The Biblical Concept of Corporate Adam / Israel part 1

Abraham Plus Sarah

When the God of Abraham promised Abraham that He would make him a blessing, He spoke in terms of families. He spoke of Abraham in corporate terms.

Why did Abraham's relationship with Hagar, resulting in the birth of Ishmael, not work toward bringing about the fulfillment of the promise of Abraham becoming a channel of blessing for the world? Because it was not Abraham in his individual capacity that was chosen but Abraham in his corporate capacity that was chosen to overcome the Creator's curse with the Creator's blessing.

When the God of Abraham said to Abraham, "I will make you a blessing," He was not speaking (in the first place) of Abraham's accomplishments as an individual; He was speaking of Abraham corporately as a father, as one part, the male part, of the source of a family. This means that essentially it was Abraham's marriage to Sarah that was chosen. It was Abraham plus Sarah. Only Abraham with Sarah was corporate Abraham as chosen by the Creator of Adam, the man and the woman. Thus it could not be that Abraham and Hagar could work toward the fulfillment of the promise, for this relationship with Hagar represented and understanding of Abraham as an individual, apart from the corporate aspect of Adam.

Thus, it was when Abraham personally believed in the promise as given to him in his corporate aspect, given to him together with Sarah as a corporate source of the branch of Adam chosen for the redemption of the world, to Abraham and his seed, that it was "counted to Abraham for righteousness." And thus it is that if any form of replacement theology denies the present and future corporate redemption of Israel the same theology denies the very promise of corporate redemption for Adam that Abraham believed in in order to be justified by his faith. This presents us with the question, how do we develop our understanding through the grace of the God of Israel from an individual centered hope and theology to the corporate hope that was given to Abraham and in which he believed in order to be justified by faith?

On Matthew 10:23 +

This posting is in dialogue with a posting on Matthew 10:23 +
That posting can be found at:

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/eschatology/matt_2nd_com-02.htm

Setting The Mood: The Gospel Records as a Dialogue of Jews with Jews

Matthew 3:7 (NKJV) But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

MY NOTE: Is this to say that many of the Pharisees and Sadducees who John saw coming to him were recognized by him to be a "brood of vipers" but perhaps many were not! Or are we to automatically read it to say that John saw Pharisees and Sadducees to be characteristically a "brood of vipers," and so would have described any Pharisee or Sadducee whatsoever with this characterization? In either case, what does this term mean in the mouth of a prophet of Israel? Does this word from this prophet contradict or support the idea that some of the pharisees, at least, were as righteous as any of the greatest Israelites had ever been but were still falling short of the glory of God and their failure was that they were not confessing this at the time when the The King Messiah was in their midst?

On Matthew 10:23+

• QUOTE from link provided above: Matthew 10:23 makes it clear that Jesus is talking about His Second Coming as the Son of Man: "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. The phrase, "Son of Man," comes from Daniel 7:13 and refers to the Son of Man being presented before the Ancient of Days. Jesus is saying to his twelve disciples that they will not have fled through all the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes. They will keep running through the cities, fleeing from their persecutors. When He says that they will not have time to have fled through all the cities, it indicates that they will not have fled to all the cities until the Son of Man comes, a promised deliverance for them - the twelve!

MY NOTE: Is the text saying that the twelve disciples themselves would not finish going through the cities of Israel... but rather the Lord would have to come as the Son of Adam, as the Davidic King and be received as who he was and is before the work could be finished? Does this mean, "There will be no peace until he returns." And is this what the Berean Church commentator is saying here? It seems rather by what follows that the commentator sees the notion of the beginning of The Eternal World to be under discussion by other commentators here and this commentator is intending to correct what he regards as the mistaken notion that this is what Yehoshua was teaching about here.

But if to the disciples Yehoshua's words would have meant that they would not finish going through all the cities of Israel until his arrival in majesty like King David in their own time, to Yehoshua himself his words would have meant his second coming in glory in the end of days, even though he did not know the day nor the hour. And thus it would seem, to my understanding, that he was indicating that their work in Israel would never be complete without his being received by Jerusalem and by the nation as one.

There is really only one alternative to this understanding and it is not, as the author here points out, that Matthew 10:23 points to the Transfiguration. {This is not for the reason that the author gives. Matthew 16:28 does find a degree of fulfillment in the Transfiguration. See notes on this below.} There is really only one alternative to the view that Yehoshua knew what the disciples did not know, that he would be killed, would be resurrected would be taken to heaven to actively await the time - work to bring about the time - when he would be received by Jerusalem (although only the Father knew when that time would be). The alternative is the view that the author puts forward here of a fully developed form of replacement theology. In my concluding notes below I point to the window of revelation that is found in understanding that Yehoshua was teaching his students the way of divine failure in this situation.


Matthew 16:27-28 (NKJV) "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

• QUOTE from link provided above: If you believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of the Living God, then this passage gives a clear either/or, when determining its fulfillment. Either Christ has fulfilled this passage, and His Coming has occurred, or else some of that initial audience is still alive. There is no escaping this in the language used. Anybody familiar with logic knows that when an "if statement" is encountered, it indicates a split passageway, in which one and only one of the results can be followed. In this case if Christ has not come, then some of the audience must still be alive physically. And conversely if the entire audience has physically died, then Christ has to have fulfilled this verse and come in glory! If Christ was true to His word, there is no other alternative here! There can be no splitting of the pieces and parts of the fulfillment. It is all or nothing.

MY NOTE: The author here [see full text] has virtually equated Matthew 10:23 and 16:28, but they are not equivalent. In fact, Matthew 16:28 can first be associated to John 8:24 on the one hand and John 21:23 on the other hand. Do to these associations we must ask what exactly this idiomatic expression, to "taste of death," actually meant to the Jewish mind of the day. In light of the passages mentioned, we cannot assume that it simply or only meant to physically die. We should also look at the similar expression and its use in Hebrews 2:9. It is even possible to understand the expression to mean that some there would not become regenerate until they witnessed the Transfiguration - they would not die spiritually until they would at the same time and by the same power be made alive spiritually - as a visible testimony of how salvation works for all, though it is never so visible. But while such an idea might be derived from the words, is this the simple meaning of the words?

The author of the quoted text, the Berean church commentator, equates Yehoshua's enthronement in heaven and the subsequent judgment upon Jerusalem within the apostle's life time with his second coming. Is it because of having difficulty with these questions that there is only limited teaching in historic Christianity about the enthronement of Yehoshua in heaven? In order not to come to such anti-Semitic conclusions of replacement theology, is it necessary to avoid all deep discussion and study of the great event of the enthronement of Yehoshua in heaven? But if Yehoshua were making reference to his actual enthronement in heaven in Matthew 16:28, how would he have been saying that any of his disciples were going to witness this?

The giving of the Holy Spirit and the judgment upon Jerusalem could not be said, (as this author tries to do), to be the event itself, but only results of the event. Thus there is no need to draw lines of polar opposition between the idea of the preservation of Israel and the enthronement of Yehoshua as Mashiach in heaven. Judgment had always been corrective chastisement for Jerusalem and for Israel. Why would it now have to be termination for them rather than a part of salvation? Replacement theology wants to see Yehoshua's enthronement as his vindication, his victory over "the Jews." Such enmity is a projection of the replacement theologian's own envy and misunderstanding upon God and upon His Messiah.

But what, then, is this mystery of Yehoshua's enthronement in heaven and not (yet) on earth? Is this mystery not the soil in which all the weeds of replacement theology now grow, in fact is this mystery not the soil in which the weeds of replacement theology have always grown? Consider how the Lord's prayer changed in context before and after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the Lord! "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven!"

Did he not have this (vision of his throne in heaven) in mind when he taught the prayer to his students? We can let Matthew 10:23 inform Matthew 16:28 in the following way. The students looked for the glorification of Mashiach in this world in their own generation. What did they think would be the nature of his kingdom? Success. Yehoshua taught them to fail. Matthew 10:23. He taught them then to foresee the glory that would come by grace through the glorification of the divine failure. Matthew 16:28ff.

The Lord's anointing in the heavenly realms is not the anointing of worldly success but of worldly failure. The failure of God is greater than the success of Adam. God rules by His failure over all the successes, all the empires great and small of this world. What is God's failure? It is His failure to have Israel crown Yehoshua in Jerusalem when he came to them. It is by this very failure that God rules over all things. For it is this failure that God turns into Israel's salvation and it is Israel's salvation through this failure of God - wherein He failed in order to give the gift of absolute grace to Israel - that He saves even the Gentiles, even the angels, even the days, even the nights, as well as all creatures great and small on earth, under the earth, in the seas, in the skies, even to the end of the stars, redeeming all things with the blood that Yehoshua shed for Israel, until all Creation is able to keep the Sabbath of God with Israel.

Topics In Acts 15 #1

Hebrew Roots Pastor Ariel Ehrmantrout [http://www.torah4christians.com/Judaizers.html writes:

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."

"The Key to understanding what the “Judaizers” were doing is found in this one verse. They were Patrician Pharisee’s from Jerusalem; and they were constantly worrying about “Ritual Purity” as defined within the Levitical System during the 2nd Temple period. They were saying to former Gentiles—that without the “sign of the covenant in your flesh” YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.

"They were teaching a traditional Jewish thought that unless you have both B’rit Millah (Circumcision in the foreskin) then your conversion is not complete. And undoubtedly, Rabbi Sha’uls converts were getting very upset about this. But why would it matter? Because without this sign in your flesh—you could not ENTER THE H-LY TEMPLE and SACRIFICE TO OBTAIN RITUAL PURITY. They were telling them that they would not be allowed into the Temple and thus they were not “fully converted to Judaism!” Rabbi Sha’ul knows that ritual purity is not found in the blood of bulls and Sheep—but in the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Rabbi Yeshua. Ritual Purity is only found in Messiah! So in review—a Judaizer is someone who tells you that the sign of the Mosaic covenant MUST BE in your FLESH for you to be considered “pure” before God." [End quote.]

We might better begin by asking if this term, "Judaizer," is a useful term in the first place. It certainly sounds like a term harboring the kind of "closet antisemitism" that Ariel Ehrmantrout condemns on his website. Perhaps neither Paul nor Luke were so much against Gentiles, who so desired, continuing to convert to Judaism - so long as they understood fully what they were doing, as they were against confusion of the two phases of Messiah's coming. For until the Kingdom is "handed back" to the Father by the Messiah a certain distinction in the world of Adam between Jew and Gentile must be sustained for the sake of witness to the one true God . Rather than demonizing anyone as a "Judaizer" we might better begin by asking why this dispute about circumcision was even taking place in the first place.

Ariel Ehrmantrout points out that without the sign of circumcision in the flesh a possible proselyte could not enter the Temple to offer a sacrifice. A problem would also arise when it came time to partake of the Passover. Problems with marriage would arise. In short, without circumcision in the flesh, a proselyte could not be considered by the Jewish people to be a full convert to Judaism or member of the nation of Israel. Now if James and the apostles had the very same idea of Christians and Christianity as is held by most Church leaders today why would of this even been an issue? Clearly they had no thoughts of a different religion that would be called Christianity and would make the possible circumcision of Gentile followers of Yehoshua a non-issue. Does it not seem clear that, to the contrary, the open question for the apostles was how the Gentiles were to be included in the blessings of the nation of Israel?

Only if this is the question under consideration does it make any sense that there were some voices that were saying that Gentiles who were drawn to the faith and religion of the Jews because they believed that Yehoshua was the Messiah should all take the final step of being circumcised - just like converts always had. Not only will facing this completely change the context in which we must carry out any discussion of the concept of "Judaizers," it will also place upon us the necessity of clarifying our understanding what the apostles would have understood the blessing of the nation of Israel to be - that Christian Gentiles were to partake of either without being circumcised or through being circumcised. For clearly, they would have understood this blessing of Israel to be that blessing that was to come to Israel through the promised Messiah.

So then, we should not talk about "Judaizers" or the conversion of Christian Gentiles to Judaism, or circumcision for Gentiles, or Torah for Gentiles, or any such thing, unless we are first completely clear on that very thing which the apostles had to become clear on - Peter, James, Paul and all the apostles. What was the relationship of Messiah to the nations? And therefore what was the relationship of the Gentiles to Messiah? It is time that this question were completely reconsidered in a context that is completely free of replacement theology, a theology that entirely obscures any truth concerning this question.