Nor the Son: Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32

I would like to look specifically at Mark 13 .32, Matthew 24 .36. These are parallel passages, and I'll be primarily focusing on Matthew 24 .36, though I do want to address some of the underlying textual issues.

The Son Does Not Know the Day or the Hour in Context

This is, of course, the famous text, but concerning that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven nor the Son, but the Father only. Now, this is a part of Matthew chapter 24, which I'm teaching through, interestingly enough, right now in the adult Sunday school class at my church, and it is a text that is frequently raised by those who deny the deity of Christ, because how could the Son not know something?

God knows everything, therefore the Son, by definition, cannot be God. Now, there are numerous different twists that this is given, depending on the kind of denial of the deity of Christ being made. In other words, a Jehovah's Witness denial of the deity of Christ, using Matthew 24 .36, is somewhat different in its application than that of an atheist, or who is simply seeking to demonstrate inconsistency, or that of a Muslim.

I'm going to be looking primarily at the Muslim application, but I will try to make application to other aspects as well, as we're looking at it, and try to keep this within a brief enough time period that it'll be usable to folks, but also complete enough to be worthwhile.

The Textual Variant in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32

First of all, please remember the context. Beginning in Matthew chapter 23, you have the denunciation of the Jewish leaders. I believe Matthew 24 into Matthew 25 is just a, you know, the chapter divisions are later additions.

Chapter and verse divisions were not a part of the original text. And so, this is a part of a lengthy condemnation. And while chapter 23 was very strong in its language condemning the Jews, it ended with the assertion that Jerusalem, your house, is being left to you desolate.

And as soon as Jesus says that, you then have the transition into what we mark off as Matthew chapter 24. And you have the disciples asking, you know, pointing to the, to the temple grounds and to the buildings, and they're very impressed.

And Jesus says, not one stone's going to be left on another. He says there's going to be destruction of these things. And so, the disciples ask in private on the Mount of Olives, when will these things be?

What will be the sign of your coming in the end of the age? Now, we're not going to be going into Matthew 24 today, but that's the context. And here in verse 36, Jesus says, but concerning that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels of heaven nor the Son, but the Father only.

Now, what this means, of course, is that Jesus is saying that the time of these events, and there will be, there's much discussion as to how to divide up the apostles' questions and, and how to differentiate between clearly the fulfillment of much of Matthew chapter 24, which is in the destruction of Jerusalem at 8070 and the end of the age, because in Jesus' teaching, you've either got this age or the age to come.

There's all sorts of issues that come into focus at this particular point in time. But what is clear is that what Jesus is saying is that the specific hour, the timing of these things is not known to anyone, including Harold Camping and anyone who follows Harold Camping, including the third eagle of the revelation, which I've started to realize is on YouTube.

Did you know the third eagle of the revelation is on YouTube? Oh, the apocalypse. I'm sorry. Is it William Tapley? Is that the guy's name? Okay. All right. Yeah. He doesn't know either, despite the fact that he thinks he knows.

I think he played a tune and figured it out or something. I don't remember what it is, but anyways, it's a very strange thing. There's lots of folks. And, you know, if someone watches this 20 years from now, they're not gonna know who either Tapley or Harold Camping was, but one thing will remain true, and that is whoever is predicting the end at that time will be wrong as well.

Okay. No one knows. It is only within the father's purview. But, of course, the big question is this. How can a Christian maintain the deity of Christ and yet say that the son does not know the hour? Well, let's address this first and foremost from the Islamic perspective.

Before I give a positive answer to that, let me point out that it is not the intention of Matthew chapter 24 to even address these issues. And, in fact, the use of Matthew 24 36 is one that takes Christian theology and it says, okay, here's a text.

You have to be consistent here. It's not even trying to say, well, Matthew chapter 24 is specifically about this subject because it's not. Secondly, we need to recognize just in passing that there is a textual variant involved in both Mark 13 32 and Matthew 24 36.

That is, in Matthew 24 36, the phrase, ude ha huyas, neither the son, is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. And, in fact, is not found in the first hand of Sinaiticus. It's not found in Washingtonius, not found in family one.

There's certain Vulgate and Syriac, Coptic, Jerome, certain manuscripts according to Jerome did not have this text either, though it is in the original of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and a wide variety of other of other witnesses.

And it certainly is found in Mark 13 32, though there are a small number, much smaller number, of manuscripts that do not contain it at that point. But I suppose someone can make an argument that there is a variant of both places.

But the vast majority of scholars, Christian scholars, believing conservative Christian scholars, recognize that ude ha huyas, neither the son, is a part of the original text. But you might, if you're looking at a majority text or something like that, not have that there.

And that is the reason for it. Now, to my Islamic friends, I would first ask a question before I address the application of the text. And that is, I really wonder how many Muslims actually believe that Jesus spoke these words.

I've, normally this gets thrown out in a debate where I have, you know, 30 seconds to respond or something like that. That's the nature of debates. Um, even though when I debated, um, Hamza Abdel-Malik, I actually addressed this in my opening statement.

I'm not sure that he really noticed that I had, but because he still brought it up later on anyways and didn't deal with what I'd said about it. But be that as it may, do you believe Jesus said these words?

I don't see how you can. Because notice what it says. The one positive thing that you can clearly take from this text is that you have a hierarchy of people, a hierarchy of beings. No one knows day of the hour.

Okay? No human being knows. Not even the angels. They're the, you know, the angels of God. Nor the son, but the father only. So you have Jesus calling himself the son. The very thing the Quran says Jesus isn't is part and parcel of this text.

So I find it somewhat interesting, um, that Muslims are so quick to cite this text when if they were consistent, they would have to say, this is not in any possible way something Jesus ever would have said because he's identifying himself as the son of God, exalted above the angels.

So it's interesting that, uh, Muslims seem to very much like, uh, the, uh, the text and they like to use secondary sources because there's no question, uh, that there are secondary sources that are, that are in use here, uh, from Islamic, uh, materials.

Uh, but you know, that I just point this out because as I, as I said, it, it seems to be a problem in my opinion with the Islamic perspective. You don't really believe Jesus ever said these words. Now, how has this been explained down through, uh, down through the ages?

The Incarnate Son and the Veiling of Divine Attributes

Well, as I said, some people would say it's not a part of the text. They would go with a majority text and dismiss it, uh, that way. Others might take the approach that when it means to know the day or the hour that you're talking about the fixing of that day, the determination of that day.

And as Jesus had said, uh, to the disciples elsewhere, uh, in reality, that is in the father's purview. The, the father is the one who determines these things. Uh, neither the son nor the angels nor anybody else.

And so there would be some people would say that it's not a matter of ignorance on Jesus's part. It is a matter that Jesus doesn't have the sovereignty in himself. He has given that to the father just as, you know, the son does certain things that he sees the father doing.

The spirit does different things in the economic trinity that, uh, it's the father who fixes the, uh, the timeframe, shall we say. Well, it's a possibility, but I, I don't know that that is the strongest way of, of explaining this text.

I think the strongest way of explaining this text is to recognize that the question that is being asked, how can a divine person be ignorant of anything, is being asked of the incarnate Jesus Christ. And as the incarnate one, Jesus took on certain limitations that were appropriate and necessary to his proper functioning as the self-sacrificing Messiah.

For example, someone might ask the question about the attribute of omnipresence. Now, given how you read John 13, there might be a text that might make some reference to the omnipresence of the son, depending on how you read it, but it's, there's a textual variant there.

But certainly, there is in some sense, a focus and a limitation of the experience of the son in his union with the human nature as the person Jesus Christ. There is clearly a limitation of his glory. I think this is the clearest example.

I suppose in some sense, Jesus could have glowed white hot light the entirety of his life, but I'm not sure that the function of the Messiah would have been aided if Jesus blinded everybody as he walked down the road.

There clearly was, in God's intention, the need for Jesus to interact with his enemies, for example. And if Jesus was flaming light at all times, white as he's seen on the Mount of Transfiguration in the presence of the Father during the entirety of his life, then there wouldn't have been any question about his identity.

There wouldn't have been any interaction, you know, what happened in his life. And the correction of the abuses that had crept into Judaism and the legalism and all the rest of that stuff would not have been able to be fulfilled.

And so, I think it's important to see that there are certain aspects, even when it comes to divine power. When it comes to divine power, Jesus makes himself dependent upon the Spirit of God. It's the Spirit of God who drives him out in the wilderness.

It's the Spirit of God who ministers to him in the Transfiguration. I'm sorry, in the temptation of the wilderness. And so, likewise, for Jesus to be our example, for Jesus to function as the Messiah, um, there were limitations that needed to be placed, um, upon the exercise and manifestation of divine attributes as he existed in the incarnate state.

Most of these would not be necessary after his resurrection, or especially after his ascension. For example, there would be no reason, uh, to limit, uh, the Son's glory in the presence of the Father. I am certain that the Lamb that is seen standing before the throne in the Book of Revelation is well worthy of the worship of all created things that the Lamb receives.

And so, there is a necessity to recognize that the question that is being asked, and the question isn't so much about what Matthew 24 -36 means, but how do you apply this to the doctrine of the Trinity?

And I think the best way to understand this is to recognize that we are talking right now about the Son on earth in the incarnate state. And in the incarnate state, it was, in the counsel of God, appropriate for certain elements of the divine knowledge that was Jesus.

Because there were times he did have supernatural knowledge. He had supernatural knowledge about what was in the hearts of men. But did that come from the Spirit, and his dependence upon the Spirit, and his perfect harmony with the Spirit?

We're not necessarily told. But I would say that the answer to the objection is that in light of the fact that this very text describes Jesus as the Son, places him above the angels, that there is some isn't it interesting, both here and in John chapter 17, people go to John 73, oh, there's only one true God, Jesus is no one true God.

Actually, having eternal life is knowing both the Father and the Son, and in the same sentence, Jesus is going to talk about his what? His pre-existence, his glorious pre-existence in eternity past in the presence of the Father.

And here, in the same text, people go, oh, see, he was ignorant, he can't be God. He's actually described as the Son who is superior to the angels. And so, I think the answer to the question is that just as his glory was not manifested in its fullness, there was a not a destruction of or setting aside of, but a veiling of that, there are certain elements of divine knowledge that in God's wisdom, in God, the counsel of God in eternity past, the Messiah would not have so that he could function in the way that would most glorify the triune God in his self-sacrifice and in his ministry.

There you go. I think that is, again, because the question is not about the meaning of the text, but about the application to the doctrine, it needs to be applied to the doctrine appropriately. And it needs to be asked of the Son as the incarnate one.

And as the incarnate one, in that hypostatic union between the divine and the human, where you don't have a mixture, you don't have a replacement, there clearly for Jesus to function as the sacrifice for sins, as a lamb slain from the foundation of the earth.

For that to happen, there had to be a veiling of certain aspects, exercise, shall we say, of certain aspects of the Son's deity at that point.