A New Commandment?

[Questor]

I got slapped with this in a drash today.

From John 13:34-35 (CJB)
34 “I am giving you a new command: that you keep on loving each other. In the same way that I have loved you, you are also to keep on loving each other.
35 Everyone will know that you are my talmidim by the fact that you have love for each other.”

Instantly, I wanted to scream, 'NOOOOOO!'

And I found again why it is so hard for Jews to accept the Brit Chadashah. The Greek for 'Chadashah' is 'Kainen', which is 'new', not renewed, but 'fresh'. Yet Yeshua could never have never have said this in the Greek meaning without being in conflict with himself, and his own statement not to break T-rah.

Matthew 5:17-18 (CJB)
17 “Don’t think that I have come to abolish the T-rah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the T-rah — not until everything that must happen has happened.

If Yeshua gave a 'new' commandment, adding to the T-rah, rather than giving a clever twist on an old one, it is the rare Jew that will think to dig into the meaning of Yeshua's use of the word 'Kainen', particuarly when he spoke in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Was the 'new commandment' John spoke of 'Kainen', as it is said to be? If so, Messianism does not compute, not even for me. And that scares me.

[alon]

Feb 3, 2024 12:14:01 GMT -8 Questor said:

I got slapped with this in a drash today.

From John 13:34-35 (CJB)
34 “I am giving you a new command: that you keep on loving each other. In the same way that I have loved you, you are also to keep on loving each other.
35 Everyone will know that you are my talmidim by the fact that you have love for each other.”

Instantly, is wanted to scream, 'NOOOOOO!'

And I found again why it is so hard for Jews to accept the Brit Chadashah. The Greek for 'Chadashah' is 'Kainen', which is 'new', not renewed, but 'fresh'. Yet Yeshua could never have never have said this in the Greek meaning without being in conflict with himself, and his own statement not to break T-rah.

Matthew 5:17-18 (CJB)
17 “Don’t think that I have come to abolish the T-rah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the T-rah — not until everything that must happen has happened.

If Yeshua gave a 'new' commandment, adding to the T-rah, rather than giving a clever twist on an old one, it is the rare Jew that will think to dig into the meaning of Yeshua's use of the word 'Kainen', particuarly when he spoke in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Was the 'new commandment' John spoke of 'Kainen', as it is said to be? If so, Messianism does not compute, not even for me. And that scares me.

This is just one more reason I believe the (so called) "New Testament" was written in Hebrew originally. These letter were written by educated Hebrew men to other educated Hebrew men. As Jews, they would have preferred their own tongue- Hebrew. This was NOT a "new" commandment. It was a renewed commandment, only we now have the example of Yeshua- God Himself who came to dwell among us, o show us as well as tell us. It is renewed, made stronger, but no different from the many commands in Torah and, indeed the entire "Old Testament."

You are absolutely correct. The church fathers wanted a "kainen," a brand new religion. That is why they destroyed the Hebrew documents and used the many Greek translations which, all too often, disagreed with each other. The Bible cannot do that. As my father so often preached, God is not a God of confusion. However this "Greek" confusion allowed these same fathers to pick and choose, to twist what was said and fashion their new religion as they wanted it to be; not as God had told them in scripture for centuries.


Baruch Ha'Shem!   

[Questor]

Feb 3, 2024 15:31:04 GMT -8 alon said:

Feb 3, 2024 12:14:01 GMT -8 Questor said:

I got slapped with this in a drash today.

From John 13:34-35 (CJB)
34 “I am giving you a new command: that you keep on loving each other. In the same way that I have loved you, you are also to keep on loving each other.
35 Everyone will know that you are my talmidim by the fact that you have love for each other.”

Instantly, is wanted to scream, 'NOOOOOO!'

And I found again why it is so hard for Jews to accept the Brit Chadashah. The Greek for 'Chadashah' is 'Kainen', which is 'new', not renewed, but 'fresh'. Yet Yeshua could never have never have said this in the Greek meaning without being in conflict with himself, and his own statement not to break T-rah.

Matthew 5:17-18 (CJB)
17 “Don’t think that I have come to abolish the T-rah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete.
18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the T-rah — not until everything that must happen has happened.

If Yeshua gave a 'new' commandment, adding to the T-rah, rather than giving a clever twist on an old one, it is the rare Jew that will think to dig into the meaning of Yeshua's use of the word 'Kainen', particuarly when he spoke in Hebrew/Aramaic.

Was the 'new commandment' John spoke of 'Kainen', as it is said to be? If so, Messianism does not compute, not even for me. And that scares me.

This is just one more reason I believe the (so called) "New Testament" was written in Hebrew originally. These letter were written by educated Hebrew men to other educated Hebrew men. As Jews, they would have preferred their own tongue- Hebrew. This was NOT a "new" commandment. It was a renewed commandment, only we now have the example of Yeshua- God Himself who came to dwell among us, o show us as well as tell us. It is renewed, made stronger, but no different from the many commands in and, indeed the entire "Old Testament."

You are absolutely correct. The church fathers wanted a "kainen," a brand new religion. That is why they destroyed the Hebrew documents and used the many Greek translations which, all too often, disagreed with each other. The Bible cannot do that. As my father so often preached, God is not a God of confusion. However this "Greek" confusion allowed these same fathers to pick and choose, to twist what was said and fashion their new religion as they wanted it to be; not as God had told them in scripture for centuries.


Baruch Ha'Shem!   

We need the 'Road to Emmaus' preached to everyone, picking up every trace of Yeshua in the Tanakh, and tying that trace to the other end of the connection in the Brit Chadashah, or those Jews that will give us a hearing will be disgusted, and turn their backs on us. I can only hope the Brit Chadashah published in Hebrew is at least allowing those who are willing to look to find all the echoes that support what Yeshua taught to his talmidim. In the meantime, I swallow my frustration at less than accurate teaching.

[alon]

Absolutely! 

There are a few "Hebrew New Testaments," but they all had to be back-translated using the Older writings as a guide; trying to make them all in accordance with each other. But even with that there are still differences. All English Bibles are at best transliterations which try to get across the essence of what the original author is trying to say. But this is especially true with the "New Testament" where it was translated into other languages (Like Aramaic in the Targums) then into Greek- then corrupted by several different "translators" who tried to get across their own points of view. Then it was transliterated into English from these different and differing Greek "Source Documents." So yes, sthere is some confusion. Thanks "church fathers." Whadda-buncha-guys!^{... yay ...}