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?
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
Do you have reservations against how I put it: The old covenant ended with Christ's passion but the old covenant economy ended in AD70
For when Christ came, that was Israel's day of salvation, unfortunately they rejected Him, sealing their doom. But the day of reckoning only came 40 years later. Those who received Jesus became the new covenant people and were vindicated (not became) as such in AD70.
I think you want to believe that God stopped accepting sacrifices even though the production and consumption of goods and services continued. I see your point and I really don't know, but I am willing to follow the trail. From the Jewish perspective they were in covenant death when outside the land and old covenant required sacrifices, but you want God's perspective.
We know that the types looked forward to and pictured the coming fulfillment. So were there any types in the temple that were not fulfilled at the cross? Or was the chiastic structure of reversing the curse necessary? Meaning the death to the first born came at the end of the second Exodus hence the dead line for applying the true lambs blood to the post and lentil of your house was AD 70. Jesus said, take up your post (and lentil) and follow me.
We know that all Israel had to be saved and Paul for one was post-cross and still sacrificing in the temple when he finally came into the new covenant. We know no one from the old covenant gets saved today because sacrifices ended in AD 70. Since Adam's fall sacrifices were needed to renew covenant.
If Jesus entered the Most Holy place at His ascension but did not come out until AD 70 then all the temple types were not fulfilled until then, so it still had standing as a type. In the mean time only the elect are ever really covered by what the types portrayed, even if the non-elect temporarily got by; still looking forward (and looking back and not knowing it). Paul was one of the elect who sacrificed post-cross still looking forward to what was partly behind him. And he lived to tell about it. That's as far as I can go today.
Hebrews 9:28 so also Christ, having been offered once to bear [or, take away] the sins of many, will come out second ( ) without sin, to be seen by the ones from-out-recieving Him, to [bring] salvation.
If Jesus entered the Most Holy place at His ascension but did not come out until AD 70 then all the temple types were not fulfilled until then, so it still had standing as a type.
Or was the chiastic structure of reversing the curse necessary?
That is an interesting question but I see no reason why every single type SHOULD be fulfilled BEFORE the old may pass away.
I also see Jesus doing different from what the "shadow" did e.g Heb 10:12
And this verse (for me) militates against a hard and fast demand that every shadow reflects the true in every detail.
I therefore do not see every single shadow NEEDING to be fulfilled BEFORE the old could be done away nor so that the new may come. I simply look at what the Bible says was happening (e.g. Heb 9:15- 17 or Heb 7:12) and from there decide whether the new had come and the old was gone.
I have already conceded that the racial divide was still recognised till AD70 but that for me is not the same as saying the old was still binding.
If the new was not getting us into the presence of God then why should it replace the old? The common priesthood of believers did not enter the most holy place until Christ came out of His Father's house and took his bride home.
Matthew 5:18 ALT "For positively, I say to youp, until the heaven and the earth pass away, by no means shall one iota [i.e., the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet] or one tittle [i.e., a stroke of a letter] pass away from the Law, until all [things] happen.
What you call race was really a mixed multitude defined more by circumcision than genetics. Two tribes came from Joseph's Egyptian wife, Moses had an Ethiopian wife and a mixture left Egypt not to mention the multitude in Abrahams' house before Isaac was even born. Then there is the Canaanite daughter-in-law of Judah who had his twins. I don't see much of a racial divide being honored. The sign of the covenant was clearly circumcision of the flesh not the race of the flesh. Lets not mention Dinah's almost husband.
It was really a covenantal divide because only some of the old melting pot were being raised into the new covenant. The Holy Spirit came to the 12 tribes to bring them into the covenant with Jesus instead of Adam.
Genesis 17:27 And every male in Abraham's household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.
Jesus Is Risen,
The biggest temptation for believing Jews was to return to Judaism in order to avoid trouble or just to return to the familiarity of it. In your opinion only the concept of Judaism still existed because the old covenant actually ended at the cross or the resurrection or Pentecost but not AD 70. And indeed a much lesser concept of it tempts believers today.
The real two body conflict seemed ongoing enough to Paul though.
Romans 9:3-4 ECB For I vowed - I myself to be anathema from the Messiah for my brothers - my kin according to the flesh: who are Yisra Eliym; to whom are the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the setting of the torah and the liturgy and the pre-evangelisms;
While I contemplate your responses, could you in the meanwhile give me your take on Heb 7:12
If I remember correctly you have said you believe Christ's priestly ministry began at His ascension.
What law needed to be changed for Christ to become priest or what law changed as a result of Christ becoming priest?
When do you find this law changing?
The law didn't change to a different morality. It was fulfilled in Christ who dispenses it differently. The mode of mediation was contained in the law. So the law had to change.
Hebrews 7:27-28 ECB who has no day by day neccessity exactly as those archpriests to offer sacrifice first for his own sins and then for those of the people: for he did this once, offering himself. For the torah seats humans - archpriests having frailty; but the word of the oath after the torah, completes/shalams a Son to the eons.
The law, which was the word of God, seats humans but the oath, which was also the word of God, installed Christ. So the law changed because the priestly ministry of Christ is not the same as the priestly duties of the Levites, as contained in the law. But the change into the new and the end of the old obviously overlapped even from a purely historical observation. The old did not want to give up their priestly seats to Christ. The infirmity of the law was the priesthood so it was being transposed to Christ. The law of God is no longer suffering in the hands of ineptitude. Yahshua is competently dispensing the law to the heart of His people all the while keeping us in good standing with Yahweh. That is a big change, for the law of God is now the law mediated by Christ. As a high priest He doesn't require types.
The priesthood change of Heb 7:12 was not over till it was over. The garb of the old was still being worn by some during the transition. You know when their claim to fame finally became infamous.
So the law changed because the priestly ministry of Christ is not the same as the priestly duties of the Levites, as contained in the law.
Seems we agree that by the time Jesus began His priestly ministry, the law changed. For me this translated into the changing of the covenant as well. Do you see it any differently?
But the change into the new and the end of the old obviously overlapped even from a purely historical observation.
I do not understand this statement. Which parts of the old were binding upon Christians and which parts of the new were now binding. Were Christians part bound to the old and part bound to the new? I always thought God either bound one to the old or bound them to the new, I don't see God binding people partly to the old and partly to the new. How do you see this?
Heb 10:9 says for the new to begin, the old had to go. I cannot see the new and the old being binding at the same time.
The garb of the old was still being worn by some during the transition. You know when their claim to fame finally became infamous.
True, many continued in the lifestyle and worship of the old but the question is what God required and accepted, not what man practised. Maybe Paul struggled with going back to the old but the question is whether God still obliged and wanted any man to be under the old.
Do you have any verse which shows the old still binding (different from that man continued with old)?
Jesus Is Risen asked, Do you have any verse which shows the old still binding (different from that man continued with old)?
When the adversary tempted Jesus to worship him and gain the whole kosmos it may have involved loving the old covenant law mode more than God. Jesus legally could have ruled in the old covenant and avoided the cross, but then Jesus would have ruled at enmity with us and in disobedience to His Father. He would have become an adversary. Ephesians 2:15
Thanks for the thoughts and discussion, always appreciated
The Israelites/Jews were still bound to keep the Law. Christians were not and were set free from the bondage of the Law through Jesus
The two covenants ran in parallel up to AD70
Euripides, were not the first Christians, Israelites/Jews? The Jerusalem church kept the whole law + Jesus. They worshiped at The Temple and taught at The Temple. The Apostle Paul said that if you (Isrelites/Jews) keep part of The Law you must keep all of it. James, the brother of Jesus, even told the Apostle Paul when Paul was in Jerusalem to 'take these Proselytes (Proselytes to the Temple Cultus) to The Temple AND pay for their Sacrifices. Did Paul say, "No Way, James, 'we are not under The Law of Moses"? He did not say that, he did what James asked, because it was the correct thing to do.
What did Jesus say?
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Brother Les continues with reply:
Euripides,You point out that 'the two covenants ran in parallel up to AD 70'. The Covenant of Moses was in full force, but waxing old and fading away. The New Covenant of Christ was a betrothal and not in force until the Marriage between the parties of the New Covenant Contract.