Hebrews Outline

[Eleanor]

Yes, exactly Eleanor. If you think about it, that actually pictures this discussion very well. OT to NT. First Adam, to Second, or New Adam.

It's interesting that the word Testament means Covenant. Yet if you ask someone if the New Testament replaced the Old Testament, they would reply no, which is correct. But when you ask the if the Old Covenant replaced the New Covenant, they would reply yes, which is also correct. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

Dave

Could we say the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant as the New Testament fulfills the OT?

 

[Josheb]

III. Faith, not works, the way of salvation, as proved by instance of First Testament saints (11:1-12:2)


1. Faith defined (11:1-3)

2. Faith illustrated (11:4-40)

3. Faith exhorted (12:1,2)]

This portion of Wuest's "outline" is commendable, for the most part. Faith is defined in the opening verses of Hebrews 11, defined as the inspired author wants faith understood for the sake of his exposition. It is important, however, not to unconsciously or inadvertently read an "only" into the text, as in, "Faith is [only] the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen," because scripture speaks of faith diversely, in particular trust as a constituent component and trust, assurance, and persuasion of things established, not just hoped for in the future. This, in turn, is alluded to with equal diversity in the illustrations provided for there is just as much diversity in the way those people asserted faith as there were/are occasions to do so. Abraham, for example, had only the future upon which to hope, whereas his son and grandson could believe, and trust, that which had already happened in their father's life. The purpose of the narrative, however, is to tie the faith of those mentioned - their assurance and conviction - to Christ and the consequences of Christ's work. The illustrations conclude with the statement all those people mentioned are perfected in "us" (the heirs of all things to whom the Son has spoken, those who will inherit salvation; the Church).

Hebrews 11:39-40
And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.


The point being that what they hoped for had been provided by the time the author penned the book of Hebrews.

As to the "faith exhorted," an examination of the chapter shows the word "faith" is mentioned only once and that one mention is a reference to the person of Jesus Christ, not the condition of belief, assurance, conviction, and trust. Person, not thing. Wuest should have included verse 3 at that point in his outline.

Hebrews 12:1-3
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.


Those mentioned in the previous chapter are perfected in the person and body of Christ and, as a consequence the readers (and by extension Christians of every era) are to fix their attention n Jesus. This is a critically important distinction because there exists in every era those who preach faith in faith and faith in faith saves no one (This has become a particularly influential teaching among many in Christendom partly due to the effects of Dispensationalism, and before that the experientialism of the 18th century). Point 3 of Section III should, therefore, read, "Faith in Christ exhorted."

 

[Josheb]

IV. Final Warnings and Exhortations (12:3-13:25)

1. If these Jews remain under the chastening hand of God, and do not seek to escape persecution by renouncing their professed faith in Messiah, that is an evidence that they are saved. But if they do the opposite, that shows that they have never been saved (12:3-17)

2. When they come to New Testament truth, they come, not to the thunders of Sinai, but to the grace of Calvary (12:18-24)

3. They are warned not to refuse the Lord Jesus, for those who refused Moses were punished (12:25-29)

4. General exhortations (13:1-17)

5. Closing words (13:18-25)

Here, again, there is something to commend but any commendation is undermined by what was neglected, left out, or perhaps simply ignored because there is much more encouragement in the last two chapters of Hebrews than there are "warnings". The title of section IV should read, "Final Warnings, Exhortation, and Encouragement."

While I do not know the mind of Wuest, I will suggest this lapse (and the others I have mentioned) is directly related to his Dispensationalism. The early Dispensationalists were convinced Jesus was coming back in the 1900s and when that did not happen the date/time of his coming kept getting pushed back. Apocalypse is a central part of Dispensational thinking, doctrine, and practice. Every warning in prophecy is, therefore, ever imminent because if you want to be raptured away and saved from the pending wrath of God then you'd better have faith and be vigilant. Amidst the words of warning because his original readers were going to face persecution for believing in Jesus (the God/man who fulfilled the Law and diminished Caesar by coming back from the dead) are piles of encouragement to rely on the one by whom they are (already) saved. There's no need to worry about whether one will be saved from potentially temporally lethal persecution because their inheritance is assured. Wuest missed that, and that is a critical component of Hebrews as a whole.

 

[EarlyActs]

Josheb

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that if the OT was replaced by the NT, then that must imply that the OT is completely irrelevant. I disagree with what you believe must have been implied. The Actual replaced the types that pointed to Him. Are you "in Adam"? If not who replaced Him? I don't believe that the OT is irrelevant. I never said that it was irrelevant. This idea came from you, not me. And I don't believe that it's a logical conclusion either. Not even close.

Paul shows us that even though we are under grace, that the Law still has purpose. Yes, for believers, grace replaced the Law, but the Law still has purpose.

Romans 7:6-7 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

A smaller context, for sure, but it actually pictures the bigger context if you will allow it to.

“The New Testament is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.” Augustine

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

Dave

Romans 7 is not where to go to discuss Heb 8-10 and the previous worship system. The question of Hebrews is whether there will be a further use of Judaism's worship system now that Christ has completed everything. This issue was red hot in that generation in Judea, if you know the zealots.

 

[Josheb]

Romans 7 is not where to go to discuss Heb 8-10 and the previous worship system.

Sure it is.

The question of Hebrews is whether there will be a further use of Judaism's worship system now that Christ has completed everything.

Judaism's worship system was garnered from the Law. Christ fulfilled the Law that foreshadowed his completing everything.

This issue was red hot in that generation in Judea, if you know the zealots.

Yes, it was but this op is specifically about Wuest's and MacArthur's view(s), specifically (but not stated) their Dispensational pov.

 

[Dave]

Could we say the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant as the New Testament fulfills the OT?

Yeah, I said that backwards. New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant. New Testament is best understood to be built upon the Old Testament, or fulfilling, although 'replace' is also accurate when the context of the statement is considered. The types were created to be replaced with the actual, as they didn't have the power to do what or Who they pointed towards.

Dave