38. The Relationship Between the Mosaic and New Covenants

Louis Goldberg

When most Gentile Christians are asked as to the status today of the Mosaic Law or Mosaic Covenant, the usual reply is that this covenant is no longer in force. A number of sources will be cited later on to this effect but generally the response is, based on an understanding of what Paul declares: “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10:4) and therefore, now that Christ has come, the law has come to an end. Or, the writer to the Hebrews says, “For when there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of the law,” and “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming” (Heb. 7:12; 10:1) and the implication is that since Christ has come, the Mosaic law is no longer applicable once the New Covenant has been established. Many times, the Older Covenant is equated to the Ten Commandments and the assertion is that in ourselves we cannot be justified by keeping them; but Christ came and made it possible that through faith in Him, we are declared righteous.

Is another view of the Mosaic Covenant possible? And, is it likely that we need to take a fresh look at the interrelationship between the Older Covenant and the New Covenant? This writer suggests that we stand again in the sandals of the early Jewish believers and examine closely what they sought to communicate, rather than view the relationship between the two Covenants through the eyes of the non-Jewish thinkers of the general Church councils of the 300s and 400s, and the theologians who came afterwards.

We shall first take a quick look at the Mosaic covenant and then consider carefully its relationship with the New Covenant.

The Mosaic Law

This writer prefers to use the phrase “Mosaic Constitution” because it describes the unique combination of four basic elements put together at Mt. Sinai, and ratified as a package. God gave His Constitution to Israel in the Sinai desert, establishing a peculiar nation where everyone can regard him or herself as free people and as part of a community who are children of God. His desire was for each person to serve Him as the only One who is living and true. The fact that many generations in Israel did not do so was not His fault. However, in this Constitution are the means for people to have an atonement from sin as well as for every believer to live godly lives and know the power of God to serve Him.

While the Constitution is a whole and each element within it is equal to one another, each of the elements needs to be discussed so as to have a better understanding of this peculiar document.

The Moral

This element is essentially the Ten Words, or Commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5). These Words remind us that1) God has an absolute model by which He will judge individuals and leaders of nations one day at His seat of justice. Every unbeliever will be scrutinized; every deed and word will be tested in the light of an absolute justice. Every ideology espoused by leaders will be tested by God’s absolute truth. What a word in the face of the current attitude today toward morals which, for the most part, are considered relative.2) Another reminder is that these Words point out that each person falls short of God’s standards. Besides the sins of commission and omission, a person can “sin unintentionally,” not even being aware of it; for this reason, this facet of why a person can sin in such a way is the very basis for the sin offering (Lev. 4:2). In a sense, the Commandments were the means by which the Israelites were led to find out what the sacrificial system can offer atonement; dedication of life; and a life of fragrance reflecting the very mercies and grace of God.3) A final reminder is that these commandments enable the believer to live a Godly lifestyle. These Words were never given by God for believers to live the Torah in a legalistic fashion but rather every possibility exists in these guidelines to explore limitless opportunities to serve God and fellow man.

The Sacrificial Element

Five basic offerings are present in this covenant, starting with the Sin offering (Lev. 4:1-5:13), and then followed by the Trespass or Guilt offering (Lev. 5:15-6:7). These two offerings were required of everyone who came to worship in the sanctuary. The additional three offerings were completely voluntary but if anyone wished to go beyond the first two, he had to present in succession the three remaining offerings: Burnt offering (Lev. 1); Meal or Grain offering (Lev. 2); and finally, the Peace, or Fellowship offering (Lev. 3: 7:11-18, 28-34).

The Juridical Element

Because Israel was constituted as a nation, special officials were designated to care for the covenant’s civil and criminal law codes (Deut. 16:18-20; 17:8-13). The priests and judges as civil authorities sat on courts of law, dispensing equitable justice whenever any of these codes were broken.

The Models of Worship and Lifestyle

The constitution also had a unique element which described the religious culture of a people. To note just a few of the practices, Moses included the observance of the holidays, the specific emphasis of the Sabbath on the seventh day, the dietary, Levitical code of cleanliness, care for the poor, and so on. All elements were basic to the very structure of this constitution. Each one was parallel to the others and no one could say, “I will only observe the Moral, Sacrificial and Judicial and forget the Models.” Perhaps Yaakov (James) had this in mind when referring to the Mosaic covenant, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (James 2:10).

The Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant

With the death of Yeshua (Jesus) as the sin offering, and particularly after the loss of the second Temple, a new age came into being. The people of God are now in a special sense the body of Messiah, although at the same time, Israel continues as an elect people with a guaranteed existence, based on the purposes of God in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.

Even the religious leaders among the Pharisees recognized something new had transpired with the loss of the temple in 70 C.E. A real problem was posed as to what would become of the Mosaic covenant when it was no longer possible to offer sacrifices. We know what occurred at the Council of Yavneh (70~90 C.E.); the rabbis structured a Judaism with no substitute atonement while at the same time insisting that the Mosaic covenant was still in place, although modified!4 Perhaps they thought the interval between the second and third temple would be short, as it was for only fifty years between the first and second temples (586- 536 B.C.E., the latter date referring to when the foundations of the second temple were laid). However, the years have dragged on for centuries after the Yavneh council with no temple, but the modified Mosaic covenant still remains in place as the guide for religious Jewish people.

But the real crux of the issue for the body of Messiah is the relationship between the Mosaic and New Covenants. Many scholars take different positions on this issue, but we can only treat a few of them in this paper.

The Demise of the Mosaic Covenant

As already suggested, many declare that the Mosaic Covenant is completed in its entirety: the package is broken and no elements of this covenant remain. Newell observes what many believe to be true:

“God has repeatedly declared the day of the first Covenant is done … Israel then is at present out of covenant with God entirely. In the first, the legal Covenant, they continued not, and God regarded them as not. There is therefore no standing for Israel before God under the Mosaic Cove nant.”5

Newell could not see any possibility of the use of the Mosaic Covenant within the New Covenant at all, but rather, the New Covenant is something entirely different with no possible connection or continuity with the former Covenant.

A Possible Continuity — Chafer’s comment concerning the Mosaic Law is interesting:

“A rule divinely given through Moses to govern Israel in the land of land of promise. It was commended to them because they were a covenant people. Thus it defined the manner of their daily life. It was itself a covenant of works (Exod. 19:5-6). This covenant they soon broke. It will yet be superseded by the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-13). This agreement will include the former Law of Moses (Deut. 30:8).”6

Therefore, despite Chafer’s statement that the Mosaic law will be superseded, he still suggests a continuity between the two covenants, the Mosaic and the New, even though he does not spell out what this means.

Statements by Some Reformers

What some Reformers have said regarding the law are particularly noteworthy, especially, the Ten Words. Calvin, and to some extent Melanchthon, Luther’s theologian, after his death, proclaimed a “Threefold function of the Law”:

“Why should the law be taught? The law is to be taught for the sake of discipline . . . that by this pedagogy men might come to Christ . . . Secondly, the law is to be taught in order to expose sin. Thirdly, the law is to be retained so that the saints may know which works God requires.”7

An attempt is therefore made to have a continuity between the moral element of the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant, even though the package of the Mosaic covenant would be regarded as broken and therefore discontinuous.

An Alternative Suggestion of Linking the Mosaic and New Covenants

As we compare the Mosaic and New Covenants in the light of what each one proclaims, a discontinuity appears, especially once the second temple is lost. When the altar is no longer present where sacrifices can be offered, the specific element of the sacrificial system can no longer be observed and therefore, the packaged unit of the Mosaic Covenant is broken. This covenant is no longer in the form as it was given at Sinai. Even the religious leaders at the Council of Yavneh recognized a drastic change in the Constitution with the loss of the temple when the offer of sacrifices could no longer be maintained.

The American constitution has three major divisions in it, spelling out how the government should operate: The Executive branch, with the President as its head; the Legislative branch, consisting of the houses of Congress; and, the Judicial branch, with the presence of a court system. However, what would happen to this Constitution should the time come when the Executive branch is declared null and void and in its place, only the other two shall remain? The result would be that there will no longer be an American Constitution as it was originally envisioned by the founding fathers.

Similarly, with the loss of the second temple, and as a result, no element remains concerning the sacrificial system, the entire package of the Mosaic covenant no longer exists as it was given at Mt. Sinai. Two possibilities exist as to how to handle the sacrificial element and in particular, the atonement issue: 1) Either go with what was decided at the Council of Yavneh, or 2) proceed with what was proclaimed by the early Jewish believers as taught by Yeshua the Messiah. The first option is questionable inasmuch as the Judaism which followed the Yavneh council no longer proclaims a substitute atonement. In addition, the question will also arise as to when did God give up on substitute atonement since this was the message inherent in the sacrificial system. To this day, some religious Jewish people sense the lack of substitute atonement, especially when roosters and chickens are swung over the heads of men and women respectively in connection with the Yom Kippurim (Day of Atonement).

The second option sees a distinct connection between the elements of the Mosaic Constitution and the New Covenant. While the package surrounding the elements is no more once the temple was lost, yet continuity exists between the elements and the New Covenant. The package was broken when the Messiah died for our sins, and became clearly visible when the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. However, through Messiah, the moral and sacrificial elements transfer to the New Covenant, while the role of the Juridicial has to be considered in the light of the Gospel going to the Gentile world, and decisions about practicing models of worship and lifestyle is based on freedom of choice in the New Covenant. Thus, even though the Mosaic package is broken, the clue regarding the elements is to focus on what the New Covenant does with these very elements and therefore we can realize a continuity.

Element of the Moral

Regarding the moral, or commandments, the New Covenant describes numerous examples of how Yeshua mentioned and lived every one of the commandments in the community he resided. He provided an awesome lesson of what the first and second commandments can mean to the rich young ruler who wanted to have eternal life (Luke 18:18-24). The young man was told to sell everything he had and then follow the Messiah. Was this supposed to be the epitome of piety, to get rid of all possessions? No! Not at all.

The young man had already announced that he not only knew but lived the commandments. But did he really know what the full meaning of the first commandment entailed? When he was told to give up his possessions, the point became quite precise that he knew nothing about really loving God, and putting Him first, which the first two commandments describe for a pious lifestyle.

Paul mentioned and lived the commandments as well, and he constantly told the new Gentile believers that they must demonstrate their love for the Lord with a moral and values which come only from what God had given Moses. The point is well taken as to how can one talk about the love of the Messiah without realizing that the highest love, hesed, or agape, cannot be divorced from the ethics of the commandments undergirded by the righteousness and holiness of God. The only omission in Paul’s letters are the requirements of observing the holidays (although he himself did), and even the Sabbath, by Gentile particular religious, cultural or practical needs (Col. 2:16). Nevertheless, Gentile believers did observe the Sabbath and other holidays in the ancient world when they lived in communities where Jewish believers were predominant.

Therefore, we are suggesting a continuity of the element of the moral between the two covenants.

The Sacrifices

The element of the sacrificial aspect is an interesting one. Obviously, sacrifices can no longer be offered at any altar in Jerusalem and many are prone to say that this element no longer exists. Many of our friends among Gentile believers will say that the sacrifice of Jesus is the epitome of worship and, “Halleleyah,” we no longer have to go to any altar to worship.

But is this so? Cannot we see, as the New Covenant writers point out time and again, all five of the Levitical sacrifices are a part of, or subsumed in the one sacrifice of Yeshua. And the tree on which the Messiah died is an altar, nonetheless.

Consider, first of all, the sin offering. Yeshua, without question, is our sin offering. A number of New Testament passages define the principles attached to the sin offering: He is our substitute; He identified with our sins because He “bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins…” (I Pet. 2:24); and He also died for us, because we were not redeemed “with perishable things such as silver or gold . . . but with the precious blood of the Messiah, a Lamb without blemish or defect” (I Pet. 1:18-19).

Most non-Jewish believers see the death of the Messiah only in terms of the sin offering to which we must relate, once for all. But the Levitical system had four other sacrifices; they are also subsumed in the one sacrifice of the Messiah to which we must relate eyeryday:

1) He is our trespass or guilt offering where we have forgiveness for every individual sin, “I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense – Yeshua HaMashiah, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins”(1 John 2:1, 2; compare Lev. 6:1-7) (note the plural of “sins”).

2) He is our burnt offering of dedication, “I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God -this is your spiritual act of worship” (Rom. 12:1; compare Lev. 1).

3) He is also the grain offering of the dedication of our work, “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case – things that accompany salvation. God is not unjust; He will not forget your work and the love you have shown Him as you have helped His people and continue to help them. We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure” (Heb. 6:9-11; compare Lev. 2). Finally,

4) He is our thanksgiving or peace offering. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the table around which the Israelites ate the thanksgiving or fellowship offering was, in a sense, the table of the Lord; likewise, when Jewish and Gentile believers come to the communion table, it too is the table of the Lord around which we are thankful to Him for what He accomplished for us, establishing peace n our hearts. Paul explains, “For he himself is our peace …His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace” (Eph. 2:14,15).

Therefore, in the way New Covenant writers referred to the various Levitical offerings and made the application to the one sacrifice of the Messiah, we therefore see a continuity between the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Covenant with its five Levitical sacrifices now subsumed in the one sacrifice of the Messiah.

The Juridical

A discontinuity exists between the two Covenants. The Body of the Messiah is not a nation, where church leaders sit at trials that affect criminal and civil law codes. Such decisions are left in the hands of state officials of every country where believers reside.

The Models of Worship and Lifestyle

This element is left open, based on the freedom of choice by any respective believer. A definitive understanding of how this element is to be used or not used is based on how Yaakov (James) interpreted the matter of holidays, dietary, and so on (Acts 15). Gentile believers did not, and still do not, have to be involved with these models that existed in the Mosaic Covenant, when they choose not to do so. On the other hand, Yaakov never said a word regarding Jewish believers, living in the land of Judea, among their own brethren. Did he really need to say anything? If one is going to live within the Jewish community where these models are practiced, Jewish believers in their messianic Congregations, then as well as today, will either more or less practice these models as well. The only condition, however, is that their use must be interpreted in the light of how Yeshua lived them and shared His life-giving message. All of our practices must be in the light of how the New Covenant interprets these models. For example, Yeshua observed the Passover and ever afterward in the land of Israel, as long Jewish believers remained, they too remembered this holiday. But they practiced it as Yeshua did, providing for the opportunity to share a life-giving message through the meaning of the bread and cup near the end of the meal. Assuredly, the practice or non-practice of this element does not imply that our atonement is based on its observance, and for sure, the Jewish believer who will want to observe this element does not have an extra measure of God’s grace, more than the believer who does not observe this element!

An Interesting Statement

As a capstone in our discussion regarding the Written Law and Mosaic Covenant, Yeshua declared, “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). The word “fulfill,” from the Greek verb, pleroo, is ‘interesting as it suggests: “fill, complete, fulfill, accomplish, carry out,” and furthermore, it is “used in connection with the fulfillment of Scripture.”8

Luz discusses this passage at length and poses several possibilities as what the word means in the Matthew context: 1) if we have “the teachings of Jesus” in mind or 2) if it refers to “the ministry of Jesus.” From either possibility comes a number of alternate suggestions as to what “fullness” means in the context. If it is the former where Yeshua did not change anything of the law, then “fullness” can mean, “to bring out in its true meaning”, or “to bring to full expression. But if the law is changed, then it can mean, “to add,” complete.” If fullness is taken to refer to the ministry of Yeshua, it can mean, he “fulfills” salvation history as seen in the promises of the law and prophets, or that in his life, he “fulfills” through His obedience what the law and the prophets require. Besides treating all these possibilities, Luz also discusses what various interpretations have come about across the centuries for this passage.

We cannot begin to, with the limited space in this paper, go into a full discussion of how various sources have interpreted this passage. We can, perhaps, indicate what we have determined already in our discussion of law that

1) because of the mention of the Law and the Prophets, the entire Written Law appears to be in view. As Luz suggests, if fullness is related to his ministry, Yeshua related to salvation history in the sense that He appeared to offer Israel the Messianic kingdom as promised by the many writers of Scripture. He demonstrated by both word and deed that he can initiate the kingdom, making quite clear that “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will be any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18).

2) But it would also appear that the Mosaic covenant is a part of the Scriptural passage because in certain portions of Matthew 5, Yeshua has something to say regarding the moral element of the Constitution. In other passages, the Messiah adds to the meaning to insure more than the letter of the moral; rather, He wanted a heightened sensitivity that would lead to a commendable godly lifestyle. The remnant in every generation of the Mosaic Constitution reflected in their lives a true spirit of the purposes of the moral element. Unfortunately, most in Israel never went much beyond the letter of the law. In his teaching of the law, we can say that Yeshua brought out its true meaning, its fullness of expression, and what is more, He lived every facet of the elements of the covenant, Insofar as the moral element is concerned, He added to it a heightened meaning, “Do not resist an evil person” (Matt. 5:39), “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44), and so on. In the body of the Messiah, everyone is a believer; we have opportunities to demonstrate an ethic of unselfish love and possibly Morgan said it best, “Love is the principle of life that crowns everything,” and that love is the major guiding principle of this entire chapter.11

The Tragic Break

As the body of Messiah became more and more non-Jewish in its make-up, the prevailing culture in which Gentile believers understood the Scriptures took on a Hellenistic-Roman contextualization. But even with the change of culture affecting, thereby, the way one expresses a sound theology and lives a lifestyle, the non-Jewish believers considered important the application of the Hebrew Scriptures and the specifics of the moral absolutes. In no way can we say that genuine non-Jewish believers became antinomian (i.e. against the Word), as we saw already with regard to the later Reformers. They indeed recognized and understood the implications of the holiness of God in the Moral absolutes of the mosaic constitution.

What became a real problem for Jewish believers in their congregations by the 500s was that the non-Jewish component of the body of Messiah insisted that the cultural contextualization of a Hellenistic Roman dimension be the only accepted means for theological expression, models of preaching, and dimensions of lifestyle. Where Jewish believers once had given latitude to non-Jewish brethren concerning expression and lifestyle (Acts 15), decisions by the church councils stripped away any possibility to observe the Mosaic models as interpreted by Yeshua or guided by New Covenant theology. In many ways, aspects of Christendom even became anti-Jewish. Therefore, Jewish believers by the 500s, because of the pressure of the Empire, became fewer in number and slowly amalgamated themselves into the non-Jewish stock.


The intent of this article is that the reader, rather than follow what many writers have said and continue to say in commentaries on various New Testament books regarding the Mosaic covenant, is to say that the time has come to once again examine the evidence what the New Covenant writers themselves say about the subject. As a young Jewish believer, first in the church where he attended, and then as a student in a theological seminary, he heard again and again: The Mosaic covenant is completed, finished, wrapped and folded away, and that the New Covenant has taken its place. And yet, because of his early Jewish training, it seemed inconceivable to accept that the Mosaic covenant is no more. But, not having the theological skills at the time to deal with what seemed a paradox, the issue of how the Mosaic and the New Covenants relate to each other was set aside until such a time when the matter could be better resolved.

Not until a number of years later, after being a pastor and then as professor in a seminary and then a Bible college was there the time to think through the issues of relating the two Covenants. Two factors lent themselves to stimulate the theological thinking behind the position taken by this writer. One was the possibility of contextualization as enunciated at the first Lausanne Conference for World Evangelism in 1974. The paper by Dr. Byang Kato of Kenya, “The Gospel, Cultural Context, and Religious Syncretism,”12 provided a stimulus to the possibility that, as this African brother sought to contextualize a Westernized theology into his culture, I could also go back and look for the means how the Jewish writers of the New Covenant took what was in the Written Law (Old Testament) in general and the Mosaic Covenant in particular and provided a distinctive message of Yeshua for Jewish believers.

The second stimulus to my thinking was the growing presence of Messianic congregations beginning with the early 70s. The presence of these congregations is nothing new; they already existed at the end of the last century in southern Russia but never grew to prominence as those which exist today. But such congregations with growing numbers of Jewish believers who desired a lifestyle as practiced in the first century made the impact on this writer that we really must examine once again carefully: how did the early Jewish believers understand the Mosaic covenant in light of what was transpiring with the beginning of a new community of believers. By no means is this theological understanding completed as yet. No one can claim a theology contextualized in the setting of early Jewish believers in a short period of time. Doing theology can take decades and even a century, but at least, a start has to be made.

This writer remembers well what Cardinal Danielou once said:

“Harnack.. regarded Theology as born from the union of the Gospel message and Greek philosophy; and in his History of Dogma a Jewish Christian theology finds no place, simply because he never suspected its existence.

…the fact that our civilization derived its manner of expressing metaphysical things entirely from the Greek conceptual system blinded scholars to the possibility that the classic documents of their faith might contain other quite different terms and images for the same realities..”13

We have to get beyond the Greek encrustation of how the New Testament is viewed and see once again that the writers of the New Covenant were Jewish, living in a Jewish world, and even Paul, who went to the Gentile world, used a lot of the law in his writings. Therefore, in considering the relationship of the Mosaic and New Covenants, the call is to recognize that Jewish believers certainly saw the Mosaic Covenant in a different light than what the church sees it today. Perhaps, as believers today evaluate what was the situation then, it will help to see the Older Covenant in a lot more friendlier terms.


1. Paul’s concept of moral in his writings is based on the righteouness of God as found in the Hebrew Scriptures in general but also in the moral element of the Mosaic covenant. He gave as one principle why believers should live a godly lifestyle, “whatever you do, whether in word of deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him’ (Colossians 3:17). But his letters reveal, either by direct citation or example, the presence of all the commandments and so they provide the moral undergirding why we do all our deeds in the name of the Messiah Jesus. All the other New covenant writers had a high sense of moral as well as, for example, Matthew: follow in the way of humility (23:12); follow the way of forgiveness (6:12); follow the way of service (25:31-46); follow in the way of fruit bearing (7:16); and follow in the way of the cross (16:24). Some of the religious leaders, already by the days of Yeshua, emphasied the necessity of moral behind our love, “whenever love depends upon some material cause, with the passing of that cause, the love, too, passes away” (Sayings of the Fathers 5:19; Herford, Ethics of the Talmud, Schocken: New York, 1962).

2. See Louis Goldberg, Bible Study Commentary, Leviticus (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan, 1980), pages 15-38, for a brief discussion of the Levitical offerings.

3. The order in which these offerings were to be presented are indicated by Moses: this sin offering, underscored by what is presented in the Most Holy Place (Exodus 25:22); next, the burnt or dedicatory offering on behalf of the nation, presented at the altar of burnt offering in front of the tabernacle (Exodus 29:42, 43); and finally, the offering of incense reflecting a person’s godly lifestyle, presented at the altar of incense in the Holy Place, in front of the curtain (Exodus 30:36). Whenever there is a progression of offerings, this is the order that was followed, as for example when Hezekiah led the nation in its return to the Lord God (II Chronicles 29). Following this moving service, Judah experiences one of its greatest spiritual renewals (II Chronicles 30; see vs. 26).

4. See Jacob Neusner, A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1962), pp.142-144. Neusner understands that ben Zakkai “though that through hesed the Jews might make atonement, and that the sacrifices now demanded of them were love and mercy.”

5. Philip Newell, Hebrews, verse by verse (Chicago: Moody Press, 1947), pp.262, 263,

6. Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, VII, (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), p.225.

7. Werner Elert, Law and Gospel, tr. Ed Schroeder (P,hiladelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), p.38, citing Gustav Kawerau in h,is article on the Antinomian controversies in the Realenzykiopaedie fur die protestantische Theologie und kirche, Theologie und Kirche, Vol.~I (3rd ed.; Leipzig, 1896), p.588.

8. R. Shippers, “pleroo,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament, I, Coin Brown, ed., (Grand Rapids: zondervan, 1975, EngI. ed.), pp.733, 735

9, Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7, A Commentary, Wilhelm Linss, tr. (Minneapolis: Augsberg Press, 1989), pp.260, 261

10. Ibid. pp.261-264

11. G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel of Matthew (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1929), p.29

12. Dr. Byang Kato, in Let the Earth Hear His Voice, ed. J.D. Douglas (Minneapolis, MN: World Wide Publications, 1975).

13. Jean Danielou, The Development of Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea, Volume One; The Theology of Jewish Christianity, tr. & ed., John A. Baker (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964), page 2

(Reprinted from Tishrei Vol 2 No 3, Spring 1994, The Nature of Scripture)



, , ,