Interplanner
Well-known member
1, the whole old covenant apparatus was a shadow of the reality in Christ, which is now here, in case you missed it (there are some people here at TOL who don't seem to know that the Christ of the NT has come; they keep talking like this has not happened yet, like they never read Jn 4:23. Of course, some of them only read a handful of OT chapters, favs, and never read what the NT says about those same...)
2, the shadow/reality contrast is a contrast. They are not one fabric. This is not a "Hebrews--Jude" concept only for Jews, which is an entirely stupid thing to say anyway. This same expression is in Colossians and the same posture is in Galatians.
3, there is no restoring the land apart from the old covenant. Both or neither. You don't go back and confine things to the land without confining spirituality to the sacrifice system that 'was an annual reminder of sin.' This explains much of the confusion here when people think that system will be resumed, or think that Christ hasn't really fulfilled the old system in His reality, or even more bizarre--think there will be another crucifixion event in the future.
4, once again the whole old system is set aside, replaced. Some people are traumatized by the Bible saying there is a replacement. There is. Deal with it. This is not the only time Hebrews said this, either. And this is HEBREWS which is supposed one of the Jewish letters in the Jewish only section of Hebrews--Jude, which is nonsense.
5, there is a sense in Hebrews' expressions 'made perfect' and 'made holy' that is meant only about sin's debt. Of course, if you were in Judaism, and stopped doing the sacrificial system because you realized Christ had replaced it, that would be a way of being perfect/holy, relative to Judaism. But it does not mean sinless in the day to day sense. See the paradox of v14.
6, some people dink around with Passover or Atonement as though the final reality of them has not happened and there is some huge significance. The same people don't think Christ has fulfilled entirely what Israel was meant to be. Well 10:10 and 14 clear that up.
7, ch 10 repeats its interp of the Jer 31 passage, and informs us that it is all completed, finished, realized, accomplished. It is not about geography or territory. It is about the forgiveness of sins that replaces the old system of sacrifices. there is nothing else to it. This is a repeat of what ch 8 quoted at length but fixing our attention on what matters.
7A, if there was anywhere in the NT where the 'land' promise was supposed to be confirmed, it would be here. It is not. There is no doing the land promise without the sacrificial system and temple, and all that is fading away. There is no reaffirmation of it, and no future expectation which would clash hopelessly with what ch 9 and 10 have just said about the new covenant we now enjoy.
8, there is nothing in Hebrews that reasserts the previous promises in the sense that the ordinary person might see if they read only the OT and never knew what the NT was up to. In fact, it retroactively (along with other places in the NT) says that the promises to the fathers never was about the land, but about a land above, 11:16, which is meant to connect with 12:22's city of the living God. This is not abstract because 12:22+ goes on in detail about what the OT and NT really were engaged in.
There is a veil about reading the OT without the retroactive meaning supplied by the NT. this veil is only removed in Christ.
2, the shadow/reality contrast is a contrast. They are not one fabric. This is not a "Hebrews--Jude" concept only for Jews, which is an entirely stupid thing to say anyway. This same expression is in Colossians and the same posture is in Galatians.
3, there is no restoring the land apart from the old covenant. Both or neither. You don't go back and confine things to the land without confining spirituality to the sacrifice system that 'was an annual reminder of sin.' This explains much of the confusion here when people think that system will be resumed, or think that Christ hasn't really fulfilled the old system in His reality, or even more bizarre--think there will be another crucifixion event in the future.
4, once again the whole old system is set aside, replaced. Some people are traumatized by the Bible saying there is a replacement. There is. Deal with it. This is not the only time Hebrews said this, either. And this is HEBREWS which is supposed one of the Jewish letters in the Jewish only section of Hebrews--Jude, which is nonsense.
5, there is a sense in Hebrews' expressions 'made perfect' and 'made holy' that is meant only about sin's debt. Of course, if you were in Judaism, and stopped doing the sacrificial system because you realized Christ had replaced it, that would be a way of being perfect/holy, relative to Judaism. But it does not mean sinless in the day to day sense. See the paradox of v14.
6, some people dink around with Passover or Atonement as though the final reality of them has not happened and there is some huge significance. The same people don't think Christ has fulfilled entirely what Israel was meant to be. Well 10:10 and 14 clear that up.
7, ch 10 repeats its interp of the Jer 31 passage, and informs us that it is all completed, finished, realized, accomplished. It is not about geography or territory. It is about the forgiveness of sins that replaces the old system of sacrifices. there is nothing else to it. This is a repeat of what ch 8 quoted at length but fixing our attention on what matters.
7A, if there was anywhere in the NT where the 'land' promise was supposed to be confirmed, it would be here. It is not. There is no doing the land promise without the sacrificial system and temple, and all that is fading away. There is no reaffirmation of it, and no future expectation which would clash hopelessly with what ch 9 and 10 have just said about the new covenant we now enjoy.
8, there is nothing in Hebrews that reasserts the previous promises in the sense that the ordinary person might see if they read only the OT and never knew what the NT was up to. In fact, it retroactively (along with other places in the NT) says that the promises to the fathers never was about the land, but about a land above, 11:16, which is meant to connect with 12:22's city of the living God. This is not abstract because 12:22+ goes on in detail about what the OT and NT really were engaged in.
There is a veil about reading the OT without the retroactive meaning supplied by the NT. this veil is only removed in Christ.
