In the Last Days

[Guest]

So do you agree then that the term "last days" was used to describe the time period they lived in?

[Guest]

So do you agree then that the term "last days" was used to describe the time period they lived in?

I believe it could refer to the time period they were living in, but I don't think it could mean that exclusively. I don't think they are saying..."from now until Jerusalem is destroyed". I don't see how it means the last days of the Jews generally being grouped together in that area.....

And truthfully, it seems 2 Timothy is used to describe the way things were at the time of the letter being written.... however, it would seem that if we notice those described conditions being worse and seen at a greater scale, we can associate that with nearing the end. The reason being is that he says in verse 13 that these evil men would just get worse and worse. The people that were designated by all the descriptions given in verses 2-5 that Timothy was adivsed to stay away from were around and would be around and would get worse and worse until the end..... not only of the Jewish nation, but the end of the world.

[Guest]

So let's take this systematically and begin with the first application. If we're agreed that Paul, Peter, James and the writer of Hebrews used the term "last days" in reference to their own time period, what do you think they meant by it? The 1st Century A.D. was the "last days" of what?

[Guest]

So let's take this systematically and begin with the first application. If we're agreed that Paul, Peter, James and the writer of Hebrews used the term "last days" in reference to their own time period, what do you think they meant by it? The 1st Century A.D. was the "last days" of what?

But the thing is we aren't agreed completely. I do not think that Peter used that term to refer to the days he was living in...at least not to his knowledge. And as it turns out, Peter was definitely not talking about his time period.

I don't find anywhere that Paul used the term to refer to those particular years of his lifetime (as far as he knew).

The writer of Hebrews used it in a way as if he were saying "recently"..In times past God spoke to us by his prophets, but recently he has spoken through his Son.

James used it in a way that could mean "for the end of your life"...You have stored up treasure for the end of your life. Which is not even the same meaning whatsoever as the phrase used in 2 Timothy.

The only place I'll agree with what you've said is where Luke said in Acts that the prophecy of Joel was beginning in "these last days"..That was in reference to that particular time and on up until the end of the church age, which is still not over and we are still in that "last days" that he spoke of and we are still having the Spirit poured out on many believers and there are still visions and dreams from God...So that is from that point until now and beyond are the "last days" he speaks of.
So to answer more directly..You asked "the first century AD was the last days of what"....In this context...the first century was the beginning of the last days of the world..The Church age is the last days. The final program of God prior to judgement.

So the term definitely can designate the point of time in which it was written, but I don't see how it ever even once means "from now until the temple is destroyed" as you seem to see it.

[Guest]

So you seem to be saying that Paul didn't know, but we do. That sounds somewhat narcissistic to me (not you personally, but that position). All through the last 2,000 years there have been people thinking they were living in the last times, often with better reasons for thinking so than we have. There's a great book that documents this called "The Day and the Hour" by Francis X. Gumerlock


Why would Paul necessarily know ? Does he have a special direct phone line to Christ or does he know whatever the Spirit reveals to him to communicate to his readers. Did the prophets in the OT know about everything they were writing ,like did Daniel understand 9.27 and did Isaiah understand chap 53? The Holy Spirit understood and revealed these things through chosen instruments so even though Paul was writing to Timothy his letters were always written to brethren but i think meant for all Christians. What about when he wrote to the Thessalonians "For this we say to YOU by the WORD OF THE LORD that WE who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep." 1 Thes 4.15. Paul writes to his brethren but is this letter meant just for them and is it about 70AD or Christ's second coming over 2,000 years later ,that is unless you think it was in 70AD. If God inspired the writings of the NT then there is no reason they are not meant for all Christians and i think the last days probably is a generic expression that could mean the church age. As Peter said "a day to the Lord is like a thousand years to man" which really means last days could mean an age.
And btw did'nt the Old Covenant actually end with Christ's death not with 70AD events unless we had two covenants working simultaneously.

[Guest]

And btw did'nt the Old Covenant actually end with Christ's death not with 70AD events unless we had two covenants working simultaneously.

That's an excellent point. I was thinking the same thing. And I totally agree the "last days" expression was a great expression for the Church age because we do not know what day will be the last day, so these are the last days. The last day was as imminent to them and to those 200 years later, and those 2000 years later. It can appropriately be called the last days because one of these days the last days will end with the last day for God's grace, then it will be time for God's judgement on this earth.

[Guest]

Sorry for the delay, I've been away for a while...

I think maybe the disconnect in communication we’re experiencing here has to do with differing hermeneutics, so let me explain the approach I take:

When we look at a text such as 1 or 2 Timothy what we can say with relative certainty is that it was written by a man named Paul who lived in the 1st Century and was addressed to a man named Timothy who also lived in the 1st Century. Therefore, first and foremost, this is a personal correspondence from Paul to Timothy. Additionally, we believe that God speaks through these words to believers today, as He has to believers throughout the last 2,000 years.

So when Paul says, for example, in 1 Timothy 1:3, “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies”, we understand that this is a directive given from Paul in the 1st Century to Timothy in the 1st Century. It would be foolish for me to read this sentence and conclude that Paul is, first and foremost, talking to me and that, therefore, I need to go to Ephesus.

However, just because the directive given in 1 Timothy 1:3 was given, first and foremost, to Timothy in 1st Century Ephesus, it doesn’t mean that it has zero application to me. It does mean, however, that I’m going to need to first understand what it meant to Paul and Timothy and then extract an application for myself 2,000 years later in a different culture (with the Holy Spirit's help, of course!). Based on that, I can determine that, although I don’t need to move to Ephesus, I do need to speak out against false teaching when it’s within my power and influence to do so.

2 Timothy is an even more personal correspondence than 1 Timothy. When chapter 2 begins with the words, “You then, my son…”, I know that what follows is, first and foremost, Paul’s instruction to Timothy. However, there is also much in Paul’s instruction to Timothy that we can apply to our own lives (which, of course, is a big part of why it was included in the Canon).

In chapter 3, when Paul tells Timothy about the type of people in the “last days” and tells Timothy to have nothing to do with them, we know that, first and foremost, Paul is speaking to Timothy. However, we can also find application for this text because there have always been and continue to be people who are “… lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God – having a form of godliness but denying its power.” These traits in humankind are nothing new. You can dip into just about any period in history and find examples that match up as easily as they did in the 1st Century or the 21st Century.

So, back to hermeneutics; my first rule is “What did the text mean to the original hearer?” I realize that much of the popular Bible teaching today jumps right to “What does it mean to me?” without considering the first question. I think the latter approach has been responsible for a great deal of faulty doctrine, theology and praxis in today’s church.

I do not think that Peter used that term to refer to the days he was living in...at least not to his knowledge. And as it turns out, Peter was definitely not talking about his time period.

According to Luke, Peter addressed the crowd at Pentecost and said “No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: “In the last days, God says…” (Acts 2:16-17). Peter, according to Luke, is applying Joel’s prophecy about the “last days” to the Pentecost event. Peter is clearly talking about his own time period and clearly knows what he’s saying. Peter/Luke does not indicate that the application of Joel's prophecy goes beyond the Pentecost event. To assume that it does is just that - an assumption.

In 1 Peter 1:20, Peter told those he wrote to, “He [Jesus] was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.” So it appears that the time that Jesus was revealed was, according to Peter, during the last times and had already occurred by the time he wrote this letter. And, as in the case of Paul and Timothy, we know that this letter was written, first and foremost, to “… God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia…”

I don't find anywhere that Paul used the term to refer to those particular years of his lifetime (as far as he knew).

Besides the example given above from 2 Timothy 3 where Paul is clearly instructing Timothy about their own time, Paul uses similar terminology elsewhere. One example I provided in an earlier post is 1 Cor 10:11, where Paul writes : "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as a warning for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come."

Unless you think that “fulfillment of the ages” means something different than “last days”. If so, I’d like to hear your view on what it means. From what I can tell, “telos ho aion” (which can be translated as “fulfillment of the ages”, “conclusion of time”, “end of the age”, “end of the world”, “end times” or even, “last days”) means pretty much the same thing as “eschatos chronos” (“last days”, “end times”, etc.).

The writer of Hebrews used it in a way as if he were saying "recently"..In times past God spoke to us by his prophets, but recently he has spoken through his Son.

The problem is that “eschatos” is not used to refer to “recently”. “Eschatos” means “last”, “final”, “end”. It implies extremity and finality, such as “last in time or in place”, “last in a series of places” or “last in a temporal succession”. If the writer of Hebrews is referring to recent times, then he/she is saying that recent times are the “end times” for something. Again, I think it’s made quite clear in Hebrews 8:13 and 9:26 that the writer is speaking about the end of the Old Covenant.

James used it in a way that could mean "for the end of your life"...You have stored up treasure for the end of your life. Which is not even the same meaning whatsoever as the phrase used in 2 Timothy.

But James didn’t use the word for “life” (bios), he used the words “eschatos hemera” which is the exact same words used in Hebrews 1:2 and is consistently translated as “last days”. You are claiming that in Hebrews 1:2, “eschatos hemera” means “recently” but in James 5:3 “eschatos hemera” means “the end of your life”. Are you getting these weird alternative translations from a reliable source or are you making them up as you go along?

The only place I'll agree with what you've said is where Luke said in Acts that the prophecy of Joel was beginning in "these last days"..That was in reference to that particular time and on up until the end of the church age, which is still not over and we are still in that "last days" that he spoke of and we are still having the Spirit poured out on many believers and there are still visions and dreams from God...So that is from that point until now and beyond are the "last days" he speaks of.

But earlier in the same post you said, “I do not think that Peter used that term to refer to the days he was living in...at least not to his knowledge. And as it turns out, Peter was definitely not talking about his time period.” In Acts 2, Luke is quoting Peter (who, in turn, is quoting Joel). Now you are agreeing that Peter, according to Luke, did apply the term “last days” to his own particular time, but you are further claiming that the “last days” has continued since that time. So you subscribe to the 730,000 last days theory! That really stretches the meaning of “eschatos” which, again, refers to the final extremity of something.

Where in Acts 2, or anywhere else in scripture for that matter, is any sense given that “last days” refers to an ongoing continuum? Such a usage would actually contradict the meaning of the word “eschatos”, which denotes finality.

2 Pet 3:3-4
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
(KJV)

That sounds like prior to the second coming to me...do you disagree?
If you look in verse 10 this "coming" will be accompanied with the destruction of the known world with a great noise and fire....Did that happen in 70 AD?

It seems to me that Peter is clearly using the term “last days” to refer his own time period and address the issue of scoffers who are troubling the church regarding the “coming of the Lord”. As far as what Peter means by “coming of the Lord” and “day of the Lord”, that’s a great topic for another discussion. The term “last days”, however, is attached to the scoffers, not to the “coming of the Lord”.

BTW, Jude also refers to “scoffers” in v. 17-19 when he writes, “But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, ‘In the last times (eschatos chronos) there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.’ These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.”

So Jude is referring to scoffers in the “last times” and then saying “These are the men who divide you…”, which means the scoffers are dividing the people that Jude is writing to in the 1st Century, which means that the time they are living in is the “last times”.

Lastly, John also clearly refers to his own time period as the "last hour": "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." (1 John 1:18)

So we seem to have a "great cloud of witnesses" that use similar terminology - "last days"; "last hour"; "end of the ages"; "fulfillment of the ages"; etc. - and apply it to the time period that they and the original recipients of their letters were living in. If one wants to project these terms into the distant future, one is forced to ignore the obvious and, in some cases, come up with different alternative translations for those instances that don't fit their presupposition.

And btw did'nt the Old Covenant actually end with Christ's death not with 70AD events unless we had two covenants working simultaneously.

Steve7150, hopefully I addressed your other points throughout this post as I responded to Aaron (particularly in the beginning of this post when I wrote about the hermeneutic of “What did it mean to the original hearer?”).

Regarding this question though, it appears to me that there was a period of time where the two covenants were being practiced simultaneously. For example, in Acts 18:18 it appears that Paul is practicing a Nazirite vow in accordance with Numbers 6.

We really need to define the covenants in order to have this discussion. Obviously though, the Old Covenant was with the Israelites while the New Covenant is with all mankind. Of course, salvation has always been by faith, as Paul makes clear in Romans, so it’s not like there ever were (or ever will be) two methods of salvation. The Old Covenant was not a means to eternal salvation but a sign of being set apart as God’s people on earth to glorify and make His name known. One did not earn eternal salvation by keeping the Mosaic Law; one kept the Mosaic Law as a sign of being part of God’s covenant people. In the New Covenant, all who follow Jesus are God’s people on earth (Jew and Gentile) and all receive salvation through the blood of Christ.

The earliest Christians, who were all Jews, still followed the Levitical system to some degree, although I doubt that they continued offering sacrifices at the temple (Hebrews 10 seems to militate against it). As Gentiles came into the church it was decided that they were not bound by the Levitical system (Acts 15). After 70 A.D. it became pretty much impossible for Jews to follow the Levitical system except in a highly modified form.

In our modern world and Greek influenced way of thinking, we want precise endings and beginnings. My auto insurance policy ends at 12:00am with my old provider and the new policy begins at 12:01am with my new provider, etc. I don’t see anything within scripture itself though that allows us to impose this expectation upon the covenants. As the writer of Hebrews said, “By calling this covenant ‘new’, he has [past tense] made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon [future tense] disappear.” (Heb. 8:13). The Hebrew mindset seems to allow much more room for ambiguity than our Greek minds are comfortable with.

[Guest]

Oops, I missed this one:

That's an excellent point. I was thinking the same thing. And I totally agree the "last days" expression was a great expression for the Church age because we do not know what day will be the last day, so these are the last days. The last day was as imminent to them and to those 200 years later, and those 2000 years later. It can appropriately be called the last days because one of these days the last days will end with the last day for God's grace, then it will be time for God's judgement on this earth.

It looks like you're doing little more than playing around with semantics here.

You appear to be saying that since any day could be the "last day" then every day has been within the "last days". Let's assume that next Tuesday turns out to actually be the "last day" (as you define it). It would therefore be an historical fact that Tuesday, July 11th 2006 was the "last day". Does that still mean that all 700,000+ days previous were the "last days"? In what sense were they "last days"? Surely not in the sense of time. And surely not in the sense that "eschatos" means it.

[Guest]

Hi, Mort...

I still don't see where you have proven that the term "last days" refers to the last days of the Old Covenant. That is actually a contradictory view that you seem to have to Daniel 9. I understand you guys to be saying that Daniel 9 speaks of how at the end of the 70 weeks (three years after Christ's resurrection according to you) the old Covenant will be done away with.
Yet when we come to the subject of the last days you want to say there were two covenants running side by side....

So if that was the last days of the Old Covenant, tell me please why the Old Covenant did not end, in your opinion, with the ushering in of the new one.


First off ....
That you believe that the one event of pentecost comprises entirely the thing that is spoken of by Peter is not very convincing.
The prophet says that in the last days the Spirit will be poured out on the Sons and the daughters and they would dream dreams and see visions....that is continuing to this day and so I would understand the event of pentecost to be the beginning of the last days but not the event entirely.....Do you believe that these things no longer go on? Are you a cessationalist?
If they are still going on and are descriptive of the last days, why are these not the last days just as much as the first century was considered the last days?

When you speak of how Timothy is addressed by Paul in that letter read it carefully..

2 Tim 3:1-13
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
(KJV)

It is not strange in the least bit to me that Paul is speaking of the entire time of then until now....
He told Timothy to turn from those types of people and in verse 13 he says they will only get worse and worse...So it seems simply that Paul is telling Timothy of the conditions of the people of the world in the "last days" and that it will only get worse until the end of the last days. So stay away from those types of people.
That does not in any way seem to indicate that the last days ended in the first century.

If I were to prophesy to you that traffic in your town over the next several years is going to be thick, and the people are going to be driving drunk, and driving fast....so be careful.....and this will only get worse and worse as the days go by.

Do you only limit what I have told you to the next few days....it reaches beyond that. The last days appear very clearly to me not to represent the last days of the (at that point defunct) Old Covenant. But simply the days that would follow along until Christ came again.

I may not know all the old languages real well, you've definitely got me topped on that one....but I don't think that my interpretations of the verses in Hebrews and James are odd looking contextually. That is what the verses seemed to be saying to me...

I don't know if the words can't be used in the way I've always understood them or not. I'll take your word for it, but that does not seem to prove to me that they were speaking of that point to the destruction of the Jewish temple.... I just don't see your reasoning for believing that..

So do you believe that the "last days" are long gone and over?
Are we now living past the last days?

My understanding is that we are living in the last days because the last day is imminent.

[Guest]

I still don't see where you have proven that the term "last days" refers to the last days of the Old Covenant. That is actually a contradictory view that you seem to have to Daniel 9. I understand you guys to be saying that Daniel 9 speaks of how at the end of the 70 weeks (three years after Christ's resurrection according to you) the old Covenant will be done away with.

I’m not attempting to prove anything. This is textual analysis, not mathematics. The best we can do is conclude what the author seems to be saying based on the evidence at hand.

I’ve never spoken about Daniel 9 on this forum so I don’t know how you could know whether or not my view of it is contradictory. The topic at hand is what Paul means by “last days” in 2 Timothy 3:1-9. Although it is helpful to see how Paul uses the term elsewhere and how other NT writers use the term, I don’t see Daniel 9 as being particularly relevant to the question.

Yet when we come to the subject of the last days you want to say there were two covenants running side by side....

So if that was the last days of the Old Covenant, tell me please why the Old Covenant did not end, in your opinion, with the ushering in of the new one.

The Old Covenant did end with the ushering in of the new one. It does not appear to have been a sudden “flip of the switch” however. Instead, it appears that the Old Covenant gradually faded away. Should I quote Hebrews 8:13 again?

By calling this covenant “new”, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

As to why this is, I don’t know. You’d have to ask God why. I’m just reporting what the text says, which seems to be supported elsewhere in scripture.

That you believe that the one event of pentecost comprises entirely the thing that is spoken of by Peter is not very convincing.

Show me where Peter says that Joel’s prophecy applies to anything other than the event at hand. We may want it to, and maybe it does, but that’s pure conjecture.

Do you believe that these things no longer go on? Are you a cessationalist?
If they are still going on and are descriptive of the last days, why are these not the last days just as much as the first century was considered the last days?

I’m not a cessationalist, but I am a sensationalist.

So “A” (Pentecost) occurs and Peter says “A” is the fulfillment of “B” (Joel’s prophecy). Does this mean that every time similar things occur as those that occurred at “A” they must also be a fulfillment of “B”? Or perhaps was Pentecost a watershed event.

When you speak of how Timothy is addressed by Paul in that letter read it carefully..

Gosh, I’ve never read it carefully!

It is not strange in the least bit to me that Paul is speaking of the entire time of then until now....
He told Timothy to turn from those types of people and in verse 13 he says they will only get worse and worse...So it seems simply that Paul is telling Timothy of the conditions of the people of the world in the "last days" and that it will only get worse until the end of the last days. So stay away from those types of people.
That does not in any way seem to indicate that the last days ended in the first century.

Nope. Read it carefully and its still not there. They only way you get “last days” meaning thousands of years is if you import that idea into the text from the outside.

Verse 13, which you underlined is speaking about a progression of behavior “… from bad to worse…” (NIV). Such a progression can take hours, days, weeks, months, years, etc. There is nothing here to indicate that Paul is speaking of anything other than the normal course of events during Timothy’s life. History tells us that there was indeed a progression of persecution “from bad to worse” during Timothy’s life, culminating in Nero and Vespasian.

I will grant you this though: I have noticed that "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse". My car hasn't had a decent wax job in years!

If I were to prophesy to you that traffic in your town over the next several years is going to be thick, and the people are going to be driving drunk, and driving fast....so be careful.....and this will only get worse and worse as the days go by.

If you prophesied this to me personally, I would assume that you meant in my lifetime, not 2,000 years distant. I would probably also assume that at some point the problem would be corrected by harsher traffic laws!

I may not know all the old languages real well, you've definitely got me topped on that one....but I don't think that my interpretations of the verses in Hebrews and James are odd looking contextually. That is what the verses seemed to be saying to me...

I don't know if the words can't be used in the way I've always understood them or not. I'll take your word for it, but that does not seem to prove to me that they were speaking of that point to the destruction of the Jewish temple.... I just don't see your reasoning for believing that..

Think about what you’re saying here. You don’t know the languages but go by what the verses “seem” to be saying to you, but you don't know if the words can't be used in the way you’ve always understood them or not. How is that not eisegesis?

You’ve reduced my understanding of what “last days” meant down to “the destruction of the Jewish temple”, which is an incorrect representation of my view. The “last days” referred to the end of the Old Covenant. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple was a very visible signpost of that larger truth.

So do you believe that the "last days" are long gone and over?

Yes. The Old Covenant is long gone.

Are we now living past the last days?

No, not as the NT writers used the term.

My understanding is that we are living in the last days because the last day is imminent.

Maybe, maybe not. Various people have made that claim throughout the last 2,000 years and been wrong. Since imminent means “threatening to occur at any moment”, on what basis do you assert that the last day is imminent?