Does the resurrection of unjust to shame and contempt, from daniel 12, involve any sort of vengeance?
Last edited:
All things written may be fulfilled
- Thread starter grafted branch
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does the resurrection of unjust to shame and contempt, from daniel 12, involve any sort of vengeance?
Once the Holy Spirit came all who were truly born again knew the advent of Christ put an end to the Old Covenant and ushered in the New Covenant through Christ's blood.
John 15:26-27 (KJV) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
In Acts 10:9-16 Peter has a vision and a sheet containing unclean animals is seen. A voice tells Peter to get up, kill, and eat. Peter’s response is Surely not Lord, I have never eaten anything impure or unclean. Then the voice says Do not call anything impure that God has made clean. That happens 3 times and takes place approximately 3 to 4 years after Pentecost.
I think we will all agree that the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, but why didn’t the Holy Spirit teach Peter all things at Pentecost? If we say the Spirit did teach Peter, then Spirit taught Peter to continue following the Law concerning what animals to eat. Perhaps this is one reason why some people think the old covenant continued in force until 70AD (I personally don’t).
Which is it then, did the Holy Spirit teach the apostles at Pentecost or not? Or maybe it was that the apostles were taught and they just refused to believe the Holy Spirit, not.
I think the solution that makes the most sense is that it remained a mystery to the apostles, even though this seems contrary to some verses. Someone who believes Premil can be just as saved and have the same Holy Spirit teaching them as an Amil or Preterist. There probably aren’t two believers that completely agree 100% on all verses, and that’s just the reality we have.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
The Spirit did teach Peter and all the disciples that's how Peter was able to understand through this vision that salvation through Christ was not only for Jews, but also for faithful Gentiles, like Cornelius.
The mystery of salvation in Christ to Gentiles as well as to Jews had been hidden in past ages, but now that Christ has come the mystery hidden was made known first to Peter, then to all of Christ's disciples through the Spirit of Christ in them.
The vision had nothing to do with eating unclean animals the Law forbade. In Peter's vision of clean and unclean animals God was showing that Gentiles, like Corneilus who hear of the wonderful works of Christ and believe on Him, are not to be considered common, or unclean as Gentiles is past ages had been. For God is not a respecter of persons, and whosoever believes on Christ shall be saved.
Acts 10:26-29 (KJV) But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together. And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
This understanding is not from Peter, but from the power of the Holy Spirit sent from the Father. Remember, Peter had already acknowledged Christ to be the Son of the living God even before Pentecost, and this revelation came not from within Peter but from power from above. The words Christ earlier spoke to Peter were beginning to come to pass. That Christ would build His Church and not even the gates of hell, that had kept Gentiles in bondage to death, not knowing of the Savior who would come, would prevail against Christ's faithful servants. The Rock within man of faith is the Holy Spirit sent from above to teach and guide us from the moment He enters in and we are turned from fear of death to the knowledge that in Christ we have eternal life and shall never die.
Matthew 16:16 (KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:17-18 (KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
You’re right, Peter’s vision isn’t ultimately about eating unclean animals, but Peter says “Surely not Lord, I have never eaten anything impure or unclean”. Why would Peter say that if he already knew it was ok to eat unclean animals? Peter’s statement clearly points to him still thinking he should only eat clean animals, 3 to 4 years after Pentecost.
In post#222 you made this statement “Once the Holy Spirit came all who were truly born again knew the advent of Christ put an end to the Old Covenant and ushered in the New Covenant through Christ's blood.”
Did Peter put an end to the Old Covenant rules about eating unclean animals once the Holy Spirit came? Do you have a view that works with all the verses or does your view change each time we discuss a different verse?
The vision Peter had was NOT about eating unclean animals! The animals in the dream symbolized people of all the nations of the world who were not born into Judaism. Just because Peter continued to be concerned about not eating unclean foods according to the law of Old, does not mean that Peter believed eating only what he was accustomed to eating was somehow associated with his eternal salvation in Christ. The advent of Christ, the New Covenant through His Spirit, clearly made known that Christ ALONE without obedience to the law of Old is the only means of salvation for whosoever believe. The Apostles, and disciples of True faith in Christ, even though continuing to be as the Jew and continue to preach in the Synagogues and submit to the Old law, did so that some of the Jews who believed the only way to God is through obedience to the Old law might turn away from the law of Old and turn to Christ alone to be saved.
The Old Covenant ended with the advent of Christ, regardless of whether or not this FACT was clearly understood by the early disciples. The FACT is that once the Spirit had been sent to be in believers, every believer knew that belief in Christ without obedience to the Old Law, is the only way by which whosoever believes is eternally saved. While it is true that many Jews professing to be in Christ continued to believe there was merit with God in continuing to observe the Old Covenant law, Judaizers soon made it apparent that grace of God through Christ and continuing to submit to the Law was anathema unto God. That's why when the question of Gentiles submitting to the law of circumcision came up, it was soundly refuted by the early Church. That would not have been if the Old Covenant was not abolished until the material city and temple were destroyed in 70 AD.
Ok, this is what I’ve been looking for. Your explanation of why the apostles were still following the Law after the cross was because they knew it might lead to the salvation of some of the Jews who continued in the Law. It wasn’t because they thought the Law itself still applied or needed to be followed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is your view, right?
The Old Covenant couldn’t have ended at the cross if the apostles were still utilizing it to bring some of the Jews to salvation under the New Covenant. That obsolete, decaying Old Covenant still served a purpose until the generation of Jews who had to transition to the New Covenant ended. I don’t know why it’s so difficult to simply agree with that.
So let’s go back to Acts 21:20 where James says “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law”. If James clearly knew that the law had ended and that (your words) “The FACT is that once the Spirit had been sent to be in believers, every believer knew that belief in Christ without obedience to the Old Law, is the only way by which whosoever believes is eternally saved” then why did James say they both believed and were zealous for the law? Is it possible today for a believer to be zealous for the law? Would your church allow believers to be zealous for the law like James did? Or is it that James didn’t know how to determine if someone was a believer or not? Do you see the problem here with saying once someone becomes a believer they emphatically know they don’t have to follow the law?
Again you’re trying to make it look like the Old Covenant served no purpose by using the word “abolished”. The Old Covenant was abolished in 70AD, it became invalid at the cross, there’s a big difference. I can’t understand why you want the Bible to say something that just isn’t there.
Yes
They were not using the law to bring Jews to salvation; they used the law to teach them keeping the law without grace through faith in Jesus Christ would not save them. That's how the advent of Christ ushering in the New Covenant through His blood and resurrection put an END to the Old Covenant ceremonial and sacrificial law. Even before the advent of Christ the way Old Covenant saints were saved was according to grace through faith, they believed that obedience to the Law and Prophets would save them because the Law and Prophets testified of the Messiah who would come to save them. Just as we are saved by grace through faith in Christ after the advent of Christ, so too they were saved by grace through faith before the advent of Christ but trusting the Law and Prophets foretelling of His coming.
Romans 3:1-3 (KJV) What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Romans 3:19-26 (KJV) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
It was both abolished and became invalid with the advent of Christ! The only purpose 70 AD served was for God's wrath to come against an unbelieving spiritually adulterous and abominable people just as Christ told them it would. By destroying all the material/physical symbols of the Old Covenant there would be no more confusion for Jews to be deceived into believing after the advent of Christ ushering in the New Covenant, the law of Old could make them perfect before God, as they had been in darkness and unbelief before the advent of Christ. Jews, like Gentiles, since the advent of Christ shall only be eternally saved according to grace through faith when they/we turn to Christ for everlasting life.
If you mean zealous for the law of Old Covenant Israel, then NO, I do not believe a Christian can be zealous of the Old law of Moses. This is why I don't agree with dispensationalism, nor do I agree with Zionism!
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
The old covenant absolutely ended at the cross. The new covenant undeniably was established at the cross and it's ridiculous to think that both covenants would be in effect at the same time. No, the new covenant replaced the old covenant immediately when it was established by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 8:6-7, Hebrews 10:9-10).
You clearly don't even know what the word "obsolete" means. The old covenant being obsolete means that it was no longer in effect. No longer valid. Kaput. Done. Finished. Replaced by the new covenant. The tearing of the veil of the temple when Jesus died signified that the old covenant was made obsolete and put to an end and was replaced by the new covenant that was established by the blood of Christ.
Jesus nailed the old covenant and its "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" to the cross.
Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Scripture is clear that the establishment of the new covenant replaced the old covenant, so how could the old covenant still be in force when it had been replaced? That's not possible.
Hebrews 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
Hebrews 10:8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Notice in Hebrews 8:6-7 above that the second, new covenant was established on better promises than the first, old covenant. Then notice that Hebrews 10:9 indicates that Jesus took away the first, old covenant in order to establish the second, new covenant. This shows that the establishment of the new covenant by way of His death also did away with the old covenant.
Here we go again, I never said the old covenant was valid after the cross. You really need to pay better attention and stop trying to put forth straw man arguments.
Now, where in Hebrews 8:6-7 and Hebrews 10:8-10 does it say the old covenant ended? Nowhere! It says the second covenant was established, He takes away the first, but clearly when Hebrews was written the first obsolete decaying covenant had not vanished at that time. Are you deliberately ignoring Hebrews 8:13?
No it doesn’t, the old covenant remained until it vanished. It died at the cross and became invalid but it remained until it vanished.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You contradict yourself! Do you even read your own words? You say you never said the old covenant was valid after the cross and then you follow that up by denying that Hebrews 10:8-10 says the old covenant ended. Total contradiction. Can't you make up your mind if you believe it ended at the cross or not? Hebrews 10:9 says He took away the first (old) covenant to establish the second (new) covenant. Do you deny that He established the new covenant at the cross? If you agree that He did, then that means He took away the old covenant at the cross.
What does this even mean?! Traces of it remained even after it became obsolete and no longer in effect because of the temple still standing, but so what? That's meaningless!
He took away or set aside the first prior to the cross, so that He could establish the second at the cross. He forgave sins prior to the cross as seen in Matthew 9:5. The man with the palsy had his sins forgiven, he didn’t need to follow the law or make a sacrifice. The old covenant was set aside for the man with the palsy.
Hebrews 10:9 (NIV) Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.
Tell that to the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
What point EXACTLY are you trying to make?
There was not a question about Jews converting through the blood of Christ continuing in these ceremonial laws respecting circumcision, distinctions of meats and days, festivals etc. It was the sacrificial laws requiring burnt offerings of animals and blood that had become anathema unto God after Christ shed His blood on the cross. The fact they tried to force the law of circumcision upon Gentile believers proves these Jewish converts to Christ were still zealous regarding ceremonial laws. But they were not zealous, nor did they practice of the laws requiring blood of slain animals year after year because in Christ they understood these sacrifices could not purify the conscience (heart/mind) for only the blood of Christ does that.
Hebrews 9:12-14 (KJV) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 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?
Hebrews 10:4-10 (KJV) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I love when people just quote verses without telling me why and without telling me how they interpret them. I can only guess as to the reason why you brought up this verse, but I'd prefer to not have to guess. Tell me how you interpret it and why you quoted it to me.
I’m trying to figure what you view is and how it works with the verses we have been discussing here. You just said in post#230 that a Christian can’t be zealous for the Old law of Moses. I then asked you what law the Jews were zealous for in Acts21:20, and response is what point am I trying to make?
I can’t figure out how your view harmonizes with the verses we’re discussing. To me it looks like you keep changing your view. I guess the point I’m looking for is a constant interpretation.
No it doesn’t, here’s what I’m talking about …
Your post 230 “I do not believe a Christian can be zealous of the Old law of Moses.”
Your post 236 “There was not a question about Jews converting through the blood of Christ continuing in these ceremonial laws respecting circumcision, distinctions of meats and days, festivals etc. It was the sacrificial laws requiring burnt offerings of animals and blood that had become anathema unto God after Christ shed His blood on the cross.” “But they were not zealous, nor did they practice of the laws requiring blood of slain animals year after year because in Christ they understood these sacrifices could not purify the conscience (heart/mind) for only the blood of Christ does that.”
In these posts you are clarifying that it’s the laws concerning offerings and sacrifices that are anathema to God and that these particular laws were not the ones the Jews were zealous for in Acts 21:20.
But just a few days prior you said this …
Your post 201 “But according to Paul those who continued to believe that circumcision according to the law of Moses was still in effect after the advent of Christ were only Jews outwardly, making a show of the law, but inwardly they were not Jews of faith. Because Jews of faith understood true circumcision is not of the outward flesh but inwardly of the heart and that circumcision of the flesh was only profitable when they kept the WHOLE law. “
The very issue at hand in Acts 21:20-22 is Paul’s teaching about circumcision, and you seemed to agree that the Jews were zealous for that part of the law in post 236. If circumcision is not anathema to God, that makes your view work with what you posted in post 236, but that doesn’t agree with your post 201, which needs circumcision to be anathema with God after the cross.
To me it looks like keep changing your view to avoid problems. There should be one consistent view that can work with all the verses. I think that view should be that it was still a mystery to the apostles (not Paul).
Similar threads
