Perpetual Ordinance? Everlasting Statute?

[ScaredyPunk]

I’ve been reading through the OT and find myself confused. There are multiple places where certain rituals or the like are said to be everlasting… however we do not practice them. I understand that Christ fulfills the OT and that is why we no longer need the ceremonial laws, but I struggle to see how certain ones are fulfilled. For example: Leviticus 3:17, Numbers 10:8, Numbers 19:10, Leviticus 16:34 (Although I assume that Christ’s sacrifice fulfills this and it is eternal, hence doing away with the need for a yearly ritual)?

I hope my question makes sense. Insight is appreciated.

 

[OmnesBonum]

In the language of the bible, eternal many times does not mean forever; it’s literal meaning is to ages, referring to a particular age. At the end of that age another practice is used. However, they do all contain eternal spiritual truths, but these can be very hard to discover and use allegories. This also is the reason that the teaching of eternal damnation is not incompatible with universalism for example.

 

[JohnR77]

I would like to add a tangent thread on whether Hell is forever

Hell. Is it eternal ? Does eternal mean forever and ever Sacred Scripture

From another thread Hell : Reasons For It Some have proposed that Hell only lasts for a while, then it will cease to be. Their scriptural argument is that eternal means for the length of a given age, not forever and ever. From a worldly perspective suffering is the worst thing. So, I can see how a person thinking from that false perspective would think Hell should cease to exist. From the Christian perspective, sin is the worst. Suffering, when united to Christ’s, becomes redemptive and…

 

[Cathoholic]

ScaredyPunk.

OmnesBonum told you . . . .

This also is the reason that the teaching of eternal damnation is not incompatible with universalism for example.

This is wrong.

Eternal condemnation IS incompatible with universalism.

Universalism is false.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[spiderweb]

My opinion is that when you read the text: Example Numbers 10:8 states “…and this shall be an ordinance forever in your generations.”

My first thought is that I am not an Israelite. I am a gentile. This is not my generation (no pun intended).

Jesus fulfilled all of the Old Testament Law for roughly 30 years of his life by keeping it. But when it came to presenting the New Covenant and the new Priesthood, that’s what changed things.

As Hebrew 7:12 states: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. "

I highly recommend a careful reading of all of Hebrews Chapter 7, and I think it will be very helpful to you.

 

[c1949]

I just ran across one of those instances of “forever” in I Mac 14: 41 which seems to clarify the matter with respect itself, anyway:

“And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever until a trustworthy prophet should arise…”

So, in the case of a person, “forever” would certainly be limited to their lifetime, and this verse indicates another restriction (which is hard for me to understand–it doesn’t say what effect this trustworthy prophet would have).

So, here, “forever” seems to mean “for life” but when one says “forever” it is 1) simple hyperbole, 2) an attempt at flattery, 3) an attempt to sound “biblical,” etc.

When it comes to those other instances (i recall generally what you’re saying) of course we know the end of the story so it is natural to question what “forever” means. The answer of the Bible is 4) until God changes it. If Israel fails on its end of the covenant, the ballgame is over until God returns to reestablish a new covenant.

Yes, i generally agree that Jesus is the fulfillment of “forever” because “forever” does not specify how God will accomplish that. Jesus accomplished what mankind could not.

Thanks. Interesting question (for the scholars of which I am not). “The New is concealed in the Old.” So, Jesus is perhaps concealed in those “forevers.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If “Eternal” doesn’t really mean “forever”, then the promise of “Eternal Life” is also limited.
Which is not what Catholics believe.

“Eternal” means forever.

 

[spiderweb]

If “Eternal” doesn’t really mean “forever”, then the promise of “Eternal Life” is also limited.
Which is not what Catholics believe.

“Eternal” means forever.

If you are comparing the Old with the New, the New Covenant either keeps what was commanded “for ever” (such as the 10 commandments). OR it increases it, so that the inherited physical promised land becomes the inherited Kingdom of God. The animal sacrifice never could reconcile man to God, even if they were practiced for eternity. The New sacrifice does that.

It is not a limitation on the word “eternal” or “forever”.

Example: I make a $10.00 monthly contribution “forever” to some charity, or one is made in my name since I can’t live forever. A later descendant of mine implements a greater plan of $100.00 monthly donation.

It increased what was already there. The “eternal” or “forever” aspect remains in place.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, that was my understanding too.

God still keeps his everlasting covenant. The terms have just changed a bit but the covenant is still there.