Glass of water and O.T. Law analogy

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response.

Since the writer of Hebrews was likely a Apostle(Paul) or a contemporary of Paul's, the authority of the letter is not in question. In any case, the writer of Hebrews certainly had a better understanding of what Jesus' teachings on the subject than you or I. Its also interesting that the author was Jewish himself. If it were Paul himself than he was among the Pharisees.

Blithe comments. How have you gauged the likelihood of Hebrews' authorship being as you described it? It is rather inadequate to simply assert that "the authority of the letter is not in question."

Likewise, how have you gauged the likelihood that the writer of Hebrews certainly had a better understanding of what Jesus' teachings on the subject than you or I"?

Paul himself was Jewish, but never actually met Jesus, and taught a rather independent understanding of Jesus' significance. The mere circumstance of the author's being a first-century Jew is no guarantee that he had a reliable understanding of who Jesus was or what his actual significance was.

Quote: And what then of the millions of Jews who did not inhabit Jerusalem?

I would consider them lucky, as long as they chose to believe in Jesus. Otherwise they would have lived out the rest of their life estranged from God.

Which, of course, sidesteps in a cavalier manner my actual point - that Jerusalem was but a small fraction of the nation itself.

Quote: And how many of the "remnant" were still Jewish?

If I had to guess, I would say 144,000.

So, then - to step for a moment into your paradigm, for the sake of argument - if so many thousands of Israel were in right standing, then faithful Israel endures, and retains its covenantal responsibilities and privileges in them. Hence the term "remnant."

Quote: Easy to say; difficult to prove. One could have claimed the same thing after the Babylonian destruction.

As far as I know, no one has made such a claim, nor would I.

But you have made such a claim - just at a different point in history.

All faiths outside of that which is in Jesus is invalid. Seeing the wave of dispensationalism that has covered the Christian landscape, it seems your claim of anti-Jewish sentiment is way off base.

Personally, don't see much of a difference in any religions that are outside Christianity. All lead to the same destination.

Your provincialism is difficult to swallow in light of the many millions of people whom God never deigned to expose to your gospel. Presumably he didn't care to save them?

As for "the wave of dispensationalism" - this comment also reveals a serious lack of perspective. On the one hand, the vast majority of Christians are not dispensationalist and have had no acquaintance wth dispensationalist theology. On the other hand, the majority of Christian perspective was well-established long before the brief flare of dispensationalism in the last two hundred years.

You can attempt to redefine the word ethnos all you want. The plain reading of the text indicates that the Kingdom of God is given to another nation.

Except the text does not say "another." Hence the relevance of how one construes the term ethnos.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets.
5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Certainly Abraham was a Prophet.

OK - so you are saying that because Jesus made a comment about fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and because somewhere in that field of literature one can make a typological inferrence about God providing a sacrificial lamb, that this constitutes "Jesus say[ing] that his crucifixion and resurrection fulfill the "old covenant" in such a way as to do away with it"?

Quote: the gospels were written after Pentecost, and they could have outlined Jesus' teaching on this matter during the covenant post-resurrection period.

It would not seem unlikely that the Gospel writers wanted only to record the exact words of the Lord with out making their commentary part of the Gospel.

Which is not so much borne out by the incidental comments and structural designs found in the gospels. But regardless - then you seem to admit that Jesus did not give exact words on this matter.


Shalom,
Emmet