...you're wrong. I thought I had made that very clear. Maybe you're thrown off by my use of the word "age". But, as shown in many of Daniel's posts here, the word "age" is very appropriate in some contexts, even if the dispensationalists have misused the idea.

> Who says that the disciples lived in the Age
> of the Law and the Prophets? My Bible
> doesn't mention any such age.

"Ages" in history -- bronze age, iron age, dark age, age of reason, etc. -- are a way of showing the primary influence or innovation of a particular period of time. In the case of the Jews, from Moses till Jesus, the Law and the Prophets were THE standard of measure for everything that went on in their world; at least it was supposed to be.

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."

John was the last of the Old Covenant prophets. Jesus was born under (and ministered under) the terms of the Old Covenant. The preached that the Kingdom was AT HAND, and of course, Jesus taught about how things were going to change with the arrival of the New Covenant (e.g. Jn. 4:23, 24). But it was not really in force until He gave His blood on the Cross (Mt. 26:28 and parallel verses in Mk. and Lk.; 1 Co. 11:25; He. 10:29; 12;24; 13:20, etc.).

The disciples knew He was the Son of God, but that had all kinds of misconceptions about what that meant; things they had been taught in Jewish tradition about what Messiah was expected to do. There was nothing in that tradition, or in prophetic language, that would have led them to connect what Jesus was saying to the "end of time" or the "end of the world". But in Mt. 24, they used the phrase, "end of the age", with good reason.