Such utterances as Matt. 24 and Luke 21 carry in them a subtle
difference from the utterances of the prophets. The latter spoke as
men who were quite remote in point of time from their declaration
of unfolding events. Jesus spoke as one who is present in the midst
of the events which He depicts. He does not refer to events in
the past as if He were quoting from the historic narrative in the
Old Testament. The only instance which casts doubt upon this view
is Mark 13:32. The parallel passage in Matthew omits, in many
ancient versions, the words; "Neither the Son." The saying in Mark
is capable of an interpretation which does not contradict this
view of His omniscience. This is an omniscience nevertheless,
which in its manifestation to men is under something of human
limitation."--_Wood._

This limitation of knowledge is no argument against the infallibility
of those things which Jesus did teach: for example, the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch. That argument, says Liddon, involves
a confusion between limitation of knowledge and liability to error;
whereas, plainly enough, a limitation of knowledge is one thing,
and fallibility is another. St. Paul says, "We know in part," and
"We see through a glass darkly." Yet Paul is so certain of the
truth of that which he teaches, as to exclaim, "But though we, or
an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Paul clearly
believed in his own infallibility as a teacher of religious truth,
and the church of Christ has ever since regarded his epistles as
part of an infallible literature. But it is equally clear that Paul
believed his knowledge of truth to be limited. Infallibility does
not imply omniscience, any more than limited knowledge implies error.
If a human teacher were to decline to speak upon a given subject,