Covenants OT and NT questions

[AnneTeresa]

I’ve been reading some lessons by Scott Hahn about covenants in the Bible and I have a few questions I just can’t seem to figure out.

First, there is a covenant between God and Adam/Eve which they broke. I understand this.But is their marriage also a covenant–and does the catholic church see marriage today as a covenant? Hahn says covenants are really oaths to God, not contracts. So if marriage is a covenant, then does that explain why the Catholic church believes remarriage is so serious? It’s a broken covenant? I believe it has to be related to what Jesus said when he said he only allowed divorce because of hardness of heart. But now he has a new law and says divorce is always sin. How does that relate to the New Covenant being about the heart, not the law?

Second, and this is somewhat related to the first question–there are a string of covenants in the Old Testament–Adam/Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, etc, then Jesus in the New Testament. What I don’t understand is if Jesus came as a New Covenant, then why do parts of the old covenant still remain? Especially the ten commandments? The New Covenant includes two commandments-love God and your neighbor. So why do we still use the 10 commandments when we do examination of conscience when Jesus clearly says it’s all about your heart not the law anymore?

 

[TimothyH]

I’ve been reading some lessons by Scott Hahn about covenants in the Bible and I have a few questions I just can’t seem to figure out.

First, there is a covenant between God and Adam/Eve which they broke. I understand this.But is their marriage also a covenant–and does the catholic church see marriage today as a covenant? Hahn says covenants are really oaths to God, not contracts. So if marriage is a covenant, then does that explain why the Catholic church believes remarriage is so serious? It’s a broken covenant? I believe it has to be related to what Jesus said when he said he only allowed divorce because of hardness of heart. But now he has a new law and says divorce is always sin. How does that relate to the New Covenant being about the heart, not the law?

Second, and this is somewhat related to the first question–there are a string of covenants in the Old Testament–Adam/Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, etc, then Jesus in the New Testament. What I don’t understand is if Jesus came as a New Covenant, then why do parts of the old covenant still remain? Especially the ten commandments? The New Covenant includes two commandments-love God and your neighbor. So why do we still use the 10 commandments when we do examination of conscience when Jesus clearly says it’s all about your heart not the law anymore?

Divorce is a grave matter but it is not defined as being sin in all circumstances. Sometimes one spouse has to end the civil marriage contract for safety reasons or to preserve their own salvation. The church allows civil divorce but the divorced person has two choices - remain celibate or reconcile with their spouse. I have chosen the former.

Divorce is always a serious matter and sometimes it is permitted, but the marriage covenant in the eyes of God does not end. Marriage is a covenant. You don’t get out of it until one person dies.

“Hardness of heart” was a reference to the fact that Jews prior to Moses did not allow divorce - marriage was for life, and so men would simply kill their wives. Moses allowed divorce under the Mosaic law to save the lives of women and to keep men from comitting the sin of murder. This was a temporary fix until Christ came, re-elevated marriage to covenant status, and gave us the means - his grace - to live out the marriage covenant relationship based on trinitarian and Christ/Church love…

-Tim-

 

[Corki]

What I don’t understand is if Jesus came as a New Covenant, then why do parts of the old covenant still remain? Especially the ten commandments? The New Covenant includes two commandments-love God and your neighbor. So why do we still use the 10 commandments when we do examination of conscience when Jesus clearly says it’s all about your heart not the law anymore?

The 10 Commandments are more specific commands that reflect the same two Commandments from Jesus. The first three are all about how to love God and the last seven are all about how to love our neighbors. In the same way that the Beatitudes are not new Commandments but restatements of the 10 Commandments in a “postive” way rather than a neagative (Thou shalt not) way.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:17[/BIBLEDRB]

And the Haydock commentary for this verse is even more descriptive (bolding mine).

Not to destroy the law, &c. It is true, by Christ’s coming, a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices, and circumcision, were to cease; but the moral precepts were to continue, and to be complied with, even with greater perfection. Wi. — To fulfil. By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies, and perfecting all that was imperfect. Ch. — Our Saviour speaks in this manner, to prepare the minds of the Jews for his new instructions. For although they were not very solicitous about fulfilling the law, still they were extremely jealous of any change being made in the letter of the law; more particularly, if the proposed change exacted a more perfect morality. Our Lord fulfilled the law three several ways: 1. By his obedience to the prescribed rites; therefore he says, it behoveth us to fulfil all justice: and who shall accuse me of sin? 2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfil it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law. 3. He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality. Chry. hom. xvi.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Thank you for your help.

Corki, what does it mean to “fulfill” the law? I know the OT prophecies the coming of Christ, the redeemer. But what is the “law”? I’m interpreting it as the written rules the Jewish people had. Is it something different? I just don’t see how Christ “fulfills” that if it is the written rules.

Also, if someone does not know they are entering a covenant, is it still a covenant? As in the marriage example in the OP? Do both parties have to agree for it to be a covenant whether that is two people or a person/ tribe/ group and God?

 

[AnneTeresa]

Let me see if I understand this. So in "2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfil it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law. "

It is saying that man could not follow the law because he was too weak so Christ came, died, and justified man so that when he could not follow the law, God’ will was still done because Christ justified man. That means we are not judged by the old law, but by the new which is Christ’s justification in us, so that when we fail we are as if we did not fail (if we repent) of it. Cause I don’t see how Christ’s coming totally keeps us from not sinning, we still have problems keeping the law. Is that correct?

Also, what does “He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality” mean?

 

[AnneTeresa]

“Hardness of heart” was a reference to the fact that Jews prior to Moses did not allow divorce - marriage was for life, and so men would simply kill their wives. Moses allowed divorce under the Mosaic law to save the lives of women and to keep men from comitting the sin of murder. This was a temporary fix until Christ came, re-elevated marriage to covenant status, and gave us the means - his grace - to live out the marriage covenant relationship based on trinitarian and Christ/Church love…

-Tim-

Thanks, I never heard this before. When did Christ raise it to covenantal status? Or was that when the Church declared marriage a sacrament?

One more question: does each person have to know it is a covenant relationship in order for it to be one? Or is it just a covenant because God and the Church says it is, even if the person doesn’t understand that?

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks, I never heard this before.

One more question: does each person have to know it is a covenant relationship in order for it to be one? Or is it just a covenant because God and the Church says it is, even if the person doesn’t understand that?

I don’t know.

No one told me about covenants or trinitarian love or self denial for the sake of my spouse or of the relationship between Christ and his Church when I sought marriage. I got married in the town hall and ten years later when we went to the Church, the priest said, “Oh, your both Catholic. That’s wonderful!” and we booked a date. I’m not sure I would have listened if anyone had told me anyway.

I think you are really into an area where we are trying to determine if a sacramental bond actually took place or not, and that is taken by the Church on a case by case basis. You have to speak to a priest and the Church has a process for that. Determining if a marriage actually took place or not is not something we can decide on a message board. It requires specific knowledge about each case.

-Tim-

 

[AnneTeresa]

I think you are really into an area where we are trying to determine if a sacramental bond actually took place or not, and that is taken by the Church on a case by case basis.

-Tim-

I was asking more in a general way about the requirements of a covenant–if it’s something God alone decides or if both parties agree… Guess I’ll be studying Scott Hahn’s materials some more…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I was asking more in a general way about the requirements of a covenant–if it’s something God alone decides or if both parties agree… Guess I’ll be studying Scott Hahn’s materials some more…

In Genesis 21, you can read about a covenant between Abimelech and Abraham, where God isn’t one of the parties to the contract, but one would assume is the subject of the oath. In Genesis 31, Jacob makes a covenant with his father-in-law, Laban. In these cases, the parties themselves agree on the terms, but God is the witness and ultimate “enforcer” of the contract.

 

[mskejj]

I was asking more in a general way about the requirements of a covenant–if it’s something God alone decides or if both parties agree… Guess I’ll be studying Scott Hahn’s materials some more…

A covenant made between “persons” in ancient times meant that if the covenant was broken someone had to die. It united two parties into one family…a kinship bond where they exchanged persons…not things. A contract would be an agreement between property in the form of goods and services not persons.

There were covenants made in the Bible between groups of people which meant that if one of the parties broke the covenant, someone had to die.

And then there were the covenants that God made with man during the course of salvation history…beginning with the covenant of marriage in the Garden of Eden.

He made a covenant with his people on Mt. Sinai and they agreed to follow all the laws that he had given to Moses. The people “broke” that covenant with the Golden Calf incident and as a result…someone had to die. Since the Old Covenant was administered by God with human mediators who came under oath and then sinned…like Adam and Israel, covenant curses were triggered. Jesus came as the mediator as the God-man and fulfilled the terms and bore the curses of the Old Covenant for us.