A Reponse to Baruch Maoz's Article (see http://www.comeandsee.com/view.php?sid=1268) on the Election of Benjamin Netanyahu.

By Yakov Prasch

I know Baruch Maoz quite well and I appreciate much he has achieved and I value the personal regard I have for him. Much as I cannot share his hyper-calvinistic and cessationist doctrinal theology however, neither can I share all of his political convictions. We indeed have always agreed on much theologically and politically, but this is a case where I must respectfully disagree with the bulk of his statements.

This website publishing  his remarks (http://www.comeandsee.com/) is linked to Musalhala (Salim Munyaner) and Alex Awad (http://www.comeandsee.com/LocalMinistries.php). That in itself is a disgrace. Such individuals turn their backs on the plight of Arab Christians suffering under one Islamic regime after another, sweeping religious freedom from their agenda in order to align themselves with those who are aligned to radical Islamist interests which persecute  believers.

Baruch's closing remarks are particularly nonsensical. As one long critical of elements of 'Christian Zionism' who substitute political activism for evangelism, I also know that his blanket description of pro Zionist Evangelicals is neither fair or accurate. Most Evangelical Christians internationally who support Israel, care very much for the welfare and security of Israel; although  they also see the prophetic dimension from the scriptures which he seems to ignore.

Many of the economic trends he addresses such as wealth disparity are international phenomena and not limited to Israel, and have causes such as Quantitative Easing in the USA & EU that artificially drive up share prices that investment bankers and hedge fund managers (the top 1%) capitalise on and profit from; which in a global market have ramifications for Israel and have little to do with the policies of the Israeli government. As in the USA, the other factor is the boom of high tech industries which works to the advantage of an elite group of innovators and entrepreneurs but leaves others out in the cold. Yet, the proliferation of such industries in Silicon Valley and Seattle prevented the USA from being overtaken as the leading economy by Asia and the outsourcing of R&D by American and other high tech multi-nationals to Israel has been a saving grace in Israel's economy. 

I agree the outrageous concessions and cost of bribing small religious parties to remain in the coalition is ludicrous; but this has been true since the foundation of the state due to the most undemocratic system of democratic government called proportional representation. Mr. Netanyahu did not invent this stupid  electoral system, the Labour Party mainly did; he is merely saddled with it and compelled to build a coalition out of this colossal absurdity which is not of his own invention.

I do not like terrorists being released, but Baruch omits the reasons: to achieve the release of abducted Israeli soldiers and desperate, but misguided gestures of good faith hoping to fuel meaningful peace negotiations under international pressure. He also pretends that the cause of Arab difficulty is primarily with Israel when it is with the policies of Hamas and the PA and their own Islamic belligerence. Baruch's view of this is parochial and he does not seem to grasp that it is a diabolically animated vehemence in every nation where Moslems exist including their own, that would exist due to the teachings of fundamentalist Islam even if the State of Israel did not exist. I would rather be an Arab, particularly an Arab Christian - in Israel than being one in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Gaza , Yemen etc.

To suggest that Mr. Netanyahu is to blame for the souring relations with the USA is ridiculous. The Obama administration has pandered to Iran and radical  Islamic interests in a range of areas not directly even involving Israel; and the anti Christian and anti Israel policies of Obama are ideologically driven. They are not merely a response to Mr. Netanyahu. 

He moreover discounts in his analysis, that the Jews are the indigenous people of the West Bank, and that any second Palestinian state there would only create another Gaza. There is no land for peace with Islam, only land as a closer strategic platform to continue their jihad against Israel's existence.

Finally, I must seriously wonder if Baruch Maoz believes any of the fundamental issues he addresses would drastically improve under a Labour led coalition? They would be harnessed by the the same electoral coalition, strategic, and economic realities. For years I have maintained that the previous temporary coalition governments between the two primary parties failed in what should have been their chief mandate: to constitutionally eliminate proportional representation and marginalize the fringe religious parties like Shas and Agudat Israel from the political process, ending military service exemptions  for ultra orthodox yeshiva students and ripping rabbinic halacha from the body of Israeli civil and criminal law. But it was Labour who first cemented itself to the National Religious Party and created this twisted system that so desperately demands reform -it was not Mr. Netanyahu. He is simply stuck with it and the unfortunate political realities of compromise it engenders.

I too am critical of some of the economic policies of the Likud government,  and soaring prices in staples and housing are indeed a national dilemma. Israel's consumer price index is staggering. But unlike the hyper inflationary monetization policies  of Itzahk Shamir which nearly destroyed Israel's economy, or the failed pre-Yom Kippur war strategic policies of Golda Meir & Moishe Dyan that almost destroyed Israel, on any reasonable scale Mr. Netanyahu is at least a via media (middle road) who has not lost total control of either the troubled economy or the ever precarious strategic scenario  as others have done in both major parties.

With his unfortunate and distorted stereotype Baruch Maoz has misrepresented pro Zionist Evangelicals outside of Israel, and his position is not reflective of the majority of believers in Israel. In this regard, he speaks only for himself and no one else.

Respectfully & Sincerely,

Jacob Prasch
Moriel Ministries

Concerning the "Times and Seasons"

(This is taken from "The Second Coming of The Lord, How is it taught in Scripture? and why?" by Samuel Tregelles an early Open Brethren scholar.)

"But do you not remember," it is said, "that God holds the times and seasons in His own power? Does not this shew that He may arrange events as He willeth? that He may re-dispose their order? And is not the definite formation of expectations, as if God must bring events to pass in one way and not in another, a limiting of the Holy One of Israel?" God has all things in His power; but when once He has spoken, He will fulfil; and thus, without irreverence, we may say that such event will occur, and such will not. When once God has promised, He is concluded by His own words: He cannot deny Himself. Thus we may, with all confidence, say, that if God has revealed that a portion of His Church shall be found in unbroken continuity on the earth up to the harvest, when the wicked shall be severed from the midst of them, then so it will be. If He has said that Antichrist’s appearance and power shall precede the coming of Christ, then this must be the order of events. If He tells us that it is after, and not before, the time of special tribulation that Christ shall come, then we must not discredit God by the imagination that it may be previous. If the Lord Jesus has told us that His shall not be a secret coming, then we must take heed and not accept the teaching that bids us expect a secret advent. If He tells us to watch for His appointed signs, then we must not imagine that this can be inconsistent with the hope of seeing the Lord, or that it can have any evil effect morally; nay, we must be sure that such an expectation, held in the Spirit, is that which will produce the right effect of watchfulness and waiting in every one who rests on the word of Christ, because it is His. 

However much God may do in grace and mercy beyond what He has promised, of this we may be sure, that whatever He has promised shall be fulfilled; and that every revealed circumstance in connection with the time or order shall have a perfect accomplishment. In unrevealed things, it behoves us to avoid speculation; but where the Scripture speaks, it is for us, whether we understand or not, to listen and to receive. 

In any inquiry what God can do, or will do, there are two principles which must be borne in mind: Firstly, God is "the faithful God;" "God that cannot lie." This is part of His own essential character; and we know, too, that as to His revelation in Christ, "all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God by us" (2 Cor. 1:20). Secondly, besides this (or rather consequent on this), "the Scripture must be fulfilled." What can prove this more fully than our Lord’s prayer and agony in the garden, and His betrayal? 

"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39). "O my Father, if this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, thy will be done" (v. 42). 

 "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" (vv. 53, 54). 

 "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled" (v. 56). 

If there are points which are not certainly or definitely stated in Scripture, some conclusion may, perhaps, be formed from analogy or probable inference; but when the Scripture tells the events and their order, then what is called "free enquiry" has no place whatever. Those who sit in judgment on Scripture, and question or deny what it conclusively says, are not fitting persons to be listened to as teachers in the Church of Christ, whatever be their claims as to wisdom or holiness. 

The question of the apostles to the Lord in Acts 1:6 is, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" To this He replies, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power." He then tells them what their service should be as witnesses for Him,-in fact, referring them back to His own previous instruction in Matthew 24:6, 14: "The end is not yet." "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." They are thus reminded that the restoration of the kingdom to Israel could not be in the ordering of God until the events of that chapter were brought to pass; it was thus that He had put these times and seasons in His own power. We cannot measure these events by a century or by a thousand years, but we may know their order as revealed and recorded in Holy Scripture. 

When the Apostle says,

"I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery . . . that blindness in part is happened to Israel, UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25), 

the following words, "And so all Israel shall be saved," prove that the blindness shall be altogether taken away. But when shall this be? When the fullness of the Gentiles is gathered. How could the Scripture speak of a "blindness in part until" that time, if Israel’s greatest blindness, in the depth of anti-Christian evil, is not till after the removal of the Church? But the order of these events has been revealed for our instruction. It is when He cometh with clouds, when every eye shall see Him, that Israel shall look on Him whom they pierced—when the spirit of grace and of supplications shall be poured upon them. Until that day the fullness of the Gentiles will not have come in. The resurrection of the Church and the removal of the blindness are at the same time. 

Theological Propaganda -An Introduction to Pretrib Mythology

By Elon

This post originally appeared in the First Quarter Moriel Bulletin of 2015.

Just recently I read some very sad transcripts for some recent editions of the "Berean Call" radio show. Some wild claims were made and unsubstantiated terminologies were thrown around as if they were settled fact. It was so shocking, that I felt some of the statements in this show needed to be addressed, so I intend to follow this post with a series entitled "Pretrib Mythology" based upon the extravagant claims made in the Radio Show.

Now before I go any further, let me emphasise that what I am about to write is about doctrines and hermeneutics, not people. I testify from personal experience that Dave Hunt's books the Seduction of Christianity and Beyond Seduction, were great helps in awaking me personally to the errors of the Word of Faith Movement in the 80's; and Dave's book "What Love is This?" is a great resource to people who are struggling with, or have been afflicted by Calvinitis. It lays out very clearly what Calvinism is all about, using Calvnistic authors own words; which is exactly why his Calvnistic antagonists hated and maligned it so much. This was Berean Call at its best.

So it was particularly tragic to read these transcripts. Each of then was littered with scripturally unsubstantiated claims,¹ which is bad enough, (however, I have read enough Pretrib material by now to become used to that): but, there were some statements made, especially in the interviews with Thomas Ice,² that were particularly problematic.

Ice: You know, it’s amazing to me that no one articulated the substitutionary atonement of Christ until a thousand years in church history with Anselm. Their view in the early church was closer to Benny Hinn, you know? It was called the “ransom to Satan” theory. No one that we know of articulated the doctrine of justification by faith until Martin Luther came along for 1,500 years! And it led to a schism, you know, within the church, thank God…

References to substitutionary atonement can actually be found in early writers such as the 2nd letter to Diognetus, the writings of Athanasius, Chrysostom and Eusebius etc. But ultimately there is the testimony of Scripture.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1 Pet,. 3:18

 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Rom. 3:23-25

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;  Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Rom. 4:24-25)

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood [substitutionary death], we shall be saved from wrath through him.  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.  And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Rom. 5:8-11

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; . . . he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed . . the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all . . . . he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due . . . it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, . . . by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities . . . . because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

And to this we could argue that the whole OT sacrificial system teaches us about substitutionary atonement.

In addition, what Anselm actually articulated was not Substitutionary Atonement per se, but the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, where he posited that the injury done to God's honour and glory by mankind's sin was rectified by the death of Christ, who paid the debt to God's honour that man owed. Perhaps Ice is confusing this with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, where Christ suffers the punishment for every sin of man.³

However regardless of the above; it is clear that Ice, by his claim that certain Atonement Theories were not fully articulated for a considerable time, would thus have us accept that there should be no barrier to our receiving a Rapture Theory that only appeared in the 1830's. However, he is here glossing over or omitting a fact of critical importance: whatever aspect of Atonement is emphasised by any of the various theories; its substitutionary nature is clearly and explicitly taught throughout the Scriptures in numerous places, as shown above. The same can be said for the doctrine of Justification by Faith, this can be found throughout the Bible, and is most explicit of course in Paul's Epistles; indeed, it is so ubiquitous in the New Testament, that it would be superfluous to give references here. Both Substitutionary Atonement and Justification by Faith, are explicit teachings of the Bible, derived by exegetical method from in context statements of Scripture. We must not forget this or allow it to be glossed over, because this is the real issue that is at stake.

The Pretribulational Rapture on the other hand; never was, nor is it now, in any shape or form, exegetically or contextually derived from any verse in the entire Bible; all of the verses it uses as proof texts have to be severely contorted or quoted out of context to arrive at a predetermined Pretrib conclusion. As we have repeatedly stated, even its own proponents readily concede that it is a doctrine based solely upon "inference",--which brings us to another comment from the transcripts.

T.A. McMahon: Now, however, and I want to talk about this: now, we believe in, you know, the objective Word of God. We believe in literal interpretation. But when we look to Scripture, yes, we want the verse. We want to see the verse clearly, objectively, and so on. But we also believe in extrapolation. In other words, a number of the doctrines – you know, I think you mentioned this before we started recording; we were talking about something like the Trinity and so on. You can’t find that term. But we find so many other verses that we can put together that form a clear doctrine.

Now, the part that we don’t want to go – we don’t want to go beyond that to speculation. So we can accept, you know, what a verse says clearly and distinctly, but we can also extrapolate a number of other verses to put together a solid teaching, a solid doctrine of the church.

Now, it’s speculation where we draw the line. Would you agree with that?

While admittedly, the teaching on the Trinity is more scattered throughout Scripture, and it is less explicitly taught but rather assumed as a "given" by the NT writers; nevertheless the reasoning behind the doctrine can be inductively derived from contextual exegesis of explicit statements or facts made in the passages used to support it. Here are just a few samples;

Jesus undoubtedly claimed to be the YHWH and his hearers understood that is what he was saying.

He accepted the worship of the disciples.

The angels are said to worship him.

He explicitly claimed to one with the Father.

He explicitly claimed to have glory with the Father before the world began.

Many, many OT texts describing YHWH are explicitly applied to Jesus.

The Spirit is revealed to be a personal being, who works in concert with the Father and Son. Divine attributes are explicitly ascribed to Him in numerous places. He shares a name with the Father and the Son.

These things found in the very warp and woof of the New Testament. Scripture does not have to be twisted to arrive at some kind of Trinitarian conclusion.

Extrapolations and Self Contradictions.

The "extrapolation" statement is actually very revealing, because in spite of Ice's claim that:

 . . .if you remove pre-Tribulationalism from the New Testament epistles, it’s like trying to unravel a piece of cloth, or pull a thread out of the cloth, you know? It just doesn’t work because it’s embedded, and a lot of people just don’t take the time to understand that later on in 1 Corinthians, it’s called a mystery, meaning it’s a new revelation, see?

and McMahon's claim that:

" . . It was in the Bible all along" and "And there’s so many verses that support that. And the thing that shocks me, . . . is that people are saying, “Oh no, this is some kind of esoteric, secret…you know, this isn’t there, they’re making it up,” and so on. it’s as clear as it can be."

They actually admit that it is only obtainable by extrapolations. The question is then: If it is so "clear as it can be", not "esoteric"or "secret" and so "embedded" why the necessity to resort to "extrapolations" in order to arrive at it? This is completely self-contradictory:--and why does this seem to be the only doctrine in modern evangelicalism that is given special dispensation to based on extrapolation/inference alone?

A doctrinal basis that is established upon exegesis and honest handling of the biblical text, is what separates orthodox biblical Christianity from the cults, and the likes of "Kenny and Benny". The Pretribulational Rapture is indeed problematic, but is it an outward symptom of an underlying malaise that is far more disturbing; an indicator of how willing we are to bend the Word of God to suit our wishes?

It is not biblical hermeneutics that we see in these radio interviews, but theological propaganda masquerading as biblical doctrine. The praises of literal interpretation are sung, and speculation is decried; but it is all too readily apparent that this is lip-service; for to do homage to the Golden Calf of Pretrib theory, literal interpretation must be deposed, context summarily executed and "extrapolation" usurp their place to provide an apologetic for a doctrine which orthodox hermeneutical method can not. If this is not in actuality "esoteric" or "secret" I don't know what is. Without the extrapolative tradition/magisterium of the Pretrib "elders" this doctrine simply cannot be arrived at. Scripture warns us very clearly about "making the Word of God of none effect through our tradition."

When we try to create or sustain a doctrine with the kind of methods exemplified in these radio interviews;--are we not in essence saying that we love our favoured notion more than the truth that God has explicitly stated? When we show an unwillingness to honestly handle God's Word, because to do so would deal a death blow to our pet theories; are we not actually revealing that we have at least in some measure departed from love of the truth and prefer a lie? This is serious enough for us on a personal level, but what for teachers of the Word? --are they not even more accountable?

There has been quite a lot written on the "Apostasy equals Rapture" teaching that is so enthused over in this interview. Its utterly baseless nature has been well and truly documented;⁴ I am astonished that this canard keeps being repeated by Ice, as he does again in these broadcasts. The "Apostasy equals Rapture" is way out beyond the speculation Ice claims to want to avoid, it is pure fantasy; but such is the nature of spiritual deception, it will take us to places, that if we escape it to look back from the outside, we shake our heads in wonder that we actually ran with such nonsense. I know, because I have been in that place myself.

Many years ago, when I was walking in the false doctrines of the Word of Faith movement; there was a point when I began to experience a sense of misgiving about the way WOF teachers were handling Scripture; but at the same time the doctrine was very appealing. Initially I tried to avoid listening to or reading anything that would contradict it, but that internal disquiet would not go away. One day a dear friend, who saw clearly WOF for what it was and had been praying for me, handed me a copy of "Seduction of Christianity". I really did not want to read that book! But at that point I knew I was being presented with a choice: I could ignore my misgivings and carry on in that which was exciting and pleased my flesh; or I could read the book. The message of the book did sting somewhat; but in its wake it brought great joy. New light broke forth from the Scriptures as the deluding mists were blown away, and this point in time marked the beginning of my understanding of what it means to "rightfully handle the word of truth". Over time since then, a serious amount of theological demolition went on, as ideas, practices and teachings that could not be exegetically substantiated were disposed of; but what I gained has always been well worth the cost. The hermeneutical principles that I began to learn at that time, when applied, have also been of tremendous benefit in preserving and protecting me from the Apostasy that has mushroomed in our midst since then.

These interviews worry me, because they may be a sign that the Pretrib camp is simply ignoring calls to sharpen up on their hermeneutic, and is instead closing its ears so that it may blithely continue on with these cult-style interpretive methods. Will we soon observe even sharper declinations from biblical truth, of which this "Apostasy equals Rapture" claim is but an early symptom? Will it come to pass that in a wilful refusal to return to sound hermeneutics they will veer every deeper into error and ironically, eventually be found fulfilling the prophecy of 2 Thess. 2:3 in themselves? I truly hope not, because I shudder to think where I would be today if I had chosen other than I had;--if I had not hearkened to the voice of the LORD. I thank God for that woman who prayed for me and kept "getting on my case" about Word Of Faith, even if I did not want to hear it, and who ultimately gave me the book that was such a life changer.

I heard recently, that some, even among Pretrib's big names,--are beginning to entertain reservations about it. This is very encouraging, it means that God is answering prayers for these our brethren. We need to continue to pray earnestly for them and for friends and associates who are ensnared by this doctrine, that their hearts be soft to the truth, that they make the right choices, even if it costs them dearly in prestige, finance and following. Let us also pray for courage for all those leaders who know Pretrib to be serious error, but are afraid to come out of the closet.

Many truly godly men preach this error in sincerity, I count a number of precious friends among them. Let us in all humility, lift these brethren up to the LORD.

1  I intended to deal with some of these issues on the this site, because there are too many of them for the article in the Moriel Quarterly.

2 The transcripts for the Radio shows in question can be found on the Berean call site under the December 2014 boadcasts "What about the Rapture?".

3  I think it fair to say that substitutionary atonement is explicitly declared in the Scriptures, and it appears that through Church history the differing views of atonement that arose, were more to do with the details of what substitution actually entailed not over the fact of substitution itself. The Atonement is a multifaceted concept and it accomplished a number of different things; while the New Testament is clear over what Christ's death has accomplished, the question of how it did this is not really emphasised.

4 Yakov has dealt with this on a number of occasions, and this was also covered in a previous Moriel Bulletin.

An Early Brethren Writer on the First Resurrection.

By S. P. Tregelles, LL. D. (1813-1875)

(author of “Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel”)

There are two objects which we have to keep more or less in view when discussing any controverted portion of revealed truth: the one is, that of simply establishing from Scripture the definite teaching there given; the other is, that of maintaining controversially a portion of truth against those who seek to set it aside; for this, it is needful to meet objections, and thus to discuss details such as never would have been connected with the subject had it not been for the erroneous teaching of gainsayers. From time to time we have to consider new objections. Whilst truth as revealed in the Word of God must ever remain the same, the multi-form developments of error are ever changing.

There are positions which, when once they have been definitely established from Holy Scripture, might be regarded as settled for ever; and this would be the case absolutely if it were not that every truth is questioned as soon as it is found to be of practical importance: and then for the full establishment of those who desire to hold fast Scripture teaching, and with the hope of the deliverance, through the mercy of God, of some who have been led astray, the whole subject may have to be again taken up controversially, that is to say, with the definite intention of meeting objections.

What, then, does the Scripture reveal as to the first resurrection? Who are to partake in it? When will it take place? These may be called the primary points of inquiry; and when they have been answered from Scripture, we may next ask, — In what special modes do the introducers of false teaching at present set aside any of these points? What do they set forth instead? On what grounds do they seek to maintain the positions which they assume? And what is the practical consequence of any such erroneous principles?

The one passage in the Scripture in which the first resurrection is mentioned by name, is Revelation 20:5, 6. The apostle saw certain symbols, and the interpretation of the vision which he received is: “This is the first resurrection: blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” It is on this interpretation that we have especially to rest in seeking to understand what is here set before us. The distinct points to be noticed are: That it is an actual resurrection that is taught; that is, the resuscitation of the bodies of persons that have died. That it is the resurrection of the believers who have died up to that time. That as this is the first resurrection, so no resurrection of believers can possibly precede it. That this resurrection cannot take place till after the development of Antichrist, and his reign; nor yet until the time when God sets His hand again to restore His ancient people Israel. That this resurrection takes place when the Lord Jesus Christ comes again in manifested glory.

To consider these subjects in their order:

I. That this is an actual resurrection which is here taught may be learned from the mere statement of the Scripture itself; for if this is not an actual resurrection, how could we suppose that to be so in which the small and great stand before the great white throne and are judged? If this be not a resurrection of persons, what can be signified when it is said that the rest of the dead live not again until the end of a certain period of a thousand years? But this point is one which need not be dwelt on in detail, since it has often been established in opposition to those who would turn the facts of Holy Scripture into some mere figures, and who seek to substitute principles for persons.

II. But who are they who shall then rise? Some, from a partial consideration of the symbols of the vision, have thought that it was limited to martyrs for Christ, and to them only; others have seen that it must also of necessity include those who have refused to acknowledge Antichrist: the true exposition, however, being that these are here set forth as symbolical classes. Why these classes should be thus seen in the vision is most easily and simply explained. John had seen the servants of Christ in vision put to death under Antichrist, or else exposed to extreme suffering for refusing to worship the beast and his image. He now sees them set in this place of glory and blessing. The images in this book relate frequently in their form to the contents of the Revelation itself. It is a great mistake if any suppose that the book of Revelation should be interpreted in such a way as to contradict other Scriptures. This book may throw further light on what had been previously revealed; but such truths communicated before are to be assumed as already known by those that would learn from this book. Thus the second coming of Christ was a truth known by the Church as her hope before the Revelation had been given to the beloved Apostle; and so, too, the resurrection of the just had been promised as that which should come to pass at that time.

What else do we learn from the latter part of 1 Thessalonians 4? The Lord Himself shall descend with all the circumstances of publicity and manifested glory; the dead in Christ shall rise, those who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds; this was to be the comfort of the early church in connection with any of their brethren who had died: it thus teaches us authoritatively that all the dead in Christ shall rise in that day. So, too, 1 Corinthians 15:23: “they that are Christ’s at His coming.” An absolutely revealed truth like this can never be set aside by any supposed after limitation; on the other hand, we may be sure that such supposed limitation is based on some entire misapprehension. In Revelation 20, “they that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and they that had not worshipped the beast,” etc., must be regarded as a description of the class of persons who rise, and not as a definition of who and what they are. We know from previous Scriptures that “they that are Christ’s” rise without limitation “at His coming”; we know that this was the consolation for the Thessalonian Christians as to their departed friends, whether martyrs or not; but if the principle of limitation were brought in as to martyrdom, it would apparently be right to exclude all who do not suffer in a particular way and at a particular time. No doubt that the specification of those under the antichristian persecution is wisely given; but the expression, “the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were finished,” must not be supposed as excluding any of those who are Christ’s, who at that time must rise. For “they that are Christ’s” would comprehend all those that are His, who have departed up to that time, and not one of them can be shut out. Nor can the Old Testament saints be in any way excluded so long as the words of Christ remain recorded by the Spirit as to those who “shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven”; the term, “the rest of the dead,” means simply all the dead who do not then rise.

III. No resurrection can possibly precede it. I should have thought it needless to argue that the first resurrection of the saints must be one which has not been preceded by another of any portion of them, had it not been that the plain words of Scripture have been set aside. 1 Corinthians 15 teaches us the order of the resurrection: “Christ the first fruits; afterwards [next in order of succession] they that are Christ’s at His coming.” There is no room left for mistake or doubt, unless we depart from the plain words of Scripture. With all confidence we may say that God intended to teach in this place, when saying, “this is the first resurrection,” that He will not raise any of His people with bodies incorruptible prior to the time and the development of circumstances here spoken of.

It might seem superfluous to reaffirm that,-

IV. No first resurrection can take place prior to the manifestation of Antichrist, since those who suffer under his persecution then rise; and, indeed, argument is vain when plain Scripture testimony is set aside, except, indeed, as enforcing and re-asserting such testimony. But as some have thought that a first resurrection will occur before the reign of Antichrist, it may be well to ask such what the first resurrection can mean? and whether a first resurrection which shall precede the first is not such a contradiction in terms as sets aside the Scripture in such a manner as to make it impossible (if such arguments are admissible) for even inspired writers to express themselves in definite language? The fact stands on the face of the passage that there shall be no first resurrection of saints until those of them who shall be cut off in the antichristian persecution have so died; for these are some who then rise.

Also this cannot be until the time of the acting of God for the restoration of Israel; because in 1 Corinthians 15:54, we are taught, “when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. “Thus the resurrection of the saints takes place the same time, when the passage in Isaiah 25:8 (which the Apostle authoritatively cites) shall find its accomplishment. Any mode of interpretation which would otherwise connect it must of necessity be erroneous; for God has given us His own note of time in the synchronism of events.

If we look at the various Scriptures which speak of the resurrection of the saints, we find that,-

V. That event takes place when the Lord Jesus comes; and if we ask what kind of a coming it is that we are taught to expect, we find that every adjunct of manifested glory and publicity is specified, as though there should be no excuse for our making any mistake on this point. “Behold, He cometh with clouds: and every eye shall see Him”; this is the advent in the hope of which the church responds, “Even so. Amen.” “Surely I come quickly; Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”

This, then, is the hope of the First Resurrection; so that through the darkest period of antichristianism the church may look on rejoicing in hope, because that special and most fearful gloom shall be the forerunner of the morning; and thus in the time of persecution and of martyrdom to many, the hope of resurrection shall be then possessed of a special power. For how near then shall the resurrection of the saints, “the First Resurrection,” be; then will be the time for the people of Christ to lift up their heads, knowing that their redemption (redemption in all its fullness of meaning) draweth nigh. And if we see deepening shadows of moral evil falling on the world, and on that which professes to be the church, then may we see this hope as that which may give us a confidence while seeking to contend for the truth of God in the midst of opposing errors, whether it be Pharisaic ritualism or Sadducean infidelity.

But ours is no mere selfish hope; it unites us to all the family of faith who ever have been; for the first resurrection embraces them all; it connects us with the glory of Christ; for He shall then be glorified in His saints; it teaches us to look for no present rest; for true rest we can have none until that time “when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 1:7, 8).

Such is the plain teaching of Scripture, which, as to the five particulars just specified, might be largely confirmed and extended from what we learn from other portions of the inspired word. If indeed we are content to follow Scripture, these points might be regarded as axioms. And yet there are those who profess to hold the hope of our Lord’s second coming, who deny and oppose almost every one of these points. They have the Scripture; they borrow its phrases, applying them to their own cherished fancies; they take truths from it, but they apply them in connections not only false in themselves, but even in direct contradiction of what the word of God distinctly states. How can any learn from Scripture, if they will maintain that events shall come to pass at a different time and in a manner directly contradicting what the Scripture says? Is a man a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ because he uses His name, while denying every material truth as to His very Godhead and very manhood, and the true substitutional sacrifice of His death? What, then, in a similar manner, should be said of those who hold a first resurrection, differing in time, manner and circumstances, from THE first resurrection of which the Scripture makes mention? who expect a coming of Christ (such as He Himself said should never take place) without publicity, without manifested glory, without His taking vengeance on any, without His so taking the kingdom into His own hands that thenceforth antichristian blasphemy and persecution should be impossible? Must it not be said that Scripture terms have been applied to the opposite of Scripture truths?

In opposition to the word of God it has been assumed that the hope of Christ’s coming is one which excludes the possibility of intervening events having been made known, and that if the Lord has given any warning or indication that His coming draws near, then we cannot be waiting for that day. But what is this assumption except to lay down how God ought to have communicated truth, instead of inquiring how He has done this? When it has been assumed that no intervening events can be matters of revelation, the difficulty remains that,-

VI. Many events are given which will precede the coming of the Lord. How can this be disposed of? By assuming that Christ’s coming is to be divided into two utterly different events—a secret coming as the hope of the church, and a public coming when He shall be seen in manifested glory. But what is the warrant for such a division? None whatever, except the previous assumption that there can be no events revealed before Christ comes in connection with His church; that is laid down as an axiom, and the plainest facts and the clearest definitions of Scripture are set aside because they contradict this cherished hypothesis. Those who maintain the doctrine of a secret coming of Christ, often adopt any theory in order to explain away difficulties; thus it is that they have shifted their ground again and again; and distinctions, the futility of which had been long ago felt by those who once defended them, have again found their places in the array that is exhibited in opposition to truth. To every mind that is rightly and truly subject to Holy Scripture,-

VII. The doctrine of the first resurrection sets aside the notion of a secret coming of Christ as a private transaction. For when we are told that the coming of Christ in the air (1 Thess. 4) to take away His saints may happen any day, while many events precede His manifested appearing, it is well for us to remember that when we meet the Lord in the air, the dead in Christ rise first (i.e., before the change and rapture of those still living); there is no such thing as the living believers going to the Lord without the resurrection of the sleeping saints also having taken place. Thus we find no coming of the Lord Jesus except with the first resurrection then occurring, and that first resurrection cannot be until the events which usher it in, such as the full development of Antichrist and his persecution of some of those who are then to rise, having preceded. To wait for any coming of Christ (or for anything else as the coming of Christ) without the resurrection of His people then taking place, is to substitute some mere fancy for the hope that has been given us. To suppose a resurrection prior to the first resurrection is to deny the truth and exactness of the revelation of God. To say that our hope is a secret coming of Christ, is the same as to teach that 1 Thessalonians 4 does not set forth that coming; for in that passage every adjunct speaks of publicity.

A new theory has been circulated of late, that while the first resurrection of Revelation 20 is the portion of the church in general, some for special devotedness, etc., shall previously rise and be taken away. This theory is part of a ramified system of doctrine the general principle of which is that there exist essential (and not merely circumstantial) distinctions between Christians, according to what they are in the Spirit (as shown in service, devotedness, etc.); and these distinctions quite set aside the oneness in Christ of the saved. I have not now to discuss this theory, and to show its unscriptural character. On this subject it is enough to say that the words. “This is the First Resurrection,” suffice to set aside the arguments advanced for the different resurrections of different classes of saints prior to the reign of Christ.

At present a danger to which true believers are exposed is that of substituting a kind of sentimentality for truth; seeming spirituality is often used for leading away from the use of the written word and reliance on its teaching. This ought to cause those who value the truth of God to be the more definite in their testimony; even though they may be sure that their statements will be misrepresented, their doctrines misstated, and they themselves regarded as unspiritual; and that, too, by true believers (in many cases), who have so accepted ethereal fancies that facts revealed by the Holy Ghost seem to them unspiritual.

A time has come in which men will not endure sound doctrine, and those who maintain it need that their souls in the midst of opposition be well stayed on the truth of God, and in the hope of His promises as He has given them. But patience of hope is now what sentimentalists specially oppose; and those who thus oppose idealize truth and Scripture, so as to leave no definite ground of apprehending revelation as from God.

Lost in Translation.

By Elon

This originally appeared in the Moriel Bulletin of August 2014.

In addition to working with Moriel, I have a number of part-time responsibilities. For example, I 'consult' on a number of translation projects, where certain specialist knowledge is required. This is necessitated by some of the problems that translators of any material into another language may encounter for example:

1. Strange idioms.
2. Odd or archaic words and constructions.
3. Specialist vocabulary.

Most people that learn another language acquire a general day-to-day vocabulary, which even if they are very fluent is an altogether different animal from translating a theological work from several centuries ago, which requires awareness of all three of the above in addition to good biblical and theological literacy and in many cases a knowledge of Old English bible translations, history, military and maritime terminology and even obscure legal terms from the 18th Century. One of the things I do here is to provide support on some translation projects that need this kind of specialist knowledge so that things don't get 'lost in translation'. A recent example of this would be a translator who had rendered 'fetch a compass' quite literally into Hebrew without being aware it was actually an allusion to the Authorised Version rendering of Acts 28:13. The problem was the mistranslation almost fit the context and would have gone unnoticed unless someone had the historical and old English bible background to recognise the error. The LORD never wastes anything so I am grateful for the childhood fascination with obscure words and their meanings, historical subjects, military and naval technology and weaponry that was a feature of my younger days and made it possible for me to assist in this work. All those hours of reading C.S. Forrester were not wasted.

1. A Response to PWMI

Only a few days ago I came across this on the website for Prophetic Witness Ministries in regard to the reprint of Dr. Paul Wilkinson's book For Zion's Sake.

This new edition comes at a time when belief in the any-moment, pretribulation Rapture of the Church is under sustained attack, and the reputation of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), the principal founder of the Plymouth Brethren and a man to whom we owe an enormous debt for recovering the truth of the Rapture, has been scurrilously maligned by members of the pro-Israel Church. We recommend this new edition to all who have not read the original.

The rather dramatic phrases 'sustained attack' and 'scurrilously maligned' are almost certainly connected with previous comments made here, and with Moriel's stance concerning John Nelson Darby and the Pre-tribulational Rapture Theory. Jacob may well be addressing some of these issues in his eagerly awaited upcoming book Harpazo, but at this point I would like to make a few comments from my own perspective, on the PWMI statement. Please note, that I have no issue with Dr. Wilkinson personally and hold only the greatest respect for him as a godly man of sterling character, whose work in addressing the demonic deceptions behind Christ at the Checkpoint and Christianised Palestinianism has been of the highest quality. Long may he continue to serve God in the faithful way he has done. My concerns here are purely doctrinal.

Firstly John Nelson Darby did not 'recover the truth of the Rapture'. He redefined it. This word recovery is one of the those instances where a 'compass has been fetched'; the Rapture has never been lost. It has only been lost in translation as the terminology has been hijacked to apply to something other than the biblical concept. It has been always part and parcel of the Second Coming of Christ. Historically speaking, anyone who had an orthodox, scriptural belief in the Second Coming, and held to a literal hermeneutic would have understood that the Rapture would occur when Jesus returned in manifest glory such that every eye should see Him, that He would gather His elect unto Himself and that said return was preceded by certain events clearly foretold in numerous places throughout Scripture. The problem that existed before the revival of interest in prophetic matters (to which Darby connected himself) in the early part of the 19th Century, was that the doctrine of the Second Coming had become shrouded in the gross darkness arising from the hermeneutical deficiencies of the Reformers (namely Augustinian a-millennialism) and the bewitching fog of Post-Millennialism. These two errors rode on the back of rampant Replacementism. At the great swelling of evangelistic endeavour that opened that Century, when attention began to be turned towards the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then light began to burst forth from the Scriptures, and the doctrines regarding the Return of Christ began to reassume their true importance.

It was not the Pretribulational Rapture that was recovered at the beginning of the 19th Century, but the pre-Millennial truth of the Second (and eminently visible) Coming of Christ at which event the saints would be caught up (raptured) to meet the Lord in the air. What men like Darby, (and also Trotter and Kelly) etc. promulgated was something altogether different. They introduced another 'secret' coming of Jesus unpreceded by any signs; so when the author of the PWMI article above talks of 'the Rapture being under attack', we must understand that it is the re-defined Rapture of the 19th Century Darbyite distortions that is referred to, and not the biblical event of which the Scriptures speak. One is a doctrine that can be exegetically and inductively acquired from the plain and unambiguous statements of Scripture; the other an erroneous innovation enjoying no clear contextual support and bereft of foundation in sound hermeneutical method; existing only (as even its foremost proponents admit) by virtue of allegorisation and inference, and I might add, redefinition, perversion and distortion of Scripture and scriptural terminology to boot.

One particularly worrying example of redefinition, which is actually contained within For Zion's Sake¹ (and I assume within the reprint, if as is advertised, the wording remains unchanged) is the claim;--currently being promoted by the Pretrib Research Centre of Thomas Ice;--that the Greek word apostasia in 2 Thess.2:3 actually means a departure not from the faith, but to heaven in the Rapture. This extremely serious error first appeared in the late 1890's and gained little credence on the whole; sadly it seems to be enjoying a revival through the aiding and abetting of Thomas Ice, Wayne House and others, from where I assume Dr Wilkinson has acquired and it, and surely by some oversight failed to examine it thoroughly, or he would never have allowed it into print. I was disturbed to see this dangerous error uncritically inserted in For Zion's Sake, and grieved that his name should be associated with such nonsense. Space does not permit a full refutation here, but we have material revealing its utterly baseless character, both on lexical and exegetical grounds; and on how apostasia was understood in Early English translations of the Bible. Anyone who wishes to obtain it please e-mail Moriel.

As to Darby's character, godly men of the 19th Century that had the misfortune to have dealings with him were far less inclined to canonise or hagiographise him. What I and others have stated is far less stinging than Darby's contemporaries, who were closer to the problem and the saw the fallout of his 'ministry'. Authors of the period were also deeply concerned about the doctrines of 'the Darbyites', and indeed eschatological error was not the only disquieting issue at the time; concerns were expressed about the Darbyite view of Jesus's humanity, the Atonement, Socinian teachings within the movement and its anti-nomianism to name but a few. It is interesting to note that a godly man like Charles Spurgeon held little quarrel with the Open Brethren on the whole², but reserved very strong censure indeed for Darby and his adherents. They were referred to by him and others in terms such as 'sanctimonious', 'hypocrisy', 'subtlety never equalled', 'duplicitous', 'Jesuitical'; and Spurgeon went so far as to call Darbyism a 'malignant power'. Such expressions are not used lightly or causelessly. Whatever the Brethren movement is today, the fact is that in the 19th Century (as even members of it have attested) it was fraught with internal strife and bitter feuding, and was deeply problematic, and this woeful state of affairs was in no small measure due to Darby's influence.

However ultimately the real problem we have with Darby is false doctrine. Non-Darbyite Brethren leaders like George Muller and Benjamin Wills-Newton, and foremost biblical scholar Samuel Tregelles, in their time expressed their grave reservations over the serious errors of Darby's eschatology and his hermeneutical methodology and it's consequences. These concerns have not gone away. For those who want to understand the concerns expressed, and on what biblical grounds they based those concerns, there is great profit in perusing their writings. Many of B.W. Newton's works are freely available on the Internet from archive.org (which has a treasure trove of useful theological works) freely available in PDF format or as plain text. There are some problems with the OCR'd texts because of inaccuracies in the character recognition so it is best to download the PDF's as well as the plain text formats. As a side project I am presently in the process of re-typesetting some of Newton's more important eschatological works into more accurate and useful searchable digital texts to be made freely available to whoever asks. Please e-mail Moriel if you are interested.

Footnotes

1. Page. 31 in my edition.

2. “This party differs as much from the Darbyites as the day from the night. We do not admire their peculiarities, but they are usually a fraternal, evangelistic race, with whom communion is not difficult, for their spirit is far removed from the ferocity of Darbyism.”

Lessons From The House Of Mourning

This first appeared in the Moriel Bulletin July 2013

LORD, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is; that I may know how frail I am. Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah. Surely every man walketh in a vain shew: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them. (Psalm 39:4-6).

Nowadays I find visiting Europe rather dispiriting. It is not merely the lack on sunlight or the grey skies, but that my country of origin has changed out of all recognition. Being in a land where the light of the Gospel is unknown is one thing, being in a land that has had that light, rejected it and is actively trying to snuff out any remaining trace of it is much worse.

However over the last quarter of the year I spent a month in Europe; -our annual visit plus a second trip, as my mother who suffers from Parkinson's disease had a health emergency. I have seen this disease and a stroke reduce my mother who had a very acute mind, to frail old lady with her cognitive abilities and mobility greatly reduced, My father also is much less active than he used to be, and finds it hard to cope when my brother (who has taken the main burden of care for them) is absent. It is distressing to see one's beloved parents suffering, so this adds to the air of European gloom.

While on my second trip, I visited two of my father's friends with him. One until fairly recently hale and hearty and a keen hiker, still doing long distances of 20 miles well into his 80's, but now frailty and old age have seized firm upon him. The other, once a big powerful man, struck by a rare from of leukaemia and hardly able to breathe when I saw him, faded away rapidly and died after I returned here, at only 65 years old. These visits too were distressing.

Also during this trip, the mother of my closest friend (who was my prayer partner many years ago, and also best man at our wedding) called to tell me that my friend had died suddenly from a massive heart attack; brought on by an undiagnosed hereditary heart defect. He was only 49. That same night I rang some dear friends (a mother and daughter who attended the same prayer group in my young days), to ask when I could call, only to have the daughter inform me that her mother was in nursing care and on morphine in the last stages of cancer. The mother died the next day, aged 91.

On all these accounts I cannot say that my second visit was a cheerful one, but nevertheless I perceived there was a lesson from the LORD in all this. Scripture reveals there is a wisdom to be gained from the presence of frailty and death.

It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.  Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. or as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.(Ecclesiastes 7:2-6).

For the unsaved there is a palpable fear of talking about death. Anything is done to avoid the subject. I have seen with my own eyes people walk into a room, in which someone lies mortally ill and only breathing with the aid of a respirator, and chirp up “How are you today?”, the afflicted will gasp between gulps of oxygen “Oh, I'm all right”, and after that the visitors avoid eye contact with the dying one do not comment on his approaching demise and every effort is made to keep the subject on the weather, until the visit is over.

Of course for those who belong to Christ, there is no sting in death. No need to try and desperately keep it at bay when it knocks on the door or avoid the subject in conversation. My friend of 91, knowing that her end was drawing near, was praying for the Lord to take her as soon as possible and asked her daughter to pray for the same thing. She was running to be with the Lord she had served for 30 years or more.

Remembering Our Great Interest

This is what the Puritans called that which is our inheritance and possession in Christ, the “so great a salvation” and all the benefits and blessings which are ours in Him. It is the blessed hope of the wonderful blissfulness of being forever in the presence of Him who is the fountain of life and fulness of our joys; He who is utter goodness, love, light and holiness.

The unsaved have none of this. For my father's friends (who did not know the Lord), death and what might lie beyond it is an unmentionable horror. In contrast, during my conversations with the family of my believing friends who recently passed, there was none of that, grief yes, a sense of bereavement yes., but overshadowed by a bright joy that these saints had stepped into their Saviour's presence for ever, and we are separated but for a season.

The house of mourning should remind us of our Great Interest I felt greatly stirred to make it a practice of thinking on these things much more often than I previously had.

Redeeming The Time

See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,  Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.  Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17).

The sudden and unexpected death of my dear friend, came as a shock to me. It brought home to me afresh that any one of us could be taken suddenly. We should not live as those careless with our time, we should be aware that our days are finite at best and could even be cut short. (this is particularly so in Israel with its defective traffic system and appalling driving, which result in an increased statistical likelihood of entering the next world prematurely).

In discourse while walking along the beach, Hadas and I were remarking that naturally speaking 2/3's of our lives had already passed. Our time is running out! The wisdom of the house of mourning should also spur us to daily walking in greater faithfulness to the LORD, keeping closer to Him and being like the good and faithful servant and investing our talents wisely. Not out of a sense of craven fear of punishment, but simply because we want to love Jesus, please Him, and grow more into His likeness. This life is the only one that we have in which to do that. It is our only opportunity to develop fruit, mature in character and give ourselves to the Lord's work before we enter the eternal state. May God grant us all the strength to live fully for Him one day at a time, till our race is run.

For ourselves one practical outcome of this wisdom of the mourning house, has been a greater engagement with intercessory prayer as a major part of our ministry. It has stirred up Hadas and myself to invest much more time in praying together for the salvation of the lost, and the up-building of the Body here than we have ever before. And more than ever praying and seeking the LORD's will for the way ahead; both for ourselves and for those other ministries and works here in the Galilee area, for growth and maturity and for repentance, reconciliation and repair where things are broken or deficient, because a lot of things in our area are broken or malfunctioning in the Body.

My mother is fond of saying “there are no pockets in shrouds”. None of our earthly substance will accompany us, naught can we carry there but the pure gold of a Christlike character forged in us by the Holy Spirit, and those good works which are wrought through us by the Spirit and grace of God will be a crown upon our head to cast before our wonderful Saviour as we give Him all the praise and glory. All else will perish. This is the gold we are praying for and want to see in our own lives and those in the Body around us, and indeed we have an exemplar to follow:

Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. (Colossians 4:12).

Wishful thinking and Zech 12-14.

This originally appeared in the Moriel Bulletin of July 2014

Some time ago, I had conversations with a number of Israel supporters, and we were discussing the prophecies contained in these chapters, particularly this one:

And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.  And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, Jehovah is my God.

Though I do not remember the context or topic of the original conversations, what was interesting about these them was the response when asked about the above Scripture.

The first was "Oh no I don't believe in that. The LORD wouldn't do that." The second, "Oh, that refers to the Holocaust or the events of 70A.D. the Jewish people have suffered enough already, it can't literally mean that."

Now both these individuals with whom I spoke are passionate advocates for Israel, both love the Word of God, the Jewish people and the Lord deeply, but I do not believe their responses were biblically informed.

You may remember when Jesus began to speak of His future suffering and death:

"From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee! But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men."

These people were doing exactly the same thing. One was a purely emotional response, and the other tried to justify his position by taking refuge in a form of preterism or historicism. The problem with both of their approaches to this text, is that were conditioned not from biblical considerations, but by emotional ones. If I had to give this a label perhaps it could be called carnal sentimentality, or fleshly wishful thinking.

Zech. 12-14 in context.

Contextually Zech. 13. is set against the backdrop of the Day of the LORD. It is abundantly clear that the context is eschatological, referring to the end of this age. Secondly the LORD is not decreeing that 2/3 of the population die, but predicting it, He does not take pleasure in it. Thirdly it is the very fact that this awful catastrophe is heading our way, that should drive the proclamation of Gospel witness to Israel to get ready because the Day of the LORD approaches (see Joel). Fourthly Scripture indicates that, at least in the first half of the 70th week of Daniel, the nadir of Israel's national apostasy and rebellion will have been reached, as she makes a covenant with the Antichrist; whose reign is actually a judgement on the nations and of Israel in particular. Nobody takes pleasure in knowing that disaster of this magnitude will eventually overtake Israel, and the terrible suffering it will bring. But Scripture records also, that this terrible crisis is exactly what will eventually bring Israel to her knees in repentance, when she sees the One that she pierced appearing to rescue her. When we look at Zech. 12-14 contextually, we see that the outpouring of the Spirit of grace and supplication in Zechariah is completely eschatological in context, and clearly refers to an event that will only happen at the LORD's return. Her national salvation will happen; "the Redeemer will come to Zion, to those who turn from transgression in Jacob", Paul relates this particular scripture to the time when "all Israel will be saved", but it only comes on the wings of suffering and catastrophe. To make soothing noises then, when the LORD is calling for the alarm trumpet to sound, is to behave like the false prophets in Jeremiah's time, even though it might be well intentioned.

The LORD has shown us these things for a purpose, that we can watch and pray, but if our minds are filled with wishful thinking, or the contra-scriptural but flesh-pleasing novelty that the LORD will not allow His Body to endure the Tribulation, in the end we will not pray with the fervency that is meet for the occasion. Events are happening very fast, and the scenery on the world stage can change very quickly; and yes, like anyone else, my flesh shrinks from the thought of suffering, but it is not beyond probability at all, that we could be the Tribulation generation, that will see the Lord's Return.

But take heed to yourselves, lest haply your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day come on you suddenly as a snare:  for so shall it come upon all them that dwell on the face of all the earth.  But watch ye at every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:34-36).

In Luke 21, contextually these verse are not speaking of escaping by avoidance, but escaping by enduring through the Tribulation until the Lord returns. This is a mindset that desperately needs restoring to us. Away with wishful thinking!

One Of Our Aircraft Is Missing.

By Elon Moreh

This is abridged from an article that originally appeared in the Moriel Bulletin of Aug. 2014.

Globally speaking I cannot remember within my own lifetime, the world being so unstable and in such a rapid state of flux. Even democratic nations that appeared bastions of stability are in turmoil within. Everyone is wondering, what next?

It is at times like these in history, that prophetic speculation runs wild. Scripture counsels us to be aware of the signs of the times, to have a weather eye open to what is happening around us. Observation and analysis of current events, and even prognosis based upon them is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. To those Jews in Austria and Germany in the 1930's who read the signs of the times and got out, it meant the difference between life and death. Where speculation becomes a problem however, is when it becomes unhinged, unanchored in scriptural reality, or it even becomes a substitute for Scripture itself.

Perishing Needlessly

I have always been interested in military history, engineering and old-technology. During WW2, there was of course no GPS as there is today. Navigation was based on Maps, Dead-Reckoning, Observations of Landmarks, Instrument Readings and Radio-Beacon Direction-Finding. When navigating over unknown or featureless terrain, in poor visibility, or electrical storms, some of these would not be available, so ability to use all of these correctly were crucial. Particularly sad are the stories of aircraft which simply disappeared through causes other than enemy action during WW2 and were found much later. Many of these aviators perished from a combination of disorientation, disbelief in what their instruments were telling them, inability to operate them properly, or disagreement with the radioed guidance from airfields who answered their distress calls. In most of these cases the tragedies were avoidable. There is a lesson we can learn from this.

Every Error Has Its Price.

Sometimes people ask, “Well does it matter what we believe about the Tribulation and the timing of the Rapture? Surely it's just an academic exercise and everything will pan out in the end, won't it?

When you are out over the Pacific heading for a small island or aircraft carrier, or flying over the Libyan desert in a sandstorm a small error quickly becomes the difference between life and death. Knowing your heading, position, and how to operate your navigational equipment properly and obeying instructions from the home airfield means the difference between life and death. We not see the full import of these things immediately, but if the Lord has taken the trouble to expressly state certain things in His word we must sit up and take notice, because at some point we are going to need it.

Losing Our Course.

I came to the Lord in 1980 when the Charismatic Renewal was going strong. Though there was much good, and many real genuine works and signs wrought by the Spirit, but there was also much error. There was a tendency to handle the Word of God in an uninformed and de-contextualised way, a seeking after signs and wonders like a child desires sweets, and a definite drift towards experiential theology and subordination of the Word of God to extra-biblical revelation. It wasn't so clear back then where these things would end, but over time these trends merged with others, like the Manifested Sons of God, Latter Rain and Word of Faith teachings. We can see now that these errors are coming together and paving the way for the Harlot Church, and people who clung to these things are being sucked in to every deeper deception. Thirty years ago, most of these people would never have thought that they would have been nodding with approval at the blasphemous babblings of Rodney Howard Browne and Kenneth Copeland or laughing at the granny-booting antics of Todd Bentley, thinking them to be of the Spirit of God, and now they can't even hear anything to the contrary. How did they get there? Well, it's just like those aircraft that wandered off course perhaps a degree or two, didn't check their instruments, didn't listen to instructions, and as time and distance passed they got out of radio range and completely lost contact with home base.

It's Going To Become Disorientating.

Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of travail.

While to some extent these have been a feature throughout Church history, I believe that Jesus is also saying that in the last 3 ½ years, the time, times and half a time, the 1260 days; these things will be especially true; the final week of Daniel, particularly its last half will be a time of tremendous spiritual deception, because Satan acting through his agents the Beast and the False Prophet will have free reign, but the end is not yet, for later on he says:

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Then [i.e. I those days of tribulation] if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

It will be like flying through very bad weather, where what we see around us becomes very disorientating, so we need to know beforehand that our navigational instruments are properly calibrated and functioning, and that we know our course. The Abomination of Desolation marks the beginning of the most tumultuous period ever in the history of this age and the most awful period of persecution the people of God will ever endure, but it is also one of the great way-points or landmarks that tell us the End is about to begin.

It is near at the very doors.

He says most unequivocally that His return will be preceded by certain visible signs. He describes His Parousia in very specific terms, because if we know clearly what it looks like we will not be misled by satanic counterfeits. You might be asking “Well how would anyone get Jesus' Return mixed up?” Well apparently it's quite possible, because the Thessalonians did, because of the influence of false teachers, and Paul had to write and correct their wrong thinking.

Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming [Gr. Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him; to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord has arrived; let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away [Gr. Apostasia] come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

It is clear from any honest reading of this text that Paul linked the gathering together unto him and the Parousia with the arrival of the Day of the LORD, which is precisely why he reassures them by telling them that the Day of the LORD has not arrived. How do we know this, says Paul,--because the man of sin has not been revealed and proclaimed himself as God in the Temple. Jesus drew our attention most specifically to this same sign that must precede His return, only He called it the Abomination of Desolation; and He very explicitly exhorted us to understand what it meant. The revelation of the Antichrist and the setting up of the Abomination, are the opening events of the 31/2 years of unprecedented tribulation of Daniel 11 and 12, but Jesus also gave us another two clear signs that would herald the end of those days and his approaching return.

But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Jesus is drawing on a number of prophecies here: the mourning of the Tribes is a clear reference to Zech. 12, (Jesus was thus associating His return in glory with the Day of the LORD) and from Joel 2:31 and Acts 2:20 we see that celestial phenomena just as Jesus described are associated with that Day. Thus God has given us a clear starting and end point for the Great Tribulation; viz. that it begins with the Abomination of Desolation and its close is followed by Jesus's return and the Day of the LORD.

At one time the navigable channel for a harbour approach was marked with buoys. At night time however, these were not visible, so on the shore were placed two lights, positioned to line up, one exactly above the other, to any inbound ships that were in the deep channel and safe. If the lights began to move out of alignment, the mariners would know they had wandered off course, and need to correct. In the same manner the events Jesus gives us to mark the beginning and end of the Tribulation are two of the great fixed points, or beacons with which all other tribulational prophetic enquiries, speculations or extrapolations must align. Scripture also provides us with another two on top of this: namely the Coming of Elijah and the Gathering of the Gentile Armies at Armageddon; both of which are explicitly said also to precede the Day of the Lord.

We can conclude from this then, all claims of that the Rapture can come "at any moment" or that Jesus will come again "in secret unpreceded by signs" are pure falsehood.

The Worst Thing We Can Do.

None of us is completely free from error, there are some things at present that we know at best in part. However, in Daniel 12 it says that knowledge [I believe he was referring to prophetic matters] would increase. This is because as time progresses and events unfold, things become revealed to us that were mysteries to those earlier in history. For example, much in the book of the Apocalypse still remains mysterious and indeed much of it reveals future miraculous exercises of divine power; however there are certain things that would have appeared as only possible by supernatural means in earlier centuries, but are now humanly possible through modern technology; such as the death of the Two Witnesses being globally visible, a cashless society, Mark of the Beast, moving images etc. So also Israel's reconstitution as a nation in unbelief is another event that opened up prophetic vistas unclear in previous centuries. Consequently we should never hold on to speculations about what is presently mysterious too tightly, but be prepared to modify them as history unfolds, or in navigation terminology, be prepared to make minor corrections in order to stay on course.

On the other hand however, those eschatological events that are clearly, specifically and exegetically revealed to us in Scripture should be clung to ever more tightly.

Most of the Christian life involves a progress in understanding and grasp of God's word and will. Many of us at some point have had deficient or erroneous notions, but as our grasp of Scripture and how to handle it grew, our wild ideas drop away, providing we are teachable and correctable. But when confronted with disharmony between our ideas and the scriptures, just about the worst thing we can do, is to start adjusting the Scripture instead of our ideas, and unfortunately this attitude is particularly prevalent in the area of eschatology. The following are three (out of many more, but space does not permit) examples of this.

Redefining the Day of the LORD.

In 1937 Alexander Reese published, “The Approaching Advent of Christ.” Before this, earlier pretribulationists put the day of the Lord at the end of the tribulation. They also put the resurrection of the OT righteous at the time of the pretribulation rapture until Reese pointed out that the Old Testament righteous do not rise until the end of the tribulation at the last day (Job 19:25-26; Isa 26:19, 20; Dan 12:1-2; Jn 6:39-40, 44,54; 11:24; 12:48). 

It is a little known fact that in reaction to the inconsistencies pointed out by Reese’s book, pretribulationists began to teach that the OT righteous would not be raised with the church at the rapture (as formerly believed), but would continue to ‘sleep in the dust of the earth’ until the ‘last day’ at the end of the tribulation (Dan 12:1-2). 

At the same time, Reese pointed out that Paul had instructed the church to be on guard for the day of the Lord (1Thes 5:2, 6-8), as also Peter exhorts believers to be always “looking for and hasting to the coming of the day of the God” (2Pet 3:12 ASV). This would hardly make sense if the church has been removed from the earth seven years before a post-tribulational day of the Lord. The force of Reese’s argument induced some of the earlier pretribulationists to rethink their placement of the day of the Lord.

After the publication of Reese’s book, pretribulationists moved the day of the Lord forward to the beginning of the seven years. The day of the Lord would now be seen as starting with the imminent, unsignaled, pretribulation rapture. In this way, both the rapture and the day of the Lord could be seen as coming suddenly, unexpectedly, and without preceding signs. 

In the years following Reese’s landmark rebuttal, pretribulationists taught that the day of the Lord should be understood to begin with the any moment rapture. This would soon change, at least in academic circles. In 1973 Robert Gundry wrote, The Church and the Great Tribulation. Gundry pointed out the simple fact that regardless of where the day of the Lord is thought to begin, if we say it starts with the rapture, then the rapture cannot be maintained as an imminent event, simply because Paul says that ‘that day’ shall not come until after the man of sin has first been revealed (2Thes 2:2-3). This is decisive, because if the rapture is held to be imminent and un-signaled, it cannot start the day of Lord, since the day of the Lord must be preceded by the revelation of the Antichrist. It is not the rapture, but the day of the Lord that comes as a thief (1Thes 5:2; 2Pet 3:10; Rev 16:15) and this cannot mean, as previously believed, that the day of Lord comes as a thief because it is imminent and un-signaled, since it is clearly preceded by the revelation of the Antichrist (2Thes 2:1-3). Gundry’s logic sent shock waves throughout the pretribulational camp, but another strategic adjustment was soon to follow. 

No longer could the day of the Lord be held to be an imminent event that starts suddenly with the rapture, or immediately after the rapture. Pretribulationists would now admit that the day of the Lord does not come on the world as thief because it is imminent, since it was now admitted that the thief like day of the Lord must be signalled by the prior identification of the Antichrist. The answer for the difficulty posed by Gundry’s argument was to propose an additional gap between the rapture and the day of the Lord in order to provide time for the Antichrist to be revealed sometime ‘after’ the imminent, un-signaled rapture, but ‘before’ the start of the day of the Lord. (Thanks to Reggie Kelly's useful paper, The Rapture Question Decisively Answered by the Timing of the Day of the Lord by for the above extended quote.)

Redefining the Apostasy of 2 Thess. 2 to equate it with the Rapture. (First appeared late 1890's, and recently disinterred.)

Some of the more recent attempts to market this idea were partly based on the rendering of the Greek word apostasia as 'departing' instead of 'falling away' in early English Bible translations such as Tyndale & Geneva; the Pretrib presupposition being, that these English translators understood it as a spatial departure, i.e. the Rapture. A simple reading of Tyndale's prologue to 2nd Thessalonians, or the Geneva Bible margin notes would have disabused them of this notion. For example:

“In the second [chapter] he sheweth that the last day should not come till there were first a departing (as some men think) from under the obedience of the Emperor of Rome and that Antichrist should set himself up in the same place as God...” (From Prologue to 2 Thess. Tyndale's 1534 Edition).

"A wonderful departinge of the moste parte from the faith." (Geneva Bible Marg. 1560 Edition).

Attempting to redefine or eliminate the clear prophetic precursors to the Day of the LORD contained in Joel 2:31:, Mal.4:5 and 2 Thess. 2:3.

There is insufficient space to deal with all of the precursors here, but to briefly comment on one of them. In a paper entitled The Day Of The LORD And Its So-called Precursors. by Stephen McAvoy of the Pretrib Research Centre, it was claimed (amongst other things) that the Hebrew construction translated "before the coming of the Day of the LORD" in Joel 2:31 (the same construction occurs in Malachi); should read, "before the completion of the Day of the LORD" (Such a rendering being necessary to support the Pretribulational contention that the Tribulation and the Day of the LORD were more or less synonymous). Not only is a compelling lexical or contextual reason for such a change lacking in the Hebrew, but the originators of this novelty overlooked that Joel 2:31 is quoted in Acts. 2:20, with the clear and undisputed meaning of "before the Day of the LORD comes."

Why All The Adjustments?

These 'adjustments' (which I have only briefly touched on and omitted much detail for brevity's sake) arose as a response to, well-founded objections that the 2nd Coming of Jesus and the Rapture of the saints were closely associated with the Day of the LORD which was clearly preceded by certain prophetic precursors. However instead of repentance and recantation of error, there arose a desperate scrabbling and intensified spin of contextually evacuated verses, faux hermeneutics, redefinition, revisionism and misrepresentation of historical sources to bend and distort scriptures and biblical terminologies to accommodate the "Theory". This kind of feverish theological plate-spinning is the inevitable consequence of trying to defend an eschatological viewpoint that is solely based on inference and not exegesis. Irving and Darby's original basis for a Pretrib Rapture was on a typological application of the Man Child in Rev. 12. The fact that Pretrib advocates don't use this (preferring a de-contextualised Rev. 3:10 instead) as their basis nowadays is very illumining. If something is exegetically based, and revealed by the Spirit of God, then that doctrine and the interpretation of the text underlying it will stand the test of time and there will be no need for "economies with the truth" and theological propaganda to prop it up. The fact that the cardinal doctrines of the faith are supported on the same standard scripture texts that they have been since the days of the Early Church Fathers is very telling. These doctrines can be demonstrated exegetically as logical conclusions from the texts on which they are based; consequently these cardinal doctrines are part of the "deposit of faith". To accept a doctrine based only on inference however, is to lower the evidential standard for what is acceptable as part of that deposit. When we start do to this, the gap between the faith once delivered to the saints, and what we accept as orthodoxy will ever increasingly widen, as it did with Romanism. It is the navigational equivalent of throwing out the map and compass and trying to fly our way through the storm using "Hello" magazine and a kiddies plastic torch. It's time to get our instruments checked! Happy Flying.