|
The Everlasting Covenants Is the Old Law Binding Today? Are the Ten Commandments Binding Today? Does the Land of Palestine belong to the Jews? Copyright 2002, David A. Duncan
There are at least 6 Great Covenants that are referred to as "everlasting" in the Old Testament: 1. Rainbow:Gen. 9:16 2. Covenant with Abraham:Gen. 17:3 through Gen. 17:7 (NKJV) 3. Land of Canaan:Gen. 17:8 (NKJV) 4. The Law of Moses:Lev.
16:34 (NKJV) 5. Priesthood:(Aaron and his sons) Ex. 40:15
through Ex. 40:16 (NKJV)
(to Phinehas) Num. 25:12 through Num. 25:13 (NKJV) 6. Throne of David (sure mercies of David):Isa.
55:3 (NKJV)
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.[1] 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". The RainbowFirst, 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 Throne and PriesthoodThe 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:
The promise made to David is represented as "sure" (i.e. the sure mercies of David).The promise was that David would never lack a man to sit on the throne. The Jews however did not understand this to mean that a son of David would reign on the throne in Jerusalem without fail. It was understood to mean that when a king of the Jews reigned in Jerusalem on the throne of David - he would be of the seed of David. The Psalmists plainly stated that the rule of the sons of David were conditional based on keeping God's commandments:
Furthermore, it was understood that there might be a time when a son of David would not rule because of transgression:
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:
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).
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:
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.
The Law of Moses:Its Statues and Ordinances are spoken of as "everlasting":
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:
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:
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.
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:
As Paul said about the current state of the Law after the death of Jesus:
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:
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":
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.
Paul wrote to the Galatians about the danger of attempting to keep the Old Law after having received Christ.
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.
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:
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)
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:
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. he 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:
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:
Therefore, it is evident that the "annulling" of the Law was envisioned from the foundation of the world:
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:
This scattering is likewise spoken of by Hosea:
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.
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:
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. PremillenialismMany 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:
Furthermore, it is stated by Paul that the last enemy to be placed under his feet is "death":
It is evident that Christ is now reigning:
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:
|