More on Sam Frost’s Error on the Passing of the Law of Moses
We have taken note of Sam Frost’s ever changing, self-contradictory views on eschatology and the passing of the Law of Moses. His articles contain a confused and confusion mish mash of contradictory and un-Biblical claims.Just recently, I was sent another of his posts in which he was responding to my material on the passing of the Law of Moses. Interestingly, he did not tag me in his comments, so I did not know of them until someone sent them to me.
Anyway, I will give here Frost’s comments in which he claims to refute one of the arguments that I have made concerning the passing of the Law of Moses. That argument is that if a law or covenant is annulled, then none of the penalties or promises of that covenant are applicable. My follow up on that is that the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem / Judah was a covenantal judgment. Frost’s claims, however, that AD 70 was NOT a covenantal judgment, and that therefore, the Law of Moses had been “cancelled” at the Cross. AD 70 was just another judgment, like any other city being destroyed– nothing to see here! So, if it can be shown that AD 70 was in fact a covenantal judgment– i.e. the fulfilling for instance of the Law of Blessings and Cursings of the Torah, then Frost’s claims are thereby falsfied. In fact, his entire eschatology is refuted. With that in mind, here is, first, Frost’s comments, followed by my response.
Frost– Someone, a Full Preterist, thought they had a really good point for supporting the idea that the “old covenant” ended in AD 70, and not at the Cross. “If the old covenant ended at the cross, then how could God judge Israel according to the curses of the old covenant”?
Sounds like a home run doesn’t it? Well, it isn’t. It’s a pop fly and caught in left field. The “curses” of the old covenant is a display of the “wrath of God” on the nations (a plague is a plague…an earthquake is an earthquake, whether it be on Israel or Haiti).
The “curses” on Israel were merely a declaration that she was being judged LIKE THE OTHER NATIONS not in covenant.
The curses were a declaration that, according to Jeremiah, “they have BROKEN my covenant.” Once the covenant is BROKEN, God treats them as he would any other nation (since ‘they wish to be like the nations, they will be judged like the nations’).
The fact that Jerusalem was judged in AD 70 hardly means that up until that point they were in some sort of “covenant” with God! Rather, it means that God was finished. A New Covenant had been ratified. A New King was in town. Israel BROKE the covenant with Moses when Jesus was handed over to be put to death. The “curses” of the Old Covenant is “the wrath of God”.
This is stunningly bad, as is increasingly the case with Mr. Frost’s postings.
Mr. Frost says that AD 70 was not a covenantal judgment. It was simply a historical event no different from judgments on other nations. Well, let’s see here.
Frost maintains (now) that God removed the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses with its “Law of Blessings and Cursings” at the Cross. He claims that Israel “broke the covenant” when they handed Jesus over to be crucified. Well, they did break the covenant, but, that does not mean the covenant was destroyed, annulled or cancelled! It meant that the judgment sanctions of that covenant were to come on them. Israel and Judah broke their covenant with YHVH many tmes, as recorded in the Tanakh. Did that mean that the law of Moses was cancelled back then? Patently not, and Frost knows that.
Notice that Zechariah 11:9f tells us “in that day” when Israel would eat the flesh of their children that the Lord would break the covenant bond that He had with both houses of Israel. Now, this “curse,” this covenant curse of eating the flesh of their children, is taken directly from the Law of Blessings and Cursings of Deuteronomy 28-30. The curse of eating their children would come as a result of their violation of the Law of Moses, their covenant with YHVH. Just for the record, we don’t have any record of Israel eating the flesh of their children until the Jewish War- as recorded by Josephus!
Note that Revelation contains plagues and curses, God’s wrath on the “harlot city” Babylon. Keep in mind, that Frost has admitted that Babylon of Revelation was Old Covenant Jerusalem. Well, the term “harlot is used 91 times in the OT, and in 86 of those texts, it refers to a wife that has violated the marriage covenant, either in a literal marriage, or, as in Hosea especially, Israel, the “wife” of YHVH violated the marriage covenant and became the harlot! So, in Revelation, that draws on the OT over 400 times, we find Babylon- Jerusalem- described as a “harlot” under the judgment of God, but, according to Frost we are not supposed to think that the judgments were covenantal sanctions. They just happened: “nothing to see here!” But, there is more.
The seals in Revelation, under which God’s wrath was poured out, are taken directly from Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28-30- the Law of Blessings and Cursings. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are emphatic and explicit in stating that those judgments would come on Israel for violating the Law of Moses. So, in Revelation, we have the “harlot city” being destroyed in the plagues and curses delineated in the Law of Moses for violation of Torah. Yet, once again, Frost, in his devolving theology, divorces those covenant judgments from Revelation, from Israel, from AD 70 because he knows full well that to admit that connection completely falsifies his ever changing eschatology.
I could go on in-depth and note that the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem would be in direct fulfillment of Daniel 9, which delimits Israel’s covenant history to the 70 Weeks, and the terminus of that 70 weeks was AD 70– “the full end.” So, once again, Frost is shown to be guilty of denying the covenantal nature of the AD 70 judgment. His claims are untenable and false.
Frost says that the curses on Israel were “a declaration that, according to Jeremiah, ‘they have BROKEN my covenant.’” But, Mr. Frost, that is MY point– not your’s! As noted above, Israel and Judah broke the covenant many times prior to the first century. Did their breaking of the covenant in, say, the eighth century BC or in the sixth century BC mean that the law was then cancelled, annulled? That is patently absurd. No, they broke the covenant, but, their violation of that covenant did not cancel it or annul it. It brought the covenant judgments on them.
The curses came on Israel because she was in covenant relationship with YHVH, but, as in the days of Hosea, violated that covenant, bringing those covenant curses on herself. The covenant curses were a sign that her covenant- with its attendant curses- were still valid.
Romans 11 and the Passing of the Law of Moses
Frost is ignoring the fact that Israel’s final salvation- the resurrection and taking away of her sin– would be at the coming of the Lord, fulfilling His covenant with her (Romans 11:25-27). So, here is (one of many of) Frost’s dilemma (s).
He says God cancelled Israel’s covenant at the Cross.
No, Paul, writing years after the Cross, said that God had not yet cast Israel off. The dilemma here is fatal for Frost:
Paul– AD 57+–God has not cast off His people (Israel after the flesh).
Frost– God had cast off Israel after the flesh and cancelled His covenant with them at the cross.
Which position do you think is correct?
God’s promises to Israel– and that is Israel after the flesh– remained valid and would be fulfilled at the coming of the Lord to take away their sin. That coming of the Lord would fulfill Isaiah 27 / 59 and Daniel 9– all of which were predictions of the salvation of Israel at the time of the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood! It was not at the Cross! Isaiah 59:17-20 emphatically states that the judgment coming of the Lord, His coming in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, but, the time of the salvation of the remnant, would be in fulfillment of His covenant with them: “This is my covenant with them, when I take away their sin.” See my discussion of Romans 11 in my Elijah Has Come: A Solution to Romans 11:25-27.
Now, catch this. Frost says: “The covenant made with Moses by the then people of Israel was cancelled when Jesus inaugurated a new covenant. Yet, the promises made under the previous were not at all made void, but rather now by Messiah they can be fulfilled.” This is truly sad.
So, per Frost, GOD DID NOT KEEP HIS COVENANT PROMISES TO ISRAEL. He cancelled that covenant!! Yet, somehow, the promises of that (cancelled) covenant remain valid, because they now reside in the New Covenant body of the church. Can you say “Replacement Theology”? Instead of the church being the anticipated fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant promises, the church has replaced Israel. Israel never received the covenant promises, in spite of the fact that Paul said those covenant promises belonged to Israel after the flesh and were irrevocable (Romans 11:28f)!
Frost tries to make a point that the salvation promises to the world could not come under the Torah but under Christ. Well, no one said otherwise! Paul certainly didn’t (Galatians 3:20-21). Galatians 3-4 posits the reception of the Abrahamic Inheritance at the end of the Law (Galatians 3:23f; 4:1-4). He did not place it at the birth of Jesus. He did not place it at the Cross. He posited it, in fact, at the casting out of the bondwoman and her son for persecuting the children of promise (Galatians 4:21f).
Frost wants us to believe that there are physical Jews in the world today, who are recipients of those promises that are yet to be fulfilled. Well, if that is true, then Israel after the flesh, as the covenant people of God, still exists – as the covenant people of God! Interestingly enough, even the Jewish Encyclopedia says that there is no such thing as a homogeneous race of people descended from Abraham today! If there is no race of people descended from Abraham today – and there isn’t– then God’s covenant with Israel after the flesh is fulfilled – or, it failed! In either scenario, Frost is falsified. He has swung and missed.
Israel’s Cultic World and the Passing of the Law of Moses
Consider that part and parcel of the Mosaic Covenant were the “New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths” all of which were, when Colossians and Hebrews were written, still shadows of the good things about to come. Likewise, Hebrews testifies that those “carnal ordinances” would remain valid until what they foreshadowed became a reality at “the time of reformation” (Hebrews 9:6-10). But, not according to Mr. Frost because he denies that the resurrection and the final salvation foreshadowed in those ordinances has not been fulfilled!
Frost says that those “carnal ordinances” were cancelled, no longer obligatory, but, we are still waiting for the fulfillment of the promises lying resident within those cultic praxis. But wait!
In an earlier exchange Frost claimed that when the faithful child of God dies today, they go directly to the Most Holy Place, i.e. heaven itself. But, Hebrews says that those Old Covenant praxis would stand valid until the time of reformation, which is when man could enter the MHP. But, that would be at Christ’s appearing the second time, “for salvation”!
Note that on the one hand Frost has the cultic practices cancelled at the Cross. But he then says the eschatological promises foreshadowed by those praxis – final salvation, the parousia and resurrection are not fulfilled. But then, he turns around and affirms that the child of God does enter the MHP when they die today, meaning, irrefutably, that the foreshadowing cultic ordinances are fulfilled! They were not cancelled without being fulfilled!
Simply stated, if man today can enter the MHP- as Frost affirms – then the eschatological promises contained in the “New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths” are fulfilled. That means that Christ’s “second coming” for salvation and the resurrection are fulfilled. This is what the text teaches. So, when Frost says that man today enters the MHP, he is, logically, saying that Christ has come, the resurrection is fulfilled. He is in fact reaffirming the truth of Covenant Eschatology. Thus, once and again, and again, and again, Frost impales himself. He just can’t keep from it. Let me put this succinctly:
As long as the foreshadowing New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths were unfulfilled, there was no entrance into the Most Holy Place (Hebrews 9:6-10).
When the foreshadowing New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths were fulfilled, man could enter into the Most Holy Place.
Man today can enter the MHP– Sam Frost.
Therefore, the foreshadowing New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths are fulfilled.
They were not cancelled without being fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).
They were fulfilled.
Christ has come.
The Resurrection is fulfilled.
Remember what Jesus said?: “Not one jot or one tittle of the Law will pass until it is all fulfilled.” But, according to Mr. Frost, that covenant, that Law, with its entire corpus of types and shadows, its New Moons, Feast Day and Sabbaths which foreshadowed the final salvation and resurrection was in fact CANCELLED AND NOT FULFILLED! It was cancelled, but then, somehow, some way, some physical descendants of Abraham are alive somewhere in the world today, and, even though they are not still the covenant people, God’s covenant promises to them remain valid to be fulfilled at the end of the endless Christian age, at the so-called (non- existent) end of time! But, if God’s covenant with the House of Moses was cancelled, per Frost, then there was (Is) no necessity for God to fulfill those Mosaic Covenant promises to “Israel after the flesh.” A dead covenant is a dead covenant!
Of course, in all of this, Frost completely ignores– no, he flat denies – that God’s covenant blessings to Israel, the eschatological blessings of resurrection, the New Creation, salvation for the world, etc, are all clearly and undeniably posited in scripture as coming when the Old Covenant, “House of Moses” was destroyed: “The Lord God shall slay you…” (Isaiah 65:13f) and YHVH would then bring in the glorious New Creation.
Sam Frost continues to demonstrate that his new, still evolving eschatology has no merit, no Biblical validity. It is self-contradictory and false. He has struck out.