Jewish Covenant: Valid?

[clmowry]

It’s my position that the old covenant, as a legal entity, refers only to the covenant given to Moses by God on Mt Sinai and Mt Horeb and that it was conditional upon man (specifically the Jews) obeying the law.

Man may violate his obligations of the covenant but we have no indication that God dissolved the old covenant.

If fact, I think Christ explicitly contradicts your position:

17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18* For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19* Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

I think an appeal to “this is before the resurrection and the resurrection is the all that is accomplished” falls short. If what he says is not applicable after the resurrection then how is it applicable “in the kingdom of heaven”?

Chuck

 

[Calvinator]

Man may violate his obligations of the covenant but we have no indication that God dissolved the old covenant.

If fact, I think Christ explicitly contradicts your position:

17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

I think an appeal to “this is before the resurrection and the resurrection is the all that is accomplished” falls short. If what he says is not applicable after the resurrection then how is it applicable “in the kingdom of heaven”?

Chuck

What do you think the application of the above is and what exactly is the law? If it is your position that Jesus meant we should cling to the law given Moses than are you obeying the Mosaic law?

What exactly is the law mentioned above, is it the ceremonial law? Is the law mentioned above the moral law? What exactly is it?

The Mosaic covenant is fulfilled in the New, it is not still in effect for anyone because it was defective and replaced by the New Covenant.

Scripture, for example, is pretty clear:
Hebrews:

Hebrews 7:18-19: On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

Hebrews:

Hebrews 8:7-8: For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one. But he finds fault with them and says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Hebrews:

Hebrews 10:9: Then he says, “Behold, I come to do your will.” He takes away the first to establish the second.

Hebrews:

2Cor 3:14-16: Rather, their thoughts were rendered dull, for to this
present day the same veil remains unlifted when they read the old
covenant, because** through Christ it is taken away**. To this day, in fact, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, but whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed.

Hebrews:

Gal 3:10-11: For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.” And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for “the one who is righteous by faith will live.”

Hebrews:

Gal 5:3-4: Once again I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law. You are separated from Christ, **you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. **

We can go back and discuss the passages you quoted from the gospel if you wish but I am interested in what you do with the rest of the NT on this issue.

Besides scripture, we have the Council of Florence:
Council of Florence:

It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors (Denz. 712).

cont

 

[Calvinator]

The Council of Trent also makes it clear:

Trent:

Session 6, Chapter 1: The holy Synod decrees first that
for a correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of justification it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam, “having become unclean”, and (as the Apostle says), “by nature children of wrath”, as it (the Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin, to that extent **were
they the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the gentiles by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom, **although free will was not extinguished in them, however weakened and debased in its powers (Denz. 793).

 

[LutheranStudent]

This is the a portion of the (New) United States Catholic Catechism for Adults which seem to be a reprint of the catechism with efforts of unifying clarification being inserted by the authoring bishops & cardinals. I understand that it has caused some alarm among many within Catholicism (USA)

Firstly, it is yet to be approved by the Vatican (Pope) as far as I know. At first glance it is ‘clearly’ in contradiction of what the actual Catechism states So I defer a definitive opinion until either the bishops / cardinals offer a clarification, or the Vatican decides to comment.

It is similar to the varying opinions of prelates within and without Catholicism about the inerrancy of Scriptures.

My jury will ‘retire’ when more is known!

Thanks, Deconi.
I guess I shouldn’t take this to be an official postion then, eh?

 

[clmowry]

I didn’t say the ritual sacrifices of the old covenant were required under the new covenant.

Neither am I arguing that the old covenant was then, now or ever a source of salvation.

If it had been there would have been no need for the new covenant.

That is what all of these quotes argue against is it not?

I maintain that God does not revoke His covenants.

None of these verses or quotes from Church documents say that He does, do they?

Maybe I missed it. Could you narrow it down to the spot where it says God revoked His covenant? (Any of them.)

Chuck

 

[Calvinator]

I didn’t say the ritual sacrifices of the old covenant were required under the new covenant.

Neither am I arguing that the old covenant was then, now or ever a source of salvation.

If it had been there would have been no need for the new covenant.

That is what all of these quotes argue against is it not?

I maintain that God does not revoke His covenants.

None of these verses or quotes from Church documents say that He does, do they?

Maybe I missed it. Could you narrow it down to the spot where it says God revoked His covenant? (Any of them.)

Chuck

How do two covenants operate when they are diametrically opposed? I don’t see how the old and the new can operate at the same time when the old covenant places one under a curse.

God of course wouldn’t break His word but, if He enters into a covenant that is conditional upon us keeping the law and we break our end of the bargain, He wouldn’t be guilty of breaking His word by ending the covenant agreement.

Some people will argue that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable and I agree. But, the gifts and calling of God are not synonymous with the old covenant.
Hebrews:

Hebrews 7:18-19: On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

Hebrews:

Hebrews 10:9: Then he says, “Behold, I come to do your will.” He takes away the first to establish the second.

 

[Calvinator]

Chrysostom has this to say:

Chrysostom:

Chrysostom: For there are some that say, that he is not here saying what he does of the Law of Moses, but some take it of the law of nature; some, of the commandment given in Paradise. Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law, but he has not any question with those. And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace. (Homilies on Romans, 6:12).

Pope Pius had this to say…
Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis:

And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Calvinator,

I like to point out these councils and quotes of the Pope’s writings say the Old Law, the Mosaic Law that are commonly observed by Jews are no longer valid. What laws are they refer to? Well, such laws such as eating unclean meats like pork, shellfish, and so forth. We don’t even have to require converts to be circumcised as the means for conversions.

The covenant of the Old Covenant is still valid in the eyes of the Church. Though certain laws in the Mosaic Law no longer apply to us.

Like the Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

The people of both covenant may be unfaith to God. But Scripture makes it pretty clear that God is always faithful.

 

[clmowry]

How do two covenants operate when they are diametrically opposed? I don’t see how the old and the new can operate at the same time when the old covenant places one under a curse.

You keep posting stuff I don’t disagree with to show me that I’m “wrong” about something I’m not disputing.

We are obviously talking past each other here.

I’ll go back to what I said much earlier, this conversation would benefit from a shared definition of “Old Covenant.”

I was really hoping somebody, other then me, would put forth a definition (cause well mine won’t likely be any good!)

The “Old Covenant” was a series of covenants between God and several individuals culminating in a covenant with all of Israel which was fulfilled (not annulled or destroyed) with the coming of Jesus Christ and the foundation of the new covenant with all of humanity.

In establishing the “Old Covenant,” God established “Israel” as His “chosen people” and revealed to them the “Law of Moses.”

In “my” definition the “Law of Moses” would consist of the Decalogue summarized by Christ as “Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself” and is still binding on not only the Israelites but also all those who embrace the New Covenant as well.

So what did God promise in the covenant(s)?

To Abraham:
To make of Abraham a great nation
To bless those who bless him and curse those who curse him
To give Abraham’s descendants all “the land”
To make Abraham a father of a great many nations
To give Abraham and his male descendants circumcision as the permanent sign of this everlasting covenant

To Jacob
To give him and his descendants “the land” (on which he is lying during a dream).
That his descendants will be like the dust of the earth.
**That all peoples on earth will be blessed through him and his offspring. **
To watch over him wherever he goes.

To Israel, through Moses:
To make the Children of Israel His special possession if they obey God and keep His “Law”
To make the Children of Israel a kingdom of priests and a holy nation
To give the Children of Israel the Sabbath as the permanent sign of this covenant

(I’m sure there must be more that I’ve missed)

So now in my view, the “Old Covenant,” as far as promises to “Israel” is concerned, were mostly about Land and National Identity and keeping a promise to Abraham.

As far as God was concerned it was of course about “that” AND the Salvation of the World through the actions of His Son in “fulfilling the Law.”

However, given the revelation of the “New Covenant”, the fulfillment of Israel’s “Old Covenant” obligations to Love and Serve the Lord can only come through following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Soooooo (takes a deep breath) it is my position that the Old Covenant is still in place and has never been revoked and that it in no way is in conflict with the New Covenant.

Now, let me make sure I understand you: It is your position that the same God put in place two covenants that are diametrically opposed to one another?

Chuck

 

[Calvinator]

You keep posting stuff I don’t disagree with to show me that I’m “wrong” about something I’m not disputing.

We are obviously talking past each other here.

I’ll go back to what I said much earlier, this conversation would benefit from a shared definition of “Old Covenant.”

I was really hoping somebody, other then me, would put forth a definition (cause well mine won’t likely be any good!)

The “Old Covenant” was a series of covenants between God and several individuals culminating in a covenant with all of Israel which was fulfilled (not annulled or destroyed) with the coming of Jesus Christ and the foundation of the new covenant with all of humanity.

In establishing the “Old Covenant,” God established “Israel” as His “chosen people” and revealed to them the “Law of Moses.”

In “my” definition the “Law of Moses” would consist of the Decalogue summarized by Christ as “Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself” and is still binding on not only the Israelites but also all those who embrace the New Covenant as well.

So what did God promise in the covenant(s)?

To Abraham:
To make of Abraham a great nation
To bless those who bless him and curse those who curse him
To give Abraham’s descendants all “the land”
To make Abraham a father of a great many nations
To give Abraham and his male descendants circumcision as the permanent sign of this everlasting covenant

To Jacob
To give him and his descendants “the land” (on which he is lying during a dream).
That his descendants will be like the dust of the earth.
That all peoples on earth will be blessed through him and his offspring.
To watch over him wherever he goes.

To Israel, through Moses:
To make the Children of Israel His special possession if they obey God and keep His “Law”
To make the Children of Israel a kingdom of priests and a holy nation
To give the Children of Israel the Sabbath as the permanent sign of this covenant

(I’m sure there must be more that I’ve missed)

So now in my view, the “Old Covenant,” as far as promises to “Israel” is concerned, were mostly about Land and National Identity and keeping a promise to Abraham.

As far as God was concerned it was of course about “that” AND the Salvation of the World through the actions of His Son in “fulfilling the Law.”

However, given the revelation of the “New Covenant”, the fulfillment of Israel’s “Old Covenant” obligations to Love and Serve the Lord can only come through following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Soooooo (takes a deep breath) it is my position that the Old Covenant is still in place and has never been revoked and that it in no way is in conflict with the New Covenant.

Now, let me make sure I understand you: It is your position that the same God put in place two covenants that are diametrically opposed to one another?

Chuck

Well, we have done what I thought would happen.

Give me a little while to sort this out but strictly speaking, the old covenant is referring only to the Mosaic Covenant. I believe we find this definition in 2 Corinthians but since I don’t have a Bible handy I may be wrong about that.

My position is that the Mosaic (Mt. Sinai) covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant and that the two can’t both be in operation at the same time.

I need to re-read your posts so that’s all I can say right now.

 

[clmowry]

Well, we have done what I thought would happen.

Give me a little while to sort this out but strictly speaking, the old covenant is referring only to the Mosaic Covenant. I believe we find this definition in 2 Corinthians but since I don’t have a Bible handy I may be wrong about that.

My position is that the Mosaic (Mt. Sinai) covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant and that the two can’t both be in operation at the same time.

I need to re-read your posts so that’s all I can say right now.

This perhaps:

2 Corinthiahs: Chapter 3:12-16
“12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we act very boldly 13 and not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites could not look intently at the cessation of what was fading. 14 Rather, their thoughts were rendered dull, for to this present day the same veil remains unlifted when they read the old covenant, because through Christ it is taken away. 15 To this day, in fact, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed.”

 

[sandusky]

Calvinator:

How do two covenants operate when they are diametrically opposed? I don’t see how the old and the new can operate at the same time when the old covenant places one under a curse.

You’re right; the Mosaic covenant was done away with, and the second covenant the New Covenant established, as the writer of Hebrews writes.

clmowry:

This perhaps:

2 Corinthiahs: Chapter 3:12-16
“12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we act very boldly 13 and not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites could not look intently at the cessation of what was fading. 14 Rather, their thoughts were rendered dull, for to this present day the same veil remains unlifted when they read the old covenant, because through Christ it is taken away. 15 To this day, in fact, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed.”

No; this:**Jeremiah 31:31-40

31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt **[The Mosaic Covenant]****, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.

33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

 

[Teflon93]

It’s my position that the old covenant, as a legal entity, refers only to the covenant given to Moses by God on Mt Sinai and Mt Horeb and that it was conditional upon man (specifically the Jews) obeying the law.

It is my position that your church can not possibly mean that the old covenant (Mosaic covenant) has not been done away with. The evidence from scripture and your church’s own tradition make to strong a case against such an outlook and the CCC must be referring to something else when it says that the old covenant has not been revoked.

I have heard that the CCC must be speaking of the old testament and that by old covenant, the CCC is referring to the old testament. There are some pretty good reasons to believe that is the case but nevertheless, it is indefensible to assume that there the Mosiac covenant is in force today.

Your above section from the catechism contains some fluff. To be clear, we are not (or at least in my mind we aren’t) discussing the covenant between Noah and God or any other covenant than the old covenant (Mosaic covenant).

Fluff or no, the Catechism is the teaching of the Catholic Church, not your intepretation.

Noah’s covenant is important for a reason Calvinists would do well to heed—God promised not to destroy the world again for our sins.

If that covenant is no longer valid, we’re in big trouble.

The Catholic Church recognizes that when God promises to abide with people, as He promised the Jews, He keeps His word perfectly.

Moreover, Christ himself insisted he wasn’t overturning the Old Covenant, and that keeping the Commandments of it was necessary to salvation.

Quarrel with Christ all you like, but for me, I’ll do as he bid me do.

 

[Teflon93]

You’re right; the Mosaic covenant was done away with, and the second covenant the New Covenant established, as the writer of Hebrews writes.

No; this:Jeremiah 31:31-40

31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt [The Mosaic Covenant]****, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.

33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

And you’re saying this last bit was fulfilled by 33 A.D.?

 

[sandusky]

Noah’s covenant is important for a reason Calvinists would do well to heed—God promised not to destroy the world again for our sins.

That’s not the promise of the Noahic covenant.

Teflon93:

The Catholic Church recognizes that when God promises to abide with people, as He promised the Jews, He keeps His word perfectly.

That right.

Teflon93:

Moreover, Christ himself insisted he wasn’t overturning the Old Covenant, and that keeping the Commandments of it was necessary to salvation.

Then it’s you who misunderstands, as the inspired writer of Hebrews states that old was replaced with the new.

Teflon93:

Quarrel with Christ all you like, but for me, I’ll do as he bid me do.

False assumption.

 

[sandusky]

And you’re saying this last bit was fulfilled by 33 A.D.?

Nope.

 

[clmowry]

Calvinator was pointing out a NT verse that defines “what” the old covenant is for the purposes of this conversation. I took a shot at finding it for him.

I don’t think the verses you suggest do that.

Chuck

No; this:Jeremiah 31:31-40

31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt [The Mosaic Covenant]****, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.

33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

 

[sandusky]

Calvinator was pointing out a NT verse that defines “what” the old covenant is for the purposes of this conversation. I took a shot at finding it for him.

I don’t think the verses you suggest do that.

Chuck

I don’t believe there is “one” NT verse that defines the OC.

 

[Teflon93]

That’s not the promise of the Noahic covenant.

Reference, please.

Then it’s you who misunderstands, as the inspired writer of Hebrews states that old was replaced with the new.

Christ trumps Paul, doesn’t he?

False assumption.

Prove it.

 

[Teflon93]

Nope.

Wouldn’t it have to have been if the Old Covenant was over?