“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” — Matthew 24:36
Two time words are disputed in Christ’s watchfulness discourse. At verse 36, the critical text adds “neither the Son” after the angels; the Textus Receptus does not. At verse 42, the received text says the disciples do not know what hour their Lord comes, while the critical text says what day.
The first reading has drawn far more heat because it touches Christ’s knowledge. Heat is a poor substitute for exegesis.
“Neither the Son”
Mark 13:32 contains the phrase in every standard text. In Matthew it has strong early support but is absent from the received church text and from many other witnesses. Modern editors usually print it and argue that scribes removed it because they feared its use against the deity of Christ.
That motive is possible, but it cannot be read from parchment. Copyists could also add the phrase from the near-identical saying in Mark. The words move within Matthew’s witnesses, and their secure place in Mark gave every reader a ready source.
The doctrine of Christ does not require us to deny Mark. The eternal Son knows all things. In his incarnate office he truly assumed a servant’s place, grew in human wisdom, and received what the Father appointed him to reveal. Christians have explained Mark’s words in that economic and incarnate setting without making the Son a mere creature.
That doctrinal answer means we need not choose Matthew’s text from fear. The question is historical. The received omission, the Synoptic source for addition, and the long ecclesiastical reading favor the Textus Receptus here.
Day or hour?
Verse 42 reads “what hour” in the received text and “what day” in the critical. Both words occur throughout the discourse: day and hour in verse 36, day in verse 50, hour in verse 44. Assimilation can be argued in either direction.
“Hour” gives the warning its edge. A householder who knew the watch of the thief would remain awake. A servant does not know the hour of the master’s return. The command is not to calculate a date but to live ready.
Matthew’s received form therefore reads as a joined refrain: no man knows the day and hour; the disciples do not know the hour; the Son of man comes in an hour they think not. The repetition is purposeful.
Keep both received readings without turning them into a test of orthodoxy. Mark’s “neither the Son” is Scripture, and Matthew’s shorter form is Scripture. Together the Gospels teach humble watchfulness, not confident charts.
The phrase in Mark belongs to the mystery of the one person in two natures. The Son is not divided into two persons, one knowing and one ignorant. He truly lives a human life and acts in the servant office without ceasing to be the eternal Word. Orthodox explanation must confess every text before it coordinates them.
That is why doctrinal discomfort cannot serve as the sole account of omission. Some scribes may have feared the phrase; others copied it faithfully in Mark. Its appearance in Matthew can arise from the same faithful memory. Weighing the Synoptic source is more exact than assigning a motive to every shorter witness.
“Hour” also resists timetable religion. Watchfulness is not the skill of narrowing prophecy to a date others missed. It is faithful service when the master seems delayed: feeding the household, refusing abuse, and remaining ready. The unknown hour measures character in ordinary time.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 24:32–51; Mark 13:28–37; Luke 2:52; John 16:30; 21:17.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, notes on Matthew 24:36 and 24:42.
- Westminster Confession of Faith 8.2; Definition of Chalcedon.
Comments
Share a question or response to this article.