THE VERSES ARE SCRIPTURE — THE ARROWS ARE INTERPRETATION
PART 5 — WHAT BECAME OBSOLETE?
Greg Witter | Ephraim’s Cry
Hebraic Mindset Study Series
Study • Learn • Apply • Grow • Share ☆ Repeat
Hebrews 8, Jeremiah 31, the Covenant They Broke, and the Difference Between a Covenant Administration Becoming Obsolete and Torah Becoming Obsolete
Another theological arrow repeatedly appears in arguments concerning Torah:
FIRST COVENANT → OBSOLETE → TORAH OBSOLETE
Hebrews 8 is quoted.
The word obsolete is emphasized.
Then the conclusion is announced:
“The Old Covenant became obsolete. Torah was the Old Covenant. Therefore Torah became obsolete.”
It sounds straightforward.
But once again, the verses may be Scripture.
THE ARROWS ARE INTERPRETATION.
And the arrow must be proven.
The first question is not:
“Does Hebrews say something became obsolete?”
It does.
The real questions are:
What became obsolete?
What was wrong?
Where was the fault found?
What had been broken?
What does the New Covenant replace or renew?
And what does Yahuah Himself say He will put inside His people under that New Covenant?
Those questions cannot be answered by importing a theological system into the word obsolete.
We have to read Hebrews.
And Hebrews takes us directly back to Jeremiah.
START WITH WHAT HEBREWS ACTUALLY SAYS
Hebrews 8:6 says concerning Yahusha:
«“But now He has obtained a more excellent service, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was constituted on better promises.”»
Then verse 7 says:
«“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.”»
That verse is frequently treated as though it says:
“Yahuah’s Torah was faulty.”
But that is not what Hebrews says.
Keep reading.
Verse 8 begins:
«“For finding fault with them…”»
Stop.
WITH WHOM?
The text does not say:
“Finding fault with My Torah.”
It says:
“finding fault with them.”
The people are immediately brought into the issue.
That distinction matters.
WHAT DOES JEREMIAH SAY WAS BROKEN?
Hebrews 8 then quotes Jeremiah 31.
That means Jeremiah controls the meaning of the quotation.
Jeremiah 31:31–32 says:
«“See, the days are coming, declares Yahuah, when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Yisra’el and with the house of Yahudah, not like the covenant I made with their fathers in the day when I strengthened their hand to bring them out of the land of Mitsrayim, My covenant which they broke…”»
Read the words carefully.
What did Yahuah say happened?
MY COVENANT WHICH THEY BROKE.
The text does not say:
“My righteous instruction failed.”
It does not say:
“My Torah became evil.”
It does not say:
“My commandments were defective.”
It says:
THEY BROKE THE COVENANT.
That is a completely different diagnosis.
THE PEOPLE VIOLATED THE COVENANT
This is consistent with the entire Scriptural record.
Yahuah redeemed Yisra’el.
Yahuah brought them to Himself.
Yahuah established Covenant with them.
Yahuah gave righteous instructions.
And Yisra’el repeatedly violated the Covenant.
The Prophets spend generation after generation confronting that covenant unfaithfulness.
Idolatry.
Injustice.
Bloodshed.
Sexual immorality.
Sabbath profanation.
Oppression.
Rebellion.
The problem was never that Yahuah accidentally gave bad commandments.
The problem was covenant-breaking people.
That is why Hebrews says:
“finding fault with them.”
TORAH ITSELF IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM
Torah had already anticipated covenant rebellion.
Deuteronomy 29–30 warns Yisra’el concerning blessing, curse, exile, and restoration.
Then Deuteronomy 30:6 promises something profound:
«“And Yahuah your Elohim shall circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love Yahuah your Elohim with all your heart and with all your being, so that you might live.”»
The problem reaches the heart.
And the restoration reaches the heart.
That becomes essential when Jeremiah announces the New Covenant.
Yahuah’s solution is not merely another external document.
It is internal transformation.
WHAT DOES THE NEW COVENANT ACTUALLY DO?
Jeremiah 31:33 gives the answer:
«“For this is the covenant I shall make with the house of Yisra’el after those days, declares Yahuah: I shall put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts. And I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people.”»
This verse creates a devastating problem for the arrow:
FIRST COVENANT OBSOLETE → TORAH OBSOLETE
Why?
Because the New Covenant itself says:
I SHALL PUT MY TORAH WITHIN THEM.
If Torah is the thing being abolished, why does Yahuah place Torah inside the people of the New Covenant?
If Torah is the defect, why write the defect upon the heart?
If Yahuah’s commandments are the problem, why internalize them?
The New Covenant does not say:
“I will remove My Torah.”
It says:
“I WILL PUT MY TORAH WITHIN THEM.”
That is not Torah abolition.
That is Torah internalization.
HEBREWS REPEATS THE SAME PROMISE
Hebrews does not avoid this statement.
It quotes it.
Hebrews 8:10 says:
«“Giving My laws into their mind, and I shall write them on their hearts, and I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people.”»
The very chapter used to argue Torah became obsolete explicitly says Yahuah writes His laws upon the hearts and minds of the people of the New Covenant.
That fact must remain on the table.
You cannot quote Hebrews 8:13 and erase Hebrews 8:10.
Scripture interprets Scripture.
THEN WHAT BECAME OBSOLETE?
Hebrews 8:13 says:
«“By saying, ‘renewed,’ He has made the first old. Now what becomes old and growing aged is near disappearing.”»
What is the subject of the chapter?
COVENANT.
What has Yahusha become Mediator of?
A BETTER COVENANT.
What does Jeremiah promise?
A NEW COVENANT.
What had the people broken?
THE COVENANT.
What is called first and then old?
THE FIRST COVENANT.
The text does not say:
“By saying New Covenant, He made righteousness obsolete.”
It does not say:
“Torah is growing old and disappearing.”
The arrow inserts that conclusion.
The covenant administration is the issue.
Do not silently replace covenant with Torah.
COVENANT AND TORAH ARE RELATED — BUT THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL CATEGORIES
Parts 1 through 4 prepared us for this distinction.
Torah existed before Sinai.
Sin existed before Sinai.
Commandments existed before Sinai.
Sabbath existed before Sinai.
Therefore, Torah cannot simply be reduced to:
“The covenant made at Sinai.”
The Sinai Covenant incorporated Torah into a particular covenant administration with a redeemed nation.
But Yahuah’s righteous instruction cannot be historically confined to that administration because Scripture already showed it functioning before Sinai.
That matters enormously.
If something existed before the Sinai Covenant, the obsolescence of that covenant administration does not automatically prove the obsolescence of everything incorporated within it.
Again:
THE ARROW MUST BE PROVEN.
A COVENANT IS NOT SIMPLY A LIST OF COMMANDMENTS
A covenant establishes relationship, parties, promises, obligations, administration, signs, consequences, mediation, and covenantal terms.
Commands operate within that relationship.
But covenant and commandment are not interchangeable words.
Marriage provides a simple illustration.
A marriage covenant may contain obligations such as faithfulness.
If a particular marriage covenant ends, the moral principle that adultery is wrong does not suddenly disappear from the universe.
Why?
Because covenant administration and moral reality are related but not identical categories.
Likewise, the transition from one covenant administration to another does not automatically transform murder, adultery, idolatry, theft, dishonoring parents, or profaning what Yahuah set apart into righteousness.
The claim requires proof.
WHAT WAS “BETTER”?
Hebrews says Yahusha mediates a better covenant established upon better promises.
That does not require the conclusion that Yahuah’s previous righteous instructions were evil.
Hebrews itself emphasizes several superior realities associated with Messiah.
A superior High Priest.
A superior priestly ministry.
A superior sacrifice.
A superior heavenly sanctuary.
A superior mediation.
A once-for-all offering.
Access through Messiah.
Cleansing that reaches the conscience.
These are enormous covenantal developments.
But notice:
BETTER COVENANT does not equal OPPOSITE RIGHTEOUSNESS.
The New Covenant does not call murder good because the covenant is better.
It does not call adultery righteous.
It does not authorize idolatry.
It does not redefine rebellion as obedience.
“Better” does not mean Yahuah reversed His character.
THE PRIESTHOOD CHANGED
Hebrews 7:12 says:
«“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.”»
This is another verse frequently expanded far beyond what it says.
What is the immediate subject?
PRIESTHOOD.
Hebrews is establishing Yahusha’s priesthood according to the order of Malkitsedeq rather than the Levitical order.
That requires legal change concerning priestly administration.
Why?
Because Yahusha comes from Yahudah, not Levi.
Hebrews itself explains the issue.
A change concerning priesthood does not automatically mean:
“Every command Yahuah ever gave has been abolished.”
Again, identify what changed.
Do not use a specific change as permission to invent a universal abolition.
SACRIFICE REACHES ITS MESSIANIC SUBSTANCE
Hebrews also spends considerable time discussing sacrifices.
The blood of bulls and goats could not accomplish what Yahusha’s offering accomplishes.
Yahusha offers Himself.
His sacrifice is sufficient.
His priesthood is superior.
His mediation is superior.
The earthly shadows point toward heavenly realities.
Those truths are central to Hebrews.
But the fulfillment of sacrificial function in Messiah does not mean the sacrificial system was evil.
It taught.
It witnessed.
It foreshadowed.
It revealed the seriousness of sin.
It demonstrated the necessity of blood.
It pointed toward Messiah.
When Messiah fulfills what those shadows anticipated, their covenantal function changes.
But again:
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE IS NOT UNIVERSAL MORAL ABOLITION.
THE NEW COVENANT CHANGES THE HEART
This is the prophetic heart of the matter.
The old problem was not merely external administration.
The problem was that covenant people repeatedly rebelled.
Yahuah’s promised solution addresses the people internally.
Jeremiah says Torah written upon the heart.
Ezekiel 36:26–27 says:
«“And I shall give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you… and put My Spirit within you. And I shall cause you to walk in My laws and guard My right-rulings and do them.”»
Notice the result of the Ruach HaKodesh.
Not:
“You will no longer need obedience.”
But:
“I shall cause you to walk in My laws.”
That is the prophetic New Covenant trajectory.
The heart changes.
The people change.
The relationship is restored.
Covenant faithfulness becomes internalized.
THE PROPHETS NEVER BLAME TORAH
Read the prophetic indictments.
Again and again, Yahuah accuses His people of refusing His Torah.
Isaiah 5:24 says they rejected the Torah of Yahuah.
Jeremiah 6:19 says they rejected His Torah.
Hosea 8:1 speaks of transgressing Covenant and rebelling against Torah.
The prophetic solution is never:
“My Torah was the problem, so I will abolish it.”
The problem is rejection of Torah.
The solution is restored hearts and restored covenant faithfulness.
THE WRITINGS CALL TORAH PERFECT
Psalm 19:7 says:
«“The Torah of Yahuah is perfect…”»
Psalm 119:142 says:
«“Your righteousness is righteousness forever, and Your Torah is truth.”»
If Torah itself is perfect and truth, then Hebrews cannot reasonably mean:
“Yahuah discovered His perfect truth was defective and made it obsolete.”
That interpretation makes Scripture testify against Scripture.
The better interpretation preserves all the witnesses:
The covenant was broken.
The people were unfaithful.
The priestly and sacrificial administration required Messianic fulfillment.
The New Covenant brings superior mediation through Yahusha.
And Yahuah writes His Torah upon transformed hearts.
YAHUSHA DID NOT COME TO DESTROY TORAH
Once again, Matthew 5:17 remains on the table:
«“Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”»
If Hebrews is interpreted as saying Torah became obsolete, while Yahusha says not to think He came to destroy Torah, we have created an unnecessary contradiction.
The problem is the arrow.
Messiah brings covenant fulfillment.
Messiah brings superior priesthood.
Messiah brings redemption.
Messiah mediates the New Covenant.
Messiah does not transform righteousness into lawlessness.
SHA’UL SAYS FAITH ESTABLISHES TORAH
Romans 3:31 still stands:
«“Do we then nullify the Torah through the belief? Let it not be! On the contrary, we establish the Torah.”»
That statement is extraordinarily difficult for abolition theology and completely natural within covenant continuity.
Faith does not nullify Torah.
Messiah does not destroy Torah.
The New Covenant writes Torah upon the heart.
The Ruach causes Yahuah’s people to walk in His ways.
Those witnesses agree.
WHAT ABOUT 2 CORINTHIANS 3?
Another passage often brought into this discussion speaks about what was fading.
Again, precision matters.
Sha’ul contrasts covenantal ministries and administrations.
He speaks about the ministry associated with letters engraved on stone and the surpassing glory of the ministry of the Ruach.
But the conclusion cannot be:
“Therefore righteousness disappeared.”
Why?
Because the New Covenant does not eliminate righteous conduct.
It produces transformed people.
The contrast concerns covenantal ministry, glory, administration, and internalization.
Do not convert every covenantal contrast into moral abolition.
TORAH ON STONE VERSUS TORAH ON THE HEART
This distinction deserves careful attention.
The New Covenant promise does not contrast:
TORAH versus NO TORAH.
It contrasts, in part:
EXTERNAL versus INTERNAL.
Stone cannot transform the heart.
A written command can identify righteousness.
It can identify transgression.
It can testify against rebellion.
But it cannot by itself regenerate the person.
The New Covenant promises internal transformation through Yahuah’s work.
The answer to a rebellious heart is not a missing standard.
The answer is a transformed heart.
And what does Yahuah write on that transformed heart?
HIS TORAH.
THE COVENANT PARTIES ALSO MATTER
Jeremiah 31:31 says the New Covenant is made with:
THE HOUSE OF YISRA’EL
and
THE HOUSE OF YAHUDAH.
That fact is frequently ignored.
The New Covenant is not introduced as Yahuah abandoning Yisra’el and creating an unrelated people free from His previous covenantal revelation.
It is restoration.
Those from the nations who come through Messiah are brought near and become fellow heirs.
They are not given a lawless alternative covenant.
The covenant story remains Yahuah’s covenant story.
WHAT BECAME OBSOLETE MUST BE NAMED PRECISELY
This is where disciplined interpretation matters.
Did the first covenant become old?
Yes.
Does Hebrews establish a superior covenant mediated by Yahusha?
Yes.
Did priestly administration change?
Yes.
Did sacrificial function reach its Messianic fulfillment?
Yes.
Did covenant mediation change?
Yes.
Did the earthly shadow give way to superior heavenly reality?
Yes.
Did Hebrews say:
“Yahuah’s definition of righteousness became obsolete”?
No.
Did Hebrews say:
“Torah is no longer truth”?
No.
Did Hebrews say:
“The commandments of Elohim are obsolete”?
No.
Did Jeremiah say the New Covenant removes Torah?
No.
Jeremiah says the exact opposite.
TORAH IS WRITTEN UPON THE HEART.
THE FOUR WITNESSES AGREE
Put the whole counsel of Elohim on the table.
TORAH
Torah anticipates covenant rebellion, exile, heart transformation, and restoration.
PROPHETS
Jeremiah identifies the covenant as broken by the people and promises Torah written upon the heart.
Ezekiel promises a new heart, the Ruach, and obedience to Yahuah’s laws.
Isaiah and Micah picture Torah going forth from Tsiyon in the future Kingdom.
WRITINGS
Psalm 19 calls Torah perfect.
Psalm 119 calls Torah truth and Yahuah’s righteous judgments enduring.
APOSTOLIC WITNESS
Yahusha says He did not come to destroy Torah.
Sha’ul says faith establishes Torah.
Hebrews says Yahuah writes His laws upon hearts and minds.
Revelation describes the faithful as guarding the commandments of Elohim and the faith of Yahusha.
The Four Witnesses do not produce:
FIRST COVENANT OBSOLETE → TORAH OBSOLETE.
That arrow must be imported.
THIS IS THE ARROW TEST
Here is the verse:
“By saying renewed, He has made the first old.”
True.
Then comes the arrow:
Therefore Torah became obsolete.
Stop.
Prove it.
Hebrews says the subject is Covenant.
Jeremiah says the people broke the Covenant.
Hebrews says fault was found with them.
Jeremiah says the New Covenant writes Torah upon the heart.
Then another arrow appears:
The first covenant had faults → therefore Torah was faulty.
Stop.
The text says:
“finding fault with them.”
Then another:
A better covenant → therefore opposite commandments.
Stop.
Better mediation does not require opposite morality.
A transformed heart does not require abolished righteousness.
Every arrow must answer the text.
THE WATCHMAN WARNING
Do not allow the word obsolete to become a theological eraser.
Hebrews says something became old.
Identify exactly what Hebrews identifies.
Do not silently replace covenant with Torah.
Do not replace “finding fault with them” with “finding fault with My commandments.”
Do not take a change in priesthood and expand it into the abolition of every commandment Yahuah ever gave.
Do not take the fulfillment of sacrificial shadows and turn it into the destruction of Yahuah’s righteous standard.
And do not quote Hebrews 8:13 while ignoring Hebrews 8:10.
The same chapter that speaks about the first becoming old also says:
«“I shall put My laws in their mind, and I shall write them on their hearts.”»
Those statements must stand together.
If our interpretation requires one verse to erase the other, our interpretation is wrong.
CHECK THE ARROW.
THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER SOMETHING CHANGED
Something absolutely changed.
The question is:
WHAT CHANGED?
That is where precision becomes essential.
The first covenant administration became old.
Yahusha became Mediator of the better Covenant.
The priesthood changed.
The sacrificial system reached its Messianic substance.
The earthly sanctuary and its ministry pointed toward greater heavenly realities.
The relationship between external administration and internal transformation changed.
Access through the superior High Priest was established.
The promised New Covenant moved from prophetic promise into Messianic fulfillment.
Those are enormous changes.
But none of them gives us permission to add:
“Therefore Yahuah’s righteous standard became obsolete.”
That statement must come from Scripture.
Where is it?
WHAT DID NOT BECOME OBSOLETE?
Yahuah’s righteousness did not become obsolete.
Truth did not become obsolete.
Love of Yahuah did not become obsolete.
Love of neighbor did not become obsolete.
The prohibition against murder did not become obsolete.
The prohibition against adultery did not become obsolete.
The prohibition against idolatry did not become obsolete.
The prohibition against theft did not become obsolete.
Holiness did not become obsolete.
Repentance did not become obsolete.
Obedience did not become obsolete.
Covenant faithfulness did not become obsolete.
Why?
Because the New Covenant does not create a new Elohim with a new character and an opposite definition of righteousness.
The same Yahuah who spoke through Torah is the One who promised the New Covenant.
The same Yahuah who condemned covenant rebellion is the One who promised transformed hearts.
The same Yahuah who gave His Torah is the One who says:
“I WILL WRITE MY TORAH UPON THEIR HEARTS.”
THE NEW COVENANT DOES NOT PRODUCE A TORAH-LESS PEOPLE
This is one of the clearest conclusions available from Jeremiah 31.
The New Covenant people are not described as people from whom Torah has been removed.
They are described as people in whom Torah has been placed.
That is the opposite direction.
Old problem:
Covenant instruction outside.
Rebellious hearts inside.
New Covenant promise:
Transformed hearts.
Torah internalized.
Yahuah known.
Sins forgiven.
Covenant relationship restored.
Jeremiah 31:34 continues:
«“For I shall forgive their crookedness, and remember their sin no more.”»
Forgiveness and Torah written upon the heart appear in the same covenant promise.
Grace and obedience are not enemies.
Forgiveness does not eliminate righteousness.
Forgiveness restores the sinner so covenant faithfulness can follow.
FORGIVENESS DOES NOT REDEFINE SIN
This point cannot be ignored.
If Yahuah forgives sin, then sin must still mean something.
If the New Covenant provides forgiveness but simultaneously abolishes the standard defining sin, the concept collapses.
1 John 3:4 still says:
«“Sin is lawlessness.”»
The New Covenant does not solve the problem of lawlessness by abolishing the distinction between obedience and lawlessness.
It solves the problem through redemption, forgiveness, transformed hearts, the Ruach HaKodesh, and restored covenant faithfulness.
The sinner is changed.
Yahuah’s righteousness does not need changing.
HEBREWS ITSELF CALLS FOR OBEDIENCE
This is important because Hebrews cannot honestly be read as a manifesto for lawlessness.
Hebrews repeatedly warns against unbelief, rebellion, disobedience, deliberate sin, and turning away.
Hebrews 10:26 says:
«“For if we sin purposely after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a slaughter offering for sins…”»
That warning makes no sense if the New Covenant means Yahuah no longer cares about obedience.
Hebrews calls people to endurance.
Faithfulness.
Holiness.
Obedience.
Perseverance.
The better Covenant does not produce less concern for righteous living.
It produces a people called to deeper faithfulness.
THE HEART OF THE COVENANT MATTERS
The issue was never merely whether commandments existed on stone.
The issue was whether Yahuah’s people would walk faithfully with Him.
Israel could possess tablets and still rebel.
They could possess the Torah scroll and still harden their hearts.
They could perform religious rituals while practicing injustice.
The Prophets condemned exactly that hypocrisy.
The New Covenant addresses the heart.
That is why Torah written upon the heart is so important.
It is no longer merely:
“Here is what Yahuah requires.”
It becomes:
“Yahuah is transforming His people so they desire and walk in His ways.”
That is deeper Covenant.
Not less Covenant.
THIS IS RENEWAL AND RESTORATION
The New Covenant promise belongs inside Yahuah’s restoration of Yisra’el and Yahudah.
Jeremiah is not announcing that Yahuah has abandoned His covenantal purpose.
He is announcing restoration after covenant failure.
The people broke Covenant.
Yahuah acts.
Yahuah forgives.
Yahuah restores.
Yahuah transforms.
Yahuah internalizes His Torah.
Yahuah again declares:
“I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people.”
That is covenant language.
The New Covenant does not destroy the covenantal storyline.
It brings Yahuah’s restoration purpose forward through Messiah.
BETTER DOES NOT MEAN CONTRADICTORY
This distinction must remain locked in.
A better Covenant does not require a contradictory Elohim.
A better High Priest does not require abolished righteousness.
A better sacrifice does not make sin acceptable.
Better promises do not turn obedience into rebellion.
Torah written upon the heart does not mean Torah removed from life.
The superiority of Messiah does not depend upon making Yahuah’s earlier revelation evil.
Yahusha is superior because He accomplishes what the earlier administration could never accomplish by itself.
He redeems.
He mediates.
He cleanses.
He transforms.
He brings access.
He brings the promised restoration.
That magnifies Yahuah’s covenant purpose.
It does not destroy it.
THE SCRIPTURAL MOVEMENT
Put the movement together.
COVENANT ESTABLISHED
Yahuah redeems Yisra’el and establishes Covenant.
Then:
COVENANT BROKEN
The people repeatedly rebel.
Then:
PROPHETS WARN AND PROMISE RESTORATION
Yahuah announces judgment but also promises a New Covenant.
Then:
MESSIAH COMES
Yahusha accomplishes redemption and becomes Mediator of the better Covenant.
Then:
NEW COVENANT
Forgiveness.
New heart.
Ruach HaKodesh.
Torah written within.
Restored relationship.
Covenant faithfulness.
That is very different from:
TORAH GIVEN → TORAH FAILED → TORAH ABOLISHED.
Scripture does not tell that story.
The theological arrow does.
THE DECISIVE POINT
What became obsolete?
THE FIRST COVENANT.
Did Hebrews say Yahuah’s righteousness became obsolete?
NO.
Did Hebrews say Torah became evil?
NO.
Did Hebrews say the commandments of Elohim disappeared?
NO.
Where was fault found?
WITH THEM.
What had they done?
THEY BROKE THE COVENANT.
What does the New Covenant do?
YAHUAH WRITES HIS TORAH UPON THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS.
What changes?
Covenant administration.
Priesthood.
Mediation.
Sacrificial function.
Access.
Internalization.
What remains?
Yahuah.
His righteousness.
His truth.
His covenant purpose.
His call to holiness.
His definition of sin.
His expectation of covenant faithfulness.
The distinction matters.
WHERE PART 5 LEAVES US
Part 1 established:
“ADDED” does not automatically mean “first came into existence.”
Part 2 established:
“430 YEARS LATER” does not automatically mean “nothing existed before.”
Part 3 established:
“BECAME A COVENANT SIGN” does not mean “was created at that moment.”
Part 4 established:
“UNTIL MESSIAH” does not automatically mean “abolished when Messiah came.”
Part 5 now establishes:
“THE FIRST COVENANT BECAME OBSOLETE” does not automatically mean “TORAH BECAME OBSOLETE.”
Every step exposes the same interpretive problem.
The verse says one thing.
The theological arrow says more.
Then the added conclusion is treated as though Scripture itself said it.
That must stop.
Hebrews says the first Covenant became old.
Jeremiah says the people broke Covenant.
Hebrews says fault was found with them.
Jeremiah and Hebrews say the New Covenant writes Torah upon the heart.
Those are the verses.
Now test the arrow.
COMING IN PART 6
MESSIAH IS THE “END” OF THE TORAH — WHAT DOES TELOS MEAN?
Romans 10:4 is frequently translated:
«“Christ is the end of the law…”»
And another theological arrow immediately appears:
MESSIAH → END OF TORAH → TORAH TERMINATED
But does the Greek word telos require the meaning termination?
Can telos describe a goal, purpose, outcome, culmination, or intended end?
How does Sha’ul use the concept elsewhere?
What does the surrounding context of Romans say about Torah?
And can Romans 10:4 honestly be interpreted to mean Torah abolition when Romans 3:31 has already said:
«“Do we then nullify the Torah through belief? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Torah.”»
That is where Part 6 takes us.
Once again, we will not begin with the theological arrow.
We will begin with the text.
We will test the word.
We will test the context.
We will test the witnesses.
Because:
THE VERSES MAY BE SCRIPTURE.
THE ARROWS ARE INTERPRETATION.
TEST THE ARROWS.
#EphraimsCry#GregWitter#EphraimsCryAcademy#HebraicMindsetStudySeries#TheVersesAreScriptureTheArrowsAreInterpretation
#TestTheArrows#Hebrews8#Jeremiah31#NewCovenant#TorahOnTheHeart#Torah#Covenant#Yahuah#Yahusha#Messiah
#CovenantRenewal#CovenantFaithfulness#GraceThroughFaith#TorahObedience#RuachHaKodesh#FourWitnesses
#WholeCounselOfElohim#ScriptureInterpretsScripture#BiblicalContext#TestAllThings#HebraicMindset#ReturnToCovenant#KingdomOfElohim
