There Is No Old Testament

It is often believed that when Jesus said, “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” (Matthew 5:17) that he is saying, “I have not come to nullify them, but finish them off and start a new one.” With this thought in mind, most of Christendom believes that Jesus was teaching that he came to obey all the commands, close the old book, and write a new book. As we study the very Hebraic nature of the idiomatic words and phrases “to come,” “to abolish,” and “to fulfill,” we will find the true meaning of Jesus’ words.

According to David Bivin in his book, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, when Jesus says that he did not “come,” the word that he would have used was often idiomatically used to denote his intent or purpose rather than meaning he left one place and came to another. In other words, Jesus is saying, “My purpose is not to…but to…” In the King James Version, the original word for abolish was translated “to destroy the law.” According to Bivin, this is not a correct translation as the probable Hebrew equivalent of the Greek verb, levatel, which literally means “to cancel” was often used among the educated teachers during the time of Jesus, and it meant “to misinterpret a biblical mitzvah or commandment.”

Bivin goes on to teach that the probable Hebrew equivalent of the Greek verb plerosai, which is translated “fulfill,” is lekayem, which was often used as the opposite for levatel and meant “to clearly or properly interpret a commandment.”

All of this leads us to understand that it is very possible that Jesus is saying, “I did not come to misinterpret the law and the prophets, but to clearly interpret them” denoting that God’s people needed His instructions reiterated and clarified.

Knowing that Jesus as a Jewish rabbi greatly valued, respected, and kept the Hebrew Scriptures, we should consider that Jesus would not have given a new Bible to the world; he gave clarity to God’s original instructions, not to replace them, but to be placed with them. As one who agrees with this understanding of Jesus’ words, I would add that it does harm to the Church to consider the “New Testament” a new law, rather than a clarification with two amendments. The two amendments to the instructions of God are the release from making blood sacrifices as Jesus became a permanent sacrifice, and all people are now welcome to become a part of God's chosen people.

Furthermore, the approach of considering the “Old Testament” to be an outdated and finished up book of rules replaced by Jesus’ book of grace would appear to resemble the teachings of Marcion who completely rejected the Old Testament and considered it to be the scriptures of a cruel and completely different God from the God of the New testament. Marcion’s influences from Gnostic beliefs have unwittingly been carried on within Christian theology, philosophy, and practice whether overtly recognized or revealed in more sinister and hidden ways.

It may be that the practice of printing Bibles which are without the Old Testament is justified by a hint of Marcionism and the anti-Jewish culture that has been cultivated by the post-70 A. D. movement of the Church.

I want to do my best to fulfill Jesus' words and never abolish them.

In His dust,
Johnny