Study of the End of the Law

Formal Written Debate on the Passing of the Law of Moses: Don K. Preston’s First Negative

Spread the love

Don K. Preston’s First Negative  (Be sure to read Benton’s first affirmative here)

I join with Terry in saying how much I appreciate the opportunity to engage in these discussions. My only desire is to know and follow the Lord’s Truth, and such discussions are helpful not only for me, but of course, for others as well to know and understand what others believe and the evidence that they offer.

I will address Terry’s affirmative, as well as some things in Terry’s last negative, since he made some arguments that cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged.

Terry’s desperation mounted to new heights on this issue, an issue FATAL to his proposition.
Terry argues that provisions of a covenant can be applied even after that covenant has been abrogated. I showed that covenant provisions are only valid while the covenant is still valid. My point was and is that blessings for keeping the covenant, and curses for violating the covenant, are only valid while a covenant is still valid and binding. That is an inviolable, incontrovertible fact.

So, what does Terry do? He tells us that the wisdom found in Proverbs extends beyond A.D. 70! Did he explain how those pithy statements in Proverbs are DISTINCTIVELY COVENANTAL PROVISIONS OF BLESSINGS AND CURSINGS? NO. Furthermore, he says that “the Old Covenant continues to give testimony about the Messiah.” But that is not the point! That does not touch top, side, or bottom of my argument. The wisdom found in Proverbs is mostly TIMELESS WISDOM, that is not distinctively covenantal. I agree that the O. T. remains as a “testimony” to Christ today, but, again, that is not the issue, is it? Your argument is irrelevant. Here is the issue.

In Deuteronomy 28-30, YHVH told Israel that if they violated Torah, He would bring judgment on them.
Those judgments were part of, and application of, the covenantal provision.
Now catch this, Terry acknowledges that the fall of Jerusalem was the application of covenantal wrath!
That destruction was the application of covenantal wrath, as promised in Deuteronomy, just like the carrying away of the 10 Northern tribes, just like the destruction in 586 B. C.!

So, the issue and argument stands:
Covenant provisions of blessings and cursings are only valid (binding) as long as the covenant stands valid (binding).

But, the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the application covenantal provisions of the Old Law of Moses.

Therefore, the Law of Moses was still valid (binding) in A.D. 70.

I challenged Terry to give us one Biblical text that proves that any COVENANTAL PROVISION would remain applicable, after the annulment of that covenant. Response: Obfuscation and evasion, BUT NO PROOF WHATSOEVER.
So, Terry, amidst all of your irrelevant verbiage, tell us plainly, under what principle of law (AND PROOF PLEASE!), can any provision of a covenant be applied when the covenant itself has been abrogated? The “examples” that you gave are irrelevant and do not answer the challenge.

I hope the readers of this debate will think seriously about this issue, for it truly is fatal to Terry’s entire proposition.

Terry asks me a question in regard to Acts 3 and Deuteronomy 18. JHVH foretold a prophet like Moses. Those who did not obey his words would be “utterly destroyed from the people.” Terry poses the situation of a (modern) Christian apostate that no longer listens to the voice of the prophet: “will he still be destroyed from among the people?”
Lamentably, Terry’s question reveals a total lack of understanding of the nature of the promise!
Terry, the modern Christian would NOT be “utterly destroyed from among the people” because that was a threat of temporal judgment, and it was manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem! That destruction, as Franklin Camp well noted, was the definitive identification of the true children of God. The Greek of the text makes it clear that the destruction would be “out from among the people.” The purpose of the destruction would be to separate them from “the people” i.e. the True Israel, that was even then in the process of formulation. So, Terry fails to see, again, the distinctively covenantal nature of the promise and the threat.
Terry, do you believe that an apostate Christian would/will suffer THAT KIND OF DESTRUCTION? This is not a threat of “hell.” This is the threat of temporal, covenantal judgment.

One thing is clear from Acts 3 however, and that is that Biblical eschatology is based on the O.T. prophecies made to Israel! The parousia would be in fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, not promises made to the church, divorced from Israel. This confirms what I have proven earlier, that every constituent element of eschatology is posited by scripture at the end of the Old Covenant age, not at the end of time or the end of the (endless) Christian age.

Again, Terry’s desperation is clear. He spends considerable time asserting, with his personal claims as the only authority, that “seal up vision and prophecy” in Daniel 9:24 does not mean the revelation and confirmation through fulfillment of the entire prophetic corpus. Did he give any sources? NO. Did he offer any exegetical evidence? NO. Did he offer any linguistic or grammatical authorities? NO. In my book, “Seal Up Vision and Prophecy,” I demonstrate from a vast array of scholarship, from all views of eschatology, that the term in Daniel 9:24 means EXACTLY what Terry denies that it does!
So, what is the point? Here is the argument:

Jesus: Not one iota of Torah would pass until it was all fulfilled.

Part of what had to be fulfilled, PER TERRY’S OWN ADMISSION, were some PROPHECIES, i.e. PART OF THE VISION AND PROPHECY. See his list below, from Hebrews, where he has now expanded for us the number of prophecies that had to be fulfilled for Torah to pass!

But, Daniel 9 posited the fulfillment of all vision and prophecy at the end of the Seventy Weeks, at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Therefore, not one iota of Torah would pass until the end of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9, that terminated in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

If any prophecy had to be fulfilled, for Torah to pass– AS TERRY AFFIRMS — then all prophecy had to pass for Torah to pass, and Daniel placed fulfillment of all prophecy at/by A.D. 70.
Jesus said all things written–that would include vision and prophecy wouldn’t it?– would be fulfilled in/by the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Luke 21:22).
Therefore, not one iota of Torah would pass until it was all fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

As we shall see as we progress in this negative, EVERY ARGUMENT THAT TERRY OFFERS FROM HEBREWS HAD TO DO WITH THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY! So, if ANY PROPHECY had to be fulfilled for the Law to pass then, according to Jesus, ALL OF IT had to be fulfilled!

I have argued from Daniel 12, that “the power of the holy people” was Israel’s covenant relationship with YHVH. The resurrection (Daniel 12:2), would occur when the power of the holy people was completely destroyed, in A.D. 70, as Terry admits. Unfortunately, Terry tries, unsuccessfully to delineate between the resurrection of Daniel 12 and that of 1 Corinthians 15.
Here is (part of) his problem:
Daniel 12:2f predicted the resurrection at the time of the end.
The resurrection at the time of the end would be when Daniel would receive his reward (Daniel 12:12ff).
The time when the prophets– AND THE DEAD — would receive their reward would be the time of the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15–“Revelation 11:15f). Terry, do you deny that the time of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the prophets, and the dead, would receive their reward? Yes or No?
Therefore, the resurrection of Daniel 12:2f would be the time of the resurrection of the dead of 1 Corinthians 15–“Revelation 11:15f.

SO, WHAT REWARD (hint: everlasting life, Daniel 12:2), DID DANIEL RECEIVE IN A.D. 70?

If the power of the holy people was Israel’s covenant relationship with YHVH, then THIS ONE ARGUMENT COMPLETELY FALSIFIES ANY ARGUMENT TERRY MIGHT MAKE.
The argument is simple, yet, devastating, but can be expressed in a variety of ways:

The power of the holy people would endure until it was completely shattered (Daniel 12:1-7).

The power of the holy people was completely shattered in A.D. 70 (Terry concurs).

The power of the holy people was Israel’s covenant relationship with YHVH.

Therefore, Israel’s covenant relationship with YHVH endured until A.D. 70.

Terry denied this, claiming that Israel’s real power was not the covenant relationship, but the PERCEPTION that she was God’s chosen. I must confess incredulity to read Terry claim that the true power of the holy people was not her covenant relationship with YHVH, nor was it even her own perception that she was God’s people. Instead, ISRAEL’S ACTUAL POWER was the perception on the part of THE PAGAN NATIONS that Israel was God’s chosen people! Terry should reread the story of Assyria before the walls of Jerusalem, SCOFFING at the idea that Israel had a special relationship with God (Isaiah 36f)!

If Terry admits for one moment that “the power of the holy people” was in fact Israel’s covenant relationship with YHVH, then this debate is OVER, and Terry’s paradigm is falsified! It is that simple. Consider what Terry is saying…

In spite of the fact that YHVH chose Israel to be His people, and did not so chose any other nation, that exclusive relationship was not Israel’s power, per Terry.
In spite of the fact that YHVH made the covenant with Israel, and with no other nation, that exclusive covenant relationship was not her power.
In spite of the fact that YHVH protected and blessed Israel as no other nation, based on that covenant relationship, that relationship was not her power.
In spite of the fact that the Levites– through the covenant– were the only ones authorized to offer sacrifice to YHVH, that priestly relationship, service and privilege was not Israel’s power.
In spite of the fact that the priests offered sacrifice on YHVH’s altar, at the only place in the world where sacrifice was acceptable to Him, that relationship was not Israel’s power.
In spite of the fact that God established Jerusalem as His city and set his Temple there, to symbolize His living presence with Israel, something He did not do with or for any other nation, that distinctive, exclusive situation was not Israel’s power!

Instead, according to Terry, ISRAEL’S TRUE POWER was the pagan perception that Israel was God’s people! And, he claims that this is what he argued originally. In reality here is what he ACTUALLY said: “The power they had was only in the perception that they were still God’s holy people. God would make clear in the destruction of Jerusalem that they were not what they appeared to be.” He patently did not state his case clearly.

I must confess that I was more than a little stunned at such an incredible claim. I shared his argument with several other folks, and to a person, they were as stunned as I was, and could not believe that such an argument had been made. I even did a Google on it, and could not find ANYONE else suggesting such a thing! Now, that does not disprove his argument, but, it does show that it is, at the very least, unique. Terry may well be the first person in history to make such a claim, who knows?!

Now, what is worse, Terry did not offer one scintilla of proof, not one verse, for his claim, because he can’t. He offered nothing but his personal speculation, but, that is hardly proof. So, I am calling on Terry to produce one single Biblical text that proves that God’s covenant with Israel was not her true power, but in fact, ISRAEL’S TRUE POWER WAS THE PAGAN PERCEPTION that she was God’s people.
TERRY, DO NOT FAIL TO GIVE US SOME PROOF OF YOUR OUTLANDISH CLAIM! And if you can’t do it– AND YOU CAN’T– then you have surrendered your entire proposition.

Terry spends considerable time in a failed attempt to negate my study of apokatastasis (Acts 3– the restoration of all things), and diorthosis (the time of reformation, Hebrews 9:10).
I showed that these are synonyms. Incredibly, TERRY says that even if they are synonyms, that does not mean that they mean the same thing!

Here is what is so significant: both words are used in the O. T. to speak of the restoration of Israel (Isaiah 62:7, diorthosis/Malachi 4:5-6, apokatastasis) at the coming of the Lord. So, Messianic prophecy uses the words synonymously to speak of Israel’s salvation, in the last days, at the parousia.
Second, the Greek authorities say that the two words refer to the same idea, the New Creation (Cf. Ellingworth, in the New International Greek Testament Commentary, on Hebrews 9:10).
Third, I showed that both Acts 3 and Hebrews 9 deal with the final fulfillment of Israel’s prophecies, to bring salvation, at the time of the parousia.
So, the words are indeed synonymous, and refer to the same time and same events, the consummation of the hope of Israel at the parousia, in fulfillment of the O.T. prophecies. Let me make the following observation:

YHVH promised the diorthosis–the time of Israel’s salvation– would be fully accomplished at the coming of the Lord, in judgment and salvation (Isaiah 62:7-12;diorthosis, verse 7, LXX).
Hebrews 9:9-10, anticipated the diorthosis in fulfillment of God’s O. T. promises made to Israel, to bring salvation.
The diorthosis of Hebrews 9 would be the fulfillment of God’s promises to O. T. Israel, and would bring salvation.
Unless Terry can prove that God made two O.T. promises of the diorthosis to Israel, then, since in Isaiah Israel’s diorthosis–time of salvation- would come at the parousia of the Lord, then it must be true that the diorthosis of Hebrews 9 would fully come at Christ’s parousia! It did not fully arrive at the Cross!

That leads to this:
The parousia of Christ was still future when Hebrews was written, although it was very near (Hebrews 9:28/ 10:37).

Israel’s diorthosis would fully arrive at the parousia (Isaiah 62:7-12).

But, the Old Law would remain valid (imposed) until the time of the diorthosis (Hebrews 9:10).

Therefore, the Old Law was still valid (imposed), when Hebrews was written, and would remain valid until the parousia of Christ.

Terry’s objections are futile, and his affirmative is falsified.

Yet, Terry keeps repeating his unfounded mantra that the Old Law was removed at the Cross, and therefore the time of reformation was complete.
Well, here is a question for Terry– and the readers– one that we will repeat below: The time of reformation– per Terry’s own argument– is the time of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:8-10). Okay, Terry, tell us, WAS THE New Covenant FULLY DELIVERED AND CONFIRMED, IN ITS ENTIRETY, WHEN HEBREWS WAS WRITTEN? YES OR NO?

If the New Covenant was not fully delivered and fully confirmed when Hebrews was written, and I can guarantee that Terry does not believe that it was, THEN THE TIME OF REFORMATION WAS NOT YET COMPLETE! (Incidentally, I would argue that the time of the reformation had been INITIATED, because John the Immerser had come to restore all things (Matthew 17:from apokathestenai, a form of apokatastasis, the synonym of diorthosis. However, INITIATION IS NOT CONSUMMATION! There was A PROCESS OF FULFILLMENT in the first century, but, it consummated in A.D. 70 (Daniel 9:24f / Luke 21:22).

Take careful note that TERRY WILL HAVE TO AGREE WITH THIS! While he argues that the reformation had begun: (Quote) Thus, the time of reformation had begun.(unquote), he nonetheless argues that man still cannot enter the Most Holy Place today! However, when the time of reformation AS ANTICIPATED IN HEBREWS 9 arrived, MAN COULD ENTER THE MOST HOLY PLACE!

Here is the argument:
The time of reformation would not be complete (fully arrived) until the New Covenant (and the New Covenant world) was completely “signed, sealed and delivered.” We will have more to say on this momentarily when we examine Terry’s affirmation that the New Covenant had already been given.
But, the New Covenant (and New Covenant world) was not completely “signed, sealed and delivered” when Hebrews was written. (Terry will agree! If not, we have something for him.)
Therefore, the time of reformation was not yet complete!

If the New Covenant was not complete, then the time of the reformation had not yet fully arrived.
If the time of reformation had not yet fully come, then, man could not enter the Most Holy Place, because the Torah, with its meats and drinks, etc. was imposed “until the time of the reformation.”
Therefore, Terry’s position demands that the time of reformation has not yet fully arrived!!

Now, Terry says of my argument about the entrance into the Most Holy Place: “Don’s whole speculative and wildly imagined rant on the ‘access to the MHP’ was, to me, a very exhausting and confusing thing to follow. “ Well, I doubt my argument was confusing at all. However, it is DEVASTATING to Terry’s proposition, and he knows it!

In Terry’s first affirmative he lists several things that he claims prove that the Law had been abrogated. Unfortunately, as he has done throughout this debate, he either denies or ignores what the texts say. Nonetheless, here is what he sets forth as accomplished and finished, supposedly proving the end of the Law.
1.) The True Tabernacle (8:1-2).
2.) The High Priest established (4:14)
3.) The Priesthood and Law Changed (7:12f)
4.) A Better Mediator and Covenant Established (8:6)
5.) The Old Covenant Annulled (7:18)
6.) The Better Testament Established (7:22).
7.) The Greater Minister of the Greater Sanctuary Established (8:1-2)
8.) The Better Covenant Established (8:6-7).
9.) The Time of Reformation Established (9:10)
10.) The New Testament Established (9:15-16).
11.) The Better Sacrifice Established (9:23-27).
12.) The Better Means of Sanctification Established (10:9-10).

Terry’s arguments are redundant, so, we will summarize and negate them.
A.) It is not a question of whether the New Covenant had been INITIATED BY THE DEATH OF JESUS. I affirm and teach this. But, the fact that Jesus had confirmed the New Covenant through his death does not mean that the Old Covenant had passed!
B.) The question is, WAS THE New Covenant FULLY DELIVERED WHEN HEBREWS WAS WRITTEN? Terry’s position demands that it had been, which of course actually destroys the inspiration of Hebrews itself, and all other books written afterward!
C.) The point is also, that when all of the things listed were FULL REALITIES –not just initiated– MAN COULD ENTER THE MOST HOLY PLACE.

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE of a better sacrifice, priest, temple, and covenant? To give to man what the Torah could never give, TO BRING HIM INTO THE PRESENCE OF GOD! Terry says he finds this confusing. No, it is not confusing, unless you hold to a false position that has a presuppositional approach to these things, as Terry does, and as I once did!

The purpose of all of the things listed by Terry would be TO BRING MAN INTO THE PRESENCE OF GOD, INTO THE MHP. IS THAT NOT TRUE, TERRY? If not, what was/is their purpose??
Yet, Terry says that man still is not today in the Presence of God, and does not enter the MHP when he dies!
This can only mean one of a few things:
1.) None of the New Things is fully perfected yet, which means,
2.) That the Old Things that the New Things were to replace and improve upon, are still in place, (“imposed until the time of reformation,” when man COULD enter the MHP!), or,
3.) None of these New Things has accomplished their purpose.
Which horn of this dilemma are you going to take hold of Terry? Your view of the MHP absolutely demands that either the Old Covenant is still in force, since man cannot enter the MHP today, or, that the New Things have either failed to accomplish what they were predicted to do, or, that they have not yet been fully delivered and confirmed!
All of your obfuscatory and irrelevant verbiage will not remove this dilemma that you have consistently refused to address in this debate. This is the fundamental issue. Now to continue.

Let me illustrate the consistency of my position, and fallacy of Terry’s.
Man could not enter the MHP until the end of the Torah (Hebrews 9:9-10).
Terry says the Torah was removed at the Cross, BUT MAN STILL DOES NOT ENTER THE MHP! This clearly violates what Hebrews teaches. Now watch.

Torah would remain imposed until the time of the reformation, when man could enter the MHP.
In Revelation 15:11, John was told that man could not enter the MHP until the Wrath of God, contained in the Seven Bowls, was completed.
The Wrath of God would be completed in the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 16:17-21).
Babylon was the city, “Where the Lord was slain” (Revelation 11:8), i.e. Old Covenant Jerusalem.
Therefore, the Wrath of God was completed, and man could enter the MHP– when the Torah was fully removed– in the judgment of Jerusalem.

This brings up Terry’s comments on LUKE 21:22.
Terry says Preston’s position on Luke 21:22 is untenable because there were prophecies, i.e. of Jesus’ birth, passion, etc. that were fulfilled before A.D. 70, therefore all things were not fulfilled in A.D. 70. Well, to be honest, this is a nonsensical argument, springing from desperation.

Clearly, Luke 21 did not predict the fulfillment of prophecies already fulfilled, nor have I stated that. As I just noted, there was a process of fulfillment in the first century, but, Luke 21:22 posits the consummation of that process in A.D. 70.

The fall of Jerusalem would be the time of the complete fulfillment of God’s prophecies of (covenantal) vengeance on Israel (Luke 21:22).
The complete fulfillment of God’s prophecies of (covenantal) vengeance on Israel would be under the Seventh Bowl of Revelation 16.
But, the time of the complete fulfillment of God’s prophecies of (covenantal) vengeance on Israel would be WHEN MAN COULD ENTER THE MHP– when Torah would be removed (Hebrews 9/Revelation 15:11/ 16:17f).
Therefore, Torah ended, and man could enter the MHP at the fall of Jerusalem, the time of the complete fulfillment of God’s prophecies of (covenantal) vengeance on Israel (Luke 21:22).


Lamentably, Terry repeatedly ridicules me for introducing eschatology into the discussion of the passing of Torah, claiming the two issues are unrelated. All this does is to reveal Terry’s ignorance of the inextricable relationship between the issues! I have proven that the New Creation, the resurrection, the end of the age, the coming of the Lord, are all posited by scripture at the end of the Old Covenant Age, not the end of the Christian age! Terry’s failure to acknowledge this relationship does not falsify my view! Let me illustrate the problem:

TERRY, WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR ESCHATOLOGY? Is it Moses and the Prophets, i.e. the Old Testament? Yes or No?
Do you look for the fulfillment of God’s eschatological promises– TO Old Covenant ISRAEL–at the end of the current Christian age? OF COURSE YOU DO! But, that is emphatically un-Biblical! THE CHRISTIAN AGE HAS NO END! The only covenant age that was ever supposed to end in order to bring man into the Presence of God, was the Old Covenant Age!

Here are a couple of crucial questions:
Were each of the New Things that Terry lists (above) from Hebrews, predicted in the Old Testament? UNDENIABLY. Terry knows this, and every reader of this debate knows it.
Prophecy of Priesthood– Psalms 110:4.
Prophecy of New Temple– Ezekiel 37/ Zechariah 6:13.
Prophecy of New Covenant– Jeremiah 31.
Prophecy (The types) of the Better Sacrifice– Passover (Exodus 12ff).
Prophecy of the time of reformation (Isaiah 62:7).
These five points summarize and include all of the things listed by Terry.

Answer: Terry has already told us that the Old Things did have to pass before the Old Covenant could pass! Remember his argument on Hebrews 7:10-12 and Christ’s priesthood?
In his last negative, and now in his first affirmative, Terry has tried to argue that all that Jesus had to fulfill for the Law to pass was the “law of commandments.” He has tried to limit the focus of Matthew 5:17f to just COMMANDMENTS, even though he had already admitted that JESUS DID HAVE TO FULFILL THE TYPOLOGICAL (PROPHETIC) ASPECTS OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT for the Law to pass. So, Terry has conceded, AFTER ALL, that it is not just “commandments” that had to be fulfilled, but that SOME PROPHECIES DID HAVE TO BE FULFILLED FOR THE LAW TO PASS. But, take a look again at the list!

NOT ONE of the prophecies listed above had anything to do with what Terry calls “the law of commandments” per se! NOTHING! (Except THEY WERE part of “the Law” that had to be completely fulfilled)! They were prophecies, (PROMISES), pure and simple. Yet, Terry admits that the old things, the old temple, priesthood, sacrifice, and covenant had to pass for these things to become a reality!

So, here is the argument, including Terry’s admissions that the Old Law could not pass until these things became a reality.

The Old Law could not pass until the New Covenant, tabernacle, priesthood, sacrifice, were perfected and complete. (Scripture and Terry Benton).
But, the New Covenant, tabernacle, priesthood, sacrifice, were all things PROPHESIED IN THE O.T.
Therefore, NONE of the Old Law could not pass until the PROPHECIES of the New Covenant, tabernacle, priesthood, sacrifice were all perfected and complete.

Now notice what this means:
Jesus said NONE OF THE OLD LAW would pass until it was ALL FULFILLED.
Terry ADMITS that the O. T. prophecies of the New Covenant, tabernacle, priesthood and sacrifice had to be fulfilled and completed before the Old Law could pass.

So, what we have is that Terry has admitted that the PROPHECIES of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection–and these prophecies were NOT the “law of commandments”– had to be fulfilled for the Law to pass.
And, he NOW agrees that the prophecies of the New Covenant, tabernacle, priesthood and sacrifice –none of which were “the law of commandments”– had to be fulfilled for the Old Law to pass!
So, Terry must now admit that a good bit of prophecy– NOT JUST “THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS”– had to be fulfilled for the Old Law to pass!

TERRY, IF ALL OF THESE PROPHECIES HAD TO BE FULFILLED FOR THE LAW TO PASS, THEN WHY DID NOT ALL PROPHECY HAVE TO BE FULFILLED FOR THE LAW TO PASS, SINCE JESUS SAID NONE WOULD PASS UNTIL ALL WAS FULFILLED? Where does Matthew 5 say that only some, but ot all prophecy, had to be fulfilled? After all, the text does say NONE would pass until ALL was fulfilled! You have violated the text.

At this juncture, note that the NEW CREATION could not come into full reality until the Old Creation was removed. However, the New Creation would come WHEN GOD DESTROYED Old Covenant ISRAEL (Isaiah 65:8-19)! So, the New Creation could not fully arrive until the Old was destroyed. But, the Old Covenant Creation of Israel, was destroyed in A.D. 70. Therefore, while the New Creation was being formed prior to that, it was not fully in place until the Old was destroyed in A.D. 70! So, here is MORE PROPHECY THAT HAD TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE (OR AT THE TIME OF) THE PASSING OF THE Old Covenant! If the prophecy of the New Creation had to be fulfilled, when the Old was destroyed, then patently, the Old Covenant Creation did not pass at the Cross, for Israel was not destroyed at the Cross!

For Terry to affirm that the New Covenant, tabernacle, priesthood and sacrifice prophecies had to be fulfilled for the Old Law to pass totally negates his attempt to argue that all that had to be fulfilled was the “law of commandments.” DO YOU CATCH THAT?
Let me remind the reader that JESUS DID NOT SAY:
1.) The Law would pass when the law of commandments was fulfilled.
2.) He did not say that the Law would pass when SOME PROPHECY was fulfilled.

Yet, Terry is trying to convince us that when the commandments, and THE COMMANDMENTS ALONE were fulfilled, that the Law would pass. OH, BUT WAIT…
He then admits that SOME PROPHECIES –which were not commandments– did, after all have to be fulfilled for the Law to pass. And, there is more…
He also now admits that there were in fact, SEVERAL PROPHECIES, totally unrelated (except as part of “the Law”), that had to be fulfilled for the Law to pass!

Terry tries to convince us that all of these things were already full realities at the Cross/Pentecost, and therefore, the Torah passed at the Cross. Let’s see if he believes that.
Was the New Covenant fully revealed, fully confirmed, at the Cross/Pentecost? TERRY DOES NOT BELIEVE IT! Was the New Covenant fully revealed and confirmed even when Hebrews was written? TERRY DOES NOT BELIEVE IT!
Now, I have consistently noted the present tenses of the Greek in Hebrews and other texts that pointed to the then present passing of the Old Law, Old Priesthood, etc., and the then present reality of the bringing in of the New. Terry has done nothing but ridicule this, saying that I must pay attention to context. Well, THE PRESENT TENSES ARE PART OF THE CONTEXT, and Terry is the one ignoring that context!
A good example: Hebrews 10:9– Terry says, “He has (past tense) taken away the first and established (past tense) the second” SCRIPTURE SAYS, however: “He is (present tense) taking away the first that he might (subjunctive) establish the second.” HUGE difference between Terry and scripture!

On this verse, let me show the self-contradiction of Terry’s paradigm. He says, “We are currently sanctified…When this means of sanctification became available, then the old means of sanctification according to the Law of Moses ceased to hold us to any obligation of said Law…The passage before us affirms that the sacrifices and offerings were not adequate and that God planned to take those away that He might establish the body by which adequate offering could be performed.”
Okay, Terry, you say that we are freed from the Law, because that Law was inadequate, but Christ is adequate. Well, if Christ’s sacrifice is adequate to do what the Torah could not do, sanctify, and bring man into the MHP, WHY THEN CAN MAN NOT ENTER THE MOST HOLY PLACE TODAY? You keep insisting that the Old Covenant passed at the Cross, and that Christ set the New Order fully in place. Yet, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MAN CAN ENTER THE MHP until the end of the very system that is supposed to bring man into the MHP! But, according to Scripture, entrance into the MHP would not be at the end of the New Covenant age, but at the end of the Old Age that was inadequate! That is the worst sort of logical contradiction, and fatal to your proposition. On the one hand you say some good, true things about Christ, then you deny them in the next line!

Terry argues on Matthew 28:18f that since Jesus said all authority had been given him at that point, that the Old Covenant had already passed away. This is a non-sequitur.
1.) The Old Testament said that Messiah would rule in the midst of his enemies (Ps. 110:1), and his enemies were Old Covenant Israel, i.e. the law that was the ministration of death! (2 Corinthians 3 / Philippians 3:16-18).
2.) Terry does not believe that Christ was yet on the throne in Matthew 28! He had to ascend to the Father, and there receive the kingdom (Luke 19:10f). Thus, his statement in Matthew 28 was proleptic from any perspective.
3.) The New Covenant had not yet even begun to be put in place, had it, Terry?
4.) The gospel had, therefore, not even begun to be proclaimed to anyone!
5.) The church had not yet even been established, and Terry knows this!
6.) The Spirit had not yet been poured out, and yet, it was through that Spirit that the Covenant transition would be accomplished (2 Corinthians 3:16-4:1-2).

Terry KNOWS that the Jesus had not yet received the kingdom, on the Messianic throne at the right hand. Terry KNOWS that the New Covenant had not yet begun to be revealed. Terry KNOWS that the church had not yet been established. Terry KNOWS that the gospel had not yet begun to be preached. Terry KNOWS that everything was not yet complete! All of this is undeniable, thus, Terry’s argument is nullified, for Jesus was speaking proleptically.

2.) THE NEW TABERNACLE– Terry tries to argue that the New Tabernacle was already established, completed. Really, Terry?
If the New Tabernacle was already completed when Hebrews was written, then the charismata should have already ceased, for the charismata was given to bring the New Tabernacle to completion (Ephesians 2:19-4:16)!
Instead, Paul (and Peter, 1 Peter 2:5), said that the New Temple was “being built” when he wrote Ephesians (2:19f). There are those pesky PRESENT TENSES again! Terry, are we supposed to ignore these present tenses as well?

Terry, was the New Tabernacle, the church, completed, perfected, on Pentecost? If so, how? It had no elders or deacons. But, of course, it did have apostles and prophets, didn’t it? Will you tell us that the completed church is supposed to have APOSTLES AND PROPHETS?
IT HAD NO GENTILES! If the church, i.e. the New Tabernacle, was complete on Pentecost, then it did not need the Gentiles in it, who would be privileged to serve as priests in worship and praise to YHVH! Of course, that would mean that Isaiah 66:17f that did predict this, did not have to be fulfilled for the church to be complete!
And, if it was complete, then since it had the charismata at that point, that means that the charismata were part and parcel of the complete New Tabernacle!

The point is clear and undeniable. Those things were not yet COMPLETE. Since the Old Law could not pass until those things were complete, then the Old Law had not yet passed.

I have and do argue that Christ had to return “the second time, apart from sin, for salvation” in order to fulfill the typological praxis of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. However, Terry argues that this idea is a figment of Preston’s imagination!

Frankly, I was stunned when I read Terry argue: “Don is the one who tries to create an extended “praxis” that he thinks has to also have an antitype praxis in Jesus’ work. Well, then, let us see what else was the practice of the High Priest. If everything thing (sic) he did had to have an antitype fulfillment in Jesus, then we should look for other fulfillments too. So, after the High Priest came back out, he would go home, probably kiss his wife, change his clothes, etc. So, are we to look for an antitypical fulfillment for these things in Jesus?”

FIRST, I did not argue that every single thing that the High Priest did had a typical significance. I argued, consistently with Hebrews 9:24ff that the focus is on the offering of the sacrifice, entrance into the MHP, and the coming out of the MHP. Those are the things that Hebrews takes note of, and that I honor. Terry’s query about the priest kissing his wife, changing his clothes, etc. are just examples of argumentum ad absurdum, that carry no force whatsoever, and are irrelevant.

SECOND, I have already pointed out that TERRY DOES BELIEVE that Jesus did have to fulfill the typological actions of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, at least in his sacrifice and entrance into the MHP.

THIRD, according to Terry, the Atonement was perfected, consummated, when Jesus entered the MHP! And, what proof did he offer? The exact same kind of proof that he has given to show that “the power of the holy people” was the pagan perception that Israel was God’s chosen people! His proof is his claim, unsubstantiated by scripture, logic, or history: no proof whatsoever.

FOURTH, the problem is that TERRY’S POSITION EMPHATICALLY DENIES THE TEXT. Everyone knows that chapter divisions are not inspired.
Note now that TERRY AGREES that Hebrews 9:24-27 speak of the antitypical fulfillment of the actions of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.
Of course, v. 28 then predicts the coming of Christ out of the MHP: “And to those who eagerly look for him, he shall appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation, (Hebrews 10:1)—> FOR, the Law having (There is ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE BOTHERSOME PRESENT TENSES!) a shadow of good things that are ABOUT TO COME” (from the infinitive of mello).

Note then that the writer says that Christ had to appear the second time “FOR” the Law was (still) a shadow of good things that were about to come! The particle FOR tells us why Christ had to appear the second time! He had to appear the second time, because just like he had to sacrifice himself, and enter the MHP– to fulfill the types of the Old World– the Law was still an unfulfilled type, an unfulfilled shadow of things that were about to come!

Terry, you must demonstrate FROM THE TEXT of Hebrews 9:24f where the author abandons his type/anti-type discussion, and jumps to an unrelated discussion of the parousia. You will not, because you cannot. Instead, the “for” of 10:1 demands that the parousia be seen as the fulfillment of the shadows of good things about to come.

You see, when the High Priest under the O.T. came out of the MHP, he was announcing “salvation” to the people, for the Atonement sacrifice had been accepted. Likewise, Christ would come again to announce salvation. The parallelism is perfect, Terry Benton notwithstanding.

Clearly, Preston did not invent the link between Christ’s parousia and the completion of the Day of Atonement typology. One has but to consult any good, critical commentary, and you will discover that this is the consensus, and has been so in Christianity throughout the ages! (E.G. Word Biblical Commentary, in loc: “The reference to Christ’s return to those who wait for him draws its force in this context from the analogy with the sequence of events on the Day of Atonement. The people waited anxiously outside the sanctuary until the High Priest emerged from the MHP after he had fulfilled his office (Lev. 16:17). His reappearance provided reassurance that the offering he had made had been accepted by God.”

CHRIST’S COMING IS THEREFORE, INEXTRICABLY, UNDENIABLY, CONNECTED WITH THE FULFILLMENT OF THE TYPOLOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE LAW! The parousia would bring salvation. Salvation– entrance into the Presence– would occur at that time. But, according to chapter 9:10, remember, the time when man would be brought into the Presence would be at the end of the Old Law!
No entrance, no salvation! No parousia, no salvation!

I am glad Terry has actually tried to put an argument into syllogistic form. He claims that his syllogism is true and valid, therefore his proposition is proven. Unfortunately for him, this is not true.

Major premise: A new priesthood could not be recognized and submitted to while the old law with its priesthood still held people to its obligations.
Minor Premise: There has been a change of priesthood at the cross and long before AD 70.
Conclusion: The law with its priesthood changed at the time of Jesus’ priestly offering of Himself on the cross.

1.) They are presuppositional, and built on petitio principii assumptions.
2.) They assert without proof.
3.) His conclusion is redundant, simply repeating his minor premise
4.) Not only is the conclusion redundant, it is guilty of petitio principii, (begging the question, or asserting without proof).
5.) His syllogism has violated the law of the EXCLUDED MIDDLE (Leaving out major related factors, while insisting that those factors are irrelevant, and that his premises are the only possibilities. In other words, he left out important stuff that has a bearing on his argument!). Here is the proof of what I am saying.

His MAJOR PREMISE is an appeal to Hebrews 7 saying that the priesthood could not be changed unless the covenant had already been changed:
EXCLUDED MIDDLE: Christ had died to the Torah, and became a priest after the order of another higher law. Christ had risen above Torah!
EXCLUDED MIDDLE: The Law had not been, past tense, changed, it was BEING CHANGED.
EXCLUDED MIDDLE: The Law was still in force since the priests at Jerusalem were still serving “according to the Law,” and if Jesus were on earth, HE COULD NOT SERVE THERE!
These are elements that Terry omitted (Excluded) from his argument as if they had no force or meaning, yet, to the author of Hebrews they did have meaning!

PETITIO PRINCIPII– He assumes, without proving it, that the Law was annulled at the Cross. We have already falsified that. He ignores the three excluded truths just noted.

Since Terry’s syllogism is guilty of all of these logical errors, his argument is nullified and falsified.

The reader of this debate will notice of course, that Terry has not analyzed a single one of my syllogisms. HE HAS NOT EVEN BREATHED ON THEM! He has not examined a single major or minor premise, and attempted to demonstrate their fallacy.

Terry argues: “Paul tells us that the law that bound circumcision is not a law to which we are bound.”
This is nothing but obfuscation.
1.) I have not argued otherwise!
2.) Paul was addressing JEWISH CHRISTIANS being tempted to return to the Law (Galatians 5:1).
3.) The Jerusalem council clearly spoke on this issue, in regard to Christians, and yet, not one single word was addressed concerning NON-CHRISTIAN JEWS AND TORAH! Terry ignores “audience relevance,” and is mixing apples and oranges, ignoring what was happening during the transitional period of time, as one covenant was “nigh unto passing,” and the other covenant was being delivered. Remember, Terry does not believe that the New Covenant had yet been fully delivered!

Terry claims that he made such strong arguments about “the law” from ROMANS 7 that Preston had “backed off,” “admitted,” and “conceded” in regard to the normal definition of “the law” in Matthew 5:17f. I DID NO SUCH THING!

I have consistently maintained, and have not altered that argument, that when the term “the Law” is used without a textual qualifier that it invariably refers to the entirety of the Old Testament. I gave numerous examples of this, and the argument stands.
I am the one that made the point that when a textual qualifier, e.g. as in Romans 8:1-3 is present, that the law in view is SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED, i.e. the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ. This does not negate, but rather strengthens my original point.
I have consistently noted that there is NO CONTEXTUAL QUALIFIER IN MATTHEW 5:17F, and that therefore, the burden of proof lies on Terry to show that there is a textual qualifier.
Terry on the other hand, has argued that, “the Law” in Matthew 5:17f is really the Golden Rule. He gave us no proof, of course.
Then, he ALTERED HIS ARGUMENT, saying that all Jesus meant was that all the COMMANDMENTS had to be fulfilled.
Then he CHANGED AGAIN, and said that No, some prophecies did have to be fulfilled after all, for the Torah to pass, but only the prophecies of his passion.
Now, however, he has admitted, that maybe it wasn’t just the prophecies of Jesus’ passion that had to be fulfilled, for, in fact, the prophecies of the New Covenant, priesthood, tabernacle, and sacrifice also had to be fulfilled for the Law to actually pass!

So, Terry has taken about four different positions on Matthew 5:17, all the time saying my arguments are exhausting and confusing!

Frankly, I did not remember Terry making ANY ARGUMENT FROM ROMANS 7, much less a strong one! I thought perhaps my “old timer’s disease” had kicked in though, so, I went back through his negatives, using my search function to find ANY REFERENCE to Romans 7.I DID NOT FIND A SINGLE REFERENCE TO ROMANS 7! TERRY, DID YOU JUST MAKE THIS UP?

Can you show me where you made that argument from Romans 7? Now, perhaps my search function missed it. Maybe it was such a powerful argument that it messed up my search function! 🙂 (A little humor, no offense intended!) So, Terry, show us where in your first two negatives, that you argued so extensively and powerfully from Romans 7. Point us to where I had to admit the force of your arguments. I will be waiting!
What is so interesting here is that Terry accused me of inventing the idea that Christ had to appear the second time in order to fulfill the typological actions of the Day of Atonement. Of course, that is false. Yet Terry claims he made an argument, and that I acceded to its strength, when in fact HE NEVER MADE THAT ARGUMENT AT ALL…unless my search function missed it of course. To make matters worse, HE HAS MADE UP, OUT OF THIN AIR, the argument that Israel’s true power was the pagan nations’ perception that they were God’s people! Now, who is inventing things?

Terry repeats his false claim that Colossians says that the Law itself was nailed to the Cross.
1.) I have shown, repeatedly, that the Greek authorities reject this idea. Dunn, (New International Greek Testament Commentary, in loc): (quote) The expunging of the record confirms that none of the transgressions is any longer held ‘against us.’ That does not mean, however, that the underlying decrees or regulations cease to have force, that is, that the law no longer functions as God’s yardstick of right and judgment. (end quote)

2.) I have shown that the present tenses show that the Law was still a shadow of good things about to come. Terry rejoins that Christ is the body, the reality of those shadows. Well, NO ONE DENIES THAT! What I affirm is PRECISELY WHAT THE TEXT SAYS, however, and that is that the Law–including the New Moons Feast Days, Sabbaths, etc.– was still, WHEN PAUL WROTE, a shadow of good things about to come. Christ, the body, had not yet brought those shadows to complete fulfillment! But of course, Terry wants us to ignore the PRESENT TENSE VERBS, and further, he now wants us to IGNORE THE FUTURE TENSE in “about to come.”

3.) Consider the Sabbath issue. Paul said the Sabbaths were a shadow of good things to come. Now note. The author of Hebrews said, “there remains therefore a Sabbath rest (sabbatismos), for the children of God” (Hebrews 4:9-10)! Look at what this means.
The Law of commandments– even according to Terry’s misguided definition of these things, and his limited view of Matthew 5– had to be completely fulfilled before it could pass.
The Sabbaths of Torah were part of the law of commandments, and were shadows of good things to come (Colossians 2:14f).
Therefore, the Torah had not yet passed when Hebrews was written, and would not pass until the True Sabbath–(you know, entrance into the Presence!!)– foreshadowed by the Sabbaths of Torah– was completely fulfilled.

4.) In Colossians the elements (stoicheia) of the world (kosmos) identified as the Torah commandments of “touch not, taste not, handle not” had not yet passed (2:20f).

5.) Notice that the body (the reality of what Torah foreshadowed) WAS NOT YET FULLY ARRIVED, because, (here we go again!), in v. 19 Paul says the body was GROWING (PRESENT PARTICIPLES– (cf. Alford’s Greek Testament in loc.) with increase.”
This is not simply a statement that a local church was increasing in number. It is directly parallel with Ephesians 4:13f, where the body was moving toward, “the perfect man, the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ”. Terry, are we to ignore these present tenses too?

Terry has simply not grasped what Paul is undeniably saying in Colossians 2. Because of his preconceived ideas, he tries to impose foreign ideas onto the text, and demands that we ignore the Greek, BOTH PRESENT AND FUTURE TENSES.


Terry has tried to convince us that when Hebrews 8:13 says that the covenant was “nigh unto passing away”, what it really meant was that from the moment that Jeremiah uttered the promise of a New Covenant, that the old was nigh unto passing. In rejoinder, I noted what this would mean.
1.) It would mean that the Old Testament was obsolete and “nigh unto passing” before it was all revealed, since other books were revealed after Jeremiah. Amazingly, TERRY SAID THAT WAS RIGHT! So, the Old Testament was obsolete and ready to vanish before it was ever fully revealed!

2.) I noted that Terry’s definition of “nigh unto passing” would destroy the meaning of “nigh” and he even now admits that normally, nigh does mean near, at hand, but not in Hebrews! He tells us that we should view this from God’s timeless perspective, and not Jeremiah’s! But wait, he had already told us that we had to view the “nigh unto passing” from JEREMIAH’S PERSPECTIVE! So, that is not actually true after all, we must view it from God’s. Terry, the millennialist will love this argument, for they will, correctly so, argue that every time a prophet spoke about events that they got that message of “nearness” from the timeless God, therefore, “at hand” does not really mean near!

3.) I noted that not one O.T. writer ever refers to the Tanakh as “old”, but that the very first time we find that is in 2 Corinthians 3. Now, if the inspired writers knew that the Old Testament was obsolete and “ready to vanish” why did they not say so, at least once?

4.) Please catch the power of what I am about to say:
The old Law could not pass until the new Law came in. Terry has actually argued this.
Now, remember, I am not denying that the death of Jesus confirmed the New Covenant, I affirm this (Galatians 3:15/Hebrews 9:15f). Nor am I denying that the New Covenant began to be revealed by inspiration on Pentecost. I affirm that!
However, here is where it gets sticky for Terry and the view that I also once held:
TERRY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE New Covenant HAD ALREADY BEEN FULLY DELIVERED AND CONFIRMED WHEN HEBREWS WAS WRITTEN! You don’t, do you, Terry? Was all revelation and all confirmation finalized when Hebrews was written, Terry?
Now, if the New Covenant had not yet been fully delivered, fully set in place, when Hebrews was written– and let me emphasize that Terry cannot affirm that it was– then of necessity, the old had not yet passed, and of course, this agrees perfectly with Hebrews 8:13 that while it had not yet passed, it was “nigh unto passing.”

Let me drive this home by a reiteration of an earlier argument, that is directly related to Hebrews 8 and Terry’s affirmative argument.

Hebrews 8 affirms the promise of Jeremiah that YHVH would make a New Covenant with Israel– THIS IS NOT A New Covenant WITH “THE CHURCH” DIVORCED FROM ISRAEL!
When the New Covenant fully arrived, Israel’s sin would be forgiven– (“their sins and iniquities will I remember no more”)– something that could never happen while the Old Covenant stood valid (remember Hebrews 9:9-10!).
In Romans 11:26-27 Paul said that Israel’s sin would be forgiven (all Israel shall be saved..when I take away their sin, etc.), at the coming of the Lord! How and when would that forgiveness be accomplished “for this is MY COVENANT WITH THEM, when I take away their sin”!

Terry has virtually ignored my arguments on Romans 11, insisting that all it says is that if any Jews are saved, from now until the end, that they will be saved by obedience to the gospel, just like Gentiles. This is NOT what the text says, and I have proven it. But, here is the argument again.

In Romans 11:25-27, Paul anticipated the salvation of “all Israel.” (It cannot be the church, because whoever the Israel is that Paul is discussing, she was THE ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL when Paul wrote, v. 28f!).
That salvation would be in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises, “for THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, when I take away their sin” (Romans 11:26-27).
That salvation would come at the parousia, as promised in Isaiah 27 and 59 (Romans 11:26-27).

So, Isaiah 27 and 59 were Old Covenant promises made to Israel, to bring salvation at the parousia.

This proves, irrefutably, that the Old Covenant was still in effect, because Paul was reaffirming God’s Old Covenant promises to Israel, to bring the New Covenant!


Now, the coming of the Lord here cannot be Christ’s first coming, for it would be the coming of the Lord, foretold by Isaiah 27 and 59.
The coming of the Lord foretold in Isaiah 27 and 59 would be the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel, when He would turn the altars into chalk stone (Isaiah 27:9f), and when He would judge Israel for shedding innocent blood (Isaiah 59:3, 6-7). Patently, Jesus did not do that at his first coming, but, he did in the judgment of Jerusalem for shedding innocent blood, in that generation (Matthew 23:29f).
These texts totally falsify Terry’s contention that Romans 11 is about Jews being saved throughout the gospel age. It is about the consummation of Israel’s Old Covenant age, and the full establishment of the new!

Christ would come in the judgment and salvation of Israel in A.D. 70 (Isaiah 27, 59, Mat. 23).

That coming of Christ in the judgment and salvation of Israel would be in fulfillment of YHVH’s covenant promises to Israel (Romans 11:26-27).

Therefore, God’s covenant with Israel, both blessings and cursings, would remain valid until it was fulfilled when Christ came in judgment and salvation of Israel in A.D. 70.

Furthermore, note the perfect correlation with Hebrews 8. Both passages anticipated the making–the full establishment, not just initiation, of a New Covenant between YHVH and Israel.
Both passages anticipated the forgiveness of sin with the full arrival of that New Covenant.
Both passages still anticipated, either explicitly or implicitly, the end of the Old Covenant (Romans 11, Christ’s coming in judgment; Hebrews 8, the old “nigh unto vanishing”).
However, and this is what is so critical, Paul places the full establishment of that New Covenant and thus forgiveness through that New Covenant, at the parousia of Christ, “the redeemer shall come out of Zion…for this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins!”

Israel’s salvation would, therefore, come at the parousia. This is undeniable from Romans.
Since her salvation would arrive, with the full establishment of the New Covenant, at the parousia, that meant that she could not enter the MHP (i.e. no salvation), until the parousia.
If Israel, in other words, could not enter the MHP, until the parousia, this is prima facie proof that the old law was not removed at the Cross!
If Israel was still waiting for her salvation through the New Covenant, and she unequivocally was in Romans, then she was still under the Old Covenant that could not give her that salvation.

The fact that Hebrews 8 and Romans 11 both anticipated the identical things, the bringing of salvation for Israel and the judgment and passing of the old world, completely falsifies Terry’s attempt at an affirmative.

We have thus examined all of Terry’s arguments, demonstrating that he cannot support his proposition without:
1.) Denying emphatic statements of scripture.
2.) Distorting emphatic statements of scripture.
3.) Ignoring the present tense and future tense of the Greek texts of the very passages that he attempts to use.

Terry’s has finally taken the position that far more then “the law of commandments” had to be fulfilled for the law to pass. He had already admitted that Christ had to fulfill some prophecy. Don’t forget this!
Now, by offering us the list that he has from Hebrews, of things that he admits had to come before the law could pass, he has tacitly admitted that a lot of prophecy totally unrelated to “the law of commandments” had to be fulfilled! The prophecies of the New Tabernacle, Priesthood, Sacrifice and Covenant all had to be fulfilled before the Torah could pass!

What this means is that my original argument that “the Law” in Matthew 5:17f includes the fulfillment of prophecies, HAS NOW BEEN VINDICATED BY TERRY! And of course, what this means is that, since Jesus said that NONE of the Law– INCLUDING THE PROPHECIES OF THE THINGS LISTED BY TERRY– could pass until it was all fulfilled, THAT NOT ONE IOTA OF THE ENTIRE Old Covenant COULD PASS UNTIL EVERY SINGLE PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED!

Since Terry does not, and cannot argue that the New Covenant had been fully delivered, and fully confirmed when Hebrews was written, this means that, while fulfillment had been initiated to be sure, THESE PROPHECIES WERE NOT YET FULFILLED.

Since Terry does not– at least I cannot believe that he does– believe that the church (i.e. the New Tabernacle), was fully mature and completed on Pentecost, then the prophecies of the New Tabernacle had not yet been completely fulfilled. The foundation and cornerstone had been laid to be sure, but, the “construction” of that Tabernacle, being miraculously empowered and enabled, was still in progress in the first century.

These things being true, Terry’s proposition is falsified, not only by my rejoinders, but from his own keyboard.