Israel Ben Ami of the Association of Hebrew Catholics Pushing Heresy that the Mosaic Covenant is Still In Force

Covenants

Sunday, 17 July 2011 12:20

silverscroll Dear Robert,

Do you know anything much about a gentleman by the above name, who it seems runs a blog called "Catholics for Israel"? He has just posted a critique on his website of the article in Homiletic & Pastoral Review entitled "The Catholic Liturgy and 'Superssionism'" which argues that it is the primordial covenant with Abraham, not the Mosaic Covenant of Sinai, that has never been superseded or replaced. Mr. Ben Ami, who it seems is involved in the Hebrew Catholic Association, claims that the Mosaic Covenant too has never been superseded. His primary argument is that Jesus said he had not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfil it. You have studied the biblical side of these issue a lot more than I have, so how would field that biblical argument? Does "the Law" here mean the whole Law of Moses, or just the Decalogue? In any case, "abolish" (you would know the Greek word better than I do) seems a stronger word than supersede" or "replace". "Abolish" makes it sound like the Mosaic Law was a bad thing or a mistake in the first place, like when we talk of the "abolition" of slavery. And of course no Christian is saying that about the Sinai Covenant.

John

R. Sungenis: Yes, I know Mr. Ben Ami. I’ve had a couple of run-ins with him. I mentioned him in my original article for Culture Wars “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” As you have found, he is trying to reinterpret all the passages dealing with the covenant and concluding that the Mosaic covenant is still in force and valid for the Jews. It is heresy, pure and simple.

His main argument is the same one Mark Shea uses – Matthew 5:18-19. But this is futile. This passage is prone to distort, however, and, as Peter says, “the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2Peter 3:16).

The “Law and Prophets” here refers to the whole Old Testament, divided into: (a) the Pentateuch and (b) the rest of the Old Testament under the title “Prophets.” The division into two parts of the OT is denoted by the use of the adversative h} (“or” in “Law or Prophets”). One reason Jesus may have worded it this way is that the Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch (the Law) whereas the Jews accepted both Law and Prophets. So Jesus here gives his allegiance to the whole OT canon.

The word for “destroy” that Jesus uses here is katalu:sai, which, from the katav prefix, is a strong from of the verb luw (to loose or destroy). According to A. T. Robertson, it is an effective aorist, that is, an aorist giving a definitive result. (Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 4^th ed., p. 857).

The stress in the verse is on the two verbs katalu:sai (“to destroy”) and plhrw:sai (“to fulfill”), and both verbs are put in the aorist infinitive form to denote decisive purpose and constancy. In other words it was not Jesus’ purpose, now or ever, to destroy the OT and make it useless. It will stand as the word of God now and forever; and that position can never be changed.

In place of destroying the Law and Prophets so that it goes into disuse, Jesus says that he will “fulfill” the Law and Prophets and thus make it useful. The fulfillment comes in various ways, many of which are delineated in the “You have heard” statements in verses 21-48.

In some of these statements Jesus “fulfills” by going beyond the surface application of the law into a deeper and more pervasive application (e.g., murder in vrs. 21-26 and adultery in vrs. 27-30).

In another case he corrects a false notion about the Law (e.g., vows in vrs. 33-37).

In three cases Jesus actually changes the Law, either in principle or in legality (e.g., divorce in vrs. 31-32; civil justice in vrs. 38-42; hating foreigners in vrs. 43-48).

As it stands, Jesus does a combination of things with the Law: (a) he uplifts the Law by showing the proper interpretation that should have been placed upon it; (b) gets rid of instances in which the Law was given for the sins of the Jews (divorce); and (c) shows instances in which the Law is to be superseded by a New Law (“eye for eye” and “hate your enemy”).

Jesus can set aside the Law in (b) and (c) because the stipulation he gave in vrs. 17-18 is that the Law would not be set aside UNTIL (Greek: e{wV a]n) accomplished. Jesus can thus set aside the civil divorce law since it would be fulfilled by a new law on marriage and divorce (cf. Mt 19:1-9; Lk 16:18; Mk 10:1-11; Rm 7:1-4; 1 Cor 7:10-14). The same is true with the laws on an “eye for an eye” and “hating the enemy.” They were being set aside because they were being fulfilled by a New Law on human relationships.

The common theme and stipulation running through the context of Matthew 5 is: whatever is fulfilled in the New Covenant is set aside from the Old Testament. Hence, we can understand why Matthew 5:17-18 does not conflict with passages in Hebrews and elsewhere that say the Law was set aside (cf. Heb 7:18; Heb 8:1-13; Heb 10:9; Col 2:14-15; Eph 2:14-15; 2 Cor 3:6-14). In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus states that the Law can, indeed, be set aside if it is fulfilled. Since it was fulfilled in Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection it no longer has the force of law.

However, there is a class of stipulations in the Law (e.g., the Ten Commandments; the priestly order; the civil code, etc.) that although they have been fulfilled by the New Covenant (cf., Heb 10:16-18) and therefore have been set aside in the legal sense (Heb 7:18-19) so that the Law cannot condemn us in sin (cf. Gal 3:10-12; Rom 5:20), still, from these the New Covenant borrows and makes them applicable in its own covenant (e.g., Rom 13:8-10) with its own means of judgment (Heb 10:26-31). There are, however, many other laws in the OT from which the NT does not borrow (e.g., circumcision, 7^th day Sabbath, divorce and remarriage, etc.) and thus they remain abolished to the fullest extent.

Everything else from the Old Testament stays intact waiting for its fulfillment, and much of that fulfillment will not come until the end of time when, as Jesus said in Mt 5:18, “heaven and earth pass away.” Chief among these unfulfilled items in the OT are its prophecies (from “the Prophets” of Mt 5:17) regarding the end of the world (e.g., Dan 12:1-2; 9:27; Is 65:17f), whereas the prophecies regarding the first coming of Christ have been fulfilled and therefore have no more legal relevance (e.g., Dan 9:24-26; Is 9:6).