For most difficult passages using words like "last" and "end," these interpreters use a double meaning interpretation: It applies to the time of the apostles and the present day (or future day, if they're feeling generous to another generation). Remember that for these interpreters "last" and "end" have to mean the absolute end of the earth. It can't refer to some other end. They still want the end or last to also apply to a future time. I'll discuss the double meaning trick more in another post, but the continual end trick is what is used for Hebrews 1:2.
The reason the continual end meaning is applied to the Hebrews passage is because of the word "these." It's simply too clearly applicable to the author's contemporary time period - the 1st century. But because the words "last days" are also in the passage, they have to explain that away or risk allowing the scriptures appear in error. Why in error? Because the end of the world didn't happen. And last days, in their mind, can refer to no other time but the end of the world and 2nd coming of Christ.
But this is where we must think biblically, using scripture to interpret scripture instead of out own personal interpretation. What is the book of Hebrews about? Perhaps more than any other new testament book, it's about the change from the old covenant to the new covenant. Perhaps we need to better understand the continuity between the old and new covenants, which it also explains. However, it's also clear in Hebrews that something drastic has occurred to the Jewish religion.
"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." Hebrews 7:18-9. "By so much [the oath of an eternal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek] was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." Heb. 7:22.
"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." Heb. 7:26-8.
"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Heb. 8:5-7
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. 8:13.
The author is exhorting them to stay true to the faith in which they can enter into the true temple, not one made with hands, like those adhering to the old levitical priesthood and the accompanying rites for entering a physical temple. These were the mere shadows of the reality to come, no, had come. And the Christians were enjoying that reality. Why go back? Back to what? Back to that which is "ready to vanish away."
Therefore, if this old, these shadows, are ready to vanish away, could they be experiencing the last days of what is vanishing away? What would be the event or sign that would indicate the period of vanishing away, the last days, are over? There's no reason to think that these days the author speaks of will go on for centuries. The old covenant vanished away, the new covenant replaced it. What would there be a period during which it was vanishing away? Why would it still be vanishing away today? I'll consider these questions in the next post.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Last means last, right?
We could talk about the fact that the Hebrew and Greek can mean "last," as in "final." Same for the word "end." But is that the way to study scripture? Or does scripture interpreter scripture? Is the context more important? By the way, that last question is really important. Did I just use the word "last" in a different way than last? The last question I asked was not the last question of this post or this blog or in history. It was simply the most recent sequential question before I said it was really important.
Also, the word "end." To what end would we be headed in defining that word? Did I just use the word "end" to mean something different than final, chronological time of "the end?" I used it as a synonym for purpose. The word used for end in the Hebrew in key passages like Daniel 8:19 (about knowing "what shall be in the last end"), Deuteronomy 32:20 (about seeing "what their end shall be"), and all the Proverbs passages using the same Hebrew word (like "the end thereof being death").
Therefore, if the words used for end and last in the bible can mean purpose, final, end of an age, etc., we'll need to get our honest interpretive hats on. A text without a context is a pretext. In other words, if I take one verse and focus on that one verse, I can pick and choose what I want it to mean. In other words, it's a pretext for getting the meaning I want out of it. And the meaning most interpreters seem to want from the words "end" and "last days" seems to be the final end of all things, when Jesus Christ returns to judge the entire world in the final judgment. Why would they want that?
It appears that every generation of Christians has wanted to be the "last" generation, the generation during which Jesus returns. You can find interpretations of the bible going back centuries and interpreting various scriptures to prove the "obvious" conclusion that their generation is the final generation. Is it genuinely the return of Christ they want? Or is it some form of generational chauvinism? (I got the term "generational chauvinism" from one of Gary North's writings.)
Let's look at one passage for a moment. Hebrews 1:1-2 states: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 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; . . . ." How can anyone confuse that passage? When speaking of "these last days" in the past tense about God speaking through Jesus Chris, the author of Hebrews is clearly writing about the day he lived in, right? And it's hard to make it mean some future time centuries later. However, interpreters have a way around that inconvenient interpretation. Let's talk about that in the next post.
Also, the word "end." To what end would we be headed in defining that word? Did I just use the word "end" to mean something different than final, chronological time of "the end?" I used it as a synonym for purpose. The word used for end in the Hebrew in key passages like Daniel 8:19 (about knowing "what shall be in the last end"), Deuteronomy 32:20 (about seeing "what their end shall be"), and all the Proverbs passages using the same Hebrew word (like "the end thereof being death").
Therefore, if the words used for end and last in the bible can mean purpose, final, end of an age, etc., we'll need to get our honest interpretive hats on. A text without a context is a pretext. In other words, if I take one verse and focus on that one verse, I can pick and choose what I want it to mean. In other words, it's a pretext for getting the meaning I want out of it. And the meaning most interpreters seem to want from the words "end" and "last days" seems to be the final end of all things, when Jesus Christ returns to judge the entire world in the final judgment. Why would they want that?
It appears that every generation of Christians has wanted to be the "last" generation, the generation during which Jesus returns. You can find interpretations of the bible going back centuries and interpreting various scriptures to prove the "obvious" conclusion that their generation is the final generation. Is it genuinely the return of Christ they want? Or is it some form of generational chauvinism? (I got the term "generational chauvinism" from one of Gary North's writings.)
Let's look at one passage for a moment. Hebrews 1:1-2 states: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 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; . . . ." How can anyone confuse that passage? When speaking of "these last days" in the past tense about God speaking through Jesus Chris, the author of Hebrews is clearly writing about the day he lived in, right? And it's hard to make it mean some future time centuries later. However, interpreters have a way around that inconvenient interpretation. Let's talk about that in the next post.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
The timing matters to your confidence
Timing is very important to your view of the last days or end times. My view is very different from most of the popularizations of these terms. Imagine, if you will, that you're a player on a football team, and you show up for the game after it's over but don't know it. You might go out on the field to do battle for your school with no other team mates. You might end up playing for another team whose game was scheduled after yours. If you lost because you played another team all by yourself, having missed the game, you would go to school the next day and report your bad news. Your school mates might tell you, "Hey, we won, don't be so down. But where were you?" You might be happy to know your team won but sad to know you weren't part of the effort. What if no one told you and let you go away thinking you had lost the game? What if it were the championship game and ruined your entire year? You get the point. Timing is not everything, but it can sure mess alot of things up.
Notice that both John the Baptist and Christ tie repentance to the coming of the kingdom of God/heaven and the timing of its coming.
John: "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mt. 3:2.
Jesus: "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17.
Jesus: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mk 1:25.
Obviously, both Jesus and John equated the kingdom of God with the kingdom of heaven, so we can dispense with the foolishness of vainly trying to distinguish between them. Why do they consider the coming of God's kingdom important in their message? First, because it is true; it was coming. As opposed to the past, there apparently was coming a change in the authoritative ordering of things for human beings on earth. Even though God had always been king of the universe, of heaven and earth, there was coming a time when His kingship would be manifest in such a signficant and palpable way that all men must order their lives to accord with that kingdom, before it arrives.
Recognizing the timing was important. Jesus made it clear to the Pharisees that they had missed the timing profoundly. They had not listened to John's message and, according to Jesus, had thereby showed themselves not just apathetic but arrayed in opposition to that kingdom. There was still hope for them, for Jesus told them he spoke as he did in order that they might believe, but apparently the hour was getting very late as the hour of Christ's death approached. Mt. 24.
What of the timing? Why did both John and Jesus emphasize the timing? Why not just say, "God rules over all the universe, including you; therefore, you should repent?" Isn't that always the case for humans? They owe their lives and being to Him and should honor Him with their obedience. So what's up with the timing portion of the message?
Mt. 24 is Jesus acting in his prophetic office. He brings the indictment against his own people, the people of Israel, and predicts the coming disaster, like nothing they'd seen before, as a consequence of their rejection of their true king, Jesus Christ. Jesus made the timing of that event very clear - "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Mt. 24:34. Any attempt to get around the plain meaning of Jesus' words of timing in this passage are worse than dishonest; they are silly. Typically, these attempts to change the timing to a later generation cut out the meaning Jesus intended for his disciples who asked the question as to the timing of Jerusalem's destruction after Jesus told them that the temple would be utterly demolished. We even have the indisputable history of Jerusalem being destroyed in 70 AD, thereby fulfilling his prophesy within about 40 years after he uttered it.
"At hand." What does that phrase mean to you? How close is your hand to you? What did the people listening think? Did they think, "Oh, he must be talking about the 2nd coming of Christ?" "He must be talking about death and our meeting God in heaven." No, the plain meaning was that the kingdom (in its new presentation) was imminent; therefore, repent or you'll miss out. What was new about it? First, the king himself came to earth to proclaim its arrival. In fact, he was its arrival. That's why Christ went around "doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil." Acts 10:38. He as king over all had power over all and expressed it in goodness to humanity, also showing his good and kind nature as king. He showed he was sovereign and good. With his prediction in Mt. 24 of Israel's destruction he showed that a new order and people were going to continue the covenant election/choosing of those to represent Him on earth. They were heirs by faith of Abraham, Gal. 3, but they need not be physical descendants (they actually never needed to be; remember Rahab, the Canaanite; Ruth, the Moabitess; etc.)
What about the disciples, after the resurrection and during the events in the Book of Acts? Would they have thought, "Oh, remember what Jesus and John said about the kingdom being at hand? We think they meant a kingdom in the sky after our death or some long time into the future." Really? Is that what they would think as they opposed the entire Jewish nation, as they faced up to the mightiest empire on earth, the culmination of Daniel's prophecies of coming kingdoms, the kingdom of iron and clay that would cruelly tread down all in its path? And during which another kingdom would be set up, not made with hands? Do you think there might be a parallel between what Jesus claimed upon the imminence of the kingdom and Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 2? Weren't they presenting a new kingdom, for the present and not future, to replace the old ones? Weren't they emissaries for their King?
Do you still think Jesus and John were not talking about something to happen in their day or at least the days of their followers? I'd like to know why you believe that and how you justify it biblically?
Notice that both John the Baptist and Christ tie repentance to the coming of the kingdom of God/heaven and the timing of its coming.
John: "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mt. 3:2.
Jesus: "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17.
Jesus: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mk 1:25.
Obviously, both Jesus and John equated the kingdom of God with the kingdom of heaven, so we can dispense with the foolishness of vainly trying to distinguish between them. Why do they consider the coming of God's kingdom important in their message? First, because it is true; it was coming. As opposed to the past, there apparently was coming a change in the authoritative ordering of things for human beings on earth. Even though God had always been king of the universe, of heaven and earth, there was coming a time when His kingship would be manifest in such a signficant and palpable way that all men must order their lives to accord with that kingdom, before it arrives.
Recognizing the timing was important. Jesus made it clear to the Pharisees that they had missed the timing profoundly. They had not listened to John's message and, according to Jesus, had thereby showed themselves not just apathetic but arrayed in opposition to that kingdom. There was still hope for them, for Jesus told them he spoke as he did in order that they might believe, but apparently the hour was getting very late as the hour of Christ's death approached. Mt. 24.
What of the timing? Why did both John and Jesus emphasize the timing? Why not just say, "God rules over all the universe, including you; therefore, you should repent?" Isn't that always the case for humans? They owe their lives and being to Him and should honor Him with their obedience. So what's up with the timing portion of the message?
Mt. 24 is Jesus acting in his prophetic office. He brings the indictment against his own people, the people of Israel, and predicts the coming disaster, like nothing they'd seen before, as a consequence of their rejection of their true king, Jesus Christ. Jesus made the timing of that event very clear - "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Mt. 24:34. Any attempt to get around the plain meaning of Jesus' words of timing in this passage are worse than dishonest; they are silly. Typically, these attempts to change the timing to a later generation cut out the meaning Jesus intended for his disciples who asked the question as to the timing of Jerusalem's destruction after Jesus told them that the temple would be utterly demolished. We even have the indisputable history of Jerusalem being destroyed in 70 AD, thereby fulfilling his prophesy within about 40 years after he uttered it.
"At hand." What does that phrase mean to you? How close is your hand to you? What did the people listening think? Did they think, "Oh, he must be talking about the 2nd coming of Christ?" "He must be talking about death and our meeting God in heaven." No, the plain meaning was that the kingdom (in its new presentation) was imminent; therefore, repent or you'll miss out. What was new about it? First, the king himself came to earth to proclaim its arrival. In fact, he was its arrival. That's why Christ went around "doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil." Acts 10:38. He as king over all had power over all and expressed it in goodness to humanity, also showing his good and kind nature as king. He showed he was sovereign and good. With his prediction in Mt. 24 of Israel's destruction he showed that a new order and people were going to continue the covenant election/choosing of those to represent Him on earth. They were heirs by faith of Abraham, Gal. 3, but they need not be physical descendants (they actually never needed to be; remember Rahab, the Canaanite; Ruth, the Moabitess; etc.)
What about the disciples, after the resurrection and during the events in the Book of Acts? Would they have thought, "Oh, remember what Jesus and John said about the kingdom being at hand? We think they meant a kingdom in the sky after our death or some long time into the future." Really? Is that what they would think as they opposed the entire Jewish nation, as they faced up to the mightiest empire on earth, the culmination of Daniel's prophecies of coming kingdoms, the kingdom of iron and clay that would cruelly tread down all in its path? And during which another kingdom would be set up, not made with hands? Do you think there might be a parallel between what Jesus claimed upon the imminence of the kingdom and Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 2? Weren't they presenting a new kingdom, for the present and not future, to replace the old ones? Weren't they emissaries for their King?
Do you still think Jesus and John were not talking about something to happen in their day or at least the days of their followers? I'd like to know why you believe that and how you justify it biblically?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)