The Narrow Path Ministries

Seeing how I was taught a form of dispensationalism growing up, I was curious what the other views were on 2 Timothy 3: 1-9. I couldn't find Steve's verse by verse teaching link to these verses or any other topics on this subect, but if there are, please link me to it. Thanks. If not, then is Paul referring to the final days of earth or the final days of the temple? Or is there another interpretation all together?

This one is tricky for me because Paul is writing a personal letter to Timothy in order to instruct him on how he is to conduct himself in his life and ministry. That phrase "in the last days" is what throws people off because it's used a number of different ways in scripture. Often a prophet would use the phrase to mean the end of his own life. Others used it to refer to the end of a certain age. Still others use it to mean "the end of the known world." What makes it even more difficult is the fact that those behaviors described in this passage can be seen in all cultures and periods throughout history.

Steve will no doubt have better insight.

In 2 Timothy 3: 1-9, Paul describes the type of people living in the last days and tells Timothy to have nothing to do with them. If Timothy could have something to do with them, then Timothy must have been living in the last days.

When Peter, Paul, James and the writer of Hebrews used the term "last days" I believe they were referring to the last days of the Old Covenant.

In Acts 2:16-17, Peter quotes Joel's prophecy about the last days and says, essentially, "this is that".

In 1 Cor 10:11, 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."

James tells the rich oppressors:

"You have hoarded wealth in the last days" (James 5:1-9).

I don't think he was writing to people 2,000+ years in the future.

I've heard it taught that James, Paul and Peter were all mistaken. They thought they were living in the last days (silly old Apostles) but they obviously weren't and we should follow their example by thinking we're living in the last days even if we aren't.

I've also heard it taught that James, Paul and Peter weren't mistaken; it really was the last days and it still is. This gets them off the hook from being mistaken but causes the last days to be 2,000 years and counting. That's roughly 730,000 last days!

I think the Apostles knew exactly what they were saying and they were not mistaken or obscure. The writer of Hebrews begins by saying:

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son..." (1:1-2)

Later in Hebrews the writer states:

"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (9:15)

And...

"But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." (9:26)

Hebrews explains what is meant by "last days" and "end of the ages" in 8:13 when it says:

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

The new covenant had begun and the old was passing away. The destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. would signal the end. The old covenant was with the nation of Israel, but the new covenant is with all people, by faith.

In the old covenant with Israel, God (through Moses) said:

"Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (Exod. 19:5-6)

In the new covenant, God (through Peter) says:

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God..." (1 Peter 2:9-10)

John uses picturesque apocalyptic language to say the same thing:

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Rev 21:1-4)

Thank you JC and Mort. I would like to look at these two verses for a second though:

1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.

2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,

Notice that the word will is being used here for future tense. Timothy, according to my study bible was written around 62/63 A.D. Wouldn't those years be considered the last days if referring to the Temple destruction in A.D. 70?

Now it could be getting gradually worse during that time period, of which I must admit, I don't know a whole lot of the culture at the time. Maybe someone can fill in the finer details.

I just know from my own experience that in our culture today a lot of what is described in this passage equates to what is going on now, which you would not be able to find in such great quantities several years ago. Here is a sort of wild theory that I am going to throw out here, but is it possible that this passage, or others like it, have a double usage? Meaning it is referring to both the last days of the Temple and the last days of Earth.

I just know from my own experience that in our culture today a lot of what is described in this passage equates to what is going on now, which you would not be able to find in such great quantities several years ago. Here is a sort of wild theory that I am going to throw out here, but is it possible that this passage, or others like it, have a double usage? Meaning it is referring to both the last days of the Temple and the last days of Earth.

70AD is a legitimate answer you could give a skeptic but i suspect that Paul was inspired to write about the last days of the church age rather then the jewish age. Of course Paul had no idea he was writing about 2,000 years into the future but the Holy Spirit did. God knew as we gain material security and as science advances that we would fall away from God in the last days becoming more impressed with ourselves. Perhaps the man of sin to be revealed is us?

Mort_Coyle wrote:In 2 Timothy 3: 1-9, Paul describes the type of people living in the last days and tells Timothy to have nothing to do with them. If Timothy could have something to do with them, then Timothy must have been living in the last days.

Deut 18:15-18
15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
(KJV)

According to your theory, Jesus should have come along on His first advent around the time the children of Israel were coming into the land of Canaan....

Notice that God said He would raise up a prophet from among "them" and that He would speak to "them".....Well, He spoke to their descendants many many years down the road, but we don't question whether Jesus might have actually come first to that group of people....Why should we question that Paul might be speaking of a time in the far off future?

And it's like Micah (the poster not the prophet ) said...Why would he be forewarning him of such a change in the behavior of the people if it were only 7 or 8 years away? Seems like that kind of dramatic shift would take place in a more distant time than that.

Of course Paul had no idea he was writing about 2,000 years into the future but the Holy Spirit did.

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 - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/091581 ... e&n=283155

Now it could be getting gradually worse during that time period, of which I must admit, I don't know a whole lot of the culture at the time. Maybe someone can fill in the finer details.

Read Josephus' War of the Jews. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/JOSEPHUS.HTM . Its fascinating reading. Josephus was an eye-witness to the destruction of Jerusalem and describes the events leading up to it, including the depravity that overtook the Jewish people.

I just know from my own experience that in our culture today a lot of what is described in this passage equates to what is going on now, which you would not be able to find in such great quantities several years ago.

I think this is largely a matter of seeing what you want to see. I agree that Western culture has declined in many ways (particularly education and decency), but other cultures in the world today are on the upswing. Christianity is spreading like wildfire in Latin America, Africa and Asia, for example. Fundamentalist Islam is reaching a crisis point which, according to many experts, may lead to a Muslim reformation along the lines of the Protestant reformation.

Compare life in America or Europe today with life in Paul & Timothy's time in the Roman Empire. Slavery is nothing today compared to then. For example, it is estimated that the total number for slaves in the city of Rome in the 1st century AD was 300,000-350,000 out of a population of about 900,000-950,000. Female infants aren't left on mountaintops to die of exposure. Women have rights. Most Western governments don't torture and crucify their populations. We take for granted that we can travel thoughout the world in relative safety. People are free to worship (or not worship) who and how they see fit. The populations of Western countries have a high degree of literacy (whereas literacy was very low in the Roman Empire) and educational opportunities. Books are ubiquitous and vast amounts of information, from the daily weather report to Greek classics can be accessed with the click of a mouse. People all over the world who would never have met (like us!) can dialog online and edify one-another. Life expectancy in the West is the highest its ever been. Infant mortality is the lowest. You don't wake up in the morning wondering if your village is going to be raided by hordes of barbarians or if a famine will cause your children to starve to death. Etc., etc. (Sadly, there are still places, such are Darfur, where these concerns do exist.)

Perhaps most importantly, there are more Christians per capita in the world today than at any other time in history. The church continues to expand.

Here is a sort of wild theory that I am going to throw out here, but is it possible that this passage, or others like it, have a double usage? Meaning it is referring to both the last days of the Temple and the last days of Earth.

That's actually not a wild theory. Many futurist/dispensationalist Bible teachers claim there is a double fulfillment of certain NT scriptures and a triple fulfillment of OT prophecy. The problem is that such a view isn't taught in scripture, so it has to be imported. Many OT prophecies had an immediate application and a fulfillment in Christ, but there is nothing to indicate that we should look beyond Christ for additional fulfillments. In fact to do so, I think, is to lessen the importance of Jesus and what He accomplished. Likewise, there is no sound hermeneutic to support projecting NT scriptures out of their historical context and into the future.

Notice that God said He would raise up a prophet from among "them" and that He would speak to "them".....Well, He spoke to their descendants many many years down the road, but we don't question whether Jesus might have actually come first to that group of people....Why should we question that Paul might be speaking of a time in the far off future?

Couple of problems with this analysis:

First off, if you read the entire section in Deut 18 about "the prophet" you see that he is speaking of multiple prophets. This is especially clear in verses 20 & 22 where they are instructed on how to tell true prophets from false ones.

Secondly, this did come to pass. Moses, who was a prophet, was followed by a succession of prophets down through the millenia, some of whom we know about through their writings (or writings about them) and probably others that we don't know anything about. This succession of prophets came to its climax in Jesus. Jesus claimed that the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled in Him. The OT points forward to Jesus and the NT points backward to Jesus. Jesus is the point of reference. He is the center.

Thirdly, whereas Paul's letter to Timothy is a personal correspondence that we get to eavesdrop on, Moses address to the Israelites is a national document (sort of like the Constitution or Bill of Rights). The Pentateuch defined for the Israelites who they were and how they were supposed to live. It was intended to passed down from generation to generation. The "you" that Moses refers to is the nation of Israel, present and future. The "you" that Paul refers to is Timothy, though we can find application and benefit from it also.

Why would he be forewarning him of such a change in the behavior of the people if it were only 7 or 8 years away? Seems like that kind of dramatic shift would take place in a more distant time than that.

Well, which is more plausible, that Paul is warning Timothy about people that he may come into contact with or that Paul is warning Timothy to avoid people that won't actually be around for 2,000+ years? The latter would have as much relevence to Timothy as advising him to invest in Microsoft stock.

Mort_Coyle wrote:Well, which is more plausible, that Paul is warning Timothy about people that he may come into contact with or that Paul is warning Timothy to avoid people that won't actually be around for 2,000+ years? The latter would have as much relevence to Timothy as advising him to invest in Microsoft stock.

2 Tim 3:1-5
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.
(KJV)



Doesn't really seem like an either/or situation to me. It seems that these types were certainly also around in the days of Timothy, and Paul warns Him to turn from them. But he also states that in the last days this will be the climate of the world system.

It's as if I were to tell you that in 2060 there will be a multitude of Muslims in the United States and then I would tell you to turn away from such people. That doesn't mean that you are going to be around in 2060, but it does mean that there will be a flood of Muslims then. Yet there are also Muslims in this country now and you should turn from them.

That seems to be the most plausible explaination to me honestly.

Doesn't really seem like an either/or situation to me. It seems that these types were certainly also around in the days of Timothy, and Paul warns Him to turn from them. But he also states that in the last days this will be the climate of the world system.

The question at hand here is what does "last days" mean, but you're beginning with an a priori assumption of what it means and then reading that assumption into the text. You are committing what is known as eisegesis. Start by setting aside your presuppositions and research the text itself. Let it speak for itself, regardless of what it ends up saying. Don't look outside of the Bible to a man-made system of eschatology, but look internally. For example, how do other NT writers use the term "last days" or terms like it (such as "end of the ages", "fulfillment of the ages", etc.?

The only thing that warrants a double fulfillment of this text is your a priori assumption, imported from outside of the text, that Paul is speaking of the distant future.

It's as if I were to tell you that in 2060 there will be a multitude of Muslims in the United States and then I would tell you to turn away from such people. That doesn't mean that you are going to be around in 2060, but it does mean that there will be a flood of Muslims then. Yet there are also Muslims in this country now and you should turn from them.

And this is exactly what Paul doesn't say. Nowhere does he say, "In the distant future perilous times shall come...", thus implying that his words apply to the distant future first and Timothy's present time second. Paul only gives one time indicator, which is "the last days". As I pointed out in an earlier post, Paul, Peter, James and the writer of Hebrews all used "last days" terminology to refer to their own time period. Therefore our initial understanding should be that the "last days" were in Paul & Timothy's time. Secondarily, we could look for evidence that it also refers to a future time, but as it turns out, there's nothing in this text to indicate a second future application.

I am not saying there are 2 applications of the prophecy. I am saying there is one, and Timothy is told what the last days would bring....

You are making an assumption that you are correct eisegetically as well.

When I read the NT instances of "last days" I don't see that they are talking about the end of the Jewish system


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?



James 5:3
3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.
(KJV)
The way I understand this is that these were heaping treasures up for the end of their lives and trusting in money to keep them in their old age.




Heb 1:2
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
(KJV)

This could also be stated to mean "recently". In the recent days He has spoken unto us by Jesus....in contrast to how he spoke in days further back.



Acts 2:17
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
(KJV)

You may not see it to be so, but I understand this to mean from that time until this time and beyond. The last days. If you do not see it this way then you must believe that all the things He said would come to pass upon the people of the last days have ceased seeing it is not (in your opinion) the last days anymore.



So to sum it up...It still seems way more reasonable to see the term "last days" as referring to something that has not happened yet...

Tell me why you think I am wrong please.