The old testament is the new concealed? – The rear end of Augustine

Let me clarify somthing.

There is a phrase used by some which states the following: you are talking from out of your backside. What does it mean? The “backside” refers to your bum or your bottom, the anus. When a person “talks out of the backside”, this means that the quality of what they say has as much value as the natural product of the anus. I will leave that there as that is as graphic as I want to get.

Getting to the point

So there’s a statement that is believed to have been made up by some ancient christian called Augustine which said something like this: “the old testament is the new testament concealed and the new testament is the old testament revealed”. Another way that it is stated is “the new testament is in the old concealed, and the old testament is in the new revealed”.

When I looked around for what people understood this phrase to mean. One statement which stands out to me said the following: “it means that wishful thinking is not a new phenomenon.” I think this is one of the best explanations of the value of this statement.


As has been discussed in previous articles, the central tenets of the so-called “new testament” have no clear and explicit mention in the Jewish Bible. A messiah figure that comes twice, a dying and rising messiah, even the very use of the word “messiah” to refer to the future promised Davidic king of Israel, the replacement of Israel with Gentiles in some new covenant, a crucifixion, the importance of the cross, the notion of the death of a man by mundane mutilation and execution being a valid offering to God, the notion of one man conferring his righteousness upon another, the contradiction between faith or grace and law; over and over and over again, the main tenets of the new testament and the modern christian has no clear explicit mention in the Jewish Bible.

In other words, the central tenets of the new testament are not seen in the Jewish Bible.

Now some christian may stand up and say the following: “Well, isn’t that what the saying actually says? The New Testament is in the Old Testament, but it’s just not seen.” And I would reply that this is exactly the problem. The problem is two-fold.

1) The new testament is not seen in the Jewish Bible
2) The Jewish Bible outright contradicts the doctrines of the new testament.

Not seen

The problem with the claim that something is hidden is the assumption that it is actually there. If I don’t have that assumption, there needs to be clear evidences that what is supposedly hidden is actually there.

To make this both concrete and relevant, let me put it this way. The problem with the claim that the new testament is hidden in the Jewish Bible is the assumption that it is actually there. If I don’t have that assumption, then there needs to be clear evidences that the new testament is actually there in the Jewish Bible.

Let me give an example. Christians will say that the sacrifices foreshadowed the “better sacrifice” in the death of Jesus. But the problem is that the Jewish Bible doesn’t make this link. There is no overt message that someone called “messiah” is going to die for others. The Torah law only legalizes objects lower in the food chain, like animals, flour and spices. It gives no hint with its various and specific stipulations that a certain human being (or hybrid manGod freak) is intended. The Law of Moses gives no sign or hint, when read in its own context, that it’s foreshadowing anything, and God gives no special key to decode the Jewish Bible and make it transform into the new testament or christian or Pauline message.

So there is no basis in the Jewish Bible to think that sacrifices refer to a human death by mundane execution. Their very particular and specific nature gives the opposite message: that God actually said what he meant and no additions or decryptions are needed.

The issue here is the christian presumption. The problem is that they devoted themselves to a man first. They bowed their knees and hearts to the Nazarene first. And then they looked at the Jewish Bible with that devotion in mind. Therefore we are not talking about “the old testament being the new concealed” but rather “I had the new testament in mind and heart already, the old testament must agree in some way whether it does or not.”

To wrap this up a bit, when something is not seen in the text, there is just as much chance that it is because it is not really there at all. So the central tenents of new testament not being seen in the Jewish Bible really could imply that those tenets are not there at all. It is only the presumption of the christian that forces their beliefs into the text.

Unwanted contradictions and conflicts

When the Jewish Bible outrightly contradicts or conflicts with the central tenets of the new testament, it not only makes it unlikely that the new is hidden in the Jewish Bible; it makes it downright impossible.

For example, the christian belief from the new testament is that Jesus’ blood atones for sin. They will sometimes use Leviticus 17 to state how the blood makes atonement. But Leviticus itself conflicts with such a notion when the same verse specifies that blood is supposed to atone on the altar. The only altar spoken of in the Law is in the Tabernacle and later the Temple. Jesus’ blood was supposedly spilt outside of the city of Jerusalem where he died. In case you didn’t know, a cross is not a valid altar, the details of which are specified in the law.

The new testament makes a big deal out of Jesus’ miracles, advising people to listen to and believe in him based on those miracles. Christians even make a bigger deal out of the claimed resurrection. Yet when it comes to identifying the messiah, there is absolutely no text in the Jewish Bible that says that he will be identified through miracles, even personal resurrections.

The Jewish Bible speaks of the promised king bringing peace to the world. Jesus claimed that his coming would bring the exact opposite and that he did not come to bring peace.

Paul and the anonymous author of the book of Hebrews speaks of the passing away of the Law of Moses, its sacrifices, a change of priesthood and the fact that Jesus’ “sacrifice” ends and fulfils all previous sacrifices. But God through his prophet of the Jewish Bible only spoke of the continued and perpetual existence of the law to the point that it is kept naturally by the people and its sin sacrifices are continued even through to the future third Temple which will be built by the future promised Davidic king, the “messiah”. In the Law of Moses, it speaks of the perpetual nature of the Levitical priesthood and later Jeremiah states that the Levites will always have a man available to do the job.

Paul says no man is righteous and that righteousness isn’t attainable by doing what God commands, i.e., his Law. Yet over and over and over, ad nauseum (to the point of nausea – just a turn of phrase) the Jewish Bible speaks of men being righteous, of the righteous people. It even says that a man who avoids certain acts is righteous. Moses outrightly says that keeping the Law is the means of righteousness and that it is not beyond a person’s reach to keep it and do it. Abraham was blessed because he did what God commanded. Noah was righteous before God: God himself said that. David was held up by God as a standard of righteousness for all future kings. The Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are replete with references about the righteous, upright, innocent. And no place links this righteousness to belief in a messiah figure.

Christians claim that Jesus’ sacrifice makes them righteous, that righteousness is imputed upon them as if God sees the supposed righteousness of Jesus upon them. Yet the Jewish Bible is clear, everyone is responsible for his own actions, the righteousness of one man cannot be placed on another.

Time after time after time, ad nauseum, the Jewish Bible not only slaps the new testament doctrines across the face: the Jewish Bible chops away the legs of the new testament and leaves it bloodied and beaten in some dirty Roman gutter to perish.

I know. I know the question that can come to the mind of some: how can people accept the new testament? The most likely reason has been stated before: people devote themselves to the idol first, they commit their heart to a man first, and with such devotion and indoctrination they then approach the Law of Moses and the Jewish Bible with the absolute faith that what contradicts it actually “fulfils” it.

The backside of Augustine

Let’s bring back some original thoughts.

The claim that the new testament is in the old concealed and the old is in the new revealed does mean what was stated before: “it means that wishful thinking is not a new phenomenon.” It is wishful thinking to believe that that which the Jewish Bible says nothing about is somehow hidden inside it. It’s silly to believe that that which contradicts the Jewish Bible reveals it. The truth is the following: the new testament is the Jewish Bible neglected, the Jewish Bible is the new rejected.

Or, the new testament is the Jewish Bible puked, the Jewish Bible is the new nuked.

Or, the new testament is the Jewish Bible suspended, the Jewish Bible is the new up-ended.

Or, the new testament is the Jewish Bible frustrated, the Jewish Bible is the new negated or decimated.

Or, the new testament is the Jewish Bible broken, the Jewish Bible is the new … errrr …. errrr …. hmmm ….

Ok, I like to rhyme. Sorry. (Grin!)

That is why the words of Augustine, which repeated by adherents of christianity, should only be given the value of what comes out of a person’s rear end. In other words, he’s talking out of his backside.


About hesedyahu

I'm a gentile living in UK, a person who has chosen to take upon himself the responsibility God has given to all gentiles. God is the greatest aspect of my life and He has blessed me with a family. I used to be a christian, but I learnt the errors of my ways. I love music. I love to play it on the instruments I can play, I love to close my eyes and feel the groove of it. I wrote my songs when I was single and not so happy and since I've been married, I haven't written as much. I guess that shows how happy and blessed I am. What else is there?
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to The old testament is the new concealed? – The rear end of Augustine

  1. searchinmyroots says:

    Excellent post Hesedyahu!

    So much truth that anyone can CLEARLY see. Unless of course you are “blinded” by an emotional connection to a religion that has no part in Judaism.

    Loved your rhymes.

    Hear is one that has been said in reference to the teachings of the Christian Bible as well –

    If it’s new then it is not good. If it’s good, then it’s not new.

  2. searchinmyroots says:

    It may come across as insulting to some, but to whom it does are probably the same ones who will say the Jews have been blinded, or “don’t have the spirit” and that to me is insulting as well.

    I recognize if Christians may say they understand the NT better than a Jewish person. But the door swings both ways. A Jewish person who understands the Hebrew language will most certainly understand the Hebrew bible better than a Christian. Especially if the Christian does not understand biblical Hebrew.

    I’m sure a Christian may understand what I am saying if a Muslim told them what the NT means. Not trying to belittle Islam, just making a point. I mean after all, isn’t part of the NT spoken of in the Koran? So when a Christian agrees the believers of Islam understand the NT better than they do, then I’ll believe the Christians understand the Hebrew bible better than the Jewish people. The Jewish people to whom it was given to, to whom G-d Himself told the Jewish people to teach it to their children, their children’s children and the nations of the world. Why would G-d tell us to teach it to the world if He didn’t think we would understand it?

  3. Chris says:

    ILLUSION. Some fall PREY to Illusion, rather than The Truth. Jesus is The Truth, and there is no other. And when someone dissemintates Deception, they are not only responsible for the lies they tell themself but for every soul they misled as well.


    • hesedyahu says:

      The irony is that you first convey the illusion that the nazarene is “the truth” and then speak of someone disseminating deception. As long as you see the nazarene as the truth, then you won’t know what deception is. So there’s no real power to your words at all. But thanks for showing me how concise someone can phrase their deception.

  4. lisman34 says:

    hi Hesedyahu,

    I find your website after searching the word ” the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed”. I got this words from testimony page in Pastor Joseph Prince ministries and share this link and and hope that it will be useful to you (LINK:[link removed]). From what I know pastor Jospeh reveal a lot of Jesus in the old covenant.

    • hesedyahu says:

      Rather than refer us to someone else, it is better that you know the issues yourself to that you put your case forward yourself in your own words. There have many times in the past where someone told me that I just have to check this pastor or that minister, and I have found such claims to be empty. What is needed is evidence rather than referrals. Thanx but no thanx.

  5. samson120 says:

    I left a note on another blog, but this is the one how I found your sight. This is a little older, so again i hesitate to post a response. However, again I feel a comment

    One of the problems with foreshadowing is just that. It is a shadow cast towards a direction, the future in this case. However, at the time it is unclear and hazy at best. This doesn’t mean it isn’t there, but it does require more information to bring those items into focus. For Christians, we see this as the New Testament. Did you know that Old Testament verses are used 855 times in the New Testament. You can check out for the references..

    As a Christian, we see Christ in events like Joseph saving his family in Egypt during the famine. Jonah is in the belly of the fish for three days or the image of the snake when Israel was in the wilderness are a few others. Passover is another very important reference for us. But at the time of writing that isn’t known.

    So, how can we see Christ in the Jewish Bible? My favorites are Psalms 22, Psalm 110 and Isaiah 53. If I remember correctly, Tehillim 110 says something like Hashem said unto Adoni. In the King James, it translates to the, “Lord said to my Lord..”. Again, if I remember correctly, Hashem and Adoni are both references to God. Hashem, being related to Yahweh, but not as formal. While Adoni referencing a superior, possibly divine. With David, being the Author, only God in theory is superior.

    I’m interested in your take with Isiah. According to YISHEYAH 53:12 (at least according to the Complete Jewish Bible) says, “Therefore I will assign him a share with the great, he will divide the spoil with the mighty, for having exposed himself to death and being counted among the sinners, while actually bearing the sin of many and interceding for the offenders.” In this chapter God is speaking through Isaiah. He, God, is referencing someone unnamed. He describes someone who ultimately gives up is life, bearing the sins of many people but yet an intercessor. At first glance this seems at odds with Levitical law. However elsewhere in the Psalms it is also written, that God doesn’t want the sacrafices. He wants the obedient heart. So it appears that the sacrifices were an external mandate prior to God, writing a new covenant on the hearts of men as described in Jeremiah.

    This is my attempt to explain my understanding of scripture. I used only a few examples of prophecy that appears to be unfilled in the Jewish Bible. I do understand your thoughts, but I also see the OT and NT living in harmony not conflict. But these are my thoughts. Feel free to contact me with any questions. With that I leave you in Peace.

    • James Wood says:

      Most of the Scripture references are addressed in my book. Please read it here

    • hesedyahu says:

      The problem with your example is that the words of the Jewish Bible do not comport with your image of Jesus. It wouldn’t matter if the new testament quoted or referred to the Jewish Bible 1000 times or more, if the message is different or contradicts, then it’s still worthless. It’s a bit like the sum 855 multiplied by zero. “zero” would refer to relevance or meaning. If those references or quotes don’t tied meaningfully into your conception of message, then the amount of quotations are worthless. There could be texts that don’t refer to the Jewish Bible once yet could be more at harmony with its message than the NT. So the issue isn’t the number, the quantity of references but the quality. And in the case of the NT, it does nothing to reflect the idea of “foreshadowing”.

      If a christian choses to impose “Jesu” or “Yeshu” on passages – as you said “we see [Jesu] in events like Joseph saving his family in Egypt” – then the issue is not what the Hebrew Bible actually says, what its message is, but rather the fact that you’ve chosen not to let scripture speak for itself. The scripture talks of one thing, and you’re thinking something else. Scripture isn’t speaking, you’re painting your desires onto scripture. It’s what Muslims and Mormons do when they see their respective messages in the Jewish Bible. It’s what atheists and God rejectors do to distort the meaning of the Jewish Bible to help their goals. It’s more honourable to the author of a text to actually deal with scripture based on what it says rather than painting your desires onto it.

      So in that same vein, it’s easy to know why you see Jesus in Psalms 22, Psalm 110 and Isaiah 53. It’s not because of the text, because “messiah” is totally absent from the text of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. In fact, Psalm 22 is just a song that is meant to be sung by anyone going through struggling. It isn’t even a prophecy. Isaiah 53 is preceeded by multiple clear statements saying that the servant is the nation of Israel, Jeshurun, not some individual and conflicts with the actual life of Jesus. You misrepresent what Psalm 110 says when you claim that “adoni” is a reference to God. If you did a search in the Scriptures for the exact term “adoni” you’ll find that it is mostly used for humans and maybe once or twice for angels, but never for God. Plus Psalm 110 is a sung meant to be sung by others, so even if David was the author (and I’m not saying he is), he wrote it for, let’s say, the Levites to sing in the Temple. So it could refer to any king that sat on the throne of Israel. And then the context itself has nothing to do with Jesu, even the words about “the righteous king” or some have it has “Malki-Tzedeq”.

      Isaiah himself said the servant was Israel, Jeshurun, Jacob, words that refer to the nation and he never says the servant is “messiah”. So that would be my take on Isaiah 53 taking Isaiah’s words for what Isaiah says without an agenda of making sure that someone I want to fit in it fits in it. Bearing sins has more meanings than literally taking someone else’s sins. And the fact that Isaiah has named Israel numerous times in previous chapters, I’m not sure why you claim that this servant is unnamed.

      I’m sorry that you have chose to seen Jesu in the Jewish Bible rather than letting the scripture speak for itself. I hope that changes.

  6. Chad says:

    It’s a simple concept. Jesus and the New Testament authors had nothing to preach from other than the New Testament. Therefore the New is a revelation of the Old. The nature of the bible is prophetic. In Joel we are told that the God of Israel has a new covenant in store for his people because of the faultiness of the old. What say you to that? This exact concept and verse is repeated in the New T book of Acts. One can babble on about the Jewish this and Hebrew that, the fact is although the New T was written to gentiles it was written by Jews with only 2 exceptions. To claim that they were not aware or reflective in their writings of Hebrew and Old T concepts is asinine. Christ, a Jew, said in Matt. 7 that not one jot or tittle would in any wise pass from the law (Old T, first 5 books in particular) until all be fulfilled. All the Old T prophets knew and looked forward to this fulfillment. Let me give you a for instance: In John 1 around the 14th, 15th verse says that Christ came to ‘dwell” among us. That word is the Greek word for Tabernacle. We are told again in the book of revelation that Chris is the Tabernacle of God among men. The only way to fully understand this is to study the 50 plus chapters in the Old T about the Tabernacle of God. There is easily months worth of information pointing to Jesus, suffice it to say this tabernacle took 9 months to build and was literally a house of skin that God dwelt inside in order to fellowship and speak to his people. Sound familiar? Add to that there is an actual book called Yeshua (Joshua in English) in the Old T. Yeshua, you may know is Jesus filtered back through Greek and then Hebrew. In other words Jesus’ real name was Yeshua, as is the name of that book. hmmmm…. Anyhow the real problem is obviously that you do not believe in the Bible at all and therefore are subject to your own confirmation bias. Why would someone who does not believe be so concerned with a comparison of the 2 testaments, and why would anyone listen to such a one?

  7. Debbie says:

    I’m not a bible scholar, but I can say one thing from my own experience. Since I gave my life to Christ, I have never known such peace. It is not of this world, that it comes from.

    • hesedyahu says:

      Subjective emotions, feelings that you alone feel inside (you can only speak for yourself), have nothing to do with truth. Sexual orgasms can feel incredible. But the feeling doesn’t justify having sex with anybody one can, including family members or people of the same gender, animals or an individual who is already married to someone else. The feeling doesn’t make something right or true.

      The Law of God warns a person against just following emotions and instead challenges a person to live according to his standard, not some perceived “otherworldly” feeling. It is obedience to him regardless of feelings that is the doorway to life, not trust in a mundane execution.

  8. Peter G. says:

    This article only confirms what was written a long time ago regarding the rejection of the person and work of Christ, especially among the Jewish community: “The stone which the builders rejected, has become the head of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes” (Psalm 118:22). Israel rejected its own promised Messiah, but God in His infinite wisdom utilized the rejection Christ to establish eternal redemption for all who believe. What Augustine wrote is totally accurate, and those unable to acknowledge the significant volume of messianic prophecy contained in the Old Testament have been grossly blinded.

    • hesedyahu says:

      You used a good amount of words, but there’s no evidence of truth in them. At the centre of your response lies a hollow claim, that Israel rejected Jesus who was their messiah. But there is no predictive passage in the Jewish Bible which overtly speaks of a messiah or anointed king of Israel that clearly and unambiguously points to Jesus. That’s why your whole response is worthless with regards to truth and faithfulness to the text and tradition of the Jewish Bible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s