Matthew Chapters 16 and 17

Now Available: The Christogenea Commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans in softcover can now be purchased at

  Available Now: The Christogenea New Testament in softcover at

Available now at! ChristReich: A Commentary on the Revelation of Yahshua Christ

Don't miss our ongoing series of podcasts The Protocols of Satan, which presents many historical proofs that the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are real, and that they have been fulfilled in history by the very same people who dispute their authenticity. Our companion series, The Jews in Medieval Europe, helps to explain how the Protocols have been fulfilled.

 Our recent Pragmatic Genesis series explains the Bible from a Christian Identity perspective which reconciles both Old and New Testaments with history and the political and social realities facing the Christian people of Yahweh God today.

A Commentary on the Epistles of Paul has recently been completed at This lengthy and in-depth series reveals the true Paul as an apostle of God, a prophet in his own right, and the first teacher of what we call Christian Identity.

Don't miss our recently-completed series of commentaries on the Minor Prophets of the Bible, which has also been used as a vehicle to prove the historicity of the Bible as well as the Provenance of God.

Visit Clifton Emahiser's Watchman's Teaching Ministries at for his many foundational Christian Identity studies.

Visit the Mein Kampf Project at and learn the truth concerning some of the most-lied about events in history.

Christogenea Books: Christian Truths in Black and White!
Visit our store at

Visit - the official home of William Finck's work-in-progress commentary on the Revelation of Yahshua Christ.

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20110708-Matt-16-17.mp3 — Downloaded 2419 times

Previous Website Downloads: 


Christogenea on Talkshoe – Friday July 8th, 2011 – Matthew Chapter 16

Last week we talked about the Canaanite woman of Matthew chapter 15, which has long been a topic of controversy and a subject so often misinterpreted in Christian discourse. Here I have something further which I believe strengthens the arguments concerning the customs of the times and the traditional roles of the suppliant in relation to the man in authority. This is from the book, Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World, by Melissa Barden Dowling, from the chapter entitled “Clemency and Cruelty Under the Julio-Claudians”, pages 169-170:

“Let them hate so long as they fear. Gaius Caligula’s policy toward those who offended him, and those who did not, was carried out in actions of open saevitia [brutality]. His use of fear as a tool of rulership, and his disinterest in even the appearance of mercy, stood in contrast to the averred principles of his predecessors and of most of his successors. For others, clementia [clemency] was the watchword, advertised by princeps. senators, and subjects alike. The reality of imperial crudelitas [cruelty] was inescapable, however, and the proclamations of imperial clemency were often loudest when an emperor's savagery was most sharply felt. Gaius departed from Augustus and Tiberius in discarding the careful assurances of clementia that softened their rule; Gaius's successors did not repeat his error. During the reigns of Claudius and Nero, the dialogue of clementia continued in both imperial and elite propaganda. In fact, the definition of clementia  developed further under the Julio-Claudians, surpassing the scope it had held under Augustus.

“It was under Nero that the first philosophy of clemency was described by Seneca. As part of his theory of mercy, Seneca constructed a parallel philosophy of cruelty, outlining the degrees of irrationality that underlie cruel actions and highlighting the contrasting benefits of clemency. From Gaius’s naked crudelitas: to a sophisticated philosophy of clemency, in the ]ulio-Claudian Age Romans experimented with the vocabulary of power and ultimately created a stronger ethic of mercy to offset the power of the emperor. The normalization of imperial advertisements of the clementia principis and the creation of a philosophy of virtus [manly virtue] incorporating clementia as an expression of a good man's success were the outstanding developments of the ideology and social history of the Early Empire. These developments and the emergence of a parallel philosophy of cruelty, in which the degradation of a man’s nature was expressed through his crudelitas [cruelty], are the focus of this chapter.... “

Once we understand that the Canaanite woman came to Yahshua as a suppliant to a King, in obeisance to Him and agreeing with and supplicating to Him in every manner, and once we understand the social philosophy of the time, only then do we realize that Yahshua had little choice in the cultural context and in order to demonstrate His Own sense of justice and virtue and mercy, than to grant her what she desired, which she knew and professed was fully within His power. He therefore granted her wish for His Own benefit, and not for hers, and as an ensign for us. Therefore James tells us in his later epistle that “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” And James is explaining that it is not enough for us to merely believe, but that we must act on that belief.

XVI 1 And coming forth the Pharisees and the Sadducees trying had asked Him to show to them a sign from out of heaven. 2 And replying to them He said: 4 “A wicked and adulterous race seeks a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it except the sign of Ionas!” And leaving them He departed.

Jonah, of course, spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, and then preached to the people of Nineveh. Christ likewise spent three days and three nights (unless you are a Catholic and have tried to change the calendar to fit the weekend) in the belly of the earth, and then His report went out to the World. This is indeed an amazing sign, but as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus demonstrates, even if He appeared to the Pharisees and Sadducees they would not have believed him.

Yahshua calls even His Own people here “a wicked and adulterous race”. A race which was mixed, as the Israelites of the time were mixed with the Canaanite-Edomites, would contain people who would hear His voice, and people who would not, and the evil influences would most often prevail.

There is a pericope wanting here, part of what is known as Matthew 16:2 and all of verse 3, which in the King James Version read: “When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?” This pericope seems not belong to the original, and therefore it is not included in the CNT. A similar discourse is found at Luke 12:54-56, where it is attested by the manuscripts there that the discourse is a certain part of the original. This pericope appears in the codices Ephraemi Syri, Bezae, and Washingtonensis, although they do not totally agree on the reading. All of those manuscripts are from the 5th century, and the Textus Receptus and some other later manuscripts follow them. (The Textus Receptus and similar medieval manuscripts, which ultimately gave us the King James Version, nearly always follow the departures and interpolations of the Codices from the Alexandrian tradition (among which is the Ephraemi Syri), or the Codex Bezae which has many further, sometimes strange, departures and interpolations.) But the pericope does not appear in the 4th century codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, or some other later manuscripts. We shall see another similar circumstance at Matthew 17:21.

5 And the students having come to the other side forgot to take bread. [The inference is that they departed from Magadan the same way that they arrived there, as it says at the end of chapter 15, by sea.]  6 Then Yahshua said to them: “Watch, and be on guard because of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!” 7 And they disputed among themselves, saying that “We did not take bread!” 8 But Yahshua knowing it said “Why do you dispute among yourselves, you of little faith, because you do not have bread? Do you not yet perceive, nor do you remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you had taken? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many creels you had taken? 11 How do you not perceive that it is not concerning wheat-loaves that I spoke to you? But be on guard because of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to be on guard because of the leaven of the wheat-loaves but because of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The disciples had a greater care for the worldly things, what they may eat, than for the more important matters at hand – which was how they should perceive the world around them. We also have to examine the words of Christ closely, to make sure that we are interpreting them correctly, and not simply endeavoring to fulfill our worldly desires. Of course it must be mentioned, that the remarkable thing about leaven, is that it causes the loaf of bread to rise, but it cannot be seen when it is in the flour. So it changes the nature of the grain without even being detected! If we care for the things of the world more than the things of God, we will never see the leaven in our hearts.

13 Then Yahshua having come into the regions of Caesareia Philippos, questioned His students saying: “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said “Well, some Iohannes the Baptist, but others Elijah, and others Ieremias or one of the prophets.”

Caesareia Philippos was twenty miles north of the northern shore of the Sea of Galilaia. Here the disciples were merely repeating the things that they had heard from others. We already saw in Matthew chapter 14 that when Herod the Tetrarch heard of Christ, he thought that he was John the Baptist arisen from the dead. Others may well have been of that same opinion.

While here Peter answers His next question correctly, as we shall soon see, a long time before this particular event, we see the following in the gospel of John, in the first chapter:

  43 The next day He desired to depart for Galilaia and He finds Philippos. And Yahshua says to him “Follow Me.” 44 And Philippos was from Bethsaida, from the city of Andreas and Petros. 45 Philippos finds Nathanael and says to him: “He whom Moses and the prophets had written about in the law we have found: Yahshua the son of Ioseph from Nazaret.” 46 And Nathanael said to him: “Can anything good be from Nazaret?” Philippos says to him: “Come and see!” 47 Yahshua saw Nathanael coming towards Him and He says about him: “Look! An Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!” 48 Nathanael says to Him: “From where do You know me?” Yahshua replied and said to him: “Before Philippos called you, being under the fig tree I saw you.” 49 Nathanael replied to Him: “Rabbi! You are the Son of Yahweh! You are King of Israel!” 50 Yahshua replied and said to him: “Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, you believe? Greater than these things you shall see.” 51 And He says to him: “Truly, truly I say to you: You shall see the heaven having been opened and the messengers of Yahweh ascending and descending before the Son of Man.”

So the apostles had long known who He was, and obviously some of them knew it as soon as they first saw Him. Not only from the account in the first chapter of John, but from the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, and of the Magi in Matthew, do we see that many people were expecting the Messiah at this time. One more example is in Luke 2:25 where we see that Simeon was a devout man “expecting the consolation of Israel”, which was the hope of the Messiah.

15 He says to them “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And replying Simon Petros said: “You are the Anointed Son of Yahweh who is living!” 17 And replying Yahshua said to him: “Blessed you are, Simon son of Ionas, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to you, but My Father who is in the heavens! 18 And I say to you that you are a stone [petros], yet upon this bedrock [petra] shall I build My assembly and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it! 19 I shall give to you the little keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and he whom you should bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens, and he whom you should release upon the earth shall be released in the heavens!” 20 He ordered the students in order that they would tell no one that He is the Anointed One [Christ].

The Medieval Roman Catholic Church purposely misinterpreted this passage, in conjunction with unprovable claims concerning the apostle Peter and the first Christian assemblies in Rome, in order to create the authority that it claimed so that it could rule over Christendom. Christ is not saying here that Peter was the bedrock upon which the ekklesia – the body of true Christians in the world – was founded. Rather, Christ was telling Peter that while he had known this remarkable truth – which is that Yahshua was indeed that Christ promised by the Word of God through so many ancient prophets – Peter was nevertheless only a stone, and that His ekklesia would be founded on bedrock – something much greater than a stone. This is the difference between the Greek words petros and petra which many commentators miss, and especially those who are Romish church apologists. Peter was called a petros, which is a stone. Christ said that His ekklesia would be founded upon petra, which is the large rock of the earth which we would best describe as bedrock. Therefore Peter continues the analogy, and confirms its appropriate interpretation, where in his first epistle at 2:5 he tells us that “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house....”

On the phrase “the Gates of Hades”: Job, at 38:17 asks “Have the gates of death [maveth, Strong's number 4194] been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death [tsalmaveth, Strong's number 6757]?” From the apocryphal Wisdom of Salomon, another book which certainly should have been included in the canon except that among other things it discusses adultery as race-mixing and condemns it, not pleasing the agenda of our enemies, we read the following at 16:12-13:: "12 For it was neither herb, nor mollifying plaister, that restored them to health: but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things. 13 For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest up again."

The word rendered as Hades is a Greek word, and only transliterated here. Hades was not simply the grave, but rather it was the abode of the dead, the underworld, the place which contained the spirits of the deceased. I have actually both heard and read expressions of distaste from a lot of Christians, that Christ repeated an idea seen to be “pagan”. But the idea which the word Hades represents certainly was not exclusive to the Greeks. One concept which in my opinion binds all ancient Aryan cultures together was the concept of the eternal continuance of the Spirit, its residency in an abode of the dead, and the expressed hope of emerging from that abode. This concept is seen in the early religions of all Aryan cultures, and we can see its expression as the underworld of Sumer and Akkad. The Sheol of the Hebrews, the Hades of the Greeks, and the Niflheim of the Germanic tribes. Nephel meaning fallen in Hebrew, Niflheim is the home of the fallen ones. The ancients also believed in a glorious and eternal place for the spirits of those who gained the favor of the gods, or of God, and manifestations of that belief are seen in the ideas of Olympus, Valhalla, or the Isles of the Blest.

21 From that time Yahshua Christ began to explain to His students that it is necessary for Him to depart for Jerusalem and to suffer many things from the elders and high priests and scribes and to be slain and to be raised on the third day. 22 And taking Him aside Petros began to admonish Him, saying “Mercy to You, Prince! This shall not be for You!” 23 And turning He said to Petros: “Get behind Me, adversary! Are you a trap for Me, because you mind not the affairs of Yahweh, but the affairs of men?”

Peter is not Satan, in the spiritual sense of the word as it is applied to all those born outside of the will and decree of Yahweh of “kind after kind”, who are naturally and eternally opposed to Yahweh. Rather, Peter is merely an adversary, which is the literal meaning of the Hebrew word. Yahshua knew what His mission was, yet Peter denied it, and he was thereby being adversarial to Yahshua, which is why Yahshua rebuked him in such a manner. So many fools would wrongly claim that Peter could somehow be “Satan” (with a capital 's') and therefore satan cannot be a genetic entity. They ignore that the word is a simple adjective first, yet when it is used with the definite article as a Substantive it describes a particular entity. Here however, it is merely an adjective.

24 Then Yahshua said to His students: “If one desires to come behind Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me!

This statement reflects one of the most important principles of Christianity, which most Christians today are not even cognizant of, even among those who claim to be Christian Identists. We should give our lives for our brethren, as Christ gave His life for us. That does not necessarily mean that we must die for our race, except of course if it was necessary, but rather it means that we should devote our lives to our race, whether in life or by death.

Here I will take a divergence, and discuss a certain political philosophy from what many may think is an unlikely source: Adolf Hitler. Now I know that this will rankle a lot of so-called Christians, those who are lukewarm, who shudder at the name because of the manner in which the jews have soiled it. If you become rankled at this, if you refuse to look at Nazi Germany objectively (meaning without the avalanche of slurs found in the propaganda of the jewish controlled media) then it is fully evident that, like those worldly people described earlier this evening, you will always be blind to the leaven of the Pharisees. The following is adapted from the notes on Hitler & Christianity from the Christogenea Mein Kampf Project  website.

From the Murphy translation of Mein Kampf, on p. 125: “What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.” I may add, to build the Kingdom of Heaven, which Hitler understood that only the Aryan man could do. Again, the idea of giving one's life for one's people does not necessarily mean dying prematurely for them, however that too may at times be a necessity. What it means is the devoting of one's life to their well-being. Hitler's own thought in this area is a perfect product of the gospel, and he often stressed the need for individual sacrifice on behalf of the race throughout his philosophy.

Now to examine a few other New Testament scriptures that elucidate this philosophy as a Christian philosophy:

From John 10:11-18: “11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep ... 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.”

From Matthew 10:38-39: “38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”

From Matthew 23:10-12: “10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”

It is evident from these scriptures and others, that we are to follow Yahshua's example by giving up, or at least by devoting, our lives to the betterment of our kindred, which is the nation in the proper sense and usage of the term, not as a political and geographic entity, but as a single race of people living together under one government. If Christians devoted each of their lives to the nation, rather than to their own self-enrichment, how much better off the nation would be as a whole! And Yahweh God would surely reward the individual who did these things. What follows are some quotes from Mein Kampf which surely demonstrate that Hitler had fully incorporated this Christian philosophy into his own political philosophy.

From Mein Kampf, p. 146: “The right to personal freedom comes second in importance to the duty of maintaining the race.”

From Mein Kampf, p. 94: “The sacrifice of the individual existence is necessary in order to assure the conservation of the race. Hence it is that the most essential condition for the establishment and maintenance of a State is a certain feeling of solidarity, founded in an identity of character and race and in a resolute readiness to defend these at all costs.”

From Mein Kampf, p. 168: “The readiness to sacrifice one's personal work and, if necessary, even one's life for others shows its most highly developed form in the Aryan race. The greatness of the Aryan is not based on his intellectual powers, but rather on his willingness to devote all his faculties to the service of the community. Here the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form; for the Aryan willingly subordinates his own ego to the common weal and when necessity calls he will even sacrifice his own life for the community.”

Let me say here that the concept of "stardom" which we see in recent times is actually antithetical to Christianity. To the jew, a unified nation is anathema. So one tendency of the jew is to divide society by creating the "star" or the "personality". This fragments the nation into a collection of individuals, each seeking after their own interests, and not caring for the interests of the nation. It is not by chance that the jews love to call them "idols"!

From Mein Kampf, p. 169: “In the German language we have a word which admirably expresses this underlying spirit of all work: It is Pflichterfüllung, which means the service of the common weal before the consideration of one's own interests. The fundamental spirit out of which this kind of activity springs is the contradistinction of 'Egotism' and we call it 'Idealism'. By this we mean to signify the willingness of the individual to make sacrifices for the community and his fellow-men ... To this kind of mentality the Aryan owes his position in the world. And the world is indebted to the Aryan mind for having developed the concept of 'mankind'; for it is out of this spirit alone that the creative force has come which in a unique way combined robust muscular power with a first-class intellect and thus created the monuments of human civilization.”

Some of our own Christian states here in America were founded on this same principle of "service of the common weal", which is what the word commonwealth means. Of course, it does not mean redistribution of wealth and welfare handouts. For that we can compare Hitler's statements on p. 27 of Mein Kampf to 2 Thessalonians 3:10-11.

From Mein Kampf, p. 27: “During my struggle for existence in Vienna I perceived very clearly that the aim of all social activity must never be merely charitable relief, which is ridiculous and useless, but it must rather be a means to find a way of eliminating the fundamental deficiencies in our economic and cultural life--deficiencies which necessarily bring about the degradation of the individual or at least lead him towards such degradation.”

2 Thessalonians 3:10-11: "10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. " Verse 11 sounds as if it is talking about the Soviet Apparatchiks!

From Mein Kampf, p. 239: “The man who loves his nation can prove the sincerity of this sentiment only by being ready to make sacrifices for the nation's welfare. There is no such thing as a national sentiment which is directed towards personal interests. And there is no such thing as a nationalism that embraces only certain classes. Hurrahing proves nothing and does not confer the right to call oneself national if behind that shout there is no sincere preoccupation for the conservation of the nation's well-being. One can be proud of one's people only if there is no class left of which one need to be ashamed. When one half of a nation is sunk in misery and worn out by hard distress, or even depraved or degenerate, that nation presents such an unattractive picture that nobody can feel proud to belong to it. It is only when a nation is sound in all its members, physically and morally, that the joy of belonging to it can properly be intensified to the supreme feeling which we call national pride. But this pride, in its highest form, can be felt only by those who know the greatness of their nation.”

It is impossible for aliens to share these sentiments with a host nation. Aliens are always out for the interests of their own race, at the expense of the host nation. All of the aliens admitted into this nation since the 1960's, along with the elevation of the negro in society as so-called "equals", has only served to destroy the fabric of the nation. We see it here, and we see it in Europe. It is inevitable wherever it is allowed, that alien immigration destroys the host nation.

There are other such comments throughout Mein Kampf. These attitudes are NOT found in pagan Germanic poetry, or at least I have not seen them and I believe that one would be hard-pressed to find sufficiently convincing examples. What I have seen from the Eddas, the Niebelungenlied, and other such works was an emphasis on personal glorification and enrichment, and a willingness to intermarry with those of other nations and/or races if there is a perception that it may benefit things such as trade and diplomacy relations. This is entirely evident in the Niebelungenlied, where the Frankish princess Kriemhild is quickly married off to Attila the Hun after the murder of her husband Siegfried. No jew could understand the importance of individual sacrifice for the love of one's nation to the extent which Hitler did, and those who smear Hitler as a jew or as some sort of Zionist agent are playing whore for the jew. Rather, if we understood Hitler's political philosophy and just how it withstood both jewish capitalism and jewish communism, only then could we understand why the jews campaigned so hard to destroy it – and a good Christian nation along with it.

25 For he who would wish to save his life shall lose it, and he who would lose his life because of Me shall find it!

Our reward is found in doing His will, regardless of the perceived earthly cost.

26 For what shall it benefit a man if perhaps he should gain the whole society but his life is lost?Or what shall a man give in exchange for his life? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with the splendor of His Father with His messengers, and then He shall render to each according to his practice. 28 Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who shall by no means taste death until when they should see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom!”

If we labor for the accumulation of the riches of the world, then we lose our reward, as Christ tells us elsewhere, such as at Matthew 6:19-21 where He states: “19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” We work for the treasures of heaven by keeping His law, loving our brother, and devoting ourselves to them.

Many people point to this last statement in order to prove the idea of Preterism – an idea which is demonstrably false in the light of so many other prophecies and passages of Scripture. It is evident from our experience, that the bodies of these people certainly died, but what we must ask is whether they themselves actually experienced that death. It is evident in many Scriptures that the consciousness indeed exists apart from the physical body. Another answer may be found in the account of the event which follows, however it is also evident that some things are outside of any knowledge which we could be certain of presently. Two men appear in the transfiguration on the mount, as it is called, Moses and Elijah. Elijah was taken physically by Yahweh – the flaming chariot event described in 2 Kings chapter 2. But Moses, as it is described in Deuteronomy chapter 34, physically died and was buried in the land of Moab.

XVII 1 And after six days Yahshua takes Petros and Iakobos and Iohannes his brother and brings them up onto a high mountain by themselves. 2 And He was transformed before them, and His face shined like the sun, and His garments became white like light. 3 And behold! Moses appeared to them, and Elijah, speaking together with Him. 4 Then responding Petros said to Yahshua: “Prince, it is good for us to be here! If You desire, I shall make here three tents, one for You and one for Moses and one for Elijah!” 5 Yet upon His speaking, behold! A bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold! A voice from the cloud saying “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am pleased. You hear Him!” 6 And hearing it the students had fallen upon their faces and feared exceedingly. 7 And Yahshua came forth and taking hold of them said “Arise and do not fear!” 8 Then raising their eyes they saw no one except Yahshua Himself only.

First, to answer the proponents of reincarnation who like to point to John the Baptist for support for their contentions, if John the Baptist was actually Elijah, Peter and the apostles would have recognized Elijah as John the baptist here, since they met John personally. Yet they did not, and this here is truly Elijah, and therefore the idea that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah means something totally different.

This event, popularly called the “transfiguration on the mount”, appears in Matthew 17, Mark 9 and Luke 9. There is no reason to doubt its veracity and the authenticity of the account. Let it also be said that the appearance of spiritual apparitions is a theme which appears elsewhere in the New Testament, such as when Christ walked on the water, or much later when Peter stood at the gate of a certain house after his escape from the prison, when his fellows had given him up for dead.

Yahweh is the God of the living, and not of the dead. That assertion by Christ is fully evident, once it is understood that after those with the Spirit which God bestowed on the Adamic race die, they nevertheless remain living in the Spirit, and they obviously also retain their consciousness and therefore their identity. But those who are without that Spirit, as Jude tells us in his epistle, are “twice dead”, meaning that once they die in the body, they are also dead spiritually. They are broken cisterns, which can hold no water. Thus Paul says at 2 Corinthians 4:7 “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.”

9 And upon their descending from the mountain Yahshua commanded them saying “Tell no one of this sight until when the Son of Man has been raised from the dead!” 10 And the students questioned Him, saying “So why do the scribes say that it is necessary for Elijah to come first?” 11 And He replying said “Indeed Elijah comes, and he shall restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did with him whatever they had desired! Thusly also the Son of Man is going to suffer by them.” 13 Then the students understood that He spoke to them concerning Iohannes the Baptist.

Here Yahshua tells us that Elijah is to come, and that Elijah has already come. Elijah is evidently being used as a type, first for John the Baptist, and then for that future Elijah promised by the prophecy in Malachi, who shall “turn the hearts of the children to the fathers”. So it is not speaking of Elijah literally, but of men with the same abilities and kindred Spirit as Elijah, who are being called by the name of Elijah figuratively. Therefore let us examine a few of the passages in the related prophecy, in Malachi.

Malachi 3:1: “`1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. 2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. [This is speaking of the messenger, and describes the mission which we saw John the Baptist actually fulfill.]

 4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years. [This describes those who turn to Christianity.] ... 6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. [This describes the immutability of the promise, and elucidates the treachery of the Dispensationalist sects of today.] 7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?” We can only return to Yahweh through Christ, who is – as He tells us and as it is written - “the door of the sheep”, and no one can go to the Father except through Him. The messenger who went before His face, who preceded His Own mission, was indeed John the Baptist, and was also prophesied of by Isaiah, as “the voice crying in the wilderness” who prepared His Way before Him (by fulfilling the Old Testament law requiring the cleansing both the priests and the Lamb in preparation for the sacrifice). So John was the Elijah who had come, and they did with him what they wished, by killing him. Malachi chapter 4 then prophecies the Elijah who “shall restore all things”:

KJV Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. [That is the restoration of those who were not born of God.] 2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings [which is a description of the ancient Aryan phoenix symbol]; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts. 4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

So we see that the “restoration of all things” is in scripture the restoration of the children of Yahweh to the recognition of the covenants of their fathers. Horeb was another name for Mount Sinai. The “restoration of all things” is described as the coming destruction of all the ungodly so that the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of those who are made in the image of God, can come to fruition. All of those who find a universalist message in the phrase “restoration of all things” are fools, since it obviously refers only to a restoration of all things pertaining to the people of Israel who had been divorced from Yahweh, but who are now reconciled to Him in Christ. Acts 3:21 is speaking of Christ: “21 whom it is indeed necessary for heaven to receive until the times of restoration of all which Yahweh had spoken through the mouths of the saints His prophets from of old. ”

Ephesians 4:11-16: “And He has given the ambassadors, and the interpreters of prophesy, and those who deliver the good message, and the shepherds - teachers, towards the restoration of the saints [the separate people], for the work of ministering for building of the body of the Anointed, until we all would attain to the unity of the faith and of the acknowledgment of the Son of Yahweh, at man perfected, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Anointed; in order that we would be infants no longer - being tossed as waves and carried about in every wind of teaching by the trickery of men, in villainy for the sake of the systematizing of deception. But speaking the truth with love, we may increase all things for He who is the head, the Christ, from whom all the body is being joined together and is being reconciled through every stroke of assistance according to the operation of each single part in proportion; the growth of the body creates itself into a building in love.” That is the “restoration of all things”, the full reconciliation of the children of Israel to the polity of Yahweh, and nothing more.

14 And upon coming to the crowd a man approached Him, falling on his knees 15 and saying “Prince, have mercy upon my son, because he is an epileptic and has a malady! For many times he falls into the fire, and many times into the water. 16 And I brought him to Your students, yet they have not been able to heal him!” 17 And replying Yahshua said “O faithless and perverted race, until when must I be with you? Until when must I put up with you? Bring him here to Me!” 18 And Yahshua admonished him and the demon came out from him, and the child had been healed from that moment.

The phrase “faithless and perverted race” is a remark about Israel, not the jews! As has been explained previously, the children of Israel were faithless and perverted because of the alien element among them, which having usurped authority in the kingdom had led them away from true instruction, from true education in the Word, into a host host of errors and misconceptions.

19 Then the students having approached Yahshua by themselves said: “For what reason had we not been able to cast it out?” 20 And He says to them: “For reason of your little faith! For truly I say to you, if you would have faith as a grain of mustard, you will say to this mountain: ‘Move from there to there!’, and it shall be moved, and there is nothing impossible for you!”

Verse 21 is wanting in the CNT, and therefore here it is from the King James Version: “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” This verse seems not belong to the original, and therefore it is omitted. It appears in the codices Ephraemi Syri, Bezae, and Washingtonensis, all from the 5th century, and the later Textus Receptus, but it does not appear in the 4th  century codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.

22 Then upon their gathering in Galilaia, Yahshua said to them: “The Son of Man is going to be handed over into the hands of men, 23 and they shall slay Him, and on the third day He shall be raised.” And they were grieved exceedingly.

Christ repeatedly told them exactly what would happen to Him, yet they seemed never to be able to perceive it until it actually happened, and then they remembered His warnings, although they are described as having grieved here. The Gospel of Mark says at this juncture “But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.” (9:32) Surely this also is a demonstration that, though the evidence be right before us, we are only able to see as God wills it that we see.

24 Then upon their having come into Kapharnaoum those collecting the tax came forth to Petros and said “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” 25 He says “Yes!” And coming into the house, Yahshua had anticipated him saying “What does it seem to you, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive duties or taxes, from their sons or from aliens?” 26 And upon his saying “From aliens”, Yahshua said to him: “Then indeed the sons are free! 27 But in order that we would not offend them, going to the sea cast a fish-hook and you must take the first fish coming up, and opening its mouth you shall find a silver coin. Taking that give it to them for Me and for you.”

Christ consistently complied with the customs of the time, having subjected Himself to the Society which He originally created, although it had certainly become corrupted.

CHR20110708-Matt-16-17.odt — Downloaded 504 times
Clemency&Cruelty169_0.png — Never downloaded
Clemency&Cruelty170.png — Never downloaded
Clemency&Cruelty171.png — Never downloaded