Since there seems to be a lot of interest in the topic of covenants...
The book of Hebrews is where we find most of what christians use for their doctrine of what the old covenant is and what replaced the old covenant.
The problem with interpreting Hebrews is that it was written for a specific audience who had thorough knowledge of the Jewish economy and ceremonial law.
From wikipedia:
"Traditional scholars have argued the letter's audience was Jewish Christians, as early as the end of the second century (hence its title, "The Epistle to the Hebrews"). However, Hebrews is part of an internal New Testament debate between the extreme "Judaizers" (who argued that non-Jews must convert to Judaism before they can receive the Holy Spirit of Jesus's Jewish covenant) versus the extreme "lawless ones" (who argued that Jews must reject God's commandments and that God's eternal Torah was no longer in effect). Peter and Paul represent the moderates of each faction, respectively. The Epistle emphasizes non-Jewish followers of Jesus do not need to convert to Judaism to share in all of God's promises to Jews. Liberal American theologian Edgar Goodspeed notes, "But the writer's Judaism is not actual and objective, but literary and academic, manifestly gained from the reading of the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, and his polished Greek style would be a strange vehicle for a message to Aramaic-speaking Jews or Christians of Jewish blood."
Wouldn't it stand to reason that it would not be appropriate for a person to try to read and understand without first consulting and gathering at least a working knowledge of the the ceremonial law of the Jews. Not to imply that anyone here has not done this, but it seems as a whole most christians have little knowledge of the Jewish priesthood, sacrificial system, and feasts. Without this knowledge how can anyone try to understand what the writer of hebrews is trying to convey?
It would be like someone trying to understand a book on advanced chemistry without first understanding the concepts of general chemistry.
It seems that too many are readily accepting a popular tradition that the old covenant is the whole old testament or as some people refer to the "old law", when in fact the covenant is not anything but an agreement, It is not law, it is not books of scripture it is an AGREEMENT.
They then take it even farther and use this tradition to then propagate the idea that since the old covenant has "waxed old" that it is no longer needed for instruction or doctrine.
If one would do some study of what the book of Hebrews is about and who it was written to it would become quite evident that the book is about not the whole old testament but, the CEREMONIAL LAW of the jewish economy with its priesthood, sacrifices and offerings, and feast days.
This from Blue letter Bible on a brief synopsis of Hebrews:
"Epistle to Hebrews. St. Paul maintains that Christ is the substance of the ceremonial law."
If the book of Hebrews is about the Ceremonial law then why do we throw out everything else as the "old covenant?"
Just some thoughts to ponder
The book of Hebrews is where we find most of what christians use for their doctrine of what the old covenant is and what replaced the old covenant.
The problem with interpreting Hebrews is that it was written for a specific audience who had thorough knowledge of the Jewish economy and ceremonial law.
From wikipedia:
"Traditional scholars have argued the letter's audience was Jewish Christians, as early as the end of the second century (hence its title, "The Epistle to the Hebrews"). However, Hebrews is part of an internal New Testament debate between the extreme "Judaizers" (who argued that non-Jews must convert to Judaism before they can receive the Holy Spirit of Jesus's Jewish covenant) versus the extreme "lawless ones" (who argued that Jews must reject God's commandments and that God's eternal Torah was no longer in effect). Peter and Paul represent the moderates of each faction, respectively. The Epistle emphasizes non-Jewish followers of Jesus do not need to convert to Judaism to share in all of God's promises to Jews. Liberal American theologian Edgar Goodspeed notes, "But the writer's Judaism is not actual and objective, but literary and academic, manifestly gained from the reading of the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, and his polished Greek style would be a strange vehicle for a message to Aramaic-speaking Jews or Christians of Jewish blood."
Wouldn't it stand to reason that it would not be appropriate for a person to try to read and understand without first consulting and gathering at least a working knowledge of the the ceremonial law of the Jews. Not to imply that anyone here has not done this, but it seems as a whole most christians have little knowledge of the Jewish priesthood, sacrificial system, and feasts. Without this knowledge how can anyone try to understand what the writer of hebrews is trying to convey?
It would be like someone trying to understand a book on advanced chemistry without first understanding the concepts of general chemistry.
It seems that too many are readily accepting a popular tradition that the old covenant is the whole old testament or as some people refer to the "old law", when in fact the covenant is not anything but an agreement, It is not law, it is not books of scripture it is an AGREEMENT.
They then take it even farther and use this tradition to then propagate the idea that since the old covenant has "waxed old" that it is no longer needed for instruction or doctrine.
If one would do some study of what the book of Hebrews is about and who it was written to it would become quite evident that the book is about not the whole old testament but, the CEREMONIAL LAW of the jewish economy with its priesthood, sacrifices and offerings, and feast days.
This from Blue letter Bible on a brief synopsis of Hebrews:
"Epistle to Hebrews. St. Paul maintains that Christ is the substance of the ceremonial law."
If the book of Hebrews is about the Ceremonial law then why do we throw out everything else as the "old covenant?"
Just some thoughts to ponder
