When the Son Doesn’t Know: Reassessing Christ’s Omniscience

Do Early Sources and Sound Logic Undermine Claims of Christ’s Omniscience?

The prevailing assumption among many modern Christians is that early followers of Jesus uniformly upheld what is now recognized as orthodox Trinitarian Christology. Yet a closer examination of primary sources from the first three centuries of the Church reveals a starkly different theological landscape—one in which the subordination of Christ to the Father was not heresy but consensus. In this article we will explore the question of Christ's omniscience and if there are any theological models that most accurately reflect the beliefs of the earliest Christian writers of apostolic origin.

---

Pre-Nicene Church Fathers: A Unified Voice of Subordination?

Contrary to the popular narrative of historical continuity leading to the Nicene Creed, the writings of early Christian theologians like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen present a consistent view: Christ is divine by role and appointment, not by essence or eternal coexistence with the Father.

• Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD) describes Christ as the Logos, a rational emanation from God who is begotten and subordinate (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 56).

• Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–200 AD) presents Christ primarily as the second Adam, focusing on function and redemption, not metaphysics.

• Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD) coined the term Trinitas but explicitly stated, "There was a time when the Son was not" (Against Hermogenes, Ch. 3).

• Origen (c. 185–253 AD) speculated about eternal generation but still insisted the Son was lesser in power and glory (De Principiis, Book I).

These views are corroborated by early documents such as The Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, and The Epistle of Barnabas, which depict Christ as a prophetic servant, not as ontologically co-equal with God.

---

Are There Scriptural Foundations for Subordination?

The New Testament provides ample support for a hierarchical, rather than ontologically unified, view of the relationship between Jesus and the Father:

• John 17:3 – "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (KJV)

• Acts 2:22 – "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."

• 1 Corinthians 8:6 – "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

• Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32 – "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36) / "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)

• John 14:28 – "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

• Luke 22:42 – "Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42)

• Hebrews 5:8 - "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." (Hebrews 5:8)

This selection of biblical texts aligns not with Trinitarian metaphysics, but with a consistent biblical portrayal of Christ as subordinate in role, knowledge, and authority.

---

“Person” vs. “Nature” in Plain Terms

• Person = “Who”. A person is a single “I”—a conscious centre that thinks, chooses, knows, and loves. When Scripture says, “I thirst,” it is a person speaking.

• Nature = “What”. A nature is the set of qualities that a person has: humanity, divinity, mortality, omniscience, the capacity to suffer, and so on. A nature can describe or enable actions, but it never acts on its own; only a person does.

Everyday Analogy

You are one person who possesses one human nature. Your nature lets you breathe, think, and walk, but you do the breathing, thinking, and walking. No one says, “Human nature just wrote a poem”; you wrote it.

Why the Distinction Matters

Mark 13:32 says the Son “does not know the day or the hour”. Ignorance (or knowledge) belongs to persons, not to abstract bundles of properties. So, if the person of Jesus truly lacks that knowledge, He cannot simultaneously possess full omniscience without violating the law of non‑contradiction.

---

The Problem of Omniscience in Trinitarian Christology

“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” — Mark 13:32 (KJV)

Classical Christology holds that Jesus Christ, as one person, is both fully God—and therefore omniscient—and fully human—and therefore limited. Mark 13:32 challenges this assertion directly: the Son openly admits his ignorance of the eschatological hour. Yet my faith, which seeks understanding (fides quaerens intellectum), cannot dismiss this dissonance as a benign “mystery”; it must keep pressing toward coherence.

---

Five Irreconcilable Tensions

1. Personal Seat of Knowledge – Knowing, willing, and intending belong to persons, not abstract natures. If the Son lacks any fact, His person is not omniscient.
   

2. Biblical Admission of Ignorance – Mark 13:32 is a declarative confession, not a metaphor. An omniscient subject cannot truthfully profess ignorance.
   

3. Law of Non‑Contradiction – One and the same subject cannot both know and not know the identical fact in the identical respect. Enshrining such a claim collapses rational discourse.
   

4. Nestorian Impasse – The usual resort—postulating a “divine mind” that knows and a “human mind” that does not—creates two autonomous centres of consciousness. That is dual personhood, the essence of the Nestorian heresy condemned at Ephesus (AD 431).
   

5. Ethical Consequence – If Jesus actually knew the day and hour yet disavowed that knowledge for effect, He practised intentional deception, contradicting His sinlessness (Hebrews 4:15).

---

Why the Two‑Natures Formula Cannot Absorb the Tension

First, to affirm both omniscience and ignorance in the one Christic “I” immediately violates the law of non‑contradiction: the same subject would at once possess and lack identical knowledge. Such logical incoherence makes meaningful theological discourse impossible.

Second, to preserve omniscience by splitting cognition into a “divine mind” that knows and a “human mind” that does not inevitably produces two distinct centres of consciousness. That entails dual personhood—the very definition of Nestorianism, anathematised by the Council of Ephesus.

Third, to claim that Jesus genuinely knew the day and hour yet denied knowing it for pedagogical reasons rescues logic and Chalcedonian unity only by sacrificing moral integrity: it imputes deliberate falsehood to the sinless Messiah, contradicting Hebrews 4:15.

Because every pathway back to “one omniscient‑yet‑ignorant person” exacts an unacceptable price—logical, doctrinal, or ethical—the two‑natures account fails to solve the dilemma. Mark 13:32 is therefore not a minor anomaly but a decisive point that destabilises any Christology requiring simultaneous omniscience and ignorance within a single subject.

---

What Is the Systematic Consequence?

1. Epistemic Category Error – By locating ignorance in the human nature and omniscience in the divine nature, orthodox apologetics treats natures as knowing agents. Because only persons know, the explanation collapses at the outset.

2. Logical Contradiction – Persisting in the claim that one person can be both omniscient and non‑omniscient negates the law of non‑contradiction, thereby rendering such theologies as irrational and unteachable.

3. Nestorian Division – Dividing Christ’s consciousness to preserve omniscience inadvertently re‑introduces two centres of identity. The result is functional ditheism clothed in orthodox vocabulary.

4. Moral Incoherence – If Christ knowingly spoke falsehood, even for edifying reasons, His moral perfection is compromised and with it the atonement He secures.

---

Is There A Synthesis?

Each attempted reconciliation either redefines personhood, divides Christ, or compromises His integrity. The impasse compels a doctrinal realignment. Unitarian Subordinationism is the only theological formulation I have been able to come across which offers that realignment: the Son is genuinely divine in mission, authority, and exaltation, yet ontologically subordinate and therefore not intrinsically omniscient.

The biblical data thus remains intact, philosophical coherence is restored, and the moral beauty of Christ is preserved.

Be Part of The Discussion

One of the central aims of these articles is to spark meaningful conversation around the intersections of religion, theology, and philosophy within the framework of Christianity. I warmly invite readers to share their thoughts and engage in respectful discussion in the comments below, helping to cultivate a space where rigorous thought and sincere belief can meet in pursuit of truth.

Let’s create theological discourse in the comments below!