Why did Jesus say no one but the Father knew the Hour? (Mt 24:36; Mk 13:32)

[R_C]

I sort of get the point, but it’s still hard to see how Christ, Who is both God and man, could not know something in view of the things I’ve heard said that “God cannot cease to be God”.

I didn’t mean to make you feel bad (I have a special talent for this kind of sin, and for laying heavy burdens on others while not carrying them myself). I was - honestly - a bit afraid of these word associations, and out of fear came some harsh writing. Sorry about that/

God cannot cease to be God, but it is written:

Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Christ, who was and is God indeed, did not cease to be God, but did he not cease to be omnipresent while in the flesh? The Doctor Angelicus, Aquinas, teaches us about God’s impassibility. Did we not see Christ smile, be upset, cry of sadness, and be in grief to the point of sweating blood? Did we not see Him agonizing on the cross, crowned with thorns?

The Catechism states that “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.”

Did Christ know everything? Surely we cannot claim that He lacked in the knowledge of something. Pope Pius XII taught, in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis that

“By means of the Beatific Vision (the sight of God in Heaven), which He enjoyed from the time when he was received into the womb of the Mother of God, He has for ever and continuously had present to Him all the members of His mystical Body, and embraced them with His saving love”.

But Haydock, in his Commentary, adds:

In answer to this difficulty, when it is said, but the Father alone, it is certain that the eternal Son and the Holy Ghost could never be ignorant of the day of judgment: because, as they are one and the same God, so they must have one and the same nature, the same substance, wisdom, knowledge, and all absolute perfections.

It is also certain that Jesus Christ knew the day of judgment, and all things to come, by a knowledge which he could not but have, because of the union by which his human nature was united to the divine person and nature. See Colossians ii.

And so to attribute any ignorance to Christ, was the error of those heretics called Agnoitai.

But though Christ, as a man, knew the day of judgment, yet this knowledge was not due to him as he was man, or because he was man, but he only knew the day of judgment, because he was God as well as man.

It is the common answer of the fathers, that Christ here speaks to his disciples, only as he was the ambassador of his Father; and so he is only to know what he is to make known to men. He is said not to know, says St. Augustine, what he will not make others know, or what he will not reveal to them. (Witham)

By this Jesus Christ wished to suppress the curiosity of his disciples. In the same manner after his resurrection, he answered the same question: 'Tis not for you to know the times and the moments, which the Father has placed in his own power. This last clause is added, that the apostles might not be discouraged and think their divine Master esteemed them unworthy of knowing these things.

Some Greek manuscripts add nor even the Son, as in Mark xiii. 32. The Son is ignorant of it, not according to his divinity, nor even according to his humanity hypostatically united to his divinity, but according to his humanity, considered as separate from his divinity.

 

[CutlerB]

I didn’t mean to make you feel bad (I have a special talent for this kind of sin, and for laying heavy burdens on others while not carrying them myself). I was - honestly - a bit afraid of these word associations, and out of fear came some harsh writing. Sorry about that

Not to worry, I am familiar with what you describe.

God cannot cease to be God, but it is written: [Philippians 2:5-7?]

I was thinking of that, though it is of course a mystery.

Christ, who was and is God indeed, did not cease to be God, but did he not cease to be omnipresent while in the flesh? The Doctor Angelicus, Aquinas, teaches us about God’s impassibility. Did we not see Christ smile, be upset, cry of sadness, and be in grief to the point of sweating blood? Did we not see Him agonizing on the cross, crowned with thorns?

An interesting thought! I believe it is key to keep the two natures distinct here, right?

The Catechism states that “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.”

I’m not sure I understand this, compared to the above paragraph?

Did Christ know everything? Surely we cannot claim that He lacked in the knowledge of something. Pope Pius XII taught, in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis that

“By means of the Beatific Vision (the sight of God in Heaven), which He enjoyed from the time when he was received into the womb of the Mother of God, He has for ever and continuously had present to Him all the members of His mystical Body, and embraced them with His saving love”.

:whacky: Confusion! :crying:

 

[thistle]

That somewhat helps.

I searched the Fathers’ writings over at NewAdvent.org and came across this by Saint John Crysostom:

The thing is: Jesus didn’t cease to be God when He walked the earth. I never said He was the Father.

But Jesus had two natures - divine and human. Everything may not have been revealed to his human nature.

 

[R_C]

Confusion! :crying:

Tell me about it!

We can’t understand everything (in fact, we can’t understand most things) about God. He’s God! But we know this: Christ is God. I don’t see any personal issues in my not understanding what exactly He meant by “only the Father knows” or “the Father is greater than I”. We believe in the Holy Trinity, this is the apostolic faith. We don’t need to understand the Holy Trinity…who could?

But there are a lot of good Catholic writings on the topic. If I find some links or books I’ll post them. It’s a subject worth reading about.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I know the Catechism states in CCC 474 that Jesus was not sent to reveal the hour (cf. Acts 1:7), but doesn’t what He does in these verses then constitute lying? . . .

John 1:14 The Word became flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that he has from the Father as only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

. . . Jesus’ words seem(?) to exclude the Holy Spirit from this knowledge. How do we explain that? . . .

Matthew 3:16-17 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Can you help me understand?

There have been some excellent responses and you are still confused.
You may have to put aside understandings that belong to the mundane in order to grasp (if one ever can) the transcendent
Scripture and the Catechism contain truths. Using them as a foundation, you can begin to put it all together, as best as one ever can.
It is a good first step to acknowledge one knows nothing; from there one more readily surrenders one’s mind to God (to Truth) thereby opening oneself to receiving and fostering the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[CutlerB]

Tell me about it!

We can’t understand everything (in fact, we can’t understand most things) about God. He’s God! But we know this: Christ is God. I don’t see any personal issues in my not understanding what exactly He meant by “only the Father knows” or “the Father is greater than I”. We believe in the Holy Trinity, this is the apostolic faith. We don’t need to understand the Holy Trinity…who could?

But there are a lot of good Catholic writings on the topic. If I find some links or books I’ll post them. It’s a subject worth reading about.

I’ll try to explain what I find confusing. The thoughts offered so far do help me along a little, but this is what boggles my mind:

I recognise Christ has two full natures: Divine and human in His one Divine Person (not sure about the wording of the last part). I recognise His human nature had to “grow in wisdom and knowledge”, as I think the Evangelist puts it. But I fail to see how we could think that Christ as a Person walking the earth could “forget” (or limit) His omniscience as God. Since He is only One Person, it sounds a bit like He was thinking “Hm, do I know this or not?”

If you find some good resources, please do post them. I have searched NewAdvent for the Fathers’ writings and they do somehow help.

I’m asking this question not strictly because I doubt anything (which I don’t: 1000 difficulties don’t add up to a doubt!). It’s more because I have a feeling I will have to explain this to a friend who vigorously does not believe in the Trinity one day.

Matthew 3:16-17 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

I don’t see how this answers the question. Please explain.

 

[Starrsmother]

Cutler, I am NOT a great theologian–and things like this bug me too. I understand why it bugs you. I don’t think Jesus “forgot” anything while He was on this earth. I don’t know how to explain it or even if I’m right–but I think when Jesus became true man as well as true God, He chose to take on all the attributes of a man–a man who performed great miracles and taught–but still a man and God within that man. I think that He may have been using a bit of a parable of sorts when He answered the question–another words, imagine what would have happened if He had said “Okay–you want to know when? On November1, 2099 the world will end and X number of people will be saved.” As a man, the part of him that was a human being and a man didn’t have access to this information, but in union with the Father He would have. So he chose to answer as “the Son”, a man.

 

[CutlerB]

Cutler, I am NOT a great theologian–and things like this bug me too. I understand why it bugs you. I don’t think Jesus “forgot” anything while He was on this earth. I don’t know how to explain it or even if I’m right–but I think when Jesus became true man as well as true God, He chose to take on all the attributes of a man–a man who performed great miracles and taught–but still a man and God within that man. I think that He may have been using a bit of a parable of sorts when He answered the question–another words, imagine what would have happened if He had said “Okay–you want to know when? On November1, 2099 the world will end and X number of people will be saved.” As a man, the part of him that was a human being and a man didn’t have access to this information, but in union with the Father He would have. So he chose to answer as “the Son”, a man.

Isn’t “the Son” a name that refers to His Person, not simply to His human nature?

 

[Darryl_B]

Jesus differentiates himself from this “son” by referring to himself as the “Son of man”. “So will be the coming of the Son of man” (Matthew 24:37,44) “you will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matthew 24:30).

Then he describes Noah, now Noah was a “son”, he was not the “Son of man” he was nevertheless a “son”. Noah didn’t know the day or the hour. But he knew enough to know that it would be after he entered the ark. So I don’t believe Noah didn’t know. The people around were oblivious.

I believe Jesus is differentiating himself from the son who do not know, the son who does not know is Israel in AD70 about the coming of the “Son of Man”.

The Apostles were told to look for signs, when you see this “run”. But others were totally unaware, they did not know.

I do not thing Jesus is says watch and you will know when, but he himself does not know.

 

[Darryl_B]

I will try and word it another way.

No one knows the day and hour, not even those involved in the enactment of the judgment (the angels), nor those having the judgment enacted upon (the unfaithful son of Israel), but the Father only (the authority of the enactment of judgment). But you can distance yourself from this judgment, if you are faithful and observe the signs.

 

[Starrsmother]

Isn’t “the Son” a name that refers to His Person, not simply to His human nature?

I believe that the word “Son” is sometimes used as a title which refers to Jesus as the Son of God, and other times as Jesus as the Son of Man–and it depends on the context in which it is used. For instance, we refer to Jesus’ divinity when we pray “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” In the gospels Jesus sometimes refers to Himself as “the Son of God”, as in His statement that “Nobody comes to the Father except through the Son” --(ie Son of God), Other times He refers to Himself as the “Son of Man”–(ie:“You will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds…” I think Jesus alluded to His divinity at times and at other times He refers to His true human nature and that it depended on what message He was teaching. At least that’s my take on it

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I don’t see how this answers the question. Please explain.

It does for me.

If you continue on the path of knowing God, you will soon realize that the moment you can formulate a question, the answer appears.

So what is the answer that you seem to have been given to your question? Confusion. Not seeing answers.
You are being told that your way of seeing things and/or your approach is misguided.

You are in fact anthropomorphising God; He who closer to you and knows you better than yourself. You no doubt have been told of how immense is the macrocasm and how deep the microcasm; He creates all that. And He sacrificed Himself on the cross for us. Just so we know of Whom we are talking about.

Again, trying to grasp the divine with ideas that are about this world will get nothing but confusion.

Let me repeat the verse you say does not answer the question:

Matthew 3:16-17 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Here, we have a revelation of the Trinity. the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God’s transcendental nature which is One and at the same time three persons. You would do well to meditate and pray on this matter.

BTW: Just a head’s up,

. . . doesn’t what He does in these verses then constitute lying? . . .

treads on the second commandment.

 

[juliamajor]

Son of Man can be used to mean a human being or as in the book of Daniel, a Messianic figure.

 

[mikekle]

I wonder why God decided that no man should know the day or hour this would happen on? If he was an all loving God, it seems to me if he came out and told everyone what date the second coming will be on, it would mean many more people would be saved and go to heaven. This is something God has stated he wants, so why not make it known to everyone?

Especially in modern times, when it appears Satan is gaining the majority of souls. This is another thing that confuses me, if God is so perfect and good, did he not know the majority of his creations would turn to Satans side? In my view, this kind of implies Satan will have won this war with God, as he will have influenced many more people than God has in the end. I just wonder what implications that will provide on that day.

 

[JMJ91]

I wonder why God decided that no man should know the day or hour this would happen on? If he was an all loving God, it seems to me if he came out and told everyone what date the second coming will be on, it would mean many more people would be saved and go to heaven. This is something God has stated he wants, so why not make it known to everyone?

Especially in modern times, when it appears Satan is gaining the majority of souls. This is another thing that confuses me, if God is so perfect and good, did he not know the majority of his creations would turn to Satans side? In my view, this kind of implies Satan will have won this war with God, as he will have influenced many more people than God has in the end. I just wonder what implications that will provide on that day.

Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day–and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)

How many of us long, or love his appearing? As is stated elsewhere…But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.(1 John 3:3).

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for…without faith we can not please God"

“Nevertheless, will the Son of Man find faith when he comes?”

 

[R_C]

I wonder why God decided that no man should know the day or hour this would happen on? If he was an all loving God, it seems to me if he came out and told everyone what date the second coming will be on, it would mean many more people would be saved and go to heaven. This is something God has stated he wants, so why not make it known to everyone?

Especially in modern times, when it appears Satan is gaining the majority of souls. This is another thing that confuses me, if God is so perfect and good, did he not know the majority of his creations would turn to Satans side? In my view, this kind of implies Satan will have won this war with God, as he will have influenced many more people than God has in the end. I just wonder what implications that will provide on that day.

“Who has been God’s counselor?” You try to sound like one, but God needs no counsel. Your view may reflect spiritual trials, for when I go through them I often have such thoughts. All finite, mortal creatures - be it men or angels - must keep in mind that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and that God’s foolishness is greater than man’s wisdom.

As for the Church, our chant remains the same yesterday, now, and forever:

Christus vincet
Christus regnat
Christus imperat

Trust in God who foreknew everything from the beginning and whose divine providence is boundless. Those who trust in God will not be disappointed.

 

[Darryl_B]

I believe that the word “Son” is sometimes used as a title which refers to Jesus as the Son of God, and other times as Jesus as the Son of Man–and it depends on the context in which it is used. For instance, we refer to Jesus’ divinity when we pray “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” In the gospels Jesus sometimes refers to Himself as “the Son of God”, as in His statement that “Nobody comes to the Father except through the Son” --(ie Son of God), Other times He refers to Himself as the “Son of Man”–(ie:“You will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds…” I think Jesus alluded to His divinity at times and at other times He refers to His true human nature and that it depended on what message He was teaching. At least that’s my take on it

To those who are perishing Jesus Christ is the Son of man, but to those who are being saved He is the Son of God.

When dealing with unbelieving sons he is the Son of man, when he is dealing with believing sons he is the Son of God.