Nick Fuentes is Wrong About the Law of Moses, Israel, and the New Testament
Nick Fuentes claims that the New Testament has replaced the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament"), that Jesus has replaced the Law of Moses, and that Christians have replaced Israel. This video explains why he is wrong.
Transcript
Nick Fuentes: “The relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament, it’s not a sequel. The New Testament and the theology in it replaces the theology of the Old Testament.”
The problem with what you’re saying here is that it sounds exactly like what Jesus commanded us not to think. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus commands his listeners, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.” The expression “Law and Prophets” refers to the Hebrew Scriptures, or what most Christians call the Old Testament. The term “abolish”—in Greek, καταλύω—means to “cause to be no longer in force”—that is to “do away with, annul or repeal” (BDAG 4th ed). Other first-century Jewish writings that use the term καταλύω (“abolish” in Matthew 5:17) and the related term λύω (“nullifies” in Matthew 5:19) in reference to the Law confirm this meaning. For instance, 4 Maccabees 17:9 characterizes Antiochus as “the tyrant who wished to abolish [καταλῦσαι] the way of life of the Hebrews.” Moreover, in 4 Maccabees 5, there is an account of Antiochus attempting to compel the priest Eleazer to eat pork. Eleazer refuses, insisting that eating prohibited meats “is an abolishment [καταλῦσαι] of the ancestral law” (4 Macc. 5:33). Josephus similarly writes that Antiochus “put pressure upon the Jews to abolish [καταλύσαντας] their ancestral customs, leaving their infants uncircumcised and sacrificing swine upon the altar” (Jewish Wars 1.34). In each of these examples, abolishing the Law refers to denying its authority. Like Antiochus, those who abolish the Law disregard its commandments and encourage others to disregard them as well, which is an idea also reflected in verse 19: “Therefore, whoever nullifies [λύω] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19).
So, if you think that Jesus came to replace or disregard the Hebrew Scriptures, you are breaking his commandment to not think that he came to do that. Unlike Antiochus, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or Prophets. He came to do the opposite. He came to fulfill them. In Greek, fulfill is πληρόω. This word has a range of meaning, but in this context, it means to fully keep and teach them—which, again, corresponds to Matthew 5:19: “whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Just as “nullifies” in verse 19 parallels “abolish” in verse 17, “keeps and teaches” in verse 19 parallels “fulfill” in verse 17. Jesus fulfills the Hebrew Scriptures, not by replacing them, but by demonstrating—through his deeds and teachings—the proper way to observe them. Jesus also said that not even the smallest details of the Law would pass away until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished. That is, nothing will pass from the Law until the end of the present world (2 Pet. 3:7, 10–13; Rev. 21:1; cf. Philo, Life of Moses 2:14).
For more on this, see my book How Jesus Fulfilled the Law as well as my four-part series on this topic.
Nick Fuentes: “So in the Old Testament you have a religion that’s based on the people of Israel. They make sacrifices at the temple. They have rabbis, they have the law. But when Jesus arrives, he changes everything, because he becomes the law. We say that he is the law. The law is embodied in him.”
Again, this idea that Jesus “changed everything” with respect to the “Old Testament” sounds exactly like what Jesus explicitly commanded us not to think. And nobody says that Jesus is the Law. There is nothing in the Bible where Jesus becomes the Law and replaces it. Jesus does embody the Law in the sense that by fully lives out the commandments and teaches them properly, not by changing or disregarding the Law.
Nick Fuentes: “So the Jews were saying, ‘Well the Law of Moses says you have to stone this woman.’ And he says, ‘I’m the law.’ He says, ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ He completes and fulfills and perfects the law. He personifies the law.”
You are referencing John 8 here, but this passage does not support your claim that Jesus became the Law and therefore replaced it. In fact, this passage is another example of Jesus keeping the Law properly and reinforcing its ongoing authority. For instance, the Law of Moses required capital cases to be brought to the judges of theocratic Israel to determine guilt or innocence. And with adultery, in particular, the Law requires that the adulteress and the adulterer be put to death, but in John 8 only the woman is being accused. So, there is already a lot wrong with this situation. In fact, the text explicitly says that this whole thing was a trap (John 8:6). So, the accusers here are malicious witnesses, which means they were explicitly violating the Law of Moses by bringing this case. As Adi Schlebusch writes:
It is indeed true that biblical Law requires the death penalty for the crime of adultery (Leviticus 20:10), but that same Law has certain requirements with regard to due process in the execution of such laws. When it comes to the execution of the death penalty, the evidence of “two or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15; 2 Corinthians 13:1) who are reliable (Deuteronomy 19:16) is required. Furthermore, there is another, very important aspect of biblical due process in cases involving capital crimes: the witnesses must not only be present for the trial, but actually participate in the execution itself, to the point of being required to physically administer it themselves (Deuteronomy 17:7). Jesus’ invitation to the accusers, namely to “cast the first stone” if they are blameless, cannot and should not be understood apart from these biblical principles regarding due process spelled out in Deuteronomy. At the trial of the woman caught in adultery there were no reliable first-hand witnesses to participate in the execution of the woman. In other words, Jesus, following the Law of Moses, through his actions pointed to the fact that the legal requirements for either a conviction or an execution were not met in this particular case, and therefore the woman could receive neither. If one of the accusers present were to “cast the first stone” as Jesus rhetorically invited them to do, they would be directly violating biblical Law themselves (Deuteronomy 17:7)…The antinomian interpretation of this passage—namely that the release of the accused by Christ nullifies Old Testament laws regarding capital punishment, and that these laws are at odds with the grace of God revealed in Christ—does not take into account the rigorous administration of biblical justice exemplified by Christ in the case of the woman caught in adultery.[1]
By not playing their game in John 8, Jesus was upholding the Torah, not disregarding or replacing it.
Nick Fuentes: “In the same way that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, God gave us the Law through Mary. We see Mary as the new Arc of the Covenant. We see Jesus as the new Ten Commandments. He is the Law, he fulfills the Law, just like the Old Testament was the Law.”
The problem with these connections is that they are not explicit in Scripture. But even if we assume that there are some typological parallels going on here, this still does not mean that Jesus replaced the Ten Commandments. Jesus and the apostles repeatedly affirm the ongoing authority of the Ten Commandments and other laws. In Mark 10:17–20, Jesus said that we should keep God’s commandments, and explicitly mentions five of the Ten Commandments as well as a command “Do not defraud,” which comes from Leviticus 19. That does not make sense if Jesus replaced the commandments. Instead, we would expect him to say something like “follow my example,” not to cite specific commandments from the Torah to follow.
Moreover, the apostle Paul repeatedly instructs his readers to obey various commandments from the Torah. In Ephesians 6:1–3, he tells them to obey the Fifth Commandment, quoting it directly. In Romans 13:8–10, he requires them to “fulfill the law,” directly quoting Leviticus 19:18—“love your neighbor as yourself”—along with four of the Ten Commandments. He then adds, “and any other commandment,” so he expected them to obey more than just the ones he specifically mentions.
So, the idea that the Torah has been replaced based merely on some supposed typological parallel is weak to say the least.
Nick Fuentes: “And then when Jesus dies on the cross, the veil is torn inside the temple, and within a generation, the temple itself is destroyed because Jesus becomes the new temple. There’s no need for animal sacrifices. He becomes the sacrifice. So in the Old Testament, they’re sacrificing animals, they talk about the red heifer, they’re trying to do that. God gives us a more perfect sacrifice. He offers up himself.”
As the author of Hebrews explains, the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices are indeed “shadows” that point ultimately to the Messiah’s work. But once again, this does not mean that Jesus replaced those things. In fact, the author of Hebrews himself believed that the earthly sacrificial system remained in effect. As New Testament scholar Matthew Thiessen writes:
[T]here simply is no evidence in Hebrews that the author rejects the ritual and cultic aspects of the Jewish law. Rather, there is strong evidence that he thinks these aspects of the law remain in effect at the time of his writing.[2]
What is the “strong evidence” showing that the author of Hebrews affirms the priestly and sacrificial laws in the Torah? One piece of evidence is the fact that he says the Messiah serves as our High Priest not on earth but in heaven. This is a significant point for the author. He goes to great lengths to explain to his readers how the Messiah can legitimately serve as a priest despite not being from the tribe of Levi. Why is that an issue? Because, as the author of Hebrews acknowledges, the Torah explicitly prohibits non-Levites from serving as a priest on earth: “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4).
Since Yeshua is from the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14), then according to the Torah, he is not qualified to serve as a priest on earth. That is why the author says that he would not be a priest if he were on earth because the Torah has already designated the Levites to serve as priests on earth. Let’s stop for a moment and think about that. Yeshua cannot be a priest on earth because the Torah says only Levites can be priests on earth. But if the Torah’s regulations concerning the priesthood have been replaced, then why does that matter? If the Torah no longer governs the earthly priesthood—indeed, if the Levitical priesthood has been replaced entirely—then why does the author of Hebrews care about the Torah’s regulations concerning priests? The reason can only be that the author of Hebrews believes that the Torah still governs the earthly priesthood. That is why he says that the Messiah is a priest in heaven because, unlike on earth, his tribal lineage does not restrict him from serving as a priest in heaven (Hebrews 9:24). Just as the Levitical priests never served in heaven, the Messiah does not serve as a priest on earth. Why is this significant? Because we see that the author of Hebrews approaches this issue assuming that the earthly priesthood, and the laws governing it, were never abolished or replaced. As David Moffitt writes:
The writer takes seriously the fact that Jesus has now passed through the heavens and entered God’s presence. This is one of the reasons that Hebrews so consistently locates Jesus’ priestly work in the heavens. On earth, the Law forbids him from legitimately holding priestly office and thus serving in priestly ministries (Heb 8:4). Such a claim indicates that the author has not simply dismissed the authority of the Law.[3]
When the author of Hebrews says that Jesus could not be a priest on earth, he is affirming the ongoing authority the Law of Moses, which states that only people from the tribe of Levi can serve as priests on earth. This is a problem for your view that the Torah’s regulations regarding the temple and sacrifices have been replaced. The author of Hebrews says precisely the opposite. And this, of course, aligns perfectly with what we read in Acts. The apostles are seen consistently worshiping at the temple (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42). Paul even presents offerings at the temple (Acts 21:26; cf. 24:17). From the perspective of the apostles, there was no contradiction between the Gospel and sacrificial system. As the scholar Jesper Svartvik writes:
Jewish Christ-believers continued to worship in the temple up to the very end of the book of Acts. This participation in the cult existed alongside their thinking of and describing Jesus’ death as a sacrifice, so the two do not seem to have been understood as mutually exclusive.[4]
As the author of Hebrews makes clear, animal sacrifices could never accomplish what only the Messiah’s sacrifice could accomplish. Animal sacrifices would never take away sin (Heb. 10:4, 11). What should we make of this? What this means is that God did not prescribe animal sacrifices for the purpose of taking away sin. Only the Messiah’s sacrifice can do that. Animal sacrifices merely function as the “shadow” of that reality—they function to point toward the Messiah’s sacrificial work as the actual means of forgiveness for sin. This is why the apostles were not denigrating the Messiah’s work by endorsing the earthly priesthood and continuing to participate in temple services after the Messiah’s resurrection. Animal sacrifices—whether performed before or after the Messiah’s work on the cross—could never detract from the sufficiency of the Messiah’s sacrifice because they perform an entirely different function. One does not replace the other. For more on this, see this teaching.
Now, it is true that the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, but again, this does not prove your point that Jesus replaced the entire priesthood and temple system in principle. If we take what the Hebrew Prophets say at face value, a new literal temple and sacrifices will be established again in the future, after the Messiah returns (Ezek. 40-48; cf. Zech. 14:21; Jer. 33:15-18; Isa. 56:6-8).
Nick Fuentes: “And so this is where a lot of the Protestants say, ‘Well, we need to support Israel because the Bible says those who bless Israel will be blessed. That’s in the book of Genesis. And the book of Genesis is talking about what is Israel in the Old Testament, in the first covenant that God makes with the Jewish people. When Jesus comes, just like everything else, Israel’s transformed. He says there is neither Jew nor Gentile. The new Israel is the Christians.”
Ah yes, there is literally no Jew or Gentile, just like there’s literally no male or female, right? Obviously, Paul is not saying that the ethnic distinction between Jews and Gentiles has been abolished. The entire New Testament continues to assume a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. What Paul is saying is that all people are justified on the same basis—through faith in the Messiah.
Regarding this idea that Christians have replaced Israel and become a new Israel, once again, Scripture contradicts this. As mentioned earlier, in Matthew 5:17–20, Jesus fully affirmed the ongoing authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. Why is that significant? Because the Hebrew Scriptures emphatically proclaim God’s promises and commitment to Israel:
The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations.
—Deuteronomy 7:6–9
So, the Hebrew Scriptures declare that God chose Israel for his plan and purposes. That has not changed according to the Messiah. The Messiah affirmed the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, which contain God’s promises to Israel. God keeps his promises. Therefore, to claim that his covenant with Israel is over and done, or that the recipients of his promises have been replaced, is to claim that Deuteronomy 7 is not true. It is to undermine the very integrity and character of God.
Now, some might say, “Well the Jewish people were disobedient. They were unfaithful to the covenant, so God rejected them!” But not so fast. In Leviticus 26, God speaks about how Israel will fall under the curses of the covenant for disobedience—yet, in spite of that, God will keep his covenant:
Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God. But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the Lord.
—Leviticus 26:44–45
Even though Israel has sinned, God will not reject them. This is the basis of the New Covenant that God makes with Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31–34). God does not forsake his people for their disobedience. He does not replace them with a different people. According to the Prophets, in spite of their disobedience, he forgives them and writes his law on their hearts and remembers their sin no more. Again, these promises are part of the Scriptures that Jesus fully affirmed. It is because of these promises in Scripture that Paul can write in Romans 3, “What if some [speaking about the Jews] were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar” (Rom. 3:3–4).
Why did Paul write this? Because he believed what the Hebrew Scriptures declare about God’s promises and commitment to the Jewish people. Moreover, in spite of the fact that many Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, Paul wrote, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (Rom 9:3–5).
So, even though the Jews to whom Paul refers here did not believe in the Messiah, the adoption, glory, covenants, and promises still belong to them. In Romans 11, Paul writes that even though they are “enemies” with regard to the gospel, they nevertheless are “beloved.” This is because of their “election” and “calling,” which Paul says is “irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28–29).
Yes, many Jews in the first century did not believe in Jesus. Paul says that a “partial hardening has come upon Israel.” But notice that, from Paul’s perspective, this partial hardening is temporary. It will last only “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:25–26).
So, Paul believed that there will be future turning of the people of Israel to the Messiah. God is not done with them—not even now in their disbelief. This is the same chapter where Paul writes that Gentiles, as wild branches, are grafted into the cultivated olive tree of Israel. This is a great blessing, but Paul also immediately gives a warning to Gentiles: do not be “arrogant” toward the natural branches (Rom. 11:18).
This warning really ought to give us pause if we are claiming that Israel has been replaced. What is more arrogant than claiming that God is done with the Jews, that God’s promises to them are worthless, and that God has replaced the Jews with a different people? I pray that you start to take the words of Scripture seriously. Despite what you claim, Gentile Christians do not replace Israel. Rather, we are welcomed into the commonwealth of Israel. Through faith in the Messiah, we have become part of Abraham’s family. But this means connecting to Israel, not replacing them.
[1] Adi Schlebusch, “Jesus Upheld the Biblical Law in Dealing with the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11),” knowingscripture.com, Sept. 7, 2021.
[2] Matthew Thiessen, “Hebrews and the Jewish Law,” in So Great a Salvation: A Dialogue on the Atonement in Hebrews, ed. Jon C. Laansma, George H. Guthrie, and Cynthia Long Westfall (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2019), 185.
[3] David M. Moffitt, “Weak and Useless? Purity, the Mosaic Law, and Perfection in Hebrews,” in Law and Lawlessness in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. David Lincicum, Ruth Sheridan, and Charles Stang (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 101-102
[4] Jesper Svartvik, Reconciliation & Transformation: Reconsidering Christian Theologies of the Cross (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2021), 32-33
About David Wilber
David Wilber is an author, Bible teacher, and CEO of Pronomian Publishing LLC. He has written several books and numerous theological articles, with his work appearing in outlets such as the Christian Post and the Journal of Biblical Theology. David has spoken at churches and conferences across the nation and has served as a researcher and Bible teacher for a number of Messianic and Christian ministries…