One New Man

Just a general observation – There are some groups speaking more of the concept of the ‘One New Man’. If we say ‘One New Man’ – This is a fresh start – this is an opportunity; to make things right, true and correct – to make the way straight – to prepare the way of our King. Shouldn’t we sift thru all Church and Rabbinic values to see if they are indeed biblical? If they are indeed current? Rather than ‘Reviving’ to some point of presumed lesser error? Or continuing on with values &/or errors or from the past? The Bible speaks of the ‘straight way’, the ‘narrow’ gate, the ‘few that find it’, the ‘little flock’, the ‘remnant’ and the ‘elect’ – sounds like a pretty small group. We are to be on that ‘straight way’ neither turning to the right or the left. We must realize that there is a Church ditch on one side and a Rabbinic ditch on the other.

That ‘Rabbinic ditch’ includes a Levitical Priesthood mindset that now permeates most those that claim to be Torah Observant – including Hebrew Roots, Messianic Judaism/Israel, Netzraim Israel, etc.

Tell me what do you do with all the verses that attest to the ‘change’ – the ‘abolition’ of the Law? (the Book of the Law Gal.3:10 not the Melchizedek Law contained before and in the Book of the Covenant Ex.19:5 thru 24:8 laterally Gen.1:1 thru Ex.24:8-11)

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye Yah, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

2Cor 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is **abolished**:

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but Yah gave it to Abraham by promise.

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? (Book of the Law v:10) It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come … (= Gen.49:10 ‘until’)

Eph 2:15 Having **abolished** in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments **contained in ordinances**; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (NOT **contained in Covenant v:12)

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of **ordinances** that was ‘against us’ (Dt.31:26), which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (individual sin debts are not ‘contrary’ to the corporate ‘us’ it was the corporate body of ‘ordinances’ = – law – a decree of law not a ruling of debt)

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, **imposed** on them **until** the time of **reformation.
(reformation = Messianic restoration = Gen.49:10 ‘until’)

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O Yah. He **taketh away the first, that he may establish the second**.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Yahshua Messiah once for all.

So; what was it about the 1st Covenant that was ‘unbearable, added, abolished, imposed, taken away, change of law, ready to vanish away, taken out of the way – “that he may establish the second**” ???

Answer? – The 1st included the ‘added’. “imposed” Book of the Law that must be dealt with – that must be reconciled – that must be vacated – that must be “taken out of the way” (note this does not include the Covenant that was agreed to – pre -Ex.19:7; post – 24:7 like a modern day contract)

Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto Yah in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: (“both” – the law and the one new man v:15)

Doesn’t it make sense that if you are going to make a convert; it is with the purpose of making a Disciple? Doesn’t it also make sense that if you are going to make a Disciple; you do so with the view of making him as light and fleet of foot as possible? Yes there are Melkizedeq laws that are in place and need to be taught; that include the 10 Com’dts, the Feastdays, etc. taught between Gen.1:1 and Ex.24:8 (with few NC/NT provisos).

Not loaded down with Levitical & Rabbinic do’s & don’ts; that include error imaginations

1Ptr 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

If you are going to talk One New Man you will have to include the Melkizedeq Priesthood.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s