PHGod made an “everlasting covenant” with Abraham, but then he tore that one up and made another one with Moses.
The New Testament continues the confusion. It can’t decide whether to look backward and honor existing law or to tear it up yet again because it says both. First, Jesus commits to the existing law:
But then the book of Hebrews weaves a legal case that argues that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek, which ought to take priority over the existing priesthood in the line of Aaron. Here it quotes an Old Testament declaration of God to justify a new covenant.
Jesus is a dramatic change to Judaism, and there must be some logic to justify Christians changing their worship day, dropping the sacrifices, worshiping a new guy in addition to Yahweh, and so on. That rationalizes away one problem, but the overall problem—the various sub stories don’t fit together in the overall plot—remains.
The New Testament continues the confusion. It can’t decide whether to look backward and honor existing law or to tear it up yet again because it says both. First, Jesus commits to the existing law:
But then the book of Hebrews weaves a legal case that argues that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek, which ought to take priority over the existing priesthood in the line of Aaron. Here it quotes an Old Testament declaration of God to justify a new covenant.
Jesus is a dramatic change to Judaism, and there must be some logic to justify Christians changing their worship day, dropping the sacrifices, worshiping a new guy in addition to Yahweh, and so on. That rationalizes away one problem, but the overall problem—the various sub stories don’t fit together in the overall plot—remains.