“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36 NWT)
Other translations of the Bible render this verse as follows:
New International Version
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
English Standard Version
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
King James Bible
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Why the difference?
It is noteworthy that in the original Greek, the verse begins with the word “But”. This is noted even the Kingdom Interlinear Translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Why does the New World Translation leave this word out? Is it significant?
The NICNT comments:
Several features in the wording of Matt. 24:36, and of the following passage, make it clear that a new subject is taken up at this point:
1. “But about …” (peri de) occurred similarly in Matt. 22:31 to mark a change of subject, when Jesus turned from the specific question which had been asked to deal with the basic theology which prompted it.
“But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
(Mat 22:31 NASB)
Paul uses the same phrase several times in 1 Corinthians (7:1, 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 16:12) to move from one of the issues raised by his correspondents to another
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is better for a man not to touch a woman; (1 Corinthians 7:1 NWT)
Now concerning virgins, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who had mercy shown him by the Lord to be faithful. (1 Corinthians 7:25 NWT)
Now concerning food offered to idols: We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. (1 Corinthians 8:1 NWT )
Now concerning the spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. (1 Corinthians 12:1 NWT )
Now concerning the collection for the holy ones, you may follow the directions I gave to the congregations of Ga·laʹti·a. (1 Corinthians 16:1 NWT)
Now concerning A·polʹlos our brother, I strongly urged him to come to you with the brothers. It was not his intention to come now, but he will come when he has the opportunity. (1 Corinthians 16:12 NWT)
(cf. also 1Thess. 4:9; 1Thess. 5:1; Acts 21:25).
In each case peri de is the rhetorical formula for a new beginning. The analogy with 1 Corinthians indicates that here the phrase marks the transition from the first of the two questions asked in Matt. 25:3 to the second.
2. “That day and hour” is the first mention in this discourse of a singular “day” or “hour,” in clear contrast to the plural “those days” which has been used in Matt. 25:19, 22, 29 for the period of the Roman war.
Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! (Matthew 24:19)
In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short. (Matthew 24:22)
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. (Matthew 24:29)
The singular “day” will recur in Matt. 24:42:
Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. (Matthew 24:42)
the “hour” in Matt. 24:44:
On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. (Matthew 24:44)
and both “day” and “hour” in Matt. 24:50 and Matt. 25:13:
the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, (Matthew 24:50)
“Keep on the watch, therefore, because you know neither the day nor the hour. (Matthew 25:13)
In each case the term is now singular. This shift in terminology marks the change of subject. The demonstrative “that day” serves to remind the reader of the “day” of the parousia which was the subject of the second part of the disciples’ question.
3. Whereas Matthew 24:4-35 have spoken of an event whose time can be predicted (Matt. 24:34) and for whose coming signs can be given (Matt. 24:15), from here on Jesus speaks of an event whose time is both unknown and unknowable, and which will therefore come without prior warning. If even Jesus himself, who has just given a solemn and confident prediction of the time when “all these things” are going to happen, confesses himself ignorant of “that day and hour,” it is surely obvious that the subject has changed.[1]
4. The event predicted in Matthew 24:4-35 has been described as the “coming of the Son of Man,” using the participle erchomenos which echoes the vision of Daniel 7:13-14. The only mention of the parousia in that section was to say that it will not be like the events of those days (Matt. 24:27). But now the term parousia (which does not occur in the Greek translations of Daniel 7:13-14) comes into play in Matthew 24:37, 39.
Since this was the term used in the second part of the disciples’ question, it is clear that it is that second issue which is now being addressed.[2]
5. Negatively it should be noted that whereas Matthew 24:4-35 were linked by repeated uses of temporal connections (“then,” “in those days,” “immediately after,” “it is near”) there is no such temporal introduction to this paragraph. Its contents stand apart from the historical sequence hitherto described.
This long second section of the discourse is then in the proper sense of the word “eschatological,” unlike the first part which dealt with events within history. Apart from the opening declaration in Matthew 24:36 it is almost entirely independent of Mark.
Matthew, following the same anthological principle as in the other discourses, has collected here a range of material, some of which has parallels in Luke’s eschatological sections in Luke 17:26-35 and Luke 12:39-46, which speaks not now of striking events within history, but of the future and final visitation of the Son of Man, and of the fate of those who are and are not ready for his appearance. And it concludes, appropriately, with a judgment scene which relates not specifically to Jerusalem or to the Jewish people but to “all the nations,” gathered before the enthroned Son of Man in his heavenly glory.
[1] [The suggestion sometimes offered that Jesus was prepared to speak in broad terms of the “generation” of the parousia but now admits that he cannot specify the precise time for it within that generation is robustly dismissed as “beyond the bounds of credibility” by A. I. Wilson, When 225. Those who have nonetheless adopted this “incredible” interpretation have been governed more by their assumption that Mat_24:29-31 are about the parousia than by the wording of the discourse as a whole, which clearly now introduces a new and different “day and hour” and contrasts the knowability of the one with the unknowability of the other. Wilson goes on, “It surely places unbearable strain on Matthew’s credibility as a redactor and/or on Jesus’ credibility as a teacher to claim that Jesus is referring to the same event in Mat_24:33-34 and in Mat_24:36.”]
[2] [A. I. Wilson, When 227, notes also that in this section where the parousia is explicitly in view “there is no mention of any of the attendant circumstances related to the ‘coming Son of Man’ found in Dan. 7 and in other texts in Matthew (clouds, glory etc).”]