420390416_cb2cc45885_solar_system

Read in Mobile View at New MOTL Online Library





Bringing Tongues of Fire from the Sparks of Faith
...


LESSON 2

PENTATEUCH 2

GENESIS 2 

By Rev. G. E. Newmyer 



INTRODUCTION TO LESSON 2
 

We have begun the Beginning, yet there is much more for us in this Book of Beginnings. Areas this lesson will look at are the concepts of the tithes, generational curses, how they began, as well as how the Image continued on after the Fall. Regarding the Tithe we hear debates on both sides of the fence, one says “I don’t tithe because it’s under the Law”, another says, “if you don’t tithe, you’re not being Biblical”. Both sides have verses to back up their opinion, but can there be an answer to both? Yes, one role of the teacher is to solve controversy, this is one area where Scripture makes it easy.

There is a warning in Adam pertaining to the danger of self-righteous thinking; Adam was unable to reverse what he did, Jesus not only reversed it, but granted us a position and condition Adam was not privy to. The cultist, legalist, or self-motivated person presumes if they could be like Adam, they could defeat the devil; however, all of us have come short of the glory of God. Our advantage is knowing the second we accepted Jesus we became a victorious living soul, yet we are becoming a quickening Spirit by the Spirit.

We also find the cultist, legalist or self-motivated religious minded want to keep Jesus as a “mere man”, thus presuming they can accomplish all Jesus did by themselves. The premise behind the “Faith of Jesus” is how Jesus has already obtained, our faith is reaching to what He obtained for us. Hebrews chapter 11 talks about many great and wonderful things the measure of faith can accomplish, but it also tells us the same measure of faith was unable to obtain the Promise (Heb 11:39). The Promise is what Jesus obtained for us, as the Spirit, known as the New Man who is created (or formed same Greek word) after God’s true Holiness and Righteousness. The New Man is guiding us on the path the Righteousness of Jesus left for us. Since the Scepter of the Kingdom is the Righteousness of Jesus, it stands if we seek self-righteousness, we are rejecting the Kingdom of God. We find one of the Commandments regarding the Kingdom is “seek ye First the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness” (Matt 6:33 & Eph 4:24). Adam was perfect for the purpose, Jesus is Perfect in all His ways. Let’s continue on our path from the Garden to find if God has a better Promise waiting for the faithful who will believe in Him.

  

LESSON 2

THE PENTATEUCH 2

GENESIS PART 2

 

THE BEGINNING

The Fall shows us how easy it is for one with “Life” to fall, thus showing there are two areas to our Salvation Process; Life, yet to have it More Abundantly. When we came to the Cross we obtained the “Living Soul” condition, we felt great, but it wasn’t the end of the race, it was the foundation to receive the Gift. We were in an Adam state, but let’s face it the level of conversation with God was somewhat limited. We must travel to the grave to obtain the Spirit to have Life More Abundantly. We believe in the Cross, but our call is to believe Jesus is raised from the dead (Rom 10:9).

We found the process of death from life was proven in Genesis Chapter 1, when God saw the earth was dead, yet He was able to call forth life. It’s evident God did not create plants, He called forth the dead seed in the earth (Gen 1:11-12). The preview of the Resurrection was also evident in the Beginning, thus the End calls for a Resurrection as well. In Adam’s case his flesh was the connection to the darkness of the earth, the Life part came in his Living Soul condition by the breath of God. For us it’s more secure, we have a Quickening Spirit to have Life Abundant granting a better condition and position.

The added concept of Life More Abundantly tells us the Life we have now in Christ is more Abundant than Adam had (Jn 10:10). The Greek word for Abundant in John 10:10 is Perissos meaning Above measure to the point of being superfluous. Adding, Jesus didn’t say in John 10:10 “abundant to the life you have”, rather it was so we Might have Life, the “they” (sheep) might have It more abundantly. This covers two aspects of Life, showing the first was not in hand, much less the second until Jesus made it possible, thus the context shows something to come, not something they had at the moment. The Cross is the Doorway, with the Living Soul condition we are back in the Garden with our sins forgiven, only it’s called the kingdom of heaven; Life More Abundantly is when the Kingdom of God enters as the Gift (Spirit) by the Holy Ghost becomes a part of us.

Through the efforts of Jesus we have become citizens of heaven, because He loved us long before we loved Him. Adam’s realm was the earth, not heaven. He was not privy to heaven, or the things of heaven. Jesus said it best by saying, “no man has ascended up to heaven, but He came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (Jn 3:13-14). These verses not only tell us no man ascended to heaven, but they also show no man had descended from heaven, except for Jesus. Adam came into this world to live on the earth; Jesus came from heaven into this world to die, so we can live. We found how Adam’s flesh was formed of the earth, thus all the elements in the flesh of “pre-historic” man would also be in the flesh of Adam. However, we then found the “Breath of Life” separated Adam from all past creatures, whether they walked on two legs, or ten, they lacked a connection to make them “human-like” in any degree. Death by sin entered by Adam, but life to be free of sin entered by Jesus.

We now know the mystery, the flesh is a product of the earth, as such it is earthly in nature. Man’s soul being the unseen element attached itself to what could be seen, becoming naturally flesh centered in thinking and actions. The change through the Born Again process takes time, for years we focused on the seen, now God tells us our faith is a product of the unseen, reaching to a God given Hope. It’s not an easy transition to make. Thank God we have the New Man, who is the possible of the impossible. Adam didn’t have the New Man, but he did have life. The Garden was good, but it was not the throne of God, it was the Garden of God. Adam was the beginning of the prophecy for man to be in the image of God, since God is Spirit, yet Adam was natural, it stands Adam was not the completeness of the Image. However, we who are Born Again have the Image within. For Adam the Image of God was found in the measure of faith, we will see the “measure” was not lost at the fall, or in the Flood, but carried on; thus Adam didn’t lose the image, he lost his position.

Even after the Fall takes place we still have no recorded sickness, no pestilence, no wars, or rumors of war, yet there is death and darkness hanging over mankind in the form of the spirit of man. Adam female was told she would suffer in child bearing, as her husband would rule over her. Is it a curse on her? Not really, if she doesn’t have children, kicks Adam male out of the house there is no curse on her. Her judgment is based on her association with her family, making it generational, yet natural. Why child bearing? The First Commandment was to multiply, yet there was no punishment, or threat of punishment if they didn’t multiply; God never told them, “If you don’t multiply, in dying you will die”. However, we find it’s the very means of punishment applied to Adam Female; this also shows they didn’t make any attempt at conception before the fall.

The Ten Commandments as good as they are, are nonetheless against us. They are not, “Thou shall give it thy best shot”, or “thou shall try, try again”, it as a one error, all is lost. The Law of Moses came forth so the person could maintain until death of the flesh. We  find the children in the wilderness had a better understanding of the Ten Commandments. Colossians 2:14-16 tells us the Law of Moses with the Ten Commandments have a Power and Authority, the Law itself is a Principality, yet both are nailed to the Cross. Both were designed to point out sin, then convict, then apply the punishment. They were good, they came from God, but it’s not from whom they came, but to whom they were directed. God didn’t give the Law to the people, He gave it to Moses, who gave it to the people, thus it’s called the “Law of Moses”.

The Ten Commandments having Authority and Power indicating they have a realm where they are effective. Are they effective here with Adam? No, with Abraham? No, with Isaac? No, they gained Power when God gave them to Moses. Ever notice how there is no Commandment, “thou shall be circumcised”? If circumcision was the sign of the Covenant, why not? Different Covenant. Circumcision was included into the Law, but it’s not the token for the Law, keeping the sabbath day is. Circumcision is the token for the Abrahamic Covenant, if one attempts to keep the Abrahamic Covenant without the token, they are a thief. The Law of Moses was given to the carnal minded people who violated any or all of the Ten Commandments, or who had a nature having the potential to violate them. A person wakes in the morning, fifteen minutes later violates a Commandment, now what? Balance the scale with the Law of Moses, but it’s only a balance, the Law was not designed to save man, set man free of sin, or do away with sin. We find the Judgment has the “books” not Commandments. “What about the 144,000, they keep the Commandments of God”. They do (or will), the commandments are contained in Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself, which are the basis for Mercy, not Grace. They will not Deny the “Name” of Jesus, so do they use it? (Rev 3:8). No, the Name (Authority) for the Night is the authority to grant Mercy, as Jesus did as the Son of man. All the teachings Jesus did regarding Mercy will be seen in the acts of the 144,000, thus we are also to walk in Mercy, as we hold Grace. The only difference between a vessel of honor and one of dishonor is Mercy, not Grace (Rom 9:21-23).

The Ten Commandments define the nature of man (spirit of man), also known as the spirit of disobedience. Man found murder was sin because the Ten Commandments said so. Paul tells us the spirit of man knows the things of man, but is ignorant regarding the things of the Spirit of God; however, the spirit of the world is opposed to the Spirit which is of God, yet there could be no spirit of the world, until man was granted the Spirit which is of God, the same as John tells us (I Jn 2:19, 4:1-4 & I Cor 2:11-14). 

After the Flood Noah was told he could eat meat, but he was also told the animals would begin to eat meat, including mankind. Until then no person or animal were meat eaters, but their “veggie” diet sure didn’t make them holy. God also told Noah, “Who sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the Image of God made He man” (Gen 9:6). God has set a law into effect, but put it into the hands of man. God will not shed the blood of the murderer; with Cain we find he was banished. However, what about the “unclean” animals? To Noah it had to do with sacrifice, not dietary; yet, for Moses, it was dietary. However, the dietary and sacrifices were a means to gain obedience.

God also told Noah, “be ye fruitful, and multiply” (Gen 9:7). Isn’t it the same thing He told Adam? Yes, the premise was still moving to the Cross. Genesis 9:6 also tells us man was still the “image of God”, if it’s the case why associate murder to the Image? The ability to form, advance in intellect, or as some call it “creativity”, or “artistic”, or “inventive” are all attributes distinguishing man from animal life, yet man was still the Tselem, the purpose was to reach the Cross so man could complete the premise “let us make man in our image”. Genesis 9:6 also puts asunder the thought of Adam having a spirit as the “image of God”, then lost it, since the premise of the “Image” is still the subject well after the Fall (Gen 9:6).

Man was the only creature on the earth who has the ability to tell God “No”, not even the devils can tell God “No”. We are the treasure in this, not some chest piece in a game of good versus evil. The soul of man is unique, it can’t be seen with the physical eye, it can’t be detected by machine, it’s the unseen area from which our measure of faith comes. Faith is the evidence of something not seen; it doesn’t mean faith produces the unseen, it means faith is the seen evidence showing the unseen from whence it gets its motivation (Heb 11:1). How a person uses their measure of faith tells us the unseen from which it came. If they have Faith in God, or if they have faith in their self, the manner in which they apply their faith tells us the source.

Did Noah advance? Yes, but did he “evolve”? The word Evolution simply means an adaptation to the surroundings, unless we add “survival of the species”, which changes the concept considerably. Darwin had a theory based on his natural reasoning, which was based on his observations of the physical, but he lacked evidence to prove his theory. His theory fails in light of Genesis chapter 1, as well as failing in sight of the evidence in hand today. True, there is a physical connection between Adam and Neanderthal, it’s found in “God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7), as well as, “dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return” (Gen 3:19). Those same elements of the “dust” return to the very earth they came from, it’s the only connection to Neanderthal, but it doesn’t prove a thing. No where in any historical record of man, or in the Bible can we find any sign of  Neanderthal or any prehistoric “man” having a soul, thus without a soul they were incapable of sin. No rose, or cow sins, they are incapable, thus through Adam death by sin was introduced into the human race, but the condition of the earth in Genesis 1:2 shows a cession of existing elements had occurred. The evidence shows for millions of years there was no language, or any signs of real creativity, then Bang there is language, artistic ability, reasoning, faith, creativity, the ability to love with reasoning. If one wants a Bang Theory, Genesis chapter one has the real Bang Theory, the Bang came when God breathed into Adam, making Adam a Living Soul. 

With a Living Soul we have free moral choice without the influence of the devil, or darkness, yet with free moral choice we have responsibilities, consequences and rewards. We also need Laws, areas where choice has guidelines, yet with Life More Abundantly  we gain a Guide and Teacher in the New Man. As a Living Soul do we do the Law of Moses? No, we do the Commandments of Mercy Jesus provided us. Moses will go to mountain, gain the Ten Commandments, but when he comes down he finds the children made the golden calf. Jesus will take the people to a Mountain, telling them, “You have heard of old, but I tell you…”, when He comes down, He heals a leper (Matt 5:1-8:4). Mercy is always the staying factor to keep us in Grace; as the “Son of man” Jesus centered on Mercy, as the Son of God it’s Grace. When we operate as sons of men, we too center on Mercy, as a sons of God we center on Grace. Therefore, as a Living Soul Adam had the capability to apply Mercy, but did he? No, as a Living Soul he had the measure of faith, but did he use it? No, as Living Soul he had the choice to say Yes to God, but did he? No, as a Living Soul he also had the ability to say No to God, did he? Yes, it was his failure.

We have two commandments in the Garden, one was a Do, the other a Do not, Adam failed to do the Do, yet did the Do not. The Do not had a punishment, death; thus the wages of sin have been death ever since; making sin doing something we should not do. The seeds being in the earth before God called them forth show there was death, but not as a result of sin, since Adam was the first “human” it shows death entered the world by his sin. Now, what if he had not taken of the fruit, was there a reward? Yes, to remain in his life position in the Garden. However, the Do was a different story, yet it becomes as important as the Do Not. Since there was no punishment for the Do, it was a Commandment of Choice, but in his failure to obey the Commandment we find a punishment applied after the fall. His attitude was, “I don’t have to do it, there is no punishment if I don’t”; therefore, we find it’s iniquity to know to do something, yet refuse to, a sin is a transgression.

An Ordinance is something we should do, but it’s also something we are not Required to do. There is no Commandment to be baptized in water, for the candidate it’s an Ordinance; however for those of us in the Body who do the baptism it is a Commandment. Jesus told us to teach, baptize others in water, then teach the more, it’s not an Ordinance for us, but a Commandment (Matt 28:18-20). Clearly we find as members of the Body we are mandated to baptize those in water who profess a belief in Jesus (Acts 8:36-37). However, the person being baptized is not mandated, for them it’s an Ordinance. How come? It’s not fair? It’s their Token for entrance into the Body, we of the Body are accepting them, thus signifying we accept them based on their profession of belief. What if they lied about believing? Or what if they really didn’t believe in Jesus, but only believed in the signs? The Bible answers the question in Acts 8, a man by the name of Simon saw the signs, believed, then was baptized in water by Philip the Evangelist. Later when the same Simon wanted to buy the gift of the Holy Ghost, he was rejected because his heart was not right before the Lord. So, did the apostles take Philip’s papers? Did they rebuke Philip? No, did Philip put Simon backward through the water to erase the baptism? No, Philip did as he was suppose to. Jude tells us, “on some have compassion, making a difference, others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (Jude 23-24). Jude didn’t say, “if thou see a spotted garment, throw them back”. The premise is based on Opportunity, once in the Body they belong to the Lord; He will form them accordingly, either into vessels of honor or dishonor. Knowing the only difference between a vessel of honor and one of dishonor is Mercy helps us see how the area relates to a Living Soul condition (Rom 9:21-23). Adam was a Living Soul in the Garden, his fall removed him from the Garden without the ability to reenter. When we came to Jesus we became “sons of men”, but when we walk in the Spirit we are sons of God, thus the Spirit of God bears witness with our Spirit (New Man), saying we are sons of God.

Each Covenant God granted had a Token, something to show the acceptance of the Covenant, as the signature on the dotted line. In Noah’s case the Token was the rainbow, for Abraham it was circumcision of the flesh, for Moses it was the sabbath day, for us it’s the Seal of the Holy Spirit, or the circumcision of heart for Grace, our water baptism relates to the Body. Therefore, we find Tokens show acceptance of the Covenant, or giving one right to the Covenant.

We find Eve was to suffer in reference to child birth, thus the failure to conceive became inclusive in the fall consequences, therein lays why she received what she did. Although there was no punishment, we find one commandment associated with the other. What difficult Scripture will all this help us with? First Timothy chapter 2 makes a direct correlation to the fall: Paul begins by showing he is a teacher of the Gentiles, in faith and verity (according to truth -  I Tim 2:7). Then he speaks of Adam and Eve, showing Adam was first “formed”, which is a very important key to the entire teaching (I Tim 2:13). Paul is not looking at the “Image”, or the soul, but the formed aspect, which is the flesh, but he also shows Adam was not deceived, which answers the question as to why Adam could not gain entry back into the Garden (I Tim 2:14). What Adam did, he did deliberately, at the time he was a Living Soul, he had reasoning, authority and power over the entire matter. Paul wants the “men” to lift up holy hands without wrath of doubting, which was something we know Adam didn’t do. Then for the women to be modest, letting them learn in “silence”, wow, the chauvinist! No, wait, what was Eve doing? She was not learning, she was teaching the devil. This is of course metaphoric in nature, not to be confused with gender. In verse 15 Paul says the woman shall be saved in childbearing, hold it, does it mean if a woman doesn’t have a child she is lost? What happened to the “whosoever”? No, it refers to being Born Again, the child bearing relates to the New Birth. We know Paul respected several female Deacons (Rom 16:1 et al). Then he adds, “nor usurp authority”, what is that? Usurping authority is not using authority over another, it’s when one uses the authority of another, as if it’s theirs. Like First Corinthians 11 we find Paul using metaphors; here in Timothy we see he is speaking about matters far beyond male and female, especially when he makes the remark of a woman being saved in childbearing. Eve was told after the fall her husband would rule over her, showing the punishment for usurping authority. We also know she didn’t bear children in the Garden, but Paul is pointing to an “it” rather than a She, the child bearing has to do with Jesus in us, the ability to be saved. Metaphorically in the case of Timothy we can see the “wife” points to the congregation, the “husband” to the leaders, thus Timothy was allowing the congregation to run leadership. 

Transgression is a trespass, or doing something we’re not suppose to, but Iniquity is the failure to do something we’re suppose to do, or doing some of the things we’re suppose to do, but refusing to do other things we’re suppose to do, meaning we are Unequal, or Unjust (Ezek 18:25-29). Working at Iniquity is not a one time effort, it’s a continual effort to work at avoiding the call to do something God has told us to do, after He has equipped us to do it. The word Iniquity really means Unequal, Jesus defined it as refusing to do the will of the Father (Mercy), yet still doing Acts (Matt 7:21-23). Jesus will not say, “depart from me you sinner”, but He will say, “depart from Me, you who work iniquity”. Spiritual wickedness is an Iniquity, the only ones who can commit it are those who have the Spirit as they reside in high places, but refuse to be spiritual in nature. Therefore, in order to commit Iniquity one has to have the ability, power and authority to accomplish the task, they simply refuse to. Showing the only ones who could fit the grouping of “workers of iniquity” are the Wicked, those who entered the Body, but refuse to yield to the methods God has ordained for the Body. While the Just live by faith, the Wicked make Just an Un-Just.

The Seed of the Woman refers to a virgin birth, Mary was picked from among women to represent the Woman (City). Paul says New Jerusalem is the mother of us all, John says New Jerusalem is the Bride (Gal 4:26 & Rev 21:9-10). So, are we our own mother? Not hardly, but it does give us the metaphoric reflection. On the earth we are the Body of Christ, or a He, but in heaven we are the Bride of Christ, or a She. Eve was taken from the “body” of Adam, the Bride is taken from the Body of Christ.

Jesus cried over Jerusalem, His own “mother” (city) rejected Him, but He never left His mother (Mary) uncared for. In the Book of Revelation we find the City gave birth to the “Man Child”, the Man Child is Jesus (Rev 12:5). Jerusalem of the earth has a purpose in the overall plan, yet she is not the natural daughter of the nation Israel. Later in the Prophets we will find God adopted the city of Jerusalem for a purpose. In the Night she will be the center of “peace and safety”, the one place where the knowledge of the Lord shall come from. It also becomes the place of “sudden destruction”, then the place from which Judgment begins. The Temple is the center of Jerusalem of the earth, New Jerusalem is the Tabernacle of Salvation, much different.

The Seed of the Woman is one seed, but is there another? Yes, there is the seed of the serpent who are the beasts of the field (Jude 10 & II Pet 2:12), known as the Wicked (I Jn 2:13), or Tares (Matt 13:35), those who enter by the Mercy of God, but instead of denying the self, they empower it by joining the group called “the son of perdition” (II Thess 2:3), or as we found the “workers of iniquity” (Luke 13:27). God plants His Seed in the field as Wheat , but  the enemy plants his seed in the same field as Tares. A Tare appears on the outside to be “Wheat”, but a Tare lacks the kernel, or heart. Since the difference is internal, the only ones who can tell the difference are those who are of full age, having their senses honed to detect the differences (Heb 5:14).

The Judgment at the Fall was merely God explaining what happened, or what the cause, effect and consequences of the poor decision caused. This powerful sign shows God will instruct, guide and lead, but He will not force choices on us. Adam male, Adam female, and the serpent all lost something very valuable, their relationship with God, they also lost light, causing darkness to cover them, making them self-deceived in their own minds, meaning they were unnoticeable to the Eye of God. We think Adam lost his authority, but what authority did he have? To name the animals? Man still does, he was a caretaker of the Garden, not the King of the world. Things were given in his possession to care for, yet those things still belonged to God. God still owes the cattle on a thousand hills, as well as the gold and silver, if God does not own them, He cannot regulate them. Do we think somebody dug up some bones then found a sign on the bones saying, “I am a dinosaur”? No, man named those bones, man names the planets, yet man has never possessed any of them. There is no evidence of any prehistoric creature ever naming anything, including their self, only those from Adam have the authority.

The anointed cherub who covers was no longer able to fly, his diet would be the “dust”, or the flesh of man, thus he is referred to as the Serpent, bound to the ground. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life are all elements of the flesh. The relationship between the cherub and God was cut off, all light was taken from the fallen angel as he took on the form of utter darkness, forever bound to darkness (Jude 6).

Death is a separation between joined elements, the first death is a separation between the soul and flesh, in the Greek it’s called Ex-Psuche, or out the soul comes; the second death is a complete separation between the soul and the attributes of God. The last one leaves a state described later, one telling us why the Doctrine of Christ calls for us to have an awareness of Eternal Judgment. If there is no Eternal Judgment, there is no Eternal Salvation, but if there is Eternal Judgment, truly there is Eternal Salvation.

The next relationship to suffer was between Adam male and Adam female, she didn’t blame the male, but the male blamed her. Of course we know Adam female blamed the serpent, but neither Adam male or Adam female repented, worse yet, neither attempted to help the other. She never said, “Oh please God, don’t punish him, it was my fault”, he never said, “Lord, I know she is my helpmeet, I was there and didn’t stop it, please don’t punish her”. No, what did he say? Oh, yeah, “it was the woman you gave me”.

The result of the broken relationship would manifest in a lack of “communication”, they would no longer be able to communicate on the same level, the male would read the headlines, but the female reads the story. In Genesis 3:16 the wording “shall rule” is the Hebrew Mashal meaning to have dominion, or to reign, it’s often termed “master”. If it’s the case why did Paul tell wives to submit? Sounds like placing them right back under the Fall Nature. Each member in the Body is to submit to one another, but submission and slavery are completely different. Submit means to avoid debates, or to refrain from arguments. The wording at the Fall shows the woman had choice to enter the debate, or walk away, the choice is in our hands. In order to submit by choice one has to have the power and authority to do so, thus removing submission from slavery. Submission doesn’t mean, “here I’m your doormat dear”, but neither is it, “I’m going to knock you into next week”. We confuse the saying, “the other cheek” to mean “here go ahead hit me again”, but in truth it means not to use the same means used against us, as a form of submission. The way to overcome the Fall mandate was to submit by choice. For the male it was to love his wife, rather than abuse her. Clearly allowing Adam female to partake of the fruit was a form of abuse, if he loved her as Christ loves the Church he would have cherished her as a treasured vessel (I Pet 3:7). It’s exactly what Paul is saying, submission is a weapon, it will defeat the slavery mentality every time; love is a weapon, it will defeat bitterness. Was her sorrow multiplied? Yes, her first son killed her second.

The next relationship, maybe the most tragic was between Adam and God; God didn’t say, “man look at what you did, you have messed up our relationship”. Mainly because God knew the prophecy “let’s make man in our image” would also complete the saying, “The Father desires those who can worship in Spirit and Truth”. Adam didn’t come close to the premise, he was not truthful, yet he also lacked the Spirit. Oh, so God didn’t love Adam. Yes He did, it’s the point, it was limited communication to begin with, now Adam is flesh-based, deceptive, existing in a state of darkness, yet God will still talk to him. God will even talk to Cain, but there is more to communication than talking.

The first thing Adam did was devise his own definition of sin by using a fig leaf to cover himself, thus forming his own standards of religion. To Adam being naked was the sin, rather than taking the fruit. Adam looked at the result, not the cause, natural man still does. When we repent we don’t have to name every sin we’ve committed, mainly because we don’t know them, Jesus was right, “They know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). After we’re converted it’s a different story, the light does shine in a dark place. The Father is willing to forgive all the sins we did, whether we can name them or not, the Blood of Jesus with the washing of the Water by the Word is continuing the cleaning process. Years ago there was a “wind of doctrine” proclaiming we had to name each sin in order to be forgiven. None of us could live that long, Jesus never said, “Father forgive them, if they are able to tell all their sins”. When we ask God to forgive us, He does. What about the unpardonable sin? The unpardonable sin can only be committed by someone who has made entry, has gained forgiveness from the Father, yet they slander the brethren continually, they are hateful causing discord among the brethren, never considering their behavior a “sin”, rather they think it’s a “gift”. The sin is not pardoned, because they never make the change from using it, thus they don’t consider it a sin. They set out to deceive others, in the process they become deceived to their own doings. Even if they use the broad term, “God forgive all my sins”, they go right back to the same slanderous behavior, showing they never considered it a sin, or as John puts it, they continue in the sin of hating their brothers. The unpardonable sin relates to speaking evil against the Holy Ghost, or the activity of the Holy Ghost; thus it’s antichrist in nature, without a desire to change. Paul said the Holy Ghost teaches by comparing spiritual to spiritual, thus the Holy Ghost is spiritual, the New Man is spiritual, if we remain with a carnal soul we won’t understand the teaching, rather than join it, we will attack it, as the Corinthians prove in their approach to Paul.

The next relationship would be between the ground and Adam, he was sent to care for the earth. His flesh came from the earth, yet his act was flesh based damaging the earth, causing the earth to turn against him in rebellion, showing his rebellion against the Commandment had consequences. The “death” Adam was facing was flesh death, which is seen in Genesis 3:19: “From dust you came, and unto dust you shall return”. The soul exists in a state of death, but it doesn’t cease to be. What happened to the breath of God? The breath delivered something to Adam, the something was still there, only Adam made it corrupt, by making it flesh centered. Adam began Eternal, not Immortal; his flesh became temporal, but his soul remained Eternal. Adam’s soul was not formed from the ground, it was breathed into him. All souls are God’s, yet all souls by the Breath of God have choice. Adam made his choice, he paid the price. He lived many years, he even stayed married to the same woman. One becomes Immortal when they are Born Again which is completed when they receive their Resurrected body (I Cor 15:54 et al). Immortal means void of death, coupled with the concept of no beginning and no end. Eternal means without end, both show no end, but only one shows no corruption, thus there is Eternal Judgment and Eternal Life, yet there is no Immortal Judgment. The incorruptible state is acquired by our connection to God through the Incorruptible Seed (Spirit), our Eternal existence is based in the soul.  

At the Fall the word “blessed” isn’t used. Why? They were blessed ten minutes prior yet gave it up for the flesh. In all this we don’t find God telling Adam male, or Adam female, “you are cursed”. Under the Law of Moses it’s a different story, the person is cursed because they fail to serve the Lord with joy and gladness of heart (Deut 28:47). They are blessed when their deeds under the Law are blessed, yet they personally are cursed for their failures. The Law of Moses doesn’t bless people, it blesses deeds, thus it’s a Veil of separation, giving God the ability to bless people, without having to look at them; showing the importance of the phrase, “God loves a cheerful giver”.

Both Adam male and Adam female will suffer sorrow, but the sorrows are different for each. For the female it’s the Hebrew Etsev (sorrow), but for the male it’s the Hebrew Itstsabown. The Hebrew Itstsabown means hard labor which causes sorrow of mind, as a result of the fall. God also warns Adam not to attempt to change the outcome, rather deal with it. However, God knows Adam will look for the loophole, bringing more sorrow and frustration. Attempting to do something we are not equipped to do always brings frustration.

The Hebrew Etsev is used in shaping an earthen vessel, it’s associated with child birth. It’s not limited to giving birth alone, it means the child will bring sorrow. Every child has their moments, especially the moment when they partake of the wrong fruit. As much as we want to make their decision for them, we can’t, but we can be examples of what God can do with someone who will believe and submit.

Genesis 3:22 shows God was concerned about Adam getting his hands on the Tree of Life, because Adam “knew good and evil”, but Adam was natural, he may have known good and evil, but he was incapable of application, rather he would apply it to his flesh, but remain corrupt forever. For Adam the Tree of Life was external, for us it’s internal.

What kind of death is Adam suffering? Not spiritual, since everything pertains to the flesh (dust). The death was physical in nature, the soul would now do all it can to protect the flesh until death. The soul turned from appreciating the Breath, to preserving the flesh, indicating the soul was now born of the flesh. So far nothing had died as a result of sin, yet death was in place, slowly taking effect. Therein lays our next area, the Sacrifice.

THE SACRIFICE

The dictionary defines a Sacrifice as, Giving up something dear, or which costs us dearly, for the sake of something else. A Sacrifice and getting rid of things we don’t want are much different. One could argue Adam gave a Sacrifice, he gave up something for the sake of something else, but we know there has to be more to the definition. A Sacrifice according to the Bible is the giving of something unto God, for the benefit of gaining a higher position either for the one giving the Sacrifice, or for another for whom the Sacrifice is given. The greater the Sacrifice, the greater the benefit. We give ourselves a “Living” sacrifice, which means we must have Life before we can consider the premise.

Sacrifice to the Israelite is a form of worship, there are words in the Hebrew indicating some offerings (first fruits, cereal offering, first born lamb), in some cases it was defined as a Present to God (Gen 32:13-21). Still, the present Jacob gave to Esau was to gain something from Esau, although it cost Jacob, thus it fell under the general term of sacrifice. The more costly the Sacrifice given, the more the Sacrifice means to the person. In God’s case He gave the greatest sacrifice in His Son, knowing the purpose was for His Son to be crucified. Jesus said a man gives no greater sacrifice than to lay down his life for his friends.

We know Jesus is the last Sacrifice, but who gave the first one? Adam with the fig leaf? No, he took, he didn’t give anything. Who then? It was on behalf, or better as a result of what Adam did, but Adam didn’t give it. Adam entered death, but he had yet to see death as a result of his sin. The First Sacrifice was not given to gain something, as a sign of something lost. It wasn’t even to gain God’s favor, rather it was God showing man the cost of man’s actions. Although the devil didn’t kill the animals, we do find whenever the devil puts a plan into action, it produces death. The devil lacks life, thus he can’t bring it, we are told in Scripture Jesus destroyed him who had the power of death, who is the devil, now Jesus has the keys of death and hell, so all the devil is left with is an ineffective “roar” (Heb 2:14 & Rev 1:18). No wonder even the newest convert has power over devils, life is always greater than death, light greater than darkness.

Whenever God puts a plan into action it’s to bring Life; however, in this case we find the sacrifice was given by God, on behalf of Adam, yet it could be misconstrued into something it was not. Some tend to think Adam was without skin, thus he used the fig leaf,  meaning God gave the sacrifice to give Adam skin (Gen 3:21), but the Scriptures tell us Adam was flesh and blood; if he was without skin it would make it difficult to multiply and stupid to say, “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh”. He didn’t say, “bone of my bone and no flesh of my no flesh”. In order to provide another “covering” something had to die, God gave them “coats of skins”, man has been wearing clothes ever since. The nature of man changed with the fall, man became aware of himself through the flesh. Adam’s process of death spread over his charge, death had to take place to show the error of the Fall. The “covering” was not to provide Adam a fancy wardrobe, it was a sign of his error. He was suppose to be a covering for the animals, he did name them, now they were his covering. 

This became the first evidence of death in the eyes of Adam, knowledge of death and having first hand evidence of it are much different. This would come right after he named his wife “Eve” (Life), or better, “mother of all living”. Was Eve the mother of all living? No, it was Adam’s attempt to regain life. The natural mind of man will try most anything to gain what was lost, yet God told him not to try. Adam was calling things as a not to him anymore, as though they were, but he lacked a foundation to bring it to pass. In essence he was attempting to apply a Godly principle in an ungodly manner. So, did it work? No, all his efforts could not get him back in the Garden.

God told Eve, “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception”, Adam said, “you are the mother of all living”. He based his stand on two things, first he was given the authority to name animals, second God said he would be her master. What he didn’t take into account is All God said, which turned out to be his failure all along. Jesus told us man does not live by bread alone, but by Every word proceeding from the mouth of God (Matt 4:4). Adam failed at the Every part, he picked what he liked, then discounted the rest, producing failure in the making.

Man still names animals and planets showing man still has authority, but he doesn’t have communication with God, more important he doesn’t have life. Man can live for a 1,000 years, yet die in his sins. Once the fall happened Adam was placed in a lower position, thus he was unable to gain back life, it would take a sacrifice on earth greater than the loss; however, if we add heaven into the equation then we’re talking about a sacrifice no man could offer.

Adam was not formed in heaven, he didn’t come to earth as a spirit from another planet, he was not “instant” dust, he was formed and created on earth, making him earth bound. Therefore, his sacrifices were earth related as well. Even if he was able to gain life back, he was still bound to the earth. His connection with God was earth related, he never went to God, God came to him.

The Great Sacrifice of Jesus was so great, even all the “good deeds” of all mankind, with all the sacrifices by the hand of man added together couldn’t come close to it. No man has ascended into heaven, but Jesus as the Son of man descended, thus no man had a right to heaven until Jesus prepared and opened the Door by the Cross and Resurrection (Jn 3:13). God will pour out a blessing through the windows, but only a thief seeks to gain entry into the house by the window, yet a Son comes in by the Door, as an Heir.

We are called Kings and Priests (Rev 1:6), most of us study the king part, but how many of us know what our Priestly duties are? There are all sorts of sacrifices we give, the living sacrifice of course, then there is the sacrifice of praise, how about Communion? It’s a priestly duty remembering the Sacrifice of Jesus. A priest who operates outside the Order is in danger of losing their priesthood, thus we have our example, Jesus our High Priest (Heb 3:1).

Another definition of the word Sacrifice is found in various Jewish writings; “to offer something as a substitute, or giving up one thing for another, or to surrender something to gain some other object, a Sacrifice always costs something”. We find it here, God brought life, it would be God who had to take the first life. However, what else do we see here? It must cost dearly at the time it’s given, in Adam’s case he lost something, but he only knew what he lost after the fact. Was he warned? Yes, but he failed to consider the warning. When we Pick up your cross it’s a form of death, what it costs us is considered dearly at the time. The change for our souls from flesh to Spirit is not an easy task, it takes faith to see the purpose in the potential result. 

The Sacrifice of Jesus is surely the greatest of all time, yet He did it for a joy. Here it was not for a joy, but a lesson regarding loss of life based on sin. Wait, you mean to say Jesus did it for a joy, and didn’t suffer? No, not at all, you can do things for a joy and suffer greatly. Peter and John were whipped silly, but sang all the way home. The purpose and result determines if there is a reason to maintain joy or not.

This Sacrifice will establish the clean and unclean animals as they relate to sacrifices, until the Law of Moses the dietary laws were not in effect. Noah will look at clean and unclean animals as they relate to sacrifices alone, the premise is being established here. Adam knew he lost his covering, which was not some supper glow, or a glory  allowing him to fly around, or some light shinning like fifty candles. His covering was really less than the basic covering we have once we enter the Body of Christ. His covering was  authority, thus he lost his position, meaning he lost his authority, now the earth will rebel against him. The lost of the covering caused a panic, Adam knew he was naked thus he took a fig leaf as his “covering”, the fig tree has been a symbol of the Jewish religious order ever since. What did it stand for? A covering of the flesh, thus the Law of Moses cannot do away with sin, it merely balances the scale. If we put an apple on one side, an orange on the other, the scale may be balanced, but the apple and orange are still there. In our case the first thing we obtain is a Pardon, which means it does appear we did something wrong, but based on the Cross of Jesus there isn’t enough evidence to proclaim us guilty. Therefore, when Jesus said “your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more” it was Pardon. It’s our beginning place, secured when we forgive. The Key is to forgive in order to be in a constant of forgiveness. The Blood of Jesus gains us remission of sins, which means we enter a position where the conscience of sin does not exist, there can be no sin in the Blood of Jesus. There is a law of sin and death, but if there is no sin, there is no second death, if no second death, then one is Immortal. By our deeds? Nay, but by the Blood of Jesus.

Back to the sacrifice, the Hebrew word used for Skins in Genesis 3:21 means Skin, Leather, Flesh, it was used some forty-four times to indicate the removal, or the skinning of animals, which is the case here. In this case the meat was not sacrificed, since Adam was not a meat eater, we won’t find man eating meat until after the flood. However, Adam’s veggie diet didn’t make him holy, or save him from the Fall; it’s not what goes into a person which defiles them, but what comes from their mouths. The words “Made” and “Coats” give us a clue; the word Made means formed, just as Adam‘s flesh was formed from the earth. The word Coats is the real key, it means external clothing, thus the sacrifice provided them clothes, not skins.

Adam was in the Garden a very short period of time, Genesis 4:1 shows how he couldn’t keep two simple commandments while in the Garden. Why would anyone want to be Adam like? Pride, they know his failure, yet think if they had the same chance they would not fail, rather they would be victorious; however, the assumption falls short under the premise, “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. We had our Adam chance, yet the first time we found the self-nature could gain some advantage, we did partake of the fruit.

After the sacrifice Adam and Eve thought they could be restored by doing the commandments, but it was a little late. This is the basis behind the Ten Commandments, they are not “try, try again”, they are fail at one, failed for all time.

Then came Cain the proof of the pudding, the very first person born according to the law of physical birth, was also the first person with a belly button. Adam and Eve had it all figured out, they were naming things right and left, he called her “Life”, she called Cain, “A man”, the word Man in Genesis 4:1 is the Hebrew Ish, not Adam. She wasn’t about to name him Adam, she leaned to Ish, which means many things, among them, A possessor of manliness, or a soldier; a favorite way it was used by the Hebrews was “man of the earth”. Showing how she placed her hope in this Ish as the “seed” to get back in the Garden. It seemed right, the “seed of the woman” would bruise the devil, if the child came from the Womb, it would be life from the life giver, surely they could gain reentry. No, wrong principle, they were still twisting what God said to fit a self-determined conclusions.

We trust in God, but we don’t trust God to complete our personal agendas. There is a vast difference, some of us obey God, but add all sorts of things thinking God must perform if we obey. We attempt to add our agenda to God’s, when it doesn’t end the way we want, we get mad. Putting our Trust in God goes further than having God entertain us, or  having God perform our agendas.     

The conception and birth of Cain are important time lines, it’s obvious Adam knew his wife for the first time after the fall, yet the first commandment was to multiply. This shows there was at best, very little time between, “bone of my bone”, and “the woman you gave me”. Well, maybe he knew her before, but she didn’t conceive, no it can’t be, look at Genesis 4:1, “and Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived”. However, let’s say he knew her prior, yet she didn’t conceive, it would make the Garden a barren place: hardly the case. What we see is a very short period of time, not a thousand years, not a million, really it would appear Adam didn’t even have time for a board meeting.

The Hebrew word used for Knew in Genesis 4:1 is Yada, it means to Perceive, Understand, acquire some knowledge of, or to be acquainted with a woman in a sexual manner. Since the result was Cain, the definition is obvious. Adam was still looking for the “seed of the woman” to either get them back in the Garden, or get the earth to yield. This becomes evident since Cain was a tiller of the Ground (Gen 4:2). Able was a keeper of the sheep. The point Adam either didn’t know, or consider is the woman doesn’t have the Seed, she has the Egg. It would take a virgin birth, which was not the case, as Genesis 4:1 shows.

Nonetheless we have two brothers, one works the ground by sowing seed, the other watches over the sheep; it’s too close not to have a metaphoric content. Then we find the entire matter is over a sacrifice to God; it’s the second recorded sacrifice we read about, but not the second one done. Both Cain and Abel knew how to give sacrifices, thus they had given them prior. The evidence in their knowledge proves the point, each gave separately.

One gets a little reluctant about launching into the End Times so early on, considering there is a great deal of information between here and the Book of Revelation, but it’s what God’s doing here. The Book of Revelation has been termed “merely a symbolic book”, but it’s really a combined work of words given through the prophets of Old, with information given the apostles before and after the Cross. The Book of Revelation answers a three part question asked by the disciples right after they spoke to Jesus on the greatness of the Temple (Matt 24:1-2). It’s a lesson in itself, the disciples saw something God ordained, something of obvious importance, after all Jesus cleaned the Temple twice, He called it “My House”, and “My Father’s House”. The disciples missed the point, Jesus is greater than the Temple, yet they elevated the Temple beyond measure. Whenever we elevate things or people higher than God has, we make those very elements idols. The disciples asked Jesus, “Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming? And of the end of the world?” (Matt 24:3). The question had three parts, each relating to events, each part is answered in the Book of Revelation. The seven angels have a saying, a vial, and a trumpet, thus relating to the three part question.

As we view Cain and Abel, we find Abel is the first human in the Bible accredited with Faith. We never read where Adam, Eve or Cain used faith, or were of faith. We do read, “by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness denoting he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet spoke” (Heb 11:4). First we see this is “gifts” not “gift”, but then we find these gifts are an “it”. If Faith is a now confidence based on a future hope, what hope did Abel have? The sacrifice was to please God, thus his hope was in pleasing God, but Cain did a service. Faith looks for a hope, but the hope can be fifty years, or fifty seconds ahead of us.  

Cain was the elder, Abel the younger, Cain brought forth the fruit of the ground, Abel brought the “firstlings” of his flock. This doesn’t say Cain brought the best fruit, only the fruit. Cain did a “service”, Abel desired to please God; Cain did what he had to, Abel did what he wanted to do. This made Abel’s sacrifice more acceptable to God, but wait if none are righteous, how was Abel? Faith is the point, like Abraham, it wasn’t the person, but what the person did, thus Abel’s sacrifice was “more righteous” than his brother’s, but it doesn’t mean Abel was righteous, rather his offering was more righteous than his brother’s. The witness of God rejecting Cain’s sacrifice is the evidence of the Sacrifice being the equation to determine the righteousness. This preview shows how the Cross is the ultimate Sacrifice of all time, the Righteousness of Jesus is the greatest of all Righteousness, so much so it’s the Scepter of the Kingdom (Heb 1:8).

Abel’s righteousness is the same principle we find in the Law of Moses, a person obtains standing before the Law by the sacrifice. How about us? The same, only in our case it’s the Sacrifice of Jesus, gaining us the Righteousness of God with the True Holiness of God in the New Birth; allowing us to come boldly to the throne, even Abel’s sacrifice and faith couldn’t reach a like position (Heb 11:39).

Since Abel was giving by faith, we find an element of faith is the desire to please God. Some of us think faith was given to us, so we can be pleased; not so, our faith used in the right manner pleases God. Some of us also think if we’ve done something and we’re happy, then God who loves us must also be happy; therefore, what we did, we did in faith. Sound silly? The old man is a master of deception, but twisting the purpose of faith is very dangerous, the children in the wilderness did all sorts of things, they were happy, God was not.

Cain being a tiller of the ground is akin to someone who sows seed, this could mean sowing most anything. Cain only gave because he felt he had to, but he was also looking to obtain some self-glory in the doing. It’s not to say anyone who sows fits Cain’s attitude, rather Cain gives us some insight to the wrong attitude in giving, after all Abel also gave, but his giving accepted by God. Abel being a “shepherd of the sheep” is a type of someone who leads the flock, an elder, or pastor, or in a like position. Not all elders or pastors are Able types, rather we see how the two brothers give us more than one brother killing another. It would also appear as if First John is written with these events in mind, both brothers from the same womb, yet one hates his brother, remaining in darkness. This opens the area of Reluctant obedience, “yeah sure, I’ll do it. I always have to do it, no one else has to, but I will, because I’m obedient”. Oh please! Sound familiar? Reluctant obedience does the effort, but murmurs, or complains the entire time. There are other areas of Reluctant Obedience, questioning God for one. ”Do what? Oh I don’t know, but if the dew is on the pumpkin at noon, then I will know to do it’s You Lord; oops it’s 12:02, guess I’m not suppose to do it”. When we make God prove the plan, we’re testing God, not wise. A desire to know if it’s of God, is not testing Him, but trusting Him: if it’s not of God we’re open for God to stop it.

Cain’s attitude in his sacrifice is “anti-faith”, yet God will not forsake him. The Love of God was still there, it was Cain’s love at question. Jude uses Cain as an example of someone who enters the Body, yet becomes a legalist, or someone who seeks fault in others, while rejecting their own faults. It doesn’t mean they are a “beast of the field”, just very close to it. Jude used a ton of metaphors to define the Wicked, “waves without water”, what? A wave is of the Sea, the Sea a metaphor for the world, “water” is a metaphor for Mercy. Now it makes sense, the Wicked enter, yet love the ways of world (he in the world), more than the Greater He. They refuse to give Mercy, rather they go about with the false impression of being ordained to destroy anyone who doesn’t agree with them. They think they are the great protector of the Body of Christ, slandering whom they please without fear, they are spots in our love feasts, twice dead. Do they know it? Hardly, they think they are the only ones doing “the Lord’s work”, but so did the religious rulers when they put Jesus on the Cross. They cause divisions, steal congregations, yet think they are doing so in the Name of the Lord. Cain is also a type of someone who allows a ruler of darkness to guide them, in Cain’s case it was uncontrolled anger (ruler of darkness). The saddest part of all this? It was over an act of giving something to God, this lesson is not for the world, it’s for us. The things given in this case were fruit and sheep, but it could have been money, service, or most anything. They weren’t even giving the same things, thus one could have been giving service daily, but reluctantly, the other doing something once a month, but joyfully in faith. God told us to take Communion when we gather, so we take it twenty eight times a day just to impress God, or worse to impress ourselves, yet be none the better, or we can take to Remember all Jesus did for us, giving Him the glory, far better.

At the Fall it was doing something they were not suppose to, when caught they blamed each other, here it’s giving something with the wrong attitude. Cain will blame his brother for his own misgivings, the same fall excuses. Prior the first sacrifice involved the first time an animal would die, here we find the first time a human will die. We know the devil was behind it, but even the devil couldn’t kill Abel, he needed a willing person who would be “obedient” to him, while being disobedient to God. Like Judas it was someone within who had a lust to see their own will done, regardless.

Some things are evident, God came to Cain when Cain was “wroth”, asking him, “Why are you wroth?”, in the Hebrew this reads, “Why are you mad at Me?”. Cain like some of us was mad at God, but knew better than say so, thus he took his anger out on the innocent. Anger was ruling his mind, guiding him, speaking for him;  not an excuse, only a fact (Gen 4:6). The exposure was there, the time to get right before God was in hand, repentance was the call, but what was his answer? Surely not repentance; Cain was in the very presence of God, yet he was so angry, he rejected the Word of warning. Jesus told us to forgive, so we can be forgiven, here we find the result of refusing to forgive. 

God tells Cain, “sin lays at the door”, this is the first time we find the word “sin” (Gen 4:7). The next time we find it, it has to do with Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:20), also the first time we find the word “sinners” it’s linked to the men in Sodom and Gomorrah. Here we find sin was at the door, it had not entered, there was time to turn it around. What was motivating the sin? Cain’s anger, he presumed his sacrifice was not accepted because his brother’s was. Rather than look to his own soul, he blamed his brother. God was telling him it’s not the case, the reason was Cain’s attitude. It’s the natural spirit lusting to envy at work in Cain, he supposes if his brother had not used faith, then his sacrifice would have been accepted, thus it’s his brothers fault. Wrong, the error was in Cain, but Cain had choice to repent, or not to.

Why would Cain be mad at God anyway? Acceptance, Cain sought some personal validation for his service. Natural man wants a specialness, or special validation, but it stems from envy, as a lust to be better than the whole. God isn’t telling Cain to do something he can’t do, rather God is telling him to do something he can. The “goodness” was still in the Breath of God, the measure of faith being a Gift doesn’t mean we can take credit for doing good, it means we have the ability to act in faith. We can also see Cain is completely void of any belief regarding “God Is”, he is centered on fault, not the Precious. Without the belief of “God Is”, Cain has no basis to enter a godly faith. This also shows Abel used his measure of faith, but Cain allowed anger to use him.

Cain wanted something special just for him; he gave a sacrifice, why didn’t God accept it? A sacrifice is a sacrifice, if God accepted Abel’s, He must accept Cain’s. Not so, God was looking at their hearts, motives and attitudes. If Cain’s sacrifice was presented in faith then God would respect it as He did Abel’s. God is not a Respecter of persons, meaning He will accept Jew and Gentile, but it doesn’t mean He has to do something special just for us. Cain’s thoughts are the witness to his heart. Wait I haven’t read too much in the Bible, but it seems to me Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-30 the thought was the same as the sin. Close, Matthew 5:27-30 points out what happened here, then James confirms it. It’s not the thought alone, but playing with it, forming a plan, figuring out how to make it happen (Matt 5:27-30). Also in the same section Jesus taught on Anger without cause, pointing out we are to wait in giving our gift to God, regardless of the gift, until we have reconciled with our brother (Matt 5:21-26). The section in Matthew is called the Beatitudes, or Blessed attitudes, they are the Commandments of Mercy, not Grace; Jesus will give us the Commandments of Grace later. However, we find it was not the sacrifice alone, but Cain’s attitude brewing with anger, his anger was about to lead him into sin.

The Beatitudes are very important, they divide the vessels of honor from those of dishonor. If the Kingdom of God is within, why would we seek it? (Matt 6:33). Because Mercy is the entrance, Grace the mainstay, making Mercy the glue to keep us in Grace. We come to the throne of Grace to Obtain Mercy and Find Grace (Heb 4:16). Cain was not privy to Grace, but he was to Mercy, thus God’s Mercy abides forever, His Grace but for a Season.

What would block Mercy? Pride? Yes. Ego? Yes. Arrogance? Yes. The evil triplets of Pride, Ego and Arrogance block the mercy of God continually. The other evil triplets of Anger, Validation and Vengeance block our ability to grant mercy. They are the pillars of the self-nature, they each have supports, the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life. Cain’s ego and pride coupled with his arrogance were making him hard and bitter. The sin was at the door while it was still a thought, James tells us when sin is conceived it becomes an action. For whatever reason Cain went to talk with Abel in the “field”, perhaps it was just to talk things over, or it was to yell at him, there is a clue to this, as we will see. We know for sure, “Cain talked with Abel his brother” (Gen 4:8). Just prior God told Cain how this anger had a source, if Cain didn’t deal with it, it would “rule” over him. When our anger or pride, or any self trait guides us, controls us, instructs us, or causes us to act, or speak, they rule over us. When we fail to deal with these rulers of darkness in a Godly manner, they will become rulers of our lives. We may think we’re approaching someone in a friendly manner, but something is said, then Bang a tornado of fury raises up. We must hear the New Man in us, allowing him to bring mercy. All we have to do is Turn toward the Light by saying No to the anger, knowing any ruler of darkness has no authority over us, unless we grant it.

In the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as in the Syriac Version the phrase “when they were in the field” is given as Cain saying to Abel, “let us go into the field”. The use of the Field is important, as the metaphor it points to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus said the good man planted Wheat (Abel), but the enemy came along and planted Tares (Cain’s anger) in the same field, then the enemy left, but the Tare remained (Matt 13:24-30 & 13:34-43). The Parable speaks of the end times, but it also gives us the method of operation of the enemy. Most of the time the devil drops the suggestion, or sends in someone who is more prone to listen to the fall nature to plant a tare in our “field”. Here with Cain and Abel there is nothing said about the “serpent”, but we know the phrase “his desire” points directly to the devil. Cain was allowing the fall nature to rule him, yet it’s obvious God knows Cain has the power to say No, thus if Cain deals with the anger then the premise of, “you shall rule over him” will manifest. Showing even fallen man still had authority, but the potential to sin was greater than the desire not to.

The sin was not the anger, the sin would be what Cain does based on his anger. Paul tells us to be angry and sin not, thus one can be angry, yet not sin (Eph 4:26). Here Cain is angry, but he is allowing anger to form his thoughts, motives and actions, ending in sin. The devil left Cain to his own imagination, but nonetheless gave Cain the “food for thought”. “How can this be? You are older, your sacrifice should have been accepted, it’s Abel’s fault”. We all know how it works, first a slight suggestion as we answer, “yeah, huh?”. More evil suggestions, soon we’re given birth to a wild imagination. Once we believe in the imagination we form an illusion, making the illusion our guide into sin.

When anger formulated an action, sin had it’s hold, yet Cain allowed it. God shows Cain had choice, sin was at the door, it wasn’t in the house. Cain could have said, “Yeah, Lord You’re right, I have to deal with this rotten attitude of mine”, or “Lord thank you for exposing this anger, it must be dealt with”, but he decided to allow his anger to guide him into sin. It was not, “the devil made me do it”, it was simply, “I did it”. Everyman is drawn away by their own lusts, anger out of control is a lust to do damage.

There is another clue to this, the Hebrew word used for Talked is used with great latitude, but it was generally used in context with To reprove, To boast, To brag, or To demand, often meaning one has an attitude problem. Putting all this together we find Cain went to have a little talk with his brother to put the lad in his place, but his motivation was anger, leading to bitterness, ending in hate, then murder. Cain is the example of being angry and sinning, whenever we allow our emotions to guide us, make decisions for us, or rule over us, we’re in trouble, on the same note anyone, even the devil who can control our emotions, will control us.

What about Jesus cleaning out the temple? Jesus was angry both times when He cleaned out the Temple, but His anger didn’t guide Him. Those who sold the dove were the cause, then Jesus was angry with cause, but He followed His own teachings. He sought reconciliation with the religious rulers, by telling them how to correct the problem. When they rejected Him, He still returned to teach. Jesus was showing them Mercy, yet the religious leaders remained with the Temple in their hands until the Romans destroyed it in 70 AD. The wolves were in the House of God, but was it up to the Son of Man to remove them? No, to warn them, or bring correction, but Jesus never made the attempt to remove them. The same is true with the seven letters to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation, Jesus had somewhat against most of them, but He didn’t force correction. He did expose the problem, then supplied a means for correction, hear what the Spirit of God says, then obey.

After the fact God came to Cain, but Cain like his parents found someone else to blame. Same seed, same excuse, same fall nature attitude. This is the way the old man works, he lies, says he is our friend just to get us into the position of death and defeat. Then guess what he does? Run for help? No, he then turns and begins his condemnation, “see you do the same thing over and over, you will never learn, what a nobody, always in trouble”. Many of our problems have to do with “hearing”, but instead of hearing the Lord, we listen to the old nature. 

Wait let’s get this right, Abel gave the more excellent sacrifice, Cain’s was rejected, yet Cain killed Abel? I thought a sacrifice protected you? What about Abel’s faith? Should not Faith protect you? If God knew about Cain’s desire to kill, why didn’t God stop Cain, or at least warn Abel? Choice, the blood of Abel did call from the ground, in Hebrews we find it was a witness. So did Abel go to hell? He couldn’t have gone to heaven, Jesus said no man had, Abel couldn’t wind up in Abraham’s Bosom, since this is several years before Abraham, much less Abraham’s Bosom. Gee, maybe God didn’t have time to find some place for the first human who died. What then? A place later to be termed Abraham’s Bosom, but the title of the place doesn’t mean Abraham invented it; rather it means entrance was based on faith. Of course we know Jesus took those who were captive and placed them under the Altar of God in captivity until we join them at the Rapture, but nonetheless God is Equal, there was a place for the souls of faith until Jesus took captivity captive.

The point? Oh yeah, why didn’t God protect Abel. The answer is found in Cain’s excuse. Cain’s excuse was, “”Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9). He attacked God, just as Adam said, “it was the woman You gave me”, only Cain is being more deceptive. Who did Abel give his sacrifice to? God of course, who then is Cain saying should be the “keeper”? God of course, thus Cain is saying he would not have killed his brother if God would have intervened. However, God did intervene by warning Cain, thus Cain still had authority in the situation, he was his brother’s keeper, if not he couldn’t kill him.

Cain didn’t have the Ten Commandments, the Law of Moses, or any civil law saying he should not kill, but he did have the “voice of the Lord” telling him it was wrong. Cain acted more like a spy, than a brother. He spied out his brothers weakness, then took advantage. We are not called to be “spies”, we are called to be ambassadors, there is a vast difference between the two. A Spy is one who is trained to take on the outward signs of the enemy, then blend into the enemies surroundings. The Wicked are spies, they come with a self-transformed outward appearance of Righteousness, but inside Satan still reigns. An Ambassador doesn’t deny the kingdom, or government they represent, they carry all the traits of their kingdom. They make no bones about their representation, they are in a place not their home, to express the concerns, attributes and working order of their home. “Well Paul was a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles”. True, but Paul was both Jew and Gentile, his mother being a Jew, his father being a Gentile, thus he didn’t pretend to be a “sinner to the sinners”.

The one area we can’t overlook, or pass-by in this entire Cain – Abel matter is how Faith was Abel’s quality, thus the measure of faith is given to all men. We don’t know if he was a good shepherd, or a poor one. If his sacrifice contained all sorts of adorning elements, or just an animal. Whether he spent days preparing it, or knew it was the firstling of the flock, then presented it within minutes. What we do know is he is the first human to be accredited with faith, yet he was killed by his brother over a sacrifice.

By faith we know God framed the worlds, but it doesn’t mean God framed them by faith (Heb 11:3). Through faith means we know there are ages (worlds) with God as the Framer, meaning He knows what will happen before it does, whether we like the events or not, faith still holds God knows. God didn’t create or form evil, but He surely knows about it.

Although Able is the first person accredited with an act of faith, it doesn’t mean he is the only one who had the measure of faith. Able wanted to please God, Cain felt it was a duty, or obligation, he also desired self-glory for his service. If he wasn’t concerned about his own glory, he would have cared less if his brother’s sacrifice was accepted, thus if he was looking to please God he would have corrected his own error, but he didn’t.

Cain received a Mark, was it some type of Money? How about a birth mark? The metaphor “mark” doesn’t mean God opened a tattoo parlor, it means there was something about Cain identifying him to the anger ruling him; he failed to deal with it at the time, it then became a way to know “the Cain clan”. The second some bitter, hateful person showed up, you knew it was Cain, you also knew you were not suppose to kill him for what he did to his brother; indicating his concern for his own life showed he knew what he did was wrong. He found you could kill someone, so what was to stop others from killing him? What did he do? “Oh please God protect me”, yet he wouldn’t protect his brother. The greater lesson is how God applied Mercy to Cain, even though Cain refused to apply Mercy to his brother. It’s not whether or not God shows us mercy, it’s whether we show mercy to others.

The Mark is verified by Cain’s family line, we are given Cain’s line for several generations (Gen 4:16-24), but who cares? They all died in the flood, unless God is telling us what the Mark represented. The last person in the line is Lamech, who killed a man, a young man, yet he invoked the Cain protection (Gen 4:23-24). Cain wasn’t about to change, his remorse was based on his punishment, not his act. Repentance isn’t remorse based on the punishment, it’s remorse based on the act. Lamech had the same attitude, he could care less about the murder, he was concerned about the punishment. Judas was no different, he was remorseful, but hardly repentant. He was sorry because his plan didn’t turn out the way he wanted, but Peter wept bitterly, showing he was truly repentant, not so much for what he did, but to whom he did it.

Abel’s blood called from the ground, how can it be? When we cut ourselves do we hear the blood going, “oh ouch, oh it hurt, what’s wrong with you?”. No, what does it mean? A sacrifice, Cain gave a sacrifice to appease his anger by killing his brother, the sacrifice cried out to God. Therefore, the life of a person is in the blood; our life is in the Blood of Jesus.

We read the conversation between Cain and God, thus Cain talked to God, so what did Abel say? Abel is first mentioned in Genesis 4:2, then lastly (regarding this event) in Genesis 4:9, he is also suggested in Genesis 4:10, but we don’t read one word spoken by him. Not only here, but in Hebrews where he is mentioned, thus his faith was not found in what he said, but what he did; it’s clear in Hebrews in the phrase, “offered unto God” (Heb 11:4). This connects with the concepts of our “conversation”, or the “word of our testimony”. Our conversion isn’t what we say, rather it’s based in our way of life. The word of our testimony is not what we say, it’s what others say about us. The sacrifice of Abel spoke for him, the Sacrifice of Jesus speaks for us.

The New Nature is a New character, so what happens to our personality? Do we all become exactly like Jesus, even to the point we look like Him? No, the saving of our soul doesn’t do away with our personality, it purifies it. We won’t look like Jesus, but the New Man is forming us into the Image of God’s Son. It’s through faith, so it might be by Grace, thus Faith is act of pleasing God when coupled with Grace it produces a saved soul. 

Cain was told, “when you till the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto you” (Gen 4:12). What? Didn’t God already say something similar to Adam? Wait, there is something here isn’t there? Cain brought his sacrifice from the fruit of the ground, the blood of Abel cried from the ground, the very place where Cain obtained his sacrifice has turned on him.  He cursed himself, the curse comes not without cause (Prov 26:2). If we give something yet hold the “Cain mentality” the thing given will turn on us; attitude means much in the Kingdom.

Cain was driven out from the place where Adam and Eve fell to, giving him a double dose of driven out. To Cain the burden was too great, yet it’s the consequence of his own doing. Cain was in fear of his own life, no wonder, he just found out you could be killed (Gen 4:14-15).

Adam’s “book” of generations is about a chapter long, but it holds some interesting conclusions. Adam had many sons and daughters (Gen 5:4), thus Cain’s wife was his own sister; however, being so close to the perfection of creation we find the curse of interfamily marriages would not have generated into the same result we find today. The third son was Seth, who was “after his image”, or a son of God. What? Was he formed like Adam? Can’t be, so what does it mean? A “son of God” in the Old Testament referred to one who worshiped God. It can’t mean the exactness of the Line to Jesus, since some in the line were anything but “sons of God”. In the New Testament it means one who can worship God in Spirit and Truth by the Spirit of Truth.

The term “son of God” doesn’t mean Adam or Seth were Born Again, it doesn’t mean Seth was “saved”, but it does show something about them (Gen 5:3 & 6:1-3). Adam may have sinned, but he was still the beginning of the plan, although Abel had faith, his line was not in the plan, neither was Cain’s, but Seth’s was. Abel gave a sacrifice by faith, but Seth will love the Lord, thus his desire is to do what is right in God’s eyes. 

The Bible shows on one was given the Spirit until Jesus was glorified by the Resurrection, thus to assume these people had the Spirit would be error (Jn 7:39). Here the term son of God is used as a point of division, showing those who worship God are termed, “sons of God”, but those who worship idols as “daughters of men”. The term “daughters of men” shows a separation from God based on idol worship, it also coins the phrase “Woman” as the city when she enters idol worship. It points to the use of metaphors, it doesn’t mean males are the only ones who can be sons of God, or females the only ones who can worship idols. The terms are too close not to see the connection between sons of “God” and daughters of “man”. Going back to Cain, we saw how Eve said, “I have gotten a man”, as she used the Hebrew Ish, yet do we find the same Ish in reference to the “daughters of man”? No, the word used here is the Hebrew Adam a noun usually meaning mankind, it’s translated as “persons”, but the metaphor is what we’re interested in. Metaphorically we find Adam with a dual concept, on one hand Adam is one who gives worship to God, on the other he is among the Wicked. Here we find the use of the word “daughters”, this passage doesn’t mean fallen angels took human wives. The term “son of God” was already attributed to Adam and Seth, yet they weren’t angels. This is not “Moses and his flying saucer”, the terms divide those who worship God from idol worshipers. The mixture then shows those who worshipped God started to marry those who were into idol worship.

The Hebrew word for Giants is Hephiyl meaning Tyrant or Bully, it's the same word used by the spies in Numbers 13:33 in reference to the humans in the promised land, it doesn’t refer to devils. Also in Numbers there is another word for giant meaning powerful or mighty, the same one used to define Nimrod. There are many problems in rendering these “giants” as fallen angels, the use of the phrase “sons of God” in Job refers to the angels in heaven, but in Matthew 22:30, then again in Mark 12:25 Jesus likened the state of the angels in heaven to our Resurrected state, showing neither they now, or we then will reproduce; thus reproduction is only for those who have a flesh formed of the earth, no angel was told to "replenish heaven", no where in the promise of the Resurrection is there any indication we will reproduce. A spiritual form is not flesh and blood, next the fallen angels are no longer "sons of God", they are devils, or rebels who left their first estate; it would be completely incorrect to identify them in their present fallen state as "sons of God". Surely Jesus never did, rather He called them "devils". Even if the people died in the flood the devils didn't, do the devils reproduce more devils? No, how can they reproduce with humans? No where in the Bible are we warned about “dating a devil”, nor are we told there is a danger of having sexual encounters with devils. Jesus cast out devils, the only “children of the devil” were the Pharisees based on their actions, not their genealogy. Jesus even called Judas a devil (Jn 6:70), yet Judas was a human being. The concept of these “sons of God” being devils, is just another myth, among the realms of carnal religious mythology. 

Following the lines of religious mythology, there is a Jewish fable about an angel who came down from heaven to teach the people “righteousness”, when he saw the daughters of men, he, with some 200 angels with him took the daughters of men for wives. A whole bunch is wrong therein, it would show the devil wasn’t the only one angel to fall, but the Bible shows the devil as the only cherub to fall, then he took one-third with him. Next would the Righteousness issue, there is none righteous, no not one, so how could the people be taught righteousness? Next Jesus said the angels in heaven are not given in marriage, if this angel came from heaven, marriage was out of the question. Next no angel has flesh as we do, the “lust of the flesh” is restricted to the flesh. The desire to marry the daughters of men would have to be a “lust” since no angel had the ability to propagate. Fables are dangerous, they are best left in “fable land”, not in the Kingdom.

The murder of Abel was over the sacrifice, Cain then being banished caused Cain to turn to idols, his daughters brought those idols to the sons of Seth, the sons of Seth were moved by the daughters causing mixed religious marriages to ensue. Later when the children enter the wilderness it will be Balaam who will teach Balac how the “sons of God” can be induced into idol worship, causing Balac to send the women of Moab to corrupt the children. Balaam is never said to have given a false prophecy, but he is used as one who used corrupt Doctrine. Balaam’s problem came from greed, he was convinced his calling was a source for money. When we presume people must pay for our Christian services, we have fallen to the “Balaam mindset”.  

Between Seth and Noah there were many people, but one we must know about is Enoch, the seventh from Adam. From Adam (1) came Seth (2), from Seth came Enos (3), from Enos came Cainan (4), from Cainan came Mahalaleel (5), from Mahalaleel came Jared (6), then from Jared came Enoch (7). Counting the years we find Adam was still alive when Enoch was born, so the “dying you will die” was a Long process. Enoch walked with God and was not, was not what? Enoch? (Gen 5:23-24). Enoch was not, because God took him, but we can’t associate this with Elijah going up, this is different. Elijah announced his departure, the chariot was seen, in this case Enoch was, then was not. In the Book of Hebrews we find Enoch (Heb 11:5) noted by his faith as “by”, not through, thus his faith was based on walking with God, rather than getting Through something. His testimony was different from Abel’s, in Enoch’s case we find he pleased God, yet it’s impossible to please God without faith, showing Enoch had the measure of faith. From Abel to Enoch there is no mention of another human using faith, Abel died because of his, Enoch was spared something because of his. However, it doesn’t mean mankind didn’t have the measure; it simply means they didn’t use it.

Enoch was “Translated” or moved from one place to another, it doesn’t mean he went into heaven, he was translated, not transfigured. This also shows the sons of God were worshipping God, really they still had Adam around to tell them about the “good old days” in the Garden. Of course we can see the number of those who did worship God were few in number, all of them seem to come from Seth. Out of all the sons and daughters of Adam we know of Abel, Cain and Seth, with Seth’s line becoming the one of importance, yet we also find Adam and Eve had Many sons and daughters (Gen 5:4).

In the Book of Hebrews we read of the faith of Enoch, then a verse showing the beginning of faith, adding the goal of faith, the very next verse speaks of Noah’s faith, so why put the definitive verse between the two? For faith to operate in a Godly manner it must believe God Is, then faith reaches to “God is Rewarder of them who diligently seek Him” (Heb 11:5-7). The placement of the verse has to be a clue to something, why not put the definitive verse way back in the beginning of the chapter? Why here between Enoch and Noah? Jesus said as it was in the Days of Noah, so shall it be in the last days. Paul said we are not appointed unto the wrath of God, but we will be taken, or better caught up in a twinkling of an eye. Enoch was, and was not; as he walked with God, then one day he took a step and wasn’t. Showing Enoch is a type of the Rapture, whereas Elijah is not. Elijah had an audience, Enoch had no eye-witnesses. Noah’s faith was based in his fear of the Lord, his fear was based on the pending danger, but Enoch is also seen in Jude as returning with ten thousand saints, the only group noted as ten thousand times ten thousand is the Church. The separation between Enoch and Noah is a type of the separation between the Day and Night. Enoch being the Seventh also shows a type of completion, than a rest for the Dead in Christ, pointing to the Rapture. After Enoch came Methuselah, who lived almost a 1,000 years, pointing again to the Night.

Between Enoch and Noah we find three generations, Enoch (7th), Methuselah (8th), and Lamech (9th) (not the same one as we found in Cain’s line), making Noah the tenth generation from Adam, thus ten is the number of testing. All these numbers are not by chance, they are figured into the plan. Lamech lived 777 years, a completion regarding three areas; the Garden, the murder of Abel and the walk of Enoch. Lemech begat Noah, Noah means Comfort, but it wasn’t to bring comfort to the people, rather this is a type of comfort concerned the toil, or work of tilling the ground (Gen 5:29), which “the Lord has cursed” (Gen 5:29b). Did the Lord curse the ground? Or did the Lord do as He did at the Fall, simply identify what happened as a result of man’s actions? The Lord identified what happen, it was man who cursed the ground, but God allowed it. Often God takes the responsibility, since He is the Creator, but it also shows God is All Powerful. 

Jude says Enoch prophesied (Jude 14-15), but where did Enoch say anything? Some hidden book? No, his testimony, which really became a prophecy of the Rapture, indicating we will be with Jesus during the 1,000 years, then return as the Bride of Christ. Jude uses Enoch as a type of the Raptured saints as New Jerusalem coming back with the Lord; therefore, we find two groups ten thousand times ten thousand, as one group being multiplied, then thousands from thousands as the 144,000 taken from the tribes (Rev 5:11).

By God translating Enoch we have something from the past to couple into our belief  indicating we will be spared God’s wrath, giving our faith substance toward the Hope of being partakers in the First Resurrection. Prophecy is not always spoken, Jonah gave a prophecy by being in the belly of the whale three days and nights, there are times when it’s what the person did, rather than what they said becoming the prophecy. What if some man got his dirty hands on the Bible, then changed all the verses, or maybe some were added. The fear of the old man wanting to discredit the Bible, yet the New Man knows Jesus said the Spirit will guide us into all Truth, thus “even if” someone did corrupt some of the verses, they always seem to miss those profound spiritual insights; thus the Spirit is fully able to guide us into the Truth. Did Paul think some weird scribe tampered with the Old Testament? No, did Jesus say, “as far as it’s translated correctly”? No, if we have no confidence in God, it will show in our distrust regarding His integrity.

Enoch walked with God, yet two cannot walk together unless they agree. Enoch was and was not: Where did he go? Look here, look there where is he? In a twinkling of a eye he was gone. There are some who deny the Rapture based on an old story of the Rapture being conjured by some dream a little girl had in the 1800’s, but she must have talked to Paul, John, or Moses, since they give us words regarding the Rapture. Then the old stand-by, “the word Rapture doesn’t appear in the Bible”, neither does the word Trinity, nor the word Responsibility. Both the words Trinity and Rapture come from the Latin, not the Greek, thus we gained our English words from the Latin translation. Would it be better to say “the catching away”? Would it be better to say we must believe God raised Jesus from the dead, yet Jesus said He would raise Himself, Paul said in Romans 8 the Spirit of God raised Him, again Paul said in Galatians the Father raised Jesus, so the One God comprised of the Son, Father and Holy Ghost raised Jesus from the dead. The concepts are clear, there is a reason for the Rapture, other than simply getting us out of here.

Jesus said, If they say “here is Christ” or “there is Christ” believe them not (Matt 24:23), yet we are suppose to say “Christ in me the hope of glory” (Col 1:17 et al). What gives? Seasons, when we’re Raptured, it means all Christians, or the ability to become one is also gone from the face of the earth, thus for anyone to say “here is Christ”, or, “I am Christian” would be a lie, you can’t crucify the Son of God twice, once Jesus was declared the Son of God by the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection, one can’t take Him back to the Cross, thus He returns as the Son of man for Judgment. We find the position of “antichrist” in our Season, yet the “false prophet” in the next. The Remnant do not deny the Name, or better they don’t deny the Authority of Mercy, but it doesn’t mean they use the Name of Jesus.

The “image of the beast” is not the Beast, it’s the image of the beast, but which one? There is the beast of the sea, and the beast of the earth, then there are the four beasts in heaven who point out the four horsemen (Rev 4:7, 6:3, 11:7, 13:1 & 13:11). The four beasts in heaven are different than the beasts of the sea and earth, noted in the Greek words used. The four beasts all have life, the beast of the sea, and the beast of the earth do not. The dragon gave his power, authority and seat of Satan to the beast of the sea, the metaphor Sea refers to the Gentile world, yet not all Gentiles follow the Beast. The Sand of the Sea refers to Israel, there is no lifeless beast for the sand of the sea, neither is there one for heavens. There are only two, one of the Sea, one of the Earth, yet the one of the Earth uses the Authority (power KJV) of the one of the Sea, the authority is seen as the spirit lusting to envy (Rev 13:11-12).

The beast of the earth is not all the earth is, just as the beast of the sea is not all the sea is, they come from those areas. We just saw how the beasts of the earth were subtil, guess where it comes in? The beast of the earth appears as a sheep, but has two horns as a goat, one horn (power) for each season (Day and Night), with one horn bigger than the other. Paul says those of the beast are the drunken who go into the Night, John says they came from us, but were not of us, Peter says they are self-willed, showing they never denied the self, Jude calls them all sorts of things, yet all of writers show the Wicked have a beginning in our season, then appear in the Night as the beast of the earth. We know the earth is the footstool of the Lord, thus the Wicked are earth related, yet they had the opportunity to be heaven related, but rejected it to hold to the spirit of the world.

Paul says they will come with all the working of Satan, in the Book of Revelation they are doing their evil before the devil is loosed from the pit. So what is the “earth”? It’s a metaphor for the kingdom of heaven, it’s not the Kingdom of God. The kingdom of heaven is a place where the Rock sits, on the Rock is the Church. The Kingdom of God is a Personage within the person, known as the Seed of God. Matthew is the only one who uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven”, showing there are tares in the same field as the wheat, there are good fish in the same net as the bad, but there are no tares, or bad fish in the Kingdom of God. We are in the kingdom of heaven, the Kingdom of God is in us.

All this still connects to what we find here in Genesis, the beast of the earth is seen three times in Genesis 1:27-30, the devil was more subtle than any beast of the field (Gen 3:1). Wait Cain was a keeper of the field, yet he was subtle. Correct, Cain is a type and shadow of the Wicked who kill their brother in the Lord with slanderous words, or corrupt thinking, usually over envy regarding the Sacrifice. As strange as it may seem they too carry a mark.

This isn’t all of it, a careful look at the only two letters containing the title “antichrist” indicating the spirit or character as the tare in the kingdom of heaven, or the bad fish, who remain bad, they are those Jude says are spots in our feast of love, they sit at the same table, yet plot against the brethren, all the time they think they are the only ones doing the Lord’s work. The danger never has been without, it has always been within; a man’s enemies are of his own house. If we reject giving Mercy, the Potter will form us into a vessel of dishonor. Cain talked to God, Enoch walked with God. Cain was banished, Enoch was translated. 

In reference to the Days of Noah there is a phrase we’re going to run into, if one is not an orthodox Jew, they will have problems understanding the concept. In order to see the division between Day and Night is still in full force and effect we have to jump to Acts 1:6-8. Jesus spent forty days after the Resurrection teaching the disciples about the Kingdom, when the forty days ended He Ascended, in order for the disciples to receive Power from on high. Just prior to the Ascension the disciples asked Jesus, “Lord, will You at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). This was a common belief held at the time, one alluded to in the Old Testament, especially by the prophets. In response Jesus divided the Day from the Night by saying, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put in His own power. But you shall receive power after the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and you shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8). The disciples asked about Israel, Jesus answered with “both”, then listed four areas, what does it mean? The Both are Jew and Gentile, but He also divided the Night (restoration of Israel) from the Day (the Witness of Jesus by the Power from on High). The disciples, like us are not to experience (know) the time of the restoration, it’s in the timing of the Father; so what is the Father going to do? Make the enemies of Jesus His footstool, thus the Restoration of Israel points to judgment, not salvation. To the Jew this “Restoration of Israel” was more than restoring the kingdom back into the hands of Israel, it was termed by the Prophets as The Time Of Comfort (Isa 40:1, 51:3, 66:13, Zech 1:17, 10:1, et al). It is also seen in Revelation 12:14, pointing to a time when Israel would rule the world in a Godly manner by Mercy, not as a dominate force, but based in Phileo or brotherly love. The phrase Time of Comfort was referred to by Paul as a time of Peace and Safety, yet he didn’t associate himself into the Season, but said “when they say”. This time of “peace and safety” will be like unto the Garden of God, a time of no war, or sickness, a child would live to be 100 years, but a man would still die in his sins. The progress was seen in Daniel in the famed Image in the king’s dream, which image started with Babylon, then went to the “two feet” and “ten toes”. Noah being the tenth reflects to the time, from Noah will come ten nations, in the End from those ten, three will fall, leaving seven. Both Ezekiel and Isaiah refer to these ten, as well as how three will be removed, leaving seven Gentile nations in the world. Although we see them today as many nations, at times we simply can’t figure how there could only be one religious organization, it’s in the Plan, God told His prophets, they told us. We are looking at the events of the Day, thus we can’t interject the Day into the Night, or the Night into the Day, God has divided them.

These nations, as all nations are known by the metaphor “mountain”, a Principality is an area, or order within a country. For instance we often associate Rome with the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church is the Vatican, or a legal Principality, as an independent order within a nation. The Law of Moses is not Israel, rather it too is a Principality within the nation (Col 2:14-16). A “principality” is not a “who”, it’s an “it”. Often the metaphor Island is used for this type of order, but in the Book of Revelation we find “mountains” (nations) not “islands”, rather at the Rapture the islands are joined to the land masses, or removed.

Since we’re looking at the Days of Noah it behooves us to know a little something about the time. Noah will have three sons, from one the line will continue to Jesus, but from another one we find another line, one which is anything but Godly. This other line comes from the loins of Noah, just as the one leading to Jesus comes from the loins of Noah.

Another aspect about the Days of Noah was “giving in marriage”, we can’t assume being married is evil. After all the Commandment was to multiply, God said a man was to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. God didn’t say “his live in”, or “his partner”, it was “wife” (Gen 2:24). What could “given in marriage” mean? Just before the Flood the people rejected any concept of Judgment, they acted as if they would live forever; it’s the same attitude in the very end. The plagues are to bring about repentance, but rather than repent, the people blaspheme God. Tending to show they refuse to believe “God Is”, meaning they have no basis for faith, bringing about the saying of Jesus, “will I find faith when I return?”.

We have the Gospel of Peace, but there is the Everlasting Gospel (Rev 14:7). The Gospel of Peace presents Grace, the Everlasting Gospel does not. The Wicked will go into the night as the “rocks”, bringing about the destruction. In the end they will kill the 144,000, thus the blood of the saints will call from the ground. As Cain, we find God will nonetheless reach out by the plagues allowing the people a time to repent, but they do not. Then comes the end, it’s appointed unto all men once to die then comes the judgment (Heb 9:27). We find the description of Jesus in the Book of Revelation as the Judgment Jesus. His feet like Brass as in a fire reaching to the footstool; Brass is a metaphor for judgment (Rev 1:15). Why? Peter says the earth will change, turning inside out, the prophet said hell will widen her borders (enlarge - II Pet 3:10, 3:12, Isa 5:14 & Deut 32:22). The “finished” condition we found in Genesis 2:1 will be seen as the earth becomes “New” as the lake of fire, causing the feet of Jesus to appear as if they burned in a furnace (Rev 1:15). In the beginning God looked on the earth, it was in darkness and void, in the end it will be full and on fire. All these things are previewed for us. Enoch is a pillar to our hope, we are promised many things in Grace, one is we are not appointed to the wrath of God. Knowing there will be an eternal judgment, also tells us there is Eternal Salvation. Praise the Lord. Whether we call it the Rapture, or being Partakers in the First Resurrection, or the Catching Away, our hope remains, we are not appointed unto the wrath of God (I Thess 5:9).

Since the Cross has two sides, Salvation and Judgment, we should be able to see the Word divided correctly means to separate the Salvation from the Judgment. Jesus went to the Cross as the “Son of man”, He returns for Judgment as the Son of man, thus the Judgment is not based on Grace, but Mercy (Matt 12:40, 13:41, 17:22, 19:28 et al). When Paul tells us to rightly divide the Word, he is not talking about the Bible. Does he mean to cut Jesus in half? No, it’s the same concept as James uses in reference to dividing asunder, it means to separate into the proper parts, without making a complete separation. To Paul “The Word” means Jesus associated with Salvation; if we preached “the Law” we would be preaching Old Covenant, not the Word. If we preached the Gospel of Peace, Jesus crucified and raised again for our justification, then we would be preaching the Word. Rightly dividing the Word means we have to keep the points of Salvation in the Day, the points of Judgment in the Night. We are to know about the events to come, but we are not appointed to experience them, thus showing why Eternal Judgment is contained in the Doctrine of Christ.

The two sides are clearly seen in two visions, one is on the Mount of Transfiguration, where the Head of Jesus did shine as the sun, as His Raiment was as white as the Light (of day - Matt 17:2). Standing next to Jesus on the Mount was Moses representing the Law and Elijah representing the Prophets, both of them represent the Two witnesses as the Law and Prophets assigned to the Night (last two candlesticks or churches - Rev 11:2-4). The other vision is Jesus in John’s vision regarding the Judgment Jesus, two different visions,  one Transfiguration reflecting the Son of God, the other Revelation as Jesus returning as  the Son of man to finish the process of the Cup He took in the Garden.

The Everlasting Gospel is interesting, during the Day it becomes “another Gospel”. Is it from God? Yes, but timed for the Time of Comfort (Night), not the Day. The Everlasting Gospel reads, “Fear God, and give glory to Him: for the hour of His Judgment is come: and worship Him who made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters” (Rev 14:6). Clearly this is Judgment, going right back to the creation of the Night,  which Work is done, no man can change it, or stop it, but they can escape it.

When it comes time for the door of David Jesus will open it, no man can usher it in, or usher it out. However, there is another Door, one where Jesus knocks, meaning man has to open it (Rev 3:7-8 & 3:20). All these matters give us a division, separating the Day from the Night. From this we find the “Revelation of Jesus” is not the “revelations” of Jesus, or a Revelation of some vision given to Jesus, rather it’s when Jesus is revealed (Rom 1:18, 2:5-6 & Rev 1:1). The two groups Jesus will be revealed to are those who pierced Him (Jews), with those who wail because of Him (Gentile), we don’t fit either. Being Born Again carries with it many great and wonderful blessings, this is the Day the Lord has made, let us Rejoice and be Glad in it.

When Jesus Ascended the angel said as “He goes, so shall He come again”, but was the Spirit given then? No, the Jewish disciples were present, but they were not Born Again, rather they were told to Tarry until they were endued with Power from on high. So, what did they use to cast out devils with? Peanut butter? They had power on earth based in Mercy, but they lacked Power from heaven. The ability to cast out devils is inherit in God’s Mercy, even Cain had the power to reject the sin at the door. This is evident in the Gospel accounts, on one hand the disciples went out to preach the Kingdom, yet many, even the woman at the well proclaimed Jesus as the Christ. However, half way through the ministry Jesus puts His mind on the Cross and Resurrection, the aspect of Christ of the Cross was the point the disciples were not allowed to talk about, much less preach (Matt 16:20, Mark 9:9 et al). Paul says spiritual matters to the natural person are foolishness, Mark shows us when Jesus spoke of the Cross and Resurrection the disciples didn’t have a clue to what He was talking about (Mark 9:32). They couldn’t speak on the Cross and Resurrection because they lacked a foundation. If we don’t understand or know, how can we believe? In our case we Believe Jesus is raised from the dead, since it’s a matter of history. Why be baptized unto death of Christ, if you don’t believe in the Resurrection?

The first few verses in the Book of Acts give us a separation, one talked about in the Law and Prophets as well. In order to gain a grasp on the events concerning the Time of Comfort we can’t just read the Book of Revelation, we must see the plan was in effect before God said, “Let there be Light”. Part of the plan points to Salvation in the Report, another part of the plan to Judgment. At times the Prophets spoke to the people in their time, at times to a people yet to come, at times to a people yet to come after the Church (Christ) has left this earth to completing the First Resurrection. Rightly dividing the Word keeps those sayings in their proper Seasons, as they keep us from mixing the Day into the Night, or the Night into the Day.

Among other things Acts 1:6-8 tells us, there are two positions attributed to the Day of the Lord, not one; as there are two ends to the Seasons, not one. The Day of the Lord begins the Night, yet ends the Day for us. When the Day ends there will be an earthquake so massive it will cause all the earth to rejoin into one large land mass, the earth itself will toss and turn like a drunken man ending with the poles in the proper position. The “four winds” of the Jet Streams will no longer run up and down, or all around, the weather will become stable, as it was in the days before the Flood. There will be no sickness, or disease, as it was in the days before the flood, no wars or rumors of wars, as it was in the days of Noah before the flood. However, there will be something else connecting to the Days of Noah, as well as to the Days of Lot. There will be violence or an unrighteousness toward God, it’s seen here in Genesis, then in the Book of Revelation. When the plagues come do the people repent? No, they blaspheme God. When the flood comes do the people repent? No, when the angels came to Sodom did the people repent? No. However, in the days of Noah and in the days of Lot we find the righteous removed, before the Judgment comes. So it will be in the end, the Remnant of the Seed of the woman will be overcome, then comes sudden destruction. It’s still appointed unto all men once to die, then comes the Judgment, the Judgment points to the second death, or being free of it.

Understanding what the Night holds is part of the element of Eternal Judgment found in the Doctrine of Christ. It’s an incentive to be free of the old nature as we are Engrafted into the New Man. Denying the self is not an Ordinance, it’s a Commandment; thus the son of perdition is a position, we are not of them who draw back to perdition (son of perdition), but of them who believe unto the saving of the soul (Heb 10:38-39). “Ah gee, I really want to, but I just can’t win all the time”. This isn’t a soccer game, it’s a Process. Of course we won’t see the complete victory until we’re glorified, but we will see Progress. There are steps, some seemingly small, some great, but there are always movements forward; we may not think so, but there is. We may face the same type of people or event over and over, but each time we are making progress. As we will find there are times when “little by little” is how the Lord works, just as there are times when it’s a suddenly, whether little by little, or the suddenly our belief must hold God is doing a good work in us continually.

It was nearly 1,000 years between Enoch’s translation and the flood; yet Noah lived 950 years, but he was 500 years old when his three sons were born. Jesus said, the end times will be as the days of Noah (or did we say that?), during the time of Noah there were no wars, no famine, no sickness, no disease, men lived to be hundreds of years of age, yet no one was born of the Spirit, no one knew about Jesus, no one had a Bible, or any Scripture, there were no Christians, or the Cross, but there was unrighteousness toward God (Gen 6:11-13 “violence”). Far too often we look to the natural as a sign of our holiness, if we’re not sick, we’re holy, if we have money, we’re holy, but those signs fall on the just and the unjust. Having the Spirit of Christ in us, as well as dealing with us daily makes us holy. The children in the wilderness murmured and complained, they challenged the man of God, challenged the anointing, mocked God’s appointed, yet God called them holy. How could He? When God deals with us as a children, we’re holy, not because of us, but because of God.

All of these clues to the 1,000 years lay out something helping us understand the “strong delusion” (II Thess 2:11), as well as why we should not be “shaken in mind, or be troubled” (II Thess 1:2) regarding the Night. On one hand we hear, “we will be kings and the world will serve us”, which we know isn’t right, Jesus is not going to allow us to make slaves out of those the Father sent Him to save. On the other hand we hear, “they will take you and put a chip in your brain, and you will have to serve the Beast”, which God would never allow; because it takes away from free moral choice, and from the Scripture. The Book of Revelation limits the “Mark of the Beast” to one area, money. You can neither buy or sell, but if we look at the Greek words used they tell us the Mark has been around for years. Ever hear the phrase “it’s just business”? Buying and selling “as the world” includes all sorts of things, many of which are centered on one thing, “making money any way possible, without getting caught”. In many cases it never considers the people, only the money, thus whether it ruins someone or not, it’s “just business”. Having money, and using the “mark” of the beast are different, just as working in the world, and being of the world are different. A Mark identifies a person to a certain area by the ways of the person. Our first clue to the “mark” is with Cain, he didn’t change because of the experience, his family line proves it. In our case we are Sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, meaning we are Marked among the Righteous of God. The Mark of the Beast is greed motivated, money centered, thus the love of money is still the root of all evil. Trusting the beast as our provider, savior, or guide is associating with the beast. God is our provider, money is merely a tool, it’s not a “god”. Look at the world today, money is the motivator, nations raise and fall based on their love of money.

We have one powerful clue to this in the Book of Revelation, there is a group who are partakers of the First Resurrection who go to be with Jesus before the 1,000 years, they are “beheaded” for Jesus. Although it’s before the 1,000 years we also see they had not worshiped the Beast, or taken it’s Mark. If they are before the 1,000 years, yet had not taken of the mark, then the mark was around before the 1,000 years (Rev 20:5-6). When they came to the Cross all things became new, regardless of who they were, they are New in Christ. In the very latter days it’s the false prophet who runs the show, bringing the Image of the Beast into a place it should not be, but then it’s a real Image, in our Season it’s a likeness, or something the beast of the sea stands for. Man uses money as a weapon, or a lever to get what he wants. The deceitfulness of riches is the concept of money curing all the ills of mankind, only Christ can cure our ills.

This doesn’t mean we lock ourselves in some cave, after all Paul continued to preach. The motivation of the world is the love of money, the deceitfulness of riches, the main source of authority running the world. Money is power in the world, yet any of us can get trapped in the same corrupt thinking. A love of money means one is preoccupied with money, they use money as a ruler, their decisions are based on money, their religious life is based on money, they go to meetings to hear how to get money, the only reason they give is to get money, money is all they care about, they are driven by money whether in the Body or out. Jesus took a little bread and a few fish to show Philip and the others how money wasn’t the problem, the provision in the hand of Jesus made the difference.

The term “beheaded for Jesus” (Rev 20:4) doesn’t mean we go around with our head in a basket, rather the metaphor “head” means authority. The false prophet uses the authority (power in KJV) of the Beast of the Sea, thus his head is the Beast. Being beheaded for Jesus means we have given up all worldly authority to walk in the Authority of Jesus. We no longer seek our own worldly agenda, or religious agenda, we are servants unto the Lord in the true sense of the word. “So, we don’t work?”. Paul said work so you may have to give, but he didn’t say, “love the money you get, and get the money you want, anyway you can”.

Enoch walked with God, because he wanted to, not because he had to, and not because it would gain him the fulfillment of his personal agenda. People who have personal agendas use God, but it doesn’t mean they won’t hear from God. This are can be confusing to the Novice, they see someone who is bent on money, yet the same person can preach up a storm. The anointing on the office, as well as the anointing on the Body are always there as long as the Body of Christ is on the earth. It’s the anointing of the New Man working and dealing with us as children of God on the inside making the difference in our lives. We test the spirit, not the personality. Simply, we are Beheaded for Jesus when we follow the Authority of Jesus in the manner He desires.

James adds to this telling us how the undefiled religion is honored before the Father, the first two elements define religion; taking care of the widows and fatherless goes further than feeding the poor, they each have a metaphoric content as well (James 1:27). The Widows are those who lost their husband, we know as the term “backslider”; the Fatherless are those who are orphaned, or lack The Father. These areas show us religion is defined as man’s relationship to man based in the Mercy man gives man; being a Christian is a relationship with Jesus by having the same character, nature and Spirit. The third element to the undefiled religion is the key, remaining unspotted from the world. One can feed all the hungry, yet be so connected to the world, they are more worldly than the world.

Since the metaphor Sea points to the world, the beast of the sea is the driving force of the world; the beast of the earth connects to the beast of the sea by “authority”, we find if we are separated from the authority of the world, we have not bowed to the Image of the world. Oh my, did we just turn on a light? Yes, Jesus said if we want to Grow in the Lord we must not involve ourselves in the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, or the lusts for other things. Then we read about the mark, name and number of the beast, then John tells us the world is made up by the lust the eye, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, we just saw the three elements the devil used at the tree, thus they all connect as the three temptations. The three daggers of hell may have different hats, but they are all based in the self-nature motivated by the spirit lusting to envy (also known as the spirit of man).

The term pride of life means self-confidence, or a confidence in ones self, which negates confidence in God. Everything the world does has a “self” interest, even their so-called good works are self based; thus the worldly become involved in things for self-advancement in one form or another. Those who are Raptured are not of those who use the ways of the world, rather they are Dead in Christ. Yet we know there are people who love the Lord, but for one reason or another, not their fault, lack the Spirit. They walk in Mercy, thus they will “sleep in Jesus”, we will not cost them their reward, they will be judged as the “rest of the dead” who are not raised until the 1,000 years are finished (Rev 20:5 & 20:12). Paul says those who sleep, sleep through the Night (I Thess 5:16-7). We must also keep in mind the Judgment is not based on Grace, but Mercy, thus Jesus returns as the Son of man, not the Son of God (Matt 25:31-46 et al). Two of the advantages of being Born Again begins when we know we will not be condemned with the world, the second is the most important we are being saved by the Spirit of Christ, meaning we are not appointed to the wrath of God (I Cor 11:31-32 & Rom 5:9).

The Rapture is not only the most logical means to end the Day, it’s the only means. As long as there is one Christian on the earth, it is yet Day. How could you come to an end of the Day without the Rapture? You couldn’t, without the Rapture there would always be one Christian on the earth. Noah is a an example, he and his were raised above the destruction. So will the world miss us when we’re gone? Not hardly, they will blame us for the woes of the world, after all when we were here there were wars, rumors of war, pestilence and famine, but since we’re gone there is Peace and Safety, so are they right? No, their thinking is an illusion, a great illusion. The Plan of God is so complete, so perfect  it boggles the mind. He even took care of division in another way, there is no remembrance of the dead (Ruth 4:10 & Ps 88:5). If someone doesn’t make it to heaven with us, we will not remember them at all, there is no sorrow in heaven, none.

It’s so important to see how the Book of Hebrews, as well as other parts in the Bible lay all this out. The Book of Hebrews is to the Christian what the Book of Leviticus is to the Jew. If we are priests onto the Lord, don’t you think it would be a good idea to know what a priest unto the Lord does? Yes, in the Book of Hebrews we find the division line in many areas. One of them we will view is tithes; there are two tithes in the Bible, one for the Law of Moses, for those people who fit under it, then one for the Law of the Spirit, for those people who fit under it, yet the two are vastly different.

We understand Enoch didn’t go to heaven, we understand he didn’t “see death” (Heb 11:5), but it’s a clue in and of itself. Jesus told the disciples some of them would not see (taste) of death (Jn 8:51 & Matt 16:28), how can it be? What about “it’s appointed to die once”? History shows they all died in one manner or another. Some think Jesus was talking about His day of Resurrection, but He didn’t say, “I will not”, rather it was “some of you”. What death? They all died the first death, but only Judas died the second death (Rev 2:11, 20:6, 20:14 & 21:8). Enoch is our place of belief, if a man can walk with God without the Spirit, what about us with the Spirit? We have a Better promise. Although Enoch ended in Abraham’s Bosom, as did Abel, we still have a better hope.

The placement of Enoch, with the defining verse of faith separate the translation of Enoch from the “days of Noah” (Heb 11:5-7). The classic wording in Hebrews 11:6 shows Faith is a Now attitude projected to a future hope, always reaching for the Reward set before it. Faith always begins by believing, “God Is” (Present tense), not God Was, or God Might Be, or God Won’t, or God Isn’t, or Man Is, or the devil Is, it’s always centered on God Is, so God is what? God is Love. True, but the verse says God is. Well, God is Light. True, God is Love, Light, Spirit, Truth, Life, and many other things, but it’s not what the verse says. We cannot begin our faith with the belief of, “the devil is”, neither do we begin with, “I am”, or “you can”, it’s always God centered. Don’t mistake faith for fact, fact says there is a devil, faith says Jesus has defeated him who had the power of death. 

The next area of faith proves whether it’s faith or not, God is a Rewarder of those who Diligently seek Him. This phrase has a proviso, one must be a Diligent Seeker, the word Diligently is the Greek Ekzeteo meaning seeking for anything lost, or something which seems hidden at the time, which would include the hidden Precious in the event. When it appears as if the event is all devil and no God, the person of Faith still seeks God. The same word was used in Hebrews 12:15 in the phrase, “looking diligently lest any man fail (fall from) of the Grace of God”, yet it’s by Grace through Faith we are saved. Just a few verses prior to 12:15 we read, “Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of faith” (Heb 12:2). All this shows we Look unto the Lord in events which seem upside down, never look for people to save us. Seek and you shall find, if you’re seeking the devil, he will accommodate you by showing up. How do we seek the devil? By giving him credit for the event, or centering our mind on the horrid nature of the event.

Enoch was not seeking anything, or anyone but God, since he was always reaching upward, the day came when he made it. This shows when the time comes, we will be gone in a twinkling of an eye, but it doesn’t mean our flesh goes with us. The secret, if there is one, is not to place our mind on failing, but rather place our minds on the Spirit who is fully able to save our souls.

Paul said we will change by being raised Incorruptible (which means immortal). The flesh is corruptible, thus God formed it to begin with, since He has another body waiting for us, one which cannot fade or taste of death. The preview of the body yet to come is found in the Body of Christ, we imputed our flesh dead, thus we gained the Body of Christ. The Power of Resurrection is the Spirit in us, the very proof we need to win. As for this old tent of flesh, the saying remains, “from dust you came, to the dust you go”.

When Paul said we shall be changed, he used a different Greek word than the one used for “translated” in reference to Enoch, but the concepts relate. The word Translated in Hebrews means To put in place of another, whereas the word Change used in Corinthians (I Cor 15:51-52) means To exchange one thing for another. Enoch did not receive a Resurrected Body, rather his soul left his old body, as he was placed somewhere else, a place of captivity until Jesus would take captivity, captive. The phrase, “giving up the ghost” relates to the first death, it means “the exit of the soul”, or the separation of the soul from the flesh. The “breath of life” is in the soul, not the flesh. Take the soul away from the flesh, the soul still exists, the flesh does not.

Enoch was translated because he Pleased God, the word for Pleased in Hebrews 11:5 is the Greek Euaresteo meaning to Make content, we find Enoch’s faith was not to please Enoch, but to please God. Enoch was pleased in his pleasing of God, but some of us get it mixed up, thinking faith is given to us so we can be pleased, then we think if we’re pleased God must be. Balaam thought in like manner, but he was way wrong.

There are three trumps the Jews used, the First trump, the Last trump, which was the second of the first, then the Great trump. The Last trump is not the Great trump, rather the Last trump comes when the work of the first trump is complete. The Rapture comes on the last trump, the Judgment on the great trump. If we confuse the last as the great we might miss the “twinkling” (I Cor 15:52 & Isa 27:13).

During the Day Jesus sits, but the time will come when He will stand to begin the Judgment. Then we are taken so fast it’s in the twinkling of an eye, not the blinking of a eye, but the time it takes for light to make the twinkle. Then the 1,000 years begins, but ends with Jacob’s Trouble, or as Paul put it, “they will say Peace and Safety, but then comes sudden destruction” (I Thess 5:3).

The Rapture concept was also seen in Second Thessalonians, generally the second letter was written to clear up issues in the first, thus we find “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him” (II Thess 2:1), two things. The coming is one, our gathering Unto Him another. However, there has to be a “falling away” first, the term means to fall back to something, before one can fall back, they first must be taken from what they fall back to. How can this be? Did Jesus explain it? Yes, it still fits with Genesis. We are not of them who draw back to perdition, but of them who believe unto the saving of the soul (Heb 10:38-39). The issue is Belief leading to faith, thus we find the word used for “believe” is the same word translated as “faith”: how can this be? It’s another area where the Holy Ghost gives us mysteries, belief is based on past information, yet the end of our faith is the salvation of our souls (I Pet 1:9). Hebrews 10:38-39 connects back to Hebrews 4 with the word “Today” while it is yet today we are commanded to believe. Belief and Faith must meet in the Now, Hebrews 10:38-39 points this out showing it must be Now, thus we Believe God Is, leading to Faith.

Today more than ever the Bible is under attack by those within, the “doubters” make the Bible subject to their thinking, rather than make their thinking subject to the Bible. The Bible is the rule book, if one can discredit the rule book, they set themselves up as their own god, calling themselves god in the temple of God. There were doubters and pouters in the days of Jude, only he called them murmurers and complainers. We are Believers, it’s hard to hold the title if we keep doubting every verse.

Jesus gave us two articles for Communion, they were joined by Him, yet separated by Him. Recalling how Peter answered Jesus by saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”, then Jesus said, “Blessed are you Simon BarJona”, we can also see those two elements represented many things, yet only two. The name Peter holds more than a name, it means A piece of the Rock, or Rocky, but the word Rock used in Matthew 16:17-18 means a Massive Rock, as a mountain of Rock, but made up from rocks. Peter was not The Rock, he was a piece of the Rock, just as John, James and the others, yes even Judas was a piece of the Rock. Paul tells us the Rock in the wilderness was Christ, yet Water came from the Rock, then he associates the Rock to the Bread, which Bread we are. Jesus said from us shall come Living Waters, thus we are the Rock, the Living Waters are the Spirit  in us pouring forth Mercy (Jn 7:37-39). The children in the wilderness were not the Rock, Moses wasn’t the Rock, the water didn’t flow from Moses (Law of Moses), but the children did benefit from the Rock. Jesus said He would build His Church on the Rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against IT. If Jesus would have said “them”, then we could include the Rock into the Church, but we can’t. Jesus is the Head of the Body, He is the Church, the Beginning of the firstborn from the dead (Col 1:18), He builds His Church from the Rock, not from the world.

The tenses used in Matthew 16:17 tell us much, proving a division between the Rock and Church. Jesus said “upon this Rock”, which is a present tense statement showing the Rock was in the process of having rocks added to it, then He said, “I will build”, which is a future tense statement, showing the Church could not be built then, since the Spirit was not yet given (Jn 7:39). If we look at Mark and Matthew we find some interesting things: Mark 1:1 says, “the beginning of the Gospel”, so if Mark is the beginning, why isn’t it before Matthew? We know Mark was written before Matthew, why is it second? The Growth process explains it all, Matthew is written to the Seed, those who are growing the root as they face the affliction of the Word (Seed) in them as it rubs against the old nature. Mark is written to the Blade, those who are Born Again, as they are becoming enjoined to the Kingdom of God. Luke to the Full ear, those who are teacher minded, those who desire to know more about denying the self, and picking up their cross. John is to the Full corn in the ear, John is often called the “faith book”, but the word “faith” never appears in his account; however, he does use the word Believe in one form or another more times than Paul did in all of Paul’s writings including the Book of Hebrews. This confirms our faith must have the platform of Belief in “God Is” before it can be move to Godly faith.

Jesus took, blessed, broke and handed us the Bread (Rock). Why break it? What gives? The Cup wasn’t broken, but the Bread is. His Body is broken for us, but wait not one bone of His Body was broken. Paul tells us Jesus said, “Take eat; this is My Body broken for you” (I Cor 11:24). Where did he read that? In Matthew Jesus said, “Take, eat; this is My Body” (Matt 26:26). Mark shows Jesus said, “Take, eat, This is My Body” (Mark 14:22). Luke shows Jesus said, “This is My Body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). Ah gee, Paul made it up, no wait, go back to Matthew. In Matthew 26:26 we find what Jesus did becomes the clue regarding Paul’s comments. Jesus took the Bread, He blessed it, then He broke it. He didn’t break it, then bless it, the blessing came before the breaking, thus this breaking is something happening after the Blessing is applied. The word Took is the Greek word Lambano, which will become very important in most of Paul’s writings. It means To accept, or Receive, or Partake of. The First thing Jesus did was to Receive the Bread, then He blessed it, it goes without saying the greater always Blesses the lesser. So the Plan, or Report shows the actual Body of Jesus on the Cross was not broken, but the Bread will be. Paul said there were three groups in the Bread, the Dead in Christ, those who Sleep in Jesus, then the drunken who go into the Night (I Thess 5:5-7). The Dead in Christ would include Paul before his physical death, as those who walk in the Spirit, or at least try to: the Spirit is the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the “dead”. Then those who “sleep in Jesus” would include the Corinthians, they sleep through the Night, becoming the “dead” John speaks of who wake at the end of the 1,000 years to be judged for their works of mercy (Rev 20:5). Then the drunken who go into the Night, they are the independent rocks, the sons of perdition, the vessels of dishonor, the wells without water, those who surface in the Night as the Beast of the Earth. In this season they are “antichrist”, in the next they will be the “False Prophet”. Therefore, we never see the title “antichrist” in the Book of Revelation, it’s only applied to the Day, not the Night (I Jn 2:18-22).

Judas was the first son of perdition, thus one had to be removed from the world by the Mercy of God, placed in the Rock, but not in the Church before they could fit being “Anti-Christ” (I Jn 2:19). Judas didn’t have “Christ in him”, but he surely had Christ “with him”. If we have Christ in us we know Greater is the Greater He in us (Christ in us, the Word in us, Jesus in us, Another comforter), than the he in the world (the spirit of error, the spirit of the world). Being Born Again is an assurance of the Holy Spirit working in us to bring about the Promise of being glorified. Enoch is a type, he was so separated from the others, one day he merely stepped over without feeling the pain of death (I Cor 15:55-56). We find Enoch being translated before the definitive verse on Faith, then we find the Days of Noah. Hebrews 11:6 is a dividing point between the Day and Night, Enoch being our sign of the Rapture being true, we will be removed before the wrath of God takes effect.

If Jesus builds the Church, who then builds the Rock? Jude tells us “on some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (Jude 22-23). We are the fishers of men, the ones who toss the net, the Holy Ghost draws people to the Cross, but how shall they hear without a preacher, how shall they preach unless they are sent? We are the rocks who build the Rock, from the Rock Jesus builds His Church.

This division to bring Unity is found in Genesis, Adam male and Adam female were one, divided, then told to be one. In our Season both Jew and Gentile are treated as one in the Body, thus there is neither Jew or Gentile in the Body. God is not going to treat a Jew better than He does a Gentile, thus we find God is no Respecter of persons. In the Night we find many divisions, in our Season it’s a matter of multiplying, ten thousand times ten thousand, but in the night it’s a matter of the 144,000 Jews begin separated from the tribes, producing the 144,000; thousands of (from) thousands. Some cult systems delight in some fable of being among the 144,000, yet the 144,000 are not Born Again, not under Grace, but they are subject to the Everlasting Gospel. The desire to the special of the special, the only ones who have all the Truth is a lust to be superior. The 144,000 are picked by God, they are not voted in by their peers. 

Does the tossing of the net become a work of the flesh? Not hardly, works of the flesh are to obtain, we work because we have obtained. We build the Rock, because we are of the Rock. Jesus builds the Church from the spiritual people in the Rock. This explains why Paul said there were some who walk after the flesh, and some who walk after the Spirit (Rom 8:1). The flesh and carnal minded are different. The flesh minded look to the flesh to determine holiness, or the lack thereof. They are the touch not, taste not, look just right people, but our holiness is birthed in us (Eph 4:24). The carnal minded trust in intellect as a sign of holiness, both the canal and flesh minded lack Spiritual awareness.

The Wicked are different, they are self driven, but there is an added element making them the Wicked, they use the authority of darkness, they use the spirit of the world to get what they want. We entered the kingdom to be free of the spirit of man, they entered to become lawless. Paul tells us the spirit of the world is opposed to the Spirit which is of God (I Cor 2:12-13); therefore, there could be no spirit of the world, until there was first a Spirit which is of God.

Cain was a type of the Wicked, Abel a type of faith, both Able and Enoch give us signs of the end. Abel was not Born Again, didn’t have the Cross, yet he held his measure of faith, thus he is more like the 144,000, who will keep the Commandments of God, yet will be overcome before the Judgment. Enoch is more a Type of us, who have faith in God, one day we simply step over in a twinkling of an eye. Of course the first will be last, and the last will be first. We are not seen as those who are overcome, but as those who overcome. If we mix one flock into the other, we end with a mess. Jesus talked about the little flock, which would be the 144,000, they are thousands taken from thousands, hardly multiplying. On the other hand we are ten thousand times ten thousand as the Holy Ghost adds (Rev 5:11).

All this shows how attitude is connected to character, as character is connected to nature. The New Man brings a new nature, which produces a new character, then our attitude begins to change, our minds are renewed in the Newness of Christ, as our souls are being saved: a process of progress, based on the Sacrifice of Jesus. 

When we view the Days of Noah we have to remove any thought of Christians being involved, yet we will find “types”. The main reason we can’t find any Christians in the Days of Noah, is there were none, but Peter used Noah as an example of being saved in a type of our baptism (I Pet 3:21). Not saying Noah was baptized, or saved as we are, but he was lifted above destruction by “water” (God’s Mercy).

We are dragged from the world in the Net of the Gospel into the Rock, which is the wilderness of decision and cleaning, then we are taken by Jesus through the Spirit (New Man) into the Spiritual nature where we are formed into the Church. When the Rapture comes we are Lifted above the Wrath of God to a place in the Air where we meet Jesus. Therefore, Acts 1:6-8 gives us a division, we are not appointed to experience the restoration of Israel, it’s a Night endeavor, but we are to Tarry for the Power from on High to be a Witnesses for Jesus. We can now view the days of Noah with some clarity.

Before the Flood the ages of the people were extended showing the condition of the earth was protected by the firmament, there were no violent seasons to produce changes, there was no rain, there was no pollution, thus the firmament about the earth kept the aging rays of the sun out. The people didn’t have war, sickness, disease, nor money worries, but they had the process of death. To us it would seem like the Garden, as it will to those in the Night, which concept will help produce an illusion in their own minds.

In the Days of Noah they had a concept of the Wrath of God based on Adam being kept from the Garden, yet Cain knew man could die. To them the “wrath of God” was being banished, or marked, rather than destroyed. In our Season there are those going about telling us God is going to bring Judgment down, or God should, but in the Night the same type of person will be saying God will not bring His wrath. Always news, but the wrong season. We are in the Season of Grace and Salvation, God isn’t considering Wrath in the Day, but when the Night comes He will. We also find Jesus said the wars, rumors of wars, pestilence and famine were things which must be, but they did not point to the end of the world (Matt 24:6 & Luke 21:9). We are not to allow the things of the world to “terrify” us, the word Terrify is the Greek Ptoeo meaning to be so frightened one attempts to force change to stop something. It would seem it makes no sense at all considering we are suppose to be “Peace Makers”, but the Peace we’re suppose to make is between man and God.

Now the days of Noah, Genesis 6:3 would appear out of place, God said His Spirit shall not always strive with man, then we see the days shall be 120 years. Wasn’t Noah 500 when the flood happened? This isn’t saying man had a lifespan of 120 years, rather it would be 120 years until the flood, this gave Noah 120 years to build the ark. God saw the wickedness, the people didn’t as they held “violence” toward God (Gen 6:11). The word Violence is the Hebrew Chamac meaning among other things Unrighteous.

In First John we see one attribute of the Blood of Jesus is cleaning us from all unrighteousness (I Jn 1:9). Genesis 6:5 reports how the wickedness of man plus the wild imaginations of man were running rampant on the earth. Imaginations conjure up all sorts of things, including idols, not only the ones made of stone or wood, but those in the mind forming strongholds coming against the knowledge of God. Genesis 6:5 is the first place we find the word Imagination, it’s the Hebrew Yetser meaning the thing framed in the mind, or the graven image. The sons of God found the daughters of men fair, they commingled their worship for God with idol worship, producing an unrighteousness before God. 

The Spirit of God hovered over the waters (people), but the waters had no idea. Genesis 6:7 then tells us God was going to bring the 120 years to an end by destroying man from the face of the earth. Then we find Noah was 500 years old when his sons were born, then we find he was six hundred years old when the flood came. Showing the 120 years was 20 years before Noah’s sons were born, then after they were born it would be 100 years until the Flood. It took some time for Noah to build the Ark, he didn’t have a handy workshop with all the latest wood working tools.

When we follow the line from Adam to Noah not only do we find the extended ages of man before the flood, but we also find something else interesting. Out of the direct line from Adam to Noah (excluding all the other people on the earth at the time) we find there were only two left at the time of the flood, Noah who was saved, Methuselah who was not. The age of Methuselah shows he died at the exact same time of the flood, yet the man was nearly 1,000 years old. He was born when Adam was 727 years old, showing the time from Cain to the Flood wasn’t long. The connection shows the 1,000 years and the ages of the people not strange if the earth was protected. After the flood the ages began to shorten, but not right away. Noah lived many years after the flood, as did Shem, the record of their ages indicate Abraham could have heard the flood story from the lips of Shem. Even the aging became a sign of the Process system changing. One would think if the protection was gone, then the aging would be immediate, but the sign is also a warning. What if the years back then were only six months long? So what? Even if they were two days long they are still relative, the length of days still shows the difference between the ages before and after the flood.

Enoch was translated to a different location, Jesus was Transfigured on the Mount, showing a different condition, one promised to us, yet there is also the Transforming process, all three are different. Noah was not translated, transformed, or transfigured, he was lifted. We know translated means moved from one place to another, but what is Transfigured or Transformed? Are they important? Yes; Transfigured means a change from the inside out, our word Metamorphosis comes from the same Greek word translated as Transfigured. Metamorphosis is not the change, but the process of change, or the place between changes, the caterpillar enters the cocoon, then comes out as a butterfly, the place between the two stages is called Metamorphosis, or the process of change between the changes. The word Meta means a joining, or Change, Morphosis means into something completely different. We think the end of the process is the Metamorphosis, it’s not, rather the end is the result of the Metamorphosis. When Jesus was Transfigured on the Mount it was a preview of what was coming based on the Resurrection. Jesus as the Head of the Body, then the Body, yet in the Transfigured picture there are no feet! What no feet for Jesus? Wait, all things are under His feet, we are His Body, making all things under us, it’s more important to work to the Head of the Body, than be found below the feet.

Noah found Grace in the sight of God, so did Noah have Grace? (Gen 6:8). It needs to be explored, or we would think Noah had Grace, then add the heresy of Enoch being Resurrected, ending with a real mess. John says Grace came with Jesus (Jn 1:14-16), yet there is Grace for grace. Genesis 6:8 is really our first introduction to Grace, but we can’t confuse the Hebrew concept of grace, with the New Testament gift of Grace. Grace in the Old Testament means Mercy by favor, or giving mercy to another even if they don’t deserve it. Grace in the New Testament is the New Man or Spirit of Christ as the Gift of God to a people who don’t deserve it. Although God looked at Noah and saw Grace, or better God saw the purpose of Grace, it didn’t mean Noah had Grace. The same will be seen when God imputes Righteousness toward Abraham. God imputes things based on something seen by the actions of the person, but it’s different from God imparting something.

Abraham believed God, it was his belief motivating God to impute, not the man’s personality. The belief was enough for God to impute righteousness on the Belief, with the man holding the Belief becoming the benefactor, allowing God to enter Covenant with Abraham, so it might be by faith. However, the purpose of the Covenant was found in Jesus, not Abraham. The same is true here, Noah was needed to extend the plan, it means Noah was the most trustworthy of all the people on the earth at the time, it also means the offspring of Noah fit the plan. Noah being saved was not some Addendum to the Plan, it was in the Plan from the beginning. The Grace was in God’s eye, when He looked at Noah, as God saw the plan reaching to the Grace found in Jesus. Never elevate people above what God has; Noah was special, but he was not special above the special. Really the saving of Noah had as much to do with you and I as it did with Noah. By our baptism we are like Noah, we are spared because of the Mercy of God.

Noah’s flood experience will also end any foolishness about Cain making it through the flood, only eight souls survived the flood, there were no hidden caves where air was trapped for the decedents of Cain to survive. The pressure of the water would be enough to crush anyone who attempted to hide in a cave. We know the damage five inches of water can cause, think of what would happen with 60 feet!

Enoch walked with God and was translated, Noah feared God and was spared. So did Noah keep the Law? No, there was no Law of Moses then. How about the Ten Commandments? No, there were No Ten commandments. How about his great and wonderful sacrifices? No, he heard God tell him something which seemed impossible, yet he believed in what God said. Why did God tell him? Because of his heart, not his works. His works came as a result of believing God, not the other way around. Today the term “Born Again” has been tossed around so much it has lost some of it’s importance, yet we find with man it’s impossible, but not with God, for with God all things are possible. Not only do we find, “ye must be Born Again”, we find only God can accomplish it. It’s more than a privilege, it’s an honor. 

In the days of Noah rain was a non-concept, it had not rained, or threatened to rain,  nor sprinkled, thus the people had not experienced rain. God had never mentioned rain to any of Adam’s descendents, yet here was this Noah saying God told him it was going to rain. “Yeah, sure Noah”. The man didn’t even have a second witness, he stood alone with his information, so what “witness” would he have? Building the ark was a type of preaching. Not one drop of rain had fallen, yet Noah said it was about to come down by the bucket full. Poor Noah, too many meetings, no rest, the job got to him. From Noah’s experience we find a “fear of God” is an element of faith (Heb 11:7). Noah believed what God said, God was going to do, what God said He would do. Noah was motivated by his faith, but his faith was fear based. How? Looking ahead to what God said would be. Noah’s actions became his preaching, he warned the people, yet all around appeared as Peace and Safety. The Book of Revelation points to this type of incentive, we don’t want to be among the drunken who go into the night. Like Paul, we set our course to be in the Rapture, or among those who sleep through the Night, in any case we want to be with the Lord forever (Ph’l 3:10-11).

Noah had pressure from the social powers, he could have said, “You know guys I want favor with you, so I will stop building this thing”, but he knew he couldn’t hold his breath under water for a full year, so he stood with God. The people had the same opportunity, really Noah’s fear was a type of repentance. He knew he was among those who were held in disfavor before God, yet he made the choice to side with God. He turned from the behavior and attitude of his society by doing something contrary to their thinking, but in line with God’s desire. Noah didn’t harm any of the people, march around them, shout them down, he worked building a boat where there was no water. A rebel will do something contrary to society, but in line with their own thinking, much different from the actions of Noah. 

When Noah began to work on the Ark he became a part of something God was doing, thus his efforts showed he believed God. His faith was feared based, but his actions were motivated by his belief. Was Noah’s work basically self-based? Yes, or at least it would appear so; however, were not his actions a warning to others as well? Yes, he was in the process of saving his family, but his actions were preaching to others so they could save their families. Will they listen? We preach and pray for people, but we can’t believe for them. 

Jesus told us how man loves darkness rather than Light, because man’s heart was filled with darkness (Jn 3:19). Jesus said from the heart comes no good thing (Mark 7:21), but Paul said we must believe in our heart (Rom 10:10). Go figure? Oh wait, the New Man is a New Heart completing, “create in me a New Heart oh God, and renew (bring new) a right Spirit within me” (Ps 51:10). We can’t change the fruit on the old tree then call it new, it would only end as “self-transformed”. We must have a New Tree, thus we must have a Nature change in order to change desires from darkness to light. The fruit identifies the tree, the ways of a person identifies their source. We can’t paint the tree then call it something it is not, we must have a New Tree in order to produce New Fruit.

We can’t love the things of darkness, yet claim to be of the Light. There is a battle, the old man tells us, “oh the good old days, to sit back and enjoy then again? Want to? Come on, you know you were better off in the world, God brought you here to destroy you, I have come to save you, follow me, forget about Jesus”. The old nature does call, but we don’t have to listen. On the same note, just because God is talking, doesn’t mean we’re listening. Ears to hear are connected to a soul willing to obey.

Noah’s society called out for him to stop, but he also heard the voice of God ringing in his ears, “the end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth” (Gen 6:13). It’s motivation, he kept building the Ark regardless of how many people laughed at him. What is the faith issue? The ark, the means to be lifted above the destruction, Noah knew destruction would come, because God said it would. His faith looked to the hope of being delivered, because God said if he built the ark he would be.

Was Noah using force? Jesus said the violent take it by force, yet the Kingdom is given, what gives? The word Violence means self-righteousness, but the word Violent means by an Outside Energy, the word Force means to Seize upon openly. From John to the Cross, the Kingdom suffered from self-righteousness attempting to take it, but from the Cross on those with the Energy of the Holy Ghost take it openly. Here the people were holding unrighteousness toward God, the food, climate, all they had was still by the hand of God, but they refused to appreciate it. We are the Violent, we are not of Violence.

The people saw Noah’s actions, which became a sign of his ways. It was once said God has provided all sorts of ways to get to Him, all one really needs to do is believe there is One God. Jesus said there was One Way to the Father, by Him. No other religious order had a leader who claimed to have died for the sins of the people. None claim to have descended from heaven. If those people are right, we’re on safe Ground, for surely the best Way is still with Jesus. On the other hand if we’re right, they’re in big trouble. Being a Christian is not only wise, it’s the smartest thing any human can do. The final evidence for us in found in John 3:16, not in the word “begotten”, or in the phrase “God so loved”, but in the word “only” as in “only begotten”. The Greek word used for Only means without a companion, no other, none, just the one. Why would God send Jesus to die for our sins, then send fifty more religions? He wouldn’t, and didn’t. So, do we kill them? No, we convert them.

Noah’s actions were clearly a type of repentance, he believed there was a cause for God to destroy the earth. Yet, there are various types of repentance, thus repentance is not merely turning from sin, it includes turning toward the Kingdom. One can turn from sin, yet only turn half way to the Kingdom, which leaves them legalistic in nature. Matthew 27:3 says Judas “repented himself”, which is an act of self-repentance. Self-repentance and Social repentance run hand in hand. Self-repentance is when things are not going as we planned, we repent to either get the pressure off, or cause things to change to our liking. Social repentance is to persuade society to either feel sorry for us, or excuse our behavior, but we’re not sorry for what we did, we are merely seeking social acceptance. Peter on the other hand, wept so hard his body convoluted. Self-repentance is always “self-sorry”, but never sorry for the damage done to others.

Judas was a member of the ministry, held a high ranking position as treasurer, a position not shared by any other member, he sat at the Lord’s table, engaged in the works of the ministry, was ordained and anointed by Jesus for service through an office, yet for his own self-based agenda he made a plan outside of the will of the Lord. The agenda of Judas was to force the Lord to do something Judas wanted done, yet God was able to work it into the plan for our benefit. Judas moved outside of his calling, outside of his office, outside of his anointing, yet his twisted thinking made him think he was doing the will of the Lord. Could Jesus have stopped him? Yes, Judas could have had a heart attack on the way to make his contract with the religious leaders, the religious leaders could have thought it was a trap, thereby tossing Judas out. Jesus could have looked him right in the eye and said, “I know what you’re planning, it’s not of Me, stop it or die”, or even something like, “what you are doing is not love based”, but the will of Judas was set, regardless of what Jesus said, Judas would have assumed it was approval. The evidence is found in, “what you do, do quickly”, Judas could have repented quickly, or complete his plan, his actions show which he desired to do. Judas had warnings, he heard the Lord teach on many occasions, he understood the heart of man, he just never figured his heart was like common man’s.

Judas entered the worse of all illusions, one of overconfidence. Noah moved based on fear and was saved, Judas moved based on his own selfish agenda and lost everything the Lord gave him. Like Balaam, Judas was going to do what Judas was going to do. When it didn’t turn out the way he wanted, he entered self-repentance attempting to change the outcome by returning the money, but he never told the Lord he was sorry for what he did. His ego and pride wouldn’t allow him to ask forgiveness from the other disciples, so he hung himself in the manner of a traitor. The Jews had a way to hang a traitor, Judas took the way upon himself. Peter tells us in Acts chapter one how Judas busted asunder, or burst open, thus he understood the type of hanging Judas engaged in. A traitor has a rope tied around their feet, then they are tossed, or jump from a very high cliff, when the rope reaches its end, it snaps the person in half at the weakest point, the mid-section, bursting them asunder. However, we walk by faith, blessed are the feet of them bringing the Good News. 

True Repentance (didn’t think we would forget did you) is when we are not only sorry for what we did, but to whom we did it, we are willing to turn and accept the power to be rid of the source causing our wrong, which means we want to be changed. False repentance excuses for the moment to be free of punishment, but lacks a desire to be changed. The fruit then comes when we deny the self, remain open for exposure then allow the Word in us to divide and separate. 

Like our water baptism we must keep in mind the water didn’t save Noah, God did. For some reason we find a few who think water baptism saved them, not so, it’s a sign showing God saved them. Peter said the longsuffering of God was the issue, God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, wherein a few, eight souls were saved by water, the “like figure” whereunto even baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)” (I Pet 3:18-21). Stupid Peter doesn’t he know we are saved by Grace through Faith, not our own. Wait, Noah didn’t go into the water, he was above it, it doesn’t relate to water baptism. The baptism Peter talks about is not water alone, since he says it’s not the washing of the “flesh”, rather it’s the purpose of the Baptisms found in the Doctrine of Baptisms. The Identification of baptism shows we are Immersed into the Body of Christ, separated, or raised above destruction, just as Noah was.

What about John’s baptism? How does it fit in the Doctrine of Christ? The Doctrine of Christ listed in Hebrews 6:1-2 is not all the Doctrine of Christ consists of, rather we find the foundational six pillars to the Doctrine of Christ. The third pillar is “the doctrine of baptisms”, displaying two things, there are doctrines within the Doctrine, plus the use of the word Baptisms shows a plural. We found it still correlates to the One Baptism; however, where does John’s baptism fit into this? In Acts 19 Paul came to Ephesus (the same place where he wrote about the One Baptism) where he came across some disciples asking them, “Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?” (Acts 19:2). They answered, “we have not heard whether there be a Holy Ghost”. Wow, they were disciples? Paul then asked, “Unto what then were you baptized?”. It wasn’t “what were you baptized in”, or “who baptized you”, or “what name”, it was Unto indicating the purpose. If it wasn’t based on Belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, it was lacking. It’s also clear from Acts 19 there are several baptisms, John’s was in his name, the one we do is in the Name of Jesus. Paul re-baptized them in the Name of Jesus, for entrance into the Body, then laid hands on them so they could receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:2-6).

They answered by saying, “Unto John’s Baptism” (Acts 19:3). Paul defined John’s Baptism as the people Should believe on Him who was to come, meaning they lacked knowledge to believe in the Cross and Resurrection. John’s baptism was short, it ceased when he was cast into prison, it didn’t grant one entrance into the Body, it was not based on believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus, when we baptize in the Name (authority) of Jesus the candidate must believe (Acts 8:37). Water baptism doesn’t make us believe, it doesn’t save us, it’s a sign showing we accept being saved from the world by God’s Mercy. The phrase “in the Name of Jesus” distinguished the baptism in water we do, from the one being done in John’s name (Acts 18:24-28 & 19:3-4).

This also defines the foundation of belief, as it connects to faith. In order to believe we must have some foundation, something we heard, or saw, or a knowledge we accepted as truth. Faith is a now confidence reaching forward to a promised hope, thus both belief and faith must be Now confidences. The people under John’s baptism had no foundation to believe, but they could say they would believe after Jesus gave them the foundation for belief by the Resurrection; however, for us it’s a past tense issue, thus we believe.

Nonetheless, Noah being raised above the water is a type of how we are raised above the wrath of God. Noah was not baptized, but his deliverance from the violence of the world is a “sign” of our identification into the Body. The Body of Christ is above the world, above darkness, above principalities and many things (Eph 1:20-23). However, the Body is not the Church, yet from the Body comes the Church (Matt 16:18 & Col 1:18).

Noah was 600 years old when the flood started (Gen 7:6), God opened the windows of heaven for the former rain, the earth was then destroyed (Gen 7:11). In Genesis 6:6 we find the phrase, “it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth”. The wording “had made” is the Hebrew Asha, yet we know God both Asha and Bara man. The soul of man had joined to the “dust” (flesh), the two were becoming one. So did God repent like we do? No, this means God was sorry for what He had to do, but do it, He must. God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, even a sinner. However, God also knows if a person will, or will not accept Him. Isaiah 57:1 tells us some never consider how God will take someone at a young are knowing what lays ahead. At a precise moment their heart was right, God takes them to save them, rather than see them exist on the earth for years, ending in hell. 

Although Noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood, his three sons would have been 100 years old at the time of the flood. God says during the Time of Comfort a child will live to be 100, but man will die in his sins accursed (Isa 65:20). As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be.

God introduced Covenant with Noah, it’s the first time we find God presenting Covenant to man (Gen 6:18). Genesis 6:18 doesn’t say Noah had Covenant, it says, “will establish” Covenant, much different. Noah had to do some things, making the ark for one, entering it another. All Covenants need two things, the parties and the duties of the parties. If someone made contract (covenant) with our neighbor, yet we attempted to take it over, we would be thieves. The neighbor’s covenant didn’t include us, we had no “duties” assigned us. Are there duties in the New Covenant? Yes, seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His Righteousness, put off the old man, put on the New, put away, turn from, submit, love one another as Jesus loves us, all duties, but the ability is found in the New Man. However, there must be another side to Covenants, there is. God would spare Noah, yet wait for Noah to finish the ark. God could have said, “Noah I have decided to destroy the earth with rain now”; Noah could have said, “When Lord, oh is that rain?”, then the Lord would said, “yes, it’s beginning to fall, bye”. However, the Lord waited, yet put a time limit on the plan as well, 120 years was the deadline. Noah could not cause the rain to delay, it was set for a time and timing in the Hand of God, it becomes Peter’s point. The Desire of the Lord is for all to come to the saving knowledge of the Gospel so none would be lost, the reality of the Lord knows the Day has to end to begin the Night.

Noah gathered the animals in a seven day time element (Gen 7:4), thus he really didn’t know about gathering the animals until the time, showing progression, or one step at a time. The animals were loaded, Noah and his family entered the ark, the Lord caused it to rain, then the Lord shut them in (Gen 7:16). The rain began in the second month of the 600th year of Noah, on the seventh day of the month. Not only did the rain fall on the very day God said it would, all the water in the deep parts of the earth came up, turning the ground upside down, causing waves of destruction. The evidence of which is around today in the various mountain caves, or strata layers.

The “Noah rain gauge” showed fifteen cubits, there are 18 inches to a cubit showing it rained about 22 feet in 40 days. A great deal of rain, today a foot is more than enough to cause a destructive flood. Then we find “all flesh died who lived on the earth” (Gen 7:21). Cain’s descendents lacked skin diving outfits, they didn’t make it, no other earthly animals other than the ones Noah had with him made it, but the fish were not affected. We know because the context shows “upon the earth” (Gen 7:21). Which shows us something else, if there were dinosaurs, they would have been on the Ark, meaning they would be around today, yet there were none in the Days of Noah, giving credence to the Prophetic Theory showing the division between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. God never told Noah “don’t take those big lizards there isn’t enough room”. There were none to take. Noah took “clean” animals as well, but to Noah the term related to sacrifice, not dietary, as we will see.

God then remembered Noah causing the rain to stop, the waters returned from off the earth continually for one hundred and fifty days (Gen 8:3). The Ark rested in the seventh month on the seventh day upon the mountains of Ararat (Gen 8:4). The waters decreased continually until the first day of the tenth month when Noah saw the tops of the mountains.

How about those animals? How many were eaten? Some kind of fighting going on, no doubt. In the latter days the Lion will sit with the lamb, the child can play with asp, as it was in the days of Noah. Until shortly after the flood man and animal were herb eaters, but after the Flood it would change, yet before the change took place the lion would lay with the lamb, the asp would move about the ark without causing harm to the other animals.

Noah used a dove and a raven as tests, we know John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend in the form of a dove on Jesus at the baptism. The dove represents Peace, or acceptance of a sacrifice. However, we also see Jesus filled with the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost represented the opening of the earthly ministry for the Son of man to begin the time for the Gospel of Peace. In no way does it mean Jesus became the Son of man by the baptism, it means the ministry began, the dove was the acceptance of the Sacrifice by the Father.

Noah first sent a Raven, then he sent a dove twice. Which becomes another metaphoric allegory, Noah didn’t send two doves, only one, thus the Dove came before the Cross for Jesus, but after the Cross and Resurrection the same Dove came to us. The Dove went out once, but didn’t find land, but it isn’t the end of it, it went out again, it knew hope was out there, it kept seeking until it came home with the olive branch. The Olive Tree is a symbol for the Mercy anointing in the New Covenant, the sermon on the Mount of Olives is Mercy based, giving us the Least Commandments, not saying they are inferior, rather they are the least we can do. The Olive branch showed the Mercy God bestowed on Noah was not for the man and his family, rather it related to the Plan. 

Noah went forth from the Ark when he was six hundred and one years old, in the second month and twenty-seventh day. It took nearly a year for the water to decrease. Now the Noah Covenant after the flood was over, Noah built the Ark, God saved him, so why not say “good-bye”? There was more for Noah, in Genesis 9:4-5 we find Noah was allowed to eat meat, but it also means the meat was allowed to eat meat. You can eat the cow, but the lion can eat you. The phrase, “Flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat” refers to eating raw meat, or uncooked meat. Prior man and animal were vegetarians all was fine, they lived together, but man also held unrighteousness toward God. Being a vegetarian didn’t make them holy, or unholy as the flood proves. Later when the children enter Egypt they will be accustomed to the ways of the Egyptians, meaning they didn’t eat red meat. Which explains why they had all those animals for sacrifices in the wilderness, yet still cried for “meat”; thus meat to them was fowl or fish.

Although Noah found grace in the eyes of God, one of his sons had a long way to go. The fruit of the land after the flood was plentiful, it was “cleaned”, refreshed, the earth appreciated it to the point of becoming very fruitful. This is a sign of our fruit of repentance, the empowered Mercy of God enters us, we are transformed, the Holy Ghost overshadows us by giving us the gift of Grace as the New Man, then the New Man transfigures us as we become Fruitful. Of course the Father will trim us now and again so we can bring forth more fruit.

In Noah’s case it was a little too fruitful, he took some of the grapes, then made a wine, soon passing out, because he was “drunken” (Gen 9:20-21). Ham saw his father’s nakedness, when Noah woke up he knew what his son had “done unto him”, the seeds to the sin of homosexuality sprung forth as the evil son molested the one who found grace in God’s eyes (Gen 9:24). The Hebrew word for Nakedness is Erwah, which actually means “shameful nakedness”, it was associated with immoral behavior, there is another Hebrew word for simple nakedness which was not used here, thus showing something was “done” to Noah. It’s obvious Ham was not a homosexual, since he had sons, but the profane act he did to his father shows a trait toward the behavior.

Noah said to Ham, “cursed be Canaan” (Gen 9:25). What? What did Canaan have to do with it? How could Noah curse anything or anyone anyway? Wait, the evidence will show Noah gave a prophecy, based on the displayed behavior which would follow along the line of Ham in two of his four sons. From Ham came Canaan (Gen 9:18), and Cush, from Cush came Nimrod, who was a hunter before the Lord (Gen 10:9). The Hebrew word “began” in verse 10:8 is the Hebrew Chalal meaning To profane oneself sexually, the word Before in the phrase Before the Lord means Against, Nimrod was a mighty hunter of men, he didn’t care what the Lord thought. This is evident by the cities he started, or changed. He began Babel, where the Tower would be built, indicating the first organized religious order outside of God. Prior others worshipped idols, but not as an organized religious order. From the cursed Canaan would come the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 10:19), therein we find why he was cursed as it associates to what Ham did to Noah (Gen 10:15 & 10:19). Whatever Nimrod touched became sexually profaned, one could assume it was generational; especially when we find Ham had four sons, yet only two had lines ending in profane sexual behavior. Often what we presume is a generational curse is merely some character, or behavioral trait picked up when we were children. We know about genes, or DNA as they are transferred from one generation to the next, even to the point of being identity factors to ones heritage, but it’s the “dust” (flesh), what about the soul? There are traits picked up by children as a result of their parents in one form or another, something called associated environment. A curse is not sin, it’s the result of sin. However, Praise the Lord, all curses are hung on the Cross, whether its the curse of the Law, the Fall, or Generational we are free, if we receive it (Gal 3:10 & Col 2:13-15). Changing natures is the reason we are Born Again, there are no curses in the Family of God. Even if we feel we are cursed the best way to defeat it is to Bless and curse not.

Ham was drawn away by his own lust, not the lust of Canaan, just as Nimrod by his own lust, not the lust of Cush. The propensity was there because they came from Ham; if this is “generational” what about Ham’s other two sons? Both Mizraim and Phut had sons, Phut would have descendents associated with Persia and Lud (Ezek 27:10). Mizraim beget the Egyptians, who would later accept Joseph and his family. If it was generational like DNA, would not the entire family order suffer? Yes, so we find many generational curses are environmental in nature, or the result of “tares” in the field of the soul. It nonetheless remains, some of us struggle with character flaws, things we’ve picked up, tares, hurts, or simply things we do as a habit. We need the New Nature washing us clean, bringing a New character, but we must put off the old, before we put on the New. How? Impute it dead on the Cross of Jesus.

The four sons of Ham begin with Cush as the eldest, then Mizraim, then Phut, then Canaan. The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras. Adding those up comes to eleven, so much for the ten toes. Wait, Magog in the Book of Revelation is separated from the others, as we find Gog the leader of Magog. Taking away Magog leaves Ten toes, thus as it was in the days of Noah. We’re told all the nations, but we do know from Gomer came all the Germanic nations, from there we can trace others as well, but they are all Gentile nations.

Shem on the other hand was Noah’s youngest, thus Canaan the youngest of Ham produced Sodom and Gomorrah, but Shem’s line is just the opposite. From Shem would come Elam, Asshur, Arphazad, Lud and Aram. Of the children of Aram, were Uz, Hul, Gether and Mash. The middle son Arphazad begat Salah, from Salah came Eber, from Eber we get the title Hebrew. Eber had two sons, one was Peleg, in his days the earth was divided (Gen 10:25). The word Divided is the Hebrew Badal meaning To disjoin things which were together. Today we know the land mass of the earth was once one large area called Panthalassa, it wasn’t like we see today. Taking the land masses of today, with the islands, we can fit them together like a puzzle. It is felt the same land mass as one unit will divide again to appear in what is termed the New Panthalassa. The original Panthalassa was felt to have all the land mass in the center part of the earth, with water all around, the New Panthalassa is suspected to have the lands in the upper part of the earth, with all the ice gone. We know it will be as it was in the days of Noah, yet here the land is divided, showing it was not divided before then. Reverse the order, and we find a great earthquake bringing the land masses back together, then 1,000 years later the people giving in marriage, assuming there will be no Judgment. Peleg had a brother by the name of Joktan, so why not say in the days of Joktan the earth was divided? Mainly because Peleg means Division, but Joktan means Small. Joktan is said to be the father of many tribes of southern Arabia, in the Arabian genealogies he is often called Kahtan. From Joktan came Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklan, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophia, Havilah and Jobab (Gen 10:26-29). All these show from the three sons produced the ten toes, yet the ten toes stretched out to many areas, producing many tribes, later to be nations, or principalities. Peleg is the generation stem leading to Abraham, since the earth was “divided” in his day, could it be metaphoric? Yes, from Peleg would come the Jews, God will pick them above all the families of the earth (Amos 3:2).  

The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 gives us a shadow of Shem’s generations, but we know Noah’s other sons continued after the flood. So, everyone’s family line in the physical goes back to Noah, then to Adam. The real Family order is being a son of God by the New Birth. Anyway, we want to follow Shem to Abraham. Shem was a hundred years old when he begat Arphaxad. Arphaxad begat Salah, Salah beget Eber, Eber beget Peleg, as we know, Peleg beget Reu, Reu beget Serug, Serug beget Nahor, Nahor beget Terah. Terah had three sons, Abram, Nahor and Haran, plus a daughter from another wife by the name of Sarai. Now things can get a little complicated. Abram’s wife was his half-sister Sarai; Nahor’s wife was Milcah, who was also the daughter of Haran, so Nahor married his niece (Gen 11:29). When Haran died, Terah took it real hard, as we will see. Terah then took Abram, Sarai and Lot the son of Haran, as they went forth from the Ur of the Chaldees, toward the land of Canaan.

After this brief, but somewhat complex genealogy record we come across the Tower of Babel. The earth was of one language, and of one speech, so what does it mean? If it’s one language, isn’t it one speech? The word Language is the Hebrew Saphah meaning boundary of a land, or the speech of the land. The word Speech is the Hebrew Dhavar meaning the manner of communication, rather than just words spoken, thus they had a written language as well. Also the words spoken by all the people were centered on one manner of communication. They were still the “image”, thus they had the ability to invent, but they were also under the fall nature as they used a God granted ability in the wrong manner. Nimrod being a hunter of men was opposed to God, thus he was not making the tower to honor God, but to honor his gods. Nimrod lacking any fear of God, was going to do what he wanted to do. Josephus the Jewish historian places Babel in the days of  Nimrod as well, showing the Tower was not so much a stairway to heaven as it was a great tower of an idolatrous nature, or a “temple for heaven” built by the hand of man outside the desire of God. The people said, “let us make brick and burn them thoroughly” (Gen 11:3). They had knowledge and ability to build, as they knew how to cure bricks. When the children are held captive in Egypt they had both skill and labor, one of the driving forces behind Pharaoh refusing to let the children go was based on losing both skill and labor. Here we find they had the skill to form and make brick, thus they had the labor skills displaying how the Breath of God was active, but man had twisted it to darkness (Jn 3:19).

They also used slime for mortar, ugh! The word Slime refers to a pitch which is still found in the area of Babylon. It’s soft until it bakes in the sun for a period of time, then it gets hard. It would be the same pitch which destroyed Sodom later. However the point here is how these people knew to construct towers. Pre-Historic man lived in caves, but these people so close to the Flood, and fairly close to the Fall had intelligence and abilities. The Breath of life carried with it much, the measure of faith, the soul, intellect, and the ability to form and invent. Man was given logic intelligence, something no prehistoric creature held, no animal or plant possesses it either. Man calls this ability “creativity”, but these people are not creating, they are using the creations to form them into something else. They didn’t say, “Brick be”, they made them from clay.

Their desire was to gain their own “name” lest they be scattered upon the face of the earth. The word Name in this case not only refers to an Authority, but to a Glory or a Fame, they were building their own Glory, calling it heaven. They wanted a Name outside of God, they were forming their own religion.

Nimrod is also associated in mythology with the “queen of heaven”, and other idolatry images. Many cultures still hold Nimrod as the father of organized idol worship. Stories about him have surfaced in different cultures, showing the religions of those cultures came from the Tower. Since Nimrod had information of the flood, we find the flood woven into many of these religions, but twisted to honor man, not God. The people considered Nimrod a hero, a great man, holding him in the same position as they would a god. Nimrod elevated himself in the eyes of man, setting himself up as a great one, but of course he is dead, God is not. However, where did he get his knowledge? From Ham, it was Ham who used the same elements the people did before the flood, thus the trait did carry on, but it can’t be generational, since it was restricted to a part of Ham’s line.

God said, Let us go down and confound their language, but why? They were attempting to make the one language their stronghold of power with their Tower as their authority. God saw whatever they imagined, they would do, they had the ability, it could not be restrained from them (Gen 11:6). The word Imagined is the Hebrew Zamam meaning To plot, or Devise, the word could apply both in an evil, or good sense. It was used to describe the Lord carrying out His purposes and judgments against wicked nations, it was used to show the mind of the wicked plotting their evil. Paul said the wicked lie in wait to deceive, which means they make plans in secret places in their minds to bring about deception. Here in Genesis it shows their intent was to build an idol, form a one world government and religion, thus their imagination would be toward idol worship. The word Restrained means To become callous, it was used to show an Elevated mental posture. God is halting the outbreak of united idolatry religion, since it would bring ruin the entire nation. This is another example of God Preserving mankind, God could have allowed the flood to kill all mankind, but He didn’t, it wasn’t in the plan. The time and timing of God is something the natural mind of man simply can’t comprehend. 

What they didn’t want, was to be scattered, yet they were scattered, thus God intervened to save man from himself. When God confounded the languages, they were surely confounded. Today we have people translate from one language into another, thus the languages are still confounded. The word Babel means confused, the Jews called the Gentiles “Bar, bar” which was short for Barbarian, meaning a confused resident of Babel.

The most obvious question comes into play, if God knew this would happen, why even bring about the flood? Why not just let it continue to the tower, then bring the flood? To some of us it might appear as if God put the cart before the horse. No, it merely shows the nature of fallen man, flood, no flood, token, no token, man was man. There were those who stood in faith, as the Book of Hebrews shows. Perhaps being among those of faith is better than we thought? The truth remains, there is none righteousness, no not one, but would God make an exception? If God does, is He a Respecter of Persons? Can God violate His own procedures? Perhaps find a man who has a need, then the man will believe in what God tells him, allowing it to be by faith.

ABRAHAM

According to Jewish writings Terah the father of Abraham was an idol maker, Joshua 24:2 confirms Terah worshipped idols, more specifically we find the Hebrew Abad for the word Served in Joshua 24:2 meaning to Labor, it was used by early Hebrew scholars to show Terah was an idol maker. We know about Canaan, as he was cursed, yet Abraham isn’t a descendent of Cush, Canaan or Ham, and neither is Terah, rather Terah is from Shem, yet he was involved in idols. The confounded languages prevented something from coming to pass, but the purpose was not to stop idol worship. It’s evident, thus the purpose was to prevent man from joining in unity with one evil leader, rather man was to be divided so they can be United in Christ, which was yet to come.

When Haran died Terah took his family to the “shadow of the curse” (Canaan) because he couldn’t accept the death of his son Haran. Josephus indicates Terah hated Chaldea because of the death of his son, then moved to a location associated with his son’s name. It’s hard to lose a loved one, but why run off into a cursed area? Abram will not allow the events of his father to affect him, this gives us a great clue to being free of generational curses. When Abram “hears” the voice (word) of the Lord, he is able to “leave his father’s house”. Many times it’s simply letting go of the past, then looking toward Jesus the Author and Finisher of Faith.

When Terah first left the Ur, Abram had not yet heard from God, this move was Terah’s idea. Terah was in the land of his birth when Haran died, he simply couldn’t remain. At this point in time Abraham was still Abram, the name Abram in the Hebrew means “exalted father” or “father of many”, whereas Abraham in the Hebrew means “father of a multitude” or “father of many nations”. Funny what a difference one word can make, father of many could mean a father of seven, but add “nations” and it goes much further. Abram will begin with small steps of obedience, over a period of testing and building, he moves upward until he reaches a point to be Abraham, the man of Covenant with God.

How could God use Abram, the son of  an idol worshiper? Not in our church, bless God, no way, but God looks at a person’s heart. Putting away idols, turning to God, yet not saying a word is just as much repentance as crying your eyes out on the altar. We know all beginnings were created by Jesus, so did Jesus create the beginning of idol worship? No,  it means idol worship is the result of a counterfeit. Counterfeits are copies of the original formed by those who lack the authority or permission to make a copy; they give the unlawful appearance of the real thing, with a motive of tricking someone into thinking the counterfeit is the real thing. Counterfeits do have a start, but they do not have a Beginning. “Sounds the same to me”. They are not the same, a beginning is the original, a counterfeit is an illegal attempt to copy the original. The first fifty dollar bill was the original, unlawful copies were then made by those who lacked the authority; thus a counterfeit is an unlawful copy of the original, in many cases it was made to trick another.

Someone might label Abram as “born into idolatry and will die in idolatry”, but God had a plan for the man. Abram would look at those dumb idols everyday, he would see his dad worship them. Accordingly, Abram would see his father make an idol, then worship it. The thing made by the man, has become his god? At some point in time he had to question all this, then the Lord spoke to him. So, how did he know it was the Lord? The voice had more knowledge than he, beside making sense, yet all those dumb idols never said a thing, the worship of them made no sense at all.

If go back to the chart regarding the ages of these people we can see how Shem would have been around when Abram was born, he perhaps told Abram of the Flood and how God delivered them. All cultures have a flood story, but it only proves there was one. It would be one thing if only the Jews had a flood story, but so many cultures? How did they know of such a thing? The Table of nations shows each of Noah’s sons had sons, each was told of the experiences of the Flood, each told it to their children and so on. Mix the premise with the Tower and you get some very elaborate fables, but the Bible record not only gives us the Flood, but many truthful details, including how man became a meat eater, as well as the animals becoming meat eaters. Nonetheless we are now following one path from Noah to Jesus.

Here we have a man whose name can mean “father of many”, he walks down the street and someone says, “Hi what’s your name”, he says, “Father of many”, “Oh, so how many children do you have”, “none”, “oh, I see, a nut case”. Then God says, “you are now Abraham (Father of many nations)”, now he walks down the street and someone says, “Hi who are you?”, he says, “Father of many nations”, “Wow, great, how many children do you have?”, “none”, “Oh I see, you’re a whacko”. Why would God do it? A sign for the man’s belief, it would be his believe to lead to the imputed righteousness, so it could be by faith. Without the Covenant there is no Hope, without Hope faith has no existence.

Abram didn’t change his own name, then expect God to honor it, rather it was God who changed Abram’s name, then Abram accepted it by believing what God said. The fact remained, whether it was Abram or Abraham, he still didn't have one child, even when God changed his name. What is in a name? It means Authority, God was changing the man’s position of authority, the same as He does with us when we enter the Body of Christ. We don’t cast out devils in our name, but in the Name (Authority) of Jesus. God projected a promise, it was up to Abram to believe into it, even if there appeared no evidence. Imputing? Yes, God spoke, Abraham believed in God, it allowed God to impute the promise when the man accepted the name change to prove his belief.

The premise of imputing is the issue behind our faith in God, the very point made in Romans. Does it appear as if we’re Justified by God? No, but our faith says, God has begun a good work, He will finish it. This is far different from Abram coming up with his own promise, then presuming God would honor it. It may not sound like much of a difference, but it’s the difference between God prom­ising, and man presuming.

When God changed the man’s name, Abraham could have said, “You know God I really like the name Abraham, but when we’re around other people let’s just keep it Abram”. He could have, but he didn’t. Why? He entered the promise, making his decision to walk in what God said. We do the same, belief is matter of choice, yet do we appear Saved? For the most part we look like other people, oh sure we buy reversed collars, or a hand full of bumper stickers, perhaps have a Bible as big as a suitcase, but really our appearance is no different from many others until our actions depict a new nature. Does it mean we are not saved from the world? Does it mean we don’t have the Spirit? Does it mean we are not being saved by the Spirit? Not at all, our Character is the sign, our faith is a now confidence in the promised hope Jesus gave us, He is fully able to complete it by the Spirit. We have signs as well, thus the signs tell us God is doing a good work. Signs are vital, if not they wouldn’t follow Believers; yet there is a difference in running around seeking signs, and having them follow us. When they follow us, they are the result of our belief. When we run around looking for them, we are seeking something tangible to believe in.  

Abram’s story lays out many Beginnings for us, but he was just a human who believed God was able to produce what God promised. We tend to get all involved in celebrity Christianity, but here was a man no one knew, yet from him God would build a people, then a nation, from the nation would come the Messiah. 

Abram married Sarai, who was the daughter of Terah (Abram’s father), but not the daughter of Abram's mother. Abram married his half sister, again this would be prior to the genes being so corrupted such a union would be destructive. A mark of manhood in those days was having a “man child”, which is still true in many cultures today. Even for the women this is true, when it was almost time for a Jewish woman to give birth the husband would call all his friends, then set a large table. If the midwife would say, “it’s a man child”, they would celebrate for hours, but if the midwife would say, “it’s a girl”, they would fold up the table and go home. Take the premise to Abraham’s circumstance, he couldn’t even set up the table, much less celebrate.

As we know, Abram heard from God and obeyed. As a result of his continual belief and obedience God would say to him, "I will bless them who bless you and curse him who curses you" (Gen 12:3). Later God will look at Abraham’s belief as “righteous”, giving the man the benefit, but Abraham believed God for more than a day, or a week, the imputed righteousness came after years of Abraham believing God, thus he held a continual belief in the face of many adverse events. Some of us want God to jump off the throne and dance when we believe in Him for twenty minutes, next time think of Abraham.

It's interesting to note how God will bless them but curse "him"; therefore, the same he in the world was cursed long ago. This is another clue, perhaps a key to freedom for those who suffer under generational curses. The “curse” is always based in this “he”, get free of the “he”, be free of the curse. This “he” is the spirit of man, the old nature which stems from the father of all curses, the devil. The old nature is cursed by association, whether the fall or not, it’s still a curse hanging over those in darkness.

This doesn’t say the man Abram will do the cursing, really neither will God. When we walk as a blessing, yet someone attempts to curse us, they curse themselves. This is another area where God is making a statement of fact, who can curse what God has blessed? If they try, they end cursed, yet God’s blessed, remain blessed. For those of us in Grace we can see the importance of  “bless and curse not”.

Abram believed God, the continual belief allowed God to impute righteousness on the man’s belief, thus allowing the man coupled to the belief to enter a Covenant so it could be by faith. However, Abraham is the first giving us insight to why we are “Sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise” (Eph 1:13). Jesus went to the Cross, but if He was never raised, what hope have we? None, therefore Paul tells us we must believe Jesus is raised from the dead. The indication of Covenant with Abram is found in Genesis 12:2-3; although God speaks of the Seed, there is no real tangible Covenant, or a token relating to the Covenant. Abraham being descended form Noah knew the Token for Noah’s Covenant, but what about Abraham? He believed, but lacked something giving him Hope, without Hope it could not be by faith. How was God going to do this?

 After we find Abraham believed God, then righteousness was imputed we find the Covenant taking effect in a way to ensure Abraham how it could be by faith. Abraham while not circumcised gave the sacrifices as the Lord commanded (Gen 15:9-11), with the one proviso Abram was looking for, the Token of the Covenant (Gen 15:18). The Covenant Promise gave Abraham Hope, Hope generates Faith, since faith must have a future hope (Heb 11:1). We are Sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, the Token is our foundation for our faith to reach to the Hope of being Partakers in the First Resurrection. The Token is not a sign as such, it’s the Signature on the contract, Abraham’s Covenant pointed to offspring, but God will leave His Signature in the midst of the sacrifice. For us we have not seen the Cross, we did not touch the Resurrected Jesus, but we have a promise, “blessed are they who have not seen, yet have believed” (Jn 20:29). The phrase Have not seen is past tense, the have believed is past tense; becoming a foundation for faith, yet belief is not faith, rather belief in God becomes the premise for our faith to be Godly in nature.

The evidence here tells us God will take care of the cursing, it was up to Abraham to be the blessing. This mixing of blessing and cursing is the foundation for the Law of Moses, not the Law of the Spirit. The Law of the Spirit is void of cursing, thus we will find elements of the Promise of Abraham pointing to the Jews, yet the shadow also points to Christ. For instance when God talks to Isaac we read, "I will be with you, and will bless you", but we don't find the word "curse" or the phrase "curse him who curses you" (Gen 26:3-5). The answer is found in the New Testament when Paul shows the allegory of Isaac points to Christ, thus we bless and curse not (Gal 3:19-22 & Rom 12:14-15).

John the Baptist preached the kingdom at hand, not in hand. There was a Preparation time, the same is true here. God desired to enter Covenant with Abraham, but something was lacking: Abraham lacked standing with God in order to enter Covenant. Of course we all lacked standing with God to enter the New Covenant, but the Faith and Righteousness of Jesus granted us the right to accept what He did for us. The New Covenant is not an extension of the Old, rather it reached an area none of the other Covenants could grant, an area beyond death, rather than avoiding it.

Zion is the mountain of the Lord, the one on the earth has a city built on it, the city contains people, the Mount of the earth was promised to the Seed of Abraham, but the Seed as One was promised more than the mountain. There is Zion of the earth upon which the earthly city of Jerusalem is built, which is promised to the Seed many. There is heavenly Zion (The Rock), upon which the Church (New Jerusalem) is built, which is promised to those with the Seed (singular). Therefore, we find a division in the promise to Abraham, one we must divide, or we will end chasing the natural, missing the spiritual.   

The fleshly desire for self-righteousness motivates us to chase covenants we have no right to, yet we excuse those lusts because the covenants “come from God”. It’s never from Whom they came, it’s to whom they were directed. Material minded people tend to think the material blessing is a sign of holi­ness, it is not, neither is it a sign of "faith", since Faith is a confi­dence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If you can see it, it's not hope, since hope can't be seen. It doesn't mean we are not suppose to have things, rather it shows we don't trust in things, nor do we brag on the things as some proof of our relationship with Jesus. Most of all we don’t reverse the order and “seek ye first the things”. Jesus desires for us to have things, but He also desires for us to follow the procedures He has established.

Religious pride uses material things as a platform from which to boast, or equate the flesh as a sign of holiness. “Look at this great temple, of course since we have it, we must be holy”. Then comes Jesus to prove you wrong. Holiness and Right­eousness are within, the things are added when we do our part by seeking the Kingdom of God (the Spirit), as well as God’s Righteousness (found in the New Man – Eph 4:24).

The carnal mind can still have an outward confession of "I'm serving God"; but an inward confession of, "It's mine, It's mine, it's all mine, ha ha ha". The carnal mind always tends to "out God" others. What? We have all been there, when we at­tempt to Share from a pure heart by giving God the glory, there is someone standing by to "out God" us. Perhaps someone said, "God is so good, I needed fifty dollars, and the Lord provided", then comes, "Oh I know, He gave me six hundred, but I didn’t even need it". Perhaps it was, "God healed my bro­ken hand", then comes another with, "Oh yes, He healed my hand, my foot and my nose". The point being, competition is not a kingdom attribute. We are not sent to out do one another, it leads to division not unity. The Blessing of Abraham is the Seed, when we have the Seed of God we are the Blessed of the Almighty. What did Abraham want? A new ax? No, a son, define the blessing, then seek the right one. Discern, don't burn.

Abram didn't leave the Ur of the Chaldees because God told him to, later at Haran God will speak to Abram: rather Genesis 11:31 tells us Terah "took Abram" from the Ur of the Chaldees to Haran. Wait, wasn't one of Terah's sons named Haran? Yes, Haran was also the father of Lot, as well as the brother of Abram (Gen 11:26). Ha­ran died in the Ur of the Chaldees, but Terah went to a place with the same name as his lost son. This explains why Stephen correctly noted how Abram left the Ur of the Chaldees, but God called Abram from Haran (Acts 7:4). In Genesis 11:32 we find Terah died in Haran, this was a city with a name just like his dead son, the man died in self-pity and remorse, yet he had two sons, a daughter, and a grandson all living. He never considered the Precious in hand, he longed for what was gone, falling deeper into self-pity and despair.

When Abram was in Haran God told him to leave his "father's house", but was Abram's father dead at the time? (Gen 12:1 & 11:32). No, well, Yes, for all intents and purposes, thus God didn't say, "leave your father", He said leave the "House", the house was based in idol worship. Abram dropped everything to do with idols, then followed God's command (Gen 12:4). Terah was 70 years old when Abram was born (Gen 11:26), he lived to be 205 years old (Gen 11:32), which means he lived another 135 years after Abram was born. Abram will begin his journey when he is 75 years of age, showing Terah was still alive, but as far as God was concerned the man died when he refused to leave the dead for the living. In Acts 7:4 Stephen says Terah was already dead when Abram left, but in Genesis we find he was not physically dead. We find Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born, it would be another 35 years before Terah finally died (Gen 21:5). Did Stephen error? No, for all intents and purposes Terah was dead when he couldn’t let the dead bury the dead; in essence he associated himself with the dead, becoming dead. 

Terah is also a type and shadow of one who wonders “what if?”, it’s not easy to lose a loved one, but it’s also too late to wonder if we should have said more, or less, or something, or anything. Those wild imaginations will bury us, Jesus told us to let the dead bury the dead (Matt 8:22). It may sound cruel, but it’s not. We have no idea what God sees in another person, we will miss them, but we can’t bring them back. Terah mourned the dead, until he became the walking dead, but Abram moved on with God.

As a child when Abram was growing up he watched his father’s “gods”, yet none of them talked, walked, or did anything. There are four names no Jew would ever name their child. One is of course Jesus, the second is Terach (idol worshipers) which is the Hebrew spelling for Terah, the next is Datan (traitor), lastly is Lilith (demon). God told Abram to leave the house of idol worship, Abram obeyed, becoming the first step of his belief. The location of Haran was not only the name of one of Terah's sons, but it was also the center of idol worship for the entire region, thus where Terah stopped, he died, yet his House remained in Haran. Jewish history shows Terah continued to worship and probably made idols until he died, surely Abram had to leave the house. In the area where we believe the Ur of the Chaldees was located they have found many idols, one is called the “goat tree”, showing a goat standing behind a tree. The “tree” had branches attached to it, apparently represented the extensions of the idolatry priesthood. There were some who felt this “goat tree” was really a “tribute” made by Abraham representing the “ram in the thicket”, but Abraham knew the danger of making idols of any kind, there is no record whatsoever of the man ever making a idol after he left the Ur of the Chaldees, rather he named places after God.  

Abram heard God say, "I will make a great nation of you", then he moves to Bethel where he hears God say, "Unto your seed will I give this land" (Gen 12:7); however, the indicators, or Tokens of a Covenant were not yet granted. This is to Abram, not Abraham, the issue will be very important later. Abram moves from Bethel finding famine in the land, but wait, didn't God say He would bless Abram? Yes, but we seem to forget, first comes the Promise, then the test unto the promise, then the Promise in hand.

When Abram found famine he could have said, “great, who wants this?”, or “I knew it, I always get the junk”, but he knew better, thus indicating his belief was “God Is”, regardless of the event or what the land looked like. Neither did he send out notices telling the people to get off his land, God promised, God would deliver. Not only was the land in famine, but the people didn't bow to Abram, or say, "Oh great one, this is your land”. No? How dare they reject the owner of the land? Didn’t God send a forerunner, someone to tell these people the new owner was coming? No, Abram knew the promise was At hand, not In hand, he walked the land as if it was his, but without saying it was. If God would have told him to voice the claim, then he would of; if God tells us to, then do so. However, here is another principle, one wherein the man knew it was his, the people didn’t, so who would he believe? In his heart he knew the truth, yet the land in hand really didn’t come until Joshua crossed the Jordan, there were also battles to obtain the land.

Some of us have been given promises by God, yet we looked about and found Famine in the land. Did God lie? Was it our own soul counterfeiting the voice of God? Or is it a principle of Faith? Ahh, a promise at hand, a testing to put it in hand. It must begin with Belief so it can be by Faith. Remember this, never de­spise prophesyings, quench not the Spirit, rather Rejoice evermore, giving Thanks for all Things (I Thess 5:16-20). Romans 8:28 tells us all things work together for good to them who love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. So someone we loved died, or was killed, is it good? We have no food, how is it good? The verse doesn’t say “immediate”, neither does it pick one event over another, rather it’s inclusive “all things”. The premise is finding the Precious, rather than the Vile, thus we find the Precious to support our Belief in God. If we are in the hand of God as we say, then the event, no matter how horrid it may seem has something in it to establish us deeper into the Christ nature. Abram heard many things, but the physical evidence was completely the opposite of the promise. Abram’s belief will play a major role in this, but was it enough to gain the Promise? His faith will come later, but would it be enough to acquire the real Promise? According to the eleventh chapter of Hebrews the combined faith of all the Old Testament saints wasn’t enough to gain The Promise, yet we know they entered the land. Our measure of faith will not gain the Promise, we must submit to the Faith of Jesus in order to gain access. The faith of Jesus has obtained, our measure is not enough to obtain, thus we put our faith in Jesus as the New Man will lead us on the path of Righteousness. In the case of Abraham it was a son, something within natural Hope.

If Grace is the vehicle, yet one can fall from Grace it doesn't take a genius to find  this is a process calling for our constant belief in Jesus. On one hand we have "Jesus will never leave you nor forsake you", but on the other we have, "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. Lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright" (Heb 12:14-16). For one morsel? Sounds like the fall doesn't it? Our fear of God knows the power to resist God is in our hands, just as the Power to seek after God is in our hands, we have the Keys. Our joy comes by knowing as long as we are Diligently seeking God, we're in God's will. Some contend Salvation is the gift, if one is looking to the result of Grace, they may be correct; however, there is no verse saying Salvation is the Gift, there is no verse saying Salvation belongs to us as a gift. It’s important, since our natural mind tends to think we have the result, before the race has begun. “Oh, wait kind sir, Romans 6:23 talks about the Gift of God being Eternal Life, is it not the same as Salvation?”. The word Gift in Romans 6:23 is the Greek Charisma, which is the action based on Grace (Charis), thus in Romans 12:6 we find Grace is the basis. Romans 12:6 could read, “having then Charisma differing according to the Charis given to us”; therefore Romans 6:23 shows the Result of Grace is Eternal Life. Although no man or beast can remove us from the hand of Jesus, the Scriptures do say we can be as Esau by rejecting our birthright, causing one to fall from Grace. Although it’s not easy, rather it takes a considerable amount of work to reject our birthright; it’s far easier to walk in the Spirit, than reject the Gift.

Abraham was accounted as righteous because he believed, but his faith needed to be justified to become strong. In this we find something interesting, the belief brought the imputed righteousness, but the man’s faith brought the promise, yet the same faith had to be tested. We know God imputed righteousness on the belief of Abraham, but was Abraham working to obtain righteousness? No, when we work to obtain righteousness, it ends as self-righteousness; therefore, we receive the Righteousness of God, just as we receive His love. When we think we are righteous by doing deeds, even deeds under the anointing, we are mistaken. Who gave us the anointing? God? If so it’s by Him we are able, yet we’re attempting to take the credit? Paul saw the Commandment “thou shall not Covet” falling against anyone who attempts to do works of the flesh to gain favor from God. If God had not made Himself known, how then would we know Him? If God had not given us the measure of faith, how then could we walk by faith? It all begins with God, it’s the old man who attempts to tell us it begins with us.

Abram's first step was, "Get thee out of your country and from your kindred and from your father's house, unto a land I will show you" (Gen 12:1). Abram heard from God, his belief was in the word, yet his faith was in “I will show you”. Abram had no idea where he was going, yet he obeyed. This also shows why he didn’t claim the land, it was not in hand. Some of us want all the details before we consider moving, not exactly faith centered. Not only did Abram believe God, but he held a love and respect for God, the key to the Works of Abraham is found in Genesis 22:18. It was not the Doing, but the doing based on Obedience, yet the Obedience came after Abraham Heard. For us we know faith comes by hear­ing, but the hearing by the Word, but after faith comes we apply obedience by doing what is expected. All this shows when God spoke Abram Heard, then he had the motivation to make a Step, but the step was the beginning of the race, not the finish. God’s work with Abraham took many years, so why not simply wait until the man was 96 or 100, then come to him? Process, the example of Abraham shows God deals with us through Process. Nearly everything God does with us is a Process, it began when we first came to the Lord, it didn’t end there. We are a generation of “fast food” people, some want fast salvation as well. God still works by Process, if we walk by faith, we must also have Patience. There are suddenlies with God, but they too are a process, the event came quickly, but our belief was established before the suddenly.

God started with one experience for Abram, then another and another, until the man’s belief was as clear to him, as it was to God. Abram made mistakes along his path, but nonetheless he maintained his belief in God. Abram's mistakes were also points wherein his belief grew, thus his mistakes turned into lessons. When Abram told his wife, "say you are my sister", it was still based on belief. Abraham was told his seed would inherit, thus as far as he knew, the seed was in the womb of his wife at the moment, or beginning to develop when Abraham faced what appeared to be certain death. God never promised him he would see his seed become many nations, only his seed would be. Abraham didn't know if Sarah was pregnant or not, he did know the promise would be through Isaac, thus if Sarah was pregnant Abraham knew she would survive, God would protect her for the Seed’s (Promise) sake. Peter makes note of this, reminding us how the holy women of Old Trusted in God (I Pet 3:2-5). Peter's teach­ing shows we may find ourselves under ungodly authority, or in an event with all the appearances of destruction, but the purpose is to show us how God can de­liver us when we trust in Him. Peter also shows when someone trusts in God, yet the words of Amazement arise, their trust in God will protect them (I Pet 3:6). The word Amaze­ment means, To cause fear, it's the words of Amazement causing most of us to run in fear. The words of Amazement will come, but it doesn't mean we have to receive them. Sarah didn't receive them, instead she trusted in God based on the promise, she also submitted to her husband; knowing submission is a Godly weapon in the face of adversity.

When Pharaoh looked upon Sarai as his own, the Lord plagued his house (Gen 12:16-17). Pharaoh called for Abram saying, "What is this you have done unto me? why did you not tell me she was your wife?" (Gen 12:18). In this case Sarai (later to be Sarah) remained silent, trusting in God; whereas, Eve debated with the devil trusting in her opinion. It's also interesting to note how Sarai trusted God to protect her, but later failed at believing God could bring about the prom­ise. Belief has many venues, we can believe God will protect us, yet hold unbelief in reference to Him being able to supply our need.      

Abram left Egypt taking Lot with him (Gen 13:1); Lot was Abram's nephew, the son of Abram's brother Haran, but when Haran died, Abram took Lot as his own son. We will see Lot referred to as Abram's nephew, his son, or his brother, all of which are correct. Wait, the son and nephew I can see, but brother? According to Hebrew tradition Lot took the place of his father, thus in the eyes of Abram, Lot was entitled to the same honor as Haran. Later Abram will father Ishmael, the son of manipulation, then Abraham will father Isaac, the son of promise, even later Abraham will have more sons by a different wife (Gen 25:1-6). However, Isaac was the only one who inherited the promise, but Lot followed Abram gaining through his relationship with Abram (Abraham); however, Lot was not a member of the Covenant, and knew it. Lot gained by association, some of us think we can hang around those who are anointed, or somehow the anointing will “rub off” like powder. If we’re in the Body we have the anointing, but the anointing in the office is for the person in the office. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me”; if we have the Spirit, we’re anointed (Luke 4:18). The Yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing (Isa 10:27): the anointing doesn’t destroy the Yoke, the Yoke is destroyed because of the Anointing. Put it all together, if we have the Spirit we have the Anointing, if we have the Anointing, the Yoke is destroyed. Don’t look for it, walk in it.

Lot gained material items by association, he learned how to stand righteous by not associating with the people of Sodom, but his association never gained him entry into the Covenant, nonetheless he was delivered before destruction came; the type shows we will be delivered by our association with Jesus by the Spirit. Lot never disputed with Abram, but the workers of the Abram and Lot entered strife over the land (Gen 13:7-8). Abram being a good “king” (metaphoric, one over the land), knew strife and contention would only breed more strife, thus he made a decision, as all good kings do, giving Lot his choice within the land. Lot looked about and Saw the plain of Jordan, assuming it was like unto "the Garden of the Lord" (Gen 13:10). Fat chance, within was the city of Sodom, and the men of Sodom were Wicked (Gen 13:13). Lot was moved by what he saw, but found he would have to fight to maintain his belief in the midst of unbelief. However, since Lot had an association with Abram he would be delivered when the destruction yet to come (II Pet 2:7).

The people of Sodom had no respect for God, yet the city appeared blessed, so much so, it attracted Lot. Sodom is a direct offspring of Canaan, the impurity of Sodom shows the curse was not something Noah put on Canaan, but something Noah saw as a prophetic word about Canaan. The people of Sodom rejected the concept of the wrath of God, as it was in the days of Lot, so shall it be in the latter days (Luke 17:28). This shows one element of the Doctrine of Christ is "eternal judgment", with our knowledge we keep our eyes focused on Grace, not Judgment, yet if there is an eternal Judgment, there is also eternal Salvation.

Numbers are important to God; however, if we take the numbers and stars pointing them to man, rather than God, we have sinned. The Magi used the star to find the Baby Jesus, they didn't use the stars to find their future, or the future of Herod. Here in Genesis we will find how useful numbers can be, yet we don’t want to be paranoid over numbers, simply use them as aids. In the days of Amraphel the king of Shinar, the kings of the land served until the 13th year, then they rebelled (Gen 14:1-4). The number 13 has been the number of rebellion since then, yet the number 13 has three positions; it can mean one in rebellion, it can be a warning us we’re in the company of rebellion, or it can mean rebellion being broken, it depends on the context and situation. Here we find the first use of the number 13 shows Rebellion, but we don’t want to enter Triskaidekaphobia (fear of the number 13) either, in order to get to 14 (double rest in blessing) one has to get past 13. 

Chedorlaomer with his confederates came to the "vale of Siddim" which is also the Salt Sea to engage in battle (Gen 14:3). The word Vale means Valley, Siddim means Depression, thus the rebellion took them to battle in the pit of depression. The king of Sodom with four other kings came to the vale of Siddim where they fought against Chedorlaomer (Gen 14:9). In Genesis 14:9 it may appear as if the king of Sodom joined Chedorlaomer in the phrase "four kings with five"; however, the word With means nearness, thus it's not a matter of the five kings joining forces with the four, but the five coming against the four in the same area. This is clearer when we read how the king of Sodom made tracks in the sand, yet it was Chedor­laomer who took Lot, plus the possessions of Sodom (Gen 14:10-11 & 14:17).

There are some like phrases found in the Old with like appearances in the New, but their meanings are different. There is a circumcision under the Old, another type under the New, although it's the same word they have different meanings. There is sabbath under the Old, another type under the New, they too are different. There is a Jubilee under the Old, another type under the New, yet different by definition. Under the Old the Jubilee was a time, under the New it's Jesus. The Old had its Covenant, the New has one as well, yet the New Covenant is not an extension of the Old, rather it's completely New. It holds a New kingdom, a New priestly Order, with New Commandments, thus it calls for it's own definitions. If someone told us we had to circumcised of the flesh in order to enter the New Covenant, we would show them the Letter to the Galatians, explaining how under the New we are circumcised of heart. Although the Old and New both came from God, we can't mix them one into the other, they were sent to different people, in different realms, for two different reasons.

Before we jump into this teaching given here in Genesis we have to define a few things, the actual word Tithe doesn’t appear in the Bible until Leviticus 27:30, thus the Tithe is under the Law, but don’t panic, there are other matters to consider. The Tither is one who pays Tithes under the Law by the Commandment, the priests over them take their tithes by Commandment. The “tithes” are the thing given, but if there is no Commandment regarding the exact amount to be given it’s still “tithes” with the amount or thing given in the power of the giver. When Hebrews addressed this issue it never said Abram was a “tither”, nor did it say Abram pay Tithe, rather it was “tithes”. Further in Paul’s day there was a division, did Abram pay tithes of all he possessed? Or did he pay tithes on what he recovered from the kings? This is based on the meaning of the word Tithe, which does mean “ten”, but the root word means “spoils from the enemy”. How did the Book of Hebrews address this great controversy? In Hebrews 7:2 it says, “gave a tenth part of all”, but in 7:4 it says, “gave a tenth of the spoils”. Hebrews points out what does it matter how much he gave? The point is he gave without a Commandment telling him to give, more important the context in Hebrews is not about Abraham, but about the one who received the man’s tithes.

The Tithe under the Law of Moses is based on two elements, Grudgingly with the Commandment twisting the person’s arm, and of Necessity, meaning a promise of a higher benefit than what one gives. The difference between the Tither under the Old, and the Cheerful Giver in the New is great. The Order of Priesthood is a major difference, under the Old the priests were Commanded to take tithe from the people, but under the New the priests have no such right, or commandment, yet they can Receive the tithes. We can get all hung up on how much Abram gave, but the point is the division of priesthoods, indicating the change from “take tithes” to “receive tithes”. It may not seem important, but it’s a tremendous division between the Old and New.

If we have ever read the Book of Hebrews we know there is a difference between the Old priesthood and the New. Under the Old no one could legitimately be both a king an a priest, but under the New we find Jesus has made us kings and priests (Rev 1:6 & 5:10). A kingdom is where the will of the king is carried out, yet who are our subjects? A kingdom without subjects seems doomed to failure, so what does each of us being a king mean? A king is also the one who enforces the rules in the kingdom, if the king says, "nay it’s not a law anymore", then it's not. However, we are to judge ourselves; if we decide "well bless God, I'm not going to do it", we don't have to, as a king we just made a rule. If the rule does not conform to the Rules of the Kingdom Order we will have to answer to the King of kings.            

If we make carnal ordinances in our kingdom, yet feel comfortable, we have made a carnal kingdom, yet our kingdom will be judged in the end. The danger is being comfortable with a rule in our kingdom, then finding out it’s directly opposed to the King of kings. Laws or rules take careful determination before we enforce them in our kingdom; we could even define something wrongly, forming the rule from the improper definition.  

Our priestly order is much different from the Old, in the Old the high priest was only allowed to enter the holiest of all once a year, but under the New we as priests can come boldly to the throne of Grace to obtain Mercy and find Grace anytime there is a need (Heb 4:16). Which brings us to our subject, under the Old Covenant the tithe was based on Commandment, under the New there are tithes, not the Tithe. However, in Genesis we find the basis for the Tithe under the Law, as well as the tithes given by the cheerful giver.

Today there seems to be arguments on both sides of the fence, with some on the fence wondering which side is right. "You will be hard pressed to prove to me the Tithe is for the New Testament", "If you don't give tithes you're not a Christian", "tithing is up to the person", "if you don't give tithes here, you can't attend", or the hidden tithe, the one where we are told to purchase items if we are really “Christian”, then there is the Balaam tithe, "I minister to you, I'm the one you tithe to"; yet all, even the Balaam tithe have verses to back them up. Of course there are verses to back up using circumcision of the flesh, or keeping the sabbath day as well. Is there any clear evidence? What do the Scriptures say?

The Book of Hebrews is not written to Hebrews, it's written about them. In truth we are the Hebrews of the New Covenant, since Hebrew means one Wandering as they look for their kingdom. After reading the Book of Hebrews it doesn't take long to find it's our priestly manual, just as Leviticus is the priestly manual for the Levitical order. Hebrews chapters 7, 8 and 9 lay out the differences between the Order of the Levitical as opposed to the New Order of our priesthood. Whether Aaron is the priest, or his sons, there was an Order dictating what they could, or could not do. We do find the shadow, Moses sprinkled the people with the blood of the sacrifice, Jesus sprinkles us with His Blood (Heb 9:13 & I Pet 1:2). The establishment of the priestly orders for both are different as well, Moses received the Law from God, then gave it to the people; within the Law it called for priests: in Hebrews we find Jesus as our High Priest necessitated a change in Laws (Heb 7:12). Moses and Aaron were of the tribe of Levi, but Jesus is the lion from the tribe of Judah, there is no provision in the Old order for anyone from the tribe of Judah to be a priest. The New Law enjoined both Jew and Gentile as priests unto God for the Body of Christ.

There also appears to very different procedures for the priests, under the Old the priest took tithes based on Commandment, but under the New we find the priest receives tithes without a commandment (Heb 7:6 et al). In truth we find there is no provision for any New Testament priest to take tithes from anyone, thus under the New we find tithes connected to the Melchisedec Order, not the man but his Order (Heb 7:21 & Ps 110:4). If there is a difference, no matter how small it may appear, there is a division and separation. If it’s the case, we must determine the differences.

How then do we apply sound study discipline? There is a theory wherein it's felt in order to define any concept or metaphor we must go to the first place the word or concept was first used. It’s fine in some instances, but not all. There are many things defined in the New Testament regarding the Old; tithes become one of those areas where the clarity comes from the New. However, we still begin at the first place the term Tithes, but we will also find this first time is not defined for us in the Old Testament, rather we will have to travel to the Book of Hebrews in order to gain. We begin in Genesis as Abram (Abraham) went out to rescue Lot by defeating Lot’s captors, as Abram returned from battle he came to Sodom.

This is all connected to the next event, it was after Abram made a choice to save Lot wherein he would find a priest of God, a man so important he is noted here, once in Psalms, then again in the Book of Hebrews as a type and shadow of the priestly Order of the New Covenant. These events all came before Abraham makes his Covenant with God, they also point to the reason God imputed righteousness toward the man. Prior God promised Abram many things, but actual entrance into a Covenant lacked a Token or Sign, or a Covenant. In essence God gave Abram a Blessing, but the Covenant was no yet (Gen 12:2-3). The area of a Token is vital, a Token is like a signature, it's something the person, or God does to secure the Covenant, allowing it to by faith; therefore, it can’t be by faith unless we have a Covenant. The rainbow is like the signature of God regarding the Noahic Covenant. Our water baptism is our signature regarding induction into the Body of Christ backed up by our Belief. The baptism with the Holy Ghost is the signature of Jesus granting us a New heart (Spirit). It’s also the Token of Grace known to us as the Seal of the Holy Spirit, but we can grieve the same Holy Spirit by whom we are sealed (Eph 1:13 & 4:30). The Token for the Law of Moses is not circumcision, it's keeping the sabbath day. If someone attempted to keep one point of the Law of Moses to gain favor from the Law, yet they didn't keep the sabbath day, they are a "covenant breaker". If someone attempted to obtain the Abrahamic Covenant, yet they were not circumcised of the flesh on the eighth day, they were a thief. The Tokens grant one the right to invoke the elements of the Covenant, no Token, no right.

Let's determine if the meeting between Abram and Melchisedec is part of the Old Covenant, or does it relate to the New? We are a people of Faith, faith includes many things, one of them is the proper division and acceptance of the Covenant set before us. Tithing under the Old was not of faith, since the Law of Moses was not of faith, but doesn't the Bible say anything not done in faith is sin (Rom 14:23)? Wow, wait, don't panic, there is hope in this, there are two tithes in the Bible, both are alluded to in Genesis (or did we say that?). If we can make the division between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart, as well as between the sabbath day and the Rest of God, we understand the definitions show us how there was a change not only in Laws but in priestly Orders; from there we can surely make the separation between the two tithes. The old saying, "well tithing was before the Law" is true, but so was circumcision of the flesh, yet we read in the letter to the Galatians how attempting to gain the Abrahamic Covenant can cause us to fall from Grace. We want the elements delivered to us, but we must define them rightly. There is a glorious blessing in this, but there is a danger, both relate to the word "tithes", both relate to leaders, attitudes and motives.

Abram loved God, but had yet to find anyone else who loved God as he did. When he came face to face with Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God, he found a person who loved God, he was so happy he couldn't help but give (Gen 14:18). This is very interesting in two respects, first is the obvious, how could there be a Priest without a Law? The Law to ordain priests was yet to come with Moses, but there we find the grandfather of Moses (Levi) was still in the loins of Abram; with Moses was way down the line. What Law? The only Law in force at this time was the Law of sin and death; however, there was an Order Melchizedek followed. A mystery indeed. What makes a priest? An order, what makes the order? The rites and performances of the priest. What rites do we know about regarding the "Order of Melchizedek"? Therein lays the mystery and blessing. In the Book of Hebrews we find the clarity, there can be a Priest without a law, but there cannot be a priest without an Order. It’s the Order, or Procedures we are interested in, what do the priests under a certain Order do? What does the Order allow them to do, what does it not allow them to do?

Consider this man, no Jew was legally ever king and priest, yet this man was, but Jesus has made us kings and priests (Gen 14:18 & Rev 1:6). Second we find God said He would bless those who blessed Abram, but God never told Abram to bless anyone, nor was Abram under a commandment to give, yet he did so from a Cheerful heart. The character of the man was to give, no arm twisting, no promise of return, no one taking his tithes from him, no threats, or manipulation, just a man who loved to give. This wasn’t the only time, he did give Lot land and substance.

Some of us won't give unless we know there is a return, but is it giving? Or investing? If we don't get the return, we stop giving, what does it tell us about our heart? It’s not what we have to give, but the motivation and intent behind the giving which determines our heart. Giving is not always money, one can give time, prayer, consideration, or many other things not associated to money. For some reason we focus on money, the first thing we hear in opposition is, “How much do I have to give, ten percent?”. A lack of knowledge regarding “tithes”. The Tithe is by commandment, the Tither is one under Commandment, the tithes are the things given. Without the Commandment telling us the specifics on what to give, it leaves the amount or thing in the hand of the giver. Under the Law of Moses it was the opposite, the giver was bound to the Tithe, the priests by Commandment had to Take the tithes of the people. Without a Commandment allowing the leaders to take the tithes, they must receive without forcing the tithes from the person. If one lacks authority to take something, yet they take it anyway, they are a thief.

 The motive of greed behind the giving is so bad in some cases, we find people using the term, "investing in the Kingdom", as if the Kingdom were some stock market. Of course it's our money, God should consider Himself lucky if we give any of it, right? Don't get mad, just keep reading, the truth will always set us free. Leadership is not out of this either, without a Commandment allowing leaders to take tithe, they are a thief if they force, manipulate or set rules regarding tithing. We can see there is not only a vast difference between taking and receiving, but the authorization to do either is in question as well.

We can't twist this meeting between Abraham and Melchisedec into something it wasn't, we can't say since Levi was still in the loins of Abraham the Jews are suppose to pay tithes to us. "After all, we are after the Order of Melchisedec, are we not? After all Levi is commanded to take tithe, so why doesn't Levi give tithes to us as did Abraham?". Sounds right, but it's so wrong, and we know it. Yet, in order to either avoid the word "tithes", or to enforce it we have used the same deception found at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There is a place of division, one wherein we can feel right about our priestly position while using our kingly position in a Godly manner.

Going back a pace or two, we recall how Lot left Abraham then moved to Sodom, the rebellious kings captured Lot with the rest of the people of Sodom. Abram heard of the capture of Lot, then set out to free him, it just so happen he freed all the others as well. After Abram gained the freedom of Lot with the other people he came face to face with this priest. It then shows there was a purpose in God allowing the capture of Lot. This meeting between Abram and Melchizedek would never had taken place: did God cause the rebellion in the kings to take place so they would capture Lot? No, there is no rebellion in God, but God did take advantage of the situation, then wrote it into the plan. What the devil planned for destruction, God used to benefit His own. Just another example of how God didn't bring the event, but used it for the benefit of His people.

The meeting between Melchizedek, Abram and the king of Sodom took place before the promise came, but after Abram was called a Hebrew (Gen 14:13). Hebrew means a sojourner, Abram didn't fit the calling until God called him to leave his father's house. This Melchizedek was not Jesus, rather he is a type of the Order of the Priesthood of Jesus. In Hebrews 7:3 we find this Melchizedek is “made like unto” the Son of God, the Greek word is Aphomoiomenos meaning Similar or Like unto, but not an exactness. Also the Scripture doesn’t say Jesus was made like unto Melchizedek, it’s the Order at issue. The event here in Genesis is given to us in Scripture penned by a man who had no idea of the New Covenant yet to come. Then in Psalm 110:4 we find, "You are a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek". This is exciting, since it doesn’t say “A High Priest”, even in the Hebrew it doesn’t refer to a high priest, thus Psalm 110:4 points to us, our High Priest is Jesus, we are forever under the Order of Melchizedek, but what does the Order call for?

It's vital for us to see this is an Order, Psalm 110 doesn't say, You are priest after Melchizedek, rather it points to the Order. Neither did Moses or the Psalmist know the Order of Melchizedek would be used in the Book of Hebrews, more important, Abram never knew this event would be written down later. It's not like writing the Book of Hebrews, then changing Genesis and Psalms to fit the premise, this is all something written years before relating to something in the future. These matters are given to us as reasons to believe, we can see the hand of the Holy Ghost behind the scribes, knowing God is putting this together for us.

We have to consider this Melchizedek, who was without mother or father, but wait: Jesus has a Father, He called Mary His mother. Ah ha, a mystery a foot. Not really; Melchizedek has no recorded genealogy in any Jewish record, thus he was a Gentile, really at the time of the meeting so was Abram; therefore the first time we find the word Tithes, it's between two Gentiles. This has to relate to the New Covenant, the first time we find the word "Gentile" is in Genesis 10:5, a Jew is someone separated from the Gentiles, thus they are not the Sea, but the Sand of the Sea. In any case we know the Bible shows three types of people, the Jew, the Gentile, and the Christian who is neither Jew or Gentile. The Christian was not in the picture until after the Ascension of Jesus, thus at the meeting the Jew was not yet, meaning these are Gentiles.

All Jews up to 70 AD could trace their family history, we know both Matthew and Luke did in reference to Jesus, but here this Priest of the Most High has no family record, yet Hebrews was written before the Temple was destroyed. Abram (Not Abraham) paid tithes to a Gentile many years before there was a Law of Moses, or the Law of the Tithe. We can't assume since Melchizedek received tithes he received it for all time either, since it would mean God made a terrible mistake in making tithes part of the Law of Moses, considering Levi was in the loins of Abraham, yet paid tithes as well (Heb 7:9-10). No, it's not  the man, but the Order we're interested in (got it?). 

It's in the Book of Hebrews where we find the importance of this meeting, even a man like Paul could never put all this together if not for the Holy Ghost. The Book of Hebrews shows us there are two types of tithes, only one is based on the heart, the other is based on Commandment. The Tithe under the Law of Moses is based on Commandment, it's difficult to say something has passed through the Cross in light of Colossians 2:14-15 where we find the Law of Moses with all it contains is nailed to the Cross. Colossians 2:16 tells us not to let any man deceive us into thinking anything from either the Law of Moses or the Ten Commandments did come through the Cross. The Law of Moses is attached to the Ten Commandments, since both are linked together by the "sabbath day", yet both are nailed to the Cross with all curses (Col 2:14-15 & Gal 3:13).  

Just as we find a type of circumcision before the Cross, we find tithes, just as we find a completely different circumcision after the Cross, we find different tithes. Under the Law not only was there a Commandment to Give, but the Priests were commanded to "take" (Heb 7:5 & Neh 10:38). The interesting part of the meeting is how Abram refused to “receive or give” to the king of Sodom, which removes this meeting from the Tithe under the Law of Moses. If Levi was in Abram, then God was completely mistaken when He commanded the priests to take tithes. However, if the Giving of Abram was not by Commandment, but set for a different time and people based on the Seed of God, then we have a mystery unfolded.

One might say, "the man only gave tithes once", which is not true, since he gave to Lot as well; nonetheless Jesus also said, "sell what you have, give to the poor, and follow Me", a one time event as well. Paul points to the action, not whether or not it was "ten percent", or “all”, rather it’s a Order the New Testament priests follows. The ten percent rule is still Old Testament, in the New it connects to "spoken to us by His Son". We give by "nature", under the Old they lacked the New nature. The principle of "tithes", is much different from the Commandment to Tithe. In the Book of Hebrews the question of whether it was a tenth of all, or of the spoils is addressed, but not answered, since it really doesn’t matter, we are seeking to understand the Order (Heb 7:2 & 7:4). Also Abram only took the Bread and Wine once, so with the logic of him only giving tithes once, we must also conclude we can’t take Communion more than once, yet Paul said whenever we assemble (I Cor 11:21-34). The giving was to a “priest” which means to a “ministry”, since there was no “storehouse” of God at the time. The point in Hebrews is not the man Abram, or Abraham, but the Order of the priesthood being changed. Since they are two different Laws for two different people, no one can hold both priesthoods.

Although in both the Old and New it's still the word "tithes", the manner, method, definitions, conditions, more important the character of the giver differ. We like to use Malachi 3:10 where God said to Prove Him, but we must look at the type of people God is talking to. They are self-based, self-seeking, looking for what they can gain, not what they can offer. Although God will open the Windows for them, He will also close the Door. A thief attempts to come into through the Window, Paul told us to stop stealing, but work with our hands so we may have to give, which connects to the concept of "tithes", but not the Tithe, or the Tither. If we fit the group the saying, "It is vain to serve God, and what profit is it that we have kept His ordinance, and we have walked mournfully before the Lord", then claim Malachi, but know the Door is shut. On the other hand there is the Cheerful Giver, who need not be manipulated by verse, or picture, or guilt, nor do they need a promise of a return, they are like unto Abram, who give because they want to, not because they have to. It was the difference between Abel and Cain, Cain did what he had to, Abel did what he wanted to do; only Abel was noted as having faith.

What if our pastor says, “We are going to receive your tithes and offerings”, is it taking tithes? No, it’s receiving. What if our pastor said, “If you don’t give, I will come over to your house and take it from you”, or “If you don’t give you will be cursed”? Both of those are “taking tithes” which is under the wrong Order. Therefore we are all priests, but we are restricted to the Order of our Priesthood as we give and receive. Under the Old the people gave, the priests took, but under the New we both give and receive.

However, there is something connected to Grace which might help us; the Greek Charis is translated as Grace, the word Charismatic simply means Grace (Charis) Motivated (matic), just as Automatic means self-motivated. There is also the word Charisma, with the suffix Ma showing an action; Charisma is then the action to Charis. In Romans chapter 12:6-21 Paul lists the Charisma of Charis as products of the nature and character of one who has Grace by being Born Again. We all have gifts (Charisma) according to Grace (Charis), these gifts are not, "gee I want one of those, and two of those, and oh what's that, nay none", they are attributes of the New Nature. The gifts of Grace in Romans are not the same as the Manifestation of the Spirit found in First Corinthians, yet both relate to being Born Again. In Romans 12 we find the seven elements, (1) prophecy, this is not the Office, yet it is speaking from the Spirit; then (2) ministry, then (3) teaching, which is not the office either, rather it’s the ability to disciple others, then (4) exhorting, then (5) "giving", then (6) ruling, then (7) mercy. One of those elements is Giving, but it's not "ten percent", rather it's "with simplicity" the word Simplicity is the Greek Haplotes meaning not self-seeking, or having an openness of heart manifesting itself by generosity, not only does it define a "cheerful giver", but it negates one from being among those noted in Malachi.

On the same note there are some who either want to control their money, or they want something in return, a plate with their name on it, a pew with a view, a box of tapes, or a promise of a return greater than the amount given. The "mindset" is the same one the tithe under the Law of Moses was designed for, the priests under the Law had to take tithe by Commandment, just as the person under the Law is commanded to give. The priests in the time of Jesus were enforcing the Law, because the person under the Law required the enforcement; the Rich man who walked away form Jesus proved it. The Rich man was required to give ten percent, but Jesus told him to give all, it was not required, but the man trusted his riches. Jesus merely gave him a way to be free of trusting in riches, so he could trust in God. Abram didn't give to gain a return, there was no promise of a return, there was no commandment telling him to give, there was no commandment telling Melchisedec to receive, yet his Order mandated it (Heb 7:1 & 7:8).

The Book of Hebrews gives us a division in natures as well, under the Old they needed someone to walk around making sure they did the Commandments, under the New we hold the keys to the kingdom. God is not going to make us give, or make us pray, or make us speak honestly, He will give us the Seed to sow, the Grace to speak words of comfort to the hearer, but we are still kings. Of course we know we will face the King of kings regarding how we kept our kingdom.

The priests under the Old use the methods of the Old, manipulation, or a promise of a return. Although the Commandment was to give, it takes a priest to take the tithes before the person will give. Offended yet? Don't be there is some really good news here,  this in no way is "anti-tithe", in fact you will find it is very "pro-tithes", but it does make a division between the two tithes. The word Tithe stands for "ten percent" as it relates to the Commandment as defined in the Law, but it is not applicable under the New, but the word tithes is. As far as mandating the ten percent rule we read in Leviticus 27:31 how the priests had to add a fifth part to the Tithe, thus the Tithe isn’t always ten percent.

The difference between "take" and “receive" is great, so great we can't find "receive" under the Old or "take" under the New. In Second Corinthians Paul was encouraging the Corinthians to keep their word to pay as they had promised one year prior. The payment was not tithes, but an offering, or something given to another over and above the need for the ministry. It was regarding the church in Jerusalem, when they were going through the drought. Nonetheless the rules of the Order applied, which means they knew Paul couldn’t take tithes from them. Paul was in a tough position, the Corinthians were fast with their mouths, but slow with their wallets. He had to remind them of their commitment, but do it without "taking". The test was just as much on Paul, as it was on the Corinthians; however, the Holy Ghost (as always) brings the Wisdom to keep all things in Godly order. Paul told the Corinthians a cheerful giver never gives of necessity (in want of a return) or grudgingly (by arm twisting or manipulation - II Cor 9:7). He did not mention the "giving" of Charisma, but of course he was talking to carnal people. As a Godly New Testament priest Paul could not take tithe for two reasons, the most obvious is he would be putting himself under a Law not designed for the spiritual person, also he would be enforcing the Tithe under the Old upon people wherein he no justification, probability ending putting a Curse on the giver and taker. The division is great, so great some are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. This is a very important area, on one hand if we are a cheerful giver, we’re loved of God, if we tithe under the Law of Moses we attach ourselves to something nailed to the Cross, which makes us unable to reach the Resurrection Power of Christ.

This meeting between Melchizedek and Abram (Abraham) was not Grace based, but it would display an Order of a priesthood vital to the New Testament priest. The meeting introduced the word Tithes, but not in the same concept found in the Law of Moses, but nonetheless connected. It doesn't take long to find Abram paid tithes only to the man of God, we are not told if he did it again or not, but the point was for us to note the Order, not the man. Although Abram gave to a person, the Tithe under the Law is not giving to any person, or any sect it is specifically directed to the Temple in Jerusalem, there is only one "storehouse", there are no "storehouses" (Mal 3:10 & Luke 12:24).

This one time tithes paying by Abram was for something yet to come regarding his offspring. He would later find how his offspring would be held captive in Egypt, then released, yet when he faced Melchizedek he didn't know about the Egypt condition. This mystery is found in the Book of Hebrews where we find "Abraham" paid tithes, but clearly from the text in Genesis we see it was Abram, not Abraham (Heb 7:6). How could this be? Could it be an error? Not at all, a mystery regarding the Covenant yet to come. The difference is between the man promised the Covenant, and the man who held it. Accordingly Hebrews links the giving to the man’s nature, then to the Covenant God gave the man. As Abraham, he paid for the deliverance of the children out of Egypt, thus God remembered (Ex 2:24). However, the children rebelled in the wilderness wherein they found the Tithe under the Law, yet not of the Order of Melchizedek.

The Book of Hebrews is important in this area, being our priestly manual it lays out the Order and procedure for giving under the New. If we reject it, we reject the priestly Order, yet Jesus is our High Priest under the Order (Heb 7:15, 7:20-21 & 9:11). Hebrews makes a division between those who are subject to the Law of Moses, and those who are subject to the Law of the Spirit. We can claim to be Christian all day long, but there is a nature connected to the title, it's by the nature (ways) we shall know them.

There was another division in receiving as well, Abram wouldn't take a dime from the king of Sodom, but he took Bread and Wine from the priest, in return he gave to the priest. Which came first? It was the blessing and giving by Melchizedek, not the paying of tithes by Abram; thus the giving by Melchizedek predicated the giving of Abram. Did Melchizedek give tithes? No, he gave a blessing, in the blessing he gave God the glory for the success of Abram (Gen 14:20). It’s the priestly Order, to Bless and curse not, thus it was the blessing which predicated the giving, but under the Law of Moses it's just the opposite. Under the Law of Moses one has to give to be blessed, but under the Law of the Spirit one gives because they are blessed. Paul told the Corinthians, "Upon the first day of the week (Sunday) let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him" (I Cor 16:2). It was not, "as God will prosper", but as God Has; also it clearly shows they came together on Sunday, the first day of the week.

We know Paul paid alms, which is giving to the poor, but he never said he paid tithes, why is it? It's explained in Romans and Hebrews, the Christian is endued with a Power from on High called Grace, as part of the Gift we find certain attributes. Those attributes are Character traits, or things of ones New Character separating them from those under the old character. We just looked at the attributes from Romans, one of them was giving, or "distributing to the necessity of saints", not the necessity of the world, or the "storehouse", but specifically to the saints, which includes leadership as well as other priests in the same Order. Don't muzzle the ox, but let your giving be between you and the Lord (I Tim 5:17-18 & I Cor 9:9). Under the Old the Tithe was a point of self-righteousness, something they bragged in, but under the New it’s a private matter between the person and the Lord (Their heart or Holy Spirit).

We also know Paul worked while at Corinth, but he worked to supply the needs of those associated with his ministry; he noted later how he refused to take money from the carnal Corinthians, just like we find Abram refusing to take from the king of Sodom. Although Paul will say he robbed the Corinthians by not taking their money, he also knew they would brag in how they supported him, or think it was their giving which caused Paul to be an Apostle: thus bragging about our giving negates our reward in heaven (II Cor 9:1-2 & 11:8).

Abram didn't buy the bread and wine, but something touched his heart, then he put an action to his love. Abram didn’t give thinking he would free his offspring from Egypt, he didn’t give thinking God would impute righteousness on him, he didn’t give to impress God or Melchizedek, he gave because he felt Blessed. Did he get a Return? Yes, did he demand one? No, did he give based on the return? No. Prior to this meeting Abram gave Lot a great amount of cattle and land. Did he have to? No, it was his nature. God so loved the world, He gave, so is the only reason He gave was to get the return? No, He gave based on Agapao love which is based in a Joy, or better the Love of giving based on being cheerful. Will He get a return? Yes, but the return was not His motive for giving.

The children in the wilderness had gold, the same gold they took from Egypt, but they were the first to hear they Had to pay Tithe. Why were they allowed to take Egypt’s gold? A laborer is worth their wages, Egypt owed them, yet they rejected the purpose of their deliverance, finding the Tithe under the Law forcing them to give by Commandment.

Since Genesis 14:20 is the first place we find the word "tithes", we better get our foundation right, or we will find ourselves mixed up and confused over the principle. The Genesis account shows us two areas of tithes, one was by Abram, the other of Jacob. We have to jump ahead to look at the Jacob method, before we can understand what is going on here between Abram and Melchizedek. A brief note on Jacob's story, he is a product of Isaac, the same person from which God will draw forth the nation. From Jacob would come Levi, from Levi would come the priestly order under the Law of Moses. However, before Jacob became Israel, he was forced to leave his house because he tricked his father regarding the inheritance, yet prior his brother gave him the inheritance (blessing). Jacob's mother had a brother named Laban, thus she sent Jacob to Laban's house, where we pick up the story. We find Jacob on the run, with nothing but a rock for a pillow, yet the man made a "vow" to God. This "vow" was to give God a tenth of everything God gave him, some deal. It's obvious the man knew of the principle, but he conditioned the giving, which is a far cry from what Abram, his grandfather did. Abram gave from what he had, Jacob is making a deal for God to give to him, then he will give a tenth to God, thus we find Jacob's tithes are between him and God, but Abram's was between him and the priest of the most high. It’s an important issue, removing Abram from giving or taking tithes by a Law or Commandment. Most if not all of our giving is not to God, it’s to the people of God on behalf of God. Jacob also conditioned the giving on a point which helps us define the attitude of the children in the wilderness. Jacob had a dream wherein the Lord stood in heaven saying, “I am the Lord God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac” (Gen 28:13). When Jacob awoke he made a vow, if God would protect him, give him food, then when he returned to the same place Jacob would make God his God. At the time Jacob had not made God, his God, thus the attitude of the children in the wilderness was acting like God was against them, not for them. The first premise of Faith is not Faith, but believing God Is, then faith takes over looking at God as a Rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. The children in the wilderness were Jacob minded, they demanded, or tempted God, thus God gave them a Law through Moses to separate them from Him, yet at the same time giving them something to either bless or curse them. In the meeting with Abram and Melchizedek there was no mention of cursing, it was Blessing to the Blessed. 

What Jacob did was not faith, but manipulation; "gee God, I don't have a thing, but if you give me a hundred dollars, I will give you back 10". Where would he give his tithes? His grandfather Abram gave it to the priest, who would Jacob give it to? The rock he was using for a pillow? His other pocket? Would God go for this type of behavior? Jacob was the only person in Genesis to use the word "tenth” (Hebrew Asar), with Abram we read how he gave Tithes (Hebrew Ma’aser, from the Hebrew Asar, showing the connection to Jacob’s usage). What other “tenth” do we find? In the tenth month the mountains were seen, the flood was over (Gen 8:5). The very next time we find the word Tenth is when Jacob uses it. By Jacob making mention of the principle we know he had knowledge, but he was using the principle in a much different way than Abram, he used it for his advantage to manipulate protection and deliverance from God. He was paying God off, or using God as his employee, as one would use a bodyguard. Will God endure this? Or will God out smart Jacob by taking the man at his word by using the event for the good of the nation?

Clearly Jacob is tempting God, just as the children in the wilderness did, giving us another connection between the tithe of Jacob with the tithe of the Law of Moses, as well as dividing the giving of Abram from the tithe under the Law of Moses. Who else was in the loins of Abram? Judah, the same tribe Jesus came from, but there is no provision in the Law of Moses for anyone from the tribe of Judah to become a priest, yet Jesus as our High Priest, He also made us priests. Under the Law of Moses? No, there is no provision. What then? A New Law, one calling for a new priesthood, with a New order, the Order of Melchisedec. Division? By miles.

We find God did meet with Jacob on way back to Jacob's homeland some 20 years later, then He held the man to his vow, but what could Jacob give? His sons, thus the Jacob vow became the product of the Tithe under the Law directed to the tribes, it was based on giving to get, not the other way around. We also find God was not the God of Jacob when he made his vow (Gen 28:17-21). It was more of a "prove Me" element as we find in Malachi 3:10-18.

Although Jacob used the Hebrew word related to "tithe" we have to see the nature and motive between Abram and Jacob are much different. We could say Jacob had nothing to give, even the rock wasn't his, but Jacob's vow was based in the fear regarding what laid ahead. What a difference, Abram knew his wealth came from God, he gave without any strings attached. Jacob on the other hand was attempting to get God to bless him, showing he was "proving" God based on possessions not in hand, but yet to come. Plus, Jacob was going to make God his God IF God blessed him. Paul says God gives us the Seed, in Jacob's case it was God Must give the Seed, two completely different things.

The two different motives become the point in the Book of Hebrews, under the Old it was not a ministry, but by Commandment, yet under the New it's associated with the Bread and Wine making the giving a ministry. We give to ministries and saints, but our giving is a ministry in itself. The entire context is the attitude of the priests under the New Order has to be far different than those under the Old. Yet, all of us in the Body are priests: if so, who do we give to? We as priests give to the priests under our Order, but we still give Alms to those in need whoever they are. Romans 12 bears this out as Paul says the giving is, “distributing to the necessity of the saints” (Rom 12:13).

Malachi does have a warning for those of us in the New Covenant, "the Table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat is contemptible" (Mal 1:12). How could this happen? They profaned the table by saying the table was profaned (Mal 1:12). What would cause it? Mixture of Covenants, causing a mixing of priesthoods (Mal 1:13-2:1-4). Paul gave us a list of people the Law of Moses was made for, do the Law and you fit the List, if you fit the List do the Law (I Tim 1:9-10). The same is true in Malachi, if you fit the group then claim Malachi, but if you claim Malachi you are saying you fit the group who say, "what's in it for me?", you are also accepting the Window, but refusing the Door.

We find the Sacrifice of Jesus caused a "change" in Laws, not a change in the Law, but a change from one Law to another (Heb 7:12). None of us would argue against the premise of Jesus as our High Priest, but if it’s the case then what Order does He belong to? When did He begin His role as High Priest? The second Jesus became an offering His priesthood began, yet it is evident Jesus is from the Tribe of Judah, which tribe Moses  spoke nothing concerning the priesthood (Heb 7:14). Since the Priesthood came before the Law, how can we do the Law of the Spirit, yet not the Order of the Priesthood?

Since the Priesthood was changed through Jesus, it also means the Ordinances in the New Law are also different. The Law of Moses still has its priesthood, the Law of the Spirit has its priesthood. The Law of Moses has an Order, or functions for the priests outlined in the Book of Leviticus, the Law of the Spirit has an Order as well. Jesus is not the high priest under the Law of Moses, but He is our High Priest according to the Law of the Spirit. In the shadow of our Order we find Abram's giving to the man whose Order becomes important. Abram is not of the Order, but the man he gave to is the type and shadow of the Order. It’s not Abram’s giving defining the Order, it’s what Melchisedec did defining the Order. We get all hung up on what Abram did, but miss the Order of Melchisedec (Heb 7:9). Who cares how much Abram gave? We want to know what Melchisedec did. The Order of the Priesthood of Jesus is not “the Order of Abram”, but the Order of Melchisedec.

No one is telling us to do any aspect of the Law of Moses; however, can we agree on this: There was a Change in Laws. If so, let us look at the division of the Laws, to ascertain if we can gain. If we consider Jacob's vow, then equate it to our modern culture it would be akin to entering a bank, telling the president of the bank we wanted to borrow a hundred thousand dollars, yet we will do him a great big favor by paying back ten thousand. Any bank going for a deal under those conditions won't stay in business long. This was not "interest" paid over the amount borrowed, it was giving back ten percent of the entire amount borrowed, it’s no where near faith. Jacob never talked about the tithe before, never talked about giving before, but now he was in danger, he used a principle to protect his future, the children complained and murmured, yet feared entering the Promised Land. They were more like Jacob, than Abraham.

Where did Jacob make this vow? "This stone (rock), which I have set a pillar, shall be God's house". Who said it was to be God's house? God? Or Jacob? Jacob, it was just another form of manipulation, if Jacob was using the rock as a pillow, who then was the "head of the rock"? Jacob. We know the Temple was build in Jerusalem of the earth on the rock known as Zion, Jesus would build His Church on the Rock (Christ the Body), but Jacob made himself the Head of this rock.

When Jacob was returning back home, God came to the same place to receive the promised tithe, the sons of Jacob. Jacob made the vow to God, and God collected. On the other hand Jesus "receives" our tithes through His priests. "Lord, when did we give to you? When you gave to the least of these". God loves a cheerful giver, not the giving of the giver,  rather the giving is merely a sign of the heart of the person. Do they listen to God? Do they do as the Lord says? The tithes under the New are not ten percent, it's heart based, there is no Commandment regulating the percentage. The Book of Hebrews says the Levites Take tithes by Commandment, but Melchizedek Received tithes. The same principle we find in "Kingdom Theology", we are kings, as kings we govern our kingdom (not the kingdom of God, but our space in the kingdom of heaven), we can determine what stays, or goes, the priestly order is the same, we can reject any concept of the priestly Order granted us, but some day we will have to face our High Priest.

The old nature will take advantage of the New Order, assuming "I don't have to give anything", or, "I will give because I get so much back", but it defines the nature of the person doesn't it? Under the New the priest cannot take (ask for, or demand) tithes, they cannot fleece God's sheep, or sell the Dove, as Examples they must also Trust God to meet their Need. It's difficult to tell people we walk by faith, when we sell items at a 400 percent markup. Or worse we don't put a price on the goods, but make them feel as if they are not Christian if they don't give, it’s still “taking tithes”. 

The Levites had no choice in the matter, they had to Take tithe, thus the power of giving was not in the hand of the giver, but in hand of the taker. The wording used in the Book of Hebrews gives us a clue to all this, the Greek word in reference to taking tithes is Apodekatoo, the Greek word in reference to Abram giving tithes is Dekatoo. The addition of the Greek Apo means From, but it shows the separation of a person or object from a person or object. The Law of Moses took from the people any way it could, but we of the New Order have the power to Give, not to Take. No Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor or Teacher is granted permission, nor do they have legal standing to take tithes, anyone who takes anything illegally is a thief, yet a thief is known because they attempt to use unlawful means. However, all the priests of Jesus have an Order and legal standing to receive tithes as an act of ministry. A laborer is worth his wages, don’t muzzle the ox.

The Pharisees looked at the widow with two pennies figuring, "so, she has to give", Jesus looked at her and said she was blessed for giving out of her need. Why? She wasn't required to give, she was a "widow indeed", she could have demanded for the religious leaders to care for her, but she ministered by giving when it wasn't required, therein lays the difference.

The wording "take tithes", and "receive tithes" may not seem like much of a difference, but we begin to see it is the very separation between Laws and Natures. In the Greek the order of Aaron demands for the priests to "tithe the people", but in Abram's case he gave without being told. Abram was moved by his own heart, compassion and love for someone who loved God. It’s a far cry from someone threatening us, or demanding we give, or making us feel like a thief for not giving. 

What happens if our leaders have to "tithe us"? We're back under the Law. Will we still receive a benefit from the Tithe under the Law? Yes, the Law has a power, it operates based on the deed, not the person. However, just like circumcision of the flesh we are also in danger of falling from Grace. Perhaps our lack of power can be traced to this area, we give under the Old, but expect the Power from the New, it’s double minded. Or we attack the cheerful giving of others, but in so doing we are attacking the very Priesthood we are called to.

The anointing in the Office will still work, but it's not given to make the leaders famous, it's given to the leaders to assist the Body. Three areas will take Power from us, falling back to deeds under the Old to gain favor from the Law, commingling with the world, and unbelief.

When we received the Cross of Jesus we were no longer subject to the Law of Moses, when we received the Spirit of Truth we received a New Nature. The second we imputed ourselves dead by the Cross of Jesus we completed the purpose of the Law of Moses, which Law only granted man a long life until they gave up the ghost. When we can say, "I no longer life, but it is Christ who lives in me", we have completed the purpose of the Law of Moses, if completed we move on to a Law designed for those who have the life of Christ (Col 2:14-16).

Neither Jacob or Abram were under Commandment to give, but Abram didn't Vow to God, nor did he use the Rock, or the House of God to swear by, nor did he request or seek after, or expect a return. Where did Abram get the idea of "tithes"? No where, his giving was heart motivated, becoming the reminder for those under the Law. Perhaps the tenth part is associated to Noah, as the sign of being blessed when he saw the tops of the mountains, who knows, it doesn’t tell us. Did Melchizedek tell Abram, "you have to give now"? No, did he say, "I will give you bread and wine for your love gift of ten percent"? No, did he say, "we're going under if you don't give"? No, did he say, "if you don't give you're a thief". No, did he say, "give and God will return to you a hundred fold"? No, did he say anything about giving? No, his nature was to bless, thus he gave to the man blessed of God. The nature of Abram was to bless, those who bless are always blessed. Why would God talk about Blessing to Abram, if the man's nature was not to be a blessing? God saw Abram's heart, thus He knew what kind of man he was; God never told him, "you must bless, before I can bless you", rather it was "who blesses you I will bless". What did the man Melchizedek do? Blessed Abram, yet it’s true the greater blesses the lesser. We are under an Order greater than the Levitical.

What about the heart of the king of Sodom? His motive was self, neither Abram or Melchizedek took a thing from him, thus he was not a member of the grouping; defining why Paul said we minister to the saints. Whether we give tithes, or receive, we all have to check our motive, do we give, or receive to impress others? To have control? To get a return? To brag in our giving? Or to bless? If we reject tithing completely, why? Is it because we don't like people telling us what to do with our money? Do we reject the New priestly concepts? If we do, we also reject the Order of our High Priest (Heb 7:1-8-6).

This then takes us to Abram (Abraham), and how he gave tithes. The Order of Melchizedek is the key, but Abram is the giver. The Scriptures show us it was "once", it either made you glad, or made you mad. The time of exposure is here; if you were glad, you need to deal with it. If you were mad, you need to deal with it. "Well mad or glad, the fact remains it was one time". True but it's also true God imputed righteousness to the man once, it’s just as true the man only received the bread and wine once. Was righteousness imputed because he believed one time? No, his continued belief brought about the imputed righteousness, so it could be by faith. Did Abraham only give once? No, didn't he give to Lot? Yes, he gave to others in his family as well. Simply, it was the nature of the man to be a blessing, promoting the area of him being blessed. Some of us get real mad because we are not blessed, but are we a blessing?

The only time we find the word "tithes" connected to Abram is when he was dealing with the priest of the "most high God"; therefore, the concept of "tithes" is giving to those who serve the "most high God", those who hold the "Bread and Wine" respectfully. The amount is still between the giving priest and their High Priest, the amount isn't the issue in the New, the principle is. Simply because we give "tithes", doesn't mean we are a "Tither", nor does it mean we gave a "Tithe", it means we gave something God put in our hands to give: the same principle Paul gave the Corinthians (I Cor 16:2). At first glace First Corinthians 16:2 would seem to connect to the Jacob tithe, after all it was to give from what God give (I Cor 16:2). However, Paul never said "ten percent", rather it was, "as God has prospered", a complete opposite of the Jacob tithe. Paul knows God prospered them, thus they are able to give from what they received, rather than give to receive (II Cor 9:10). Corinthians does connect to the principle found in Hebrews, the concept of "tithes" under the New is not by Commandment, it’s a form of ministry (II Cor 9:10).

When we study the giving of Abram to Melchizedek we find the Covenant didn't come to Abraham until after the giving took place, the giving didn't take place until after a battle, the battle didn't take place until after the deliverance from Egypt, the deliverance from Egypt didn't take place until after the Call. All these aspects point to Paul's teaching to the Corinthians, affirmed in Philippians. This area is difficult at best, when one begins to teach on this subject they can count on the carnal minded saying, "oh boy here it comes, they're going to ask for money", or worse the Pharisees in the Body will resist with their personal attacks. Like the concept of circumcision of the flesh in the early days, the concept of tithes has become the thorn in the Body today. Once we make the Godly division between the two different types, as we did between the two different types of circumcision we can be at peace on the subject.

Why is it important? When we as priests minister the Bread (Body) and Wine (Blood of Christ) we are ministering the delivering agents of God's Mercy and Grace. Paul equated giving as an attribute of Grace (II Cor 9:8 & Rom 12:8). Abram didn't sit down and count out, "one for you, nine for me", neither did Melchisedec sit down to make sure Abram was giving exactly ten percent; however, all those under the Law of Moses must.

Our Priestly function, or Order is defined in the acts of Melchisedec, thus it's not the man, but his Order (Heb 7:20-21). If we are priests under our High Priest, then He has an Order, we better know the Order. Two elements we know, the Bread and Wine, in the Book of Hebrews the Blood of Jesus is mentioned, as well as the Body. We minister by giving the Bread and Wine, why then can't we see the giving entailed "tithes" without commandment as well? (Ph'l 4:15 & Heb 7:17-21). Another obvious area, is the respect the two men had for each other, we as priests have a duty to treat the other priests in our Order with respect.

We need to examine this area in order to keep us from being placed in bondage, or retaining strongholds, or holding covetousness, yet calling it "cheerful giving". If we don't give, why not? If God told us not to, fine, but if we're playing God by telling ourselves not to, we have a problem. In the area of giving, how is our kingdom run? If we give then brag on it, why? If we're making our decisions based on money we really need to examine our motives. Being cheerful because we don't give, or because we can control our giving is not the context of "cheerful giving". A cheerful giver is cheerful by nature, they don't need to jump up and down to be cheerful by expecting a return. A cheerful giver is cheerful before, during and after the giving, whether there is a return or not, it never matters how much they give, what matters is the cheerfulness. Why? A tither under the Law of Moses gets a return, yet they can be nasty, hateful, greedy, unbelieving, or nice, it didn’t matter, since the deed was honored. Under the New Order we find God deals with us on a personal level, He still loves a cheerful giver (II Cor 9:7). We can pay as a Tither, yet never have God notice us. We can be a cheerful giver, finding we are Loved of God. Which would seem better?

The giving of Abram is important, since we find at the very same time there was the king of Sodom who wanted to "give" to Abram, yet Abram rejected it. Wow, he gave, but refused to receive. He refused to receive from someone who would use the giving as a personal tool for self-exaltation, the same reason Paul refused to receive from the Corinthians (Gen 14:23).

The Book of Hebrews uses the Abram - Melchizedek principle showing the two different types of "tithes", and how they differ from the Jacob tithe becoming incorporated in the Law of Moses. One role of a teacher is to resolve controversy, it’s exactly what the Book of Hebrews does, if we receive it. It seems much of the controversy over this matter is when someone mixes the Old into the New, the same mistake made with circumcision, or the principle of sabbath.

All this shows us how Giving is in part of the spiritual nature of the Christian, Paul connects our nature of giving to Righteousness (II Cor 9:10). Some of us wonder if we're in Grace, there are signs, the desire to give is one of them. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, by a person's faith we can detect the source. If they are carnal, then the source of their faith is carnal. If their faith is like the Faith of Jesus, then the source is spiritual. It's not the amount of money, or even money, we can give words of encouragement, or prayer, which are all facets of giving. On the same note, some of us are afraid to ask God how much we can give, He may say, "give all you have". "Yikes, wrong voice, get behind me Satan, let me out of here". Faith has to trust God, we ask, we obey. The same God may say "give nothing", or "receive nothing from them", which is supported by Abram refusing to receive from the king of Sodom, or Paul refusing to receive from the Corinthians. Whatever the Lord says, do.      

A question we must consider, what happened to all of Lot's cattle? He left the presence of Abram because there wasn't enough room for the cattle, but the angels found him in the city, not in the country side. What happened? Why didn't Lot take his cattle when he left Sodom? It was just one chapter prior when Abram and Lot separated because "their substance was great" (Gen 13:6). Lot lost, or sold his possessions to live in the city, yet he was still delivered because of his association with Abram. How do we know? It was Abram the angels came to first, they only went to Lot based on Abram's conversation, it was Lot Abram interceded for. Lot in turn interceded for the angels, but separated himself from the vexing of the evil about him on a daily basis (II Pet 2:7), which was his "just" act. Lot was separated from the sin of the community, thus his separation made him "just", not "righteous". The Just shall live by faith, Lot is an example of those of us who have to venture into the world, but are not part of the world. As God delivered the just Lot before the wrath of God was poured out, He will deliver us in the Rapture before the Night begins.

Abraham held "imputed" righteousness, but his standing isn't anything like the standing we have. Abraham did not, and could not come boldly to the throne, the throne came to him. Lot by association of the intercession was treated as if he was a part of Abram, the same will be true with Moses in regards to those who associate with him. Protection and being able to come boldly to the throne are much different.

What has it to do with giving? Abram "gave" Lot a portion, because of the giving and receiving Lot was connected to Abram by association. God so loved He gave, we received making us heirs by association. How would we like if the Scripture read, "God so loved the world He gave ten percent of His only begotten Son", or "And Jesus went to the Cross and took ten percent of the curse", or "Father forgive ten percent of their sins, for they know not what they do", or "And the Holy Ghost has given unto us ten percent of the Seed of God"? Something to think about.

Abram gained his wealth in Egypt (Gen 12:16), but refused the gifts of the king of Sodom (Gen 14:22-23). The difference? Attitudes and intents of the giver. In Egypt the Pharaoh entreated Abram because he knew the importance of Sarai (Gen 12:16). Another example of giving; Pharaoh's house was plagued, but the respect Pharaoh gave Abram rid the house of the plague (Gen 12:16-20). Pharaoh’s giving was motivated by his knowledge of who Abram served, but the king of Sodom was looking for self-glory. This is important, Abram discerned the king of Sodom’s intent, the king wanted to brag in his giving, making it appear as if he made Abram rich. 

There was a process in the giving as well, in Genesis 14 we find the first contact between Abram and Melchizedek is when Melchizedek brought forth the bread and wine (Gen 14:18). Then Melchizedek blessed Abram by saying, "Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth" (Gen 14:19). Melchizedek didn't say, "bless are you Abram", rather it was "blessed be Abram", which means the priest was bestowing a blessing on Abram, without question the greater always blesses the lesser. Here this "Gentile priest" blessed the father of all Israel. From the one blessing Abram knew the heart of Melchizedek was God centered. Further the blessing of Melchizedek gave God the glory, the king of Sodom wanted the glory. The blessing of Melchizedek was part of the Order, indicating our Order is based in being a Blessing to Bless. The king of Sodom felt the things were his, after all he was the king of the land, but Melchizedek knew all things belonged to God. The word Possessor is the Hebrew Qanah meaning To own, or redeem, or possess by purchase. This priest knew whatever Abram had, it still belonged to God. It was a truth Abram knew as well, motivating Abram to give to the man of God. This same concept is found in Hebrews 10:38-39 in the phrase, "the saving of the soul". The Greek word for saving is not Sozo or Soteria, it's another Greek word meaning the Redemption of something purchased. The second we came to the Cross, our first sacrifice was to give our souls to Jesus, how then can we present a Sacrifice if we are not priests? How can we be Godly priests, if we reject the Order?

In all this we find three "king types", Abram as Abraham will be the father of many nations (multitudes), thus he is a type of king. Two of the three kings gave God the glory and exchanged gifts, the third king ran his kingdom from a heart of greed.

Abram fought, won, then brought back Lot, the goods and the people who were taken, all by the power of God. This is important since Abram will give "tithes of all" to the person who recognized the victory was God's doing (Gen 14:20). Did Abram keep the people? Or did he give ten percent of the people? Not hardly, but we have to see the chain of events: Melchizedek gave the man the elements, then blessed Abram. In truth Abram gave tithes of what he had, including what the king of Sodom thought he owed as well. The premise is still the Order, we as priests follow the Order, we give the Bread and Wine as we Bless, knowing it’s God who provides. 

Does taking the Bread and Wine mean Abram was the first human to partake of Communion? No, not at all, please don't build a stronghold. This is a Shadow, a type of something, showing how the "giving" was predicated by a blessing, the blessing came after giving the bread and wine, which are symbols associated with the Body of Christ. All this relates to our Order of Priesthood; therefore, this lesson is specific in nature, it points to us, showing there is a principle of tithes connected to us, but it's not the Tithe under the Law of Moses, neither is it by Commandment.

The Communion was shadowed in the Old Testament in several places, but not like it was in the meeting of Melchizedek and Abram. For Moses it was "the passing over of the destroyer", in Proverbs it was the difference between Wisdom and the strange woman (Prov 9), in Malachi it was the polluted table (Mal 1:11-12), but here it's Giving, Blessing and Receiving. It’s also important to note how the giving of the Bread and Wine is associated to the "tithes" of the New Covenant, not the "Tithe" under the Law of Moses. The restrictions in the Law came well after this meeting, yet we can get stuck in the wording. If our nature falls under the Law of Moses, then the priests have to take tithe in whatever manner, twisting the arm, manipulation, a promise of a return, or a threat of rejection, but if our nature falls under the Law of the Spirit the priests receive our tithes. If we associate ourselves to the Law of Moses we cannot be priests and kings, since we lack the tribal connections. Therein lays the difference, the nature we operate from dictates which Law we associate to.

For the most part we have no problem with the concept of being a "cheerful giver", but we really get tight jawed on the concept of tithes. Why? Because with the term "cheerful giver" we can control and regulate the amount given, or not, then say, "well as I purpose in my heart", but what is the heart? If we are circumcised of heart, then the New Heart is the New Man, meaning we give by Obedience.

 Most of us want Fellowship with God, but First John tells us the way we gain Fellowship with God is to treat the people of God, as God does. We can talk all day long about the "attributes" of God, but if we slander the Body we are not of God, rather we Bless as a priestly rite based on the mutual respect between those of the New Testament Order.

This ability to be both priest and king unto God is so great, it almost stuns the mind. No Jew was ever legally a priest and a king, they could be prophet and king, or prophet and priest, but not legally priest and king; yet Jesus has made us Both priests and kings, and all of us are to prophesy. It called for a New Order, one based in a New Law, not an addition to the Old aw. Our Order of Priesthood is under Jesus, the Lion from the Tribe of Judah showing the New is not an extension of the Old. The New Law calls for a spiritual priest, the old called for a carnal priest to carry out carnal ordinances; the differences abound.

The issue in the Book of Hebrews and in Psalm 110 is The Order of the Priesthood, as Abram, the father of the Jews gave tithes to a Gentile. The first concept of tithes is one man of God giving to another, but with Jacob it was God giving to Jacob before Jacob make God his God, much different, on the surface it would seem like Jacob's giving was more righteous, but manipulation is never righteousness.

In Psalm 110 the word "Order" is the Hebrew Dhivrah meaning Intent, Reason for doing, or the motive for the doing. What "Order" do we find for us in these Scriptures? Giving, Blessing, Receiving the Body (Bread) and the Blood (Wine), it’s the Order. How do we know? In the Book of Hebrews we find this Melchizedek "blessed" Abraham (Heb 7:1). There is no room in the New for any curse, we are not allowed to curse others, really we're not allowed to accept a curse, neither are we allowed to be cursed. We are blessed to be a blessing, so we can bless. If this was not an important issue, why did the Holy Ghost spend so much time on it?

The "priesthood" being changed shows the type and order of tithing under the Levi order was no longer acceptable for the New Priestly Order, thus the first becomes last, the last becomes first. The Order of Melchizedek would never work under the Old, the nature of the people would not condone being "givers by nature", but under the Order of Melchizedek it calls for us to be givers by nature, thus the priests under the New cannot engage in taking tithes, they are mandated to receive (Heb 7:12). This change is not something moving from one  Law to another, it means a complete change must take place, including discarding the Old with the deeds of the Old.

The Law of Moses had offerings and sacrifices, we have the Bread and Wine. This is important since Melchizedek was before Levi, but the change took place after Levi. The Shadow was there, but no action until the time appointed. All the exchanges taking place between Abram and Melchizedek become a preview of a change to take place, thus the Order for our priesthood was prior to the Order of the Levitical.

One could argue Jesus taught the tithe under the Law when He told the Pharisees "you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin and have omitted the weightier matters of the Law, judgment and mercy and faith: these ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matt 23:23). The wording "to leave" is the Greek Aphiemi meaning To dismiss, or Send away, or Forsake. However, there is more; Jesus said, "you" not "we", He also said, "under the Law", which means the Tithe He is talking about is under the Law of Moses, the Pharisees were under the Law, they paid tithe to the penny, but they were Commanded to. The point Jesus makes is not their tithe paying, since it was commanded, but the other matters they were not commanded to do, but expected to do, such as faith and mercy. To the Pharisees it was, "if we're not commanded to do it, why do it?". Let not a like attitude trap us. It seems to be the issue, we are not commanded to pay tithes, its an element left up to us as a display of our nature.

The entire point in this shows we can't confuse the Tithe under the Law of Moses with the Giving of Abram, they are two completely different things. We are not paying a debt to God by giving money; we are giving because we are the Blessed of God. God is not motivated by how much we give, or how little, it’s the obedience He seeks. We love the people of God, we want to see the work of God complete. It's in our nature, thus our New nature is the same as God's nature. Alms are monies or goods given to the poor and needy, “tithes” are given to the priests. Under the Old there was only one Storehouse, under the New it’s unto the Priests, by the Priests in the Name of the Lord.

The name Melchizedek means "king of prosperity", or "king of peace", since one of the Greek words used for Peace also means Prosperity, relating to the Hebrew word used here; however, where is this land of Prosperity this king was over? The area of Sodom was near the place where Jerusalem would be established, thus Melchizedek is a type of New Jerusalem as well. He couldn't be king of Sodom, the king was standing there. We often run around searching out "God's Prosperity", but here is the Order, be a blessing, minister the Bread and Wine, become a priest in the proper Order. The tithes given Melchizedek were already in the hands of Abram, it was not something yet to come. The main issue in God’s prosperity is connected to the saving of our souls, if our souls are not prospering, how do we expect to? (III Jn 3).

This Melchizedek is by interpretation the king of peace, but Jesus is the Prince (cause) of Peace. This king was from Salem, a place not mentioned again until Psalm 76:2 where we find it's Zion the Holy Tabernacle of God. Hold it, Zion? Tabernacle? The Tabernacle was never on Zion, rather the Temple was built in Jerusalem, yet Jerusalem was built on Mount Zion. What could this mean? Just what it says, this priest is a shadow, there is a Mount Zion of the earth, and one for the heavenly (Heb 12:8). Just as there is a Jerusalem of the earth, as well as a New Jerusalem of heaven. The use of the word Tabernacle is not by mistake, it's a mystery opened, the Order of Melchizedek is not associated in any way with Judgment, it's associated with Salvation (Heb 12:18-22). It’s connected to heavenly Zion, the mount of God appointed to the people of Grace.

Melchizedek was real, but he was not Jesus. The man’s Order fit into the plan, we find all this teaching is based on one meeting between two people causing effect to the entire system God established unto Salvation. 

After Abram freely gave to the man of God, the Lord came and told Abram, "Fear not, Abram: I am your shield and your exceeding great reward" (Gen 15:1). The man's giving was a sign of his love, his love a sign of his belief, his belief a sign of his nature. Abram didn't give thinking, "now God has to give it back to me, man oh man, I will be the richest in the land". Abram didn't know God would become his shield based on the giving, rather he gave without expectation, then came the reward.

After saying we're the only ones who can legally hold the positions of "king and priest" (Rev 1:6), one could argue how the Hasmonean family, who were descendants of Aaron during the Second Temple era maintained kingship for themselves. However, the Talmud said it was an illegitimate kingship, since it was not "in the order established by God". God set up an order of check and balances, it never allowed a priest to be king. The reason seems somewhat obvious, a king was anointed by God, confirmed by the anointing of a priest, thus if a priest was allowed to be a king, then any priest could say, "you know what, I'm going to anoint myself king". We call it "self-appointed", or a "Jezebel spirit", which is what happened in the Hasmonean family, the next step was God allowing Rome to possess the land, it has been trodden under foot by the Gentile since.

The Hasmonean family were during the Apocrypha period, more specifically during the Maccabees time. Around 163 BC there was a war freeing the Jews under Judas Maccabees; the Hasmonean rebellion did achieve some success, but cost the nation greatly in the long run. The revolt gained the Jews freedom from about 163 BC to 37 BC, only to fall into the hands of Roman domination, since then they have been under the rule of the Gentiles in one form or another. "No wait, they have their own land now". They have the land, not the rule, the city is still trodden under foot of the Gentiles, today Israel has to answer to more nations then it did under the Hasmonean order, the Dome of the Rock mosque proves the point.

During the time when the Hasmonean family ruled, Jonathan was able to take advantage of another Seleucid succession, gaining the appointment of the High Priesthood. He was the first Hasmonean High Priest, he began the unbroken line of Hasmonean High Priests from 163 BC to 63 BC. In 104 BC another Hasmonean, Judah Aristobulus, the grandson of Mattathias had himself crowned as king of Judea. This self-appointed mess was still illegal, God called the priests from Aaron, the kings from the line of David. Instead of seeing the job of "high priest - king" as an opportunity, it became evident it was illegal; this new generation of Hasmoneans saw their post as an opportunity to get rich. They violated the Procedure set forth by God, becoming an example of what happens with "self-rule", or "self-appointment". It was the last time Israel had a king appointed by them, God removed the entire system from them for the violation of the "Order"; today they have a Parliament, but no king.

Herod the Great killed what was left of the Hasmonean ruling order, including his wife and two of her sons. The "high priest - king" element of the Hasmoneans was short lived and illegal; there has never been a legitimate king who was also a human priest in the land of Israel since. After the Hasmonean fiasco we find Rome appointing kings, Herod being as an example, yet Rome could not Anoint kings. The Hasmonean self-appointment is another type and shadow of the Wicked, the personification of the Jezebel self-appointed mentality to usurp authority or take positions outside of the order God has established (Rev 2:20). The only people in a Godly group granted the privilege of being both king and priest are Christians. This is a division, as kings we have kingdom duties to attend to, as priests we have an Order to attend to. Let us be faithful to the calling.

The Hebrews were the wandering ones searching for their Promised Land, but the Jewish people were separated from the Gentiles. One could say there were no Gentiles before there were Jews, since one defines a Gentile as anyone not Jewish. It is true a Gentile is anyone who is not Jewish, but we must also consider Israel was separated from the Gentiles, becoming known as the “Sand of the Sea”. In Genesis 10 we find the use of the word Gentile, if a Gentile is anyone who is not Jewish, then it would cover all those from Adam to Israel (Jacob), since they were not “Jews”. Simply the Jews were separated from the Gentiles, not the other way around.

Noah had three sons, from two came the ten toes of the Gentile nations, from the other came Abram, yet Abram would also be classed a Gentile until he was Abraham. How? Abraham had three families, one was Abram and Hagar, the result was Ishmael; then Abraham and Sarah, the result was Isaac; after Sarah died Abraham married Keturah (Gen 25:1-6), the result was Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. The only son who was granted the Promise was Isaac, thus we can expand the term Jew to those who are subject to the Promise, all the other children of Abram or Abraham were not subject to the Promise. Ishmael was not a Jew, he was not of the twelve tribes, rather he was Gentile, because he was born of a Gentile. Therefore, in order to be a Jew, ones mother must be Jewish. In order to be associated with the kingly order, ones father had to be a direct descendent of David.

 Paul shows there are only two classes of people who are earthly, Jew and Gentile. Paul said God was not a Respecter of persons, denoting anyone of the two classes had the ability to accept Jesus (Rom 2:11-12). John saw Israel as those who pierced Jesus, the Gentile as those who wail because of Jesus (Rev 1:7). The only other people would be Christian, who are neither Jew or Gentile. “Okay, what about the Arab?” They came from Ishmael, thus they are Gentile, showing the city is trodden under foot by the Gentile even today. There are many tribal or nations associated to the Gentiles, yet they are still Gentile. Abram is the first person called a Hebrew, thus the term was not originally given to a “people” it defined the man as a Sojourner. The separation began with Abram at the time when God called him, but it wasn’t finished until Jacob became Israel. Until then there was one group of people on the earth, these are really side issues, but should be cleared up.

Abram would now have the sign of the sacrifice, with the prophecy concern­ing the children yet to come (Gen 15:9 & 15:13). The Covenant was at hand with Abram, but would it have a token with Abraham (Gen 15:18 & 17:2)? This shows a process, in Genesis 15:13 Abram is to know of a surety his offspring will be in captivity, in 15:18 we find God made Covenant, but the token or Seal to the Covenant didn’t come until circumcision (Gen 17:10). This area in­troduces God’s intent was to grant Abraham’s belief the Imputed Righteousness; thus we find there is Imparted righteousness, Imputed righteousness and self-righteousness. Imputed means God views something regarding someone with a favorable standing in order to enter Covenant, in the case of Abraham it was his continual belief. Imparted righteousness is God's Righteousness birthed in us by the Seed of God (Eph 4:24); we know what self-righteousness means. When we look at Genesis 15:6 we can’t presume Abram believed God only for the mo­ment, then righteousness was imputed unto him; the man began his belief way back when he was called, thus he continued in his belief to establish a position where God could view his belief in a “supposed” position.

Abram Believed in the Lord, the Lord counted it unto Abram for right­eousness (Gen 15:6). It was not the faith of Abram, it was his Belief, the righteousness came so the man could enter Covenant, so it could be by faith; therefore, faith is not an issue until there is a Covenant. We have to look at this verse to find the mystery; Abram didn't believe the words alone, rather he believed In the Lord, which means he believed in the ability, faithfulness, and integrity of the Lord. The Lord didn't say Abram was righteous, rather it was counted to him For righteousness, there is a big difference. Abram was a man, a man still under the cloud of the sin nature, yet we find he was able to believe, thus God looked at the Belief, thus the Righteousness was imputed on the it, the man was able to gain from the position.

 When God looks at the belief of Abram He also sees us as the prophetic message “Let us make man in our image”; the connection enables God to view Abram as if the man is righteous. Just as God saw “Grace” in the purpose of delivering Noah, we find He sees Righteousness in the purpose of granting Abraham a Covenant. Perhaps it’s based on this reason for Paul rebuking the Galatians so strongly, we have Imparted Righteousness, but with Abraham it was Imputed. If we accept a Covenant which was established on Imputed righteousness, yet claim the Righteousness of God we have mixed elements being found as a double-mind person.

The key is “belief”, the door opener to the New Covenant as well, rather than look at the man, God looked at his belief, then He was able to account righteousness to the man, so a Covenant could exist. The same is true for us, the Father looks at the Son on the Cross with the words, “Father forgive them”, we believe in the Cross by accepting the words, thus the Father imputes righteousness on us, so it can be by faith until we receive the New Birth, therein we are granted Imparted Righteousness. Our water baptism is based on belief, not faith, we believe in the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. Belief is a Now Confidence based on past knowledge, or experiences (Mark 16:16-18). The measure of faith drew us to the Cross, but it’s still mandated for us to believe God raised Jesus from the dead. Without firm belief, faith is left without purpose (Heb 11:6).

When Abram gave his sacrifice to enter the covenant, he took five different animals. His method of sacrifice was to cut the animals in half, representing the two sides of any Covenant, but we can see the allegory of the Word in us separating and dividing (James 1:21). When the fowls of the air come to devour his sacrifice, Abram remained faithful by fighting them off. The Fowls are a symbol of the Wicked, who come to spoil the sacrifice; thus as soon as the Word was sown, the fowls of the air came to devour the seed (Mark 4:4). Like Abram, we must be watchful, as we remain faithful, the subtle envious fowls will attempt to spoil our sacrifice; however, we also have the power to send them away.

Abram was told his people would be held in bondage and afflicted four hun­dred years, but they would come out with more than they had going in (Gen 15:13). Here is the blessed man of God, the land was his, what gives? He found the blessing in his giving, the “price was paid” for the safety of his family, all the children had to do was receive it. Sounds like Mercy doesn't it? The purpose for the wilderness was to instill correct leadership ability, the children would know what it felt like to be captive, thus their training was to hold a position of mercy. Yet, they didn’t like the method God was using, it didn’t fit their agenda, they considered their discipleship the same as being captive in Egypt, causing them to murmur and complain.

Not only did Abram's giving lay the foundation for the children to receive more than they entered with, but the man heard there would be children, not only confirming the promise, but adding confidence to his belief. Words from the Lord are important, they are sent so we can believe, giving our faith foundation. If God was speaking of “children” yet to come, it would sound real stupid to think God wasn't able to bring the promised son. Once Abram heard, "people" he knew it was more than one, thus knowing God was fully able to bring the promise to pass. It's also clear, there are many times when we must be afflicted before we seek deliverance, in the deliverance we know it was God and God alone. It’s also just as true if God is speaking to us about a ministry, or an ability yet to come, then it’s just as true He is fully able to bring it to pass.

The Word also went to the children, they knew God promised deliverance, thus they were looking for a Deliverer; therefore, if God has delivered them, they have a reason to believe God Is, leading them into faith, but they failed at the belief aspect.    

The phrases "a deep sleep", and "a horror of great darkness", coupled with Abram sleeping through the night gives us another mystery. The term "a deep sleep" is the same phrase, with the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:21, where God caused a "deep sleep" to fall on Adam when the Woman was taken. This is not a type of the “Church” who are taken in the Rapture, rather it’s a type of those who ”sleep in Jesus through the Night”. The division shows some do “soul sleep”, but they also wake up at the end of the 1,000 years (I Thess 4:14, Rev 20:5-6 & 20:13-14).

The rest of the statement here tells what happened in this "deep sleep": the Deep Sleep by itself isn't bad, but add Horror and things begin to get shaky. Darkness by itself is bad enough, but Horror of Darkness, what could this mean? The word Horror means A terror, the word Darkness means Withholding light, thus this experience of the Fowls and Night relate to something yet to come. In the Book of Revelation we read "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he comes, he must continue a short space. And the beast who was, and is not, even he is the eighth, is of the seven, and goes into Perdition" (Rev 17:10-11). The Eighth? There are Seven Angels, Seven churches, Seven mountains, Seven Horns, but an Eighth? The mystery is found in the words "Fallen" and "Perdition"; the word Fallen means either to fall backward to a place one came from, or to fall for­ward, as one would fall down forward and worship the Lord; this one word defines the “broken Body of Christ”. These verses are a key showing the Day and Night are divided, as well as defining the "sons of perdition". If some Fall forward to worship the Lord, yet some Fall backward, where would both groups be from? Could they relate to "one is taken, one left"? The ones who fall forward are seen in Reve­lation 7:9 before the Throne in heaven at the same time the 144,000 are marked on earth, as a representation of the Rapture. The reasoning is how Christ must be removed before Judgment begins. The other group who falls backward are associated with Perdition, making them sons of perdition, they are seen in Revelation 13:11 as the Beast of the Earth defined in Hebrews 10:38-39 as those who draw back to Perdition.

When Paul said the Body was broken, he used a word meaning A branch of a tree being completely removed (Greek Klao). When we break the Bread we actually separate the two pieces, a symbol of the Broken Body, we don’t break the Body, rather it means we know it will be. We are not of them who “draw back to perdition”, but of them who believe unto the saving of the soul (Heb 10:38-39). The word “Rapture” may not appear, but the concept does. 

The Seven churches are not The Church, for the most part we find the gates of hell had invaded a majority of them, but the gates shall not prevail against the Church. There is also the “synagogue of Satan”, it doesn’t mean Jewish, rather the word synagogue means a gathering, the word Church means Called out ones. This synagogue of Satan is found within the seven churches, but at the same time not of the seven churches, making it the “Eighth”. We also find when this Eighth appears as the Beast of the earth five of the seven churches are gone, with one active, then one lukewarm one yet to come, thus when we read the events of the Fifth church we find things relating directly to the Rapture, such as walking in White, or having Jesus con­fess them before the Father. The Sixth church is associated with Phileo love, known as the House of David, the Seventh is the Lukewarm who opens the door for the Eighth to set up the abomination. This connects to John telling us about the antichrists, who came from us, but were not of us; as well as Paul’s comments about the drunken who go into the Night, as well as Jude telling us they separated themselves displaying this “Eighth” cut themselves away from The Faith, ending as the Beast of the Earth. Like wars and rumors of wars, the Body must be Broken, but it doesn’t mean we have to be the cause, rather we continue to Believe by holding to God Is thinking.

Don’t forget the workers of Iniquity work at their Iniquity. It's no secret the Remnant are of the Seed of the Woman, they will be overcome, but on the same note don't confuse what happens to them, with what happens to us. We all want Jesus to "confess us before the Father", but which church of the Seven has the promise? The Fifth (Rev 3:5). This “Eighth” is seen as antichrist in our Season, noted in reference to the church of Smyrna, who are the victims of the sons of perdi­tion, showing how the sons of perdition are of the "synagogue of Satan", the same "synagogue of Satan" will worship at the Feet of the Sixth church as well (Rev 2:9 & 3:9); if at the feet, they are the footstool. The Gathering of Satan uses the working of Satan, as Paul pointed out (II Thess 2:9). This explains how the devil can be bound, yet the false prophet runs about deceiving people. They are the vessels of dishonor, they don't need to be devil possessed to be evil, they made the choice to trample the Blood under foot, they end as the footstool of Jesus.

The Sixth church is called "Philadelphia", but why? The word Philadelphia means City of brotherly love, defined by the Greek word Phileo, not Agape. We know the Rem­nant "keep the Commandments of God", yet which Commandments? They will operate in Mercy, but then comes the Seventh who is lukewarm, thinking the wealth is a product of their hand. Wait, don't they also have "the testimony of Jesus"? Yes, Jesus said the Testimony was the Old Testament (Jn 5:39). The key is they don't have the Witness, nor do they have the Blood, but they have the Two Witnesses of the Law and Prophets.

There are two groups of God in the Book of Revelation, the Remnant who come last, those of the Faith of Jesus who come first. The Rem­nant are the thousands from thousands, the Firstfruits of God, but the Firstfruits of the Spirit are those of the first five churches who number ten thousand times ten thousand, thus we find the Night is appointed to the Lesser Light as the Remnant, the Day to us as the Greater Light; therefore, God has separated His Salvation from His Wrath, with Salvation in the Day, His Wrath in the Night, we have not been appointed to God's Wrath.

Now the "Terror", God said there would be a Captivity, there was, but there was also a deliverance, but the Terror was the attitude of the children in the wilderness. The only element keeping the children from joy was their unbelief, they failed to enter the wilderness with a “God Is” thinking, which eroded their potential for faith. They crossed the Red Sea by faith, but it was a faith based in depression. Pharaoh was in pursuit, the Sea parted, their faith was bases in avoiding one danger while seeking the other shore. They danced and sang, but three days later they were murmuring and complaining.

Here in Genesis the sacrifices were laid out, the blood was between the halves of the heifer, goat and ram, then a Smoking Furnace and a Burning Lamp passed between the pieces, as God’s signature to the Covenant (Gen 15:17). There was also a turtledove and a pigeon, but the turtledove and pigeon were not Divided (Gen 15:10). These five items of the Heifer, Goat, Ram, Turtledove and Pigeon pointed to something not within the knowledge of Abram, showing how the man did things he knew were right, but he really didn't understand the meaning. Five is the number of Grace, so is this Covenant of Grace? No, we know better, but we find two seasons for the Jew, one before the Cross, one after the Rapture, with Grace between the two seen as the blood.

A principle which seems to slip our minds from time to time; some things we think are in­significant in the natural are important in the spiritual, there are times when we do things in the natural we assume have great importance, yet they mean little in the spiritual. The Smoking Furnace is a type of Judgment, the Burning Lamp is a type of candlestick, but it was one lamp, not seven. This shows us the Smoking Furnace is associated to the one Lamp of the Sixth church. Although the Sixth and Seventh churches have the two witnesses of the Law and Prophets, we are told “Hear ye Jesus”.  

We can move now on to the Ishmael type and shadow, which usually comes in about now. This type and shadow explains how any of us can "birth an Ishmael", the son (product) of manipulation. The premise is simple, the belief was there, the promise given, but there remained one problem, Where is it? Patience must have her perfect work, in the process of her work we must not jump out of the boat, rather we maintain the course, or we might give birth to an Ishmael. The birth of Ishmael was the result of testing the promise to determine where the fault laid; however, the presumption assumed there was a fault, when there wasn’t, making the presumption the fault.

Abram heard, "he shall come forth out of your own bowels shall be your heir", but at the time God didn't say, "from you and your wife", thus Sarai was not sure if she was part of this promise or not (Gen 15:4). Faith came, but time passes on, in the process of time, it looked like the promise disappeared. Both Abram and Sarai are types of the old nature, thus God changed their names, their New Names are types of the New nature. It’s not saying they had the New Man, only the type is pre­sented so we gain a lesson. This is important since Abraham didn’t produce Ishmael, Abram did. Ishmaels are products of the old man, not the New.

The birth of Ishmael came when Abram was 86 years old (Gen 16:16), he was 99 years old when the confirmation came regarding who would mother the Promised son (Gen 17:1-16). At the time of the confirmation the Covenant Token was introduced, as well as the changing of names from Abram to Abraham, and from Sarai to Sarah; therefore, it is clear Ishmael was not born of Abraham the father of many nations, but of Abram the father of many. The difference is of course great, Ishmael will have character traits to identify him more to his mother, than father, yet his father was no longer a factor when the Covenant was established with Abraham. Nonetheless, before the confirmation Sarai wanted to test the premise, but in the Ishmael experience we will find many things relating to the times when we tend to test the Promise. Hagar was an Egyptian, being such is a type of the world; when we test the promise of God by the world, it will end in an Ishmael.

This Ishmael experience is the product of Presumption, the counterfeit to faith, yet presumption always entails manipulation. Sarai presumed there would be no child, the fault had to lay with her, or Abram, yet the presumption of fault was the error, it lacked patience. Putting wood where there is no fire often births Ishmaels. God had a Time and Timing, presumption figures the time must be now, so why isn't it coming to pass? There must be a fault, if a fault, we have to find who is to blame, then correct it. After all, this is a promise of God, since it’s not coming to pass in the manner and time we want, we must find out why. Ahh, the problem, when it doesn’t come to pass as we presume it should, then we think we must help the process, the result is a back riding, mocking Ishmael.

If God knew all this, why not stop it? Ishmael had to be, in order for us to learn from the lesson. It also held things in the future Abram knew nothing about, but we see on a day to day basis. The differences between Ishmael and Isaac are vast, Ishmael is an emotional wreck, one day it’s thank you, the next he either mocks or attempts to kill you, an Ishmael will never take the blame for his wrong, rather he will blame everyone else. We are fully apprised not to use world to find the promises of God; however, Abram didn't have the prior teaching, his experi­ence becomes our example, not our excuse. 

The error came after hearing from God, thus the danger of this error comes after we have heard. Once the promise is spoken, faith takes its stand, but then comes Patience, in the testing of faith. Ishmaels begin as a wonder, “I wonder if God forgot?”, “I wonder if I can make the prophecy come to pass?”, “I wonder who’s at fault here?”. The seeds of the imagination conceive Ishmaels. What do Ishmaels do? Mock the son of promise, keep us in bondage to wild emotions, they also prevent us from finding the Precious. What did Ishmael have? The token of the Covenant, he was circumcised, but he was not subject to the Promise. God will speak about Ishmael, He will even send an angel to tell Hagar about Ishmael, but God will not speak directly to Ishmael (Gen 16:11). No Ishmael or product of Ishmael will hear from God, since they are not of faith, but of manipulation.

When Hagar was found with child it appeared to Sarai the fault was surely in Sarai. She was the one who sent Abram in to Hagar, thus he did as he was told. When Hagar conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes (Gen 16:4). Then Sarai said to Abram, "My wrong be upon you" (Gen 16:5). What? Ishmaels do tend to make us blame others for our faults. However, she sent the man in, so where is her logic? Ahh, the Fall, Adam male obeyed the voice of his wife, Sarai presumes it’s the same error. Not so, the error was in thinking there was an error. If either would have held on a little longer, they would have seen the promise was dependent on God’s time and timing, not man’s.

Why did Sarai say she was sending Abram in? For a child, to bring the promise to pass, but what was her hidden agenda? To see where the fault laid. When she found Hagar was with child by Abram, she got mad, it didn’t turn out the way she wanted. The manipulation produced the Ishmael, not the other way around, thus all Ishmaels are products of manipulation, they are not the manipulation.

Not all this is on Sarai’s head, Abram did go in. After Hagar conceived she looked at Sarai differ­ently as well. The word Despised in verses 5 and 6 is the Hebrew Qalal meaning Small, or To make light of, thus this isn't hate, but Hagar looking down on Sarai, by the "look", Hagar was mocking her mistress. All of us have been subject to "the look", those times when some­one views you with condemnation, or mocking in their eyes, thus Ishmael is more like his mother, than Abram. In essence we can see how Hagar was going about showing off her conception, making Sarai feel small, or inferior. When we go about showing off our Ishmaels, we, like Hagar are acting presumptuous.

Prior God told Abram how the off-spring would be held captive, then the nation holding them captive would be judged, here in Genesis 16:5 Sarai says, "judge between me and you"; however, we have two different words for Judge. In Genesis 15:14 the word Judge is the Hebrew Din meaning To punish, or Litigate, here in Genesis 16:5 the Hebrew word for Judge is Shaphat meaning To decide, or Give justice equally, thus Sarai wants Abram to make the decision regarding Hagar, based on the premise “My wrong be upon you”, but Abram says, "Behold, your maid is in your hand" (Gen 16:6). Sarai took those words to mean she could do as she pleased with Hagar, Sarai then dealt hard with Hagar, causing Hagar to flee. It would almost sound as if we can beat our Ishmaels causing them to depart, but it’s not the end of the story.

Later Abraham will send Hagar away, but here Hagar made tracks in the sand to get away from the oppressing mistress. The purpose for Hagar and Ishmael in this thing was not finished, Ishmaels have a purpose; they can be training tools, but Abram only had one, about as many as it takes for us as well. When we presume we can test God, or force some prophecy to come to pass, if so, we will birth an Ishmael. We end in bondage to the Ishmael ridding our back, or mocking the Promise. Is there a way to be rid of the Ishmael? Yes, God will provide the means, He always does.

Hagar came to a "fountain of water" in the "way to Shur", Shur means A Wall, thus she hit a wall. Hagar heard an angel of the Lord telling her to "Return to your mistress, and Submit yourself" (Gen 16:9). Ishmaels need not hang on us for years, since we birthed the thing, we are the ones to Submit to the Lord, He is fully able to turn it around for Good, but in the process we will learn of Ishmaels, oh yes, we will learn (Gen 16:11-16).

Hagar was then made a promise by God, she was told Ishmael would multiply, but he would also be, 1) a wild man; 2) his hand will be against every man; 3) every man's hand against him; and 4) he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. Prophetic? Seems so.

Ishmael is in a place between places, yet it’s not a wilderness since he is not of the Promise. Nonetheless he has the Token of the Covenant, but is not subject to the Promise. He will be blessed, but not because of him, it’s because of Abram. Ishmael will be a "test" to his brothers, Abraham will have other children, but here Ishmael had no “brother”; however, the promise called for one “brother” yet to come. What gives? God’s knowledge of what was not yet, thus by knowledge God is able to call something a were, which is a not to us. Hagar had a key, God said Ishmael would be a test to his brothers, thus there would be brothers, the Promise was not lost, or cast off.

Ishmael would have a future, he became the father of all Arabs, they still dwell in the presence of their brothers, generally they still mock those of the Promise. Hagar called the "name of the Lord" who spoke to her Attah-El-Roiy-Kachash (You God see me). Is this "the name of the Lord"? No, it's the name Hagar gave Him, the name Ishmael means "God will hear", thus we find Ishmaels are Seen by God, God hears them, but it doesn't mean the Ishmael hears God, nor does it mean God speaks to the Ishmael.

Ishmael came between the opening of the Covenant in chap­ter 15, and the making of the Covenant in chapter 17. Something to think about in the process of the saving of our soul. We can hear of the saving of the soul, then attempt to use our soul to bring about the process, if so we will birth an Ish­mael. A soul attempting to heal a soul is still the blind leading the blind, only the Spirit of Truth can heal our souls.

After the birth of Ishmael, the Lord changed Abram's name to Abraham (Gen 17:5); therefore, Ishmael was not born to Abraham and Sarah, but to Abram and Hagar; whereas Isaac is born to Abraham and Sarah. The misconception of Ishmael being a product of the New Man is dashed here, our Ishmaels are products of the old man, they are Egypt related.

God also changed Sarai's name to Sarah; Sarai means Dominating or To dominate, God changed her from one who domi­nates to a Princess of the Lord (Gen 17:15). The paradox indicates how the Dominating One caused Hagar to leave, but the Princess received her back. A princess holds a place of honor without having to dominate, or manipulate.

Ishmael was born before the sign of the covenant was given (Gen 17:11), yet he was circumcised when he was 13 years old (Gen 17:25). History shows Muslims circumcised their males at the age of 13 based on this; however, they also changed many elements of the story to make it appear as if Ishmael was the one to gain the promise. Ishmael would receive his own promise, he will even be blessed, but he will not be a partaker of the Promise, since he will not be a part of the Covenant, it should be enough incentive to cast the Ishmaels out of our lives (Gen 17:20-21 & 21:12).

Ish­mael also gives us the difference between “Sealed by the Holy Spirit”, and “Grieve not the Holy Spirit by whom you are Sealed”. Ishmael had the Token of the Covenant, but God said he would not be included into the Covenant (Gen 17:20-21). We can have the Token of water baptism, even the Seal of the Holy Spirit, but if we remain “half Egypt (world)”, we are in danger of not obtaining the Covenant. The Wicked are a type of Ishmael they have the Token of water baptism, but they mock the Promise. They are “princes” who never make it to being a “king”.

The offspring of Ishmael were never kings, they were princes, who have been fighting with the offspring of Isaac ever since. The problems in the middle east are still between two brothers. Prior to the promise being evident the two brothers got along fine, but once the promise was clear, envy and jealousy entered Ishmael, then the son of manipulation mocked the promised son.

At this point in time we find two brothers, but from different wombs, this is not the same as Cain and Abel, since Cain and Abel came from the same womb. Abram felt the event with Hagar was within the bonds of marriage, after all both he and Sarai were products of a like event. The difference? God in their lives, with God comes the Promise, with the Promise comes the responsibility.

Here we find a product of the mixed seed (Ishmael), and a product of the promise (Isaac), as the mixed seed mocks the promised seed by setting hindrances in the path. Ishmaels will fight the promise of God, they don’t bring it to pass; they hinder it, attempt to steal it, or kill it. So, is Ishmael a Jew? Or a Gentile? He has to be one or the other, since there are only two groups of the earth. We seem to get confused and assume there are Jews, Gentiles and Arabs. Not so, there are Jews and Gentiles, the Arabs fit into the Gentile group. Ishmael’s mother was not Jewish, either did she have anything to do with the Jewish lines, thus Ishmael was Gentile.

We also seem to think all Arabs are Muslims, or all Muslims are Arabs. The Muslim religion began in the area, it was later established by Mohammad who was an Arab, but it doesn’t mean all Arabs are Muslims, nor does it mean all Muslims are Arabs. Just as it doesn’t mean all Americas are Protestant, or all Protestants are American. Ishmael will be the father of all Arabs, but Isaac the father of all Jews, yet God is the Father of the Christians. This is important, since the Book of Revelation says during our Season Jerusalem will be trodden under foot by the Gentile (Rev 11:2). It is, not only by the Dome of the Rock Mosque being in Jerusalem, but by the Gentile Christians as well.

When Sarai sent Abram into Hagar, it wasn't to see if Sarai was unable to conceive, it was to determine fault. After all, God did promise, but where is it? Could it be God was unaware of the age of Abram? Could it be the fault was in the body of Sarai? Or could it be God was waiting to prove it was God and God alone? We know the last premise is the case, but Sarai was sure it had to be one of the former reasons. This act caused pride to surface in Hagar, but anger in Sarai, the result was strife. Simply, Ishmaels begin when we question God's prom­ise, or assume we must do something, rather than wait and hear from God. Of course, if God tells us to do something, we do it, it's still based on hear­ing. The event is never our problem, it's our soulish reaction to the event pro­ducing our problem. Sarai heard the promise, then looked at herself and Abram, saying, "No Way"; therefore, we find Ishmaels begin when we fail to believe “God Is”, causing our faith to turn into manipulation to make something happen.

Sarai then used her own soulish determinations to prove the fault, if any, rested with Abram, not her. This shows the pride issue, humbleness waits on the Lord, pride tests Him. This also explains why she was so perplexed at the result; in her mind, the birth of Ishmael only proved the fault, if any, was her, yet the evi­dence will later show there was no "fault", only the time and timing of God. The word Presumptuous means To dare, or To challenge, or To take for granted on probable grounds, or To move on self-determinations with the misconception of the act being righteous. Presumption comes when we fail to put our Trust in God. God gives us a word, we add our own reasoning on how God should perform as we add our thinking, but when it doesn’t turn out the way we want, we get mad. This reasoning comes from an overconfidence based on certain natural conclusions. Presumption comes when we take a promise not afforded to us, or make one up on our own, or twist one given, then chal­lenge God to fulfill it. Faith comes from hearing God, presumption comes from unbelief and doubt. After Sarai’s name is changed, she becomes a different person, under a different authority.

The Token or Sign of Abraham’s Covenant is circumcision of the flesh, or a cutting away of something by the hand of man, it had to be a sign associating to the Covenant promise. With Noah it was the rainbow, relating to the rain. With us it’s the Holy Spirit relating to “let us make man in our image”. It’s interesting this token is for the male’s only, since the testing of Sarai produced Ishmael. However, from this premise we find a male circumcised on the eighth day has a right to enter the Abrahamic Covenant, meaning his wife and daughters also have the right. However, since Isaac came from Sara we also find in order to be Jewish, ones mother has to be Jewish. This also shows Ishmael and the third family of Abraham would not qualify as Jewish.

The purpose for the Circumcision not made with hands in the New, is the Saving of the Soul, the cutting away of the fleshly heart, the establishment of a Spiritual one. Our souls are not evil, they have picked up things along the way associated with the flesh designed to destroy us, those things need to be removed. Of course we have used them to our advan­tage, or have been tricked into thinking they are tools of our trade, but they are works of the devil planted while we slept in the darkness of the world. Light comes, we see, then we join to the Spirit to be cleaned from all unrighteousness by the Blood of Jesus. This is not a one day, one prayer event, but a Process of Being Justified (Rom 3:24 & 5:1). Why don't we see the act of Circumcision of the flesh in the Ten Commandments? If the Ten Commandments are part of the Covenant, why not? Why not even mention it? Why is the Token to the Law of Moses the Sabbath Day and not Circumcision? Very good questions, to be answered shortly.

Which came first? The token? Or the Covenant? Good questions, God established the Covenant with Abraham, then came the Token, then came the son of promise, accordingly the son was circumcised on the Eighth day. Ishmael was 13 years old when he was circumcised, we know what the number 13 stands for. The Eighth day is more important to us, we can see how God rested on the seventh day from all His works, here He pronounces an “eighth day”, why not the sixth day? After all, we’re not talking about a week as such, but the age of a male baby. The number Eight from this experience became known as the number of New Beginnings, yet it’s also associated with the son of perdition, how can it be? The son of perdition is not of the seven churches, nor the seven toes, since he made the choice to be separated from the world, yet never made the commitment to be of the Body. In this case we find the New Beginning is established after the Seventh Day of rest: if we study the Resurrection of Jesus (which we will), we will find He was discovered Resurrected on a Sunday, which is the first day of the Week, but when did He go to the Cross? The week prior, thus the Resurrection was an extension of the prior week, showing the Discovery of the Resurrection was on the Eighth day. This connects to the famed “Eighth”, showing they are subject to the New Beginning, but have separated themselves forming their own group known as the synagogue of Satan, yet they consider themselves the only ones doing the work of God; it’s their type of thinking which will bring about sudden destruction.

The title LORD first appears in Genesis 2:4, but at this point in time it meant Almighty God, since the Name Jehovah was not known to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob (Ex 6:3). Abraham used the word LORD as a title regarding certain locations, rather than the Name of God. The position of Jehovah is often referred to as the Covenant name of God, but here God was making Covenant as “Almighty”; Jehovah is mainly connected to the Delivering power of God, thus Moses knew God as Jehovah, but Abraham didn’t. On the same note we find the title Jehovah being used with Noah, as well as using “God” (El - Gen 6:13, 6:22, 7:1 & 7:5). Noah built an altar to Jehovah, thus Noah knew Jehovah was his deliverer. The name Jesus means Salvation of Jehovah, or Jehovah’s Salvation, thus Salvation is a Deliverance, showing Jesus is our Deliverer.

In all this, “no man has seen God at anytime”, something we talked about in the last Lesson. The voice of the Lord can be so firm in our hearts, it’s like “seeing” God. Often we find angels in the Old Testament speaking on behalf of God, as if they were God (Gen 16:11-12). How can this be? Angels deliver what they hear, without change.

Abram came face to face with a person who loved the Lord, he received Bread and Wine from this king, then he ran into three angels, one of them the Scriptures do identify as “Lord”, but remember angels speak on behalf of God, as the angel will when Abraham is about to plunge the knife into Isaac. For this reason, and many others we have stayed away from the use of Theophany, but if we define a Theophany not as the Physical appearance of God in the Old, but as an appearance of God through an angel, then it fits the context of the saying, “no man has seen God at anytime”.

In Genesis 18 the figure appeared as flesh and blood and did eat, but it doesn't mean he was God. The Resurrected Jesus did eat as well, but John tells us the Word took on flesh, thus He was not flesh and blood prior to the time. After the Resurrection Jesus said a Spirit does not have flesh and bone as He has (Luke 24:39), He didn’t say “as you have”. We also find the Lord Appeared to Abraham, so did He? (Gen 18:1). The word Appeared is the Hebrew Raah meaning to see intellectually (Job 3:16), or to perceive, thus we find the Lord appeared in the message, or through the angel. It doesn’t mean the angel is the Lord, rather it’s like those who are Born Again as representatives of Christ on the earth. Not all prophetic messages begin with “so saith the Lord”. We represent God to the world, thus the world will gain their “view” of God by watching those who represent God. Of course the enemy sends Tares as natural minded religious people to cloud the issue. The issue is to keep in mind no man has seen God at anytime, yet we find angels represent God.

The purpose of the appearance is to tell Abraham of the pending doom coming to Sodom, since Lot, Abraham's son (nephew) was still in Sodom, plus God promised the man the land (Gen 18:1-20). God wasn't asking Abraham's per­mission, He was informing him what was about to happen. This is important, it shows why God tells us about the Night (restoration of Israel), yet He also told us we are not appointed to experience it (Acts 1:6-8). The purpose is for us to have the knowledge of the Night, but we are not to experience the event. Our goal is to warn others of what is to come, by presenting the escape God has provided Now, which is the Salvation of the Day.

This type and shadow shows how the Spirit will tell us things to come, it's not to gain our permission, but to prepare us. So then, where is faith? Faith is allowing what must be, to be, while trusting the Lord in the process. There are many things we "think" should be changed, but should they? Faith still comes by hearing, the Just still live by faith.

It's also important to recall how God gave Abraham the land, yet judg­ment was coming to a part of the land. Indicating the earth may be in the hands of man, but it doesn’t mean man has sole ownership. God still owns the cattle on a thousand hills, the earth and the fullness thereof still belong to God. Man thinks he can do as he pleases on the earth, but man must answer in the end.

The anointing on the Body of Christ is a type of protection, explaining how the Wicked can get away with so much wickedness in our Season. We are the Body of Christ, Christ being a title referring to the Anointing, thus Christ is not the last name of Jesus. Jesus is The Anointed, the Body of Christ is Anointed, thus the anointing (unction) protects us all who are in the Body during the Day. The same person who is Wicked today, can turn to become Righteous tomorrow, thus during the Day we find God correcting us in the chastisement of the Lord, thus there is no destruction of the Wicked during the day, they are protected as we, they can repent as long as it’s the Day.

What other evidence do we have? Paul told us to work out our salvation by fear and trembling, why? Because of the anointing, everyone who enters the Body of Christ becomes part of Christ (Anointing), thus the Wicked think they can get away with all sorts of things, including attacking other members of the Body, then claim they are doing God a service. They presume it’s ordained of God, because they get away with it, but it’s not ordained, only tolerated for the Season. First John is our warning, if we say we walk in the Light, yet we hate (slander) our brother, we’re in darkness. The Anointing is a sign of the Power of God, His Power is delivering, while protecting. The purpose for the Law of Moses was protection, the purpose of the Law of the Spirit is protection unto deliverance. Paul will make this point clearer in his first letter to the Corinthians, which is a call to repentance. Ishmaels are one thing, beating other members of the Body of Christ to death another.

During this meeting Sarah would hear the promise of the son, but will laugh "within herself" (Gen 18:12). She was still comparing the promise to her flesh, as well as questioning the ability of Abraham considering their ages. It would seem as if she is now mocking the promise, but she is really questioning the ability, considering how the birth of Ishmael proved Abraham was still able then, but now? The Lord will Speak, the Word will expose for the purpose of healing Sarah. The Lord said, "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" (Gen 18:14). The Lord didn't say "is anything too hard for Abra­ham?" nor did He say "Woman, I come against you in the Name of Jehovah”, nor “is anything too hard for you?”. Clearly the Ability is at question, Sarah said, “the old man”, God said, “Is anything too hard for the Lord”, a place to fortify her belief. Paul shows Abraham believed God was able, here we find Sarah needs to grasp the same precept. If the Lord says it will happen, then He is fully able to make if come to pass. The Lord is al­ways able to bring to pass promises He has made, it's our self-initiated visions, or self-promoted promises we attempt to bring to pass, which produce troubles, or Ishmaels.

This phrase helps us un­derstand why God allowed Ishmael; Ishmael was a product of manipulating the promise, here God says, "Is anything too hard for the Lord?". Don't make more Ish­maels, wait, hear and obey. When God gives us a vision, word, promise or dream, we be­lieve it, but we never devise our own methods of completing it, then expect God to perform to our reasoning.

The self nature holds some re­vealing thoughts, it wants Christ to identify with us, rather than submitting to the Spirit to identify with Christ. The self nature wants the things of God, but wants to keep the Old nature as well. The self nature wants to control the anointing, rather than allow the anointing to work. The self nature wants to control the blessing, rather than be a blessing. The self nature wants to control the prophecy, rather than wait in faith for it to come to pass. The same is true when we give something or someone to God, then get mad when God begins to work. We gave the labor, not the control to God, thus we want God to do the work, but do it according to our desires. The "foolish woman" tells us stolen waters are sweet; whereas, Wis­dom tells us to submit at the table of the Lord (Prov 9:17 & 9:5). The self nature wants to retain the pride of life, yet hold the Keys to the Kingdom. It’s still “half Egypt” (world), in the end the self nature is left holding an empty bag of useless agendas. Faith and Patience are sisters, they work together to bring the Godly result; impatience is an Ishmael maker.

Abraham heard the news about Sodom, then started his negotiations, but Abraham didn't know how many righteous people lived in Sodom, if any; whereas, the Lord knew there remained one man in the entire city who was covered by Abra­ham’s position, yet the man was not “righteous”, but “just”. If Abraham would have changed his position to “the just”, rather than “righteous”, then narrow it down to one, Sodom would have been spared. However, it’s speculation, the truth shows us why Abraham used “righteous”, rather than “just”. Paul tells us none of us were righteous, no, not one. Wasn’t Abraham? No, Paul isn’t talking about im­puted righteousness, but imparted righteousness. It’s the act of self-righteousness producing thoughts of someone being able to march up to the throne of God, yet ending in ashes before the altar. The only Righteousness allowing us to come boldly to the throne, is the Righteousness of God found in the New Man (Rom 10:3 & Eph 4:24). Now wait, Peter says Lot was righteous, but it couldn’t be, could it? (II Pet 2:8). First Peter says Lot was Just, it’s in the parenthetical phrase we find the word Righteous, but Peter is making a metaphoric example between the people in Sodom compared to Lot, as Lot being a type of the “righteous” who God will deliver. Abraham made a prophetic statement which Peter refers to, God will never destroy the Righteous with the Wicked. A Promise, as long as there is one Born Again believer, there is someone with the Righteousness of God (Eph 4:24).

The Letter to the Romans tells us there is none Righteous, no not one (Rom 3:10)., thus Abraham’s belief gained the Imputed righteousness. What about Noah, Jehovah said Noah was righteous (Gen 7:1). True, but it was limited to Noah’s “generation” as well as in conjunction with the meaning of “unrighteousness” (violence toward God). Nonetheless, viewing Romans and Peter, we either have to say Peter was in error, or the Holy Ghost is telling us something about God’s power to deliver. We pick the latter, in II Peter 2:9 we find the connection; The Lord knows how to deliver the Godly out of temptation and reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished. The example of Lot being delivered refers to the just, the ungodly to the unjust, so what is unjust? The prefix “un” means to Remove a specific thing, in Hebrews 10:38-39 we find the Just live by faith, thus the Unjust don’t, then we find the Just are not of them who “draw back to perdition”; therefore, Unjust means someone has the ability to be Just, but removes themselves from the position back to perdition. Peter’s point shows Lot remained loyal to Abraham’s beliefs, he fought for the angels against the ungodly as he obeyed the “voice” of Righteousness, thus he was Just, giving him a position to be delivered, as a type showing we are being delivered daily.

This lesson gives us great hope, as it divides the day from the night. Ephe­sians 4:24 tells us the New Man is created (or formed same Greek word) after God’s true Holiness and Right­eousness, thus we have the Righteousness of God within. Here we find an anchor for our souls, the Lord will not destroy the righteous with the wicked. This is a promise for the dead in Christ, as well as those who will Sleep in Jesus (Gen 18:23). The en­tire negotiation process centered on this one point, Abraham knew one thing above all, God will never destroy the righteous with the wicked, it’s a promise for us as well. Lot was spared, not because of Lot, but because of Abraham; we will be delivered because of Jesus.

Abraham was on a roll in his negotiations, but stopped short. God knew where Abraham would stop, So, why didn’t God simply say, “Now Abraham, the only righteous one around here is you, yet it’s imputed” or “Abe change to Just, you might have a better chance”? Abraham received the imputed righteousness, yet considered anyone around him to have the same standing, thus he appreciated the gift, but was humble enough not to consider himself the “only one on the earth”.

Nonetheless, he was on a roll, we can’t forget it was Abram who delivered these same people from the hands of the evil kings, it was their own king who stood there while Abraham and Melchizedek spoke of the Lord (Gen 14:17); therefore, the king of Sodom had information regarding God, he simply refused to believe it. All these peo­ple had “warning”, they had the evidence of God’s delivering power, but they twisted it into an illusion of overconfidence, thinking God would never destroy them. After all, Lot was with them, the man of God (Abram) delivered them, so they must be under the hand of the Almighty, right? Wrong, their protection reached an end, it’s the very lesson Jesus makes when He speaks of the End Times being as in the days of Lot. They felt they were holy, they had God’s past deliverance to prove it, but they were sinful because they rejected the purpose for being delivered. They separated themselves and worshiped the creation, rather than the Creator.

This event holds many truths, God is telling Abraham of the destruction to come, so Abraham wouldn't be surprised, attempt to stop it, or get mad at God. Therefore, God allowed Abraham to use the negotiations as a confidence builder, thus the man is attempting to save the city, but God didn’t come to ask the man his opinion, rather it was to inform him of what God was going to do. The character of Abraham is displayed for us, he was a giver by nature. Rather than say, “You know what? I was just thinking about those jerks, here I save their worthless hides, then they get all involved in idols and the such, yeah sure, do it, get rid of them”. No, his nature was mercy based, he still wanted to see deliverance. However, if God does destroy the city, the righteous were either delivered, or there were none. The Wheat will never be bruised by God in the removal of the Tares. The same is true in the healing of our souls, God will not damage the Precious by taking the Vile. 

God telling us of things to come is based on this same premise, the evi­dence is seen in many prophecies regarding the End Times. We can't stop the prophecies from coming to pass, but we can pull as many as we can from the world, saving them from the fire of destruction (Jude 22-23). Jesus told us we will hear of commotions, see pestilence, and famine, but we are not to be Terrified (Luke 21:9-11). The word Terrified means Moved to act based on a fear, or Interfering in things which must come to pass. Do the phrases War, Rumors of War, Famine and Pestilence sound like something going on now? Yes, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out, but where else do we find these elements? Doesn't the second horse go about with a Sword taking Peace (Rev 6:4)? Yes, War and Rumors of War. Doesn't the third horse go about causing Famine (Rev 6:6), Yes, and the fourth goes about causing Pestilence (Rev 6:8). Where do these horses and horsemen get their command? From the dragon? No, we find they go forth after the First Horse. What about this First Horse, the White one? Is this "As" a White Horse, or is it A White Horse? We read, "and Behold A White Horse", the Rider also has a Bow. The root word for Bow means an instru­ment to plant Seed, the phrase "conquering and to conquer" shows two places of activity, the words Conquering and Conquer mean Victory, it's the same Greek word used in the phrase, "Who is he who overcomes (conquers) the world: but he who believes Jesus is the Son of God" (I Jn 5:5); and, "for whatsoever is born of God over­comes (conquers) the world and this is the victory (conquering) overcoming (conquers) the world, even our Faith" (I Jn 5:4). The “beast” in heaven with life shows John this Horse has a face “like a lion”, thus some presume this Rider is the famed Antichrist, but the Horse is not “like a white horse”, it is a White Horse, the Rider is not destroying Seed, He is planting it, therein lays the clarity. The Sower sows the Word, the Sower is the Holy Ghost (Mark 4:14 & II Cor 9:10). If we presume this Rider is the Antichrist, then we must also presume he sows the Seed of God in the hearts of people, bringing them Victory by The Faith of Jesus while wearing a Crown of Righteousness. What? The word Crown used for this Rider on the White Horse is only used in conjunction with the Crown of Righteousness, or the Crown of Life, thus this can't be a "counterfeit". This White Horse must be a Promise of something sent forth before the other horses are sent forth (Rev 6:2 & 19:11). This Horse doesn't come As a white horse, it is a White Horse, thus we find the Rider of this First Horse is the Holy Ghost. The other three horses are separated from this Horse by the word “another” (Rev 6:4), which means they are horses, but with a different purpose. The last three horses are running about now, why? If we understand the Time of Comfort with it’s Peace and Safety we can also see in our Season the world is in turmoil, but in the Night all will seem well, but in truth it is just the flip side of the test. In our Season some want the world to be like the Garden, if it is, they will come to the Lord. In the Night God will make it like the Garden, will them come to the Lord?

It’s better to be a Partaker of the First Resurrection, than subject to the Judgment. We tend to confuse the fire of God's affliction, with the fires of hell, causing us to charge God foolishly, or run off presuming we can change proph­ecy. God delivers us out of the fires of hell, but He delivers us into the fire of afflic­tion. The fire of hell is bent on destroying us, but the fire of affliction saves us. We are told the end of the world will be as Sodom, a hint to the famed "lake of fire". Why then do so some want to be in the Season of the Night A falling from the Faith is a falling from the Faith of Jesus, which allows one to use their faith anyway they want to, without obligation or restraint; however, this is still the Day of Salvation, as we Rightly divide the Word we can see The Day is far better than the Night.

God never puts lusts in our heart, but He will expose those lusts, there is a vast difference between planting evil and exposing it. One might say, "well Sodom wouldn't be Sodom if God would have stopped the fall, so it was God's fault to begin with". The people in Sodom had the same opportunity to be like Abraham, as Abraham had, thus the "fault" was there own, they took the lust then used it, loved it, promoted it, then twisted the purpose of creation into a self-based lustful life style. They wanted God’s protection, but held the mindset of the spirit of man. If Abraham doesn’t prove anything else, he proves one can walk in mercy and believe in the Lord, even without the Gift of the Holy Ghost. It’s not whether they became just, it’s whether they had the opportunity to be Just.

The Judgment is not God bringing destruction, but God giving to man, what man gave to God. The many plagues are a result of the prayers of the saints, mixed with the wrath of God in the Cup of Indignation being poured out on the wickedness of the people (Rev 8:4 & 14:10). This Cup will be seen again in the Prophets of Old, again at a place called Gethsemane. Did Geth­semane come before or after the Passover Supper? After of course, coupled with the Three prayers, but why Three prayers, why were the last two alike? Could it be the first was in reference to Judas before the Cross, the other two regarding the Wicked during the Day, then during the Night? Before Jesus entered the Garden He gave us the Cup of the New Covenant, the Cup in the Garden is the Cup poured on the last day (Rev 16:9). The Garden was not a war of wills, but a matter of whether the Cup should be taken or not. The Father knew what the Son was willing to die for all mankind, whether they received Him or not. The Father was thinking of the Son, the Son of the Father, but the Son came to fulfill the will of the Father, we are sent to complete the Will of God by the Holy Spirit. The Cup of the Covenant separates us from the Cup of God’s wrath, thus the prayers in Gethsemane connected to the Cup of Wrath, pointing to those who would be­come the enemies of Jesus; thus Jesus prayed for those who persecuted Him, before they persecuted Him; an example we need to follow.   

The prophet Ezekiel said the Iniquity of Sodom was Pride, Fullness of bread, and Abundance of idleness (Ezek 16:49). However, the city was destroyed because of it’s “sin” (Gen 18:20). The “cry” came before God, but Iniquity is a failure, so what kind of failure is Pride? A failure to be humble; yet pride always leads to naughtiness. Full­ness of bread leads to ignoring God’s power to meet our need, in essence we find Sodom held to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life. The sin of Sodom was the result of the iniquity, yet the prophet points to the end times, then John tells us the “city” is spiritually known as “Sodom and Egypt”. The prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Isaiah all say the same, in the end the city will be known as Sodom and Egypt, the iniquity of Sodom will be visited on the “daughters of Sodom”.       

When the two angels came to Sodom, the people sought after the men, thus they proved the curse of Canaan was prophetic in nature (Gen 10:9, 10:19 & 19:1-4). Everything was still producing after its own kind, one has to change sources to change the result. However, was there not three angels prior? Yes, showing the one was sent to represent the Lord to the man Abraham, but was not assigned to destroy the city (Gen 18:2).

Man attempts to change the result, but retains the source, ending with a bigger problem than he started with. The angels blinded the wicked men, but their iniquity became the seeds to their blindness (Gen 19:11). God receives us as we are, but He doesn't intend on leaving us that way. Local churches are not made up from murders, thieves, sexual perverts, or the such, they are made up from Ex-murders, Ex-thieves, and Ex-sinners, who are now Saints. When we want to remain in the same condition and position, yet walk about proclaiming God, we are liars, the Truth is not in us. “Well maybe they were born that way”, we were all born into the sin nature, excusing it doesn’t make it right.

Lot was told to take his wife, two daughters and two sons-in-law, giving us six people, did they fit the “negotiations”? No, we found eight people were saved with Noah, here we find another lesson, not all six will make the choice to be saved. Lot’s two sons-in-law made their own decision to remain; therefore, giving us four people. When Abraham was negotiating with the Lord over Sodom, he stopped at ten (Gen 18:32), the Lord said, If there were ten, He would spare the city. Abraham thought, surely there were ten! Out of all the people in the city, there was only one just man, but we find God’s Mercy is extended, God knew there were none righteous, but God spared Lot because of Abraham.

The remaining four would be Lot, Lot’s wife, and Lot’s two daughters, but as they were leaving his wife would turn to long for days of old, missing her chance at deliverance. Now there are three, a far cry from ten, less than a third of the lowest number Abraham spoke of. The daughters of Lot and Lot were the only ones, a Few, yet in this we find more prophecy and hope. From the “family” of Lot two remained in the city, one turned, yet three made it, thus only half (3) of the family made it. The term Few is only relative to the number from which the Few are taken. If we’re talking about “10” a few would be three, but if we’re talking about sixty trillion, million, a Few can’t be numbered, there is room for us.

Jesus also used Lot's wife as an example of one who turns back longing for what was (Luke 17:32). The desire for the things of the past is a sign showing there remains some desires from the old nature, as lusts from the past longing to be regenerated. The word Principality means a Place whereof the prince is known, it also means a Beginning, here Lot's wife failed to war against the Principality, by receiving the Deliverance, all she saw was destruction of her past, yet her past was a nightmare.

Lot’s escape is a perfect example of the teaching of Jesus, “one taken, one left”. The one left faced the judgment, not the one taken. To presume it was one “taken to judgment” twists the teaching, since the example is here, Jesus also equated it to Lot’s time. The Just did not remain, thus the Wicked remained within the city as it turned into a “fire”. It’s very important in our view of the End Times, if we think we have to face the wrath of God, what then is the use of Salvation? Paul said we are not appointed to the wrath of God, if it’s the case, then we will be delivered before the wrath to take place. Our belief builder is here, God delivered the Just, before the Unjust saw destruction.

Why would Lot’s sons-in-law want to stay anyway? Genesis 19:8 shows Lot’s two daughters had not “known man”, meaning they were still virgins. It has to tell us something about the sons-in-law, as it goes back to the prophetic word of Noah regarding Canaan. This type of sexual behavior is noted by Paul in Romans, but the purpose is showing how some pervert the natural course of nature; God has laws, the nature of fallen man rebels against God’s laws, Lot’s two sons-in-law are an example. 

Lot was delivered with his two daughters, but they felt the world had come to an end, resulting in the two daughters laying with their father to preserve the species, when it wasn’t necessary at all. The result was Moab from one, and the children of Ammon from the other (Gen 19:37-38). Of course further down the line we find Ruth who was a Moabites, who would be accepted into the Promise based on her love for her mother-in-law. God still uses, whom He will use. 

When Abraham journeyed to the land of Abimelech the promise was still at hand, not in hand (Gen 20:1-4). Abraham assumed the promise may be in the womb of Sarah, after all God did say, within a year, thus Abraham knew it took nine months before Birth was a fact. This example is given to us regarding the New Birth, the process is like the birth of the flesh, making it a process. Some of us confuse conception with birth, they are different. There must be a conception time, a fetus (root) time, then Birth. Jesus said, the Seed and Root stages don't prove Birth, the fruit proves the Birth (Mark 4:28-29). Is there a time of travailing before Birth? Yes, but it's the birthing bringing us clarity. When we reach the Blade (little children), then we can proclaim Birth.

Although Abra­ham knew the promise was at hand, rather than in hand; he also knew his part of the promise could be complete in the womb of Sarah. Abraham told Sarah to say she was his sister, Abimelech believing what he was told took Sarah into his house, but when Abimelech thought about Sarah, the Lord came to him in a dream saying, "Behold, you are but a dead man" (Gen 20:3). This could also read, "Touch her, and you’re dead, man". When we find ourselves under the hand of the wicked king, we know our trust in God protects us (I Pet 3:5-6).

This lesson established Abraham and Sarah in their belief, thus it had a pur­pose; judging the event by the event never proves a thing. Here it appeared as if the man sold out his wife, or he aban­doned her, but God had a plan, in the plan both Abraham and Sarah found God is able to Protect and Deliver. Once this lesson and experience was affirmed, the promised son would come. Often we need to walk the path in order to affirm our belief, so it can be by faith. The Word came, the testing came, then came the manifestation. Some want the promise without walking the path; however, it’s not the manner or method God uses. The path is for our own good, we must remember Ishmael is still in the camp, silent for a time, but nonetheless there.

In Genesis 20:7 God calls Abraham a Prophet, but what proph­ecy did Abraham say? Do we find any "so saith the Lord" attributed to him? Or could it be the man himself was a walking prophecy? Genesis 20:7 is the first place we find the word Prophet, it’s also the only place in Genesis where we find the word Prophet. What did this Prophet do? God told Abimelech, the Prophet would pray For him and his House would be healed. During the entire time Sarah was under the roof of Abimelech the wombs of his house were shut, but as soon as the Prophet prayed, they were opened again (Gen 20:17-18). This Prophet didn't curse the darkness, nor did he curse anything, he Prayed For the man causing a healing based on Abraham being a Blessing. Af­ter this prayer, the womb of Sarah would be opened as well, thus give and it shall be given, blessing for blessing.

Abraham was a hundred years old (100) when his son Isaac was born, the promise came when God was ready (Gen 21:5 & 18:14). When Abraham first heard "leave" he was 75 years old (Gen 12:4), when Ishmael was born he was 86 (Gen 16:16), Ishmael was circumcised at the age of 13, making Abraham 99 years old (Gen 17:24-25), then Isaac was born when he was 100; now it's some 25 years after Abraham left Haran and 14 years after Ishmael was born (Gen 12:4). The promise didn’t come overnight, yet after Isaac was born, Ish­mael became the problem child just as any product of manipulation will become our problem when the promise is in hand (Gen 21:9). Until the promise was in hand, the son of manipulation remained silent, but as soon as the prom­ise was fact, the son of manipulation turned like a mad dog on its owner. This type is like unto the old man, who sits around telling us how he is our friend, until One Stronger comes along, then the mocking comes from the old man in a fury, yet what is exposed often retaliates to show its supposed power. Ishmael was happy being the only one, but the promise came, showing Ishmael refused to believe, or he would have believed the Promised son would appear.

The son of manipulation mocked the son of promise, the mother of the promise demanded for the son of manipulation with his mother to be cast out (Gen 21:9-12). However, this is a sign to us; the Ishmael danger will not be evident until the New Man begins to grow, then we must join to the New as we cast out the bond (old man) to be free in the New (Gal 4:24-29). The bondwoman would become another symbol, one Paul talked about, we just can’t toss out the Ishmael, we must also send the bondwoman with him. What produces Ishmaels must not be resident in our life, neither the by-product. When Paul uses Hagar as an allegory we find there are two women, one of bondage, one free, each had a son. Paul equates Hagar to the Law, but was she around then? No, thus we find the allegory shows us although the Law of Moses came from the Same God as the Law of the Spirit, the Law of Moses is nonetheless designed for those in bondage, the Law of the Spirit for the Free (Gal 4:25). Both sons (laws) have the same source, but with two completely different mothers for two completely different purposes, something to remember when we venture off to do deeds under the Law of Moses to gain favor. Ishmael was still loved by Abraham, but only Isaac gained the Covenant. The Wicked are still loved by God, but God will not force Grace on anyone.

Ishmael is gone, Lot is gone, now Abraham has his promise in hand, then the Lord would say, "take now your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love and get you into the land of Moriah and offer him there for a burnt offering" (Gen 22:2). Clearly, we are told God is tempting Abraham, yet James said, the Lord doesn't tempt us to do evil. James also shows we can't tempt the Lord to do evil either, even in prayer (James 4:1-4). The addition of the word Evil changes the context in James, as it does here. God is not tempting Abraham to do evil, God knows the outcome, it’s Abraham who doesn’t. Evil temptation tempts us to do evil, God’s testing exposes evil so we can be free (James 1:14). In order to tempt someone with evil, there must be an evil in us: in order to be enticed by the evil temptation there must be an evil in us. If our Faith is being tested, then the one doing the testing must have Faith. The difference shows the devil has no faith, but he does have evil. God has no evil, thus the testing of God is always unto Good. In the case of Abraham the testing is to firm up the man’s faith, displaying to him how strong his faith really was. Surely this isn’t to show God the man’s faith, since God knows all things, the test is for Abraham.

There are times when we get an evil thought out of nowhere, then wonder, "where did that come from?". A dart out of darkness looking for a target, but it found none, in truth, we are in the process of Discerning the spirits by the Spirit. If the thought enticed us, it found a target. The evil temptation is really evil enticing evil, thus God has no evil in Him to entice us with, nor does He have any evil in Him to be enticed by. If God cannot be tempted in anyway we're in trouble, since we find God, Himself said the children in the wilderness tempted Him (Ex 17:7, Numb 14:22, Deut 6:16, Ps 78:18, 78:41, 78:56, 95:9 & Heb 3:9), the key is unto Evil, the children sent their evil temptations, but God sent back a test. This explains how the devil "tempted" Jesus, yet Jesus was never Tempted to do evil. The evil was in the heart of the devil, there was no evil in Jesus, thus the temptation was not complete since Jesus didn’t act on any of the temptations. If someone tempts us with evil, there must be an evil lust in us to be tempted, thus God will allow to expose, so we can be cleaned.

Knowing God cannot be tempted to do evil, there are some who would look at certain events in the wilderness presuming God was tempted. The great quail hunt is one, the people tempted God for “meat”, God provided the quail. However, when quail meat is coming out of your nose, it’s a good sign you didn’t tempt God at all, He knew your heart and exposed it. Simply because there appears a “result”, doesn’t mean God was enticed by the temptation, He merely used it to expose the lust in the one who was tempting Him. James also shows God is the giver of Good Gifts, but we can take the Good Gift filter it through a lust, making it evil (James 4:1-4).    

We must also remember, in the case of Abraham the testing was not to expose some evil or lust, it was to affirm the Covenant showing Abraham loved the Lord more than he loved the promise. The evil, or lust would have been loving the promise more than the Lord. This lesson opens the area of knowing what God has said, but being open to what God is saying. God tells Abraham to take the lad and offer him; then God says, “no”, if Abraham would have rejected the Proceeding Word of God, Isaac would have died on the rock. However, the call was to “offer”, not complete the sacrifice, which Abraham did.

The location is not by accident either, this Moriah will be later known as “Zion”, the rock upon which the city of Jerusalem was built (II Chron 3:1). Also we have to find out what Moriah means; it’s made up from two Hebrew words, meaning “JAH has Seen”, but Abraham didn’t know God as Jehovah! Ahh, the man will name the place Jehovah, from the place Jehovah will be seen on the Cross.

This test of Abraham is like many we face, our mouths say one thing, our actions another. Many of us thought we loved God with all our heart, until the time came to test our heart, then we found our mouth ran off, but our heart wasn't running with it. On the same note, we can find the testing proving we do Love the Lord more than we thought. There are times when God will have us re-visit an area where we were defeated, just to show us how much we have grown. To be defeated again? Nay, to find we have overcome.

Abraham did as he was told, his faith proved he was willing to listen, even to the proceeding word. This is also a beginning of a principle which carried over to the New Testament, one the Pharisees missed by miles. It’s important to know what God has said, but it’s also important to know what God is saying. God’s ability to be in all places at the same time brings about some interesting truths. First God cannot change His mind, as one would suppose by these events. In order to change ones mind, they must be subject to time, thus one must have a yesterday, today and a tomorrow in order to change their mind. Does God change His mind, or does He do something else? Progression in the plan, nothing more. God is moving forward in the plan, yet He sees the entire plan all at once. Man is subject to time, God accommodates, but it doesn’t mean God is subject to time. We know it’s a hard concept, but nonetheless it’s the basis of God’s om­nipresence. However, God does intervene in man’s time, when God said “offer your son” at one moment, when He said “no” it was another moment in the time of man, but it doesn’t mean God changed His mind, it means the Plan called for the two times to exist in the one event. 

God spoke in the days of old through His prophets, now He speaks In His Son, each one of us who are Born Again have His Son in us, one does not hear from God in this Age unless they have His Son. As far as the Night is concerned, God has said all He is going to say, it’s completely written in the Law and Prophets.

Jesus said our Father knows what we have need of before we ask, so does it mean we shouldn’t ask? Not at all, the asking puts us on the path God has for us to find the need. Jesus told His disciples, He had many things yet to say, but they were not able to “bear” them (Jn 16:12). The word Bear means “to perceive”, or “grasp”. Why? They were not spiritual in nature, the Spirit had not yet been given (Jn 7:38-39). Therefore it’s just as important to know what God is saying to us, as it is to know what God has said. In this case Abraham could have held to what God said, rejected what God was saying by killing the lad. If we reject the Proceeding Word it would be just as much disobedience as rejecting the prior Word.

God never told Abraham to “kill” the lad to begin with, it was, “offer him there”, which means to make the offer, it doesn’t necessarily mean to kill the sacrifice. The same is true with us, we present our­selves a living sacrifice, which means “to offer” ourselves, it doesn’t mean to kill ourselves.

Jesus said, “I say unto you” several times, we know in the Book of Revelation the Spirit “says” unto the churches. All these things God is saying, yet there are many things God has said. God could tell us something to test our obedi­ence, but if we close our ears from then on, we could miss the reward. An example we all know is Peter with the sheet appearing from heaven in Acts 10, Peter knew God had named “unclean” animals in the Law, yet in this sheet were all sorts of them, but the voice said, “Peter, kill and eat”. Peter said, “Not so Lord”, then he got the preceding word, “what God has cleaned no man call common” (Acts 10:15). The Proceeding word opened the Door for Cornelius and his house (Acts 10:44-48). 

The word Temptation has two sides, one is evil coming from the mouth of the devil, or his workers; however, the other side is found in John 6:6 where Jesus "tempted" Philip. In John the context and usage means to Test, not tempt into evil, yet it's the same Greek word James uses. Philip was tested to de­termine where he would look for the provision, he looked to the bag, yet his Provider was standing in front of him. The test would be if Philip said, “You are the provision Lord”, the temptation was done by Philip when he looked into the bag for the Provision, considering the thief (Judas) was holding the bag. The result was evident when Jesus blessed the bread and fish making them sufficient. God will allow something to be exposed to be cleaned before it becomes sin. God didn't put the evil there, He is not tempting us to commit the evil, He exposed it so we could be rid of it; therefore, if we discern we can take joy when we are tempted. Joy in being tempted? What say thee? We are the only group who can, the temptation caused us to fall, we know everyone is drawn away by their own lust, but we can be Cleaned of the lust by the Word in us.

James talks about divers temptations, what does the word divers mean? Different, yet  there are only two temptations, one unto evil, the other a testing unto good. The devil is called The Tempter, because he goes about tempting unto evil, the devil can never Test us, he has no good from which to operate. God will not tempt us to do evil, since God has no evil from which to operate. We cannot assume all Temptation is of the devil, this places us in a hard position in light of John 6:6, as well as the events happening here with Abraham.

There are 153 points to the Abrahamic Covenant, Peter would face his test of faith when he held a net holding 153 blessings, but he heard, "Do you love Me, more than these" (Jn 21:7-15). There it is, do we love the Lord more than the bless­ing? Or do we love the Lord for the blessing? Like Abraham, how many are willing to give back to God, what  God has given them? The test is still faith based, since faith pleases God, thus wanting to know what God desires is the heart of true faith.

Peter looked at the net of blessing, then looked at Jesus and said, "Yes, Lord; you know I love you" (Jn 21:15). While this was going on Jesus al­ready had the Need on the fire as the meal was preparing, thus on one side Peter had the great net before him, on the other Jesus with the need, the choice was now in the hands of Peter. Peter was willing to give up the promise for the sake of Jesus based on love; not reward. As long as Peter had his hand in the net, he could feed himself, but as soon as he turned toward Jesus, he heard, "Feed My lambs" (Jn 21:15). Not with the fish, but with the Gospel, building them to become fishers of men.

Abraham knew God brought the promise, thus the promise was God's property, but the promise was given to Abraham to care for as part of the Cove­nant. However, if God wanted the promise back, so be it, the love and faith still remained with Abraham (Gen 22:1-17). Abraham had confidence in "from thy Seed Isaac", he knew some how, in some way God would do it, even if God had to raise the child from the dead (Heb 11:19). Raised from the dead? Could it be, just perhaps, this is a type and shadow of the Resurrection of Jesus? Yes, the connection is also seen in Genesis 22:4, as Abraham lifts his eyes on
”third day” to see the location. 

Before Abraham took Isaac up the mountain he prophesied about the loca­tion by saying, "God will provide Himself a Lamb for a burnt offering" (Gen 22:8). It was this statement of faith which assured his belief was based in God Is thinking. The faith was still future, but the foundation was his belief in God. He said “God will” making the statement one of faith, but it denotes the words of a Prophet. Although Abraham didn't say "so saith the Lord", we still see the Prophetic wording. James points to this one experience as Abraham's test, but why? Prior God said, then God did, now Abraham said, would he do?

Abraham would cut his sacri­fice in half, then burn it, thus this entire event is a type and shadow, since Jesus was not cut in half, or burned. However, the Body of Jesus will be Broken, but the Scriptures say not one bone of His Body was broken on the Cross (Jn 19:36), yet we know Paul clearly says it will be (I Cor 11:23). Paul places the Broken Body in the same context with, "the same night in which He was betrayed" (I Cor 11:23-24). Why not the same Night as He prayed? Or the same Night He gave us the Cup? Another mystery pointing to something to do with Night, but who will cause the Body to be Broken? The sons of perdition. This Broken Body concept is given to us in the Psalms and Prophets as well. Paul used a word meaning A branch broken, then removed from the tree, surely the arms of Jesus didn’t fall to the ground; the context has nothing to do with the flesh of Jesus, rather it relates to His Body. God will provide Himself as a Lamb, the same one slain from the foundation of the world, yet the granted Body will be broken at the Rapture, in the end there will be a “burnt offering”, but it will be the goats, not the sheep who enter the lake of fire. 

This one move on the part of Abraham pointed to the Rock, the Ram (with two horns) of bondage, the Promise was to be set free, yet the goat was given. This ram has Two Horns, the metaphor Horn represents power, but did this ram come freely, or was it in bondage to the Thorns? Ahh, another mystery, the metaphor Thorns means the curse (Gen 3:18), the two horns represent two seasons of evil power, both of which are noted in the Book of Revelation. This mount is not the place where Jesus was crucified, rather He was crucified outside of the city, but in view of this Rock. This Rock is representative of the Rock known as Christ, every time someone comes to the Lord they make their statement of belief regarding the Cross and Resurrection. 

The promised son appeared to be led to the slaughter, but the ram was found slaughtered. What was the ram doing there anyway? Was it the “lamb”, no it was a Ram. The Ram is a type of the wicked, they stand afar off, mocking the promise, but soon find they are still in bondage (II Pet 2:19-22).

Was Isaac baptized with fire? No, but he was going to be a burnt offering. We encounter four baptisms, bringing us the Doctrine of Baptisms, but they all center in One purpose, giving us One Baptism. We know about water bap­tism, anyone who has been baptized in water, can baptize others in water, it’s the only baptism we conduct. The others are “Holy Ghost”, “Fire” and “Service”. We submit to the last three, but we don’t conduct them. We pick up our Cross, we don’t crucify ourselves.

The proph­ecy by Abraham has different ways it can be read, all three are correct. The first is the obvious, God did provide the sacrifice Himself, thus God did provide Isaac; therefore, what God did with Isaac was His business. God has provided the Lamb in Jesus from the foundation of the world, we Receive the Lamb, we don't control Him. Next God would provide His Word as the Lamb, which came to pass; however, there is another, God did provide the “ram in bondage”, God didn’t cause it, rather God used it. Regardless of which one we pick, we find they all came to pass.

Isaac wasn't facing a butter knife, he was looking at a sword, sharp enough to cut him in half. Isaac submitted to this, most of us would have assured Abra­ham "this thing is not of God brother", the rest of us would have told Isaac, "run, get a good lawyer". This experience also shows Jesus is the only way, there are no rams in the thicket wherein man can be saved. Another obvious lesson in the conviction of Abraham is his knowledge of “no substitutes”, it was Isaac, it would not be Ishmael, or any other son, thus God had to protect Isaac, since God told Abraham about “children”, yet this child didn’t have any children yet. If Abraham was being obedient, God would protect the lad, or bring him again from the ashes. If Abraham missed God, perhaps he was hearing the devil, God would still protect the lad by protecting the Promise (Heb 11:13 & 11:19).

What about Isaac? Was he fighting his father? No, he submitted, Paul tells us how Jesus humbled Himself, becoming Obe­dient unto death, even the death of the Cross (Ph'l 2:8). This was a like figure of Jesus being Sacrificed, then being raised on the Third Day, but Abraham wouldn't have to wait three days for his son to be raised from the altar, yet Abraham had no idea he was conducting prophecy regarding the Lamb of God, his mind was on God, he heard, he was obeying without question. Here the lad had to appear dead to be raised before the Seed could manifest. This type and shadow shows the Church came after the Resurrection of Jesus, not before. Jesus said He would build His Church on the Rock, thus the Church was birthed on Pentecost.

An angel came with a message from God, now Abraham saw his belief and faith as God saw them (Gen 22:12). Abraham called the Place Jehovah-Jireh, he didn't call God Jehovah-Jireh (Gen 22:14). Every Jew who has been to a synagogue knows the place was called Jehovah-Jireh, they just don't know why; however, we do. When Abraham looked about he saw a ram caught in a bush by its horns, Abraham knew the horns of an animal meant Power, but this is a Ram, not a Lamb. Jesus as the Lamb of God destroyed him who had the power of death, who is the devil; the Wicked are seen in the Day and Night, but in the end the goats will be separated from the sheep (Heb 2:14 & Rev 20:10).

Jesus said the Cross was akin to Moses lifting the brass serpent, but it doesn't mean Jesus is a serpent, rather it shows the Cross destroys the power of serpents, making them ineffective. The Ram had Two Horns, but we can't confuse these "horns" with the Trumps of God, although we do find an allegory. There are Three trumps of the Lord, the First, the Last, and the Great. The First Horn sounded when God wanted to be among His people, the Last Trump opens the Restoration of Israel as the Rapture takes place wherein we are Changed (I Cor 15:51-52). The Great Trump is blown when Jerusalem is under siege, announcing the end of time as man knows it, producing the Judgment. The Last trump is the Last of two, but not the Last in order, thus we find the First, the Last (Second) then the Great (Third - Isa 27:13).

At times our faith is the only element we can relay on, the event may seem horrid, but it’s the event, not the result. If we entered with belief in God Is, we will be looking for God by our faith. At the time when Jesus was on the Cross, it didn't appear Good to the disci­ples, rather they assumed it was all over, but in reality it was a Beginning of some­thing wonderful. The disciples failed to under­stand, the event appeared evil to them, but to Jesus it was very Good. There are times when we can't discern the event because we are looking at the event, rather than finding the purpose of the event. We are attempting to use natural reasoning to discern spiritual matters, which is judging the event by the event. If we seek the Precious, we will find it. Of course if we seek the evil we will find it as well; evil seeds produce bitterness, faith produces joy.

Since the place was called Jehovah-Jireh, we need only to know where Jehovah provided Himself as the Sacrifice to detect where Abraham was at this point in time. The wording, “In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen” (Gen 22:14) doesn’t say the event will be on the mount, it means those of the mount will see. The mount then becomes the “place of vision”, today the Muslim assumes the Dome of the Rock Mosque is the place where Mo­hammed went into heaven, but it's their place of hindrance, not deliver­ance. The place or Rock has been sitting on the site of the old temple for years, the old temple was built on the Rock which was the center place of Zion, or Moriah (II Chron 3:1 & Gen 22:2).

The Jew knows from their his­tory Mount Moriah was the location, but the location covers more than the tem­ple sight. The Apostles knew Jehovah did Jireh (provide) on the Mount of the Skull, the one rock and mountain overlooking the temple as part of mount Moriah, which Mount joins to the Mount of Olives, the place where Jesus gave us the Commandments for Mercy. We have come unto heavenly Zion, the Rock (Body), we can see clearly now, but at the time of the Cross those in Jerusalem could clearly see the Cross, yet they didn’t have clue to its importance. Abraham being a Prophet is giving prophecy to an act he had no knowledge of. We think if we prophesy, we must know the event first hand. We don’t have to know the event, all we need to know is God is using us to say, or do. Abraham the man was looking at one thing, but God saw something many years in the future which Abraham had no exact knowledge of.

There was another connection to this offered sacrifice pointing directly to the Church. Genesis 22:17 shows God saying, “In blessing I will bless you, and in multiplying I will multiply your Seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore, and thy Seed shall possess the gate of HIS enemies”. This is a very important verse, one has to wonder, “Where is the curse part”? We saw it before in Genesis 12:3 with Abram, but what is this? Something new? Yes, look at the verse real close, notice the “Seed” is referred to as “His”, not “them”. This is the connection Paul used in Galatians showing the real Seed is One, yet in Romans the same man said the Seed of the flesh of Abraham was many. What gives? Was Paul under the anointing when writing Galatians, but in the flesh writing to the Romans? Hardly, to the Romans it was in reference to the seed after the flesh of Abraham, known here as “the sand of the sea”. However, to the Seed as One we find the “stars of heaven” pointing to the Church. This verse also connects to Hebrews chapter six were we find there are two things in which it’s impossible for God to lie, “surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you” (Heb 6:14 & 6:18). These two things form a foundation of our hope, becoming an anchor to our souls (Heb 6:19). They relate to the New Testament person, who is Blessed to be Blessing unto the Lord most High. Therefore, the promise to Abram was directed to the seed as many, including blessing and cursing as the Law of Moses confirms, but to Abraham the curse aspect was missing, thus it’s to the Seed as One, all blessing, no cursing. The Blessing of Abraham is not in material things, it was the Seed.

Time marches on, it came time for Isaac to wed, the word of the Lord came unto Abraham saying, “Behold, Milcah, she has also born children unto your brother Nahor” (Gen 22:20). Not only did she bear, she bear eight children, one of them was named Bethuel who became the father of Rebekah (Gen 22:23).           

Both Sarah and Abraham died, but the promise lived on in Isaac, but before Abraham died the bride of Isaac was obtained and secured. Isaac's bride is a sym­bol of how the Holy Ghost secured the Bride of Christ. Abraham sent the word through his servant, the servant obtained the bride for the promised son (Gen 24:1-9). The allegory shows how the Holy Ghost goes forth seeking the Bride for the Lord by planting the Seed.

Jumping ahead to Genesis 25 we find another family for Abraham, but why even tell us? (Gen 25:1-6). What does this family hold which is so impor­tant? This family along with Ishmael proves God could have brought all twelve tribes from Abraham, but it was not the plan. This is an area where "God could have", but God didn't because He is God. From Abraham came forth one son of promise, but there was also the son of manipulation, then other sons, but only one as a “son of the covenant”, just as Jesus is the Only Son of God, yet we know the Spirit of God bears witness with our Spirit, which is of God how we are sons of God by Adoption through the Spirit. Jesus came from the Bosom of the Father, we are part of the Body of Christ, from the bosom of the Body, Jesus builds His Church, then the Church becomes the Bride, thus the Bride makes herself ready by belief and faith.

In essence we find three families for Abraham, the first was with Ha­gar producing Ishmael, the second with Sarah producing Isaac, then lastly or third with Kethurah. It was Isaac, or middle one God picked, thus pointing to the New Covenant, the one we have, the One of great importance. This also shows it wasn’t the First Adam the Father was looking for to produce the Image, but the likeness of the Second Adam, the heavenly One, as the Seed of God is making our souls into the Image. All of Abraham’s children, regardless of which family would be in contact over the years; not always on friendly terms, but in contact. From Ishmael would come the Arabs, from Kethurah would come Medan, from Medan would come the Medians, from them came Balaam. This explains not only why Balaam was a prophet, but points out his association to Israel based on Abraham.

Although we look at Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as three men who are related, we find two things missing in respect to Isaac not found in Abram and Ja­cob. Isaac never had his name changed, neither did Isaac have the word Curse, or a cursing associated with his connection to the Covenant. Why would this be? After all God changed Abram's name to Abraham, and Jacob's to Israel, it's not fair! Oh, Abram was named by his natural father, and, oh, that can't be right since Jacob was named by Isaac. Wait, God didn't change Ishmael's name either, is this a mys­tery? We can't change the name of our Ishmael, or ignore it, neither can we change the name of the Promise (Isaac), both show us some­thing can't be changed, yet we can be saved from our Ishmaels because of the Promise. Isaac being the middle family shows how Paul saw Hagar and Ishmael as the Old Covenant, the Seed as the New, then the house of Jacob appointed to the Night.

Although Ishmael came from Abram, and the third family from Abraham one could still view them all as “family”, but only Isaac was picked by God to carry the promise. Why didn’t God tell Abraham to leave those other women alone? Could God have stopped Ishmael? Yes, but true Power will not force the issue, it simply makes a plan around the issue, or fits the issue into the plan. One element Paul kept teaching was the Power of God, all things are under the feet of Jesus, nothing is over Him, nothing controls, or dictates how Jesus acts, or reacts.

Was the Law of Moses from God? Yes, but didn’t it accuse the children? Yes, because the fall nature needs a schoolmaster, it must have the incentive of gain as a motivation, or punishment of a curse to keep the doer in line, as a schoolmaster would. Was Abraham under the Law? No. Why not? Belief, faith and obedience, he was still subject to the conditions of the Covenant, yet the Covenant didn’t restrict him from being married more than once.

How about the commandment in the Beginning, didn’t God say it should be one man and one women? Yes, a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife. However, the nature of man at this time had no “law” saying “NO”, thus man reasoned the commandment to multiply would override “one wife”. It’s the reasoning of man, we have the Mind of Christ, thus Jesus cleared the issue when He said, It was not so in the beginning, there were two, one male with one female. God didn’t take a half of dozen wives from Adam, it was the two shall be one, not the six shall be one. Even Adam knew this, thus he remained with Eve all his days, as she remained with him.

ISAAC

We found a Hebrew is a sojourner, but what about a “Jew”. First off Abraham was never known as a Jew in his day, neither was Isaac, Jacob, or Judah. The first time we find  a reference to the people as Jews is when Ahaz ruled around 735 BC, but the first time we find the word Jew it has to do Mordecai the one who raised Esther, after Esther’s mother and father died around 400 BC (Esther 2:5-7). Although the Jews as a language or generally as a people were seen in II Kings 16:6 and 18:26, but calling a person a Jew or using the exact term “Jew” is first found in Esther. We know the term Jew is con­nected to the tribe of Judah, but here we have a problem, since Mordecai is from the tribe of Benjamin (Esther 2:5). Mordecai was related to Esther, as her cousin (Esther 2:7). How does this connect? The captivity joined all the tribes of Israel into the general term “Jew”, from then on a “Jew” became a generic term for anyone born into the family line of Jacob, but the definition doesn’t end there. The term "Jew" points to two things, first it shows how the Tribe of Judah became the central focus of the nation Israel, we also know Judah means, “Praise”. Of course the Bible tells us Jesus is from the Tribe of Judah, although they didn’t know it, those of Israel joined them­selves into one grouping under the King of kings. The second definition of the term “Jew” is defined in the New Testament, no where do we find “Spiritual Israel”, or “true Israel”, but we do find the term True Jew used in reference to the Body of Christ. A “true Jew” is one circumcised of the heart, the other type of Jew is circumcised of the flesh. Since circumcision is a Token to a Covenant we find the term Jew means one who has a right to enter a Covenant obtained by another. Abraham obtained the Abrahamic Covenant, it’s why it’s named Abrahamic, yet it’s open to those of the family line of Isaac if the male in the family was circumcised on the eighth day. To be a True Jew one needs the Token associated to Jesus as a proof of the cutting away of the old heart by accepting the New Heart, becoming the same Spirit who raised Jesus. A True Jew then is one who is Sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

 The New Covenant is like circumcision of the flesh, the Covenant came first, then the Token, with the Jew it’s the Token giving them right to enter into the Covenant. The same is true with us, until our hearts are circumcised by the Holy Ghost, we lack the Token of the Seal of the Holy Spirit to enter the New Covenant. However, not to fear, the Holy Ghost never missed a one in 2,000 years. We never read, “and the Holy Ghost said Oops”.

Israel is a nation is made up from all 12 tribes, not just one, an “Israeli” is one from the land, or lives in the land of Israel, but a Jew need not be an Israeli, they can live in Europe, yet be a Jew. Nonetheless, we follow the Lion from the Tribe Of Judah, which is One, not many. A Jew is simply a person who has the Token allowing them the right to accept a Covenant presented by God if they are in the line accompanying the Promise.

A male Jew who is circumcised of the flesh, thus their wife, or daughters have a right to accept the Covenant God made with Abraham as well. The problem with the Galatians was their zeal was taking them backward, they presumed the Covenant God made with Abraham was as good, or an addition to the Covenant the Father made with the Son. Paul said anyone who teaches us to enter the Abrahamic Covenant is bewitching us (Gal 3:1-3), but why? The Abrahamic Covenant had many blessings, but it was based in the flesh, not the Spirit, like the baptism of John it cannot grant us the Cross. The premise behind the Abrahamic Covenant is the Seed as One, if we are Born Again we have the Seed in us. 

Isaac was the only one to carry the Covenant, but not the only one circumcised. In order for the line to continue Isaac was to obtain a family, it was nonetheless connected to Abraham. 

When the Holy Ghost calls, it still takes a decision to follow; however, at times when God calls, the flesh will present it’s call of hesitation. The name La­ban means To gulp or Swallow, associating to fear. The name Rebekah means Fettering by beauty, or binding by one's beauty, she becomes a symbol of the promise to the Bride of Christ, who is seen as a great beauty in the eyes of God. Rebekah didn't have to say she was beautiful, she proved it, just as the Bride doesn't have to say She is Christ Like, She proves it. Paul says God picks the weak (comatose), the base (ugly) and the foolish (morons), but He doesn't leave us in the same old condition. He gives us the New Man to form our souls into a vision and prophecy going beyond our minds conception. Although the evidence of our beauty isn't always present, the promise for our beauty is (Rom 8:18).

Rebekah will be far removed from a direct relationship with Isaac, but nonetheless they are related. The “family line” was to continue on; Isaac would receive a Bride by the hand of a servant (Gen 24:1-9). The ser­vant of Abraham went into Mesopotamia, or the land of Babylon, thus the Holy Ghost moves into the world (Egypt) calling us forth into the kingdom for the Father's sake (Gen 24:10).

The bride (Rebekah) was willing to go, it was her brother who sought gain from the wedding (Gen 24:29-30). Rebekah's brother (Laban) not only attempted to make gain, but wanted Rebekah to wait a few days, which shows a type of a hin­dering spirit (Gen 24:55). Both Laban and Rebekah were related to Abraham through Nahor (Gen 22:20). Going back to Genesis 11:29 we find Nahor married Milcah, who was the daughter of Haran, we know Lot was the son of Haran (Gen 11:29 & 11:31). From Nahor and Milcah came eight children, with the eighth being Bethuel, who would be the father of Rebekah and Laban (Gen 22:22-23). Bethuel, the father of Rebekah would appear to be dead from some of the context here, but then, behold, we find Laban and Bethuel giving a answer in Genesis 24:50. Bethuel is a type of those who side with the Labans of the world, saying one thing, but meaning another. Laban will appear again when Jacob ventures to the house of Laban, at the time the real Laban will be seen for who he is. Laban had little room in his heart for anyone but Laban, his words were deceptive in nature, yet he is associated with the bride of promise. However, he is not the bride, nor is he included in the Promise. Laban then becomes a symbol of the hindering action of the self-nature. What clue do we find concerning this? Looking at Genesis 24:50 we read, “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing proceeds from the Lord: we can­not speak unto you bad or good" (Gen 24:50). It sounds all well and fine, but what was their first premise, good or bad? It was bad, showing their focus.

The servant was very ex­cited, God answered his prayer, he found the bride for his master's son, it was all Good, but what was the premise of Laban and Bethuel? If they couldn't find anything bad to say, why say anything? Has this happened to us? We had a good report, yet it seems to fall on deaf ears. Laban is a master of deception, yet our warfare calls for us to tend the Precious, not the Vile (Jere 15:19). The word Vile means Retribution or Vengeance, whereas, the word Precious means Greatly esteemed, Truth, or Valuable, holding the Precious when the Vile pops up keeps us from ut­tering words from the Laban mentality.

The Corinthians were Precious in God’s sight, but they were anything but spiritual in nature, rather they were car­nal, meaning they were unable to understand spiritual matters, yet Paul says they had the Spirit, and were members of the Body (I Cor 3:1-3 & 3:9-17). There must be more to being Spiritual than having the Spirit, yet no one can be Spiritual unless they have the Spirit. The Corinthians were rebelling fetus' ignoring the process of the New Birth. Paul took great pains to explain spiritual matters to the Corinthians; not only was he provoking them to enter the spiritual, but he removed their blood from his head. Corinth was self-based, the evidence was in how they were ignorant of the spiritual aspect of God, yet they claimed to be Christian. Paul asked them to follow him (I Cor 11:1); however, this didn't mean to place Paul between them and God, rather it means to use Paul as an example of one who follows Jesus through a personal relationship.

When Paul was a child, he acted like one, but there came a time to grow up in the Lord. The Corinthians were so carnal they had to see a man of God, in order to know what a man of God acted like. Paul knew the prob­lem in Corinth was based in their leadership, as the leadership was a reflec­tion of the family unit, thus he used the marriage and family unit in a metaphoric sense to show natural people the danger they were causing to their potential spiritual nature within the family of God (I Cor 11). We can take his words to mean some gender relationship, but we have a real problem. Why? If one takes the context in First Corinthians chapter 11 to mean gender they soon find the husband and wife do not include all males and females, thus the widow, single female, single male, and widower are not included, thus they need not remain “silent”, of course making Paul and God respecters of persons, which James calls a sin (James 2:1-9). However, if we keep Paul’s words metaphoric, we gain, learn to discern. Another problem is the head of the woman is the man, the mouth is connected to the head, if the woman is to remain silent, it’s the man’s head which has to keep silent. Must be more to the teaching, Amen?

This still relates, the authority of the Covenant based in who presents the Covenant. In First Corinthians the problem is not Power, rather it was misuse of Authority. The servant of Abraham didn’t venture out on his own, he received a command as he held to the responsibility of performance. In like manner Paul points out the Head (authority) of the wife (congregation) is the husband (leadership), the Head of the husband (leadership) is Christ, the Head (authority) of Christ (Anointing, or Body) is God (Jesus as God the Son - I Cor 11:3). The term Christ used here doesn't take away from Jesus, but expands the concept to the Authority given to the Body of Christ (I Cor 10:17). We can never separate Jesus from being The Christ, but we can veil, or yoke the Authority of Christ from the Body of Christ. The leadership is at the Shoulder of Jesus, the Head of the Body is still Jesus, yet if leadership places a carnal yoke on the neck, they have dishonored their Head. Which means the congregation cannot speak, or they shame their leaders.

The carnal yoke prevents the anointing from operating, both issues were the concern of Paul for the Corinthians. The carnal yoke is restrictive in nature, yet the Yoke was destroyed because of the anointing. Carnal elements separate us from the Authority of Christ, included as carnal, but not limited to are the: the Law of Moses, the flesh, self-based reasoning, unbelief, doubt, carnal approaches to spiritual matters, or self-deceiving theology. All these elements are self yokes placed on the neck of the authority of the Governments, restricting the Authority and Anointing from coming from Jesus to the Body (Isa 9:6). When it happens the wives (congregation) cannot pray or prophesy, they must learn at home, while remaining silent in the gathering. If they pray openly, they shame their husband (leadership). If they have to “learn at home”, surely they are not gaining anything in the gathering. Later in Chapter 14 he speaks of praying and speaking, they have to relate, thus if the leadership is carnal, the congregation must remain silent, or they shame their leadership. The metaphor Hair points to the anointing, the anointing should be long and flowing, but in order to achieve the goal the Authority must be in Order. Paul gives us a clear example of what happens when we in the Body have the Spirit, but fail to be spiritual in nature. Power used outside of Authority is witchcraft, a concern Paul had for the Corinthians (I Cor 11:3-5). The reason for the silence is when she (congregation) prays or prophesies in the gathering, her head (husband) becomes an open shame (I Cor 11:5 & 14:34). We can take these verses to form a dress code, but we only prove we’re carnal. We can take them to force the women to remain subject, but again we only prove we’re carnal. All of which means we are unable to understand spiritual matters. Far better to be spiritual as we operate in the perfect law of Liberty, then in bondage to a self-induced Ishmael.

Isaac was looking for a helpmeet, not a slave. Laban was looking for the self-gain thus he acted as if he was the head of the family, yet his father lived, he was misusing his role by usurping his father’s authority. What has this to do with the Corinthians? Much, while Rebekah was under the roof of Laban, she had to remain silent. However, when she moved to the house of Isaac she found freedom. In Corinthians we are given the results of carnal leadership coupled with the ineffectiveness it produces. Corinth allowed "false apostles" to enter in, if we are in a carnal church, it's better for the women (members) to remain silent, rather than make an open shame of the carnal husbands (leaders). However, a woman whose head (husband or leader) has long hair (flowing anoint­ing, not a false covering), her head (husband or leader) then has Power (Authority), becoming a Glory (I Cor 11:15 & 11:10). “Oh wait, the woman’s head is to have long hair”, right, but who is her head? The husband: Yikes the 60’s revisited, no, it’s Authority, not a dress code.

Rebekah's beauty was open and noticed immediately by the servant of Abraham (Gen 24:16). Her beauty was on the inside as well, as the New Man is us works to bring our souls into perfection; but it takes time, faith and patience to reach the goal. It also takes some yoke busting times of exposure, as well as times of joy, peace and simply knowing we do have victory in Jesus. When the fire of God burns away all the wood, hay and stubble, the Glory of the Lord will shine in the child of God who holds their love and faith in God (Rom 8:18).

Rebekah made up her mind, she was going (Gen 24:28-30), even to the point of taking the “tokens”. However, Laban saw the bracelets or gifts given to the “bride” by the servant, as he was moved by his greed. Rebekah could not leave the “carnal house” without permission, it was Paul’s problem with the Corinthians as well. He couldn’t write the famed one liner, “you are carnal, I don’t know you, please don’t call”, rather three times he approached this thorn in his flesh, each time he found Grace is sufficient, it always is, yet he couldn’t leave them. It wouldn’t be God’s way, they could leave God, not the other way around.

Although Abraham had Ishmael by Hagar, and eight sons by Keturah, the only one to receive the Covenant was Isaac, the others did receive gifts, but not the promise (Gen 25:5-6). Which do you think is more important? Abraham “gave up the ghost”, which means his soul left his flesh, or he died physically (Gen 25:7-11). He was buried by in the field he purchased from Heth, the same place where Sarah was buried. Abraham was not around when Jacob and Esau were born (Gen 25:8 & 25:21), thus the saying, “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” becomes a sign of God being in all places at the same time. Nonetheless we move on to Isaac, the only son born to Abraham and Sarah.

Isaac's story would continue, yet we now know Ishmael ended with twelve princes all in Assyria, a prince is always subject to a king (Gen 25:18). Assyria and Babylon are close to one another, at times they are considered the same metaphorically. God would use Babylon to hold His people captive under king Nebuchadnezzar only after years of warning: yet king Nebuchadnezzar also became an example of a man making an image to represent himself (Dan 3:1). God wounded the head (authority) of the wicked house, but in the latter days the Wicked One will use the ways of Assyria (idol worship) to bring the abomination to the Woman who becomes known as Babylon (Hab 3:13, Isa 11:11-14 & Rev 13:11-15). 

It's also evident God blessed Ishmael, but not for Ishmael's sake, rather God blessed Ishmael based on the prayer of Abraham, yet God also said Ishmael was not of the Covenant (Gen 17:18-19). All the Ishmaels we produce can appear to be blessed, but they are nonetheless outside of the Covenant, they will become a "wild man" coming against the promise (Gen 16:12). Lead­ers must keep in mind how their Ishmaels are paid for by others, it was Hagar, the symbol of bondage, who ended carrying Ishmael on her back.

Rebekah would deliver two sons to Isaac, the twins become examples of the split between the one who holds the promise, and the one who was delivered the promise, but rejected it. These twins go back to Cain and Abel, one was not loved of God, the other was. Wait, doesn't God love everyone? God loves those who love Him, yet hates the ways of the wicked, but it’s not the case with Esau. Esau would do something to turn God’s love for him into hate. What would it be? A disrespect for the birthright, something those who are Born Again should never forget (Heb 12:16).

Wait, God is no Re­specter of persons, right? It's true, if we act like Judas, He treats us like Judas, if we act like Paul, He treats us as Paul. In the Season of the Day we do find the Longsuffering of God is found in His Love, thus during the Day the premise of "God loves us all" is correct to a point, but we also find God hates the ways of the Wicked (Prov 6:16-19). The question is never, "doesn't God love all?", rather the question is "Do you love God?". The Commandments are based on our Love toward God and others, not God's Love toward us. God loves cockroaches and rattlesnakes as well, thus it's not whether or not God loves us, but whether or not we love God (Ps 11:5 & Prov 8:13-17).

Paul used these twins to explain how God knows us before we are even born, also showing we are born into the sin nature, but it’s the doing of sin making us sinners. God said, "The elder shall serve the younger" with, "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated", yet these statements were made before the twins did right or wrong (Malachi 1:2-3 & Rom 9:12-14). Pointing to God's foreknowledge, or how God knew Esau would treat his birthright with disdain, as he used it as a tool to get what he wanted for his flesh; until he found it gone forever. Esau and Jacob are types and shad­ows, neither was a pillar of goodness, but nonetheless we find the difference between them was really which one would desire and respect the birthright.

Esau means Rough and ready, later the same term is defined as a Wild Ass in Jeremiah. The soul without the Spirit is a wild ass, he sits when he should stand, he stands when he should sit, he moves when he should wait, waits when he should move. The New Man hears from Abba Father, as we are formed into God’s Son to be sons of God.

Was Esau a sinner as a baby? Paul says before either Esau or Jacob did either good or evil. What evidence do we have? A baby, ever notice how a baby can be naked, yet not make it an issue? Then one day the same nakedness becomes a shame? Guess what happened? Being under the sin nature means we are more prone to sin, then not. The time comes when we were presented with the fruit, we did partake, at the time we became sinners, entering “there is none righteous, no not one”.

The form­ing process is the justification process to bring our souls into line with the Spirit, thereby proving the elder shall serve the younger. On the same note, we know the younger will Submit to the elder, thus our souls can submit to the Spirit, or take Control, when we take control, the Spirit will submit, allowing us to build our towers of Babel, or birth our Ishmaels, we have the keys. The soul out of control is a Wild Ass look­ing for an Ishmael to happen, the saved soul is happy, pleased to be a servant, sitting in a pleasant state. This allegory is not to say the Spirit and the old man are of the same father, rather it shows Esau and Jacob are of the same womb, each had the same opportunity. Esau is a type of one who enters the Body, but rejects the purpose for entering. They are more interested in the flesh, than the Spirit.

God knows us, it's we who don't know God; God knows our decisions and choices before we make them, it's we who don't know the decision, or the result of the decision, but on the same note, it's our salvation at stake, not God's. However, we find the “father” sent a “servant” to obtain a bride for the son of the promise, Isaac married Rebekah, he loved her deeply, she was a compassionate person displayed in how she comforted Isaac after Sarah died (Gen 24:67). She was no longer bound to the “room of silence”, she was able to minister to her husband in his time of need.

Like father, like son, as Abraham found famine in the land, so would Isaac. Like dad, he would come into the land of Abimelech the king and tell his wife, "say, you are not my wife, lest the men of the place should kill me" (Gen 26:1 & 26:7). Wait, is this the same Abimelech? He must be as old as water by this time. This is the son of the Abimelech Abraham faced, thus we must go back a few chapters, so we can understand what is about to happen. When Abraham was in the land of Abimelech, Abimelech knew this man had connections with God (Gen 21:22). Abimelech wanted some assurance he would not end on the wrong side of God, so he wanted to enter covenant with Abra­ham (Gen 21:23). Abimelech laid out the premise, "you will not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son: but according to the kindness I have done unto you" (Gen 21:23). This is conditional, it doesn't bind Abraham to doing only good, rather it's "as I have done unto you"; however, Abraham reproved Abi­melech, since the servant's of Abimelech just took a well of water from Abraham. This is really an "huh-oh"; "do to me, as I have done to you my good friend, what? I stole from you?". Abimelech then told Abraham how he didn't know of the event, but the words of the covenant still didn't have the escape clause, there was no, "unless I don't know of course" statement. The title and name Abimelech means "father of a king", at this time the son of Abimelech was alive, thus when we see the second Abimelech it doesn't mean it's the same person Abraham faced, it means this is a son of the man Abraham faced, yet he is still bound to the promise his father made to Abraham (my son, nor my son’s son).

Isaac will assume some things, we can't forget Isaac is really a human without the Spirit, although a type based on the Seed (Gal 3:16). We have to keep in mind these are real people, but they also become allegories and types. Isaac’s statement re­garding Rebekah sounds like Abraham, but there are some differences. Sarah was the half-sister of Abraham, but Rebekah is not the half-sister of Isaac, although she is distantly related. Sarah was taken into the house of Abimelech, Rebekah was not. This time the entire land suffered, then Abimelech said, "What is this you have done unto us?" (Gen 26:10). This Abimelech had a basis to complain, he was part of the Covenant made between his father and Abraham, but he isn't in the clear, as we will see. Once the error of Isaac was exposed, he corrected it, then he was able to sow in the land, reaping a hundred fold in return (Gen 26:12). This shows how we can sow, but if we have error we reap not, or at best very little, yet when the deception and error are removed our sowing becomes beneficial. 

These were people of God, people God talked to, or worked with, yet they lied, used tricks, for the most part were self-centered. So why would God even use them? The spirit of man, these people didn't have the same opportunity we have, they were under a nature without escape. They didn’t have the New Man, thus what they desired to do, they couldn't, but what they didn't want to do, they did. On the same note, to whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48). We can’t look back and say, “well Abra­ham did it, so can I”. We have a better foundation, one established in Christ. During those times God spoke to these people by the prophets, but now He speaks to us in His Son (New Man). God didn't change, He simply progressed in the plan, it got Better.

Even after gaining the increase Isaac found the wells of his father were de­stroyed by the Philistines, yet Abimelech was the "king of the Philistines" (Gen 26:1), thus the same attitude Abraham faced, Isaac faces (Gen 26:15). These Philistines saw the Blessing, but they allowed envy to take control their minds, the same premise holds true today when the spirit lusting to envy becomes involved. The world could care less if we are unblessed, but the minute we talk about "the blessing of God", out they come for the attack, for the most part we believe the voices of the uncircumcised Philistines, over the people of God. The son of promise never attacked the son of the bondwoman, if we want victory we must follow in like manner.

Abimelech asked Isaac to leave, Isaac bowed to the wishes of Abimelech and left, but from his submission he attempts to make amends, the Lord would appear to Isaac telling him, "I Am the God of Abra­ham your father: fear not, for I Am with you and will bless you and multiply your seed for My servant Abraham's sake" (Gen 26:24, Gal 3:18 & Heb 11:18). Wait, where is "I will curse him who curses you"? It's not there, the promise to Abraham was two fold unto two nations; the sand of the sea (Jews), then the stars of heaven which can't be numbered, yet this Promise is only complete in Christ.

Later in the Book of Revelation John makes entry through the Door into heaven, thus he is rep­resentative of the Stars, later we find him standing on the Sand of the Sea where he sees one Beast come out of the Sea, and another out of the Earth, thus the Sand of the Sea still plays a part in the End Times, but they are nonetheless appointed to the Night, not the Day (Rev 4:1 & 13:1-12). The Blessing for the stars without number points to the Day; Jesus used One mountain for the Blessing of Mercy, but He never said "cursed are you". We are not the Sand of the Sea, but the Stars of Heaven, the products of the Kingdom of God. Also in the Bible we find the Remnant of the Seed of the Woman are reduced in number from the total, but the people of the Day are ten thousand times ten thousand (Dan 7:10 & Rev 5:11).

The humbleness of Isaac brought the Lord’s comfort to him, thus if we remain humble, we will find God’s comfort in any event. Although the appearance came as a result of Isaac's actions, the promise came because of Abraham's belief. God is still the God of the living, as long as one lives who is subject to the promise, regardless of the promise, the benefit of the promise will not pass away; however, unbelief, doubt and iniquity will diminish our ability to receive the fullness of the promise.

From Abram would come several nations, some of which are products of the twelve princes of Ishmael, as well as the sand of the sea, other nations, but more important a Promise for Christ and the Stars of the Heaven. Abram and Jacob were both told "cursed is he who curses you" (Gen 12:3 & 27:29), but Isaac was not, rather for Isaac it was Blessing and Multiplying, which promise becomes an anchor to our soul (Heb 6:14 & 6:18-19).

There is more than one Hebrew word for the word Cursed, but in reference to Abraham and Jacob the word is Arar meaning To bind, but in reference to the earth being cursed for Adam's sake it was the Hebrew Qalal meaning To make small, giving us the introduction of the concept of tares. The cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, or the lusts for other things do not “kill” the Seed, but they will separate the Seed from us, or choke it out of us. The old nature is driven by the things of the world, thus the New Man is changing our souls from the flesh to the Spirit. Not an easy task, but one the Greater He is fully capable of.

Grace is all blessing, if we are of Grace we are a Blessing, thus all curses are still nailed to the Cross. The Day is a great time to be in, the place of Grace and understanding, a place where we find the saving of our souls by the Spirit. 

ESAU AND JACOB

Esau and Jacob were brothers who broke the womb at the same time, Esau was the oldest, since he broke the womb first, the promise should go to him, however, God has means going beyond our understanding. Ishmael was first, but Isaac was the son of Promise; however it was based on their mother’s being different people, here it’s the same mother. When the time came for the promise to pass from Isaac to Esau, Rebekah would intervene, the promise would go to the deserving one; therefore, the first was last and the last became first (Gen 27:6-17). This was also predicated on Esau rejecting the birthright inheritance many days hence (Gen 25:31-34). This Barter attitude of Esau is the same attitude the Wicked hold, they will barter away their Life for the authority of the Beast, thereby, giving us the term, "giving life to the Beast”.

Esau despised his birthright, evidenced by him trading it for the pleas­ures of the flesh (Gen 25:34). On the other hand, Moses suffered affliction with the people of God, instead of enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season (Heb 11:25). Sin has a short spanned pleasure in the flesh, if it didn't have a fleshly pleasure, no one would sin. The blessing of the Cross is the ability to impute the flesh dead (ineffective), once dead the Law of Moses is no longer effective, making the law of sin and death no longer effective; indicating the law of sin and death really points to the second death. 

Esau was used in the New Testament as an example of one who is so flesh centered they lack appreciation for the birthright (Heb 12:15-16). Esau was moved by the moment, yet the flesh is always moved by the moment. Unsaved emotions are the fuel to feed the flesh it’s pleasures, yet God has a wilderness for us, so special we can impute the flesh dead, while our emotions are being saved, as we become useful.

Jacob will face some tough situations, yet we remember the times God has delivered us, “man you know what I just went through?”; it’s the point we’ve been through it, it’s time to move on. Those times of pressure secure us in the birthright, but Esau thought more of his flesh, than his birthright. Esau failing to respect his birthright is the reason we find God loved Jacob, but hated Esau (Malachi 1:3 & Rom 9:13). Wait, Esau was firstborn, yet in addressing the situation we find God put Jacob first. Esau's lesson is our example, we respect the Birthright God has granted us, we never sell it for the flesh, or for the pleasures of the flesh. It doesn’t mean we won’t fall, it means we won’t sell our birthright for the flesh.

Esau sought Pardon, but the time passed after Jacob obtained the inheritance, meaning there was a time of repentance for Esau, until the time when the birthright was secured by Jacob, then there was no repentance. Rather than Esau telling his father, "I have sinned, and sold my birth­right", he will use Subtlety, by accusing Jacob of the same (Gen 27:35). No where does it say Jacob stole the blessing, Esau freely traded his right for the pleasure for his flesh, Jacob merely accepted the offer. It was Esau whom God hated, because Esau gave away his standing, then acted as if it was stolen. Esau used the ways of the wicked, thus by association to the ways he drew the hate of God. Using the ways of the wicked to gain the wealth of the wicked, doesn't produce God's prosperity. Esau entered self-repentance, he was remorseful, but only because he found the result of his folly didn’t please him. He was not repentant, he was not sorry toward his birthright, or to his brother, rather he accused his brother. Judas was remorseful only because his plan failed to turn out the way he wanted, thus Judas and Esau are types of the Wicked, who have the birthright in hand, but reject it for the flesh.

In our case we find Pardon, it didn't cost us a thing, it's granted based on God's Mercy, not our greatness. The works of Pardon consist of giving Mercy based on the Mercy God gave us. Grace doesn't cost a thing to get, but it still costs us to keep it, yet the cost is denying the self, which brings much more gain, than loss.   

Jacob also becomes a type and shadow of the time between the Root and Born Again, the time when the internal groanings are bringing forth the product. Jacob will remain Jacob until God calls him Israel, then Ja­cob will become Israel, same man, different nation. This Jacob - Israel principle shows how God can take the person we were, add the “name change” which is the removal of the old authority of darkness, then apply the Name of Jesus as the Authority above all authorities to produce a change in us. God’s Mercy will transform us, His Grace will transfigure us.

After Esau found Jacob received the blessing, he was so angry, it caused Jacob to run for his life (Gen 27:18-42). Rebekah would send Jacob to Laban, her brother, where Jacob would find; Whatsoever a man sows, he shall he reap (Gen 27:44-46). This doesn't mean Jacob stole a thing, rather Jacob was a negotiator, yet Laban will be his mirrored match. The Mirror of God will shine on Jacob for many years, yet it's Good, the mirror has purpose.

Although Jacob had the blessing in heart, he had yet to hold it in hand. Be­fore Jacob would hear the word "Israel", he would be tested and proven. Before one can take a leadership role they must be proven as well. Jacob's wilderness experi­ence would bring him to a position to appreciate the blessing. However, before Jacob would leave, he would again face his father, this time Isaac told him where he should ob­tain his bride. Jacob received the word from his father, his obedience confirmed his blessing (Gen 28:1-4). Esau was advised where he should, or should not ob­tain a bride, but he didn't obey, rather he did just the opposite as his father desired, as he took wives from the children of Ishmael (Gen 28:9). Esau didn't change, yet he was a "son", but he treated the words of his father with the same disrespect as he did his birthright.

Esau heard the command, but did the opposite, he used his self-will through rebellion to twist his father’s desire to fit his agenda. Esau picked the parts of the com­mand pleasing to him, then used his own determinations to complete the rest. He did take wives as commanded, but take them based on his desires, not the desires of his father. The rebellious will say, "I did all God told me to", but they also added their own desire to the promise, twisting it to the flesh, then becoming self-deceived in their own rebellious pride.

Esau becomes a symbol of one who runs around doing what they're not sup­pose to, while they ignore what they are called to do, it’s called Iniquity, or being unequal. We are also given the result, Esau lost his promise. If we listen to the Spirit, then we're in good shape, but if we listen to the carnal reasoning of man, we're in deep trouble. Jesus hates Iniquity, but loves righteousness (Heb 1:9). God hates the ways of the Wicked, yet those ways are attached to people. It is difficult for us to comprehend God hating, but we must remember why He does. The Wicked have victims, people who lack knowledge, but not love. Fellowship with God always begins by treating the people of God in the same manner as God does. The opposite is treating the people of God as if they were our slaves.

We know about the “tithe of Jacob”, so we pick up when Jacob reaches the house of Laban, where he sees Ra­chel, he knew immediately she was his wife (Gen 29:1-11). Laban was still attempting to get what he could out of the deal, when Jacob wanted Rachel for his wife, Laban figured out a plan for personal gain (Gen 29:15-20). Abraham sent the servant to obtain a bride for Isaac, but Jacob went to find his own. When the father sent the servant, Isaac gained without effort, but Jacob would find a hard labor involved before he could hold his wife. For seven years Jacob served Laban, thinking he would receive Rachel as his bride; however, Laban had another daughter who was older by the name of Leah (Gen 29:16). Laban's plan involved manipulation and deception, the man was a slave to his own greed, yet Jacob held the birthright and blessing; however, Jacob, like us had to learn the responsibility of the calling.

When the time of the marriage came, Laban gathered all the men for a great feast (Gen 29:22). The Labans of the world always gather together to bring about their nefarious plans. When Laban was able to get Jacob into a drunken con­dition, where he didn't know his elbow from his knee, Laban had Leah lay with Ja­cob, in the morning the marriage between Jacob and Leah was consummated, Laban then assumed his manipulation worked (Gen 29:23-25). Like all the tools of the devil, he allows us to control the tool until the tool controls us. Laban thought he was a free thinking man, but he was in bondage to his greed. Laban's excuse was, "It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn" (Gen 29:26). Didn’t he know it before? Yes, Laban revealed the matter only when it benefitted him, but withheld it at a time when it was needed, therein lays the deception. For seven years he could have told Jacob this custom, but didn't Jacob have seven years in which to find it out? Knowledge is important, here the lack of it brought a false wife, but God is able to turn it around to Good by working it into the plan.

This goes right back to Jacob being the younger and Esau as the elder, only in this case neither the younger or elder gave up the right, thus Jacob had to honor Laban's decision. If God knows all things, why didn't He warn Jacob? Jacob had to travel his own wilderness to find his calling in the promise, Jacob is one who hears from God when Jacob wants to hear, we are no different when we run around in our Jacob stage of growth. Why would God even talk to us, if we keep rejecting half of what He tells us? Because we receive the other half, the time will come when we will have ears to hear. Why do children only hear what they want to? Same growth syndrome. 

Laban told Jacob to remain with Leah for a week to fully complete (accomplish) the marriage vows, then Jacob could work another seven years, then Laban would give him Rachel before the fact (Gen 29:28). The Labans attempt to substitute one thing for another, yet retain as much as they can in the process. Laban figured he not only found a husband for both his daughters, but obtained free labor for fourteen years, yet the best laid plans of the Labans often go astray (Gen 29:30-31).

Leah conceived and brought forth Reuben, Jacob's firstborn (Gen 29:32). When Rachel's sister conceived and she didn’t, she allowed envy to enter (Gen 30:1). Jacob's anger against her was the result, when we allow envy to enter, we blind ourselves to the Light. All this activity is still bringing the tribes of Israel into the plan, but at this point in time Israel was still in the future. The first mention of Israel won’t happen until chapter 32, so we are still looking at Jacob, who had yet to make the Lord his God. So much for using the acts of Jacob as an excuse to have several wives, yet claim God.

There are times when others appear "to be blessed out of their socks", while we remain with empty pockets and empty pews. There is the timing of God, the tim­ing of man, the time of God will intersect the time in the Plan for us. We hold the promise until our time joins the Lord's timing, rather than looking about to find excuses, or forming envy (James 1:1-7). Jesus told Peter, "What is it to you, you follow Me"; the same holds true for anyone who has made Jesus both Savior and Lord. Don't ever look to oth­ers to determine our own walk, look to Jesus. Rachel presented Bilhah her handmaiden to Jacob, Bilhah conceived and brought forth Naphtali (my wrestling). The name Rachel means The predomi­nant element of a flock, the name Bilhah means Trouble or timid; the predomi­nant one brought trouble from her envy, but God was still able to turn it to good, since Naphtali was called according to God's purpose. When Leah saw Bilhah con­ceived, the race started, the "nature of competition" took effect. Jacob became the "soccer ball" in this competition, Leah's handmaiden (Zilpah) was sent by Leah to Jacob, Zilpah conceived and brought forth Gad, then she brought forth Asher, the competition really opened up (Gen 30:14-17). Leah conceived and brought forth Issachar, finally Rachel conceived and brought forth Joseph (Gen 30:22-24). When Joseph was born, Jacob made a deci­sion to leave the land, to go back to his own home (Gen 30:25). When Jacob left the "land of manipulation" he would also break the nature of competition, but his recourse was to leave the place, after leaving only one other son would be born, thus God used the surroundings to bring forth eleven of the twelve.

Name: Order: Mother: Order/Blessing: Symbol/Blessing:
Reuben 1 Leah 1 Reckless
Simeon 2 Leah 2 Violence
Levi 3 Leah 3 Violence
Judah 4 Leah 4 Lion
Dan 5 Bilhah 7 Serpent
Naphtali 6 Bilhah 10 Doe
Gad 7 Zilpah 8 Troop
Asher 8 Zilpah 9 Rich Food
Issachar 9 Leah 6 Donkey
Zebulun 10 Leah 5 Ships
Joseph 11 Rachel 11 Fruitful
Benjamin 12 Rachel 12 Wolf
Joseph 11 Rachel 11 Fruitful
Benjamin 12 Rachel 12 Wolf

The example given by Jacob shows the Bride of Promise didn't come until after Leah, thus showing how the New Covenant and the Bride of Christ came after the nation Israel. Both Leah and Rachel had handmaidens, thus their handmaidens also represented something. We know Zion is termed a Mount, a City, as well as "the city of David" (as one of the three cities known as the City of David), but the city is in a nation, it is not the nation, thus the City is akin to being a Handmaiden. Zion is the mount upon which Jerusalem of the earth is built, thus Jesus said "I will build My Church on this Rock", rather than saying, I will build it here in Jerusalem, or build it on one person, building on a person is how the Law of Moses operated. The Bread was first, then the Wine, the symbol shows the Rock was in place, the Church would be birthed on Pentecost. In Jacob’s case the foundation for the tribes would be established before he could be Israel.

 

With all these wives and children, we still have to consider none of them had made the Lord their God, we will find at least one of them is still holding idols. To place all this into some time element, we know Jacob worked seven years, then married Leah and Rachel, then worked another seven years for Rachel, giving us a total of fourteen years for the two women, then he makes a another deal for a third seven, but will he finish the last seven?

Laban, again had an offer for Jacob (Gen 30:26-29). Up to this time Jacob served Laban fourteen years, yet Laban sought more years, again for the sake of his own benefit. Laban knew he had the advantage, he was using it to the limit for his self-benefit. Jacob was clearly under ungodly authority, the purpose was to see what it’s like to serve under those conditions, so he would not to use the same methods on those who would be under his authority. Jacob also had a plan, he requested the speckled and spotted cattle, since they were considered inferior (Gen 30:32). It will turn out the supposed inferior will be the cream of the herd. This is another symbol of the promise taking the infe­rior, then making it the blessing.

Labor and skill are different, labor produces the material, but skill takes the material turning it into a useful product. God gave many the skill to turn materials into useful products during the building of the Tabernacle. Labor without skill is bondage, forcing labor without teaching a skill is slavery. Intellect without Godly knowledge is slavery, laboring in the works of religion without Godly wisdom is still slavery. One can memorize every verse in the Bible, yet be unable to use spiritual skills.

This next act of Jacob could be termed by some as magic, but faith knows there is more to this. The key to this plan of Jacob's is found in Genesis 31:10-11, where we find Jacob had a dream as an angel came to him regarding the "ringstreaked, speckled and griz­zled" animals, thus Jacob's use of the green poplar, hazel and chestnut branches stripped of the bark were signs regarding the promise in the dream (Gen 30:37-39 & 31:10-11). These sticks point to the promise given to Abraham, the nakedness of the branches gives us three branches "stripped", one for Abraham, one for Isaac and one for Jacob, the man was not playing with magic, rather he was applying the signs of the promise before the cattle, with the premise of multiplying I will multiple you.

After the increase came, Jacob prepared to leave with his wives, chil­dren and cattle with one year still left to serve (Gen 31:38); however, Rachel stole Laban's images (idols - Gen 31:17-19). These images, or gods were more important to Laban than we think. According to the laws in the land of Laban they represented the man's possessions, we find from history these images were akin to land deeds. Rachel didn't take them to worship them, she took them "just in case" the prosperity of Jacob failed, she felt she deserved something from Laban.

Jacob applied his skill to his labor, but Rachel attempted to hide her idols, but her hidden idols almost defeated the escape. On the same note, when we take the idols of the world with us, we provide the devil a path to find another he can devour. Abraham left his father's house of images, but Rachel attempted to take her father's images with her, when she did, she brought the fire of Laban's anger down the road after her and Jacob.

Some of us have a tendency to bring our idols into the kingdom, excusing them as needed methods to fill the treasury, or we think they are some gift God gave us in the world, but a golden calf is still an idol, even if we hang a cross around its neck. Later when the children of Israel enter their wilderness, they will take their golden earrings to make a golden calf. God told them to take the gold from Egypt, but He didn't tell them to make images. They took a Good gift God gave them, then turned it into something evil. God will give us knowledge and skill, but we can twist the skill, just as we can twist the knowledge. God created the Smith, the Smith used his talent to make an image in the fire (Isa 54:16-17). God didn’t make the image, or create the Smith to make images, the Smith took his God granted talent, then turned it to an evil use. Yet, no weapon “formed” against us shall prosper (Isa 54:16-17), they are still formed, not created.

Laban didn't know Rachel stole the idols, rather he simply knew they were gone, but so was Jacob, thus he pursued Jacob. God came to Laban in a dream and said, "Take heed how you speak not to Jacob either good or bad" (Gen 31:24). In the Hebrew this could read "good to bad", it was the same when he and his father faced the servant of Abraham. However, like the Laban mind, Laban will seek some way to get around the command in order to insert his own desires and self-will. Prior Laban said, “bad or good”, now God says, “good or bad”, thus Laban was not to speak anything other than “nice day, huh?”; at times it’s good advice for us as well.

After Laban heard the warning he reached Jacob, he didn't speak from good to bad, rather he spoke from bad to good; however, the King James has the correct intent in the saying, thus Laban was not to say a thing to Jacob. However, Laban was seeking some manipulating way to say something, thus he said, "What have you done, you have stolen away unawares to me and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with a sword?" (Gen 31:25-26). Laban like Esau accuses Jacob of stealing, to Laban this wasn’t a “saying”, it was a question. Laban traded his daughters for labor, then kept his daughters and Jacob in slavery, how can he say they were still his? Laban felt he had standing, after all Jacob failed to complete the last seven.

Jacob didn't know Rachel took the idols, as he told Laban, "Go ahead and look", when Laban came into Rachel's tent, Rachel hid the idols in the camel's furniture, then told Laban, "Let it not displease my lord, I cannot rise up before you; for the custom of women is upon me" (Gen 31:35); the "custom of women" re­fers to her menstrual period. When Laban couldn't find the images, Jacob found his nerve, by accusing Laban (Gen 31:36). Since neither man trusted the other, they made a vow and called it Mizpah (Gen 31:44-49). We tend to think Mizpah means, "God will watch over us, when we are apart my dearest" but it means, "Since I can't trust you at all, may God watch over you for me". With this Mizpah we find the "pillars" of sepa­ration reflected in, "you stay on your side, and I'll stay on mine, unless it's un­der very friendly conditions" (Gen 31:52). Mizpah is used when two are separated, yet have no trust whatsoever between them, hardly a vow for two who should be one.

Jacob went his way, the closer he came to home, the more the fear of seeing Esau overtook him (Gen 32:1-5). Jacob sent messengers and gifts to ap­pease Esau, then Jacob prayed "the prayer of fear", rather than the prayer of faith (Gen 32:9-12). Nonetheless this prayer was the one in which Jacob named the Lord, he was getting closer to making the Lord his God; the tithe vow he made prior is now becoming important. Jacob continued to send messengers and gifts to Esau, then he separated himself, his two wives and the two women servants, but his own soul found him (Gen 32:22-24). At this point Jacob had yet to make the Lord his God, so he prayed "O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac", rather than "My God" (Gen 32:9). However, remember the Vow Jacob Vowed? It was almost time to pay. Jacob wrestled with "a man", yet we find the man was himself, as Jacob the man of fear fought Jacob the called of God, yet when morning came the old Jacob wanted to leave, but Jacob the stout said, "I will not let you go, except you bless me" (Gen 32:26). The blessing came as, "Your name shall be called no more Jacob but Israel: for as a prince have you power with God (Elohiym) and with men, and have prevailed" (Gen 32:28). The word Prince means one who begins something, or one known by the territory they rule. Jacob, not God named the place Peniel, or The face of God, yet no man has seen God at anytime. It’s important to keep in mind this wrestling match was with a “man” (Gen 32:24), the word Man is the Hebrew Ish meaning mankind. The word Angel means one who brings a Message, the message was the calling. Here we find Jacob the stout fought with Jacob the manipulating fearful one, or better, the called Angel (Israel) fought against the man of fear. Although the man of fear thought he won the battle, he was the only one injured. Why did he suffer in the Thigh? Going back to when Abra­ham sent his servant, we find the servant had to place his hand under the thigh of Abraham (Gen 24:9). This act was one of keeping a vow, even unto death. Jacob made the vow back in Genesis 28:20-22, now he was back in his father's land, the vow of "then shall the Lord be my God" came to him in this battle. If this "Man" Jacob is fighting was the Lord, then we have many prob­lems, first this man tells Jacob "your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel" (Gen 32:28); however, later when God comes to Jacob we read where God said, "your name is Jacob". Jacob was fighting with his own vow and calling, after this battle Jacob will move to the front of his family to face Esau, rather than hide behind them.

Moreover, we see how Jacob asked the man his name and heard, "Wherefore why do you ask after my name?" or "Why would you have to ask?"; he knew the name, this battle is one we all face. In essence the role for Jacob to be Israel was hanging in the balance, he had to repair his relationship with Esau. There will be a time in the saving of the soul when we enter the mother of all battles, the fight against the flesh which doesn't want to be Crucified with Christ, yet the New Man who knows it’s the only way to reach the reward, will win when we join him. This is the classic Jacob – Israel conflict, the moment of the calling becoming part of us. 

Jacob's injury in the battle caused the hollow of his thigh to be wounded (Gen 32:25). Based on the event the children of Jacob refuse to eat the hollow of the thigh, but they missed the point (Gen 32:25). Jacob the fearful one used his legs as a means of escape, he was attempting to run from his vow, but his vow came to him, leaving a sign he would not forget. Jacob knew he came face to face with the purpose and power of God, the result was the loss of his ability to run from God (Gen 32:30). This type shows how God will do what God will do to keep us on the path, but we also find if we struggle enough we can leave the path to enter the wide road. Jacob the man had to cease, before Israel the Nation could come forth. The old Jacob would appear now and again, just as we find the flesh knocking on the door to our “house” now and again; however, we have the granted Power in Grace to refuse the flesh any room in our quest to become Spiritual.

Jacob had eleven sons when he faced Esau, Benjamin was not yet born, but other than the sons he had one daughter who stood out, Dinah.

DINAH AND HER BROTHERS

Dinah was the daughter of Leah and Jacob, she was a fair young woman: Dinah is special in at least one regard, she is listed in reference to the tribes, but not as a tribe. Dinah’s importance begins when Jacob was in the land of Hamor the father of Shechem, Shechem looked on Dinah through the lust of the flesh (Gen 34:1-2). Shechem raped Dinah, then wanted to marry her, when Jacob heard of the rape, he kept his peace, but two of his sons formed a plan to get even. The spirit of man is bent on validation and vindication, but he Spirit of Christ is to bless.

Shechem had his own plan of deception; it appeared as if Shechem is making amends, but his father wanted to mix the daughters of men with the sons of Israel, with the intent to possess Dinah (Gen 34:9-10). The sons of Jacob said, there could be no mixture unless all the men of Shechem's house with those under his rule, were circumcised (Gen 34:14). It takes more than circumcision to produce the called, the plan of Jacob's sons was as deceptive as the plan of Shechem. Hamor and Shechem agreed, they gathered all the men of their land then circumcised them all in one day (Gen 34:20-24). Simeon and Levi knew the men would be inca­pacitated, to say the least; thus Simeon and Levi killed all of the men, taking the children, women and cattle captive (Gen 34:27-29). Shechem raped a daughter of Jacob, then turned right around and wanted her, if he was more honorable, what would the rest of the house of Hamor be like? It's for this reason God allowed the two sons of Jacob to kill all in the city of Hamor, but Jacob would see it as "destruction on the house of Jacob".

We don't serve a multiple God, but we do serve a God who has multiple les­sons in the events. For Jacob the mirror of God came again, he saw the same old manipulation he used in his sons, Jacob the fearful said, "They shall gather themselves together against me" (Gen 34:30). He didn't say, "against us"; therefore, he was worried about his own hide. God told Jacob, "Arise, go up to Bethel", there are times when God tells us to run, but whether it's run or stand, it's hearing God then obeying what we hear becoming faith (Gen 35:1). Al­though Jacob left, the news of how his sons revenged the daughter of Jacob sent terror into the people of the land.

Jacob was told to go back to the place of his vow, it was time for the vow and calling to come together. Jacob traveled to Canaan where he built an altar calling it ElBethel (The God Of Bethel - Gen 35:5-7). Like Abraham, Jacob called the Place something in reference to God, but here we find the Hebrew El, rather than Jehovah, nonetheless the naming shows Jacob has now recognized God as God. God appeared to Jacob and said, "Your name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be your name and He called his name Israel" (Gen 35:10). The name Israel means "God prevails”, metaphorically it means to rule as God by holding the responsibility to act on behalf of God in dealing with God’s people (Ps 82:1-8)). This is much different from the experi­ence with the man in the wrestling match, prior the man said, "you have the power of God" but here it's "God prevailed”; therefore, Jacob the man had the vision of being the called one (Israel), but his own soul fought the concept by adding to it, causing the soul to seek the escape; however, when God came to him, the concept was to be a nation for God’s people. The call is one thing, being picked another, being trained another, then the service to the Lord still another. Each step is no less important than the other, even the wrestling match shows we can struggle with the things of God, yet the things of God will win.

God also told Jacob, "kings shall come out of your loins" (Gen 35:11). Prior in the wrestling match Jacob was called a prince, here we find kings coming from him. This is one of the basic divisions between Israel and Ishmael, Israel shall have kings, Ishmael shall have princes, thus Israel shall be God’s nation. Jacob was a man of fear, but Israel a man of faith. Fear brings the storms, faith answers them. The cares of this world are fear based,  thus natural man is still motivated by fear.

These people were not Born Again, it’s something we have to keep drumming into our own minds. They didn’t have the Cross, the Blood of Jesus, Grace, the Spirit of Truth, the Bible, tapes, or any of the advantages we have. Abraham didn’t began this with a church full of people, rather it was just one man who heard God then obeyed. An entire nation with a religious system recognized and ordained of God came from one man. The example of course points to Jesus, the Son of God from whom all things come, especially the Body of Christ, meaning the Body of Christ is the only ordained element on this earth with the God given right to water baptize others, or to hear from God. From the Body comes the Church, from which comes the very Bride of Christ, all by one Lord, one Cross, one Sacrifice, based on His love for us.

This paradox between the human Jacob, and the nation in the man (Israel) is seen over and over, faith speaks from Israel, but from time to time Jacob with his fears will also speak. We’re no different, faith comes from the New Man, but the flesh still interjects its “Jacob fears” from time to time, we learn the difference as we learn to stand with the New, while rejecting the flesh. Paul gives us a three step process, we put off the old man, but we must also put off the deeds of the old as well, then we put on the New. Just as Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away, we must send the old man and his deeds away.

This  same paradox of Jacob – Israel is seen in us, usually during the battle we put on the “mask of faith” in front of church folks, but in private we’re Jacob, crying, barking at the devil, kicking holes in the wall. However, when the New Man steps up, all things change, the Spirit is our confidence, as our souls join to the Spirit we see our Hope, we engage our belief unto our faith to gain the victory.

We know Jacob sought a wife who would make his mother happy, Esau took wives from Canaan against his father’s wishes. Esau took his family to Edom, becoming the father of the Edomites (Gen 36:1-43). Esau’s attitude was to rebel, he rebelled against his birthright, he also rebelled against his father’s wishes. This attitude was not always noticeable, but it was something Esau would be known for.

Jacob had many faults, as do we all, but from him would come the one natural nation on the earth picked by God for His work. Joseph would have a story all his own, in Joseph’s story we again see the Jacob - Israel principle. Joseph will be a sign of one who faces adverse circumstances, yet God is with them.

JOSEPH

Jacob loved the land, but Israel loved Joseph more than all the children (Gen 37:1-3). Joseph was the last son born under the roof of Laban, but he wasn’t the last one born. After leaving Laban’s presence and arriving at Bethel, the place where Jacob made his vow Rachel went into hard labor (Gen 35:14-16). She gave birth to Benjamin, her second son, only she wanted to call him “Ben-oni” meaning The son of my sorrow, but Jacob called him Benjamin meaning The son of the right hand. Rachel was the favored one, she was the one Jacob saw as his wife, yet here she is dying. Is it fair? The man comes back to the place of the Vow then loses the most important person in his life. Fair is only relative to the one interpreting the event, Rachel’s death is in the one place to bring another event further down the road. Like the blood of Abel, the voice of Rachel will travail for her children again (Matt 2:18). Rachel is buried in the way to Ephrath, also known as Bethlehem, the birth place of Jesus, the very town where Herod had all the children two years old and younger killed, yet the prophetic voice of Rachel will intercede for them (Matt 2:16).

Joseph and Benjamin grew up without a mother, they were very close, but Joseph was also Jacob’s favorite. Joseph's brothers saw this favoritism, they allowed envy to grow in their hearts. Envy is the desire to possess something someone else has, without having to pay the same price they did, envy will destroy, just as Cain killed Abel, just as the religious rulers crucified Jesus based on their envy (Matt 27:18). Jealousy on the other hand is the fear of losing something we think we possess, it will set itself to destroy those who oppose it, at times it will destroy the possession rather than lose it. God's jealousy is much different, it's based on someone taking something from Him; however in His case He possesses all things: in man’s case it’s a assumption of ownership. Greed holds possessions for self-based reasons, hating those who attempt to take them, but in God's case He knows the one doing the taking is bent on killing what they take from Him, thus He uses Love to hold His own, rather than force and manipulation.

The sons who held envy toward Joseph mocked him, as Ishmael mocked Isaac, shoving him to one side, belittling him, thus the spirit of man is not a pretty sight to behold. Joseph received a dream from God, not only did he receive a dream, he also had the God given gift of inter­preting dreams. This is different from one who dreams their own dreams, or guesses at the dream's interpretation, or uses some chart to determine what the dream may mean, this is also different from one interpreting prophecy. Dreams like metaphors at times are plain, other times God produces a mystery, but interprets it as well.

Joseph had two dreams, the first came after the "coat of many colors" was given to him by his father, which is important, the coat means his father gave him a coat of honor. In this first dream the brothers were all in the field binding sheaves, but Joseph's stood upright as the sheaves of his brother's made obeisance to Jo­seph's (Gen 37:3 & 37:7). This dream shows the labor of the brothers was bowing to the labor of Joseph. Later when Joseph is in Egypt it will be evident, when the brothers bring the product of their labors to gain favor from Joseph. This first dream clearly shows it pertains to the brothers labor (your sheaves), but the brothers took it personally. 

Joseph's second dream expanded the concept, he saw Israel the nation as the Sun (Jacob), the Moon (his Mother, or Zion), with eleven stars (the tribes); however, he also saw himself, thus making it twelve stars (Gen 37:9). This reference to Joseph’s mother cannot be Rachel, since she died back in Genesis 35:18 giving birth to Benjamin. Joseph told the dream, but the mother is seen as the Moon, making it Zion of the earth, as the Sun points to the nation; nonetheless the dream made the brothers envy him the more. Jacob understood the dream, he knew the metaphor Sun pointed to him as Israel, the stars to the other sons, the moon as the mother, or Zion as the foundation of the nation. A like description was seen by John when he explained the Woman in the Book of Revelation (Rev 12:1). One can't run all the way back to Genesis chapter one to find the Sun, Moon and Stars to define the elements around the Woman in Revelation 12:1, since Genesis 37:9 is the first place we find the ac­tual Hebrew words for moon, sun and stars combined. In Genesis chapter one we find the Hebrew words for Lights, not the words for Moon or Sun, thus God didn't want us to form an imagination attempting to force the Greater Light into the story of the Woman in the Book of Revelation.

The Woman in the Book of Revelation has the Sun as her covering, the twelve tribes as her crown, the moon as her foundation; she is not the Moon, or the Stars, or the Sun, they are around her, she is termed a “city”, not a “nation”, thus she is Jerusalem the city, the only city on the earth connected to Israel and Zion belonging to the nation. No matter what man builds on the mount, God still sees it as the foundation for Jerusalem. Later this same Woman uses Zion as her footstool, then she is seen riding the Beast. Jerusalem of the earth, is the one Paul says is in bondage, New Jerusalem is Free (Gal 4:25-26). The title Jerusalem is used some 700 plus times, not all are relating to Jerusalem of the earth; Israel is used some 2300 times, they do relate to the nation. However, not all those who are called Israel, are of Israel, some go back to become Jacob, entering the House of Jacob in the latter days, rather than remaining in the House of David (Rom 9:6, 9:27, Rev 17:1-3 & 13:18). Not all those who say they are Christian, are Christ Like, some are false christs, thus we find the Tares in the same field as the Wheat (Matt 13:25 & 24:5) .   

In Joseph's dream the eleven stars gave obeisance to Joseph, this is different from the first dream, here it's the actual brothers, now they are really mad. They attempted to interpret the first dream, but failed, the second dream interpreted itself. Their envy was now bringing forth hate to produce an action. There are times when the vision or dream is best kept to ourselves, but in this case God had a plan in the plan.

When the brothers were tending their father's flock in Shechem, Israel sent Joseph to determine if the watchers of the flock were safe (Gen 37:12-14). Shechem? Didn't we hear that name before? Shechem was the son of Hamor who raped Dinah, but Joseph found the brothers in Dothan (Gen 34:1-2). These brothers were about to rape the life of their brother, but instead of greed, they are consumed with envy. At this time Benjamin would be too young to leave home, thus the brothers numbered ten, with Joseph as the eleventh. However, from this act we find the Jewish method of a Quorum, or the smallest number of members to make a decision. To the Jew ten makes a quorum, taking this to the New Testament we find Judas hanged himself, Peter was temporally removed from office until his conversion in John 21, so he could strengthen his brothers, leaving ten disciples. When Thomas was not present they lacked a quorum, thus Thomas doubted Jesus would appear unless they had a Quorum, according to Jewish rules, but Jesus said when two or three are gathered, making the New Testament Quorum two or three.  

Envy causes us to toss the prophet in a pit, but in so doing, we are tossing ourselves in the pit. Joseph's brothers not only wanted to discard Joseph, they wanted to kill him,  envy always gives birth to hate, hate gives birth to murder in one form or another.

Reuben would intervene for his brother by saying, "Shed no blood" (Gen 37:22), but Joseph was still sold to the Ishmeelites, thus whether we kill them out­right, or sell them to the enemy, we commit murder. Part of the promise was sold into the hands of the offspring of the son of manipulation, but it started with envy in the hearts of Joseph's brothers (Gen 37:27). Judas was a member of the ministry, the religious leaders couldn’t touch Jesus, but one from the “family” sold Him for thirty pieces of silver. Judas was warned more than once, yet Judas was one person, his acts were not in line with his office, making him a traitor.   

In all this we find God was with Joseph, God doesn't always lift us out of the pit, but He will raise us above the pit. Here it would seem as if Joseph went from bad to worse, but it’s not the case. This is still the event, not the end, in the end we find God raising Joseph far above what attempted to overcome him.

The word Theocracy means God's ruling order, it was displayed in the dreams of Joseph. God was going to place Joseph as the head, but the brothers re­belled against the called of God, they held a board meeting to remove the called, placing their own order in position. This is the first group "takeover", God gave His man a dream with the mantel of many colors placed on him, yet those in the family order refused to bow to the one God picked. Here the eye said to the Head, we have no need of you. Their plans may have been evil, their intent was surely evil, but God had a plan bringing this to a Good result. God didn't form the evil in the minds of the brothers, He merely formed a plan around their evil to bring about His plan of Goodness.

This is a classic example of an event appearing evil, yet God having a plan above the event to bring about good. Even if the devil had a hand in it, it doesn't mean God doesn't have a plan to turn the event around for Good. Seeking the precious is like faith, it begins when we believe God is.    

So far Joseph's story sounds anything but Good, but God had a purpose going far beyond the reasoning of Joseph or his brothers. The Ishmeelites sold Joseph into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's court (Gen 37:36). While this was going on, Reuben thought Joseph would be safe in the pit, but no one is safe in the pit. When Reuben saw Joseph was gone, he rent his clothes in repentance and anguish (Gen 37:29). The brothers used Joseph's coat of many colors (coat of esteem, or mantel) by cov­ering it with animal blood in their effort to cover their deed (Gen 37:30-32). Jacob the man saw the coat then rent his clothes saying, "Joseph without a doubt is rent in pieces" (Gen 37:33-36). To Jacob this was as bad as Rachel dying. From Rachel came the son he loved above the rest, just as Rachel was the one he loved, now both are gone. How can this be good? Maybe Paul missed this part when he wrote Romans 8:28. No, this story is not over yet, the Good will be obvious.

The chain of events is interrupted by Judah's folly, but Judah's folly connects to Joseph's story. Why put Judah's folly in the middle of this? Could it be he was about to reap what he sowed? Who had the idea to get rid of Joseph? Judah (Gen 37:26). There is a purpose for putting the folly of Judah here, later we will see how Judah must be the one to repent before Joseph.

Accordingly, if the oldest son was married, yet died before fathering a son, it was the responsibility of the next son in line to take the dead son's wife, in order to produce a son under the dead man's name, thereby keeping the line to the promise going. All this was predicated on the concept of “be fruitful and multiply”, without regard for “the two shall be one”. Nonetheless, Judah took a wife from the Canaanites by the name of Shuah, she conceived bringing forth a son by the name of Er (Gen 38:1-3). She again conceived then had another son by the name of Onan, then another by the name of Shelah (Gen 38:4-5). Judah picked a wife for Er, the oldest son, but Er was wicked in the eyes of God and God slew him (Gen 38:7). If God is a Good God, why would he slay one subject to the promise? Some of us say, God loves the sinner, but hates the sin; however, God uses the repentant sinner, the evidence of Er shows God hates the ways of the Wicked. Er was subject to the promise, but his wicked heart made him opposed to the promise which would taint the intent of the promise through his offspring. This is still the foundational work, thus the second step in the process shows Er would taint the process with his wicked ways.

It's the word Wicked separating Er from the rest, the word Wicked is a metaphor for one who has accepted the calling, but reb­els against the commandment; whereas, a sinner is yet to receive the call, thus we find God does love the sinner, but hates the ways of the Wicked, yet He won't deal with them until the Night. This is still the Day of Salvation, let us Rejoice and be glad in it.

God slew Er, based on the wickedness of Er, not the pleasure of God. After Er died, Judah sent Onan into Er's wife, as was the custom, but Onan knew Er was wicked, instead of continuing the line, he felt it should be stopped (Gen 38:8-9). However, it was based on knowing Er, who at this time had no part in the matter. Onan should have talked with Judah, just as Reuben should have talked with Jacob, just as Jacob should have talked with Isaac; however, it's just as important to hear what is said, when nothing is said. Prayer is also a method of communication, but communication is a two way street. One can talk for days, yet never hear what is being said to them, but Faith comes by hearing, not talking.

Onan assumed it was up to him to put a stop to this wicked line; however, it was Er who was wicked, not the line, or the promise, or Tamar. Onan made a self-based decision, then spilled his seed on the ground, rather than allow the line with Tamar to continue; however, his intent was still corrupt, not only did he rebel, but he entered the act yet refused to finish it. If he felt the line should cease, he should have never engaged in the act. By Onan agreeing, then engaging in the act, he rapped Tamar by trick and devise. He had the knowledge, but used it in a wicked manner, by his own wickedness he died (Gen 38:9-10).

Judah looked at this situation, then saw his last son, his only son now, the vis­ual evidence appeared to be one of destruction. Judah saw two sons die as a result of one woman, his natural mind concluded it must be the fault of the woman, thus his mind went to "it must be the woman you gave me". Judah failed to remem­ber Abraham, instead of giving his only son, he told Tamar to remain a widow in his house until Shelah, his last and only son was full grown (however long it may be - Gen 38:10-11).

Tamar knew Judah was walking in fear, she disguised her­self as a prostitute, placing herself in a location where she knew Jacob would pass-by. So, was she as deceitful as Jacob? Yes, but God used her as a mirror, she knew the promise included her, yet Jacob was blaming her for the wickedness of his sons. Tamar knew she had a right from her granted position to be ac­cepted by these people by having a child from the line of Judah. Without a husband or male child, she was not privy to the Abrahamic Covenant. Tamar's intent was to get what was rightfully hers, her method may be somewhat questionable, yet it was Judah's iniquity forcing her to use the method. God allowed it to expose, the healing from the exposure would go much further than Tamar's predicament. This is not our excuse to mix with wicked people, or use wicked means to accomplish what we assume is a Godly result, the fact remains, To whom much is given, much is re­quired. There is a vast difference between God working something into the plan, and someone using their own plan to complete their own agenda.

Judah's folly was effecting others, yet he would find his folly in his face. We are required to seek the Kingdom by obeying the methods God give us, not make up our own, or use the mistakes of other people as our excuse. When Judah came by the place, Tamar enticed him, but Judah didn't have the cost with him, thus Tamar settled for a kid from the flock. Several things are important here, first the man fell into the enticement, thus there was a lust there, to assume Tamar was all the fault in this is event, fails to consider Judah’s involvement. Everyone is led away by their own lust; before Judah was afraid of losing his son, here is the evidence the fault wasn’t with Tamar, since Judah didn’t die.

Judah didn't have the price with him, rather he had to obtain it from the "flock" which was not in the area. This symbol not only went to Ju­dah's other son, but shows how one will take from the flock to cover their error. Ju­dah missed the point, but sent a servant to obtain the kid; however, Tamar wanted security, showing her distrust, which was a sign to Judah of his distrust. The mirror of God was exposing the heart of Judah, but he failed to see it at the time.

Judah gave Tamar his signet and bracelets, which is like his passport, or proof of ownership (Gen 38:18). When the servant (Hirah) re­turned with the kid, Tamar was no where around. Judah was told by Hirah, "I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, there was no harlot in this place" (Gen 38:21). This Hirah the Adullamite was the same one in Genesis 38:1, it was Hirah Judah was visiting when Judah found and married Shuah (Gen 38:2). After being told there were no harlots in the place Judah said, "Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and you have not found her" (Gen 38:23). In essence Judah said, "Hey, let her keep the stuff, let’s keep this to ourselves". The same attitude he had when Joseph was taken. This also shows he knew his act was wrong, instead of facing it, he was attempting to hide it, another incident like the “blood on the coat”.   

Later Tamar was obviously pregnant, Judah was going to punish her by burning her to death (Gen 38:24). She came forth bringing the signet and bracelets as proof, Judah acknowledged she had been more righteous than he, for she held to the promise, while Judah was attempting to save his son based on his own fear (Gen 38:26). Judah was willing to save his own son, but he wasn't willing to save the son of his father. This mirror or lesson doesn't seem important in the beginning of the story of Joseph, but it becomes very important when Judah faces his brother Joseph later.

Tamar gave birth to twins, when one of the twins came forth, he retreated, thus the second was born first. She called the first, Pharez, the second Zerah (Gen 38:29-30). The name Pharez means Breach, or Breakthrough, Zerah means Arising of Light; this allegory in the birth of the twins shows a little light came, yet withdrew, then came the Breakthrough, then the Light came forth. Pharez would be included in the line to David, as well as the genealogy of Jesus (Matt 1:3-5). We know Jesus is the Lion from the tribe of Judah, yet everything produces after its own kind, but does it mean Jesus is like Judah? No, Jesus obtained flesh from Mary, the soul of Jesus is the Word made flesh, not the other way around.

Pharez being a type of Breakthrough appearing before the Light, becoming a symbol regarding Joseph. Although Joseph was reaching out, he was shoved back and forgotten by his brothers, but he was never forgotten by God. When Jo­seph was in the pit, God was with him; when Joseph was sold, God was with him. By looking at the event, it didn't appear as if God was even in the same coun­try, yet God was there through it all.   

From the folly of Judah we move back to the story of Joseph. Joseph was brought to Potiphar's house where Joseph served Potiphar in the main house (Gen 39:1-4). Poti­phar's wife lusted for Joseph, this paradox between Judah's sons being in rebellion for rejecting their call, yet Joseph rejecting the advances of Potiphar's wife, gives us the difference between doing what God says, even if we don't understand it, while refusing to do what the world wants, even though the world's ways may appear enticing, or easier. Judah fell for the enticing in a heartbeat, but Joseph rejected it, thus we find the lust in Judah enticed him, but Joseph honored the house of Potiphar, by keeping his charge, yet gave God honor and respect.

Joseph was subject to Potiphar, but he was in charge of Potiphar's possessions, but his duties didn't include taking advantage of the advances from Potiphar's wife. Joseph remained loyal to God and Potiphar, but the event won't appear as if he will be rewarded for his loyalty. Joseph rejected Potiphar's wife, yet she lied by falsely accusing Joseph of rape (Gen 39:7-18). Joseph knew God was with him, the one verse showing this is Genesis 39:9; in the verse we see Joseph would have considered the sin a wickedness against God. Potiphar's wife was attempting to rape Joseph, when Joseph rejected her, she turned it around to make it appear as if Jo­seph was the culprit. Why would she do this? Joseph rejected her, if Joseph said anything to Potiphar, it would have been death for the unfaithful wife. Jo­seph attempting to justify himself, would only make him look guilty. Her accu­sation went beyond slander to libel, yet it would appear as if her lies would win out.

Up to this point Joseph had done nothing wrong, after all, it started when God gave him a dream, then he shared it. From then on, it would appear as if God was punishing Joseph, but it’s hardly the case. Joseph is in training to be a man of God, a training not based on knowledge alone, but on experiences. Joseph will know the hurts and pains of those who suffer under the hands of the ungodly, as well as what it means to be hurt by one's brothers, just as important, what it means to be falsely accused. When it’s all over he will be able to minister by having the experience, yet not allowing the experience to guide his ministry. We cannot minister through our pain, we end as another victim all over again. We must be healed, yet retain the lesson of the experience, but we don’t relive it daily.

God was with Joseph, God had a plan and a purpose for all the events, whether Joseph under­stood them, or not, or whether the events appeared Godly, or whether those involved knew God was there. Joseph didn't know the plan, but his faith knew God did. When Joseph was with Potiphar, Potiphar's house was prosperous (Gen 39:2), when Joseph enters prison the keeper of the prison sees how the Lord is with Joseph, thus those around Joseph became prosperous (Gen 39:23). Wait, Joseph was a slave, in jail, he looked anything but Prosperous. The prosperity was granted to others, but it was still by the presence of Joseph, although Joseph didn’t have a dime, he was nonetheless giving. Joseph was at peace with himself, he knew God was with him, even if others didn’t, even if the event didn't appear so. Jo­seph was planting in the lives of others, he was faithful to Potiphar, instead of stealing from him, he made the man’s house prosper. The truth of give and it shall be given was working for Joseph, although it didn’t appear so at the time. This shows it’s not always immediate, but it will come to pass if we are faithful.

Joseph is one example of a natural man believing in God, when all around looks as if the devil has full control. Joseph was walking his personal wilderness, he didn't consider faith a mountain top to mountain top experience, rather his experiences in the valley were building his belief, his belief gave him foundation for his faith, as God was building his ability. Joseph held the abilities of labor and skill, yet he was a slave, sub­ject to the whims of his master. Many years ago, several men came to various islands to train the natives to grow sugarcane, but they didn't train the natives to make sugar. The growers were slaves, limited to labor; however, freedom did come, the slaves were given land to grow cane, but they still couldn't make sugar. They held the same slave mentality trusting in the masters to buy their cane at the master's price. It wasn't the labor versus skill, but the attitude of remaining a slave producing defeat. Although they were free, they were still in bondage to a slavery mentality. The slaves could have developed the skill of grow­ing the best cane in the world, instead of being forced to ask the masters to buy, the masters would have begged to buy their cane. We can learn a skill from man, but we are still limited to the knowledge and ability of the one teaching us, or we can ask God to bring the skill to its fullness for the glory of God. We seem to think man invented computers, or God said, "Oh my, look Michael, I wonder how they work". Man creates nothing wherein God didn’t know all about it before Adam was formed. God can give us skills for any machine, later God will give Uzziah the skill to make all sorts of machines (II Chron 26:15). God granted Joseph the skill of interpreting dreams, it will be the one element to free him in the end. However, at this point in time, Joseph was falsely accused, found guilty without recourse, then tossed into prison (Gen 39:19-20). In all this, "The Lord was with him" (Gen 39:21). Joseph found favor with the keeper of the prison, but he was nonetheless in prison (Gen 39:21).

After a time, either the butler or the baker of Pharaoh would attempt to kill Pharaoh, not knowing which one was guilty, Pharaoh tossed both of them into prison (Gen 40:1-3). How do we know this was a plot to kill Pharaoh? In Genesis 40:1 we find the word “offended”, which is the Hebrew Chata, meaning to sin, or to endanger, or better to cause a serious breakdown in a relationship. We put this with the positions of the butler (cup bearer) and baker, plus the only time those two would have contact with Pharaoh would be in the preparation, or service of food and drink; also the dreams these two had point to service of food products. History also tells us Pharaoh used a taster, not always but generally. Putting it all together we can see how Pharaoh’s taster became the proof of danger, not knowing if the danger was baked in, or in the cup, Pharaoh placed both in jail until he could discover who was attempting to kill him. 

Both the butler and the baker had dreams, Joseph interpreted the dreams through his God given skill (Gen 40:12). Dreams are generally warnings, but not all dreams are from God, some come as a result of not watching what we eat. There is a vast difference between a dream given by God, and one based on eating too much. Even the first dreams of Joseph were warnings to his brothers, but they rejected them, rather than bow, they tossed their brother into a pit. The Wise Men were warned in a dream, plus other examples of dreams being warnings. A vision is not a dream, visions do reflect the future, but one is awake, usually a vision is a guide, rather than a warning, as was Peter’s on the roof top in Acts 10.

Joseph not only interpreted the dreams, but knew they were warnings. The dreams were of importance, both the butler and baker knew it, but there was "no interpreter" (Gen 40:8). Joseph made a statement carrying over to First Corinthians and Second Peter, when he said, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Gen 40:8). If we understand the premise, we can also understand how Peter can say, "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" (II Pet 1:20). Any attempt to interpret the Scripture by the natural intellect of man isn't an Inter­pretation at all, it produces a cunningly devised fable, which is Nothing (II Pet 1:16). Therefore, there is no Private Interpretation, as Peter says.

The Bible doesn’t interpret itself, it defines itself. Translation is taking a word, phrase, book, or document from one language and putting it in another, without changing tenses, meanings, possession, or purpose, with the one main rule in translation as the Objective Genitive, meaning to keep things in proper possession and order. If it’s the Kingdom of God, if it’s the Faith of Jesus, we keep it so. Any attempt to force theology as our personal interpretation ends in deception. If the verse disagrees with our theology, we don’t change the verse, we change our theology.

The butler's dream was good, a warning can be good, as well as a sign of pending danger. The warning to the butler was not to interfere, the charge would be dismissed, he would be restored (Gen 40:13-15). The chief baker hearing the butler's dream jumped up expecting to gain the same comfort, but his dream spelled doom (Gen 40:16-22). Joseph asked the butler to remember him, then he told the butler his story of innocence, but like most, when the butler was freed, he forgot Joseph for a time. Three days later was Pharaoh's birthday, he made a feast for all his servants, then "lifted up the head" of the chief butler, then set the chief baker back among the servants (Gen 40:20). This doesn't mean he cut their heads off, rather the wording "lifted up" means he took a Census, leaving the fate of the two men up to his servants. The servants voted, the dreams came to pass.

After two years Pharaoh had a dream wherein no one was able to interpret it, then the butler remembered Joseph (Gen 41:1-13). This would seem like the butler was doing a good deed for Joseph; however, the intent of the butler was to gain favor before Pharaoh, not keep his vow to Joseph. If the vow was the issue, then the butler would have kept his word without waiting so long; yet the man remem­bered when it benefitted him. Nonetheless, Pharaoh sent for Joseph, yet Phar­aoh thought Joseph possessed the power, but Joseph told Pharaoh the ability came from God alone (Gen 41:14-16).

Pharaoh's dream was a warning of seven years of good, followed with seven years of famine (Gen 41:27). God didn't tell Joseph, Pharaoh would be spared, rather He showed the provision to survive would be given before the famine. If they cared for the provision, they would make it through the famine. This is an example of why we have the Book of Revelation, a warning before the fact telling us this is the Day of Salvation.

Joseph was placed in charge of making sure Pharaoh's house would survive the famine. Phar­aoh received the prophet in the name of the prophet, thus receiving the reward. Pharaoh could have said, "What? are you crazy, off with his head", ending with his own head burning in the famine, but God knew Pharaoh would “hear”, then act accordingly.

God started all this with giving Joseph two dreams many years prior, each event thereafter added to Joseph's faith in God, thus God trained Joseph to handle the position through experiences. The events may not have looked good, but God was with him, if God is with us, then God has something special for us even in the most horrid events.

Joseph had a sign in the dreams of Pharaoh as well; therefore, there are times when we hear a word given, wherein we can benefit as well. God said the plenty would first come, then the famine, in the dreams of Joseph the plenty was in hand, thus Joseph knew what God said, God would do, it was time and timing he was waiting for. Although Joseph's dream was many years prior, it did come to pass. The dream laid out the plan of the promise, the promise survived, even though the various events Joseph faced on the way seemed anything but good (Gen 37:7-9).

The famine yet to come was in the plan, God didn't stop the famine, or start it, rather He worked it into the plan showing God has full knowledge of the future. When Joseph stood before Pharaoh, Joseph was thirty years old (Gen 41:46), when he was placed in the pit he was seventeen years old, thus Joseph was kept in bondage for thirteen years, the number thirteen doesn't mean Joseph was in rebellion, rather it shows Joseph was trained to reject rebellion. The number 13, as we found, has three sides, here we find rebellion being destroyed through the experi­ences of Joseph. It doesn't mean Joseph was in rebellion, as much as it means the rebellion caused by his brothers is about to be broken. This is an example of someone going through events for the benefit of others. Joseph did nothing wrong, yet it would appear as if he was being punished, thus the event isn't our problem, it's our soulish reaction to it becoming our problem. It's not just the dream, or the number, but discerning them bringing us the blessing.

When the famine hit, many of the people failed to store up, thus they rejected the Word, meaning they had to come to Joseph to obtain food (Gen 41:48-57). We find Pharaoh listened to Joseph, the people didn't, when the famine came, they were found without, which shows if we receive the words of the prophet, we receive the reward.

The famine continued until it came to Jacob, thus God will allow famine in order to bring about a Godly purpose, but He will also warn us by His prophets. God told Abraham the people would be in bondage to Egypt, it would appear God is setting this entire event up to trap Israel, but it’s hardly the case. God saw the famine before the foundation of the world, then worked it into the plan, as well as the bondage of the children, He also saw them delivered, it’s the issue.

Joseph was the instrument God used to provide the path for Israel to get through the famine, rather than be destroyed by it. This shows God will use various events to show us His Power of Deliverance, each event is a foundation for our Belief to grow thereby. Some can say the famine was a plan of the devil to destroy Israel, perhaps all the events against Joseph were planned by the devil, but it doesn't mean God didn't know about the event, rather the devil makes his plans by the moment, not knowing the future, yet God had the victory in hand from the foundation of the world. Perhaps God did plan all these events; however, the event never tells us if it's evil or not, the result always tells the tale. The result in this case was good, not only did it provide Joseph and his family food during the famine, but it placed the people of God in Egypt where their training would begin.

Once Joseph was trained, there remained a healing be­tween him and his brothers, the restoration of Israel had to take place. God puts us through the fire of affliction to remove the unwanted, by bringing us to a place of joy and understanding. God is a good God, it's our concept of good confusing the issue. God's concept of good is always based on the result, not the event. Our flesh determines good by the event, or how the circumstances in the event please us. Judging the event by the event never tells us a thing, looking for God in the event does. 

Joseph was gaining the understanding, but Jacob was still unsure acting as the man of fear, thus Jacob sent his sons to Egypt, Israel didn't (Gen 42:1-5). By this time Joseph was governor over the land, when his brothers came to him, he knew his brothers, but they didn't know him (Gen 42:7-8). The brothers grew up together, were in the same position and condition, but Joseph grew in the Lord, his countenance showed his new position and condition, thereby making him appear different. When we exit the wilderness of God, those who remained in the world won't know us either.

The only brother who didn’t go was Benjamin, although Jacob sent the sons, it was the sons of Israel who went forth (Gen 42:4-5). When the brothers came before Joseph, they bowed as Joseph remembered the dreams (Gen 42:9). Then Joseph accused them of being spies, they assured him they were not. Joseph then told them the conditions of being able to obtain food from Egypt, they were to bring back Benjamin. They pleaded with Joseph, but as surety Joseph kept Simeon by binding him before their eyes (Gen 42:24).

Joseph's brothers felt their guilt, they saw this experience of distress as punishment from God; however, it was not punishment, but restora­tion (Gen 42:21). The reaction of the brothers is an example of how our flesh attempts to determine the event by the event, thus the event isn't our problem, it's our soulish reaction to the event becoming the problem (did we say that?). Joseph commanded their sacks to be filled, but in the process he put their money back in the bags without their knowledge (Gen 42:22-27). When the brothers found the money, they feared, causing them to run to Jacob, but they should have sought Israel (Gen 42:28-29). At this time Simeon was still in Egypt being held by Joseph as surety, by now Jacob thinks Joseph is dead, Simeon is dead, and Benjamin is about to die, yet the promise from God was for all to live. When the food ran out, Jacob started to speak, but Israel finished the conversation (Gen 43:1-14). Jacob was full of fear, but Israel said, "God Almighty give you mercy before the man, so he may send away your other brother and Benjamin" (Gen 43:14).

The brothers returned with Benjamin, when they saw Joseph they con­fessed finding the money saying they didn't know the money was in the sacks (Gen 43:21-25). Joseph's heart started too long for his father and family, the po­tential seeds of bitterness were turning to mercy (Gen 43:26-31). The brothers were invited to eat, but had to sit at another table, since it was an abomination unto the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews (Gen 43:32). The Hebrews at this time not only ate red meat, they raised it, thus any shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians, since the Egyptians didn’t eat read meat. When the children are taken captive, they will pick up the traits of the Egyptians, not only the eating habits, but some other cultural problems as well.

Again the sacks were filled, but this time Joseph wanted Benjamin to stay with him. Joseph had his steward put his "cup of silver" or his cup of authority into one of the sacks (Gen 43:32-44:1-2). The silver cup was used for trials or testings, however, silver is metaphorically identified as Redemption. Jesus will take the fourth cup in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt 26:39), but Gethsemane is a condition, not a location. The word Gethsemane is a compound word meaning “Wine Press, Place of pressure”; Gethsemane comes from two words, the first is the same word used for Winepress, the second means place of pressure to bring forth the oil, thus on the day of judgment we find the Winepress is made ready, but Jesus took the Cup under Pressure in the Garden. The fourth Cup is the Cup of God’s wrath, the Third Cup is the one we take. The first cup is taken when God desires to be among His people, the second cup is the cup of Separation, the third cup is representing the New Covenant (Blood), which keeps us from facing the Fourth Cup of God’s Wrath (Luke 22:17-20 & Rev 16:19 & 19:15).

Joseph gave his brothers food, but put the silver cup in the sack of Benjamin, all this is still in the plan of restoration; the tares of revenge in Joseph's heart had to be removed,  before restoration could take place. Silver being a sign of redemption indicates how God was redeeming His own, but the means was hidden from those involved. When the brothers left the city, Joseph sent his steward after them to accuse them of taking the cup (Gen 43:3-5). The brothers had no idea the cup was hidden in the sacks, when the steward found it, they thought for sure Benjamin would be killed (Gen 44:12-17). Instead of going home with the news of death, the brothers went back to Joseph seeking mercy (Gen 44:14-20). When they appeared before Joseph, they found what it was like to be falsely accused, but Joseph's tears washed away his tares.

This stage of Joseph's life is an example of how the enemy will move in with tares to disrupt the wheat. Jesus said the enemy plants tares then leaves, the tares become the hindrances, not the enemy (Matt 13:25). Often we assume the devil is the problem, but it's the works (wiles) of the devil we battle (Eph 6:11). The enemy has planted tares in all of us, wicked words of discour­agement, thoughts, ideas, hurts, pains, fears, including the fear of rejection. We also were held under the spirit of disobedience (spirit of man), leaving many scars, fables and strongholds in our souls. The Spirit of Christ is more than willing to clean the field, but it takes our permission and cooperation. We have a New Heart, known as the New Man, one able to bring the Promise to pass by forming our souls into the Image of God’s Son. The Son of God is manifested to destroy the works of the devil, all we need do is cooperate in the effort (I Jn 3:8).

When Joseph's steward finds the cup he says, "Is not this it in which my lord drinks, and whereby indeed he divines" (Gen 44:5), it was to con­vince the brothers they were dealing with an Egyptian. This doesn't mean Joseph engaged in witchcraft, thus to assume this one verse made Joseph a witchdoctor is foolish, he interpreted dreams through the power of God, not the cup of silver (Gen 41:16). The cup of silver was a sign of his position in Egypt, thus as a symbol it was akin to a seal. This is another area where we find someone saying something about someone else, the fact they said it is true, but it doesn’t mean what they said is true. Later Peter will assume Jesus cursed a fig tree, when he makes mention of it, Jesus will say, “have faith in God”. Jesus didn’t curse the fig tree, He made a statement of fact, Peter assumed it was a curse, but Jesus said “have faith”, rather than, “Yeah, when you cruse believe you shall receive”. Paul tells us to bless and curse not, when Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount He never mentioned “cursing”, only “blessing”. We have to view the statement to the fig tree as intended, not a “curse” to make it happen, but a statement of fact regarding what was happening (Mark 11:20-21). Here the steward assumed Joseph found his knowledge in the silver cup, but it was God, not the cup who gave Joseph knowledge.

Joseph had two sons by the names of Manasseh and Ephraim, Jacob had twelve sons by the names of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebublun, Gad, Asher, Dan, Naphtali, Joseph and Benjamin. Jacob’s twelve sons became the building blocks to the nation, but the foundation goes back to Abraham. So then what does it make Isaac? The cornerstone, from Jacob the man would come Israel the nation. The blessing was divided between the 12 sons, but Joseph gave his blessing to his two sons, bringing the total to thirteen. Ouch, but then the Tribe of Levi was removed from the governmental list, to become the priestly order, the governmental ruling number ended as twelve (Gen 46:9-24 & 48:1-22). God separated the priestly order from the government, yet governments are a part of the Church structure. We have many gifts within The Gift, but two orders of function, governments making the decisions, helps carrying out the decisions. Theocracy is not only God's form of rule, it’s His government order. The best examples of Theocracy are heaven,  but the best is the manner in which Jesus established His ministry, then how the Church was to be established, and maintained.

The order of function for Israel was for the government rule with the religious order separated, thus no one could lawfully be king and priest. However, before the nation could take effect there had to be a foundation of Restoration. The restoration took place within the family order, all the land of Egypt heard the good news, joy filled the land (Gen 44:33-45:16). This a type and shadow of the joy when someone comes into the family of God; the entire Kingdom rejoices.

There is no mention in the Bible of a “healing ministry” or “deliverance ministry”, they are inclusive in the Ministry of Reconciliation, the very ministry we’re all called to (II Cor 5:19). The motive behind Reconciliation is Restoration, the power behind Restoration is not imputing the faults of others on them, but as ambassadors for Christ we are examples of mercy (forgiveness). It’s what Joseph did toward his brothers, he extended Mercy when there was really no cause to. The brothers were right, they were guilty, but Joseph refused to impute their sins on them, his love overpowered the urge to gain vengeance.

The restoration of Joseph and his brothers is summed up in Joseph's own words as he said, You thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive (Gen 50:19-20). The result determined if the events were good, rather then judging the event by the event. As a result of God giving Joseph, Pharaoh wanted all of Joseph's family to live in Egypt as guests of the land (Gen 45:16-28). Israel took his journey, along the way stopped to give sacrifices unto the God of his father Isaac, then God spoke to Israel saying, “Jacob, Jacob” (Gen 46:1-2). Wow, God can’t even tell the difference between Jacob and Israel. No, the paradox again, Israel gave the sacrifice, but Jacob was wondering if it was really a good idea to venture into Egypt. We can tell from the conversation, God tells Jacob, “fear not to go down to Egypt”, then the promise, “I will go down with thee into Egypt: and I will also surely bring thee up again” (Gen 46:3-4). Wait, didn’t they end captive? Yes, so God must have left them right? Not at all, God was there all the time, watching and waiting. Those times when we think God has left us, He hasn’t. It’s during those times our faith couples with our belief causing us to stand. Abraham also knew they would end captive, some promise? Wait, it didn’t end it in bondage, they would be delivered. Not only did God say they would be delivered, but He promised them a time of deliverance into their own land. Abraham was promised the land, but did he truly possess it? No. The promise went to the children, but they have yet to possess all the land according to the promise, thus the reminder of the land is yet to be possessed.

Jacob then blessed his other sons, then Jacob died. Joseph obtained permission to bury his father in the field of Ephron, where Abraham was also buried (Gen 49:29-33 & 50:1-13). Jacob’s death did not cause the nation to die, rather the nation lived on in those who followed. Joseph died in Egypt, but prior to his death he said God would visit them, and they would take his bones back to the land of his fathers (Gen 50:24-26). In the Blessing Jacob gives to his sons, it would seem some of them were rebuked. In reference to Simeon and Levi it was “Cursed be their anger” (Gen 49:7). In reference to Dan it was, “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, who bites the horse heels, to that the rider shall fall backward” (Gen 49:17). Yet many were blessings; in reference to Judah it was, “the Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet” (Gen 49:10). In the Book of Hebrews we read, “but unto the Son He said, Thy throne, Or God is forever and ever, a scepter of Righteousness is the Scepter of Your Kingdom” (Heb 1:8); along with, “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law” (Heb 7:12). Jesus is our High Priest, but He is also the King of all kings.

The record of the family order, or how many entered Egypt in relationship to the number who came indicates even in captivity God’s people increase. They may not have increased in material goods in the land, but they did increase in number. Adding the family orders of 33, 16, 14 and 7 as listed in Genesis 46:6-34 we end with 70, but if we remove Joseph and his family, who were already in Egypt we end with 66 souls, or better, “threescore and six", this num­ber would reflect to the number of a man later in Daniel, as well as in the Book of Revelation (Gen 46:26, Dan 3:1 & Rev 13:18). When man worships things, including the people of God they enter a very dangerous area. The Nation is a Nation, it was granted favor by God, but the Nation is not God. The sixty-six doesn’t mean these people were idol  makers or idol worshipers, it’s a “number” relating to Jacob going into Egypt, but it wasn’t the same number coming out of Egypt, thus the reference shows going into the World, not coming out of the world. In Exodus the number given is 70 souls, but it reflects the number “in Egypt”, which would include Joseph and his family. In Acts 7:14 Stephen said it was threescore and fifteen souls (75), but if we add the wives it’s the number we come up with. Three different numbers, 66, 70 and 75, yet all are correct. Jacob entered Egypt, but many years later Israel (the nation) would leave. Over the years Egypt changed hands, a new Pharaoh came into power. The new Pharaoh felt the Hebrews would someday attack him, thus to protect himself he placed them in bondage. However, God had a plan, there would come a time of deliverance. Did God know of the change in governments? Yes, it was in the plan, when the children entered Egypt they were treated as highly regarded guests, but this new Pharaoh was paranoid. This new Pharaoh took the land by force, fearing the many Hebrews would take his army by force causing him to keep them in bondage. The bondage became the incentive to leave Egypt, thus it was in the Plan all along. With the incentive to leave, they wouldn’t desire to. Now we move to Exodus, the Great Departure from Egypt.

 

 

sbi les2rev9/2003