Some brethren understand the scriptures to say that the Old Covenant ended at the cross. After all, Colossians 2:14 does tell us “He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” That seems final enough, and even in another letter Paul added, “by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances…” (Ephesians 2:15). Yet, if this is so, and the Apostles preached it, wouldn’t they have been excommunicated from Jewish society, and, if they preached against the Temple sacrifices and against Temple worship, why would the Jewish authorities permit them to do it in the Temple (Acts 2:46; 5:42)? If they preached against the Temple, why would they have been found in the Temple worshiping (Acts 3:1; 22:17)?
If we take these things on face value, they don’t make sense, when we look how things were done in the first century AD. Therefore, I would like to consider the context of Paul’s remarks in his letter to the Colossians:
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Colossians 2:9-14; emphasis mind)
What was nailed to the cross? “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” (John 19:17-20). Okay, so what do I mean by that? Certainly, Jesus was nailed to the cross, who would argue that point? What I mean is this. Jesus was nailed to the cross, and the work of God was done “in him” as the citation above indicates. The “fullness of Deity” dwelt in him. Believers are made complete in him. Believers have been “circumcised with a circumcision made without hand” in him. Believers are buried with him in baptism and raised with him “through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead.” My point is that the whole work of God was done **in** Christ. It is a spiritual matter, not a physical thing one could point to. So, in “nailing it to the cross” was something that was done in the spiritual realm, i.e. done in him, and was effective only for those who are in Christ.
Notice what Jesus said earlier in this ministry:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)
Did “heaven and earth pass away” at the cross? If not, then the Old Covenant was still in force after the cross, according to Jesus own words. Jesus mentioned in the Olivet Discourse that heaven and earth will pass away (Matthew 24:30) and Peter puts that in the future when he wrote is second epistle to the folks up in Asia Minor (2Peter 3:10:13). Moreover, John recorded in his prophecy that “earth and heaven fled away and no place was found for them” (Revelation 20:11). This takes place at the coming of the Lord, because John also states in Revelation 20:11-12 that at that time judgment would commence and the dead would be raised, and we know that judgment, resurrection and the coming of Christ are inextricably tied together (2Timothy 4:1). One doesn’t occur without the other two occurring. That’s just the way it is, according to God’s word.
Therefore, the Old Covenant is in force as long as the heavens and earth in Jesus’ day continued to exist. If those heavens exist today, then the Old Covenant is still in force today, but that doesn’t seem logical, because Hebrews 8:13 tells us that the Old Covenant was passing away in the first century AD. If it was passing away at that time, surly it couldn’t have continued to exist until today. After all, that would mean that its passing away is taking longer than it stood in force from Moses to Jesus. Something would be very wrong about that eschatology. Don’t you think?
It seems to me that without a Temple, the Jews would no longer be able to obey the Old Covenant, because with the Temple gone, the priesthood has been abolished. They have no work to do. Without a priest to stand between the people and God, they have no covenant relationship with God. Temple worship was the center of God’s relationship with the Jews. With the Temple out of the way, the Old Covenant has been taken out of the way. The Jews have no mandate from God, as to how they would continue under that covenant without a Temple. No prophet has arisen to show them what God says or how long it will be for things to continue as they are (viz. Daniel 9:24-27). In other words, the Old Covenant ceased to exist in 70 AD.
Smoodock's Blog 