The Old Covenant has been obliterated (Hebrews 8:13).

[The Remonstrant]

Wouldn't that mean that "the new" is eternal, whereas "the old" is just timely?

And also that "the new" already existed before "the old" was given?

God knew both covenants from eternity but they were applied at different time periods.

Does that mean that also "the new" comes to an end sooner or later?

The author of Hebrews refers to the new covenant as aionios, which means "age-lasting" (13:20). Unless the author intended to limit aionios to the present age, then the covenant extends to the age to come (which will never come to an end). Given the overall thrust of Hebrews, the latter appears much more likely.

[Geert van den Bos]

The author of Hebrews refers to the new covenant as aionios, which means "age-lasting" (13:20). Unless the author intended to limit aionios to the present age, then the covenant extends to the age to come (which will never come to an end). Given the overall thrust of Hebrews, the latter appears much more likely.

αἰώνιος,a \{ahee-o'-nee-os}
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be 2) without beginning 3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

"without beginning" -- it was already there when Torah was given at mount Sinai.

[The Remonstrant]

αἰώνιος,a \{ahee-o'-nee-os}
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be 2) without beginning 3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

"without beginning" -- it was already there when Torah was given at mount Sinai.

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1997), comments

It is important to note that the Greek word aioniosaioniosaioniosaionios expresses perpetuity within limitsunlimited duration. (p.208, emphasis the author's)

[Geert van den Bos]

The author of Hebrews refers to the new covenant as aionios, which means "age-lasting" (13:20). Unless the author intended to limit aionios to the present age, then the covenant extends to the age to come (which will never come to an end). Given the overall thrust of Hebrews, the latter appears much more likely.

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1997), comments

It is important to note that the Greek word aioniosaioniosaioniosaionios expresses perpetuity within limitsunlimited duration. (p.208, emphasis the author's)

αἰώνιος translates Hebrew עוֹלָם. "olam".

[The Remonstrant]

αἰώνιος translates Hebrew עוֹלָם. "olam".

Correct.

[Geert van den Bos]

Correct.

It doesn't mean "for a lifetime" .

Exodus 31:16,
Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant = "b'rit olam"


Isaiah 24:5, And the land has deceived because of its inhabitants, for they transgressed instructions, infracted statutes, broke the everlasting covenant, "b'rit olam"

[foudroyant]

Does that mean that also "the new" comes to an end sooner or later?

Yes, it will end when the mediatorial kingdom of Christ is handed over to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).

[Cow Poke]

Yes, it will end when the mediatorial kingdom of Christ is handed over to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).

Yeah....

When we see Jesus face to face, we won't need either.

[RBerman]

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1997), comments

It is important to note that the Greek word aioniosaioniosaioniosaionios expresses perpetuity within limitsunlimited duration. (p.208, emphasis the author's)

I don't put great stock in arguments of the form, "All major English Bibles translate Word X wrong. It should be translated in this other way, which happens to support a pet doctrine of mine."

[JohnnyP]

I'm not sure how you get from the Law of the Spirit being different from the Mosaic Law to Marcionism, and I'm not sure I want to know.

Getting back to the point of your statement, "Christians are not under the Law, but under the Spirit." -- the Law of the Spirit telling Gentiles not to eat blood in Acts 15:28-29 is the same telling Jews not to eat blood in Leviticus 7:26. So it's not that we aren't under the Law in the sense that we as Gentiles can intentionally break ours or that Jews like Paul can break theirs, even in the course of evangelization -- rather, for one aspect of it, we aren't under the Law in the sense that the Law doesn't ultimately save us, Jesus does (Galatians 3:13).

This is not the secular definition. When Paul writes his epistle to the saints in Rome, he distinguishes between the Jews and the Gentiles, having acknowledged that some Gentiles have been grafted into the true Israel while some Jews were broken off. In this case he is clearly using the Jew/Gentile as a racial/ancestor differentiator. (I edited my post for clarity before you made your post: "that the category division of Jew vs Gentile is obsolete as regards distinguishing who is the people of God".)

See the point above that Jew/Gentile had more than one use, including racial differentiator and people-of-God differentiator.

I think you are assuming that he used the term Jew as a racial/ancestor differentiator and you are not taking into account Gentiles who converted to Judaism and became Jews, like Ruth.

Conversely there were Samaritans who were Israelites with a similar but still different religion, but were not Jews. They are not called Jews simply because of their ancestry, but because of their religion which is Torah observance. Without such a religion, there is no reason to keep on identifying them as Jews.

He was 'caught' telling Jews to observe the law, yes.

Do you mean rather, he was caught telling Jews not to observe the Law?

But he didn't tell them to "observe the Law only because he got caught". Where on earth did you get that from?

That seems to be what you suggest here, the appeasement was because he got caught telling Jews not to observe the Law.

Paprika: Thirdly the elders recommended a strategy of appeasement to counter reports about him.
JP: Paul told them to observe the Law only because he got caught?

Firstly, the appeasement failed

Secondly, that Paul was reported to have taught Jews not to follow the law is prima facie evidence that he did so.

That's the point, it wasn't an appeasement but evidence Paul observed the Law anyway, and Paul denied turning Jews against the Law. So this seems to have you saying Paul lied here and the reports were true?

Acts 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Paul's writings also support such a course of action, where he speaks of the Jews:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian...But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Some things I missed:

Could you please elaborate on this?

And as regards "dying to the law"

Nope. You can say that it's a point about being justified by faith and not by the works of the Law, though it goes even deeper to say that the Jews in the Messiah are free of the Law of Moses, as the rest of the epistle shows.

Again being free doesn't mean it's ok to lie, chat, steal...then you might say, "No we can't do those things, but it means Jews can eat bacon!" No, doesn't say that either. One simple way to put it is that we observe our respective Laws because we want to, not grudgingly because it's a chore required for salvation. Again the inner change of faith in Jesus vs. being outwardly a slave to the Law touched on here:

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Much of their attitudes seem to be expressed in hatred of the Law, others, and even God, and observing the Law out of fear.

Rather than love of the Law, others, and God, and observing the Law out of faith. In part that's what it means to be dead to the Law.

That's why it doesn't make sense to say that one part of Israel was required to follows the Sinaitic rituals while another was not. In for a dime, in for a dollar. Are Gentiles made part of Israel by faith, or not?

Yes but Acts 15 still commands some Laws for Gentiles, in addition to more Universal Laws against lying, adultery, murder, etc. as applied to everyone. It makes as much sense as there being some specific Laws for Levites but not for all of Israel, etc.

Paul did take part in the purification rituals of the temple required for entering the premises, presumably as part of "becoming all things to all people."

One problem of assuming that all things to all people means either abandoning or observing Law on a whim, is at what point would he stop? Would he worship idols and sacrifice babies along with heathen in order to be all things to them? Rather it makes more sense to interpret that as, trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes to better understand them and approach them from a mindset they can relate to.

Can you remind me which OT passages dealt with that topic?

It is often assumed to be Nazarite vows discussed:

Numbers 6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Revelation 21 describes the return of Christ and the perfect world yet to come. In light of the New Testament, I see Zech 14 as metaphorically describing that same period in which the whole perfect future world finally comes under the uncontested rule of God. Zech 14 describes it in terms familiar to Jews of the fourth century BC, because the "secret" (musterion, Eph 3:4-6) of the engrafted Gentiles had not yet been explained at that time. In Rev 21, in which the "New Jerusalem" is the whole world in the eternal [i]shekinah[]/i] of God, so that "the dwelling place of God is with men." In light of that, the "going to Jerusalem" of Zech 14 becomes the eternal experience of all God's people.

If Gentiles observe the Feast of Tabernacles in the World to Come, doesn't that mean that at least some the Old Covenant is not obliterated yet?

Zechariah 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

[RBerman]

Yes but Acts 15 still commands some Laws for Gentiles, in addition to more Universal Laws against lying, adultery, murder, etc. as applied to everyone. It makes as much sense as there being some specific Laws for Levites but not for all of Israel, etc.

I don't understand Acts 15 to be setting down universal laws for all non-Jews in perpetuity, except insofar as those laws (e.g. "abstain from sexual immorality") are already part of the Universal Laws. Three of the four instructions of Acts 15 deal with the food-handling practices of Roman culture in Antioch. I'm sure you're aware that the Acts 15 instructions differ both from the "Only, they asked us to remember the poor" of Galatians 2:10 (evidently from another meeting than the one in Acts 15) and Paul's much more nuanced instructions to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7) on how they should approach the food issue in their particular setting.

One problem of assuming that all things to all people means either abandoning or observing Law on a whim, is at what point would he stop? Would he worship idols and sacrifice babies along with heathen in order to be all things to them? Rather it makes more sense to interpret that as, trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes to better understand them and approach them from a mindset they can relate to.

Complications can certainly arise when understanding how to navigate the unchanging principles of the moral Law as applied in various real-world, culturally diverse scenarios!

It is often assumed to be Nazarite vows discussed:

That seems likely. That vow was non-compulsory. According to Acts 21, Paul underwent the ceremony to show that he wasn't actively discouraging expatriate Jews from abandoning their roots.

[quote]If Gentiles observe the Feast of Tabernacles in the World to Come, doesn't that mean that at least some the Old Covenant is not obliterated yet?
As I said, in light of Revelation 21, Zechariah 14 becomes a metaphor for a worship of God even more comprehensive: Not just in a particular place at particular circumscribed times, but all the time, in every place.

[JohnnyP]

I don't understand Acts 15 to be setting down universal laws for all non-Jews in perpetuity, except insofar as those laws (e.g. "abstain from sexual immorality") are already part of the Universal Laws. Three of the four instructions of Acts 15 deal with the food-handling practices of Roman culture in Antioch. I'm sure you're aware that the Acts 15 instructions differ both from the "Only, they asked us to remember the poor" of Galatians 2:10 (evidently from another meeting than the one in Acts 15) and Paul's much more nuanced instructions to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7) on how they should approach the food issue in their particular setting.

Do you regard Gentiles not eating blood in Acts 15 the same as Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 7:26 under Noahide then Mosaic Law, or something different?

Complications can certainly arise when understanding how to navigate the unchanging principles of the moral Law as applied in various real-world, culturally diverse scenarios!

I still have a problem thinking Paul would risk being a phony by eating bacon and stuff like that with Gentiles, if he also wanted to act like a Jew with Jews elsewhere. Acts 24:13-14 with "Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me" and Paul saying he was "believing all things which are written in the law" would also make him a liar if he didn't really believe it, or if he had really done what he was accused of.

That seems likely. That vow was non-compulsory. According to Acts 21, Paul underwent the ceremony to show that he wasn't actively discouraging expatriate Jews from abandoning their roots.

Once taken, aspects of the vow were compulsory for Jews, but I agree it was convenient with Paul wanting to show he wasn't against the Law. I don't think it was simply for appeasement with Paul secretly being against the Law, though, as seems to have been suggested by some.

As I said, in light of Revelation 21, Zechariah 14 becomes a metaphor for a worship of God even more comprehensive: Not just in a particular place at particular circumscribed times, but all the time, in every place.

As it states Gentiles observe the Feast of Tabernacles in the World to Come, would that suggest an extension and even magnification of that Ceremonial Law, rather than obliteration of it?

[Paprika]

As it states Gentiles observe the Feast of Tabernacles in the World to Come, would that suggest an extension and even magnification of that Ceremonial Law, rather than obliteration of it?

I don't think the Mosaic Law has been obliterated now, but I think that Jesus implies that it will cease to exist when "heaven and earth pass away". And I would say, borrowing the metaphor in Hebrews, that the Mosaic Law is 'a copy and a shadow' of the heavenly things, and that 'what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.'

[JohnnyP]

I don't think the Mosaic Law has been obliterated now, but I think that Jesus implies that it will cease to exist when "heaven and earth pass away". And I would say, borrowing the metaphor in Hebrews, that the Mosaic Law is 'a copy and a shadow' of the heavenly things, and that 'what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.'

I agree with a lot of that.

[Paprika]

Getting back to the point of your statement, "Christians are not under the Law, but under the Spirit." -- the Law of the Spirit telling Gentiles not to eat blood in Acts 15:28-29 is the same telling Jews not to eat blood in Leviticus 7:26. So it's not that we aren't under the Law in the sense that we as Gentiles can intentionally break ours or that Jews like Paul can break theirs, even in the course of evangelization --

We can transgress against the Law of the Spirit, but we're not supposed to.

rather, for one aspect of it, we aren't under the Law in the sense that the Law doesn't ultimately save us, Jesus does (Galatians 3:13).

No, no, no, no, no. The Law of the Spirit doesn't save either. You're conflating two different concepts.

I think you are assuming that he used the term Jew as a racial/ancestor differentiator and you are not taking into account Gentiles who converted to Judaism and became Jews, like Ruth.

I'm not assuming. He did use it

Do you mean rather, he was caught telling Jews not to observe the Law?

Indeed.

That seems to be what you suggest here, the appeasement was because he got caught telling Jews not to observe the Law.

Nonsense. He told others not to keep the law, but the elders told him to go do a ritual in the temple, not Paul telling others to go do the ritual.

That's the point, it wasn't an appeasement but evidence Paul observed the Law anyway, and Paul denied turning Jews against the Law. So this seems to have you saying Paul lied here and the reports were true?

Context, my friend. He wasn't accused of that in Acts 24 and thus his statement could hardly be regarded as a denial.

Again being free doesn't mean it's ok to lie, chat, steal...then you might say, "No we can't do those things, but it means Jews can eat bacon!" No, doesn't say that either. One simple way to put it is that we observe our respective Laws because we want to, not grudgingly because it's a chore required for salvation. Again the inner change of faith in Jesus vs. being outwardly a slave to the Law touched on here:

We are not supposed to lie, cheat, or steal because we are under the Spirit which forbids it, and not because we are under Mosaic Law. We are not under Mosaic Law so we don't have to follow what is in it, but we are under the Law of the Spirit which does overlap with the Mosaic Law to some extent.

Much of their attitudes seem to be expressed in hatred of the Law, others, and even God, and observing the Law out of fear.