February 21, 2010

  • Question 227 - Is the Old Covenant Revoked or Just Fulfilled?

    Mr. Sungenis,

     

    I apologize.  Apparently I missed the 'comment' space on the Paypal screen.

    I just ran across your BTF site.  A great deal of very interesting reading.

    My one question: is it accurate/best to refer to the Old/Mosaic Covenant as revoked?  Wouldn't it best be described as fulfilled in Christ, even transformed?  Isn't that the heart of supersessionism: that the New Covenant is the Old Covenant fulfilled in Christ and extended universally?

     

    I fear that the term 'revoke' might incline some to think that God 'turned his back on' the Jews and repudiated them...and fuel anti-semitism and a resistance among Jews to hearing the Gospel...when in fact God radically transformed the Old Covenant, offered true and eternal salvation both to the Jews and to the entire world.  That's Good News!

     

    God bless,

    Michael

     

    R. Sungenis: Michael, we need to be clear about these things and we need to use the right language in order to do so.

     

    When we say that the Old Covenant is "revoked" we are referring to its legal status. If, for example, your driver's license was revoked in California it means that you can no longer drive on California's roads. It doesn't mean that you no longer know how to drive, but just that you can't drive legally in California.

     

    Analogously, the Old Covenant was legally revoked but it doesn't mean that the Old Covenant loses all its influence. We draw many good things from the Old Covenant, even though it has no legal force today. In the same way, we draw many good things from the Magna Carta even though it has no legal force over us, since we are under the US Constitution. 

     

    When we say the Old Covenant is "fulfilled" in the New Covenant we are saying that all the things the Old Covenant wanted to accomplish have now been accomplished, or will be accomplished, by the New Covenant, and for the simple reason that the Old Covenant was not able to fulfill them in itself.

     

    But in order for the New Covenant to fulfill the Old Covenant, the Old Covenant had to be revoked. If the Old Covenant was not revoked, then the New Covenant would not have been able to fulfill the Old Covenant. Analogously, if you want to get a driver's license in Texas after having moved their from California, then you must get your driver's license in California nullified or revoked so that you can get a new one in Texas, and in doing so you "fulfill" your desire to drive legally in Texas.

     

    In other words, "fulfillment" and "revocation" of the Old Covenant must work together. Thus, the New Testament is clear that the Old Covenant has been legally revoked (cf. 2Corinthians 3:3-14; Hebrews 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9; Colossians 2:14-15; Ephesians 2:15), but at the same time the Old Covenant is "fulfilled" by the New Covenant (cf., Hebrews 10:16-18; John 19:30; Romans 9:25-26).

     

    One more thing. In revoking the Old Covenant, God didn't "turn his back on the Jews." Precisely the opposite. The Old Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, could never save the Jew, thus it needed to be revoked. God replaced the Old Covenant with the only covenant that can save man -- the New Covenant. This covenant was already started in the time of Abraham, and it was then called the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Genesis 12-22; Galatians 3:6-8; Romans 4:1-26). It was meant for the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, as the only means of salvation. The Old Covenant was only a tutor to bring us to the New Covenant (Galatians 4), but it had no power to save. That is why it needed to be "fulfilled" by the New Covenant.