This article is the fourth and final piece addressing the comments made by James White in a recent post on his website (https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/theologymatters/just-too-long-for-a-twitter-thread/). The first piece addressed methodological issues and supplied some reasons why interpreters come to different theological conclusions in a given text, such as Matthew 24:36. The next two pieces developed exegetical and theological reasons why we ought to affirm that the Spirit and the Son know the day and the hour of Christ’s return. Concerning exegesis, the presence of the Spirit must be accounted for by Matthew 24:36 and interpretations that fail to do so also fail to offer a full account of the passage. Theologically, whatever rules allow us to include the Spirit require us to also include the Son, since He does not differ from the Father or the Spirit according to divinity. Thus, we concluded that the Son was speaking of the ignorance of His human nature, rather than His divine nature.
This final piece addresses some specific objections and practical concerns outlined by White while also offering our own.
1.) The theological paradigm offered throughout this series was unknown to the human authors and audience.
As we noted in our first article, White’s assertion that the original audience lacked knowledge of these theological paradigms begs the question. Further, it assumes that the Spirit, as the primary Author, did not know the theological paradigm of which we speak nor wish to teach in Scripture the truths affirmed in Chalcedon. Both may be true, but this has not been proven. We offer two texts from the original authors that supply the rules governing our reading of texts such as Matthew 24:36. The first is Matthew 22:41-46 and the second is Philippians 2:6-8. The first text supplies us with the paradigm of David’s Lord and David’s Son. The second text provides us with the categories of form of God and form of servant. Neither the Father nor the Spirit can be called David’s Son nor identified with the form of a servant. Thus, when we read about the incarnate Lord, we must ask whether the text is speaking of this One as David’s Lord or as David’s Son? Further, we might ask whether the text speaks of the person according to the form of God or the form of a servant. Why couldn’t the original authors and audience ask these same questions? They could since Matthew had the categories of David’s Lord and Son and Paul spoke of form of God and form of servant. We receive these paradigms from the Spirit of God through the pens of these men and bring these categories to bear upon the texts we read. We contend that Matthew 24:36 speaks of the Son as David’s Son in the form of a servant, rather than as David’s Lord and in the form of God.
2.) We switch back and forth without any reference to the context of the passages we are examining.
This objection follows a string of questions posed by White. Here, we answer each question individually.
“Are you saying that Matthew 11:27 should be understood, ‘All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows the human nature except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the human nature of Jesus, and anyone to whom the human nature of Jesus wills to reveal Him’?”
First, we would respond to White by pressing the consistency of his exegesis. Does the Father know the Father? This text does not indicate that the Father knows the Father and it only affirms that the Son knows the Father. As absurd as our question sounds, we would ask what is the basis for affirming that the Father knows the Father and how that basis may be derived from Matthew 11:27? Further, what is the basis for affirming that the Spirit knows the Father and the Son since “no one” knows the Son except the Father “nor does anyone” know the Son except the Father.
Again, consider Turretin’s words that were quoted in our second piece:
“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, I.iii.18, 287).
Following Turretin, we have sought to offer a consistent exegesis of both passages in question.
To answer White’s questions, we affirm that all things have been handed over to the Son (“Me”) as the mediator who assumed a human nature. As David’s Son, He receives all things. As David’s Lord, He has all things by virtue of His divinity, just as the Father and the Spirit do. According to His divinity, the Son, with the Father and the Spirit, owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps 50:10)
The knowledge the Father has of the Son is a divine knowledge and we would be right to assume that the parallel allows us to say that the Son’s knowledge of the Father is also a divine knowledge. Thus, being in the form of God, He knows the Father. He knows the Father as the Son. To reject the Son as the Son in the form of God is to deny that the Father is the Father of the Son in the form of God. Natural man cannot know this mystery of the faith–that Jesus is true God from true God and the one mediator between God and man–unless the Son reveals it.
We deny that natures act. Persons act through natures. However, we affirm that the Son reveals through either nature or both natures, each nature working what is proper to itself. The question should be whether or not the Son reveals the Father as David’s Lord or as David’s Son. Here, the sovereign act of God revealing God to man seems to fit with the Son working as David’s Lord.
Next, White asks,
“Or are you saying that you are baptized into the name, singular, of the Father, the human nature of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?”
Here, the singular divine name governs our reading of the text, leading us to conclude that this text speaks of the Son in the form of God, just as it does of the Father and the Spirit.
To answer these questions, we have not arbitrarily switched back and forth. Instead, we have looked for clues in the text that would lead us to affirm that we are speaking of the Son in either the form of God or the form of a servant.
3.) This method quickly moves past texts like Matthew 24:36, offers “easy, simple, and clean” explanations, and is promoted by those who have not put themselves in front of “knowing, well-read, opposition.” As a consequence, it will “never really be dealing with this topic properly.”
The full quote from White reads:
“So please, feel free to continue quoting all sorts of folks who have just zipped right on past Mt. 24:36 with the “easy, simple, clean” explanation. But until you put yourself, regularly, in the place of having to present the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ against knowing, well-read opposition, you will never really be dealing with this topic properly.”
Several responses are in order. First, working through this method is not easy; it is a mystery of the faith that ought to be received and reasoned from. It takes time, thought, and care to learn how to speak about the deep things of God, even with this method.
Second, the answer that it offers can be clean cut. For example, we affirm that Matthew 24:36 speaks of the Son according to His humanity. The road traveled is difficult, but the answers are simple. Why should that be a problem? We labor on the other side of centuries of orthodoxy, grateful that God has provided sound teachers who have helped us see the paradigms contained in Scripture as well as how to employ them.
Third, many Reformed theologians have noted that this is the path to answering objections. Turretin says that Christ did not know the day or the hour with respect to His human nature. Then, he adds, “The ancients in this way freed themselves from the objection of the Arians drawn from this against the divinity of the Son” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, XIII.xiii.5). Many in the past who have faced “sharp subordinationists” utilized these answers and promoted the kind of reasoning found in these articles.
Fourth, White disingenuously assumes that those who promote these answers fail to engage knowing and well-read opposition. While it is true that many of us have not engaged in debates like White has, others of us have spent significant time reading the opposition, written books, authored articles, evangelized in Mosques, spent countless hours evangelizing Jehovah’s Witnesses, visited Salt Lake City to share the gospel with Mormons, traveled to closed countries to assist missionaries, and trained others to do likewise. Further, is it not sufficient that many of the individuals who engage in these discussions are pastors in local congregations, teaching their members sound theology? Must a father travel the world and defend the faith before he can catechize his children in that which is true?
Fifth, and most importantly, theology is done coram Deo, not coram pagano. The audience on Mars Hill sneered at Paul, and Christ’s opponents scoffed at His claims about the true temple, so we do not expect haters of God to accept the mysteries of the faith.
Since theology is an act of worship, it may be considered proper when it rightly conforms to its end. When our theology conforms to the mind of God and leads to worship, the primary purpose has been fulfilled. Secondarily, then, we present this theology to unbelievers after we have dealt with the topic properly. We present the glories of the Trinity and the majesty of Christology before them with the desire that it ascends to God as a sweet aroma, even if it is an aroma of death to those who reject the pattern of sound words.
Having answered White’s objections and practical concerns, while offering our own objections and practical concerns, we conclude our brief series on the recent discussions surrounding the Trinity and Christology. We hope and trust it has clarified where the differences lie and provided sound conclusions, all while being offered in a spirit of Christian charity. We will continue to write on the Trinity and Christology because we love these topics, but, for the foreseeable future, we set aside the issue as it relates to James White and Alpha and Omega ministries.