+- Radix Fidem (https://radixfidem.org)
+-- Forum: About Radix Fidem (https://radixfidem.org/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Sermons, Teachings, Blog Posts (https://radixfidem.org/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: NT Doctrine -- Hebrews 9 (/thread-1561.html)
NT Doctrine -- Hebrews 9 - Ed Hurst - 10-05-2024
The author lays out his core argument: The Covenant of Christ is an eternal covenant rooted in Heaven, not a national covenant rooted on earth, as the Covenant of Moses was.
Having just declared that a new covenant was necessary, he goes back and reviews how the old one worked. It had rules about rituals, the Tabernacle layout, furnishings, and those curtains. He runs through the basic design of things, including the Ark of the Covenant and what was in it. The rituals were required on a regular basis.
The author didn't want to get bogged down in the details, but the priests only entered the main chamber on a regular basis, and the High Priest saw the actual holy place representing God's throne room only once yearly. Even that single visit required offering blood for his own ritual purity, and then for the nation as a whole. And even with all that, the High Priest was at risk of dying from God's wrath.
Keeping peace with God was a very solemn and fearful thing. All of those rituals only covered the unintentional sins, not any actual rebellion against God. The whole package presumed an honest heart in submission to Jehovah. It could not solve a bad attitude. If they had clear hearts, then it allowed them gain access to the covenant blessings God had promised for those at peace with Him. The way was not fully opened as long as the old system remained.
Christ stands as the Lord of a new covenant. There is no mass of rituals and veils; the way into God's Presence and peace is opened -- the blessings that were only hinted at by the symbols of the old. The Elect of old never had any kind of assurance that they would see Eternity. In Christ, the Elect can receive that assurance of adoption as children of the Father. Jesus wiped away the sense of doubt they had harbored under the Old Covenant.
The author then shifts to the imagery of an inheritance. The one who made the will must die before it is revealed. It's just a proposal until then. Well, that first covenant was attested by death, and the bloodshed of ritual offering animals. Moses engaged in quite a rigmarole with the people to get their attention and encourage them to take it seriously. That blood was sprinkled on everything.
Just so, since the most ancient times of human memory, sin could not be covered without some bloodshed. Though as fallen creatures, we all deserved to die for our own sinful nature, God from the earliest times outside the Garden accepted the bloodshed of some proxy sacrifice as a symbol of just how grave this whole business was.
Well, the heavenly sacrifice Jesus made also included bloodshed, the final sacrifice for which all previous sacrifices were just a symbol. Approaching the actual throne of God in Heaven required a real sacrifice of genuinely innocent blood, someone who could carry the burden of the Fall.
It was an eternal sacrifice. Otherwise, we'd have the silly spectacle of Jesus having to die on the Cross again and again. The long period of symbolism is over; at the end of human probation, the final price has been paid once for all. When humans die, they face their individual judgment. When Christ returns, it will be the Final Judgment of all things. Are we not eagerly awaiting that day?
Note: For the Hebrews, the term "salvation" refers to the Covenant blessings. The blessings of the Old Covenant were merely a symbol of our Eternal blessings as Children of Resurrection in the final Promised Land.
RE: NT Doctrine -- Hebrews 9 - jaybreak - 10-05-2024
"God from the earliest times outside the Garden accepted the bloodshed of some proxy sacrifice as a symbol of just grave this whole business was."
I've heard a few people say something like this, but I think the point is hard to accept for a lot of people. We can't conceive of something so serious as God condoning killing a person or an animal to "prove a point." I would say if you can't understand that, you don't quite understand how important eternity is for us.