What does it mean that no one knows the day or the hour (Mark 13:32)?

But the Lord also tells us in language peculiar to this Gospel, "of that day or of that hour knoweth no one, neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son136, but the Father." He had thoroughly taken the place of Son upon earth. I do not think that it refers to Him, viewed in His highest character, as one with the Father, but as Son and Prophet upon earth. The title of Son applies to Christ in more ways than one. It is true of Him in the Deity, true of Him as born into the world, and true of Him also in the resurrection. It is the second of these that we find here, as in the very first verse of this Gospel we find it said, "Jesus Christ the Son of God." I do not doubt that refers to His being Son of God here below, begotten in time, not the only-begotten of the Father, as we find so often in John. Looking at it in this way, there is little difficulty in understanding that He should speak as not knowing that hour, because He is speaking in His capacity of minister in the place that He took here below, the prophet that was serving God upon earth. So He did not know that hour. We read of Him in Luke as growing in knowledge as well as in stature. "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" (Luke 2:52). He was always perfect — perfect as a child, perfect as a young man, perfect as a servant; but, nevertheless, all these were quite distinct from what pertained to Him as the Son, one with the Father in Godhead. So here, without derogating from His own intrinsic glory, He could say that "nor the Son, but the Father" knew of that hour.

Further: incontestable evidence is supposed to be found in Mark 13:32; concerning which, it is said, "He declared His ignorance in regard to the date of a future event.* The passage is as follows: "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 even this, their citadel, yields to a careful and prayerful consideration. It is significant that the phrase, "neither the Son," is to be found alone in Mark who writes of the Lord as the Servant-prophet. It is therefore, as such, that He declares His ignorance of what the Father had put in His own power (Acts 1:7). This should not be strange to a reader of the N.T. Luke 13:25-27 is an example of official ignorance. The master of the house says to those who have eaten and drunk in His presence "I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." The word also to five virgins will be "Verily I say unto you, I know you not" Matt. 25:12. Thus the real point of Mark 13:32, is the exclusive knowledge of God in regard to the day and hour. Even the Son, in taking the place of subjection and service, had received no direction to reveal that time. For, as He says, "the Father which sent Me gave Me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak" (John 12:49). See also John 15:15. The true inference therefore from the passage in Mark is not the limitation of the Lord's intrinsic and divine knowledge, but of His teaching in the servant position He took for the glory of God. The propriety of the phrase, too, is striking. Seeing that the day refers to the time when the once lowly Son of Man will be manifested in glory, what more in accordance with His place of dependence than that He should be in an expectant posture till it pleases the Father to make His enemies His footstool?

If these words have a meaning, they make our blessed Lord to say that in Him the divine nature and the human were so separate, that one part of Himself knew and the other part did not; in other words, that, as second man, He had not omniscience. Is there any such lowering thought in Mark 13:32? First of all the text does not speak of Him specifically as man or Son of man, but as "the Son," and this alone destroys the argument. Secondly, it is admirably in keeping with the whole Gospel (in which alone it is found), where the Son is characteristically presented as the perfect SERVANT. Now, it was part of His perfection, as servant, not to know "of that day and hour" wherein the Father would exalt Him commensurately with His own voluntary humiliation. To humble Himself and to obey unto death, yea, death of the cross, was His whole concern. The result, as regarded Himself, He would leave absolutely and unreservedly with His Father; "wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him," etc. This is full of beauty and comeliness, truly heart-winning; but if you use the "no man knoweth" to infer that manhood in Christ had no part in omniscience, you disunite the two natures which now, i.e. since the Word became flesh, compose His person for ever, and you cast a slur upon Him. It is a fresh wound inflicted upon Him in the house of His friends.

Turning to the passage the question arises; if He is God, why does He say "neither the Son"? why does He speak of not knowing? what can the words mean? Is it not clear that both are true, that is, He is God and knows all things, and being Man, is in the state proper to Man, and that this state which is proper to Man is what the words "Neither the Son" apply to. If we were more deeply affected by this profound mystery, may we not say difficulties would vanish away? It is said, "Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should raise the dead?" May we not apply the same to our passage? Why should we His people have a difficulty because He speaks in Manhood and says "Neither the Son"? On the side of Godhead there can be no limitation, while on the side of His Manhood there is that which was proper to the Manhood He had taken upon Him.

But lest anyone should dare to suggest a date for His coming (as many have foolishly attempted), He emphatically insists that no-one knows the day nor the hour, not the angels, nor even the Son, but the Father. The Son was here in the place of Servant, as Mark has presented Him. In this place He knew only those things that the Father had given Him as a matter of revelation, therefore the knowledge of the time of His coming could not be available from Him. We see this same devoted servant-character in Paul, who told the Corinthians, "I determined not to Know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (1Cor.2:2). "Though in Deity the Lord Jesus is omniscient (all knowing), yet in Manhood He has willingly accepted the limitations of a Servant. In serving the Corinthians Paul also accepted a servant's limitations.

We too are to have a servant's attitude, paying close attention, watching, praying, for we do not know the time of His coming. It is good for us not to know, for this tests and encourages our servant character of devoted subjection to Him while He is absent (v.34). The Lord is a man having left His house under the authority of His servants, while taking a long journey. Each has been given his work, and the porter commanded to watch. All should therefore have their work always in such order as if they expected Him immediately.

We have here the remarkable expression as to the Son of Man not knowing the day and hour when these things will take place. This is peculiar to Mark, and in keeping with the lowly character of our blessed Lord as the servant and messenger of God. He was concerned with but the fulfilment of His course and obedience to the will of God. In the relation of which Mark speaks, He knew neither the day nor the hour, in common with the angels. As God, however, surely He knew all things.

And beside, the kingdom to which He was referring while He thus spoke, He is to receive by-and-by as a Servant. It is not to be His simply by divine right; it is the reward of the toil of Him Who was obedient even unto death. Hence all the circumstances of it wait, not on His, but on the Father's pleasure. The right hand and the left hand honours of it thus wait, as He tells us in another place (Matt. 20:23); and the time of its manifestation waits, in like manner, as He tells us in this place: "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Christ takes the kingdom as the Son and Heir of David, the Kinsman of men, and the Servant of God; not by divine but by human title; and therefore most fitly does He say, "Neither the Son," words which do not qualify the person of the Son but the character of the kingdom, as indeed we ought to apprehend at once; because it is not about Himself the Lord is speaking at the time, but about the introduction or beginning of the kingdom.

In Matthew 20:23, Jesus uttered the actual words, "Not mine to give." In Mark 13:32, He said in effect, "Not mine to know." Here He says in effect, "Not mine to do." All three statements are made in view of the lowly place of dependence which He took for the glory of the Godhead and our salvation, and they do not in the least militate against His supreme place in the unity of the Godhead. They show us something of what is meant by His making Himself "of no reputation," or, "emptying Himself," according to Philippians 2, and thus we get a glimpse of the true "kenosis" of which the Scripture speaks, and we find it far removed from the evil "kenosis theory" formulated by unbelieving theologians, which attributes fallibility and error to our Lord.

The disciples said to the Lord, "when shall these things be" (Mark 13:4). Interestingly enough it is in the 'Servant Gospel', Mark, where the Lord is recorded as saying in verse 32, "But of that day or of that hour no one knows, neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father". We have looked at expressions which among other things affirm His Deity. We have no doubt as to that, but we need also to consider that administratively some things are in the hands of the Father peculiarly, and the timing of His coming is administratively in the scope of the Father, not the servant Son of man. Another possible point of view is that instinctively, longingly, those who comprise the bride are now saying, "Come". The bride longs to be presented to the Bridegroom. Why does He not come? Could it be that it is when the Spirit adds His voice to the constant longing of the bride that then, simultaneously, the longing of the bride has added to it the voice of the Spirit and at that moment the Father gives the word? It is a question of administration here, but Mark 13 and Revelation 22:17 do go together. The Spirit is omniscient, He is God and the Son is omniscient, He is God; but here this appears to be a matter of administration, and the timing is in the hands of the Father, and subject Son confirms His own position.

There is no doubt that it will be brought to pass, hence Christ sits there "expecting". We must remember Christ is seen in Manhood in all these statements and we in association with Him. You may remember in Mark 13 our Lord said Himself, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (v. 32). The Father has reserved to himself the right as to this, and hence the Son patiently waits the Father's time.