LUKE CHAPTERS 19, 21, 23 AND REVELATION "DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM 70AD"

[mark kennedy]

Your comment brought forth a question to mind....
Just how many "fulfillments" of any particular prophesy should we expect? 2, 3, 8, 17, 100.. More..?

Does Scripture tell us?

Can we ever know for sure whether a particular prophecy has been completely fulfilled if there is always a possibility of an even greater fulfillment?

I believe your ideas of “multiple fulfillments" are rooted in O.T. TYPES (i.e. foreshadowings of Messiah). The only problem is, the O.T. foreshadowing finds its final fulfillment in the Messianic generation and does not continue to repeat over and over and over again (for Jesus Christ is no "shadow," but is the OBJECT itself - Col 1:17).

The O.T. prophets did not believe the Messianic advent itself would serve as a TYPE for greater fulfillments beyond it. Is Calvary a mere TYPE for some greater redemption in our future from sin? Of course not. The O.T. things foreshadowed N.T. COMPLETIONS. The N.T. things do NOT in turn foreshadow some future priesthood, sacrifice for sin, etc. The shadows provided by the O.T. religion and history point to the real object of Christ and the heavenly covenant (Col 1:17; Heb 8:1-5; Heb 9:23-24).

The "hermeneutic" that the apostles had was a "typological" hermeneutic. Those O.T. historical events acted as a background that set the Messianic themes (or "TYPES" that Israel would then look for in a coming Messiah. This is basic foreshadowing at work here. The jews saw their national history as FORESHADOWING the life and themes of their future Messiah -- but they could not piece it all together before he came. They had inklings and hunches and nailed down some of the pieces, but much of the details were not clear until it unfolded.

Jesus said to the rabbis, "you search the scriptures because in them you think you have life, yet the scriptures TESTIFY OF ME." This is Jesus pointing them to the TYPOLOGICAL "messianic hermeneutic." We should note, however, that the scriptures only testify of Christ if one reads them with the MESSIANIC or "CHRIST" HERMENEUTIC (i.e., this way of reading the O.T. in order to find clues about Israel's Messiah). Furthermore, surely there were competing "messianic hermeneutics" at work in the 1st century. While the apostles recognized that the themes of Israel's history foreshadowed Jesus Christ and his life and death and resurrection, obviously not all jews agreed with the apostles' hermeneutic and many doubted it and openly disputed the apostles' reading of scripture.

So, concerning Israel's historic events and how the apostles interpreted them, Paul says to his endtime contemporaries: "these things happened to them FOR EXAMPLES, AND WERE WRITTEN FOR OUR INSTRUCTION UPON WHOM THE ENDS OF THE AGES HAVE COME!" So here Paul believes the O.T. story he mentions in 1 Cor 10:1-10 was really written down as a foreshadowing of the Messianic generation. We see this exact hermeneutical principle also mentioned in 1 Peter 1:10-12, which also applies the O.T. prophetic writings as finding their FULLEST completion in Christ's generation!

Finally, to prove that the O.T. things don't just repeat over and over and over again, Jesus said that "ALL THINGS WRITTEN WOULD BE FULFILLED" by the time of the Roman Jewish war (Luke 21:20-22). That statement is so absolute. And, if anyone should wonder what the "ALL THINGS WRITTEN" applies to, they only need look to Luke 24:44 to see that it means all the Law, Psalms, and Prophets -- The Old Testament canon! After Jesus is resurrected he tells his disciples that all things written about himself in the O.T. canon must be fulfilled! (Luke 24:44) -- and Luke 21:20-22 tells us WHEN the terminus arrived (Israel's Great Tribulation of 67-70AD).

I'd like to add a question to you that I have posed to everyone I have come across who champions thise "double fulfillment" theory. I have yet to get an answer, Perhaps my wait is over!:

Should we be expecting another Virgin Birth? Another Crusifixion? another ascention?

Why not?

If, as you say, double fulfillment is the rule, then we should absolutely expect to see these events fulfilled again.

If not, could you show which prophesies the Bible tells you to take as single fulfillment and which to take as multiple?

Is the crucifixion a mere "type" of some future greater redemption from sin?
No?

Then why is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a mere "type" of some future destruction of Jerusalem?

Where does the Bible teach you to make such a distinction?

Ok no we do not need another crucifiction or virgin birth the this prophecy is about events proceding the 'day of the Lord', when Peter is speaking of this he says this is that which was spoken of by the prphet Joel, he doesnt say its a literal fulfillment. When the Holy Sprit came he brought with him the powrr of the age to come. Like lightning flashes on the horizon they witnessed the same manifestation in the Upper Room that will be world wide in the millennial kingdom. The day of the Lord is when Christ returns in power and glory, destroying the kings of the east and stepping down on the mount of Olives, sliting it in two, making way for the way called holiness which is the road into Jerusalem in the millienial kingdom.

 

[parousia70]

Friend, Jesus said no other sign will be given this generation within the context of the Old Covenant nation, except the sign of Jonah the prophet. (Matthew 12:39, 16:4).
Jesus said this twice. Therefore the resurrection of Christ and the temple vail being torn in two is the demarcation line between the Old that passed

Many years after that, the writer of Hebrews infallibly testifies that the Old Covenant was at that time "growing old and ready to vanish" (Hebrews 8:13), not that it had vanished at the cross as you claim...
When faced with choosing which of these two polar opposite accounts to accept as true and correct, the infallible testimony of the Writer of Hebrews and the fallible testimony of random 21st century internet guy ToServe, my money is on the Writer of Hebrews...

He continues to contradict your position in the very next chapter:

Hebrews 9:8-10

8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

and the New when the graves of OT saints were immediately opened after Christ's resurrection that is the sign of Jonah.

What happened to those people who came out of their graves?
Please show where scripture teaches SPECIFICALLY these souls were taken to Heaven at that time. I don't read that anywhere here. It appears you are making an assumption based on a previously held bias and applying it to the text.

You are mistaken because Jesus says on two separate occassions that his resurrection marked the change when his saying of destroy this Temple and I will raise it up in three days. Two temple theology cannot exist after the sign of Jonah was given that OT nation/generation.

Somebody forgot to tell that to Paul:

1 Cor 9:20
and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

Paul is very clear that there are those who were indeed "under the Law" at that time.

To believe the opposite, You would have to interpret this plain langauge as saying something it does not.

If Paul tells us that there were those who were actually "under the Law" after the Cross, I'm inclined to believe him. AD70 was a Judgement against Jerusalem for thier disobedience to the Law, and in Deuteronomy 28 we can see these consiquences of disobedience laid out.

If after the Cross, no Jew was under the Law as you claim, then any punishment metered out by God to them for thier disobedience to the Law would not be Just.

God is nothing If He isn't Just.

Your view implies that After the cross of Christ, No Jew could be held responsible for their disobedience to the Law.

In contrast, scripture confirms that Disobedient Jews were under the Law at the time of Pauls writings. They would be until Christ's Judgment coming at AD70 made obedience to the Law impossible

Historically significant but not spiritually significant where scripture is very silent on it and none of the Apostles mention it in their letters. Either they all died before the event or it was not a significant spiritual event marker. Either way God would have made it explicit through his disciples and later Apostles. Apostle John who out lived all disciples does not explicitly mention the destruction of a abominable temple owing to a desolate priestly house as a spiritual event marker within the context of covenant eschatology.

Friend, the 70AD destruction was part and parcel to the Old Covenant curses found in Deuteronomy 28. It was a Curse enforced UNDER the Old Covenant. You can't enforce the terms of a covenant that no longer exists.

66-70 AD was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:15-68
And brought to pass by the Hand of God exactly as He promised He would do, during the time the Old Covenant was in FULL FORCE.

The New Testament age was already there after the sign of Jonah for the hour had already come.

So your claim is that no more New Covenant work had to be done post-ascension? The inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant years later was unnecessary to the full completion of the New Testament Age?

The sign of Jonah was Christ's key teaching.

Ephessians 4:8-11
8This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.”

9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions ? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,

There was no two temple, no two peoples OT and NT, no two Spirits, no two hopes, no two faiths both Old and New for scripture explicitly teaches -

This is an all too common misreading of Ephesians 4:7-10

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them (Col 1:15 uses this concept too). That is why bible expositors discussing Eph 4:8 often point to the broken dominion of the enemies Satan (1 Jn 3:8; Col 1:15), sin (Rom 6:14), and death (Rom 6:9 ) -- these were the "captivity" that Christ led away as his captives. So the "captivity" one leads captive are one's enemies who have been triumphed over. This notion is also the sense of Psalm 68:17-18 concerning the exodus, Sinai and the defeat of the pagans in the promised land.

Additionally, in the spectacle of the public parade the King receives gifts in homage (Ps 68:18,29,31) and he generously distributes the spoils of war to his own citizens (Ps 68:19). With Christ, he distributes the spoils of his war unto the Church in the form of the charismata given unto mankind, making them Chosen apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers with him (Eph 4:8,11)

Here's Matthew Henry on the subject:

"As great conquerors, when they rode in their triumphal chariots, used to be attended with the most illustrious of their captives led in chains, and were wont to scatter their largesses and bounty among the soldiers and other spectators of their triumphs, so Christ, when he ascended into heaven, as a triumphant conqueror, led captivity captive. It is a phrase used in the Old Testament to signify a conquest over enemies, especially over such as formerly had led others captive; see Jdg. 5:12. Captivity is here put for captives, and signifies all our spiritual enemies, who brought us into captivity before. He conquered those who had conquered us; such as sin, the devil, and death. Indeed, he triumphed over these on the cross; but the triumph was completed at his ascension, when he became Lord over all, and had the keys of death and hades put into his hands."

To claim that there existed two temples, two peoples OT and NT, two Spirits, two hopes, two faiths both Old and New from the Cross of Christ until the wars of 70AD is paradoxical indeed!

Paradoxal? maybe..
Biblical, Apostolic? Absolutely!
Long AFTER the Crucifixion and 3rd day Resurrection of Jesus, The Old Covenant was still present in the Nation and Christians were entangled in it (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:6-12; Gal 4:24-25; Gal 4:1-5:5). Therefore when Hebrews 10:9 says he "removes the first so that he may establish the second" we know that neither the first had yet been removed (Heb 8:13; Gal 4:24-25; 2 Cor 3:6-12) nor had the second been fully established. AD 30-AD 70 was the transition period under which they were in a process of coming out from underneath the Law. Converts to Christ were being circumcised and asked to keep the Law of Moses at least up until the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. That council only released the gentiles from the practice Law of Moses and Paul was present at the council.

Here is the REAL Paradox of your position:

"For verily I say unto you, Until 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." (Matthew 5:18-19)

Jesus CLEARLY says that UNTIL that time when Heaven and Earth passes, not even the most minute jot nor tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled AND, THEREFORE, whosoever shall break one of these LEAST COMMANDS and shall teach men to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

ToServe, Besides the fact that you are currently holding 2 polar opposite views (1:The Law ended at the cross & 2: Heaven and earth have not yet passed, yet according to Jesus Christ, the law would not pass until Heaven and Earth passed) this gives you a very real dilemma if you believe heaven and earth have NOT passed:

(#1) You are presently breaking even those very LEAST of the commands of the Law of Moses and are teaching others to do so -- therefore you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven
--OR--
(#2) You are presently doing and teaching even those very least of the 600+ commands of the Law of Moses and therefore shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

I look forward to hearing whether you are doing #1 or #2 in our day.

Which one are you doing?

 

[parousia70]

Ok no we do not need another crucifiction or virgin birth

Why not?
If we don't need another crucifixion or virgin birth why do we need another destruction of Jerusalem?

Where does scripture teach we don't need another of one but do need another of the other?

the this prophecy is about events proceding the 'day of the Lord', when Peter is speaking of this he says this is that which was spoken of by the prphet Joel, he doesnt say its a literal fulfillment.

"This IS That"

Can't much more LITERAL than that.

He didn't say "This is LIKE that" or "This RESEMBLES that" or "This PREFIGURES That"...

NO.

He LITERALLY said, "This IS That"

Ours is to simply accept it, and not try to wiggle out of it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why not?
If we don't need another crucifixion or virgin birth why do we need another destruction of Jerusalem?

Because we never had the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord yet, its right in the context of tge prophecy of Joel. Peter was talking about power being demonstrating the fact of the promise. At the sixth seal they xlimb in to caves and the dens on the rocks, during the fourth trumpet part ofbthe heaven are partly struck but the final fullfilment iswith the pouring out of the fourth seal just before the day of the Lord thats why. This is an obvious equivocation fallacy, let me guess, preterist right?

Where does scripture teach we don't need another of one but do need another of the other?

I've done two brief vut effective expositions, you ignored both and argued your fallacious question in circkes. It takes a lot of practice to get this good at arguing around the Scriptures.

"This IS That"

Can't much more LITERAL than that.

He didn't say "This is LIKE that" or "This RESEMBLES that" or "This PREFIGURES That"...

NO.

He LITERALLY said, "This IS That"

Ours is to simply accept it, and not try to wiggle out of it.

Ok, your obviously to make sport of Christian beliefs. I thought you might be into an actual exposition, you just like to spam the thread with fallacious retoric, theres one in every thread.

 

[ToServe]

@parousia70
I will further reply to your post #42, by point by point after this post.

For now, just to remind you that you are drawing inferences to support the 70AD Preterist claim through implicit meaning making and without addressing the many unresolvable contradictions that exist.

My rebuttal to 70AD being the demarcation line between Old and New Covenants is based on a two prong approach, that is by utilizing what Christ and the Apostles explicitly taught and at the same time highlighting contradictions of a 70AD demarcation line between Old and New Covenants.

The 70AD claim draws a covenantal doctrine that has two Covenants side by side being dispensed across 40 years from the Cross to 70AD. The reasoning given is that the Old was fading out but not yet done away with, even though temple sacrifices were being offered before God. On the other hand you have the Temple of the Holy Spirit owing to the one time sacrifice of Christ coming to fullness only after 70AD.

So the Old was fading out and the New was fading in, so that according to the 70AD narrative two Covenants were still acceptable by God owing to two temples, two peoples, two sacrifices, two hopes, two forms of worship, two faiths and two spirits.

In Ephessians 4:8-10 when the OT Saints were given gifts then that concludes the Old Covenant, since the giving of gifts is the final step to the transition from the Old to the New and this points to the Sign of Jonah at Christ's ascension whereby this explicit teaching is saying it happened well before 70AD.

Implicit inferences CANNOT be admissible whilst ignoring direct explicit teachings.

 

[mark kennedy]

@parousia70
I will further reply to your post #42, by point by point after this post.

For now, just to remind you that you are drawing inferences to support the 70AD Preterist claim through implicit meaning making and without addressing the many unresolvable contradictions that exist.

My rebuttal to 70AD being the demarcation line between Old and New Covenants is based on a two prong approach, that is by utilizing what Christ and the Apostles explicitly taught and at the same time highlighting contradictions of a 70AD demarcation line between Old and New Covenants.

The 70AD claim draws a covenantal doctrine that has two Covenants side by side being dispensed across 40 years from the Cross to 70AD. The reasoning given is that the Old was fading out but not yet done away with, even though temple sacrifices were being offered before God. On the other hand you have the Temple of the Holy Spirit owing to the one time sacrifice of Christ coming to fullness only after 70AD.

So the Old was fading out and the New was fading in, so that according to the 70AD narrative two Covenants were still acceptable by God owing to two temples, two peoples, two sacrifices, two hopes, two forms of worship, two faiths and two spirits.

In Ephessians 4:8-10 when the OT Saints were given gifts then that concludes the Old Covenant, since the giving of gifts is the final step to the transition from the Old to the New and this points to the Sign of Jonah at Christ's ascension whereby this explicit teaching is saying it happened well before 70AD.

Implicit inferences CANNOT be admissible whilst ignoring direct explicit teachings.

I'm not sure it"s relavent to your point but I wanted to add, the Joel prophecy isnt actually fulfilled until it happens just prior to the return of Christ, which is the day of the Lord. Just wanted to clarify that point.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[parousia70]

Ok, your obviously to make sport of Christian beliefs.

Wait... what?
I suppose I could say the same of you then?

I mean, all my beliefs ARE Christian beliefs, and yet here you are making sport of them, right?

Guess there's TWO in every thread.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wait... what?
I suppose I could say the same of you then?

I mean, all my beliefs ARE Christian beliefs, and yet here you are making sport of them, right?

Guess there's TWO in every thread.

No, your missing the point, or at least pretending to. The return of Christ is essential doctrine, blessed hope, the redemption of the purchased price. The heart of the Joel passage is the day of the Lord and signs proceeding it and thr wonders of the kingdom that follow. You havent the slightest interest in that, you would rather focus on the harshest things you can say about me personally within the rules. Tjhere is one in every thread, these arguments don't change from one context to another. This is all a contest to you, but some people still take an exposition like this seriously, oh but then agani, that's the whole point isn't it.

 

[parousia70]

@parousia70
I will further reply to your post #42, by point by point after this post.

I look forward to it.
I cited a good amount of scripture, so be sure and use the scriptures I cited and offer up why/how you believe they don't mean what I contend they do, and then offer up your alternate interpretation of them.

If you just ignore them, or simply tell me my interpretation is wrong, without offering up your alternative interpretation of what they EXPLICITLY teach, I'll be forced to conclude you have no answer for them beyond your own speculation and inference.

For now, just to remind you that you are drawing inferences to support the 70AD Preterist claim through implicit meaning making and without addressing the many unresolvable contradictions that exist.

Rather I cite explicit teaching, such as Hebrews 8:13
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

This was written in the early 60's AD, and the Author EXPLICITLY teaches (no inference) that, at that time, the Old Covenant was "Becoming obsolete, Growing old and READY to Vanish".

Polar opposite of your teaching that it had already disappeared decades prior.

Also, Galatians 4 SPECIFICALLY speaks of the transition that the first believers underwent as they began moving away from the Old Covenant law bondage and into their New Covenant redemption/adoption as the manifested sons of God in liberty, by God's Spirit. As the passage shows, the Galatians were very much in transition between these two covenant systems (see Gal 4:21-31).

My rebuttal to 70AD being the demarcation line between Old and New Covenants is based on a two prong approach, that is by utilizing what Christ and the Apostles explicitly taught

Yet you have to excise many EXPLICIT verses, such as Hebrews 8:13 & Galatians 4 above, to prop up this view.

It is also EXPLICITLY TESTIFIED in scripture that The Old Covenant practices including blood sacrifices, vows, and feasts continued right on in Israel until AD 70. (long after the Temple Veil was Rent, and REPAIRED)

AND, the early Jerusalem Church continued to observe Moses in all ways all through the book of Acts since only the gentiles were permitted to by-pass the Laws of Moses. Paul and James men kept vows and even gave blood sacrifices in Acts 21:18-26 as was their custom to be zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20).

The 70AD claim draws a covenantal doctrine that has two Covenants side by side being dispensed across 40 years from the Cross to 70AD. The reasoning given is that the Old was fading out but not yet done away with, even though temple sacrifices were being offered before God. On the other hand you have the Temple of the Holy Spirit owing to the one time sacrifice of Christ coming to fullness only after 70AD.

The transition from the Old Testament world to Christ and the New Testament world was absolutely huge---the biggest event of all the bible. That transition is the main topic and context of the entire New Testament scripture. How is it that so many Christians today fail to understand that this is the context in which to read the gospels and epistles? Reading the New Testament for all its worth requires us to think as first-century Jews would have, not as 21st century Westerners. For Christ and the apostles, a brave new world in which nothing of the Temple and Mosaic Covenant/Priesthood would continue was nearly unimaginable. And yet this is the very world they prophesied and the one which appeared suddenly in their generation.

So the Old was fading out and the New was fading in, so that according to the 70AD narrative two Covenants were still acceptable by God owing to two temples, two peoples, two sacrifices, two hopes, two forms of worship, two faiths and two spirits.

The Old Covenant consisted of the Mosaic Temple, laws, sacrifices, and Aaronic priesthood. Jesus EXPLICITLY placed its extinction at AD 70: "Not one stone shall be left on another." "When the Lord of the Vineyard comes...the kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a new nation..." "They shall lay you even with the ground." "Behold your House is being left to you desolate."

In Ephessians 4:8-10 when the OT Saints were given gifts then that concludes the Old Covenant, since the giving of gifts is the final step to the transition from the Old to the New and this points to the Sign of Jonah at Christ's ascension whereby this explicit teaching is saying it happened well before 70AD.

AGAIN, The Old Covenant consisted of the Mosaic Temple, laws, sacrifices, and Aaronic priesthood. Jesus EXPLICITLY placed its extinction at AD 70: "Not one stone shall be left on another." "When the Lord of the Vineyard comes...the kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a new nation..." "They shall lay you even with the ground." "Behold your House is being left to you desolate."

However. I am curious where you believe the Bible EXPLICITLY teaches your claim that "the giving of gifts is the final step to the transition from the Old to the New"
What scripture(s) do you believe explicitly teach that the giving of Gifts is the FINAL STEP and no further building or preparation of the New Covenant is necessary for it's completion, no need for gentile inclusion, no need for the Apostles to travel through Israel from city to city preaching the gospel, no need for the Gospel to be preached to all the world, no need for the Apostles to continue to be zealous for the Law and perform its duties, sacrifices and rituals, the way they did and taught their flocks to do, no need to Christ to do any work POST ascension at the Heavenly Altar, etc... where does the Bible teach that all these subsequent EXPLICIT NEW COVENANT TEACHINGS are to be ignored, rejected, or excised from the pages of Scripture, as you seem to infer?

Implicit inferences CANNOT be admissible whilst ignoring direct explicit teachings.

I have provided ALL explicit teachings. I maintain that Yours is the view of infrence and speculation.

Jerusalem fell precisely BECAUSE the Old Covenant was a valid contract unto AD 70 (Matthew 5:17-18). From AD 66-70, the city of Jerusalem fell under the powerful curses outlined in Lev 26 and Deut 28! If that old covenant was no longer extant, Jerusalem wouldn't have fallen under the curses prescribed in Lev 26 and Deut 28.

I do not deny that the New Covenant was begun during Christ's earthly ministry.
However, the "last days" generation that transitioned in the New Covenant Kingdom age [i.e., AD 30-70] was a mere 40 year struggle to break from the Law bondage and curse for the People of God. The "last days" struggle for God's people ended with the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

The kingdom of Christ was in the process of being preached and established among the gentiles while certain of the Jewish establishment sought to stop it from happening. This 40-year struggle grew worse and then ended abruptly when the rebellious Jews were wiped out in Jerusalem. The obedient Jews (with their gentile brothers added in), in following the gospel, were protected and preserved as the only covenant people left alive. Thus Christ's New Covenant people emerged with the Kingdom while the wicked sons were cast out and killed off to extinction. There was no longer an Old Covenant nation, priesthood, people, or religion after AD 70. The Old Covenant world went up in flames. Christ's New Covenant Kingdom was all that remained.

Look closely at Heb 12:18, and you will see that the contrast is being made between the Old and New Covenant ages. The author states that God "shook the earth" to establish the Mosaic age, but now in their time he was "shaking once more," for they were receiving the New Covenant kingdom Jesus gave them (Matt 21:43/Heb 12:28/Mark 1:14-15). The Old Covenant age was at that moment (i.e., AD 64-66) waxing old and was "about to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). It did vanish away just about five years later at AD 70, for "in a very, very short while, He who was coming came and did not delay" (Heb 10:37).

According to the writer of Hebrews, God was removing the first covenant age so as to establish the second:

--COMPARE THIS--

Hebrews 12:27
And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace...

--TO THIS--

Hebrews 10:9
Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first [covenant], that he may establish the second.

--AND TO THIS--

Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first [covenant] obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.

--AND TO THIS--

2 Corinthians 3:6-8, 11
[God] made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? ... For if that which is fading away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

"Is fading away" was then, EXPLICITLY, "present tense", long after the Cross.
No inference or speculation needed to accept this EXPLICIT Apostolic teaching as true and correct.

Simply put, the Old Covenant world was being removed, and the New Covenant World was being erected in its place. All that took place in the last days period of the Old Covenant age.

 

[parousia70]

No, your missing the point, or at least pretending to. The return of Christ is essential doctrine, blessed hope, the redemption of the purchased price.

I agree!
are you surprised?

The heart of the Joel passage is the day of the Lord and signs proceeding it and thr wonders of the kingdom that follow.

Christ's return in Judgement upon 1st century Israel in AD 67-70 (Matthew 21:33-45) was the greatest Day of the Lord in Israel's history.

Jesus wielded Rome's powers as Jehovah had wielded the powers and kings of Babylon and Persia as his own anointed servants in His previous "Day of the Lord" judgments (Jer 25:9; Isa 44:28-45:13). That's how the Day of the Lord judgments work! Rome continued so that the Church would overtake it as the stone of Daniel 2 that became a giant mountain over the whole earth. The pagan Roman Empire was destroyed.

That great and terrible Day of the Lord struck at the headquarters of opposition. Apostate Jerusalem, a.k.a. the great city Mystery Babylon (Rev 14:8/11:8 ), was responsible for the persecution of Christ and the apostles and prophets. They used the power of Rome to persecute the Church worldwide after killing Christ himself. For that, all of the blood shed on the earth from Able unto the time of Christ was to be avenged upon their generation according to Matt 23:31-36. All torah-observant, Christ-rejecting Jews in the Roman Empire were destroyed in Jerusalem in that great and terrible wrath of AD 67-70. The judgment came at that time (1 Peter 4:17; cf Jn 12:31), for the end of all things was then at hand (1 Peter 4:7; 2 Tim 4:1)--the end of the age had come.

Furthermore, the vengeance of God in those last days (Heb 1:1-2; James 5:3; Acts 2:15-17) had worldwide impact. A last-days famine hit the whole empire (Acts 11:28 ), God was striking down kings (Acts 12:20-23) as well as the emperor-gods (Nero, Galba, etc), Rome burned, and the world Temple of Jupiter was destroyed in AD 69. That Day of the Lord, the greatest of all those before it, did come upon the whole world as prophesied. Christ's Church emerged victorious and has become the greatest, most wondrous kingdom/empire known to mankind.

You haven't the slightest interest in that, you would rather focus on the harshest things you can say about me personally within the rules. Tjhere is one in every thread, these arguments don't change from one context to another. This is all a contest to you, but some people still take an exposition like this seriously, oh but then agani, that's the whole point isn't it.

Friend, I have not once called your views unchristian or antichristian... yet you have repeatedly applied those terms to my views.
I would bet our readers would agree with me that of the two of us, YOU are the one who is only interested in focusing on the harshest things you can say about me personally, instead of taking the exposition of these topics seriously...

What I have done is address the scriptures you cite and offer up why I do not believe they mean what you contend they do. Maybe you now could have the courtesy to do the same for me?

Unlike your chosen tone with me, I have never claimed you hold Un Christian views.
Address the scriptures I cite and tell us why they do not mean what I contend they do... at least our friend ToServe is attempting to do that.. maybe you could follow his example and we could ratchet this thread back from your personal attacks claiming my views are unchristian, and get back to discussing the meat of the scriptures, and take the exposition of them as seriously as I am?

Ever the optimist, I continue to hold out hope that you'll do this with me, and find some way in your heart to leave the personal attacks of "unchristian" against me aside.

 

[mark kennedy]

I agree!
are you surprised?



Christ's return in Judgement upon 1st century Israel in AD 67-70 was the greatest Day of the Lord in history.

Jesus wielded Rome's powers as Jehovah had wielded the powers and kings of Babylon and Persia as his own anointed servants in His previous "Day of the Lord" judgments (Jer 25:9; Isa 44:28-45:13). That's how the Day of the Lord judgments work! Rome continued so that the Church would overtake it as the stone of Daniel 2 that became a giant mountain over the whole earth. The pagan Roman Empire was destroyed.

That great and terrible Day of the Lord struck at the headquarters of opposition. Apostate Jerusalem, a.k.a. the great city Mystery Babylon (Rev 14:8/11:8 ), was responsible for the persecution of Christ and the apostles and prophets. They used the power of Rome to persecute the Church worldwide after killing Christ himself. For that, all of the blood shed on the earth from Able unto the time of Christ was to be avenged upon their generation according to Matt 23:31-36. All torah-observant, Christ-rejecting Jews in the Roman Empire were destroyed in Jerusalem in that great and terrible wrath of AD 67-70. The judgment came at that time (1 Peter 4:17; cf Jn 12:31), for the end of all things was then at hand (1 Peter 4:7; 2 Tim 4:1)--the end of the age had come.

Furthermore, the vengeance of God in those last days (Heb 1:1-2; James 5:3; Acts 2:15-17) had worldwide impact. A last-days famine hit the whole empire (Acts 11:28 ), God was striking down kings (Acts 12:20-23) as well as the emperor-gods (Nero, Galba, etc), Rome burned, and the world Temple of Jupiter was destroyed in AD 69. That Day of the Lord, the greatest of all those before it, did come upon the whole world as prophesied. Christ's Church emerged victorious and has become the greatest, most wondrous kingdom/empire known to mankind.



Friend, I have not once called your views unchristian or antichristian... yet you have repeatedly applied those terms to my views.
I would bet our readers would agree with me that of the tow of us, YOU are the one who is only interested in focusing on the harshest things you can say about me personally, instead of taking the exposition of these topics seriously...

What I have done is address the scriptures you cite and offer up why I do not believe what you contend they do. Maybe you would have the courtesy to do the same for me?

Unlike your chosen tone with me, I have never claimed you hold Un Christian views.
Address the scriptures I cite and tell us why they do not mean what I contend they do... at least our friend ToServe is attempting to do that.. maybe you could follow his example and we could ratchet this thread back from your personal attacks and get back to discussing the meat of the scriptures?

What your trying to do here is not unlike what theistic evolutionists try to do with Genesis 1, your allegorizing the text. Your giving us a naturalistic explaination for the promise of the return of Christ, the Day of the Lord, and the signs immediately proceeding described in Joel. Just as John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah, the prophecy of Elijah appearing before the coming of the Messiah was demonstrated without being completely fulfilled. Now it will be, Elijah will prophecy for three and a half years during the tribulation but John wssn't the literal Elijah.

When I say Christian beliefs I'm talking about essential doctrine and it doesn't get any more vital then the return of Christ. Now, I have no idea what you believe or don't believe except from what you've written here and what I'm seeing is a tortured exposition of the clear meaning in the prophecy of Joel mentioned in the discourse on the Mount of Olives. Bear in mind the Apostles want to know what the sign of his coming will be.

Jesus did say not one stone will be left on top of the other, he did pedict the drestruction of that Temple. That is not all he had to say about his return and the return of Christ in power and glory isn't some random prediction of the endurance of the church in the mist of persecution.

My whole problem here is an allegorization of the text not supported by the context or legitamate hermenuetics. I can see you've done a lot of this and I'm sure the core arguments are invariably along those lines. Any Christian that does this kind of doctrine must be careful not to compromise on essential doctrine, and to maintain the core elements of the gospel, especially prophetic predictions related to the second coming.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The phrase "son of man" is used in 190 verses of the Bible

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)
"son of man"
occurs 194 times in 190 verses in the NKJV.

It is used in 4 verses of the Temple Discourses:

Luke 21:27:
27 And then will they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with power<1411> and great glory.
36 “Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy[fn] to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”
Matthew 24:30
“Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn,
and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power<1411> and great glory.
Mark 13:26
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power<1411> and glory.

2 verses in Revelation

Revelation 1:13
and in the midst of the seven lamp-stands One like-as a Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band.

Revelation 14:14
Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like-as a Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle

It is shown in 2 verses of Daniel, the prophet which Jesus quotes from in Mark and Matthew

Daniel 7:13 uses the Aramaic word #606

606 'enash (Aramaic) or renash (Aramaic) {en-ash'}; corresponding to 582;
a man:--man, + whosoever.

Daniel 7:13
“I was watching in the night visions,
And behold! One like the Son of Man<606>, Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.

Daniel 8:17 uses the Hebrew word #120, which is used for "adam".

120 'adam from 119; ruddy i.e.
a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

Daniel 8:17
So he came near where I stood, and when he came I was afraid and fell on my face; but he said to me,
“Understand, son of man/adam<120>, that the vision refers to the time of the end.”

What is the significance of the 2 different words Daniel uses for "man" in these 2 verses?



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

3 verses of the Temple discourse use cloud/s.

Luke 21:27:
27 And then will they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with power<1411> and great glory.
36 “Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy[fn] to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”
Matthew 24:30
“Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn,
and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power<1411> and great glory.
Mark 13:26
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power<1411> and glory.

Luke uses singular "cloud"<3507> which is used in 14 verses.

1 each in Matt and Mar [the transfiguration], Luke [4], Acts [1] 1 Corinthians [2] and Revelation [5]

Luke 21:27:
27 And then will they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory.

The exact word form used in Luke 21:27 is used in 8 verses
[the words in bold]

3 verses concerning the Transfiguration of Jesus and presence of Moses and Elijah:

Matthew 17:5
While He was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying,
“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”
Mark 9:7
And a cloud came and overshadowed them;
and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!”
Luke 9:34 - While He was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them;
and they were fearful as they entered the cloud.

Jesus taken up by a cloud:
Acts 1:9
Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up,
and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

OT reference to Moses:
1 Corinthians 10:2
all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

2 verses in Revelation:

2 witnesses ascending to heaven in a cloud:
Revelation 11:12
And they[fn] heard a loud Voice out of the heaven saying to them, “ascend ye here!”
And they ascended to heaven in a cloud,
and their enemies saw them.

And a reference to the "harvest of the land"
Revelation 14:14
Then I looked, and behold! a white cloud,
and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man,
having on His head a golden crown,
and in His hand a sharp sickle.

 

[ToServe]

Many years after that, the writer of Hebrews infallibly testifies that the Old Covenant was at that time "growing old and ready to vanish" (Hebrews 8:13), not that it had vanished at the cross as you claim...

You mean OC fading out as in God still considered those who are under the Law as faithful servants right?

If not faithful servants then what?

Surely, when Jesus said it is finished then he who is the Messiah whom the Old Testament prophets said would come and be as the firgure of Moses called The Servant in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 ended the OC agreement right there and then.

How could a Covenant that is an agreement between God and those still under the Law exist, if Jesus said you shall never see me until you say blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord?

Did God not say "I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name."

Did God as the second party to the OC continue in agreement with those who refused to listen and to come to Jesus?

It would be credulous to even think that God is honoring those who are under the Law, for the OC agreement after the Cross no longer stood and was ripped up and the Blood Covenant of His Son triumphed over the nullified OC agreement. It is finished said Jesus.

You misread Hebrews 8:13 because it clearly stating that the OC is made obsolete by the New Covenant and an obsolete agreement has no legal standing as far as being continued by the desolate priestly house after the sign of Jonah was given them.

The Hebrews writer is saying what is no longer an agreement between two parties who is God and OC Jews as an effect will eventually dissipate because God has pulled out from it and so for this cause the effect is desolation. This is not saying that God still honours and considers the OC as a legal agreement that is still in effect, with the exception of it slowly fading out over 40 years. What the Hebrews writer is saying is those who continue under the Law, though an agreement does not exist, by virtue of it being no longer legal will soon disappear with it.

Daniel 9:27 states that Jesus shall cause the OC sacrifices to cease, resulting as an effect to those practices being desolate even when they are ended before 70AD and on top of that the judgement determined (70AD) is eventually poured upon the already desolated priestly house after the Cross of Christ .

He continues to contradict your position in the very next chapter:

Hebrews 9:8-10

8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordina

What happened to those people who came out of their graves?
Please show where scripture teaches SPECIFICALLY these souls were taken to Heaven at that time. I don't read that anywhere here. It appears you are making an assumption based on a previously held bias and applying it to the text.

1 Cor 9:20
and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

Paul is very clear that there are those who were indeed "under the Law" at that time.

If after the Cross, no Jew was under the Law as you claim, then any punishment metered out by God to them for thier disobedience to the Law would not be Just.

God is nothing If He isn't Just.

Your view implies that After the cross of Christ, No Jew could be held responsible for their disobedience to the Law.

In contrast, scripture confirms that Disobedient Jews were under the Law at the time of Pauls writings. They would be until Christ's Judgment coming at AD70 made obedience to the Law impossible

Friend, the 70AD destruction was part and parcel to the Old Covenant curses found in Deuteronomy 28. It was a Curse enforced UNDER the Old Covenant. You can't enforce the terms of a covenant that no longer exists.

66-70 AD was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:15-68
And brought to pass by the Hand of God exactly as He promised He would do, during the time the Old Covenant was in FULL FORCE.

So your claim is that no more New Covenant work had to be done post-ascension? The inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant years later was unnecessary to the full completion of the New Testament Age?

This is an all too common misreading of Ephesians 4:7-10

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them (Col 1:15 uses this concept too). That is why bible expositors discussing Eph 4:8 often point to the broken dominion of the enemies Satan (1 Jn 3:8; Col 1:15), sin (Rom 6:14), and death (Rom 6:9 ) -- these were the "captivity" that Christ led away as his captives. So the "captivity" one leads captive are one's enemies who have been triumphed over. This notion is also the sense of Psalm 68:17-18 concerning the exodus, Sinai and the defeat of the pagans in the promised land.

Additionally, in the spectacle of the public parade the King receives gifts in homage (Ps 68:18,29,31) and he generously distributes the spoils of war to his own citizens (Ps 68:19). With Christ, he distributes the spoils of his war unto the Church in the form of the charismata given unto mankind, making them Chosen apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers with him (Eph 4:8,11)

Here's Matthew Henry on the subject:

"As great conquerors, when they rode in their triumphal chariots, used to be attended with the most illustrious of their captives led in chains, and were wont to scatter their largesses and bounty among the soldiers and other spectators of their triumphs, so Christ, when he ascended into heaven, as a triumphant conqueror, led captivity captive. It is a phrase used in the Old Testament to signify a conquest over enemies, especially over such as formerly had led others captive; see Jdg. 5:12. Captivity is here put for captives, and signifies all our spiritual enemies, who brought us into captivity before. He conquered those who had conquered us; such as sin, the devil, and death. Indeed, he triumphed over these on the cross; but the triumph was completed at his ascension, when he became Lord over all, and had the keys of death and hades put into his hands

Paradoxal? maybe..
Biblical, Apostolic? Absolutely!
Long AFTER the Crucifixion and 3rd day Resurrection of Jesus, The Old Covenant was still present in the Nation and Christians were entangled in it (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:6-12; Gal 4:24-25; Gal 4:1-5:5). Therefore when Hebrews 10:9 says he "removes the first so that he may establish the second" we know that neither the first had yet been removed (Heb 8:13; Gal 4:24-25; 2 Cor 3:6-12) nor had the second been fully established. AD 30-AD 70 was the transition period under which they were in a process of coming out from underneath the Law. Converts to Christ were being circumcised and asked to keep the Law of Moses at least up until the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. That council only released the gentiles from the practice Law of Moses and Paul was present at the council.

Here is the REAL Paradox of your position:

"For verily I say unto you, Until 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." (Matthew 5:18-19)

Jesus CLEARLY says that UNTIL that time when Heaven and Earth passes, not even the most minute jot nor tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled AND, THEREFORE, whosoever shall break one of these LEAST COMMANDS and shall teach men to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

ToServe, Besides the fact that you are currently holding 2 polar opposite views (1:The Law ended at the cross & 2: Heaven and earth have not yet passed, yet according to Jesus Christ, the law would not pass until Heaven and Earth passed) this gives you a very real dilemma if you believe heaven and earth have NOT passed:

(#1) You are presently breaking even those very LEAST of the commands of the Law of Moses and are teaching others to do so -- therefore you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven
--OR--
(#2) You are presently doing and teaching even those very least of the 600+ commands of the Law of Moses and therefore shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

I look forward to hearing whether you are doing #1 or #2 in our day.

Which one are you doing?

 

[mark kennedy]

The phrase "son of man" is used in 190 verses of the Bible

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)
"son of man"
occurs 194 times in 190 verses in the NKJV.

It is used in 4 verses of the Temple Discourses:

Luke 21:27:
27 And then will they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with power<1411> and great glory.
36 “Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy[fn] to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”
Matthew 24:30
“Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn,
and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power<1411> and great glory.
Mark 13:26
“Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power<1411> and glory.

2 verses in Revelation

Revelation 1:13
and in the midst of the seven lamp-stands One like-as a Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band.

Revelation 14:14
Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like-as a Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle

It is shown in 2 verses of Daniel, the prophet which Jesus quotes from in Mark and Matthew

Daniel 7:13 uses the Aramaic word #606

606 'enash (Aramaic) or renash (Aramaic) {en-ash'}; corresponding to 582;
a man:--man, + whosoever.

Daniel 7:13
“I was watching in the night visions,
And behold! One like the Son of Man<606>, Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.

Daniel 8:17 uses the Hebrew word #120, which is used for "adam".

120 'adam from 119; ruddy i.e.
a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

Daniel 8:17
So he came near where I stood, and when he came I was afraid and fell on my face; but he said to me,
“Understand, son of man/adam<120>, that the vision refers to the time of the end.”

What is the significance of the 2 different words Daniel uses for "man" in these 2 verses?



.

Adam is used in the OT synonomously with humanity over 400 times. Paul compares Adam with Christ repeatedly in Romans 5, the first Adam brought sin and death, the second brought righteousness and life. When you see Jesus as the Son of Man in the opening verses of Revelations the discription resembles the vestments of the High Priest. The white hair and linen, suggesting purity and holiness. A golden breastplate which sounds like the ephod. He is tendeing to the seven pronged menorah, which is the duty of the priests. Jusus is not only our Hogh Priest but through the incarnation and the atonement through his shed blood on the cross, he satisfied the righteous requirements of the Law once and for all time. He did not just purify us of our sins but perfected humanity, providing for righeousness and holiness in order that just as in Adam all die, all in Christ will have eternal life.

Now I'm not entirely sure but using another term sounds like a paralellism. Its a common Hebrew literary feature that repeats something in other words for the sake of emphasis.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ToServe]

He continues to contradict your position in the very next chapter:

Hebrews 9:8-10

8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances.

What is being stated is that the 1st Temple gifts and sacrifices when the Ark of the Covenant existed along with the details described at the beginning of the chapter no longer apply. Author continues by stating that the final sanctuary of Zechariah 4 was established on the Cornerstone, whereby Jesus our High Priest entered the Heavenly Holy of Holies with his own blood and started ministering and interceding on our behalves ever since he ascended up on high to sit on the right hand of the Father.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ reveals that the Ark of the Covenant is seen in Heaven within the Heavenly sanctuary where Jesus is the Temple therein. As he stated destroy this Temple and I will raise it up on the third day. The Ark of the Covenant is not seen within the earthly temple, ever since the 1st Temple was destroyed.

The Holy Spirit was showing by the 1st Temple example, that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning within the 1st Temple construct where the Ark of the Covenant was. So that 1st temple construct was a foreshadow that was only for the purpose of illustrating the Most Holy place that the author declares is now fully disclosed and within their present time, thereby refuting any notion of the illustration of the 1st Temple construct (Old Covenant) existing alongside what is now (New Covenant) fully disclosed in Christ Jesus our Temple of our Holy Spirit indwelled bodies.

You are misreading the text and collapsing the context by pulling versus out of context and applying it to the first century temple existing then rather than applying it to the 1st Temple that the author is communicating across as an example for the purpose of contrasting the illustrated article as compared to the genuine article.

You therefore, have failed to consider what the author is communicating across, that is in contrasting temples across two different eras. You are ignoring to read the entire chapter in context.

What happened to those people who came out of their graves?
Please show where scripture teaches SPECIFICALLY these souls were taken to Heaven at that time. I don't read that anywhere here. It appears you are making an assumption based on a previously held bias and applying it to the text.

1 Cor 9:20
and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

Paul is very clear that there are those who were indeed "under the Law" at that time.

If after the Cross, no Jew was under the Law as you claim, then any punishment metered out by God to them for thier disobedience to the Law would not be Just.

God is nothing If He isn't Just.

Your view implies that After the cross of Christ, No Jew could be held responsible for their disobedience to the Law.

In contrast, scripture confirms that Disobedient Jews were under the Law at the time of Pauls writings. They would be until Christ's Judgment coming at AD70 made obedience to the Law impossible

Friend, the 70AD destruction was part and parcel to the Old Covenant curses found in Deuteronomy 28. It was a Curse enforced UNDER the Old Covenant. You can't enforce the terms of a covenant that no longer exists.

66-70 AD was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:15-68
And brought to pass by the Hand of God exactly as He promised He would do, during the time the Old Covenant was in FULL FORCE.

So your claim is that no more New Covenant work had to be done post-ascension? The inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant years later was unnecessary to the full completion of the New Testament Age?

This is an all too common misreading of Ephesians 4:7-10

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them (Col 1:15 uses this concept too). That is why bible expositors discussing Eph 4:8 often point to the broken dominion of the enemies Satan (1 Jn 3:8; Col 1:15), sin (Rom 6:14), and death (Rom 6:9 ) -- these were the "captivity" that Christ led away as his captives. So the "captivity" one leads captive are one's enemies who have been triumphed over. This notion is also the sense of Psalm 68:17-18 concerning the exodus, Sinai and the defeat of the pagans in the promised land.

Additionally, in the spectacle of the public parade the King receives gifts in homage (Ps 68:18,29,31) and he generously distributes the spoils of war to his own citizens (Ps 68:19). With Christ, he distributes the spoils of his war unto the Church in the form of the charismata given unto mankind, making them Chosen apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers with him (Eph 4:8,11)

Here's Matthew Henry on the subject:

"As great conquerors, when they rode in their triumphal chariots, used to be attended with the most illustrious of their captives led in chains, and were wont to scatter their largesses and bounty among the soldiers and other spectators of their triumphs, so Christ, when he ascended into heaven, as a triumphant conqueror, led captivity captive. It is a phrase used in the Old Testament to signify a conquest over enemies, especially over such as formerly had led others captive; see Jdg. 5:12. Captivity is here put for captives, and signifies all our spiritual enemies, who brought us into captivity before. He conquered those who had conquered us; such as sin, the devil, and death. Indeed, he triumphed over these on the cross; but the triumph was completed at his ascension, when he became Lord over all, and had the keys of death and hades put into his hands

Paradoxal? maybe..
Biblical, Apostolic? Absolutely!
Long AFTER the Crucifixion and 3rd day Resurrection of Jesus, The Old Covenant was still present in the Nation and Christians were entangled in it (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:6-12; Gal 4:24-25; Gal 4:1-5:5). Therefore when Hebrews 10:9 says he "removes the first so that he may establish the second" we know that neither the first had yet been removed (Heb 8:13; Gal 4:24-25; 2 Cor 3:6-12) nor had the second been fully established. AD 30-AD 70 was the transition period under which they were in a process of coming out from underneath the Law. Converts to Christ were being circumcised and asked to keep the Law of Moses at least up until the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. That council only released the gentiles from the practice Law of Moses and Paul was present at the council.

Here is the REAL Paradox of your position:

"For verily I say unto you, Until 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." (Matthew 5:18-19)

Jesus CLEARLY says that UNTIL that time when Heaven and Earth passes, not even the most minute jot nor tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled AND, THEREFORE, whosoever shall break one of these LEAST COMMANDS and shall teach men to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

ToServe, Besides the fact that you are currently holding 2 polar opposite views (1:The Law ended at the cross & 2: Heaven and earth have not yet passed, yet according to Jesus Christ, the law would not pass until Heaven and Earth passed) this gives you a very real dilemma if you believe heaven and earth have NOT passed:

(#1) You are presently breaking even those very LEAST of the commands of the Law of Moses and are teaching others to do so -- therefore you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven
--OR--
(#2) You are presently doing and teaching even those very least of the 600+ commands of the Law of Moses and therefore shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

I look forward to hearing whether you are doing #1 or #2 in our day.

Which one are you doing?

 

[mark kennedy]

What is being stated is that the 1st Temple gifts and sacrifices when the Ark of the Covenant existed along with the details described at the beginning of the chapter no longer apply. Author continues by stating that the final sanctuary of Zechariah 4 was established on the Cornerstone, whereby Jesus our High Priest entered the Heavenly Holy of Holies with his own blood and started ministering and interceding on our behalves ever since he ascended up on high to sit on the right hand of the Father.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ reveals that the Ark of the Covenant is seen in Heaven within the Heavenly sanctuary where Jesus is the Temple therein. As he stated destroy this Temple and I will raise it up on the third day. The Ark of the Covenant is not seen within the earthly temple, ever since the 1st Temple was destroyed.

The Holy Spirit was showing by the 1st Temple example, that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning within the 1st Temple construct where the Ark of the Covenant was. So that 1st temple construct was a foreshadow that was only for the purpose of illustrating the Most Holy place that the author declares is now fully disclosed and within their present time, thereby refuting any notion of the illustration of the 1st Temple construct (Old Covenant) existing alongside what is now (New Covenant) fully disclosed in Christ Jesus our Temple of our Holy Spirit indwelled bodies.

You are misreading the text and collapsing the context by pulling versus out of context and applying it to the first century temple existing then rather than applying it to the 1st Temple that the author is communicating across as an example for the purpose of contrasting the illustrated article as compared to the genuine article.

You therefore, have failed to consider what the author is communicating across, that is in contrasting temples across two different eras. You are ignoring to read the entire chapter in context.

I don't exactly what you guys are into here but the body of Christ is described as a Temple, both his physicsl frame and the church are described as the Temple wherein dwells the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 14). He also warns that you should abstain from fornication because your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. In Hebrews the author is comparing the covenant, angels, Moses, oblations and the Temple to Christ.

 

[ToServe]

I don't exactly what you guys are into here but the body of Christ is described as a Temple, both his physicsl frame and the church are described as the Temple wherein dwells the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 14). He also warns that you should abstain from fornication because your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. In Hebrews the author is comparing the covenant, angels, Moses, oblations and the Temple to Christ.

Read the whole chapter where the sacrifices of the OC system was compared to the sacrifice of Christ.

The 1st temple was an illustration
The final Temple of Zechariah 4 is the genuine article.

 

[ToServe]

What happened to those people who came out of their graves?
Please show where scripture teaches SPECIFICALLY these souls were taken to Heaven at that time. I don't read that anywhere here. It appears you are making an assumption based on a previously held bias and applying it to the text.

Daniel 12 and Ezekiel 37:11-14, especially Daniel 12 where the Angel informs Daniel that he must go and rest (biologically die) and to wait in his lot (reserved place) for Michael which is the call sign for the Christ who comes to make a stand for Daniel's OC people. When Michael comes he will raise the OC saints so that many of them will arise like the stars/angels of Heaven, which further corroborates with Matthew 27:51-53.

Daniel is told explicitly that those departed saints will rise from the dead to receive their eternal inheritance as the 144,000 first fruits before the three angel message is declares the gospel going to the Gentile nations. (read Rev 6,7,14).

Paul even provides the order of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:23 as follows -

Christ the forerunner
144,000 OC firstfruits (Matthew 27:51-53)

Then those New Covenant people who belong to him and who are of his body his Church.

1 Cor 9:20
and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

Paul is very clear that there are those who were indeed "under the Law" at that time.

If after the Cross, no Jew was under the Law as you claim, then any punishment metered out by God to them for thier disobedience to the Law would not be Just.

God is nothing If He isn't Just.

Your view implies that After the cross of Christ, No Jew could be held responsible for their disobedience to the Law.

In contrast, scripture confirms that Disobedient Jews were under the Law at the time of Pauls writings. They would be until Christ's Judgment coming at AD70 made obedience to the Law impossible

Friend, the 70AD destruction was part and parcel to the Old Covenant curses found in Deuteronomy 28. It was a Curse enforced UNDER the Old Covenant. You can't enforce the terms of a covenant that no longer exists.

66-70 AD was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:15-68
And brought to pass by the Hand of God exactly as He promised He would do, during the time the Old Covenant was in FULL FORCE.

So your claim is that no more New Covenant work had to be done post-ascension? The inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant years later was unnecessary to the full completion of the New Testament Age?

This is an all too common misreading of Ephesians 4:7-10

The "captivity" that a triumphant King would "lead captive" was his bound enemies. The victorious king would lead a parade through town, marching his bound prisoners in a public display to shame them and gloat over them (Col 1:15 uses this concept too). That is why bible expositors discussing Eph 4:8 often point to the broken dominion of the enemies Satan (1 Jn 3:8; Col 1:15), sin (Rom 6:14), and death (Rom 6:9 ) -- these were the "captivity" that Christ led away as his captives. So the "captivity" one leads captive are one's enemies who have been triumphed over. This notion is also the sense of Psalm 68:17-18 concerning the exodus, Sinai and the defeat of the pagans in the promised land.

Additionally, in the spectacle of the public parade the King receives gifts in homage (Ps 68:18,29,31) and he generously distributes the spoils of war to his own citizens (Ps 68:19). With Christ, he distributes the spoils of his war unto the Church in the form of the charismata given unto mankind, making them Chosen apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers with him (Eph 4:8,11)

Here's Matthew Henry on the subject:

"As great conquerors, when they rode in their triumphal chariots, used to be attended with the most illustrious of their captives led in chains, and were wont to scatter their largesses and bounty among the soldiers and other spectators of their triumphs, so Christ, when he ascended into heaven, as a triumphant conqueror, led captivity captive. It is a phrase used in the Old Testament to signify a conquest over enemies, especially over such as formerly had led others captive; see Jdg. 5:12. Captivity is here put for captives, and signifies all our spiritual enemies, who brought us into captivity before. He conquered those who had conquered us; such as sin, the devil, and death. Indeed, he triumphed over these on the cross; but the triumph was completed at his ascension, when he became Lord over all, and had the keys of death and hades put into his hands

Paradoxal? maybe..
Biblical, Apostolic? Absolutely!
Long AFTER the Crucifixion and 3rd day Resurrection of Jesus, The Old Covenant was still present in the Nation and Christians were entangled in it (Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:6-12; Gal 4:24-25; Gal 4:1-5:5). Therefore when Hebrews 10:9 says he "removes the first so that he may establish the second" we know that neither the first had yet been removed (Heb 8:13; Gal 4:24-25; 2 Cor 3:6-12) nor had the second been fully established. AD 30-AD 70 was the transition period under which they were in a process of coming out from underneath the Law. Converts to Christ were being circumcised and asked to keep the Law of Moses at least up until the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. That council only released the gentiles from the practice Law of Moses and Paul was present at the council.

Here is the REAL Paradox of your position:

"For verily I say unto you, Until 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." (Matthew 5:18-19)

Jesus CLEARLY says that UNTIL that time when Heaven and Earth passes, not even the most minute jot nor tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled AND, THEREFORE, whosoever shall break one of these LEAST COMMANDS and shall teach men to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

ToServe, Besides the fact that you are currently holding 2 polar opposite views (1:The Law ended at the cross & 2: Heaven and earth have not yet passed, yet according to Jesus Christ, the law would not pass until Heaven and Earth passed) this gives you a very real dilemma if you believe heaven and earth have NOT passed:

(#1) You are presently breaking even those very LEAST of the commands of the Law of Moses and are teaching others to do so -- therefore you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven
--OR--
(#2) You are presently doing and teaching even those very least of the 600+ commands of the Law of Moses and therefore shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

I look forward to hearing whether you are doing #1 or #2 in our day.

Which one are you doing?

 

[mark kennedy]

Read the whole chapter where the sacrifices of the OC system was compared to the sacrifice of Christ.

The 1st temple was an illustration
The final Temple of Zechariah 4 is the genuine article.

Alright, I read both chapters, why I'm not sure. I came away with two texts I believe are the heart of the emphasis:

Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (Heb. 9:27:-28)

Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. (Zech. 4:14)​

The atonement of Christ and the two witnesses, you had a larger point you were trying to make?