Christian Identity Basics - Part 9



By James N. Jester

July 14, 2019

Scripture Reading: Hebrews 1:1-4, 14; 2:1-4

God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds, who being the shining splendor of His glory, and the express image of His essence, and upholding all things by the word of His power, through Himself cleansing of our sins, He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. –Heb. 1:1-4

Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation? –v. 14

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and if every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by those who heard Him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with different kinds of miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?” –Heb. 2:1-4, MKJV


The book of Hebrews was written during the last half of the first century. We do not know for sure who wrote this Epistle. The mention of Timothy (Heb. 13:23) has led some to think that Paul or one of his associates wrote it. Our friend, Bill Fink, an Internet C. I. teacher at, believes Paul did write it.

The church of Alexandria appears to have been the first to consider that Hebrews was written by Paul or reflected his thought. Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-215) named Paul as the author and that he wrote it in Hebrew, but argued that Luke translated it into Greek. Origen (c. A.D. 185-253) concluded that the thoughts were of Paul but that the phraseology and composition were those of someone who was recalling the apostle’s teaching (e.g., Clement of Rome, Luke, or Priscilla). Most say it was written during the last half of the first century.

The Jamison, Fausset, Brown Commentary also believes Paul wrote it:

“The writer, though not inscribing his name, was well known to those addressed (Heb 13:19). For proofs of Paul being the author, see my Introduction. In the Pauline method, the statement of subject and the division are put before the discussion; and at the close, the practical follows the doctrinal portion. The ardor of Spirit in this Epistle, as in First John, bursting forth at once into the subject (without prefatory inscription of name and greeting), the more effectively strikes the hearers. The date must have been while the temple was yet standing, before its destruction, A.D. 70; some time before the martyrdom of Peter, who mentions this Epistle of Paul (2Pe 3:15, 3:16); at a time when many of the first hearers of the Lord were dead.” –JFB

As to who the Book of Hebrews was written to, there is plenty of confusion in judeo-Christianity.

If we listen to mainstream preachers and read commentaries, we will get the liberal line – “Hebrews was written to the Jews.” For those who are caught in the racial dichotomy, there are only Jews and Gentiles. Because the epistle does not mention Gentiles, the racial dichotomists are forced to conclude that it was written to Hebrews – “who are Jews, of course!” But for those who believe there are Jews, Gentiles and Israelites, there is no problem. An Israelite son of God wrote this epistle to describe the sons of Abraham relative to the surrounding people of his day. The word ‘Hebrew’ was the name applied to the people of Yahweh by their surrounding neighbors, whereas ‘Israelite’ was what they called themselves.

The prevailing Christian scholarship today and the conclusion reached is typically found in The Pulpit Commentary: “To the fathers; the ancestors of the Jews in respect both of race and of faith; the saints of the Old Testament.” Well, they haven’t a clue!

And from The Laymen’s Bible Commentary: “Others hold that the letter was addressed to Christians as such, either including both Gentiles and Jews or composed exclusively of Gentiles. In this last case, of course, the title of the epistle would be a misnomer” (p. 8). Of course, they haven’t a clue either! They don’t realize that many Gentiles are Hebrews. In their judeo-world of thinking, “Hebrew” always means “Jews.”

Well, the title of “Hebrews” is not a misnomer to those in Christian Identity, because we know who the Gentiles were at the time of Paul. They were Israelites of the Dispersion and therefore Hebrews. There is no mystery to us who this book is written to.

Hebrews deals with Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice much more thoroughly than any other book in the New Testament. It has also been termed “the Epistle of the Covenant” and “the Epistle of the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.” The overall theme of the letter – the responsibilities and privileges of sonship: (1) the ‘Son of God’ as eternal High Priest; (2) of the ‘sons of men’ as members of God’s household.


Judeo-Christian teachers are always stressing that the Bible is a “spiritual” book. They tend to spiritualize everything they read in the Bible. They talk about everyone on the planet being equal and that all God is concerned about is the spiritual aspect of people who accept Jesus Christ, not their racial differences. As long as people “accept the Lord” and their character backs up their profession, that is fine with God. We are universally all spiritual brothers and sisters and that we all have one Father, even God. This is their philosophy claimed as theology.

However, in Hebrews 2, verses 10 through the end of the chapter, we note several familial terms:

For it became Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons into glory, to perfect the Captain of their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of One, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, "I will declare Your name to My brothers; in the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You." And again, "I will put My trust in Him." And again, "Behold Me and the children whom God has given Me." Since then the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same; that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death (that is, the devil), and deliver those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For truly He did not take the nature of angels, but He took hold of the seed of Abraham. Therefore in all things it behooved him to be made like His brothers, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of His people.” – Heb. 2:10-17

These various terms are used to define the members of a family whose father is God. Notice:

  • “Bringing many sons into glory”

  • “He who sanctifies and those sanctified are all of One (Father)

  • “Not ashamed to call them brothers

  • “The children whom God has given Me”

  • Seed of Abraham”

  • His people”

The popular teaching is that all this family talk is about a “spiritual” family. They will ignore all this evidence shown above. But what do they do with verse 14?

Since the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same...”

How do judeo teachers treat this verse? Many will simply say it does not matter anymore. Others will use hundreds of words to say that the Bible really does not mean “flesh and blood,” but rather it has to do with “a common spiritual nature” and a common earthly nature.

However, the Scriptures plainly mean a racial family by the term “flesh and blood,” and not only because of this verse, but also because of many passages throughout the Bible (as we have seen in other parts of this series). We have seen in Hebrews that Christ did not take on the nature of angels but of his own kind – the seed of Abraham (v. 16). This makes Him our Kinsman Redeemer.

If Christ did not take on the same flesh (or race), are we to assume that the family of God is a multi-racial family? For the judeo-Christian, this must be the only conclusion. Of course, there is no evidence anywhere in the Scriptures for this crazy conclusion.

Another convincing point is found in verse 16 of the NKJV:

For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.”

This looks like the Almighty God only helps this own family and leaves everyone else out. Well, that’s normal isn’t it? A father takes care of his own. Yet so many people today of various ethnicities say they pray to God to help them with some issue they are facing. Does God really hear them? Not according to this verse. Furthermore, if God does not even give aid to the angels, why then, would He give aid to the children of the devil, the jews? This reminds me of a recent story.

Dems Have REMOVED ‘So Help Me God’ From Committee Oaths

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives has been slowly removing the words “so help you God” from the oath administered to witnesses testifying before panels and committee hearings. According to LifeSiteNews, the changes to the oaths first began in January, and Democrats have been slowly implementing the new policy to all of the committees.

In January, Democrats faced extreme backlash when a draft of their new rules package was leaked to the public. According to the draft, the rules proposal shows that the House Committee on Natural Resources would ask witnesses to recite only: “Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

In the draft, the words “So help you God” are in red brackets, meaning Democrats want them to be removed. After a few months — and many forgetting about this stunt — Democrats eventually went on to push God out of the oaths.

Back in March, One America News noticed that Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen specifically omitted “so help you God” when swearing witnesses in at a hearing. When GOP Rep. Mike Johnson tried to correct the oath and questioned why “so help you God” had been removed, Cohen publicly rebuked him.

Republican lawmakers have been stunned when asked about the proposed change. GOP Rep. Mike Johnson argued that “so help me God” is significant because it implies someone who bears false witness is subjected to a higher judge. “The intention behind [‘so help me God’] was to express the idea that the truth of what was being said was important not just in the moment, but would go into eternity, and someone was watching and would ultimately be our judge. Some would call that mere symbolism, but to many of our founders, it was deeper than that.”

---------------------------------- [End of Article]

Well, as usual, Democrats do not want God involved in our political process. Furthermore, those not of our race will not get any help from our God anyway.

We hope America is waking up as the next Election approaches. I heard someone say in relation to the Epstein story, “There are more Pedophile Democrats than there are White Supremacist Republicans.” Maybe this is an indicator of such a turn in the right direction. “Make America White Again.”

Continuing with family matters, verse 17 says,

“…it behooved him [Christ] in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” – Heb. 2:17, ASV

The reference to “the people” refers to “his brethren” earlier in the verse, to “the seed of Abraham” in verse 16, and to “the children [who] share in flesh and blood” in verse 14. There is no way this language can possibly apply to all human beings universally. Christ has redeemed His brethren (kin, family), not all the races of the Earth. The word “re-deemed” means to “buy back (again) from a former condition.” Of course, this can only apply to Israel’s race, for they were formerly God’s chosen people. Judeo-Christianity rejects this term. To them, Christ died for “all” (not just the former party, Israel). Therefore, “all” are “deemed.”

Heirs of the Promise

Chapter 6 of Hebrews uses a legal term for the Hebrew sons of God:

Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us – Heb. 6:17-18

An heir is one who inherits, or has a right of inheritance. Implicit in this term is the fact that there are those who are not heirs and do not inherit, or have the right to inheritance. In our world today of humanism and “equality” this is unheard of and scoffed at. It even finds place in the minds of those who claim to be Christians. But, it is true, and history easily verifies that the White race (the true Hebrews) has carried on their inheritance of the Christian faith.

A Change in the Law

I recently learned of a different perspective concerning the law of God that I had not recognized before. It was in the book, Are We Under the Law? by Charles Weisman. The debate among Christian churches about whether the Law of God is valid or not has caused division and differing opinions since the time of the Apostle Paul. Some in Christian Identity have gone so far as to reject Paul altogether. I also did not realize that the book of Hebrews had so much to say on this subject.

In his book, Weisman argues from the perspective of a Contract or Covenant. The topic of the place of the Law in Christian theology is very important; and Hebrews offers additional insight to the debate.

Below are two lists of verses, one used by those who take the anti-law argument, and the other used by those of the pro-law argument:

Verses for the Anti-Law Argument

  • Rom 6:14, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.

  • Rom 7:6, But now we have been discharged from the law…

  • Rom 10:4, For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.

  • Gal 3:24, So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

  • Gal 3:25, But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

  • Gal 5:18, But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

  • Col 2:14, …having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. – ASV

All of these verses were written by the Apostle Paul, but the argument that Paul was anti-law (antinomian) does not take into account other passages by Paul and others in the New Testament that seem to contradict the anti-law position. Taken alone, these can be quite persuasive and lead one to conclude that the anti-law position is true.

Verses for the Pro-Law Argument

  • Mat 5:17, Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

  • Rom 2:13, …for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

  • Rom 3:31, Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law.

  • Rom 7:12, So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.

  • 1Jn 3:4, Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

  • 1Jn 5:2, Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments.

  • Rev 14:12, Here is the patience of the saints, they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. –ASV

Paul and the Apostles, as well as our Lord Jesus, on many occasions had quoted the Law as something good and to be followed. Where does this leave the anti-law proponents who insist that the Law is done away with and should not be followed? It appears that they will not be of those who are called “saints” or the “blessed.” It seems like they are teaching contrary to many verses (there are many others) regarding the Law. How do they explain such verses like these?

The anti-law people have little to say against these verses and tend to avoid them and concentrate on verses that support their view. Pro-law people attempt to address most of the anti-law verses but are many times wrong in their arguments. All of these verses have been a subject of debate and confusion, for they seem to contradict one another.

The Legal Contract

The key in understanding all of this lies in the difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. The Old Covenant was a legal contract between Israel and God. This contract was made at Mount Sinai, as recorded in Exodus:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.” – Ex. 19:5-8, KJV

As with most contracts there is an offer, in this case made by God, and there is an acceptance of that offer by the people, “All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.” We also see stipulations and conditions in the contract by the words “if” and “then.” Additional terms and conditions to this contract are found in other places of the Bible, such as Leviticus chapter 26:3-25 (also Deuteronomy 28), commonly referred to as the blessings and curses.

The substance of this contract was that if Israel would keep their agreement by adhering to the laws of God, then God would confirm His Covenant with Israel by granting them certain material blessings. But if Israel did not follow the laws of God, He would not be favorable to them but instead punishments would come upon them.

“Thus Israel was bound to the contract they entered into at Mount Sinai, but they had difficulty adhering to its terms. The Old Covenant was a law. That law has been abolished. Thus, no one is under that law (contract). Further, the Old Covenant had decrees (dogmas) requiring the people to follow the laws of God – the “handwriting of requirements” (Col. 2:14) refers to the terms and conditions requiring the people to keep the law of God. These requirements to keep the law were “wiped out.” If the bond or covenant is gone, so is the obligation to follow its terms or decrees.” – Weisman, p. 14

We need to understand that the Old Covenant was the pre-eminent covenant in biblical history. Ever since Israel was a nation, up until the time of Christ, Israelites were under this law and looked to it as their legal guide. It was like their Magna Carta or U. S. Constitution.

The True Perspective on Law

After hearing what has been said so far, some may erroneously conclude that we don’t have to follow the laws of God anymore. There are two facts that Weisman gives regarding this issue that needs to be clearly understood:

  1. The laws of God were not established or created by the Old Covenant; they were for the most part pre-existing laws that were made a part of that Covenant.

  2. The laws of God were not abolished by Christ’s death; rather the obligation to keep them under the terms of the Old Covenant was abolished.

These two points are important to understand in order to have the true perspective on the Law of God. Admittedly, both sides of the argument contain some truth, which causes them to become traps in promoting a wrong or inaccurate perspective.

While it can be truly said that the requirements to keep the Ten Commandments was abolished by Christ’s death, it cannot be said that there is no requirement to keep them today. Weisman offers seven sound reasons why there is an obligation to follow God’s commands, laws and statutes today:

  1. Judgment and punishment exist without the Old Covenant. There are many instances of judgment for breaking the laws of God before the Old Covenant: Cain’s banishment, the Great Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, the curse upon Canaan, destruction at Babel, Egypt’s plagues.

  2. The laws of God could not have been abolished by Christ’s death, since these laws were made a part of the New Covenant. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Heb. 8:10). The New Covenant was activated by Christ’s blood (Mark 14:24), thus His death established the laws of God. They are now a part of the terms and conditions of the New Covenant; only in a different way – they are written in our hearts and minds through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

  3. We have an obligation to adhere to the laws of God because He is our Creator. The creature is subject to the Creator (Rom. 1:25).

  4. We also have an obligation to follow the laws of God because Christ and the Apostles directed us to follow them on numerous occasions. “And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments (Matt. 19:17).

  5. We are still bound to the laws of God because we can still sin. Paul refutes the concept of antinomianism: “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid” (Rom. 6:15). Paul is not saying we are not in any way subject to the laws of God, for if you are not under or legally subject to a law you cannot break it, and there can be no sin. Nearly every writer of the New Testament warned us about sin. This means we are still subject to the laws of God, but in a new way other than by the Old Covenant.

  6. The Law of God is our measure of rewards and punishments in the resurrection. “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie” (Rev. 22:14-15). The Final Judgment is carried out according to some Law, as are all just judgments or decisions.

  7. The laws of God are a part of our Anglo-Saxon common law, and thus as Europeans we have a legal obligation to adhere to the laws of God. Bible history and teaching, from Genesis to Revelation, reveals that our God wants His people to keep His laws, whether or not there is a covenant requiring them to do so. This is the case under the New Covenant. If we were to go back and read again the pro-law verses (and others like them) we cannot come to any other conclusion, especially since God placed His laws in our hearts and minds.

Jesus a Type of Melchizedek

Summing this subject up, we find that the book of Hebrews also has much to say about the Law where it compares Jesus to Melchizedek.

Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—for on this basis the people received the Law—what further need would there be to speak of appointing another kind of priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not one according to the order of Aaron? When a change in the priesthood takes place, there must also be a change in the Law. –Heb. 7:11-12, ISV

For the person we are talking about belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. Furthermore, it is obvious that our Lord was a descendant of Judah, and Moses said nothing about priests coming from that tribe. This point is even more obvious in that another priest who is like Melchizedek has appeared who was appointed to be a priest, not on the basis of a genealogical registry, but rather on the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared about him, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’ Indeed, because it was weak and ineffective, the former commandment has been annulled, since the Law made nothing perfect, and a better hope is presented, by which we approach God. – Heb. 7:13-19, ISV

In this way, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.” –Heb. 7:22, ISV

The author of Hebrews attempts to show that it was right and proper that the priesthood under the Levites should be replaced with the priesthood of Melchizedek. For obviously, the “perfection” of man was not attained under the Levitical priesthood and Mosaic Law. Perfection, in this context (and those following), appears to be a reference to the preparation of the spirit of man for fellowship with God. This fellowship or worship of God cannot be accomplished by law or by a priesthood established by law. Rather, it is to be achieved only by that act of Jesus Christ as the great High Priest, namely, the planting of the “anchor” of Christian hope upon the mercy seat in the eternal sanctuary.

“…who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and stedfast and entering into that which is within the veil; whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” – Heb. 6:18-20, ASV

Hebrews suggests at least three senses in which Melchizedek is to be thought of as superior, the most important being his likeness to Jesus Christ; “…without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God” (Heb. 7:3). His story in Genesis appears out of nowhere:

“He flashes, so to speak, across the stage of history like a meteor. He arrives without announcement, without pedigree, without fanfare of any sort. And having done the work, which God gave him to do, he flashes off into the night again. The author sees him in this respect as like Jesus Christ, who came out of eternity in the Incarnation, performed His appointed service in a short span of years, and by His resurrection and ascension again passed out into the eternal order. Of each of these, therefore, it may be said that ‘he continues a priest for ever’ (v. 3). For where there is neither beginning or ending, it may be argued that there is only continuity in the priestly office.” – The Layman’s Bible Commentary, p. 47

Under the former priesthood of Levites, of course, men died; but Jesus cannot die and therefore His priestly work lives on permanently “to make intercession” (Heb. 7:25) for His sheep. This work was complete and did not need repetition every year as under the old faith. Jesus’ sacrifice was “once for all” (Heb. 7:27). It needs no repetition as in the Catholic Mass, which kills Jesus every time in order to offer His blood, just like those animal sacrifices under the Old Covenant. This is pure blasphemy in many ways.


God’s laws are everywhere and they are always in force. Take for example, the laws found in natural science:

  1. Laws of physics

  • Conservation and Symmetry

  • Classical Mechanics

  • Quantum Mechanics

  • Gravitation and Relativity

  • Thermodynamics

  • Electromagnetism

  • Photonics

  • Radiation

  1. Laws of chemistry

  2. Laws of Geology

  3. Laws of Biology

  4. Laws of Astronomy

These laws were unknown to Israel at Sinai, but they were not a part of their covenantal agreement. They had no requirement to follow these laws. God’s laws are from eternity. God can place any law He sees fit into a Covenant with His people, either as a condition or not as a condition. We see laws of God in Genesis, such as:

  • Law of kind after kind

  • Law of the Sabbath Day

  • Law of keeping your word

  • Law against race mixing

  • Law against sodomy

All of these laws existed before the Ten Commandments were given; and before a Covenant was ever made with the children of Israel. When God did make the marriage Covenant with Israel at Mt. Sinai, laws were certainly a part of the Agreement. This contract was conditional and depended upon the obedience of the people. If Israel broke the law then punishment or curses would follow, or even a divorce, which as we know, eventually happened.

We know the Old Covenant failed because of the weakness of men. We were lost and without hope. There was nothing we could do to merit salvation. But God stepped in because of his love for our forefathers and made a New Covenant in Christ’s blood. This new and “better covenant” (Heb. 7:22) was unconditional. This is a significant difference from the Old Covenant. This New Covenant does not depend on our obedience to the laws of God (although it is wise to follow God’s directives). But, we follow God’s laws because of our love for Him (Jn. 14:15), and because the Law of God is written in our hearts (Jer. 31:33, 2 Cor. 3:3), not on tables of stone. What Jesus Christ did at the cross guarantees our inheritance. The new terms and conditions are found in chapter 8:

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” –Heb. 8:8-10

“These verses clearly note that the terms and conditions of the New Covenant are different from (or “not according to”) the Old Covenant. The major difference with the New Covenant is that it is a unilateral contract; in which only one party (God) makes promises He is required to keep. The Old Covenant was a bilateral contract, in which both God and Israel made promises that they each had to keep.” –Weisman, p. 32

Furthermore, because the Law of God is in our hearts there is greater motivation and incentive to serve our Lord, and our own anointed Hebrew race, in love with heart-felt devotion. “But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life” (Rom. 6:22).


Have you ever wondered if God could divorce Israel again for her unfaithfulness to Him? That cannot happen! Why? Because it is not permitted under the terms of the Covenant. Didn’t our Father say on many occasions, I will in no wise fail thee, neither will I in any wise forsake thee” (Heb. 13:5, ASV)? And Jesus said, “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20).

God will carry His people through – it all depends upon Him now. We cannot trust in our good deeds to get us to the kingdom – it is only by His grace. The verse did not say “they might be My people” but rather it is the definite “shall be My people.” Furthermore, God says,

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more. In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away.” – Heb. 8:12-13

It is clear that the Hebrew sons of God are the heirs of the promises now encompassed by the New Covenant, not with the Chinese, not with Indians, not with the Negroes, not with Jews. From the perspective of God’s people, the Old Covenant was conditional, and the New Covenant is unconditional. This has a dramatic affect upon our status, responsibilities and relationship to God.

The Covenant is the same as a family Will or Trust. This is a family matter. You cannot expect a non-family member – someone off the street, a stranger – to come into the reading of a Will, after the parent has died, and try to claim a part of the inheritance. This Covenant, this Last Will and Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ was made with the Hebrew family of God. Jesus Christ confirmed this when He said, “I am sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24, RSV).

…to be continued