Interplanner
Well-known member
The phantom NT validation of a future restored land of Israel has at least one major problem: it failed to show up in Hebrews.
To be more exact, it does not show in 9:28.
as you know, the 'end of the ages' in 26 is not the 2nd coming. That will be a surprise to D'ist friends. It is prob from Daniel's 70 time periods because the scene at the end of Dan 9 is the ruin of the country even though Messiah accomplishes everything he was destined to accomplish--and everything listed in Hebrews 9 (funny how that works out!).
But there is more. We should be finding some reference here in Hebrews 9-10 about setting the temple back up, going back under the law, how Israel would go back under the law, etc. Instead there is the detailed explanation that now that Christ has come and accomplished the 7 things listed in Daniel 9, there is no more need for it.
That means what we should really have in Heb 9-10 if D'ism means anything is a detailed explanation of how you go back and forth between the ultimate atonement event and the training pictures provided in Judaism. There is not the slightest indication that this is going to happen. The worship system of Judaism was set aside.
When summarizing what the new covenant would bring, the comments of Heb 10 are simply:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."
v18 then says that 'you don't do sacrifices for sins' anymore--the kind in the worship system.
The end of ch 10 goes on to explain that since we have that new and living way of worship (the sacrificed body of Christ) we are warned against trampling the Son of God underfoot, and can gladly let go of our property (in Judea) because of better possessions in Christ. In this context of departing from Judaism, I can't think of anything more likely to 'trample' the Son of God than a return to the sacrificial system of Judaism.
Parallel to the trampling is treating the blood of the covenant as unholy, and insulting the Spirit of grace. Steep words, especially in the setting of 1st century Judea.
(This essay edicated to PJ who says I don't deal with specific texts and just have general muddled doctrine).
To be more exact, it does not show in 9:28.
as you know, the 'end of the ages' in 26 is not the 2nd coming. That will be a surprise to D'ist friends. It is prob from Daniel's 70 time periods because the scene at the end of Dan 9 is the ruin of the country even though Messiah accomplishes everything he was destined to accomplish--and everything listed in Hebrews 9 (funny how that works out!).
But there is more. We should be finding some reference here in Hebrews 9-10 about setting the temple back up, going back under the law, how Israel would go back under the law, etc. Instead there is the detailed explanation that now that Christ has come and accomplished the 7 things listed in Daniel 9, there is no more need for it.
That means what we should really have in Heb 9-10 if D'ism means anything is a detailed explanation of how you go back and forth between the ultimate atonement event and the training pictures provided in Judaism. There is not the slightest indication that this is going to happen. The worship system of Judaism was set aside.
When summarizing what the new covenant would bring, the comments of Heb 10 are simply:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."
v18 then says that 'you don't do sacrifices for sins' anymore--the kind in the worship system.
The end of ch 10 goes on to explain that since we have that new and living way of worship (the sacrificed body of Christ) we are warned against trampling the Son of God underfoot, and can gladly let go of our property (in Judea) because of better possessions in Christ. In this context of departing from Judaism, I can't think of anything more likely to 'trample' the Son of God than a return to the sacrificial system of Judaism.
Parallel to the trampling is treating the blood of the covenant as unholy, and insulting the Spirit of grace. Steep words, especially in the setting of 1st century Judea.
(This essay edicated to PJ who says I don't deal with specific texts and just have general muddled doctrine).
