When did the Old Covenant truly "disappear" and end?

Oldmantook said:

You have a dispensational theology which I certainly disagree with.

Click to expand...

Your assessment of him seems on-point. He seems to espouse Covenant Theology when he makes statements like this:

"Israel is the church and all of the promises were fulfilled in Christ "and thus all Israel shall be saved.""

But then he keeps making these statements that sound dispensational:

"At one time [the sacrifices] could [take away sin]. But no longer. The old law no longer brought remission of sin. The covenant was dead as a door nail and couldn't provide them salvation."

So apparently he is saying that animal sacrifices USED to save men from hell - that the cross wasn't needed in those days - but NOW we need the cross? In my understanding the cross was retroactive, thus securing a single Covenant of Grace for both OT and NT saints (see Rom 4 and Gal 3 for example).

JAL said:

Your assessment of him seems on-point. He seems to espouse Covenant Theology when he makes statements like this:

"Israel is the church and all of the promises were fulfilled in Christ "and thus all Israel shall be saved.""

But then he keeps making these statements that sound dispensational:

"At one time [the sacrifices] could [take away sin]. But no longer. The old law no longer brought remission of sin. The covenant was dead as a door nail and couldn't provide them salvation."

So apparently he is saying that animal sacrifices USED to save men from hell - that the cross wasn't needed in those days - but NOW we need the cross? In my understanding the cross was retroactive, thus securing a single Covenant of Grace for both OT and NT saints (see Rom 4 and Gal 3 for example).

Click to expand...

Not all theologies have to fit into dispensationalism vs covenant theology. .

JAL said:

So apparently he is saying that animal sacrifices USED to save men from hell - that the cross wasn't needed in those days - but NOW we need the cross? In my understanding the cross was retroactive, thus securing a single Covenant of Grace for both OT and NT saints (see Rom 4 and Gal 3 for example).

Click to expand...

The scriptures tell us that those sacrifices in fact brought remission. Maybe you could find in Hebrews where Paul says that they didn't receive remission under the old law. That would be pretty slick.

Leviticus 16:30
"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord."

In the septuagint the Greek word used for cleanse there is: καθαρίσαι - same word used often in the new testament Greek when talking about purification. That is not the only place where God says that animal sacrifices purified people from sin either. That was their understanding and in Hebrews we're given the same lesson. Paul speaks of the passover and says that the law, though it cleansed from sin left a reminder of sin as this practice had to recur each year.

Al Touthentop said:

I thought your verb tenses were spot on. I do not have a dispensational theology, I just accept the words as written. In fact, I haven't mentioned such a theology. I reject that sort of thing because you won't find that word (dispensation) in the scriptures in relation to any global theology. That's man made stuff. Paul uses it once - or at least it is translated that way once - referring to the stewardship of the gospel that he was given. Applying that to a broader context doesn't work.

The problem with your "problem" is that it doesn't exist. He declares the covenant dead twice in the passage you analyze. Once when he says it has died and again when he says it's about to pass away (vanish). So his first words definitively call it dead in the perfective aspect of the Greek word and then he explains that this dead covenant will completely be eliminated as a possibility.

He tells us that the new Covenant is the fulfillment of scripture, not a view towards the future.

Click to expand...

Sorry, perhaps I should have said replacement theology instead of dispensational although that term isn't in the Bible either.
As I pointed out there is an apparent discrepancy in v.13 where the writer of Hebrews uses the perfect tense to describe the O.C. and in the next half of the verse uses the present tense to describe it as still existing and ongoing. You have explained it away as it being dead but will be completely eliminated as a possibility. However, if it is already dead then it has already been eliminated as a possibility. How can something that is already dead still await to pass away? Furthermore, v.8 makes it clear that this new covenant that God will invoke is established on behalf of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. As far as I'm aware, the church is never conflated in Scripture with the houses of Israel and Judah.

mkgal1 said:

Animal sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood, and the Temple itself were all a part of the OC (and that's ALL gone....disappeared, just as Hebrews 8:13 said it would be). I can't really address every one of your points right now, but the early church (including Peter and the author of Hebrews - and that author's audience, as you pointed out - were Jewish). There isn't a separate covenant for them - or a separate plan for them. Verses 8-12 aren't separate from v 13. This was brought to fulfillment at Pentecost. For the sake of my time and the websites bandwidth.....I'll just highlight a few verses:

Click to expand...

The problem is is that they are not all gone...disappeared. These prophecies still await their future fulfillment during the Millennium.
Zechariah 14:16Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. 17And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. 18And if the family of Egypt does not go up and present themselves, then on them there shall be no rain;h there shall be the plague with which the Lord afflicts the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths. 19This shall be the punishment to Egypt and the punishment to all the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths.

Jeremiah 33:15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’ 17 “For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”

Isaiah 56:6 “And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD,
to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD,
and to be his servants,
everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it,
and holds fast my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.”
8 The Lord GOD,
who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares,
“I will gather yet others to him
besides those already gathered.”

Al Touthentop said:

The scriptures tell us that those sacrifices in fact brought remission...
Leviticus 16:30
"For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord."

In the septuagint the Greek word used for cleanse there is: καθαρίσαι - same word used often in the new testament Greek when talking about purification. That is not the only place where God says that animal sacrifices purified people from sin either.

Click to expand...

Good point. Actually I agree with that argument in large part. The problem is how to reconcile it with the Covenant of Grace - and the fact that animal sacrifices do NOT provide our salvation. For instance no OT saint will sing praises of gratitude to calves and goats for all eternity, on behalf of their atoning work. In my opinion, the church still clings to an oversimplified understanding of Christ's atoning work, and thus doesn't really understand in what sense He was "slain even before the foundation of the world." I can't get into all that here. For now, let's go back to a question that I raised earlier. When is a ritual NOT a ritual? Answer: when its instruments and accouterments are sacramental (i.e. divine) thereby constituting actual fellowship with the Living God - what Roman Catholics refer to as the Real Presence. For example the priest literally sprinkled the Blood of Christ upon the people thereby providing atonement and remission of sin. To an outsider it may have LOOKED like mere goat's blood but it was either in whole, or in part, the Blood of Christ. (Note: I don't accept transubstantiation).

However, God is under no obligation to comply. For example if a Jew performed the same kind of sacrifice today in Israel, I'm pretty sure all he'd get out of it is goat's blood. For a Jew or Christian to perform ancient rituals under the PRESUMPTION that God will comply is a serious error in judgment. Today, churches baptize in water precisely out of that presumption.

John the Baptist was a PROPHET in the magnitude of Elijah. By virtue of direct revelation (this is the real key) He knew that his water baptism was a divinely approved ordinance. In this case God's compliance would mean His willingness to either permeate or replace the waters with the (physical) Living Water. While it wasn't necessary for salvation, it provided additional cleansing and remission of sin. In essence it conferred sanctifying grace. In the same way, the apostolic eucharists enabled believers to ingest the Body and Blood of Christ. These were not rituals. They were fellowship - real physical contact - with the Living God.

On a daily basis, I should never PRESUME the water, wine, and bread of ceremonies to be the Living God. If that were a safe assumption, I would be warranted in bowing down and worshipping them - in fact Catholics have done so for centuries. I disagree with their assumption. I need to have direct revelation on these matters. Until I have it, I shouldn't be engaged in ceremonies.

Admittedly we owe God periods of time spent expressing our gratitude for the cross. But leaders can call for such special meetings without recourse to the rituals of water baptism, wine, bread, anointing oil, and the like.

mkgal1 said:

This topic comes up often - and there seems to be a lot of controversy (and even lack of teaching in the churches I've attended over the span of many decades) over the question.

In another thread - these specific questions were asked:

When did the old covenant end?
When did the new covenant begin?
When did "the last days" begin?
When will "the last days" finish?
When is the "end of the age"?
When is the day of redemption?
When did "this age" arrive?
When does "this age" end?
When do the new heavens and new earth arrive?
When did the kingdom of God begin?
When does "the age to come" arrive?
When is "the last day" of "the last days"?
What occurs on "the last day" of "the last days"?

Hebrews states:

Hebrews 8:13 ~ By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
​

Has the Old Covenant disappeared? If so......when?

Click to expand...

I think the key is in the term "last days" Last days are known to be lawless, without the influence of the Holy Spirit, known also to covering God's children in an overflow not known to man, outpouring more so than at Pentecost. Visually you can see the separation of the wheat and the tares with this. Last days also has events that occur from that which is called "birth pangs" of earth to the turmoil within the human race and every concept strives for mastery of the minds of men. But in all this, the pinnacle seems to be found in the leader of instigations who wants to sit as God on Earth. That seems to be the climax in the story of redemption, because it is the final act that bring closure for all. It settles in the minds of men, one way or the other, whose side they are truly on, and who they give their absolute allegiance to. In this their fates are sealed, whether for God or not.

Several clues are hidden within the annual feasts, the first group [spring feasts - Passover, Unleavened Bread, Wave Sheaf and Pentecost] were fulfilled with His first coming. Yet the fall feasts have yet to have their fulfillment. In the same manner that the spring feasts were fulfilled, so also I believe we can prophetically look at the fall feasts fulfilling with His second coming. [fall feasts - Feast of Trumpets, Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles, eighth day] Since these fall feasts have not been fulfilled, I would say that the old covenant may be waxing away, but is yet obsolete.

The new covenant is in place in many aspects. The priesthood - Yeshua as High Priest. Temple - services performed by Yeshua in the Heavenly court which the earthly temple got its "pattern" from. The sacrifice - once and for all through the blood of Yeshua.

There are many aspects of the new covenant that are the same as in the old covenant. The Ark of the Covenant - which houses the TEN - is revealed to be the original and still in place in heaven. the Ark is the throne of the Most High, and it is established to be eternal and the foundation upon which God rules from. The need for blood to cover the sins, as Yeshua is pleading His blood in the Heavenly Courts on our behalf is still being performed for our salvation.

Oldmantook said:

Sorry, perhaps I should have said replacement theology instead of dispensational although that term isn't in the Bible either.
As I pointed out there is an apparent discrepancy in v.13 where the writer of Hebrews uses the perfect tense to describe the O.C. and in the next half of the verse uses the present tense to describe it as still existing and ongoing. You have explained it away as it being dead but will be completely eliminated as a possibility. However, if it is already dead then it has already been eliminated as a possibility. How can something that is already dead still await to pass away? Furthermore, v.8 makes it clear that this new covenant that God will invoke is established on behalf of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. As far as I'm aware, the church is never conflated in Scripture with the houses of Israel and Judah.

Click to expand...

The Hebrew code simply pointed to the new covenant arrangement that was focused on the real Jerusalem (the heavenly), not Christ-rejecting carnal Jerusalem. The old has been eternally abolished. The old Jewish temple in Jerusalem, which is now destroyed, served as an impressive physical, yet, imperfect temporal type of the living temple of God – the Lord Jesus Christ and His mystical body. It was the focal-point for the whole Judaic sacrificial system for many centuries. So, the old covenant was only a provisional conditional imperfect signpost, shadow and type of the new covenant – the substance, fulfillment and the reality.

Firstly, the old covenant was merely “a shadow of good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). Hebrews 9:24 describes them as, “figures of the true.” On the other hand, the new covenant is “the very image” (Hebrews 10:1), it is “a better and an enduring substance” (Hebrews 10:34).

Hebrews 10:1-2 confirms that the ceremonial law served only as a forward pointer. Its rites, traditions and ceremonies were time-limited. They were never designed to be a backward remembrance of Christ’s perfect sacrifice on the cross, in some imaginary future millennium, as Premillennialists propose. It was merely a shadow that was aiming toward the impending arrival of the final sacrifice for sin.

Secondly, Romans 3:20 tells us: “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” We here see the truth of universal sinfulness. Hebrews 7:19 makes clear: “the law made nothing perfect.” Galatians 3:21-29 shows us the purpose of the law: “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”

Jesus made clear in Matthew 5:17-18: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Our salvation is built solely and wholly upon Christ's keeping the law. We cannot keep the law. The pole is too high. Our faith is therefore 100% in the law-keeper – Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:4 says: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Jesus is “the end of the law.” He is the object, scope and final cause. He is the proposed and intended end. Romans 8:3-4 says: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Thirdly, in the old covenant “sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year” (Hebrews 10:3). However, in the new covenant, God promises, “their sins and iniquities will I remember no more” (Hebrews 8:12, 10:17). There was remembrance of sin under the old covenant, whereas there is none under the new.

Fourthly, Hebrews 10:4 tells us, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Here we see the inferiority of the old covenant described. It couldn’t remove sin. It couldn’t remove guilt. It was imperfect. Under it, “every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:11-12).

Hebrews 9:26 tells us, “now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In doing this, we are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

Fifthly, the old covenant “can never with those sacrifices … make the comers thereunto perfect” (Hebrews 10:1). Hebrews 9:9 tells us, the “gifts and sacrifices” that the priests offered “could not make him that did the service perfect.” The reason being, “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did” (Hebrews 7:19).

That “better hope” was Christ and the transaction He paid for sin at the cross. It was that final sacrifice for sin that perfects the redeemed. Why? Christ has satisfied every righteous demand of a holy God. He took upon Himself our sin and in turn took the penalty that was due to us. There is therefore no condemnation for them that are in Christ; “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14).

The sins of the Old Testament believers were not removed; they were simply covered until Christ died on the cross. But when Christ died, the saints of all time were finally free.

Sixthly, the old covenant “could not make him that did the service perfect, a pertaining to the conscience” (Hebrews 9:9). The conscience remained guilty. With the old rituals “the worshippers … should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year” (Hebrews 10:2-3).

But when we get into the New Testament (Hebrews 9:14) we are informed: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” This superior and eternal covenant obliterated the old inadequate provisional arrangement.

Hebrews 10:18-22 explains: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus … Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.”

mkgal1 said:

When did the old covenant end?

I believe the full end of the Old Covenant was at the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple system in 70 AD.​

When did the new covenant begin?

Jesus confirmed the New Covenant the night of the Last Supper, so I guess we could call that the "beginning".

Mark 14:24 he said to them, “This is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice for many​

When did "the last days" begin?

Some of these lines of demarcations of time are difficult to put my finger on because there were series of events that happened in preparation. John the Baptist was the final prophet - it was he that prepared the way for Jesus, so in some ways, we can say that the last days began with John the baptizer's ministry....because that was a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (recorded in Mark):

Mark 1:2-3 ~“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’ ”

Quoting from Ligonier Ministries: the text has a multilayered theological significance as Mark applies it to the work of John, the one who went before “the Lord.” Isaiah 40:3 comes from the second half of the book of Isaiah, wherein the prophet describes a new exodus that follows the Babylonian exile. This exodus includes the final atonement for sin and is consummated in the new heavens and earth (Isa. 53; 65:17–25). In applying it to John, Mark reveals that God’s salvation from our bondage to transgression and His renewal of all things takes place through Christ, whom John announced. That Mark’s quote also refers to Exodus 23:20 and Moses, the leader of the first exodus, confirms that Jesus brings about a new exodus for His people. Also, we note that Isaiah 40:3 is about a voice that prepares the way for Yahweh, the one true God and covenant Lord of Israel. By applying this text to the voice that prepares the way for Jesus, Mark identifies Jesus as this one true God, implicitly teaching the deity of Christ. ~ Ligonier Ministries​

But then there are these other points in time and these Scriptures:

Micah 4:1 (KJV) But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.​

Acts 2:14-20 (NKJV) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 "For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. 16 "But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.​

So according to Peter the last days began at Pentecost and these last days included and ended with the great and awesome day of the Lord.​

​

When will "the last days" finish?

I believe the Bible is referring to the "last days" of the ancient Judaism system - so I believe that ended in 70 AD. ​

When is the "end of the age"?

I believe that's just another way of expressing "last days". There were only two "ages" in the Hebrew understanding (and written in the biblical text) - "this age" and the "age to come". The New Testament was written in the transition time between the two ages (in my belief). I'm of the belief that we are now in "the New Covenant age" (what was future to the NT authors). It's an eternal age of Christ that has no end.

​

When is the day of redemption?

I believe His redemption was complete in 70 AD. He came in both judgement and salvation at the destruction of the old religious system.
​

When did "this age" arrive?

"This age" as written in the Bible (not the one we're in now)? That was the former age - the Old Covenant age. I believe that could have been marked after the fall or after the flood. ​

When does "this age" end?

It ended in 70 AD - I believe. The end of the OC age. ​

When do the new heavens and new earth arrive?

I don't believe "heaven and earth" is literal. In the Holy of Holies of the first Temple - the place above the Mercy seat.....between the two cherubs wings....was believed to be the place where God's presence dwelled. That was the intersection between "heaven" and "earth". When the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD - there was a new way of being in God's presence. That's another way of stating that "His Kingdom is here". Jesus stated, when He was on earth, that His kingdom had already come (but that it wasn't visible). I'd still put the pin on the time when the Temple was destroyed as when the "new heavens and new earth" arrived, because only until that happened was there truly a new King in full power - all power was stripped from the ancient religious leaders in 70 AD. ​

When did the kingdom of God begin?

When Jesus was anointed at His baptism, I'd say.
​

When does "the age to come" arrive?

Again.....70 AD. ​

Click to expand...

Did you forget the last two?

When is "the last day" of "the last days"?
What occurs on "the last day" of "the last days"?

HatGuy said:

Not all theologies have to fit into dispensationalism vs covenant theology. .

Click to expand...

One - and only one - of these two claims is true, right?
(1) The Covenant of Grace is real.
(2) It doesn't exist.
That's all I'm saying. Thus my complaint was that he seemed to embrace that Covenant in some statements and deviate from it in others.

mkgal1 said:

On its own - the idea of "new heaven/new earth" is a HUGE topic (especially in a diverse group like this).

Adam Maarschalk is a partial preterist - and this is a study he's done on the topic (for anyone that's genuinely interested): We Now Live in the New Heavens and the New Earth

Click to expand...

When do think the new heavens and new earth arrive?

mkgal1 said:

I honestly regret laying this out with the whole list of your questions. This seems like we're trying to cover too much territory at once.

Click to expand...

I am honestly not looking a thesis. Could you give me simple answers to those last three questions I’ve just asked please?

mkgal1 said:

At the full end of the old covenant age - in 70 AD. "Heaven and earth" to me (and a lot of partial preterists) is just another way of expressing how we as humans interact with God. The place of intersection in the OC was in the Holy of Holies......the place of intersection now....in the new Heaven and Earth is in our hearts (in my belief).

Click to expand...

When is "the last day" of "the last days"?
What occurs on "the last day" of "the last days"?

Oldmantook said:

Sorry, perhaps I should have said replacement theology instead of dispensational although that term isn't in the Bible either.
As I pointed out there is an apparent discrepancy in v.13 where the writer of Hebrews uses the perfect tense to describe the O.C. and in the next half of the verse uses the present tense to describe it as still existing and ongoing. You have explained it away as it being dead but will be completely eliminated as a possibility. However, if it is already dead then it has already been eliminated as a possibility. How can something that is already dead still await to pass away? Furthermore, v.8 makes it clear that this new covenant that God will invoke is established on behalf of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. As far as I'm aware, the church is never conflated in Scripture with the houses of Israel and Judah.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not accurate enough for my taste. The first half is incontrovertible because of the grammar used. The next half does not then refute the first half but says essentially, the complete and utter obsoleteness which has been established, is about to pass out of time permanently.

He's already stated that in spite of its obsolete nature, there are people still practicing its statutes. Statutes which no longer have any effect in purifying sin. So on the one hand he's saying that it's spiritual effect is obsolete and on the other that it's physical nature is ALSO going to pass on. The whole book is about the futility of trying to go back to the Old Covenant. He's preached that same lesson before to both Jews and Gentiles. The law is dead, nailed to the cross.

You can't read a verse which is plain and then reverse it because of something written in a following verse. That's refusing to accept the meaning. I mean, why go through all that trouble parsing the language and diving into the tense of verbs to get their clear meaning and then discard them unless you're trying to make them match some pretext you're dragging with you?

And as far as "replacement theology" goes, that's merely an epithet and it is (ironically) most often used by dispensationalists of all people who keep pointing at the modern day nation of Israel as if the prophecies of the Old Testament were about these people instead of Jesus.

The third temple was already 'rebuilt' as prophesied (see John 2). Paul does a good job of letting us know that Jewishness is no longer measured by the circumcision of the flesh but the circumcision "made without hands." He wanted Jews to be saved, but wanted them to become part of spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel. And he warned us Gentiles that we could be cut off the vine just as easily as the Jews were.

If the Church isn't spiritual Israel, then Paul was awfully confused when he said we were grafted into it.