FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW (PART II)

In Part one of "From The Old To The New" we left off looking at the seen and the unseen.

2 Cor 4:17-18 "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

Here the transition is to faith..."look(ing) at the things which are NOT SEEN." How do we look upon that which is "NOT SEEN"? The only way to do that is by faith.

Again this is speaking of the contrast between the Old Covenant, Shadows, types, figures, etc., all which were seen. The temple, the priesthood, the sacrifice. These were constituent elements of the Old Covenant, ALL which could be seen. Paul says, do not look to those things, but look to the truth and reality of the New
[CLICK ON THE PHOTO FOR BETTER VIEW]
Covenant that cannot be seen with the human eye, but MUST be seen by FAITH.

Paul gets to the concept of "FAITH" very soon in 2 Cor 5:7, (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

But before he gets there he says some very interesting things...

Starting chapter five of 2nd Corinthians, Paul continues his progression of his logical argument using the term "FOR". Continuing to build on what he has said prior, his use of this transitional term indicates that he is NOT changing topics but rather building on the already stated topic. This already stated topic is the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked." 2 Corinthians 5:1-3

Many theologians and preachers at this point find reason to change the topic from Covenant transition to the believers death. Funny, Paul does not mention the believers death here and the "FOR" clearly ties his allegory about the body to the topic of covenant transition.

For a more extensive look at the use of the term "Body" see my post from 4 April , 2008

http://prosthero.blogspot.com/2008/04/body-2-corinthians-510.html

Moving from the end of chapter 4 having stated that we look to those things that are NOT seen, and our focus is on the eternal New Covenant, Paul is not changing the topic. He is declaring, that Because of the focus on the unseen..."FOR"..."We will put off the earthly tabernacle, the building of God". The tabernacle here is not the believers physical body, but it is the Old Covenant tabernacle, temple, building of God that was going to pass away in 70 A.D. as a physical manifestation that the Old Covenant had completely passed away.

But we have a building from God. A house not made with hands, eternal in the Heavens. This is speaking of our New Covenant tabernacle which is Christ himself.

In the heavens:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:" Ephesians 1:3

"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places," Ephesians 3:20

"And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:" Ephesians 2:6

"To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God," Ephesians 3:10

Where are these heavenly places of which he speaks. It must be a place where we are sharing the presence of Christ right now. This is evident because the Apostle declares that both Christ and the believer are occupying that same place at the same time.

The Heavenly places Paul is speaking of is the place of the New Covenant, for where Christ (the master) is, there will his servant (the believer) be.

"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;" Hebrews 9:11

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:" Hebrews 9:24

This is the same temple or city not made with hands that Abraham was looking for by faith.

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Hebrews 11:8-10

For further reading on the typology of "The Body - The Building - The Bride - The Wife - The City - The Temple (or Tabernacle)" and how each of these literary pictures are all used to describe the church read my post from 12 June. 2010. Or just click on the link.

http://prosthero.blogspot.com/2010/06/body-building-bride-wife-city-temple.html

So here in 2 Corinthians 5 1-3 we find that Paul is building on the theme of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant...and he has not begun a new topic, but through his transitional phrases (FOR), he is continuing the same theme. This theme is highlighted elsewhere with Abraham and Christ in Hebrews.

To be continued...

FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW (PART I)

To break a paradigm you must be willing to look at something from a different, maybe not so obvious, new perspective. In my bible study I try to do this as often as I can. I have found that a great deal of what I have heard from the pulpit in the last 30 years of listening to preachers has been a party line or a denominational position.

In trying to live a berean life and wanting to be able to hear God's spirit for myself, I have had to throw off much of the "Christian Party Line" and the denominational dogma.

Another passage that has confronted me lately in my paradigm shift is 2 Corinthians. After an extended introduction in chapters 1 and 2 Paul begins in Chapter 3 to highlight the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old Covenant.

2 Cor 3:3 "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."

Here contrasts the Old Covenant written in stone and the fulfillment of the prophecy of the New Covenant coming to pass by the Spirit of the living God writing the epistles of Christ (the teachings of Christ--the Law of Christ) on our fleshy tables of the heart.

2 Cor 3:4-7 "And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:"

Paul next declares our full sufficiency to be found in God, and then elaborates on the nature of the Old Covenant compared to the New. The "Letter", or "Ministration of Death", or that which is "Written and engraven in stone", brings about "DEATH".

But the "Spirit", or the New Covenant brings "LIFE". He declares the Old Covenant as possessing some form of "Glory", but that Glory was being done away with. The Glory of the New Covenant was however superior to that of the old.

2 Cor 3:8-11 "How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious."

Here we see that the Old Covenant was being done away with in Paul's day and the New Covenant was to remain. The New Covenant is referred to in Hebrews as an "Everlasting Covenant".

Hebrews 13 20 "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,"

2 Cor 4:1 "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;"

Here in 2 Corinthians 4 Paul begins a series of logical arguments based on this covenantal transition in chapter 3. He uses terms like "Therefore", "Wherefore", and "For" All purpose clauses intended to point us back to the previous point of the argument for substantiation, but all of them finding their root and context in the covenantal change that Chapter 3 reveals.

Let's follow this logic trail of Paul's.

"Therefore seeing we have this ministry...: What ministry Paul? It is the ministry of the New Covenant.

Since we are now ministers of a New Covenant we "have received mercy", "we faint not", "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." 2 Cor 4:1-2. In verse 3 we have not "hid the gospel", but others have blinded the minds of those who do not believe (The New Covenant).

2 Cor 4:5 "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." At the center of this New Covenant Gospel is Christ.

2 Cor 4:6 "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

In the New Covenant, it is God who commands the light (the truth of the New Covenant) to shine in our hearts by way of Jesus Christ.

2 Cor 4:6 "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us."

Having this treasure of the New Covenant in Earthen vessels allows the praise to go to God, but in verse 7 we see that those in the first century who participated in the transition from the Old to the New will be misunderstood and persecuted because of this New Covenant.

"We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body." 2 Cor 4:8-10

2 Cor 4:11-14 "For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you."

So the New Covenant will bring persecution that will lead to death, but Paul encourages those who will be faced with that death to recognize that their death will result in the bringing of life to others, just as the death of Jesus resulted in resurrection. This is following the pattern of putting away the Old Covenant of DEATH in favor of the New Covenant of LIFE.

2 Cor 4:15 "For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God." This suffering and possible death results in the grace of God toward those ministering the New Covenant, and ultimately gratitude.

2 Cor 4:16 "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." Because Grace is promised the ministers of the New Covenant can move forward without fainting, knowing that the New Man of the New Covenant will be renewed day by day.

2 Cor 4:17-18 "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." Here the transition is to faith..."look(ing) at the things which are NOT SEEN." How do we look upon that which is "NOT SEEN"?? The only way to do that is by faith.

Again this is speaking of the contrast between the Old Covenant, Shadows, types, figures, etc., all which were seen. The temple, the priesthood, the sacrifice. These were constituent elements of the Old Covenant, ALL which could be seen. Paul says, do not look to those things, but look to the truth and reality of the New Covenant that cannot be seen with the human eye, but MUST be seen by FAITH.

Paul gets to the concept of "FAITH" very soon in 2 Cor 5:7, (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

But before he gets there he says some very interesting things...

To be continued.

RIDING ON A "SWIFT CLOUD"

Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst. (Is 19:1)

The above verse is describing:

A. Every Egyptian seeing God on a literal cloud as He rides in judgment against their nation.

B. God’s judgment of Egypt described in figurative, apocalyptic language.

Few, if any, students of the Word believe that God was actually seen on a cloud by anyone during His judgment against Egypt. In fact, most have no difficulty in acknowledging that while there was a literal judgment against Egypt, this apocalyptic description is not to be taken literally. Why, then, do we insist on a literal interpretation for the following verse?

Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Matt 26:64)

When the high priest heard Jesus say this, he tore his clothes and accused Jesus of blasphemy.

Why?

Because he knew what coming on the clouds of heaven meant—that Jesus was claiming to be God, and would come in judgment against them.

The Jewish Council, before whom Jesus spoke these words, knew that cloud-comings were woven throughout the Old Testament Scriptures. Did they deem Him deserving of death because He claimed He could ride on a cloud, or because He had just stated, in language which all Jews understood, that He was God and would return to judge them? Surely the latter is the case.

Why, then, do we insist on interpreting this cloud-coming judgment of Christ in a literal fashion, instead of in the manner of Old Testament cloud-coming judgments?

HEAVEN AND EARHT HAVE ALREADY PASSED AWAY?

How Heaven and Earth Passed Away
Written by Don Preston

Have heaven and earth passed away? Ridiculous you say? Let us ask another question: Do you believe the Old Covenant has been done away? I dare say you will say it has. Few believers in Jesus would deny he has established his New Covenant. If you believe the Old Covenant has passed away, then you must believe "heaven and earth" have passed away.

Please read the words of Jesus: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled".(Matthew 5:17-18)

This little tract will attempt to answer a few questions about these verses. First, what did Jesus say had to happen before the law could pass away? Second, does the Bible tell us when these requirements would be met? Let us answer the first question.

Until Heaven and Earth Pass
Did you notice that Jesus said heaven and earth had to pass away before the law could pass? Yes, he really did say it; please, get your Bible right now and read it for yourself. It has been my experience that a lot of people have never seen those words before. A relative of mine read the verse five times before admitting it actually says this.

Has the heaven and earth passed away? Well, obviously, physical heaven and earth haven't been destroyed. But read the text again will you? Jesus did say until heaven and earth pass away the Old Law could not pass. Our choices here are limited.

If we understand the "heaven and earth" as literal, physical heaven and earth then this means the Old Law is still in effect. Simply put the argument would go like this: If heaven and earth had to pass before the Old Law could pass; and if heaven and earth refers to literal, physical heaven and earth, then, since literal, physical heaven and earth still exist, (have not passed), it must be true that the Old Law has not passed.

A person could say the Law here is the Law of Jesus; but this will not work because Jesus had not yet died to confirm his New Covenant. He was living under the Old Law at the time also. The Jews standing there were not concerned with the passing of Jesus' law. They did not believe he even had one. They were concerned with the Old Law. Finally, if this is speaking about the passing of Christ's law it contradicts the verses in the New Testament that teach Jesus' word will never pass away, Matthew 24:35.

On the other hand, if we understand the "heaven and earth" as figurative language referring not to physical creation, but to something else, it is possible that this "heaven and earth" could pass away, allowing for the passing of the Law. Let us explore the definition of the heaven and earth momentarily.

Defining Heaven and Earth
Sadly many Bible students are unfamiliar with the apocalyptic, and figurative language of the Bible. So many people like to say "The Bible says what it means and means what it says". They seem to be saying there is no such thing as figurative or spiritual language. This is sad because a lot of the Bible is symbolic language. The term heaven and earth is a good example. (I are not saying the term heaven and earth never refers to material creation — I am saying this term is very often used figuratively).

Remember, Jesus was a Jew. As such he was raised hearing the Old Testament prophets taught in the synagogues. These prophets utilized spiritual language. As the prophet of and to Israel, Matthew 15, Jesus was not only familiar with the language of the prophets, he used the same language. How did the prophets use the term heaven and earth?

The prophet Isaiah predicted the passing of heaven and earth in chapter 24. He said the earth would be utterly broken down, clean dissolved, and completely removed, vs. 19. Now this sounds like the destruction of material creation but closer examination reveals it to be speaking of the destruction of Israel's Covenant World under the imagery of "heaven and earth". Note verse 5 gives the reason for the destruction — "they have broken the everlasting covenant". What covenant was that? It was the Mosaic Covenant. God was going to destroy "heaven and earth" because Israel had broken her covenant with Jehovah. Are we to believe that one day the universe will be destroyed because Israel broke her covenant?

A dilemma is created for the literal interpretation of the text when we come to verse 22. In these verses God is depicted as dwelling gloriously in Mount Zion, that is, in Jerusalem, after the destruction of heaven and earth. Reader, if the earth has been destroyed how could literal Mount Zion still exist? We believe the best explanation is to see Isaiah predicting the destruction of Israel's covenant heaven and earth because she had violated the Mosaic Covenant with Jehovah. As a result God's righteousness would remain in a New Zion — in a new covenant heaven and earth.

Another example of "heaven and earth" being referent to the Covenant World of Israel and not literal creation is Isaiah 51:16.

"I have put my word in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of my hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are my people'". (NASV)

(Unfortunately, the New International Version incorrectly translates this verse. Check several translations.)

What is the point? Notice that God is speaking to Israel. He says he gave them his law, the Mosaic Covenant, the same law Jesus is speaking about in Matthew 5:17-18, to establish heaven and lay the foundation of the earth! Clearly Jehovah is not saying he gave the Mosaic Covenant to Israel to create literal heaven and earth! Material creation existed long before Israel was ever given the Mosaic Covenant.

The meaning of the verse is that Jehovah gave his covenant with Israel to create their world — a covenant world with Jehovah.

God created Israel's "heaven and earth" by giving them his Covenant. Now if he destroyed that Old Covenant heaven and earth and gave a New Covenant, would he not thereby be creating a new heavens and new earth? This is precisely the thought in the New Covenant scriptures.

Old Israel's covenant was about to pass away, II Corinthians 3:10ff; Hebrews 8:13; 12:25ff. The New Covenant of Christ was being given, Ephesians 3:3ff; Hebrews 2:1ff. Since the giving of Covenant created "heaven and earth" the New Heaven and Earth of Christ would not be completed until the New Covenant was completely revealed. It therefore follows that if the New Heavens and Earth of Christ has not arrived then Christ's New Covenant has not yet been fully revealed. If Christ's New Covenant has been fully revealed then the new heavens and new earth have fully come. Consider this carefully in light of II Peter 3 and Revelation 21-22, passages written as the process of revealing the New Covenant was yet incomplete.

In Isaiah 51:5-6 God predicted the "heaven and earth" would vanish. This is the same "heaven and earth" he had established at Sinai. This is not a prediction of the passing of literal heaven and earth--it is a prediction of the passing of the Old World of Israel so that the New Covenant World of Messiah would be established. We believe this heaven and earth that Isaiah said would perish is the same heaven and earth Jesus said must pass before the Old Law would pass.

Isaiah 65-66 also predicted the passing of "heaven and earth" but as with the other prophecies noted above it does not refer to the passing of physical creation. In chapter 65 God predicted that Israel would fill the measure of her sin, vs. 7; he would destroy them, vs. 8-15; create a new people with a new name, vs. 15-16; create a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem, vs. 17-19. The creation of the new heavens and earth would follow the destruction of the Jews after they had filled the measure of their sins and been destroyed at the coming of the Lord in fire with his angels, Isaiah 66:15ff. The new creation of Isaiah 66 is depicted as a time of evangelism and Jew and Gentile being brought together under the banner of God, vss 19ff.

Now Isaiah 65 said the new creation would come when Israel had filled the measure of her sin and was destroyed. Do we have any clue as to when this was to happen?

In Matthew 23:31-39 Jesus said Israel would fill up the measure of her sins in his generation. In chapter 24 he predicted the passing of Israel's heaven and earth at his coming, vs. 29-36. Now notice:

1.) Isaiah said Israel's old heaven and earth would not be destroyed until Israel had filled her sin;

2.) The new heaven and earth would not come until Israel's old heaven and earth was destroyed;

3.) Jesus said Israel would fill up the measure of her sin and be destroyed at his coming in his generation;

4.) Therefore, Israel's "heaven and earth" was destroyed at Jesus' coming against Israel, when the measure of her sin was full, in that generation.

In Matthew 24 Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This Temple was the very center of the Jewish world. This is where the sacrifices for sin were offered by the genealogically confirmed Levitical priests. For Jesus to predict the utter desolation of this temple was the same as saying their world was about to come crashing down around their ears!

In graphic detail Jesus chronicled the events to occur before that disaster and the signs indicating its imminence, vss. 14-15. In highly apocalyptic, (symbolic) language he described the fall itself:

"The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heaven shall be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the sky with power and great glory".

In verses 32-33 Jesus said that by heeding the signs they could know his coming was at hand. In verse 34 he assured them that generation would not pass away before all those things happened. In verse 35 Jesus reassured them that what he had said was true. He said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall never pass away".

This verse is Jesus' way of contrasting the Old World of Israel that was to perish, and his New World that would remain. That Old World would surely perish as he had just said — but his World will never pass.

In verse 36 Jesus gave a final warning about knowing the time of those events. Although he informed them how to know when the event was imminent and reassured them that it would definitely happen in that generation, he tells them they cannot know the precise day and hour. They must therefore be watchful, verse 42ff.

Can you see the relationship of Jesus' prediction of the passing of the "heaven and earth" in Matthew 24 with his statement in chapter 5:17-18? In chapter 24 he said their world, symbolized by the temple and city, was to pass away; and he expressed it in the imagery of the passing of heaven and earth. In chapter 5 he had already said the "heaven and earth" had to pass before the Law could pass. We shall see below the perfect correspondence with this idea and Jesus' statement that all of the Old Covenant had to be fulfilled for the Law to pass.

Hebrews 12:25-28 is another text that speaks of the passing of the Old Covenant World under the imagery of the passing of heaven and earth.

The writer alludes to the giving of the Law at Sinai, (remember Isaiah 51), as the shaking of earth. He says God promised to shake not only earth, but heaven also. This shaking signified removing them; therefore God was promising to remove heaven and earth. Why? So that something that could not be removed would remain. Now notice: in verse 28 he says they were at that time receiving, (they had not already completely received it), a kingdom "that cannot be shaken". If they were receiving an unshakable kingdom, this of necessity means the "heaven and earth" was being removed. (Remember Jesus' words in Matthew 24:35 about the "heaven and earth" passing but his word not passing? Jesus' world then is unshakable. Hebrews is discussing the shaking of one world and receiving of another unshakable kingdom. See the comparison?)

Physical heaven and earth was not being removed; but Hebrews was written just a few years before the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple. Further, the Gospel had been preached for some time declaring the superiority of Christ and the imminent demise of the Old World. The Old World of Israel was on the verge of destruction; the New World was being delivered. Thus, we have another example of the Bible speaking of the passing of heaven and earth when it means the passing of the Old World of Israel.

Space forbids full discussion of II Peter 3 and Revelation as further examples of scriptures speaking of the passing of heaven and earth when the meaning was the passing of the Old World of Israel. Suffice it to say both Peter and John say the heaven and earth that was to perish was the same heaven and earth the Old Covenant had predicted to perish. See II Peter 3:1-2 and Revelation 22:6. The significance of this fact will become apparent below.

What have we seen then? We have seen that both the Old and New Covenant predicted the passing of "heaven and earth" when physical heaven and earth was not the subject. The World of Israel was the subject. We believe this is precisely what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 5:17-18 when he said "until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law". He was saying that until Israel's "world," symbolized by the city and temple, was destroyed, the law would not pass away.

Until All Is Fulfilled
Not only did Jesus say the Law would not pass until heaven and earth passed, he said the Law could not pass until it was all fulfilled.

It has been the unfortunate practice of many to essentially ignore the first "until" in Matthew 5:17-18. The Sabbatarians are most observant of the first one, insisting that since (physical) heaven and earth still stand the Law still stands. This would be fine except there are two "untils" in these verses and they are of equal force. Jesus said when all the Law was fulfilled the Law would pass--and the Bible is very emphatic in telling us when all the Law would be fulfilled.

In Daniel 9:24-27 Daniel was told that 70 weeks had been determined on his people and city, i.e. Jerusalem. By the end of this prophetic time period God promised that six things would be accomplished. Daniel was told that by the end of that period God would "seal up vision and prophecy". In my book "Seal Up Vision and Prophecy" I demonstrate the wide agreement among Hebrew scholars that "seal up vision and prophecy" means the complete fulfillment of all prophecy.

Daniel's prophecy then tells of the time when all prophecy would be fulfilled. When would this be? The end of Daniel's vision was the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred in 70 AD. See verse 27 and compare it with Matthew 24:15ff where Jesus said the Abomination of Desolation and his coming would occur in his generation.

The last book in the Bible confirms that all prophecy was to be fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem. This book is the story of the fall of the great city, Babylon. Many differing interpretations have been offered to identify this city and yet the most obvious interpretation of all has been ignored. Revelation specifically identifies Babylon — it is the great city "where our Lord was crucified", 11:8.

Jesus was not crucified in Rome; he was not crucified "in" the Roman Catholic church, he was not crucified "in" apostate Christianity. Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem!

Our point is this, John predicted the fall of Babylon, the city where our Lord was crucified. He expressed this under the imagery of the passing of heaven and earth. He said all this was to "shortly take place". See the correlation with Daniel 9, Matthew 5 and Matthew 24? Such beautiful harmony is no accident.

Finally, we have Jesus' own words as to when all prophecy was to be fulfilled. In Luke 21:22 our Lord spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem and said "These be the days of vengeance in which all things that are written must be fulfilled". In verse 32 he emphatically said "this generation will not pass away until all things take place". Verse 33 contains Jesus' statement that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will by no means pass away".

Luke 21 thus contains the identical elements of Matthew 5:17-18; the passing of heaven and earth, and the fulfillment of all prophecy emphatically placed within the context of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Are you willing to accept Christ's inspired word?

Note the perfect correlation of Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Revelation and Luke 21. They all tell of the time when all prophecy would be fulfilled; they all identify that time as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus said the Old Law would not pass away until all of it was fulfilled; Jesus said all that was written would be fulfilled when Jerusalem fell in his generation; therefore the Law did not pass until Jerusalem fell in Jesus' generation.

Now, Jesus said "until heaven and earth pass" the law would not pass. He also said "until all be fulfilled" the law would not pass. We have seen that the passing of the Old World of Israel in the destruction of her city and temple in 70 AD is spoken of as the passing of heaven and earth. We have also seen that Jesus said that was when all things that were written would be fulfilled. Since Israel's heaven and earth would pass when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, and since all things would be fulfilled when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, we conclude that is the time when the Old Law would completely pass.

Yes, But...Objections Considered
There are basically four objections to what we have just studied. First, it is objected that the end of the world did not happen and Jesus did not come in the fall of Jerusalem. Second, it is said that the Law could not pass at the destruction of Jerusalem because the Bible says it was nailed to the Cross of Jesus at his death. Third, and a corollary to number two, it is insisted the Bible teaches that all the Old Law was fulfilled at the Cross. Finally, many insist there is a difference between the "Law" that had to be fulfilled and the Prophets. Let us begin with the first objection.

Did Christ Come In 70 AD?
To some this may seem a ridiculous question--to serious Bible students this is not a debatable point. The Bible is quite emphatic that Jesus was to return in that first century generation before all of his disciples died. Jesus so stated in Matthew 16:27-28. In chapter 24:29-34 it speaks of him coming in power, with angels and great glory to gather the saints. In verse 34 he said "Verily I say to you, this generation will not pass, until all these things be fulfilled".

Please note Jesus said "Verily I say to you", Matthew 16:28; 24:34. This word "verily" means "Truly" and is the strongest assertion of the validity and solemnity of what is said.

James said "The coming of the Lord is at hand" and "the judge stands right at the door," James 5:7-9. He told his readers to be patient "until the coming of the Lord". Peter said "the end of all things is at hand," and asserted Christ was "ready to judge the living and the dead," when he wrote, I Peter 4:5,7. The Hebrew writer said "In a very little while, he that will come will come and will not tarry," 10:37. In Revelation God's Son said "Behold, I come quickly" several times, see chapter 22.

Some one will object that Jesus did not come back because time continues. This objection overlooks the very thing we have sought to establish earlier — the prophets did not predict the end of time, they predicted the passing of the "heaven and earth" of Old Testament Israel! The end of time is not a Biblical subject!

Reader, Jesus said he was coming back in the generation that was living when he spoke. Are you willing to accept the word of the Lord of heaven or your own preconceived ideas about the end of the world? Just what does the authority of the Scriptures mean to you? What does inspiration mean?

The "Already-But Not Yet" of the Passing of the Law
The second objection cited above says the Law could not have passed at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD because Paul says the Law was nailed to the cross of Jesus when he was crucified, Colossians 2:14f. Please read that text; sounds impressive does it not? But there is more to the picture than most want to admit.

There is in scripture something the scholars call the "already but not yet". Simply put, the writers of the Bible often spoke of certain things as present realities in certain texts while in other passages they spoke of the same things as coming in the near future. In other words, they said they had them (the blessings), but they did not (fully) have them yet. This is true of the passing of the Old Law.

In Ephesians 2 Paul taught about the passing of the Law and that the cross was the power of that passing. It is equally clear from Paul's other writings that he believed the full passing of the Law was future to him.

In II Corinthians 3 the apostle discusses the passing of the Law written and engraved in stones, the Old Covenant. In verse 11 he says "If what is passing away (that is the Old Law, DKP) was glorious, what remains is much more glorious". (NKJV) The reader will please notice the present tense of the verse. Reader, this passage was written over 20 years after the Cross, yet Paul said the Old Law was passing, not had passed, away.

To drive this home even more see the next verse — but before that see Romans 8:24-"hope that is seen is no hope". Something realized is no longer anticipated — no longer the object of hope. Remember this as we go back to II Corinthians 3.

In verse 12 Paul says "Seeing then that we have such hope". What hope was that? Please go there right now and see for yourself that it was the passing away of the Old Law. Paul, 20 years after the death of Jesus on the cross, called the passing of the Old Law a hope.

The passing of the Law was for Paul "already but not yet"! Without controversy the Cross was the power of the passing. Some have called it the beginning of the end. But as we have seen, all the Law had to be fulfilled before the Law could pass, and all of the Old Law was not fulfilled at the Cross.

All Fulfilled At the Cross?
The third objection says in effect that on the Cross Jesus fulfilled ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY for the passing of the Old Law, i. e. his sacrifice, and therefore the Law could pass when his passion was completed. The verse offered as proof for this position is Luke 24:44- "These are the words I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me".

These words are construed by those who insist the Law fully passed at the Cross to mean that Jesus was saying his death was the fulfillment of all things necessary for the passing of the Law!

One thing that should immediately strike the reader is the fact that Jesus is not even speaking of the passing of the law and the prerequisites for that. He IS speaking of the necessity of the fulfillment of the law to be sure--but in contrast to those who appeal to this text he is not saying "now here is all that is necessary for the Old Covenant to pass away; I must suffer". In Matthew 5 Jesus IS speaking of the prerequisites for the passing of the Law, and he says it must ALL be fulfilled. In Luke 24 Jesus was saying that his passion was one of the constituent elements of the Law that had to be fulfilled not the only thing in the Law that had to be fulfilled.

Does Jesus limit "the fulfillment of all things" in Luke to his passion? Hardly! Go back to verse 27. Jesus taught his disciples: "And beginning at Moses and the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself". Notice the reference to all the scriptures.

Now read verse 26- "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter his glory?" (emphasis mine) Reader, in expounding the scriptures and the need for him to fulfill all things Jesus did not stop at the cross, He spoke of the glory to follow the cross.

Even those who believe the Law ended at Calvary do not believe Jesus entered his glory at the Cross; they place that at Pentecost. Now since Jesus was expounding on the need to fulfill all things written in the Law and Prophets, and since he did not stop at the Cross but spoke of the glory to follow, it must be true that the fulfillment of all things written in the Law and Prophets had to include Christ's entrance into the "glorious things" and this was sometime after the Cross.

These thoughts are corroborated in Acts 3:18ff. In verse 18 Peter says Jesus fulfilled all things written concerning his suffering. Notice verses 21 and following.

Peter tells them Christ would remain in heaven until all things foretold by the prophets i.e. the restoration of all things, were fulfilled. The restoration of all things is equivalent to the consummation of the glory of the Messiah. It means the Messiah is fully established in his kingdom. Thus, Peter, in speaking of the restoration of all things was speaking of the fulfillment of the rest of the Old Covenant scriptures — and this fulfillment was directly related to the glory of Messiah. When we examine Luke 24 and see that Jesus said it was necessary for him to suffer and enter his glory we can see it involves more than just the cross, the ascension and Pentecost. It involves the full establishment of the Kingdom of Messiah.

In addition, in Luke 24:44-47 Jesus said that not only must he suffer and enter his glory, but that "remission and repentance of sins should be preached in all nations beginning at Jerusalem". The fulfillment of all things included world evangelism. This did not happen at the cross or Pentcost.

And consider: to say that all that was necessary to abrogate the Old Law was the Passion is to directly reverse Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-18. Jesus said none of the law would pass until all was fulfilled. But the view that the Law passed at the Cross makes Jesus to say all the Law would pass when some of it was fulfilled. Specifically, this objection has Jesus saying that all the law would pass when one prediction, that of his passion, was fulfilled. But Jesus said all the Law and prophets had to be fulfilled; not just one specific prediction. Reader, when an interpretation completely reverses Christ's words there is something wrong. Jesus not only said he had to suffer, he said he had to enter his glory; he said the gospel had to preached in all the world. Fulfillment of all things positively entailed more than the cross, thus the Law could not pass at the Cross since Jesus said all of it had to be fulfilled before any of it could pass.

Finally, if you say the law passed at the cross then "heaven and earth" passed at the cross. Yet Hebrews 12, which positively is speaking about the passing of the Old Law under the imagery of the passing of heaven and earth, was written after the Cross and that passing was still future. Further, it does not explain how all of the law was not fulfilled at cross, in light of Luke 21:22. These are serious objections to the view that the Law fully passed at the Cross.

Law Versus prophets?
Many try to negate the force of Matthew 5:17-18 by saying what Jesus really meant was that he would fulfill all the legal and moral mandates of the Old Law and the Old Law would then pass; but he did not really mean all prophesies had to be fulfilled. Thus, in this interpretation there is a distinction between the Law and the Prophets.

This interpretation contradicts Luke 24:44. In that text Jesus said "all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me". Reader, you cannot delineate between "the law" and the "prophets" in Matthew 5 and then appeal to Luke 24 to prove Jesus fulfilled just "the law" in his passion. Luke 24 speaks about the law, the prophets, and the Psalms and Jesus said all things had to be fulfilled.

If Jesus was saying he had to fulfill the things written about his death, and if all he had to fulfill was "the Law" as distinct from the prophets, then the Law of Moses predicted that death.

Reader, the Law had a predictive element to it; it was far more than legal mandates and moral legislation. See Colossians 2:16f.

In that passage Paul told the Colossians not to be judged in regard to meat and drink, feast days, and Sabbaths. These were all part of the legislation of the Old Law. But notice, in verse 17 Paul says they all foreshadowed Christ — they were "shadows of things to come". (Please note those things were still viewed as coming. They had not fully arrived yet.)

Jesus said "the law" was predictive in nature. In Matthew 11:13 our Lord said "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John". Did you catch that? Jesus said the law and the prophets prophesied. How then can one delineate between the prophets and "the law"? He cannot Biblically do so.

In addition, in Hebrews 10:1-4 the writer says the Law was a shadow of good things to come, (once again those things were viewed as not yet fully come).

Our point is that one cannot delineate between the Law and the Prophets for the Law itself was prophetic! Jesus had to fulfill all the prophetic scriptures whether couched in types, symbols, visions, or oracles.

Further, the prophets are very clearly called "the law". In I Corinthians 14:21-22 Paul quotes from Isaiah 28 and specifically calls it "the law". A quick check of Romans 3:10ff will reveal that Paul quotes from the Psalms, Jeremiah, Proverbs and Isaiah and calls all of them "the Law", vs. 19. In addition, as noted above, the Law prophesied, Matthew 11:13. Now since the prophets are called "the law", and since "the law" prophesied one cannot delineate between the law and prophets in Matthew 5.

Our point is that the term "the Law" was the abbreviated way of referring to the entire Old Covenant. When Jesus said "one jot or one tittle will in no wise pass from the Law until all be fulfilled" he was using the form of speech prevalent in his time. He did not need to say "Law and Prophets" or "Law, Prophets and Psalms" each and every time.

When Jesus said he did not "come to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill" he was saying he came to fulfill all the Law and prophets. He was using a form of ellipsis. When he said he did not come to destroy the Law and Prophets but to fulfill he did not have to say "all the Law and Prophets" again; it was understood that was what he meant. This being true it is patent that Jesus did not say just the Law, to the exclusion of the prophets, had to be fulfilled before the old system could pass. He in fact, did say all the prophets had to be fulfilled before the Old Law could pass.

What we see then is that when one attempts to have Jesus say all he had to do was fulfill the legal and moral mandates of the law before the Law could pass he imposes a non-scriptural distinction upon the term "the Law". Second, he ignores the elliptical language of Matthew 5:18; and ignores the fact that the Old Law itself, even the legislative edicts, were prophetic in nature. Jesus did indeed have to fulfill all the Law and prophets before the Old Law could pass.

Fulfilling the Promises and Purpose of the Law
I would like to ask you a question: If a law or covenant has been abrogated, are any of its penalties or promises applicable anymore? Yes, or No? Will you please get a pencil and circle the one you believe is correct?

Now common sense says that if a law is no longer in effect then its penalties or promises are voided. Well, consider this in light of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-18. If the Old Covenant was abrogated at the Cross does this not mean that all Old Covenant promises and penalties were either fulfilled or abrogated at that time? If not, why not? Now lets see what this means.

Paul emphatically says his eschatology is taken directly from the Old Covenant, Acts 24:14ff; Acts 26:21ff. Specifically, he tells us that the promise of the resurrection was an Old Covenant promise made by and to Moses and all the prophets. But Paul was speaking about this promise Several years after the cross where, we are told, The Old Covenant was taken away. But if the Old Covenant was taken away at the Cross how could Paul, years afterward, still be preaching Old Covenant promises? You see, if the law was nullified at the Cross, then all of it was nullified. Remember, Jesus said none would pass until all was fulfilled. If all was not fulfilled then none of it passed. The Old Covenant stands or falls as a whole.

The Old Covenant had several constituent prophetic elements and it was essential they all be fulfilled before the Old Covenant could pass and the New Covenant World be fully established. The Old Covenant predicted the salvation of the remnant of Israel, Isaiah 2-4; the gathering of the Gentiles, Isaiah 49:6ff; the giving of a New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:29ff; the filling up of the measure of Israel's sin leading to their destruction, Isaiah 65:7ff; the coming of the Lord in judgment of the nations, Isaiah 66, Joel 3:1; Zechariah 14; the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Joel 2:28ff; the passing of the "heaven and earth" of Israel, Isaiah 24, 65, 66; and much more. If the Old Covenant was abrogated at the cross, how could any of these prophecies be valid after the cross? Quite simply, they could not; yet the New Testament writers repeatedly refer to these prophecies after Pentecost and anticipate their fulfillment. This proves the Old Covenant was not abrogated at the cross.

This is also demonstrated in another way. In Acts 13:40f Paul preached to the Jews at Antioch. They rejected the gospel and Paul warned them "Behold ye despisers and wonder and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work, which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto him". What is the significance of Paul's words? They are taken from Habakkuk 1:5. Paul, in Acts 13, years after the Old Covenant was supposedly taken away, was threatening Israel with Old Covenant wrath.

National destruction for violating the Covenant was part and parcel of the Law delivered to Israel, Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28-30. But if that covenant was abrogated at the cross, how could Paul still be threatening Israel with covenant wrath? He could not.

Note my argument:
Major Premise: No promise or penalty of a covenant is applicable if that covenant has been abrogated.

Minor Premise: But Paul applied Old Covenant penalties to Israel, Acts 13.

Conclusion: Therefore the Old Covenant penalties were still applicable.

Note another argument:
Major Premise: No promise or penalty of a Covenant is applicable if that Covenant has been abrogated.

Minor Premise: The promises of the coming of the Lord, judgment of the nations, and the resurrection are Old Covenant promises, Isa. 66; Dan. 12; Joel 3:1f, etc.

Minor Premise: The Old Covenant was abrogated at the Cross- traditional view of the Old Covenant.

Conclusion: Therefore the promises of the coming of the Lord, the judgment of the nations, and the resurrection, being Old Covenant promises, were abrogated at the Cross!

If there is a single Old Testament prophecy that is unfulfilled, then the Old Covenant still stands. If the Old Testament is truly abrogated, then the eschatological prophecies of the Old Testament must be fulfilled or nullified.

The view that the Old Law passed at the Cross strips the New Testament scriptures of all eschatology and demands that every promise of "last things" was fulfilled at the Cross and then God started over on Pentecost with a totally new set of "last things" promises. This is patently false; the New Testament writers constantly affirm that they are simply reiterating the Old Covenant promises, II Peter 3:1, 13; Revelation 10:6ff.

The truth is that the Old Covenant promises of the coming of the Lord, judgment and resurrection had to be fulfilled before the New Covenant World of Jesus could be perfected. Those promises of "the end" as seen above, do not deal with the end of time but with the end of the Old Covenant World of Israel and the full establishment of the New Covenant World of Christ.

The Old Law could not pass until it had accomplished its purpose — this is established in Galatians 3:23-25. Paul here says those under the law were "under guard", "kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed". He says the Law was given to serve as a "tutor" (NKJV) to bring them to Christ. He then concludes by saying "after faith is come we are no longer under a tutor".

It is clear that "The Faith" Paul has in mind is not the subjective faith of individuals but the objective system of faith we call the Gospel System. The Law was to continue until "The Faith" came.

Did "The Faith" come at the cross? No — although the cross is where the New Covenant of "The Faith" was confirmed by the death of Jesus the Testament maker, Galatians 3:15.

The Old Covenant predicted the coming of a New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:29ff. Did the Old Covenant pass away before that predicted New Covenant was delivered? If so the Old Covenant passed away before it had fulfilled its purpose in bringing Israel to a New Covenant.

In Hebrews 8:8-13 the writer recalls God's promise given in Jeremiah and then says "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 Hebrew writer was living in the days in which the New Covenant was being delivered. As he writes he recalls God's promise to give the New Covenant and says the Old was ready to vanish away! Reader, the Old had not yet been fulfilled! It had not yet fulfilled its function because the promised New Covenant was not yet fully delivered. But the writer says the Old was "ready to vanish". "Ready to vanish" does not mean it had already vanished.

It is clear then that the Old Law was in a time of transition. The New Covenant had to be fully given before the full purpose of the Old was completed and Paul very clearly says the Law was to last until "The Faith" was delivered. Would anyone assert the New Covenant was fully delivered at the cross? At Pentecost? Surely not. Therefore until the Law had fulfilled its purpose in bringing the Jews to the New Covenant it did not pass away.

Summary and Conclusion
We have seen that heaven and earth had to pass away before the Old Law could pass away. We have defined "heaven and earth" as the Old Covenant world of Old Israel. We have seen that instead of predicting the destruction of physical heaven and earth the Bible predicted the passing of Old Israel's world in order for God to create the New World of his Son-the Kingdom of God-the church of the living God. We have seen that the Bible very clearly tells when ALL prophecy was to be fulfilled — when heaven and earth would pass — in 70 AD with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, the very heart and core of Israel's world. We have examined several objections and found them to be based upon false suppositions. We have seen that if the Old Covenant has been abrogated then all of its prophecies including the predictions of the "end" must be fulfilled or abrogated. If those prophecies have not been fulfilled, then the Old Covenant still stands. We have seen that the Old Law could not pass until it had fulfilled its purpose and that purpose included deliverance to the New Covenant — that was not fulfilled until all the New Covenant was revealed and confirmed. That did not happen at the Cross or Pentecost.

The ideas presented here are representative of what is called Covenant Eschatology. This is the view that God has kept his promises in fulfilling all prophecy by the time of the passing of Old Israel in 70 AD. The fall of Jerusalem was far more than the passing of the capital of Judaism — it was a spiritually cosmic event. It was the time of the coming of Jesus, Matthew 24:29-34; the judgment, Matthew 16:27-28. It was at that time that the salvation in Christ was fully revealed, Colossians 3:1ff. It is because of what happened then, as the consummation of the work started on the Cross, Hebrews 9:26-28, that you and I can have confidence in the Word of God and the God of the Word. Christ did come in judgment of the Old World in 70 AD and fully establish the unending New Covenant Heaven and Earth. This is when all things foretold by the prophets was fulfilled and that is how heaven and earth passed away!

THE "BEMA"

I re-post below an article written by a friend of mine by the name of Tom Wriggle. I think that often times when we are taught the scripture we hear only the surface teaching of someone else’s study. This can cause us trouble in the long run if we do not do our own independent bible study and strive to be taught by the Spirit of God rather than the plethora of men who would teach us. I use Toms article for two reasons;

1. It is a bit provocative (that makes for interesting reading),

2. Tom sticks with the scripture for illustration and illumination and this will serve us all well as we strive to gain a foothold on the truth.

This is one of those "Paradigm" issues. I have been taught that Christians will gain or lose reward at the "Bema" for years. But when I endeavored to do an independent study I could not validate what I had heard from the pulpit, so I have changed my position and I think the bible gets more and more clear the more we allow the New Covenant to determine our frame of reference for our interpretation. I invite your comments both pro and con...I welcome the Berean and loving discussion of this and any of the issues that come up on this site. Enjoy.

*********************************************************************************
Returning to the Biblical Bema The Judgment Seat of Christ

There are two main ways in which erroneous teachings are introduced into Christianity:

A. Non-biblical evidence is used to support the novel concept.
B. The Biblical truth on the subject is suppressed or fragmented.

Dispensationalists have done both with this modern notion of the Bema seat award-judgment. The Biblical information on "Bema" (the Greek word) is suppressed. And appeal is made to non-biblical "evidence" to make the concept seem biblically valid. There is no such thing as the Bema award-judgment, as presented so often today in pulpits, books and web sites of today. There is a Bema judgment, but it is quite different from what is presented to us.

1. DISPENSATIONALISTS DEFINE "BEMA" AS...
"Thus, associated with this word ["bema"] are the ideas of prominence, dignity, authority, honor, and reward rather than the idea of justice and judgment" - Dwight Pentecost

“It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the judgment is unrelated to the problem of sin, that it is more for the bestowing of rewards than the rejection of failure.” - Lewis Sperry Chafer

“Paul was picturing the believer as a competitor in a spiritual contest. As the victorious Grecian athlete appeared before the Bema to receive his perishable award, so the Christian will appear before Christ’s Bema to receive his imperishable award. The judge at the Bema bestowed rewards to the victors. He did not whip the losers.” - Hoyt

"[The "bema"] was a seat or raised platform where a judge sat as he made his decision regarding a case." ..."This word was also used in connection with the platform on which the umpire or referee sat during the Olympic Games or the Isthmian games at Corinth. This was the place where the winners of the various events received their rewards." ...."The apostle Paul seems to have this idea of reward in mind as he speaks of the 'judgment seat of Christ.'" - Paul Benware

The "bema seat judgment" is an "investigative probe into a believer's lifetime of works..." "[E]very Christian must meet God for an investigative judgment of his entire life. This moment will be a time of jubilant victory for some." ... and "a time of weeping for others." "' Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."" - Jack Van Impe

"Judgment Seat of Christ. The place or occasion for the divine evaluation of the faithfulness of Christians' lives resulting in the giving or withholding of rewards (2 Cor. 5:10)." - Paul Enns
Charles Ryrie says of this time of the Bema that "individual believers will be judged for their works done as Christians (1 Co 3:11- 15). Salvation with its assurance of heaven is not in question, only whether heaven will be entered with or without rewards." - Charles Ryrie

Notice these recurring themes in the above definitions:
A. It is for Christians only.
B. It is for rewards (or loss of rewards) only. There is no punishment.
C. It can be illustrated by sporting contests award ceremonies (as opposed to Bible cross-references).
D. The terror or shame involved here is merely that of disobedient or unproductive Christians.Now let us turn to the Bible to see if what the experts above say matches with scripture.

2. THE "BEMA" ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE (WITH COMMENTS)

Occurrences: Matt.27:19, John 19:13, Acts 7:5; Acts 12:21; Acts 18:12, 16, 17; Acts 25:6, 10, 17; Ro.14:10; 2Cor.5:10.

"When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him." (Matt. 27:19)

If the Bema was only a place for rewards, as the Dispensationalists insist, we would expect Pilate to answer back to his wife, "Silly woman, don't you know that I am seated at the Bema? Giving out punishment is the farthest thing from my mind."
But what did Pilate actually do at this Bema?

He released Barabbas - and gave over the Prince of Life to be crucified!
See also the next verse."When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha." (John 19:13)

Hoyt insists that "the judge at the Bema bestowed rewards to the victors. He did not whip the losers.” Tell that to Pilate, Mr. Hoyt. He not only whipped the "Loser", he had Him crucified! Why, oh why, do people blindly follow the experts in defining scriptural terms when the Bible is quite clear in defining many of it's own terms?

The Bema is clearly a place of awesome judgment, and not a mere award ceremony.

"And he gave him no inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on : yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child." (Acts 7:5)

"Set his foot on" is the translation here for "bema", an idiomatic rendering. At any rate, there are no rewards here.

"And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne ["bema"], and made an oration unto them." (Acts 18:12)


"And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat" (Acts 18:12)

"And he drove them from the judgment seat." (Verse 16)

"Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things." (Verse 17)

"And when he had waited among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought." (Acts 25:6)

"Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as you very well know." (Verse 10)

"Therefore, when they came here, without any delay the next day I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth." (Verse 17)

Each one of these "Bema" passages from Acts involves a civil magistrate making a judicial decision, some involving matters of life or death. There are no rewards spoken of here. No Olympic games or any such thing.

- Romans 14:10. "But why do you judge you brother? or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

At first glance this might be used to hold up the modern notion of Christians only being present at the Bema - only you read on to verse 11, and read the cross-references of Isaiah 45:23 and Phil. 2:9- 11. Clearly this is the time when ALL of creation will be present, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father."

Every knee will bow at this Bema. Everyone will be there, Christians as well as every unsaved person. The fact that Romans 14:15 connects the Bema with Phil. 2:9- 11 makes this absolutely certain. Who do we believe then, the inspired Apostle Paul or these modern writers and their imagined scenario of athletic awards? Shouldn't the biblical evidence be given first consideration?

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad." (2nd Cor. 5:10.) Once again, this is a convocation of everyone who exists or has existed, saved and unsaved. Don't take my word for it. Read the verse in context and you will see, if you are willing to let the Word explain itself, that the passage speaks of Christians as well as unsaved.

3. THE BEMA IS THE GREAT WHITE THRONE.

Part of the method of faulty expositors of the Word of God is to assign non-cooperating puzzle pieces to another part of the puzzle. This is what is done with the Great White Throne Judgment. Does it make sense to you that something as awesome as this would only be mentioned once in scripture?

No. In fact it is mentioned several times in scripture. Many of these other occurrences were covered earlier in this article. We should allow the Bible to use different terms for the same concept. For instance, in Revelation there is no mention of "justification", "sanctification", etc.

Yet we do read of the ones whose "robes are washed in the blood of the lamb", of the "over comers" and of those who "follow the Lamb wherever He goes". It is the same with the Bema (Judgment Seat of Christ) and the Great White Throne. The latter is a poetical, symbolic description in a poetical, symbolic book.

4. EVERYONE GETS REWARDS AT THE BEMA, BUT....

Jesus promised (Rev. 22:12) "I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to everyone according to his work." Everyone will get rewards. But look at the wider context (verses 11- 15 The unsaved will get their reward - judgment and eternal doom!).

Consider these verses:"

And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time." (2nd Peter 2:13)

"Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core." (Jude 11)

"Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she has filled fill to her double." (Rev. 18:6)

5. RETHINKING THE BEMA

It is certainly hard to unlearn something we have been taught. The idea of being rewarded for our righteous acts (works, actually) goes contrary to the Gospel itself.

If it is not right that any flesh glories before God, how is it possible that we should be rewarded over against other Christians for accomplishments that we have no right to claim credit for? Or do we not believe that it is Christ who works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure? (Phil. 2) And why would He reward us for something that was really His doing?

How can we expect rewards for our obedience, seeing that even if we obey perfectly in everything we are still unprofitable servants? (Luke 17:10)

The modern notion of the Bema award-judgment is a concept that is foreign to Scripture. It is foreign to the Biblical use of the word. And it is foreign to the Biblical definition of the Gospel and to what we know of God.

THE BODY

In a discussion on 2 Corinthians 5:10 with a friend, I suggest to him a paradigm shift that I thought would give him additional insight. The passage speaks about “be(ing) recompensed for his deeds in the BODY…” May I suggest that here, Paul is using figurative language in his use of the term “BODY”. We read in Jude of the angel Gabriel disputing with the Devil over the “BODY” of Moses. I believe what is being referred to; is the BODY of Mosaic Law, the Old Covenant (OC). This OC was in its last throes of death and was at the time of the writing of the New Testament, “passing away”. This OC BODY of law was a trap to those trying to live in the New Covenant (NC). I believe Paul was trying to teach that if we continue to labor in the BODY of law that is the OC, we will fall into judgment since the “BODY” of Christ is the only place to be to avoid judgment. There are many places in the New Testament where the context of Paul’s teaching on the BODY fits this paradigm.

We have been translated from the BODY of Moses into the BODY of Christ. Other references you may like to check out are Romans 7. Here Paul is struggling with those things he does in the BODY (OC) and those done outside the BODY (NC). He concludes by saying “Who shall deliver me from this BODY of death (the BODY of OC law which was death to all who did not keep it perfectly). If you look at the context of 2 Corinthians 5, you will see going back to chapter 3 that Paul is arguing for the replacement of the OC with the NC. When he begins chapter 5 he speaks of the tent folding. I believe that this tent is a reference to the temple worship of the OC that was finally and completely terminated in 70 A.D when the Roman General Titus destroyed it and all vestiges of the Hebrew religion. Paul’s whole approach throughout the epistles is to help people struggling with the life in the OC to forsake that old way and come fully into the NC. He argues this almost the entire letter of Galatians, and concludes by saying (allegorically) “cast out the bondwomen and her son”, (the OC law). As well, I believe that the contrast in Gal chapter 5 between Spirit and Flesh is a contrast between living in the BODY of OC law and living in the BODY of Christ in the NC by way of the Spirit. In Acts we see that even Paul was not immune to this struggle of coming out from under the BODY of Moses and coming completely into the BODY of Christ: we read of him making a Nazarite vow, shaving his head and offering his hair at the temple in Jerusalem. Paul is never praised for this and he never makes reference to it again (as if he were shamed by his lack of faith in offering an OC sacrifice).

Perhaps you do not see things as I have outlined them, but let my comments be to you…an encouragement to study even deeper for yourself. Do a study on the BODY of Moses and the BODY of Christ. Look at how the BODY is used figuratively in the New Testament.

Luke 17:37 “and they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, where ever the BODY is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.” The context of Luke 17 is the judgment of Israel and the OC.

I believe the context of most passages will give the hints as to how to see the word BODY. I do not believe it is to be taken figuratively every time it is used. but I do believe that the context will guide us.

I believe that the BODY of OC law is what is in danger of judgment and is the BODY of Mosaic Law that has been judged. It is not a universal judgment that is being spoken of. It is a limited judgment; limited to that which is refusing to come out of the BODY of the OC, and that which refuses to be united with the BODY of Christ.

Just a few thoughts to chew on…let me know what you think, and or what you discover in your own study.

Here are a few New Testament passages where I feel the term “BODY” is being used figuratively. If you don’t agree, that’s fine. But take a look at the context of these and see if it may not fit. There are many more, but I feel I have given enough to make the point.

Any comments, corrections, critiques, condemnations and criticism are welcome.

Happy studying, and keep in touch.

Grace in abundance to you.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply the place where they got tired of thinking.

John 2:21

But he spake of the temple of his body.

Romans 6:6

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Romans 7:4

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Romans 7:24

O’ wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Romans 8:10

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Romans 8:13

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Romans 12:4 & 5, 4

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one member’s one of another.

1 Cor 5:3

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed

1 Cor 10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Cor 10:17

For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1 Cor 12:13

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Cor 15:44

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

2 Cor 5:6

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord

2 Cor 5:8

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

2 Cor 12:2

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

2 Cor 12:3

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth).

Ephesians 2:16

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Ephesians 3:6

That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel

Ephesians 4:4

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling

Col 1:24

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church

Jude 9

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

2nd ENOCHIAN PARADIGM

I would like to ask a question, pose a position. The common use of Jude 14-15, as I have heard it for many years; is an application to the fulfillment of that prophecy in the first century. As I read Jude I see that starting in verse 5 Jude sets out to show God's willingness to judge as a warning to the first century readers who would witness the judgment in 70 A.D. He shows this willingness to judge by recounting past events of God's judgment.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

(PAST EVENT)

6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

(PAST EVENT)

7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

(PAST EVENT)

8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

(PAST EVENT)

10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

(PAST EVENT)

12. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13. Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

In light of this list of past accounts of God's judgment; how is it our hermeneutic switches to a future event? What is it in the context that changed to make verses 14-15 future events when the entire context leading up to it is a listing of PAST EVENTS?

In considering this, read Deuteronomy 33:2.

"And he (Moses) said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them."

Is this quote from Deuteronomy not a fulfillment of what ENOCH prophesied? We must recognize that Jude did not make the prophesy, he merely quoted the ancient prophecy. I believe that this prophecy was well known by the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Moses), when Moses quotes (paraphrased) Enoch's prophesy in Deuteronomy I believe he is declaring to the nation that this prophesy is about to come to pass in the conquering of the promised land at the hand of Joshua and the "Ten Thousands of (Old Covenant) Saints".

Read verses 14 and 15 of Jude again with this in mind. I believe we are looking at another in the list of recounted PAST EVENTS of God's willingness to judge the ungodly.

14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Let me know what you think.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply
the place where they got tired of thinking.

THE LAND OF ISRAEL PARADIGM

The problems in the land of Israel are theological.


You can talk about politics all you want, but until you realize that the issue is in this region of the world is religion, you are ignoring the fundamental issues. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe the Land is theirs by Divine right. American politics is heavily influenced by the dispensational movement that supports Israel's claims. Several of our own elected officials often state their convictions that the land belongs to Israel by Divine right.

The fact is that the Land no longer belongs to either the Arabs or the Israeli's by Divine right. God is no longer concerned with geography. There is no salvation in real estate, salvation is in Christ.

Most people do not seem to realize that Israel's right to the land was conditioned upon their obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Deuteronomy 28-30 we find the Law of blessings and cursings. Simply stated, that law said that if Israel obeyed the Mosaic Covenant they would remain in the land in peace. However, if they violated the Covenant, Jehovah would remove them. He even said that in the last days, they would become utterly corrupt and that He would destroy them (Deuteronomy 31:29; 32:20-24).

Here is a point of tremendous significance. The promises of Israel's return and restoration to the land are grounded in the Mosaic Covenant. For Israel to return to the Land, as God's chosen people, they had to obey the Law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 30:1-10, one of the favorite texts utilized by those who believe that 1948 was a fulfillment of Divine prophecy, Moses emphatically gave as the condition for return, obedience to the Mosaic Covenant (see vss. 2, 6, 8, 10). There are two points to ponder here.

First, would anyone seriously argue that Israel had repented and returned to an observance of the Mosaic Covenant, and that that obedience led to their "restoration" in 1948? I know of not one dispensational scholar that argues that Israel was in a state of obedience to the Mosaic Law in 1948! As a matter of fact, Tim LaHaye has argued just the opposite! In his book “Charting the End Times”; he maintains that the restoration of Israel in 1948 was the "super sign"; that we are in the end of the Christian Age, and that event "began an actual fulfillment of specific Bible prophecies about an international regathering of the Jews in unbelief." Let that sink in for a moment. In spite of the emphatic declaration of Deuteronomy 30, that the condition for restoration to the Land was obedience to the Mosaic Law, LaHaye denies this, and insists that in reality, the condition for Israel's "first" restoration to the land was to be disobedience! This concept of two regatherings, one in unbelief and the other in belief is a total fabrication of the dispensational world.

Second, God has forever removed the Mosaic Covenant. That Covenant was in the process of passing away when Hebrews was written (Hebrews 8:13), and passed with the fulfillment of Israel's entire religious system (Hebrews 9:10). Many dispensationalists agree that the Mosaic Law, has forever been fulfilled and discontinued through Christ. Well, if the Mosaic Covenant, that was the ground of the restoration promises has been removed, then the promises of restoration have been forever removed.

The land of Israel was given to that nation by Jehovah (Genesis 15:16f; (Joshua 21:43-45). However, her retention of that land was conditioned on her obedience to the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 28-32). Further; Jehovah has now forever removed that Covenant. This means that the land promises are no longer valid.

The main argument that the land will always belong to Israel, no matter what, is based on the fact that Jehovah gave them the land "forever" (Psalms 105). The problem is that the word forever, (Hebrew, Olam), does not automatically denote "without end." For instance, Jehovah not only promised to give the land to Israel "forever," He also promised to make them "a perpetual shame," and to make Jerusalem a "desolation forever" (See Jeremiah 23:40; 25:9). He said this concerning the fall of Jerusalem in B. C. 586. Was Israel restored after God made their land a "perpetual desolation"? Yes! The point is that the word "forever" does not mean unending. Thus, the fact that Jehovah promised the land to Abraham "forever" does not mean that Israel could not forfeit the land.

The covenant sign of Israel's right to the land was circumcision (Genesis 17:10f). Stated simply, no circumcision, no land! Consider then the doctrine of circumcision. No one knew the importance of circumcision more than Paul. Yet, Paul said that if a person practiced circumcision for religious reasons then Christ would profit them nothing (Galatians 5:1-4)! He said circumcision avails nothing. It must be understood that the religious reasons of circumcision had always been two fold. First; to identify Israel as the chosen people; i.e. as Abraham's seed, and, as the covenant sign of Israel's right to the Land.
The only way that Paul could say that circumcision avails nothing is for him to realize that God had completely fulfilled the promises to Abraham and therefore, the purpose of that covenant--to bring in the Messiah- had been fulfilled. There was therefore, no longer any purpose for that distinctive covenant sign, because that covenant was on the point of passing away (see Hebrews 8:13).

Some say that in the millennium, Israel's Old System, including circumcision will be restored. According to this theory, any man not circumcised will not be able to worship God in Jerusalem, and yet, those who do not worship there are condemned, according to the millennial interpretation of Zechariah 14.

However, if Jehovah restores circumcision, then Paul's gospel--the gospel that Jesus died to establish — must be set aside. Paul emphatically repudiated the religious significance of circumcision. He totally rejected physical circumcision as any longer the identifying mark of the seed of Abraham, insisting instead that the children of Abraham are now only those of faith (Galatians 3:6f). In fact, he went so far as to say that those who practice circumcision to maintain their tradition identity as Abraham's seed forfeit the blessings of Jesus. They fall from grace (Galatians 5:4)! Salvation is not in the land of Israel. It is in Jesus Christ.

The New Testament doctrine of circumcision is extremely relevant in light of the current conflict in Israel. The Jews maintain that the land is their's by Divine Right. However, to claim that Israel still has a Divine Right to the land based on the Abrahamic Covenant fails to consider that God fulfilled those promises, and then, due to Israel's continuing recalcitrance, terminated that Covenant. The New Testament doctrine of circumcision proves conclusively that Israel no longer has title deed to the land. In reality, to argue that she does is a repudiation of the circumcision free gospel of Jesus Christ.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply
the place where they got tired of thinking.

THE PARADIGM OF ENOCH

Enoch was the Great-Grandfather of Noah. Enoch begat Methuselah, the oldest man recorded in the geneologies of the bible. Methuselah begat Lamech the father of Noah.

What is interesting is what happened to Enoch.

We find the 365 Earthly years of Enoch's existence recorded for us in Genesis 5:18-24. In verse 18 he is born, in verse 21 he becomes the father of Methuselah, in verse 22 he has a bunch more kids. It is in verse 23 where Enochs years are summarized as 365 years then in verse 24 we have the statement that; "Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." How mysterious, how cryptic. What does it mean?

We also have the prophesy of Enoch quoted in the short book of Jude.

In verse 14 & 15 of Jude we have the following...

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

I believe that this passage in Jude is an allusion to Deuteronomy 33:2 but that is a different subject.

The only other reference to the man 'Enoch' is found in Hebrews chapter 11, the chapter of the faith of the believers down through the ages.

Anytime we have elaboration in the New Testament scripture of obscure Old Testament events or characters, we should pay close attention.

In Hebrews 11:5 we have another brief statement about the man Enoch;

"By Faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Here we find out about his character, he was a "God Pleaser". He was a man of "Faith". And we find out some more info about what happened to him. He was "translated". The reason for his translation was so that "He should not see death;".

I am not sure about you, but this does not really satisfy this mystery for me. What do these things mean? Most of my Christian life I have heard preachers and other Christians declare that this means that Enoch never died.

Is that true?

Did enoch escape death by this transaltion? This is what I used to beleive. But as I read my bible, I continue in the passage of Hebrews 11 and the passage goes on to tell of the faith of Noah (v 7), the Faith of Abraham (v 8-10), the Faith of Sarah (v 11). Then in verse 13 it summarizes the faith of all these in chapter 11 up to that point.

"THESE ALL DIED in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the Earth."

Notice that the scripture declares...(it does not hint, or allude to, or intimate, it DECLARES)..."THESE ALL DIED...". Now the language of Enochs demise, disappearance, departure seems to be cryptic and open for interpretation. Should we not allow the clear declaration of "THESE ALL DIED..." be the difinitive settling text as to the end of Enoch. I believe the bible teaches that Enoch died as all men die. This is a new paradigm for the way I used to look at this character.

Not sure if any of you are ready for this kind of re-thinking, but please let me know where I have made a mistake in the interpretation of this passage. If Enoch did not die, point me to the clear text that says he did not die.

I welcome your comments and explanations.

For many folks, a conclusion is simply
the place where they got tired of thinking.