Confusion on the Covenants: A New and Better Covenant

(Editor’s Note: This article is written by Thomas G. O’Neal)

The weeping Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah, said, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, said the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, said the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying `Know the Lord’: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, said the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (31:31-34).

Observe some things that the prophet said. (1) God would make a new covenant. (2) This new covenant would not be like the one God made with their fathers at the time he led them out of the land of Egypt. (3) This new covenant would be written in their hearts, whereas the one made with their fathers was written upon two tables of stone (Ex 31:18). (4) Whereas the children of Israel were born into covenant relationship with God and then taught who He was and His laws (Dt. 6:6-9), in the new covenant they would know the Lord before and in order to enter into Covenant relationship with him. (5) God would make a new Covenant not renew an existing one.

When was this fulfilled? We do not have to guess about it. We have Inspiration telling us of the fulfillment of it. In Hebrews 8:6 we learn Jesus Christ “is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” This covenant was a better covenant and it had better promises. Then we are told in Hebrews 8:7, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Then the Hebrew writer quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 8:8-12 and says “In that he saith, A new covenant, he had made the first old. Now that which decayed and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” We learn that which is called the old covenant was to vanish away.

Continuing in the book of Hebrews, we are told Jesus Christ “is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood” (9: 15-18).

If one had no more than the above, if he read with any discernment at all it would be obvious that there is an old testament and that there is a new testament.

In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul said God “had made us able ministers of the new testament” (2 Cor. 3:6). Paul goes on to show that “if the ministration of death, written, and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away. How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech. And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ” (2 Cor. 3:6-14).

In the above Corinthian passage Paul shows that what he called the old testament which in context he describes as the “ministration of condemnation” was to be “done away.” In contrast he speaks of the “ministration of the spirit” and the “ministration of righteousness” which he identifies as the new testament.

Over the years gospel preachers have understood this and have so preached. Brethren have also so understood the difference in the old and new testaments. Most people in denominational circles have also understood this even though they did not always make the proper application of it. When people did not understand the Scriptures, many times it was because they did not understand the difference in the old and new testaments.

Several years ago I spoke to a group of young people at one of the larger Baptist Churches in Hueytown on “The New Testament Church” with a question and answer session following. Many of their questions were answered by showing the difference in the old and new testaments. The pastor’s wife tried her best to confuse the minds of the young people after I would answer their questions. However, from their comments after the session she did not do a very good job.

A new day has dawned upon brethren. From several places voices are being heard that show (1) some brethren never understood the difference in the old and new testaments; (2) they have forgotten what they have known, or (3) they have rejected their past knowledge and have come up with some new thing. While each man states his views in a little different way, the basic position is that there is no such thing as an old and new testament. There is only one law for God’s people in every age. That law is described by various terms, but essentially they all come out at the same place.

Various Statements of Error(1) Universal Moral Law. In his book, The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God, brother Homer Hailey writes about something being the “universal moral law.” I know where to read in the Bible about the law of Moses (1 Cor. 9:9; Lk. 24:44), the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:21) and the law of God (Rom. 7:22). I know of no Bible passage that mentioned the “universal moral law” and someone would do me a favor if they would write this passage on a post card and send it me. Brother Hailey never did cite the book, chapter and verse for his “universal moral law.”Brother Hailey said,”The universal moral law revealed within, strengthened and re-enforced the law of Moses…..All of the universal moral law….is included in the law of Christ” (page 46). Of what he calls the “universal moral law” he says “This law….was never abrogated” (page 47). Then concludes by saying, “Therefore, all men continue to live under this moral law, Jew and Gentile, alien and Christian – the Christian because God’s moral law is fully revealed in Christ’s covenant law to the saints” (page 47).(2) An unknown writer says, “..the Laws given at Sinai are not Moses, but God!…I teach from the Greek and Hebrew that the law is not put aside….I show conclusively from the Greek and Hebrew that although we are not saved by the Law, we are nonetheless required to Keep it” (sic) (Courthouse Contender, Jan. 1997, page 2, edited by Ronnie Milliner). Respectfully, I must say this preacher would do well to teach anyone from the English, much less the Hebrew and Greek. If he teaches we must keep the law, I wonder how many animal sacrifices he has offered lately? Paul says this one is “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4).(3) Wallace Little. Brother Little writes “Colossians 2:11-14 deals in sin and salvation. Contextually verse 14 must mean that sin, NOT any law, was nailed to the cross. Verse 15 is transitional, leading to verses 16-17 showing the ceremonial aspect of Mosaical Law is no longer binding.” He also criticizes those who say “God’s universal moral law is a myth” (Gospel Truths, May, 1997, page 14). Thus, brother Little accepts the idea of God’s universal moral law.” He says “the ceremonial aspect of Mosaical Law is no longer binding.” Seventh Day Adventists make the same argument in order to “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” They say the moral law, which they say includes Sabbath observance, is still binding, but the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross. The Bible makes no such distinction.(4) Jim Puterbaugh. In a series of lessons presented in the Tampa, Florida area around 1993, brother Puterbaugh said, “The Bible never precisely condemns polygamy. It’s like slavery. God allowed slavery in the law of Moses and then slavery just disappears when we get over into Christianity…but is there a verse that says slavery is immoral?…Even in Philemon Paul doesn’t condemn slavery. And that’s the way I look at the concubines or polygamy, that they do not precisely violate moral law as God reveals it but once you have Christianity, it just seems to disappear, like slavery does…What about Abraham? He had a wife and a concubine under the universal, moral law, as it was. Was he in sin, then? He was under the universal, original law and was he in sin? I think we’d all have to say that he, that we couldn’t say he was in a state of sin that was going to keep him from going to heaven, at least…that’s the only way I know how to deal with it…I just confess to you that it is a struggle, that it is a problem” (quoted by brother Jim McDonald in The Dyersburg Path Finder, June 15, 1997, page 5).

If the Bible does not condemn polygamy, and if all men are under what some brethren are calling “God’s universal moral law” and that is the one covenant through all history, what would these men say to a man or woman who had a multiplicity of spouses today? Do brethren not realize in the beginning it was “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24) and when Lamech, Noah’s father, “took unto him two wives” (Gen. 4:19) that he had violated God’s law? If Lamech was keeping God’s original law with at least two wives, why could not men today keep God’s original law on marriage by having a multiplicity of wives?

(5) Stanley W. Paher. In some material sent to me by this individual, whose name I recognize but is unknown by face to me, some statements are made that teach the basic position set forth above by others. He says, “Even the classic passage on covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Heb 8:6-11), does not mention the Ten Commandments or refer to any list of codified statutes” (page 1). I have never heard of anyone who claimed that, but you can see what he is setting up. He further says on page 7, “Jeremiah 31:31-43 could have had multiple fulfillments, first when the Jews returned to their homeland in 536 B. C., and then in the first century.” The fulfillment was going out of Jerusalem, not going into Jerusalem.

He says, “In Isaiah 2:2 the time of the latter days’ is not specified… .Instead, the ‘law going forth from Jerusalem’ was fulfilled during the time after the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity,’in the future’ (latter days)” (page 3). Peter identifies the “last days” as being the gospel age or “apostolic era” in Acts 2, not a partial fulfillment sometime before the day of Pentecost.

On page 4 he says, “In Col. 2:14, that which was ‘nailed to the cross’ was not the ‘Old law,’ nor was it sin per se, but the debt which sin created… .Therefore, law was not nailed to the cross: it was the sin-debt….” On Hebrews 10:9-10 he says “God took away the first set of sacrifices (not covenant or law) in order to establish the second, the pleasing sacrifice of Christ” (page 4). He says that in the context of Hebrews 10:1-10 the word “covenant…does not appear in the context.” That is true, but in context the term ‘law” in found in verse 8 and “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Second what? Sacrifice? No, will; for the text continues to “by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (verse 10). The contrast is not between sacrifice one and sacrifice two, but between law or will one and will two. The second will or law had one sacrifice. Under the first law there were many sacrifices.

Paher continues by saying of the “Old Testament worthies” that “their sins were ‘genuinely forgiven’ and forgotten, Frank (Jamerson, tgo) just as yours and mine are” (page 5). Well, if they were, then they were without the blood or sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross! Paher has men saved without the blood of Christ. Never let him teach Jesus as the way, the truth and the life again (Jno. 14:6). He has surrendered that for all time to come. See the position a man gets himself in when he tries to re-arrange the teachings of Scripture?

He says, page 7, “the law was not done away at the cross of Christ.” And on page 9, he said, “Paul did not regard the Law of Moses as abrogated at the time of Christ’s death.” If that is so, where did he build his tabernacle and where did he go to keep the Passover?

He further writes of a single covenant throughout all generations. He says “the eternal covenant” is “the everlasting covenant” which “terms of covenant extended to people of active faith throughout the ages, remaining constant from the time of the Patriarchs, past Moses, David and the Prophets, and into the Christian era….God has had a single covenant concept in mind…” What We Are Saying About Covenant, (page 1). On page 2 he says “the everlasting (eternal) covenant is established forever.” Again on page 2, “All people, whether they lived before or after the cross of Christ are subject to general law (universal moral law).” On page 3 he writes of the “old and new (renewed) covenants” and says “all OT saints are also our covenant brethren. The single covenant concept thus binds all of God’s elect into one body or church, one everlasting kingdom, one sheepfold with one heavenly destination” (pages 3-4).

PurposeThe reader should keep in mind the purpose of all of the above confusion. These men are attempting to find a justification from the Scriptures for men to marry and divorce as many times as they wish and still be approved of God. If this is not apparent to the reader, then let him read after them in their writings in the future and he will see this is so. These men will get even bolder in their writings in the future to where there will be no misunderstanding as to what they are teaching. At the present these false teachers within the church do not want their error fully understood. They want time to sow their seeds of falsehood without it being detected for what it is. But, then, that is nothing new for that is the way false teachers have always worked.

What Saith The Scriptures?There is a period of Bible history that has been called the Patriarchal Age because during this period of time God spoke directly with the father of the family. Genesis 1 through Exodus 20 covers much of this period of time. During the Patriarchal period God called Abraham in Genesis 12 and made certain promises unto him. God began dealing with Abraham and his heirs. They went into Egypt and God brought them out. In Exodus 20 God gave Abraham’s heirs, Israel, the law. At this point in Bible history the narrative concentrates for the most part upon God dealing with Israel and not with the remainder of the world. This period during which Israel was under God’s law given by Moses is covered from Exodus 20 through the gospel record of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Beginning with Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost when the gospel was preached for the first time in fact, when the terms of remission of sins were first announced, and the Lord added men to his church, we have a period of Bible history often called the Gospel Age. This is the period of time in which we live and which will continue until Jesus Christ comes again.

Law of MosesWhat does the Bible teach about the law of Moses?The law of Moses was not given to Gentiles. It was only given to the Jewish people. Moses said, “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep and do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day” (Deut. 5:1-3). Moses said what God told him to say concerning the covenant “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever” (Ex. 31:12-17). In Exodus 34:27-35 God said through Moses to Israel “I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel” and “he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” Jeremiah said the covenant God made with Israel was “in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt” (31:31-34). Ezekiel said the Sabbath, which was a part of that covenant, was a sign between God and Israel (20:12). the covenant God made with Israel was “in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt” (31:31-34). Ezekiel said the Sabbath, which was a part of that covenant, was a sign between God and Israel (20:12).

Gentiles were not under the law of Moses. Paul said the “Gentiles…have not the law” (Rom. 2:14). Moses said “the Lord made not this covenant with our fathers but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day” (Deut. 5:3).The law of Moses was made known by God through Moses from Mount Sinai. God caned Moses upon mount Sinai and spoke to him(Ex. 19:16-25). God delivered to Moses his law that he was to deliver unto the people (Ex. 20, 21, 22, 23). Part of that law was “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8). Nehemiah said to God “Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: And madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant” (Neh. 9:13-15).The Sabbath was not observed from creation but rather from mount Sinai. Moses said, “The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day” (Deut. 5:3). Nehemiah said, “Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai…and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath” (Neh. 9:13-14). How could men keep that which had not be made known unto them? The day God had Israel to keep holy unto him was the same day upon which he had rested or ceased his creation (Gen. 2:2). The Sabbath was observed not because God rested on that day but because Israel had come out of Egyptian bondage. God said, “remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day” (Deut. 5:15).Before God gave Israel the law at Sinai, there was no command to keep the Sabbath, there was no one charged with violating the Sabbath, and there was no punishment for Sabbath violation.The law of Moses was to last throughout the generations of Israel and was to end at the cross of Christ. Moses said the law was to last throughout the generations of Israel being a perpetual covenant. “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant” (Ex. 31:16-17). The incense was to be “a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations” (Ex. 30:8). Those who contend for the sabbath observance today (the Seventh Day Adventist, the Seventh Day Baptist, and the Seventh Day Church of God) do not argue for incense today, yet the Bible says both were to be “perpetual” (Ex. 30:8; 31:16).

In the time of Amos at 760 B.C. some said, “When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair ofshoes; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat” (Amos 8:5-6)? Through Amos God’s answer was “it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day” (Amos 8:9). Matthew tells us at the crucifixion of Christ “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour”(Mt. 27:45). Thus, when Christ was crucified, the law of Moses ended.

Those who argue for the sabbath observance today try to make a distinction between the law of Moses and the law of God, a distinction that the Bible doesn’t make. Neither does the Bible make a distinction between what is sometimes called the “moral law” and the “ceremonial law.”

God gave the law of Moses: – “the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel” (Neh. 8:1). “Ezra…was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given” (Ezra 7:6).

Moses gave the law of God: – “to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God” (Neh. 10:29). “Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses” (2 Chron. 34:14).

Ezra was “a ready scribe in the law of Moses” (Ezra 7:6) and “a scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the God of heaven” (7:12).

In Luke 2:21-32 the expressions “law of Moses,” ‘law of the Lord,” and “the law” are used interchangeably.

In Mark 7 the scribes and Pharisees were told by Jesus they laid aside the “commandment of God,” they rejected “the commandment of God” when they rejected what “Moses said” (Mk. 7:6-10). Mark tells us (7:10) that Moses said “Honor thy father and thy mother” while Matthew tell us God said this (Mt. 15:4). Thus what Moses said in the law was the same as God saying it.

The New Testament Teaches The Law of Moses
Was Nailed To The CrossJesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Mt. 5:17-18). Observe Jesus was to fulfill the law, not destroy it. Until it was fulfilled nothing would pass from it. When it was fulfilled it would pass.Paul raises the question “Wherefore then serveth the law”(Gal. 3:19)? His answer is, “It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come…” (v. 19). The law was till the seed should come. In the context of Galatians 3 “thy seed, which is Christ” (v. 16). The law was added till or until Christ came.In Galatians 3 Paul also shows that “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ” (v. 24). Once under Christ or faith (verses 24-25), Paul says “we are no longer under a schoolmaster” which was the law of Moses.

Colossians 2“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:14). This is the passage that seems to give the one covenant advocates a lot of trouble. They are not sure what it teaches; one says it teaches that “sin” was nailed to the cross and another says it teaches that the “sin debt” was nailed to the cross. Yet, they are sure that it does not teach that the law was nailed to the cross, which it does teach.A parallel passage will help here. Speaking of Christ, Paul said, “For he is our peace, who had made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition, between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace” (Eph. 2:14-15).Paul says what he calls “the middle wall of partition” which was “between us”, that is, between Jew and Gentile has been ‘broken down.” He further says it was “abolished.” He further tells us the it was “the law of commandments” which was “in ordinances.” It has been “broken down” and “abolished.”Paul in Colossians says ‘blotting out the handwriting of ordinances.” “It” was taken out of the way and “it” was nailed to his cross. “It,” the handwriting of ordinances,” “the middle wall of partition,” “the law of commandments,” the “ordinances” were nailed to the cross. This is so plain. This is the reason these one covenant advocates have got to get something besides the law of Moses nailed to the cross. This passage stands in their way. Brethren have well understood it down through the years.If these one covenant fellows are correct, let us see how they do. A part of the covenant that they say we are under or that we are to keep is “remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

Sabbath observance required: (1) limited travel, (Ex. 16:28-30; Num. 35:5), (2) building no fire, (Ex. 35:3), (3) doing no work, (Ex. 20:10), (4) No cooking, (Ex. 16:23), (5) purchasing no food (Neh. 10:31), (6) gates closed, (Neh. 13:19), (7) carry no burdens, (Neh. 13: 15-18), (8) a burnt offering of two lambs of the first year without spot, (Num. 28:9-10), (9) strangers among them were to keep it, (Dt. 5:14), and (10) violators were to be punished (Num. 15:32-36). Now, how many of these one covenant advocates have done this?

Printed by permission from “Walking in Truth” (Vol. 21, No. 4, Oct/Nov/Dec, 1997)