Mark 13:32/Matthew 24:36: Dr. White’s Exegetical Defense of Arianism,
And the Textual Basis for Chalcedonian Christianity
Rev. Dr. Christiaan Kappes
Upon receiving a communication and clip of Dr. James White (Alpha & Omega Ministries) from Mr. William Albrëcht, I was surprised to learn that the Assyrian apologist Mr. Sam Shamoun, and others have been inundated with thousands of perturbed and consternated souls, who reacted allergically to Dr. White’s recent YouTube show, where he stated the following:
[Dr. White:] What we are being told is, um, … “[The Chalcedonian Christian:] Well… when it says: ‘Nor the son,’ (Mark 13:23) you have to take the fully developed later definitions of Christology [namely, Chalcedon (AD 451) & Constantinople III (AD 680)], read them back in here, and do “partitive exegesis” and, so, and that’s the easy way to do, the easy out to Mt 24:36 [namely, the “Father only” knows] is to say: “Well that’s the humanity,” um, “and not the deity.” That’s the easy way out and that’s normally how people try to respond to the critics and the critics go: “Can you show me that from the text?” Especially since it says:
[NKJV Matthew 24:36]But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only (oudeis oiden, oude huios, ei mê ho patêr monos).
But the “Father only” but you are saying: “It’s not the Father only, it’s the Father and the Son and the Spirit,” right? That’s what you are saying. So, you don’t believe “the monos” part and there are people on the other side that are sharp enough to catch you on that because you are gonna have to use of “monos” [viz., “only”] in John chapter 17; it’s this consistency thing; I know it’s a bit of pain but it’s this consistency thing. So, if you want to say in order to protect my formulations, um, I’m gonna go beyond what the text say and I’m gonna say this is speaking on the son in his human incarnation and I’m gonna just ignore the use of the term monos.
Four simple steps by me will show that Dr. White defends poorly thought out exegesis that seems to ignore the older Matthew’s text and context, where Dr. White favors exegetes who “take the fully developed later” term and context of “monos/only” of the decades more recently composed John chapter 17 only to “read them back in here, and do” Arian exegesis. Which modern exegetes, it would be fascinating to know, would even confuse John’s vocabulary and his greater use of Hellenistic concepts (e.g., John chapter 1: Word/Logos) and Hellenistic theologizing with the more primitive vocabulary and Hebraic idioms of Matthew 24:36? This nonsense aside, we shall see that Dr. White gets radically wrong the sense of “monos/only” even in John 17:3, which is a clear use of angelomorphic or Angel-of-the-Lord Christology (admittedly valid even by textual critics/exegetes like Dr. Bart Ehrmann; a name surely Dr. White will not soon forget).
Step 1: Pay attention to Matthew’s Gospel when interpreting Matthew’s terminology:
| Mark 13:32 | Matthew 13:40-41: |
| But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. | Therefore, as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness |
| Matthew 24:35-36 | Matthew 25:31 |
| This generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. […] 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. | 31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. |
Dr. White should recognize that (especially provided the majority of exegetes who are convinced that Matthew follows Mark) “nor the Son” (Mk 13:32) means “Neither the Son of Man.” By contrast, the “Father” in Mk 13:32/Mt 24:36 is nowhere “Father of man,” which does not exist. Father is indisputably a reference to the Father, God of Israel. Hence, what does “Son of Man” in first-century Christology (neither fourth-century Arian, nor fifth-century Chalcedonian) mean? Well, in answer, we see an idiomatically Hebrew phrase, foreign to Greek literature: “The Son of Man and the angels” (Mk 13:32; Mt 13:41; 24:36; 25:31). If this literary reference in Greek is not to Greek literature, then to what does it make reference?
Step 2: Pay attention to the Septuagint, whence the Gospels mostly quote:
The one piece of literature, composed prior to 70 AD (unlike John composed well after 70 AD), alone able to serve as the source for this culturally significant phrase “The Son of Man and the angels” is the Septuagint (LXX):
| LXX Psalm 8:4-5: | NKJV Mark 13:32: |
| What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the Son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour;[1] | But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. |
What is the point being made here? The point would seem to be that neither does the human-nature or human-creation (e.g., Adam) know the last day, nor even the angels (who in the Psalm) are more exalted in their station than the Son of man. In some way angels are greater than human-flesh. Jesus seems to play on this truth of Psalm 8:5, by emphasizing that it is not so surprising that human-flesh (something created) doesn’t know the last day, but it is even more surprising that the higher-made (created) angels don’t know the last day. So, Jesus seems to get the Psalm correct in its original context, “Son of man” means created flesh like the body-soul combo that is Adam, Seth, etc. This, by itself, is enough to argue that Jesus sees the reference to himself, when saying: “Son of man,” to mean that part or reality of himself that is “a little lower than the angels” but that will be crowned in glory and honor. Later, Chalcedonians would seem to get this just right: This is the human nature or soul-body reality in the one Jesus Christ. So far, we can see how a first-century source quotation justifies “nor the Son” meaning: “nor the Son of man,” which means “nor the human who is lower in some way than angels.” Both are created and yet angels are superior in something, according to Jesus, whereby angel-minds would be more likely to know the last day than a human brain and or human soul.
Step 3: Pay attention to Pre-Marcan/Mathaean Christology not Post-Synoptic Christology
Next, a methodological error is committed by Dr. White in the name of anonymous exegetes: Without further justification, Dr. White assumes that a Gospel likely written decades after Mark and Matthew must have the same use of terms and is per se valid for reading back into earlier works. This is what we call an anachronistic claim. It is fallacious. It requires, first, justification.
Instead, I will make a different claim: I will show that a published Christology that predates the years AD 68-70 betrays the state of Christology in about the middle of the first century. It is in this context that Greek writers and Greek readers are likely to have drawn their authorities, quotes, or ideas; much more likely than assuming that a Gospel possibly written in the AD 90s reflects the use of terms and approach to theology as the earlier Synoptics, written around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Let us look at the Epistle to the Hebrews:
| Hebrews 2:5-9 | LXX Psalm 8:4-5: | NKJV Mark 13:32/Matthew 24:36 |
For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. 6 But one testified in a certain place, saying: “What is man that You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him? 7 You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands. 8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. | What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the Son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour;[2] | But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. _____________________________ This generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. […] 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. |
This is a death blow for Dr. White. The author of Hebrews is clear “Son of man” = “human/man” or a creature who is Adam-like in his nature. Where Mark’s Son of man means man for Mark 13:32, no one/no man in Matthew 13:36 clearly means exactly: man, and Son of man. The result is that we can only conclude Son of man refers to what is physically created and is by nature lower than angels!
What does the first-century Christology of Hebrews teach about Jesus that somehow turns the Psalm on its head? Hebrews, like Paul in Philippians and Colossians, is concerned that Jesus (taken as a whole, not in a part,) is somehow ultimately greater than all the angels in some way. The temptation in the first century was, partially similar to Dr. White today, to see Jesus’s self-reference as possibly making him less than God since Son of man or humankind is by nature a creature in some way inferior to angel-kind. Dr. White’s error is much more egregious than ancient heretics, however, for he thinks that Son of man in Hebrews, Mark, and Matthew must refer to the deity or the entire Jesus or the Son per se and not a mere part of the whole Jesus, known by his Son of man self-reference. For Dr. White, the divinity-Son or Logos-Son (since he considers John-Mark-Matthew all the same vocab and theology) would by implication be inferior to the knowing-Father and ignorant of the Last Day. This would of course, besides introducing polytheism, lead to a sort of ignorant-Son who is eternally ignorant; apparently the child who never learns from his mistakes (This happens to be the theory of God the Father, as creator of matter, embraced by the Gnostics of the 2nd century that Dr. White usually considers quite a bad thing). At least in the New Testament, the confusion among Jews was more rational, namely, if Jesus refers to himself as having a created/son-of-man reality, then is he inferior to angels, equal to angels, or superior to angels? The answer, in Paul’s Colossians, Philippians and in Hebrews is that there is something in virtue of which Jesus is higher than created angels; namely, Jesus has the “fullness of the deity dwell in him bodily” (Col 2:9). For Hebrews (Heb 2:10), this is expressed by saying that Jesus is greater than any angel present (allegedly) at creation since it was “through Jesus all things” are made. Jesus’s identity as “lower than the angels” is specified, thereafter, as signifying him having “partaken of flesh and blood.” In other words, using a Hebrew expression, to Jesus belongs a human nature (viz., Chalcedonian Christology)!
Step 4: John’s Christology Cannot be Read back, here into Mark and Matthew
Dr. White would do well to read Charles Gieschen’s magisterial work: Angelomorphic Christology.[3] Much of his confusion about the New Testament (as even Dr. Bart Ehrmann admits in Misquoting Jesus) would be cleared up about many passages in the Old and New Testaments. Dr. White thinks that the “monos/only” of John’s Gospel is meant to exclude Jesus from knowing the last day in Mark 13/Matthew 24. However, the “monos/only” in John 17:3 actually includes God’s angel as God’s identity and is part of a typical Old Testament way of seeing the inaccessible God in his distant throne in heaven, wherefrom he sends some aspect or attribute or hypostasis of himself to interact as a mediator between God’s heavenly abode and man on earth. This mediating reality is divine, but somehow able to be described by human experience and sense. This mediating figure is the Angel of the Lord. It is entirely God but somehow includes elements or items that are present on earth that are not the characteristic of God seen in heaven, nor even by angels. The verse of John 17, to which Dr. White refers is the following: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and, Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (apesteilas)” (John 17:3). The nature of “being sent” from God, is in the Old Testament and, by continuation, in the New Testament shorthand for saying Jesus is sent just like the “Angel of the Lord” is sent. As Bart Ehrman himself acknowledges in Galatians, St. Paul affirmed this Christology decades prior to John: “you received me as an Angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (Gal 4:14). Every time the Angel of the Lord is sent in the Old Testament, Second Temple Jews and Christians in their literature understand that this refers to God himself in some sort of mediating presence that is visibly present to the person being visited. This is also true, by the way, of the Holy Spirit, where John’s Gospel also contrasts the Son of man with an Angel of the Lord in John 12:
23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
Here, again, we have the Son of Man or created humanity of Jesus asking (like LXX Psalm 8:4-5) to glorify (like the Psalm and Hebrews) the Son of Man. We see, like Hebrews 2, that the glorification of “man a little lower than the angels” is described as referring to what in Jesus can suffer and die, viz., the human messiah or Christ: “if it die, it bringeth much fruit” (John 12:24). The invisible Father responds to the created aspect or created reality of a physically praying Jesus by an Angel of the Lord: “an angel spake to him,” that is to say: “God’s self-manifestation spoke to him.” This is clarified in John 12:42: “These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake to him.” God’s glory speaks, something not quite God-Father but nonetheless coeternal and divine speaks. This is otherwise referred to as “the Spirit of the Lord” that speaks through and to the prophets. Here, we have the Father’s voice (the Spirit) addressing the praying Son of Man or human “flesh and blood” or “human nature” (Chalcedon) of Jesus.
But what, ultimately, does John 17:3 mean: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and, Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (apesteilas)”? It means substantially: “And this is life forever, that believers should come to know the only God-Father in heaven and his Angel of the Lord, sent to earth, Jesus Christ.” There is one Father and there are two Angels of the Lord for many Jews (e.g., Philo of Alexandria) and for all orthodox Christians. The Angel of the Lord is essentially the uncreated or non-created reality of God in heaven that is miraculously sent and somehow experienced on earth, but the Son of man is the normal fleshly and bloody reality of Jesus’s flesh that is always experienced and is capable of suffering and death. Taken together, in first-century Christology, Jesus is the Angel of the Lord, but no longer in figures and images of bushes or light or people, but rather he partakes of real flesh and real blood, i.e., (in our idiom) Jesus is of a real human nature. Eternal memory, Chalcedon, down with the Arian madman!
FURTHER READING
The Source of Dr. James White’s Arianism on Mt 24:36/Mk 13:32:
[1] https://biblehub.com/sep/psalms/8.htm.
Answering Islam Blog 
3 thoughts on ““Nor the Son [knows the last day], but the Father only””