Can the “New Testament” be understood without the Hebrew Scripture?
If one puts a bookmark at the page called “The New Testament” and then compares the volume of “The New Testament” vs. “The Old Testament”, he/she will find the mere disproportionate “new” of “The New Testament”. “The New Testament” writings present about a quarter of the entire Bible, and if we consider the parallel accounts in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) this percentage drops down significantly. Therefore, it seems like the average Christian reads a small portion of the Bible at best and therefore believes only a small part of it at best. And even this low percentage drops, because there are verses (like Mat 5:17-20) and chapters (like Romans 11), and even the Book of Revelation excluded from the regular sermons. So, do they understand the Bible?! In the following, we would like to posit another way to look at this issue, specifically in reference to the so-called terms The Old Testament” and “The New Testament”. The matter will become clear once we understand why these terms had been even coined and who coined them in the first place.
The present study deals with a subject that has been touched upon in the article The Uninspired Pages Found in the Bible. These uninspired pages were not written by any of the prophets or by the disciples. The first page reads “The Old Testament” and is placed before Genesis 1:1, and the other reads “The New Testament” and is placed before Matthew 1:1.
In another article, “Our Fathers Have Inherited Only Lies!”, we explained that the time will come when the nations will come to the realization that they have inherited nothing but lies from their fathers. By coming to this moment of truth—”Our fathers have inherited only falsehood, futility, and there is no value in them”—the nations will turn to YHVH. Thus, the matter will be best understood in connection with what we had already explained previously.
In the issue of “New Testament” vs “Old Testament, there is a common mistake made when it is asserted that there are such terms in the Bible. The main difficulty is found in the ambiguity of these terms employed by the theologians when speaking of “old” and “new”. They have invented a contradiction in the Bible that does not exist. Moreover, those theologians who advance this view are under the necessity and obligation of explaining where in the Hebrew Scripture the Eternal had ever said, even mentioned, that the eternal covenant He has with Israel would be one day called “old”, so that the necessity for a new one would arise. This interpretation of some writings the apostle works for “the New Testament” but contradicts the Hebrew Scripture. This contradiction raises a difficulty, for the theologians themselves admit that the Hebrew Scripture is true and a foundation of their belief. If this is so, where is “the Old Testament” to be found in it? This is very difficult to accept in view of the fact that the Torah might have referred to itself as being “old”, i.e., “obsolete” or “irrelevant”. The Torah’s use of words is never incidental, which compels us to ask this question. So, can we understand the “New Testament” without the Hebrew Scripture?
In this study we will explain that there are no such things as “old” and “new” testaments or covenants for YHVH’s chosen people, but one everlasting Covenant that has been renewed in several occasions. A good departure point to explain this issue is the Book of Genesis.
All began with Avraham. The Elohim made with him an unconditional covenant, which was reiterated (renewed) with his son Yitschak, and with his grand-son Ya’akov-Israel. This type of covenant is known as “grant” or “gift” and was in force until the time came for a covenant to be made with the children of Israel. We will keep on forwarding the time even further, when the time came for one of Israel’s descendants to deliver his people from bondage.
Mosheh was chosen to bring the children of Israel to this covenant. From the covenant with Avraham, Mosheh learned that the Creator passed between the pieces alone; Avraham did not. That was sufficient for Mosheh to understand that that was an unconditional covenant, a promise, a covenant which in the ancient world was known as “Royal Grant Treaty.” In the unconditional covenant with Avraham, the Eternal took the oath to protect the rights of Avraham, namely, the curses of the covenant were against those who might deprive Avraham’s rights, and the blessings for those who would bless him. The Grant (gift) is promised to all future offspring of Avraham: Yitschak and Ya’akov, and last but not least the Grant is a reward for Avraham’s faithful service. That was what Mosheh completely understood on the mountain.
At Mount Sinai, the Eternal Elohim made a different type of covenant with Israel, though. This type of covenants were known in the ancient world as “Suzerain-Vassal Treaty”. In this covenant, YHVH reiterated all promises given to the forefathers Avraham, Yitschak, and Ya’akov, but with this exception: it was conditional. The promise made to Ya’akov that his children would be brought out of Egypt and brought in the land of the fathers was unconditional; it was a promise. That promise was “the good news”, “the gospel of the Exodus” as we read in Exodus 6:6-8 the seven unconditional promises made to Israel.
But the conditional Sinaitic covenant had to be renewed when the children of Israel greatly sinned with the Golden Calf, the idol they made in place of their savior, who took them out the land of Egypt. Mosheh had to break the tablets of stone on which this covenant was written in order to be renewed with the second set of tablets of stone.
Hence, it will be clear to the reader that the terms “New Testament” and the “Old Testaments” (From Testamento, Latin for “final will”) are foreign terms for the Hebraic mindset; terms crafted by the Roman Catholic Church with the intent to divide the Word of the Eternal and His people. The Scripture and the people were thus divided so that today we have the so-called “new covenant bibles” and “new covenant churches” for “the new covenant Christians”. They were divided to such an extent that the Christians do not even bother to read “The Old Testament” any longer. In their minds, the so-called “the old covenant” had been replaced by the better “new covenant”, and the old one is considered obsolete and archaic. Thus, it will be clear to the reader that the perception of division and opposition is expressed by the terms “old testament” and “new testament”.
We will now turn to continue and preclude what we commenced to explain in these articles, which we suggest the reader review before proceeding here. It would be therefore advantageous for the reader to study the matter in its entirety, as is all explained in our commentary in the articles referenced in this study.
Sadly, many Christians are led to believe that their faith is based on “the New Testament” alone, and that they are not under “the old Law”, or the Law is “for the Jews only”. Or, if they at all read “the Old Testament”, they read it from “the New Testament perspectives”, meaning pick and choose what fits the denomination they are in, not as the foundation of their faith. Thus, the array of “the New Testament Christians” varies from those who totally reject the Torah of YHVH, which they call “the Law”, to the more liberal: “for-the-Jews-only”; all depends on the personal conviction and belief, not on what the Bible actually teaches. And if they are asked which book of the Bible is the most important to the Author of the Bible, none of them would even think to point to Leviticus. For more insight into the matter, refer to the articles Which is the Most Important Book in the Bible? and Why Leviticus is the Most Important Book in the Bible.
At any rate, this division of the Bible into “The New Testament” and “The Old Testament” is done for no good reason, but to build a wall of separation between Israel and “the former gentiles” as Shaul (Paul) called the newcomers in the faith. And speaking of Shaul, the Gentiles are also misled to believe that he taught against the Law and his teachings are easy to understand. The present author believes that the apostle is extremely misunderstood especially when it comes to such controversial topics as “the Law is done away with” and “you are not under the Law”. But it is sufficient to say for now that some of his teachings are not easy to understand but twisted by some unlearned in the Scripture for their own destruction. This is what Peter says in his second epistle (2Pe 3:14-17). And while at his time some were teaching false doctrines that Shaul was against the Law of YHVH, in our times many are doing it. (Recommended reading: Paul commended us to observe Sabbath.)
We can wonder what Shaul would do today if he could only hear those many. But we know that he would do what he already did when he returned to Jerusalem from a mission. The brethren told him that there were rumors in Jerusalem that he had taught against the Torah (see Acts 21:18-28). But verse 24 tells us that those rumors were false and plainly states that Shaul walked orderly and kept the Law of YHVH. Because of those false accusations, Shaul and his disciples were so angry upon having heard them that they shaved their heads and bodies and went to the Temple to bring sacrifices. They did it not because they had done any sin that requires sacrifices for forgiveness (as some might interpret it), but because they took what the Torah calls Nazarite vow (see Num 6:13-21). What did they vow of, but to keep on teaching the Torah among the new converts? That incident of false accusations against Paul is just a simple example of misunderstanding Paul, because the Law has been rejected in the first place by the Christians who say Shaul is easy to understand. But they must be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11, who searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what Shaul was teaching could be found there, and Luke said they were more noble than the others who did not check. Sadly, many Christians do not search the Scriptures to see whether what they hear from the pulpit can be found there.
So, can we understand the Bible by reading only the final portion of it?! Hardly! And we have no intention to use any commentary to dwell on such matters, having been warned by what the Torah clearly had stated in the words of Mosheh not to add to or take away a word from the Torah.
Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take away from it, so as to guard the commands of the Eternal your Elohim which I am commanding you. (Deu 4:2)
And similarly, Deu 12:32, Pro 30:6, and Rev 22:18-19. An unprejudiced commentator must admit that ” do not take away from it” is pointed out here, as a warning to those who have subtracted Torah from their bibles. This is what the Torah means when it speaks of no uncertain terms of the prohibition of changing the Word. The Book of Deuteronomy makes explicit what is implicit in the Apostolic Writings. Surely, there is no another angle from which to look at these words of Mosheh. This should suffice any doubter, what Torah wants to impress upon the reader, and therefore preclude the whole matter.
Knowledge known to only a few will die out. If you feel blessed by these teachings of Time of Reckoning Ministry, help spread the word!
May we merit seeing the coming of our Mashiach speedily in our days!
This page contains sacred literature and the Name of the Creator. Please, do not deface, discard, or use the Name in a casual manner.