Part Two: Covenant and Commandment In Hebraic thinking the term "covenant" is synonymous with the term "commandment.” I am of the understanding that in the Bible these terms and concepts are interwoven in such a way as to render them inseparable. But can my postulation be substantiated Scripturally? In ancient suzerain treaties, if the situation changed for one party, a covenant could be amended (or renewed) to adapt to the new circumstance. But only what no longer fit would be revised; everything else remained in effect exactly as before. When looking at the Mosaic Covenant, was there something “wrong’ between the parties of the existing or previous covenants that necessitated a renewal on God's part? Let's read the passage for the answer: (Jer. 31:31-32, RSV) Scripture goes on to describe that HaShem found fault with “them,” viz, Isra'el. How did they "break" the first covenant? —By not keeping the commandments. Observe Deuteronomy 7:6-14, RSV. Before I get labeled as a legalist, let me demonstrate what I understand to be God's view of TRUE commandment keeping: ‘For those who trust HaShem for the promises, the proper order for faith and obedience is set by the sequence in which the covenants were given. In other words, faith must precede obedience. But the kind of faith accepted by HaShem is one, which naturally flows into obedience. True obedience never comes before faith, nor is it an addition to faith. It is always the result of true biblical faith. To rephrase this in terms of the covenants: the covenant of promise (Avraham) must come before the covenant of obedience (Moshe). If we were to put Moshe first, attempting to secure those promises by obedience, we would be going against HaShem’s order. (This, by the way, is the key to unlocking the difficult midrash used by Sha’ul in Galatians 4:21-31.) All we could hope for would be a measure of physical protection and a knowledge of spiritual things. But we could not receive justification or a personal relationship with the Holy One through obedience to the Torah; it all had to start with faith. Avraham came before Moshe, but Moshe did not cancel out Avraham! The two complemented each other—as long as they came in the proper order.’ We see that "commandment breaking" was the reason that God needed to renew the covenant. In a sense, when Isra'el walked away from the covenant—when she forsook the commandments of God—she was declaring to God that she had no interest in him and ultimately this unfaithfulness was seen as grounds for divorce. Observe: Isaiah 54:1-10: the faithful husband (HaShem) is seen promising the unfaithful wife (Isra’el) reconcilement unto himself after a brief period of rejection (verses 7, 8). Why did he reject her? Because she willfully walked out of the covenant agreement in order to pursue alien love, causing HaShem to act in accordance with his own Torah and give her a bill of divorcement (see Deut. 24:1-4). Jeremiah 3:1-20: God is the husband and Isra’el is the wife. Verse 1a reinforces what Moshe stated in Deuteronomy. Verses 1b through 7 show that the unfaithful bride did not remain pure, but adulterated with another "lover,” spurning the sorrow and fury of her first husband HaShem. In verse 8, after desiring her to return to him, HaShem hands her bill of divorcement, based on her refusal to remain a faithful bride to him alone. In verses11-15 the faithful husband pleads with his unfaithful wife to return to him and find forgiveness but she persists in her adultery. Thus, the unfaithful bride walked out on the marriage covenant to pursue other sexual interests, causing the faithful husband to write her a bill of divorcement. Did HaShem wish to write her this bill? According to Genesis he desires unity for eternity. But hard-heartedness drove his wife to force, as it were, God’s hand of divorce upon her. She willingly left God; he always remained faithful waiting for her return.

Part One: What is meant by the term “Old Covenant?” Perhaps the best way to approach this topic is to first unravel the “mystery” behind Rav Sha'ul’s use of the term old covenant, found exclusively in 2 Corinthians 3:14 : “What is more, their minds were made stonelike; for to this day the same veil remains over them when they read the Old Covenant; it has not been unveiled, because only by the Messiah is the veil taken away.” The word "new" in the covenant spoken about in Jeremiah is actually the Hebrew word "chadashah," which can at times refer not to something brand new in creation but rather something that has undergone a reformation in character and purpose, or a simple refreshment on a different scale. On one level Jeremiah is describing a “renewal” of some existing item. On the other hand, when it comes to the regeneration of the soul of a man, viz, “old covenant” man vs. “new covenant” man, the change is quite radical: all things do indeed “become new.” Behaviorally speaking, the change can at times be quite dramatic, but forensically speaking, the change is as different as life and death! The New Covenant to be ratified on a national level with Isra'el will envision the former promises made with Avraham, Moshe, and Dah-vid. It is not necessary to overturn a previous covenant in order for a later one to find fulfillment. To be sure, Galatians teaches explicitly that a later covenant cannot nullify a previous one (see Gal. 3:17). As a feature of the living Word of God, the new covenant is not time-bound. Rather, the new covenant springs to life whenever the veil is lifted and eyes are opened to the Goodness of the Mercy of God’s Grace, specifically as has been historically demonstrated by the coming of his Son. It is better in many, many ways since Yeshua himself in fact inaugurated it before the foundations of the world were even laid! The “old covenant” does not describe the life of God’s people before the coming of Messiah. It is a term coined by Paul to describe faithlessness—the very thing that defined the nation of Israel when she fell into idolatry, worshipping the Golden Calf. The “old covenant” is Paul’s term for living with the knowledge of Torah but not receiving it by faith, and therefore missing the very goal of the Torah, namely, Yeshua. Paul’s “old covenant” is reading the TaNaKH with a veil over it so that the glory of Yeshua cannot be seen. The “old covenant” is the Torah without faith; the “new covenant” is the Torah coupled with faith. Consequently, when the Torah is read apart from faith it comes as a letter of condemnation and death, not the life-giving tree God intends for His elect ones. I must now explain why I believe in some ways that the Biblical concept of "covenant" is synonymous with the Biblical concept of "commandment.” I am not saying they are equal. Nor am I saying that they are the exact same things. I am simply saying they are inextricably linked to each other; they convey the same thoughts, intents, purposes, and meanings.

(Part Two) What have we learned thus far? Simply that a person must experience the genuine regeneration from the Spirit in order to be genuinely saved. This truth is fundamentally applicable from Adam to today! No man approaches the Father except through Yeshua, and no man may come unless the Father draws him (see John 6:30-71 where the primary discussion is eternal life offered exclusively through Yeshua)! Now let us turn to a discussion on Yeshua’s promise of the Spirit in Acts chapter one: (Acts 1:6-8) Amazingly, we find a “New Testament” passage utilizing the word “upon” instead of “in.” The Greek word for “upon” above is epi and it’s primary meaning is in fact “upon.” In fact, this word is never translated as “in” anywhere that I can find in the Apostolic Scriptures! Clearly the work of the Spirit in these verses refers to taking the Gospel message beyond the confines of the city limits, into the foreign mission field of the non-Jews, something “unthinkable” for the ethnocentric Jewish 1st century Judaisms. The Jewish core of the talmidim needed the empowering of the Ruach HaKodesh if they were going to overcome the social barriers created by the prevailing rabbinic halakhah that sought to separate Jew from non-Jew. Acts chapter two, which cites Joel 3:1-5 (2:28-32), is proof positive that God was using Jewish believers to reach out to non-Jewish peoples everywhere. Another passage in the Apostolic Scriptures that uses the language of “on” where we would think it should read “in” is 1 Peter 4:12-16... Again, the Greek word for “on” in verse 14 is epi. Context again shows that an already genuine believer is receiving subsequent empowering to withstand the trails that come as a result of bearing the name of Yeshua in the first place! Verse fourteen clearly shows the proper order in which to understand the “IN” vs. “ON” debate, namely, the Spirit saves an individual and then the Spirit subsequently empowers such an individual to witness for Yeshua. What then is the “work of the Spirit” taught throughout the Apostolic Scriptures? Simply the subsequent empowering of an already saved individual to do things that he normally could not do under his own power. The crucial key to unlocking the debate over “IN” vs. “ON” is knowing that the Ruach HaKodesh firstly works “IN” us to bring about regeneration and then works “ON” us to bring about empowerment to do the Will of God. I personally think we should change our language from “IN” vs. “ON” to a more accurate depiction of “IN” as well as “ON.” The Spirit saves and the Spirit empowers! Why can’t we grasp these two important biblical truths simultaneously? The “Old Testament saints” were saved exactly the same way as we in the 21st century are saved: by grace, through faith in the gift of God, namely, the Son of God and the Spirit of God within us. Yet, in a very real way, the presence and ministry of the Ruach HaKodesh, as we know him today, according to the times of the TaNaKH, would not be fully realized until the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Yeshua (read entire chapter of John 14, specifically vv. 16-18, 26). Perhaps it is best to think of his ministry in the TaNaKH as “less expansive” than as compared to today. “Less expansive” is not to be equated with “non-existent.” A survey of the passages and wording used in “both testaments” will show that the “Old” does not exclusively employ a “ON” reading as ostensibly compared to an exclusive “IN” reading in the “New.” Rather, a survey of the passages and wording used in “both testaments” will demonstrate “ON” and “IN” being utilized interchangeably to teach that the Ruach HaKodesh both saves (“IN”) and empowers (“ON”), and that he does so consistently with the eternal plans and purposes of God the Father.

Prologue: Ruach “Within” vs. Ruach “Upon” An excerpt from the commentary “The Ministry of the Ruach HaKodesh” by Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy (Part One) The very first mention of the Ruach in the Torah is in Genesis 1:2 "…v’Ruach-Elohim m’rachefet al-paney ha-mayim" (…and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water) Along with this reference, the Ruach is also mentioned in quite a few other surprising locations in the entire TaNaKH (Old Testament). Some rather familiar references are found in the story of Shimshon (Samson), where we learn that he enjoyed a special anointing from the Ruach (read Judges 13:24-14:20). In these verses the Ruach is described as "coming upon him powerfully." But was the Ruach within him? I’ve heard it taught that the Ruach did not enter into men until the New Covenant. However, concerning the construction of the Mishkan, B’tzal’el, the master craftsman, is said to have been “filled with the spirit of God…” according to the 1917 JPS translation of the TaNaKH. The confusion stirred up within the debate of “IN” vs. “ON,” that is, a teaching which purports that “in the Old Testament the Spirit merely resided upon (on) folks, while in the New Testament the Spirit resides within (in) a person” firstly seems to ignore the fact that Scripture teaches us plainly that regeneration of a man cannot take place without the Ruach HaKodesh! Observe the language of this pasuk from Sha'ul: 1 But, brothers, I do not want you to go on being ignorant about the things of the Spirit. 2 You know that when you were pagans, no matter how you felt you were being led, you were being led astray to idols, which can't speak at all. 3 Therefore, I want to make it clear to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says, "Yeshua is cursed!" and no one can say, "Yeshua is Lord," except by the Ruach HaKodesh. (1 Cor. 12:1-3) Verse one seems as relevant today as it was back then! We believers seem to be ignorant concerning the work of the Spirit and as a result go about bickering and arguing about topics such as “IN” vs. “ON.” Sha'ul’s wish is that with the help of the unified Word of HaShem and the witness of the genuine indwelling Spirit we should all come to the unifying knowledge that God has graciously granted unto us, as demonstrated by sending us gifted individuals capable of disseminating genuine Truth to the Body: (Eph. 4:12-16) What is it about the Spirit that will unite us as believers? Simply and foundationally that: only the Spirit can regenerate a man so as to cause him to declare Jesus as LORD! Verse two of our Corinthians passage above contrasts our former blindness and ignorance as “pagans being led by other than holy spirits” with now being led by the one and only Holy Spirit. The Greek word ethnos e~qnh, often rendered as “Gentiles,” “pagans” must be understood within each individual context presented. Here it connotes a foreigner from the nations devoid of true knowledge and worship of HaShem, i.e., a pagan. Compare this now with the reality that we have in Messiah, viz, brought to life along with him through the gift of the Spirit. In this sense, we are no longer “pagans.” Did we come to this revelation on our own? No. Regeneration is accomplished solely by the divine fiat of God. Man is incapable of calling God “Abba” without becoming “born again” first (cf. all of Romans chapter eight, but specifically verses 14-17). The second clause of verse three of our Corinthian passage confirms this reality. That the second clause is perhaps a lesson in ontology is also a possibility, one that I will not explore in this particular study.

Towards Understanding the “New Covenant” and Yeshua’s Term “New Commandment” A 14-Week Study by Torah Teacher Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy It is quite common in Christian circles to hear the declarative statement, “We’re not under the old covenant… We are under the new covenant!” Arguably, such a statement is usually presented to those within “Messianic” circles (the Torah Communities), in contrast to any ostensible responsibility to the Torah of Moshe by the current and established Christian Church. To further the confusion, the Apostolic Scriptures in fact do utilize the verbiage “new covenant” or “new testament.” What are we to make of such passages? Has the Torah of Moshe been abolished in Christ? What are we “Torah-keepers” to make of 2 Corinthians 3:14: What is more, their minds were made stonelike; for to this day the same veil remains over them when they read the Old Covenant; it has not been unveiled, because only by the Messiah is the veil taken away. (CJB) Is Paul referring to the Torah of Moshe in this passage? What about Yeshua’s words in Luke 22:20? And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” (NASB) Proposed Syllabus : Week One: Introduction and Overview Week Two: Prologue Part One: Ruach “Within” vs. Ruach “Upon” Week Three: Prologue Part Two: Ruach “Within” vs. Ruach “Upon” Week Four: Memorial Day (Class Cancelled) Week Five: What is meant by the term “Old Covenant?” (Part A) Week Six: Shavu’ot Service (Class Cancelled) Week Seven: What is meant by the term “Old Covenant?” (Part B) Week Eight: What is meant by the term “Old Covenant?”/Conclusions Week Nine: Covenant and Commandment Week Ten: Intermission – Sh’eil’ot u’T’shuv’ot “Questions and Answers” Week Eleven: Covenant Status: Earned or Freely Given?/Conclusions Week Twelve: Yeshua's NEW Commandment Week Thirteen: Scriptural Agreement/Conclusions Week Fourteen: Finale – Sh’eil’ot u’T’shuv’ot “Questions and Answers”

When Sha’ul became a Messianic Jew on his Damascus Road experience, he no longer interpreted Judaism as only a non-Messianic Jew would. His encounter with the risen Yeshua and subsequent filling of the Ruach HaKodesh produced in him a new and correct understanding of what HaShem was asking of the Jewish people when He gave them His Torah in the first place. Sha’ul now was free, as are all believers who follow after the God of Isra’el, through His Messiah, Yeshua, to not only pursue but also to teach Torah Observance in fulfillment of what Yeshua accomplished through His sacrifice.

Biblical “freedom” is not a license to walk away from Torah! Biblical “freedom” is liberation to walk into Torah and into the righteous that HaShem envisioned for us all along! Thus, positional righteousness always results in behavioral righteousness. Put plainly, Torah submissiveness is the natural result of being set free from sin and set free unto Yeshua! The ages-old “Law vs. Grace” argument is a dead argument. Truthfully, there exists no incongruity between God’s Law and God’s Grace. The two are complimentary. To be sure, God’s grace is what actually empowers the saint to walk into Torah obedience! To walk in disobedience and lack of trust is to invite God’s punishment and withholding of blessing. To belong to the family is to mentally, spiritually, and physically accept the family rules. To this end, both Jews and Gentiles are expected to practice Torah submissiveness within their hearts and within their communities. To submit to God is to desire and allow his Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) to continually mold a person’s life into the example of the Son of God, who vividly displayed a Torah-obedient and submissive life! This is the responsibility of a believer. To suppose that faith outside of resulting action alone is pleasing to God is to misunderstand the valuable lesson explained by Ya’akov. Such faith is barren and of no value to God. Conversely, to mistakenly replace the genuine faith that the Torah teaches with halakhic rules designed to regulate one’s identity with God, is to misunderstand Rav Sha’ul’s valuable lesson. Such actions also prove to be displeasing to God and unacceptable as righteous.

• Through the efficacious ministry of the Messiah Yeshua, Gentile believers are covenant-bound to ‘Father Abraham’s Olive Tree’—Isra'el—thereby making them fellow citizens and full-participants with the Commonwealth of Isra'el (Eph. 2), thus granting them the divine privilege of following the whole of the Torah. • We believe that YHVH has written this very same Torah upon the hearts of those, Jews and Gentiles, who have placed their trusting faithfulness in Yeshua (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:7-12). • We believe that this same Torah is a foundational revelation of the righteousness of HaShem and serves as a description (along with the rest of the Scriptures) of the lifestyle of the Redeemed Community (James 1:16-27). • Furthermore, ‘grafted in’ bespeaks of our affirmation to our true identity as a people—Jew and Gentile—that is securely rooted in the Finished Work of Yeshua HaMashiach.

In Judaism, safeguarding and keeping the Torah is central to performing the will of HaShem. Indeed, as properly understood from HaShem’s point of view, the whole of Torah was given to bring its followers to the "goal" of acquiring the kind of faith in HaShem that leads to placing one’s trusting faithfulness in the One and only Son of HaShem, Yeshua HaMashiach. To this end, the Torah has prophesied about him since as early as the book of Genesis (3:15), and continues to speak of him until its conclusion in Revelation (22:20). In this capacity, the Torah acts like its etymological counterpart "yarah" (an archery term) in that it "teaches" its adherents how to properly identify with HaShem by helping them to "reach the mark.” To be sure, one of the most common Hebrew verbs used to identify sin “chatah” literally means, "to miss the mark.”