A Tale of Two Covenants, Part Three

Last updated on: November 9, 2018 at 12:43 am by Mark Shea

A Tale of Two Covenants, Part Three 2018-10-29T23:44:57-07:00 Mark Shea

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Many Reactionary Dissenters claim that the Church at the Second Vatican Council reversed itself not merely on prudential or disciplinary matters but on essential teaching when it comes to the Church’s relationship with the Jewish people.

The epicenter of this claim is not hard to find. It is, of course, common knowledge that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law. We are under no obligation to be circumcised, keep kosher, or observe the various ceremonial prescriptions of Moses. Indeed, Paul makes it very clear that the attempt to bind Christians to observance of the Law in order to achieve salvation is, in fact, a grave sin (Galatians 5:3-4).

However it does not follow either from this that the Mosaic Covenant has therefore been “revoked” as many Reactionary Dissenters claim.

Indeed, Pope John Paul II says the old covenant has in fact “never been revoked by God.” (Address to Representatives of the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany). In this, he follows Nostra Aetate which declares that “God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues” and cites Romans 11:28-29:

As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

Some Reactionary Dissenters simply reject all this outright, saying:

To say that the Mosaic Covenant has not been revoked in the normal manner of speech is contrary to the Faith, as can be clearly seen from scripture, tradition, and the teachings of the Church.

Donning his paper mitre, one Reactionary Dissenter informs us that “to ingratiate himself with the Jews [Pope John Paul II] publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith, and that therefore all Catholics are bound not to accept this error; and indeed to reject it completely.”

Another Reactionary Dissenter, not quite as radical, concurs that Vatican II is a “death warrant on the modern Church” but acknowledges that Romans 11:28-29 are still inspired Scripture. However, he helpfully clarifies both Paul’s and Pope John Paul’s “real” meaning:

What is “unbreakable” is the Abrahamic covenant, since God made it by an oath he swore to Abraham (Heb 6:13-18).

That said, this Reactionary Dissenter remains adamant that any suggestion the “old covenant” might refer to the Mosaic Law is a “heretic”. He declares:

Unfortunately, today there is a lot of confusion occurring because of the vague and ambiguous use of the phrase “Old Covenant” by prelates and theologians. They purposely don’t tell you which definition of “Old Covenant” they are using, and thus a lot of people think when the see “Old Covenant has never been revoked” it means that the Jews still have a covenant with God. They don’t. The only covenant in force today is the New Covenant. Anyone today who says that the Old Covenant has not been revoked, and by that they are referring to the Mosaic law, then they bring a curse upon themselves (Gal 3:10-12).

The problem with all this cocksureness is that Matthew, writing well after the establishment of the New Covenant, directly contradicts the claim that the Law and the Prophets have been “revoked” via Jesus’ words:

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matthew 5:17)

According to Matthew, the Law and the Prophets have not been abolished. Does that make the covenant with Moses salvific for Jews, according to Matthew? Certainly not! Jesus goes on to demonstrate that apart from the fulfillment found in his saving grace, nobody can do what the Law and the Prophets demand. That is why the Sermon on the Mount elaborates on the deepest meaning of the Law of Moses. “Do not kill” demands ultimately that we eradicate murder from our hearts. “Do not commit adultery” demands that we eradicate adultery from our hearts. It is not enough to love your friends; we must even love our enemies. In the end, the Law means that its adherents must “be perfect” as our heavenly Father is perfect. And to that impossible demand, Paul gives the summary of the Law’s verdict: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

To revoke a law is to declare it null and void. Revoking Prohibition meant that those who bought and sold alcohol were no longer subject to the penalties of the Volstead Act. If the Law of Moses has been revoked its penalties cannot apply to those who seek salvation through it. Yet both Jesus and Paul make it very clear to any who seek salvation by the Law that (in the words of John 5:45), “it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope.” So far from saying the Law of Moses is “revoked” (which would necessarily mean it no longer has the power to condemn) Jesus, John and Paul assume unbaptized Jews are still bound by the law. Indeed, Paul makes it a cornerstone of one of his arguments for the necessity of baptism:

Do you not know, brethren–for I am speaking to those who know the law–that the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Romans 7:1-4)

Paul’s entire point is that unbaptized Jews are “married” to the Law of Moses (and its condemnation of sin) and cannot escape that covenant except by one means: death and resurrection to new life through the body of Christ. So, contrary to Reactionary Dissent, the notion that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” is false according to both our Lord and the Apostle to the Gentiles. Apart from Christ, says Paul, the Law of Moses still has the power to condemn and has therefore not been rendered null and void.

The Covenant of Moses cannot save—but it is well within the pale of Catholic orthodoxy to regard it as still binding upon unbaptized children of the old covenant, pointing the way to Christ as it was designed to do (Galatians 3:22-26). It is well within the pale of Catholic orthodoxy to believe that the Law and the Prophets continue to do their job: pointing to Christ who alone can help the child of the Old Covenant to transcend—not revoke—the Law through Christ and enter into the new and everlasting covenant. For he came to fulfill, not abolish, the Law.

Uncategorized

Jewish Issues

Previous Post

November 8, 2018

A Tale of Two Covenants, Part Two

Next Post

November 10, 2018 A Tale of Two Covenants, Part Four

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 September 2006 June 2006 July 2005 April 2005 May 2002 April 2002 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz