2 Guys The Passing of the Old Covenant & Temple

Well, hello everyone, and welcome back to Two Guys and a Bible here on Fulfill Radio, a voice you can trust. I was just sharing with William, and I'm not going to give specifics on this, but just a couple of years ago, I think it was, one of my relatives by marriage became a full printer, and she'd been watching my videos and actually purchased some of my books off of internet. We provided her a whole bunch more free, and anyway, she decided to go to a church and start attending church. Her husband's not interested at all in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Nice guy, but he just doesn't care about church and religion. So anyway, she started going, and she thought she'd better talk to the preacher, and so she went and talked to him privately and said, I'd like to start coming to church, I think, but I want you to know I'm a preterist, and I don't know if there'll be trouble, and the preacher goes, well, you may need to know that I'm a preterist, and just kind of went from there, and it's just been absolutely a joy ride, and then to add to that, two sisters from the congregation at Shawnee, where I used to preach, they were never involved in my studies up there, but one of them started watching my videos a couple of years ago and just got super, super excited, contacted me, ordered a whole bunch of books, started sharing with her sister, and now they're on board, and so what William was suggesting was that there's kind of a silent communication going on in the circles, in the churches of Christ especially, in which people are saying basically, yeah, yeah, that makes a lot of sense, and they'll sort of privately start talking to others, and the others are going, yeah, that's kind of the way I feel about it too. It's really cool, and we're just hearing more about it all of the time of people learning about and from people in their churches, and this is across the spectrum. I mean, this is Baptist Presbyterian Church. I mean, this is everywhere, and they're just discovering people in their own churches who have become preterists, but they're just kind of going along to get along, and yet they're thrilled to death to discover somebody of like mind. It kind of gives you the impression, William, one of these days, that tsunami is going to start building in a more visible way, and I don't know when that's going to be. I don't know if you and I are going to be around to see that or not. I know that you and I have seen incredible, unbelievable growth in the preterist movement since we've been a part of it, so it's really encouraging to think what the near future holds, what the long-term future holds. Very exciting. Yeah, that's true. You know, what kind of amazes me is how many people call from time to time, or they even sometimes come by and visit the congregation and say, look, I've been listening to Don Preston, and then from Don Preston, I heard about you, and I've watched every single video that you guys have published. Which stuns me. Blows my mind. I mean, literally. You did what? And some of them say they've watched them more than once. I know that. I hear that commonly. Yes, and they said, look, this makes so much sense, and I've got to change. I've got to go with it, and that's what happens, and so it's good to see them. And like I said, some of them come by and visit every now and then and tell me about it, and I'm just shocked. I said, you know, I can't go back and watch all those. Well, I'm not going to say I can't, but I haven't done it. I haven't. They'll call me up and ask me about a certain video, and I don't even remember making it. Then they send it back to me. I'm talking about this. Yes, I have the same identical thing happen. Do you remember a video that you did on the following subject? Well, no, I don't. I mean, I have produced something in excess of 3,300 now, or maybe more. I don't even keep count. I just happen to notice every once in a while when I'm posting a video, it will give me the number of the videos that I've produced. I'm going, whoa, yeah, I've produced a bunch of videos. Well, I have two. The ones that I do in class, I record, but they don't go on YouTube. I don't put them on YouTube, so I do an extra three, sometimes four videos that never even get published. These are Bible classes, sermons, et cetera. Oh, yeah, but man, you need that stuff out there. I mean, you know the way I feel about you. I think you're a fantastic Bible teacher, and people need to hear what you've got to say, no doubt about it. Well, I appreciate that. I have to comb through them and see what you know. It's Bible class. You're going back and forth. I know that, but some of our best stuff, and you know this to be the truth, some of our best stuff is produced in that kind of a setting. You're exactly right. In which you have that interaction, and the juices are flowing, and new thoughts are coming. So, yeah, you need to do that, William. You really honestly do. I've got to look at it. I've got to get some more storage capacity. I've got these hard drives, but darn, I've just run out of time being able to download all these things and then trying to upload them, and thank goodness and thank God for Alan, who has just been a tremendous help. You know, you can just send it and forget it, and he's going to do it and take care of it. So, I really have to give him a shout out for just being so helpful, supportive, consistent, and even when I forget, he'll write me back, you're going to send me that video. And so, that's made a huge, huge blessing and impact for me in terms of, you know, just getting out the materials that I do get out. Alan has been literally a godsend to our ministry. I didn't know much about him. I'd seen his name somewhere until a few years ago. I get this email from him, and as I remember, he basically said, you don't really know me, but I've been following your ministry. I love your videos. I love your material. I'd like to volunteer my service. Well, you know, you get a little bit gun shy over the years. I had a webmaster at one time years and years ago. All of a sudden, he turned against me for some unknown reason and literally started stabbing me in the back. And I didn't even know it was going on until somebody informed me. And so, I had to just remove him. But he was literally stabbing me in the back. And it's just a super, super sad situation. So, you know, I was a little gun shy, a little reluctant, but Alan has proven himself to be a true brother and absolutely trusted confidant, a genuine friend. And he just really, really means a lot to us in our ministry and personally as a friend. No doubt about that. Got to give him his props. We got to do that for sure. And I pay him so much money. Yeah, me too. I mean, he's getting rich off of us. But, you know, that said, obviously in levity, but that's the beauty of people coming together for a common cause. And different people have different talents. I couldn't do what Alan does for anything, literally. I mean, there's not enough money to allow me to do that because I don't know how to do it. But he approached me over this and he said, I will not charge you. Well, I can't allow that. So Jan and I try to give him something every year, but it's a pittance. I mean, literally, literally a pittance over what it would cost us to hire somebody to do everything that he does for our ministry. So once again, I've just got to give mad props to Alan over what he does for us. Okay, I want to get back into our study of the Messianic Temple. One more reminder, I've said this before, William and I have gone over this, that even though we've been discussing priesthood, and even though we've been talking about temple, and even though we're talking about covenant, all of these things are absolutely inseparably bound up to temple. You cannot separate the doctrine of covenant from temple or priesthood from temple. They're absolutely all related. So with that said, last week and the week before, we looked at Hebrews chapter 8 and the promise that God made in Jeremiah chapter 31. He made it in Isaiah 55. He made it in other passages. He made it in Ezekiel chapter 37, Hosea chapter 3. All of these passages were promises of the time that was going to come when there would be a new covenant of peace. There was going to be peace between the two houses of Israel. There was going to be peace between Israel and the pagans, the nations, and there was going to be peace between Judah, Israel, pagans, and God. That's Isaiah chapter 49 verse 6 and following. So the promise of a new covenant is an implicit promise of the new temple. And God said he found fault with them, and there's all sorts of debate and controversy in the literature about, well, was he talking about he found fault with the people or did he find fault with the first covenant? Well, we talked about last week, so we won't go over that territory again. But I want us to pick up tonight, William, and examine the nature of the new covenant, because in 2012, I had a formal debate with Joel McDermott, as you know, and Joel appealed to Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews chapter 8. In that prophecy of Jeremiah 31, the Lord said that when he would make the new covenant, they would no longer teach every man his brother and every man his neighbor, saying, know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least to the greatest. Now, Joel McDermott argued like this, and by the way, this is a purely dispensational argument. I'll expand on that here a little bit. But first, I want to get your thoughts. Joel McDermott said, we know that this has not been fulfilled, which means we're waiting on a nationalistic kingdom, earthly kingdom, because God said when this covenant was made, you don't have to teach anyone anymore. Everyone will automatically know. So, William, was McDermott right? I mean, what does no man will teach his neighbor and his brother anymore? What does it mean? Well, you know, to answer the first question, no, he's not right. He was very incorrect on that particular point. And this appeal, going back to Jeremiah 31, if I recall, I know at least once during the time that you debated Bill Lockwood, but I think you made the same points at the time that you debated Joel McDermott, when you pointed out that, you know, if this is something that was taking place back then in the time of Jeremiah, it meant that the new covenant was being implemented at that point, and the old covenant was dying at that point. But the other point is, you know, about the teaching, this has to do with the difference between the two covenants, the nature of those two covenants. Whereas in the old covenant, of course, you know, they were born in the covenant, and then of course, as you know, they had to be circumcised on the eighth day, etc., and then they had to be taught those things. And there's, you know, plenty of information in the law that talks about teaching them in Deuteronomy 6, etc., whereas in the new covenant, you could not come into the covenant without being taught. John 6, 44 and 45, and several other passages, you know, the Great Commission, etc. So, that's the major difference between the two from that perspective. You know, you are born as a result of being taught, and through that you're drawn to God, and therefore you come in knowing the Lord. Whereas on the other hand, you know, you are born and you have to be taught in order to know the Lord. I think that's a great summary. And I tell you, when Joel McDermott, and I knew that dispensationalists made that argument, because in corresponding with Thomas Ice, my point blank ask him, is the promised Jeremiah covenant of Jeremiah 31, 29 to 31, has that been established? And he said, absolutely not. And this is one of the arguments that he made. He said, just like Joel, when this new covenant is made, nobody will have to be taught, because they'll automatically know the will of the Lord. So, I knew that argument was out there in the dispensational world, but it was literally a shock to me to hear Joel McDermott say that, because what that means, obviously, is the new covenant has not been established. And that's what I argued when I was dealing with Thomas Ice. Well, how is it then, if the promised Jeremiah covenant has not been established, how is it that we have the forgiveness of our sin? And Thomas Ice's response to that was, even though that new covenant, this was one of those blow your mind moments, even though that new covenant has not been established and is not enforced, we are enjoying the benefits of that covenant now. Okay. So, it's not in effect, it doesn't exist, but we are enjoying its benefits. I sometimes wonder, William, if people who make arguments like this ever stop to listen to themselves. I mean, how could anybody, and I'm not trying to be unkind at all, I'm not trying to be overly critical at all, I'm just simply pointing out the inconsistency, the illogical nature of this argument. Isn't that something like saying, well, I'm going to build a house one of these days. Now that house is not built, it won't be built for 2,000 years, but I'm currently living in it. I'm currently enjoying the benefits of that house. Isn't that a proper analogy to a certain extent? I would definitely. So, anyway, I was taken aback when Joel made the argument. And folks, simply stated, and what William stated so well is, under Torah, a person was born, then taught. Under Christ, a person is taught, then born. And let's remember, under Torah, they were born of the flesh. They were born of the will of man, and then taught. But under Christ, people are born not of the flesh, nor the will of man, but they're born of God by faith, John chapter 1, 10 and following. So, all throughout the New Testament, we find these contrasts between how things worked under the Old Covenant and how things work under the New Covenant of Christ. But I made mention a moment ago, William, and I want you to expand on this and expound on it. To say that the Jeremiah Covenant is not in effect today, what are some of the other implications of saying that covenant has not been made, has not been established? I'm saying that the New Covenant has not been established? Yeah, well, if the New Covenant has not been established, it means, you know, one of the main points is sins are remembered. There's no forgiveness of sins. I mean, that means that the atonement of Christ is gone for naught or does not exist for all practical purposes. And so, that would be a major one. It would indicate that we're still living in the temple era and the physical temple, that worship should still be going on in Jerusalem. Sacrifices should still be there. The Levitical priesthood should be there. All the things that we've talked about before should be there. The city of Jerusalem ought to be sitting there as well, as far as that goes. And it's the covenant city. Yes, absolutely. And, you know, even in the book of Hebrews, you know, later on, he'll say, for here, we have no continuing city. So, as long as that system was in place, that city was continuing. And so, all of that would be implications of a covenant that has not yet been established. Yeah. And what it says is, just like dispensationalism says, the church, with its gospel of grace, is an interim plan B, a stopgap measure between Torah and this promised new covenant. It disparages the value, the beauty, the glory, the function and purpose of the church and the gospel of Christ. And the question needs to be asked. I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. If, in fact, the Jeremiah covenant is the covenant to give forgiveness of sin, but the gospel of Jesus Christ offers us forgiveness of sin, then why do we need a yet future Jeremiah covenant? Is that not a perfectly valid argument and question? Absolutely, it is. It is. You know, you'd end up with two covenants supposedly doing the same thing. Only problem is, one of them can't do it. So, it just makes it totally irrelevant. And it raises a further question. If we currently have the forgiveness of sin through the power of the blood of Christ, because that's what the gospel is, right? So, since we currently have the forgiveness of sin through the power of the blood of Christ, 1 John chapter 1, if we confess our sins, he is righteous to forgive us of our sin and to forgive us all unrighteousness, okay? And the blood of Jesus Christ, if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us of our sin. I'll get it right here in a minute. If we walk in the light as he is in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness. And then it's verse 8 that is what I just quoted. But point of fact is, if it's the blood of Jesus Christ that objectively provides forgiveness for us now, then what is the power to forgive sin under the Jeremiah covenant? Hebrews writer says the blood of bulls and goats couldn't do it, and I don't know any other that was under that covenant. Yeah. So, once again, we're back to the question, if the blood of Christ forgives us of our sin through the gospel of Jesus Christ, then what do we need another covenant for? A covenant that would take away sin and our sins and iniquities would not be remembered as they were under the old covenant. So, it's just an amazing thing to me. Pardon me. My voice has been doing really well, but it's just amazing to me that people have not stopped to see the implications of saying, oh yeah, that promise of Jeremiah 31 hasn't been fulfilled yet. And to even go beyond that and to say, oh, but we're enjoying the benefits of it now, even though it's not established. And yet it provides, that is to say, the gospel provides what that promised new covenant will eventually provide. I just can't wrap my mind around that kind of argumentation. It seems to me, and I know that good people, I know that sincere people hold to that view, but I think that they have never stopped to critically examine their leaders, the literature that makes that kind of statement. To go, wait a minute, wait a minute. What do we need a new covenant for? I've got Christ. It's just an amazing reality. Pardon me. Any other comments on that particular aspect? It makes for an extended last days as well, if that's not the case. We'd still be in the last days, which a lot of people believe erroneously to begin with. But as far as looking at the scriptures, it would say that. If you're going to place that in the future, then what about all the things that were supposed to happen in the last days? And this is why people are still claiming that they have the eschatological spirit that was poured out in the last days and why they think that the kingdom has not been set up or established. And so, it leads to so many errors in a person's eschatology to fail to acknowledge the fulfillment of that old covenant and the inauguration and confirmation of the new. Yeah. And to go back to our subject, if the new covenant has not been made, then okay, we don't have the messianic temple because Christ is not ruling as king and priest on his throne. Yet, Hebrews chapter 8 makes it abundantly clear that he is king, he is priest on his throne, and that is without end, okay? So, that is eliminated. But to say that we have the new covenant, and in reality, just simply to say that we have objective forgiveness today is to say we have the messianic temple. Yeah, that's absolutely correct. I'm thinking passages like John 4 and Revelation 21, et cetera. And even Hebrews 12 indicates that, the coming of the kingdom. And of course, that's taken out of a context in Haggai chapter 2 that deals specifically with a prophecy concerning the temple. And then you have all the texts in the New Testament that speak about being built up as the people of God, as the temple of God, et cetera, for habitation of God through the spirit, such as in Ephesians and in 1 Peter chapter 2. So, it becomes a real problem. That reminded me, and I probably shared this before when I debated Carl Albert. I'm sure you remember who he is. And he had his friend, Leron Campbell, with him that evening when we were having the debate. And he, you know, you were not supposed to introduce any new material in the last speech, right? And so, he decided to do that. And he started talking about the temple. And so, I came back and ran through all these passages that showed that the temple was already in existence, that it was, you know, of a spiritual nature. And he tried to cry foul, but his own moderator said, no, he's correct. You did bring it up. But anyway, but yeah, I mean, it's right there in the scriptures. And that's the whole point of Hebrews and what we're talking about. As you said before, the kingdom, excuse me, the new covenant and temple go hand in hand. I was teaching on that a little bit in Revelation 19, talking about the wedding garment in that context of Revelation 19. And as you know, from Ezekiel 16, you know, you've got covenant, you've got the tabernacle motif in that, etc. And I didn't think about Hebrews chapter 8. And it's right here in this context as well, where marriage is a part of that process as well, because he talked about being a husband to them in the old covenant when he entered into that covenant. Well, with the making of the new covenant, you have the betrothal and then the consummation of it at the time of the end. So, all of those concepts and motifs are incorporated into the concept of the covenant, the temple, the kingdom, all of it is wrapped into one. Yeah. As we've said before, that in the Jewish mind, there was an entire matrix of subjects, motifs, themes, elements that are all bound up with each other. I mean, we today, and I mentioned this a week or so ago, we've had a tendency in modern times when we study the Bible, we just grab our strongs out of Bridge Concordance. And we say, okay, I'm going to study the following subject. Okay, I'm going to change subjects, and I'm going to study that subject, and I'm going to study all of the verses in the Bible that mentioned that particular subject. That is not the way to study the Bible. Now, it gives you material to study, but studying in that way gives a person the idea, this is one subject, this is another, and they're not related. When in reality, there is that interrelationship that has to be recognized. How does Temple relate to Covenant? Well, the Temple was the housing of the Covenant, and it was based on the Covenant. And that's why men, scholars such as John Levinson, have rightly pointed out, with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the very Covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel was broken. I mean, he is bringing this out and saying, Temple represented that Covenant bond. You destroyed the Temple, you've destroyed the Covenant bond. It's far more in the Jewish mind that the destruction of the Temple, the cessation of the priesthood, cessation of the sacrifices, etc., was far more than tearing down a building. Because to the Jewish mind, as long as that Temple stood, Yahweh was with them. Now, it might have become perverted. And believe you me, when you read the Jewish literature of the first century, and even some centuries before that, they understood that the priesthood was perverted. They really understood that. And they were waiting for the time in which Yahweh would come and set things right. And we have the Essene community that goes out by the Dead Sea, and the reason they go out there is because of the perversion of the Temple. So they understood that the Temple had been perverted, but they also understood that is still the symbol of God's presence among us. And so you had kind of a duality going on that was a struggle for the righteous. It was a struggle for what we would call today the remnant. But all of these, to reiterate, had to do with the same central issue, and that is the Temple of God. So what I want to do now is I want to shift gears a little bit. In light of this promise of the coming of the New Covenant, the writer of Hebrews says, in that he says a new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which is old is growing obsolete and is nigh unto passing away. I was raised in the environment, you were too, really, in which it was taught as a fundamental doctrine that Jesus nailed the old law to the cross. The old law of Moses ended at the cross. God was through with Israel at the cross. How could the writer of Hebrews say, okay, God promised a new covenant, in that he says a new covenant, he has made the first old. That which is growing old is nigh unto vanishing. So how do we correlate, how do we harmonize the view that says, on the one hand, Jesus nailed the law to the cross, and Hebrews chapter 8, verse 13, which says the law was nigh unto passing, which was written in the 60s. Okay. And that's a good question. And it's not only that they taught it, you know, in the time that we were coming up. They still teach it to this very day. I was listening to a preterist having a debate with a guy on Daniel 12 and Matthew 24. And he was making some very good correlations. I can't remember his name. But, and he brought your name up as well. So I'm sure you know him. But anyway, he was going, you know, back and forth with the guy and he was laying out all of his points. Well, the gentleman didn't have any response. And then he mentioned Hebrews 8 and verse 13. He said, oh, the law was done away at the cross. You know, so there you go. They're still making that argument. The main point and reasons I believe they make that is from, well, several, but, you know, John 19, 30 is one, you know, without his head and gave up the ghost. And then you have Colossians 2 mainly, because it talks about nailing it to the cross. But what was actually nailed to the cross was the obligation or debt to keep the law. And so he took that out of the way. And that wasn't the end of the law. The text says in that context, the law is a shadow of the coming good things, the good things that were about to come. And so you couldn't, you know, as they say, sometimes dead men don't cast shadows. Right. So that was indicative of the fact that the law was still there. And everything that we've seen in the book of Hebrews demonstrates that as well. And in this passage that says in that he says a new covenant, he has made the first old now that which is becoming obsolete. Sometimes people don't read the entire passage. You know, they read one part of it and they think that, well, there it is. It says it's obsolete. No, read all of the text. I remember Michael Holloway doing that. You know, he looks at the passage and he said, well, it says it's obsolete. But no, it says it is becoming obsolete. And the new covenant was. And I think I heard another guy who looked at the the second part of the text where it says that the new covenant was at hand to be a state, he said, you see, it doesn't say that the new covenant has been established. It says that it's at hand. Well, his problem is he's trying to read himself into that first century context and look at it, you know, beyond where he stands historically when he should be doing that from where they stood from that perspective to see that it was ready to vanish away at that point and had not fully the old covenant had not fully vanished away and the new covenant had not yet come into fullness at the time. But that's generally the main point, you know, and they can make the they make, you know, a similar argument from Ephesians too. But that's it for the most part. The one in Colossians is a diehard, you know, from our background. You know, they just that's all they see, you know, for the most part and fail to see that in that text. He's talking about nailing that or canceling out that obligation for those who are believers. And that's another point in the text. He addresses them as, you know, as brethren. So that's not a universal statement to speak about everybody. That's talking about the ones who had been buried with him in baptism. That's where that that was canceled out on their behalf so that they could, as Roman 7 says, you know, marry another and therefore be betrothed in view of the coming consummation of that marriage. Great points and beautiful points in scripture, but they just don't get the justice among those who just see that, you know, and think that these things happened at the cross. I've got to share several, several years ago. This is probably, oh my goodness, 91, 92, somewhere along in there. Anyway, it's a long time ago. And a minister from a town about 30 miles due west of me, he envisioned himself as being the final answer for the Preterist view. And he decided that the passing of the law was the foundation or the pillar stone of Preterism. And so he wrote a little paper. Well, some of our members happen to be friends with a lot of the members of the congregation where he preached. And so the paper got to me and one of his arguments, I've heard it a couple of times since then, but not many times. One of his arguments was the very minute that Jeremiah took pen in hand and through the inspiration of the spirit promised a new covenant. At that very moment, the old covenant became obsolete and the new covenant was at hand. And I was like, wait, what? So Jeremiah was written in the 6th century BC. And according to this fella, I can't even remember his name now. So in the 6th century BC, the old covenant was already obsolete and ready to vanish away. That's a really, really low, slow, agonizing death for the old covenant. And not only that, we have to understand that from the Jewish perspective of things, the totality of the old covenant was a united singular unit. You didn't single out the prophets as if they were not the law. Paul called the prophets the law. Jesus said the law prophesied and the prophets were the law. So in the Jewish mind, it's all one unit. You don't have part of it passed and part of it remain valid. We'll talk about that more here momentarily. But I wrote a little paper in response to that fella. It actually got distributed throughout his congregation. I do not know the results of it, but I do know that a lot of people wanted it. But I made the following observation. If you are going to say that the old law became obsolete in the time of Jeremiah, at the time of the writing of Jeremiah, that means that any of the Old Testament books written and delivered through the Spirit, written after Jeremiah, that means they were obsolete before they were ever even written. How could something that hadn't even been written yet be obsolete and ready to vanish away? You're talking about not even making good nonsense. That's an argument that doesn't age well at all. And I also posed the question, obviously, and this was a Church of Christ guy. He would argue against the dispensational view. He would say, well, when Jesus said, repent for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near, when John said the same thing, he would argue that, well, the kingdom is drawn near. That means it's genuinely at hand. Okay, it doesn't mean 2,000 years. But this fellow's arguing that the passing of the old law took 600 plus years. Just doesn't work. No, it doesn't. It's really amazing when something that they believe very strongly, like the point that you're making, if they talk about the kingdom is near, it's right there. It's present. It's about to happen. But then when you point them to other things like the new covenant or the end of the old covenant being spoken of afterwards, it's not, or even as early as in Jeremiah, it becomes a problem for them. The other point in making that covenant end at the cross is you end up with this period, basically, of no law, because you got this gap, at least between there and Pentecost. And what do you do with that? That's not going to sit well either in terms of leaving this gap and saying that everything happened at the cross. I am reminded of Luke chapter 24, when Jesus, after his resurrection, he goes to explain all the things that he had taught the apostles and the disciples during his ministry. And of course, one of those passages you've alluded to already, Matthew 5, 18, you know, till heaven and earth pass one jowder, will in no wise passion the law till all is fulfilled. And so when you look at all of those passages in Luke 24, he says, now, these are the things that I told you while I was with you. And he enumerates them. He says, one, that the Christ should suffer. Well, that means the law ended when Jesus died on the cross. That should be the end of that sentence. That should be the end of the story right there. But it's not. We got that coordinating conjunction and in the text that says, and that he should rise from the dead the third day. Well, that's a few days after he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. And then there's another hand in that text that says, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Well, you know, it began at Jerusalem and pretty much remained in that area for quite a while until the household of Cornelius. Of course, you got the Samaritans in Acts chapter eight, but going to the Gentiles in Acts chapter 10, so that it reaches all the nations. All of that had to be fulfilled as a part of that old covenant being fulfilled. And yet, you know, it's totally ignored, not to mention the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, so many other things that were to take place. And it's just difficult to try to get them to look at it and see that all of these things had to take place along the way. And not to mention the fact, you know, that's how I became a preterist. You know, they make that one of the cornerstones of their theology and eschatology, if they are even aware of it from that perspective. But that is what changed my mind. You know, as you say, we have been so indoctrinated that the law ended at the cross. And we'd get up and preach that we felt like we were defending the faith and we were, you know, just really, really doing a great job. And I just happened to be reading the Bible one Saturday in a little makeshift study I had on the back porch in the summertime. And I came across Luke 21. And I read that. And it just kind of blew me away. I said, let me read this again. And I read it. And I said, wait a minute. Venus is talking about the Old Covenant being fulfilled. He says it's happening when the Romans are destroying Jerusalem. I said, if that's the case, the law couldn't have been fulfilled at the cross. And I said, now I need to go back and just look at some of these passages in which I knew they were there. But I had to go back and reread them just to make sure. Like Daniel 12 and Psalm 98, et cetera, you know. And going back and looking at that, I said, oh boy, this is going to be an issue here. But that's what changed my mind. Oh yeah. Luke 21, 22 is such a devastating text. And there was an author, I think from the, I think from the actually the 18th century, Nesbit, if I'm not mistaken, he wrote a little commentary. It's on Matthew chapter 24, technically. But he made the comment on Luke chapter 21, verse 22. And he said, this is a very rough paraphrase, but he said, people want to quibble about all things written. But he said, how much of all things written can you leave out of that without destroying it? Well, here's what's interesting to me, and this has happened to me numerous times, William. Several years ago, I made the argument based on Luke chapter 21, verse 22. And someone said, well, Preston, you're completely taking that passage out of context. The only thing that Jesus was saying is all things written concerning the destruction of Jerusalem were fulfilled. And I mean, you know how it is. You've been studying things and all of a sudden you're in a situation of controversy, and your mind has been assimilating all of this information, and your mind all of a sudden puts it all together. And you're going, thank you very much. And I said to that individual, I agree with you 100%. And they were shocked, literally shocked. They said, but that destroys your argument. I said, no, it fully establishes my position. And they go, what are you saying? No, it's just about the destruction of Jerusalem. I said, here's what you're overlooking. And of course, I've since written a book on this entitled, These are the Days When All Things Must Be Fulfilled. I introduced it last year, but it's the culmination of years and years, obviously, of study and research. But I made the point to this fellow. I said, here's the deal. Every constituent element of eschatology, every single one of them, you can talk about the coming of the Lord, the judgment, the resurrection, the kingdom, salvation, the new creation, just name any constituent element of salvation. And in the Old Testament, every single one of those constituent elements is in a context and linked directly grammatically to the time of the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem. And of course, they had never heard that before, never, never contemplated it. And they said, you're out of your mind. I said, no, let me illustrate. So I laid out a few passages, you know, and they literally could, well, they refused to believe it. They saw it, but they refused to believe it. So the conversation was pretty well over, you know, at that particular point of time. But that reality, and let me segue from that to Kenneth Gentry. Kenneth Gentry in his book, He Shall Have Dominion, 2009 copy of it. He said, preterists are so naive. That's a word that he uses, naive. And they mishandle the scriptures. And a prime example of that is Luke chapter 21, verse 22. And he said, their naivety and their ignorance is nowhere better illustrated than to look carefully at what Jesus said in the Greek. Because in the Greek, what it means is all things having already been written up to the time that Jesus spoke. And that means what Jesus was saying that only, and these are his words, by the way. And if anyone wants documentation of this, it's in that book that I mentioned, these are the days in which all things must be fulfilled. Okay. I documented directly from Kenneth Gentry. Kenneth Gentry says, what Jesus was saying is that all Old Testament prophecy would be fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. And when I read that, William, you can imagine my response. It was just exactly like yours just now. I go, okay. Here is the area that Dr. Gentry, not even realizing what he had said. So I have a couple of articles on my website, DonKPreston.com, BibleProphecy.com. I think it's something like The Desperation of Kenneth Gentry or something along that line, in which I give the quotes directly and I give the sources directly from Kenneth Gentry. And like I said, I know it's in his book, He Shall Have Dominion, the 2009 edition. But anyway, I said, Kenneth Gentry is exactly right. Jesus was saying every Old Testament prophecy. And I said, he does not qualify this in any way. He doesn't say all Old Testament prophecy except, or he doesn't say all Old Testament prophecy dealing with Jerusalem. No, he says all Old Testament prophecy. And I point out in the article, let's see, the Old Testament predicted the day of the Lord, the judgment, the resurrection, the coming of the kingdom, the coming of salvation, the new heaven and the new earth. And they posit that directly in the context of the fall of Jerusalem. So when a person says, hey, all that Jesus was saying was that all Old Testament prophecy would be fulfilled by AD 70, I'm glad to stand up and say, amen, welcome to the Preterist world. And by the way, Jason Bradfield, after Kenneth Gentry wrote his, he later wrote up something to that identical point. Evidently he hadn't read my response. Evidently he hadn't carefully read Kenneth Gentry. So he made the basically the same argument. And so I answered him the same way. He's never, neither Gentry or Jason Bradfield have ever written one word in response to my responses to them. Not one word, at least if they did, I haven't seen it, I'll put it like that. So William, when we're dealing here with the passing of the old law, we don't have much time left here, but obviously a critical text is Matthew 5, 17 and 18. But before we go there, I want to address John 19, 31, because let's see, it was about two weeks ago. I had a person on Facebook say, Preston, you just don't understand. I get that a lot, don't you? You just don't understand. Yeah. And maybe I don't. There's stuff I'm learning all the time. Somebody pointed something out to me from one of my videos from just the other day that I had missed. I appreciate that very much. Okay. So anyway, this individual said on the cross, Jesus said it is finished. That means the law was done. So the question is, William, is that what Jesus was saying? No, no. I think what he's saying in that text is that everything that was related to the suffering that he was to encounter was fulfilled. And that's why you have a text like Acts 3, I think the verse is 20, that talks about, is it 21? Okay. Well, I know in that context, one talks about his suffering, and then the next text talks about the things that were going to take place at the restoration of all things. I think that's verse 21. But at any rate, you have, just like in Luke 19, that distinction between what he suffered, and true enough, he suffered all those things. As a matter of fact, I'm going to go over there and look at that verse, because I want to point out particularly what it says in Acts chapter 3, and verse 20. It says, well, no, that's even before that. I think it's verse, what is it? Verse 18. But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all his holy prophets that the Christ would suffer, he has fulfilled. So that's saying those were the things that he would suffer, but that's not everything that the old covenant taught. The old covenant taught more than just the sufferings of Christ. You know, it talked about his sufferings, it talked about his resurrection, and it talked about all these other things that you've mentioned eschatologically. It talks about his sufferings and the glory to follow. Glory that would follow. Yes. 2 Peter, I mean, 1 Peter chapter 1. Yeah, 10 through 12. So yeah, all of those things had to take place, and not just the suffering. So that's what John 19, 30 is saying, you know, that when he had fulfilled all these things that the prophet had spoken of him that he was to suffer, he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. But that was not everything else. The prophet says, okay, he's got to rise on the third day, and, you know, the spirit had to be poured out, he had to ascend back to the Father, and all of these things had to occur, you know, the preaching of the gospel. Yeah, it's just like when people say, oh, the atonement was finished at the cross, the moment of the cross. Yes. And I asked them the question, well, if that's true, then Jesus didn't have to enter into the most holy place. And they go, oh, no, no, no, he had to do that. Quite frankly, I just simply do not grasp why people have a difficult time understanding that the atonement was a process. You know, and I mentioned my friend all the time, my friend in Israel, whose sons, two sons are leading, ever considered to be consummated, finished, done, and over with the simple slaying of the sacrifice? Or was it absolutely necessary for the high priest to carry that blood into the most holy place? Hebrews 9.23. Hebrews 9.23 and 24. And was it necessary that he come back out to finish the atonement? And he wrote back and he said, well, it destroys the narrative to say it was finished at the moment of the sacrifice or while he was in there. It's a complete organic unity. Well, that's from the perspective of a man who is known as a worldwide Hebrew scholar. His sons are leading rabbis. And of course, I have people all the time when I point that out. Well, that's just Jews talking. Well, you can't dismiss every single thing that the Jews believed. They believed in the inspiration of scripture, by the way. They believed the Messiah was going to come. They believed that, guess what? The kingdom was coming. Were they wrong on that? So, you know, to just simply dismiss something because that's just the Jews who believe that, that's an illegitimate argument. But I would like to refine John 19.31 even a little bit more. And I agree with everything that you said. Here is Jesus as the Passover sacrifice. At the very moment, according to several sources, at the very moment that Jesus cried out, it is finished, the high priest was finishing the Passover service and would also cry out, it is finished. So, you have the literal typological consummation of the Passover with the high priest crying out, it is finished, while Jesus on the cross, finishing his suffering, fulfilling all things written concerning his passion, his suffering, likewise cried out, it is finished. To me, when I read that in the sources behind it, I was like, okay, that's really powerful. And so, it has nothing to do with the passing of the law at that very moment. It was certainly part of the last day's drama, the last day's narrative of fulfilling all things, including all seven feasts, but the final feast would not be fulfilled until the end of the age, because that's the time of the resurrection. Okay, we'll have more to say about this next week. In the meantime, ladies and gentlemen, thanks so much for joining me here, me and William, on Two Guys and a Bible, A Voice You Can Trust. And William, thanks for being with me again, as always, great show, appreciate your comments very, very much. And with that, I will say, good night and God bless.