Hebrew Gospel Pearls #24 – Nailed to the Cross?

In this episode of Hebrew Gospel Pearls, Nailed to the Cross?, Nehemia and Keith discuss a New Testament verse that has divided Christians throughout the ages, reveal the smoking gun that proves how the verse was changed, and show how Yeshua’s words, taken out of context, command his followers not to think!

I look forward to reading your comments in the section below!

Podcast Version:

Download Audio

Transcript

Hebrew Gospel Pearls #24 – Nailed to the Cross?

You are listening to Hebrew Gospel Pearls with Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

Keith: Here’s what we would have done in past Hebrew Gospel Pearls. We would've been talking about the verse, we’d give you the verse, and then say, “But I've got the smoking gun in the Plus.” Here's what we're doing instead - our public people are getting something that is a smoking gun, this is the kind of thing Nehemia…

Nehemia: This is huge.

Nehemia: Shalom, and welcome to Hebrew Gospel Pearls episode 24. Today we will talk about the verse I've been waiting the entire series to get to, Matthew 5:17.

Keith: We're just going to let you do your thing, Nehemia.

Nehemia: I’m so excited about this one. So let's start with the verse, can you start reading it in Greek?

Keith: Yeah, right!

Nehemia: I mean your English translation into Greek.

Keith: Yes, absolutely. Here we go, 5:17, hold on.

Nehemia: Is this the NASB?

Keith: Yes. Here it is, 5:17, “Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.”

Nehemia: Wow.

Keith: And I'm telling you right now, Nehemia, it’s going to take a long time to get out of this verse.

Nehemia: You know, this verse for me is… I get people all the time who ask me, and rightfully so, “Why on earth are you spending so much of your energy and time and resources on studying the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, Yeshua, when you're not a Christian?” I think it's a large part because of this verse.

I grew up with the idea that Jesus, the Jesus of Christianity… growing up Jewish, I was taught that, yes, the Christians believe in Jesus, and he abolished the Torah. “He led people astray” was the term, mesit umediach, which is “he incited and led astray”. And how did he incite and lead astray? He told the people, “You don't have to keep the Torah anymore, the Torah has been done away with.”

Years later, when I was a young adult and I was having a conversation with a Christian gentleman, and he was keeping the Torah, I asked, “How can you keep the Torah?” He read me this verse. I’ve got to say Keith, it was like somebody took a book and smacked me in the face with it.

Keith: Really?

Nehemia: Because I’m like, “That can't be in the New Testament. What? That's contrary to everything that Christianity is about.” Which is that the Jews follow the Old Covenant, and the Christians now have the New Covenant, which has replaced the Old Covenant, and part of that is abolishing the law, and Jesus is the new law… now, is this not what Christians teach?

Keith: Yeah, and actually Nehemia, to be honest with you, we probably should have stopped Hebrew Gospel Pearls after the last episode. If we would have stopped after the last episode and shook hands and said, “Hey this is great, we had a great time. We have 25 public and 25 plus episodes…” But I have to be honest with you, this verse, 5:17… it's not going to be easy to get through this one, it's not going to be easy to get through this one without having to address something that for years you said you would never address.

Nehemia: What's that?

Keith: And what's that?

Nehemia: I don't know.

Keith: You said you don't do theology.

Nehemia: Okay. I don't think we have to do theology.

Keith: I don't think we have to either.

Nehemia: I don't want to do theology; I want to focus on what the text says.

Keith: Absolutely.

Nehemia: Because, theologically you can say, “Yes, the purpose of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was to fulfill some function.” Okay, that could be, that could not be, that's a matter of theology. What does the text say?

Keith: Exactly.

Nehemia: And this text is clear as it could possibly be.

Keith: So, what I want you to do, again folks, we’re used to doing this, I want you to read it in Hebrew and then I want you to translate it Nehemia style.

Nehemia: Okay, Nehemia style - I'm not sure I know what that means, but sure.

Keith: I do!

Nehemia: Alright, I've got here… now this is interesting here.

Keith: Yes.

Nehemia: It's interesting, the last few episodes, where we talked about Doctor Mark…

Keith: Yeah.

Nehemia: Two episodes ago, and about textual criticism, and I just realized this - there were almost no textual critical issues in those verses we covered, 13, and then 14 through… and whether “hahi” was written with a Vav or a Yud, which was a very trivial issue.

Keith: Right.

Nehemia: Which illustrated what was going on with textual criticism.

Keith: Can we say something?

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: But you still checked all the manuscripts.

Nehemia: Oh yeah, absolutely. There was just nothing interesting to talk about.

Keith: There’s nothing there.

Nehemia: Here we've got some major textual critical issues, to the point where we have a sharp distinction between what I've called Group A and Group B.

Keith: Amen.

Nehemia: I don't even know how we're going to have time to do all this, but there's a smoking gun. Now, we brought up a smoking gun in a previous episode, from what I call Manuscript Q, and it turns out Manuscript Q has layers to it I didn't even know about, and it really shed some light on what was going on. Let me read the verse.

Keith: Okay.

Nehemia: I'm going to read it first from the B group. The B Group includes the British Library Manuscript, which is what George Howard used. “Ba’et hahi amar Yeshua le’talmidav,” “At that time Yeshua said to his disciples,” “al tachshevu she’bati le’hafer Torah,” “do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah,” or “violate the Torah, invalidate the Torah,” “elah le’hashlim,” “but rather to complete,” to make perfect. We'll talk about what that means if we have time.

Now, Group A manuscripts, and I'm going to read specifically from Q, it has something not that different, but slightly different. “Ba’et hahi amar Yeshua le’talmidav,” “At that time Yeshua said to his disciples,” “al tachshevu she’bati le’hafer Torah, ve’ha’Nevi’im,” “do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah and the Prophets,” “lo bati le’hafer elah le’hashlim,” “I have not come to abolish, but rather to complete,” to fulfill.

The difference there is four words. Four words we don’t find in the B Group, which includes manuscripts… and I'm giving letters because each one has a long name, like Z is London British Library, I don't even remember the number, so I was calling it Manuscript Z. The manuscripts that don't have the four words, “and the Prophets, I did not come to abolish,” are Z, C, N, T, V, E, F, and then what I call Gamma, B, L and R. So there are eleven manuscripts that have the verse but don't have those four words.

Keith: Right.

Nehemia: I want to look at Manuscript Q, because it turns out Q is the key to this entire mystery of these four words, and this is a text critical problem. In other words, in Matthew 5:17 does it say, “I did not come to abolish the Torah but to fulfill,” or does it say, “I did not come to abolish the Torah, and the Prophets, I did not come to abolish but to fulfill?”

“Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill,” “don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah and the Prophets, I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.”

In Hebrew that's four words, “and the Prophets,” in English, in Hebrew it’s one word, “ve’ha’Nevi’im, lo bati le’hafer,” “no I came to abolish,” and we'll talk about what le’hafer means if we have time, to abolish.

Keith: What do you mean? It's in my notes, I have to have time, I’ve got a little red letter.

Nehemia: We’ve got so much to talk about here! Now for the text critical issue, and this is a smoking gun, this is literally the smoking gun, although I guess not literally, because it's not a gun, and it’s not smoking, it's a manuscript.

Here is Manuscript Q, let's look at it over here, and we can see right there, a little bit below the middle of the page, we have a bunch of words written in a smaller script in a different handwriting above the line. What are those four words? They’re the four words, “and the Prophets I did not come to abolish.”

Keith: Wow.

Nehemia: So, why are they written above the line? Because the scribe was reading his text, and he at some point realized there's four words missing, and he added them. Here's the question - where did he add them from? George Howard published the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in 1987, actually the one you have there is from 1995, you want to show people that? That's the 1995 edition, called the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. His 1987 edition was called the Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text.

Keith: Stop! I decided in preparation…

Nehemia: You still have that?

Keith: I decided in preparation for the next three episodes…

Nehemia: Wow.

Keith: To bring the Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew text, which, folks, I want to say to you, I received this in the mail. You remember the mail?

Nehemia: What we call snail mail, in my generation.

Keith: I want to set the stage; this is really important. So, Nehemia says to me, “Hey listen, I'd like to study with you the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, I'm going to send you a text.” Tell me the process that you had to go through to send me this.

Nehemia: They have this at the…

Keith: What year was it? 20, 15, 18 years ago?

Nehemia: Wow, it would have been 2003 or 2002, I don’t remember.

Keith: By the way, let me just say something - in episode 19, I have something that he wrote, I'm going to ask him to actually say it. It’s pretty amazing.

Nehemia: Is it in there?

Keith: Yes!

Nehemia: You’re kidding me! Alright.

Keith: Anyway, go ahead.

Nehemia: I hope I’ll be able to read my own handwriting. So, I was studying at the Hebrew University at the time, at the Mount Scopus campus in Jerusalem, and I was doing the research on this topic, and they had the copy of that book. They actually didn't have the 1995 edition at the time, they had the 1987 edition.

Keith: Which you liked the title better.

Nehemia: It was a much more academic title, let's say that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, that was marketing.

Keith: “According to a Primitive Hebrew Text”.

Nehemia: The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text, that’s a very academic title.

Keith: And there are some differences.

Nehemia: Absolutely, they're completely different.

Keith: Yes.

Nehemia: Well, the body of the text isn't completely different, but his introduction is different. What he did in the 1995 edition, if I remember correctly, is he took a bunch of journal articles, slapped them together, and put them as an introduction to his book. And in 1987 what he had done is he gave his own introduction, actually, it was a lot more detailed, and I found it more interesting.

So, what I did is I went to the basement of the Mount Scopus library, the main library, and I photocopied the book, because you couldn't buy it anywhere that I could find. Then I had it spiral-bound with that plastic spiral thing they did back then in Jerusalem, I don't know if they still do that, and I sent it to you in the snail mail, international mail.

Keith: Yeah, and I'm the reason I'm bringing that up Nehemia, is that when I received that invitation, that started me on a process, and that process has been long.

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: To get to this point. And again, 5:17, 18, and 19 are the keys.

Nehemia: Now, if we did it today, we’d just make a PDF, back then that wasn't the way you did it. So, in this book, the Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text, George Howard hypothesizes, he suggests that there was a process where the text was very different from the Greek, and over time it was modified to match the Greek. What we are looking at right here on the screen is the smoking gun that proves Howard's hypothesis.

Keith: Wow.

Nehemia: We have there the four words written above the line, and it gets better. These four words were written above the line, and in all of the manuscripts from the A Group, those words appear, but in all the other manuscripts they’re not written above the line, they're in the body of the text. And what that means is that the next time they copied this, they copied those words into the body of the text. Now, we've got to ask a very important question - how do we know that they copied those words into the body of the text from above the line? Maybe they were in the body of the texts in all the other A Group manuscripts, and then in one of them they left it out, so they came, and they fixed it, and they added it above. That's always a possibility.

So here's one piece of evidence - it seems that in every place where there's writing above the line - so far as I've been able to see, and if I find something different, I'll share with the people - but in several instances whenever there's writing above the line in Manuscript Q, and there’s a lot of places in Manuscript Q where there’s writing above the line, in those very same places those words are missing from the B Group.

So it seems that Manuscript Q is that link, the missing link, between a bunch of words that are not in the text in the B Group, and then in the A Group they're in the text, and in Q they're written above the line.

Keith: Now, certainly you're going to tell me this, Nehemia. You did that on purpose - you purposely titled that Manuscript Q, because all through my seminary studies, we always talked about Q, there’s Q, Q is the thing that's missing...

Nehemia: Q in New Testament Studies is the source; it's a complete coincidence.

Keith: God-incidence!

Nehemia: Or God-incidence, I don't know. The reason I called it Q is that Howard listed his manuscripts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, he had eight manuscripts plus the British Library that he didn't give a letter to, I call that Manuscript Z, so just from Howard I've got nine manuscripts. Then I sat down at the National Library of Israel at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts and started looking for more manuscripts. And as I looked for them, I gave them letters - J, K, L, M, N, O, P.

Keith: And…?

Nehemia: Q. And it's simply in the order that I found it, and how did I find it? I did all kinds of different complicated searches, because sometimes it's part of Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, sometimes it’s not part of Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, it's a thing by itself.

Keith: But let me just say something.

Nehemia: Yeah. I’m listening.

Keith: At this time… now, in the past, in previous Hebrew Gospel Pearls, here's what we would’ve done, I'm going to throw us both under the bus. Here’s what we would have done in past Hebrew Gospel Pearls. We would've been talking about the verse, we’d give you the verse, and then say, “But I've got the smoking gun in the Plus.” Here's what we're doing instead, our public people are getting something that is a smoking gun, this is the kind of thing Nehemia…

Nehemia: Look, this is huge.

Keith: Am I right or wrong?

Nehemia: This is like, what do the Russians call it? The mother bomb, it's like the Bombas, whatever it's called, this is huge.

Keith: Yeah.

Nehemia: This is a major, major thing.

Keith: Yes.

Nehemia: Now, I want to bring another piece of evidence which I didn't know about until relatively recently. I actually found that I did know about it in my notes, but I had forgotten. I had notes from 15 years ago, I'm like, “Oh, wait a minute, I already knew about that,” but I had forgotten about this.

So, there are three manuscripts, two of which are copies of the first one. And how do I know that two are a copy of the first one? It's very common in manuscripts to have something called a colophon. A colophon is information written when you're done writing a manuscript or you are done with a certain section of the manuscript, and the colophon gives information about who wrote it, who copied it. Manuscript Q has a colophon, not from the original author, but from the copyist who copied that particular manuscript. And the colophon says as follows, it's pretty interesting here. So, it says, “I, Menachem Muscato, son of my Lord father, Moses,” this is the scribe who is copying this, “wrote in the region of Friuli in the city of Portogruaro, and it was completed on Tuesday the 5th of Sivan, in the year 5344,” which is the equivalent to May 15th, 1584, in the Gregorian calendar.

So this colophon, let me show you what it looks like. Unfortunately, I don't have a color image of this because I only ordered color images for Manuscript Q of the main pages, because it was €15 a page, and this page I only have in black and white.

But here's the really incredible thing. So that's manuscript Q. This now here is the same colophon in Manuscript K - verbatim “I, Menachem Muscato, son of my Lord father, Moses, wrote here in Friuli, the city of Portogruaro, and it was completed on,” such and such a date. So we have two manuscripts, and one of them has a copy, not just of the text, but of the colophon of the other manuscript. That means we can say quite definitively that K is a copy of Q. And here's where it gets really exciting Keith - in Q those four words are written above the line.

Keith: Right.

Nehemia: In K, which is a copy of Q, to the point where it even has the same colophon, those four words are in the body of the text!

Keith: Oh!

Nehemia: So George Howard, 1987, hypothesizes that we have a bunch of differences between the manuscript, over time there's a process of making the manuscript… oh, and those four words are in the Greek, did I mention that?

Keith: Absolutely.

Nehemia: The four words that are not in the British Library, they're not in the B Group, they're only in the A Group, those four words are in the Greek. So, Howard’s hypothesis was that originally Hebrew Matthew as Shem Tov wrote it had a lot of differences from the Greek, and over time it was modified to match the Greek, and here we have the smoking gun! Where the scribe wrote those four words above the line, and then in the next copy of that exact manuscript the four words are in the body of the text.

Keith: Now Nehemia, listen.

Nehemia: I’m done!

Keith: You can't be done because I’ve got to ask you a controversial question.

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: There's no answer to this. I have a theory.

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: In the Greek it says, “and the Prophets,” in other words it's, “Torah and the Prophets,” I'm just throwing this out; why might the Greek want to do that?

Nehemia: That’s a good question. I have a theory, but I want to hear yours first.

Keith: I have a theory too. Because we're going to deal with this later in the episode, but here's the thing.

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: And again, I don't want to go too far, but I at least have to say this. “At that time,” this is what Howard says, “At that time,” I love that he did that, “Be’et hahi,” “Jesus said to his disciples, do not think I came to annul the Torah, but to fulfill it.” The English says, “the Torah, and the Prophets.” Well, maybe the same people that were trying to, how you might say…

Nehemia: Abolish the Torah?

Keith: Maybe I should put it this way – theology-wise, theologically.

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: Maybe there's a theological issue here. In other words, if he is coming to fulfill it, then it needs to be “the Torah and the Prophets”. Just a thought.

Nehemia: Okay, in other words, if you look at… and let let's put it this way - if you look at the verses that according to the New Testament that Yeshua fulfilled, what percentage of those are in the Torah, versus the Prophets?

Keith: Exactly.

Nehemia: A much higher percentage are in the Prophets. In other words, what I think you're suggesting - and this is what I was thinking too - is that if you're focusing on the word “to fulfill”, and the word “fulfill” there means, as it's understood by most Christians I think, that to fulfill the law and the Prophets means through the Messianic Prophecies.

Keith: Right.

Nehemia: “Isaiah said he would be born of a virgin. I have now fulfilled it through being born of a virgin.” If that's your understanding of what fulfill means, I understand why you would add in “and the Prophets”. What I love about this… and here's what to me is so powerful about textual criticism. I could say, “The wind is blowing that way, and therefore I prefer the Greek versus the Hebrew,” and I could even say, “even some of the Hebrew manuscripts have that, so it's not just the Greek, it's some of the Hebrew manuscripts are in agreement.”

But now I've got the smoking gun - I didn’t bring Manuscript A, which also has the same colophon by the way and also has those words in the body of the text; so it's three manuscripts, two which were copied from Q, or maybe from an intermediary. So it's not just some arbitrary decision to say, “Well, I prefer this reading,” I can show with definitive and objective evidence how I know that the original, as Howard called it, “the Primitive Hebrew text”, at the very least the text that Shem Tov had in 1380, did not have “and the Prophets”, that it was added in Manuscript Q, and then from there it disseminated to the others of the A Group.

That's what I love about textual criticism - it gives me the tools, it's like a toolkit, that it gives me the ability to objectively deal with this kind of issue and answer it, not just from my opinion, or my theology, but in an objective way.

Keith: Wow, I love it Nehemia.

Nehemia: Boy, there's so much to talk about here, I don't even know how we're going to do this. I think might have to do a bit of a longer session today, if you’ll bear with me.

Keith: Absolutely, because I’m so glad we’re doing this for the public episode, because this is a lot of the hard hat stuff that we end up doing in Plus for all of those other ones, I mean going deep into the manuscripts and this kind of thing. Now you're starting out that way, which I really love, so people can see it. But can we at least address a little bit of the meaning of the words? Are you ready to do that?

Nehemia: I want to start with reading something from the Word Biblical Commentary, if you’ll allow me.

Keith: Really? What's this new thing about the Word Biblical Commentary? All of a sudden…

Nehemia: It’s got some interesting insights.

Keith: What's this thing where you're going to them for the commentary, what is that about? You shocked me when you did that a couple of times.

Nehemia: It's actually a really good commentary.

Keith: I know it is, actually Doctor Moster told me about it.

Nehemia: Did he?

Keith: Yeah.

Nehemia: Okay, well it takes a philological approach, which I appreciate, meaning it's looking at linguistics and history and archaeology, then we’ll insert theology, but you don’t have to accept the theology, it actually separates those out. So here it says, it’s on verse 17, “‘Do not think that I came’ presupposes the existence of the opinion that is denied.” In other words, why would Yeshua say, “Do not think that I came to do X, Y, Z”? Because there were people who thought that he came to do to do away with X, Y, Z. Why would anybody think that?

Let's discuss that. I’m going to read on with the Word Biblical Commentary. Now, bear in mind that part of this is an evangelical, you might even call fundamentalist, commentary, but part of it is, how do I put this, higher criticism. We talked about lower criticism, which is textual criticism. Higher criticism is what they call the top half of the page, and it deals with who wrote these things and why. It presupposes that what's written is not divinely inspired or not the word of God. So I'm only going to read it, not because I'm presenting that opinion, or because I'm presenting that as my opinion, this is what Word Biblical Commentary says.

He says, “Although it is unlikely that we are to suppose that like James, Matthew here opposes Paul, or an explicitly Pauline group.” In other words, the assumption of the Word Biblical Commentary is that according to Paul, Yeshua did away with the Torah, he abolished the Torah, and according to the Word Biblical Commentary, James was opposed to this and upheld the Torah.

In other words, it's arguing, and not just arguing, it's taking it as a given that there was a split in the early church between James, who said the Torah still stood, and Paul, who said that the Torah was abolished, and so therefore, perhaps they projected the words into the mouth of Yeshua, against Paul, in order to say, “Do not think I have come to do away with the Torah and the Prophets, I came not to do away, but to fulfill,” that was a Jamesian idea contrary to Paul.

Now they don't accept that explanation, but they bring up that explanation, which is maintained by other scholars. In other words, there are many scholars out there, very serious learned scholars, who say that these words were fashioned in order to oppose what Paul was teaching and say, “You know what, Paul? Yeshua himself said that he did not come to do what you claimed he did.”

Now, I'm not saying that Paul did away with the Torah. I'm saying this is what they're saying, what these scholars are saying, what these Christian scholars are saying. The Word Biblical Commentary mentions that as a possibility, but then kind of rejects it because they don't believe that there was a split between Paul and James - at least the author of this part of the commentary.

He says, “Here it is fair to assume that Jesus’ sovereign interpretation of the law was so out of step with contemporary interpretation, (e.g., the Pharisees) that it seemed to many that Jesus was going against the law.” In other words, they now say, “No, when he said, “the Torah and the Prophets,” he didn't mean the Torah and the Prophets, he meant the Rabbinical interpretation of the Torah and the Prophets.” And according to the Word Biblical Commentary, he's saying, “Look, don't think I came to do away with the Torah and the Prophets, even though I'm opposed to the rabbis.”

Keith: Now, Nehemia?

Nehemia: Yeah?

Keith: Controversy, alright? So you're bringing the Word Biblical Commentary.

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: And I'm a little frustrated with you.

Nehemia: Look you brought the Christian commentary a few episodes ago!

Keith: But here's what you didn't read - he puts in parentheses, and this is why this is so confusing to me at times. I'm glad you said who writes it, “that it seemed to many that Jesus was going against the law” parentheses, “indeed, at one level, we shall see that he does.”

Nehemia: We’ll get to that in future episodes.

Keith: This is what I want to do, and bear with me. I just want to do two small things, because I actually had this before that statement of the commentary, and that is two words, I just want us to look at one of them. Can we just look at one of them?

Nehemia: Sure.

Keith: You used the word “to annul”.

Nehemia: Le’hafer.

Keith: Okay, le’hafer. Can I just read a few verses?

Nehemia: Sure.

Keith: Where the exact same way that he uses it there is used in other places. I’m going to use the one in 26:44 of Leviticus, “Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of the enemies, I will not reject them, nor will I so abhor them as to destroy them,” and this the NASB I believe, “breaking,” “le’hafer,” “My covenant with them; for I am Yehovah, their God.”

Next one, “Then Absalom and all the men of Israel said, ‘The council of Hushai the Archite is better than the council of Ahithophel,’ for the Yehovah had ordained to thwart,” “le’hafer,” “the good council.” That’s II Samuel 17:14.

Just a couple more. “For thus says Adoni Yehovah, ‘I will also do with you as you have done, you who have despised the oath by breaking,’” “le’hafer”. Again, you gave the A Group and the B Group, and I think it is in the B Group, they use “le’hafer” twice, in the A Group they use it once. In other words, this is the word that we're using, the NASB is translating.

Nehemia: The other way around - the B Group has it once, A Group has it twice.

Keith: Two more, “Now he despised the oath by breaking,” “le’hafer,” “the covenant,” this is Ezekiel 17:18. Zechariah 11:14, “Then I cut in pieces my second staff union, to break,” “le’hafer,” I'm giving you the NASB’s translation of that word. One more I want to give, “and hired counsellors against them to frustrate,” “le’hafer,” “their council all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia.” That’s Ezra 4:5.

When you translated it, what did you say? Now I've got le’hafer, to break, to annul - how do you see the word?

Nehemia: So, it's definitely used in the context of someone who is doing something that expresses that the covenant is no longer valid.

Keith: Okay.

Nehemia: In other words, in Hebrew you have this balance - you cut a covenant, that's karat, and le’hafer is you abolish a covenant. So, abolishing the covenant could be by violating the terms of the covenant or just saying it's no longer valid.

Keith: So here's the thing - when I see that, this idea of breaking… Now, there's another word, and I don't know if we're going to have time to get to this or not, because it's the issue of, it says, “do not think”. That word - there's depth Nehemia, we should do a Bible study on that word.

Nehemia: Wow. Michael Rood has this beautiful teaching where he's talking about context, and how important context is, because without context you could say, “Yeshua taught you not to think.” “What do you mean he taught me not to think?” “He says do not think.” But you’ve got to keep reading, you’ve got to read the full verse!

Keith: Do we talk about that word?

Nehemia: Wow, we have so much to talk about. Give me a few more minutes.

Keith: Absolutely.

Nehemia: I want to quote you, though. While we were doing our secret study with Nelson, you wrote something and I typed it down, verbatim. Keith: “There were already people at the time of the Sermon on the Mount that said, ‘He has come to release us from the Torah.’”

Keith: And with that we're going to the Plus section. I’m just kidding!

Nehemia: Hold on. How did we go from, “I have not come to do away with the Torah,” to “the very purpose of my coming to earth was to set mankind free from the Torah.” Look, that is this theological problem, in a sense…

Keith: Yes.

Nehemia: … that Christians have. Christianity, by and large - obviously there’s exceptions - but most Christians teach, “The Torah has been done away with, it's been replaced with a new covenant,” and how do we explain away Matthew 5:17? The answer that's often given, which I don't know if we'll get to in the Plus, is that the word “to fulfill” means to fulfill prophetically, and once it's fulfilled prophetically, we don't need it anymore.

Keith: Let me tell you something folks; my friend Howard, who tip toes around the tulips, his text, he does theological gymnastics. And Nehemia, I want to say to you right now, it would be easy for us to pass over it, but I think we’ve got to lean into that, I don't care how long it takes. It's on the NehemiasWall.com anyway, the Plus section, you know that right?

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: So we can take hours to talk about this, it's really important that we walk away understanding what it means, language, history, and context, on the issue of English, fulfilled.

Nehemia: Let me tell you what I want to do in the Plus section, since we're not going to have time to get to it, until the Plus section. Here's one of the things I want to do. I want to ask the question; I've been waiting a long time until we got to this to do this. We saw in the Word Biblical Commentary there is this assumption; say assumption.

Keith: Assumption.

Nehemia: That Paul taught that the Torah was done away with, and James taught that the Torah was still valid. Let's leave that assumption aside and work under the assumption that Paul didn't abolish the Torah, because if Paul abolished the Torah, then we know when the Torah was abolished. But let’s leave that aside and say, other than Paul, which most Christians say abolished the Torah, what's the earliest source where the Torah is explicitly, in the mouth of a Christian, abolished?

And I don’t know if I’ve found the earliest source, but I've got some really, really good sources that explicitly say, “The Torah’s been abolished.” And here's why it's important - there’s a lot of people out there who have this idea that up until the Council of Nicaea, everyone in the church was a Messianic Jew. They went to the synagogue, they prayed three times a day, they put on phylacteries, not only were they Messianic Jews, they were Rabbinical Messianic Jews.

Then Constantine came along and abolished that, and made Christianity into the anti-Torah, antinomian, that’s the technical term, antinomian… that Christianity is today. What we're going to look at is sources that show that way before the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, established by Constantine, there were people who taught against the Torah, and there were people who taught in favor of the Torah.

Keith: Amen.

Nehemia: And just some of the sources we have, and hopefully look at it if we’ve got time is the Epistle of Barnabas, written between the year 70 and 132 CE, meaning after the destruction of the Temple, and before the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Irenaeus, who wrote around the year 180 AD, and Justin Martyr, who's writing around the year 150 AD. I'm not bringing these to prove that people in the early church didn't follow the Torah, what I'm trying to find out is, some people are still following the Torah in the 4th century, and I know that because there's Church Fathers who rebuke them for doing so.

But at what point did the other group come into existence, where there are people who say, “no, no, no, the Torah has been done away with,” and most Christians would say that was Paul, he would say, “now that you have Jesus, you don't need the Torah.”

But let's leave Paul out of it, because people have whole entire ministries dedicated to trying to understand Paul. Let's focus on… other than Paul, what are your definitive statements where people have said that the Torah’s been done away with, and in contrast how does that compare to the people who are still keeping the Torah? And by people, I mean followers of Yeshua.

Keith: That's why I say Nehemia, I'm glad that the Plus section is going to be at NehemiasWall.com. You singlehandedly have been supporting our research assistant through NehemiasWall.com, and as a result of our conversation that we were having, we were diving, digging, digging, digging, digging, and I say to myself, “there's so much digging,” there's so much that came up, and you're going to share it in the Plus section.

Nehemia: Well, the other thing I want to share - and I'm divided here. We’re going to do the Plus section, and I'm debating whether we should do a Plus Plus, because there's something I want to share.

Keith: Only if the Plus Plus is at BFAInternational.com!

Nehemia: No, no, no at NehemiasWall.com!

Keith: So, we’ll do one Plus section!

Nehemia: So, the Plus Plus, and maybe we'll get to in the Plus if we have time…

Keith: I’m just kidding!

Nehemia: …I want to bring the only testimony of a New Testament statement, of Yeshua’s teaching, that appears in all of early Jewish literature. In other words, in the entire New Testament everything that Yeshua taught that’s recorded in the New Testament, there is one single verse that appears, it's actually in the Babylonian Talmud, and it’s quoted from Yeshua, meaning it’s attributed to him, and I want to bring that and share that with people, and that’s Matthew 5:17.

Keith: Absolutely. And guess what?

Nehemia: Which is incredible! If you think about the entire New Testament there's one verse for which we have independent corroboration outside of Christian literature, and it's Matthew 5:17. And what that reveals is, I think, kind of mind blowing. It's pretty cool.

Keith: Well, that's what we're going to talk about, so let's talk about it.

Nehemia: Alright, so, guys I'm really excited about the Plus!

Yehovah, thank you, I want to say Baruch ata Adoni eloheinu Melech ha’olam sh’hechiyanu, ve’kiyimanu, ve’higiyanu la’zman ha’zeh. Blessed are you Yehovah O Lord King of the universe, who has sustained us and allowed us to live, to reach this point, that we actually made it to Matthew 5:17, where we'll be able to share some of the most exciting things in the entire series. I'm very excited and I’m so thankful. Thank you for giving me the knowledge, to be able to find these sources and share them with people. Amen.

Keith: Father, thank you for people that are listening, thank you that they can get a little bit of a taste of what's been happening over so many of these previous episodes, where Nehemia’s been able to bring information that literally the world hasn't been able to see and interact with, and we've been able to be blessed, by being able to glean from his many years of study and expertise in this area.

Now we ask that You bless those that are listening, bless those that will go to the Plus, and bless us as we continue to consider what it means to lead in this area, to teach in this area, to share in this area. Thank you for Hebrew Gospel Pearls and all that it has been, all that it is, and hopefully, all that it will be, in Your name. Amen.

You have been listening to Hebrew Gospel Pearls with Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

We hope the above transcript has been a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the transcript has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If this teaching has been a blessing to you, please consider supporting Nehemia's research and teachings, so he can continue to empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith!


Watch Hebrew Gospel Pearls PLUS #24!

SUPPORT NEHEMIA'S RESEARCH AND TEACHINGS!
Makor Hebrew Foundation is a 501c3 tax-deductible not for profit organization.

Subscribe to "Nehemia Gordon" on your favorite podcast app!
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | 
Amazon Music
 | TuneIn
Pocket Casts | Podcast Addict | CastBox | iHeartRadio | Podchaser
 | Pandora

Share this Teaching on Social Media

Related Posts:
Hebrew Gospel Pearls PLUS #24

  • Franklin Craig says:

    What was the person name that Yeshua took his place on the cross?

  • Viktor says:

    Yes! It’s Disruption, not Abolishment.

    Very important, to read with due care and not misinterpret, what the passage in the letter to the Colossians 2:14 states:

    “When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Messiah. He forgave us all our trespasses, having canceled the DEBT ascribed to us in the decrees that stood against us. He took IT away, nailing it to the cross!”

    Nailed to the cross was in the person of Yeshua all accusation and damnation by Thora against our trespasses, the debt, which he in a new contract with those, who believe in him, took upon himself, once and for all.

    The instructions and judgements of Yehovah written on a finally properly cleaned and made soft again heart are not abrogation, but accomplish so much more than when only written on stone, parchment or paper.

    When Nehemia built the wall, it was necessary to work with one hand, while carrying weapons in the other hand. As soon as the wall was built, all that became unnecessary, the wall now accomplished the work of protection much better. That’s welcome Disruption by accomplishing, not Abolishment.

  • Terri Tom says:

    I could not find a PDF of “The Gospel of Matthew According to an Ancient Primitive Hebrew Text” for a long time, not for under $500! I finally located a PDF through a university library just 2 nights ago. Woohoo! So, now I was finally able to print it! It is now 3-ring bound (by me) but I realize now that since it’s printed in landscape, it needs to be hole punched on the short edge. That’s my next goal but I’m just so happy to have found it!

    • Ed Yablinsky says:

      Hi Terri Tom,
      Congratulations on your find. Do you mind if I ask you what address that you found for this rare document? Would appreciate it
      Thank you,
      Eddie Y.

    • Ed Yablinsky says:

      I’m sorry what website thanks

  • Marc Doyon says:

    Sorry Nehemia but I don’t understand. The title ‘Nailed to the Cross’ doesn’t seem to match the content of the video which tackles whether Yeshua abolished or not the Torah.

  • Daniel says:

    Yeshua only did away with Laws or “traditions” that violate the written Torah of Moses. Paul was ‘accused’ of teaching against Torah, but in Colossians 2 it says in Greek, DOGMAS were nailed to the cross, and don’t go back to those manmade rules or DOGMATISMOS!

  • Ce says:

    Matthew 5:17. “The People vs The Torah”. Yeshua did not do away with the previous testimony of the law and the prophets, but to complete the final presentation of evidence in the case. His desire was to fulfill his purpose, to do the Father’s will which was to finish the evidence, or testimony that was needed. We now have all the evidence required.

  • Sprinkler Man says:

    I haven’t put forth a comment for awhile because in times past your “gateKeepers” shut me up but I’m compelled at this point because this supposed controversy between Paul and Yeshua points to a classical issue that frustrates me to no end. I suspect you and Keith may be aware but do not mention for your own reasons. The frustrating issue is what’s referred to as “righty dividing between the Spirit and flesh”. In my humble opinion,, this concept IS the division between the Hebrews and Christians. I believe Paul bridged this divide between the two groups yet both sides seem to have a sort of blindness to this bridge. The bridge is indeed what Yeshua was saying in Mathew 5:17! The fullment is indeed the joining of the Spiritual with the Torah. That is the fleshly governing body of God’s Word joined with the eternal freedoms contained therein yet somehow missed being hidden by that misterious vail. The vail was rent yet the view from within outward and the view from without inward remains vailed to a significant extent to this day. The complete view is what that concept of “fulfillment” contains. Rightly Dividing therefore is complete sight joining the Spiritual aspects of God’s instruction with the Physical Governing aspects. With righty dividing there is a balanced completeness in comprehending what Yehovah is bringing us too and that is maturity. Without righty dividing, we are reduced to arguing children. This is my frustration. 🙌

  • Sandra Bernstein says:

    Thank you Nehemia for the teaching on Matt. 5:17. I have been really searching as to whether or not the New Testament is even valid and if Jesus is the Messiah. We are so grateful, we have longed for this type of teaching and instruction. We can’t thank you enough!!!!!

  • Desmond Mattocks says:

    The issue here is referring to back to Shemoth 19:5-6, in which the Melchizedek Order was offer to the children of Israel.

    They accepted and then broke the Covenant. Thus, the Aaronic laws were imposed on them, nor proposed

    Therefore, in order to understand the text in relation Colossians 2:14, one has to distinguish between the Book of the Covenant and the Book of the laws which are different.

    The Book of the Covenantvis inside the ark whereas the Bookbof the law, the school master in in the side of the ark.

    So, that is what is needed explanation of the two.

  • Michele Webster says:

    referring to Matthew 5:17: I would agree that Yeshua *DID* fulfill the law and **MOST** of what the prophets wrote – BUT He couldn’t have / didn’t fulfilled *ALL* they wrote. Yeshua must still fulfill what the prophets wrote concerning His second coming and also fulfill what was written concerning Israel’s role / program to make them Kings and Priests in YeHoVaH’S Kingdom taking the gospel to the world.

  • Kevin George says:

    Colosians 2 says: “13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
    If you obey the law, is it hostile to you? Suppose you went the wrong way on a one way street and a cop stops you and writes you a ticket. You go to court. The judge checks his law book and finds you guilty. The fine is $100. You can’t pay, so the judge threatens with jail time. Just then Yeshua comes up and pays the fine. You are free, forgiven. Now, does the judge tear up (nail to the cross) his law book, or the ticket of decrees against you?

    • Dan says:

      No one expects the judge will tear up the code of laws put before him, but a simpler argument to Colossians chapter 2, where in the King James Version Paul writes that the ‘handwriting of ordinances’ were nailed to the cross, comes from the Greek word DOGMAS, referring to the manmade laws, and later in v.20, DOGMATISMOS, reiterating NOT to go back to these made up regulations and their mindless focus removed from YHVH (v.21-23).

  • Miri says:

    Hey, Nehemiah! Thx for this boom! Video.
    So happy to see you so full of energy and joy, as always, restored to your old self!
    MB~

  • Samgray says:

    The word SHALEEM, which is translated as fulfil in the Greek has a clear meaning in Hebrew relating to satisfactory performance of an agreed task or agreement. It is related to the word shalom often translated as peace but more accurately it refers to satisfaction and contentment.

    YHSHU hey he’s not talking about prophecy per se but about the proper performance of the Torah! The proper performance of the Torah will always lead to the establishment of the kingdom of ELOHIM, because that is what it is purpose to do.

    however when you chop chunks out of or change or choose only part of the Torah the result is a perverse alternative to that utopia intended. YHSHUA was a teacher of the Torah especially as it is embedded in the kingdom of ELOHIM! The antisemitic term “Judaise“ Should be replaced by the more correct terms Faracy or rabbi. A whole people cannot be tarred by the teachings behaviours of the few!