Revelation is wonderfully discontinuous

God's revelation has a marvelous discontinuity. A good physics analogy would be a phase transition, when matter rapidly shifts from one form to another.

In my opinion, the two popular systematic theologies have one thing in common: neither gets this right. Dispensationalism has too many discontinuities, and covenant theology, espousing no substantive discontinuity, is short by one.

Redemptive history is not as erratic as dispensationalism claims, and it is not as smooth as covenant theology teaches.

There is one giant discontinuity in redemptive history. It is just where you'd expect it: before Christ's finished work, then the "phase transition" to after Christ's finished work.

In its zeal for continuity, covenant theology downplays this transition.

The writer of Hebrews, a book that could be subtitled: How Jesus is better than anything that came before, understood, when he (or it could be she, couldn't it? We don't know) wrote in the very first verse:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son (Heb. 1:1) 

Note the contrast:

Long ago as compared to last days (i.e., now)
God spoke to our fathers compared to God spoke to us 
God used the prophets to teach compared to God uses Jesus to teach 

There is no indication that "us" refers to apostles who spoke to Jesus directly, for there is no indication that the writer of Hebrews was an apostle. No, the "us" includes you and me.

Many people agree with the writer that what is new is better than what was old, with the notable exception of the decalogue. That is a mistake. The "everything is better now" theme of Hebrews does not make an exception for the decalogue. In fact there is a rather explicit statement to the contrary:

For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Heb. 7:12) 

Here is the common argument: The decalogue represents the moral character of God, and the moral character never changes, therefore the decalogue in effect. It is a reasonable sounding argument, but it is fallacious.

It is true that God's moral character (law) is absolute. In that we agree. It is also true that we are not free to violate the commandments. In that we agree. It is also true that the 10 Commandments represent the moral character of God. On that we also agree.

However it is not  true that the 10 Commandments as given to us, long ago, by the prophet, are the best representation of God's moral character. The best, in synch with Heb. 1.1, is what was given not long ago but in these last days, and not to our fathers but to us, and not by the prophet but by the Son of God.

Moses was a good law giver. Jesus is the superior law giver. The best representation we have of God's moral character and law is not the decalogue, but what was given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

I think Hebrews teaches so.