Baptism

[Once4all]

I believe water baptism is still a command to be obeyed today. Someone will have to show me from Scripture that it isn't.

[didymus]

Bev,

How would you explain Hebrews 9.10?

[Once4all]

Aug 20, 2010 23:15:47 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Bev,

How would you explain Hebrews 9.10?

Context:
Hebrews 9:1 NASB
(1) Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.

Baptism into Christ is not a regulation of the first covenant.

[didymus]

And you are certain that baptism into Christ was, is, and always will be water baptism?

[kangaroojack]

Aug 20, 2010 22:39:07 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I believe water baptism is still a command to be obeyed today. Someone will have to show me from Scripture that it isn't.

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

[Allyn]

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

Aug 20, 2010 22:39:07 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I believe water baptism is still a command to be obeyed today. Someone will have to show me from Scripture that it isn't.

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.

[Once4all]

Allyn, thank you for responding! I spent three hours this morning mowing the lawn, from 9 to noon, and have been feeling exhausted and drained today.

Didymus asked: "And you are certain that baptism into Christ was, is, and always will be water baptism?"

As certain as I can be from Scripture.

[Allyn]

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.

Aug 21, 2010 13:13:32 GMT -5 @didymus said:

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:

GOD'S WORD Translation:

Holman Christian Standard Bible:

And, the New American Standard:

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

[didymus]

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?

[kangaroojack]

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?

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

[Allyn]

Aug 22, 2010 8:42:21 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

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

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

Water baptism is not work. It has been said to be works by those who want to argue against it but baptism is likeness. It is us being in the likeness of the work of Christ which then remains from one generation to the next. Otherwise we are orphans and the way to God is no longer through Christ but only for those the ordinance was first given to. We cannot be in Christ without being the likeness of Christ.

[MoGrace2U]

Christ in His flesh before His death came to be baptized by John, whereby the heavens opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and the voice of God declared Him as His Son. And when John declared that he was the one who needed to be baptized by Jesus, He tells him this:

Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.

This was the baptism of repentance being performed by John on the remnant of Israel in preparation for the day of the Lord. It showed forth their faith in the promise at the preaching of John who announced the judgment that was about to come. Even some of the Pharisees had come to be baptized - but in form only not in the heart of true repentance.

And yet we also find that after the cross, believers were also being baptized - even though they already had this baptism from John, because by it they were identified as being in Christ. This is all that we do when we are baptized - humble ourselves that we might be identified by the others as being in Him, showing forth our own submission to his death and life.

Personally I see it as a witness and a testimony, which no ceremony can accomplish. But is the same as what Jesus' own baptism declared to the people. Therefore it remains a right thing to do!

[kangaroojack]

Aug 22, 2010 9:29:51 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Aug 22, 2010 8:42:21 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

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

Water baptism is not work. It has been said to be works by those who want to argue against it but baptism is likeness. It is us being in the likeness of the work of Christ which then remains from one generation to the next. Otherwise we are orphans and the way to God is no longer through Christ but only for those the ordinance was first given to. We cannot be in Christ without being the likeness of Christ.

Greetings Allyn,

I respectfully disagree with you on this. Baptism was for the "remission of sins." Therefore it was indeed a "work." Jesus was in the heavenly tabernacle accomplishing the remission of sins by performing the spiritual service that was equivalent to the oc priests sprinkling of the blood (Heb. 9).

Once Jesus finished that work the ceremonial cleansing (baptism) was no longer needed.

Jesus said that he that "believes and is baptized shall be saved." The apostles commanded baptism "for the remission of sins." These statements argue effectively that baptism was a work. So if salvation is by faith alone in the new covenant age then there is no place to require baptism though it is not prohibited.

Roo

[Allyn]

But Roo, this is not a ceremonial cleansing I am talking about here. I am speaking of what we as believers must do in order to be in the likeness of Christ's death burial and resurrection. It is something we do not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. It is for our identity with Christ that we do it. No works can ever save us. But water baptism is what saves us so then how is it a work? Whenever works are described in Scripture has baptism ever been described in such a way? If so, I have nevr seen it. Instead I find this:
Galatians 3:27, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

And when baptised into Christ we see:

2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."

According to the Bible, it is at the point of baptism, that we pass from an unsaved state into a saved state. In other words, at the time of baptism, we go from being unsaved to being saved. We read in I Peter 3:21 (KJV), "The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us." The Bible says that "baptism does now also save us," but men say that "baptism does not save us." This is very similar to the situation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God in Genesis 2:17 told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, "For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." But Satan told Eve in Genesis 3:4, "Then the serpent said to the woman, you will not surely die." Satan only added the one word "not" to what God had said and completely changed the meaning. That is what men are doing to God's commands today.

[kangaroojack]

didymus said:

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?

didymus,

I hope I got the quote right this time about who said it. Your statement is right on! Baptisms were imposed UNTIL the time of the new order and must necessarily have been done away with all other external regulations when the new order fully came. The destruction of the temple was the sign that all external ordinances had been done away.


Roo

[Allyn]

Aug 22, 2010 13:02:32 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

didymus said:

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?

didymus,

I hope I got the quote right this time about who said it. Your statement is right on! Baptisms were imposed UNTIL the time of the new order and must necessarily have been done away with all other external regulations when the new order fully came. The destruction of the temple was the sign that all external ordinances had been done away.


Roo

Hi Roo,
Where does it say that the destruction of the temple was the sign that all external ordinances comprising the New Covenant had been done away with?

[kangaroojack]

Allyn said:

According to the Bible, it is at the point of baptism, that we pass from an unsaved state into a saved state. In other words, at the time of baptism, we go from being unsaved to being saved. We read in I Peter 3:21 (KJV), "The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us."

Allyn,

Yes baptism did save them. Peter clearly said that baptism does "NOW" save us. But this does not apply to us because we are not Jews and the "now" to them was the end of the old covenant age. We are not a part of the age they lived in!

Consider this: At that time the Jews were under a different standard than the Gentiles. God required baptism for the Jew as a means of salvation and for their identity with Christ. But the Gentiles who had never heard the gospel were justified by a different standard. They were justified by the revelation of God in nature apart from baptism. Paul clearly said so:

Romans 2:12-16:

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Gentiles who did not have the law were justified by the revelation of God in nature if they had kept that law. They were justified APART from baptism which for the Jews was for salvation and was also an indication of their identity in Christ.

Roo

[Allyn]

Roo,
First it was works that you claimed baptism was and now it is law (still part of works) but somehow you never say it is "likeness" as demonstrated in that same book of Romans. Explain this for me.

And - what year were you water baptised?

Aug 22, 2010 13:23:52 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Allyn said:

According to the Bible, it is at the point of baptism, that we pass from an unsaved state into a saved state. In other words, at the time of baptism, we go from being unsaved to being saved. We read in I Peter 3:21 (KJV), "The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us."

Allyn,

Yes baptism did save them. Peter clearly said that baptism does "NOW" save us. But this does not apply to us because we are not Jews and the "now" to them was the end of the old covenant age. We are not a part of the age they lived in!

Consider this: At that time the Jews were under a different standard than the Gentiles. God required baptism for the Jew as a means of salvation and for their identity with Christ. But the Gentiles who had never heard the gospel were justified by a different standard. They were justified by the revelation of God in nature apart from baptism. Paul clearly said so:

Romans 2:12-16:

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Gentiles who did not have the law were justified by the revelation of God in nature if they had kept that law. They were justified APART from baptism which for the Jews was for salvation and was also an indication of their identity in Christ.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Aug 22, 2010 13:13:50 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Aug 22, 2010 13:02:32 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

didymus said:
didymus,

I hope I got the quote right this time about who said it. Your statement is right on! Baptisms were imposed UNTIL the time of the new order and must necessarily have been done away with all other external regulations when the new order fully came. The destruction of the temple was the sign that all external ordinances had been done away.


Roo

Hi Roo,
Where does it say that the destruction of the temple was the sign that all external ordinances comprising the New Covenant had been done away with?

Hebrews 9:1-10:

1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the FIRST TABERNACLE WAS STILL STANDING. 9This is an illustration for the PRESENT TIME, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying UNTIL the time of the new order.

Roo

[Allyn]

Hi Roo,

Thanks for the Hebrews 9 response, but that was not an answer to my question as far as I can tell.
Where does it say that the destruction of the temple was the sign that all external ordinances comprising the New Covenant had been done away with?

The PRESENT TIME spoken of by the writer was the time consisting of the temple sacrifices still in effect.

[Once4all]

Allyn, I agree with you 100%.

Roo, I thought the destruction of the temple was the sign that all old covenant ordinances were done away. Your allusion to Hebrews 9:10 relates specifically to old covenant ordinances. Christian baptism does not fall into that category.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 22, 2010 16:02:16 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Allyn, I agree with you 100%.

Roo, I thought the destruction of the temple was the sign that all old covenant ordinances were done away. Your allusion to Hebrews 9:10 relates specifically to old covenant ordinances. Christian baptism does not fall into that category.

All baptism is old covenant. Jesus did not institute something called "Christian baptism." He simply kept Mosaic baptism in force until the end of the age (the oc age).

Baptism was for the remission of sins until Jesus accomplished the remission of sins at the heavenly altar.

If baptism was an absolute necessity, then how could God have justified Gentiles without it (Rom. 2)?

Roo

[Allyn]

Aug 22, 2010 19:04:49 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 22, 2010 16:02:16 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Allyn, I agree with you 100%.

Roo, I thought the destruction of the temple was the sign that all old covenant ordinances were done away. Your allusion to Hebrews 9:10 relates specifically to old covenant ordinances. Christian baptism does not fall into that category.

All baptism is old covenant. Jesus did not institute something called "Christian baptism." He simply kept Mosaic baptism in force until the end of the age (the oc age).

Baptism was for the remission of sins until Jesus accomplished the remission of sins at the heavenly altar.

If baptism was an absolute necessity, then how could God have justified Gentiles without it (Rom. 2)?

Roo

Except that Paul was not teaching the need for baptism in Romans 2 but was teaching the aspect of what the law does when under it and what those not under the law are judged by in their carnality (flesh). It is not until later chaprters that Paul draws the picture for the need of baptism. Something I have been saying from the begining. Baptism is for the believer but not yet having died to the flesh. Once the believer obeys the the requirement of being baptized then that believer becomes a joint heir with Christ. That person (of the 1st century) has only one remaining duty and that is to strive for the kingdom of God which had not yet come fully in at that time. But baptism never ceases because a relationship to Christ depends upon it.

[Once4all]

Aug 22, 2010 19:04:49 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 22, 2010 16:02:16 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Allyn, I agree with you 100%.

Roo, I thought the destruction of the temple was the sign that all old covenant ordinances were done away. Your allusion to Hebrews 9:10 relates specifically to old covenant ordinances. Christian baptism does not fall into that category.

All baptism is old covenant. Jesus did not institute something called "Christian baptism." He simply kept Mosaic baptism in force until the end of the age (the oc age)

Gentiles who were never under the Mosaic Law were baptized, so how can you say that it was Mosaic baptism?

Mosaic sacrifice was done away with too, but we still offer God a sacrifice of praise as well as offering our bodies as living and holy sacrifices.

[didymus]

Folks,

I have been doing much study in recent days. Aand I have come to the conclusion that Kangaroo Jack in 100% correct.

Let me set it up this way. At the cross, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. I think that is pretty much a given. After His resurrection, He became our our High Priest. And when He ascended into heaven, He did exactley what Roo said he did. He went to the Father and carried out His High Priestly duties.

Hebrews 9.11-28, NASB:

11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;

12and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

13For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,

14how 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?

15For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

16For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

17For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

18Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

19For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

20saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU."

21And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.

22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

- Biblegateway.com

It seems plain, based on verse 11 as high priest entered the greater more perfect tabernacle not of this creation. Verse 12 states that He enetered the holy place "once for all" having obtained eternal redemption. He had to obtain eternal redemption Himself so He could act as our High Priest. And, if you look at verse 14, there is your answer for a clean conscience.

Now I want to jump to verse 23. The writer tells us it was necessary for the "copies" of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with the blood of the animal scarifices. Verse 24, for Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one. The true one being in Heaven. I do believe Roo made the point that the physical tabernacle was but a copy of the heavemly tabernacle. I think verse 24 is a key to understanding this. It tells us the Jesus went into Heaven itself "to appear in the presence of God for us." Now why is that important? Is it not true that only the high priest could go into the holy of holies? And why is that? Because God was in the holy of holies, and only the high priest could go into the presence of God. This tells us that Christ went in to the presence of God to do His duty as High Priest. Now the high priest went in to the holy of holies year after year with blood not his own. But Christ went in to the presence of God with His own blood. And because Christ was a perfect sacrifice, He did not have to go into the Holy of Holies year after year, for if He did , as the text tells us, He would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world.

Now there is a reason I am using the New American Standard, instead of my normal use of the New King James. It is because of the latter half of verse 26, which says, "but now once at the consumation of the ages, He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

I would like to get into a bit of preterism here. The reason I used the NASB is the word, "consumation." The Greek word is "sunteleia." There is more to this word than a simple ending. It indicates bring everything to an appinted climax. In English, consumation indicates something being consumated, such as a marriage.

So often, when I used to discuss fulfilled prophecy with people, I would get all kinds of questions that I could not answer. Now I have an answer to one of them. When did the marriage of the lamb take place? My unintelligent answer was always 70AD. Now my intelligent answer is 70AD. And it it weren't for Roo bringing this subject in to this discussion, I probably would not have studied this, then I would not have discovered what I'm about to share with you.

The sequence of event goes like this, starting with the crucifixion. Christ was crucified, he was buried, and somewhere he was raised from the dead. Then he spent 40 days with His disciples, and of course, the Marys. He continued to teach them about the kingdom. Then He ascended into heaven to carry out His duty as a the High Priest, and in the presence of God the Father did the spiritual cleansing and purification, just as Roo has been telling us. But, who did he do this for? Not Himself. He did this as intercessor "for us." Or, to be more precise, for His bride. And when the temple was destroyed, that was a sign that God had finalized His divorce from Israel. Then, immediately after the tribulation of those days, Christ came to comsumate His marriage to His bride. And God the Father gave eternal life as a wedding gift. And then in Rev. 21.9, the best man introduced the bride to John as the wife of the lamb. Thus the marriage to the lamb was consumated in 70AD. You might say, from the ascension to 70AD was the betrothal period.

Have a blessed day, for we are the wife of the Lamb.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 22, 2010 13:41:12 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Hi Roo,

Thanks for the Hebrews 9 response, but that was not an answer to my question as far as I can tell.
Where does it say that the destruction of the temple was the sign that all external ordinances comprising the New Covenant had been done away with?

The PRESENT TIME spoken of by the writer was the time consisting of the temple sacrifices still in effect.

Hi Allyn,

Your reasoning is circular because you assume that baptism was a "new covenant" ordinance. Baptism was instituted by Moses. Please show how that it was a "new covenant" ordinance.

Thanks,

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Allyn said:

First it was works that you claimed baptism was and now it is law (still part of works) but somehow you never say it is "likeness" as demonstrated in that same book of Romans. Explain this for me.

Allyn,

Where did I say that baptism is now law. I said it was works meaning that it was of the law and that it is now abolished.


Roo

[kangaroojack]

I said:

All baptism is old covenant. Jesus did not institute something called "Christian baptism." He simply kept Mosaic baptism in force until the end of the age (the oc age).

Baptism was for the remission of sins until Jesus accomplished the remission of sins at the heavenly altar.

If baptism was an absolute necessity, then how could God have justified Gentiles without it (Rom. 2)?

Allyn replied:

Except that Paul was not teaching the need for baptism in Romans 2 but was teaching the aspect of what the law does when under it and what those not under the law are judged by in their carnality (flesh). It is not until later chaprters that Paul draws the picture for the need of baptism. Something I have been saying from the begining. Baptism is for the believer but not yet having died to the flesh. Once the believer obeys the the requirement of being baptized then that believer becomes a joint heir with Christ. That person (of the 1st century) has only one remaining duty and that is to strive for the kingdom of God which had not yet come fully in at that time. But baptism never ceases because a relationship to Christ depends upon it.

Allyn,

The apostles were teaching the need for baptism and commanding it in the book of Acts. God was at the same time justifying Gentiles who did not have the law. He was justifying them APART from the observance of baptism.

This means that baptism was not an absolute necessity for all men but was for the Jew only until it had passed away.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Once4all said:

Gentiles who were never under the Mosaic Law were baptized, so how can you say that it was Mosaic baptism?

Once,

Gentiles who had never heard the gospel were being justified APART from the observance of baptism. This means that baptism was not an absolute necessity otherwise God could not have justified them apart from the observance of it.

Roo

[Once4all]

Aug 23, 2010 10:36:14 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Allyn,

The apostles were teaching the need for baptism and commanding it in the book of Acts. God was at the same time justifying Gentiles who did not have the law. He was justifying them APART from the observance of baptism.

This means that baptism was not an absolute necessity for all men but was for the Jew only until it had passed away.

Roo

Are you basing that on Cornelius? Who, of course, was baptized.