We continue our series of articles on the recent Trinity and Christological discussions occurring in Reformed Baptist circles– although we are aware of their presence elsewhere. You may read our first article, which presents our methodological concerns. We have written on similar topics in Doctrinal Reading and A Tale of Two Commentaries (White’s post on the subject may be found here: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/theologymatters/just-too-long-for-a-twitter-thread/). In this post, we endeavor to engage in theological exegesis of Matthew 24:36. First, we will examine theological exegesis. Then, we will evaluate White’s comments on the Holy Spirit while offering an alternative way of reading the text.
Bobby Jamieson and Tyler Wittman serve as helpful guides as we consider the task of exegesis. Leaning on John Webster, they distinguish between exegetical and dogmatic reasoning. They write,
“Exegetical reasoning attends to the order and flow of the text, following its twists and turns; dogmatic reasoning attends to the theological claims of the text, looking along and with the text to discern the ultimate reality to which it bears witness. Neither is complete without the other; both move from and toward one another in a continual, mutually informative exchange,” (Biblical Reasoning, xvii).
This “mutually informative” relationship between exegetical and dogmatic reasoning is not asymmetrical wherein exegesis informs dogmatics but dogmatics cannot inform exegesis. They write, “Dogmatic reasoning is every bit as much a mode of reading Scripture as exegetical reasoning,” (Biblical Reasoning, xix).
In this scheme, theology, or dogmatics, is not a superstructure placed over or improving upon the text. It is, instead, a substructure. Theology is not added to or outside of the text, but in the text. Dogmatic reasoning is the means by which we see the substructure revealed in the text. “In other words,” they write, “dogmatic reasoning discerns what must be the case if everything Scripture says is true,” (Biblical Reasoning, xx). On this model, theology relates to exegesis as grammar does to sentences. As grammatical rules exist and help us understand sentences, so too do theological rules exist and assist us in our exegesis. These theological rules, Jamieson and Wittman maintain, are intrinsic to the text rather than extrinsic (Biblical Reasoning, xx). Just as subjects, verbs, direct objects, and indirect objects are not foisted upon the text but present in the text, so too is theology. The same might be said for logic.
At this point, a distinction needs to be made. We do not contend that it is our theology imposed upon the text or even intrinsic to the text. God’s theology is present as the substructure of the text and is the theology we seek to discern in Scripture. The Reformed theologian Franciscus Junius (1545-1602) distinguishes between various kinds of theology. In his 6th thesis on theology, he writes, “This theology is either archetypal, undoubtedly the wisdom of God himself, or it is ectypal, having been fashioned by God,” (A Treatise on True Theology, 104). Archetypal theology is God’s perfect and unaccommodated knowledge of Himself, the chief object of theology. Of ectypal theology, Junius writes, “God has fashioned the second kind of theology on the model of the divine and immutable exemplar, proportionally to the creature’s capacity,” (A Treatise on True Theology, 104). Ectypal theology truly represents archetypal theology without exhausting it. It is true knowledge from God fashioned after the knowledge God has of Himself so that creatures might know Him. Although many more distinctions can be made (and are made by the likes of Junius and Turretin), these suffice for now. Ectypal theology is fashioned after archetypal theology and comes to us in Scripture as the substructure in the text and the grammar of our exegesis. It is intrinsic to the text as it is God’s thoughts expressed through the words in Scripture.
Just as God’s thoughts (archetypal theology) precede His communication of His thoughts (ectypal theology) contained in Scripture, so too does the truth revealed in Scripture precede the communication of those truths in Scripture. By analogy, our thoughts precede our words and our words exist to serve the communication of our thoughts. Our duty is to read the text in such a way that the theology that resides in the subject (ourselves) is corrected by and comes closer to the ectypal theology revealed by God in the canon Scripture.
With this said, we are now in a position to examine some of White’s statements regarding the Holy Spirit. Writing on Matthew 24:36, he says,
“We observe the progression…man, angels, Son, Father.
[There is no reference to the Holy Spirit, and bringing the Spirit into the text is invalid. Likewise, on a basic theological level, we must affirm in any context that the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God (1 Corinthians 2:10) and that, since the day and the hour is part of the divine decree from eternity past, Father, Son, and Spirit fully know that day and hour, always have, and always will. We confuse exegesis with theological formulation when we skip the one step just to get to the next.]”
Let it be said that we agree with and appreciate White’s statement that the Spirit fully knows the day and the hour as well as the assertion that He always has and always will. We find this to be clearer than his statements made elsewhere (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B9Rlh5tqFw around 1:17:30 mark).
However, we believe that greater clarity can be achieved by a clearer articulation of the word “alone.” While the Spirit remains unnamed in the text, it is not invalid to ask whether or not the Spirit knows the day or the hour based on Jesus’ word choice. In other words, in order to determine the meaning of “alone,” one must engage in dogmatic reasoning. Does “alone” mean the Father exclusively as a person of the Godhead? Or, does “alone” include the Spirit? Or, must we remain agnostic since the text does not name the Spirit? How does 1 Corinthians 2:10 bear upon Matthew 24:36? Is it allowed to inform our reading of Matthew 24:36?
These questions are neither invalid nor an imposition on the text. Rather, they are questions that seek to discern the meaning contained within the text, enabling greater precision and fuller answers more suited to the organic nature of theology.
We are not the first to raise these questions and attempt to arrive at clearer exegetical and theological answers. John Gill, commenting on this text, reasons that it excludes all creatures but excludes neither Christ according to His divine nature nor the Spirit. He contends that Christ’s ignorance refers to his humanity and also affirms that the Spirit is not excluded by Jesus’ words. Of the phrase, “But the Father alone,” Gill writes,
“To the exclusion of all creatures, angels and men; but not to the exclusion of Christ as God, who, as such, is omniscient; nor of the Holy Spirit, who is acquainted with the deep things of God, the secrets of his heart, and this among others.”
Gill references 1 Cor 2:10 and utilizes it in his interpretation, allowing him to say that creatures are excluded. The person of the Son is no creature but He assumed to Himself a created human nature with a finite mind. According to his divinity, the Son eternally knows the day and the hour, and He does not set aside this knowledge during the incarnation. He speaks not of His uncreated divine mind but of His created and finite human nature.
Turretin reasons similarly when he argues,
“And if the Father alone is said to know this, it does not exclude the knowledge of the Son and of the Spirit (who searches the deep things of God) no more than the Father can be said to be ignorant of himself when it is said, ‘No one can know the Father, save the Son’ (Mt. 11:27). The word ‘only’ therefore does not absolutely exclude all, but those in a particular genus for whom it was better that they should not know it (viz., men) so that they might always be prepared and watchful; lest that day should surprise them sleeping and unprepared,” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, III.xxviii.18).
The Spirit is not of the genus excluded by Jesus’ words.
Further, we might ask how or why the Father knows the day and the hour. Exegesis of the text lends itself to this kind of question. One should answer that the Father knows because He is the omniscient God. Are there not other persons who are the omniscient God, such as the Spirit? Although the persons of the Father and the Spirit are distinct, the Father’s essence is not distinct from the Spirit’s; they are the same omniscient God. Nor is the Father’s knowledge distinct from the Spirit’s. Thus, the exclusion offered by Christ cannot exclude every person except the Father, for the Spirit–a person–knows all that the Father knows. Rather, it must refer to persons who have finite natures, such as angels in heaven and men on earth. Christ excludes all that is not God; the Spirit is God; therefore, the Spirit is not excluded. The Spirit’s inclusion is due to the reality that He is the omniscient God, which can also be said of the person of the Father. The same reason that the Father knows applies to the Spirit as well, they are the one God. The reason the Spirit knows cannot be said of the angels, which are finite created beings.
White affirms that the Spirit knows the day and the hour, but how that fits with the exegesis of Matthew 24:36 is unclear. We have sought to offer an interpretation that pays close attention to persons, natures, words, and the substructure of the text. This substructure is present in the text as ectypal theology and allows us to better understand Jesus’ use of the word “alone.” Jesus does not seek to exclude every person, for this would exclude the Spirit. Rather, Jesus excludes the class of finite minds, which the Spirit does not possess. The Spirit is omniscient, knowing all that the Father knows for they possess the same undivided divine essence. This interpretation of Scripture is consistent with those offered by Protestant and Reformed theologians, such as Gill and Turretin. Theology was neither foisted upon the text nor were exegetical steps skipped to arrive at these conclusions.