Paradoxical God-Man: Does He Know or Not?

Often one will find critics of the Trinity and/or Deity of Christ appealing to our Lord’s professed ignorance of the day or hour of his rising in judgment against Jerusalem and the Temple to either prove he is a mere creature, or that he isn’t fully God in the same sense that the Father is:

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

“But of that day and hour no one knows (oiden), not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Matthew 24:36

It is assumed that this saying settles the matter and conclusively proves that the Son doesn’t know all that the Father does, and is therefore inferior to the Father. These folks argue that the Father is greater than the Son not simply in terms of authority but also in relation to their ontology. Some others who want to affirm the Son’s Deity will employ this as supporting their understanding of what they refer to a Kenotic Christology. The term “kenotic” is derived from the Greek kenoo, which is employed in the hymn/poem cited by Paul in Philippians 2:5-11. There it speaks of Christ having emptied himself in order to take to himself the form of a slave by being born as a human being:

“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing (ekenosen) by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:5-11

On the basis of their understanding of the use of the verb here, these Kenotic Christology advocates assume (quite erroneously) that part of Jesus’ emptying included his setting aside specific divine qualities, such as omnipresence and omniscience. As such, the incarnate Son truly did not know the day or hour, since only the Father possessed this knowledge at this stage in Christ’s existence.

The major problem with all these views, especially the kenotic position, is that the Gospels also expressly affirm that even before his resurrection Jesus was still omnipresent (though not physically, bodily) and still knew all things while he was on earth.

Case in point:

“These things I have spoken to you in figures of speech; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech, but will tell you openly of the Father. On that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.’ His disciples said, ‘Behold, now You are speaking openly and are not using a figure of speech. Now we know that You know all things (hoti oidas panta), and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Do you now believe?’” John 16:25-31   

“He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love Me?’ Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, ‘Do you love Me?’ And he said to Him, ‘Lord, You know all things (Kyrie, panta su oidas); You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, ‘Tend My sheep.’” John 21:17

Pay close attention to the fact that both before and after his physical resurrection, Jesus is said to know all things, which is precisely why he didn’t need to be questioned in order to verify whether he did so.

The late NT scholar Raymond E. Brown, whom some consider wrote the finest commentaries on the Gospel and letters of John, wrote the following in regards to these verses:

you do not even need that a person ask you questions. The verb is erotan. The present verse, which must refer to questions of information, is important for the understanding of the promise in 23a: ‘On that day you will have no more questions [erotan]) to put to me”; apparently the disciples think that the promise has been fulfilled. Some exegetes have not made a connection with 23a and think that the statement in the first part of 30 that Jesus knows everything should be followed logically by a statement that Jesus (not “a person”) has no need to ask questions, thus, the OS: “You do not need to ask a person questions” (cf. also Augustine In Jo. CIII 2; PL35:1900). However, not only is there little textual support for such a reinterpretation, but also it neglects the Jewish idea that the ability to anticipate questions and not to need to be asked is a mark of the divine. In Josephus, Ant, VI.x1.8; #230, Jonathan swears to David by “This God . . . who, before I have expressed my thought in words, already knows what it is.’ The same idea is found in Matt vi 8: “Your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.” (Brown, The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI No. 29A: A New Translation With Introduction and Notes [Doubleday Company, 1970], pp. 725-726; emphasis mine)

And:

you know everything. The verb is oida, while ginoskein appears in the next clause: “you know well” (see NOTE on “you know that I love you” in 15). The “you” may be emphatic. What type of knowledge is attributed to the risen Jesus here? Even during the ministry John insists on Jesus’ superhuman knowledge (ii 25), and in xvi 30 this is expressed in much the same language as here: “Now we know that you know everything.” In the context of this scene as the rehabilitation of Peter after his denials of Jesus, some have thought that by these words Peter was acknowledging that Jesus knew prophetically that Peter would deny him three times before cockcrow (xiii 38). Or is Peter simply appealing to Jesus’ thorough familiarity with him? He can say no more for himself: if Jesus does not know that Peter loves him, what can Peter say to assure him? As Lagrange, p. 530, remarks, such a protestation is mild for so ardent a character. (Ibid., p. 1106)

Other expositors and theologians concur that these texts do ascribe full omniscience to the earthly Christ:

16:29–30. Doubt can also turn to faith because the Spirit illumines us. These disciples had the right answer. But Jesus had just finished telling them he was speaking figuratively and would have to do so until the little while had passed. But they claimed to understand everything, to recognize his omniscience. They said they believed he came from God. This was the last week Jesus would spend with these disciples before the crucifixion. They had been listening to him teach and watching him work for three and one-half years. Now suddenly they claimed they had reached the conclusion that he came from God.

Of course, naiveté still clouded their thinking. They did not yet have the Spirit’s illumination. The difference between not understanding and understanding the Bible comes not from years of seminary training, but from the presence and teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit. (Kenneth O. Gangel, John, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000], Volume 4, p. 304; emphasis mine)

And:

The same idea that Jesus knows people’s hearts just as God does is found in the writings of John, who states in his first epistle that “God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything” (1 John 3:20). Yet in the Gospel, John presents the disciples confessing both before and after Jesus’ resurrection that he knew everything. The first occasion was shortly before his arrest and crucifixion, when his disciples said, “Now we know that you know all things” (John 16:30). Jesus does not deny having such knowledge, but his response indicates the disciples did not yet fully trust him (16:31–33). After Jesus’ resurrection, when he asked Peter repeatedly if he loved him, the third time Peter answered, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you” (John 21:17). In context, Peter was acknowledging that Jesus already knew his heart and so knew how he felt about Jesus. (Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense [Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024], Part 2: Like Father, Like Son: Jesus’ Divine Attributes, Chapter 15: What Jesus Did and Didn’t Know, p. 302; emphasis mine)

Other Proofs of Omniscience

Nor are these isolated cases, where the Gospels ascribe full omniscience to the Son while on earth:

“Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, when they saw His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He had no need that anyone bear witness concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.” John 2:23-25  

Here again is what Dr. Brown stated:

Verses 24-25 show us that the faith produced by Jesus’ signs in vs. 23 is not satisfactory. As we shall see in App. III, the reaction described here is intermediary. It is better than the hostile blindness of “the Jews” in the temple scene, but it is not equal to the faith of the disciples at Cana in ii 11 who are brought through the sign to see Jesus’ glory. Here at Jerusalem there is a willingness to see the sign and be convinced by it, but all that is seen through the sign is that Jesus is a wonder-worker. The reason that John advances for Jesus’ refusal to accept such faith is that “he knew them all” and that “he was aware of what was in man’s heart.” Bernard, I, p. 99, is not sure that John means us to understand Jesus’ special knowledge as being different from that of other great men. Bultmann, p. 714, thinks of the extraordinary knowledge claimed by the “divine men” of the Hellenistic world, for example, Apollonius of Tyana, who knew people’s thought. Occasionally rabbis possessed this power and it was attributed to God’s holy spirit working within them. While these parallels are interesting, it cannot really be doubted that for John the reason Jesus possessed this power was not because it had been given to him, but because of who he is. He has come from God; he remains united to God; and therefore he has God’s power of knowing man’s inmost thoughts (Jer xvii 10). (Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (Anchor Bible Series, Vol. 29): A New Translation With Introduction and Notes [Doubleday Day & Company, Inc. 1966], p. 127; emphasis mine)

Other exegetes and theologians include the following:

The evangelist tells us that Jesus was able to recognize the shallowness of their belief for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man. In this Gospel there are a number of places where Jesus’ knowledge of people’s thoughts is noted (1:47–48; 4:17–19, 29; 6:15, 64). These reflect his unique nature as the Son of God, and his exercise of divine powers (cf. Jer. 17:10: ‘I the Lord search the heart / and examine the mind, / to reward a man according to his conduct, / according to what his deeds deserve’). (Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary [Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), Volume 4, p. 105; emphasis mine)

2:24–25. John 2:24 is one of the most important verses in this Gospel because it reminds us that in the New Testament the word believe does not always mean that a person has placed genuine faith in Jesus. The spectators in Jerusalem must have exercised only intellectual assent—perhaps agreeing that Jesus might be some significant prophet who has come among the people. But the Lord looked right into their hearts and saw their motives. Their faith had been placed in his works rather than in his person. Therefore, he would not entrust himself to them. The Greek text is helpful at this point since the verb “believe” (episteuo) appears in three consecutive verses (vv. 22–24).

The disciples believed Jesus’ words and the Scripture only after his resurrection. The people in Jerusalem claimed to believe, but Jesus did not believe their belief. The NIV translation for would not entrust is the same essential root as the words translated “believed” in the two previous verses. The past tense indicates ongoing action in verse 24. Jesus continuously did not trust their claims to faith. The second verb of the verse (knew) is in the present tense, indicating that he knew the hearts of all people all the time. This includes modern believers.

For emphasis, John repeated that thought in verse 25. The Lord looks at our hearts to examine whether what we say we believe really represents our inner selves. Borchert sums it up nicely in the context of this Gospel:

When John wrote this Gospel, he knew that Jesus performed many signs and that people said they believed. John also knew that Jesus died and that while he had no intention of abandoning the believers (14:18), they could not avoid abandoning him. For John, then, there was good reason for Jesus not to believe people’s believing. Thus, when we read the stories of John, we must not treat them simply as stories from the past. They are also in fact living portraits of humanity in every era. Accordingly, we need to understand that the living Jesus does not believe everyone’s believing because he knows what is in them. Those words ought to stand as a warning to everyone (Borchert, p. 168). (Gangel, John, Vol. 4, pp. 36–37)

John’s Gospel isn’t alone in affirming that Christ remained omniscient in his pre-resurrection earthly state:

“And knowing their thoughts He said to them, ‘Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.’” Matthew 12:25

“And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, ‘Child, your sins are forgiven.’ But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, ‘Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?’ Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, ‘Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your mat and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, get up, pick up your mat, and go to your home.’ And he got up and immediately picked up the mat and went out before everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, ‘We have never seen anything like this.’” Mark 2:5-12

“Now an argument started among them as to which of them might be the greatest. But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, ‘Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.’” Luke 9:46-48

These texts attribute to the earthly Jesus the exact same characteristics and functions, which the Hebrew Bible ascribes to YHWH.

For instance, it is YHWH who alone knows the hearts of all men, and he is the One who forgives all sins and heals all diseases:

“then listen in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and give to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men,” 1 Kings 8:39

“As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a delighted soul; for Yahweh searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.” 1 Chronicles 28:9

“Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.” Psalm 44:21

“Bless Yahweh, O my soul, And forget none of His benefits; Who pardons all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases;” Psalm 103:2-3  

“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;” Acts 15:8

“and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.” Romans 8:27

This next example is rather astonishing:

“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” Matthew 11:27 – Cf. Luke 10:22

Christ is basically stating that the Father and the Son are both incomprehensible, omniscient divine Persons, which explains why they alone are able to fully and perfectly comprehend each other. And it is on the basis of this reciprocal knowledge, the Son is the only one qualified to make the Father known.

Moreover, such reciprocity implies that the Son knows the Father to the same extent that the Father knows the Son, and since the Father knows every thought of the Son this means that the Son also knows every though of the Father. And since knowledge of the day or hour is one of the thoughts that the Father possesses, this means the Son would ipso facto have knowledge of the same.

For a more thorough examination of this remarkable statement, I recommend the following post.

Concluding Remarks

The foregoing shows that Christ’s ignorance of the day or hour isn’t the be all and end all on settling the issue of the whether the Incarnate Son was omniscient or not. Our Lord’s statements must be taken into consideration with all that Gospels say in regards to Jesus’ knowledge. Once this is done then the assertion that Jesus did not know the day or hour, and therefore did not possess omniscience while on earth, is simply naïve, and misleading. In fact, this is a gross and/or dishonest misreading of the canonical Gospels.    

The Gospels affirm both, namely, the incarnate Christ was omniscient and also grew in wisdom and stature, that he both knew all things but also did not know the day or hour.

For sure, this is a paradox that has baffled Christians throughout the centuries. Nonetheless, a Christian who affirms the inspiration, historicity and consistency of the biblical testimony cannot forego one view for another. Believers that hold to the Gospels being complimentary, not contradictory, cannot deny that Christ was omniscient while on earth, nor can they deny that the Son didn’t possess the knowledge of the day or hour. The duty of the believe is to uphold both views and seek to find a way of harmonizing them, not pitting them against each other. As the following Evangelical NT commentator puts it:

COMMENTARY

27 Despite contrary opinions, the arguments for the authenticity of this saying are very strong. Long rejected because it was thought to reflect Johannine theology, which was judged to be the product of late Hellenization, this verse has by and large gained the recognition of scholarship that the “knowledge” categories here are Jewish and the structure of the verse Semitic (cf. Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 45ff.). Dunn (Christology, 199–200) has shown that the closest parallels are in the election language of the OT, a strong argument for the unity of vv.25–27.

Hill denies the authenticity of the saying but candidly admits, “The greatest barrier to the acceptance of the genuineness of the verse is the supposition that Jesus could not have made such an absolute claim for himself.” This turns in part on the observation that, apart from the fourth gospel, the absolute expression “the Son” is exceedingly rare. But significantly it does occur twice more in Matthew, at 24:36 (cf. Mk 13:32) and 28:19 (elsewhere, cf. 1Co 15:28; Heb 1:8). Jeremias (Prayers of Jesus, 50) argues that Jesus’ habit of addressing God as “Father” could well have contributed to such a self-understanding on the part of Jesus; but even he thinks v.27 should be understood generically: “Just as only a father really knows his son, so only a son really knows his father.” But even if he is right, in a context where (1) Jesus has just addressed God as “Father” (vv.25–26) and (2) makes himself a son in an exclusive sense (3) with the sole power to mediate knowledge of God, one must conclude that the “generic” statement Jeremias finds could be applied only to Jesus, and that in such a way as to make his sonship exclusive.

Past interpreters often said that “the Son” is never used in pre-Christian sources as a title for the Messiah. With the discovery of 4Q174 (Florilegium) 10–14, citing 2 Samuel 7:14 and applying to “the Branch” of David the words “I will be his Father and he shall be my Son,” this judgment must be reconsidered. Though it may not be a direct messianic title, it was certainly used to refer to an apocalyptic figure who was the son of a king, presumably David, and thus picks up OT uses of “Son” (see Ps 2; comments at 2:15; 3:17; 16:13–16; cf. Fitzmyer, Wandering Aramean, 102–7; M. Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion [London: SCM Press, 1976]; Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 301ff.). As with “Son of Man” (see Reflections, p. 247), so with “Son of God”: it appears that Jesus used a designation not firmly defined and open to several interpretations as part of his gradual self-disclosure, a revelation that could be fully grasped only after the cross and the resurrection. Thus for Matthew there is no doubt of what Jesus is saying, because Matthew’s “Son” or “Son of God” categories must be seen against the backdrop, not only of the prologue, but also of 3:17.

The latter passage raises a still more basic point. Cannot Jesus himself be thought to originate some things? Was the church so rich in imagination and Jesus so imaginatively poor that all new developments in titles and theology must be ascribed only to the church? If 3:17 is historical, why should not Jesus think of himself as the Son in 11:27? Is it necessary to conclude, with Hill, that v.27 cannot be authentic because it sounds like the authority of the post-resurrection Jesus in 28:18? And if the two do sound alike, why should we not therefore conclude that there is more continuity between the earthly ministry of Jesus and the resurrected Lord than most scholars are prepared to admit?

Verse 27 is a christological claim of prime importance, fitting easily into the context. After declaring that the Father gives true understanding of “these things” to “little children” (vv.25–26), Jesus now adds that he is the exclusive agent of that revelation. “All things” may have reference not to “all authority” (as in 28:18) but to “all divine knowledge,” all knowledge of “these things” (in v.25). But because the Son has not only knowledge but the authority to choose those to whom he will reveal God, probably “all things” includes authority. The reciprocal knowledge of Son and Father where the Father is God presupposes a special sonship indeed. And this unique mutual knowledge guarantees that the revelation the Son gives is true.

Not least astonishing about this reciprocity is the clause “No one knows the Son except the Father.” Even if it is rendered in Jeremias’s way (above), in this exclusivistic context it makes a claim no mere mortal could honestly make. There is a self-enclosed world of Father and Son that is opened to others only by the revelation provided by the Son. “It is one thing to know by equality of nature, and another by the condescension of him who reveals” (Jerome, cited in Broadus, 252). This revelation is not only factual (the Son reveals “these things”) but personal (the Son reveals “him”—the Father).

The Son reveals the Father to those whom he, from time to time, wills (present subjunctive; cf. Turner, Syntax, 107). Just as the Son praises the Father for revealing and concealing according to his good pleasure (v.26), so the Father has authorized the Son to reveal or not according to his will. The text places enormous emphasis on Jesus’ person and authority. The thought is closely echoed both in John (3:35; 8:19; 10:15; 14:9; 16:15) and in the Synoptics (Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11—Jesus makes known the secrets of the kingdom; cf. Mt 10:37–39; 11:25; Lk 10:23–24; ch. 15). “What is made clear in this passage is that sonship and messiahship are not quite the same. Sonship precedes messiahship and is in fact the ground for the messianic mission” (Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 165–67, esp. 167). (D. A. Carson, “Matthew”, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (General Editors) [Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, revised edition 2010], pp. 411-413 in the ePub edition; emphasis mine)

And:

COMMENTARY

36 Many commentators read v.36 with the preceding paragraph; but it goes much better with the following verses, which constitute an exhortation to vigilance precisely because, the day and the hour being unknown to humanity, life goes on as it always has. The gar (“for”) at the beginning of v.37 must not be overlooked, as in the NIV.

The gist of v.36 is clear enough. Jesus’ disciples are morally bound to repress all desires to know what no one knows but the Father—not even angels (cf. 18:10; 4 Ezra 4:52) or the Son (see Notes). If the Son himself does not know the time of the Parousia, “how cheerfully should we his followers rest in ignorance that cannot be removed, trusting in all things to our heavenly Father’s wisdom and goodness, striving to obey his clearly revealed will, and leaning on his goodness for support” (Broadus). Moreover, it is ridiculous quibbling divorced from the context to say that though the day and hour remain unknown, we ascertain the year or month.

Jesus’ self-confessed ignorance on this point has generated not a little debate. In fact, it is part of the NT pattern of his humiliation and incarnation (e.g., 20:23; Lk 2:52; Ac 1:7; Php 2:7). John’s gospel, the one of the four gospels most clearly insisting on Jesus’ deity, also insists with equal vigor on Jesus’ dependence on and obedience to his Father—a dependence reaching even to his knowledge of the divine. How NT insistence on Jesus’ deity is to be combined with NT insistence on his ignorance and dependence is a matter of profound importance to the church; attempts to jettison one truth for the sake of preserving the other must be avoided. (For an attempt to work some of these things out, see Carson, Divine Sovereignty, 146–60.)

NOTES

36 The words “nor the Son,” while textually secure in Mark 13:32, are disputed here. The omission is supported by most late MSS and by aleph. Such omission may have been prompted by the doctrinal difficulty presented by the words, but it is mildly surprising that Mark 13:32 has not suffered similar distortion. One might in fact argue that the omission in Matthew is original and that the words were added by assimilation to Mark. The most convincing argument in favor of retaining the words in Matthew is grammatical (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 62). The curious suggestion of Jeremias (Prayers of Jesus, 37), that “nor the Son” is a late addition in both Matthew and Mark that makes explicit the implications of “but only the Father,” is not only without textual warrant but also an intrinsically unlikely christological development. (Ibid., pp. 725-726; emphasis mine)

With the foregoing in mind, Evangelical author and cult expert Ron Rhodes shows one way to harmonize these statements as he addresses the misuse of Mark 13:32 by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Rhodes points to some of the same NT texts cited earlier to prove that Christ did not cease to be omniscient even while in his humble state on earth:

Mark 13:32—No One Knows the Day or the Hour

The Watchtower Teaching. The New World Translation renders Mark 13:32, “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.” Jehovah’s Witnesses say that because Christ was ignorant of the time of the end, he cannot be Almighty God because God knows all things. “Had Jesus been the equal Son part of a Godhead, he would have known what the Father knows. But Jesus did not know, for he was not equal to God.”⁹⁴ Only the Father is Jehovah and is all-knowing.

The Biblical Teaching. Though a bit complex, you must make the point that the eternal Son of God—who, prior to the Incarnation, was one in person and nature (wholly divine)—became, in the Incarnation, two in nature (divine and human) while remaining one person. The Son, who had already been a person for all eternity past, joined Himself not with a human person but with a human nature at the Incarnation.

One of the most complex aspects of the relationship of Christ’s two natures is that, while the attributes of one nature are never attributed to the other, the attributes of both natures are properly attributed to His one person. Thus Christ at the same moment in time had what seem to be contradictory qualities. He was finite and yet infinite, weak and yet omnipotent, increasing in knowledge and yet omniscient, limited to being in one place at one time and yet omnipresent. In the Incarnation, the person of Christ is the partaker of the attributes of both natures, so that whatever may be affirmed of either nature—human or divine—may be affirmed of the one person.

Though Christ sometimes operated in the sphere of His humanity and in other cases in the sphere of His deity, in all cases what He did and what He was could be attributed to His one person. Thus, though Christ in His human nature knew hunger (Luke 4:2), weariness (John 4:6), and the need for sleep (Luke 8:23)—just as Christ in His divine nature was omniscient (John 2:24), omnipresent (John 1:48), and omnipotent (John 11)—all of this was experienced by the one person of Jesus Christ.

Here is the important point: Both of Christ’s natures come into play in many events recorded in the Gospels. For example, Christ’s initial approach to the fig tree to pick and eat a fig to relieve His hunger reflected the natural ignorance of the human mind (Matt. 21:19a). (That is, in His humanity He did not know from a distance that there was no fruit on that particular tree.) But then He immediately revealed His divine omnipotence by causing the tree to whither (v. 19b).

On another occasion, Jesus in His divine omniscience knew that His friend Lazarus had died and set off for Bethany (John 11:11). When Jesus arrived in Bethany, He asked (in his humanness, without exercising omniscience) where Lazarus had been laid (v. 34). Robert Reymond notes that “as the God-man, [Jesus] is simultaneously omniscient as God (in company with the other persons of the Godhead) and ignorant of some things as man (in company with the other persons of the human race).”⁹⁵

All of this serves as a backdrop to a proper understanding of Jesus’ comment in Mark 13:32, “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Jesus was here speaking from the vantage point of His humanity. In His humanity, Jesus was not omniscient but was limited in understanding just as all human beings are. If Jesus had been speaking from the perspective of His divinity, He wouldn’t have said the same thing.

Now, the Gospel accounts are clear that Christ operated at different times under the major influence of one or the other of His two natures. Indeed, Christ operated in the human sphere to the extent that it was necessary for Him to accomplish His earthly purpose as determined in the eternal plan of salvation. At the same time, He operated in the divine sphere to the extent that it was possible in the period of His humiliation (Phil. 2:6-9).

Now, it is critical that you point out to the Jehovah’s Witness that Scripture is abundantly clear that in His divine nature, Jesus is omniscient—just as omniscient as the Father is. The apostle John said that Jesus “did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man” (John 2:25). Jesus’ disciples said, “Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God” (16:30, italics added). After the Resurrection, when Jesus asked Peter for the third time if Peter loved Him, Peter responded: “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you” (21:17, italics added).

Bible scholar Thomas Schultz has provided an excellent summary of the massive evidence for Christ’s omniscience:

First, He knows the inward thoughts and memories of man, an ability peculiar to God (1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:9-16). He saw the evil in the hearts of the scribes (Matthew 9:4); He knew beforehand those who would reject Him (John 6:64) and those who would follow Him (John 10:14). He could read the hearts of every man and woman (Mark 2:8; John 1:48; 2:24, 25; 4:16-19; Acts 1:24; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Revelation 2:18-23). A mere human can no more than make an intelligent guess as to what is in the hearts and minds of others.

Second, Christ has a knowledge of other facts beyond the possible comprehension of any man. He knew just where the fish were in the water (Luke 5:4, 6; John 21:6-11), and He knew just which fish contained the coin (Matthew 17:27). He knew future events (John 11:11; 18:4), details that would be encountered (Matthew 21:2-4), and He knew that Lazarus had died (John 11:14).

Third, He possessed an inner knowledge of the Godhead showing the closest possible communion with God as well as perfect knowledge. He knows the Father as the Father knows Him (Matthew 11:27; John 7:29; 8:55; 10:15; 17:25).

The fourth and consummating teaching of Scripture along this line is that Christ knows all things (John 16:30; 21:17), and that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).⁹⁶

Certainly a key evidence for Christ’s omniscience is the fact that He hears and answers the prayers of His people. “When Jesus claimed for Himself the prerogative to hear and to answer the prayers of His disciples,” Robert Reymond suggests, “He was claiming omniscience. One who can hear the innumerable prayers of His disciples—offered to Him night and day, day in and day out throughout the centuries—keep each request infallibly related to its petitioner, and answer each one in accordance with the divine mind and will would need Himself to be omniscient.”⁹⁷ (Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses [Harvest House Publishers, 1983], 5. Is Christ Inferior to the Father?, pp. 167-170; emphasis mine)

94 Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 19.

95 Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness, p. 80.

96 Quoted in McDowell and Larson, p. 54.

97 Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness, p. 122. (Ibid., p. 190)

The two Evangelic scholars I cited earlier adopt a similar explanation:

THE BIBLICAL BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE OF TWO NATURES

We mentioned earlier in this chapter that one of the attributes of God is that he is knowable yet incomprehensible (Isa. 40:18). The same thing may be said about Jesus Christ. Although we may know something about Christ, he remains to some extent inscrutable and incomprehensible. Jesus himself once said, “no one knows the Son except the Father” (Matt. 11:27; cf. Luke 10:22). Peter would not have recognized Jesus’ identity as the Son of God had the Father not revealed it to him (Matt. 16:16–17), and even after grasping that much Peter was obviously a long way from really understanding Jesus. The more we learn about Jesus, the more surprising and paradoxical we find him to be. We know him by faith, and we will one day see him and know him without our present deficiencies in understanding, but we will never know him exhaustively.

Table 9. The Paradoxical Person

God…	But Christ…	And Yet He…
Is not a man Num. 23:19	Is a man 1 Tim. 2:5	Is also God John 20:28; Titus 2:13
Is eternal Ps. 90:2; Isa. 43:10	Was born Matt. 1:18	Always existed John 1:1; 8:58; Col. 1:17
Cannot be tempted James 1:13	Was tempted Heb. 4:15	Could not sin John 5:19
Is omnipresent Ps. 139:7–10	Was one place at a time John 11:21, 32	Could act from afar John 4:46–54
Knows all things Isa. 41:22–23	Did not know the day or hour Mark 13:32	Knows all things John 16:30; 21:17; Rev. 2:23
Cannot die 1 Tim. 1:17	Died Phil. 2:8	Could not have his life taken John 10:18

Suppose the infinite Creator of the universe assumed finite, human nature, grew from infancy to adulthood, and shared in our normal human experiences of working and playing, waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, learning and growing. Would we expect to understand how he could experience our humanity to the full and still be God? Of course not. We would expect paradoxes, all down the line, with respect to his attributes. That is exactly what we find (see Table 9). On the other hand, if Jesus were a merely great human being, or even an angel who somehow became a human being, we would not expect him to have been a fundamentally incomprehensible individual. Precisely because Jesus is both God and man, he is the preeminent, paradoxical person. (Bowman & Komoszewski, Chapter 16: The Paradoxical Person, pp. 321-322; emphasis mine)

And:

Divine Attributes

Given that angels bear some likeness to God as heavenly spirits and that human beings are created in God’s image, elements of likeness or resemblance to God does not prove deity. Similarly, likeness to angels does not make one an angel. However, if a figure possesses attributes that are unique to God, or if his likeness to God is complete, total, and perfect, those are cogent indicators that the figure is deity.

The biblical case for Christ’s deity from his attributes is complicated by the fact that Christ is not merely divine but is a divine person who became a human being. The New Testament therefore attributes characteristics to the incarnate Son that are typical of all human beings. Thus, Jesus was born; he grew (and so changed); he experienced hunger, thirst, sleep, and other physical limitations; he even acknowledged limits to what he knew (Mark 13:32).

Nevertheless, the New Testament also attributes characteristics to Christ that show him to be also something far greater than a human being, and indeed show him to be God. The totality of what it means to be God is embodied in Jesus Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9). The Son is completely, perfectly like God the Father (John 14:9; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). He existed before all creation and is eternal, uncreated, and immutable (John 1:1–3; Col. 1:15–17; Heb. 1:2, 10–12; 13:8). His moral character, in particular his love, is perfectly that of God (Rom. 8:35–39; Rev. 1:4). His omnipotence is implicit in his work of creation and providential sustaining of the universe (Col. 1:16–17; Heb. 1:2–3); that same power became incarnate, humbled paradoxically in weakness for our salvation (1 Cor. 1:23–24; 2 Cor. 12:9). He is omnipresent (Matt. 18:20; 28:20) and even omniscient (John 16:30–31; Acts 1:24; Rev. 2:23), as of course someone who made the cosmos must be. Like God, he is beyond our comprehension (Matt. 11:27). (Ibid., Part 5: The Lamb upon His Throne: Jesus’ Divine Seat, Conclusion: The Case for the Incarnate Christ, p. 753; emphasis mine)

Therefore, neither Mark 13:32, Matthew 24:36 nor Philippians 2:7 deny that Christ remained fully omniscient, omnipresent, and/or omnipotent while on earth as a human being before his resurrection. The God-breathed Scriptures emphatically affirm that Jesus is the God-Man who possessed (and continues to possess) two sets of attributes and characteristics fully, perfectly and simultaneously while he was on earth and even now after his post-resurrection physical ascension into heaven.