Mark 13:32 "nor the Son, but only the Father"

[Oscarthecat]

I’m sure this has come up before, but couldn’t find posts on it-

Mark 13:31-32 states “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

I know that this verse has been discussed at length throughout Christian history, but I’m looking for which explanation is definitively upheld by the Church. However, I can’t understand how the Church explains that Christ was Omniscient, but then Christ Himself say that there is something God knows that He does not know.

Some of the answers I’ve already been told, but that seem a little inadequate to me, are :
“well, Jesus just meant that it wasn’t for them to know”-if that was the case, He would have said that.
“Jesus knew but didn’t tell us that He knew because…” any end of this sentence means Jesus mislead us, which obviously isn’t true.
“Jesus didn’t know that yet, but knew it later”- wrong, because the Church is clear that Jesus’ knowledge didn’t increase-He was infused with Divine knowledge from the moment of the incarnation. the only type of knowledge he could gain was experiential knowledge, or knowledge gained through the process of human reason, but which He would have already had knowledge of by virtue of His divinity. Something like the difference between knowing and doing, but not.

So…
Here’s what I can come up with, using my very limited understanding of Thomas Aquinas treatment of Jesus’ human and divine knowledge. I feel like this explanation comes just a little too close to nestorianism, which divided Christ into two separate persons, but it’s the best I’ve been able to muster thus far:

Christ’s human nature was infused by the Word with divine knowledge of creation, both actual and potential, from the first moment of the Incarnation. However, this could not include infinite knowledge of things that exist only in God’s infinite potential, because Aquinas believed that such knowledge was completely beyond a human being’s understanding.

Therefore, although Christ’s human nature does have complete knowledge of all that exists and has the potential to exist in creation, knowledge of God’s full potential is outside the ability of Christ’s human nature to understand by reason alone because no created thing can understand the infinite potential of God, even though this knowledge is fully understood by the person of Christ.

Using Aquinas’ logic, the problem wasn’t that Christ doesn’t know when because He is not referring to an historical event. The event when “Heaven and Earth will pass away” (Mark 13:30) is the end of creation, and therefore exists only in the divine knowledge of potentialities. If the conditions determining when the end of the world will occur exist exclusively in God’s knowledge of potentiality, then Christ’s statement that “"But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” is consistent with the fact that Christ, in both His human and divine natures, was omniscient at the moment of that statement, to the extent possible for each nature.

Hopefully, it is pretty clear where I’m falling into error on this. Christ obviously wasn’t lying when He said that something was known only to God and not the Son, but at the same time, Christ was omniscient and so there couldn’t have been things that God knew that Jesus didn’t. I can’t seem to reconcile this without pointing to some condition of His human nature that would make Him both divinely omniscient and subject to human limitation at the same time. However, the Church is also clear that He was not limited in His humanity, but instead that His humanity was elevated by His divinity.

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated-

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Christ wasn’t denying that he too was God.
I believe that “only the Father knows” this because the determination is made by God the Father, not the Son.

Any explanation which would deny Jesus’s deity would have to be rejected, because Jesus plainly claimed to be Jehovah (Yahweh), when he told the Jews,
“Before Abraham ever came to be, I AM.”
And the Jews knew what he meant by that statement and they took up stones to stone him for it. Yahweh is simply another way of saying “I AM.”

God bless,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[Oscarthecat]

I agree with you that the statement can’t be interpreted in such a way that would imply that Jesus wasn’t God, but it also can’t be interpreted in a way that would imply that there is something one person of the Trinity could know that another does not.

Even if the determination is made by the Father and not the Son, I don’t think that would answer why Christ indicated that knowledge is unavailable to the Son.

 

[Angelos]

This verse had for long bothered me until I came to the conclusion that Christ’s statement did not have theological implications since the primary purpose of His utterance was to deny His chosen ones the prerogative of knowing every secret related to God’s plan.

The biblical notes and commentaries I have studied so far concur on explaining Jesus’ remark by referring to Paul’s poetic expression of Jesus’ humiliation in human form:

Philippians 2: 6-7 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men,and by sharing in human nature.

IMO, the only thing we should remember while reading this particular Gospel verse is that the Son actually does not know when He himself will come! The real significant point is that Mark emphasizes it is Jesus that will come to judge the human race as the owner of the House (God!):

Mark: 13: 34-35 It is like a man going on a journey. He left his house and put his slaves in charge, assigning to each his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to stay alert. Stay alert, then, because you do not know when **the owner of the house will return **– whether during evening, at midnight, when the rooster crows, or at dawn.

The day of Judgment will be the day when the Father will organize a wedding banquet to glorify His son; therefore, the Father will choose the day and the Son will come!

Jesus makes a similar statement in Matthew with regard to John and James’ request for sitting at His right and left. The response defines the Father as the only authority for that decision:

Matthew 20: 23 He told them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right and at my left is not mine to give. Rather, it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Here again the Father decides, but the chosen ones sit at the Son’s right and left in His kingdom!

Peace & blessings,
ANgelos N.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Mark 13:31-32 … I’m looking for which explanation is definitively upheld by the Church.

The Church has not issues a “definitive” exhaustive Bible commentary. However, the Church has commented on this topic authoritatively.

Jesus’ human nature is finite. So the Church teaches that what Jesus could know by virtue of his human nature could not be infinite. But the Church affirms that what Christ knew by virtue of his human nature was everything pertaining to the eternal plans which Christ came to reveal.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Christ’s soul and his human knowledge

**471 **Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.

**472 **This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”, and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.

**473 **But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person. "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God." Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.

**474 **By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal

So there were things that the Father knew (as an infinite being) which Jesus while Incarnate did not know (as a finite being). However, Jesus knew all things past, present, and future which pertained to God insofar as it was among the eternal plans he had come to reveal, and he came to know this in three ways: 1) immediate knowledge of vision, 2) infused knowledge, and 3) acquired or experimental knowledge.

In other words, Jesus learned by experience that which he already knew by virtue of immediate knowledge of vision and infused knowledge at conception.

See more here: Was Jesus ever ignorant of his identity and mission?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for Mark 13:32, St. Thomas Aquinas states: “The Son, however, is said not to know in so far as He does not impart the knowledge to us.” (Summa Theologica, suppl, 88, 3).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 77 on Matthew, he also contends that the Son does indeed know, but was not given to reveal it.

 

[MH84]

In other words, Jesus learned by experience that which he already knew by virtue of immediate knowledge of vision and infused knowledge at conception.

Was it because Jesus the Divine Person or His Father chose this, or was this the consequence of obtaining a full human nature?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In other words, Jesus learned by experience that which he already knew by virtue of immediate knowledge of vision and infused knowledge at conception.

Both…God chose the Incarnation such that the Son remained fully Divine and fully human. To be fully human involved humbling himself by becoming finite in his human soul, with the ability to learn as humans do by experience, what is called “acquired knowledge.” However, Jesus in his Divinity has all knowledge, but as within his finite human soul, the Son he did not comprehend the divine infinite Essence in the fullest sense. Which is to say that Christ’s human soul could not fully encompass the infinite divine Essence. As I understand it, apart from this, there was no other limitation to his human knowledge from the very moment of his conception, the very moment he had a human soul.

Thus, as the Incarnate Son he learned through acquired knowledge what he already knew through his infused knowledge and knowledge of beatific vision. This is roughly much like in science, when we can know things theoretically, but then later might make an experimental discovery which supports our theoretical knowledge with experimental knowledge. We learned by experience that which we already knew theoretically.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

To understand this, you must know a little about Jewish marriage rituals. Jesus and the Apostles use the ideas of marriage alot in the New Testament. They repeatedly refer to Christ as the Bridegroom and the Church as His Bride.

CCC 796 -
The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. the theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.(Jn 3:29) The Lord referred to himself as the “bridegroom.”(Mk 2:19) The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.(Cf. ⇒ Mt 22:1-14; ⇒ 25:1-13; ⇒ 1 Cor 6:15-17; ⇒ 2 Cor 11:2) The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.(Cf. ⇒ Rev 22:17; ⇒ Eph 1:4. ⇒ 5:27) “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her.”(Eph 5:25-26) He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body: (Cf. ⇒ Eph 5:29)

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? “The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church.”(Eph 5:31-32.) and the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”(Mt 19:6) They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself “bride.”(St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 74:4: PL 36, 948-949)

When a Jewish man married a Jewish woman, the first step was the betrothal. At the betrothal, they exchange their wedding vows and are in essence legally married. But she still has yet to come into his house.

After this the bridegroom will return to his father’s house while preparing a house for him and his bride. It is only when the father says that the house is ready that the bridegroom returns to fetch his bride and bring her home.

This is portrayed in the New Testament -
In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you. And if I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to myself; that where I am, you also may be. (John 14:2-3)

When will this place be ready?
But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32)

You can imagine that a young bridegroom would quickly put up four walls and a roof with scotch tape to get his bride to the bridal chamber just as quickly as possible. But the father must oversee the construction so that the new home is fitting to begin a married life in (i.e. the walls don’t collapse when you cough). But when that moment comes you can imagine that the young bridegroom will make all haste to fetch his bride, even if it is in the middle of the night -

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride. And five of them were foolish, and five wise. But the five foolish, having taken their lamps, did not take oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with the lamps. And the bridegroom tarrying, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye forth to meet him. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. Now whilst they went to buy, the bridegroom came: and they that were ready, went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut. But at last come also the other virgins, saying: Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answering said: Amen I say to you, I know you not. Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour. (Matthew 25: 1-13)

That is why Jesus says only the Father knows the time. He is speaking in terms of marriage when the Father will issue the order for Christ to fetch His Bride.

I hope that this helps.