New and Old

So let us observe a few facts. Did you know that older texts of Matthew omit the word “new” in front of covenant (cf. Matthew 26:28). If you go to biblegateway and find "the covenant" it occurs in 24 versions, and if “new covenant” it occurs in about 12 versions. Why would any self respecting Torah rejecting Church scribe omit the word “new” if he found it in his orginal copies? Well the answer is obviously he would not. The new testament is supposed to replace the old testament. Every post Marcionite new testament scribe knew that! The only reason that older texts omit new is that is what they found in their originals. The only reason it is put into later texts is that they had to make sure their readers understood that the new testatment was a brand new testatment, unlike the one given to Moses.

To forstall the claim that it is just one small accident that caused a scribe to omit “new,” and the theory that using the older texts is a new age conspiracy, or a Vatican plot based on Latin texts, or some other theory, I should point out that the same thing occurs in Mark 14:24. New is omitted there also. I also explain in the notes of the Good News of Messiah, and in the Appendix VII that a logical reconstruction of Luke’s last supper narrative should omit the word new also along with the words “do this in remembrance of me.”

If Paul did not read the words he wrote in 1 Cor. 11:25 and 2 Cor. 3:6 in any of the Evangelists, then where did he get them? I suggest that he got the word “new” from Jer. 31 and the phrase “do this in remembrance of me,” he obtained from Peter by way of oral transmission.

I do not think that Bart Ehrman is completely wrong. He is correct that some texts were changed or omitted for theological reasons by the later Church. He is only wrong in his postmodernist application of his charge to tear down the authority of scripture. What I do find is that some texts were corrupted to support anti-Torah doctrines, and that a whole lot of translations were corrupted for the same reason. And it is not as if the translations were deliberate mistakes. This has to do with the parable principle. The translator brings the wrong theology to the text, which could be translated two different ways, and he thinks the one way that agrees with his theology is correct, even though there are other Scriptures that contradict his resulting translation.

Matthew wrote to Jews, and Mark to dispersion Jews. Clearly to report “the covenant” was sufficient. Luke was a proselyte, a convert to Judaism, but who embraced Messiah Yeshua. He does not report on the “new covenant.” John wrote to dispersion non-Jews mostly. He does not report the cup and bread ceremony at all. It is only in Paul that “new” is mentioned.

So let me give an analogy to explain Paul’s usage. It addresses the question of whether “new” means brand new, totally novel and unlike something old, or a new instance of something old. Clearly if “the covenant” is a “new covenant” it is a new instance of something old, because what else could Yeshua’s disciples understand by reading “blood of the covenant” except the covenant YHWH made with Israel in the first place? (cf. Luke 1:72; Lev. 26:42, 45; Eze. 16:60). Therefore new covenant is simply a new instance of the covenant of old. This is the only way to make sense out of the various texts.

Take for example the phrase “new moon.” This is a new instance of something old. The new moon is the same as the old moon. If we say we are going to live in a “new town,” or a “new city,” then it means the city or town is new for us in time. I buy a “new house,” but the house may be “this old house.” The city or town may be very ancient going back hundreds or thousands of years. The word “new” may be used with the significance “new to us,” even if what the adjective qualifies is old.

Yoɦanan speaks of a “new commandment” yet he says it is an old commandment that has been from the beginning! See 1 John 2:7-8. It is almost as if Yoɦanan was anticipating the Marcionite corruption of the meaning of new in Jer. 31:31. Messiah also says to love one another, and he calls it a new commandment, yet it is clearly an old commandment. This has prompted some commentators to explain it as a renewed commandment (i.e. Calvin, Augustine, and possibly Irenaeus). To love one another is simply a new explanation of love your neighbor as yourself. Perhaps then, many have not understood how to apply the original commandment. Messiah makes it plain. The faithful should love one another especially, just as Messiah loves those who keep his commandments in one way, and the whole world in another (cf. John 3:16). In certain contexts then the love commandment is new to those who either never learned it or never learned to apply it to the faithful they live with. Love your neighbor is easily misconstrued to mean love everyone equally, whether friend or foe. Love applies to everyone, but wisdom tells us how to apply it with each.

So we see from context, that it is not really necessary to explain that new can be a revival of something old, or a new introduction to something that is old. We do not have to claim that new means renewed or renewal. We do have in the lexicons “anew,” and “fresh,” for the Greek kainos, which is to say a new instance of something from before. And it is a fact, that the Hebrew verb “ɦadash” in the Piel means “renew.” In fact, it means technically, “to make to be new,” and as such may refer to something restored and renewed or something brand new. It covers both senses.

I have witnessed anti-Torah teachers claiming that “renewed covenant” or “covenant renewal” is an improper translation for lack of a gloss in lexicons, and that deriving from the verb hadash is improper. I hope my previous examples have shown how vacuous this come back is. Perhaps it is not formally correct for a literalistic translation, but it is quite correct for a dynamic or explanatory translation, especially in a circumstance when Christian readers have been conditioned to read brand new, and unlike into every instance of new they see in contrast to the old with which the new covenant is supposed to be unlike.

Testament vs. Covenant

In Jeremiah 31:31 it is a “new covenant,” and not a “new testament.” What is the difference? A testament is a will. The idea is based on a corrupt but possible reading of the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word brit. A will or testament is how a person disposes of their property when they die. It assigns who gets what when the owner dies. That is not what a covenant is. A covenant governs the relationship between living parties, duties, promises, blessings, and penalties if the covenant is breached. A testament or will becomes effective when the will maker dies. A covenant is effective as soon as the Master makes it with his bond servants.

New or Old

Scripture speaks of the “covenant of old” or the brit olam, which may also be translated, “everlasting covenant.” It is a fact that the Hebrew olam may be translated “of old” “ancient” or “everlasting.” Now if I move into a “new town” that is an old town, some will be living in the town a long time before me. It is a new town to me, but an old town to others. Let the town represent the new Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem will be where the old Jerusalem was, Jerusalem of Old, but renewed, and newly built up. The stones of Jerusalem are no doubt transported some distance. Likewise the new city will be transported some distance when it comes down out of heaven. But it will still be Jerusalem, the holy city.

We find that in Jer. 31:32 that when the new covenant is made, the Torah of the Almighty will be written on the heart. Let’s compare this to a rental covenant which is for a term. When the term runs out, then a new rental covenant is made, usually called a lease. Often the terms of the new covenant are exactly the same as the old covenant. This is the case with the new covenant. The same laws, judgements, and statutes, which the Almighty gave to Israel through Moses are commanded.

Only the occasion for a new covenant is not an expiration of a limited term of the covenant of old. It is rather that the terms of the covenant of old were broken. A new one is entered into upon repentance of the party that sinned (Israel and Judah), and the payment of the atoning punitive penalty by Messiah’s death. Then violation of the covenant is forgiven, and the new one is made.

Not Like the covenant?

Scripture is often in the form of a parable. To this day wayward Israel has ears that do not hear and eyes that do not see. Israel walked in idolatry away from the covenant, and Israel failed to keep the Torah. This tendency still exists with Israel. As it is written, though Israel be as the sand of the sea, and the stars of heaven, only a remnant will be saved. This is because only a remnant repents. The unrepentant will sieze upon the least hint of another interpretation of Scripture to justify their opinions. This is just like liberal fake news postmodernists trying to spin a corrupt narrative for their political enemies no matter what the truth may be. As they say, there are a zillion ways to interpret anything, especially if you pile enough assumptions into the mix. But there is only one way to interpret logically and correctly so that everything agrees with what other Scriptures say. Invariably, the wrong interpretation produces a contradiction in the narrative. You just have to keep digging until you find it. And if the word of the Almighty is really true, trust me, you will find the contradiction in the false interpretation, and the vindication of the harmony of the word. Just keep digging. When you dig down through the lies enough, eventually you hit rock: the truth. I know the manure is deep, and some success at reaching the rock really helps with stamina to keep going till you reach it. Certainly a teacher can show you where to start digging.

Many translations correctly render the opening words of Jer. 31:32 as not according to the covenant rather than “not like it.” This is very important when we consider the next clause, because it is not commandments or laws that are being compared. It is rather the outcome of obedience vs. rebellion. Judgment is specified for rebellion. Blessing is specified for obedience. The “new covenant” is not according to the covenant of old “that I had cut with their fathers, in the day of seizing them by the hand to make them go out of the land of Egypt, when they had made broken my covenant, and I had been Master over them, says YHWH.” You see, you have to read the whole sentence to find out just what in the new covenant will not be according to the covenant of old. He had acted the master, and had judged Israel for breaking the covenant. This will not happen in the new covenant, because the Torah will be written on the heart, and Israel will not break it. So the outcome will not be according to the terms of the covenant of old for rebellion.

After Those Days

After what days? This is after the days in the wilderness when all those who were judged in the aftermath of the sin of the 10 spies had died. Israel came into the plains of Moab after the rebels had died, and there they renewed the covenant. Now the new covenant is being made. It is not yet complete, because all Israel does not yet have the Torah written perfectly on its heart. Therefore, I read the Hebrew in Jer. 31:33 as, “because this is the covenant which I make with the house of Israel after those days.” Not just “I will make.” The Biblical Hebrew imperfect stands for either the future or the simple present tense. In this feature, Biblical Hebrew is unlike Modern Hebrew. It is imperfect, or incomplete. It is even possible to give a progressive sense to the imperfect, “I am making,” although this emphasis is often rendered with a participle.

We find on the plains of Moab the promise of Deut. 30:1-6, that after a period of exile, Israel will return to the Torah, and heed and obey what he commanded them in that day on the plain of Moab (vs. 2), and further, “And YHWH your Almighty will have circumcised your heart, and the heart of your seed to love YHWH your Almighty with all your heart and all your soul so that you may live” (vs. 6).

This promise is exactly the same promise that is in Jer. 31:33. It is exactly the same. Only it is expressed in other words. Instead of “write on the heart,” it is “circumcise your heart.” The result is the same with both promises: total and perfect obedience from the heart. So the new covenant in Jer. 31:33 is as better as it gets than judgement for breaking the covenant of old. The Torah promises complete sanctification to future Israel. The law which was broken will be the law which will be kept.

Paul’s Parable

From the Good News of Messiah, “Our sufficiency is from the Almighty who also qualified us as ministers of a covenant renewal, not a sentence but a breath of life, because the sentence kills, but the Spirit gives life” ( 2 Cor. 3:6). You can read this “new covenant” if you like, but I have explained it in the translation. It is a new instance of the covenant of old. I say covenant of old rather than old covenant because Christian brains have been wired by Marcion to think obsolete when they hear “old.” Also, Paul literally uses the word “letter,” but he means the same thing when in English we say “sentence,” which is a judgment made for a violation of law.

Paul speaks a parable to Israel that rebelled against the Torah. Yes, his words may be misinterpreted. Mistranslation makes it much easier to miss his point, but when he wrote it was harder to miss his point in Greek, and impossible to miss his point if one compares Scripture with Scripture and interprets accordingly so that there are no contradictions between interpretation and other Scriptures.

Paul speaks of “the ministry of death in sentences engraved on stones,” which Marcionites equate with the positive precepts of Torah in the ten commandments. But these give life. Paul speaks of the ministry of death, and actually there are two judgments mentioned in the ten commandments which lead to death. Attached to the command not to worship false gods is a curse to the third and fourth generation. Attached to the command not to take YHWH’s name in vain, which means not to claim to be his, and yet live as a sinner, i.e. to play the part of the hypocrite, is a statement that such people will not be held guiltless. These are the two sins that will not be tolerated: hypocrisy with YHWH and worshipping false gods. And it is because of both that people turn away from the faith. Judgement fades away, because it will not be needed for application when the Torah is written on the heart!

Paul speaks of “the ancient covenant” (vs. 14). I have avoided in GNM the terms “old covenant,” because Christian brains have been wired to think obsolete covenant replaced by a brand new and different covenant with new rules or no rules. But Paul means no more than “brit olam,” the covenant of old, the everlasting covenant. Sure, Paul’s meaning may appear to be cryptic and as lending itself to misinterpretation. But Yeshua said not to pull out all the weeds at first from the kingdom lest the grain be pulled up with it. If Paul is unclear, he is unclear to the multitudes of hypocrites who like the promises, but refuse to repent. And there is always a chance that these hypocrites will speak enough Scripture that someone will truly repent.

My point is to show the sheep how they have been conditioned to think Scripture means one thing when it really means another. For all things are in parables, but Yeshua explained them all plainly to his disciples.

The Letter to the Alexandrians

In the earliest list of canonical Scripture we find the book of Hebrews omitted among other books, some of which are canonical. Then there is a list of books which are condemned, one so called book is the letter to the Alexandrians said to be forged in the name of Paul to further the heresy of Marcion. We know that Marcion was the Gnostic heretic that rejected the Torah, and also the Elohim of the Torah (who in common with other gnostics was treated as a lesser god that created matter). In his canon were only the book of Luke and the letters of Paul, which he highly redacted (edited). Marcion’s trademark teaching was the separation of Scripture into the “old testament” and “new testament.” Historians generally blame him for pinning the titles on the two halves of Scripture. Marcion’s old testament was obsolete and abolished, just as modern dispensationalists teach. His new testament was brand new and had nothing to do with the law of the Jews. Clearly Marcion jumped at every opportunity to misinterpret Paul or to misunderstand the parables in Scripture. His heresy has spread everywhere, and has been extensively refined and modified, but it is still essentially the same in how it treats the Torah.

If you ask me, I would say that that the book of Hebrews is the Epistle to the Alexandrians. If not, it certainly fits the description of the purpose of the book exactly. This is where we find the paradigm of old testament and new testament contrast. This is where we find the claim that the new testament is founded on “better promises” (Heb. 8:6). Scholars generally agree today that Paul was not the author of Hebrews. One diagnostic sign of this is that the author quotes Hab. 2:4 differently than Paul does. The book also has numerous errors, of which I will simply mention one, Heb. 10:5, “but a body hast thou prepared me,” supposedly a quotation from Psalms, but really Psalm 40:6 says, “my ears you have opened” and it speaks of obedience, and not any sort of sacrifice for sin. The reading “body” was possibly invented by the author or a near contemporary as it is not found in the Old Greek or Hebrew. At the very least, his interpretation flies in the face of the context and the principle that obedience is better than sacrifice being taught in Psalm 40:6ff.

The reason for bringing up the issue of canonicity, of course, is that Hebrews is where the anti-Torah Church turns for its justification for regarding the new covenant as brand new and not being a new instance of the covenant of old. Trying to re-explain Hebrews to support the Torah is a futile exercise because such an effort only unviels the author’s mistaken interpretations of the Law. I applaud the Messianics who try, but I fear to succeed one has to twist the author’s words in such a way that the anti-Torah scholars who use the book will be able to easily detect. The reasons many Messianics try to defend the book are two (1) Ignorance of its past and its errors, and (2) fear of men from the anti-Torah Church.

The bottom line then for new/old covenant arugments adduced from Hebrews is that they need no refuting at all, or explaining, or redefining. The book simply reflects a corrupt theological perspective and is not canonical. I do not stand alone in this assesment, but many of the Messianic Faith agree with me, although they have not the loud voice of many who promote the Torah observant Messianic Faith, and yet who have their other foot in the corrupt theology of the reformation. Many Christians outside of the Alexandrian Church did reject the book up to the middle of AD 400’s, and then the chief argument it was canonical was that Paul wrote it, an assertion that has since been disproved.

The Canonicity Issue

Meanwhile we have many messianics running around claiming that certain Apocryphal books are canonical. What strikes me is that a claim that a book is canonical are sort of like accusations of sexual abuse. The charges stick publically until they are disproved. It seems the assertion is not considered false until proved. So we see that some Christians, disenchanted with the Church, who discover Torah, are more motivated to believe every convincing sounding claim against the Church. Sometimes what runs these people is that they hate what they left behind so much that they are inclined to believe anything that differs with it!

So we are told that many books are canonical, which the Church has determined are not. It is believed because it differs with the Church, and comes from the mouth of a Torah teacher. It seems to escape their notice that there are things in these books which contradict the canonical scriptures. But this is overlooked, because the spirt of the age is to make all claims to truth agree with each other by interpretation when it aligns with the goals of the powers, and to make it disagree when it does not align with the goals of the powers. That’s postmodernism in a nutshell. It is also practiced in the Church and in religion in general.

Some books are good for historical purposes, like 1 Macabbees, but they are not canon. The original King James Version had the Apocrypha in it, and then wiser Protestants took it out later.

One book that is treated as canonical by some Messianics is Enoch. The book of Enoch is a collection of pre-Mishnah Jewish literature. The narrative of the book follows biblical themes mixed with the author’s own speculations. It is not canon. However, the book was apparently widely enough read by Jews as literature that a good many of its sayings and phrases were repeated elsewhere, sort of like Shakespeare gets quoted or Lord of the Rings. Paul quotes a Greek prophet-poet to make a point. The point is true, and without a doubt the Greek prophet also said many things false which Paul does not endorse, but the poet was considered literature by the Greeks. The book of Enoch is such literature to the Jews of the first century, and a ready supply of quotes or allusions to the book may be found in Jude, 2 Peter, and other places. Jude does not qualify his quotation of Enoch as “Scripture,” but he quotes it for ironic effect. The notes in the Good News of Messiah go more into this, and show that Enoch need not be regarded as canonical, nor does the extreme of questioning Jude and 2 Peter have to be seriously entertained to protect us from claims of Enoch’s canonicity. The book of Enoch is full of various errors, a good example being its calendar system.

An Enoch is mentioned in Jude 1:14. Careless translation of this verse has fueled the implication that the pseudepigraphal Enoch is canon: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying....” This appears to identify the biblical Enoch. But for several reasons it does not clearly identify this Enoch. Only the pseudepigraphal Enoch styles himself “the seventh from Adam.” Secondly, the Greek does not say “prophesied of these.” It says “prophesied to these” (The Greek τουτοις is in the dative case and naturally means to these). The difference is critical. Jude (Yehudah) is not endorsing the prophet. He is merely observing that this Enoch prophesied to those reprobates he had been speaking about. The translation “about these” or “of these” implies acceptance of the source as canon. The translation “to these” does not, because Yehudah is not putting himself or his audience at the feet of the prophet. In Titus 1:12, Paul begins, “One of themselves, a prophet of their own....” This makes it clear that Paul is not endorsing the prophet. It is not a biblical prophet, but “one of their own.” Yehudah accomplishes the same purpose by writing “to these,” when he could have put “to us.”

When we put Jude 1:14 into order, a proper translation reads, “But even [the] seventh from Adam Ӈanoƙ prophesied to these! Saying ....” It is possible that the false teachers Yehudah was lambasting had accepted the pseudepigraphal Enoch into their canon. The position of the και in the sentence, translated here, “even” (intensively) makes the statement ironic. Yehudah’s point is that even someone they regard as authoritative rebukes them. “The seventh from Adam” is a descriptive phrase that identifies the pseudepigraphal Enoch by the way he styles himself, because this phrase is used in the pseudepigraphal Enoch to describe him, and not in Scripture.

I should point out that requiring Jude to underwrite the canonicity of the pseudepigraphal Enoch by accepting incorrect translation or argument to that effect does not actually help. This Enoch is so clearly not canon that any other source treating it as canon cannot also be canonical. This is because the other source would be making an untrue statement which would disqualify it. If Jude endorses Enoch, which is not canon, as canon, then Jude itself cannot be canon. And it is only because a better translation of Jude 1:14 is possible that Jude should be retained in the canon. If Jude endorses Enoch as canon, then both books are not canon. If Jude does not endorse Enoch as canon, then only Enoch is not canon, and Jude is only using for literary purposes.