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

[teeboy]

So you do know better then the church?

Could this possibly be the sin of Pride?

You havent shown that the Church teaches otherwise.

You are very defensive.

 

[Hunho]

Rather than attempt to give a summary of the topic, I’m going to post a list of sources for studying the idea and role of the covenant in the Old and New Testaments:

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, check the index under “Covenant, New” and “Covenant, Old”
2. Scott Hahn. A Father Who Keeps His Promises (Servant Books, 1998)
3. Scott Hahn. Kinship By Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (Yale University Press, “Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library,” 2009)
4. Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. Many Religions–One Covenant (Ignatius Press, 1999)
5. Bergsma, John. Bible Basics foe Catholics: A New Picture of Salvation History (Ava Maria Press, 2012)
6. The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology offers several free online courses; one,“Covenant Love: Introducing the Biblical Worldview”, is a good study of the Catholic idea of covenants. Go to salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online
7. Scott Hahn is the founder and president of the St. Paul Center. He also wrote forwards for both Bergsma’s and Ratzinger’s books.
   NB: Ratzinger is now, of course, Pope Benedict XVI. The book is not a papal or even a Church document. It only carries his rather formidable reputation as a theologian.

 

[Yahudi]

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.

 

[Hunho]

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).

To quote from one of the studies from the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, “When God makes a covenant, He is making a family, He is making people kin to Himself, His sons and daughters.” In forming the covenant at Sinai, God used Moses as His mediator or “middleman” to present His Laws as a part of the torah that He is using to shape the Hebrew people into His family. The Law and the whole torah is a part of the Covenant God made with the Hebrews at Sinai after He brought them out of Egypt.
The Covenant made at Sinai, the one made with Noah, the one made with Abraham are all in force for those with whom they were made, as is the Covenant declared by Jesus at the Last Supper.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Fr. MIchael,

With all due respect, your very short quotes are not helpful and are in desperate need of articulation because it appears that you are saying that Jews are just fine under the Old Covenant and have no need for the New, and the Church does NOT teach that, and I am sure that is not what you mean either.

 

[brb3]

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

Yes, and this New Covenant was taken FIRST to the Jews, many who received it, but many more rejected. Paul speaks to this !!!
Nevertheless, the Big Ten still hold, and all but the Animal Sacrifices and all the cumbersome purification laws …apply to us still !!!

 

[cap76]

I stan corrected:blush:

Thanks Father!

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.

 

[cap76]

Yes, and this New Covenant was taken FIRST to the Jews, many who received it, but many more rejected. Paul speaks to this !!!
Nevertheless, the Big Ten still hold, and all but the Animal Sacrifices and all the cumbersome purification laws …apply to us still !!!

Right on, brb3! This whyDavid can say so much in the Psalms concerning his own hope of forgiveness. Just as we look back by faith to the shed blood of Jesus, the OT saints by faith looked forward to it.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Right on, brb3! This whyDavid can say so much in the Psalms concerning his own hope of forgiveness. Just as we look back by faith to the shed blood of Jesus, the OT saints by faith looked forward to it.

Exactly! Particulars of Old Covenant still apply in many ways, even more powerfully through the New, but where the Old pointed towards the coming of the Messiah, no one is under the Old Covenant because we are not to be waiting for the Messiah that has already come because that would be rejecting the One who came and you would be expecting another. Jews and Gentiles are under the same Covenant now.

 

[brb3]

Exactly! Particulars of Old Covenant still apply in many ways, even more powerfully through the New, but where the Old pointed towards the coming of the Messiah, no one is under the Old Covenant because we are not to be waiting for the Messiah that has already come because that would be rejecting the One who came and you would be expecting another. Jews and Gentiles are under the same Covenant now.

And, the Church is now God’s Temple on Earth !!! The acceptable sacrifice therein, not animal blood, but the eternal Eucharist, the NT Todah !!! Which will be forever acceptable to the Father…

 

[bogeydogg]

I have always thought that since Christ redeemed/purchased the entire sin debt of all men at all times (past, present, future) that therefore all men are under the Covenant of Christ. The OT Saints were not saved by adherence to the Law (as King David and Abraham clearly show) but rather by the faith that understood God was merciful, long suffering and willing to forgive. All of the OT Laws and Ceremonies looked forward to the their final fulfillment, who is Christ, but when God promised to forgive the sins of the faithful who offer imperfect sacrifices in faith He did not lie. Those who made the sin offering nevertheless did receive the forgiveness promised, but this was not because they kept the Law, but because they admitted their guilt before God and made the offering as a means of repentance.

However Christ is the Sacrifice made one time for all and so those who are saved, are saved fully and finally in His Name be they OT or NT Saints. Because all true Faith is the Faith in the One true God who made Christ the perfect and acceptable sacrifice for all men.

So no the Old Covenant has not been nullified nor the commandments to keep the Law as Christ made clear, but saving faith is the faith that repents before the Law not the self-aggrandizing bragging that claims to keep the Law apart from Christ. Paul himself says that if a man could keep the Law then Christ died for no purpose and then a man could boast before God, but no one can boast before God.

In the same way those reject Christ are still guilty of His death because He has died for them and they have rejected His mercy. This is the highest treason to God and the very essence of the “unforgivable” sin. The soul that does not repent rejects the mercy of God and so cannot be saved. The one who refuses to believe in Christ and His mercy refuses that mercy and so cannot be saved. That is what covenant means. God has condescended to give mercy to all men and those who reject it cannot receive it.

This is why we are commanded to evangelize all men everywhere because God has not willed any to perish and takes no delight when the wicked perish. We, who know the heart of our King, should be foremost in calling all men (especially ourselves) to repent.

God Bless

 

[brb3]

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.

Father…

Please elaborate, on what parts of OT DON’T apply.

Clearly Paul teaches some do, and some don’t. The NT fullfills the OT, thereby perfecting / re-defining it via BEATITUDES, and establishing the Covenant bonds to the Father via Christ, …establishing a HOLY FAMILY, THE CHURCH.

 

[brb3]

I have always thought that since Christ redeemed/purchased the entire sin debt of all men at all times (past, present, future) that therefore all men are under the Covenant of Christ. The OT Saints were not saved by adherence to the Law (as King David and Abraham clearly show) but rather by the faith that understood God was merciful, long suffering and willing to forgive. All of the OT Laws and Ceremonies looked forward to the their final fulfillment, who is Christ, but when God promised to forgive the sins of the faithful who offer imperfect sacrifices in faith He did not lie. Those who made the sin offering nevertheless did receive the forgiveness promised, but this was not because they kept the Law, but because they admitted their guilt before God and made the offering as a means of repentance.

However Christ is the Sacrifice made one time for all and so those who are saved, are saved fully and finally in His Name be they OT or NT Saints. Because all true Faith is the Faith in the One true God who made Christ the perfect and acceptable sacrifice for all men.

So no the Old Covenant has not been nullified nor the commandments to keep the Law as Christ made clear, but saving faith is the faith that repents before the Law not the self-aggrandizing bragging that claims to keep the Law apart from Christ. Paul himself says that if a man could keep the Law then Christ died for no purpose and then a man could boast before God, but no one can boast before God.

In the same way those reject Christ are still guilty of His death because He has died for them and they have rejected His mercy. This is the highest treason to God and the very essence of the “unforgivable” sin. The soul that does not repent rejects the mercy of God and so cannot be saved. The one who refuses to believe in Christ and His mercy refuses that mercy and so cannot be saved. That is what covenant means. God has condescended to give mercy to all men and those who reject it cannot receive it.

This is why we are commanded to evangelize all men everywhere because God has not willed any to perish and takes no delight when the wicked perish. We, who know the heart of our King, should be foremost in calling all men (especially ourselves) to repent.

God Bless

Repentance has always been the crucial requirement …even in OT days. Even righteous Job had to confess his very minor shortcomings before God, and David his MASSIVE MORTAL errs.
The Jews went to Babylon…because they hardened their hearts, and WOULD NOT REPENT.

SAME APPLIES TODAY For Us…Thus the Confession booth is Sacramental requirement !!

 

[Dolezal]

I ask this question since Scott Hahn has said about the old covenant that “the covenant with Israel was neither revoked nor abolished”.

Does Scott Hahn distinguish between the covenant of Abraham and the covenant of Moses, and between Israel and the Jews? The Church has declared many times that the covenant of Moses has been annulled or abolished. Most recently, I believe, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The covenant of Moses, and its laws, therefore does not apply to anyone anymore.

The covenant of Abraham, on the other hand, was fulfilled by the sacrifice of Our Lord, and continues as the new covenant of salvation. It is not a covenant of the Jews, as certain American Protestants claim, but of Israel. The Catholic Church is Israel.

Galatians 6:15-16: Circumcision means nothing, the want of it means nothing; when a man is in Christ Jesus, there has been a new creation. Peace and pardon to all those who follow this rule, to God’s true Israel.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 877: The Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as “the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.”

 

[bogeydogg]

Does Scott Hahn distinguish between the covenant of Abraham and the covenant of Moses, and between Israel and the Jews? The Church has declared many times that the covenant of Moses has been annulled or abolished. Most recently, I believe, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The covenant of Moses, and its laws, therefore does not apply to anyone anymore.

The covenant of Abraham, on the other hand, was fulfilled by the sacrifice of Our Lord, and continues as the new covenant of salvation. It is not a covenant of the Jews, as certain American Protestants claim, but of Israel. The Catholic Church is Israel.

Galatians 6:15-16: Circumcision means nothing, the want of it means nothing; when a man is in Christ Jesus, there has been a new creation. Peace and pardon to all those who follow this rule, to God’s true Israel.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 877: The Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as “the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.”

The Law was also fulfilled in Christ who kept it perfectly and so our righteousness before the Law is His. However He commands to show our love for Him by keeping His commandments, but remember that the same Lord who commands us to obey the Law also commands us to repent of our sins. So I think the dual command is to both admit the perfect righteousness of the Law by always trying to keep it and our poverty before the Law by acknowledging our sin and repenting of it.

God Bless

 

[jcrichton]

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 Mosaic Law and the prophets are all part of the Old Covenant–the Pact Yahweh God made with man (Israel). The Old Covenant (contract) was in place but it pointed to a future Covenant so while most of the language speaks of “eternal” and “forever” this Covenant is patent till Christ, the Word Incarnate, arrives and brings the new economy into place:

20 He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you. (St. Luke 22:20)

6 He has given us the competence to be ministers of a new covenant, a covenant which is not of written letters, but of the Spirit; for the written letters kill, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the administering of death, engraved in letters on stone, occurred in such glory that the Israelites could not look Moses steadily in the face, because of its glory, transitory though this glory was, 8 how much more will the ministry of the Spirit occur in glory! 9 For if it is glorious to administer condemnation, to administer saving justice is far richer in glory. 10 Indeed, what was once considered glorious has lost all claim to glory, by contrast with the glory which transcends it. 11 For if what was transitory had any glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts for ever. 12 With a hope like this, we can speak with complete fearlessness; 13 not like Moses who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites should not watch the end of what was transitory. 14 But their minds were closed; indeed, until this very day, the same veil remains over the reading of the Old Testament: it is not lifted, for only in Christ is it done away with. 15 As it is, to this day, whenever Moses is read, their hearts are covered with a veil, 16 and this veil will not be taken away till they turn to the Lord. 17 Now this Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, with our unveiled faces like mirrors reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the image that we reflect in brighter and brighter glory; this is the working of the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:6-18)

In Christ Jesus the Old Covenant comes to full function!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

So when Christ states that the New Covenant is based on His Blood… Christ is a false teacher that lies?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

I think that the confusion lies in what actually transpired:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion
Marcion of Sinope[pronunciation?] (Greek: Μαρκίων[1] Σινώπης), (c.85 – c.160) was a bishop in early Christianity.[2] His theology, which rejected the deity described in the Jewish Scriptures as inferior or subjugated to the God proclaimed in the Christian gospel, was denounced by the Church Fathers and he was excommunicated. His rejection of many books contemporarily considered scripture prompted the church to develop a canon of scriptures.

…since his actions prompted the Church to develop/define a canon of Scriptures I can see how it would be mistaken as the origin of the division of books (old and new testaments).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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

…I know that the Popes want to shed some good light onto this issue… but if the Old Covenant is still in effect, why has its observance been muted?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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?

…this is part of the problem… it is not just respecting that the Old Covenant has value still but it is exacting that Jesus did come as the New Covenant making the two people into one… those who reject the New Covenant reject Jesus… and no matter how we dance around the issue the old covenant is not being upheld by those who reject the New Covenant.

Maran atha!

Angel