Most folks who believe the Bible is the word of God will read the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21:8-36) and recognize Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple cir. 70 AD. However, most believers who look for a yet future coming of Jesus will claim that the Olivet Discourse is divided into two sections and use Matthew 24 to show where the division occurs. Some commentators also try to divide Luke’s account of the discourse based upon their understanding of Matthew 24. The first section of Jesus’ prophecy, according to their understanding, begins with “Take heed that no man deceive you…” (Matthew 24:4) and ends with “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled (Matthew 24:34). The “alleged” second section begins in Matthew 24:36 with the word “BUT…”[1] However, is this a fair way to treat the word of God, “…rightly dividing the word of truth” (2Timothy 2:15)?
Once one divides the Olivet Discourse in this manner, which is the way most futurist Bible students divide the chapter, we have the additional problem of deciding what to do with verse-35 “Heaven and earth will pass away…” which is de-creation or apocalyptic language. The same type of language appears in verse-29: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.” In other words, heaven and earth pass away. It seems evident to me that Matthew 24:29 and 35 are referring to the same thing. We simply cannot have one heaven and earth pass away in verse-29 and another pass away in verse-35, and both cir. 70 AD. That doesn’t even make good nonsense.
The only other option we have is to place Matthew 24:35 with the second section beginning with verse-36. Nevertheless, if we do this, we destroy any opportunity we may think we have of dividing the chapter, because we no longer have an alleged literary tool to use to say Matthew 24:35 begins another section of the chapter. By saying Matthew 24:35 belongs with verse-36, we lose the “BUT…” argument. This would mean there is no division in the chapter, because there is nothing about Matthew 24:35 that could be used to divide the chapter with this verse. So, we must keep verse-35 with the first section, even though doing so is arbitrary. It is done for the sake of permitting an argument for division to exist.
Nevertheless, no matter what we do with verse-35, we still have problems to substantiate an argument for a future coming of Christ by dividing the Olivet discourse at Matthew 24:36. If the Olivet Discourse is a single unified prophecy, Jesus’ Second Coming had to have occurred in 70 AD, and there is absolutely no Scriptural foundation for a yet future Second Coming.
The “BUT…” argument still has its problems. For example, if we were to survey the chapter by taking each but (G1161) from Matthew 24:36 to the end of the chapter, we would find we had two in verse36, and one in verse-37, 43 and 48. If the word but (G1161) can be used as a legitimate tool for division of content, why couldn’t we divide Matthew into 2 sections beginning at verse-37 or verse-43 or verse-48 (and this is counting only those verses were G1161 is at the beginning of the verse)? What is so different about verse-36 that demands the division there? If we are truly honest with ourselves, isn’t this an arbitrary argument used in order to support a favorite doctrine that we simply do not wish to set aside?
On the other hand, some futurists have sought to use the argument that “But of…” (Matthew 24:36) or in the Greek “peri (G4012) deh (G1161)” is a much stronger argument for a division in the Olivet Discourse than deh (G1161) alone. However, this argument also falls flat, because there is at least one other place in the New Testament where this same Greek construction is found, yet no argument is made for division there, and that occurrence is found in 1Thessalonians 5:1.
What was the previous subject before the peri deh of 1Thessalonians 5:1? It was the subject of the resurrection at Jesus’ coming (1Thessalonians 4:13-18). Paul begins in 1Thessalonians 4:13 by saying, “I would not have you ignorant brethren…” Then in 1Thessalonians 5:1 Paul mentions the time of the coming of the Lord. Doesn’t the resurrection occur at the coming of the Lord? Why, then, would we need to divide the subject matter between 1Thessalonians 4:18 and 1Thessalonians 5:1? There simply is no contextual argument for division, even though a chapter division occurs at that point in Paul’s epistle. Therefore, peri deh argument cannot be a strong one for division of context, and the futurists’ argument that a division occurs in the Olivet Prophecy at Matthew 24:36 is false!
__________________________________________
[1] My argument in this study is based heavily upon Dr. William Bell’s You Tube Video #1 and Video #2.
Smoodock's Blog 