Yes making old, or obsolete if you must. Not obsolete, making obsolete, near to disappearing, not disappeared.
It was not made obsolete it was made old. How do we know because if it were obsolete then it would not be becoming obsolete, GROWING OLD near to disappearing as the text states. It would obsolete good for nothing, gone.
(LEB)
Heb 8:13 In calling it new, he has declared the former to be old. Now what is
becoming obsolete and growing old
is near to disappearing.
"In saying 'new,' he
has made the first obsolete (
πεπαλαίωκεν). And what is
becoming obsolete (
παλαιούμενον) and
growing old (
γηράσκον) is near to disappearing."
1. he has made the first obsolete (πεπαλαίωκεν)
2. is becoming obsolete (παλαιούμενον)
3. growing old (γηράσκον)
You've pulled your meaning from 2 and 3 but have ignored 1, which is a selective use of the context being presented; it's cherry picking and can be seen as deliberately suppressing to push a certain position and still lacks transparency. Christ has made the first obsolete; this is the first point, and clearly Christ has performed it. Regardless of what verbs you reject, the action is a completed action, not a progressive action. Christ has completed this action upon the old covenant. This is also the natural inference of the new and old by the nature of the adjectives used. The point is that there is something called a "new" then the former becomes the "old", but this is not an arbitrary declaration. Christ has ordained the former as "new" and ordained the latter as "old"; it is his action upon these covenants that has made them this way, not simply because one comes after the other or one was made earlier. This happens upon Christ's death and resurrection, where the new becomes the acting covenant and the former is "made old."
Obsolete works in context because that is the inference of making a new thing, then declaring the former thing old. That old thing is not "old" because of time; it is old because it was declared that way, and another was declared as a better way. All this is happening in v13, Christ declares what the new is and what the old is, and this action is complete.
2 & 3 is becoming old/aging. Hebrews is written while the Temple sacrifice/service was still being performed. The timing is often cited within the 60s and typically in the late 60s. 70 AD the temple was destroyed, and Temple sacrifice/service has not continued since. Upon Christ's death and resurrection, the temple system did not become null and void. Its practice continued and may still have carried authentic worship and service to God. There was a new covenant in place that did not require the old temple system, with the new being a better way, but the old was still functional in practice, albeit aging.
The text says it is becoming old/aging. Who is doing the "becoming old" or "aging"? This is not revealed as an action of Christ (Christ already made it old), this is more fitting of a natural aging process, the word itself is stated passively. We know temple practice stopped upon the destruction of the temple, so we have an exact moment when this ends, but even without the destruction of the temple, there is a transition of catching up to what Christ has already declared. Since Hebrews was written in the 60s (and probably in the late 60s), and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, even if the system could have extended beyond 70 AD or still referred to as "aging" in practice, it stops and ceases to function, leaving only the new covenant system. If, upon Christ's death and resurrection to 70 AD we can say there was a dual covenant happening but from 70 AD + the former ceases to operate, leaving only the new as the only covenant system. Christ formally makes it old; that part is completed and is clear in the text. When it completes the transition from old to new to old may be ambiguous in the text of a "when"; however, we know the exact moment it stopped and was no longer functional, which is the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
My problem with your view is that you seem to sweep Christ's completed action under a rug, as if it never happened. I'm admitting it's all there and reconciling it coherently and based on historic information, you're just crossing out the first and only accepting the latter and telling me "obsolete" is the wrong word. I find your position doesn't embrace the complete text and lacks transparency, or at least you're not being truthful to yourself. You've read the same words I have, you've even given me praise for breaking down the Greek, yet you have chosen to ignore it and instead only address the latter, even using uppercase like that trumps Christ's completed action. If uppercase is the thing that works for you, then let me help you out "HE HAS MADE THE FIRST OBSOLETE." How much clearer do you need it to be?
