Mar 13:32. Οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, neither the Son) This, which had been omitted in Matthew, has been recorded by Mark, inasmuch as believers being by this time confirmed in the faith, could now more readily bear it [than they could have borne it in Matthew’s early time]. [It is also omitted by Luke, who seems to have softened down several passages of Mark, with which Theophilus, an excellent person, but a νεόφυτος, novice, might have been readily offended.-Harm., p. 481.] Moreover, both in the twelfth year of His age and subsequently, “Jesus increased in wisdom,” [Luk 2:52]: and the accessions of wisdom which He then gained, He had not had before. Since this was not unworthy of Him, it was also not even necessary for Him in teaching to know already at that time the one secret reserved to the Father. Moreover the assertion is not to be taken absolutely (comp. Joh 16:15), but in reference to the human nature of Christ, independently of [as separated from] which, however, He is not denominated, even in this passage, where there is a climax, which sets Him even as man above the angels: it is also to be taken with reference to His state of humiliation, whence the language which He employs subsequently, after the resurrection, is different, see notes, Act 1:7 : in fine, both the human nature and the state of humiliation in respect to the office of the Christ being supposed, His words may be understood to mean, without mental reservation, that He knows not, because He had it not among His instructions, to declare that day; as also in order to deter His disciples from requiring to know it. An apostle was able both to know and not to know one and the same thing, according to the different point of view, see note, Php 1:25 : how much more Christ? There is an admirable variety in the motions of the soul of Christ. Sometimes He had an elevated feeling, so as hardly to seem to remember that He was a man walking on the earth: sometimes He had a lowly feeling, so that He might almost have seemed to forget that He was the Lord from heaven. And He was wont always to express Himself according to His mental feeling for the time being: at one time as He who was one with the Father: at another time again in such a manner, as if He were only of that condition, in which are all ordinary and human saints. Often these two are blended together in wonderful variety. He speaks most humbly in this passage, and thereby qualifies [modifies] the feeling of His glory, which His discourse concerning the judgment was carrying with it. You may say, Why is He in this passage called the Son, a denomination which is not taken from His human nature? The answer is: In enunciations concerning the Saviour, He is wont to join a lowly Subject with a glorious Predicate: Mat 16:28; Joh 1:51; Joh 3:13; and vice versa, a glorious Subject (as here) with a lowly Predicate: Mat 21:3; 1Co 2:8; moreover, in this passage, the Son is in antithesis to the Father.-εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατὴρ, but the Father) Illustrating the great glory of His omniscience. Comp. Act 1:7.