There are
at least 6 Great Covenants that are referred to as "everlasting" in the Old
Testament:
Some key points in understanding these "everlasting"
covenants is to understand what God means by the term everlasting, and the
"terms" and "conditions" of the covenants.
From Strong’s Dictionary, the word translated
"everlasting" is "owlam"(5769) which means "time out of mind (past or fut.),
i.e. (practically) eternity; lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual,
at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end)."
The primary intent is "without end", although some writers
have pointed out that it can mean "lasting, long" or "age lasting". The meaning of our English word
"everlasting" is the same: (1) lasting through all time – eternal, (2)
continuing long or indefinitely. Therefore, the usual meaning ("lasting
through all time") is indicated unless the context demands an understanding of
simply "continuing indefinitely".
The "terms and conditions" (T&C) of any covenant will
be a primary factor in determining whether the covenant is "eternal" or
"continuing long or indefinitely".
First, consider the covenant God made with man considering
the flood. After the flood was over God
made a covenant with man that he would never destroy the world by water again
(Gen. 9:15). There are no T&Cs
involved in this covenant – it is a covenant entered into by God without any
response required of man. This being
the case, all agree that the nature of this covenant is just as everlasting as
the everlasting nature of God.
The everlasting covenant for the priesthood is linked to
the covenant made with David – (i.e. the Sure Mercies of David) as is evident
from Jer. 33:18.
From this passage, it can be seen that the promise of the
priesthood is fulfilled in the same manner as the sure mercies of David.
A primary question concerning the covenant with Aaron and
his sons then can best be understood by examining the promise made to David to
see whether this covenant was unconditional.
These two are considered together:
Psa. 89:30 through Psa. 89:33 (NKJV)
30 "If his sons forsake My law
And do not walk in My judgments,
31 If they break My statutes
And do not keep My commandments,
32 Then I will punish their transgression with the rod,
And their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless My lovingkindness
I will not utterly take from him,
Nor allow My faithfulness to fail.
Furthermore, it was understood that there might be a time
when a son of David would not rule because of transgression:
Psalms 89:12
If your sons will keep My covenant
And My testimony which I shall teach them,
Their sons also shall sit upon your throne forevermore.
The fair implication is that if the sons of David did not
keep the covenant, then they would not retain the throne. This is stated plainly to Solomon:
2 Chr. 7:16 through 2 Chr. 7:22 (NKJV)
{16} For now I have chosen and sanctified this house, that My
name may be there forever; and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually.
{17} As for you, if you walk before Me as your father David walked, and do
according to all that I have commanded you, and if you keep My statutes and My
judgments, {18} then I will establish the throne of your kingdom, as I
covenanted with David your father, saying, ‘You shall not fail to have a man as
ruler in Israel.’
{19} "But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments
which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them,
{20} then I will uproot them from My land which I have given them; and this
house which I have sanctified for My name I will cast out of My sight,
The ultimate fulfillment of the Sure Mercies of David is
in Jesus. He does sit on the throne of
David – not the literal throne – but the same throne as David (i.e. the rule
over God’s people).
(Acts 13) 33God has fulfilled this for us their
children, in that He has raised up Jesus. …
34And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus:
‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’
Just as God has kept this everlasting covenant to the seed
of David, so also he keeps his everlasting covenant with Levi. However, just as the Sure Mercies of David
are fulfilled ultimately in the New Covenant, so also are the promises to
Levi. With the Law of Moses done away
with (Col. 2:14; Heb 7:12) then the fulfillment to Levi cannot be accomplished
with literal priests after the Aaronic order (Heb 7:12). However, Messiah is spoken of as the one in
whom the two offices of king and priest would be combined. In Zechariah (6:12-13), Jehozadak is crowned
representatively for the "Branch" who would be a priest on His throne. This could not happen under the Law of
Moses, for a priest under the Law of Moses must be a son of Aaron (tribe of
Levi) and the throne of David was promised to the seed of David (tribe of
Judah). However, in Jesus Christ, this
is fulfilled. Isaiah spoke of the
"Branch" from the root of Jesse (the father of David), as the one whom the
Gentiles would seek (Isaiah 11:10). So,
the intent of God’s everlasting purpose – that God’s people would have a king
from the seed of David and that the service of the priests would never fail is
fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
The fulfillment of these two covenants is spoken of as
"unconditional". For example, the two
covenants are so certain that there is nothing that man could do to prevent
their fulfillment, for God said:
Jer. 33:20 through Jer. 33:21
(NKJV)
20"Thus says the LORD: ‘If you can break My covenant with the
day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in
their season, 21then My covenant may also be broken with David My
servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the
Levites, the priests, My ministers.
However, as pointed out above, there were T&Cs
concerning the obedience of the sons of David.
Even so, the disobedience of the sons of David could not prevent the
ultimate fulfillment of God’s purpose, for the purpose of God in this matter is
eternal.
Eph. 3:11 (NKJV)
11according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in
Christ Jesus our Lord,
The Law of Moses:
Its Statues and Ordinances are spoken of as "everlasting":
Lev. 16:34 (NKJV) 34This shall be an everlasting
statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their
sins, once a year." And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Even though the Law and its statutes are described as
everlasting, yet we know that God did not intend for it to continue without
end. Even by the mouth of Jeremiah, God
spoke of a time when the Law would be superseded:
Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah—32not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of
Egypt, My covenant which they broke, …
The Law was established by covenant. From God’s perspective, the covenant was
without end (indefinite) – that is, God would be faithful to the covenant
without end. However, like any
covenant, for it to be of effect, it must be kept by both parties. Israel’s failure to keep the covenant caused
it to be of none effect, and so it was replaced.
Many today believe that the Mosaic Law is still in effect
even today. It is evident that the
ceremonial portions of the law cannot be kept today (i.e. the animal
sacrifices) since there are no priests who can trace their lineage back to
Aaron. Most agree that the ceremonial
portion of the Law of Moses has been superseded or done away with, but some
argue that the moral portion of the Law (i.e. the Ten Commandments) is still
binding today. It is argued that the
Sabbath commandment even is still valid, but that the Christian’s "sabbath" is
Sunday. A passage often cited is the
following statement of Jesus:
Matt. 5:17 through Matt. 5:18 (NKJV)
17"Do not think that
I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to
fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away,
one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
What did Jesus mean by this statement? He did not say that the Law would continue
to be in effect until heaven and earth passed away – but rather that it would
not pass away until it "all was fulfilled".
What is the difference between "destroying" and
"fulfilling"? The word translated
destroy (kataluo) means the same as to "demolish". The word translated fulfill (pleroo) can mean to satisfy, finish,
end, etc.
4137. pleroo, play-ro'-o; from G4134; to make replete, i.e.
(lit.) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (fig.) to furnish (or imbue,
diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task),
verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:--accomplish, X after, (be)
complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach,
perfect, supply.
An "end" is still implied, but a different kind of an
"end". To demolish, or destroy, would
imply a destruction of the purpose and goals of the law. To fulfill it implies a completion of the
goals and purposes of the law. The goal of the law was to bring man to a right
relationship with God (and therefore provide "life") – as Paul said about the
Law:
(Rom 10:5 KJV) For Moses
describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth
those things shall live by them.
As Paul said about the current state of the Law after the
death of Jesus:
(Gal 3:24-25 KJV)
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith. {25} But after that faith is come, we are no
longer under a schoolmaster.
Notice back in Matthew 5:18 that "heaven and earth shall
not pass away… from the law till all is fulfilled." Some have taught that the
law will not pass away until the "earth" does.
However, what the text says is that the law would not pass away until
all was fulfilled (i.e. by implication, all that was promised in the law). In other words, its purpose will not be
destroyed. It would continue until its
purpose was fulfilled – which is what Jesus came to do. Since its purpose was completed in Jesus,
Paul would speak of the Law as the schoolmaster, that we are no longer under
(Gal 3:25).
When was "all fulfilled"?
It is evident from the New Testament writers that all was
fulfilled at the death of Christ since Paul writes that the Old Law was nailed
to the cross of Jesus:
Col. 2:13 through Col. 2:15 (NKJV)
13And you, being dead in your trespasses … He has made alive
together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14having
wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was
contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the
cross.
The "handwriting of requirements" is a phrase used to refer
to the Law of Moses, as also Paul referred to the Mosiac Law in the Corinthian
letter as the "Ministry of Death":
2 Cor. 3:7 through 2 Cor. 3:11 (NKJV)
7But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on
stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look
steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory
was passing away, 8how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more
glorious? … 11For if what is
passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.
Paul speaks of the Mosaic Law as "passing away", and the
Law of Christ as that which remains. It
is important to notice that the "ministry of death" is that which was written
and engraved on stones. That portion of
the Law which was written and engraved on stones was the Ten Commandments – and
it is precisely this that Paul refers to as "passing away", and the Law of
Christ as that which "remains".
Paul also argues in Romans 7 concerning the Law, and uses
one of the Ten Commandments as an example (Rom. 7:7) "… I would not have known
covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’", and then goes on
to say that (v. 10) "the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring
death." In contrasting the Mosaic Law with
the Law of Christ, Paul said that the Law of Moses could not make man free from
sin, but that this was accomplished in Jesus (Rom. 8:3) "For what the law could
not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own
Son…" In this context Paul says that we
have been "delivered from the law, having died" to it, and therefore not
serving it. It is clear from the
context (Rom. 7:7) that this involves all of the law and not just a portion of
it, since he quotes one of the ten commandments as an example of the law.
(Rom 7:6 NKJV) But now
we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held
by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness
of the letter.
Paul wrote to the Galatians about the danger of attempting
to keep the Old Law after having received Christ.
Gal. 4:21 (NKJV)
21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear
the law?
Paul argues that one who attempts to keep one aspect of
the Law (e.g. "circumcision"), and to be "justified" by it, is indebted to keep
it all (i.e. you cannot split the Law of Moses up and take some but not
all). This same argument is valid for
those who attempt to pull the Ten Commandments out of the Law and say they are
still valid – those that do this are debtors "to keep the whole law". This same argument can be made about any
covenant of man – you either keep the whole covenant (i.e. all of the T&Cs)
or it is broken.
Gal. 5:1 through Gal. 5:4 (NKJV)
1Stand£
fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled
again with a yoke of bondage. 2Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if
you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3And I
testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep
the whole law. 4You have become estranged from Christ, you
who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Perhaps the simplest summary of all is that given by Paul
in this same context where Paul plainly says that we are not under the Law of
Moses any longer:
Gal. 3:24 through Gal. 3:25 (NKJV)
24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to
Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith has
come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Are the Ten Commandments Binding Today?
It is evident then that the Law of Moses was taken out of
the way (nailed to the cross), and that we are no longer under it (no longer
under a tutor), and that this means the whole Law, and not just a portion.
However, it is true that the moral principles of 9 of the
10 commandments are required of those who follow Christ since these same moral
principles are taught by Christ and the inspired New Testament writers (see
table below). However, it cannot be
said that we follow the Law of Moses any more than it can be said that we
follow British Law (e.g. the British Law condemned murder, and so does our Law
today). It could only be said that we
keep British Law today if we kept the entire body of British Law (i.e. the same
argument that Paul made in Galatians 5:3)
|
Mosaic 10 Commandments
|
Teaching of the N.T. writers
|
|
Exodus 20:3
|
Acts 14:15
|
|
Exodus 20:4
|
1 John 5:21
|
|
Exodus 20:7
|
James 5:12
|
|
Exodus 20:8
|
No Corresponding Commandment
|
|
Exodus 20:12
|
Ephesians 6:1-2
|
|
Exodus 20:13
|
Matthew 5:21-22
|
|
Exodus 20:14
|
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
|
|
Exodus 20:15
|
Ephesians 4:28
|
|
Exodus 20:16
|
Colossians 3:9
|
|
Exodus 20:17
|
Ephesians 5:3-5
|
For more information on "Should we keep the Sabbath today"
see the FAQ on this topic at keep_the_sabbath.html.
It should also be noted that the Mosaic prohibition
against murder was not a "new" law, but a statement of what was already a law
of God (Gen. 4:10-11), and is also true of other moral principles of the Law of
Moses.
It is important to note that when a controversy arose in
the early church concerning whether or not the Gentiles should be required to
keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1), the Jerusalem Council of Apostles and Elders
agreed that this was not right and referred to the Law of Moses as a "yoke …
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" The consensus of the council was to admonish the Gentiles
concerning prevalent sins in the Gentile world, but concerned principles which
existed even before the Law of Moses:
Acts 15:19 through Acts 15:20
(NKJV)
19Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among
the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20but that we write to them to
abstain from things polluted by idols, from £sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
The council did not require circumcision, nor even the Ten
Commandments – except as those moral principles were taught by the doctrine of
Christ. The Old Law was simply not
binding to Christians. The covenant had
been broken by Israel, and the Old Law was taken out of the way – its purpose
having been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
The Old Law was an everlasting covenant in the sense that
God made an "indefinite, long lasting" commitment with Israel (I will be your
God, and you will be my People).
However, this was not a covenant without T&Cs. This covenant had a long list of blessings
and cursings – blessing to Israel if they kept the law and cursings if they did
not (Deut. 30). These consequences are
often referred to by God as justification for his rejection of Israel:
Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah—32not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of
Egypt, My covenant which they broke, …
Therefore, the covenant was "everlasting" as far as God’s
commitment was concerned, but that does not mean that the Law was to be without
end. God purposed before the foundation
of the world to save mankind through Jesus (Eph. 1:4), and since Jesus could
NOT be a High Priest under the Law of Moses (Heb. 7:12-14), it was evident that
the Law would be replaced:
Heb. 7:12 (NKJV)
12For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a
change of the law.
Therefore, it is evident that the "annulling" of the Law
was envisioned from the foundation of the world:
Heb. 7:18 (NKJV)
18For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former
commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,
Heb. 8:13 (NKJV)
13In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.
Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The "everlasting" covenant was to be "long lasting", and
there is no indication that God limited His commitment to it (i.e. an
everlasting commitment), but as with any covenant it can be broken by one of
the participants (i.e. Israel).
But what about the Land Promise?
As can be seen in the example of the Law of Moses, a
covenant referred to as "everlasting", may be limited by the failure of man to
keep the covenant. The land promise was an everlasting promise (Gen. 13:14-15),
but it also involved terms and conditions.
The gift was unconditional, but retention was conditional. This much is stated many places:
Leviticus 18 26You shall therefore keep My statutes
and My judgments, …28lest the land vomit you out also when you
defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Deut. 28 58"If you do not carefully observe all the
words of this law that are written in this book, … 59then the LORD
will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues… and you
shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess. 64"Then the LORD will scatter you
among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other,
This scattering is likewise spoken of by Hosea:
Hos. 9:17 (NKJV) 17 My God will cast them away,
Because they did not obey Him; And they shall be wanderers among the
nations.
History records that this is indeed what happened. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70
A.D., the Jews continued to be rebellious such that in 120 A.D. they were
banished from the land of Canaan and the land was renamed Palestine. Until the 20th century, the Jews
were wanderers among the nations, and even today only a small percentage live
in the land of Palestine. The Jewish
nation that lives there today is not the theocratic nation which was given the
land: It has no king, no Law of Moses, no Temple, no Priesthood, No sacrifices,
no tribal identities, etc.
God gave the land as an unconditional promise, but
retention was conditional. All of the
promises concerning the land have been fulfilled, and we should not look to any
future fulfillment.
|
Promise
|
Fulfillment
|
|
|
Joshua 23:14-16 … And you
know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed
of all the good things which the LORD your God spoke concerning you. All have
come to pass for you; not one word of them has failed.
|
|
A Return Promised – Jer.
30: 3For behold, the days are coming,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will
bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,’ says the LORD. ‘And I
will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they
shall possess it.’"
|
Neh 9 36 "Here we are, servants today! And the
land that You gave to our fathers, To eat its fruit and its bounty, Here we are,
servants in it!
|
|
A second return promised –
Isaiah 11:11 It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord shall set
His hand again the second time To recover the remnant of His people
who are left, …
|
|
All of the promises in the Bible concerning the Land have
been fulfilled, and there is no promise concerning the Land which is yet to be
fulfilled. There is no prophecy which
speaks of a future return. Thus, there
is no biblical basis for arguing that the land of Palestine today belongs to
the Jews.
Just as the Old Covenant has been done away with, so the
theocratic nation of Israel has been done away with, and replaced by the
"heavenly Jerusalem" (Hebrews 12:22).
Those who are "Jews" today are not those who are Jews outwardly:
(Romans 2) 28For he is not a Jew who is one
outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the
flesh; 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and
circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter;
whose praise is not from men but from God.
Thus the "people of God" (using the term Jew figuratively)
today are Christians, and the "promised land" is heaven itself (Hebrews 4;
10:19-21; 9:24). There is no future
promise for the physical nation of Israel.
God made some "everlasting" covenants which are not
conditional, and are therefore eternal, but he has also made some in which his
commitment is eternal, but which involve Terms and Conditions. God is ever faithful to his commitments, but
man has ever been unfaithful, and as a consequence these covenants have been
broken by man and are no longer in effect.
Premillenialism
Many Premillenialists today look for a literal reign of Christ on earth for 1,000 years, and
believe that by supporting Israel today, they are helping to usher in the
future kingdom. However, it is clear
from the scriptures that Christ will not reign on the earth. Acts 2:33-35 says that Christ has been
exalted to the right hand of God to reign (from the right hand of God) until
all enemies have been made his footstool:
(Acts 2:33-35 NKJV)
"Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having
received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this
which you now see and hear. {34} "For David did not ascend into the
heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right
hand, {35} Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'
Furthermore, it is stated by Paul that the last enemy to
be placed under his feet is "death":
(1 Cor 15:25-26 NKJV)
For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. {26} The
last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
It is evident that Christ is now reigning:
(Eph 1:20-21 NKJV) which
He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His
right hand in the heavenly places, {21} far above all principality and power
and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but
also in that which is to come.
Thus it is clear that since Christ is now reigning (he is
over all things not only in this age but also in that which is to come), he is
at the right hand of God, and he will remain there until death has been
conquered – and after this the judgment – that there is no place for a literal
earthly reign. In fact this is what
Jesus himself said:
(John 18:36 NKJV) Jesus
answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My
kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be
delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."
For more information on Premillenialism, see our FAQ
section on Premillenialism at faq.html.