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

mkgal1 said:

......and what does it say when a person resorts to personal attacks and insults as their "go to" response?

What I'm trying to point out is that well-known partial preterists recognize the great significance of the coming in salvation and judgement that occurred in 70 AD.

There are varying degrees of preterism. It crosses the line into "full" when a person believes there are no more resurrections and no more returns of Christ. I believe in future resurrections and returns of Christ. I believe that's a pattern to restoration.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that unregenerate Christ-rejecting Israel experienced spiritual resurrection back in AD70? Please answer!

mkgal1 said:

I did. You even quoted my response.

Click to expand...

No you haven't. You said:

They were given New Life from the New Covenant for 40 years.

Click to expand...

If they rejected the message of Jesus and His disciples - they experienced the judgement of the Day of the Lord in 70 AD. If a person is believing "all was finished at the Cross" this isn't going to make sense. ALL wasn't finished at the Cross. The creation of the New Heaven/New Earth was yet to be fulfilled prior to the destruction of the Temple.

Click to expand...

But "new life" relates to salvation and is something that only "the just" experience. But the resurrection in view in Acts 24:15 relates not only to those who accepted Jesus (namely the just), it is talking about a resurrection of those who rejected Jesus (namely the unjust). This can only be speaking of the physical resurrection at the end, when Jesus comes.

You have previously applied that resurrection to just believers. Can I remind you? The unjust were not resurrected in AD70, they were destroyed! They had missed their day of visitation.

You said:

I hold that the resurrection of the just and unjust occurred around 66-70ad, and from that point on believers, who remain alive and physically die in the Lord are raised in a spiritual body and caught up to heaven. Thus this consummates the Ezekiel temple which is where Gods throne is and his footstool is (Ezekiel 43:6-7) where he forever dwells with his people

Click to expand...

You stated:

You first have to get past your presumption of what "resurrection" means. The word is used in the Bible for multiple concepts. In this specific case - it's about ancient Israel (I believe).

Click to expand...

I wouldn't classify this as "spiritual" - more "covenantal".

Click to expand...

However, you previously stated:

Resurrection was the main hope of the New Testament (written in that transition time - after Jesus' resurrection.....and prior to the destruction of 70 AD)......but this is a spiritual resurrection - not physical.

Click to expand...

As I've stated that I believe - until the New Covenant was fully consummated by Christ fulfilling all the Law, those were still in "this age" (until 70 AD). I believe the release from Sheol occurred in 70 AD - where the OC saints were released into the presence of God (and believe that's the SPIRITUAL resurrection that was hoped for - the "age to come" beginning in 70 AD).

Click to expand...

If this resurrection in view is for the just and the unjust, how, in your estimation, did the destruction of Jerusalem bring new life to the apostate Jews?

The unregenerate never experience spiritual resurrection!

Both covenants have always been in place, and typified by the Two Trees in Eden.

Through the old testament, we can see there are those that serve according to the old, that is, the ones that are trusting in keeping the law like the Pharisees, and the ones who trust in the righteousness of God like Job and others who were called holy.

It continues today and the majority of believers imagine that they earn benefits through their own observance of the commandments and trust that they will have tried enough to gain favour. But they are mistaken and are working to improve the flesh which was condemned on the cross.

Only those who believe on that and that Christ took away their sins are in the new covenant.

bmjackson said:

Both covenants have always been in place, and typified by the Two Trees in Eden.

Through the old testament, we can see there are those that serve according to the old, that is, the ones that are trusting in keeping the law like the Pharisees, and the ones who trust in the righteousness of God like Job and others who were called holy.

It continues today and the majority of believers imagine that they earn benefits through their own observance of the commandments and trust that they will have tried enough to gain favour. But they are mistaken and are working to improve the flesh which was condemned on the cross.

Only those who believe on that and that Christ took away their sins are in the new covenant.

Click to expand...

The old and the new covenant are two different covenants pertaining to two different ages. They never overlap! When the new was introduced, the old became obsolete. The new covenant was made for the sacrifice of Christ's life.

So, what is the difference between the Old Testament period and the New Testament period? Is the old covenant still alive and relevant or has it been superseded?

The main difference between the Old Testament period and the New Testament period is their perspective of Jesus Christ! The Old Testament was looking forward to the coming Messiah. The New Testament reveals His arrival and precious work on man’s behalf. As we dig deeper and compare both, we notice that there are notable differences between the two arrangements. We see a significant move:

· From the shadow and type to the substance and reality
· From the imperfect to the perfect
· From the inadequate to the all-sufficient.
· From the physical to the spiritual
· From the external to the internal
· From the natural to the supernatural
· From the temporary to the eternal
· From the earthly to the heavenly
· From the national to the international
· From the conditional to the unconditional

These two economies couldn’t be more diverse. The improvement is obvious, substantial and indisputable. The repercussions are even greater for mankind. What was long-anticipated by the old covenant prophets has now wonderfully arrived. The appearance of Israel’s Messiah was the pivotal moment in history and the catalyst for a colossal transformative change.

The book of Hebrews shows the abolition of the old covenant arrangement and its replacement by the new superior covenant. It is absorbed with the superiority of Christ. Hebrews 8:6 declares: “now hath he [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”

The old covenant is gone forever. It has been replaced by a new and better covenant. There is absolutely no distinction between Jew and Gentile today in Christ. The old is obsolete. What is more, there is not one single teaching from Christ, Paul, Peter or any of the New Testament writers that remotely suggests the Old Testament land promises, ordinances or traditions lasted any longer than the cross. The focus is Christ’s redemptive work, and the scope is extended to the world.

Saying all this: the basis of salvation is the same in both the Old and the New Testaments. The old covenant saints looked forward by faith to Israel’s coming Redeemer and experienced forgiveness. Only those Israelis who accept the Gospel constituted God’s people. Dispensationalists should know: salvation has always been by grace, through faith, in Christ (the Messiah). Men of faith are found throughout the Old Testament. Hebrews 11 attests to this in a very powerful and detailed way. If men are born in sin, and if faith is the product of the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, then the Old Testament saints must assuredly have supernaturally been birthed of the Spirit. Faith is the spiritual fruit of the renewing work of the Spirit of God within a human. Of course, the old covenant saints looked forward “by faith” to their promised coming Messiah who would redeem His people (Hebrews 11:13). But it seems evident that the Spirit performs the same transformative function in Old Testament times as He does in the New Testament economy.

mkgal1 said:

the "unjust" I believe this is in reference to were those of ancient Israel that joined in believing the statement that "we have no other god but Caesar" (I say it that way, because that's how I see ancient Israel as divided at that time - either those that were believing Jesus and His disciples....or those that chose to believe the apostate ancient Jewish religious leaders of that time). That would mean they were "spiritually dead" under the Old Covenant Law with no way to salvation. The New Covenant brought these people LIFE - but it was a gradual process of the Old covenant dying....and the NEW covenant being brought to full LIFE. That is a form of resurrection. The "salvation" wasn't complete (for all) until 70 AD (which, I realize, is another mental hurdle you have to overcome - because I'm presuming you believe salvation was "complete" at the Cross).

I guess another way of expressing this would be to say that during the "resurrection" of 70 AD.....all joined to the OLD covenant died - and what was brought forth in LIFE were all those joined to Christ and the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

You say that this resurrection brings men "forth in LIFE" and causes them to be "joined to Christ and the New Covenant." But the unjust (those who you claim say "we have no other god but Caesar") refuse to embrace Christ, the new covenant and salvation, so they cannot therefore participate in this resurrection.

mkgal1 said:

In a "new life".....something also dies - right? The old? That doesn't have to be physical - and, the way I'm seeing it, it RARELY means the physical in most of the Bible passages. Maybe "restoration" is a more accurate word rather than "salvation" (that just gets tricky with all the presumptive baggage attached to it).

Click to expand...

But AD70 is all about the punishment and destruction of apostate Israel.

The reality is: spiritual resurrection occurs upon salvation. Physical resurrection occurs at the climatic coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. You're trying to invent another resurrection, that you describe as spiritual, yet, contrary to what you say, it does not save, redeem, restore or bring men to spiritual and physical life. If it did, then they would no longer be "unjust," but they would be "just."

mkgal1 said:

I never said that those that refused to embrace Christ up until 70 AD were joined to the New Covenant. Never. They chose to cling to the Old Covenant Law and were then judged by the standard of the Law (put to death for their sin).

I did say, however, that those that had refused to embrace Christ even up until Christ's death on the cross were afforded the grace of the New Covenant - those that had belonged to apostate Israel ("the wicked" I believe this passage is specifically referring to) - and IF they became like this group in Acts 2......THEY were given NEW LIFE in the fullness of the NEW covenant (in 70 AD):

Acts 2:29-41 ~

Brothers and sisters, I can tell you with confidence that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses.Exalted, then, to the right hand of God, He has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says:​

‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies

a footstool for Your feet.”’f Therefore let all Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!” When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and asked Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off—to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.” With many other words he testified, and he urged them, “Be saved from this corrupt generation.” Those who embraced his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to the believers that day.g​

Click to expand...

You are totally winging it! I have never seen such a confusing theological mess in my life – ever. There is nowhere in Acts 24:15 that the text is related to "those that refused to embrace Christ up until 70 AD were joined to the New Covenant" (those who you claim say "we have no other god but Caesar"). As is your custom, you impose that on the sacred text, to justify your false teaching, and your fixation with AD70.

mkgal1 said:

These 3000 experienced the LIFE of the New Covenant. These 3000 were in the group - prior to Peter's sermon touching their hearts - of "wicked" as they were in disbelief (I don't believe that standard applies today - that those that don't believe in Christ are "wicked". There were higher standards, IMO, for ancient Israel that lived alongside their Messiah and still choose Caesar as their god).

Click to expand...

There are no wicked today? Really??? Have you looked in your own heart recently? Have you looked around you? Have you even turned on your television? Men from the beginning are either wicked or righteous. Your theology is so off-base it is hard to even read it.

mkgal1 said:

You first have to get past your presumption of what "resurrection" means. The word is used in the Bible for multiple concepts. In this specific case - it's about ancient Israel (I believe). I wouldn't classify this as "spiritual" - more "covenantal".

Click to expand...

Luke 20:33 records the Sadducees question: “in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.”

Jesus replied: “The children of this world (or aion or age) marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world (or aion or age), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luke 20:34-36).

We see the persistent contrast in the New Testament between “this age” which is depicted as sinful, carnal and temporal, and “the age to come” which is perfect, glorified and eternal. The problem for Preterists is that they identify our current age (since AD70) as “the age to come” or “that age.” But Jesus assures us that one must be qualified to inherit “the age to come.” Those who experience it must “be accounted worthy to obtain that age.” How then can that relate to our current age that is saturated in billions of mortal rebels? In what possible way should the wicked all around us “be accounted worthy to obtain that age” (our current age)? This is outlandish, nonsensical and unbiblical.

The phrase “they which shall be accounted worthy” is taken from the lone Greek word kataxioō, meaning, ‘to deem entirely deserving’. So, the age we find ourselves in now, which Preterists deem “the age to come” or “that age,” is one that should pertain exclusively to the elect and involve enjoying immortality and inexpressible bliss. Of course, such a day has not yet arrived and will not until Jesus ushers in the new heavens and new earth. Like Premillennialists, Preterists saturate “the age to come” with countless unregenerate dissenters, when Christ assures us that “the age to come” is only for the glorified redeemed saints of God.

What is more, the unique condition that is promised for “the age to come” (“that age”) is that they will experience “the resurrection from the dead” and a pristine environment where no one can “die any more” or is anyone “given in marriage.” One just has to have an actively working brain to know that that is not speaking about our current age. When we look at the age we find ourselves in now it is no different to that before AD70, which was marked by sin, sinners, death and decay, rebellion and war. We still live in such a world today! Those who would argue different might need the boys with the white coast to take them off.

Seeing the folly of their position, and the multiple contradictions, some Preterists try to argue that this must relate to the ascent of the spirit of the believer upon death up into the presence of God in heaven during the intermediate state. But that is nothing distinctive. That also occurred prior to AD70 in what they call “this age.” Ever since Christ defeated sin, death and the grave, God’s people immediately entered the presence of God in glory upon death. So, whatever way you look at it, Preterist reasoning swiftly falls apart.