While the Rabbis claim that the Mosaic Covenant will last
forever, the evidence is stacked heavily in favor of a New Covenant, which will
supersede the Old:
·
“The New Testament misinterprets our Hebrew
Scriptures. It misrepresents the Mosaic Covenant as the source of death (James 2:10; Rom. 7:9; 3:20; 2
Cor. 3:6), declaring that it will pass away! On the contrary, the Mosaic
Covenant imparts life (Psalm 1;
119:32, 92, 104, 127, 144), and the Word of God doesn’t change (Isa. 40:8)!”
At least, this is what the Rabbis and Jewish authorities
maintain. If they are correct, then the New Testament has it all wrong, and our
faith is sadly misinformed. However, Jeremiah writes:
·
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-- not 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, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is
the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says
the Lord: I will put My law in
their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they
shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man
his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,”
for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,
says the Lord. For I will forgive
their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-9).[1]
Doesn’t this settle the
matter? Hasn’t a “new covenant” superseded the Old? Not according to Jewish
authorities:
·
“By any objective reading of the text, one fails
to see any reference to a substitution of a new covenant which will supersede
the old. There is nothing in Jeremiah’s statement to suggest that the new
covenant will contain any changes in the Law (the Mosaic Covenant).”[2]
However, since Jeremiah writes that God will establish a
“new covenant,” wouldn’t this explicitly rule out the Mosaic Covenant, which
Israel continued to break (31:31-32)? Not according to Gerald Sigal:
·
“Obviously, Jeremiah’s ‘new covenant’ is not to
be viewed as a replacement of the existing (Mosaic) covenant, but merely as a
figure of speech for the reinvigoration and revitalization of the old (Mosaic)
covenant.”[3]
According to Sigal, the new covenant is the Mosaic covenant
with a bit of a face-lift. However, Jeremiah claims that this “new covenant”
will not resemble the Old (31:32). Why not? Because it was a failure, at
least from the perspective of Israel’s obedience to it! Israel “broke it” as
naturally as breathing. It had to be scrapped and replaced by something new.
Furthermore, when we examine the features of the “new,” we
find that they represent more than a mere face-lift, but a major overhaul.
There will be laws, but they will be inscribed upon the heart, and forgiveness
will be permanent, whereas under the Mosaic scheme, sacrificial offerings had
to be made on a continual basis for the sins of the people.
What type of evidence does Sigal offer in defense of his
seemingly improbable interpretation? For one thing, he says that many prophetic
writings indicate that Israel would ultimately keep God’s Mosaic ordinances. In
support of this, he cites Ezekiel 11:19-20:
·
“Then I will give them one heart, and I will put
a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give
them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments
and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.”
Sigal wrongly assumes that this transplant would occur under
the Mosaic administration. However, Ezekiel’s prophecy bears a strong
resemblance to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the “new covenant,” which also alludes to
a change in heart. There is nothing here to suggest that the Mosaic Covenant is
still functioning. Instead, the very fact that God will have to unilaterally
take charge and convert Israel suggests that the Mosaic wasn’t able to produce.
Under this system, blessing depended upon obedience. However, in the eleven
chapters prior, Ezekiel paints us a portrait of Israel’s unmitigated
unfaithfulness. It’s therefore clear that this promise of blessing isn’t the
result of Israel’s faithfulness to the Mosaic Covenant! Had it been the
dominant factor, Israel would be cursed, not blessed!
Sigal then cites Psalm 111:7-8 and Isaiah 40:8. Both
maintain that God’s Word doesn’t change.[4]
However, a change in covenants doesn’t imply that God’s Word had changed or had
been wrong. It just implies that a new time and situation might demand a new course
of action. When Israel crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land, God’s
activity changed--the manna ceased falling—but God’s Word hadn’t changed! He
never promised that manna would always fall from heaven.
Sigal’s other defense is more to the point:
·
“That the covenant of old is of eternal
duration, never to be rescinded or to be superseded by a new covenant, is
clearly stated in Leviticus 26:44-45.”[5]
If Sigal is correct about this verse, it offers powerful
support for his contention that the Mosaic covenant can never be superseded,
and he might then be somewhat justified in his awkward interpretation to
Jeremiah. However, this isn’t the message of these verses.
·
“Yet for all that, when they are in the land of
their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly
destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will
remember the COVENANT OF THEIR
ANCESTORS, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the
nations, that I might be their God: I am the Lord."
(26:44-45).
Is this “covenant of their ancestors” the Mosaic covenant?
Instead, the “ancestors” must refer to those who came before Moses, the
author of Leviticus, to the Patriarchs--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Moses is not
an ancestor to the Israelites that he had led into the desert just one short
year prior! Furthermore, the Hebrew word for “ancestors” (“rishone”) meaning
the “first” further solidifies this conclusion. It was the Patriarchs who had
been the first Hebrews and the first to receive the Promise.
Had we no other context than the above two verses, this
would be enough to dismiss Sigal’s assertion. However, the preceding context
allows us to pin down the meaning of “covenant of their ancestors,” even more
precisely:
·
“Then I will remember MY COVENANT WITH JACOB, AND MY COVENANT WITH ISAAC AND MY COVENANT WITH
ABRAHAM I will remember; they will accept their guilt, because they
despised My judgments and because their soul abhorred My statutes,” (Lev. 26:42-43).
This clearly is not a reference to the Mosaic covenant, but
the covenant that God had made with the Patriarchs, one that was still
in effect. It’s because of God’s unchanging, unconditional promises to the
Patriarchs that Israel had hope, not because of the Mosaic Covenant which
brought condemnation to Israel according to their deeds. This was the prime
purpose of the highly conditional Mosaic Covenant—to show Israel the extent of
her damning sins and their need of a Savior (Gal. 3:22-24). In this, the Mosaic
is diametrically opposed to the other covenants. While blessing under the
Mosaic depended upon Israel’s obedience, the promises to the Patriarchs were
guaranteed by God Himself.
How could Sigal have made such a mistake? Weren’t there
other verses to which he could have appealed to make his case that the Mosaic
Covenant was everlasting? If so, he doesn’t seem to be aware of them. Is there
any evidence that the Mosaic is everlasting and therefore won’t be
replaced?
This question intrigued me. If Scripture proved to uniformly
render the same verdict against the permanence of the Mosaic Covenant, the
centerpiece of the Hebrew Scriptures, this would place these Scriptures on
extra-human turf. All other religions and clubs confidently assert their own
significance and the certainty of their success. It’s no surprise that the
Jewish authorities herald the Mosaic Covenant in this manner. However, does
Scripture support such optimism?
THE MOSAIC COVENANT
WAS TEMPORARY.
As already mentioned, Jeremiah prophesied that God would
make a “new covenant” that would not be like the Old one. Would the Old remain
side-by-side with the New? No!
·
“Then it shall come to pass, when you are
multiplied and increased in the land in those days,’ says the Lord, ‘that they will say no more, 'The ark
of the covenant of the Lord.' It
shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it,
nor shall it be made anymore’” (Jer. 3:16).
The “ark of the covenant” represented the Mosaic Covenant.
It was the receptacle for the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, the
centerpiece of the Mosaic institution. When Jeremiah said that the “ark of the
covenant” will “not come to mind,” he was also referring to the Mosaic
Covenant. Why will it not come to mind? Because it will be replaced by another
system which will “feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:15)! If
it will not be remembered, then it will certainly not be in effect!
The Mosaic is not merely limited in its duration; it is also
limited to its Promised Land setting.
Moses cautioned Israel:
·
“You shall not at all do as we are doing here
today--EVERY MAN DOING WHATEVER IS
RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES-- for as yet you have not come to the rest and the
inheritance which the Lord your
God is giving you” (Deut. 12:8-9).
As long as Israel was not
as yet in the Promised Land, they were free from many of the legal
stipulations. The fact that the Israelites born during their desert wanderings
had not been circumcised provides strong evidence for the fact that many of
Mosaic stipulations were not being enforced prior to entering Israel (Josh.
5:5). If this covenant pertained only to a particular time and place, then it
is difficult to argue for its permanence.
The Mosaic Covenant is Never Referred to as “Everlasting”
This isn’t because covenants, in general, are seldom
referred as everlasting. Many covenants are so referenced, but never the
Mosaic! The first time that the term
“covenant” is used is in regards to the covenant with Noah.
·
“The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will
look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every
living creature of all flesh that is on the earth," (Genesis 9:16; Isaiah
54:9-10).
The next reference to “covenant” is the one made with
Abraham, which was subsequently extended to Isaac and Jacob.
·
“On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: ‘To your descendants
I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River
Euphrates—‘” (Gen. 15:18).
This too was an “everlasting” covenant (Gen. 17:19, 13;
Psalm 105:9-10, 42; 1 Chron. 16:15-17).[6]
This same covenant was subsequently extended to the other Patriarchs.
So far, we’re two for two. The Mosaic Covenant is the next
at bat. This one formed the center of Israelite thought and practice and had
center stage throughout the bulk of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, it is never
referred to as “everlasting,” “eternal,” or by any other term to that effect.[7]
This absence is profound in light of the prominent place of this
covenant and also that all the other divinely appointed covenants are
everlasting!
The next covenant we encounter is a “perpetual covenant”
given within the framework of the Mosaic, the Sabbath: “It is a sign
between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and
on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed,” (Exo. 31:17). However, this
institution shouldn’t be understood to suggest that the Mosaic is also
“perpetual.” Had it been clearly established that the entire Mosaic regime is
everlasting, then it would have been redundant to state that its various
features were also everlasting. Instead, the Sabbath is distinguished as
perpetual because it was obvious that the Mosaic wasn’t!
The next mention of a “covenant” is also found within the
context of the Mosaic Covenant. This was the promise to Phinehas of a “covenant
of an everlasting priesthood” (Num. 25:13). However, this covenant also stood
in contrast with the Mosaic Covenant. Had the Mosaic also been “everlasting,”
it would have been redundant to offer Phinehas, the Levite, an everlasting
priesthood since all the specifications of the Mosaic would have already been
understood as everlasting including the provision of an everlasting priesthood
for the Levites. This covenant was also called “everlasting” because its
promise was a done deal. The promise would ultimately be fulfilled in the
priesthood of all believers (Exo. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:5).
The next mention of a divinely commissioned covenant is in
regards to David. This too is an “everlasting covenant.”
·
"Although my house is not so with God, yet
He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and
secure. For this is all my salvation and all my desire; will He not make it
increase?” (2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:3).
It seems as if the Mosaic covenant is deliberately
juxtaposed against the others. Why is it that a covenant so important and
central is the one not regarded as
everlasting? Fulfillment of the other covenants depended upon one thing—the
faithfulness of God. The Mosaic depended upon the faithfulness of humankind. Scripture always places these
two types of faithfulness into radical contrast. God is always faithful while
humankind has perverted themselves into a twisted mess.
The Mosaic Covenant was Inadequate and would have to be Set Aside!
The New Testament maintains that although the Mosaic
Covenant wasn’t flawed, it was inadequate (Rom. 8:3; 7:5; Heb. 7:18-19; 10:1).
A hammer might be perfectly crafted. However, it wasn’t designed to drill a
hole. Likewise, the Mosaic Covenant was
perfect, but it wasn’t equipped to cut through sin and backsliding. Is this
understanding a pious Christian invention, or is this what we also encounter
within the Hebrew Scriptures?
It should be obvious that the Mosaic Covenant was
conditional. If Israel was obedient, she would receive blessing; if
disobedient, she would be cursed (Lev. 26; Deut. 28-29). In contrast, the
Noahic covenant unconditionally promised that God would never again
destroy the world with a flood as he had done saving only Noah and his family.
It would stand as such despite the extent of sin upon the earth. In contrast to
this, the Mosaic “promises” depended
upon the obedience of Israel to God’s commands.
This meant that when sinful Israel required God’s mercy, she
could not appeal to the provisions of the Mosaic Covenant. These would only
trigger condemnation. Israel had to appeal to former promises from the
“covenant of your fathers:
·
“When you are in distress, and all these things come
upon you in the latter days, when you turn to the Lord your God and obey His voice (for the Lord your God is a merciful God), He will not forsake you nor destroy you, nor
forget the covenant of your fathers
which He swore to them” (Deut. 4:30-31, also Lev. 26:42-45).
.
The Mosaic Covenant was Grace-Deficient!
Hope sprang anew from “covenant of your fathers.” Which
covenant was this? Undeniably, this was the covenant of the Patriarchs.[8]
Moses wasn’t their “fathers.” We find no Hebrew prophet crying out, “God will
remember the covenant that He made with Moses and have mercy upon you!”
However, just about all of the prophets explicitly proclaim the restoration of
Israel, but this will not be based upon Israel’s obedience to the Law. Instead,
the Law had brought condemnation. Its requirement, that the curses had to be
brought upon Israel (Deut. 27:26), would have to be set aside in order for
Israel to find mercy.
The Law was inadequate. It could never provide what Israel
needed. Israel’s problems were much deeper. They required more than rules
upheld by positive and negative reinforcements. They required a change of
heart, but this was the very thing they lacked. Moses had promised
“stiff-necked” Israel that sometime in the future God would “circumcise
your heart and the heart of your descendants to love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul that you may live,” (Deut. 30:6). Israel would need a
“circumcised” heart in order to love God and live, but that this hadn’t
happened yet! This was like telling Israel that she was doomed to failure!
Even more to the point, Moses told them, “Yet the Lord has not given you a heart to
perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day,” (Deut. 29:4).
Something had to change! Israel lacked the heart for God despite all of her
proclamations otherwise. She would turn her heart from the Covenant, and
tragedy would overtake her. Moses was prophetically explicit about this in the
Song he taught her: "Then he (Israel) forsook God who made him” (Deut.
32:15).
Despite all the Mosaic warnings, this is exactly what Israel
would do in the future. Moses was sure of it. “For I know that after my death
you will become utterly corrupt, and turn aside from the way which I have
commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days, because you will do
evil in the sight of the Lord, to
provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands," (Deut. 31:29).
Joshua reiterated this message of gloom to Israel in the
midst of Israel’s protestations to the contrary.
·
“But Joshua said to the people, ‘You cannot
serve the Lord, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive
your transgressions nor your sins’” (Josh. 24:19).
If hope couldn’t spring forth from the Mosaic Covenant,
there had to come something else. The Mosaic couldn’t be everlasting. It would
have been an everlasting flop. It had to be replaced, but Israel had to learn
her lesson first, the hard way.
These types of statements are not to be found in other
religious or political literature. What politician ever put forth a program and
then stated, without any equivocation, that it was doomed to fail? What
religious leader ever tried to promote a religion and then declared that it
wouldn’t work, and the followers wouldn’t receive anything they wanted? Why do
the Hebrew Scriptures contain such negative messages unless they were true and
that the people were completely convinced that they were God’s very words, even
though they didn’t like the messages?
Indications that the Mosaic Covenant had to be Replaced!
Israel had been promised that they would be a nation of
priests (Exo. 19:6; Isa 61:6) and that God would dwell in their midst (Lev.
26:11-12; Joel 3:17, 21). However, their present
situation stood in direct contradiction to these promises. They couldn’t bear
God’s presence (Exo. 20:19), and He couldn’t bear theirs (Exo. 33:2-3).
Although He would meet with Moses in the tent of meeting, this tent was placed
far outside the camp and no one apart of Moses and Joshua could approach it
(Exo. 33:7).
The Temple also communicated the same forbidding presence of
the Lord. Only the priests could enter into the Holy Place, and only the High
Priest could enter into the High Holy Place, and only once a year. When they
did enter, it could only be after they had fulfilled every specification (Lev.
16:2). God’s presence was a terrifying reality. This was a far cry from what
Israel had been promised. Israel would be so intimate with God, it was
described as a marriage (Hosea 2:18-19; Isa. 62:4). For this portrait to be
realized, the Law and its Temple curtain of separation would have to come down.
The institution of the Temple offerings also conveyed the
inadequacy of the Mosaic Law and Covenant. The fact that they had to be
continually offered meant that they never covered subsequent sins. This meant
that whenever an Israelite entertained a covetous thought, he was again in sin
and therefore deserved to be cursed. This placed them continuously under God’s
condemnation. Nor did these offerings remove the discomfort of the thought of
this terrifying God. Indeed, discomfort should have been there. Israel was
promised curses for any and every infraction (Deut. 27:15-26).
Perhaps most significantly, the Mosaic Covenant never
offered the promise of eternal life. If Law-keeping couldn’t guarantee eternal
life, what good was it? Paul had stated that Christians were the most pitiful
people if there wasn’t a heaven (1 Cor. 15:19). It wasn’t that there wasn’t any
indication of eternal life within the Mosaic revelation. Jesus had corrected
the anti-resurrection beliefs of the Sadducees with Exodus 3:6: “I am
the God of your father--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob." This proved that the three Patriarchs were still living. God
doesn’t say that He was their God, but that He is their God!
Instead, the Law was disturbingly silent in regards to how to obtain this eternal life. Evidently,
this was another way that God covertly hinted to Israel that this Mosaic
Covenant was just temporary and would be superseded by a new covenant that
would guarantee eternal life.
In short, the Mosaic stipulations and experiences do not
prefigure the ultimate portrait of Israel’s future blessedness. They’re miles
behind! Something had to change.
The New Covenant
will Supersede the Old!
The Mosaic Covenant is not pictured as part of the ultimate
answer. The portrait that emerges from Hebrew Scriptures does not show Israel
as finally developing more self-control and obedience to perform the Mosaic Law
successfully in order to secure blessing and deliverance.
According to prophecy, God’s eventual deliverance will not
come because Israel wakes up, smells the coffee, and repents on her own. God
will have to initiate Israel’s return, and it will not occur because Israel
will eventually deserve God’s blessings. Rather, God will have mercy upon
Israel.
·
"For the Lord
will judge His people and have compassion on His servants, when He sees that
their power is gone” (Deut. 32:36).
Instead of doing something positive to warrant God’s mercy,
it is Israel’s destitution that will move God. According to Moses, Israel will
violate the Mosaic Covenant and bring down upon themselves the promised curses.
It is God who then will have “compassion.”
How will He do this? According to Jeremiah, it will be through a “new
covenant” (Jer. 31:31-34), but it will also be done in a radically different
way. Moses knew that Israel would fail and that her problem was one of the
heart, and if Israel had a heart problem, she would need a heart answer (Deut.
30:6).
Without a changed heart, Israel inevitably went astray. They
needed to be born again with a new heart. They needed a covenant that would go
far further than the Mosaic.
Ezekiel states that even though Israel consistently
disgraced God before the other nations, God would act lovingly on her behalf.
Ezekiel writes:
·
“I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and
from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within
you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a
heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you… (36:25-27; 11:19-20).
The very thing Israel had lacked under the Old, they would
receive under the New—a new heart and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Jeremiah
associates this necessary change with a new and permanent covenant.
·
“Then I will give them one heart and one way,
that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after
them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not
turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that
they will not depart from Me,” (Jer. 32:39-40).
This is the guarantee
of a hope which isn’t found under the Mosaic Covenant. As a result of God’s
grace, “they will not depart from me.”
This is why the Mosaic couldn’t be called “eternal.” As long as blessing
depended upon Israel, no guarantee could be made, but if it depended upon God,
He could make an ironclad guarantee. God would succeed in securing Israel’s
love only through changing her.
In contrast to Israel’s cycle of rebellion and devastation,
the new covenant would be characterized by unending peace.
·
“Moreover I will make a covenant of
peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them;
I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their
midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be
their God, and they shall be My people,” (Ezekiel 37:26-27; 34:25-26; Isaiah 54:9-10).[9]
There’s no reason to regard “sanctuary” and “tabernacle” as
literal buildings. The intimacy between God and His people makes a building
unnecessary and counterproductive. He will be the sanctuary! Walls will no
longer separate. God will enter into the most intimate form of relationship
with His people. Hosea points to a future, radical covenant that would ensure
God’s unfailing love:
·
“In that day I will make a covenant
for them with the beasts of the field…I will betroth you to Me forever;
Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and justice, in lovingkindness
and mercy,” (Hosea 2:18-19; Isa. 62:4).
This would be a “forever” covenant. It wasn’t a covenant
that had already been in place. Hosea says, “I will make a covenant!” He
lays down no conditions that Israel must fulfill in order to enter into her
blessedness as had been characteristic of the Mosaic Covenant. Instead, God
will enter into a permanent relationship with Israel; He will marry His
people. As Hosea had been instructed to take his adulterous wife Gomer into
seclusion, God would unilaterally do the same for Israel.
The idea of a marriage with God must have seemed somewhat
blasphemous to Mosaic Israel. Her experience had been characterized by God’s
words to Moses-- "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at just any time into the Holy Place inside the veil,
before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die” (Lev. 16:2)—a far cry
from marriage!
Isaiah
concurs that this “yet to be” covenant would be “everlasting.”
·
“And (God) will make with them an everlasting
covenant. Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles, and their
offspring among the people. All who see them shall acknowledge them,
that they are the posterity whom the Lord
has blessed," (Isa. 61:8-9).
Under the Law, separation from the contaminating influence
of other peoples was strictly enforced. Under the New, God’s people would be
among the nations!
Could the Mosaic have merely been emended to accommodate
these radical changes? No! A covenant is a contract to which no one could add
or subtract (Deut. 4:2). Changes would require a new covenant and fresh blood
to seal it! Therefore, the Mosaic had to be replaced and would no longer be
remembered (Jer. 3:14-16).
While there are many verses that state that God will have
mercy upon His people, there are no verses that affirm that God will
have mercy by virtue of the covenant He made with Moses! This covenant had been
instituted for a limited time and place (Deut. 12:8-9). It wouldn’t figure directly
into the establishment of the New kingdom. Instead, God’s mercy is predicated
upon something radically different. The prophetic passages look beyond a
redemption based upon the offerings mediated by the Levitical priesthood, to a
redeeming God’s unmediated intervention.
A New Atonement
Deuteronomy 32 contains a song God directed Moses to teach
to Israel. It represented both a disturbing warning and a prophetic overview of
Israel’s blessing, rebellion, and eventual deliverance. Surprisingly, the song
ends on a positive note.
·
"Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people; for
He will avenge the blood of His servants, and render vengeance to His
adversaries; HE WILL PROVIDE ATONEMENT
for His land and His people" (Deut. 32:43).
If the Mosaic system had been adequate, why didn’t this feat
of “atonement” fall upon the Levites, who had been divinely commissioned to
provide atonement? Where are the Levites and the Mosaic system at the time of
Israel’s eventual deliverance? It is never this system that comes to the rescue
but God Himself.
·
“Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory
of Your name; and deliver us, and provide ATONEMENT for our sins, for Your name's sake!” (Psalm 79:9; also
65:3).
A new High Priest, in line with the priesthood of the
enigmatic Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4), will trump the Levitical priesthood, which
required that all priests had to come from the tribe of Levi. This “King
of Righteousness” only took the Scriptural stage once—three verses worth (Gen.
14:18-20)—but he made an enduring impact. One reason that he is enigmatic is
that he is both a king and a priest, something forbidden under Mosaic Law. This
suggests a change in guard.
Zechariah prophesied about a distant individual who would
also be a “priest on His throne.” This Person will “build the temple of the
Lord,” (Zech. 6:13). Christianity understands that Jesus “built” this very
temple through His incarnation, taking on the form of a man and “tabernacling”
among us” (John 1:14; 2:19).
Along with a radically different High Priest, a new
priesthood is prophesied. Israel was promised that she would be a nation of
priests (Exodus 19:6; Isa. 61:6), something she had never experienced. This
nation of priests, suggestive of the New Covenant, would have to replace the
Levitical Mosaic order that restricted the priesthood to Levites.
At first glance, this seems to come into conflict with the
New Testament promise that all believers would be priests (1Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev.
1:6). How could Israel assume the promised priesthood while this was a standing
promise to the believers? This is easily understood by recognizing that Israel
must also come to a faith in Christ
in order to receive their promised priesthood along with all other believers.
This understanding also helps us reconcile the more
difficult verses. Jeremiah said that to the degree that God’s promises to David
are unshakable, they are equally unshakable to the Levites (33:18, 20-21; Num.
25:12-13). On the surface, this is troubling for Christianity. If the Levitical
priesthood remains, so too the Mosaic Covenant! However, the prophecies do not
say that the Levitical priesthood will remain unchanged! They merely state that God will remain faithful to the
Levitical priests. How will He remain faithful to them? They would become
priests according to the same promise that would make all Israel priests. As
we’ve seen, there are other ways to function as priests besides offering animal
sacrifices. God instructed Israel to offer the “sacrifice (literally “calves”)
of our lips” as her offering of repentance (Hosea 14:2; also Psalm 69:30-31;
50:13-14), not actual calves.
God had to pay the price of “atonement.” Levitical atonement
was sorely inadequate. It was this “atonement” that would provide the basis of
the “everlasting covenant.”
·
“And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall
know that I am the Lord, that you
may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your
shame, when I PROVIDE YOU AN ATONEMENT
for all you have done" (Ezekiel 16:59-63 ).
This covenant will not be established on the basis of any
Levitical ministrations, but on the basis of the unilateral grace of God as
promised in the covenant God made with Abraham.
Israel’s hope had always been Messianic, not Mosaic. It
looked towards a Redeemer who would refine the Israel with His “fire,” rather
than the sprinkling of the blood of animals, which God never really desired
(Psalm 51:16-17):
·
"Behold, I send My messenger, and he will
prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to HIS temple, even the MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT, in whom
you delight. Behold, He is coming,’ says the Lord
of hosts. ‘But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He
appears? For He is like a REFINER'S
FIRE and like launderer's soap.” (Malachi 3:1-2).
“The Messenger of the covenant” is no less than God Himself,
coming to make His atonement. He is “the Lord,” and it’s “His” temple. He is
the “refiner’s fire;” He will purify His people!
Blood of the New Atonement
A new covenant requires a fresh blood offering (Exo. 24:8;
Heb. 9:18). An everlasting covenant requires a special blood offering!
·
“Thus says the Lord:
‘In an acceptable time I have heard You, and in the day of salvation I have
helped You; I will PRESERVE You and give YOU
AS A COVENANT to the people, to restore the earth, to cause them to
inherit the desolate heritages,’” (Isaiah 49:8; 42:6).
Presumably, it is written
that God will “preserve” Him, because He will have to endure an ordeal through
which He will need to be rescued from the dead. Zechariah adds that, “because
of the blood of your covenant, I will
set your prisoners free from the waterless pit” (Zech. 9:11). To whom does the “your”
refer? Obviously to the humble King Messiah
who comes riding on a donkey and who will “speak peace to the nations” (Zech. 9:10). What role do the Levites play here? None!
It’s clear that Israel’s hope wasn’t in the Mosaic system
but in a Savior who Himself would provide atonement. That’s why He is often
called the “Redeemer” (Job 19:25; Psalm 19:14, 78:35; Isaiah 41:14, 43:14,
44:6, 24; 47:4…). It is the Redeemer who will ultimately provide the payment to
deliver His people from sin (Psalm 49:15). That’s why His people are called the
“ransomed” or the “redeemed” (Isaiah 35:9-10; 51:11; 62:12). Nor is redemption
ever accomplished on the basis of Israel’s righteousness, but upon the Lord’s
(Psalm 85:13)!
How does the Mosaic Covenant fit into this gracious
portrait? It doesn’t! Although it is “holy and righteous” (Rom. 7:12; Psalm
119), It’s never portrayed as the source of hope but as the source of
condemnation, which points to the Hope.
Result of the New Atonement
Under the Mosaic regime, righteousness was a matter of an
individual’s performance.
·
“And the Lord
commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that
He might preserve us alive, as it is
this day. 25Then it will be
righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments
before the Lord our God, as He has
commanded us” (Deut. 6:24-25; 24:15).
Under the Messiah, this
will all change. Righteousness will no longer be something that we attain to
through our efforts. Instead, we will receive the Messiah’s righteousness
through the grace of God alone.
·
"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "That I will raise to David a Branch of
righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and
righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will
dwell safely; now this is His
name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (Jer. 23:5-6; 33:6; Isa. 45:24-25; Dan.
9:24).
This couldn’t have occurred under the Mosaic Covenant, its antithesis
Deut. 6:25)! These prophecies proclaim that it is no longer about us, but about
a righteousness that will come to us as a gift rather than an earned salary.
The New Testament is the
revelation of these truths—not that the Messiah will help us become righteous,
but that He will become our imperishable righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor.
5:21).
Why then the Mosaic Law if
it was only temporary and would bring condemnation rather than salvation?
Again, the New Testament provides the perfect answer, which knits together all
the pieces:
“Is the
law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a
law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by
the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by
faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith
came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would
afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal. 3:21-24)
Throughout the writing of this chapter, I had to stop and
worship, awed as I was by the beauty of God’s design. I enjoy movies whose
ending brings a harmonious resolution of all the loose ends. This is my idea of
satisfaction. God’s Word does the same thing. Not to say that there aren’t any
rough edges! There should be by virtue of our limited understanding, but the
overall contours are incredibly harmonious. These point to a grand design, one
that I think requires a Grand Designer. If the Hebrew Scriptures were merely
the product of various independent writers sharing a common faith, such a congruent
design would scarcely have emerged.
Not only are the Hebrew Scriptures elegantly crafted, they also
march in lock step with the New Testament. To behold this is awe-inspiring;
it’s like seeing the face of God.
[1] All
Bible quotations are drawn from the New King James Version. All italics in
Bible quotations are mine!
[2] Gerald Sigal,
The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A
Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity (New York: KTAV Publishing
House, Inc., 1981), 70.
[3] Sigal,
73.
[4] Sigal,
72. The Christian has no problem agreeing with him in this matter. However, it
is understood that although God’s Word doesn’t change, His actions do change.
He appointed Saul king and then removed him in favor of David. This doesn’t imply
any change in God’s Word. Likewise, a change in covenants doesn’t imply such a
change.
[5] Sigal,
71.
[6] How can
these covenants be everlasting in light of the fact that the New is the
everlasting covenant? The promises of these covenants will be carried over into
the New where they’ll find their ultimate fulfillment.
[7] Isaiah
24:5 makes mention of an “everlasting covenant” that can easily be mistaken as
Mosaic. However, most commentators agree that this is referring to another
covenant of law that applied universally to all mankind. The context bears this
out.
[8] The
“fathers” were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exo. 3; 13:5, 11; Deut. 8:18; 29:13;
30:5, 20; 31:7).
[9] The
terms “sanctuary” and “tabernacle” shouldn’t be taken literally, which would
call to mind the Mosaic Covenant. These terms can be used figuratively (Amos
9:11; 2Sam. 7:11; Zech. 6:12-13).
No comments:
Post a Comment