What is the difference between covenant and the Law of Moses?

[james_neville]

This might be a silly question, but i was wondering is there a distinction between what is considered a covenant vs. what is a Law. Say the Law of moses and the old covenant, would these two be the same thing?

If this is the case, we could assume that when we say “jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it”, that the old covenant was not destroyed?

Or do we believe that the old covenant is revoked and the New covenant supersedes it, but the Law still exists (since that is what jesus said)?

I ask this question since Scott Hahn has said about the old covenant that “the covenant with Israel was neither revoked nor abolished”. Now if this is the case why do we distinguish that which is the New Covenant from the Old and more importantly, wouldn’t this suggest that we are still bound by the Old Covenant? I’m a little confused S). Did Hahn get this wrong (i’m only asking this since i am a little confused).

 

[Carolus_Martell]

The covenant is a description of Gods (handshake) agreement with Moses to take care of his people if they followed his ways. The law was intended to describe his way…but over time it was reinterpreted, or set aside by men who thought they knew better.

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

Scott Hahn did not get it wrong, I think from memory Pope Benedict has said the same. The old Covanant can still apply for a Jew (not for a Christian). So no, we are not bound by it.

However many aspects of the Old Covanant were retained in the New. And almost all of the New has its roots in the Old.

A Covanant is a “family agreement” between two parties in the case of the Old between God and the people of Israel. The law is the various conditions of the agreement. In a somewhat crude sense you can think of it like a contract. God will give certain goods and the people of Isreal will receive them. If you like, the Law is the terms and conditions, the fine print.

 

[PJM]

=james_neville;10104674]This might be a silly question, but i was wondering is there a distinction between what is considered a covenant vs. what is a Law. Say the Law of moses and the old covenant, would these two be the same thing?

If this is the case, we could assume that when we say “jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it”, that the old covenant was not destroyed?

Or do we believe that the old covenant is revoked and the New covenant supersedes it, but the Law still exists (since that is what jesus said)?

I ask this question since Scott Hahn has said about the old covenant that “the covenant with Israel was neither revoked nor abolished”. Now if this is the case why do we distinguish that which is the New Covenant from the Old and more importantly, wouldn’t this suggest that we are still bound by the Old Covenant? I’m a little confused S). Did Hahn get this wrong (i’m only asking this since i am a little confused).

A “Biblical Covenant” is a you do this and I [God} will do such and such.

It is a “cotract” between GOD and God’s people.

The Old Covenant WAS indeed cancelled and made VOID by the New; and Overriding Covenant of Christ Blood

Covenant

**Jer.31: 31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,”

**Luke.22: 20 **“And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”

2Cor.3: 6 “who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life“.

**Heb.8: 8, 13 ” For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” **

Heb.9: 5 “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant“.

The “Law” of Moses was based on the ten Commandments; being not only “10” sins; but Ten Catagories of sins. Read Matthew chapter five for a fulller understanding:thumbsup:

Hope this is of help to you James,

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[fhansen]

This might be a silly question, but i was wondering is there a distinction between what is considered a covenant vs. what is a Law. Say the Law of moses and the old covenant, would these two be the same thing?

If this is the case, we could assume that when we say “jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it”, that the old covenant was not destroyed?

Or do we believe that the old covenant is revoked and the New covenant supersedes it, but the Law still exists (since that is what jesus said)?

I ask this question since Scott Hahn has said about the old covenant that “the covenant with Israel was neither revoked nor abolished”. Now if this is the case why do we distinguish that which is the New Covenant from the Old and more importantly, wouldn’t this suggest that we are still bound by the Old Covenant? I’m a little confused S). Did Hahn get this wrong (i’m only asking this since i am a little confused).

In either covenant, the old or the new, the Law is still to be fulfilled. But in the new we are not justified by the Law. Rather the law is fulfilled in a new way by coming to genuinely love God and neighbor, which begins by faith in God and what He can do, rather than by my own efforts. We are justified by faith, expressing itself in love. Gal 5:6

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

The Old Covenant WAS indeed cancelled and made VOID by the New; and Overriding Covenant of Christ Blood

pat/PJM

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Please do not think you know more about this than Scot Hahn and Pope Benedict. If theses two figures are not enough let me quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC 121 " The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. It’s books are divinely inspired and retain permanent value, **for the Old Covenant has never been revoked **"

The Old Covenant has been surpassed, but not revoked. The New is the source of all salvation even for those who adhere to the old.

 

[Yahudi]

God says that He has ONE family-oriented Covenant; it is for anyone who wishes to engage with God (Y’sra’el means an individual who strives with and is empowered by God) do you want to be empowered by God? Then listen to His Words: His Torah; that is where all His instructions are. There is no Hebrew word for ‘obey’; God says to ‘shamar’ (listen/hear/study/understand/respond) to ALL OF THE WORDS OF HIS TORAH. God says “I will always be there (in the written Scroll) for you.” There is NO ‘Old Testament’ nor ‘New Testament’ (that terminology was invented by Marcion) there is only ONE TESTIMONY/INSTRUCTION/TORAH for the Hebrews as well as for everyone one else; there is only one way to salvation, and it has never changed. Any twisting of God’s words is called ‘religion.’ If anyone tells you differently, he is a liar. If you think Paul reinterpreted/changed/updated the Torah, then Paul would be a false teacher. Read Psalm 119 very carefully – check out the words from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[Yahudi]

BTW, the word ‘Torah’ does not mean LAW. It means 'teaching/instruction/guidance/advice. God wants to be our Father, not our police force.“‘Remember (zakar – recall and proclaim) the Towrah (ha Towrah: from tow – the signed, written, and enduring, towrah – way of treating people, tuwr – giving us the means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose, yarah – the source from which instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, that tuwb – provides answers that facilitate our restoration and return, even our response and reply to that which is towb – good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes us to be loved, to become acceptable, and to endure, tahowr / tohorah – purifying and cleansing us, towr – so as to provide an opportunity to change our thinking, attitude, and direction) of Moseh (Moseh – One who Draws Out), My servant (‘ebed – coworker and associate), who, as a result of the relationship (‘asher – and as a blessing), I instructed and directed (sawah – guided) in (‘eth ba) Horeb (Choreb – transliterated Horeb; meaning desolate place) on behalf of all (‘al kol) Yisra’el (Yisra’el – individuals who engage and endure with God) regarding the clearly communicated prescriptions of what we should do in life to live (choq – the shared and nourishing recommendations regarding an allocation of life which is inscribed in writing and cuts us into a relationship) and the means used to achieve justice and resolve disputes (mishpat – as the basis to exercise judgment and make sound decisions).” (Mal’aky / Messenger / Malachi 3:22)
And therein is the perfect summary of the Towrah’s purpose. It teaches us how to engage in the Covenant and how to resolve the problem of sin.

 

[sirach2v4]

I’ve had Scott Hahn’s “A Father Who Keeps His Promises” laying around and I’ve picked it up.

In the first Chapter, Hahn introduces and explains the overall covenant plan of Scripture.

He says that in a contract, the parties exchange “this” for “that.” – like money for a hamburger or a kangerooburger, as the case may be.

But, in a covenant, it is parties that are exchanged (if I’m saying this right). So, by the covenant of Jesus Christ (the final covenant) all believers are made one family under God, our Father.

But, the covenant still comes with responsibilities.

I’m only up to the end of chapter one. I refer you to his excellent book. Hahn is a theologian and I get headaches reading theology. I take it in small doses.

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

I’m not sure it was Marcion who formally divided the Bible into Old and New Covenant, I think you will find that such a distinction always existed. At any rate it was Jesus himself who made the “New Covenant” so the term old / new covenants can be traced to Christ.

 

[teeboy]

So, if the Covenant with Moses still exists, then the descendants of Jacob shall abound in Palestine, if the Law of Moses is kept.

 

[teeboy]

So, if the Covenant with Moses still exists, then the descendants of Jacob shall abound in Palestine, if the Law of Moses is kept.

Christ fullfilled the old Contract.

Hence, a new contract. Consideration has been given through Christ’s body and blood. The Old Covenant is a done deal.

Christ gave Peter the keys before his death, hence religion. Catholics are religious people.

 

[teeboy]

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Please do not think you know more about this than Scot Hahn and Pope Benedict. If theses two figures are not enough let me quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC 121 " The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. It’s books are divinely inspired and retain permanent value, **for the Old Covenant has never been revoked **"

The Old Covenant has been surpassed, but not revoked. The New is the source of all salvation even for those who adhere to the old.

Fullfilled… Not revoked.

A fullfilled contract is a thing of the past.

 

[maryj]

ewtn.com/tv/prime/scotthahn.asp

Abraham: our father in faith
Here is a listing of re-showings of Scott Hahn’s Genesis to Jesus. Mondays program had a lot of information on covenants. I see they are showing that episode again, quite early in the morning on December 13th, but it could be DVR’d! It’s very interesting!!

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

Fullfilled… Not revoked.

A fullfilled contract is a thing of the past.

Again, this is not what the church teaches. Nor the meaning of the passage in the CCC which seeks to establish its ongoing relevance. Yes it has been fulfilled, no it is not simply a thing of the past.

Let me quote yet another source, this time the Us Bishops Confrence, Reflection on Covenant and Mission, 12 Aug, 2002. "… Thus while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of Human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God.

I can quote hundreds more. Please, as I have said before, do not think you know more about this then the Church!

God bless,

 

[PJM]

=Fr Michael Grac;10118927]Sorry, but this is incorrect. Please do not think you know more about this than Scot Hahn and Pope Benedict. If theses two figures are not enough let me quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC 121 " The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. It’s books are divinely inspired and retain permanent value, **for the Old Covenant has never been revoked **"

The Old Covenant has been surpassed, but not revoked. The New is the source of all salvation even for those who adhere to the old.

I stan corrected:blush:

Thanks Father!

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

I stan corrected:blush:

Thanks Father!

We are all here to share and to learn.

God bless.

 

[teeboy]

Again, this is not what the church teaches. Nor the meaning of the passage in the CCC which seeks to establish its ongoing relevance. Yes it has been fulfilled, no it is not simply a thing of the past.

Let me quote yet another source, this time the Us Bishops Confrence, Reflection on Covenant and Mission, 12 Aug, 2002. "… Thus while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of Human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God.

I can quote hundreds more. Please, as I have said before, do not think you know more about this then the Church!

God bless,

Via Jesus. Not via the old law. Via the Triune God.

As long as they don’t reject Jesus.

How about Moslem Koran where it says they will nail Jews to a tree?

 

[teeboy]

A jew can’t die in a state of grace. This is my belief.

 

[Fr_Michael_Grac]

A jew can’t die in a state of grace. This is my belief.

So you do know better then the church?

Could this possibly be the sin of Pride?