I never wrote that the second half of Heb 8:13 refutes the first half. Instead I wrote that both halves complement each other. The old covenant is obsolete for those who are already in Christ, but for the Jews the covenant is yet to be fulfilled as it is becoming obsolete and growing old. Heb 8:8 states"
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
"I will" indicates that at the time of Hebrews being written, this promise is still a future event which certainly cannot apply to the church. Yes the church does inherit the promises of the new covenant but this particular verse refers to a time in the future where God will establish a new covenant directed at the Jews - not the church which is already privy to the new covenant.
Paul is explaining that the prophecy has been fulfilled. He's not indicating that the Jews were still waiting on that prophecy to come true in the future. The future tense in those quoted words are in the original prophecy. In Paul's time the future had arrived and that's what he's telling them. And he specifically says that this new covenant was better and was for both Jews and Gentiles. In another place he says this:
Ephesians 2:15-16
"by
abolishing in His flesh the
law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself
one new man out of the two, thus making peace 16 and
reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility."
Paul NEVER taught that the Jews were waiting on a new and different covenant than the one Christ already delivered. Christ died for the express purpose of establishing ONE body.
If I understand you correctly, where did you get the notion that the law purifies from sin? The law had no such intent. Heb 10:4 states that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins. Moreover, 1 Tim 1:8 states that the law is good, if one uses it correctly. How can the law be used correctly if the law is already dead as you allege??
Yes, and he has made it plain already in that letter that Christ already made the
one sacrifice for
all sin. So in this context he's saying that they can no longer (bulls and goats) take away sin, not that they never took away sins. Why? Because the perfect sacrifice has now been given which makes these animal sacrifices obsolete.
First he says:
Hebrews 9:
But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption.
It is AFTER this assertion that he says that the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin. Because Christ has already offered the ultimate sacrifice. Then he also compares the one sacrifice to the many telling them that the one is a perfect and better sacrifice. He's not saying the animals never took away sin. In fact he states plainly that under the old law remission occurred when he talked about the priests having to even offer sacrifices for their own sin before they administered the sacrifices for the people. An obsolete law which once provided remission can no longer do that.
Now also, if you truly want to reconcile 8:13 you have to remember that he just quoted a prophecy, one which he says was fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice and resurrection.
So when we compare the two "sides" of this passage his language is in that context.
"In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete (according to Jeremiah 31:34) and growing old is ready to vanish away."
The prophecy spoke of things that were coming. His language there in that second sentence is referring to the future language of the prophecy. It has come true. The law is now obsolete. And what was prophesied to become obsolete is now ready to pass away forever. This is literary shorthand that was used often. Even Jesus spoke this way when he referred to fulfilled prophecy.
Matthew 11:14
And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.
Do we then think that we're still waiting on Elijah? No, Jesus is essentially quoting the prophecy as it was understood. John was already beheaded when he said that.
His disciples talked like that too. What does Martha say to Jesus who is standing in front of her and has already come into the world?
John 11:27
"She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”
To read 8:13 as somehow talking about a separate covenant for Jews is not only grossly dismissive of the surrounding context (and the myriad of other verses which teach the opposite), it is not even correct for the sentence in question because nothing of a second covenant which only applied to Jews is being discussed. That is your pretext, your belief that the Jews are still waiting for some promise. They aren't. There are no more promises to be kept. God kept his promise. Paul makes that clear a few chapters back when he says that this new Covenant was based on better promises by a God who cannot lie.
I didn't show contradiction. Read my post again. I showed complementation.
Not at all. You are trying to argue that the old Covenant isn't really dead for Jews when Paul clearly states that it indeed is obsolete. That is in no way complimentary, it is an utter repudiation of the first sentence in 8:13.
I believe you wrote that the church has replaced Israel did you not? Thus you believe in replacement theology. That is your prerogative which I do not subscribe to.
I believe what Paul wrote. You can call that whatever you want but I call it the gospel.
Agreed, but I am oblivious to how that relates to our discussion. As far as the temple goes, there is our spiritual temple but also a future physical temple as well. The existence of one does not automatically negate the other as that would be a logical fallacy known as an either-or dilemma. The future Millennial temple complete with its physical dimensions is described in Ezekiel 40-48.
That is a prophecy about Jesus. The physical dimensions are not literal, they are written to demonstrate of the certainty of Christ's coming. It's a foregone conclusion. The dimensions are measured. You're making the same mistake the Pharisees did. The temple was rebuilt. If a physical temple is rebuilt it will be an abomination to God, not the fulfillment of prophecy. Jesus told his apostles that the prophecies were about him. He told this to the Pharisees too.
At the end of John 2, we read that the apostles remembered later that he said the temple would be rebuilt and believed after he was resurrected that HE was the subject of the prophecies about the rebuilt temple.
John 2:19-20
Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
Yeah Paul wasn't confused as he wrote his epistles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However us sheep are prone to getting confused and lost. So is the case with your analogy as the church is not spiritual Israel.
The scripture plainly states that the church as the wild olive tree [church] is grafted unto the cultivated olive tree [Israel] per Rom 11:16-24. When a grafting takes place, the cutting which is grafted on to the plant become a part that plant. It certainly does not replace that plant. Therefore in like manner, the church as the cutting, does not replace Israel which it is grafted on to.
That's right because both Jews and Gentiles are part of the tree. So like I said, the term "replacement theology" is an epithet. The gospel does not say that Jews are left off the tree or 'replaced.' They are the natural branches of that tree (Jesus is the roots and trunk) and Gentiles were grafted onto it. The only people part of that tree now are those who obey the gospel. Or how would you propose to explain this:
"And if
some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches."
Who was broken off? Those who refused to obey the Gospel. If there were a covenant for Jews only, that is still to take place, then it really is odd indeed that the apostles, all Jews, never once preached such a thing.
Spiritual Israel is the church. That isn't a replacement of anything as Paul eloquently writes. There was a new covenant and both Jews and Gentiles have the opportunity even now to be a part of it.
