What did the Apostle John mean? "Young children, it is the last hour..."

by truthseeker 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • truthseeker
    truthseeker

    After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD and Masada, the last Jewish stronghold in 73AD, it would seem that all of Jesus' prophecies regarding Jerusalem's destruction would have been fulfilled.

    If you have a NWT Bible, notice that no Bible writers other than John actually wrote anything after 65AD.

    The Christian community began to flourish some years into Paul's missionary activity, so much so that Paul stated, "the good news has been preached in under all creation" (I forget the exact scripture)

    Twenty-six years later, the Apostle John wrote the at 1 John 18, "Young children, it is the last hour, and just as YOU have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour."

    What specifically was John talking about when he mentioned, "the last hour." The last hour of what? A time period? Armaggedon? Or another tribulation.

    Was this an hour of 60 minutes, 60 days or 60 months? Why does no other Bible writer refer to "the last hour" ?

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    In the few "futurist" passages in the Gospel of John (possibly added by a later redactor), the future "Day of Judgment" is referred to as the "last day" (John 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24, 12:48). 1 John also refers specifically to the coming "Day of Judgment" (1 John 4:17). Meanwhile, "hour" is used distinctively in John to refer to the decisive time of Jesus' own judgment and death (cf. John 2:4, 7:30, 8:20, 12:23, 27). One possible interpretation is that the author of 1 John means a decisive period of crisis immediately preceding the "Day of Judgment" by the expression of "last hour". That would fit with the use of "hour" in John and the contextual references to antichrists as an indicator of the "last hour".

    BTW, it is not known whether the "Apostle John" wrote 1 John. The homily is anonymous. 2 and 3 John are attributed to Presbyter John, who most likely was a different John than the apostle. Also, it is not true that most of the NT was written before AD 70. Indeed, only the authentic Pauline epistles were likely written before that date (and the sayings gospel later incorporated into the synoptics). According to most schoalrs, Mark was first published sometime around AD 70, possibly just a few years later.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    He wrote the letter at 5:00 AM... the 23rd hour of the Jewish day.

  • truthseeker
    truthseeker

    Thansk Leolaia for your insights. The Watchtower NWT gives a list of the books and the dates they were written, but they never said where they got these dates from.

    Do you have any info about what happened after the last apostle died? Was there anything written from a historical standpoint? How did 1st century Christians react when John died, and what did they look forward too?

    If I was living back then, it would be my perspective that once all the apostles died, there would be this, "well, what do we do now?" kind of thing.

    Jesus did say that he would be with Christians to the "conclusion of the system of things" yet no one has anything solid to back up this statement do they? It's hard to prove that someone is with you when they are invisible.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    The dates in the NWT are based more on late tradition and wishful thinking than actual evidence. Most scholars do not agree with the Society on the dates of the gospels, Ephesians, the Pastorals (1, 2 Timothy, Titus), and the catholic epistles (Hebrews, James, 1, 2 Peter, Jude).

    A few of the post-apostolic books in the NT do indeed comment on the death of the apostles. In particular, Christians suffered from the effects of cognitive dissonance because of unfulfilled apostolic prophecy, as well as experienced an increased hierarchical organization in the Church (cf. the Pastorals). The epistle of Jude, written sometime between AD 70-100, exhorted Christians to recall what the former apostles had taught "beforehand":

    "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand (proeirémenón) by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, 'In the last time (eskhatou tou khronou) there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.' These are the ones who cause divisions, wordly-minded, devoid of the Spirit" (Jude 17-19).

    The apostles were no longer around to give guidance to the Christian community in this time of crisis. Sometime later in the second century AD (see the following thread on its dating and authorship), the pseudonymous author of 2 Peter plagiarized the text of Jude but was even more explicit on the situation:

    "I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand (proeirémenón) by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles. Know this first of all, that in the last days (eskhatón tón hémerón) mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers (hoi pateres) fell asleep [in death] (ekoiméthésan), all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that ... with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentence....You, therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand (proginóskontes), be on your guard lest you fall from your own steadfastness" (2 Peter 2:1-5, 8-9, 17).

    Here the author makes direct reference to the death of the first generation (the "fathers") and the failure of Christ's parousia to appear as expected. The author rationalizes the failed prophecy by saying that it could take as long as a thousand years to happen and in the meantime the Lord is patiently waiting for as many people to be saved as possible. Again, the "apostles" were already in the past, so that their commands could be lumped together with the words of the OT prophets as equally "spoken beforehand".

    It was during this period that Revelation was published to keep apocalyptic expectations in the forefront. There is copious evidence that many of the Gentile churches, especially in Asia Minor, were setting aside such expectations for more mundane worldly concerns. Thus, the church at Ephesus was said to "have left your first love," and to the church of Sardis, the apocalypsist made Jesus say: "I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain....remember what you have received and heard, and keep it and repent. If you do not wake up, I will come like a thief" (Revelation 2:4-5, 3:1-3). To the church of Laodicea, John complained that they were "lukewarm" because they "have become wealthy and have need of nothing" (3:15-17). Similarly, there was the situation about Valens, presbyter of the Philippian church, who fell away due to love of money (Polycarp, Phil. 11:1-2), and the similar situation of the children of Hermas of Rome (cf. Shepherd, Vision 1.3.1-4; 2.6.1-8), as well as the general "lack of community spirit" in the church where people "exult in their wealth" and the leaders "are calloused and don't want to cleanse their hearts" (Vision 3.9.4-10). There were also strenuous efforts to impose a new hierarchical organization to the churches (cf. the bishops, presbyters, and deacons of the Pastorals and the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp), which was resented by some and led to the defection of certain churches (who did not want such leadership) from the growing "universal" (katholike) church. And there was an ongoing theological struggle of the proto-orthodoxy in trying to define its beliefs and reject certain older beliefs as heretical. Thus we read in early second century writings (100-150 AD):

    "You tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads my bondservants astray, so that they commit immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols and I gave her time to repent and she does not want to repent of her immorality....But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them -- I place no burden on you" (Revelation 2:20-24).
    "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you might not lose what we have accomplished. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God...If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting" (2 John 7-10)
    "Therefore, as the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by himself or through the apostles, so you must not do anything without the bishop and the presbyters. Do not attempt to convince yourselves that anything done apart from the others is right....Do not be deceived by strange doctrines or antiquated myths, since they are worthless. For if we continue to live in accordance to Judaism, we admit that we have not received grace....If then those who had lived in antiquated practices came to newness of hope, [they would] no longer keep the Sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord's Day, on which our life also arose through him and his death (which some deny)" (Ignatius, Magnesians 7:1-9:1).
    "[Jesus] suffered all these things for our sakes, in order that we might be saved; and he truly suffered just as he truly raised himself -- not, as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in appearance only. It is they who exist in appearance only. Indeed, their fate will be determined by what they think: they will become disembodied and demonic....What good does it do me if someone praises me but blasphemes my Lord by not confessing that he was clothed in flesh? Anyone who does not acknowledge this thereby denies him completely and is clothed in a corpse. Given that they are unbelievers, it did not seem worthwhile to me to record their names....Note well those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us; note how contrary they are to the mind of God. They have no concern for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed...They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" (Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 2:1, 5:2-3, 6:2).
    "The Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from certain foods...Have nothing to do with worldly myths fit only for old women.....Avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place and thus they upset the faith of some" (1 Timothy 4:1-3, 7; 2 Timothy 2:16-18).
    "For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist, and whoever does not acknowledge the testimony of the cross is of the Devil, and whoever twists the sayings of the Lord to suit his own desires and claims that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, well that person is the firstborn of Satan. Therefore let us leave behind the worthless speculation of the crowd and their false teachings, and let us return to the word delivered to us from the beginning" (Polycarp, Philippians 7:1-2).
    "There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves....After they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, becoming worse than in the beginning...In all [Paul's] letters, he speaks of these things, in which there are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable twist, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 2:1, 20; 3:16).

    Hopefully that gives you some concept of how the proto-orthodoxy reacted to the death of the apostles and their competition with the spectrum of Christianity that did not move in lockstep with the beliefs and practices of the post-apostolic churches headed by bishops, deacons, and presbyters.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    How did 1st century Christians react when John died, and what did they look forward too?

    It is far from certain that John was the "last apostle". There appears to have been some confusion in the second century between Apostle John and Presbyter John, who was the presbyter of Ephesus in the early second century AD and who wrote 2, 3 John and possibly published Revelation, as well as preaching against the teachings of Cerinthus. Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who personally knew Presbyter John, distinguished between the two. However, Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, confused the two and tradition ever since has confused the two (except for Eusebius, who recognized that Presbyter John was different from the apostle). There is also a tradition found as early as Mark and Papias that claimed that Apostle John was martyred early on with his brother James.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Truth seeker, your questions are good. Keep asking. The answers are not found in theological debate but with a broader understanding of the developments within Christian sects of the first 4 centuries. If I were to say for example that the very idea of the "apostles" was not original to the movement it would seem quite bizarre no doubt. Yet it does seem that the idea of a band of priveledged and empowered protege's of the Jesus character was a later developement. 12 was a mystic number, and so 12 were 'called'. The movement soon required a corpus of tradition and doctrine and so legendary characters were created as spokesmen of the heavenly Christ. Oral traditions were recast as authoritative books psuedonymously attributed to these new "Apostles" (capitalized to imply office). Some of the names like John, James may have been pulled from real historical stories of the zealots or other rebels. Other names are complete literary creations to fill out the number 12 or anchor later church authority.

  • truthseeker
    truthseeker

    Leolaia, I take my hat off to you. I'm flabbergasted to read this - it shocks me in the sense that so much of what I thought I knew, is not what it appears to be.

    There are many things I just don't understand about Jesus too.

    For example, the rude way he spoke to the Phoenician woman (I think it was Phoenician) when she asked him to cure her daughter who was demon possessed. She almost had to plead with him, even using the parable of a dog eating the crumbs from his masters table.

    Yet, he would cure and heal those, some of them who wanted him dead.

    Regarding future times, Jesus said that the "wheat and the weeds would grow together," - fortelling apostate Christianity - yet he is head of the congregation and did absolutely nothing.

    I mean think about it - Jesus must had sat up there in heaven and watch a 37 year old movement fall to pieces after the death of the apostles.

    If you or I were a CEO and watched our company go into chaos, we would surely be removed by the board of directors. Yet, with all the things happening in JW land and other Christian religions, it is evident that Jesus is NOT acting as head of the congregation.

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    On a very simplistic level (though along the lines of some of what Leolaia posted) the way I now see the Revelation, and many of the passages in Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and some of the pastoral letters, is just this:

    Disappointed eschatology combined with old age, reducing every man and woman to the same level: "I'm gonna die, and damnit, my religion has apparently given me false hopes that I wouldn't have to die." Or, as the supposedly old and staggering on his feet Apostle John said "it is the last hour." Yes, indeed, it was, for him.

    History repeats itself, and in understanding that, we understand much better what has happened to ourselves.

    truthseeker, good question! Much to learn from the answers.

    Craig

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    There are many things I just don't understand about Jesus too.

    For example, the rude way he spoke to the Phoenician woman (I think it was Phoenician) when she asked him to cure her daughter who was demon possessed. She almost had to plead with him, even using the parable of a dog eating the crumbs from his masters table.

    Yet, he would cure and heal those, some of them who wanted him dead.

    Regarding future times, Jesus said that the "wheat and the weeds would grow together," - fortelling apostate Christianity - yet he is head of the congregation and did absolutely nothing.

    I mean think about it - Jesus must had sat up there in heaven and watch a 37 year old movement fall to pieces after the death of the apostles.

    If you or I were a CEO and watched our company go into chaos, we would surely be removed by the board of directors. Yet, with all the things happening in JW land and other Christian religions, it is evident that Jesus is NOT acting as head of the congregation.

    As you have realized, Jesus was neither the CEO of Christianity, nor even its founder. And the contrast between "apostolic" and "apostate" Christianity implied by the WT and others is just another myth -- for there was never such thing as a unified "apostolic Christianity" from which a later generation could apostatize.

    The story of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24ff) seems to be somewhat closer to a possible historical background of the Jesus character, in that it portrays a Jewish miracle-working prophet, who does not understand his mission as extending to Gentiles. In the story Jesus is reluctantly, yet providentially led into interfering with Gentiles (although not entering their home). Of course this is a hellenistic, pagano-Christian story, which betrays the distance between the Gentile Christian community and its alleged "founder" as much as it claims a relationship to him.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit