As is often the case, individual verses, expressed in modern terms, serve to justify entire doctrines and to advocate them accordingly during preaching. Disregarding the context and sometimes serious limitations in relation to the original languages of the Bible, one still feels on safe ground. This is also true of the “replacement of the Ten Commandments of God” with a “new law,” described in John 13:34.
Inhalt / Content
John 13:34 – There it is!
Jesus Christ gave us a “new law,” according to the widely held understanding. This “new” law also replaces the “old” law, namely the Ten Commandments of God according to Exodus 20 (Info).
The verse regularly used for this teaching is John 13:34:
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.“
In doing so, Jesus Christ also specifically “defined” the “new” (replacing) commandments, which consist of the exhortation to love God with all one’s might and also one’s fellow human beings as oneself. The problem, however, lies in this assertion itself, because Jesus Christ did not have a “new” idea with this, but rather quoted from the Old Testament, and he also explained that this “supreme” (“new”) commandment is the summary of the Prophets and the Law.
Actually, it’s already noticeable.
Actually, the negation of the claim that the “new law” is a replacement for the “old 10 commandments of God” (“Commandments of Love” – Info) is already present at this point.
Anyone who regularly studies the Word of God quickly realizes that even the “best” translation from the original Greek text (New Testament) or Hebrew/Aramaic text (Old Testament) must contend with the vocabulary available and used in the respective translation language today. This vocabulary is generally degenerate and diminished compared to the original languages. This directly contradicts the narrative, the evolutionary idea of a language that continues to develop and expand. The opposite is true.
The detail is very important
Therefore, individual words from the original cannot be translated unambiguously or unambiguously, as they described a specific aspect at the time and used separate words for all other possible aspects. An alternative would be a paraphrase or description (as a comment in a footnote), but it was agreed to use what is now “common.” This is with the understanding that this does not fully, or even at all, describe the true background and cannot do it justice.
It is not at all necessary to study Ancient Greek or Hebrew, or even a contemporary dialect of Aramaic, which would be absolutely no disadvantage, because “the wheel has long since been invented” and so too has the study literature in the form of concordances, linear writings, which explain each individual word, its origins and meanings, as well as the number of uses in the translations and also which verses.
John 13:34 is frequently cited
The same applies to the frequently quoted verse John 13:34. Although the term “new,” even in a modern context, does not necessarily describe a “replacement” but still allows for the possibility of being interpreted as a “supplement,” the narrative has settled on “replacement” since this ultimately meant the abolition of the Ten Commandments. “Cheap grace,” however, consists of the idea of Jesus’ grace without any requirement to obey God’s will. Yet this very statement was contained in the “new” commandments of love.
A “practical” example of this expected “cheap grace” in the Old Testament is provided above all by Isaiah 1. For example, verses 12 and 13:
“When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.“
“Tread (trampling) the forecourt” describes the courtyard in front of the building, or tabernacle (sanctuary – Info). In this courtyard was the altar of burnt offerings for the daily burnt offerings in the morning and evening, the gift offerings, and the (actually occasional) atonement and guilt offerings. The latter were “emergencies” after a sin had been committed.
The actual “overlooked”
The entire sacrificial system, including the holiday regulations (e.g., Passover, Firstfruits, Feast of Trumpets, etc. Info), was all a “shadow,” a symbolization of the promised works of salvation by the long-promised Messiah, Jesus Christ. He fulfilled the “program” and concluded it with his crucifixion and death. The curtain in the temple was completely torn from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51). A clear signal: the sacrificial system was thus completed.
The people of Israel, or Judah, accepted all of this as a routine. The cost of the sacrificial animal as an atonement and guilt offering was factored in, especially when it came to keeping the gates of Jerusalem open, contrary to God’s law and repeated, stern admonitions to ignore the Sabbath (Fourth Commandment), so that all merchants, including Gentiles, could sell their wares in the open market as usual. The daily profits automatically included the expense of the sacrificial lamb in their calculations. People met in the courtyard to maintain contacts and conduct business.
“Broken the Sabbath commandment? No problem. A sacrificial lamb and the matter is settled!” That’s the motto.
Cheap grace is also “recognized” in John 13:34
The “cheap grace” of the Old Testament. Then, as now. Astute biblical critics interpret Isaiah 1 “naturally” to mean that God never truly desired the sacrifices for His “appeasement.” The symbolic meaning of Jesus’ self-sacrifice? It doesn’t even occur to them. In this respect, the Gospel’s principle of salvation is unique compared to (all) variations of pagan religion.
For everywhere it is taught that sacrifices are appeasement or supplications to the gods. However, the justice required for salvation is achieved by the individual themselves (justice by works). Either completely or partially. This is exactly as the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church describes it (Info).
Today, “Protestantism” justifies its claim to justice with statements like “no law, only mercy; we are no longer subject to the law; obedience? Nonsense! It’s not even required and, besides, not even possible, etc.” That’s just cheap.
What does John 13:34 mean?
This also applies to the “interesting detail” in the original meaning of “new” in the verse John 13:34. It does not mean (replacement) new, but a new, improved quality (“New, better, covenant”).
“Ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους.” The passage “A new commandment I give unto you” corresponds to “entolēn kainēn didōmi hymin“
“entolē” – Command, instruction, binding order. Not advice.
“kainē” – New in quality, not new in time. It means “fresh”, “of a different kind”, “surpassing the old”.
“didōmi” – I give
“hymin” – The second person singular personal pronoun, you. Used, among other things, to mean “the majority of people”.
Also:
“I give (Active presence, “I’m currently giving”) a commandment which is higher in its kind than I give“.
That sounds completely different and is no longer arbitrary, open to interpretation according to one’s own wishes. Reading the Bible does not necessarily mean studying it with genuine interest and with a clear priority, striving to find the (absolute) only possible truth! There is no such thing as “personal truth”; relativism is the only valid interpretation. That is, in fact, a purposefully motivated construct, not reality.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.Galatians 1:8
Bible verses from King James Version (1611)
Deutsch
English
