"Seed"

It's Jewish midrash. Paul and the disciples actually use midrash quite a bit in the New Testament. There is an initial fulfillment pointing towards a fuller fulfillment. The Jewish concept of prophecy was multiple fulfillments.

Here's a fascinating read on the subject.

http://www.moriel.org/articles/sermons/midrash.htm

Hi Nasher,

Did you read Neil's post, after the Lord's revelation to him about the relationship of the covenants to one another? If not, this would be a good starting place.

Then read (please), the significance of the word 'virgin', in Genesis and Exodus, as expounded by Phil Goble in his introduction to the Orthodox Jewish Bible. This will play into your reading of Galatians and Romans 9 (at least).

When you open this link, the part you're looking for is on a rightside, in the middle, with Isa 7:14 being mentioned, specifically with respect to the importance of 'a sign'. By all means read the whole intro, but really you only need the two pages after Isa 7:14 on p vii, at http://www.afii.tv/.

With that in mind, Paul's reference to Isaac in Romans 9 assumes a significance which I would say has been lost to us completely. [Because of the many promised indicators of the Messiah down through history, which God had given by His word through His prophets, and re-iterated through some of the stories / parables told by Jesus, Jews who refused to believe that Messiah HAD COME, ought to have known God would not leave their generation unpunished (as Jesus also intimated).]

Remember there was no New Testament when the apostles were preaching. They proved who Christ was from the fulfilment of prophecy to which they could testify personally.

Lastly, there is a helpful study of Abraham in the first half of a sermon with an unlikely title 'Money and the New Move of God', by Esther Ibanga. She explains how influenced her doctrine used to be by a wrong focus on money, and that really 'the blessing of Abraham' was something else. You could probably stop listening when she gets to Galatians.

There is more to this, than simply understanding 'seed'.

I would also like to challenge the received nonsense in some people's thinking, that 'seed', in reference to Christ, is a reference to a male being born, or, to the 'male' portion of a fertilised ovum. There is not one of us alive, who has not come into being through also the seed of a woman. Furthermore, there is no truth in the notion that a child automatically takes its father's blood group. And lastly, it is the father's contribution which orders whether the child shall be a male or a female.

Thus, the promise to Eve, that HER 'seed' would ... etc, was not a scientific error on God's part. It is us who need to understand what He created, and what He meant. In the end, it was of Mary's (human) 'seed', from which the Messiah came forth.

Well for one, they had Jews amongst their midst. And on the other hand, they were being taught by the same Jewish former pharisee who heavily used midrash in his own writings and exegetical teachings. When you get through the article it will begin to make more sense.

Remember too, that they were also being heavily influenced by Jewish sources and falling into error by trying to over "Judah-ise" their faith as apparent in Galatians Chapter 3. Who do you think was trying to put them back under the Law? I think they probably had a pretty good idea of many Jewish ideas and methods of the time.

Remember, that when you read Paul's letters, you have to read them the same way you would a letter that you received. Simply as that, ONE letter. Not chapters and verses, but as a whole.

I would suggest reading Romans 11 over again a few times. It doesn't conflict with the article at all. It's speaking of the election of Israel, and the inclusion of gentiles being now available. And it can also be talking about Christ. Even further evidence for the validity of what the article is trying to present.

I would just say, read the whole article, investigate the Scriptures presented, do further research on the articles points if so desired, and then sit back and pour through the Scriptures to see if what has been stated actually lines up. And lastly don't be scared to view something the way a first century Jewish believer would have viewed it. Not the way protestant seminary has trained most westerners to accept the Bible.

Getting back to our Jewish Roots today is not a good teaching. It is a teaching that is becoming more and more prevalent in Evangelical Christianity, and it has no basis in Scripture.

The apostle Paul laid great emphasis on the fact that there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile among the believers in Jesus Christ. It is recorded in the book of Acts that the disciples of Jesus Christ, (without distinction to their background) were called Christians first at Antioch (Acts 11:26). However, many who now identify themselves as "Messianic" (often from Gentile backgrounds) are actually averse to being identified with the term Christian and many Jewish believers in Jesus insist on being called "Messianic Jews" rather than "Christians."

Many Christians have been stimulated and challenged by discovering more about the "Jewish roots" of the Christian faith. There are many so-called Messianic ministries which strive to enhance the understanding of the faith through teaching about the customs and traditions of the Jewish people and the ancient Jewish festivals which were a central part of the old covenant assembly of worshippers. There is, however, a vast difference between keeping or observing the feasts and teaching about the significance of the feasts in how they foreshadowed the redemption in Christ.

To read the rest of this excellent article from a Messianic Jew, please go here. This brother, Peter Cohen, I believe, sees it correctly.

https://www.givengain.com/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&news_id=74309&cause_id=1507

Also, this is a MUST READ, if you are going to be able to answer those today that are trying to get the Church to "go back to their Jewish Roots". Also, bookmark Peter Cohen's site. This is a Messianic Jew that has many scriptural articles on the Law, Feasts, Midrash, etc.

ANSWER TO JACOB PRASCH'S REBUTTAL OF MIDRASH: THE CAMEL'S NOSE
http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Articles_D/CorrespondencewithJacobPraschMidrash.htm

Look at the "SEED" as the Holy Seed of God." The Crown of Creation is God's Proclamation or Promise [ to Himself and all Creation] that a Holy people would inherit Himself, and His attributes; ETERNAL LIFE...[ and the absolute eradication of DEATH...]

There was a company before Abraham, Israel after, and those joined to Israel, and then the Church. All begins and ends with God, and remember that Christ Jesus is and always was Jahweh the SON; God as a man.

This very God-man appeared to confirm His promise to Abraham, His seed.

Hebrews 7
The King of Righteousness
1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,

2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”

3 WITHOUT father, WITHOUT mother, WITHOUT genealogy, having NEITHER beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the...... Son of God,...... remains a priest continually.[FOREVER]

{This is identifying Jesus and His eternal Stature.]

4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.
5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;

6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better.
8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.
9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak,
10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”[c]

18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is thebringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

[Greatness of the New Priest]

20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him:

“ The LORD has sworn
And will not relent,

‘ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek’

24 But He, because He continues FOREVER, has an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He [ Jesus] always lives to make intercession for them.[AT THE RIGHT HAND OF HIS FATHER]

This is the Primary connection to the promise of Abraham, His holy seed; JESUS; His own Father's [JAHWEH'S] holy seed, AND YET WHOLY GOD. He created the Seed, and is the SEED within Himself.

Very insightfull, meditative inquisition, NASHER.

Sorry, but that rebuttal was just not scholarly in the slightest. Instead of dealing with the historical and cultural points presented he just makes a sort of blanket statement like, " He denies that YOU, dear reader, can come to a COMPLETE understanding of ALL that God deeds to us through the Bible, if all you have in your possession is a KJV without notes (without Midrash, without Eidersheim, without Josephus). You be the judge." That may work in some circles, but not the ones who take historical Biblical critique seriously. It was obvious that some of the points that he was replying to (which he even sometimes admitted ignorance to) many times went strait over his head, yet he tried to refute them nonetheless.

And calling something "irrelevant verbiage" when it very well addresses the issue, makes the defender just look silly, since it's obviously not clicking with him.

I would suggest people go do their own research.

This has nothing to do with "going back to our Jewish roots" or the HRM or anything like that. It's trying to understand the Scriptures as they were written. By Jews, about a Jewish religion and a Jewish God.

This concept makes even more sense now that I live in a foreign country and culture. If I tried to understand Japanese culture with my American mindset, I'd not only be missing out on major points, but I could never be taken seriously if I tried to explain my stance. But we can all continue to pretend that Christianity is a White American and European Gospel and should be understood that way, since that seems to be the force that spread it the best, if we like.

this is a MUST READ, if you are going to be able to answer those today that are trying to get the Church to "go back to their Jewish Roots".

I want to comment on your statement here, because of the colossal amount of Hebrew in the paper I posted on baptism, just in case you think I'm 'trying to get the church to go to their Jewish Roots'.

There are a few things, really, which perhaps ought to be said. For instance, the person who wrote that paper is a missionary to orthodox Jews. That's his calling. So, like Paul, who was finally arrested by Jews when he was in the Temple keeping a vow he'd made, that missionary is keen to draw Jews in to 'Moshiach's Judaism' as he calls it, because it is the genuine continuation which God designed for Jews, when the Old Covenant was over.

For those who are not Jews, the keeping of any feasts or rituals may or may not seem relevant to them, but, how can it be a sin to do so, whatever their natural roots? What, say, a Gentile Christian marries a Jewish Christian who feels more comfortable celebrating Messiah in this way, does the Bible prohibit it? I don't think so, but there is always the possibility of losing sight of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, if ritual-keeping becomes the focus. However, Protestant Christians are just as guilty of keeping ritual rather than the spirit of the ritual, in their own forms of meeting, quickly developing traditions of their own.

We can all do with less religion and more life!

However, I take the point that Jews who believe in Messiah are Christians, and we are all one together in Christ. We have ALL become 'from above' if we have been born again, and there is a constant tension, despite Paul's explanation to the Galatians, for Jews who find it difficult to accept there may not be a 'below' for them, in Christ, just as there isn't a 'below' for non-Jewish Christians.

With regard to baptism as the apostles understood it, its Jewish origin is utterly relevant. Without it, non-Jewish Christians are in danger of making up their own religion, and this may account for the large number of church attenders who have not really decided to follow Jesus.

We need a bit more of Acts 5:13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.

I have been very refreshed by his articles. I don't know, I should check. I am not sure if he calls himself a Messianic Jew or not. It's ok by me if he does that to reach other Jews.

I have known many "Messianics" and the ones that are not into the HRM (Hebrew Roots Movement) have no problem being called a Christian. So, maybe like Paul they are just using the name to reach other Jews.

Thanks, bro.