In the Last Days

[Guest]

Oops, I just realized I made an error. When you said:

Are we now living past the last days?

I thought you said "Are we now living in the last days?

To which my answer was: "No, not as the NT writers used the term."

Let me answer the actual question you asked however: Yes, I believe we are living "past the last days". In the same way we are living past the last days of WWII and past the last days of Napoleon's regime and past the last days of the Roman Empire, we are also living past the last days of the Old Covenant.

[Guest]

Okay Mort
I guess I'm done here since it just seems to go round and round.

I suppose it's all in how you read what's being said. I don't see at all that there's any indication that the last days were over. I don't see any indication that the last days means the last days of the obsolete Old Covenant. All that is ever stated is that the author is speaking of the last days.

The passage in Acts doesn't mention that the last days will end in that lifetime, the passage in Hebrews just says that Jesus spoke in these last days, and doesn't say that they were over or nearly over. The passage in James would confuse me if it were speaking about the end of the Old Covenant....that they were gathering their money up for the end of the Old Covenant , that's why it always seemed to me to be speaking of the time of their end....But I suppose I could have been mistaken about that...But wouldn't it seem more likely that they were storing up "treasure", as in to say, the reward of their wrong behavior for the final days...for the days they will be judged in?

That doesn't really seem like a great interpretation either. But it doesn't sound any stranger than saving up treasure for the last days of the old covenant (for whatever reason ) to me.

[Guest]

I suppose it's all in how you read what's being said. I don't see at all that there's any indication that the last days were over. I don't see any indication that the last days means the last days of the obsolete Old Covenant. All that is ever stated is that the author is speaking of the last days.

So then does that mean that you have no opinion on what “last days” means?

The passage in Acts doesn't mention that the last days will end in that lifetime, the passage in Hebrews just says that Jesus spoke in these last days, and doesn't say that they were over or nearly over.

These passages don’t say many things. If we start accepting doctrines based on what the scriptures don’t say, we can get into big trouble. This is the equivalent of saying, “"No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". This is a logical fallacy known as appealing to lack of proof of the negative.

The passage in James would confuse me if it were speaking about the end of the Old Covenant....that they were gathering their money up for the end of the Old Covenant

If you look at what happened to the Jewish people in 70 A.D. and again in 132 A.D., it probably was not a good time to have a lot of property, especially in Jerusalem. If you suddenly had to flee to the hills, as Jesus warned in Matthew 24, your treasure would not do you a lot of good. Better to have stored up treasure in heaven. In Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-37, etc., we see the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem selling their possessions, including real estate, and giving the money to the poor. Within a few years, that real estate would be worthless and the gold, silver, etc., would end up in the hands of Roman soldiers. Looking back, it seems that the believers made a good investment in the Kingdom by not hording their treasure.

[Guest]

Hey there Mort.
This is hopefully the last I'll post on this subject because it seems to me that we are both making our statements from silence.

The simple fact is that 'last days' is not explained real well from either side of this.

It makes plenty of sense to me that this could, and in some cases, should, refer to that point on up until the time that Christ returns. You don't obviously see this.

In Acts, as I've said before, the conditions that are told to describe the last days prophesied by Joel are still occurring today. This to me makes a better case for my point of view. It isn't totally conclusive. He does not say that throughout the last days such and such will occur, and as long as those things occur, that will be the last days. But who would expect it to read so descriptively.

I can see your point in James and you are making sense with that one. I had never looked at it that way before. I think I could have been wrong in that respect.

The letter to Timothy still seems to speak of his time and on until the end of times. Not just until the end of the Jewish system. I beleive the people described were around then and were foretold would only grow worse and worse as time went on....or as you like it said.....they will wax worse and worse ......Just can't get a good car wax job these days.

The reference from Hebrews still seems to me that it could be interpreted as "recently" since it is contrasted with former times. But in these last times He spoke to us through His Son.
You stated that the original word refers to a finality. Well, that was a finality. He had spoken through prophet after prophet and finally in these last days...He spoke through His Son.

So you've convinced me on one. On another I think it's not so much a specific time period and on the other one, I believe it to refer to the entire 2000 year (so far) period of time since it was uttered.
But as you have pointed out, and until I can say differently, I'll agree that I believe this from reasoning and not from solid textual proof, as I also believe this is how you've come to your conclusion.

Take care, buddy,
It's been fun and informative....

God bless

[Guest]

Aaron, I always enjoy it when we have a spirited dialog together. Thanks bro!

[Guest]

Hi Mort, I can't dispute that reading the text literally you have a convincing argument however it's the same argument jewish scholars make for their understanding of the OT. In Jeremiah 31 he said "the days are coming" re the new covenant ,the jews say how could this refer to 600 years into the future , it must be about the return from Babylon because Jeremiah was relevant to those he was speaking to. And throughout the OT we have many references to the "day of the Lord" which preterists believe all refer to 70AD yet don't sound like they are referring to a day hundreds of years into the future. And you did'nt respond to my reference to Peter saying a day to the Lord is like a thousand years to man which could mean we're in the second day.
And re the Old Covenant it really was'nt just for the jews it was anyone who accepted it including gentiles. So that would mean God had two somewhat contradictory contracts open at the same time to whosoever wanted to enter into them. I know they are somewhat different but the new was intended to replace the old and i never got the impression from Jesus that the old would be phased out.
Now granted you still could say it was the "last days" of the jewish age even if the old covenant was obsolete at Jesus's death.
You could say that i'm importing ideas into this text but i would say i'm comparing scripture with scripture.

[Guest]

Hi Mort, I can't dispute that reading the text literally you have a convincing argument however it's the same argument jewish scholars make for their understanding of the OT. In Jeremiah 31 he said "the days are coming" re the new covenant ,the jews say how could this refer to 600 years into the future , it must be about the return from Babylon because Jeremiah was relevant to those he was speaking to. And throughout the OT we have many references to the "day of the Lord" which preterists believe all refer to 70AD yet don't sound like they are referring to a day hundreds of years into the future.

I'm not Mort, but I'll take a shot at some of the questions you brought up. In Jeremiah it says the days are coming. This is very different from saying we are in these says as it says in Hebres 1 and 1 Cor 10:11 says the end of the age. So I see this as different. Jeremiah looks forward to those days. It doesn't says it will be coming in days, or that they were in those days.

And you did'nt respond to my reference to Peter saying a day to the Lord is like a thousand years to man which could mean we're in the second day.

I don't understand how what Peter said is relevant to anything other than the context in which it was spoken.

2Pe 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Peter explains that to the Lord a day is as a thousand years, etc. But it's not that way to us. Nor does Peter mention that the Day of the Lord is a thousand years. Instead what Peter is saying is that the "delay" of His coming is for the expressed purpose of waiting (patience) so that more people have the opportunity to repent before that "day" comes.

And re the Old Covenant it really was'nt just for the jews it was anyone who accepted it including gentiles. So that would mean God had two somewhat contradictory contracts open at the same time to whosoever wanted to enter into them. I know they are somewhat different but the new was intended to replace the old and i never got the impression from Jesus that the old would be phased out.
Now granted you still could say it was the "last days" of the jewish age even if the old covenant was obsolete at Jesus's death.
You could say that i'm importing ideas into this text but i would say i'm comparing scripture with scripture.

I know what you are saying but Paul does mention in Epesians 2 that the Gentiles were aliens and stangers without God and hope, without a covenant with God. Christ brought something new, that the OT didn't apparently offer.

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. [/quote]

[Guest]

I'm not Mort, but I'll take a shot at some of the questions you brought up. In Jeremiah it says the days are coming. This is very different from saying we are in these says as it says in Hebres 1 and 1 Cor 10:11 says the end of the age. So I see this as different. Jeremiah looks forward to those days. It doesn't says it will be coming in days, or that they were in those days.

OK Sean so Jeremiah is looking forward to "those days" and what might he be looking forward to exactly. Certainly he means those days to be the coming of the Messiah , but the jews regarded the coming of the Messiah to initiate the messianic age which Jeremiah called "those days" and which i think non dispensationalists see as the church age. So when Jeremiah says "those days" he really means the church age perhaps unwittingly and IMO even though Paul may not have had an understanding of the church age his words apply to the church age even though literally the phrase "last days" matches up with the destruction of Jerusalem. Are Paul's words limited to his understanding or does the Holy Spirit play a role in his letters. All of Paul's letters were written to brethren but usually we don't take the position that his words only apply to the brethren he is writing to, why now?
"has in these last days spoken to us by His Son whom he has appointed heir of all things " Heb 1.2
Jews understood "last days" to mean the TIME when Messiah would come.
Num 24.14 , Jer 33.14-16, Mic 5.1-2 . So if Jesus is reigning over us and his spiritual messianic kingdom is advancing starting at the cross then i think it's fair to say the church age is the Messianic age or the "last days."

[Guest]

Steve7150,

I apologize. I lost track of this discussion and didn't realize that you were waiting for a response from me. Here goes:

I can't dispute that reading the text literally you have a convincing argument however it's the same argument jewish scholars make for their understanding of the OT.

Is that a bad thing? I would expect Jewish scholars to have a pretty good understanding of the OT. Where they blow it is in failing to grasp the New Covenant (and its ramifications upon the OT).

In Jeremiah 31 he said "the days are coming" re the new covenant ,the jews say how could this refer to 600 years into the future , it must be about the return from Babylon because Jeremiah was relevant to those he was speaking to.

The answer is that’s it’s both. Jeremiah 31 was directly addressing those going into Babylonian exile and is promising a return from exile. However, Hebrews 8 also applies Jeremiah 31:31-34 to the New Covenant brought about by Jesus.

The key point is this: Many OT scriptures were fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus Himself said all the Law and Prophets pointed to Him. The error is to assume that we can also take OT scriptures and point them beyond Jesus to some future “end-times” scenario. The writers of the NT had the God-inspired authority to recast OT scripture in light of Christ. I don’t believe that C.I. Scofield, Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye have that same authority or inspiration.

And throughout the OT we have many references to the "day of the Lord" which preterists believe all refer to 70AD yet don't sound like they are referring to a day hundreds of years into the future.

You are mis-stating what Preterists believe. I’m not aware of any Preterest who believes that every mention of “day of the Lord” in the OT refers to 70AD. The term “day of the Lord” refers to judgment (Is. 13:6-22 – against Babylon; Ez. 30:2-19 – against Egypt; Joel 1:15 – against Judah; Joel 3:14 – against Philistia; Amos 5:18-20 – against Israel; etc, etc.). These warnings of judgment had immediate historical application.

And you did'nt respond to my reference to Peter saying a day to the Lord is like a thousand years to man which could mean we're in the second day.

Are you taking the value “thousand” literally? If so, do you also believe that God only owns the cattle on 1,000 hills and that He is only faithful to 1,000 generations? Does this mean the cattle on the 1001st hill aren’t His and He is not faithful to the 1001st generation?

2 Peter 3 ( including 3:8 which is quoting Psalm 90) is merely saying that God does things on His own timetable and His apparent delay in judgment is due to His mercy.

And re the Old Covenant it really was'nt just for the jews it was anyone who accepted it including gentiles. So that would mean God had two somewhat contradictory contracts open at the same time to whosoever wanted to enter into them.

The only way a Gentile could come under the Old Covenant was to convert to Judaism, get circumcised, etc. It’s an interesting historical fact, btw, that a much higher percentage of Gentile women converted to Judaism than men (which, apparently, had something to do with circumcision!). As a result, the Old Covenant was for Jews only – one had to become a Jew to enter into it.

I don’t think of the two covenants as being contradictory. That implies that God is contradictory. Rather, the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, in the same way that a flower is the fulfillment of the seed.

I know they are somewhat different but the new was intended to replace the old and i never got the impression from Jesus that the old would be phased out. Now granted you still could say it was the "last days" of the jewish age even if the old covenant was obsolete at Jesus's death.

The New fulfilled the Old, making the Old obsolete. Just as the seed becomes obsolete once the flower has grown from it. Did this happen precisely at the moment of Jesus’ death? Or was it at the moment of His resurrection? Or was it during His incarnation? Why do we assume that there must have been an exact moment that the switch was flipped? Ask a group of historians when the end of World War II occurred or when the end of the Roman Empire occurred and you're likely to get several different answers, but all within the same general time period.

You could say that i'm importing ideas into this text but i would say i'm comparing scripture with scripture.

Well, let me ask you this: You keep making reference to “ages”. You’ve referred to the “jewish age”, the “messianic age” and the “church age”. Where did you get this concept of “ages”? Did you come to it yourself by reading scripture or was it taught to you as a way to understand scripture? If you are simply comparing scripture with scripture, which scripture refers to the “jewish age”, “messianic age” and “church age” or the other dispensations? If you’re not getting this system of ages from scripture itself but from Dispensationalism (a system that was developed in the 1800’s) then you’re importing ideas into the text.

[Guest]

**Sorry for the interruption**

Mort_coyle -
I've sent you a private message.

Dave