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

[grafted branch]

What does it mean to you for the old covenant to vanish? The same verse you're referencing (Hebrews 8:13) also says the old covenant was already obsolete when that was written. What does it mean to you for the old covenant to be obsolete?

I already agreed with you on this, that the old covenant became obsolete when the new covenant was in force. The old covenant vanished when it was no longer possible to perform the requirements of the law such as making a sacrifice. This happened in 70AD.

It can't continue if it's obsolete. You don't seem to know what the word obsolete means. To be made obsolete means it was put to an end. No longer required. Replaced completely by the new covenant. You are trying to make something that was deactivated still active. That doesn't work.

I can’t disagree more, the Holy Spirit in Acts 15:28-29 agreed that it was good to lay no greater burden on the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit apparently didn’t agree that old covenant rules didn’t continue.

Neither did James think the Jews were excused, Acts 15:21 Moses being read in the synagogue every sabbath day. Also in Acts 21:17-26 Paul is questioned as to why he told the Jews to forsake Moses, Paul himself then proceeded to take a vow that involved a sacrifice.

Do you believe that God required the Jews to still follow the law and be under the old covenant until 70 AD?

I believe the apostles did. You can read about this by doing a search for the council at Jerusalem.

You can't be under both grace and the law at the same time.

In Acts 21:20 there were thousands of believing Jews who were zealous for the law. Here is an example of believers of Jesus, under His grace, still observing the old covenant laws at the same time. Do you have an issue with what was going on during this time?

So, scriptures like Acts 15:7-9, Romans 3:22 and Romans 10:12 saying there was no difference between Jew and Gentile means nothing to you? You have to insist that there was a difference even though those explicitly say there was not a difference?

Acts 15:7-9, Romans 3:22, and Romans 10:12 are all talking about salvation and that there is no difference when it comes to salvation. As I’ve already said all, everyone, Jew and Gentile are saved by the blood of the Lamb.

You are the one who is insisting that the Jews and Gentiles were under the same burden when in Acts 15:28-29 the Holy Spirit says otherwise.

That difference was meaningless compared to the sense in which there was no difference between Jew and Gentiles as verses like Acts 15:7-9, Ephesians 2:11-13, Romans 3:12, Romans 10:12 and others talk about.

It’s only meaningless to you because it doesn’t support your agenda. Again I’m not talking about salvation which seems to be what you’re getting hung up on. I agree there was and is no difference between any race of people including Jews when it comes to salvation, we are all saved the same way.

 

[grafted branch]

Question for you - We're in the kingdom now. Is that kingdom physical or spiritual? I'd say it was spiritual (Ephesians 1:20-22 among many other verses), and if it's spiritual, then earthly nations - from Rome then to the USA today, could still exist, even as they did in the Old Testament.

I also would say the kingdom is spiritual, that which is natural came first then afterward that which is spiritual.

As far as nations existing, yes they do obviously exist as we see them but I’m not so sure God see them the way we do. 1 Peter 2:9 for example is often used to show that believers are currently seen as a “holy nation”. This nation then couldn’t have physical earthly boundaries.

Then the Gentiles sacked it again and again (take your pick - Islamic Jihad, various caliphates, crusaders, sultans, Napoleon (almost), the British) until 1967 when Jews controlled it again for the first time since Zedekiah sat on the throne. That sounds like "trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" to me ...

Right, to pick the 70AD sacking could be problematic except for all the various promises in the Bible about a soon coming calamity. For example Matthew 24:33-34 says this generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.

To claim Jerusalem was trodden till 1967 or is currently still being trodden is to claim that there still is a difference between Jew and Gentile, else there would be no distinction that it’s Gentiles doing the trodding.

In Jeremiah 31:35-36 is the favorite verses to declare that Israel will always remain a nation before God. The ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars are given to us in Genesis 1:14, they are for signs, seasons, days, and years. In Isaiah 60:20 the sun shall no more go down. So either Jeremiah 31:35-36 needs to be interrupted in a different, spiritual manner or it’s a proof text that Israel’s national status gets removed at some point. And if Israel’s national status is removed then no eternal unconditional promises can be referring to national Israel.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I already agreed with you on this, that the old covenant became obsolete when the new covenant was in force. The old covenant vanished when it was no longer possible to perform the requirements of the law such as making a sacrifice. This happened in 70AD.

You didn't answer my questions. Why not? I'll try again. What does it mean to you for the old covenant to vanish? The same verse you're referencing (Hebrews 8:13) also says the old covenant was already obsolete when that was written. What does it mean to you for the old covenant to be obsolete?

I can’t disagree more, the Holy Spirit in Acts 15:28-29 agreed that it was good to lay no greater burden on the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit apparently didn’t agree that old covenant rules didn’t continue.

They referenced 4 out of the 613 commandments in the old covenant law. You see that as the old covenant law still being fully in effect with God requiring people to follow the entire old covenant law?

Neither did James think the Jews were excused, Acts 15:21 Moses being read in the synagogue every sabbath day. Also in Acts 21:17-26 Paul is questioned as to why he told the Jews to forsake Moses, Paul himself then proceeded to take a vow that involved a sacrifice.

He didn't do that because it was required, he did that for the sake of the gospel to win them to Christ. Have you never read this:

1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

I believe the apostles did. You can read about this by doing a search for the council at Jerusalem.

So, your answer to my question "Do you believe that God required the Jews to still follow the law and be under the old covenant until 70 AD?" is apparently yes? How then do you make sense of the following which was written before 70 AD?

Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll— I have come to do your will, my God.’”
8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This makes it clear that God did not desire animal sacrifices and offerings and was not pleased with them. What pleased Him was His Son's sacrifice "once for all". With this in mind, why would God still want the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings to be performed after His Son made His "once for all" sacrifice? That makes no sense. Also, it says He set aside the first covenant (old covenant) to establish the second. That means He did away with the first/old covenant by establishing the second/new covenant. The old covenant was completely obsolete and no longer required to be followed once Christ made His "once for all" sacrifice and established the new covenant.

In Acts 21:20 there were thousands of believing Jews who were zealous for the law.

So what? That doesn't mean they were still required to follow it. They were new Christians and had a lot to learn. I'm sure they were no longer so zealous for the law once they realized that they were set free from the burden of keeping the law and that breaking even one commandment made them guilty of breaking them all (James 2:10).

Here is an example of believers of Jesus, under His grace, still observing the old covenant laws at the same time. Do you have an issue with what was going on during this time?

I don't have any issue with Paul trying to be all things to all people in order to win them to Christ. I have an issue with you thinking that anyone was still required to observe the old covenant laws, which included animal sacrifices and offerings, despite the fact that Christ did away with the need for those things by way of His sacrifice.

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

It seems that you don't understand the meaning and significance of passages like this.

Acts 15:7-9, Romans 3:22, and Romans 10:12 are all talking about salvation and that there is no difference when it comes to salvation. As I’ve already said all, everyone, Jew and Gentile are saved by the blood of the Lamb.

And that is what matters! Why do you place so much emphasis on them being different in terms of what rituals they followed when that means nothing in comparison to salvation?

You are the one who is insisting that the Jews and Gentiles were under the same burden when in Acts 15:28-29 the Holy Spirit says otherwise.

You are misinterpreting Acts 15:28-29 as if the Holy Spirit was requiring certain things of the Jews and fewer things of the Gentiles. What was happening there was a compromise for the sake of unity between Jew and Gentile believers in the church. They would not have been fruitful in advancing the gospel if they spent all their time bickering over what was or wasn't required of them. So, the Jews compromised and only gave the Gentiles a few commandments to follow. The Holy Spirit approved of this for the sake of unity between Jew and Gentile believers and for the sake of the gospel and the growth of the church.

It’s only meaningless to you because it doesn’t support your agenda.

I have no agenda. I'm going by scripture which says the old covenant was rendered obsolete by the death of Christ. Just because you don't know what that means for the old covenant to be made obsolete doesn't mean I have an agenda.

Again I’m not talking about salvation which seems to be what you’re getting hung up on.

Why would you not want to talk about salvation which is what this should be about? No one could be saved under the old covenant. That's why it had to be replaced by the new covenant. Were people who were saved between 33 and 70 AD saved under the new covenant or the old covenant? Obviously, the new covenant since no one was ever saved under the old covenant since its animal sacrifices and offerings could never take away sins (Heb 10:4). Once the new covenant was established there was no need for the old covenant anymore. It served its purpose which was to foreshadow the new covenant of salvation through the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:1). Yet, you somehow think there was still a need for the old =covenant for about 37 years after the new covenant was established. No, there wasn't. It was rendered dead and obsolete once Jesus died and established the new covenant with His blood.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

To claim Jerusalem was trodden till 1967 or is currently still being trodden is to claim that there still is a difference between Jew and Gentile, else there would be no distinction that it’s Gentiles doing the trodding.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever. When scripture says there is no difference between Jew and Gentile it's talking about no difference between Jew and Gentile BELIEVERS in the church and how there is no difference in how they become saved and no difference in their standing under Christ in His church. The Gentiles who have been trodding/trampling Jerusalem for a long time are not believers, so you are making a false equivalence here. Differences between unbelieving Gentiles and Jews have nothing to do with the scriptures which say there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles.

 

[CoreyD]

Where do you see two "ends" referenced in Matthew 24:3? I see one.

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

I see "the end of the world" referenced here, but not "the end of Jerusalem". Now, I know Jesus did answer both questions (the one related to when the temple buildings would be destroyed and the one related to His coming and the end of the age) in the Olivet Discourse, but there is only one "end" referenced in Matthew 24:3.

Spiritual Jew said:
Having ears to hear includes reading what scripture says carefully.

Matthew 24:
1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Reading carefully, I see two.

1. when will these things - the destruction of Jerusalem (end of the Jewish system) be?
2. what will be the sign of the end of the age - the world (this system of things)?

Okay. What is your point? The term "the last days" that we see referenced in scripture refer to the last days leading up to the future second coming of Christ.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

If you only see one end, and one 'last days', then referring to scriptures such as Isaiah 2:2, Joel 2:27-32 and Malachi 4:5, would likely not matter.
However, I'll just say that John the Baptist (Elijah) did come (Matthew 11:13, 14) - giving those Jews ample opportunity to respond before that great and dreadful day of the Lord, which occurred in 70 A.D. Luke 19:41-44
That was the end of the last days of the Jewish system.

Careful reading of the scriptures show that the last days of the Jewish system was foretold way back, by prophets such as, Micah, Joel, Isaiah.
So, careful reading is necessary to recognize which last days were being referred to.

Whatever the view, we are living in the last days of this system, which both Peter, and Paul referred to.

 

[grafted branch]

You didn't answer my questions. Why not? I'll try again.

I did answer your questions, all you have to do is read what you just quoted me on, I’ll post it again for you.

What does it mean to you for the old covenant to vanish?

The old covenant vanished when it was no longer possible to perform the requirements of the law such as making a sacrifice.

What does it mean to you for the old covenant to be obsolete?

the old covenant became obsolete when the new covenant was in force.

He didn't do that because it was required, he did that for the sake of the gospel to win them to Christ. Have you never read this:

1 Corinthians 9:19

I’m referring to James questioning Paul about telling the Jews, who were among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses in Acts 21:21. Why would James not just simply tell Paul that’s good progress towards getting everyone to fully embrace the new covenant?

Paul takes the vow and as you showed in 1 Corinthians 9:19-20, to Jews he became like a Jew to win Jews. Clearly Paul himself recognizes there was a difference else he couldn’t have become like a Jew in the church, and we know that the Jews were believers as seen in Acts 21:20. And again it Acts 21:25 it is reiterated that the Gentiles are not under the same rules as the Jews.

So, your answer to my question "Do you believe that God required the Jews to still follow the law and be under the old covenant until 70 AD?" is apparently yes?

No, I believe the apostles were given the authority to make decisions regarding the Jews (Matthew 19:28). And this authority is seen being exercised at the council at Jerusalem. In Galatians 2:9 it was decided that James, Peter, and John should got to the circumcision and Paul to the heathen. In Acts 21:22 James says “what is it therefore”, referring back to the agreement they had in Galatians 2:9.

I don’t think God required it but the Holy Spirit agreed with what James and the apostles decided on.

They were new Christians and had a lot to learn. I'm sure they were no longer so zealous for the law once they realized that they were set free from the burden of keeping the law and that breaking even one commandment made them guilty of breaking them all (James 2:10).

Looking at a timeline for Acts, it puts Acts 21 occurring 59AD. Your claim that they were new Christians doesn’t add up. If you assume Jesus died in 33AD (I think it was 30AD) that gives 26 years for the Jews to get used to the new covenant ways and not to be so zealous for the law. That was only 7 years before 66AD when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies.
How long do you suppose it takes not to be zealous?

Why do you place so much emphasis on them being different in terms of what rituals they followed when that means nothing in comparison to salvation?

Because I want to understand all scriptures, as all scriptures is profitable for doctrine, not just the scriptures that pertain to salvation, after all this is the eschatology area of the forum.

You are misinterpreting Acts 15:28-29 as if the Holy Spirit was requiring certain things of the Jews and fewer things of the Gentiles.

Incorrect, I’m saying the Holy Spirit agreed with the decision the apostles made concerning the burden.

So, the Jews compromised and only gave the Gentiles a few commandments to follow. The Holy Spirit approved of this for the sake of unity between Jew and Gentile believers and for the sake of the gospel and the growth of the church.

Are you acknowledging that there was a difference between Jew and Gentile in the church?

Why would you not want to talk about salvation which is what this should be about?

Because we are both in agreement on salvation, there is no need to keep repeating that is there?

Yet, you somehow think there was still a need for the old =covenant for about 37 years after the new covenant was established. No, there wasn't.

Not me, the apostles and the Holy Spirit were the ones who thought it was good to retain the burden.

 

[grafted branch]

This statement makes no sense whatsoever. When scripture says there is no difference between Jew and Gentile it's talking about no difference between Jew and Gentile BELIEVERS in the church and how there is no difference in how they become saved and no difference in their standing under Christ in His church. The Gentiles who have been trodding/trampling Jerusalem for a long time are not believers, so you are making a false equivalence here. Differences between unbelieving Gentiles and Jews have nothing to do with the scriptures which say there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles.

Put another way, what I said was that if you think that currently a distinction can be made between Jew and Gentile then saying that Jerusalem is currently being trodden by The Gentiles would be a consistent position.

I don’t know why you would think that doesn’t make sense unless you have some kind of position where you think the trodding of Jerusalem is taking place in the church.

Do you think we should recognize that there currently is a biblical difference between Jews and Gentiles?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Spiritual Jew said:
Having ears to hear includes reading what scripture says carefully.

Matthew 24:
1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”
3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Reading carefully, I see two.

1. when will these things - the destruction of Jerusalem (end of the Jewish system) be?
2. what will be the sign of the end of the age - the world (this system of things)?

Sure, I agree that there were two separate questions that apply to two different things and I never said otherwise. You were coming across as if you were saying the end of Jerusalem was referenced with those actual words or something similar, but in terms of the actual words "the end", they were only used in reference to the end of the age.

If you only see one end, and one 'last days', then referring to scriptures such as Isaiah 2:2, Joel 2:27-32 and Malachi 4:5, would likely not matter.
However, I'll just say that John the Baptist (Elijah) did come (Matthew 11:13, 14) - giving those Jews ample opportunity to respond before that great and dreadful day of the Lord, which occurred in 70 A.D. Luke 19:41-44
That was the end of the last days of the Jewish system.

So, it looks like you are a partial preterist then. I agree with some of what is taught in that view and disagree with a fair amount of it as well. But, that would mean we are both amillennialists.

Careful reading of the scriptures show that the last days of the Jewish system was foretold way back, by prophets such as, Micah, Joel, Isaiah.
So, careful reading is necessary to recognize which last days were being referred to.

Whatever the view, we are living in the last days of this system, which both Peter, and Paul referred to.

Right, and that is the last days that I've been talking about (last days that lead up to Christ's future second coming).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I did answer your questions, all you have to do is read what you just quoted me on, I’ll post it again for you.

You misunderstood. I didn't ask you WHEN you believe that the old covenant vanished or WHEN you believe that it became obsolete. You had already indicated that before. I'm asking what you believe it means exactly for the old covenant to be obsolete and what it means for it to vanish? I'm trying to see your understanding of the difference between the old covenant becoming obsolete and it vanishing. I was really trying to see at what point exactly do you believe it was no longer in effect and not required to be followed, but it seems from other things you've said that you believe it was still fully in effect in terms of God requiring the Jews to follow the entire law up until 70 AD. And I completely disagree with that.

I’m referring to James questioning Paul about telling the Jews, who were among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses in Acts 21:21. Why would James not just simply tell Paul that’s good progress towards getting everyone to fully embrace the new covenant?

Paul takes the vow and as you showed in 1 Corinthians 9:19-20, to Jews he became like a Jew to win Jews. Clearly Paul himself recognizes there was a difference else he couldn’t have become like a Jew in the church, and we know that the Jews were believers as seen in Acts 21:20. And again it Acts 21:25 it is reiterated that the Gentiles are not under the same rules as the Jews.

I don't know what you were intending to say here. To me, 1 Corinthians 9:19-20 explains why Paul and other apostles would still follow the law at that point despite being aware that no one was required to do that any longer.

No, I believe the apostles were given the authority to make decisions regarding the Jews (Matthew 19:28). And this authority is seen being exercised at the council at Jerusalem. In Galatians 2:9 it was decided that James, Peter, and John should got to the circumcision and Paul to the heathen. In Acts 21:22 James says “what is it therefore”, referring back to the agreement they had in Galatians 2:9.

I don’t think God required it but the Holy Spirit agreed with what James and the apostles decided on.

Isn't it up to God to decide whether a covenant is still active and required to be followed or not? Yes, I'm pretty sure it is. So, if God wasn't requiring that, why do you try to act as if the old covenant was still active at that point? It wasn't. It was replaced fully by the new covenant upon the death of Christ.

Looking at a timeline for Acts, it puts Acts 21 occurring 59AD.

Where are you getting that from?

Your claim that they were new Christians doesn’t add up. If you assume Jesus died in 33AD (I think it was 30AD) that gives 26 years for the Jews to get used to the new covenant ways and not to be so zealous for the law. That was only 7 years before 66AD when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies.
How long do you suppose it takes not to be zealous?

Where do you get the idea that the Christians referenced in Acts 21 had been Christians for a long time already? It doesn't say that.

I'm not going to get bogged down into arguments about when the events of Acts 21 occurred. It's clear to me that the old covenant was dead and obsolete upon the death of Christ and the new covenant was fully established at that time and you can't convince me otherwise.

Because I want to understand all scriptures, as all scriptures is profitable for doctrine, not just the scriptures that pertain to salvation, after all this is the eschatology area of the forum.

It's fine to want to understand all scriptures, but that isn't what I was talking about. My question was in regards to what you place more importance on than other things. The new covenant is all about bringing in salvation by grace through faith rather than by works of the law of the old covenant. So, the replacement of the old covenant with the new covenant is all about when salvation by grace through faith came into effect. Once that happened, the old covenant was dead and obsolete with no requirement to follow all of its 613 commandments any longer.

Incorrect, I’m saying the Holy Spirit agreed with the decision the apostles made concerning the burden.

Why do you think that the Holy Spirit agreed with that decision? I've already said why I think He did.

Are you acknowledging that there was a difference between Jew and Gentile in the church?

Why would I acknowledge that when it wasn't the case? If that was the case, then Acts 15:7-9, Romans 3:22, Romans 10:12 and other verses would not be true since they all say that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the church.

Because we are both in agreement on salvation, there is no need to keep repeating that is there?

We have to talk about salvation in relation to this topic because the new covenant is what brought salvation to the world and what replaced the old covenant upon Christ's death.

Not me, the apostles and the Holy Spirit were the ones who thought it was good to retain the burden.

But, do you know why? It's not because God was requiring it of them. It was a concession from God to allow them to make that decision out of ignorance of the reality of the freedom from the burden of the law that the new covenant brought. You can't say that the old covenant was still active at that point just because people wanted to still be under it. That's not their decision to make, it's God's. God decided to end it by sacrificing His Son on the cross to usher in the new covenant which immediately replaced the old covenant. That's why Paul wrote this:

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The old covenant, with all its many ordinances and rituals was done away with when Jesus died on the cross. Whether people realized that or not in the years just following that is irrelevant in terms of determining whether the old covenant was still active after that or not. It was not. Could people still choose to follow it if they wanted? Sure, but that doesn't mean the old covenant itself wasn't made dead and obsolete by Christ already.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Put another way, what I said was that if you think that currently a distinction can be made between Jew and Gentile then saying that Jerusalem is currently being trodden by The Gentiles would be a consistent position.

A distinction can be made between Jew and Gentile unbelievers, but not between Jew and Gentile believers. Scripture says there is no difference between Jew and Gentile believers. Why are you not differentiating between believers and unbelievers?

I don’t know why you would think that doesn’t make sense unless you have some kind of position where you think the trodding of Jerusalem is taking place in the church.

Luke 21:20-24 is referring to earthly Jerusalem, not the church. It has no relation to the scriptures that speak of there being no diifference between Jew and Gentile because the context of there being no difference is in relation to believers. The Gentiles referenced in Luke 21:24 are not believers.

Do you think we should recognize that there currently is a biblical difference between Jews and Gentiles?

Not if we're talking about Jew and Gentile believers. Scripture repeatedly says there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in the church. So, what are you talking about? Please start differntiating between believers and unbelievers in order to avoid confusion.

 

[grafted branch]

I'm asking what you believe it means exactly for the old covenant to be obsolete and what it means for it to vanish?

The meaning of the old covenant being obsolete was the requirements of the law were fulfilled in Christ. Similar to communion being fulfilled in Christ.

The meaning of the old covenant vanishing is that it completely disappears, as in it was physically impossible to perform all the old covenant requirements.

I don't know what you were intending to say here. To me, 1 Corinthians 9:19-20 explains why Paul and other apostles would still follow the law at that point despite being aware that no one was required to do that any longer.

I’m showing you that James was not in agreement with Paul telling the Jews that it was ok not to circumcise their children. 1 Corinthians 9:19-20 is Paul talking about himself not all the other apostles.

Isn't it up to God to decide whether a covenant is still active and required to be followed or not? Yes, I'm pretty sure it is. So, if God wasn't requiring that, why do you try to act as if the old covenant was still active at that point? It wasn't. It was replaced fully by the new covenant upon the death of Christ.

Ultimately yes, but the apostles were given authority and they made a decision that the Holy Spirit agreed with. Do you somehow think that God and the Holy Spirit were not in agreement?

Where are you getting that from?

Biblehub

Where do you get the idea that the Christians referenced in Acts 21 had been Christians for a long time already? It doesn't say that.

Your right it doesn’t say they were new Christians but if they were new Christians and Paul is using his 1 Corinthians 9:19-20 philosophy about gaining unbelievers by engaging in their activities and using this philosophy not to gain unbelievers but to show new believers that he also was still zealous for the law, then this principle is found nowhere else in the scriptures.

Why do you think that the Holy Spirit agreed with that decision? I've already said why I think He did.

Because the times of the Gentiles weren’t fulfilled yet.

Why would I acknowledge that when it wasn't the case?

I just thought you might want to be consistent.

It's not because God was requiring it of them. It was a concession from God to allow them to make that decision out of ignorance of the reality of the freedom from the burden of the law that the new covenant brought.

Are you calling the apostles ignorant?

So, the Jews compromised and only gave the Gentiles a few commandments to follow. The Holy Spirit approved of this for the sake of unity between Jew and Gentile believers and for the sake of the gospel and the growth of the church.

Scripture repeatedly says there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in the church. So, what are you talking about?

On the one hand there is a difference as you said in the upper post, then there is no difference as you said in the lower post. This is what I’m talking about.

 

[AYM]

I also would say the kingdom is spiritual, that which is natural came first then afterward that which is spiritual.

As far as nations existing, yes they do obviously exist as we see them but I’m not so sure God see them the way we do. 1 Peter 2:9 for example is often used to show that believers are currently seen as a “holy nation”. This nation then couldn’t have physical earthly boundaries.




Right, to pick the 70AD sacking could be problematic except for all the various promises in the Bible about a soon coming calamity. For example Matthew 24:33-34 says this generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.

To claim Jerusalem was trodden till 1967 or is currently still being trodden is to claim that there still is a difference between Jew and Gentile, else there would be no distinction that it’s Gentiles doing the trodding.

In Jeremiah 31:35-36 is the favorite verses to declare that Israel will always remain a nation before God. The ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars are given to us in Genesis 1:14, they are for signs, seasons, days, and years. In Isaiah 60:20 the sun shall no more go down. So either Jeremiah 31:35-36 needs to be interrupted in a different, spiritual manner or it’s a proof text that Israel’s national status gets removed at some point. And if Israel’s national status is removed then no eternal unconditional promises can be referring to national Israel.

I think @Spiritual Jew addressed this quite nicely up above. But I think in this case the text also explains itself.

I think we need to understand what we mean by "times of the Gentiles."

Luke 21:20-22

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Jerusalem was encompassed by Vespasian's armies around 66AD and the city ultimately fell to his son Titus in 70AD. Let's put a pin there for a moment and move on to:

Luke 21:24 (part 1)

24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations:

So here you should take a look at the Simon bar Kochba rebellion which ended in 135AD and ended in widespread enslavement of the survivors and the dispersement of the Jewish population of Israel.

Luke 21:24 (part 2)

and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Again, there is a clear distinction here between Jews and Gentiles and it has nothing to do with salvation (where there is not). Without that distinction, this entire phrase has no meaning.

So clearly, in plain text, we see that until the "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled, Jerusalem would continue to be trodden under by the Gentiles. And it was trodden under, by the Romans, and the Islamic Jihad, and various other powers up until 1967, when it came under Jewish control, meaning that it was now not trodden by the Gentiles, meaning the time of the Gentiles was over.

This is echoed in Revelation 11:2:

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

So for a given time (of 42 months - the meaning of which I'd rather not go off topic and address here), Jerusalem is trodden under by the Gentiles. This matches up with what we saw over in Luke. This is the "time of the Gentiles" which is associated with Gentile power treading over the city and ended in 1967.

 

[grafted branch]

So here you should take a look at the Simon bar Kochba rebellion which ended in 135AD and ended in widespread enslavement of the survivors and the dispersement of the Jewish population of Israel.

I think some good arguments can be made by looking at history, and this may be one of them but I tend to put more weight on the scripture. And yes, I know 70AD events are mostly known from history not necessarily scripture.

Again, there is a clear distinction here between Jews and Gentiles and it has nothing to do with salvation (where there is not). Without that distinction, this entire phrase has no meaning.

It looks like you have been following along with my conversation with @Spiritual Jew and as you point out the distinction between Jew and Gentile in regards to Jerusalem being trodden under foot has nothing to do with salvation, to which I agree.

This is echoed in Revelation 11:2:

I agree with the Revelation 11:2 holy city tread under foot for 42 months being equated with Luke 21:24.

In Revelation 11:1-2 the temple of God, the altar, and the people that worship therein are measured, and the court without is not measured it is given to the Gentiles. There is clearly a difference for the Gentiles here regarding worshipping, as there was in the old covenant, the outer court was called the Court of the Gentiles.

So we have a problem if this takes place in the new covenant as there is no Jew/Gentile difference in the new covenant. If we follow @Spiritual Jew line of thinking and say since there is a Jew/Gentile difference here it takes place outside of the church (no difference in the church) then you have the temple of God and the people worshipping therein and the court of the Gentiles all happening outside of the church. That doesn’t make sense either.

Solution, this takes place while the old covenant is still being observed, meaning it takes place prior to the old covenant vanishing.

Question, do you think the old covenant has vanished yet?

 

[CoreyD]

Sure, I agree that there were two separate questions that apply to two different things and I never said otherwise. You were coming across as if you were saying the end of Jerusalem was referenced with those actual words or something similar, but in terms of the actual words "the end", they were only used in reference to the end of the age.

I guess you misunderstood me. I was not referring to the word "end".
If I was, I should be beaten for asking a dumb question.
Can you imagine asking a child, "How many times does the word "end" occur in the passage, and then telling the child they are wrong, when they say one?

I was asking, how many ends were being referred to.

So, it looks like you are a partial preterist then. I agree with some of what is taught in that view and disagree with a fair amount of it as well. But, that would mean we are both amillennialists.

That would be an incorrect conclusion.
I am neither Amilennialists, nor preterist.
The flood of Noah's day was an end of a world, or system, and was a judgment day.
The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians was a judgment day.
However, since the term "end times", or "time of the end", is not limited to one event, there is no need to link judgment day with one event.

Right, and that is the last days that I've been talking about (last days that lead up to Christ's future second coming).

I know, but you believe that refers to scriptures related to the last days of the Jewish system. For example Acts 2:16-21.

Are you and @grafted branch trying to reach a conclusion on when the Gentile times ended?

 

[Timtofly]

From Hebrews 8:13 that the old covenant was ready to vanish away. Would you agree that it vanished in 70AD?

No.

The covenant was between God and people. It was not between God and buildings.

 

[grafted branch]

No.

The covenant was between God and people. It was not between God and buildings.

The word vanish in Hebrews 8:13 is <854> disappearing, disappearance, obliteration.

Do you ever see the old covenant completely vanishing or does it just come and go?

 

[Timtofly]

The last thing the Gentiles (Roman Empire) did, so that all that was written was fulfilled, was to sack Jerusalem.

This is the last word of Jesus as prophesy that needs to be fulfilled:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

The Gospel going to the world is far more important, than the destruction of Jerusalem. There were nations and kingdoms not even "birthed" yet that are included in that "all nations" part. Jesus did not specify only the nations that currently existed.

According to Daniel 2, the ten toes will be the 5th Kingdom. The Romans were the 4th Kingdom. So that image was not destroyed until the ten toes were destroyed.

Even the ten toes is still part of "all nations".

"His feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces."

"And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

From the historical perspective the Reformation represented the time this stone broke up and ground to pieces the remnant of the 10 toes. It was from that point on, through the colonization period, the Gospel itself was spread throughout the world, "unto every nation". And the Gospel is still going out in waves, because darkness also returns and washes out the Gospel, so a new generation can receive the Gospel as well.

Rome destroying Jerusalem was not even the end of the old covenant much less the new covenant. Luke 21 only gives us the days of vengeance. Matthew 24 gives us the broader scope all the way to the end.

The time of the Gentiles still includes things happening today. The Gentiles rebuilt Jerusalem. They governed Jerusalem. They still fight over the control of Jerusalem. Rome attacking Jerusalem was just one of many things that would happen.

 

[grafted branch]

This is the last word of Jesus as prophesy that needs to be fulfilled:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Why don’t you think that was fulfilled?

Colossians 1:23 says the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven. Also in Romans 10:18 their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

 

[dwb001]

This is the last word of Jesus as prophesy that needs to be fulfilled:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

So you are ignoring Revelation?

 

[CoreyD]

Why don’t you think that was fulfilled?

Colossians 1:23 says the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven. Also in Romans 10:18 their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

I know I wasn't asked, but I'm sure you don't mind my having a share, in this discussion.

According to Mathew 28:19, 20, the Gospel of the kingdom was to reach every corner of the globe.
There is no evidence the disciples, preached as far as Australia, North and South America, Southern Africa, Antarctica, etc.
In fact, Jesus said,
And whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next. For truly I say to you, you shall not have completed the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes. Matthew 10:23

So, we take those words of Colossians 1:23 in context. All Israel was indeed reached.