If you haven’t read them, check out Part I and Part II of this article.
Paul on the Law
Now let’s turn to Paul’s own letters, where we find quite a few interesting observations to make about what he believed about law.
Galatians is perhaps Paul’s strongest teaching regarding the law of Moses. He seems to be telling his audience in chapter 5 that if they try to keep the law of circumcision that they will “cut” themselves off from Christ and “fall from grace”. This is incredibly strong language, especially considered that Gentiles had been allowed to keep the law of Moses as proselytes before Paul wrote this letter. There is no similar warning from the Jerusalem council in Acts 15; the gentiles are told that they don’t have to keep (most of) the law, but not that they can’t; certainly they are not warned of condemnation if they try to. Paul also makes a few statements to the Galatians that have been used by supersessionists to prove their point. I will leave aside the theologically loaded question of a law of works versus the law of faith and just note a couple of expressions that Paul uses. In chapter 2, Paul recounts his rebuke of Peter at Antioch for withdrawing from eating with Gentiles when James’ men showed up from Jerusalem; much has been said about this passage, but I’d like to just stick to one point here: Paul seems to be saying that Peter had been eating with Gentiles, and even living like a Gentile. It would seem hard to explain these assertions without understanding them to be in relation to the food laws of Moses. In chapter 3 Paul makes another interesting statement when he explains the purpose of “the law”, which seems to be a reference to the Torah: it was added because of transgression, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made (v.19). The law was their guardian, like the temporary guardianship of a child, until Christ came, but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (vv. 24, 25). There is no longer distinction between Jew or Greek (v. 28). In chapter 4, Paul allegorically interprets the Torah’s story of Sarah and Hagar, seeming to flip the traditionally expected interpretation on its head: Hagar represents those of Israel whom God has rejected, and Sarah the children of promise, even including the Gentiles; one can imagine how such a passage could be and has in fact been interpreted as God’s rejection of Israel, but I do not believe that Paul meant to go that far, as he makes clearer in Romans 11: God has not in fact rejected Israel as a whole. Although for many believers in Supersessionism, rejection of Israel is a key part of it, I will not be going into their arguments. For the rest of this section, I will confine the discussion to what happened to the Mosaic law.
Much has been made by latter day interpreters, both secular and religious, of the point that Paul’s audience in Galatians are Gentiles, not Jews. This does not become evident to the person not familiar with the congregation there until 4:8, where he speaks of their former idolatry. Now, I’m as much a believer in considering context, which especially includes audience, when interpreting any text, but that is not the whole context. Firstly, the congregation of God’s people in Galatia could have very well included Jews, as the diaspora was everywhere, especially in Asia Minor, the hub of the three main continents of their world. Secondly, and more pertinently to the actual passage, Paul makes no distinction between Jew or Greek when he makes such powerful statements. On the contrary, he mixes his usages of “we”. For instance, in 3:14, he speaks of the Gentiles, then uses “we”, even though he is a Jew. In 3:23, “we” obviously refers to the Jews. Again, for the first 5 verses of chapter 4, he speaks of the Jews using “we”, but then includes the gentiles in verses 6 and 7, applying the same principles to them. Paul, who is a master of the rephrasing dichotomy, especially when contrasting the law that brings death with the “law” of faith and liberty, flips his dichotomy here! He went from talking about how the Jews were formerly enslaved to the law to how the Gentiles were formerly enslaved…to their idolatry! How was circumcision like a return to idolatry?! To flesh out how Paul makes such a parallel would be an interesting study indeed, but beyond our scope. For now, I want to only reiterate my rather controversial view that he is not confining the principles he expounds just to the Gentiles, but to Jews as well. Indeed, Paul himself says that he died to the law and now lives by faith (2:19-21).
Scholars have noted that, in Romans, Paul appears to soften and nuance his stance on the law, perhaps so he will be accepted by the leadership in Jerusalem.[1] He does so much nuancing in this letter in fact that I will only highlight a few of Paul’s thoughts on the matter. The law wasn’t bad; it was even holy, and it served a good purpose; indeed, Paul even argues that his teachings “uphold” the law; but it is no longer useful or binding, like a woman is no longer bound to her husband after his death.[2] In chapter 6, he seems to switch dichotomies again mid-argument, from comparing law and faith to comparing sin and faith, and then he switches back again; he also reiterates that being freed from the law is not license to sin. But it is in chapter 11 that we begin to see an idea that I believe is developed more fully in Hebrews: Paul tells the Romans that the divine mystery will unfold after the Jews’ “hardening” until the full number of the gentiles has entered, after which all of Israel, made jealous, will be saved, and he quotes Scripture to prove his point. In other words, Paul is still viewing this “sandwich” period between the coming of the Messiah and the full accomplishment of his mission as continuing, at least for the moment, and his views regarding the law, I believe, will fit into that as we consider more passages. In other words, the idea of what happens to the law cannot merely be viewed as purely dispensational, but also must be viewed in the spiritual and eschatological contexts of the New Testament.
Let’s back up for a moment to see the full picture of what is going on historically and contextually. Firstly, it may be argued that later books of the New Testament, written after the destruction of the Temple, are at least a partial explanation of how God’s law is to be followed after much of the Mosaic law is impossible to follow (e.g., you couldn’t make sacrifices at the Temple if it was destroyed).[3] However, Paul’s writings are universally accepted as written before the destruction of the Temple. So as we read him, we should be asking why is he explaining a new paradigm in which law no longer seems to have a place, even before that Temple is destroyed? Secondly, he spends so much time explaining conceptually what that great shift is that we should pay attention. He does not, for example, explain the mechanics of when one dispensation ended and another began, as was taught in harping, countless sermons of my youth; instead, he is explaining spiritual principles that seems to fit right along with Jesus’ teachings regarding law, teachings which made no mention of it ending! For example, Jesus’ teaching that he did not come to abolish the law fits right alongside Paul’s statement to the Romans that we “uphold” the law, despite the rest of the book seeming to be a qualification of that. Jesus also reaches back past Moses to show the eternal plan for marriage,[4] as if such interpretation is thereby made all the more surer; likewise, Paul reaches back to the covenant made with Abraham to show how it was not annulled by the one made four centuries later with Moses. These are just a few examples of what I believe prove my point that there is more going on in the New Testament’s explanation of what happened to Moses’ law than merely determining when and how it was to be obeyed. (In my experience, modern Christians who understand the biblical writers best teach these concepts by expressing it this way: Christ did not abolish the law, but he fulfilled it. And the way they understand this is as theologically deep as it is contentious. But we won’t even have to roll up our pants legs as we wade into the topic, because I’ll leave most of the theology to the theologians.)
I believe that trying to understand the focus of the writers in this way will also help us understand Ephesians and Colossians as well. How can Ephesians 2 say that Jesus “abolished” the law, using a very similar word to the one Jesus used when he said that he did not come to “abolish” the law?[5] Much has been argued regarding whether Colossians says that the law was “nailed to the cross” in chapter 2, since it does not explicitly say that the law was what was nailed. I’ve read so many vehement theological arguments on both sides. But I think the argument disappears when we think in terms of the writer’s focus on the spiritual, and see how Paul’s focus, especially in Romans, is both on the concept of the law and the death it brings. Then we can look beyond the blinders of merely the context of dispensationalism to the broader spiritual concepts under consideration, and see that, yes, the concept of the law was being considered in Colossians 2, along with the problem of the death that it brought. Yes, how to obey God’s law was important, as we see practical application in the following verses, where they’re told to not let anyone judge them concerning feast days, for example. This parallels similar comments Paul makes in Romans.[6] Likewise, Colossians places the context of what is to be done with the Mosaic law in an eschatological context, agreeing with Hebrews that such practices as feast days are only a shadow of “what is to come.”
The spiritual concepts under consideration in all these books, I believe, are so much more powerful, and are probably much of the reason that these books have proven so influential on the world: Christianity didn’t just explode in the Gentile world because they didn’t have to take a blade to their foreskin: the New Testament brought the “rest of the story” of the Torah that revealed incredibly meaningful mysteries for the lives of countless humans who struggled with such things as finding meaning in life and dealing with guilt that brought death. These authors draw attention to what is to be done about spiritual death, not just the law that brings it and when and for what people it was in effect. The authors focus on grace and faith, not just adherence to rules. Which relation would you rather have with the divine, one in which you live or die based on how you follow rules, like the heartless application of if-then computer coding that produces death without exception, or a relationship with some sort of divine father, whatever that is? The latter is exactly what Paul preached to the Athenians in Acts 17, who knew no law of Moses, but also even in the earlier sermons of Acts, where the audience are Jews and the prooftext is the Torah, where Peter, Stephen, and Paul reach back to the promise made to Abraham, back past Moses.[7] Indeed, the New Testament’s doctrines brought not only the Gentile world to Yahweh worship despite there being no longer a Jewish Temple made with hands, but also had nearly the entire Gentile world leave behind all temples and animal sacrifice. The New Testament, I would argue, brought acceptance of the Torah (i.e., “Instruction”) in a way that Philo and his attempts to harmonize the Mosaic law with Greek philosophy could only dream of. One might reasonably argue that humanity was already “outgrowing” religious trappings like animal sacrifice, as evinced in the earlier writings of the Greeks,[8] but the New Testament became the dominant paradigm under which it was finally virtually fully accomplished.
Again, this is only a brief survey of the topic. The letters to the Corinthians also expound on Paul’s view of the purpose of the Mosaic law, if you’d like further reading. But I’d like to at least briefly look at some of the things Hebrews has to say on the topic.
How Did Moses Make Coffee?
Hebrews has quite a bit to say about the law, and, perhaps most significantly for our present topic, it seems to be written from a perspective before the destruction of the Temple. As I’ve noted previously, along with the writings attributed to Paul, the book of Hebrews contains some of the strongest prooftexts used by supersessionists to make their case. Secular scholars often acknowledge that it is supersessionist.[9] However, recently some theologians have argued against Hebrews being supersessionist.
One of the most notable and quoted advocates of this view is the Swedish theologian Jesper Svartvik, whose teachings have in recent years spread in both churches and seminaries across North America.[10] In his writings, he often speaks of the need to teach Hebrews well, but couples it with the word “responsibly.” I believe his is one of the many examples of modern scholarship moving away from the antisemitism that seemed to reach its height in the first half of the 20th century and was part of popular culture, but which was also part of mainstream biblical scholarship’s supersessionist views, where Israel was seen as rejected by God and “replaced” by Christianity. And as I noted in chapter two when examining the great shift that occurred when the earliest Protestants began translating the Bible, even when it was punishable by death, I believe this modern shift in biblical scholarship views concerning Israel sometimes swings to unjustifiable extremes.
We have no cause to automatically assume that a modern preacher who teaches that God rejected Israel is antisemitic. The first view, even if totally erroneous, does not necessarily mean the presence of the second, even if historically this has almost universally been the case. In other words, one can see Hebrews as even strongly supersessionist towards ethnic Israel without being “irresponsible” and promoting antisemitism, contrary to Svartvik’s apparent view.[11]
Ironically, a similar view is quite prevalent in secular scholarship, that much of the New Testament is antisemitic; this term is even applied to writers such as Paul and John.[12] But to use the same term for their views of Israel that is used for the ideology that led to the mass genocide of Jews in the 20th century seems quite ridiculous to me. Paul was himself a Jew, and not ashamed of it. He was no more antisemitic than the Hebrew prophets who castigated the nation of Israel before him. It was not their hand that brought destruction on Israel, but God’s.[13] They were just the messenger, and were often deeply troubled by the news. Even in the gospel and letters of John, with his strongly sectarian language against Jews who rejected Christ,[14] the author(s) still considers himself to be a part of true Israel. All this is not to say that later Christians after the time of Constantine—when Christianity was no longer the oppressed minority but the majority able to oppress—did not engage in systematic antisemitic practices, using the New Testament as their prooftexts. They certainly did, and brutally so, even in the earliest days of their power. But modern scholars should not share in the same flawed interpretation methods as antisemites. While it is laudable that Jew-hating is mostly no longer acceptable in popular culture, even though it was practically ubiquitous only a few decades ago, we should not swing to the extreme and make a fetish out of bashing the Bible for it. This is grossly anachronistic, even if antisemitism quoted the Bible to bolster most of its views.
Naturally, one can find opposing extremes in theologians who wish to defend the Bible against antisemitism, who also engage in bad exegesis in the zeal to prove their point. I will let the reader decide if Svartvik falls into this camp. I merely wanted to mention the historical background which is especially felt in Europe, where academics for the last generation are keen to find talking points to show that they no longer hate the Jews, as many of their parents or grandparents did.
Now that I’ve mentioned the intellectual and cultural climate of Europe that shifted after the purges of the 20th century of undesirables, let’s turn to Svartvik’s views about Hebrews. He rightly concludes that scholars have begun to see Judaism not as an inferior religion out of which Christianity blossomed, but as a revolutionary world view, one which it is essential to understand in order to consider the birth of Christianity. The first Christians were apocalyptic-minded Jews, and thus their message itself was apocalyptic and (almost entirely) Jewish. (We’ll get to how a Jew could worship Jesus as God below.) And as I’ve pointed out above, I agree with Svartvik’s argument that the use of the expression “new” or “better covenant”[15] does not per se entail Supersessionism.
And as I’ve done with the teachings of Paul, Svartvik also argues that Hebrews’ view of what happened to the law must be understand in light of the eschaton. The two teachings are inseparably linked. The Hebrews writer spoke of the presence of the obedience to the law in his own time much like the author of Acts, but unlike Acts he longs for “the time of reformation”, in the future.[16] The question is whether Hebrews sees the renovation of all things as only in the future, as Svartvik argues. Hebrews agrees with several other New Testament writers who view their present age, even if part of the end times, as a sandwich period, before all things are restored. The difficulty is picking apart exactly what that entailed, and when. It’s hard to accept the entirety of Svartvik’s argument that Hebrews has no supersession in view in its own time when reading the rest of chapter 9: the New Covenant in which the sacrifices are replaced by one that actually removes sin was already accomplished by the Christ. Could it be that Hebrew’s view of the timing of the veil lying over what the sacrifices of Moses actually represented would not fully be removed until the destruction of the Temple? (9:8) If so, then his view was also that certain “elect” already had that revelation, as he himself had. Yes, of course the Hebrews writer agrees with the Platonists that earthly things are merely a shadow of the true heavenly things, which are alone eternal and incorruptible, so, yes, there is a heavenly Jerusalem, etc.; but that does not mean that they do not exist yet. On the contrary, the eternal is, well, eternal. In fact, Jesus’ sacrifice was the one that cleansed all sins committed under that “first” covenant (vv. 12-15). In other words, his sacrifice was not just something that happened in a point of time, but which was an eternal work of God, past, present, and future.
It is interesting that Hebrews 9:1 reaches back to the Tabernacle given by Moses for its spiritual symbology, not the Temple. Here it uses the past tense. However, when he considers the officiation of priests, which was continuing in the Temple in his own time, he switches to the present tense (verse 6 and following). Yet Jesus is already a mediator of a new covenant (beginning at verse 15), accomplished by his death which inaugurated a new covenant/testament. Jesus has already entered the heavens (24) where he accomplished the Yom Kippur that even the high priest could only symbolically enact. And he did it “at the end of the ages.” Yet something else remains, which will occur when Jesus returns, when salvation and the kingdom will be fully revealed. The author of Hebrews views the earthly symbols and that which it represents as overlapping!
Paul in Romans 11 similarly sees a temporary suspension of an influx of the Jews, as the Gentiles come into the kingdom, but unlike Hebrews here, he does not express it as a result of a veil, but as their unbelief, which could be considered the second side of the same coin: they had blinded themselves not to believe. He speaks of a remnant “at the present time”, while the Gentiles enter the kingdom and a hardening lies on Israel, but that eventually Israel will be fully included! Even though they currently continue in unbelief, they also will receive mercy. Paul too is looking forward to something quite glorious for the kingdom of God. However, we do find Paul speaking of a veil that lies over Israel’s eyes in 2 Corinthians 3, a veil which is removed in Christ. Combining these two passages, yes, Paul believes like Hebrews that at least a remnant (or all?) of Israel will have its veil lifted at some point in the (near?) future.
I want to reiterate that the message of Hebrews, like Paul’s teachings, is both spiritual and eschatological, not just dispensational. And, they say very little that sounds dispensational, whether regarding timing, or what law(s) are applicable and to whom. But now that I’ve tried to show the importance of the spiritual and eschatological understanding of the end of the age related to the law of Moses, let us now turn to the legalists’ favorite topic: law. Does Hebrews often sound dispensational, even if that new dispensation had not yet been fully realized by the Jews who still had a veil over their eyes? What are the strongest prooftexts for this?
Hebrews views Jesus as the new high priest, and as a result argues that there is a change in the priesthood, and therefore a change in the law. (7:12) Chapter 8 quotes Jeremiah 31’s prediction that there will be a new covenant, and argues that the first one is made obsolete. But when? Jeremiah wrote this hundreds of years before. Hebrews says that “what is becoming obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.” We already noted that the covenant of the Bible, whether Abrahamic or Mosaic, is pretty much viewed universally by the authors of the Bible as eternal and only breakable by man, not God. Hebrews here is not saying that God’s promises will disappear, but must have some other aspect of the covenant in mind as disappearing, and based on the context that we’re reviewing here, I’m arguing that it’s law specifically. When will the “disappearing” be complete? We’ve already analyzed chapter 9’s view that the way into the heavenly version of the sanctuary will not be (at least fully) while the first (the earthly) is still standing, even though Christ’s sacrifice had already occurred, until the time of the restoration of things, even though a better sacrifice had already occurred to accomplish heavenly cleansing of all sin, and the last testament/covenant had been ratified by a death. In chapter 10, we get more strong supersessionist language: he abolishes the first in order to establish the second. In chapter 13, we see an argument against food regulations specifically as beneficial. Those who officiate in the earthly Temple have no right to partake of the true sacrifice. And here we get some of the strongest sectarian language of the New Testament. Whereas in Acts we see the earliest Christians meeting and teaching at the Temple,[17] the author of Hebrews says let us go outside the camp, referring both to language in the Mosaic law (always looking for shadows of the spiritual reality) and to where Jesus was crucified, outside Jerusalem. In other words, those whose veil is lifted are to no longer be part of the earthly Israel whose minds are still veiled. How are they now to sacrifice since they are no longer to go to the earthly Temple? “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” And they are to await that eschatological “lasting city” which is to come. (13:12-16) Presumably soon. In other words, Hebrews not only sounds like it agrees with some of Paul’s supersessionist-sounding language, but it also appears to be highly sectarian, similar to some comments in the gospel and letters of John. Not only was the law not to be practiced any longer, but they were to avoid those who keep it?
Of course, there will be many who will interpret these passages theologically in a way which totally disagrees with my conclusions here. I am merely trying to understand them based on the plainest understanding of their words, which is hard enough.
Things New and Old
We’ve already noted that the gospels have virtually nothing in them that would anticipate replacement theology. But did the gospels give any sort of hint of Jesus anticipating anything remotely resembling some sort of radical supersessionist transformation? Well, Jesus does agree with Paul and Hebrews that the apocalyptic messianic reign is at hand, and judgment on Israel. These teachings at least overlap with these other New Testament writings. But did Jesus ever hint at a mystery that would be unveiled regarding the law of Moses, as we see Paul and Hebrews teaching? Not explicitly, at least. But he does make one cryptic comment that seems to defy interpretation, at least when taken by itself. Whether you think it was given by the same god who inspired Paul or Hebrews is up to you. Secular scholars also may want to take note, as it could very well be the gospel’s attempt to show how Jesus’ teaching agreed with the rest of the New Testament’s understanding of what to make of the destruction of the Temple, and what was to be done about the law of Moses. In the synoptics, Jesus is asked by the disciples of John why his disciples do not fast like they do.[18] Recall that fasting was a tradition practiced by followers of the Hebrew Bible, even though it was never commanded explicitly in the law of Moses. Jesus’ response is interesting, and also might be eschatological: while the bridegroom (himself) is with them, they eat; when he is no longer with them, they will fast. Then he gets even more cryptic: new unshrunken cloth is not used to patch old clothes, or it will tear the garment; new wine is not placed into old, unstretchable wineskins, or they will burst. Keep this new versus old dichotomy in your mind, but before we move on to other passages, I’d like to point out that Matthew, agreed by scholars to be the most Jewish of the gospels, has this scene placed directly after another scene involving eating, where Jesus has just quoted Hosea 6:6, I desire mercy, not sacrifice. This comment is absent in Mark and Luke’s parallel accounts, which otherwise agree in the sequence of questions about food laws.
What were the gospel writers doing with this account? Was it something Jesus said that they had no good explanation for? Or did it have a function for their understanding of the last days?
Let’s first consider two other passages, then we’ll come back to this cryptic message. John does not mention Jesus’ comments about cloth and wineskins, but he does love a good dichotomy, and his play on “new and old” is explicitly related to commandments. One would think if you were looking for evidence of Supersessionism stuck in the gospels, you’d take note. John 13:34 has Jesus teaching a “new” commandment! He told them to love one another. One could argue that it wasn’t a new commandment; in fact, Matthew 22:34-40 has the law of Moses actually fully summarized by the command to love. But was Matthew tying to explain a higher, more spiritual service of YHVH in a time when the Temple laws could no longer be kept?
What do these passages have to do with Jesus’ parable of torn cloth and skins? Maybe nothing. But let’s fast-forward to the first letter of John. Again, we’re looking for evidence that the writers were trying to convey some sort of mystery about the end times and the place of the law of Moses, even if they do not explain it explicitly outside of Paul and Hebrews. This letter leans heavily on some of the themes in the gospel of John, including the new commandment business we just observed. Yet John combines the idea of “new and old” with it! 1 John 2:7-11 is itself cryptic, but we’ll examine what it says explicitly. He repeat’s the gospel’s “new” command, to love one another, but after saying that he is not writing a new commandment to them, but an old. What is this old commandment? Is it the law of Moses? No, it’s the commandments of Jesus. What is interesting is that the word he uses, not obvious in most translations, is the very word that the gospel of John begins with to express Jesus in Greek philosophical/cosmological terms: the Logos. (There was another Greek word he could have used to indicate the basic meaning of “word” as we mean it in English.) And the context of the passage, what 1 John 2 is saying that they should follow, is the teachings of Jesus. Yes, Jesus taught that they should follow Moses’ law, but now 1 John is putting the emphasis on the commandments of Jesus himself, just as the first three chapters of Hebrews did. The transfiguration scene[19] in all three synoptics also seems to agree with the supremacy of Jesus over Moses: Peter suggested building tents (Tabernacles?) for Moses (Torah), Elijah (the prophets?), and Jesus, but the heavenly voice singles out Jesus as the one they should now hear.
So were the synoptics indicating a mystery related to the law with Jesus’ parable of the cloth and wineskins? Did the first letter of John think he was expressing a mystery, albeit cryptically, and was he connecting the gospel of John’s “new commandment” to the synoptics “new and old” parables? We’re not told explicitly. But we do know that in the wake of the Temple destruction, both Christians and Jews figured out very similar ways for dealing with the fact that much of the Mosaic law could no longer be practiced. Their resulting religious views would be so similar in at least a few critical ways that the Christians often would struggle to find ways to distinguish their practices from the Jews, such as with the Sedar/Easter/communion.[20] Perhaps one of the most jarring realizations for me of how similar are some of the most fundamental Christian and Jewish beliefs, even hundreds of years after Christ, was when I heard professor Shaye Cohen say that he, as a Jew, and many other Jews, no longer want sacrifice, even as many of them still look forward to a new Temple.[21] He brews that thought in my mind since.
Conclusion
I would like to reiterate the credit I’m trying to give to the New Testament authors for having a spiritually sophisticated and meaningful view of law. Theirs is not mere in-your-face iconoclasm, I’m-more-spiritually-minded-than-you attitude, like a mystic Sufi pissing in public in “an unacceptable manner”.[22] In other words, they were not just viewing the laws of Moses as antiquated and non-divine as the Greeks already did. It is not an easy struggle with God’s word, even back when Jacob wrestled with an angel all the way up until to the time when Luke’s angels were gracing man with direct revelation, or when Luke’s Stephen was stoned after being accused of preaching an end to the customs of Moses. And people are still struggling with God’s laws. But we should never forget that law was made for man, not man for law, as even the ancient Greeks would agree.
Nor was the New Testament the first time such spiritual depth was encountered. We should not discount the tremendous power of the Hebrew Bible, which the Christians relied on to conquer the world. In fact, the Christians built their spiritual Temple on top of the materials and foundation of Moses, who was already preached in every city centuries before they were born.[23] The spiritual depth especially regarding the law was already there in Deuteronomy 10, where they were commanded to circumcise their heart, not just their foreskin.
And I’ll go ahead and say it explicitly, just because I know Christians are wanting me to: Jesus’ fulfillment of the Mosaic law could very well be seen as perpetual in the sense that he brought about the “more real” spiritual realities of it, such as a sacrifice that actually takes away sins, and an eternal priesthood of believers, and the building of an eternal Temple and Kingdom not made with hands, and his continual intercession on believers’ behalf as the Aaronic priests had done, etc. Is that the mystery of the covenant(s) in a nutshell?
Is there a final rest for God’s chosen people, and finally an eternal, world-ruling kingdom? A covenant that won’t be broken, that’s written on hearts? Because the Hebrew Bible didn’t fully realize the promise of the covenant. But it certainly continually foreshadowed it, with a staggering faith. So does the New Testament’s mystery fulfill God’s promise?
To ready more, check out my book here.
[1] New Testament History and Literature, by Dale Martin, ch. 16
[2] Romans 5:20-21; 3:31; 7:1-13
[3] There is actually a fascinating argument that the New Testament was written much earlier than scholars conventionally accept, and I’ve even seen it cited seriously in scholarly works: Redating the New Testament, by John Robinson.
[4] E.g., Matthew 5 and 19
[5] Compare Strong’s 2647 to 2673.
[6] See especially Romans 12-14, where Paul even goes so far as to seem to contradict the Jerusalem’s council’s decree that Gentiles were to avoid food offered to idols.
[7] Acts 3:13, 25; 7; 13:26
[8] E.g., as early as Empedocles, who lived in the fifth century BCE (roughly the same era that saw the emergence of Jainism and Buddhism in the East, both of which prohibited animal sacrifice), some Greek philosophers began to consider animal sacrifice to be anathema; it, however, would continue to be considered proper by the majority of the populace.
[9] E.g., The New Testament History and Literature, by Dale Martin, p.320-321.
[10] See his article “Reading and Preaching Hebrews without Supersessionism,” The Christian Century, Vol. 138, Issue 19, September 22, 2021. Currently available online.
[11] I am open to correction if I misunderstood him.
[12] I’ve seen many scholars more wisely choose to use terms such as “anti-Jewish” when speaking of some of the New Testament’s rhetoric, but they will often still display some of the same anachronistic bias as those who call it antisemitic. I am intentionally not calling out specific scholars because I’d like for readers to consider whether what I say is so, without causing bias by calling out anyone’s favorites.
[13] See Ehrman’s sensible arguments in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, (2008) p. 166.
[14] E.g., see Robert Gundry’s “Jesus, the Word, According to John the Sectarian”, for a theological perspective. John’s sectarianism is also pretty much universally recognized among secular scholars as well.
[15] 7:22; 8:6, 12:24
[16] 9:9, 10
[17] E.g., 2:46, 3:1-8, 5:21, 42.
[18] Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-38
[19] Mark 9:2-8; Matthew 17:1-8; Luke 9:28-36.
[20] For more on the historical Christian struggle to differentiate their practice and calendar from the Jews’, see The History of Time: A Very Short Introduction, by Leofranc Holford-Stevens, ch. 4. Also see the Havard free online course “From the Hebrew Bible to Judaism, From the Old Testament to Christianity,” taught by Professor Shaye Cohen. Lectures 16 -18 especially.
[21] Ibid., lecture 23, final third of the lecture.
[22] An Introduction to Islam, 4th edition, by Frederick Mathewson Denny, ch. 10. What was the unacceptable manner? On a Qur’an?
[23] Acts 15:21