The Cross of Christ and Preterism

[Kangaroo Jack]

Greetings didymus,

Thank you for the welcome! Please look at the statement in Hebrews 10 more closely. It says that Jesus' flesh was the veil. He entered into the heavenly sanctuary through the veil, that is, His flesh. Why did the high priest enter in through the veil? Answer: To sprinkle the blood on the altar. The blood was sprinkled on the altar for atonement:

18 And He said to me, “Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: ‘These are the ordinances for the altar on the day when it is made, for sacrificing burnt offerings on it, and for sprinkling blood on it. 19 You shall give a young bull for a sin offering to the priests, the Levites, who are of the seed of Zadok, who approach Me to minister to Me,’ says the Lord GOD. 20 ‘You shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar, on the four corners of the ledge, and on the rim around it; thus you shall cleanse it and make atonement for it. Ezek. 43:18-20 NKJV

Note that verse 18 says "this is the ordinances for the altar for the sprinkling of the blood on it." Then it says, "Thus you shall cleanse it (the altar) and make atonement for it."

Hebrews 12

The passage in Hebrews 12 does not speak of the cross but of Christ's post-cross mediatorial work. Christ's word "it is finished" had reference to His relation to God as our priest and not to our relation to God at that point. By the death of the animal the priest gained access through the veil. By the sprinkling of the blood the actual atonement was made.

Therefore, when Jesus said, "it is finished" He was speaking in reference to Himself having access into the sanctuary as our High Priest. From that point on as our High Priest He performed the equivalent of the sprinkling of the blood on the altar which was for atonement.

Not with the blood of bulls of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all.... Hebrews 9:12

Why would He have had to enter the Most Holy Place with His blood if the sole act of His death on the cross completed the work of atonement?

You seem to be suggesting that it was the mere shedding of the blood which accomplished the atonement. This was never the case. They had to shed the animal's blood and then apply it to the posts of the doors so the angel of death would passover them. The priest had to take the blood in a vial and sprinkle it on the altar for the cleansing. The cleansing did not occur by the mere shedding. The cleansing occurred through the sprinkling.

Jesus offered up His flesh (part 1) and then began the equivalent of the Mosaic ordinance of the sprinkling (part 2). He completed that intercession in ad70. This was when the atonement was completed. This is when Jesus appeared the second time "not to deal with sin unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28 ESV & YLT).

blessings,

Kangaroo Jack

[Morris]

Aug 19, 2010 12:09:02 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

If "it is finished" is representative of a complete atonement, one must wonder what the resurrection has to do with anything since it occurs AFTER the "it is finished" declaration. The Lamb had been slain...

P.S. - Welcome Kangaroo Jack!

Well, in my opinion, "it is finished" refers to Christ's redemptive work. Resurrection, and everything else that 'follows' the cross, is a reward/result of the work Christ performed. He is now 'finished' in this respect, seated at the right hand of the Father, enjoying His rest that we too may now enter into.

And I join you in welcoming Kangaroo Jack!

[kangaroojack]

mellontes said:

If "it is finished" is representative of a complete atonement, one must wonder what the resurrection has to do with anything since it occurs AFTER the "it is finished" declaration. The Lamb had been slain...

mellontes,

Thanks for the welcome! I do not think that the statement "it is finished" is representative of a completed atonement. This would not have been in accordance with the Mosaic law. After the death of the animal the priest gained access through the veil with a vial of the animal's blood. From there he sprinkled the blood on the altar to make the atonement. Therefore, the statement, "it is finished" was representative of our our high priest's relation to God to approach Him in the heavenly sanctuary with His blood. From there He performed the spiritual equivalent of the sprinkling of the blood on the altar to make atonement for sins. He accomplished this intercession in ad70.

See my post top of this page.


Kangaroo Jack

[Once4all]

(Hebrews 10:22 NASB) let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

(1 Peter 3:21 NASB) Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(Hebrews 9:14 NASB) how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

(Acts 2:38 NASB) Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(Acts 22:16 NASB) 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

The blood of Christ makes atonement, cleanses your conscience to make atonement for sins. Each person's heart is sprinkled with the blood of Christ when they are baptized into him.

[mellontes]

Aug 19, 2010 15:21:20 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

mellontes said:

If "it is finished" is representative of a complete atonement, one must wonder what the resurrection has to do with anything since it occurs AFTER the "it is finished" declaration. The Lamb had been slain...

mellontes,

Thanks for the welcome! I do not think that the statement "it is finished" is representative of a completed atonement. This would not have been in accordance with the Mosaic law. After the death of the animal the priest gained access through the veil with a vial of the animal's blood. From there he sprinkled the blood on the altar to make the atonement. Therefore, the statement, "it is finished" was representative of our our high priest's relation to God to approach Him in the heavenly sanctuary with His blood. From there He performed the spiritual equivalent of the sprinkling of the blood on the altar to make atonement for sins. He accomplished this intercession in ad70.

See my post top of this page.


Kangaroo Jack

KJ, Look more closely at what I said. I am in agreement with you. The "Lamb had been slain" was the only part of atonement that had taken place...other stuff was yet to be accomplished. This is why redemption was NOT complete and was one HUGE reason they were still looking for it at the parousia (Luke 21:28).

[kangaroojack]

mellontes,

I did not see the "If" at the beginning of your statement.

kangaroojack

[mellontes]

Aug 19, 2010 16:33:31 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

mellontes,

I did not see the "If" at the beginning of your statement.

kangaroojack

Oooooopppssieeeeesssss... LOL

It happens all the time. I think it is part of a full-preterist defence mechanism that automatically kicks in...

No harm, no fowl (yes, that is a pun)

[kangaroojack]

Aug 19, 2010 16:13:32 GMT -5 Once4all said:

(Hebrews 10:22 NASB) let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

(1 Peter 3:21 NASB) Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(Hebrews 9:14 NASB) how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

(Acts 2:38 NASB) Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

(Acts 22:16 NASB) 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

The blood of Christ makes atonement, cleanses your conscience to make atonement for sins. Each person's heart is sprinkled with the blood of Christ when they are baptized into him.

How were any of the above statements true apart from the post-cross intercessory work of Christ in the heavenly Holiest Place? Under the OC the atonement occurred upon the sprinkling of the animal's blood on the altar. Jesus had to go into the presence of God and offer the equivalent based in His sacrifice. It says that He went into heaven itself "NOW to appear" in the presence of God for them. If the atonement was completed in the death of Christ alone, then why did He "now" have to appear before God in their behalf?

Then likewise he (the oc priest) sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without effusion of blood there is no remission.


23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, and the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, NOW to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another Heb. 9:21-25

You seem to be talking about the benefits that are the consequences of the atoning work of Christ. I am talking about the atoning work itself. The actual atonement occurred when the priest sprinkled the blood on the altar. So it is said that Christ "NOW" appears in the presence of God doing likewise.

The "Now" expired in ad70 when Jesus completed His atoning work. The destruction of the temple in ad70 was the sign that the people of God now had gained full access to God (9:6-10).

The first saints lived in the time when the atonement had not yet been finished. We live on the side of its full completion.


kangaroojack

[didymus]

So, KangarooJack,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the atoning work of Christ had to be within the rules and regulations of the old law regarding sacrifices. And, yet, the Scriptures seem to be plain that the old covenant, law included, came to an end at the cross, and that the new covenant along with the new law came in force at the cross. Were the two laws in simultaneous operation after the cross?

[mellontes]

Aug 19, 2010 19:03:58 GMT -5 @didymus said:

So, KangarooJack,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the atoning work of Christ had to be within the rules and regulations of the old law regarding sacrifices. And, yet, the Scriptures seem to be plain that the old covenant, law included, came to an end at the cross, and that the new covenant along with the new law came in force at the cross. Were the two laws in simultaneous operation after the cross?

Didymus said, "If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the atoning work of Christ had to be within the rules and regulations of the old law regarding sacrifices."

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Seems like athe atonement HAD to be after the pattern of the Law else it could not be said that Jesus did indeed fulfill the Law.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 19, 2010 19:03:58 GMT -5 @didymus said:

So, KangarooJack,

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the atoning work of Christ had to be within the rules and regulations of the old law regarding sacrifices. And, yet, the Scriptures seem to be plain that the old covenant, law included, came to an end at the cross, and that the new covenant along with the new law came in force at the cross. Were the two laws in simultaneous operation after the cross?

Hi didymus,

Great question bro! Yes that's exactly what I am saying. The pre-ad70 Christians lived in the time of the eclipse of the covenants. Post ad70 Christians live in the eternal new covenant age.

Please note that Hebrews 8 says that the old is passing away (present participle). Chapter 9 says that external regulations such as baptisms were imposed until the time of the new order. So the first Christians lived when external baptism and spiritual baptism co-existed. But we live in the age of spiritual baptism alone. Yes, baptism by literal water is not for today.

When Jesus finished His atoning work in the heavenly holy of holies the new covenant age had finally dawned. The Holy Spirit signified that the destruction of the temple was the sign that the people had now gained full access to God on their own (Hebrews 9:6-10).

There were two parts and two signs indicating the fulfillment of each part and two consequences or effects:

Part 1: The victim had to be slain
Sign: The renting of the veil the sign this was accomplished.
Effect: Jesus had full access to God in our behalf.

Part 2: The priest had to enter the sanctuary with blood to make the atonement at the altar of the sanctuary.
Sign: The destruction of the temple the sign this was accomplished.
Effect: We now have direct access to God ourselves.

Jesus entered the sanctuary with His own blood (not literally but on the basis of His blood Hebrews 8:12)? Then He began the spiritual equivalent of the oc priest's intercession. Jesus accomplished this intercession in ad70 and the destruction of the temple was the sign to the people that He had completed it and that they now had direct access to God.

In Jesus,

kangaroojack

[didymus]

Great explanation, KJ.

All my study books agree with you. Your use of the term "new order" perked me up. One of the translations I have even uses, "new order." The New American Bible, a Catholic translation, states: "but only in matters of food and drink and various ritual washings: regulations concerning the flesh, imposed until the time of the new order." - Hebrews 9.10.

As far as the physical rituals, such as water baptism, I certainly agree. A point I made in my article "The Spiritual Kingdom," which is in this forum site here:
livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=preterism&action=display&thread=513

I was a member of the "Church of Christ," and I once believed in the necessity of water baptism for salvation. I still believe in baptismal regeneration, but not water baptism. Baptism into Christ is a spiritual baptism. Baptism into Christ is being baptized in pure, living water, not the chlorinated junk I was baptized with in 1974. So, I certainly see your point there.

As for the rest, I think I'll just say, I'm still learning. But, I think I do have a better understanding.

So then, you do see a time of transition from the cross to the destruction of the temple in 70AD?

- I'm in a good mood today

[mellontes]

Didy said, "I still believe in baptismal regeneration."

Now, when he said that I just about jumped out of my seat UNTIL I read what came afterwards.

And I think this is a good lesson for all of us. It is certainly an excellent example to use with those who oppose full-preterism.

If I sat in the presence of a bunch of futurists and said exactly what Didy said ("I believe in baptismal regeneration"), they would jump off their seats and rush to see who could injure me first - and all of this by failing to ask what I meant by that statement.

And this is something we all do. We continue to analyze interpretations from within the point of view of our own paradigm.

It is the same with the past parousia. Because most believe the event is to be physical in nature, they cannot accept a past parousia.

We must seek to UNDERSTAND a person's position before beginning to criticize it. Most just bash away because it is different than their present learned paradigm. I dare say there is no one here who still adheres to their first learned paradigm - at least I hope not...

Thanks for that reminder Didy!

Blessings, all.

[MoGrace2U]

Hi KangarooJack,
There are several other parts to the day of atonement as well, involving the bullock and the two goats, letting the live goat into the wilderness, the burning of fat on the altar, and the total destruction of the flesh of the burnt offerings outside the camp. None of which involved tearing down the temple!

I do agree that the temple coming down in 70AD signified that all these things had been fulfilled and thus ended - do you have any thoughts on these other elements of the priest's duties that he was required to perform - which we see other priests helped him with? I see the apostles at work in this day too fulfilling the type - Col 1:24.

[didymus]

Thanks Mel,

I got a laugh out of that. I think it's the first time I laughed all week. I can just imagine you jumping out of your seat.

[mellontes]

Aug 20, 2010 10:26:35 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Thanks Mel,

I got a laugh out of that. I think it's the first time I laughed all week. I can just imagine you jumping out of your seat.

I just ABOUT jumped out of my seat...lol...if I truly did, I would smash into my monitor!

Proverbs 17:22 - A merry heart doeth good like a medicine...

[kangaroojack]

didymus said:

I think I do have a better understanding.

Hi didymus. From now on please call me Roo. Kangaroos are my favorite animal on the whole earth though I have never met one. I live in Maryland (East Coast USA) and we have no roos here. My first name is Jack. Thus "kangaroo jack."

Let's hear your better understanding bro! And while you're at it hows about an explanation as to why Jesus had to "NOW appear before God" in their behalf. Hebrews was written about ad64 (near the full close of the oc age). So Christ was still in the heavenly sanctuary performing the spiritual equivalent of the external services that the oc priest was required to perform.

didymus

So then, you do see a time of transition from the cross to the destruction of the temple in 70AD?

Don't all Preterists including those inconsistent "partial" Prets? Yes the old and new covenants eclipsed each other. Paul said that the night (oc) is "far spent" and the day (nc) is "at hand." So there was indeed a transition but I like to say "eclipse."

Roo

[Morris]

Aug 20, 2010 3:51:26 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Great question bro! Yes that's exactly what I am saying. The pre-ad70 Christians lived in the time of the eclipse of the covenants. Post ad70 Christians live in the eternal new covenant age.

How is this possible in light of,
Romans 10:4
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes"

and,
Hebrews 7:11-16
"Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life."

Please note that Hebrews 8 says that the old is passing away (present participle).

Reading the language used here will show that it 'is presently obsolete'; He has made it old and it is old. It describes it as something very old, unable to perform any useful work even though it is still visible, and that it is about to cease to be even visible. The imagery here is like a dead tree that produces no leaves or fruit and has begun to rot, soon to fall over and decompose into nothing.

The words here [with 'palaioo' being the root] convey more than simply age. It carries with it a connotation of gradually 'dead', as if a disappearance by decay. It is also used in Luke 12:33 (but we'll start in verse 32), "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys."

The notion here is of a 'purse' that doesn't experience an aging (or passing of time) that results in deterioration or compromise to its 'physical integrity'.

This idea is further expanded on in Hebrews 10:8-10,
"Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them ” (which are offered according to the law), then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

The "takes away" is such an understatement (and an injustice to the intensity of the word). It goes beyond a simple removal of the old and describes the manner in which it was done; it was removed violently, abolished, as by murder. This is very strong language that does not support a co-existence of two covenants.

Note also that we "have been" sanctified,that is, made holy (i.e. have been made ceremonially clean). This could only be possible if the sprinkling of the blood had already been done.

Hebrews 9:13,14
"For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

This verse also relates the 'sprinkling of blood' with the blood of Christ already having been offered to God. Strictly speaking, the blood had to be sprinkled near-immediately after the sacrifice was made. And remember, the earthly things were patterned after the heavenly, not the other way around. The shedding and sprinkling of blood were a single priestly process. Even Hebrews shows this,
"Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission." (9:21,22)
If the blood was shed, it was then sprinkled right away.

When Jesus finished His atoning work in the heavenly holy of holies the new covenant age had finally dawned. The Holy Spirit signified that the destruction of the temple was the sign that the people had now gained full access to God on their own (Hebrews 9:6-10).

I am not sure how this can be said in light of other scripture. If this is the understanding of this passage, it conflicts with other passages. "This is the New Covenant in my blood" and "In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete".

[Note here that I do believe the destruction of Jerusalem was an important judgment. I just don't see how it relates to any sprinkling of blood, except of those who were there.]

Now, to look at Hebrews 9:6-10. I'd like to bring to attention what is being said here, specifically this, "the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing".

I believe it is incorrect to understand this as indicating a physical temple that must fall. The first quick note is on the use of 'tabernacle' instead of temple. Tabernacle referencing the tent in the wilderness instead of the permanent temple structure. It is my opinion that this is used here for the laws on the covenant which it is representative of. Thus it includes the priestly services performed in the temple.

Now for the "was still standing" portion. The Greek suggests something other than a physical 'standing'. The two words here mean 'ability, continuity, relation, or condition' and 'a standing (properly, the act)'. It is therefore my belief that what is being said here is that the way into the Holiest of All was not made manifest while the regulatory acts of the first covenant were still in affect (not merely enacted by people, but still prescribed by God to be enacted).

I think the context of this verse supports this understanding as well. It continues by saying it (what was performed in the past) was symbolic for the present time ("Christ came as High Priest" v. 11). We then read on about the contrast between the old, which was concerned with the natural regulatory acts, and being made perfect in regard to the conscience.

While the outward acts were still in effect (legislatively by God) we could not have a perfect conscience. We see several reasons for this in scripture but two of them are, because they were a repeating reminder of our sin, and they cause us to believe it is through our own works that we become sin-free.

There were two parts and two signs indicating the fulfillment of each part and two consequences or effects:

Part 1: The victim had to be slain
Sign: The renting of the veil the sign this was accomplished.
Effect: Jesus had full access to God in our behalf.

Hebrews 6:19,20
"This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."
We can enter the behind the veil because Jesus went before us. How did He go? By the sacrifice and braking of His body, for we are told that "by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh" Hebrews 10:20.

It could only be consecrated by the sprinkling of blood.

Jesus entered the sanctuary with His own blood (not literally but on the basis of His blood Hebrews 8:12)? Then He began the spiritual equivalent of the oc priest's intercession. Jesus accomplished this intercession in ad70 and the destruction of the temple was the sign to the people that He had completed it and that they now had direct access to God.

I agreed right up to the point of 70AD. The sprinkling of blood had to be done before Christ could become our High Priest, before He could enter the Holiest of All, before we could be consecrated or sanctified, and before the new covenant could be brought in. Yet we find all these things are true after Christ's sacrifice.

Now, that is my belief as to what is true. If you still disagree, peace to you, and let our fellowship be based on Christ and not on understanding.

[MoGrace2U]

Hi Morris,
If the way into the holiest was not yet manifest while the temple still had a standing, it was only because its ministration of the death was not over yet. Under the new covenant the remnant was receiving life in Christ, but under the old the judgment of condemnation had not yet been administered to those who rejected Christ. This would be the 'eclipse' of the two covenants, imo.

[didymus]

Aug 20, 2010 11:00:40 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

didymus said:

I think I do have a better understanding.

Hi didymus. From now on please call me Roo. Kangaroos are my favorite animal on the whole earth though I have never met one. I live in Maryland (East Coast USA) and we have no roos here. My first name is Jack. Thus "kangaroo jack."

Let's hear your better understanding bro! And while you're at it hows about an explanation as to why Jesus had to "NOW appear before God" in their behalf. Hebrews was written about ad64 (near the full close of the oc age). So Christ was still in the heavenly sanctuary performing the spiritual equivalent of the external services that the oc priest was required to perform.

I said better understanding, not perfect understanding. For the rest, I direct you to "The Spiritual Kingdom," reply # 6.

By the way, my favorite wild animal is an elephant. So, if I call you "Roo," are you going to call me "Ant"? I too have never met one in person.

[kangaroojack]

Morris wrote:

The sprinkling of blood had to be done before Christ could become our High Priest, before He could enter the Holiest of All

The scripture says:

But Christ became High Priest of the good things to come good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He ENTERED the Most Holy Place once for all.... Hebrews 9:11-12 NKJV

Roo

[kangaroojack]

In the opening post didymus said:

Jesus became the author and finisher of our faith because of His work on the cross, not because of what happened in 70AD.

I am sure these are things that many already know. But few have put them together. It is because of the cross that all things become new.

Am I wrong here? Help me out, please.

Didymus,

Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding (or effusion) of blood there is no remission.

According to Strong's Concordance the word "shedding" in 9:22 means "effusion." To effuse means "to spread." Example: In the first passover the blood of the animal was effused (spread) on the doorposts and the angel of death passed over the house on which the blood was effused.

Sprinkling is a type of effusion:

19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, for without effusion of blood there is no remission. Hebrews 9:19-22

Note that God said to Moses, "THIS IS the blood of the covenant" and then instructed him to effuse (sprinkle) the blood. This infers that when Jesus said, "THIS IS My blood of the new covenant" that He was referring to its effusion beyond the cross. If the disciples knew the law of Moses they would have understood this.

Then the apostle says, "For without effusion of blood there is no remission."

We are told that Jesus with his own blood entered the sanctuary:

But Christ became High Priest of the good things to come good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He ENTERED the Most Holy Place once for all.... Hebrews 9:11-12 NKJV

I am NOT saying that Jesus literally fulfilled this and that He literally took a vial of his blood into the sanctuary to effuse it. But I am saying that the language dictates the necessity of His post-cross intercessory work. The cross without His ministry in the heavenly Holy of Holies meant nothing. Likewise, His ministry in the heavenly Holy of Holies would have been impossible without the cross.

The purpose of my replies is to deal with your statement in your op which was this:

So, at the cross, the Old Covenant, with all it's rules and regulations and prophecies came to an end.

This statement seems to negate the necessity of Christ's heavenly intercession as our High Priest. And it is obvious that not all the external regulations came to an end at the cross. Jesus kept the Mosaic ordinance of baptism in force until the end of that age. And Paul offered a sacrifice for the Days of Purification (Acts 21:26) which he later on negated (Galatians 2:16-18). So it is obvious that not all the external regulations came to an end at the cross. And they did not all come to an end all at once. But they were all abolished in ad70 and forevermore when Jesus completed His intercession in the Holy of Holies!

Roo

[mellontes]

Hey Roo. Do you know how to check your personal messages yet?

[didymus]

Folks,

I have been considering all the comments in this thread. A lot of good comments and discussion. I really appreciate that. I never thought that it would get the volume of comments that it has. But, then, I've been wrong before, and I more than likely, I will be again.

Through it all, I must maintain my initial position. It all goes back to the cross, no matter what scenario you believe in for what happened after the cross. Without the cross, none of it would have happened. Without the cross, there would not have been a borrowed grave. Without the cross, there would not have been need for a resurrection. I mean, let's be logical, there wouldn't be any need to raise someone from the dead if he's not dead. Without the cross there would not have been any return to the Father an obedient Son, and receiving an inheritance. And, we would not be joint heirs with Him. Without the cross, 70AD would just be another year, and the people of Israel would still be under the old covenant and law. Without the cross, the new covenant would not have been established.

I just want add one more thing. Under no circumstances is the cross of Christ meaningless, no matter what did or did not happen afterward.

Didy....... the Ant.

- I'm reading this book backwards

[didymus]

Hebrews 9.10, Amplified Bible:

For [the ceremonies] deal only with clean and unclean meats and drinks and different washings, [mere] external rules and regulations for the body imposed to tide the worshipers over until the time of setting things straight [of reformation, of the complete new order when Christ, the Messiah, shall establish the reality of what these things foreshadow--a better covenant].

Young's Literal Translation:

only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances -- till the time of reformation imposed upon [them].

GOD'S WORD Translation:

These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things.

Holman Christian Standard Bible:

They are physical regulations and only deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of restoration.

And, the New American Standard:

since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.

Allyn,

What is this time of reformation / time of restoration / new way of doing things / better covenant? And when would this time occur? And, has it occurred?

Is it not a point of full preterism that this time of reformation / restoration has already occurred? And, that we are now under a better covenant and a better way of doing things? And, isn't that better way of doing things a spiritual way of doing things?

Isn't the kingdom we are in a totally spiritual kingdom? If so, how can immersing a physical body in a pool of dirty water bring about our entrance into a totally spiritual kingdom? A pure kingdom?

As I mentioned before, I use to believe as you do. It wasn't till I considered the full ramifications of full preterism that I fully changed my mind about the need for water baptism. Also, as I mentioned before, I still do believe in baptismal regeneration, just not in H2O. How can the chlorinated dirty water be considered as pure/living water? Pure/living water is Christ?

John 4.10-14 from the New American Standard:

Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."

She said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?

"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?"

Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;

but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life."

What is this living water that whoever drinks of it will never thirst again? I maintain that baptism into Christ is baptism into living water, not that stuff that comes out of a faucet. Certainly, not that stuff in the Gulf these days.

I do think that Roo is correct in his understanding of this matter.

It just hit me. This phrase in John 4.14, "but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life" The living water which comes from Christ results in eternal life. You can not possibly claim the same is true of that stuff that comes out of a faucet, can you?

- where can I get tea made with living water

[kangaroojack]

Aug 21, 2010 12:00:02 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Aug 21, 2010 11:00:24 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

How about Hebrews 6 & 9? In chapter 6 the apostle commanded them to "LEAVE the elementary doctrines of Christ." Then he gives a list of those elementary doctrines and baptism is included in the list. Then he says that to return to those things is to "crucify the Son of God afresh and to put Him to an open shame."

Chapter 9 says that baptisms were imposed UNTIL the time of the new order (vs. 10). The new order fully came when Christ finished the cleansing in the heavenly sanctuary. Consequently, the external washings are no longer needed to fill what lacked before Christ finished the full atonement.

Again, baptism was imposed UNTIL the time of the new order which came at the "end of the age," that is, the Mosaic dispensation.

Praise God that we live in the age of Christ's completed atoning work!

Blessings,

Roo

Roo,
In chapter 6 it was the discussions of those things that they were told they (the believing Jews) should leave. They had been arguing the nature of such things (evidently) when they should have understood their principals and moved on to more mature discussions.

In chapter 9 the various washings had to do with the old covenant process under the Law of Moses while the New Covenant baptism is not a washing for a clean body presentable to God at the time of sacrifice but rather a washing of the inner man in the likeness of Christ's death burial and resurrection as shownus in Romans chapters 5-8. A command still in effect for every new believer.

Hi Allyn,

First, the apostles commanded baptism for "the remission of sins" to Jews. Therefore it was truly and properly a washing which was required for their salvation. Baptism is no longer in effect seeing that Jesus completed the cleansing for the remission of sins at the altar in heaven. Baptism just filled in what lacked until Jesus completed the work.

Second, Gentiles were never commanded to be baptized.

blessings,

Roo

[didymus]

Aug 21, 2010 21:56:39 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Allyn said:

As I mentioned before, I use to believe as you do. It wasn't till I considered the full ramifications of full preterism that I fully changed my mind about the need for water baptism. Also, as I mentioned before, I still do believe in baptismal regeneration, just not in H2O. How can the chlorinated dirty water be considered as pure/living water? Pure/living water is Christ?

Roo, this is not a quote from allyn, it is a quote from me - Didymus
Greetings Allyn,

I agree with a lot of what you said. But I think you make too much of the fact that water is chlorinated and dirty. This has nothing to do with it. God can sanctify anything. He cleansed dung and accepted it as a holy offering.

The issue is this: Christ finished the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary. He accomplished the full remission of sins. The destruction of the temple was the sign that Jesus finished the work and that God's people from that point on have full access into His presence APART from the observance of any external ordinances. Therefore, baptism by water has been rendered altogether useless.

blessings,

Roo

I was just doing a comparison of living water which is from Christ, and the physical H2O. One way or another, baptism in H2O is useless in the new Jersalem that John saw coming down from Heaven. So, I am agreeing with you about baptism. As for the rest, I am still considering it. I am still not sure that the atonement was not completed at the cross of Christ.

[kangaroojack]

didymus said:

Roo, this is not a quote from allyn, it is a quote from me - Didymus

Sorry! This means it's time to go to bed.




Roo

[Allyn]

Aug 21, 2010 21:42:56 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Aug 21, 2010 19:53:53 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Didy,
Unless you put your flesh to death you can have no part in Christ.

Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? (Rom. 6:1)

But I think we have had this conversation before.

I have had this conversation countless times from your side of the fence. And, really don't disagree except where it comes to the nature of the water. Are we baptized in the living water that Christ gives, or water from the faucet?

Both!

One is our action and one is God's

[kangaroojack]

Aug 22, 2010 8:18:19 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Aug 21, 2010 21:42:56 GMT -5 @didymus said:

I have had this conversation countless times from your side of the fence. And, really don't disagree except where it comes to the nature of the water. Are we baptized in the living water that Christ gives, or water from the faucet?

Both!

One is our action and one is God's

Allyn,

What you say was true in that transition period between the old and new covenants. Jesus had not completed the cleansing at the altar and so the external ordinance of baptism had to remain to fill in what lacked.

Now that the atonement has been completed the external ordinance has been done away altogether. Salvation is now by faith alone apart from any works whatsoever.

In this I find that Full Preterism and my Reformed tradition (faith alone) complement each other.

Roo