I have no doubts about my belief that Jesus did not and Could NOT sin -
"For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15 ASV)
or
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15 NRSV)
Those of us who hold to the impeccability of Christ, believe Christ could not have sinned because he is God and God cannot be tempted, James 1:13. Second, Christ had no sin nature, no original sin as men do by which he can be tempted, so translating "tested" as in the NRSV is probably better. We cannot say that it is the "Son of man" that can be tempted because that nature is human; which is different than his nature as "Son of God"; for that makes Christ two persons instead of One Person. Based partly on Rom. 5:15; 5:17; the Athanasian Creed states "Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ".
I believe an orthodox Christian would say I am correct in the preceding. So, Christ cannot be seen as two Persons, but one. The Messiah or the Christ is one Person, not two. How then do I, or can I make Jesus Christ two Persons to explain the following:
"But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 ASV)
or
“But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32 NRSV)
How can I explain the Son of God not knowing the time of his second coming? I cannot now appeal to him not knowing solely in his nature as Son of man for He is one Person, not two Persons. Must I admit I have no solid answer? The Methodist Adam Clarke comment on this includes the following:
"But Dr. Macknight, and others, solve this difficulty in the following manner. They suppose the verb οιδεν to have the force of the Hebrew conjugation Hiphel, in which verbs are taken in a causative, declarative, or permissive sense; and that it means here, make known, or promulge, as it is to be understood in 1Co_2:2. This intimates that this secret was not to be made known, either by men or angels, no, not even by the Son of man himself; but it should be made known by the Father only, in the execution of the purposes of his justice. I am afraid this only cuts the knot, but does not untie it."
If we try to explain this by understanding that the day is not known to Jesus in His state of humiliation, do we risk taking Phil. 2:6-8 into a kenotic theological (
https://www.theopedia.com/kenosis) error; or, again dividing the Christ into two Persons?
While I like the quote given in Adam Clarke's commentary, I am inclined to confess I would have to know the mind of God to explain this, and this is impossible for me as a mere mortal:
"O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?'” (Rom 11:33-34, NRSV)
I still learn every day, so does anyone have a solution or solid understanding to explain Mark 13:32? Can we be so dogmatic in systematizing every difficult point in scripture? So far I have to admit I do not know a solid biblical answer to this, so if someone has a good solution, I'd like to know it.
