The one made previouly that I was responding to. It should be obvious from the quote.Which one, please jog my mind. Do you have a certain post in mind?
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?
Cool, I'll wait and see.Yep ok thanks. I will have a gander at it.
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?
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)
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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).
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 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.
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."
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?
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 EXPLI
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.
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 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.
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."
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?
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 EXPLI
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.
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.
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."
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?
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 EXPLI
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.
Try, about three years BEFORE it was destroyed.
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."
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?
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 EXPLI
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.
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 EXPLI
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.
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?
What was that agreement? "Do X or else..."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.
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.
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 .
They were under a 40 year probation, not under a 40 year transition/renovation for the hand of God was already condemning them just as the unfaithful Israelites were being condemned in the 40 year exodus. The stone condemned them ever since it was laid as the sure foundation.