Posted on 07/03/2025 5:38:42 PM PDT by Angelino97
I have just finished reading “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” by Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is a study debunking the notion, now regnant in liberal theological circles, that the Old Covenant still stands side-by-side with the New Covenant.
According to this novelty, in essence, God’s “A Plan” and God’s “B Plan” are both currently pleasing to Him and both fully in effect.
Opposed to this, the Catholic Faith teaches that the Old Law — itself good, holy, and of divine origin — was a preparation for the New, and that the New Law superceded and fulfilled the Old.
Indeed, as Dr. Sungenis shows, Pope John Paul II affirmed the traditional teaching in a not-much-quoted passage of Redemptoris Mater: “Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.”
Years ago, I made an effort at debunking this vogue theology in an article on the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Better Testament. Dr. Sungenis quotes from Hebrews, but he does not limit himself to this, as the pilfered quotations below adequately show.
The following is a series of scriptural, patristic, and magisterial citations from “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?“:
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness…”;
Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;
2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;
Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;
Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;
Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began”;
Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;
Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).
St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);
St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);
Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).
Mark 7 covers both the washing of the hands and the eating of food.
1: Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,
2:they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
3: (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders.
4: And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles (and beds).)
5: So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, "Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?"
6: He responded, "Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;
7: In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.'
8: You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition."
9: He went on to say, "How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
10: For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.'
11: Yet you say, 'If a person says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is qorban"' (meaning, dedicated to God),
12: you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
13: You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things."
You can't get around the clearest of words, "Thus he declared all foods clean" by running to the subject of the ritual handwashing; they are clearly two different topics.
18: He said to them, "Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile,
19: since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Mark records (again, in the clearest of terms, "He declared all foods clean"). There are no asterisks here. Sacred Scripture would never have been written in such a way where someone could point to it and say, "Look, there's what it says in Scripture, and then there's what it says in Scripture. Just because you see the words, "He declared all foods clean" written as clear as day on the page of your Bible, we happen to have speshul insight that tells us these words mean something else."
(Could this really be coming down to, "It depends on what the meaning of the word, 'all' is."?)
I guess because I'm speshul and the majority opinion isn't how I test the Bible or its interpretation. The Bible indicates the majority are going to Hell because they don't follow His Words and warnings. That's the way Bible history has recorded. Noahs Flood wiped out the majority of people on earth. If you don't read Gods Word for yourself and just follow what your priest/bishop says, you are gambling your eternal future on that person and not God.
The audience at that time understood it meant all clean foods not that unclean foods were okay to eat. But your itching ears want it to mean what you want it to mean. You have to meet God on His terms not yours.
The train has come full circle, Bob. Here's the question I posed at the beginning: Where is the scriptural reference that states that the audience understood that Christ was speaking with an asterisk, that He didn't really mean, "all foods" when He said, "all foods".
If the answer is going to be, "Well, I'm Protestant, which means that I am my own pope, which really means that I am putting this all together as I go along", then it would make perfect sense to me.
I guess someone forgot to tell Peter, who was one of the disciples there at the time? He didn’t understand what Christ meant? Then WHY would he have written the following in Acts 10 (common or unclean) if all unclean flesh was now pronounced by Christ as clean and permissible to eat? (the vision was about 10 years after Christ’s death)
Acts 10:13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.
NOTE: On the sheet let down in front of Peter were CLEAN AND UNCLEAN animals, reptiles, birds, etc... (clean made unclean by ASSOCIATION of being next to the unclean....called “common”).
How do we know Peter was there?
You have that part right (you can't be wrong all of the time). You're on a train that goes round and round like the wheels on the bus. You're not getting anywhere but you waste a lot of time, energy and emotion. You know nothing of the history of the people at that time. You've never researched anything on your own. You bought into whatever the RCC puts out. And unless the Bible says in writing "Captain Walker don't eat scavenger meat", you will stay in rebellion to whatever God wants. And what He wants should be uppermost in your decision making and not what the majority says/does.
Matthew records the same event in Matthew 15. Peter was there.
Matthew 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
1 Peter 1:15But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; 16FOR IT IS WRITTEN: “Be holy, because I am holy.” (a) NIV
Here’s the footnote (a) supplied
(a) 16 Lev. 11:44,45; 19:2
It is a direct reference to Leviticus 11 and the dietary laws of clean and unclean meats.
Ping
I would interpret this to mean that Peter may not have been clear on the meaning of Christ's words in Mark 7.
In Acts 10 (10-15) we read,
He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance.
He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners.
In it were all the earth's four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky.
A voice said to him, "Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat."
But Peter said, "Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean."
The voice spoke to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you are not to call profane."
It was Mark who wrote the line, "Thus he declared all foods clean.", and he wrote it after the fact. (Because it is Sacred Scripture, we know he was inspired to write it.)
So Peter may have been a little fuzzy on the subject the first time it came up. But this line in Acts, "What God has made clean, you are not to call profane", appears to refer to the incident in which Jesus pointed out that it wasn't what one eats that defiles the person. (IOW, it was here that all foods were declared to be clean.)
But I think the question here is, if there are two references in Scripture that declare that there is no more consideration between "clean" or "unclean", and you guys are about holding fast to Scripture, why don't you accept either Scripture passage? (The passage from Acts is something I could have brought up to emphasize my point, and you did it for me.)
Some Scripture is literal, some parable, some allegorical and some metaphorical. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You need to work on that.
Who tells you which is which?
Who can know the mind of God? I am convinced that each group has its on purpose and mission from God. The Jews were chosen to preserve the words of God a nation of Priests. Christian or righteous folks who believe in the ONE true Gos were chosen to go forth out into the world and preach the good news. Paul said that We are all grafted into the tree. Christians did not replace the tree, but are part of it. I am sensitive to the missions each are chosen for because many who are called Christians have done their best to annihilate Jews for 2000 years, in the name of Messiah. I prefer that we all do the best we can with the missions that God chose us for.
——>So Peter may have been a little fuzzy on the subject the first time it came up.
Not after Christ explained it to him and the rest of the disciples.
——>It was Mark who wrote the line, “Thus he declared all foods clean.”
Already clearly explained to you what the meaning is. And the conclusion to Peter’s vision in verse 28 and 34 should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind.
10+ years after Christ’s explanation in Mark 7 and Peter still tells us in no uncertain terms that he never, or would never have eaten any common or unclean meat/flesh. Not a chance on this earth.
20+ years after Christ’s explanation in Mark 7 when Peter writes “be holy, for I am holy”, referencing the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and God’s expectations.
IN FACT, it was preincarnate Jesus Christ that spoke those words in Leviticus.
Any incidence of any apostle or disciple ever eating unclean meat after Mark 7? No, there is not. They would never have considered it, because to so is an abomination unto God, and removes holiness from them as God’s chosen vessels. Same applies to this day.
——>But this line in Acts, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane”, appears to refer to the incident in which Jesus pointed out that it wasn’t what one eats that defiles the person. (IOW, it was here that all foods were declared to be clean.)
No, the whole point to the vision is in verse 28...call no MAN common or unclean....Remember, the sheet had clean and unclean animals, birds, reptiles, and insects on it. He could have eaten of the clean, BUT HE WOULDN’T HAVE DONE THAT because they were made CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN by association to the already unclean.
Acts 10:17NOW WHILE PETER DOUBTED IN HIMSELF WHAT THIS VISION WHICH HE HAD SEEN SHOULD MEAN, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
(Why did he doubt the vision? Because it sure didn’t have anything to do with literally EATING clean or unclean meat)
28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; BUT GOD HATH SHEWED ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN COMMON OR UNCLEAN.
(should not call any MAN common or unclean)
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, OF A TRUTH, I PERCEIVE THAT GOD IS NO RESPECTOR OF PERSONS:
Verse 28 commentary:
28. An unlawful thing. The apostle states it as a known fact that a Jew might not associate with a Gentile. The action of the messengers of Cornelius in standing outside the house of Simon and calling upon someone to come to them in the open air showed that they were aware of Jewish prejudice. Such Jewish exclusiveness was known to the classical writers. Juvenal says: “Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome,they [the Jews] learn and practice and revere the Jewish law, and all that Moses handed down in his secret tome, forbidding to point out the way to any not worshipping the same rites, and conducting none but the circumcised to the desired fountain” (Satires xiv. 100–104; Loeb ed., p. 273). Similarly Tacitus declared: “The Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity. They sit apart at meals, and they sleep apart” (Histories v. 5; Loeb ed., Vol. 2, pp. 181, 183).
Peter, of course, was speaking from the standpoint of traditional Pharisaism rather than from that of the law itself; but such feelings were exhibited widely, and showed themselves in rigorous forms wherever Jews and heathen came in contact. The strict Jew would hesitate to enter a Gentile’s house, as is reflected by a prohibition in the Mishnah: “The dwelling-places of heathens are unclean” (Oholoth 18. 7, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 226). In an ancient Jewish commentary on Leviticus appears a remarkable example of ceremonial defilement by contact with a Gentile: “It is related that Simeon the son of Ḳimḥith went out to talk with an Arabian King, and a jet of saliva from the latter’s mouth was spurted on to his garments and defiled him. His brother Judah entered and ministered in the office of the High Priesthood in his stead” (Midrash Rabbah, on Lev. 16:1, Soncino ed., p. 263). The Hindu feeling of caste, of shrinking from contact with those of a lower grade, although now slowly dying out under pressure of law and liberal feeling, presents a close modern parallel.
To keep company. Or, “to join himself” (see on ch. 9:26). The word signifies direct contact. Although the ordinary dealings of life forced Jews constantly to be in the company of Gentiles, they were to avoid such contact if possible, lest they be ceremonially defiled.
Not call any man common. The apostle now showed that he had learned the lesson of the vision. Humanity had been redeemed by the incarnation, the sacrifice, and the ascension of Christ, and even the lowest heathen was no longer common or unclean. God was willing to receive all men, and through Jesus He does so. Sin alone is that which separates men from Him (Isa. 59:2). Impurity is to be thought of as a moral, not a physical or racial, taint. The follower of God must learn to see in every sinner the potentialities of a redeemed, justified, and sanctified man. Inasmuch as every man is potentially the subject of such a godly transformation, he must be respected as one in whom the image of God is not entirely effaced and may yet be restored (see 1 Peter 2:17). Pride of class resting on mere differences of culture or opportunity, and showing itself in acts and words of contempt, is from one point of view even less excusable than distinctions resting upon a religious basis. The latter is the more amenable to cure.
It is evident from this verse that the lesson God taught Peter concerned, not beasts, but men. All men were to be reached with the gospel; ultimately they would be unclean only when they should reject God’s endeavors to save them.
I think, that now, I know why most of our most intelligent Founders were Deists instead of ascribing to any particular religion...They believed in a “God Almighty” higher power and realized the “problems” with specific religions.
But who's commentary is this that you are referring to here? (Anyone's but a priest's or bishop's, I think you would say.)
If the passages are written in such a way that clarification is required, what makes your interpretation any more valid than mine?
(What would make the writer of your commentary more credible than a 2000+ year-old institution?)
——>But the command was to take and eat, and nobody’s takeaway here was that cannibalism was being ordered.
God was using clean and unclean animals, etc... as a METAPHOR for Gentiles, as they were treated as common or unclean per Jewish custom. Peter was in a VISION and could not physically eat anything presented on the sheet, even if he wanted to satisfy his hunger. Both clean and unclean were available to him on the sheet. Peter DOUBTED THE VISION because there was no chance on this earth that God was telling him to eat unclean flesh, that had been an abomination for 2500+ years, affecting his holiness. The same would apply to fornication. No chance of that either.
We don’t have to guess as to the meaning of the vision, because Peter tells us.
Acts 10:28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
....but God hath shewed me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean.
The vision is a METAPHOR. Does Peter eat from the sheet? No, he does not. Does he mention the unclean animals now as clean and permissible to eat, AFTER 2500+ YEARS AS AN ABOMINATION? No, he does not. If you are saying yes, what changed that God would allow this? Why would preincarnate Jesus Christ forbid the eating of unclean flesh, call it an abomination, say it will affect the holiness of those who do, through Isaiah condemn those who do, to “Hell”, and then out of nowhere change His mind 2500 years later? Why would God condone the consumption of unclean flesh into our bodies, which are considered a holy temple? As a Christian, are you saying our bodies are no longer a temple where the Holy Spirit resides?
1 Cor 6:19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
Again, the same applies to Fornication, “which violates God’s commands and dishonors the body, which belongs to the Lord”
1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, set aside to be a royal order of priests, a holy nation, God’s own; so that you may proclaim the wondrous acts of the One who called you out of inky darkness into shimmering light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received it.
As a Christian, it is an abomination and detestable to defile God’s holy temple by eating unclean flesh. And, nothing unclean will enter heaven. Something to think about there for sure.
Revelation 21:27But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. ESV
KJV: 27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Eating the flesh of unclean animals is an abomination unto God. Always has been, always will. God would never allow it. Just as he would never allow fornication or homosexuality. They are all abominations and defile the temple of God, our bodies. But, sounds like you don’t have a problem with any of that. Good luck.
But you still haven't answered my question. What makes your take on Scripture here any more accurate than mine?
We know from Mark 7 that Jesus made all foods clean. You have a different interpretation of this.
As a Protestant, you have to acknowledge that anyone who goes down your road is free to interpret Scripture as he or she pleases.
Either you’re right, or Isaiah is. My money’s on Isaiah.
Isaiah 66:
15See, the Lord is coming with fire, and his chariots are like a whirlwind; he will bring down his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16For with fire and with his sword the Lord will execute judgment on all people, and many will be those slain by the Lord.
17“Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one who is among those who eat the flesh of pigs, rats and other unclean things—they will meet their end together with the one they follow,” declares the Lord.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.