What is your personal view on Communion/Eucharist/L-rd's Supper?

I will have to agree with you Easy G.

Lulav said:

Exactly.

Click to expand...

Sorry I cannot for the life of me understand the point you are trying to make...

TorahxKeeper said:

That is exactly what I am saying.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to Yahweh by Yahshua the Messiah.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Yeshua says we are to be a Royal Priesthood, If we were to be priest after the Levitical Priesthood it would not be of any royalty. Levites were Priest's only not Kings.

Click to expand...

Hi TK,

I have read your post and Easy G's with interest, and they throw up some interesting observations/implications/suppositions that are worth discussing, athough I realise they have been scholarly appraised from every conceivable angle...but I don't see why we should let scholars have all the fun.

Ok Levites were priests not kings...gotcha.

Heb 6:20 Where the forerunner is for us entered, even Yahshua, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.


If Yeshua is a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, then Rev 5 says..

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our Elohim kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

If you read Hebrews 6 - 11 You will notice how Shaul is explaining how this Priesthood came into existence.

Click to expand...

I have read it...I think I grasp it.

I believe Yeshua is in fact Melchsedec as the Scripture shows

Click to expand...

Ok I understand what you're saying...I don't share that belief and I don't believe Scripture shows it...at least not in the way that follows.

Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

King of Salem...This was the first name of the city of Jerusalem

Psa 76:2 In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.

King of righteousness.. Obviously Yeshua

King of Peace...again Obviously Yeshua

Click to expand...

I think you are jumping to conclusions here. From Scripture we understand what an esteemed individual Melchizedek was, but again I don't really think we can equate him with Yeshua because we know the L-rds lineage, and although the name of Mechizedek contains certain components that are identifiable with G-d, I don't think they are sufficient of themselves to negate the other information.

Take for example the time when Joshua entered Canaan and fought against many kings, including the man who was king of Jerusalem at that time Adonizedek meaning 'Lord of Righteousness'. (Josh 10:1)
By your reasoning, the significance of the name implies Yeshua.
Whereas from what I perceive, and this is only speculation on my part, it is far more likely that when Noah and his family were set down on dry land and told to replenish the earth...some from his family came and established Salem and initiated a priestly dynasty which at first was dedicated to the L-rd G-d, and of which Melchizedek was the leader/king and priest. Over the years G-d was replaced with Canaanite gods, athough the kings retained a title that depicted devotion to G-d.

If you read Hebrews 6-11 you will see the essence of this,aswell as the Gospels.

Each Gospel shows us who Yeshua was and is, They are also our definition of the very Kingdom Priest we will eventually become as Saints of YAHWEH.
Mathew - He is KingMark- The Prophet Servant

Luke- He is the Son of Man

John- He is the Lord of Heaven , or the Son of YAHWEH

These show the attributes of Yeshua, and are also our guidelines of how we are to follow HIM in righteousness. Yeshua is our example, that we are to follow. He gives us HIS authority through gifts, of healing ,Prophesying, the casting out of Devils ..etc.etc.

We have the authority to baptize in HIS name for the remission of sins, that we with this athority guide those into the Kingdom. We are given HIS authority to lay hands which literally can pass the Holy Spirit to others as we utilize these gifts.

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with all this, but it is peripheral and we don't need to deviate from the main point so I won't follow up.

This is our authority of the Royal Priesthood, and we are to practice this.

Call them the New Covenant instruction books. You will notice that Hebrews 6-10 speak of the Kingly Priesthood, then it ties this into the New Covenant in chap.11.

Now we all know that the New Covenant has not come to it's completeness, and won't be until all is fulfilled. It will be then after the Resurrection of the Saints and the Kingdom has be reestablished that the fullness of our Royal Kingship will commence.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm ok, don't think I have a problem here.

But until then we are commissioned by our King to represent and live a Kingdom lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

If you think about it and compare it to the Priesthood to that is in the Torah, you should see how it ties into why we are justified by Faith.

What is Faith, is it not obedience to the Word (Torah) This Faith justifies us utilizing the authority of the Royal Priesthood.

By which we are fully living a Kingdom lifestyle.

Click to expand...

This is where I really can't see it....I understand we have been made priests and kings, but I don't see it as a specific designation more along the lines that we minister in the Holy Spirit in the function of priests and kings...not that we belong to a specific priest-hood or kingly lineage...especially bearing in mind that the Melchizedek priesthood is non-transferable...there is only one who holds that office and He lives forever.

I very much see Mechizedek as a type...

I really appreciate what Easy G wrote as well...but do not have time to discuss it at the moment...I pretty much agreed with the very well rounded possibilities propounded, and understand the different opinions many have on this issue.

ZAZAL said..

This is where I really can't see it....I understand we have been made priests and kings, but I don't see it as a specific designation more along the lines that we minister in the Holy Spirit in the function of priests and kings...not that we belong to a specific priest-hood or kingly lineage...especially bearing in mind that the Melchizedek priesthood is non-transferable...there is only one who holds that office and He lives forever.

I very much see Mechizedek as a type...


Agreed .. I am not really saying the we are somehow re-designated as Melchizedek Priest.
Let me explain it this way, I am saying we are part of that Royal Priesthood after the "Order" such as Yeshua is. You say it is a 'Type" ya I agree with that.

The type or order that Melchizedek represents, is also represented in Yeshua.

We follow Yeshua so by default if he is of the Order/Type of Melchizedek, then so are His followers.


ZAZAL siad....not that we belong to a specific priest-hood or kingly lineage..

But we are part of a Kingly lineage thru Yeshua , as Heirs to HIS throne. without a Kingly lineage you cannot be an Heir. That is why it so important we know Yeshua's heritage to prove he is worthy of the throne he claims to bare.

That lineage passes to us by virtue that we become Sons Of YAHWEH, by accepting the Atonement from Yeshua.

We are sons of man thru Adam, we become Sons of YAHWEH thru the second Adam..Yeshua. therefore Heirs.


I don't understand what you mean by Melchizedek Priesthood is not transferable can you explain that further?

TorahxKeeper said:

I will have to agree with you Easy G.

TorahxKeeper said:

...we are part of a Kingly lineage thru Yeshua , as Heirs to HIS throne. without a Kingly lineage you cannot be an Heir. That is why it so important we know Yeshua's heritage to prove he is worthy of the throne he claims to bare.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Glad to know we're in agreement...and to be clear, when the example of David was mentioned earlier concerning differing types of priesthoods outside of the Levitical one, I forgot to add that what he did in regards to the sacrifices has always stood out in some very heavy ways......especially as it relates to the concept of Kingship/lineages and what that really means. Truly, I find it striking examining the example in scripture of a king (who was not a Aaronic) acting as a high priest (for example 1 King 9:25)---as seen in how David, Solomon, and other kings speak about the “many sacrifices they offered” (as a means to prove their personal piety).

To witness the ways that other kings did so and were condemned seems odd at times...as in the example of King Saul when he was rebuked for doing as they did.

Under pressure from the approaching Philistines, he took matters into his own hands...for He was doing a good thing (offering a sacrifice to God before a crucial battle) but he was considered as doing it in the wrong way. However, again, David and Solomon did the SAME THING---offering sacrifices as a king in I Kings 3:4, I Kings 8 and I Kings 8:62-63 when it came to the temple.

This is not to say that Saul was not treated with priestly status as David/Solomon were when it came to the way those Kings were seen...for as it concerns those who are Non-Levitical and yet have a signifcant level of priestly status, King Saul (Benjamite) is an interesting case study.

In the Levitical law, the priests received two particular portions of each peace offering: the "wave offering" of the breast and the "heave offering" (or better, "contribution") of the right thigh. The word translated "thigh" in the is shoq. According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, "When shoq refers to a man’s body it designates the lower part of the leg, the shank from the knees downward. When shoq refers to part of an animal’s body it designates the upper, thicker part of the leg." The word yarek is used to refer to the upper part of a man’s leg (cf. Gen. 32:25, 32).

Shoq is used in the Mosaic law only with reference to the thigh of the peace offering. In Exodus 29:22-25, the right thigh of the ram of "filling" was to be burned with the peace offering, and the breast was to be given to Moses. Similarly, Leviticus 8:25-26 says that the right thigh was burned as an offering by fire at the ordination of the Aaron and his sons, and we are told in verse 29 that Moses took the breast for himself. In Leviticus 7:29-34, by contrast, the breast was to be shared by all the priests, while the right thigh was given to the officiating priest. And in Leviticus 9:21 and 10:14-15, the breast and thigh are said to belong to the priest, and must be eaten in a clean place. Exodus 29:27 specifically tells us that the breast and thigh of the ram of ordination was consecrated, but it does not say that they were eaten. Verse 28 seems to show that the priests should receive the breast and thigh from every peace offering.

Essentially, the right thigh of the ram of ordination was burned, but subsequently, the priest who offered the peace offering received the right thigh as his own. This makes sense when understanding how the Lord Himself and Moses were the officiating priests at the ordination of Aaron, since He and Moses received the priest’s portions.

The thigh was given directly to the officiating priest as a contribution so that it was for him and his family. The breast was given to God by the ritual of lifting it up and receiving it back again (. The things given to God were shared by all God’s special servants, the priests. In the ordination peace offering, the contribution-thigh was given to God, the officiating Priest, and thus turned into smoke as His "food" (Ex. 29:22-28). The offering-breast was also given to God, but was shared by all the other "meta-priests," who in this case were God and Moses. In any case, it is clear that the breast and right thigh were thereafter given to the priests. For a discussion, one can see James B. Jordan's work entitled "Incentive Dynamics in the Tabernacle Corporation"


In Leviticus 10:14-15, the priests had to eat the breast and thigh of the peace offering in a clean place. In contrast to the leftovers of the grain offerings, the thigh and breast did not have to be eaten in a holy place (cp. Lev. 10:12-13; 2:10). The thigh and breast were "holy" but not "most holy" (Nu. 6:20: breast and thigh are "holy for the priest"). This distinction between the grain and peace offering is consistent with the fact that some of the peace offering was eaten by the worshipper (Lev. 7:11-18). Another powerful passage to consider is the priestly passage of Numbers 18:18, which compares the meat of the firstborn, which belonged to the priest, to the meat of the breast and thigh.

The word for "breast," chazeh, is used nowhere outside of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Shoq, however, is used in other connections. In Deuteronomy 28:35, the Lord threatens to strike His unfaithful people with boils on their knees and legs (shoq), and Samson struck the Philistines "leg on thigh" (shoq `al yarek). Additionally, the fact that the right thigh is given to the priest is significant since the priest of Psalm 110 sits on the right hand of God. As the old saying goes, "you are what you eat,"..and of course, "you eat what you are." Truly, Priests eat priestly food .

And in seeing all of this, one can see the full significance of what occurred with Saul. For In 1 Samuel 9:24, Samuel calls attention to the fact that he has set aside the shoq/thigh for Saul, indicating at least that the thigh is a portion reserved for an honored guest and perhaps indicating something of the priestly aspect of Saul’s office.




There was a sense that the Kingship, under the Lord, was of a higher level than that of the Priesthood--and that is seen in the example of David who followed...and the Messiah later when they, as Kings (and priests) were with power over the Levitical priests.


In the example of David and Solomon and (to a limited degree) Saul, as others have explained the issue in saying all connected to the Melchizedek dynamic. ...if those Judahites/Benjamites were priests after the order of Melchizedek, then maybe that is why Solomon and David got away with what they did. It also raises the question of how one would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek while at the same time witness a priesthood set up in the order of Levi....and how one would qualify for the Melchizedek version. One was obviously superior to the other and the Messiah came through the Mechizedek one to accomplish his work....

Why is there no record of priests opposing David when he was an outlaw and ate the bread which had been consecrated by the priests, as we read in 1 Samuel 21:1-6? David tells Abimelech in verse 2 that he is alone because the king has charged him with a matter, and thus he has gone about his business. After speaking with Abimelech, we read in verse 6 (verse 7 in Hebrew Bible) he ate the showbread

Leviticus 24:5 makes clear that only cohanim were allowed to eat the bread of the Presence set aside for display before the ark in the House of God (tabernacle). Each week 12 consecrated loaves of bread, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed on the table in the temple. This bread was called the bread of the Prescence. David’s obedience to the kingly decree leads him to eat the bread that has been sanctified by the priests, which further shows how the priestly and kingly offices clashed for David...even though he did blend the monarchy with the priesthood ..and even ate the sacred bread of the tabernacle which was punishable by death in a way that no other Hebrew King ever did. David was a prophet, a priest and a king.....

Something else I find interesting is that David, despite Zadok being the high priest, also had one named Ira the Jairit who was a priest unto David (2 Samuel 20:25-26 ). Ira the Jairite was a native of Havvoth-jair in Gilead ( Numbers 32:41/Numbers 32:17, Deuteronomy 3:14 , etc)--and he was a descendant of Manasseh...Joseph's clan. Again, the man was a non-Levitical priest and descendant of Jair ...and in contrast to later periods it seems to have been acceptable during David's reign for the king to have a private priest who was not a Levite.


Some think that the idea behind the phrase "chief minister" is that Ira was sort of a chaplain to David. For commentary from Lexicon:
Additionally, as Clarke's Commentary and Gill said best:

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
​

Seeing the differing examples of priesthood being done in the OT, it has really had me processing the role of Christ--our Messiah---and how He was able to do as He did in becoming High priest outside of the Levitical order since there already seems to be a bit of a precedent with others who did so as well.....and as Christ came to restore the Tent of David, again, one must wonder if David was a type of what the Messiah would come to do.

TorahxKeeper said:

I am not really saying the we are somehow re-designated as Melchizedek Priest.

Let me explain it this way, I am saying we are part of that Royal Priesthood after the "Order" such as Yeshua is.

.....The type or order that Melchizedek represents, is also represented in Yeshua.

We follow Yeshua so by default if he is of the Order/Type of Melchizedek, then so are His followers.

.....we are part of a Kingly lineage thru Yeshua , as Heirs to HIS throne. without a Kingly lineage you cannot be an Heir. That is why it so important we know Yeshua's heritage to prove he is worthy of the throne he claims to bare.

That lineage passes to us by virtue that we become Sons Of YAHWEH, by accepting the Atonement from Yeshua.

Click to expand...

As Yeshua was called the Son of David (as a Messianic Title) and expected to restore the Davidic Kingdom in new ways, IMHO, it would not be surprising to see Him act as David did.


David was a KING and a PRIEST ---and as the Lord made clear to his people in Exodus ( Exodus 19:5-7 ) that he intended for Israel to be a NATION of KINGS/PRIESTS, one must wonder if the only way to accomplish that was to have others patterned after the type of King/Priest David was.....as that's exactly what Christ --the SON of David and the fulfillment of the prophecy of the seed of David (2 Samuel 7:14-16), confirmed in Matthew 1 and other places ( (Matthew 15:22, Matthew 20:30, Mark 10:47, Mark 12:35-37, Acts 4:12, etc ) ---did when he came down and made us into a nation of Kings and Priests.
The same promise the Messiah gave to Israel when he delivered them was repeated once again in the End of all things.....with the Lord noting that His people will NEVER perish due to their nature as priests of God just as Yeshua is.


Shalom

Zazal said:

Whereas from what I perceive, and this is only speculation on my part, it is far more likely that when Noah and his family were set down on dry land and told to replenish the earth...some from his family came and established Salem and initiated a priestly dynasty which at first was dedicated to the L-rd G-d, and of which Melchizedek was the leader/king and priest. Over the years G-d was replaced with Canaanite gods, athough the kings retained a title that depicted devotion to G-d.

Click to expand...

Very interesting concept, as I don't believe I've ever considered or came across the thought that perhaps Noah (a preacher of righteousness) was one whose seed started a priestly lineage. It would not be surprising to see in action...and there are some other interesting thoughts many have had on Noah and others have often noted how Noah possibly taught Abraham. ....for Noah (though well-advanced in age) was alive when Abraham was around. One chart (referenced here in #8 and another thread entitled Noah and Abraham ) shows how Noah passed away 58 years after the birth of Abraham.

If you've ever heard of the Book of Jasher, it notes how Abraham seemed to have a background similar to what occurred with Moses being protected during the killing of babies in Exodus 2---and Jesus when Herod ordered the killing of the baby boys. it notes that Nimrod was still around when ABraham was born....and in hearing of the promise of a Messianic King who'd threatened his reign, he sought to kill all of the baby boys---demanding that Abraham be brought forth for extermination. The book notes how Terah was a general in Nimrod's army and was asked to sacrifice his son...but Terah wouldn't do it. Rather, he found another child and decided to offer that in place of his son without Nimrod knowing it.



Apparently, after Terah hid his son and fled with him somewhere else, the life of Abraham fast-forwards to a time where Abraham went through a period of religious searching. In the Book of Jasher and the Talmud, he is sent to live with Noah and Shem, where they teach him the ways of God for thirty-nine years. For some references, if having an Apocraphya Bible, that may help. But for more info:

• The Real Book of Jasher?
• Book of Jasher, Chapter 13
• The Book of Jasher Uncloaked
• Myths of the World: Abraham in Ur
• Book of Jasher Referred to in Joshua and
• Abraham- the Son of a Sumerian Oracle Priest

Interesting to consider, as that adds a whole new set of factors into the mix Others may immediately react when hearing any mention of the Book of Jasher, although it's mentioned in the Biblical books of Joshua and Second Chronicles:
The origins of the book of Jasher are uncertain, but there is a book of the same name which was written before the Bible was finalized. We know this because (again) the Bible itself quotes Jasher and references it as a source document for events that allegedly happened in the 13th and 10th centuries BCE. The Bible itself uses Jasher as a source document, and footnotes it as if it needed Jasher's authority to substantiate its claims. One Messianic, known as Steve Collins, discussed the issue before when he referenced it and noted that he had a copy of the book of Jasher available and felt it to be largely credibe in its pre-Flood accounts and in those applying to the patriarchal period of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...even though it has clear errors and spurious additions in its later chapters.

Personally, in my studies, I've found the Book to be quite fascinating in what it has to say...and to see how all that connects with the theme of one of Noah's family beginning a priestly dynasty that eventually ran into Abraham (if the theory you presented is true)...that would be wild

ok let's take this a little deeper, as to why Melchizedek is so important to the Royal Priesthood.

I will briefly start with the beginning YAHWEH created Earth for his Kingdom, He then creates Adam (Humans) to care for this Kingdom. Adam fails and falls thru Satan's deceiving. Yaweh curses man with death, then after a time has Noah replenish the Earth.

YAHWEH wants to restore HIS Kingdom... He chooses Abraham for this Purpose.

A Kingdom needs a King, it also needs a people, or a Nation, it also has to have a government or "the Law"

Now YAHWEH is King, thru Abraham will come HIS people, HIS people will demand a Human King, not understanding that YAHWEH is the intended King.

According to YAHWEH's law a King must be ordained by a Priest/Prophet. This Authority would have had to somehow pass from the original King.

Saul had to be ordained by Samuel, as well as David was.

1Sa 15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

ok now YAHWEH could have just given Samuel the right to ordain Saul, but I don not see that anywhere in Scripture. Where YAHWEH gave Samuel the authority to do this. Besides that fact Saul was not YAHWEH's intention of King. YAHWEH was appeasing the people with there demand of a human King.

YAHWEH's Kingdom restoration began with Abraham, and YAHWEH ordained the Kingdom at that point. It was to be a Holy Nation, a Kingdom of righteousness, the Light of the world. I believe it could only be YAHWEH thru a pre-incarnate Yeshua that this could take place.

This is why I believe Melchizedek was pre-incarnate Yeshua.

We don't have allot of info on Melchizedek, although we do know he interacted with Abraham, and Shaul ties Yeshua to Him as carrying on the Royal Priesthood.

So what I have said here does have a bit of conjuncture I admit, The Word does seem to me to imply this, but there could be a hole in there too.

So I will pause for your thoughts. Shalom

Zazal said:

I understand we have been made priests and kings, but I don't see it as a specific designation more along the lines that we minister in the Holy Spirit in the function of priests and kings...not that we belong to a specific priest-hood or kingly lineage...especially bearing in mind that the Melchizedek priesthood is non-transferable...there is only one who holds that office and He lives forever.

Click to expand...

If I may ask, what is your thought concerning Exodus 19:5-7 when the Lord (in an era where the Holy Spirit was not available at the same level He is for believers today) that he intended for Israel to be a NATION of KINGS/PRIESTS? Do you feel that what the Lord was not to be taken as saying he desired for all in Israel to be priests/kings due to how the Levites/sons of Aaron were given the priesthood and role of being stewards of the Tabernacle and Temple? Or are you of the mindset that the Lord gave designations of priesthood in the Mosaic Law to certain groups while simply not spelling out all of his long-term goals in setting up differing variations of priestly work ..as it concerns what occurred later with David and the Messiah as well as others in existence who were followers of the Lord and yet priests outside of the Aaronic priesthood?

Would love to hear your thoughts on whether or not you feel what was mentioned in Exodus 19:5-7 to Israel is connected to what the Lord also said in Isaiah 61:5-7 / Isaiah 61 ("you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God")--a text that has been applied to Gentiles as well as Jews when it came to the redeemption that would be found in Messiah. The same goes for what was shared in Exodus 19:5-7 when seeing how the same concept seemed to be extended to all of God's people later...in regards to Revelation 5:9-11 and Revelation 20:6 when John spoke of the future/declared "Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

Easy G... I like your tie into David, I was actually looking at those same scriptures. Something you sort of point out maybe unawares, which was soemthing I was going to alude too. That is Yeshua does not seem to take claim to any Kings beyond David, or I should say He does not really seem to recognize them.

Almost as if they are not valid... which they certainly was not according to His guidelines, Whoring after pagan gods.

Interesting you point out the similarities to the order of Melchizedek.

Maybe Saul was not ordained under the same order as David ..ummmm Interesting indeed.

TorahxKeeper said:

A Kingdom needs a King, it also needs a people, or a Nation, it also has to have a government or "the Law"

Now YAHWEH is King, thru Abraham will come HIS people, HIS people will demand a Human King, not understanding that YAHWEH is the intended King.

According to YAHWEH's law a King must be ordained by a Priest/Prophet. This Authority would have had to somehow pass from the original King.

Saul had to be ordained by Samuel, as well as David was.

1Sa 15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

ok now YAHWEH could have just given Samuel the right to ordain Saul, but I don not see that anywhere in Scripture. Where YAHWEH gave Samuel the authority to do this. Besides that fact Saul was not YAHWEH's intention of King. YAHWEH was appeasing the people with there demand of a human King.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm not of the mindset that having a King was ever something the Lord was fully against.....but rather, the Spirit people were in when wanting a King. For even within the Mosaic Law, the concept of King was present since the Lord made provision for it....noting that having a king was allowed (and predicted) and the King was to fear the Lord.
IMHO, the Lord knew Israel would one day have a king, but He wanted to give Israel that king in His own timing...one that would reflect Him and eventually be one who'd begin the work of the Messiah (King, Priest, Prophet, etc). Because Israel was demanding a king out of bad, carnal reasons, God will give them a bad, carnal king. God had a purpose in not giving Israel a king up to that point..and it was because He did not want them to put an ungodly trust in the king, instead of trusting in the Lord. However, Israel rejected this plan of God, a declaring that they do not want the Lord God to reign over them. The goal of having a king, according to the Lord in His word, was to have one who would be a steward ruling according to the Lord's desires...like one speaking in the name of their master even though they themselves have significant influence (a vassal state with people under its authority even though that state was under authority). .....much in the same way Christ came in great authority and yet was under authority (the Fathers)--with Him giving authority to His followers and noting "he who rejects you rejects Me..and the One who Sent me" (Luke 10:16).


And even with SAUL, although he turned out to be exactly what Samuel warned against, I don't see anywhere in scripture where it was FATED to go that route...as if the Lord always felt Saul wasn't a good choice. There are examples of where the Lord truly seemed grieved/regrettable about actions that He did---which many have noted were in many ways "mistakes." Genesis 6:5-7 , 1 Samuel 15:10-12 1 Samuel 15:34-35 are some of the most immediate examples----with the example of Saul being one of the greatest ones since God Himself chose Saul

The Prophet Samuel was in the transition time frame from the era of the Judges to the rise of the Monarchy.

The people wanted a king, as I Samuel 8---and though God said that the people had rejected Him in his reign over them, asking for a king was not wrong in/of itself. For God had mentioned the possibility of having a King within the Law in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. But where the people erred was in wanting a king for its own sake.....to be like the other nations and yet not have one either submitted to God's Laws or one through whom God would live out his reign. Thus, God told the people that even their king would have to obey His standards.....

When the Lord found Saul in I Samuel 9, He was a very meek man--not even considering Himself worthy as a king (I Samuel 9:21-22). He referred to himself as coming from the smallest tribe in Israel...the Benjamites...and this is significant in light of what happened in Judges 20:46-48 as well as Judges 19-21 when the tribe of Benjamin defended men who were rapists/sexually immoral and the tribe was nearly wiped out in war later on.

Later, as seen in I Samuel 10, Saul was crowned King....anointed publically---and the text makes clar that God changed his heart ( 1 Samuel 10:9 ) and instructed Him....with Saul being one who prophesied and worshipped as seen in I Samuel 10:10-13 when he was with the other prophets prophesying. It was so shocking that when Saul's friends heard inspired words coming from Saul they exclaimed, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"............for the scriptures make clear in I Samuel 10:6 that the Spirit of the Lord came upon SAUL.

With this, one must wonder how could Saul be so filled with the Spirit and yet later commit such evil acts....but throughout the OT, God's Spirit came upon a person temporarily so that God could use him or her for great acts. This happened frequently to Israel's judges when they were called by God to rescue the nation (Judges 3:8-10). This was not always a permanent, abiding influence...but sometimes a temporary manifestation of the Holy Spirit (Numbers 11:25-29, Judges 3:10, Judges 14:6, etc).

In many ways, it corresponds to the "filling" of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament..but even in times of the OT, the Spirit even came upon unbelievers to enable them to do unusual tasks (Numbers 24 with Balaam, II Chronicles 36:22-23 with Cyrus King of Persia as also seen in Isiah 44:28 and Jeremiah 25:12). Saul, in his early years as king, had "another heart" as a result of the Holy Spirit's work n Him...and the Spirit of God came upon him strongly in other instances as well-----as seen in I Samuel 11:6 when the Spirit of the Lord came upon Saul when hearing of the Ammonites' threat to humilate/mistreat fellow Israelities---with the Spirit of God leading Saul to become angry and giving the Lord the opportunity to channel anger in constructive ways to bring justice.

But later, as Saul's power grew, so did His pride. Even though he lost the Kingdom at one point, as seen in I Samuel 13:9-12, he was still King. But eventually, after a while he refused to seek God---and the Spirit left him (I Samuel 16:14)...and his good attitude melted away. That's a big issue to raise up someone/change them, ONLY to have Him rebell later on in an increasingly gradual way (1 Samuel 13:8-14) and then do so many evils in the process , from trying to kill David (I Samuel 18, I Samuel 19, I Samuel 21, I Samuel 24, I Samuel 26, etc) to killing to Priests of Nob (I Samuel 22-23) and even consulting a witch in I Samuel 28.


Despite all of Saul's foolishness, the Lord had a plan for Him---and even desired that He'd do right...though sadly, things didn't go well as desired. Saul wasn't just elected by the people and then left alone as if the Lord didn't have what seemed to be a back-up plan for how Saul was to govern as King. For the Lord anointed Him to lead--and without His approval, the job wasn't going to get done. ....and later, Saul was rejected---still remaining as King for decades while the Spirit of God left Him. This has happened before where God will use someone, desiring one thing...only to get another and then adapt in kind.

Like the Lord did with Eli at one point, who later died in I Samuel 4:14-19 as apart of God's judgement against his house/the wickedness of his sons in I Samuel 2:12-17

As one man said, "God is the only Boss who will fire you and let you keep working."

Of course, with that comes the issue of discussing whether or not God either changes His mind at times or is unable to do so. Some scriptures to examine on the issue would be Exodus 32:13-15 , 2 Samuel 24:15-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:14-16 ...as well as Jeremiah 42:9, Amos 7:2-8, and Jonah 3:9-10.

Num. 13:31-Numbers 14 also comes to mind, with God literally promising in Exodus 15:23-25 not to bring the diseases He inflicted on the Egyptians upon the Hebrews if they followed Him......and of course, it happened. But there seems to be no record of God ever saying He'd forsake His people in the wilderness if they did not follow Him. In Numbers 14, for anyone sincerly reading the passage, anyone can honestly see that there is indeed a "cause and effect" here. For in the words they spoke against the Lord---though He originally promised to deliver Him--they actuallly managed to get on God's bad side through their complaining. And in speaking against the Lord, it literally caused God to change His mind about what He had promised--with the effect being that that they never got into the land but died in the wilderness as they said. That's significant whenever it comes to the mentality that all things have been promised by the Lord ahead of time---and with possibilities, it makes even more sense since the Lord promised opposite would occur in their lives if they did certain actions.

In all of this, it goes back to the issue of whether or not its possible for the Holy Spirit of God to outline something----even in aiding others create something, if for a lasting ordinance or just a season---and then look back realizing that it should have been done differently? Within that, is it also possible (consistent with the theme that "God is not a man that He should change His mind") that God may say something/mean it-------only to have other options in mind that were available and yet He did not let His people become aware of it?

Its always a trip when studying the topic of possibilities, mistakes and God's choosing to work with them as He intervenes in History. Its always a wild topic to cover---as it relates to the possibility of God allowing Himself to have His mind changed on certain things...which often seemed to repeat itself throughout the OT. And though it may sound radical, it would seem to be no more of an issue than to say Christ had to be perfected (Hebrews 2:5-18, Hebrews 5:5-10) or having to Grow in Wisdom/Knowledge according to Luke 2:40/Luke 2:52...and Christ being "surprised"/amazed by the faith of the Centurion in Luke 7:9 / Matthew 8:9-11..as well as by what He saw in Nazareth at Mark 6:6.

If we can accept paradoxes such as the Trinity or God Being Eternal and EVERYWHERE all at once, then why is it difficult to accept the concept that perhaps the Lord who knows all can also be surprised/allows Himself to be and have open-ended possibilities on certain matters? Personally, I find that to be highly interesting. When discussing the issue with some of my Messianic Jewsh Friends, I was amazed seeing how much they'd scoff whenever people accuse all aspects of OPEN THEISM as heresy when that was never even the case in the original Hebraic Culture of the Scriptures. Awhile back, if interested, came by a book entitled "The Jewish Approach to God" by Rabbi Neil Gillman.

Twas intriguing in seeing this rabbi's approach and how it fits right in with an open view (open theism). And in asking what other Messianic Jews felt/whether there were any aspects in Messianic Judaism that're compatible with the thought that the Lord either learns or that He can be surprised/respond in accordance with what others do first, as one Messianic Jewish Brother said:

Zazal said:

Sorry I cannot for the life of me understand the point you are trying to make...

Click to expand...

It does not give a genealogy in Genesis for this King, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have one. To say that would mean he wasn't human.

He did not 'appear' like in Genesis, 12:7, 17:1 and 18:1.

TorahxKeeper said:

Easy G... I like your tie into David, I was actually looking at those same scriptures. Something you sort of point out maybe unawares, which was soemthing I was going to alude too. That is Yeshua does not seem to take claim to any Kings beyond David, or I should say He does not really seem to recognize them.

Almost as if they are not valid... which they certainly was not according to His guidelines, Whoring after pagan gods.

Click to expand...

As far as "Kingdom of David" is interpreted as the Line of Judah, I can see where David would be referenced by Christ since all of the kings descended from David are apart of Christ in His lineage according to Matthew 1...even the ones that did ALOT of evil (Manasseah being one of them). But I do think there's a dual reality with Christ referring to David in that His life was patterned closely to how David operated. I don't think that his not mentioning other kings is to be taken to mean that He didn't honor or validate them....for even the Kingdom of Israel was originally set up by the Lord once David's son, Solomon, rebelled according to I Kings 11-12 and Jeroboam was told that the Lord would give him a portion of the Kingdom.

Of course, with what, Jeroboam was also told it would only be for a time as punishment.....but his lineage would last so long as he honored the Lord. He instead went completely opposite of the Lord--cursing his line....and thus, there's no record of any righteous kings in the history of Israel. Judah had more, even though it was compromised......and the Lord remained faithful to his remannt/Messianic line in Judah...thus letting history play out. If Jeroboam had never rebelled against the Lord, who knows what would have happened? Even if the kingdom was eventually united under Judah, the promise of his Lineage lasting would have remained somehow and the Lord would have worked it out....but as the man rebelled, that is something we'll only discover on the other side of Heaven

Interesting you point out the similarities to the order of Melchizedek.

Maybe Saul was not ordained under the same order as David ..ummmm Interesting indeed

Click to expand...

I think Saul was within the same order as David did--but Saul did many of the same things David did with wrong heart/action involved. David was able to do priestly functions as Saul was...both ordained to do so...but Saul often did so out of selfishness, whereas David did so out of worship. And the Lord ultimately looks at the heart. Thus, Saul disqualified himself because of his motives/mentality rather than because of the actions themselves that mirrored what Melchizedek did......and what Christ would come to do.

TorahxKeeper said:

YAHWEH's Kingdom restoration began with Abraham, and YAHWEH ordained the Kingdom at that point. It was to be a Holy Nation, a Kingdom of righteousness, the Light of the world. I believe it could only be YAHWEH thru a pre-incarnate Yeshua that this could take place.

This is why I believe Melchizedek was pre-incarnate Yeshua.

We don't have allot of info on Melchizedek, although we do know he interacted with Abraham, and Shaul ties Yeshua to Him as carrying on the Royal Priesthood.

Click to expand...

There is a dynamic in place, in regards to Yeshua being like Melchizedek, that is reflective of the relationship we have with the Lord...for just as Melchizedek blessed Abraham before they dined together/had communion and fellowshiped with bread and Abraham was a type of what it means to walk by faith, so it is that Christ blesses us before he breaks bread/fellowships with those who must have faith in Him...and choose to take action just as Abraham did in rescuing his nephew, Lot.

Easy G (G²);60668402 said:

There is a dynamic in place, in regards to Yeshua being like Melchizedek, that is reflective of the relationship we have with the Lord...for just as Melchizedek blessed Abraham before they dined together/had communion and fellowshiped with bread and Abraham was a type of what it means to walk by faith, so it is that Christ blesses us before he breaks bread/fellowships with those who must have faith in Him...and choose to take action just as Abraham did in rescuing his nephew, Lot.

Click to expand...

Where does it say they dined together?

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Gen 14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
Gen 14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

You don't think this is saying the dined together?

TorahxKeeper said:

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Gen 14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
Gen 14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

You don't think this is saying the dined together?

Click to expand...

No.

If you were in a restaurant and the waiter brought you food and drink would you say he dined with you?

No but if I was in say a desert 4000 years ago or so , and this King stopped by my tent to bless me...I'm thinkin' I would invite him inside for a meal. Especially if he was kind enough to bring the food.

Easy G (G²);60654939 said:

As the Lord asking for something to be done on their part as a means of being right with Him--with the Lord setting the rules for how he wanted the people to approach Him if they wanted to be clean--demand is more than accurate, IMHO.

Click to expand...

No, Demand is what the pagan gods did, HaShem should not be compared to them. He gave Commandments, not 'Demandments'.

Easy G (G²);60654939 said:

As a Jew, Jesus must have kept the Law of Moses perfectly.

Click to expand...

So you are of the mindset that he only did it because he was born a Jew?

Easy G (G²);60654939 said:

Yet that same law required all Jews to keep the Passover celebration ( (Exodus 12:47 ). The Gospels specifically mention Jesus keeping three Passover feasts in Jerusalem....even as a boy (Luke 2:41-51).snip If Jesus did not eat the lamb, he would have been violating the Law and could have been accused of sin ( Numbers 9:10-13 ). The New Testament records that Jesus did eat the Passover feast, which would include the eating of the roasted lamb (Luke 22:14-15).

Click to expand...

No it does not. There is no place in Luke that says he ate any lamb. If you read John as you directed in your previous post, John 15 says that his last supper was before the Passover. And in John 18 after his arrest, the next morning it says this:

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled ; but that they might eat the passover.

Click to expand...

Because of these discrepancies we can't say for sure if he did eat of the Passover lamb that Passover.

Easy G (G²);60654939 said:

If His blood was not enough to atone for the sins of all mankind, it was shed needlessly for others since animal sacrifice would have been sufficient. The animal sacrifices covered sins rather than removed them in the sense that Christ had His blood remove sins.

Click to expand...

But it is a quandary, was his blood for atonement? That was not what the Passover was for, it was not a sin offering. Or was his blood the blood of the covenant, which would be a different thing. Jeremiah 31 doesn't mention any blood of the covenant, why?


.

Lulav said:

But it is a quandary, was his blood for atonement? That was not what the Passover was for, it was not a sin offering. Or was his blood the blood of the covenant, which would be a different thing. Jeremiah 31 doesn't mention any blood of the covenant, why? .

Click to expand...

Your right in saying that the Passover Lamb in Egypt was not for atonement.

But it typified atonement in such that, Like the Passover Lamb (Egpyt) covered the death of the Hebrew's firstborn.

Yeshua being the Passover Lamb of YAHWEH covered the death which was required for the punishment of sin.

Are not the ones who will be saved considered the firstborn of YAHWEH?

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living Elohim, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and assembly of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to Yahweh the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Heb 12:24 And to Yahshua the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Just picture this scene in your mind for a minute, imagine how glorious this sight will be...Hallelujah!!!