The best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself. The New Testament makes it perfectly clear that circumcision is no longer in effect (Colossians 3:11; Galatians 6:15). Yet Scripture had called circumcision olam, an everlasting covenant. So then, the Author of the Bible and His penmen did not understand that word to mean that no change was ever possible. For example, Hebrews 7:12 plainly reveals “a change in the priesthood.” Yet that priesthood had been “a perpetual (olam) priesthood throughout their generations (dor)” (Exodus 40:15). Surely the writer of Hebrews knew the meaning of the Hebrew words. He spoke of the law as being “reliable” or “unalterable”—stable and firm—such that man could not on his own authority change it (Hebrews 2:2). But that same writer certainly saw God Himself as capable of changing the law (Hebrews 7:12,18; 8:13; 10:9).
The best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible itself.
The fact that God has removed the Old Covenant as being the rule over us proves conclusively that He never intended the Old Covenant to be entirely permanent. When God applied Hebrew terms like olam and dor to Old Testament covenant matters, He meant “continual” or “perpetual.” How long was that? Those covenant matters were continual as long as the covenant itself lasted.
The Bible itself reveals that God planned for the shadows of the Old Covenant to give way to the realities of the New Covenant. Thus, when God used olam to describe circumcision or Aaron’s priesthood or the Sabbath or the sacrifices and rituals, He did not necessarily see those as never ending. Olam and dor were sufficiently strong to warn man not to make unauthorized changes. Yet they were flexible enough to let God Himself bring about the change to the New Covenant through His Son Jesus Christ.