“But whenever it shall have turned to the Lord, the veil is taken away...But we all with our face having been unveiled, having beheld the glory of the Lord in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord Spirit,” (2 Corinthians 3:16-18, LITV).
Seeking to avoid the force of what Hebrews 8:13 actually says, contextually, Futurists offer a clever-sounding equivocation; however, they, “Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” Their assertion is that Paul is speaking from the standpoint of the prophet so they can aver that Paul is saying the first covenant was aged, obsolete, and ready to vanish away centuries earlier when Jehovah first promised through Jeremiah that He would make a new covenant with the house of Israel. Ignorance and glee sit together and commune as this phony allegation is circulated among unstudied Bible students, and thus, “they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise,” (2Co 10:12). Obviously this text, untouched, is fatal to the AD 33 doctrine, therefore, Futurists are forced to employ several of their typical hacks like altering the linguistics and ignoring the context, both near and remote, especially other texts which provide insight regarding the amalgamation of various constituent elements, and the timing of this new everlasting covenant; however, the exegetical approach to these passages thoroughly dispels the optics of this man-made tradition.
In this Hebrews text (Heb 8:8-12), Paul cites the inspired harbinger who predicted a new covenant unlike the Sinaitic covenant. Then Paul says, “In the saying, New, He has made the first old”; Here, Paul uses the present tense verb legein rendered “saying,” with the verb pepalaiōken in the perfect active indicative rendered “has made old.” The perfect tense in Greek carries two ideas: (1) the final completion of an action at the present moment described, and (2) continuing results. A good example of this same perfect active indicative verb tense is found in Matthew 3:2 where John said, “Repent! For the kingdom of Heaven has drawn near”; thus the completion of an action at the present moment described, with the continuing result of the nearness of the kingdom. Furthermore, in this sentence, Paul first employs the verb palaioō in the perfect tense (pepalaiōken), then follows it up by using the same verb again, only this time he uses it in the present tense form (palaioumenon̄) rendered “being made old.”
In order for the Futurist’s reconstruction of this passage to work properly, Paul should have used the pluperfect tense which has the same meaning as the perfect tense, except that it brings the completed action and the results of that action up to an unselected time in the past. A good example of the pluperfect tense is found in Mark 15:46 where Pilate granted Joseph custody of Jesus’ body, and, “he, having brought fine linen, and having taken him down, wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre that had been hewn out of a rock...”; thus, the construction of the tomb (i.e., the result) by hewing (i.e., the action) had been completed at some unspecified time in the past. So, instead of Paul saying, “...He has made the first old…” he should have said, “...He had made the first old…” The heart of the Futurist’s assertion is that the law of Moses grew aged, and had been made obsolete when Jeremiah foretold of this new covenant. This assumption, in their minds, gives them the prerogative to allege that the law of Moses ended at their arbitrarily selected time in the past, i.e., at the cross; however, this simply is not supported by the Greek, because the perfect tense (has, not had) which Paul uses, demonstrates the law as being operative yet in Paul’s present time; hence, “the first,” though made old at some unselected point in the past, is carried into Paul’s present time as he marries the perfect tense and present tense forms of the same verb, in unison with two more present tense verbs.
The Futurist’s assertion becomes even further problematic because, had Paul used the pluperfect tense, their posit of Torah ending at the cross violates the aspect of this verb tense by selecting a time in the past, while the pluperfect tense brings both the completed action and the results of that action up to an unselected time in the past; thus, they violate both the contextual verb tenses which Paul does employ, as well as the verb tense needed for their averment to have any credibility. The grammatical analysis of this text becomes the antithesis of the Futurist's parodic rendition of Paul’s statement.
This is demonstrated as Paul continues: “And the thing being made old and growing aged is near disappearing.” The fact that Holy Spirit chose to use this Greek verb in its present tense form (palaioumenon̄), rendered “being made old,” and emphasized it with another present tense Greek verb (gēraskon̄) rendered “growing aged/aging,” then further used the Greek adverb engys, which by definition means “is near,” should be sufficient grammatical evidence to send this laughable averment packing. The adverb engys, used some 30 times in the New Testament, is never used to speak of an action which ended decades in the past, but is used exclusively to indicate a place or action which is “nigh,” “at hand,” or “near.” A Divine example of an “at hand” statement being elasticized beyond the generation to which it was spoken, let alone hundreds of years to infinity, is dubious and without precedent in the annals of scripture.
For this assertion to have any merit, Paul should have said something like: “...and the thing which had been made old, became obsolete and grew aged, has already disappeared”; but, that is not even close to what the text says. How pray tell, could Holy Spirit make such a grammatical blunder as to say the first covenant, which (supposedly) passed away at the cross, was ready to vanish away? Or, worse yet, that the first covenant was ready to vanish away in Jeremiah’s time, but lingered, teetering on the cusp of oblivion for some 600 years! The fact is, not only is this assertion overtly spurious and linguistically decrepit, it defies logic, and common sense; furthermore, it contradicts other irrefutable examples of the law of Moses still being operative such as Paul participating in the Nazarite vow rites in the Jewish temple recorded in Acts 21.
By Divine apostolic authority, Paul is directed to participate in animal sacrifices for the specific purpose of demonstrating to the tens-of-thousands of Jewish Christians zealously observing Torah that he himself was walking in lockstep with, and keeping the law of Moses (Acts 21:24). No matter how avidly Futurists decry Paul’s actions, desperately attempting to minimize them as mere expediency, the insurmountable contextual fact that Paul was not teaching Jewish Christians to forsake Moses, nor to abandon the practice of circumcising their children is the stake through the heart of the AD 33 doctrine.
Regardless of the Futurist’s Machiavellian treatment of the verb tenses in this Hebrews text, they cannot overcome the fact that Paul did not say the first covenant has passed away as they fallaciously contend. It simply can't be said that something which had disappeared decades earlier, is ready to disappear. Then, to be consistent with their aver, they must also explain how several of the Minor Prophets were already made old, aged, obsolete, and ready to vanish away before they were written! Furthermore, the first covenant is nowhere called “old/obsolete” until the New Covenant began to be revealed by the apostles.
As Paul, a master logician, used modus tollens argumentation to demonstrate that when the logical conclusions of an argument are impossible, that the argument itself is false, then the Berean-minded Bible student should readily agree that Holy Spirit would not have said the first covenant “is ready to vanish away” if in fact it had already vanished away some 30 years earlier.
Paul, the wise Masterbuilder and Ambassador of Christ, wrote specifically regarding the first covenant calling it “the ministration of death written and engraved in stones” (2Co 3:7), in contrast with the new covenant “written in the fleshly tablets of the heart,” (2Co 3:3). We know this is parallel with Hebrews 8:7-13, because Jeremiah’s prophecy, from which Paul quotes there, says, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts,” (Jer 31:33).
Paul said the first covenant was ready to vanish away in Hebrews 8; three times in this text to the Corinthians, Paul uses the present tense verb katargoumenou to describe the Sinaitic covenant as in process of being annulled, as Ellicott writes, “The Greek participle is in the present tense, ‘being done away,’ or ‘failing,’ expressing the same thought as the ‘decaying and waxing old’ of Hebrews 8:13. The contrast between the transient and the permanent is expressed by the same Greek words as in 1 Corinthians 13:8-11,” (emphasis mine, RR). Vincent says of this verb: “Literally, which is being done away; in course of abolition through the preaching of the Gospel,” (italics his). Paul says, as he puts pen to parchment, even to this very day, when Moses/the Old Covenant is being read, “a veil lies on their heart, but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away,” (2Co 3:14-16), again demonstrating the ongoing process of the old covenantal veil being removed as diasporioc Jews were continuing to acquiesce to the terms of the new covenant.
Paul spends the entire next chapter of Hebrews contrasting the first covenant with the new covenant, where he says Christ “has arrived” (aorist—paraginomai) as High Priest of “good things about to come...” Here, Paul uses the present tense Greek verb mellontōn to express the imminence of the approaching good things of the new covenant, and the new tabernacle “not made with hands,” (Heb 9:8-11).
Paul speaks again of this approaching Divinely-built tabernacle, and the “kingdom which comes without observation” (Luke 17:20) in chapter 12. Here again he contrasts that first covenant instituted at Mount Sinai, with “Mount Zion...the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:18-22), which, says Paul, is where they have arrived, (proserchomai—perfect active indicative). These Hebrew Christians were on the cusp of receiving the unshakable kingdom as God was about to shake heavens and earth one last time so that the things that are made would give way to the unshakable eternal kingdom. Now get this: if the heavens and earth were about to be shaken “yet once more” so that the things that are made would be removed, and the unshakable kingdom and new covenant was what was going to remain, just what was it that was going to be shaken and removed if not that first covenant and earthly tabernacle? Does not Paul here specifically employ the terms “heaven” and “earth” allegorically of the first covenant and temple cultus in his contrast of the two covenants? What an obtuse hermeneutic Futurists exhibit when they insist the law of Moses ended at the cross, while Paul and the Hebrews were anticipating the imminent shaking and removal of that first covenant some 30 years after the cross. Even God can’t shake and remove what doesn’t exist!
A plethora of Futurist scholars agree that when Paul says, “And this word ‘Yet once more...’” he is appropriating the prophecy of Haggai. The honest Bible student can’t ignore the fact that since Futurist scholars admit Paul utilizes Haggai’s prophecy here, then Futurists contradict themselves when they assert the law and the prophets were fulfilled at the cross. When they attempt to divorce “the law” from “the prophets,” they find themselves in stark contradiction with Jesus (Mat 5:17-18).
Haggai’s prophecy says, “For thus says the LORD of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land. And I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts,” (Hag 2:6-7). Haggai goes on to define this shaking of heavens and earth: “Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth; And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen...” (Hag 2:21-22). Since Haggai defines this shaking of heavens and earth as the removing of kingdoms and their thrones (powers and dominions, not the end of material creation); and since Paul is appropriating this prophecy in regards to the removing of the heavens and earth in direct contrast to the impending new covenant, kingdom and tabernacle, how is this not the fulfillment of heaven and earth passing away of Matthew 5:17-18, Matthew 24:35 and 2 Peter 3:10-13 at the last days day of the Lord? Only nescience, desperation, and contrived bias will deny that the soon-to-be-removed heavens and earth is idiomatic language for the first covenant. Noted Futurist scholar B. W. Johnson says, “Among the things removed is the covenant of Sinai.” Gill writes: “this is to be understood of Christ's coming to the destruction of Jerusalem; when there was an entire removal of the Jewish state, both political and ecclesiastical; and of the whole Mosaic economy; and of things appertaining to divine worship, which were made with hands, as the temple, and the things in it; and which were made to be removed.”
If savvy Bible students are in tune with the Hebraic style of writing, it won’t go unnoticed that this bookend (inclusio) in chapter twelve mirrors its mate in chapter one. There, Paul introduced this subject as he calls to the minds of his audience the context of Psalms 102, by saying, “And, ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end,’” (Heb 1:10-12, ESV).
Looking at the context of this Psalm, we find another inclusio text which begins with, “But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever...” and is closed with, “...They shall perish, but thou shalt endure:” (Psa 102:12,26), with the closing bracket of that section being the particular words from which Paul quotes verbatim (LXX) saying, “you are the same.” The heart of the Psalmist’s text is “the set time” when the LORD would build up Zion and appear in His glory (Psa 102:13-16; cf. Luke 9:26-27; Mat 25:31). Don’t forget that Paul tells the Hebrews that they have arrived at Mount Zion! David tells the reader that, “This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD”; and that the Lord looked down out of heaven, “To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death,” (Psa 102:18-20). The Psalmist’s statement here is parallel with “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn,” (Isa 63:1-2). It is from this prophetic text that Jesus reads in the Nazareth synagogue, then says, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears,” (Luke 4:17-21), thus identifying “the generation to come” of which David foretold. Since Jesus identified “the generation” predicted “to come” as those to whom He was speaking, and since Paul cites this Psalmic text as the opening of his discussion regarding “the heavens vanishing away like smoke” (Heb 1:10-12; cf. Isa 51:6), then “the set time” for the heavens and earth to be rolled up like a scroll had come upon the Hebrews, and would come to fruition “in a very very little while.”
Whereas Haggai says, “...in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land,” Paul has already said, “For yet a very, very little while, and the one who is coming will come and will not delay...” (Heb 10:37). Paul also told the Roman brethren, “For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth,” (Rom 9:28); and John has likewise written, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God,” (Rev 21:1-3). Is it not painfully obvious to Futurists that the new Jerusalem of this text is the heavenly Jerusalem of Hebrews 12 of which Paul tells them they have arrived?
Since the heavenly Jerusalem is specifically identified as “the church of the Firstborn One,” (Heb 12:22-23); since the new Jerusalem is specifically identified as the bride of the Lamb (Rev 21:2,9), which throughout the New Testament is synonymous with the church; then what more proof is needed to illustrate that these texts are synonymous than for John to say twice that the new Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, while calling it “the holy Jerusalem,” (Rev 21:2,9,10)? Futurist who refuse to acknowledge that the heavenly Jerusalem (the church) is the holy Jerusalem (the bride/church) exemplify their inability to see through a ladder!
John’s words here follow immediately after his application of Ezekiel’s prediction of the war of Gog and Magog, which was a specific forecast of the judgment against Old Covenant Israel in Israel’s last days for breaking their covenant with Jehovah. The prophet said, “it shall be in the latter days...when Gog shall come against the land of Israel...Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel...and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone,” (Eze 38:1-22; cf. Rev 16:17-21).
John is permitted to view, interpret, and write the application of this prophecy, saying, “And whenever the thousand years might be completed, the Adversary will be loosed out of his prison, and will go out to mislead the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together into the war. The number of whom is like the sand of the sea. And they went up over the width of the earth and surrounded the encampment of the holy-ones and the beloved city and fire from God came down out of heaven and devoured them. And the Devil who is misleading them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever,” (Rev 20:7-10).
One of the television favorites of my young children was the comedic masterpiece Hogan’s Heroes. My very young daughter, quite naive of the story-line and more than a little confused during an episode, gave us one of those never-live-it-down moments by asking, “Who’s the enemy?” As humorous as that was, and certainly still is from time to time, in reality, this is the root-cause of much widespread confusion and misconception on this text, i.e., Bible students failing to recognize who is the enemy. Most Greek-thinking modern-day Christians assume that because God did not squash the Roman army which destroyed Jerusalem, the Jewish temple and millions of Israelites, then this text just could not have been fulfilled in AD 70. Not knowing the voices of the prophets (Acts 13:27) they don’t realize that the enemy of new covenant Christianity, i.e., spiritual Israel, was Old Covenant Israel, as Paul emphatically says, “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes...” (Rom 11:28; cf. Acts 13:45-46; 14:2; 18:6; Php 3:18). This the war of Gog and Magog was a specific prediction of judgment against Old Covenant Israel in Israel’s last days. The Futurist’s (mis)application of this text has Jehovah coming to rescue Israel by destroying her attackers, but not realizing who the enemy is, they perceive God coming to vindicate National Israel by destroying the worldly/pagan forces attacking her. Tragically, though, they miss the fact that He was coming in judgment against National Israel in defense of spiritual Israel.
Isaiah foretells this same the war and judgment against Israel in Israel’s last days (Isa 2:1,2,4), at the day of the Lord (Isa 2:12) when, “Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war,” (Isa 3:25). A host of Futurist scholars agree that this text foretells the last day’s day of the Lord judgment, as Barnes writes, “This is an address to Jerusalem itself, by a change not uncommon in the writings of Isaiah. In the calamities coming on them, their strong men should be overcome, and fall in battle”; and this war, “of Vespasian and Titus, and which the Jews call פולמוס של אספסינוס, ‘the war of Vespasian’: in which great multitudes of men, even of mighty men, were slain,” (Gill).
Jesus cited this prophecy when He forewarned his disciples, “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh...For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled...And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled...Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled,” (Luke 21:20,22,24,32). Jesus said all things written, which would include the prediction of the war of Gog and Magog, would see their fulfillment in His generation. Jesus cites the parallel prophecy of Isaiah applying it to the destruction of Jerusalem, to which even Futurist scholars agree. Yet, Bible students deny the words of Jesus when they assert the millennium began in AD 70 since the war of Gog and Magog, per Divine revelation, follows the millennium, and this war was specifically predicted to be a judgment against Israel in Israel’s last days. Out of one side of their mouth, Futurists aver that the law was fulfilled and 'nailed to the cross'; yet, from the other side of their mouth, they assert that the millennium began in AD 70, not realizing they are positing what they contend ended at the cross, well beyond AD 70; thus, they are in a huge self-contradiction.
In light of such exegetical facts, it takes a willing and concerted effort to remain obscured within the murky mysticism of the AD 33 deception, thus denying the words of our Divine Arbiter.
Paul goes on in chapter nine of Hebrews to say, “so Christ having been once offered ‘to bear the sins of many,’ Christ shall appear a second time without sin to the ones eagerly awaiting Him unto salvation. For...” “For” (gar) is a primary conjunctive particle from the Greek which “properly assigns a reason,” (Strong’s); thus, Paul says that Christ will appear the second time bringing salvation because “the law having a shadow of the good things that are about to come...” (Heb 9:28-10:1, LEB/JST).
Again, Paul, demonstrating the law of Moses is still operative, uses a present tense verb (echōn)rendered having coupled with the present tense Greek verb mellontōn which emphatically expresses the imminence of “the coming good things” of which the law of Moses, currently, as Paul is writing, is a shadow, (cf. Col 2:16-17). Not only does the Futurist's concoction have nothing with which to cast a shadow, but asserting that Christ hasn’t come forces the conclusion that the feasts and washings of the law of Moses remains operative yet today as a shadow. There can’t be a shadow fulfilled, foreshadowing something unfulfilled, nor can there be a shadow of a shadow, (e.g., Christ’s coming of the Olivet Discourse foreshadows the ‘real’ coming of the Lord). That is a linguistical hilarity! To argue that the law of Moses, i.e., the first covenant, was fulfilled and ended at the cross, while arguing that the second coming of Christ (which the first covenant’s feasts foreshadowed) remains unfulfilled, demonstrates gross misunderstanding of these contexts and is another huge self contradiction.
After Paul says Christ will appear the second time bringing salvation because “the law having a shadow of the good things that are about to come...” he goes on to quote the Psalmist by saying, “Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God...Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second,” (Heb 10:7-9). Paul again uses another Greek verb (anairei) in the present active indicative indicating an action currently in progress, i.e., the first covenant is being taken away so that the second may be established. This concurs perfectly with Paul’s use of present tense language in 2 Corinthians 3, which reminds us of his words in 1 Corinthians 4:17: “For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.”
In speaking of this first covenant to the brethren in Rome, Paul says, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins,” (Rom 11:26-27). Since there was only one covenant foretold which would take away sins, and since Paul taught the same thing everywhere in every church (1Co 4:17), then what Paul speaks of to the Roman brethren and the Hebrew Christians must be sourced from the same prophetic background.
Most comprehend the principle that because the necessity of faith, repentance and baptism is clearly stated (e.g., Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc.) as coequal requirements in conversion, that each of these elements is inherent in all cases of conversion even though one or more of these elements are not specified in every instance. This same hermeneutic compels us to acknowledge that when Paul cites the Psalmist to the Hebrews regarding the new covenant, while he cites Isaiah to the Romans referent to the same new covenant, then his posit of Isaiah to the Romans is likewise applicable in the Hebrew context, and vice versa.
It’s not possible within the scope of this article to exegete all prophetic references which Paul expertly conflates through divine inspiration regarding the transition of the covenants; however, let’s consider a couple to ascertain more clarity on the timing of this transition.
In Romans 11:26f, where Paul says, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins,” even Futurist scholars such as Johnson, Clarke, Barnes, Henry, Gill, Lange, etc., acknowledge that Paul is conflating prophetic texts, as Robertson notes, “Paul here quotes from Isaiah 59:20 and Isaiah 27:9.” It’s certainly worth noting that Paul quotes from the first portion of Isaiah 59 in Romans 3, then says, “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,” (Rom 3:21).
Paul uses the verb pephanerōtai in the perfect tense to describe God’s righteousness continuing to be revealed up to Paul’s (now) present time, along with the present tense verb martyroumenē rendered “being witnessed,” which begs the question: if “the law” (Rom 3:19) was aborogated at the cross, how could it be actively bearing witness to God’s righteousness? Paul, again, uses a present active indicative verb (histēmi) rendered “uphold” when he says, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Certainly not! Instead, we uphold the law,” (Rom 3:31)!
As Paul writes “There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer...” he invokes the context of Isaiah 59 into the minds of his audience again which explicitly describes the sins, transgressions and iniquities of Israel. In this context, Isaiah foretells the time when Jehovah would “repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies,” (Isa 59:18; cf. Mat 16:27; Luke 21:22; 1Th 2:14-16; 2Th 1:6-10). It would be at the time of the everlasting covenant that “the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD,” (Isa 59:20-21). It should go without saying that Jehovah did not “repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies,” when Jesus died on the cross, therefore, Torah could not have ended at the cross.
Isaiah 27:9, from which Paul cites is part of a composite whole known to scholars as The Little Apocalypse, which is comprised of chapters 24-28 (at least). Isaiah foretells the time when “the LORD will empty the earth and make it desolate, and he will twist its surface and scatter its inhabitants,” because, “they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant,” (Isa 24:1,4). This would be a time when “the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake,[cf. Eze 38:19; Heb 12:26-27]. The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, [cf. 2Pe 3:10-12] the earth is moved exceedingly,” (Isa 24:18-19); and, this would be when, “the LORD of hosts reigns on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,” (Isa 24:23).
It would be “in that day” when Jehovah would destroy the city and temple which would never be rebuilt (Isa 25:2), because, “the fortress of the high fort of thy walls shall he bring down, lay low, and bring to the ground, even to the dust,” (Isa 25:12); “For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust,” (Isa 26:5).
Jesus applies these predictions to the demise of contemporary Jerusalem, saying, “For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation,” (Luke 19:43-44). It would be “in that day” that Jehovah would come down out of heaven, “to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain,” (Isa 26:21).
Also, “in that day,” says Isaiah, will “...the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalkstones that are beaten in sunder, the groves and images shall not stand up. Yet the defenced city shall be desolate, and the habitation forsaken, and left like a wilderness...” (Isa 27:9-10); thus, as Futurist scholars admit, the source text from which Paul posits the timing of the new covenant in Romans 11:26-27 is Isaiah 27:9, they, by their own admission are forced to surrender their argument that the transition of the covenants occurred at the cross, because Isaiah said the iniquity of Jacob would be purged when the stones of the Temple altar would be beaten into dust, and that unequivocally did not happen at the cross, nor can it successfully be demonstrated to be yet in our future. The fulfillment of all these things, as Jesus foretold, occurred in/by AD 70 with the dismantling of the iconic Jewish temple and the end of the Jewish economy.
Through divine inspiration, Paul expertly conflates, “them that turn from transgression in Jacob” (Isa 59:12), and, “the iniquity of Jacob be purged” (Isa 27:9), as he says, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” Paul’s statement to the Romans that the Deliverer, “shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins,” is parallel to his statement to the Corinthians, “but whenever one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed,” (2Co 3:16).
When Jesus said, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it,” (Luke 16:16), then the coming of John Baptist as Jehovah’s messenger Elijah (Mal 3:1; 4:5) signaled the beginning of the end! In response to the baseless accusation of drunkenness spurred by the commotion of the outpouring of Holy Spirit, Peter corrected the mob’s sophomoric allegation by telling them that the events they were witnessing were what the prophet Joel foretold would occur in the last days,(Acts 2:16). In the next recorded sermon of Peter, we find him saying that, “Moses...and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days,” (Acts 3:22-24); therefore, since Malachi was one of those prophets along with Moses, Samuel, Joel, etc., who foretold of the last days, then it is unavoidable that the beginning of this last-days covenantal transition began with the concurrent ministries of John and Jesus, rather than at the cross, or Pentecost.
Furthermore, Paul said, “For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive,” (Heb 9:17). This demonstrates that Christ’s Will (the new covenant) had to have been written prior to His death. Since Jesus told His apostles that He would send the Comforter/Holy Spirit who would be reminding them of all things which He had said, then all that they revealed through divine inspiration cannot exclude His 3 ½ year ministry. To make the claim that the transition period began on Pentecost day is as specious as arguing that the millennium began in AD 70, or that the law of Moses was nailed to the cross.
Though the new covenant was sealed by Christ’s death on the cross (Heb 9:16); though the kingdom/church was inaugurated/born on Pentecost day, all exegetical evidence points to the law of Moses and the prophets continuing to be fulfilled during the ‘probate period’ (transition) of the new will; however, it was not until the close of the Jewish age (Mat 24:3) in AD 70, a full 40 years after the baptism of Christ and His anointing of the Spirit (Mark 1:9-10) that every last jot and tittle was fulfilled exactly as Jesus predicted, (Mat 5:17-18; Luke 21:22). Regardless of Futurist’s antipathy toward these facts, they are simply dead wrong in their illiterate attempt to reconstruct Paul’s language in Hebrews 8:13 just so they can cling to their beloved AD 33 web of deceit.
“For we have not here an abiding city, but we are seeking for the one about to come,” (Heb 13:14, WNT).
Should you have any questions, please go to my Contact Page and send me your questions or comments.