The jots and tittles remain in place to judge the unrighteous,
meaning, those not covered by the blood of Jesus.
That's correct.Those are blood ordinances. Christ fulfilled them on the cross.
Those jots and tittles were part of torah and only applicable to Israel.
Hebrews states that torah was nigh unto passing when it was written:
Heb 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Nope. You aren't reading it correctly.On the other side of this, if the jots and tittles are gone, then so have the "heaven and earth".
Hebrews 8:13 [FONT="]In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.It is important to know that the writer of Hebrews was referring to physical temple worship. The word "covenant" is an added word by English translators. "Covenant" is an added word in verses 7, and 13, the one you quoted, and also added in Hebrews 9:1 that is clearly referencing a "worldly sanctuary" that verse 13 in chapter 8 says it was ready to "vanish away." It did in AD 70. These 2 verse are right next to each other. Because of this, it is obvious what the writer of Hebrews was focused on in chapter 8.
Just sayin' I had to re-evaluate this for months, and then I finally got it, even though at first I didn't want to accept the focus as to what Hebrews 8 and 9 were actually saying. Jesus said He was going to build the temple, (in 3 days) and that was the spiritual one in us as 1 Corinthians 3:16 says.
Hebrews chapter 8, verses 6, 8, 9, and 10 the word "covenant" isn't an added word.
Verse 6 refers to our Mediator, the covenant with Jesus Christ.
verse 8 refers to a new covenant with Israel.
verse 9 refers to the physical covenant with Israel concerning the exodus, escape from slavery.
Verse 10 refers to putting God's law into the hearts and minds of those who believe, confirming the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:33.
Of course a person needs to know something about it before they can have it in their heads and the very core of their being. I take that as a substantial part of the "law of creation" because we are all made in "their image." Genesis 1:27 and Romans 8:29 are related to the dispensations of the Gospel.
It is important to know that the writer of Hebrews was referring to physical temple worship. The word "covenant" is an added word by English translators. "Covenant" is an added word in verses 7, and 13, the one you quoted, and also added in Hebrews 9:1 that is clearly referencing a "worldly sanctuary" that verse 13 in chapter 8 says it was ready to "vanish away." It did in AD 70. These 2 verse are right next to each other. Because of this, it is obvious what the writer of Hebrews was focused on in chapter 8.
Nope. You aren't reading it correctly.
Heaven and Earth being gone are not a requisite for all being fulfilled.
Heaven and Earth being gone are a requisite for not one jot or one tittle falling from the law, UNTIL ALL IS FULFILLED.
Really you must read the verse before this one and ask "Did the Lord accomplish what He came for or did He fail?".
Because in the previous verses (1 thru 4), that prefaces the chapter, it is clear that the "temple" in relation to the "priesthood" (physical) will be addressed in greater explanation through the rest of the chapter, summarizing the truth in the following chapter. One must take it in the entire context my friend, and I say this as to not refute the truth that you present here and there.Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Why didn't the scripture say "Temple" instead of covenant?
Hebrews 8 is not talking about the entire law in the Pentateuch. Sorry,..., you are incorrect. I'll explain.Because it is about the whole Law not just about some made up "temple" laws.
The only people that separate the law into imaginary parts are those that desire to still work at their favorite parts. They want to say some of it was fulfilled but we are still under and obligated to do this part.
Not one jot or one tittle shall pass away until all is fulfilled. Are your "temple" laws considered a jot or a tittle of the law? Yes, of course. There was no separation in the OT between a "temple" law or a "blood" ordinance. It was all part of the law. They couldn't have one without the other. Right?
I don't really find anything wrong with your post. There is no doubt that Hebrews speaks of priests and laws associated with the priesthood.Because in the previous verses (1 thru 4), that prefaces the chapter, it is clear that the "temple" in relation to the "priesthood" (physical) will be addressed in greater explanation through the rest of the chapter, summarizing the truth in the following chapter. One must take it in the entire context my friend, and I say this as to not refute the truth that you present here and there.
Hebrews 8 is not talking about the entire law in the Pentateuch. Sorry,..., you are incorrect. I'll explain.
There was a priesthood covenant, within the physical temple worship made with hands, that was defiled.
"Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites." (Nehemiah 13:29)
There is also an everlasting priesthood covenant made without hands that cannot be defiled except by those who do not believe in Jesus Christ. This is an everlasting covenant.
"We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." (Mark 14:58)
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;" (1 Peter 2:9)
This change concerning the "priesthood" transferred from Levi to Judah, on the "mount of transfiguration" doesn't change the spiritual aspects of the foreshadowing thereof.
And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel. (Numbers 25:13)
This is why Hebrews chapter 8 relates covenant with the temple. Please keep in mind, when a person consistently refers to the law delivered at mount Horeb in Arabia in a physical way only, that they are consistently bringing out carnal aspects rather than spiritual aspects according to the "New Covenant" truth.
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:1)
Let's go backwards to Hebrews chapter 7 to confirm the truth about all this, and then I will end my expose' ...
"And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." (Hebrews 7:15-16)
Yes I can when taking Hebrews chapter 8 and 9 into proper context. Now let’s address Hebrew 7:18-19.I don't really find anything wrong with your post. There is no doubt that Hebrews speaks of priests and laws associated with the priesthood.
I hadn't remembered that scripture in Nehemiah being worded like that, either.
Hebrews 7:18-19
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
You can't think this refers to a covenant of Priesthood and not to the whole law which includes the 10 Commandments?????? Can you...?
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh (blood ordinance, not the Law):
This word "Jew" should read "Israelite", one of the twelve tribes. In other words, your outward appearance has very little to do with circumcision [repentance and belief by faith]. Paul is stating that it is what is inside your heart, which is your mind that is important to God.
Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Paul is saying that anyone that knows to do good, and does what he knows is right and just, that person is of Israel, and this verse is directed to both male and female. This is a spiritual circumcision and not of the flesh, and that is why gender doesn't matter. God is the one that gives the praise to those that not only have the form of Godliness, but do the spirit of the letter of the law, either by written law or by nature.
If the Word is taught by a preacher, then the very emotions of God that are placed in the Word must be expressed also. The pages of God's Word must come alive to the listener, to where there is no confusion to those being taught. God is saying that He has praise for those that will teach in this fashion.
Although one translation does have "culmination", when we examine the context that is incorrect. Paul is saying something else. Because the Jews (particularly the Pharisees) believed that doing the works of the Law -- "the Law for righteousness" -- could save them, they needed to know that now, after the coming of Christ, and His finished work of redemption, such thinking must come to an end. It was never true to begin with, but now, in view of the Gospel, it was totally exposed as false. Please note the context:Obviously Jesus didn't put an end to law, or does "putting and end to" mean culmination...
Although one translation does have "culmination", when we examine the context that is incorrect. Paul is saying something else. Because the Jews (particularly the Pharisees) believed that doing the works of the Law -- "the Law for righteousness" -- could save them, they needed to know that now, after the coming of Christ, and His finished work of redemption, such thinking must come to an end. It was never true to begin with, but now, in view of the Gospel, it was totally exposed as false. Please note the context:
Food for thought...
The only child listening to his father was his first born son. The other kids were very unruly, never taking their father’s advise seriously. Chaos filled the house, till finally the father had had enough, and said to his oldest son, “put and end to this discord, and tell your siblings the way you see it.” They refuse to listen to me. Maybe you can shed a new light on what’s right and then they will know how to act right for their own good.
Romans 10:1-4
1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
What does “Christ is the end of the law” really mean? Did Christ bring the law to an end? If so, which law did Christ end? The law of gravity? The law of nature? The law of consequence?
Paul clearly states “But *before faith came, we were **kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But *after that faith is come, we are **no longer under a schoolmaster.” (Galatians 3:23-25)
The law that Paul is addressing in Galatians...νόμος nómos, nom'-os; from a primary νέμω némō (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), genitive case (regulation), specially, (of Moses (including the volume); also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle):—law.
The schoolmaster that Paul is addressing in Galatians...παιδαγωγός paidagōgós, pahee-dag-o-gos'; a boy-leader, i.e. a servant whose office it was to take the children to school; (by implication, (figuratively) a tutor ("pædagogue"): instructor, schoolmaster.
Schoolmaster… A tutor i.e. a guardian and guide of boys. Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at *the age of manhood.
You've got things twisted up.
So now we’re back to faith that is defined by the law according to Jesus. It’s a better way for sure. According to Jesus, if we don’t believe the writings of Moses, then how are we going to believe what He says? John 5:47
Surely we do not want to follow the way of the Judaizing Pharisees by adhering to a law without faith.
Without faith, the law is of no effect. “For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:” (Romans 4:14)
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:31)
Your argument would be very instructive if end meant termination; but as it is used in Ro 10:4, end means goal or purpose.