Can The State Of Israel Be Destroyed!

ebedmelech said:

Here's the real problem though Inter. There's a wrong idea here, that there's some type of "transition" between the covenants (Old and New)...when in fact there is not!

Click to expand...

Yes there was a time of transition from the Old Covenant age to the new. The entire NT was written during this transition period. They had received and begun partaking by faith but they had not yet fully received the promise or entered into the age to come.

To think so is to think God was honoring both covenants at the same time. He did not! When God left the Holy of Holies upon the death of Christ in Matthew 27, signified by the tearing of the veil of the temple there remained NO MORE sacrifices for sin! Christ had ended that and HE BECAME OUR High Priest.

Click to expand...

The Law was still in effect but those who were in Christ were not under the Law because they had been justified by faith. But, I believe God honored His covenant until the time of judgment when He would bring a conclusion to that age. He could not have remained just while removing the Law at the cross and then enacting judgment for breaking that Law forty years later.

Therefore when Paul says this at Hebrews 8:31:
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Please note that the writer has carefully said the New Covenant "HAS MADE" the first obsolete!!! Therefore, there is NO transition of the covenants! The New Covenant made the Old obsolete!

Click to expand...

When Jeremiah prophesied a New Covenant, that rendered the Old Covenant obsolete. But, the time for it to pass away obviously did not arrive in Jeremiah's time. When Jesus died on the cross it was only a matter of time until the end of the age. He said it would occur before that generation passed away. And remember, Jesus told the disciples the end of the age would arrive when not one stone was left upon another.

We know the Old Covenant was still in effect at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews. Notice the present tense, "whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The word 'ready' is an expression of imminence.

It had been rendered obsolete (by Jeremiah), it was becoming obsolete (it was in its last days), and it was ready to disappear (this occurred shortly after, in Ad 70).

Since it was ready to disappear when Hebrews was written, when did it finally happen? The only logical conclusion is AD 70. That was the time when not one stone was left upon another. From that time on there has not been and will never be an Old Covenant high priest, priesthood, sacrifices, nation or people etc., because they were all identified with the Mosaic age.

On the other hand, there will always be a New Covenant High Priest, priesthood, sacrifices, nation and people etc., because we are identified with the eternal Messiah.

More effectively stated in Hebrews 9:15-17
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

Click to expand...

Again, those who had been called "may receive" but had not yet received their eternal inheritance. It would come at the end of the age. And, the death of Christ validated the New Covenant but it would not be fully realized until the passing away of the old.

Timing is important. As far as I know, this was the only time in redemptive history that two covenants operated simultaneously. The Old Covenant was in its last days, the New Covenant was about to be fully realized.

Ranting said:

No the state of Israel can not be destroyed Israel was cut off in 69 week and must fulfill the 70th week! >Jacobs troubles . Enjoy

Click to expand...

That time passed long ago. How many weeks of years were prophesied? Daniel's prophecy was for a span of 490 years. His forth kingdom was the Roman Empire. Again, that time span ended in the first century when the 70x7=490 years expired and Rome was in power.

Ranting,
you have no basis for what you are doing with the 490 years. You must read them in the normal sense first of all. What do you get?
2, you must check history. What did Josephus say? Caiaphas? Do you know that they spoke in reference to these? Do you know that Heb 9:26 could very well refer to the same thing, being that it is in a letter To the Hebrews? Did I mention it was to the Hebrews?
3, we must then check theology. The NT is above all Christocentric. It teems with declarations that things that otherwise seem to be 'events' in the OT visions are actually fulfilled in Christ. The resurrection , for ex., fulfills all promises God ever made to the fathers, Acts 13. The raised up fallen tent of David is the nations having faith, Acts 15. So Dan 9 must be read as to its Christ-centered meaning first of all. It is not about Israel. The same is true of Is 53, or many other places in Isaiah about the Servant.

A New World said:

Yes there was a time of transition from the Old Covenant age to the new. The entire NT was written during this transition period. They had received and begun partaking by faith but they had not yet fully received the promise or entered into the age to come.

Click to expand...

I think not. Just as god called prophets to write the OT....He called the apostles to write the NT. There is no transition because when Peter first preached the gospel in Acts 2 he did not support anything other than Christ.

What I will say is...if you mean by "transition" the NT was coming to fruition as the gospel spread, I can agree. Please see Luke 24:44-49 where Christ makes the point to the two on the road to Emmaus that ALL things were fulfilled in Him concerning the Old Covenant.

A New World said:

The Law was still in effect but those who were in Christ were not under the Law because they had been justified by faith. But, I believe God honored His covenant until the time of judgment when He would bring a conclusion to that age. He could not have remained just while removing the Law at the cross and then enacting judgment for breaking that Law forty years later.

Click to expand...

No...the Law was not in effect in any way because the Law had been turned to tradition, so they weren't honoring the Law anyway. I was Christ who fulfilled the Law...and this is where our "bone of contention is". What I will say to this point is God had to purge the Old Covenant way of life from those remnant Jews...but of a certainty, the apostles never ever added anything to Christ salvation. Instead they revealed how Christ fulfilled the Law.

A New World said:

When Jeremiah prophesied a New Covenant, that rendered the Old Covenant obsolete. But, the time for it to pass away obviously did not arrive in Jeremiah's time. When Jesus died on the cross it was only a matter of time until the end of the age. He said it would occur before that generation passed away. And remember, Jesus told the disciples the end of the age would arrive when not one stone was left upon another.

Click to expand...

I urge you to read what you just wrote again...because the fundamental flaw in that is God had not even destroyed Solomon's temple at the time Jeremiah prophesied it. So...how could the New Covenant be in effect when the very temple of that day would be rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah???

A New World said:

We know the Old Covenant was still in effect at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews. Notice the present tense, "whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The word 'ready' is an expression of imminence.

It had been rendered obsolete (by Jeremiah), it was becoming obsolete (it was in its last days), and it was ready to disappear (this occurred shortly after, in Ad 70).

Click to expand...

Please not the portion you did not include...that I did. The verse is Hebrews 8:13...and this is all of it:
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

This is carefully written by the writer, because He's writing to Hebrew Christians. This is why in Hebrews 9, he labors to show them how Christ fulfilled EVERYTHING under the Old Covenant. Not the past tense "He HAS MADE the the first obsolete.

I think I've made my point, so I stop here because it's basically rehashing what we've said prior to this.

I think you haven't realized the implications of what you've concluded when it comes to the point that Paul consistently makes....which is Christ is THE END OF THE LAW for EVERYONE...Romans 10:4:
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

ebedmelech said:

I urge you to read what you just wrote again...because the fundamental flaw in that is God had not even destroyed Solomon's temple at the time Jeremiah prophesied it. So...how could the New Covenant be in effect when the very temple of that day would be rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah???

Click to expand...

I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote. The fact that Jeremiah prophesied a New Covenant was evidence that the Old Covenant would eventually pass away. In that way it had become obsolete. I do not believe nor did I imply that the New Covenant was in effect during Jeremiah's day.

Please not the portion you did not include...that I did. The verse is Hebrews 8:13...and this is all of it:
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Click to expand...

My point was and is, when the writer of the book of Hebrews wrote: "When He said, A new covenant..." he referred back to the prophecy by Jeremiah. So, my point stands. When Jeremiah prophesied a New Covenant the people understood that the Old Covenant was obsolete and would eventually disappear.

You are ignoring the present tense within the verse. "Whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."

Again, though Jeremiah rendered the Old Covenant obsolete by prophesying a New Covenant, it would not actually become obsolete nor would it disappear until the first century. The time of the end of the age and the disappearance of the Old Covenant took place not long after Hebrews was written, in AD 70.

This is carefully written by the writer, because He's writing to Hebrew Christians. This is why in Hebrews 9, he labors to show them how Christ fulfilled EVERYTHING under the Old Covenant. Not the past tense "He HAS MADE the the first obsolete.

Click to expand...

I've explained the past tense above but you haven't dealt with the present tense.

I think you haven't realized the implications of what you've concluded when it comes to the point that Paul consistently makes....which is Christ is THE END OF THE LAW for EVERYONE...Romans 10:4:
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Click to expand...

I agree that Christ was the end of the Law for all that believed. That is not the same as saying the Law ended at the cross. The Old Covenant Law was in place until it was removed at the end of the age in AD 70 at the destruction of the temple and the entire Jewish economy.

A New World said:

I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote. The fact that Jeremiah prophesied a New Covenant was evidence that the Old Covenant would eventually pass away. In that way it had become obsolete. I do not believe nor did I imply that the New Covenant was in effect during Jeremiah's day.



My point was and is, when the writer of the book of Hebrews wrote: "When He said, A new covenant..." he referred back to the prophecy by Jeremiah. So, my point stands. When Jeremiah prophesied a New Covenant the people understood that the Old Covenant was obsolete and would eventually disappear.

You are ignoring the present tense within the verse. "Whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."

Again, though Jeremiah rendered the Old Covenant obsolete by prophesying a New Covenant, it would not actually become obsolete nor would it disappear until the first century. The time of the end of the age and the disappearance of the Old Covenant took place not long after Hebrews was written, in AD 70.



I've explained the past tense above but you haven't dealt with the present tense.



I agree that Christ was the end of the Law for all that believed. That is not the same as saying the Law ended at the cross. The Old Covenant Law was in place until it was removed at the end of the age in AD 70 at the destruction of the temple and the entire Jewish economy.

Click to expand...

I would ask you to read what you wrote in that post, because you didn't make it clear in how you wrote it. It is certainly written in the form that could lead one to think you were saying the New Covenant took hold in Jeremiah's day.

What you haven't done is dealt with the "past tense" of the first part of Hebrews 8:13 which says:
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

The portion you want to quote is a further exposition of the latter, which is "He HAS made the first obsolete." The emphasis being because it HAS BEEN MADE obsolete, it's growing old and ready to disappear. The reason for that would be the spreading of the gospel as the New Covenant takes hold. It's a matter of growth...not transition.

It's followed up with the writer of Hebrews making clear what he means at Hebrews 9:1 which starts by explaining the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:11 and the following verses makes it clear Christ erased ALL of the Old Covenant!

ebedmelech said:

I would ask you to read what you wrote in that post, because you didn't make it clear in how you wrote it. It is certainly written in the form that could lead one to think you were saying the New Covenant took hold in Jeremiah's day.

What you haven't done is dealt with the "past tense" of the first part of Hebrews 8:13 which says:
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

The portion you want to quote is a further exposition of the latter, which is "He HAS made the first obsolete." The emphasis being because it HAS BEEN MADE obsolete, it's growing old and ready to disappear. The reason for that would be the spreading of the gospel as the New Covenant takes hold. It's a matter of growth...not transition.

It's followed up with the writer of Hebrews making clear what he means at Hebrews 9:1 which starts by explaining the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:11 and the following verses makes it clear Christ erased ALL of the Old Covenant!

Click to expand...

Since you seem to be having trouble understanding my points concerning the book of Hebrews and the imminent disappearing of the Old Covenant let's move on.

Paul was concerned about his fellow countrymen, the Jews, desiring to be back under THE LAW after coming to God through faith in Christ. He wrote approximately 30 years after the cross.

Galatians 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,

24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--

25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--

26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

If the Law had passed away at the cross someone failed to tell Paul. He spoke of two covenants, one from Mt. Sinai which corresponded to the present Jerusalem. Notice again the present tense, IS IN BONDAGE WITH HER CHILDREN.

How could one return to something or be in bondage to something that no longer existed?

What did Paul say about the Jerusalem that was then present?

Galatians 4:30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

Notice the bondwoman and her son represented the present Jerusalem, the Old Covenant, the Law from Mt. Sinai.

The Old Covenant, symbolized by the present Jerusalem, would be cast out. Since it was present when Paul wrote, it wasn't cast out at the time of the cross. But, it would be in the future.

The events leading up to and including the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem in AD 70 is the obvious time of the casting out of the Old Covenant system.

A New World said:

Since you seem to be having trouble understanding my points concerning the book of Hebrews and the imminent disappearing of the Old Covenant let's move on.

Click to expand...

I’m not having any trouble with your points. I don’t agree with your points. I believe your belief that there's a "transition" where God is honoring the OT and The NT, is incorrect.

A New World said:

Paul was concerned about his fellow countrymen, the Jews, desiring to be back under THE LAW after coming to God through faith in Christ. He wrote approximately 30 years after the cross.

Galatians 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,

24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--

25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--

26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

If the Law had passed away at the cross someone failed to tell Paul. He spoke of two covenants, one from Mt. Sinai which corresponded to the present Jerusalem. Notice again the present tense, IS IN BONDAGE WITH HER CHILDREN.

How could one return to something or be in bondage to something that no longer existed?

What did Paul say about the Jerusalem that was then present?

Galatians 4:30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

Notice the bondwoman and her son represented the present Jerusalem, the Old Covenant, the Law from Mt. Sinai.

The Old Covenant, symbolized by the present Jerusalem, would be cast out. Since it was present when Paul wrote, it wasn't cast out at the time of the cross. But, it would be in the future.

The events leading up to and including the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem in AD 70 is the obvious time of the casting out of the Old Covenant system.

Click to expand...

I think you need to read that again New World. The bondwoman is not saved...that's why she's in bondage. Please note that Paul calls this an ALLEGORY! It makes the very point I make to you.

Paul called those who cam e to the Galatian Christians "false brethren" in Galatians 2:4:
4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

This is the problem with what you're asserting...they are not true believers! This is they very reason Paul wrote to them. Embrace the ENTIRETY of Galatians not that with which you try to make your point. Galatians was written because the Judaizers (who were trying to kill Paul), had came in under the guise of being Christians, and they were not.

ebedmelech said:

Indeed it is good for me...and it will be a surprise for you. Implying what's not a good thing for me is not your province...IT IS THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST THAT SAVES...not ones eschatology...even though your's is fully flawed!

Click to expand...

But these are folks who hold as a dogma of their New Faith that Israel, not Christ, is the center of all things, and that the Gospel will be dispensed with in The Millennium and replaced by Temple Judaism as described in Ezekiel. Thus in their New Faith soteriology, it is first necessary for one to embrace their blasphemous End Times nonsense, acknowledge satan as currently holding all power in the universe, and disregard as irrelevant large portions of the New Testament.

Thoroughly nasty stuff.

Try reading 1 Corinthians 15:1-5:
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Click to expand...

Sorry, not in their Bible.

Ranting said:

No the state of Israel can not be destroyed Israel was cut off in 69 week and must fulfill the 70th week! >Jacobs troubles . Enjoy

Click to expand...

Yeah, gotta remember how bad that Isaiah guy was with math. Poor guy though 70 followed 69, when all followers of the New Faith know that 70 actually follows 278 or something.

lol, and Ranting is the one using the < or > signs.

Ranting: 69 < 70!

Jipsah,
what are your impressions of my thread on the trinity of Judaism? It seems really important to grasp for this subject. It is what was embedded in Judaism that prevented it from appreciating any new dimensions or reality in prophecy (only torah was divine and was 1/3 of the trinity).

ebedmelech said:

I think you need to read that again New World. The bondwoman is not saved...that's why she's in bondage. Please note that Paul calls this an ALLEGORY! It makes the very point I make to you.

Click to expand...

I've read it many times. You're missing my point but more importantly the point of Paul's allegory.

Of course the bondwoman was not saved. She represented Old Covenant Israel who had become a harlot in God's sight. OC Israel was the one responsible for killing the prophets, the saints and the Lord. In fact she persecuted the church throughout the last days generation right up until AD 70 when she was destroyed. She continued to be in bondage to Old Covenant Law right up to the end.

According to Paul, the two women (Hagar and Sarah) represented two covenants. Hagar was the bondwoman and Sarah was the freewoman.

Galatians 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,

24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--

25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--

In Paul's allegory Sarah and Isaac represented the New Covenant while Hagar and Ishmael represented the Old Covenant.

Paul explicitly stated that allegorically Hagar is Mt. Sinai in Arabia, AND CORRESPONDS TO THE JERUSALEM WHICH NOW IS, AND IS IN BONDAGE WITH HER CHILDREN.

How can you possibly be missing that? What else can this passage possibly mean?

At the time Paul was writing Old Covenant Jerusalem was in bondage with her children.

Those of the Old Covenant, unbelieving Israel, were children of the flesh. Paul indicated they were, at that time, persecuting those born according to the spirit, the New Covenant church.

Galatians 4:29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

In the last days, those belonging to Old Covenant Israel who refused to come to Messiah faced judgment and would soon be cast out.

This entire passage is proof that it was unbelieving Old Covenant Israel, Paul's Jerusalem which now is, persecuting the church. It is also proof that, by necessity, the Old Covenant could not have passed at the cross but was still in effect when Paul wrote.

Paul called those who cam e to the Galatian Christians "false brethren" in Galatians 2:4:
4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

This is the problem with what you're asserting...they are not true believers! This is they very reason Paul wrote to them. Embrace the ENTIRETY of Galatians not that with which you try to make your point. Galatians was written because the Judaizers (who were trying to kill Paul), had came in under the guise of being Christians, and they were not.

Click to expand...

You have done nothing to refute the clear teaching of Paul that Old Covenant Israel not only existed thirty years after the cross but they were continuing to fill up the measure of their sins that would lead to their destruction. Those you refer to as 'false brethren' and 'Judaizers' were those who remained under the Old Covenant who were trying to bring those who had turned to Messiah back under the bondage of the Law.

A New World said:

I've read it many times. You're missing my point but more importantly the point of Paul's allegory.

Of course the bondwoman was not saved. She represented Old Covenant Israel who had become a harlot in God's sight. OC Israel was the one responsible for killing the prophets, the saints and the Lord. In fact she persecuted the church throughout the last days generation right up until AD 70 when she was destroyed. She continued to be in bondage to Old Covenant Law right up to the end.

According to Paul, the two women (Hagar and Sarah) represented two covenants. Hagar was the bondwoman and Sarah was the freewoman.

Galatians 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,

24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--

25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--

In Paul's allegory Sarah and Isaac represented the New Covenant while Hagar and Ishmael represented the Old Covenant.

Paul explicitly stated that allegorically Hagar is Mt. Sinai in Arabia, AND CORRESPONDS TO THE JERUSALEM WHICH NOW IS, AND IS IN BONDAGE WITH HER CHILDREN.

How can you possibly be missing that? What else can this passage possibly mean?

Click to expand...

What it means is exactly what Paul always taught. Israel for the most part did not seek God by faith. I'm not missing anything. This falls right in line with what Paul said of Israel in Romans 9:30-33:
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

A New World said:

At the time Paul was writing Old Covenant Jerusalem was in bondage with her children.

Click to expand...

They still are New World. In bondage because they never did what God told them to do in Deuteronomy 10:16:
16 So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

A New World said:

Those of the Old Covenant, unbelieving Israel, were children of the flesh. Paul indicated they were, at that time, persecuting those born according to the spirit, the New Covenant church.

Galatians 4:29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

In the last days, those belonging to Old Covenant Israel who refused to come to Messiah faced judgment and would soon be cast out.

This entire passage is proof that it was unbelieving Old Covenant Israel, Paul's Jerusalem which now is, persecuting the church. It is also proof that, by necessity, the Old Covenant could not have passed at the cross but was still in effect when Paul wrote.

Click to expand...

Who says it's not...and how does this make your point?

A New World said:

You have done nothing to refute the clear teaching of Paul that Old Covenant Israel not only existed thirty years after the cross but they were continuing to fill up the measure of their sins that would lead to their destruction. Those you refer to as 'false brethren' and 'Judaizers' were those who remained under the Old Covenant who were trying to bring those who had turned to Messiah back under the bondage of the Law.

Click to expand...

Once again what's your point? Is it not God who said they were a stiffnecked people? Their existence is still with us today, only they have no temple. You seem to think their existence makes your point.

The existence of Israel holding to the Old Covenant does not mean anything except they are blinded just as Romans 11 says.

I'm agreeing with you on Galatians 4...but you seem to think I don't understand that...so tell me, what point are you making?

ebedmelech said:

What it means is exactly what Paul always taught. Israel for the most part did not seek God by faith. I'm not missing anything. This falls right in line with what Paul said of Israel in Romans 9:30-33:
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

Click to expand...

The majority of Old Covenant Israel throughout her history failed to pursue righteousness by faith. But they were still under the Old Covenant. You seem to think it was only those of faith that were under the OC. God has always had a believing remnant but even the unbelievers were part of covenant Israel.

They still are New World. In bondage because they never did what God told them to do in Deuteronomy 10:16:
16 So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.

Click to expand...

No! No one is in bondage to the Old Covenant. How can anyone be in bondage to a covenant that has passed away? You say it passed away at the cross. But Paul said unbelieving Old Covenant Israel was in bondage to the Old Covenant when he wrote in about AD 60. SO IT HADN'T PASSED AWAY. That's my point. I say the Old Covenant age ended in AD 70 at God's judgment of the harlot Old Covenant Israel that John referred to as mystery Babylon. That was the focus of the judgment in Revelation.

Is it not God who said they were a stiffnecked people? Their existence is still with us today, only they have no temple. You seem to think their existence makes your point.

Click to expand...

Their existence depended solely on their covenant relationship with God. That ended in AD 70. The Old Covenant harlot was judged at that time and her kingdom was given to another, the New Covenant church, the body of Christ, true Israel. God was raising up New Covenant Israel in the first century. The foundation of the church is the remnant, the firstfruits of the gospel, called out of Old Covenant Israel prior to the end of the age.

The existence of Israel holding to the Old Covenant does not mean anything except they are blinded just as Romans 11 says.

Click to expand...

It means they were still under the Old Covenant during the last days of the Old Covenant age, AD 30-AD 70. It means the Old Covenant didn't pass away at the cross. It couldn't have passed away until it was judged and destroyed, and that occurred in AD 70.

I'm agreeing with you on Galatians 4...but you seem to think I don't understand that...so tell me, what point are you making?

Click to expand...

If you're agreeing with me then you realize the Old Covenant was still valid when Paul wrote Galatians. He said the Jerusalem existent then represented the Old Covenant and at that time his fellow countrymen were still in bondage to that covenant. The Jews that came to Christ escaped that bondage which again means the covenant was valid until the end of the age.

If you agree with me on Galatians you have abandoned the idea that the Old Covenant passed away at the cross.

I appreciate your time and May God bless the honest pursuit of truth.

A New World said:

The majority of Old Covenant Israel throughout her history failed to pursue righteousness by faith. But they were still under the Old Covenant. You seem to think it was only those of faith that were under the OC. God has always had a believing remnant but even the unbelievers were part of covenant Israel.

Click to expand...

How can I think that when I read all the Old Covenant saints that had faith in Hebrews 11? The Old Covenant was a foreshadow of Christ...so yes it did require faith. Let me point out to you that even as Paul under the New Covenant preaches faith in Christ he quotes the Old Covenant to make his point of having faith numerous times. Just as I pointed out to you Deuteronomy 10:16 that verse is basically saying have faith.

The point is to BELIEVE GOD...Old Covenant or New!

A New World said:

No! No one is in bondage to the Old Covenant. How can anyone be in bondage to a covenant that has passed away? You say it passed away at the cross. But Paul said unbelieving Old Covenant Israel was in bondage to the Old Covenant when he wrote in about AD 60. SO IT HADN'T PASSED AWAY. That's my point. I say the Old Covenant age ended in AD 70 at God's judgment of the harlot Old Covenant Israel that John referred to as mystery Babylon. That was the focus of the judgment in Revelation.

Click to expand...

I'm saying you're wrong and scripture declares that! As I quote to you what Paul said was Israel's problem...you just denied it. Is it not Paul that said in Romans 9:31-32:
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Who's right New World...you or the apostle?

A New World said:

Their existence depended solely on their covenant relationship with God. That ended in AD 70. The Old Covenant harlot was judged at that time and her kingdom was given to another, the New Covenant church, the body of Christ, true Israel. God was raising up New Covenant Israel in the first century. The foundation of the church is the remnant, the firstfruits of the gospel, called out of Old Covenant Israel prior to the end of the age.

Click to expand...

So now...read Deuteronomy 31:14-18...and understand God ALREADY KNEW they wouldn't keep the covenant! Once again I'm going to try to make the point. What do you think God leaving the Holy of Holies in Matthew 27:51 means?

What do you think the writer of Hebrews means at Hebrews 9:23-28??? His point is that when Christ died the Old Covenant became obsolete.

Paul makes that point very clearly in Ephesians 2:13-16 and also Colossian 2:11-15.

A New World said:

It means they were still under the Old Covenant during the last days of the Old Covenant age, AD 30-AD 70. It means the Old Covenant didn't pass away at the cross. It couldn't have passed away until it was judged and destroyed, and that occurred in AD 70.

Click to expand...

No! It means they wanted to hold to the Old Covenant blind to the fact of the New Covenant!

A New World said:

If you're agreeing with me then you realize the Old Covenant was still valid when Paul wrote Galatians. He said the Jerusalem existent then represented the Old Covenant and at that time his fellow countrymen were still in bondage to that covenant. The Jews that came to Christ escaped that bondage which again means the covenant was valid until the end of the age.

If you agree with me on Galatians you have abandoned the idea that the Old Covenant passed away at the cross.

Click to expand...

No...because you have it entirely misconstrued. The validity of the Old Covenant ended when Christ said IT IS FINISHED! Now...if you don't believe that...show God honoring anyone's sacrifice after the death of Christ!

A New World said:

I appreciate your time and May God bless the honest pursuit of truth.

Click to expand...

Likewise Bro...may we both keep searching the scriptures!

No, the Law would not pass until ALL was fulfilled in the prophets and law.

Matthew 5:17-19, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Luke 24:44, "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.".

Luke 21:21-24, "Then let them which are in Judaea 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. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Hebrews 2:8, "Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him."

Hebrews 9:8-9, "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;"

ebedmelech said:

How can I think that when I read all the Old Covenant saints that had faith in Hebrews 11? The Old Covenant was a foreshadow of Christ...so yes it did require faith. Let me point out to you that even as Paul under the New Covenant preaches faith in Christ he quotes the Old Covenant to make his point of having faith numerous times. Just as I pointed out to you Deuteronomy 10:16 that verse is basically saying have faith.

The point is to BELIEVE GOD...Old Covenant or New!

Click to expand...

Not all who were born into the Old Covenant were faithful but they were under the covenant.

I'm saying you're wrong and scripture declares that! As I quote to you what Paul said was Israel's problem...you just denied it. Is it not Paul that said in Romans 9:31-32:
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Who's right New World...you or the apostle?

Click to expand...

I agree with Paul that Israel did not arrive at righteousness through the Law by works. But Paul did not say they were not under the Old Covenant. They were simply disobedient to that covenant and were judged accordingly.

So now...read Deuteronomy 31:14-18...and understand God ALREADY KNEW they wouldn't keep the covenant!

Click to expand...

God already knew who wouldn't keep the covenant? According to you it was only the faithful who were under the covenant. And, that's simply not true. Since God knew they wouldn't keep the covenant He made with them doesn't that demonstrate that they were all under the covenant?

David sinned against God multiple times. Was he under the Old Covenant? Of course he was! Their behavior was not the determining factor, they were born into the covenant.

The New Covenant involves a birth but it's a spiritual birth not based on ethnicity.

Once again I'm going to try to make the point. What do you think God leaving the Holy of Holies in Matthew 27:51 means?

Click to expand...

It doesn't say God left, only that the curtain was torn.

What do you think the writer of Hebrews means at Hebrews 9:23-28??? His point is that when Christ died the Old Covenant became obsolete.

Click to expand...

He meant that Jesus appeared to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sins. And, He would return for those eagerly awaiting Him. He made the covenant and by faith some believed, but it would not be consummated until the old was cast out. It says nothing of the Old Covenant becoming obsolete. Again, it was growing old and was ready to disappear when Hebrews was written.

Paul makes that point very clearly in Ephesians 2:13-16 and also Colossian 2:11-15.

Click to expand...

Yes, for the believer the old had gone and by faith the new had come. For Old Covenant Israel, they were still in bondage to the Old Covenant Law and would face imminent judgment if they did not obey the gospel and come out of her before her destruction.

It means they wanted to hold to the Old Covenant blind to the fact of the New Covenant!

Click to expand...

Yes, but they were still in bondage under the Old Covenant until it passed away.

you have it entirely misconstrued. The validity of the Old Covenant ended when Christ said IT IS FINISHED! Now...if you don't believe that...show God honoring anyone's sacrifice after the death of Christ!

Click to expand...

And you would need to show God failed to honor the sacrifices performed under the Law.

Hebrews 8:4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;

5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

The sacrifices were being offered according to the Law of Moses as Moses was instructed. They didn't stop offering sacrifices until the mid 60's AD. God would honor the covenant until the time Israel was judged for sins committed under that covenant.

The Old Covenant only ended for those who exercised faith in Christ during Israel's last days.

I'm not saying the unbelieving Jews were all obeying the Old Covenant Law and were justified in God's sight. Most were like those who died in the wilderness after coming out of Egypt. They were included in the covenant but they died in their sins because they were not of faith.

God bless

A New World said:

Not all who were born into the Old Covenant were faithful but they were under the covenant.

Click to expand...

That's right... because they didn't believe God. That's why Paul said "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel". It's a spiritual matter...which is why Paul distinguishes "Israel according to the flesh" from Israel according to the Spirit.

A New World said:

I agree with Paul that Israel did not arrive at righteousness through the Law by works. But Paul did not say they were not under the Old Covenant. They were simply disobedient to that covenant and were judged accordingly.

Click to expand...

The point you're not perceiving is the fact that the purpose of the Law was to lead them to faith in God. The fact they were under the Old Covenant is not the issue. Paul says they sought righteousness by works, and no one is going to be righteous by works.

A New World said:

God already knew who wouldn't keep the covenant? According to you it was only the faithful who were under the covenant. And, that's simply not true. Since God knew they wouldn't keep the covenant He made with them doesn't that demonstrate that they were all under the covenant?

Click to expand...

Once again you're missing the point. How could Abraham be righteous simply by believing God? How could Isaac, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Rahab,...do I need to keep going?

A New World said:

David sinned against God multiple times. Was he under the Old Covenant? Of course he was! Their behavior was not the determining factor, they were born into the covenant.

Click to expand...

Yet David understood this before Christ and said it in Psalm 32:1-2:
How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered!
2 How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit!

David understood this...so once again we see Paul quoting this very passage in Romans 4:5-8:
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered.
8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

A New World said:

The New Covenant involves a birth but it's a spiritual birth not based on ethnicity.

Click to expand...

Granted...but that's not the argument...the argument is was God honoring the Old Covenant after Christ? He most certainly did not! The fact that Israel for the most part continued under the Old Covenant show their most glaring error!

A New World said:

It doesn't say God left, only that the curtain was torn.

Click to expand...

Do you understand the high priest entered that veil once a year on The Day of Atonement to atone for the sins of the people?
This is mentioned in Matthew 27:51 because when Jesus died, He atoned for sin ONCE and for all! This is why Christ is High Priest now. So God no longer met in the Holy of Holies with the high priest because Jesus PAID IT ALL!!! He is our High Priest before God in heaven.

This is why Hebrews 9:11-12:
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

A New World said:

He meant that Jesus appeared to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sins. And, He would return for those eagerly awaiting Him. He made the covenant and by faith some believed, but it would not be consummated until the old was cast out. It says nothing of the Old Covenant becoming obsolete. Again, it was growing old and was ready to disappear when Hebrews was written.

Click to expand...

The consummation was the death of Christ. Is it not Paul who says Jesus abolished the Law? Your'e contradicting Ephesians 2, Colossians 2 as well as Hebrews 9.

A New World said:

Yes, for the believer the old had gone and by faith the new had come. For Old Covenant Israel, they were still in bondage to the Old Covenant Law and would face imminent judgment if they did not obey the gospel and come out of her before her destruction.

Click to expand...

True. So how is it you think the Old Covenant was still in effect? Just because Israel practiced it dosen't mean God honored it?

A New World said:

Yes, but they were still in bondage under the Old Covenant until it passed away.

Click to expand...

No. They were in bondage period...the Old Covenant ended when Christ instituted the New Covenant in His blood. Once again most Israel was keeping a obsolete covenant.

A New World said:

And you would need to show God failed to honor the sacrifices performed under the Law.

Click to expand...

No I wouldn't...because simply reading the Old Testament there were NUMEROUS times God didn't honor their offerings. . Isaiah 1 would make my point though.

A New World said:

Hebrews 8:4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;

5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

The sacrifices were being offered according to the Law of Moses as Moses was instructed. They didn't stop offering sacrifices until the mid 60's AD. God would honor the covenant until the time Israel was judged for sins committed under that covenant.

The Old Covenant only ended for those who exercised faith in Christ during Israel's last days.

I'm not saying the unbelieving Jews were all obeying the Old Covenant Law and were justified in God's sight. Most were like those who died in the wilderness after coming out of Egypt. They were included in the covenant but they died in their sins because they were not of faith.

Click to expand...

You haven't shown that God honored any sacrifices after Christ New World.

A New World said:

God bless

Click to expand...

You also brother.