The Law of Christ
Covenants
I would like to share these thoughts and invite your comments. I am using a “big brush” and not attempting to go into great detail, just giving the general idea.
Covenants are important in the Bible and there are a number of them. I am here going to address only two.
The first is the Covenant God made on Mt. Sinai with Israel. It was a Suzerainty treaty – that is, a treaty between a powerful and a weak party. The terms of the treaty were dictated by the Surerain and the weaker party can accept or reject (usually at its own peril), but not negotiate.
God, who had just freed Israel from the slavery of Egypt, set the terms of the Covenant. Basically they were, I, on my part, will be your God and protector, you, on your part will obey my Commandments – The Decalogue. The Covenant was eternal, but there were blessings and curses attached to it. If Israel was faithful they would be blessed and if not cursed. So, when Israel was unfaithful and punished, it was not because the Covenant was no longer in effect, but precisely because it was in effect.
The history of Israel and this Covenant are found in the Hebrew Testament of the Bible.
Jesus Christ, who is God, made a New Covenant with his followers. He summed us the teaching of the Law and the Prophets by saying, “Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! Therefore you shall love the Lord your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the second, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
This is not the Law of the New Covenant Jesus would establish in his blood, this is a summation of the Law of Moses. This does not negate the Decalogue because one who loves God, self and neighbor does, in deed, fulfill the requirements of the Covenant with Israel.
Jesus, however, will raise the bar. In Matthew he says, “Do not think I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” In other words, Jesus is going to draw out the full meaning of the Law.
There is a progression of morality in the Bible. For example, Cain killed Able and was condemned to become “a restless wander on the earth.” Cain complained his punishment was too harsh and, because he was a wanderer, “anyone may kill me on sight. Not so! the Lord said to him. If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.”
Later, in the same chapter 4 of Genesis, “Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice, listen to my utterance: I have killed a man for wounding me, a boy for bruising me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”
So, when Leviticus says, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” it is attempting to bring retribution in line with the offence. It is not so much demanding an eye for an eye, as saying it may be no more than an eye for an eye. The offended is quite free to extract less or even forgive.
Jesus will say, “Do not think I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” That is, to illuminate their ultimate meaning. Christ raised the benchmark when he said, “You have heard the commandment, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury.”
I use this particular example of the many “You have heard….But I say(s) in Matthew to illustrate my point. Some time ago, I believe in Colorado, a man was sentenced to the death penalty. The judgment was later contested (I never did hear the outcome) because one member of the jury, a Christian, had brought a Bible to the deliberations and apparently reminded everyone he should be condemned because the Bible said, “An eye for an eye.”
My point is that, as Christians, we are to look to the teaching of Christ, as found in the Gospels, an the benchmark of our morality, not the teachings of the Hebrew Testament.
Ultimately, Christ said, “I give you a new commandment: Love one another. Such as my love has been for you, so must your love be for one another. This is how all will know you for my disciples: your love for one another.”
I believe Christ established a New Covenant in his blood and, just as in the Covenant made with Israel, gave us a law that goes with it, “Love one another.” This too is a Suzerainty covenant and we are not asked to negotiate the terms.
It is an ideal to be striven for and I am the first to confess I fall very short on a daily basis. But, I don’t think we have any license to lower the standard.
Bob Glavey
Hi to the Two Bobs et al, My
Hi to the Two Bobs et al,
My understanding of Jesus' msgx as related in the NT is that for him God came first and people next in importance.
Ritual and laws were the servants of humanity in his view not the other way around.
My somewhat limited experiences with the many who espouse to be followers of Jesus is ironically at odds with that msgx.
The qn is: Why?
Are we Christians in name only committed to one hour each week. Do we live out what we profess to believe outside that time frame?
Ninja
><>
Hello Ninja~ Personally I
Hello Ninja~ Personally I don't see 'first' and 'second'. It is sort of a meditation description rather than an attempt at theology but if you think in terms of the love the Father has for the Son. That love "emanates from" and is a self-recognition by Father and is so real and so empathetic that it is fully the Son. (The rest of my contemplation is the loving 'relationship'between is so real that it expresses itself as the "Spirit".)
I sort of doubt that Jesus continually priorized or 'triangled'(looking as others in the shadow of 'God') He just loved.
Somehow, I think St.Francis and Ignatius in a very different way came to that state. I think deChardin was there and Jean Vanier is there. Most of us experience it from time to time.
How does the passage go - now we see as through a glass darkly then face to face". It does not mean that we are blurred but that there are gradations, progressions...
Hi Ninja, I toy with the
Hi Ninja,
I toy with the notion that, at least from a practical standpoint, Jesus equated the love of God and the love on neighbor. That is not to say God does not come first, but it is so easy to say I love God, it's just those damn ________ I can't stand. I think Jesus is teaching us that if we can't love those damn _________ we can't love God either.
I, too, see ritual and law and doctrine and dogma as servants of humanity and not the other way around and do believe so because I believe that is how Jesus viewed it.
Jesus said that we will be known as his disciples by the love we have for one another. There is no other benchmark as far as I see. It is a goal we strive for but continually fall short of. I am not so concerned with how others do as with my own attempt to love as I am loved so I must ask, now are we Chrisitans in name only, but am I?
Failing into Faith ... Hi
Failing into Faith
...
Hi Ninja,
There is a very old Hebrew prayer which Jesus probably said. It starts with "Shema Yisrael" It is God asking us to open our hearts and listen, to let go our preconceived notions and judgments of each other.
I love this prayer with its succeeding verses. But the first line: God saying: HEAR, O MY PEOPLE, Open your hearts...that is the line I find myself saying over and over again. When I forget it, my heart closes around the most petty judgments. Then my actions do not match my beliefs. Uncomfortable with my hard heart, I come back to prayer.
It takes a constant remembering, a constant coming back to our union with each other in God. After 50 years, I'm convinced the effort to come back is itself an exercise of faith. Otherwise, I would be giving up for having failed so often.
Thank you for your sharing, Ninja.
Sister Lea
Bob: It's only a religious
Bob:
It's only a religious choice when you're making the choice of how to vote. By the time the thing in law, you don't have to convince anybody of anything. Maybe before the next election you'll want to talk to people.
I think that's just the way it works in a democracy. One day you win, another day you loose. But you know there's always another election coming.
Good discusssion, everyone.
Kate
A good place to start is the
A good place to start is the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good website to download a copy of "Voting for the Common Good" A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics. You might even want to buy enough copies to distribute in your parish or neighborhood.
Bob Schwartz, Yes, it does
Bob Schwartz,
Yes, it does get dicey.
I think there is a big difference between moral and legal. If we hold a moral position, I think it our responsibility to try to teach and to convince others of the correctness of our position, not simply because it is the teaching of Christ, but because it is good for humankind.
We do have laws against murder for example. That reflects a Judeo-Christian belief. However, it is also seen as a value by the vast majority of reasonable people. I believe the teaching of Christ, while often difficult, is quite reasonable and, if followed, would be good for humankind. As a Christian, it is my responsibility to try to convince others of that, but not to try to cram it down their throats.
I think political leaders, whether Christian or not, have an opligation to recognize and respect the pluralistic views of our society. This must be reflected in the laws they pass. So, a Christian political leader may personally be totally opposed to abortion, but recognizing the complexity of the issue and recognizing that legislation will not put an end to abortions, should support laws that are designed to minimumize the effect of it.
I believe individual Christians are, and must be free, to vote their conscience in elections and the Church has no right to tell them who to vote for or to impose punishments if they vote for someone the Church does not approve of.
My primary concern here is not whether or not Christian values should be imposed upon society, but whether or not Christians themselves are really committed to trying to live according to Christ's values. As we look at the history of the world since Christ, I don't think we can honestly say Christianity if famous for bringing love to humankind.
Before we worry about imposing our beliefs on others, I think we need to take a good look at our beliefs and ask ourselves where they come from. Are we really attempting to understand Christ's message and live by it, or have we been lulled into a confortable Christianity that lets us avoid the challanges Christ gave us?
Rick, Thanks for your
Rick,
Thanks for your comments. I am not suggesting we ignore the OT Law. However, in seeing it in the context of Covenant or Contract, I am suggesting that the Christian is involved in the New Covenant, not the Old or Hebrew Covenant, and therefore, not bound to the Law of Hebrew Covenant. I believe that one who fulfills the Law to love as we are loved does, indeed, fulfill and surpass the Law of the Hebrew Covenant and in that way does not ignore it. However, being satisfied with the requirements of the Hebrew Covenant, for a Christian, is, to me, failing to strive for the ideal of the New Covenant.
I think the Hebrew Law basically sets standards below which we may not fall, while the Law of Christ calls us to an ideal of which we always fall short but must, nevertheless, continue to strive for.
If you look at Jesus teaching about "what you do to the least of my brothers or sisters, you do to me" and the question he asks Paue, "Why are you persecuting me?", it seems to me he is very closely uniting love of neighbor and love of him (God). Yes, love God above all. But, how do we love God whom we cannot see if we do not love our neighbor whom we can see?
You are absolutely right, love is not always "nice". Yes, discipline can and often is a sign of true love. However, I don't think the parent, no matter how exasperated he or she may be, who throws a child out on the street (it happens) is demonstrating love. They are, however, only human and have failings. I don't think God would do that to his children.
Bob, I don't think you and I
Bob,
I don't think you and I are that far apart as far as the OT is concerned. When I think of the Law of the OT, I do not think of it in terms of the rules and regulatons laid out in Leviticus, Numbers, etc. Rather, I see it more as you see it "I am your God; you are my people. I will protect and care for you; you will obey me" I also see it as a Law which is marked by justice as the major virtue, whereas Jesus has moved us to love as the primary virute.
What has struck me, though, about so many who focus exclusively on the "love your neighbor" is that too often they miss the "Love God" portion -- which Jesus tells us is the greatest commandment. Too often I see people doing wonderfully good things for others -- sacrifices I am most impressed by, to be honest; but in speaking with them, they seem to lack a deep and abiding spiritual life -- they seldom pray deeply much less mediatate, they may miss Mass on a regular basis, they read about social justice but seldom do truly spiritual reading, they maintain limited spiritual exercises, if any.
And yet, we have the example of Jesus. He both prayed -- communally and privately -- as well as undertook acting to meet people's temporal needs. Most of the saints also had a deep and abiding spiritual life, even as they also had a deep and abiding life of giving.
I fully agree with your premise that Jesus has given us a new Covenant -- one of love. It is a covenant which we as Christians are obligated to follow, as you argue, just as the Jews were obligated to follow the Old Covenant. But I feel that if we define the New Covenant simply in terms of the second greatest commandment, saying that this is the way we show our love for God, and overlook the first, we are not meeting the obligations and responsibilities placed upon us by the New Covenant, the New Contract.
"Too often I see people
"Too often I see people doing wonderfully good things for others -- sacrifices I am most impressed by, to be honest; but in speaking with them, they seem to lack a deep and abiding spiritual life -- they seldom pray deeply much less mediatate".
I suspect these folks are probably praying and reflecting a "deep and abiding spiritual life" that is expressed in action and I further suspect God is equally as pleased with their prayer as God is with the prayer of the contemplative regular mass goer. I suspect they may be doing what they do because they love God and love their neighbor. They may be the "little children" Jesus says we have to become to enter the kingdom of heaven. They've seperated the rat droppings from the peppercorns and gotten down to the nitty-grity. Like children are apt to do.
wwob, I don't think
wwob,
I don't think contemplative vs active is an either or, I don't even think is is a "vs". I think, to be truly Chrisitan, a "deep and abiding spirituala life" is necessary for all and I also believe a problem is that we have been taught a whole lot of prayeres and little about praying.
My point still is I think
My point still is I think those folks are as deeply involved in prayer through their actions, their spiritual life is just as deep, as the persons described in the post. I objected to those folks being characterized as being less "spiritual".
You say we've been taught a lot of prayers and a little about praying. That's probably true. What I don't see is how you're going to go about teaching folks who don't want to be taught, who are the ultimate consumer addicts, who don't have time for "stuff like that". There's only so much time for Father to cram all that in during Mass. So, How? The bishops had a chance right after Vatican II to develop their own TV network and they let it go. So now "Mother" has taken over their role and is the new teaching authority in the church on a tv network someone recently characterized here as The Fox Network of Religious Broadcasting. I see the effect ever Sunday when I see the number of folks who do the EWTN dance before receiving Communion.
wwob, I have no arguement
wwob,
I have no arguement with that.
While I agree with you that
While I agree with you that we, as Christians, must follow the Law as laid out by Christ, I do not think we can ignore the OT Law -- indeed, I think your comment that Jesus raises the bar is very pertinent.
However, I think you leave out a very important compnent in the New Covenant. The New Covneant is not based solely on lovng one another, but also on the total love of God.
To me, what Jesus does is explains how to interpret and thus live by the Law -- all of our actions are to be motivated by love of God and love of neighbor, to put it in its simplest form.
The problem is -- how to do this? I think too often we fail to understand that love is not always acting in ways the recipient views as kind and understanding. No one would doubt that a parent truly loves his/her child both when caressing the child and when disciplining the child; even as the child may reject such discipline. Indeed, many would argue such discipline is importnant in expressing love.
So, is it possible that those Christians who take a harsher, more stern view of human nature and act in accordance with this view express love for others while those who take a less harsh view and act primarily out of tolerance and acceptance might not be acting out of such love.
I admit that I haven't read
I admit that I haven't read all of the entries in this section carefully, but I am returning to yours, Rick, because I think I am just puzzled about the issue of those Christians who take the harsher, sterner view of human nature and yet still love. Obviously, any motivation is possible for what we present to ourselves or others, so I don't have a problem with your question or the obvious answer. While it's certainly possible, it isn't necessarily so, so I guess I want to put that out there also, I think because your question (with these extremes that so many writers are fond of) suggests that you might think those who act out of tolerance and acceptance might not be actually be as loving. Also obvious enough. But let me just mention that tolerance and acceptance are, for many people who espouse them as good, not necessarily easy, but represent enormous energy and work on their part...work that may just involve the Holy Spirit. Some writers here seem to feel that the more tolerant among us are careless or thoughtless, while just the opposite may be true. We may just be doing our Christian homework well.
I guess I have to wonder that if Jesus didn't present a human nature that was harsh or stern, why would we want to? I think we can all love and respect characters like Agatha McGee in Jon Hassler's work, but that doesn't mean we'd want a lot of people to be like that. She may not be the best example of the harsh and stern as I say that, but I am just in a read right now so she is on my mind.
And I guess the analogy to the parent is a bit problematic for me also, when we talk about Christians in general. Our relationship to each other is said to be that of bro and sis, after all, if God is our father. I don't enjoy meeting Christians who always want to "parent" me with righteous direction.
Anyhow, that may be far off from your posting, in which case I apologize in advance. I like honesty more than almost anything so if you were just suggesting people be who they really are as the starting place--I'm with you!
Great post Rick. If love is
Great post Rick. If love is the operating motivation and truly inspires the response, then discipline is tempered and appropriate. Acceptance and tolerance is not relativism or indifference. It's understanding and forgiveness.
Rick and Bob: Good post!
Rick and Bob:
Good post! And when you add the further complexity of Christians acting in the roles of citizens in a pluralistic democracy, things really get dicey. Do we, as Christians, impose Christ's law on the rest of the nation (as for instance if a sufficient number of Christians succeeded, via the political process, in outlawing the death penalty, "because that's what Jesus would do")? What would that say to folks whose religious beliefs affirm the death penalty?
I agonise over this kind of question a lot, and never get anywhere. The centrality of this issue became apparent in the 2004 election. Any ideas?