This generation

[Hammster]

That is simply not true. The problem is: Preterists fail to grasp that the old covenant ended, and the new covenant began, at the cross. If you fail to see this then you will be confused on this overall matter.

The last days came in with Christ. It was Christ’s earthly ministry that ushered in the last days, a period that will terminated in the glorious second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1:1-2 declares, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.”

Christ’s impeccable life, His vicarious death and glorious resurrection perfectly fulfilled the demands of this notable prophecy. Hebrews 9:26 says, “now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Peter clearly tells us that Joel 2 refers to Pentecost in Acts 2:16-21. Moreover, Acts 2 also reveals that the last days began with the move of the Holy Spirit in the early church. Peter says, “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.”

1 Peter 1:18-20 also confirm the fact that says, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

I John 2:18 says, “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

1 Corinthians 10:11 says, “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.”

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
— Hebrews 8:13

It wasn’t completely gone. It was becoming obsolete. When the great tribulation that Christ talked about in the OD was over, then it disappeared. “This generation” meant exactly that.

 

[sovereigngrace]

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
— Hebrews 8:13

It wasn’t completely gone. It was becoming obsolete. When the great tribulation that Christ talked about in the OD was over, then it disappeared. “This generation” meant exactly that.

Obviously you missed what I wrote above to another poster. I will repeat, as it negates your argument.

Hebrews 8:13: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete). Now that which decayeth (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete) and waxeth old (gerasko) is ready to vanish away.”

After Christ’s death and the ripping of the curtain in two, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was rendered wholly redundant. Its usefulness was over. It was obsolete. It remaining standing up until AD70 did not mean it had any further earthly purpose, or that the old covenant remained in effect. It was just like a human corpse awaiting burial. It had no vitality, no relevance and no purpose. Once Christ died, the old covenant died. Degeneration immediately set in, just like the decay that kicks in when a human gives up the ghost.

Paul shows us that the old covenant was decaying and ready to vanish away after the cross. Of course, anything that is decaying is already dead. From then on it is just rotting and in urgent need of a decent burial.

A corpse does not normally vanish from sight immediately upon death until it is put into the grave and buried. But corruption, decay, degeneration has already kicked in. It is lifeless. It is powerless. It simply needs a decent burial. That is how the old covenant was between AD30 and AD70. A corpse can still be visible but it is lifeless and has no ability to function. That is what happened to the old covenant between AD30-70.

Even though a corpse may look asleep, it is lifeless. All you have is rotting flesh. Decomposition has set in immediately. It is gradually decaying, and will ultimately vanish away. But that entity has no further earthly use. Its time is up.

Preterists can do their best to beautify this deceased corpse, they can try their best to raise its lifeless carcass from the dead, and they can attribute life to it all they want, but it is all in vain, it is still a dead corpse.

2 Corinthians 3:11: “For if that which is done away (katargeo or rendered entirely idle, useless) was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”

As Clement said in his Recognitions (Chapter 64): “For we have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed.”

There cannot be 2 covenants ongoing at the one time. That is absurd! One terminated the other. There cannot be 2 competing priesthoods. One replaced the other.

The book of Hebrews destroys any notion of the continuation of the old covenant priests. It is quite inconceivable that this defunct priesthood would be needed after the commencement of God's true eternal priesthood. Hebrews 7:19 tells us: “the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Christ owns the only priestly office that God recognises for all eternity. Hebrews 7:22 confirms, “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” For “he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6).

Remember, Hebrews was written in-between the cross and AD70!

We have entered into a new divine arrangement that supersedes the shadow, type and figure. Man has one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. For you to argue for two competing priesthood underlines the dangers of your teaching.

Hebrews 7:11-12 tells us, “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”

The priesthood has been changed; and having been changed there was a change triggered in the law (“there is made of necessity a change also of the law”). Whilst the written law is still active, the whole old covenant ceremonial system was superseded by a new better covenant.

The Greek word for “changed” here is metatithemi which actually means transferred or exchanged. This shows that old temporal imperfect priesthood has been exchanged for the new perfect eternal priesthood in Christ. The deficient shadow and type has been replaced by Israel’s eternal high priest the Messiah and will never again be changed, undone or rivaled by a parallel priesthood. It is an eternal transfer of influence. Christ will not (or cannot) share this office with another, neither can He hand the baton over to others. He holds it firm and alone as of right and by way of an everlasting oath. Those that purport to steal this sacred title enter into the dangerous arena of heresy.

The problem with the Old Testament priestly administration was: it was inadequate. It involved men who by nature were prone to sin and who therefore fell short of what God required of them. Time after time, the high priest failed in God’s requirements through sin or compromise and consequently God judged the whole nation. Corruption eventually took a hold of the office and brought it into complete disrepute. This opened the door to idol worship and apostasy. What is more, with the blight of sin in man came death. This meant the office was continually passed from one to another.

 

[Hammster]

Obviously you missed what I wrote above to another poster. I will repeat, as it negates your argument.

Hebrews 8:13: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete). Now that which decayeth (palaioō, worn out, decayed, declared obsolete) and waxeth old (gerasko) is ready to vanish away.”

After Christ’s death and the ripping of the curtain in two, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was rendered wholly redundant. Its usefulness was over. It was obsolete. It remaining standing up until AD70 did not mean it had any further earthly purpose, or that the old covenant remained in effect. It was just like a human corpse awaiting burial. It had no vitality, no relevance and no purpose. Once Christ died, the old covenant died. Degeneration immediately set in, just like the decay that kicks in when a human gives up the ghost.

Paul shows us that the old covenant was decaying and ready to vanish away after the cross. Of course, anything that is decaying is already dead. From then on it is just rotting and in urgent need of a decent burial.

A corpse does not normally vanish from sight immediately upon death until it is put into the grave and buried. But corruption, decay, degeneration has already kicked in. It is lifeless. It is powerless. It simply needs a decent burial. That is how the old covenant was between AD30 and AD70. A corpse can still be visible but it is lifeless and has no ability to function. That is what happened to the old covenant between AD30-70.

Even though a corpse may look asleep, it is lifeless. All you have is rotting flesh. Decomposition has set in immediately. It is gradually decaying, and will ultimately vanish away. But that entity has no further earthly use. Its time is up.

Preterists can do their best to beautify this deceased corpse, they can try their best to raise its lifeless carcass from the dead, and they can attribute life to it all they want, but it is all in vain, it is still a dead corpse.

2 Corinthians 3:11: “For if that which is done away (katargeo or rendered entirely idle, useless) was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”

As Clement said in his Recognitions (Chapter 64): “For we have ascertained beyond doubt that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices which you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away; and because ye will not acknowledge that the time for offering victims is now past, therefore the temple shall be destroyed.”

There cannot be 2 covenants ongoing at the one time. That is absurd! One terminated the other. There cannot be 2 competing priesthoods. One replaced the other.

The book of Hebrews destroys any notion of the continuation of the old covenant priests. It is quite inconceivable that this defunct priesthood would be needed after the commencement of God's true eternal priesthood. Hebrews 7:19 tells us: “the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Christ owns the only priestly office that God recognises for all eternity. Hebrews 7:22 confirms, “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” For “he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6).

Remember, Hebrews was written in-between the cross and AD70!

We have entered into a new divine arrangement that supersedes the shadow, type and figure. Man has one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. For you to argue for two competing priesthood underlines the dangers of your teaching.

Hebrews 7:11-12 tells us, “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”

The priesthood has been changed; and having been changed there was a change triggered in the law (“there is made of necessity a change also of the law”). Whilst the written law is still active, the whole old covenant ceremonial system was superseded by a new better covenant.

The Greek word for “changed” here is metatithemi which actually means transferred or exchanged. This shows that old temporal imperfect priesthood has been exchanged for the new perfect eternal priesthood in Christ. The deficient shadow and type has been replaced by Israel’s eternal high priest the Messiah and will never again be changed, undone or rivaled by a parallel priesthood. It is an eternal transfer of influence. Christ will not (or cannot) share this office with another, neither can He hand the baton over to others. He holds it firm and alone as of right and by way of an everlasting oath. Those that purport to steal this sacred title enter into the dangerous arena of heresy.

The problem with the Old Testament priestly administration was: it was inadequate. It involved men who by nature were prone to sin and who therefore fell short of what God required of them. Time after time, the high priest failed in God’s requirements through sin or compromise and consequently God judged the whole nation. Corruption eventually took a hold of the office and brought it into complete disrepute. This opened the door to idol worship and apostasy. What is more, with the blight of sin in man came death. This meant the office was continually passed from one to another.

I see. You have a misunderstanding of one word. That happens.

 

[Timtofly]

Nothing there.

I guess your search engine is broken?

 

[jgr]

I guess your search engine is broken?

It doesn't find nonexistences.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I see. You have a misunderstanding of one word. That happens.

Not so! Preterism takes the focus away from Jesus Christ and the cross. That is not good. You miss the centrality of His atonement and the finality of it upon the old covenant.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I see. You have a misunderstanding of one word. That happens.

It is notable that you sidestepped every scripture and every argument I presented. For your claims to work you have to!

 

[Timtofly]

The resurrection of "Christ the First-fruits" was not the only example of a physical bodily resurrection that day. You have mentioned above the other Matthew 27:52-53 First-fruits saints that were also raised that same day (144,000 of them) and who were seen of many in Jerusalem. But that was only the First resurrection, with another of just the same kind of physical bodily resurrection to follow.

I doubt 12,000 specific members of every single tribe had their tombs in Jerusalem. Every tribe would have had their own ancient burial grounds.

This is not just some arbitrary number. Besides the fact they would all still be alive today ruling in Jerusalem, and the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD would never have happened. Any time an army would come against Jerusalem, fire would come out of heaven and consume them. The other nations would probably stop trying after a while.

Those sealed in Revelation 7 are not dead who need a resurrection. They are living humans about to go through the Great Tribulation, the Trumpets and Thunders.

Christ was the resurrection. The first fruits were the whole OT body who accepted the Atonement as futurist, who all were waiting in Abraham's bosom. Minus Lazarus who was the first firstfruit, as an example that Jeaus was indeed the Resurrection and the Life, and that soon all in Abraham's bosom would be resurrected. And not just those in Jerusalem, but all over the whole earth.

The living church will be caught up from all over the earth at the Second Coming, not just those living in Jerusalem. All the dead did not have to walk to Jerusalem to ascend on Sunday morning. Likewise the living church will not have to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to be caught up at the Second Coming.

You are following the typical misunderstanding of what the rapture was going to accomplish. There is absolutely no mention at all in either 1 Thessalonians 4 or in 1 Corinthians 15 of a translation-type change in the air for anyone. The scripture rule is that all mankind is appointed to physically die once, and only once, just as Christ only died once. At the second coming, there was never a promise that any translations of the living would take place. You have to invent this doctrine in order to teach it.

I did not say translation, that is your human wording. Paul clearly states all will be changed. You can message Paul to clear up any misunderstanding in that regard. All being changed is simply all being changed.

So when is that change?

Those is Abraham's bosom at the Cross were changed. They had their permanent incorruptible physical body. The thief on the Cross died, and was instantly changed. His soul left the body on the Cross, and entered his permanent incorruptible physical body. So the change is not the body changing. The change is the soul that changes bodies like a set of garments. Pretty sure Paul covered that as well.

In fact the statement has been aptly posted in church nurseries. One gets a new diaper, not a translated diaper that has been instantly cleansed. The error is teaching that Adam's flesh is translated. That flesh is discarded, and God gives the soul a permanent incorruptible physical body. I use the word permanent, because Paul called this flesh a tent, temporal compared to a building, permanent. This permanent building is "built" by God, not a copy of Adam's image. So yes, death is what happens to Adam flesh. Life is what happens to the soul as it enters the incorruptible physical body. That is Paul's change, and death does happen, not a translation in mid air. Literally death does happen in mid air, because the body is left behind. Unlike the movies and books with a body missing. The bodies most certainly will be there as dead corpse. Probably in the billions, if not millions. Of course the birds will be having a feast at the Second Coming.

It is a harvest and a resurrection. But I don't use resurrection, because most imagine a body comes out of the grave. Not at the Second Coming. The body is left standing, sitting, or laying down wherever that body happens to be when the soul departs. It is definitely not a change or translation in the ordinary sense. One body is left behind, and a new body is gained.

Back to those bodies coming out at the Cross. That was not Adam's flesh changed. That was a whole new body, permanent from God, incorruptible without sin or a sin nature. That is what every first resurrection is. A brand new permanent incorruptible physical body. That has happened to every soul since the Cross who accepted the Atonement. This body was left behind. A new body put on in Paradise. 2 Corinthians 5:1.

 

[Hammster]

Not so! Preterism takes the focus away from Jesus Christ and the cross. That is not good. You miss the centrality of His atonement and the finality of it upon the old covenant.

Preterism is just fine when it comes to the cross. It’s firmly grounded there. It has tremendous focus on the kingdom of Christ. When Christ said His kingdom would grow as a mustard seed grows, or as leaven permeates the flour, we know He had Daniel 2 in mind, because the stone cut without hands grows into a mountain that fills the earth. We also know that when He talks about the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24, He’s talking about the final divorce decree of His unfaithful wife, which leads Him to bring in His new bride. And the final defeat of His enemies (kill the dragon and save the girl). This all happens because of His finished work on the cross.

Postmillennialism is extremely Christ-centered.

 

[Hammster]

It is notable that you sidestepped every scripture and every argument I presented. For your claims to work you have to!

Not at all. But you started with a faulty foundation. The rest just crumbled.

 

[Timtofly]

Just in the context of that, there’s more than one sign.


“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.
— Matthew 24:29-30

Then He says


“But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
— Matthew 24:29

“Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.
— Matthew 24:32-33

All these things are everything He just finished talking about.

Those are mere events, not signs. Jesus only claimed one sign. Human interpretation is what varies, not the Word of God.

 

[Timtofly]

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
— Hebrews 8:13

It wasn’t completely gone. It was becoming obsolete. When the great tribulation that Christ talked about in the OD was over, then it disappeared. “This generation” meant exactly that.

The reality of the OD is that Jacob will be restored, not completely ended. A fig tree blooming is not a picture of coming to an end. It is the picture of a new beginning. But you do not accept it as symbolic, but just a statement of science.

Your interpretation should have the cursed fig tree that withered away instead. This generation would all die as these things transpired. Jesus already cursed the fig tree. Now Jesus is claiming a blooming fig tree, that does not lign up with the total destruction of Jerusalem for hundreds of years.

 

[Timtofly]

It doesn't find nonexistences.

Sounds like it does not even try?

 

[DavidPT]

Not at all. But you started with a faulty foundation. The rest just crumbled.

And that also describes to a T Preterism and it's interpretation of this generation in the OD.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Preterism is just fine when it comes to the cross. It’s firmly grounded there. It has tremendous focus on the kingdom of Christ. When Christ said His kingdom would grow as a mustard seed grows, or as leaven permeates the flour, we know He had Daniel 2 in mind, because the stone cut without hands grows into a mountain that fills the earth. We also know that when He talks about the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24, He’s talking about the final divorce decree of His unfaithful wife, which leads Him to bring in His new bride. And the final defeat of His enemies (kill the dragon and save the girl). This all happens because of His finished work on the cross.

Postmillennialism is extremely Christ-centered.

I did not mention Postmillennialism, I said Preterism. It is fixated with Titus and AD70. That is all Preterists want to talk about. It is a grievous doctrine. It takes the focus away from Christ, His victorious ministry and His glorious second coming and it brings the attention to AD70. Sad!

 

[Hammster]

Those are mere events, not signs. Jesus only claimed one sign. Human interpretation is what varies, not the Word of God.

If you want to split hairs, fine. However you want to define what he just finished telling His disciples, He said when they saw those things, He was near.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The last days spoken of are the last days of the old covenant. I think that’s laid out in Hebrews and in other places.

That is simply not true. The problem is: Preterists fail to grasp that the old covenant ended, and the new covenant began, at the cross. If you fail to see this then you will be confused on this overall matter.

I'm going to draw a careful line right down the middle of these two conflicting views.

Sovereigngrace is correct that the Old Covenant died at the cross (and the resurrection when Christ was ordained our Great High Priest in heaven when He ascended for the first time that day in AD 33. The law changed once a new high priesthood was in place - Hebrews 7:12).

Hammster is correct that the last days of a certain age ended in AD 70, to give place to the next age that Paul included in "the ages that are coming" (Ephesians 2:7).

In between AD 33 and AD 70 was a trial period when the ethnic, observant Jews were encouraged to discard their practiced rituals of the dead Old Covenant, and get on board with the New Covenant which was already in place. Many did, and were called the "elect" and the "remnant". Most did not.

The "end of the age" was the end of what Daniel 12:7 had called "the holy people". It was "the power of the holy people" which was going to be shattered at the end of that age - not the OC itself that was going to be shattered, because it was already dead back in AD 33. God was only tearing down to the last stone and getting rid of all the physical elements which had been the basis for the OC ritual practices. The earth (tes ges - the land of Israel) and the works in it were literally burned up, even the genealogical records of the tribes, since their intended purpose had already been served.

Ethnic Israel had enjoyed the distinction of being called "a holy people" all the way back in Deuteronomy 7:6. "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

But because of their rejection of their own prophesied Messiah, this "holy people" received the judgment promised to them in this very same text in Deuteronomy 7:9-10. God would keep the covenant and mercy for those who loved Him, but for those who hated Him, He would "repay them that hate Him to their face to destroy them: He will not be slack to him that hateth him, He will repay him to his face."

God was as good as His word, and did just that by the end of AD 70.

 

[Hammster]

The reality of the OD is that Jacob will be restored, not completely ended. A fig tree blooming is not a picture of coming to an end. It is the picture of a new beginning. But you do not accept it as symbolic, but just a statement of science.

Your interpretation should have the cursed fig tree that withered away instead. This generation would all die as these things transpired. Jesus already cursed the fig tree. Now Jesus is claiming a blooming fig tree, that does not lign up with the total destruction of Jerusalem for hundreds of years.

The fruit trees blooming was exactly was He said it was, not your twisting to fit your theology.

 

[Hammster]

I did not mention Postmillennialism, I said Preterism. It is fixated with Titus and AD70. That is all Preterists want to talk about. It is a grievous doctrine. It takes the focus away from Christ, His victorious ministry and His glorious second coming and it brings the attention to AD70. Sad!

It’s mostly what I talk about in the Eschatology forum. I talk about different thing in the Soteriolgy forum, different things in the Controversial Christian Theology forum, different things in General Theology. So let’s not get too carried away.

 

[Hammster]

And that also describes to a T Preterism and it's interpretation of this generation in the OD.

Except that not one of you has actually dealt with the texts in the OP. I just keep hearing that the premise is wrong because of some other issue.