Just don't ignore the actual texts, like what we find in the book of Hebrews, which actually explains the typology of the old covenant and applies it to Christ.
Patterns aside, I assume an examination of the NT will be the majority of your analysis since it authoritively intreprets all the OT.
Vague references to patterns aren't nearly as convincing as actual, careful exegesis of the text. That is the way the rabbis got into trouble, and why they have a Talmud to go along with their Bible.
"And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27)
There's absolutely NOTHING in the NEW TESTAMENT
which prevents a BOTH/AND interpretation.
To ARBITRARILY DECLARE that Contrarian Replacementarian theology is the only viable conclusion is . . .
well . . .
exceedingly ARBITRARY.
You assume incorrectly. The New Testament is only 20% or so of Scripture--why then should it be the majority of any exegesis?
The error you make, TC, is in misapplying the rule, "Interpret the OT in the light of the New." You start in the NT, come to your conclusions, and then either ignore vast swaths of the Tanakh or twist them in order to fit the conclusions you've come to based on less than 20% of the available data.
The approach I take is two sided: "Interpret the Tanakh in the light of the New Covenant/Interpret the New Covenant in the light of the Tanakh." When Sha'ul, for example, quotes Malachi 1:1-3, I don't just assume that God hated Esau the individual, I go look up the quote--and lo and behold, it turns out that neither the prophet nor the apostle is dealing with the subject of an individual's salvation at all, but with the question of Israel's national election.
Likewise, when one gets to Hebrews, if one simply assumes (and one has to go beyond the actual text to do so) that Hebrews says that sacrifice and offering are done away with and must not be offered, that puts Hebrews in conflict with the Torah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the very actions of the Apostles themselves (e.g., Acts 21:20ff). That being the case, we would have to reject this annonymous book as being canonical at all, not disregard the words and deeds of four other Biblical sources!
But as it turns out, when one reads Scripture both ways, seeking to reconcile both sides instead of coming to a conclusion based on a handful of verses in a single book and disregarding all other sources, we find that Hebrews, while certainly explaining the typology behind much of the Torah most certainly does not do away with it. In like vein, it explains Yeshua's fulfillment of the typeology of the Yom Kippur sacrifices, but does not do so in a way that precludes a future fulfillment--and as I will show when I actually post the article on Yom Kippur, there are several elements of that Appointed Time which are expressly not fulfilled in the First Coming.
Now stop whining about my "vague references." They are vague because I'm not going to go into detail until I'm ready to present that argument in full.
So why don't you leave aside discussion of Yom Kippur for when I do, and discuss with us the topic of this thread instead?