Who is the Rightful Master?

a study in our gender typology
- Part Four -
Line By Line - Hebrews 1
Post 252

Recommended Pre-reading: Hebrews 1-3.
[2/4/14: corrected a limited understanding of Sarah being Abraham's "sister"]

There are so many things in the last post that deserve deeper exploration but the most important of them is to present a different report of Gaston that can cleanse the foul and Evil presentation of the Son of God. The only sufficient cleansing agent for such a thing is “the water (Spirit) of the word (Son)” (Acts 11:16, Ephesians 5:26). The Ashes of the Red Heifer somewhat additional (Numbers 19:1-10).
As I pursued this primary concept I was constantly led back to Hebrews, yet the important and topically relevant material there is so plentiful that to do it justice I would need to write an entire book on nothing but the exposition of Hebrews but to do so would loose track of our more limited topic.
Oh what to do?!

I cannot beg you strong enough to put my writing on hold and go earnestly but simply read through the first three Chapters of Hebrews for yourself. Don’t get stalled in study, I want you to get its scope. If you can readily see the relevance, and the Spirit is leading your understanding, then by all means do not stop there, continue through chapter five at least, it just keeps going in amazing answer to this whole Beauty and the Beast demonic fairytale presentation of Christ as it applies to our larger study of those who refused to Cross the Jordan River, but more specifically among them; to the men of Korah who challenged the role of Moses (Numbers 16:1-40) and to them of the multitude who in their emotions and reason, judged Moses (Jesus) for the very harsh results! (Numbers 14:41-50).
This is by far the more important concern for us today who are so bold as to assume our intellectual and emotional reasoning is of such skill and ability as to make judgment on God’s judgments! (Deuteronomy 12:8-9).
But, if you can hardly wade through the first three chapters of Hebrews in an inability to see the connection, that’s good enough, we will explore the first together, but please, give it a very earnest effort to hear God’s Spirit show you how those three chapters apply to our present topic.

But what is our present topic?

The fairytale of Beauty and the Beast has done a very convincing job of declaring that Jesus the Messiah is a buffoon and that the Beast is where the reward of love rightfully belongs and is to be found. THAT is the topic, and that topic is not applied in a fairytale; it is even now being applied in the Government of the United States and in the homes and families of every American regardless of religious persuasion. And since Muslims Jews and Christians all agree the true faith came through Abraham, then the discussion should be an honest evaluation of just what present faith holds accurately to the faith of Abraham; in otherwords; how did Abraham act out his faith? Such a study will seem to take us fully off target but we can hardly reach the target without getting to the source. In a roundabout way I am and have been describing the complex faith of Abraham through this Blog. Beauty and the Beast simply addresses our present day perverted application quite plainly.
Allow me an attempt to restrain myself from diverting into the many wonderful details of Hebrews in an effort to expound only on the topical relative message. Remember, we are looking for the rightful authority of Christ as represented by Gaston; “What makes him the right choice over the Beast?”
* * *

Hebrews 1:1-2a
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son…”

It took me a while to realize that “sundry times” and “diverse manners” are single Greek words. If we don’t bother to define such details we tend to simply mush these meanings together into a soup of vague and useless randomness, but Paul is here accurately describing that God has over time spoken his singular message to all the fathers and prophets of our faith in many different methods through different times, and now in our time (the last days era of Daniel 7’s fourth Diverse Beast) he has spoken that same message in yet another “diverse manner” i.e. through his own Son… Through GOD’S actual SON! (Isaiah 9:6+7:14).

So what’s the point Paul is making?

If God had all sorts of different ideas he felt like telling humanity through the thousands of years of history, then everything of the faith we collect would indeed be a mush soup of randomness that could mean anything we wanted it to or nothing significant, because God changes what he says from time to time. The importance of what Paul is telling us is that God is not random and his message has not changed from his first delivery of it even though he has used a whole lot of different approaches for us to collect and combine them all to have many different tellings of the same message. We identify these as the cyclic nature and pattern of scripture, and many different expressions of the same message adds many levels of confirmation to the singular truth of it; a “how do I love you? Let me count the ways” kind of thing. To segregate the message of God by the delivery method used is to imagine “dispensations” where God supposedly has a different message at different times.
Example: God made all the different species with a singular thread of consistency to show his sole authorship of everything, but because we choose to view each species as a different “dispensation” in time, we come to the wrong conclusion that their similarities prove they all evolved from the same genus with random changes over time to arrive at a completely different end than the beginning intended. But if we go through scripture and read the foundational message of all the fathers and all the prophets we discover that all their different tellings add up to the same consistent message, even Old and New Testaments. Truly God does not change and his message is consistent too. Yes, there are dispensations (I Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, 3:2, Colossians 1:25) but only in the delivery of the message not in the message itself.

So what is the all-important, none-changing message?

Being the last days and nearing the time of harvest (Matthew 21:34), the message is found in the one who delivered it here at the last (Matthew 21:37-39) because he is also the same one who made it all at the beginning; call it a “wrap up.”

Hebrews 1:2
“(God) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (165);”

worlds 165 aion; from the same as 104; properly an age…

We are told here (and it was already confirmed by miracles and confirmation of the very same message told to the fathers and prophets [Matthew 21:34-36]), that this messenger is the Son of God (Genesis 22:7-8, Matthew 21:37). God sent his Son, in these last days, to speak his consistent message of salvation to us in yet another diverse way. Abraham foresaw that message and the means by which it would be delivered, when he pre-acted out the sacrifice of his own son on the same Mountain God would later use (Genesis 22:1-14), as well as many other confirming events of understanding the consistent message spoke in a previous way (Genesis 15:13-16, 17:19, 18:16-21, 22:15-19, etc.). This is in fact the dividing line of all dividing lines between God and Allah; it is that God, through Abraham’s foreshadowing Type pre-reenactment provided his own son Isaac as a sacrifice, while Allah through Abraham provided no such sacrifice Type by Ishmael (Genesis 17:18-22, Qur’an 4:157-158). Both faiths come through Abraham but only one has the “In many parts and many ways of old” confirmation through time of that singular salvation message of the True God of love and peace and self-sacrifice for his people (Genesis 17:18-19 + James 1:16-17 = Genesis 17: 21 + James 1:18).

I am beginning to hear regularly the parroting of ignorant Americans that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all basically the same faith. But without the sacrifice of God’s actual Son for our salvation, there is no Christianity, and without that same Son there is now no real Judaism (Genesis 49:10, Daniel 9:25), but with that Son there is no Islam. Christianity does not have “a good concept” kind of faith that would continue if there was no Son of God; The Son of God is EVERYTHING, he made everything, and sustains everything (Colossians 1:12-16), he sacrificed himself for everything (John 3:16-17), and still holds everything together (Colossians 1:17-18), that everything might have the opportunity to be redeemed (Luke 3:8-9) (*1).

Who is this declared Son of God by whom the message of salvation is given to everyone in these last days?

Hebrews 1:2 finishes a two verse declaration of the authority behind the most recent telling of the salvation message by revealing the authority of the message giver. In otherwords; the message means nothing unless the giver has the proper authority to back it up. This giver has both the authority as the appointed giver and as the natural provider!

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (ages);”

There are three declarations here regarding his Son;
1. God spoke his age-old consistent message to us, now through his Son.
2. God appointed his Son to be the heir of all things.
3. God, through his Son, made the world and all it’s various ages.

This is confirmed many times in Genesis 1 “And God (430) said…” as it is now revealed that God’s Son is the word of God that did the saying (John 1:1-3+, 8:55-58 *2) and thereby “saying”, produced mankind in the marriage of two distinct parts; male and female, in the image of God creating a Son. Elohiym; a plurality of One.

God 430 elohiym; plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God…

This is the Son of God, who in our age, at the last days, is declaring God’s singular consistent unchanging message of salvation to mankind. But frankly the message, though inseparably tied, has quickly become far secondary to the rave review of the message giver himself, and now we see this is in rebuttal to (the father of the Beast;) Satan’s challenge of the Son’s right to inherit everything. Hebrews is the Son’s legal argument:

Hebrews 1:3
…“(the Son) Who being the brightness of his (the Father’s) glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he (the Son) had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;”

Oh how I crave to explain in detail all that is said here regarding the effulgence of this Son as in quantum mechanics he abundantly distributes the light of God’s glory in a wave and not miserly in a studied (observed) particle, or to describe his exact expression of God’s substance, or the all supporting power of God’s word and its ability to literally maintain all things, his lone self-sacrifice and its redeeming qualities to restore the destroyed, and the place of all honor and authority granted to him by The Father. The Son of God is actually the perfect expression of God himself (John 5:30) and not a “lone wolf” separate from his Father. These are the beginnings of his “credentials” that Hebrews shows us, but for brevity we must continue.

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

Now we begin to see a very clear distinction of this Son’s comparison not with the lesser animals, or even with lesser humanity; but with God’s glorious creation of angels themselves, who have a very excellent name (3686) indeed.

Name 3686 onoma; from a presumed derivative of the base of 1097 (compare 3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively) (authority, character):-- called, (+sur)name(-d).
1097 ginosko; a prolonged form of a primitive verb; to “know” (absolute)…

This name is not just the identity by which we call someone, but the identity of who he is by his recorded heraldry, i.e. nature. By example; angels are also named the sons of God (Genesis 6:2,4, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7) while humanity is not (besides Adam himself)... yet we are given the opportunity to be adopted as sons of God (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Galatians 4:6-7, Philippians 2:15, I John 3:1-2.), so what makes the difference? Chuck Missler’s The Return of the Nephilim podcast describes it as “direct creation” as opposed to indirect generations; Adam was indeed a direct creation of God and was therefore a “son of God” like the angels, but his children were indirectly created from man and so are called “sons of Adam” not sons of God (Luke 3:38). I agree.
This leads to the discovery strangely enough, that Adam’s wife was kindof a combination as she was a direct creation of God but he used Adam’s material to make her and so we see again she is made in the accurate image Type of Christ from God, who was also both the Son of God and a son of man for similar causes (Luke 1:35 + Matthew 8:20 = Matthew 4:3-4, 9:6, 12:8), only the genders and related accountabilities were switched for very important reasons too complex to explain here but tied to our Gender Typology and its lineage, which we will begin to explore in Post 292 “Beyond the Harbingers” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2013/03/beyond-harbingers.html).

But now we have several factors that become apparent in this short verse;

1. The Son of God was made “better” than the angels because his name was better.
2. This Son of God obtained this better name.
3. And that this better name was obtained by inheritance.

The angels have the name “sons of God” by the fact it was a direct creation, while this half-direct creation Son was by "the other half" made to inherit the title from the Father in the delayed pedigree way of sons and fathers. Inheritance comes only by a legally defined relationship with the one through whom the inheritance comes; this Son had that legal standing through his human mother.
How?
The specific wording of this verse leads us to understand that this Son of God was not made as the angels were made, but made better (Hebrews 2:16). Not through direct creation, as “a product” attached to the Creator by famous handiwork (which they were more so), but by obtaining the inheritance as a true Son of the Father. Yet for a time, before he obtains that inheritance, he might appear by the temporal focus of creation to be on less that equal footing with the angels to claim the inheritance. In otherwords the angels have an arguable case of apparent equal or better worthiness to receive the inheritance as “sons” of God; “Why should it go to the less direct ‘Son’ of God, who is so much flesh that, unlike angels, he can even be killed?”
The next verses provide the answer;

Hebrews 1:5
“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I (1080)begotten thee? (Psalm 2:7) And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”

These are very intimate claims. God is without apology claiming that he fathered this Son and that he confesses that this is his son also in the God/human adoption of a son. God is speaking of an actual father-son relationship with humanity not ignoring the complexity that he is God. Although directly created by the Father and so called sons in a different way, the angels had no such position real or recognized by the Father, so although the angels were made by God, only this Son was made by God to be his actual Son of lineage and adopted son of declaration and therefore worthy of the inheritance in two ways. This Son was made of his own stuff. That is the meaning of the word  begotten:

begotten 1080 gennao; from a variation of 1085; from a variation of 1085; to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate:-- bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

John 3:16’s famous use of begotten makes this especially unique:

only-begotten 3439 monogenes; from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:-- only (begotten, child).

But although that is doubly good enough for a very special legal inheritance, in the elimination of the angel’s potential cry of “Unfair!” God takes it several steps further;

Hebrews 1:6-8
“And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom.”

With all the translational-capitalized first-word verse-segregation and the capitalized replacement-of-quotations of older verses, it becomes hard to understand, so let me simply adjust that part, keeping the words and context in tact:

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world (the birth of his Son), he saith; “(this is my firstbegotton) and let all the angels of God worship him.”
And of the angels (in comparison) he saith; “(I God,)who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire” but unto the Son (again in contrast) he saith; “Thy throne, O God (my Son), is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom”.

Scripturally nothing and no one is permitted to be worshipped but God himself (Exodus 20:3, Matthew 4:10, Revelation 19:10). Yet here the angels were told to worship the Son when he was brought into the world as the human firstborn inheritor now declared to be the inheritor Son of God though Satan found himself on earth first as did Ishmael. This Son cannot be an acquired position but must be a “spiritual genetic DNA test” kind of God or he could not be “God-approved” worshipped as God. He is either ACTUALLY God or not. “Son of God” (capital) and “sons of God” (creations) are not the same things, and by mankind’s adoption as “sons of God” into a family relationship above the angels, yet still not worshipped even as gods, we know that the DNA is vital to actually being God. As represented by the true son of promise coming from an impossible Sarah herself (because of both; lifelong barrenness and extreme age), this promised DNA Son of God was accomplished through the promised miracle (virgin) birth of Mary (Luke 1:34-35) where the Holy Spirit provided the nonhuman God DNA to the specific woman promised, in a none human way. Every cell in this Son’s body was composed of DNA that was human from his mother and yet also God from his Father. Today such a thought is wrongly profaned by Greek Mythology and so hushed even in full consideration of its truth, so Satan seems to win-over the human jury not by proving the Son a lie but by making the thought spiritually repulsive through distortion, not only by Greek Mythology but by the Nephilim from which the mythology is based (Genesis 6:4, Jude 6-7, II Peter 2:4-5 *3). I intend to address this in detail later.

God gave the angels a very glorious position and nature (ministers of fire) but to this Son through birth he gave the name God and the throne to match! The only way this could not be utter blasphemy is if this creation was actually God come in the flesh, which is what is claimed and is evidentially further proven by his kingdom fulfilling the righteousness of the scepter of God himself. This Son’s true people conduct themselves in the faith of Abraham’s faith (Genesis 21:10-11), that is; like Cinderella, reactively waiting on God through the hope of patient obedience (Genesis 21:34, II Thessalonians 3:5-6, Matthew 4:8-10) rather than proactively taking by force the promise out of time as do others, like early Sarai, who have no self-sacrificing God-Son offered for their salvation.

The definition of scepter is a bit of a rabbit trail but results in an ordained stick-of-authority by which punishment through “thumping” is meet out in administering the discipline of the kingdom. The rod of Moses by which he struck the rock is the direct Type of this Son’s scepter, who in effect used it to strike himself for the salvation of mankind. It’s the “My authority is provable” stick, and he demonstrated its power by whacking himself instead of others (John 10:17-18). By this act, this Son’s throne IS a scepter of righteousness, differing from scepters of unrighteousness in violence and hate toward others. This is the two-part argument made in the last portion of this passage beginning with “And of the angels he said”:

Hebrews 1:7-8
“And of the angels he saith; Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith; Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom”.

One sentence is describing the angels in their job, the other about the Son. Beginning with “But” this is simply a contrast in describing the limitation of the angels against the magnificence of the Son: One is the servant of the Lord and the other is the Lord, one is the creation and the other is the Creator. By comparing the one against the other, the angel’s great and powerful position is “put in its place”; there simply is no equal ground between them from which a fair contest can be made. Yet the still less-glorious people who refused to cross over were willing to condemn Moses himself, and thereby his God, for killing the party of Korah. The viewer of “Beauty and the Beast” is manipulated to do the same thing when Gaston kills the Beast!

The next verse further defines the nature of that God-Son’s righteous kingdom of authority and the reason for anointing him above the others:

Hebrews 1:9
“Thou (O God my Son)hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (3353)” (from Psalm 45:7).

This can get confusing; “How is the Son of God, declared by God to be God, then as God, he is anointed by God, who is his God?”
And who are this Son’s fellows; are they then gods too? Doesn’t “fellows” indicate an equality; “If he is God then so are they?"

Fellows 3353 metochos; from 3348; participant, i.e. (as a noun) a sharer; by implication an associate:-- fellow, partaker, partner. (From Hebrews 1:9 New Testament)

Fellows 2270 chaber; from 2266; an associate:-- companion, fellow, knit together. (From the same verse in Psalm 45:7 Old Testament)

This core argument of the fallen angels is the nature of the problem between the peoples of Isaac and Ishmael, both sons of Abraham. Why does one, the second one, get the inheritance while the other, the first one, does not? But theirs is just a Type of the more foundational spiritual complaint of Islam’s god against the God of Abraham’s Hebrew faith: a faith of promise, not force of will.
Now from having already picked a side in this battle (regardless of which side) you risk blinding yourself to the true and legitimate answer in favor of a quick and emotional support of your hero that may or may not be valid. So forget Ishmael and Isaac, or Islam and Jewry, and ask the same question from the perspective of the angels who are asking:

"If the Son of God was indeed “made” in the flesh as declared, then why are his fellow “made” creations not at least equal with him?"

The fact that they are indeed his fellows is not arguable as it is God himself who declared it so in Psalms 45:7 in context. But this question does not present the real argument: It’s not a “whole batch” of generic angels asking; it’s the lead angel, the anointed cherub (Ezekiel 28:14), it’s possibly the “greatest-angel-ever-created” angel (Ezekiel 28:12-13) that is bringing the challenge; it’s the Beast claiming an equal justified right to Belle’s love, It’s a “fair and balanced trial of equal contenders” challenge.
God’s answer is not even debating that Satan and his company of angels loves Belle, but just the contemplation of such a fact confuses the minds of unlearned Christians; “Can Satan even love?” Genesis 6 tells us that this is a probability at least from his perspective of love, but again, this is not God’s argument; The argument is regarding the love of righteousness.

Both these Old and New Testament verses declare that God made the just determination because this Son loved righteousness and hated iniquity/ wickedness, and that this particular loving nature (name) is the ruling power; i.e. scepter of the throne of his kingdom, and that kingdom is eternal, because he is God. These arguments are not independent but all one argument that results in the anointing above his fellow sons of God.
But that only slightly answers the confusion of questions presented above. How are we to really understand that this creation is being called God, by God himself? (Matthew 22:42-45). Is the Christian God really monotheistic?
How wonderful God is in his explanation of spiritual things too big for our limited minds!

We suddenly “see the light” when we comprehend that woman is in the image of the Son of God as man is in the image of the Father. This is why God, through the Son, made woman from the actual body of man (Genesis 2:22) and not as an independent creation of dust then united with him only in marriage, “Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). Jesus the Son of God was “of God” made into a lesser state (position) of authority in his humanity under his Father (Galatians 4:4-7) and thereby is represented by woman specifically being man’s wife and made for the man (I Corinthians 11:7-10) being incorporated (back)into himself through marriage to be “one flesh” (Genesis 2:23-24+Ephesians 5:31 in context).
This is not about a gender power-trip but a representation of how the Son of God, different than God, is united with God and yet is of God Himself (John 1:1-4) and (re)united into one name through inheritance. Similarly Adam and Eve were both human, one is made from the other, of the same stuff yet revealed as different, and SO they (re)united as “one” in marriage (Matthew 19:5-6) to inherit his same and his stuff, and produce a mutual offspring; an entity of them both, which are called Christians. Contrary to current philosophy this institution of marriage is not just arguable customs invented by man to control women; Each gender has its responsibilities accountable to God for how they portray their Type (Ephesians 5:21-25). As the Type of God, Christian men glorify their women; the Type of Christ (Philippians 2:9), while Muslim men, as the Type of Allah, diminish their women in self-serving oppression as the Type of Allah’s servant subjects. Both concepts are actually based on the same Type; the only difference is the god that each Type represents. As American men become less Godly their representation reflects that too, and as American women do the same, their responses are less than Christ-like. This is not a matter of which fault came first as these problems are reflections of their Types alone; Often God seems unconcerned that his wife is abused or mistreated yet she is expected to maintain her faith and loyalty while confused. Conversely God’s love and commitment to his wife remains unaltered by her abuse of the marriage and resulting unhappiness (Isaiah 50:1).
This DNA/genus relational Type is again shown to us in Abraham, the Type of God, who did not marry a strange woman but his (269: loosely, figurative) “sister”, “made from the same stuff” as it were. God made sure to emphasize this important point as Abraham more than once made a big deal of the issue that his wife was his sister while keeping the details vague. There are lots of “fellows” of Sarah, but Abraham chose her for many reasons, and “by happen chance” including that she was from the same familial stuff as he, which is an image of Eve from Adam, itself foreshadowing that the Son would be of the same stuff as the Father, as well as showing that the Church through regeneration inclusion of the Holy Ghost is actually of Christ, which is why Jesus is called the firstborn of many brethren (Romans 8:29, Hebrews 1:6). It’s all a big repeating cycle of the same idea in many different ways.
As a woman recently stated while debating a group of Woman's-Libers; “Why would we want to be men, we have the better deal!” Man was made from Dirt but Woman was made from refined flesh! Man has the burden of responsibility while woman gets the beauty, the feminine refinement, the glory of that femininity, and the freedom under the man’s provision and protection.

I don’t wish to rabbit trail this topic but since we are studying Gender Typology I feel it important to show that here in Hebrews (as well as many other scriptures) this position of “wife” through marriage/inheritance/ election, is an extraordinarily elevated and glorious position expressed in Cinderella becoming the wife of the greatly desired prince that would utterly change her life. That position comes only through the prince, but once obtained, is all the glory that can possibly be received beyond what was imagined (Ephesians 3:17-20)! This is why in the past, woman were not given an inheritance or the means to provide for themselves; so that no matter the diminished degree of success of the man, because he was the man, he was still her provider and this maintained the proper Type which was the intent of God for us to understand what he, God himself, was offering to us his bride.
In the old days we used to the phrase; “putting her onto a pedestal”, but today, women in general, having the means and freedom to provide for themselves (even far better than many men could provide) despise such a thought of being lifted above (as originally “from below”), because they want to earn their own standing as equals without depending on their man. This is purely an issue of foundational pride regarding equality; exactly as Satan’s endeavor against God (Genesis 3:5+ Isaiah 14:14).
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t suppose this is intentionally evil, not coming from an intentionally evil heart, but like Belle, is from an evil heart as a result of a confused and diminished society no longer able to guided her by correct biblical faith. So now, by the godless spirit of hell, and by it’s careful instruction to desire “more”, she is unwilling to continue in that confusion of her society, not having in herself an informed heart of right understanding, (See post 197 Transition).

Now, like Belle, today’s women/church, resulting from corrupt cultural teachings regarding their happiness, have in the unintentional spirit of rebellion flung off the image of being the wife of the Son and are now boldly declaring that she is intellectually equal or even better than Gaston and therefore free to make her own equally valid choices in life contrary to his desire (Numbers 16:1-3). And so she is free (like the Jews who rejected their suitor), but that freedom does not change the results of good and evil choices and she was not designed by gender to guide her own path, though as Christ, her loving suitor is usually of the nature not to enslave her against her will but to let her have her way if that’s what she requires to be happy (Matthew 18:18), (obviously with life-saving limitations). I marvel at these headstrong independent women who despise their husband even more for his tolerant love and so publicly accuse him of holding her back! Beauty and the Beast has shown this to us very clearly, and it just seems right because we have been led to believe that it’s all about Belle and what she wants. This translates DIRECTLY to Christianity today as we literally argue with Christ how he shouldn’t manage our lives, and accuse him of holding us back;

“If I want to love the Beast that’s my business, we haven’t consummated this relationship that you want so bad!”

But we cannot ignore the scripturally valid parable of the fairytale that shows, as a young resident of the town, she is already the betrothed bride in the body of Christ (Romans 12:5, I Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 3:6, 5:23); i.e. she is a Christian and not an enchanted item in the castle of the Beast. In otherwords; she is a “son of Adam” and that makes her redeemable by Gaston if she will but have him, which he is diligently ready to do after setting up the wedding before officially proposing, which is scripturally sound.

This Son of God is declared by God to be her God because his kingdom is the love of righteousness and the hatred of iniquity. His promised bride needs those protective parameters and as a fiancé should adapt them for herself in recognition that it will save her from an internal confusion of falling in love with the Beast. Gaston was not the one failing his role but Belle could fill your ear with her opinions on that and what she expected her Savior to be like. In yet another onion layer practical application, Belle is the teenage daughter who fights with her father over his efforts to protect her from predator men to which she gravitates.
The two contenders (Gaston and the Beast) could not be any different in their very natures and are of completely different stuff (Gaston wants to give his love to Belle while the Beast needs to get love from Belle). Beauty and the Beast does not argue the fact that the Beast is only a prince like Gaston and therefore we know he is either the “(S)on of God” prince, or the contending angel “(s)on of God” prince. Obviously God is the undisputed King, though whether Allah or Jehovah is now disputed, as the fairytale changes viewpoints of the same story of Cinderella.
But if Satan is God as he now declares, then the Beast prince can’t actually be Satan. Hmmm, who then is the Beast? It is in effect the son that Satan/Allah claims not to have because Satan is not a giving God as he pretends; he’s only a selfish prince as even the stained glass window admits. This confusion is dramatically described in Revelation 17:8 as we began to discuss in post 198 Finally Revelation 17 7-9 and post 199 The Seventh King regarding this Beast that crawls from the Bottomless Pit. (I know you haven’t forgotten this original topic goal!).

"How, in the nature of God, does the Son of God obtain the inheritance?"

By his voluntary purging of our sin (Hebrews 1:3) through his sacrificial death spoken of in a different way at a different time by the implementation of animal sacrifices (Exodus 10:25). Yes, but even further back, in yet a different manner and time than we are even privy to (Genesis 4:1-5).

"But why was this self-sacrifice of the Son necessary to obtain the inheritance that was rightfully his anyway?"

Because without the self-sacrifice he would not have left the unity (“Singularity”) with the Father and would have never been “made” a son of man who needed an inheritance to claim what is the Father’s. As God, for man’s sake, he was made a man and therefore a necessary eventual inheritor of what is God’s. None of this would yet be necessary if he just returned to the previous state after his crucifixion, but he didn’t, nor could he. Having been made a man with an eternal soul, he will always be a man for eternity, yet with the rightful inheritance as the God he is. No angel fits that bill, not even the covering cherub.

But not too far off in the future, I propose that mankind will see a new thing (Ezekiel 28:3-6). I believe the Beast of Islam will imitate his own version of that necessary sacrifice that validates the position of authority which he is still contesting until the inheritance is obtained (Psalm 110:1), and will therefore seem to sacrifice his angry destructive nature for Christian Belle, showing her that her love indeed has a great value to calm the Beast. Her love will seem to save the world and who can argue with that then?! (*4).

Gaston will be made the fool and villain for warning that “loving the Beast is the wrong thing to do”. After all, the evidence will show the Beast to be changed by her and the world will actually rest because of it (Revelation 13:3-4, Daniel 11:21,24a, 9:27a, I Thessalonians 5:3, Zechariah 1:11?), this will not be a good time for the Biblical Christians to publicly cry “Danger!” even thought it is true (Amos 5:13). The true Christian argument will appear both hollow and evil in their refusal to forgive Satan and join the Beast with the (apostate) Christians (Belle) in a peaceful global unification of all religions. At that point the true biblical Christian argument will no longer be made publicly logical but kept internally spiritual in simple waiting obedience to Jesus Christ and his kingdom of righteousness regardless of Global appearances and the consequences for refusal. The only reason to resist conforming to this wonderful globalization of peace is because the scriptures have already warned us by prophecy that this would happen as a ploy of Satan the destroyer (Jeremiah 9:5-6, Daniel 8:24-25a, I Thessalonians 5:3). This is the value and power of prophecy; its nature of fulfillment confirms its message. The viewer and Belle both see her relationship with the Beast as a wonderful outcome of the circumstances but the prophecy shows the honeymoon to be very short lived before the Beast reverts to his true nature of wrath and violence unimaginable (Revelation 13:5-18). Belle will actually be surprised that her love somehow has no power of persuasion anymore. Her bewildered confusion will be genuine but she planned that course way back when she wanted an undefined “more” “in the great wide somewhere” without concern of where that somewhere would lead. Belle was simply following her heart (Jeremiah 17:9, Hosea 7:2, Acts 8:22). So did a cruel God send her to hell with the Beast or did she crave it and demand it with all her willful longing?

Hebrews 1:10-12
declares the past and future of this Son of God relative to the Creation, but they are there as a counter argument to the angel who is contesting his inheritance. I have simply left them out for space.

Hebrews 1:13-14
“But to which of the angels said he (God) at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all (merely) ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them (mere men) who shall be heirs of salvation?”

I hesitate to include “merely” here because by no means are angles ever “merely” unless directly compared to the Son of God, but that is exactly what this passage is doing. In comparison it is pitifully “mereful” for angels to be the ministers of those creatures made even lower than they, while loosely speaking God has “scooched over" as it were, to make room for his Son to sit on the throne until “arrangements” can be made for his own throne when he finally obtains the inheritance!

We have only covered the first chapter of Hebrews with twelve more to go (which I don’t intend to cover at this time), but now that we have lightly refreshed and realigned our perspective of Jesus Christ the Son of God imaged by Gaston, we need to give the contesting angel a just review of the facts. We have already heard his argument in the presentation of the animation, now we are only looking at the evidence for the facts:
Who is the Beast?
* * * * * * *

(*1) Email
Subject: Storm
From: A friend
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 05:29:49 -0700
To: Me

Did you hear about the unique storm that hit the east coast this last week, much of the force hit DC. It surprised the weathermen by the time they saw it coming it was to late. It did lots of damage to several states but it came on shore in the DC area.
It was more like the hand of God showing warning signs to our leaders.
[Note this storm was Pre-Hurricane Sandy of October 22-31, 2012]
________________________

While it is true these kinds of things are perhaps warning signs to us all (the leaders are simply whom WE put there), there is just no way that will sell because the scriptures don't tell us these are specifically signs, [though] they are foretold to us believers as maybe "pre-signs" as it were. But even the great signs of the coming of the Lord do not include storms and seas as even pre-signs (Matthew 24:6-7).
I more liken these things to the rocks that would have cried out praising Jesus as God if the people had not (Luke 19:40). Since America has stopped publicly and officially proclaiming that Jesus is God, the seas will take up that job (Psalm 98:7-8 in context) and do it in power. Someone or something is going to praise the greatness of God and it really had better be us!
In this way we see the sea take up our role while at the same time reflecting the destruction of our own wickedness for our failure (Isaiah 57:20-21, Jude 1:12-13). Scripturally the sea has always prophetically represented the masses of mankind (Daniel 7:3), whether in turmoil (Jeremiah 51:42) or at rest (Revelation 4:6, 15:2) but regardless it is always in the specific hand of God to do his specific will (Jonah 1:4, Mark 4:39) and not random as we like to think (Zechariah 6:7).
So are such storms warning signs to those in power? Perhaps, but more rather it is a warning sign to us the masses, who the seas actually represent.
Because the nation of America has now officially ended our proclamation that Jesus is our God ("Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation..." Barack Obama,) I believe we will see a dramatic and persistent increase in the seas, and other creation, taking up that role to our own devastation for our failure.

“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” Romans 8:22-23.

This groaning and redemption of the entire creation and not just mankind, is a subject for a later study!

(*2) John 8:55-58,
Jesus used this exact phrase “before Abraham was, I am” to make clear to these Jewish scholars that he was declaring himself to be the voice speaking from the burning bush (Exodus 3:3,13-14), it is this clear declaration that moved them to attempt to stone him for proclaiming himself to be GOD.

(*3) Nephilim:
These demonic giants were the reason the people feared to cross the Jordan into the Promised Land (Numbers 13:31-33) and were the resident occupants of the land that the next-generation Hebrews conquered through total genocide of this demonic race.
Being the special people of Satan, we now know why Satan is so determined to make retribution by the genocide of the Hebrews; the special people of God. While this retribution seems to thus be justified, don’t forget the pre-flood overrunning of God’s earth by Satan’s people first. Today’s Islam is only a re-enactment of an old play.

(*4) See Post 179 “Zechariah 1 Cliff’s Notes” http://when-did-reason-die. blogspot.com/2011/04/zec-1-cliffs-notes.html).
*