An "Out of the Box" Hebrews Commentary

By Watchman Dean
CHAPTER 1:

It is time to provide a comprehensive study on one of the most important

books in the New Testament, Hebrews. Such an undertaking would take
many years to do it justice. Perhaps some day, Lord willing, we will do this,
but for now we're going to examine some of the inspiration regarding the
texts within Hebrews. Starting with the first basic question. Who wrote it?

Tradition says it was written by Paul. Yet, nowhere within the pages of the
book do we find any reference to its human source. It's pure conjecture on
the part of many that it was written by Paul.

Tradition says that the original human penman of the book was Paul. It
suffices us to say that it could have been Paul but it could have been
someone else just as easily. What does it really matter? It doesn't, if we can
agree that it was divinely inspired and perhaps written by some apostle or
greatly respected leader in the early congregation of the 1st century that
should be enough.

This commentary may slip up here and there and invoke the name of Paul as
the author of Hebrews. Keep this in mind, there's no proof that Paul is the
author.

Hebrews is a sacred book and quite relevant to the modern believer for so
many reasons. It covers the gospel as it relates, not just to the Hebrews, but
also to the Gentiles (non Jews) in a way that no other book in the New
Testament does.

The book begins with a bang! What is most ironic about the first few verses
in Hebrews is that they are so often used by trinitarians and modalists alike
(those who staunchly support the notion) to prove the deity of Christ! How
truly amazing, for the book of Hebrews, and especially the first 9 verses
completely refute the notion that Christ is God. In fact, the entire book of
Hebrews is the greatest weapon in scripture to refute most of the false
teachings found in modern traditional religion and most especially "deity of
Christ."

We will focus, like a laser, therefore on how this book destroys common
teachings within the traditionalist dogma, giving priority, of course to their
lies regarding the deity of Christ and the lie of the "human sacrificial"
system of blood now permeating the modern false gospel.

Let us begin therefore at the beginning:

Hebrews 1:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom
also he made the worlds;

In just the first two verses many modern misconceptions perpetrated by the
traditionalist religion are completely exposed. First, the idea of the "literal
pre-existence" of Christ is destroyed.

How so?

If Christ pre-existed in some other form as the "literal" word of God, (as a
separate person who's name is THE WORD), who is either a part of a three
in one Godhead, or is a single God who switches modes at will, or who is
some angel in heaven before his earthly existence, then the author of
Hebrews has made a fatal error in his exegesis.

For he says that in the times past God spoke to us by his prophets, but only
now "in these last days" God speaks by his son.

How would this even be remotely possible if the Son is literally "the
WORD" of God? Every word that God sent to every prophet would proceed
forth from God's SON! It would have been how God spoke to us from the
very beginning!

The author of Hebrews has either proved himself to be completely in error,

or has proved once and for all that the traditional handling of Christ as "the
literal WORD" is completely in error. Take your pick.

If you believe the traditionalists, then you should just take the book of
Hebrews right now and toss it for in the very first two verses it contradicts
basic tradition.

Another traditional dogma that is refuted by the first two verses is the
misguided teaching that Christ is the actual creator. Not without irony, the
traditionalists offer verse 2 as proof that he IS the creator.

"... by whom also he made the worlds;"

Now, many take issue with that word "worlds," pointing out that the original
word is "eons" and it actually means "ages." This is a weak argument from
the perspective of those who preach that Jesus was there "with the Father"
creating the world. They don't think that changing the word to "ages" makes
very much difference because, to them, it still leaves Christ as participating
in the creation process."

Fair enough. So we can leave it as "the worlds." Let us first, therefore ask
the basic and obvious question. Are traditionalists correct in applying verse
2 to the genesis creation? Were there multiple "worlds" created in the book
of Genesis?

Let's not bother going there, every young school child should know that in
Genesis God created the heaven and the EARTH (singular) not "Earths"
plural. Nowhere does it say that in Genesis God created multiple WORLDS.

So, is the author of Hebrews simply not familiar enough with Genesis?
God forbid.

It's more than likely he's referring to something other than Genesis creation
when he says "worlds."

Unless you want to make the case that God created more than one earth,
more than one world in Genesis, and unless you want to take the position
that there are MULTIPLE worlds out there, with multiple people living on
them, (which is not without the realm of possibility, with God all things are
possible), yet, you are hard pressed to prove it in scripture.

By making Hebrews 1: 2 say that God created multiple worlds by his Son,
you add a doctrine that previously didn't exist, and you make a claim that is
impossible to prove using scripture.

Don't you think it's more accurate to say that God created multiple "ages"
through his son? We know that Christ is called "the second Adam" (1
Corinthians 15: 45-47). We also know that Christ has ushered in a "new
creation." (2 Corinthians 5: 17). Rather than create a whole new "multiple
worlds" dogma not supported in scripture wouldn't it make sense, rather, to
believe that the author is here speaking of the "ages to come" created by the
work of Christ on the cross?

Ephesians 2: 7
That in the ages to come he might shew the
exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward
us through Christ Jesus.

Okay, so maybe you want to stick with the word "worlds" chosen by the
translators. Couldn't this be speaking of the new "world" in Christ and the
worlds to come that was spoken of by Christ himself?

Mark 10: 30
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time,
houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the
world to come eternal life.

In their eagerness to prove deity of Christ they snatch on the phrase "by
whom he created the worlds." They fly right over the one part of the text
that completely DISPROVES Christ as "creator of all things."

"... whom he hath appointed heir of all things,"

The logical question is this: is Christ "heir of all things" or is he "creator of

all things?" He cannot be both! One does not "inherit" that which one has
himself created, and certainly one cannot be "appointed" heir of one's own
creation by someone else!

How do they not see this dichotomy?

Let's move on.

Hebrews 1:
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the
express image of his person, and upholding all things
by the word of his power, when he had by himself
purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high:

Still speaking of Christ it says that he existed (being) in the "brightness of

his (God's) glory" and in the express image of his (God's) person...

To those seeking to prove deity of Christ, they may say "we need read no
further," for they erroneously include that Christ MUST be God in order for
any of these statements to be true of him. It's a fallacy in logic. They will
say "God shares his glory with no one" and quote Isaiah 42: 8.

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to
another, ..."

Yet, they are quite clever, for this is but a "half quote." The rest of the verse
they leave off entirely.

"... neither my praise to graven images."

So the context is that God doesn't share his glory with false idols, graven
images and, as with all their arguments, the true irony is that this argument
destroys the very premise they seek to prove. For (even though they don't
see it) making Christ into God (or a God/man as some of them call him) is a
clear violation of the very verse they quote. We must suppose that it never
occurs to the traditionalist that God does not give his glory to "other Gods"
but he just might share his glory with his Son. The turning of a man into a
God is to create an idol, the very thing God is speaking out against when he
says this to Isaiah. What true irony?

Does God not give his glory to his children? If not, then why would Christ
pray that he has given the glory that God gave to him, unto his disciples?

John 17:
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given
them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Clearly, either the author of John is misquoting Jesus completely, or God

indeed does give his glory to his children.

Do God's children "exist" and have their "being" in his glory? Can the Son
of God be in the "express image" of God's person without actually BEING
God? Yes, and yes.

"... being in the brightness of his glory..."

Acts 17: 28
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might
feel after him, and find him, though he be not far
from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being;

as certain also of your own poets have said, For we
are also his offspring.

Romans 8: 17-18
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-
heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that
we may be also glorified together.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present

time are not worthy to be compared with the glory
which shall be revealed in us.

Colossians 1: 27
To whom God would make known what is the riches of
the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is
Christ in you, the hope of glory:

"... and (being) in the express image of his person..."

Romans 8:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Now, common sense dictates that if Christ is "the image of the invisible
God" and we are being "conformed unto his image" that the same thing
could eventually be said of us when we are "like Christ," that we exist "in
the express image of his person."

Does anything about this say that we are DEITY or that we are a member of
a multiple GODHEAD?

No!

So back to the original verse in Hebrews we begin to question the traditional

narrative- that verse 3 proves "Jesus is God."
Hebrews 1: 3
"... and upholding all things by the word of his power,
when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on
the right hand of the Majesty on high:"

When it says "his" in verse 3 so far it's a reference to God:

"3 Who (God's son) being the brightness of his (God's) glory, and the
express image of his (God's) person,"

So in the next statement we have no reason to believe the same rule doesn't
apply:

"... and upholding all things by the word of his (God's) power, when he
(God's Son) had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of
the Majesty on high: (God)

Here we have a clear statement of separation between God's Son and God
the Father (the Almighty, the Majesty on High). Something that trinitarians
say is impossible, for, they say, you cannot "separate" the three in one. Each
person is inseparable from the other according to the teaching. So, how can
the Son be "at the right hand" of the Majesty on High? They are inseperable
and "co-existent" and "co-eternal" and "co-substantial" and "co-equal" in
rank and authority. The Son, therefore, sitting in heaven would not be "at
the right hand" of the Majesty, but would be "on the Majesty" having been
"restored" to his rightful glory (the glory he left when he took on the flesh).

Verse 3, therefore, utterly refutes the claims of Christ's deity in that one
phrase, "at the right hand of the Majesty." Christ would have to be a "lesser
God" and "lesser in authority" to sit at the right hand of ANYONE in
heaven. Further, if Christ sits "at the right hand" of the Majesty, this would
mean that the third member of the trinity, God the Spirit, would be at God's
LEFT.. which places God the Spirit at the subservient position of both the
Majesty on high and God the Son!
Verse 3 destroys the trinity concept of "co-equal" three in one Godhead.

Yet, it gets better in verse 4.

Hebrews 1
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he
hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name
than they.

Now here the author of Hebrews utters complete blasphemy according to

traditionalist dogma. Speaking of the Son (by whom God spoke to the
world in these latter days) and says that he was "made."

That is correct.

It says the Son was MADE.

Traditionalists attempt to deny this and say the word was "remade" and does
not denote a creation. Let's see if that is true.

The word used there is "ginomai" from whence we get the words "genome"
and "genesis." It literally means "to cause to come into being," to
"generate," and to "bring into existence."

So it says of the Son that he was "made" so much better than the angels!

Now, traditionalists might argue that this is not a reference to his being
created as a human, for humans are "lower than the angels."

Hebrews 2: 7
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou
crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set
him over the works of thy hands:

So, they argue, and rightly so, that this is not a reference to his being
"created" as a human being because the author of Hebrews would be
contradicting himself. Yet, within their own argument must be the
acknowledgment that the son of God is MADE (created) or else nothing
makes sense.

You can't argue that he was "made" greater than the angels from the
beginning of his existence while at the same time arguing that he wasn't
made at all and had no beginning.

This is truly amazing that they don't see this, even while making the
arguments.

Furthermore, we will soon read in Hebrews 1 that the author makes the case
that Christ did not start out his existence "greater" than the angels but was
"anointed above his fellows."

Hebrews 1: 9
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with
the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Traditionalists can't seem to make up their minds, first they say the Son of
God was not "created" or "made" but always existed as co-equals then they
want to quote Hebrews 1: 8-9 as proof that Jesus is God, but then turn right
around and ignore where it says that Jesus was "anointed" above his
"fellows."

If Christ is God from the beginning and greater than angels from the day he's
"made" (whatever the traditionalist thinks the author of Hebrews means by
that word, being they deny he was made at all), Christ need not be
"anointed" above anyone being that he is from the beginning "co-equal" with
the Majesty on High!

Logic falls apart at this point.

Yet, the traditionalist will argue that when it says "he was made" it's
speaking of Christ in the FLESH and argue that he being "100 percent
human" as well as "100 percent God" was "made" a man and left behind his
deity while in the flesh. This, they say, explains how he is "made greater
than the angels."

Yet, if Christ is a man while in the flesh, he's not "greater than the angels"
he's "lower than the angels" according to this same author in the next chapter
over (as we have seen).

So, this they argue, that Christ was made a man for a time (below the
angels), but at the same time was "greater" than the angels (being that he
was God all along) and yet, Christ was "exalted" above all other men
because of his obedience unto the cross. (Thus he was lower than the angels
but anointed above his fellows).

Whenever this question is brought up, (how was Christ MADE greater than
the angels) do not forget Philippians 2:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled

himself, and became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and

given him a name which is above every name:

So, traditionalist position becomes simple:

Christ was God, left behind his deity, found himself "fashioned" (made) as a
man, humbled himself as the man he was and even became a "servant" to all.
He WAS GOD, but at the same time was not God (100 percent man) but yet
still was God (for even being flesh it would not change who he was). Then,
because he was "obedient" unto God (which is obedience to himself in
reality) he was highly exalted (by himself) and was "made greater than the
angels."

So he was lower than the angels (being a man) but at the same time because
he was SON of GOD he was "greater" than the angels, and at the same time
was only a lowly servant (which made him below other men) but at the same
time he was God Incarnate, while at the same time leaving his Godhead
behind....

Traditionalists teach this with a straight face and have no problem thinking
it's perfectly logical.

Yet, as we continue in Hebrews 1, we find even more contradiction and

nonsense in the traditionalist reading.

Hebrews 4:
"... as he hath by inheritance obtained a more
excellent name than they."

Now, this says Christ has obtained a more excellent name than the angels
and he did so BY INHERITANCE. We just read that Paul stated in
Philippians he was "given a name above" the angels because of his
"obedience" unto the cross! Which completely contradicts the notion of his
"name above the angels" being an inheritance at all.

The author of Hebrews and the author of Philippians do not seem to agree as
to how Christ obtained a name above the angels. The one saying it was an
"inheritance" because of who he was (Son of God) and the other saying he
earned it by being "obedient unto the death."

Which is true?

It's quite a quandary!

Until you understand that BOTH are true. You can only understand this by
understanding that Christ was SON OF GOD based on his OBEDIENCE
unto the FATHER (and not because he always was the Son of God and
existed co-equal to the Father from all eternity) as traditionalists teach.

Under the traditionalist teaching Philippians 2 and Hebrews 1 are forever at

odds and contradictory!
Yet if when it says Christ was "Son of God" in Hebrews it is referring to
Christ's obedience unto the FATHER... then there is no contradiction.

Indeed, the Apostles preached that the Son of God is manifested by his
obedience.

1 John 3:
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for
his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because
he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the

children of the devil: whosoever doeth not
righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth
not his brother.

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the

beginning, that we should love one another.

So we clearly see that what makes one a "Son of God" is how one lives "in
love."

So, Christ "obtained" an inheritance by being OBEDIENT UNTO THE

FATHER (which is what we read later in Hebrews 1). Let's read it again:

Hebrews 1:
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with
the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

So, this is how Christ "Inherited" a greater name than the angels (and greater
than other men). He was "obedient unto the Father" and "hated iniquity" and
"loved righteousness."

So, Christ was SON OF GOD because of his obedience AS A MAN unto the
Father, and not because he "co existed" in "co-equality" with God!
When they teach that he was ALWAYS "Son of God" from all eternity, they
deny Hebrews and Philippians and most of the other New Testament
scriptures regarding Christ!

How amazing is that?

Yet if you do not believe that Hebrews is saying Christ was "Son of God"
because of his obedience, and that he was "forever made greater than the
angels" from "all eternity" as traditionalists teach then explain what the
author of Hebrews says next:

Hebrews 1:
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And
again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me
a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten

into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God
worship him.

According to traditionalist dogma the author of Hebrews is once again

uttering blasphemies!

Because the author says that God said to Christ at some point "this DAY
have I begotten thee." tradition teaches that Begotten means he was
ALWAYS God's Son. Thus, God could never say to him "this day" have I
begotten thee, because DAYS did not exist prior to Genesis!

Genesis 1:
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he

called Night. And the evening and the morning were
the first day.

How could God say to the Son "this day" have I "begotten thee" if Christ
existed as the SON from BEFORE days even existed?

It is utterly ludicrous.

Traditionalists try to argue that this is in reference to Christ's BIRTH as a

man.

They point to:

Hebrews 6:
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten
into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God
worship him.

They point to this every time and yet it never occurs to them how this verse
alone puts their entire doctrine on its ear! For, first of all, they teach Christ
is "only begotten" and yet this verse says he's "first begotten" suggesting
there shall be or are OTHERS afterward. Then it says that when God
brought him "into the world" he ordered the angels to worship him. Thus,
this negates their teaching that Christ "left his glory" in heaven when he
became a man! If he left his deity in heaven, and became a SERVANT and
then had to EARN his glory through obedience, then why would God be
telling the angels to worship him when he "came into the world?"

Furthermore, if the angels were worshiping him from the moment he became
flesh and "came into the world" then the author of Philippians is in grave
error saying that Christ had to be "obedient unto the death" before he would
be "highly exalted" and given a name above the angels.

According to their own reading of Hebrews Christ was already in possession

of a name greater than the angels and was worshiped by the angels from the
moment he came into the world. Which means that he could NOT BE A
MAN because even according to the author of Hebrews in chapter 2 man is
"lower than the angels."

So when it says Christ was "made greater than the angels" it would have to
be talking about when he was born in the flesh, which would mean when he
was flesh he retained his Godhead and his Glory, which refutes Philippians
2!

Furthermore, if Christ is GOD from the very beginning and his flesh is "God
made flesh" then WHY would the angels have to be told to worship him at
all? The angels are made to worship God, according to traditionalist, that is
the very purpose for their existence. They would not have to be TOLD to
worship God in the flesh!

Finally, while Christ was "only begotten" when he lived, after his
resurrection, when he brought those who believe the "power to become the
Sons of God," other Sons were begotten unto the Father and he became the
"firstborn" among many brethren. (Romans 8: 29)

As we continue to read, Hebrews further destroys traditional dogma!

Hebrews 1: 7
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels
spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

We need to take note here that when it says "he saith" in the above verse
(and in verse 6 before that and in verse 8 coming up as well) it's talking
about the person being quoted, not God. In other words "he saith" is not
"God saith" it's the writer being quoted who "saith." If it were "God saith"
then it would read as follows "And of the angels he saith, 'Who maketh my
angels spirits, and my ministers a flame of fire."

It is quite obvious by the 3rd person use in these verses that it is not God
talking, but rather someone else speaking ABOUT God.

The same holds true for the next verse. Hebrews 8. Yet to hear
traditionalists tell it, it's actually God saying to the Son "thy throne O' God."
Hebrews 1:
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the
sceptre of thy kingdom.

Here's how traditionalists READ that verse:

8 But unto the Son he (God) saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

They always end the quote there, even though there's more to it. This is
called a "half quote." They do this to make it look more like God looks at
the Son and says "thy throne O' God." Yet, just as in verse 6 and verse 7, it's
not God speaking but someone speaking about God. We can tell by the third
person when we examine the rest of the quote.

"9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;

therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with
the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

If the "he saith" were God saith, then here's how verse 9 would read:

"Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore I, even thy
God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

By the third person it says "therefore God." We can see clearly that the "he
saith" in the previous verse is talking about the PSALMIST. (For this text is
a quote from psalms). The Psalmist is talking about God. Which is why it
says "therefore God, even thy God."

Traditionalists always argue: "But wait, it says "unto the son he saith."

The word "unto" means "regarding" or "concerning."

So, while the psalmist is talking TO God in the first part of the quote, it
switches to talking about the SON in the final half of the quote (verse 9).
This is why it says "thy sceptre." A sceptre is what a monarch gives to his
SON when he sets his son on his throne in his authority. The son is in power
as long as he holds the sceptre.

The rest is CLEARLY about the Son, yes, but it's not calling the Son God!
If it were, then when it would make no sense for it to say that the Son has
been "anointed" above his fellows. God HAS NO FELLOWS!
Furthermore, God anoints, he is not "anointed." Finally, why would it say
that the Son is being rewarded for loving righteousness and hating evil (with
an anointing as a reward)? If he's God, he can do NOTHING BUT love
righteousness and hate evil.

By verse 9 it is now obvious that Hebrews is not the shining proof of the
deity of Christ that so many traditionalists claim it is.

Yet the quote from the psalmist continues, speaking to God ABOUT his son:

Hebrews 1:
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the
foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the
works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all

shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they

shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy
years shall not fail.

Traditionalists try to make the above verses about the Son, thus making the
Son the father, the creator of all things. Yet, we know the Psalmist is
speaking to God the Father about his son by reading the rest of the chapter.
It also begins to clue us in that "the Son" includes US, the joint heirs of
Christ in these passages.

Why?
Hebrews 1:
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit
on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to

minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

He begins talking about the "heirs" as of many. (Which is why it calls Christ
the "firstbegotten" earlier in the chapter).

God is saying the same thing to the joint heirs as he said to the firstbegotten
Son, and that is we have been "anointed" above our fellows, because we love
righteousness and hate evil! We share the inheritance with Christ. This is
what the rest of Hebrews is about! How the inheritance of the firstbegotten
is passed down to us.

As Christ hath obtained an inheritance by his obedience, so do his followers.

Revelation 3:
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me
in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set
down with my Father in his throne.

CHAPTER 2:

1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed

to the things which we have heard, lest at any time
we should let them slip.

2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and

every transgression and disobedience received a just
recompence of reward;
The author of Hebrews now warns us that we should be listening to the Son
of God. Remember in the beginning of the book he says God now speaks to
us by his son? Well, nothing has changed. God is still speaking by his son,
through the anointing, the connection we have through the power of the gift
of the Holy Spirit.

The author is taking his teaching to the next level. Warning that, just as
Christ obeyed the father and gained an inheritance as his Son, so WE must
obey the Father if we want to share in that inheritance. Which is why he
begins by focusing on a warning to us to OBEY and to not "let it slip."

Hebrews 2
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great
salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by
the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that
heard him;

The author herein warns that if we disobey the Father we are "neglecting"
our salvation! This is completely the OPPOSITE of modern traditionalist
teaching with its "you don't have to do anything to be saved" mentality! So,
not only is this book destroying the doctrine of the trinity and even the deity
of Christ but it's destroying "license to sin" through the "shed blood of
Jesus."

Christ is now been placed in charge of all things in heaven and in earth and
God has commanded from heaven "this is my beloved son in whom I am
well pleased, hear ye him."

We are now commanded to hear the Son who has stated plainly that his
sheep "hear his voice and follow."

If you are a follower of Christ then you are walking in obedience. This is
the message of Hebrews!

Hebrews 2:
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and
wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the
Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection

the world to come, whereof we speak.

6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is

man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man
that thou visitest him?

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;

thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst
set him over the works of thy hands:

The author of Hebrews is making it clear that even the angels are answerable
to the Son of God, being commanded to bow and worship him. If the
angels are answerable to him then certainly so are all men for men are below
the angels.

Hebrews 2:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.
For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left
nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not
yet all things put under him.

So, in no uncertain terms Christ is not God for all things were placed "under
him" and this cannot be said of him truthfully if he is God. If he is God and
the creator of all things, then all things would be under him by default and
would not have to be "placed under him."

Hebrews 2:
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with
glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should
taste death for every man.

Herein the author of Hebrews appears to now contradict himself completely.

In the first chapter he said that Christ was "made greater than the angels"
and now he says he was "made a little lower than the angels."

How can both be true? Clearly we are reading something wrong here.

We must back up to Hebrews 1 and examine the contradictory statement:

Hebrews 1:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he
hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name
than they.

When did Christ "obtain" an exalted name?

We read that. It's in Philippians:

Philippians 2:
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and
given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus

Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Obviously, therefore, Hebrews 1: 4 must be talking about the resurrection

when it says "he bringeth the firstbegotten" into the world, and not talking
about his birth at all!

There is confirmation of this from Colossians 1:

8 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is
the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all
things he might have the preeminence.

So, it's speaking of Christ's resurrection in Hebrews 1: 4, this is where they

get confused, for they think it's speaking of his birth.

The author of Hebrews states that when Christ was born he was "made" a
little lower than the angels. It doesn't say he was "from the beginning of all
eternity higher than the angels and then gave that up and became lower than
the angels." Hebrews clearly teaches that Christ began as a human being,
was "made," is a "created being," a man, just a little lower than the angels,
but by his obedience he obtained an inheritance greater than ANY angel or
man.

Yet, now, if we believe, and follow after Christ, we obtain to the same
inheritance.

Colossians 1:

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all

fulness dwell;

The above verse is one of the favorites that traditionalists love to quote to
"prove" Jesus is God. Their implication is clear, that God dwelt "fully" in
Christ's body therefore, Christ is God on earth in a fleshly body.

They completely ignore, however that 1 John chapter 4 says that God dwells
IN US, and that Christ said in the Gospel of John chapter 17 that just as the
Father dwells in him he shall dwell IN US!

By the traditionalist way of thinking wouldn't this make us "God Incarnate"

as well?

Traditionalists love to take Hebrews 2: 19 out of context and ignore where it

says that WE are the body of Christ. (In him dwelled the fullness bodily).
WE are the body:

Colossians 1:
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his
cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by
him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things
in heaven.

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and

enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath
he reconciled

22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present

you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his
sight:

23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled,

and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel,
which ye have heard, and which was preached to
every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul
am made a minister;

There is independent corroboration that we, the body of Christ have the
"fullness of God" dwelling in us:

Ephesians 1:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave
him to be the head over all things to the church,

23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all

in all.

So, when traditionalists try to make this fullness of God indwelling

something exclusive to Christ (because he's God Incarnate) they rob you of
the very inheritance that Christ suffered and died to bring you, namely the
fullness of God dwelling IN YOU!

BACK TO HEBREWS CHAPTER 2

We had to take the above detour so that we could keep the message of
Hebrews fully in mind. Hebrews is about to show us exactly how the
mission of Christ was to bring us to full obedience like him. (Something
that would be impossible if he were God).

The author of Hebrews says the following:

Hebrews 2:
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with
glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should
taste death for every man.

Christ "tastes death for every man."

Now what does that mean?

According to tradition it means "Christ died for you." Yet they cannot
explain why it is that traditionalists STILL DIE!

If Christ "died in your place" and "tasted death FOR YOU" (so that you
wouldn't have to taste it) then shouldn't traditionalists live forever and not
die at all?

Traditionalists love to say "it's talking about spiritual death." Yet, if Christ
tasted of SPIRITUAL DEATH for us, and he died spiritually, wouldn't he
have to commit sin? Traditionalists say, "no, for our sins were imputed to
him." Even though they don't have one scripture to back this up.

Furthermore, if Christ is God, and God is the spirit, and Christ died
spiritually, then God died.

Yet traditionalists will say "only his flesh died."

So they love to argue both at the same time. They argue that he died
"spiritually" and tasted of spiritual death (not physical death) for us, then
argue that he didn't die spiritually only physically.

They have no problem with these two opposing and contradictory arguments
coming out of their mouths at the same time!

When it says "Christ tasted of death for all men" it means he died in order to
SAVE all men! The purpose of his death was "for all men." For in order for
him to send the Holy Spirit anointing, the paraclete, he had to suffer the
sinful men who put him to death.

John 16: 7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for
you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him
unto you.

Then the author of Hebrews identifies he for whom and by whom the world
was created as being God the Father, not the Christ:

Hebrews 2:
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by
whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto
glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect
through sufferings.

Here we have the true message of Hebrews. How that Christ is no longer
the "only begotten" of the Father but is the "firstbegotten" of "many sons"
unto the Father, through CHRIST.

If it were saying that Christ is "he for whom all things and by whom are all
things" then it would be saying that we are Christ's sons and he is our
Father!

The Son, therefore, ceases to exist and all that is left is the Father!

This is how the traditionalist ends up. They end up worshiping the Son as
the Father and the Son is no more in the equation, it's just the Father who
came down and for a time sojourned as his own son!
Hebrews 2:
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are
sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not
ashamed to call them brethren,

Does God have brothers? Are we the brothers of God?

According to tradition's reading of Hebrews we are and verse 11 proves it!

They are saying that Christ is "God" and that God is not ashamed to call us
"brethren."

It's silly!

Christ was "one" with God but that didn't make him God, and we are "one"
with Christ but that doesn't make us Christ (or it would also mean that we
are God).

The author makes another quote from the Psalmist:

Hebrews 2:
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren,
in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again,

Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

So, according to the author of Hebrews, Psalms 22: 22 is depicting Christ,

declaring the Father's name to the congregation (whom he calls his brothers).
None of which would be even possible if Christ is God, for God is brother to
no one. The author points out that Christ "put his trust" in God, which
would be completely meaningless if Christ IS God. Then it says that God
has "given his children" to Christ (to care for). Again, if Christ is God then
he doesn't need to be "given" the children of God (for the children are HIS
children).

NOTHING that we will read in Hebrews will support the teachings of

tradition, as we are finding out.

Hebrews 2:
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of
flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of
the same; that through death he might destroy him
that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

This states that Christ was a flesh and blood man, just like all the other sons
of God who come after him! This is irrefutable. If Christ is God the
argument of the author of Hebrews is non sequitur. It does not follow. Why
would God have to become flesh in order to relate to those who are tempted
by the flesh? Isn't he God? Isn't he all knowing? Could he not know what
it's like to be tempted in the flesh without actually becoming flesh?

It's laughable. The traditionalist is claiming that the author of Hebrews says
God had to become flesh in order to relate to us fleshly creatures. The all
knowing God couldn't relate until he became a man! Isn't that amazing?

Hebrews 2:
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were
all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels;

but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

This is still talking about how God, through his Son, saved the world. The
context of the text is this: "For it became him, (God the Father) for whom
are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory,
to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."

So the subject is how God made a MAN a savior for mankind out of a man
who suffered. How God did not choose an angel as the savior of man, but
rather another man. The subject then points out that Christ, though he was
"greater than the angels" made himself but a man, and a servant. It is
echoing Philippians 2.
When it says "he took on the seed of Abraham" it is talking about how the
Son of God, though he were Son, and heir, and greater than the angels,
continued to operate just like any other seed of Abraham,

God did not make a savior of mankind out of an angel but out of a man, his
(at the time) only begotten son.

If Christ is God (as traditionalists have distorted him) then Hebrews chapter
2 becomes MEANINGLESS, for the traditionalist religion states that a
MAN cannot BE SAVIOR... that no only did God not choose an angel to be
savior, God didn't choose a man, but rather came down to earth and did it
himself!

This nullifies the entire GOSPEL!

Why can't they see this?

They are blinded, as the author of Hebrews will now explain.

Hebrews 2:
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made
like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful
and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to
make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

When traditionalists try to have the author of Hebrews saying that Christ is
God, they are having the author to say the exact opposite of what the author
actually says. The author makes it clear that ONLY A MAN could be our
Christ, because only a man who has been subject to temptations and frailty
could lead us through them.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being

tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Christ did not exalt himself above his brethren. He knelt and washed their
feet. That is what is meant by verse 17. Furthermore, he died for them as
well. (The ultimate selfless act for another).

Christ was tested himself, going willingly to the cross, and bearing the
shame and the suffering that evil men put upon him through his humiliation,
believing in all hope that God the Father would raise him from the DEAD!

This is a POWERFUL MESSAGE that becomes MEANINGLESS if he IS

GOD and would "raise himself," if he is the all powerful God then his self
sacrifice was NO SACRIFICE AT ALL.

By preaching the deity of Christ they nullify the entire life, death and
resurrection of the Christ. It becomes completely meaningless. They also
make the disciples a group of bumbling idiots, because how could Christ be
"tempted" at all if he's God, for James wrote and said that "God cannot be
tempted."

James 1: 13
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted
of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither
tempteth he any man:

If Jesus is God, then according to James the author of Hebrews is wrong in

his assertion that the Son of God was "tempted" like all other men are
tempted. If Christ is God then one of these writers is in serious error! It's a
contradiction that can never be rectified.

Clearly the author of Hebrews did not think that Jesus was God. He would
not have suggested that Jesus was "tempted" like all other men are tempted,
because any Hebrew author would KNOW that God cannot be tempted.

Hebrews 2: 18 states that because Christ was "tempted" this is how he is

able to "succour" them that are tempted. Succour means "assist and support
in times of hardship and distress." If Christ is God, then he cannot be
tempted at all, and therefore according to Hebrews, would not be able to
support and assist us in our time of temptation.
The author of Hebrews clearly states that in order for Messiah to support and
assist us in our temptation he must himself have experienced temptation
(something that cannot be true of God). Furthermore, the entire premise that
the author of Hebrews puts forth would be erroneous, for, as we've said, God
doesn't need to experience temptation to know what it's like... he's the all
knowing God.

Again, there is NO WAY the author of Hebrews thought Jesus was God, or
he would not have made this colossal error.

CHAPTER 3

1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly

calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our
profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also

Moses was faithful in all his house.

3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than

Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house
hath more honour than the house.

What should be obvious by the very beginning of chapter 3 is that the author
didn't believe Jesus was God. Is God "an Apostle?" Is God "an High
Priest?" To call God such titles would just be silly in the extreme. Not even
if you say that he "left behind his deity" when he became flesh does it make
sense to refer to this God Incarnate as "the Apostle." Even those
traditionalists who make such an argument admit that being in "flesh" would
not change who God was. God would still be God, not "an Apostle."

Notice in verse 2 it says that Christ was appointed. This alone speaks to his
not being God, for God appoints, he is not appointed. If Jesus is God and
the author of Hebrews believed that, then the author is simply lying when he
says that Jesus was "appointed." Notice too that in verse two the author
compares Jesus to Moses. If Jesus is God that is utterly ridiculous. You
can't compare God Incarnate with Moses. God Incarnate would not have to
have any faith at all. The God Incarnate would not "believe" anything, he
would KNOW. Let's look at the Biblical definition of faith. Interestingly
enough we don't have to venture out of Hebrews to find this definition:

Hebrews 11: 1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen.

So, by this author of Hebrews' own admission Christ could not be "faithful"
like Moses, for faith is the evidence of things "not seen" and God sees all. If
being in flesh doesn't change who Jesus IS, then Jesus would still "see all."

In fact, a regular argument of those in favor of the deity of Christ is that the
Apostles said of him that he "knows all things."

John 16: 30
Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and
needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we
believe that thou camest forth from God.

Yes, traditionalists are SURE that their Jesus was "all knowing"
(omniscience) based on John 16: 30. (Never mind that Christ said "all that
the father has is mine and never mind that John wrote to the churches and
said "you know all things).

1 John 2:
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye
know all things

Never mind that Jesus himself said that he was sending us the "spirit of
truth" that would "lead and guide us into ALL truth."

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.

We have digressed a little, but it was necessary to answer the traditionalist

claims and demonstrate how they ignore most of the Bible in order to cling
to their beliefs that Jesus is God. In Hebrews, the author says that Jesus was
"faithful" like Moses. This is ALL the evidence that we need that Jesus is
NOT God, for God doesn't have faith, God has knowledge, God has
certainty.

Then in Hebrews 3 the author says that Jesus is a MAN who is "worthy of
more glory than Moses." Of all the statements found in the book of
Hebrews this one verse alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
author of Hebrews and those to whom he wrote did not believe Jesus is God.
Why would the author feel the need to point out that Jesus is worthy of more
Glory than Moses, IF he believed Jesus is God? Why would he say such a
thing to people who believed Jesus is God (to those to whom he was
writing)?

It's ludicrous.

Of course Jesus would be "worthy of more Glory than Moses" if Jesus is

God! That would certainly go without saying.

Traditionalists seize on the tail end of that verse and ignore the first part
entirely. They like to say that the author of Hebrews reasoned that Jesus
"built the house" (and make it a reference to Christ taking part in creation).

Yet, Moses built no house. He built no tabernacle. Moses came to the

already existing flock of God while they were in Egypt and set them free.
Christ built a congregation from nothing. Christ died and purchased his
congregation with his own blood and he is the "chief cornerstone." Christ is
the very foundation of his church! This cannot be said of Moses at all.

You simply cannot ignore the fact that Jesus is being compared to Moses. It
makes no sense if the author thinks Jesus is the creator of the universe! It
would be a very silly comparison.

Hebrews 3:
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he
that built all things is God.

Yet, traditionalists do ignore that Christ is being compared to Moses by the

author of Hebrews (a ridiculous thing if the author thinks Jesus is God).
Consider an excerpt from one traditional scholar regarding Hebrews 3: 4

"... and several eminent scholars and critics bring this very text as a proof of
the supreme Deity of Christ: and the apostle's argument seems to require
this; for, as he is proving that Christ is preferred before Moses because he
built this house, which Moses could not do, where he to be understood as
intimating that this house was built by another, viz. the Father, his whole
argument would fall to the ground; and for all this, Moses might be equal,
yea, superior to Christ. On this ground Dr. Owen properly concludes: "This
then is that which the apostle intends to declare; namely, the ground and
reason whence it is that the house was or could be, in that glorious manner,
built by Christ, even because he is God, and so able to effect it; and by this
effect of his power, he is manifested so to be."

Every traditionalist scholar agrees that Hebrews 3: 4 is saying that Jesus is

God. They maintain that the argument of the author of Hebrews would not
hold if Jesus isn't God. In order to do this, however, they have to STOP
READING after verse 4. This is the same old story as with all the other
proof texts of the deity of Christ. It's called cherry picking verses and those
who preach Christ's deity are experts at it.

For, if we read the texts that follow verse 4 we see the WHOLE argument of
the author! That Christ is set "over" the house of God, and THAT is why he
is greater than Moses. The author reasons that since God ultimately built the
house and has set Christ OVER the house (being the Son of he that built the
house) this makes Christ greater than Moses. Because he's the SON, and has
been set over the house which his father built (not because he IS the builder
of the house).

Hebrews 3:
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a
servant, for a testimony of those things which were to
be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose

house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the
rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Traditionalists ignore ANY and ALL references in scripture which state that
Christ as the "HEIR" has "inherited all things" from God Himself, and that
Christ is now "highly exalted" and placed "at the right hand of the Majesty"
and instead they try to make Christ the Majesty. The traditionalist scholar
who wrote the above example clearly ignored Hebrews 3: 5- 6 and pretended
they didn't exist.

Christ as the "heir" and the exalted Son of God is the very subject of the
book of Hebrews as we saw in chapter 1 and if the author of Hebrews were
to now make the case that Jesus is actually "he that built the house" (the
Creator) he negates his entire premise (that Christ is the heir).

So, by verse 5 and 6 traditionalists are "caught with their pants down" in that
we can easily show how they ignore key texts and rip things out of their
context to make the case that Jesus is actually God. We can also see how
they nullify the inheritance that we, the believer, have in Christ, for if Christ
is not actually the "heir" of all things but "he that built all things" then we
are not actually joint heirs with him.

The author of Hebrews then turns to the subject of how we overcome

temptation again. Using Christ as the example, by calling him our "Apostle"
and our "High Priest," and pointing out that Christ has been set over his own
house (because father's house is also the son's house). Christ is set over all
things and by virtue of Christ being able to relate to our temptations, being a
man and having tasted our plight himself, (something that could not be said
of him if he were God), the author shows how it is that we can overcome sin,
by "entering into the rest" that Christ offers us through the power of God.

The author of Hebrews compares Christ to Moses in that they are both
"delivers of the captives." Moses was God's mighty hand to deliver the
people of Israel from Egypt and to offer them "rest" (the Sabbath Day), and
Christ is God's mighty hand to deliver us from the captivity of sin by
offering us the true "rest."

Hebrews 3:
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will
hear his voice,

8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in

the day of temptation in the wilderness:

9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and

saw my works forty years.

10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and

said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have
not known my ways.

11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into

my rest.)

12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an

evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living
God.

13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To

day; lest any of you be hardened through the
deceitfulness of sin.

14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the

beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice,
harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke:

howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it

not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in
the wilderness?

18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter

into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19 So we see that they could not enter in because of

unbelief.

In Hebrews 3: 7-19 the author points out something that most traditionalists
ignore. That faith is not a new thing under Christ. That even under Moses
faith was required. Traditionalists would have us to believe there was no
faith preached in the old covenant, that the difference between the Old and
the new covenants is faith. We see by the writer of Hebrews that faith was
the key element even under Moses!

Notice what it says, "they could not enter into the house because of
unbelief." So, the author of Hebrews is establishing another principle that is
foreign to most traditionalists... that faith causes you to DO things! Faith is
not just "belief" in something but it is DOING SOMETHING.

So God's "rest" according to Hebrews is not "doing nothing" but rather

"doing nothing on your own" or "doing nothing but what God does." This is
actually the rest of the Sabbath Day under Moses as well. They were to
"cease from their own works and doings" but nothing was said about their
ceasing doing the work of God.

In fact, numerous times when Christ was doing the work of God on Sabbath
he was rebuked by the corrupt priests because they, like the traditionalists,
confused the command to "cease from your own works and doings" as a
command to "do nothing."

So the traditionalists who preach that faith means you "do nothing" are
exactly like the Pharisees in that regard.

Christ said that it is "lawful to do good" on the Sabbath and for that they
tried to stone him.

When we preach righteousness acts by faith, traditionalists likewise would

love to stone us, for they preach doing NO righteousness is true rest.

They have perverted the gospel and the author of Hebrews completely
exposes them.

CHAPTER 4

The author then compares the Sabbath Day Rest mediated by Moses with the
"rest" that Christ offers and submits to us that the true rest, the true Sabbath
mediated by Christ is perpetual, has no end, and is "every day of our lives."

Hebrews 4:
1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of
entering into his rest, any of you should seem to
come short of it.

The author of Hebrews refers to the Sabbath day as a "promise" of some

sort, rather than a command. This is critical. For the author of Hebrews
understood what Christ meant when he said "the Sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the Sabbath." The Sabbath day spoke of great and good
things to come, in which the people of God were finally free of their own
evil and wicked doings and instead did the will of the Father! This was the
purposes of Christ as the mediator of a new and better Covenant, built on
better promises. Not that we would be "free from the penalty" of sin (as
traditionalists preach it) but rather that we are free from the sin itself.
Hebrews 4:
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as
unto them: but the word preached did not profit
them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard
it.

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he

said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter
into my rest: although the works were finished from
the foundation of the world.

The author now shows us what is meant by "rest" in the Sabbath day. It's
DOING something. We "enter" into the rest. This is a paradox under
tradition for they view rest as "doing nothing" and therefore they view belief
as doing nothing, however the author of Hebrews presents it as doing
something as we will soon see.

Hebrews 4:
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day
on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from
all his works.

5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my

rest.

The author says that rest is something you "enter into" through belief. The
rest of God is something that is DONE through faith. Even under Moses,
according to the author of Hebrews, the Sabbath must be performed through
faith! If not, you are not performing the command of Sabbath. Yet, what
does it mean (according to the author) that we "enter into his rest?"

Hebrews 4:
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter
therein, and they to whom it was first preached
entered not in because of unbelief:
7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To
day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will
hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

The author states that the people of Israel did not "enter in" to God's rest
(even though they kept Sabbath for the most part). Why would he make this
claim? Because honoring a single day of the week in which you "do
nothing" and if someone does anything, including God's will, you try to
stone them is NOT KEEPING SABBATH! The author presents that he who
truly enters the rest that Jesus is offering will not return to his own works
and doings the day afterward.

Hebrews 4:
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not
afterward have spoken of another day.

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of

God.

10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath

ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Many have believed that the translators made a mistake in verse 8. They
think that they accidentally changed the name "Joshua" to "Jesus" in that
verse. It's possible, however, that the translators knew exactly what they
were doing. For the author of Hebrews is talking about those who claim to
follow Jesus but don't have any true faith and are living their own lives.
Those who claim to follow Jesus by "keeping the seventh day Sabbath."

Yes, adventists existed in the time of the writing of Hebrews. Most of the
Jews insisted that Sabbath Day (the seventh day Sabbath) must be strictly
adhered to and the author of Hebrews is now pointing out that if Jesus had
given them TRUE REST, they would not speak of doing their own works the
day AFTER Sabbath. Sabbath day (entering into God's rest and ceasing
from our own works and doings) is perpetual to the believer and does not
end when the sun goes down on the seventh day!
The author of Hebrews is exposing the fundamental error of the Seventh
Day Adventist.

Hebrews 4:
11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest
any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Notice that "rest" is "labor." The author makes a paradoxical statement

(paradoxical to the traditionalist who thinks God's rest is "doing nothing").
God's rest is "labor." How so? The author explains it in the following
verses.

Entering God's rest is ceasing from your own works and doings and
FOLLOWING AFTER THE HOLY SPIRIT, doing what the Holy Spirit
commands, speaking what the HOLY SPIRIT utters.

Hebrews 4:
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and
sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to
the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the
joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts
and intents of the heart.

Traditionalists notoriously apply the above verse to the Bible! Thus they
idolize it. For this says that the word of God is "quick" which is the word
"alive." It is not saying that the word of God is "fast." It's saying it's alive
and we know that the Bible is dead tree pulp and dead animal skins for a
cover. It is not a living thing. This text is talking about the LIVING WORD
that has been delivered unto us by the paraclete. (The spirit of truth sent to
lead and guide us into all truth).

The Bible doesn't discern anything, yet the word of God described in the
above text is a "discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Clearly
it's not talking about the Bible there, the Bible has no mind of its own and
cannot discern anything.
By the living word, the paraclete, whom Christ sent after shedding his own
blood is now dwelling IN US, and by it we "overcome temptation." This is
literally "Christ in you, the hope of Glory."

Which is why the author refers to this word as "a him."

Hebrews 4:
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest
in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto
the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that

is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let
us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be

touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in
all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of

grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to
help in time of need.

In verse 15 above the author makes it clear, again, that he doesn't believe
Jesus is God, for he states that Jesus was "tempted" and every good Hebrew
knows that "God cannot be tempted." What would be the point of saying
that Christ is "familiar" with our temptations if he is not? What would be
the point of saying Christ was "tempted yet without sin" if Christ is God. It
would mean nothing to us that Christ was able to be tempted and yet not sin,
and certainly this is not a skill that Christ could pass on to us via the Holy
Spirit, if Christ were God, because Christ would have been tempted "yet
without sin" because he's GOD and we are not God!

The entire passage here, therefore, would mean NOTHING and would be
empty drivel, if Jesus were God and were "without sin" because he's God!
He couldn't teach us any more how to overcome temptation than God could
have taught man from the very beginning. How would God becoming flesh
somehow facilitate and improve God's ability to show his people how to
overcome temptation? It's ludicrous.

Christ being "without sin" is meaningless if he is God, for he was not truly
in jeopardy of sinning through temptation. The author's point would
crumble to the dust.

The author is saying that we can use Christ's sinlessness and his overcoming
of temptation by holding it up as inspiration.... which would make no sense
if Christ did so because he's God! He's be no inspiration to us mere
creatures at all!

It would be like telling a man that because his wife had a baby he should use
that as inspiration and have a baby himself! It's laughable, his wife had a
baby because she's a woman and is capable of having babies! Her act of
birth does not inspire men to go out and give birth themselves. In the same
way, a God, incarnated into flesh, who does not sin, and is ultimately not
subject to the flesh because he's God, is no inspiration to us mere creatures
to overcome the flesh!

CHAPTER 5

So, the Roman Catholic Church, in preaching the deity of Christ, has
presented it as a "mystery." In their doctrine which is called "theosis" they
teach that "God had to become a man, so that man could become God."
They base this teaching almost entirely on Hebrews, because they present
the Hebrew author as teaching it.

The message, according to tradition, of the author of Hebrews, is that God

the Son had to be made "flesh" in order to be our savior. Not just because he
had to die, but because we needed a human example of someone who could
show us how to obey God perfectly.

This is the basic tenet of tradition you don't often hear about, especially in
the Protestant and Evangelical camps (because they have rejected this aspect
of the Catholic gospel for a "salvation by belief alone" approach).

What this all means is that the original purposes of Hebrews have been
nullified, first by the Catholics unwittingly, then by the Protestants
deliberately. For, as we have noted, God does not have to become a man in
order to save mankind. Why would he? Why would the all powerful God
be limited in his ability to save us until he became a man?

According to Hebrews we now have a savior who is "not unfamiliar" with

our trials, having faced them himself. Yet, did God really have to become a
man in order to know what it is like to be a man?

If you think so you are severely limiting an all powerful God.

So, while the Catholics and non-Catholics alike read Hebrews and preach his
words from the pulpit, they don't really believe them. For what they present
is a God that tried to "trick us."

You read that right.

God came to earth and became a man, so that he could present a perfect man
to us as an example of perfect obedience, then, God used his divine power to
bring salvation to us all, through this same God/Man combination. The end
goal was to have us look at what this man did ... (who was secretly and
mysteriously God) and say to ourselves, "wow, if he can do it then so can I."

Now, this plan might have worked if it remained a secret and a mystery that
Jesus was really God, but the Catholic religion SPOILED the mystery.

The proverbial cat is out of the bag and all traditionalists now know that
Jesus was really God. They know that the author of Hebrews was just silly
to say that God had to become a man in order to relate to us as men. It was
all for show. To make us BELIEVE that the Christ was "one of us" when in
fact, he clearly was not.

So, the author of Hebrews, if he knew the mystery, that Christ is actually
God himself, would not have been fooled by this, but rather would have
been lying through his teeth, saying that Christ had to become flesh in order
to know what it is like to be tempted, so that he could show us how to not be
succumb to the temptation, thereby saving us.

Yet Protestants, especially Lutherans, go a step further and take Christ's

ability to keep us from being overcome in temptation right out of the
equation entirely. It's irrelevant, according to them, for we are saved by
"belief alone" regardless of how we succumb to temptation.

So, the main argument of the author of Hebrews, that Christ had to become a
man so that he could relate to our temptations and succour (support and
assist) us in our trials are lost and empty words, going by traditionalist
dogma. Who cares if we succumb to temptation anyway? That is what
Christ's blood is for, to cover our failings from God's sight!

The author of Hebrews, therefore was in error all the way around, by saying
that God had to become flesh in order to relate to our sufferings, and by
proposing that Christ had to do so in order that he could succour us and keep
us from being overcome when in reality Christ only came to "make
atonement" once and for all for all sin, so that we go to heaven regardless of
how much we succumb to temptation. The modern gospels say that Christ
(God) knows fully well we will succumb to temptation and has provided a
cloak in his own blood for when we do!

They might as well just throw the book of Hebrews in the trash. The guy
who wrote it was way off!

A simple reading of just a few verses in Chapter 5 of Hebrews will bear out
the folly of the author's words (if we are to believe the traditionalist that the
author knew fully well that Jesus is God).

Hebrews 5:
1 For every high priest taken from among men is
ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he
may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on

them that are out of the way; for that he himself also
is compassed with infirmity.

3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people,

so also for himself, to offer for sins.

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he

that is called of God, as was Aaron.

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an

high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my
Son, to day have I begotten thee.

We have to remember that Hebrews 4 started out with "behold Jesus Christ
our High Priest." Now, the author of Hebrews states that High Priests are
taken from among men, supposedly knowing, even as he wrote this, that
Jesus is no mere man but is God Himself. Then it says that Christ can
"have compassion" for them that are ignorant and who are not walking in the
"way" because he himself was surrounded in infirmity.

The implication of the author of Hebrews is clear, say the traditionalist, God
can now be compassionate to what we are dealing with in the flesh because
he's been there! They propose the ridiculous idea that God, the all knowing
God, has to become flesh in order to understand what being infirmed in the
flesh is like and in order to have compassion!

Isn't that a marvelous thing? The atheist will often ask. Why is an all
knowing God lacking in compassion of what it means to be a frail human
when he:

1. Created that frail human to begin with and set the limitations of the flesh
himself and

2. Knows all things anyway and is the "searcher of the thoughts and intents
of the heart?"

"God knows what is in your heart" the traditionalist will say, but then, when
he preaches the book of Hebrews from his pulpit will, with a straight face,
have the author of Hebrews suggesting that God couldn't have compassion
on human being's weaknesses until he became an human and experienced
them himself!

It's obvious that the author of Hebrews didn't think Jesus Christ was God!
Instead, he's offering that the High Priest, Christ, whom God has now set
over all judgment is firmly aware of what we go through in the flesh because
he himself is a man! If we have the author of Hebrews at the same time
suggesting that he's also God then the author of Hebrews is either an idiot or
a liar, by suggesting that God couldn't have compassion on flesh until he
became flesh.

Ridiculous!

Then, in the final insult to God, they make him a liar in verse 5, because now
the author says that Christ didn't glorify himself and make himself an High
Priest. If Christ is GOD, then certainly he did glorify Himself and did
indeed make himself an High Priest! What kind of game is the author of
Hebrews trying to play?

Hebrews 5:
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest
for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up

prayers and supplications with strong crying and
tears unto him that was able to save him from death,
and was heard in that he feared;

Now, the author of Hebrews points to Melchisedec. There are many who
conjecture over this comparison, trying to say that Christ is in fact
Melchisedec. This kind of logic though, is akin to trying to say that because
the author of Hebrews compared Christ to Moses therefore Christ is really
Moses, reincarnated.

We will not belabor who or what was Melchisedec. We're going to skip over
that debate because it is completely unprofitable.

Instead we're going to continue on how the author continually contradicts

himself (if indeed he believed Jesus is God).

Notice the author now says, in verse 7 that "in the days of his flesh he
offered up prayers..." (speaking of Christ). The traditionalists who believe in
Christ's deity eat that verse up and spit it out as a proof text. "See" they say,
"it speaks of when God became flesh!"

NONSENSE!

That is talking about his temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane, just

before he was crucified when he cried and was in weakness and prayed that
the cup would pass from him! They never even stop to ask, if Christ is God
how could he even BE in this sort of weakened state of doubt and fear?
They never stop to ask, if Christ is God to whom was he praying and crying?
To himself? If the author of Hebrews believed Jesus was God all along, then
he must have known that his prayer and his fear and weakness in the flesh
were all a show, for our benefit. It would have to be, for God is all
powerful!

Traditionalists say "no, you don't understand, he had left behind his deity!"

Really? If that is the case then why is it relevant that he was God? He's not
utilizing any power of God on his own at all! Why make a Federal case out
of his deity? It would be completely irrelevant! Yet, then they turn around
and say "he had to be God or he couldn't be the savior of mankind." They
never see the contradiction! It's glaring, but they can't see it. If Christ was
not utilizing any deity power on the earth, then he acted as a man, and he
managed to save mankind.
Furthermore, the author of Hebrews presents that only a MAN could save
us! That is why God chose a man to be our savior and not an angel. If an
angel couldn't be our savior (because an angel could not relate) then Christ,
as a man, is Savior! Plain and simple. The book of Hebrews bears this out
and completely NUKES the traditionalist dogma that "only a God could save
us."

God disagreed and said "only a man can save them" and sent his Son. That
is the message of Hebrews!

Hebrews 5:
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by
the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of

eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Here it says that Christ, who was supposedly the perfect and all powerful
God from heaven had to be "made perfect!" How astonishing is that? We
have to really question whether or not the author of Hebrews knew that Jesus
was God when we read that statement. God had to be "made perfect? God
had to "learn obedience?" Really?

C'mon people, open your eyes. The author of Hebrews clearly believed
Christ was a man and not God!

Notice how he would be contradicting himself if he also believed Jesus were

God, for earlier he says Jesus was "made a little lower than the angels" now
he's saying Jesus was "made perfect."

Also, if he was "made perfect" then why would he have to "learn"

obedience?

Clearly the author of Hebrews is saying that Christ was "made perfect" by
"learning" and was not "perfect" by nature! It's not saying that Christ was
"made" or "created perfect." Even the traditionalist must agree to that,
because they say the Son of God is not created and always existed, just like
the Father.

So the traditionalist would have us to believe that God, coming to Earth,

now has to "learn to be obedient" and to whom is he being obedient? Unto
himself!

This is just getting weird and awkward Mr. traditionalist.... your doctrine is
making less and less sense the more we read Hebrews!

Hebrews 5:
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of
Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to

be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

So, if Christ is God why would the author of Hebrews say he was "called of
God" like Melchisedec (who was clearly a man in scripture, don't bother
arguing with the people that say otherwise, it's a futile endeavor). Here the
author is comparing Christ to yet another man! It's getting harder and harder
to believe this author thought Jesus was really God!

Hebrews 5:
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye
have need that one teach you again which be the first
principles of the oracles of God; and are become such
as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the

word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full

age, even those who by reason of use have their
senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

The chapter concludes with a criticism of those who cannot understand that
Christ is a man after the order of Melchisedec! He says such a person is
incapable of righteousness and unable to eat the meat of the word.

He's talking to you Mr. Traditionalist.

CHAPTER 6

The author of Hebrews has apparently been preaching just the basics so far.
THE BASICS! He just referred to it as the "milk" and not the meat. It is
particularly astonishing when you consider how badly the traditionalist
dogma messes up the first 5 chapters of Hebrews and how they come away
from said reading with the notion that the author was somehow preaching
deity of Christ (when he clearly could not have been).

Hebrews 6:
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of
Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again
the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of
faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of

hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal
judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.

What in the world is this guy talking about? You have to ask, if you are
raised in tradition. Is he saying that if God permits we will no longer need
the "doctrines" of salvation, (repentance from sin, and faith, and baptism,
and laying on of hands to receive the holy spirit and even the doctrine of
resurrection and judgment day?) He's suggesting that we will, if God
permits, leave all of these behind? We will outgrow them and move into a
state of perfection in Christ?

We can see why traditionalists rarely quote from Hebrews chapter 6.

Why would the author want to "leave behind" these basic teachings?

We don't have to guess, he explains exactly why.

Hebrews 6:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once
enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift,
and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the

powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto

repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the
Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Actually, the author cannot be any clearer as to what he is getting at.

Remember in the last chapter he mentioned those who could not hear the
truth of the Gospel and could not overcome temptations (even though they
have a human Messiah who has demonstrated that it is possible for humans
to do just that). Now he states that the basics of repentance, and faith, and
grace, and resurrection and judgment are not going to do them any good.

He states that if they have fallen away from these things, and the basic idea
that Christ is a man whom God exalted as their savior, and as a result they
cannot be perfected and cannot live in the righteousness promised through
Christ's power, the basics are not going to help them. Because they are
putting Christ to death over and over again, every time they sin, they need
more atonement! They put him to an open shame!

He's talking about "wilful sin."

He's talking about the great apostasy (falling away).

He's predicting that they would turn from the truths he's just outlined,
(human Messiah, obtained a name by inheritance, through learning
obedience, to be our example) etc. He earlier said they would be "incapable
of righteousness."

Why?

Because they think only God Incarnate can be righteous in the flesh! That's
why. The basic gospel is not going to help them because they have their
OWN twisted and distorted gospel, and a new God/Man Messiah who
doesn't care if they are tempted and who covers up their sins!

Sickening!

Hebrews 6:
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh
oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by
whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is

rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be
burned.

The author of Hebrews quotes Christ himself on the matter. Christ said that
"every branch in him that doesn't bear fruit" (because they don't BELIEVE
they can be righteous) his Father "takes away" and men "gather them" to be
"burned."

John 15:
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh
away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth
it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have

spoken unto you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear

fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can
ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth
in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much
fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a

branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and
cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

The author of Hebrews isn't messing around here. He's saying if they fall
away from the basics of the gospel that he has just outlined in the first 5
chapters they are going to burn....

Those are some serious words there!

Hebrews 6:

9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of

you, and things that accompany salvation, though we
thus speak.

10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and

labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his
name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do
minister.

11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the

same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the
end:

The author is focusing on "labor" and "works" of love! Not "belief alone."
He's warning every man and teaching every man to move past repentance
into "perfection!" Walking as Christ set the example to walk! How could
we walk as Christ if Christ walked the way he did because he is God? The
author of Hebrews takes great pains to demonstrate, not that Christ is God,
but that Christ is a MAN who is not above us, who is subject to the same
infirmities as us, and is exposed to the same temptations (and therefore can
be our example to follow).
Christ has certainly been highly exalted above us now, having inherited all
things through his obedience, but while he roamed the earth he was a MAN
and had to BE a man, according to Hebrews!

Then the author speaks of the "hope" of Salvation and of being joint heirs
with Christ. (Something that would be impossible if he's heir because he's
God Incarnate). Notice too that in this chapter we also must earn this
inheritance through Christ's example of obedience through faith. Coming up
in verse 15 he states this plainly saying that even Abraham (remember
Abraham, who believed God and was imputed righteousness as a result),
well according to the author of Hebrews Abraham did a little bit more than
just "believe." He obtained his promise by "patiently enduring."

Hebrews 6:
12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who
through faith and patience inherit the promises.

13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because

he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and

multiplying I will multiply thee.

15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he

obtained the promise.

16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath

for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew

unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his
counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was

impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong
consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon
the hope set before us:
19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both
sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within
the veil;

20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even

Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec.

He goes back to calling Christ "the HIGH PRIEST." This is important in the
upcoming chapters! For while tradition depicts Christ as the beast who is
slain for atonement, the author of Hebrews continually presents him as the
High Priest who makes the atonement for the people by entering through the
vale of his death. (We're jumping ahead here).

CHAPTER 7

This is a very difficult chapter to read.

It's also a chapter that has sparked many "fringe" beliefs, such as those who
preach that Melchisedec is actually Jesus Christ (pre-incarnation). There is
nothing in this chapter, nor even in the entire Bible to support such an
outrageous claim, yet there seem to be a lot of people preaching it these
days.

There are some very good theories as to the identity of Melchisedec.

Hebrew tradition says Melchisedec was actually Shem, the son of Noah.

Whoever Melchisedec was, we know one thing from Hebrews 7. He was

certainly a man. A man who becomes a vital and significant figure in the
modern gospel as we will see by reading Hebrews 7. Let's just take this one
group of verses at a time, though.

Hebrews 7:
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the
most high God, who met Abraham returning from the
slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first

being by interpretation King of righteousness, and
after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3 Without father, without mother, without descent,

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but
made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest
continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom

even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the
spoils.

The author is talking about the following passages from the Old Testament:

Genesis 14:
17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after
his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of
the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh,
which is the king's dale.

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth

bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most
high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of

the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath

delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave
him tithes of all.

Psalms 110:
1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of

Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power,

in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the
morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a
priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Psalms 110: 1 is one of those scriptures traditionalists love to trot out to

prove deity of Christ. Their confusion is understandable given that the
translators of the English (trinitarians every last one of them) chose to use
two different words and translate them both to the word "Lord" so that
indeed (as in their reading of Hebrews 1: 8) it appears as though David the
Psalmist is calling both of them God.

Let's look at the original words shall we?

The Lord (Y'HOVA- THE SELF EXISTENT OR ETERNAL I AM) said

unto my Lord (ADONE- SOVERIEGN, CONTROLLER ... HUMAN OR
DIVINE... MASTER OWNER), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make
thine enemies thy footstool.

So the first "Lord" is exclusive to God Almighty, the Great I Am and the
second Lord is not, and can be talking about a HUMAN ruler.

This, hopefully will clear up the confusion for some. (For many it won't
though because so many of them who are confused in this manner have
already stopped reading this commentary a long time ago).

So, now that we've settled that David is not calling Jesus God in the context
we can look at the text honestly and realize that David predicted the Son of
God would be appointed as a PRIEST over a brand new priesthood, in the
same fashion as yet another famous man, Melchisedec.
Not only is David not calling the coming Messiah "God Incarnate" he's
saying that he is a man, like Melchisedec.

Likewise, when we read the author of Hebrews' interpretation of these texts

we see the same thing. He even refers to Christ as a "man" several times in
the chapter. Again, we're jumping ahead a little but it's important to note
that in verse 4 the author of Hebrews states in no uncertain terms that
Melchisedec was a MAN. (Not a pre-existent member of the Godhead, God
the Son, coming to earth... not an angel... a man).

Some traditionalists love to ignore that. While they read from Hebrews 7
that the author is saying Jesus is "just like Melchisedec" they ignore the fact
that Melchisedec is not God Incarnate, he's a man (according to the author),
which would mean that Jesus is not God Incarnate either, or else
Melchisedec is NOTHING like Jesus. This should be common sense.

Instead traditionalists will focus on verse 3:

3 Without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but
made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest
continually.

They say, "see Melchisedec doesn't have a human ancestry, just like Jesus."

Now, the honest scholars don't agree with that assessment. I've done
research in preparation for this commentary and most scholars agree that in
that sense Melchisedec is not like Christ, for Christ has a genealogy and we
know who his mother and father are.

So, why would the author of Hebrews bring up the fact that Melchisedec has
no mother or father? How is that even possible if he is a man as the author
states? This is why so many try to contradict the author of Hebrews who
says in the very next verse that Melchisedec was a man and try to say "see,
he had no mother or father, he wasn't even human."
One might argue, "well Adam didn't have a mother and a father and he's a
man." Touche' Very good argument. Except Adam is called "Son of God"
because of this.

Luke 3: 38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of
Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son
of God.

If Melchisedec is created, exactly like Adam then he would not be said to be

"like the Son of God" he would be a Son of God. Which also would mean
that Christ is not the "second man Adam" but would be the third.

1 Corinthians 15:
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made
a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but

that which is natural; and afterward that which is
spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second

man is the Lord from heaven.

In reality, it's more likely the author meant that his genealogy is not given in
the scriptures. It is doubtful the author was trying to suggest that "this man"
Melchisedec didn't have any parents at all and just materialized here on the
earth. The reason he would bring this up is because he's trying to say there's
no way to prove where this man even came from, what line he was from.
The same holds true concerning the statement "having neither beginning of
days nor end of life." Surely the author is not trying to suggest that
Melchisedec never died and is still living here on earth somewhere?

Some say that indeed the author says Melchisedec was never born and never
died. Ironically these same individuals are the ones trying to say that
Melchisedec is Jesus Christ himself. Well, that makes the author of Hebrews
in serious error saying he "never died" because we know that Christ died.

It's more likely the author means that his birth and death are not recorded in
the scriptures. Why would this mean that Melchisedec is "made like unto
the Son of God?"

Traditionalists say the author of Hebrews believed the Son of God is a

member of a Godhead (or is God Himself). Is the author of Hebrews trying
to say that Melchisedec is a member of the Godhead? Is he trying to say that
Melchisedec is God Incarnate? Some have put forth that claim. Yet, they
ignore the word "made" in that text. If he's saying all that, then shouldn't he
have said "having NOT been made just like the Son of God." Or perhaps,
"like the Son of God he is begotten and not made?"

You cannot say of a member of the Godhead who has no beginning and no
end that he was "made." Yet not only does the author of Hebrews say
Melchisedec is "made" he says that he is made "like the Son of God" (is
made).

This is utter blasphemy to the traditionalist. It's amazing they haven't

already declared Hebrews non canonical.

In actuality that word "made" in the original text means "to assimilate
closely" or "to resemble." So it's saying that God caused him to "resemble
the Son of God." Probably he was speaking of Melchisedec's character, that
he had been "conformed unto the image of God's son."

None of this would mean that he is God, nor would it mean that he was
actually Jesus, the Son of God (for Jesus, the Son of God wouldn't be said to
resemble the Son of God).

Hebrews 7:
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who
receive the office of the priesthood, have a
commandment to take tithes of the people according
to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they
come out of the loins of Abraham:

6 But he whose descent is not counted from them

received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had
the promises.

7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of

the better.

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he

receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he
liveth.

In verse 8 we see another example of what appears to be the author of

Hebrews' heartfelt belief that Melchisedec was still alive and never died.
Some traditionalists seize this idea as proof that perhaps Melchisedec and
Jesus are one in the same individual.

This raises many questions. Since the author of Hebrews says Melchisedec
was a man, and they say that Jesus is Melchisedec, how did Melchisedec end
up in Mary's womb as a child? We might consider reincarnation, but they
are also saying that Melchisedec never died.

So, either Melchisedec is not a man (and the author of Hebrews was
mistaken) or, it's simply impossible for Melchisedec to be Jesus. We know
that Jesus was born an infant out of Mary's womb. He didn't come floating
down from heaven as a 3000 year old man.

So, why does the Hebrew author seem so convinced that there are
"witnesses" to the fact that Melchisedec is still alive in his day?

We could use the old fall back position of the traditionalist. "Melchisedec
never died spiritually." Which, of course would indeed make him perfect
and without sin and in fact would explain why he says "made like the Son of
God."
Yet, if the fact Melchisedec never died spiritually makes him "special" in the
Old Testament, wouldn't this make him the only one in the Old Testament
who didn't die spiritually? This would mean that everyone who lived before
Jesus, (except Melchisedec) died spiritually and is lost.

Do traditionalists really believe that all the people of Israel who lived before
Christ are "lost" in their sins? They certainly do. Traditionalists think that
all Jews are burning in hell, those who lived before Christ and those who
live after who do not convert to Christendom.

It is easily prove tradition teaches that none of the Jews who lived prior to
Christ went to heaven when they died.

John 3: 13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, even the Son of man which
is in heaven.

Traditionalists often quote this as proof of Christ's deity. They preach that
Christ is speaking of literally "ascending up to heaven" and "coming down
from heaven" and they preach that Christ says in no uncertain terms that "no
man" had gone to heaven except him (or someone who came down from
heaven).

This is how they clearly read that text.

So no Jews went to heaven when they died prior to Christ, according to

tradition. They all went to hell. Now, if it's speaking of spiritual death when
it says Melchisedec never died, then Christ was wrong and should not have
said "no man has ascended to heaven but he that came down from heaven."

Or, perhaps Christ was including Melchisedec, saying that he indeed came
down from heaven (just like Christ did).

This would make him, if not the Son of God, at least on a par with him.
Yet, why wouldn't the Hebrews author just say that Melchisedec was the Son
of God? Why say he was "made LIKE the Son of God?" Further, the
Hebrews author makes the same mistake with Melchisedec, therefore, that
he did with Christ, speaking of a divine being who "came down from
Heaven" and calling him a "man."

Hebrews 7:
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom
even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the
spoils.

Obviously there's something wrong with the author's claims that

Melchisedec never died, especially when you factor in traditionalist dogma
which teaches "all have sinned" and dogma also teaches that "the wages of
sin is death" and also teaches that's why babies die (physically) because they
are "born sinners."

It would be impossible for the author of Hebrews to be correct when he calls

Melchisedec a man and says he "never died." If all men are sinners and if
Melchisedec is a man, and if the wages of sin are physical death (evidenced
by the physical death of babies), then Melchisedec could not be a man at all
(if he never died) for it would mean he never sinned.

When you factor in how tradition teaches that Jesus Christ never sinned
because he was of a "virgin" birth and therefore escaped the Adamic Curse
of Original Sin... you have a real quandary. If Melchisedec never died he is
greater than CHRIST HIMSELF, for Christ died and Melchisedec did not.
Further, if he is a man, he'd be born of a woman at least, and Melchisedec
would have had to have been a from a virgin birth according to traditionalist
dogma to be a man who "never sins" and as such "never dies" (being free of
the wages of sin)!

Yet the author of Hebrews says that Melchisedec had no mother at all! No
birth. So while Christ had a human mother and was at least HALF human...
(he couldn't be 100 percent human as traditionalists claim being that only his
mother was human according to traditionalists).

So while Christ is half deity and half human... having split parentage,
Melchisedec would have to be pure deity (if he came down from heaven),
for he had no human parents at all!

We could go on an on here, but the point has been thoroughly made that it is
simply IMPOSSIBLE, even by traditionalist dogma, that the author of
Hebrews was saying that Melchisedec had no human parents, was not born,
and did not die!

So what was he saying?

That is very simple, if we keep it in context.

All you have to do is remember what the author of Hebrews is talking about.
You'd think that would be easy for the traditionalist.

He's trying to convince a group of Hebrews (it is after all a book called
Hebrews) how Christ could be the "High Priest" when he clearly is not a
"son of Aaron." For you see, the Levitical Priesthood required a certain
descendancy, a particular lineage, and Christ was not of that line.

So the author endeavors to make the case that Christ is a priest, though he
has no birthright to the High Priest Position (or even to be a priest). He is a
priest in a NEW order of priests. The author quotes Psalms 110: 4 as his
proof. Where it says " ... Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek."

It is the author's contention that Melchizedec priests must live forever, based
on this Psalm. He, rightly so, has read the passage to say that the order of
Melchizedec is an order of immortal priests who live forever. It's not as if
the priests in the order die while the order itself lives on, being passed down
from father to son. The author understands Hebrew and is reading the text in
its original language, and has concluded that Psalms 110: 4 is saying that
Melchisedec priests are immortal.
When the author says that Melchisedek "had no beginning" he's saying that
the order of Melchisedec is not dependent upon birth right. There's no
record of Melchisedec's birth, but he's still a priest! Melchisedec is declared
a priest in the Psalm despite anyone knowing his lineage.

Furthermore, when the author says Melchisedec "has no death" he's saying
that Melchisedec inherited eternal life. Just like the Son of God inherited
eternal life and just like the priest/ disciples of the Son of God likewise
inherit eternal life, in the Resurrection.

The author is saying that Melchisidec is righteous and has been assured a
place in the Resurrection! Now, certainly he doesn't say that outright in
chapter 7, he covers that in Hebrews chapter 11. (We'll get to it shortly, just
remember that Melchisedec has "no death" because he shall rise again and
live forever in the kingdom, reigning with Christ as all the elders and faithful
disciples).

This explains why the author says in Chapter 7 verse 6:

"But he (Melchisedec) whose descent is not counted from them, received

tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises."

The author makes the case that because Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec,
that Melchisedec is greater than Abraham. This directly cross references to
something Christ said (that traditionalists notoriously try to use as proof of
his deity).

The Pharisees asked Christ if he was "greater than Abraham" and Christ's
response was, "... before Abraham was, I am (greater than Abraham)."
(John 8: 48-59). Traditionalists say Christ was declaring himself to be
J'hova (The Great I Am). Some use these words of Christ to try and prove
that Jesus is actually Melchisedec, that they are the same person.

Melchisedec knew of the prophecy to Eve in the garden of Eden, regarding

the coming savior, and that Melchisedec prepared the very priesthood that
the savior would inherit. It's certain the Melchisedec must have told
Abraham of this prophecy. Notice the author of Hebrews says that
Melchisedec blessed Abraham because he "had the promises." What
promises? The promises that through his "seed" shall nations be blessed,
and according to Paul that seed is Christ.

Galatians 3: 16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises
made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as
of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

So Melchisedec saw Christ's day from afar and so did Abraham. They were
both "followers" of Christ. (We'll get to that in more depth when we come to
Chapter 11).

Christ did not say that he saw Abraham's day, but that Abraham saw HIS
day, (prophetically- via the promises).

In Hebrews 7: 8 the author says that there are "witnesses" that he

"Melchisedec" liveth. (Has eternal life in the resurrection). One such
witness to which he's referring is King David who wrote Psalms. However,
there may have been other witnesses in the author's day to which he refers.
We will not belabor the point.

Hebrews 7:
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes,
payed tithes in Abraham.

10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when

Melchisedec met him.

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical

priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,)
what further need was there that another priest
should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be
called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made
of necessity a change also of the law.

The author of Hebrews makes the case that sinless perfection was
unavailable under the old law and ordinances administered by the Levitical
priesthood. He goes way more in depth into this by chapters 9 and 10. Why
traditionalists fail to see the significance of verse 11 is because they don't
believe in "sinless perfection" at all. They don't think it's available under
any priestly order.

However, the author of Hebrews states unequivocally in the book that sinless
perfection is indeed available under the order of Melchisedec. He's setting
the foundation for this now. He's going to explain to us just how perfection
is available under the new Melchisedec order.

This will be the subject of the book from hereon in.

Hebrews 7:
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth
to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at
the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda;

of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning
priesthood.

15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the

similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another
priest,

16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal

commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after

the order of Melchisedec.

18 For there is verily a disannulling of the

commandment going before for the weakness and
unprofitableness thereof.

19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing

in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh
unto God.

The author here makes the case that the Melchisedec order is greater than the
Levitical priesthood because it grants eternal life to those who join the order!
(Hence why he says that Melchisedec has "no death.")

He reiterates that the old covenant could make no one sinless and perfect but
the new order established in Christ after the "similtude" of Melchisedec
brings in a "better" hope. By implication he's saying the new Melchisedec
order and the new law promises to do what the old law couldn't do. Namely,
make one PERFECT. Without Sin! Pleasing in the sight of God. For real,
(not just imputed righteousness).

Traditionalists are preaching "imputed righteousness" and imputed

perfection ALONE under Christ, but that is what they had under the OLD
LAW!

"Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for

righteousness."

Imputed perfection is what they had under the old law. The author of
Hebrews says that is not the ONLY perfection available and promised under
the new law and under the priestly order of Melchisedek. What is offered
now under Christ, our High Priest, is imputed perfection, just long enough to
send you the POWER (the paraclete) then you move into true perfection.

Hebrews 7:
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made
priest:

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but

this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord
sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever
after the order of Melchisedec:)

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better

testament.

So not only is Christ our High Priest, he's a greater High Priest than they had
under the old order. We could add another title to Christ, therefore. He's not
just "King of Kings, and Lord of Lords," he's also "High Priest of High
Priests."

Hebrews 7:
23 And they truly were many priests, because they
were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an

unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the

uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever
liveth to make intercession for them.

In case you didn't know, the "man" this author refers to in verse 24 above is
Jesus. He's "the man who lives forever" and, because he lives forever and
grants eternal life to all the priests under him, he has established an immortal
priesthood, of which Melchisedec is a member, and in the resurrection we
can expect to see Melchisedec operating in his priestly office!

CHAPTER 8

We are about to uncover the depths of the deception existing within the
traditionalist religion. How the traditionalist translators into English were
either completely devoid of any spiritual understanding or were crafty little
liars. No other chapter in the BIBLE demonstrates this better than Hebrew
8.
In Hebrews 8 the author summarizes his entire message so far. The context.

Either the translators of the King James Version did not understand the
message, nor its context, or they ignored it. For there are two places in the
chapter where they added the word "COVENANT" and it completely
changes and distorts the entire message, not only of Hebrews but of the very
gospel itself.

How do we know the word "covenant" was added in two places? Because
King James demanded that if they added any words that did not exist in the
original text (seemingly for "clarity") that they must put them in italics.

So, when reading the King James we can see any word that was added by
the translators.

Let us begin.

Hebrews 8:
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the
sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the
right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens;

To summarize... Christ is an High Priest, but not according to the law, but
according to his obedience, resurrection, (because of his obedience) and
exaltation to the right hand of the Majesty (because of his obedience). A
new priestly order has been established (and a new law regarding the
priesthood). Why? Because the old priesthood could not bring people to
perfection (perfect obedience to the Father) and the new order can!

This is the message of Hebrews, plain and simple. tradition has completely
perverted it and we see this most clearly in Chapter 8. Still speaking of
Christ as our High Priest the author of Hebrews says the following:

Hebrews 8:
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true
tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Christ is a priest, a "minister" of a sanctuary built without hands, which the

author calls "the true tabernacle." It says that the Lord built it and not man.
Notice it does not say "which he built," (meaning the Lord Jesus built). It
intimates that someone other than Christ built the tabernacle. This was true
of the original tent sanctuary in the wilderness, which was built by Moses
(who was the authority over all Israel and no priest) and again true of the
first tabernacle built by Solomon, a KING over Israel and no priest.

The pattern is established that the priest doesn't build his own temple.

What is the tabernacle?

Why, it's the body of Christ of course.

John 2: 19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Traditionalists notoriously use the above verse as well, to prove that Jesus is
God, and he who "built" his own body and then raised his own body from
the dead for, they argue, Christ said "I" will raise it up, and not "the Father
will raise it up."

How quickly they ignore the words of Christ when it is convenient for them.
The words of Christ were the Father's words. Christ, like any prophet, when
he uttered these types of prophecies was saying "thus saith the Lord
(J'hova)."

The Father prophesied through Christ that if they destroy Christ's body the
Father would raise it up again. Notice Christ did not say "destroy my temple
and I shall raise it up," he said destroy "this" temple. One might argue, "but
wait that proves it wasn't the Father talking because the temple is Father's."
They argue, "God the father would have been correct to say 'my temple' but
Christ would not have, for his temple, his body, belonged to the Father."

As we will soon see, Christ, being the heir of all things, would have
inherited the temple as well and could just have easily had said "my temple"
and it would make sense, if he were the one speaking to say "my temple"
since he was referring to his own body. Yet he didn't, and thus, we know it
was the Father speaking.

Yet, even if you could prove that it was Christ talking, saying that he
personally would raise himself from the dead, it still doesn't prove that
Christ is God! Why not?

Christ says "I will raise it up" in reference to his resurrection. How, and
more importantly WHY was Christ raised?

Philippians 2:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and

given him a name which is above every name:

Christ was resurrected because he was "God's holy one," because of his
obedience unto the Father. Because he "loved righteousness and hated evil."

Hebrews 1: 9
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with
the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

So, even if Christ were saying he would "raise" himself up, it would still be
true because it is his obedience that causes his resurrection.

Traditionalists, in making this argument ignore that it is one of the central

requirements to salvation that we must believe that God raised Christ from
the dead.

Romans 10: 9
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Paul said that if God did not raise Christ from the dead then the Apostles
would be all false witnesses and he added that we would all be "still in our
sins" if we don't believe that God raised Christ from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching
vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God;

because we have testified of God that he raised up
Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead
rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye

are yet in your sins.

So, the Lord God, the "authority" over the sanctuary is the one who "built"
or "pitched" it, according to the author of Hebrews.

This also better explains another thing we already read in Hebrews.

Hebrews 8:
3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than
Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house
hath more honour than the house.

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he

that built all things is God.
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a
servant, for a testimony of those things which were to
be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose

house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the
rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

As we said before, traditionalists point to Hebrews 8: 4 and say "see, Christ

built his own house and it says it was built by God." That is NOT what this
is saying. It's saying the opposite. It's infuriating. It's saying that God has
more honor than the house because he built it.

They might argue, "but it's talking about Jesus deserving more honor
because he built the house."

This would demonstrate their complete lack of understanding. For it is

saying that Jesus is greater than Moses because he's God's SON, and
therefore, Jesus deserves the honor of his Father and the Father's house is
also Jesus' house.

What part of "all things that the Father has are mine" do they not
understand?

What part of "Christ is the heir of all things" do they not understand.

The Son, when he is in his own house, (even if the Father built the house) is
worthy of all the honor of his Father. This is why he says that Christ is "son
over his own house."

The Father's house IS the Son's house!

This is even true among Gentiles, so traditionalists have no excuse for not
understanding this, but it is especially true of the Hebrews. Just look what
the faithful son is told by the father in the parable of the prodigal son:
Luke 15:
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me,
and all that I have is thine.

The Father's house is the Son's house, and all who enter that house will
honor the Son as they do the Father or suffer the consequences. So, it is God
the Father that built the tabernacle (the body of Christ) and who raised Christ
from the dead. Notice the author of Hebrews says that WE are also the
tabernacle, in verse 6. "... who's house ye are."

Paul called the congregation "the body of Christ" and "the temple in which
the Holy Spirit dwells."

1 Corinthians 3: 16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that
the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

So when the author of Hebrews (who is looking more and more like Paul)
speaks of the "tabernacle" of the new priestly order over whom Christ is the
head, he's speaking of the congregation. The believers. He doesn't say that
Christ is the minister of the true sanctuary "which he himself built" he says
"which the Lord built." Which means "which the Lord God built."

Hebrews 8:
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and
sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man
have somewhat also to offer.

Once again our esteemed brother calls Christ "a man," and suggests that he
has "something to offer." You seriously have to question the traditionalist
claim that the author of Hebrews believed Jesus was God at this point. If
Jesus is God, of course he has something to offer. That would seriously go
without saying.

Hebrews 8:
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest,
seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according
to the law:

Once again, the author points out that Christ is not qualified to be a priest
under the old order, the old law regarding priests. In chapter 7 verse 12 we
read that because there is a new priestly order there must be a change in the
law (the law governing priests).

Now he's going to go into that in detail. He's going to say that the old
Aaronic priesthood and the laws governing that priesthood were "shadows"
and "figures" of the true priesthood that would come.

Hebrews 8:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God
when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See,
saith he, that thou make all things according to the
pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

So the Mosaic law regarding the priesthood is spiritual, with figurative

applications. This really does sound like Paul, doesn't it?

Hebrews 8:
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,
by how much also he is the mediator of a better
covenant, which was established upon better
promises.

The author states that as Moses was the mediator of the first covenant (and
the laws regarding the priesthood contained therein) Christ is now mediated
a better covenant which replaces the old Aaronic priesthood with the
Melchisedec priesthood.

The context here is how the priesthood has been changed.

Here is where traditionalist translators distorted the message.

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

The translators added the word covenant in that verse!!!!

The author is talking about the first PRIESTHOOD (the Aaronic priesthood)
saying that they were faulty, and the translators changed it to the entire
COVENANT! They threw the baby out with the bathwater by, surprise
surprise, ignoring the context.

This author is talking about how there is a new PRIESTHOOD! Changing

the priesthood creates a "new covenant" (in that it is ministered by a new
order) but other than that it is the same covenant, only "established upon
better promises," and administered in a "new and better way."

Although there is a "new covenant" one cannot add the word "covenant" to
verse 7 because that makes the covenant itself faulty. One would be
suggesting that God's covenant was faulty! The author is not saying the
covenant is faulty but that the priests who administered it and the people
who pledged fealty to it were faulty. We see that in the next verse:

Hebrews 8:
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the
days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house
of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with

their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they
continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them
not, saith the Lord.

The fault was with THEM, not the covenant. The author doesn't say the
covenant is faulty, he says the priests were faulty. The entire priesthood
corrupted itself.

So in verse 7, instead of adding the word "covenant" for clarity, they should
have added the word "priesthood" because that is the subject, Christ is the
High Priest over a new order of priesthood, the Melchisedec Priesthood.

It says "finding fault with them" not "finding fault with it" (the covenant).
The covenant was not faulty, it was created by God and mediated by God's
hand (Moses).

It's utterly ridiculous to add the word "covenant" in verse 7.

Hebrews 8:
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will
put my laws into their mind, and write them in their
hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be
to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour,

and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for
all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Remember that we are the temple in which the Holy Spirit dwells? This is
the "better promise" of perfection that the author of Hebrews is referring to.
The paraclete, the comforter, the spirit of truth who leads and guides into all
truth, the anointing. It was for this purpose that our High Priest suffered and
gave himself over to evil men! It was the purpose of his self sacrifice. To
send this power to become perfect. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit and
the "law written in your hearts."

It is a personal relationship with the Lord God Almighty for everyone under
the new covenant!

That is why it is called the new covenant in Christ's blood. Because Christ
had to shed his blood to send this anointing.

John 16:
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient
(absolutely necessary) for you that I go away: for if I
go not away, the Comforter (paraclete) will not come
unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of

sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and

ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is

judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye

cannot bear them now.

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.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine,

and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore

said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it
unto you.

Traditionalists often say, "but the Holy Spirit was already in the world."
This is true. The anointing and the Spirit were already with them. (Not all
however, just with some). Yet this paraclete is different, for it turns you into
a "temple of God" in which God dwells bodily.
John 14:
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you

another Comforter, that he may abide with you for
ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot

receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth
him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and
shall be in you.

This was the purpose of the shed blood of Christ, to put God's spirit IN all of
his people. To make us all "one body" with "one mind" in perfect unity and
perfection. tradition has taken that part away from the Gospel and put in it's
place forgiveness and imputed righteousness through atonement (which is
what they had UNDER THE OLD LAW) and is exactly what the Aaronic
priesthood administered on a daily basis!

Christ said unless your righteousness exceeded that righteousness you would
in no wise enter the kingdom.

Matthew 5:
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom
of heaven.

The righteousness traditionalists offer is the same old righteousness offered

under the old priesthood and the old covenant. It could not make you sinless
and perfect. It only "imputed righteousness" to the comers thereunto. The
righteousness under the Melchisedec priesthood imputes righteousness by
faith, then delivers the paraclete and hands the inheritance of Christ to you,
so that you can walk FREE of sin! Perfected!

Hebrews 8:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour,
and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for
all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

This is describing the anointing. The "paraclete" that Christ died to bring us.
That is the true power in his blood.

The traditionalist religion has seduced the congregation into allowing them
to be their priest. They have merely substituted the Aaronic priesthood for
the traditionalist priesthood but the system is still the same. The
Congregation relies on the priests to "lead and guide you into all truth" and
relies on atonement and imputed righteousness, a system that can NEVER
MAKE YOU PERFECT.

Yet the Apostles foresaw this and warned of it, reminding us that Christ died
and shed his blood to send you the anointing, the spirit of truth.

1 John 2:
26 These things have I written unto you concerning
them that seduce you.

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him

abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach
you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all
things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath
taught you, ye shall abide in him.

28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when

he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be
ashamed before him at his coming.

29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every

one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

The traditionalist religion preaches that we are "no longer under the law" but
then preaches the same system as the old law, whereby a congregant relies
on the understanding of the priest to interpret scripture!
It's imperfect and cannot bring you to glory.

Only the Holy Spirit will bring you to perfection.

Ephesians 4:
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets;
and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the

ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the

knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to

and fro, and carried about with every wind of
doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into

him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Let's finish Hebrews Chapter 8 shall we?

Hebrews 8:
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and their iniquities will I remember no
more.

Yes, we have forgiveness in the new covenant. Yes we have mercy and
grace. They had these things under the old covenant as well. God would
"no longer remember" your iniquities under the old covenant, if one would
but repent.
Ezekiel 18:
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he
hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do
that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he
shall not die.

22 All his transgressions that he hath committed,

they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his
righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should

die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return
from his ways, and live?

So what's the difference between the old law and the new regarding God not
remembering the iniquities? Well, the new is true repentance followed by
"remission." (The cessation of the sin itself).

The old law couldn't make you perfect and bring the sins to an end. Under
the old law sins went on and on until you were dead. Remission (ceasing of
sin) came only by the blood of the sinner. There was even provisions for
future sins and future atonement, under the old law commanding that blood
be shed year after year. There are no such provision in the new covenant! It
couldn't make you perfect it could only impute righteousness to you and
provide forgiveness.

That was the old law, but to hear the traditionalists tell it, nothing has
changed, they're locked under the old system while claiming to be no longer
"under the law." The "law of atonement" and "forgiveness," all the while
being still locked perpetually in sin year after year is the OLD law of
atonement!

Under the NEW law, God doesn't remember their iniquities anymore
because they have truly repented and turned from their sins, ONCE and for
all! They aren't just washed, (then return to their own vomit like a dog) they
are renewed and they step forward, pursuing and apprehending pure
righteousness in all their ways, by a new and better way, not through
ordinances, but through the indwelling of the love of God in their hearts, the
HOLY SPIRIT ANOINTING!

In the final verse of Hebrews 8 we see once again that the translators add the
word covenant to the text.

Hebrews 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.

Again, it is not the covenant that is vanishing away, it's the old Aaronic
priestly system with it's atonement, washings and endless statutes! It's the
priests themselves, and all the people who failed to keep the covenant. The
covenant doesn't go away or vanish. In fact it is placed "in their hearts." It
says that the law is "written in their hearts and minds" does this sound like
the law is "vanishing away?"

Christ himself said he was not come to "do away" with the law.

Matthew 5:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth

pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled.

Traditionalists try to kill the entire law and prophets and replace it with their
traditional laws, developed by their own version of the Aaronic priesthood,
and not after the order of Melchisedec.

Their system will perish with them just as did the Aaronic priesthood
system.
CHAPTER 9

When we remember that the original book was not written in chapters, we
will understand that in the subsequent verses the author of Hebrews is
continuing his discussion about how this "new order" and "new laws
governing this new order," are carried out, and he does this by using the old
Aaronic priesthood as a template. He does it by comparison.

Hebrews 9:
1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances
of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

"Ordinances of divine service" is a reference to the priesthood and the

ordinances governing how the priest would achieve atonement and
forgiveness for the people at large. He is also going to use the worldly
sanctuary of the old order to teach us things about the new sanctuary, which
is the body of Christ.

Hebrews 9:
2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein
was the candlestick, and the table, and the
shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is

called the Holiest of all;

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the

covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was
the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that
budded, and the tables of the covenant;

5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the

mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak
particularly.

It says that the "mercy seat" in the Ark of the Covenant" was a "shadow" and
a figure of the true mercy seat of which we cannot speak in particular
because no one has seen it, it is before the throne of God himself.

Well, perhaps we shouldn't say no one. Christ has seen it (which the author
will point out momentarily). In fact when it says Christ is the "propitiation"
for our sins it's talking about the mercy seat. The propitiation is when the
priest sprinkles the blood on the mercy seat.

Hebrews 9:
6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the
priests went always into the first tabernacle,
accomplishing the service of God.

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once
every year, not without blood, which he offered for
himself, and for the errors of the people:

This is describing the ritual of Yom Kippur. Which is outlined in chapters

16 and 23 of Leviticus. Traditionalists would place the blessed Messiah in
the role of the BEAST that is killed in this ritual. Intermixing scriptures
which say Christ is "the Lamb of God" ( a clear reference to the
PASSOVER, NOT the atonement) and say that Christ was a sacrificial lamb
who had to be given to us by God and killed so that we could have the
everlasting atonement.

They turn it into a human sacrifice.

However, when we read Hebrews 9 we see that Christ is cast into the role of
the suffering High Priest, who sheds his own blood in a self sacrifice so that
he can enter through the veil that no man can enter and so that he can make
an everlasting atonement.

Hebrews 9:
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the
holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the
first tabernacle was yet standing:
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;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers

washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them
until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good

things to come, by a greater and more perfect
tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of
this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by

his own blood he entered in once into the holy place,
having obtained eternal redemption for us.

We can clearly see that when it comes to atonement, Christ is the High
Priest, and not the sacrificial goat! This High Priest, the Melchisedec High
Priest, enters the true holy of holies in the true sanctuary (us, the Body of
Christ) via the HOLY SPIRIT and sprinkles his blood on the mercy seat of
our hearts.

This is how the atonement is depicted by the author of Hebrews, not a

human sacrifice whereby God gives a sacrificial human beast (Jesus) to his
people to slaughter.

In the Hebrews 9 depiction, Christ doesn't enter the holy of holies without
blood, he enters with his OWN blood, which he willingly shed of his own
volition that we might be saved!

A goat or a ram does not go willingly to the altar, they are dragged kicking
and screaming. It is brutal! Or, they are tricked to the altar.

Christ went, both eyes wide open, and allowed them to lead him to the
slaughter. He was not unlike an heroic fireman, rushing into a blaze that he
might save some who are trapped there, and who, after saving them all,
himself perishes.

Christ is not a sacrificial goat! He's the suffering High Priest.

Yet traditionalists merely substitute Christ as the bull or the ram in the
atonement process. They make him a beast and no High Priest at all. In this
scenario who is the priest who slaughters the Christ? Why, they are. And
they will preach it from the pulpit, believe it or not. They will say "who
crucified the Christ, was it the Jew, no it was us, all of us."

So they cast themselves as the role of he who slaughters the Messiah beast
for atonement.

If this isn't an evil perversion of the message of the gospel, what is?
Whenever they sin they "crucify the Lord" all over again for their
atonement!

Their depiction of Christ as atonement is simply the OLD LAW of

atonement, casting Christ in the role of the BEAST! Yet they say they are
not under the law? Without the law they could not have atonement at all, for
it is the law that establishes atonement by BLOOD and they preach this
same atonement.

Which is why the author of Hebrews thought it necessary to point out that if
the blood of bulls and goats sprinkled on a mercy seat could cleanse from
sin, then Christ's blood could do this even more.

Hebrews 9:
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the
ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth
to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who

through the eternal Spirit offered himself without
spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works
to serve the living God?

There is so much that must to be said about this. Why is the blood of Christ
able to cleanse from sin more than bulls and goats?

Traditionalists say it's because God lied and the blood of animals can't really
provide atonement. (We'll get to that in a moment). Traditionalists say that
the atonement under the law wasn't really atonement, making God a liar, and
all who followed him in this atonement ritual were fools who never received
atonement and who were all lost.

Just more evidence that traditionalists say all the Jews before Christ perished
in their sins? They teach that the atonement under the law wasn't real.

Yet the author says that the blood of Christ could only cleanse from sin IF
the blood of animals COULD.

If the blood of animals CAN'T cleanse, then neither can the blood of a man
(or the blood of a God/man).

This is common sense.

Yet what is the author of Hebrews really saying?

He's saying that Christ's blood atonement is better because the blood was
shed willingly and carries with it the promise of perfection. It purges our
conscience from dead sins (because the blood is shed to send the paraclete
by whom we walk in sinless perfection). Christ's blood causes us to "serve
the living God."

This is a promise that was not made regarding the blood of bulls and goats
on the altar under the Aaronic priesthood. The old priesthood could not
bring "perfection" according to author of Hebrews, but the blood atonement
under the Melchisedec priesthood does!

Why does it say the old law of priestly service couldn't bring perfection?
Because it was ordered to be done every year. There were always new sins
for which to be atoned. (We will see the author make this very argument in
the next chapter).

Under the old law only the GUILT for the sin was taken away, the sin
continued. Under the new law of atonement the guilt is gone and doesn't
return for sins are eradicated by the Holy Spirit until there are no sins left in
need of atonement.

Perfection.

Hebrews 9:
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new
testament, that by means of death, for the
redemption of the transgressions that were under the
first testament, they which are called might receive
the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of

necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead:

otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator
liveth.

Traditionalists don't know the difference between a covenant and a testament

(will). Because traditionalists reads verses 15-17 and thinks it's saying that
a covenant doesn't apply unless the mediator dies. This sort of argument is
easily refuted for Moses didn't have to die for the old covenant to be in
force, they kept it all the rest of the days of his life after he mediated.

The author is not saying a covenant is not in force without death of the
mediator. He's saying that a will, a "last will and TESTAMENT" is not in
force until he that passes down the inheritance dies.

In this case he's talking about how Christ shared his inheritance with us!
Christ died to share his inheritance that he obtained from the Father!

He died, and thus passed it down to us as a "testament."

This is the "testimony" of Jesus.

He was then raised and exalted to the right hand of God, where he shall rule
and we, as joint heirs shall rule with him!

The author of Hebrews is explaining why Christ had to die to send us the
paraclete!

If he were God, he could have just sent us the paraclete. God is all
powerful! It makes no sense, if Jesus is God, that he had to die and "go
away" in order to send us the Comforter.

Christ inherited all things from the Father and he wanted to pass it down to
those who would believe upon him as an everlasting inheritance. Thus, he
would save us all, if we would but believe and listen to this spirit of truth.
(Hear his voice).

Hebrews 9:
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was
dedicated without blood.

19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all

the people according to the law, he took the blood of
calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and
hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the
people,

20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which

God hath enjoined unto you.

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the

tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
The author now points out that even under the old law, blood was shed that
they could inherit the promises in the old covenant! Moses didn't have to
shed his own blood (fortunately for him) but blood was shed nonetheless.

In order for a testament (a will) to be in force and for the heirs to receive the
inheritance there must be the death of the testator (he that made the will).

In the case of the first inheritance under the old covenant and order, God
allowed the blood of bulls and goats to stand in for the blood of the testator.

Under the new order Christ shed his own blood for us, that we might receive
the promises and the inheritance. (Not just so we might continue in sin and
have perpetual atonement for them). What a perversion of the Gospel!

Hebrews 9:
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with
blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Traditionalists change that word, remission, to "forgiveness." Which makes

the verse a lie or an error for blood is not required for forgiveness under the
old covenant. David was forgiven after he murdered Uriah and took his wife
as his own, and this was done without blood. Nineveh was spared and
forgiven and this was done without blood. Christ told the old crippled man
on the gurney "... your sins are forgiven" and this was done without blood.

Ezekiel 18 states that all that is required for forgiveness is repentance and a
contrite heart!

Certainly, depending on context "remission" can mean "forgiveness" but in

this context it's far more. The author is talking about perfection! He's
talking about the ceasing of sin entirely. So that we are purged, not just of
the guilt of the sin and escape the penalty, but so that we are purged of the
sin itself (to serve the living God).

Under the old law the only time your sins ceased is when your life ended.
We have a "better promise" a promise of attaining to perfection "in this life."

Traditionalists have the author of Hebrews saying that the blood of animals
under the old covenant was shed in their place, and that Christ died in our
place just like a sacrificial beast. He shed his blood so that we don't have to.
Thus, they say "he paid the penalty." The traditionalist "atonement" under
their version of Christ is the same atonement as found under the law (only
replacing the blood of animals with the blood of a God/man). They don't
preach "cessation" of the sin by the blood, only "imputed righteousness" and
"forgiveness" while he that receives the atonement continues on sinning year
after year.

However not even under the old law were the animals shedding their blood
in our place! That is now how the sacrifices worked in the old law, as we
have seen in the book of Hebrews.

Besides, even if it WERE how the sacrifices worked under the old law, we
are no longer under that old law and priesthood. We are under the order of
Melchisedec and that is CERTAINLY not the purpose of the High Priest's
atonement sacrifice under that new order.

The animal blood under the old order was shed to signify the sealing of the
will, the testament, so that the children of the covenant could inherit the
promises contained within. It was offered in faith, believing that he who
complied with the bloodshed would have atonement. Now traditionalists
say that the faith of Abraham (who shed blood in the same manner) and of
all the partriarchs was faith in vain (for they say the atonement and the
promises therein were not real).

The same "offering in faith" is true for the Melchisedec sacrifice, except in
this case the mediator himself died, believing he would rise again, and was
risen, and sprinkles his blood in our hearts that we might "serve the living
God." When they make Jesus God, they take away the faith he demonstrated
in his death and nullify the very sacrifice. For if Jesus is God he risked
nothing by going to the cross. It was NO SACRIFICE at all if he is God.

Under the old law, there was no everlasting remission of sins, there was only
temporary cleansing by the blood of animals. Under the new order the High
Priest uses his own blood and cleanses us of the sin itself (rather than just
the penalty and the guilt).

There is no guilt under the new order, for sure, but that is because we have a
paraclete who is our advocate IF we sin, and who will certainly purge us
from all unrighteousness eventually. We know this will happen (our
perfection) because it says so in the scriptures.

Hebrews 9:
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of
things in the heavens should be purified with these;
but the heavenly things themselves with better
sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made

with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God
for us:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the

high priest entereth into the holy place every year
with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the

foundation of the world: but now once in the end of
the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself.

Christ is presented in the atonement as the Melchisedec High Priest who

himself suffers at that hand of wicked men, so that he can bring an
everlasting atonement (and everlasting remission and cessation of sins).

The old law is presented by the author of Hebrews as a "type and figure" of
this. This does not negate the power and potency of the atonement under the
old covenant. Traditionalists have lied about this and called God a liar,
whom swore by himself to the potency of the atonement to Moses!

Just because the old law shadows and figures the Melchisedec atonement
doesn't negate the blood atonement of the old law. If it did, then the blood of
Christ would be negated as well! If the atonement wasn't "real" in the old
order then it is no more real in the new because it is the old that establishes
the new (and foreshadows it).

The author says if sin doesn't cease under the Melchisedec order, then the
High Priest would have to suffer continually, for it is the High Priest's own
blood that brings the atonement!

This is why Christ's blood is an "everlasting" atonement, because it

eradicates the sin, (by sending to us the power, the paraclete).

Hebrews 9:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of
many; and unto them that look for him shall he
appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

It says that Christ "was offered." Who offered him? It would have to be a
very powerful priest indeed to offer the living Son of God as sacrificial
offering. Christ offered himself. He was offered by himself. This is made
clear by ALL the Apostles. The order of Melchisedec "bears the sins" of
many. This blood does not just "bear the penalty" away, but bears the SINS
AWAY. Setting the captives free. That is the message of the next chapter.

CHAPTER 10

The author continues his comparison of the atonement under the Levitical
priesthood, and atonement under the Melchisedec priesthood (in Christ). In
the last few verses he has pointed out that, if the atonement were to work the
same way under the Melchisedec priesthood as it did under the Levitical
priesthood, then Christ would have to suffer and die over and over again for
all eternity, because under the old order no sins were in "remission" until the
person actually died.

Traditionalists preach today that they will "never be perfect in this life."

They are preaching the same atonement as was found under the law, and
casting Christ in the role of a bull and a goat. Which, of course, would mean
that Christ would have died in vain, for according to them he died to bring
us an atonement that we already possessed.

The author of Hebrews has pointed out that the "remission" or cessation of
sins was not available under the Levitical priesthood. Perfection was not
promised under that atonement. He's now going to explain the main
difference between the two priesthoods (regarding the propitiation... the
sprinkling of the mercy seat).

Hebrews 10:
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to
come, and not the very image of the things, can never
with those sacrifices which they offered year by year
continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Traditionalists misread this verse on purpose. When you hear them read it
they always pause after "year by year" and then say "continually make the
comers thereunto perfect." Why do they do that? Because they are trying to
say that the only difference between the atonement in the old order and the
atonement Christ made is the old atonement had to be repeated over and
over again and the new atonement is "perpetual" or "continually makes a
person perfect" (and the implication is clear that they believe it continually
makes them perfect even though they continue in their sins).

Traditionalists preach an atonement of "past, present AND FUTURE" sins.

A "continual atonement" that ignores your future life of sin entirely. So that
you have an atonement, even though you continue in sin. They make the
atonement under Christ about "imputed perfection" only and it is "continual"
according to them, even if they live a life of sin.

Yet verse 1 is actually speaking about the sacrifices under the old law that
were performed continually year after year.

The comma should come AFTER the word continually like this: "can never
with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the
comers thereunto perfect."

Hebrews 10:
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered?
because that the worshippers once purged should
have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance

again made of sins every year.

By these two verses the point is clear. If the old atonement could make you
perfect (without sin, sinless and perfect in love and obedience) then the
sacrifices would only have to be done ONCE for each person. Because
afterward that person would have a clean conscience, because his sins are in
remission, his sins are no more.

Verse 3 makes the point that the old atonement had to be done every year,
taking into account for future sins, and this is all the evidence we need that
the old law of atonement didn't even promise perfection.

Traditionalists proceed under this same atonement and say that "nobody is
perfect" and "you can't be sinless in this life."

They are operating under the OLD LAW ATONEMENT, and not receiving
the Melchisedec priestly atonement.

Hebrews 10:
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of
goats should take away sins.

This is where traditionalists destroy the truth the most, using this verse.
They have the author of Hebrews now saying that the atonement under the
old law wasn't "real" and really couldn't atone. That it was "impossible" for
blood of animals to atone for sins!

Incredible.

They call God a liar, who promised that the Yom Kippur would atone for
sins, and at the same time they make the author of Hebrews contradict
himself, for he already said earlier that the blood of animals COULD atone.

Hebrews 9:
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the
ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth
to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who

through the eternal Spirit offered himself without
spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works
to serve the living God?

By having the author say that the atonement under the Levitical priesthood
wasn't really atonement, they, therefore nullify and negate the blood of
Christ, for the author of Hebrews said the only way that the blood of Christ
could atone is if the blood of bulls and goats could atone.

Traditionalists take exception to this, denying the truth of it, and arguing that
the author of Hebrews said "IF" the blood of bulls and goats could cleanse.
By the author's words, the only way the blood of Christ could atone is IF the
blood of animals could atone. If the author is hinting that the blood of
animals could NOT atone, then he is negating his own argument and
nullifying the atonement of the blood of Christ.

For we can reason the inverse of his statement:

"If the blood of bulls and rams sprinkled on an altar CANNOT atone,
then how much LESS will the blood of Christ atone?"

Blood atonement is established in the old law, and if it's not real, or it is a
sham, then when Christ seeks to perfect this law through his own blood it
would be equally a sham because it's based on a bogus principle.

So why did the author say it is impossible for the blood of bulls and rams to
"take away sins?"

Because he's not even talking about atonement there, he's talking about the
cessation of sin, and has already proved that the old atonement didn't even
promise to bring an end to sins, as evidenced by the fact it was commanded
right in the law that priest would repeat this atonement every year
continually.

What the author is talking about when he says "take away sins" is the end to
sin. The total remission of the sin disease. Animal blood could not bring
this about. It's perfection. It's what the old priesthood couldn't bring
according to the Hebrews author!

Christ's blood doesn't just atone for sins, leaving the comer thereunto in need
of future atonement because he or she is still locked in the captivity of sin.
Christ's blood is the blood of the passover lamb, which sets the captives
FREE!

It "takes away" our sins. For you see, to obey is better than atonement
sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body
hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast

had no pleasure.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it

is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

The author of Hebrews quotes Psalms 40: 6-8 but he ADDS something to it.
The phrase "but a body hast thou prepared me:" That phrase is NOT
FOUND in the original text of Psalms. Let's read it:

Psalms 40: 6-8

6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine
ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering
hast thou not required.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it

is written of me,

8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is

within my heart.

Many have claimed that the book of Hebrews was tampered with and the
phrase "a body hast thou prepared me" was added by tradition. That is not
necessarily true. There may have been a translation of the Psalms that
included that phrase. Some scholars claim there was.

Yet, what traditionalists do with that phrase is the sickening part.

They have it to mean that God "prepared Christ" as a human sacrifice and
sent him in the world as such! Christ is depicted as just a "body" to be
killed. Just a beast!

That is NOT what "a body has thou prepared me" even means.

Traditionalists have it to mean "a sacrifice thou hast prepared me" but the
word "body" there is not even close to the word "sacrifice." It's the word
"soma" and is the word used to refer to the BODY OF CHRIST, or THE
CHURCH.
Why is this word used to denote the church? Because the church is the
"temple" in which the Holy Spirit dwells, so a soma is a "body temple" for
God to inhabit. It was through Christ's death of his body that we became "a
body prepared for God to dwell in." Christ's self sacrifice paved the way for
the temple of God, the body of Christ to be prepared. In fact Christ's self
sacrifice WAS the preparation being spoke there when it says "a body hast
thou prepared me."

Psalms 40: 6 in most translations says "thou hast opened mine ears" instead
of "a body hast thou prepared me." This is no coincidence, for our ears are
opened when we receive the paraclete and become the TEMPLE of GOD.

The author says that "when he cometh into the world he saith..."
traditionalists re-translate that in modern version to "when Christ came into
the world he said."

We must hold the translators to the task. They must show, in the words in
red (Christ words in red letter additions) where we have the baby Christ
saying such a thing. He supposedly said it (according to the author of
Hebrews) when he "came into the world" so this would mean when he was
born. Even if you deny this and insist that all he had to do was say it
sometime when he was living in the flesh, where's the quote from scripture?

Where is the chapter and the verse where Christ said this at any time!

He didn't say it so it doesn't exist.

Let's look at the context of Psalms 40 just for a moment and see if we can
ascertain when the Messiah is supposed to have "said" this.

Psalms 40: 1-2

1 I waited patiently for the Lord; and he inclined unto

me, and heard my cry.
2 He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of
the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and
established my goings.

The Psalmist is speaking of Christ at his resurrection! Not his birth or his
lifetime on earth! "Thou hast brought me up out of the pit."

We learned earlier that when the author of Hebrews speaks of Christ

"coming into the world" or "being brought into the world" he's talking about
the resurrection, not the birth of Christ.

Remember Chapter 1 verse 6?

" And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten
into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God
worship him."

Remember we discovered that the author couldn't be talking about Christ's

birth, for he says later that when Christ was born he was born "lower than
the angels" not above them (to be worshiped by them).

Hebrews 2:
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;
thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst
set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.

For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left
nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not
yet all things put under him.

Also, remember we read in Hebrews 1: 9 that Christ was "promoted above

his fellows" only after he demonstrated that obedience?

Hebrews 1:
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with
the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Paul confirms this very fact in Philippians 2, saying that Christ was "highly
exalted" only after he was "obedient unto the death."

Philippians 2:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and

given him a name which is above every name:

We know, therefore, that Christ was not granted headship over the Body, the
Congregation until he resurrected. At which time he prepared the
Congregation as a "body" for God to dwell in by "opening their ears" to the
ANOINTING!

So, the author is talking about the resurrection when he says " when he
cometh into the world..." and "a body hast thou prepared me."

The context is how Christ makes us PERFECT. How he "takes away our
sins" completely. This is how it was done. When Christ resurrected he
entered the holy of holies, sprinkled his blood in our hearts and this prepared
us as a sanctified and consecrated temple for God to dwell in!

GLORY HALLELUJAH!

The message of this passage is glorious beyond words but traditionalists

CHEAPEN IT, by making it a statement that God prepared Christ the way a
priest prepares a goat to be sacrificed on an altar. They have the author
saying that the Son of God was just a "body."

Notice the central theme of the message in Hebrews 10: 5-7 is "I come to do
thy will Oh God!" Christ didn't come just to die (though he knew he would)
he came so that the Father would be obeyed!
Christ didn't come to be a sacrifice under the law he came to REPLACE that
sacrifice with OBEDIENCE! The author of Hebrews says this very thing
next but traditionalists RARELY READ these next verses!

Hebrews 10:
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and
burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not,
neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by
the law;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He

taketh away the first, that he may establish the
second.

Christ took away the first (sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and
offerings for sin) so that he may establish the second (God's will being done
in the earth, OBEDIENCE)!

You can't get any clearer than this but the traditionalist is too busy trying to
twist and convolute the scriptures so they can use them to prove their man
made teachings of the deity of Christ to see it!

Hebrews 10:
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and

offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for

sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be

made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever
them that are sanctified.

Traditionalists often quote verse 10 as proof text that Jesus is a "sacrificial

beast" and that God prepared Christ as a "body" to be sacrificed. Yet, Christ
is presented as the HIGH PRIEST who MAKES the sacrifice. Yes, his
sacrifice was his OWN BODY, but he is still the priest who makes the
atonement. We see this from verse 12 where it says "he offered" one
sacrifice for sins. He's the one making the offering, he's not the offering!
His offering was his OWN BODY so the author calls this offering "the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ!"

Traditionalists also love to quote Hebrews 10: 14 and make it a proof text
that Christ's sacrifice provides "perpetual atonement" and makes us all
"perfect" by "imputation." That all you have to do is "believe" on the
sacrifice and you are "perfect in God's eyes forever."

That is NOT what he is saying at all. He's saying that he has, by his death,
provided us with the promise and with the means of perfection, and that this
perfection will be eternal. Paul makes it clear that he doesn't proceed as
though he's "already perfect" but he pursues it.

Philippians 3:
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were
already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may
apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of
Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended:

but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which
are behind, and reaching forth unto those things
which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high

calling of God in Christ Jesus.
The traditionalist says he's already perfect. He's already sanctified. He's
already holy (and it doesn't matter if he disobeys God at every turn) because
he has the "blood" sacrifice of Jesus. Clearly, he has never read the rest of
what the author has to say in Hebrews 10.

Hebrews 10:
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for
after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them

after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws
into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no

more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more

offering for sin.

If you have the laws in your heart, it is so that you "might not sin against
him." This is what traditionalists don't like to preach! The only way your
sins are "remembered no more" is if you repent of those sins and turn away
from them! (We read that in Ezekiel 18 a few chapters back).

The author again uses the word "remission." IF he were talking about
forgiveness through atonement then he's contradicting himself, because he
pointed out that the atonement sacrifice under the old law had to be done
over and over again year after year. If once forgiveness is come there needs
no more atonement, then they would not have had to keep doing atonement
sacrifices.

When the author says "remission" he's talking about the end of sin, the sins
cease, and the person has the WILL and the INTENT to no longer sin and
the faith to believe that such a thing is possible under the new atonement in
Christ via the HOLY SPIRIT!

This is the faith and the patience of the saints.

Hebrews 10:
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the
blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through
the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having
our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed
with pure water.

23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he
is faithful that promised;)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good
works:

Martin Luther said that we "come boldly sinning before the throne." How
messed up is that?

The end result of the Melchisedec atonement is OBEDIENCE because God

desires obedience above sacrifices. Which is why the author says to "hold
fast" and says "he is faithful that promised." Promised what? The better
promises of the Melchisedec priesthood, which is PERFECTION, having
not just your sins forgiven but having them "taken away" so that you are no
longer in captivity to them. True liberty. True freedom!

It's also why he said "provoke one another to LOVE and to good works" for
we keep the law now in our hearts, through the true veil of the holy of
holies, via the LOVE OF GOD that dwells in our hearts and is "perfected" in
us.

That is faith... not "you can never stop sinning in this life!"

Hebrews 10:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves
together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one
another: and so much the more, as ye see the day
approaching.

Every traditionalist Pastor I've ever encountered has used this verse to teach
that you shouldn't stop going to church! They must teach this in seminary.
However, this "assembling" is talking about the unity of the BODY OF
CHRIST, it's the assembling of the temple of God. The true tabernacle. We
come together in unity of the faith unto the perfect man.. unto the fullness of
the stature of Christ... (Ephesians 4: 11-14).

Traditional religions don't "assemble" the body. They DIVIDE IT! Which is
why they are called "denominations." That word literally means "division."

Hebrews 10:
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and

fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy

under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall

he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot
the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the
covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy
thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance

belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord.
And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the

living God.

Traditionalists teach that they can "never stop sinning in this life." Even the
Catholics (who pay lip service to ceasing from personal sins) teach that we
only have "imputed righteousness" through Christ and that you will "always
be a sinner" locked under the "original sin" curse! When they say this, they
announce they have "no intention of ceasing from sin." Every sin they
commit after that is a "wilful sin" for they have determined that it is
impossible to "not sin."

They have lost their sacrifice according to the above verses.

No wonder you don't often hear many traditionalist ministers quoting those
verses!

Yes, we have forgiveness IF we sin, but if we determine in our hearts that we

are going to continue in sin until we die, that is sinning WILLFULLY!

Hebrews 10:
32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which,
after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of
afflictions;

33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by

reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye
became companions of them that were so used.

34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and

took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in
yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an
enduring substance.

35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which

hath great recompence of reward.

36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have

done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
The author speaks of our "confidence." Confidence in what? Confidence in
HIM. In his power. That we can do the will of God through the power of
the Holy Spirit anointing sent to us by the blood shed by our suffering High
Priest! What is the end of that obedience through our faith in him? The
promise (even eternal life of the Melchisedec order).

Hebrews 10:

37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will

come, and will not tarry.

38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man

draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Traditionalists always skip to verse 38 when they get past "forsake not the
assembling of yourselves..." they love that verse because to them when it
says "faith" it means "belief" only. When you tell them that just people live
"justly" and walk in the righteousness born of love through the Holy spirit
they will quote, "The just live by faith." It's frustrating to say the least. They
want to replace obedience with belief only and ignore completely that he
that has faith has TRUE FAITH in the power of God to transform you!

Which is why the author speaks of "he that draws back." He's talking about
those who fall away from the true gospel of living HOLY in Christ and go
back to their life of sin.

CHAPTER 11

Traditional gospel teaching presents "salvation by faith" as something new

under Christ. The author of Hebrews disagreed.

Hebrews 11:
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

They only ever quote verse 1. They rarely read the rest. Who are the
"elders" to which the author refers? Christians who are "saved by grace
through faith?" Not at all. The author is referring to the patriarchs of the old
testament.

Apparently, salvation by faith is nothing new. Yet, the author also doesn't
share the traditionalist's view of "faith alone" for he's about to talk about all
the things the "elders" in scripture DID through faith. Establishing that at
least this author believes faith involves obedience. It involves doing
something. It's not just believing something.

Hebrews 11:
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were
framed by the word of God, so that things which are
seen were not made of things which do appear.

So, this verse shows that faith is indeed "believing" something, but he adds
that faith increases our "understanding," of a matter. He also states that the
Genesis creation story is "figurative" and not literal. Something that also
runs cross grain with traditionalism.

At this point the author gives a long list of "faithful" elders in scripture, who
actually DID something (and didn't just believe alone). What's truly
important is, if salvation is by "faith" as the traditional gospel teaches, then
all of these men, having faith, were saved. For if salvation is by faith
AFTER Christ, it stands to reason they who had faith BEFORE Christ are
saved.

Why then did Christ have to come and die in order to bring salvation if it
was available before? Christ came and he died to bring the fulfillment of the
promise, even the perfection that grants eternal life. He came "that we might
have life and have it more abundantly." He came to "destroy the works of
the devil." He came to make it happen, and all who died in faith of his
promised coming shall be granted the fruits of that faith in the life to come.

Hebrews 11:
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent
sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that
he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it
he being dead yet speaketh.

5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not

see death; and was not found, because God had
translated him: for before his translation he had this
testimony, that he pleased God.

Verse 4 makes the case that Abel was saved, God regarded him and his
"blood" cried out to God from the ground. If Abel weren't saved, God
wouldn't regard him after his death.

Verse 5 states that Enoch was translated by faith and makes it clear that
translation was because Enoch, through his faith, "pleased God."

Hebrews 11:
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for
he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and
that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Tradition distorts the message of verse 6. They quote it all the time, by
itself, cherry picked and out of context. They have it to say that pleasing
God means you believe... end of story. That God is not pleased by your
attempts to obey him. That God is only pleased if you BELIEVE and imply
that God doesn't care about your obedience, just what you believe.

When in fact the text, in context, is saying that Enoch was a "righteous man"
by faith. (He pleased God). For God is indeed pleased by our righteousness,
if it come by faith in him. You cannot be truly righteous except by faith.
The author of Hebrews is stating the obvious, that if you believe you can be
righteous, you can, and if you don't believe you can be righteous (which is
where the traditionalist lives and breathes) then you can never be righteous.

You can't "please God" without faith. So, when the traditionalist says "you
can't be righteous" he's saying "you can't please God." Period, end of story.
That is not faith, that is faithlessness. It shall happen to him as he has stated
with his mouth, he doesn't have faith that he can please God, so he never
will because "without faith it is impossible to please God."

The author of Hebrews continues with his list of the "faithful" elders in the
Old Testament who all PERFORMED great things by their faith. It's
obvious the Hebrews author agreed with James that "faith without works is
dead" and that works "make your faith perfect."

Hebrews 11:
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not
seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the
saving of his house; by the which he condemned the
world, and became heir of the righteousness which is
by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into

a place which he should after receive for an
inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing
whither he went.

9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a

strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac
and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations,

whose builder and maker is God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength

to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when
she was past age, because she judged him faithful
who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as
good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in
multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore
innumerable.

The true believer walks in faith because he or she believes in the promises.
He or she believes in the faithfulness of God to make it so. It's the
"substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." We
may struggle day to day and we may fall into an occasional sin (when we let
ourselves live after the flesh) but we have a promise that our High Priest
after the order of Melchisedec can "make you perfect" by the power of his
blood. (The paraclete, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, love unfeigned).

He that has this faith will see perfection. He that says "you can't be perfect
in this life" will never see it, for such an one doesn't trust in he that
promised!

Hebrews 11:
13 These all died in faith, not having received the
promises, but having seen them afar off, and were
persuaded of them, and embraced them, and
confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on
the earth.

14 For they that say such things declare plainly that

they seek a country.

15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country

from whence they came out, they might have had
opportunity to have returned.

16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an

heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called
their God: for he hath prepared for them a city

The author says that all of these people are saved through their faith.
Abraham is saved. He shall see the resurrection of the righteous, (who are
righteous by faith). Now, remember that in an earlier chapter it said that
Melchisedec is "without death." That is what the author was eluding to,
because even though Melchisedec is not mentioned in this chapter as one of
the elders who obtained salvation by faith in the promises, Melchisedec
believed in those same promises of Abraham.

How do we know?

The author of Hebrews said so.

Hebrews 7:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them
received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had
the promises.

Melchisedec blessed faithful Abraham, because he was the keeper of the

promises. So Melchisedec, just like Abraham had faith in those same
promises. This is why Melchisedec will serve as a priest forever, he shall be
resurrected and inherit the promise of eternal life.

In chapter 10 we discovered that when the author says "a body thou hast
prepared me" and that this was a reference to the new and true tabernacle
(and by extension the New Jerusalem), and here in verse 16 of Chapter 11
we see confirmation of this interpretation.

Hebrews 11: 16
"... for he hath prepared for them a city."

"... a body thou hast prepared me."

The author of Hebrews also draws a direct correlation between the faith of
Abraham when he offered up his first born, the child of the immediate
promise, and with the faith of our High Priest, Christ, who gave himself to
the slaughter, fully believing that God would raise him again from the dead.
Hebrews 11:
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up
Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered
up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed

be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up,

even from the dead; from whence also he received
him in a figure.

God sent his son to Israel, knowing fully well they would crucify him.
Christ went to Israel believing that God would raise him up when he was
crucified. The author of Hebrews presents something Abraham DID in faith
as the example of "saving faith" that brings an inheritance of the promises of
God (namely eternal life).

The list of the faithful and their great works of faith goes on:

Hebrews 11:
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning
things to come.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both

the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the
top of his staff.

22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of

the departing of the children of Israel; and gave
commandment concerning his bones.

23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three

months of his parents, because they saw he was a
proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's
commandment.

24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years,

refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people

of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a
season;

26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches

than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto
the recompence of the reward.

27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of

the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is
invisible.

Notice something astonishing in verse 26. It calls Moses a "Christ." Which

means "anointed one." Moses suffered reproach as the Christ of Israel rather
than stay in Egypt and be a Prince of the world! This is the faith of the
saints. For we have the anointing in us and we too shall suffer the same
reproach that all "anointed ones" (Christs) suffer.

Tradition fails to take into account the role of faith in the sacrifices of
atonement and Passover as well. The author of Hebrews here points out that
even the law is done "by faith."

Hebrews 11:
28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the
sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the
firstborn should touch them.

29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry

land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were
drowned.

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they

were compassed about seven days.

31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them

that believed not, when she had received the spies
with peace.

32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail
me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson,
and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of
the prophets:

33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought

righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the
mouths of lions.

34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of

the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed
valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the
aliens.

35 Women received their dead raised to life again:

and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance;
that they might obtain a better resurrection:

There we have it then. If you were looking for proof of the claim that these
faithful people in the Old Testament all have their part in the resurrection,
there it is in verse 35. Furthermore, if you were looking for proof of the
traditional gospel message that we are saved "by faith alone" and that works
are irrelevant, you haven't found it in this chapter.

In this chapter, the author of Hebrews goes out of his way to demonstrate
and show that works and faith are inseparable and that we "obtain" a
resurrection by our obedience through faith.

Hebrews 11:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and
scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and
imprisonment:

37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were

tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered
about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute,
afflicted, tormented;

38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they

wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens
and caves of the earth.

39 And these all, having obtained a good report

through faith, received not the promise:

Traditionalists will quote verse 39 to attempt to refute the claim that these
people all have eternal life and take part in the resurrection. They say "see,
they didn't receive the promise."

Well, not yet, but the resurrection hasn't happened yet!

It says they shall receive of the promise and they shall "obtain a better
resurrection." What part of this don't the traditionalists understand?

Hebrews 11:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that
they without us should not be made perfect.

Again, the traditionalists (those in error) have pointed to verse 40 and read it
to mean that the author of Hebrews contradicts himself, first saying they
shall receive the promise because of their demonstration of great faith, then
apparently, they believe, the author then concludes that they are not "one of
us" (a Christian) so they shall never be made perfect.

That is such a perversion of the verse that it can turn your stomach when you
understand what it really says.

It's saying that they are awaiting the resurrection. They will not be made
perfect "without us." In other words, the resurrection awaits the perfection
of the saints, then ALL shall be resurrected! The elders who died in faith are
now "dead in Christ" and are awaiting the resurrection with all the saints.

More needs to be said on this.

We must take a detour from Hebrews.

For you see, the message of the resurrection has been lost in the modern
gospel. The dead, who have fallen asleep in Christ (which includes those
who saw the Christ and the promises of Christ from afar off and believed
them, living accordingly) are all awaiting the shout from heaven and the
trump of God.

1 Thessalonians 4:
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord,
that we which are alive and remain unto the coming
of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven

with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and
with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall
rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be

caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet
the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the
Lord.

Scripture says that we shall "not prevent" them which are asleep. This
seems to say that they who are "dead in Christ" don't have to wait for us to
be resurrected! It's a seeming contradiction to the author of Hebrews who
said "they shall not be made perfect without us."

Not if you understand that God will not wait forever for us to be perfect and
to obey him and to repent of our own deeds and do his first works of love
through the power of the paraclete.
Paul tells the Thessalonians that we who are alive and who can't seem to get
our perfection right will NOT prevent the resurrection forever. That would
be unfair, for the dead in Christ to have to wait forever for us living to come
together in unity and perfection. (When I say the dead in Christ I'm
including the elders of the old testament who died in faith of Christ).

So, one day there will come a shout from heaven, the trump of God and a
voice will say "there is time no longer."

Revelation 10:
5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and
upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who
created heaven, and the things that therein are, and
the earth, and the things that therein are, and the
sea, and the things which are therein, that there
should be time no longer:

Time no longer for what? Time for them to repent of their deeds and do the
first works!

Revelation 2: 21
And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and
she repented not.

Christ is "longsuffering" to us (every branch in him). He's holding back the

day of his return and the resurrection, waiting for us to repent and finally
believe and finally live in perfection! He's not willing for any to perish in
their sins at his return.

2 Peter 3: 9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some
men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward,
not willing that any should perish, but that all should
come to repentance.
For you see, he is honor bound by his own word to take any servant in his
house whom he finds in sin at his return and to cast them into outer
darkness.

Matthew 24:
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as
ye think not the Son of man cometh.

45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his

lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them
meat in due season?

46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he

cometh shall find so doing.

47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler

over all his goods.

48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart,

My lord delayeth his coming;

49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to

eat and drink with the drunken;

50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when

he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not
aware of,

51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his

portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping
and gnashing of teeth.

The traditionalist believes that you cannot be perfect until the trumpet
sounds. Until the resurrection. So what is going to happen to them? They
are never going to be perfected. When Christ returns at the sound of the
trumpet he will find them imperfect and not living in repentance, and living
in their sin and he shall spew them out.
Their fate is sealed as long as they say "you can't be perfect in this life" and
as long as they refuse to have faith in the promises of perfection. For they
are not "pressing toward" perfection if they believe it is impossible until
some magic trumpet sound!

They have NO IDEA at what hour our Lord returns, yet they say they shall
not be "perfect" in this life, regardless of the fact that he indeed could return
in this lifetime!

In fact the Apostle Paul stated that an entire generation of believers will
reach perfection without ever having died and before the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last

trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and

this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on

incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on
immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying
that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy

victory?

56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is

the law.

57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory

through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast,
unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the
Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in
vain in the Lord.

Paul says "your labor" is not in vain. He doesn't say "your belief is not in
vain." We are "laboring" through our faith to "put on incorruption." We are
doing this every day, by "dying daily."

1 Corinthians 15:
31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ
Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

What does that mean? It means we "take up our cross daily and follow"
Christ.

Luke 9: 23
And he said to them all, If any man will come after
me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily,
and follow me.

What does it mean to "take up your cross daily?" What does it mean to "die
daily?" It means you "mortify the deeds of the body."

Romans 8:
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the
flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye

through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body,
ye shall live.

We daily "put on incorruption," by "putting on Christ."

Romans 13: 14
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not
provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

It means we make ourselves a "living sacrifice" just as our Melchisedec

High Priest did, following after his example.

Romans 12: 1
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of
God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,
holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable
service.

Note: those trapped in the error of the modern Gospel object at this point.
They argue that no one is perfect, demand to know if I'm claiming to be
perfect, and state that no one CAN be perfect until that day. (The day of the
trumpet). They don't see that they have no idea when that day is, so they
should strive to enter it every day!

We "labor to enter into his rest" as the author of Hebrews put it.

They say, "yes, but our perfection isn't complete until the trumpet sounds."

This is not so.

For scripture says that in the days of the trumpet, when he shall "begin" to
sound, the mystery of God should already be finished.

Revelation 10:
7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel,
when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God
should be finished, as he hath declared to his
servants the prophets.

What is this mystery God declared to his prophets?

It's Christ in YOU, the HOPE of GLORY. (The hope of perfection and the
hope of salvation).
Colossians 1:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the
dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to
fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages

and from generations, but now is made manifest to
his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches

of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles;
which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and

teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may
present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his

working, which worketh in me mightily.

The Apostles were made "ministers of perfection." (The Melchisedec

priesthood). Their labor was to bring us all "unto perfection" and this occurs
by Christ in YOU. The mystery. That mystery should be "finished" by the
time the seventh trumpet sounds!

When this voice says "no more time" the dead in Christ (including all those
patriarch mentioned in Hebrews) shall rise FIRST, THEN we shall be
changed, not into sinless creatures, for we put on incorruption every day if
we have the spirit. We shall be changed into "immortals," even as we stand
alive on our feet. Without ever having tasted of death.

The traditionalist, at this point will shout, "we believe in all of that!"

Do they?

No, they don't, for in order to be perfected by the time the trumpet sounds,
you have to believe it is possible to be perfect. Without faith it is impossible
to please God. You have to BELIEVE it! They preach it's not possible to be
perfect in this life. They preach it's not possible to be righteous, because
only Jesus could be righteous, and that because he's God.

They preach that righteousness is "filthy rags" unto God.

Are they apprehending perfection? Their own words say otherwise!

Shall they reach the finish line before the race is over (by the sounding of the
trumpet).

Doubtful, for they don't believe it.

CHAPTER 12

Some might say, "the book of Hebrews flies right in the face of all
traditional dogma." If they did say this, they'd be wrong. Being that
Hebrews came long before these "traditional teachings" it is more accurate
to say that tradition flies in the face of the book of Hebrews.

How the traditionalist gets away with reading Hebrews at all, and not seeing
how it contradicts his teachings is a testament to the power of cherry picking
scripture and reading only what you are directed to read by those who seek
to keep you in the dark.

When we read the book without the influence of these traditions, our eyes
are open to many things that have long since been lost.

Chapter 12 is no exception. So let's dive right in.

Hebrews 12:
1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about
with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside
every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset
us, and let us run with patience the race that is set
before us,

Who are these witnesses "clouding around us?" Who else? All those who,
from the beginning of time have died in faith awaiting the promises. He
named only a few in chapter 11. That they shall take part in the resurrection
is left indisputable after reading that chapter.

This cloud of witnesses includes such great faithful as Daniel who was even
told...

Daniel 12:
13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt
rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

There is also one more thing that Hebrews 12: 1 reveals. The possible
meaning of the prophecies regarding Christ's return and his "coming in the
clouds," and our being "caught up to meet him in the clouds."

Acts 1:
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they
beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him
out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as

he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white
apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye

gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is
taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like
manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Could the author of Hebrews be trying to reveal something about the second
coming of Christ?
Jude 1: 14
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied
of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten
thousands of his saints,

Revelation 19:
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him
upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and
clean.

Could the "clouds" that Christ returns with be this same "cloud" of witnesses
referred to by the author of Hebrews?

Well, one might argue, "no, because it was a literal cloud that received
Christ out of their sight in acts, and the angels said that in the same manner
Christ would return."

Are you SURE this cloud in Acts 1 that "received" Christ as he ascended is a
literal cloud and not the "armies in heaven" this "great cloud of witnesses?"

Hebrews 12:
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our
faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured
the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at
the right hand of the throne of God.

3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of

sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint
in your minds.

4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against

sin.

First, let's take note of the word "despising" in verse 2. That is basically the
same word as "ignoring." Of course, everyone despises shame, but what
Christ did was ignore the shame and humiliation of sinners as they put him
to death.

Verse 3 destroys yet another traditional teaching. The idea that when
scripture says "he bore our iniquities" on the cross it means he took our sins
onto himself (like the scapegoat in the atonement) and took them to the cross
and nailed them there. We can now see that when it says "he bore our
iniquities" it's saying that he endured them. He endured the wickedness of
those who crucified him.

Verse 4 confirms what we learned earlier regarding the remission. When the
author states that "in almost all things in the law without blood there can be
no remission." Here the author confirms that none of those to whom he was
writing ever had to die in order to defeat sin. (Interestingly however he says
"not yet" anyway).

He's speaking of suffering as Christ suffered.

Hebrews 12:
5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which
speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise
not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when
thou art rebuked of him:

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and

scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

In these verses the author of Hebrews completely and utterly destroys the
traditional teaching that Christ's blood "hides your sins" from God's eyes and
that Christ took the punishment for your sins for you.

This author didn't believe that. Instead he points out that God chastens
(punishes) those he loves when they sin!

This is the complete opposite of the modern traditional gospel message that
teaches Christ took the chastisement for them.
Yet the author has much more to say on this subject that will be hard for the
traditionalist to hear.

Hebrews 12:
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as
with sons; for what son is he whom the father
chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are

partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

The author of Hebrews identifies those who don't believe they will be
punished when they sin as "bastard children." He points out that if they
aren't punished for their sins then God does not love them as children!

Heavy duty words for those who preach the traditional gospel of "blood
coverup" of sins!

Not only does God see our sins, he will punish us when he does, because he
loves us.

Hebrews 12:
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which
corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we
not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of
spirits, and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after

their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we
might be partakers of his holiness.

11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be

joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it
yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto
them which are exercised thereby.

Once again, the traditionalists are exposed in the writings of Hebrews as

being seriously in error. The author points out that God punishes us so that
we will "yield the fruit of righteousness." So, what happens to those who
"aren't punished" because "God doesn't see their sins?" They never yield the
precious and glorious fruit of righteousness! It happens them exactly as they
have confessed with their mouths. They WILL never be perfect, in this life,
nor in the world to come.

They "despise correction," and proverbs says only a fool does that:

Proverbs 15: 32
He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul:
but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Proverbs 12: 1
Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he
that hateth reproof is brutish.

Proverbs 1: 7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge:
but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

So, the author of Hebrews is just devastating the traditional teachings of the
gospel (which as far as we know didn't even exist yet). Clearly, he saw it
coming.

Hebrews 12:
12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and
the feeble knees;

13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that

which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it
rather be healed.

14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without

which no man shall see the Lord:
The author of Hebrews did not agree with the traditional teachings of the
modern gospel, that you are "saved regardless of works." He states in no
uncertain terms that without holiness "no man shall see the Lord."

He spoke of walking a straight path, and he did not preach that Christ's
blood "atones" us of our sin, but rather that his blood "HEALS US" of sin!

Hebrews 12:
15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of
God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble
you, and thereby many be defiled;

16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as

Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would

have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he
found no place of repentance, though he sought it
carefully with tears.

Clearly the author of Hebrews did not believe in "eternal security" or "once
saved always saved." He issues stark warnings that a man can "fail of the
grace of God" and "be defiled" and thus, if that man slips into fornication,
letting his flesh govern his words and actions, like Esau, that man shall be
"rejected" and will NOT inherit!

Hebrews 12:
18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be
touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto
blackness, and darkness, and tempest,

19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of

words; which voice they that heard intreated that the
word should not be spoken to them any more:

20 (For they could not endure that which was

commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the
mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a
dart:

21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I

exceedingly fear and quake:)

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the

city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to
an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the

firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the
Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made
perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,

and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better
things than that of Abel.

In the last 7 verses the author compares Christ to Moses again, and compares
Christ's sprinkled blood in the holy of holies (the hearts of the believers) as
"speaking" and crying out, like Abel's blood.

This is the paraclete. The anointing power of the Christ, for which he shed
his blood so that it could "speak to us" and could compel us to follow in his
footsteps of obedience and holiness so that we too can obtain to his
resurrection and to his eternal priesthood.

Hebrews 12:
25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if
they escaped not who refused him that spake on
earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn
away from him that speaketh from heaven:

26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he

hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the
earth only, but also heaven.
27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the
removing of those things that are shaken, as of things
that are made, that those things which cannot be
shaken may remain.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot

be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve
God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

The author of Hebrews is echoing the words of James. "Be ye doers of the
word and not just hearers only..."

The ultimate goal of Christ's blood, according to the author of Hebrews was
to "open our ears" (as he quoted from Psalms 40 in chapter 10). This
opening of our ears was not just so we could have "atonement" and no just
so that God no longer sees our sins, and it was not just so we could have
"imputation of righteousness." The end goal of the shed and sprinkling of
the blood of Christ in our hearts was so that we "may serve God acceptably
with reverence and fear.

Hebrews 12:
29 For our God is a consuming fire.

He that does not obey, and walk holy in Christ shall be consumed by fire!

Clearly the author of Hebrews was no "traditionalist."

CHAPTER 13

The author of Hebrews had a very simple way of telling us just how
perfection is obtained through the ministry of the blood of Christ. It was not
by "imputation of righteousness." It was not by "atonement" and Christ
"paying the penalty" for sin. He communicated this ground breaking phrase.

Hebrews 13:
1 Let brotherly love continue.
Yes, that's it. That's all it would take for every believer in the world to be
"perfected" in Christ. John explained this with a few more words:

1 John 2:
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love
of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

By "his word" John refers to the commandment to "love one another."

1 John 2:
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also
so to walk, even as he walked.

7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you,

but an old commandment which ye had from the
beginning. The old commandment is the word which
ye have heard from the beginning.

8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which

thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness
is past, and the true light now shineth.

9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his

brother, is in darkness even until now.

10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and

there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and

walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he
goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins

are forgiven you for his name's sake.

The author of Hebrews said almost the same exact thing in this final chapter.
That because you have grace (your sins are forgiven) you are able to be
perfect. Not just "seen as perfect in God's eyes" but perfect.
People always ask, "are you perfect?"

Let's examine the lack of understanding that question reveals. Our sins are
forgiven us. In Ezekiel it says that if a wicked man turns from his
wickedness, his sins he committed will never be mentioned again.

We looked at these verses before but they bear repeating:

Ezekiel 18:
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he
hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do
that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he
shall not die.

22 All his transgressions that he hath committed,

they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his
righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should

die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return
from his ways, and live?

If one turns from sins and the intent of their heart is to "let the brotherly love
continue" and their intent is to "do thy will, O' God," then their past sins are
never mentioned again. It's as if they never happened.

So, if, after this, they are not in a sin, aren't they perfect? The have no sin
now and their past sins are not mentioned. How are they NOT perfect?

Tradition says no, because no one is perfect. This they say, while at the
same time claiming they have "imputed righteousness" which would make
them perfect, by imputation.

It's enough to drive you to frustration.

What part of your sins are mentioned no more do they not understand?
But tradition argues, "there shall be future sins for we are all human, no one
is perfect and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Really? How is this not "intent to commit sin?"

What part of "make no provision" do they not understand?

Romans 13: 14
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not
provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

This doesn't mean you are "infallible," it means that you are walking in love.
The love of God is "perfected" in you. Of course, this only works if your
intent is to cease from sinning. Walking around saying you can't stop
sinning because of the Adamic curse, or saying you can't be perfect and
sinless because only Jesus could do that (because he's God) is not going to
win you any points with the Father.

Traditionalists present sinless perfection as a "state of being" just like they

present sin as a "state of being." Sin is not a state of being, sin is not a
nature, sin is transgression of the law. Perfection, likewise, is not a state of
being, it's not a nature, it's something you continually apprehend, it's not a
"state of nirvana" one can achieve, then sit down and say "I have arrived."

For one can be perfect one day then go out and be imperfect (in his or her
holiness). One can be sinless today and tomorrow go out and go crazy with
sin!

Hebrews 13:
2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby
some have entertained angels unawares.

3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with

them; and them which suffer adversity, as being
yourselves also in the body.
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:
but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The author of Hebrews did not believe the traditional line that when you are
a believer you are not judged for your sins. He clearly urges those to whom
he is writing that they should not conduct themselves as adulterers, or
frequent prostitutes because they WILL BE JUDGED!

Yes, the author of Hebrews was not under the delusion that God doesn't see
your adultery or your fornication because it is "covered in the blood."

He did not believe that grace was a license to continue whatever it is that
you were doing (from which Christ had to shed his blood to set you free).

Hebrews 13:
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and
be content with such things as ye have: for he hath
said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper,

and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

Again, more advice about how a true believer operates, under grace. Don't
be talking about money and financial prosperity all the time, says the author
of Hebrews. (How many traditional churches need to hear THAT message
today)? The author of Hebrews wants your behavior to reflect that you
actually BELIEVE that the Lord is truly "your helper" (paraclete). He that
has the "spirit of truth" and makes Christ his "Lord" is going to show forth
his faith in how he behaves. That was the central message of Hebrews.

So much for the message that you are "saved by faith regardless of what you
do." Clearly the author of Hebrews didn't believe that or he wouldn't be
writing what he's writing!

Hebrews 13:
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who
have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith
follow, considering the end of their conversation.

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for

ever.

9 Be not carried about with divers and strange

doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be
established with grace; not with meats, which have
not profited them that have been occupied therein.

The author turns his attention to those who want to keep performing the old
rituals of the old Levitical priesthood which has been replaced by the
Melchisedec priestly order! He reminds them that these things were a type
and a figure of the good ministry to come. He calls the idea that we must
keep observing these sacrificial and meat ordinances, "strange doctrines."

Hebrews 13:
10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to
eat which serve the tabernacle.

11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is

brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin,
are burned without the camp.

12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the

people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Traditionalists want to turn Christ into the "atonement beast" rather than
what he is, the High Priest. They often quote the above verses as their proof.
It's their contention that the author here makes it quite clear that Christ
suffered "LIKE A BEAST" outside of the camp.

Christ was not a sacrificial beast. He was our "suffering High Priest" who
submitted himself to evil men so that he could provide his own blood for the
sprinkling. The author here just points out that this occurred outside the
gate, and states that the beasts in the atonement were ordered to be burned
"outside the gate" for that reason, as a foreshadow of Christ's suffering. It's
saying the beasts suffered outside of the gate to be a figure of Christ, it's not
saying Christ suffered outside the gate so he could be called "the beast."

So, yes, Christ died to shed his blood so that he could sanctify us, through
the sending of the PARACLETE (this is the part they always seem to forget).
There was a real purpose for his blood being shed and it was not just for
"atonement" for if it were, he died in vain, because we already had a
priesthood that shed blood for atonement daily!

Then the author states that we also must "suffer" the reproach of Christ
outside the gates of Jerusalem.

Hebrews 13:
13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the
camp, bearing his reproach.

14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek

one to come.

15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise

to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving
thanks to his name.

We take up our own crosses and follow him in reproach right out of the gates
of the old Jerusalem. There we "die in his baptism" and are raised a new
creature in Christ.

Colossians 2: 12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
with him through the faith of the operation of God,
who hath raised him from the dead.

Mark 10:
37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit,
one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand,
in thy glory.

38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye

ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said

unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I
drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized
withal shall ye be baptized:

40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is

not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for
whom it is prepared.

Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit AND with fire (tribulation and
suffering). The author of Hebrews knew this, so he speaks of our suffering
Christ's reproach for the rest of our lives, as outcasts, outside of the original
city, for we seek and are part of a NEW JERUSALEM which is from above.

We're just like faithful Abraham, who did not see this perfection in Christ
(and subsequent resurrection) in his lifetime but saw if from afar off and
believed.

Traditionalists don't see the perfection, neither do they believe in it. They
don't believe and guess what, belief is the prerequisite for "imputed
righteousness" so they don't have that either!

Hebrews 13:
16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for
with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit
yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that
must give account, that they may do it with joy, and
not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
18 Pray for us: for we trust we have a good
conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.

Traditional gospel teaches that the blood of Christ merely takes away the
"guilt" of the sin, so that you have "no consciousness of sin" (and they base
this, ironically on Hebrews 10) yet we see that the author of Hebrews, when
he speaks of those who have a "good conscience" is not speaking of people
who sin without conscience (sociopaths by today's standards) he's talking
about those who "live honestly" and "do good" unto all men and who "please
God" in all of their ways.

That is the only way to be relieved of the "conscience of sin."

The Apostle foresaw this error creeping in and mentioned it.

1 Timothy 4: 2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience
seared with a hot iron;

Having a "good conscience" when you are walking in the spirit means that
you have nothing for which to be guilty!

Hebrews 13:
19 But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may
be restored to you the sooner.

20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the

dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the
sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will,

working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and
ever. Amen.

The blood of Christ makes you "perfect in every good work to do his will,
working in you that which is pleasing in God's sight!" This is how the
blood of Christ makes you "pleasing in God's sight" not that your sins are
covered from God's sight and he is blinded to them! You are pleasing in
God's sight because the blood of Christ brought you the anointing and you
walk in that anointing and become "perfect in every good work!"

When you preach this, the traditionalist will accuse you of preaching "self
righteousness." They are so far removed from the true gospel!

Hebrews 13
22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of
exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few
words.

23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty;

with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.

24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all
the saints. They of Italy salute you.

25 Grace be with you all. Amen.

The author of Hebrews says his letter is "exhortation" to do the will of God
in Christ! It's not a book trying to prove that Jesus is God!

It's also not a call to "riot in the daytime," defying all rule and principality
and power because you have grace!

With this, I conclude my commentary.

Let God be the judge if I am right or wrong.