Talk:Article: Matthew 24:3; Hebrews 9:26 End of World or Age? by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

This was pasted onto the page so I moved it here

Will, Regarding the beginning of Hebrews you say that <<It is important to observe that Scripture does NOT say "who spake in AGES past unto the fathers...in THIS LAST AGE has spoken" but rather the text says "in THESE LAST DAYS hath spoken." The idea Mr. Joyner promotes by way of private interpretation that the Old Testament period from Adam to the time of Christ was divided up into different "ages" is nowhere to be found in Scripture. It is a man made doctrine imposed on the Scriptures and Dr. Joyner has to resort to adding words of explanation to the NASB's "the consummation of the ages" to come up with the sense he desires.>> However, you (and many others like you) have forgotten to take into account the larger context into which these words are spoken: Hebrews is explaining the transitioning from the Mosaic covenant to the New covenant (with all its implications). Therefore, the "last days" MUST BE referring to the last days of the MOSAIC COVENANT. To state that the expression "last days" means last days of the world and that we have been living in the last days for some 2000 years is absurd. Don't start quoting Peter yet. Just think about it: a period of last days lasting 2000+ years does not sound right. Since God has given us minds to think, therefore, when something does not sound right, we must look for an alternative explanation. The explanation that "last days" refers to the last days of teh Mosaic covenant looks to me like a MUCH MORE sensible alternative. To quote Peter that for the Lord one year is like a thousand years in support for labeling the past 2000 years sounds equally probelmatic. We should rather look at the intention of Peter behing this statement rather than to his actual words. I believe that any sensible person will agree with me that ALL Peter MEANT was that God does not measure time like we do. But to state this he uses dramatic language (1000 years = 1 day), which must never be taken a s a mathematical equation. Bible characters use dramatic expressions all teh time. Jesus said to pluck your eye out if it is ocassion for sin, etc, He also spoke of a mountain being transposed to the sea by prayer. Notice that he said "mountain" rather than big problem or obstacle, which is what he really meant. So we see here that we need to look at the MEANING and INTENTION of the words rather to merely their form. So, when the King James version (which I do not endorse for being in archaic language) says "last days" we should ADD "last days [of the Mosaic Covenant]". Adding context is never a sin. It is COMPLETELY valid. The difference is that some prefer to read Hebrews 1 adding the context "last days [of the world]" whiel I believe it is more logical to add "last days [of the Mosaic covenant]". While it is true that the death of Jesus made all future animalo sacrifices unnecessary immediately, it is also equally true that the whole apparatus of the Mosaic covenant was still intact. Both unconverted Jews and Christians NEEDED to be explained what had happened in Judaism with the Christ's death and why the Jewish temple and system would soon disappear. So when other versions translate "consummation of the ages" they are right too. The history of the world is composed by a succession of ages (plural). God's great objective of bringing salvation to humanity had AT LAST been accomplished in teh person of Jesus. A new era was now at hand (what we call the CHURCH ERA). It is fully inconsequential that the Bible does not provide us with a list of ages. Any honest reader will agree with this. Some people call it dispensations. These ages are implicit in the Bible. However, if we want to see only two ages: before the MEssiah and After teh Messiah we could easily take the plural "ages" as a figure of speech for "age" just as the authot of a bookmany times writes "We" when he means "I". It is that simple. As for AION I will simply say that many words have different meanings in different contexts. In Matthew 24 it is better to understand the AIONOS expression as "end of the age." There was and there is NO SINGLE verse in the Bible that associates the COMPLETE and UTTER DESTRUCTION OF HEROD"S TEMPLE with the end of the world. But the apostles, being Jews, would have understood this Matthew 24 prophecy of Jesus as the end of the "Jewish" or "Jewish Temple-based worship" age. Infact, Jews believed in only two ages: the current evil one and the one to be ushered by the Messiah. That is what Jesus did. He ushered a NEW AGE, the church age. The church is the beginning of HIs eternal kingdom. Regards, AZ