GOD'S NEW COVENANT
24.8.2015
I wake up this morning with a new thought, a NEW thought - at least new to me. I tumble out of bed and stagger mentally through the morning rituals, till I can sit here and try to get this new thought down in some key words.
On the model of the Moses covenant at Mt Sinai, we think of Christ's blood sprinkled on the people, poured out in sacrifice like a lamb's to appease the appalling god of the mountain. Like those people, then, we are enjoined to declare a positive response to god's contract to look after us, and to live our response by keeping his laws and commandments. Thus says the usual idea.
But it is fuzzy. There are overlaps and overlays, wrinkles and twists, so many that we are always redefining our terms, contorting our logic, reversing our cloth and saying the inside is the right side.
"This is my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many/all humankind."
What does this statement demand of us? Is it a challenge to us, parallel to the one Moses put to his people, to be obedient and faithful? Are we to see the blood poured out as our blood?
It is an oath. What does it mean to take an oath? The strongest oath is: "Upon my life..." It clearly means I stake my life on this, I promise this on my life; if I break this promise my life is forfeit. There have been stories written of men who have so staked their life and on non-payment of the token their life has been forfeit, and a cold-blooded ritual killing ensues.
To swear upon my life is to pledge my life as collateral for this promise to be kept. In commercial terms we can pledge our house as collateral if we default on the loan, and the banks often take the house when our circumstances turn bad and we can't keep up payments. Pledges of this kind are real. They bind us to real consequences.
Is this the meaning of the new covenant that we pledge to when we celebrate eucharist, drinking the cup of Christ's blood? Are we promising upon our life to live for God, obey his laws and keep his commandments (and those of his church)? Or have we got it all back to front?
What if Jeshua was speaking not in his name nor in our name, but in the Father's name?
What if the blood shed for you and for many/all is not to pay your debt?
What if YHWH is pledging through the life of his Son forfeited in ritual murder, therefore on God's own life, that he - YHWH - will be for us and for many/all, newly and for ever?
What if it's all a dramatic way of trying to tell us that our job is to live this life fully and humanly for the sake of the cosmos [to use our current favoured term]? What if this new covenant is YHWH saying: "Upon my son's life, I will look after you, I will push you and cajole you, I will pain you and love you, I will urge you and encourage you to grow to the full stature of human evolution if it takes a thousand millennia or for ever?"
We would identify with Jeshua? When we do, in what direction are we facing, towards God or towards people?
God does not need us to be looking towards him. That's the easy part. God is standing behind us when we look at people and try to be true and genuine and fully human towards them. Our job is not to call on them to turn towards god. Our job is to be true to them as the Father is; in God's name to give them life, to stir them out of their lethargic illusions to live a true human life: them to be truly human to their fellow humans with whom they are one flesh and one spirit.
To identify with Jeshua is to stake my life on my being true to my fellow human, to fear not death or disaster in extending myself towards the goal of their living fully in freedom and positive motivating love. As the Father stood behind Jeshua so he stands behind each one as we follow Jeshua's example of reaching out to give healing and life and freedom to all.
So the Crusaders have it back to front, whether those christians of another era or those ISIS muslims of today. They don't have to conquer the world for god. It is already in god's hands, peopled with god's children who need to be freed from all the dark bindings that cramp and paralyse their lives. And the darkest binding is the one that urges people to control others, even to kill others for some greater good. That is the worst sin there is against the covenant for it sheds the blood of some human victim in defiance of the Father's love.
The new covenant is the Father's pledge, on what is most sacred - the life of his chosen one, his beloved son, that he, the Origin, the Source of Life, will bring this sad experiment in evolving to a good ending.
Our part in the new covenant is to work along with it, never losing hope in the concrete circumstance, never losing faith in the ultimate outcome. It is pledged. It will happen. It is happening today in this strange evolving that's beyond our capacity to comprehend. We're like the bugs in the gut of the animal, working for its health, happy when it's well, struggling when it's not. The worst betrayal is when we fight amongst ourselves, some of us claiming to know better than the beast what is good for the whole.
The New Covenant binds the Father to his children on the life-blood of his most loved son.
Our task is to foster and encourage and work to ensure life in full freedom for every least one. To be fully human in every relationship with every other. To be fully human for the others I have to die to self, deny my urge to go first, to live off them. I have to refuse to eat them, as a Vegan refuses to eat another animal. In identifying with Jeshua I give my self to be eaten as a source of life to others.
This is the paradigm shift that christians have to make:
to turn their back on God
as the Word did in becoming human,
turning his face towards fellow humans:
so must we do as Jeshua did,
and to hold back nothing in giving them life
as a mother does, and a father does.
Response of Brian Pitts
Hi Tony
I do have some comments on the covenant. But first I wish to say something about various reprints of the “Jerome Biblical Commentary”. The first edition, edited by Raymond Brown SS, Joseph Fitzmyer SJ and Roland Murphy O. Carm with the Imprimatur of Lawrence Cardinal Shehan on June 6 1968, was printed in England January 1969, Reprinted again the same year in April , and again in July 1970. It is this 1970 reprint of the original that I have.It was printed hot on the heels of Vatican II. (I’m saying all this because Joe and I realised some time back that his and my editions differ greatly.)
I believe that Vat II was the result of the awakening caused by the thorough work of these, the greatest Catholic scripture scholars ever.
My suspicions are that subsequently under the auspices of JPII and /or Ratz a thorough revision of this book was initiated post Vat II. They did not like the scriptural theology of this book and scuttled it accordingly. When corresponding with Joe earlier it was obvious that some of the important papers written by these three original scholars et alia, no longer graced its pages, and some other rubbish was inserted to bring it back to toe the Tridentine line.
This is my opinion, for others to investigate because I have only this copy and nothing to compare it with in detail and this would be a job exceeding my capacity and I am not prepared to waste my life chasing after temple police. The demise of Yahweh from the liturgy is related to this theological counter revolution of JPII, that marginalised the likes of Kung.
Now back to the covenant. I will highlight the points my trawling through Isaiah alerted me to, and will start with my conclusions from his chapters 52 & 53.
On the model of the Moses covenant at Mt Sinai, we think of Christ's blood sprinkled on the people, poured out in sacrifice like a lamb's to appease the appalling god of the mountain. Like those people, then, we are enjoined to declare a positive response to god's contract to look after us, and to live our response by keeping his laws and commandments. Thus says the usual idea.
Yes this is the usual idea fully embedded in Trent and the sacrificial/atonement/grace/sacramental based theology of the church. We have to somehow earn and continually reaffirm our commitment to this sacrificial death of Jesus. Getting more grace and being continually purified from our sin or the gates of hell will swallow us. The devil and damnation were automatic. Redemption was always problematical and uncertain only the purest of pure could enter the pearly gates and temporal punishment due to sin had to be burnt off-a us in purgatory before we are WORTHY. (of GOD))
There are two outstanding aspects of Yahweh’s rescue of Israel from exile, and His rescue of the human race SIGNED by the death of His Messiah. Both rescues (think Bondi lifesaver) were unilateral and unconditional. Yahweh saw we were drowning, sent his lifesaver and pulled us out of the surf because He loved us. I am thinking that the “drowning” of His lifesaver (messiah) was the sure sign that no matter what He was going to save us from the unfortunate predicament we got ourselves into. (We don’t swim between the flags)
Getting saved from the surf is unilateral and unconditional. (You don’t need a ticket, or to have paid your dues before they will save you). I’ve said several times that the death by torture of the “servant” who carried our iniquities (in some unclear way) begins in Isaiah just 12 verses or so after YHWH tells the daughter of Zion, captive in Babylon to dress herself up because he is going to take her by her right hand, and take her back to Zion. ( He leaves his own right hand free to fight off any who might try to stop Him)
The New Covenant binds the Father to his children on the life-blood of his most loved son.
Tony you just kicked a goal.
But that word “covenant” gets up my nose. Covenent is a quid pro quo legally binding agreement. A covenant is conditional. The Moses deal was couched in these terms.
I wonder if Yeshua used this word “covenant” at the last supper?
I would put it this way “This new deal is Yahweh’s promise to rescue us no matter what. Even though you have killed my anointed whom I sent to teach you to the swim between the flags.
These are my thoughts. We are on the same wavelength I think.
Cheers Tony
Thank you, Brian. It's funny how often we wake up to the obvious as though we'd never seen it before. I guess we see it at a new level that shows it all in a new light. You could find an analogy from CAT scans and such things perhaps.
Ad orientem: the idea that the priest should face towards the East celebrating mass, because he is facing God - but Jeshua was facing towards the people with the Father standing behind him, saying YES, I do mean to save you all from the undertow and I sent my anointed one...
I looked up 'covenant' in Wiki [because it's so easy, and generally accurate in my experience, though you can't argue from it academically] and sure enough the Noah-Abraham-David covenants were suzerain covenants - the type made by the big guy in reward for some underling's loyalty. They involve a promise to protect the little guy. In other words the initiative comes from the overlord and is unconditional. It is given as a title the little bloke can use for his own benefit. In this sense he would make his own terms of fidelity. He would certainly not be a day labourer or house servant. He enjoys his own freedom under the protection of the king.
How many times have I linked the mass back to the Mosaic covenant, yet this does not even figure among the great covenants! Nor can Jeshua be a covenant victim in the way an animal is sacrificed as a token of the fate of one who breaks the binding agreement. To say so is to do one of those somersaults I mentioned at the start. There are too many loose ends and non-sequiturs to count.
Jeshua's mission is to give life, to give his life nourishingly, not sacrificially. His life is in his blood. Like: "You drink this wine - you drink my lifeblood." It's a totally new covenant, taking the Abraham one to a new level, involving all humankind, and involving that we be fully alive towards each other. All 'sin' is a pinching of our relationship, narrowing it, being less than fully open to each other.
Judith has written: Thanks for this, as it guides me in a different line to what I was thinking when preparing this week's reflection. When I lived in Emmanuel Covenant Community, the notion of covenant was thrust at us frequently - how we had to keep our side of the covenant as God would always keep His. This was tested often when we saw suffering come to people who were trying very seriously to live up to the expectations of the Elder , but to whom really sad or bad things happened. Very challenging for those who were taking the teaching literally, as the Elders did. It came to a head when the daughter of the Senior Elder was viciously raped and murdered and, in the midst of his own pain, he had to "shepherd" a questionning people through the dilemma. Hie wife was the greatest help, as she shared how she tried to see God's Hand in what was happening and so she prayed "Lord, make me willing to be willing " and we called this the Lorraine prayer. It didn't help when the man we all knew was the murderer was twice acquitted on technicalities of evidence and has never been imprisoned for Teresa's murder, though he did a long stretch for other crimes.
Yesterday I got a phone call from an old friend in some evangelical church in Cairns. Joan is a full-on Christian, and I love listening to her enthusiastic Spirit talk. She tells me there's a big Spirit Storm brewing in PNG and it's going to sweep down through Australia. She lives on the breathless edge of excitement for God. Crazy, but utterly lovely, and very powerful. She had a bad start in a cruel family situation that was compounded by being 'catholic'. She's found God in those fundamentalist communities and takes everything from the bible in terms of living for God. And yes, she's been tested too often enough, but her crowd seem to have a good balance. I don't know any more than this about them. Joan sometimes rings me out of the blue and asks me to join them in prayer. Such real faith in [to me] strange capsules. But I love her spirituality.
Re-thinking the Covenant (Y-not question the Sunday Readings)
by Ynot 
, Monday, August 31, 2015, 10:35 @ judith
This marvelous title led me back first to The Covenant, the covenant that YHWH pledged to Abraham. It was YHWH's blessing upon Abraham, given and sealed because Abraham trusted [believed / had 'faith']. The promise was expressed in the concrete form of Abraham becoming the father of a great people with their own land.
The New Covenant brought the other to fulfillment. It was proclaimed by Yeshua, sealed in his life-blood, and expressed as the pouring out of the spirit over all humankind, empowering all those-who-trust to live in the freedom of children before the Father of all.
*****
I think it is true to say that YHWH did not make a new covenant with Moses, but Moses formed and constituted the crowd of refugees he led out of Egypt into 'a single people under God', within the expectations as they understood them of the Covenant with Abraham.
It is also true that the laws and prescriptions of the Mosaic 'covenant exercise' are all human laws, baring the first two of the decalogue which are clearly demands to hold God in first place and to keep it that way.
The third, to have one holy-day a week is couched in human terms in response to a human need, as was the whole sabbatical system of resting for recuperation.
Nos. 4 to 10 are all simply natural laws, laws of nature, expressions of the way things are, absolutely necessary for the formation of any social group and therefore not 'divine' as if they take their force from some choice or decision of God.
How they are understood, interpreted and applied is a work in progress. They ought all be expressed positively, e.g.:
Respect authority in the family, and all legit authority.
Respect life, and the marvelous dignity and independence of every living thing.
Respect deep and meaningful personal commitments, above all 'marriage'.
Respect your right to own things, and respect the things owned by others.
Respect the truth, and the role of truth as the foundation of peace among us.
Respect the openness that allows you to see the intentions of others, and they yours. Call it the'transparency that makes trust possible'.
I think it is true to say that all the prescriptions of the mosaic system were human laws, many based on things as important as hygiene and genetics (laws forbidding marriage in certain degrees of relationship), etc. Others are no more than rituals developed to express spiritual values and/or as common practices to give people a sense of community.
Religion, since it is a binding, should be controlled by the application of Ockham's razor: all laws promulgated by religion are only human laws unless otherwise demonstrated. Quoting sacred texts is clearly not a cogent proof.
*****
The New Covenant has no law except the law of love. However the demands of that 'law' far exceed the requirements of the mosaic law, which is precisely why we have to move from 'obedience to law' to the life of freedom in which the motivation of love is the sole value, as Paul made abundantly clear.
The community of the new covenant is not a replication of the Mosaic 'Chosen People'. It embraces all who 'trust' in the name of Jesus and receive the Spirit of life given them. While the community may be visible in different ways in various times and places, it is not limited by defined borders. It permeates the social fabric of humankind as an enlightening and enlivening fermentation.
Therefore no group of christians is bound by any ordinances formulated in particular times and places, except insofar as they are seen to be appropriate in this time and place. All law if a reasonable arrangement for the common good. If some 'law' does not promote the common good, and that includes the good of each individual, or is no longer clearly reasonable, it is not binding.
As others have shown over the past year or two, the institution of marriage is changing, as is the parish community. Laws that made sense when a broken marriage was experienced as an actual rupture in the community no longer apply since our current fluid communities are not affected in that way. Likewise requiring someone to remain single after divorce, for the sake of upholding a common standard and on penalty of being excluded from Eucharist, made sense in the village parish. It makes no sense now.
A suggestion: after divorce a person may be given time-out [suspension] from performing any offices, either in the liturgy or in the community, to allow for the settling down of emotional, social and conscience issues. They would not be excluded from communion. After that period of some years they would be welcomed back into the community with full participation.
They would not be allowed to enter another marriage for that period of time, to avoid the more obvious damage of 'divorce for the sake of changing partners'.
The common good in our fluid communities would not be damaged but enhanced by such an arrangement. If there is real fault on the part of one side in a broken marriage it is a matter of conscience for that person. Civil legal practice has recognised that it is not possible to prove such fault without doing excessive damage to all parties. Hence our 'no fault divorce' system.
This way of managing broken marriages would reinstate marriage as a sacrament symbolic of the covenant God made with Abraham. It is a gift of grace, of sheer goodness, and while the children of Abraham often 'broke faith' and turned to others for help - human means to rescue them from human problems - God never withdrew. He always welcomed back his bride, and the christian community should be reflecting that value in welcoming back those who have suffered the heart-rending and life-changing trauma of a fractured family life. Jesus is the human face of the Father-God who is always faithful, and we are the social face of Jesus welcoming those who are hurting, the blind and the lame.
These thoughts flow from rethinking the Covenant, or rather thinking through what the covenant is about. They are not a reformulation of God's covenant. Inevitably they are incomplete, and they are a quite thin thread, but I hope they represent a coherent logical line of thought. If there are some crucial gaps, or some assertions that are plainly incorrect, I would be anxious to have them pointed out.
As to being a 'reflection on the scripture readings', it seems that the deeper we reflect the more we find ourselves stripping back many assumptions that we have taken as first and necessary principles. Philosophers long ago realised that it is the false assumptions, the invalid starting principles, that lead us to wrong conclusions or just blind us to the simple truth. Stripping away the human accretions of religion we find ourselves like Abraham open to the mystery of the one who calls, challenged to trust in a promise.