If you aren’t familiar with this particular passage in the B’rit Chadashah, it is where Yeshua (Jesus) is telling people that new wine cannot go into old wineskins, and a new patch (unshrunk cloth) should not be sewn onto old clothes. Instead, new wine must go into new wineskins.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

In some cases, this passage is used to justify that there is no longer need for Gentile Believers to obey the laws of Moses, in that the Torah is the “old wine” and the “old clothes”. Yeshua’s teachings are the new wine that must go into new wineskins, indicating that any Jew (those are the only people Yeshua was talking to in those days) who still abided with the traditions and commandments as taught by the Pharisees would not be able to accept this new understanding.

But this passage has nothing to do with the law itself because Yeshua wasn’t talking about the performance of the commandments: he was talking about having an open mind to the deeper meaning of the commandments.

There is a Jewish form of exegesis called PaRDeS. The “P stands for P’shat, which is the literal meaning of the laws (i.e., plain language- what you hear is what it is); the “R” is for Remes, a deeper, more spiritual meaning. The “D” is for Drash, a story (or parable, if you will) that has a moral meaning, and the “S” is for Sud, an almost mystical understanding of the law.

Yeshua taught the Remes, which is not what the Pharisees had been teaching. That is why people said that no one ever taught as he did. We see this especially in the Sermon on the Mount when Yeshua said we have been told do not murder (P’shat), but he says do not even hate in your heart (Remes). He also said we have been told do not commit adultery (P’shat), but we should not even lust with our eyes (Remes).

And he taught the people using parables (Drash).

So, when Yeshua talked about not using an unshrunk patch (someone who doesn’t know the existing traditions) on an old cloth (someone who has been indoctrinated into the old ways of understanding) he meant that a new Believer who tried to work within the old traditions would become confused and not be able to maintain his new faith.

I believe this statement was not meant for that time but was a prophecy regarding newly Believing Gentiles who would one day be confused by Jewish Believers who wanted these neophyte Gentile Believers to make a total conversion to both the Torah and the traditions of Judaism overnight (the letter Shaul wrote to the Galatians confirms this problem existed).

The reason you don’t place new wine in old wineskins is that the new wine will continue to ferment, releasing gases that will expand the wineskin. If an old wineskin (one that has been stretched out already) is used for new wine, the expanding gases will burst it and the wine will be lost.

The Jews who knew the Torah only as a set of rules to be followed to the letter (P’shat) are the old wineskins, and what Yeshua was teaching was new wine (the Remes). He never taught anything against the laws of Moses, only the deeper meaning of them- that is the new wine.

What Yeshua was teaching would eventually expand a person’s understanding of the Torah, so if someone was not open to learning this newer, deeper meaning of the law (being a new wineskin), then what will happen is that being an old wineskin (their minds incapable of accepting this newer meaning) they will “burst”, i.e. reject Yeshua and what he taught and revert to their comfort zone of just doing what the Pharisees taught, what is today the Rabbinic rules in the Talmud called Halacha.

If you are wondering why it is so important to know the Remes, read Jeremiah 31:31, which is the New Covenant God promised to make with us: we are to have the Torah written on our hearts, meaning that it isn’t just doing what the Torah says that matters (P’shat), it is wanting to do it (Remes)!

I think we can all agree that when you really want to do something, it is much easier to do, even if it is difficult or requires sacrifice.

When God gave the Torah to Moses to teach to the children of Israel, he knew this would be hard for them. That is why he allowed us to deal only with the P’shat- we were only able to drink milk.

After a few thousand years with the P’shat, God sent Yeshua to teach us the Remes, the real meat of the law, giving us the opportunity to come closer to God and better understand what he meant. This was necessary for us to complete God’s plan of salvation, which is to be his nation of priests (Exodus 19:6) by bringing the full understanding of the Torah to the Gentiles.

The next time Yeshua comes will be to bring to final completion God’s plan of salvation for the world. That is when those who were able to be new wineskins, Jew and Gentile, will be united with God forever.

Thank you for being here and please share these messages with everyone you know, Believer or not, in order to help this ministry grow. Subscribe (if you haven’t already) to both my website and my YouTube channel, and don’t forget to set notifications so you know when I post.

I have written 4 books, and if you like what you get here you will like my books, as well. They are available on Amazon Books or use the link on my website.

That’s it for today, so l’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!

I suppose we are all familiar with the Beatitudes, or as they are also known, the “Be-Attitudes”.

If you prefer to watch a video, click on this link: Watch the video.

Many are also familiar with Matthew 5:17, which is where Yeshua says he did not come to change the law, but fulfill it.

The problem with most traditional teaching is they end the verse here, but that is not the end of the verse- Yeshua went on to say nothing in the law will change, not a single stroke or yud until all things have come to pass. This part they like to leave out because it defeats the improper interpretation that Christianity has imposed on their members, that being that to fulfill the law meant it was completed, and thereby, done away with.

So let’s look at that verse in Matthew and identify the true meaning.

First off, whenever we interpret something from the Bible we need to use three tools of exegesis: Hermeneutics, Circles of Context, and the proper historical and cultural usage of the words and terms used.

Hermeneutics is, simply stated, the idea that whatever it says in the Bible here, it also says the same thing there, and everywhere. For example, we are told that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the one and only true God, which is confirmed, hermeneutically, because this is stated again and again throughout not just the Tanakh, but the entire Bible.

If, at some point, someone quoted a verse from the Bible and interpreted that as proving there was another God (not a man-made statue, but an honest-to-goodness real God different from Adonai) then, hermeneutically, we could argue against the validity of that interpretation.

The tool called Circles of Context means that when we interpret a verse or passage, it must be done so within the context of the sentence, the context of the paragraph, and of the entire passage.

With regard to the Epistles in the New Covenant, we also have to include the context of who is writing the letter, to whom, and why.

The third tool, proper cultural usage of the words and terms, brings us back to Matthew 5:17 and the word, “fulfill“.

During the First Century, when the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes talked about “fulfilling the law” it had nothing, whatsoever, to do with performance. It meant interpreting the law correctly.

Just as the use of the word “trespassing” with regard to the law had nothing to do with actually walking on someone’s property, but to misinterpret the law.

In the worst-case scenario, to trespass the law meant to sin.

In this message, I am saying my interpretation of Matthew 5:17 is that Yeshua said he came to properly interpret the law. And, that proper interpretation has nothing to do with performance but to give the people a deeper, spiritual understanding of the law.

Now, I have to justify that interpretation culturally, contextually, and hermeneutically.

Culturally, as I explained above, the word “fulfill” in this usage meant to interpret the law by teaching its spiritual meaning, and had nothing to do with the performance of the law.

Next, let’s look at the context of what Yeshua was saying. Matthew 5 begins with the Beatitudes, where he is telling the people that the meek and the humble will be blessed. Also, those who make peace and who suffer as a result of their pursuit of righteousness.

One very important (contextually, that is) statement Yeshua makes is Matthew 5:6, which says that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will also be blessed. This is important because the use of “fulfill” as a spiritual understanding of the law would, by its very nature, make the desire to obey part of one’s inner being. It would be more than just performance, it would be a deep, spiritual desire: it would feel like a thirst and hunger to obey.

Lastly, a hermeneutic justification can be found in Jeremiah 31:33, where we are told that the Torah will be written on our hearts. As such, the desire to obey would be integral to our being, like our heart pumping blood or breathing.

Not only that, but in Matthew Yeshua goes on to teach about adultery and murder, stating that we heard it said not to do these things, but he went on to say we shouldn’t even WANT to do these things.

Yeshua also talks about how uncleanliness comes from the heart, not what we eat (Mark 7:18), again teaching the law from a spiritual understanding and not just some physical activity.

Can you see how the meaning of “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17 makes sense when we consider it to be the spiritual understanding of the law? Yeshua’s statement about fulfilling the law as meaning he will teach us the proper, spiritual understanding is demonstrated throughout his teaching during the Beatitudes and is confirmed by the prophecies in the Tanakh (Jeremiah 31:31 and Ezekiel 36:26), as well as Mark 7:18 and other places throughout the Gospels.

Hopefully, going forward when you hear people say that Yeshua completed and did away with the law in Matthew 5:17, you will be able to help them see the truth. Culturally, hermeneutically, and contextually it is obvious that Yeshua taught the Remes, the deeper, spiritual meaning and understanding of the Torah. That is why so many people said no one ever talked as he did, and that he talked like someone with authority.

There are three types of authority: legal, technical, and assumed.

Yeshua was the son of God and the Messiah- that covers the legal authority.

He knew the Torah, inside and out, and not just what it says but why it says it- that’s as technical as you can get.

And finally, he had an assumed authority because he did miracles that only someone empowered by God could do.

As you continue to study the Bible, no matter how long you have already been at it, if you aren’t already very familiar with the tools I have talked about today (and I would also include learning the Jewish system of exegesis called PaRDeS), then please go to my website and look under the Blogs tab called Series Teachings for a lesson I posted a while ago about how to properly interpret the Bible.

Thank you for being here and please share these messages with everyone you know. Subscribe to my website and YouTube channel, buy my books and join my Facebook group called Just God’s Word (please make sure to read and agree to the rules).

That’s it for today so l’hitraot and Baruch HaShem!