Did the events of Maccabees take place after the end of the Old Covenant and before the beginning of the New Covenant?

[NathanH83]

Did the Old Covenant end about 400 years before Christ?

 

[Stephen]

No. I think the book of Hebrews shows that it was phased out when the New Covenant came in.

 

[Andrew]

I believe the old covenant ended with John's baptism at the arrival of Christ

 

[RichWh1]

The history of the Maccabees is dated between the Old and New Testaments, therefore called intertesatmental.

 

[Josiah]

IMO, the Old Covenant ended on Good Friday as the curtain in the Temple was torn in two. Thus, the events surrounding the Maccabes recorded in MANY places are events belonging to the Old Covenant.




.

 

[Stephen]

I believe the old covenant ended with John's baptism at the arrival of Christ

IMO, the Old Covenant ended on Good Friday as the curtain in the Temple was torn in two.

Heb 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

This suggests that at the time of writing the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was still in operation for those in it.
Would it be just for a Jew living in the diaspora to be in a covenant with God, and then, because of some event hundreds of miles away, of which he has no knowledge, suddenly not be in that covenant?
If you want a cutoff point I suggest more likely one would be the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. That would be a cataclysmic event for the Jews and known throughout the diaspora. It would also give time for those who were in the Old Covenant at the time it became obsolete to die off.
Note, obsolete doesn't mean it not working. If I have a car and the maker brings out a new model and stops making the one I have, my car becomes obsolete but it doesn't stop working.

 

[NathanH83]

The history of the Maccabees is dated between the Old and New Testaments, therefore called intertesatmental.

So, the Old Covenant ended before the time of the Maccabees?

 

[NathanH83]

From Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

Testament:
2. The name of each general division of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures; as the Old Testament; the New Testament. The name is equivalent to covenant, and in our use of it, we apply it to the books which contain the old and new dispensations; that of Moses, and that of Jesus Christ.

Interesting. Noah Webster’s dictionary says that the word testament is equivalent with covenant.

What does scripture say?

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
-Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 9:16-17 - New King James Version

The Mediator’s Death Necessary - For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

www.biblegateway.com

Let’s look at that passage in the Young’s Literal translation:

for where a covenant is, the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, for a covenant over dead victims is stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth,
-Hebrews 9:16-17 (YLT)

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 9:16-17 - Young's Literal Translation

for where a covenant [is], the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, for a covenant over dead victims [is] stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth,

www.biblegateway.com

That’s interesting that the New King James says “testament” and the Young’s Literal says “covenant”. It’s almost as though these words are synonymous.

Covenant = Testament

So, the Old Covenant ended BEFORE the events of the Maccabees? Or after?

Seems to me the New Testament/Covenant starts with the death of the testator, who is Christ. Wouldn’t His death on the cross of Calvary mark the end of the Old Testament/Covenant, and the beginning of the New?

So, I’m a little bit confused as to what this “Inter-Testimental” time period is. What’s the time period between the old covenant and then new covenant? What? The 3 days Jesus was in the tomb?

How could the Old Testament have ended before the days of the Maccabees? How does the Old Covenant end 400 years before Christ? Seems to me that the Old Covenant was still happening right up until the time of Christ.

How can we say that the Old Covenant ended 400 years before Christ, when it was still happening right up until the time of Christ?

 

[NathanH83]

IMO, the Old Covenant ended on Good Friday as the curtain in the Temple was torn in two. Thus, the events surrounding the Maccabes recorded in MANY places are events belonging to the Old Covenant.




.

Hey look, you and I agree on something.

 

[Stephen]

From Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

Testament:
2. The name of each general division of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures; as the Old Testament; the New Testament. The name is equivalent to covenant, and in our use of it, we apply it to the books which contain the old and new dispensations; that of Moses, and that of Jesus Christ.

Interesting. Noah Webster’s dictionary says that the word testament is equivalent with covenant.

What does scripture say?

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
-Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 9:16-17 - New King James Version

The Mediator’s Death Necessary - For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

www.biblegateway.com

Let’s look at that passage in the Young’s Literal translation:

for where a covenant is, the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, for a covenant over dead victims is stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth,
-Hebrews 9:16-17 (YLT)

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 9:16-17 - Young's Literal Translation

for where a covenant [is], the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, for a covenant over dead victims [is] stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth,

www.biblegateway.com

That’s interesting that the New King James says “testament” and the Young’s Literal says “covenant”. It’s almost as though these words are synonymous.

Covenant = Testament

So, the Old Covenant ended BEFORE the events of the Maccabees? Or after?

Seems to me the New Testament/Covenant starts with the death of the testator, who is Christ. Wouldn’t His death on the cross of Calvary mark the end of the Old Testament/Covenant, and the beginning of the New?

So, I’m a little bit confused as to what this “Inter-Testimental” time period is. What’s the time period between the old covenant and then new covenant? What? The 3 days Jesus was in the tomb?

How could the Old Testament have ended before the days of the Maccabees? How does the Old Covenant end 400 years before Christ? Seems to me that the Old Covenant was still happening right up until the time of Christ.

How can we say that the Old Covenant ended 400 years before Christ, when it was still happening right up until the time of Christ?

The confusion is because we use the word covenant (or testament) to mean two different things:
1. A relationship between mankind and God.
2. An identified of a particular collection of scripture.

The first is the proper use. If we used the terms Hebrew scriptures and Christian scriptures it would be clearer.
The Hebrew scriptures cover up to 200 years before Christ (if you exclude Maccabees) but that doesn't mean the Old Covenant (meaning 1.) ceased 200 years before Christ, just the writings (meaning 2.).

 

[NathanH83]

The confusion is because we use the word covenant (or testament) to mean two different things:
1. A relationship between mankind and God.
2. An identified of a particular collection of scripture.

The first is the proper use. If we used the terms Hebrew scriptures and Christian scriptures it would be clearer.
The Hebrew scriptures cover up to 200 years before Christ (if you exclude Maccabees) but that doesn't mean the Old Covenant (meaning 1.) ceased 200 years before Christ, just the writings (meaning 2.).

Problem is though, the Christian church can’t agree on what books belong in the collection of books that we call the “Old Testament.” Some churches exclude Maccabees, other churches include Maccabees. And the churches that include Maccabees call it the “Old Testament.”

Most Protestant churches say Maccabees doesn’t belong because it takes place during the “inter-testamental” time period. But technically speaking, the Old Covenant/Testament hadn’t ended yet. It ends when Jesus dies on the cross, when the curtain was torn in two. So in reality they’re talking about a time gap that doesn’t even exist.

But when they say that Maccabees is “inter-testamental”, it’s only because they MADE it that way, because according to Catholic and Orthodox churches (and even some Protestant denominations) Maccabees IS in the Old Testament. So for them, it’s NOT “inter-testamental.”

It’s like somebody saying, “Why doesn’t Maccabees belong in the Old Testament?”

And they reply, “Because it takes place after the end of the Old Testament.”

“And how do you know it takes place after the end of the Old Testament?”

“Because we took it out of the Old Testament.”

How is this not circular reasoning?

It’s like somebody asking the museum guide, “How do we know this fossil is millions of years old?”

And the museum guide says, “We know that this fossil is millions of years old because it was found in a layer of rock that is millions of years old.”

And you say, “How do we know that layer of rock is millions of years old?”

And the museum guide says, “We know that layer of rock is millions of years old because it contains index fossils that are millions of years old.”

Ok? So you date the fossils by the rocks, and date the rocks by the fossils?

That’s circular reasoning.

In the same way…

We know that Maccabees doesn’t belong in the Bible because it takes place after the end of the Old Testament. And we know that it takes place after the end of the Old Testament because we took it out of the Old Testament. That’s how we know.

PERFECTLY NOT CIRCULAR LOGIC!

 

[NathanH83]

 

[Josiah]

Problem is though, the Christian church can’t agree on what books belong in the collection of books that we call the “Old Testament.” Some churches exclude Maccabees, other churches include Maccabees. And the churches that include Maccabees call it the “Old Testament.”

NATHAN -


You keep proving..... you like to "bait and switch"..... you start a thread with the IMPLICATION it's about one thing but it never is, it's about YOUR thing... that there must be some international law requiring all publishing houses to market tomes with the wore "BIBLE" appearing on the cover with ALL but ONLY the books listed in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (the books in the 1611 KVJ Bible of the Church of England). It just takes you a couple of posts to re-direct the thread you started on something else.

Most Protestant churches say Maccabees doesn’t belong because it takes place during the “inter-testamental” time period.

I find this entirely irrelevant to the thread AND to anything else. But here again, ZERO substantiation. There are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.... you claim at least 51% of them say one of the books with a common moniker of "Maccabees" is not in (you don't say) BECAUSE it took place in the "intertestamental period." But do you quote several thousand denominations STATING that? Do you quote even one denomination giving that as their reason? Nope. I don't question if you can fine 10 individual Christians (out of 2.2 billion) who have that opinion but that's not "most Protestant denominations"... and I also would not question if you can find 10 individual Christians who believe that Jesus was an alien from some distant planet. That also would not mean most Protestant denominations (that would be many thousands) officially STATED that as its position.


But at least we don't see your usual emphasis on PROTESTANTISM/ PROTESTANTS and CHRISTIANITY/CHRISTIANS ..... you just say "MOST Protestant DENOMINATIONS, Maybe, perhaps, you've realized SOMETHING since you started this endless obsessive rant of yours over a year ago. But still..... NOTHING. No evidence. No substantiation. Nothing. Just your speculations, guesses, rant.




.

 

[NathanH83]

NATHAN -


You keep proving..... you like to "bait and switch"..... you start a thread with the IMPLICATION it's about one thing but it never is, it's about YOUR thing... that there must be some international law requiring all publishing houses to market tomes with the wore "BIBLE" appearing on the cover with ALL but ONLY the books listed in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (the books in the 1611 KVJ Bible of the Church of England). It just takes you a couple of posts to re-direct the thread you started on something else.






I find this entirely irrelevant to the thread AND to anything else. But here again, ZERO substantiation. There are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.... you claim at least 51% of them say one of the books with a common moniker of "Maccabees" is not in (you don't say) BECAUSE it took place in the "intertestamental period." But do you quote several thousand denominations STATING that? Do you quote even one denomination giving that as their reason? Nope. I don't question if you can fine 10 individual Christians (out of 2.2 billion) who have that opinion but that's not "most Protestant denominations"... and I also would not question if you can find 10 individual Christians who believe that Jesus was an alien from some distant planet. That also would not mean most Protestant denominations (that would be many thousands) officially STATED that as its position.


But at least we don't see your usual emphasis on PROTESTANTISM/ PROTESTANTS and CHRISTIANITY/CHRISTIANS ..... you just say "MOST Protestant DENOMINATIONS, Maybe, perhaps, you've realized SOMETHING since you started this endless obsessive rant of yours over a year ago. But still..... NOTHING. No evidence. No substantiation. Nothing. Just your speculations, guesses, rant.




.

I’ve seen plenty of videos where Protestant leaders and Bible teachers use the argument that Maccabees takes place during the “inter-testamental time period.” Many of those videos are actually pastors who are preaching in front of their church. Some of those videos are put out by the head of a Bible society or the head of some kind of ministry.

So yea, there’s lot.

Oh, but you’re saying that there’s this tiny number of Protestsnts who make this argument? A number so small that it could be equivalent to the number of Christians who believe Jesus is an alien from outer-space?

I’m sorry, were you trying to actually convince me of something? I really don’t understand what you’re trying to get at, because you’re not making any sense.

 

[Josiah]

I’ve seen plenty of videos ...

So you admit.... you have NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to substantiate your derailing claim that "MOST PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS... " You can't even mention one, much less the many thousands you need to note. This is how it is with your claims.

Does truth matter to you? At all?

And did you know that not every YouTube post is verifiable truth? And that not every YouTube video is the official position of Protestant denominations?




.

 

[NathanH83]

So you admit.... you have NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to substantiate your derailing claim that "MOST PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS... " You can't even mention one, much less the many thousands you need to note. This is how it is with your claims.

Does truth matter to you? At all?

And did you know that not every YouTube post is verifiable truth? And that not every YouTube video is the official position of Protestant denominations?




.

Are you trying to convince me of something? I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at.

I’ve heard plenty of Bible teachers giving this argument about the “inter-testamental” period. I know what I’ve heard and seen.

Perhaps you’d like to get that flashy thing from Men In Black and make me forget what I’ve heard from Bible teachers.

I mean, seriously. What in the world are you even trying to convince me of?

 

[NathanH83]

So you admit.... you have NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever, to substantiate your derailing claim that "MOST PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS... " You can't even mention one, much less the many thousands you need to note. This is how it is with your claims.

Does truth matter to you? At all?

And did you know that not every YouTube post is verifiable truth? And that not every YouTube video is the official position of Protestant denominations?




.

I think you could do a better job of explaining your point. You do a lot of talking without getting to your overall objective. What is your ultimate goal with these long posts of yours?

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[NathanH83]

.

Exactly. Probably straight from Wikipedia, right? I’ve heard like bazillion Bible teachers refer to it this way, but Josiah is trying to make it sound like I’m promoting a conspiracy theory. Like, what? Obviously Protestants refer to it this way.

 

[Andrew]

Exactly. Probably straight from Wikipedia, right? I’ve heard like bazillion Bible teachers refer to it this way, but Josiah is trying to make it sound like I’m promoting a conspiracy theory. Like, what? Obviously Protestants refer to it this way.

Yep

Intertestamental period - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org