Only the Father knows

Matthew 24:36 says, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

This seems to be problematic, for if there is something the Son does not know, would this not indicate to us that he is not omniscient (all knowing)? God is all knowing and yet this tells us that there is something Christ did not know. Pastor John, how do we reconcile this verse with the Christian concept of the Deity of Christ?

Thank you for your question. The verse is often raised by those in the cults who openly deny Christ’s Deity. However, a very satisfactory biblical answer to the question emerges when we understand and embrace some good theology.

The Council of Chalcedon (in 451 AD) outlined what theologians refer to as “the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.” This Council is one of the great Ecumenical Councils accepted by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestant Christian churches. It provides a clear statement as to what orthodox Christians believe concerning the Person of Christ, drawn of course, from the Biblical text. Translated into English it reads:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

These are intentionally very precise theological statements. It is vitally important we get this right. Heresy awaits all who would veer from this safe biblical position. At Chalcedon it was affirmed that Christ was “perfect/complete in Godhood also perfect/complete in manhood, truly God and truly man.”

Christ is one Person with two natures, a human nature and a Divine nature. The full attributes of deity and the full attributes of humanity were both preserved without mixture or confusion. Christ does not have one nature which is a mixture of divine and human. No, He is fully God and fully man – one Person, with two natures. The human nature remains human with all the attributes of human-ness. The Divine nature remains divine and possesses and maintains all of the attributes of divinity.

In the Incarnation, the second person of the Godhead became a man. Colossians 2:9 says, “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

Regarding his humanity, Jesus learned about the world around him just as other children would do. Scripture tells us that he grew and became strong (Luke 3:23); there were times when he was thirsty (John 19:28), hungry (Matt 4:2) and was weary (John 4:6). These things show the humanity of Christ rather than His deity. God is never weary, thirsty or hungry. On the other hand, Jesus was also fully God, and, as God, he had infinite knowledge (cf. John 2:25; 16:30; 21:17). Continue reading

Christology – Questions and Answers

From the “We Would See Jesus: Ligonier 2014 Fall Conference” at Reformation Bible College here is the Question and Answer Session:

Gregory Beale, Michael Morales, Stephen Nichols, R.C. Sproul, R.C. Sproul Jr., and Derek Thomas answer questions ranging from Jesus’ baptism, the atonement, and church history, to their favorite books of the Bible, and the theology of N.T. Wright.

Questions:

Why was it necessary for Christ to be baptized? (1:17)
Derek Thomas, before you ran out of time in your message, what was going to be your third proof point for the resurrection? (3:19)
After Christ accomplished his atonement, when and how, according to God’s moral justice, did the Father’s disposition toward the Son change from unmitigated wrath to redemptive favor? (5:45)
How does Jesus’ identity as the Word qualify Him to uniquely fulfill God’s commission to Adam? (9:15)
Do you believe Jesus Christ carries Mary’s genes, or are His genes unique? (12:05)
The Bible says that Adam was made in the image of God, but it also says that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Is Christ in the image of God the same way as we are? If not, why does the Bible use the same terminology, and what marks the difference between our image bearing and Christ’s image bearing? (13:19)
Stephen Nichols, as a church historian, beside the Reformation, what period in church history should we be most interested in? (15:25)
Do you believe we need another Reformation, or another revival in this country? (17:25)
What are some key principles or Scriptures that you gentlemen use to revitalize your faith when you’re severely discouraged or feel very dry in your faith? (21:49)
What are your favorite book of the Bible, or if it is a Psalm, which Psalm? (24:08)
What did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 1:24 when he calls Christ the wisdom of God? (30:31)
The Bible teaches that Jesus was raised from the dead after three days. If He was crucified on Friday and risen on Sunday, how is this explained? (32:35)
Regarding unconditional election, my son asked me, “What’s the point of creating people if they won’t have an opportunity to be saved?” What do I tell my son? (33:12)
Is Limited Atonement just theological semantics? How important is it for the believer to embrace this doctrine? (36:04)
R.C. Sproul, you quoted Martin Luther saying that justification by faith alone is the foundation upon which the church stands or falls. What are we to believe about N.T. Wright’s doctrine of imputation? What does the New Perspectives on Paul do to sola fide? (41:13)
Many in the Reformed camp believe that N.T. Wright is correct and has a good view on the resurrection, would you agree with that? (43:30)
R.C. Sproul, I’ve heard you mention a connection with Francis Schaeffer in the early days of Ligonier. Can you share with us your relationship with him and how his influence helped you decide the structure of Ligonier Ministries? (45:08)

All who were appointed for eternal life believed

questionmarkredstandingPastor John, what would you say to an Arminian who says for Acts 13:48 that the Greek word “tasso” for “ordained” or “appointed” does not have the meaning that we Calvinists give? By going to Matthew 28:16, Luke 7:8, Romans 13:1, Acts 15:2, Acts 22:10, Acts 28:23 and 1 Corinthians 16:15 where the word “tasso” is translated “devoted”, he says, “why not translate the Greek word ‘tasso’ in Acts 13:48 also as ‘devoted'”?

Thanks for your question. Acts 13:48 is very clear in speaking of God ordaining or appointing certain people to eternal life and these are the ones who come to faith. The ESV reads, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” The NIV reads, “all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” Clearly, the phrase “as many” or the word “all” indicates that everyone who had this appointment, made the appointment. There are wide ranging theological implications to this statement, all of which greatly trouble Arminians who seek to make the belief of individuals the reason (or ground) for God ordaining people to eternal life. Arminians believe in conditional election (election is based on God foreseeing faith in certain individuals); Calvinists in unconditional (faith is not the product of an unregenerate heart but a Divine gift given to those He chooses to save). Acts 13:48 is very clear though: God ordains specific individuals to eternal life and these are the ones who believe.

I would respond to the Arminian who suggested “devoted” as a better translation of the text by saying firstly that one should ALWAYS be highly suspicious of any translation of a Greek word that flies in the face of all the major Bible translations. That is a very good general ‘rule of thumb.’ To say that a word has been mis-translated so badly by all the leading scholars who have served translation committees in the process of the Bible translations we have in our hands, defies all credibility.

Secondly, is there even one major translation that uses the word “devoted” in this context? Can the Arminian point to any that does so? I do not know of any. There are good reasons for that.

Note the wording of the major translations regarding the word in Acts 13:48:

KJV “ordained”

NIV “appointed”

ASV “ordained”

ESV “appointed”

NKJV “appointed”

NRSV “destined for”

NASB (Update) “appointed”

NLT “appointed”

NET “appointed”

Thirdly, does the Arminian REALLY wish to be saying that those who believed were more devoted than others? Theologically, that would make faith a meritorious action, and therefore something in which to boast.

For more on the Greek in this passage, I recommend Dr. James White’s book “The Potter’s Freedom” pages 186-190, where it is discussed in detail.

John