Sam you mentioned that the futurist should be careful in condemning us preterist because they will be judged. I am under the impression that there is no more sin in this new heaven and earth. Do you believe in a future judgment for believers and what scriptures would you use?

Thanks

Sam,

I see it. Seems reasonable.

It seems, for better or worse, that conceding that the already/not yet concept applies to Matt 5:18 removes some of the force of the preterist apologetic with regard to this verse. In other words, I've argued that if heaven and earth haven't passed, then the Mosaic Law is still in effect, which few would agree with it is. The futurist can now reply that in a sense "heaven and earth" have "already" passed and so it's okay that we don't keep the Mosaic Law.

I guess we can throw the futurist a bone every now and then, lol.

thanks,
martin

It is my view, exactly.

Sam,

Perhaps I am stuck in the “Not yet” and just need to add the “already”.

In 1 Sam 16:1, we have “Now the LORD said to Samuel, ‘How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided Myself a king among his sons.’ ”

Years before Saul died, God had “already” rejected him. And at the same time, God had “already” selected his replacement, “So he sent and brought him [David] in. Now he was ruddy, with bright eyes, and good-looking. And the LORD said, ‘Arise, anoint him; for this is the one!’ ”(1 Sam 16:12) When Samuel anointed David, he was already King, but not yet King while Saul was still alive.

Salvation during the transition was the same way. Paul was already saved, but not yet until the Parousia.

So, what I think you are saying is that the same concept can be applied to Matt 5:18. At the cross, the Old Covenant passed and Matt 5:18 was fulfilled (the already), but at the same time “not yet” fulfilled until the temple was destroyed at the Parousia.

Is this your view?

Thanks,
martin

Martin,

Great question. Yes and no would be my answer. I see your point, and from what you wrote, you see mine (and Dave's). This is where the already/not yet really comes into play ("already" and "not yet" are Pauline terms, by the way). We see Paul, for example, going to Jerusalem, performing purification rites late into his ministry. We also see him stressing what "the law says" in Corinthians, too. Yet, we see him not applying circumcision to the Gentiles, which would have been in violation of the Law "according to the letter."

I have used the Saul/David analogy in my series on the books of Samuel, for I believe that is a clear pattern (type) for the NT transition. Yet, I noticed you still used the words "growing old" - which is a term of progress - progressively aging. For David, the doom of Saul was already announced long before he retired (note my word, "already"). Two, David was "already" gathering to himself "disciples" that were under his command in the caves - people were already giving him allegience, which meant that the "break" was "already" taking place before Saul decided to off himself. It seems to me, hard to get away from the "transition" and idea of "fading" glory. Saul had glory, no doubt. He was "mighty" and "how the mighty have fallen." Saul is a perfect picture of Israel "according to the flesh."

Now, you did mention Moses' glory was fading, and Paul is here picking up a historical event and applying it to his own day. Moses' face faded - so the old covenant glory was fading in Paul's day. It was losing its strength.

In all of this Martin, I think "yes and no" answers the question - and I think your view can very well "fit" in with my view so that both can be seen for what they are as important to understand the overall NT "transition period" - agree?

Hi Martin,
I think your analogy of the passage of kings is a good one - and Saul and David exemplify it. Since David was anointed after Saul's sin, Samuel told him his kingdom would be taken from him and given to another. In the day David was anointed, the Spirit left Saul and another spirit was given to trouble him. But Saul continued to reign until his death. This is also what happened to Israel's leadership after Pentecost.

Sam/Dave/Mike,

Thanks for an interesting show.

I was hoping that one of you might be able to clarify one of the points of discussion dealing with Matt 5:18, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

To me, the text seems to be implying a singular event rather than a progressive one. That is to say, of the 600 plus laws contained in the OT, not a single one will pass until all is fulfilled. In commenting on this passage, Sam seemed to be implying that the whole Jew-Gentile conflict regarding the Law was an example of this passage being progressively fulfilled. Gentiles were not required to be circumcised and Paul said to give up the new moons and various food restrictions, etc… This, said Sam, is this passage starting to be fulfilled.

To buttress this progressive fulfillment of Matt 5:18 position, I think it was Mike that added to the discussion 2 Cor 3:11, “For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious”, and Heb 8:13, “In that He says, ‘A new covenant’, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

The problem I have with this view, assuming I have captured correctly what was said, is that the OC was passing away as soon as the stone tablets that God wrote on cooled off. For it also says in 2 Cor 3:7, “But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,”.

Though it’s glory was passing away from the very beginning, individual Laws were not passing away as time went on. My understanding of Matt 5:18 is that not a single Law passed until the temple was demolished.

Three questions. 1) Did I correctly capture your position or did I completely mangle it? 2) Since the gentiles were not under the Law, how could them not being circumcised and not observing the new moons, etc.., be an example of the Law passing? 3) If I did get it right, would you address how a Law could pass before all was fulfilled?

Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the transition from the OC to the NC. One way to look at it is the OC starting to die at a certain point, the cross, and progressively dying (whatever that means) until completely dead in AD70. At the same time, the NC comes to life at the cross and grows until maturity at AD70. I don’t quite see it this way.

The way I look at it is the OC is a King that is getting old and the NC is his heir that is coming of age. The King, being a stubborn old man, refuses to voluntarily give up power to his heir. The NC waits until the day the King (OC) dies and then assumes the throne. The King was growing old during this time, but the power (the Law) was not transferred until the day he literally died. This second analogy is like the transition from Saul to David. The transition of the OC to the NC involved a process for sure, but I don’t see how it was progressive.

Thanks,
martin