Mark 13:32 reads:
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
This verse is a favorite of anti-Trinitarians. However, it by no means disproves the true Deity and equality of the Son of God with His Father; rather, it relates to the true humanity of Christ. (I discuss the verse at length in lecture #16 of my Trinitarianism class, on my website here and also on Youtube).
My point in this post is not an apologetic or dogmatic one, however. This verse is not just something to explain when speaking to a member of the Watchtower Society or another cultist, and otherwise pass over in painful silence. As in my discussion in my work The Triune God of the Bible, a wonderful truth connected to salvation is taught in the verse. The quote below relates to the way patristic Trinitarians responded to the Arian rejection of Christ’s Deity based on Mark 13:32 and the Bible’s affirmation of Christ’s human ignorance.
It is basically the
same argument that is to be applied to the atoning exchange between ignorance
and wisdom in Christ—a problem
that was much discussed in the fourth century, for the Arians had appealed to
passages in the Gospels such
as those in which it was said of Jesus that he increased in wisdom and even was
lacking in knowledge [Luke
2:52; Mark 13:32]. Athanasius handled this question in entire consistency with
his arguments about what the
Son of God had done in making himself one of us and one with us in what we
actually are in order to save us.
That is to say, while the Son or Word of God who is one and the same being as
the Father enjoys a relation of
mutual knowing between himself and the Father, nevertheless in his
self-abasement in the form of a servant he
had condescended, for our sakes, really to make our ignorance along with other
human limitations his own, precisely
in order to save us from them. “He incorporated the ignorance of men in
himself, that he might redeem
their humanity from all its imperfections and cleanse and offer it perfect and
holy to the Father.” The fact
that Christ was both God and man, and thus acted as God and as man, led some theologians
in the fourth century
to make ambiguous statements about the “economic ignorance” of Christ, and
sometimes even to speak of
it as unreal. Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory Nyssen, both insisted on the
reality of our Lord’s ignorance as essential
to his humanity; but it was Cyril of Alexandria who developed the
soteriological approach of Athanasius
most fully. For him the ignorance of Christ was just as essential to his
amazing self-abasement or kenosis as his physical imperfections and limitations, all of which
are to be predicated of his one incarnate reality
(mia phusis sesarkomene). It was an economic and vicarious ignorance on our Lord’s
part by way of a
deliberate restraint on his divine knowledge throughout a life of continuous kenosis in which he refused to transgress
the limits of the creaturely and earthly conditions of human nature.
same argument that is to be applied to the atoning exchange between ignorance
and wisdom in Christ—a problem
that was much discussed in the fourth century, for the Arians had appealed to
passages in the Gospels such
as those in which it was said of Jesus that he increased in wisdom and even was
lacking in knowledge [Luke
2:52; Mark 13:32]. Athanasius handled this question in entire consistency with
his arguments about what the
Son of God had done in making himself one of us and one with us in what we
actually are in order to save us.
That is to say, while the Son or Word of God who is one and the same being as
the Father enjoys a relation of
mutual knowing between himself and the Father, nevertheless in his
self-abasement in the form of a servant he
had condescended, for our sakes, really to make our ignorance along with other
human limitations his own, precisely
in order to save us from them. “He incorporated the ignorance of men in
himself, that he might redeem
their humanity from all its imperfections and cleanse and offer it perfect and
holy to the Father.” The fact
that Christ was both God and man, and thus acted as God and as man, led some theologians
in the fourth century
to make ambiguous statements about the “economic ignorance” of Christ, and
sometimes even to speak of
it as unreal. Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory Nyssen, both insisted on the
reality of our Lord’s ignorance as essential
to his humanity; but it was Cyril of Alexandria who developed the
soteriological approach of Athanasius
most fully. For him the ignorance of Christ was just as essential to his
amazing self-abasement or kenosis as his physical imperfections and limitations, all of which
are to be predicated of his one incarnate reality
(mia phusis sesarkomene). It was an economic and vicarious ignorance on our Lord’s
part by way of a
deliberate restraint on his divine knowledge throughout a life of continuous kenosis in which he refused to transgress
the limits of the creaturely and earthly conditions of human nature.
As
the Word or Mind of God become flesh Jesus Christ was the incarnate wisdom of
God, but incarnate
in such a way as really to share with us our human ignorance, so that we might
share in his divine wisdom.
This was not just an appearance of ignorance on his part, any more than his
incarnating of the Word or Mind
of God was only in appearance. Had either been in appearance only, it would
have emptied the economic condescension
of the Son to save and redeem of any reality. Unless the Son of God had assumed
the whole nature
of man, including his ignorance, man could not have been saved. The wonderful
exchange that lies at the heart
of the interaction of the incarnation and atonement operates right here, as at
every other point in the relation
between God and sinful human being, for the human mind is an absolutely
essential element in creaturely
being. Hence God in Christ Jesus took it up into himself along with the whole
man, in order to penetrate
into it and deal with the sin, alienation, misunderstanding, and darkness that
had become entrenched within
it. Jesus Christ came among us sharing to the full the poverty of our
ignorance, without ceasing to embody
in himself all the riches of the wisdom of God, in order that we might be
redeemed from our ignorance through
sharing in his wisdom. Redemption was not accomplished just by a downright fiat of God, nor by a mere
divine “nod,” but by an intimate, personal movement of the Son of God himself
into the heart of our
the Word or Mind of God become flesh Jesus Christ was the incarnate wisdom of
God, but incarnate
in such a way as really to share with us our human ignorance, so that we might
share in his divine wisdom.
This was not just an appearance of ignorance on his part, any more than his
incarnating of the Word or Mind
of God was only in appearance. Had either been in appearance only, it would
have emptied the economic condescension
of the Son to save and redeem of any reality. Unless the Son of God had assumed
the whole nature
of man, including his ignorance, man could not have been saved. The wonderful
exchange that lies at the heart
of the interaction of the incarnation and atonement operates right here, as at
every other point in the relation
between God and sinful human being, for the human mind is an absolutely
essential element in creaturely
being. Hence God in Christ Jesus took it up into himself along with the whole
man, in order to penetrate
into it and deal with the sin, alienation, misunderstanding, and darkness that
had become entrenched within
it. Jesus Christ came among us sharing to the full the poverty of our
ignorance, without ceasing to embody
in himself all the riches of the wisdom of God, in order that we might be
redeemed from our ignorance through
sharing in his wisdom. Redemption was not accomplished just by a downright fiat of God, nor by a mere
divine “nod,” but by an intimate, personal movement of the Son of God himself
into the heart of our
creaturely
being and into the inner recesses of the human mind, in order to save us from
within and from below, and
to restore us to undamaged relations of being and mind with himself. Thus
throughout his earthly life Christ
laid hold of our alienated and darkened human mind in order to heal and
enlighten it in himself. In and through
him our ignorant minds are brought into such a relation to God that they may be
filled with divine light and
truth. The redemption of man’s ignorance has an essential place in the atoning
exchange, for everything that
we actually are in our lost and benighted condition has been taken up by Christ
into himself in order that he might
bring it under the saving, renewing, sanctifying, and enlightening power of his
own reality as the incarnate
wisdom and light of God. (T. F. Torrance (The Trinitarian Faith, pgs. 186-188; footnotes of original patristic sources not reproduced. While this is a great quote, regrettably, Torrance has severe theological problems and I am not confident of seeing him in heaven. Also, one must not push Torrance’s argument too far and conclude that Christ actually assumed a sinful human nature instead of sinless humanity into union with His eternal Divine Person.)
being and into the inner recesses of the human mind, in order to save us from
within and from below, and
to restore us to undamaged relations of being and mind with himself. Thus
throughout his earthly life Christ
laid hold of our alienated and darkened human mind in order to heal and
enlighten it in himself. In and through
him our ignorant minds are brought into such a relation to God that they may be
filled with divine light and
truth. The redemption of man’s ignorance has an essential place in the atoning
exchange, for everything that
we actually are in our lost and benighted condition has been taken up by Christ
into himself in order that he might
bring it under the saving, renewing, sanctifying, and enlightening power of his
own reality as the incarnate
wisdom and light of God. (T. F. Torrance (The Trinitarian Faith, pgs. 186-188; footnotes of original patristic sources not reproduced. While this is a great quote, regrettably, Torrance has severe theological problems and I am not confident of seeing him in heaven. Also, one must not push Torrance’s argument too far and conclude that Christ actually assumed a sinful human nature instead of sinless humanity into union with His eternal Divine Person.)
Please feel free to share your thoughts on this quote (and on the verse in general) in the comment section below. I would encourage you read my discussion of Mark 13:32 in The Triune God of the Bible or watch lecture #16 where I discuss it first, though.
I have always looked at Matt. 13: 32 passages in light of Hebrews Jer. 31: 34 & Heb. 8: 12.
Presuming that these 2 verses are not figurative statements of some type, these state that God will forget something, which lead me to the conclusion that it is an ability of the Godhead to chose to not know something.
My $.02 worth.
Dear Bro Camp,
Thanks for the $0.02.