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

[jcrichton]

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

I cannot concur since it is God’s Holy Spirit Who can determine where we are… the Holy Spirit can compel the Jews to know Jesus even at the last possible moment of their temporal life… none but the Holy Spirit can tell if a person has accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The Torah is the teaching/instruction/guidance of Yahowah – it is not the “Law of Moseh”; the Torah is the teaching, the Covenant is God’s promise to engage with us. Yahowsha ‘fulfilled’/enabled the Torah by serving as the Passover Lamb. Just as Moseh sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the Mercy Seat, the Blood of Yahowsha the Lamb was sprinkled on the actual Mercy Seat sitting in a cave under the site of the crucifixion at Golgotha – that is how He ‘fulfilled’ it. God never said His Covenant would be replaced; there is only one, enduring, family-oriented Covenant – it will only be RENEWED in the Millennium – the only difference is that His Torah Teaching will be written on our heart – we will not have to learn it from scratch – that certainly has not happened yet. If you had the Torah written on your heart, you would be keeping the Seventh Day Shabbat, all Yahowah’s Appointed Times, and you would know and love His Name.

…the problem with that theology is that it is based on everything that has already happened… ie: I will come to my Temple… since the Temple has been destroyed since 70 AD and the Jews exist in a relative term of freedom, how is the Messiah, the Lord Yahweh (Yahowah) going to come to a none existing Temple and rescue an already free people?

…why did the sick get cured, the lame made to walk, the blind made to see, the Gospel preached to the poor, the precursor come from the desert, Israel converge from the ends of the world and the two people made one?

…how many times is the Immanuel supposed to come?

…why has the Temple of God been eradicated and a non-god usurps His Throne?

…or did Daniel also get it wrong?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[cap76]

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

The grace of God in Jesus Christ came to the Jews first. Then, through them, it came to the Gentiles.
Galatians 3.7, "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

Then, the first church planted after Christ came was the church at Jerusalem.
On the Day of Pentecost, Peter first preached to the Jews.
*Acts 2.36-37, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”" *

 

[Hunho]

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

Grace is the gift of God. Anyone He chooses to bestow grace upon, Jew or gentile or unchurched barbarian, lives and dies in that grace. Our role is to accept His gift and live according to it.

 

[bogeydogg]

God protect me from placing myself in your seat of judgement lest the standard I used against others be used against me.

Amen

God Bless

 

[teeboy]

Grace is the gift of God. Anyone He chooses to bestow grace upon, Jew or gentile or unchurched barbarian, lives and dies in that grace. Our role is to accept His gift and live according to it.

By definition, Jews don’t consider Jesus as their savoir. Therefore, they don’t believe in God. The moment one of the Jewish faith accepts Jesus as God, he is no longer of the Jewish faith.

This is my reasoning.

Baptism is also necessary. Atleast the last I checked.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Hunho]

By definition, Jews don’t consider Jesus as their savoir. Therefore, they don’t believe in God. The moment one of the Jewish faith accepts Jesus as God, he is no longer of the Jewish faith.

This is my reasoning.

Baptism is also necessary. Atleast the last I checked.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah and do not accept the concept of the Trinity. They do believe in God as He revealed Himself to the Jews in the Holy Scriptures.

 

[brb3]

By definition, Jews don’t consider Jesus as their savoir. Therefore, they don’t believe in God. The moment one of the Jewish faith accepts Jesus as God, he is no longer of the Jewish faith.

This is my reasoning.

Baptism is also necessary. Atleast the last I checked.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Converted Jews, like our Apostles & all since…saw/see themselves as totally Jewish, just enlightened to the Fullness of OT & NT meanings.
Now, their Orthodox Jewish brethren don’t see them as enlightened, and in first several centuries gave them up to the enemy ( Romans) …many dieing as Martyrs.
Today, however, they are often rejected by parents/families…even disowned.

 

[Cyberseeker]

I thought of those exact scriptures you presented. The Old Covenant does still apply, but only to unbelievers. They’re hoping solely in their performance of the law which is foolish because that covenant demands perfect adherence.
The New Covenant applies to believers. We are hoping in the blood of Christ so that we might receive forgiveness for our pathetic performances.

I tend to agree with the above statement. The scripture that comes to mind is 1 Timothy 1:9:
“the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane.”

As I understand it, unbelievers will be held accountable by the standards of the law. But the systematic code of written law, as given to Moses, has been abolished! Therefore, when the accuser brings his charge against a believer, God throws it out because that man belongs under grace. He is no longer under the former law and for him the law has no authority to condemn.

 

[brb3]

I tend to agree with the above statement. The scripture that comes to mind is 1 Timothy 1:9:
“the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane.”

As I understand it, unbelievers will be held accountable by the standards of the law. But the systematic code of written law, as given to Moses, has been abolished! Therefore, when the accuser brings his charge against a believer, God throws it out because that man belongs under grace. He is no longer under the former law and for him the law has no authority to condemn.

Not true…if a believer steals, he does the time, if he kills, he may pay with his life.
Same applied to ‘saved’ thief on cross.

 

[Cyberseeker]

The common objection is, if a believer sins, how can there be no transgression? It is because God does not impute (charge) sin to his account. Let it not be said however, that He cheapens justice by flicking pardons with no respect to law at all. “But He (Christ) was wounded for our transgressions.” What happened was that up till the Cross, the law required mandatory judgement upon all who transgressed it. After the atonement however - after Messiah met the laws demands - he effectively ended the law for those who believe, because his sacrifice paid the penalty for all transgression over all time.

To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
(Romans 4:5-8)

 

[brb3]

Christ even taught us (Christians) …we will answer ( do penance ) for every ‘uncharitable’ word we utter. He called us to Perfection …just as his Father is perfect.

 

[jcrichton]

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah and do not accept the concept of the Trinity. They do believe in God as He revealed Himself to the Jews in the Holy Scriptures.

…one correction: they believe only in the Old Testament’s Sacred/Holy Scriptures (and they accept from these only the Hebrew text).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I tend to agree with the above statement. The scripture that comes to mind is 1 Timothy 1:9:
“the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane.”

As I understand it, unbelievers will be held accountable by the standards of the law. But the systematic code of written law, as given to Moses, has been abolished! Therefore, when the accuser brings his charge against a believer, God throws it out because that man belongs under grace. He is no longer under the former law and for him the law has no authority to condemn.

…while it is true that St. Paul states that the Mosaic Law does not apply to Christians (if you are under Grace why regress to being a slave to the Law?), he does not reject/disown Old Testament’s Sacred Scripture:

14 You must keep to what you have been taught and know to be true; remember who your teachers were, 15 and how, ever since you were a child, you have known the holy scriptures -from these you can learn the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be upright. (2 Timothy 3:14-16)

…while many erroneously believe that St. Paul is speaking about the Epistles and Gospels, the fact is that these did not exist for many years (decades) as the only means of propagation of the Faith during the Church’s infancy, Apostolic Misionary Works, was the Oral Tradition (no doubt citing and perhaps even reading the Old Testament Writings)… while some of the Epistles (which are said to have preceded the Gospels) began to circulate among the Christian Communities (Church), it took St. Peter’s pronouncement to solidify their standing along with the Old Testament Sacred Scripture:

15 Think of our Lord’s patience as your opportunity to be saved; our brother Paul, who is so dear to us, told you this when he wrote to you with the wisdom that he was given. 16 He makes this point too in his letters as a whole wherever he touches on these things. In all his letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand, and these are the ones that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture–to their own destruction. (2 St. Peter 3:15-16)

…further, St. Peter also touches on the issue of Christ’s Revelation by asserting that Sacred Scripture is Inspired by God’s Holy Spirit:

19 So we have confirmation of the words of the prophets; and you will be right to pay attention to it as to a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. 20 At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. 21 For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them. (2 St. Peter 1:19-21)

God’s Inspired Word may have a definite time frame in which it is revealed and brought into fruition but it never passes away!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[onemangang]

I will never understand the facination with Scott Hahn I suppose, but I do know that statements by him are fallible whereas Council decrees are not.

Official Magisterial Statements

Pope Piux XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29-30: “…

the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…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. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: Part III:

The observance of the Sabbath was to be abrogated at the same time as the other Hebrew rites and ceremonies, that is, at the death of Christ. Having been, as it were, images which foreshadowed the light and the truth, these ceremonies were to disappear at the coming of that light and truth, which is Jesus Christ.

Council of Florence:

“that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…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.”[4]

Pope Urban VIII, Profession of Orthodox Faith, 1642:

“Similarly, we profess that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.

Why not look back to a time that pre dates Scott Hahn, like Justin Martyr @155 A.D. or St. John Chrysostom

I lifted these from a web site on this topic!

**Justin Martyr: **

**Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ **– has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).

St. John Chrysostom:

“Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians)

 

[jcrichton]

The common objection is, if a believer sins, how can there be no transgression? It is because God does not impute (charge) sin to his account. Let it not be said however, that He cheapens justice by flicking pardons with no respect to law at all. “But He (Christ) was wounded for our transgressions.” What happened was that up till the Cross, the law required mandatory judgement upon all who transgressed it. After the atonement however - after Messiah met the laws demands - he effectively ended the law for those who believe, because his sacrifice paid the penalty for all transgression over all time.

…which seems to imply the ole once saved fallacy!

If you say you are not a sinner (free of sin) because Christ died on the Cross for your ‘past, present, and future’ sin, you are making God a liar:

8 If we say, ‘We have no sin,’ we are deceiving ourselves, and truth has no place in us; 9 if we acknowledge our sins, he is trustworthy and upright, so that he will forgive our sins and will cleanse us from all evil. 10 If we say, ‘We have never sinned,’ we make him a liar, and his word has no place in us. (1 St. John 1:8-10)

…not a single Believer can enjoy sin on the premise that Jesus already died for all of his/her sin once and for all… that’s just taking Scripture at the creature’s counsel (‘you would surely not die!’)–or do you believe that Christ was simply making small talk when He Delegated His Authority to the Church:

18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ (St. Matthew 16:18-19)

21 and he said to them again, 'Peace be with you. ‘As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.’ 22 After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained. (St. John 20:21-23)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Christ even taught us (Christians) …we will answer ( do penance ) for every ‘uncharitable’ word we utter. He called us to Perfection …just as his Father is perfect.

Exactly!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I will never understand the facination with Scott Hahn I suppose, but I do know that statements by him are fallible whereas Council decrees are not.

Official Magisterial Statements

Pope Piux XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29-30: “…

the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…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. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers.”

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: Part III:

The observance of the Sabbath was to be abrogated at the same time as the other Hebrew rites and ceremonies, that is, at the death of Christ. Having been, as it were, images which foreshadowed the light and the truth, these ceremonies were to disappear at the coming of that light and truth, which is Jesus Christ.

Council of Florence:

“that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…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.”[4]

Pope Urban VIII, Profession of Orthodox Faith, 1642:

“Similarly, we profess that the legalities of the Old Testament, the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, the rites, sacrifices, and sacraments have ceased at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ; they cannot be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.

Why not look back to a time that pre dates Scott Hahn, like Justin Martyr @155 A.D. or St. John Chrysostom

I lifted these from a web site on this topic!

**Justin Martyr: **

**Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ **– has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).

St. John Chrysostom:

“Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians)

I think that the problem on this thread is similar to that of Protestants’ belief that Catholics seek the works of the law for Salvation… the issue is not about the Old Covenant put aside, which Christ’s Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection has done… the issue is that the Mosaic Law, which include some 630± dos and don’ts (as Temple sacrifice), has been abolished while the Sacred Scripture/Writing remain the Word of God and cannot be set aside by claiming that they do not apply to Christians because they were meant for the Jews only… thou shall not kill, etc… thou shall worship Yahweh God alone… these have been modified by Christ’s Golden Rule: Love Yahweh God above all and your neighbor as yourself!

Fear of the Law (consequences for not doing everything prescribed by the law) has been replaced by Living the Law of Grace (no fear for those who live by Grace); but the Apostles did not teach the eradication of Sacred Writing:

1 Only faith can guarantee the blessings that we hope for, or prove the existence of realities that are unseen. 2 It is for their faith that our ancestors are acknowledged. 3 It is by faith that we understand that the ages were created by a word from God, so that from the invisible the visible world came to be. 4 It was because of his faith that Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain, and for that he was acknowledged as upright when God himself made acknowledgement of his offerings. Though he is dead, he still speaks by faith. 5 It was because of his faith that Enoch was taken up and did not experience death: he was no more, because God took him; because before his assumption he was acknowledged to have pleased God… 39 These all won acknowledgement through their faith, but they did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had made provision for us to have something better, and they were not to reach perfection except with us. (Hebrews 11:1-40)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[fhansen]

**121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked

1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."19**

The key to the difference between the old and new covenants is that, while the law is incapable of justifying man, it nonetheless must be fulfilled- and we’ll be judged by it (Rom 2), because it’s holy, spiritual, and good. The problem is that man is not spiritual, having divorced himself from God. The purpose of the Atonement is reconciliation of God and man, so that God can truly become the God of man again, the two communing, His Spirit dwelling within so that man can fulfill the law, but the right way. This is the essence of the New Covenant: "Apart from Me you can do nothing."

So the difference is not between whether or not the law must be fulfilled; the difference is in how it’s to be fulfilled: by the OC way: via man’s own efforts, still apart from God, or by the NC way: via the power of God (grace) as we turn back to Him in authentic faith, moving on to hope and ultimately love, the fulfillment of the law. This is how God puts His laws into our hands and writes them on our hearts.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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).

The term ‘old covenant’ is really just a blanket term to describe how God dealt with his people before Christ. In reality there are several ‘old covenants’ throughout the OT. God makes covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. When Christ came he made another covenant with his own blood at the Last Supper. We usually call this the new covenant or new testament. At the Last Supper Jesus said, “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mt 26:28) Thus, the new covenant is about the forgiveness of sins.

The old covenants pointed to Jesus Christ and were fulfilled by him. Like a prophecy that is fulfilled, they are fulfilled through what Christ did for us. Jesus was the perfect man and an example of perfectly living not only the letter of the law but also the spirit, which is love.

St. Paul says that if we were baptized into Christ we also died with him and we are now dead to the law. Most scholars take the law to mean the Mosaic law. St. Paul says that the law was unable to save us because we transgressed it. Therefore, all the law did was point out our sins but it couldn’t save us from those sins. It is only Jesus that can save us from our sins since he died as a ransom to take away those sins. The blood of bulls and goats under the old covenant was never enough to redeem someone from their sins against God. It is only an eternal person who could pay for an eternal offense. And, as Fr. Mitch Pacwa says to offend God is an eternal offense because God is eternal.

Having been baptized into Christ we died to the law so that we are no longer under law but now under the Spirit of Christ. This means that the Mosaic laws under the old covenant including even the 10 commandments are no longer binding on Christians, because these were under the old covenant which no longer applies to someone who has been ‘buried with Christ’.

Now, someone might ask then why do we keep the 10 commandments if we are no longer under law? The catechism states that we do not keep the 10 commandments because they were given by Moses but because they are consistent with God’s Eternal law. In other words, God’s moral laws can never be abolished. Thus, we don’t keep the 10 commandments because they are part of the old covenant, but rather because they are part of the new covenant because they are eternal laws. Jesus himself on the sermon on the mount validates the moral commandments and sums them up in the phrase to love the Lord your God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. In other words, for instance, the ban on killing your neighbor can never be changed regardless of what covenant you happen to be living under because it is a moral law that a God of love and mercy consistently requires in his people. Just because your sins are forgiven in Christ Jesus doesn’t mean you can go kill someone.

But, there are other laws, commonly called ‘ceremonial’ laws like circumcision and eating pork that are not moral in nature and are therefore not eternal and therefore not binding on Christians who have ‘died with Christ’. This is why for instance Christians don’t practice circumcision or can eat pork. Or why we don’t practice the Sabbath on Saturday for instance because which day and how it was practiced was all part of the ceremonial law system of the old covenant. The spirit of having a day of rest and honoring God is practiced by the Church on Sunday. It is not a moral issue on which day you take your day of rest. Sunday became the day of rest for Christians because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead.