"In The Last Days" Acts 2:17

Kurt,

In your latest post (3/11/17, 8:53 AM) you say:

You do have a difficult time bringing yourself to even acknowledge or quote Peter's IN THE LAST DAYS reference. It's like you are trying to sell a car to me at top value while hiding the flood damage.

I’m sorry I disappointed you, I didn’t realize the phrase “in the last days” was important to you.

No, I don’t have a problem with the phrase – it just wasn’t important in the context in which I was speaking. I don’t have a problem with the phrase at all.

First, Peter is quoting Joel 2.28, and the phrase “in the last days” is not written in Joel. Here is Joel in several translations:

(ASV)  And it shall come to pass afterward,

(BBE)  And after that, it will come about,

(CEV)  Later, I will give my Spirit to everyone.

(Darby)  And it shall come to pass afterwards that

(ERV)  "After this, I will pour out my Spirit on all kinds of people.

(ESV)  “And it shall come to pass afterward,

(GNB)  "Afterward I will pour out my Spirit on everyone:

(GW)  "After this, I will pour my Spirit on everyone.

(MSG)  "And that's just the beginning: After that-- "I will pour out my Spirit on every kind of people:

You get the idea.

Here is a quote from Barnes’ Notes on the Bible that has my thought on the phrase in fewer words that I could express it (emphasis is mine).

It shall come to pass - It shall happen, or shall occur.

In the last days - Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, after these things, or afterward. The expression the last days, however, occurs frequently in the Old Testament: Genesis 49:1, Jacob called his sons, that he might tell them what should happen to them in the last days, that is, in future times - Heb. in after times; Micah 4:1, "In the last days (Hebrew: in later times) the mountain of the Lord's house," etc.; Isaiah 2:2, "in the last days the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the tops of the mountains," etc. The expression then properly denoted "the future times" in general. But, as the coming of the Messiah was to the eye of a Jew the most important event in the coming ages - the great, glorious, and crowning scene in all the vast futurity, the phrase came to be regarded as properly expressive of that. It stood in opposition to the usual denomination of earlier times.

It was a phrase in contrast with the days of the patriarchs, the kings, the prophets, etc. The last days, or the closing period of the world, were the days of the Messiah. It does not appear from this, and it certainly is not implied in the expression, that they supposed the world would then come to an end. Their views were just the contrary. They anticipated a long and glorious time under the dominion of the Messiah, and to this expectation they were led by the promise that his kingdom should be forever; that of the increase of his government there should be no end, etc.

This expression was understood by the writers of the New Testament as referring undoubtedly to the times of the gospel. And hence they often used it as denoting that the time of the expected Messiah had come, but not to imply that the world was drawing near to an end: Hebrews 1:2, "God hath spoken in these last days by his Son"; 1 Peter 1:20, "Was manifested in these last times for you"; 2 Peter 3:3; 1 Peter 1:5; 1 John 2:18, "Little children, it is the last time," etc.; Jde 1:18. The expression the last day is applied by our Saviour to the resurrection and the day of judgment, John 6:39-40, John 6:44-45; John 11:24; John 12:48. Here the expression means simply "in those future times, when the Messiah shall have come."

From this, I hope, you can understand that I have no problem with the phrase! And you’ll be able to understand that I don’t think the phrase is indicating the immediate return of Christ, because it’s just 50+ days past his crucifixion and resurrection.

There is no place in the New Testament, that I know of, where anyone complained that Christ had not returned in their lifetime. They were, like we are, looking for his return, expecting his return, and keeping watch as Jesus told them to. But no one called him wrong, nor lamented that he’d not already returned. And since God had made Jesus both Lord and Christ, I’m not going to call him wrong! Not now, not ever!

Acts 2-7 Revisited

Kurt,

This is a ‘quick’ response to your last post …

In the first paragraph, you make this observation about my understanding of Acts 2-7:

“It is clear your presuppositions drive your research. You set out with an idea you want to believe and then pick and choose the verses that supports what you set out to prove and leave out the context, thus giving a very distorted view. There are more legitimate ways of dealing with issues, but your technique is not one of them, …”

I that’s interesting observation, because that is exactly what I thought you were doing! It seems to me that you have come to the conclusion that the main concern of the apostles was deciding when Jesus was returning, and you’ve made up your mind that Jesus was wrong (therefore not be the Son of God, and one that could not offer a sinless life in exchange for our sins), and then you search out the verses that you feel support that theory.

I’m not interested in finger pointing, but since we both had the same thought about the ‘other’ I felt it was worth mentioning.

I’m going to go over my position on Acts 2-7 one more time, just touching the highlights.

In Acts 2, 50+ days after the Passover and Jesus’s death and resurrection, when there were people in town from at least 13 countries, a once in a lifetime event occurred and the people from each of those countries heard the apostles speaking to them at 9 AM in their own language.

To explain why and how these folks could hear them speaking in their own language, Peter quoted from the prophet Joel. He didn’t quote Joel exactly and everything he quoted from Joel didn’t happen that day.

Peter’s Joel quote ends in v-21 and then Peter applies the verse he’d just quoted by saying:

Act 2:22-24 NET.  "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know — (23)  this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.  (24)  But God raised him up, having released him from the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held in its power.

That is clear enough for me – Peter was talking about Christ and his resurrection! And he continues with this same theme:

Act 2:32 NET.  This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it.

As a result of this fact Pete explains:

Act 2:33 NET.  So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and heAR.

Peter’s purpose was to explain what they had just seen and heard, Peter continues:

Act 2:36 NET.  Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ."

From those verses, it seems to me, and I’m just speaking for me, that the point of Peter’s Joel quote was to explain that God poured out his Holy Spirit after he’d declared Jesus both LORD and CHRIST. Just as a side note, because of what God did I don’t have the interest or fortitude to call Jesus an ignorant liar and deceiver of the apostles.

When the convicted crowd ask Peter what to do he said:

Act 2:38-39 CEV  Peter said, "Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.  (39)  This promise is for you and your children. It is for everyone our Lord God will choose, no matter where they live."

Act 2:40 CEV  Peter told them many other things as well. Then he said, "I beg you to save yourselves from what will happen to all these evil people."

Therefore, I’ll say it again, as I read Peter’s sermon the emphasis is on Jesus, his death, his resurrection, him being both Lord and Christ, and then his pouring out his Holy Spirit. He declared how God would give his Holy Spirit to everyone “no matter where they live.”

To repeat my previous blog, I don’t see any evidence in Acts 2-7 that the disciples were concerned with Jesus coming back immediately.

Glossing over the rest of the New Testament, the next generation of Christians didn’t feel cheated because Jesus didn’t come during their life time. Even Polycarp, probably the last Christian that knew one of the 12 disciples (Polycarp was a student of John) was burned at the stake, at age 86, because he would not deny Christ. There are people that will give their lives for a belief (ISIS being one) but I don’t know anyone that would give their life for a known lie. (e.g. Jesus didn’t tell the truth).

What I’m saying is, whatever Jesus said about things that would happen in ‘that generation’ it didn’t bother the early Christians that heard it. They understood it well enough to give their lives for Jesus who is both LORD and CHRIST and to call upon us to be ambassadors for Christ. They would not follow him knowing he was lying. Certainly, the next generation of Christians knew he didn’t return during the lifetime of the first generation. And they didn’t understand Jesus to be lying, and Christianity has been growing ever since Acts 2 and it keeps growing today.

Therefore, I don’t think it prudent, 2000 years later, to say “I’ve found Jesus to be a liar!” and therefore cannot be trusted.

I hope this is helpful in comprehending how I understand Acts 2-7. 

Acts 2 Believer's Main Concern

You asked the question:

“Do you still believe that the early Christians in Acts did not believe Jesus would return in their lifetimes?”

The answer to that question will take more than a text message will allow.

Our current discussions are centered on Acts 2-7, so I’ll take that time period for what I understand “the early Christians in Acts” refers to.

Acts 2 is 50+ days after Jesus’ crucifixion. There were people in town from all over the world as presented in the “Acts 2 and A Commune Church” map. They did not have any written New Testament books, they only had the verbal input from the disciples. At that time, Luke, the Gentile, was not a believer.

When Peter spoke in Acts 2, his main point was:

Act 2:32  This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it.

Act 2:36  Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.

After that speech, they wanted to know how to be saved!

The next major speech from this period is Stephen’s in Acts 7 and he concentrates on the law and history.

Act 7:51  "You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did!

So, from the recorded speeches and events, I’d say no, they were not concerned about Jesus’ immediate return, they were more concerned about the meaning of his resurrection and how to be saved.

It would be 30+ years before Luke would write his Gospel and the Book of Acts.