Mark 13:32 - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Bible Comments

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

But of that day and that hour [that is, the precise time], knoweth no man, [ oudeis (G3762 ), literally 'no one,'] no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. This very remarkable statement regarding "the Son" is special to Mark. Whether it means that the Son was not at that time in possession of the knowledge referred to, or simply that it was not among the things which He had received to communicate-has been matter of much controversy even among the firmest believers in the proper divinity of Christ. In the latter sense it was taken by some of the most eminent of the ancient Fathers, and by Luther, Melancthon, and most of the older Lutherans; and it is so taken by Bengel, Lange, Webster, and Wilkinson. Chrysostom and others understood it to mean that as Man our Lord was ignorant of this. It is taken literally by Calvin, Grotius, DeWette, Meyer, Fritzsche, Stier, Alford, and Alexander. Beyond all doubt, as the word "knoweth" х oiden (G1492)] in this verse is the well-known word for the knowledge of any fact, this latter sense is the one we should naturally put upon the statement; namely, that our Lord did not at that time how the day and hour of His own Second Coming. But the nature of the case-meaning by this the speaker, His subject, and the probable design of the statement in question-is always allowed to have its weight in determining the sense of any doubtful utterance. What, then, is the nature of this case?

First, The Speaker was One who, from the time when He entered on His public ministry, spoke ever, acted ever, as One from whom nothing was hid; and to Whom was committed the whole administration of the Kingdom of God from first to last; nor when Peter ascribed omniscience to Him (John 21:17), can He be supposed to have pointed to any enlargement of the sphere of his Lord's knowledge since His resurrection, or to anything except what he had witnessed of Him "in the days of His flesh." Second, There seems nothing so special in the knowledge of the precise time of His Second Coming, much less of the destruction of Jerusalem, more than of other things which we are certain that our Lord knew at that time, that it should be kept from Him, while those other things were all full before His view. We are ill judges indeed of such matters, but we are obliged to give this consideration some weight. So far as we may presume to judge, there was no benefit to the disciples to be gained by the concealment from Him-as certainly there could be no danger to Himself from the knowledge-of the precise time of His coming. But, Third, When we have familiarized ourselves with our Lord's way of speaking of His communications to men, we shall perhaps obtain a key to this remarkable saying of His.

Thus: "And what He hath seen and heard, that He testifieth;" "I speak to the world those things that I have heard of Him;" "The Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak" (John 3:32; John 8:26; John 12:49). And in a remarkable prophecy (Isaiah 50:4) to which we have already adverted (see the notes at Mark 10:32-45, Remark 1) - in which beyond doubt He is the Speaker-He represents Himself as receiving His instructions daily, being each morning instructed what to communicate for that day. In this view, as the precise time of His coming was certainly not in His instructions; as He had not "seen and heard" it, and so could not "testify" it; as He had no communication from His Father on that subject-might He not, in this sense, after saying that neither men nor angels knew it, add that Himself knew it not, without the danger of lowering, even in the minds of any of His half-instructed disciples, the impression of His Omniscience, which every fresh communication to them only tended to deepen? What recommends this opinion is not any inconsistency in the opposite view with the supreme Divinity of Christ. That view might quite well be maintained, if only there appeared sufficient ground for it. But while the one argument in its favour is the natural sense of the words-a very strong argument, however, we are constrained to admit-everything else which one is accustomed to take into account, in weighing the sense of a doubtful saying, is in favour of a modified sense of the words in question.

Here follow, in Matthew 24:37-41, some additional particulars: Matthew 24:37. "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24:38. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, Matthew 24:39. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be" (see the notes at Luke 17:26-27). Matthew 24:40. "Then shall two (men) be in the field" - at their ordinary work - "the one shall be taken, and the other left. Matthew 24:41. Two women shall be grinding at the mill (see the note at Mark 9:42); the one shall be taken, and the other left" - the children of this world and the children of light mingled to the last. See the notes at Luke 17:34-36.

Mark 13:32

32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.