Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” – NIV
When we read the bible often times there may be verses that jump out immediately as an almost sort of visceral reaction. That gut feeling. The psychologist might chalk that up to be your memories within the brain reacting to physical stimulus generating an emotional response, while a sociologist might explain this reaction as your personal worldview being confronted with ideas external to your accepted knowledge sphere. And perhaps both are part of the ways that the Spirit works, but we know for sure the Spirit is working in that moment. That rare, but also, not so rare moment of insight into something transcendent, a feeling of grasping onto knowledge just beyond your horizons, yet so close it terrifies you. Perhaps the reason why it terrifies you is because you have a part of the Holy Spirit within you. A part of the divine. That should terrify you, as I know it certainly does whenever I consider the implications.
Now let’s dispense with the imaginative brainstorming and examine what the title of this post is by going deeper. Mathew chapter 24 verse 36 might seem odd upon first glance because of the nature of God, as generally, we accept that God is omnipotent in knowledge of himself and all that is not himself, otherwise known as creation. This sort of knowledge is what is known as divine knowledge, which for the purposes of this discussion we will define as knowledge that is God’s. This definition is useful as it allows us to maintain that sometimes, humans like prophets and leaders within the bible can have divine knowledge, and not merely defining divine knowledge as knowledge we might not possess, or humans in general do not possess. That would allow one to retort in appealing to the possibility of aliens possessing “divine knowledge” without need of God. In fact, that would even allow for the type of sensory knowledge that physical stimulation has on the body to count as divine knowledge, and in that sense, there’d be a whole multitude of animals with “divine knowledge.” Now we must ask, if God possesses divine knowledge, and Jesus is God, why is there any knowledge that the Son does not know? In order to explain why, let us first consider what this mysterious piece of knowledge is.
What did the Son, Jesus, not know? Here are some possible things that come to mind when first reading “that day or hour no one knows.”
- The day of second coming, when Jesus comes down from the right hand of God the Father almighty to judge the living and the dead.
- The day of his own death, the death of Jesus
- When he would be betrayed
4. When he would resurrect upon death
An initial reading might elicit these four interpretations of what “that day or hour no one knows” might be, but before examining each of them individually to see if they hold up, I note that 2 and 4 are consistent. Just because Jesus does not know the day of his own death does not mean he cannot know when he will resurrect upon death. We might hold that Jesus knew he would die, but still maintain he did not know how long it would have taken to be resurrected after death.
- The day of second coming, when Jesus comes down from the right hand of God the Father almighty to judge the living and the dead.
As a matter of fact, we know that Jesus was resurrected 3 days after his death, and that the entire Bible points to this absolute event in time, foreshadowed by the three days Jonah was in the belly of the whale (Jonah 1:17), the three day timeframe of creation in Genesis 1, Abraham’s test in Genesis 22, and countless times throughout the Bible. Holding this fact in mind in conjunction with the context of Mathew chapter 24 as Jesus discusses the end of the age, the first option seems correct.
- The day of his own death, the death of Jesus
AND
4. When he would resurrect upon death
I evaluate these together because they ultimately fit in together.
The second option might be unreasonable since one might maintain Jesus is omniscient, however, we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it. Jesus was not 50% man 50% God, but 100% man and God at the same time. This duality in his nature means that as a man, he was limited by the physical laws of nature and the very real temptations of sin, but at the same time, as God, he possessed divine knowledge and power. If we accept that Jesus could have at any time exercised his divine power to save himself from being sacrificed from the cross and he restrained himself from doing so in order to carry out the Father’s will, then it follows that we should also accept Jesus has the ability to restrain the use of his divine knowledge as man. In other words, we would accept that Jesus could have asked for knowledge of when he would die, but did not. Now the questions becomes, what is more consistent with the context of Mathew and the Bible as a whole, did Jesus exercise his divine knowledge to know the day of his own death, or not?
It is undeniable Jesus knew he would die as Jesus prophesied about His death from the beginning of His ministry to the end (Mark 8:31, Luke 24:46), but did he know when? Luke 18:31-33 and Matthew 16:21 are some of the few verses I could find where it is not the author of one of the books of the bible stating after the fact or predicting beforehand Jesus’s knowledge of the exact day and time he would die, but directly showing us Jesus knew the exact day and time of his own death, and they are quite clear. In fact, several times Jesus told his disciples specifically that the hour was not yet.
The key here is that Jesus knew the time of his death through human vocational knowledge, and the time of resurrection through divine knowledge. This uniquely allows us to resolve the tension that comes from the implications of Jesus knowing the day of his own death, which is the question of how Jesus’ death a real sacrifice if He knew He would be resurrected. If Jesus knew both his death and resurrection through purely divine knowledge as God, it takes away from his sacrifice, as he would know he would be resurrected and did not need to endure human suffering in order to acquire such knowledge. If Jesus knew his death through human knowledge, and his resurrection through divine knowledge, we come full circle to fulfill his suffering as both fully man and God. This way, Jesus gave everything through death by crucifixion with no guarantee of rescue, the ultimate sacrifice. The human part of Jesus knew only his death through learning, with the divine knowledge of Jesus knowing his resurrection. The second and fourth option also look correct!
A more pointed response to how Jesus’ death a real sacrifice if He knew He would be resurrected is that Jesus death was precisely a real sacrifice because he knew both that he would die, when he would die, and he followed through. The reason why we take away from the value of sacrifice when discussing a sacrifice someone makes that they know the outcome of already is because we automatically assume this individual would not make the sacrifice if such an outcome was negative. But as is the case, Jesus knew the outcome was the most negative that could possibly exist, being death, and still followed through. Jesus having human knowledge of his death does not take away from his sacrifice in any way.
Jesus knowing his death through human knowledge, and his resurrection through divine knowledge is in contrast to the notion that Jesus had divine knowledge that was pre-conceptual(in a debatably Kantian sense that we can have intuitions independently of concepts) but grew in his human experience over time to learn such knowledge, since the latter is flawed. If Jesus had only divine knowledge that was pre-conceptual, there would be no need (and no possibility either) to grow in his human experience because divine knowledge by definition is omniscient as it is God’s knowledge, and a being who knows everything cannot learn new things. But Jesus did learn new things, therefore, he couldn’t have known both his resurrection and death through only divine knowledge. In fact, that would imply he was not fully man, so we reject this.
- When he would be betrayed
This option is clearly false. Jesus knew Judas would betray him, and in fact chose him with this in mind, arranging his own death. Zechariah spoke of someone throwing thirty pieces of silver to the potter Zechariah 11:13, mirroring the amount Christ’s enemies paid Judas for his cooperation, foretelling Jesus’s knowledge of his betrayal a long time back. Although there is the question that arises: was Judas predestined to betray Jesus, and if so, in what sense did he actually betray him if he did not have the free will to choose otherwise. Keeping in mind, foreknowledge does not demand predetermination, the question might be a worthy one for the future but for now we can put the third option to rest.
The conflict revisited – Maintaining consistency between the doctrine of Trinity, and the knowledge “…that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Where does this leave us? The 1st, 2nd, and 4th option all have fairly strong arguments and biblical evidence going for them, and they stand up to analysis, but if all three are correct then it might seem like they all contradict with the doctrine of Trinity, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same in both knowledge and power… but I think none do.
In the context of Mathew 24, the first option is the most correct, but with the knowledge of Jesus as fully man and God, the 2nd and 4th option can be combined into a singular conclusion that I made earlier: Jesus knew his death through human knowledge, and his resurrection through divine knowledge, being fully man and God. This combined version of 2,4 holds up by nature of Jesus being 100% man and God itself, allowing for Jesus to “not know and know” about his death at the same time as part of his dual nature.
If “that day or hour no one knows” refers to the day of second coming, then my response to maintain the consistency of the doctrine of Trinity and Jesus not knowing the day of rapture, would be that the reason Jesus does not know about that day and hour either is precisely because he is fully man and God. “…nor the Son…” is to be understood of Christ as the son of man, and not as the Son of God, implying that even in death and after resurrection, Christ is fully man and God. This we know to be absolutely true, and so I am satisfied with option 1 also referring to “that day or hour no one knows” being the day of second coming.
Thus, what Jesus did not know in Matthew 24:36 could be referring to both the second coming, as well as the death and resurrection of Jesus. Here is where the connection comes into play with the sunk cost paradox, which reveals what we know unconsciously but cannot change. It is the fact that we are utterly selfish and even our greatest love is selfish by nature.
Part 2 – The Sunk Cost Paradox and Human Selfishness
This may sound offensive for the casual reader, whether Christian or not, and I think for good reason. Some deep part of us wants to believe that we are morally good, and capable of producing good within the world out of an altruistic love for one another. We want to believe that we are free agents capable of at least being selfless in some areas, even if we recognize the inherent selfishness that lies on the other side of every good part within us. In order to show that we are utterly selfish, let’s take a look at the Sunk Cost Paradox. The Sunk Cost Fallacy comes from behavioural economics, and describes how irrational agents make decisions that are contrary to their rational benefit by continuing to invest resources into an endeavour even if it is clearly producing negative outcomes.
The sunk cost paradox is essentially describing this paradoxical part of human decision making, where the more time, energy, and resources we have put in to achieving something, whatever it may be, the more we care about it. A sunk cost is a cost put in that cannot be retrieved. This might seem logical and rational at first, but it is in fact entirely the opposite. If we were entirely rational in our decision making, without the bias of emotion, we would be able to objectively appraise an object, situation or the value of a relationship etc. based on the actual value it brings to us, whatever that value may be. But what is often the case is that instead of objectively evaluating value, we subjectively relativize any value based on how much we ourselves have already put in.
There are numerous examples in daily life where the sunk cost paradox can be seen if you look closely. Investors, throwing good money after bad at the house, trade, or asset which they believe it is “too late to back out now, I have already thrown in too much money,” only to continue losing money into the faulty investment. That boring movie we have all started to watch, and 30 minutes in, we just cannot stop. We continue not because the movie is good, but because “I’ve already put so much time into watching this, I might as well continue.” The patriotic soldier who serves in the military who willing to sacrifice his own life to protect his country. The mother who has an unplanned abortion of a child does not value the aborted child the same as the child they have taken care of growing up.
In every one of these examples, the commonality is hope. And it makes sense. Hope is the most human of all emotions. It is what allows us to continue striving in a desperate and forlorn world of pain and suffering, as we project what “could be” in the future. It is what keeps us going in touch times. For the investor, the sunk cost is the monetary investment they have put in. For the movie watcher, it is the time spent watching already watching. For the soldier, it is the blood sweat and tears they have spent risking their lives for their country that makes them love it, and not the other way around. No soldier loves his country as much as before they served. For the mother, it is the time and effort spent caring for the child that makes her love that child in the first place. Parental love for their child is one of the only examples of selfless love that prima facia exist, but I reckon even this love is not entirely selfless. The mother loves the child because of the pain of birth, and the father loves the child because of the sacrifices he has taken along the journey to become a father in the first place, and with both parents, tremendous time and effort are spent caring for that child, which in the process of doing so, they love them more.
It is a sad fact indeed to reflect on what we consider to be the most selfless acts of human kind, and realize that the sunk cost fallacy permeates our everyday lives in the sinful nature of our selflessness. Here is where Jesus comes in. Jesus Christ was a sunk cost for both God and Jesus as man did not know of his resurrection, and therefore his life was something that he as man did not know could be retrieved. His life was a sunk cost, but he still chose to die on the cross. This act is the single greatest act in human history, because it is the only unselfish act ever done by a human. The sunk cost paradox reveals that selfishness is what we know but cannot escape. Jesus was the only one who escaped the sunk cost paradox.
Notes: (I had this in mind while writing but it didn’t really fit in with any argument so I’ll just leave it here, no need to force it)
Industrial society has eliminated the personal bond by way of taxes and fees by abstracting personal costs from the sunk cost paradox. Industrial society broke reciprocal dependance within relationships in order to eliminate the inefficiencies of small collective arrangements and to free pursuit of individual goals and occupations. When an industrial society eliminates these inefficiencies, it increases the magnitudes of overall economic output of that society, the industrial revolution made riches with great speed and quality. Standardized justice by way of rule of law theoretically eliminating injustices of these small collectives, as a lot of times personal influence and prestige were able to sway rule of law.