A friend recently posed a good question that went something like this: “It seems like we keep some laws from the Old Testament, but not others. How do we know what to keep?” While this weighty question extends far beyond a discussion of covenants, I did start thinking about the various covenants in the Old Testament, how they relate to each other, and how they connect to the New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus. This is not a quick or easy topic, as there are many different views about the covenants, and some important background to cover before actually discussing the covenants themselves. For instance, some theologians differ on whether an Adamic Covenant exists. Also, when covenants are discussed, it may raise questions about covenantal theology vs. dispensationalism. I will discuss the Adamic covenant below, but covenantalism vs. dispensationalism is a topic well beyond the scope of this article. I believe there are brilliant theological minds and orthodox believers on both sides of the covenantalism vs. dispensationalism discussion. If you would like more information about covenantalism and dispensationalism, there is already a lot written about it. Here are a couple of links to get you started on your research: https://www.gotquestions.org/covenant-theology.html, https://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html. If you feel you need to comment about the covenantalism vs. dispensationalism question below, please keep it kind.
Now for some background. The covenants in the Old Testament were made between God and people who lived in the context of the Old Testament. This includes the historical, geographical, and sociopolitical contexts of the Ancient Near East (ANE). A covenant is, at its most basic, an agreement between two parties. A common form of covenant in the ANE was called the “Suzerain-Vassal Treaty.” This type of covenant was made between a sovereign ruler (the suzerain), and the people ruled by the suzerain (the vassals). In a Suzerain-Vassal Treaty, the suzerain promised “blessings” such as protection, provision, etc. in return for obedience and loyalty from the vassals. If the vassals disobeyed, the suzerain meted out punishments or “curses.” For more about this type of treaty, see Dr. Russell Meek’s article here: https://russmeek.com/2020/10/the-suzerain-vassal-treaty-covenant-in-the-old-testament/. We will discuss the Mosaic Covenant in more detail below, but suffice it to say that the Mosaic Covenant is similar to a Suzerain-Vassal Treaty. A Suzerain-Vassal style of covenant is a “bilateral” covenant because both the Suzerain and the Vassal have obligations to keep.
Another form of ANE covenant is the “royal grant,” in which the “higher-status” party (God) makes a promise to the “lower-status” party (creation/humanity/a specific person), with no responsibility or action required from the lower-status party. Now, when I say “no responsibility or action required from the lower-status party,” I mean God’s decision to keep His promise is not contingent on a specifically stated obligation of the other party. In a “covenant relationship” though, it is expected that both parties would behave in a manner worthy of the relationship. The Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants are often described as “royal grant” covenants. A royal grant is a “unilateral” covenant because only the higher-status party makes a promise and therefore has an obligation.
When discussing biblical covenants, the covenants have everything to do with the relationship between God and His people. They are more than simple agreements between two parties. As Daniel Block explains, “This is the essence of a covenant relationship as envisioned in Scripture: two parties reciprocally committed to each other, determined to live in the interest of the other party.”1 As mentioned above, this commitment encourages behavior worthy of the relationship, regardless of whether the covenant is unilateral or bilateral.
When we think about covenants, we often consider several “pieces” of the covenant which include (among others), the parties involved, the duration of the covenant (temporary vs. everlasting), laterality (unilateral vs. bilateral), and the sign of the covenant (example: the rainbow in the Noahic Covenant). Most of the Old Testament covenants also involved a sacrifice at the time the covenant was made. We will discuss why I wrote “most” when we get to the Davidic Covenant.
The Adamic Covenant
Of all the covenants to be discussed, the Adamic Covenant will require the most background. This is true primarily because there is disagreement among scholars as to whether an Adamic covenant even exists. Those arguing against the existence of an Adamic Covenant point out that the Hebrew word for covenant, berit, never occurs in Genesis 1-3. Furthermore, although God’s Creator status vs. Adam’s created status clearly points to a “suzerain-vassal” type of relationship, this does not necessarily mean a covenant between God and Adam existed. Block points out that the relationship between God and Adam “established the divine-human/cosmic paradigm that human rebellion broke (Gen 3), which could be recovered only through a covenant with humanity and the world, graciously designed and instituted by the Creator.”2 In that case, the original relationship between God and Adam was not covenantal in nature, it merely set the standard for the proper relationship between God and man. When that relationship was broken in Genesis 3, the need for future covenants was established.
Alternatively, those who argue for an Adamic Covenant also make some good points. The Hebrew word běrît (covenant) is first used in Genesis 6:18 when God tells Noah “I will establish my covenant with you.”3 It is interesting that the possessive pronoun “my” is used rather than the indefinite article “a.” Some scholars suggest that this points to a preexisting covenant.4 Also, the Hebrew terminology usually used for making a new covenant is kārat běrît, generally translated as “cutting” a covenant (more about the “covenant cutting ceremony” of Genesis 15 below). In Genesis 6:18, the Hebrew phrase hēqîm běrît is used, which is often translated as “establish” or “confirm” a covenant,5 which also may imply a previous covenant. Finally, in Hosea 6:7, the prophet writes “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant.” While this seems to confirm a previously existing Adamic Covenant, it is important to recognize that ‘ādām is the Hebrew word for man/mankind and therefore Hosea 6:7 can be understood to have different meanings such as “they, to a man, have transgressed my covenant” (NJPS6).7
For the purposes of this article, let’s assume there is an Adamic Covenant. It is frequently thought to be a two-part covenant. The first part of the covenant occurred prior to the fall and consists of God making Adam and Eve the “vice-regents”8 over the newly created world. Adam and Eve were to “be fruitful and multiply” and to “have dominion over” animals (Genesis 1:28). They were also forbidden to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and warned that transgression of this command regarding the forbidden fruit would result in death (Genesis 2:17). In return for their obedience, Adam and Eve were given the gift of relationship, with each other and with God, and God provided everything they needed to live…such as food. Some scholars refer to this part of the covenant as the “Covenant of Works”9 the “Edenic Covenant,”10 or the “Creation Covenant.”11
The second part of the Adamic Covenant occurs after the fall. It consists of the cursing of the soil and the serpent, and the consequences given to Adam and Eve including painful childbirth, discord in the marital relationship, difficulty working the land, and death (Genesis 3:14-19). However, there is also great hope in God’s promise that Eve’s offspring would bruise the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15), a promise that points to Jesus. This promise is often called the “proto-gospel” as it describes one who would be wounded as he destroys the enemy, a foreshadowing of Christ’s death on the cross as He destroyed Satan and the curse of death.
The various “pieces” of a covenant as described above are not as clear with the Adamic Covenant as they are in other covenants. Part of this is due to the two-part nature of the Adamic Covenant. The “pre-fall” or Edenic aspect of the Adamic Covenant seems to resemble more of a Suzerain-Vassal covenant rather than a royal grant, because it is bilateral. In return for Adam overseeing the garden and the animals, as well as obeying God’s command not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God provided for all of Adam’s needs. Some lean toward the Adamic Covenant being a temporary covenant, because the instructions have to do with this earth, and Revelation 21:1 tells us this earth will pass away. However, I also believe that there will be a physical “new earth and new Jerusalem” (Revelation 21:1-3) where our covenant relationship between God, humanity, and the earth will be restored. My discussion of the duration of the Noahic Covenant found below also applies to the Adamic Covenant since I believe the Noahic Covenant is a continuation of the Adamic Covenant. The book of Genesis does not clearly describe a sacrifice in the Adamic Covenant. Scholars debate whether God’s provision of animal skins to cover Adam’s and Eve’s nakedness constitutes an early form of animal sacrifice. I’m not going to argue that here because it is quite different from the sacrifices offered to God by man in other biblical covenants. There is no clear “sign” of the Adamic Covenant (although as someone who truly loathes snakes, I’m tempted to argue that the hatred of snakes is not only biblical but also the sign of the Adamic Covenant).
Regarding the second part of the Adamic Covenant that takes place after the fall, most of Genesis 3:14-24 consists of the consequences, or “curses” Adam and Eve were given because they broke the Edenic Covenant. Personally, I would not consider this a “second part” of the covenant if it weren’t for Genesis 3:14-15. After all, the various consequences and curses may be a more thoroughly spelled out version of Genesis 2:17, when God tells Adam “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.” However, Genesis 3:14-15 deals with consequences for the serpent and Genesis 3:17 states that the ground is cursed. While Genesis 1:28-30 addresses plants and animals, neither the slithering enemy nor the actual soil seem to be parties in the Edenic, or first portion of the covenant. Clearly something new and different is happening here. Furthermore, there is the prophetic aspect of Genesis 3:15 that points to Jesus as the one who ultimately completely crushes the head of the enemy. This seems to be a different promise than was described in the Edenic Covenant, yet Christ’s victory over sin, death, and Satan is what allows us to regain our right relationship with God, like the relationship Adam and Eve originally had with Him prior to the fall. The various promises in the two parts of the Adamic Covenant are certainly inextricably intertwined.
The Noahic Covenant
Daniel Block refers to what most of us call the Noahic Covenant as the “Cosmic Covenant.”12 Frankly, I think he makes a good point. In Genesis 9:9-10, God says to Noah “I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you…[emphasis added]” In Genesis 9:17, God again states that the covenant is established with “all flesh that is on the earth.” The covenant wasn’t just between God and Noah, it also included every living creature on the earth. This gives the Noahic Covenant a more “cosmic” nature. So what did God promise? He promised “never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Genesis 9:11). God reiterated this promise in Genesis 9:15b: “And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.”
Let’s look at the aforementioned “pieces” of the Noahic/Cosmic Covenant. There are 3 parties involved in this covenant: God, Noah and sons, and the earth (specifically “all flesh that is on the earth”). Is this a Suzerain-Vassal (bilateral) or a royal grant (unilateral) covenant? In a verbatim restatement of Genesis 1:28, God tells Noah and his sons to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1), and also issues several more instructions including dominion over animals, birds, and fish (Genesis 9:2), forbidding people to eat meat containing blood (Genesis 9:4),13 and a decree that there would be a reckoning in kind for any spillage of human blood (Genesis 9:5-6). Because of these commands, it might seem that the Noahic Covenant is bilateral. However, nowhere does God state that His determination never to destroy the earth and mankind by a flood is dependent on Noah’s obedience to these instructions. Therefore, this covenant is actually unilateral. God will never again destroy the earth by flood, nor will He destroy all living things by flood…period!
How about the duration of the covenant? This is a tough one for me. Let’s look at Genesis 8:20-22:
“Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease [emphasis added].”
There are two significant implications to the italicized portion of the text. The first is that the rhythms of this earth (day and night, seasons, etc) will exist for a limited period of time: “while the earth remains.” The second significant implication is a confirmation that God intends to do away with this earth. There would be no need to say “While the earth remains” if there wasn’t going to be a time when this earth didn’t remain. Therefore, I think the specific promise never to destroy the earth by a flood is temporary and lasts only as long as this earth lasts. However, in Genesis 8:21 God also said “Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done,” and in Genesis 9:11 He said “never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood.” Since humans are living creatures, we are included in this. God went to great lengths to give us the opportunity for eternal life through Jesus. Therefore, I think His promise not to destroy all life again is everlasting. Some will say I’m splitting hairs here, and I understand. This is a tension I can live with.
Regarding the sacrifice piece and the sign piece, there was a sacrifice and there is a sign. See the above text (Genesis 8:20-22) for the sacrifice Noah made to the Lord once he disembarked from the ark. It might initially appear as if the sacrifice took place before God made the covenant, and was therefore unrelated. But, keep in mind Genesis 6:18 where God said to Noah “I will establish my covenant with you…” Noah already knew he was in a covenant relationship with God, even if there was a year-long flood between the “heads-up, there’s a covenant coming” and the actual description of the covenant. The sign of the Noahic Covenant is the rainbow (Genesis 9:12-17), a beautiful reminder of God’s promise of grace.
And just in case you still need a bit more to chew on as you contemplate the Adamic and Noahic Covenants before we move on…I tend to agree with the scholars who feel that the Noahic Covenant is a continuation of the Adamic Covenant. I think we see this in God’s instructions to Noah and his sons. It appears that in this “re-creation” of life on earth, Noah and his family were to take Adam and Eve’s positions as (to borrow Daniel Block’s term) “vice-regents” over the earth.
The Abrahamic Covenant
The Abrahamic Covenant is restated and renewed multiple times in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1-14, 22:15-18, 26:1-5, 28:13-15 among others). The covenant is introduced in one of my very favorite passages: Genesis 12:1-3.
“Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of earth shall be blessed.’”
The covenant is more completely spelled out in Genesis 15, the “covenant cutting ceremony” mentioned above. In this ceremony, God specifically promises Abram that he would have his “very own son” (Genesis 15:4), that his descendants would be as the number of the stars (Genesis 15:5) and He defines the specific area of land to be inherited by Abram’s descendants (Genesis 15:18-21). When Abram questions how he will know that these promises are true, God answers through the covenant cutting ceremony. God told Abram to bring a heifer, a goat, a ram, a dove, and a pigeon. Abram then cut each animal in half, and laid the birds and the halved animals on the ground. Then Abram fell into a deep sleep, and in his sleep, he saw a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch pass between the pieces of the animals.
While there are several examples of ANE ceremonies that involved cutting animals, none seem to have included every aspect of this particular ceremony: halving the animals, passing through the animals, a fire pot, and a torch.14 However, it is notable that in several ANE examples of a “royal land grant ceremony,” slaughtered animals are “understood as substituting for the participants or proclaiming a self-curse if the stipulations are violated.”15 Therefore, Abram would have recognized the symbolism, especially since there was a land grant in God’s promise. In the Genesis 15 ceremony, it is generally understood that the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch both represent God. Notably, only the fire pot and torch passed between the halved animals; Abram did not. This signifies that only God made an oath to abide by His promises, while Abram had no such stipulation. So, the Abrahamic Covenant is unilateral. It is also everlasting (Genesis 17:7). Although the specific land given to Abraham’s biological descendants is located in the present day Middle East, all of God’s children, both Jew and Gentile, are “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29) and we will receive our inheritance when Christ returns.The slaughter of the animals and birds is the sacrifice in this covenant. We find the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17. Here God reiterated His promises (Genesis 17:5-8), renamed Abram to Abraham (Genesis 17:5), and told Abraham to circumcise himself and all of his offspring as a sign that they are God’s covenant people (Genesis 17:10-11).
Further food for thought: Just as God promised in Genesis 12:3, Jesus, a son of Abraham through His human lineage, indeed brought blessing to “all the families of the earth,” both Jew and Gentile. This eventually resulted in the abolition of physical circumcision as a required sign of God’s covenant people. In his discussion of circumcision in the book of Romans, Paul stated that circumcision is a matter of the heart (Romans 2:29), and both Jews and Gentiles will be judged by faith (Romans 3:28-30). As Bruce Waltke points out, Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, and Ezekiel 44:79 show that “throughout salvation history, God made it patently clear that only the circumcised heart satisfies the conditions of the covenant relationship.”16 At the Jerusalem Council, it was “officially” determined that physical circumcision should not be required of Gentile Christians. (Acts 15:1-21) So here we have an everlasting covenant with a temporary sign! Many feel that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of God’s covenant people.17
The Mosaic Covenant (aka The Old Covenant)
This brings us to the Mosaic Covenant. Here we see a clear example of a bilateral, Suzerain-Vassal style covenant. God made a promise, but that promise was contingent on the Israelites keeping the commandments God gave them. Exodus 19:5-6 says: “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation [emphasis added].”
Similar to the Noahic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant was not a covenant between God and one person. The involved parties included God and an entire people group, the Israelites. The covenant was, however, mediated by one man, Moses. Both parties had stipulations. In order to keep their side of the covenant, the Israelites needed to obey God’s words. In return, they would be God’s “treasured possession among all peoples,” and God would make them a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”
So what were these words the Israelites had to obey? Traditionally, we think of the decalogue (aka the Ten Commandments, better translated as the “Ten Words”). However, after God wrote the “Ten Words” on the stone tablets, He gave Moses many more instructions on how His people ought to relate to each other, and how they ought to relate to Him (See Exodus 20:1-17 for the decalogue, and Exodus 20:22–23:25 for other instructions). Moses then wrote down these “words of the Lord” (Exodus 24:4). This written document seems to be what Scripture refers to as the “Book of the Covenant” in Exodus 24:7.
There was clearly a sacrifice, and a rather grisly ceremony which involved Moses throwing the blood from the sacrificed oxen onto the people (Exodus 24:5-8). I am extremely grateful we are no longer required to do that!
While the decalogue includes God’s instruction to “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), Scripture does not clearly explain that the Sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic Covenant until Exodus 31:12-17. Here we read “Above all, you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you” (Exodus 31:13) and “Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever” (Exodus 31:16).
We still have to think about the duration of the Mosaic Covenant. My view may not adhere to what you’ve traditionally read or heard. We know that Christ’s “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10), perfect sacrifice did away with the need for repetitive animal sacrifices. Jesus, our priest “of the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 7:11-17) and the guarantor of a better covenant (Hebrews 7:22), also negated the need for the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood. The curtain separating the Holy of Holies tore at the time of Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:51), symbolizing that we now have direct access to God and no longer need a high priest to enter into God’s presence for us. Furthermore, Paul consistently taught that the law (speaking of Mosaic law) cannot save us (Roman 3:20-21, Galatians 2:16). All of this is to say that many of us have grown up hearing that because we are under the New Covenant, the covenant of grace inaugurated by Jesus’ atoning work on the cross, the “Old” (Mosaic) Covenant is obsolete. Hebrews 8:13 seems to confirm this: “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”
So…the obvious answer seems to be that the Mosaic Covenant was temporary, and has been made obsolete by the “New Covenant.” But what about Exodus 31:12-17 which says the Sabbath is the sign for the Mosaic Covenant, and specifically Exodus 31:16 which says “as a covenant forever”? And what about Matthew 5:17, where Jesus says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” Therefore, I do not believe that the Mosaic Covenant is truly “obsolete,” but I do believe that the Mosaic Covenant (and all the other OT covenants for that matter) are fulfilled by Christ and subsumed under the New Covenant. More on this in a bit.
The Davidic Covenant
This covenant is described in 2 Samuel 8:5-17. God reiterates His promise to provide Israel with land (2 Samuel 7:10), and makes this promise to David: “your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16). Nowhere does God describe any stipulation to which David must adhere, therefore the covenant is unilateral, a “royal grant.” The covenant is between God and David, but there are implications for Solomon, for the other Davidic kings (remember Jesus is from the line of David), and for the people ruled by the one (or One) who sits on David’s throne. It is clear from 2 Samuel 7:16 that this covenant is everlasting.
Scholars debate whether this covenant involved a sacrifice. Some point to 2 Samuel 6:17-18, the sacrifice David made when he brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.18 Personally, I feel this sacrifice was indeed made in order to worship God and thank Him that the Ark was finally in Jerusalem, but I do not think the sacrifice was directly related to the Davidic Covenant.
The 2 Samuel 8 narrative does not describe a sign of the Davidic Covenant. However, both Peter and Luke speak to the ultimate and everlasting fulfillment of God’s promise to David. In his sermon at Pentecost, Peter astoundingly described David as a prophet who “knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendents on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ” (Acts 2:29-31). Luke also confirmed Jesus as the eternal occupant of David’s throne.
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:31-33)
Therefore, some consider Jesus’ occupation of David’s throne to be the sign of this Covenant.19 I consider Christ’s rule from the throne of David to be a fulfillment rather than a sign.
The New Covenant
Finally, we have reached the “New Covenant.” This is the covenant under which all Christians live. In this New Covenant, which is “mediated by Jesus,” our sins are forgiven and our right relationship with God is restored. We say that this covenant is “mediated by Jesus” because it is through His atoning work on the cross and His ascension to His heavenly throne (the eternal version of David’s throne) that we have justification and salvation. Clearly, this covenant is eternal. Similar to the Mosaic Covenant, the parties include God and all of His people. There is no doubt that there was a sacrifice. The covenant wouldn’t exist without the perfect, once-for-all, atoning sacrifice of Jesus. There is nowhere in Scripture that specifically defines a “sign” for the New Covenant, but there are plenty of opinions about this. Some believe the Lord’s Supper is the sign, others believe baptism is the sign, while still others believe that the giving of the Holy Spirit during Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) and at the time of every Christian’s conversion is the sign. There are entire books written about the Lord’s Supper as the sign20 and baptism as the sign.21 While I couldn’t find evidence of a book specifically about the giving of the Holy Spirit as the sign, just Google “Is the giving of the Holy Spirit the sign of the New Covenant?” and you will find plenty of YouTube videos and blogs on the subject.
Yes, I glossed over the various “pieces” of the New Covenant quickly, because there is a lot more to discuss. First, let’s look at the key Scripture passages having to do with the New Covenant. There are many Scripture passages that mention or allude to the New Covenant, but Hebrews chapter 8 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 are considered to be two of the most important. In the Jeremiah passage, God promises a new covenant in which He will put His law within His people, written on their hearts, and then utters “I will be their God, and they shall be my people…I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:33-34).
In Hebrews chapter 8, the author of Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage (see Hebrews 8:8-12) as well as discussing the merits of the New Covenant vs. the first (Mosaic) covenant (Hebrews 8:6,7,13) and Jesus as the better covenant mediator (Hebrews 8:1-3,6). As mentioned above, Hebrews 8:13 does seem to imply that the first (Old/Mosaic) covenant became obsolete when Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant.
Let’s take a step back though, and look at the literary context. Remember that Scripture didn’t originally have chapter and verse divisions. There were no chapters until Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, put chapter divisions into place in approximately A.D. 1227.22 The Old Testament was divided into verses by a Jewish rabbi named Nathan in A.D. 1448, and Robert Estienne, aka Stephanus, divided the New Testament into verses in A.D. 1555.23
Therefore, let’s try to get past the “chapter ending” at Hebrews 8:13, and look to Hebrews 9, the text that immediately follows the statement about the first covenant being “obsolete.” First we read all about the original tabernacle structure (vv. 1-4), Ark of the Covenant (vv. 4-5), and the priestly duties such as repetitive sacrifices which could not “perfect the conscience of the worshiper” (vv. 6-10). In Hebrews 9:24-25 I think we get to the heart of the matter. The author of Hebrews had again discussed the need for purification by blood (vv. 18-22), but then he explains that “copies” of the heavenly things needed to be purified with “these rites” (the sacrificial system instituted by Moses). Heavenly things (which are not copies), however, have a better sacrifice (Hebrews 9:23). Furthermore, v. 24 again calls the tabernacle/temples “copies,” while Christ entered heaven itself. Perhaps it is these “copies,” the “holy places made with hands” (Hebrews 9:24), and the “incomplete” repetitive sacrifices which could not truly purify us from sin that Hebrews 8:13 describes as “obsolete.”24 Also important is that the Mosaic Covenant was specific to ethnic Israelites, the descendants of Abraham, while the New Covenant is “complete” because it extends to “every tribe and language and people and nation” who have been ransomed by the blood of Christ (Revelation 5:9).25 VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: I did not come up with these ideas on my own. There is a reason why Daniel Block is one of my favorite authors/OT scholars; his explanations resonate within me.
So where does this leave us? Are we still beholden not only to the decalogue, but all the instructions in Moses’ “Book of the Covenant” that aren’t specific to the tabernacle/temple building, sacrificial system, and priesthood? Well, we frequently hear that instead of being under “Old Testament law,” we are now under Jesus’ “law of love,” “law of grace,” or words to that effect. When asked “which is the great commandment in the Law?” (Matthew 22:36), Jesus replied “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets [emphasis added]” (Matthew 22:37-40). Guess what? If you look at the decalogue and all those instructions minus the temple/sacrifice/priest instructions, they pretty much boil down to loving and worshiping God correctly, and loving and treating people correctly. The cultural details of the original laws may not fit our modern society, but if we look at the spirit rather than the letter of the laws, I think they still apply.
One last word about the New Covenant and the Mosaic (Old) Covenant. I believe in the immutability of God. That’s a fancy word that means “unchanging.” Block says it better than I could: “God can neither be untrue to himself or deviant in his revelation. He cannot reveal a sacrificial system and promise forgiveness through it one moment and then retract the system or any detail within it as flawed, faulty, or mistaken in another.”26 The Mosaic Covenant was not bad or wrong. This “Old/New” terminology has, in my opinion, set up the Mosaic Covenant and “The Law” for a lot of unneeded negativity. The Mosaic Covenant was a shadow (or a “type” if you want the fancy theological word) of the New Covenant. It was incomplete because the “copies,” the earthly sanctuary and repetitive sacrifices, could not truly purify our hearts. However, the Mosaic Covenant found its completeness, its fulfillment in Jesus, the One who truly can purify us and give us new hearts (Ezekiel 36:26).
To wrap this novella up, I just want to share my view on why all the biblical covenants are actually everlasting rather than temporary. To put it simply, it is because all the covenants find their fulfillment in Jesus, and since Jesus is God, He is eternal. The Adamic and Noahic Covenants, in which humanity was made “vice-regents” over the earth? They will ultimately be fulfilled when Jesus comes back and God makes a new heaven and new earth (2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1-4). The Abrahamic covenant in which God promised Abraham descendants, land, blessing, and that “in [Abraham] all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3)? Once again, fulfilled in Jesus, Abraham’s descendant who indeed provides blessing for everyone who believes in Him. The Davidic Covenant? David’s throne is the everlasting seat of our sovereign ruler. Initially David’s throne was occupied by imperfect human kings, but now Jesus, the everlasting perfect King, rightfully occupies the throne forever. The Mosaic Covenant…I think we covered that ad nauseum. Christ’s perfect and permanent fulfillment of all these covenants is the reason I mentioned above that I believe all the Old Testament covenants are subsumed under the New Covenant.
I recognize that anyone who reads this article will, in all likelihood, disagree with at least one of the points I made. And you know what? That’s ok! Yes! It is actually ok to have different views on things that aren’t the core tenets of the Christian faith! Despite differing viewpoints though, I believe we can all agree that the covenants of the Old Testament consistently point to the gospel, the very, very good news of Jesus.
If you made it all the way through this monster, hopefully you share my joy and peace in knowing Scripture confirms that we, as children of God, are in an eternal and beautiful covenant relationship with Him.
1 Daniel I. Block, Covenant: The Framework of God’s Grand Plan of Redemption (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021), 153.
2 Ibid., 46.
3 Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture references are taken from the ESV.
4 Block, 45
5 Ibid.
6 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text (JPS stands for “Jewish Publication Society”)
7 Block, 46.
8 Ibid., 53.
9 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 648.
10 compellingtruth.org/Adamic-covenant.html
11 Michael N. Jacobs, “The Resurgence of Two Kingdoms Doctrine: A Survey of the Liturature,” Themelios 45, no. 2 (August 2020): 316-17.
12 Block, 13-43.
13 Of note, this is the first time in Scripture that there is any indication humans were to eat anything other than plants.
14 NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 42.
15 Ibid.
16 Bruce Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 264.
17 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Guy Prentiss Waters, The Lord’s Supper as the Sign and Meal of the New Covenant (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019)
21 Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, eds, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007)
22 gotquestions.org/divided-Bible-chapters-verses.html
23 Ibid.
24 Block, 528
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., 527.
seekinghimaboveallelse.com 
Leave a comment