Hebrews Outline

[Eleanor]

As Grandma would say, "Now, children..."

I think perhaps I misunderstood his comment (post #16) as not wanting any responses but Dave's, rather than a solicitation to Dave.

 

[Josheb]

As Grandma would say, "Now, children..."

Hey, I'm just trying to understand what happened.

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

I didn't say the OT was irrelevant. That's a red herring. Are you claiming that OT saints were saved by the blood of goats and calves, or is that irrelevant? You see, neither is true. The OT saints were not saved by the blood of goats and calves, nor does that make the OT irrelevant. It's the OT, as Jesus Himself says, that testifies of Him. The OT was replaced by a better Testament activated by the Testator Himself. The OT is types of the NT. It's all explained in the book of Hebrews itself. The first Testament was powerless, as it could not save. That's why it testified of Jesus, the actual, Who could. The types of the OT foreshadowed the NT reality.

"For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives."

Wuest was chosen because He wrote this outline and I don't know of anyone else who has done a similar work. It helped me in understanding the book of Hebrews to see it in it's entire context, like the outline provided. Though many have copied my copy, it was me who copied this outline by hand from my "Wuest new Testament studies in the Greek" four volume set twenty years ago. He was also chosen because I have read some of his work and for the most part, at least as far as I can tell, it was in line with Scripture. I think Weust is qualified because, not only is he a theologian, but he is also one of the translators of the NSAB. He knows the NT Greek better that everyone here put together.

Dave

Is Wuest's statement correct?

Is the statement, "The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the Messiah, is better than... (1:1-8:6)" correct? (it's a yes or no question)

Is the New Testament better than the First Testament? (It's a yes or no question)
Does the New Testament take the place of the First Testament? (it's a yes or no question)
Is the assertion the Messiah is the author of the New Testament justification for the claim the New Testament is better? (it's a yes or no question)

Why the obfuscation when it would have been MUCH easier to just answer the question(s) asked AND collaboratively further the conversation?

 

[Eleanor]

Hey, I'm just trying to understand what happened.

See post #21.

 

[Dave]

Is Wuest's statement correct?

Is the statement, "The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the Messiah, is better than... (1:1-8:6)" correct? (it's a yes or no question)

Is the New Testament better than the First Testament? (It's a yes or no question)
Does the New Testament take the place of the First Testament? (it's a yes or no question)
Is the assertion the Messiah is the author of the New Testament justification for the claim the New Testament is better? (it's a yes or no question)

Why the obfuscation when it would have been MUCH easier to just answer the question(s) asked AND collaboratively further the conversation?

@Josheb

I've answered your question. I'm sorry that you cannot see it.

Dave

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

I've answered your question. I'm sorry that you cannot see it.

Dave

Well then, I will not belabor the matter further with you but, when I have time, I will further explain how and why that statement is NOT correct and some of what that means for the outline of the book of Hebrews. For now, I will simply reiterate a previous observation: Both Wuest and MacArthur are Dispensationalists. As Dispensationalists they divide the Bible differently than non-Dispensationalists. Every single book of the Bible they read, outline, and explain is explained through the Dispensationalist hermeneutic. In other words, Dispensationalists do not parse scripture like the rest of Christendom (and Dispensationalist leaders are not usually forthcoming with that fact). That, in turn, means what this op is providing is a Dispensationalist outline of Hebrews, not an exegetically objective outline of Hebrews.

And Dispensationalism is a 19th century theology that contradicts 2000 years of historical orthodox Christian thought, doctrine, and practice in several places. An example of that contradictory viewpoint is found in the opening statement of Wuest's outline. The New Testament is not "better" than the "First Testament," and Jesus is the author of all scripture, both Old and New. Wuest is incorrect and that "outline" isn't really an outline in any normal meaning or practice of the term. It's just a re-statement of the text that truncates the verses.

 

[Dave]

Thank you. I will address that content after I read answers to my specific questions. Until then.....

John MacArthur is not an excellent teacher. A great deal of discernment should be used when reading/hearing MacArthur. He is (sorta) soteriologically monergist but theologically Dispensationalist and, as a consequence, has a number of internal conflicts within his teaching. I have mentioned a few categories where these errors occur in my ops critical of Dispensational Premillennialism (scroll down on that linked-to page. There are six of them). I can expand on this in greater detail but it will take us off topic from this op.

Op-topically..... The short answer to my inquiries is you think JMac an excellent teacher. However, that does not answeror address the veracity of Wuest's opening statement. You have repeated Wuest's comment in Post 11 and I wonder why becauseit is not correct! The New Covenant does NOT replace the Old Covenant,* and you've just played bait and switch. Wuest said "Testament," "not "Covenant." The questions is, "Does the New Testament replace the Old Testament? not "Does the New Covenant replace the Old Covenant?"

So right from the start we have a breakdown in communication and a factual error that must be corrected (hopefully by the one making the mistake). I suspect that mistake was made because of following John MacArthur's misguided teaching and not whole scripture. Let's see if we cannot come to an agreement with scripture about this.

The correct answer is that the Old and the New work together as a single revelation of God by God and it is not to be divided up as if one part is any better or worse than another. When Paul wrote to Timothy saying, "ALL scripture is God breathed and useful....." he was referring (predominantly) to the Tanakh, or what we call the Old Testament. That is what the early Christians first learned on. The epistolary and then the gospels were add-ons. They were not formally complied in what we now call "the New Testament" for another three centuries. When the author of Hebrews states the old covenant has passed away, he does so in a very specific context. That verse cannot be read to contradict other scripture, such as what Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:12-18. It's not that the Mosaic era text (which is not limited to the Law) is no longer valid; the problem is a blindness was upon the Jews. Every single New Testament writer taught the OT, taught from the OT, and applied the OT to their readers repeatedly.

That would make zero sense if the OT had been discarded. That would make zero sense if the old covenant was mutually exclusive to the new covenant and had been discarded.

The simple fact of the new revelation (the New Testament) is that....... the gospel was preached to Abraham and its promises were made to Abraham and his seed, Jesus. The promises of God that we Christians believe or those promises first preached to Abraham! There is a single line from Abraham to Jesus. In fact, if you read through the entire Bible you will discover to truths: 1) God continuously ties His covenant and promises He makes to His people throughout the OT to the covenant He established with Abraham and the patriarchs, and 2) He almost always speaks of the covenant in singular conjugation (the plural "covenants" is found only four times in the entire Bible and two of those mentions have nothing to do with the covenant of Abraham and Jesus).

And John MacArthur screws that up quite often. He is not an excellent teacher.

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

 

[Josheb]

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.

That is NOT my argument AT ALL.


And with the respect due you as a fellow believer and member of the forum..... the opportunity to discuss all of this with me availed itself and was refused. I suspect you might have more to say once I deconstruct this op but I'm no longer interested in trading posts with you because of the repeated refusal to discuss the op and the op-relevant substance of posts 10, 14, 23 and 26. The questions asked were ignored, along with relevant commentary, and what you think is my argument is not my argument. I repeat: When I have time, I will further explain how and why that statement is NOT correct and some of what that means for the outline of the book of Hebrews. But I will not be discussing any of it with you. That time has passed.

Wuest's opening statement is not true or correct.

It's hugely ironic because the author of the book of Hebrews was astutely mindful of the Old Testament, or what Wuest calls the "First Testament." Nearly every sentence in the entire book is couched in some reference to the First Testament. The author of Hebrews shows beyond any doubt the veracity, efficacy, sufficiency, and necessity of the First Testament. It is incomprehensible that anyone would teach,
.

The New Testament..... takes the place of the First Testament.....

.
But there it is written in plain English for everyone to read, amidst a denial of what is clearly stated and a refusal to discuss it. That's okay. Since I cannot get cogent responses, I will proceed accordingly.

 

[Josheb]

HEBREWS
Analysis by Kenneth S. Wuest
Wuest's Word Studies
From the Greek New Testament


I. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the Messiah, is better than... (1:1-8:6)

II. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament, (8:7-10:39), because...


1. It was prophesied to be better (8:7-13)

....a. The First Testament faulty in that it did not put away sin (v.7)

....b. New Testament made with Israel and Judah (v.8)

....c. First Testament dealt with Israel as with a minor (v.9)

....d. New Testament through indwelling Spirit brings believers to adult sonship (v.10)

....e. Under the New Testament, all Israel in millennium will be saved (v.11)

....f. Under New Testament, sins put away (v.12)

....g. New Testament displaces First Testament (v.13)

2. It is actual; The First Testament only typical (9:1-15)

3. It is made effective with better blood (9:16-10:39)

Those two posts were edited for the sake of space.

From the beginning of my participation in this thread I have questioned Wuest's opening statement (and subsequently John MacArthur's use of Wuest). I do so under the auspices of James' admonition to teachers to assume greater responsibility knowing they subject themselves to stricter judgment.

James 3:1
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

Which, to a lesser degree, extends to any of us who post assuming the role of a teacher, especially when refusing to discuss what we say lest our error be made known (see Jn. 3:20). Wuest is well-recognized as an authority on New Testament Greek (much more so than John MacArthur), which, along with their shared dispensational perspective, is probably why MacArthur selected Wuest instead of a more modern expert like Bill Mounce. Wuest penned a series of commentaries of New Testament books taking a "word study" approach. Wuest also contributed to my favorite translation, the NAS, and he also wrote his own translation of the NT called the WET (Wuest Expanded Translation). Wuest was also a very influential Dispensationalist that contributed to the rise of that theology. It is critically important to understand Wuest is using the word "testament" in the place of "covenant." He is not, per se, strictly referring to the first 39 books of our Bible (or the 24 books of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible).

The opening statement, "The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the Messiah, is better than.... the prophets, the angels, Moses, Joshua, or Aaron," can be broken down into its constituent assertions.

1. The New Testament/Covenant is better than the First Testament.
2. The New Testament/Covenant is better because its founder is Jesus, the Messiah.
3. The New Testament/Covenant is better its founder, Jesus, is better than the prophets.
4. The New Testament/Covenant is better its founder, Jesus, is better than the angels.
5. The New Testament/Covenant is better its founder, Jesus, is better than Moses, Joshua, or Aaron (and each of those could be listed separately but for the sake of space and convenience).
6. The New Testament/Covenant is not only better, but it also takes the place of the "First Covenant" (which is not identified in the outline).

This is what Wuest (presumably) wants his readers or students to understand as they approach the book of Hebrews. I am going to take a break shortly, so I encourage the readers of this post to go grab their study Bibles (two or three if you have more than one) and turn to the book of Hebrews and examine how those study Bible have outlined the book of Hebrews. Do this for comparative purposes. One question I would ask each of you to consider is, "Did the commentator feel the need to justify the veracity of the book of Hebrews?" If so, then why so? an, if not, then why not? Wuest felt the need to do so. Before the reader begins reading the book of Hebrews it is important to know the New Testament is better than the First. Why? Curiously, Wuest misuses the one definitive statement found in the book of Hebrews itself, Hebrews 8:13.

Hebrews 8:13 BLB
In saying, "new," He has made obsolete the first; and that which is growing old and aging is near vanishing.

This is what Wuest believes justifies the claim the New Testament "takes the place" of the First Testament.

The problem is, as I have already mentioned above, that statement cannot logically be read exactly as written because to do so would make the verse contradict other scripture. For example, In Galatians 3 Paul makes some extraordinary claims. He explicitly states the gospel was preached to Abraham! Not only was the gospel preached to Abraham, but its promises were made to both Abraham and Jesus (Jesus being the promised seed of Abraham). For the sake of space, I will not copy that text here, but I encourage the readers of this post to turn in their Bible to Galatians 3 now and read what is stated. Most importantly, notice verse 17.

Galatians 3:17
What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Paul says the covenant made with Abraham is not invalidated by the Law. The author of Hebrews says the use of the word "new," as in "new covenant" means the old covenant is obsolete and vanishing. The problem is the "old" covenant is the one first initiated by God with Abraham.* Furthermore, both New Testament writers are referencing the same two prophets.

Jeremiah 31:31-32
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Luke 22:19-20
And when he had taken some bread and given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me." And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Jeremiah and Jesus were referencing Genesis 15. Again, for the sake of saving space I will not quote that chapter, but I will observe one critically important feature of the text, verse 18

Genesis 15:17
It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.

The readers may not be familiar with the suzerain ritual in which a lesser vassal pledged fealty to a conquering king lest the vassal suffer being cut in two as the carcasses had been divided. In Abraham's vision it is God who pledges fealty to God on the condition of death. And that is exactly what happens in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ - the covenant promises of Abraham and his promised seed Jesus. So, we see there is a direct line running through the entirety of the First Testament/Covenant all the way through to the New Testament/Covenant (historically, typologically, theologically, etc.).

Why wouldn't Wuest treat the book of Hebrews accordingly? Why doesn't MacArthur? I submit the answer lies in their both being Dispensationalists. They teach their hermeneutic, not whole scripture. Therefore, Wuest's "word study" of Hebrews is more accurately understood as a Dispensational Premillennialist study of Hebrews, not an objective, exegetical study of Hebrews.

I'll address more of the op in my next post but, for now, I trust everyone can at least begin to see problems with Wuest's statement as written.












* Technically, it could be argued God first initiated His Christological covenant with Adam but for the sake of this post I will start with Abraham.
.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

What is the "more excellent Name"?

There is an abundance of textual evidence useful for showing that Jesus is the
supreme being's paternal descendant-- in point of fact, the supreme being's only
paternal descendant, for example:

John 1:14
John 1:18
John 3:16
John 3:18
Heb 11:17
1John 4:9

As the supreme being's principal heir, Jesus has a legitimate right to identify
himself by the supreme being's name because with offspring in His home, the
supreme being's name is no more a childless loner's name; now it's a family name.
_

 

[Dave]

That is NOT my argument AT ALL.


And with the respect due you as a fellow believer and member of the forum..... the opportunity to discuss all of this with me availed itself and was refused. I suspect you might have more to say once I deconstruct this op but I'm no longer interested in trading posts with you because of the repeated refusal to discuss the op and the op-relevant substance of posts 10, 14, 23 and 26. The questions asked were ignored, along with relevant commentary, and what you think is my argument is not my argument. I repeat: When I have time, I will further explain how and why that statement is NOT correct and some of what that means for the outline of the book of Hebrews. But I will not be discussing any of it with you. That time has passed.

Wuest's opening statement is not true or correct.

It's hugely ironic because the author of the book of Hebrews was astutely mindful of the Old Testament, or what Wuest calls the "First Testament." Nearly every sentence in the entire book is couched in some reference to the First Testament. The author of Hebrews shows beyond any doubt the veracity, efficacy, sufficiency, and necessity of the First Testament. It is incomprehensible that anyone would teach,
.

​

​

​

.
But there it is written in plain English for everyone to read, amidst a denial of what is clearly stated and a refusal to discuss it. That's okay. Since I cannot get cogent responses, I will proceed accordingly.

Basically Joshebs point here is that anyone who calls the Old Testament the First Testament is in error.

 

[Dave]

Those two posts were edited for the sake of space.

From the beginning of my participation in this thread I have questioned Wuest's opening statement (and subsequently John MacArthur's use of Wuest). I do so under the auspices of James' admonition to teachers to assume greater responsibility knowing they subject themselves to stricter judgment.

Macarthur didn't use Wuest, or the other way around. I quoted JMac from either my study Bible, or his Romans commentary, I don't remember. Those are two completely separate quotes. I thought the latter would be helpful.

 

[Dave]

1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

Does Jesus being the second Adam make the first obsolete?

 

[Dave]

Is calling the Old Testament the First Testament an error? Googled....


No, calling the Old Testament the "First Testament" is not an error, and can be seen as a more accurate and neutral way to describe it, as it emphasizes its place as the earlier part of the biblical narrative before the New Testament.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• "Old Testament" vs. "First Testament":
  The term "Old Testament" can sometimes imply that the writings are outdated or superseded by the New Testament, whereas "First Testament" simply acknowledges its chronological position.
  
  
• Emphasis on Chronological Order:
  The "First Testament" label emphasizes the chronological order of the two parts of the Christian Bible, with the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament) preceding the New Testament.
  
  
• Neutrality:
  Using "First Testament" avoids the potentially negative connotations of "Old," which can sometimes suggest that the writings are no longer relevant or important.
  
  
• Biblical Context:
  The New Testament itself doesn't use the terms "Old Testament" or "New Testament," but rather refers to the earlier writings as "the Law and the Prophets".
  
  
• Jewish Perspective:
  From a Jewish perspective, the term "Old Testament" is often seen as inaccurate, as they consider the Hebrew Scriptures to be the complete and authoritative word of God, not an "old" version superseded by a "new" one.
  
  
• "First" vs "Old"
  The term "Old" can imply that the writings are outdated or no longer relevant, while "First" simply acknowledges its chronological position.

 

[Dave]

For the record.

I don't like theological labels, for the most part, because of the baggage that they carry. Most of the arguments surround the baggage.

JMac considers himself a "leaky dispensationalist" That term was coined by his friends in ministry. He claimed that, in a not shell, his understanding comes down to the idea that he believes the Israel is separate and distinct from the Church. He claims most of that conviction comes from the idea that he believes that it would be in error to see all the judgements in the first Testament on Israel as literal, but to spiritualize all the blessing. His reasoning can be heard in three short videos when you google "John Macarthur - Dispensationalism Parts 1-3 (Bible Q&A)".

Here's what I believe. There are at least two dispensations, the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant. Does that sound contradicting? It not. Covenants divided into dispensations. I believe that spiritually, the promises made to Israel were fulfilled with the Church. At the same time, I also allow for some of the physical aspects of those promises to remain unique to Israel. If that leaves questions, I'm fine with that. That's as far as scripture allows me to go at this point in time. I think that the spiritual blessing to Israel in may ways came through a rebuke at Pentecost, the birth of the Church, including the grafting in of the Gentiles. And the grafting of the Gentiles was only revealed at Pentecost, and consummated, for a lack of a better term, as believing Gentiles were also placed into the Body Of Christ, just as the believing Jews were.

The time line of the Gentiles being grafted in seems to be in conflict. Jonah, a type of Jesus, went to Nineveh in 773-755 BC, and many Gentiles came to faith. Jonah's Type of Jesus doesn't end with three days and three nights, but the many conversions of Gentiles at Nineveh also pictures salvation coming to the Gentiles at Pentecost 33AD. Should we conclude that the Gentiles were grafted in back in 773-755 B.C. also? When were the Gentiles really grafted in? This could play an important part in potentially backing up MacArthur's reasoning also. In my mind, it would be much more difficult to spiritualize something like that if it were already reality, and not a future promise, at least in part.

"What Happened in Acts" is a thread I started that gets into the birth of the Church and the Promises fulfilled, most of all, the Promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit, given.

I have no problem with the term First Testament for reason stated above. To me, it's not even worth debating about.

Dave

 

[Josheb]

Basically Joshebs point here is that anyone who calls the Old Testament the First Testament is in error.

Never said any such thing. I did, in fact, use the phrases "Old Testament," and "First Testament" interchangeably.

Macarthur didn't use Wuest, or the other way around. I quoted JMac from either my study Bible, or his Romans commentary, I don't remember. Those are two completely separate quotes. I thought the latter would be helpful.

If that is true than I stand corrected. That mistake, however, does not change the fact Wuest's statement is incorrect, or the fact these matters have been avoided from the outset.

 

[Josheb]

Hebrews Outline

HEBREWS
Analysis by Kenneth S. Wuest
Wuest's Word Studies
From the Greek New Testament


I. The New Testament is better than and takes the place of the First Testament because its Founder, the Messiah, is better than... (1:1-8:6)

I'll return to Wuest's statement (and later MacArthur's) later but, for now, what might an accurate outline of Hebrews look like?

Most begin with a summary of the author, the date, the audience, and the theme or purpose of the book. Most experts hold Paul to be the author, but I am of the mind Barnabas is a viable, perhaps better candidate. Barnabas, or Joseph from Cyprus, was from the tribe of Levi and, according to Luke, he was a learned man with a thorough knowledge of the scriptures. When the other apostles were afraid to associate with Saul/Paul it was Barnabas who took him to the council in Jerusalem and bore witness to his preaching. He and Saul were put in charge of the donations sent back to Jerusalem and Barnabas was sent on his own missionary journeys. The author of Hebrews reports s/he was a witness to Jesus' preaching, having heard it himself. Acts 6:7 reports a large number of the converts in Jerusalem were priests so Barnabas may have been among them. That's all speculation based on other scripture. Tertullian attributed the authorship of Hebrews to Barnabas.

The book was written prior to 70 AD because the author uses present text language when writing about the temple, thereby indicating the temple was still standing (and its destruction would certainly have been of great import given the significant of both the event of its destruction and the typological/allegorical meaning of the temple relevant to Christ. The book is addressed to Jewish converts, not Jewish non-converts, as evidenced by the author's reference to the Son of God, and "those who will inherit salvation," and the admonition not to drift from the Son's teaching. Acts 6 also reports there was a schism between the Hellenist s and the Hebraics, so the theme of Jesus' supremacy, uniqueness, and the full revelation of God foretold about and preeminent over everything in the Old Testament reconciles with an effort to address that conflict. (The apostle John also addressed the problem of Hellenism in his gospel and epistles, btw).

The literary form of the book is that of an epistle and it abides by the common characteristics of that genre. The body of the letter can be broken down into several expositions of various psalms, such as

• Heb. 2:5-9 = Ps. 8
• Vss. 3:7-413 = Ps. 95
• Vss. 4:14-7:28 = Ps. 110
• Vss. 8:1-10:18 = Ps. 40 (and Jer. 31)
• Vss. 10:32-12:3 = Hab. 2
• finishing with exposition on Proverbs 3:11-12 and Exodus 19

Which means the book of Hebrews is a sort of commentary on the book of Psalms. An outline might look like,

• Prologue: Vss. 1:1-4
• Exposition of the supremacy of Christ (over all things, including the Law and the whole of Tanakh): Vss. 1:5 - 7:22
• Exposition on the typology and allegorical content of the OT relevant to Christ as High Priest from a superior order over that of the Levites: Vss. 8:1-10:18
• Evangelistic call: Vss. 10:19-12:29
• Conclusion - Chap. 13.

And each section of exposition could be divided further in outline form* to cover various aspects of within that text. Were we to examine the book with a word study approach we might do so with an emphasis on "priest" and "covenant" (both mentioned more than two dozen times), "kreitton," which means superior, or the words "salvation" or "holy," all of which occur more than a dozen times in the epistle. And, of course, a study of the typologies asserted by the author throughout the book is critical. Either of the approaches taken above preclude the kind of unnecessary minutiae contained in Wuest's outline.








* My regrets for the simplicity of the outline because if I knew how to employ the html tags for a proper outline, I'd use the classic Roman numbering and indentation, adding a tree structure under each of the five points above. The point being that an outline does not detail everything - it outlines the book providing only a general description.
.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Does Jesus being the second Adam make the first obsolete?

The likeness of the second man is a huge improvement over the likeness of
the first man, especially seeing as how the first man's natural characteristics
are unsuitable for God's future purposes. (1Cor 15:42-50)
_

 

[Eleanor]

1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

Does Jesus being the second Adam make the first obsolete?

We are still being born with the nature of the first man.

 

[Dave]

We are still being born with the nature of the first man.

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