Postrib vs Dispy

[Fenris]

I remember this one!

Lamentations 3:22 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, his mercies never come to an end

... Wait.

Nah he'll say it means exactly the opposite.

[greenonions]

Thanks for your interest. While the Old Covenant cannot be ended without the death of the man, the author of the New Testament book of Hebrews tries to show from the Old Testament that a new covenant will have a new law too. 1) There is a new priesthood and therefore a new law 2) the tabernacle was a copy of the heavenly tabernacle 3) blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin 4) in one example, God did not desire sacrifices 5) with remission of sins in the new covenant, sacrifices for sin are no longer needed. Summary: the Old Testament hints at changes to the sacrificial system in the future, which requires a new covenant and a new law. Details below.

1) There is a new priesthood and therefore a new law

Hebrews 7:11 WEB "Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law."

The author bases his argument on Psalm 110:4, where a king-priest like Melchizedek is appointed who can live forever. According to the Old Testament, the priest must be a descendant of Aaron and the David's throne will last forever, which requires something new to bridge the gap -- a Davidic king who is a lawful priest -- based on a new law.

Psalm 110:4 "Yahweh has sworn, and will not change his mind:
    “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”

A passage not quoted in Hebrews seems to mention this king-priest too:

Zechariah 6:13 "even he shall build Yahweh’s temple; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; and he shall be a priest on his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."

2) The tabernacle was a copy of the heavenly tabernacle

Hebrews 8:4 "For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law, 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned by God when he was about to make the tabernacle, for he said, “See, you shall make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain.” 6 But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which on better promises has been given as law."

quoting

Exodus 25:40 "See that you make them after their pattern, which has been shown to you on the mountain."

3) Blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin

This appears to be an argument from ideas about justice. If a man sins, punishing a substitute goat is not sufficient. Punishing a substitute man is required for the demands of justice. It also argues that they are offered year by year (Day of Atonement), indicating that it did not take away sin for all time.

Hebrews 10:1 "For the law, having a shadow of the good to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Or else wouldn’t they have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a yearly reminder of sins. 4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. "

4) in one example, God did not desire sacrifices

Hebrews 10:5 "Therefore when he comes into the world, he says,

“You didn’t desire sacrifice and offering,
    but you prepared a body for me.
6 You had no pleasure in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin.
7     Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of me)
    to do your will, O God.’” "

Quoting

Psalm 40:6 "Sacrifice and offering you didn’t desire.
    You have opened my ears.
    You have not required burnt offering and sin offering.
7 Then I said, “Behold, I have come.
    It is written about me in the book in the scroll.
8 I delight to do your will, my God.
    Yes, your law is within my heart.”

5) With remission of sins in the new covenant, sacrifices for sin are no longer needed.

Hebrews 10:17 "“I will remember their sins and their iniquities no more.”
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."

quoting

Jeremiah 31:34 They will no longer each teach his neighbor,
    and every man teach his brother, saying, ‘Know Yahweh;’
for they will all know me,
    from their least to their greatest,” says Yahweh:
“for I will forgive their iniquity,
    and I will remember their sin no more.”

Summary: the Old Testament hints at changes to the sacrificial system in the future, which requires a new covenant and a new law.

It's not that the Old Covenant was bad. It's that the New Covenant is better, offering better promises to Israel. That's some of the points from the book of Hebrews as I understand it.

Today's Judaism has similarly departed from the sacrificial system because the temple does not exist.

I think the Law is permanent. The covenant between God and Israel at Mount Sinai is permanent. The Christian teaching is that when we believe in Jesus, we die to the law (we die, not the law dies). That is the way out, when we die with Jesus.

Now see, this is a different and interesting opinion.

[RandyPNW]

No, I answered the question.

You absolutely did not.

I'm going to resist being rude with you, even though your attempts to intimidate are indeed provocative. I've answered your question to *my satisfaction.* If you don't like it, you can be self-satisfied, if you wish.

You obviously don't understand the response, which I do feel more than adequately answers your question. My answer is that contained in the blessings and curses of the Law there is *built in* a failure clause, namely exile. Once the nation gets to exile, the sacrifices for guilt and sin no longer suffice to keep Israel out of exile.

In fact, the entire reading indicates that Israel will, inevitably, fail, and go into exile. The Law will be utterly unable to stop this process because the nation will fail.

At what point can we just call this obvious lie a "lie"?

You shouldn't lie about anybody. I've said repeatedly that exile equals divorce equals failure of the covenant of the Law--not the covenant of Abraham, however, which can be detached from the Law. And restoration after exile does not mean the Law didn't fail--it only means that God restored a Law that had failed.

The provisions of the Law itself are not what restores the Law after failure. If you'll read Eze 36, you will see that it is *mercy* that restores the Law after failure.

Eze 36.22 “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.

So there is mercy under the Law and mercy apart from the Law. All of the offerings and means of purification under the Law atoned for sin done while the Law was in operation, properly. People sinned, and God covered their sin.

But when sin got to the point of national rebellion, exile resulted, indicating the sacrifices and offerings of the Law no longer sufficed to protect Israel. They went into exile, indicating the Law had failed as a device of protection.

Deut 28-30 indicates how the Law operates and at what point it fails. The curses of the Law are indicative of its evolution towards complete failiure. Restoration of the Law was by God's mercy *outside of the Law*--the people did not deserve restoration, but God was giving them another chance.

The Christian argument is that having failed before, and having been restored to the Law, does not mean that the Law ever has to be restored at all. Mercy can operate to install an entirely different system. And that's what Jer 31 indicates.

Jer 31.32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

[RandyPNW]

No, I answered the question.

You absolutely did not.

You said

The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.

I will try to answer this as directly as I can, which I thought I had been doing. Obviously, you weren't putting 2+2 together, as it was in my own thinking. You thought I was hiding something beyond the chatter. So once again, here the "conditional provision" that I said was in the Law:

Deut 29.24 All the nations will ask: “Why has the Lord done this to this land? Why this fierce, burning anger?”
25 And the answer will be: “It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the Lord, the God of their ancestors, the covenant he made with them when he brought them out of Egypt.

The answer is: when sin within the nation becomes *national failure,* or national idolatry, then the curses of the Law kick in, which ultimately lead to exile.

Exile is the indicator that the Law had failed. The Law was in place to keep Israel in their land and in covenant with God. But exile was an indication that the covenant had not worked, and that Israel had failed, as a nation, under the Law.

While the Law was in effect in the land of Israel, various provisions under the Law kept Israel in relationship with God and offered a means of mercy even while the Law continued to be kept. But once Israel fell into complete spiritual adultery, a divorce resulted, and that was indicated by exile.

How that cannot be clear to you I can't fathom. If you had any failure to understand my argument before, surely you understand it now?

[Fenris]

In fact, the entire reading indicates that Israel will, inevitably, fail, and go into exile.

And when they return to God and the bible, they will come back out of exile.

Deuteronomy 30

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations,  and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today,  then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.  Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back.  He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.  The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.  The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today.

The Law will be utterly unable to stop this process because the nation will fail.

It's not God's law that fails. It's the people. But again, Deuteronomy 30 plainly states that we are capable of upholding the law.

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.  It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?”  Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?”  No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.  For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.


If your bible doesn't have this chapter, you should go out and purchase one that does.



 

I've said repeatedly that exile equals divorce equals failure of the covenant of the Law

Yes, you have said it. But God didn't. So why should someone listen to you and ignore God?

Eze 36.22 “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.

What are these things that God is going to do? Two verses later- I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.

But when sin got to the point of national rebellion, exile resulted, indicating the sacrifices and offerings of the Law no longer sufficed to protect Israel. They went into exile, indicating the Law had failed as a device of protection.

The law isn't "protection" for anything. It's a condition of being in a covenant with God.

Deut 28-30 indicates how the Law operates and at what point it fails.

The law doesn't fail. Man does. Deut 30 also shows that this failure can be reversed. It's the plain text, my friend. 

The Christian argument is that having failed before, and having been restored to the Law, does not mean that the Law ever has to be restored at all. Mercy can operate to install an entirely different system. And that's what Jer 31 indicates.

Jer 31.32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

Actually, Jeremiah 31 doesn't do away with the law. Exactly the opposite. Verse 33.

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts."

[Fenris]

The answer is: when sin within the nation becomes *national failure,* or national idolatry, then the curses of the Law kick in, which ultimately lead to exile.

Yes, they do. But what does God say at the end of the curses? Let's have a look at Lev 26:44. Again. Because you continually ignore its existence.

Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them.

Exile is the indicator that the Law had failed. The Law was in place to keep Israel in their land and in covenant with God.

No. The law was a condition of the covenant.

How that cannot be clear to you I can't fathom. If you had any failure to understand my argument before, surely you understand it now?

Have you read Lev 26:44? I can post it again if you require.

[Fenris]

Thanks for your interest. While the Old Covenant cannot be ended without the death of the man, the author of the New Testament book of Hebrews tries to show from the Old Testament that a new covenant will have a new law too.

Again, I find it interesting that you use the term "a new covenant" instead of "the new covenant."

[keraz]

Who is the real House of Israel?    
            A study of the first two chapters of Hosea shows us that Israel was to be cast off and divorced from God. They were to be scattered (“Jezreel”); they were to have no mercy (“Lo-ruhamah”); and they were to be no longer God’s people (“Lo-ammi”). But at the same time, God promised that they would be regathered under one Head (Jesus Christ) and come out of captivity. A decreed period; Ezekiel 4:4-6.

In fact, God told them He would “betroth thee unto Me in righteousness” (Hosea 2:19). The prophecy culminates with a Hebrew play on words. The name “Jezreel” means “God scatters,” but it also means “God sows.” (One must scatter the seed in order to sow it in the field.) Thus, at first the name prophesies that Israel was to be scattered; but ultimately it shows God’s Purpose—to sow Israel in the earth in order to multiply her as the sand of the sea, so as God will remain faithful to His promise to Abraham.

Hosea 2:23  And I will sow her unto Me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not My people, Thou art My people; and they shall say, Thou art My God.
            In other words, even though God did indeed cast off His people Israel, scattering them in the nations by the hand of the Assyrians, God’s ultimate Purpose was to sow them in the earth, so that they would multiply and fulfill the promise to Abraham and the prophesies of Jacob and Moses. 
Furthermore, Hosea prophesied that; in the very place (of their captivity) where it is said that they are not God’s people (Israel), they would be Christians known as; “the Sons of the living God." Hosea 1:10, Romans 9:24-26

            The problem is that most Christians try to make the Jews fulfill these prophesies, when the House of Judah, is fact, fulfilling an entirely different set of prophecies.  God in His great mercy has allowed them nearly 2000 years to change their hearts to Him and to accept Jesus as Messiah.
If people realized that the Jews are to fulfill the prophecies of the House of Judah, instead of those dealing with the lost House of Israel, they would not have made this mistake. The Jews were certainly “cast off” in 586 BC and again in 70-135 A.D., even as Israel was cast off during 745-712 B.C.—but the difference is that the prophets uniformly prophesy good things for lost Israel even during the time of their captivity; while severe judgments were pronounced upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people.
Note that Ezekiel 21:14 tells of 3 Judgements. The next one, to come; will be by the Hand of the Lord Himself. Ezekiel 21:1-7

In Jeremiah 18:1-10, God says that the House of Israel was marred in the Potter’s hand, so God was going to beat down the wet clay and remake it into a vessel fit for His use. Then beginning in verse 11, God begins to prophesy about Jerusalem and Judah. First comes an indictment for their sins, and then in Jeremiah 19:1-15 we see that Jeremiah was to take an old earthen vessel (as opposed to wet clay that was pliable), he was to go to the city dump and smash the earthen vessel there, saying: Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again, and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury.  Thus will I do unto this place, says the Lord, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as Tophet.

            God’s choice of an allegory to suit each House is amazing!
 An old clay vessel, once broken, cannot be remade into another vessel. Only wet, pliable clay can be used to remake a vessel. The House of Israel is like the pliable clay; but the House of Judah will be smashed and never again be built into a vessel of honor.
At the end of the first Temple era, God departed from it and Ezekiel saw the glory depart. Ezekiel 10:4-19  It has never returned to the Temple. Even when Zerubbabel rebuilt the Temple in 515 B.C., the glory did not return to it when they dedicated it to God. The work was good and was allowed by God, but the site itself was cursed.

            This is consistent with the New Testament prophecies regarding the cursed fig tree, Matt. 21:21 the parable of the vineyard, Matt. 21:43-44 and the parable of the citizens who hated Him and would not allow Him to reign over them. Luke 19:27

            The point is, these peoples must still be around to fulfill these distinct prophecies for Israel and for the cursed fig tree. The lost House of Israel must exist to be remade into another vessel and Judah must exist to be virtually wiped out. Isaiah 22:14
The problem comes when people think that the smashed vessel is going to be rebuilt into a vessel fit for God’s use, and when those same people wrongly think that the original House of Israel is lost forever and the Jews are the only Israel.

Plainly, the Christian peoples are the House of Israel, the Overcomers for God, as Jacob was. Jesus came to save the House of Israel, Matthew 15:24, who must be the Christian peoples; or Jesus failed in His mission.
The Jews will never change and Bible prophecy says they will be Judged and punished and only a remnant will survive.

[Fenris]

The Jews will never change and Bible prophecy says they will be Judged and punished and only a remnant will survive.

I have no comment on the rest of your post, that's between you and the Christians here. But I will comment on the last line. The Jews who came back from the Babylonian exile were the remnant. And so today's Jews are also the remnant.

I've never seen anyone get so excited at the ideas that the Jews will be punished as you are.

[agnostic]

I've never seen anyone get so excited at the ideas that the Jews will be punished as you are.

Antisemitism is actually extremely common in American Evangelical end times stuff (example: this thread).

Not to get into the political side of it, but to comment on the theological side: Christian "Zionism" is waaay less about God keeping his covenant promises to the Jews, and much more about the restoration of Israel being a catalyst for the end times... which is when, the same theology believes, the majority of Jews will follow the Antichrist and be killed by God in punishment. Whatever the political achievements might be, the theological aspect of this Christian teaching is not rooted in compassion for a historically oppressed people.

[RandyPNW]

And when they return to God and the bible, they will come back out of exile.

Deuteronomy 30

Israel failed, was divorced from God, had their covenant agreement of the Law terminated, and then God restored them.

It's not God's law that fails. It's the people. But again, Deuteronomy 30 plainly states that we are capable of upholding the law.

Of course Israel could uphold the Law. Would God have judged them if they couldn't uphold the Law? No.

But they chose, as a nation, to turn against the Law of their God, which is what caused them to fall. God's Law did not fail--you're right about that.

It was Israel who failed, once the apostasy became so great that the entire nation was implicated. That's when God sent them into exile, signifying failure and divorce. Restoration does not mean failure had not resulted.

I've said repeatedly that exile equals divorce equals failure of the covenant of the Law

Yes, you have said it. But God didn't. So why should someone listen to you and ignore God?

You should always listen to God above all others. But if what I say corresponds to what God said, then you should listen to me too.

I've given you the Scriptures. God positively *divorced* the N. Kingdom of Israel. He was saying this to the S. Kingdom of Judah *prior to* divorcing them, as well.

I gave you a passage in Isaiah that confirms this. But you ignore it, or you argue around it.

The question you must answer is: Did God intend the idea of "divorce under the Law" to be expressed as *exile?* I believe so. If indeed that is so, both N. and S. Kingdoms were divorced!

[RandyPNW]

The answer is: when sin within the nation becomes *national failure,* or national idolatry, then the curses of the Law kick in, which ultimately lead to exile.

Yes, they do. But what does God say at the end of the curses? Let's have a look at Lev 26:44. Again. Because you continually ignore its existence.

Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them.

I have *not* ignored this. I've addressed the idea of *restoration* after the failure every time! My argument remains the same: restoration does not mean a failure did not occur.

Here again is the scenario. The Law was a form of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic promises will never fail, but the covenant under the form of the Law could and did fail. The curses of the Law show this. Once the nation had arrived at the stage of a full-scale national apostasy, failure of the covenant resulted.

And this failure was exemplified, in the curses of the Law, as national exile. It indicated the Law no longer protected them from their enemies, as the blessings of the Law clearly promised.

And so, "divorce" properly depicts a completely failed covenant, as between a man and a woman in marriage. God was "married" to Israel by covenant relationship under the Law. Once that form of the covenant failed, it could be called a "divorce," or a terminated contract.

Again, restoring Israel to God could still take place by mercy, and not by means of obedience under the Law. Having failed under the Law, obedience could not restore them--it was a failed covenant and no longer applicable.

But being that the Abrahamic promises could never fail, God could restore Israel apart from obedience under the Law, which is what I mean by restoration through *mercy.*

This restoration does not indicate the Law succeeded after all. It had clearly failed to keep Israel out of exile--it had failed. Israel had failed as a nation.

But they could be restored purely by God's mercy, giving them a second chance. This means the Law truly failed, and a divorce truly took place. But it also means the system could be reinstated by mercy, and begin to function as before.

Exile is the indicator that the Law had failed. The Law was in place to keep Israel in their land and in covenant with God.

No. The law was a condition of the covenant.

Positively false. The Law was a condition of the covenant yes, but it was also a means of protection against exile. It was designed so that if Israel generally obeyed God under the provisions of the Law God would give them victory over their enemies.

Going into exile means that Israel's enemies had defeated them. It was indication that the Law had failed to protect them, not because God failed as a partner in the covenant, but only because Israel failed as partner in the covenant.

A covenant implies two or more parties. In this case, Israel failed--not God.

[Fenris]

Antisemitism is actually extremely common in American Evangelical end times stuff (example: this thread).

Not to get into the political side of it, but to comment on the theological side: Christian "Zionism" is waaay less about God keeping his covenant promises to the Jews, and much more about the restoration of Israel being a catalyst for the end times... which is when, the same theology believes, the majority of Jews will follow the Antichrist and be killed by God in punishment. Whatever the political achievements might be, the theological aspect of this Christian teaching is not rooted in compassion for a historically oppressed people.

Someone was telling me this today actually.

[Fenris]

I have *not* ignored this. I've addressed the idea of *restoration* after the failure every time! My argument remains the same: restoration does not mean a failure did not occur.

Dude. The verse specifically says that God will not annul the covenant with the Jews. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Yet because you don't like it, you pretend it isn't saying exactly what it's saying.

Positively false. The Law was a condition of the covenant yes, but it was also a means of protection against exile.

The law isn't "protection" against anything. It's part of our covenant with God, and we carry it our regardless.

A covenant implies two or more parties. In this case, Israel failed--not God.

And under the conditions of that covenant, God sent us into exile. But as per Lev 26:44, the covenant itself remains in effect. In other words, we are still obligated to uphold it. Who should I listen to, you, or God?

Deut 4 The Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the Lord will drive you.  There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.  But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul.  When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the Lord your God and obey him.  For the Lord your God is a merciful God; He will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors, which he confirmed to them by oath.

[RandyPNW]

I have *not* ignored this. I've addressed the idea of *restoration* after the failure every time! My argument remains the same: restoration does not mean a failure did not occur.

Dude. The verse specifically says that God will not annul the covenant with the Jews. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Yet because you don't like it, you pretend it isn't saying exactly what it's saying.

Respectfully, you're ignoring the bulk of the Scriptures I gave, indicating the covenant of marriage between God and Israel was, under the Law, cancelled. Again, the Abrahamic Covenant will *never* be cancelled. However, the Law, as a prohibiting element, could be cancelled, and was cancelled. And it was cancelled by necessity, not only because Israel failed their part in the contract, but also because all nations would fail in the same way. Fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant, on behalf of Israel and on behalf of all nations of faith, would be impossible if the Law remained in effect forever.

The Law was proof that mankind had fallen and would thereafter be disqualified from eternal life. Unless the Law was cancelled, and mercy alone established in its place, the covenant of international salvation could never be achieved. For mercy alone to be established, the Law's temporary provision for atonement had to be abandoned for a final provision for atonement, which became available through Christ's death and forgiveness.

Positively false. The Law was a condition of the covenant yes, but it was also a means of protection against exile.

The law isn't "protection" against anything. It's part of our covenant with God, and we carry it our regardless.

I've already proven that false. A simple reading of the blessings of obedience to the Law will show any objective party that part of the purpose of obeying the Law was for Israel to remain in their land, blessed, and free of outside oppression. It was a means of avoiding outside conquest and exile for punishment, should the nation fall into disobedience.

A covenant implies two or more parties. In this case, Israel failed--not God.

And under the conditions of that covenant, God sent us into exile. But as per Lev 26:44, the covenant itself remains in effect. In other words, we are still obligated to uphold it. Who should I listen to, you, or God?

The covenant was broken, period. God's choice to maintain certain elements of it did not mean it hadn't been broken. It just meant He planned to restore it...this time. There was no promise He would *always* restore it.

The fact of the Law's being broken, even while parts of it were still obeyed, is indicated in the fact the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices had been taken away. How is the loss of that meaning that the Law was still in operation?

At best, only parts of the Law remained in effect, just as moral virtue had always been important to God, even before the Law. The fact God still wanted to restore the Law was indicative not that it hadn't been broken, but that salvation remained under the cloud of human fallenness, without a means of final atonement for sin.

As you know, I believe that Christ was God's chosen means of final atonement for sin, since the Law could only provide *temporary* provisions for forgiveness. So until Christ had come, died, and forgiven Israel and the world, the Law was Israel's only means of temporary provision for sin, to keep a relationship with God, even when the Law had been broken. Parts of the Law, therefore, were kept in operation.