In the Gospels, Jesus testifies that He did not know the day or the hour of His second coming:
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.
This is also recorded in Matthew 24:36, but that verse has a more complex manuscript history, as the mention of the Son not knowing is missing from certain manuscripts. However, it is restored in almost all modern Bible translations, because of the weight of the evidence that it was originally there.
This article will examine common Trinitarian responses to this passage, which implies that Jesus was not fully God, as God is omniscient, knowing the day and hour of Jesus's return, as Jesus says.
The traditional response is that Jesus actually did know the day and the hour of His return, and what He said actually meant that He did not think it was the right time to declare it to the disciples, as Augustine (354-430 AD) writes:
Augustine (354-430 AD) - On the Trinity, Book 1, Chapter 12
Again, "Of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son, but the Father". For He is ignorant of this, as making others ignorant; that is, in that He did not so know as at that time to show His disciples: as it was said to Abraham, "Now I know that you fear God", that is, now I have caused you to know it; because he himself, being tried in that temptation, became known to himself. For He was certainly going to tell this same thing to His disciples at the fitting time; speaking of which yet future as if past, He says, "Henceforth I call you not servants, but friends; for the servant knows not what his Lord does: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you"; which He had not yet done, but spoke as though He had already done it, because He certainly would do it. For He says to the disciples themselves, "I have yet many things to say unto you; but you cannot bear them now". Among which is to be understood also, Of the day and hour. For the apostle also says, "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"; because he was speaking to those who were not able to receive higher things concerning the Godhead of Christ.
In order to justify his interpretation, Augustine begins by quoting Genesis 22:12, in which the angel of the Lord, speaking for God, says, "now I know that you fear God". However, his point is derailed by a strange interpretation of the passage, in which he asserts that this meant that Abraham "became known to himself". That is not what is being stated there. Instead, God is basically asserting that He has testimony of Abraham's faith, in his offering up his son Isaac. So, this passage does not really have bearing on what Jesus says in the passage in question.
Augustine then says that "He was certainly going to tell this same thing to His disciples at the fitting time", citing John 15:15, and John 16:12. However, the Bible never says anywhere that the time of Jesus's return was something that He ever told the Apostles, and even after the resurrection, He specifically declines to tell them (Acts 1:6-7). None of the Apostles give any indication that they knew the day and hour when Jesus would return, instead speaking as if they fully expected it to happen soon or in the first century (Romans 13:11-12, 16:20: 1 Corinthians 7:29: Philippians 4:5, Hebrews 10:37, James 5:7-8: 1 Peter 4:7 Revelation 1:1, 1:3, 22:6). Such statements would make little sense if they fully knew at least 19 more centuries would come to pass before His return, and people who know such a thing would not be expected to speak in such terms.
Lastly, Augustine cites the Apostle Paul stating, "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). The argument from this passage is that when the Apostle Paul says "know" here, he basically means "declare" or "preach", not that he did not have knowledge of any other thing besides the Gospel. So, when applied to what Jesus said, it would be that Jesus did not declare the day or the hour of His return at that time, despite knowing it.
To examine whether that is a valid way of understanding what Jesus said, the context of the passage in question should be included:
Mark 13:32-37
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.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
Notice the sense of the word "know" being used throughout the passage. In verse 32, Jesus says that no man "knows" the day or the hour, and neither do the angels. In what sense do they not "know"? Is it that they do actually know it, but choose not to declare it? No, rather it is that they do not have the knowledge of the timing of the event. Then, Jesus continues, without any break, or change in context, to say that "the Son" does not know. Are we to believe that suddenly and without warning, the meaning of "know" has now changed? And that for the men and angels, it meant that they lacked knowledge, but when applied to the Son in the next breath, it actually meant that He had the knowledge, but refused to proclaim it? No, that is twisting Scripture, and engaging in eisegesis. No one listening to Jesus would have come to such a conclusion, as He mentions Himself in the same group as the men and angels who did not have knowledge of the date. He does not even repeat the word "know", rather, He applies the same instance of the same word to all of them, including Himself.
Then, in verse 33, Jesus continues, and says, "watch and pray: for you know not when the time is". Here, the phrase "know not" obviously means "lack knowledge of". So, has the meaning changed again, without any warning, for a second time? It went from "lack knowledge of" twice in verse 32 when it referred to men and angels, then switched to "refuse to declare" when in reference to Jesus, and now has switched again to "lack knowledge of", under this strained interpretation. Jesus's point, and teaching to them, was that they were to be aware, and ready always, because they lacked the knowledge of when He would return, and by His warning, obviously implied that they would not learn it before that return happens (contrary to Augustine's twisting of John 15-16, covered above, in which he says that Jesus later told them, which would have made this warning superfluous). The idea that He would refer to Himself in the same way, without any warning whatsoever, and mean something completely different, is only something read into the text by those whose theology it refutes.
Further, notice that Jesus says that the Father actually knows the day and the hour. If "know" means "declare", and Jesus not "knowing" means "not (currently) declaring", then if the Father knows, then it would mean that the Father would be (currently) declaring it. So, this acontextual interpretation of "know" does not make sense when applied to the Father in the same verse either.
Yet, despite the impossibility of this interpretation, it is the traditional one taught in Catholic and Orthodox tradition - Jesus actually did know the day and the hour, either in both His human and divine nature, or only in his divine nature:
Athanasius (296-373 AD) - Discourse 3 Against the Arians, Chapter 28
42 These things being so, come let us now examine into 'But of that day and that hour knows no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son;' for being in great ignorance as regards these words, and being stupefied about them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare themselves with it, see in them the giants again fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom all things were made, has to litigate before them about day and hour; and the Word who knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day; and the Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day; now what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be likened to this?
43 Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious where He has been silent; for 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor?' but why, though He knew, He said, 'no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh.
Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD) - Oration 30, On the Son
15 Their tenth point is his ignorance, the fact that no one except the Father knows the last day or hour, not even the Son himself. Yet how can any fact be unknown to Wisdom, the worlds' maker, who perfects, transforms, and limits things created, who knows the things of God just as man's spirit knows the things in man? What knowledge could be more perfect than that? How can he know distinctly what precedes the hour of the world's end, what, so to say, lies on its surface, and yet not know the hour itself? The thing is like a riddle - like saying a person has a distinct knowledge of what is in front of a wall, but does not know the wall itself, or, that he distinctly knows the end of the day, but does not know the beginning of night. Knowledge of one thing here necessarily involves knowledge of the other. Surely everyone will see that if you separate the real from the apparent meaning of the passage it is saying that he does know as God, but that, as man, he does not. The absolute use of the title, "Son," here, without any relational qualification of the term telling you whose son, provides us with a deeper meaning, so that we interpret this ignorance in the most truly religious way by ascribing it not to the divine but to the human.
16 If this is an adequate explanation, we should stop and nothing further ought to be demanded of us. If not, a second explanation is required. Let us, as in every other case, pay honor here to the parent by referring knowledge of the highest things also to him as cause. I think that even if one reads the text in a different way from our scholars, one would have some idea of the fact that even the Son's knowledge of the day or hour is none other than his knowledge that the Father knows them. What conclusion do we draw? Since the Son's knowledge is grounded in the Father's, the obvious conclusion that here we have what can be known and understood by none but the primal nature.
John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) - Homily 77 on Matthew
"But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father". By saying, "not the angels", He stopped their mouths, that they should not seek to learn what these angels know not; and by saying, "neither the Son", forbids them not only to learn, but even to inquire.
After this again, that they may not ask about it, He added, "Watch therefore, for you know not what hour your Lord does come". He said not, "I know not", but, "ye know not". For when He had brought them well near to the very hour, and had placed them there, again He deters them from the inquiry, from a desire that they should be striving always. Therefore He says, "Watch", showing that for the sake of this, He did not tell it.
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 AD) - Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 10, Article 2
He is said, therefore, not to know the day and the hour of the Judgment, for that He does not make it known, since, on being asked by the apostles (Acts 1:7), He was unwilling to reveal it; and, on the contrary, we read (Genesis 22:12): "Now I know that thou fearest God," i.e. "Now I have made thee know." But the Father is said to know, because He imparted this knowledge to the Son. Hence, by saying but the Father, we are given to understand that the Son knows, not merely in the Divine Nature, but also in the human
Notice that Gregory of Nazianzus above suggests that the passage in question may also mean that, although the Son fully knew the day and the hour, He only meant something like that the Son did not know of Himself, namely, that His ultimate source of knowledge was the Father. This twisting of Scripture is subject to all of the same critiques as Augustine's explanation, as not one person in His audience that day would ever have thought of anything like that. And, in saying that no man, nor angel knew, He definitely did not mean that they actually did know, but only because of the Father. Any consistent usage of the word "know", which is demanded by the context of the actual passage, totally disallows Jesus knowing the day and the hour of His second coming.
In summary, the traditional interpretation, in an effort to maintain the traditional understanding of Jesus's incarnation, attempts to in some way arrive at the conclusion that Jesus actually did know the day and the hour. This is the opposite of what Jesus was actually saying, and context makes such an interpretation impossible.
Of this passage, the Moody Bible Commentary says:
Moody Bible Commentary - Matthew 24:36-41
Similarly intriguing is that Jesus claims to have no knowledge of the time of His own second coming, leading some to question His omniscience. It is important to remember that Jesus had both a human and a divine nature. In His humanity, He grew tired, hungered, and could be tempted - and apparently could choose to be ignorant of things not necessary or profitable for Him or others to know. Robert H. Gundry (Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art) notes, "Theologically we may say that just as Jesus did not exercise his omnipotence except to further the kingdom..., so he did not exercise his omniscience except to further the kingdom. To have known and made known the exact time of his coming [better, the beginning of the day of the Lord and the rapture of the Church] would have damaged the work of the kingdom by encouraging carelessness during the interim." On this occasion, Jesus chose not to "access" knowledge about the timing of the Parousia, something He could have done through His divinity.
The above interpretation is a hybrid between saying that He both did not know and could not access the knowledge, and simply saying that He knew. It is a popular modern explanation, stating that, in essence, Jesus prevented Himself from knowing, though He could have accessed the information.
However, this again equivocates on the word "know". When Jesus, in response to the disciples' question as to when the end would be (Matthew 24:3, Mark 13:4), grouped Himself in with the men and angels who did not know the day or the hour, He was not grouping Himself in with people who did not know in their human or angelic natures, and yet, somehow technically had access to that information in their divine natures, whatever that may mean. And, what exactly does that mean? How can someone have "access" to information, and yet, say that they do not know it? When someone retrieves any item of knowledge, they are "accessing" information that they know. So, if Jesus could choose to "access" the knowledge of the day and hour of His second coming, and yet, chose not to, it would be the same as knowing anything else, and refusing to think of it, or call it to mind, which is definitely not what a normal person would be expected to mean by saying that they did not "know" something.
Consider, for instance, if someone was asked whether they knew the password to a safe, during a police investigation. And suppose that person, when answering "no", in reality meant that they actually did know the password, and yet, was not calling it to mind, or choosing to think of it, or retrieve it in their memory. Such a person would be immediately accused of deception, and equivocation, because they have access to the information, and that is what is understood to be in question when a person asks whether someone "knows" something.
Another interpretation is to state that the Son, before His Incarnation, essentially - while ostensibly remaining "fully God" - gave up some attributes of divinity, in this case, His omniscience:
NKJV Study Bible - Mark 13:32
As one who was fully God and at the same time fully man, Jesus possessed all the attributes of deity, including omnipotence and omniscience. He knew what was in people's hearts (Mark 2:8) and He could still the waves (Mark 4:39). When Jesus became a man, however, He voluntarily placed certain knowledge in the hands of the Father (Phil. 2:5-8). Of course today, glorified in heaven, Jesus now knows the day and hour of His return.
The above seems confused. It cites an instance in which Jesus knew something miraculously, apparently as an attempt to demonstrate that He was omniscient after all. Yet, it says that He "placed certain knowledge in the hands of the Father", and this explains why He did not know the day or the hour.
However, "omniscience" means that one has all knowledge. And, it reasonably means that one also has active access to all knowledge, as it would seem useless to have "all knowledge" if none of it could be accessed. So, when someone is said to be "omniscient", as God is, then they would need to both know and have access to all information. So, it would be an error to say that Jesus was "omniscient" in any sense during His Incarnation, as He did not know and have access to all knowledge, according to the passage in question.
However, being omniscient seems like a basic, essential part of being fully divine, as one of God's character traits is to have all knowledge. So, if Jesus gave up omniscience to become incarnate, which is the only coherent way to interpret this position, then He was not "fully God", as being "fully God" includes omniscience. This is why such an interpretation was rejected by the classical commentators.
Suppose, however, that the Son actually did cease to be omniscient when He incarnated. Then there would be the Father and Spirit, who were omniscient, and the Son, who was not omniscient, and yet, all are one God. This would not only divorce the Person of the Son from the Essence (which has omniscience), but if one insisted that Jesus was still "fully God" despite lacking omniscience, it would also divorce omniscience from the divine Essence, and omniscience would not be an essential or necessary part of Divinity (though the Father and Spirit still have it). This is a very incoherent position to hold.
So, in terms of Biblical faithfulness, the best understanding of the passage in question is that Jesus truly lacked omniscience. However, that position terminates in other problems for the doctrine of the Trinity, and Incarnation.
This passage in Matthew and Mark teaches that Jesus was not omniscient, and thereby implies that He was not fully divine. In addition to this passage, there is a verse in Luke which directly says that Jesus "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52), which would also need to be explained for those who wish to teach the full divinity of Jesus.
The explanation for these passages in the classical Trinitarian tradition is a rather shallow attempt at nullifying what Scripture clearly says, and cannot be seriously maintained, especially in modern times. The alternative explanations, which are more popular in modern times, similarly equivocate on the word "know", or terminate in Jesus not having full deity.
Other Unitarian arguments regarding the passage in question:
The Doctrine of the Trinity, by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting - Chapter 11, pg. 288
(Mark 13:32) This verse reports Jesus' statement that he did not know the day of his return. It seems plainly contradictory to assert that omniscient Deity can be ignorant in any respect. Some Trinitarians appeal to the doctrine of the divine and human natures in Jesus to solve the problem. The Son did in fact know, but as a human being he did not. This seems little different from saying that one is poor because one has no money in one pocket, though in the other pocket one has a million dollars. In this text it is the Son as distinct from the Father who did not know. It is therefore quite impossible to plead that only the human nature in Jesus was ignorant. The Bible anyway does not distinguish "natures" in Jesus as Son of God and Son of Man. Both are Messianic titles for the one person. If a witness in a court of law were to be asked whether he had seen the defendant on a certain day and he replies in the negative, meaning that he had not seen him with his defective eye, though he did with his sound eye, we would consider him dishonest. When Jesus referred to himself as the Son, he could not have meant a part of himself. The theory by which Jesus did and did not know the day of his future coming would render all of his sayings unintelligible. The plain fact is that a confession of ignorance is incompatible with the theory of the absolute Deity of Jesus.
Divine Truth Or Human Tradition, by Patrick Navas - Chapter 2
(Matthew 24:36) For the purpose of this examination, the key phrase is "nor the Son." According to the Gospel of Matthew (and Mark 13:32), even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, does not know (or did not know at that particular time) the day and hour of his future arrival. However, speaking with reference to the Father and Son, Trinitarian and professor of systematic theology Donald Macleod surprisingly claimed: "They share, too, the same glory. The Son's glory is a glory with the Father (John 17:5). The same is true of divine knowledge. Whatever the Father knows, the Spirit and the Son also know."
In light of Jesus' forthright admission that he did not know the day or hour of his return, it is unclear why some theologians feel compelled to propose theological propositions that the Bible does not speak of, and that, in fact, directly contradict what the Bible does speak of in a specific way. Of course it is not entirely true that whatever the Father knows the Son knows, as Jesus himself made clear; and yet this is a fact made evident elsewhere in Scripture.
In the opening of the book of Revelation, the apostle John spoke about what he had seen and heard as the "revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon" (Revelation 1:1). This shows that the things revealed to John by Jesus Christ were according to the revelation given to Jesus Christ by God, which must imply - logically speaking - the "revealing" of knowledge that Jesus Christ did not previously possess, or else there would have been no need or occasion for God to have revealed it to him.
One God, Three Persons, Four Views, Edited by C.A. McIntosh - Section I.4 (Dale Tuggy)
Fact 15: Unqualified implications of the Son's limits
Clear NT texts imply that Jesus is less than God in respect of power, knowledge, goodness, authority, immortality, impeccability, and greatness. More precisely, these texts imply that Jesus lacked essential omnipotence (Mark 10:37-40; John 5:19-20, 30), essential omniscience (Matt 24:36; Mark 5:30-32; 9:21; 13:32; Heb 5:8), underived moral goodness (Mark 10:18), underived authority, essential untemptability, and essential immortality, as well as the divine attribute of being greater than all others (John 10:29; 14:28) - all of which are plausibly features that the absolutely perfect being must have.
Any competent writer would know, in authoring such texts, that they would lead the reader to think that God (a.k.a. the Father) is greater than Jesus and that Jesus is lesser than God in each of these respects. Thus, such a writer, if they believed that Jesus was as divine as is the Father, would warn the reader not to draw any such conclusions, or at least would offer some distinction intended to show that no such conclusions follow (e.g., that Jesus lacks essential omniscience "with respect to his human nature" only).
But these authors issue no such warnings or qualifications, in effect contrasting Jesus with God in these eight respects. If (the Trinitarian hypothesis) were true this would be very surprising. But it is expected, or at least not at all surprising given (the Unitarian hypothesis). Thus these facts too strongly confirm (the Unitarian hypothesis) over (the Trinitarian hypothesis).
Is Jesus Human and Not Divine?, by Dale Tuggy and Christopher Date - Section 1.8
1.8 Contradictions Implied by Jesus Having Both Divine and Human Natures
That they are not taught in Scripture is enough for a Protestant to set aside two-natures theories about Jesus. But such theories also bristle with conceptual problems. Like other unsuccessful speculations, they create at least as many problems as they're supposed to solve. These theories make Jesus into an impossible object, something which in principle cannot exist, like a square triangle. Here are four contradictions generated by this theory that Christ has both divine and human nature, when considered together with the Bible and Christian theology.
First, God is, as fully divine, supposed to be essentially omniscient, but Jesus explicitly said that the Father knew something that Jesus did not, thereby showing himself not to be essentially omniscient (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). (One who is essentially omniscient can't at any moment of his existence fail to know some truth.) But no one can be and not be essentially omniscient.
Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism, by John Wilson - Chapter 2, Section 1, pg. 109-111
The opinion generally entertained by Trinitarian commentators is, that, when our Lord declared ignorance of the precise time of his coming, he spoke only in his human nature. This opinion is well known to be founded on the hypothesis, that Christ possesses two natures, - the one human and the other divine: the former including all the sinless properties of humanity; and the latter, everything essential to the nature and perfections of the Deity. But as neither prophet, nor apostle, nor evangelist, nor any inspired person whatever, not even Jesus Christ himself, announced that he was in possession of these two natures, we dare not take for granted the truth of this opinion, even supposing the words under consideration could be explained in consistency with it.
The assumption, however, we are bold to say, would not answer the purpose intended. The strict integrity of our Lord's character - the moral perfection that shone so conspicuously in his discourses and behavior - forbids our conceiving him to assert, without the least apparent hesitation, - without the slightest modification of his own language, that he did not know the exact time of that event of which he had been treating; while he was conscious - as on Trinitarian principles he must have been conscious - of being acquainted with the precise moment of the fulfillment of his prophecy. To attribute to the righteous Jesus such an assertion of ignorance, and such a consciousness of knowledge, is surely imputing to him conduct which it will be difficult to clear from the charge of culpability. But, in truth, no plausible reason can be assigned for supposing Christ to know perfectly the exact time of an event, while he disclaimed all knowledge of it; except that which arises from the necessity of the case; - a necessity created only by the mysteries and contradictions involved in the popular doctrine of the Trinity.
On this subject, the observations of Abauzit are worthy of being quoted: "Supposing that Jesus Christ be the Supreme God, he cannot say, that he knows not the day of judgment, as on this supposition he knows it in an infallible manner by his Divinity. He cannot say in a general manner and without any limitation, that this day is unknown to him, without violating truth. The language which they have made Jesus Christ employ, in supposing that he had present to his mind this imaginary distinction, resembles that which I might hold, when, interrogated by a judge concerning facts which are very well known to me, I should reply, that they were unknown to me, under pretense that my body had no knowledge of them. It is as if one asked me if I had seen such a person, I should answer, no; because when I saw him I had one of my eyes shut, and did not see him with that eye. It is as if when one should desire me to write upon some subject, I should reply that I was not able to write, because my mind could not hold a pen. There is nobody who does not see how absurd such a mode of speaking would be. There is no absurdity a man might not advance, if he were allowed to employ similar reservation. A man might say, that he neither eats nor drinks, because his mind properly does not eat or drink. He might say, that he does not think, that he has not an idea of any one thing, that he remembers nothing, that he cannot reason, - because all these operations do not belong to his body. One might say, in speaking of Jesus Christ, that he was not born, that he did not suffer, that he was not crucified, that he did not die, that he was not raised again, or ascended into heaven, - because all this is not true of him with regard to his Divinity. One easily sees that this would be to institute an egregious abuse of language: one ought therefore to be cautious of attributing it to Jesus Christ, in supposing that he adopted this mode of expressing himself, in pretending that he declared to the world his ignorance of the day of judgment, because he knew it not as a man, though at the very time, as God, this day was perfectly known to him."
An Humble Inquiry Into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ, By Thomas Emlyn - Section 2.2
(Why Two-Natures Speculations Don't Help)
What can be said against these clear arguments? I imagine our opponents have only one move left for evading them, and that is a distinction which serves them in all cases: they say Jesus Christ says these things about himself "as man only," while he had another nature "as God," which he reserved and excepted out of the case, so that when he says "I cannot do this myself," or "I am not to be called the chief good," or "I do not know this," etc., according to them, the meaning is: "I don't have these perfections in my human nature, nonetheless I know and can do all unassisted, and am the chief good in my divine nature, which also is more properly myself."
I intend now to expose the futility of this tricky move by showing how absurd it is to suppose that this distinction of two natures removes the force of such expressions from Christ's own mouth which in their natural and ordinary appearance proclaim his inferiority to God, even the Father. And I shall dwell more on this because it's the most popular and common evasion, and comes in at every turn, when all other relief fails.
It's reasonable for us to ask what hint of such a distinction of two natures they can point us to in any of these discourses of Christ. Should we devise or imagine for him such a strange and seemingly deceitful way of speaking simply to uphold our own precarious opinion? But I have several remarks to make about this common answer.
My first objection is that our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, if he was the supreme God in any nature of his own, he could not have said, it seems to me, consistently with truth and sincerity (which he always maintained strictly), that he could not do or did not know something which all this while he himself could do or did know very well - as surely as if he were the supreme God, he could and did. This would be to make him say what is most false and to equivocate in the most deceitful manner. Even if we should suppose he consisted of two infinitely distant natures, and so had two capacities of knowing and acting, yet since he includes them both, it follows that when he denies something of himself in absolute terms, without any limitation in the words or other obvious circumstances, he plainly implies a denial of its belonging to any part of his person, or any nature in it.
Although we may affirm a thing of a person which belongs only to a part of him, as I may properly say a man is wounded or hurt, though it only be in one part, suppose, an arm - yet I cannot rightly deny a thing of him which belongs only to one part, because it belongs not to another. I can't say a man is not wounded because although one arm is shot or wounded yet the other is unharmed. For instance, I have two organs of sight, two eyes. Now suppose I converse with a man with one eye shut and the other open. If being asked whether I saw him, I should dare to say that I didn't see him (without any qualification) meaning (to myself) that I didn't see him with the eye which was shut although I saw him well enough with the eye which was open, I fear I would be criticized as a liar and deceiver, notwithstanding such a mental reservation as some would attribute to the holy Jesus. For knowledge is the eye of the person; Jesus Christ is supposed to have two of these knowing capacities, the one weak, the other strong and piercing, discerning all things. Now as such a one, the disciples come to him and ask him when the end of the world and time of his coming shall be. He answers them by giving them some general account of the matter, but says that he didn't know the particular day and hour, nor did any know them except the Father, meaning (say my opponents) that it wasn't included in his human knowledge, although he knew it well enough with his divine nature, at the same time that he said absolutely and without qualification that the Son doesn't know it.
If Jesus Christ had a divine knowledge and nature, no doubt his disciples (who, if anyone, must have believed it) would have directed their question to that divine capacity of his rather than to the imperfect human capacity, and yet in answer to their question he says he didn't know the day, which would not be counted as sincere or truthful in ordinary people. But surely we mustn't think Jesus Christ was dishonest in this way, for in his mouth was no guile. Let us not impute it to him.