Covenant Relationships & the Bible as Literature

  • 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!

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pilgrimer,

Thanks for the expansive response. I probably wont be able to address everything due to time.

But the Law as a means of being reconciled with God has passed away. Passed away in the sense that all those things which God provided to make it possible to keep the Law have ceased to exist. That’s what I mean, and that’s what Paul meant when he said, “that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away.”
Were people ever reconciled by Law? I don't think so. Romans 4:1-8 makes it clear that even under the Old Covenant, it was faith that justified, not legal works. Yes, it is true that people were to express their faith in obedience to law, but the it was always justification by faith, not reconciliation through law (see also Gal. 3:11). On a side note, I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews (Hebrews 2:3). Paul was an Apostle, and the author of Hebrews seems to be someone who was converted by the message the Apostles preached.

Paul was clearly speaking to the Christians at Thessalonia who were enduring persecution and tribulation, and he was telling them that the Lord would recompense tribulation on those who were troubling them when he would be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels (revealed from heaven, not come from heaven, and angels are spirits, by the way) in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Yes, but the Jews were not the only people persecuting the Christians. I think you are really trying to smear over the second part of that verse. Revealed from heaven is the same thing. The things of heaven are often apocalupso because the angels and things of the spirit are not so much a far off destination as they are an invisible and present reality. The second coming is often referred to as an apocalypse because it is when Jesus is revealed to the world in his glory.

The fact that you don’t associate apocalyptic language with the judgment and destruction of the Jewish state isn’t because it’s not there, but because you automatically apply it to the 2nd coming.
I am sure you are well aware that apocalyptic literature was common in this era. There were many books with apocalyptic visions and symbols that spoke of the end of the world. When these audiences read apocalyptic literature, they generally understood it as end of the world/final judgment type of messages. Consider Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of such literature
apocalyptic literature, literary genre that foretells supernaturally inspired cataclysmic events that will transpire at the end of the world. A product of the Judeo-Christian tradition, apocalyptic literature is characteristically pseudonymous; it takes narrative form, employs esoteric language, expresses a pessimistic view of the present, and treats the final events as imminent.
To suggest that the apocalyptic literature in the Bible (although John the Baptist isn't using apocalyptic language so much as he is simply using a metaphor) would be understood to refer to a historical war is not really accurate. I'd encourage you to read some other apocalyptic works such as The Apocalypse of Moses and the Book of Enoch.

You tend to overstate quite often. I have never suggested that we “seek to make every claim in the NT attributable to some immediate historical event.” I have simply encouraged you to not seek to make every claim in the New Testament attributable to some distant historical event. Some apocalyptic language refers to the judgment in the last days of the Jewish state during the 1st coming of Jesus, and some apocalyptic language refers to the judgment of all nations in the days of the world at the 2nd coming of Jesus.
Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. We have looked at some of the most classic texts that pretty much every major scholar in history has claimed is referring to the 2nd Coming and you have said they are all a reference to 70AD. Can you share with me a text you believe actually is referring to the 2nd coming? I am only dealing with what you have stated. I cant read your mind so I don't know what you actually believe about which texts refer to what. The only thing I know is that pretty much every major text referring to the coming of Jesus, whether in the epistles or Jesus own series of parables telling the disciples clearly to "wait and watch" for the coming of the bridegroom as 70AD language. I think this really diminishes the teaching of Jesus in many of his parables as if his primary teaching to his disciples about the importance of being ready and wise in his absence has to do with avoiding the suffering of 70AD.

Actually, Paul was very explicit about it, and taught more on the judgment and destruction of the Jewish state than he did on the final judgment and the end of the world. He especially wrote about it in Romans, for three straight chapters, repeatedly quoting the Old Testament and expounding on it. You have read it, I’m sure many times, but your read right over it and miss it.
Yes, its so explicit that I and every major scholar in the world has missed it. I don't think you understand the definition of explicit. Can you quote a text and show some scholars who agree with you that Paul is speaking in Romans of 70AD? Moreover, all of these Christians in Thessalonica and Rome are hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem! They are already believers and the Temple is already without spiritual significance for these Christians. Why would Paul warn the Thessalonians about a rebel in Jerusalem when they live halfway across the known world? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Yes, there is. For example:
“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 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. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” Luke 21:20-22
It would be impossible to argue that this did not come to pass in 70 A.D.
“Lo, he taketh away the first [offerings of the law] that he may establish the second [the body of Christ]. Hebrews 10:9
Again, it would impossible to argue that the offerings of the law did not stop in 70 A.D.
“In that he saith, a new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
It is impossible to argue that the Old Covenant things did not pass away in 70 A.D.
Again, this is another leap. I DID NOT say that there are no texts in the Bible referring to 70AD (yes, the Luke passage is about 70AD). I said there are no texts that say 70AD was the transition point between the OT and NT (none of the texts you quote say that). I think the NT authors would scream at such an idea as it completely ignores the teaching of the Gospels, especially Matthew.
We already looked at the Greek of Hebrews passage, which, says the Old Covenant had ALREADY passed and was subsequently fading. You are inserting based on your assumptions that the "fading" means more than that and suggests the covenant was still in operation until 70AD. I think the wording of the text (which I already showed you the Greek here) cannot be any clearer that it was already gone and therefore was being abandoned by God's people as they heard the Gospel...(not waiting around for the destruction of the Temple).
Matthew 3:8 has nothing to do with the Temple. It's John speaking to his audience (the Pharisees) who have come to watch him baptize for repentance in preparation for the Messiah. This is puzzling you would even mention such a text.
I don't have time to go into context of Hebrews 12. I encourage you to read Hebrews 11. This context has nothing to do with 70AD and everything to do with enduring persecution for the sake of inheriting the "heavenly Jerusalem" not avoiding the destruction of earthly Jerusalem. In fact, Hebrews 13:13 validates this as it is talking about Christians being cast from Jewish social life....not a follow up of the destruction of Jewish social life as you assert.
Out of time.
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Pilgrimer said:
Actually Veteran, I have been a life-long student of New Testament history and my views are based on my own study of the historical record. I’m afraid it is you who has gotten tangled up with a biased view of history that millennialists use to try to support their view claiming it is the historic view of the New Testament church. The truth of that is self-evident to you as you know what and who your sources are, and it’s not history, it’s men who are teaching you these views.
Well, you're totally wrong with that thinking. Don't know what history you've been relying on, but a thousand years period to begin at Christ's second coming was the orthodox view held by the majority of the 1st century A.D. Church fathers. Even the later centuries A.D. the majority of the early Church fathers still held to a post-tribulational coming of Christ and a thousand year period right after.

When the early Church fathers (like Hippolytus, Irenaeus, et al) spoke of a sabbath in connection with Peter's thousand years as a day, they were directly referring to the Milennium period being that 7th day sabbath in a thousand years relationship, to begin at Christ's second coming. That's the idea implied per God's Word, and that's what they declared. Justin Martyr (cir.155 A.D.) declared the thousand years period right after the resurrection emphatically.

So nice try, but your attempt at Revisionism here is not going to work.
Pilgrimer said:
That’s not true Veteran. The doctrine that the kingdom Jesus came to establish is the Kingdom of Heaven is the whole point of the entire Bible. It’s what the Law foreshadowed, it’s what the Prophets foretold, it’s what the Old Covenant kingdom of Israel and Jerusalem and the temple and its sacrifices and observances all pointed to, and it is the only kingdom the New Testament teaches. Jesus himself said his kingdom is not of this world.
Indeed Christ said His Kingdom is NOT of... this... world. It is still NOT established here on earth yet.
Pilgrimer said:
Jesus did not lay down his life to set up an earthly kingdom in Israel for the Jews, he laid down his life to open a Way into the kingdom of Heaven for all nations. Think about it brother, Jesus taught constantly about the coming kingdom, but not one time did he ever teach an earthly kingdom. The only kingdom he taught was the Kingdom of heaven. Go back and read the Gospels again, and don’t let the current popularity of secular interpretations of prophecy get you all tangled up in the error of a secular kingdom, the same error made by Rabbinic Judaism that caused them to miss the very promise they were looking for. The true kingdom, the one Jesus came to establish, the one Jesus taught, the one the New Testament church believed in, the one true Christendom has believed in for 1983 years, is not an earthly kingdom … its God’s Kingdom of Heaven.
I see you're another that doesn't have a darn clue about the "multitude of nations" prophecy given about Ephraim (i.e., that did not involve the "house of Judah", i.e., the Jews).

I'm not the one in gross error with men's doctrines, thank you. I know what Christ's Gospel is also, thank you. But you really do not fully know, otherwise you would have understood about that "multitude of nations" prophecy involving Ephraim and the Israel which Christ sent The Gospel to.

You're fooling yourself if you think for one minute that Christ is not going to establish His Israel in His Kingdom, and of course I'm not speaking of orthodox Jews that rejected Him within that either; "multitude of nations" prophecy again, go study.

You are also putting out a falsehood that Christ did not teach about an earthly Kingdom established here on earth de facto. All one need do is read the Matt.19:28 promise to His Apostles that they would sit upon 12 thrones in His Kingdom judging the 12 tribes of Israel!

That's not even taking into account all the Scripture in Ezek.40 thru 48 about Israel being established back to their old inheritances of the land in final.

No, what you're trying to push is MYSTICISM FROM PAGAN doctrine. That's how those like Origen fell into doctrines of Amillennialsim from the Neo-Platonists and Gnostics. Symbolizing the written "thousand years" period of Rev.20 is doing exactly that!

Enough falsehood crap from you, you're another now on my IGNORE list.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Pilgrimer,

Thanks for the expansive response. I probably wont be able to address everything due to time.
Obviously, I’m working under some tight time constraints as well so take all the time you like.

Wormwood said:
Were people ever reconciled by Law? I don't think so. Romans 4:1-8 makes it clear that even under the Old Covenant, it was faith that justified, not legal works. Yes, it is true that people were to express their faith in obedience to law, but the it was always justification by faith, not reconciliation through law (see also Gal. 3:11).
I’m afraid you are confusing justification with reconciliation. They are not at all the same thing.

The Hebrew word kaphar is translated by two English words, atone, which means “to make amends, make reparation, make restitution,” and also reconcile, which means “to restore friendly relations, to make peace, settle one’s differences.” The atonement sacrifices of the Law made kaphar, made atonement for sin and reconciled the offerer with God.

The Daily offering was an atonement offering (Exodus 29:36), so too were the sacrifices made on the Day of Atonement (Exodus 30:10). These were public sin-offerings for the whole people paid for out of the Temple treasury.
But the Law also required private atonement offerings for sin (Leviticus 5) to be offered by those who had committed a trespass.

But the point is that these burnt-offerings did in fact make restitution for sin and reconcile the offerer with God.

Now to be sure, the efficacy of that atonement and the reconciliation it afforded were limited compared to what is provided in the New Covenant, but that in no way means the Old did not provide atonement and reconciliation, it was just superficial (sanctified only to the point of purifying the flesh, leaving the heart untouched as the blood of bulls and goats was incapable of cleansing the heart, only the blood of Jesus can do that), and it was temporary (ergo, the sacrifices had to be offered anew every day, day after day, and on every occasion of trespass or defilement, hence it’s temporary nature compared to the blood of Jesus which provides perpetual cleansing because Jesus is an ever-living sacrifice).

In point of fact, when the people came to the Temple to offer up their sacrifices and offerings, the sin-offering had to proceed all others. After one’s sins had been atoned and their relationship restored with God through a sin-offering, only then could they offer up their peace- and thank-offerings.
And example of this was when Mary went up to the temple to present Jesus on the 40th day after his birth. She was required to first offer a lamb or two turtledoves for a sin-offering to cleanse her from her childbirth, and only after that sin-offering was completed and her relationship with God had been restored could she then present Jesus and offer the priest the redemption money for a first-born son.

So yes, the Law did in fact offer reconciliation with God, that was the whole point of all those sacrifices, to provide restitution for sin and repair the relationship with God that had been broken through sin and defilement.

Being justified is something else entirely. The Hebrew word tsadaq, which is translated justify, means “to vindicate, to make righteous, to show or prove to be right,” and that is only achieved through faith, not through the blood of the covenants. Even under the New Covenant one must have faith to be justified, simply going through the motions of baptism and communion does not justify us, those are outward confessions of our faith. But it is our daily walk trusting in the blood of Jesus that justifies us, and nothing else.

So yes, the Law did in fact provide a means of atonement and reconciliation for God’s Old Covenant people, so in that context let me repeat my comment which prompted this line of discussion:

“But the Law as a means of being reconciled with God has passed away. Passed away in the sense that all those things which the Law provided to make it possible to keep the Law have ceased to exist. That’s what I mean, and that’s what Paul meant when he said, “that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

But to bring this back to the original point I’ve been making, the events of 66 – 73 A.D. was the ending and removing of the Old Law Covenant as Paul explains in Hebrews 12 where he contrasts the two kingdoms of God, the first earthly (established at Mt. Sinai) and the second heavenly (established at Mt. Calvary), and how in the last days of the Old Covenant age God shook heaven and earth so that the earthly kingdom might be removed and the heavenly kingdom might remain, which is the kingdom the New Covenant people (Jew and Gentile) have received, which can never be shaken or moved but is eternal.

And that concept about the old being ‘removed’ is a common concept in the Bible, that’s what the 2nd goat offered on the Day of Atonement was called, “la Azazel” which means “for removing.” (Leviticus 16:8-10) But more on that another time perhaps?

Wormwood said:
On a side note, I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews (Hebrews 2:3). Paul was an Apostle, and the author of Hebrews seems to be someone who was converted by the message the Apostles preached.
Oh, but I beg to differ! The author of Hebrews was a brilliant legal scholar of Mosaic Law and also a brilliant theologian of Christian doctrine. There is no man on earth who has ever had such a deep and thorough knowledge of both the Old and New Covenants as Paul, a Pharisee and an Apostle. This was definitely his work, and his finest work in my opinion!

Wormwood said:
Yes, but the Jews were not the only people persecuting the Christians.
Go back and read Acts 17:1-9 again and the account of Paul and Silas’ missionary work in Thessalonica. They stayed there approximately 6 months and saw many converts to Christ, some Jews but a great many Gentiles who had been “God-fearers,” Gentiles who had converted to Judaism. But the unbelieving Jews became “envious,” as the Scripture says, and gathered a mob of thugs and marched to the home of Jason, a Christian in whose home Paul and Silas had been staying. They didn’t find the preachers but they drug Jason and other Christians to the town square and brought them before the local magistrate and accused them of claiming there was another king, Jesus, which was contrary to Roman law and the same thing the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had accused Jesus of. But the Christians were let go after giving security (money or property used as a bond). But the hostility stirred up by these unbelieving Jews was so great that Paul and Silas had to escape Thessalonica by night.

So yes, according to the record of the Acts, the persecution of the Christians at Thessalonica was by unbelieving Jews who were envious of the success of the Gospel among what had formerly been members and consequently financial supporters of their synagogues.

The only two instances of persecution of the early missionaries arising from gentiles was in Philippi and again in Ephesus when the preaching of the Gospel resulted in a threat to the purse of those who profited from paganism, masters who lost revenue when the young girl possessed by a spirit of divination was delivered in Philippi, and in Ephesus when the silversmiths who made images of Artemis suffered a loss of profits.

Beyond those two isolated incidents, the record shows that the early persecution of Christians, not just in Judaea, but everywhere the missionaries went, was by unbelieving Jews.

And after what happened in Thessalonica and Paul and Silas having to escape out of the city by night, is it any wonder that Paul wrote such a ringing condemnation against those same unbelieving Jews who sought to have him and Silas arrested on charges of treason which was a capital offense and punishable by death?

Wormwood said:
Why would Paul warn the Thessalonians about a rebel in Jerusalem when they live halfway across the known world? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Your tendency to overstate is creeping in again. Thessalonica was a little more than halfway between Judaea and Rome. But even more to the point, the Jewish revolt was not exactly the small, localized war you are implying it was. Jews throughout the Roman Empire came under persecution because of the war. It was the husbands and brothers and sons of the local populations who were off fighting the war in the east and being killed by the Jewish Zealots and the local people took out their anger against the local Jewish population. Jewish businesses and homes were looted and burned, Jewish men and women and even children were killed by angry mobs, and many more were driven from their homes where, in some cases, they had lived for several generations. So if you are laboring under the misguided impression that this was some small local battle that had no affect on the rest of the Jews throughout the Roman Empire you are very much mistaken. Even after the wars Jewish descendants of the Davidic line were hunted down and killed throughout the Roman Empire to prevent any further messianic uprising.

So this certainly had very serious ramifications for both the Christians and the Jews throughout the Empire, not just those in Judaea and Galilee.


Wormwood said:
I think you are really trying to smear over the second part of that verse. Revealed from heaven is the same thing. The things of heaven are often apocalupso because the angels and things of the spirit are not so much a far off destination as they are an invisible and present reality. The second coming is often referred to as an apocalypse because it is when Jesus is revealed to the world in his glory.
I think “smear” is insulting.

So according to you, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” has not yet been given to the world? What is the last book of the Bible called again?

“Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. To God only wise be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)

It’s not that I “smear” the meaning of Jesus’ second coming, God forbid!, it’s that I understand and give far more weight to the meaning of his first coming and what he has already accomplished, much of which is denied by the doctrines of pre-millennialism, many even denying the atonement of sin by the blood of Jesus as a present reality, which strikes far deeper into the heart and soul of the Gospel than arguments about the timing of the rapture!



Wormwood said:
I am sure you are well aware that apocalyptic literature was common in this era. There were many books with apocalyptic visions and symbols that spoke of the end of the world. When these audiences read apocalyptic literature, they generally understood it as end of the world/final judgment type of messages. Consider Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of such literature. To suggest that the apocalyptic literature in the Bible (although John the Baptist isn't using apocalyptic language so much as he is simply using a metaphor) would be understood to refer to a historical war is not really accurate. I'd encourage you to read some other apocalyptic works such as The Apocalypse of Moses and the Book of Enoch.
That’s absolutely not true. First century Jewish expectation very definitely believed in a global war which would attend the establishing of the messianic kingdom era, which would last for 1000 years, and then the end of the world would come. So perhaps you would do better to put away the encyclopedias (which is just the opinion of some modern author who wrote the article) and base your views on Scripture. And as for the extra-canonical works you cite, I have read them, they were the primary source of the whole millennialism concept that so misled the Jewish people about the Messiah and his kingdom that they rejected Jesus and the kingdom of heaven which is what the Scriptures foretold all along.

Wormwood said:
Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. We have looked at some of the most classic texts that pretty much every major scholar in history has claimed is referring to the 2nd Coming
Oh come now Wormwood, that’s not true at all! Christians have argued and debated these things from the very beginning. At times throughout history one view would dominate, and then the pendulum would swing and another view would dominate. Each generation has to measure and weigh and decide which way we will go, and each individual has to decide which way seems right. Even Peter confessed that “these things” which Paul wrote about in his epistles were “hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Wormwood said:
and you have said they are all a reference to 70AD. Can you share with me a text you believe actually is referring to the 2nd coming?
Certainly: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring back with him.” 1 Thessalonians 4:14

The difference between the “revelation” of Jesus Christ and the “coming” of Jesus Christ is that he was revealed from heaven with his holy angels.

But when he comes again from heaven he will come “with them which sleep in Jesus,” (all those who have physically died and their souls have gone to be with the Lord), he will bring them with him when he returns, their dead bodies will rise up from their graves first and their souls will once more inhabit their bodies, resurrected, glorified bodies, and then those of us who are alive and remain will be caught up with them to greet the King on his triumphant entry to claim that which his blood has purchased.

All these things speak of the 2nd coming, along with the general resurrection of all men, the lost resurrected to damnation in the lake of fire, the redeemed resurrected to eternal life. The new heavens and new earth, a world where there is no more sin, or sickness, or pain, or weeping, or death. A world where our God and Savior will dwell with us in person, and we will see him face to face, a world where we no longer depend on earthly bread and water to sustain our bodies, but the Holy Spirit which is in us will be our source of life and will sustain us body and soul forever and ever.

Wormwood said:
Again, this is another leap. I DID NOT say that there are no texts in the Bible referring to 70AD (yes, the Luke passage is about 70AD). I said there are no texts that say 70AD was the transition point between the OT and NT (none of the texts you quote say that). I think the NT authors would scream at such an idea as it completely ignores the teaching of the Gospels, especially Matthew … This context has nothing to do with 70AD and everything to do with enduring persecution for the sake of inheriting the "heavenly Jerusalem" not avoiding the destruction of earthly Jerusalem
Gee Wormwood, you cite Hebrews 12 and then ignore the conclusion of what Paul taught about the Old versus the New? Paul concludes by stating that God was going to “shake the heavens and the earth” to “remove” the old earthly so that the new heavenly, which cannot be shaken, may remain. Now that happened in 70 A.D. You don’t expect Paul to have stated “this will happen in 70 A.D.” do you? Because if that is the kind of evidence you require you will never be satisfied. Paul didn’t know when the old earthly things would be removed, but he knew they would be, and he knew what it would mean, that God would take away the first that he might establish the second.

The Apostles and their disciples were given 40 years to preach the Gospel “to the Jews first,” not just the Jews living in Judaea and Galilee, but everywhere Jews were dispersed throughout the Roman Empire, and beyond. God allowed the Old Covenant to remain in effect and withheld His judgment until that first generation had been given an opportunity to hear the Gospel and be saved, or reject the Gospel and prove themselves enemies of God and of His Christ. This is why the 144,000 Jews who stand before the throne of God are called “the firstfruits,” because they were the firstfruits of the harvest of the Gospel, gathered in from among that first generation, the good seed, gathered into the garner first, and after the harvest of God’s vineyard, after the fruits were gathered in, after the good seed was safely in God’s storehouse, then the tares and the chaff was gathered up and destroyed.

So now you know what was restraining the Zealot’s firey thirst for war and blood. It was another 15 years after Paul wrote this letter before the Lord removed his hand from the nation and the evil boiled over spreading blood and fire through the land, changing forever what had once been a green and fruitful land into a dry, barren wasteland, pillars of smoke rising where once had stood towns and villages, burned over stubble where once had stretched verdant fields and vineyards, removing forever the shadow of God's kingdom so that the substance, which can never be moved, might remain alone.

So it was written, so it was done. (Deuteronomy 28)

In Christ,
Pilgrimer


I’m relying on the actual writings of the early church, which I learned to do very early on in my walk with Christ.

The first to mention this subject of the 6000 years of world history was Barnabas. But students who have never actually read his epistle mistake what he wrote as some kind of support for pre-millennialism when in fact it’s not.

Here’s what Barnabas actually wrote;

“Observe, children, what “he finished in six days” means. It means this: that in six thousand years the Lord will bring everything to an end, for with him a day signifies a thousand years. And he himself bears me witness when he says, ‘Behold, the day of the Lord will be as a thousand years.’ Therefore, children, in six days – that is, in six thousand years, everything will be brought to an end. ‘And he rested the seventh day.’ This means: when his Son comes, he will destroy the time of the lawless one and will judge the ungodly and will change the sun and the moon and the stars, and then he will truly rest on the seventh day.”

Notice that Barbanas was not teaching a thousand years between the 2nd coming of Jesus and the end of the world, he was teaching the end of the world at the 2nd coming of Jesus, 6000 years after the creation.

At another place Barnabas writes:

“Also, he submitted in order that he might redeem the promise to the fathers and – while preparing the new people for himself – prove, while he was still on earth, that after he has brought about the resurrection he will execute judgment.”

He did not teach that the judgment would occur a thousand years after the resurrection.

He also interpreted “the land” promises allegorically:

“Therefore we are the ones whom he brought into the good land.”

And he certainly didn’t view Jesus’ kingdom as an earthly land but viewed it as a spiritual kingdom:

“And then there is the matter of the wool on the [cross]: this signifies that the kingdom of Jesus is on the [cross], and that those who hope in him will live forever.”

But further, he understood the “last days” to be a reference to the last days of the Old Covenant age:

“Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were destined to be handed over. For the Scripture says: ‘And it will happen in the last days that the Lord will hand over the sheep of the pasture and the sheepfold and their watchtower to destruction.’ And it happened just as the Lord said.”

And Barnabas also taught that the temple of God was spiritual and was already being built but notice something else he says;

“But let us inquire whether there is in fact a temple of God. There is – where he himself says he is building and completing it! For it is written: ‘And it will come to pass that when the week comes to an end God’s temple will be built gloriously in the name of the Lord.”

This is a reference to the weeks of Daniel and he applied the week coming to an end as the time when God began to build the spiritual temple, certainly a past event, not future.

So don’t be so quick to accept what some one tells you the early church believed. You have access to these same writings and really should find out for yourself before you pass judgment, on doctrines … or on your fellow believers.

Yes, Barnabas believed that the creation would last 6000 years and then the work would be finished and the world would come to an end, Jesus would return, resurrect and judge the dead, and there would be a new heavens and earth. That is actually more in line with the amillennial view. The same was the case with others of the early church who also believed the creation would last 6000 years and then the world would come to an end at the Lord's return.

Barnabas lived, at the earliest, in the year 3832 of the Hebrew calendar and believed the world would last 6000 years. Sunset of September 4 was the beginning of the year 5774 since the creation of the world, by Jewish reckoning, which means, if you’re really so all-fired sure and certain about this 6000 years thing, that Jesus will return in, oh, about another 226 years! But that math doesn’t work out with all the modern-day prophecy guru’s who are making a fortune selling all their books and cd’s and seats at their seminars, so don’t take the whole “6000 years” thingey too literally!

Jeesh~


In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pilgrimer said:
Obviously, I’m working under some tight time constraints as well so take all the time you like.I’m afraid you are confusing justification with reconciliation.
Yes, I know the words and their meanings. Im not confusing the two I assure you. However, we are reconciled because we have been justified. It would help me if you just stuck with the point. I assure you I am very familiar with the words, Jewish history and OT practices. Moreover, you gave a 5 page word study and history lesson but never addressed the two verses I cited. If you want to rebut a point I made, address the specifically if possible because otherwise this will spin out of control. To address everything you are branching off on would require me to write a book every post. My comment was originally addressed at your statement about "God's final judgment on the law." I find it to be nonsensical.

So you are saying that the law did provide reconciliation but not justification? How can a person be ultimately reconciled to God if they are still under sin (Rom. 3:20)? Look, Paul is very clear that it has always been about faith (which in the OT implied legal obedience). God never judged his law nor was the law capable of providing ultimate reconciliation because someone cannot be reconciled without the absolution of sin. This is one of the points made in the NT that God left previous sins unpunished because of his future purpose in Christ. Thus, reconciliation in the OT was always based on Christ's future work and was not attainable by the sacrifices in themselves.

Pilgrimer said:
Your tendency to overstate is creeping in again. Thessalonica was a little more than halfway between Judaea and Rome. But even more to the point, the Jewish revolt was not exactly the small, localized war you are implying it was.
Wow, give a person an inch. This is not an overstatement. Thessalonica was about half of the known world away from Jerusalem. It was around 1000+ miles which would have taken a man in his prime MONTHS to travel. Look, I am fine with having this discussion, but I would appreciate a less patronizing tone. I am more than willing to admit when I have misspoke. However, you are acting as if your view is mainstream and so obvious that I have to be blind to miss it. In reality, this is a view held by no serious scholar that I am aware of. If anyone is overstating here, it would be the one who is attempting to validate a very obscure interpretation of 2 Thess 2. Im fine with your views if you want to hold them, but lets not build your case as if only I knew NT geography, did more word studies or had better contextual awareness that I would reach your conclusions. I have to go, will try to respond more later.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
It would help me if you just stuck with the point. I assure you I am very familiar with the words, Jewish history and OT practices. Moreover, you gave a 5 page word study and history lesson but never addressed the two verses I cited.
I don’t think that’s fair, my brother. I have responded, very specifically, to what you have said. You are the one who goes off into other directions. I made a very specific comment that “the Law as a means of reconciliation has passed away.”

You apparently took exception to the idea that the Law provided reconciliation but then brought up justification, which I had said nothing about.

So just to be clear that I’m not trying to dodge your specific points, I’ll again answer your question, “Were people ever reconciled by Law?”

Yes, they were, and here’s three verses that demonstrate it:

“And Moses took the blood (of the bullock), and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it.” (Leviticus 8:15)

“And the priests killed [the he goats], and they made reconciliation with their blood upon the altar, to make an atonement for all Israel.” 2 Chronicles 29:24

“And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord God. And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the Sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.”

So in my own defense, I think my statement was correct, the Law as a means of reconciliation with God has passed away because there is no more sacrifice, no altar, and no priests to offer them according to the Law. And it was God who “removed” those things because they had all been fulfilled by the sacrifice of Jesus.

It was you who took this off in a different direction and brought up justification, which is different from reconciliation, and which I never mentioned.


Wormwood said:
If you want to rebut a point I made, address the specifically if possible because otherwise this will spin out of control. To address everything you are branching off on would require me to write a book every post. My comment was originally addressed at your statement about "God's final judgment on the law." I find it to be nonsensical.
Well, I would too, if that was what I said. But it’s not. I didn’t say anything about “God’s final judgment on the law. God didn’t pass judgment on His Law. I have consistently spoken about God’s final judgment of the Law against the nation of Israel, if they violated the commandments and broke covenant with God, which they did, time and again throughout their history. And time and again God judged them, according to the judgment of (what was recorded in) the Law. But the judgment of Israel that was brought to pass in the last 7 years of the Jewish state and the Levitical economy was the last and final time God would ever judge Israel by the Law. From that time and until the final judgment on the last day of this old world, Israel, along with every other nation, will be judged by whether or not they believe that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away their sins.

Wormwood said:
So you are saying that the law did provide reconciliation but not justification? How can a person be ultimately reconciled to God if they are still under sin (Rom. 3:20)?
Because that was the point of all those bloody sacrifices, they provided a “covering” (the root meaning of the word kaphar = atonement) for sin. It was a temporary covering, ergo the manifold sin-offerings had to be repeated, day after day, year after year.

Wormwood said:
Look, Paul is very clear that it has always been about faith
Paul is very clear that justification is about faith, but Paul is also very clear that without the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ there is no absolution of sin. Sin absolutely must be atoned for. Under the Old Covenant atonement was provided by the blood of bulls and goats, which was a shadow and type of the atonement of the New Covenant, the body and blood of Jesus.

And I would go a step further and state that while we are justified by faith, it’s not simply faith that God is, or that even that Jesus is God’s Son, but we are justified by faith in the atoning power of the blood of Jesus for remission of sin. That’s the bedrock and cornerstone of our faith, Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Wormwood said:
Wow, give a person an inch. This is not an overstatement. Thessalonica was about half of the known world away from Jerusalem. It was around 1000+ miles which would have taken a man in his prime MONTHS to travel.
The point is I stated that in Paul’s letter to the Christians at Thessalonica he was clearly speaking to Christians who were enduring persecution and tribulation, and he was telling them that the Lord would recompense tribulation on those who were troubling them when he would be revealed from heaven in flaming fire taking vengeance on his enemies. You tried to imply this wasn’t about unbelieving Jews persecuting the christians, but that is precisely who Paul was speaking of, and you further tried to argue that this was too far away from Judaea to have any consequences for the local Jews, but that’s not true either.

Wormwood said:
Look, I am fine with having this discussion, but I would appreciate a less patronizing tone.
For that I am genuinely sorry. I do not intend to come across as patronizing, I am in all good conscience trying to be very precise and thorough. My apologies if my manner has in any way detracted from the substance of my posts.

Wormwood said:
However, you are acting as if your view is mainstream and so obvious that I have to be blind to miss it.
Oh, I am well aware that the pre-millennial view is the dominate view at present, at least among western evangelicals. But to suggest that it is the only view held by the church or by every major scholar in the world since the beginning of the faith is … to use one of your own words … nonsensical. But I must admit, to me these things are so very obvious that I am convinced if others were made aware of them, they would see these things in a new light as well.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ugh,
I really hate it when discussions spin into trying to pin someone down on what they did say or didn't say. However, I feel we cannot move forward until this has been clarified. Let me try to make it a little simpler here and quote you directly and as clearly as I can respond to what I have been trying to object to in your comment.

It was the final judgment of the Law.

You know the Old Testament, and you know that it testifies that time and again Israel revolted from God and broke the Law they had covenanted with Him to keep. And time and again God judged and punished them to bring them back to Himself. But to no avail, after a time they would revolt once more, provoking God to say: “Why should ye be stricken any more? Ye will revolt more and more.” (Isaiah 1:5)

So there had been times in history that God had judged the Jewish nation, and even times when He had brought invaders to destroy the nation and take the people into captivity.

So the judgment and destruction of the Jewish state in 66-73 A.D. was not the only judgment of the Law against those under the Law, but it was the final judgment of the Law against those under the Law. Final because that judgment and destruction fulfilled the remaining jots and tittles of the Law and then the Old Covenant passed away.
These are the comments that began all this talk on the role of the law. It seems very clear to me in the above quote that you are indicating that the law has been absolved in the sense that it is no longer used for judgment. So whether it is a judgment "of" Law or a judgment "on" Law, the point I am making about your quote is basically the same. You specifically said here that the 70AD event was the "final judgment of the Law against those under the Law." Thus, the implication here is the law is no longer in effect...even for those who are not under grace! This is simply not true. Jesus made it very plain that the law would never pass away. So how is this anything but the passing away of the law if it is essentially impotent?

However, my point was that it has always been about faith, even under the Old Covenant system. This is Paul's entire point in Romans 4 as he links the New Covenant to the Old. He leads into the discussion of Romans 4 by this statement in Romans 3:31:
“Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” (Romans 3:31, NIV84)
The Law has not been nullified by faith in Jesus Christ. Rather, the law is upheld. Thus, the potency of the law and the "judgment" of the law has not passed away. Rather, in Christ we uphold the law and the judgment of the law has no power over us because our righteousness is complete in Christ. The blessing and promises of God have always been attained through faith, even under the OT system.

“Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.” (Romans 4:16, NIV84)
Man's efforts to find reconciliation with God is not limited to the Temple sacrificial system. Most of what Paul cites when he speaks of "works of Law" are not even related to sacrifice. Rather, his primary issue was that of circumcision and lineage. So to say that the judgment of the law has dissipated after the destruction of the Temple is to limit the Jewish concept of law. Even when in exile the Jewish people were under law even though there was no Temple. However, Paul's beef is that adherence to the law was always about faith in God and that faith is now to be expressed in Jesus Christ. To continue in law after the revelation of Jesus Christ is to ignore the righteousness of God that is provided in Christ and to no longer operate in faith. Again, it has always been about faith. That was my point and I think it is substantiated by the NT.

Paul concludes by stating that God was going to “shake the heavens and the earth” to “remove” the old earthly so that the new heavenly, which cannot be shaken, may remain. Now that happened in 70 A.D. You don’t expect Paul to have stated “this will happen in 70 A.D.” do you? Because if that is the kind of evidence you require you will never be satisfied.
Well, there is me and pretty much every scholar who has ever written on those texts... I have never read a scholar who has viewed that text as dealing with 70AD. But don't take my word for it...
[SIZE=medium]In his Revelation, John “saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (21:1; cf. v. 27 here which refers to a “removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken remains”). This would seem, then, to be yet another of our writer’s references to the final consummation—“the Day” (10:25) when Jesus “will appear a second time” (9:27).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]James Girdwood and Peter Verkruyse, Hebrews, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), Heb 12:27.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]The thought of vv. 27–29 is compressed and combines various motifs, including (1) the traditional contrast between heaven and earth, which has been expressed in vv. 18–24 in untraditional terms (since in Jewish tradition Sinai could scarcely form part of a lower, earthly reality); (2) the fullest expression of the author’s eschatology; and (3) his pastoral concern, in which encouragement and warning alternate.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Under this pressure, the meaning given to Hg. 2:6 becomes very different from that which the words quoted had in their OT context. There the prophet is primarily concerned with the “shaking” of foreign nations as a prelude to the establishment in Jerusalem of a restored temple, richer than the one which it replaced (cf. Hg. 2:9). The author of Hebrews has already amply shown that he considers the earthly cultus and its sacrifices to be at best a type of the worship of heaven and the sacrifice of Christ. Here he speaks more emphatically than ever about the end of the earthly cultus, though that end still lies in the future. In reading this passage, two dangers are to be avoided: (1) that of understating the force of the final catastrophe; and (2) of isolating one element from others in the author’s thought, especially his cosmology from his soteriology.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1993), 687.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]What kind of a commentary is this? In fact, the reader needs a commentary on the author’s explanation before he is able to understand the intent. First, the writer comments on the entire quotation from Haggai 2:6, not just the expression once more. Next, in the original Greek he reminds the reader that he used the term removing earlier (7:12), where it is translated as “change.” “For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.” An example, then, of temporary things is the Levitical priesthood that came to an end when it was replaced by the eternal priesthood of Christ. Also, the prophet Isaiah foresees the end of this present world when he transmits what the Sovereign Lord says: “Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind” (65:17; also see 66:22). And last, the only things that survive this world are those that are unshakable and eternal. The kingdom of Jesus Christ cannot be shaken.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, vol. 15, Exposition of Hebrews, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 399.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]A quote from Haggai 2:6 now promises that God will shake not only the earth but also the heavens. This refers to the final judgment in connection with the concluding events of the age (see 2 Thess. 1:7–10).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]This shaking of the earth in judgment involves the destruction of created things. This judgment will reveal the greater, spiritual realities which cannot be shaken or removed. Christian believers share in a kingdom which no amount of final judgment can destroy. The security of our position in Christ gives us an incentive to endure in faithfulness.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Thomas D. Lea, vol. 10, Hebrews, James, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 224.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
I could quote 10 other scholars on this text but I doubt it would make any difference. Again, I have no problem with your views. But to suggest they are the only reasonable view for someone who knows the Scriptures and context is simply not true.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
You specifically said here that the 70AD event was the "final judgment of the Law against those under the Law." Thus, the implication here is the law is no longer in effect...even for those who are not under grace!
Precisely! The Law was not simply some moral code handed down from heaven to guide men in how to live. Certainly the Law is moral and shows us what sin is, but the Law was given to Israel as a covenant between Israel and God. That covenant has been fulfilled and has passed away. It is no longer in effect. Which is why God removed everything that made it possible to keep the law.

Wormwood said:
Jesus made it very plain that the law would never pass away.
Read that again, my brother. Jesus did not say the Law would never pass away. He said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Not one jot or tittle could pass from the Law until everything in the Law had been fulfilled. That means that all those jots and tittles about the sacrifices and offerings, all the jots and tittles about the High Priest sprinkling the blood of atonement, all the jots and tittles about the Passover, all those jots and tittles, although they had been fulfilled, did not “pass from the law,” until all the law had been fulfilled. Which is why the sacrifices and offerings continued right on even after Jesus was crucified, until the last jots and tittles had been fulfilled in the judgment and desolation of the city and the sanctuary, then it all passed away: “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” Luke 21:22

So Jesus did not say the Law would never pass away. He said not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all the law had been fulfilled. That’s why the Law continued to be observed just as it had been for generations even after Jesus’ had fulfilled so much of it. The last week of years saw the last jots and tittles of the Law,the curse of the Law, fulfilled, and then the Law, all the law passed away.

Wormwood said:
The Law has not been nullified by faith in Jesus Christ. Rather, the law is upheld.
Thus, the potency of the law and the "judgment" of the law has not passed away.
Of course faith in jesus Christ doesn’t nullify the law, it upholds the law because that faith is based on Jesus’ fulfillment of the law, it’s requirements for obedience unto righteousness, and it’s requirement for expiation of sin, all of which Jesus fulfilled. So when we put our faith in Jesus, we are putting our faith in his perfect obedience to the Law and his sinless sacrifice according to the Law. That doesn’t nullify the Law, it upholds the Law and establishes it, forever.

But for those whose sins are not atoned by Jesus, the final judgment on their souls will not be whether or not they kept covenant with God according to the covenant he made with Israel at Sinai. They will be judged on one and one thing only ... whether or not their names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pilgrimer,

Thanks for your response. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think the NT is very clear that the Law did not pass with the coming of the new covenant or would pass at the destruction of the temple. Consider these words from James,

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!” (James 2:8–13, NIV84)
According to your understanding of the law, these verses no longer apply. In fact, it would seem weird that they would even apply to Christians if the point of the New Covenant was ultimately to destroy the law.

Also, I agree that Jesus fulfilled the law. But fulfilling and eliminating are two very different things. Lets say I am applying for a job and the requirements are for the worker to be able to lift 50 pounds and type 100 words per minute. I am able to do both so I get the job. I fulfilled the requirements for the job. But do those requirements cease after I fulfilled them? No. If I get to a place where I can only lift 10 pounds and type 10 words per minute, then I no longer fulfill the requirements. The requirements remain and I am likely out of a job. Fortunately for us, Jesus sacrifice is "once for all." Thus, by faith we find an everlasting righteousness by his sacrifice. But fulfilling of requirements does not mean eliminating of the law or God's expectations of what constitutes holiness. Consider the following verse:

“Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:10, NIV84)
Love "fulfills" the law. Those who love meet all the requirements of the laws intent. However, because I love does not mean those requirements are destroyed for the person who does not love. My act of love does not destroy the requirements for those who do not love. In my opinion, Jesus' life, death and resurrection that fulfills the law does not destroy the requirements of the law for those who do not embrace his work on their behalf.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Pilgrimer,

Thanks for your response. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think the NT is very clear that the Law did not pass with the coming of the new covenant or would pass at the destruction of the temple …


According to your understanding of the law, these verses no longer apply. In fact, it would seem weird that they would even apply to Christians if the point of the New Covenant was ultimately to destroy the law …
If by “agree to disagree” you mean to discontinue our discussion, then I will sadly agree. But since this must be my closing comments, I ask that you please be patient and give me a few moments to both respond to your comments but also to explain the reason that I was persuaded by Scripture from a pre-millennial to an amillennial view, which is what prompted our discussion in the first place.

On the law, I have on several occasions explained that I am not advocating that the Law was “destroyed” or that it was “eliminated.” I think I have made that clear so I do not understand why you would continue to imply I have.

The point that I have made, repeatedly, is that the Law as a means of reconciliation and worship has passed away. No one can serve God, obey God, worship God, please God, by following the commandments of Moses. And nothing has made that more obvious than the fact that God Himself has “removed” those things which were necessary for the Law’s observance. He didn’t “destroy” or “eliminate” the Law, He destroyed and eliminated those things which are necessary to keep or observe the Law, those things which Paul said had waxed old and were “ready to vanish away.”

James and Paul were not advocating that Christians must obey the Law of Moses or that we would be judged by the Law of Moses. They both speak of “the law of faith” (Romans 3:27); “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2);“the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus” which “has made us free from the law of [Moses],” (Romans 8:2). James also calls it the “royal law” (2:8) and “the law of liberty” (2:12) and “the perfect law of liberty” (1:25), this latter being what James said New Covenant believers will be judged by.

The “law of love”, if I might use that phrase, which is what the Gospel calls us to, is “foreshadowed” in the 10 Commandments, and when we love others we are fulfilling the spirit of those Commandments, not because we are “obeying” the commandments, but because those commandments show us what genuine, godly love looks like. As James pointed out, “show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” The Law of Moses doesn’t make men righteous, it shows us what a righteous man looks like. Jesus makes us righteous.

It’s no different than when we partake of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, we are “fulfilling the Law” contained in the sacrificial ordinances, Passover for example. But fulfilling the law does not mean we are following the law and on the 14th of the new moon of the spring taking a lamb up to Jerusalem and slaying and roasting and eating it! And yet, we are fulfilling every jot and tittle of the manifold commandments to keep and observe the Passover, and not only the Passover, but every sacrificial ordinance of the Law.

So I don’t agree with your conclusions that either Paul or James were advocating obedience to the Law of Moses or that we will be judged by the Law of Moses. They were advocating that genuine love for others fulfills the Law of Moses, and we will be judged by the same measure of love and mercy we show.

Wormwood said:
Also, I agree that Jesus fulfilled the law …
But could it be that you and I mean something different when we say Jesus fulfilled the Law?

I assume we can agree that Jesus fulfilled all that the Law of Moses required in terms of obedience to the commandments. Jesus was perfect. Sinless. Never once ever violated a single commandment. So in that respect, of obedience to the Law, Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle through his perfect, sinless life. Agreed?

But that’s not all. Jesus also fulfilled all that the Law of Moses required in terms of making atonement for sin. He was both a perfect sacrifice, a lamb without spot or blemish, and he also a perfect high priest, one who stands in the presence of God perpetually offering his own body an ever-living sacrifice. So Jesus also fulfilled the Law of Moses in respect to all its Levitical requirements for atonement for sin. Agreed?

But I don’t believe that’s all. Jesus also fulfilled all the blessings of the law upon those who have been deemed righteous by faith in Christ. And this is where the hyper-literalists (such as Rabbinic Jews) stumble. Because when they read Deuteronomy 11:13-15, 28:1-14, 30:1-10 and other places where it speaks of the blessedness of those who are faithful to obey God in all his commandments and statutes and ordinances, their eyes are so blinded by the glory of the earthly blessings, that they cannot see beyond them to the heavenly things of which the earthly are but dim shadows and imperfect representations. So at this point they fall short of saving faith and refuse to enter into the promises of God (Hebrews 3:7-4:11), waiting for and preferring an earthly reward. Esau selling his birth right for a mess of pottage was the literal, historical event that God engineered as an allegory for those who blindly adhere to “the letter” and reject the heavenly kingdom and its spiritual blessings for an earthly reward. They, like Israel of old, perished in the wilderness of a dry and thirsty land (this world) and never entered into the promised land (the heavenly country), another of the many literal, historical events God engineered to teach some very profound lessons.

But for those who are not so squeamish (and are “able to bear it”) about the Bible actually using earthly things and people and places and events to teach lessons, Jesus’ fulfillment doesn’t stop with his fulfillment of the law’s requirements for obedience. Or with his fulfillment of the law’s requirements for atonement for sin. Or even with his fulfillment of the Law’s promises of blessings for those who are counted righteous through faith. What about all those jots and tittles in the curse of the law (Deuteronomy 11:16-17, 28:15-68, 30:15-18, 31:28-32:43, and others) against those who were not counted righteous, who were in fact guilty of the law (as all were) and refused the atonement for sin provided in the New Covenant?

If Jesus has not fulfilled the curse of the law then Jesus has not “fulfilled the law.” There’s still a part of the Law left unfulfilled. And that’s where I believe the pre-millennialist stumbles. They do not understand that the final 7-year period of judgment and wrath which destroyed the Jewish state and brought the Old Covenant form of worship to an end, was in fact the final jots and tittles of the Law that Jesus came to fulfill, all of which he said must be fulfilled, before the Old Covenant could pass away.

Now as for the details of how the events of that 7-year period fulfilled the curse of the Law, one could write a book … oh wait, someone did, it’s called “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” and it chronicles the coming of Jesus Christ into the world and his fulfillment of everything the law and the prophets had foretold, and where the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is… “salvation through faith in Christ according to the mercy of God,” the message of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is “the wrath and judgment of Christ according to the justice of God.” And you know this to be true, the Law and the Prophets, the coming of Jesus Christ, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, indeed, the very Cross of Jesus Christ which is what the Bible is all about, is about both … mercy and justice. Jesus came to fulfill “all things which were written” and that included not only the mercy promised in the law, but also the judgment.

1c70af30-5294-4a6f-8198-d131eadb4942_zps15c3539a.jpg


So when I say that Jesus Christ has fulfilled the law of Moses, I’m not just talking about his obedience to it’s commandments and the Levitical requirements for atonement of sin. That is certainly true and is the very foundation of our faith, but that wasn’t in and of itself the goal. The goal was that through his “obedience unto death” all the blessings of God promised in the law have come upon all those who put their faith in him, both the natural heirs as well as the adopted heirs, while all the curses contained in the law have come upon those under the Law who rejected that provision of mercy.

Thus all the law has been fulfilled, and once that covenant which was based on obedience to the law, once it was fulfilled in toti, the Old Covenant agreement between God and Israel passed away, and the New Covenant alone remains as the only means of reconciliation, fellowship, worship, and obedience to the God of the Bible.

There is so much more I would love to say, but if we must agree to disagree, please be sure you understand just what it is you are disagreeing with. I have never said the Law was destroyed, I have studied all the jots and tittles of the Mosaic Law for most of my life, and much of what I understand of how God has wrought salvation through Christ and what that means for believers I have learned through the Law. It is the covenant with God that was based on obedience to the Law that has passed away. And it was all those things which made it possible to keep covenant with God according to the Law that have been destroyed. I would think the truth of that would be self-evident.

It has been a joy and blessing to talk all this over with you Wormwood, and I trust I have not offended you too greatly … or bored you too much.

May the blessings of grace and mercy in Christ be yours world without end …

A fellow servant of Jesus Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pilgrimer,

My comment about "agreeing to disagree" was not an effort to end the conversation. I just felt the issue of the fulfillment of Law was a side issue that we got focused on in the midst of a larger discussion and it appeared we were beginning to spin our wheels and restate ourselves. I just didn't want the discussion to turn into a continual rehashing of previous comments. I agree with about 95% of what you said (I would classify myself as an Amillennialist as well). However, I would disagree that 70AD represents the "final judgment of the Law." I don't think "7 year tribulation" has anything to do with 70AD. In fact, Revelation doesn't even mention a "7 year tribulation." It does discuss 1260 days or 3.5 year periods in a couple spots. In my mind it is an error to add those time periods. Revelation is working off of Daniel's prophecy...but I wont go into that now. Maybe we can start a Revelation forum :). John makes it clear that he is a "partner" with the churches in the "tribulation." John, when he wrote, was enduring the tribulation and I think we are still in the tribulation as long as the dragon makes war with those who believe in the testimony of Jesus. More Christians were killed for their faith this past century than the previous 19 combined.

Anyway, like I said, I agree with almost all you said. I think you just put waaaay to much emphasis on 70AD as the focal point of most of Jesus' predictions and God's judgment. If anything, 70AD is but a small taste of the ultimate "day of the Lord" that will encompass the entire world. The reason I said you are suggesting that the law is destroyed is because, according to my understanding of what you are claiming, the law no longer has any power to judge. If the "final judgment of the Law" has taken place and it has been fulfilled to the point that it no longer is used as a measuring stick for those who seek to attain their own righteousness or reject the grace of God in Jesus Christ, then it really is made void. What, in your mind, does the Law actually do if it is fulfilled to the point that it is no longer used for judgment? I think Paul makes it clear that anyone who seeks to attain righteousness outside of Christ are "under Law." If 70AD made it so that no one can be "under Law" then it has, for all practical purposes, been eliminated. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

The point in James is not that Christians must live according to the law. You are right that we follow the "royal law." However, the context of James is very clear in my mind. James is addressing Christians who claim to live by grace but judge each other by standards of the law. Specifically, he addresses the issue of Christians showing "favoritism." How can they be people of the "royal law" who embrace the mercy of God, if they are judging their brothers and sisters based on wealth and appearance? James is telling them to not give lip service to the "royal law" of love and mercy in Christ, but to actually live it. My point is that this verse still speaks to all people (even those who claim to follow Christ) today who look down on others because race, wealth, nationality, etc. They are not living by the Spirit of mercy and are therefore under law and will be judged by the standards they have imposed on others. This did not go away in 70AD. The law is very real today and it will be used as a means of judgment for all those who live by rules and standards rather than mercy and grace.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Pilgrimer,
My comment about "agreeing to disagree" was not an effort to end the conversation. I just felt the issue of the fulfillment of Law was a side issue that we got focused on in the midst of a larger discussion and it appeared we were beginning to spin our wheels and restate ourselves. I just didn't want the discussion to turn into a continual rehashing of previous comments. I agree with about 95% of what you said (I would classify myself as an Amillennialist as well).
I’m glad we can continue our conversation, but let me say that rather than the fulfillment of the Law being a side issue on this thread, it really is the crux of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, so if we are in 95% agreement, perhaps we haven’t been spinning our wheels after all, just pushing aside the sand till we find the rock we can both stand on.

Wormwood said:
However, I would disagree that 70AD represents the "final judgment of the Law." I don't think "7 year tribulation" has anything to do with 70AD. In fact, Revelation doesn't even mention a "7 year tribulation." It does discuss 1260 days or 3.5 year periods in a couple spots. In my mind it is an error to add those time periods. Revelation is working off of Daniel's prophecy...but I wont go into that now. Maybe we can start a Revelation forum :). John makes it clear that he is a "partner" with the churches in the "tribulation." John, when he wrote, was enduring the tribulation and I think we are still in the tribulation as long as the dragon makes war with those who believe in the testimony of Jesus. More Christians were killed for their faith this past century than the previous 19 combined.
Jesus did say to his disciples “in this world you will have tribulation,” so I think as long as this old world continues Christians will experience trials and tribulation. If the world hated Jesus (and after all, they crucified him), then the world will hate us too. But we should “be of good cheer,” as Jesus also said, for he has overcome the world, and through faith we can too. Tribulations, which the enemy means for evil, God can instead use for good and through it can make us stronger, better, more Christlike, until we become mature sons and daughters, or receive the crown of martyrs.

But I think we have to make a distinction between trials and tribulations that Christians face, and that John and those early believers were enduring, and the 7-year period of “great tribulation” that Jesus spoke of as something pertaining to Israel: “then let them which are in Judaea flee … for then shall be great tribulation…” (Matthew 24:16, 21)

Wormwood said:
Anyway, like I said, I agree with almost all you said. I think you just put waaaay to much emphasis on 70AD as the focal point of most of Jesus' predictions and God's judgment.
That’s because the Scriptures put a lot of emphasis on that final 7-year period of Old Covenant history, even Moses did! “Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days...” (Deuteronomy 31:28-29)Moses went on to prophesy in vivid detail the awful things that literally came to pass in the 7-year war.

So the coming of Messiah, in the latter days of the Old Covenant age, was a double-edged sword; for those who had faith to believe the Gospel … the Day of the Lord was a day of light and life and salvation … but for those who rejected the Good News, and stood guilty of having transgressed the Law and broken covenant with God … it was a day of darkness and death and judgment.

The Law had decreed the judgment and destruction of Israel if they violated the commandments and broke covenant with God, and Lord knows the Old Testament records that they did, time and time again. The 7-year war in the days of the coming of Jesus was the fulfillment of what had been decreed in the Law, and elaborated on by the prophets, and announced by Jesus and the Apostles as imminent. So it is in fact the Scriptures which put a lot of emphasis on it.

The only thing a-millennialists and pre-millenialists (at least those who are Gospel-oriented) are truly at odds about … is the timing of it, and that’s because of the way we interpret the jots and tittles. Perhaps next round of posts we can look at a couple of them?

Wormwood said:
The reason I said you are suggesting that the law is destroyed is because, according to my understanding of what you are claiming, the law no longer has any power to judge. If the "final judgment of the Law" has taken place and it has been fulfilled to the point that it no longer is used as a measuring stick for those who seek to attain their own righteousness or reject the grace of God in Jesus Christ, then it really is made void. What, in your mind, does the Law actually do if it is fulfilled to the point that it is no longer used for judgment? I think Paul makes it clear that anyone who seeks to attain righteousness outside of Christ are "under Law." If 70AD made it so that no one can be "under Law" then it has, for all practical purposes, been eliminated. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
But God did not make the Old Mosaic Covenant with the whole world. The Mosaic Law was a covenant between God and Israel, not between God and the world.

But since you asked me what does the Law actually do? I see the Law as a kind blueprint to a beautiful work of art that God spent generations working on. No one could see the work itself, it was covered with a veil. But by studying the Law we could see a blueprint of the work, and see in it some dim shadow of what that work would one day look like.

Well Jesus and his body (the church) is that finished work, and his coming was the “unveiling” of what God had been working on since the creation of the world.

But just like with a building, when we look at Jesus and his church, and the salvation he has wrought and what it means for believers, we see the finished work, the Lamb of God, the Good Shepherd, the Resurrected, Triumphant King, his New Covenant, the New Jerusalem, with its walls and gates, its streets and temple, its River of Life and Trees of Life and Throne of God. But to see all the “details,” the jots and tittles that went into this work and how it was made, we can study the blueprint for it all, the Law of Moses.

The problem is that some people have never seen the finished work, don’t believe the work IS finished, don’t believe that Jesus and the Church is what the blueprint was a blueprint of. They are so in awe of the beauty and perfection and holiness of the blueprint that they refuse to lift up their eyes to take in the finished work that the blueprint was a pattern for, a shadow of, a schoolmaster to bring men to and teach men about. They love the blueprint to death and refuse to come to the one it points to where they can find life.

But that’s the power of the Law, what it testifies and teaches about Jesus, and the blessedness of those who abide in him.

Wormwood said:
If anything, 70AD is but a small taste of the ultimate "day of the Lord" that will encompass the entire world.
I understand, but I think we need to rely a little more on just what the Scripture says the final judgment of “the entire world” will be based on. And I think that’s a lot of the problem, too many students are confusing the final judgment of the nation of Israel under Mosaic Law at the 1st coming of Jesus, and the final judgment of the entire world under the Gospel at the 2nd coming of Jesus.

On the day of final judgment of the entire world, when all that have ever lived are raised up to stand before Christ, the question will not be whether or not men have obeyed the commandments of Moses … but rather, are their names written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, have men believed the Gospel and received the gift of eternal life through faith in the blood of Jesus for remission of sin? THAT will be the final judgment criteria, not whether or not men have obeyed Moses.

“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:15

In Christ
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pilgrimer,

Well, I think one issue here is that we have a tendency to create theological labels for things that were likely not intended as such. Jesus spoke of "great tribulation" or great distress that would come at the destruction of the Temple. We agree on that. However, to make "Great Tribulation" a theological category and fit that term into a specific time and situation wherever it is used is problematic. Jesus speaks of "great tribulation" in Rev. 2:22 which is clearly not speaking about Jerusalem in 70AD as it is addressed to the church in Thyatira and is in reference to sexual immorality and idolatry (probably compromise to the idol worship involved in Roman trade guilds). So, simply because the words "great tribulation" are used does not mean it belongs in a theological category of the destruction of the temple or a 7 year great tribulation at the end of time as supposed by dispensationalists.

Revelation 7:14 also speaks of "great tribulation" and it refers to a "multitude" from all nations and languages. There is nothing here to suggest 70AD.

The 42 months and 1,260 days in Revelation have nothing to do with 70AD in my mind, nor should they be added together to create a 7 year tribulation. One of these instances of the 1,260 days is referenced in Revelation 12. This 1260 days occurs after the male child is caught up to be with God (the ascension of Jesus). There is nothing here to suggest that this timing occurs four decades after Jesus' ascension or 2,000+ years after (or that it should be added to the previous 1260).

My brief comment on this text is that it is based off Daniel's 70 weeks. The Anointed One comes at the 69 week period. In the final "seven" after half the seven passes the covenant is confirmed and sacrifice is abolished by the setting up of the abomination that causes desolation. Thus, it is predicting the ministry of Jesus and after 3.5 years, Jesus' covenant is confirmed and sacrifice is ended (by his death on the cross). This is also the abomination which causes desolation. The murder of Jesus brings about the eventual destruction of the Temple. Revelation keys off this understanding. Daniel is told to seal up the information until the time of the end. Revelation does the opposite and John is told to not seal up the message, but rather, Jesus is breaking the seals. The 1260 days is a symbolic time of tribulation based off Daniel that the church is enduring. John was part of this tribulation and so are we. Simply because "mega" or great is used in reference to the tribulation at times does not make it a separate theological category.

I agree on your comments about the purpose of the Law and how Christ is the fullness of all God's plans and intentions. However, as I said before, to suggest that it has met its purpose is to suggest that it is eliminated. For instance, your concept suggests that the Law functioned like the Model T. It was a necessary step to get us to the place we are with automobiles today. However, now, the Model T is eradicated because it serves no other purpose than to be a key step in the development of automobiles. It served its purpose and now has no purpose. It is abolished. This is not true with how the Law functions. Yes, the Law points people to Jesus and its purpose is to reveal another end beyond itself. However, it did not go away at 70AD and is not limited to Israel. Yes, God's covenant was limited to Israel (and proselytes) but that does not mean that the Law is meaningless to Gentiles who were not under the covenant. Let me explain...

Israel loved the Torah. For them it was a revelation of God to them regarding his nature, character and desires. No other nation on the earth had this privilege to know God and have him reveal himself is such a profound way as they did. Based on this revelation, God made a covenant with them that they should abide by His law as it was a reflection of who He is and what His desires were for His people. Simply because the Gentiles did not know the command, "Thou shall not murder" did this make them guiltless with regards to murder? Of course not. Just because the Gentile did not know the command that a person should not engage in witchcraft or sorcery, does this mean they are not guilty of such evil? Of course not. The same is true today. The Law reflects the holiness of God regardless of whether or not someone knows it or is bound to it through a covenant relationship. This is part of what Paul is talking about in Romans 3:

“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:19–20, ESV)
“the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (Romans 3:22–23, ESV)
So yes, the law "speaks" only to those who are under the law. However, this does not mean that those who are not under the law and have no "knowledge" of their sin are not sinners. All have sinned even though not all are under the Law. The Law makes us aware of sin, but we are still sinners even if we are not aware of it or are enlightened by the Law.

Here is an analogy that may help. Our sinful lives are like a clanking car engine that is in really bad shape. The Law acts as a flashlight to illuminate the engine so the problems can be recognized. However, even if a person is not aware of the Law or in covenant with God through the Law does not mean that they are not in bad shape. The law cannot fix the bad engine, it only reveals the problems which should point us to Christ. The Law still serves that purpose today. By the law we can recognize what God desires and what is sinful. We cannot attain righteousness by the law, but we can understand the character and nature of God by the Law. The Law is good and holy. It is not gone and it is still a light that reveals the evil of the human condition and will bring judgment on those who do not embrace God's grace in Jesus Christ. I agree that it is the Lambs book of life that determines the saved. However, Revelation also says that God opens the books and judges each person according to what they have done. The Law is the ruler for this judgment. Jesus revealed that the primary emphasis of the Law was 1. love God and 2 love your neighbor as yourself. This is not eliminated, nor is it ONLY a signpost to point to Jesus. It is much more and it is still in effect. In fact, the only way to be free from the law of sin and death is to come to Christ.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Pilgrimer,
Well, I think one issue here is that we have a tendency to create theological labels for things that were likely not intended as such.
I did not say or even imply that every instance of the use of “tribulation” in Scripture, or even “great tribulation” was a reference to 70 A.D. Quite the opposite, I stated that we have to make a distinction between the tribulation that believers suffer as followers of Jesus, on the one hand, and the period associated with the destruction of the temple that Jesus himself categorized in his Mt. Olivet discourse as a period of time unlike anything ever seen before, or since: “Then let them which are in Judea flee … For then shall be great tribulation such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” (Matthew 24:16, 21-22)

So clearly it was Jesus himself who referred to a period of time associated with the destruction of the temple that would be unlike any other “tribulation,” a time so terrible that no flesh would have been saved had the Lord not shortened those days.

What Jesus was referring to, that there would be a time of trouble so terrible for Israel that if God had not shortened the days no flesh would have been saved, is also taught by Paul:

“Isaiah also cried concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the [eretz-land]. And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.” Romans 9:27-29

Paul is quoting Isaiah 10:22-23: “For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption (killayown H3631- destruction) decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption (kalah H3617 – complete destruction), even determined, in the midst of all the land.”

When you look at these verses you understand what Isaiah was prophesying, and what Paul was explaining, and what Jesus expressed in much clearer and more simple language. Even though the children of Abraham were as numerous as the sands of the sea, yet only a remnant would return to God and be saved from the destruction that had been decreed. And had God not shortened those days, there wouldn’t have been any Jews left alive, Israel would have been wiped out without a trace, like Sodom and Gomorrah. But for the sake of the believing remnant, the Christian Jews, God shortened the days of his wrath, and did not make a full end of that sinful and rebellious generation.

But that’s not all. Notice also that Isaiah says this “work” this “consumption,” this “complete destruction,” this “end,” this “termination” of Israel was “determined.” That word is charats H2782, which means several things, but in this instance means decree, determine. Now where or when do you suppose this “destruction” of Israel would have been decreed?

The Law of Moses, the wellspring of all prophecy, and certainly that prophecy which concerned the future of Israel. Read Deuteronomy 28:15-68 which lays out what would happen to Israel if they broke covenant with God by violating the commandments they had covenanted to keep, and indeed, is the wellspring of everything the prophets foretold.

For example, remember that part of Isaiah and Paul when they spoke of Israel being “as the sand of the sea, yet only a remnant would be saved”? Like everything else, that came from the Law: “And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the Lord thy God. And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other … and among these nations shalt thou find no rest, neither shall the sole of thy feet have rest …” Deuteronomy 28:62-65

So this kalah, this destruction of Israel that had been charats, decreed or determined in the Law of Moses, is what Isaiah was prophesying about, and what Paul was teaching about, and what Jesus was referring to in his Mt. Olivet discourse. A time so terrible that had God not shortened the days, the Jewish people would have been wiped out.

But before closing, let me quote another prophet who also foretold this kalah - consumption or consummation or destruction that was charats - decreed or determined which would be a sheteph overwhelming flood that would be tsedaqah – just, righteous.

“… and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a sheteph overwhelming flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are charats determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the kalah (completion, termination, full end, complete destruction, consumption, annihilation), and that which was charats (decreed, determined) shall be poured upon the desolate. Daniel 9:26-27

Wormwood said:
My brief comment on this text is that it is based off Daniel's 70 weeks. The Anointed One comes at the 69 week period.
But how is it that Jesus didn’t come until at the 69 week period and yet he was “cut off” after 62 weeks? How could Jesus have been “cut off” (I take that to mean his crucifixion) if he hadn’t come yet?

Wormwood said:
In the final "seven" after half the seven passes the covenant is confirmed and sacrifice is abolished by the setting up of the abomination that causes desolation.
But the sacrifice and oblation weren’t abolished when Jesus was crucified. They continued to be offered day and night for another 40 years. I understand that you believe that with Jesus’ death the “need for” sacrifice and oblation ceased, and I agree with that. But that’s not what Daniel said, he said the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed and the sacrifices would cease, not that the need for them or their acceptance to God or their meaning would cease. The sacrifices themselves would cease. The fact that they continued to be offered does not in any way lessen or nullify the efficacy of Christ’s death, it simply means God did not immediately judge and destroy the Jewish nation and take away those things which He had provided for the Law’s observance, not until the Gospel had been preached throughout the world (of that day) and God had gathered in his “remnant,” then the nation was judged and destroyed, the sacrifices and oblation ceased, and everything that pertained to Old Covenant worship was “removed.”

Wormwood said:
Thus, it is predicting the ministry of Jesus and after 3.5 years, Jesus' covenant is confirmed and sacrifice is ended (by his death on the cross).
There are many passages which speak of Messiah the Servant, the Savior, the Lamb of God, but this prophecy which speaks of Messiah the Prince, the Ruler, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, is not one of them.

Jesus was crucified after 62 weeks, we now know it was in 30 A.D., the last year of the 64th week. Then another 5 weeks of years (35 years) were completed until Jesus the Prince, the Ruler, the Captain, the Leader of the armies of heaven:

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small great.”

Jesus ‘treading the winepress” is an Old Testament reference to the judgment and destruction of Israel (the vineyard of the Lord). The “supper of the great God” to which the fowls of heaven were called is also an Old Testament reference to the judgment and destruction of Israel, in the Hinnom Valley. That’s a very interesting and enlightening prophecy, but also horrific.

Wormwood said:
I agree on your comments about the purpose of the Law and how Christ is the fullness of all God's plans and intentions. However, as I said before, to suggest that it has met its purpose is to suggest that it is eliminated.
You might suggest that, but it’s not true. The Law still serves the purpose of leading men to and teaching them about Christ. You may not agree that’s enough of a purpose, you might want to add that the Law is what men will be judged by, but I disagree.

Wormwood said:
For instance, your concept suggests that the Law functioned like the Model T. It was a necessary step to get us to the place we are with automobiles today. However, now, the Model T is eradicated because it serves no other purpose than to be a key step in the development of automobiles. It served its purpose and now has no purpose. It is abolished. This is not true with how the Law functions.
I don’t think that’s a good analogy. It doesn’t take into consideration that the Law is able to teach us about the mechanics of salvation, even for us today, but the old Model T cannot teach anyone anything about modern cars.

Wormwood said:
Yes, the Law points people to Jesus and its purpose is to reveal another end beyond itself. However, it did not go away at 70AD and is not limited to Israel.
I never said the Law “went away.” But the Law was in fact limited to Israel as a covenant by which their blessing or cursing was dependent upon their obedience to it.

Are you suggesting that the curse of the Law spelled out in Deuteronomy 28:15-68 for breaking the commandments applies to the nations?


Yes, God's covenant was limited to Israel (and proselytes) but that does not mean that the Law is meaningless to Gentiles who were not under the covenant.


Wormwood, come on, I never said the Law is “meaningless.” Why do you keep insisting that the Law didn’t “go away” and that it “wasn’t eliminated” and that it “wasn’t meaningless.” I’ve never said those things, you say them and then proceed to argue why they’re not true.

Wormwood said:
So yes, the law "speaks" only to those who are under the law. However, this does not mean that those who are not under the law and have no "knowledge" of their sin are not sinners. All have sinned even though not all are under the Law. The Law makes us aware of sin, but we are still sinners even if we are not aware of it or are enlightened by the Law.

Here is an analogy that may help. Our sinful lives are like a clanking car engine that is in really bad shape. The Law acts as a flashlight to illuminate the engine so the problems can be recognized. However, even if a person is not aware of the Law or in covenant with God through the Law does not mean that they are not in bad shape. The law cannot fix the bad engine, it only reveals the problems which should point us to Christ. The Law still serves that purpose today. By the law we can recognize what God desires and what is sinful. We cannot attain righteousness by the law, but we can understand the character and nature of God by the Law. The Law is good and holy. It is not gone and it is still a light that reveals the evil of the human condition …
I do believe that is precisely the point that I have been making these many posts.

Wormwood said:
I agree that it is the Lambs book of life that determines the saved. However, Revelation also says that God opens the books and judges each person according to what they have done. The Law is the ruler for this judgment.
No, the Law is not the ruler for the final judgment, Jesus is the “ruler” by which we will be judged. And what we will be judged on is not our obedience to the commandments of Moses, but our obedience to the Gospel. The Law said “do not commit adultery.” Sorry, but that’s not going to be good enough on the day of judgment. The Gospel says, “do not look upon a woman to lust afterher or you’ve already committed adultery in your heart” (which tells you what God thinks about pornography).

And the Law says “do not commit murder.” Sorry, lots of people have never committed murder, but that won't be good enough. The Gospel says, “do not be angry with your brother without just cause.”

Before the coming of Jesus, the Law was the only light that showed men what God was like. But that’s not true any longer. Jesus is the “express image” of God, and as Jesus himself said, “if you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”

So while I appreciate your defense of God’s Law (tedious as it is :)) still, don’t put the Law above the Gospel. The final judgment will not be whether or not men’s lives measure up the Law of Moses, that’s setting the bar too low, but whether or not men’s lives measure up to the Gospel of Christ, that’s where the bar is set now, and those are the “works” men will be judged by, including us a James taught.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Doesn't bother me to make the statement that Christ when He said "great tribulation" in Matthew 24 that He was specifically talking about the days just prior to His second coming, and not 70 A.D.

Matt 24:2-46
2 And Jesus said unto them, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."


Christ's disciples upon the Mount of Olives overlook the temple complex pointing them out to Jesus and He says the day will come when there won't be even one stone standing there. The huge stones that make up the Western Wall are still standing in that area of Jerusalem today. It's called the Wailing Wall. The Romans must have forgotten to flatten that in 70 A.D.

So if this Scripture was fulfilled in 70 A.D. by the destruction of the 2nd temple and Jerusalem, then why are those huge stones still standing? Oh, I get it, we just need to overlook that bit of material evidence which conflicts with what our Lord Jesus said and just treat this Scripture as if it were fulfilled anyway. Afterall, Jesus wasn't that accurate in giving us events of prophecy anyway, right? Our Lord Jesus is most accurate with what He gave us in prophecy. Those stones still standing in Jerusalem today is one of the ways we know this has yet to be fulfillled.


3 And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Some try to supplant the disciple's meaning of "end of the world" here with Greek word play on "world". Because the culmination of these signs our Lord Jesus gave are in His Book of Revelation given to Apostle John after... 70 A.D., that's another way to know they weren't talking about 70 A.D. being the end of the world. Also, because the FINAL sign Jesus gave in this Matthew 24 chapter is about His second coming and gathering of His saints, that reveals how this "end of the world" is meant also. And aren't His disciples there specifically asking Him about the time of His second coming which has yet to occur today? Yes, they are.

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.


These signs parallel the signs Jesus gave in Rev.6 with the 6 Seals. I've already covered that parallel line upon line more than once here on this Forum, not going to do it all again here. Suffice it to say, these are all signs of the very end of this world, for the last generation which will see Christ's second coming.

One of those most simple signs above to know this is for the very end is that Matt.24:6 verse about wars and rumours of wars. Jesus says there we'll hear about wars and rumours of wars but... don't be troubled then, for the end is not yet. So did that "end" mean the time of 70 A.D. with the Roman army destroying Jerusalem? Of course not, and this world has been through many wars thereafter, and still today. So that's an easy sign to recognize the end with because just think, a time when there is world peace upon this whole earth? We... haven't even seen that yet today, but the world leaders are still busy trying to make it happen, and especially with a peace plan for Jerusalem.

Many are tired of waiting for that sign of a peace pact signed in Jerusalem between Israel and all nations around her, and think since the Jews and Arabs have been at war for so long that such a thing will never be possible. Our Lord Jesus revealed it will occur for the very end, right there in v.6, for the opposite of wars and rumours of wars is a time of peace.


9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for My name's sake.

We are to be hated by "all nations" for His Name's sake? How many nations does that mean? ALL of them, including the one you are living in now. This is not about things like the Spanish Inquisition, nor the 100 years war in Europe, etc. This sign is about even the traditional Christian nations in the West turning against Christians. Oh, and is this about unbelieving Jews being hated?? NO! Our Lord Jesus was not talking about Jews being hated, nor of any particular race. He was talking about believers on Him, whether Jew or Gentile believer, i.e., His CHURCH. Afterall, that's who was upon the Mount of Olives with Him asking the questions about His coming, i.e., the beginning foundations of His early Church, His Apostles.

10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.


More signs for the end of this world. Note that one of v.14. I catch some brethren that preach this Matt.24 chapter was fulfilled in 70 A.D. specifically using... that very 14th verse for today with The Gospel going out to the nations. If this chapter was done in 70 A.D. and is history already, then how can they do that? Obviously, this has yet to be fulfilled.


15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Christ quotes from the Book of Daniel about the setting up of the abomination that makes desolate and marks that event with this specific time of "great tribulation", a time that has not been since the beginning of the world, nor ever will again. So, did the Romans in 70 A.D. setup that "abomination of desolation" in a temple in Jerusalem like the Daniel prophecy proclaims? NO! The 2nd temple in Jerusalem burned to the ground while the Roman army under general Titus tried to sieze control of it (per the Jewish historian Josephus).

Well maybe WWI was that time of "great tribulation" then? No, because then came WWII. And today the end of this world has still... yet to come with Jesus' return. And remember Jesus marked the time of the end with a time opposite of wars.

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, "Lo, here is Christ, or there"; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, "Behold, he is in the desert"; go not forth: "behold, he is in the secret chambers"; believe it not.



Because He continues pointing to "those days", all this is of that same "great tribulation" and "abomination of desolation" timing. He said that time would be shortened for His elect's sake. He continues the signs with "Then if...". Jesus gives there a very specific warning for that time of "great tribulation", a false one that others will come up to you and claim is Jesus Himself. Our Lord Jesus said don't believe it. And He gave that warning there twice, for emphasis. Very important when He does that.

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


Then Jesus describes one of the direct signs of His coming. We well know His second coming has not happened yet today. And we certainly know He did not return back in 70 A.D. Jerusalem.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
veteran said:
Matt 24:2-46
2 And Jesus said unto them, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."


Christ's disciples upon the Mount of Olives overlook the temple complex pointing them out to Jesus and He says the day will come when there won't be even one stone standing there. The huge stones that make up the Western Wall are still standing in that area of Jerusalem today. It's called the Wailing Wall. The Romans must have forgotten to flatten that in 70 A.D.

So if this Scripture was fulfilled in 70 A.D. by the destruction of the 2nd temple and Jerusalem, then why are those huge stones still standing? Oh, I get it, we just need to overlook that bit of material evidence which conflicts with what our Lord Jesus said and just treat this Scripture as if it were fulfilled anyway. Afterall, Jesus wasn't that accurate in giving us events of prophecy anyway, right? Our Lord Jesus is most accurate with what He gave us in prophecy. Those stones still standing in Jerusalem today is one of the ways we know this has yet to be fulfillled.
It was the temple and its buildings that Jesus said not one stone would be left standing upon another that would not be thrown down. The stones you refer to that form the western wailing wall were not part of the temple or its buildings, those stones formed the retaining wall that shored up and supported the mount. The temple and its buildings and courts and gates were all built on top of the mount. Here’s a photo of the western wall as it is today. The lower 5 courses of stonework are what remains of the Herodian ashlars that formed the retaining or support wall for the mount. The next 4 courses date to the later Roman/Byzantine period and the upper rows of smaller stones were added during the Moslem conquest. The ground level on top of the mount on which the temple had been built and where the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque stand today is on the level where the Moslem era stonework begins.

e6010527-b437-40d2-b5a2-c36eaed6f908_zpsa1054fce.jpg


Roman engineers thoroughly and systematically disassembled the Temple and all its gates and walls and buildings, pushing the stones off the temple mount into the streets of the city below. There was so much rubble from the destruction that the present-day street level is 55 feet above the old street level, as this photo below shows. The upper ground level in the background is the present day street level.

mazar011_zpsd157569d.jpg


The pile of large stones right center and bottom of the photo were from the temple buildings from the top of the mount. They were literally “thrown down” from the top of the mount into the streets below breaking many of the street’s paving stones. The paved street the people are walking on in the photo is the New Testament era street, the very street Jesus would have walked.

The rest of the ancient city lies buried 55 feet beneath the rubble of the destruction and has been built over so densely that it is inaccessible to archaeologists today.

But the point is, the stones that remain are not part of the temple or the buildings of the temple. In fact, so thoroughly did the Romans destroy the temple that after every stone was torn down and pushed off the mount, the paving stones of the courts were all pulled up and cleared and the ground beneath was plowed so that not a trace remained of the beautiful buildings the disciples had admired and commented on to Jesus.

veteran said:
3 Because the culmination of these signs our Lord Jesus gave are in His Book of Revelation given to Apostle John after... 70 A.D., that's another way to know they weren't talking about 70 A.D. being the end of the world. Also, because the FINAL sign Jesus gave in this Matthew 24 chapter is about His second coming and gathering of His saints, that reveals how this "end of the world" is meant also.
I realize that is the popular theory, but I believe it to be wrong.


veteran said:
And aren't His disciples there specifically asking Him about the time of His second coming which has yet to occur today? Yes, they are.[/font]
No, as a matter of fact they are not. It wasn’t until the Last Supper the night Jesus was arrested that the disciples even came to understand that Jesus was going to return to heaven. Read John 13:31-16:30 and notice how the disciples struggled to understand what Jesus meant that he where he was going they could not come (13:33 & 36) and that he was going to prepare a place for them (14:1-5) and in a little while the world would see Jesus no more … (14:19-22), and that a little while they would not see him, and another little while and they would see him, because he was going to the Father (16:16-18), which thoroughly confused them so finally Jesus had to spell it out for them; “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father,” (16:28) and it wasn’t until then that the disciples understood that Jesus was going to leave the world and return to heaven (16:29).

So how do you suggest that, three days earlier, they were asking Jesus about his 2nd coming from heaven when at the time they clearly did not even know yet that Jesus was going to be returning to heaven?

Be careful that you do not read into their words an understanding that they did not yet have. They weren’t asking about the sign of Jesus’ 2nd coming, they were asking what would be the sign that he, the Messiah, had come.

The rest of your post deals with interpretation and again, I realize what you present is the popular interpretation, but also again, I don’t believe it is the correct explanation of these things.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pilgrimer,

I think the reason this discussion gets "tedious" is because your responses are all over the map and I am trying to summarize or key in on some of your points to make this conversation possible. Perhaps my summeries are inaccurate at times, but I cannot read your mind nor can take your statements beyond face value. You make a statement, I disagree with it, and then you write fourteen paragraphs to explain your justification for that statement which incorporate immense themes such as eschatology, law, Israel, 70AD, 7 year wars, OT prophecies and so forth. Trying to carry on a conversation with you is like trying to nail jello to a wall. I simply claim that I dont believe 70AD was the "final judgement of the Law" and the next thing I know there is a book in front of me that gives about two sentences on every immense biblical theme under the sun with the conclusion that I am "putting the Law above the Gospel." Talk about not saying something and having the other person proceed as it is true!

So how does the Law "currently function to lead people to Christ" if it has been made obsolete and was only used as in regards to God's covenant relationship with Israel which ended 2000 years ago? As a history lesson? Yes, I maintain the Model T analogy fits.

Reread Daniel 9. The 62 weeks occurs AFTER the first 7 weeks (time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (given Ezra in 458BC) until it was rebuilt). Thus the Anointed One comes (baptism of Jesus to mark the beginning of his ministry) at 69 weeks (7+62=69). Sacrifice is ended halfway through the final week (3.5 years of Jesus ministry) by his crucifixion which sets up the abomination which causes desolation. The final 3.5 years is used symbolically mulitiple times in Revelation to depict the time that people must "endure" until the Second Coming.

I have to strongly disagree with you in your interpreation of Romans 9. It is simply amazing to me how you can make every text speak of 70AD when this is the furthest thing from the context of the passages in question. Texts like Romans 9 and 2 Thess 2 say absolutely nothing with regards to 70AD and the contexts dont even imply such a notion. Romans 9 is not about God bringing war on Israel, but is an explaination of how the Gospel fits God's plans for Israel since much of Israel is not believing the Gospel and mostly Gentiles are. This passage has to do with how Israel is not responding to God's provision of righteousness in Christ (except a few elect)....not about how God was going to kill much of Israel execpt a small portion. I dont have time to do an indepth study of Romans 8-10 in this comment, but I assure you that a war destroying most of Israel is the furthest thing from what Paul is talking about in this section. Israel being cut off has to do with their turning their back on the righteousness of Christ, not about their physical deaths approx. a decade in the future from when Paul is writing this. (See Romans 9:30)

It is more than the fact that the "need" for sacrifice ceased. God's covenant had officially ended that required sacrifice. Jesus "put an end to sacrifice" and that is the point. Im sure somewhere in the world people are still sacrificing animals so yes, sacrifices "continue" even today. But Jesus officially put an end to the previous covenant and the sacrifical system by his death once for all. The fact that the sacrifices continued in the Temple added to the "abomination which causes desolation." The point is simply that Jesus ended the value, function, need, and previous covenental system that required those sacrifices. It was "finished."

Finally, I must simply disagree that we are no longer judged by the law but by the standard of Jesus. James explicitly refers to the Ten Commandments as he talks about how these Christians will be judged if they live under law. He never says, "Now you will be judged by the perfect life of Jesus." In any event, it doesnt even make sense. Jesus is the "word made flesh." He is the incarnation of God's spoken word lived out before his people. Jesus did not come to live his life to give us a greater standard to try to live up to. This is simply trading one law for another. Jesus came to "fulfill" the law by living according to its every word and intent to perfection and then to impute that righteousness to us who live by faith in Him.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wormwood said:
Pilgrimer,

I think the reason this discussion gets "tedious" is because your responses are all over the map … which incorporate immense themes such as eschatology, law, Israel, 70AD, 7 year wars, OT prophecies and so forth.
It may seem that my responses are all over the map, but it’s because all these things, eschatology, the Law, Israel, 70 A.D., the war, OT prophecies, they all tell the same story, speak of the same things… the institution of the New Covenant … and the end of the Old Covenant. If you don’t understand that, then you are only getting half of the story.

The New Covenant fulfills the promises of the blessings of the Law, everyone understands that, it’s the Gospel. But that’s not the end of the story, not for Israel, not for that generation and those who rejected the Gospel. The destruction of the Jewish state and the removing of the things of the Old Covenant fulfilled the curses of the Law. The Law decreed it, the prophets foretold it, and Jesus said it’s coming to pass would be the sign of his coming.

The end of the Old Covenant manner of worship, in exactly the manner the Law and prophets had foretold it, down to the least jot and tittle, confirmed the New Covenant. If any of the Jewish Christians who knew the Law and the Prophets had any lingering doubts about whether or not the covenant established on faith in the blood of Jesus was truly of God, the complete removing of everything that pertained to the Old Covenant confirmed it, that God had indeed made a New Covenant with the house of Israel else no power on the face of the earth could have destroyed God’s Old Covenant people or brought to an end God’s Old Covenant worship. Truly, this was all God’s doing.

Wormwood said:
So how does the Law "currently function to lead people to Christ" if it has been made obsolete and was only used as in regards to God's covenant relationship with Israel which ended 2000 years ago? As a history lesson?
The Law functions to bring men to Christ by convicting us of our sin and need of salvation, which serves to bring us to Christ.

But even for those who come to Christ the Law continues to teach us about Christ, about our salvation, how it was accomplished, and what it means for us in our day-to-day relationship with God, as well as our eternal destiny in Christ.

You know the word “Torah” which is translated “law,” literally means “instructions,” “directions.” The commandments of Moses are signposts along the Way of Holiness, not the measure of it. The measure of holiness is Jesus, he is the express image of God, as he said, “if you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”

Wormwood said:
I must simply disagree that we are no longer judged by the law but by the standard of Jesus.
Then how do you explain this:

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name have done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23-24

And Jesus goes on to say, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock.”

And even in the judgment Jesus describes in Matthew 25:31-46, it’s the Law of Love that men are judged by, not the commandments of Moses.

So if, as you insist, in the last judgment men will be judged by the Mosaic Law, where is the mention of the Mosaic commandments in the judgment of the wicked in Matthew 7 and the righteous in Matthew 25?

Wormwood said:
Reread Daniel 9. The 62 weeks occurs AFTER the first 7 weeks
There’s no mention of 7 weeks. There’s a total of 70 weeks given to the Jewish people to accomplish God’s will. Those 70 weeks began with the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. From that point until the Messiah the Prince was 69 weeks. The third wall was hurriedly built by the Zealots to fortify the city’s defenses at the outbreak of the rebellion, certainly “troublous times.”

Jerusalem (Feb. 2)
(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
The Tower of Women, described by Josephus Flavius, was unearthed during the excavations of the Third Wall being conducted by the Jewish Exploration Society.
The excavations confirmed several of the descriptions given by Josephus.
Near the American School of Archaeology, where the northeast corner of the third wall was identified, a large rock scarp twenty-two feet deep and facing west was laid bare on the side flanking the gateway near the tower, which has been identified with the Tower of Women.
Further excavations uncovered two courses of masonry, the lower course being of finely dressed and characteristic Herodian masonry and the upper consisting of huge blocks roughly finished. This conforms with Josephus’ description that the Wall was begun by King Agrippa in elaborate style but was stopped by the Emperor Claudius, and the wall hurriedly finished immediately after the outbreak of the Jewish revolt against the Romans in the year 66 of the Christian era.


Read more: http://www.jta.org/1927/02/03/archive/further-progress-on-third-wall-excavations-confirms-descriptions-of-josephus#ixzz2kTymgW6w


Jesus was crucified after 62 weeks, and the armies of prince Titus came and destroyed the city and the sanctuary and the desolations of the nation continued until the war came to an end with the fall of the final Zealot stronghold, the desert fortress of Masada in 73 A.D.

This 7 years which fulfilled all that was written confirmed the New Covenant, and in the midst of this week the sacrifice and oblation ceased to be offered, and because abominations had spread throughout the land God made it desolate, and God’s wrath and vengeance which had been decreed in the Law was poured upon the children of the desolate.

Daniel’s 70 weeks are actually pretty straightforward when you take into account the way Luke recorded Jesus’ Mt. Olivet discourse:

“And when you see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which be in Judea 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. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and that give suck in those days! For there will be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.” Luke 21:20-23

This is Luke’s version of the Matthew 24 teaching and it makes it very clear that this was about the events that came to pass in the Roman Jewish war, but it also makes it clear that this period of time was the “days of vengeance” and the outpouring of God’s “wrath” which “had been written” in the Law and in the prophets. So rather than being “all over the map” these things are actually “all over the Bible,” from the Law, through the Prophets, into the New Testament, and in the final book of the Bible.

Wormwood said:
I have to strongly disagree with you in your interpreation of Romans 9. It is simply amazing to me how you can make every text speak of 70AD when this is the furthest thing from the context of the passages in question. Texts like Romans 9 and 2 Thess 2 say absolutely nothing with regards to 70AD and the contexts dont even imply such a notion. Romans 9 is not about God bringing war on Israel, but is an explaination of how the Gospel fits God's plans for Israel since much of Israel is not believing the Gospel and mostly Gentiles are. This passage has to do with how Israel is not responding to God's provision of righteousness in Christ (except a few elect)....not about how God was going to kill much of Israel execpt a small portion. I dont have time to do an indepth study of Romans 8-10 in this comment,
That’s fine, just a brief summary on these two verses will do:

“Isaiah also cried concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the [land]. And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Hosts had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and made like unto Gomorrah.” (Roman 9:27-29 quoting Isaiah 10:22-23 and 1:9)

So if being made like Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t mean Israel being wiped out without a trace left that it ever existed, what do you propose it does mean?

And if you don’t think Paul and Isaiah were both drawing on what the Law had decreed about Israel being as the stars of heaven for multitude but being left few in number then what do you see as the source of their prophecies?

If you’re having trouble accepting that Paul may have been reaching all the way back to Moses and drawing on prophecies about the judgment and destruction of Israel in these passages, please note that 10:19 and 11:11 about God provoking Israel to jealousy by saving the Gentiles comes directly from the Song of Moses where Moses prophesies the judgment and destruction that will befall Israel in the latter days of the Old Covenant because they would turn from the covenant they made with God and would utterly corrupt themselves, (Deuteronomy 32:21) which ties the provoking of Israel by saving Gentiles with the judgment and destruction of Israel, not something totally unrelated. And please take note that the reason God gives for moving Israel to jealousy and provoking them to anger was because they had moved him to jealousy and provoked him to anger with their idolatry.

Wormwood said:
but I assure you that a war destroying most of Israel is the furthest thing from what Paul is talking about in this section.
I don’t want assurances, I want an explanation and Scripture to back it up. What exactly did Paul and Isaiah mean and was that unrelated to what was foretold in the Law?

Wormwood said:
Im sure somewhere in the world people are still sacrificing animals so yes, sacrifices "continue" even today.
Oh, no doubt! But not Jews! And not in God's House!

Wormwood said:
The point is simply that Jesus ended the value, function, need, and previous covenental system that required those sacrifices.
But that’s just the point Wormwood, Jesus “fulfilled” it all by his death, but he “ended” it when he took it all away.

“Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldst 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.” Hebrews 10:8-9

“See that ye refuse not him that speaks. For if they escaped not who refused him that spoke on earth .. whose voice then shook the earth … much more shall we not escape if we turn away from him that speaks from heaven … who promised … yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and with godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:25-29

Wormwood said:
Finally, I must simply disagree that we are no longer judged by the law … This is simply trading one law for another.
Yes, it’s trading the law of works for the law of faith.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Pilgrimer,

I appreciate your response. I must say it is much easier to follow and they were concise responses to specific statements I made. I think this will help our dialogue and, even if we do not agree, we should at least have a better understanding of each other's position. I understand your point that these topics are deep and bleed into a lot of different areas of biblical interpretation, historical context etc. However, there is just no way to have an intelligible conversation if we have to unearth all these theological and historical ideas with every point.

The Law functions to bring men to Christ by convicting us of our sin and need of salvation, which serves to bring us to Christ.

But even for those who come to Christ the Law continues to teach us about Christ, about our salvation, how it was accomplished, and what it means for us in our day-to-day relationship with God, as well as our eternal destiny in Christ.
You know the word “Torah” which is translated “law,” literally means “instructions,” “directions.” The commandments of Moses are signposts along the Way of Holiness, not the measure of it. The measure of holiness is Jesus, he is the express image of God, as he said, “if you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”
Ok, another question. How can the law "convict us of sin" if it was only intended for God's covenantal relationship with a theocratic nation? I agree that it still has the power to convict because it still displays the holiness of God which judges all people who fall short of that holiness. Thus, I maintain the law has not ceased to judge. It was still an abomination to God to murder before the law to not murder was given. The law was given, Paul says, so that trespass might increase. I would argue that the only way it can still lead people to Christ today (other than as a history lesson) is if it still reveals sin and makes people accountable to God's judgment for violating his holy nature and standard.

Then how do you explain this:

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name have done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23-24

And Jesus goes on to say, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock.”

And even in the judgment Jesus describes in Matthew 25:31-46, it’s the Law of Love that men are judged by, not the commandments of Moses.

So if, as you insist, in the last judgment men will be judged by the Mosaic Law, where is the mention of the Mosaic commandments in the judgment of the wicked in Matthew 7 and the righteous in Matthew 25?
Good question. As you know, Matthew 7 is part of the Sermon on the Mount which begins in chapter 5. The entire beginning of the sermon is about the Law and its true intent. Jesus is exposing how many "teachers of the law" have misunderstood God's intent behind the law (i.e. its okay to call someone a fool as long as you don't murder them. Lusting after other women is okay as long as you don't touch them. Moses gave permission to divorce so you can do it at will. Revenge is okay because God said, "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.") This entire sermon is built on Jesus exposing God's original desire for the law and everything builds off that foundation. Jesus is calling his disciples to seek a righteousness that "exceeds the scribes and phariseees" who were using the law to excuse such behaviors.
Matthew 25 (in my understanding) is primarily about the Second Coming and Jesus is showing his disciples what faith that expects his return looks like. I agree with you that we are not saved by keeping the law. We are saved by faith in Jesus. But what does faith in Jesus look like? It looks like someone who anticipates his return and lives according to his desires. It is not our "good deeds" (cups of cold water, visiting the sick, etc.) that save us (the law of love). This makes our salvation NOT based on grace but based on another law. It is our faith in Jesus that saves us, and if we believe he is Lord and he is returning, we will seek to please him and live our lives in preparation for his coming. Consider these quotes in Matthew 24-25:

“Because of the increase of wickedness (anomian - literally lawlessness), the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 24:12–13, NIV84)

““Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?” (Matthew 24:45, NIV84)

“Five of them were foolish and five were wise.” (Matthew 25:2, NIV84)

““His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’” (Matthew 25:21, NIV84)
These parables are about faithfulness...not being judged by a new law or new standard. A faithful and wise person will live differently...but I do not believe the point here is to put Christians under a new set of rules and regulations. Christ set us free and we are indeed free.

There’s no mention of 7 weeks. There’s a total of 70 weeks given to the Jewish people to accomplish God’s will. Those 70 weeks began with the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. From that point until the Messiah the Prince was 69 weeks...

Jesus was crucified after 62 weeks.
No...
““Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.” (Daniel 9:25–26, NIV84)
So, there will be 7 sevens and 62 sevens. If the decree was issued in 458 BC, the first 7 sevens would have ended around 409 BC which is the time historians generally believe the city was rebuilt. Then you would have 62 sevens (434 years) after 409 BC would lead to around 26 AD which is the time many scholars believe Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry.

The latest command one could possible conceive of Jerusalem being rebuilt is 458 BC and is the only date an actual decree was made in that regard. According to your statement, the 62 weeks would have occurred prior to Jesus' crucifixion (around 29 AD) which would be around 405 BC. Jerusalem was already rebuilt at that point! There is Elephantine Papyri that shows another man had become the governor of Judah in 407 BC after Nehemiah. Thus, Nehemiah's rebuilding work would have been long since completed by 405 BC.

“Isaiah also cried concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the [land]. And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Hosts had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and made like unto Gomorrah.” (Roman 9:27-29 quoting Isaiah 10:22-23 and 1:9)

So if being made like Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t mean Israel being wiped out without a trace left that it ever existed, what do you propose it does mean?
Paul's use of OT quotes shows the Roman Christians that what God is currently doing in Christ is similar to how he functioned with Israel in the past and what is prophesied of how he would work in the future. The whole point is that God has not been unfaithful to his promises to Israel (even though much of Israel was rejecting the salvation Jesus has offered them). Just as in the past God reserved 7,000, so today, Paul says, God has reserved a faithful remnant of those who believe in Jesus. I think this is clearly the point as he concludes his reference to the Scriptures you quoted by saying:

“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” (Romans 9:30–10:4, NIV84)
This is not about a 70AD war, but is about the rejection of salvation God has offered through Jesus by Israel. The faithful remnant are saved by faith in Jesus. Thus, those who questioned the legitimacy of Jesus being Israel's Messiah and Savior due to the majority of Israel rejecting the Gospel is actually the fulfillment of God's promises and predictions. God has the freedom to call those who are not his people (Gentiles) his people by faith in Jesus...and he has the freedom to cast off unbelieving Israel and still be faithful to his promises to Israel because of the believing remnant.

“Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldst 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.” Hebrews 10:8-9
This is talking about covenants, not a new law. We are not under law. We are under grace. I gotta run.
 

SelectThis!

AlephBet - The Strong House of God
Nov 14, 2013
107
4
0
56
On the Threshold
Very interesting post. Can I frame the books of the Bible in one complementary element to your post?

Aleph (Strong) Bet (House) is Father in Hebrew. His Word is Christ. The Son in Hebrew is Bet (House) Nun (Seed). The Alphabet (Strong House) writes the Word, which is the House of Seed. The Logos is an author. His letters are DNA.

John 1

[SIZE=1.25em]1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]2 He was with God in the beginning.[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a][/SIZE] it.

Encoded in this verse is the mathematical constant e. It's not just literature. It's also mathematics within the text.
 

Pilgrimer

Active Member
Jun 20, 2013
337
70
28
Mobile, Alabama
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hello Wormwood,

I’m afraid I’ve lost track of exactly what you see as a problem with what I’m saying. So let me try again to narrow this down to my former point.

The war that destroyed the nation of Israel and ended Old Covenant worship was not some random, unforeseen event. It was precisely what was foretold in the Law and in the prophets if Israel broke covenant with God, which they did, time and again.

Nor was it an event which the New Testament says very little if anything about. It was in fact the “imminent” judgment and end that was the subject of most of the warnings given by John, Jesus, and Paul.

A good example of this is when Jesus first sent the disciples out to preach that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand (Matthew 10, Luke 10). He instructed them to not go the Gentiles, or to the Samaritans, but to “go first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And Jesus told them what to expect: they would be persecuted, delivered up to the councils and beaten in the synagogues, brother against brother, children against parents. And notice what Jesus tells them: “ Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come.”

Now to try to insist that this means the disciples would not have gone to all the cities of Israel before the 2nd coming of Jesus is simply not possible as the entire nation was wiped out in the war and all the cities and towns and villages were left smoking ruins and rubble. Which is precisely what Jesus had said, that for those cities of Israel which refused the Gospel, it would be “more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha and for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for that city.” And in Matthew 11:21-22 he names specifically Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, all of which to this day, now 1947 years later, lay in ruins. In fact, Bethsaida, the home of Apostles Andrew, Philip, and Simon, was a major port city on the Sea of Galilee at the Jordan River where it emptied into the Sea of Galilee and we still don’t even know for sure where it was located! The general consensus among scholars and archaeologists is that this is the ancient Bethsaida …

Bethsaida2_zps8da80f90.jpg


… however, this tel is too far from the shore to have been a “port” city unless the level of the Sea was much higher, in which case other cities and towns along its shores would have been underwater, so there is still much controversy about the location.

And below is all that remains of the ancient city of Chorazin which Jesus also said would be destroyed “in the day of judgment.”

ChorazinonnortheastofSeaofGalilee_zpsfe8beb00.jpg


And finally, the beautiful city of Capernaum, the home of Simon Peter, which, again, Jesus said would be destroyed “in the day of judgment” …

Capernaumbeforerestoration_zps3b7cceb5.jpg


Now Jesus wasn’t talking about the final judgment at his 2nd coming. That will be a judgment on individuals, everyone who has ever lived, after the great resurrection. But here Jesus was talking about the judgment of the cities of Israel who refused the Gospel, and he gave a time limit to that judgment, that the disciples would not have gone to every city in Israel before that judgment came. So again, you have Jesus speaking of that judgment that would happen in the lifetimes of these disciples, and these cities were in fact destroyed during the war.

So my point is, will Israel ever again be judged and destroyed for violating the commandments of Moses and breaking covenant with God? No. That covenant has been fulfilled and passed away. God is no longer bound to bless or curse Israel based on that covenant. Even if it were possible to keep all the commandments of the Law (God Himself rendered that impossible by removing everything he provided for the Law’s observance), God has made a new covenant with Israel (that faithful remnant God promised to save) and it is to them that God is now bound by covenant to bless them with all the riches in Christ Jesus. As for the rest, they are “cast out” (after the example of Ishmael), “disinherited” (after the example of Esau), “removed” (after the example of that generation that perished in the wilderness). As a sidenote, on the Day of Atonement, there were two goats which made atonement for sin. The first goat, the one “for Jehovah,” was sacrificed and its blood was brought into the Holiest by the High Priest and sprinkled to cleanse the sanctuary and all its vessels of ministry and all the people. This goat was a type of Christ and the sanctuary where God dwelt and all the vessels of ministry and all the people was a type of the church which is cleansed by the blood of Jesus. But there was another goat which also made atonement for sin. But this goat wasn’t sacrificed and its blood wasn’t sprinkled by the High Priest in the Holiest. Instead, this goat was led out into the wilderness and left to wander till it died. So whose sins did this goat make atonement for? This goat was called the goat “for Azazel,” which means “for removing.” (Remember Paul talking about how God had promised to “shake heaven and earth” to “remove” the old earthly kingdom of God that was a type and shadow so that the heavenly kingdom of God which is eternal might remain? Hebrews 12:22-29) This is all talking about the same thing, and in this case the goat ‘for removing” was a type of that generation of Jews who bore their sins upon their own heads (the High Priest literally laid hands on the head of this goat and confessed Israel’s sins which were then conferred upon the goat – and the white tongue of cloth tied to its horn turned scarlet), and that goat was taken into the wilderness “by the hand of a strong man,” and left to wander until it died. So like that generation that was delivered from the bondage of Egypt, and like this goat that made atonement for the sins of those whose sins were not covered by the blood of the goat “for Jehovah”, they were “removed” into the wilderness and left to wander till they died without ever setting foot in the promised land: “But with whom was [God] grieved forty years? Was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness? And to whom swear he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?” Paul uses this historical event to teach about that generation of Jews who would not enter into God’s rest because they had no faith. It isn’t coincidence that it was 40 years from Jesus’ crucifixion and the institution of the New Covenant, and the destruction of the Temple and end of the Old Covenant. So very many types and shadows in the Scriptures, but they all bear witness to the same thing, the establishing of the eternal, and the removing of the earthly.




Wormwood said:
Good question. As you know, Matthew 7 is part of the Sermon on the Mount which begins in chapter 5. The entire beginning of the sermon is about the Law and its true intent. Jesus is exposing how many "teachers of the law" have misunderstood God's intent behind the law (i.e. its okay to call someone a fool as long as you don't murder them. Lusting after other women is okay as long as you don't touch them. Moses gave permission to divorce so you can do it at will. Revenge is okay because God said, "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.") This entire sermon is built on Jesus exposing God's original desire for the law and everything builds off that foundation. Jesus is calling his disciples to seek a righteousness that "exceeds the scribes and phariseees" who were using the law to excuse such behaviors.
But wait a minute. You are espousing the notion that the “intent” of the Law was to deal with sin at its source, which is the heart. But that’s not true. The blood of bulls and goats could not cleanse a person’s heart from anger (which is the cause of murder) or lust (which is the cause of adultery) or hardness of heart (which is the cause of divorce), or any of the myriads of motives and desires of the heart that drive men to sinful deeds. The intent of the Law was to deal with behavior, provide bodily cleansing from bodily defilement, ergo the many ritual baths and hand washings and people being literally, physically sprinkled with blood. That was the limitations of that old law covenant, that it wasn’t “faultless” (as Paul expresses it) in that it could not make men perfect, it could only “cover over” sin (which is what atonement means) and wash the body of physical defilement, as Paul explains: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” If the blood of bulls and goats, offered according to the Law, could have cleansed men’s heart, where sin originates, then there would be no need for the blood of Christ.

But the point is the Law could not cleanse the heart, which Paul also explains: “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the point of purifying the flesh (notice that Paul expresses what is the purpose and effect of the Law regarding sin, that is provided bodily cleansing for bodily sin and defilement); How much more shall the blood of Christ … purge your conscience (cleanse the heart where sin originates) from dead works (bodily obedience to the Law) to serve the living God (obedience to the living Spirit leading and instructing and strengthening and inspiring and correcting and convicting and guiding and teaching …). Hebrews 9:13-14

And that is what Jesus was teaching in this sermon, that the Law said “don’t do” but Jesus says “don’t desire.” The Law was never intended to cleanse the heart. The “true intent” of the Law was to prepare people to receive the Good News of remission of sin through the blood of Christ. And that’s what Jesus was doing this beautiful morning, as he taught the multitude of people who had gathered on the slopes along the seashore, not instructing them about the true intent of the law, but preparing the people for the New Covenant which would contain better sacrifices that promised better cleansing that would provide righteousness that would exceed that of those who followed the Law, no matter how meticulously they did so, even if they weighted and tithed every gram of anise and cumin!

And I don’t know where you got the idea that the teachers of the law said “it’s okay to call someone a fool as long as you don't murder them, or lusting after other women is okay as long as you don't touch them, or Moses gave permission to divorce so you can do it at will, or revenge is okay because God said, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.” I’ve never seen any such teachings in all the Talmudic literature. The point Jesus was making was that even the most righteous of the law keepers were not righteous enough. God required more, and we know what that “more” is … perfect righteousness, which no man can or ever has attained to … except Jesus. Which is why we put our faith in Jesus and follow him, because then his perfect righteousness is imputed to us. So I disagree, Jesus was not teaching the people the “true intent” of the Law. It says nothing about anger or lust or other matters of the heart. What Jesus was doing was preparing the people for a life of faith that would transcend what the Law required, a life of faith that would flow from a clean heart.

Wormwood said:
So, there will be 7 sevens and 62 sevens. If the decree was issued in 458 BC, the first 7 sevens would have ended around 409 BC which is the time historians generally believe the city was rebuilt.
What historians would that be? My sources show that the decree of Artaxerxes was in 457. According to the book of Ezra, the same year that Artaxerxes issued his decree he sent Ezra to carry it out (Ezra 7). They began to rebuild the city and the surrounding nations complained to Artaxerxes who did a search of the royal records and found that Jerusalem had been destroyed for rebellion so he stopped the rebuilding of the city (Ezra 4:11-21).

Then later, in the time of Nehemiah, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 2:1), which was 444 B.C., the king relented to Nehemiah’s pleading and issued a second decree that the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem should begin again and he sent Nehemiah to oversee it.

But Daniel had said “from the going forth of the commandmentto restore and to rebuild the city,” which would be either the original decree of 457 or the latter one of 444. And that’s according to Scripture.

But to end the 70 weeks with the year of Jesus’ crucifixion as you suggest leaves much of Daniel’s prophecy unfulfilled. This wasn’t just a prophecy about the saved remnant (to whom Jesus’ sacrifice would apply). This was a prophecy about the Jewish people and about the city of Jerusalem. And the purpose was “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins” (Jesus’ sacrifice finished the transgression and made an end of sin for those who believed in him, but it didn’t finish the transgression and make an end sin in Jerusalem, the majority of the people in Jerusalem continued to sin and transgress the law as if nothing had happened, the only thing that literally finished the transgression and make an end of sins in Jerusalem was its destruction).

And while Jesus’ death certainly make reconciliation for iniquity for those who put their faith in him, what about the majority who did not? What made reconciliation for their sins? I would suggest that according to the Law their own lives were forfeit? And while Jesus’ death and resurrection certainly brought in everlasting righteousness for those who believed in him, what about those who did not? And when was vision and prophecy sealed up? When Jesus was crucified? But then whence came the New Testament? Whence the vision of John on Patmos? Whence the prophecies of the Revelation of Jesus? Was not the Biblical canon “sealed up” when the last book was received? Which by the way was the Revelation written just prior to the war. The post-70 A.D. dating for New Testament books is not correct, they were all written during the Apostolic era, which is why not one Gospel or letter ever mentions Jerusalem or Israel in the past tense, not even the Revelation, and it is inconceivable that any New Testament book could have been written after the total destruction of the Jewish nation and yet there not be some whiff of a hint of it in any document written after that event.

And what about verse 26 where Daniel prophesied that the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed? That didn’t happen when Jesus was crucified, it happened in the middle of the war, halfway or 3 ½ years into the war. And while the sacrifice and oblation were certainly fulfilled when Jesus was crucified, and for those who believed in him they had no more need of sacrifices and oblations offered according to the law, but those sacrifices and oblations continued morning and evening, even while Jesus hung bleeding and dying on the Cross. They didn’t cease until July 17 of 70 A.D., when they failed for lack of priests to offer them.

Wormwood said:
This is not about a 70AD war,
Of course it is. What else do you think Paul meant when he said: “And as Isaiah cried before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodomah, and been made like unto Gomorrha.” Have you actually read the passage of Isaiah that Paul quoted? Its chapter 1, read it, the whole chapter, and then tell me it has nothing to do with the war and “destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners.”

In Christ,
Pilgrimer