Is the New Testament really "New" ?

Continuing our discussion of how words can slant our understanding of Scripture, we have to ask, “Is the New Testament is really new?”


The caution to remember is that mere men chose the words we read in our English Bibles.


These translators often were faced with difficult decisions. For instance, how do you determine which single English word to use to convey a Hebrew word that may contain many facets to its meaning?


In some cases, it can be shown how the final choices are heavily influenced by personal theology. In other words, scholars translate Scripture in some instances based on what they already believe it should be saying.


To be fair, there may be no ill intent on behalf of those who do the translating, yet the result is the same as if they had done it purposely. In either case, we believers may be reading a word that prejudices our understanding of Scripture.


That said, let's look at the 'New' part of the New Testament.


In Jeremiah 31:31 it is written in the King James Version...


“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah”


This verse is referenced in Hebrews 8:8...


“For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah”


In traditional Christianity we have been led to believe that the 'NEW' covenant means something totally new replaced the old.


However, what does the Hebrew word actually mean?


The Hebrew word translated for us in English as 'New' is 'Chadashah' and contains the Hebrew word 'Chadash'. In Strongs Concordance this is the Hebrew number H-2319.


The meaning can rightly be 'new'.


But, since it comes from a Hebrew root word (number 2318) it also means 'repaired, refreshed, or renewed.'


The New Testament therefore does not necessarily mean 'new' as in the traditional Christian interpretation but in a deeper sense actually means the Renewed, or Refreshed Testament.


In another example, we can see the same nuances used concerning the 'new moon' (rosh chodesh). Is the new moon we see each month really a 'new' moon? Or has it simply been refreshed or renewed for the upcoming month after performing its function for the previous month?


Today there are a number of translations that use the term “Renewed” in referencing the “New” Testament. Some of these are the Hebraic Roots Version, The Scriptures, the Restoration Scriptures, and the Modern King James Version to name a few.


It is interesting to note that others believe Jeremiah was using the word Renewed - and they don't even believe in Yahshua (Jesus).


According to Eddie Chumley, an Hebraic teacher and disciple of Yahshua (Jesus), Jews who are not believers in the Messiah teach that Jeremiah 31:31 says 'renewed'.


In a newsletter Eddie quotes one such Rabbi's opinion. "The new covenant does not mean 'new' as in the traditional Christian interpretation but actually means 'renewed'."


So why is this important to us?


It helps us begin to understand how our thinking has been subtly lead astray.
The Covenant has not been discarded. It is not something "old" that had to be replaced with something "new". It has been renewed and refreshed.


Since it has been renewed and refreshed then

• · the Law still exists.
• · the "Old" Testament still is valid
• · it is the foundation for our trust in the Messiah.

So, it is vitally important we study to understand our response to this Covenant that has been renewed.


We can no longer treat the "Old" as discarded. It is more than a collection of stories we read to our children about people and places that have no meaning for us today.


The law and the commanments are the very foundation upon which the convenant rests.


But, let's get rid of an obedience destroying myth immediately. The myth arises every time you mention keeping the commandments.


It is the myth that we're talking about earning our salvation through works. That is absolutely false.
Obedience to the commandments has nothing to do with salvation.


Simply put, our faithfulness to obey the commandments is the measure of assurance that our faith is genuine. Our faith in the Messiah is what saves us.


For instance, have you ever seen a tree you didn't recognize, whose leaves were unfamiliar to you?


My parents had a fig tree. When it was young and growing I could not tell what it was. But once it finally came of age and bore fruit, it was easy to see what type of tree it was. The fruit was the proof it was truly a fig tree.


Keeping the commandments is the fruit that bears witness to our profession of faith.


In the final chapters of Scripture, the Book of the Revelation, we see the continued emphasis that the true worshipper has to comply with two requirements:

• · to guard the commands of Yahweh (G-d),
• · and to believe in Yahshua (Jesus).
  

Rev 12:17
"And the dragon was enraged over the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. "


Rev 14:12
"Here is the patience of the saints. Here are the ones who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. "


Notice the direct tie betweeen keeping the commandments and faith in Jesus?


Unfortunately, the modern church is heavy on faith, but light on obedience. That is partly because of the teaching that the "old" has been done away.


Did you know that the Saints will be singing in the final scenes of the Revelation?


Guess what they sing.


Rev 15:2, 3
"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire. And those who had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty, just and true are Your ways, O King of saints."


The Song of Moses?


Isn't that found in Deuteronomy, along with all that "old" stuff we don't have to pay attention to any more? What's it doing here in the very final chapters of the “New” Testament?


It’s not so hard to understand if you can begin to grasp that the “Old” was not thrown in the garbage heap. Rather, it was renewed.


The Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb are part of the same hymn book!

Be careful of the words you use!

Words are powerful.

Artfully crafted together they can make you...

• laugh at a joke.
• cry at the death of a fictitious character such as Old Yeller.
• smell the freshness of the air after a thunderstorm.
• taste the saltiness of oceanspray on your face.
  
• feel the relentless craving for water as you lie on the desert floor baking under hot blasts of sand and burning heat.
  

The same is true for words we use in "religious talk."

There are a number of words in our vocabulary we should look at to determine how they effect us. It could be that certain words innocently prejudice our understanding, or their use could be a deliberate attempt to manipulate how we think.

Let's look at two of these words, or rather terms:

• Old Testament
  
• New Testament

What is curious is that the term "Old Testament" doesn't become prominent until around the fourth century. For almost 1400 years before the Messiah came, and for about 300 years after the Messiah was resurrected, the world of believers in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - and later the followers of the Messiah - knew this collection of writings by other terms.

Those terms were simply the Torah (the Law), the Nebi'im (the Prophets), and the Kethubim (the Writings which includes the Psalms). Together they were referred to as the T N K, or Tenak.

In fact, in Luke 24:44 Yahshua (Jesus) said, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all have to be filled that were writtern in the Torah of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."

What event or events occurred around the fourth century that might be the catalyst for this shift to a useage of the term "Old Testament " ?

This was the time of the beginnings of the Roman church as modeled after Constantine. Along with it came the inclusion of a number of influences from the Roman Empire and the pagan cultures it contained. Also a long growing resentment against anything Jewish came to blossom.

With the new term of "Old Testament" was there a deliberate attempt to reduce the importance of the Scriptures of the Tenak? We may never know for certain.

Yet, we do know that the word "old " implies a meaning the Tenak does not.

What do you think of when you hear something is old?

If you had your choice between two items - one old and the other new - isn't it natural to want the new? None of us want an outdated reel-to-reel tape player as opposed to a new combo DVD/CD/VCR/Stereo cassette tape deck. Today people don't even want a computer that is more than a year old.

All this means that before we even crack the pages of the Scriptures themselves, we have a subtle prejudice against the "Old" and toward the "New". This silently leads our thoughts toward a theology that says the "Old" is done away - or, at best, is not very important.

Conversely, we can see the complimentary side of this with the use of the term "New" Testament.

This brings up a question.

When we 21st century technologically advanced westerners say that there is a new moon, do we really believe we get a "new" moon each month?

We'll discuss this next time and how this ties in with our "New" Testament.

There's also this question about the use of the word "Testament". Aren't these supposed to be books of the "Covenant" ?

Context, Context, Context

It would seem obvious that when it comes to Scripture, we should keep things in context. Sadly, a great portion of Christian doctrine is formulated using a technique called "proof texting".

Began in the late 1590's, a group called the Protestant Scholastics took the teachings of the Reformers and systemized them according to the rules of Aristotelian logic. This view set the stage for the idea that you can lift a verse out of Scripture and it is true in its own right - regardless of context.

In the 1800's John Nelson Darby built a theology based on prooftexting. He is the one who gave fundamentalist and evangelical Christians a good deal of their presently accepted "orthodox" teachings - such as the Rapture.

Therefore, you can see that it can be a challenge trying to discern if modern Scriptural teaching is in its proper context. So, when you hear your favorite preacher quote verses, don't take it for granted. Look up the verses for yourself and read them in their context. You may find that you don't always agree with how they are used.

Still, there's more to consider...

Did you know you could do a word study in context of the verse, then do a verse study in context of the chapter, then do a chapter study in context of the book and still take it all out of context?

Happens all the time.

Imagine with me for a moment and see if this doesn't illustrate the point.

You are viewing a baby's face. In fact, you're so close all you can see is the baby's face. You can't tell even if it's a boy or girl.

Is the baby French or German? Is it at home or a hospital? Can't tell…

Let's back up a step. Now you can see you are looking at the baby through a four-panel window. What do you know now?

Well, at least you can see more of the room it's in, and you can judge that it's a colorful room, so the baby is probably at home.

Now you back up even more and you see not only the window but the whole side of the house. Yes, you were right, the baby is at home.

Can you tell if it lives in the city or country? What kind of house is it? Since you only see the house and not the surroundings, there's not enough info to answer.

Back up again and you see the whole house. It's old, very old. But, it's in good repair. The style is familiar and you want to say it's a moorish style. But, you can only see a few feet around the house, nothing of the neighborhood yet. Does this mean the baby is muslim?

Back up still more and you see that the house indeed has some islamic/moorish influences. Now you can see people but they are not wearing robes and turbans as you would expect if this was an Islamic country.

Back up again and you can see the entire community with the street signs in Spanish giving directions to…Madrid.

Now you know the baby is Spanish and lives outside Madrid, Spain.

Can you see how only by continuing to back up and see the bigger picture, are you able to put the whole story into its true context?

The same is true with Scripture, or at least it should be. Instead, most people stop when they look through the window. They end up describing the baby entirely wrong.

That's because if you don't put Scripture in context of a first century Hebrew, you don't have it in context at all. You can read what seems to be the plain meaning of the words and never know that their meaning is different from your 21st century, western, gentile perspective.

Sounds a little over simplified, doesn't it? You're probably thinking, "like, duh, of course you should take Scripture in context."

Yep.

But, that is not what's being done.

You're in the right place if...

You're in the right place if you have ever asked yourself questions like:

• How would a first century Jewish believer in Yahshua (Jesus) understand Scripture?
• How can we know if the way we worship today is how YHWH (G-d) wants it?
• What was the original faith of the apostles?
• Where does it say in Scripture that the "ceremonial" laws were done away?
• Why can't I find legalism or judaizer in my Strong's Concordance?
  
• Who are the chosen people?
• Who were the Nazarenes?
  
• Are our church traditions valid expressions of faith? Certainly we aren't guilty of placing our traditions above Scripture, or are we?
• What are the origins of our modern church practices?
• Why did the Pilgrims in America outlaw Christmas?
• If Yahshua (Jesus) was buried on Friday afternoon and rose Sunday morning, how does that add up to three days?
• Does Scripture really say He rose on Sunday morning?
  
• Or any other question about our Christian heritage.

Rest assured, this blog affirms the validity of Scripture. Nothing here is meant to cause doubt in the Elohim (G-d) of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac, nor in His Son, Yahshua HaMasciach (Jesus Christ).

Quite the contrary, this blog is meant to strengthen and establish your faith in those things which are true. I could quite easily interject the Apostles Creed here.

However, it has been my discovery that much of the Christian world inwardly believes that the faith they practice is flawless and pure.

Somehow we can read about the repeated sins of the Israelites who turned away again and again from obeying YHWH (G-d), yet we get insulted and defensive when it may be suggested that the modern church is guilty of the same sins. Unfortunately, we must have a bit of unconfessed arrogance to resolve.

It is my contention that the way the ancient Hebrews viewed and understood Scriptural teachings is often vastly different from the way we 21st century, western gentiles interpret the same Scriptures.

An illustration can easily be shown just in the difference between the Authorized 1611 KJV of the Bible and today's English. In the KJV we find the word "suffer" as in "suffer the little children to come unto me." Its meaning is to "allow", yet today that word means to endure pain.

In a matter of less than 400 years the meaning of words have changed within our own language.

Can you see how much more the meaning of words and illustrations could change over the period of 2000 years, especially from one culture to another?

Another illustration may be helpful.

Refer to Matthew 5:17. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

In several good online Christian forums I have seen this verse discussed for literally months at a time. There will be word etymologies, Greek derivations, etc, etc tossed back and forth until it all becomes very tedious and you can sense the anger rising.

Generally it is said the Law was fulfilled - it has no further use. Forum members extend great effort explaining how their (modern) definition of fulfillment does not destroy the Law even though modern teaching says we don't have to obey it any longer.

The question is, "How would the people standing there at that time understand what Yahshua (Jesus) was saying?"

It is really simple. This is an expression of the times.

When it was said that someone "fulfilled the Law" it meant that he taught it correctly.

When it was said that someone "destroyed the Law" it meant that he taught it incorrectly.

Taking His words in context of the first century, it is clear that this verse has nothing to do with discontinuing, annulling, or cancelling the Law. Yahshua was saying He came to teach the Law correctly, that His teachings were true and faithful to the full meaning of the Law.

So, you see, idioms or word expressions have their own meaning in context of the times and culture it's used, but may mean little to outsiders. Imagine 1000 years from now people trying to dissect our saying, "You're in a pickle."

The purpose of this blog is to stimulate you as a believer to think about your faith from a renewed perspective. Leave your western, gentile mentality behind.

Learn to adopt an Hebraic worldview and a whole new world of understanding the Scriptures will open up to you.

If you can grasp what I am saying,

If you want to go deeper into your faith than you ever imagined (while keeping it on layman's terms),

If you want your eyes opened to the trappings of paganism that choke the modern church,

If you want to grow spiritually more into the likeness of the Savior,

Then this blog will be of great interest to you.

Look for new posts about every 7 to 10 days.