“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” — Matthew 25:13
Three small clauses in Matthew 25 name Christ and his court. The Textus Receptus says the Son of man comes in verse 13, calls the angels holy in verse 31, and says the condemned answer him in verse 44. Critical editions shorten each place.
The chapter’s doctrine survives every omission. The question is whether Matthew’s final judgment scene should be read in its full received form.
The critical text ends verse 13 after “ye know neither the day nor the hour.” The received clause “wherein the Son of man cometh” echoes Matthew 24:44. Critics call it a natural explanatory addition.
The explanation is possible, yet the parable itself expects a named coming. The bridegroom arrives after delay, the ready enter, and the door shuts. Matthew’s clause identifies that arrival with the coming announced throughout the discourse. It does not turn the parable into an alien topic; it gives the key already hanging beside it.
Holy angels
Verse 31 says the Son of man comes in glory “and all the holy angels with him.” The shorter reading has simply “all the angels.” In Scripture the angels who attend Christ’s judgment are plainly holy, so no doctrine rests on the adjective.
That same obviousness can explain loss. A copyist may omit what the context supplies. It can also explain addition. The broad received use and the solemn cadence support keeping the word. The court is morally as well as numerically complete: the holy angels attend the Holy One.
Answering him
At verse 44 the wicked ask when they failed to serve Christ. The Textus Receptus says they answer him; the shorter text says “they also will answer.” The person addressed remains obvious from the quotation that follows.
An explicit object often looks like clarification. It also helps Matthew hold the courtroom exchange before the reader: the King speaks to them, and they answer him. Omitting the short pronoun leaves smooth Greek and is easy to overlook.
The three received clauses do not create the Second Coming. They trace its personal line. The Son of man comes; his holy angels come with him; those at his left answer him. Judgment is not an impersonal process. It is the verdict of the King whom men served or refused in the least of his brethren.
The shorter verse 13 may seem cleaner because the bridegroom has already carried the parable. Yet Matthew’s discourse repeatedly moves from image to identification. Naming the Son of man prevents the warning from being detached into generic readiness for death or crisis. It is readiness for him.
“Holy” at verse 31 also distinguishes the attending host from the fallen angels whose judgment Scripture names elsewhere. The context makes that distinction certain even without the adjective. The received word lets the sentence state what the canonical context supplies.
At verse 44, the small pronoun keeps the condemned in direct address. They do not answer a principle or an anonymous court. They answer the King whose presence was hidden under hungry, sick, imprisoned, and stranger brethren. The variants are small because Matthew’s whole scene is strong; their authentic fullness makes its personal judgment stronger still.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 24:36–44; 25:1–46; 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, notes on Matthew 25:13, 25:31, and 25:44.
- Frederick H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Comments
Share a question or response to this article.