"Already but Not Yet" – Transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant in AD70

Remember Hebrews 8:13 states that the old covenant was becoming obsolete and growing old and ready to vanish away? So has the old covenant of law officially ended? Also, are the “last days” referring to the first century AD context or some time in the future? Barry J duPont sheds some light on this topic.

“The whole of the New Testament is showing a tension between what had been initiated at the cross and what would be finalized in the second appearance.

That tension is because the last days were the last days of the old covenant. The believers were living by faith and hope that the old covenant was about to vanish away. That it was ready to vanish away.

This tension is what we have “coined” the “already but not yet”.

It is why in Ephesians, Paul speaks of Redemption in both the then past tense and the yet future tense.

They were living by faith. So they were saved in that faith and justified or vindicated by faith but yet in the sense that the old covenant had still not passed away still being saved.

So whether we look at the subject of “redemption” or “salvation” or even being “freed from the law”, the bible authors speak of these things in both the past (cross) and they yet future (second appearance when Christ came as a thief in the night to end the night).

So concerning the law, the authorities had been “disarmed” and were made a spectacle of at the cross but would latter be “brought to nothing”.

It is in AD 70 that all that was spoken of in Dan 9:24 was finalized:

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Notice the connection between the “holy city” and the finishing of “transgression”.

In short, orthodoxy as a whole cannot and does not harmonize the scriptures in any sensible way. So we have had to play detective and have had to re-ask all our questions all over again. And so then we try to see what the scriptures themselves are attempting to communicate.

So what is the context?

What is the historical background?

Who was the original audience?

Are we just proof texting to support an idea or are we really trying to get all the puzzle pieces to fit in a way that nothing of forced into the picture where it doesn’t belong.

It’s a process. But in that process it doesn’t take too too long to realize that biblical futurism is not making sense of what is written.

In the larger scope of things the overall dichotomy of the scriptures is “an independent human potential” from Adam, set over against “God’s possibility” as expressed in the Messiah and manifested in the first century followers of Christ.

Israel then became the focus of what Adam had brought in. They became the “head” of it.

So the end of the holy city and temple made with hands signaled the end of the Status and Legacy of Adam.

In my personal view, God ended the alleged independence of man. This was a fulfilled “revelation” in human history.”

– Barry J DuPont

Bob King also shared his viewpoint about the transition period of the old and new covenants in the first century AD.

‘Not realizing “the cross was not the totality of the work of the messiah” it IMO one of the biggest mistakes of traditional christianity.

Heb 9 was a real eye opener for me. When I took a look at the role of the Jewish High Priest on the annual day of Atonement, and the role Jesus played in fulfilling that day, I came to realize the sin-problem was not completed with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus – even though that is pretty much what most believers see.

I found that Jesus took his blood into the Most Holy Place (Heb 9) and the believers were anxiously waiting for him to “appear a second time” and basically declare the sin-problem was now finished (which either is yet to happen or, as I believe, happened at 70 AD).

The cross event was THE sacrifice, but the blood had to be sprinkled in the Most Holy Place before the sacrifice had accomplished its purpose.

In the Jewish world, the shedding of blood was important, but the sacrifice would have been of no avail if the blood has not been sprinkled on an alter. The shedding of the blood of Jesus was important, but the shedding was not the whole story. I didn’t see this for a long time.

This helped me answer a big gnawling question I had for several years. “What was the difference for the believers before 70 AD and after 70 AD?”. One of the differences was that the solution to the sin-problem was completed at 70 AD, not at the cross.

I believe the 2nd coming happened at 70 AD. The New Testament writers seemed to point to the “time-of-the-end” events as going to happen shortly, soon, at hand, etc. They wrote after Pentecost, but before 70 AD. So, it seems most consistent to me to apply the multitude of “time statements” to something that happened in the correct time frame. Pentecost was important, but I do not see it as being the culmination of things spoken of by Jesus and the NT writers.’

– Bob King

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s