Shadow Versus Substance

In a discussion about different End Times views, I told someone I'm quite sure God won't require anyone to offer animal sacrifices anywhere at any time in future. 

He admitted the New Testament doesn't state that we will have to. But he said that's inconsequential, because he says the Old Testament says we will have to. 

So even though the New Testament states that animal-sacrifices are obsolete and explains why, he still thinks we will have to - just because he thinks the Old Testament says so.

But think of Paul's analogy of shadow versus object. We understand a shadow by the object - we don't understand an object by its shadow - right? A shadow is not equal to the object in its ability to provide information. 

Similarly, we understand the Old Testament by the New Testament. The Old Testament is not, on its own, equal to the New Testament in its ability to provide information. 

So the Old Testament - its promises, covenant, story, allegories, law, figures, symbols and prophecies - is understood by the New Testament - by Christ, the gospel, the cross and resurrection, the new covenant, by the way it claims to be the fulfilment of the Old Testament's promise, allegories, figures, law, symbols and prophecies.

Shadows are, by their very nature, only representative of an object. So shadows need 'interpreting'. 

But an object needs no interpreting. It is what it is! But an object can 'interpret' its shadow. It makes sense of the shadow. The shadow can't add substance to the object. So you don't adjust an object, by its shadow. Rather, you give a shadow the sense it was ultimately meant to have, by the object. 

And a shadow doesn't provide substance. So, the Old Testament can't adjust what the New Testament means. And the meaning the Old Testament was ultimately intended to have can only properly be known by the New Testament. The Old Testament doesn't stand shoulder to shoulder with the New Testament in its ability to provide meaning, substance and objectivity.

Let's say someone is looking at a shadow, and she says "That person looks like he's got three arms!" 

But then when you see the person, you see that he, of course, only has two arms. 

She can't say, "Yes but the shadow is showing that he has three arms, so he must have three. You're denying what the shadow explicitly shows! Maybe he's just hiding his third arm in his sleeve."

No, she only 'thought' she was seeing a third arm in his shadow. We know that by looking at him. He doesn't have a third arm. No-one does. 

See a shadow can't add substance - reality - a third arm - anything - to his body that his body itself doesn't actually have. The shadow can't even add information about his body that the body itself doesn't tell you! 

Similarly then, if someone reads Old Testament Prophecy, and says, "See, we're going to have to offer animal sacrifices in future," when the New Testament says nothing about that and even states that sacrificing animals is obsolete and explains why, then we're not going to have to offer animal sacrifices in future. We're just not. 

Because the Old Testament isn't equal to the New Testament in providing objectivity, clarity, meaning, substance and reality. Rather, the Old Testament can only properly be understood by the New. 

So we know that any Bible Prophecy which meant Levitical-style worship would be carried out, must have been fulfilled while the Old Covenant still stood - because that's what the New Testament teaches, and God isn't into returning to the shadow! It's just how it is. 

Levitical-style worship did resume after captivity. The New Testament shows us that it did.

And it prefigured Christ. Therefore, because it prefigured Christ, the Book of Revelation uses the same imagery of those Old Testament prophecies (the city, river, etc.), and gives it its fulfilled, true Christ-centred gospel shape (where the city is ultimately really the universal bride of the Lamb; and the river that flowed from the door of the temple is really the offer of eternal life, etc.)