Read. Reflect. Write.

Prefer listening instead of reading? Click here to listen to an AI-generated podcast discussion of this article. Click here for part 1 and here for part 2. In Part 1, I argued that D. Thomas Lancaster’s case for the continuing validity of the Aaronic priesthood ultimately depends upon his protos/deuteros framework. According to Lancaster, the protos refers to this present world and the Levitical order, while the deuteros refers to the World to Come and Messiah’s priesthood. My concern was that Hebrews 8 never explicitly establishes those categories. Rather, they appear to function as an interpretive framework brought to the text rather than derived from it. In Part 2, we turned to Hebrews 9, the central passage upon which Lancaster builds his argument. There I argued that the author’s focus remains on the covenantal contrast between the old and new covenant administrations rather than on a symbolic map of two cosmic ages. While Hebrews acknowledges that the Levitical sacrifices g...

Prefer listening instead of reading? Click here to listen to an AI-generated podcast discussion of this article. If you didn't read part 1 yet, click here . In the first article, I argued that the real issue behind the case for future sacrifices is not Jeremiah 33 or Hebrews 9:13–14 by themselves, but the larger protos/deuteros framework Lancaster brings to Hebrews. According to that framework, the protos refers to this present world, the Sinai covenant, the earthly sanctuary, and Levitical service, while the deuteros refers to the World to Come, the new covenant, the heavenly sanctuary, and Messiah’s priesthood. My concern was that Hebrews 8 does not clearly establish that framework. Hebrews certainly contrasts a first covenant and a second covenant, but Lancaster moves beyond that covenantal contrast and identifies the protos with this continuing present world. That move becomes especially difficult in Hebrews 8:13, where the old order is described as becoming obsolete, ...