At Baptist Dogmatics, we thought it would be beneficial to engage some of the recent debates concerning the Trinity and Christology, specifically found in our own Reformed Baptist circles. As pastor-theologians, we are compelled by the love of Christ to provide sound doctrine for those God has entrusted in our care. Not only do we pastor Reformed Baptist churches, but we are also aware that many brothers and sisters in our circles have benefited from Alpha and Omega ministries and the writings of James White. For these reasons, we thought it best to take up and write.
Over the next several weeks, we will write a fixed series of posts concerning these recent discussions, specifically as they relate to Matthew 24:36 and the Son’s knowledge of the time of His return (White recently posted his thoughts on this topic here: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/theologymatters/just-too-long-for-a-twitter-thread/). We do not desire to engage in a never-ending discussion or ongoing polemics. Rather, we wish to offer a presentation of (1) methodological, (2) exegetical, (3) theological, and (4) practical concerns that will benefit our congregations and edify the larger body of Christ, God-willing.
Our first concern, and the focus of this article, addresses methodology. The recent debate does not merely center around conclusions but the way in which we arrive at our theological conclusions. White seems to understand this when he writes,
“The issue is the exegesis of a particular text of Scripture [Matthew 24:36] that is very difficult. Do we say its intended meaning, both as the author wrote it, as the original audience read it, and as we read it today, is to be determined by 1) its immediate context, it’s context in Matthew, and the context of the New Testament and then the Bible first and foremost, or 2) to be simply categorized according to a theological paradigm that would have been unknown to the author and original audience?”
White’s presentation of the dichotomy raises several questions. The first and most pressing is, who is the author? We agree with White that Matthew penned these words and that Matthew’s Gospel may rightly be called God’s word. We are grateful for the agreement we have with our brother at this point. However, White’s construction of the question lends itself to a heightened focus on the minds of the human author, the audience, and ourselves as contemporary readers. While these minds are important, they are secondary. God, indeed, the primary Author, is absent from White’s construal.Perhaps White will later state in what sense he believes the primary Author’s intention bears on the text and its interpretation (hopefully there is more common ground than we realize), but the statement, as it stands, neglects the importance of the Divine mind.
These starting points are different, hence, in our estimation, the reason for the divide in recent discussions. Lest one assume that we engage in mere theological speculation, we have good biblical warrant for seeking to understand the Divine mind as primary and human minds, even an author such as Matthew, as secondary.
First, the minds of hearers often failed to understand mysteries of the faith. Consider the mystery of the resurrection of the Messiah. After proclaiming that He would raise up the temple in three days, Christ was mocked (John 2:19-20). The temple that was to be destroyed was built over 46 years, the scoffers exclaimed. They failed to understand that Jesus was speaking of the temple of His body (John 2:21). We ought not to expect the mocking minds of the original audience to understand and appreciate the deep things of God.
Second, the minds of the believers often failed to understand Jesus’ words. We ought not to assume that regeneration immediately solves the problem. Jesus’ statement about His body was remembered after He rose from the dead (John 2:22), which implies that the apostles did not understand the weight of Jesus’ statement when originally uttered. Their misunderstanding about the resurrection is apparent in Luke 18:34, which reads, “But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said.”
Third, regenerate believers living after the day of Pentecost did not fully understand the claims of the human authors of Scripture. Peter admits that some of the things Paul says are hard to understand (2 Pet 3:16). Peter also affirms that the unregenerate audience distorts Paul’s writings and the rest of Scripture. While there is a contrast between Peter and the “untaught,” Peter maintains that his mind struggles to understand the things written by Paul.
Fourth, the minds of human authors did not fully understand those things about which they wrote. Peter indicates that prophets made careful searches and inquiries as they sought to know the One of whom the Spirit testified. Did the Spirit know? Yes. Did the prophets know? No. Thus, we have warrant to go beyond the limits of the prophets’ reasoning because we know the One after whom they searched. We do not leave the text of Scripture to do so. Rather, we put our ear closer to the text to learn the rules of reading and receive the conclusions given by the One who did not need to search or inquire because He knew of whom He spoke.
These four lines of reasoning do not allow us to turn Scripture into a wax nose. Theological reasoning is not an act of understanding our own mind or even the mind of the greatest scholastics. Rather, it is an attempt to understand the mind of God as has been revealed by the omniscient Spirit in the Canon of Holy Scripture. We say with William Perkins, the Father of the Puritans, “The principal interpreter of the Scripture is the Holy Spirit . . . He who makes the law is the best and highest interpreter of the law,” (Works of William Perkins, X.303). We are compelled to ask, “How does the Spirit interpret this text?” We do so even if human minds failed to grasp the Spirit’s intended meaning.
Thus, the first and most pressing question has been answered: Who is the author? It is the primary Author of Scripture. As a consequence, our theological reasoning should not be confined to what the secondary author and original audience did or did not know, for their minds may have missed what the Spirit says to the churches.
We wish to raise a second question: Is it possible that Matthew understood partitive exegesis? We have not been given reasons to believe otherwise. When White asserts that we operate with a “theological paradigm that would have been unknown to the author and original audience,” he operates under the assumption that Matthew neither understood nor held to partitive exegesis. We contend that White’s line of reasoning begs the question at this point.
This first post sought to outline the methodological differences between James White and his interlocutors. By no means does it settle the exegetical and theological questions surrounding Matthew 24:36, which we intend to address. However, it does explain why individuals have reached different conclusions as well as highlight how those who come to different conclusions approach the text.