# Matthew 24:36



## Justified (Jan 12, 2016)

How do we explain Our Lord's ignorance here? Usually with these matters we can just say that his human nature lacked the knowledge, but here it says the Father _only_, which seems to imply the other two persons do not know. How should we understand this passage?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 13, 2016)

It is a sentence spoken from the Son _in his estate of humiliation._ In his estate of humiliation, he acts entirely according what is natural to his humanity.

If you ask: "Well, what about his evident knowledge of (some) human hearts/intentions, his prophetic gift, his miracles? Are these not evidence of his divinity?"

They are not _direct_ evidence of his divinity, but _indirect._ Jn.3:2, Nicodemus "came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do *unless God is with him*." In fact, there had been others in time who had done all these things: supernatural discernment, prophecy, miracles.

Jesus conducted his ministry under the full empowerment and direction of Holy Spirit. He acted as a man who was under authority, which he was as the Agent of his Father. He possessed the Spirit without measure for the exercise of his Mediatorial office.

The Spirit is the Person who supplies the Son with all his necessary (divine) efficiency. In the Lord Jesus Christ--while he was with us on earth--is revealed to us the perfect picture of a man supremely led by the Spirit.

The fact that the divine power by which he acted in wondrous ways was also his OWN divine power, is manifest only through the success of his mission, and the declaration that he is the Son of God with power by his resurrection.

So, when the Son declares his Father's holden knowledge, he speaks in this state of humiliation; he speaks within the limits imposed on him in this mission. He could not then inform the disciples of that specific which they asked him on that occasion.

Now, having ascended above to take his proper place, he is no more humiliated. He is glorified, and we may believe fully possessed of his own divine knowledge of these and all other things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 13, 2016)

Well put; thank you, Bruce!


----------



## Justified (Jan 13, 2016)

Bruce, that was very helpful. But why does Jesus put his ignorance in contradistinction to the person of the Father rather than just God? When it says Father _only_ it seems ostensibly to mean only the person of the Father. What's the best way to understand that?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 14, 2016)

Well, let's begin by getting the text correct. It is only Mark's Gospel that contains the reference to the Son's ignorance.Mk.13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."​So, this is not a combined assertion; therefore it should not be overlooked to consider what MARK's special concern might be to include this unique comment.

Who does not know, and when does he not know it?

The Father knows. This is as plain an admission of divine omniscience as any. And Holy Spirit knows, because he is God, and the divine Son knows for the same reason. Nothing can be hid from God.

No man knows, nor can know unless it is shown him by special revelation.

No angel knows (which knows more than man by nature), nor can know what has not been revealed in the counsels of heaven.

No Son knows, but he _can know._ The further question may be: in what sense does he not know, or why does he not know? Which answer may further yield the question: is it possible for the present (then) sense to change or the cause of his ignorance to change?

I've already explained in terms of Christ's ministerial exercise why he would not instantly know this fact according to his human nature. He conducted his ministry without availing himself of his full divine prerogatives, such as _turning stones into bread_ to satisfy his hunger. His estate was due to change once his work of self-immolation was complete.

It is the Person of the Father in whose will the Son is wholly given up. So, it is evidently the case that this information is not willed of the Father for the humiliated Son (as a man) to access, it not being consistent with his Mission to know it. It is holden, and the Son knows _that_ it is holden, and may even know _why_ it is holden. But he does not know what Holy Spirit has not willed to reveal to him, which restraint is an outworking of the pactum salutis, Father-Son "conference," in eternity-past.

One of Mark's unique angles on the Gospel content is in his presentation of the Son as a Servant quick to do his Father's will. He bustles here and there "immediately," not at all lazy but supremely active in his Father's service. The Son cannot do--nor is he expected to do--what he has not been informed or entrusted with doing, or relaying.

So this matter of not answering his disciples in this thing is not presented as his Kingly prerogative, or as "none of your business, I will attend to that." But, as the Servant and a man, it is not his place to know (then). The disciples hereby know, as Christ's own servants and servants of the Father, that neither in this life should they know "the day or the hour," if their Lord did not possess it while he was here. It will be unsuitable to ask him this question later on when his estate is changed (and they ask something like it in Act.1:6, and are not answered).

Reactions: Like 1


----------

