O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
This is actually the last of my two part questions regarding preterism (resurrection and the end of the covenant). Apparently, it is said in preterism that the Old Covenant remained up till AD70. There are most likely varying view pertaining this but here goes:
Does the ending of the OC in AD70 mean Christians (or anybody for that matter) were bound to keep the law up to AD70?
How is Heb 9:15-17 understood which seems to imply the new covenant was put in force with the death of Jesus?
Jesus Is Risen,
"How is Heb 9:15-17 understood which seems to imply the new covenant was put in force with the death of Jesus?"
IMO The new covenant never gets enforced over dead ones. Jesus will never die in the new covenant.
Hebrews 9:15-18 In that a death took place to release those in first covenant violations, so the called ones could receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a covenant death it is necessary to enforce the covenant. For the covenant is firm over dead ones but it is not enforced while the covenanted one is alive. That is why the first covenant was not renewed without blood.
Hebrews 9:28 Christ came out of hades and later out of the second room in heaven to replace the dead head with a live head. We are now free to live. Covenant death can't send us to hades anymore. We are lifted into the image of Christ, that was portrayed in the law, but without the sting of the law or the shadows of the law. Proof that they were bound to the law under the fallen covenant is the fact that they all went to hades. The covenant was enforced over the dead ones. Since Jesus chose to take on the covenant death it was enforced over Him too but could not hold onto Him. He rose 3 days later into the new covenant as He left the death in the old. He was the only one in the new covenant that day. His followers were set free but not yet in the new. I think?
If Im understanding you correctly by "new covenant never gets enforced" you mean there is no more covenant death. Did I get you correctly?
Who are you referring to as the "dead ones" in: IMO The new covenant never gets enforced over dead ones.
But do you believe the old covenant ended in AD70? Who was still bound by it (the Old Covenant) between AD33 and AD70?
Was there something else needed to effect the new covenant other than the death of Christ?
Jesus is Risen,
Yes. The new covenant man released the dead ones from the old covenant's enforcement of death. It gave them life and it never gives covenant death. AD 70 was simply the deadline for those in the old covenant. The fate of the dead ones was sealed by the AD 70 judgment to either second death or eternal life with Christ.
God did not put a covenant stipulation of death on the first son of the new creation as He did the old. The day you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will die. The cross was the fully developed tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the old. There is nothing you can think of that is more evil or more good than the cross of Christ. That death of Christ in the old sent Him to the place of the dead to release the captives by overcoming it Himself.
The resurrection was Him overcoming the old covenant death.
Pentecost was Him initiating the new life with others.
AD 70 ended the old and married the new. The epistles are addressed to the bride being prepared to stand at the wedding. Those at pentecost are pictured sitting in waiting.
Yes the new was necessarily effected after the cross by the Holy Spirit and by the persecution and by the bride who passed the test as she was nurtured in the wilderness and by the marriage itself. A lot of things were necessary to effect the new prior to the wedding. It was very engaging. WE inherited that renewed family of God life.
You have said the old covenant ended in AD70. Who was bound by it after the cross? Where Christians expected to keep the Old Covenant? Could one be under both covenants?
You further said that the Holy Spirit, persecution, passing the test etc were necessary prior to the wedding. Now, do you mean that the new covenant could only be effective after all these things were accomplished? I understand these things to be workings of the new covenant i.e. the gift of the Holy Spirit was given because the new covenant was effective.
I am not too familiar with the issues of betrothal and marriage, but if (as has been suggested before) Israel was only betrothed to God at Sinai NOT married, yet there was an Old Covenant, why would we need to have the marriage so that we can have a new covenant? Why cant we have a new covenant based on the betrothal?
I am curious as to what translation you used for Heb 9:15-18 or that was just your own paraphrase. The issue of a testament/covenant being effected by the death of the testator, still suggests to me that it was Jesus' death that brought about the new covenant (all the other things e.g. persecution, faithfulness etc) are workings in that covenant not things which are bringing the covenant (at least IMO).
Jesus is Risen,
Jesus plainly spoke of leaving the old and following Him out prior to AD 70. Paul's famous struggle in Romans 7-8 is not of Paul trying to keep the old covenant but of Him struggling to fullfil the moral requirements of the law by walking in the Spirit sent by the the new covenant man. Paul did not want to be bound by his old covenant mode of righteousness at all. The Jewish Christians were told to put to death the old covenant man. Whether or not that was a process for those Christians coming out of the old covenant that was finally completed in AD 70, I don't know. Stephan for one was continuously full of the new covenant Holy Spirit.
Christians were not required to keep the old covenant or they would have been required to be circumcised. They were required to leave the old covenant.
According to Don Preston those who chose to stay bound to the old covenant paid the final penalty of the law in AD 70. Jerusalem was put to death under God's law for murdering an innocent man.
Betrothal was a covenant and faithfulness was required prior to marriage. The new betrothal was completely effective in that it did lead to marriage. I guess we could and did have a new covenant based on betrothal. The time indicators point to an AD 70 wedding though. People do know the meaning of the time indicators, which is why when they read the Bible today they are sure it will all happen in this present generation.
Yes, it is my paraphrase and I imposed my developing presuppositions onto it while trying to remain true to the range of meaning as I see it, so it most assuredly has errors.
I agree Jesus' death did bring about the workings of the new covenant. It can be said in more ways than one. The Bible does that a lot.
It seems I agree with you much.
Now if (as it seems you agree) that the old covenant ended well before AD70 (maybe around the passion of Christ and Pentecost)and Christians were no longer bound to it, when do you understand "the law" which was "the power of sin" removed as per 1 Cor 15:56? I think it is because of such reasoning I understood preterism to say the old covenant ended in AD70.
Jesus Is Risen,
When Adam fell into death he was "stung" by the death as it administered it's flesh consuming law mode. Animal sacrifices commenced just prior to Adam's expulsion. Since Adam was now stuck in the stinging law mode, God graciously provided the first and the last substitutionary sacrificial covering. Adam accepted and wore that covering.
Yes, Christ was set free from the death that covered Adam as proved by His resurrection, yet those who loved the land of Jerusalem and it's typology continued to harass the Christians. So the old man was still alive and not well. The old man was in probation in first death and was being covered by other lives as in animal sacrifices. Those who rejected Christ were not by faith set free from the law and had to continue with their animal sacrifices. The power of "missing the mark", which was in the law, was not removed for those who rejected Christ. They were still (alive/dead) under law mode and they were definately still missing it.
Those who were sealed with the Holy Spirit were assured of life and not death. Adam was spiritually immature before he fell but it wasn't killing him until he entered law mode. Just as all those in the old man's family inherited the death of Adam, all those in the new man's family inherited the life of Jesus. They were not spiritually mature at Pentecost but the sting of the death that came from the law was removed. It was still able to be assert its accusation of condemnation when they submitted to it instead of the restored spiritual mode, but its actual power to condemnation was defeated by Christ.
Isn't it funny that even imitation religions have stopped sacrificing animals to idols (imitation gods) because the real religion has stopped sacrificing animals to God?
Thanks for the answers. Again, I agree with you a lot in terms of what you are saying. What I then don't understand is why it is said the old covenant ended in AD70.
From what you are saying I would understand you to mean the old covenant ended with Christ's passion but the old covenant expression/economy/lifestyle was destroyed later own with special emphasis on AD70 ( I know others who even go beyond that date). In other words, the temple sacrifices stopped having any spiritual value with the cross but the defunct building finally came down in AD70.
IF that is what preterism teaches, I simply do not understand why the end of the old covenant is given as AD70.
They were not spiritually mature at Pentecost but the sting of the death that came from the law was removed.
The way I have understood eschatology, is that it is corporate not individual, hence I find the sting of death being removed for the corporate body, not individuals. This would imply it is not possible for some to be free from the sting whilst others still bound by it. How do you explain the removing of the sting in the context of the corporate hope i.e. how others (those who believed) could have the corporate/national hope fulfilled whilst others (those who did not believe) would not have the national hope fulfilled.
One betrothal covenant was being nullified while another was being confirmed. I don't know of another example of this ever happening since the type and antitype were both existing in the same unique generation. All I can do is call it an overlap period of pure unexplainable grace. Types and antitypes don't exist together in our generation.
(the last of the partially restored betrothed were in the land (at a new land/old land pentecostal celebration some from all 12 tribes are then re-betrothed by the Holy Spirit)
-(AD 70 is the divorce of the betrothed unbelievers still in-the-flesh mode of types(it is also the spiritual marriage of betrothed believers)
Maybe the divorce of those betrothed in the flesh had to be finalized prior to the spiritual marriage because the bride had to be pure. That seems to mean the old bride was still in the covenant until then. Those still in the flesh mode could not enter the marriage covenant era because the Holy Spirit from Christ was not communing with their human spirits. They were trying to keep the law by their own human spirits and their own interpretation of God's word. That didn't work.
I think I get the gist of what you are saying but which covenant was acceptable to God? The old or the new? Could you legitimately serve God under the old covenant between Pentecost and AD70? Or where you required to be under the new?
IF you could not acceptably serve God based on old covenant regulations without Christ, I do not understand the old could still binding.
So the issue for me is on the old covenant being binding, I have no problems understanding a Jew Gentile division in God's dealings with people ( e.g. to the Jew first then the Gentile or Jews being punished for rejecting their Messiah) up to AD70. I just don't see the old covenant still binding on any one.
The old covenant was binding on everyone who entered it from the first Adam to any human who was still in it at AD 70. If it was not binding then why did Adam die first death when he broke it? If it was not binding then why did all the AD 70 holdouts die the second death?
That none could acceptably serve Christ under the old is exactly why it was still binding to those who rejected Him. When the time came to leave the old covenant those who refused to have faith in God's sacrifice were not released from the binding death of the old covenant. No Christian died the second death of AD 70. Only those in the old who refused to accept the new were still bound to the old and so died the second death.
I don't know when the last transfer of allegience took place but it was not a good idea to wait till the last minute.
Perhaps the challenge is in what we mean by binding.
For me, the old covenant being binding means you had to abide by its rules e.g. sacrificial laws, etc etc
Once these sacrifices were no longer required, that means the old covenant was no longer binding as per Heb 7:12
I believe we are in agreement that no one could acceptably serve God under the old, but the old covenant had the Levitical priesthood. After Christ's passion the Levitical priesthood was no longer valid i.e. no longer acceptable as worship to God. Since there was a change of priesthood that means the old was no longer valid and the new was now in force.
I don't understand why God having to punish the unbelieving Jews or sending the gospel to them first, means the old covenant was still binding (obligatory).
Like I said, perhaps we have different understandings of binding. So, what do you mean by "the old covenant was still binding"? (Particularly in terms of whether people had to keep it regulations e.g. ritual laws)