Abraham's Heel.

[John D. Brey]

Abarbanel, et al., is disturbed by the strange goings on in Genesis chapter 17. He notes the oddity that Isaac's birth is promised to Abram (in chapter 15), such that the language of Genesis chapter 17 is peculiar in the extreme; it seems to be speaking of a "seed" of Abra-h-am, distinct from the seed of Abram, the latter being Ishmael and Isaac?

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as many; but as of one.​

​

Galatians 3:16.​

In Galatians 3:16, the Tarsus Jew parallels his statement with John 3:16, implying that the singular "seed" found in Genesis 17, is none other than the only-begotten (singular) seed of God found in John's Gospel? Far from refuting Paul's strange reading of the text, the sages of Judaism get tangled up in the truly bizarre Hebrew of Genesis chapter 17 since at one point it appears to be speaking of Abram's natural paternity through Isaac and Jacob, and at another place it seems to be speaking ---ala Paul --- of a singular seed of Abraham that's "given" נתן to Abraham (as God is said to give his son in John 3:16), rather than Abraham producing him the old-fashioned way that produces Ishmael and Isaac. Rabbi Samson Hirsch addresses this conundrum in the guise of the strange use of the Hebrew word נתן ("give") in verse 8 of Genesis 17 since it appears completely out of place in the context.

The combination of ברית and נתן almost never occurs elsewhere . . . As a rule, the formula is הקים ברית ,כרת ברית, not נתן ברית. It is possible, then, that ואתנה בריתי does not mean "I will establish with you a new covenant," but rather, "I will establish with you an existing covenant."​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17: 2.​

If we connect Rabbi Hirsch's statement quoted above, with the fact that the Hebrew word "covenant" ברית is a Hebraism, a Hebrew hieroglyph, for "the house of the firstborn," a beit/"house" (בית) with a rosh/"firstborn" (ר) in its belly (ב–ר–ית), i.e., the "covenant" (ברית) is a pregnant metaphor for the womb of the first of all firstborns, then we're onto something potentially, exegetically, theologically, explosive. If Rabbi Hirsch is correct, and he usually is, then God is making Abraham, and not Abram, nor ha-adam, the parent of the first of all firstborns, which, that "house of the firstborn" ברית was, up until the Fall, the first human ---ha-adam--- who's originally slated to give birth to this first of all firstborn that's now being "given" נתן to Abraham since the original epoch was aborted, or stillborn, because of the original sin (resulting in the birth of the usurper Cain). If Rabbi Hirsch is correct, as he usually is, then when Abram is transformed into Abra-h-am, by means of the first ritual-emasculation (circumcision), God "gives" נתן him the first firstborn of creation that was stillborn so far as ha-adam is concerned, but which is still born by means of Abra-h-am becoming the Great Mother associated with the original covenant aka "the house of the firstborn ב–ר–ית" signified through the ritual removal of his fathering-organ (brit milah).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Abarbanel, et al., is disturbed by the strange goings on in Genesis chapter 17. He notes the oddity that Isaac's birth is promised to Abram (in chapter 15), such that the language of Genesis chapter 17 is peculiar in the extreme; it seems to be speaking of a "seed" of Abra-h-am, distinct from the seed of Abram, the latter being Ishmael and Isaac?

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as many; but as of one.​

​

Galatians 3:16.​

In Galatians 3:16, the Tarsus Jew parallels his statement with John 3:16, implying that the singular "seed" found in Genesis 17, is none other than the same only-begotten (singular) seed of God found in John's Gospel? Far from refuting Paul's strange reading of the text, the sages of Judaism get tangled up in the truly bizarre Hebrew of Genesis chapter 17 since at one point it appears to be speaking of Abram's natural paternity through Isaac and Jacob, and at another place it seems to be speaking ---ala Paul --- of a singular seed of Abraham that's "given" נתן to Abraham, rather than Abraham producing him the old-fashioned way he produces Ishmael and Isaac. Rabbi Samson Hirsch addresses this conundrum in the guise of the strange use of the Hebrew word נתן in verse 8 of Genesis 17 since it appears completely out of place in the context.

The combination of ברית and נתן almost never occurs elsewhere . . . As a rule, the formula is הקים ברית ,כרת ברית, not נתן ברית. It is possible, then, that ואתנה בריתי does not mean "I will establish with you a new covenant," but rather, "I will establish with you an existing covenant."​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17: 2.​

If we connect Rabbi Hirsch's statement quoted above, with the fact that the Hebrew word "covenant" ברית is a Hebraism, a Hebrew hieroglyph, for "the house of the firstborn," a beit/"house" (בית) with a rosh/"firstborn" (ר) in its belly (ב–ר–ית), i.e., the "covenant" (ברית) is a pregnant metaphor for the womb of the first of all firstborns, voila, we're onto something potentially, exegetically, theologically, explosive. If Rabbi Hirsch is correct, and he usually is, then God is making Abraham, and not Abram, nor ha-adam, the parent of the first of all firstborns, which, that "house of the firstborn" ברית was, up until the Fall, the first human ---ha-adam--- who's originally slated to give birth to this first of all firstborn that's now being "given" נתן to Abraham since the original epoch was aborted, or stillborn, because of the original sin (resulting in the birth of the usurper Cain). If Rabbi Hirsch is correct, as he usually is, then when Abram is transformed into Abra-h-am, by means of the first ritual-emasculation (circumcision), God "gives" נתן him the first firstborn of creation that was stillborn so far as ha-adam is concerned, but which is still born by means of Abra-h-am becoming the Great Mother associated with the original covenant aka "the house of the firstborn ב–ר–ית" signified through the ritual removal of his fathering-organ (brit milah).

Genesis 25:26, tells of Jacob taking possession אחזת of Esau's heel עקב. The key to the narrative, as is almost always the case, found in other parts of the Torah, such that the two other places in the Torah seminal to Genesis 25:26, are Exodus 13:2, where God states that all "womb openers" פטר רחם (that is all Jewish mother's firstborn בכור לכהן) belong uniquely to him, and Genesis 38:28-30, which tells the story of Zarah's hand opening the womb, having a scarlet thread attached, whence it retreats back into the womb, while Perez usurps the true birth order in a manner that without the scarlet thread, which ironically is missing in Genesis 25:26, allows the second born to be fancied the firstborn, ala Esau and Jacob.

In the same sense that we need Exodus 13:2, and Genesis 38:28-30, to makes sense of Genesis 25:26 (the latter being the fallacious usurpation of Jacob's birth by Esau), so too, we need all of those passages of scripture, and some Rashi too, to make sense of what's going on when God takes possession of Abram's heel in a manner parallel to Jacob taking possession of Esau's.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Genesis 25:26, tells of Jacob taking possession אחזת of Esau's heel עקב. The key to the narrative, as is almost always the case, found in other parts of the Torah, such that the two other places in the Torah seminal to Genesis 25:26, are Exodus 13:2, where God states that all "womb openers" פטר רחם (that is all Jewish mother's firstborn בכור לכהן) belong uniquely to him, and Genesis 38:28-30, which tells the story of Zarah's hand opening the womb, having a scarlet thread attached, whence it retreats back into the womb, while Perez usurps the true birth order in a manner that without the scarlet thread, which ironically is missing in Genesis 25:26, allows the second born to be fancied the firstborn, ala Esau and Jacob.

In the same sense that we need Exodus 13:2, and Genesis 38:28-30, to makes sense of Genesis 25:26 (the latter being the fallacious usurpation of Jacob's birth by Esau), so too, we need all of those passages of scripture, and some Rashi too, to make sense of what's going on when God takes possession of Abram's heel in a manner parallel to Jacob taking possession of Esau's.

The physical body is the property of Hashem and not one’s personal asset. Consequently, it is forbidden to cause injury, or pain to oneself (Bava Kamma 90b). Therefore, though Avraham definitely wanted to perform a brit milah earlier, the halachah of not damaging Hashem’s property prevented him. Once Hashem gave him a direct command, it was no longer considered inflicting injury, but the performance of a mitzvah. . . Alternatively, according to the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 27a) an uncircumcised is not qualified to perform a circumcision. Since neither Avraham nor any of his household were circumcised, it was impossible for him to perform a halachically valid circumcision. Ultimately, not only was he told to do so, but Hashem actually assisted him, as it is stated, “Vecharot imo haberit” – “And He cut with him the covenant” (see Rashi 17:23). It does not say, “for him,” but “with him.” Now that Avraham was properly circumcised, he was qualified to circumcise others, and he thus proceeded to circumcise all the members of his household (see Orach Chaim).​

​

Lukkutei Sichos.​

In Lukkutei Sichos, Rashi is quoted quoting Bereshis Rabbah, 49:2:

It is written: “The secret of the Lord is [revealed] to those who fear Him, and His covenant to inform them” (Psalms 25:14). What is “the secret of the Lord”? This is circumcision, as He did not reveal it from Adam the first man until twenty generations, until Abraham arose, and He gave it to him, as it is stated: “I will establish My covenant between Me and you” (Genesis 17:2).​

In the context of the passage from Midrash Rabbah above, circumcision is being called the "secret of the Lord." Midrash Rabbah conflates the "secret of the Lord" (i.e., circumcision) with the "covenant" through which those who fear the Lord will be inform concerning the secret of the Lord. Furthermore, the passage notes that this secret of the Lord, informed partly through the covenant, is hidden from the time of Adam (particularly the Fall) to the time of Abraham, when, God will give the covenant formerly hidden in Adam, instead, to Abraham. He'll do this through the ritual of circumcision, which reveals the great secret of the Lord (hidden from the time of the Fall to the circumcision of Abraham).

​

The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘If you become circumcised, you will receive the secret [sod] of the Lord' . . Due to the merit of circumcision . . . “Moses undertook to expound [be’er] [this Torah]” (Deuteronomy 1:5). By whose merit? It is by the merit of circumcision, as it is stated: “The secret [sod] of the Lord is [revealed] to those who fear Him.” The Holy One blessed be He said to Abraham: ‘It is sufficient for the disciple to be similar to his master. He [Abraham] said before Him: ‘Who will circumcise me?’ He said: ‘You, yourself.’ Thereupon, Abraham took a knife and held his foreskin, and he was about to cut, but he was afraid, because he was so old. What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He extended his hand and held it with him as Abraham was cutting, as it is stated: “You are the Lord the God, who chose Abram […and made the covenant with him]” (Nehemiah 9:7–8). “And He made the covenant to him” is not written here, but rather, “made with him.” This teaches that the Holy One blessed be He was holding on to him.​

​

Ibid.​

Just as Genesis 25:26 states that Jacob's hand holds onto Esau's "heel" עקב (which ---עקב---is a word used to speak covertly of the fleshly fathering-organ in other places in the Tanakh), we find in Midrash Rabbah that the Lord is said to hold onto Abraham's heel such that the parallel brings all the characters together in a cohesive manner since the Hebrew word for Esau's "heel" (עקב), means to "usurp" or "supplant," in which case, in context, the flesh being held by Jacob and the Lord is the flesh that usurped and supplanted the original covenant to Adam. In the original plan, prior to Genesis 2:21, the first human, Adam, is slated to be the "house of the firstborn," the Great Mother, as expressed in the Hebraism and hieroglyph associated with the Hebrew word for "covenant" ב–ר–ית. The fact that Adam's body was cut, desecrated (Genesis 2:21), in a manner that rescinds Adam's direct role in the covenant, is partly hidden, from the time of Adam to the circumcision of Abraham. Ironically, the very flesh added to Adam's body, the עקב, i.e., the "heel" or "supplanter" (the male-organ formed when labial flesh is sutured shut in Genesis 2:21) is itself cut, and symbolically/ritually removed, so that the "secret of the Lord" associated with the covenant, can be re-established, i.e., "given" נתן, to Abraham, so that he becomes like Adam prior to the sin through which the covenant is rescinded.

To some degree, circumcision restored Abraham and his descendants to the status of Adam before his sin. . . Through Milah [circumcision] it would be possible to return to the level of Adam and Eve before the sin. In other words, mankind would again have direct access to the spiritual dimension.​

​

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought, p. 39, 47; Inner Space, p. 166.​

​

The primal flaw must be mended so that all things can return to their proper place, to their original posture. Man and God are partners in this enterprise. . . If Adam had not sinned the world would have entered the Messianic state [messiah would have been born] on the first Sabbath after creation, with no historical process whatever.​

​

Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 46.​

John

 

[Elihoenai]

Abarbanel, et al., is disturbed by the strange goings on in Genesis chapter 17. He notes the oddity that Isaac's birth is promised to Abram (in chapter 15), such that the language of Genesis chapter 17 is peculiar in the extreme; it seems to be speaking of a "seed" of Abra-h-am, distinct from the seed of Abram, the latter being Ishmael and Isaac?

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as many; but as of one.​

​

Galatians 3:16.​

In Galatians 3:16, the Tarsus Jew parallels his statement with John 3:16, implying that the singular "seed" found in Genesis 17, is none other than the only-begotten (singular) seed of God found in John's Gospel? Far from refuting Paul's strange reading of the text, the sages of Judaism get tangled up in the truly bizarre Hebrew of Genesis chapter 17 since at one point it appears to be speaking of Abram's natural paternity through Isaac and Jacob, and at another place it seems to be speaking ---ala Paul --- of a singular seed of Abraham that's "given" נתן to Abraham (as God is said to give his son in John 3:16), rather than Abraham producing him the old-fashioned way that produces Ishmael and Isaac. Rabbi Samson Hirsch addresses this conundrum in the guise of the strange use of the Hebrew word נתן ("give") in verse 8 of Genesis 17 since it appears completely out of place in the context.

The combination of ברית and נתן almost never occurs elsewhere . . . As a rule, the formula is הקים ברית ,כרת ברית, not נתן ברית. It is possible, then, that ואתנה בריתי does not mean "I will establish with you a new covenant," but rather, "I will establish with you an existing covenant."​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Genesis 17: 2.​

If we connect Rabbi Hirsch's statement quoted above, with the fact that the Hebrew word "covenant" ברית is a Hebraism, a Hebrew hieroglyph, for "the house of the firstborn," a beit/"house" (בית) with a rosh/"firstborn" (ר) in its belly (ב–ר–ית), i.e., the "covenant" (ברית) is a pregnant metaphor for the womb of the first of all firstborns, then we're onto something potentially, exegetically, theologically, explosive. If Rabbi Hirsch is correct, and he usually is, then God is making Abraham, and not Abram, nor ha-adam, the parent of the first of all firstborns, which, that "house of the firstborn" ברית was, up until the Fall, the first human ---ha-adam--- who's originally slated to give birth to this first of all firstborn that's now being "given" נתן to Abraham since the original epoch was aborted, or stillborn, because of the original sin (resulting in the birth of the usurper Cain). If Rabbi Hirsch is correct, as he usually is, then when Abram is transformed into Abra-h-am, by means of the first ritual-emasculation (circumcision), God "gives" נתן him the first firstborn of creation that was stillborn so far as ha-adam is concerned, but which is still born by means of Abra-h-am becoming the Great Mother associated with the original covenant aka "the house of the firstborn ב–ר–ית" signified through the ritual removal of his fathering-organ (brit milah).



John

Why is a Christian promoting the teachings of those calling themselves Jews when those claimed Jews have Rejected Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ and the New Testament Scriptures?

In regards to your profile Signature, is it not also true that Women use men for Sexual pleasure? Are you not using Women for Sexual Pleasure? Do you have Sex for Procreation purposes Only? I Am Celibate Christian Gnostic Man Not using Women as Objects of Sexual Pleasure or for Procreation Purposes.

 

[John D. Brey]

Why is a Christian promoting the teachings of those calling themselves Jews when those claimed Jews have Rejected Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ and the New Testament Scriptures?

There are reasons Israel rejected Jesus Christ. They're under great duress from the god of this world. The New Testament scriptures state that only those who are called and elected in eternity past will, can, accept Jesus as Lord.

My spiritual mentor, Col. R.B. Thieme, Jr., teaches that salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is a non-meritorious decision based on faith, come, the faith, not from ourselves, but as a gift of God (not by works lest anyone boast). If salvation is based on non-meritorious faith, then there's no merit for the person who's given that faith by God as a gracious gift.

Ergo, anyone judging Israel, or anyone else, for lack of faith in Christ, could be interpreted to be assuming there's merit in their own personal faith in Christ; which could imply they don't understand their own salvific faith well enough yet to desist from judging someone God has not yet given the gift of faith in Christ. Since no one earns or deserves that great gift, those judging others who may not yet have faith in Christ, could be interpreted to be boasting of their own gift of faith.

In regards to your profile Signature, is it not also true that Women use men for Sexual pleasure? Are you not using Women for Sexual Pleasure? Do you have Sex for Procreation purposes Only? I Am Celibate Christian Gnostic Man Not using Women as Objects of Sexual Pleasure or for Procreation Purposes.

I think Otto Weininger's idea is that phallic sex is flawed since in both cases, those engaged are using another person's body as a tool for their own personal gratification. I think the idea is that sex itself is flawed, such that those who engage in it are under its spell.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Why is a Christian promoting the teachings of those calling themselves Jews when those claimed Jews have Rejected Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ and the New Testament Scriptures?

Thank you for asking this question. A more direct answer, or at least another avenue for answering the question, is to point out that New Testament scripture teaches that not only the prophets in the Tanakh, but even the angels, seek to understand the mysteries of Christ that weren't given to them (but only to us).

The quotations provided in this thread show brilliant God-fearing Jews struggling to understand the mysteries found in their own laws, decrees, and rituals. I've used those quotations to show that the answers Christianity provides segue, dovetail, so nicely with the thoughts of the Jewish sages, so as to reveal that we and they are not really opposed to one another but are, at least as I see it, fellow servants in the revelation of the mysteries of God.

God hasn't revealed himself to Israel, or the angels, as he has to you and me. But he will when the time is right. He's hidden himself from them, for our benefit, and revealed himself to us, for their eventual benefit.

It is written: “The secret of the Lord is [revealed] to those who fear Him.​

​

Bereshis Rabbah 49:2.​

The fear of the Lord crucifies all human good works. Human good is a sin and is nailed with Christ on the cross. Whether it be a Jew, or a Christian, anyone judging their brother based on a perception of spiritual superiority is showing a concerning lack of fear of the Lord.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

The physical body is the property of Hashem and not one’s personal asset. Consequently, it is forbidden to cause injury, or pain to oneself (Bava Kamma 90b). Therefore, though Avraham definitely wanted to perform a brit milah earlier, the halachah of not damaging Hashem’s property prevented him. Once Hashem gave him a direct command, it was no longer considered inflicting injury, but the performance of a mitzvah. . . Alternatively, according to the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 27a) an uncircumcised is not qualified to perform a circumcision. Since neither Avraham nor any of his household were circumcised, it was impossible for him to perform a halachically valid circumcision. Ultimately, not only was he told to do so, but Hashem actually assisted him, as it is stated, “Vecharot imo haberit” – “And He cut with him the covenant” (see Rashi 17:23). It does not say, “for him,” but “with him.” Now that Avraham was properly circumcised, he was qualified to circumcise others, and he thus proceeded to circumcise all the members of his household (see Orach Chaim).​

​

Lukkutei Sichos.​

In Lukkutei Sichos, Rashi is quoted quoting Bereshis Rabbah, 49:2:

It is written: “The secret of the Lord is [revealed] to those who fear Him, and His covenant to inform them” (Psalms 25:14). What is “the secret of the Lord”? This is circumcision, as He did not reveal it from Adam the first man until twenty generations, until Abraham arose, and He gave it to him, as it is stated: “I will establish My covenant between Me and you” (Genesis 17:2).​

In the context of the passage from Midrash Rabbah above, circumcision is being called the "secret of the Lord." Midrash Rabbah conflates the "secret of the Lord" (i.e., circumcision) with the "covenant" through which those who fear the Lord will be inform concerning the secret of the Lord. Furthermore, the passage notes that this secret of the Lord, informed partly through the covenant, is hidden from the time of Adam (particularly the Fall) to the time of Abraham, when, God will give the covenant formerly hidden in Adam, instead, to Abraham. He'll do this through the ritual of circumcision, which reveals the great secret of the Lord (hidden from the time of the Fall to the circumcision of Abraham).

​

The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘If you become circumcised, you will receive the secret [sod] of the Lord' . . Due to the merit of circumcision . . . “Moses undertook to expound [be’er] [this Torah]” (Deuteronomy 1:5). By whose merit? It is by the merit of circumcision, as it is stated: “The secret [sod] of the Lord is [revealed] to those who fear Him.” The Holy One blessed be He said to Abraham: ‘It is sufficient for the disciple to be similar to his master. He [Abraham] said before Him: ‘Who will circumcise me?’ He said: ‘You, yourself.’ Thereupon, Abraham took a knife and held his foreskin, and he was about to cut, but he was afraid, because he was so old. What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He extended his hand and held it with him as Abraham was cutting, as it is stated: “You are the Lord the God, who chose Abram […and made the covenant with him]” (Nehemiah 9:7–8). “And He made the covenant to him” is not written here, but rather, “made with him.” This teaches that the Holy One blessed be He was holding on to him.​

​

Ibid.​

Just as Genesis 25:26 states that Jacob's hand holds onto Esau's "heel" עקב (which ---עקב---is a word used to speak covertly of the fleshly fathering-organ in other places in the Tanakh), we find in Midrash Rabbah that the Lord is said to hold onto Abraham's heel such that the parallel brings all the characters together in a cohesive manner since the Hebrew word for Esau's "heel" (עקב), means to "usurp" or "supplant," in which case, in context, the flesh being held by Jacob and the Lord is the flesh that usurped and supplanted the original covenant to Adam. In the original plan, prior to Genesis 2:21, the first human, Adam, is slated to be the "house of the firstborn," the Great Mother, as expressed in the Hebraism and hieroglyph associated with the Hebrew word for "covenant" ב–ר–ית. The fact that Adam's body was cut, desecrated (Genesis 2:21), in a manner that rescinds Adam's direct role in the covenant, is partly hidden, from the time of Adam to the circumcision of Abraham. Ironically, the very flesh added to Adam's body, the עקב, i.e., the "heel" or "supplanter" (the male-organ formed when labial flesh is sutured shut in Genesis 2:21) is itself cut, and symbolically/ritually removed, so that the "secret of the Lord" associated with the covenant, can be re-established, i.e., "given" נתן, to Abraham, so that he becomes like Adam prior to the sin through which the covenant is rescinded.

To some degree, circumcision restored Abraham and his descendants to the status of Adam before his sin. . . Through Milah [circumcision] it would be possible to return to the level of Adam and Eve before the sin. In other words, mankind would again have direct access to the spiritual dimension.​

​

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Handbook of Jewish Thought, p. 39, 47; Inner Space, p. 166.​

​

The primal flaw must be mended so that all things can return to their proper place, to their original posture. Man and God are partners in this enterprise. . . If Adam had not sinned the world would have entered the Messianic state [messiah would have been born] on the first Sabbath after creation, with no historical process whatever.​

​

Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 46.​

A serious mystery is revealed just beneath the surface of the foregoing. In Midrash Rabbah Genesis 49:2 (aka Bereshis Rabbah 49:2), which is quoted by Rashi, and which the Lubavitcher Rebbe quotes Rashi quoting (in Lukkutei Sichos), we read that the Lord said to Abram that it's sufficient for the servant to be similar to his master. To which Abram responds:

He [Abraham] said before Him: ‘Who will circumcise me?’ He said: ‘You, yourself.’ Thereupon, Abraham took a knife and held his foreskin, and he was about to cut, but he was afraid, because he was so old. What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He extended his hand and held it with him as Abraham was cutting, as it is stated: “You are the Lord the God, who chose Abram […and made the covenant with him]” (Nehemiah 9:7–8). “And He made the covenant to him” is not written here, but rather, “made with him.” This teaches that the Holy One blessed be He was holding on to him.​

The idea that Abram is afraid to circumcise himself because of his advanced ages is narrative fluff hiding both the true problem, and the reason why God grabs Abram's heel:

The physical body is the property of Hashem and not one’s personal asset. Consequently, it is forbidden to cause injury, or pain to oneself (Bava Kamma 90b). Therefore, though Avraham definitely wanted to perform a brit milah earlier, the halachah of not damaging Hashem’s property prevented him. . . Alternatively, according to the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 27a) an uncircumcised is not qualified to perform a circumcision. Since neither Avraham nor any of his household were circumcised, it was impossible for him to perform a halachically valid circumcision. Ultimately, not only was he told to do so, but Hashem actually assisted him, as it is stated, “Vecharot imo haberit” – “And He cut with him the covenant” (see Rashi 17:23). It does not say, “for him,” but “with him.” Now that Avraham was properly circumcised, he was qualified to circumcise others, and he thus proceeded to circumcise all the members of his household (see Orach Chaim).​

​

Lukkutei Sichos (quoted from Chabad.org).​

The quotation from Lukkutei Sichos lends itself to the topic of this examination in that it insinuates not only that the servant must be similar to the master, but that that similarity is the secret of the Lord's circumcision. To be similar to the Lord, that is to prove he fears the Lord, Abraham must be circumcised, which means the Lord is circumcised, and thus the Lord is the first one able to be a circumciser (since a circumciser must already be circumcised just as a Jewish mother must already be Jewish)? What does it mean, beyond narrative fluff, to say that the Lord is circumcised (as he must be in order to grab Abram by the heel therein putting an end to the usurpation and supplantation part of Abram's body that's a facsimile of Adam's body after the Fall, and thus not like the Lord's body from the get-go?

In the same sense the circumciser must already be circumcised to circumcise, so too, in order for a Jewish mother to give birth to a Jew, the mother must already be Jewish. The conundrum (how did the first circumciser get circumcised if circumcision requires the circumciser to be circumcised) directly parallels the problem that for a mother to be Jewish she must have a Jewish mother, such that the question arises how the first Jewish mother became Jewish without a Jewish mother? These problems are parallel such that a theological solution exists that's based on a singular revelation hidden in the biblical narratives and partwise revealed through the Jewish sage's desire to unearth the answer to the mystery. Understanding the nature of the Lord holding Abram's heel, unties the Gordian knot concerning both how the first circumciser got circumcised, and how the first Jewish mother became a Jew?




John

 

[Elihoenai]

There are reasons Israel rejected Jesus Christ. They're under great duress from the god of this world. The New Testament scriptures state that only those who are called and elected in eternity past will, can, accept Jesus as Lord.

My spiritual mentor, Col. R.B. Thieme, Jr., teaches that salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is a non-meritorious decision based on faith, come, the faith, not from ourselves, but as a gift of God (not by works lest anyone boast). If salvation is based on non-meritorious faith, then there's no merit for the person who's given that faith by God as a gracious gift.

Ergo, anyone judging Israel, or anyone else, for lack of faith in Christ, could be interpreted to be assuming there's merit in their own personal faith in Christ; which could imply they don't understand their own salvific faith well enough yet to desist from judging someone God has not yet given the gift of faith in Christ. Since no one earns or deserves that great gift, those judging others who may not yet have faith in Christ, could be interpreted to be boasting of their own gift of faith.

1 Corinthians 3:13

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.


This stuff is the Great Snare of Christendom making the potential of a Real Christian Spiritually Impotent. Salvation is Attained through the Great Work of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ, therefore, the Merit Belongs to Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ Whose Boast is in Elohim/God. Any Work that Claims to be that of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ Salvation and is Really the Work of a False Interpretation of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ is Work of your own Personal Merit and Self-Boasting.

I think Otto Weininger's idea is that phallic sex is flawed since in both cases, those engaged are using another person's body as a tool for their own personal gratification. I think the idea is that sex itself is flawed, such that those who engage in it are under its spell.

Yes, both Men and Women use the others person body for personal gratification. Also Both Men and Women use each other to produce Offspring.

It's certainly evident that those engaged in Sexual Intercourse are under a Powerful Spell. They are Addicted to Sex and Hate and Persecute those that Abstain from Sexual Activity. Are you saying that you are Celibate?

 

[Elihoenai]

Thank you for asking this question. A more direct answer, or at least another avenue for answering the question, is to point out that New Testament scripture teaches that not only the prophets in the Tanakh, but even the angels, seek to understand the mysteries of Christ that weren't given to them (but only to us).

The quotations provided in this thread show brilliant God-fearing Jews struggling to understand the mysteries found in their own laws, decrees, and rituals. I've used those quotations to show that the answers Christianity provides segue, dovetail, so nicely with the thoughts of the Jewish sages, so as to reveal that we and they are not really opposed to one another but are, at least as I see it, fellow servants in the revelation of the mysteries of God.

God hasn't revealed himself to Israel, or the angels, as he has to you and me. But he will when the time is right. He's hidden himself from them, for our benefit, and revealed himself to us, for their eventual benefit.

It is written: “The secret of the Lord is [revealed] to those who fear Him.​

​

Bereshis Rabbah 49:2.​

The fear of the Lord crucifies all human good works. Human good is a sin and is nailed with Christ on the cross. Whether it be a Jew, or a Christian, anyone judging their brother based on a perception of spiritual superiority is showing a concerning lack of fear of the Lord.




John

Every person Christian or Jew Must be Judged by the Word of Elohim/God to Identify whether they are in Truth or Error. Given that Elohim/God Moral Standard is the Judgement than Elohim/God is Judge. If you are Judging from your own Petty, what they call, Human Moral Standard than this is Lack of the Fear of Elohim/God. Human Morals is Utter Depraved Satanism in the Eyes of Elohim/God. Many False Prophets and False Teachers are Spreading Falsehoods.

Do you agree that there is Spiritual Israel and Fleshly Israel?

 

[John D. Brey]

Do you agree that there is Spiritual Israel and Fleshly Israel?

Yes.



John