-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual Death
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Adam though when created was devoid of a sin nature, so his very nature was to be in the state to love and obey from the heart God fully, unlike any of us even after we get saved!
That is an assumption.
Earlier you stated that had Adam not sinned he would have been ageless and lived forever. You based this on a logical error (a formal logical fallacy), that God told Adam on the day he ate of the fruit death would be certain. You argued an error (the fallacy of the inverse) that should Adam not eat of the fruit he would live forever.
Also, you need to refine your definition of "spiritual life". Do you believe post-Fall man had spiritual life apart from the completed work of the Cross? This is what stopped @Martin Marprelate in his tracks. If you say no then what about OT saints who are said to have had a relationship with God prior to the fulfillment of the Promise?
If you want to take up his argument you have to pick up where he left off and answer the questions he could not so we can move forward.
I believe that pre Fall Adam was in a far different and far superior state to his post fall, as we all are now affected just as he was by the fall, and that he had real spiritual life, as did not need to have the Messiah until he fell, as that was imparted to him by God while was created! the fall killed that aspect of his humanity off from him....
But this still leaves actual spiritual life undefined. If it is not "Christ in us" and of the "imperishable seed" then what is it?
Also, what evidence is there that Adam's nature itself was changed (Scripture does say his eyes were opened and he "became like God in knowing good and evil")?
Because adam and eve needed to have the announced messiah to come to redeem them, as he was not needed until the fall, as was in perfect realtionship to and with God!
A small technical point here. The word translated 'angels' in Psalms 8:5 is actually elohim in the Masoretic Text, which is usually translated 'God' or 'gods.' So the NASB has, 'You have made him a little lower than God.' However, since the LXX, Syriac and Targum all have 'angels' and the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of Hebrews to do the same, that seems to be the right translation.
'A little lower than the angels' perhaps in 'power and might' (2 Peter 2:11).
As I have said before, I think it is ridiculous to suppose that Adam would have died if he had not sinned because of Genesis 2:17. Suppose that someone said to you, "The very day you come and work for me, I'll pay you $10,000 up front." If you didn't come and work for him, would you still expect to receive the $10,000? The word 'if' is not in Genesis 2:17, but it is nevertheless a conditional statement.
It is plain that Adam was created sinless, and had he remained that way he would not have died. He is also called the son of God (Luke 3:38) We read in Genesis 2:7, 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.' It is not said of the birds or animals that God 'breathed' into them, nor that they became living beings, though obviously they were alive and breathing. The Hebrew word for breath is the same as the word for spirit, so I believe that Adam was spiritually alive in that he was able to have a close relationship with God (check out 1 Corinthians 2:11-16). Now, God told Adam that in the day he ate the forbidden fruit, he would die; but he didn't. He lived another 900 years or so and begat sons and daughters. So what sort of death did he die in that day? Surely it was a spiritual death, as shown by his immediate hiding from God in the garden (Genesis 3:8).
To go further than that is speculation. There is nothing that says that he had a resurrection body, for example.
No and yes, in that order. See above.
God is not the author of evil. Adan was created sinless but defectable, yet he fell by his own fault when tempted by Satan. But of course, that did not take God by surprise, and He had prepared a rescue plan for mankind. This plan involved a better covenant, a better covenant Head, a perfect, acceptable propitiation for sin, and eventually, a better and more glorious future for the spiritual children of Christ, than that which Adam lost for his physical offspring.
Indeed! But the Seed of the woman has crushed the serpent's head, and we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.
I agree that God is not the author of evil. I believe the great dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, is the author of evil and that evil existed before the foundation of the world. I believe the word of God is clear that man was created for the purpose of the manifestation of the Son of God, as man, to destroy the devil and his works and that requires for man especially the first man to succumb to the devil for the purpose of redemption, for it would be through redemption that the Son of God would destroy the devil and his works.
The first man Adam, the living soul, was created because of the death, just as the last Adam was made a litter lower than the angels / - - - because of the death.
Because before Adam sinned and brought the death to all men it was the devil who had the power of, the death.
2:14 Hebrews ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκός καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον
The death, already existed God elected Adam to bring it to the living soul, man.For purpose.
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; Rom 8:20
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7
At that moment the creation man was subjected to futility. How, because he is made from the dust of the ground. He is of the flesh, corruptible.
Sin is the transgression of the law and sin brings death. 1 John 3:4 James 1:15
At that moment the creation man was subjected to futility. How, because he is made from the dust of the ground. He is corruptible.
What is the next thing God does to this one made of the dust of the ground, this one of the flesh. Gives him law.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die
Adam was of the flesh, sold under sin, which is transgression of the law, which brings, the death, in hope.
In hope of what was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Redemption by the precious blood (life) of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7
At that moment the creation man was subjected to futility. How, because he is made from the dust of the ground. He is of the flesh, corruptible.
Sin is the transgression of the law and sin brings death. 1 John 3:4 James 1:15
At that moment the creation man was subjected to futility. How, because he is made from the dust of the ground. He is corruptible.
What is the next thing God does to this one made of the dust of the ground, this one of the flesh. Gives him law.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die
Adam was of the flesh, sold under sin, which is transgression of the law, which brings, the death, in hope.
In hope of what was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Redemption by the precious blood (life) of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.
This is an interesting point (especially as the "world" does not necessarily mean "Creation"). Death apart from mankind is not mentioned to a substantial extent (that I know of) until Romans 8, and there Paul does not place death in Creation as a consequence of Adam's sin.
Let me ask.
and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is. And God seeth the light that it is good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness, and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one. 3-5 YLT
I was hoping YLT di it but I see they did not. That is leave out , it is, in V2 because, it is, isn't there. Let's do so.
and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is. And God seeth the light that good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness, and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one. 3-5 YLT
Acts 26:18 YLT without the words in italic
to open their eyes, to turn from darkness to light, and the authority of the Adversary unto God, for their receiving forgiveness of sins, and a lot among those having been sanctified, by faith that is toward me.
YLT to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the authority of the Adversary unto God, for their receiving forgiveness of sins, and a lot among those having been sanctified, by faith that is toward me.
Is the darkness and light of Gen the same darkness and light of Acts, Did God the good light separate himself from the darkness of the the Adversity Satan.
What about verse 2 of Gen 1? Was the earth without form and void because of the presence of the darkness (Satan) and without of the presence of the good light (God)? Was the death present on the earth in V2?
If the answer is yes and I believe it to be so; What is God going to do about the darkness Satan and the death he brings to God's creation?
I believe the light in Genesis is light (like from the sun).
God is going to cast Satan into the Lake of fire.
Martin Marprelate,
I enjoy your solid posts as you are one of the few who consistently offer bible truth and solid verses and plant seed that can grow in other believers.
Does that mean we will always agree? No, not necessarily. I am sure I post things that you have a slightly different twist on, and the other way around. That is fine and normal.
On the penal substitution threads, you have schooled those who drifted away from the safe harbor of scripture.
[QUOTE]A couple of other similarities between Eden and the New Jerusalem came into my mind. The first I had intended to post, but it slipped my mind. The others have occurred to me since.[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is an exact example. One plants, one waters, but God gives the increase.
Yes. This correct observation-only comes about by having in mind the fullness of redemptive history.
God has designed the believing church to welcome such truths.
Eph3:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
God's eternal purpose is progressively revealed, so it is correct to see where does it start, and finish. That informs us on all that is in between as we correctly examine the puzzle pieces.
Man in the fall was estranged from God and true knowledge as you have correctly alluded to.
All men post-fall men lack that unless and until they are regenerated.
Pastor Culver again;
For the most part, Jesus’ public self-interpretation was focused on the matter of fulfillment. That is, He explained Himself in terms of the Scriptures and their promise of a final, everlasting kingdom. Jesus’ constant refrain was that Israel’s failure to know Him reflected its failure to understand the Scriptures; at every turn He answered His detractors and those who marveled at Him by directing them to what the Scriptures said and promised about the coming Messiah and the kingdom He would inaugurate (cf. Matthew 4:12-17, 5:17-20, 13:10-15, 21:1-46, 22:23-46; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:16-30; John 5:16-47, 7:14-42, 10:22-38, etc.).
Pastor Culver adds this;
This same connotation is carried forward and further developed in the Bible’s treatment of Mount Zion as the site of the temple in Jerusalem. It was there that the sons of Israel met with Yahweh, and the prophets spoke of the day when all the nations would join them. The point of that imagery is not that the whole world would literally journey to Jerusalem, but that, in the fulfillment to come, all the nations would become worshippers of the true and living God (Isaiah 66:20; Jeremiah 3:17; Micah 4:1-2). Jerusalem is so closely linked with the “mount of God” that the terms are sometimes used synonymously (ref. Isaiah 37:32, 66:20; Daniel 9:16; Joel 2:32, 3:17; Zechariah 8:3).
But within Ezekiel’s prophecy, the phrase “mountain of God” is used in relation to Eden (ref. 28:11-16). This particular passage is set in a larger context in which God, through His prophet, was proclaiming a lament over the king of Tyre in view of his city’s coming destruction (26:1-28:19). God had determined to destroy this important Phoenician port city because of its arrogant presumption that Jerusalem’s downfall at the hand of Babylon (24:1-27) would serve its own profit (ref. 26:1-2).
a. The lament of chapter 28 is directed toward the king of Tyre, but many see in this historical account a symbolic representation of Adam’s (or Satan’s) fall. It is said of the king that he had been in Eden and that he had borne the “seal of perfection” as the “anointed cherub who covers.” It was only when arrogance and rebellion welled up in him that he was cast off the holy “mountain of God” (ref. 28:14-16). Thus the prophet’s description and condemnation of the king of Tyre – while perfectly applicable to the historical figure identified in the lament, is also suggestive of the dynamics of Adam’s fall in Eden (applying this passage to Satan is much more problematic).
b. But the point here is to note the correlation of Eden with the “mountain of God.” Assuming a legitimate symbolic aspect to Ezekiel 28, when compared with the corresponding Exodus passages it spotlights what is indirectly evident from the creation narrative, namely that Eden – as sacred space – represented the place of divine/human encounter. Exodus calls Horeb the “mountain of God,” and it was there that God met with Moses, the sons of Israel, and later Ezekiel. But this concept is also associated with Eden, implying that, in the initial creation, it was the place of divine/human interaction. This conclusion is supported by details within the first three chapters of Genesis, as will be seen.
Obviously any who just want to oppose biblical thought will never see these kinds of things or get close to truth on this. The look to secular history, or philosophy to explain away truth.
Obviously some will declare we cannot know truth, but they can state whatever they want, and believe or not believe what is offered.
.
I enjoy your solid posts as you are one of the few who consistently offer bible truth and solid verses and plant seed that can grow in other believers.
Does that mean we will always agree? No, not necessarily. I am sure I post things that you have a slightly different twist on, and the other way around. That is fine and normal.
On the penal substitution threads, you have schooled those who drifted away from the safe harbor of scripture.
[QUOTE]A couple of other similarities between Eden and the New Jerusalem came into my mind. The first I had intended to post, but it slipped my mind. The others have occurred to me since.[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is an exact example. One plants, one waters, but God gives the increase.
Yes. This correct observation-only comes about by having in mind the fullness of redemptive history.
God has designed the believing church to welcome such truths.
Eph3:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
God's eternal purpose is progressively revealed, so it is correct to see where does it start, and finish. That informs us on all that is in between as we correctly examine the puzzle pieces.
Man in the fall was estranged from God and true knowledge as you have correctly alluded to.
All men post-fall men lack that unless and until they are regenerated.
Pastor Culver again;
For the most part, Jesus’ public self-interpretation was focused on the matter of fulfillment. That is, He explained Himself in terms of the Scriptures and their promise of a final, everlasting kingdom. Jesus’ constant refrain was that Israel’s failure to know Him reflected its failure to understand the Scriptures; at every turn He answered His detractors and those who marveled at Him by directing them to what the Scriptures said and promised about the coming Messiah and the kingdom He would inaugurate (cf. Matthew 4:12-17, 5:17-20, 13:10-15, 21:1-46, 22:23-46; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:16-30; John 5:16-47, 7:14-42, 10:22-38, etc.).
Pastor Culver adds this;
This same connotation is carried forward and further developed in the Bible’s treatment of Mount Zion as the site of the temple in Jerusalem. It was there that the sons of Israel met with Yahweh, and the prophets spoke of the day when all the nations would join them. The point of that imagery is not that the whole world would literally journey to Jerusalem, but that, in the fulfillment to come, all the nations would become worshippers of the true and living God (Isaiah 66:20; Jeremiah 3:17; Micah 4:1-2). Jerusalem is so closely linked with the “mount of God” that the terms are sometimes used synonymously (ref. Isaiah 37:32, 66:20; Daniel 9:16; Joel 2:32, 3:17; Zechariah 8:3).
But within Ezekiel’s prophecy, the phrase “mountain of God” is used in relation to Eden (ref. 28:11-16). This particular passage is set in a larger context in which God, through His prophet, was proclaiming a lament over the king of Tyre in view of his city’s coming destruction (26:1-28:19). God had determined to destroy this important Phoenician port city because of its arrogant presumption that Jerusalem’s downfall at the hand of Babylon (24:1-27) would serve its own profit (ref. 26:1-2).
a. The lament of chapter 28 is directed toward the king of Tyre, but many see in this historical account a symbolic representation of Adam’s (or Satan’s) fall. It is said of the king that he had been in Eden and that he had borne the “seal of perfection” as the “anointed cherub who covers.” It was only when arrogance and rebellion welled up in him that he was cast off the holy “mountain of God” (ref. 28:14-16). Thus the prophet’s description and condemnation of the king of Tyre – while perfectly applicable to the historical figure identified in the lament, is also suggestive of the dynamics of Adam’s fall in Eden (applying this passage to Satan is much more problematic).
b. But the point here is to note the correlation of Eden with the “mountain of God.” Assuming a legitimate symbolic aspect to Ezekiel 28, when compared with the corresponding Exodus passages it spotlights what is indirectly evident from the creation narrative, namely that Eden – as sacred space – represented the place of divine/human encounter. Exodus calls Horeb the “mountain of God,” and it was there that God met with Moses, the sons of Israel, and later Ezekiel. But this concept is also associated with Eden, implying that, in the initial creation, it was the place of divine/human interaction. This conclusion is supported by details within the first three chapters of Genesis, as will be seen.
Obviously any who just want to oppose biblical thought will never see these kinds of things or get close to truth on this. The look to secular history, or philosophy to explain away truth.
Obviously some will declare we cannot know truth, but they can state whatever they want, and believe or not believe what is offered.
Martin M said,
Pastor Culver;
At the time of the Fall, God promised a day in which the serpent (and, by implication, his works and the curse brought about through his deception) would be overthrown and destroyed by a “seed” to come from Eve. The doctrine of the kingdom flows out of this primal promise and its historical development and speaks to the promise’s fulfillment. In the Scriptures the “kingdom of God” doesn’t refer to God’s supreme lordship as such, but to His work of restoration in fulfillment of His oath in Genesis 3:15. It is for this reason that it is a redemptive kingdom; it is the outcome of God’s sovereign activity in recovering the estranged creation to Himself through judgment, deliverance, and renewal
This global salvation was to be effected through the Servant’s work of vicarious atonement (53:1-12) and, as a result of it, Zion (symbolizing Yahweh’s covenant wife who bears children for him – ref. 50:1; also Hosea 2:1-23) would be restored from her desolation. In her restoration she would then gather in the innumerable “children” of the covenant Lord secured for Him by the atoning work of His Servant (54:1-17).
The focal point of the Servant’s work in Isaiah’s prophecy is the recovery to God of estranged mankind. But, in keeping with the fact that the curse extended to the whole creation, Isaiah showed that work of recovery to reach beyond man to embrace the entire created order. Through His Servant, Yahweh would vanquish the curse and usher in a new creation (cf. 65:1-25, 66:5-24 with 11:1-10).
B. The Emergent Kingdom – The Coming of Immanuel
John was appointed by the Lord to prepare Israel for the coming of the long-awaited kingdom. And at the heart of that kingdom was the profound reality of theophany: The uniform prophetic message was that Yahweh Himself would inaugurate His kingdom in connection with His own personal presence in the world. The promise of the kingdom was the promise of Immanuel – “God with us” – and this theme is most prevalent in Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. 7:1-12:6, 19:18-25, 25:1-27:13, 32:1-20, 40:1-11, 42:1-9, 49:1-13, 59:1-20, etc.).
In particular, Isaiah associated the eschatological coming of Yahweh with the coming of His Servant. Importantly, this Servant is presented in unique terms as both the fulfillment of Israel (Isaiah 49:1ff) and the presence of Yahweh (cf. Isaiah 40:1-11 with 42:1-16; also Zechariah 2:10-11). In this way the text indirectly indicates that, in this one individual, there is some sort of conjoining of the covenant Father and son; both parties to the covenant are represented in him. While Christians commonly recognize that the Isaianic “Servant of the Lord” represents Yahweh Himself in His coming to inaugurate His kingdom, it is far less common for them to find in this individual the fulfillment of Israel, Yahweh’s covenant son. The result is that they miss a crucial aspect of Christ’s identity and role as the God-Man.
Central to the Old Testament promise of the kingdom was the fact that Yahweh Himself would come and establish it. But prophetic revelation also indicated that Yahweh’s kingdom was to be ruled by the seed promised in the Davidic Covenant. Isaiah reconciled these truths by revealing that David who would restore and rule over David’s kingdom would do so according to the principle of Immanuel: His victory and dominion were to be Yahweh’s; in His rule Yahweh’s own rule would be expressed.
But another stream of Old Testament messianism also converged with the promise to David of a royal “Branch”: The coming Davidic ruler was to be a king-priest – a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God (cf. Psalm 110 with Zechariah 6:9-15; cf. also Genesis 14:18 with Hebrews 5-7).
Though perhaps not apparent at first glance, this messianic component is central to the doctrine of the kingdom of God. The reason is tied to the fact that the Lord’s kingdom is, in every manifestation, a redemptive kingdom – a kingdom having its origin and essence in the principle of redemption.
a. This truth was implied in the primal promise of the protoevangelium: In the most basic sense, redemption involves liberation secured by appropriate payment, and in the instance of the post-Fall circumstance the issue was liberation from the curse. This deliverance was to be secured by the woman’s seed as He overcame the serpent through the implied price of His own bruising. Given the nature and effects of the Fall, any manifestation of God’s kingdom – that is, God’s rule through man, the image-son – would necessarily involve redemption. The kingdom of God concerns divine-human dominion in the context of divine-human communion, and this reality demands the liberation of man from the subjugating power of his estrangement from his Creator-Father.
Pastor Culver;
At the time of the Fall, God promised a day in which the serpent (and, by implication, his works and the curse brought about through his deception) would be overthrown and destroyed by a “seed” to come from Eve. The doctrine of the kingdom flows out of this primal promise and its historical development and speaks to the promise’s fulfillment. In the Scriptures the “kingdom of God” doesn’t refer to God’s supreme lordship as such, but to His work of restoration in fulfillment of His oath in Genesis 3:15. It is for this reason that it is a redemptive kingdom; it is the outcome of God’s sovereign activity in recovering the estranged creation to Himself through judgment, deliverance, and renewal
This global salvation was to be effected through the Servant’s work of vicarious atonement (53:1-12) and, as a result of it, Zion (symbolizing Yahweh’s covenant wife who bears children for him – ref. 50:1; also Hosea 2:1-23) would be restored from her desolation. In her restoration she would then gather in the innumerable “children” of the covenant Lord secured for Him by the atoning work of His Servant (54:1-17).
The focal point of the Servant’s work in Isaiah’s prophecy is the recovery to God of estranged mankind. But, in keeping with the fact that the curse extended to the whole creation, Isaiah showed that work of recovery to reach beyond man to embrace the entire created order. Through His Servant, Yahweh would vanquish the curse and usher in a new creation (cf. 65:1-25, 66:5-24 with 11:1-10).
B. The Emergent Kingdom – The Coming of Immanuel
John was appointed by the Lord to prepare Israel for the coming of the long-awaited kingdom. And at the heart of that kingdom was the profound reality of theophany: The uniform prophetic message was that Yahweh Himself would inaugurate His kingdom in connection with His own personal presence in the world. The promise of the kingdom was the promise of Immanuel – “God with us” – and this theme is most prevalent in Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. 7:1-12:6, 19:18-25, 25:1-27:13, 32:1-20, 40:1-11, 42:1-9, 49:1-13, 59:1-20, etc.).
In particular, Isaiah associated the eschatological coming of Yahweh with the coming of His Servant. Importantly, this Servant is presented in unique terms as both the fulfillment of Israel (Isaiah 49:1ff) and the presence of Yahweh (cf. Isaiah 40:1-11 with 42:1-16; also Zechariah 2:10-11). In this way the text indirectly indicates that, in this one individual, there is some sort of conjoining of the covenant Father and son; both parties to the covenant are represented in him. While Christians commonly recognize that the Isaianic “Servant of the Lord” represents Yahweh Himself in His coming to inaugurate His kingdom, it is far less common for them to find in this individual the fulfillment of Israel, Yahweh’s covenant son. The result is that they miss a crucial aspect of Christ’s identity and role as the God-Man.
Central to the Old Testament promise of the kingdom was the fact that Yahweh Himself would come and establish it. But prophetic revelation also indicated that Yahweh’s kingdom was to be ruled by the seed promised in the Davidic Covenant. Isaiah reconciled these truths by revealing that David who would restore and rule over David’s kingdom would do so according to the principle of Immanuel: His victory and dominion were to be Yahweh’s; in His rule Yahweh’s own rule would be expressed.
But another stream of Old Testament messianism also converged with the promise to David of a royal “Branch”: The coming Davidic ruler was to be a king-priest – a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God (cf. Psalm 110 with Zechariah 6:9-15; cf. also Genesis 14:18 with Hebrews 5-7).
Though perhaps not apparent at first glance, this messianic component is central to the doctrine of the kingdom of God. The reason is tied to the fact that the Lord’s kingdom is, in every manifestation, a redemptive kingdom – a kingdom having its origin and essence in the principle of redemption.
a. This truth was implied in the primal promise of the protoevangelium: In the most basic sense, redemption involves liberation secured by appropriate payment, and in the instance of the post-Fall circumstance the issue was liberation from the curse. This deliverance was to be secured by the woman’s seed as He overcame the serpent through the implied price of His own bruising. Given the nature and effects of the Fall, any manifestation of God’s kingdom – that is, God’s rule through man, the image-son – would necessarily involve redemption. The kingdom of God concerns divine-human dominion in the context of divine-human communion, and this reality demands the liberation of man from the subjugating power of his estrangement from his Creator-Father.
Martin, I know you welcome these ideas so I am just skimming through to get to rev.22 in response to your post:
we continue;
a. The fact that the Servant represents both parties to Israel’s covenant is foundational to properly interacting with Isaiah’s presentation of Him. First of all, the Servant is Yahweh’s true Israel, and the significance of this becomes evident when the biblical idea of “Israel” is unfolded.
- The immediate inclination is to think of Israel as a national, ethnic people, but it is first and foremost a biblical concept. Israel found its first expression in a single individual, and only later in the corporate body descended from him. As a concept, “Israel” principally embodies the ideas of seed of Abraham, son of God, servant of Yahweh, disciple and witness. The latter three, especially, come to the forefront in Isaiah’s prophecy.
The nation of Israel was God’s son in that it had been “begotten” by redemptive “birth” in keeping with the Lord’s covenant with Abraham. Yahweh had promised to be the God of Abraham and his descendents, and He upheld that promise by delivering Israel from exile and bondage and bringing them to be with Him in His sanctuary-land.
But, being the recipients of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises, Israel was to fulfill the core feature of the covenant that, in Abraham and his seed, all the families of the earth would be blessed. That blessing consisted in the nations coming to know and worship Abraham’s God. From the vantage point of the Fall, it meant the undoing of the curse; it meant the reconciliation of Creator-Father and estranged image-son. In its calling as Abraham’s seed, the nation of Israel was to fulfill this promise of reconciliation. Israel was Yahweh’s servant (Isaiah 41:8-9, 44:1-2, 21), set apart as His disciple to learn of Him through devoted faithfulness to the covenant by which He revealed Himself (42:18-24). By that life of faithfulness, in turn, the servant-son would bear witness to the divine Father to the surrounding nations (Isaiah 43:10-15, 44:6-8).
These designations show that the concept “Israel” speaks to man as truly man – man as he exists in intimate communion with God as Father and communicates His presence and lordship throughout His creation.
- Israel was son, servant, disciple and witness, but the nation failed to fulfill its identity in every way. Israel could not be Israel, and its failure brought the Abrahamic promise (and the Edenic oath behind it) into jeopardy. If God were to fulfill His oath of restoration and reconciliation, a new Israel was needed, as this is precisely what Isaiah promised (49:1ff).
This new Israel would fulfill Israel’s identity and calling, and this meant mediating Yahweh’s blessing to all the earth’s people – blessing that consists in intimate relational knowledge of the Creator-Father. But in the context of divine-human estrangement, such knowledge necessitates reconciliation, and this is where the Servant-Israel’s priesthood comes in.
b. The Servant’s priestly role as Yahweh’s true Israel is profound in itself, but all the more so in the light of the fact that He is also the presence of Yahweh as Israel’s Redeemer (Isaiah 59:15-20). In the Suffering Servant, the Lord Himself would bear the guilt of His people and satisfy the demands of justice against them.
- From the beginning God indicated that His kingdom was to be a redemptive kingdom; Yahweh, the great King, would establish it through a spectacular work of judgment, deliverance, and restoration. And as had been the case with its Israelite predecessor, sacrifice was to provide the redemptive foundation for the final kingdom. Though only indirectly implied, the future second Exodus predicted by Isaiah (ref. again 51:9-11) would also stand upon a second Passover as the instrument of redemption.
- At the same time, the Servant’s unique nature introduced a whole new dimension into the redemptive circumstance. This one would fulfill in Himself the twin roles of priest and sacrifice, but He would do so as Yahweh the Redeemer as well as the new Israel.
Satisfying the obligations of both parties, the Servant effectively embodied the covenant in Himself (42:1-7, 49:8-9). He would be Israel on behalf of Israel, but as the Lord Redeemer He would accomplish Yahweh’s purpose to redeem and recover to Himself all things (cf. Isaiah 49:5-6, 54:1-17; also Ephesians 1:7-10, 2:11-3:12; Colossians 1:19-20).
I had not had a chance to sit and offer you more on this until now.
take your time and enjoy seeing the work of God in the recovery of sacred space, peace and rest.
we continue;
a. The fact that the Servant represents both parties to Israel’s covenant is foundational to properly interacting with Isaiah’s presentation of Him. First of all, the Servant is Yahweh’s true Israel, and the significance of this becomes evident when the biblical idea of “Israel” is unfolded.
- The immediate inclination is to think of Israel as a national, ethnic people, but it is first and foremost a biblical concept. Israel found its first expression in a single individual, and only later in the corporate body descended from him. As a concept, “Israel” principally embodies the ideas of seed of Abraham, son of God, servant of Yahweh, disciple and witness. The latter three, especially, come to the forefront in Isaiah’s prophecy.
The nation of Israel was God’s son in that it had been “begotten” by redemptive “birth” in keeping with the Lord’s covenant with Abraham. Yahweh had promised to be the God of Abraham and his descendents, and He upheld that promise by delivering Israel from exile and bondage and bringing them to be with Him in His sanctuary-land.
But, being the recipients of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises, Israel was to fulfill the core feature of the covenant that, in Abraham and his seed, all the families of the earth would be blessed. That blessing consisted in the nations coming to know and worship Abraham’s God. From the vantage point of the Fall, it meant the undoing of the curse; it meant the reconciliation of Creator-Father and estranged image-son. In its calling as Abraham’s seed, the nation of Israel was to fulfill this promise of reconciliation. Israel was Yahweh’s servant (Isaiah 41:8-9, 44:1-2, 21), set apart as His disciple to learn of Him through devoted faithfulness to the covenant by which He revealed Himself (42:18-24). By that life of faithfulness, in turn, the servant-son would bear witness to the divine Father to the surrounding nations (Isaiah 43:10-15, 44:6-8).
These designations show that the concept “Israel” speaks to man as truly man – man as he exists in intimate communion with God as Father and communicates His presence and lordship throughout His creation.
- Israel was son, servant, disciple and witness, but the nation failed to fulfill its identity in every way. Israel could not be Israel, and its failure brought the Abrahamic promise (and the Edenic oath behind it) into jeopardy. If God were to fulfill His oath of restoration and reconciliation, a new Israel was needed, as this is precisely what Isaiah promised (49:1ff).
This new Israel would fulfill Israel’s identity and calling, and this meant mediating Yahweh’s blessing to all the earth’s people – blessing that consists in intimate relational knowledge of the Creator-Father. But in the context of divine-human estrangement, such knowledge necessitates reconciliation, and this is where the Servant-Israel’s priesthood comes in.
b. The Servant’s priestly role as Yahweh’s true Israel is profound in itself, but all the more so in the light of the fact that He is also the presence of Yahweh as Israel’s Redeemer (Isaiah 59:15-20). In the Suffering Servant, the Lord Himself would bear the guilt of His people and satisfy the demands of justice against them.
- From the beginning God indicated that His kingdom was to be a redemptive kingdom; Yahweh, the great King, would establish it through a spectacular work of judgment, deliverance, and restoration. And as had been the case with its Israelite predecessor, sacrifice was to provide the redemptive foundation for the final kingdom. Though only indirectly implied, the future second Exodus predicted by Isaiah (ref. again 51:9-11) would also stand upon a second Passover as the instrument of redemption.
- At the same time, the Servant’s unique nature introduced a whole new dimension into the redemptive circumstance. This one would fulfill in Himself the twin roles of priest and sacrifice, but He would do so as Yahweh the Redeemer as well as the new Israel.
Satisfying the obligations of both parties, the Servant effectively embodied the covenant in Himself (42:1-7, 49:8-9). He would be Israel on behalf of Israel, but as the Lord Redeemer He would accomplish Yahweh’s purpose to redeem and recover to Himself all things (cf. Isaiah 49:5-6, 54:1-17; also Ephesians 1:7-10, 2:11-3:12; Colossians 1:19-20).
I had not had a chance to sit and offer you more on this until now.
take your time and enjoy seeing the work of God in the recovery of sacred space, peace and rest.
Martin, here is more to consider and to add on to.
The promise of Yahweh’s kingdom was the promise of His recovery of sacred space, and, within the Israelite context, sacred space was symbolized in Israel’s temple in Jerusalem.
This is the reason the prophetic witness to the kingdom has a primary focal point in the temple concept. In that day the mountain of the Lord – symbolic of His dwelling place (Exodus 15:17) – would be the greatest of all the mountains (Isaiah 2:1-3; Zechariah 8:1-3), rising and expanding to fill the whole earth (Daniel 2:31-35, 44-45; cf. also Isaiah 11:9).
So Jerusalem (Zion) – the Lord’s symbolic throne – would be the center of the earth with all the nations and peoples coming into it (ref. again Isaiah 2:1-3, also 51:1-11, 62:1-12, 66:19-20 with Jeremiah 3:14-17, 31:1-6; Micah 4:1-7; Zechariah 8:19-23). And more narrowly, that great day would see the erecting of the Lord’s true temple with His glory filling His sanctuary forever (ref. Ezekiel 40-47, esp. 43:1-5 and 44:1-4; also Haggai 2:1-9; Zechariah 6:9-15).
1) The first of those is John’s association of Christ with the principle of light. The introduction to his gospel account emphasizes this as a central theme, and he refers to it repeatedly throughout its length (1:1-9, 3:1-21, 5:33-36, 8:12, 9:1-5 with 9:35-41, 11:1-10, 12:20-46). Being true deity, Jesus is the true light that has come into the world (cf. 1 John 1:5) – a world characterized by the darkness of alienation and unbelief. And interjecting Himself as light into the darkness, He came to illumine the world of men; Jesus came to those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death in order to illumine their way and thereby set their feet on the path of life and peace (ref. Luke 1:76-79; cf. also Isaiah 9:1-7 with Matthew 4:12-17).
The promise of Yahweh’s kingdom was the promise of His recovery of sacred space, and, within the Israelite context, sacred space was symbolized in Israel’s temple in Jerusalem.
This is the reason the prophetic witness to the kingdom has a primary focal point in the temple concept. In that day the mountain of the Lord – symbolic of His dwelling place (Exodus 15:17) – would be the greatest of all the mountains (Isaiah 2:1-3; Zechariah 8:1-3), rising and expanding to fill the whole earth (Daniel 2:31-35, 44-45; cf. also Isaiah 11:9).
So Jerusalem (Zion) – the Lord’s symbolic throne – would be the center of the earth with all the nations and peoples coming into it (ref. again Isaiah 2:1-3, also 51:1-11, 62:1-12, 66:19-20 with Jeremiah 3:14-17, 31:1-6; Micah 4:1-7; Zechariah 8:19-23). And more narrowly, that great day would see the erecting of the Lord’s true temple with His glory filling His sanctuary forever (ref. Ezekiel 40-47, esp. 43:1-5 and 44:1-4; also Haggai 2:1-9; Zechariah 6:9-15).
1) The first of those is John’s association of Christ with the principle of light. The introduction to his gospel account emphasizes this as a central theme, and he refers to it repeatedly throughout its length (1:1-9, 3:1-21, 5:33-36, 8:12, 9:1-5 with 9:35-41, 11:1-10, 12:20-46). Being true deity, Jesus is the true light that has come into the world (cf. 1 John 1:5) – a world characterized by the darkness of alienation and unbelief. And interjecting Himself as light into the darkness, He came to illumine the world of men; Jesus came to those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death in order to illumine their way and thereby set their feet on the path of life and peace (ref. Luke 1:76-79; cf. also Isaiah 9:1-7 with Matthew 4:12-17).
more about the light;
Thus the priest Zacharias associated the day of salvation – that is, the emergence of life out of death – with the dawning of the “sunrise from on high,” and Simeon saw in Yahweh’s salvation “a light to illumine the Gentiles” as well as the radiant glory of the sons of Israel (Luke 1:76-79, 2:27-32).
- Similarly, John could proclaim that the One who Himself is light and life has come to shine upon men in order to give them the light that both brings and is itself true life (John 1:1-4, 8:12).
- Taking up these themes of light and life, Paul showed the Corinthians how their operation in the first, physical creation prefigured the fulfillment to come in the new creation. The same God who, in the beginning, had commanded light to shine forth and vanquish the darkness of the chaotic creation (Genesis 1:3) was now causing the light of the renewing knowledge of His full glory in Jesus Christ to rise in and dispel the spiritual darkness that fills the hearts of men (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 with 3:1-18).
The concept of light is central to God’s creative presence, but inasmuch as both the first and new creations find their ultimate purpose in divine-human relationship, it’s not at all surprising that the Scripture makes light a key theme in God’s relational presence.
Later, when the time had come to redeem His covenant “son” according to His promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:12-14), Yahweh brought darkness upon the whole subjugating nation while causing His people to dwell in unceasing light (Exodus 10:21-23). So also, after accomplishing His great redemption, Yahweh led His “son” – as a shepherd leads his sheep – by the light of His own perpetual presence manifested in a luminescent pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:17-22).
- And when He had made His covenant with Abraham’s seed, the Lord established His presence in Israel’s midst by His Shekinah – His glory-cloud – in the Holy of Holies. And outside the veil in the Holy Place, the perpetual light of the lampstand testified that the endless day of Yahweh’s dwelling place was the result of the radiant splendor of His presence and not the luminaries of the natural creation (cf. Exodus 25:31-37, 27:20-21, 40:33-38).
Thus the priest Zacharias associated the day of salvation – that is, the emergence of life out of death – with the dawning of the “sunrise from on high,” and Simeon saw in Yahweh’s salvation “a light to illumine the Gentiles” as well as the radiant glory of the sons of Israel (Luke 1:76-79, 2:27-32).
- Similarly, John could proclaim that the One who Himself is light and life has come to shine upon men in order to give them the light that both brings and is itself true life (John 1:1-4, 8:12).
- Taking up these themes of light and life, Paul showed the Corinthians how their operation in the first, physical creation prefigured the fulfillment to come in the new creation. The same God who, in the beginning, had commanded light to shine forth and vanquish the darkness of the chaotic creation (Genesis 1:3) was now causing the light of the renewing knowledge of His full glory in Jesus Christ to rise in and dispel the spiritual darkness that fills the hearts of men (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 with 3:1-18).
The concept of light is central to God’s creative presence, but inasmuch as both the first and new creations find their ultimate purpose in divine-human relationship, it’s not at all surprising that the Scripture makes light a key theme in God’s relational presence.
Later, when the time had come to redeem His covenant “son” according to His promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:12-14), Yahweh brought darkness upon the whole subjugating nation while causing His people to dwell in unceasing light (Exodus 10:21-23). So also, after accomplishing His great redemption, Yahweh led His “son” – as a shepherd leads his sheep – by the light of His own perpetual presence manifested in a luminescent pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:17-22).
- And when He had made His covenant with Abraham’s seed, the Lord established His presence in Israel’s midst by His Shekinah – His glory-cloud – in the Holy of Holies. And outside the veil in the Holy Place, the perpetual light of the lampstand testified that the endless day of Yahweh’s dwelling place was the result of the radiant splendor of His presence and not the luminaries of the natural creation (cf. Exodus 25:31-37, 27:20-21, 40:33-38).
To borrow from @Iconoclast, my post sliced through his and @Martin Marprelate 's like a knife through butter.
Here is why - they both hold a detailed and interesting position (with a lot of true statements and Scripture). BUT their position is dead on arrival. They miss two fundamental issues.
First, neither have maintained logical consistency. But have engaged a formal logical fallacy. Second, neither have been able to provide the definitions which should have been worked out at the start.
That is why anything they have built has failed (all they can do is continue to offer commentary neither can understand).
I am sure this is obvious to most here. They have to work through the meaning of spiritual life (via scripture) before they can discuss its absence. And we have to be logically consistent. Ignoring this makes their explanations nothing but nonsense, a complex building on no foundation at all. Just a bunch of someone else's words they do not grasp.
Here is why - they both hold a detailed and interesting position (with a lot of true statements and Scripture). BUT their position is dead on arrival. They miss two fundamental issues.
First, neither have maintained logical consistency. But have engaged a formal logical fallacy. Second, neither have been able to provide the definitions which should have been worked out at the start.
That is why anything they have built has failed (all they can do is continue to offer commentary neither can understand).
I am sure this is obvious to most here. They have to work through the meaning of spiritual life (via scripture) before they can discuss its absence. And we have to be logically consistent. Ignoring this makes their explanations nothing but nonsense, a complex building on no foundation at all. Just a bunch of someone else's words they do not grasp.
lol, Here we have the JonC, I do not understand anything you post, so I will deride it, Baloney fallacy..These posts were getting back to several ideas Martin offered, and I am more than confident he will readily grasp them and be edified by them.
Your objections are duly noted and filed and I am sure you can offer your ideas in one of the many similar threads you start...so good luck with that my friend. Thanks for your positive and edifying "thoughts". once again;
To sum up your attack, I mean "thoughts";
1]BUT their position is dead on arrival. They miss two fundamental issues.
2]First, neither have maintained logical consistency. But have engaged a formal logical fallacy
3]all they can do is continue to offer commentary neither can understand).
4] Ignoring this makes their explanations nothing but nonsense, a complex building on no foundation at all. Just a bunch of someone else's words they do not grasp.
Thanks again for these keen insights,lol
I just scrolled through another three (four?) gigantic multi-colored copy-and-paste jobs by Iconoclast and read about two sentences. Snooze.
Could you summarize these essays in your own words, please?
And please quit with the multi-colored fonts.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Could you summarize these essays in your own words, please?
And please quit with the multi-colored fonts.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
- Status