I was discussing with some Messianic Jews whether the Torah is still valid. And these brothers still see the Torah as belonging to the Jews, and still valid for them. I informed them that animal sacrifices were temporary forms of atonement, that a better covenant was needed that could cover Israel forever--even in times of failure in their covenant with God. They disagreed, insisting that nothing in the Bible indicates the Law was "temporary." Here is what I said:
Yes, we disagree. I find that the NT apostles taught that the Law was only until Christ died on the cross, producing final atonement. Animal sacrifices had been intended by God only to be temporary.
Heb 8.6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises... 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.... 23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.... 10.1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.
The temple system was curtailed by God for 2 reasons.
1) Israel failed, during the worst time in her history, their covenant with God.
2) Animal sacrifices were never intended to complete atonement for Israel, which had to cover Israel both in their best times and in their worst times. It had to cover Israel even when they were unworthy of their covenant with God.
Thus, the animal sacrifices and the temple system were always intended to be temporary, because they could not cover Israel during the time of their worst sins and during their failure in maintaining covenant with God. Christ fulfilled that role.
Do you agree or disagree with how I depict this reason for a change in covenants?
Yes, we disagree. I find that the NT apostles taught that the Law was only until Christ died on the cross, producing final atonement. Animal sacrifices had been intended by God only to be temporary.
Heb 8.6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises... 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.... 23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.... 10.1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.
The temple system was curtailed by God for 2 reasons.
1) Israel failed, during the worst time in her history, their covenant with God.
2) Animal sacrifices were never intended to complete atonement for Israel, which had to cover Israel both in their best times and in their worst times. It had to cover Israel even when they were unworthy of their covenant with God.
Thus, the animal sacrifices and the temple system were always intended to be temporary, because they could not cover Israel during the time of their worst sins and during their failure in maintaining covenant with God. Christ fulfilled that role.
Do you agree or disagree with how I depict this reason for a change in covenants?