The Covenant and A Federalist Europe under Germany & the book of Jude

Joseph F. Dumond

Isa 6:9-12 And He said, Go, and tell this people, You hear indeed, but do not understand; and seeing you see, but do not know. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn back, and be healed. Then I said, Lord, how long? And He answered, Until the cities are wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land laid waste, a desolation, and until Jehovah has moved men far away, and the desolation in the midst of the land is great.
Published: May 24, 2012

News Letter 5848-013
4th day of the 3rd month 5848 years after the creation of Adam
The 3rd Month in the Third year of the third Sabbatical Cycle
The Third Sabbatical Cycle of the 119th Jubilee Cycle
The Sabbatical Cycle of Earthquakes Famines, and Pestilences
This is also the end of the Ninth week of this the Third Tithe Year for the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow Deuteronomy 26:12
The 49th day of Counting the Omer

May 26, 2012

Shabbat Shalom Brethren,

If you’re thinking that you would like to see the land Of Israel then we have the tour to do it on. Please go to this URL and read the itinerary and then sign up.

Shavuot here in Ontario Canada.

Please join the Maranatha fellowship for the Feast of Weeks/Pentecost
May 26th and May 27th
At the Dornoch Retreat Centre Hwy #6 North of Durham
Celebrations begins 10:30 am each day
Each day will be filled with worship, fellowship, teachings, bible studies and lots of food! Contact the retreat centre for accommodations 519-794-2180.
Topics for the weekend:
The giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai and what that means for us today
What is the connection between the giving of the Torah and the giving of the Holy Spirit?
Purposefulness, Preparation, Presence, Power and the Product of Pentecost
The Church in the Book of Acts
Plus Much Much More !
Come for the day, or spend the weekend, everyone welcome
For more information contact John at 519-665-7433 or Contact Lorie for contributions to pot blessings at 519-794-3434

As expected last week’s News Letter titled ‘The Serpent Was More Subtle or Pentecostalism Orgasm’ brought out a number of responses. I am going to share them with you.

This title is near, if not blasphemous
Sent from my iPhone

Super teaching – the only way one might miss the message is one blind themselves to it. Shabbat Shalom.
In peace

Hi Joe,

Just did a quick skim through of you article and want you to know that there are those of us who keep Torah and have the Baptism of the Spirit with evidence of tongues. Your title made me cringe. This is a subject is so taboo and many with tongues are afraid to use because they will be told it is of Satan as my own husband told me about three and a half years ago.

Being near the time near Shavout, we have discussed this once again and my husband said to me, “you are the only person I know, that I knew before you had the Spirit and after, and I have seen a huge change for the better in your life” If you knew my life before, you would understand the significance of that statement.

By the way, three years later, I have not jumped one pew, giggled myself silly, had any convulsions or any trouble keeping the Feasts of the YHVH or His perfect commandments, that I as a woman- without a temple in Jerusalem can keep. I am forgiven, redeemed and know my YHVH.

It may be a rare thing that for you to hear that there are Torah keeping people, and people in Torah observant assemblies with BOTH the Spirit and the Truth working, in order and in Echad. Only His Spirit that this could be.

You ought to stop by for a Shabbat Service if you are ever near Lucedale, Mississippi.

Mclain, Mississippi

Brethren this seems to be one of the problems with this Spiritual business. Those of us whose lives are changed and know it can see the spirit working in us. I for one can attest to that. But when those who take it to another level of speaking in tongues, (not foreign languages that others can understand but the gibberish stuff that no one can understand which they call the language of angles) and falling on the floor having a self induced orgasm are the ones I am speaking out against. This is a false teaching that they are putting forward and will do so again this weekend.

It is not to be confused with those who are walking in this spirit walking out this way of life keeping the commandments even when no one is watching.

My Brother In Christ,

I have a question regarding your message. Reference to Pentecostalism. If you are referring to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, or speaking in tongues and prophesy, then there could be a question.

I believe that Peter and Paul followed the Torah, but yet, they received the Holy Spirit spoke with tongues upon receiving the Spirit. The same Spirit that Jesus stated He would send when He ascended into heaven.

The power of the Holy Spirit according to 1 Corinthians 12, admonishes 9 gifts of the Spirit. A Christian, even when they do not understand all the gifts cannot say that the gifts are not for the Church of Jesus Christ…..the true Church, Christ’s Bride.

I am aware that “False Teachers”, and “False Christ’s” will attempt to enter the church in the Last Days, and we are to watch that the flock does not get lead astray.

You will find where there is “Reality”, there will always be a counterfeit.

Blessings to you……I enjoy your emails, but I felt that as a Brother in Christ I needed to have some clarity regarding your usage of “Pentecostalism” invading the church. If a church is following only the Old Testament teaching, they are living according to the Law (Old Covenant), and not of the New Covenant or Grace. If by the Law, then they are to abide by the Law, but I prefer to live under Grace and the Cleansing Blood of Jesus Christ, that He gave for a remission of my sins.

From Face Book I have these comments.
Wasn’t that newsletter really really instructive? I thought it was one of the best ones ever by Joseph Dumond. There were some things in there too that made me think about our commandment study.
We must drop it all. All of it and begin to start over, reading the Torah and it alone until we get it right. We, those of us of the Lost Ten Tribes are so easily given to false and misleading teachings. It is the way we have been since the time of Rachel who took the idols from Laban. We want to have something to look at or hold to represent our god. This is what we did when we made the golden calves. This is what we do whenever we make something else our god and not Yehovah.

Counting the Omer

We now continue with the counting of the Omer. Sunday May 27th will be the 50th day of counting the Omer and it is Shavuot.

During each of these days Jewish tradition has developed around reading the psalms on certain days. I fnd this very beneficial. It is customary that following the counting of the omer, one recites Psalm 67, for according to tradition that psalm has forty nine words, corresponding to the days of the omer.

And as you do these readings and this counting, keep in mind what this also symbolizes. It is the counting of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years and where we are in that cycle. We are in the 17th year in 2012, which corresponds to the 17th day of counting the Omer.
Chag Ha-Shavuot (Feast of Weeks)
Feast of Shabua
Feast of Pentecost

Day 50 Praise ???? 150:1-6

Today is the 50th day of the counting from the day of the waving of the Omer on the morrow after the Sabbath. Today is the morrow of the seven Sabbath, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits.

??????? ?? ??????????? ????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ??????????. ???????? ???? ???????? ?????????? ????????????, ??? ????????????, ??? ?????????, ???? ??????????????.?

Psa 67:1 Elohim does favour us and bless us, Cause His face to shine upon us. Selah.
Psa 67:2 For Your way to be known on earth, Your deliverance among all nations.
Psa 67:3 Let the peoples praise You, O Elohim, Let all the peoples praise You.
Psa 67:4 Let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You judge the peoples uprightly, And lead the nations on earth. Selah.
Psa 67:5 Let the peoples praise You, O Elohim; Let all the peoples praise You.
Psa 67:6 The earth shall give her increase; Elohim, our own Elohim, blesses us!
Psa 67:7 Elohim blesses us! And all the ends of the earth fear Him!

Psa 150:1 Praise Yah! Praise ?l in His set-apart place; Praise Him in His mighty expanse!
Psa 150:2 Praise Him for His mighty acts; Praise Him according to His excellent greatness!
Psa 150:3 Praise Him with the blowing of the ram’s horn; Praise Him with the harp and lyre!
Psa 150:4 Praise Him with tambourine and dance; Praise Him with stringed instruments and flutes!
Psa 150:5 Praise Him with sounding cymbals; Praise Him with resounding cymbals!
Psa 150:6 Let all that have breath praise Yah. Praise Yah!

The following speech was sent to me and I want to share it with you all and hopefully you will share it with others too.

“Our Homeland”:
Speech Before the European Parliament By Gershon Mesika, Shomron Regional Council Head
Published: Sunday, May 20, 2012 8:46 PM

Heads of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Members of Parliament from European countries,

Distinguished guests,

The prophets of Israel predicted that before the Messiah comes there will be a time of confusion, when good is turned into evil and evil is turned into good.

We see this clearly today.

The Shomron, or Samaria, which I am honored to represent in this distinguished place, the European Parliament, is a region that is in the center of international attention, since it is a sizable part of the territory that is in dispute between the Jewish nation and its neighbors in the Middle East.

But this area, which for many in the world is nothing but “disputed land,” is a homeland for us, the place that characterizes and determines our national and religious identity, the scene of the great events described in the Book of Books, the Bible.

The Middle Eastern confrontation and the Islamic terror campaign against the citizens of Israel are attempts by reactionary forces to oppose the historic process of the Return to Zion: our return to our historic homeland after nearly 2,000 years, during which we were scattered all over the world – weak, humiliated, trampled, rejected, but strong in our spirit and faith.

During all those years, we did not cease for a moment to remain faithful to our homeland and to maintain a living, continuous, day-to-day connection with it. This bond was expressed in prayers and in the most important religious ceremonies, thanks to which it was only natural for us to realize the dream when opportunity came.

The connection also manifested itself in the continuous existence of Jewish settlement on the Land throughout the long years of exile. Jews always lived in the Land of Israel, throughout the years of Roman, Persian, Greek, Christian and Muslim occupation.

And indeed, even after 2,000 years of exile, the nations of the world recognized the Jewish people’s right to its homeland. In the course of the First World War and immediately after it, the victorious powers made a series of decisions that culminated in the historic decision in 1922 by the League of Nations, to establish a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.

It is interesting and important to look at the words used in the mandate that was given to Britain to implement this project.

“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country…”

The justification that the League of Nations gave as the grounds for establishing the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel was the historical connection between the nation and the Land. What caused this? It was the power of the Bible and the Jewish insistence on maintaining the connection to the Land of Israel.

In 1945, with the establishment of the United Nations after World War II, the organization’s founding charter included the recognition of the Jewish people’s legal rights to the Land of Israel as eternal ones that cannot be revoked without the consent of the Jewish people.

Article 80, known as the “Land of Israel article,” determines that “nothing in the Charter shall be construed . . . to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing international instruments.” In other words, the continued legal rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel are anchored in the binding UN Charter.

These include the rights of the Jewish people to Judea and Samaria, which the UN has no right to take away from it.

We hear the word “occupation” repeatedly. From whom, exactly, did the state of Israel take the land in order to occupy it?

After the establishment of the state of Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan conquered the area of Judea and Samaria. Except Britain and Pakistan, no one in the world recognized Jordanian ownership of these territories. This was an illegal occupation of the area that the occupying power called “the West Bank of the Jordan.”

This occupied territory served for years as a base for launching terror attacks, and for repeated firing on and shelling of Jewish population centers on the coastal plain, which is completely controlled by the Samaria mountains.

In 1967, the surrounding countries again tried to annihilate us. To realize what danger we were facing, one needs only to look through the newspapers from that time to see the threats of murder and destruction, the sickening cries – “We will throw the Jews into the sea,” “The men are for the sea and the women are for us” – and the Nazi caricatures, this time with Arabic captions.

But this time we won a decisive victory and took back our heartland.

Before Israel regained them, Judea and Samaria were under illegal Jordanian occupation. That was preceded by the British Mandate, which by definition was intended for transferring the Land to the Jews. The British were preceded by the Turks who gave up the land, along with the rest of their empire, in the 1923 Lausanne Accord.

They, in turn, were preceded by the Mamelukes, the Crusaders, the early Muslims, the Persians, the Byzantine Empire and the Romans.

Where are all these nations? They are in the museum. Who preceded them? The Jews. And now the Land is back in the hands of its original owners.

Throughout all the years of exile, no conqueror established a political capital in the Land of Israel. This land was never considered the homeland of any nation except the Jews, and Jerusalem is the most holy and central place for the Jewish people.

Distinguished guests,

The three large religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam, believe in the Bible. One of its central themes is the promise of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and their commandment to settle in it. No other nation in the world has a deed of ownership over its land as powerful as the one the Jews possess for their land – the Land of Israel.

The Nation of Israel implements, in the very establishment of the state of Israel, and especially in the acts of settlement and construction throughout Israel, the Divine promise and commandment, and the leaders of the world must stand beside the Nation of Israel and assist it in this.

Now that we have dealt with the central matter, our natural right to our homeland, let us devote a few words to security.

All of the western Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria or the Shomron, is a tiny strip of land. A glance at the map of the Middle East shows an Arab Muslim ocean that starts next to the Atlantic Ocean in the west and ends on the border with India. Inside this territory, Israel is so small that on maps, its name is usually written in the Mediterranean Sea.

Israel is a small David facing a large and menacing Goliath who threatens it with destruction every single day, and means it, and prepares for it.

Israeli control of the mountains prevents this. Handing over this territory to the enemy means suicide.

The Shomron is the cradle of the birth of the Jewish People. It is a vital strategic component for the existence of the state of Israel, which measures 70 kilometers in width from the sea to the Jordan River, of which 55 kilometers are in Shomron.

Some of the distinguished Members of Parliament here in this hall have visited us and can attest to the truth of what I am saying. Anyone who arrives in the Shomron can see with his own eyes the acute importance of the Shomron for the state of Israel, both as a cradle of the Israeli nation’s culture and roots, and as a protective buffer for the state of Israel.

The state of Israel, without the Shomron, is completely indefensible. Without Judea and Samaria, Israel is left with a narrow strip just 15 kilometers wide, in which most of the centers of population, commerce, finance and transportation are concentrated in the Tel Aviv area and controlled from above by the Shomron Mountains.

Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, and southern Israel is now under ceaseless bombardment. Handing over Judea and Samaria will create a similar and even worse situation in central Israel.

Those in Europe pressing for the establishment of a Palestinian state are actually advocating cutting out the heart of the Land, and creating an existential danger to the state of Israel.

If we go, terror will replace us.

Beside us in the Land of Israel live Arabs. In the Middle East, it has been proven that an Arab has no problem living under Jewish rule, but an opposite situation in which an Israeli populace will live in peace under Arab rule is impossible, of course. The reasons are clear to all thinking people.

This is also the sad fate of Christians, who are gradually disappearing all over the Middle East because of pressure from radical Muslims, while their numbers grow under Israeli rule.

The life of the Arab population in Judea and Samaria has also improved drastically under Israeli rule. Unlike them, the Arabs of Gaza who have gone back to living under Arab rule have become poor and unhappy.

Leading public figures from the Arab sector in Israel are seated here with us. They seek coexistence and help to create a better life for Jews and Arabs, side by side under Israeli control, in peace and security.

Unfortunately, the Oslo Accords imported into Israel thousands of terrorists and criminals from Tunisia and the Arab countries. This created a rotten and corrupt regime that violently steals the donations and aid money intended for the Arab population in Judea and Samaria, and that does all that it can to sabotage coexistence, and the ability of the two nations to live in peace and fraternity.

But like any country, Israel, too, has small extremist margins, tiny ultra-leftist organizations that have no real weight within Israel’s population. These organizations act to undermine our state’s legitimacy and attempt with all their might to incite the world against us with false accusations.

Unfortunately, these people receive large sums of money in support from European nations and from various institutions within the European Union.

In these times, as we all face a common terrorist enemy and attempts by extremist Muslims to achieve domination, it is strange that European governments see fit to pour funds into such radical hate organizations, which failed to gain influence democratically because of their small size and general insignificance.

Under the cover of nice words like “peace” and “human rights,” foreign countries fund numerous harmful and shameless groups that do everything to shrink Israel’s borders, rob it of its right to self defense, undermine its culture and thus strengthen the Islamic terror organizations.

It is odd that at a time in which some European countries are in a state of near collapse, and their stronger sisters have to dip deep into their pockets to save them, certain elements in Europe continue to spend billions of euro on this anti-Israel activity. There is no logical explanation for this behavior.

In my opinion, this is the immediate and practical conclusion we all need to reach in this honorable conference: take robust action to cut off the flow of funds to subversive groups within Israel, as well as within the Palestinian Authority. If these groups succeed in assisting our common enemies, Europe and the free world will be the next victims.

Our role is to hold on to our very existence. Israel is a forward outpost, both culturally and physically, of the free world, in the heart of an extremist Islamic ocean that is getting more and more radical and is threatening to flood Europe. The European interest is to strengthen this outpost as much as possible.

We have come back to our Land and we have no intention of leaving it.

Almost 700,000 Jews now live in the area liberated from Jordanian occupation in 1967. This is a number that cannot be reversed, and it is constantly growing, despite the political and diplomatic pressure.

Without Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria there can be no state of Israel. It will be deprived of its roots and of the most basic security.

The Nazi propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, used to say in his ugly and bestial manner, that if the Jews had a state they would sell it for money.

I, Gershon Mesika, son of Yosef and Gita, whose two older brothers were murdered by the damned Nazis in the Jado Concentration Camp in Libya, stand before you and hereby declare, for the world to hear, that the Jewish people now possess our own state, and not only are we not selling it – we are redeeming it again and again with our blood, and paying for the right to maintain it, safeguard it and settle in it.

The countries of Europe must understand that without the state of Israel, there is no one to stop the Muslim flood from washing over Europe, and without Judea and Samaria, the state of Israel cannot exist.

If the European Union supports the state of Israel and strengthens Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, it will be bringing peace and quiet upon itself.

I will conclude with the immortal words of King David in the Book of Psalms: “May G-d give courage to His nation; may G-d bless His nation with peace.” If we stand up for our rights with ferocity and strength, we will reach peace, too, by the grace of G-d. Thank you very much.

The writer is the head of the Samaria (Shomron) Regional Council.

And before we get this week’s Article I want to also share one more thing that came across my screen this past week. I urge you all to read the whole article.
By Niall Ferguson
“I think it’s worth considering that the architects of the monetary union knew all along that it would lead to a crisis and the crisis would lead to a federal solution. I’m not quite sure how far that was articulated, but I think it was implicit. In fact, you could say it was actually designed to create a crisis,” he says.

“They [the euro enthusiasts] have achieved what they wanted in that the level of financial integration has gone so far, it’s almost impossible to undo. And it was always meant to be undoable, which is why there never was an exit clause. You were never going to get federalism by any other means.”

If the current crisis does indeed see the creation of a federal state of Europe, where does that leave Britain? Would it want to be part of that new superstate? “The answer is clearly no,” Ferguson says.

Yet here are the historian’s headlines: the euro will survive; the European Union will become a federal state; and Britain could end up outside it. A reminder: without a new dollop of cash, Greece runs out of money in six weeks’ time.

Earlier this winter I ran an article by Dr. Dave Perry on the covenants.

Dr. Dave Perry has a very interesting few and some things worth discussing. I promised him I would run his second article but have not been able to until this weekend of Shavuot. How appropriate.

The Promise Covenant and Error

To be like the ‘Bereans’ (Acts 17:11);You will need your Bible as I will not be reprinting what you need to look up anyway.
The Brit-ha-Dasha (New Testament) speaks of the ‘spirit of truth’ and the ‘spirit of error’ (1Jn.4:6). 1Jn.4:1 directs us to ‘test the spirits’ to know if they are of Yah (Ps.68:4). Whether realized or not; this directive to ‘test’ includes testing what is authentically the Set Apart (Holy) Spirit. How many have heard different ones say ‘God told me’ or ‘the Spirit impressed upon me’ this or that? The only way we can know if this is ‘truth’ or ‘error’ (or worse; contains error) is that this spirit impressed ‘word’ does not violate in any way the actual written ‘Word’ – specifically the Torah ‘instruction’ of Yah.

The Bible reveals that ha-Satan is the ‘father of lies’ (Jn.8:44). An error is an inaccurate, partial or half truth that has been mixed with an ‘untruth’ i.e. a lie. The best way to foist a lie and have it be believed is to mix it with ‘truth’. A tangent to this is a ‘truism’ being part of the truth but not the whole truth. A ‘truism’ can have no other result than to open the door to inaccurate ‘error’. Ultimately error will never reveal itself as Truth or grow into Truth, it will either stay covertly static (as it is) or it will be revealed as untrue.

We that have come to faith in the Bible have to come to terms with the fact that Satan is at work in both the Jewish Assembly, the Messianic Assembly and the Christian Church alike (2Cor.11:15). With some pastors honest enough to reveal that; ‘Satan does his best job from the pulpit’.

The area of ‘covenant’ is my passion; both the Messianic Assembly and the Christian Church do not spend much time or go into much depth on the subject. The Jewish Assembly is convinced they are correct and always have looked at the situation correctly –
2Cor.3:11-13 (among others) reveals otherwise. I have studied ‘covenant’ for some 15 years; one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented areas among presenters that venture to teach on the topic is the Promise Covenant of Gen.15. This; in my humble opinion, has lead to many of the notions and misconceptions that are defended and in most cases have inoculated many against the truth of what these covenants actually reveal and the potential realizations that could be made.

I realize it is possible, but in most cases; in the majority of times when was the last time you ever heard in either the Messianic Assembly or the Christian Church about the ‘Book of the Covenant’? I have actually had studied credentialed Church pastors ask directly and in various ways; “is that even in the Bible”? The ‘Book of the Covenant’ identified is from Ex.19:5 to Ex.24:8; that will be more significant later. The ‘Book of the Covenant’ and the ‘Promise Covenant’ are directly and inextricably tied together.

The ‘Book of the Covenant’ and the ‘Promise Covenant’ are part of a class of a distinct grouping of covenants identified as “the covenants of promise” at Eph.2:12; that specifically include 3 others (to learn more go to ).

The honest must consider all the biblical evidence; empirical, direct, peripheral, implied, objective, historic, textual and circumstantial. We must realize that there is target evidence and general evidence that must intersect the ‘bullseye’ of that same target.

If this is ignored; you who were once an honest seeker, will no longer be honest or seeking. For you have decided ‘your truth’, not being swayed by the details of actual truth. Biblically the majority have and will tend to continue to fit in this category (Prv.14:15; 18:15, Mat.7:13-14; 1Cor.10:12/2Cor.10:12).

The Promise Covenant of Gen.15 invariably among Jews, Messianics and even Christians is thought to be; therefore taught as, the unconditional covenant thus everlasting. This flatly is not so; despite the fact it has been reinforced continually without much variance for literally centuries to the point of being the uncontested axiom of foundational truth. This has lead to many inaccuracies and misconceptions concerning physical circumcision, salvation mode (other than Jn.14:6), understanding of ‘the’ law, understanding of covenant class, word definition plays such as rendering ‘new’ of the New Covenant as meaning re-New-ed; to actually mean (wink wink) ‘exactly the same’ and even misconceptions concerning the crucifixion of Yeshua to name but a few.
Hands-down; The intent of all biblical covenants is to attest to and insure an enduring agreement; thus an everlasting intent.

Since we are dealing with the Promise Covenant of Gen.15; we must deal with the event and the evidence of Gen.15. Yahweh’s intent for the Gen.15 covenant was to be for all time and beyond – so much so that the real guarantee for Gen.15 (and all covenants of promise) is Yahweh’s ‘oath’ at Gen.12. Gen.12 is the ‘wrap around’ covenant if you will. Explained; my use of ‘wrap around’ comes from a little known real estate maneuver that takes a new money loan (usually of a higher interest rate) and ‘wraps it around’ a pre-existing (more desirable) lower interest loan.

Gen.12 is the true (pre-existing) ‘unconditional covenant’. Paul identifies the same at Heb.6:13 – Yahweh swears to Himself by Himself for there was “no greater” – AND – (what most miss) there was no ‘death position’ i.e. no ‘death penalty’ at Gen.12. We also have to understand that the only covenant that can not be broken is one that ‘we’ (as fallible human beings) are not party to (Heb.8:8 ‘for finding fault with them …’). {Search – Blood Covenant Death Position/Penalty on-line for thousands of entries.}
This is the pivot point of this ‘error drama’. We must understand that a covenant is a formalized agreement. Therefore the ‘oath’ of Gen.12 is an autonomous (self) agreement Yahweh made to Himself. In other words, the Gen.12 ‘oath’ is a covenant. Yahweh oathed (agreed / covenanted) to Himself ‘to’ bless Abraham AND his descendants; BEFORE Yahweh ever entered into covenant ‘with’ Abraham AND his descendants at Gen.15. Those that teach on Gen.15 usually teach the error that Abraham had nothing to do with the covenant because he was put to sleep – !Presto! ; unconditional covenant – WRONG!

First of all at Gen.15:6 the uncircumcised Abram believed ‘God’ and it was counted to him as righteousness (Rom.4:3); right?
But at Gen.15:8 it’s as if this same Abram said ‘I believe but could you sign on the dotted line’? So – Yahweh is insuring His promises (His Gen.12 ‘oath’ already made) to Abram (by the Gen.15 covenant) at the yet uncircumcised Abram’s request (this is HIGHLY significant). Secondly at Gen.15:9-10 Abram cut the animals in half – How could anyone possibly do that with out being covered in blood; the same blood that ratifies this so-called unconditional covenant? The birds are left whole – there is a huge reason for that to be explained later. Then at Gen.15:11 Abraham is tending this same pending covenant procedure scene. Sounds pretty involved in a dedicated way to me! Then at Gen.15:12 the same uncircumcised Abram was put to ‘sleep’.

Paramount to superficial reasoning; the whole ‘unconditional covenant’ argument hinges on ‘sleep’ (‘deep sleep’ in some Bibles) from the Hebrew only meaning ‘sleep’ as in incoherently incapacitated i.e. conscientiously not there. The Hebrew can mean lethargy or to put into a trance like state. In this case cannot mean ‘sleep’ as we know it, for Gen.15:13 shows Yahweh speaking to Abram. We know that ‘Yah’ is not the ‘author of confusion’ (1Cor.14:33); there is no point to speak and demonstrate where there is no visual or audible conscious perception (Jn.8:56).

Much more substantial than the ‘sleep’ issue is the awareness of Gen.15:17. We usually hear that ‘God walked through the pieces’; but what do the ‘smoking furnace and the lighted lamp’ represent? We have all heard that ‘our “God” is a consuming fire’ and we all know that Yeshua is the ‘light of the world’. There has to be at least two parties to make this type of covenant. The covenant at Gen.15 is a two party agreement evidenced by the word ‘and’ at Gen.15:17 (‘with’; in some Bibles). Yahweh the Father (the smoking furnace) is the party of the first part; the pre-incarnate Yeshua (Jn.8:56) is standing in for (in the place of / substitute for) Abram as the party of the second part – (still un-circumcised; name not yet changed to Abr’ah’am) AND his descendants (collectively v:18).

That means that Yeshua as Abraham’s proxy (stand in / substitute) was taking on Himself the ‘death penalty’ for Abraham AND his descendants if they (the said same) ever broke this Gen.15 covenant. Jer.31:32 is the empirical proof that they (the descendants) did ‘break’ this covenant. If you fast forward that to the cross, you can see that Yeshua was scourged and beaten beyond recognition basically resembling those halved animals at Gen.15, the exact ‘death penalty’ for breaking the Gen.15 covenant.

So – what does that tell you? What does the crucifixion of Yeshua evidence? There was a lot of ways to die that no bones would be broken (Ps.34:20); drowned, buried alive, heart-attack, lighting, asphyxiation, herbs, poison, etc. (or shed blood for that matter). What does that tell you about the Gen.15 covenant? The point is; would you die; in that way – by beating and crucifixion; basically resembling those halved animals if the covenant that demanded that kind of death had not been broken? No? Neither would Yeshua (Mat.26:39). The Gen.15 point (understanding as the ancients would) is that there would be no reason to put any of the covenant participants to death unless that covenant had been in fact broken – as in nullified i.e. null and void! This too was Grace!
We must realize that many things intersected at the cross; Yeshua’s one death simultaneously satisfied several scripturally prophetic issues. Yeshua died the death of the ‘adulterous bride’; He died the death of the ‘rebellious son’; He died the death for the ‘sins of the whole world’ and He died the death for the breaking of the Gen.15 covenant. But most importantly; He died as the spotless lamb of YHWH; His (Yeshua’s) Blood shed (by scourging and crucifixion) blood ratifying the ‘New Covenant’ (Mt.26:24, Mk.14:26, Lk.22:20 – Jer.31:31-33/Heb.8:8-10; 9:12). **{Awareness – Gen.15:17 also presents a real problem for the ‘oneness’ proponents.}**

So – logically the intelligent question is; how did Abraham’s descendants break the so-called unbreakable-unconditional Gen.15 covenant? Jer.31:32 holds the clue; v:31 says ‘I will make a New Covenant’, v:32 goes on to say ‘not like I made with your fathers’ who I took out of “Egypt” even though my covenant ‘they brake’. The only blood-ratified covenant that these ‘fathers’ were physically party to was the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (Ex.19:5-24:8). The ‘Book of the Covenant’ was the “inheritance” ‘answer’ (Gal.3:17-18) to the Gen.15 ‘promise’. They (the ‘fathers’ ) did ‘brake’ the “inheritance” covenant (‘answer’) in less than 40 days (Ex.32). Which may explain why these same ‘fathers’ never again circumcised their children (the much hailed covenant ‘entrance’ sign) for the next 40 years (Jos.5:5); raising a whole new set of speculations, questions and issues (Heb.7:11-13).

Gal.3:17 frames the situation in that the ‘Book of the Covenant’ “inheritance” (v:18) ‘answer’ was “430 years” (over 4 centuries) removed from the Gen.15 ‘promise’. You cannot break the 430 year removed ‘answer’ without breaking the ‘promise’ itself as well. In other words; you break the answer – you break the promise. Breaking the Gen.15 ‘promise’ had consequences – a death penalty – that Yeshua (as the Gen.15 ‘lighted lamp’) took in our place (as descendants of Abraham – Rom.4:16). Hence; Yeshua’s crucifixion all by itself is the slam-dunk proof that; 1] the Gen.15 promise covenant was in fact a two party covenant 2] that was broken (as in null and void) 3] requiring the death penalty ‘condition’ attached to the Gen.15 covenant to be carried out i.e. enacted – Hence the ‘Crucifixion’. Therefore the Gen.15 ‘promise’ as Abram’s insurance (critical awareness) is a ‘conditional’ covenant.

All is not lost; YHWH has a plan – is still working that plan – is still blessing Abraham and his descendants (us) – because of His ‘oath’ at Gen.12 not because of Gen.15. You say HUH? Look again, all the promises of Gen.12 are restated at Gen.15, that means that the promises still stand in their original Gen.12 position. So; what’s the difference? The main difference is that the Gen.15 covenant had the death position; secondly it gave Yeshua the covenant legal right and standing to die in our place – the Gen.12 oath did not. Hence the Gen.15 covenant was engineered to be broken for a purpose – Yahweh’s plan of salvation purpose. Yahweh foreknew that it would be broken. Yahweh Himself declared it broken at Jer.31:32. Knowing exactly what it would cost Him (that is grace). The only covenant we cannot break is the one we are not party to. The only covenant YHWH is obligated to keep is one that has never been broken (Jer.31:32). We cannot break Yahweh’s oath to Himself; neither will Yahweh break Yahweh’s oath to Himself.

Ps.89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips (Gen.12).
We must be willing to see what Psalms 89:34 does not say; this does not say ‘our’, it says ‘my’. Yahweh does not mince or waste words. The Sovereign of All understands the conceptual difference between what is ‘my’, what is ‘your’ and what is ‘our’; – go figure. This puts such verses that say ‘your new moons; your feasts (which have been profaned making it ‘your’) my soul hates’ in a very different light. The Gen.12 ‘oath’ is a single party “My Covenant” (Heb.6:13); Gen.15 is a two party ‘our covenant’ evidenced in many ways. Some we have already dealt with; the rest will be exampled in the continuing.

When a covenant (including ‘blood ratified’) was made it included the exchange of some few items – mostly personal effects; in the case of Gen.15 it included the exchange of name – Abram became Abr’ah’am equal (in a family covenanted sense) to Y’ah’; it included the exchange of scars – circumcision will definitely leave a mark; so will crucifixion – it included the exchange of the First Born; Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac (his only covenant heir and 1st born) – Yahweh did sacrifice Yeshua (His only begotten and 1st born) – Interestingly Yahweh calls the nation of Israel (Abraham’s descendants) ‘My First Born’ (Ex.4:22, Jer.31:9). Further; Yeshua – YHWH’s only begotten came to us through the Israelite tribe of Judah thus being Abraham’s progeny (offspring) also (Abraham’s 1st Born {by covenant} in the sense of pre-eminance not sequence).

The conditional ‘our covenant’ scene depicted at Gen.15 is that the halved animals are placed in such a way that the forequarters are placed on one side; aligned with the hindquarters placed on the other, leaving an aisle-way in between. This walkway is extremely significant and has to be understood in the way that the ancients would have understood it. In the way that two men of that time making this type of a blood covenant with each other would have done and understood. Walking down this aisle-way (or some assert in a figure 8 pattern) signified two things; 1] agreement to keep the covenant being made. 2] on the pain of death if either party ever broke that covenant – in other words this type of blood ratified covenant had a provision; a ‘death position’, a ‘death penalty’, a ‘condition’ for the non-performance (i.e. breaking) of covenant.

Yahweh; sovereign of the universe could have chosen any thing, mode or conveyance – therefore is responsible like no other; chose this situation – this type of covenanting procedure as His covenant vehicle; to be preserved in recorded history for all time and beyond. Now; ask yourself – Self; why would an unconditional covenant have a contingent condition to insure that this covenant was never broken? If it (the covenant at Gen.15) in fact could never be broken? Yahweh wastes nothing – He had a reason and a plan.

Nothing caught Him by surprise. You will not find a contingent condition attached to Gen.12; thus Yahweh’s Gen.12 ‘oath’ is ‘unconditional’, guaranteed by Yahweh; and in a very real (albeit augmented) sense – Satan also; who’s main goal is to thwart Yahweh – subvert His plan which includes showing Him (YHWH) as a liar violating His own Word (Ps.51:4) in any way or sense possible.

It is of more than passing interest to realize that we have had evidence of the conditional nature of Gen.15 all down through our lives for centuries. Who has not heard children say “cross my heart and hope to die”? The crossing of the heart evidences the dividing of flesh; the ‘hope to die’ part directly evidences a ‘death penalty’! This is the exact picture, to the letter of Gen.15 and is the only place in the Bible where this situation (of Yah blood-covenanting with a man) can be found.

It is of supreme interest to realize that Father ‘God’ Yahweh had also gone through those pieces, laterally accepting that same ‘death position’. Yeshua had accepted the ‘death position’ for Abraham and his Descendants. At the beginning of Yeshua’s ministry, John the ‘immerser’ (baptist) made this most revealing statement – “behold the Lamb ‘of’ Yah …” (John 1:29). When you realize the gravity of this situation it be comes paramount. Yahweh also accepted the same death position for the non-performance of covenant – the Gen.15 covenant had been broken (by the descendants) and no longer was valid to perform. But Yahweh had promised Abraham not only at Gen.12 but at Gen.15 also. Yahweh could no longer perform the Gen.15 guarantee He had promised to Abraham at Abraham’s request. He could no longer make good because of the promise physically made – guaranteed by covenant ‘with’ Abraham at Gen.15 alone. Yahweh had also accepted the Gen.15 death penalty, that logically means that Father God Yahweh was on the hook to die. Even though Yeshua had stood in Abraham descendant’s place; Yeshua was also Yahweh’s kin; we were also made kin through this same covenant. Yeshua had the legal right to die for all parties – because of the covenant; and the law of the ‘kinsmen redeemer’ (Lev.25:25; 49). That means that Yeshua (also part of the ‘Yah-head’ for lack of a better term) was as much the Lamb ‘for’ YHWH as He was the Lamb ‘of’ YHWH (a HUGE Passover awareness). We receive the covenant blessing of Yeshua’s sacrifice because we were (through Abraham) party to that same Gen.15 covenant; Father Yahweh was also party to that same Gen.15 covenant.

So – here it is again ‘the death position’ of Gen.15 a ‘condition’ that Yeshua accepted as Abraham’s proxy; it was not for Yahweh’s benefit but for ours. Again – all the promises of Gen.12 are restated in Gen.15, that means that the promises still stand in their original Gen.12 position. So; what’s the difference? The Gen.15 covenant was the ‘guarantee’ requested by Abraham (Gen.15:8) granted by Yahweh; it contained the death position (prescribed and agreed to by Yahweh), the Gen.12 oath did not. Yahweh is a stickler for detail – plainly the ‘guarantee’ could no longer be ‘guaranteed’ via the Gen.15 covenant made ‘with’ Abraham at his request.

That does not preclude that Abraham and his descendants do continue to be blessed via the ‘unconditional’ Gen.12 ‘oath’ – a ‘vowed’ covenant blessing ‘to’ Abraham (not ‘with’ Abraham).

As stated; Yahweh is a stickler for detail. We cannot intelligently ignore Yahweh’s attention to detail. As you will remember; Abraham cut the animals in half ; but the birds he left whole (Gen.15:10) – there is a huge reason for that. There was many prophesies concerning Yeshua’s crucifixion; they all had to be fulfilled to the letter. One in particular was that no bones would be ‘broken’ (Ps.34:20) as stated Yeshua also had to die resembling the animals of the Gen.15 covenant. It is self apparent that you cannot cut an animal in half without severing bones. That means that if the birds had not been left ‘whole’, then Yeshua along with dying for our sins in respect to all these other considerations would have had to also have been cut in half. We must be aware that there were options; granted, they were not good options – it still resulted in death; but there were options nonetheless.

For the Jews (generally) and the Messianic that teach the Jews still have a valid Sinai covenant (and with it a valid Gen.15 ‘Abrahamic’ covenant); some key factors have to be either ignored, constantly over looked or explained away; at least in favor of the protected belief. Certainly everything I have presented thus far must be scrapped, to continue to believe what has always been believed. That basically is the notion asserted by proponents that ‘new’ (from ‘chadash’ 2318 & 2319) of the ‘new covenant’ or ‘Brit-ha-Dasha’ (from Jer.31:31-33) means only ‘re-New-ed’ as in ‘the same’. The problem is that can mean by definition both ‘new’ and ‘re-New-ed’. To accept to only mean ‘re-New-ed’ (i.e. the same) necessarily requires that proponents of this notion ignore the verbiage (“not like”) within the very ‘proof-text’ (Jer.31:31-33) sighted.

2Cor.3:11-13 showcases the problem; v:11 speaks of ‘remains’; we intelligently know that ‘remain’ cannot be ‘remain’ unless it was established before. Laterally there is no point to use ‘remain’ as an informational awareness unless something did not ‘remain’.
They are both valid; this is not an ‘either – or’ situation as in Greek ‘Step Logic’; it is a ‘both – and’ situation that is common in Hebrew ‘Block Logic’. Further; for ‘remain’ to make sense there had to also have been casualties – things that did not ‘remain’. This point is punctuated at v:13 in the word ‘abolished’. Now the problem is laid bare; if we say ‘re-New-ed’ as in ‘the same’, we are ignoring ‘new’ as in “not like” (some Bibles say ‘not according to’ – Jer.31:32). If we say conversely only ‘new’ (as in brand new) we are ignoring ‘re-New-ed’ in the verbiage ‘My Torah’ (law – Jer.31:33, Gen.26:5) as in the same i.e. unchanged.

For those that will pounce on my use of “same i.e. unchanged”; my usage would be inclusive of all Torah (as in ‘instruction’) inclusive of all pivot points and evidence of pending future “till Shiloh come”/“Messianic” transition i.e. ‘reformation’ (Gen.49:10); “change” (Heb.7:11-13; 9:10) that have always been there (2Cor.3:13) in the accounts of Torah.

We must guard against the cafeteria mind-set of pick and choose; an enee-menee-minee-moe; I like this verse but this one’s gotta go, mentality. It’s cousin is no better; tic tac toe, I accept Yeshua, but Paul’s a lying anti-law so and so (read Jn.16:12/Gal.1:11- 12; Heb.5:12-13). Plainly; It is the ignoring, diminishing or out-right denial of “Messianic reformation” (Heb.9:10) that identically tracks the Torah pronouncement account of Jacob/Israel (Gen.49:10) that facilitates the acceptance of the notion that there remains a valid covenant (involving both the Gen.15 Abraham, Gen.17 circumcision and Ex.19 Book of the Covenant) for ‘the Jews’ (more correctly – the House of Judah), laterally being valid along side the New Covenant for non-Jews.

This two buses out of town notion flies in the face of Yeshua being the ‘only’ way (Jn.14:6). With some few actually coming from the Christian Church, finding the Hebrew roots of the Christian faith – becoming enamored with all the trappings and literature of either Rabbinic Orthodox, Conservative or Reform Judaism (usually through Messianic Judaism); in some (dare I say most) cases these ‘few’ go on to take the vow of Judaism turning their back on Yeshua and the New Testament in favor of this ‘other way’.
‘Messianic Reformation’ is not solely a New Testament concept; Jacob (Israel) referenced it’s validity at Gen.49:10 (during the pronouncements on the 12 sons) in the words, “till Shiloh come” – ‘Shiloh’ by Hebrew definition is “an epithet of Messiah” clearly referencing a ‘pivot point’ i.e. a pending change, the apex of many changes (Col.2:14; Eph.2:15-16; Heb.7:11-13; 2Cor.3:11-13, etc.); that have always been evidenced in the Torah recorded by the hand of Moses at the mouth of Yahweh (Acts 15:19-21).

All sides of this issue have an inherent problem. For the Jews and Messianics that resist anything akin to new or change; saying ‘there is no change’ must square with all the Old and New Testament verses to the opposite. For the Christians that say ‘it all changed’; they again must square with all the Old and New Testament verses to the opposite. Basically one group wants it all; the other group doesn’t want it at all; but Paul lead by Yeshua (Gal.1:11-12) identifies a mid position that includes awareness concerning proper understanding of the Melchizedek and Levitical Priesthoods, various Covenants and various Laws that can be proven by accounts and texts of Torah. What is crystal clear and self apparent is that the Rabbi Sha`ul (alias the Apostle Paul) would’ve never gotten that knowledge from Rabbi School. He had to come across it as he said; at Gal.1:11-12 at the mouth of Yeshua (Jn.16:12). It is also as clear that none of the other writing Apostles (Mat., Mark, [Luke], John, Peter) gave the Torah Covenant evidence that Paul did.

**In more than just a few cases; especially when it comes to the errors of Covenant and Law – Paul is an equal opportunity offender**

So; Lets recap and let me clearly capsulize what is consistent concerning the Covenant and its ‘Death Position’ of Gen.15 and what it afforded the ‘Yah-head’ and ‘Us’ as Abraham’s descendants through the uncircumcised Abram. It afforded the legal right for;

1] YHWH to guarantee His Gen.12 promise already made ‘oath’ to the uncircumcised Abram
2] YHWH to family with the uncircumcised Abram
3] YHWH to family with the uncircumcised Abram’s descendants – (us)
4] YHWH to exchange names with the uncircumcised Abram
5] YHWH to exchange the ‘Firstborn’ with the uncircumcised Abram
6] YHWH to change the uncircumcised Abram’s name to Abr’ah’am
7] YHWH to command the yet uncircumcised Abraham to circumcise
8] YHWH to require Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Abraham’s Covenant Heir and Firstborn)
9] YHWH to rescue ‘Isaac’ and “provide himself a lamb” ( a multi layered significance Gen.22:8)
10] YHWH to ‘instruct’ Abraham (Gen.18:19) to ‘instruct’ his (now YHWH’s) descendants
11] Father ‘God’ YHWH (as the ‘burning furnace’) to legally have to die (a maneuver)
(only for His ‘guarantee’ to Abram at Abram’s request being broken [Jer.31:32])
12] Yeshua (as the ‘lighted lamp’) to poxy for Abraham and his descendants [us] (a maneuver)
13] Yeshua to legally have to die if the Gen.15 covenant was ever broken [Jer.31:32] (a maneuver)
14] Yeshua to legally die in the place of Abraham and his descendants [us] (a maneuver)
15] Yeshua to legally die in the place of (‘for’)YHWH as his next of kin ‘goel’ redeemer (a maneuver)
16] Yeshua to legally die for ‘us’ (as covenant family) as our ‘goel’ kinsmen redeemer also (a maneuver)
(‘goel’ kinsmen redeemer {Lev.25:49}Hence – “the lamb ‘of’ Yahweh”; see #9)
17] Yeshua to resemble the ‘halved animals’ at Gen.15
18] Yeshua not to be cut in half (whole dove & pigeon – Gen.15:9-10)
19] Yeshua to be the ‘once for all’, ‘all in all’ sacrifice (Heb.10:10; 1Cor.15:28; Eph.1:23, etc.)

That ‘legal right’ to die (an orchestrated maneuver) could have not happened without the ‘breaking’ of the Gen.15 covenant that required a death for the legal breaking of covenant. Therefore Gen.15 is a conditional covenant. The proof has always been there.
What is so amazing is that 20] Yahweh had the legal right to declare the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (i.e. the answer ‘Inheritance’ [Gal.3:17-18] Covenant) ‘broken’; knowing exactly what that meant (laterally breaking the Gen.15 Promise Covenant). Knowing it would cost Him Personally; in the death of His ‘only begotten’ hence ‘firstborn’ Son – Yeshua. When YHWH declared the answer covenant ‘broken’ (Jer.31:32); that put the required Gen.15 promise covenant ‘death penalty’ into motion – it had been freely and legally ‘in covenant’ accepted by YHWH and Yeshua – it had to be legally carried out, legally executed and legally fulfilled.

It was involved; it was complex – having to legally orchestrate and provide for all contingencies and considerations down through the centuries would be. It was part of the eternal salvation plan from the beginning (even before Jn.1:1). Only an eternal YHWH could have known enough and seen enough down through the annals of time to do such a thing from the beginning. We must realize that this ‘maneuver’ also had to ‘fool’ Satan (that knows more scripture than you or I); in that Satan would not have known fully what he was looking at, what to expect or how to respond. He (Satan) would never have allowed the crucifixion if he had.

YHWH was very shrewd, Satan knew what blood covenanting meant. Satan’s whole thing is to kill and destroy. A blood covenant in many cases meant that the offender’s whole family would be killed (please feel free to research this at the library or online).
But YHWH (Yeshua’s father) went through the same covenant aisle way; meaning HE (YHWH) had legally accepted the same covenant death giving Him (YHWH) the legal right to legally send a next-of-kin family member (in this case Yeshua His own Son) as His (YHWH’s) go`el kinsmen redeemer. If Yahweh had not indentured Himself to that same covenant with the same covenant death position, He (YHWH) would have had no legal covenant right (pursuant to that particular covenant) to send Yeshua as His go`el to die in His place for a covenant He (YHWH) would then not legally be participant party to. For then YHWH; a member of Yeshua’s immediate family (just as members of other participant’s family of other blood covenants of that time) could be put to death without a legal remedy; without a legal recourse. (Only those involved could do the killing; Satan not having that right committed murder.)

This is a huge awareness; YHWH and Yeshua both remain blameless. YHWH and Yeshua had to die (pursuant to the Gen.15 covenant) for different reasons. Yeshua stood in as Abram’s proxy (substitute) this included Abraham’s descendants. The descendant’s did break the covenant answer which also broke the covenant promise. In other words Abraham’s descendants did brake the covenant; Yeshua accepting that position had to die. Yahweh also had to die because of the Gen.15 covenant being his insurance to Abr’ah’am at Abraham’s request was no longer valid because Abraham’s descendants did brake the covenant.

Same ‘brake’ causing different reasons. This different reason gave YHWH the legal standing and right to send His goel (Yeshua) in His (YHWH’s) place.

Yeshua then had the singularly unique covenant standing and position (albeit dubious) to die for all parties concerned.
He (Satan) thought he had YHWH and Yeshua in a no win situation – he did not. Satan thought he would be rid of them and take over – but once he (Satan) had committed he had no legal complaint. It was not a take away; it was the plan. It had to work just that one way – that is the main reason why Yeshua could say that He (alone) was the ‘only’ way (Jn.14:6). That is the very reason why ‘this cup’ could not pass from Yeshua; for there was no other way (Mat.26:39; 42). YHWH wants desperately to extend salvation to all – YHWH is Love; YHWH is also the supreme Law giver and the supreme Law keeper. So; He has to extend all that is salvation in a legal way. A way that will not violate either; His Love, His Justice, His Mercy, His Law and/or His Covenant or His ‘Oath’.

Conclusion – The ‘death penalty’ of Gen.15 is an integral part of YHWH’s plan of salvation. It renders the ‘promise covenant’ of Gen.15 a ‘conditional’ covenant. That ‘condition’ (i.e. the death position) had to be executed and is the key component that cements many other components and issues together as covenantally and legally viable.

Ps.51:4 ‘ … that you may be found righteous when you speak and blameless when you judge.’
Realization – The Gen.15 ‘Promise’ was laterally broken by the breaking of the ‘Book of the Covenant’ (Ex.19:5 – 24:8) ‘Answer’ (‘inheritance’ – Gal.3:17-18/Jer.31:32). Circumcision of Gen.17 was the subsequent (post Gen.15) entrance ‘sign’ to enter these same covenants (Gen.15 The ‘Promise’ & Ex.19:5–24:8 The ‘Answer’). Once YHWH declared them ‘broken’ (through the “inheritance” – Gal.3:18; ‘answer’ – Jer.31:32) it rendered the circumcision entrance ‘sign’ null & void. That is Paul’s point at Rom.2:25. It also renders all other ‘Pauline’ verses concerning physical uncircumcision as valid. Answer for your self; what covenant was there left to circumcise into? These same two that YHWH Himself declared and evidences as broken?

You that have or will circumcise for conscience sake being convinced to do so; or those that did not have this information when that decision was made; (including those that will disregard all the evidence to the contrary and teach physical circumcision any way); I am not nor will I ever assume to level an accusation against you in the direction of your salvation. I would warn however; that neither do you have the right to elevate yourselves and/or level an accusation against those that do not share your belief; in the irection of their salvation or eligibility. YHWH is sovereign; you are not.

Medically physical circumcision is the healthiest for all concerned – male and female. That notwithstanding; physical circumcision is not (as in no longer) a New / re-Newed Covenant salvation issue (2Cor.3:11-13). Acts 15 showcases the situation. I do realize that it is only the honest that are willing to be as Acts 17:11 instructs. Still we cannot personally (or listen to those that) play a version of Bible tic tac toe; I like this verse but this one’s gotta go. We must realize that as in nature survival so it is in the Bible (2Pt.3:16) – there are 2 reason’s why people get and stay lost; 1] no remembered awareness (a boulder, meadow, steam or etc. crossed before), 2] disregarding those things that would indicate direction. (river flow, shadow cast, Sunrise, etc.)

Three things I have learned in my life – 1] Repetition will never make a lie a Truth; 2] Volume will never make a lie a Truth; 3] Ignoring the details of Truth will never make you honest.

These ‘details’ in Scripture are in your Bible for a reason.

Prv.25:2 “It is the glory of YHWH to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings to search out a matter.”

Gal.5:11 “ And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the cross ceased? :12 I would they were even cut off (apokopto – amputate/emasculate) which trouble you.”

The only circumcision that ‘remains’ (2Cor.3:11) is the one that really mattered – ‘circumcision of the heart’.
(Gen.15:6 – the physically uncircumcised Abram and all those physically uncircumcised ‘righteous’ before)
Hebraically; If you want to know the future look to the beginning.

Study diligently; I can’t exercise your senses for you – search your Bible and see if these things are so!
By – Dr. David L. Perry Th.D. © 3/2011


Triennial Torah Cycle

We continue this weekend with our regular Triennial Torah Reading

Num 3       Ezek 47-48        Job 1-2 3       John 1 & Jude


Numbers 3

Though God had chosen the family of Aaron to serve as the priesthood of Israel, He had also earlier mentioned that the firstborn of all the tribes of Israel were to be His—and therefore directly in His service, evidently to support the work of Aaron’s family in caring for the tabernacle and instructing the people in God’s ways. But the incident with the golden calf demonstrated the general unworthiness of the people as a whole. Yet at that time, the tribe of Levi, to which Moses and Aaron belonged, stood with Moses “on the Lord’s side” (Exodus 32:26). And this stand for God was apparently part of the reason that God determined to choose the entire tribe of Levi as His direct servants. They were to, in this sense, replace the firstborn (verses 11-13).

As we have already read, the tribe of Levi was to encamp around the tabernacle, take care of it and administer all the sacrifices and rites (Numbers 1:50-53). The Aaronic priesthood was a subset of the general Levitical priesthood—albeit the leading subset. Aaron and his sons were to be the priests, while the rest of the Levites were divided into family groups to serve in the physical areas, such as setting up and taking down the tabernacle and as ushers, porters, teachers, scribes, musicians, officers and judges, etc. (see 1 Chronicles 23).

It is interesting to note in Numbers 3 the different method of numbering used to count the Levites. Whereas the count for the rest of the Israelites was according to men 20 years and up, the Levites were counted even as male infants one month old—and still the Levites were the smallest of all the tribes at only 22,000 men and boys (verse 39). So small, in fact, that there weren’t enough Levites to redeem merely the firstborn males a month and older of the other Israelite tribes (verses 40-43). Therefore, the Israelites of other tribes had to make up the difference in money (verse 49).

Ezekiel 48

Ezekiel is now taken again to the door of the temple itself, and shown something that either he failed to notice or describe the first time he toured the inner court, or that was not there prior to Christ’s arrival. The river of the water of life begins at the very throne of God in the Most Holy Place (43:7). This parallels the description of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:1), which will still be in heaven during the Millennium, to descend to earth afterward. In both cases, there is evidently a literal river—but the river symbolizes the living waters of God’s Holy Spirit.

In the millennial temple, the river emerges from beneath the eastern threshold, proceeding past the south side of the altar (also defined as the “right” side, as one faces east).

Ezekiel is then taken out the northern gates and around to the outer eastern gate, outside of the temple complex, to again see the river as it emerges on the south (right) side of the eastern gate. They move along the river to measure the depth of the water by wading across at 1,000-cubit intervals. By the time they reach 4,000 cubits (1.6 miles) from the eastern gate, the river is too deep to wade across.

Ezekiel mentions fruit-bearing and medicinal trees along the river (47:7, 12), again similar to the description of the New Jerusalem, in which we see the tree of life bearing 12 different fruits and leaves with healing properties (Revelation 22:2). According to Zechariah 14:8, the river will split, part of it flowing west to the Mediterranean and the other part flowing east to the Dead Sea. Ezekiel goes on to describe the effect of this river on the Dead Sea, which will spring forth with life and become a wonderful place to go fishing.

Besides the literal application, there is a wonderfully symbolic picture in all this. Again, the river represents the out flowing of the Holy Spirit, bringing life to the lifeless. In the fruitful, medicinal trees we may see God’s Spirit working in and through the lives of His righteous servants. For not only are the righteous to partake of the tree of life, they are in a sense to be trees of life themselves. Nourished by the stream of Holy Spirit, they are to produce godly fruit and be a life-giving blessing to others. A godly person who continually meditates on and lives according to God’s law is “like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season, whose leaf also shall not wither; and whatever he does shall prosper” (Psalm 1:3).

Finally, Ezekiel is given the borders of the land. They actually correspond very closely to the borders defined by Moses in Numbers 34:1-12.

Yet “this list of borders does not coincide with Israelite settlement in any period, but rather reflects the Egyptian province of Canaan, as defined in the Egyptian-Hittite treaty signed following the battle of Kedesh. These, then, were the borders of the Land of Canaan which the Israelite tribes found upon their arrival” (Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, 1968, p. 41). “Ezekiel ‘modernized’ them by working into his description contemporary geographical names, including several of the Babylonian provinces of his day” (p. 106).

Apparently, God will give the Israelites all of the land He originally intended they should have. It differs from both the ancient and modern borders primarily by including the area of Lebanon and southwestern Syria. Also interesting to note in this passage is that the Promised Land will be for the Israelites “and for the strangers who dwell among you” (Ezekiel 47:22).

Ezekiel 48 – Division of the Land

Although Ezekiel is given a list of the tribes who receive their inheritance, elsewhere he says they would receive it by lot (47:22), probably referring to the distribution of the land within each tribe. God says Joseph is to receive two portions (47:13), to keep the number of inheriting tribes at 12, even though Levi is not to receive a normal inheritance. As shown on the accompanying map, seven of the tribes are given land north of the temple while the remaining five tribes are south of it.

Between Judah on the north and Benjamin on the south is the 25,000-cubit- (10-mile-) wide strip of land we first saw in chapter 45, apparently stretching all the way from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River/Dead Sea border. The east and west portions of this strip are for the prince. But in the middle is the capital district, which is also 25,000 cubits long to form a square. All but a 5,000-cubit (2-mile) strip of this land is given to the priests and Levites, for their homes and towns and for the temple complex. But this chapter goes into a little more detail about the capital city itself, which will be located about three miles south of the temple complex, in this remaining 2 x 10-mile piece of land. That would put it about a mile northeast of Bethlehem.

The capital city occupies a 2 x 2-mile square in the center of the strip. The sides of the city proper are given as 4,500 cubits, surrounded by a 250-cubit easement (verses 16-17). This leaves two 2 x 4-mile stretches of land on either side of the city, described as the farmland for the workers of the city to grow their own food (verse 18-19). Inhabitants come from every tribe (verse 19). Three gates are on each of the four sides of the city, each one named for a different tribe (this time Joseph only receiving one gate). The New Jerusalem, beyond the Millennium, will have gates of pearl, precious foundation stones bearing the names of the 12 apostles and streets of gold (Revelation 12:12-21). Perhaps some of these features will be incorporated in the millennial Jerusalem as well.

Throughout these chapters, Ezekiel never actually mentions the name “Jerusalem.” Other passages seem to indicate the area will still be called by its ancient name (e.g., Zechariah 14), but Ezekiel says it will receive another name at this time: Yhwh Shammah in Hebrew. This incredible name, meaning “The Lord Is There,” implies that God is watching over this city to protect and bless it (compare Ezekiel 35:10 with Isaiah 33:20-21; see also Jeremiah 3:17).

While this concludes Ezekiel’s grand vision of the future and provides a wonderful conclusion to his book, God gave him two last messages to record after this, as we will see in our next reading.

God Allows Job to Suffer at Satan’s Hand (Job 1-2)

As the book opens we encounter Job, whom God declares blameless and upright, fearing God and shunning evil (1:1, 8). This does not mean that Job was perfect—that he never sinned in any way. As Romans 3:23 tells us, all human beings have sinned—except for Jesus Christ, that is. As The Expositor’s Bible Commentary explains: “That Job was ‘blameless’ (tam) and ‘upright’ (yasar) should not be construed to imply he was [utterly] sinless (cf. 13:26; 14:16-17). The former, from the root ‘be complete’ (tmm), usually refers to a person’s spiritual maturity and the integrity (purity) of his inner being. The latter, meaning ‘straight,’ ‘right’ (ysr), is used in many contexts dealing with human behavior that is in line with God’s ways. Together they provided an idiomatic way to describe Job’s high moral character” (note on verses 1-5).

The translation “blameless” gives the sense of being beyond reproach—that is, having no obvious sins to criticize. In the New Testament, we find that John the Baptist’s parents, Zacharias and Elizabeth, were blameless (Luke 1:6), as was the apostle Paul (Philippians 3:6). Indeed, all elders and deacons in the Church are expected to be blameless (1 Timothy 3:2, 10; Titus 1:6-7). In Job’s case, it seems clear that it was difficult to find any specific transgressions of God’s law of which to accuse him.

Job 1:6 tells us of a remarkable event—the “sons of God” coming to present themselves before the Lord. As the book later says that the “sons of God” were present at the creation of the earth (38:6-7)-, it is clear that the reference is to the angels—God’s “sons” by virtue of His having created them. Even more remarkable on this occasion is that Satan comes among the angels appearing before God, leading to a dialogue between God and Satan. Many believe this event occurred in God’s heavenly court. Yet it seems highly unlikely that God the Father would allow Satan to be in His direct presence and defile His celestial throne room. Indeed, nothing abominable or profane is permitted to enter the holy city of God, the New Jerusalem, that now waits in heaven (Revelation 21:27). God cast Satan down from heaven prior to man’s creation and will later do so again at the end of the age in response to a last demonic assault. Why would the Father grant Satan casual access to heaven in between? In a related vein, some think Satan’s constant accusation of God’s people before God in Revelation 12:10 occurs in heaven. However, we should consider that whenever God’s people pray to Him they are coming before His throne (see Hebrews 4:16). Surely Satan’s words too, though spoken on earth, are heard before God the Father in heaven. Yet is that what was happening in the book of Job?

In considering the matter, it is nowhere specified that God in Job 1 was God the Father or that the Lord in this chapter was in heaven at all. It seems much more likely that the Lord here in the book of Job, who later spoke to Job, was God the Word (see John 1:1-3), the One who would become Jesus Christ (verse 14). The pre-incarnate Christ walked on the earth in patriarchal times. Recall that He was the Lord who walked and talked with Abraham while in the company of angels (see Genesis 18). God, as we know from other passages, has angels walking about on the earth who report back to Him. And consider that Ezekiel 1 and 10 portray the pre-incarnate Jesus in possession of a portable throne on which to travel about the world. With that in mind, it should be easier to imagine reconnoitering angels appearing before the pre-incarnate Christ somewhere on the earth and then Satan—whom God has allowed to remain as the ruler of this world for the time being—coming upon this gathering.

The Lord mentions the righteous life of Job to Satan, who is quick to argue that God has essentially “bought” Job’s loyalty through protecting and blessing him (Job 1:8-11). Take away the hedge of protection, Satan argues, and Job will “curse” God. We should note that, oddly enough, the word for the verb “curse” used throughout this passage (verses 5, 11; 2:5, 9), barak, normally actually means “bless.” Gleason Archer’s New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties offers this possible explanation: “The verb berak means ‘say goodbye to’ in Genesis 24:60; [31:55]; 47:10; Joshua 22:6; 2 Samuel 13:25; and 1 Kings 8:66, generally with the connotation of invoking a parting blessing on the person taking his leave. From this usage we may surmise that an insolent sinner might say goodbye to God Himself, with the intention of dismissing Him from his mind and conscience, of totally abandoning Him…. [Commentator] Delitzsch (Keil and Delitzsch, Job, 2:51) calls this use of berak an antiphrastic euphemism. He feels that in Job 2:9 it clearly means…’say goodbye to’…as a benedictory salutation at parting. But in his general handling of these negative usages, he prefers to render it ‘dismiss God from one’s heart’ (ibid., 2:49)” (p. 237).

Surprisingly, God responds to Satan’s challenge by putting Job’s possessions and family in the destroyer’s power. Yet note that God does not at this time permit Satan to do Job any bodily harm (verse 12). This demonstrates that God has total power over what Satan is permitted to do. While this fact should provide us with comfort, for many it is extremely disturbing that God would allow Satan to hurt Job in any way, especially given the great loss of family he suffers.

Verses 16 and 19 apparently speak of lightning and a destructive tornado respectively, showing that weather calamities can be acts of Satan. Yet these events were by the express permission of God. Indeed, God later acknowledges this, saying to Satan: “…You incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause” (2:3). This may shockingly appear to say that there was no reason at all for what God allowed to befall Job—and that God can be prodded into doing things contrary to His will. But this is not what God is saying. He is simply saying that Satan presented no reason for any punitive action against this man. Moreover, the fact that Satan was provocative does not mean that this is what motivated God to act. Indeed, God initiated the discussion with Satan over Job—surely knowing what Satan’s response would be.

Job 1:18-19 seems to say that Job lost all his children, though 19:17 may indicate that at least two of them were not in attendance at the ill-fated banquet and therefore survived. In any case, Job’s loss of children and his wealth in a single day is difficult to fathom. Yet his reaction to it is stunning. Though he grieved deeply, Job’s response was one of humbly worshiping God, acknowledging God’s sovereignty over all circumstances (1:20-21). This is truly amazing considering that Job did not have the special knowledge the reader of the account has regarding the discussion between God and Satan. Despite the horror of what had happened, and the seeming abandonment by God that he must have felt, he did not sin (verse 22). Instead, God says that he held fast to his “integrity” (2:3), the Hebrew word here having the same root as the word for “blameless” in chapter 1. In fact, “when Job said, ‘May the name of the Lord be praised’ (v. 21), he was using…the same word that Satan used in v. 11 as an euphemism with the opposite meaning. The play on the root brk (‘bless’) is forceful. It stresses how the Accuser is foiled at this point. Instead of cursing God to his face, Job praised him” (Expositor’s, note on verses 20-22).

Once again, Satan comes upon an angelic presentation before God and God presents him with Job’s unswerving devotion. This time Satan presses the issue by saying that if God will remove His protection and allow him to attack Job’s physical health, Job will reject God as he had predicted. God then allows the devil to cross that line. But, demonstrating his power and authority over Satan, He still imposes a limit—Satan is not allowed to kill Job. Yet what Satan is allowed to do—afflict Job with painful boils from head to toe—was no doubt extremely and unrelentingly agonizing. And on top of the psychological pain of losing his family, it must have been all the more excruciating.

Job’s wife urges him to “curse God and die!” (verse 9). Many today imagine her as an impious, unsympathetic, bitter nag or even that she wanted to be rid of Job, thinking the loss of their children must have been his fault—that he had done something to deserve punishment from God. But it seems more likely that Job’s wife, having been so close to him and witnessing his unceasing devotion to God even now, would have perceived him just as God described him—as blameless. We should consider that besides losing her family, she was now watching her husband suffer intolerable pain and anguish. It was no doubt difficult for her to understand why God would allow her faithful husband to be stricken. Indeed, it is difficult for most people today to understand it! She may well have been quite angry with God. Moreover, she perhaps said what she did thinking that Job’s illness was terminal anyway and that he could with just a few words find immediate relief from his suffering. This great man, however, remarks on the foolishness of such a course and remains persistent in his faithfulness (verse 10).

Lastly in chapter 2, we see the coming of Job’s three friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar (verse 11). It was evidently months before they got the news, arranged to meet and at last arrived (compare 7:3). Perhaps their initial intent was simply to go through a typical proper mourning ritual. But what they found made them aghast. It is evident that they cared for Job because they wept and remained close to him in silence for an entire week (2:12-13)—probably deeming it inappropriate to speak before Job himself spoke. Yet as we will see, these men will soon fail miserably in their role as Job’s comforters, even wrongly accusing him of sin.

Finally, in looking at Job 1-2, people reasonably wonder why, if Job was such a devoted saint, God would allow Satan to harm him. The impression many have is that there was some kind of contest or one-upmanship going on between God and Satan—and that Job was just a pawn in this frivolous, heartless game. Indeed, many reject the story as fictitious for this reason, unable to accept that a loving God would ever hand his faithful servants over to Satan’s abuses. But the perspective of Job as a pawn in some inane spiritual contest is totally off base. While the events of these chapters were probably intended to demonstrate God’s sovereignty over Satan, we should note that the defeated enemy drops out of the account at this point—yet Job’s suffering goes on. As we will see at the end of the book, Job, despite his upright character, still needed to grow spiritually and come to really know God. That being said, we should recognize that there is indeed an unwitting pawn in the story—Satan the devil. God, knowing Satan’s nature and temperament, provokes him into taking action against Job—not to show Job’s steadfastness off to His adversary but for the ultimate purpose of perfecting Job’s character, making him an even better person than he was in preparation for a future in God’s Kingdom.

3 John 1

This epistle was written by the Apostle John, who calls himself an “elder”, as in the preceding, and is inscribed to a friend of his, whom he mentions by name, and expresses a very great affection for, on account of his steady adherence to the truths of the Gospel, 3Jo 1:1; he wishes him bodily health equal to that prosperity of soul he was indulged with, 3Jo 1:2; congratulates him upon the testimony the brethren that came from him gave him of the truth being in him, and of his walking in it, and upon hearing that his children also trod in the same path, 3Jo 1:3; commends him for his hospitality and charity, of which testimonies were given before the church; and encourages him to go on doing the same acts of beneficence, since it was to such persons that went forth for the sake of Christ, and preaching in his name, and had nothing of the Gentiles for so doing; wherefore they ought to be received, and entertained by those of ability, that they might be fellow helpers to the truth with them, 3Jo 1:5.

He complains of Diotrephes as a proud, haughty, and overbearing man in the church, where Gaius was a member, who would neither receive the letters the apostle sent, nor the brethren that came with them; nay, forbid them that would, and cast them out of the church for it, and prated against them with malicious words, whom he threatens to remember when he himself should come thither, 3Jo 1:9;

wherefore he exhorts Gaius not to follow such an ill example, but that which is good in any person; since he that does good appears to be of God, and he that does evil, it looks as if he had never known him, 3Jo 1:11.

And particularly he recommends Demetrius, who had a good report of all men, and of the truth itself, and had a testimony from the apostle, and those that were with him, which was known to be a true one, 3Jo 1:12.

But though he had many things to say, both of one, and of the other, he determines to write no more at present, hoping he should shortly see him, and personally converse together; and closes the epistle with his own good wish, and with mutual salutations of friends, 3Jo 1:13.??

Ver. 1. The elder unto the well beloved Gaius,…. The elder is the writer of the epistle, the Apostle John, who so styles himself on account of his age, and office, as in the preceding epistle. The person to whom he writes is “the well beloved Gaius”; not that Gaius, who was the Apostle Paul’s host, Ro 16:23, for though their characters agree, being both hospitable men, yet neither the place nor time in which they lived.

The Apostle Paul’s Gaius lived at Corinth, this is in some place near to Ephesus, for the apostle in his old age purposed to come and see him shortly; the other was contemporary with Paul, this with John; there were thirty or forty years difference between them: besides, the Corinthian Gaius was baptized by Paul, and was doubtless one of his spiritual children, or converts, whereas this Gaius was one of the Apostle John’s spiritual children, 3Jo 1:4;

nor does he seem to be the same with Gaius of Macedonia, Ac 19:29, or with Gaius of Derbe, Ac 20:4, who seem to be two different persons by their country, though both companions in travel of the Apostle Paul; for which reason, as well as the time of their living, neither of them can be this Gaius, who was a settled housekeeper, and resided at some certain place. His name is a Roman name, and the same with Caius, though he seems to have been a Jew, as he might, it being usual with the Jews in other countries to take Gentile names.

His character is, that he was “well beloved”; that is, of God, as it appears he was from the grace bestowed on him, from the prosperous estate of his soul, and from the truth that was in him, and his walking in it; and of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the same reasons; and also of all the brethren and saints that knew him; he being a person not only truly gracious, and of faithfulness and integrity, but of great liberality and beneficence, which must gain him much love and esteem among them; and he was well beloved by the Apostle John; and so the Syriac version renders it, “to my beloved Gaius”: though his love to him is expressed in the following clause,??whom I love in the truth; as being in it, or for the sake of it, or truly and sincerely; See Gill on “2Jo 1:1”.

???3 John 1:2??Ver. 2. Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper,…. Or succeed in all temporal affairs, in the business of life, in which he was; and as success of this sort depends upon the blessing of God, which maketh rich, it is to be wished and prayed for from him:??and be in health; that is, of body, which above all things above all outward mercies, is the most desirable; for without this, what are the richest dainties, the largest possessions, or the best of friends? without this there can be no comfortable enjoyment of either of them; and therefore of this sort of mercies, it is in the first place, and above all others, to be wished for, and desired by one friend for another. The rule and measure of this wish is according to the prosperity of his soul,??even as thy soul prospereth: the soul is diseased with sin, and may be said to be in good health, when all its iniquities are forgiven; and may be said to prosper, when having a spiritual appetite for the Gospel, the sincere milk of the word, it feeds upon it, is nourished by it, and grows thereby; when it is in the lively exercise of faith, hope, and love; when spiritual knowledge is increased, or it grows in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ Jesus; when the inward man is renewed day by day with fresh strength; and when it enjoys communion with God, has the light of his countenance, and the joys of his salvation; and when it is fruitful in every good work.???3 John 1:3??

Ver. 3. For I rejoiced greatly when the brethren came,…. From the place where Gaius lived, to that where John now resided; these brethren seem to be preachers of the word, who travelled from place to place to spread the Gospel:??and testified of the truth that is in thee; either of Christ, who was formed in him; or of the Gospel, which had a place in his heart; or of the truth of grace that was in him, as well as of that faithfulness, integrity, and sincerity he appeared to be possessed of, being an Israelite indeed, and without guile:??even as thou walkest in the truth: in Christ, and in the Gospel, and as became it, and with all uprightness; see 2Jo 1:4;

and this occasioned great joy in the apostle; as it is matter of joy to every one that truly loves Christ, and his Gospel; or has the true grace of charity in him, which envies not the gifts and graces of others, but rejoiceth in the truth, wherever it is found; and especially to the faithful ministers of the word, when they hear of the truth of grace in any souls, and that such continue walking in the truth of the Gospel, and particularly those who have been wrought upon under their ministry, as follows.???3 John 1:4??

Ver. 4. I have no greater joy,…. Nothing that causes greater joy. The Vulgate Latin version reads “grace” or “thanks”; and then the sense is, that he had nothing to be more thankful for:??than to hear that my children walk in truth; meaning his spiritual children, those whose conversion he had been the instrument of; and among these it seems Gaius was one.???3 John 1:5??

Ver. 5. Beloved, thou doest faithfully,…. Or a faithful thing, and as became a faithful man, a believer in Christ; in all his beneficence and charity he acted the upright part; he did not do it in an hypocritical way, to be seen of men, and gain applause from them, but from a principle of love, and with a view to the glory of God:??whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; which may design either different persons; and by “brethren” may be meant the poor brethren of the church that. Gaius belonged to, and others that were well known to him; and by “the strangers”, not unconverted persons, but such of the saints as came from foreign parts, and travelled about to spread the Gospel, and enlarge the interest of Christ: or else the same persons may be intended, for the words may be read, as they are in the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and in the Vulgate Latin version, “what thou doest to the brethren, and this to strangers”; that is, as the Arabic version renders it, “to strange brethren”; or, as the Syriac version, “to the brethren, [and] especially [them] that are strangers”; so that Gaius was a very hospitable man, one that entertained and lodged strangers, and used them very civilly and courteously, with great liberality, and with much integrity and sincerity.???3 John 1:6??

Ver. 6. Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church,…. At Ephesus, where John was; these brethren and strangers coming thither, and being greatly affected with Gaius’s kindness and liberality to them, could not forbear speaking of it to his praise, in the presence of the members of the church, as well as acquainted the Apostle John with it; the Syriac version reads, “before the whole church”; they bore testimony of his liberality in a very public manner And this the apostle mentions to encourage Gaius to go on, and continue in his kindness to the same persons, since they retained such a grateful sense of past favours; and whereas they were now returning back, he desires that he would give them some further assistance:??whom if thou bring forward on their journey; the word here used signifies, to send on before, as in Ac 15:3, and is used by the Septuagint in the same sense as here, and in the above places, in Ge 18:16; where it is said, that “Abraham went with them (the angels) to bring them on in the way”, Mxlvl, “to send them on”, or “send them away”; dismiss them, take his leave of them in a friendly and honourable way.

The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan render it, Nwhyawwlal, “to accompany them”; and so this Greek word, which seems to answer to the Hebrew phrase, signifies an honourable accompanying, leading forth, and taking leave of friends; and so the apostle encourages Gaius to behave in like manner to the brethren and strangers; meaning, either by accompanying them in person, or by sending his servants along with them, both to direct them the way, and to secure them from danger, and chiefly by furnishing them with everything necessary for them;

see Tit 3:13. And this he would have him do,??after a godly sort; or “worthy of God”; in imitation of God, who is merciful, kind, and beneficent; or as it became him whom God had called by his grace to his kingdom and glory; or as it was fit and proper such servants of God, as those brethren were, should be used; and this would be doing well:??thou shalt do well; what is grateful and well pleasing to God, and beautiful and lovely in the eyes of his people.???3 John 1:7??

Ver. 7. Because that for his name’s sake they went forth,…. From Judea; either of their own accord to preach the Gospel, or being drove out by the unbelieving Jews, for professing the name of Christ; and be it which it will, there was good reason why they should be regarded, and especially since they did as follows,??taking nothing of the Gentiles; even of those who were converted, though their preaching the Gospel, to whom they ministered, for of others, the unconverted Gentiles, they could not expect to receive; and this they did, as the apostles before them, because they would not be chargeable to them, and lest it should be thought they sought their own worldly interest, and not the good of souls and glory of Christ, and so a stumblingblock be laid in the way of the Gospel, to hinder the progress of it. The Ethiopic version reads this in the singular number, “and I went forth for his name’s sake, taking nothing of the Gentiles”.???3 John 1:8??

Ver. 8. We therefore ought to receive such,…. We who are Jews, that have believed in Christ, for such an one Gaius, it seems, as well, as the apostle, were, ought to receive such preachers of the word into our houses, and entertain them cheerfully, while they continue, and supply them with all necessaries when they depart:??that we might be fellow helpers to the truth; that is, to the Gospel, and the propagation of it in the world: some are helpers to it, in preaching of it, by making use of the ministerial gifts bestowed upon them; and others are fellow helpers with them, to the same good work, by their purses, communicating freely to the support of those, who labour in the word and doctrine; and these latter have the honour to be co-workers, or fellow labourers with the former, as the word here used signifies. The Alexandrian copy reads, “fellow helpers to the church”, that so the whole burden of taking care of these ministers might not lie upon them. The Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, “fellow helpers of the truth”.???3 John 1:9??

Ver. 9. I wrote unto the church,…. Where Gaius was a member: those who take Gaius to be the same with Paul’s host, and whom he baptized at Corinth, think the church at Corinth is here meant; but it seems rather to be meant of some church in Asia nearer Ephesus; nor is it likely that John’s first epistle should be here intended, which makes no mention of relieving the brethren, the ministers of the Gospel, that came from Judea: and that this epistle should not be preserved, need not seem strange; for it cannot be thought that everything that was written by him to particular persons, or churches, should be continued. The Alexandrian copy and one of Stephens’s read, “I wrote something to the church”; upon this head, concerning receiving and supporting ministers of the Gospel, and so prevents an objection that Gaius might make, why did he not write to the church about it? The Vulgate Latin version reads, “I should”, or “would have wrote”: and the Syriac version, “I desired”, or “wished to have wrote”; suggesting, that though he had not wrote, yet it was much upon his mind, he had a great desire to it:??but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them,?receiveth us not; which hindered him from writing, or was the reason why he wrote now to Gaius since Diotrephes gave no heed to what he had wrote, suppressed his letter, and would not suffer it to be read to the brethren. This Diotrephes, by his name, which signifies one “nourished”, or “brought up by Jupiter”, was a Gentile; there was one of this name, who was one of the kings of Athens {a}; and what may confirm this is, his slighting and rejecting the brethren that came from Judea: it is very likely he was more than a private member in the church, and that he was an officer, and it may be the pastor; and though there is a preeminence, which of right belongs to such an officer, as to preside over the church, to govern, guide, and direct, according to the laws of Christ, he being set over the church, as a ruler, governor, and guide; yet this may be carried too far, as it was by this man, who coveted more than was his due, and lorded it over God’s heritage, ruled the flock with force and cruelty, and usurped a tyrannical power over them; whereas every thing in a church ought to be done, by pastor and people, in love, meekness, and with mutual consent. And it may be also, that he sought to have the preeminence over the rest of the elders of the church, for in those large churches there were oftentimes more elders and pastors than one; see Ac 20:17.

This ambitious spirit prevailed and obtained among the false teachers, who set up themselves at the head of parties, and above the apostles of Christ, and paved the way for antichrist, who assumed the title of universal bishop, which has introduced all the errors and impieties of the Romish church. Now this man such an ambitious, lordly, and governing spirit, received not the Apostle John, and those that were with him; meaning not their persons, for as yet he and they were not in person where he was; but his letter, his orders, and instructions; these he paid no regard to, concealed them from the church, and would not admit them to be read: or else the apostle’s sense is, that he received not the brethren that came from him, and were recommended by him, and whom he affectionately loved, and who were near and dear to him as himself; and therefore not receiving them is interpreted by him as not receiving himself.??{a} Vid. Fabricii Bibliograph. Antiqu. p. 211.???3 John 1:10??

Ver. 10. Wherefore, if I come,…. Where both Gaius and Diotrephes lived, as he trusted he should shortly, 3Jo 1:14;??I will remember his deeds which he doth; meaning, not only that he would tell him of them to his face, but make mention of them, and expose them to the whole church, and reprove him for them: and which are as follow,??prating against us with malicious words; it is a common thing for ministers of the Gospel to be prated against, not only by the men of the world, but by professors of religion, and by such who call themselves preachers also; nor need it be wondered at, since John, an apostle of Christ, the beloved disciple, who was so harmless and inoffensive in his conversation, so kind and loving in his disposition and temper, so meek and humble in his deportment, and now in such an advanced age, was prated against by a Diotrephes: and what is said against Christ’s ministers is no other than prating; silly, idle, trifling, and empty stuff, as the word used signifies; for want of greater things, they take up any little matter, and improve it against them; and this is often done with a malicious intent, to hurt their characters, spoil their usefulness, and render their ministry unprofitable.??

And not content herewith; with prating against the Apostle John, and the ministers with him, in this wicked way:??neither doth he himself receive the brethren; the meaning is not, that he did not receive them into the church, for they were there, since afterwards mention is made of his casting them out from thence; but he did not receive them into his house, and entertain them as he ought to have done; for a minister of the Gospel, and a pastor of a church, ought to be hospitable, and given to hospitality, and entertain strangers, especially those who are brethren in Christ, and fellow ministers of the word: and the rather these were to be received, since they travelled about to spread the Gospel among the Gentiles, and took nothing of them.

And this was not all, he not only did not receive them himself, and reject them, but was not willing that others should receive them:??and forbiddeth them that would; on such who had a heart, as well as ability, to receive and entertain these poor brethren, he laid his injunctions, and gave them strict orders, in his lordly and tyrannical way, not to show any respect unto them;??and casteth [them] out of the church; that is, he excommunicated them, either those that entertained them, or rather the brethren themselves; which was an abuse of the ordinance of excommunication, as that ordinance is abused, when any single person, a pastor, or any other, as here, assumes the power of doing it himself, and does it without the church; whereas it is a punishment or censure, to be inflicted by many, or to be done by the joint suffrage of the church; and when it is done in a wrong cause, for some small trifling matter, or none at all, and not in a case of heresy or immorality, obstinately persisted in; and when it is done from wrong principles, and with wrong ends, as to gratify the pride and passion of some; and not for the good of the person cast out, or to prevent others from falling into the same snare, or for the honour of religion, and the glory of God. The phrase seems to be taken from the Jews, who expressed their excommunication, or putting out of the synagogue, by a casting out; see Joh 9:34.???3 John 1:11??

Ver. 11. Beloved, follow not that which is evil,…. Follow not evil in general, it being hateful to God, contrary to his nature and will, and bad in itself, as well as pernicious in its consequences; and particularly follow not, or do not imitate the particular evil or evils in Diotrephes; as his pride, ambition, love of preeminence, and tyrannical government in the church, and especially his hard heartedness, cruelty, and inhospitality to the poor saints; and so the Arabic version reads, “do not imitate him in evil”; the examples of persons in office and authority have great influence, especially in cases of charity, when men can be excused thereby, and save their money, or be freed from an expense:??but that which is good; follow and imitate that, be a follower of God, imitate him in acts of kindness and beneficence, be merciful as he is; copy the deeds of Jesus Christ, who went about doing good, and declared it to be more blessed to give than to receive; and tread in the steps of those good men, who have shown love to the name of Christ, by ministering to his saints; for though the apostle may mean everything that is good, which is to be followed and imitated in any, yet he chiefly designs acts of kindness and beneficence to poor saints and ministers: to which he encourages by the following,??he that doeth good is of God; he is a child of God, he appears to be so, in that he is like to his heavenly Father, who is kind and merciful; he is born of God, he is passed from death to life, which his love to the brethren shows; he has the grace of God, and strength from Christ, and the assistance of the Spirit, without either of which he could not do that which is good:??

but he that doeth evil hath not seen God; has had no spiritual saving sight of God in Christ; for if he had, he would abhor that which is evil, and, with Job, abhor himself for it, and reckon himself, with Isaiah, as undone, Job 42:6, for such effects has the sight of God on the souls of men; such an one knows not God, nor what it is to have communion with him: for those who live in sin, in whom it is a governing principle, cannot have fellowship with God; nor has such an one ever felt the love of God in his soul, or been made a partaker of his grace, which would teach and constrain him to act otherwise.

Compare this text with 1Jo 3:10, which shows the Apostle John to be the writer of this epistle. The Ethiopic version reads, “shall not see God”; that is, hereafter, in the world to come.???3 John 1:12??

Ver. 12. Demetrius hath good report of all [men], This man was of a quite different cast from Diotrephes, and therefore the apostle makes mention of him to Gaius, to be followed by him, and not the other; he was either the same with Demas, which is a contraction of this name, or the person that John sent from Ephesus with this letter: we read of an Ephesian of this name, Ac 19:24; though not the same person; or else one that also was a member of the same church with Gaius and Diotrephes; and he being kind and beneficent, obtained a good report of the generality of men, not only of the brethren, but of those that were without; for a liberal man is universally respected. The Syriac version adds, “and of the church itself”; as distinct from all men, or the generality of the men of the world:??and of the truth itself; that is, whoever speaks truth must give him a good character, for this cannot be understood with any propriety of the Gospel, nor of Jesus Christ:??yea, and we also bear record; or a testimony to the character of Demetrius; that is, I, John, the apostle, and the saints at Ephesus:??and ye know that our record is true; faithful, and to be depended upon. The Alexandrian copy, and several others, read, “thou knowest”, as does also the Vulgate Latin version, which seems most agreeable, since this epistle is directed to a single person; compare this with Joh 19:35; and it will give a further proof of this epistle being the Apostle John’s.???3 John 1:13??

Ver. 13. I have many things to write,…. With regard to churches, and particular persons, and concerning hospitality to the poor brethren:??but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee; suggesting he should take another method of communicating his mind to him, which he next mentions.???3 John 1:14??

Ver. 14. But I trust I shall shortly see thee,…. Either at Ephesus, where John was, or rather at the place where Gaius lived, see 3Jo 1:10;??and we shall speak face to face; freely and familiarly converse together about these things, which were not thought proper to be committed to writing:??peace [be] to thee; which was the usual form of salutation with the Jews, and John was one; See Gill on “Joh 20:19”;??[our] friends salute thee; or send their Christian salutation to thee, wishing all health and prosperity in soul and body; meaning the members of the church at Ephesus: the Arabic version reads, “thy friends”; such at Ephesus as had a particular knowledge of him, and affection for him. The Vulgate Latin version reads, “the friends”: the members in general; and the Alexandrian copy reads, “the brethren”; and the Syriac version, our brethren: and then the epistle is closed thus,??greet the friends by name; meaning those that were where Gaius lived, to whom the apostle sends his salutation, and desires it might be delivered to each of them, as if they had been mentioned by name. This and the epistle of James are the only epistles which are concluded without the word “Amen”.

Jud 1:1 Yehud?ah, a servant of ????? Messiah, and brother of Ya?aqob?, to those who are called, set-apart by Elohim the Father, and preserved in ????? Messiah:
Jud 1:2 Compassion, and peace, and love be increased to you.
Jud 1:3 Beloved ones, making all haste to write to you concerning our common deliverance, I felt the necessity to write to you urging you to earnestly contend for the belief which was once for all delivered to the set-apart ones.
Jud 1:4 For certain men have slipped in, whose judgment was written about long ago, wicked ones1 perverting the favour of our Elohim for indecency, and denying the only Master ???? and our Master ????? Messiah. Footnote: 1See Mt. 13, 2 Thess. 2.
Jud 1:5 But I intend to remind you, though you once knew this, that ????, having saved a people out of the land of Mitsrayim, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Jud 1:6 And the messengers who did not keep their own principality, but left their own dwelling, He has kept in everlasting shackles under darkness for the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7 Even as Sed?om and Amorah and the cities around them in a similar way to these, having given themselves over to whoring and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, undergoing judicial punishment of everlasting fire.
Jud 1:8 In the same way, indeed, these dreamers defile the flesh, and reject authority, and speak evil of esteemed ones.
Jud 1:9 But Mik?a’?l the chief messenger, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Mosheh, presumed not to bring against him a blasphemous accusation, but said, “???? rebuke you!”
Jud 1:10 But these blaspheme that which they do not know. And that which they know naturally, like unreasoning beasts, in these they corrupt themselves.
Jud 1:11 Woe to them! Because they have gone in the way of Qayin, and gave themselves to the delusion of Bil?am for a reward, and perished in the rebellion of Qorah?.
Jud 1:12 These are rocky reefs in your love feasts, feasting with you, feeding themselves without fear, waterless clouds borne about by the winds, late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots,
Jud 1:13 wild waves of the sea foaming up their own shame, straying stars for whom blackness of darkness is kept forever.
Jud 1:14 And H?anok?, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied of these, saying, “See, ???? comes with His myriads of set-apart ones,
Jud 1:15 to execute judgment on all, to punish all who are wicked among them concerning all their wicked works which they have committed in a wicked way, and concerning all the harsh words which wicked sinners have spoken against Him.”
Jud 1:16 These are grumblers, complainers, who walk according to their own lusts, and their mouth speaks proudly, admiring faces of others for the sake of gain.
Jud 1:17 But you, beloved ones, remember the words spoken before by the emissaries of our Master ????? Messiah,
Jud 1:18 because they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own wicked lusts.
Jud 1:19 These are the ones who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
Jud 1:20 But you, beloved ones, building yourselves up on your most set-apart belief, praying in the Set-apart Spirit,
Jud 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of Elohim, looking for the compassion of our Master ????? Messiah unto everlasting life.
Jud 1:22 And show compassion toward some who are doubting,
Jud 1:23 but others save with fear, snatching them out of the fire, hating, even the garment defiled by the flesh.1 Footnote: 1See Gal. 5:19-21, Rom. 8:5-10.
Jud 1:24 And to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you blameless before the presence of His esteem with exceeding joy,
Jud 1:25 to the only wise Elohim, our Saviour, be esteem and greatness and might and authority, both now and forever. Am?n.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.