02.08. The GodMan Lacked Knowledge

8. THE GOD-MAN LACKED KNOWLEDGE

Many say Christ’s ignorance and temptability are important issues in the study of Christology. Having dealt with the so-called “temptability” of the God-Man, a study of His “ignorance” is now in order. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). Many theologians have said this verse has always presented serious difficulties. Some say there was a real ignorance in Christ during His humiliation, and others advocate a holy unwillingness to know. The following are various views of Jesus Christ’s not knowing the day of the Lord:

(1) As Man, Jesus Christ knew not the time of His coming; as God He knew that men did not know.
(2) Christ knew not because He had no instruction to declare that day.
(3) In the incarnation, Christ voluntarily accepted human limitations, including His not knowing the day and hour of the “day of the Lord.”
(4) The fact that even the Son, according to His human nature, did not know is in harmony with “He emptied Himself” (Php 2:7).
(5) Christ as the Son of Man did not know, but as the Son of God He knew all things. What knowledge He had of future things in His humanity He had from His Deity.
(6) The word “knoweth” is sometimes used in the sense of to make known or reveal. Thus, in that sense, Christ did not make known or reveal the day and the hour.
(7) Christ’s not knowing the day and the hour is to be understood in the same sense as Christ’s sleeping, fearing, obeying, learning, etc.

There are some serious pitfalls that must be avoided in the proper interpretation of Mark 13:32, which states that the God-Man did not know the day and the hour of the day of the Lord. One pitfall is dualism. Jesus Christ is not both a human and a Divine Person. He is a Divine Person who assumed a human nature. The Infinite did not become the finite, but the Infinite did assume the finite. God’s eternal Son did not divest Himself of eternity, but He assumed a nature adapted for time. God is invisible in His Divine nature, but He is made visible in human nature. The Son of God did not empty Himself of the form of God, but He assumed the form of a servant. Furthermore, He did not strip Himself of His Divine attributes. He put them under restriction as the Son of Man. In His human nature, Christ accommodated Himself to the feebleness, growth, and development of that nature. Thus, dualism is proved to be false. The great question has been how the “Word became flesh” and remains the Word (John 1:14). Scripture is clear concerning the fact that the Son of God became the Son of Man while remaining the Son of God. Both titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” are used throughout the New Testament to speak of Jesus Christ. The title “Son of God” is associated with the Divine nature, and the title “Son of Man” is united to His human nature. The Lord Jesus said:

I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God (John 10:30-33). The Jews thought that Jesus Christ was a mere man who was trying to convince the people that He was God. Their depraved minds blinded them to the Old Testament Scriptures that spoke of “a child being born” and “a son being given” who shall be called “The mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6), the One who “shall grow up before him as a tender plant,” and God’s righteous servant who shall “justify many” (Isaiah 53:2; Isaiah 53:11). The Jews were blind to the Biblical fact that the One they accused of blasphemy was “God... manifest in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16),
not a mere man claiming to be God. The Bible answers the question of how God can become the God-Man. Man had communion with God when God originally made him. Adam was capable of existing in harmony with God before the fall because he was made in God’s image, after His likeness (Genesis 1:26). However, that harmony was broken by the fall. The fall made the incarnation necessary for the redemption of the elect out from among the depraved posterity of Adam. Hence, the Son of God was made in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). At the same time, He retained the image of the Father: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3). A seemingly contradictory coexistence in one Person of a human nature-subject to birth, growth, and development-with a Divine nature-not subject to the same development-is to Christians the God-Man. The developing child “filled with wisdom” (Luke 2:40) coexists with “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52). The mature God-Man is the One “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Coexisting with Him is the one who said He knew not the day and the hour of the day of the Lord (Mark 13:32). The natural mind looks upon these facts as intellectual dualism. They are thought to be inconsistent with any conception one can form of a simple personality. However, these Biblical facts furnish the foundation for the Christian’s hope in the God-appointed God-Man. The one personality in the God-Man has two spheres of existence. The Divine nature is omnipresent, but the human nature is restricted. The Son of Man told Nicodemus that “...no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13). This statement refutes not only the denial of Jesus Christ’s preexistence but the affirmation of a duality of persons. The human nature the Son of God assumed enabled the God-Man to speak of either nature under whatever name He chose. In His discourse with Nicodemus, He chose to use the name “Son of Man” when speaking of what is proper to the Son of God. He who was invisible in heaven became visible upon earth. He who was restricted in His human nature was unrestricted in His Divine nature; therefore, He spoke of being in heaven while He was upon earth. The omnipresence of the Divine nature and the restriction of the human nature of the God-Man are not more comprehensible than His omniscience in the Divine nature and the limitation of knowledge in the human nature. The following are some Biblical examples of the two spheres of the God-Man:
(1) In the God-Man’s infancy, He was “filled with wisdom”; and “Jesus increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:40 Luke 2:52). Thus, wisdom was restricted in only one sphere.
(2) Christ said to Nathanael, “Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee” (John 1:48). The omniscience of the Divine nature enabled the God-Man to see Nathanael; whereas, His human nature separated the two by the distance of several miles.
(3) Before He reached the grave of Lazarus, Jesus Christ told Martha and Mary that their brother, Lazarus, was dead: “Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead” (John 11:14). Later, when Christ “was not yet come into the town,” Mary came to Him, fell down at His feet, and said, “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” The Lord Jesus asked, “Where have ye laid him?” (John 11:30-34). The Divine nature of the God-Man knew Lazarus was dead; however, His human nature did not know where Lazarus was buried.
(4) Christ hungered in His human nature (Matthew 4:2). In His Divine nature, He said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever...” (John 6:51).
(5) Christ thirsted in His human nature (John 19:28); but in His Divine nature, He said, “...whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst...” (John 4:14).

Coming now to the God-Man’s lack of knowledge concerning the day of the Lord, the question is often asked, Is not Christ’s lack of knowledge equivalent with His capability to sin? To affirm that they are equivalent is heresy. The capability to sin, but not lack of knowledge, would indicate corruption of His human nature. The imputation of Adam’s sin to all his posterity cannot apply to Jesus Christ because He is not a human person. He is the Son of God. His human nature is not from fallen Adam; therefore, His Person cannot be counted in Adam. Since guilt is imputed to the person rather than the nature, guilt could never be reckoned to the Divine Person of the Son of God. Having assumed a holy human nature, Christ was not subject to the sentence of death. On the other hand, the God-Man’s lack of knowledge does not indicate any corruption in His human nature. Christ’s conception, birth, and growth were not the fruit of corruption in the human nature.

Infallibility does not imply omniscience. According to the Scriptures, infallibility was conferred on the apostles who possessed limited knowledge: For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away
(1 Corinthians 13:9-10). For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21).

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

If Paul, who possessed a fallen nature, spoke infallibly when inspired to give us the Holy Scriptures, although he spoke from a limited knowledge, what about the Son of God who did not possess a fallen nature? Christ spoke nothing but truth, although His human nature possessed limited knowledge. Limitation of knowledge and capability of error are not the same. In the sphere of Christ’s human nature, there was a lack of knowledge, but there was no capability of error. His human nature was subject to His Divine nature.

We know that two natures were united in the one Person of Jesus Christ. But to what extent the Divine nature did not overshadow the human is impossible to either know or explain. This is why the incarnation is called a mystery
(1 Timothy 3:16). Some things remain a mystery after the incarnation. We do know the human nature was not the residential subject of omniscience. We also know Christ’s first advent was not for the purpose of making known either the day or the hour of the day of the Lord. He was not commissioned as Prophet to make known the time. Christ’s manhood is spoken of as a condition of His prophetical office (Deuteronomy 18:15-22).

Christ’s “not knowing the day and hour” of the day of the Lord is better understood if we view the subject in its proper context. The kingdom is covenanted to David’s Son, the Son of Man. The time of the kingdom’s establishment and its consequences are in the Father’s hand (Acts 1:6-7). Therefore, Christ spoke of His lack of knowledge in connection with His messianic relationship to the covenant. The Father had reserved to Himself the times and seasons as a revelation unsuitable for the Son of Man to make known during the time of His first advent. Revelation of the day and hour of the kingdom’s establishment would have prevented the expectation of Christ’s second coming. Faith and hope, with their practical results, are the fruits of the uncertainty of that time. On the other hand, one cannot deny that Jesus Christ had knowledge of the kingdom and its establishment. Predictions are given concerning the Jewish nation and Gentile domination (Matthew 24:1-51; Matthew 25:1-46; Luke 21:1-38). These predictions were also given during the days of His humiliation. Moreover, after His ascension, these same prophecies were verified by the apostles and finally by Jesus Christ in the revelation of Himself.

There is an absolute interpenetration of knowledge of the Son with the Father. The knowledge of each was so infinite that each knew the other to perfection: “...no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him”
(Matthew 11:27). In the Son of Man, who is also the Son of God, the Divine and human consciousness stand side by side without either suppressing or qualifying the other. The God-Man, therefore, could speak out of either consciousness without any confusion or conflict.

Whatever was either said or done by the human nature of the God-Man never had to be stopped or corrected by His Divine nature. Furthermore, whatever was either said or done by the Divine nature was never questioned or resisted by the human nature. Moreover, the Divine nature did not provide some necessary skill to enhance the human nature because it was perfect in its sphere.