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,
You are so right to see a release from the death of the first betrothal covenant at Jesus Resurrection. But I must dileneate. There were two types of sacrifices offered in the temple. One was offered daily in the holy place by the general priesthood and the other was offered in the most Holy place once a year by the anointed priest. I believe the one was for continued sanctification and the other was so they could live in the covenant with God for another year; kinda like betrothal and marriage. I want to understand this better, but for now I do know there were two Holy places in the temple; beyond the first veil and the second veil. The chosen high priest could only enter the second once in his lifetime along with fear and trepedation and holy smoke to block his view.
Hebrews 9:7-15 LITV 7 But into the second the high priest goes alone once in the year, not without blood, which he offers for himself and the ignorances of the people; 8 the Holy Spirit signifying by this that the way of the Holies has not yet been made manifest, the first tabernacle still having standing; 9 which was a parable for the present time, according to which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, but as regards conscience, not being able to perfect the one serving, 10 but only on foods and drinks, and various washings, and fleshly ordinances, until the time of setting things right has been imposed. 11 But Christ having appeared as a High Priest of the coming (about to be or still impending, imminent, forthcoming) good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, 12nor through the blood of goats and of calves, but through His own blood, He entered once for all into the Holy of Holies, having procured everlasting redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats, and ashes of a heifer sprinkling those having been defiled, sanctifies to the purity of the flesh, 14 by how much more the blood of Christ (who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God), will purify your conscience from dead works for the serving of the living God! 15 And because of this He is Mediator of a new covenant, so that, death having occurred for redemption of transgressions under the first covenant, those having been called out might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance.
When did Yashua appear before Yahweh as high priest? It was after His ascension that he entered the second room. The people awaited to receive Him out so they could live another year in covenant. But this time the people were sanctified by the Holy Spirit and the High priest was sinless so they were about to be permanently married. It was not going to be a temporary covering this time around. The redemption was everlasting. In the mean time the temple was 'still having standing'. That does not mean the animal sacrifice would be accepted for the AD 70 wedding.
Nobody translates Hebrews 9:28 honestly. It has two Greek words that carry the meaning 'out from' and I have yet to see those words in any english rendering. They usually add the word 'time' to the text. They have Him coming 'back' a second 'time' rather than out from the second to bring salvation to those waiting for Him to come out from (the most holy place) but this time without regard to sin.
Hebrews 9:23-28 23 Then it was needful for the figures of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter into the Holy of Holies made by hands, types of the true things, but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf, 25 not that often He should offer Himself even as the high priest enters into the Holy of Holies year by year with blood of others; 26 since He must often have suffered from the foundation of the world. But now once for all, at the completion of the ages, He has been manifested for putting away of sin through the sacrifice of Himself. 27And as it is reserved to men once to die, and after this Judgment; 28 so being once offered "to bear the sins of many," Christ shall appear a second time without sin to those expecting Him for salvation.
Christ did not enter into the Holy of Holies made by hands. But He did enter into the Holy of Holies and He did still have to come out to bring covenant saving. Those still bound to the old covenant could not enter the permanent redemption being covered by the blood of animals rather than the life of Yashua.
In reverse order, to reverse the curse in Hebrew chiastic literary structure, AD 70 was midnight of the second exodus for the firstborn covenant man. The first death he was bound to turned into second death; also referred to as the death of death.
You are right that no translation includes "out from" in their treatment of Heb. 9:28. They should. It's there in the phrase in question, I agree. But to have Christ appearing "out of the second" (veil) is inserting a word into this verse that is awkward. There is another "second" mentioned in the immediate context that fits the meaning better, I think. Look just a little further at Heb. 10:9. "...He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." (Speaking of the first covenant of animal sacrifices being superseded by the second, superior covenant which offered Christ's own body as a sacrifice.
Also, look at the context just before Hebrews 9:28. It discusses the "first testament/covenant" in verses 15 and 18, as opposed to the "new testament/covenant" in verse 15, which would be the second covenant established by Christ's offering of himself.
This leads me to read Hebrews 9:28 in this way: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear out of the second (covenant) without sin unto salvation." In other words, when Christ appeared in 70 AD to those awaiting his parousia, his bodily presence would be manifested at a time when the second, superior covenant would already be in place, and fully operational in the world.
I did not see all those nuances in every use of 'first' or 'second' in Hebrews 9. thank you
Hebrews 9:1 first (tabernacle or covenant?)
Hebrews 9:2 first (front part of the tabernacle)
Hebrews 9:3 second (veil or curtain)
Hebrews 9:6 first (front part of the tabernacle)
Hebrews 9:7 second (inner room of tabernacle)
Hebrews 9:8 first (tabernacle or front part of tabernacle)
Hebrews 9:11 there is about to be greater things because Christ has become high priest of a tabernacle not made with hands not of this creation (not of this covenant)
Hebrews 9:12 not animal blood but His blood into the Holies
Hebrews 9:14 the anointed through the spirit offers/carries Himself to the God
Hebrews 9:15 through this He is a new covenant mediator
Hebrews 9:18 Even the first (covenant or tabernacle?) was not in-newed without blood. Moses sprinkled the scroll, the people, the tabernacle and all the instruments for ministry saying this is the blood of the covenant.
Hebrews 9:24 but Christ did not enter into figurative places but into heaven
Hebrews 9:28 so Christ (anointed) was offered to bear the sins
thus Christ once being carried into
bearing the sins of many
shall be seen coming out from second (?)
apart from sin
to the ones from-out-receiving Him
When did Yashua appear before Yahweh as high priest? It was after His ascension that he entered the second room.
Since that is the case i.e. Jesus at His ascension began ministering as priest, then according to Heb 7:12 the old covenant had been replaced by the new.
I do recognise that not every promise under the new was actualised/realised at that time i.e. ascension, but how could the old remain binding (i.e. obligatory) in view of Heb 7:12 and the beginning of Christ's priestly ministry?
I further realise that the new is the fulfilling of the hope promised under the old and that God was closing His dealings with ethnic Israel but I don't see how that translates to people still being obliged to keep the old rather than serve under the new.
If we could zero in on this question I would much appreciate it i.e. was anyone still obliged to serve under the old or everyone was compelled to serve under the new?
I do note Heb 7:8 which you referred but I have some issues with the passage
1) it says the time of the first tabernacle was a parable for the present time. I not too sure when "the present time" began or whether the first tabernacle was any different from the temple. By being called "first" it may imply that there was now another tabernacle(?).
2) what does "having standing" mean. Does it mean the physical building or does it mean being acceptable to God as worship?
3) It says (v 12) Christ has already procured everlasting redemption
4) v15 says Christ already was the mediator of the new covenant
So I am not too sure regarding the timing of salvation events in this passage i.e. which are past, present and which are future. But I am fairly sure that once the new was established (or began to be established) the old was no longer obligatory.
The people awaited to receive Him out so they could live another year in covenant.
I do not see the eagerly awaiting believers as being covered by the old, rather it seems to me they were covered by faith and assurance of the new i.e. faith is the assurance of what we hope for as per Heb 10-11. I do not see the early church basing their standing before God on the old whatsoever but rather on the already and becoming new covenant.
In the mean time the temple was 'still having standing'.
My reservations pertaining to this statement are above. But what do you mean by this statement? Do you mean God still recognised it as an institution to worship Him? Do you mean Christians were obliged to temple worship and sacrifices? Do you mean unbelieving Jews were acceptable to God through temple worship? Do you mean the Levitical priesthood was still valid although Jesus was also priest?
It seems to me that the old covenant continued to protect the unbelieving Jews during the transition period until the time that the resurrection took place.
By what means could the old covenant protect unbelieving Jews? Was this by animal sacrifices? How could the unbelieving have any protection yet they were being disobedient to the Prophet like Moses hence liable to covenant punishment.
I have no problems with God extending the gospel to them first, but I don't see why that should mean they were still accepted or protected by God.
What I need clarity on is the following:
Those Jews who by lack of faith did not enter the new covenant were still in the old covenant.
The covenant curse of death came upon those in the old covenant precisely because they were still in it.
What do you mean by "still in it"?
Do you mean they were still bound to old covenant regulation e.g. sacrificial demands? Do you mean they were acceptable to God? Do you mean God still recognised the old as an acceptable means to approach Him? What exactly do you mean?
Jesus Is Risen,
As far as I can tell the old covenant existed until AD 70 since nobody has suffered the curses or experienced the covenant blessings of it since then.
In the land, the Old Covenant sacrificial system provided a way to maintain right relationship with God and there were believing Jews who did not stop sacrificing in the temple as soon as they were born again into the new covenant. Their hearts may have been more right than ever as they performed the unnecessary sacrifices and indeed God may have accepted their unnecessary gesture due to their continued 'obedience'. This should obviously taper off as their understanding increased and their conscience developed.
I don't even know why God did not accept Cain's sacrifice yet accepted Able's. I know Cain soon had blood on his hands and increased his unacceptable ways instead of getting right. I think this 'getting more right' or 'getting more wrong' was happening up to and beyond AD 66, when Josephus records God's final warnings to get out. Some hearts were so hardened by then that they ignored even earthly and heavenly phenomena that even the Roman soldiers could interpret as impending doom for the city.
They could have learned from history. Jeremiah 35:11-13 and Jeremiah 38:2-3 and we could ask if God accepted the sacrifices of the disobedient Jews or if they were obligated to perform them as the three Babylonian invasions proceeded. I think Daniel was taken in the first siege and the temple was destroyed after the third siege. They were all told to forsake Jerusalem and prosper in Babylon. That means God would bless the faithful like Daniel in the new land. Obedience to God's words trumps staying behind to perform animal sacrifice. 1 Samuel 15:22
God bless you in the new land. His character is still the same. He is still more than gracious in his patience with us, even though I will never understand it all and may forever get some things wrong, I think I will forever keep trying.
I see what you are saying about "Obedience to God's words trumps staying behind to perform animal sacrifice."
I understand you to mean that while under the old, God could differ His requirements for acceptable worship and obedience.
So come Christ, God's acceptable obedience was to turn to Christ. But given the reasoning above (in relation to the exile) that would mean Christians were still under the old as well. At least that's how I see it. But we know already that the Christians were no longer under the old.
Again, the issue seems to be what we mean by being under the old.
Given that the new is a fulfilment of the promise under the old, how do you understand what it means to be released from the old being put under the new?
Given my understanding, I would place the occurrence of the events you gave to define the transition from the old to the new as follows:
Flesh is no longer required. Effective after the cross
No flesh sacrifices, Effective after the cross
no flesh circumcision, Effective after the cross
no flesh in location, Effective after the cross
no flesh genealogy, ?????
no born into the kingdom from two flesh parents. Effective after the cross
We are not in the flesh family of Adam or Judah but in the spiritual family of Christ Effective after the cross
I am not sure about the genealogy part because the gospel and judgment was to the Jews first, hence my inclination to believe that the Jewish genealogy was still recognised till AD70. However, we know that soon after the cross neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availed anything.
So once again, I fail to understand why the old is said to have been still valid.
Yes, the AD70 judgment was covenantal judgment but the new was also covenantal blessing and Christians were already enjoying the new and were no longer under the old soon after the cross.
Is it really necessary to say the old was still binding? What significance does it have for the old to end in AD70 rather than earlier? Yes the new was not yet consummated, but it was a reality still.
Could one be bound by both the old and the new? Could both exist at the same time? Or did one have to pass for the other to come?
Could Christ be priest while the old was binding? Or did the old have to pass before Christ could be priest? We know that Christ began His priestly function from the cross.
So how do we jell all this together, because I simply cannot see how Christ could be priest yet the old be still binding. I cannot see how anyone who could legitimately worship God under the old after the cross (independently of Christ). Why do we need the old to be still binding anyway?
The gospel did first go to those in the flesh. However Jesus told them to give up all things old covenant related like: land, houses and even relatives. I believe that included genealogical significance. God did not require anyone to keep the old after the cross, on the contrary. It was after all mostly the goats not the sheep who wanted to keep it. The non elect who tried to keep it stayed to lose their very soul. If you try to keep your soul you will lose it, was said to those in the OC land.
John 10:24-26 Then the Jews encircled Him, and said to Him, How long till you lift up our soul? If you are the Christ, tell us publicly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and you did not believe. The works which I do in the name of My Father, these bear witness about Me. But you do not believe for you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
The judgement to destruction did not insure that every OC Jew in the land was killed. Some escaped and some survivors were sold into slavery. The final judgement on old covenant may have even gotten some apostate Christians in Jerusalem killed too. That doesn't mean they were not in the new covenant it just means they got themselves killed because they disobeyed Jesus' warning or they returned to judaism. It was not good to be in the old covenant location when finality hit.
Jesus, John and Paul identify the city of Jerusalem as bearing the guilt of oppressing and murdering God's elect. "No prophet dies outside of Jerusalem", wasn't scientifically accurate. It was a hyperbole expressing the old covenant object of the coming judgement to destruction.
Jesus was raised into God's image in that old covenant city that was under law (flesh mode not spirit mode) but he was lifted out of it post cross, by the Holy Spirit. Believing Jews were called to unbind themselves from the old and follow Jesus out. Put to death the old man and follow the new covenant man. Peter was unbound (he had God's Spirit) until his fellow Jews arrived, then he became a hypocrite and Paul confronted him to his face for it.
The existence of both at the same time is the way God saved Israel. He lifted/raised believing Israel out of the old before He destroyed unbelieving Israel. I guess the old covenant did not have to end at some time and some place, if Jesus had not said it was going to. Luke 19:12-27
If I contradict what I said earlier it is because I am learning. Don't take it too seriously.