The Interim Period

[Barry]

The interim period is the time between the cross and the coming of Christ in AD 70.
It is the time between, when the veil of the temple was torn in two and when not one stone of the temple buildings was left upon another. Something happened to the temple at the cross and something happened to the temple in AD 70.
How are we to view this time?
Did the law end at the cross and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple demonstrated this end?
Or is it that the law ended in AD 70 and from the cross there was a so some extent a safe haven from it "in Christ"?
Was it a slow and gradual passing away over this time?

I'll post some thoughts latter today starting in Hebrews, but don't let that delay you if you (anyone) has some ideas or would like to re-state the questions or bring up other points or ask other questions please do feel free to do so.
Blessings Barry

[Paige]

Barry,

Where I sit right now (and of course I'm open to changing seats if necessary) is that the law didn't completely pass at the cross. Why? Because believers were told they had become dead to the law in Rom.7, by participation in Christ's baptism. My question is if the law passed at the cross, why would the believers have had to consider themselves dead to it?

Paige

[Lou]

The “law” had to be fulfilled, that didn’t happen till AD70. From the cross till AD70 there was grace for those “in Christ.”

[Bill]

Paige,

Perhaps the reason why the believer's had to consider themselves dead to the Law was because it had indeed passed at the cross. If we consider ourselves alive to the Law; that is under its jurisdiction, then we will still be weighed down by its burdens. When we consider ourselves dead to the Law then we are free in Christ.

Just a thought,

Bill

[Bill]

Hi Lou,

You said,


The “law” had to be fulfilled, that didn’t happen till AD70. From the cross till AD70 there was grace for those “in Christ.”

That's a great point. I wonder though why you limit grace to those "in Christ." Also, is there still grace for those "in Christ" even after ad70 or only during the interim period?

Thanks,

Bill

[Paige]

Bill,

You could be making a valid point. I'm wondering though, why Paul would have worded it that way then.

He said you have become dead to the law, which lends weight to its existence.

Colossians says that Christ wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. But, reading further he talks again about believers having died with Christ from the basic principles of the world. So there again, I see the reference to the cross as Christ providing the believers His death to enter into until the complete passing away of the law. I think also that resurrection somehow ties in with this topic. Resurrection would occur when the OC was history. The law would not pass until the OC passed because it was one of elements of it.

Paige

[davo]

Perhaps the reason why the believer's had to consider themselves dead to the Law was because it had indeed passed at the cross.

What the Cross did was annul the law, i.e., it made it of "none effect" as far as relating to God was concerned. The law however was still in vogue in that interim period, though it had no redeeming virtue to it, as far as relating to God was concerned -- hence it was "passing away" [Heb 8:13]. Something can only be "passing" if there is a degree of presence to it still.

Don't forget, the law was Israel's "cultural life-blood" -- to have "declared" it null and void, as in fact it was, would have been too much of a barrier for Israel to have handled and potentially blocked many from coming into "the call" of God as Israel's new priesthood, and thus hindered Israel's redemption and thus the world's reconciliation.

We see in the book of Acts Paul still submitting out of cultural duty to certain law requirements.

[Bill]

Yes, Paige, that is always the important question. Why did Paul word it that way? We must always ask ourselves in what sense did he mean that.

I ask in what sense did He wipe out the law? You ask in what sense did the law still exist. Both aspects are true, but only in the correct sense. Only when we understand Paul's way with words can we begin to understand how the two opposing views can fit together.

I agree that the understanding of the resurrection is key. The problem is that Paul understood that there was a past, present, and future aspect of the resurrection. He considered that he had been raised up with Christ and that he is in the heavenlies with Christ and that he would be resurrected at His second coming in 70ad. All of these are true. We must only understand in what sense Paul is using the term "resurrection."

You said,


The law would not pass until the OC passed because it was one of elements of it.

I agree with this also. In fact I don't see any distinction between the OC and the law. Aren't they the same thing? In a sense both the law and the oc were "wiped away" on the cross and in another sense they both completely passed away in 70ad.

This is very hard stuff but I think it is equally important to understand. Am I makings sense or am I losing my mind??? :o

Bill

[Bill]

Dear Davo,

As you must know by now, I have the utmost repect for your ideas and I have learned a great deal from things you have said, here and elsewhere ... but ... your last post needs a lot of clarification for me.

You said,


What the Cross did was annul the law, i.e., it made it of "none effect" as far as relating to God was concerned. The law however was still in vogue in that interim period, though it had no redeeming virtue to it, as far as relating to God was concerned -- hence it was "passing away" [Heb 8:13]. Something can only be "passing" if there is a degree of presence to it still.

Don't forget, the law was Israel's "cultural life-blood" -- to have "declared" it null and void, as in fact it was, would have been too much of a barrier for Israel to have handled and potentially blocked many from coming into "the call" of God as Israel's new priesthood, and thus hindered Israel's redemption and thus the world's reconciliation.

We see in the book of Acts Paul still submitting out of cultural duty to certain law requirements.

Now, I have colored in red all of the things that you have said that I think are unclear.

"as far as relating to God was concerned" - Perhaps that is the sense in which Paul says "made of no effect." I just don't see why you limit it in this way. Does Paul use any qualifications?

"in vogue" - This also needs further explanation. I take it you mean popular with the Jews but that doesn't seem important to me so please explain.

"too much of a barrier" - My first thought is that God could probably overcome this barrier so in what sense do you mean too much. Then I thought well if it was so much of a barrier then why wasn't it still too much of a barrier after 70ad. And then I thought that the reason for the interim period doesn't seem to be to soften the blow to Israel from the abolition of their precious law, but rather a period of testing of some sort parallel to the 40 years in the wilderness. Don't you think?

"out of cultural duty" - I've always thought that Paul submitted to the law out of concern for his fellow Jews. In what sense did he feel it was a duty still obligating him and why only certain laws and not all?

I hope this was somewhat coherent. I'm tired and I probably should have waited until morning to type this but I'm eager to hear your response. Believe me when I tell you that I earnestly desire to understand this interim stuff better and I'm thankful that I have people like you to guide me. :clap2:

Bill

[davo]

Bill, if you read Acts 15, 18 and 21 [particularly verses 18-26] you'll see that many Jews "believed and were zealous for the law" – James affirms this. There was a dispute in that certain of the Jews accused Paul of debasing the law saying it was no longer an obligatory. Paul was being misrepresented – what he was stressing was there was no need of Gentile law observance to be considered God's people [his epistles]. Yet in this there is no mention of Jewish believers being required to cease from their law practices – in fact quite the opposite, as you'll see Paul joining them in this.

There was a certain need for the continued working of the law, for in it Israel remained in blindness – this in the redemptive plan of God was expedient for the Gentiles, for as long as the blindness lasted salvation was coming to the Gentiles, till "the time of the Gentiles was fulfilled". It would have been too much of a radical move to have removed the law carte blanche – it was enough in one sense that through the cross it was annulled in regards to relating to God. But don't forget – Jesus himself said "UNTIL heaven and earth pass away" i.e., the Mosaic regime, NOT one jot or tittle would fail of law or prophecy. IOW, there was yet still an outworking of purpose for the law, even though in this time interim it was "PASSING AWAY".

You see it's like this: had Jewish believers promoted the laws demise as far as cultural significance goes they [the Jewish believers] would have been run out of town – then so much for their being a witness to the gospel. Paul was savvy enough to know that God worked/s through human agencies – that's why he said "to one I become this… to another I become that… that I might win some" etc.

Hope that helps a bit.

[Bill]

So Davo,

You said,


Paul was being misrepresented – what he was stressing was there was no need of Gentile law observance to be considered God's people [his epistles]. Yet in this there is no mention of Jewish believers being required to cease from their law practices – in fact quite the opposite, as you'll see Paul joining them in this.

I take it that your view is that Paul was required by God to practice the entire Law of Moses. If that is not your view please add any qualifications you might have. Also I think that you would say that for Paul this practice was not related to the obtaining of righteousness. If that is the case then why was he required to practice the whole law?

Thanks for your help on this. I still have a very different view but I want to make sure I understand your view before I offer the reasons why I differ.

Bill

[davo]

I take it that your view is that Paul was required by God to practice the entire Law of Moses.

No, that's not what I'm saying. In light of Calvary no -- for the law was to lead one to Christ, and in Paul's case this was so. In light of Judaism however law observance was mandated, and remember Paul was a Jew -- he just realised now that righteousness was found in Christ and not law observance. That's why I pointed out Paul's "cultural" sensitivity on the issue, and hence he objection to Gentiles being forced by "some" to practice it -- for they were trying to bring with it this notion of righteousness through it -- THAT in Paul's mind totally undermined the gospel, or as he refers to it "another gospel".


Also I think that you would say that for Paul this practice was not related to the obtaining of righteousness.

Correct. :)



If that is the case then why was he required to practice the whole law?

Again because he was a Jew and respected his culture, his heritage -- just because Judaism of the day had misconstued law practice into righteousness, so they thought, did not negate the law for them. THAT negation however was coming because the law had indeed been fulfilled in that it had pointed to Christ and Christ had come -- that was Paul's message.

One of Paul's main arguments was against law observance FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS -- clearly he said that in the light of Christ and His atoning sacrifice, otherwise was the case.

[Lou]

Hi Lou,

You said,



That's a great point. I wonder though why you limit grace to those "in Christ." Also, is there still grace for those "in Christ" even after ad70 or only during the interim period?

Thanks,

Bill


The “law” had to be fulfilled. According to the “law” to atone for sin the Aaron (High Priest) had to make a sacrifice of a bull for himself and his house. (Lev. 16:6)
After that he would take two goats one sacrificed and the other was sent into the wilderness for the rest of Israel. (Lev. 16:15)


The High Priest came from behind the veil the “first” time for him and his household and came from behind the veil the “second” time for everyone.

Hebrews 9 is the fulfillment of Lev. 16 that was required by the “law.”


Heb 9:28 so also the Christ, once having been offered to bear the sins of many, a second time, apart from a sin-offering, shall appear, to those waiting for him--to salvation!


Before the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem only the “first appearance” had taken place.



Luk 8:21 and he answering said unto them, `My mother and my brethren! they are those who the word of God are hearing, and doing.'

From this verse we can see who was in Jesus’ house.


IMO only the followers of Jesus (those “In Christ”) were under grace till circa AD70 when sin for all was taken care of at the “second appearance.”

[Barry]

All was taken care of in the second appearance.
I can add nothing to this. There is nothing at this time to add to it.
Barry

[davo]

I think we all pretty much agree on the above as to the LAW being fulfilled with regards to its place in the redemptive workings of God, i.e., it pointed to and was summarily summed up in Him. The outworking of [lower case] law in that interim period was as I stated earlier -- "cultural", which IMO seems fairly obvious considering that the Judiazers were trying to push their customs onto the Gentiles, believing THIS to be kosher for salvation -- and of course they were wrong.

[Infinite Grace]

Bill,
Have you ever read my article on the Tabernacle of David? I liken David's tabernacle to the Interim period, the second temple to the tabernacle of Moses, and Solomon's temple to the New JErusalem. I think it makes a good explanation of the Interim Period, if I do say so myself.

[Amie]

Hey all,

Just wonderin' along these lines -- Do you think that post-cross, sacrificing at the temple would fit the "abomination of desolation" in that it had become idol worship rather than worship of the true God?

Amie

[Truthseeker]

Hello Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The period between the cross and the Parousia is like a baby in the womb of its mother. The mother knows she is with child--and that a baby is coming, and life as she knows it will change forever.

The Law was still in effect just as a woman is still without the child (although she's pregnant.) Preparations must be made to receive it, and this is a transition period. Paul was the one to whom Holy Spirit revealed the details of what the transition entailed.

They were in "the now but not yet" period--pregnant with Holy Spirit, but the full effects of Christ's work wouldn't be realized until the Parousia.

If a man died in the interim period, he remained asleep in death (just as all men before him) until the Parousia (and thus the resurrection.) Everything Paul spoke about in regard to being born in the Spirit--having immortality-- was future. He knew it was there, but wouldn't be "born" (as the male child--as the Firstfruit Class) until the Lord returned.--rhonda

[ozark]

Hey all,

Just wonderin' along these lines -- Do you think that post-cross, sacrificing at the temple would fit the "abomination of desolation" in that it had become idol worship rather than worship of the true God?

Amie

Amie,

There were so many abominations in that time that knowing which one Jesus was speaking of is difficult. The Jewish priesthood is certainly a possibility. Not only for the reasons you mention but also the priesthood instituted a daily sacrifice for Caesar which would have been considered an abomination as well. There are also several possibilities with certain Jewish zealots and finally the Roman abomination at the very end.

Very good illustration Rhonda!

[Bill]

Hi everyone,

I'm still very confused about this interim period stuff. :confused:

I think it would be very helpful for me if some of you would post your thoughts on what happened at the cross and what happened in 70ad. Maybe a couple of lists would be good.

My own view is that all was fulfilled spiritually at the cross and all was fulfilled physically in 70ad. I wonder what you might think was left to be done after the cross in a spiritual way.

Thanks for all of you sharing your thoughts on this with me.

Bill :eek:

[Amie]

Bill,

If you have time, I think that you may enjoy this: (http://www.presence.tv/cms/transmillennial2004_m4_doug_king.php)

Amie

[ozark]

Hi everyone,

I'm still very confused about this interim period stuff. :confused:

I think it would be very helpful for me if some of you would post your thoughts on what happened at the cross and what happened in 70ad. Maybe a couple of lists would be good.

My own view is that all was fulfilled spiritually at the cross and all was fulfilled physically in 70ad. I wonder what you might think was left to be done after the cross in a spiritual way.

Thanks for all of you sharing your thoughts on this with me.

Bill :eek:



Bill,

I agree with your perspective, yet at the same time I think these things are a matter of perspective. All things were accomplished in the Person of Jesus Christ through His death and resurrection. However, these things were being revealed to and worked out in the saints from Pentecost to the Parousia.

For example, at the cross the veil into the Holiest of Holies was torn. Christ had opened the way to the Father. Yet, in Hebrews nine we see that way would be fully manifest or revealed at the Parousia.

8the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. (Heb 9:8)

Another example would be the defeat of death. Again we see it abolished in the Person of Jesus Christ, yet the reality of the final defeat of death awaited the resurrection at the end of the age.

"...who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (II Timothy 1:9-10)

Death is abolished in Christ, however its defeat from a human perspective comes at the Parousia.

who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1 Peter 1:5

I think this is why we get the “there but not yet” sense of salvation and the kingdom of God during the interim period. Salvation was accomplished, but it was being revealed or manifest during the time between Pentecost and the Parousia.

Perhaps from the human perspective all these things were a work in progress. This is why we get the unusual verb tenses Paul uses in I Cor 15. Paul speaks of the resurrection and the defeat of death as already in progress. This blows the mind of a futurist. How could bodies be half resurrected? Yet, the preterist says “of course!”

[Bill]

Amie,

Thanks for the link. I won't have time to listen to it until tomorrow nite, but I'm looking forward to it and I'll let you know what I think on Friday.

Thanks again,

Bill

[Amie]

Bill,

I also want to mention, that for me it cannot be simplified into lists. Jesus's coming was a process, the resurrection was a process. It was happening until AD70, rather than it happened AD70 in my mind.

One of the things that Doug King touches extremely lightly upon is "baptism for the dead". I feel that the firstfruit church was resurrected first ("each in their order"), and then the dead would rise. Jesus made ALL of it possible through His work on the cross, but as Doug King said, the cross was the beginning.

Amie

[davo]

Salvation was accomplished, but it was being revealed or manifest during the time between Pentecost and the Parousia.

Yes Doug this is so important. Somewhere Max King's big book he talks about the Cross and the Parousia being the bookends of God "eschaton" [end time] -- it was THE one time redemptive coming into human history, bracketed by the DECISIVE event of the Cross and the CONSUMMATIVE event of the Parousia.

[Bill]

Doug,

Thanks for your response. I think you're right that we see things pretty much the same way. What do you think about this?

The events of 70ad made manifest and revealed to all the spiritual truths accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The interim period was a period of revelation of what happened at the cross. The events of 70ad finally made the truths of the cross obvious to all.

You said,


Paul speaks of the resurrection and the defeat of death as already in progress.

I think that Paul speaks of the resurrection and the defeat of death as already accomplished. Our (and his) understanding of these truths was not complete until the events of 70ad made it obvious to all. Paul speaks of himself as having been raised with Christ. It was an accomplished fact. Paul also speaks of his increasing understanding of this spiritual fact. I also think that death was destroyed on the cross, but that this was not made obvious to all until the temple with the Old Covenant ministry of death was destroyed in 70ad.

Does this make sense and is it pretty much what you think also?

Thanks for helping me understand this stuff,

Bill

[davo]

The events of 70ad made manifest and revealed to all the spiritual truths accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The interim period was a period of revelation of what happened at the cross. The events of 70ad finally made the truths of the cross obvious to all.

Bill, just my thoughts -- I don't know how "obvious to all" it was, but it WAS nonetheless. And with your above thoughts in mind, certainly the AD70 'lake of fire' was the temporal, corporeal and visual outworking of the greater covenantal reality, IMO.

What was inaugurated in His Ministry, and ratified through His Cross, was subsequently consummated at His AD70 Parousia.

[ozark]

Bill,

I think we are very close on the matter. I think too that while participation in the Lord’s death was already a present reality in Paul’s day, there was an aspect of participation in the resurrection that was still future. We see this, for example, in Philippians 3:7-12.

“But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.”

And Romans six:

5For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I think perhaps there was an aspect of faith involved. In Hebrews eleven we see faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. The resurrection was an event already in their possession by faith so much so that they were to reckon themselves already fully alive to God, yet there was a consummation of that faith yet to come.

[davo]

The resurrection was an event already in their possession by faith so much so that they were to reckon themselves already fully alive to God, yet there was a consummation of that faith yet to come.

Yes Doug I think this answers to Paul's:

Phil 3:10-12, 16 ...that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. ...Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.

[Truthseeker]

Excellent posts, friends.

I think one thing its important to note: the firstfruit saints had a special calling to enter the NC and drink the cup Jesus drank.

The servant was no greater than his master. It wasn't just a matter of Christ--but of his Bride as well--the Saints. The marriage had to take place before everything was "consummated", yes? They were intregal in the outworking of all of God's promises. Jesus would rule as King--but not without his Co-Rulers.

This is seen from the whole Plan of God as revealed by the OT Law and Prophets. As an example, the Holy Days that revealed God's Timeline: While Jesus was the Passover, the Plan wasn't finished until the LAST Holy Day--the Feast of Tabernacles (when the tent of God was with mankind.) While some might claim that this might have happened at Pentecost when Holy Spirit was poured out--this isn't so. This didn't come to fruition until after the Day of Atonement (At-One-Ment). So on Pentecost the HS came as a guarantee of what was to come--but wasn't the "quickening"--wasn't "immortality realized" of "meeting the Lord in the air" that Paul promised would come. --rhonda

[Paige]

Yes Rhonda,

The interim period is when all of the anti-types to the feasts played out. The cross started it all in fulfilling unleavened bread, passover, and firstfruits. Pentacost fulfilled the feast of weeks. There was still trumpets, atonement, and tabernacles left. I see them fulfilled after the 40 years and synonymous with the events of AD 70. So in that sense, the cross did not complete everything, it commenced everything.

I like the book-end analogy.

Paige

[ozark]

Paige,

Very good point. The first three feasts have to do with Christ. They are fulfilled in Him for He is the first born from the dead. The type of the firstfruits is also fulfilled in Him. That is why I like to say that salvation was being revealed from Pentecost to the Parousia not being accomplished, for it was already accomplished in Christ. Yet, when folks say it was not fully complete until the Parousia, I don't argue, because from a human perspective that was true. Perhaps that is why both viewpoints are presented in the New Testament.

God certainly looks at time differently than we do. Not to confuse matters, but it seems from God's perspective salvation was done before the foundation of the world (whether this is the OC world or the earth I don't know.).


In Revelation 13:8 we see Jesus "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Or Ephesians 1:4 "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love...."

And speaking of Jesus the Lamb of God Peter writes "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was MANIFEST in these last times for you (I Peter 1:20)."

And in II Timothy, "...who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (II Timothy 1:9-10).

[davo]

They were intregal in the outworking of all of God's promises. Jesus would rule as King--but not without his Co-Rulers.

Yes indeed Rhonda. I remember when it finally dawned on me, when I finally got the revelation, when the light switched on; my jaw nearly dropped to the floor [how's that for a bunch of metaphors]. When I came to the conclusion that the first-fruits were indelibly a part of and integral to the outworking of redemption it brought tears to my eyes -- for I realised how much God included humanity in His redemptive work.

I first shuddered at the thought for I reasoned that surely THAT must be detracting from the work of Christ and His Cross, but then realised that no, the first-fruits were to outwork in THAT GENERATION on behalf of their brethren Christ's work, and in doing so be doing the "greater things than these" that Jesus spoke of -- for THEY were His Body.

It finally gave reason to a verse that had puzzled me for a long time, but now made perfect sense:

Col 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church…

There was no insufficiency in Christ's afflictions -- but there was a joining with Him in the outworking to completion of mankinds restoration. Jesus said of certain of the first-fruit: "you shall indeed be baptised with the baptism I undergo" [Mk 10:39].

All food for thought.

[Truthseeker]

Amen, Davo.

So many things come to light with this thought; all the symbolism and metaphors about a man and his wife (bride); all of it can be seen clearly. :) Its amazing how much symbolism is in scripture--and how beautifully it all fits together.

I'm also amazed that I'm finally among others who also "see" these things. Lord Bless--rhonda

[ozark]

Davo,

Very well spoken. Perhaps that was why the revelation of the Son of God was also the revealing of the children of God. (Romans 8:18-19 and I John 3:2)

[davo]

In line with your thoughts there Doug on Rom 8 etc, I posted this over on Todd's forum -- it's how I think Paul is talking in that passage in Romans:


As for Rom 8, a reading along pantelistic lines gives a fuller prêteristic logic. Now, understanding the creature/creation as pertaining to people as is understood by Jesus and Paul [Mk 16:15; Col 1:23], and NOT animals and trees etc, unless you hanker after a wooden literalism, then what Paul writes can be seen thus:

Rom 8:19-23 For the earnest expectation of the creature [Israel] waiteth for the manifestation [in election] of the sons of God [the first-fruits]. For the creature [Israel] was made subject to vanity [the Old Covenant], not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature [Israel] itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption [the Old Covenant] into the glorious liberty [the New Covenant] of the children of God [the first-fruits]. For we know that the whole creation [Humanity] groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they [Israel-Humanity], but ourselves [the first-fruits] also, which have the firstfruits [down payment] of the [eschatological] Spirit, even we ourselves [the first-fruits] groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body [i.e., our rising up out of the Old Covenant Body of the Death into the New Covenant Body of the Life].

It was the "the children of God" [a very Jewish designation] i.e., the first-fruits, that elsewhere are called "sons of God" signifying covenantal authority "in Christ" who are the elect of the elect – or a refining of such, that experience "in part" in that transitional age, a rising up out of the old covenant body of death. This was a rising that came to fruition in the Parousia when ALL historic Israel was redeemed and as a result all humanity reconciled.

[Bill]

Hey Doug,

It's interesting that you juxtaposed these two passages. I wrote this to a friend a couple of years ago to show how these two passages are saying exactly the same thing. The whole idea (for me at least) is that the resurrection in Phillipians isn't any kind of physical resurrection. It is just a complete understanding that we have been resurrected with Christ out of the law and into His life. This resurrection is a spiritual truth that Paul was hoping to attain; i.e. to completely appreciate. I hope it still makes some kind of sense. I've changed a lot in the past two years. :clap2:

Philippians 3:8-12

More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,
that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;
in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:4,5

Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,


Romippians 63:4,5, 8-12

More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things (buried with Him through baptism into death) , and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ (be in the likeness of His resurrection),
and may be found in Him (be in the likeness of His resurrection), not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith (be in the likeness of His resurrection),
that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings (united with Him in the likeness of His death), being conformed to His death (united with Him in the likeness of His death);
in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead (might walk in newness of life).
Not that I have already obtained it (walk in newness of life) or have already become perfect (walk in newness of life), but I press on so that I may lay hold of that (walk in newness of life) for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

[ozark]

Bill,

Very good stuff. :25_coolguy:

It is amazing how things click when you see the fulfilled viewpoint. It brings a consistency not found anywhere else.

[Truthseeker]

Hi All,

I think these 2 scriptures sum up the whole of God's Plan. I enjoyed seeing it quoted earlier, and I'd like to add this to it and see what y'all think: Israel (as I see it) was a microcosm of the whole world.

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through him that subjected it, on the basis of hope, that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God."

While Israel was alone the Covenantal people under Law, all of creation has suffered that curse, in that Death ruled as King from Adam on. What this means, as far as I can see from Scripture, is that man was by no means created with an immortal soul, but was mortal. And when he died, he ceased to exist. And that being the case, without a Savior, man had no hope. Death was forever. Therefore, everything that man did was futile--(no man could save himself, nor could he save even a brother) and this, as the Scripture shows was not by man's will but God's will. Why would God subject His creation, his sons to futility?

He did so on the basis of hope. Because without the futility of this existence, we cannot fully beCOME Sons of God--Immortal and Free. We cannot learn righteousness without this futile existence. Even Jesus learned obedience from the things he suffered.

Therefore, Israel was the physical representation of God's whole plan for all of mankind. While they lived and died--everything that concerned God's dealings with them, from the 10 Commandments and the Holy Days-- every detail of the Law and Prophets, to the Temple Arrangement and Worship--God's plan was laid out.

And from there came Messiah and his Remnant--a true Government, for the Purpose of blessing all mankind.

How so? "For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in Christ all will be made alive." We know the "will be" has become "have". So just as in Adam all died (ceased to exist), so also in Christ all have been made alive."

As Jesus told Martha, "I am the Resurrection and the Life." These are two different promises. 1) The Resurrection (He who exercises faith in me, though he dies, will be raised up,) and 2) The Life ("and he who exercises faith in me and is living will never die at all."

All those who died prior to 70AD ceased to exist and were raised up at the Parousia. All those who live during the Parousia never die at all (they are immediately with the Lord when this body gives out). As the Last Adam, its as if, through Christ, time was rewound--and Adam never sinned, and was granted to eat from the Tree of Life--as well as all of his children. So the promise of Gen 3:15 is totally fulfilled.--rhonda