Jesus’s Limited Knowledge – Mark 13:32

Author:

A study of Mark 13:32 (“Jesus’s limited knowledge”) within the Olivet Discourse.

I use ESV as the English base; for Greek I give NA28/UBS5 readings in transliteration (per your policy), with concise grammar, textual, historical, and theological analysis, followed by scholarly sourcing in SBL style (no liberal/critical frameworks).

Text, Context, and Structure

Base text (ESV):

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)

NA28/UBS5 (transliteration):
Peri de tēs hēmeras ekeinēs ē tēs hōras oudeis oiden, oude hoi angeloi en ouranō, oude ho huios, ei mē ho patēr.

Immediate context: Mark 13:1–37 (Olivet Discourse). Jesus answers questions about the temple’s destruction and the eschatological “coming” of the Son of Man (13:26–27). Verse 32 concludes the timing theme: the precise “day/hour” is hidden—reiterated by four imperatives: watch, be on guard, stay awake, keep awake (13:33–37).

Literary structure:
A. Warnings/signs (13:5–23) →
B. The parousia of the Son of Man (13:24–27) →
C. Fig tree lesson (13:28–31) →
D. Ignorance of “day/hour” (13:32) →
E. Exhortations to watchfulness (13:33–37).
Verse 32 is the hinge from eschatological content to ethical posture.

Exegesis

Key terms, grammar, and syntax

  • “Concerning that day or that hour” (peri… tēs hēmeras… tēs hōras): hēmera/hōra can function as a hendiadys for the appointed time, with “hour” sharpening specificity (cf. Dan 12:4, 9 in LXX tradition of sealed timing).

  • “No one knows” (oudeis oiden): present active indicative; categorical ignorance at the time of speaking.

  • “Nor the angels in heaven, nor the Son” (oude hoi angeloi… oude ho huios): ascending authority chain culminating in the Son, then the Father as sole knower. The double oude intensifies exclusion.

  • “But only the Father” (ei mē ho patēr): exclusive exception; knowledge is located with the Father in the economy of revelation/authority (cf. Acts 1:7).

Textual notes

  • Mark 13:32: The clause “nor the Son” is securely attested across the earliest textual traditions and is undisputed in NA28/UBS5.

  • Matthew 24:36 (parallel): The phrase “nor the Son” is included in NA28/UBS5 (strong early Alexandrian support) but omitted in the Byzantine/TR tradition (hence KJV). Most modern conservative translations include it; its presence across both Synoptics strengthens the authenticity of the saying as a dominical claim of incarnational non-knowledge with respect to the precise timing (see Metzger; NA28 apparatus).

Semantic/thematic links

  • Human epistemic limitation assumed by the Messiah: Luke 2:52 (“grew in wisdom”); Heb 5:8 (learned obedience).

  • Economic reservation of times to the Father: Acts 1:7 (“times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority”).

  • Idol-contrast: claims of omniscience in Greco-Roman divine men are rejected; the true Son submits to the Father’s revelatory economy.

Theological Analysis

What does “nor the Son” mean?

Within Chalcedonian Christology (one person, two natures), the Son truly assumed a complete human nature, including a finite human mind. Thus:

  1. According to his human mind, Jesus did not know the day/hour at that time.

  2. According to his divine nature, the eternal Son is omniscient (Ps 147:5; John 21:17).

  3. The one person can truly predicate of himself what is proper to either nature (communicatio idiomatum): “I thirst” (John 19:28); “the Son does not know” (Mark 13:32).

Competing proposals (evaluated)

  • Two-minds (or “two ranges of cognitive access”) model (orthodox-friendly): one person subsists in two natures; the divine mind is omniscient, the human mind is finite, and there is not automatic, constant “cross-access.” This preserves Mark 13:32 as real ignorance in the human consciousness without denying deity.

  • Kenotic theories (strong forms): the Son relinquishes divine attributes in the incarnation. Classical evangelicals reject this, since God’s essential attributes are incommunicable and immutable; Scripture never teaches ontological divestment (Phil 2:6–8 speaks of self-emptying by addition—taking the form of a servant—not subtraction of deity).

  • “Know” = “make known” reading: minority view that oida here means “is authorized to reveal.” While “know” can figuratively approach “acknowledge” (e.g., 1 Cor 2:2), in Mark 13 the natural sense “to know” fits the contrast with the Father’s exclusive knowledge and with Acts 1:7.
    Conclusion: The incarnational non-knowledge view within conciliar orthodoxy best accounts for the Greek, the context, the parallel in Matthew, and broader NT data.

How can the omniscient Son “not know” something?

  • Personal vs. natural predicates: In the incarnation the Son personally experiences truly human cognitive limitation. The divine omniscience abides in the divine nature; the human ignorance pertains to the human nature. There is no contradiction because omniscience and ignorance are not predicated of the same nature in the same respect.

  • Economic obedience: The Son’s mission includes functional subordination and Spirit-empowered dependence (John 5:19–20; Luke 4:1, 14; Phil 2:6–8). Knowing/declaring the final “day/hour” lies within the Father’s prerogative in the economy.

Arminian/Provisionist and Dispensational synthesis

  • Arminian/Provisionist: Emphasizes the Son’s real human experience and obedient dependence. Mark 13:32 models authentic incarnational humility; God’s revelatory economy restricts disclosure for salvific purposes (watchfulness).

  • Dispensational: Distinguishes Israel/Church programs; yet agrees that timing rests in the Father’s hands (Acts 1:7). The verse supports an ethic of imminence and vigilance apart from date-setting.

  • Calvinist/Reformed contrast (for clarity): Reformed orthodoxy likewise holds the two-natures doctrine and often articulates a robust communicatio idiomatum and extra Calvinisticum (the Son is not circumscribed by the flesh). Substantial agreement exists with the above; debates are typically about philosophical modeling, not the core exegesis.

Historical and Second-Temple Background

  • Apocalyptic reserve: In Jewish apocalyptic, decisive “time/season” knowledge is God’s (Dan 2:21; 12:9). Angelic beings may be privileged mediators, yet not omniscient (cf. 1 En. 9; 46–48 where heavenly knowledge is seen as granted, not inherent). Mark 13:32 aligns with this: angels and even the Messiah (as man) do not possess the sealed timing.

  • Rabbinic idiom: “That day” can function as a stock phrase for the eschaton; the coupling with “hour” intensifies precision while denying access to it.

Synthesis with Wider NT Witness

  • Growth and limitation: Luke 2:52 (growth in wisdom) and Heb 5:8 (learned obedience) establish a coherent pattern of authentic human cognition.

  • Exclusive prerogative texts: Acts 1:7; Matt 24:36 (with “nor the Son” included in NA28/UBS5) reinforce the Father’s authority over eschatological timing.

  • Post-resurrection confessions of omniscience? John 21:17 (“you know everything”) expresses recognition of Jesus’s divine knowledge; this does not negate the earlier incarnational withholding of the day/hour in the economy of revelation.

Practical Implications (brief)

  1. Dogmatics: Affirm true deity and true humanity—no docetism (denying real human mind) and no kenotic reduction of deity.

  2. Eschatology: Resist date-setting; cultivate watchful obedience.

  3. Discipleship: Embrace Spirit-dependent living and humble epistemology: God withholds some knowledge for our good.

  4. Ministry posture: Proclaim what is revealed; defer what God has not revealed (Deut 29:29).

Scholarly Insight (representative, conservative; no quotations)

  • Exegesis/Mark: R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), on 13:32; James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); D. A. Carson, Matthew (EBC rev.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010) on Matt 24:36.

  • Textual criticism: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), on Matt 24:36; NA28 apparatus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).

  • Christology (two natures, two minds, non-kenotic): Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ (Downers Grove: IVP, 1998); Robert Letham, The Person of Christ (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013); Thomas F. Torrance (cautiously used), but clearer for evangelicals: Bruce A. Ware, The Man Christ Jesus: Theological Reflections on the Humanity of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013); Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), §§26–27.

  • Ethics/possessions & eschatology posture: Craig L. Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), ch. 7 (watchfulness context).

I have deliberately avoided direct quotations so that page-precision is not required by your citation rule; if you want verbatim patristic or modern quotes (e.g., Irenaeus Adv. Haer. II.28.6; Augustine De Trinitate I.12; V.16; Gregory Nazianzen Or. 30), say the word and I will supply brief, paginated excerpts.

Summary Thesis

Mark 13:32 teaches real incarnational non-knowledge of the “day/hour” in Jesus’s human mind under the Father’s economic prerogative, without denying the Son’s essential omniscience in his divine nature. This is the plain force of the Greek, coheres with the Synoptic parallel and Acts 1:7, fits Second-Temple apocalyptic reserve, and aligns with Chalcedonian, conservative evangelical dogmatics that reject both kenotic reduction and docetic evasion.

Categories: Difficult Passages