Stephen Motyer

[alon]

Old Testament in the New Testament, the

The New Testament proclaims its indebtedness to the Old Testament on the very first page. Matthew begins with an Old Testament genealogy that makes sense only to those who are familiar with the people and events to which it refers ( 1:1-17 ). Thus the New Testament signals at the start an engagement with the Old Testament that touches every page and makes great demands on its readers.


Statistics and Styles of Quotations. The New Testament does not simply express its dependence on the Old Testament by quoting it. The fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2, 309 allusions and verbal parallels. The books most used are Psalms (79 quotations, 333 allusions), and Isaiah (66 quotations, 348 allusions). In the Book of Revelation, there are no formal quotations at all, but no fewer than 620 allusions.


As far as the styles of quotation, sometimes the New Testament authors employed techniques current among first-century Jewish teachers. These include midrash, a style of expanded narrative with interpretive comments inserted (e.g., Stephen's speech in Acts 7:2-53 ); pesher, a style found particularly in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which Old Testament texts are connected with specific contemporary events (e.g., Acts 2:16 ; Rom 10:8 ); and gezerah shawa, a style in which two or more verses that use the same word in different parts of the Bible are interpreted in the light of each other (e.g., Heb 4:3-7 ). But generally the New Testament authors show considerable independence in forging wholly new ways of reading the Scriptures, based on their revolutionary experience of Jesus the Christ. For instance, Paul's conversion experience revolutionized his attitude toward the Law. After all, obedience to the Law had led him to persecute the Messiah! Following this, he could not continue to read and interpret the Scriptures as before. "Through the law I died to the law, " he exclaims ( Ga 2:19 ). New styles of exegesis resulted, as we shall see below.


New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: Legitimate?New Testament "Awareness" of the Old Testament. Many New Testament scholars maintain that the New Testament use of the Old Testament works within a closed logical circle: it depends on Christian presuppositions and reads the Old Testament in a distinctly Christian way (even if employing Jewish methods of exegesis), often doing violence to the true meaning of the Old Testament texts employed. Thus, New Testament arguments based on the Old Testament, it is held, would generally be convincing to Christians but hardly to Jews. If this is true, it will be hard to vindicate the New Testament authors from the charge of misusing the Scriptures.


This approach, however, ignores several crucial features of the use of the Old Testament by the New Testament authors. As numerous studies have now shown, these authors generally assumed knowledge of the Old Testament context from which quotations were drawn. They were concerned to communicate with and convince their fellow Jews, not just to nurture a private faith. They did not want simply to jettison their Jewish heritage, but sought genuinely to understand how the "word" spoken through the prophets related to the new "word" now revealed in Christ (this applies even to Paul, whose "not under law, but under grace" [ Rom 6:15 ] looks at first sight like wholesale rejection of the Old Testament ). Finally, they sensitively explored the Old Testament for points at which its very inconsistencies or incompleteness pointed ahead to Jesus as the answer. It is worth giving some examples of this latter point.


Matthew has a special fondness for the messianic prophecies in Isaiah ( 1:23 ; 2:23 ; 4:15-16 ; 8:17 ; 12:17-21 ) and other prophets ( Matthew 2:6 Matthew 2:17 ; 21:5 ; 26:31 ). He clearly regarded these as incomplete without Jesus.


John focuses his presentation of Jesus around the figure of Moses. One of the arguments he deploys is that even the mighty Moses was unable to deliver Israel from her most powerful enemies: death ( 6:49 ; 8:51-53 ) and sin ( John 8:12 John 8:31-34 ). But Jesus does!


Stephen's powerful speech ( Acts 7:2-53 ) turns on the thought that the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 15:13-14paraphrased by Stephen as "you will worship me in this place" (v. 7)has never yet been fulfilled. Stephen traces a history in which all the significant encounters with God occurred away from "this place, " and then points to the ambivalent Old Testament traditions concerning the temple, the "place" above all where God was meant to be worshiped yet a "place" where by definition he cannot dwell (vv. 48-50)!


Paul is naturally drawn to the Old Testament prophecies concerning the blessing of the Gentiles. In connection with these he discerns a tension at the heart of Old Testament theology, between the exclusivism of the covenant and the central covenant confession, the Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" ( Deut 6:4 ). But if God is one, reflects Paul, then he cannot be just the God of Israel, but must treat all his creatures equally. Is he not the God of Gentiles too? ( Rom 3:29-30 ). And in 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 Paul employs an argument about Moses similar to that in John 6: for all his glorious status, the effect of Moses' ministry was condemnation and death.


The author of Hebrews employs this kind of argument frequently. The string of quotations from the psalms in 1:5-13 are applied to Christ because they say things about the human Davidic king that actually could be true of no mere human being. Similarly, Psalm 8:4-6 ( Heb 2:6-8 ) says things about "man" that are not true of any manexcept one. The author also discerns tensions within the Old Testament theology of priesthood. How can priests save people from things to which they themselves are prey ( 5:2-3 ; 7:23 )? But Jesus makes up this deficiency ( 7:25-28 ). And alongside the levitical priesthood another priesthood inexplicably appears in the Old Testament, that of Melchizedek. Similarly, the tabernacle itself harbors contradictions: it was meant to be "the tent of meeting, " and yet it was structured to keep God separate! "The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed" (9:8). And, above all perhaps, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament proclaims its own inadequacy by the requirement of constant repetition ( 10:1-4 ). In passages like Jeremiah 31:31-34 ( 8:8-12 ; 10:15-17 ) and Psalm 40:6-8 ( 10:5-7 ), the author finds, within the Old Testament itself, the expectation of something better.


Do such arguments distort and wrench the Old Testament? Many argue that, even though they arise from Christian faith, they nonetheless show true sensitivity to its inner dynamic. Rabbinic Judaism in the post-New Testament period sought to "complete" the Scriptures by filling out the body of its case law, reinterpreting the sacrificial legislation ethically, and gently downplaying the significance of the messiah (in the main). The New Testament authors, by contrast, focus the whole "story" of the Old Testament onto Jesus, as summarized below, using even its tensions prophetically, to point toward the Christ who is Jesus. Undoubtedly, the New Testament authors believed that their Christian faith enabled them to make better sense of the Old Testament than they ever could as Jews.


Patterns of Use. The New Testament authors both use the Old Testament to explain Jesus and use Jesus to explain the Old Testamenta circular process in which each is illuminated by the other. This circular relationship may be helpfully summarized under the following five headings.


Old Testament Theology Confirmed. The authority of the Old Testament is nowhere questioned in the New Testament, even at the points wheredramaticallythe authority of Jesus is set alongside or even over it (e.g., Matthew 5:17-18 Matthew 5:27-30 ; Mark 7:19 ; Heb 1:1-3 ). Thus, all the great themes of the Old Testament are confirmed, even when they are also developed in various ways: God as the one creator and ruler of the nations, the election of Israel to be the light of salvation for the world, the presence of God with his people, the possibility (and actuality) of revelation through appointed instruments, history as moving toward God's purposed goal for the world.


But the New Testament is no mere restatement of Old Testament themes, because of its vital focus on Jesus. So, for instance, the "wisdom" theme of Proverbs and Job, which had already been considerably developed in the intertestamental period, is used by both John and Paul to help explain Jesus, who is both God and separate from God ( John 1:1-14 ; Php 2:5-11 ).


Old Testament Prophecy Fulfilled. All the New Testament authors (except James) pick up messianic and other prophecies from the Old Testament and locate their fulfillment in Jesus and in the church. Some prophecies are quoted frequentlyespecially those relating to the Davidic Messiah, the Son of Man, the prophet like Moses, and the "Servant" of Isaiah (see examples below). But it is possible to discern particular interests:

•Matthew finds prophecy fulfilled in several individual features of Jesus' ministry (e.g., Matthew 2:6 Matthew 2:17 Matthew 2:23 ; 4:15-16 ; 8:17 ; 10:35-36 ; 12:18-21 ; 13:35 ; 21:5 ).
•Mark focuses particularly on the prophecy of the suffering "servant" in Isaiah 53 ( 10:45 ), which he links to the "Son of Man" prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14.
•Luke adds an interest in the prophecies concerning Israel (e.g., Luke 1:68-73 ; Acts 2:17-21 ; 15:16-18 ; 26:22f ).
•John finds special importance in the prophecy of Deuteronomy 15:15-18, that God will raise up a figure like Moses to speak his word to his people ( 1:45 ; 5:46 ; 6:14 ; 7:40 ; 8:28 ; 12:48-50 ).
•Paul draws especially on the prophecies of the blessing of the Gentiles (e.g., Rom 10:19 ; 15:9-12 ; Gal 3:8-9 ).
•Hebrews makes prominent use of the "new covenant" prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 ( 8:7-13 ; 9:15 ; 10:15-18 ).
•The climax of Revelation draws on the climax of Isaiah: both conclude with the vision of a "new heaven and a new earth." Revelation also draws on Ezekiel's concluding prophecy of the rebuilding of the temple (Eze 40-48).


Old Testament History Reread. Claiming the fulfillment of specific, future-oriented prophecies is only a small element in the prophetic treatment of the Old Testament. Some basic features of the Old Testament "story" become prophetic in the light of Christthat is, they are discovered to have a forward-looking, predictive function because their provisionality is revealed by the appearance of something (someone) much greater and better. The word often used to describe this treatment of the Old Testament is "typology." This technique may be illustrated by the use made of the Exodus, which receives frequent typological treatment.

•Matthew suggestively applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus' return from Egypt ( 2:15 ), highlighting the parallel between Israel, who failed the temptations in the wilderness, and Jesus, who came through them victoriously to form the heart of a renewed people of God.
•John 6 presents the feeding of the five thousand as a glorious repetition of the manna miracle, signaling a greater exodus from sin and death.
•Paul applies the exodus themes of "slavery" and "redemption" spiritually to the work of the cross (e.g., Rom 3:24 ; 8:23 ; Ephesians 1:7 Ephesians 1:14 ), and finds in the wilderness wanderings several typological foreshadowings of Christ and the church ( 1 Cor 10:1-13 ).
•Hebrews develops the theme of the political "rest" enjoyed by Israel in the promised land and applies it typologically to that spiritual sharing of the life of God himself, which is the fruit of the work of Christ for all believers (3:1-4:13).
•First Peter 2:9-10 uses Exodus 19:5-6, a central statement of exodus theology, to make Israel a type of the church.
•Revelation uses the Egyptian plagues typologically ( 8:7-12 ), and applies the numbering of the exodus tribes to the church ( 7:4-8 ).


These examples do scant justice to the extent to which the exodus is used as a "type" of the salvation now to be experienced in Christ. Other Old Testament features treated typologically include the temple, Jerusalem (and the associated ideas of worship, security, and the presence of God), the annual festivals, and kingship. This treatment is symptomatic of a fundamental "rereading" of the history of Israel.


Old Testament People Expanded. One of the most surprising features of the New Testament use of the Old Testament is the way in which the exclusivism of the Old Testament covenant (Israel as the elect) gives way to a new understanding of the people of God in which racial identity plays no role, and Jews and Gentiles have equal membership based just on faith and common possession of the Spirit. The movement from one to the other is a special interest of Luke (see especially Acts 10-11) and of Paul (see especially Romans 9-11), one of the most sustained New Testament engagements with Old Testament texts).


Many Jewish Christians did not want to "reread" the Old Testament understanding of "people" in this way. Paul had to labor hard to defend his conviction that Abraham was the father of all who believe in Christ, not just the father of the Jewish nation ( Rom 4:9-17 ; Gal 3:6-9 ). Certain Old Testament texts were especially important for him, but more important than particular texts was the conviction that the spiritual experience described by texts like Genesis 15:6, Psalm 32:1-2, and Habakkuk 2:4 was exactly that now being enjoyed by his Gentile converts: by believing in Jesus, they were being "justified by faith" just like Abraham and David ( Rom 4:22-25 ).


Old Testament Religion Renewed. The New Testament understanding of the Spirit builds on that of the Old Testament, but is surprising nonetheless. Only prophets and other leaders were anointed with the Spirit in the Old Testament. Hence the shocking nature of Jesus' encouragement actually to ask God for the Holy Spirit ( Luke 11:13 )! So now, possessing the Spirit in common, the whole church occupies a prophetic status, admitted like the prophets of the old covenant into the presence of God himself and is now enabled to share the worship of heaven by the Spirit, and to "worship in spirit and in truth" ( John 4:24 ), rather than through a program of ritual.


The worship of the Old Testament is focused on a physical temple on earth. New Testament worship focuses on its heavenly counterpart by the Spiritthe heavenly temple where God truly dwells and Christ has gone before.


Stephen Motyer


Bibliography. G. L. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey; D. L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of the Theological Relationship between the Old and New Testaments; D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture; B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflectionon the Christian Bible; E. E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament; R. B. Hayes, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul; K. Stendahl, IDB, 1:418-32; P. Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law and Righteousness.

[alon]

Motyer said: The New Testament proclaims its indebtedness to the Old Testament on the very first page. Matthew begins with an Old Testament genealogy that makes sense only to those who are familiar with the people and events to which it refers ( 1:1-17 ). Thus the New Testament signals at the start an engagement with the Old Testament that touches every page and makes great demands on its readers.

I obviously agree with this statement. The “New Tesatament” only makes sense and only can be understood if the reader is well grounded in the TNK. Furthermore, the ‘NT’ must agree with the TNK, or it is invalid. There is nothing ‘new’ in the “New Testament.” We as Meshiachim hold to be the base against which ALL scripture must be compared. It is the benchmark for determining what is truth. If it disagrees with , it is false. And one false statement means the entire document is invalid; it is not from God.

2 Timothy 3:15-16 (ESV) and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

The only sacred writings they had when this was written were the TNK. (note: there were others which were not ‘cannonized,’ such as the book of Judith and the Mishna, but there was no “New Testament” which if we just THINK about it is precisely what was being written in this letter!) So I think what he means when he says “the New Testament signals at the start an engagement with the Old Testament that touches every page and makes great demands on its readers” is that we are obliged to understand the “Old” BEFORE we try to understand the “New!” And we are then to interpret the New based on what is said in the Old. And I agree. Obviously.

Motyer said: Statistics and Styles of Quotations. The New Testament does not simply express its dependence on the Old Testament by quoting it. The fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2, 309 allusions and verbal parallels. The books most used are Psalms (79 quotations, 333 allusions), and Isaiah (66 quotations, 348 allusions). In the Book of Revelation, there are no formal quotations at all, but no fewer than 620 allusions.

And if you don’t understand the TNK, especially Daniel, you will NEVER understand Revelations. But more than this, the entire Bible is like a tapestry, with every thread touching on all others at some point. One commentator put it this way: “To study Revelation without first understanding Genesis is to rob Revelation of much of its meaning and its power, for it is impossible to understand many of its key perspectives apart from the Genesis narrative.” Everything in Genesis has a counterpoint in Revelation. I can’t go through them all, but let’s look at the first act of creation of our world:

Genesis 1:1-5 (ESV) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Revelation 21:23-25 (ESV) And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there.

So we go from darkness to creation of light and separation of the two, then to always light in the end. As the Baptists would say, “That’ll preach!” How many lessons are so obviously in this transition that would be lost if we read Revelation 1 completely apart from ? From chaos and darkness to a time of separation, and then to a new time where we all walk in the light of God’s Word; the lessons there are numerous.

Motyer said: As far as the styles of quotation, sometimes the New Testament authors employed techniques current among first-century Jewish teachers. These include midrash, a style of expanded narrative with interpretive comments inserted (e.g., Stephen's speech in Acts 7:2-53 ); pesher, a style found particularly in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which Old Testament texts are connected with specific contemporary events (e.g., Acts 2:16 ; Rom 10:8 ); and gezerah shawa, a style in which two or more verses that use the same word in different parts of the Bible are interpreted in the light of each other (e.g., Heb 4:3-7 ).

As he says, the styles mentioned “include,” and by implication are not limited to what were used by the authors of the Kethuvai Shaliachim (apostolic writings). The so called “New Testament” was written by Jews, to Jews, and for Jews. What about Gentiles who wanted to place their trust in Yeshua? They converted to Judaism! There was no “church” in the first century. Believers were Jews and worshiped in synagogues; and Gentiles converted and worshiped with them. The “church” was a later development, and by the writings of its’ founding fathers was an entirely pagan religion. And it still is. These things have been discussed at length on this forum, so I won’t go into them again here.

Motyer said: But generally the New Testament authors show considerable independence in forging wholly new ways of reading the Scriptures, based on their revolutionary experience of Jesus the Christ. For instance, Paul's conversion experience revolutionized his attitude toward the Law. After all, obedience to the Law had led him to persecute the Messiah! Following this, he could not continue to read and interpret the Scriptures as before. "Through the law I died to the law, " he exclaims ( Ga 2:19 ). New styles of exegesis resulted, as we shall see below.

Here is where we start to disagree. The only “new ways of reading the Scriptures” was in the “church” which formed after the apostles. I have a class syllabus which was given to me by a seminary student which outlines how Christianity interprets scripture. Basically the New Testament is first interpreted, then they go back and make the Old Testament fit their new interpretation. What they can’t make fit, they declare nullified. But more than that, they take scripture out of context and build false doctrines based on this “understanding.” They especially like the Pauline discourses, because it is too easy to misinterpret Rav Sha’ul if one doesn’t understand first century Judaism:

2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV) And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

So it is not surprising the author picks Paul to prove his point. But first, let’s look at this in context to try to get a better idea what Rav Sh’ul is saying:

Galatians 2:15-21 (ESV) 15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified [counted righteous] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness [justification] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

This is certainly one of those difficult passages from Sh’ul. How can he be dead to the law through the law? Does Rav Sh’ul thnk the law is a bad thing?

Romans 7:12 (ESV) So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Holy, righteous, and good- then why would Paul die to the law? And how would “Paul's conversion experience revolutionized his attitude toward the Law?” What did Yeshua, his Savior, think about the law? Maybe He didn’t like it and that is why Paul didn’t like it either:

Matthew 5:18 (ESV) For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

No, it doesn’t sound like Yeshua disliked the Law, since He wasn’t changing it. In fact, He is saying here it still applies! Here’s the thing; if anything in the B’rit Chadasha contradicts , either it’s:
a. an interpolation
b. a mistranslation
c. or we misunderstand

In Gal 2:19 we misunderstand. We must first understand that in the 1st Cen. there was no word for “legalism”, “legalist”, or “legalistic” in either Hebrew or Greek. So the only word Sh’ul had to work with was “law.” We assume it says the law is bad because we have these words and understand the concepts which contrast the Law proper and legalism. Rav Sh’ul knew the law was good, but he saw this new doctrine of “legalism,” the ultra-strict observance of the law as a basis for salvation, to be the most dangerous thing for Jews and proselytes to come along since Chava (Eve) listened to the serpent! The reason this all sounds so convoluted is we don’t think about Rav S trying to write against legalism when the only term he had was “law.”

Rav Sh’ul spent most of his ministry fighting against the legalists and Judaizers, usually the same people, who were trying to tell new converts they had to convert to Judaism and keep all of before they could be saved. Jews knew no one ever kept all of , so they didn’t go to synagogues where there were a lot of Nots'rim and teach this. They went where there were a lot of new proselytes; where they could gain acceptance. Think about how you would feel if a Jew were to come and give you instruction in Judaism. Since all of the active members here are Gentile converts to Messianic Judaism, we’d probably take most of what he said at face value. But if he taught us, say, the Amidah, and left in the verse conveying a curse on Messianics, we’d be unintentionally condemning ourselves!

Acts 15:1-2 (ESV) But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

Jews NEVER taught that salvation was dependent on first obeying all the Law. Was Rachav required to obey before she saved the two spies; or before she was saved from the destruction of Yericho? No, she placed her trust in El Elohe Yisro’el and was saved! And that is how it has always been done, and is done even now. Obedience is a result of salvation, not the cause of salvation. Rachav didn’t even get instruction in before she joined herself with God’s people. But she knew of the works of God concerning His people, and she believed in and trusted Him. And that was enough.

Today however I have heard from missionaries in Israel who say many of the secular Jews they’ve interviewed tell them they cannot keep the law in its’ entirety, so they live outside of it. Christians of course say that because no one can keep the law perfectly, Christ had to die to nullify it for us. Well yippie-skip!

If God told me that …

So it would appear as if Rav Sh’ul was correct in seeing this doctrine of legalism as the greatest threat to all believers in YHVH El Elyon- The Lord, the Most High God. It is also one of the things most responsible for separating the Jew and the Christian, as both views are diametrically opposed to each other, and both get this wrong. And while the Jew may see obedience to as a path to salvation, I know of no sect which teaches absolute, perfect obedience is the requirement for salvation, even today. We just are at the end of the fall feasts right now, and so have seen that every year Jews search their souls and lives and repent. Repent of what if they thought they were leading perfect lives? And most Christians could do with a little soul-searching and a LOT of repentance!

The “law” is not a prerequisite for salvation. And we do not have to keep the law perfectly to maintain our salvation. We do have to try to observe , which can be said to be the 1st five books or it can refer to the entire Bible. One book, one author, one message; Genesis to Revelation. Obedience to any part of the book is obedience to all the books, since they cannot contradict.

Hebrews 13:8 (ESV) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

That said, we can be assured that Yeshua did NOT create a new religion. He did NOT nullify any part of the ‘old’ religion. And He did NOT excuse us from the responsibility to live according to his !

Malachi 3:6a (ESV) “For I the Lord do not change;

Rav Sh’ul said in a discourse about worshiping Elohim and not elohims:

1 Corinthians 10:16-18 (ESV) The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?

Sounds same-same to me. When we as Meshiachim partake in the Pesach seder do we not look back to Yeshua? Did not the Jews before the time of Yeshua look forward, trusting Elohim to send a messiah? Sadly, today most still look forward, rejecting Yeshua as HaMoshiach. Their trust is now misplaced, due in large part to this evil doctrine of legalism. And we cannot reach them due in large part to our misunderstanding of the doctrine as well as how we misapply it. Rav Sh’ul may be difficult to understand, but I do understand this: he was always right! And he always agreed with .

Dan C

[alon]

Galatians 2:15-21 (ESV) 15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified [counted righteous] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness [justification] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

So let’s dissect this passage to try and get a better understanding:

Galatians 2:15-16 (ESV) We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified [counted righteous] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Note it says they are Jews. Not “Christians,” and not “Gentile sinners.” In that day (as now- remember God does not change in either the TNK or the NT); but then it was understood you were either a Gentile, which is to say a sinner, or you were a Jew (or a proselyte to Judaism, the sect of the Nots'rim).

It also says these Jews knew they were not counted righteous due to their own goodness or their own efforts to keep the law. It was their “faith,” which can be more accurately rendered as “trust.”

G4102 Πίστις pistis pis'-tis From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

Matthew 9:27-29 (ESV) And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.” When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.” Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.”

Clearly here the word “faith” means they trusted in Yeshua, and that is why they were healed. They called Him "Son of David," which means they believed in Him as the Messiah; the Annointed One of God. And whenever Yeshua healed someone physically they were spiritually healed as well. They were saved, by grace and through their faith and trust in Him:

Ephesians 2:8 (ESV) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

So they, as Jews, knew no one was saved by works. They were reliant on Yeshua as Yeshua Hu Adon- Yeshua (which/who) is Lord (1 Cor 12:3) and Se Ha Elohim- the Lamb of God “who takes away the sin of the world”:

John 1:29 (ESV) The next day he [Yochanon] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Only Elohim Shophtim Ba’aretz- God Who Judges in the Earth can forgive, or take away sins:

Luke 5:20-21 (ESV) And when he saw their faith, he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Matthew 9:2-7 (ESV) And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing [perceiving] their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home.

[note: before we said when Yeshua healed physically He also healed spiritually- it was all a matter of placing their trust in Him as HaMoshiach and as God]

Mark 2:7c (ESV) “… Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Whenever Yeshua forgave sin, the unbelievers among the religious leadership (and this was nowhere near all of the leadership) accused Yeshua of blasphemy. They knew only God can forgive sins, so for Yeshua to forgive sins would mean that He is God. In their disbelief, that Yeshua forgave sins made Him a blasphemer. He was, after all, just a man to them.

Galatians 2:17-18 (ESV) But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.

If we now try to earn our salvation by obedience to the law, we would make Yeshua a participant in our sins. We would be saying His work on earth and on the cross were not enough. It would mean the religious leaders were right, He can’t forgive; not without our help. And if He needs our help, that makes us His equal; and it means that our sins are His not just because He willingly took the penalty for us, but because WE put them on Him!  But we know that all that is required of us is trust in Yeshua and repentance; a turning ourselves back to a time when Elohim walked with man in the Garden. It is by His unmerited favor that we are saved. We have the choice of Adam and Chava- do we walk with God or listen to the serpent?

Rav Sh’ul was rather emphatic in saying which should be our choice: “Certainly not!” We do NOT choose to make Yeshua complicent in our sins by listening to a sorry snake!

Galatians 2:21 (ESV) I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness [justification] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

If we were justified by our works, why would we need a Goel- a redeemer, kinsman redeemer?

Galatians 2:19-20 (ESV) For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

And this is the crux of the difficult passage. If this were not here to throw us into a tail-spin, I don’t think we’d have so much trouble with the whole thing. Looking at it objectively, it is because we have and we know what is right and what is wrong that we can trust in Yeshua to redeem us when we’ve done wrong and repented. Without some standard, how can we know good from evil? That standard is , sometimes called the “Law.” More accurately, it is Hashem’s instructions to us for holy living.

If we live in , we live in trust of Yeshua and His redemptive act at Calvary. But without there is no good or evil- no standard by which we have knowledge of how to act. Without , there is no reason for a Goel either. He is saying what we so often say here on the forum: obedience is a result of salvation, not the reason for salvation.

Dan C

[alon]

Motyer said: New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: Legitimate?New Testament "Awareness" of the Old Testament. Many New Testament scholars maintain that the New Testament use of the Old Testament works within a closed logical circle: it depends on Christian presuppositions and reads the Old Testament in a distinctly Christian way (even if employing Jewish methods of exegesis), often doing violence to the true meaning of the Old Testament texts employed. Thus, New Testament arguments based on the Old Testament, it is held, would generally be convincing to Christians but hardly to Jews. If this is true, it will be hard to vindicate the New Testament authors from the charge of misusing the Scriptures.

So what is this “closed logical circle?” It is the logical fallacy of a circular argument- the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. It is a type of reasoning wherein the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. Logical Form: X is true because of Y. Y is true because of X. Remember earlier I said I was given a seminary course syllabus where the students were told to do exactly that. They were to interpret the New Testament according to their own Christian dogma, then interpret the Old Testament according to what is in their new understanding. No ‘new’ information was allowed, so Old writings which could not be made to conform to their new religion were declared null and void; or in Christian parlance, it was “nailed to the Cross.”

Therefore I would have to agree with those scholars who say “it depends on Christian presuppositions and reads the Old Testament in a distinctly Christian way.” And they are correct that they won’t convince many Jews of this interpretation. Heck-fire, I’m not convinced, and I was raised with it!

Motyer said: This approach, however, ignores several crucial features of the use of the Old Testament by the New Testament authors. As numerous studies have now shown, these authors generally assumed knowledge of the Old Testament context from which quotations were drawn. They were concerned to communicate with and convince their fellow Jews, not just to nurture a private faith. They did not want simply to jettison their Jewish heritage, but sought genuinely to understand how the "word" spoken through the prophets related to the new "word" now revealed in Christ (this applies even to Paul, whose "not under law, but under grace" [ Rom 6:15 ] looks at first sight like wholesale rejection of the Old Testament ).

I can agree with what is said in this paragraph, until he says the New Testament writers “sought genuinely to understand how the "word" spoken through the prophets related to the new "word" now revealed in Christ.” There was no ‘new word.’ Yeshua taught mainly from the TNK and the Mishna, which was the Jewish Oral Tradition explaining and commenting on . His methods of teaching were Jewish, and He NEVER spoke a single word against . He lived, worshiped, died and rose again a observant Jew. Oddly enough, many Christians would agree with what I just said; then they'll turn right around and say He nailed the Law to the Cross!

Neither did Rav Sh’ul abandon :

Romans 7:22 (ESV) For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,

Romans 3:31 (ESV) Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

1 Timothy 1:8 (ESV) Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully,

Acts 25:8 (ESV) Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.”

Acts 28:17 (ESV) After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews, and when they had gathered, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Motyer said: Finally, they sensitively explored the Old Testament for points at which its very inconsistencies or incompleteness pointed ahead to Jesus as the answer. It is worth giving some examples of this latter point.

There are some inconsistencies in the Old Testament. There is no use in denying it. However it is also true that overwhelmingly, most of the apparent inconsistencies are easily explainable and are not inconsistencies at all. The Christian tends to see inconsistencies in the TNK because their own base document, the New Testament in both its’ several Greek interpretations and the later English interpolations have so many inconsistencies as to make the entire Word look, well, inconsistent! Add to this their habit of pulling verses out of context and creating false doctrines based even on their own New Testament and these guys are downright confused! It is no wonder most churchgoers just give up and allow the pastor to interpret for them.

But let’s look at their examples:

Motyer said: Matthew has a special fondness for the messianic prophecies in Isaiah ( 1:23 ; 2:23 ; 4:15-16 ; 8:17 ; 12:17-21 ) and other prophets ( Matthew 2:6 Matthew 2:17 ; 21:5 ; 26:31 ). He clearly regarded these as incomplete without Jesus.

There is nothing confusing about this; of course these prophecies were incomplete until Yeshua came! They were Messianic prophecies! These prophecies were fulfilled in the birth of Yeshua HaMoshiach, without which they would have been false.

Motyer said: John focuses his presentation of Jesus around the figure of Moses. One of the arguments he deploys is that even the mighty Moses was unable to deliver Israel from her most powerful enemies: death ( 6:49 ; 8:51-53 ) and sin ( John 8:12 John 8:31-34 ). But Jesus does!

OK …

Motyer said: Stephen's powerful speech ( Acts 7:2-53 ) turns on the thought that the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 15:13-14paraphrased by Stephen as "you will worship me in this place" (v. 7)has never yet been fulfilled. Stephen traces a history in which all the significant encounters with God occurred away from "this place, " and then points to the ambivalent Old Testament traditions concerning the temple, the "place" above all where God was meant to be worshiped yet a "place" where by definition he cannot dwell (vv. 48-50)!

I see his point, but he would have better said the prophecy is not yet completely fulfilled; or perhaps “finally” fulfilled. Prophecy can refer to more than one time, place or event. The Hebrews certainly did worship their God “in this place.” And I would say that was a recurring significant event. Nor do I think Stephen’s rather long recital of Jewish history was meant to point out that many things happened away from either the Mishkan or the Temple or from God’s Holy Mountain or from Yerushalayim. Of course many things id happen at other places! Rather I think the main point is the history of the Hebrew people is the history of Elohim’s interaction with the world! Salvation always was meant to come through the Jews:

John 4:22 (ESV) You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

Dan C

[alon]

Motyer said: Paul is naturally drawn to the Old Testament prophecies concerning the blessing of the Gentiles. In connection with these he discerns a tension at the heart of Old Testament theology, between the exclusivism of the covenant and the central covenant confession, the Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" ( Deut 6:4 ). But if God is one, reflects Paul, then he cannot be just the God of Israel, but must treat all his creatures equally. Is he not the God of Gentiles too? ( Rom 3:29-30 ). And in 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 Paul employs an argument about Moses similar to that in John 6: for all his glorious status, the effect of Moses' ministry was condemnation and death.

Here Motyer’s Christian thinking gets in his way. Paul doesn’t see any tension between the exclusivism of the covenant and the Shema. Reading the referenced passages in context clearly points this out if read without the scales of Christian dogma clouding our understanding:

Romans 3:27-31 (ESV) 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

If we read just from verse 29, as Christian theology tends to do, then we might think Paul is struggling a bit, then coming to the conclusion God is now the God of the Gentiles. But read in context, this is part of a persuasive argument saying God IS and always has been the God of Jew and Gentile alike! And this was all part of a larger argument against the Judaizers who said one must convert to Judaism before being saved. Paul is arguing for salvation by faith alone, not by being or becoming Jewish. This is how salvation had always been. Note he didn’t argue that we shouldn’t become Jews; proselytes to Messianic Judaism (the Nots’rim). It’s just that salvation is not dependent on this. In fact, salvation is the first step toward becoming Messianic, not the other way around.

2 Corinthians 3:7-11 (ESV) 7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

Here Christians say Paul is speaking of the Law vs. New Testament grace; the old vs. the new covenants. However nowhere does it say either of these things. There has always been grace: it is not just a NT phenomenon, as Christianity teaches. And there is no new covenant, only a renewed covenant. Big difference there. The law of Moshe is compared here by Sh’ul to the “ministry of death” and the “ministry of condemnation.” What we must remember is that the law itself neither killed nor condemned anyone. It is transgression of the law, our own sins, which bring about the sentence of death, our own condemnation. And the glory of Moshe did come to an end, but that is not to say that the Mitzvoth are nullified. Just that there is a greater glory which will not die; a glory that leads to eternal life! The “Law” shows us the way, but the Ruach HaKodesh helps us to achieve that way.

Remember too this must be read in context with the entire Bible. And even in the New Testament, it is said “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom 6:23). A much more concise way of saying the same thing. So we see that the ministry of Moshe was not one of “condemnation and death,” but rather a shadow of things to come. And be assured, as the quote from Romans shows us, even now when we have a more complete revelation we can still chose death, and our choice will be honored. The penalty for breaking God’s laws is still the same.

Motyer said: The author of Hebrews employs this kind of argument frequently. The string of quotations from the psalms in 1:5-13 are applied to Christ because they say things about the human Davidic king that actually could be true of no mere human being. Similarly, Psalm 8:4-6 ( Heb 2:6-8 ) says things about "man" that are not true of any man except one.

I am unclear what is meant here, as Psalm 1 only goes to verse six. And nothing is said there about the Davidic King:

Psalm 1:5-6 (JPS) Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous For the LORD regardeth the way of the righteous; but the way of the wicked shall perish.

This speaks of reward and punishment for man based on whether he is deemed righteous. I see nothing regarding the Davidic King in that entire chapter, especially in the end.

Psalm 8:3 (JPS) When I behold Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast established; What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that Thou thinkest of him Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under His feet:

In this text I actually see the first Adam contrasted with Yeshua, who is said by Bible scholars to be the Second Adam. All of these things were given to the first Adam, who had dominion in the earth, except for one tree. Therefore they could be said of him. He sinned when he partook of the fruit of that tree, and dominion fell to ha’satan. Yeshua bought back the world with His blood, and will one day come to reclaim it; and at that time He, the Second Adam will have total dominion over all the earth. The first Adam had dominion as a trust, given him by this same Yeshua who will retake what is His by both creation and by purchase, made necessary by its’ loss by His trustee.

Motyer said: The author also discerns tensions within the Old Testament theology of priesthood. How can priests save people from things to which they themselves are prey ( 5:2-3 ; 7:23 )? But Jesus makes up this deficiency ( 7:25-28 ). And alongside the levitical priesthood another priesthood inexplicably appears in the Old Testament, that of Melchizedek. Similarly, the tabernacle itself harbors contradictions: it was meant to be "the tent of meeting, " and yet it was structured to keep God separate! "The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed" (9:8). And, above all perhaps, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament proclaims its own inadequacy by the requirement of constant repetition ( 10:1-4 ). In passages like Jeremiah 31:31-34 ( 8:8-12 ; 10:15-17 ) and Psalm 40:6-8 ( 10:5-7 ), the author finds, within the Old Testament itself, the expectation of something better.

His chapter references are missing, and using Psalms (the last ch. Ref. given) makes no sense at all. So I will have to just take what he says on its’ face and comment on that basis. Priests minister from God to man. No Jew ever thought that a priest could forgive sins. That is paganism, as seen in Catholic doctrines of the confessional and last rites, etc. Priests performed rituals which covered sins temporarily:

Leviticus 4:31 (ESV) And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.

So the priest made the offering as an atonement on behalf of the one presenting it, and Hashem forgave the man his sins. Even then, forgiveness and that temporary covering was dependent on the heart condition of the one asking the priest to sacrifice on his behalf. Salvation has always been the same, even from the time of Job (probably the oldest book in the Bible):

Job 19:25 (ESV) For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.

So from the most ancient of times men knew of Elohim and that He would send a Redeemer. Like Avraham, Job put his trust in Elohim and was saved:

Romans 4:3 (ESV) For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

Genesis 15:6 (ESV) And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

If salvation is the same, it stands to reason there is no conflict or tension between Old and New Testament theology on this subject. The only conflict is in the Christian ideas regarding how God dealt with the Jews. See, if He deals with the Old Testament Jew the same as the New Testament Christian, why would there be a need to replace the Jews as His chosen with Gentile Christians who now believe THEY are the chosen ones?

Melchizedek is a combination of the Hebrew words melek and tsedek. Melek means 'king' and tsedek means 'righteousness'- therefore he was the king of righteousness. He appears in Gen. 14 as the king of Salem (shalom), or peace. Scholars have argued whether this was a name or a title, whether he was man or God (a theophany), and whether he was the king of Yerushalayim. It doesn’t matter. What is evident is that typologically Melchitzedek represents all these things, and that he blesses Avraham and enters into covenant with him. Also Avraham acknowleged the authority of Melchitzedek, paying him a tithe of what had just been taken as booty. So this typology is extremely prophetic. It also shows an awareness of these principles long before was given to Moshe and the nation at Sinai. There was, it would seem, nothing “new” in the “Old Testament” either!

I see no contradiction in the purpose of the Mishkan (and later the Temple) either. It separated the Hebrews from Elohim, all except the Cohen hagadol once a year, so they would not be destroyed. This was a result of their sin of not trusting their Elohim while Moshe was on Mount Sinai forty days. Since Moshe was their conduit to the divine, and they thought they’d lost him, they built an idol with which to summon His presence. This they had been forbidden to do. They were intended to be a nation of priests, but they’d lost that privilege through a lack of trust.

Exodus 19:6 (ESV) and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

But now the Aaronic priesthood was established instead:

Exodus 28:1 (ESV) “Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests—Aaron and Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.

But since the Cohen Hagadol was a type of Yeshua, I still fail to see any conflict:

Hebrews 4:15 (ESV) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

That all other cohanim fell to temptation and sinned only places emphasis on the One that did not sin, Yeshua HaMoshiach.

Dan C 

[alon]

And you all do know you can comment on anything I've said; or on anything that has been covered- right? 

Just checkin' ...

Dan C

[alon]

Motyer said: Do such arguments distort and wrench the Old Testament? Many argue that, even though they arise from Christian faith, they nonetheless show true sensitivity to its inner dynamic. Rabbinic Judaism in the post-New Testament period sought to "complete" the Scriptures by filling out the body of its case law, reinterpreting the sacrificial legislation ethically, and gently downplaying the significance of the messiah (in the main). The New Testament authors, by contrast, focus the whole "story" of the Old Testament onto Jesus, as summarized below, using even its tensions prophetically, to point toward the Christ who is Jesus. Undoubtedly, the New Testament authors believed that their Christian faith enabled them to make better sense of the Old Testament than they ever could as Jews.

Here again, Motyer’s dogmatic Christian views get in his way. How can someone get so close to the truth, seeing things in scripture that few Christians ever do; yet fall back into thought processes which are so contrary to what he has just observed? The so called “New Testament” did not arise from “Christian” faith. There was no Christian faith until the second and third centuries. The earliest church fathers were not even born until the mid to late first century. And their doctrines were not germinated until very late in the first century onward. However the church has so successfully hijacked the New Testament that its’ Jewishness is completely overlooked, or worse denied. And that is the beginning of Motyer’s problem. He never got his history straight. But it’s in the Bible. Where did Yeshua worship according to scripture?

John 7:14 (ESV) About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching.

Matthew 4:23 (ESV) And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

How about the shaliachim (apostles)?

Acts 3:1 (ESV) Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.

The apostles were recorded as keeping the hours of liturgical prayers several times, as here:

Acts 10:9 (ESV) The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.

They kept the Feasts of the LORD:

Acts 20:16 (ESV) For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

Rav Sh’ul (Paul) regularly worshiped in synagogues and kept Shabbat:

Acts 17:1-2 (ESV) Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

But did they go to church? “Church” is how the Greek word "ecclesia" is translated in most English Bibles. It occurs in the New Testament approximately 115 times, plus many more in other grammatical forms of ecclasia. And in every instance in the King James Version it is wrongly translated as "church" except for three. Those three exceptions are Acts 19:32, 39, 41. Those times the translators rendered it "assembly" instead of "church." And “assembly” is the correct translation. Ecclesia could, in fact, refer to any assembly, religious or secular.

The term appears in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, but is never translated into English as “church” there. It is always rendered as assembly, synagogue or congregation by the same translators who render it as church in their New Testament. The only reason for this discrepancy is to create a division in peoples minds; as they have successfully done in Motyers’. And to drive this misconception home, they are consistant in the New Testament mistranslation of Jewish assemblies, as here:

Acts 7:37-38 (ESV) This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.’ This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.

“The congregation in the wilderness;” read that JEWS gathered in the wilderness. Not Christians, nor brethren. But a people completely apart from those of the New Testament. So in their compartmentalized view, Paul lied when he said:

Acts 23:6 (KJV) But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

“I am a Pharisee,” with all that implies. He was still a Jew. And if you search scripture, you will never find anything saying Rav Sh’ul “converted” to anything, especially Christianity! Bible Gateway, in a commentary titled “Paul's Conversion” says “The most important event in human history apart from the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the conversion to Christianity of Saul of Tarsus. If Saul had remained a Jewish rabbi, we would be missing thirteen of twenty-seven books of the New Testament and Christianity's early major expansion to the Gentiles.” And yet the account of Yeshua revealing Himself to Rav Sh’ul and his acceptance of Yeshua as HaMoshiach in Acts 9 never uses the word “conversion” and never describes a conversion from Judaism to anything. He simply accepted the living Yeshua Who was revealed to him. But most Bibles in their headings and notes (which are NOT scripture) say Sh’ul was converted. And people tend to believe what they read; especially when they are already predisposed to believe it since it is in their Bible.

Motyer said: Patterns of Use. The New Testament authors both use the Old Testament to explain Jesus and use Jesus to explain the Old Testamenta circular process in which each is illuminated by the other. This circular relationship may be helpfully summarized under the following five headings.

And we will look at each of these five headings. But in order to understand Motyer’s interpretations we must first understand the compartmentalized nature of his Christian thought patterns. They have to compartmentalize most of their theology, because it is so contradictory. You simply cannot have Yeshua and the apostles going to synagogue regularly and keeping Shabbat and the feasts, and then turn around and separate them from their Jewishness, saying they are “church people” and a part of this new religion called Christianity- unless you compartmentalize. Never place the two in the same teaching, and those who learn this well will, like Motyer, can then insert this view into even the most insightful interpretations of scripture and not see the problem.

This is how he can characterize the New Testament and its’ authors as Jewish, then in the same document turn around and say “Undoubtedly, the New Testament authors believed that their Christian faith enabled them to make better sense of the Old Testament than they ever could as Jews.” They were still Jews; still thought like Jews, worshiped as Jews, and kept as Jews do. Not one place does scripture record Yeshua or His apostles breaking . English interpretations may do so, but a closer look will always reveal that they did not. And while we now have a more complete understanding of many things said in the Old Testament, nowhere does the New Testament contradict or nullify the Old. One book, One author, one message- Genesis to Revelation. And neither the author nor His book nor His message ever changes.

Dan C

[alon]

Motyer said: Old Testament Theology Confirmed. The authority of the Old Testament is nowhere questioned in the New Testament, even at the points where dramatically the authority of Jesus is set alongside or even over it (e.g., Matthew 5:17-18 Matthew 5:27-30 ; Mark 7:19 ; Heb 1:1-3 ). Thus, all the great themes of the Old Testament are confirmed, even when they are also developed in various ways: God as the one creator and ruler of the nations, the election of Israel to be the light of salvation for the world, the presence of God with his people, the possibility (and actuality) of revelation through appointed instruments, history as moving toward God's purposed goal for the world.

Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Matthew 5:27-30 (ESV) “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Mark 7:19 (ESV) since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” [Greek- goes into the latrine] (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Note: the part in parenthesis is an interpolation based on dogma- the Greek simply says it is purged, as in made excrement.

Hebrews 1:1-3 (ESV) Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

These scriptures can be said to be placed alongside the Old Testament teachings. In fact, all of these can be found in the Mishna. And like all Mishnaic teachers, Yeshua simply better explained . But to say they were placed over the TNK implies changes were made to it. This never happened. And Motyer almost says as much, as he then returns to his insightful commentary saying “Thus, all the great themes of the Old Testament are confirmed, even when they are also developed in various ways: God as the one creator and ruler of the nations, the election of Israel to be the light of salvation for the world, the presence of God with his people, the possibility (and actuality) of revelation through appointed instruments, history as moving toward God's purposed goal for the world.” So close to being Messianic, and yet there is always that high dogmatic wall so few are able to get over.

Motyer said: But the New Testament is no mere restatement of Old Testament themes, because of its vital focus on Jesus. So, for instance, the "wisdom" theme of Proverbs and Job, which had already been considerably developed in the intertestamental period, is used by both John and Paul to help explain Jesus, who is both God and separate from God ( John 1:1-14 ; Php 2:5-11 ).

All true except the Trinitarian end “both God and separate from God.” Yeshua was God, the essence of who was made in human form. He is not a separate being; part of a Trinity. Look at the end of Motyer’s first scriptural reference:

John 1:14 (ESV) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son [Or only One, or unique One] from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Note the transliterated Trinitarian view inserted in scripture. Even their own footnotes [in brackets] give the lie to what the translators did here. It is no wonder Christians are so brainwashed and confused. Even the Word is mutilated to skew their view of God Himself!

It is in a way painful to read someone like Motyer, whose insights get so close to the truth, but always there are the lies first imagined by the church fathers centuries ago and passed down to and believed by even evangelical protestants today: people who pride themselves as having thrown off the yoke of Catholic thinking, yet who are so mired in it everything they believe and do is tainted by it. That is not to say we cannot learn from people like Motyer. On the contrary, there is a lot of good teaching here. But we must learn to use discernment when reading things like this; because those little snippets of lies he unwittingly inserts into his teaching can e the roots of our downfall. And like here, they can be very subtle. And  makes them dangerous, because we can read and internalize these things without even realizing it. And as we see in the above example this holds true when reading our Bibles as well. Remember that what you have is a translation, not the pure word of Elohim. And all translators have their biases.

Dan C

[alon]

Motyer said: Old Testament Prophecy Fulfilled. All the New Testament authors (except James) pick up messianic and other prophecies from the Old Testament and locate their fulfillment in Jesus and in the church. Some prophecies are quoted frequently, especially those relating to the Davidic Messiah, the Son of Man, the prophet like Moses, and the "Servant" of Isaiah (see examples below). But it is possible to discern particular interests:

•Matthew finds prophecy fulfilled in several individual features of Jesus' ministry (e.g., Matthew 2:6 Matthew 2:17 Matthew 2:23 ; 4:15-16 ; 8:17 ; 10:35-36 ; 12:18-21 ; 13:35 ; 21:5 ).
•Mark focuses particularly on the prophecy of the suffering "servant" in Isaiah 53 ( 10:45 ), which he links to the "Son of Man" prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14.
•Luke adds an interest in the prophecies concerning Israel (e.g., Luke 1:68-73 ; Acts 2:17-21 ; 15:16-18 ; 26:22f ).
•John finds special importance in the prophecy of Deuteronomy 15:15-18, that God will raise up a figure like Moses to speak his word to his people ( 1:45 ; 5:46 ; 6:14 ; 7:40 ; 8:28 ; 12:48-50 ).
•Paul draws especially on the prophecies of the blessing of the Gentiles (e.g., Rom 10:19 ; 15:9-12 ; Gal 3:8-9 ).
•Hebrews makes prominent use of the "new covenant" prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 ( 8:7-13 ; 9:15 ; 10:15-18 ).
•The climax of Revelation draws on the climax of Isaiah: both conclude with the vision of a "new heaven and a new earth." Revelation also draws on Ezekiel's concluding prophecy of the rebuilding of the temple (Eze 40-48).

All true, but there are a few points. First off, the term “chadash” translated “new” in Jer 31:31 can also be rendered “renewed.” Second, if we read this prophecy in context, it clearly is for the Jewish people (which would include us proselytes):

Jeremiah 31:31-34 (ESV) 31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

And third, this is a prophecy of the Olam Haba, the world to come. To write something on your heart is a Jewish idiom for memorization. How many can quote the “Law” from memory? How many can even quote the mitzvoth from memory? How about only those mitzvoth which apply to us, with no Temple and living outside Israel? I thought not. And this means it does not refer to the “just do whatever you feel is right” doctrine of Christianity.

I agree with Motyer that all these and more in the TNK point to Yeshua as Israel’s Messiah. But here we have this one little lie, drilled into most of us since Sunday School ceased to be about playing in the nursery. And if we let it slide past, it skews our perception of all the rest. One of the things Jews expected the Messiah to do was to better explain , which is what Yeshua did. If (the Law) was written on our hearts at His coming, or even after His resurrection, why would he have needed to do that? Salvation history could then have been fulfilled by allowing Herod to find Yeshua as an infant and, in an act of total domination having Him killed on the alter in the Temple. But Yeshua HaMoshiach was both our perfect example and our teacher; the one who better explained to us. And by the way, if He explained to us, doesn’t it stand to reason He wanted us to keep it?

Dan C

[alon]

Motyer said: Old Testament History Reread. Claiming the fulfillment of specific, future-oriented prophecies is only a small element in the prophetic treatment of the Old Testament. Some basic features of the Old Testament "story" become prophetic in the light of Christ; that is, they are discovered to have a forward-looking, predictive function because their provisionality is revealed by the appearance of something (someone) much greater and better. The word often used to describe this treatment of the Old Testament is "typology." This technique may be illustrated by the use made of the Exodus, which receives frequent typological treatment.

•Matthew suggestively applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus' return from Egypt ( 2:15 ), highlighting the parallel between Israel, who failed the temptations in the wilderness, and Jesus, who came through them victoriously to form the heart of a renewed people of God.
•John 6 presents the feeding of the five thousand as a glorious repetition of the manna miracle, signaling a greater exodus from sin and death.
•Paul applies the exodus themes of "slavery" and "redemption" spiritually to the work of the cross (e.g., Rom 3:24 ; 8:23 ; Ephesians 1:7 Ephesians 1:14 ), and finds in the wilderness wanderings several typological foreshadowings of Christ and the church ( 1 Cor 10:1-13 ).
•Hebrews develops the theme of the political "rest" enjoyed by Israel in the promised land and applies it typologically to that spiritual sharing of the life of God himself, which is the fruit of the work of Christ for all believers (3:1-4:13).
•First Peter 2:9-10 uses Exodus 19:5-6, a central statement of exodus theology, to make Israel a type of the church.
•Revelation uses the Egyptian plagues typologically ( 8:7-12 ), and applies the numbering of the exodus tribes to the church ( 7:4-8 ).

Well, he finally gets the “renewed” instead of “new” translation correct; but he is still hung up on all this pointing to the “church.” As we’ve shown, there is no “church” in the Bible. The term is “ecclesia,” which means “assembly” and is used of religious gatherings of Jews in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. We also saw that the apostles worshiped in synagogues. We need to be aware and correct this in our own minds lest we be led astray by the small element of false doctrine in an otherwise enlightening treatise.

Motyer said: These examples do scant justice to the extent to which the exodus is used as a "type" of the salvation now to be experienced in Christ. Other Old Testament features treated typologically include the temple, Jerusalem (and the associated ideas of worship, security, and the presence of God), the annual festivals, and kingship. This treatment is symptomatic of a fundamental "rereading" of the history of Israel.

This is great! Most Christians never make the connection with these things in the Old Testament and their correlation in the New. This is especially true of the feasts. However there is a growing trend today to look at these things in Christianity. I suspect Motyer has come in contact with, and maybe even is part of the Hebrew Roots movement. If he is, I further salute his efforts, as he seems to have avoided the pure garbage that is so prevalent in that movement as well.

Dan C

[alon]

Motyer said: Old Testament People Expanded. One of the most surprising features of the New Testament use of the Old Testament is the way in which the exclusivism of the Old Testament covenant (Israel as the elect) gives way to a new understanding of the people of God in which racial identity plays no role, and Jews and Gentiles have equal membership based just on faith and common possession of the Spirit. The movement from one to the other is a special interest of Luke (see especially Acts 10-11) and of Paul (see especially Romans 9-11), one of the most sustained New Testament engagements with Old Testament texts).

Here we wholly disagree. The “exclusivism” still exists- you are either saved and therefore adopted into Israel, or you are not. Salvation never changed, and Rav sh’ul in Romans 11 says that Gentiles who believe are still grafted into Judaism, just as always. The only thing different is that where in the past they looked forward to ha’moshiach, now we look back to Him in the person of Yeshua. And it was Jews who believed but were dispersed from ha’Eretz who first carried this message to the Gentile nations. Salvation, as always, came through the Jews. It is to these dispersed Jews that we owe our hearing of the besorah of Yeshua, which never changed in either “Testament.”

2 Timothy 3:14-16 (ESV) But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

When this was penned, the only scripture they had was the TNK, and they were “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” Doesn’t sound like anything changed to me.

Motyer said: Many Jewish Christians did not want to "reread" the Old Testament understanding of "people" in this way. Paul had to labor hard to defend his conviction that Abraham was the father of all who believe in Christ, not just the father of the Jewish nation ( Rom 4:9-17 ; Gal 3:6-9 ). Certain Old Testament texts were especially important for him, but more important than particular texts was the conviction that the spiritual experience described by texts like Genesis 15:6, Psalm 32:1-2, and Habakkuk 2:4 was exactly that now being enjoyed by his Gentile converts: by believing in Jesus, they were being "justified by faith" just like Abraham and David ( Rom 4:22-25 ).

In Romans 4, Rav Sh’ul was arguing against the Judaizers who said conversion must come before salvation. This was not a new way of thinking for Jews. But some extremists were spreading this doctrine in places where many Gentiles were just converting, and so did not know this was wrong. The same is true of Galatians 3. But they always seem to miss this:

Galatians 3:8 (ESV) And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

Salvation was and is from the time they were made a nation chosen by Elohim available to us through the Jewish people. So it is easy for us as Gentile converts to get this turned around and say we must become Jewish to be saved. Or that we must become observant to be saved. No, we must be saved or all the observance in the world will avail us nothing! Observance is a result of, not a requirement for, salvation. So, by the way, is being grafted into Judaism.

None of what Rav Sh’ul was writing was news to or hateful to the Jews of the first century. It was not until the church fathers began misrepresenting it to Gentiles in the second century and on as Christianity grew (entirely apart from the Nots’rim, the faith of the apostles) that his words were misunderstood by many uneducated people who were converted “from” paganism to this new pagan religion, Christianity.

Today, since the Nots’rim were effectively killed off by both Judaism and mostly by Christianity, mainstream Judaism does hate those of us who are trying to revive this, the faith of the shaliachim. There is a lot of tension between Judaism, Messianism, and Christianity. And after the Bar Kochba revolt failed in 135 CE there was a lot of tension between Judaism and early Messianism. But before that, Messianic believers worshiped in the same synagogues as other Jews. Many Jews believed in many different messiah’s in that time, but the Nots’rim were the only ones who were excluded after this because they wouldn’t bow and proclaim Simon Bar Kocha to be ha’moshiach. They were driven off, and their numbers were great enough that the failure of this revolt was blamed on them. It was after this that a new section was added to the Amidah which cursed the Nots’rim, so anyone not saying this passage in the liturgy was immediately recognized to be of the Nots’rim and was thrown out or worse. That is the history of the tension, which did not exist in the mainstream in the first century.

Dan C

[alon]

Motyer said: Old Testament Religion Renewed. The New Testament understanding of the Spirit builds on that of the Old Testament, but is surprising nonetheless. Only prophets and other leaders were anointed with the Spirit in the Old Testament. Hence the shocking nature of Jesus' encouragement actually to ask God for the Holy Spirit ( Luke 11:13 )! So now, possessing the Spirit in common, the whole church occupies a prophetic status, admitted like the prophets of the old covenant into the presence of God himself and is now enabled to share the worship of heaven by the Spirit, and to "worship in spirit and in truth" ( John 4:24 ), rather than through a program of ritual.

It is amazing how someone so acquainted with the Old Testament could miss this:

Exodus 19:5-6 (ESV) Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

This was said at Sinai, when Elohim was giving the Law to Moshe and the nation. So “obey my voice” means obey ! If the Hebrews did that, they were to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” So what God did in the Renewed Covenant (New Testament) was to reestablish what He intended from the start. And like the young nation at Sinai, we can as individuals forfeit our position as priests and the indwelling of the Ruach. This we do when our heart condition is not in step with our God.

Motyer said: The worship of the Old Testament is focused on a physical temple on earth. New Testament worship focuses on its heavenly counterpart by the Spirit, the heavenly temple where God truly dwells and Christ has gone before.

Thatis a gross misrepresentation of Jewish worship. Then as now, Jewish worship is centered on this passage from :

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 (ESV) “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

This says nothing about a Temple, but it does say who and what they worship.

Devarim 6:4 (OJB) Shema Yisroel Adonoi Eloheinu Adonoi Echad.

This prayer, called the Sh’mah is said day in and day out. It is drilled into the Jewish psyche far more than even Trinitarian doctrine is drilled into Christians. Never did Jews worship the Temple, nor was their worship centered there. It was centered on El Elohe Yisroel, who chose Yerushalayim to be where His Temple was to be built and where Jews did come to worship. But they did not have to be there to worship their God, except on the Shalosh Regalim (three pilgrimage festivals).

Dan C

[alon]

I am sorry to put so many of these posts up in so short a time, but I really wanted to get on and find another commentator. Not just someone to bash (that’d be easy), but someone in whose writings we can find some good information as well as some good lessons. It will be difficult to top Motyer- I really like this guy. He is honest, insightful and he is well written. By using discernment and understanding where he is coming from in his thinking we are able to glean a lot of lessons in this article. That he is Christian but has not fallen into the Dispensationalist claptrap prevalent today is a good sign. He is part of a growing movement within Christianity to look harder at the Old Testament and its relationship and value to the New. This is the same movement which has given rise to Messianism. I hope someday Motyer makes the leap to becoming Observant Messianic. If not, he is still a valuable asset to Christian and Messianic alike.

Please, take your time and go through these. I’d love to get others perspectives on his work. This will serve as the B’rith Chadashah portion for the weeks ending 10-28-16, 11-5-16, and 11- 12-16. I’ll try and find another before the 19th. Feel free to suggest something or someone.

Dan C