Was Adam and Eve the only first created?

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yeah, I'm probably familiar with both of the groups you are talking about. And yes they are both immersed in some Talmudic doctrines.

The term for man used in chapter 1 is the same used in chapter 2. Therefore the people mentioned in chapter 1 are essentially the same (as to nature) as in chapter 2, the difference being that chapter 2 deals with God's relationship with a particular man and his family. Just as God deals with a particular man in chapter 6 and his family (Noah etc), and with Abraham, and Jacob, etc. The Bible is literally a particular family's history. That particular family was chosen by God to be the primary vehicle through which He is working His Divine Plan for all nations, peoples, families, tribes, etc. It was that family from which the Christ came as the archetypal Seed of Abraham in whom all families of the earth are to be blessed.

Isaiah 56:3-8 KJV
Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. [4] For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; [5] Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. [6] Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; [7] Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. [8] The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

If Isaiah wrote this...why was there a Gentile Court in Herods Temple?


Could it be that The Lord wasnt pleased with the design after speaking His will that the stranger not have reason to say,"The Lord hath utterly separated me from His people?"


This is the first time Ive read this thread and Im working through it...I started at the end and was like,"Well this has got my Spidey Sense tingling...just from the first page of discussion its brought a radical perspective shift.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

If Isaiah wrote this...why was there a Gentile Court in Herods Temple?


Could it be that The Lord wasnt pleased with the design after speaking His will that the stranger not have reason to say,"The Lord hath utterly separated me from His people?"


This is the first time Ive read this thread and Im working through it...I started at the end and was like,"Well this has got my Spidey Sense tingling...just from the first page of discussion its brought a radical perspective shift.

The prophecy in Isaiah is apparently Messianic: the Messiah would bring all nations out of their idolatry and into the True Faith. Preparatory to that, many who were "outside" would convert to God and be as or more faithful than those already in the covenant. This began to be fulfilled in the 1st century as Romans talks about.

The Temple being rebuilt prior to that time would have a place for the uncircumcised. The uncircumcised weren't allowed in the Temple proper but room was made for them under the terms of the Old Covenant. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of the New Covenant temple.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The prophecy in Isaiah is apparently Messianic: the Messiah would bring all nations out of their idolatry and into the True Faith. Preparatory to that, many who were "outside" would convert to God and be as or more faithful than those already in the covenant. This began to be fulfilled in the 1st century as Romans talks about.

The Temple being rebuilt prior to that time would have a place for the uncircumcised. The uncircumcised weren't allowed in the Temple proper but room was made for them under the terms of the Old Covenant. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of the New Covenant temple.

The Tabernacle of Moses was a scale model of "things in heaven":

Hebrews 8:5 KJV
Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Hebrews 9:23-24 KJV
It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. [24] For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Then there was the Tabernacle of David, which had the ark but not the altar.

Then there was the Temple of Solomon, which was apparently built in the wrong place (by Divine Design, I would add) and had some questionable furniture and architectural details.

The Temple was rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemia, then upgraded by Herod before being finally scrapped.

Ezekiel's Temple was never built (physically).

All 4 of these structures are patterns of heavenly realities, and all 4 seem to be prophetic, giving a basic outline of the development and unfolding of the Divine Plan.

[Esaias]

Someone wanted some discussion of Romans 7:

A few points:

1. Romans 7 should not be taken out of context (that turns a proof text into a spoof text). The context is of course Romans 6 and 8. Paul declares in chapter 6 that 'sin shall have no dominion over you', and the reason is because 'you are not under the law, but under grace'. Romans 7 describes a person over whom sin has dominion, but Romans 6:14 flatly declares sin will NOT have dominion over someone under grace, not law. Romans 7 clearly describes a person under law - the whole chapter is about the relationship between sin, and the 'commandment' (law).

Furthermore, Romans 8 describes the exact opposite condition - a person who is freed from the law of sin and death. More to the point, if we take Paul's use of the first person in the 7th chapter as meaning he was describing himself, personally, then we must likewise take his use of the first person in the 8th chapter to mean he is describing himself in a completely opposite condition than what is described in the 7th. He says in the 7th chapter "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." Yet in the next chapter (the conclusion of his teaching on this subject) he says "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Furthermore he explains how in the next several verses, that the law could not accomplish something (righteousness in the individual), but Christ's death did, and this is made effectual by the Spirit.

If Romans 7 describes Paul in a state where he is constantly sinning, then Romans 8 describes Paul in a state of entire sanctification.

I personally do not believe Paul is speaking in chapter 7 of his own then current condition, for if that were the case he contradicts himself flatly in the next chapter. I believe Paul is using himself to illustrate the general character and condition of a person under the law - believing in the law of God but unable to obey God, enslaved to sin. Paul continues to contrast that condition in the next chapter, describing the general character and condition of one under grace, walking in the spirit - free from the dominion of sin, with the righteousness of the law fulfilled in him.

If Romans 7 is claimed as a description of a regenerate Christian (which I do not believe it does), at best it describes a backslidden Christian in an unsanctified state, whereas Romans 8 describes a Christian in a state of sanctification.

2. If Paul meant by 'it is not I that sin, but sin in me' to say that there is a 'sin nature', as understood by the proponents of that doctrine, then there is therefore no condemnation to anyone, for they aren't sinning, their 'sin nature' is sinning. There is no need for sinners to worry about judgement, because when they sin it is not THEM who sin, but 'sin in them' that sins. Does God threaten with eternal damnation those who are not guilty of anything? If it isn't YOU that are sinning, then YOU aren't guilty, obviously.

But when Romans 7 is taken in context, we see that he is not speaking of a 'sin nature' dwelling in his actual physical body, for in Romans 8 he plainly says Christians are 'not in the flesh'. Are they ghosts? Obviously not. And so obviously, by 'flesh' he is meaning the carnal life. When a person is living in sin, they are 'in the flesh', when they receive the Spirit and new life and are freed from 'the law of sin and death', they are said to be 'in the spirit'.

There is no verse in Scripture which teaches a substance called 'original sin' or 'sin nature'. When Paul says 'it is no longer I, but sin that does it' he is saying that he intellectually sides with God but he is ruled by a tyrant, SIN, that forces him to obey the law of sin and death. This is in fact the tenor of his statements in chapter 7 - he speaks of being brought into subjection, overcome, in bondage, etc.

But notice in chapter 6 he teaches that sinners are slaves to the tyrant, ruling power of unrighteousness because they YIELD THEMSELVES TO IT. The sinner is a slave to sin. The awakened sinner is still a slave to sin, tho his conscience is aware and his mind is set against sin. Yet still he is enslaved, because he is under the law and has not been regenerated, taken out of the flesh and placed into the spirit by the power of the Cross.

[Esaias]

Romans 7 is a parallel description to the Jew in Romans 2, from the perspective of the Jew in question. The Jew "approves the things that are excellent being instructed out of the law" yet does not in reality keep the righteousness described by the law. Just like in ch 7 where Paul describes the same scenario but showing the inner workings as to why it happens.

In ch 6 Paul describes the Christian, and it is distinctly opposite and opposed to the description of the person in Romans 7. Ch 6 shows those in Christ are free, and "sin shall NOT have dominion over you". Ch 7 has a person ENSLAVED to sin, in bondage, and INCAPABLE (morally) of being obedient to God.

Ch 1 through 8 show the distinction between old covenant Jew and new covenant Christian in practically every chapter. The contrast is repeated over and over again. The context and parallelism indicate ch 7 is in the same vein. In fact, the bulk of the entire epistle is taken up with proving the superiority of the new covenant to the old, that Jew and gentile are acceptable to God only in the new covenant, that Jews under the old covenant fail to truly obey God, that the new covenant does actually produce obedience to God's commands, that the new covenant of grace and faith is the only basis now in which anyone CAN be righteous, both in position and in deed.

As I stated, many Christians find themselves in a Romans type experience, that is, desiring to do God's will but being overcome by sin. That however is, as I stated, the result of faulty teaching or lack of understanding and faith in the power of God to make real our identification with Christ.

BTW, it was Augustine who FIRST understood Romans 7 as referring to Christians. Prior to him, as far as I can tell, NOBODY EVER applied ch 7 to CHRISTIANS, but ALL understood it to refer to the unregenerate.

If a person is truly in Romans 7, they are not in the new covenant! Notice, the man of ch 7 is ENSLAVED TO SIN and is IN THE FLESH..But ch 6 as well as ch 8 declare the regenerate as NOT in the flesh, and NOT enslaved to sin. The only way a Christian can be living in ch 7 is if they are backslidden and in danger of eternal death.

[Esaias]

About "to will" in chapter 7, "will power", and "choosing":

'Will power' is not in chapter 7. 'Will' however is. Will can mean the faculty or ability to choose one thing over another, it can mean the faculty of volition (whether free or not) by which one engages in a course of action, or it can mean an amount of 'effort' exerted by determination against contrary motives ('quit smoking by sheer willpower' means one does not use additional aids to counter enticements or urges to smoke, other than their own determination not to smoke, for example), or it can mean to desire something.

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
(Romans 7:18 KJV)

Rom 7:18 οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, ἀγαθόν· τὸ γὰρ θέλειν παράκειταί μοι, τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὐχ εὑρίσκω.

θέλειν
thelō ethelō
thel'-o, eth-el'-o
Either the first or the second form may be used. In certain tenses θελέω theleō thel-eh'-o (and ἐθέλέω etheleō eth-el-eh'-o) are used, which are otherwise obsolete; apparently strengthened from the alternate form of G138; to determine (as an active voice option from subjective impulse; whereas G1014 properly denotes rather a passive voice acquiescence in objective considerations), that is, choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication to wish, that is, be inclined to (sometimes adverbially gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism to delight in: - desire, be disposed (forward), intend, list, love, mean, please, have rather, (be) will (have, -ling, -ling [ly]). - Strong's.

thelō / ethelō
Thayer Definition:
1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
1b) to desire, to wish
1c) to love
1c1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
1d) to take delight in, have pleasure
Part of Speech: verb - Thayer's.

As we can see, the word has a range of meanings, to be determined by context and usage.

According to the verse, and the other usages in the chapter, it is clear that 'to will' refers to 'desire or wish, to love, to like to do, be fond of doing, take delight in'. He says to will to good is with him, that is, he desires, wants, wishes, to do good. But how to actually accomplish that desire he does not know. From this we can see that 'to will' does NOT mean 'to choose' as an act of volition, because when one actually chooses a course of action they embark on it, they do it, because the choosing and the doing are the exact same thing.

But, we often say 'I choose ABC' when we actually do not, what we really mean is 'I wish ABC or I want ABC'. A person may say 'I will to eat cheesecake' but they do not eat cheesecake because they are concerned about their girlish figure. So they do not actually WILL it, that is, they do not actually CHOOSE to eat cheesecake, they simply desire to eat it, while also desiring NOT to eat it (or at least desiring not to suffer the fattening consequences of eating it).

When understood in this light, the entire premise that Paul is contrasting 'will power' with 'supernatural divine aid' falls apart. The contrast is between mere desire for something, and actually doing it. Which Paul identifies in the next chapter when he says the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit and not the flesh, and that this is the result of the death of Christ. Christ's death is what causes people to actually obey God. Thus, righteousness as a lifestyle is said to be imparted from God to man, it is the power of God working in a person both to will and to do His good pleasure.