Michael stands up - Daniel 12:1, Revelation 12:7-9

[grafted branch]

What do you mean by that exactly that "the old covenant did not vanish until 70 AD"?

In the new covenant there is no difference between Jew and Gentile (Romans 10:12), in the old covenant there was a difference. The last act of the Gentiles in the book of Daniel was to destroy Jerusalem (make the old covenant vanish), that’s why the old covenant was obsolete as far as obedience to the Mosaic law and the need to make sacrifices but had not yet vanished.

If the Gentiles are still trodding down Jerusalem or we are still in the times of the Gentiles then there still is a difference between Jew and Gentile, which would mean the old covenant is still hanging around.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

In the new covenant there is no difference between Jew and Gentile (Romans 10:12), in the old covenant there was a difference. The last act of the Gentiles in the book of Daniel was to destroy Jerusalem (make the old covenant vanish), that’s why the old covenant was obsolete as far as obedience to the Mosaic law and the need to make sacrifices but had not yet vanished.

Do you believe that the old covenant was still in effect up until 70 AD? If so, I couldn't disagree more. The only thing about the old covenant that vanished in 70 AD was the traces of its existence like the temple buildings. But, it was not in effect at all after Christ's death. The new covenant fully replaced it at that point.

If the Gentiles are still trodding down Jerusalem or we are still in the times of the Gentiles then there still is a difference between Jew and Gentile, which would mean the old covenant is still hanging around.

I don't know what you mean by this. The old covenant was completely obsolete after Christ's death, so it was not still hanging around in 70 AD. Just traces of it were, but it was not in effect whatsoever. Luke 21:24 is talking about the city of Jerusalem being physically trodden down by the Gentiles. That did not end in 70 AD. It indicates that the times of the Gentiles would continue while the city of Jerusalem was trodden down by the Gentiles.

 

[grafted branch]

Do you believe that the old covenant was still in effect up until 70 AD? If so, I couldn't disagree more. The only thing about the old covenant that vanished in 70 AD was the traces of its existence like the temple buildings. But, it was not in effect at all after Christ's death. The new covenant fully replaced it at that point.

The difference between Jew and Gentile still existed until 70AD as it pertained to the old covenant. At the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15:28-29 this is evident by the Holy Spirit being in agreement to the burden put on the Gentiles being different than that of the Jews.

Luke 21:24 is talking about the city of Jerusalem being physically trodden down by the Gentiles. That did not end in 70 AD. It indicates that the times of the Gentiles would continue while the city of Jerusalem was trodden down by the Gentiles.

Then would you say that there still is a difference between Jew and Gentile? Or do you think everyone is now considered Gentile and we all are trodding Jerusalem, even those who currently live in Jerusalem?

 

[CoreyD]

Yes, I agree. For example we shouldn’t look in a Bible book such as Matthew, for an answer we are looking for, perhaps because we have an idea about it (from an interpretation of Daniel) and because we don't see the answer in that book, decide we are just going to ignore what the book says, in contradiction to our idea, and decide to run with our idea.

Good.
Nor should we think that our idea that a scripture in Matthew, or our thinking, answers a question that Daniel clearly answers, is correct, and run with that.
For example, thinking that the stone God used in Nebuchadnezzar's dream to represent the kingdom, is something else, despite an angelic messenger of God, clearly pointing out what the stone represents, contrary to our idea.

I'm glad you agree to that point.

Yes, the chief priest and Pharisees possessed the kingdom in the first century and they specifically had possession of it when the Matthew 23:33-46 parable was told to them by Jesus.

The kingdom was taken from them and given to a nation producing the fruits thereof. Galatians 5:22 tells us what the fruits of the spirit are and since Galatians was written somewhere in the late 40’s to early 50’s we know that the fruits were being produced then.

I guess now I should come to the conclusion that we are both in agreement on this?

Clearly, we aren't.

The kingdom of God - an expression of God's sovereignty / rulership - was ruled represented by the kings of Israel.
David sat on God’s throne. Solomon sat on God’s throne. All the kings of Judah sat on God's throne.
1 Chronicles 28:5
And of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons) He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.
See 1 Chronicles 17:14

God's kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and because God chose the nation of Israel, as his special property, the nation of Israel inherited the kingdom, through a covenant God made with them. Exodus 19:3-6; Jeremiah 33:20, 21
When did they inherit the kingdom?
In the third month after the Israelites went out of the land of Egypt, on the same day, they came to the wilderness of Siʹnai. Exodus 19:1

Was this the kingdom God set up, according to Daniel 2:44? Yes and No. Technically.
The kingdom God sets up, is a new expression of God's sovereignty / rulership.
How do we know?

Genesis 49:10​

The scepter [- a symbol of sovereignty -] shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people.​

​

Luke 1:32, 33​

32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”​

​

2 Peter 1:11​

for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.​

​

Revelation 3:21​

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.​

The Messiah did not sit on God's throne, until Daniel 7:13, 14
That was long after Gabriel's words were uttered to Mary : He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
That's when Shiloh came. That's when a new expression of God's sovereignty / rulership was established.
Hence, the kingdom did not begin ruling before then.

So, we revisit Jesus illustration.
Matthew 13:37-44
37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will [g]render to him the fruits in their seasons.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

When the one with the legal right to the kingdom came, the chief priests and the Pharisees rejected him - killed him actually.
Jesus informed them that they lost their inheritance. It would be taken from them, and given to persons who bore fruit.

Conclusion :
#1
You said you don't know when the chief priests and Pharisees possessed the kingdom, but you are guessing the first century. Why?
The scriptures tell us the nation of Israel possessed the kingdom in the third month after the Israelites went out of the land of Egypt.
They inherited it as a nation. Not in the first century.
However, actually retaining that inheritance was conditional - if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant Exodus 19:5

#2
The scriptures show the kingdom of God, is an expression of God's sovereignty - a rulership or government.
Hence God's kingdom is forever, but the administration changes. First - the kings of Judah, including Hezekiah, Josiah, David, and Solomon, then finally - Shiloh - the Messiah - Jesus the Christ.

We have examples of how this works.
The kingdom of England, has different expression of that rulership or government, under different administrations, and rulers.
I think @David Kent was trying to explain this to you.

#3
We learned from Gabriel whom Shiloh is, and it was prophesied that he would sit on God's throne. Luke 1:32, 33
We learned from Daniel, when that took place. Daniel 7:14, 14, 27
Looking forward to the fulfillment of very important prophecy.

The responsibility of the Messiah's rule. Why a new expression of God's sovereignty / rulership.
Isaiah 9:

6 For unto us a Child is born,​

Unto us a Son is given;​

And the government will be upon His shoulder.​

And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.​

7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end,​

Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,​

To order it and establish it with judgment and justice​

From that time forward, even forever.​

The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.​

Ephesians 1:

9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,​

1 Corinthians 15:

24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.​

It would be nice if you agree.

 

[CoreyD]

It doesn't look like Peter agrees with you:

Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 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: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Peter indicated that they were already in the last days on the day of Pentecost long ago. And the last days continue up until the future second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4).

Peter certainly wasn't contradicting himself, nor Paul, or Jesus.
So, it's definitely a case of what Jesus said, about having ears to hear. In other words, using spiritual discernment or understanding.

Jesus' followers certainly needed that, in order to understand there was a last days for the Jewish system, and a last days for a future system - which is this system. Matthew 24:3-42

So, when we read text, such as:
2 Timothy 3: But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come
We too, need to have ears to hear.

What helps with that, is explained by Jesus. Matthew 13:10-16

 

[CoreyD]

Because of this passage (I did reference Job in my post):

Job 1:6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”

Where else besides the third heaven could be the location of what is described here? The Lord is in the third heaven, right? So, where else could the angels have presented themselves before the Lord?

The highest heavens - the highest dwelling - where God dwells. Deuteronomy 10:14;

 

[grafted branch]

It would be nice if you agree.

I don’t have an issue with most of what you said but you still seem to be side stepping the fact that the chief priest and Pharisees have to possess the kingdom at some point in time, in order for it to be taken from them.

Conclusion :
#1
You said you don't know when the chief priests and Pharisees possessed the kingdom, but you are guessing the first century. Why?

Because that’s when they were alive on earth. You still haven’t given a direct answer as to when you think they did or will possess the kingdom.

Are you willing to give a direct answer or not?

 

[CoreyD]

I don’t have an issue with most of what you said but you still seem to be side stepping the fact that the chief priest and Pharisees have to possess the kingdom at some point in time, in order for it to be taken from them.


Because that’s when they were alive on earth. You still haven’t given a direct answer as to when you think they did or will possess the kingdom.

Are you willing to give a direct answer or not?

Perhaps you aren't reading my posts carefully.
You aren't so wrapped up in your idea, to consider what goes against it, are you?

Perhaps read the post again. I know it's a lot, and some people don't like reading, so they fly through text - skim, through, like someone who flips the pages of a book, looking for particular words.
I hope you didn't do that, but you missed something, obviously.

 

[grafted branch]

Perhaps you aren't reading my posts carefully.
You aren't so wrapped up in your idea, to consider what goes against it, are you?

Perhaps read the post again. I know it's a lot, and some people don't like reading, so they fly through text - skim, through, like someone who flips the pages of a book, looking for particular words.
I hope you didn't do that, but you missed something, obviously.

I read it very carefully, it appears to me that you think that the chief priest and Pharisees possessed the kingdom as part of national Israel’s possession of the kingdom. If that’s what you think, then just say it.

The problem,as I think you know already, would be that national Israel loses the kingdom, and I don’t think you agree with that so you’re not giving a direct answer.

 

[CoreyD]

I read it very carefully, it appears to me that you think that the chief priest and Pharisees possessed the kingdom as part of national Israel’s possession of the kingdom. If that’s what you think, then just say it.

The problem,as I think you know already, would be that national Israel loses the kingdom, and I don’t think you agree with that so you’re not giving a direct answer.

national Israel loses the kingdom

Please explain.

 

[grafted branch]

Please explain.

If the chief priest and Pharisees possession of the kingdom is representative of national Israel’s possession then according to Matthew 21:43 the kingdom is taken from them, they lose it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The difference between Jew and Gentile still existed until 70AD as it pertained to the old covenant. At the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15:28-29 this is evident by the Holy Spirit being in agreement to the burden put on the Gentiles being different than that of the Jews.

I couldn't disagree more. These passages were written before 70 AD and they very specifically indicate there was made no difference between Jew and Gentile before then:

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Romans 10: 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Then would you say that there still is a difference between Jew and Gentile? Or do you think everyone is now considered Gentile and we all are trodding Jerusalem, even those who currently live in Jerusalem?

I don't know what you are talking about here. What does Luke 21:24 have to do with differences between Jews and Gentiles? It doesn't. It has to do with Gentiles trodding on the land of Jerusalem. They did so in 70 AD and they have trodded on it ever since. There's still no temple for the Jews there and never will be again.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Peter certainly wasn't contradicting himself, nor Paul, or Jesus.
So, it's definitely a case of what Jesus said, about having ears to hear. In other words, using spiritual discernment or understanding.

Jesus' followers certainly needed that, in order to understand there was a last days for the Jewish system, and a last days for a future system - which is this system. Matthew 24:3-42

So, when we read text, such as:
2 Timothy 3: But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come
We too, need to have ears to hear.

What helps with that, is explained by Jesus. Matthew 13:10-16

Having ears to hear includes reading what scripture says carefully. As I showed, using scripture, the last days had already begun long ago since they had already begun before day of Pentecost and they last until the second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4). This is clearly indicated in scripture. So, if you want to refer to a short time before the second coming of Christ it would be better to refer to that with a different term in order to avoid confusion. I think "later times" (or "latter times") is a better choice. Or "Satan's little season" since I'm an Amil and see that as occurring just before Christ's second coming.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

When referencing "later times" here Paul is not talking about things that were already happening at that time such as was the case in regards to "the last days".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The highest heavens - the highest dwelling - where God dwells. Deuteronomy 10:14;

Do you not think that God dwells in the third heaven? If not, then what is your understanding of the third heaven, which Paul also called "paradise" (2 Cor 12:2-4)?

 

[grafted branch]

I don't know what you are talking about here. What does Luke 21:24 have to do with differences between Jews and Gentiles? It doesn't. It has to do with Gentiles trodding on the land of Jerusalem. They did so in 70 AD and they have trodded on it ever since. There's still no temple for the Jews there and never will be again.

I can’t tell what you’re talking about either. On the one hand you want to say there is no difference between Jew and Gentile then on the other hand you say it is the Gentiles that are trodding Jerusalem.

Is there still a distinction between them or not? If there is no distinction then I assume you would think everyone is currently a Gentile but you haven’t acknowledged that point. Where do you stand?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I can’t tell what you’re talking about either.

Then let's try to both communicate more clearly and be as specific as we possibly can.

On the one hand you want to say there is no difference between Jew and Gentile

It has nothing to do with what I want to say. It's what scripture says, as I showed.

then on the other hand you say it is the Gentiles that are trodding Jerusalem.

That has nothing to do with there being no difference between Jew and Gentile. There being no difference between Jew and Gentile has to do with the fact that the only way to be saved is through faith and one's ethnicity or nationality has nothing to do with it. That has been the case since immediately after Christ's death and resurrection. The old covenant was rendered completely obsolete immediately upon Christ's death. The tearing of the temple veil in two signified that. The new covenant was fully established and put into effect at that point. The idea that the old covenant was still in effect in any way, shape or form after Christ's death and resurrection is absolutely false. Why would the old covenant animal sacrifices still be required at all for even a second after Jesus made His once for all sacrifice? That makes no sense.

Is there still a distinction between them or not?

Not in the church, which is what matters.

If there is no distinction then I assume you would think everyone is currently a Gentile but you haven’t acknowledged that point. Where do you stand?

There is a distinction ethnically, but in terms of what God requires from people, there is no distinction. He requires faith from all people regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile. Following the law of Moses was no longer required after Christ's death and resurrection.

 

[grafted branch]

That has nothing to do with there being no difference between Jew and Gentile. There being no difference between Jew and Gentile has to do with the fact that the only way to be saved is through faith and one's ethnicity or nationality has nothing to do with it. That has been the case since immediately after Christ's death and resurrection.

I agree with you here.

The idea that the old covenant was still in effect in any way, shape or form after Christ's death and resurrection is absolutely false. Why would the old covenant animal sacrifices still be required at all for even a second after Jesus made His once for all sacrifice? That makes no sense.

If that’s the case then why at the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15:28-29 is the Holy Spirit in agreement to the burden put on the Gentiles being different than that of the Jews.

Not in the church, which is what matters.

So then the times of the Gentiles has nothing to do with the church, since there is no difference in the church, right?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree with you here.

At least we agree on something. I'll take it.

If that’s the case then why at the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15:28-29 is the Holy Spirit in agreement to the burden put on the Gentiles being different than that of the Jews.

Because that was still in the early days of the New Testament (or new covenant) church and the Holy Spirit knew it would take some time for Jewish believers to understand that they were no longer under the law. He allowed them to stay in ignorance for a time while they adjusted to the new covenant and the freedom that comes with it in Christ without the burden of following 613 commandments. So, the Holy Spirit allowed them to make the Gentiles follow just a few commandments of the law of Moses as a compromise out of the desire for unity amongst Jews and Gentiles in the church.

I'm sure they would have liked to try to make the Gentiles follow all 613 commandments of the law of Moses, but the Holy Spirit certainly would not allow for that nonsense. But, in the interest of unity in the church, the Holy Spirit allowed them to require the Gentiles to follow a few of the commandments. That was just a temporary thing while they were still immature Christians. That was better than allowing Jew and Gentile Christians to be divided over what type of rules they should follow. As they matured as Christians in the coming years they would all come to realize that those laws were not required under the new covenant and they were free to eat what they wanted and so on.

So then the times of the Gentiles has nothing to do with the church, since there is no difference in the church, right?

Right. Look at the context of Luke 21:20-24 where the times of the Gentiles is referenced. There's nothing written about the church there.

 

[CoreyD]

If the chief priest and Pharisees possession of the kingdom is representative of national Israel’s possession then according to Matthew 21:43 the kingdom is taken from them, they lose it.

If you are saying that national Israel lost their inheritance, that was in point #1 of my conclusion.

#1​

You said you don't know when the chief priests and Pharisees possessed the kingdom, but you are guessing the first century. Why?​

The scriptures tell us the nation of Israel possessed the kingdom in the third month after the Israelites went out of the land of Egypt.​

They inherited it as a nation. Not in the first century.​

However, actually retaining that inheritance was conditional - if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant Exodus 19:5​

If we agree on that, there is no problem, then. Right?

The remnant of faithful Jews, along with the grafted in Gentiles, is not national Israel, but the Israel of God Galatians 6:1, which is not God's children by physical descent. Romans 9:6-8; Romans 2:28, 29.

Think of it this way.
Your dad promises you some property he possesses.
Your dad gives you the Title Deed.

A Title Deed is defined as :
a legal deed or document constituting evidence of a right, especially to ownership of property.

You have the right of ownership of the property.
However, it is not in your hands. You don't actually physically own it.
The Title Deed can either be lost, or legally taken from you. How? If you signed a bilateral agreement, or contract, and you failed to keep your end of the agreement.
You will lose the inheritance.
That's the case with the chief priests and Pharisees, who were a part of national Israel, who signed such an agreement.


I feel as though we have gotten sidetracked from the point though. Do you feel similar?
The point is not whether or not the priests and Pharisees lost the inheritance, or the kingdom.
The point is, when they gained the inheritance, or kingdom, because unless we acknowledge this, we are simply going by our idea, or guess, which isn't really important.
I answer that question, but I don't mind repeating it for a third time, to emphasize it. However, I want to tell you a short story. It's a true story. It's a story you know, as well.

Once upon a time, in a land far away... In a palace of a king.
Seriously, In a king's palace, in a land far away from us, Jesus was having a conversation - if we can call it that - with the king.
It was a once in a lifetime opportunity, which Jesus was not have gotten otherwise. Jesus used the opportunity to witness to the king.

The king said to Jesus : “Are You a king then?”

Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”​

The king said to Jesus, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out...​

We all know that account. John 18:37, 38

Jesus basically said, he came to reveal the truth.
Pilate's response was, basically, "Truth? There is no truth."

Now this is very popular claim on campus because of deconstructionism and postmodernism - the radical skepticism that’s sweeping the academy. It’s the idea that you can’t know anything for sure. Nothing is set in concrete. Everything is influenced by our culture, our upbringing and our presuppositions, so it’s impossible to get at any objective truth.

I personally believe the "There is no truth" philosophy, and the "Everyone decides their own truth" concept, are Satanic.
I believe it's another lie Satan promotes.

Pilate adopted the Satanic propaganda. Many today adopt it.
I believe, many people who identify as Christian have also adopted this concept, when they use terms like "my interpretation, your interpretation"; "what you think, what I think", when it comes to the scripture.

Jesus said, his disciples will know the truth. John 8:31, 32
This is not a case of, not being sure, and saying it's their interpretation. Would you agree.
It was a case of what the word of God says. We also have an example in Acts 17:10-13

10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. 13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds.​

So, hopefully, we can come to agree on a conclusion from scripture.
What I have presented, is not what I think, but if you think it is, going forward in conversation, I'll be asking you to point out where the scripture is not saying the comment I make.
We could do that here.
Exodus 19:
1 In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on the same day, they came to the Wilderness of Sinai. 2 For they had departed from Rephidim, had come to the Wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness. So Israel camped there before the mountain.
3 And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”
See Deuteronomy 7:6; Deuteronomy 14:2

So, are these scriptures not saying that God chose the nation as his special possession - making a covenant with them for them to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, through bilateral agreement?
Would they have been such, had they kept their side of the agreement.

P.S.
Could you let me know if I am saying too much in my post. I would try to shorten it, if it's too much. Thanks.
I thought the little story was absolutely necessary, to make my point though. So, some things would be unavoidable. I hope you understand. Thanks for your patience.

 

[CoreyD]

Having ears to hear includes reading what scripture says carefully. As I showed, using scripture, the last days had already begun long ago since they had already begun before day of Pentecost and they last until the second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4). This is clearly indicated in scripture. So, if you want to refer to a short time before the second coming of Christ it would be better to refer to that with a different term in order to avoid confusion. I think "later times" (or "latter times") is a better choice. Or "Satan's little season" since I'm an Amil and see that as occurring just before Christ's second coming.

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

When referencing "later times" here Paul is not talking about things that were already happening at that time such as was the case in regards to "the last days".

You only have to answer this 'yes' or 'no'. In the Bible, are there many last days?