and
certainly knew the time when he would return to the
earth.[38]

Grudem responds to the notion that Christ’s possession of two consciousnesses

requires him to be two different and distinct persons which ultimately leads to
Nestorianism. He simply responds that this is not the case. Logically speaking, “It
is mere assertion without proof to say that they do.” Failing to understand how this
is possible does not prove it impossible; it simply proves that our understanding is
limited. The adoption of any other solution creates far greater problems and
requires one to give up one or the other nature.[39] Grudem is following Warfield
in attempting to formulate a theology that best accounts for the most biblical data.

Grudem employs the “rule of predication” to explain the use of the divine
name “Son” in connection with the ignorance of Christ, much in the same was as
Athanasius and Calvin. “Anything either nature does, the person of Christ
does.” The phrase, Before Abraham was, I am (Jn 8:58), implies that the divine
nature existed before Abraham, not the whole person or the human nature. The
phrase, Christ died for our sins (1 Cor 15:3), means that the human body ceased
living and functioning, not the divine nature. Titles that remind us of one nature
can be used to designate the person even though the action is done by the other
nature. For example, when Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord” (Lk
1:43) we know that Mary is the mother of the human nature of Christ and not the
divine nature which has existed from all eternity. (Grudem also cites 1 Cor 15:3,
Jn 3:13, and Ac 20:28 as examples of this phenomenon in Scripture.) This helps us
to understand Mark 13:32.

In this way, we can understand Mark 13:32, where Jesus

says no one knows the time of his return, “not the angels
in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Though
the term “the Son” specifically reminds us of Jesus’
heavenly, eternal sonship with God the Father, it is
really used here not to speak specifically of his divine
nature, but to speak generally of him as a person, and to
affirm something that is in fact true of his human nature
only. And it is true that in one important sense (that is,
with respect to his human nature) Jesus did not know the
time when he would return.[40]
EXEGETICAL AND INTERPRETIVE
CONCERNS
Authenticity
A few commentators have asserted that Mark
13:32 is a late addition by the early church to justify the
delay of the anticipated parousia. They argue that since
Mark never uses the absolute form “the Son” elsewhere,
this occurrence should be doubted.[41] This is a
problematic position on two counts. First, there is
certainly precedent in Mark and the other gospels for the
absolute use of “the Son” without a modifier (“of God”
“of Man”) where there is already an implied association
with the Father. Twice Mark records the words spoken
by the Father “this is/you are my beloved Son” (o` ui`o,j
mou o` avgaphto,j) (1:11, 9:7). Jesus also tells us a
parable where He clearly identifies Himself as the
beloved Son (ui`o.n avgaphto,n\ … to.n ui`o,n mou)
(12:6 [2x]).[42] In using the absolute phraseology “the
Son” in Mark 13:32, Jesus is thinking of Himself in the
way the Father thinks of Him as the beloved Son.[43]
A second problem with this position is that it
seems illogical that the church would attempt to justify
the delayed parousia with a verse that attributes
ignorance to the Son and consequently creates more
difficulty than it alleviates. Even some of the most
radical textual critics accept the passage as genuine.
[44] Gundry comments, “Attribution of ignorance to the
Son runs against the grain of increasingly high
Christological assertions in the NT church.”[45]
 Others have argued that verse 32 doesn’t fit the
context of chapter 13 and owes its position to a
compiler. Cranfield counters that this view reflects a
misunderstanding of the entire chapter. Chapter 13 is
not typical Jewish apocalyptic. The succession of
events is too orderly. The form of the discourse is
different. It is not primarily given in the first
person. The purpose here is to sustain the faith of the
hearers through these events, not to impart esoteric
knowledge. Cranfield believes that this view also fails
to recognize the intentional paradox here between being
watchful for the clear indicators of the second coming
and being careful not to attempt to know the exact
date. There can be a sudden coming which is heralded
by signs, catastrophic to those who are unaware of the
signs, expected by those who recognize the signs.
[46] There are also clear parallels between verse 32 and
the surrounding verses. Vigilance is required because:
“No one knows . . .,” v 32; “You do not know . . ,.” v
33; “You do not know . . .,” v 35. There is nothing out
of place here.[47]
The Son
Jesus’ primary form of self-identification in
Mark is as the Son of Man.[48] There is even reference
to Jesus as Son of Man in the nearby context (vs
26). But the mention of the Father in the phrase
immediately following “the Son” implies that “the Son
of God” should be understood. Jesus need not include
the modifier “of God” when he speaks of the Son in
relation to the Father. Even in the fourth gospel, one
never sees the phrase the Son of God in close proximity
to a reference to the Father. On the other hand Jesus
spells out “the Son of Man” when he refers to that title
even in close proximity to a reference to the Father (Mk
8:38; 14:62; Jn 5:25, 26, 27).[49] In Mark 13:32, “the
Son” refers to Jesus in filial relation to the Father.[50]
Supernatural Knowledge
A number of writers already cited have referred
to the omniscience of Christ in their solutions to Mark
13:32. Ralph Martin gives a detailed account of the
supernatural knowledge attributed to Jesus by Mark
himself. Jesus perceived the thoughts of others (2:8),
knew the state of the dead child (5:39), was aware of the
discussion of the disciples (8:16), knew the details of
His rejection, trial, mocking, beating, crucifixion, death,
and resurrection (8:31, 10:33-34), had foreknowledge of
the availability of the colt and the exchange of words
with the owner (11:2, 3, 6), and knew that the disciples
would desert Him and that Peter would deny Him
(14:27, 30).[51] The picture of Jesus in Mark and the
other gospels is of one who possesses the supernatural
knowledge of the Father (Mt 11:27; Jn 5:20).
Nor the Son, but only the Father
If “Son” is understood to be a divine title, and
Mark and the other evangelists picture Jesus as
possessing supernatural knowledge, then how is the
phrase, “nor the Son, but only the Father,” to be
understood. “Nor the Son” in what sense? “Only the
Father” as opposed to whom? Athanasius, Ambrose,
and Shedd all made reference to the fact that if the
phrase “only the Father” applies to the divine economy,
then the direct implication is that the Holy Spirit is also
ignorant of the day and the hour of the Lord’s
return. Indeed all views that posit ignorance to the
divine Son, the second person of the trinity, must also
by inference posit ignorance to the third person as well,
who, like the Son (Col 2:3), is described in Scripture as
the one who searches all things, even the deep things of
God and who knows the very thoughts of God (1 Cor
2:10-11). If the divine Son is ignorant, the Spirit is
ignorant as well.
EVALUATION
The subordinationist solution proposed by
Dahms is fraught with several serious theological
difficulties. In solving the problem of the ignorance of
Christ by attributing ignorance to the divine incarnate
Son, Dahms joins earlier kenosis theologians in
destroying the divine nature altogether. How is a divine
Son, minus omniscience, Emmanuel, God with
us? How is He the one in whom are hidden all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3)? How
does He reflect all the fullness of the godhead (Col
2:9)? How can He in any sense possess all that the
Father has (Jn 16:14-15; 17:10)? How can He truly and
fully “know” the Father (Matt 11:27)? How can He be
the exact representation of the Father’s being (Heb 1:3)?
 Equally difficult is the implied ignorance of the
Holy Spirit. If the only divine person who knows the
day and the hour of the Lord’s return is the Father, then
the Spirit is ignorant by implication. How can a Holy
Spirit, thus limited, search all things, even the deep
things of God and know the very thoughts of God (1 Cor
2:10-11)?
The “official ignorance” solution proposed by
Shedd and Chafer is less problematic. It keeps the two
natures of Christ intact. But this view seems to place a
deception on the lips of Christ. And it doesn’t really fit
the type of language its proponents suggest as examples
of this kind of speech in Scripture. For Jesus to say He
does not know, when in reality He does know in every
common sense of the word in both natures, sounds very
untruthful.
The “non-use” approach to this problem (Horne,
Lenski and Oden) preserves the full deity and humanity
of Christ. It suggests ways in which Christ might be
omniscient and ignorant simultaneously. It subordinates
Jesus to the Father or to the Spirit in economic ways that
historic Christianity would not find objectionable. In
this way, it makes the knowledge of the human
dependant upon the divine. It might possibly be argued
that if the divine Logos is subject to the will of the
Father or the Spirit for the use of His divine attributes,
that this negates His divine self-existence or self-
dependence. But certainly Luther, Calvin, and Oden
would argue for the self-existence and self-dependence
of Christ.
The two-natures defense suggested by Shedd and
Grudem (and Feinberg, Warfield, Walvoord, and
Geisler) also preserves the two-natures Christology of
Chalcedon. It harmonizes the two parallel streams of
data describing the life of Christ found in the gospels
and the rest of the New Testament. These approaches
also make the human knowledge of Christ dependent
upon the divine nature. In most cases the only limitation
of the divine is in the sense of manifestation.
The “rule of predication” espoused by
Athanasius, Calvin, Warfield and Grudem applies the
two-natures solution for the omniscience and ignorance
of Christ to the specific difficulty of Mark
13:32. Sometimes Christ speaks, but what He says can
only be attributed to one or the other nature (Mt 28:20;
Lk 2:52; Jn 8:58; Jn 16:28; Jn 17:11; Jn 19:28). But
most importantly, titles of one nature and attributes of
the other have indeed been mixed freely in Scripture in
both gospels and epistles (Lk 1:43; Lk 2:11; Jn 3:13; Ac
20:28; 1 Cor 2:8; 1 Cor 15:3; Heb 6:6; 1 Jn 1:1). It is
perfectly acceptable for Jesus to speak using His divine
title, the beloved Son of God and yet say there is
something He does not know and be understood as
solely describing his human nature. This answer,
although not immediately apparent, makes sense from a
systematic approach to Scripture and best harmonizes all
 the data concerning the two natures of Christ united in
His one person.

Dr. Harold F. Carl is has a Ph.D. from Westminster Theological Seminary

(Philadelphia, PA) 1992, Doctor of Philosophy. His dissertation topic was "Found
in Human Form: The Maintenance and Defense of Orthodox Christology by
Nineteenth Century American Reformed Theologians." He earned his M.Div.
from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (South Hamilton, MA), Cum Laude,
1987, and has a B.S. from Malone College (Canton, OH), 1981. This article "Only
The Father Knows: A Historical and Evangelical Responses to Jesus'
Eschatological Ignorance," has also been featured in the Journal of Biblical
Studies, Issue #3.

[1]Vincent Taylor calls this chapter “one of the unsolved problems of New
Testament exegesis.” Taylor outlines and critiques several forms of the “little
apocalypse” theory. Vincent Taylor, “Unsolved New Testament Problems: The
Apocalyptic Discourse of Mark xiii,” Expository Times 60 (January 1949):
94. Cranfield opens part one of a three part article on Mark 13 with the sentence,
“The difficulty of this chapter is notorious,” and then refers to Taylor. C. E. B.
Cranfield, “St. Mark 13: Part 1," Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (June 1953):
189. Discussions about the makeup of chapter thirteen and the various compilation
theories, except where they impact the interpretation and exegesis of verse 32, are
well beyond the scope of this article. The authenticity of verse 32 as a saying of
Jesus will be addressed below.

[2]Ralph Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1973), p. 124.

[3]Athanasius, Three Discourses of Athanasius Against the Arians, in Select

Treatises of St. Athanasius, 2 vols, trans. John Henry Cardinal Newman
(Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1887), 1:410-411.

[4]Athanasius, Arians, 1: 409.

[5]“But He did not go further and say, “not the Holy Ghost;” but He was silent
with a double intimation: first, that if the Spirit knew, much more must the Word
know, considered as the Word, from whom the Spirit receives; and next, by His
silence about the Spirit, He made it clear that it was of the Son’s human economy
that He said, no, not the Son.” Athanasius, Arians, 1:411.

[6]Athanasius, Arians, 1:411-412.

[7]Athanasius, Arians, 1:408, 414. This is an incomplete form of the argument of

predication of natures and titles developed by later authors.
[8]Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, trans. E. W. Watson and L. Pullan, in Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry
Wace, second series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 9.63, 177.

[9]Hilary, Trinity, 9.66, 178.

[10]Hilary, Trinity, 9.68, 179; 9.71, 180.

[11]Gregory of Nazianzen, The Fourth Theological Oration, Which is the Second

Concerning the Son, in Orations, trans. Charles G. Browne and James E. Swallow,
in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff and
Henry Wace, second series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1890), 7:15.315.

[12]Gregory, Orations, 7:19-20.316.

[13]Ambrose, Exposition on the Christian Faith, trans. H. De Romestin, 199-314,

in Some of the Principal Works of St. Ambrose, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, second series (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 10: chapter 16, paragraph 192, 308.

[14]Ambrose, Christian Faith, 10: chapter 16, paragraph 193, 308-309.

[15]Ambrose, Christian Faith, 10: chapter 16, paragraphs 195-207, 309-

310. Ambrose argues from the Son’s creation of all things, from His relationship
to the Father, from the fact that the Spirit must know, and from the Son’s
knowledge of other aspects of the Lord’s coming that the divine Son must know.

[16]Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, trans. A. Cleveland Coxe,

in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, first
series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956) 8: Psalm 6, paragraph 1, 15.

[17]Augustine, Psalms, Psalm 37, paragraph 1, 91. See also: On the Trinity, trans.
A. W. Haddan, rev. W. G. T. Shedd, in Basic Writings of Saint Augustine, ed.
Whitney J. Oates (New York: Random House, 1948) 2: book 1, chapter 12, 688-
689: “For He is ignorant of this, as making others ignorant; that is, in that He did
not so know as at that time to show His disciples . . . He was “ignorant,” therefore,
among them of that which they were not able to know from him. And that only he
said that he knew, which it was fitting that they should know from him.” See also:
Augustine, “Letter CLXXX to Oceanus,” The Confessions and Letters of
Augustin, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 1, ed.
Philip Schaff (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1995), paragraph 3, 547: “ ‘he did not
know the day,’ with no other meaning than this: In proportion as he had made
others ignorant by concealing his meaning, he spoke of it figuratively as his own
lack of knowledge. So by concealing it, he so to speak caused others not to know
it.”
[18]Martin Luther, Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ, February
27, 1540, trans. Christopher B. Brown, from WA 39/2, 92-121 (Ft. Wayne, IN:
Concordia Theological Seminary-Project
Wittenberg) http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/
luther/luther-divinity.txt. See also: Martin Luther, "Confession Concerning
Christ's Supper," in LW, 55 vols., vols. 1-30, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis, Mo.:
Concordia Pub. House); vols. 31-55, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1958-1986), 37: 210-211: “Since the divinity and humanity are one
person in Christ, the Scriptures ascribe to the divinity, because of the personal
union, all that happens to humanity, and vice versa. And in reality it is so. Indeed,
you must say that the person (pointing to Christ) suffers and dies. But this person
is truly God, and therefore it is correct to say: the Son of God suffers. Although,
so to speak, the one part (namely, the divinity) does not suffer, nevertheless the
person, who is God, suffers in the other part (namely, in the humanity). . . Thus we
should ascribe to the whole person whatever pertains to one part of the person,
because both parts constitute one person.”

[19]Martin Luther, “The Last Words of David,” in LW, 15.293.

[20]Martin Luther, “Romans,” in LW, 25.147. Elsewhere Luther writes what one
might expect Jesus to say. “I had this from my Father from eternity, before I
became man, but when I became man, it was imparted to Me in time according to
My human nature, and I kept it concealed until My resurrection and ascent into
heaven, when it was to be manifested and glorified.” Luther, “Last Words,”15.293-
294.

[21]Martin Luther, “Sermon on Psalm 8:5,” in LW, 12.127.

[22]John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists: Matthew, Mark,

and Luke, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 3:153-154.

[23]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill,
trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics, vols. 20 and 21
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), 2.14.1, 482-483.

[24]Calvin, Institutes, 2.14.2, 483-484.

[25]Joseph N. Tylenda, “Calvin’s Understanding of the Communication of

Properties,” WTJ 38 (Fall 1975): 55-66. Tylenda makes a very clear and well-
documented case for this limited understanding of the communication of properties
in Calvin.

[26]John V. Dahms, “The Subordination of the Son,” JETS 37 (September 1994):

356-357. Gilbert Bilezikian responded in a paper originally presented at the
November 1994 meeting of ETS that this was a gross misuse of the text. Gilbert
Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the
Godhead,” JETS 40 (March 1997): 60. Other evangelicals have defended a
subordinationist view. See: Stephen D. Kovach and Peter R. Schemm, Jr., “A
Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son,” JETS 42
(September 1999): 462-477.

[27]W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3 vols, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas

Nelson, 1980), 1.319-320.

[28]Shedd, Theology, 2.272-278. This view will be explored more fully later.

[29]Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Trinitarianism: Part 4," Bibliotheca Sacra, 97 (October

1940): 401. Beasley-Murray strongly opposes this view. “It can no longer be
regarded as an assumed ignorance, or set down as something known to him, but
outside the scope of his commission to reveal. It was a genuine limitation of his
human consciousness, a matter not contained in the revelation of the Father to the
Son.” G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future (London: MacMillan, 1954),
263. Some would argue that the “official ignorance” interpretation, if true, seems
to be the most “deceptive” of the possible solutions and goes against the
perspicuity of Scripture.

[30]Charles M. Horne, “Let this Mind be in You: An Exposition of Philippians

2:5-11,” Grace Journal 1 (Spring 1960): 28. See also: Augustus Hopkins
Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907), 703. “In
this act, he resigned not the possession, nor yet entirely the use, but rather the
independent exercise, of the divine attributes.”

[31]R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis:

Augsburg, 1946), 590-591.

[32]Thomas Oden, Systematic Theology, vol. 2: The Word Made Flesh (San
Francisco: Harper Collins, 1989), 2.89-90.

[33]Shedd, Theology, 2.269-273.

[34]Shedd, Theology, 2.273. Even in the context of this discussion, Shedd

reiterates his alternate explanation of the “official ignorance” in a footnote on page
276. Feinberg parallels Shedd’s thought on the hypostatic union and the ignorance
of Christ. Charles Lee Feinberg, “The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca
Sacra 92 (October 1935): 419-421.

[35]B. B. Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” in Selected Shorter

Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, ed. John E. Meeter, 2 vols. (Nutley, N. J.:
Presbyterian and Reformed Pub., 1970), 162.
[36]Warfield, “Human Development,” 163. John F. Walvoord develops similar
lines of thought. John F. Walvoord, “The Person of the Holy Spirit, Part 4: The
Holy Spirit in Relation to the Person and Work of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 98
(January 1941), 30-55.

[37]Warfield, “Human Development,” 165.

[38]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 561.

[39]Ibid. See also: Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian

Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 425.

[40]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 562-563. B. B. Warfield also employs the

“rule of predication.” “Every one who believes in the Two Natures already
confesses the existence of a limited mind in Jesus, and, on the well-known
principle of the communio idiomatum, the use of the term “the Son” here creates no
difficulty - any more than a difficulty is created by the sayings that the Lord of
Glory or the Son of God was crucified (1 Cor ii.8, Heb. vi.6), or that the blood of
God has purchased His Church (Acts xx.28).” B. B. Warfield, "Late Discussions
of Kenosis," Presbyterian and Reformed Review 10 (October 1899), 722.

[41]Javier-José Marín, The Christology of Mark: Does Mark’s Christology

Support the Chalcedonian Formula “Truly Man and Truly God”?, (Bern: Peter
Lang, 1991), 142-143.

[42]For “my Son,” see Mt 2:17, 17:5, 24:36; Mk 1:11, 9:7; Lk 3:22, 9:35. For the
absolute use of “the Son” in relation to the Father, see Mt 11:27, 28:19; Mk 13:32;
Lk 10:22; Jn 3:35, 5:20, 23, 26, 14:13, 17:1. For parabolic examples, see Mt
21:37, 38; Mk 12:6; Lk 20:13. For a detailed analysis of this, see: Robert H.
Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993), 794-795.

[43]Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1983), 138-139.

[44]Paul Schmiedel counts it among the five passages, or at the most nine, that he
would consider “the foundation pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus” because
to him these passages prove that Jesus was completely and only human and that the
gospels do contain “at least some absolutely trustworthy facts concerning
him.” Paul W. Schmiedel, "Gospels," in Encyclopedia Biblica, 2:1761-1898, ed.
T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (New York: Macmillan, 1901), 1881.
[45]Gundry, Mark, 793. Brown uses almost the exact same words. Raymond E.
Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (New York: Paulist Press,
1994), 57. Taylor concludes, “Of its genuineness there can be no reasonable doubt
. . . Its offence seals its genuineness.” Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to
St. Mark (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966), 522.

[46]C. E. B. Cranfield, “St. Mark 13: Part 1.3 (continued)," Scottish Journal of
Theology 7 (September 1954): 295, 299-302.

[47]William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1974), 482-483. Lane develops the parallelism more fully. See also: William
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1975), 541.

[48]2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21, 41, 62.

[49]Gundry, Mark, 794-795. We have already noted Jesus’s self-understanding as

the “beloved son” (of God). There is certainly precedent in Mark for the idea of
divine sonship as well (1:1; 14:61; 15:39). See: Ralph Martin, Mark, 104-106 for a
fuller discussion.

[50]G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mark Thirteen (New York:

MacMillan, 1957), 107.

[51]Martin, Mark, 133-135. Martin cites a number of other examples.

[ Top | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Other

Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | F.A.Q. | Forum ]