V 2.0 5-31-17

Proof 18 Man Can Break the Covenant to Reject Yahowah

Proof 1: God is real.

Proof 3: God Has a Family

Proof 5: God Is Not Omniscient

Proof 8: God Always Gives Man a Choice

Proof 11: God Has a Way (Derek) Plan for Man

Premise 1: God’s testimony was passed to man via the Towrah, which is reliable (see Proof 1).

Premise 2: God’s plan invites all mankind to walk to Him; not just Yahuwdym.

Premise 3: His Word is everlasting and Yahowah does not change it.

Premise 4: Poor choices (like practicing religion) can result in God’s rejection

All Together:

From Proof 1, it is a fact that God is real.

P1 was confirmed in Proof 1.

See Appendix A (also in Proof 11), which confirms P2.

See Appendix B (also in Proof 5), which confirms P3.

In Appendix C, the reference in Yasha’yahuw / Isaiah 56:8 and 57:1 explains the conditions which Yahowah accepts Gowym, which is the same as the Yahuwdym. The opposite is true, if we reject any of the conditions of the Family Covenant, it nullifies the contract. There are many examples in the Tanakh where people, who once walked with Yahowah, chose poorly, and were rejected, which confirms P4.

Conclusion: Man can break the Covenant to reject Yahowah by accepting the filth of religion, participating in politics or militarism, and training our families to follow the way of man that leads to destruction (i.e. Babylon, Christianity, Islam, allegiance to a country/flag, financial fiat and / or pyramid schemes, slavery, human trafficking, etc.).

V 2.0 5-31-17

Appendix A, The Way (Derek) Path to Yahowah’s HomeThe link below properly conveys from the earliest Hebrew an English translation that is free from religious corruptions:AnIntroductionToGod.com/An_Introduction_to_God-04.0-Beryth-His_Covenant.Torah

There are Five Terms and Conditions1. Walk away from Babylon (from the patriotism of one's country, the corruption of religion, the traditions of family that impede Yahowah's prescriptions for living)2. Rely upon and trust Yahowah requires that we trust and know Him through His Towrah3. Walk to Yahowah and become perfect through only one path in the Torah through the #7 steps called the Mow'ed Miqra 'ey , the annual appointed meetings or invitations4. Observe, which is to closely examine and carefully consider, Yahowah's Covenant with man, which enables Him to save us5. We avow to raise our children as Yahowah's children, to be Torah observant, and to circumcise our sons (and ourselves)

The link below provides a summary of the five benefits of the Covenant:http://forum.yadayah.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=24260#post24260

Receive Five Benefits1. Eternal Life - as a result of the promise of Passover2. Perfection - (and thus vindication and redemption) as a result of the promise of Unleavened Bread3. Adoption into Yah's Covenant Family - as a result of the promise of FirstFruits4. Enrichment and Enlightenment (receiving the Torah and benefiting from its Teaching) - as a result of the promise of Seven Sabbaths5. Empowerment - also part of the promise of Seven Sabbaths

V 2.0 5-31-17

This link below summarizes the 7 steps along the way:http://www.BlessYahowah.com/a/sspos.html

There are seven steps on this journey, participate in the 7 Mow'ed Miqra'ey1. Pesach / Passover - where we are redeemed from death, which is the penalty of sin2. Matsah / Unleavened Bread - where we are cleansed from sin3. Bikuwrym / FirstFruits - where our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life4. Shabuah / Sevens - where we are given the gift of the Set Apart Spirit through the Ruwach Qodesh5. Taruw’ah / Trumpets - where we share the beneficial and healing message of Yahowsha with others6. Yowm Kippurym / Reconciliations - where we present ourselves to Yahowah to receive His personal pardon and forgiveness7. Sukah / Shelters - where get to spend eternity with Yahowah as His family

V 2.0 5-31-17

Appendix B, Tanakh References where God Cannot Lie or Change

Ba midbar / In the Wilderness / Numbers 23:19Context leading up to the Towrah passage:This passage follows the reference from to Bil`am’s (not of the people - the son of Beor, a man endowed with the gift of prophecy) instructions from God to Balak (devastator - the king of Moab) [in reference to an inquiry after building seven altars to sacrifice bulls, which was man’s attempt to please God with divination, or religious corruptions to gain His favor]. In context, Balak was fearful of the children of Yisra’el from 22:2-3, and sent for Bil`am 22:5-6 to cast a curse on the Yisra’el. Surprisingly, Yahowah speaks to Bil`am in 22:9-12 and warns him, “Do not go with them.” Bil`am warns the elders of Moab in 22:13 to go back to their land and that Yahowah refused to allow him to go with them. Bil`am stood up for God and walked away from these militaristic leaders of Moab.In 22:15-19 Balak sent great leaders from Moab to persuade Bil`am anyway, but again Bil`am stood up and said he would only inquire that night what Yahowah says.In 22:21, Bil`am did not follow Yahowah’s instructions, and he mounted a donkey to follow the great leaders of Moab [they made an offer too great to refuse].In 22:22-35, Bil`am’s is saved by his donkey, for a mal'ak / messenger was sent to slay him if Bil`am continued. After Bil`am admits he was wrong, God’s messenger instructed Bil`am to proceed on one condition, “Go with the men, but only the word that I speak to you, that you speak.”At the end of chapter 22, Bil`am and Balak meet; Bil`am states he only speaks for Yahowah. In 22:41, Balak takes Bil`am to the high places of Ba’al and Balak showed Bil`am the extremity of the camp. [This appears to be Balak’s way of trying to impress Bil`am of Moab’s military and religious greatness.In chapter 23:1, Bil`am instructs Balak to build 7 altars, prepare 7 bulls, and 7 rams. [This is similar to camping out with God for a

V 2.0 5-31-17

special occasion only to inquire with God, not as a religious sacrifice. Bil`am already had Yahowah’s attention and was under strict instructions to not deviate again.] In 23:2-18, there is back and forth regarding the inquiry between Balak, Bil`am, and Yahowah. Balak was seeking for a way to have Bil`am curse:KEY PASSAGE: Ba midbar 23:19 (from TS98)“El is not a man, to lie; nor a son of man, to repent! Has He said, and would He not do it; or spoken, and would not confirm it?”1 Shamow’el / 1 Samuel 15:29 (from TS98) In Shamow’el’s rebuke to King Sh’aul, Shamow’el states, “Moreover, the Eminence (netsach – splendor, truthfulness, or confidence) of Yisra’el does not lie nor relent (nacham – will demonstrate compassion by consoling, to be sorry, to pity, console, to rue, to avenge oneself). For He is not a man, that He should relent.” Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 89:33-37 (from TS98)

Dowd quotes Yahowah’s vision in Mizmowr 89:19-37. The key verse from Yahowah’s promise to Dowd that is found in passage Mizmowr 89:33-37:“But My kindness I do not take away from him, nor be false to My trustworthiness. I shall not profane My Covenant (Beryth - a compact, or the contract with mankind), Neither would I change what has gone out from My lips. Once I have sworn by My set-apartness (qodesh – set-apart, e.g. ruwach qodesh = set-apart spirit), I do not lie to Dowd: His seed shall be forever, And his throne as the sun before Me; Like the moon, it is established forever, And the witness in the heaven is steadfast.”

V 2.0 5-31-17

Appendix C, Where Did the Concept of a “New Testament” Come From?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

Marcion (a wealthy shipbuilder and son of the bishop of Sinope) and his followers believed that God of the Hebrew Bible was stern, contentious, and unmerciful, which reflects an anti-Semitic perspective common with Romans in his day. Thus, he believed that the God of the Old Testament were incompatible with the teachings of Yahowsha' (incorrectly translated Jesus). He went as far to disregard the Torah, prophets, and Songs because he and his followers believed that Yahowsha' was not fulfilling the Torah, but sent as a spiritual entity called Monad (which is a higher god called “the one” or “the Absolute,” which is tied up in Gnostic and Greek mysticism. Yahowah of the Old Testament was considered the Demiurge, which demotes the Creator and Father to a position as an artisan-like figure responsible for fashioning and maintenance of the physical universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge). The only or primary difference between Marcion and the Gnostics was that Marcion did not claim to have theology based on secret wisdom. Marcion derived his religion on the writings of the Apostle Paul and sayings of Yahowsha', where Marcion defined what was and was not in canon scripture (a prelude to the way the RCC determined which books to include in the Latin Vulgate).

Marcion reflected the influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity through the standpoint of Platonism, which according to Harnack resulted in other Christians introduce their formal statement of beliefs into their liturgy (i.e. the Nicaean Creed). Marcion used his version of Luke (a hearsay collection written much later than the witness writings of Mattanyah and Yahowchanan) and the ten letters from Paul (not the Pastoral Epistles nor Hebrews) plus the epistles to Alexandria and the Laodacians to make up his New Testament. Marcion was the first to separate the Tanakh from these later writings per Tertullian. Tertullian also claimed that Marcion set apart writings from Mattanyah, Marcus, and Yahowchanan to favor Luke alone in his New Testament.

Eventually, Marcion was excommunicated for his position, and his following died out by the 5th century CE. Yet, the damage was done by accepting Paul's doctrine in the RCC and later in modern Christianity. The epistles from Paul are now considered church canon, when anyone analyzing the

V 2.0 5-31-17

Greek from Paul's own hand are anti-Torah and diametrically opposed to everything Yahowsha' taught His learners.

To verify that Paul was Torah-less, think about what Yahowah's testimony predicts about this false prophet and Yahowsha's warning regarding the wolf in sheep's clothing. Read more at:http://questioningpaul.com/Questioning_Paul-Apostle_or_False_Prophet-01-Sha%E2%80%99uwl-Question_Him.Paul

Is there more perspective from Yah's testimony on Torah-less teaching? Yes

http://anintroductiontogod.com/An_Introduction_to_God-03.3-Towrah-His_Teaching.Torah

Religions infer that by believing them, you will find God. Politicians promise that by placing your faith in them, you will find prosperity. But Yahowah says that you have to choose between His teachings and man’s teachings. Both is never an option. To accept one, you have to reject the other. To love one, you have to hate the other. To be for one, you have to oppose the other.

But don’t take my word on this; consider Dowd’s:

“Those with divided loyalties (ce’eph – those who are half - hearted, hypocritical, ambivalent, and apathetic) I hate and I am opposed to them (sane’ – I abhor, detest, loathe, and dislike, and I am hostile to them). The Towrah (Towrah – the Source of teaching and instruction and the Place from which guidance and direction flow) I love and have developed a close relationship with it (‘ahab – I am personally familiar with and have developed an abiding affection for, I like it and find it desirable).” Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 119:113

Ce’eph is from ca’yph which speaks of “a branch which is lopped or cut off from the vine, separated from it and the land in which it is rooted.” Since the vine is symbolic of being grafted into Yahowah’s family, into Yisra’el and Yahuwdym, and of being rooted in His Promised Land, it depicts being nourished by the Covenant. So to be cut off from this is akin to spiritual death. Christianity, for example, is ce’eph.

Therefore, ce’eph, speaking of “divided loyalties, hypocritical behaviors, and half - hearted, ambivalent, and apathetic responses,” is the perfect word in this context. It conveys a plethora of insights into the problem of trying to trust both God and man. And specifically, it speaks to why Yahowah wants us to walk away from human influences, from religion and politics. He does not want us to have “ce’eph – divided loyalties.” He has made it clear that

V 2.0 5-31-17

we will not and cannot exist in His presence when we associate ourselves with such things.

If I may, let me frame this issue for you using some vivid examples. Imagine for a moment that God allowed a Christian into heaven. Such a soul would be a fish out of water. He or she wouldn’t recognize anyone or anything there. And everything he or she had come to know would not exist in God’s home. There will be no celebration of Christmas or Easter in Heaven. There will be no Sunday Worship services. No one in heaven will respond to the title Lord or to the name Jesus Christ. There will be no believers. There will be no church. There will be no Trinity. There will be no crosses. Grace will be unrecognizable. Paul will be nowhere to be found. There won’t be any readings from a New Testament. No one will be on his or her knees. There will be no ghosts, saints, or anyone else they associated with their former life. It would be a realm of total strangers, speaking a strange language, while celebrating things he or she had come to despise. For them, heaven would be hell.

In fact, since Christians and indeed also Muslims, Jews, and Secular Humanists love the things God hates and are so vehemently hostile to the things God affirms, why would they want to spend time with Him? Wouldn’t heaven actually serve as a punishment for them?

But there is more to ce’eph than just divided loyalties and being severed from the vine which is Yisra’el. You see, religious clerics are hypocrites. They know that their religion is in irreconcilable conflict with God’s Word. They know that the origins of most of the things delineated on the above list are pagan, even Babylonian. The Pope knows that God did not choose him, that he is fallible, and that he does not speak for God. Virtually every pastor and priest on Earth knows that God’s name is Yahowah, not Lord, and that the Ma’aseyah’s name could not be “Jesus Christ.” They know that the Shabat was not repealed. They know that there is no justification for Christmas or Easter in Scripture. They realize that Paul’s letters are contrary to Yahowah’s Torah and to Yahowsha’s testimony. But, they also know that if they were to reveal any of these things to the faithful, attendance at their church would plummet and its coffers would be bare.

Lastly, believers don’t have to be hypocrites with divided loyalties to be lopped off the vine that is Yisra’el and thus be severed from an association with God. Being “ce’eph – half - hearted, ambivalent, and apathetic” is sufficient. If you are like most people living today, and don’t care that your religion is inharmonious with the Torah, then Yahowah’s Testimony will be squandered on you. If you are apathetic to the fact that all religions are

V 2.0 5-31-17

irrational, then what is the chance you will respond to God’s instruction to walk away from yours and reject it? The Covenant, as a relationship, requires action on a person’s behalf. But the apathetic don’t act.

Moving from ce’eph to ‘ahab, and its association with the Torah, we discover those who are “personally familiar with” the Torah, “develop an abiding affection for” the Torah. Those who find the Torah “desirable,” come to “love” its Author.

We have been over this ground before, but it’s worth repeating. Those of us whose loyalties are not divided, those of us who are motivated to observe God’s testimony and engage in the covenant relationship with Him in accordance with His terms and conditions, love the Torah, because it is the Torah which provides this introduction and access. And the instant we come to understand what Yah is offering, we come to oppose all religious lies because they preclude billions of souls from knowing God. Out of love for the victims of religion, we come to hate religion.

Yahowah alone is God. The Covenant alone enables us to have a relationship with Him. And the Towrah is the lone place He and this relationship are described. As a result, if you seek God’s involvement in your life, His protection and salvation, His Word is the only reliable place to turn.

http://forum.yadayah.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=18400#post18400

When reviewing the naby (prophets), none is more clear about who will be harvested than Yasha'yahuw / Isaiah. Read this passage:

"Thus declares and predicts (na’um - prophesy) the Upright Pillar and Foundation of the Tabernacle (‘eden), Yahowah (efei - YHWH), who gathers and assembles (qabas - collects up together into one place) the scattered (nadah - exiled, outcast, banished, persecuted, and hunted) of Yisra’el, ‘I will also provide testimony and restoration (‘uwd/’owd - return and repeatedly bear witness and renew), gathering and collecting up (qabas - mustering) others beside those (‘alayw) already gathered.’" Yasha'yahuw / Isaiah 56:8

"The upright person (saddiq - innocent, guiltless, vindicated, and righteous, the judgmental and discriminating, the godly and redeemed) will disappear (‘abad - vanish, enter a state where their whereabouts are unknown), and no one (‘ayin ish) will devote any thought to it (sym leb - will take it to heart, ponder the core of the issue). Faithful and loving (chesed - devoted and favored, relationship-oriented and affectionate, merciful and favored, zealous and passionate, loyal and related) men and

V 2.0 5-31-17

women (‘ish - people) will be gathered and removed, harvested and received (ne’esapym - brought together and taken away, collected and then moved from one place to another as a reward, assembled and withdrawn) while no one (‘ayin) perceives what’s happening (byn - realizes what has occurred, understands or explains accurately, is perceptive or judgmental, diligently considering or prudently discerning). For indeed (kiy – surely) from your presence (min paneh) the upright (tsadaq - innocent, guiltless, and vindicated, and righteous, the judgmental and discriminating, the godly and redeemed) will be gathered together and taken (‘asap - harvested and withdrawn, reaped from the winepress and threshing floor, removed and received) away from the evil calamity (ra’a - wicked rule of man, time of perverseness, misery, crime, and destruction)." Yasha'yahuw / Isaiah 57:1

V 2.0 5-31-17

Appendix D, The Covenant is Not "New" Nor Renewed Yethttp://anintroductiontogod.com/An_Introduction_to_God-02.0-Shem-His_Name.Torah

God did not reveal anything even remotely akin to an “Old Testament” or “New Testament.” The perpetrator of this fraud was Marcion, a raging anti - Semite, who rejected Yahowah and the entirety of His Torah testimony. In the early 2nd - century CE, Marcion became the first to refer to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms as the “Old Testament.” The reference was intended to demean it as a document which contained the will of a now deceased deity. In its place, Marcion promoted his “New Testament,” a canon comprised of Paul’s epistles and of his heavily edited versions of Luke and Acts (written by Paul’s assistant)—in which most everything prescribed in the Torah was removed or demeaned. In the process, Marcion established a division which had not previously existed, and he created the notion that the Torah was now obsolete, having been replaced by the Pauline concept of the “Gospel of Grace.” Anything which didn’t support this view was either erased or ignored. It was a transition in perspective from which Christianity would never recover.

And while Marcion was ultimately labeled a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church for his Gnosticism, most everything Marcion promoted remains indelibly woven into the fabric of the Christian religion—especially his influence on the text of the now “Christian New Testament” along with it allegiance to Pauline Doctrine. Marcion was kicked out of the Church, but all things Marcion have remained in it.

In support of this anti - Yahowah perspective, Paul, in his letters to the Galatians and Romans, wrote of “two covenants,” and he said that the one formalized in the Torah on Mount Sinai was of the flesh and thus evil, a cruel taskmaster, that had not, could not, and would not save anyone. And while I’ve already quoted Yahowah’s perspective on this to prove otherwise, what about the notion of a “second, new and different” Covenant? Didn’t the prophet Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah predict the advent of a “New Covenant?”

At first blush, the answer appears to be yes, at least if you consider errant translations and don’t read the entire discussion. The fact is: Yahowah did speak of eventually “renewing, repairing, and restoring the Covenant,” and of this “Renewed Covenant” “not being exactly the same as” the existing one. But the stated beneficiaries are Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, not the Gentile “church.” And their reconciliation with Yahowah has not yet occurred. Therefore, the Covenant has not yet been renewed.

V 2.0 5-31-17

Further, those who actually consider Yahowah’s explanation of how His Renewed and Restored Covenant will differ from the Covenant described in His Towrah, discover that “Yahowah will give the Towrah, placing it in their [Yisra’el’s and Yahuwdah’s] midst, writing it upon their hearts” so that “I shall be their God, and they shall be My family.” Therefore, this is not about Gentiles, the Church, or a replacement of the Torah with Grace. Indeed, it is just the opposite.

Since there is nothing more foundational to knowing God than understanding His Covenant and the role His Torah plays in our lives, let’s let God speak for Himself on this critical issue. For if there is but one Covenant, one familial relationship, presented and promised in Scripture, and if its renewal and restoration is predicated upon the Towrah, we are precluded from promoting the myth that there is a “New Testament.”

“Behold (hineh – look, listen, and pay close attention to what follows), days (yowmym – times) are coming (bow’ – will arrive and will return), prophetically declares (na’um – foretells, predicts, and reveals) Yahowah ( - YHWH), when (wa) I will cut (karat – I will create, completely establishing and totally stipulating, I will actually make by way of separation (qal stem affirms reality and perfect conjugation speaks of an act which is total, complete, and indivisible)) relationally with (‘eth – as an eternal symbol on behalf of) the household and family (beyth – the home) of Yisra’el (yisra’el – those who strive and contend with, engage, persist, and endure with, are set free and are empowered by God) and relationally with (wa ‘eth – as an eternal symbol on behalf of) the household and family (beyth – the home) of Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah – Yah is Abundantly Sufficient, Of Yah, From Yah, and Those Who Are Related to Yah) a renewing and restoring (chadash – a repairing and reaffirming) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – nurturing and engaged relational agreement established on the foundation of beyth – family and home, a mutually binding partnership promise, solemn oath, and active alliance, and a participatory pledge based upon a marriage vow which fosters and encourages).” Yirmayahuw / Yahowah Uplifts / Jeremiah 31:31

The part of this verse which Christians, desperate to justify their “New Testament,” miss, is that the renewal and restoration of the “beryth – Covenant” isn’t with Gentiles or their church, but instead, with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el. This promise, therefore, cannot apply to Christians or Christianity. It’s game over.

V 2.0 5-31-17

As a result, the only question worth debating in this passage is whether chadash should be translated “new” or “renewed,” as both are etymologically acceptable. Is God going to renew and restore, reaffirm and repair the Covenant presented in the Towrah with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, or is He going to scrap the Towrah’s definition of this relationship and create an entirely new agreement?

To put this question to rest, you should know that the primary meaning of chadash, sometimes transliterated hadas, is “to renew, to restore, to repair, and to reaffirm.” Of the ten times this verb is scribed in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, it is translated: “restore and reaffirm” in 1 Samuel 11:14, “renewed and repaired” in 2 Chronicles 15:8, “to repair” in 2 Chronicles 24:4, “to repair and mend” in 2 Chronicles 24:12, “renewed” in Job 10:7, “renew” in Psalms 51:12, “renewed” in Psalms 103:5, again as “renewed” in Psalms 104:30, “repair” in Isaiah 61:4, and “renew and restore” in Lamentations 5:21.

As such, this passage actually reads:

“Behold (hineh), days (yowmym) are coming (bow’), prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah (efei – Yahowah), when (wa) I will actually cut (karat) relationally with (‘eth) the household and family (beyth) of Yisra’el (yisra’el) and on behalf of (wa ‘eth) the household and family (beyth) of Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah) a renewing, restoring, and repairing (chadash – with the secondary meaning being: a renewed, repaired, and restored) Family - Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth).” Yirmayahuw / Yahowah Uplifts / Jeremiah 31:31

And in this way, Yahowah is saying that His Covenant “is renewing,” that it “is restoring,” and that it “will be affirmed,” as it “will repair” the relationship He has had with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el.

While this rendering of the 31st verse of Yirmayahuw is completely valid, it isn’t necessarily the conclusion you would come to if you casually looked up chadash in your favorite lexicon. Strong’s, for example, presents S2319 chadash (חדש) as “new,” and then they claim that it was translated “new” 48 times [in the King James Version for which their concordance was created]. But look closely. The initial Strong’s entry regarding this word reveals that it is “From S2318 chadash (חדש),” which they define as “to renew, to make anew, and to repair.” But that is misleading. It is actually the same word. As is chodesh (חדש), which is translated “month” 254 times according to Strong’s. Therefore, the same three letters can be used to convey a verb, an

V 2.0 5-31-17

adjective, and a noun—something which is quite common in Hebrew, as well as most ancient languages.

So while there is absolutely no textual distinction between these three forms of chadash in the Divine Writ, the Masoretes created one—and it is that variation which has caused modern lexicons to make three words out of one. This known, there was an additional slight of scholastic hand in operation here. In Hebrew, like most all languages, verbs rule. Because they are active, they shape the meaning of the nouns, adjectives, and adverbs which are based upon them. For example, if you are diligent in your Scriptural study, you will discover that the root of most nouns, adjectives, and adverbs are verbs. But in this particular case, we find a very telling contrived exception to the rule.

I share this with you because the verbal definition, which in the case of chadash / hadas is “to renew, to repair, to restore, and to reaffirm,” should have prevailed. In fact, it is from the root meaning of “chadash – renewal and restoration” that chodesh / hodes became “month,” as the light reflected from the moon’s surface was “renewed and restored.”

That is not to say, however, that the adjective chadash/hadas cannot be translated “new.” It can be when the context dictates. It only means that if there are two equally viable options, as there are in Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:31, we should choose the form which is consistent with the verbal root. And that becomes especially important if the other option would have God contradicting Himself.

As further affirmation of “renewed and restored” being an appropriate translation of chadash/hadas in this context, we find that within the prophetic writings of Yirmayahuw and Yasha’yahuw, each time Yahowah inspired either man to scribe chadash/hadas, by rendering it “renewed,” or especially “restored,” we achieve a substantially more enlightening result than translating this word “new.”

These things known, the next line seems to suggest that there will be a new covenant, one different than the one whose terms and conditions were delineated in the Towrah. But is this even possible? Could God do such a thing without seriously contradicting other statements He has made, and in so doing, rendering Himself capricious, and His Word unreliable?

“It will not be exactly the same as (lo’ ka – it will not be identical to) the (ha) Covenant (beryth– familial relationship, marriage vow, binding

V 2.0 5-31-17

agreement, and pledge) which relationally (‘asher) I cut (karat – created through separation) with (‘et) their fathers (‘abowtam) in the day, when (ba yowm) firmly grasping Me (hazaq – I repaired, renewed, and restored them, I established, sustained and supported them, I caused them to prevail and grow, as they were strengthened and encouraged by My power and authority) in their hand (ba yad – by them taking initiative, engaging, and reaching out), I led them out (yasa’ – I descended, extended Myself, and I served them by guiding them away) from (min)the realm (‘erets) of the crucible of Egypt (mitsraym – a metaphor for human religious, political, economic, and military oppression and divine judgment), which relationally (‘asher) they broke, disassociating themselves (parar – they violated and nullified, they frustrated, tore apart, and shattered, and they split away) from (‘eth) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – My nurturing and engaged relational agreement established on the foundation of beyth – family and home, My mutually binding partnership promise, My solemn oath and active alliance, and My participatory pledge based upon a marriage vow which fosters and encourages), though (wa) I (‘anky) was married to them (ba ba’al hem – I was their husband), prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah ( - YaHoWaH).” Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:32

This affirms that the original Covenant was honored by God when He “hazaq – reached out to His people, and grasped hold of them, to renew and restore them,” “yasa’ min – leading them away from” “mitsraym – the crucible of religious and political oppression and divine judgment.” But, now, since Yisra’el and Yahuwdah subsequently “parar ‘eth beryth – broke their end of the agreement, and disassociated themselves from the relationship, the “beryth – Covenant Agreement” must be “chadash – reaffirmed, repaired, renewed and restored.”The question now becomes: how is God going to do this without contradicting Himself? And what we find is a solution which is not only marvelous in its implications, but also one which completely destroys the Christian religion. Yahowah said:

“Indeed (ky – surely and truly) with this (ha zo’th – in conjunction with these conditions and provisions the) Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth – reciprocal partnership, active alliance, and engaged agreement, mutually binding and nurturing promise, solemn oath and participatory pledge, based upon a marriage vow) which relationally (‘asher) I will cut (karat – I will create and establish through separation) with (‘eth – and alongside) the House (beyth – household and family) of Yisra’el (yisra’el–

V 2.0 5-31-17

those who strive and contend with, who engage, persist, and endure with, who are set free and are empowered by God) after (‘ahar – following) those days (ha yowm hem – that time), prophetically declares (na’um – predicts and promises) Yahowah, I will actually give My Towrah, completely providing and producing My Teaching and Instruction (natan ‘eth Towrah – I will reliably bestow and totally devote My Direction and My Guidance as a gift, putting it (here the qal stem affirms that this will actually occur and the perfect conjugation tells us that the gift of the Towrah will be whole and complete, indivisible and uninterruptible throughout time)) within their inner nature (ba qereb – internally, inside their person, within their core and midst, becoming part of their psychological makeup, thoughts, and emotions). And (wa) upon (‘al – as the Almighty concerning) their heart (leb – speaking of their source of life, and the seat of love, volition, feelings, attitude, and character), I will actually write it (katab – I will genuinely engrave and inscribe it (written in the qal relational stem, telling us that we can rely upon this occurring, and in the imperfect conjugation, affirming that it will produce ongoing results throughout time, with the first person singular prefix, saying that God, Himself, will be doing the writing, and with the third person feminine singular suffix, telling us that it is the Towrah, which is a feminine noun, which will be inscribed)). And (wa) I shall be (hayah – I will always, reliably, and without interruption or exception be (qal stem perfect conjugation)) God (‘elohym) to and for them (la la), and (wa) they (hem), themselves, shall be (hayah – they will always and reliably exist, eternally receiving the complete benefits of (qal relational stem affirming the genuineness of this promise, and imperfect conjugation which tells us that there will be ongoing and unfolding assistance and advantages associated with being considered)) to and for Me as (la la) family (‘am).” Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:33

The insights provided by the unique relational aspects of Hebrew tenses require greater diligence on our behalf, but they are worth the investment of our time, especially in passages like this one. It wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that the affirmations they provide regarding the unfolding and continuous results we can expect from God giving His Torah to us, placing His Instructions and Teaching inside of us, and writing His Guidance and Direction on our hearts, are as essential to our inclusion in God’s Covenant Family as anything ever written….This passage also affirms the role of the Torah in our salvation, because it associates the Torah Teaching and Covenant Relationship with us being included in God’s family. And reading between the lines, it reveals how

V 2.0 5-31-17

Yahowah’s Torah Instructions will continue to guide us during the Millennial Sabbath and beyond into eternity. It even explains that the purpose of the Covenant is to establish God’s family, so that we can live with our Heavenly Father as His children.

And yet, with all of these affirmations, it is astonishing that Christians routinely mistranslate this passage, truncate it, and remove it from its context, to justify Paul’s proclamation of a “new covenant,” one based upon faith, one unrelated to the Torah or its God. I dare say, the Christian misinterpretation of this passage ranks among the most debilitating crimes ever perpetrated in the name of religion.

Speaking of this and other crimes, Yahowah revealed the benefit of making His Torah our undisputed and unrivaled instruction manual:

“And (wa) they will not teach or learn (lo’ lamad – they will not be trained in nor indoctrinate, instruct or respond to) man’s (‘iysh – mankind’s and individual people’s) errant pronouncements, thoughts, thinking, or reasoning (ra’ – evil ways and improper principles, bad judgment, false pretenses, and regrettable communications) any longer (‘owd – ever again), or mankind’s (‘iysh) despondency and grief (‘ah – his tale of woe) claiming (‘amar – saying, boasting, and declaring) to actually know (da’at – to be acquainted with and be aware of the evidence regarding) Yahowah ( - YHWH). Because then, indeed (ky – rather surely and truthfully at that time), they all (kol) will actually know and recognize Me (yada’ ‘owty – they will be familiar with, be aware of, respect, revere, and acknowledge Me, and they will be known to Me), from (min) the smallest, youngest, and least significant (qatan) up to (‘ad) the biggest, oldest, and most influential (gadowl), prophetically declares (na’um – predicts and promises) Yahowah ( - YHWH). For indeed, then (ky), I will have forgiven (salah – will have pardoned and removed) their sin (‘awon – their guilt, liability, and consequence of perversity) and accordingly (wa la) their offenses against the standard (hata’th – their sinfulness and wrongdoing, their propensity and history of missing the way) will not (lo’) be remembered (zakar – recalled or mentioned) any longer (‘owd – now or ever again).” Yirmayahuw / Yah Lifts Up / Jeremiah 31:34

To hide the fact that God specifically said that the result of writing His Torah on our hearts would be that mankind’s errant and evil pronouncements would no longer be taught or considered, rea’ and ‘ach were both erroneously rendered by religious teachers and preachers. The

V 2.0 5-31-17

Masoretes would have you believe that ra’ is rea’, and that it means “neighbor,” and that ‘ah should be rendered “brother.”In actuality, God is not saying that “they will not teach man’s ‘brother’ any longer, or man’s ‘neighbor,’” because by saying such a thing, He would be asking us to contradict the very Torah instruction He has given us. But once we strip away the rabbinical copy edits, we discover that ra’, pointed רע, means “evil, wicked, immoral, harmful, wrong, troubling, and undesirable,” and pointed רע, conveys: “shouting, roaring, and loud pontifications and pronouncements.” Therefore, immoral preaching is what will no longer be tolerated once the Covenant is renewed.

Similarly, rabbis and religious scholars would have you believe that ‘ah should be translated “brother,” when its primary definition is actually “pain, despondency, and grief.” ‘Ah speaks of a “brazier, a pan which holds burning coals,” and of “a howling animal,” specifically a “jackal or hyena.” Therefore, once the Covenant is renewed, and once we become one with the Torah, the “pain and grief” which man has wrought upon his fellow man through religious teaching will be things of the past.

And yet religion will not go down without a fight—even if it means that the religious must copy edit the Word of God to survive. And that is precisely what they have done. But, all of their efforts will be undone and be for naught upon Yahowah’s return during the final political and religious battle on earth—Armageddon. On that day, some will be eternally reconciled unto God and others will be eternally separated from Him….

As a result of this announcement from God, it would be wrong to refer to the Greek eyewitness accounts as the “Renewed Covenant,” much less the “New Testament.” The Covenant has not yet been “renewed.” There will never be a “new” one. And since it is His Word, I think it’s reasonable to use His terms.

But should you discount what Yahowah had to say about the enduring nature of His Covenant, in favor of the revelation delivered by Yahowsha’, you’d find that they spoke with the same voice. The Ma’aseyah facilitated the benefits of the Covenant by honoring the promises of the Torah. He did not create a “New Testament,” much less a new religion. During the Teaching on the Mount, He said:

“Do not assume that I have come to weaken, to dismantle, to invalidate, or abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to

V 2.0 5-31-17

do away with it, but instead to completely fulfill it. Truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away not one jot (iota – the smallest letter, or Yowd in Hebrew) nor tittle (keraia – the top stroke or horn of Hebrew letters) shall be passed by, be ignored, be disobeyed, or be disregarded from that which was established in the Torah until the time and place it all happens. Therefore, whoever dismisses, invalidates, or abolishes the least of these terms and conditions, or teaches people to do the same, they will be called the least dignified in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever performs them, and teaches them, they will be called the greatest and most important in the kingdom of heaven.” Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 5:19