Circumcision and Covenant

visionary · Jan 16, 2012

Source Scripture said:
Intersesting, but these verses seems to indicate something different.

Deuteronomy 5:3 Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.

And then we have Paul saying in Galatians 3:15 that no one adds to a previous covenant.

Galatians 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.

Thoughts?

Ratification comes like a Will is ratified by death.

Hebrews 9:15-17
New International Version (NIV)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritancenow that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. 16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

Yahudim · Jan 16, 2012

visionary said:
Ratification comes like a Will is ratified by death.

Paul wasn't talking about the previous covenant, Torah in this verse. He was talking about the seventh covenant made with all those that believe on Him, making Y'shua the mediator of the first covenant, the Adamic covenant under which man was cursed. That covenant pronounced death. And Y'shua, being adopted under the covenant of Adam (because He was not the son of Adam, but the Son of the Father in Heaven by His Spirit), but without sin, is now mediator of not just that covenant, but all covenants made with man for the redemption of man and His Creation. Doesn't that give you chill bumps?

mercy1061 · Jan 16, 2012

visionary said:
Ratification comes like a Will is ratified by death.

Yes indeed, but remember the prodigal son who squandered his inheritance while his father was living? Normally the person who wrote the will must die in order that his descendents may receive what has been promised or written in the will. Although the disobedient son is considered dead, the father gave his son a celebration, shoes, robe, ring when his son returned home.

Abraham circumcised himself while his body was considered old and dead; yet Abraham circumcised himself before Israel became a nation; in hope that he would one day become a nation. Egypt practiced circumcision; Egypt was already a nation; Egypt never ceased being a nation. In 1948 Israel became a nation.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 17, 2012

talmidim said:
It is true that His righteousness has always remained the same and that His moral instructions have been consistent throughout time. But the important thing to remember is that each of these covenants has to do with the progressive fulfillment of the promise to redeem man and the Creation. Each one is another step in a progressive revelation. Each one is another step (seven in all) that brings the interaction between the Father and all of His children back to a one on one, face to face basis, by the setting of legal precedents. Remember, this has always been about the evil one trying to wrest dominion from Adam. That is why he is constantly accusing the children of Adam in the court of the King. If you like reality dramas like Family Court, this is the longest running family drama of all time.

Blessings,

With the theme of Covenants building upon each other, in certain ways, it's like playing Tetris, if you've ever heard of the game:

Tetris Theme B

Tetris Song B (Original) [HQ]

Game Boy Tetris - 999,999 points

Building upon things and doing so restructuring continually to make new designs and a masterpiece in the end...
.

For another analogy, I tend to think of how buildings/structures are built.

Many amazing buildings have wings/sections of the building that are built at one point to handle an inflow of traffic/activity--but in time, a new section is added to that which improves upon the intent of the former. The former section isn't destroyed since it is apart of the building foundation (much like it'd be with sky-scrapers and not demolishing the 1st or 2nd floor less the entire building collaspe).. However, as a new wing is added on, activty goes there primarily while there is also remembrance of what occurred previously is there as well---and it remains in certain ways since the structure is apart of the fabric of the new. If interested, I’d highly suggest looking into the following–as it’s from the ministry of a man known as Louie Giglio. He leads a movement known as “Passion”, mainly aimed at young adults being passionate for the Lord Jesus Christ…and his ministry has always been a blessing. He did a series concerning how the church is like a living organism, existing in a symbiotic relationship with culture at large. ..and he stated how unless we’re careful, our mission will be driven more by our desire to keep up with culture than our conviction to be grounded in One who transcends culture.

What he noted about Hong Kong in building amazing works and yet working to preserve the memory of the older parts of town is something that really stood out (as seen here at Trees Of Hong Kong by Louie Giglio ). On a recent trip to Hong Kong, he noted how he became aware that trees are so scarce that they build sky scrapers around the few trees that exist. They didn’t scrap building plans because of the trees that were already established, nor did theyraze the trees. Rather, they designed the trees into their building so as to fulfill the larger goal of the past/new in harmony. He called this process, “excavation and renovation” and illustrated it with the great story of his own partnership with songwriter Chris Tomlin and the creation of “Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone).” They maintained the integrity of this historic hymn of the Church, but created a simple but powerful new chorus that a new generation of worshippers can claim as their own. Masterful.

And in some ways, that's how it is (IMHO) with the Law. With Circumcision, already being practiced by the nations around Abraham for centuries before the Lord ever mentioned anything to him, it didn't have to be the case that the Lord instituted that in Genesis 17 (and later confirmed it in the Mosaic Code) for the purposes of saying that Circumcision was always to be done for certain reasons--for in the mind of the Lord, circumcision would be an aspect of showing what it meant to walk in righteousness.......

In saying that, it should be noted that it was never the case that all others were given that command--be it Jethro, Melchizedek, Job or others...and so context has to stay in place if saying it was something the Lord demanded for all times (be it Jew and Gentile).

With Circumcision, it could later be the case that Yeshua fulfilled that requirement with the physical symbol of circumcision (As a Devout/perfected Hebrew who was righteous) and thus qualified to be the sacrifice---and once that was done, it was done. With the Jews, the intent behind circumcision changed from being one done for the purposes of keeping the intention of seperation/preparation for the Messiah to being one of doing something in MEMORY of the Work of the Messiah--and thus with Paul in what He noted, as well as Stephen in Acts 7:7-9 / Acts 7 , it'd be the case that Circumcision had great value so long as it was done in gratitude to the Messiah rather than doing it under the mindset that one had to do so in order to show they were qualified to be the Lord's people/saved.

Related to this discussion of circumcision is the significance of Abraham's Seed, for it was to Abraham that the covenant of circumcision was given (Gen. 17:10; Rom. 4:11-12).

Gal. 3:26-29
"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Once a believer has received the Holy Spirit and is thus "in Christ", there is no longer any importance attached to race, social status, or sex. In Christ, all believers are sons of God and heirs of promise.

We also notice above Paul's reference to Abraham's seed. This is full of significance:

Gal. 3:16
"Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds', as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ."

A believer must be "in Christ" to be considered of the seed of Abraham. Paul emphasizes this teaching:

Gal. 3:7: "Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham."

The true sons of Abraham are the faithful "in Christ". Considerations based on fleshly descent have been superseded...for it is now necessary for even the Jew to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved rather than trying to say that themselves are "Saved" due to the fact that they're circumcised. :

Gal. 2:15-16:

"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, ... even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law" ...

Yeshua echoed the thought in John 8 when having to rebuke the people who claimed they were children of Abraham due to ethnic heritage--and the Lord noted that what Abraham was always about was action, not simply physical symbolization...a theme that goes alongside what Paul said. Also related to Paul's discussion regarding circumcision is the discovery of the identity of the Israel of God, for it was commanded that every male Israelite be circumcised, or he would be "cut off from his people" (Gen. 17:10,14).

Gal. 6:15-16:
"For what counts is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, it is the new creation. On all who will be guided by this rule, may peace and mercy rest, even upon the Israel of God."

In other words, Paul says that those who are among the true Israel are those who walk by this rule -- that what really counts is the new creation. For fleshly Israel, circumcision means everything; but for spiritual Israel, the new creation is the important thing. There is a connection here with Paul's mention of the Jerusalem above:

"but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. ... So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free."

The Jerusalem above is called the "mother of us all" -- that is, the mother of all believers. Who is the mother of all believers? I understand this to be a reference to the church spoken of by Paul...that body uniting both the Jew/Gentile together in one body (1 Tim. 3:15).

For some excellent study material that may help to give more clarity:

Gxg (G²) · Jan 17, 2012

talmidim said:
Thank Easy, but I wonder, as I have tried to convey from the beginning, why did Paul teach what seems contrary to both of these covenants? I do not believe that Paul would break Torah. Nor do I believe that any man may change the eternal commandments of Yah. So, the alternatives that I wanted to explore was the possibility that this was NOT contrary to Torah because:

The Promised Seed was to come through the mark, sign or token of the covenant, that is, the physical circumcision of the flesh and that covenant had been fulfilled OR;

The genealogy of many gentile believers could not be successfully followed back to Abraham OR;

The covenant with Israel had been broken and Israel had been given a bill of divorcement, thereby relieving the gentiles from the requirement to join themselves to the nation of Israel in their quest to follow Yah or Y'shua OR;

Any combination of the above or other reasons not mentioned...

That is what I am looking for and I know it's out there somewhere. I don't dispute what you are saying Paul taught. I'm trying to reconcile it to what I know of scripture, that's all.

Thanks,

More than understand where you're coming from, Bruh. I'd probably go with the first option as being the most logical, in light of how the Lord was born under the law as Galatians 4:3-5 notes. As a Messiah had to have the token/sign as well as all other aspects of the seed from which the Messiah would come (as was the case with Issaac), he fufilled all the requirements of the law and circumvented His own law in order to undo the damage done...doing what the first Adam was incapable of doing, as 1 Corinthians 15:44-46/1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 make clear. And because of that, WE now have the opportunity to go back to the way things were meant to be---in which man was meant to be fruitful/multiply and produce more "Sons of God" in order to increase His Family/Reflect Him as Children of God.

IMHO, there's no room for anyone denying the fact that being apart of Israel/inheriting had circumcision as one of the deals one had to keep in being in Covenant with God. However, apart from the fact that circumcision was already being practiced amongst the other nations long before God told his people to do such, there was far more to being with God's people than being circumcised---for it was an outward sign of an inward reality...

Romans 4:10-11

How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

It is a sign of the covenant, the covenant that was already established... as stated here: "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised".
Why did God require circumcision? It was a sign of obediance to him in all that matters. As a sign of belonging to his covenant people...once circumcised, there was no turning back. The man would be identified as a Jew forever...and as a symbol of "cutting off" the old life of sin, purifying one's heart and dedicating oneself to God. It was more than any other practice the way God's people seperated from their pagan neighbors......in Abraham's day. And this was essential to develop the pure worship of God.

Although other cultures used circumcision as a sign of entry into adulthood, only Israel used it as a sign of following God....though the practice in/of itself never gave one righteousness---as seen in Romans 4:3, Romans 2:24-26, and Jeremiah 9:24-26. For rituals did not earn any reward with Abraham. It was by faith alone.....as Genesis 12:1-14 tells of God's call to Abram when he was 75 yrs old....and the circumcision ceremony was introduced when he was 99years old. The outward symbols demonstrated inward trust/faith and as reminders of our faith--but by themselves, they could never bring justification. Nonetheless, to be considered apart of Israel in the OT, it was a BIG deal, (i.e., Exodus 12:43-45 , Leviticus 12:2-4, etc).

As it concerns the practice of circumcision, much of its importance can be seen clearly when studying the context of what occurred with Moses when he failed to circumcise his children, as seen in Exodus 4:25-27. To the best of my understanding, Moses was the most humble man on the earth ( Numbers 12:2-4, Hebrews 11:23-25, etc )..yet God was about to kill Moses had he not circumcised his son......and he may not have been too familar with God's laws, especially the requirements of God's covenant with Israel in Genesis 17 that had not been carried out for over 400years. And Moses could not actively function as deliverer of God's people until he had fulfilled the conditions of God's covenant....and one of those conditions was circumcision.

Before they could go any further, Moses and his family had to fulfill God's commands completely. For under the OT, failing to circumcise your son was to remove yourself and your family from God's blesings.....and Moses QUICKLY learned that disobeying God was even more dangerous than tangling with an Egyptian Pharoah.

Exodus 2:23-25 makes clear that the Lord remembered his covenant promises....and his people were called to remember the conditions of the covenant. Moses was held responsible for the provisions of the covenant with Abraham that required him to circumcise his sons. And failure to be circumcised may have led to some severe form of punishment, Numbers 9:6-14 . Had it not been for Moses's wife coming through, the man would have died. And to say it was not a part of the requirement to be considered Israel, one would perhaps have to diminish the significance of the threat Moses had.

What was noted about circumcision also goes back to Joshua 5, where God required Joshua to circumcise all male before entering the land. For its interesting to see how those males were already citizens of Israel. However, the ones who entered the land were those who were children of the older Israelities who never entered in.

Illegal immigrants entering the U.S.A can give birth to children in the states, effectively making them "U.S Citizens".. even though they may not have all of the full benefits of the country at their disposal due to their background...and the things they must work through. Likewise, by "accident of birth" those males in Joshua 5 were already counted among the Hebrew Children, but in order to enter the Land as legitimate citizens of Israel, they HAD TO BE circumcized according to the LAW of Moses. Even though the children of the older generation of Israelities had fought in many battles during their time in the wilderness (Numbers 20-36, Deuteronomy 2-4, etc), its possible that many of the young men had never been circumcised. Joshua 5:5 makes clear that all of those men of military age died in the desert after leaving Egypt....and whereas all the people coming out of Egypt had been circumcised, those born in the desert during the journey from Egypt had not. Its also possible that the new/second generation also had children who were uncircumcisd at this time.

But their circumcision had nothing to do with their being noted as apart of God's people.

For another example, the first covenant community was Abraham's household. It did not include only his immediate family but also slaves and strangers. They were all members of the household BEFORE they were circumcised. Gen. 17:14 says: " And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; he has broken my covenant." For in Genesis 17:1 (also seen in Acts 7:7-9 ), God was making a covenant, or contract, between Himself and Abraham.

The terms were simple: Abraham would obey God and circumcise all the males in his household----and interestingly, those also who were NON-Jewish as well...including servants like Eleazer of Damascus ( Genesis 15:1-3, Genesis 15 ).......which is an Arab nation the last I checked...and of course, with Ishmael--the father of the Arab Nations ( Genesis 16 , Genesis 17:19-21 , Genesis 21, Genesis 25:8-10, Genesis 25, Genesis 28:8-10, Genesis 36:2-4, 1 Chronicles 1:27-29, 1 Chronicles 1 Romans 9:7, Galatians 4:21-31)--him being circumcised as well..Genesis 17:22-24 Genesis 17...and in relationship with the Lord, as discussed in #17

In order for a person be be CUT off from his people, he needs first to be a part of the people, no? The slaves and strangers in Abraham household were all member of Abraham's people BEFORE they were circumcised. Circumcision did not play a role for them to be part of the household.

As explained earlier, in Joshua 5, all the uncircumcised people in the covenant community at the time (the children of Israel) were members of the people. Requiring circumcision in order to enter the Land had nothing to do with them already being members of the covenant community. The circumcision was to fulfill the requirement as a a sign of the covenant, not to become citizens of Israel....or demonstrate faith in the Lord. For even those outside of the Covenant Community demonstrated faith in the Lord on many occassions. Some of this was discussed elsewhere when it came to others like Jethro or Melchizedek and the Roman Centurion in Matthew 8 and many others.

Thankfully, it was never the case that those who wanted to be apart of the community of God/believers had to be circumcised in all cases...and even more thankful in light of what Christ has done in the NT. For after the Cross of Christ, circumcision takes on an entirely different revelation:

1 Corinthians 7:17-19
Concerning Change of Status
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts

Galatians 5:6
6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Colossians 2:9-12
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Philippians 3:2-4
2Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

Romans 4:9-129
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 17, 2012

talmidim said:
How does the physical circumcision tie you to Torah if all you are doing is honoring the Abrahamic covenant? I mean, what if you are an Edomite? These were gentile descendants of Abraham through Isaac (through whom the covenant was made) that was not involved with the Israeli covenant...

Edomotes, interestingly enough, had a Covenant with the Lord that he honored..

but they are out there!!I'm not 100% certain that the Edomites were necessarily the true enemy of Israel, in light of their history.

Some of this I've been realizing more and more after studying the Book of Genesis and seeing the line of Easu in action. For Issac's attempt to bless Esau in Genesis 27:1-45 was subverted by Rebekah, who favored Jacob and helped him recieve the blessing of the firstborn.....though that event only builds on the earlier incident where Esau sold his birthright to Jacob (Genesis 25:29-34) alongside confirming the earlier incident where the divine statement was made in Genesis 25:23 that the older will serve the younger.

Genesis 27:39-40 |Full Chapter

Then Isaac his father answered and said to him, "Behold, away from the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling, And away from the dew of heaven from above. "By your sword you shall live, And your brother you shall serve; But it shall come about when you become restless, That you will break his yoke from your neck."
(Genesis 27:39-40, NASB)

The blessing Issac gave to Easu in Genesis 27:39-40 may seem like a curse at first glance...but in many ways, it seems to be a blessing that is meant to be like a "counter-measure" toward his brother. It was much like a Consolation prize of sorts (i.e. an award given to those who do not win an event but are deserving of recognition). For although Jacob was given authority over his older twin brother, Isaac indicates/pronounces that Esau will eventually free himself from his brother's control....and later, Esau's descendants settle outside the Promised Land, to the east of the Jordan River, eventually taking control of Seir, which is later named "Edom"..as seen in Genesis 36:1-42 (I Chronicles 1:51-54), with the geneology of Easu. His sons and grandsons produced 14 chiefs, and a number of kings emerged from among Esau's descendants.

According to Genesis 27:39-40, Esau was given a blessing by his father (empowered through the Lord) that would ensure his survival. Essentially, according to the blessing, Esau would have no success tilling the ground or growing vineyards and so implies that he would likely live in the dessert areas of the land. On Esau and his descendants, the blessing of "living by his sword" is often seen as a negative---but in many ways, it was a positive since it was a warrior's blessing. He would truly live/have life by means of the sword...and his descendants may or may not prosper from the land, but they would not starve, as they would have the power to either hunt or take game from others.

Isaac told Esau that he has already given Jacob the jackpot and there is nothing left for him. In that case, the blessing cannot be a duplicate of Jacob's. And If Esau is to live by the sword then he is to be a raider, not a farmer, who has no use for the dew of the heavens.

As another said best:

One of the key points in the blessing of Jacob is that he would “be master of [his] brothers” (Genesis 27:29, NASB). Isaac, who is apparently too far gone to figure out with which of his kids he is talking, must remember this element of the blessing, because his blessing of Esau includes such an acknowledgement.

The blessing also says that Esau and his descendents will live with some trying elements. In particular, they will not live on particularly fertile land, and that they will have to be warriors. This isn’t all bad. First, the quality of Esau’s (and Jacob’s for that matter) is never mentioned. Happiness is not the concern of this blessing, but rather material success. Ability, likewise, is not mentioned. So, Esau’s father has not cursed him to unhappiness; I could say that he has rather blessed Esau with an alternative. “Life will have some difficulties, son, but you can thrive in this situation.” For Esau, survival by sword, instead of agriculture, might well be a blessing.
But there’s yet one more huge element. “It shall come about,” says Isaac, “when you become restless, That you will break his yoke from your neck.” Life, yes, will be full of challenges. Subject of your younger brother, your success will not be as easy. And, yes, you will even accept this for a time. But only for a time. There’s always the temptation to cry out “How long?” The Bible has several instances of this question. But there’s also the hope that what Esau lost by his foolishness will be ultimately restored.

Also, as another noted best in Genesis 32-33/ Genesis 36:11 in A Blessing For Esau | The Jewish Week when it came to Esau's return to meet Jacob:

Esau makes a comeback as an adult. When Jacob seeks reconciliation to the point of giving Esau half the fortune he has amassed in the interim, Esau appears with a retinue of followers and fortune enough to say, “I have enough, my brother; you may keep what is yours.“ It is Esau now, not Jacob, who displays maturity of character and serenity of mind — as Jacob himself concedes, when he acknowledges, “Seeing your face is like seeing the face of God.”

As seen in Deuteronomy 2:1-1-8, the nation of Edom--descended from Esau (Genesis 25:30, Genesis 32:3, Genesis 36:1)---were people whom the Lord warned Israel not to provoke due to the blood relationships through Esau. And the Lord told the Israelites directly that certain land was given strictly to Edom due to the covenant/kind of relationship they had with the Lord ( Genesis 36:8-10, )

Numbers 20:14-21 also gives more in-depth information....concerning how the the Edomite/Israelite relations often were one of tension, if not bitter hostility, as seen in how the Edomites denied passage through their land to Israel. At that time, apparently, they were afaid that the Israelities--known to be a great horde of people--would either attack them or devour their crops (Deuteronomy 2:4-5, Deuteronomy 2:3-5 / Deuteronomy 2 ) and thus they did not trust Israel's word.

And yet despite that, the Israelites were commanded not to attack/hate the Edomites:

Deuteronomy 23:7
Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country.
Deuteronomy 23:6-8

Deuteronomy 2:5
Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own.
Deuteronomy 2:4-6 (

Nothing further is recorded of the Edomites in the Tanakh until their defeat by King Saul of Israel in the late 11th century BC ( 1 Samuel 14:46-48 ). 1 Samuel 21:6-8 mentions Doeg the Edomite , later seen in I Samuel 22:9-22....the man who betrayed David and killed the priests of Nob and committed an act that Saul's Israelite servants refused to do. David later spoke sharply against it in Psalm 52 when condeming Doeg for thinking of himself as a great hero in the deed he committed.

Forty years later King David and his general Joab defeated the Edomites in the "valley of salt", (probably near the Dead Sea) in 2 Samuel 8:12-14 and I Chronicles 18:12. It was at that time that an Edomite prince named Hadad escaped and fled to Egypt, and after David's death returned and tried to start a rebellion (I Kings 11:14-22), but failed and went to Syria. From that time Edom remained a vassal of Israel. David placed over the Edomites Israelite governors or prefects, and this form of government seems to have continued under Solomon. When Israel divided into two kingdoms Edom became a dependency of the Kingdom of Judah. I Kings 22:47 is a great place to go for further information on the issue. In the time of Jehoshaphat (c. 914 BC) the Tanakh mentions a king of Edom ( II Kings 3:7-9 ), who was probably an Israelite appointed by the King of Judah. It also states that the inhabitants of Mount Seir invaded Judea in conjunction with Ammon and Moab, and that the invaders turned against one another and were all destroyed. Edom revolted against Jehoram and elected a king of its own. Amaziah attacked and defeated the Edomites, seizing Selah, but the Israelites never subdued Edom completely. 2 Kings 8:20-22 and 2 Kings 16:5-7 is also a place where one can go for further information. As it turns out, the Edomites aided the enemies of Israel in conquering them in the time they were in rebellion ( 2 Chronicles 28:16-18 , Psalm 137:6-8 )---and the prophets spoke out against Edom ( Isaiah 21:10-12, Isaiah 34:8-10 , Jeremiah 49:16-18 , Ezekiel 25:11-13 , Ezekiel 35:14-15, Ezekiel 36:4-6 , Joel 3:18-20, Amos 1:10-12, Amos 2:1-3, Obadiah 1:7-9, Malachi 1:1-5 )

But in the Lord's disciplining of Edom, it doesn't seem to say that all Edomites were forever wiped out---and for those who are descendants of Edom today, if they were to become saved, it doesn't seem like they'd be required to keep circumcision since they didn't live fully like the Israelities anyhow. For a good read, one can investigate The Edomites: their history as gathered from the Holy Scriptures ...

'

Gxg (G²) · Jan 17, 2012

talmidim said:
Paul wasn't talking about the previous covenant, Torah in this verse. He was talking about the seventh covenant made with all those that believe on Him, making Y'shua the mediator of the first covenant, the Adamic covenant under which man was cursed. That covenant pronounced death. And Y'shua, being adopted under the covenant of Adam (because He was not the son of Adam, but the Son of the Father in Heaven by His Spirit), but without sin, is now mediator of not just that covenant, but all covenants made with man for the redemption of man and His Creation. Doesn't that give you chill bumps?

Agreeing with what you noted here, as his work is truly amazing as you noted :amen:

That said, I think it needs to be noted that although Yeshua is the Mediator of a New Covenant, one key distinction that I think can be lost is that He was indeed a Son of Adam technically.

To give some more information, the title Son of Man is honorific, as is "Son of David", pointing to Jesus' right to the throne of David. It is not, as you must know, unique to the NT. Ezekiel is called "Son of Adam" by God throughout his prophecy. It is always translated "Son of Man", though I don't know why. The title points to lineage and Lordship. One has to get the United States out of your thinking and go to the days of feudalism, or even back to suzerainty. A Lord passed his dominion on to his firstborn son. Upon his death, the son retained lordship. Adam was given dominion over everything on the planet. Everything. Just what that "everything" meant was demonstrated by Jesus, who called himself the "Son of Adam". (Ben Adam would be the aramaic spoken by Jesus that the Greek translated. You will find this in any linguistic study of the Greek versions of the NT. You would see Ben Adam in both the ancient Syriac and Babylonian versions of the NT.)

"SOn Of Adam"--in regards to the idiom "Son of Man" going parallel with the "Son of God" idiom is something that often seems to be key in the text. The Lord’s favorite description of Himself was “Son of Man” (cf. Matt. 8:20; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:22; John 9:35–37, etc.). Although that title seems to stress His humanity, it also speaks of His deity. Jesus’ use of the term derives from Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man is on equal terms with God the Father, the Ancient of Days.
:

"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.
Luke 12

Luke 22:69
But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
Luke 22

He then added, "I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
John 1

John 13:31
[ Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial ] When he was gone, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him.
John 13

Hence, Jesus took on the reins of Lordship, when He was anointed Lord, as Adam was...upon the descent of the Holy Spirit

For more information, in the event that some things don't come out as clear as I'd like, indeed, Yeshua was the first Son of God. The Jews viewed themselves collectively as sons of God. Jesus, however, claimed to be God’s Son in a unique sense. “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father,” Jesus affirmed, “and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt. 11:27).

Thru Him, now we are children of God! And not just that, but He was also the firstborn from the dead - and in that we are His brethren too! But if the Word is to be the final standard of all we do, then technically Yeshua was not the First Son of God. And the Gospels alert us to that reality fairly quickly....specifically, as it relates to the geneology of Jesus in the scriptures...and as the text makes clear:

Luke 3:38
The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus

21When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

.................................................. .........

the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Luke 3:37-38 Luke 3

To me, interesting that Adam was not called/designated as "a son of God"---but in line with the dynamic of "Father to Son", he was referenced as "the son of God".....and of course, makes sense seeing how often Jesus is designated in converse as the "Son of Adam/Son of Man"" and essentially the Second Adam ( Romans 5:11-13 / Romans 5/ 1 Corinthians 15:21-23/ 1 Corinthians 15 /). And on the issue, even on the issue of roles/occupations, it's a trip to see the similarities---especially seeing how Adam was a Gardner

Genesis 2:13
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [f] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [g] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

And on a humorous note, though the Fall cursed the produce man would recieve from his work ( Genesis 3:20 )--with God having to bless the Land in order for man to live ( Psalm 104:4 ) I think it's ironic that when Christ rose, He came back in the same role Adam had---as He was mistaken for a Gardener when He rose again

John 20:15
"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him." 16Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher

John 20:14-16 John 20

The symbolism cannot be missed, IMHO. God is So Good

Gxg (G²) · Jan 17, 2012

visionary said:
Ratification comes like a Will is ratified by death.

Hebrews 9:15-17
New International Version (NIV)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritancenow that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. 16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

Click to expand...

visionary · Jan 17, 2012

circumvented His own law in order to undo the damage done

Easy..you will need to clarify this for me.

Source Scripture · Jan 17, 2012

visionary said:
Ratification comes like a Will is ratified by death.

The point I was making, was that the fact that it says, "no one adds", means just what it says. The Mosaic covenant, was not an addition to the Abrahamic covenant, and certainly that was shown in the Pauline usage, in the scriptures.

Source Scripture · Jan 17, 2012

talmidim said:
Paul wasn't talking about the previous covenant, Torah in this verse. He was talking about the seventh covenant made with all those that believe on Him, making Y'shua the mediator of the first covenant, the Adamic covenant under which man was cursed. That covenant pronounced death. And Y'shua, being adopted under the covenant of Adam (because He was not the son of Adam, but the Son of the Father in Heaven by His Spirit), but without sin, is now mediator of not just that covenant, but all covenants made with man for the redemption of man and His Creation. Doesn't that give you chill bumps?

There is nothing in the epistle at all, to indicate that he was talking about the Adamic covenant in 3:15. In fact, in 3:17, he lets you know he is explaining just what the issue was, he says "this is what I mean", and it was about what came later, not what was previous, and it was the law, which bears out with the whole context of the epistle.

Galatians 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 17, 2012

visionary said:
Easy..you will need to clarify this for me.

With circumvention, in the event it's not clear, who was it that dominion of the planet was given to according to Genesis 1-2? It was mankind--and even after man sinned, the Lord didn't shut things down immediately nor did he just clean them up....and even with the sacrifical system, cleasning was not pernamanet since it could only temporarily cover. Only a man could redeem man, with that man being the one who was perfect/without mistakes like Adam was. No one could do that---and thus, the Lord chose to come in the form of a man and do the job himself that man couldn't do.

Some of that goes in line with what often occurred with Christ when they accused him of blasphemy for declaring that God was His Father and that He himself was God/Divine, as they felt no man claiming to be the MESSIAH could be such according to how they viewed the Messiah. They ended up missing how the promised Messiah from Genesis 3 was never going to just be a man...but the Lord Himself coming to do the job no one else could---and many never even suspected it.

As said best by Neil Cole in his book "Organic Leadership"

The apostle John writes about the Enemy's tatics as "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life" (I John 2:15-17). You do not have to go far in the Bible to find these strategies at work. Three chapters in and there they are. Even in a perfect paradise while tempting unblemished people who do not have a sinful nature, Satan starts with these same three temptations and hits a home run with his first at bat.

The Bible says that the fruit Adam and Eve were forbiddento eat was delicious (lust of the flesh), a delight to the eyes (lust of the eyes) and would make one wise (boastful pride of life). Eve took, ate, and gave it to her husband, who also ate (Genesis 3:6). We've been biting the same bait ever since. This is the same tatic Satan used to tempt another pefect presentation of man. Before Jesus started his public ministry, he was out into the wilderness alone to face the Enemy (Matthew 4:1-11). Jesus is called the Second Adam (Romans 5:15-17, I Corinthians 15:45-49) because he represents us all. There are some striking similarities, and equally striking differences, between the two men. Both were perfect men without sin. Both were representatives of all of humanity. Both spent time in the company of animals and angels (Genesis 2:19-20, Genesis 3:24, Matthew 4:11, Mark 1:12-13). Both faced Satan head-to-head.

Jesus was tempted in the same ways Adam had been---"the lust of the flesh" ("command that these stones become bread", v 3 of Matthew 4), "the lust of the eyes" ("all of the kingdoms of the world and their glory...I will give you,", v 8), and "the boastful pride of life" ("throw yourself down from the pinnacle of the temple", vv.5-6). Both were tempted at their points of weaknes----Adam and Even were innocent, pure and physically perfect but lacked maturity and wisdom; Jesus was perfect but had been fasting for forty days....and was hungry and alone.

This is where the similarities end and the differences begin. Adam was in a garden paradise; Jesus was in a desert wilderness. Adam had companionship, and Jesus was alone. Adam had all the food he could eat with only one restriction. Jesus lived under many restrictions and spent forty days fasting. With Adam, the animals were friendly and the angels hostile (Genesis 2:19-20, Genesis 3:24). With Jesus the animals were hostile and the angels were friendly (Mark 1:13). Of course the more striking difference is that Adam fell into sin when tempted and Jesus did not.

Yahudim · Jan 17, 2012

Hey Easy,

Thanks for your positive comments. You have said a great many thing with which I agree. But I cannot follow you all the way. Sorry to disagree, there have made a number of suppositions that I believe require more compelling proof than those the Christian commentators offer. The first and foremost of these is a supposition that either the Father or the Son would abandon one of the requirements of a previous covenant. We seem to agree that the covenants are progressive and each build upon the preceding. Am I alone in thinking that there must be a concrete fulfillment of terms before any provision can be considered complete?

The promise and terms of the covenant are simple, but are often unrecounted. This covenant is revealed progressively as to its promises, blessings, curses and method of fulfillment from Genesis 15 through 25 and beyond. But it is not only about Abraham's fruitfulness. It is also about the Promised Seed that blesses all the nations. It is also about the land. So the next covenant includes elements that fulfill this one. They are inextricably linked.

Somewhere, somehow, Pauls teachings has translated the physical requirements of the Abrahamic covenant as becoming symbolic. This is something with which I have a very hard time reconciling to an Elohim that does not lie. There has to be more to this transition that Paul relates - for which we are not accounting. THAT is what I am seeking.

This is not something that Christian commentators adequately address IMO: The plain meaning of the text that shows where and how the requisite physical parameters of the covenant of circumcision have been met or changed to become symbolic. I do not believe that it CAN be met in only symbolic terms anymore than I believe the Messiah could fulfill covenant by symbolically dying. There HAD to be a physical death and there HAD to be physical circumcision.

You offer many paragraphs concerning the circumcision or lack thereof concerning the children of Israel and those that came out of Egypt. You mention it again while they were in the wilderness before they entered into the land. I can understand how they might have been prohibited from circumcising while under Egyptian control. I can see how it would be over looked for that reason. But that is another subject.

You and I agree that Messiah fulfilled all the requirements of the Torah. But then you say that He circumvented Torah to undo the damage done by Adam. I don't see it that way. I believe that He kept Torah to undo the damage that was done, but this could just be semantics. I'm not sure what you mean.

You say that He required the circumcision as a sign of obedience to Him. I say that He instituted the marks of the covenant in such a way that the only way the covenant could be fulfilled was through the marks of the covenants. Obedience was only a part of the formula. They were given in His grace. Fulfilling the covenants through these marks that He chose gives proof to all that cared to see, that it was Him that had accomplished the covenant promise, blessings and curses, not Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David or even Y'shua. Each covenant recipient had to do things exactly His way, in faith. Every good and perfect gift came from Him (I think you may know the rest of this paraphrase) to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. In this and every other case, it is by grace, faith and obedience that His gifts are received. Some things never change.

BTW, you noted that Y'shua was technically a son of Adam. You don't say!!! .

Well when you throw in the symbolism of the gardener, take a look at Leviticus 16 and the clothes that the Cohen Gadol wore when approaching the Mercy Seat on Yom Kippur. Now think about Y'shua as the gardener again. Hmmm...

Now about the Edomites: there are many prophetic passages that place the children of Esau in the land, contending with the children of Israel for the land, in the last days. As I am sure that you are aware, the only people that this description fits are the so-called Palestinians. The Abrahamic covenant covers the Edomites in terms of both fruitfulness and the land. Obviously the Seed came another way.

This isn't the place to debate the history of the Edomites. Suffice to say that I do not necessarily agree with the translation you quoted from or the work of the author that you linked. The reason being that Obadiah (for me) leaves little doubt that Esau will still be contending with Israel over the land until the descendants of Joseph join with the Jews to destroy them to a man in the Day of the LORD (which is a clear indication of His Second Coming). That's my take anyway.

Still, it is good to know that we agree on more than we disagree.

Blessings,

visionary · Jan 17, 2012

Easy G (G²);59565456 said:
With circumvention, in the event it's not clear, who was it that dominion of the planet was given to according to Genesis 1-2? It was mankind--and even after man sinned, the Lord didn't shut things down immediately nor did he just clean them up....and even with the sacrifical system, cleasning was not pernamanet since it could only temporarily cover. Only a man could redeem man, with that man being the one who was perfect/without mistakes like Adam was. No one could do that---and thus, the Lord chose to come in the form of a man and do the job himself that man couldn't do.

Some of that goes in line with what often occurred with Christ when they accused him of blasphemy for declaring that God was His Father and that He himself was God/Divine, as they felt no man claiming to be the MESSIAH could be such according to how they viewed the Messiah. They ended up missing how the promised Messiah from Genesis 3 was never going to just be a man...but the Lord Himself coming to do the job no one else could---and many never even suspected it.

As said best by Neil Cole in his book "Organic Leadership"

The apostle John writes about the Enemy's tatics as "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life" (I John 2:15-17). You do not have to go far in the Bible to find these strategies at work. Three chapters in and there they are. Even in a perfect paradise while tempting unblemished people who do not have a sinful nature, Satan starts with these same three temptations and hits a home run with his first at bat.

The Bible says that the fruit Adam and Eve were forbiddento eat was delicious (lust of the flesh), a delight to the eyes (lust of the eyes) and would make one wise (boastful pride of life). Eve took, ate, and gave it to her husband, who also ate (Genesis 3:6). We've been biting the same bait ever since. This is the same tatic Satan used to tempt another pefect presentation of man. Before Jesus started his public ministry, he was out into the wilderness alone to face the Enemy (Matthew 4:1-11). Jesus is called the Second Adam (Romans 5:15-17, I Corinthians 15:45-49) because he represents us all. There are some striking similarities, and equally striking differences, between the two men. Both were perfect men without sin. Both were representatives of all of humanity. Both spent time in the company of animals and angels (Genesis 2:19-20, Genesis 3:24, Matthew 4:11, Mark 1:12-13). Both faced Satan head-to-head.

Jesus was tempted in the same ways Adam had been---"the lust of the flesh" ("command that these stones become bread", v 3 of Matthew 4), "the lust of the eyes" ("all of the kingdoms of the world and their glory...I will give you,", v 8), and "the boastful pride of life" ("throw yourself down from the pinnacle of the temple", vv.5-6). Both were tempted at their points of weaknes----Adam and Even were innocent, pure and physically perfect but lacked maturity and wisdom; Jesus was perfect but had been fasting for forty days....and was hungry and alone.

This is where the similarities end and the differences begin. Adam was in a garden paradise; Jesus was in a desert wilderness. Adam had companionship, and Jesus was alone. Adam had all the food he could eat with only one restriction. Jesus lived under many restrictions and spent forty days fasting. With Adam, the animals were friendly and the angels hostile (Genesis 2:19-20, Genesis 3:24). With Jesus the animals were hostile and the angels were friendly (Mark 1:13). Of course the more striking difference is that Adam fell into sin when tempted and Jesus did not.

I am sorry but in all this verboseness, I still didn't see any ...

circumvented His own law in order to undo the damage done

Where did He circumvent His own law?

Gxg (G²) · Jan 17, 2012

visionary said:
I am sorry but in all this verboseness, I still didn't see any ... circumvent His own law

Where did He circumvent His own law

I'm sorry--but in all the questioning, I've yet to see any credible commentary saying that the Law commanded for GOD to come/redeem His people.

Bottom line, was it LEGAL for the Lord to redeem man WITHOUT having to become a man himself? To note, circumvent doesn't mean one breaks the Law. It means that they leave themselves room to fulfill it even if it doesn't explicitly say they can...and the LAw made plain MAN was the one given dominion/the one on whom the planet either stood or fell.

Legally, only a man can redeem mankind from sin---and God would have been violating His own Law if He had redeemd man outside of those parameters. Thus, He became a man/lived according to His own rules He set up so as to reedm others.

Either you believe/can deal with it or you cannot. But it's there, despite the protest

visionary · Jan 17, 2012

Easy G (G²);59568752 said:
I'm sorry--but in all the questioning, I've yet to see any credible commentary saying that the Law commanded for GOD to come/redeem His people.

Bottom line, was it LEGAL for the Lord to redeem man WITHOUT having to become a man himself? To note, circumvent doesn't mean one breaks the Law. It means that they leave themselves room to fulfill it even if it doesn't explicitly say they can...and the LAw made plain MAN was the one given dominion/the one on whom the planet either stood or fell.

Legally, only a man can redeem mankind from sin---and God would have been violating His own Law if He had redeemd man outside of those parameters. Thus, He became a man/lived according to His own rules He set up so as to reedm others.

Either you believe/can deal with it or you cannot. But it's there, despite the protest

Yeshua coming in the flesh to redeem man is a promise not a law.. The law required the death.. which He didn't circumvent but did die to pay the penalty.

Yahudim · Jan 17, 2012

Easy G (G²);59568752 said:
I'm sorry--but in all the questioning, I've yet to see any credible commentary saying that the Law commanded for GOD to come/redeem His people.

Bottom line, was it LEGAL for the Lord to redeem man WITHOUT having to become a man himself? To note, circumvent doesn't mean one breaks the Law. It means that they leave themselves room to fulfill it even if it doesn't explicitly say they can...and the LAw made plain MAN was the one given dominion/the one on whom the planet either stood or fell.

Legally, only a man can redeem mankind from sin---and God would have been violating His own Law if He had redeemd man outside of those parameters. Thus, He became a man/lived according to His own rules He set up so as to reedm others.

Either you believe/can deal with it or you cannot. But it's there, despite the protest

I tend to think of things like, 'He would that all be saved' and His providing a Seed (ala Gen 3:15, Gen 22:18, etc.). If you believe that it is anything that man has done, Y'shua or no, I think you may have missed the point.

Yahudim · Jan 17, 2012

visionary said:
Yeshua coming in the flesh to redeem man is a promise not a law.. The law required the death.. which He didn't circumvent but did die to pay the penalty.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 17, 2012

visionary said:
Yeshua coming in the flesh to redeem man is a promise not a law.. The law required the death.. which He didn't circumvent but did die to pay the penalty.

And all Laws echo the PROMISES of the Lord upon which they were built. The promise is not seperated from the Law, v.

Moreover, Messianic prophecies were also considered apart of Law--As it concerns the Psalms alongside what the prophets said as well in prophesying the Messiah ( John 1:44-46 )

Luke 24:25-27
He said to them, How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

The Law made plain that man was responsible for the fate of the planet. It's the entire concept behind how sin originally impacted the whole of mankind in a myriad of ways---with man not being able to redeem men as a whole since no one was perfect....and with the Law being given to regulate until the time that the Messiah was on the scene to make a new way.

Some people tend to get bothered by that because of issues they have with the concept of Original Sin---and I know you, as well as Contra alongside myself and others have debated that one in-depth on other discussions . But seeing the reality of what sin did to mankind, the Promise of the Lord was something that made what the Law demanded to be not as necessary as before when sin could only cover things.

Galatians 3:16

The Law and the Promise

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say and to seeds, meaning many people, but and to your seed,[] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

The Law also required that it had to be MAN doing the redeeming. Just as Adam was perfect man bringing all of man into sin, so it was the case that Christ was a perfect man bringing the world into righteousness...thus the significance of His becoming like a man (Hebrews 2, Hebrews 4, Hebrews 5, etc) and suffering through the struggles of manhood so he would be qualified for doing so. Everyone within Judaism was expecting 2 MEssiahs, a Priest and a King, who'd do the job--but they never expected it to be the Lord Himself doing the job since no one else would. Yeshua never violated the Law, but neither did He go about fulfilling it the way others expected since again only man can redeem man....and it wasn't just about paying the penalty of sin--but making it for all men to come to His level. Again, that's circumventing and protesting doesn't change the definition of the word or the concept.

This also goes directly in line with Hebrews 7

As only a man could redeem mankind, Christ came in the form of a man....with the scriptures declaring that even He had to be perfected/developed ( Luke 2:39-41, Luke 2:51-52 , etc). For in His humanity, He had to go through the process of being Human just as the rest of us do if he were to truly achieve the goal of redeeming mankind as a human (yet also God).

Hebrews 5

1 Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was.
5 In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,

You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.]
6 And he says in another place, You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.[]

7 During the days of Jesus life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 2:7

Jesus Made Fully Human

5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But there is a place where someone has testified (Psalm 8):

What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
7 You made them a little[] lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor 8 and put everything under their feet.[b

In putting everything under them,[d] God left nothing that is not subject to them.[e] Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.[f] 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. 11 Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters. 12 He says,

I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters;
in the assembly I will sing your praises.[]
13 And again,
I will put my trust in him.]
And again he says, Here am I, and the children God has given me.[]

14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of deaththat is, the devil 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abrahams descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Matthew 4:1
[ Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness ] Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

Jesus' life was one where it was reliance upon the Holy Spirit just as it was upon the Father. After Jesus was baptized in water, the Holy Spirit descended on Him (Luke 3:21-22). Was this done to seal Jesus with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of His salvation (as in Ephesians 1:13-14)? Obviously not, because Jesus was not in need of salvation. Then why did Jesus need the Holy Spirit? Philippians 2:7 says that Jesus emptied Himself before becoming human, which means that He "set aside His self-willed use of deity when He became a man" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Walvoord and Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary, p.654). In order to be born as a human, Jesus voluntarily set aside His glory and His power. On earth, Jesus was our perfect role model because He was the perfect human (He is both God and man), and He received the Holy Spirit in order to be empowered for His ministry on earth. This can be demonstrated by following the sequence of events in Luke's Gospel and in Acts:

"When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove." (Luke 3:21-22)

"You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached-- how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him." (Acts 10:37-38)

"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry." (Luke 3:23)

"Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil." (Luke 4:1-2)

"When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time. Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside." (Luke 4:13-14)

Notice the sequence of events: First, we are told that Jesus was baptized in water and then He received the Holy Spirit (not as a guarantee of His salvation, but for spiritual empowerment). We are also told that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and power. Next, Jesus began His ministry after receiving the Holy Spirit and power. We are then told that He allowed Himself to be led by the Spirit rather than deciding on His own what He wished to do, just as we are meant to be led by the Holy Spirit rather than following our own wishes and desires. Finally, we see Jesus returning to Galilee in the power of the Holy Spirit after resisting the devil in the desert. So even though Jesus is the Son of God, the above passages tell us that He needed to receive the empowerment of the Holy Spirit for His earthly ministry.

And all of that was for the purposes of setting up something different than what the Mosaic Code allowed for since it could never empower men to do what was righteous--nor could it open up the door for men to remain righteous PERMANTELY in communion with the Holy Spirit as Adam did. The Law's purpose of cleansing, moreover, only allowed for others to be cleansed on the basis of sacrifices---and only a perfect man could change that. Christ was indeed that man, who lived things fully and made a way for others to walk that was not Mosaic Law.

Circumventing can again be seen there since He didn't bring redeemption by the Levitical system--but rather, He brought it via the Line of Melchizedek which always existed even before the Mosaic system of righteousness came about----and in doing so, while the Mosaic Law in all aspects continued, a new outlet came into being for others to join in with.

Hebrews 7
Jesus Like Melchizedek

11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthoodand indeed the law given to the people established that priesthoodwhy was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.[

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
You are a priest forever.[b

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant. 23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Gxg (G²) · Jan 17, 2012

talmidim said:
I tend to think of things like, 'He would that all be saved' and His providing a Seed (ala Gen 3:15, Gen 22:18, etc.). If you believe that it is anything that man has done, Y'shua or no, I think you may have missed the point.

If you try avoiding where the scriptures make clear man played a part in salvation, I think there can be more of a desire to supporting a worldview rather than addressing the text....especially those discussing Yeshua the Messiah coming as a man/human being to redeem his people and being tempted in EVERY way possible to do it. It makes light of the life of Yeshua to say otherwise when claiming that it didn't take the Lord becoming a man to redeem His people, nor did it take the Lord working with men actively to protect/ensure the promised Seed would get the job done that no one else could...

Circumcision and Covenant

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic

Newbie

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Source Scripture

Guest

Source Scripture

Guest

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads