Old Covenant - How do you read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter happilycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

happilycatholic

Guest
Peace be with you:

This is a sore subject with me but rather than getting into what my opinion and/or exegesis is, I’d like to hear from others catholic and non-catholic. But please, give your exegesis not just your “informed” opinion. I really want to know “how you read”.

Here is the question:

Was the Old Covenant abolished?

Blessings,

HC
 
happilycatholic said:
Peace be with you:

This is a sore subject with me but rather than getting into what my opinion and/or exegesis is, I’d like to hear from others catholic and non-catholic. But please, give your exegesis not just your “informed” opinion. I really want to know “how you read”.

Here is the question:

Was the Old Covenant abolished?

Blessings,

HC
Click to expand...
By Old Covenant do you mean the Mosaic Covenant? Or, do you have another covenant in mind?
 
That’s a good question. I think part of the difficulty in answering that question involves the meaning of covenant vs. law vs. ceremonies vs. relationship, etc.

For instance, there is no question that the Old Covenant sacrificial system has been abolished. The Temple doesn’t even exist.

However, the relationship between God and the Jewish people still exists and God continues to care for them as a people - “for the sake of the Fathers”, as St. Paul wrote in Romans 11:28-29. But that relationship is not salvific in and of itself - the fulfillment of God’s continuing care is found in the New Covenant in Christ. Jews, like all men, need Christ and His Church.

The following article covers what I would say, but in more detail, so I’ll just provide a link.

cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp

God bless.
 
I think that’s a good and interesting question. I think some of the problem arises because there are different aspects to the Old Covenant. There’s the law, the ceremonies, the sacrificial system, the relationship… And then we have issues revolving around what, exactly, do we mean by “abolished.”

For instance, the Old Covenant (Mosaic) sacrificial system was certainly abolished, at least in the specific form under which it was originally practiced. The Jewish temple no longer even exists, so that much is obvious. Yet, as Cardinal Dulles has also noted, “the priesthood, the temple, and the sacrifices are not extinct; they survive in a super-eminent way in Christ and the Church.” (firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42 ) There is a continuity, an organic connection between the Old and the New. And so, in that sense, perhaps the word “abolished” is insufficient or potentially misleading by itself.

The word “abolish” can imply an absolute break or annihilation. Perhaps this is why the Church seems to generally prefer speaking in terms of “fulfillment” – because it conveys continuity rather than rupture (not simply because the hierarchy is seeking “euphemisms”, as some charge). As the Vatican document Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration “Nostra Aetate” (n. 4) notes, there are elements of continuity as well as some “original” elements to be found in the New Covenant. But the Church emphasizes the organic continuity between the covenants.

God’s concern for the Jewish people - the relationship – is also something that continues and was not “abolished” by the commencement of the New Covenant. God’s ongoing concern for the Jews as a people - Israel according to the flesh - is “because of the fathers” of Israel. (Romans 11:28-29) And it is manifested in various ways today. Yet, that relationship is not salvific by itself; it finds its ultimate fulfillment in and through Jesus Christ and His Church. The Gospel and the Church are for all men—Jew and Gentile alike.

There’s an article I wrote with my friend, David Palm, about this issue. The Church seems to be grappling with some of the details and precise language. But Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) provided some very helpful material on this issue in his books “Many Religions – One Covenant” and “God and the World.”

Here’s a link to the article:

cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp
 
I think that’s a good and interesting question. I think some of the problem arises because there are different aspects to the Old Covenant. There’s the law, the ceremonies, the sacrificial system, the relationship… And then we have issues revolving around what, exactly, do we mean by “abolished.”

For instance, the Old Covenant (Mosaic) sacrificial system was certainly abolished in the specific form under which it was originally practiced. The Jewish temple no longer even exists, so that much is obvious. Yet, as Cardinal Dulles has also noted, “the priesthood, the temple, and the sacrifices are not extinct; they survive in a super-eminent way in Christ and the Church.” (firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42 ) There is a continuity, an organic connection between the Old and the New. And so, in that sense, perhaps the word “abolished” is insufficient or potentially misleading by itself.

The word “abolish” can imply an absolute break or annihilation. Perhaps this is why the Church seems to generally prefer speaking in terms of “fulfillment” – because it conveys continuity rather than rupture (not simply because the hierarchy is seeking “euphemisms”, as some charge). As the Vatican document Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration “Nostra Aetate” (n. 4) notes, there are elements of continuity as well as some “original” elements to be found in the New Covenant. But the Church emphasizes the organic continuity between the covenants.

God’s concern for the Jewish people - the relationship – is also something that continues and was not “abolished” by the commencement of the New Covenant. God’s ongoing concern for the Jews as a people - Israel according to the flesh - is “because of the fathers” of Israel. (Romans 11:28-29) And it is manifested in various ways today. Yet, that relationship is not salvific by itself; it finds its ultimate fulfillment in and through Jesus Christ and His Church. God has not given the Jewish people their own path to salvation. Like all men, they need the Jewish Messiah and His Church.

As stated in Dominus Iesus:
“There is only one salvific economy of the One and Triune God [note - not *two
Click to expand...
economies, but one], realized in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, actualized with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, and extended in its salvific value to all humanity and to the entire universe. No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit.” (no. 12)

There’s an article I wrote with my friend, David Palm, about this issue. It’s not exhaustive, but it does address a good deal of this. The Church seems to be grappling with some of the details and precise language. But Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) provided some very helpful material on this issue in his books “Many Religions – One Covenant” and “God and the World.”

Here’s a link to the article:

cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp
 
Michael_Forrest said:
I think that’s a good and interesting question. I think some of the problem arises because there are different aspects to the Old Covenant. There’s the law, the ceremonies, the sacrificial system, the relationship… And then we have issues revolving around what, exactly, do we mean by “abolished.”

For instance, the Old Covenant (Mosaic) sacrificial system was certainly abolished in the specific form under which it was originally practiced. The Jewish temple no longer even exists, so that much is obvious. Yet, as Cardinal Dulles has also noted, “the priesthood, the temple, and the sacrifices are not extinct; they survive in a super-eminent way in Christ and the Church.” (firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42 ) There is a continuity, an organic connection between the Old and the New. And so, in that sense, perhaps the word “abolished” is insufficient or potentially misleading by itself.

The word “abolish” can imply an absolute break or annihilation. Perhaps this is why the Church seems to generally prefer speaking in terms of “fulfillment” – because it conveys continuity rather than rupture (not simply because the hierarchy is seeking “euphemisms”, as some charge). As the Vatican document Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration “Nostra Aetate” (n. 4) notes, there are elements of continuity as well as some “original” elements to be found in the New Covenant. But the Church emphasizes the organic continuity between the covenants.

God’s concern for the Jewish people - the relationship – is also something that continues and was not “abolished” by the commencement of the New Covenant. God’s ongoing concern for the Jews as a people - Israel according to the flesh - is “because of the fathers” of Israel. (Romans 11:28-29) And it is manifested in various ways today. Yet, that relationship is not salvific by itself; it finds its ultimate fulfillment in and through Jesus Christ and His Church. God has not given the Jewish people their own path to salvation. Like all men, they need the Jewish Messiah and His Church.

As stated in Dominus Iesus:

There’s an article I wrote with my friend, David Palm, about this issue. It’s not exhaustive, but it does address a good deal of this. The Church seems to be grappling with some of the details and precise language. But Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) provided some very helpful material on this issue in his books “Many Religions – One Covenant” and “God and the World.”

Here’s a link to the article:

cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp
Click to expand...
I love yours and Mr. Palm’s paper. It is wonderful and easy to understand. I can see the details that the Church is grappling with ;), but I’m sure you are confident in a full nod from the Church eventually.

:yeah_me:

Are you frustrated by the number of people (especially catholics) who don’t believe this? I have actually read a paper in which our Lord’s burial was used to claim mockery of the Jewish people as if claiming that Christ’s death was an opportunity to correct the Jews by way of minimizing their laws, customs, and rites.

I would be very interested in hearing your exegesis of Mark 2: 23-28. I know it’s not a huge surprize. But since the first time I read these passages I’ve seen them as Jesus redefining the Sabbath Commandment rather than rebuking it or minimizing it by simply breaking it upon His authority as God. In other words, IMHO this is where Christ is saying, “I know what the Commandment says since I am the Lord of the Commandment”.

I’ve always thought that Christ had to have seen the importance of the Sabbath since He is the fulfillment and our Eternal Sabbath with the Heavenly Father and He would have preached this.

Why would Jesus first prove the Sabbath wrong or bad or some other such thing if He wanted to fulfill it? I firmly believe there are no contridictions in Christ’s teaching on the Covenants. If He is fulfillment of all, then He would have preached the importance of all of them as promises by God and the important of our keeping them until their fulfillment in Him because that’s what we were/are bound to do.

I just don’t see any conflict at all between the old and the new. It’s like people set God’s will in opposition to itself in an attempt to understand. For instance:

Christ never sinned, He was sin-less vs. Christ transgressed the Sabbath Commandment (other Commandments) because He is Lord of the Sabbath.

AND this one: “I have not come to abolish but to fulfill…” vs. Christ abolished the Old Covenant.

I think misinterpretation of these things causes at least confusion and at most serious flaws in spiritual growth.

Thank you again for your article and the response to my thread. I really enjoyed it and would recommend it to all.

God Bless,

HC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top