Last days

Have we been in the last days for the last 2000 years??? Huh??? Something doesn't seem right about that. I think we can do better in providing some more realistic parameters to "these last days" (written in 68 A.D.) and "the last time". Come on, now, 2000 years just isn't believable. Those expressions denoted NEARNESS, not a vast, airy expanse of time covering however many thousands of years it takes to see Jesus seated on a big chair in Jerusalem. The Lord never said that would happen, by the way. The "throne of his glory" is where he said he would sit, and that's in heaven.

I say the last days was 30-70 A.D., since "the end" was connected to the end of the Old Covenant, which happened in 70A.D. This view allows us to take all the imminency statements at face-value in their original context, as they should be interpreted.

 

The enemies of Jesus were the Jews. There is a verse for that too! The Jews were the enemies of Jesus, the Church and the gospel - read I Thes.2:14-16. Read it now.

The first century "scoffers/mockers" (Peter, Jude) were also the Jews. Notice the terminology in II Peter 3:2-4 - "since the fathers fell asleep". "The fathers" was an expression denoting the Jewish fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In II Pet.2:3, the judgment of the Jewish false teachers would "linger not nor slumber not". No more delay! That matches precisely to I Peter 4:7, where Peter wrote, "The end of all things is at hand NEAR)." Near, not far! 2000 years is NOT near!!!!! Peter heard the Lord tell about the destruction of Jerusalem and how that that fulfilled "all that was written". 70 A.D. was indeed "near" to the dating of Peter's epistles. You can't have imminency in the first century and then say it's still imminent in 20005. Either it was imminent in Peter's time or it wasn't. You can't have it both ways. Either it was true or a lie. It was true, since the Lord's coming was directly linked to "the tribulation of those days", i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 70 A.D. fell squarely within the parameters of "this generation".

 

Posttrib, the problem right from the start was a misunderstanding of the nature of the kingdom. The earliest voices post 70 A.D. held to IMMINENCE. Why? Because they were near to the destructuion of Jerusalem in time, and that is what the Lord taught. Very plain. Eventually, the Church fathers had to explain the "non-return" as they got further and further outside the parameters of "this generation". So what eventually came forth was the idea of DELAY. Christ had obviously decided to DELAY his return. Never mind that this contradicted the scriptures, the church fathers had spoken. The church has been teaching delay ever since.

There were preterist concepts floating around from very early on. But they say the end as being a global conflagration instead of seeing 70 A.d. and it's SPIRITUAL significance. The kibngdom is HEAVENLY, make no mistake about that. Same problem the Jews had.