Everlasting Covenant

[PGA]

Hi Widor,

Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or Prophets, as it says in Matthew 5:17. He came to fulfill them. The law was not destroyed, and is still alive today. It is in our nature to follow the law, as an outflow via the Holy Spirit. The Prophets were not just people who gave prophesies involving the future; they were dispensing God's divine Word (like Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), and aren't separate from the law. -Widor

That was not quite what I said.

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

The agreement that God made with these people, I believe, was destroyed in A.D. 70 with the removal of the temple and destruction of the city. The covenant could no longer be fulfilled to the smallest letter of the law. If it could not be fulfilled in this manner then don't you think that what Jesus said in verse 18 now applies (highlighted in Red and underlined).

Matthew 5:17-18

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

The Fulfillment of the Law

¹⁷ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Therefore Jesus has fulfilled the Law of Moses because that law can no longer be followed as God laid it down to the smallest letter in the OT (by the Israel of God). If you think it can then where is the temple, where is the priesthood, where is the animal sacrifices, where are the genealogies? How do you trace the Israelis of today back to the OT tribes?

Romans 8:1-4 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Matthew 5:18 points back to verse 17, reiterating that no meaning will be lost from the law because of Jesus. We are free from the law of sin and death because Jesus imputed His righteousness onto us. I would say verse 18 from Matthew 5 does apply now. The last time I checked, we are still on the same earth, and a new one (along with a new heaven) has not surfaced to my knowledge. -Widor

You say verse 18 applies (which includes heaven and earth passing away), but you ignore that verse 17 says that Jesus came to accomplish/fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and not the smallest letter will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished/fulfilled. Well, as I stated earlier, I believe it is evident that at least some of the Law has disappeared (the temple, priesthood, sacrifices, etc) so therefore I contend that the heaven and earth that disappeared was the OT world, their heaven and earth - the world they lived under in the covenant they made with God.

Hebrews 8:13 is a summation of verses 8-12, taken straight from Jeremiah 31. Heb 8:13 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.

Seems to me the writer of Hebrews suggests that the Old Covenant law, while it is becoming obsolete, and is growing old and ready to vanish away, hasn't yet. Jeremiah was written before Jesus, and Hebrews was written after. Why wouldn't the author just write that it IS obsolete and HAS vanished away? -Widor

I don't see how you can ignore that Hebrews is contrasting the old covenant with the better sacrifices, better priesthood, better covenants, better country/promised land, better city, better Mediator, better temple, and that the New Covenant comes into effect with the death of the testator - Jesus, but the two covenants lived side by side for 40 years, IMO, until Jesus came out of the H of H's and brought judgment (and salvation for those waiting) on OT Israel.

What is more, I believe that Hebrews is addressing Jewish Christians who are in danger of turning back to Judaism. Hence there are warnings (ch. 6, 10) not to turn away from this better covenant because what is old and obsolete will shortly disappear (i.e., within that generation - Chapter 3-4). In fact, I see chapter 10 as significant in revealing the timeline.

Hebrews 10:37-39

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

³⁷ For in just a very little while,

“He who is coming will come and will not delay.

³⁸ But my righteous one^[a] will live by faith.

And if he shrinks back,

I will not be pleased with him.”^[b]

³⁹ But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Footnotes:

1. Hebrews 10:38 One early manuscript But the righteous
   
2. Hebrews 10:38 Hab. 2:3,4
   

We are not still under the law of Moses, but the Old Covenant was not destroyed. -Widor

If it is not destroyed where is the temple, where are the priests and animal sacrifices that are required to offer and make atonement for sin in the OT/Old Covenant?

Peter

[PGA]

Hi GoldenEagle,

I read your post on the other forum and agree with much of it. I also think that Larry made a good point to you that you addressed in the next post (the first point) and I did not see his reply after that.

Notice I said the Mosaic Covenant is not applicable today. In other words, salvation is with the New Covenant through Jesus Christ.

Matt. 5:18

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

This is an important verse. However, in context Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets as seen in verse 17. The Mosaic Covenant was never meant to last. Since Christ is the New Covenant He fullfills what the Mosaic Covenant could not - mankind couldn't save itself and needed an Atoning Sacrifice/Savior.

Matt. 5:17

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

After a bit of reflection I believe there are:

Old Covenant (To Israel)

Mosaic Covenant (The Law through Moses)

Abrahamic Covenant (To Abraham)

New Covenant (Jesus)

Regarding Israel there is this thread: (check out post 35 in particular)

Your thoughts? -GoldenEagle

The point where I think I'm confused with is how you make a distinction between 'the Old Covenant' and 'the Mosaic Covenant'. I see them both as one. I see one of the great focuses of the NT as a contrast between it and the OT; the old covenant primarily being the one made between God and Israel with Moses as the mediator.

You recorded in post 35 a Scripture from Exodus (Ex. 19:3-6) in which the people of Israel agreed to the covenant with God in which Moses was the mediator - the if...then covenant.

So you said:

This is an important verse. However, in context Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets as seen in verse 17. The Mosaic Covenant was never meant to last. Since Christ is the New Covenant He fullfills what the Mosaic Covenant could not - mankind couldn't save itself and needed an Atoning Sacrifice/Savior. -GE

If He has fulfilled the Law (of Moses) and the Prophets, then verse 18 is accomplished also and the new heavens and new earth already exist, or at least that is how I believe the verse reads. I think you correctly surmised on post 35 of the other forum a correct view of Hebrews 8:13, but are you not missing here that at least some of the Law has disappeared, so everything is accomplished - i.e., new heaven/new earth? How could it not be if even the smallest jot or title of the law no longer applies?

I liked what larryt said here:

I agree that it is clear that being ethically Jewish is not the qualification. But it would appear to me that you are saying there is a difference between believeing Jews and Gentile believers. Paul makes it quite clear that there should be no schism in the body of Christ. There are not superior positions. In Christ all are equal. The faithful Jewish remnant who were cut off and now grafted back in to the heavenly kingdom. Jesus said to the unbelieveing nation that your house is desolate. Mt 23;34-39 and Lu 13:31-35. The faitlful Jewish remnant are part of the Church and citizens of the Kingdom of God, a heavenly kingdom. There is only one Kingdom that Christ is the Head of as Lord of lords and King of kings. -larryt

And here:

And the Israel of God is the spiritual Kingdom that Christ is the head of that includes all believers Jew and Gentile alike. -larryt

And finally here:

Israel is a TYPE of the Church. It is a physical representation of a Spiritual reality. -larryt

I find this third quote from him to be a point that I think could be developed, especially in light of passages like 1 Corinthians 10:1-4; Colossian 2:17; Hebrews 8:5; 9:11, 24; 10:1.

I see a distinction between the Israel of old, in which only a faithful remnant were saved, and the new Israel of God, or the New Israel, which is comprised, IMO, of both Jews (the faithful remnant with all those Jews who would believe in Jesus Christ) and Gentiles, there being no distinction between the two for we are all one in Christ Jesus. Yes, I believe the New Israel of God is comprised of the church which is under the New Covenant (Galatians 4:24-27; Hebrews 11:9-10, 13-16; 12:22-28). That is what Jesus came preaching, IMO the kingdom of heaven - the kingdom of God/heaven were interchangeable terms, again IMO. And I also believe this kingdom is a spiritual reality on earth. Jesus even taught His disciples to pray 'Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'

Peter

[PGA]

Hi Montana,

You have left me with a lot to answer so I will break you post into sections and try to make each section brief.

Peter

[PGA]

Hi Montana,

No, I don't believe in a secret coming. I believe Jesus made the manner of His coming plain when He said He would come in His Father's glory (Matthew 16:27). The question is how did the Father come in OT times? I believe He also made it evident that the generation He came to would not perish before they saw the Son of Man coming in His glory (Matthew 24:30-31, 34; Daniel 7:13-14). James in his letter/epistle makes it clear that the Lord's coming was near (James5:8) as do so many of the writers of the NT. –Me

Really you cut this verse off short: Matt 16:27 -

The Son of Man is going to come in his Fathers glory, with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done,

Here is a future time when Jesus Christ comes with his angels and then rewards us. This is yet in our future; Have you received your rewards from Christ yet. v. 30 -

I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming is his Kingdom.

This has to do with the Transfigureation and Christ assending into Heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father. –Montana

When you speak of rewards I believe you are missing the context and ignoring who is being addressed. Who does the ‘us’ refer to without lifting it out of context? IMO Montana, when you include ‘us’ today, you were not standing in the 1^st century when Christ came in His kingdom. Also, if this passage is speaking exclusively about the Transformation that happened six days later, I think it is a very strange statement to make. All of them, not just some, were alive and well six days later.

Luke 9:26-27

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

²⁶ If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. ²⁷ I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

Mark 8:38-9:1

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

³⁸ If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

9 And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

Jesus here seems to be, IMO, addressing His contemporary generation, the one He came to as a man. I believe you can’t isolate the verses from each other without doing damage to the text. I think they go together and Jesus is going to come in His Father’s glory, with His angels. Now you can include Elijah and Moses as two angels/messagers (i.e., the Father’s angels) in the Transfiguration as Jesus in His kingdom, but you can’t, IMO, say that Jesus has ascended to heaven and is seated at the Father’s right hand until after the cross and Jesus’ mediators work on our behalf is done. So this may have been a vision of Him in His glory – the glory of His kingdom, but even though these disciples were privy to this, that coming has not yet come. I don’t believe you can say He came in His kingdom until He received it from the Father (Daniel 7:13-14; Matthew 24:30-32). Matthew 24:30-32, when Jesus received power and glory, came after the Transfiguration. And I believe that Jesus sat down at the right-hand side of the Father with His ascension and His enemies were made His footstool in A.D. 70.

The apostle Peter does give reason to include the Transfiguration as part of this witness to His majesty, but I don’t see the verses as explaining how Jesus came in His kingdom, although I realize how you can argue for this.

Peter

[PGA]

Hi again Montana,

I don't understand your logic. How are we not the church? The church is a body of believers. We are Christ's body on earth, Christ is our head. And yes, I have taken communion. –Me

If Chirst has already returned (His Second Coming) according to the Perterist view in 70 AD and that Revelation was already fulfilled by 70 AD. But according to Rev 22:16 - The Spirit and the Bride say, Come. If, this has already taken place, the Church is complete, for the Church is the Bride of Christ without spot or wrinkle. This had to take place in 70 AD, if not, then the belief that Revelation has been fulfilled by 70 AD is Flawed. Then how much more of the Perterist view is flawed. We cannot trust their thinking. Now about communion; 1 Cor 11:26 - For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes. We are still waiting for His Coming. –Montana

Matthew 22:1-14 – a parable – has something to say about your concern here, or at least the first part of your concern.

Matthew 22:1-14

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet

22 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: ² “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. ³ He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

⁴ “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

⁵ “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. ⁶ The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. ⁷ The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

⁸ “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. ⁹ Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ ¹⁰ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

¹¹ “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. ¹² ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless.

¹³ “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

¹⁴ “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

I believe this parable to be addressing OT Israel as the ones invited but refusing to come. Just a couple of points that I find relevant – God was enraged with that generation in which His Son came to. I think that can be demonstrated throughout Scripture. There are passages that say that their sins were heaped up to the limit. And in IMO, since their city and temple was destroyed I think this parable is for this very generation of which Jesus was born into as a man – their Messiah. The destruction of the city is brought out in the parable, IMO. The other point I would like to bring your attention to is that after the city was destroyed the wedding banquet was (is) ready, and IMO, because Israel of old had rejected the Son and their salvation judgment was coming upon all but the faithful remnant.

Another point I think significant is the passage you bring out in Revelation 22:16 – ‘The Spirit and the Bride say, Come’ is that it is the Spirit and the BRIDE (I’e., the marriage has taken place) that say come. The invitation is still open after the marriage.

If we are currently in the church age again, I would invite you to show me where in the NT the church age is said to end?

In the OT I believe that the imagery of God as being married to Israel is presented. I also believe God issued Israel a certificate of divorce for her unfaithfulness. The penalty for an unfaithful bride was death (Lev. 20:10). I believe that death came to OT Israel in A.D. 70. I also believe that God said He would make a new covenant with her and remarry her when she was pure.

Hosea 2:16-19

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

¹⁶ “In that day,” declares the Lord,

“you will call me ‘my husband’;

you will no longer call me ‘my master.^[a]’

¹⁷ I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips;

no longer will their names be invoked.

¹⁸ In that day I will make a covenant for them

with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air

and the creatures that move along the ground.

Bow and sword and battle

I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.

¹⁹ I will betroth you to me forever;

I will betroth you in^[b] righteousness and justice,

in^[c] love and compassion.

Footnotes:

1. Hosea 2:16 Hebrew baal
   
2. Hosea 2:19 Or with; also in verse 20
   
3. Hosea 2:19 Or with
   

This brings up a host of other theological issues, for instance, when did/will God establish His righteousness and justice in love and compassion?I think the NT already reveals that His righteousness has been established in Christ Jesus. Hosea holds many themes that I believe are present in the NT such as resurrection and (re-)marriage.

With communion I look back to what the Lord has done for me and I am reminded of the time when He will come to take me at my physical death to the heavenly Jerusalem, the greater reality (Colossians 2:16-17).

Peter

[PGA]

Montana, Part 3

IMO, John (1 John 2:18, 22) makes it clear that many antichrist's have already come, but you are referring to the man of lawlessness/sin, the one who desecrates the temple, right? Paul, speaking to the Thessalonians, said to them that lawlessness was already at work and they knew what was restraining the man of lawlessness, so that he would be revealed at the proper time (2 Thess. 2:3-10, esp. vs 6,7). –Me

Some in the Preterist or partial Preterist camp believe this man of lawlessness to refer to Nero, others Titus, but the third option is the Jews themselves.

But Ireneaus and Polycarp (a disciple of John) state they did not know who this man of lawlessness was. So it was not Nero, nor Titus, nor the Jews. The Perterist camp is wrong in all cases. –Montana

You still did not address what these biblical passages actual say and who John was addressing when he made these statements, so how about it? I would be interested in looking up these references of Ireaneaus and Polycarp. I believe with some digging I could bring claims forth from early Christians that say otherwise as relating to the last days or the time of Christ’s coming, but our highest/final authority is Scripture itself, is it not?

Eusebius, the early church historian makes mention of Caius as defiling the temple in the holy city, but I still see Titus as representing Caesar as a more likely candidate when he entered Jerusalem in A.D. 70, if you see this man of lawnessness as other than a Jew, which is reasonable to conclude.

Josephus actually records how the Romans brought their standards/banners/ensigns into the city and set them up against the eastern gate, where they offered sacrifices to their gods.

I believe the mirror passage to Matthew 24:15 is Luke 21:20-21 in which some have argued that the armies that entered the city could be considered as causing the abomination of desolation either directly or indirectly, because Jerusalem’s desolation is mentioned. Of course, I believe that included with the armies would be Titus and possible Caesar’s image which represented Caesar himself being placed in the temple (PS – of note -Nero was called/referred to as the Beast by some).

I’m not sure if I can provide web addresses, so please Google Eusebius Pamphillius on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library concerning the man of lawlessness and Christ’s coming relating to the 1^st century.

Please also Google the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary of Mark 13:14.

F.F. Bruce:

(On Matthew 24:15; The "Seventy Weeks" of Daniel)

"When the temple area was taken by the Romans, and the sanctuary itself was still burning, the soldiers brought their legionary standards into the sacred precincts, set them up opposite the eastern gate, and offered sacrifice to them there, acclaiming Titus as imperator (victorious commander) as they did so. The Roman custom of offering sacrifice to their standards had already been commented on by a Jewish writer as a symptom of their pagan arrogance, but the offering of such sacrifice in the temple court was the supreme insult to the God of Israel. This action, following as it did the cessation of the daily sacrifice three weeks earlier, must have sensed to many Jews, as it evidently did to Josephus, a new and final fulfillment of Daniel's vision of a time when the continual burnt offering would be taken away and the abomination of desolation set up" (Israel and the Nations, p. 226)

Origen (2nd Century)

"The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled" (Principles, 4:1:5).

Peter

[PGA]

Montana, Part 4 (final part),

We are told in Luke 20:21 that when "you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.” This could either refer to the city (as God's holy city in which His presence dwelt) being trampled by the Gentiles or what happened within the city to the temple itself. The Romans worshiped in the temple grounds while the temple was burning [according to Josephus and Eusebius. What is also interesting about Luke 21 concerning the time of the Gentiles is its mirror in Revelation 11:2 – edited by me today].

Titus was the one who ordered the gates of the temple to be set on fire (Ninth of Av - A.D. 70, August 28th). On August 30th, in the temple grounds a Roman soldier threw a burning piece of wood into the inner court which caused the fire to spread. When the fire spread to the temple itself it was Titus who tried to prevent the fire from spreading further, according to Josephus. Titus then went through the temple into the Holy of Holies, finding it completely empty. Someone then threw a firebrand against a wooden gate, which engulfed the entire inner sanctuary, with Titus and his generals escaping. (Josephus notes it was the same day in 587 B.C. that the First Temple was destroyed.) –Me

What 7 year covenant did Titus make or strengthen with many according to Dan 7:27. –Montana

I find it difficult to nail down all aspects of this Scripture. One possibility is that Titus, in his siege of Jerusalem, could be seen to represent Caesar Nero who started his persecution of Christians in A.D. 64. Before this time it was mainly the Jews who persecuted the Christians. Thus, Nero also could be seen as confirming a covenant with many (the Jews) for one week that was carried on by the Caesars who followed him in that both he (Caesar) and the Jews opposed and persecuted the early church.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place." (Miscellanies)

"The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet (i.e., Daniel) said." (Miscellanies 1:21)

Montana, how much of a quote am I allowed? I have a long one by Eussebius. This stuff is all public domain.

Peter

[GoldenEagle]

This thread is closed for review.