“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Only Mark records the words "nor the Son." Readers have argued over that one clause ever since. Does the Lord who knows all things admit ignorance? Commentators answer by asking what place He had taken, and what the silence about the date is meant to do to us.
The Servant-Prophet on earth
Kelly reads "the Son" here in a specific sense. He takes it to mean not the Son as one with the Father, but the Son born into the world and serving God on earth:
William KellyHe had fully taken the place of Son on earth. I do not think it refers to Him in His highest character, as one with the Father. It refers to Him as Son and Prophet on 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… He is speaking as a servant, in the place He took here below: the prophet who was serving God on earth.
Nothing given Him to tell
Another writer turns to what the Lord was commissioned to say. The limit is on His message, not on His mind:
The Bible TreasuryIt matters that only Mark has the phrase "neither the Son." Mark writes of the Lord as the Servant-prophet. So it is as Servant-prophet that He says He does not know what the Father had put in His own power (Acts 1:7)… The real point of Mark 13:32 is that God alone knows 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 who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak" (John 12:49). So Mark does not show a limit on the Lord's own divine knowledge. It shows a limit on His teaching in the place of a servant, which He took for the glory of God… The day itself refers to the time when the once lowly Son of Man will be shown in glory. What could suit His place of dependence better than to wait in expectation until it pleases the Father to make His enemies His footstool?
What the words limit
Bellett shifts attention from the Speaker to the subject He is speaking about. The Lord is talking about the kingdom, and He takes that kingdom by human title:
J. G. BellettChrist takes the kingdom as the Son and Heir of David, the Kinsman of men, and the Servant of God. He takes it not by divine title but by human title. That is why He says, "Neither the Son." Those words do not qualify the person of the Son. They qualify the character of the kingdom, as we ought to understand at once. For the Lord is not speaking about Himself at the time. He is speaking about the introduction or beginning of the kingdom.
Three sayings that belong together
Hole places this verse beside two other sayings where the Lord holds something back. He also warns that unbelieving teachers have twisted the "emptying" of Philippians 2:
F. B. HoleIn Matthew 20:23, Jesus uttered the actual words, "It is not mine to grant." In Mark 13:32, He said in effect, "Not mine to know." Here [in John] He says in effect, "Not mine to do." He said all three in view of the lowly place of dependence He took for the glory of the Godhead and our salvation. They do not in the least argue against His supreme place in the unity of the Godhead. They show us something of what it means that He made Himself "of no reputation," or "emptied Himself," as Philippians 2 says. This is the true "emptying" that Scripture speaks of. It is far removed from the evil "kenosis theory" invented by unbelieving theologians, which attributes fallibility and error to our Lord.
Vine turns the verse around. The very existence of this secret, he argues, points to the Son's full knowledge:
H. J. VineThere is one undisclosed secret, which remains with the Father. It concerns the time of the Son of Man's return in majesty and power… This is clearly by divine arrangement. And it only emphasizes the Son's omniscience, for it was He who told us of it. How could He have done so had He been less than He was?
The practical edge: watch, don't calculate
Mawson turns the verse on people who set dates, and points to the Lord's own next words:
J. T. MawsonFixing dates for the coming of the Lord is a harmful thing, and those who do it are presumptuous people… Yes, says someone, but we know the year. Really? Then why did the Lord add, "Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come" (verse 33)? … If the Father in His wisdom kept this knowledge from the apostles, where is there any sign in the Word that He would reveal it to us?
Summary
- Place — Mark is the Gospel of the Servant, and only Mark records "nor the Son." The words fit the place the Lord had taken on earth as Son and Prophet.
- Silence — The limit is on His message, not on His mind. He spoke only what the Father gave Him to speak, and the date was not part of it.
- Subject — The clause qualifies the kingdom, not the Person. He takes that kingdom by human title as Servant, so its timing waits on the Father.
- Safeguard — "Not mine to grant," "not mine to know," "not mine to do" all express dependence, not failure. The true emptying of Philippians 2 never makes Christ capable of error.
- Watch — No one gets the day, so date-setting is presumption. The answer to an unknown hour is to stay awake.