The Old and the New Covenants

All quotations are taken from NKJV unless otherwise indicated

Hebrews chapters 8 to 10 teach the superiority of the new covenant over the old, but this truth raises some puzzling questions. If Christ ‘offered one sacrifice for sins forever’, Heb. 10. 12, how can there possibly be a return to animal sacrifices in a future millennium? If the present-day church enjoys the blessings of the new covenant promised to Israel, Heb. 8, where does this leave ethnic Israel? If we are under the new covenant, are we still under the old covenant’s moral laws? Before investigating these questions, we must notice what Hebrews says about the covenants.

Hebrews chapter 8 verses 7 to 9 gives a reason for the new covenant: because Israel broke the old one. Then, in verses 10 to 12, God promised five great blessings under the new covenant: to write His laws on their hearts; to be their God and they His people; all would know Him from the least to the greatest; He would be merciful to their unrighteousness; and He would remember their sins no more. Verse 13 continues, ‘In that He says, “a new covenant”, He has made the first obsolete [“old” KJV, Darby]’. What does this mean? The relationship between the old and new covenants is one of the most hotly contested issues in Christian debate.

Was the new covenant made with Israel or the Church?

The new covenant was specifically stated to be with ‘the house of Israel and with the house of Judah’, Heb. 8. 8; Jer. 31. 31. Yet, the book of Hebrews and the Lord’s Supper, Luke 22. 20 and parallels, assure believers today that we enjoy the blessings of the new covenant. But how can the promise of a new covenant made to ethnic Israel be fulfilled in the church?

Some, arguing for a present-day fulfilment, suggest that the church has replaced Israel in God’s purposes. Herman Bavinck writes, ‘Not only did Jesus not expect anything from the Jews in the present; in the future also he expected nothing for them’.¹Bruce Waltke says, ‘The Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God; that place has been taken by the Christian community which fulfils God’s purpose for Israel’.²

However, Romans chapter 11 verses 26 and 27 speaks about the future conversion of the Jewish nation at the coming of Christ, ‘And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob”’. Verse 27 states that Israel will come into the blessings of the new covenant at that time, ‘for this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins’, a clear reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah chapter 31 verses 31 to 34. Ernst KAsemann writes, ‘Christianity is already living in the new covenant’ while ‘Israel will begin to do so only at the parousia’ (that is, at Christ’s coming).³ While there is, at present, a fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy in the church’s experience, one day the promise of the new covenant is going to be literally fulfilled to its original recipients, Israel.

Will animal sacrifices be reinstated?

Various Old Testament passages suggest that animal sacrifices will feature in the messianic age. Ezekiel’s vision of the restored temple (chapters 40 to 48) speaks of animal sacrifices by Levitical priests, 44. 15.⁴How can God ‘wind the clock back’ to old covenant conditions?

Ezekiel’s temple vision is best understood as millennial for four reasons. First, the river of life flowing out of the temple, with trees for healing, Ezek. 47. 1-12, point us to Revelation’s future scene, Rev. 22. 1, 2. Yet, second, Ezekiel is not picturing the eternal state because we also read about sin, death, birth, learning, judging, and time in Ezekiel.⁵ Third, with no sin, there will be no animal sacrifices in eternity. Fourth, a millennial temple suggests itself because Ezekiel places it after an ethnic Jewish national conversion, regathering to their land, and political re-establishment under the Messiah, chapters 34 to 39.

A spiritual temple (merely teaching moral lessons, either to Israel, or the church today) is hard to accept because the dimensions and specifications are so many and so minutely described. What lesson shall we draw from the thirteen-cubit gateway, Ezek. 40. 11? Bad luck? If the temple is meant to teach morals, why are so few lessons taught in these chapters? If the temple is meant to picture the New Testament church, cp. Eph. 2. 20-22, why are the mechanics of animal sacrifice described, Ezek. 40. 38-43; 42. 13 and what relevance have the tribal land allotments, Ezek. 48?

But if Ezekiel’s vision is a millennial scene, how can there be a reversion to animal sacrifices? One point to note is that the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel are not the same as we find in the Law. Thus, if we compare Ezekiel chapter 45 verses 18 to 25 with Numbers chapters 28 and 29, we find different sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement, which is itself on a different day. There are only two other feasts (Passover and Tabernacles) - no mention of Firstfruits, Pentecost, or Trumpets.

Further, the holy city does not appear to be in the same location as present-day Jerusalem, cp. 48. 1-20. So, the sacrificial system in Ezekiel is not quite a ‘reversion’ to the law of Moses.

While there is sin in the millennium, Isa. 65. 20, sometimes meriting the death penalty, 11. 4, remedies are also required for sins which fall short of this, helping remind citizens that sin cannot be ignored, but must be repented of and punished. Animal sacrifices would seem to perform a didactic function (as teaching aids), combining elements of a penalty, public deterrent, religious penance, and a reminder of the one sacrifice for sins for ever - Christ.

Are Christians under the old covenant law?

If Christians are not under the old covenant, how shall we live? Must we keep Sabbath, or tithe, or abstain from shellfish? Some would argue that we are not under the law for salvation, but the law still governs how Christians should live (Calvin’s ‘third use of the law’).⁶

However, the Christian is not under the old covenant law as a rule of life.⁷ The context of these verses is not the ceremonial or civil aspects of the law, but moral behaviour: how Christians should live. The Christian is instead under the law of Christ, Gal. 6. 2; 1 Cor. 9. 21. We are not Moses’ disciples - but follow the example and obey our Lord Jesus’ teachings, not only in the Gospels, but also through His apostles’ inspired Epistles. Nor is this antinomianism (a lawless licence to indulge in sin). Christ’s law sets for us a higher, not a lower, standard than Moses, see Matthew chapter 5.

Where is the power for holy living under the new covenant? Instead of legalism, Rom. 7, which was for infancy, ‘I took them by the hand to lead them out of … Egypt’, Heb. 8. 9, cp. Gal. 4, God has given us His Spirit, Rom. 8, putting His ‘laws in their mind and writ[ing] them on their hearts’, Heb. 8. 10; 10. 15, 16, cp. 2 Cor. 3. 3. Therefore, we should walk according to the Spirit and produce fruit to God, Rom. 7. 4; Gal. 5. 22, 23.

‘The law is not the rule of the believer’s life … Christ is our rule of life … the apostle does not say, To me to live is the law; but, “To me to live is Christ” … Christ is his object, his theme, his model, his rule, his hope, his joy, his strength, his all’.⁸

Ironside wrote, ‘If “Brethren” are heretics because they teach that Christ, not the law of Moses, is the rule of life, they are in excellent company … We are not under law (Rom. 6. 14). We are neither saved by the law, nor under it, as a rule of life; we are not lawless, but “under law (enlawed) to Christ” [1 Cor. 9. 20-21]. We stand firmly by the apostle Paul when he declares, “I through the law died unto the law that I might live to God” (Gal. 2. 19). Is Christ himself a lower standard than the law given at Sinai? Or is the latter needed to complete the former? Surely no intelligent believer would so speak. This is not antinomianism, but its very opposite. It is subjection to Christ as Lord of the New Dispensation and Mediator of the New Covenant’.⁹