The New Covenant The Cup and the Bread of the Messiah (Continued) Remembering all of the previous Scriptures, doesn’t this verse seem contrary to the Everlasting Covenant – the Salt Covenant? Bible scholars argued for centuries about the book of Hebrews, whether it should even be in the New Testament part of the Bible. Primary in this debate was the question of its authorship. Some said that the Apostle Paul. The book speaks of Timothy who worked with Paul at the very end. Others argue that the book was written in the second century by a Church leader (possibly Clement) in Italy trying to move Hebrew Christians to leave their Jewish ways. All of the other books of the New Testament are written by Apostles with first-hand testimony to the Messiah with first century testimonies. All of the books were scrutinized extensively to ensure continuity with the words of the Messiah and the previous Scriptures. The Gospel of Thomas (even though he was an Apostle) was rejected because it failed to emphasize the deity of Yeshua as the Gospel of John and others do. However, they made an exception for the book of Hebrews. Apparently because of its opposition to the Law of Moses, which Jerome agreed with. There are contradictions and mistakes in the book of Hebrews that have Bible scholars scratching their heads to this day. Let me give you some quick examples. The word “new” is a relative term and its use in the New Testament does not automatically mean that something there is “old” and done away with as Hebrew 8:13 says. The Messiah gave His disciples a “new” commandment in John 13 to “love one another.” It turns out that it is not a “new” commandment at all; it is a very “old” commandment, but it was “new” to them because they had never obeyed it before. Following the example of Yeshua, you could make the exact argument for the “new” covenant prophesied by Jeremiah. Since Israel had never obeyed with their hearts, having the commandments written on their hearts would certainly be a “New” Covenant for them. The writer of the book of Hebrews went another direction with the word “new.” He used the opposite logic. If something is “new” then something before it must be “old.” Then there are the mistakes in the book of Hebrews that relate directly to our discussion of God’s seven covenants. Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aarons rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. Hebrews 9:1-5 Wait a minute, the Mosaic Covenant is not the first covenant. The covenant with Adam was the first. If the word first means the former covenant, it is still not right. There are many former covenants (plural), not just one (singular). The writer has simplified the previous Scriptures to the extent that they are distorted. Look a little further at this passage. The writer states that the golden altar of incense was stationed with the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. This is incorrect. The Altar of Incense was in the Holy Place with the Menorah and Table of Shewbread. A teacher making that mistake today would be considered incompetent to the task of teaching the Bible. Why do I bring these particular mistakes up? Because these obvious errors are immediately following the statement that the New has made the Old obsolete. Hebrews 8:13 is immediately followed by Hebrews 9:1-5. When the Biblical text was originally written, chapters and verses were put in the Scripture later for referencing purposes by Bible scholars. The separation of these verses are artificial. What if the word “new” used by Jeremiah was in the same manner as that spoken of by the Messiah with the disciples and as the Bible says elsewhere “There is nothing ‘new’ under the Sun?” What if there are not just two covenants in the Bible, the first one and the New one? What if the New Covenant is really the sixth covenant forming part of the Everlasting Covenant? That is what Jeremiah prophesied the New Covenant to be. What if the writer of Hebrews is really opposed to the Law of Moses, preferring to do something “new” that is different from the Temple in Jerusalem? He minimizes the teaching of the Temple, its service, and its principles of worship and makes simple mistakes about what actually sits in the Holy of Holies. What if he overstates the argument for the priesthood of the Messiah by discrediting and finding fault with the priests after Aaron? Is that a valid way to properly explain the Messiah, finding fault with others anointed by God to do what they did? Is the book of Hebrews an example of Scriptures written by Holy Men moved by the Holy Spirit, or is it a better example of a second or third century Churchman trying to sound like a first century Apostle with an agenda to get rid of the Jewish writings (the Old Testament). By the way, the book of Hebrews is one of the last books put in the New Testament. It was included in the New Testament by Jerome, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) in the fourth century. Jerome referred to the Jews as “accursed of God.” The problems with the book of Hebrews don’t stop there. If you go a bit further the writer continues. For where a covenant is, there must of be (of necessity) the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. Hebrews 9:16-17
Posted on: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:00:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015