This excellent magazine can be ordered from http://www.petahtikvah.com on subscription.

IS the “old” covenant obsolete? This may seem like a strange question to ask. However, many have their minds made up, and they are on both sides of the issue.

            Biblically, there have been several covenants that God has made with mankind. The very first covenant is the Adamic Covenant, made with Adam and Chava,[1] which was never done away with. Women still have pain in childbirth, and men still have to wrestle with the soil to produce a crop.[2] This covenant also had a blessing in that the seed of the woman would one day have victory over HaSatan, the “serpent.”

            The next covenant that God made with man was the Noahic Covenant, with the sign of the rainbow as God’s promise to never destroy the entire earth again with a flood in Genesis 9.

            In the Abrahamic Covenant, YHWH promised to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the Holy Land, an area actually far larger than what the Jews have even to this day.[3] Circumcision was the seal of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is binding on all the descendants of Abraham.[4]

            None of these covenants were ever in any way “done away with.” Women still have pain in childbirth, the rainbow still appears, and in a modern miracle, the Jews are back in the Land, to the great displeasure of Replacement Theologians[5] everywhere.

            The Mosaic Covenant is the covenant that most people refer to when they talk about the “old” covenant, which includes the many commandments, statutes, and ordinances given by Moses to the children of Israel.

            We have the promise of the “New Covenant” given to us in Jeremiah 31:31-33:

31 “Behold, the days come,” saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them,” saith YHWH. 33 “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days,” saith YHWH, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

            This same promise of the New Covenant is repeated in Hebrews 8:8-10 and Hebrews 10:10. This covenant is made with only the House of Judah and the House of Israel. This means that it was made only with the Jews and the Gentiles who are grafted onto the Jewish olive tree described in Romans 11. By the very nature of the New Covenant, it automatically excludes anti-Semites. God promises to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel.[6] I don’t see how one can be “blessed” and “cursed” at the same time. Believers should not hate anyone without cause, and anti-Semitism is also directly contrary to the New Covenant. There won’t be any anti-Semites in the New Jerusalem!

            Most Evangelic Christians, thank God, believe that the Jews are still God’s Chosen People. However, there are those who believe that God “changed his mind” and no longer keeps His promises to the Jews.

            There are also Dispensational Christians, many of whom love Israel and the Jewish people, so I don’t want to be too hard on them. However, Dispensational Theology teaches that the “old” covenant (that is, the Mosaic covenant) was replaced by the New Covenant. However, Jeremiah 31:33 tells us that the New Covenant is simply the “Old Covenant” (that is, the mitzvot – “commandments”) are now written on our hearts instead of tablets of stone. In other words, we have internalized God’s commandments, and obey Him out of love for Him, not to obtain favor or because of fear. We don’t obey God’s instructions in order to “get saved,” but because we are saved.

A New Covenant or a New Priesthood?

There are some who would appeal to Hebrews chapter 8 to “prove” that the “old” (Mosaic) covenant was done away with. In Hebrews 8, immediately after the promise of the New Covenant, we read in verses 11-13:

11 “And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother,” saying, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 When He said, “A new covenant,” he has made the first obsolete. Now that which decays and grows old is ready to vanish away.”

            Gee, that seems to settle everything. The new covenant came along, and replaced the old covenant, right? No… Wrong! If you have a King James Bible or a literal modern translation such as the New American Standard, you will note that the word covenant in Hebrews 8:13 is in italics. When translating from one language to another, it is sometimes felt necessary to add a word here or there to “make sense” of the sentence being translated. The way in which the King James translators notified the reader that they had added a word was to put the word (or words) into italics. For that, we should be very grateful to the KJV translators. Many modern translations add words or even whole phrases with no indication of having done so.

            So what’s my point? Simply this… The word covenant was not in the underlying Greek text of the Book of Hebrews. The noun covenant was added in italics in order give sense to the passage, as well as in Hebrews 9:1 which comes directly after Hebrews 8:13. The noun is missing. The word "testimentum" was added in the Latin Vulgate,[7] and the word "covenant" was added by the KJV translators (and many others as well). However, neither "testimentum" nor "covenant" are in the Greek New Testaments in Hebrews 8:13 or 9:1. I checked out my Hebraic-Roots Version New Testament,[8] which is translated from the Aramaic into English. The word “covenant” is completely lacking in the English translation of the Aramaic, which is as it should be.

This is hard for English speakers to understand, but in most other languages, you can have an adjective without a noun, as is the case here. The writer just assumes that the reader will understand the subject matter and mentally fill in the correct noun. In this case, the Dispensationalists have had a field day by adding either "testament" or "covenant" to the text, based on their assumptions and theology. However, I feel this is a serious error, and directly contradicts Yeshua's words in Matthew 5:17-19. Perhaps some day in the far off future when the current heavens and earth pass away, Torah might be abolished or replaced. But that isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, nor for a very, very long time to come.

The natural question should arise: What noun should be supplied to give proper sense to Hebrews 8:13? There is a saying: “Text without context is pretext.” In other words, we need to look at the passage in light of what the subject matter is in the surrounding material. In this case, I would take us back to Hebrews chapter 7 and continue on into Hebrews chapter 9.

Hebrews 7 reintroduces us to Mechizadek. You might have recalled him from Genesis 14. He was the king of Salem, known as a “priest of God Most High.” Abraham gave to him a tenth of all the spoil from a battle he fought in rescuing Lot from his enemies. According to Jasher 16:11, Mechizadek was Shem. The book called Jasher that we have today may just be a very clever forgery. However, there was an original Book of Jasher which is referred to in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. The Rabbis also believe that Shem and Mechizadek were one and the same man, but the Rabbis can also be wrong. Others feel that Mechizadek and Yeshua are one and the same. My personal opinion is that Mechizadek is a special created being, because he is “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides as a priest forever.” [9]

            The priesthood inaugurated by Moses was of the descendents of the Tribe of Levi through Aaron. However, Yeshua was from the Tribe of Judah. Therefore, Yeshua is called a priest (or cohen) after the order of Mechizadek in Hebrews 7:15, which then goes on to quote Psalm 110:4: “YHWH has sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” Melchizedek existed long before the Levitical priesthood came into being, because Melchizedek predated the people of Israel. Likewise, Yeshua also had an existence before his birth. In Yochanan 1:1-3, we read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” Yeshua was “in the beginning” creating with the Father! So, like Melchizedek, Yeshua pre-existed not only Abraham, but even the world we live in!

            The initial part of Hebrews 8 also concerns the priesthood. Then in the latter part of Hebrews 8, we learn about the “New Covenant” that God would be making with Israel. The common teaching that we hear in the church is that the Book of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians in the First Century. The writer of Hebrews, who we believe to be Rav Shaul (Paul), was warning the Jewish believers of the dangers of “backsliding” into Judaism.

            The truth of the matter is far different than is traditionally taught. The writer of Hebrews in no way teaches against Torah. Far from being made obsolete, Torah is now written upon the hearts, according to the New Covenant prophesied in Jer. 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8:8-10. Yeshua didn’t come to start a new religion; He came as the Messiah of the old one.

            The problem occurs with a poor choice of words used by the translators in Hebrews 8:13. The context is about a new covenant requiring a new priesthood. The new covenant is simply the “old” covenant being written on our hearts, so the old “Mosaic” covenant isn’t growing old and passing away; instead, it is being given new life!

            The correct word to insert in Hebrews 8:12-13 would be “priesthood,” not covenant. It should read as follows: “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more. 13 In that He said, ‘A new priesthood,’ He has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away.”

            Likewise, in Hebrews 8:7, the word covenant was added by the translators, when the word priesthood would have been more appropriate. At the time that the Book of Hebrews was written in approximately 64 CE, the Beit HaMikdash (Temple) was still in existence. The writer of Hebrews recognizes that the Temple with its priesthood would soon be passing away.

            The chapter divisions of the Bible are all very artificial. We can be grateful to the Catholic Church for giving us chapter and verse divisions, which certainly makes the Bible much easier to navigate. However, the chapter and verse divisions are sometimes very unfortunate. In this case, the very next verses after Hebrews 8:13 has been separated into an entirely separate chapter, even though Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 should not have been separated so artificially.

            As in Hebrews 8:13, if you pick up a KJV Bible, you will note that the word covenant in Hebrews 9:1 is again in italics, as an indication that the word covenant was added by the translators, and cannot be found in the underlying Greek text. The KJV of Hebrews 9:1 reads as follows: “Then verily, the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.”

The verses that come after Hebrews 9:1 are all about the priesthood of the Temple, compared with the priesthood of Yeshua the Messiah. Obviously, the KJV translators again inserted the wrong word. However, unlike other translations, the KJV translators are kind enough to let us know that they added a word to help the reader make sense of the passage. Many other translations also add the word covenant, but they don’t do anything to indicate that the word covenant was added, which isn’t being totally honest to the readers.

The obvious word which should have been used is priesthood, as follows: “Then verily, the first priesthood had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” When the translators used the word covenant instead of priesthood, it helped to bolster Dispensational Theology, which teaches that Torah (that is, the “Mosaic Dispensation”) was basically abolished by the New Covenant. This would be anathema to the writer of Hebrews. In Malachi 3:6, we read, “For I am YHWH, I change not; therefore you sons of Jacob are not consumed.” In Hebrews 13:8, we read, “Yeshua the Messiah, the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” The fickle gods of Greek mythology were moody and unpredictable. The fickle Greek gods seem to have entered into the theology of many Christians. However, our God is a God that changes not. Each covenant (or “dispensation,” if you prefer) builds onto the previous covenant, and doesn’t replace it.

If we can’t trust God to keep the word he spoke to ancient Israel, how can we expect him to keep his promises to us? The New Covenant definition of sin remains as it was under the Old Covenant: “Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the Law, for sin is the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4).”                       t