Question 90 - Are the angels learning, according to Eph 3:10?

Eph 3:7-11 (specifically verse 10)

Dr Sungenis,

First let me say that this is a dated question, so I apologize if you have answered it before. I have yet to find an answer in any of your archives.

You were interviewed on Catholic Answers on June 26, 1998, and about three quarters into the program, a gentleman named Mark from Michigan called in and asked you about the bible verse that says that the angels are taught by the Church. Neither you nor Jerry Usher could recall the passage, and the caller couldn't remember the verse other than the fact that it was somewhere in Ephesians.

The verses were Eph 3:7-11, but specifically verse 10.

The impression that the listeners were left with is that the bible does not teach this anywhere. The CCC does not address this verse. What is your interpretation of this verse in light of the context? This will help me in my study of the Church.

Thank you,

John Abele

R. Sungenis: John, yes, Eph 3:10 is teaching that the angels are learning about God's manifold wisdom as they observe the Church. In particular they are learning about what it means for Christ to become incarnate. Prior to his incarnation, the plan of God was hidden from all, men and angels, but now it is revealed. As Romans 5:12-20 tells us, the future life with God in heaven will be much more fantastic than what would have been given to us if Adam had not sinned. If Adam had not sinned, we would have remained like him. But now that the Last Adam has come to replace the First Adam (1Co 15:45f), we will be made in the image of Christ's new being, not Adam's. God and man will share a common essence, which would not have been the case with Adam. This is why our saints cried "Oh happy fault!" referring to Adam's sin. Hence, this is indeed a deep and fantastic mystery - God becoming man, and man becoming like God! This is what the angels are viewing and waiting for its completion. Their God is identifying himself with man to such an extent that they learn more about God by watching the Church unfold this fantastic mystery.

Question 88 – Protestant services

Hello Robert,
My question to you was this: At protestant services (weddings, funerals, etc.) Are we allowed to sit, stand, etc. or is that called participation. My friend is attending her sons wedding and the priest told her she cannot participate when the Mothers light the candles for the couple. Needless to say the Brides Mother is not too happy. I just told her she needs to obey the Church teaching but I wasn't really sure what it is. In the two Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Linda

Linda,

The only place this kind of question is addressed is in the 1993 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, says: 

"In liturgical celebrations taking place in other churches and ecclesial communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the church in which they are guests. If invited by their hosts, they may read a lesson or preach (#118)."

I take it that "common action of the church" includes lighting the candles.

I'm not saying I particularly like this guideline, but I am not an authority of the Church. On a canonical basis, it seems that your friend would be within her canonical rights to light candles at the wedding.

Question 86 - Essay on Works of the Law 2

Hello,

Thanks for your response.

In your essay, you said: "We must conclude, then, that if Paul is saying that the moral law condemns him in sin, and therefore does not justify him, then it is the moral law that cannot justify; and it is the moral law that must be set aside."

But now you are saying that the moral laws are not null and void. In any case, I don't see how the divine law can be separated from its grounding in the Mosaic law.

R. Sungenis2: The Mosaic Law is grounded in the Divine Law, not vice-versa. The Divine Law cannot be abrogated, but the Mosaic Law can. That is why Hebrews makes quite a point that the Old Covenant, the Mosaic Law, was replaced by the New Covenant. Please read those verses (Hebrews 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9). You won’t find any separation in them between the moral law and the ceremonial law. Again, the problem you are having is that you are not grasping the legal side of this issue. Legally, the whole Mosaic Law is set aside. Practically, however, it abides with us, but only as it is modified and authorized by the New Covenant.

Anthony: That would be like separating Jesus from the context of Jewish salvation history, and the foretelling of him in the prophets. The commandments of Christianity need to remain grounded in the revealed commandments.

R. Sungenis:  The commandments can remain “grounded” in revealed commandments, but that doesn’t mean that the Mosaic Law is still a valid and legal entity. “Grounded” is not a legal term. The Mosaic Law was only a vehicle to show us the mind and intent of God Who was the one who gave the laws. But God also said that the Church, the New Covenant, was now his present vehicle for His Laws.

Anthony: It is for the very reason that protestants think that Paul dispensed with the whole Jewish law that they downplay the commandments of Christ (which are rooted in the Jewish moral law) and deny that works are essential for salvation. Both the Jewish moral laws and the commandments of Christ are a matter of "works".

R. Sungenis2: I don’t think so. I wrote a book on this titled Not By Faith Alone. I can honestly tell you that Protestants reject works for justification for far greater reasons than “Paul dispensing with the whole Jewish law.” The fact is, they are no longer “Jewish” moral laws. They are Christian moral laws. The Jewish covenant was legally abrogated (Heb 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9) and therefore NONE of it remains legal and valid. There is nothing in Scripture that says the Mosaic covenant was only half abrogated or partially abrogated. The whole thing was abrogated. Afterwards, the Church picked up from the Mosaic Law those laws that the Church considered beneficial for Christians, but they are now Christian laws, not Jewish laws.

R. Sungenis: St. Paul is opposed to the legal binding of the Mosaic Law upon us, not against the DIVINE LAW (which is above the Mosaic Law) that requires us to love our neighbor. Love thy neighbor was a law long before Moses came along.

Anthony: But again, how else but by way of the Mosaic law did humanity know that it was a divinely revealed commandment?

R. Sungenis2: That’s not the issue at stake. The issue at stake is: Is the Mosaic Law abrogated or not? Is the Old Covenant abrogated or not? If it is, then the whole thing is abrogated, legally speaking. You cannot have half an Old Covenant or half of the Mosaic Law still legally operable. I suggest you talk to a canonist or a lawyer about the legal dimensions of covenants and things of that sort. Until you do, I don’t think you are going to be able to understand this issue enough to make the proper distinctions.

R. Sungenis: No, not true. Although there are many places St. Paul speaks about the ceremonial law, he speaks about the moral law in Romans 7:7-12, and how that moral law of the Decalogue condemned him in sin. St. Paul was opposed to the general condemnation that the Law brought against mankind. In Christ, we are free from the Law, since we are now bound to Christ.

Anthony: Even though Paul says he is free from the law, he does not cease to have a human nature which is naturally inclined to sin. The knowledge of the commandments, and of sin remains. The commandments remain on his conscience, and in heaven they remain in effect, because we will be judged by our deeds. So in that sense he is not free from the law.

All that has changed is that Paul lives a new life in the Spirit, which gives him grace to persevere in avoiding the sins that he remains conscious of. And if he sins, his conscience will tell on him.

R. Sungenis2: Granted, but that has nothing to do with the legal abrogation of the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law can be legally abrogated, but Paul can still appeal to the Mosaic Law in PRINCIPLE for a guide to his life. He does that very thing, for example, in 1 Cor 9:9 when he uses Deut 25:4 to show the principle that a preacher of the gospel should be remunerated. But by doing so, Paul is not resurrecting the Mosaic Law as a legal entity, but only as a practical guide to the Christian life.

R. Sungenis: Yes, but with modifications. He doesn’t encourage them to obey the Sabbath law, does he? You can check Romans 13:1-10 and you won’t see the Sabbath law there.

Anthony: The first Christians were keeping their own Sabbath, as is clear from Acts 20,7.

R. Sungenis2: Granted, but the Mosaic Law said it had to be observed on the SEVENTH day, not the First day of the week. If a Jew of Old Testament times kept the Sabbath on the First day, he would have been stoned to death. Therefore, you are only proving that the Mosaic Law was abrogated, since the Christians did not observe one of its most important stipulations. What the Christian Church kept from the Mosaic Law was the obligation to worship God. Instead of ceremonial laws, the Christian Church created sacraments. Instead of stoning for sin, the Church created excommunication. Instead of divorce for various reasons, the Church said no divorce for any reason, etc, etc.

R. Sungenis: The moral laws from the Mosaic Law only have force now because the Church allows them to have force.

Anthony: So then, the moral laws were never abolished.

R. Sungenis2: No, they were abolished in the legal sense, as was the whole Old Covenant under Moses. But the moral laws, at least most of them, were incorporated into the New Covenant. It’s the same thing I was trying to explain to you between the Magna Carta and the Constitution. The Magna Carta, as a binding legal document, was abolished, but the framers of the Constitution took various laws that were originally contained in the Magna Carta and put them into the Constitution. It’s the Constitution that gives those laws their validity, however, not the Magna Carta. Again, you need to understand the legal side of this issue before you begin to argue your case.  

R. Sungenis: It is not the Mosaic Law that gives the moral law force any longer.

Anthony: But the Mosaic law not had "force", or legal claims, over Christians and Gentiles anyway since the first century.

R. Sungenis2:  I don’t understand what you are trying to say. At any rate, once the New Covenant was established, the Mosaic Law was abrogated and no longer had any claims on anyone. If it did, then we would all be condemned by it (Gal 3:10-11).

R. Sungenis: This is the key to understanding the issue, that is, the Church can set aside the Mosaic Law as a covenantal entity (2Cor 3:6-14; Heb 7:18; 8:1-13), but it can also use the Mosaic Law’s principles as it wishes. In the same way, the Constitution of the United States took ethical principles from the Magna Carta, but it is not the Magna Carta that has any legal force today, only the Constitution has legal force.

Anthony: But the difference is that the moral commandments of Jewish law were divinely revealed, and so they are always binding in heaven, even if they have no legal claims on earth.

R. Sungenis2: The ceremonial and civil laws of Israel were divinely revealed, too. In any case, you are only proving my point. If the moral laws are binding in heaven, then we don’t need the Mosaic Law to make them binding. We only need the Mosaic Law to reveal the Laws to us in addition to what God had already revealed to the patriarchs. But there is a big difference between having something revealed and having something legally binding on you. Again, it is the Church that makes those moral laws legally binding on us, not the Mosaic Law.

R. Sungenis: The fact is, Trent did not use the ceremonial law argument, whatever you believe is its reason for doing so. In fact, Trent took the position I am advocating, since the very first Canon of Trent on Justification said this: If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema. The phrase teaching of the Law is general. It applies to the whole Mosaic law. There is no distinguishing the ceremonial from the moral.

Anthony: Trent does not distinguish the ceremonial from the moral, but neither does Trent say that Paul dispensed with the moral laws. The commandments of Christ are also moral laws, so

R. Sungenis2: Trent does not say that Paul dispensed with the ceremonial or civil laws of Israel, either. The point in fact is, when Trent addressed the Mosaic Law, it treated it as one legal entity, not as a compartment of several kinds of laws. Again, try to understand the legal issue. If a covenant exists, you cannot take away half of the covenant and leave the other half. You must abrogate the whole thing and make a new covenant. In doing so, you can reiterate various parts of the old covenant back into the new covenant, but you must realize that the old covenant, as a legal entity, is nullified. It’s principles are not nullified, only its legal standing.

Anthony: The phrase "teaching of the Law" does not mean that Trent recognizes that the Decalogue is set aside. The council only meant that teaching the Law does not justify anyone before God.

R. Sungenis2: Yes, but in saying that the Law does not justify, it means that even the moral law of Moses does not justify. The Mosaic covenant cannot justify anyone. If it could, then we wouldn’t need a New Covenant in Christ.

R. Sungenis: Again, you need to wrestle with the legal aspect of this issue before you can begin to understand it. Try to understand that the Mosaic Law was abrogated on a legal basis, not on an ethical basis.

Anthony: An ethical basis precedes the legal basis for the Mosaic law. There's no dichotomy. The commandments are ethical by nature, and ethical laws cannot have force on earth without legal claims.

R. Sungenis2: That’s right, but the question here is: Who has the legal claim? The Mosaic Law or the Church? The Old Covenant or the New Covenant? You can’t have both, Anthony. Only one of them can have legal jurisdiction, otherwise you will have them competing against one another.

R. Sungenis: The ethical commands of the Mosaic Law are still highly regarded by the Church and the Church uses them. By the same token, however, the Church does not want anyone legally bound to the Mosaic Law as an entity in itself because, if we were, then the Mosaic Law would condemn us with no chance of salvation (Gal 3:10-11).

Anthony: But that hasn't been an issue for the Church since the first century.

R. Sungenis2: If it’s not an issue in the Church, then why are we talking about it now? It was also an issue for St. Augustine and St. Thomas, since the quotes I reveal of them show that they, too, addressed the issue of what constituted the Mosaic Law that was abrogated – the ceremonial law only, or the ceremonial and moral laws? They both agreed it was both. Luther and the Church of the 1500s dealt with it, but you won’t find the Church taking your side of the argument, rather, it argued from the standpoint that the whole Mosaic law was abrogated. It is only within the last few decades that certain Catholics have begun to change the argument, claiming that Paul was only concerned about the ceremonial law. I’m sorry to say, as with most erroneous ideas, that particular retreat was invented by the Catholic and Protestant liberals.

R. Sungenis: THIS is why the whole law had to go, not just bits and pieces of it. For if any of the law remained, on a legal foundation, it would legally condemn us to hell.

Anthony: But the whole law did not go. The moral commandments of the Jewish law are embedded within Christianity.

R. Sungenis2: If so, then you are agreeing with me, Anthony. “Embedded” is a term indicating precisely what I said above, that is, that the Church took from the Mosaic Law what was beneficial and useful, and the moral laws that came from the Mosaic Law now became part of the New Covenant. But this has little to do with the legal status of the Mosaic Law. Legally speaking, the Mosaic Law was abrogated. Ethically speaking, the Mosaic Law was incorporated into the New Covenant. Until you understand the difference between the legal and the ethical, you won’t understand this debate.

R. Sungenis: Well, Anthony, you said it yourself. You said: “This is proved by the fact that God held humanity accountable (as with the Flood) for violating the moral laws even before they were written down in the Mosaic law.” This shows that the moral law was not exclusive to the Mosaic law, and therefore, the Church could set aside the Mosaic Law without setting aside the moral law. I hope you see this logic, because this is the key.

I'm not sure what you mean by "exclusive to the Mosaic law". Certainly God held all of humanity accountable to the moral law, or natural law, but it was only to the Jews that he revealed his commandments. It was only in the Mosaic law that the revealed Word of God was to be found. We can't set aside any moral commandment of God.

R. Sungenis2: The Church isn’t setting aside any moral laws. It is doing precisely opposite. It is incorporating them into the New Covenant. But in order to do so, the Mosaic Law, the Old Covenant, has to be abrogated as a legal entity, because you can’t have two covenants competing against one another.  

R. Sungenis: Again, the moral laws are not “null and void.” Only the Mosaic Law is null and void. Big difference.

Anthony: But again, you said in your essay that Paul set aside the moral laws.

R. Sungenis2: I did not. I said Paul set aside the Mosaic Laws, not moral laws. Big difference.

R. Sungenis: Again, the moral laws are from God, not Moses. Moses merely incorporated them into the Mosaic Law.

Anthony: They are from God through Moses. It is not enough to say that Moses merely incorporated them into the Mosaic law. The moral laws preceded the ceremonial and social laws.

R. Sungenis2: If the moral laws preceded the ceremonial and social laws that means that they existed prior to the Mosaic covenant. If so, then the basis for the moral laws is not the Mosaic covenant. Therefore, the Mosaic covenant can be legally abrogated without ever affecting the moral laws of God. The only purpose, then, of the Mosaic covenant was to reveal to us what those divine laws were.

R. Sungenis: So, the Jewish version of the moral laws can be set aside, and we will still have the original divine moral laws.

The original divine moral laws are none other than those revealed to the Jews. They are the basis for all other moral laws of the Church. There was no other version of the moral laws that were divinely revealed. What other revealed versions of  "You shall not kill",or "You shall not steal",or "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" are there?

R. Sungenis2: The laws given to Cain and Abel, to Lamech, to Noah, to Abraham, long before Moses arrived on the scene. What Moses gave us was a clearer and more detailed set of laws. But this has little to do with the issue. You are confusing what was revealed with what is legally binding.

R. Sungenis: But our moral laws today are binding on us because the Church says so, not because the Mosaic Law says so. The Mosaic Law has no more legal power over us.

Only the Church has authority over us, and the Church tells us what moral laws we are to obey and how we are to obey them. So, again, we still have the moral law, only it is no longer under the legal jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law.

Anthony: Yes, but who is saying that it does have legal power over us? Why even make an issue out of this? The issue was settled in the first century. The moral commandments are still binding upon us in heaven.

R. Sungenis2: Why make an issue of it? Because it is the quintessential distinction of the whole debate. If you agree that the Mosaic Law has no legal power over us, then you are also required to believe that its moral laws have no legal power over us. The only moral laws that have legal power over us are those within the New Covenant, those that the Church understands come from “heaven” and are therefore eternal and unchanging. If some of those laws also happen to be in the Mosaic covenant, so be it, but that doesn’t mean that the Mosaic covenant has any validity, legally speaking, today.  

Anthony: If the point of your article was to point out that the legal juristiction of the Mosaic law is not binding on Christians -- well, that's obvious.

R. Sungenis2: No, it’s not obvious, because, if I am reading you correctly, you keep saying that the Mosaic Law is still binding on us through its moral law, but not through its ceremonial law. That is not the correct way to deal with it. The correct way is to say that the entire Mosaic Law was abrogated, but that a certain portion of its moral, civil and ceremonial laws were incorporated into the New Covenant and modified to fit the New Covenant; and that it is now the New Covenant that has complete legal jurisdiction over us, not the Mosaic covenant, for it has been totally abrogated.

Anthony: But you say also that the moral law was set aside.

R. Sungenis2: No, I said the Mosaic Law was set aside. The moral laws of God abide because they are eternal, but the Mosaic Law is not eternal. It is a legal covenant entity that can be abrogated just as well as it can be inaugurated.

Anthony: It doesn't help to make a distinction between the divine law and the Decalogue, because both are divinely revealed, and the Decalogue spells out what the commandment to love one's neighbor as one's self entails. The Decalogue was given first, and the commandment to love one's neighbor as one's self, came later. Moreover, the Decalogue starts out with the commandment to love God, from which the commandment to love one's neighbor as one's self follows. Christ affirmed the validity of the Decalogue when he spoke to the wealthy young man who asked him what he must do to be saved.

God's grace be with you,

R. Sungenis2: No, it makes a big difference, Anthony, the very difference that this whole debate hinges upon. It doesn’t make any difference whether the Decalogue “reveals” the commandments of God. It only matters whether the Mosaic covenant is legally in force or not. If it is not legally in force, then none of its laws are binding on us. The only thing binding on us are God’s eternal laws, which the Church was happy to incorporate into its own laws, and now the Church is our legal authority, not the Mosaic covenant. Again, you need to realize that you cannot cut up the Mosaic covenant the way you like it. You cannot say that only one part of it has been abrogated (the ceremonial) but the other part (the moral) stays valid. Legally, that is an impossibility, and that is why neither Scripture, the Fathers, nor the Council of Trent argued thus. All those authorities tell us that it was the WHOLE Mosaic Law that was abrogated, not just the ceremonial law. If the whole law was not abrogated, then for one sin against any part of the law we would be guilty of the whole law, and thus we would be condemned without any hope of salvation. That is Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:10-11. This is the legal issue that you have not incorporated into you thinking yet.

Thank you for the discussion, Anthony. I will have to draw it to a close. God be with you.

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.