Everlasting Covenant

[hippias]

P.S. @shilo357: To your remark about the order of the stars, sun and moon one might answer that the stars, though commonly called fixed, are not fixed but move and change their order, sometimes even at a speed that makes changes visible during the lifetime of a human being, if you look keen enough. Furthermore when Jesus died on the cross there was an three hour eclipse of the sun which by what is know today is only possible by heavy manipulation of the order of the solar system. So one could regard the prophecy as fulfilled by these facts, if one feel so inclined.

Hippias, I do believe you are misreading the Scripture:

Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- the LORD of hosts is his name: "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever."

The verse says, "the fixed order," not their fixed position.

The "fixed order" the Lord speaks of is the sun giving light by day and the moon and stars giving light for night.

So this has nothing to do with stars moving or changing or dying or whatever. Likewise, the sun being covered by the moon for a few moments does not change this set order. to claim otherwise would be like claiming a battery dying violati the warranty of an item to run for a set period of time.

Nebula, I didn't bring up this biblical passage, but since it was on the tablet I argued that it might be understood in the way I described.

What precise "order" is meant here is not so obvious. Both Jesus's birth and death are accompanied by unusual astromonical phenomena - if one likes, these might be understood as an interuption of the usual "order". Where is the scriptual evidence that a 3 hour eclipse - which entails not less than that earth and moon completely changed their motion around the sun - is not the cessation of "order" referred to in the psalm? And especially the condition of the sun giving light during daytimes has been violated in a highly miraculous manner in that particular eclipse - if it could be even called so.

Furthermore: By what evidence do you know that the present "order" of the universe is the same as at the time of writing? We learn from the OT that occassionally the sun stood still:

And the sun stood still and the moon stayed until the people had avenged

themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the Book of Jasher? So

the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down for

about a whole day. (Joshua 10:13)

The sun and moon stood still in their habitation; at the light of thine arrows

they went, and at the shining of Thy glittering spear. (Hab. 3:11)

These passages were commonly, and not surprisingly, understood as the sun (and moon) revolving around the earth and not the earth around the sun but today we know that the latter the case. So, if one would be inclined to do so, one could argue that we have scriptual evidence here that the order of the world indeed changed.

I am not saying this in order to claim that it is so but that this particular passage is not sufficient to decide my question about the everlastingness.

[PGA]

Hi GoldenEagle,

I wanted to continue my take on some of your previous comments.

Fifth, the Preterist position relies on a pre-AD 70 date of writing by John of the book of Revelation. However, a majority of New Testament scholars date the writing of the book to closer to AD 95. Why? If John had written Revelation after AD 70, the book could not have been a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem. This presents a significant argument against the Preterist position. -GE

I could lay out some of the reasons for the early writing of the book if you like, but I think one of the things that stands out in my mind is the fact that John, telling his first century reader that the time is soon, still lists the temple as existing, even though we know it was completely destroyed in A.D. 70. If John was writing after A.D. 70, then of most importance would be the fact that the temple was no more. In Revelation 11:1 John is given a reed to measure the temple. Another interesting point is that in Revelation 11:2 the Roman armies are doing just that, they are trampling over the city for 42 months during the siege of Jerusalem.

The other problem I feel your take of Scripture has is that of Hebrews (esp. ch. 8-9). The writer is coming from a perspective, IMO, that what is old and obsolete will soon pass away (Hebrews 8:13). In Hebrews 9:1 the writer continues on the thought of 8:13 in respect to the earthy sanctuary and its ordinances/regulations and then shows the contrast between it and the New Tabernacle, the heavenly sanctuary. The old is a type and shadow of the new, but the point I'm making is that the new, the real, the true, the genuine, is already in existence. Both the priesthood and the articles in the two are contrasted. In 9:8 Scripture says:

Hebrews 9:8

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

⁸ The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing.

The fact is that the first tabernacle was no longer standing. The sanctuary was destroyed in A.D. 70. Jesus has gone into God's presence, the Most Holy Place, in our behalf and He has provided access for us! From the Preterist position, and I believe confirmed by Scripture, the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies was torn in two from top to bottom, again providing man access and reconciliation with God in Christ, something that was lost with the 1st Adam and regained with the 2nd Adam. You see, only the High Priest could enter the H of H's, and that only once a year on the Day of Atonement. What is more, the Aaronaic priesthood could never sit down, or even enter the MHP (except for the High Priest). Their job was never done, whereas we are told in Scripture that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God - a completed work as both Priest and King in the order of Melchizedek, a different line of priesthood, just like we have a different temple and different covenant than the old.

My question to you, GE, is a question of whether you believe the old is still in effect? If you do then I believe that you have major theological problems.

IMO, and that of Scripture I believe, the gifts and offerings performed by the OT priesthood could never make a person perfect, for they had to be constantly offered, over and over again, yet here is what verse 9 says:

Hebrews 9:9

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

⁹ This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.

Why is that so? I believe Scripture again provides the answer:

Hebrews 9:10

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

¹⁰ They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Again, as a Preterist I believe that the new order came in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the old order. Notice in vs. 9 it says 'the present time' and then immediately following in vs. 10 tells the reader that it only applied until the time of the new order. Durin the time of writing, the Levitical priesthood was still performing sacrifices and offerings.The old order was concerned, IMO, with what is physical in nature; the new order with what is spiritual in nature. The same verse in the NKJV renders the 'new order' as the time of reformation (also Acts 3:21).

I find this significant because with the destruction of the city and temple the old order was gone. Gone and never again to be restored, IMO.

Hebrews 9:11

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

The Blood of Christ

¹¹ When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,^[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 9:11 Some early manuscripts are to come
   

The things I find interesting about this verse which follows the thoughts of the previous verses concerning the New Covenant, new Priesthood, new tabernacle, new city, new land, is that the new tabernacle is not man-made, yet to many people that I talk to, they are expecting the Jews to rebuild the earthy temple and restore the animal sacrifices and offering, as if Christ's offering of Himself is not sufficient. Are they going to again deny everything that the Son of Man came to do (Hebrews5:5-10)?

Where is the tabernacles that is not man-made? For one thing, it is not part of this creation. If it is not part of this creation then could it be a spiritual, heavenly temple? Does Scripture not tell us this in this very verse (see John 18:36)?

Peter

[PGA]

Hi GoldenEagle,

I have to add more to your points five and six.

Fifth, the Preterist position relies on a pre-AD 70 date of writing by John of the book of Revelation. However, a majority of New Testament scholars date the writing of the book to closer to AD 95. Why? If John had written Revelation after AD 70, the book could not have been a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem. This presents a significant argument against the Preterist position. -GE

When you say the book of Revelation could not have been a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem, I presume this is just one aspect of the book you are drawing out to emphasize the weakness of my position. Is this correct?

Sixth, Preterists point to several lines of evidence for a pre-AD 70 date of writing. John does not mention the fall of the Jerusalem Temple. If he had been writing two decades after the event, it seems strange that he never mentioned this catastrophic event. Wouldn’t you agree? -GE

I feel Revelation is much more than just this prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem (Revelation 18-19). Besides being the Revelation of Jesus Christ, I feel it is also about the avenging of the saints, and the judgment of OT Israel, a theme throughout Scripture. But, if it is as you say, a book written after the fall I find it amazing that there is no mention of this destruction that was so much a part of Jesus' ministry (Matthew 24, a pivotal passage that involves so many books of the Bible). The whole Jewish economy, their religious life that revolved around the temple and city in the Old Covenant order coming to an end, IMO. How could the supposed already fallen and ruined city not be mentioned if it was penned after Jerusalem fell? It just seems incredible to omit and it does not make sense that the whole of the NT omits this fall, yet each book has the warning of this shortly coming judgment, the day.

Seventh, John does not refer to either Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple (Mt. 24, Mk. 13, Lk. 21) or the fulfillment of this prophecy. -GE

Indirectly I believe the theme is there, and it (the destruction) has not yet happened. How could that be if the book was written after A.D. 70 and the fall? The destruction of the temple ties in with the destruction of the city and the coming of the Lord (Revelation 18).

Eighth, in Revelation 11:1, John is told to “measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there.” Where are these worshipers as the temple is no longer a place of worship? -GE

That is again I feel a point in favor of the Preterist position. Here is John, a 1st century believer, being told to measure the temple and altar. Was he measuring something that was no longer standing? What is your explanation for that? I've committed my position to you, so now I'm asking for you to explain yours.

Peter

[PGA]

Hi Danielzk,

Here is a scripture that I have asked you to acknowledge at least 20 times and you STILL refuse to acknowledge what it means !

Isaiah 11

8 6 The wolf will live with the lamb,

the leopard will lie down with the goat,

the calf and the lion and the yearling together;

and a little child will lead them.

7 The cow will feed with the bear,

their young will lie down together,

and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,

and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. –Danielzk

I already supplied what I consider a Preterist take on the thread that was shut down, concerning Isaiah 11. Apparently I went too far. If I go into it too deeply I will be again seen as teaching. From correspondence and reviewing the policy in the introduction to the Worthy Christian Forum I am not permitted to teach without approval from members of the forum and certain credentials. All I can do is give you my opinion and supply Scripture and reasoning that I believe upholds the Preterist position with Scripture.

I believe these passages you keep coming back to all speak of A.D. 70.

When a NT author quotes or makes reference to an OT passage it seems good to consider that OT context also, IMO. Paul in Roman’s 15:12 quotes Isaiah 11:10 (a reference to ‘in that day’ or to be more specific, in the day that the wolf would live with the lamb, and the leopard would lie down with the goat) as applying this passage in fulfillment of his mission to the Gentiles. The point being that reconciliation brings peace between parties that oppose each other, the wolf with the lamb. That is my answer, again.

Romans 15:10-12

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

¹⁰ Again, it says,

“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”^[a]

¹¹ And again,

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,

and sing praises to him, all you peoples.”^[b]

¹² And again, Isaiah says,

“The Root of Jesse will spring up,

one who will arise to rule over the nations;

the Gentiles will hope in him.”^[c]

Footnotes:

1. Romans 15:10 Deut. 32:43
   
2. Romans 15:11 Psalm 117:1
   
3. Romans 15:12 Isaiah 11:10
   

Isaiah 11:6-8 speaks to me of reconciliation; animals that oppose each other living in harmony and peace. Paul, quoting from Isaiah 11 confirms this, IMO. ‘Rejoice, O Gentiles with His people’ speaks of the wolf living with the lamb.

I believe Jesus used the metaphor of sheep many times in addressing the true Israel of God. He said He had other sheep from a different pen in John 10:16. The Gentiles were from a different sheep pen than Israel. Since Paul ties Isaiah 11:10 in with the Gentiles in Romans 15, I think this is a very reasonable interpretation.

Isaiah 65

25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

To the preterist it is inconceivable that these scriptures can be literal as the wolf and lamb do not feed together they never have and do not now ;, the lion does not eat straw ,,,to the preterist it is simply inconceivable to consider that this will really happen because that is proof that some prophecies have not happened yet and will happen in the future ; -Danielzk

What I believe you fail to take into account is that Scripture, especially OT Scripture uses a lot of imagery, a lot of metaphors to convey spiritual truths. For those who want to take all Scripture as literal, then God has physical eyes and ears and nose and mouth in which double-edges swords appear.

I believe Isaiah 65 and 66 are again passages that speak of the day in which God would make a new covenant with a people who were not His people and give them a new name. Isaiah 2-4, 11 are also concerned with this same time period. I think Isaiah 65-66 would be very interesting to discuss in depth. Do you know some of the passages in the NT that quote from Isaiah 65-66? It becomes very interesting, IMO.

Peter

[PGA]

Hi Danielzk,

If you research when the book of revelation was written you'd find that it was around at least early AD 90's well after AD 70 another tghing that you are forgetting is that temple spoken of in Revelation chapter 11 was in a Vison of what will happen in the future , it did not exist in physical form as it was a vision ..just as the rest of chapter 11 has not yet happened you are trying to use a temple that has not been built yet to support the preterist view but it does not work . -Danielzk

{{{ Removed video link... Please submit all video's to the appropriate forum to be reviewed by the Moderation Team. See: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/forum/121-videos/ }}}

Yes, John saw a vision of the future and in this vision was told to measure the temple, the same temple and same city in which the Gentiles will trample on for 42 months. This harks back to Luke 21:24 and 21:20 in which Jerusalem was to be surrounded by armies and its desolation was near. It is a time of Israel's punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. I believe therefore, that the temple was a physical temple that was to be measured and that temple being the temple that existed when John penned Revelation.

Peter

Edited January 22, 2013 by GoldenEagle
{{{ Removed video link... Please submit all video's to the appropriate forum to be reviewed by the Moderation Team. }}}

[Montana Marv]

Peteer

So you believe in a secret Second Coming of Jesus Christ. A King who never went in through the East Gate.

BTW, If Jesus has already come. We are not the Church. Who are we? I sincerley hope you have never taken Communion.

So who was the Antichrist then, Irenaeus did not know, Polycarp did not know.

If you say the OT is full of imagery, A virgin did not conceive and give birth to a son. Spiritually this could mean that a very devote woman will give birth to a son.

In Christ

Montana Marv

[GoldenEagle]

In Genesis 17: 6-8, and in several other places of the Bible, God makes a everlasting covenant, here with Abraham to be his and his seed's God for ever. In Hebrew 8:6-13 Paul, inspired by God, repeats the words of the prophet Jeremiah that He intends to make a new covenant, and then actually carried it out, because the first was not faultless.

To me there seems to be problem in that the first covenant was not at all everlasting as is written God has promised. And I also wonder why God should make a covenant in the first place that is not faultless.

Maybe someone can give me some insights into this issue (and maybe the problem can be solved easily).

Earlier in this thread Golden Eagle listed three of the main covenants in the Bible. One of the things God promises to Abraham is that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). I believe this is a definite foreshadowing of Jesus, for all (Jew and Gentile), and proof that the covenant is still everlasting. Abraham was faithful to God, and obeyed Him; God rewarded him with a promise. The covenant was based on Abraham’s faith, something he already had. The Hebrews 8 verses 6-13 you mention refer to the Mosaic covenant, which was based on the “if, then” that Golden Eagle talks about. They broke it, not God. God did not say that it would be everlasting, and it was faultless because the people of Israel were faultless, not God.

<snip>

Some Jews do not recognize Christ. They have been made blind and deaf and cannot see the obvious. But that does not mean that God is not their God as well. As a Jew, I can assuredly tell you that the God of the Old Testament is the same God as the New Testament. At the right time, God will open their hearts to His new covenant, and to Christ.

By first fulfilling the Old Covenant, and then destroying the Old Covenant God, through Christ, brought in the greater/better everlasting covenant.

Peter

Matthew 5:17

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”

I agree with you particularly in bold.

See Romans 11...

Israel's rejection is not total (Rom. 11:1-10) and Israel's rejection is not final (Rom. 11:11-36).

[GoldenEagle]

My question to you, GE, is a question of whether you believe the old is still in effect? If you do then I believe that you have major theological problems.

PGA could you clarify? When you say old do you mean the old covenant (Mosaic)? Or do you mean the Abrahamic Covenant God made choosing Israel as His people?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

I've committed my position to you, so now I'm asking for you to explain yours.

Honestly, I'm not sure my position is completely formulated yet. But what I have studied of the Preterist position I can tell you I have some serious misgivings on the validity of this position.

God bless,

GE

[PGA]

My question to you, GE, is a question of whether you believe the old is still in effect? If you do then I believe that you have major theological problems.

PGA could you clarify? When you say old do you mean the old covenant (Mosaic)? Or do you mean the Abrahamic Covenant God made choosing Israel as His people?

God bless,

GE

The Mosaic Covenant, the covenant God made with OT Israel, the if...then covenant GoldenEagle.

Blessings in Christ Jesus!

Peter