Question for full preterists

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

As a public service to this forum thread, I present this interesting and informative article:

• Biblical Prophecy: Four Views of the End Times

Let me quote a short segment:

We are obsessed with the end. In recent years disaster media has blown up. In books, music, TV, and movies, the world keeps ending at the hands of aliens, natural disasters, disease, war, viruses—even zombies!

Amen, brother!

• I did make a Questions Link, for the “Man On A Mission”.

And here is an interesting article.

• The Rapture

Let me quote a bit:

Amillennialism

This was the view of the Protestant Reformers and is still the most common view among traditional Protestants.

As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been “amillennial” (as has been the majority Christian position in general), though Catholics do not typically use this term.

Amillennialism

Let me quote a bit:

Amillennialism has been widely held in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as in the Roman Catholic Church, which generally embraces an Augustinian eschatology and which has deemed that premillennialism “cannot safely be taught.”[11] Amillennialism is also common among Protestant denominations such as the Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist and many Messianic Jews.[22]

Oh, yes - the quote. We need a reminder!

[steve7150]

Hebrews was written after both Jesus’s ministry and the cross, so I think it’s untenable to maintain that either marked the end of the old covenant age.

I don’t follow the logic. Hebrews was written for 2 reasons, to glorify Jesus and as a warning to Jewish Christians not to fall back into Judaism. That warning does not mean traditional Judaism was still valid or in effect. It was fading away & probably applicable to the last generation of traditional Jews before the temple destruction. So this period of 33AD to 70AD you can say is a transition to some but for the most part it ended in 33AD IMO.

[Hermano]

If something is actively fading away it is still extant…
…Similarly, even though Jesus liberated people from the yoke of some of the OC’s commandments during his ministry, while the Temple stood the old covenant technically hadn’t yet gone away.

I would argue that since the Law is still taught and revered by many, it still hasn’t finished “fading away” from view; nevertheless, I would argue the Old Covenant was “technically” abrogated (set aside), and freedom was provided from it, by the death of Christ, long before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD:

Matthew 27:50-51
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit [DIED]. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from TOP TO BOTTOM.

Romans 7:4
Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law THROUGH THE BODY OF CHRIST, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

Galatians 5:1
It was for freedom that CHRIST [NOT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE] set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Ephesians 2:13-16
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
15 by SETTING ASIDE IN HIS FLESH THE LAW with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,
16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Colossians 2:14.
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his CROSS;

Yet as a preterist, you reason that the Old Covenant completely finished “fading away” with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD:

If something is actively fading away it is still extant. Such was the case with the Mosaic covenant decades after the cross, according to the Hebraist. Imagine living in an Eastern Bloc country in the late 80s and early 90s. People are ignoring the communists’ rules, things are getting better. But until the last week of December 1991 the USSR was still technically in power. The hammer and sickle flag was still waving over the Kremlin up until then. Similarly, even though Jesus liberated people from the yoke of some of the OC’s commandments during his ministry, while the Temple stood the old covenant technically hadn’t yet gone away.

Again, as you know, although the Temple no longer stands, most Jews still revere the Law of Moses every Shabbat at their local synagogue until this very day. So by your reasoning, doesn’t this mean that the Old Covenant still hasn’t ‘technically gone away’?

[davo]

So this period of 33AD to 70AD you can say is a transition to some but for the most part it ended in 33AD IMO.

Again, as you know, although the Temple no longer stands, most Jews still revere the Law of Moses every Shabbat at their local synagogue until this very day.

The cross ended the legitimacy of the Law’s redeeming value but the law didn’t instantly just cease having sway… it took a generation to diminish while the gospel’s burgeoning grace was taking hold. And please don’t ignore ALL those texts I posted earlier from Acts demonstrating this very point — have you never considered those things before?

Plus… Jesus having ‘fulfilled the Law’ likewise meant it no longer curried redemptive favour with God. Whatever significance anyone past those biblical days might give to ‘the Law’ such has been of itself an aberration… with NO Temple and by that score NO sacrifices to legitimise anything. No amount of human effort, i.e., sowing up the curtain God had torn asunder (AD30), would change what God did — He wrought wrath upon that which could not save His people (AD70).

[Hermano]

Again, I would argue that the Old Covenant was technically ended through the death of Jesus: HIS BLOOD initiated the New Covenant, and got people back to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace through faith (and got rid of that legalistic obstacle codified through Moses), NOT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE in 70 AD. The New Covenant was put into effect by the Blood of Christ, not the destruction of the Temple or the end of animal sacrifices:

Hebrews 9:18
…[E]ven the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

We see that the effects of the Old Covenant still linger to this day: people still to this day have a veil of salvation by works over there hearts that is only taken away IN CHRIST, by faith in his blood shed on the cross—

2 Cor. 3:15-16
15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.
16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

The legalistic veil over peoples’ hearts (a veil of salvation by works) was not taken away by the destruction of the Temple; however, its removal is now freely available through faith in Christ and his blood, his obedience, his finished work, alone.

[Hermano]

If you mean the OC ended at the cross, you’re contradicting the Hebraist. If you’re not claiming that, you’re weasel wording, because the issue here is when the OC age ended.

Yes, the OC ended at the cross, and, no, I’m not contradicting the author of Hebrews.

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

In this verse, the “Hebraist” is referring to what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah six centuries earlier: and if the Lord was talking about the coming “new” covenant in Jeremiah 31, He (the Lord) was certainly announcing back then–explains the Hebraist–that the Mosaic covenant was, even back then, obsolete and outdated and soon to disappear…which it finally, technically DID, through the Blood of Jesus. The New Covenant was initiated by—and the Old Mosaic Covenant ended by—the Blood of Jesus, and the Blood of Jesus alone, not the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD or the end of animal sacrifices.

The Blood of Jesus, not the Roman army, ended the Old Covenant. Jesus plus nothing.

(But “technically,” people today still celebrate and promote the abrogated, annulled, dead covenant of Moses, even in some syncretistic, legalistic Christian churches.)

[davo]

The New Covenant was initiated by—and the Old Mosaic Covenant ended by—the Blood of Jesus, and the Blood of Jesus alone, not the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD or the end of animal sacrifices.

The AD30 was the death knell of the OC… AD70 was its burial; as I’ve noted previously — God’s DECISIVE event followed by God’s CULMINATING event.

The OC post-cross was indeed vanquished, BUT IF it was non-existent or had no sway then PLEASE EXPLAIN your rationale to Paul’s kowtowing to the law demonstrated in Acts.

Biblical eschatology was all about the END of the OC age, the OC world, the Mosaic mode of existence — the NC has NO eschatology as there is NO END to the NC age — at least not biblically speaking.

[davo]

Isaac (new covenant) was born after Ishmael (old covenant). They coexisted until Ishmael was disinherited.

Exactly right… this is evidenced in Jesus’ parable about the ‘Wheat and the Tares’ where we find…

Mt 13:28:30 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”

The harvest was ‘the end of the age’ aka the Parousia. And thus speaking of these two covenants coexisting for a time, i.e., 40yrs, we have Paul drawing the same from Israel’s story…

Gal 3:29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh (OC = Ishmael) then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, (NC = Isaac) even so it is now.

[maintenanceman]

The legalistic veil over peoples’ hearts (a veil of salvation by works) was not taken away by the destruction of the Temple ; however, its removal is now freely available through faith in Christ and his blood, his obedience, his finished work, alone .

Your point is both understandable but also quite flawed, as the understanding of 70 AD is not a catch all as many nay Sayers and un believers would understand. When you start to look at Christ’s cross as a TOTAL remission of all sin from the beginning of time, we come to a contradiction, almost every denomination, and almost every person here on this forum will attest that a person will need to do SOMETHING to win Gods favor.

The understanding that in 70 AD, God crushed the man inspired temple, put down the ultimate place where man and God met, and established God as the ultimate King and ruler. It is the guide line to understand that God destroyed the very crux of our human nature. We want to be like God… We want to be a God in our own right.

Denominations perpetuate this frame of thought, like you Hermano.

The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was simply God sifting out what he had in store for creation. Good luck as you investigate these facts.

[steve7150]

No. How many times does the Old Testament mention going to synagogue every Saturday?

The main thing was the Sabbath on Sat and the religious Jews observed it through 70AD and they still do , so them observing it is not an indication of it’s effectiveness or reality.

[Hermano]

The OC post-cross was indeed vanquished, BUT IF it was non-existent or had no sway then PLEASE EXPLAIN your rationale to Paul’s kowtowing to the law demonstrated in Acts.

Well, as you know, Paul’s rationale for kowtowing to the law was:

1 Cor. 9:20
…And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

So, my rationale for Paul’s rationale (!) is that Paul, like us, still had quite a ways to go in being renewed in his mind by the Spirit of truth, and pressing forward to maturity (Heb. 6:1).

We agree that the Old Covenant was vanquished at the cross. And I am sure we agree that most Jews today, nevertheless, are still living under the dictates of the Old Covenant–chugging along at their local synagogue, sans Temple. (And I would further argue that works-based salvation by gentiles is analogous to living under the law of Moses.)

But this is where we don’t agree:

The AD30 was the death knell of the OC… AD70 was its burial;

I don’t think the destruction of the Temple added anything to the finished work of Jesus at the cross. The Old Covenant was cancelled there, at the cross; and the New Covenant was initiated there, in Christ’s blood. The Old Covenant still has sway to this very day; but in Christ, by his Spirit, people can be freed from the Old, and come into the New.

The destruction of the Temple did not free anyone from bondage to the Old Covenant: each individual’s liberation from self-centered, performance-based salvation by works is always—until this very day—an inner, spiritual issue, not an outer, physical issue.

Jesus shed his blood to offer us–Jew and gentile–a divine transfusion, and to then teach those who receive that offer to resist being victimized by a legalistic devil (and then ignorantly saying, “God is punishing me”).

[Paidion]

**“upon whom the ends of the world are come.”**is incorrect.

Paul actually said, “ To us , on whom the end of the world is come,”

I am a futurist and not a “stupid arguing preterist” (as you call them).
But I think it would be wise of you to get all of your statements correct before you express them.

You wrote, “upon whom the ends of the world are come.” incorrect. Paul actually said, “ To us , on whom the end of the world is come,”…

That is incorrect. The Greek word “ημων” that Paul used means “of us.” Had Paul intended “to us” he would have used the word "ημιν."

A literal translation of Paul’s words would be "…was written for admonition of us, into whom the ends of the ages have met."

[davo]

The OC post-cross was indeed vanquished, BUT IF it was non-existent or had no sway then PLEASE EXPLAIN your rationale to Paul’s kowtowing to the law demonstrated in Acts.

Well, as you know, Paul’s rationale for kowtowing to the law was:

1 Cor. 9:20

…And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;

So, my rationale for Paul’s rationale (!) is that Paul, like us, still had quite a ways to go in being renewed in his mind by the Spirit of truth, and pressing forward to maturity (Heb. 6:1).

You’ve presented TWO competing rationales… which is it? — Paul following his Jewish heritage for the sake of winning some of his own OR, Paul struggling with his spiritual renewal? Between those two options I’m more inclined toward the former. While the Temple still stood the Law still held sway even though it was passing and soon to be brought to naught (Heb 8:13), or as John said…

1Jn 2:8 Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true in Him and in you, because the darkness (OC) is passing away, and the true light (NC) is already shining.

As already noted… these covenants co-existed side-by-side for a time in that terminal generation AD30-70 (Gal 4:29b), where the fading glory of the Mosaic ministry of death and condemnation was making way for the ever brightening and more glorious ministry of the Spirit ( 2Cor 3:7-9, 11) as Paul says here…

2Cor 3:11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

Thus Paul could go onto to say of himself and his fellow saints…

2Cor 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory (OC) to glory (NC), just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

This again was the transformation of “the old man” (OC) to the “new man” (NC) in that age of transition and tribulation (Rev 1:9).

I don’t think the destruction of the Temple added anything to the finished work of Jesus at the cross.

It’s NOT a case of adding but of CONSUMMATING… once you grasp the revelation that the events of AD70 were in fact Christ’s promised Parousia then you’ll see the fullness of God’s grace as touching all humanity — our job is to simply let people know this wondrous truth, i.e., God HAS done it all!

[Bob_Wilson]

Which is it? — Paul following his Jewish heritage for the sake of winning some of his own OR, Paul struggling with his spiritual renewal? Between those two I’m inclined toward the former.

My impression is that Paul expresses assurance that he is free from the Law, and is most explicit that he accommodates following it when it may help with winning his kinsmen. Do his own epistles explicitly say that he was spiritually “struggling” with assurance that he was not still under the Law?