All things written may be fulfilled

[grafted branch]

These were wise recommendations.

Ok, I agree but I think it was a good idea because the Jews didn’t straight way want the new covenant.

Luke 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

 

[grafted branch]

1. When did/does "the last days" begin?
2. When will "the last days" finish?

3)Just after the cross

4)The last days of the existence of the old covenant ended in 70AD when it became impossible to comply with all the physical requirements due to the destruction of the physical temple.



Question for you, since the Holy Spirit said it was good to have the different burdens on the Jews and Gentiles, when did “the last days” of that finish?

 

[Davidpt]

Right, and preterist think Jesus returned in 70AD, which was future to 51-52AD when 2 Thessalonians was written. The end times were the end times of the old, dead, decaying covenant that vanished in 70AD.



Let’s look at it like this …

A) Luke 21:22 happens 70AD, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 happens 70AD.

B) Luke 21:22 happens 70AD, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 happens future.

C) Luke 21:22 happens future, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 happens future.

This is pretty much the three views out there. Arguing that 2 Thessalonians 1 points to a future (post 52 AD) coming agrees with the preterist which hold to option A). And it would also agree with futurist who hold option C).

Since A) can't be fully true, nor can C) be fully true, I choose B) then. I guess that makes only me and @Douggg correct thus far.

 

[grafted branch]

Since A) can't be fully true, nor can C) be fully true, I choose B) then. I guess that makes only me and @Douggg correct thus far.

Ha ha, thanks for the humor. Let me ask you this though, do you believe in dual fulfillment?

 

[Davidpt]

Ha ha, thanks for the humor. Let me ask you this though, do you believe in dual fulfillment?

Dual fulfillment might be a possible option in this case since it would demand a gap between the two. But if it is a possibility, I wouldn't argue the same in regards to Matthew 24:15-22 though, since that is not involving the wrath of God on anyone. It is involving the wrath of satan upon the church. Not to mention, verse 21 speaks of something that has no equal in the past nor an equal in the future, nor can be surpassed by anything in the past, nor can be surpassed by anything in the future. Therefore, verse 21 has to be global since it is absurd that something local can't be surpassed by something global.

And let's not use Noah's flood as an argument, that it was greater and it already has no equal nor can be surpassed in greatness. Not that you might. Yet some do. That event involved wrath and judgment, not tribulation. Even 2 Peter 3:10-12 proves it. Those verses are being likened to Noah's flood, and that those verses are meaning after tribulation. There was no tribulation in the earth prior to Noah's flood, though. Therefore, for anyone to insist Noah's flood involved tribulation is absurd. Therefore, Noah's flood is not a valid argument against Matthew 24:21 whatsoever since it is not a valid comparison. Keeping in mind, 2 Peter 3:10-12 does not involve tribulation. It involves wrath and judgment on the ungodly the same way Noah's flood did.

 

[TribulationSigns]

4)The last days of the existence of the old covenant ended in 70AD when it became impossible to comply with all the physical requirements due to the destruction of the physical temple.

Gee-whiz! Covenants are ended and confirmed by blood, not by buildings or dates.

The New Covenant was confirmed at the Cross with Christ's blood, therefore the Old Covenant had to end at the Cross, not years later in 70AD. To place the end of the Old Covenant after the estbalishment of the New is a category error and reverses God's own order.

1. The New Covenant was established at the Cross:

Jesus Himself fixes the timing:

Matthew 26:28
(28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

And it was not confirmed until Christ went to the Cross to shed his blood first:

Hebrews 9:14-17
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The testament is same as covenant. The New Covenant was confirmed and established the moment Christ died. So a covenant is ratified by blood (Hebrews 9:16–18). No blood in AD 70 → no covenantal action there.

2. The Old Covenant ended when Christ died

The Old Testament Law stood only until the promised Seed came:

Gal 3:24
(24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Rom 10:4
(4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Col 2:14
(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;

Not “nailing it to Jerusalem’s physical destruction.”

The Cross is the terminus.

3. Hebrews explicitly says the Old Covenant became obsolete at Christ’s work

Heb 8:13
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The writer does not say "will become obsolete in AD 70."

It was made obsolete when the New Covenant was enacted.

So here is logical trap that preterists (as well as the premillennialists) fall into:​

If the Old Covenant ended in AD 70, because you insisted on a physical destruction to prepare a way for the new covenant, then for 40 years:

• Two covenants ran simultaneously
• Animal sacrifices were still valid
• Christ’s blood did not fully replace Moses

This of course is a blatant absurd! That contradicts Hebrews entirely.

Hebrews 9:26

• But now once at the end of the ages He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

So...the Old Covenant did not end in AD 70; it ended at the Cross when Christ’s blood confirmed the New Covenant. AD 70 was not a covenantal transition. Scripture clearly locates covenantal transition in Christ’s death without the need for physical destruction of Jersualem years later. To place the end of the Old Covenant after the establishment of the New is to reverse God’s order and undermine the finality of the Cross.

 

[Truth7t7]

So all things which are written won’t be fulfilled when the Luke 22:21 days of vengeance gets fulfilled?

My response was pretty simple, 42 months the gentile armies take Jerusalem, Jesus returns immediately after this

 

[HealthyShape]

Let’s look at it like this …

A) Luke 21:22 happens 70AD, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 happens 70AD.

B) Luke 21:22 happens 70AD, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 happens future.

C) Luke 21:22 happens future, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 happens future.

For the OCD crowd:

D) Luke 21:22 happens future, 2 Thessalonians 1:8 happens 70AD.

 

[grafted branch]

Gee-whiz! Covenants are ended and confirmed by blood, not by buildings or dates.

The New Covenant was confirmed at the Cross with Christ's blood, therefore the Old Covenant had to end at the Cross, not years later in 70AD. To place the end of the Old Covenant after the estbalishment of the New is a category error and reverses God's own order.

1. The New Covenant was established at the Cross:

Jesus Himself fixes the timing:

Matthew 26:28
(28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

And it was not confirmed until Christ went to the Cross to shed his blood first:

Hebrews 9:14-17
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The testament is same as covenant. The New Covenant was confirmed and established the moment Christ died. So a covenant is ratified by blood (Hebrews 9:16–18). No blood in AD 70 → no covenantal action there.

2. The Old Covenant ended when Christ died

The Old Testament Law stood only until the promised Seed came:

Gal 3:24
(24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Rom 10:4
(4) For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Col 2:14
(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;

Not “nailing it to Jerusalem’s physical destruction.”

The Cross is the terminus.

3. Hebrews explicitly says the Old Covenant became obsolete at Christ’s work

Heb 8:13
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The writer does not say "will become obsolete in AD 70."

It was made obsolete when the New Covenant was enacted.

So here is logical trap that preterists (as well as the premillennialists) fall into:​

If the Old Covenant ended in AD 70, because you insisted on a physical destruction to prepare a way for the new covenant, then for 40 years:

• Two covenants ran simultaneously
• Animal sacrifices were still valid
• Christ’s blood did not fully replace Moses

This of course is a blatant absurd! That contradicts Hebrews entirely.

Hebrews 9:26

• But now once at the end of the ages He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

So...the Old Covenant did not end in AD 70; it ended at the Cross when Christ’s blood confirmed the New Covenant. AD 70 was not a covenantal transition. Scripture clearly locates covenantal transition in Christ’s death without the need for physical destruction of Jersualem years later. To place the end of the Old Covenant after the establishment of the New is to reverse God’s order and undermine the finality of the Cross.

You’re presenting a false premise. I never said the old covenant was valid until 70AD, only that it remained in existence and was practiced, even though it was a dead, decaying corpse.

What are you thinking, that the next sabbath after the cross, the apostles went fishing and ate BLTs for lunch? No way, they kept on observing the law. Look at Acts 21:20, there were many thousands of Jews that both believed and were zealous for the law. According to Biblehub timeline, that was around 59AD, 29 years after the cross. The old covenant didn’t end at the cross, it just became obsolete at the cross.

My friend’s model A is obsolete but he still drives it occasionally. If his car got destroyed then he would no longer be able to drive it. The old covenant became obsolete at the cross, they were still driving it around until it got destroyed in 70AD.

Let me ask you this, was it good that the Jews continued to be under the burden of the Law after the cross or not?

 

[grafted branch]

My response was pretty simple, 42 months the gentile armies take Jerusalem, Jesus returns immediately after this

Alright, I’m not arguing against your position, just saying it doesn’t have all things written being fulfilled when Luke 21:22 says they will be fulfilled.

 

[WPM]

3)Just after the cross

4)The last days of the existence of the old covenant ended in 70AD when it became impossible to comply with all the physical requirements due to the destruction of the physical temple.



Question for you, since the Holy Spirit said it was good to have the different burdens on the Jews and Gentiles, when did “the last days” of that finish?

When does the NT last days end?

 

[grafted branch]

When does the NT last days end?

The New Testament never ends, it’s eternal. It would take the death of Christ a second time to change that.

 

[WPM]

The New Testament never ends, it’s eternal. It would take the death of Christ a second time to change that.

So we are there until the last day?

 

[claninja]

Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:



Many people place 2 Thessalonians 1:8 as taking place at a still future coming of Christ. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 cross references with quite a few Old Testament passages, and Luke 21:22 also cross references with some of the same verses, particularly the ones with the word “vengeance” in them, such as Deuteronomy 32:35, Isaiah 61:2 and Isaiah 63:4 to name a few.

Now, 2 Thessalonians was likely written around 51AD to 52 AD, and Luke, well that’s not so certain but I see some say around 58AD and others around 80-90AD. It seems a consensus though that Luke was written after 2 Thessalonians, so it stands to reason that 2 Thessalonians 1:8 would’ve been known information to the writer of Luke when it was written.

If one places Luke 21:22 taking place in 70AD and 2 Thessalonians 1:8 still future, then “all things written” was not fulfilled. I suppose a dual fulfillment argument could be made that 2 Thessalonians 1:8 gets fulfilled more than once but I think that would be a tough position to support for most views.

So, it seems to me most of us should either say all things written were already fulfilled in 70AD, both Luke 21:22 and 2 Thessalonians 1:8, or that neither were fulfilled in 70AD and they are both still future.

Does anyone have any comments or thoughts on any of this?

I think we can agree the “all that is written” likely refers to the OT scriptures. But I think many may argue that it only pertains to the vengeance prophesied of in the OT.

So, with That being said, if Paul’s prediction of vengeance in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 is related to OT prophecy, well then it would seem the events of Luke 21 fulfill that. Though if Paul is making a brand new prediction not based on OT prophecy, but instead new revelation beyond the OT, I suppose one could argue that it does not fall under Luke 21.

 

[Davidpt]

I think we can agree the “all that is written” likely refers to the OT scriptures. But I think many may argue that it only pertains to the vengeance prophesied of in the OT.

So, with That being said, if Paul’s prediction of vengeance in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 is related to OT prophecy, well then it would seem the events of Luke 21 fulfill that. Though if Paul is making a brand new prediction not based on OT prophecy, but instead new revelation beyond the OT, I suppose one could argue that it does not fall under Luke 21.

But even in the OT Scriptures, not everything prophesied involving the NT era is involving the days of vengeance if some are interpreting all those Scriptures correctly. I disagree they are interpreting all those Scriptures correctly. But that is beside the point. Meaning Scriptures they are applying to the here and now which might not even be describing the here and now to begin with.

For example. Let's assume the following below is referring to the here and now, though I disagree it it. But that is beside the point. Yet some interpreters insist it is. Except this is not about how I might interpret these verses. It's about how others might interpret them. Therefore, it is unreasonable of them to insist this also is involving the days of vengeance.

Zechariah 14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

One thing is for certain, verse 11 undeniably proves that this era of time is meaning post 70 AD since 70 AD contradicts verse 11 if that verse is meaning before 70 AD. And what the above passage is describing couldn't possibly be involving the days of vengeance. Where Luke 21 describes it as great distress in the land, wrath upon this ppl in the land.

 

[Truth7t7]

Alright, I’m not arguing against your position, just saying it doesn’t have all things written being fulfilled when Luke 21:22 says they will be fulfilled.

The scripture in context shows time is involved in fulfillment, you picked one verse Luke 21:22 and suggest it's fulfillment is immediate "Wrong"

Scripture clearly teaches that a 42 month period in "Great Tribulation" will see Jerusalem trodden under foot as seen in Revelation 11:2 in fulfilling the time of the gentiles, biblical "Context"

Revelation 11:2KJV
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Luke 21:20-24KJV
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

 

[grafted branch]

I think we can agree the “all that is written” likely refers to the OT scriptures. But I think many may argue that it only pertains to the vengeance prophesied of in the OT.

So, with That being said, if Paul’s prediction of vengeance in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 is related to OT prophecy, well then it would seem the events of Luke 21 fulfill that. Though if Paul is making a brand new prediction not based on OT prophecy, but instead new revelation beyond the OT, I suppose one could argue that it does not fall under Luke 21.

That’s right, unless one wants to try to make the case that Paul gave an entirely new revelation in 2 Thessalonians 1, Luke 21:22 tells us when the OT prophesied days of vengeance gets fulfilled.

 

[grafted branch]

So we are there until the last day?

Well, we are under the new covenant right now and that never ceases. If you have a future “last day” of something else, like maybe the planet earth, then you can say we are on the planet until the last day but I wouldn’t say we are under the new covenant up-until the last day, that wouldn’t be correct as it would imply the new covenant ends after the last day.

A first century Jew who both believed and was zealous for the law, after fleeing in 70AD, could’ve said that he lived and reigned with Christ as a priest, under the old obsolete covenant, until the last day, then the new covenant was fully realized. Behold all things became new, including heaven and earth, at the moment of salvation under the new covenant, but it didn’t come down to replace the old obsolete covenant until after 70AD for that believing zealous for the law Jew.

 

[grafted branch]

The scripture in context shows time is involved in fulfillment, you picked one verse Luke 21:22 and suggest it's fulfillment is immediate "Wrong"

Scripture clearly teaches that a 42 month period in "Great Tribulation" will see Jerusalem trodden under foot as seen in Revelation 11:2 in fulfilling the time of the gentiles, biblical "Context"

Revelation 11:2KJV
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Luke 21:20-24KJV
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Ok, if I understand you correctly, your argument is really that the days of vengeance go for a period of time. They start with what is described in Luke 21, they continue without stopping until what is described in 2 Thessalonians 1.

 

[Truth7t7]

Ok, if I understand you correctly, your argument is really that the days of vengeance go for a period of time. They start with what is described in Luke 21, they continue without stopping until what is described in 2 Thessalonians 1.

Yes it starts with Jerusalem being surrounded by armies Luke 21:20 and it ends with 2 thessalonians 1:8 in the second coming of Jesus Christ in fire

Luke 21:20-24KJV
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.