For some time, now, I’ve been discussing the argument that Matthew 24:36 represents a division in the Olivet Discourse. The first part, usually Matthew 24:1-34 is said to represent a spiritual coming of Jesus in 70 AD to judge Jerusalem and destroy the Temple, while the second part verse-36 and following to the end of Matthew 25 represents Jesus’ physical Second Coming, which is alleged to be in our future, nearly 2000 years after Jesus’ words were written. In my previous study I showed how the argument that the word but represents a division in the chapter is untenable. In this study I hope to show that a similar argument often used by some scholarly writers is equally untenable, but let any readers who peruse these studies judge that for themselves.
An argument that is sometimes used in an effort to show Matthew 24:36 represents a division in the Olivet Discourse is that the but (G1161) coupled with the word concerning[1] (G4012) will often justify a change of thought. The argument that some seek to use is, because but (G1161) is coupled with of (G4012) – “but of that day and hour…” in Matthew 24:36, then this is evidence that a new thought is introduced. That is, the fall of Jerusalem was the subject matter before verse-36 and the Second Coming is the subject matter at verse-36 and following). Notice:
“This argument is expressed in the Precept Austin Commentary website: But (de) – Normally this introduces a contrast, but in this case the “but” (de) is coupled with another Greek word “peri” which is better translated “but concerning” (as in Matthew 24:36 ESV) and frequently indicates a move to a new thought (e.g., (Matthew 22:31; Mark 12:26; 13:32; Acts 21:25; 1Corinthians 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12; 1Thessalonians 4:9, 13; 5:1).” [books of the Bible were abbreviated on the website]
While I don’t have an argument per se with what is written in the citation above, I would challenge the idea that such a complete change in thought is justified at Matthew 24:36. Moreover, I also challenge the presumption in the above citation that Mark 13:32 and 1Tessalonians 5:1 could be used to prove the argument that a division exists in the Olivet Discourse. After all, if there isn’t a division there, there couldn’t be a division at Mark 13:32 either, because that is Mark’s version of the discourse. Mark must agree with Matthew and vise versa (John 10:35).
As for 1Thessalonians 5:1, the subject matter of chapter 4 and 5 parallel the subject matter of the Olivet Discourse. If there is no division there, then there is no division between 1Thessalonians 4 and the next chapter. Moreover, if we look at 1Thessalonians 5:1-2, we find that it is speaking of the Day of the Lord, which comes as a thief in the night, and this is the same subject matter as Matthew 24:42-44. Yet, when we consider the final verses of the previous chapter of Thessalonians 5, 1Thessalonians 4:13-18, we find the subject matter is the coming of the Lord and the resurrection. When the Lord comes, the resurrection occurs and judgment begins. What am I missing here? Certainly, one cannot argue that there is a change in subject matter. Rather in 1Thessalonians 5:1 Paul is saying he couldn’t reveal “the day and hour” (cf. Matthew 24:36), except he phrased it: “But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.” Why was there no need? It was because they were told the day and hour couldn’t be revealed.
All the Precept Austin Commentary (cited above) suggests is certain signs were given that concerned Jesus’ coming prior to Matthew 24:36. However, “concerning the day and hour” no information could be given. I have no problem with that kind of “move to a new thought.” The subject matter itself, namely the coming of Christ, is the same on both sides of verse-36. The only “new thought” introduced is the “when” the subject matter would occur. Therefore, to argue that Matthew 24 is about the fall of Jerusalem (one thought) and the Second Coming of Christ (second thought) is presumptuous to say the least. I contend that the Second Coming of Christ brought about judgment (i.e. the fall of Jerusalem). One cannot separate judgment from the coming of Christ (cf. 2Timothy 4:1).
Therefore, the argument that peri de (Greek for “but concerning) represents a “strong argument” for a division at Matthew 24:36 is moot. This is seen very clearly in 1Thessaloninas 5:1 above where on one side of the peri de Paul is speaking of the coming of Christ and resurrection and on the other side of the peri de is the coming of Christ and judgment. They are two sides of the same coin, not two different coins (ideas).
__________________________________
[1] The Greek word peri (G4012) is translated of (the day and the hour) in Matthew 24:36 and elsewhere: concerning, about, touching, whereof etc.
Smoodock's Blog 