# G1492 - oida **Strong's:** [G1492](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1492/) · BLB lookup **Pronunciation:** oy'-dah **Part of speech:** verb. Morphologically the *perfect-active* of an unused present *εἴδω* (*eidō*, "to see"), but functioning as a *present* in NT Greek; the perfect form (*"I have seen"*) carries present sense (*"I know"*). **Hebrew equivalent (LXX):** [H3045 - yada](/codex/h3045-yada/), *yadaʿ* (to know), the same root that underlies [G1097 - ginosko](/codex/g1097-ginosko/); *oida* is the LXX's preferred rendering where *yadaʿ* names *settled-known* state rather than *coming-to-know* process. **NT occurrences:** ~321, distributed across the whole NT corpus (Synoptics ~80, John ~85, Pauline ~95, Catholic + Hebrews ~50, Acts + Revelation ~30). The Johannine concentration is high but less skewed than *ginōskō*. ## Semantic range (Thayer / BDAG) 1. **To know with settled / intuitive certainty.** The *complete*, *unmediated* sense of knowing; *knowing-as-having-known*; standing in a relation of established acquaintance with a fact, person, or skill. Not the process of *coming to know* (which is the [ginōskō](/codex/g1097-ginosko/) register) but the *state* of *having known*. 2. **To know how, to have learned a skill.** *Oida* + infinitive = "know how to": [Matt 7:11](/codex/matthew-7-11/), "you, being evil, *know how* (*oidate*) to give good gifts"; [Phil 4:12](/codex/philippians-4-12/), "I *know how* (*oida*) to get along with humble means and *know how* (*oida*) to live in prosperity." 3. **To know about, to be acquainted with a person.** [Matt 26:72](/codex/matthew-26-72/), Peter's denial: "I do not *know* (*oida*) the man." Used negatively, *ouk oida* = repudiation, disavowal, non-acknowledgment. 4. **To know publicly / to acknowledge / to give notice of.** A *declarative-disclosure* sense, attested both in classical and koine usage, especially in negative-declarative idiom (*ouk oida* = "I do not declare," "I am not the one to make this known," "I am not at liberty to say"). The Hebrew *yadaʿ* idiom for *acknowledging* ([Amos 3:2](/codex/amos-3-2/), "you only have I *known* of all the families of the earth," meaning *covenant-acknowledged*; [Matt 7:23](/codex/matthew-7-23/), "I never *knew* you," = "I never acknowledged") carries the same disclosure-sense into Greek. This sense is patristically crucial for **[Mark 13.32](/codex/mark-13-32/)**: see §"Patristic / scholarly note" below. 5. **To understand, to perceive, to grasp.** *Oida* + a *that*-clause: "to know that X is the case" ([1 Cor 8:1](/codex/1-corinthians-8-1/), "we *know* that we all have knowledge"). Cognitive-comprehension sense. 6. **To know God, in the covenantal-settled sense.** Where *ginōskō* tracks the *progressive* relational-knowing of God, *oida* tracks the *settled* covenantal-knowing of God. [John 8:55](/codex/john-8-55/), Jesus: "you have not *known* (*egnōkate*, *ginōskō*) Him, but I *know* (*oida*) Him"; the contrast is deliberate, the Jews' attempted-progressive-coming-to-know vs. the Son's settled-intuitive-knowing of the Father. ## Theological force, settled / intuitive knowledge The NT Greek deploys two primary "to know" verbs side-by-side: *ginōskō* and *oida*. The distinction is not mechanical (many contexts use them interchangeably) but where the difference matters, it tracks the **process vs. state** axis: - **[G1097 *ginōskō*](/codex/g1097-ginosko/)**, *coming-to-know* through encounter, experience, or instruction; *progressive*; *learned*; *relational-experiential*. Inceptive. - **G1492 *oida***, *having-known* as a settled state; *intuitive*; *complete*; *unmediated*; *immediate*. Resultative. ### The classic paired case, [John 21:17](/codex/john-21-17/) Peter's third profession of love captures both verbs in adjacent clauses: > Lord, You *know* (*oidas*, perfect-settled) all things; You *know* (*ginōskeis*, present-progressive) that I love You. Peter appeals to Christ's *settled-comprehensive* knowledge with *oida* and to His *experiential-perceptive* discernment of Peter's heart with *ginōskō*. The two verbs do *different* work in the same sentence. ### The Christological deployment The Johannine Gospel uses *oida* especially for the **Son's settled-intuitive knowledge of the Father**: - **[John 7:29](/codex/john-7-29/)**, "I *know* (*oida*) Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me" - **[John 8:55](/codex/john-8-55/)**, "you have not known (*ouk egnōkate*) Him, but I *know* (*oida*) Him" - **[John 10:15](/codex/john-10-15/)**, "I *know* (*ginōskō*) the Father" (here *ginōskō* in the mutual-knowing relational sense) - **[John 13:1](/codex/john-13-1/), [3](/codex/john-13-3/)**, "Jesus, *knowing* (*eidōs*, participle of *oida*) that His hour had come... *knowing* (*eidōs*) that the Father had given all things into His hands" The pattern: Jesus's knowledge of the Father is *oida*-knowledge, settled, possessed, unmediated, the knowledge of the eternal Son. The disciples' growing knowledge is typically *ginōskō*-knowledge, progressive, learned, in time. ### The negative-declarative sense Where *oida* appears in the negative, *ouk oida* often carries a *declarative-disavowal* or *non-disclosure* sense rather than (or as well as) a strict cognitive absence: - **[Matt 25:12](/codex/matthew-25-12/)**, the bridegroom to the foolish virgins: "Truly I say to you, *I do not know you* (*ouk oida hymas*)." This is *covenant-disavowal*, not "I have no information about you"; the bridegroom is repudiating relationship, not pleading ignorance. - **[Matt 26:72-74](/codex/matthew-26-72-74/)**, Peter's denial: "*I do not know the man* (*ouk oida ton anthrōpon*)." Peter is *disavowing acknowledgment*, not denying having met Jesus. - **[John 9:25](/codex/john-9-25/)**, the man born blind: "Whether He is a sinner I *do not know* (*ouk oida*); one thing I do *know* (*oida*), that, having been blind, now I see." The first *ouk oida* is a *I-am-not-the-one-to-pronounce* move; the second *oida* is settled testimony. - **[2 Cor 12:2-3](/codex/2-corinthians-12-2-3/)**, Paul on the third-heaven vision: "whether in the body or out of the body I *do not know* (*ouk oida*), God *knows* (*oiden*)." Paul disavows the disclosure-role; God holds it. This negative-declarative usage is **patristically and idiomatically load-bearing for [Mark 13.32](/codex/mark-13-32/)**, where Jesus says of the eschatological day and hour, *"no one knows (oiden), not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."* See §"Patristic / scholarly note" below for the patristic deployment. ## Notable verses ### Settled knowledge of God / divine self-knowledge - **[John 7:29](/codex/john-7-29/)**, "I *know* Him, because I am from Him" - **[John 8:55](/codex/john-8-55/)**, "I *know* Him, and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you" - **[John 13:1](/codex/john-13-1/), [3](/codex/john-13-3/)**, "Jesus, *knowing* that His hour had come... *knowing* that the Father had given all things into His hands" - **[John 17:25](/codex/john-17-25/)**, "Righteous Father, although the world has not *known* (*ouk egnō*) You, yet I have *known* (*egnōn*) You; and these have *known* (*egnōsan*) that You sent Me." (note the *ginōskō* register here, the contrast verse) - **[2 Cor 12:2-3](/codex/2-corinthians-12-2-3/)**, Paul on the vision, "God knows" ### Negative-declarative / disavowal - **[Matt 25:12](/codex/matthew-25-12/)**, the bridegroom: "I do not know you" - **[Matt 26:72](/codex/matthew-26-72/)**, Peter: "I do not know the man" - **[John 9:25](/codex/john-9-25/)**, the blind man: "whether He is a sinner I do not know" - **[Matt 7:23](/codex/matthew-7-21-23/)**, "I never knew you" (here *ouk* + *ginōskō*, but the same Semitic idiom of covenantal disavowal) ### Christological / [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/) - **[Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/)**, "of that day or that hour no one *knows* (*oiden*), not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." Parallel [Matthew 24:36](/codex/matthew-24-36/) (most reliable MSS preserve "*nor the Son*"; some lack it). - **[Acts 1:7](/codex/acts-1-7/)**, Jesus's parallel disclaimer: "It is not for you to *know* (*gnōnai*, *ginōskō*) times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority." Note the verb-shift to *ginōskō* in [Acts 1:7](/codex/acts-1-7/), the *progressive-learning* register, fits the disciples; the *oida*-register at [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/) fits the question of *settled possession of the timing*. ### Practical knowing-how - **[Matt 7:11](/codex/matthew-7-11/)**, parents "know how" to give good gifts - **[Phil 4:12](/codex/philippians-4-12/)**, Paul "knows how" to be abased and to abound - **[1 Thess 4:4](/codex/1-thessalonians-4-4/)**, "each of you *know how* to possess his own vessel in sanctification" ## Patristic / scholarly note **[Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/) (*"the Son does not know"*) is the most-deployed atheist / Arian / skeptical proof-text against Christ's omniscience.** The patristic and Reformed exegetical tradition handled it with three converging moves that operate on the lexical and grammatical features of *oida*: ### 1. The two-natures answer (Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, John of Damascus, Cyril of Alexandria) The Son is one Person in two natures. What is true of one nature can be said of the Person via *communicatio idiomatum*. Christ *qua* eternal Logos knows the day; Christ *qua* incarnate human nature did not have the timing disclosed to His human consciousness during the earthly mission. The "ignorance" is *real* of His human nature without being a defect of His divine nature. - **Athanasius**, *Orationes contra Arianos* 3.42-50, develops the move at length against the Arian deployment of [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/). Athanasius: "as Word He knew; as man He was ignorant; for it belongs to flesh to be ignorant." The Arians read the verse as proof of subordinationism; Athanasius answers that the verse names what is true of the assumed humanity, not what is true of the Logos as Logos. - **Gregory of Nazianzus**, *Oration 30* (the Fourth Theological Oration on the Son), §15-16, treats [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/) explicitly. Gregory: it would be "ridiculous" to suppose the Son who knows the Father (and through whom all things were made) does not know the day. The ignorance is *of the human nature*; or, alternatively, it is a pedagogical-economic withholding ("the *cause* of ignorance is the Father's not yet having permitted disclosure"). Gregory holds both moves as compatible. - **John of Damascus**, *De Fide Orthodoxa* 3.21-22, formalizes the two-natures grammar. The Son knows according to His divinity; the Son's humanity, considered in itself, did not have all knowledge intuitively, though it had the fullness of knowledge available *through* the hypostatic union. The grammar of *"the Son does not know"* is a statement of the Person according to one of the two natures. - **Cyril of Alexandria**, *Thesaurus* §22, *Quod unus sit Christus*: the *communicatio idiomatum* makes it proper to say *of the Person* (the one Christ) what is true of one of the natures. "The Son does not know" is *true of the Person Christ according to His humanity*, and is not a denial of omniscience in the divine nature. ### 2. The declarative-idiom answer (Basil the Great, Augustine, Gregory the Great) A second-track patristic reading exegetes *oiden* in the *declarative-disclosure* sense (semantic range §4 above): *"no one makes known"* rather than (or as well as) *"no one has knowledge of."* On this reading, [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/) says that the day's *disclosure* is not given by the angels, not given by the Son in His earthly teaching ministry, and is reserved to the Father (i.e., to the Father's eternal counsel from which the Son discloses in the *Father's* timing). - **Basil the Great**, *Epistle 236, ad Amphilochium* §1-2, addresses [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/) directly. Basil: "But the Son does not know" should be heard in the Semitic-idiomatic sense; in scriptural usage *to know* often signifies *to make known* or *to give to know*. Basil cites parallel idioms (the LXX rendering of "the Lord *knows* the way of the righteous," etc.) where *yadaʿ* / *gnōnai* / *oida* carries the disclosure-sense. - **Augustine**, *De Trinitate* 1.12.23, holds the same: the Son does not know *to make known*, i.e., does not have the disclosure-role for the timing; the Father reserves that. Augustine also affirms the two-natures answer; the moves are complementary. - **Gregory the Great**, *Homilies on Ezekiel* 1.8.31, develops the declarative move pastorally: the Son, *qua* head of the Church (the Body), does not yet *make known* the day, because the Body does not yet need to know; what is *unknown* to the Body is, in that sense, *unknown* by the Head; the disclosure-economy is structured by the Father's eternal counsel. ### 3. The pedagogical-economy answer (Cyril, Chrysostom, the Reformed tradition) A third reading complements the first two: Christ's "I do not know" functions *pedagogically* to redirect the disciples from speculation about timing toward readiness. The parallel at [Acts 1:7](/codex/acts-1-7/) ("it is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority") makes the move explicit: the question is *not given to you*; the disposition the timing demands is *watchfulness*, not calculation. Christ models the disposition by speaking *as though He did not know*, which He does not (qua human) and is not authorized to disclose (qua incarnate Son in His earthly mission). - **John Chrysostom**, *Homilies on Matthew* 77.1, on the parallel [Matt 24:36](/codex/matthew-24-36/): "He withheld the knowledge from them as a Father from his little children; not because He did not know, but because *it was not expedient that they should know*." The pedagogical-economic frame is explicit. - **John Calvin**, *Commentaries on Matthew* (on [Matt 24:36](/codex/matthew-24-36/)): Calvin holds the two-natures answer firmly but adds the pedagogical economy: "Christ, as he had clothed himself with our flesh, so he clothed himself with human feelings; so that he did not, on his own account, know the day, *but as it was not necessary that he should know it*." The "not necessary" carries the pedagogical-economic sense. - The **Westminster Confession** tradition (and broader Reformed Christology) holds the two-natures answer as the load-bearing move (the *unio personalis* preserves omniscience in the divine nature; the human nature is genuinely finite in its created knowledge), with the declarative-idiom and the pedagogical-economy as supplementary harmonies. ### 4. Modern kenotic Christology (Thomasius, Gore; debated) Nineteenth-century *kenotic* Christology (Gottfried Thomasius, Charles Gore) proposed a sharper move: the Son *voluntarily emptied Himself* (*ekenōsen heauton*, [Phil 2:7](/codex/philippians-2-7/)) of certain *relative* divine attributes (omniscience, omnipotence) in the incarnation, while retaining the *essential* divine attributes (holiness, love, eternity). On a kenotic reading, the Son's "I do not know" is literal: the Son genuinely set aside operative-omniscience in the economy of the incarnation. Kenotic Christology is *contested* in classical theology: - **Critics** (Charles Hodge; Berkhof; classical Reformed dogmatics): Kenotic Christology compromises divine *immutability* (God cannot cease to be omniscient and still be God) and *simplicity* (the divine attributes are not severable). The two-natures answer accomplishes what kenotic Christology aims to accomplish, without the metaphysical cost. - **Defenders** (Thomasius, Gore, some 20th-c. Lutheran and Anglican theologians): Kenotic Christology captures the *real* limitations Jesus displays (growth in wisdom, [Luke 2:52](/codex/luke-2-52/); not knowing the day, [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/); weariness, hunger, ignorance of who touched His garment, [Mark 5:30](/codex/mark-5-30/)) without bifurcating the Person into "what one nature knows and the other doesn't." The kenosis is *temporary* (the Son resumes operative-omniscience at the resurrection / ascension) and *voluntary*, preserving divinity at the level of identity. The **classical-Reformed mainline** (and the patristic mainline) prefers the two-natures answer (1) supplemented by the declarative-idiom (2) and pedagogical-economy (3), without taking the kenotic step (4). The two-natures grammar is what the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) formalizes, and is what the *hypostatic union* doctrine carries. (See [Hypostatic Union](/codex/hypostatic-union/).) ## Common colloquial sense The patristic *declarative-idiom* reading is not exotic; it is how *"I don't know"* commonly functions in ordinary speech across cultures. A few representative cases: - **The parent to children asking when they'll arrive at the destination**: "I don't know." The parent often does know (approximately) but says "I don't know" to redirect the child from time-tracking toward patience. - **The judge to the press asking what the verdict will be**: "I don't know what the verdict will be." The judge may have studied the case extensively; "I don't know" here functions as "I am not at liberty to disclose," not as a cognitive blank. - **The friend asked about a third party's secret**: "I don't know." The speaker often does know; the disclosure is not theirs to make. - **The steward of a household, asked by a guest about the master's plans**: "The master has not made it known"; the steward speaks for the master's disclosure-economy, not for the master's intellect. - **The Semitic register specifically**: "knowing" in Hebrew and Aramaic frequently shades into *acknowledging*, *declaring*, *publishing*, *avowing*. Jesus's "I never knew you" ([Matt 7:23](/codex/matthew-7-23/)) is *covenant-disavowal*, not memory failure. "The Lord knows the way of the righteous" ([Ps 1:6](/codex/psalms-1-6/)) names *covenantal acknowledgment*, not bare cognitive grasp. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" ([Amos 3:2](/codex/amos-3-2/)) is *election*, not exclusive-information. The same idiom runs negatively at [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/): *the Son does not make known the day*, in His teaching role to the disciples, during His earthly mission. The atheist deployment of [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/) (*"see, Jesus didn't even know the timing, so he's not God"*) presupposes that *oida* in the verse must be read in the strict cognitive-blank sense (range §3 / §5) without the *declarative-disclosure* register (§4) or the two-natures distribution that the rest of the verse demands. Both presuppositions are challengeable; the patristic and Reformed tradition has challenged them for sixteen centuries. ## Verses in this codex _See Obsidian's backlinks pane for every verse page linking here._ Anchors: [Mark 13.32](/codex/mark-13-32/) (the load-bearing case), [John 7.29](/codex/john-7-29/) (the Son's *oida* of the Father), [John 8.55](/codex/john-8-55/), [Matthew 7.21-23](/codex/matthew-7-21-23/) (Semitic disavowal-idiom), [Phil 4:12](/codex/philippians-4-12/) (knowing-how), [1 Cor 8:1](/codex/1-corinthians-8-1/). ## See also - [G1097 - ginosko](/codex/g1097-ginosko/), *ginōskō*, the companion verb (progressive / relational knowing) - [H3045 - yada](/codex/h3045-yada/), Hebrew *yadaʿ*, the OT root underlying both - [Mark 13.32](/codex/mark-13-32/), the load-bearing Christological passage - [Jesus Didnt Know the Hour Objection Defeater](/codex/jesus-didnt-know-the-hour-objection-defeater/), the full defeater - [Hypostatic Union](/codex/hypostatic-union/), the two-natures doctrine that grounds the classical answer - [Arianism](/codex/arianism/), the heresy that misreads [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/) as proof of subordinationism - [Christs Deity](/codex/christs-deity/), the broader Christological case - [Failed Second Coming Prophecy Objection Defeater](/codex/failed-second-coming-prophecy-objection-defeater/), parallel deployment of [Mark 13:32](/codex/mark-13-32/) against the failed-prophet objection - Passages: [Mark 13.32](/codex/mark-13-32/), [Acts 1:7](/codex/acts-1-7/), [John 7:29](/codex/john-7-29/), [John 8:55](/codex/john-8-55/), [Matt 25:12](/codex/matthew-25-12/), [Matt 26:72](/codex/matthew-26-72/), [John 9:25](/codex/john-9-25/), [2 Cor 12:2-3](/codex/2-corinthians-12-2-3/)