First death?

[Laren]

What was the "First Death" (implied from the fact there was a "second death"?

I'm thinking it was something to do with this:

2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

[Me Again]

"dead in their trespasses and sins."

The second death was the promised judgment on apostate Jerusalem - i.e., AD70.

[Laren]

"dead in their trespasses and sins."

The second death was the promised judgment on apostate Jerusalem - i.e., AD70.

makes sense.

Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:



Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation;(second death) but is passed from death unto life.


or else this


Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them (via the law???)

[davo]

I see it in kind with what you guys are saying. I also see "the death" both 1st & 2nd as analogous specifically with the story of Adam/Israel – "death" per se was "covenantal exile". Adam being banished from Eden typifies Israel's later exile in Babylon – this was the "first death" [something only made more clear by the Law]. The difference between the 1st & 2nd deaths was that the first death had the promise of resurrection, whereas the 2nd was a complete and total end in itself.

[Laren]

this is a good example i think of "first death", but I have a question :

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.



what does it mean to "sin not in the similtude of Adam"??

does this mean all humanity is not represented by Adam, as "in Adam".

and

..in Adam all will die, and in Christ all made alive??

[Paige]

Laren,

I have thought this to be further fleshed out scripturally when (Paul?) explained that Adam was not deceived, whereas Eve was. In that vein, I've taken it to mean that "sin not in the similtude of Adam" would mean being deceived by sin, as Paul said that he was in Rom. 7:11.

I could be wrong, but that is how I currently understand it.

Paige

[davo]

what does it mean to "sin not in the similtude of Adam"??As I presently see it… those who sinned but not specifically according to likeness of Adam's sin was OC Israel. The passage seems somewhat "covenantal" and thus indicative of Israel in that the death reigned from Adam to Moses:

Isa 43:27 Your first father [Adam] sinned, and your mediators have transgressed against Me.

Hos 6:7 But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

From Adam till Moses Israel did not sin in "the likeness" of Adam, as in breaking a direct and specific command of God – THAT however did occur from Moses onward once the law which heightened sin and death's reality was given; the very thing the last Adam rectified in redeeming Israel.


does this mean all humanity is not represented by Adam, as "in Adam".

and

..in Adam all will die, and in Christ all made alive??Well this is interesting. From a strictly "covenantal" approach the "in Adam/Christ" motif can be understood as pertaining to covenanted Israel alone. Thus those OUTSIDE of the covenant experienced NO "covenant death" because they committed NO "covenant sin" because they were NEVER under ANY "covenant law" – and thus NOT subject to the sanctions of "covenant condemnation". Now that doesn't mean there wasn't sin and death – but IF Israel devoid of law was not subject to wrath, then even less so those beyond Israel. As for "death" – certainly the effects Israel's covenant death spread to all men indirectly, thus it was real, in that the means of coming to a knowledge God was blocked as long as Israel herself remained unfaithful to her calling as God's priests [light] to the world – and so it was then that the one [Adam/Israel] affected the whole.

So indirectly the "traditional" approach that has "Adam" being applied universally to all men still plays out, it's just that the "covenantal" approach is more specific in how this actually occurred, even though the end result be the same, i.e., that God has reconciled all through Christ – the mechanics then of God's blessing to [i]the world was, Israel >> Christ >> first-fruits >> Israel >> the world.

This at least is my current understanding that I'm still toying with… Does that make sense?

[Me Again]

Here's some thoughts - I've pointed out before at PP, and here I believe, that one of three things MUST have occurred when Adam fell (assuming Adam as first covenant man): 1) all humanity was already dead, 2) all humanity died "with Adam," or 3) all humanity, save the covenant people, remained alive. In either one of these scenarios, as Davo points out, the result is the same - ALL are alive after Jesus.

Now, let's assume #2 for a moment (where I tend to lean). First the covenant people are redeemed by Jesus, which makes them ALIVE. Now, let's think for moment about Jesus and the OC. In the old covenant, men were not allowed to touch certain things considered "dead" : carcasses, women menstruating (the ovum was not fertilized and thus was NOT alive, unclean people, etc. However, in Jesus, when a menstruating woman touched him, he brought her LIFE, rather than him dying. Life begat life. That's the way things are made by God. Jesus had life, he brought life to his covenant people (those "in Adam" were now "in Christ"). With God's covenant people now ALIVE, all they touch, or that touches them (us?) then begins to LIVE as well.

No matter what my dear friends who assume #1 (the annihilationists) try to posture otherwise, they cannot escape the FACT that whatever is made clean, pure, alive, in turn makes all things around it clean, pure and alive as well. That's the principle found all throughout scripture, and thus, we have scripture on our side.

[Paige]

Ed,


No matter what my dear friends who assume #1 (the annihilationists) try to posture otherwise, they cannot escape the FACT that whatever is made clean, pure, alive, in turn makes all things around it clean, pure and alive as well. That's the principle found all throughout scripture, and thus, we have scripture on our side.

Doesn't this also fit with Peter's vision in Acts? According to that vision, God had already cleansed the formerly unclean.

Paige

[Me Again]

Paige, that does, but I see that as the Israelitish gentiles to whom Paul was being sent. Long ago, Hosea had prophesied of the rejection of the northern tribes (Israel) when he said "I'm not your god, and you're not my people." This is where Peter got the phrase in his epistle when he said "you who were 'not a people.'" Hosea continued the prophesy saying "in this place, where it was said that you are not my people, you shall be called 'the people of god.'"

However, we get the principle of non-Israelite gentiles joining the Israel of God as well - the Roman centurion, the Ethiopian eunuch; and from the old testament - Nineveh, Cyrus, Darius, etc.

This is the principle that I embrace. God chose a people - Adam and Eve. Through their seed came Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses, and finally Jesus. Jesus accomplished covenantally what each of the fathers could not (this to me is a testimony against the case against his divinity - he did what no other man could do). Those who by faith joined the true Israel were Jew and Israelite (gentile) together, as well as non-Israelite gentiles. Unbelieving Jews and Gentiles (Israelites) were judged in AD70, and resurrected from death to join the true Israel of God (not all born of Israel are Israel, they must be "born of the spirit," i.e., resurrected - either from life [faith], or from death [judgment]).

It is now my belief that we can still join the Israel of God to serve as priests. Subsequently, all we touch is made alive - you might call it a Covenantal Midas Touch, or better yet, a Jesus Touch.

[Amie]

Scripturally, I do not agree with an ongoing priesthood, nor do I believe that Israel was its' own patriarch (Adam). Nor do I agree that the story of the creation of God's house in Genesis 1 is "covenantal".

Everyone can claim that Scripture is on their side.

Conceptually, I do not believe that anyone can definitively state that another human being, or even another living being, does not love, has not known love, or can not know love. We can definitely see that the results of actions hurt us or others, but we do not know their hearts.

I did think that those things might be possible - that we might be "chosen". To me, it doesn't pan out a bit and I did not like myself in those shoes.. "the glorious one", "the enlightened one", "the magnificent one", "the priest of God", etc. "All is vanity!"

Amie

[Me Again]

Well, thank you Amie for judging me vain. Isn't it funny how the more one tries to become non-judgmental, the more judgmental they become.

blessings,

ed

[Barry]

Well, thank you Amie for judging me vain. Isn't it funny how the more one tries to become non-judgmental, the more judgmental they become.

blessings,

ed

Now this is my birthday so go easy on me :)

Not speaking for Amie, but my own interpretation of Amie's comments are that "vanity" means futility. Meaning that it does not "gain" anything in and of itself. At least that is what Solomon seems to mean by the term.

Now, for the sake of discussion only, I would agree with the basic premise that Amie has put forward.

While I can connect and fellowship with any and all who see themselves as "kings and priests" I personally, as a matter of my own studies, see no scriptural support for such a view.
Personally speaking the idea of a ongoing firstfruits, priesthood, covenantally chosen, elect, kings and priests, bride, etc. is better answered in a first century finality, wherein everything is made new. Concluding then that the former things have thus passed away.

My personal conclusion is that the New Jerusalem is a perpetual efficacy or permanent effect of the bride who is the firstfruits.
I know of no way of becoming a part of this
in a first century effectual way, without reguratating or re-establishing the former things in some way or manner, which involve the "overcoming" prerequisite in audience relevance.

Such is not a judgment upon another who sees any of this as ongoing.
However if I have understood Amie correctly (and if not she will correct me) her remarks were somewhat "personal" and so "reflective" and given in a personal reflective perspective.


To me, it doesn't pan out a bit and I did not like myself in those shoes.. "the glorious one", "the enlightened one", "the magnificent one", "the priest of God", etc. "All is vanity!"

And personally I would concur having the same basic thoughts.

Had they been uttered over a lunch table while in close fellowship with each other, there probably would not have been a misunderstanding. But such is the Internet. :)

JMO of course.
Feel free to comment as your thoughts, views and conscience direct.
Barry

[Amie]

You've got it Barry, and said it better than I imo.

Ed,

If I am the "one" that you are talking about - and maybe you weren't talking about me at all - I don't recall setting myself on a cruisade to become less judgmental. That would be akin to "striving after wind".

Amie

[Barry]

Families!

:rofl::rofl:

Barry

[davo]

So Barry, is that you and Amie above just throwing a tantrum on the floor… lol :biglaugha:


I did think that those things might be possible - that we might be "chosen". To me, it doesn't pan out a bit and I did not like myself in those shoes.. "the glorious one", "the enlightened one", "the magnificent one", "the priest of God", etc. "All is vanity!"As I see it… IF the reality behind those things is presented and so interpreted according to how you've described them, then I think I can appreciate your "vanity" statement; but to conclude that there is not an ongoing testimony in witness, worship and works to the goodness and grace of God's fulfilled work I think possibly means the afore mentioned categories were originally misunderstood and so misapplied – at least that is how it seems to me.
Personally speaking the idea of a ongoing firstfruits, priesthood, covenantally chosen, elect, kings and priests, bride, etc. is better answered in a first century finality, wherein everything is made new. Concluding then that the former things have thus passed away. … I know of no way of becoming a part of this in a first century effectual way, without reguratating or re-establishing the former things in some way or manner…Again as I'm currently seeing it – one can be the "offspring" of this glorious and fulfilled union without needing to rebuild or duplicate that which stands secure on its own; we simply live in the benefits of it, benefits that many are ignorant of, hence a gospel [good news] to continue to spread…

[Barry]

Davo:
So Barry, is that you and Amie above just throwing a tantrum on the floor… lol

That would have looked more like this: :taz:
:)


Davo
As I see it… IF the reality behind those things is presented and so interpreted according to how you've described them, then I think I can appreciate your "vanity" statement; but to conclude that there is not an ongoing testimony in witness, worship and works to the goodness and grace of God's fulfilled work I think possibly means the afore mentioned categories were originally misunderstood and so misapplied – at least that is how it seems to me.

Testimony in witness:
Of what type though?
We can give testimony of our understanding of fulfillment and its implications. I do, Amie does it, you do it.
None of us however either saw the risen Christ or knew anyone who saw him. This was a big part of the "testimony" in the transition of the ages.

In any case (IMHO) Testimony in witness "today" does not equate to priesthood or reign.

Worship:
Defined by who?

Works:
There are no "transitional" works in front of us.
And the reward given at the end of the age is not "re given" anytime thereafter.

The "works" available to us now are works that those who lost their reward (if still living) could then participate in, and those who gained everything could then (if still living) could neglect.
The conclusion of eschatological history was a one time event.

Of course living by the implications of our Unity and Oneness is its own works and is reward enough for sure. That's what makes it so beautiful.
However ongoing "priesthood" imho may actually diminish our own personal perspective of Unity and Oneness.

This IMHO (and Amie can correct me if I miss speak) this was what seemed to be Amie's personal conclusion in her own life.


Amie:
To me, it doesn't pan out a bit and I did not like myself in those shoes.. "the glorious one", "the enlightened one", "the magnificent one", "the priest of God", etc. "All is vanity!"

Now if preaching "God is all and in all" is present day "priesthood" then maybe we are just back to semantics and such. We all have our favorite lingo and care IMO should be given not to make too much of these things.

I for one am very willing to be a worker in view of my own views of where fulfillment is still taking us on a whole new level with this new beginning. But I do not do well from inside church culture. But that is just me. :)

JMO
Blessings,
Barry

[davo]

Of course living by the implications of our Unity and Oneness is its own works and is reward enough for sure. That's what makes it so beautiful.Yes Barry I agree… and that's what I'm saying in "witness, worship and works" and NOT some of these other conclusions you're drawing from that and then misapplying back onto to what I'm saying, if that makes sense.
I for one am very willing to be a worker in view of my own views of where fulfillment is still taking us on a whole new level with this new beginning.I don't have a problem viewing God as STILL moving certain peoples hearts in this "taking us on" direction of His ongoing grace WITHOUT feeling the need to pattern after a "first-fruits" paradigm, after all how could we? – but that doesn't negate the valued applicatory principles that are sometimes "naturally" described in like language, but understood more in terms of post-fulfilment realities as opposed to their pre-fulfilment functionaries.

[Barry]

Yes Barry I agree… and that's what I'm saying in "witness, worship and works" and NOT some of these other conclusions you're drawing from that and then misapplying back onto to what I'm saying, if that makes sense.

I do not consider that "priesthood" Davo.
There are many who embody much of this or such things in their own way who are not "Christians" as such.

The biblical record offers us IMHO proof of why things are continuing to transform the way they are and how we got here. The present little "niche" of those who see the record of "why" are no more "priests" than those who serve in their own way and through their own understanding of things.

There are benefits to being able to trace things down and seeing how God has worked things out. IMHO such does not constitute "Priesthood" unless of course you are saying something quite different from what I have understood.

Barry

[davo]

IMHO such does not constitute "Priesthood" unless of course you are saying something quite different from what I have understood.Yeah I think that's highly probable.

Israel was called generically as priests [lower case] to serve God's purposes in the world in "witness, worship and works" [2Chron 6:29-33 et al]. Generically speaking they were to "function" as God's conduits for blessing. I can see God using any and many in such a "function" regardless of being so aware of such. However, the problem as I see it occurred when they confused purpose with privilege – "religion" fosters this well.

The privilege of NT priesthood and its attendant rewards was unique.

That some people post Parousia might recognise the grace of God and their place and function in it in terms of "priesthood" [lower case], especially if having come to such recognition in the more religious context certainly makes sense, and yet such is no sleight against them etc, nor would I see such as devaluing their "priestly" mindset when understood in terms of service to others. That I think makes the reality of "eternal life" ageless in that the reality of relationship with God, like love, didn't end in the Parousia, but rather "fulfilment" enabled such to flow more freely.

[Barry]

Also Davo, there is a contextual meaning to "kings and priests" as the transitional function of following Christ, who was the first of the first fruits, who was King and Priest. Dual role that is.
Very hard to separate the two (kings and priests) in the dual role functioning of those participants in ushering in the "kingdom of Heaven".

So then ongoing priesthood would be akin to ongoing kingship and thus ongoing reign. None of which I believe is the case.

Personally I prefer to look for a different term to express God's continued "gifting" in this present position where God is now all and in all. [Which was what the "kings and priests" ushered in, hence the "title".]

JMO
Barry

[Amie]

this is a good example i think of "first death", but I have a question :

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.



what does it mean to "sin not in the similtude of Adam"??

does this mean all humanity is not represented by Adam, as "in Adam".

and

..in Adam all will die, and in Christ all made alive??

I question whether the expulsion was the death ushered in via Adam, though whether it was or wasn't, it was for their protection I think.

I have been thinking long and hard about Paige's idea, I thought that she might be onto something, but then how can it be sin until one knows that it is sin? I don't have that answer, I'm still learning like everyone else.

I think that the idea about the mark that was supposed to be hit (and was missed = sin) by Adam was the instructions of God and that Israel shared that. The gentiles are described elsewhere as knowing the law by nature:


Rom 2:14 For when nations not having Law do by nature the things of the Law, they not having Law are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15 who show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience witnessing with them, and the thoughts between one another accusing or even excusing,
Rom 2:16 in a day when God judges the hidden things of men, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ.

They were able to sin differently, but it seems like the result was the same and somehow that resulting death is related to something specifically Adam:


1Co 15:22 for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Have you had any more thoughts?

I would agree that Adam is out of humanity, but I think it important to keep his representing all of humanity in full view.

Amie

[Amie]

As I see it… IF the reality behind those things is presented and so interpreted according to how you've described them, then I think I can appreciate your "vanity" statement;

Thank you for recognizing that I was sharing "my" experience.


but to conclude that there is not an ongoing testimony in witness, worship and works to the goodness and grace of God's fulfilled work I think possibly means the afore mentioned categories were originally misunderstood and so misapplied – at least that is how it seems to me.

I was struggling in context of my own experience per the question, "What the hell are you doing Amie?" That is not to say that I was interested in stopping what I do, do, I was just interested in articulating.

If I am "chosen", "conscious", "alive", "messenger", etc, then I am all of those things only by my terms and see others as not those things only by my terms. Then I can imagine myself bringing others to where I see myself as being. Accomplishing that means that I am right concerning how I define myself. It means making a mirror of another person.

Basically, I haven't found a term beyond "child of God" that fits who I see myself as being. I guess that I do "child of God" by living and I think maybe that's enough - I sure am not able to bring others to where I see myself as being per that.

I don't know that I have a point in sharing other than to testify what seeing it this way has meant for me personally. It validated love and that type of validation might help someone else. Another person may need no validation at all, which is fine for them.

Adam, and any body thereof, represented all of that, natural humanity. Jesus, and any body thereof, represented all of a new, spiritual humanity which arose out of the other. Wouldn't the passing away of Adam mean the death of death?

Amie

[davo]

Personally I prefer to look for a different term to express God's continued "gifting" in this present position where God is now all and in all. [Which was what the "kings and priests" ushered in, hence the "title".]Actually Barry it is more correct to see the first-fruit saint as a functioning "kingdom" of priests as opposed to viewing it in terms of "title" – that in my opinion has been the cause of the ongoing "them/us" mentality related to the "king" title; again losing sight of the function by misunderstanding the privilege etc. But you're right what you said earlier about this being an issue around semantics, so that said I'm quite comfortable with understanding it as stated without needing to find yet another term to describe functionally that which is in kind – however, if you come up with one throw it in the ring :).
If I am "chosen", "conscious", "alive", "messenger", etc, then I am all of those things only by my terms and see others as not those things only by my terms. Then I can imagine myself bringing others to where I see myself as being.Yeah I hear what you're saying… from where I'm coming from I'm not so much thinking in terms of bringing others to where I am but more simply seeing others as I am i.e., believed in by God. That then means I have no need to assume I'm somewhere somebody else necessarily needs to be, but rather – they're the same as me, as in, they are as important to God as I am. Knowing this is beneficial in helping give a good sense of self. I find it personally rewarding when I can help others come to this better sense of self; which often times means enabling them to likewise come to a realisation that they do indeed matter to God. Again let me stress, this is where I'm journeying.

Hmmm, we've managed to wandered from "first death" to "kings and priests" :)

[Barry]

Davo
Actually Barry it is more correct to see the first-fruit saint as a functioning "kingdom" of priests as opposed to viewing it in terms of "title" – that in my opinion has been the cause of the ongoing "them/us" mentality related to the "king" title; again losing sight of the function by misunderstanding the privilege etc.

Well an apostle was an apostle by function and tile.
Firstfruit was firstfruit by function and tile.
King and priest was by function and tile.
Here is some of it in application:
1Cr 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Cr 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
2Cr 10:6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.


So as to the the "them/us" function of Priesthood, the firstfuits fulfilled their function as priests and kings. Fulfillment producing a perpetual effect that is used to continue to evolve humanity from the point of historical occurrence. The reason why no one could take their "crown" from them.

Let us assume that it is highly reasonable to conclude that some previous old covenant folk turned to belief in what Christ had done after the destruction of their holy city and temple. Are they now functioning as part of a Priesthood?

If they are then it is a brand new one in function. This was true even in regards to the "Christ" who handed the kingdom over to the Father.

For their functioning as a Kingdom placed them in their application of the applied meaning of what was "about to be" clearly in an "us and them" functioning capacity. For the blessings that they were bringing forth were then being fulfilled outwardly, and kingdomly.

What we are talking about IMO (so far it seems) is continuing human evolution through the perpetual efficacy of that which was accomplished in the bridging of the "us and them" gap. This was the thrust of the blessings in view as pertains to the function-title.

The believing in God and in the gap having now been bridged and the living by such implications, is but one part of a multi-part "ongoing" outworking of kingdom life. There are multi-parts to it that we can possibly identify.

The issue that I have with the term "ongoing" in regards to what we have covered thus far is that it touches closely to what I see as one of the common problems in the fulfilled movement as it now stands. Which is the belief that my belief places me in a position or function that is biblically distinct from everything else that God is doing to share with the whole of His Creation.

That meaning that "ongoing" in what way and ongoing from what point and what source? Not the same priesthood, not the same function, not the same setting.

We can say that it is a like function wherein blessings are imparted and this is God's pattern of doing things that is ongoing. Referring to how blessings are sourced out or channeled forth.
But then we might need to include, Mother Teresa, Max King, and Einstein in three different categories. IMHO in all three God is at work to source out blessings and share with the whole of His creation.


Davo
Knowing this is beneficial in helping give a good sense of self. I find it personally rewarding when I can help others come to this better sense of self; which often times means enabling them to likewise come to a realisation that they do indeed matter to God.
I wholeheartedly agree.

JMO
Barry

[Amie]

Yeah I hear what you're saying… from where I'm coming from I'm not so much thinking in terms of bringing others to where I am but more simply seeing others as I am i.e., believed in by God.

I can relate to that. For me, I find it hard to separate what you have described above, from the function of "priest", "called", etc.. in the bible - if that makes sense. Iow, I can get conceptually what you mean by the term and how you live that out on a completely personal level, but it can get confusing as they are biblical terms with different applied meanings.

Firstly, the usage of that term combined with the biblical applied meaning would call into question the "ongoingness" of the biblical priesthood: "Is everything fulfilled, or isn't it?" You might want to share what is on your heart because you see others as already being where you are so to speak, and share that through fulfilled eschatology. How can that be an effective means if it is self-defeating? I hope that you see that I want you to succeed and that this is a concern that I'm expressing. I know that it is for you decide as to whether it is a concern for you as well,

I think that what Barry is bringing up are some other issues that arise from such confusion. If there is a "called", what qualifies a person? Who then is not qualified?

In Baytown, I hope to bring up the metaphors "swords to plowshares" and "the Word of God is sharper than any two edged sword". I hope to touch on how that applied biblically to those people, and then how it might work today. I agree that we are not "beating swords into plowshares" exactly as they were, though I think that we can draw from their example. For me, I am beginning to see that as how you are applying "saved to serve" type stuff.

Not only are we confronted with clarifying the distinction between the then functions and now, but I think that we are also challenged with articulating how it is that we could draw one principle and maybe be leaving another that is not so supportive of personal views.


Hmmm, we've managed to wandered from "first death" to "kings and priests"

I think that it may be relative. Adam may have never been titled "priest", but did he function as "priest"? I mean, why is it that people could sin differently than Adam but it was in Adam that death entered? How did that work?

In Jesus, life entered the world. Grasping that function might help me wrap my brain around understanding the answer to those questions that I am asking.

To add to the mix that somehow "we" can take on that function, again, is personally confusing. We do not take or give life - and was that a part of Jesus' priesthood anyway?

Yeah, I probably just need to take a time out on this stuff.

Amie

[Truthseeker]

Hi Amie and All,

Interesting discussion, as always!

It seems to me that perhaps Abel could be qualified as priest; he offered animals as sacrifice in contrast to Cain. It could be that Adam began that role and Abel learned from him; the bible doesn't say.

It seems to me that the rest of mankind (Adam's seed) didn't sin as Adam did is because Adam was created sinLESS, yet all of his offspring inherited sin from him. So for Adam to sin was not at all natural--was most likely a difficult thing for him to do, whereas for his offspring, it was the opposite. So for a sinless man to sin--that took a decision on his part, whereas the rest of mankind were born with that "sin" defect; really had nothing to do with it. Even tho the rest of mankind couldn't HELP but sin (and therefore was different than Adam) death still ruled as King for all men (as they had all sinned) as Adam was the human father of all.

I don't see that the office of king/priest is carried over from the First Century. I think the evidence supports that it is not. That was a once in a lifetime "calling"--it was "the High Calling", and just in that term, any other calling must be lesser. Jesus promised crowns and thrones, the sharing of his inheritance with the firstfruits that shared in his own life, death, and sufferings. He told the 12 that they would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. We see in Rev 7, and in 14, that Jesus stands on the heavenly Mt Zion with the 12 tribes of (Spiritual) Israel. The New Jerusalem was built on the 12 Apostles with Jesus as chief corner stone. They were given "the keys to the kingdom" and what they bound was bound in heaven, what they forgave was forgiven in heaven. Whatever treatment they received from Israel would define the judgment that would come.

The purpose of this was to bless the world, the rest of whom are children of the Bride and Groom (as I see it). So that puts us all on equal terf. Whatever we're called to do, its as citizens of the Kingdom, not for an office (since all those were taken in the First Century--and rightly so.)

Yeah, we're all in this together! :) aisi. --rhonda

[davo]

So as to the the "them/us" function of Priesthood, the firstfuits fulfilled their function as priests and kings.Barry… the "them/us" I referred to previously was in the attitudinal context of "I AM A 'PRIEST' but thou art not…", the very thing I sensed Amie was coming against, and of which I agree, although I may have misread her. It was this that I was talking about with regards to "title".


Let us assume that it is highly reasonable to conclude that some previous old covenant folk turned to belief in what Christ had done after the destruction of their holy city and temple. Are they now functioning as part of a Priesthood?Not in the sense of the first-fruits that secured Israel's redemption, but even the OC priesthood didn't do that, so there were differences. Israel as a collective whole was God's priestly kingdom to the world – even those born into Israel's call long after the initial generation was called were still to be God's light in the world. So in this same sense post Parousia believes can rightly been understood as "offspring" to likewise bless the world. But remember we're not talking literal linage – any who desired [were moved in the heart] could join the priestly people, and as Peter declares "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." To be accepted was/is to serve – who is served? – the rest of God's good creation. It was only "fulfilment" that made this possible.


If they are then it is a brand new one in function.No Barry I'm not talking reinventing the wheel that you imagine, I'm simply talking about the maintaining of the perpetual effect that fulfilment brought.
…what I see as one of the common problems in the fulfilled movement as it now stands. Which is the belief that my belief places me in a position or function that is biblically distinct from everything else that God is doing to share with the whole of His Creation.Yes I understand this – where I have an issue here is that in your misunderstanding of me you are believing that this is what I'm doing – you are wrong in this belief about my position, AT LEAST as to the most definite "us/them" superior attitude it reflects.

The bible speaks of how "believing" brings an "establishing" or sureness around one's life – surely a good thing. It IS something in that regard then that is quite "distinct". That religious piety abuses this doesn't negate its reality. Now IF I come to a given understanding as to the blessedness of God then I am in a place to pass this "distinct" knowledge [belief] onto others IF they so choose to accept it. None of that makes me a "better than thou…" nor does their possible rejection of what I might care to share make them any the less than me either. I just happen to still believe that what "[i]God is doing to share with the whole of His Creation" still involves God using "people" – some might sense this more than others and might choose to identify such as a "calling" or whatever – but far be it from me to tell others their business. This is at least presently where I see things from my pantelistic perspective.


I find it hard to separate what you have described above, from the function of "priest"… Iow, I can get conceptually what you mean by the term and how you live that out on a completely personal level, but it can get confusing as they are biblical terms with different applied meanings.Yeah of course they… but that just it, we don't need to replicate their contextual application as that was uniquely fulfilled, so, we have to ask ourselves HOW can this have bearing in my life post fulfilment? Well I'd say as per how I've been describing it above of which you are saying you "get conceptually". It's like this… we have absolutely no trouble looking at historical figures or situations out the OT and gleaning from them life principles or lessons etc – WHY is what I'm saying about the maintaining in witness, worship and works with regards to "fulfilment" any different? I might just add… by using the word "maintaining" I am NOT suggesting that the perpetual effect of fulfilment is thus "dependent".


I think that what Barry is bringing up are some other issues that arise from such confusion. If there is a "called", what qualifies a person? Who then is not qualified?You see this is the problem… you are objecting according to the very mindset you have an issue with. WHY does "called" need to be seen in terms of "qualified" – and thus the non-qualified? This just seems like sectarian mindedness. IF God desires to use someone to accomplish a given thing He simply does so accordingly. THAT is not a necessary indicator that someone else was the less because they apparently didn't "qualify". It's a bit like assigning different tasks to your children, i.e., what fits best, and God I'm assuming in this sense knows best.


I hope to touch on how that applied biblically to those people, and then how it might work today. I agree that we are not "beating swords into plowshares" exactly as they were, though I think that we can draw from their example. For me, I am beginning to see that as how you are applying "saved to serve" type stuff.YES YES YES :)

[Barry]

Davo, great discussion :)

Both of us see belief in the general framework of "service". Both of us see it as a personal experiential blessing on multi levels.


Davo but emphasis mine:
Israel as a collective whole was God's priestly kingdom to the world

What I'm pointing out in a round about way, (which IMHO Rhonda's post touches on and she can correct me if I'm mistaken), is that "believers" were a "body" of believers, functioning to bring blessings to the "rest" of the "world". (Whether historic Israel or the firstfuits)

Are believers an independent "body" or are they now a "member" of the "all in all body"? Is "Faith", a prerequisite of membership to an independent body of "priests" or a functioning serving member of an "all in all body"?

IMHO this is the focus of our "ongoing" discussion. That being, how does one actually frame the meaning of ongoing in light of the fact that "everything is new"?
How does one extrapolate from the biblical patterns and apply them to a "new" framework?

Not that we have to or need to arrive at a consensus. And this is no small matter to consider and attempt to define.


Just food for thought.

Barry

[davo]

Are believers an independent "body" or are they now a "member" of the "all in all body"?I don't so much see it in term of "them/us" – that's the fault Israel in her short sighted self-righteousness fell into where although being called of God their calling was one of covenant faithfulness to serve the nations among whom they were placed as God's light.


Is "Faith", a prerequisite of membership to an independent body of "priests" or a functioning serving member of an "all in all body"?Faithfulness was the indicator of a serving heart – in therms of the first-fruit saints such was a "specific body" with a specific purpose, but we also have scriptural evidence of "others" beyond any body who ministered beyond the covenant body and yet were no less in the will and call of God – Melchizedek and Cornelius being two examples. Melchizedek was a godly priest beyond the realm of the Abrahamic covenant call, and Cornelius a "believer" who served God by serving others but was NOT a "Christian", though in course of events came to know a more excellent way etc. And thus we know from the writer of Hebrews that God is a rewarder of those faithfully seek out His ways – so again, as I undersand it biblically, one who "seeks" is one who will "serve".


IMHO this is the focus of our "ongoing" discussion. That being, how does one actually frame the meaning of ongoing in light of the fact that "everything is new"?Well once it is established that the "meaning" ultimately equates to "the reconciliation of all" then it is the "maintaining" of this truth as I pointed to before.


How does one extrapolate from the biblical patterns and apply them to a "new" framework?That I guess is the ongoing work of exploring "fulfillment". So we might ask – in our given context HOW might reconciliation look and work out etc. Futurism per se doesn't bother asking this question as it already assumes [wrongly IMO] as worst case scenario that sees no peace pre-mortem, but pushes an eschatology of escapism – something according to their expectation ultimately ONLY secured through death.