"And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
What is the purpose of the covenant but concord between two equal parties? Fellowship of God, between the Father and Son is treated as an accord; Both parties being Spirit the Man component on one part does not affect the covenant and it is understood the aspect of flesh on the part of the Son does not affect the other entity. "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,/To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."(Ep.1:5-6). Good pleasure of his will is in harmony with the holiness of God. Holy is his name, to which we shall come anon. Here we are fixing the relevance of flesh in the World of the Spirit where faith is the language. The world unseen and the worlds made to appear have their own colour and speech. We can explain the nature of flesh in terms of the Word which was God.
The word is both sound and a sign. When God sends the Son he is qualified as the only begotten Son meaning that he is a sign and the Son of man consequently explains the Man component which was with God in the beginning.. In v.7 God tells Abraham, "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.". "And to thy seed after thee" is done after he changed the name of Abraham to mean the Father of many nations. So the question of Ishmael born of the bondswoman has to be settled. This 'illicit' union between two parties of unequal position is now being regularised in the covenant. The change of name makes it holy, to be precise. The circumcision as a sign has only validity as much as their flesh is concerned. It is similar to infant baptism, where parents intercede on behalf of the child.
"And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
What is the purpose of the covenant but concord between two equal parties? Fellowship of God, between the Father and Son is treated as an accord; Both parties being Spirit the Man component on one part does not affect the covenant and it is understood the aspect of flesh on the part of the Son does not affect the other entity. "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,/To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."(Ep.1:5-6). Good pleasure of his will is in harmony with the holiness of God. Holy is his name, to which we shall come anon. Here we are fixing the relevance of flesh in the World of the Spirit where faith is the language. The world unseen and the worlds made to appear have their own colour and speech. We can explain the nature of flesh in terms of the Word which was God.
The word is both sound and a sign. When God sends the Son he is qualified as the only begotten Son meaning that he is a sign and the Son of man consequently explains the Man component which was with God in the beginning.. In v.7 God tells Abraham, "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.". "And to thy seed after thee" is done after he changed the name of Abraham to mean the Father of many nations. So the question of Ishmael born of the bondswoman has to be settled. This 'illicit' union between two parties of unequal position is now being regularised in the covenant. The change of name makes it holy, to be precise. The circumcision as a sign has only validity as much as their flesh is concerned. It is similar to infant baptism, where parents intercede on behalf of the child.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?