Gunther,
Note that I said "vestiges of the Old Covenant".
Yes, I agree, the New Covenant was initiated when the veil was rent, but it was established (as a kingdom is established) when it's "competition" was vanquished. That happened when Christless Judaism was defeated some 40 years (a generation) later.
Hebrews verifies this overlapping time of transition between the covenants(8:13).
As far as the temple goes, the second temple awaited the coming of Christ to become "glorious" (Haggai 2:3-9). Christ referred to it as "my Father's house". It only became desolate as Christ deserted it (Mat. 23:38). It became an empty symbol after Christ tore the veil. But the Jews still idolized it. Christ destroyed it to show His ultimate victory over those who hated Him--and to show that His new spiritual temple was greater.
Thus the New Covenant was proven superior. It could never be destroyed (Heb. 12:22-29). Preterism (all types) simply recognizes this important development in the Christian faith, while you dismiss it as insignificant.
In Christ,
Tim
The Wicked Husbandmen
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Primitive Baptist, Aug 6, 2003.
Page 2 of 2
-
As Tim Said, it was still there at the time of the writing of Hebrews.
Heb 8: 13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.
Just a few years later it did wax away. -
Felluz, the O.C. did not have to have the temple. Why is this so hard? Remember that when the O.C. was initiated, the temple did not even exist. In fact, it would not be until another 400+ years before the temple was created.
The Jews are still idolizing things today. If it wasn't the temple, it is the law or whatever they want. Christ's ultimate conquest will come when no one will ever again shake their fist at his Lordship. That has not happened yet. -
Heb 8: 13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.
-
Gunther,
When Moses got the Old Covenant from God, he got instructions for the tabernacle at the same time. The tabernacle was simply the transportable version of the temple yet to come. The two things have always gone together. So it was only appropriate that they be eliminated together. Surely you see the richness of the symbolism in this (but you don't have to admit that to me).
In Christ,
Tim
Page 2 of 2