Saturday, December 10, 2011

The AD 70 Doctrine Concerning the Law of Moses

The AD 70 Doctrine Concerning the Law of Moses

Did Obligation to the Law of Moses End at the Cross of Jesus? Or, did it end at the AD 70 Destruction of Jerusalem?




I will be focusing on one particular aspect of the teaching of “Realized Eschatology”, and that is the question of whether the Law of Moses ended its binding power at the cross of Jesus, or if it was phased out or was abolished at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Definition


“Realized Eschatology” is a doctrine known by different names: “Realized Eschatology” - says last things (eschatology) are past (realized in AD 70).  It is also known as the  “A.D. 70 Doctrine” -  which denotes emphasis on A.D. 70 as the focus of prophecy.  Among churches of Christ it has been labeled “Max King-ism” - after author of The Spirit of Prophecy who advocates this view.  It is also called the “Preterist View” - from Latin word preterit meaning “past”. The idea is to emphasize the doctrine that prophesies regarding the last things have been fulfilled already in the past, particularly in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.

It is not the view that Revelation was written before AD 70 and largely focuses on the fall of Jerusalem. Many, including myself, take the early date view of Revelation without believing that ALL prophecy has been fulfilled in AD 70. ALL who believe in “Realized Eschatology” do take the early date view of Revelation, but NOT ALL who take the early date view of Revelation believe in “Realized Eschatology”.

It is like ALL Baptists believe in immersion, but not all who believe in immersion are Baptists. So, we need to be careful not to accuse brethren who take an early date view of Revelation as being false teachers.  There is no passage that tells us that Revelation was written later, and there is no doctrine harmed by taking an early date view, and there are more issues to consider before we accuse someone of teaching “Realized Eschatology”.  The “AD 70 Doctrine” is much MORE than the dating of books of the Bible. It is a doctrine that says that the resurrection, final judgment, and the final coming of the Lord has ALREADY occurred.  I do not believe THAT doctrine, but I do believe that Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Two Views Cannot Both Be Correct




My more direct experience with this teaching was through a written debate I engaged with Don Preston, who is probably one of the best skilled debaters among churches of Christ today, in my opinion. We debated the following propositions:

Resolved: Obligation to the Law of Moses continued till the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Affirmed:  Don K. Preston

Denied: Terry W. Benton

Resolved: Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross of Christ.

Affirmed: Terry W. Benton

Denied: Don K. Preston

These two positions cannot both be correct, and there are some serious consequences that follow each of these positions. I would encourage the reader to explore the Preston-Benton Debate on the Law of Moses.  These exchanges are easily found on the internet.

My Proposition Defined




Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross of Christ.

By "obligation" I mean that God "holds responsible" (or in this case "held responsible") the keeping of the Law of Moses.

By "Law of Moses" I mean the Law governing man found in the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). By extension I would add that all of the Old Testament laws that were built around the Law of Moses ceased to be required of those who would serve God.

By "ended" I mean that obligations to keep the Law of Moses came to a close and man was no longer obligated to Moses as his lawgiver.

By "ended at the cross of Christ" I mean in proximity to the time of Jesus’ death on the cross, the old system of obligation to the Law of Moses came to a halt, and a new system of obligation to Jesus Christ began.

 What Did NOT Happen at the Cross OR at AD 70




The Law of Moses did NOT cease to testify of Christ. It continues today to testify of Jesus as God’s anointed Messiah-Savior (John 5). The Law of Moses did NOT cease to testify of sin and guilt. It is not now a binding law, but that does not prevent it from testifying of right, wrong, sin, and guilt before God. The Law of Moses did NOT cease to be scripture that gives “instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim.3:15-17). The old scriptures still gives instruction in righteousness (Eph.6:1-4).  The Law of Moses did NOT cease to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim.3:15).  Timothy was made wise unto salvation by means of studying the scriptures that make up our present Old Testament.  Those same scriptures continue to make people wise unto the salvation that has come to us in Jesus Christ.  Even though it was abolished as binding law, it will always testify and make people wise regarding sin and salvation. Neither at the cross nor in the destruction of Jerusalem did the Law of Moses cease to bear testimony.

The Law Was Abolished at the Cross




This means:  it ceased to be a BINDING Law. But, again, it does not cease to be a testifying Law. We will show that the Law was indeed abolished as binding law at the time of Jesus’ death on the cross, at which time God tore the temple veil from top to bottom, indicating that God was through with that temple system, and a new way to God had been opened up as the way to come to God and establish fellowship with God.  The teachers of Realized Eschatology believe that the law remained binding until AD 70.

Don Preston’s Foundational Argument




DP:Jesus said "Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until
it is all fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18). So, let me offer an argument:

Major: Not one jot or one tittle of Torah would pass until it was all fulfilled.

Minor: But, Torah predicted the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the
resurrection.
Conclusion: Therefore, not one jot or one tittle would pass from Torah until the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection were fulfilled.
___________________________
Don claimed for the above syllogism:

The major premise is undeniable.  The minor is irrefutable.  The conclusion is inescapable.

However, I would see some major problems with the assumptions he used and combined into his argument. The context of Matt.5:18 is regarding keeping the “commandments”, even the least of “these commandments”.  It is a context that regards the principles of “righteousness” in behavior.  In Matt. 7:12, after talking about righteousness and keeping the commandments, he says that a summary of how to keep the commandments and fulfill them is by living by the golden rule.  He is not saying that we would fulfill every kind of promise found in the law and the prophets, but one would fulfill the demands or commands of the Law and the Prophets.  Matt.5:17 is not about “promises” that only God could keep, but about the obligations upon man for living righteously.

Jesus fulfilled all the righteous commandments before His death. Jesus “finished” that task and nailed the “LAW OF COMMANDMENTS” TO THE CROSS – Eph.2:11-14.   He did not nail all promises to the cross.

Thus, Don’s major premise involves a misuse and misapplication of his starting scripture. Therefore, his minor premise and conclusion will be wrong. We will show that his beginning premise is faulty, which leads him to the faulty conclusions he has reached.


The Old Testament predicted things beyond the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.  For example, it predicted the end of death – Isa.25:8. Here is a prediction. It is not a command for man. It carries no commands or obligations upon man for living righteously. It simply promises that death would be swallowed up at some time in the future. But, death is still here. So, it is a promise that has not yet come to pass. It predicted the end of sin by implication, but sin is still here. Law is still testifying of sin ( 1 Cor.15:54-56) and thus the law is giving “strength” to the case of sin against us.  If the law was destroyed, what becomes of sin?  “Where there is no law, there is no sin”. If there is no sin, then there is no need for Jesus’ blood, and no need for salvation.   

This corruptible body has not put on incorruption (which fulfills the back to pre-sin-and-death-Paradise –with-God)  plan.  The hope of all mankind has been to have a Savior who will get us back to Paradise with God.  When death is destroyed we will have incorruptible bodies.  But, that has not happened yet.

Therefore, Don’s argument does not work for AD 70. There are some promises that God has made that look to an eternity, a future where there is no sin, death, sorrow, or pain.  The Law of Moses was abolished, but that does not rid us of its testimony to sin.  Nothing happened in AD 70 that brought sin and death to an end. 

IF every prophecy had to be fulfilled before the Law of Moses could be annulled, then the argument would mean the Law of Moses has not even yet been abolished.


Could God Prophesy Beyond Days of the Life of a Particular Covenant?

Yes! He promised things to Abraham that were independent of the law of Moses (Gal.3:17), though later mentioned in the law of Moses. Thus, the law of Moses can contain promises that are not tied to the law or to the life-time of the law.  The law can begin and end separately from some promises of God.

Let me suggest a syllogism that will show the fallacy of Don’s arguments.

Major: Not one jot or one tittle of Torah COMMANDMENTS would pass until it was all fulfilled.

Minor: But, Torah COMMANDED  animal sacrifices and commanded not to accept a human as a sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:10 says: "There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering.“)

Conclusion: Therefore,  the Jews had no choice but to keep the animal sacrifices and reject Jesus’ sacrifice until all the commandments were fulfilled.

The only way out of this is unless Jesus removed the binding power of the Law of Moses in His own death on the cross by first fulfilling the commands of the Law.  This is exactly what Paul argues in Col.2:13-17.  He “disarmed” principalities and powers in His own death. Thus, He disarmed the binding power of the Law of Moses.  In this case, the Jews would be free to accept God’s sacrifice for sin in Jesus.  Long before AD 70, Jesus disarmed the binding power of the Law so that no man could use it to judge Christians in regard to days, months, festivals, and Sabbaths.  It was not because the Christian could now claim to be out from under the Law’s jurisdiction, but because the principality and power itself was disarmed. The binding power of the Law of Moses was fulfilled by Jesus and then finished and disarmed. This was all accomplished in Jesus’ life lived perfectly under the law, and then His death both ending the old and bringing in the New covenant.

The Commandments were fulfilled by Jesus before his death. Therefore, Jesus could abolish the Law of Moses in His flesh.  Jesus could also become the ultimate antitype of all former sacrifices. But, this was accomplished long before AD 70. If the Law of Moses was not disarmed, then Jews  were responsible to accept and reject Jesus’ sacrifice for 40 years, pulled apart by obligation to two contrary laws at once, pulled by the partial authority of the Law of Moses and the partial authority of Jesus,  pulled by obligation to the still-binding Levitical priesthood and pulled the other way by the Melchizedekan priesthood of Jesus.  This cannot be so. Yet, if the teaching of modern preterists is so, then two laws were in place at the same time and God was encouraging this adulterous relation all along. (see Rom.7:1-4).


Proof of My Proposition

 ALL AUTHORITY IN JESUS


Matthew 28:18


After Jesus’ death on the cross, Jesus said that "all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him". He instructed the disciples to make disciples and teach them to "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you".  They were not instructed to wait 40 years when this would be binding.  According to Don, Jesus said this prematurely before “all things were fulfilled”.

The following are implications of Jesus’ statements:

Obligation to the Law of Moses had ceased. It could not have part authority at the same time that Jesus had ALL authority. The Law of Moses did not command people to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This command comes out of the authority of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not premature in claiming this authority.  They would begin in Jerusalem as soon as they were endued with power from on high (Luke 24:48). They would not be telling Jews to keep the Law of Moses. They would be telling them that Moses commanded them to listen to and obey this Prophet (Jesus).

If the disciples are obligated to the Law of Moses at the same time that they are obligated to Christ, then Christ does not have ALL authority. Combining this thought with Romans 7:4 ("you have become dead to the law through the body of Christ")…

1) we find that it would be spiritual adultery to remain bound to Moses’ law and to also be bound to Christ and His law at the same time.

2) We have to become dead to the law in order to be alive to the full authority of Jesus Christ.

We must also observe that Jesus did not say he WILL HAVE All authority in AD 70, nor can we assume that obligation to the law of Moses and to Jesus Christ remained intact for 40 years after Jesus’ death on the cross.  When Jesus had ALL authority, which was just after the cross, people rightfully became "dead to the law" and all others were also obligated to die to the Law. When we are "dead to the law", we are not "obligated to the law".  The binding power of the Law of Moses was disarmed so that full allegiance could be given to Jesus Christ, the King.

Since all are obligated to the death of Jesus, all are obligated to enter the death of Jesus and die to the Law of Moses and be alive to God through Jesus Christ. Thus, I have proven my proposition: Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross of Christ.  Of course, this is proven over and over with many other similar points.

The cross of Jesus is made of none effect where one contends that Jesus’ death did not disarm the binding power of the Law.  It did not wait 40 years for disarmament.



THE PROPHET THAT ISRAEL MUST HEAR   -Deuteronomy 18:15f




Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross because the Prophet like Moses (Jesus) lived to fulfill the Law before taking it out of the way to establish the second (Law or covenant). He took away the first covenant that He might establish the second (Heb.10:8-10).  (Notice this was done long before AD 70).

 When He accomplished the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law requirements and took it out of the way, then His message and voice would be the authoritative voice, and Moses said that all Israel would be obligated to hear and obey that voice and that if they refused, they would be cut off.  Notice that the unbelieving  Jews were “cut off” long before AD 70. See Rom.11.  They could be grafted in again, but long before AD 70 they were already “cut off”.  Don argued that they were not cut off until AD 70, but Paul argued that they were already cut off because of unbelief (Rom.11:15,17,20-21). Therefore, there was no binding covenant between them and God at this time. They were already “broken off” through unbelief long before AD 70.

THE TRUE TABERNACLE  ESTABLISHED  -Hebrews 3:1-6




Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross because Jesus built His House by means of His death. Jesus’ house is greater than Moses’ house.  Jesus is greater than Moses and deserves to be heard over Moses.  The greater house and TRUE tabernacle has been established (Hebrews 3:1-6; 9:11). No one has obligation to hold to the lesser house and lesser law-giver while rejecting the true and greater house and greater lawgiver.  Therefore, as soon as the true house was established, and that was by means of his death, then that is when obligation to the Law of Moses ended and obligation to Jesus’ full authority began.

THE GREAT HIGH PRIEST ESTABLISHED   -Hebrews 4:14




Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross because Jesus is a Great High Priest over the Aaronic priesthood. His priesthood was established long before the destruction of Jerusalem and was activated in His death wherein He offered Himself without spot to God. Therein he also disarmed the power of the Law of Moses.  Notice that Jesus did not have to wait to fulfill every prophecy before He could become High Priest. His priesthood was in place long before AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem (Heb.8:1).

His priestly work was far greater in that He "passed through the heavens" instead of through a mere copy of things like Aaron had done previously. (Heb.4:14; 8:1).  Therefore, obligation could not remain upon the Jews to continue under the lesser system while the greater was in place.

THE PRIESTHOOD AND LAW CHANGED   -Heb. 7:12


12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. KJV

First, the priesthood "changed" and when it did, there was, of necessity, a change of the law. There was not merely a change of jurisdiction of the Law or the priesthood. There was not merely a new place to hide from the Law. There was an actual change of the law itself and an actual change of priesthood.  If Jesus was merely  wanting to change the jurisdiction, he could have gone to China to become a priest and invited His disciples to go there.  He was here to fulfill the law, then disarm its power, and then bring the change that the law predicted.  He did not have to wait till every promise was fulfilled. He only had to fulfill the righteous demands of the Law so that he could be a perfect sacrifice. In stepping into the position of Priest and King, He so changed the Law so that no one was still bound to the Levitical priests.  The law commanded a Levitical priesthood. If Jesus is priest, and disciples were obligated to His priesthood AND the Levitical priesthood at the same time, then the early disciples were obligated to accept Jesus’ offering and continue the animal sacrifices for 40 years at the same time. If fact, they were bound to accept Jesus’ sacrifice and refuse to accept it at the same time for 40 years.  The priesthood changed at the cross when Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice. The law had to change then as well.

Major premise: A new priesthood could not be recognized and submitted to while the old law with its priesthood still held people to its obligations.

Minor Premise: There has been a change of priesthood at the cross and long before AD 70.

Conclusion: The law with its priesthood changed at the time of Jesus’ priestly offering of Himself on the cross.

Each part of the syllogism is true, and therefore, I have further proven the validity of my proposition that Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross of Christ.

Better Mediator and Covenant Established    -Heb. 8:6




6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. NKJV

Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross because a better covenant has been established by a better Mediator. Obligation could not continue to the lesser Mediator and lesser, inferior covenant when the better covenant was established.  This better covenant was established by Jesus’ death. This covenant “was”(past tense, long before AD 70) established.

Don argued that it was not in full force until AD 70. Paul argued that it WAS established and the law CHANGED and the priesthood CHANGED long before AD 70.

New Testament in Force after Jesus’ Death    -Heb. 9:14-18




15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. NKJV

The better Mediator and better covenant could not be rightly turned down under pretense of being loyal to God.  God held all accountable to hear and obey His Son. None could remain under obligation to Moses instead. The New Testament was “in force” and “in power” long before AD70.

THE OLD COVENANT ANNULLED   -Heb. 7:18




18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. KJV

When did this annulling of the old commandment take place?  It took place when Jesus became a priest after the order of Melchizedek and offered Himself as a sacrifice. This is when Jesus disarmed it. As soon as the new priesthood took over, the law of Moses was changed and annulled.  This did not wait till AD 70. It happened at the cross of Jesus Christ.

Already, we can see how much emphasis is given to the cross. The false teacher makes the cross of Christ of none effect (1 Cor.1:18), and glories in the destruction of Jerusalem.  He sees everything through his distorted glasses, and he reads everything incorrectly as he prides himself in his own wisdom.

 


THE BETTER TESTAMENT ESTABLISHED    -Heb. 7:22




22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. KJV

This testament came into effect when Jesus died (Hebrews 9:15-17).  So, when the better testament came into effect, obligation to the older, weaker, and annulled testament with its Levitical priesthood, ceased to hold people under obligation to it. When the better testament came into effect at Jesus’ death, obligation to the New Testament began, and obligation to the Old Testament ceased.  Thus, the AD 70-ist will have to show that the better testament was not in effect until AD 70. He is in denial of clear scripture as he reads his vague ideas into questionably interpreted prophesies (more on this later).

THE UNCHANGEABLE PRIESTHOOD ESTABLISHED    -Heb .7:24




24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. KJV

If the priesthood of Jesus began at any time before AD 70, and the above statement shows that He "HAS" an unchangeable priesthood, then the law and its obligations ceased at whatever time the new priesthood of Christ became effectively honored by God and man as a valid priesthood.  Remember, The AD 70-ist argues that the Levitical priesthood cannot pass from obligation until AD 70, therefore, no Jew could be obligated to Jesus’ priesthood until then.  In fact, until AD 70 God was OBLIGATING ALL JEWS to ignore Jesus and His priesthood (it had no right to exist until every prophecy of every sort was completely fulfilled).  What Jesus was doing was evil until AD 70 gave Him the right to start a new covenant and priesthood, if their other arguments are correct.

THE GREATER MINISTER OF THE GREATER SANCTUARY ESTABLISHED   -Heb. 8:1-2




8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. KJV

This verse shows that the new High Priest, Jesus, is now operating in the true tabernacle.  When He set Himself on the right hand of the throne, He was King and Priest.  Obligation to the law of Moses ceased, and obligation to the new King and Priest, Jesus Christ began.  This being so, then it is clear that the interpretation Don placed upon Matthew 5:17 is totally incorrect, and therefore his whole line of dominoes falls over. Jesus rightfully changed the law, entered His better priesthood, ministered in His greater sanctuary, and it began long before AD 70.

THE BETTER COVENANT ESTABLISHED   -Heb. 8:6-7


6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.


7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. KJV

This passage shows that the new and better covenant WAS established, and that before AD 70.  The old and inferior covenant, the Law of Moses, was changed, annulled, and replaced with the better covenant. This new covenant was in effect after Jesus died on the cross (9:15-17).  Obligation to the old covenant  ceased. This is further evidence that my proposition is true, and the proposition of my retractor is incorrect or false. The Realized Eschatologist is misguided.  He is perverting the gospel of Christ (Gal.1:6-10), and will be accursed if they do not wake up and repent.

THE TIME OF REFORMATION ESTABLISHED   -Heb. 9:10




10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. KJV

The imposition of the law that obligated people to certain meats and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances was changed at the time of reformation.  At the time of reformation people would no longer be imposed upon by those obligations.  But, the time of reformation was when we got a new King and Priest in Jesus Christ.  But, Jesus became a King and Priest in His death, resurrection and ascension to the throne. This was long before AD 70.

Therefore, the law and all its’ impositions ended when Jesus brought in the time of reformation, and that was when He became King and Priest, 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

 THE BETTER SACRIFICE ESTABLISHED   -Heb. 9:23-27




Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another — 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. NKJV

Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross because the better sacrifice made in Jesus requires obligation and indebtedness to Jesus. The copies that Moses, the old covenant, and the old priesthood and sacrifices employed, cannot be "obligations" when the TRUE and BETTER has come to replace the copies with SUBSTANCE.  You follow the shadow only up to the substance that casts the shadow. The Hebrew writer speaks of what is ours NOW, since Jesus sacrificed Himself, which was 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

To say that the copies remained as "obligations" even while the TRUE and SUBSTANCE was in place is to say that which no verse says or implies, and AGAINST all evidence.

 It calls upon us to believe that either:

 1) obligation was to Moses instead of Jesus until AD 70, or

 2) obligation was to both Jesus and Moses at the same time until AD 70, or

 3) obligation was to Jesus the Greater and possessor of "all authority" since he disarmed ALL principalities and powers (including Moses) by means of the cross.

 The copies of the heavenly things were annulled when Jesus changed the law and priesthood and went into HEAVEN ITSELF. The copies were replaced by the real thing by Christ. The better sacrifice was established and in full use and application for 40 years before AD 70.  Don’s argument means that it was unlawful for Jesus to change the law or sacrifice Himself until after all the prophesies were all fulfilled. If people were obligated to Jesus before AD 70, a big jot and tittle passed in order for Jesus to be priest and His sacrifice be allowed to replace those imposed by the Law of Moses.  Don could not escape this point.

THE BETTER MEANS OF SANCTIFICATION ESTABLISHED  -Heb.10:9-10




Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. KJV

Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross when Jesus came to do God’s will and thereby take away the first will or covenant that he may establish the second.  We make note here that taking away the first was essential to establishing the second.  The offering of the body of Jesus took place forty years before AD 70. People were sanctified by this offering long before AD 70. That offering of the body presented the New Testament period of reformation and ended that first covenant, the Law of Moses.

 It was taken away, and in the words of Paul to the Romans, "we have become dead to the Law". We are (presently and before AD 70) sanctified, the writer says. The passage before us affirms that the sacrifices and offerings were not adequate and that God had planned to take those away that He may establish the body by which the adequate offering could be performed. The first system was "taken away" so that the second system of sanctification through the offering of the body of Jesus could be established. That second way was established by Jesus’ offering, and that was long before the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.  The AD 7o-ist must affirm that no one was sanctified by Jesus until AD 70. He is so wrong, as all epistles attest.

THE HANDWRITING OF REQUIREMENTS TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY  -Col .2:13-18




14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or  sabbaths…

The handwriting of requirements is a reference to that Law of Moses that imposed food and drink laws, festivals, new moons and Sabbaths.  That law could not be used as a basis for judging others at the time Paul wrote Colossians. This was several years before AD 70.  Paul said that law was "nailed to the cross" and that is the reason we can’t be judged by it. We will say more about this verse later, but the requirements included the food and drink laws.  Jesus disarmed the handwriting of requirements so that Peter could eat things that were now “cleansed” (Acts 10). Food and drink requirements passed long before AD 70. Therefore, Don’s starting premise and proposition is proven to be false.  The AD 70 doctrine perverts everything it touches regarding the gospel.

 THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS ABOLISHED   -Eph. 2:14-17




For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. NKJV

When Jews and Gentiles were made ONE was long before AD 70. All one has to do to determine when the law of commandments was abolished is to determine when Jesus was "in His flesh" and on "the cross".  When did Jesus put to death the source of enmity between Jew and Gentile? He did this when He abolished it in His flesh.  When did He make possible the unification of Jew and Gentile in one body? He did this "through the cross".  The cross became the means of abolishing the law contained in ordinances. Therefore, we have shown conclusively again, that my proposition is true: Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross of Christ.  Don’s position makes the cross of Christ of none effect for 40 years.

Should we say anything further about the PAST TENSES that he also ignores in this passage?  "He HAS made both one" and "He HAS broken down the middle wall of division between us" and "having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments".  Don says that Jesus didn’t really do it in His flesh. He says that Jesus merely "initiated" it then, but would really abolish it in AD 70.

Don has argued that the law was abolished in Christ for believers even before it was all fulfilled (thus cancelling any validity to his Matthew 5:17 argument), and even before Jesus "consummated" the new covenant by "coming back out of the MHP" (thus cancelling an validity to his argument that consummating the covenant in this way was necessary). He has Christians not being obligated to a still binding Law of Moses but bound to an initialized but not consummated new covenant for forty years.

He has unbelieving Jews still bound to the Levitical priesthood even though the greater, prophesied and fully established priesthood of their Messiah was already in place.

In this case, ALL were obligated to believe and enter Jesus’ death, while none were obligated to remain under the Law of Moses, but at the same time NONE could actually be out from under the Law of Moses until it was ALL fulfilled, and NONE could actually be under obligation to an "unconsummated" covenant until it is consummated.

He has Christians meeting their obligation to "die to the Law", but leaving them under an unconsummated covenant.

He has unbelieving Jews obligated to believe in Jesus but also obligated to keep the Law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood at the same time, while also being free to leave the obligations to the Law of Moses and entering with Christians an unconsummated new covenant.

Now see if you can untangle the mess Don has made of the scriptures. I must confess that I get lost in the endless entangling weaves of his argumentation.

THE LAW SERVED ITS PURPOSE IN BRINGING US TO CHRIST  -Gal 3:24-25




24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Paul said that "we are no longer under a tutor" which he has identified as "the law".  He wrote Galatians early in his ministry, long before AD 70.  My proposition says that "obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross". Don’s proposition says that obligation to the Law of Moses continued until AD 70. Who do we believe?

The inspired message from Paul is that long before AD 70, he could safely say, "we are no longer under the law". When did faith come? It came long before AD 70.

THE SPIRIT LEADS ALL OUT FROM UNDER THE LAW   -Gal.5:18




Furthermore, we could add that obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross because the Spirit leads all to Christ and no longer leads ANY to stay under the bondage of the Law. (Gal.5:18).  Therefore, whoever was led by the Spirit was not under the Law, and whoever chose to remain under the Law was not led by the Spirit.

 The Spirit obligated no one to continue under the Law, and obligated ALL to come into Christ. Therefore, the Spirit could not be obeyed while rejecting Jesus and continuing as if obligated to the Law of Moses.  The Spirit was leading people out from under the Law ever since the Day of Pentecost, for 40 years before AD 70.

THE SPIRIT LEADS ALL OUT FROM UNDER THE LAW




Peter, in Acts 10, had not relinquished his hold on the dietary laws.  So, God confronted him with some animals and told him to "kill and eat". Peter did not know it or realize it but God had "cleansed" those animals so that they were no longer to be considered unclean. Don’s position is that God was still holding the Jews bound to the unclean animal laws of the OT, but that since Peter had "died to the Law", those animals were now cleansed by God for him.  Thus, God had two laws in place at the same time.  One law is still bound upon unbelieving Jews, the other law bound upon believing Jews and Gentiles in Christ.  How could Peter come out from under the Law when it had not been completely fulfilled until AD 70????  A jot or tittle of the Law passed for Peter before every prophecy was fulfilled, and this fact alone destroys the foundational argument that Preston and those of that persuasion use from Matt.5:17-18.

Regarding Matthew 5:17-19, Don is shifting the verse into a different mode of thought. He is saying none of the commandments upon man can be cancelled until every promise of God is completed.

 The verse is staying with the same theme: None of the commandments will pass until all the commandments are fulfilled.  They were all fulfilled in Jesus. He nailed the handwriting of requirements to the cross and took them out of the way so that no one can judge us in regard to new moons, Sabbaths, and other law-shadows that have been abolished in Jesus' flesh.

Rebuttal of False Arguments




Regarding Matthew 5:17-19, Don did not prove his proposition because:

1) There was a change of the Law and priesthood BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem. Heb.7:11f

2) Jews were "no longer under the Law"(Gal.3:23-25) BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem.

3) No one can judge us by issues of the law (Col.2:13-17) because these were "nailed to the cross" and this BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem.

4) Jews could be "complete in Christ" BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem (Col.2:10) and that without keeping the shadows of the Law.

The Contextual Aspect of Matthew 5:17f




17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 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. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Ch.5-7 are ways the scribes and Pharisees were destroying the Law or the Prophets.

7:12 -Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Argument Made on Matt.5:17 & Lk.21:22




The Argument:

Jesus said that not one jot or one tittle of the Law would pass until it was all fulfilled. Matt.5:17f

But, Jesus said that in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 "all things that are written must be fulfilled" (Luke 21:22).

Therefore, the Law– and thus obligation to keep the Law-- would not pass until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The Answer:

Matt.5:17f is about all the “commands” being fulfilled. Jesus did not come to destroy but fulfill all “righteousness”

All promises are not under consideration.

The “law of commandments” was nailed to the cross. Eph.2:12f

The promises of the destruction of Jerusalem is a separate matter

 “The Law” is not Always Comprehensive




Sometimes the term "the Law" refers to a particular aspect of the Old Testament scriptures and does NOT include the Psalms and the Prophets. For example: Look at Luke 24:44-45

Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. NKJV

Here the Law is not qualified, but the context shows that there are separate sections of the scriptures: The Law (as one section), the Psalms (as another section) and the Prophets (as a third and separate section).

If Don is right, then when Paul wrote that "you have become dead to the law through the body of Christ"(Rom.7:4), this means that you became dead to every promise ever made in the Old Testament, and cannot expect that God will fulfill any more promises.  If "the Law" is as comprehensive in every passage as Don says, then it was wrong for anyone who knew the law to become dead to it until the destruction of Jerusalem.

Since Don argues that every aspect of the Old Testament system had to remain bound upon every Jew until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, then it was wrong for any Jew to become "dead to the law" or feel free to feel "delivered from the Law"(Rom.7:6), until that future time came.

Don assumes that every single prediction of any kind out of the Old Testament has to be fulfilled specifically before any part of the Law could cease to be an obligation upon all Jews. This means, then, that all sacrifices had to be maintained by all Jewish Christians until AD 70 (when Don claims all predictions and prophecies of any sort were all fulfilled).  This means that Jesus' sacrifice of Himself could not be viewed as legal or sufficient for Jewish Christians until AD 70.  Believe it if you can!

The consequences of Don's misuse of Matthew 5:17-19 are as follows:
1) Since not one tittle of the Law could pass (and that is also taken to mean it cannot cease to be obligated and imposed) until AD 70, then there could not be a "change of the Law" regarding priesthood until AD 70 (Heb.7:12-13).

2) After the faith came we (Paul includes himself, a Jew) are STILL under the tutor until AD 70 (Gal.3:23-25 not withstanding).

3) Jews were obligated to two husbands at the same time (Rom.7 not withstanding).

4) No one could be "delivered from the Law" (Rom.7:6) until AD 70.

5) No one could be "dead to the Law" (Rom.7:4) until AD 70.

6) Thus, Jesus could not "abolish in His flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances"(Eph.2:15) until AD 70.

 “Passed” versus “Remains Valid”

The covenant "obligation" to the Law passed from man at the cross, while it (the Law) forever remains "valid" as a Testimony.  The types and shadows of the Law faded as the substance, Christ, emerged to fulfill and fill the outline created and anticipated by the forms and shadows (Col.2:14-17).  So, what "passed away"? Not the Law as a Testimony to Christ, but the Law as a system of obligation.

 If the Law, as a system of obligation remained even as Christ emerged to take "all authority"(Matt.28:18f), then Jesus never had "all authority" over Jewish Christians for forty years.

 What "passed"? The glory of the first covenant faded as "ministers of the new covenant" showed forth the greater glory of Jesus in the gospel (2 Cor.3).  Did the Law "pass" even after AD 70? No, we are still using it as a Testimony of God, His righteousness, and of His Son and our Savior, Jesus the Christ.

 We are still "fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law" (Rom.8:3-4; 13:8-10). We are still using it as a valid means of "instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim.3:15-17).

 So, Matt.5:17-19 does not teach anything about when "obligation" to keep the Law as a whole would be cancelled. It is only about whether Jesus came to destroy any part of it before He had actually fulfilled the commandments of it.

No Overlapping of Covenants   -Rom 7:4-6




Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.  For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.  But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. NKJV

Old Covenant Taken Away AD 33

Col 2:13-14

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.-NKJV

Significance of the Torn Veil   -Matt 27:51

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,..NKJV

God was out of use for the temple from the time of the cross. God did not phase out. He tore out. He was not in covenant relationship with them. It was their house now, and God was not in it accepting their sacrifices for another 40 years.

Old Covenant Abolished At the Cross   -Eph 2:13-16

It was not partially abolished or merely phased out.

Law  over man and Promises of God


1) How long is man obligated to keep ALL the Law including its types and shadows?


2) What kind of promises can God make, and do they all have to be fulfilled within the same time-frame as man's obligation to the Law of Moses?

3) Are all of God's promises and predictions, though recorded in the Old Testament records, automatically tied to the Law of Moses so that God could not release man from his obligations before God has fulfilled every promise and prediction on every subject?

Matthew 5: 17 Does Not Mean




There are things we can conclude about what Matthew 5:17 means and does not mean. It does NOT mean:

Obligation upon man would continue so long as there is even one promise that has not come to pass.

In this case, the law would STILL be binding and did not cease to be binding even after the destruction of Jerusalem. 1 Cor.15:54f shows that death would have to be abolished one day according to Old Testament scriptures. But…death has not been abolished and swallowed up in victory yet. Sin is still around and is strengthened by the testimony of the Law

Law testimony to sin did not end in AD 70 or at the cross.  The law still testifies about sin, and sin has strength against us today. We still need the blood of Christ to help us against sin. When the resurrection occurs, sin and death will be destroyed and this mortal will have put on immortality.

In this case, according to Don Preston’s argument, Jesus could not "take it out of the way"(Col.2 and Eph.2) until every promise was fulfilled. And furthermore, the Law could not be "changed" (Heb.7:12) before every promise of the Old Testament has come to pass.

Matthew 5: 17 Does Not Mean

Every promise of any kind had to be fulfilled before the law could be annulled.

Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 have not been fulfilled, and therefore, per Don’s argument, Jesus cannot be priest until the destruction of Jerusalem, and if his argument on Matthew 5:17 is true, Jesus cannot be priest and king even now.

Death has not been swallowed up and sin is still around.Therefore, per Don’s argument on Matthew 5:17, we are still under obligation to keep every aspect of the Law of Moses.

But, the argument that every promise HAD to be fulfilled before man’s obligation to keep the Law could be removed is faulty because:

Don admitted that Col.2 and Eph.2 shows that some men DID cease to be obligated even before the destruction of Jerusalem and before all promises were fulfilled. Jesus had "all authority" and all men were under obligation to Him before the destruction of Jerusalem and before all promises were fulfilled.

Jesus changed the Law (Heb.7:12) and all people became subject to His Kingship and Priesthood even before the destruction of Jerusalem and before all promises were fulfilled.

All men were obligated to enter the death of Christ and pass out from under the Law of Moses before the destruction of Jerusalem and before all the promises were fulfilled.



Does Matthew 5:17  mean that Jesus could not have "all authority" and ratify His "new covenant" until every promise of the Old Testament was fulfilled?

In this case, He still would not have all authority and there could be no obligation to the New Testament because there still are promises in the Old Testament that have not been fulfilled. Isa.25:8; Hos.13:14



Don has already admitted that the New Testament of Jesus Christ IS the covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31 AND that it came into effect at the cross, and that was long before the destruction of Jerusalem and before every promise of the Old Testament had been fulfilled. Thus, his own argument backfires on his own position.

DON’S PLAY ON MATT.5:17 MEANS:

1) Some people’s obligation to the Law can pass (even before AD 70) and therefore to THEM:

The entire Law and prophets passed away without every jot and tittle being fulfilled,

2) Jesus abolished it and caused it to pass away without every jot and tittle being fulfilled. So, in this case:

Jesus had no right to do this for anybody at that point in time, and Jesus could not do it legitimately, and Jesus caused people to sin by telling them it was all right for them to die to the Law that had not yet been completely fulfilled in every prophecy.  Again, the position backfires on itself.

He has "completely altered the words of Jesus" to say:

 "When some of the Law and some of the Prophets are fulfilled, I will nail it to the cross for some of you, and for you the law will pass", OR, Don alters the words to say:  "When some of the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled I will allow all people to pass out from under the Law before every jot and tittle of it is fulfilled".

Don, not Jesus, is the one who expanded the issue of Matthew 5:17 to include every promise found in the OT. This was never Jesus’ issue.  The issue was regarding "righteous" principles related through the law and whether Jesus would keep or destroy them.

 Regarding those righteous requirements of the Law, the standards of the scribes and Pharisees destroyed basic standards of righteous requirements, but all who would enter the kingdom of heaven would have to exceed their standards.  The Golden Rule would fulfill those basic standards of the Law and Prophets. 7:12.  We can fulfill righteous requirements without having to fulfill every kind of prophecy (prediction) too.(Rom.8:4; 13:8-10).

 He has built his entire case on the premise that the law could not cease to be binding on one point until every single promise found in any context of the entire OT was fulfilled.

 The consequences of that premise are:

1)      Jesus could not even abolish the law at the cross because every promise had not been fulfilled,

2)      Jesus could not even abolish the Law at the destruction of Jerusalem because every promise had not been fulfilled then either. Death had not been abolished and swallowed up in victory, mortality had not been abolished, and the resurrection that ends death and sin had not taken place then (See Isa.25:8; Hosea 13:14 with 1 Cor.15:54-55).

3)      Jesus could not abolish the Law until the final resurrection and abolition of sin and death.

Thus, he is clearly misusing the contextual point of Matt.5:17

Don Preston: Jesus said that not one single aspect of the Law– and thus the prophets-- since the Prophets are part of the Law-- could pass until it was all fulfilled. Obligation to keep the Law would remain valid as long as the Law stood valid.

Therefore, obligation to keep the Law would remain valid until every single aspect of the Law–including the prophets– was fulfilled.

Answer:

The context here is about “commands” that can be kept by man and “fulfilled” by obeying the Golden Rule. Matt.5:17-19; 7:12

The context is about righteous principles of living in the kingdom.

The context does not include every promise that God made that only He can keep in His own time. Every aspect of righteous living WAS fulfilled in Jesus up to His sacrifice of Himself.

His Affirmative Point on Daniel 9 Linked to Matt.5:17




Quote: But, Daniel 9 posited the fulfillment of all vision and prophecy at the end of the Seventy Weeks, at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Therefore, not one iota of Torah would pass until the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9, that terminated in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. –Unquote!

Answer:

Vision and prophecy in Daniel 9 does not equate with when the law of commandments contained in ordinances could be abolished.

The sealing of vision and prophecy in Dan.9 is about bringing those prophecies –pertaining to the Messiah and His plan to destroy unbelieving and disobedient Israel’s Temple and sacrificial system – to a completion.

Again, it is not about when obligation to keep the commandments contained in ordinances would be abolished or about when other scattered prophecies on other topics might be fulfilled.

Progression of Errors




DP:  Every promise has to be fulfilled in order for the law to be abolished (error based on eisegesis of Matthew 5:17).

The days of vengeance (destruction of Jerusalem) is when "all things which are written may be fulfilled"(Luke 21:22).

Therefore, even the promise of Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 quoted in 1 Cor.15:54-55 had to be fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in order for the "all things which are written"(Luke 21:22) to be fulfilled.

Therefore, the resurrection of Daniel 12 and 1 Cor.15 are the same, and therefore the conclusion that the resurrection is past, and the conclusion that death has been swallowed up, the mortal changed to immortal, all in AD 70.

TB: When we refuse to allow Don the assumptions he attaches to each verse, then his theory does not work. So, let us analyze each point individually.

Error #1 is when he assumes that Matt.5:17 means the law cannot be abolished until every promise in the OT is fulfilled.

 Jesus fulfilled whatever was included under "the least of these COMMANDMENTS" and "took them out of the way nailing them to His cross" and "abolished in His flesh the law of commandments (Matt.5:19; Eph.2:14f; Col.2:14f).

Also inherent within Don’s error #1 is the error that allows Jesus to abolish the law for SOME without every promise first being fulfilled.

 So, his first error is full of assumptions that we cannot grant to him and the text does not demand or allow, and the above inherent errors falsify his usage of Matt.5:17 and his proposition.

Error #2 is when he expands Luke 21:22 to include more than the context demands.

Granted that "all things that are written" sounds all-inclusive, but a little thought would show that it is all things within a certain category.

For example, the days of vengeance would not fulfill the things written about the birth of the Messiah, His death and resurrection.

Those days would not fulfill the "law of commandments contained in ordinances".

Don wants this passage to mean only "the rest of what’s left that wasn’t fulfilled in Jesus", but it says, "all things that are written".

So, what does it mean? Take a look at each context and you will find that "all things" is all things within a certain category. See Luke 2:39; 11:41.

 In Luke 18:31 "all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished" on that trip to Jerusalem.

 But, there were things written by the prophets that concerned the Son of Man that were NOT "all" accomplished on that trip to Jerusalem. For example, the prophets also said He would bring an end to sacrifice and offering in that later time of the destruction of Jerusalem (Dan.9:26-27).

Jesus did not fulfill those things on that trip to Jerusalem. In Jesus’ final moments on the cross John comments that "after this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst".

 But, the resurrection had not been accomplished, so "all things" means "all things" within a certain category.

"All things that are written" in the context of Luke 21:22,32 have to do with all things that pertained to the end of the Jewish Temple system, but not all things about the Messiah, His kingdom, final judgment, or the fulfillment of the righteous requirements of the Law, or the final putting down of death and Hades, or the final end of sin.

If we allow Don too much eisegesis with Luke 21:22,32, he will make it appear that he has a valid point. If we carefully watch each context, we find that his theory is out of harmony with too many plain passages of scripture. Error #2 therefore cannot stand.

Error #3 is built on the first two errors. If you grant the first two errors and treat them as true exegesis of the text and context of Matt.5:17 and Luke 21:22, then you are prepared to swallow his theory that Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 have to have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and therefore, you are ready to accept that the resurrection described in 1 Corinthians 15 that promises that "when this mortal shall have put on immortality then will be brought to pass the saying that is written, ‘O death where is your sting"- was fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

Paul quotes Isa.25:8 and Hosea 13:14 and says those OT scriptures would be fulfilled in the resurrection. So, if you would accept Don’s first two errors, then you are ready to accept his third error that the resurrection had to have occurred when "all things" had to be fulfilled in the days of vengeance. Thus, you are ready to swallow the theory that the resurrection DID occur in AD 70.

Error #4 was in combining Dan.12 with 1 Cor.15 and asserting that both texts are speaking of the same kind of resurrection AND assuming that both kinds happened at the same time or were the same resurrection in AD 70.

But, a spiritual resurrection is the focus of Dan.12 and is of the sort mentioned in John 5:24 and Rom.11:15,  while the resurrection of 1 Cor.15 is of the same nature as Jesus’ literal resurrection from physical death, and the whole argument of 1 Cor.15 is based on that resurrection being the "firstfruits" of all that will follow later.

Thus, we could not grant Don the assumptions he made on both passages.

Hebrew 8:13: Ready to Vanish Away




The Inspired writer said:

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. NKJV

The passage he is quoting and analyzing is Jeremiah 31. The Hebrews writer says that God was speaking through Jeremiah, and "In that He says, "A new covenant", He has made the first obsolete.

It was in standby mode and ready to vanish away as soon as God said "a new covenant".

This passage is speaking from His (God’s) standpoint. "In that He (God) said"…"He (God) has made the first obsolete". So the argument is from God’s standpoint, and from His standpoint the first covenant was nigh unto passing away. From a human standpoint several hundred years is not "nigh", but the Hebrews writer is not making observations from human standpoint.  He is looking at it from God’s standpoint and analyzing that as soon as God said "a new covenant" is coming, He (God) viewed that first covenant as obsolete and ready to vanish away.

Daniel 12 foretold the RESURRECTION. 1 Corinthians 15  foretold the same RESURRECTION




Correction! Daniel 12 speaks of a resurrection or awakening and seems to point to the shattering that took place in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. We can grant that because such a resurrection from the dust of unbelief was expected by Paul as he relates this in Romans 11:15f. But, while that is A resurrection of a certain type, the text of 1 Corinthians 15 is far different. It is about a literal resurrection of the kind and nature of Jesus’ literal, physical resurrection.  Christ is the "firstfruits"(15:20) of this kind of resurrection. Thus, this resurrection is different from the one described in Romans 11:15 and Daniel 12. It is patterned after the literal resurrection of Jesus.

Proof that 1 Corinthians 15 is speaking of a literal resurrection that is of the same kind as Christ’s literal resurrection. Notice the following from the context of 1 Corinthians 15:

If the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 15:13,16

Christ HAS risen (literally) and is the "firstfruits" – 15:20

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead – 15:21

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 22

These point out that the resurrection is of the kind of which Jesus was the first.

Thus, 1 Cor.15 is about a resurrection from literal graves like Jesus’ literal resurrection from a literal grave, and it is about the literal changing of the body to an incorruptible body suited for taking back to the Father in His literal presence.

Daniel 9: Vision and Prophecy = Law?




DP: Vision and prophecy is "the Law."

TB: Not necessarily! Visions are not "handwritings of requirements" or "obligations" upon man (Eph.2:12f; Col.2:13f).

Prophecy, in this context, can mean those predicted things that God promised that do not have to even be connected to whether man keeps his obligations or to whether God releases man from covenant obligation so he can be married to Christ. Don's use of Daniel 9 would mean that when Paul said "you have become dead to the Law"(Rom.7:4), this means you became dead to any vision or prophecy about the Messiah, what He would accomplish, and anything that would later happen to Judaism. So, did Paul become dead to those promises and die without ever realizing and enjoying those promises? Don  cannot escape the consequences of the very arguments he has used. Such is the endless tangled weaves of those who get deceived with this “Realized Eschatology” doctrine.

Other passages show that man's obligations were cancelled at the cross. The requirements that stood against us were "nailed to the cross". We became free from that law and became obligated to recognize Jesus as having "all authority" (Matt.28:18f).


Don’s Argument from ZECHARIAH 11:9F:


"Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. 10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD."

Here is the argument that nullifies, and falsifies Terry’s affirmative.

In the day that Jerusalem and Judah would eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, YHVH would annul His covenant with her.

The day when Jerusalem and Judah would eat the flesh of their sons and daughters was in A.D. 70.

Therefore, the day when God would annul His covenant with Judah and Jerusalem was in A.D. 70.

ZECHARIAH 11:9F:   Reply


"Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. 10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.“

DP: In the day that Jerusalem and Judah would eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, YHVH would annul His covenant with her.

Answer:

Of them Jesus said, "Let them alone, they are blind leaders, themselves heading for and leading others into the pit.“-  So, Jesus let them alone. As far as He was concerned they could eat each other’s flesh while Jesus’ disciples would eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God (John 6).  Jesus would have loved and provided care and protection to the leaders "but you were not willing". Thus, they were left to their own demise which eventually would lead to them eating each other’s flesh. Says nothing about “In the day”…..  Don made it up.

DP: In the day that Jerusalem and Judah would eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, YHVH would annul His covenant with her.

Answer:

Jesus temporarily allowed His Beauty to be broken in two in His humiliated and broken body on the cross so that He could end the covenant made with all Israel at Sinai. Paul agrees and says that He "abolished in His flesh…the law of commandments"(Eph.2:15). The disciples, the poor among the flock, waited upon Jesus, and knew that "it was the word of the Lord". They related it to passages like Isaiah 53 and perhaps this one too. The eating of each other’s flesh would result, but not happen the same day the covenant was broken. Don read it INTO the passage.

DP: The day when Jerusalem and Judah would eat the flesh of their sons and daughters was in A.D. 70.

Therefore, the day when God would annul His covenant with Judah and Jerusalem was in A.D. 70.

Answer:

Considering verse 12: These are scenes surrounding the great event of the cross of Jesus Christ, His death in an ugly (not beautiful) moment in which betrayal was involved, and the breaking of the old covenant with Israel was to establish the second way of sanctification. He takes away the first in a not-so-beautiful moment "that He may establish the second (Heb.10:9).

The text does not say that eating each others’ flesh would happen on the same day as God broke His covenant. The temple veil being rent in two indicated that God was through with the covenant and their temple. The New Testament lays out the breaking of the covenant as an event around the cross (Heb.7:12; Eph.2:14f) at which time Jesus’ staff of Beauty was broken in His humiliation.

The leaders of Israel had already been told that their house would be left desolate and at the death of Jesus, God tore out of their house (ripping the veil from top to bottom), no longer claiming it as His house. Their house was left empty of God.

 Also found in this text is the poor among the flock being able to see that this was the word of the Lord (from Pentecost onward the poor-in-heart disciples showed clearly that Jesus’ death was associated with the word of the Lord (using Isaiah 53 and other passages to demonstrate this).

Meanwhile, during these same events Zechariah mentions the deal for thirty pieces of silver. Again, the New Testament associates this with events around the cross and not at the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt.27:3-10). Also, after those events we can see how "Bonds" were broken in the decisions that families had to make from Pentecost onward.

While Don tries to bring the "eating of each other’s flesh" into the very moment of the "breaking of the covenant", I would see the eating of each other’s flesh as the eventual consequence of Jesus "letting them alone" because they were blind leaders of the blind and both would eventually fall into the ditch (Matt.15:14).

They abhorred Jesus and He loathed them, calling them a "brood of vipers" and "whitewashed walls". The eventual consequence was that they would wind up eating each others flesh.

Zechariah 11 has some complicated ways of wording, but the New Testament clears up the moment of the breaking of Beauty and Bonds and the breaking of the covenant as something that happened at the cross (Eph.2:11ff). It is also clear that the eating of each other’s flesh was a consequence of not being willing to let Jesus be their shepherd and feed them with His very life-blood. The passage does not force the conclusion that the covenant ends when the eating of each other’s flesh began. Thus, Don’s assumptions are read into the text, not derived from it.

Argument on Genesis 49:10


Don’s Argument:

The scepter would not pass from Judah until the coming of Shiloh to gather the elect.

The scepter of Shiloh was Judah’s covenant relationship with God.

Therefore, Judah’s covenant relationship with God would not pass until the coming of Shiloh to gather the elect.

Judah’s covenant relationship with God would not pass until the coming of Shiloh to gather the people.

But, the coming of Shiloh to gather the people– when the scepter would pass from Judah– was at Christ’s coming in judgment of Judah in A.D. 70.

Therefore, Judah’s covenant relationship with God did not pass until the coming of Shiloh to gather the people in the A.D. 70 judgment of Judah.



Don’s Argument and My Answers:


The scepter would not pass from Judah until the coming of Shiloh to gather the elect.

TB: We have come to the “general assembly” long before AD 70. See Hebrews 12:22-24. Thus, Shiloh HAS come and gathered the elect into a “general assembly”.

DP: The scepter of Shiloh was Judah’s covenant relationship with God.

TB: The sceptor of Shiloh was His royal position of Kingly authority. See Matt.28:18-20; Col.1:18

DP: Therefore, Judah’s covenant relationship with God would not pass until the coming of Shiloh to gather the elect.

TB: Judah’s covenant relationship passed when Jesus nailed the law to the cross and God exited the temple, rending the veil.

DP: Judah’s covenant relationship with God would not pass until the coming of Shiloh to gather the people.

TB: Jesus gathered them into His kingdom into the “general assembly” (Col.1:13; Heb.12:22-24) long before AD 70

DP: But, the coming of Shiloh to gather the people– when the scepter would pass from Judah– was at Christ’s coming in judgment of Judah in A.D. 70.

TB: No, it was when He brought them into His “general assembly”- which was long before AD 70

DP: Therefore, Judah’s covenant relationship with God did not pass until the coming of Shiloh to gather the people in the A.D. 70 judgment of Judah.

TB: Judah’s covenant relationship with God passed when Jesus nailed it to the cross (Eph.2:11-15), which is also when He began gathering the people into His kingdom (Col.1:13), which happened long before AD 70.

Transitioning Covenants?




Don has two covenants being bound at the same time. His argument:

There was a transitional period of time between the Cross and A.D. 70.

A.) It was a time in which the Old Covenant was passing away, and was ready to vanish.

B.) The New Covenant was being revealed and confirmed. Israel was being called into her New Covenant.

C.) During that period of time, it was wrong for Israel to violate the Torah.

D. But Israel was being given the invitation to come into the New Covenant world.

E.) She was being given A PERIOD OF GRACE, with the warning that if she refused, she would be utterly destroyed (Acts 3/ Acts 13).

F.) When the gospel–to the Jew first– was preached inviting and warning Israel to come into her inheritance– had been preached into all the world (Romans 10:16f), taking away any excuses, and she continued to rebel, then, and only then, IN FULFILLMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE OLD COVENANT ITSELF, judgment came, and swept away that Old World, including the covenant.>

Transitioning Covenants? Reply




DP:There was a transitional period of time between the Cross and A.D. 70.

A.) It was a time in which the Old Covenant was passing away, and was ready to vanish.

TB: The Old Covenant was ready to vanish away from the very start (from God’s planned perspective).

It passed away as binding law when Jesus nailed it to the cross in AD 30 (Eph.2:13f; Col.2:13f). People were in transition from an abolished law and into a new covenant, but the two covenants were not in any transition. The first covenant was annulled in order to establish the second way of sanctification (Heb.10:9) Jews were not under TWO Priesthoods or two covenants pulling them in two different directions at the same time.

The Hebrews writer is speaking from the point of view of God when He had Jeremiah write of a new covenant.  From that angle “he HAS made the first obsolete” –Heb.8:13 . From that angle the Jews should have considered it as “becoming obsolete and growing old and ready to vanish away”. This does not argue that the Old was phased out instead of completely abolished in His flesh (Eph.2:11-15).

McGuiggan on Heb.8:13

“In 8:13 'In that he said' is present infinitive active. If Max were right God would be saying the word of Jeremiah as the Hebrew writer was speaking but Greek scholars know better. 'He hath made' is perfect indicative active indicating an action in time past which causes the old covenant to 'stand in a state of having been made old.' The rest of the passage is not a double verb clause but an observation on 'old things.' The writer is not contradicting himself and saying 'the old covenant stands having already been made old' and 'the old covenant is growing old..' He is merely pointing out the destiny of all aging things―they approach the 'throwing out' stage” (The McGuiggen-King Debate p. 36).



Obsolete and Hebrews 8:13

The Hebrews 8 “obsolete” argument misses the point of what is being considered. Don is wrong in claiming that “change” in Heb. 7:12 is present active indicative – the NET Bible lists it as present-passive-participle. http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Heb&chapter=7&verse=12

But that is immaterial to the Hebrew writer’s argument, which is this: It is an always-present principle that when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a corresponding change in the Law.

The point is that as soon as God said it (in Jeremiah’s day), its “days were numbered” and it was obsolete from that point forward because a New Covenant has now been set before them.  If I sign and order a new car from the dealership, and he tells me it will take several days for delivery, my old car is obsolete from that point on – whether the delivery comes on day 7 or day 100.  Don’s position is akin to saying that the old car wasn’t obsolete until demolished in the wrecking yard. Rubbish. It was “going to be” obsolete when I decided to go buy a replacement, and it “became” obsolete when I signed the dotted line, because I had set my sights on it.  My heart is now focused on the coming, better car, and the old car is now obsolete.

On “Being Changed”




Don said the change was just "initiated" but not "FULL REALITIES". He said that the law "was BEING CHANGED" and that the priests at Jerusalem were still serving "according to the Law" and Jesus could not be "priest on earth" while that Law was still in process of being changed.



Answer #1 on "the Law was BEING CHANGED"



First we must make note that the priesthood was "being changed" by virtue of the prophecy of Psalm 110:4 and the plan of God from eternity. Don totally misses the point. Hebrews 7:12 is analyzing the Levitical priesthood and what further need to have the Psalm 110 prediction of a new order (Melchizedek order) if the Levitical priesthood were sufficient. The prediction meant that the priesthood was "being changed" by God’s intent. When the priesthood was put in place is when the Law will have already been "changed". Since Don has admitted that the priesthood has been put in place, then the Law changed "of necessity". The Hebrews writer is not arguing that the priesthood is now in the process of being changed and will be a full reality in AD 70. He is arguing that from the standpoint of God’s intentions and prophecy and declaration in Psalm 110 it was purposely "being changed" and will have required a change of the Law too when that new priesthood was put in place. When Jesus finally can be said to "have an unchangeable priesthood" (7:24), then at that moment we have that priesthood in place, the Law will have been changed.



Answer #2  on the priests at Jerusalem were still serving "according to the Law".



First, many Jews still, to this day, practice circumcision "according to the Law", but that does not prove that GOD is still holding them under "obligation" to that Law.

Secondly, to say that GOD was "obligating" Jews to remain Levitical priests and other Jews to continue to support that priesthood would mean that those people were "obligated" to reject the new and better things of Christ. Who can believe that? To say that Jews continue to have things they do "according to the Law" does not prove that God was and still is "obligating" them to continue those things instead of obeying Jesus.

Answer #3 on Christ not being allowed by still binding Law to be "priest on earth"

First, the Hebrews writer is arguing that the priests on earth were serving the copy and shadow of the HEAVENLY things. If Jesus was going to be the "heavenly" thing foreshadowed by the earthly things, then He could not be a "priest on earth". He could not be a priest on earth because the earthly priests were serving the copy and shadow role. Jesus could not do THAT because He is the heavenly and real thing of which earthly priests were only "copies". The Law called for the earthly, Levitical priests. Jesus could not be a priest of that kind on two accounts: 1) He is from the tribe of Judah (unauthorized for priesthood under the Law), and 2) He is the real substance of heavenly things depicted by the earthly copies and shadows. The Hebrews writer is not arguing that Jesus could not be a priest on earth because there was still binding Law still going on down here, but because the planned role for Jesus was "heavenly" and not earthly (Heb.8:5; 7:16,24,28; 8:1). He "HAS OBTAINED" a more excellent ministry (notice the past tense, Don). This is also because a "forever priest" (Psalm 110 and Heb.7:15-18) has to be heavenly not earthly. Thus, we cannot but make note that Don has perverted the whole reason why Jesus could not be priest on earth. This is a real shame, to have to point this out to a “gospel preacher”.

Secondly, has the priesthood changed? Yes! Then the law that demanded the Levitical priesthood has changed. The priesthood being changed long before AD 70 means that the law was changed long before AD 70. Don can keep blowing smoke by misuse of scripture, but the Law has changed because Jesus has become priest and king according to prophecy (Psalm 110; Zech.6:12, 13). Our appeal to Hebrews 7:12 as evidence that obligation to the Law has ceased as of the moment that Jesus became priest is still standing rock solid and has not been moved by Don’s textual maneuvers. Don is using classic “realized eschatology arguments”. We are seeing the trickery that has been used upon them and which they are now continuing to use upon others.

Initialized But Not Fully Confirmed?




Don’s argument that Jesus’ death did indeed "confirm the covenant" but that it was only an "initial" confirmation until the old got through being "ready to vanish away" at the destruction of Jerusalem is built on faulty premises.

Jeremiah 31 refers back to the Sinai covenant that was fully heard, declared, and ratified by blood. Moses came and told the people ALL the words of the Lord and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, "All the words which the Lord HAS SAID we will do" (Ex.24:3). Additionally, "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord" (Ex.24:4). He took "the Book of the Covenant" and read it. The people agreed to do all the Lord said (Ex.24:7). Blood was then sprinkled on the people and Moses said, "This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words" (Ex.24:8). Jeremiah is referring back to THAT fully declared covenant. He said a "NEW" covenant was coming that would be unlike that fully declared covenant at Sinai. The Hebrews writer then comments that when Jeremiah spoke of a "new" covenant, it was a declaration that the first covenant was then getting old and ready to vanish away.

Don comes along and argues several errors:

 1) that Jeremiah could not be saying the old covenant was getting old because it was not all written yet. But, the truth is that Jeremiah is not at all concerned about later appendages. He is speaking of the fully delivered covenant that God made with Israel when He brought them out of Egypt.

 2) that the word "new" could not be an admission that the first was then growing old and nigh unto vanishing away because "nigh" means very soon, not hundreds of years later. But the Hebrews writer says that saying "A new covenant" is itself a statement about the oldness of the Sinai covenant, and oldness implies readiness to vanish away (Heb.8:13). Don argues that it was not growing old at all when Jeremiah mentioned a "new" covenant coming. In fact, his argument is that it was not even fully born until Malachi wrote his final word. Then it was still new. Jeremiah is not talking about the old covenant with all the appendages accumulated until Malachi, but the covenant given at Sinai (that fully given one). By the time Jeremiah wrote and said a "new covenant" was coming that would be unlike that Sinai covenant, the Sinai covenant was then growing old and ready to vanish away. Regardless of what Don wants to make of the term "nigh", we know exactly when the first covenant was "abolished" (Eph.2:14f). Thus, it had been old and "ready" to vanish away ever since there was a new covenant announced as coming.

Now, regardless of what Don wants to make of "ready to vanish away", he has already admitted that Jesus confirmed the New Covenant in His death. He further said that Israel’s sins could not be forgiven until the New Covenant was fully arrived and the old covenant had been removed. So, if Israel could be forgiven under the New Covenant (fully arrived or not), it would mean then that the old had vanished away. All we have to do is look and see when "remission of sins" was preached, and we will know when the old had vanished away and when the new was fully in place. Starting on the day of Pentecost, 3,000 Jews received "remission of sins" (Acts 2:38-40). That means, according to Don’s own argument, that the old covenant had vanished away. Remember he said remission of sins is "something that could never happen while the Old Covenant stood valid". Thus, if Jews got "remission of sins" in Acts 2 and forward, then the old covenant was indeed removed and the new covenant established. So, Don helped to prove my case. Remission of sins began at Jerusalem starting on that first Pentecost when the Holy Spirit confirmed the word of the apostles, and remission of sins was actually experienced and fully enjoyed.

Romans 11 and Remission of Sins

Don argues from Rom.11 that the Jews would not receive remission of sins until the old covenant was removed at the destruction of Jerusalem. However, the context is not speaking of anything but the way the true Israel would be saved. It does not say they will be saved when the new covenant is fully revealed in AD 70. It is saying that all Israel will be saved in the same manner as the early remnant of Jews were saved from Pentecost forward and in the same way that Gentiles were saved by faith in the gospel of Christ. Jesus was the Deliverer come out of Zion and He would turn ungodliness from Jacob. Any who would yet be saved would be saved in the same manner as others already had been. Don takes this out of context and makes a different application than the context allows. Remission of sins was already offered and the new covenant that made that possible was already established, and because God has always wanted the Jews to turn from their sins to Christ and be forgiven, the point in Romans 11 is that that door would be open when any Jew was willing to be saved in like manner.

Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross of Christ because remission of sins was offered and experienced by Jews in Jesus’ name from Pentecost forward. All Jews could be saved "in this manner".

Thus, my argument stands that obligation to the lesser mediator and covenant could not continue while obligation to the greater Mediator and Covenant was "established" and in place.

Argument on Revelation 15




Don argued about men entering the MHP (most holy place). He argued that the time of reformation would not take place till "the wrath of God, contained in the seven bowls was completed." He based this argument on Revelation 15.

Answer:

First, Revelation says nothing about man entering the MHP after the wrath of God is complete. It merely indicates that there was no entrance into the temple (holy place or most holy place) for the duration of these plagues.  However, people were entering the spiritual temple spoken of here from Pentecost (Acts 2) onward with the exception of this pause. We can see this even in the book of Revelation itself. (See 7:15; 11:1). Don would switch "temple" for "Most Holy Place" and make us think that here is the time that people could enter the MHP. I’m amazed at how far Don is willing to go to try to make his theory appear to work.  There was a short pause in conversions, entering the temple, during the period when things were so bad that “unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved”(Matt.24:22). Revelation 15 is about “those days”. And those days were shortened, so it was a pause when none were entering the spiritual temple.

Secondly, the time of reformation is when the law is changed so that the "forever priest" of Psalm 110 can be put in place and the carnal, earthly copies of heavenly things can be replaced with the heavenly things.

Does Colossians 2:17 Indicate a Phasing out Period?




First, let us observe the TENSES again that Preterists ignore:

 A) "He HAS TAKEN IT (the handwriting of requirements) OUT OF THE WAY". What tense is that ?

B) HAVING NAILED it to the cross (Col.2:14). What tense is that ?

Secondly, let us look at the present tense of Col.2:17 for a moment. Don has argued that Paul said the food, drink, festivals, new moons and Sabbaths ARE (present tense) a shadow of things to come, that this present tense proves that God was still "obligating" the Jews to keep those shadows. This is a mistaken use of the context, again. The shadow anticipated "things to come" which was a "substance" that cast the shadow. The substance is the "good things to come" anticipated by the shadows.

Unbelieving Jews were still ignorantly practicing the shadows in ignorant anticipation of "things to come", not knowing that the substance had come in the person and work of Christ. There is another crucial present tense that follows: "The substance IS (present tense) of Christ". The people judging Christians in regard to the Law were simply ignorant that the substance had arrived to take priority over the shadows, to make people "complete in Him" (Col.2:10), and to "take away the first that He may establish the second". The first is "taken out of the way" and nailed to the cross". No one is obligated to the first that was composed of shadows of good things to come, when the good thing anticipated had arrived in substance. All are obligated to the substance. Unbelief is not excusable, and keeping the shadows was not an obligation. Believing in Jesus, the substance is the obligation of all. Ignoring Jesus and keeping the Law is NOT the obligation of God upon the Jews.

Thirdly, W. E. Vine comments on this text as follows:

Quote:

2:17 which are a shadow of the things to come;—the "which" refers to the five details just mentioned. They are typical, giving a certain representation, but, as a shadow they have no independent existence; in themselves they are futile to accomplish what the mind of God purposed by them. They are useful in indicating something represented by them. The things to come are not things future to the present period; they are regarded as future from the time when they were appointed, future from the standpoint of the Law.



but the body is Christ’s.—the word sōma, body, here signifies the substance, the reality. The shadow was appointed through Moses, and, so to speak, belonged to him. The substance has to do with Christ, centers in Him, and thus belongs to Him. He is the great object of all that the types and shadows set forth. As to meat and drink Christ said, "I am the living bread," and "If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink."



As to the feasts, the Passover typified Christ’s expiatory sacrifice; the feast of unleavened bread pointed to the purity and sincerity which the believer experiences by reason of His relation to, and fellowship with, Christ: the feast of the ingathering of the firstfruits typified Christ as "the Firstfruits of them that have fallen asleep" (1 Cor. 15:20). His resurrection is the guarantee of theirs. THE COLLECTED WRITINGS OF W.E.VINE – Unquote!

Another scholarly work comments:

Paul characterizes these rules and the beliefs which they are based on as a mere shadow of things in the future, that is, they are unreal, they are not valid. What is meant by "what is to come" (RSV)? JB NEB TNT NIV translate "what was to come" (see Beare, Moule) which may better represent the idea, since the reality has already come in Christ. So the translation may be "They are only a shadow of things to come " or "They are only a shadow of what was to come." For a similar distinction between Jewish Law and the Gospel see Heb 8:5; 10:1.



The phrase all such things must often be translated as "such rules," or "such observances," or even "obeying such rules."



The concept of a shadow of things in the future may be extremely difficult to comprehend in some languages, for it may be difficult to imagine the future casting a shadow. In certain instances, however, one may speak of "a reflection" or even of "a mirror reflection." Therefore a shadow of things in the future may be expressed as "a mirror reflection of what will happen in the future." If, however, one assumes that the reference is to the past as something which has already occurred in the incarnation, then one may speak of "a reflection of what was to happen," and if necessary, as "a reflection of what was to happen and which did happen." Otherwise, the expression might be interpreted to mean that the purpose implied in such rules was actually voided.



The reality is Christ translates the Greek "but the body (is) of Christ." The word "body" is used occasionally in the sense of substance or reality, that is, what is real, true, as opposed to delusion or illusion (commentators cite passages in Philo and Josephus). Some commentators suggest that "body" here refers also and specifically to "the body of Christ," the Church, in which the real, as opposed to the unreal, has been made manifest. No translation, however, attempts to make this thought explicit (but see NAB "the reality is the body of Christ").



The reality is Christ may be expressed as "what is real is Christ" or "what exists is Christ."

(from the UBS Handbook Series)

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, The Epistles To The Colossians and to Philemon, p.105 says:

Tov mellonton,"of the things to come", i.e. from the point of time when the five things were enjoined. The things that were "future from the standpoint of the Law." So also in Rom.5:14; Heb.10:1; 6:5; cf. also Heb.9:8, 9. – Unquote!

The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol.3, p.531 comments: It is future from the point of view of Judaism.

Thus, the false teachers missed the substance and completeness in Christ and argued for their present and future practice as if the substance (soma - body) had not yet arrived. Specifically we know that Christ is our Passover (1 Cor.5:7). Thus, He is also our food, drink, and Sabbath (rest – see Matthew 11:28f). He is the "body" of all that the shadows anticipated. He is "the good things to come" from the standpoint of the Law. Although Don would like us to see Hebrews 4 as a future Sabbath rest, his own arguments would demand that that Sabbath rest was fully entered in AD 70. Since Christ gives rest from sin and condemnation, we can see Sabbath in His death on the cross and our entrance into that rest. There remains the rest of the Promised Land to the faithful in Christ, but that poses no more problem for my position than for Don’s.

Now, let us look from the standpoint of unbelieving Jews. Is the passage saying that if Jews would prefer the shadows, that God is still holding that Law in place until some more "good things to come" arrive for them? No! Unbelieving Jews were just wrong all the way around. They were not obligated to continue the shadows in hopes of other good things to come. They were obligated to repent and obey the gospel and trade the shadows for the substance in Christ. The words of Jesus would judge them (John 12:48). They were obligated to "believe the report" (Isa.53:1ff; Rom.10:16-21). Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom.10:17). They were not listening. Therefore, they were not doing what they were "obligated" to do (remember the propositions).

Don did not prove that the Jews had more "good things to come" by keeping obligation to the shadows. Thus, he is wrong about this passage. He did not prove that God was holding unbelieving Jews obligated to the Law of Moses and obligated to continue the priesthood of Levi. He NEVER told us how the Jews could be both obligated to believe and obey Jesus AND continue the shadows of the Law. He never really wiggled his way out from under the embarrassment of his two-law theory. Thus, we cannot accept that he really answered the fact that the handwriting of requirements was taken out of the way at the cross. This passage still stands to verify my proposition. Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross of Christ – because the handwriting of requirements was then taken out of the way and nailed to the cross.

HIGH PRIEST OF THE GOOD THINGS TO COME – Heb.9:11




Don takes this expression as proof of his phase-in theory (the Priesthood being phased in and then installed completely after the destruction of Jerusalem).

However, the context is looking at things from the standpoint of time when the tabernacle was still standing. From that vantage point the tabernacle structure, furnishings, and carnal ordinances were imposed with a view to representing on earth the heavenly, better things to come. Psalm 110 and Zechariah 6, along with the typology of the earthly tabernacle, were promising better things to come (better than those carnal things themselves could offer). Jesus came as High Priest of the good things to come. That is, He came to give us those things foreshadowed by the earthly tabernacle and ministry. What were some "good things to come" that were foreshadowed by the earthly tabernacle? "The greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands" is among "the good things to come" and symbolized by the imposed earthly services in the tabernacle made by hands. Christ coming as High Priest was one of the main "good things to come" symbolized by the old system of the Aaronic High Priesthood. His own blood entering the real Most Holy Place was the "good thing to come" symbolized by the animal blood and earthly priest entering the earthly tabernacle. This is the CONTEXTUAL point of this passage. It is in no way saying or implying that Christians of those first several decades had to wait for good things to come when Jesus’ priesthood is finally phased in (per Don’s argument). Eternal redemption was already "obtained" (9:12) for us long before the destruction of Jerusalem. That was obtained by our Great High Priest who was long anticipated by the old system as a then "good thing to come".

Since we have now obtained the Great High Priest, eternal redemption, a better conscience-purging system (9:14), a better Mediator, a greater and more perfect tabernacle, and a better covenant prophesied by Jeremiah, then we have moved from the imposed symbolism of the "good things" anticipated, to the good things realized. We have therefore entered the "time of reformation" when the shadows would no longer be needed, serve any further useful purpose, or be any further ‘imposed". Why impose the inferior when the better has arrived? We have now, long before the destruction of Jerusalem, a new priest, new tabernacle, new covenant, new and living way. All of these were anticipated by the former types, shadows and prophecies of the old "imposed" system. But, after the faith has come, "we are no longer under the tutor, the Law". All of these things including "great salvation" were in place long before AD 70. These began at the cross and were in place 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, the evidence clearly supports my proposition.

 


 


THE LAW, HAVING A SHADOW OF THE GOOD THINGS TO COME – Heb.10:1




Don also used this verse out of context as part of his phase-in theory. However, it is not saying that the "good things to come" are future to the writing of Hebrews, but were "good things to come" from the standpoint of what "shadows" of the Law anticipate by virtue of being a "shadow" rather than the substance (the good thing to come).

We have demonstrated again that Don’s theory is supported by misused present tense expressions, and that he has labored to support his theory by ignoring the context, by ignoring other tenses in the context that devastate his theory, and by avoiding answering points in the context. This is not a good approach if one would establish credibility. Obligation to the Law of Moses ended at the cross of Christ –because the time of reformation began when a new covenant and new priesthood WAS ESTABLISHED.

Abolished Law or Changed ZONE?




Don argued that Christians entered a new ZONE where the law could not apply to them.

Answer:

Then, no change of priesthood, just a new priesthood in a new zone.  No change of law, just a change of location where law does not apply?

How can the law be abolished FOR Christians before it was all fulfilled (remember the earlier argument on Matt.5:18?)? Where did Jesus get authority to start a new priesthood in a new Zone before all the law was fulfilled?  The Bible says the “law of commandments was abolished”. It does not say that Christians entered a new zone where it does not apply to them.

How could disciples follow a Jesus who does not have a right to change law or priesthood at all before it and all prophecies were all fulfilled? Don’s argument backfires on him again.

Dan.12:13 and “End of the Age”




If the end of the age occurred in AD 70:                 1. Why is Daniel not among us?

2. Why are the wicked still among us? Matt.13:36-43

3. By what authority do we continue to preach the gospel? Matt.28:18-20

 “Age to Come”

Meaning varies according to context.

But, AD 70ist makes “end of the ages” the Mosaic age, and “the world to come” the unending Christian age on earth.  However, Paul knew of “AGES to come” that go way beyond AD 70 (Eph.2:7)

Therefore, AD 70 is not the “end of the ages” in every context.

Mark 10:29-30

“now in this time” = time of sacrificing for Jesus”

“in the world to come eternal life” = the immortal time when the kingdom is taken back to the Father – 1 Cor.15:22-24

1 Cor. 2:6-8          

“this age” = Roman age as opposed to previous political ages.

The AD 70-ist makes this a part of the Mosaic age.

But, it is in this age that the Spirit revealed the hidden wisdom, and “you are the temple of God”(3:16) as opposed to the Jerusalem temple that God left when Jesus was crucified (Matt.27:50,51)

Titus 2:12-13

“the present age” = the present gospel age

During this present age, Paul knew that there would be “ages to come”(Eph.2:7).

Therefore, Paul did not think that AD 70 (less than 10 years away) was “the end of the ages” or the “last day”(John 12:48).

“This time” and “this age” is not always talking about the Mosaic age. The context helps determine the usage.

Daniel 7:13




Claim #1 – That this is the coming of the Lord to destroy Jerusalem, the center of Judaism.

Claim #2 – That this is when Jesus was REALLY given “all authority” and actually began His rule.

Answer:

This passage certainly reflects a demonstration of the sovereignty of God; not the beginning of it, but a demonstration of it.

Jesus already showed sovereignty over Rome when He was raised from the dead. He had power over death to over-rule what they meted out.

The Most High already ruled in the kingdom of men (so Nebuchadnezzar found out).

Daniel did not see the Son of Man coming on the clouds from heaven to earth to receive a kingdom. He saw Jesus coming with clouds of heaven to God (the Ancient of Days) to receive a kingdom.

Jesus received that kingdom when He ascended to God before Pentecost (Acts 1).

Jesus was “received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God”(Mark 16:19).

Peter declared, “this Jesus…was exalted by the right hand of God”(Acts 2:32-34).

Paul declared that Jesus IS (present tense) the Blessed and only Potentate, the king of kings, Lord of lords, who only hath immortality”(1 Tim.6:13-16)  Before AD 70.

Paul also claimed that the kingdom had already come with “power” long before AD 70. See 1 Cor.4:20.

The AD 70 Perspective of the Kingdom for 40 years




Admit the kingdom came on Pentecost BUT did not come with POWER until AD 70

Therefore:

A powerless kingdom for 40 years.

An incomplete kingdom for 40 years.

Jesus does not have “all authority” for 40 years.

No one is actually “complete in Him” for 40 years (Col.2:10).

No one actually has remission of sins for 40 years (Luke 24:48; Acts 2:38).

Therefore, no one actually delivered from the “power of darkness” for 40 years (Col.1:13).

The AD 70 doctrine is therefore one of the most perverted doctrines to have ever come around God’s people. It corrupts everything and everyone it touches. There is hardly a Bible topic it does not corrupt.

UNIVERSALISM IS THE CONSISTENT END RESULT




If the Resurrection of 1 Cor.15 Occurred in AD 70:

1.       Christ’s “coming” occurred -15:23.

2.       Those who are Christs were then raised from the dead –v.23

3.       The “end” occurred –v.24

4.       The kingdom has been “delivered up” to God –v.24

5.       The last enemy “death” was destroyed –v.24-26

6.       The Last Trumpet Sounded and all bodies were changed –v.52

7.       Death was swallowed up in victory –v.54

8.       The law that gave strength to sin was destroyed –v.56

9.       Sin that made death sting was destroyed –v.56

10.   Thus, no law now, no sin now, and no death now.

Consequences:

1.       The kingdom has been removed –v.24

2.       Thus, we cannot enter it.

3.       Jesus is no longer the King, as all authority has been returned to the Father –v24-28

4.       Death has been destroyed, so there can be no more death.

5.       But, this cannot mean that physical death has been destroyed because people are still dying physically.

6.       Therefore, there is no more spiritual death.

But, if no spiritual death, then no sin, and no need for Jesus’ blood.

Universal salvation is ours.


Consequences again:

1.       Death has been destroyed so there can be no more death.

2.       But, Physical death was not destroyed, because we see it still happening.

3.       Therefore, only spiritual death could have been destroyed.

4.       Therefore,  since AD 70 there has never been even one case of spiritual death.

5.       Therefore, there has been NO SIN (sin causes spiritual death).

But, if spiritual death has been destroyed, then sin either:

1) Does not exist, or

2) Does not cause spiritual death any more.

Therefore, no one can be lost or even need the gospel of remission of sins.

Did you think you needed the cross of Jesus? You don’t!

Is this a harmless doctrine?

As we can easily see, the AD 70 doctrine of Realized Eschatology is a spiritual cancer of the soul and a very serious perversion of the gospel. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, rather expose them (Eph.5:11).

2 Timothy 2:16-18

But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.  17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.

Terry W. Benton