ressponse to my questions
Dear Omega,
Wow! I believe that is a first for me. I don't ever remember having to answer my own questions before!
I usually try to ask tough questions and you are having me to answer them!
OK, here goes:
1. Does Hebrews 9:22 mean that animals are under the law?
No.
44 And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel:
Deut 4:44 (KJV)
Nothing was said about it being given to the animals.
2. And if so, does it mean that the sins of animals can be purged by the sacrificial blood of other animals so that those animals can enter heaven or the New Jerusalem?
No. That would be ridiculous.
3. Or does it mean that the blood of Jesus was shed so that animals could enter heaven or the New Jerusalem? (Jesus died so that a dog or a goat could enter the New Jerusalem along with humans?)
No.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Luke 22:20 (KJV)
It doesn't say that His blood was shed for animals.
4. Does Hebrews 9:22 mean that the literal meaning of Rev 22:15 (KJV) is not true?
No. One Scripture does not contradict another Scripture except in cases of the Old Covenant versus the New Covenant. And in those cases we are to go by the New Covenant rather than the Old Covenant. But there is no case of OT vs NT here.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Rev 22:14-15 (KJV)
Since "dogs" (even if it is in an allegorical sense) are not allowed into the city according to Rev 22:14-15 and are listed along with "sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" then "dogs" cannot be regarded very highly. If "dogs" in an allegorical sense is the word chosen to mean people who are not allowed into the New Jerusalem, then I think it is extremely unlikely that "dogs" in a literal sense are allowed there either.
I'll say it another way: If people who are *like* dogs are not allowed into the New Jerusalem, then I don't see how animals who *really are* dogs could be allowed in there either.
Doesn't that make sense?
Yours in Christ,
John Reno