ECT You are unique in the body of Christ, just like everyone else in the body of Christ

[oatmeal]

As I expected.

Blessings,

T

You expected what?

 

[revpete]

I Corinthians 12:27



Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.



What makes you unique?



How do you best function in the body?



How do you fit in?



What does God want you to do? I Corinthians 12:18



It is important that we sharpen our thinking on this subject.



If we do not recognize our God given role in the body, how can we carry that out?



Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles



Peter concentrated for a time on the Judeans



Ananias was the bold individual disciple that God had minister to Saul of Tarsus.



Romans 16:1-16



Romans 12:1-8



I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.



2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.



3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.



4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:



5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.



6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;



7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;



8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.



What are you supposed to be doing?

Thank you for that, your post forces me to ask myself basic but very important questions. It rather reminds me of God asking Elijah when he was in the cave: "what are you doing here Elijah?" It is obvious that God new his geographical location but I believe that He wanted to draw something out of Elijah so that he might learn fresh lessons about himself.

Pete

 

[oatmeal]

Thank you for that, your post forces me to ask myself basic but very important questions. It rather reminds me of God asking Elijah when he was in the cave: "what are you doing here Elijah?" It is obvious that God new his geographical location but I believe that He wanted to draw something out of Elijah so that he might learn fresh lessons about himself.

Pete

Thanks for your post.

Most certainly, we all need to review, take an inventory, do a check up from the neck up a times.

We most certainly want to do our best for God, but we all get distracted at times.

Your post tells me you are well on your way to seeing yourself greater like God sees you.

 

[oatmeal]

If I may, one more post before I go. In God's equipping of teachers for the edification of the church, he will likely use tools unrelated to Scripture to assist in a right interpretation of Scripture. Below is an example of just what I am talking about. My BA degree was an historiographal approach to Philosophy, wherein I studied the great philosophers extensively. Through those studies I became aware of things I would not have otherwise been equipped to recognize in my study of Scripture. Yet graciously God equipped me to do just that. Please read:

In Ephesians 1.10 Paul writes, "that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times [God the Father] might gather together in one the all in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him" (my translation).

The words "gather together" here are a translation of the Greek word anakephalaiow, which literally means "to re-head-up." It was the Father's will that in the fullness of times he would send his unique son to "re-gather, via headship," in (by inference) the One "the all" in Christ (and here "all" is neuter so it is inclusive of everything, not just humanity, but definitely humanity, as included in the whole). Now that was really cumbersome. I apologize. But I believe it was necessary to gain comprehension of what's going, not only here, but elsewhere in passages like Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. For contained in this verse is the ancient Mediterranean-world concept of "the one and the many."

As westerners we do not so much think in terms of headship. We are much more individualistic in our concepts of responsibility, for example. Each one of us is responsible for his or her own actions but not so much the consequence of those actions on others. BUT in the Mediterranean social world at the time of Christ, specifically, that was not the case at all. In that setting there was very much in place the idea of one person standing in as representative or head of the entirety of a group of people under his headship. There is much to buttress our understanding of this social construct in the writings of early Greek philosophers such as Socrates via Plato, Plato himself, Aristotle, Ulysses, and others, where we extrapolate this concept of "the one and the many." Equipped with this information, we see clearly the same construct in ancient Semitic writings as well, in OT narratives like the accounts of Boaz and Ruth, and David as he stood in as head over all of Israel in his confrontation with Goliath. We see it also in Abraham over all of his descendants...and Adam over all of humanity, even over all of creation.

In Ephesians 1.10 we learn that God sent his Son, the Christ to re-head-up what was relinquished in the headship of the first head/representative, Adam. Now, that was a long way of getting to misinformed statement like "Christ isn't cleaning up Adam's mess as much as He is cleaning up Adam." You see, I think it might be better to say it this way: Christ was not only cleaning up Adam; he was cleaning up Adam's mess as well. That being the mess he made of all humanity and even all creation in his fall.

What is the significance of this? Under the headship of Adam, everything was lost, given over to new heads like sin, death, and the devil, for example, and the impact they have had on creation itself. But Christ came to re-head-up the collective of Adam's relinquished headship. In the "one" Adam the "many" or the "all" fell. But in the "One" Christ, the second Adam, the head over all, the "many" (I'm narrowing it down to a discussion of humanity) are re-gathered. Everyone represented in the headship of Adam are represented uniquely in the headship of the second Adam, Christ.

In the following passage I am going to provide a translation of the Greek text in order to bring out the Mediterranean social concept of "the one and the many," as it relates to Adam and Christ in Paul's address. The passage is Rom 5.15-19. All I will be doing is including the definite article ("the") where it appears in the Gr text. Please read it now from within the social construct of "the one and the many" or "the one and the all." Let's see how the inclusion of the definite article influences our understanding of the passage:

15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as through the one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through the one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by the one Man's obedience the many shall be made righteous.

Do you sense the subtle shift which takes place in our thinking when the definite article is removed as opposed to when it is included in the text? All of the Greek manuscripts we use, including the Textus Receptus, in our translations of the Gr NT into English have the definite article preceding the "one" and the "many" in this passage. This is an instance where translators have been unaware of New Testament/Mediterranean world constructs and thus literary conventions. Being unaware of this particular construct/convention, they omit the definite articles for sake of fluidity, which is not uncommon in Gr to English translations. In this case, however, their lack of awareness assisted in leading their readers into confusion as to what Paul was attempting to convey here, through their misinterpretation of this passage. I digress.

The impact of this and all the-one-and-the-many texts as they relate to Adam and Christ is that every single person, specifically, and thing in a macro-sense, that is represented by Adam is re-headed-up by way of representation in Christ, the second Adam. Here, in Romans, we discover that the "many" of the first man are the same as the "many" of the second Man, the difference being that where the first man brought death, condemnation, and judgment to "the many," which is "all"; the second Man brought an abundance of grace, righteousness, and justification of life to "the many," which is also "all." Hence the two are similar in that they are both representatives of "all men," but they are different in what they produced for that same group of "all men."

And so, we may conclude that this is not about some mysterious Adam-as-son-of-God doctrine. Rather it should stand as a model in our interpretation of Christ's incarnational atoning work. What are the implications, for example, of Christ's “justification” of all of humanity in our theological constructs?

I really must back out of here. Thanks for reading this lengthy post.

Blessings to all,

T

I enjoyed your post.

It nice to see that you have had some education in hermeneutics.

One of the dangers that I have witnessed on this website is that very depth of education is a two edged sword.

We need to make sure common sense or more accurately Biblical wisdom rules our walks, our endeavors to both learn and do scripture.

Don't let your education cause you to forget the basics.

There are believers on this website that cannot handle simple truths like Matthew 2:11, they still think that three wise men showed up at a stable to see an infant.

Why they don't simply read what is there is why the basics are so important. They think truth is complicated or that somehow God's word is incomplete without guessing how many wise men there were.

Others have accepted extra Biblical doctrines and traditions for so long that they cannot imagine that simplicity and believing, not Greek tenses are the key to understanding God's word. Greek tenses are great to know, but missing the forest for the direction a leaf is blowing misses the big picture.

There are believers here who have your technical background but cannot distinguish between God and His son. They were taught at schools that taught them Greek and Hebrew but not how to think or apply scripture in their lives.

If they could think and believe they would have rejected the trinity long ago.

Some think that dead people are actually alive

Sadly, you seem to be one of them

You could get back to basics and learn to see the forest and the trees in it.

You will accomplish much more for God with your abilities when you add the basics back into the mix.

 

[oatmeal]

If I may, one more post before I go. In God's equipping of teachers for the edification of the church, he will likely use tools unrelated to Scripture to assist in a right interpretation of Scripture. Below is an example of just what I am talking about. My BA degree was an historiographal approach to Philosophy, wherein I studied the great philosophers extensively. Through those studies I became aware of things I would not have otherwise been equipped to recognize in my study of Scripture. Yet graciously God equipped me to do just that. Please read:

In Ephesians 1.10 Paul writes, "that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times [God the Father] might gather together in one the all in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him" (my translation).

The words "gather together" here are a translation of the Greek word anakephalaiow, which literally means "to re-head-up." It was the Father's will that in the fullness of times he would send his unique son to "re-gather, via headship," in (by inference) the One "the all" in Christ (and here "all" is neuter so it is inclusive of everything, not just humanity, but definitely humanity, as included in the whole). Now that was really cumbersome. I apologize. But I believe it was necessary to gain comprehension of what's going, not only here, but elsewhere in passages like Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. For contained in this verse is the ancient Mediterranean-world concept of "the one and the many."

As westerners we do not so much think in terms of headship. We are much more individualistic in our concepts of responsibility, for example. Each one of us is responsible for his or her own actions but not so much the consequence of those actions on others. BUT in the Mediterranean social world at the time of Christ, specifically, that was not the case at all. In that setting there was very much in place the idea of one person standing in as representative or head of the entirety of a group of people under his headship. There is much to buttress our understanding of this social construct in the writings of early Greek philosophers such as Socrates via Plato, Plato himself, Aristotle, Ulysses, and others, where we extrapolate this concept of "the one and the many." Equipped with this information, we see clearly the same construct in ancient Semitic writings as well, in OT narratives like the accounts of Boaz and Ruth, and David as he stood in as head over all of Israel in his confrontation with Goliath. We see it also in Abraham over all of his descendants...and Adam over all of humanity, even over all of creation.

In Ephesians 1.10 we learn that God sent his Son, the Christ to re-head-up what was relinquished in the headship of the first head/representative, Adam. Now, that was a long way of getting to misinformed statement like "Christ isn't cleaning up Adam's mess as much as He is cleaning up Adam." You see, I think it might be better to say it this way: Christ was not only cleaning up Adam; he was cleaning up Adam's mess as well. That being the mess he made of all humanity and even all creation in his fall.

What is the significance of this? Under the headship of Adam, everything was lost, given over to new heads like sin, death, and the devil, for example, and the impact they have had on creation itself. But Christ came to re-head-up the collective of Adam's relinquished headship. In the "one" Adam the "many" or the "all" fell. But in the "One" Christ, the second Adam, the head over all, the "many" (I'm narrowing it down to a discussion of humanity) are re-gathered. Everyone represented in the headship of Adam are represented uniquely in the headship of the second Adam, Christ.

In the following passage I am going to provide a translation of the Greek text in order to bring out the Mediterranean social concept of "the one and the many," as it relates to Adam and Christ in Paul's address. The passage is Rom 5.15-19. All I will be doing is including the definite article ("the") where it appears in the Gr text. Please read it now from within the social construct of "the one and the many" or "the one and the all." Let's see how the inclusion of the definite article influences our understanding of the passage:

15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as through the one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through the one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by the one Man's obedience the many shall be made righteous.

Do you sense the subtle shift which takes place in our thinking when the definite article is removed as opposed to when it is included in the text? All of the Greek manuscripts we use, including the Textus Receptus, in our translations of the Gr NT into English have the definite article preceding the "one" and the "many" in this passage. This is an instance where translators have been unaware of New Testament/Mediterranean world constructs and thus literary conventions. Being unaware of this particular construct/convention, they omit the definite articles for sake of fluidity, which is not uncommon in Gr to English translations. In this case, however, their lack of awareness assisted in leading their readers into confusion as to what Paul was attempting to convey here, through their misinterpretation of this passage. I digress.

The impact of this and all the-one-and-the-many texts as they relate to Adam and Christ is that every single person, specifically, and thing in a macro-sense, that is represented by Adam is re-headed-up by way of representation in Christ, the second Adam. Here, in Romans, we discover that the "many" of the first man are the same as the "many" of the second Man, the difference being that where the first man brought death, condemnation, and judgment to "the many," which is "all"; the second Man brought an abundance of grace, righteousness, and justification of life to "the many," which is also "all." Hence the two are similar in that they are both representatives of "all men," but they are different in what they produced for that same group of "all men."

And so, we may conclude that this is not about some mysterious Adam-as-son-of-God doctrine. Rather it should stand as a model in our interpretation of Christ's incarnational atoning work. What are the implications, for example, of Christ's “justification” of all of humanity in our theological constructs?

I really must back out of here. Thanks for reading this lengthy post.

Blessings to all,

T

You should provide scripture references for some of you conclusions.

Christ's incarnational atoning work.

The word was made flesh, not Christ, not God, the word

John 1:14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The word was made flesh. that word that was made flesh was not God himself but the son, the only begotten of the Father

Your gifts need to be brushed up on.

When you brush up on simple logic and language, then people will take note of your gifts