|
|
Post by Guest1 on Sept 8, 2011 20:27:47 GMT -5
Regarding Genesis 38 and the Tamar incident…
Supposing that Tamar did receive the “kid from the flock”for payment of sexual pleasures, what would Tamar do with the signet (ring), bracelets, and staff? Would they have been kept by her or returned to the one who offered them as a pledge since the “kid from the flock” would have been received by Tamar in full payment as per the original deal?
Genesis 38:17-18 - And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? 18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 9, 2011 15:13:33 GMT -5
If I understand the question, it would appear that the items pledged would have been returned to Judah upon payment of the young goat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest1 on Sept 9, 2011 16:04:31 GMT -5
If I understand the question, it would appear that the items pledged would have been returned to Judah upon payment of the young goat. Doesn't anyone here disagree? I would like a few more opinions before I post something that I consider rather interesting, but then again I may be a bit biased. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Sept 9, 2011 19:03:32 GMT -5
Well, since her intent was to use those things to prove that it was Judah who fathered her child, giving them to the Adullamite in exchange for the goat would have defeated that purpose. It seems she would have had to insist the goat be presented by Judah himself. This is assuming that Hirah (the Adullamite) did not know Tamar personally; otherwise, he could have returned the items to Judah saying, "It was your daughter-in-law Tamar who accepted the goat and gave me these things."
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest1 on Sept 9, 2011 20:45:15 GMT -5
Well, since her intent was to use those things to prove that it was Judah who fathered her child, giving them to the Adullamite in exchange for the goat would have defeated that purpose. It seems she would have had to insist the goat be presented by Judah himself. This is assuming that Hirah (the Adullamite) did not know Tamar personally; otherwise, he could have returned the items to Judah saying, "It was your daughter-in-law Tamar who accepted the goat and gave me these things." I'm afraid you may have missed my point. I am only asking whether the "pledge" items were supposed to be returned in exchange for the original deal (kid). Genesis 38:20 would seem to indicate that as being correct. Genesis 38:20 - And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not. Perhaps there are some here who believe the pledge was to be considered part of the deal, similar to a down payment, for example. Others? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest1 on Sept 10, 2011 21:06:14 GMT -5
I guess this isn't getting much attention. Oh, well.
For those that are interested, you will find that the Greek word for "pledge" in the Septuagint is αρραβωνα. If you do a search for that same Greek word in the Greek NT, you will find that it is Strong's G728.
Strong's G728 occurs only 3 times in the entire NT:
2 Cor 1:22, 2 Cor 5:5, and Eph 1:14. Each time it is used, it deals with the same subject matter.
If truly the pledge was to be returned when receipt of the original deal was accomplished, then the same pattern and logic should apply here.
But I doubt many will be willing to accept it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original deal = the parousia presence.
The pledge = the Comforter, the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Sept 10, 2011 21:26:10 GMT -5
The pledge in Genesis 38 seems to be more in the sense of collateral rather than a down payment. Collateral is returned when the promised payment is made, whereas a down payment is an initial installment or partial payment, not meant to be returned when additional payment is made.
The context in Genesis 38 seems very clear to me that the pledge was indeed intended to be returned. It is very possible that the Spirit given to the first century disciples was only until the return of Christ in 70 A.D. I actually would not have a hard time believing that if that turned out to be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest1 on Sept 11, 2011 8:05:13 GMT -5
I agree Once4All. It would make more sense (to me) that the Holy Spirit has indeed returned to God, especially when considering the specific ministry of the Holy Spirit:
John 16:13 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
40,000+ different denominations with an all-over-the-map theology and eschatology would seem to indicate that we have none of these characteristics.
This would also seem be born out by Paul's lecture in the latter part of 1 Corinthians 13 in regards to the gifts of the Spirit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Sept 11, 2011 8:24:29 GMT -5
This is interesting and I must admit that I hadn't really given this much thought past the fact that God made a bargain with His people as sort of a test to remain faithful to Him. A pledge does not always mean that something is returned once the reason for the pledge is manifested, at least not in our western culture. A pledge can also mean a promise to give later that which was offered earlier. I may pledge money to my favorite ministry but not until they recieve it was my pledge manifested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest1 on Sept 11, 2011 10:36:26 GMT -5
This is interesting and I must admit that I hadn't really given this much thought past the fact that God made a bargain with His people as sort of a test to remain faithful to Him. A pledge does not always mean that something is returned once the reason for the pledge is manifested, at least not in our western culture. A pledge can also mean a promise to give later that which was offered earlier. I may pledge money to my favorite ministry but not until they recieve it was my pledge manifested. Yes, there is no doubt that today's English has changed a lot. Today's pledge can mean that it is the intended promise. However, the biblical pledge is to be returned upon receipt of the promise. We must go by the biblical meanings as you well know... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Sept 11, 2011 17:40:17 GMT -5
I agree Once4All. It would make more sense (to me) that the Holy Spirit has indeed returned to God, especially when considering the specific ministry of the Holy Spirit: John 16:13 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 40,000+ different denominations with an all-over-the-map theology and eschatology would seem to indicate that we have none of these characteristics. This would also seem be born out by Paul's lecture in the latter part of 1 Corinthians 13 in regards to the gifts of the Spirit. Also, this verse: John 14:26 WEB (R) (26) But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you. That obviously does not apply beyond Christ's own generation. Might there be different senses in which the Holy Spirit was received? Because the above would also not apply to new believers even in the first century who never saw Jesus, such as those baptized on the day of Pentecost and "received the gift of the Holy Spirit." |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 11, 2011 20:52:11 GMT -5
The gift of the Holy Spirit that dwells in us is the Spirit of God, whereby we become the temple and dwelling place of God. That has not changed since Pentecost. The function and processes and gifts of the Holy Spirit are up to God, and as far as I can tell, varies by the individual according to the will of God.
Now, the Spirit of God is indeed a pledge, as both 2 Corinthians and Ephesians tells us, and if that pledge has been received back to the one who gave it (God), then we have received the full inheritance promised. So the question becomes, have we received something greater than God's indwelling Spirit?
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 11, 2011 21:11:42 GMT -5
John 14:26 WEB (R) (26) But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you. That obviously does not apply beyond Christ's own generation. This may pose a bit of a dilemma though. In John 14:16-18 reads, " And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." That word for "helper" is "parakleton" (Strong's #3875). That is the same Strong's word (#3875 appearing as "parakletos") as in John 14:26, " But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" Here's the problem. That same word (#3875 "parakleton") is also used in 1 John 2:1-2, " My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 'Helper' is now translated as 'Advocate', and if we no longer have that helper/advocate, we no longer have the propitiation for our sins. In both the Gospel of John and in 1 John, this helper/advocate is identified as Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest1 on Sept 12, 2011 7:25:44 GMT -5
Would not the PAROUSIA PRESENCE be able to take care of the Holy Spirit "stuff"?
Redemption was not complete until the destruction of the former temple system was enacted (Luke 21:28).
But one thing for sure, those things that have been mentioned in specific regard to the Holy Spirit's ministry are clearly no longer with us. This means that the pledge has been returned and the inheritance received - the parousia presence.
Just as (simile) God resided in the physical temple, He now resides in us.
What I don't quite understand is if the Holy Spirit (in some limited sense) still resides in us, wouldn't that duplicate or overlap "qualities" with that of the parousia presence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 12, 2011 9:23:09 GMT -5
What is the difference between the Holy Spirit and the parousia presence?
If we say that it is "obvious" that the Holy Spirit's ministry is clearly no longer with us, what is the "obvious" indication that the parousia presence is with us?
Also, as I mentioned in my other post above, the Holy Spirit is identified as the presence of Jesus Christ and the propitiation for our sin. Without the Holy Spirit, we are still in sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 12, 2011 10:25:52 GMT -5
What is the difference between the Holy Spirit and the parousia presence? If we say that it is "obvious" that the Holy Spirit's ministry is clearly no longer with us, what is the "obvious" indication that the parousia presence is with us? Also, as I mentioned in my other post above, the Holy Spirit is identified as the presence of Jesus Christ and the propitiation for our sin. Without the Holy Spirit, we are still in sin. Morris, I don't quite get what you are saying. Are you saying that the "He" from "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world" is referring to the Holy Spirit? I am under the impression the the "He" is referring to Jesus Christ the Righteous and NOT the Holy Spirit. Wouldn't this be the correct antecedent? Who is the propitiation, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit? Compare with 1 John 4:10... 1 John 4:10 - Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Maybe I am missing something here... |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 12, 2011 13:34:17 GMT -5
Morris, I don't quite get what you are saying. Are you saying that the "He" from "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world" is referring to the Holy Spirit? I am under the impression the the "He" is referring to Jesus Christ the Righteous and NOT the Holy Spirit. Wouldn't this be the correct antecedent? Who is the propitiation, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit? This is precisely what I was attempting to show in an above post; that there is no distinction between the Spirit of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, (or God's Spirit for that matter). Allow me to re-present it. John 14:16-18, " And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." This "Helper" is the same word used in 1 John 2:1 appearing as "Advocate". Although the English certainly appears different in meaning to us, it is the same Greek word (though in a different 'case'). We can read them, 'And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another intercessor/consoler', and 'If anyone sins, we have an intercessor/consoler with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous'. In John 14:18, after saying that the Father will provide "another" Helper, Jesus tells them " I will come to you"; Jesus would come to them. He told them that " He dwells with" them (present tense) and " will be in" them (future tense). Even when Jesus was with them, He was their "Helper". While Jesus was on the Earth, He couldn't be "in" them, only "with" them. Thus He said in John 16:7, " It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." (Note here that Jesus says that He will send the Helper, whereas in John 14 He said the Father would send Him, and in John 15:26 says " whom I shall send to you from the Father") Another quick point; Jesus said, " I will not leave you orphans". Galatians 4:4-7, " But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." I'll let people digest and think about this before I present more. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest1 on Sept 12, 2011 16:33:31 GMT -5
How quickly this has gotten to be a study on the Trinity and Its accompanying aspects.
But back to the very beginning of this thread.
What (or Who) exactly is returned as a condition of the pledge?
Lots of interesting thought mentioned by many folks here. Good interaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Sept 12, 2011 17:37:20 GMT -5
John 14:26 WEB (R) (26) But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you. That obviously does not apply beyond Christ's own generation. This may pose a bit of a dilemma though. In John 14:16-18 reads, " And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." That word for "helper" is "parakleton" (Strong's #3875). That is the same Strong's word (#3875 appearing as "parakletos") as in John 14:26, " But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" Here's the problem. That same word (#3875 "parakleton") is also used in 1 John 2:1-2, " My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 'Helper' is now translated as 'Advocate', and if we no longer have that helper/advocate, we no longer have the propitiation for our sins. In both the Gospel of John and in 1 John, this helper/advocate is identified as Jesus. But isn't that assuming a couple of things not specifically stated in the text? (1) that the advocate in 1 John 2:1-2 is indwelling the believer and (2) that parakletos refers to only one unique person or being. Just like there are many satans or adversaries mentioned in scripture, why not more than one paraklete or advocate? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Sept 12, 2011 17:47:44 GMT -5
... But back to the very beginning of this thread. What (or Who) exactly is returned as a condition of the pledge?Lots of interesting thought mentioned by many folks here. Good interaction. What (or Who) do you think is being returned? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest1 on Sept 12, 2011 21:05:52 GMT -5
... But back to the very beginning of this thread. What (or Who) exactly is returned as a condition of the pledge?Lots of interesting thought mentioned by many folks here. Good interaction. What (or Who) do you think is being returned? Not entirely sure...something or someone was returned, that is, if the biblical principles for pledges are to be taken at face value. At first, I thought for sure it was the Holy Spirit in its entirety being replaced by the parousia presence (indwelling of a different sort), but now, I am not sure. I would be curious as to how non-preterists believe what (or who) is to be returned in the future. I would also be curious as to how these folks could explain the Christian's lack of knowledge in regard to the Holy Spirit's ministry - being guided into ALL truth, being shown things to come, and being reminded of everything Jesus had said... Perhaps Morris could give us this side of the coin since he is not a preterist (as I understand his posts). |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 12, 2011 23:12:45 GMT -5
But isn't that assuming a couple of things not specifically stated in the text? (1) that the advocate in 1 John 2:1-2 is indwelling the believer and (2) that parakletos refers to only one unique person or being. Just like there are many satans or adversaries mentioned in scripture, why not more than one paraklete or advocate? Well, I guess I'm always assuming to one degree or another, but I do try to keep the assumptions simple and as harmonious with the rest of scripture as I can see. Let me look at point #1 first. Is it fair for me to say that the Advocate is indwelling the believer. 1 John 2:1-2 make two rather clear statements (I think so anyway). One is that the "Advocate" is Jesus, and the other is that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. Now notice what is written just two chapters later; 1 John 4:9-10, " In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." This clarifies that it is the Son who is the propitiation for sins. But does the Son, Jesus Christ, the Advocate, indwell the believer? There is so much scripture I could share on this but let me begin with this; back in John 14 there are a number of hints. Adding to what I've already shared, note verse 23, " Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." Now go forward to 1 John 4:7-16 again and see what it speaks of. All of these passages that I've looked at in this thread say so many things; the Father will send the Helper, Jesus will send the Helper, Jesus will send the Helper from the Father. The Holy Spirit will abide in you, the Father will abide in you, the Son will come to you and abide in you. This is not a complicated theological puzzle, for they are all true. Almost forgot you point #2. I believe they are the same because they are both identified as Jesus in their respective passages. [Edit: I forgot to add one other note last night (it was late, much later than I normally would have attempted to respond). I briefly mentioned it before, but I wanted to ask the question; In John 14:18, Jesus told them that the Father would provide them "another" Helper. Who was the original "Helper"? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 12, 2011 23:21:59 GMT -5
How quickly this has gotten to be a study on the Trinity and Its accompanying aspects. Sorry. I'm not intending to do a study on the Trinity specifically although I am attempting to point out the connection between the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, abiding in us, and Jesus our Helper, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, abiding in us. For me, to say that the Holy Spirit has been returned is to say that Jesus, my propitiation, has been returned. How is it that we know that something or someone has been returned? [By the way, you are right that I am not a preterist. However, I think you'll find that I share a lot of the understanding of preterism. Plus, I find it far more productive and edifying discussing our faith here with preterists than elsewhere.] Edit: Another question I meant to ask: what exactly is the "parousia presence"? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 13, 2011 15:09:40 GMT -5
But isn't that assuming a couple of things not specifically stated in the text? ... and (2) that parakletos refers to only one unique person or being. Just like there are many satans or adversaries mentioned in scripture, why not more than one paraklete or advocate? I feel kind of bad for staying with this but I really wanted to answer this with one more thought. (And I do think it's relevant to what our guest talked about regarding the return of the pledged Holy Spirit). I don't think I have too much of a problem with more than one "helper" as such, but I'm not so sure that anyone other than Jesus can be an "intercessor/consoler" (the full meaning of the word) as that is the function of the priest. (Also note that this particular word is not used of anyone other than the Spirit or Jesus. "Intercession" as it appears below is a different word; #1793.) Hebrews chapter 7 speaks quite a bit about the priest, but look especially at verse 25, " Therefore He [Jesus] is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them". Romans 8:34 agrees, " Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us". And yet, even within that same chapter in Romans, we read in verse 27, " Now He [the Spirit] who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God". As I see it, the bible gives the same attributes and functions to both the Spirit and Jesus. So when Jesus told the disciples that the "Helper" will come and then immediately tells them that HE will come to them, I am left thinking that they do not 'work' independently. (If fact, neither of them speak on their own authority; John 12:49, 16:13). Please believe me when I say that this isn't about 3-in-1, or 1-in-3, or even irrational numbers. God is God, and He is who He is. My point was merely to show that if the Holy Spirit has left us, we have lost our propitiation for sin, our intercessor, and the presence of God. In the Holy Spirit, Jesus has come from the Father, as He said He would, to dwell in us. Ephesians 3:14-19, " For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 15, 2011 22:51:20 GMT -5
What does paying a prostitute in advance for her sexual services have to do with a biblical pledge? Judah had already broken his promise to Tamar - which was his biblical pledge and is why she enjoined in this ruse at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Sept 19, 2011 10:06:34 GMT -5
What does paying a prostitute in advance for her sexual services have to do with a biblical pledge? Judah had already broken his promise to Tamar - which was his biblical pledge and is why she enjoined in this ruse at all. I think that this is the point of Guest1's thread; the pledge was not part of any payment, it was collateral that the payment would in fact be paid. But yes, Judah broke his original promise to Tamar. |
|
