Thursday, September 17, 2020

Part two of our new series, "A Study in Revelation -A Search for Truth at the end of the Age"

  Go to Part One

Go to Part Three                A Special series:

  Lessons from the Wilderness, Volume 24

  …A Study in Revelation… Part 2

A Search for the Truth at the end of the Age

αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου

(The Revelation of Jesus Christ)

…The Revelation of Jesus Christ…


Chapter 1

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. Revelation 1:1-3 (NKJV) [1]

So, it begins.  The word “Revelation” is defined by Thayer as:

 G602 ἀποκάλυψις apokalupsis

 Thayer Definition:

1) laying bear, making naked

2) a disclosure of truth, instruction

2a) concerning things before unknown

2b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all

3) manifestation, appearance[2]

     If I were to make the choice for which definition to use, I would use (1).  While in general, the consensus of scholars is the definition of “disclosure” or “unveiling”, one must pause and begin to ask new questions, to ponder things in a new way.  For truly in these times in which we now live, what is happening?  Is not all man’s works being laid bare before him?  And is this not true concerning of all the ages of man? Before we can begin to understand the end of times, we must see how we have gotten here.  All around us, in every endeavor and in every era of man stand the testimonies of monumental failure.  We have seen the collapse of leadership in every aspect of life, social, economic, militaristic, governmental, education, the arts and entertainment, science, and medicine. Some examples:


    In our age, colleges cannot turn out independent thinkers- men and women capable of rational, coherent thought; political parties are consumed with the pursuit of power and with the entitlements they believe are due them for the positions they hold.
     While the United States may have the world’s most powerful military and we can still be held at bay by the simple code of morality our brave soldiers employ upon themselves to try to lessen the deaths of innocents, even at the cost of victory.
    We also face the situations where our military prowess is held in check by those in leadership who lack the skills necessary to or are unable to wield it effectively, thereby rendering it almost useless.  Those who identify themselves as our enemies have no such qualms, but the very fact of their brutality renders them vulnerable to the same sword that they so callously employ. 
    Science and medicine have become almost irreversibly linked to the bottom line, and the cost in economics and ethics has turned these disciplines into cultures that promote a cavalier attitude to the sanctity of life, encouraging euthanasia and infanticide with no regard for the moral questions that beg to be asked. 
    We see riots and lawlessness being touted as excuses to "right wrongs". Ask yourself, can two "wrongs" ever make a "right"? One point to consider is this: if the left is wrong and the right is wrong, then does not the axiom hold true that if all are wrong, no one is right? Only honest discussion, without hate or fearmongering can bring about lasting and positive change, no matter the issue.

     When moral people try to push back at this juggernaut of humanism and secularism that pervades most of society, they find themselves marginalized as the dominate media and vocal minorities cast them as intolerant and hate-filled religious fanatics or bigoted racists.  Evil is touted as the good while the good is blamed for all the evil.  There is no shame in calling what was once profane sacred and the sacred profane.  Is not then nakedness a better definition for the Revelation?  Are not our failures as civilized nation-states being laid naked before us, the utter contempt for all that is holy and righteous baring our soul and revealing the body of death that is strapped to our backs? 

 Now I know that this seems a very cynical and pessimistic view, but in truth, I have not even began to touch on this raw exposed nerve of humanity’s soul.  O beloved, while we seek to understand this sacred writing, the sixty-sixth book of the Holy Scriptures, ask yourself this question:

Are we or have we ever been even remotely capable of governing ourselves in a moral and ethical way?

 If your answer is truthful then you might have to conclude that we have not and are not.  Since, if this seems to be the case, why have we abandoned the precepts and principles of the other 65 books? What other tome in the history of mankind can stand shoulder to shoulder with this book we call the Bible?  If we are “morally driven people” ask yourselves why do at least 29,000 (or more) children die every day before their time all over the world?[3]  Why do billions of people, make less than a dollar a day?  How is it that disease, famine, and war still rage all across the globe today in the 21st century?

     We are laid bare my brethren.  Even our “religions” have failed us.  Converts to Christianity fall back into sin at the rate of 80%; that means 8 out of every 10 people that main-stream denominations see make “a decision for Christ” backslide or fall away.  Addictions, sex scandals, divorces; these are just as common in the pew (or more so) as they are outside the church’s walls. Except for a few pockets of real power and strength the modern church is helpless in light of what is happening today.  We see a real hunger for the things of Yahveh in those that are seeking Him going unfed, or worse, snapped up by the wolves and masters of false teachings and cultish, self-driven opportunists. Naked we are before this onslaught, but the story of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is two-fold.  On the one hand, Christ’s Revelation to this dying world is to show to the world its full and complete failure.  It shows us how instead of being the stewards of the most blessed planet in the cosmos, we have squandered this, our blessing, in greed and upon the altars of selfish ways.

    On the other hand, the Revelation of Jesus Christ is the only hope we have, praise be unto Him.  For in our weaknesses and in our failings He has chosen to show us hope, a way out of the mire; through grace and mercy to those who believe He will preserve their faith, even if it costs them their lives, yet peace, rest and glory awaits those who endure.  In our faith in Him, we can and will show untold numbers of the lost there is a Way of Truth and Light, and many will come to know and fear our Lord, and thus be counted in the family of Yahveh at the end of the age.  So there is good news, yes, O how I praise Him for this Good News of the Revelation of Christ. 

    First and foremost, in this great undertaking of studying the Book of Revelation we must understand why we are; notice what John says in verse one:

“…The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place…” 

John speaks of things that must shortly take place.  What did he mean by this?  One thing, he said it because he meant it.  Revelation is not just about the end times; no, it has to do with events that would occur within the context of John’s immediate time frame, as well as things that concern future generations.  Make no mistake though; Revelation is a Jewish Book, written for the Jews, those that are Jews naturally, and those that will be grafted in as members of the house of Israel.  Revelation is also a book of abstracts and those things that are concrete (or not so concrete… more on this later).  Many interpretations have been given out about this book, and this epistle will be one more.  What is the difference?  Most commentators interpret this book with little more than the aid of turning to the books of Daniel and/or Ezekiel and their own imaginations; we will be consulting the whole council of Yahveh for our answers.  Without the Tanakh (Old Testament), we can never hope to understand the Messianic Chronicles or Writings (New Testament), let alone Revelation.  We study Revelation to get to know our Savior, not just as Savior, but to see Him finally revealed in ALL His power, majesty, and glory, as King of Kings and Lord of Lords; to see Him as Almighty Yahveh the Son.  We have to though understand the difference between the abstract and the concrete, or better, the literal and the spiritual.  How best can we do this?  Let us not draw or jump to conclusions, but instead let us define terms and the results will hopefully become clear. 

Let me say this though; do not expect this treatise to be the definitive answer to all your questions about this Book. We could study it for a lifetime and not even scratch the surface.  The Jewish sages said that there is at least 70 layers of interpretation for every word and passage of Scripture, and the more I study, the more I see this principle at work.  At best, we will come away with probably more questions than answers, but Yahveh willing, the mystery will yield up enough understanding so that we can raise our Lord up even higher, and be ready with even more joy to spread the message of the glorious return of the only hope for mankind, Yeshua Ha’Machiach.  You will find that I do prefer to call Him by His Yahveh given name, in the Hebrew; I hope that offends no one, but if it does, just remember, whether you call Him Yeshua, Jesus, or Iesous (the Greek pronunciation) there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved; you and I are calling upon the same Savior. Just be sure of what you believe, for it is as important as that you believe.

Let us now define some terms:


ABSTRACT', v.t. [L. abstraho, to draw from or separate; from abs and traho, which is the Eng. draw. See Draw.] 

1. To draw from, or to separate; as to abstract an action from its evil effects; to abstract spirit from any substance by distillation; but in this sense extract is now more generally used.

2. To separate ideas by the operation of the mind; to consider one part of a complex object, or to have a partial idea of it in the mind.

3. To select or separate the substance of a book or writing; to epitomize or reduce to a summary.

4. In chemistry, to separate, as the more volatile parts of a substance by repeated distillation, or at least by distillation. 

AB'STRACT, a. [L. abstractus.] 

1. separate; distinct from something else. An abstract idea, in metaphysics, is an idea separated from a complex object, or from other ideas which naturally accompany it, as the solidity of marble contemplated apart from its color or figure. 

·         Abstract terms are those which express abstract ideas, as beauty, whiteness, roundness, without regarding any subject in which they exist; or abstract terms are the names of orders, genera, or species of things, in which there is a combination of similar qualities. Abstract numbers are numbers used without application to things, as, 6, 8, 10: but when applied to anything, as 6 feet, 10 men, they become concrete.  Abstract or pure mathematics, is that which treats of magnitude or quantity, without restriction to any species of particular magnitude, as arithmetic and geometry; opposed to which is mixed mathematics, which treats of simple properties, and the relations of quantity, as applied to sensible objects, as hydrostatics, navigation, optics, &c.

 2. Separate, existing in the mind only; as an abstract subject; an abstract question: and hence difficult, abstruse. 

1. A summary, or epitome, containing the substance, a general view, or the principal heads of a treatise or writing.

2. Formerly, an extract, or a smaller quantity, containing the essence of a larger.

 ·         In the abstract, in a state of separation, as a subject considered in the abstract, i. e. without reference to particular persons or things.[4]


CONCRETE, a. [L., to grow together, to grow. See Grow.]

1. Literally, united in growth. Hence, formed by coalition of separate particles in one body; consistent in a mass; united in a solid form.

·         The first concrete state or consistent surface of the chaos.

2. In logic, applied to a subject; not abstract; as the whiteness of snow. Here whiteness is used as a concrete term, as it expresses the quality of snow.

·         Concrete terms, while they express the quality, do also express, or imply, or refer to a subject to which they belong.

·         A concrete number expresses or denotes a particular subject, as three men; but when we use a number without reference to a subject, as three, or five, we use the term in the abstract.


1. A compound; a mass formed by concretion, spontaneous union or coalescence of separate particles of matter in one body.

·         Gold is a porous concrete.

2. In philosophy, a mass or compound body, made up of different ingredients; a mixed body or mass.

·         Soap is a factutious concrete.

3. In logic, a concrete term; a term that includes both the quality and the subject in which it exists... 

CONCRETE, v.i. To unite or coalesce, as separate particles, into a mass or solid body, chiefly by spontaneous cohesion, or other natural process; as saline particles concrete into crystals; blood concretes in a bowl. Applied to some substances, it is equivalent to indurate; as, metallic matter concretes into a hard body. Applied to other substances, it is equivalent to congeal, thicken, inspissate, coagulate; as in the concretion of blood.

CONCRETE, v.t. To form a mass by the cohesion or coalescence of separate particles.[5]

     Before we can get into our study, let us review a bit.  Those who have read my epistles before know something about how I approach a subject.  To get at the deeper meaning that lies below the surface of most subjects, we must define terms.  With the Revelation, we must go another step first; we have to decide that what is before us is an abstract document or one that is a literal, concrete exposition.  Many of the “interpreters” of Revelation have opted for the literal approach; Hal Lindsey, Paul Crouch, Jack Van Impe, and John Hagee are but a few that come to mind.  One might ask what is wrong with this approach.  Well, let us look at our terms.  We pull our definitions from my favorite, the Webster’s Dictionary of 1828.  Written and compiled by Noah Webster, this dictionary is said to have the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. 

    Webster considered education "useless without the Bible".  Webster claimed to have learned 20 different languages in finding definitions for which a particular word is used.[6]  We use it as an aid in understanding how words were used; in the King James 1611 version, to properly define words, it is best to consult a dictionary from the 1600’s.  Since Webster based his dictionary upon the King James, his is the closest we have in this modern era in which to see how English words were used in a proper Biblical context.  When we discuss the original intent of the Holy Writ, we have to go to the Hebrew and the Greek.  Now some of you already know this from previous studies, but we must review the rules we follow for new readers. 

    Context and intent: only in this manner can we begin to discern Yahveh’s message to us.  That is why we must decide.  Is Yahveh’s word concrete, abstract or both?  Let us take a look this in another fashion. Pick up your Bible.  Hold it, feel the grain of the material that covers it.  Turn its pages, feel the quality of the paper, hear their sound.  If it is new, you can even smell it; new Bibles smell like a new book, while old Bibles have a smell to them also, the smell of well-worn pages and the hands that have handled them.  This is concrete.  Concrete is something that can be perceived by the senses; with your senses you can tell something is real, solid, and actual.  Now, take your Bible.  Put it next to your heart.  Does it enter into it?  Of course not.  You have to read it, interpret the message given, and then do something with it to make it apply to your life.  Look at the bold (emphasis mine) definitions given for abstract AND for concrete.  Number 2 says: To separate ideas by the operation of the mind

    Now this is a simple explanation, but an extraordinarily complex operation.  When we look at Yahveh’s word, in the Tanakh (Old Testament) we see concrete ideas and situations interspersed with those of the abstract; the rituals of sacrifice mixed with the reason for the sacrifices.  We can see, touch, and hear the act of the sacrifice, the smell of the blood; all these and the feel of the altar leads us to deduce the act is very concrete.  But can we touch the abstraction?  Can we get our hands around the remission of sin by the death of the lamb or bullock?  We know of the act, yet the providence that gave us the act and the lifting of the weight of sin cannot be held onto by our senses. The remission of sin is a concept, one that takes a spiritual dimension to make it come alive in a man’s heart.  This is the abstract.  This is parabolic imagery, the types and shadows used throughout the Word of Yahveh yet are found most profoundly in the Messianic Chronicles or Writings (New Testament).  Parabolic imagery is better known as the parables used by Christ in His teachings, and then later by His Apostles.  It is found in the Tanakh but here we have to also grasp the concrete, that which was set in stone so to speak. 

    Eternal truths are concrete, set down by Yahveh as never changing, never compromising, and yet it still takes the abstract for them to reach a man’s soul. So, to try to follow the Bible as a literal device, we will run into problems that can only be surmounted by the unyielding, relentless pursuit of our minds and hearts by the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit). This pursuit by the Spirit drives us, the pursued, to the abstract- the making and the application of the concrete into our hearts.  The parabolic approach to understanding Scripture is the piece of the puzzle that has been lost to the Christian church, especially in the western church.  The eastern orthodox church is not immune to this either, as they adopted ritual and form over the ὑπόστασις (hupostasis), the substance of faith… 

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
1Now faith is the substancea of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.[7]

To further illustrate this, look at the rest of Rev.1:1:  “…And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John…” 

 The word used by John here for “signified” is the word [G4591] σημαίνω sēmainō, defined by Thayer as: 1) to give a sign, to signify, indicate or 2) to make known.[8] 

 This derives its original meaning from the Hebrew word [H2368] חתם    חותם chôthâm  chôthâm kho-thawm', kho-thawm' From H2856; a signature ring: - seal, signet.[9]   We see an expanded translation below: (note the underlined portion)



     The idea is to seal the identification of a thing, such as the banners that troops would display before their respective groups, or the identifying markers that officials would use to put the king’s seal in the wax that sealed documents. Barnes puts it this way:

'…And signified it - Εσήμανεν  Esemanen. He indicated it by signs and symbols. The word occurs in the New Testament only in John_12:33; 18:32; 21:19; Acts_11:28; 25:27, and in the passage before us, in all which places it is rendered “signify, signifying, or signified.” It properly refers to some sign, signal, or token by which anything is made known (compare Matt_26:28; Rom_4:11; Gen_9:12-13; 17:11; Luke_2:12; 2Co_12:12; 1Co_14:22), and is a word most happily chosen to denote the manner in which the events referred to were to be communicated to John, for nearly the whole book is made up of signs and symbols. If it be asked what was signified to John, it may be replied that either the word “it” may be understood, as in our translation, to refer to the Apocalypse (Revelation), or refer to what he saw (ὅσα εἶδε  hosa eide), as Prof. Stuart supposes; or it may be absolute, without any object following, as Prof. Robinson (Lexicon) supposes. The general sense is that, sending by his angel, he made to John a communication by expressive signs or symbols…”[11]

     What had been signified to John was the things that would not only shortly come to pass but how Jesus Christ would be revealed to the Gentile Church over the course of the next two millennia.  Not only was the end to be foretold, but also the way and means of how Christ would manifest Himself.  Now how does all of this tie into the idea of abstract vs. concrete? Simple: by signs, visions and symbols, Yahveh revealed the plan to John.  It was the abstract that was communicated to John and it is the abstract that is understood by the mind.  The literal used in the Tanakh is always seen as a type or shadow.  Look here at Hebrews 10:1-10:

1For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.  4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. 5Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. 6     In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.

7     Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come— In the volume of the book it is written of Me— To do Your will, O God.’ ” 8Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You  did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

10By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [12] 

    Notice what it says in verse 4.  “…it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins…”  Is this not proof of what I had stated before that even though in the concrete sense the blood of bulls and goats was shed for the remission of sin, this did not remove the sin.  Only in the abstract is that possible, from a source outside of the natural.  So, it is in the words used by Yahveh to give us His message and plan of salvation. To the Jews in Christ’s day, when baptism (βάπτισμα baptisma bap'-tis-mah) was mentioned, they understood it for what it was; the ceremonial washing (immersion) that converts into Judaism undertook.  When Christ inquired of the Sons of Thunder in (Mark 10:38):

“And Jesus said to them, Ye do not know what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup which *I* drink, or be baptized with the baptism that *I* am baptized with?”[13] the baptism He spoke of in this verse was the true baptism, the baptism of blood. The Jews of the 1st century understood martyrdom, and what it meant when Christ told them to pick up their cross and follow Him.  They knew these were words of death (or better, the absence of life), yet the concept Christ was speaking of was death to the self. These were concepts in the abstract and The Christ was speaking to them with the language of parabolic imagery.  With this imagery He was able to start them looking into the shadows for the type and reality of the spiritual, to look into their hearts, that place of understanding where we die to our way of thinking and come into the understanding of Yahveh’s. 

                I put all this out to you to help you see that there is another way of looking at Scripture than the way that is commonly taught in today’s church (or religion).  I want you to know what I am about to say is hard, but necessary.  First, I have no exclusive hold on truth.  I am just a seeker of Yahveh’s face as I hope you are.  If I lose you after this qualifier, then so be it.  I do not hold myself up to be a great scholar.  What I teach you can easily confirm with a careful study of Yahveh’s word on your own.  If I am found to be wrong in my teachings (and Scripture is the only judge of this that is acceptable), then I will gladly repent and humbly amend that which I teach.  I genuinely believe though that Scripture and the Holy Spirit will bear witness to what I teach is the Truth of Yahveh’s word. 

     The qualifier to these lessons is this:  what has been taught to the church in the past, from the times of the “Church fathers” but most notably that since the introduction of dispensationalism, replacement theology, and the promotion of the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture of the church since the early to mid-1800’s, are, and this will be where I lose some of you, doctrines born of hell.  All of these positions taken by learned men, some who at least on the outside appear very devout Christians, are based on man’s traditions and erroneous interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.  Some of what they have taught are fables and outright lies and those who teach them and promote them are at the very least deceived or worse yet, false teachers.  What is also born from the very heart of satan (more on him later) himself is the unashamed and unrestrained hatred of the Jewish people and the total disdain of the Torah of Yahveh. I have made a careful study of Yahveh’s word, and have agonized over the words I just said to you, for I know they will not be received by many and I will be reviled by the majority for even saying them.  Praise Yahveh to be counted worthy to be hated for His Name’s sake.  

    The time is short, beloved, and no teacher of Yahveh’s word has the time or the right to lie to anyone. I will stand before Yahveh one day and have to give an account for every word I speak and every doctrine I teach, and I humbly believe that in this matter, I can stand and say I have taught from the whole counsel of Yahveh as best as I could and have faithfully done my duty, which is speak the truth with love.  That which is true is sometimes bitter, but to a starving man, even the bitter is sweet.  If you will bear with me throughout this study, I can show you in Yahveh’s word that what I have said is true. I mean no one ill will; for there will always be disagreements on doctrine, no matter what.  But if we come to the knowledge of the Truth, then we are accountable for what we do with it, and if we choose to hide the truth, so that we don’t offend or so that we are liked, then we are guilty of the blood of those we have hidden the truth from.  And the truth is that throughout the history of the “church” we have trampled upon the truth and upon the Chosen People of Yahveh.  

Let me give you a couple of examples: while these are older, they serve to prove my point; I could show you more current ones, and I will, but for now these will do:

 "...Dateline September 19, 2008: {WCC schedules dinner to honor Iran’s President Ahmadinejad} “…The World Council of Churches (WCC), the Mennonite Central Committee, the Quakers, Religions for Peace, and American Friends Service Committee are actually sponsoring a dinner in honor of this evil leader on Thursday evening, September 25. The Ahmadinejad dinner will break the Ramadan fast.  It is being billed as an “international dialogue among religious leaders and political figures” in a conversation “about the role of religions in tackling global challenges and building peaceful societies.”

“How do you dialogue with a murderer and a tyrant,” asks Lafferty. “This man has made a career out of terrorism and murdering civilians.”

The WCC event honoring the Iranian tyrant is to be held at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City.**  Interestingly enough, Penny Pritzker, Obama’s chief fundraiser, is the owner of this hotel. One Hyatt business that Pritzker owned included Superior Bank, which went bankrupt in 2002 and still owes taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars from FDIC payouts to depositors.  Pritzker made her money in subprime loans and her bank was one of the first to fail because of it.

Obama appointed Pritzker in 2007 as his chair and treasurer of his campaign finance committee. There have been allegations of the Obama campaign receiving foreign and especially Middle Eastern campaign contributions, which is against the law.

In addition, the Obama-Biden party platform calls for diplomacy with Iran without any preconditions, as well as U.S. economic investments in Iran and Iran’s entry into the World Trade Organization.

The WCC is comprised of dying liberal denominations, whose real influence is waning in view of the rise of evangelical, charismatic, and other Bible-believing churches throughout the world. These denominations are losing millions of followers because of their pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-Islamic positions as well as their rejection of orthodox Christianity. Among those churches is Sen. Barack Obama’s former church, the United Church of Christ, once pastored by radical black liberationist Jeremiah Wright.

**Note:  There will be a protest on Thursday, Sept. 25th, beginning at 5:30 p.m., at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 109 East 42nd Street, (entrance on 42nd Street near Lexington Avenue, near Grand Central Station), New York, NY…”[14]

Here's the list of NCC (National Council of Churches) churches that also belong to the WCC.

• African Methodist Episcopal Church

• The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church

• Alliance of Baptists

• American Baptist Churches in the USA

• Diocese of the Armenian Church of America

• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

• Christian Methodist Episcopal Church

• Church of the Brethren

• The Coptic Orthodox Church in North America

• The Episcopal Church

• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

• Friends United Meeting

• Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

• Hungarian Reformed Church in America

• International Council of Community Churches

• Korean Presbyterian Church in America

• Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

• Mar Thoma Church

• Moravian Church in America Northern Province and Southern Province

• National Baptist Convention of America

• National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.

• National Missionary Baptist Convention of America

• Orthodox Church in America

• Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA

• Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends

• Polish National Catholic Church of America

• Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

• Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.

• Reformed Church in America

• Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and Canada

• The Swedenborgian Church

• Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

• Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America

• United Church of Christ

• The United Methodist Church..”[15]

     What is going on?  We are surrounded by the enemies of not only America and of Israel, but more importantly, of Yahveh and Messiah Yeshua. Sometimes are enemies are easily recognizable, such as those in the case of Islamo-fascist terrorists, communists and rogue states bent upon our destruction.  Those who hate her encompass Israel on all sides, some estimates say 250,000,000 strong.  To be fair, can we honestly say that all 250,000,000 Muslims that live in or near Israel hate her?  Probably not, but most of the governments that represent them do, and that is where the danger lies.  These types of enemies we can see and try to bolster our defenses against.  For Israel and those who love her, others are not so noticeable. (This does not discount those Arab nations that have sought to normalize relations with Israel. Be sure though, there are still plenty of Arab governments that still consider Israel a blight.)

 Sometimes they call themselves “Christian”.

     The Holocaust occurred because people of faith were silent.  Silent as they watched six million members of their own family being led to the slaughter.  I am not talking about “family” in the sense of mom and dad and their 2.2 kids; I’m talking about the family of believers of the Yahveh of Abraham.  We claim a “Judeo-Christian” heritage which by its very name indicates we come from the same roots, the same “father”, Abraham.  To our shame then sometimes our own worst enemies are family…

 Matthew 10:34-36 (KJV)

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household[16]  

Compare this with Micah 7:6:

 6 For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house. [17] 

    I am going to put forth several scriptures here – we need to hear the words of Yahveh before I tie this all together…

 Matthew 7:24-27 (1901 ASV)

Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock: 25and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and if fell not: for it was founded upon the rock. 26And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: 27and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof. [18]

 Matthew 21:12-13 (KJV)

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. [19]

From the Septuagint:

Isa 56:7

…I will bring them to My Holy Mountain, and gladden them in My house of prayer: their whole-burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon my altar; for My house of prayer shall be called a house of prayer for all nations…[20]

 Jeremiah 7:11 (KJV)

11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD. [21]

 Now, why do you think I have included these scriptures?  It is because anti-Semites and “Christians” throughout the ages have used these verses to label the Jews as “the money changer” and subsequently portray them as evil or dishonest.  I want to show that the opposite is true, that what they did in the temple was based on Scripture, Deut. 14:22-26.   At the time of Jesus’ ministry, those that read the Gospel narrative of Matthew would have understood what it was that Christ had done (they would also have seen another parallel that concerned the Passover, but we’ll discuss this later).  By quoting Isaiah 56:7 – Christ was coming against the practice of using the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple Complex as a place of commerce – effectively blocking those Yahveh-fearing Gentiles from the worship of Yahveh.  By pronouncing Jer. 7:11, was He calling the “money changers” greedy, or was there a deeper meaning behind His words?  Speculation seems to be all we have, but when you understand the “sitz in leben” [German for ‘setting in life’ or in other words, context, context, context], then a much broader picture than greed begins to emerge.  Deut. 14:22-26 tells us that it was Biblical to exchange money for the purchase of sacrifices.  Jews from all over the world came to worship the Passover; they sometimes could not bring their sacrifices with them for the animals might be hurt or damaged, rendering them impossible to use for a sacrifice.  So, they would buy them in Jerusalem.  They could not use the money of the realm they came from though – most ancient coins had images stamped on them, and these were unacceptable in the temple – they were graven images.  So, the worshippers would exchange their money for Temple coins; a look at Matt. 17:24-27 shows Christ instructing Peter to catch a fish and take a coin from its mouth to pay the Temple Tax for Himself and Peter.  Now, the Temple tax was ½ a shekel, and was usually paid by a special coin.  The coin used was normally the silver tetradrachm of Trye, equivalent in value to a shekel; hence two Jews normally combined to pay the tax with this coin [thus Matt 17:24-27].  What this means is this (and I speak as a man): maybe greed wasn’t the focus of Jesus as He drove the buyers and the sellers and the money changers from the Temple: Yahveh was being robbed in worship, not just thievery by those in attendance.  We have to examine the culture and the practices of the people that Christ spoke to, to understand what the Bible is telling us.  […For if we continue to view the Jews in light of misinterpretations and misrepresentations of Scripture (namely that they were all greedy money lovers), then truly we have fallen into the traps set by the enemy and continue to propagate lies and hatred about our brothers and sisters…][22]

 Lets go on to Mark 3:24-25: 24

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. [23]  

And Mark 6:4 (KJV):  4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. [24]  

There are many more scriptures I could use but I believe these are enough to get the point across.  Let’s tie this all together now. 

How does the church today view itself?  Typically, we see ourselves as a family.  The theme that has arisen in the past few years is a search for “common ground”.  We cry out for “unity”, for “tolerance” of our differences.  Well, let us take a look at this: I went on the web and did a search for Christian denominations. One page had 172 listings, each with multiple congregations for each listing.  On another site, over 2000 denominational choices came up.  How do we “unify” these vast numbers?  On what “common ground” do we agree to agree upon?  What of those “denominations” that call themselves “Christian” yet hold to doctrines that run outside the Bible?  What of those that say they hold to Biblical doctrines, just not all of them?  What about those that do away with certain doctrines all together, calling the Word of Yahveh outdated and outmoded?  What of those that seek to make the Word of Yahveh more “relevant” by watering down “offensive” and “insensitive” scripture or attempts to “explain” it away in round after round of “new revelations”?  O brethren – look around you.  If you hear the voice of Yahveh, look around!  What do you see?  Re-visit the news dispatch again.  This dispatch was in regard to the World Council of Churches and to the hosting of a dinner in honor of Iran’s former president Ahmadinejad.  Following the dispatch is a list of churches/denominations associated with the WCC.  Is your congregation associated with one of these?  Do you know someone is who is?  Brethren, by their endorsement, the WCC takes the word of Yahveh and tramples upon it.  Iran’s leaders have sworn to destroy Israel and the Jewish people off the face of the earth.  In Gen. 12:3 Yahveh told Abram:

Genesis 12:3 (KJV)
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee… [25]

 In Numbers 24:9 Yahveh says through the mouth of Balaam [no friend of Israel he]: "...Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee…” [26]

Now, once more, through Isaac, Jacob received Yahveh’s blessing:

 Genesis 27:29 (KJV)


Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee. [27]

 And the Yahveh of Abraham and Isaac did what in Gen. 35:10?

 Genesis 35:10 (1901 ASV)

And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. [28]

 Sometimes our enemy is our family.  Who are we, those of us that call ourselves by Christ’s name?  We are the wild olive tree warned by Paul in Romans 11:15-24:

 Romans 11:15-24 (DARBY)

5 For if their casting away be the world’s reconciliation, what their reception but life from among the dead? 16 Now if the first-fruit be holy, the lump also; and if the root be holy, the branches also. 17 Now if some of the branches have been broken out, and thou, being a wild olive tree, hast been grafted in amongst them, and hast become a fellow-partaker of the root and of the fatness of the olive tree, 18 boast not against the branches; but if thou boast, it is not thou bearest the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches have been broken out in order that I might be grafted in. 20 Right: they have been broken out through unbelief, and thou standest through faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: 21 if God indeed has not spared the natural branches; lest it might be he spare not thee either. 22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: upon them who have fallen, severity; upon thee goodness of God, if thou shalt abide in goodness, since otherwise thou also wilt be cut away. 23 And they too, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able again to graft them in. 24 For if thou hast been cut out of the olive tree wild by nature, and, contrary to nature, hast been grafted into the good olive tree, how much rather shall they, who are according to nature be grafted into their own olive tree? [29]

     Christian, AWAKE!  See what evil we have wrought upon the natural branch!  By our shunning of the Torah, of the Tanakh, by forgetting the Prophets and the Chronicles of Is’rael, what horror we have inflicted! We have caused turmoil and hate by our indifference, and at times because of our arrogance, and still yet at other times our violence – and at all times, this turmoil has raged due to our silence.  For Zion’s sake I WILL NOT BE SILENT, NO MORE!  We are adopted sons – and they are the natural ones, the sons of promise…and part of our family.

 …And family can be the worst enemy…

I know this has been a hard post. I hope you are still with me. 
Till next time, May God richly bless you and keep you my beloved.

[1]  The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

[2] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Joseph H. Thayer, Copyright ©1977, Baker Book House Company

[3] Source,

[4] Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 Edition, (electronic edition) e-Sword®, v. 9.5.1 Copyright ©2000-2009 by Rick Myers

[5] Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 Edition, (electronic edition) e-Sword® v.9.5.1, Copyright ©2000-2009 by Rick Myers

[6] Preface to The American Dictionary of the English Language, By Noah Webster, © 2008 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

a  substance: or, ground, or, confidence

[7] The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Electronic edition of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[8] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Joseph H. Thayer, Copyright ©1977, Baker Book House Company

[9] Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, by James Strong, ( electronic edition), e-Sword®, v. 9.5.1,  copyright ©2000-2009 by Rick Myers


[11] Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, ( electronic edition), e-Sword®, ver. 9.5.1,  copyright ©2000-2009 by Rick Myers

[12]  The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

[13] King James Version, Red-Letter Bible, by James Strong, ( electronic edition), e-Sword®, v. 9.5.1,  copyright ©2000-2009 by Rick Myers 

[14] Posted by The Traditional Values Coalition, (

[15] Information taken from the National Council of Churches web-site and compared with that of the World Council of Churches -DER

[16]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[17]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[18]  American Standard Version. 1995 (Electronic edition.). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[19]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[20] The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, originally published 1851, ©2007 by Hendrickson Publishers

[21]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[22] Information for this section of discourse taken from The Passion Conspiracy by Randy Weiss, PhD., published by Excellence in Christian Books, ©2004, Randall A. Weiss

[23]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[24]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[25]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[26]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[27]  The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[28]  American Standard Version. 1995 (Electronic edition.). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[29]  Darby, J. N. (1996). The Holy Scriptures : A new translation from the original languages (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.