ARE GOD'S LAWS EVERLASTING?

One internet Bible critic, Jim Goad, makes the following statement: “In Leviticus, God lays down a bunch of laws and calls them 'everlasting.' Then in the New Testament we suddenly have this: Hebrews 8:7.”

Here is how that verse and the previous one read in the NRSV: “But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. For it that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.”

Notice that right off the bat, the critic is to some extent comparing apples to oranges since the Old Testament reference is to certain 'laws' while Hebrews is referring to 'covenants' instead. Now it is true that in certain Bible passages the two seem to be equated to one another (see I Chronicles 16:17; Isaiah 24:5), but that is probably because the people's part of the covenants was to keep the laws and ordinances set down by God. And that fact alone does not get rid of the inescapable problem that at least 14 times in the OT, the covenant itself is said to be everlasting.

A short Hebrew word study is indicated at this point to clear up the issue. Young, in his Analytical Concordance, distinguishes between the word utilized in the OT passages, olam, from another Hebrew word, tamid. Whereas olam means “old, ancient, a long time or duration,” tamid is the one referring to “unceasing, continual, always.” Some verses illustrating this somewhat limited sense of olam vs. tamid include I Chronicles 28:4; II Chronicles 13:5; and Psalms 30:12; 41:12; 52:9; and 75:9.

Thus, Tomasino elaborates on the exact meaning of olam in the context of the covenant: “olam is usually used to describe events extended into the distant past or future; Such distant time is clearly relative: it can be time in one's own life (Ps 77:5), a life span (Exod 21:6), or the furthest conceivable time (15:18)...It can refer to a future of limited duration; i.e., to conditions that will exist continuously throughout a limited period of time...The nom. is used frequently in connection with the idea of covenants between God and humanity...The use of olam in these cases does not mean that the covenants could never be abrogated. Rather, it means that they were made with no anticipated end point. Walton argues that aspects of the covenant fulfilled in Christ remained intact, while others became obsolete.”

We should also remember that although the biblical covenants (with their associated ordinances and observances) were initiated by God, who would certainly never go back on His promises, their continuance was contingent on the Israelites keeping its provisions. Ellison explains that

“the concept of the 'suzerainty covenant' has been rightly popularized, which sees God acting unilaterally as sovereign lord, demanding only the acceptance and keeping of the people (cf. Exod. 19:5; Leviticus 24:8).”

And that is part of where the problem came in since it was possible for the covenant to be broken by the failure of the people to obey the laws, which was their part of the agreement (see Genesis 17:9,14). And that happened on several occasions (see Isaiah 24:5 for example).

Goad is shocked that “suddenly” in Hebrews 8:7 there is the need for another covenant. He must not have been reading his Bible very carefully since God calls to the people of Israel to come to Him and He will make a covenant with them as he did to David (Isaiah 24:5). Then later in the book (61:1-2) the prophet introduces an anonymous figure (generally identified with Jesus) who will call to the people in the future: “I will make an everlasting covenant with them.”

Isaiah is not the only OT figure who envisions a new future covenant. In Jeremiah 32:36-44 we have the promise of an everlasting covenant with the returnees from Exile. But in Ezekiel 16:59-61 the exiles have despised and broken the covenant. However, God will establish an everlasting covenant again. This idea pops up again in Ezekiel 27:24-28 in which a future time of peace is seen when a Davidic king will rule over them under an everlasting covenant.

But the most notable OT passage presaging the New Covenant is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. This covenant will help take care of the problem with the Old Covenant in that it could be invalidated by refusal of the people to obey it. That was because this New Covenant would actually be carried out by a Perfect Person and written directly on the hearts of the people.

As Stibbs summarizes, “The very presence in the Old Testament of a promise of a new covenant is in itself witness that the first covenant was not wholly satisfactory and free from fault. This promise [quoted in Hebrews 8-10] is found in Je. 31:31-34. What is there said indicates how the first covenant failed because the Israelites failed to abide by its conditions. This covenant, though genuine and good, was deficient in that it provided no guarantee that sinful men would continue in its faithful observance. So God declared His intention to make a new covenant by whose terms or 'better promise' He Himself undertook to make good the deficiency [through Jesus Christ] and to ensure the realization of His purpose.”

And there was another notable problem with the Old Covenant(s) in that it was administered by fallible priests with a limited lifetime. Kittredge comments on that latter limitation: “The law has been incapable of bringing the priesthood to perfection because the Israelite priests were mortal (Heb. 7:23-24). The author has established the eternal character of Christ's priesthood. The author asserts that Christians have an eternal high priest who has been exalted into heaven (1.3). Christ exercises his priestly ministry only in heaven...The author argues that Christ's ministry is superior because it takes place in that true heavenly world.”

The second deficiency of the Old Covenant was that it was carried out using the blood of animals. However, Jesus is “the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant.” (Hebrews 13:20)

These two ideas are combined by Wenham, who says, “The author [of Hebrews] draws out many theological lessons from the rituals...Christ on the cross achieved what the high priests of the Old Covenant had attempted to do on the day of atonement...Under the New Covenant the theological situation has completely changed. There is no longer any need for a day of atonement each year...In a series of contrasts Hebrews brings out how the Christian enjoys far greater privileges than Aaron, for our high priest is far superior to Aaron.” These contrasts are pointed out in Hebrews 7:26ff; 9:6-14,25ff; 9:24; and 10:1-18.

In a similar vein, Ross characterizes Leviticus 16 as “God's gracious provision of atonement for his people down through the ages. And how, with the new covenant, the ritual and the revelation find their true fulfillment. Jesus Christ achieved once and for all everything that this holy day prescribed. What this chapter revealed about God's provision of access into his presence, Jesus accomplished by living out the prescribed ritual. All believers in Jesus now have access into the presence of God. New Testament passages emphasizing this idea included Romans 3:25; Hebrews 13:12; Matthew 27 27:51 and parallels, and Hebrews 9-10.”

Goad's problem is that he fails to recognize the great difference between a type-fulfillment and a contradiction. The OT type will not be perfect compared with the ultimate NT fulfillment, but it still served a valuable purpose during its limited duration.