Bible
Authority
Lesson
Five: The Old Testament
A study of the covenants is
fascinating, essential for a proper understanding of the Scriptures, and our
current relationship and obligations to our Father. Such a study is very timely and always needed. Much of the confusion in the denominational
world is due to not seeing the distinction between the Old Testament and the
New Testament. In addition, various
voices within our own brotherhood seem to be getting off track concerning this
topic.
Genesis 12:1-3
“I will make you a great nation, and I will bless
you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing…And in you all
the families of the earth shall be blessed”.
Points to Note:
While the covenant made
at Mount Sinai with Israel was a consequence of the covenant God made with
Abraham, we must reject the idea that the Law of Moses was nothing more than
the Abrahamic covenant renewed, or that it was the same covenant. All the families of the earth would not be
blessed until the Law of Moses ended.
This last promise was only fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the new
covenant (Galatians 3:16; Acts 3:25-26).
Paul makes a clear distinction between the Law of Moses, and the promise
made to Abraham:
Galatians 3:8-24 “…(17) What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty
years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God…For if
the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise…Why the Law
then? It was added because of
transgressions..’”
Galatians 4:21-31
“…(24)…for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai, bearing children
who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now
this Hagar is Mount Sinai…..and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she
is in slavery with her children…But what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the
son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman’”.
A big problem happens when
we try to make the Law of Moses a renewal of, or the same covenant as, the
covenant made to Abraham, for Paul has Christians inheriting the promise made
to Abraham (3:26-29), while at the same time rejecting all those who cling to
the Law of Moses. Christians are
clinging to the promise made to Abraham; unbelieving Jews are clinging to the
Law of Moses. How could the promise to Abraham and the Law of Moses be the same
covenant?
Deuteronomy 5:2-3 “The Lord our God made a covenant with
us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this
covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.”
Points to Note:
1. Some are now arguing that the language of
Deuteronomy 5:3 actually is saying, “The Lord did not only make this covenant with our
fathers..” Such an argument is
intended to prove that the Mosaic covenant is nothing new, but rather a
covenant that men and women were under all the way back to Adam. 2.
The problem with the above view is that it is forced to accuse all the
patriarchs of being unfaithful, for the Law of Moses contained not only the
Sabbath day, but also the Aaronic priesthood, the tabernacle, the various
feasts, food laws, and so on. To try to
place Adam, Noah, Abraham, or Isaac under the Law of Moses creates some serious
problems: A. Jacob married two sisters (Genesis
29:23-31), yet this was a violation of the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:18). B. These men never
made use of the Aaronic priesthood, never went to the tabernacle, and never
observed any of the feasts in the Law of Moses. C. Abraham had married
his step-sister (Genesis 20:12),
which was forbidden by the Law of Moses (Leviticus
18:11; 20:17). 3. Deuteronomy
29:12-15 “Now not with you alone
am I making this covenant and this oath, but both with those who stand here
with us today…and with those who are not with us here today.” This passage isn’t saying that God had made this covenant with
individuals like Abraham, rather, “those who are not with us here today”, refer
to the future generations of Israelites (not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) who
were born into that covenant because God had made it with their fathers as a
national covenant. 4. Nehemiah makes it clear that the Law,
including the command to keep the Sabbath, was given at Mount Sinai Nehemiah 9:13-14.
Various groups have tried to
avoid the clear impact in the above section of Scripture. Premillennialists have argued that this
section of Scripture has never been fulfilled, and some of our brethren are
arguing that these passages were first fulfilled in the Jewish return from
Babylon. But problems exist with that
last view: A. The covenant that Ezra, Nehemiah, and all the Jews since
captivity were under was the same covenant as given at Sinai. Yet Jeremiah had said, “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers” (31:32). B.
Sin was still remembered after the captivity, for animal sacrifices were
still offered (31:34; Hebrews
10:1-4,18). C. The new covenant is not a second fulfillment
of Jeremiah 31:31-34, rather it is the fulfillment, it is the covenant promised
in Jeremiah 31.
Points To Note:
1. Hebrews
8:6-13: Clearly the Hebrew
writer knew that in Jeremiah 31:31-34, God was contrasting two distinct
covenants and not the same covenant renewed.
One is “better” than the other.
There is a “first” and “second”.
And the second covenant is the New Covenant, not a covenant made with
the exiles after captivity. The
covenant given at Sinai is the first
covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 (Hebrews
9:1-10). The second covenant of Jeremiah 31 is the new covenant instituted by
Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8:8). The return of the Jews from Babylonian
exile is not the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-34. The statement in Jeremiah 31 to a second covenant has exclusive
reference to the covenant that began when Jesus died on the cross (Hebrews 9:15-17; 10:9-10). 2.
The Holy Spirit places the second covenant as happening not until the
sacrifice of Christ: Hebrews 10:12-19 “having offered one
sacrifice for sins for all time…For by one offering…And the Holy Spirit also
bears witness…This is the covenant that I will make with them… He then says,
And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more”. 3.
In addition, God clearly says that the first covenant is not contained
in the second covenant and the second covenant is not the first covenant
renewed, but rather that the first covenant “He
takes away” (10:9); “He has made the first obsolete” (8:13). 4.
We could also point out that the “Israel” with which God made the second
covenant is a different group of people and relationship than the “Israel” with
which the first covenant was made. The
Israel of the second covenant includes Gentiles (Galatians 3:28; 6:16). 5. Some have argued that the text says God
found fault with the people, and not with the covenant (8:7-8). The text does say
that, but the text also says that God removed the covenant (10:9).
“Having cancelled out the certificate of debt
consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken
it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
Points To Note:
1. It is being argued that Jesus didn’t nail
the Law of Moses or the first covenant to the cross, rather He only nailed sin
to the cross. 2. But the parallel passage in another letter
written by the same author, on the same subject reads, “by
abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances..” (Ephesians 2:15).
3. The language in the book of
Hebrews tells us that what Jesus took “away”, was the first covenant (Hebrews
10:9). 4. In addition, what was removed constituted a wall between Jews and
Gentiles, “and broke down the barrier of
the dividing wall, by abolishing…” (Ephesians
2:14). But sin wasn’t the wall
that divided Jews and Gentiles, for Jews and Gentiles were both sinners; the
one thing they had in common was sin (Romans
3:9-23)! 5. The context of
Colossians 2:14-16 demands that the Law of Moses is what was nailed to the
cross. The truth in 2:14 is why Paul
can say in verse 16 that the Christian is no longer under the food, drink,
festival, or Sabbath laws found in the first covenant. It just doesn’t make any sense for Paul to
say, “Sin has been nailed to the cross, so don’t let anyone condemn you for not
keeping the Sabbath day.” 6. Colossians 2:12-13 makes it clear that sin
wasn’t automatically and unconditionally removed at the cross. Yet, the Law of Moses was automatically and
unconditionally removed. In my mind one
of the greatest proofs that the new covenant is simply not a renewal or
extension of the first covenant, is that faithful Jews living when Jesus died
were not automatically transferred into the new covenant. When Jesus died, all “devout” Jews and
Gentiles were lost unless they believed in Jesus, repented, confessed Christ,
and were baptized. The first covenant
completely and unconditionally ended for everyone, even the most faithful at
the cross of Christ (Acts
2:5;37-38,41,47; 8:27,36-38; 10:1-2; 11:13-14; 6:7). 7. Other passages clearly assert that the first
covenant was completely removed:
Romans 7:1-7
“you also were made to die to the Law through the
body of Christ”. From what Law did the sacrifice of Jesus release
us? The Law that contained the
commandment “Thou shalt not covet” (7:7).
Notice that this release was made possible through the body of Christ,
that is, through His sacrifice upon the cross.
2Corinthians
3:6-18 “as servants
of a new covenant”.
In the above section of
Scripture, the New Covenant is set in definite contrast from the Law given at
Sinai, including the Ten Commandments:
A. The Ten Commandments stand
for the whole law that governed the first covenant (Deut. 4:13 “So He declared to
you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the ten
commandments and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.”) Or, in other words the Ten Commandments
or the two tablets of stone stand for the whole first covenant. B.
Paul calls this covenant a “ministry
of death” (3:7) a letter that “kills”
(3:6), “the ministry of condemnation”
(3:9) and that which “fades away”’
(3:11). C. From these verses it is clear that the New
Covenant is not the first covenant renewed.
The first covenant could not impart spiritual life in and of itself,
rather, in and of itself it issued condemnation. Without the sacrifice of Christ going back and forgiving the
faithful under the first covenant and all other covenants, even the most
faithful would have stood condemned (Hebrews
9:15). Some brethren are trying to
argue that a covenant isn’t statutes and commandments, but rather that a
covenant is a relationship. While those
who were keeping the statutes and commandments had a relationship with God, it
is clear that an essential part of the first covenant were laws and
statutes. A “relationship” didn’t issue
condemnation, rather condemnation resulted when those in the covenant
violated the terms of the covenant.
This is what Paul was getting at in Colossians 2:14 when he said that
what was nailed to the cross consisted of decrees, such as rules, commands, and
regulations, and that these decrees were contrary to us. They were contrary to us, because they
issued condemnation towards those who violated them and eventually every Jew
under the Law of Moses would violate various decrees.
We need to stress that from
the above passages the Bible does not teach one eternal covenant which is
simply renewed every so often. Paul
makes it clear in the above verses that the covenant given at Sinai issued only
condemnation in and of itself. The same
point is made in Romans 7:9-11; 8:3-4; and 3:9-23. The covenant at Sinai did offer forgiveness and mercy, but this
was only possible in view of what Jesus would accomplish on the cross (Hebrews 9:15; Romans 3:25-26).
In
teaching people the gospel we often run into questions concerning the Ten
Commandments. “Are we still under the
Ten Commandment Law, including the command to keep the Sabbath Day?”
“Isn’t it still a sin to commit adultery, steal, and lie? If not keeping the Sabbath is no longer a sin, why do the others remain?”
A. It is still
wrong to commit adultery, because such is equally condemned in the New Covenant
(1 Corinthians 6:9), as is idolatry,
murder, lying (Revelation 21:8);
irreverent speech (1 Timothy 1:20);
stealing, greed, and lust (1 Cor.
5:10-11). And it still remains true
that one needs to honor and obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1-2). B.
But the day for worship in the New Covenant is the first day of the
week, and not the seventh day (Acts 20:7
‘And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break
bread’; 2:42; 1 Corinthians 11:23ff; 6:1; Hebrews 10:25). C. And yet even among the above
similarities, there are differences.
The consequence for disrespect to parents or committing adultery is no
longer the death sentence (Exodus
21:15,17; Deut. 22:22). Under the
Law of Moses, the adulterer was to be executed, in the New Covenant, such a
person among God’s people is to be withdrawn from if they refuse to repent (1 Corinthians 5:1ff). D. People also forget that adultery, lying
and stealing were wrong before the Ten Commandments were given. Moses made it clear that the ancestors of
those who stood before Mount Sinai, had not lived under the Law that God was
now giving: Deuteronomy 5:2-3 ‘The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb
(Sinai). The Lord did not make this
covenant with our fathers…’ While
adultery and murder were wrong prior to the Law being given on Sinai (Genesis 4:10; 20:6-7). Yet there are major differences: The Patriarchs were not under the food laws
which were later given (Genesis 9:3;
Leviticus 11:2ff); Adam, Abel, Abraham, and so on, did not have to go
through an official priesthood to have their sacrifices offered. They were the priest in their own family,
and they offered their own sacrifices (Genesis
4:4; Genesis 12:8; Leviticus 2:2ff). In
fact, priests not from the tribe of Levi (condemned
by the Law, Leviticus 16:40) existed previous to the Law and were approved
by God (Genesis 14:18). Certain practices that existed before
the Law, such as when Jacob married two sisters (Genesis 29:23-30), were now forbidden by the Law given at Sinai (Leviticus 18:18).
If we can see that various
laws which existed prior to the Law were then incorporated in the Law of Moses,
and yet the Israelites were now under a completely different covenant than
their ancestors, we should be able to see that while there are similarities
between various laws in the O.T. and N.T., we are dealing with two distinct
covenants. Various things haven’t
changed from Genesis to Revelation, and adultery has always been wrong, as is
homosexuality (Genesis 18:23; 19:5-7;
Leviticus 18:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9). In
fact, it is precisely because people don’t realize that Christians are under a
different covenant than the Israelites in the Old Testament, that people end up
making arguments like, ‘If, we are going to condemn the homosexual today, we
must also condemn the person who eats shellfish because the Bible condemns
both.’ (Leviticus 18:22; 11:22).
The answer of course is very simple.
Both were outlawed under the Law of Moses, but all men today are
accountable to the New Covenant, which condemns homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9), but has also removed all
the previous food laws (Mark 7:19). The reader should note that unlike
stealing, adultery, murder and so on, the Sabbath day as a command was not
given until Mount Sinai (Nehemiah 9:13-14
‘Then Thou didst come down on Mount Sinai…Thou didst give to them just
ordinances and true laws…So Thou didst make known to them Thy holy
Sabbath.’)
“The Ten Commandments Are An Eternal Law, While The Rest Of The Law Of Moses Was Removed At The Cross Of Christ.”
Various arguments like this
have been advanced to try to distance the Ten Commandments from all the other laws,
which surround it. Obviously, the food
laws in Leviticus 11 do not cross over into the New Covenant (Acts 10:13-15; 1 Timothy 4:3-4), so people have tried to declare the
Ten Commandments to be an eternal law and the rest of the law to be more of a ceremonial
law. Points to Note: A. But
without all the other laws, the Ten Commandments are unworkable, for what if
someone violates the Sabbath day? In
the Ten Commandments there is absolutely no mention of what the penalties are
for ignoring these commands. The rest
of the Law is needed to clarify, explain, and make these laws workable (Exodus 31:14; 35:3). In addition, other commands made it
clear that there was ‘work’ which was allowable on the Sabbath. For example, the priests had sacrifices to offer
(Leviticus 23:3; 34-38; Numbers
28:9-10). B. It is clear that even people who profess to keep the Sabbath
today, can’t keep the Sabbath as God commanded it. For those who violate it are not put to death. And there no longer exists the Levitical priesthood
to offer the sacrifices, which were commanded on the Sabbath day. So let the reader be impressed that more
than one command regulated the Sabbath day as well as all other issues
addressed in the Ten Commandments.
Therefore, it is impossible to separate the rest of the Law from the Ten
Commandments. C. In addition, to be
consistent, if keeping the Sabbath day is still mandatory, when so are all the
other feasts, such as Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Booths. I find nothing in the Old Testament, which
says the weekly Sabbath had a sacredness, which the Passover Feast didn’t
have. God placed the weekly Sabbath
with other feasts in the same context, and He placed the same importance on
each one (Numbers 28:9-10, 16; the weekly
Sabbath was called “a holy convocation” and the same term is applied to the
yearly festivals as well Leviticus 23:3,7).
D. From the fact that the death penalty is attached to various
violations of the Ten Commandments, it must be clear to the reader that this covenant
was for a nation in which there was absolutely no separation between ‘church
and state’, that is, the civil authorities were religious authorities. The Law of Moses was a Law for a definite
nation (Exodus 31:13-18). E. The Ten Commandments are not distinct
from the Law of Moses or the Covenant. (Deut. 4:13 ‘His covenant..that is the ten
commandments’; 5:3 ‘The Lord did not make this covenant with our
Fathers..’; Jeremiah 31:31-34 ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house
of Israel…not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I
took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt’; Hebrews 8:13
‘When He said, “A new covenant”, He has made the first obsolete…’; 9:1-4 ‘Now
even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship…and the tables of the
covenant’. The reader must be
impressed that God in the New Testament calls the first covenant, the covenant
made at Sinai, “obsolete”, and He specifically includes the “tables of the
covenant” in that obsolete class. What
were written on the tables of the covenant?
The Ten Commandments (Deut.
10:4-5). In the book of Nehemiah,
the Law of Moses (8:1), is also
called the law of God (8:8). All attempts to make the Ten
Commandments a cohesive eternal law, as opposed to the rest of the legislation
found in the Law, have ended in failure.
In fact, in talking about the ‘Law’ that Christ has removed (Romans 7:4), Paul specifically cites
one of the Ten Commandments as part of that Law which has been done away (7:7 ‘You shall not covet’).
“Do you think the early Christians, like Paul and
Peter, kept some Sabbath rules, or did they make a clean break and really
stand-out amongst the Jews? It took
them awhile, and after some debate, evidently, to figure out circumcision
wasn’t necessary (Acts 15).”
The above is a good question
and can be answered. A. While
the apostles did not fully realize that preaching the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), included preaching to raw
heathens (Acts 10:1ff), they did realize that a definite
change in covenants had taken place at the cross of Christ. In fact the Hebrew writer makes it clear
that at His death one covenant ended, and the other was established (Hebrews 9:15-17 ‘For where a covenant is,
there must be necessity be the death of the one who made it’). In the tenth chapter it is clear that
the first covenant was removed and the second established (10:9-10) when He offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin (10:4-17). The writer inherently links the new covenant promised through Jeremiah
to the sacrifice of Christ, the sacrifice that forever made all the sacrifices
commanded in the Law, even those offered on the Sabbath day, irrelevant. B. Paul is very clear that the Law of Moses
is not an eternal covenant, rather He places it between the promise made to
Abraham, and the realization of that promise in Jesus Christ. Once Jesus came and made salvation available
(3:26-27) (which demanded His death) (Galatians 3:19), Paul clearly says that the Law ended, so
that ‘we are no longer under a
tutor’ (3:25). In this same letter
God makes it very clear that anyone still trying to live under the Law given at
Sinai is in bondage (4:24-31 ‘these women
are two covenants…Hagar is Mount Sinai (what covenant was given on Mount
Sinai?)…she is in slavery with her children…’
In fact, those who are still trying to keep the covenant given at
Sinai are to be ‘cast out’ (4:30). Paul didn’t view such religious
individuals as having any fellowship with Him or other Christians. In the mind of the apostles, a
‘Christianity’ that continued to follow the Law of Moses wasn’t true
Christianity at all. Listen to these
passages: ‘You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified
by law (what law is under consideration in this book? 5:3, the law that included mandatory circumcision, 5:2)..you have
fallen from grace.’ Paul is clear,
if you insist on keeping various statutes in the Law of Moses, including the
Sabbath day, you are morally obligated to keep the whole covenant (5:3), which
is impossible. 2 Corinthians 3:7 ‘the ministry of death, in letters engraved on
stones’. C. Following the
resurrection and ascension, the apostles and other Christians are immediately
following a completely different covenant, including different forms of
worship, organizational structure, and so on, than was given to Israel at
Sinai. All Jews must believe in Jesus
and be baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38),
as well as all Gentiles. A new worship
was instituted, including communion (Acts
2:42). The Church was completely
separated financially from the synagogue or the Temple (Acts 2:44-45). Those still
adhering to the first covenant were viewed as lost (2:47; 3:19, 26). It is
clear that following the covenant given at Sinai can’t bring about salvation (4:12).
Very early on many of the Jewish priests are converting to
Christianity (6:7), and yet
Christianity has no official or formal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5), with no physical or animals sacrifices to
offer. The synagogue was no longer
viewed as a place of worship, but rather as a place to find converts and to
preach to the lost (Acts 6:8-10;
17:2-3). D. Concerning Acts 15: The apostles knew that mandatory religious
circumcision was no longer necessary long before Acts 15. Paul knew the answer to this question before
he went up to Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-2;
Galatians 2:1-5). Acts 15 is not a
group of Christians coming together to try to figure something out, they
already had it figured out! None of the
speeches in the chapter from the apostles or even James, expresses any doubt or
an opposing view. Rather, men who
already knew the truth on the matter are making it clear that there is no doubt
as to what the truth on this issue is and that the men teaching the opposite
view are doing so without any permission or agreement from the Lord’s
representatives (15:24-29).
“Is Colossians 2:16 teaching that we shouldn’t judge people who are continuing to keep the Sabbath?”
A. That wasn’t the issue in the first century. Voices in opposition to the apostles were
not trying to get Christians to stop observing the Sabbath, rather they were
trying to persuade Christians to combine Christianity with the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1-4). B. The chapter is talking about doctrines
and systems of belief that people were trying to add to Christianity, and not remove things from Christianity. People were trying to say that you need
Jesus and philosophy (2:8); Jesus and
asceticism (2:21-23); Jesus and the
Law of Moses (2:14-17). C. In this context, the Christian is not to
be intimidated by those who say that one must continue to keep the
Sabbath. For the Law, which contained
the Sabbath, was nailed to the cross (2:14)
and was intended by God as something that would be temporary (2:17).