Erasing the erroneously-declared 70 AD demarcation line
Jan 6, 2014 9:16:34 GMT
Post by Colossians on Jan 6, 2014 9:16:34 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
“The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing” Heb 9:8
The above verse constitutes one of the main pillars of the Preterist (or 70AD-demarcationist). Specifically, he believes that the work of the Cross was not fully ratified until the supposed destruction of the temple at Jerusalem by the Roman army in 70AD.
Below we show why he is wrong.
____________________________________________________________
ERASING THE ERRONEOUSLY-DECLARED 70 AD DEMARCATION LINE
Incorrect application of “first tabernacle”
The error of the Preterist consists primarily in his considering the referent of this “first tabernacle” to be the entire old testament tabernacle, when it is in fact only the outer tabernacle (what is referred to as “the tabernacle of the congregation” – see Ex 27:21).
And so he has missed the two preceding verses (6) and (7):
“Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people” Heb 9:6,7
Grammar and the causal aspect
Putting aside the above misrendering, v8 does not declare:
1. “The Holy Ghost was signifying that the way into the holiest of all would not be made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing”
but simply:
2. “The Holy Ghost was signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing”.
(1) is the rendering of the 70AD-demarcationist: it declares that the way into the Holiest would not be ratified until the first tabernacle was taken down (and again we disregard here the primary error of considering “first tabernacle” to mean the entire tabernacle).
(2) is however what is written and what is intended: it tells us that the existence of the outer tabernacle and the ignorance of the people were simply coextensive – that the existence of the outer tabernacle attested to the ignorance of the people, which notion is then (further) explicated in the very next verse (9):
“Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.”
The point is that the existence of the outer tabernacle was not that which prohibited any enlightenment of the people, but simply that which stood as testimony to their unenlightenment.
Joining the dots unto conclusive refutation
We have shown that the error of the 70AD-demarcationist is two-fold:
1. He mistakes the particular use of “first tabernacle” at Hebrews 9 (where it simply relates the outer tabernacle), for that which stands for the entire (first/old testament) tabernacle.
2. He reads Heb 9:8 as “the way into the holiest of all would not be made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing”, thus importing a conditional aspect not present in the text.
In order then to prove his position, the 70AD-demarcationist would not only have to show that his importing of a conditional element (his conversion of “was not” to “would not be”) were correct, but given that “first tabernacle” refers not to the entire tabernacle but only to its outer section, that the destruction of such outer section alone in 70AD would have sufficed for (his asserted) ratification of the Cross.
He can of course do neither.
Affirming our refutation according to experience
The knowledge that the Christian has of Christ (if such knowledge is indeed true knowledge), is relational in nature: any truly-received doctrine, regardless of how technical it is, must be commensurate with the Christian’s ‘comfort’ in Christ: it is otherwise simply 'head knowledge'.
Intuitive to such intimacy with Christ is the notion that no part of it were authorised via the ‘gateway’ of any reference point other than the Cross, and therefore given that those in Christ before 70AD had access to the same degree of intimacy with Christ which the modern-day believer has, the work of the Cross was of necessity just as ratified then as it is now: no additional event was required.
Accordingly the writer to the Hebrews concludes upon his lesson as follows:
“But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Heb 9:11,12
That is, the writer tells us that the new tabernacle was ‘up and running’ upon the work of the Cross – that it essentially consisted of the Cross. There is not so much as a hint of anything to the contrary.
Epilogue
At Heb 10:8,9 we are told that Christ’s coming to do the will of God was that which terminated the old system and replaced it with the new.
Here is the text:
“when He said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest 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” Heb 10:8,9.
Such was necessarily accomplished at the Cross1, for it was at the Cross that Christ fulfilled the will of God. Accordingly in the very next verse (10) we are told:
“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”
: being sanctified we are of necessity permanent residents of the (true and spiritual) ‘inner tabernacle’, and that via the work of the Cross and nothing else besides.
We are therefore reminded of a very special event: when Jesus gave up the ghost at Golgotha, the veil of the temple at Jerusalem was torn in two from top to bottom (see Mt 27:51). That is, God was declaring that the Cross was sufficient in and of itself to make the way into the Holiest of all, the second (inner) tabernacle, “manifest”.
1 We are not promoting any dispensationlism here: we are not saying that the replacement of the old system was from the advent of the Cross onward, but simply that it was by virtue of the Cross. For it is not nations which are saved, but individuals, and any and all individuals who have ever been saved, whether BC or AD, are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. (See then also our work: "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".)
Amen.
Forward
“The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing” Heb 9:8
The above verse constitutes one of the main pillars of the Preterist (or 70AD-demarcationist). Specifically, he believes that the work of the Cross was not fully ratified until the supposed destruction of the temple at Jerusalem by the Roman army in 70AD.
Below we show why he is wrong.
____________________________________________________________
ERASING THE ERRONEOUSLY-DECLARED 70 AD DEMARCATION LINE
Incorrect application of “first tabernacle”
The error of the Preterist consists primarily in his considering the referent of this “first tabernacle” to be the entire old testament tabernacle, when it is in fact only the outer tabernacle (what is referred to as “the tabernacle of the congregation” – see Ex 27:21).
And so he has missed the two preceding verses (6) and (7):
“Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people” Heb 9:6,7
Grammar and the causal aspect
Putting aside the above misrendering, v8 does not declare:
1. “The Holy Ghost was signifying that the way into the holiest of all would not be made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing”
but simply:
2. “The Holy Ghost was signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing”.
(1) is the rendering of the 70AD-demarcationist: it declares that the way into the Holiest would not be ratified until the first tabernacle was taken down (and again we disregard here the primary error of considering “first tabernacle” to mean the entire tabernacle).
(2) is however what is written and what is intended: it tells us that the existence of the outer tabernacle and the ignorance of the people were simply coextensive – that the existence of the outer tabernacle attested to the ignorance of the people, which notion is then (further) explicated in the very next verse (9):
“Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.”
The point is that the existence of the outer tabernacle was not that which prohibited any enlightenment of the people, but simply that which stood as testimony to their unenlightenment.
Joining the dots unto conclusive refutation
We have shown that the error of the 70AD-demarcationist is two-fold:
1. He mistakes the particular use of “first tabernacle” at Hebrews 9 (where it simply relates the outer tabernacle), for that which stands for the entire (first/old testament) tabernacle.
2. He reads Heb 9:8 as “the way into the holiest of all would not be made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing”, thus importing a conditional aspect not present in the text.
In order then to prove his position, the 70AD-demarcationist would not only have to show that his importing of a conditional element (his conversion of “was not” to “would not be”) were correct, but given that “first tabernacle” refers not to the entire tabernacle but only to its outer section, that the destruction of such outer section alone in 70AD would have sufficed for (his asserted) ratification of the Cross.
He can of course do neither.
Affirming our refutation according to experience
The knowledge that the Christian has of Christ (if such knowledge is indeed true knowledge), is relational in nature: any truly-received doctrine, regardless of how technical it is, must be commensurate with the Christian’s ‘comfort’ in Christ: it is otherwise simply 'head knowledge'.
Intuitive to such intimacy with Christ is the notion that no part of it were authorised via the ‘gateway’ of any reference point other than the Cross, and therefore given that those in Christ before 70AD had access to the same degree of intimacy with Christ which the modern-day believer has, the work of the Cross was of necessity just as ratified then as it is now: no additional event was required.
Accordingly the writer to the Hebrews concludes upon his lesson as follows:
“But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Heb 9:11,12
That is, the writer tells us that the new tabernacle was ‘up and running’ upon the work of the Cross – that it essentially consisted of the Cross. There is not so much as a hint of anything to the contrary.
Epilogue
At Heb 10:8,9 we are told that Christ’s coming to do the will of God was that which terminated the old system and replaced it with the new.
Here is the text:
“when He said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest 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” Heb 10:8,9.
Such was necessarily accomplished at the Cross1, for it was at the Cross that Christ fulfilled the will of God. Accordingly in the very next verse (10) we are told:
“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”
: being sanctified we are of necessity permanent residents of the (true and spiritual) ‘inner tabernacle’, and that via the work of the Cross and nothing else besides.
We are therefore reminded of a very special event: when Jesus gave up the ghost at Golgotha, the veil of the temple at Jerusalem was torn in two from top to bottom (see Mt 27:51). That is, God was declaring that the Cross was sufficient in and of itself to make the way into the Holiest of all, the second (inner) tabernacle, “manifest”.
1 We are not promoting any dispensationlism here: we are not saying that the replacement of the old system was from the advent of the Cross onward, but simply that it was by virtue of the Cross. For it is not nations which are saved, but individuals, and any and all individuals who have ever been saved, whether BC or AD, are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. (See then also our work: "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".)
Amen.