OLD COVENANT VS THE NEW

[fhansen]

How do you understand the differences?

 

[Ken Rank]

How do you understand the differences?

So this is just for your consideration, not to be argumentative. And I realize this is a Catholic forum, so I share this just as something different to consider. If you don't agree, it's fine.

When God gave the covenant at Sinai, He called it everlasting. Even in later portions of Scripture (Psalm 105:8-10 comes to mind) we see the same. Everlasting means without end.

So along comes the prophecy for a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). The word for new in those verses is chadashah. This is the verb chadash, which means to renew, being used as an adjective to describe the noun, covenant. This is why the form of the word changes just a little. Anyway, chadashah still means to renew, so brit chadashah literally means, "covenant renewed."

If this is true, then this should remain consistent in the NT Greek where these Jeremiah verses are repeated word for word. We find them in Hebrews 8:8-11. There, the word for new is kainos. In Greek, there are two words for "new"... kainos which means "new in regards to fresness" and nehos which means "new in regards to age." A brand new car is nehos, a 1968 car that you buy to restore, when done, is kainos. Thus even in the Greek, the word for new is better translated as renewed.

Again... just sharing the language, not trying to be argumentative nor am I trying to push anything on you.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[fhansen]

So this is just for your consideration, not to be argumentative. And I realize this is a Catholic forum, so I share this just as something different to consider. If you don't agree, it's fine.

When God gave the covenant at Sinai, He called it everlasting. Even in later portions of Scripture (Psalm 105:8-10 comes to mind) we see the same. Everlasting means without end.

So along comes the prophecy for a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). The word for new in those verses is chadashah. This is the verb chadash, which means to renew, being used as an adjective to describe the noun, covenant. This is why the form of the word changes just a little. Anyway, chadashah still means to renew, so brit chadashah literally means, "covenant renewed."

If this is true, then this should remain consistent in the NT Greek where these Jeremiah verses are repeated word for word. We find them in Hebrews 8:8-11. There, the word for new is kainos. In Greek, there are two words for "new"... kainos which means "new in regards to fresness" and nehos which means "new in regards to age." A brand new car is nehos, a 1968 car that you buy to restore, when done, is kainos. Thus even in the Greek, the word for new is better translated as renewed.

Again... just sharing the language, not trying to be argumentative nor am I trying to push anything on you.

Blessings.
Ken

No, that was great. So that even though Hebrews says the OC is obsolete, it's only made obsolete because now we have a "new and better one". And this is why, as I understand it, the Catholic Church maintains that the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

 

[Ken Rank]

No, that was great. So that even though Hebrews says the OC is obsolete, it's only made obsolete because now we have a "new and better one". And this is why, as I understand it, the Catholic Church maintains that the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

That may be, and again, this is my position, I am not trying to push it on others. But what I believe is because God called the Sinai covenant "everlasting" (consider Psalm 105:8-10) then we have to proceed as we study with the understanding that everlasting means everlasting. So what does that do with NT verses that seem to contradict that notion? You quoted a couple of them... "new and better" or "made obsolete." Well, I would submit that what has "vanished" or "passed away" or was "made obsolete" is the writing ON STONE... in other words, it is the stone that disappears, not the words.

That would allow everlasting to continue meaning without end.... it would allow chadashah and kainos (my first reply above) to mean what they mean... and it fits into the notion that the mark of the new (or renewed) covenant is the law being written on the mind and heart. Instead of on stone... on the mind and heart. Hence...

Ezekiel 11:19 I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.

The heart of stone (Law on stone with us supposed to try and keep it on the heart on our own) giving way to a heart of flesh (the law taken from the stone and written directly on the heart by God Himself).

For me, personally... this all fits better. Otherwise, we end up trying to MAKE things fit that don't really fit. For example... Matthew 5:17 is taken to mean the law is abolished. But if "fulfill" meant that, then that verse not only contradicts itself, it contradicts the next 2 verses. But we MAKE it mean "abolish" because we have demonized the law (a sad thing considering God is the author which makes the law "good" whether we understand that or not) and must interpret through that lens which causes the contradictions. There are better explanations for Matthew 5:17 and other verses like this.... but it starts with understanding that perhaps the everlasting covenant is truly everlasting.

 

[fhansen]

That may be, and again, this is my position, I am not trying to push it on others. But what I believe is because God called the Sinai covenant "everlasting" (consider Psalm 105:8-10) then we have to proceed as we study with the understanding that everlasting means everlasting. So what does that do with NT verses that seem to contradict that notion? You quoted a couple of them... "new and better" or "made obsolete." Well, I would submit that what has "vanished" or "passed away" or was "made obsolete" is the writing ON STONE... in other words, it is the stone that disappears, not the words.

That would allow everlasting to continue meaning without end.... it would allow chadashah and kainos (my first reply above) to mean what they mean... and it fits into the notion that the mark of the new (or renewed) covenant is the law being written on the mind and heart. Instead of on stone... on the mind and heart. Hence...

Ezekiel 11:19 I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.

The heart of stone (Law on stone with us supposed to try and keep it on the heart on our own) giving way to a heart of flesh (the law taken from the stone and written directly on the heart by God Himself).

For me, personally... this all fits better. Otherwise, we end up trying to MAKE things fit that don't really fit. For example... Matthew 5:17 is taken to mean the law is abolished. But if "fulfill" meant that, then that verse not only contradicts itself, it contradicts the next 2 verses. But we MAKE it mean "abolish" because we have demonized the law (a sad thing considering God is the author which makes the law "good" whether we understand that or not) and must interpret through that lens which causes the contradictions. There are better explanations for Matthew 5:17 and other verses like this.... but it starts with understanding that perhaps the everlasting covenant is truly everlasting.

I agree, and so it's not inconsistent with this to say that we'll still be judged by the law (Rom 2), whether we've heard it or not, since, as Rom 7 and elsewhere tells us, the law is holy, spiritual, and good, a reflection of God's will for man in any case. So hearing it, knowing it, is never a bad thing because the law at least continues to serve as a guide, a teacher, as we don't necessarily always abide in Him; we don't always live in the Spirit.

The New Covenant is really a matter of how the Law is to be fulfilled, not whether or not it still needs to be fulfilled. Man will always be obligated to obedience and righteousness. But the New Covenant now provides the means, the only authentic means, to accomplish this, in union with God rather than apart from Him. "Apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) And this comes about as that union, established by faith, produces love in us with His grace to the extent that we remain in Him and He in us.

With his act of disobedience Adam essentially separated humanity from God by denying His authority as God. We're here to learn, the hard way, how foolish that choice was, how much we need God after all. And that's Who Jesus came to reveal in a way that had never been revealed before, so that we may know Him, and by knowing come to believe in and hope in and ultimately love Him. I like a quote from Basil of Cesarea, a third century bishop, that relates to these differences pretty well I think:

"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

 

[fhansen]

That would allow everlasting to continue meaning without end.... it would allow chadashah and kainos (my first reply above) to mean what they mean... and it fits into the notion that the mark of the new (or renewed) covenant is the law being written on the mind and heart. Instead of on stone... on the mind and heart. Hence...

I like what Augustine said, "God wrote on tablets of the Law what man failed to read in his heart."

 

[Ken Rank]

I agree, and so it's not inconsistent with this to say that we'll still be judged by the law (Rom 2), whether we've heard it or not, since, as Rom 7 and elsewhere tells us, the law is holy, spiritual, and good, a reflection of God's will for man in any case. So hearing it, knowing it, is never a bad thing because the law at least continues to serve as a guide, a teacher, as we don't necessarily always abide in Him; we don't always live in the Spirit.

The New Covenant is really a matter of how the Law is to be fulfilled, not whether or not it still needs to be fulfilled. Man will always be obligated to obedience and righteousness. But the New Covenant now provides the means, the only authentic means, to accomplish this, in union with God rather than apart from Him. "Apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) And this comes about as that union, established by faith, produces love in us with His grace to the extent that we remain in Him and He in us.

With his act of disobedience Adam essentially separated humanity from God by denying His authority as God. We're here to learn, the hard way, how foolish that choice was, how much we need God after all. And that's Who Jesus came to reveal in a way that had never been revealed before, so that we may know Him, and by knowing come to believe in and hope in and ultimately love Him. I like a quote from Basil of Cesarea, a third century bishop, that relates to these differences pretty well I think:

"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

Two things came to mind reading your reply. First, just to throw this out... not every time we read the word "law" in the NT is it speaking of God's law, or His Torah. Sometimes it is speaking of what would become known as rabbinic law, sometimes civil law, sometimes a law of consequence... like the law of sin and death (the result of Adam's sin). Second, the word righteous in the 1828 Webster's was defined as "to conform to divine law." The modern Webster's went PC and now reads, "to conform to divine or civil law." Point being, a righteous person conforms to God's law... they don't steal, they don't covet.... they honor mom and dad and serve only one God (etc.).

Here is the main weight with regard to this thread....God once wrote these instructions on stone and commanded His people to keep them on their own heart 24/7. They failed. Now, as part of the NC, He is writing it where we couldn't keep it ourselves, and it will become part of us making us incapable of ever sinning again. I do not believe that work is complete. I do believe we are His, but I don't think the work is complete.

 

[Ken Rank]

I like what Augustine said, "God wrote on tablets of the Law what man failed to read in his heart."

I didn't read this before responding to your last post. I said about the same thing. Deut. 6 God tells Israel to keep on their minds and hearts that which was written on stone... and they ultimately failed. Now, God is doing what man could not do... and that is the mark of the NC.

 

[fhansen]

Two things came to mind reading your reply. First, just to throw this out... not every time we read the word "law" in the NT is it speaking of God's law, or His Torah. Sometimes it is speaking of what would become known as rabbinic law, sometimes civil law, sometimes a law of consequence... like the law of sin and death (the result of Adam's sin). Second, the word righteous in the 1828 Webster's was defined as "to conform to divine law." The modern Webster's went PC and now reads, "to conform to divine or civil law." Point being, a righteous person conforms to God's law... they don't steal, they don't covet.... they honor mom and dad and serve only one God (etc.).

Yes, that sounds right. In any case when Paul speaks of the Law in Rom 7, as ending up being a tutor that reveals sin while not having the ability to overcome it in us-while not being able to justify us IOW-he's speaking of the moral law, the ten commandments in that case; God's law.

Here is the main weight with regard to this thread....God once wrote these instructions on stone and commanded His people to keep them on their own heart 24/7. They failed. Now, as part of the NC, He is writing it where we couldn't keep it ourselves, and it will become part of us making us incapable of ever sinning again. I do not believe that work is complete. I do believe we are His, but I don't think the work is complete.

Yes, it's a process. In Catholic teaching justification and sanctification are inseparable, and so the whole process is a package, a working out of our salvation. We can still walk away any time and forfeit our sonship. But either way the NC is about becoming His children and we don't become sons without Him, and we don't have any means of becoming truly righteous apart from Him. And Jesus came to establish that union with Him.

 

[Ken Rank]

Do all Catholics recognize the process? For some reason many of my mainstream brethren either do not or at least can't articulate it. I would cite these verses as an example of what I mean:

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knows us not, because it knew him not. (2) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

In other words, today He IS our Father and we ARE His children... but there is more to come in this relationship.

Personally, I think the more to come is the full writing of the law on the heart. The reason why I don't believe that work is complete (I do believe that process has started) is because in that Jeremiah/Hebrews prophecy it states when this all occurs that, "And they shall not teach each his fellow-citizen, and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord; because all shall know me in themselves." All don't know the Lord and we still need to teach (as evidence by the fact that we are not all on the same page of understanding yet). Interestingly, 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:5 call the giving of the Holy Spirit an earnest or down payment. That would demand there is more to come.

 

[fhansen]

Do all Catholics recognize the process? For some reason many of my mainstream brethren either do not or at least can't articulate it. I would cite these verses as an example of what I mean:

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knows us not, because it knew him not. (2) Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

In other words, today He IS our Father and we ARE His children... but there is more to come in this relationship.

Personally, I think the more to come is the full writing of the law on the heart. The reason why I don't believe that work is complete (I do believe that process has started) is because in that Jeremiah/Hebrews prophecy it states when this all occurs that, "And they shall not teach each his fellow-citizen, and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord; because all shall know me in themselves." All don't know the Lord and we still need to teach (as evidence by the fact that we are not all on the same page of understanding yet). Interestingly, 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:5 call the giving of the Holy Spirit an earnest or down payment. That would demand there is more to come.

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that there is much more to the relationship, even if we may or may not experience it so deeply now, in this life. But we can always grow, with grace, in more of it. Jesus came to reveal God, and this revelation is more than head knowledge. Still, the full consummation of the relationship is in the next life:
"Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor 13

But knowledge is still the basis:
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.": John 17:3

And I think that's the knowledge that Jeremiah is speaking of in 31:34, a more intimate and direct knowledge that faith responds to and also fosters even more of, a knowledge that implies communion with God, a communion that both constitutes our righteousness and produces it within us as He then 'places His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts'.

It's easy to get caught up in a sort of mechanical way of viewing and living out the faith, however. And I don't know how well we understand the concept of union with the Trinity, via faith, as being the basis of justification.

 

[Ken Rank]

And I think that's the knowledge that Jeremiah is speaking of in 31:34, a more intimate and direct knowledge that faith responds to and also fosters even more of, a knowledge that implies communion with God, a communion that both constitutes our righteousness and produces it within us as He then 'places His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts'.

Amen. I also that the writing of the Torah (law) on the mind and heart goes one step beyond where we generally talk about. It internalizes God's instructions... they are part of us, WRITTEN on the mind and heart. Knowing what we know about God and what little science can truly reveal about him, it leads me to believe that "writing the law on the heart" is idiomatic as the "heart" has an idiomatic meaning to a Hebrew (which matters seeing these words were written by a Hebrew) and that what we are really looking at is God making His instructions part of our DNA. Thus, when the work is complete, we won't be able to sin... because it has been written in us that we can't. Just my opinion but one I hold to fairly strongly.

 

[fhansen]

Here are some pertinent teachings from the catechism on this matter as I see it:

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 [love]: "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

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23

 

[fhansen]

Amen. I also that the writing of the Torah (law) on the mind and heart goes one step beyond where we generally talk about. It internalizes God's instructions... they are part of us, WRITTEN on the mind and heart. Knowing what we know about God and what little science can truly reveal about him, it leads me to believe that "writing the law on the heart" is idiomatic as the "heart" has an idiomatic meaning to a Hebrew (which matters seeing these words were written by a Hebrew) and that what we are really looking at is God making His instructions part of our DNA. Thus, when the work is complete, we won't be able to sin... because it has been written in us that we can't. Just my opinion but one I hold to fairly strongly.

I was thinking just now that it better be a process. Because if God's done with me now, if this is as good as it gets-or as good as I get- that would be...well, not so good.

 

[Ken Rank]

Here are some pertinent teachings from the catechism on this matter as I see it:

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 [love]: "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

1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23

I think most of this is pretty good but respectfully I think it might not completely answer all questions. For example, in 1965 it's called a new law, but I don't think Jesus would agree with that term. He didn't give any new commandments (loving God and loving neighbor come from Deut. and Lev. respectfully). What he did do was reveal the spirit behind the letter. For example, "It is said that you shall no commit adultery, but I say you have already committed adultery if you have lusted in your heart." (paraphrased) His point was, that the act was and IS still sin, but it was ALWAYS that when we lusted in the heart for another we already committed the act in the one place that really matters, the heart. The spirit of the law was always present, he just showed us an aspect of the written that we didn't realize was there, previously.

 

[Ken Rank]

I was thinking just now that it better be a process. Because if God's done with me now, if this is as good as it gets-or as good as I get- that would be...well, not so good.

I just finished re-editing an old article I wrote on Yom Kippur. The end of it basically states that Jesus has done what was necessary and we are now the sons of God. But my sore back, and arm, and knees, and wrinkled face would suggest that I have not been perfected yet. The wages of sin was death... thus decay, disease and death were the result of Adam's sin. Since we STILL have to deal with the 3 "D's" then there is still work to be done. He earned the right to perfect us, but hasn't perfected us yet.

 

[fhansen]

I think most of this is pretty good but respectfully I think it might not completely answer all questions. For example, in 1965 it's called a new law, but I don't think Jesus would agree with that term. He didn't give any new commandments (loving God and loving neighbor come from Deut. and Lev. respectfully). What he did do was reveal the spirit behind the letter. For example, "It is said that you shall no commit adultery, but I say you have already committed adultery if you have lusted in your heart." (paraphrased) His point was, that the act was and IS still sin, but it was ALWAYS that when we lusted in the heart for another we already committed the act in the one place that really matters, the heart. The spirit of the law was always present, he just showed us an aspect of the written that we didn't realize was there, previously.

Ok, picky, picky. But the term has been used for centuries in the church. So that, over 800 yrs ago, Aquinas would write in the Summa:

"...The New Law is the law of the New Testament [New Covenant: previously "testament" was often used to denote "covenant" and still is sometimes]. But the law of the New Testament is instilled in our hearts. For the Apostle, quoting the authority of Jeremiah 31:31-33: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Judah, a new testament," says, explaining what this statement is (Hebrews 8:8-10): "For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel . . . by giving [Vulgate: 'I will give'] My laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them." Therefore the New Law is instilled in our hearts.

I answer that, "Each thing appears to be that which preponderates in it," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 8). Now that which is preponderant in the law of the New Testament, and whereon all its efficacy is based, is the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is given through faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (Romans 3:27): "Where is . . . thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith": for he calls the grace itself of faith "a law." And still more clearly it is written (Romans 8:2): "The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death." Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xxiv) that "as the law of deeds was written on tables of stone, so is the law of faith inscribed on the hearts of the faithful": and elsewhere, in the same book (xxi): "What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on our hearts, but the very presence of His Holy Spirit?"

That last sentence was pretty cool.

 

[fhansen]

I just finished re-editing an old article I wrote on Yom Kippur. The end of it basically states that Jesus has done what was necessary and we are now the sons of God. But my sore back, and arm, and knees, and wrinkled face would suggest that I have not been perfected yet. The wages of sin was death... thus decay, disease and death were the result of Adam's sin. Since we STILL have to deal with the 3 "D's" then there is still work to be done. He earned the right to perfect us, but hasn't perfected us yet.

Yes- and our church teaches that God set His world on a "state of journeying to perfection". I like that understanding. It involves a struggle-but a good one.

 

[Ken Rank]

Yes- and our church teaches that God set His world on a "state of journeying to perfection". I like that understanding. It involves a struggle-but a good one.

I guess the only thing that I didn't like, but I think I read it wrong.. is that teaching you have isn't saying God's word is imperfect or that it needs to grow to be perfect...but that it works in those who follow it to their perfection over time?

 

[fhansen]

I guess the only thing that I didn't like, but I think I read it wrong.. is that teaching you have isn't saying God's word is imperfect or that it needs to grow to be perfect...but that it works in those who follow it to their perfection over time?

No that was "world", Ken, not "word".