Good Question…does the NT contradict the Hebrew Bible in its
discussions of the 'passing away' of the Mosaic Law?
[Updated: Dec 10/2005 | Summary ]
I got this GREAT question a while back:
Sir,
I was
really hoping to find out why Christians are stupid and whether or not to
listen to Kenny G, but I guess I'll pick another topic :).
Throughout
the Hebrew Scriptures we see the strongest language available in the Hebrew
language to indicate that the Mosaic Law is eternal.
This is
particularly, but not exclusively, true of those aspects which Christians say
are not binding any longer.
For
example in regards to the Hebrew Festivals we see many references to their
eternity: The Sabbath is called an
"eternal covenant" in Exodus 31:16-17. Passover is called eternal in Exodus 12:13,17, and 13:10. Shavuot or "Pentecost" is
identified as such in Leviticus 23:21, Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) in
Leviticus 16:29, 31, 34 and 23:31. And
Succot or "booths" is likewise identified as such in Leviticus 23:41.
Furthermore
the Levitical Priesthood and sacrificial system is identified as eternal in the
Hebrew Scriptures. The Priesthood
itself is described as an eternal covenant in Numbers 25:12,13 see also Exodus
29:9 and 40:15. Likewise of the
Priestly vestments in Exodus 28:29,43.
Regarding Temple vessels we see the basin being commanded forever in
Exodus 30:21 the Menorah in Leviticus 24:3 and the trumpets in Numbers
10:8. The Shewbread is described as
eternal in Leviticus 24:8 and scattered indications of eternal sacrifices such
as in Leviticus 7:36 (and those sacrifices implicitly included in the
festivals).
Most of
these use the Hebrew word "olam" which translates as
"forever" or "eternal" (and translated as such in the
KJV). Plus many compound this with the
phrase "throughout their generations".
Elsewhere
outside the Mosaic books themselves we see these themes stated in general
ways. For example, "You must
always be careful to keep the decrees and ordinances, the laws (Torah, Hebrew
singular) and commands he wrote for you" 2 Kings 17:37 (NIV). Always being in Hebrew "every day"
which seems to be an idiom for eternal or always.
Likewise
we see Psalms 119. "I will always
obey your law forever and ever" vs. 44.
"My heart is set on keeping your decrees to the very end." vs
112. Likewise when we recall that
Psalms, being Hebrew poetry, uses synonymous parallelism we see it indicated in
such verses as 142 "Your righteousness is everlasting and your law is
true". In general we can say that
the author of Psalm 119 had quite a different perspective on the Mosaic code
than today's Christian (and dare I say the NT itself).
Proverbs
makes a rather blunt statement, "If anyone turns a deaf ear to the Law,
even his prayers are detestable" 28:9, I do believe that Proverbs is using
the same language to describe the prayers of the one who rejects the Mosaic law
as it does to describe homosexual behavior.
Furthermore
we see prophetic descriptions of obedience to the Mosaic code. Besides general one such as Deuteronomy 30:8,
Jeremiah 31:33, and Ezekiel 37:24 we again see specific references. We see references to Priesthood and
sacrificial service in Jeremiah 33:18 and Malachi 3:3-4. Likewise we see mention of festival
observance in Zech. 14:16 and Isaiah 66:23.
All of
this is in direct contrast to the teaching of the New Testament, particularly
of Paul and the authors of Hebrews. How
can the New Testament teach something contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures and
both be inspired and G-d remain immutable?
There are two main questions in here:
Sub-questions hiding inside these questions include:
This is a pretty thick issue, so we'll need to break it down rather fine.
[One opening caveat--this is an internecine discussion, between those who profess to hold to the teachings/inspiration of the Hebrew Bible but not to the "New Testament", and those who profess to hold to the teachings/inspiration of BOTH sets of documents. This is not a 'skeptical' issue per se, but rather is situated in a context of deliberate and intentional submission to the revelation of God. What that means for this discussion is that I will work on the common set of assumptions of this 'paradigm community'--that of the inspiration, authority, and accuracy of the Hebrew Bible. Accordingly, I will NOT go into discussions about "how do we know God inspired this verse?" or "does this apparent disagreement between passage X and passage Y disprove the Hebrew bible?" or "isn't this a stupid command for God to give people?" and such. That means that many, many apologetic and historical questions will not even be raised (but do not infer from this that I do not 'see them hiding in there'--smile!), but this is NOT a fault of the article, but rather an agreed-upon presupposition of the paradigm community for which this discussion is written, and from which the question was probably constructed.]
Let's start with some obvious things…
1. No one [in this paradigm community, remember!] disputes that God's ethical principles of love, fairness, and integrity are part of His eternal character and therefore, ethically normative for creatures of will throughout all the ages. Such principles are inherent within His character, which is--fortunately for us--reliably 'immutable'.
2. Virtually no one [in this paradigm community…and I will stop adding that to each statement from now on--just remember it is implicit in this discussion] disputes that some of God's commandments were one-time-only, specific to one-individual at one time, and not binding on any other soul. Examples might be the commandment to Moses to climb the mountain to look at the Land and then die, or the command to Noah to build an ark in preparation for the Flood, or the command to Jeremiah to buy a specific field before the Captivity. These are imperatives and commands (mitzvoth), but they do not apply to everyone and to every time and to every situation (generally, they only applied once).
3. In between these two extremes is a very wide spectrum of 'commandments'. Consider some of these, and where they should be placed on the continuum between universally obligatory and 'disposable', 'once-use-only':
· The command to Abraham to circumcise himself, his descendents, and all the males in his household. Was this ethically binding on the Gentiles? On Terah, Nahor, and Laban? On Noah or Enoch?
· The command to "love your neighbor as yourself".
· The command for all Jewish males--WHEREVER THEY LIVED--to visit Jerusalem three times a year (and no less). During the Babylonian captivity? "Backward-obligatory?"--when enslaved in Egypt?
· The command for Isaiah to go around half-naked for several months, as a statement to Israel.
4. Notice from the above that the question of 'backward-compatibility' (or 'backwardly eternal'?) has bearing on our question. Through some 'curious' logic and a bit of semi-equivocation (i.e., equating Torah with the Mosaic Law), some in Rabbinic Israel made an argument that ran like this:
· Torah includes the Mosaic Law.
· Torah and Wisdom are identified (Prov 8.22ff, and constantly so in the Rabbinics).
· Wisdom was said to be present 'at the creation of the world' (Proverbs again).
· Therefore, the Mosaic Law was present before the Creation of the World.
So, this leads us into the discussion, which I want to structure in this fashion:
------------------------------------------------------
1. What IS torah, and its relationship to Law and to
the Mosaic Covenant?
The first thing to realize is that Torah is not equated with 'law': EVERYONE complains about this, 'Jew and Gentile' alike! Torah is instruction, teaching, the revelation of God's will and intent. It comes in many forms: laws, narrative, proverbs, oracles.
First, from the Rabbinic scholar Solomon Schecter:
"It must first be stated that the term Law or Nomos is not a correct rendering of the Hebrew word Torah. The legalistic element, which might rightly be called the Law, represents only one side of the Torah. To the Jew the word Torah means a teaching or an instruction of any kind. It may be either a general principle or a specific injunction, whether it be found in the Pentateuch or in other parts of the Scriptures, or even outside of the canon. The juxtaposition in which Torah and Mizwoth, Teaching and Commandments, are to be found in the Rabbinic literature, implies already that the former means something more than merely the Law (e.g b. Ber 31a; b. Makk 23a; m. Abot 3.11). Torah and Mitzvoth are a complement to each other, or, as a Rabbi expressed it, "they borrow from each other, as wisdom and understanding - charity and lovingkindness--the moon and the stars," but they are not identical. To use the modern phraseology, to the Rabbinic Jew, Torah was both an institution and a faith. (Solomon Schecter in [ART, p.117f])
"To the great majority of the Rabbis who retained their sober sense, and cared more about what God requires of us to be than about knowing what he is, the Torah was simply the manifestation of God's will, revealed to us for our good; the pedagogue, as the Rabbis expressed it, who educates God's creatures." [ART, p.135f]
Then consider other, evangelical statements:
"What has handicapped our modern appreciation and usefulness of the Pentateuch more than anything else has been the incorrect, or at least overly restrictive, narrow and inadequate translation of the Hebrew word torah in the Greek Septuagint as nomos, "law." This in turn gave rise to the French rendering of loi, and the German Gesetz. The problem with all these translations of torah is that they continue to give credence to the notion that this portion of Scripture denotes merely formal regulations or rituals that the community could use to attain salvation….But this view is also incorrect because it fails to understand what torah means. Torah comes from the verb "to point [out the direction one should go]." It was intended to serve as guidance and direction for one's life, not as static requirements that supplied a rigid set of rules demarcating what was in bounds from that which was out of bounds. That is why the wisdom books refer so frequently to the contents of torah as being a "path" for one's lifestyle: it pointed the direction a person should go; it was guidance….The legal sections of the Torah are a relatively small part of the total Pentateuch. If one places all the material from Exodus 20-40, the entire 27 chapters of Leviticus, and the first ten chapters of Numbers together, they form only 58 chapters out of a total of 187 chapters. In other words, there are 129 chapters in the first five books of the Bible that are not included in the legal portions of the total Torah. [sic: not sure how he counted Deut here…] And there is more. What laws do appear are fully integrated into the total story and text of the whole Pentateuch that trace the progress of God's word of promise to his people. Thus, to discuss one or more of these so-called laws (or to use a better word, directions) in abstraction, and apart from the context of the story setting in which they occur, is to do a disservice both to the so-called law and the context of the narrative itself." [OT:OTDATRR:182f]
"A survey of the 220 occurrences of tora throughout the OT reveals three main aspects to this word. It involves (1) teaching or instruction to be learned, (2) commands to be obeyed and (3) guidance about how to live in specific situations….The idea of tora as teaching is particularly prominent in Deuteronomy and Exodus…Fourth, the written law of Deuteronomy has attained a fixed and authoritative form. Several references are made in Deuteronomy 28-31 to the "book of the tora," which is probably synonymous with "this law" discussed above. The existence of a written form of tora gave it a final form that was not to be added to nor subtracted from (Deut 4:2). The idea of written tora was not, of course, new. It goes back to the Ten Commandments, which were written by God (Ex 24:12), and to the book of the covenant, which Moses wrote at Yahweh's command (Ex 24:4). However, the fact that Deuteronomy includes narrative and sermon alongside individual commands and teaching takes the notion of written tora to a new dimension. The presence of extensive sections on the historical context of the new generation (Deut 1-4), interpretation of the detailed laws (Deut 5-11), the need for a fresh response (Dent 27-30) and a future perspective (Deut 31-34) also shows that this authoritative written tora contained principles that were adaptable to new situations….The central distinguishing feature of pentateuchal law is that it expresses the will of Yahweh…This is the main reason why 'instruction' or 'teaching' often conveys the sense of tora better than 'law'." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Torah"]
The breadth of the word can also be seen in the usage of it in the rabbinics:
"In rabbinic literature, the word 'Torah' bears seven meanings: (1) the written Torah; (2) the one whole Torah, oral and written, revealed by God to Moses at Sinai; (3) a particular thing, such as a scroll, containing divinely revealed words; (4) revelation in general; (5) a classification or rules, as in 'the torah of…,' meaning 'the rules that govern ….'; (6) the act of studying the Torah; and (7) the status of teaching, namely, deriving from the Torah, as against deriving from the scribes." [HI:DictJBP, s.v. 'torah']
That the torah is much more extensive than just 'law' can also be seen from the Psalmist's usage of it, in which reference is made to the miracles (obviously not 'law'--but good instruction) and Israel's rebellion (obviously not 'law'--but good instruction):
"According to the Psalms, the Israelites used the tora to teach their children about God's wonders and Israel's repeated rebellion (Ps 78.5)…" [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Torah"]
Since torah included historical sections/narratives, with obvious time-delimited significance (e.g., the command to Noah to build an ark), torah was more eternal revelation of the character/will of God (e.g., God looks to show grace and makes plans to rescue the needy) than eternally-binding commands (e.g., "everyone should build an ark, X cubits by…").
This means, of course, that even laws-in-historical-contexts could reveal the heart of God, whether one-time-only (e.g., go down to Egypt because of the famine) or enduring (e.g., thou shalt love the Lord your God).
So, the 'law' might not have to be in force at all to be 'torah'…all it had to do was reveal the heart/character of God, as a guide to how we should think and act. An eternal torah, therefore, would NOT require there to be a set of eternally in-force or continually obligatory regulations.
I experience this personally in my
devotional life. I read through the legal sections of the Mosaic law at least
once a year in the Hebrew, and meditate closely on it--for what it reveals
about the good-heart of my God. I am touched and challenged every year by the
'torah teaching' behind many of the 'torah commands' in the legal corpus. For
example:
I cannot read some of these
passages without weeping and without worship--they are simply too 'revelatory'
of a Heart so different (kadesh) and so loyal (hesed) and so sage (hokmah)…and
they show to me --standing here squarely in the New Covenant--an exact
pre-declaration of what Messiah would look like: The express image and portrait
of YHWH.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Does 'eternal'
(olam) mean 'unchangeable', when
applied to the Law?
The curious thing about this issue is that it is a little unclear what the assertion of 'eternal law' really means…
Historically, those who have argued the most tenaciously about the Mosaic law being still in-force and applicable eternally were some of the formative Jewish rabbis. But oddly enough, the element of change and annulment of specific commands of the mosaic law can be documented (1) within the Mosaic corpus, (2) within the OT/Tanaak, (3) in post-biblical Judaism, and (4) absolutely within Rabbinic Judaism! Let's survey some of this data on the mutability of the Mosaic Law.
"These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to
make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant
he had made with them at Horeb (Deut 29.1)
· Slightly related to this is the difference in God's pre-Mosaic law and God's Mosaic law. The patriarchs seem to reflect slightly different laws (e.g. the penalty for Reuben's sleeping with his father's wife/concubine was loss of firstborn inheritance rights, and not death, as under the Law of Moses), further showing that torah did indeed change. For example, in Gen 26.5 Abraham is said to have kept all of God's "charge, commandments, statutes and laws" (torah). Does this mean that Abraham celebrated the Passover (before the Exodus), went to the non-existent tabernacle for sacrifices, gave his tithes to non-existent Levites, fasted on the non-existent Day of Atonement, observed the Sabbath (before it was legislated in the Mosaic Covenant), and abstained from making treaties with the inhabitants of the land? Of course not--torah can and has and does change…The 'obligatory content' (i.e., laws) contained in Torah for Abraham was different than that for Noah, Moses, Adam, Ezekiel-in-Exile, and Ezra-in-the-land.
· "Other rabbis, however, saw in this contradiction [Ezek vs. Moses on 'children dying for sins of fathers'] a direct prophetic improvement upon the words of the Torah. 'Moses said, 'God visits the sins of the father upon the children,' but there came Ezekiel and removed it and said, 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die'"" [ART, p.187; cites b. Makk 24a]
·
Some of the more obvious examples of this
would be the 'annulment' of the laws of the layout of the tabernacle when the Temple (with its different dimensions and
layout) was built, the addition of
singers under David, legal execution by the 'avenger of blood' and the cities
of refuge as protection against that, and specific monetary amounts of fines
(e.g., shekels).
·
Of course, the feast of Purim arose after
the Mosaic period, too--it wasn’t part of the Mosaic feasts, but is typically
considered torah because it is in
the Hebrew Bible.
· In fact, the Hebrew bible represents the Laws as coming from "Moses plus prophets":
"The LORD warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and
seers: “Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in
accordance with the entire Law
that I commanded your fathers to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants
the prophets.”
(2 Kings 17.13--notice the plural 'servantS', delivered not just through Moses.
Commandments were added after
Moses, 'changing' the Law)
· "But even a superficial analysis will discover that in the times of the Rabbis many of these commandments were already obsolete, as, for instance, those relating to the arrangements of the tabernacle, and to the conquest of Palestine; whilst others concerned only certain classes, as, for instance, the priests, the judges, the soldiers and their commanders, the Nazirites, the representatives of the community, or even one or two individuals in the whole population, as, for example, the king and the high priest. Others, again, provided for contingencies which could occur only to a few, as, for instance, the laws concerning divorce or levirate-marriages. The laws, again, relating to idolatry, incest, and the sacrifices of children to Moloch, could hardly be considered as coming within the province of the practical life even of the pre-Christian Jew; just as little as we can speak of Englishmen being under the burden of the law when prohibited from burning their widows or marrying their grandmothers, though these acts would certainly be considered as crimes." [ART, p141]
·
"Nor were these [rabbinic]
deliverances confined to laying down the proper way of fulfilling the
requirements of the law under changing conditions, or to protecting the law
from infringement by a thickset hedge of prohibitions more stringent than the
letter. When
the exigencies of the time seemed to them to demand it, the rabbis in council
or individually did not hesitate to suspend or set aside laws in the Pentateuch
on their own authority, without exegetical subterfuges or pretense of Mosaic
tradition. Where justification is offered for extraordinary
liberties of this kind, Psalm 119,126 is frequently quoted, with a peculiar
interpretation. Instead of, "It is time for the Lord to do something, they
have made void thy law," the verse is taken, "It is time to do
something for the Lord." … "There are in fact numerous rabbinical
enactments from all periods which are more or less directly at variance with
the plain letter and intent of the law. Among the most noteworthy was the
legal fiction called prozbul (or prosbul) devised by Hillel.
The law of Deut. 15, 1-3 by which all loans were cancelled at the beginning of
every seventh year worked as, in human nature, such a utopian economic
experiment might be expected to work. Notwithstanding the pathos of the
exhortation in verses 7-11, and no matter what the distress of the borrower
might be, moneylenders could not be induced to make a loan in the fifth or
sixth year which would automatically become a donation in the seventh. Like
much equally well-meant legislation in later times, the effect of the law was
the diametrical opposite of its intent. Hillel's remedy was the execution in
court of an instrument, attested by the seals of the judges or witnesses, by
which the lender retained the right to reclaim the loan at any time he saw fit. Shortly before the
outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 A.D., in consequence of the multitude of
adulterers, R. Johanan ben Zakkai did away with the ordeal of jealousy
(Num. 5, 11-31), alleging as a warrant for the abrogation of the law Hos. 4,
14: 'I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry, nor your
daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for they themselves go apart with
harlots and sacrifice with the prostitutes of the sanctuary.' In a similar way the frequency and boldness
of murders led, we are told, to the abolition of the antique rite prescribed in Deut. 21,
1-9, when the victim of a murder by an unknown hand was found
lying in the open field." [HI:JFCCE,
1, 259, 260; other
examples (?) of using this principle: Yoma 69a: wearing the priestly garments
outside of Jerusalem (to meet Alexander!); Gittin
60a - using/carrying a portion of the prophetic scrolls; Temurah 14b - writing of tradition or not
(Soncino: "When a thing is done in the name of God it is sometimes necessary
to nullify the Law")…!
·
Such
changes were made in wholesale
after the Destruction of the Temple, of course. The exiled rabbi's invented all
sorts of substitutes for sacrifice and atonement--quite substantial 'changes to
an eternal law'. (For a list of these, see Section C, "The phenomena of sacrifice in the Pharisaical Jewish
world of first century Palestine" in cross3.html.).
· This is, of course, one of the problematic issues for Jesus, too: "He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 “For Moses said, ‘ Honor your father and your mother ’; and, ‘ He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God ),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”" [Mark 7.9f]
Given this mutability of the specific legal status of the various 'laws', it is not altogether clear what is being asserted when someone says 'the law is eternal' or 'cannot be changed'…So, let's look at our main word for eternal -- olam.
…………………………………………………………………………….
3. What
exactly was the content of the word 'olam'
(eternal) in biblical and rabbinical writings?
Oddly enough, the lexical data will indicate how something could be 'olam' and still easily be of finite duration.
One: Lexical/Biblical data.
If you look at the lexical works, you arrive at this conclusion very quickly:
·
"long duration, antiquity, futurity: a.
indefinite futurity
, c. prep. for ever , always (= during the lifetime ); slave for ever ; serve
for ever ; redemption at any time;
ever pregnant
(womb); of persecutors of Jeremiah; always at ease ;
may the king live always
; so of the pious; I will sing for ever (as long as I live); other
emotions and activities continuous through life. b.
= continuous
existence , (1) of things: the earth;
other phr., heavens and contents,
ruined cities, ruined lands or a witness
for ever , in a book;
(2) of nations: Babylon, of Judah; (3) families; the dynasty of Saul;
house of Eli; (4) national relations: continual enmity ; of exclusion from; various relations; perpetual
reproach , of dynasty of David, families ; of God’s covenant: everlasting
covenant ; covenant with Noah ;
God remembers it; will not break it, e. of
God’s laws; temple to bear God’s
name; consecrated; its ceremonies; Levit. priesthood; Aaronic priesthood. f.
of God’s promises: his word; promised dynasty of David; of holy land; given,
inherited; dwelt in; other blessings; Jerus. to abide" [BDB]
· "long time, duration , usually eternal, eternity, but not in a philosophical sense"…[HALOT]
·
"1.
everlasting, forever, eternity, i.e. , pertaining to an unlimited duration of
time, usually with a focus on the future ( Ge 3:22 ); 2. ancient, old, i.e. , existing for a long
time in the relative past ( 1Sa 27:8 ; Ps 119:52 ); 3.
lasting, for a duration, i.e. , an undetermined duration of time without
reference to other points of time, with a focus of no anticipated end, but
nevertheless may have limits ( Nu 25:13 ; Jer 18:16
)" [Louw-Nida]
· "Though ôlām is used more than three hundred times to indicate indefinite continuance into the very distant future, the meaning of the word is not confined to the future. There are at least twenty instances where it clearly refers to the past. Such usages generally point to something that seems long ago, but rarely if ever refer to a limitless past. Thus in Deut 32:7 and Job 22:15 it may refer to the time of one’s elders. In Prov 22:28 ; 23:10 ; Jer 6:16 ; 18:15 ; 28:8 it points back somewhat farther. In Isa 58:12 , 61:4 ; Mic 7:14 ; Mal 3:4 , and in the Aramaic of Ezr 4:15 , 19 it clearly refers to the time just before the exile. In I Sam 27:8 , in Isa 51:9 and 63:9 , 11 and perhaps Ezk 36:2 , it refers to the events of the exodus from Egypt. In Gen 6:4 it points to the time shortly before the flood. None of these past references has in it the idea of endlessness or limitlessness, but each points to a time long before the immediate knowledge of those living. In Isa 64:3 the KJV translates the word “beginning of the world.” In Ps 73:12 and Eccl 3:11 it is translated “world,” suggesting the beginning of a usage that developed greatly in postbiblical times…Jenni holds that its basic meaning “most distant times” can refer to either the remote past or to the future or to both as due to the fact that it does not occur independently (as a subject or as an object) but only in connection with prepositions indicating direction ( min “since,” ad “until,” lĕ “up to”) or as an adverbial accusative of direction or finally as the modifying genitive in the construct relationship. In the latter instance ōlām can express by itself the whole range of meanings denoted by all the prepositions “since, until, to the most distant time”; i.e. it assumes the meaning “(unlimited, incalculable) continuance, eternity.” (THAT II, p. 230) J. Barr (Biblical Words for Time (’1969), p. 73) says, “We might therefore best state the “basic meaning” as a kind of range between ‘remotest time’ and ‘perpetuity’”. But as shown above it is sometimes used of a not-so-remote past. For the meaning of the word in its attributive use we should note the designation of the lord as el ōlām , “The Eternal God” ( Gen 21:33 )…The LXX generally translates ōlām by aiōn which has essentially the same range of meaning. That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying “forever,” but “forever and ever.”.. Both words came to be used to refer to a long age or period—an idea that is sometimes expressed in English by “world.” Postbiblical Jewish writings refer to the present world of toil as hāōlām hazzeh and to the world to come as hāōlām habbā" . [TDOT, s.v. 'olam']
Notice how they all can use 'eternal' for some cases, but 'indefinite duration' for many, many others (including the past).
Now, notice some of the uses of olam along these lines (from ["Notes On The Biblical Use Of " עד־עולם", by Brian Long, Westminster Theological Journal, V41 #1, Fall 1978]):
·
"There are other examples which, though not
‘everlasting’ in the unlimited sense, are usually translated
‘everlasting’. Servant ‘forever’ or
‘everlasting’ ( עבד עולם , Deut. 15:7
; 1 Sam. 27:12 ; Job 40:28) certainly does not mean
everlasting in the sense of unlimited time. A slave would not be a slave after
he died.
· "A short excursus at this point will illustrate this with an interesting example. When Hannah prayed for a child, she told God that if He heard her and granted her request, she would give him to Yahweh all the days of his life ( I Sam. 1:11 ). After the birth of Samuel, Hannah explains to Elkanah that she would not go tip to offer sacrifice until Samuel could be brought, so that he could appear before the Lord and stay there forever (vs. 22 ). When she brought him to Eli, she said that as long as he lives he is lent, or dedicated, to the Lord (vs. 28 ). Whether or not there are syntactical factors determining which expression is used where, it is obvious that ‘all the days of his life’ is synonymous here with ad-olam 1 Sam. 1:11, 22, 28"
And we might also note a few other items from the lexical entries:
·
redemption at any time ('olam')
·
ever pregnant (womb);
·
of
persecutors of Jeremiah; always (olam)
at ease; [and Ps 73.12:
"Behold, these are the wicked; And always at ease, they have increased in
wealth." Biblical doctrine would not typically maintain that
these people are 'at ease' today, some 3000 years later--if you get my
meaning…]
·
temple
to bear God’s name always
(the temple was destroyed, a couple of times)
These are all olam-things, which obviously were not meant as 'eternal' per se (or at least not 'continuously').