The Future History of the Church

Stumbled across this over the past week, and thought I'd share it with you all. Every now and then, I read something that screams "Amen" on the inside of me, and I feel like I would have written it, if only I had the articulation of the author. Hell's Best Kept Secret by Ray Comfort, and Spirit of Truth by Art Katz, are two notable examples of this.Also it touches on a variety of issues that we have dealt with lately. It is pretty long, so I'll post in installments, as the Holy Spirit directs.Enjoy.*Edit* I must warn that this may mess with some heads a bit, but please bare with me, this is going somewhere beatuiful.:-)

The Future History of the Churchby James Jacob PraschEveryone wants to know the future. For this reason, people will go to fortune-tellers, the occult, and all kinds of other sources to try to discover it. Jesus, however, told us the future. Before I was a believer, I used to go to a witch who read my tarot cards; she was quite skilled at it, and one day she saw in the cards that I was going to become a follower of Jesus. When she saw it, she began saying "Don't come back and burn me when this happens; it's going to happen, but don't come back and burn me". She was quite accurate. The occult can often be very accurate in its predictions of the future. However, Deuteronomy 18 says that 'quite accurate' is not good enough; a true prophet must be exactly right every time. I see many people today who claim to be prophets and build prophetic ministries around themselves, yet they make outlandish predictions that fail to happen. When this occurs, people defend the false prophet by saying that he is 'usually right'. That may be so, but the witch in New Jersey who used to read my tarot cards was also usually right. Deuteronomy 18 is very clear: if you speak a word in the name of the Lord, it had better happen or you are a false prophet. This is dangerous; people are better off keeping these 'prophecies' in their mouths rather than speaking them when they're not of God. We should never suppress the Holy Spirit, but if a word is truly from the Holy Spirit it will surely happen. There was an occasion where I witnessed a true prophet: About 40 people were in a room in Mount Carmel, Israel, with this man who came from the Soviet Union (as it was called then). There were no diplomatic relations or direct air flights between Israel and the Soviet Union in those days; he had to fly via Europe. He flew into Tel Aviv, where someone picked him up at Ben Gurion Airport and brought him up to Galilee. He began speaking in English, making prophesies and predictions. When I heard what he was saying, I decided that either this man was a true prophet or not only was he a false prophet, but he was also out of his mind. This gentleman wrote a book, and in it he told of taking the Lord's Supper in Red Square. He said that the Lord told them to throw the communion cup into the Moscow River, after which they stood in Red Square and predicted that God would do to the Soviet Empire what He did to Egypt, because their government was persecuting the church and refusing to allow Jews to immigrate to Israel; they proclaimed "'Let My people go', and 'Let My Gospel be preached', or God will destroy your empire. We proclaim a curse on your land - God is going to curse your land." Immediately after that, Chernobyl happened, and they had the worst harvest of all the bad harvests they'd had. These Christians also said, "God is going to destroy the Soviet war machine"; right after that, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Next these believers turned around to face the Tomb of Lenin, in which Lenin was kept permanently embalmed and on display, and they said "This is the spirit of death; God is going to destroy the spirit of Lenin-worship." There were about eleven factories in the Soviet Union that manufactured nothing but statues and busts of Lenin; every one of them closed, and on the evening news we saw all these busts and statues with their heads cut off. The believers then turned around to the Kremlin and said, "God is going to destroy your empire; the Soviet Union will collapse, and no one will be able to believe how fast God will judge it. 'Let My people go, and let My Gospel be preached'!" To say these things in 1984 or 1985 would have been unfathomable, totally unthinkable. You would either have to really be hearing from God or crazy. These were outrageous things to say, but they all happened. I have never met that brother since, and I never even read his book, but I know what he said and I saw it happen right in front of me. After that I came to Britain to go to Bible College, and I saw some people from Kansas City and California, calling themselves the Kansas City Prophets and the Vineyard. They came before tens of thousands of people and predicted a great revival and a great Latter-Day Rain was going to come to the United Kingdom in October of 1990. In the years since the 'great revival', more mosques have been built in England than churches. Deuteronomy 18 says that a false prophet is a neve sheqer; we don't stone them to death any more, but the sin is no less serious. Jeremiah 5 and 28 make it very clear what false prophets are, and Jesus said they would come during the Last Days. One of the biggest mistakes born-again Christians make is this: when we read the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, where Jesus repeats Himself four times regarding false teachers and false prophets in the Last Days, most of us automatically say, "That's the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Moonies, the Mormons, the Hare Krishnas, Christian Science, etc." While there is no doubt that these people are false prophets and false teachers, and also no doubt that the proliferation of these cults over the past 100 years is in itself a sign of the Last Days and certainly emblematic of the time we live in, if you read the context of Matthew 24, Luke 21, Acts 20, and Matthew 7, those were not the false prophets and false teachers that Jesus and the Apostles were warning about. The ones they warned about are the ones that deceive the elect. The unsaved are already deceived by the devil; he is out to deceive two kinds of people: the nation of Israel and the Bible-believing church. The nation of Israel is under a spiritual darkness. We see their signs in many places, including Jerusalem, Stamford Hill in London and Crown Heights in Brooklyn, saying "We want the Mashiach now!" Jesus gave a double prediction in John's Gospel that the Jews would believe another who came in His name, though they did not believe Him. This was fulfilled in the early church's time by Simon bar Kochba, but it is certainly also a symbol of the Antichrist, who will deceive the Jewish people into thinking that he is their Messiah. The Jews are being set up for this. So we see that the devil has the world deceived and the Jews deceived; who is he out to deceive now? You and me. Read Matthew 7, Acts 20, Matthew 24, and Luke 21. The false teachers and false prophets that we are warned about in these passages are the ones who get into the church to deceive the elect. I am very concerned about cults such as the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, because if born-again Christians were as zealous for the truth as the cults are for their lies, a lot more people would be getting saved rather than joining these cults. The fact that they are so zealous for a lie while the Bible-believing church sits around is in character with the church of Laodicea. It shows what has become of the church in the West. Nonetheless, very few Christians get sucked into the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. If you see a Christian who does, he is either a brand-new believer whom they sheep-napped, or he is a very weak, awkward believer to begin with. Those are not the false prophets with whom we must be primarily concerned, though we are responsible to warn the unsaved about them. The ones we have to worry about are the ones coming into the church. Spiritual deception increases in the Last Days. (To be continued...)

There is a Biblical principle understood from a Jewish perspective called Qol veh Homer, which in English means 'light to heavy'. It is the first of the Migdoth of Rabbi Hillel, who was Rabbi Gamaliel's grandfather. Rabbi Gamaliel was tutor to the Apostle Paul when Paul became a rabbi. Rabbi Hillel had seven Migdoth, or principles, of interpreting Scripture. The New Testament uses these repeatedly. Ool veh Homer, or light to heavy, is again the first of these. One example of it is in Hebrews 10:25: ". . . not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." Something that is true in a light situation becomes especially true in a heavy situation. In this passage we are dealing specifically with the subject of fellowship: fellowship is always important, but in the Last Days it becomes especially important. If we cannot stand together, we'll never be able to stand-alone when persecution comes. Another example of 'light to heavy' concerning the Last Days is false prophets and teachers. They've always been around - that's the 'light'; but in the Last Days, they multiply - that's the 'heavy'. Things that are always true become especially true in the Last Days, and things that are always dangerous to the church become even more so during the Last Days. Jewish people in the time of Jesus did not interpret Scripture the way we do. Jesus was a rabbi who taught the same way other rabbis did; He used Midrash. He also used something called the mashla and the nimshal format. The mashal is a description of something from everyday life, from nature, and the nimshal is the spiritual meaning in back of it. The book of Proverbs is called in Hebrew Mishla, the book of mashlas. For example, Proverbs 11:22: "As a ring of gold in a swine's snout," - that is the mashla - " so is a lovely woman who lacks discretion." - that is the nimshla. A parable is simply an elongated mashla. Our Western concepts of allegory and typology are basically Western repackaging. We need to understand the way Jews thought about the Bible, because in Daniel 12:9 it says this: "Seal these things up until the time of the end." When you see people who write books about Revelation and claim to have it all figured out, be careful. We're told directly in Daniel that these things are sealed. There is no new truth, and no new revelation; however, in the Last Days the Holy Spirit will give understanding to God's people regarding the deeper things of Scripture. We will have no new doctrine, no new truth, and no new revelation, but we will have a deeper and clearer understanding of what is already in Scripture. What liberals do is try to interpret the Bible out of its Sitz im leben, its cultural context. Evangelicals do the same thing, because we use Greek methods of hermeneutics and exegesis to try to understand a Jewish book. There is a lot more that could be said about this subject, but concerning the Last Days I'll simply give you the most important aspect: Western Protestant exegesis interprets prophecy in one of four different ways: Preterism, Historicism, Polemicism, or Futurism. Liberals love preterism; they say, "There is no God, and even if there was He wouldn't know the future, and even if He did He certainly wouldn't tell Isaiah." Therefore, in their minds when Isaiah predicts events concerning King Cyrus 200 years before their occurrence, it proves automatically - prima fasci - that Isaiah actually wrote it after the fact, or rather that the book of Isaiah was not written by Isaiah but by someone after the Captivity. Their basis for this is that Isaiah could not possibly have known about King Cyrus 200 years ahead of time. This is an ex-Vaticina interpolation, if you like theological terms. Liberals cannot believe in a supernatural knowledge of the future, so they embrace Preterism. The second, Historicism, is what Kingdom-Now people prefer. The Reformers were also greatly inclined toward this view. Historicism says, "The eschatological prophecies of the New Testament were completely fulfilled in the early church." The early church identified Rome with Babylon; when Peter closes his first epistle he says, "She who is in Babylon greets you." False religion begins in Babylon with Nimrod, finds its way through Asia Minor (particularly the city of Pergamum), and from there, into Greco-Roman civilization. From there it comes into things such as Roman Catholicism, Freemasonry, etc.; however, the root of it all is in Babylon: the false religious system of the world in confederation with the corrupt political system. The Babylonians destroyed the first Temple on Tisha ba'v, roughly the 9th of August on the Hebrew calendar. Under what were nearly identical military circumstances, Rome destroyed the second Temple on the same date, Tisha ba'v. Therefore the early Christians began identifying Rome with Babylon; it is the same false religion. The example I generally use to explain this is Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard is the name of an alleyway between two buildings running from Whitehall to Victoria Embankment in London; it was the original headquarters of the metropolitan police. Now, unlike in the days of Sherlock Holmes, the metropolitan police are located a half-mile away on Victoria St. However, their headquarters is still called Scotland Yard, although it is no longer located on that little street off of Whitehall. In other words, the name of the institution has taken the name of its original location. With Babylon it is the same idea. Therefore, in the book of Revelation, when the early church saw the woman on seven hills, representing the Capitolina, since the woman is a city, it would have been Rome to them. Therefore, when Rome burned under Nero, it fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah that predicted the fall of Babylon. This is the way the early Christians thought. When Mount Vesuvius exploded, volcanic ash accumulated in the ionosphere and the upper stratosphere, thus preventing solar and lunar radiation from giving their light over much of the Roman Empire. This actually does happen; I believe the last time it happened was in Iceland during the 1960's. Next, in roughly 70 AD, the Temple is destroyed and the Romans set up pagan images and worshiped them on the Temple Mount; the Christians of the day believed that was the Abomination of Desolations, ha shikutz ha meshomen. Thus these things have been fulfilled; that view is called Historicism. The Protestant Reformers loved Historicism, because they said that it was the Roman Empire, Imperial Rome, which stopped the medieval papacy from blossoming. After Constantine moved his capitol to Constantinople and the Visigoths moved in, then Rome blossomed. When Scripture says that 'He who restrains them will be taken out of the way', they interpreted that as Imperial Rome restraining Papal Rome and then being taken out of the way. This is why the Kingdom-Now proponents say that the 'Last Days' only refers to the events leading up to 70 AD, usually denying any future meaning to the book of Revelation and so on. The third way of interpreting prophecy is Polemicism. Polemicism says: "The book of Revelation is only given to encourage Christians during times of persecution. It reminds them of the glory to come and the judgment of their persecutors, and is thus designed to encourage them. This is a true point: Revelation opens by stating that there is a blessing on anyone who reads it, and apocalyptic literature will certainly always encourage a persecuted church. That is part of its purpose, but not in entirety. The fourth method of interpreting prophecy is Futurism, which states that these things are going to happen in the Last Days. To a Western Gentile mind, using Protestant hermeneutics which are Hellenistic in orientation for reasons I cannot go into here, one of these four methods is the true one. The question is concerning which one you support: are you a Preterist, a Historicist, a Polemicist, or a Futurist? A Jew in the first century, however, would have been all four simultaneously, as Jesus was Himself. In Matthew 24:15-33 Jesus says that when you see the Abomination of Desolations spoken of by the prophet Daniel, then you will know the End is near. The problem is that the Abomination of Desolations spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24 and in Luke 21, the Olivet Discourse had already happened before He mentioned it. Jesus celebrated Hanukah in John 10, the Feast of Dedication. He knew all about Antiochus Epiphanes setting up the image in the Temple, the pigs being slaughtered in the Temple, and the Temple being reconsecrated by the Maccabees. The Abomination of Desolations prophesied by Daniel had already happened during the intertestamental period, but Jesus took that event and prophesied that it would happen again. Jesus used Preterism: He took a past event and spoke about it in the future tense. Then there is Historicism: Once again, look at the Abomination of Desolations as prophesied by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. When you read Josephus and discover how the Romans destroyed the Temple and set up pagan ensigns on the Temple Mount and worshiped them, you see that it was an Abomination of Desolations. Then, in the second century, the Emperor Hadrian built a city called the Aerolinas Capitolina, putting a temple of Jupiter on the Temple Mount. Yet another Abomination of Desolations. Julian the Apostate, the nephew of Constantine who tried to re-paganize the Roman Empire, tried to rebuild the Temple, and all these mysterious fires broke out on the Temple Mount; another Abomination of Desolations. Today on the Temple Mount, we have the Mosque of Omar, the Dome of the Rock. On the outside of it, around its periphery, is inscribed a quotation from a surah in the Koran, which is translated: "God has no son". That is still another Abomination of Desolations. Yet there is still an Abomination of Desolations to come. All of these preceding ones typify the one that is coming. The point is this: Western ideas of prophecy involve prediction and fulfillment. The Hebrew idea of prophecy is a pattern that is recapitulated; multiple fulfillments with one ultimate fulfillment - that is how Jewish prophecy was understood. Each of the multiple fulfillments is a type of and teaches something about the ultimate one. (to be continued...)

Aaron, good night!Much to think on here, but goodness, first impressions...Every now and then, I read something that screams "Amen" on the inside of me,Amen and amen!I see many people today who claim to be prophets and build prophetic ministries around themselves, yet they make outlandish predictions that fail to happen. When this occurs, people defend the false prophet by saying that he is 'usually right'. That may be so, but the witch in New Jersey who used to read my tarot cards was also usually right. Deuteronomy 18 is very clear: if you speak a word in the name of the Lord, it had better happen or you are a false prophet. This is dangerous; people are better off keeping these 'prophecies' in their mouths rather than speaking them when they're not of God. We should never suppress the Holy Spirit, but if a word is truly from the Holy Spirit it will surely happen.Bullseye.There is no new truth, and no new revelation; however, in the Last Days the Holy Spirit will give understanding to God's people regarding the deeper things of Scripture. We will have no new doctrine, no new truth, and no new revelation, but we will have a deeper and clearer understanding of what is already in Scripture. What liberals do is try to interpret the Bible out of its Sitz im leben, its cultural context. Evangelicals do the same thing, because we use Greek methods of hermeneutics and exegesis to try to understand a Jewish book. There is a lot more that could be said about this subject, but concerning the Last Days I'll simply give you the most important aspect: Liberals love preterism; they say, "There is no God, and even if there was He wouldn't know the future, and even if He did He certainly wouldn't tell Isaiah." Have just written out a whole bit after reading Romans this morning, regarding "What an Honest Atheist Believes", bit unsure what to do with it, the last couple of days being almost a taste of being left alone to wander, not overtly or 'in sin' but recognizing that it is walking in the flesh, detached somewhat..."choose", to trust and wait or to depend on my 'own' worthless resources.Sorry for the digression here...The point is this: Western ideas of prophecy involve prediction and fulfillment. The Hebrew idea of prophecy is a pattern that is recapitulated; multiple fulfillments with one ultimate fulfillment - that is how Jewish prophecy was understood. Each of the multiple fulfillments is a type of and teaches something about the ultimate one. One of the biggest mistakes born-again Christians make is this: when we read the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, where Jesus repeats Himself four times regarding false teachers and false prophets in the Last Days, most of us automatically say, "That's the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Moonies, the Mormons, the Hare Krishnas, Christian Science, etc." While there is no doubt that these people are false prophets and false teachers, and also no doubt that the proliferation of these cults over the past 100 years is in itself a sign of the Last Days and certainly emblematic of the time we live in, if you read the context of Matthew 24, Luke 21, Acts 20, and Matthew 7, those were not the false prophets and false teachers that Jesus and the Apostles were warning about. The ones they warned about are the ones that deceive the elect."within your own ranks" the seeming implication, the former being just to obvious.Also from 'light to heavy' and especially this:A Jew in the first century, however, would have been all four simultaneously, as Jesus was Himself. This is likely an expression of what I haven't been able to get my mind wrapped around all the way. This seriously confirms my truest suspicion....just to hear it...This is just phenomenal Aaron, easily could have ended up reprinting the whole thing in outtakes. Forgive my interruption, but going back to those same first thought's;Every now and then, I read something that screams "Amen" on the inside of mewow...

James Prasch wrote:Yet there is still an Abomination of Desolations to come. All of these preceding ones typify the one that is coming. The point is this: Western ideas of prophecy involve prediction and fulfillment. The Hebrew idea of prophecy is a pattern that is recapitulated; multiple fulfillments with one ultimate fulfillment - that is how Jewish prophecy was understood. Each of the multiple fulfillments is a type of and teaches something about the ultimate one"The Hebrew idea of prophecy is a pattern that is recaptiulated; multiple fulfillments with one ultimate fulfillments-that is how Jewish prophecy was understood." I believe this to be a very accurate statement of the underlying precepts of Scripture. Thankyou Aaron for finding this article. I look forward and backward into reading the entire article as you post it. In ChristJeff

If anyone is wondering why I am posting this, and why in parts, and what has this got to do this Greg's intentions for this site, I thought I'd answer these questions.I'm incredibly humbled by people who somehow, intrinsically have a handle of God, that He protects them from deception (I'm married to one:-)), when people like me, need to be constantly vigilant in the pursuit of God, just to keep our heads above water. I came here around 14 monthes ago, totally dejected, and ready to give up on God. Like many, I downloaded some sermons, and read a few sermons, and then was stung by the urge to comment. I'd been a christian, who was saved right as the "(un)holy laughter" thing was in flight, and swallowed up every deceptive thing that came along, until some glaring fault appeared, which would make me question (like Paul Schell inviting the Serbian Orthodox Bishop to his conference, beacuse his line of apolostolic succession was from St. Thomas, who put his hand into the side of Christ, thereby midwifing the birth of the church).I put up with Rodney, Kenneth(s), Jesse, Rick, Ruckins, etc, etc, exusing their "minor problems" by explaining them away as being misunderstood, or mispronounced. I'd run to get words from "prophets" (even was a false prophet myself), but was becoming more and more disatisfied with all the unfullfilled "words", the inconsistant lifestyles, and the ignorance of "difficult" passages.Even my early days here began with my asking "What do you think about (insert dodgy preacher here)?", in order to run to there defence, by saying, "Oh, their not that bad, if you look at it like..." Now 14 months later, I've become the kind of guy who I would have avoided 14 monthes ago.What does this have to do with the above questions? Well essentially, I came here looking for revival, expecting stuff about prayer, fasting, repentance, and "hell-fire" preaching, but what I got was, church history, grace, and Israel. I came here looking for Ravenhill, Tzoer and Wilkerson, and ended up getting Orr, Katz, and Daniel. Yeah, there was alot of the former stuff as well, but the later stuff led me to a brokeness that made me pray, fast, repent, and preach uncompromisingly. But above all, it led to brokeness.What I offer you brethren (and sistren:-P) is my journey in one article. This journey is leading to my revival. Granted, I'm only yawning so far, but that is alot better than snoring. Why in parts? Because its LONG. In my experience, long articles tend to get overlooked for short ones, and even then, only the last couple of posts are read (or am I the only one who does that:oops:). It may take months to get the whole thing up, but I'd rather know that people get at least part of this, because it'll change the way you distinguish all the camps that we've divided ourselves into, and will help us to appreciate the fact that we're in the end times (without categorically defining the meaning of this).In Finney's day, revival was stopped over the prefered meathod of baptism. Finney's answer to this was to get the Prespytarians and the Baptists together, and give both meathods a fair hearing. I have know idea what he actually preached (there's a challenge for you RobertW;-)), but I personally believe that he emphasised the meaning over the meathod, the being the leaving of the old life behind (but being that he was Prespytarian, I could be wrong). We've had so much speculation about Roman Catholics, the Antichrist, the Rapture, Prophets and Prophecy lately and everyone has their opinions (myself included). What I offer, is a guy who's giving a map to figuring it all out as it's happening, as opposed to speculating what will happen. Rather that saying, this the right viewpoint, he's saying, "Their all right, but not all the time."Anyway, just thought I'd put in my 2 cents. Already had criticsm when I sent Part 1 (original comes in 2 parts) to my mailing list, so I know that this needs to be examined, and what better place than here.

Let me continue with another example: When Matthew writes his Nativity narrative he says of Jesus, "Out of Egypt I have called My Son," (Matt. 2:15) quoting from Hosea chapter 11:1. The problem with this is that when you read Hosea chapter 11, you find that Hosea was talking about the Exodus, when the children of Israel came out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses. Yet Matthew takes this, seemingly out of all context, and applies it to Jesus. However, the problem is not that Matthew took it out of context, but that the Western church has taken a Jewish book and constructed its own rules of context. Matthew thought midrashically; he thought of prophecy as pattern. Let me explain: It begins with Abraham. God judged Pharaoh, and Abraham came out of Egypt along with his descendants in Genesis; Abraham is the archetype, the father of all who believe. Then, in Exodus, God again judges Pharaoh - the wicked king gets judged - and once again Abraham's descendants come out of Egypt. Thus the pattern begins; what happened to Israel replayed what happened first to Abraham. Just as Abraham received money from Pharaoh, so the Israelites plundered the Egyptians in Exodus. Next, Jesus comes out of Egypt, after once again the wicked king - Herod this time - is judged. Midrashically, Israel alludes to Jesus. When you see things in Scripture such as "Israel My glory, Israel My first-born son", it is a midrashic allusion to the Messiah, as even the rabbis know. Therefore, Jesus, the embodiment of Israel, also comes out of Egypt. Just as the church is the Body of Christ, so is Israel in some sense. Then, in I Corinthians 10, we come out of Egypt ourselves! Egypt is a figure of this world; Pharaoh is a figure of the devil, who is the god of this world. And just as Moses goes onto the mountain and makes a covenant with blood on behalf of the people, so does Jesus. Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt, through the water, and into the Promised Land. Jesus leads us out of the world, through baptism, and into Heaven. One is a type of the other; we all have an Exodus experience. But the ultimate meaning is the resurrection and rapture of the church: the same judgments that take place in the book of Exodus are replayed in the book of Revelation. In the same way that Pharaoh's magicians were able to counterfeit the miracles of Moses and Aaron, the Antichrist and his False Prophet will be able to counterfeit the miracles of Jesus and His witnesses. Why is the song of Miriam ('I will sing unto the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously - the horse and the rider are thrown into the sea!") - sung in Revelation? The book of Exodus shows us that the destruction of Pharaoh was a typology of the destruction of the devil. Why did the Israelites bring Joseph's bones with them out of Egypt, at the front of the procession? As the scriptures tell us in I Thessalonians 4:16, 17, "the dead in Christ will rise first", and we will shall come out together. Once again, the Hebrew idea of prophecy is that of a pattern being recapitulated. It is not a prediction, but a pattern with an ultimate fulfillment. That is the Hebrew concept of eschatological prophecy. In order to really begin to understand what the Bible teaches about the Last Days, we have to stop thinking with a Western, Gentile, Hellenistic mind and begin thinking of the Scriptures in the way the early church did. Remember that in Revelation 2 and 3, the church of Ephesus had a lamp stand that the other churches did not have; 'Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path," Ps. 119:105. The virgins needed oil in their lamps in order to see in the night - we'll come back to that. In the Last Days, understanding and faithfulness become very important. Remember that the wise virgins of Matthew 25 had the oil in their lamps so that they could see in the night, representing the illumination of the Holy Spirit in our understanding of Scripture. Laodicea needed salve with which to anoint the people's eyes, so that they could see. Understanding of Scripture is going to be very closely associated to faithfulness in the Last Days. It says in Daniel that none of the wicked will understand. Now, it is very easy for God to take somebody who has a pure heart and an empty head, and give that person wisdom. However, it is much more difficult for Him to take somebody with a big head and a big intellect and give him a pure heart. Spirit and Truth; God wants us to have both. Simple people are much more likely to get saved than are sophisticated people; but after they do get saved, those simple people are not supposed to stay that way. (to be continued...)

Now, with these things in view, let us look at Matthew chapter 10, beginning in verse 1: "And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him." Do you know what 'Judas Iscariot' really means? - Jude the Suburbanite. Continuing in verse 5: "These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: 'Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand'. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food. Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city! "'Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.'" When Jesus sent out the apostles in pairs, were they brought before governors and kings for His name's sake? No. Did the Holy Spirit give them utterance when they were on trial in Matthew 10? No. Did brother deliver up brother and parents deliver up their children? No. Were they hated by all nations for His name's sake when He sent them out in pairs? No. None of it happened. Jesus had been training them, and before that they had been trained by John the Baptist; now He sends them out for their first dry run, saying 'Here is what is going to happen', but none of it did. What happened is that in verse 16, Jesus totally changed time frames. We have today the Restorationists, who claim they are going to conquer the whole world for Jesus Christ and set up His kingdom before He comes back. They say these prophecies were fulfilled in the early church, that we are going to be the 'church Triumphant', etc. etc.; this is total rubbish. The Kingdom is now, but not yet. There are two terms: One is 'inaugural eschatology' and the other is 'over-realized eschatology'. Inaugural eschatology means that 'the Kingdom has broken in, Satan's powers are being thrown back, he can't possibly win, but the ultimate victory does not come until Christ returns'. Look at Daniel chapter 7:21: "I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom." That replays the story of the Maccabees, so the Restorationists would say that this was fulfilled with the Maccabees or with the early church, but that we are the !!!!!!!!!Kingdom Now. That is over-realized eschatology, and it is totally wrong. There will be a falling-away, there will be a persecution, and there will be an Antichrist. The church will be victorious, but that ultimate victory depends on the Return of Jesus. The other thing is that Matthew 10 says we will be brought before governors and kings, persecuted for the sake of the name of Jesus Christ, and that a servant is not above his master. I have a friend who was involved in Christian Science for 20 years before he was saved. E. W. Kenyon admitted that Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, influenced him. The whole line of thinking begun by Kenyon - 'My body is lying to me', etc. - was begun by Christian Science, which also does not believe in the medical profession. The things you hear being taught by Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin were all learned from Kenyon, who admittedly got it from Christian Scientist doctrine. Every false cult and every distortion of the Gospel of Christ will deny the Cross of Jesus in some way, without exception. The Jehovah's Witnesses don't even like to call it a 'cross'; they call it a 'torture stick', and they say that salvation is obtained through their organization and each individual's commitment to it. It is the same with Roman Catholicism: Jesus said from the Cross, 'It is finished'. Roman Catholicism, however, says that the Mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary, that it happens over and over and over again. Roman Catholicism is a fundamental denial of the Cross of Jesus; it is a false religion. There may be true believers in it, but if they are true believers they need to come out of it. You cannot believe or participate in those doctrines and be in the will of God. Then you have the teaching of the faith-prosperity preachers that teach Jesus died spiritually. Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, E.W. Kenyon, and all who follow them say that Jesus got the victory not on the Cross-, but by going to hell and becoming a satanic being of one nature with Satan. That is what they teach, and it is a fundamental denial of the Cross. So what happens as a result? "A servant is not above his master." Because the Cross of Jesus is made unimportant to His ministry, living the crucified life becomes unimportant for us also. Instead we are told, "God wants you rich, you'll never get sick, God wants you to have this and that and the other"- etc. The Cross becomes factored out of the equation. Again, every distortion of Christianity in the world will reject the Cross of Jesus in some way. Paul, conversely, says, "I glory in it (the Cross)". Like the old hymn says - "I will cling to the old rugged cross, and one day exchange it for a crown." We get the crown on that day, not this. Kingdom Now denies this and says we get the crown now. The Bible says the Kingdom is now but not yet; the proponents of Kingdom-Now say it is all now. Nonetheless, let us return to the basic problem: In Matthew 10 Jesus sends the apostles out, warns that these things will happen, but then they do not come to pass. Look at Matthew 24; Jesus begins by talking about the Temple in verses one through four. Jesus speaks about the prophecies of Daniel 9, that the Messiah would have to come and die before the second Temple was destroyed. However, He then speaks of events which happen in the lifetimes of some of the apostles, and the destruction of the Temple. Jesus does here once again what He did in Matthew 10 - He changes the time-frame in the middle of a conversation. Matthew 24 is the same way - He begins talking about 70 AD, but then He changes time-frame and talks about the end of the world. The same thing happens in Acts chapter 2, when the Holy Spirit is outpoured and Peter explains it. Peter quotes from Joel chapter 2, in Acts 2:15: "'For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; and they shall prophesy.'" Were there any prophecies made on the day of Pentecost? - No. Verse 19: "I will show wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.'" Was there any great sign in heaven or on earth, any blood, fire, or vapor of smoke on the day of Pentecost? - no. Did the sun then turn to darkness or the moon to blood? - no. Remember that the sun is a type of Jesus, who is the Son. As it says in Isaiah, 'Arise and shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the risen Lord is brighter than the sun'. All four gospels tell us that the resurrection of Jesus happened at sunrise. The rising of the sun is a metaphor for the rising of the Son. The moon, on the other hand, has no light of its own; it only reflects the light of the sun, just as the church has no light of its own but reflects the light of Jesus. I am not denying that these astral phenomena will happen; I am simply saying that if and when they happen, they will simply be a reflection of something deeper. The light of Jesus will no longer be reflected by the church onto the earth, and the church will have blood on it - will be persecuted. I don't say that the literal astral events will not occur, only that we must understand the meaning of the metaphors. Verse 21: "'And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'" This is called Peter's 'kerygma', and in Greek it literally states 'This is like that'. So in Matthew 10, Jesus sends the apostles out in pairs, telling them that some things will happen that don't happen to them. In Matthew 24, He tells the church about something that will happen, which does not happen to them fully, but only partially. Then, in Acts 2, Peter describes what is happening, but none of it actually happens. But let us take another look at Matthew 10: To whom do these things happen? Jesus sends out the apostles in pairs, telling them they will be brought before governors and kings, they will be persecuted, the Holy Spirit will give them utterance, and they will be betrayed by their families, but to persevere to the end and they will be saved. That didn't happen to the apostles in Matthew 10; but to whom did it happen? Every one of those things happened to Jesus. What happened to Him in His last days will happen also to the church in our last days. Betrayed, brought before governors and kings, people selling each other down the river and stabbing one another in the back, but the ones who persevere will be saved; it will happen to us as it happened to Him. But then there is something else: in the early chapters of Acts, these things do happen to the apostles. For example, let us look at Acts 4:18-23: "So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, 'Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.' So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done. For the man was over forty years old on whom this miracle of healing had been performed. And being let go, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them." So we see the apostles brought before governors and kings, scourged in the synagogue, given utterance by the Holy Spirit, which no one can refute. Then they go on to quote Psalm 2, in Acts 4:25,26: "'Why did the nations rage, and the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ." The Bible frequently represents the tribulation of the church at the hands of the world in the End times by a raging sea. Psalm 2 happened to Jesus; the Gentiles took counsel against the Lord and against His anointed; now, in Acts, they begin doing it to the church also. Yet then the pattern increases: let's look at Acts 5:19-25: "But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out, and said, 'Go, stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life.' And when they heard that, they entered the temple early in the morning and taught. But the high priest and those with him came and called the council together, with all the elders of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought. But when the officers came and did not find them in the prison, they returned and reported, saying, 'Indeed we found the prison shut securely, and the guards standing outside before the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside!' now when the high priest, the captain of the temple, and the chief priests heard these things, they wondered what the outcome would be. So one came and told them, saying, 'Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!'" It is fairly obvious what we have here. Let's look at Matthew 27:65: "Pilate said to them, 'You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.' So they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone and setting the guard." Down to Matthew 28:11-14, after the resurrection of Jesus: "Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened. When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, 'Tell them, "His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept." And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure.'" So we see that just as an angel made the way for Jesus to come out of the tomb, so an angel also led the apostles out of prison. Next, the chief priests feared the people in Acts 5:26, just as it says in Luke 22:22. Once again, in Matthew 10 we see Jesus sending out the apostles in pairs and telling them what will happen; it doesn't happen to them at that time, but it does happen to Jesus, and then it begins to happen to the apostles and the early church. So we know that what happens to Jesus and what happens to the early church will be replayed again and will happen also to us. How do we know that? - Again, let's look at Matthew 10:17: "'But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against their parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake.'" This does not happen in Matthew 10, but let's look at Luke 21:12: "'But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name's sake." - Notice that He says 'before all these things'; the church will be persecuted before the End comes. Continuing in verse 13: "But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony. Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist. You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But not a hair of your head shall be lost. By your patience possess your souls." The time-frame then changes again to 70 AD. What Matthew 10 predicts did not happen then; it did happen to Jesus and to the apostles and to the early church, and it is going to happen again to the church in the Last Days. He uses the same words, and I read it from Luke intentionally, to show that it is not only Matthew's attempt to construct that idea, but the Holy Spirit put the same thing in Luke. Then, however, it becomes very conspicuous. We must realize that when we read Acts we are not merely reading the history of the first-century church, but also the history of the last-century church. In John 9:4 & 6, the rabbis make false charges against Jesus to the Roman authorities. In John 19:4-6, however, Pontius Pilate wants no part in judging Jesus. This is the beginning. The ministry of Paul and his last days replayed what happened to Jesus in His last days. False charges were made by the rabbis against Paul to the Roman authorities, but the Roman governor wanted no part of judging Paul either, as we see in Acts 18:12-18. What happened to Jesus also happened to Paul. In Mark 14:12-15, prior to His arrest, Jesus met with His disciples at Passover in an upper room to break bread. In Acts 20:6-8, Paul met with his disciples in an upper room to break bread before he was arrested. In John 10:15 and in Mark 10:32-34, Jesus predicted His death to His followers, accepting it as God's will for His life. In Acts 20:24, 25, we see Paul doing the very same things. In John 18:11, Jesus' disciples attempted to convince Him to avoid this death, not to go to Judea in order to spare His life. In Acts 21:11-13, Paul's disciples also try to persuade him not to go to Jerusalem in order to save his neck. Matthew 7:15, 24:11, Mark 13:6, and Luke 21:8 contain warnings from Jesus about wolves that would come to devour the sheep once He left, and He did this at the end of His three-year relationship with them. Acts 20:29,30 shows Paul at the end of three years warning his disciples about false prophets who would come in among them. Mark 15:12-15, John 19:15, Luke 23:21, and Matt. 27:21-23 record that the multitudes cried out for the death of Jesus, having been incited by the rabbis. In Acts 21:36 and 22:22 we find the multitude demanding Paul's death after having been incited by the rabbis. Matthew 26:59-61 shows the rabbis trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus; He was falsely accused of teaching against the Torah and the Temple. Acts 21:28 records the same thing happening to Paul - the rabbis falsely accused him of teaching against the Torah and the Temple. In Luke 23:8 we see how Jesus aroused curiosity, then intrigue, with the civil Roman government; in Acts 22:30 we find that Paul, too, aroused curiosity and then intrigue with the civil Roman government. We will see this happening in the last days as well: governments will become infatuated with Christians, just as they were in the early church, wondering what makes us different. In John 19 and Matthew 27 the Roman government tried to release Jesus, but then turned the entire affair over to the rabbinic authorities once they were unable to free Him, knowing He was innocent. In Acts 22:30 and 18:15 it happened to Paul. Matthew 27:24 reveals that the Roman authorities were forced to re-intervene in the case of Jesus in order to prevent rioting; Acts 23:10, 21:34-36 records that the Roman government also had to intervene in Paul's case to prevent rioting. The Roman governor in Matthew 26:4 came from Caesarea to Jerusalem to judge Jesus when the rabbis formed their conspiracy to kill Him; the Roman proconsul came from Caesarea to Jerusalem to judge Paul under the same circumstances, in Acts 23:12, 21. Jesus was delivered by His Jewish brothers into the hands of Gentiles and the governor in fulfillment of a specific prophecy, as seen in Luke 23:1, Matthew 27:2, Luke 18:32. In Acts 10:18 Paul underwent the same ordeal, again in fulfillment of a specific prophecy. John 18:22 tells of Jesus being struck for the way He spoke to the high priest; Acts 23:2 tells of Paul also being struck for the same reason. In Matthew 23:27 Jesus called the religious hypocrites 'whitewashed tombs', alluding to the whitewashing of sepulchers for the Pesach. In Acts 23:3 Paul calls the priest a 'whitewashed wall'. Jesus used the Resurrection to counter-manipulate the Pharisees and Sadducees against each other when they had come together against Him, in Luke 20:26-40. In Acts 23:9, Paul uses the same strategy. (to be continued)

Karl,Please, may I suggets that you put aside you preconceived ideas, until finishing the article, and then judge the content based on you're understanding of scripture. You have presented one idea (remember, I've finished the article;-)), which consists of a "right" and a "wrong", that being "preterist" (although Prasch calls what you adhere to "historicism") and "non-pretist" (which Prasch refers to as "Futurism"). However, Prasch is saying (and I tend to agree) that there is another divide between, what I'll define as "lacking/adding" (these and similar idea's) and "raw" (that's encaptulates the entirity of God's Word). The two kinds of people that Prasch is refering to, is the "wild" and "cultivated" vines. There is no "Jews" and "christians" polarization, as much as God having seperated a race of people (the Jews), that are His matural vine, into which we Gentiles are grafted into. That's all.Anyway, enjoy.:-)

Healingwaters wrote:I will comply with your orders and read the entirety first...Thank you. And then we'll discuss the "enough said" :-P

Brother, he gives the sources. If not now, then later.Prash's website is www.moriel.org, if you have further questions.

If you've ever heard the joke that says if you have two Jews you have three opinions, that comes from something known as 'pilpul'. Pilpul is a manner of Rabbinic argumentation, which allows you to quote various rabbinic authorities who have commented on other rabbis in order to justify any opinion or condemn any position you choose. It is argument for the sake of argument, and Jesus would not engage in it. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, when it says the people were amazed because Jesus taught as one with authority and not like the scribes or Pharisees, what it means is that He would not engage in pilpul; He simply said, "This is it", and would not get into all the theological haggling and nit-picking of the rabbis of His day or the liberals of today. There was one exception to this: Jesus used pilpul in order to get the Pharisees and Sadducees to fight with one another; Paul did likewise, refusing to engage in pilpul except with the aim of causing infighting among the Sadducees and Pharisees. Once again: Matthew 10 did not happen at the time Jesus spoke those words, but it did happen to Him, then to the apostles, and then to Paul, in very conspicuous detail - there is much more to it than I have listed here. Then, in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 we see that it is going to happen to us as well. What happened to Jesus happened to the early church, and both of those things together teach about what is going to happen to us. Jewish prophecy is a pattern recapitulated; multiple fulfillments, with each fulfillment teaching something about the ultimate fulfillment. If you want to know how we will end up, look at how Jesus ended up; if you want to know what will happen to the church in the last century, look at what happened to the church in the first century. Again, when you read the book of Acts, you are reading not only past history, but future history as well. The early church experienced a mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit, corresponding to the spring rains. The Hebrew term maim haim, or 'living water', is a term for the Holy Spirit. Outpourings of rain are representative of outpourings of the Holy Spirit; we deal with this in the typology of the Jewish calendar. There is a spring rain and a latter or autumn rain; there was a mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the early church, and there will be again on the church of the last days. That is one of the reasons you see such an abundance of the gifts of the Spirit in the early church, and why they return during the Last Days; it has to do with the seasons of rain. This is also why you see Jewish people getting saved in large numbers again - the harvest. Jesus fulfilled the Spring Feasts of Israel during His first coming. He fulfilled Passover as the Passover lamb that was slain, He fulfilled Firstfruits as the firstfruit of the Resurrection, and He fulfilled Pentecost when He gave the Holy Spirit. Those are the spring holidays, when the spring rains come and prepare the harvest. The long, hot summer corresponds to the age of the Gentile church, but then Jesus fulfills the autumn holidays upon His return. The rainy season begins again in the autumn, and another harvest comes. Acts 2 quotes Joel 2, saying directly that what was seen in the early church will be replayed in the Last Days. This is one of the most powerful arguments against the error of Cessationism. The Cessationist error that the gifts of the Spirit ended with the apostles, never to be seen again, is just as false on one extreme as Charismania is on the other extreme. The truth is the via media. These things are seen in the early church, and then you have an outpouring on the church in the Last Days and these things are seen once again. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by signs and wonders. Acts 2:16-21 predicts that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Last Days will also be accompanied by signs and wonders. Unfortunately, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the resulting signs and wonders was followed by false doctrine, experiential theology, carnality, and misuse of spiritual gifts - read I Corinthians. What happens today? The gifts of the Spirit are followed by experiential theology, carnality, immorality, people substituting the gifts for the Giver, crazy doctrines; the very same thing they had in the early church. The relevance of the law of Moses became a divisive issue among the early Jewish believers as seen in Acts 15 and Galatians 5. Once again, among Messianic Jews, this is happening. Tens of thousands of Jews have been saved during the past 15 years, and we now have the same kinds of issues that were around in the early church coming around to us again. The known world during the time of the early church was the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean Basin, and so on - not much beyond that. Yet we are told in Acts 17:6 that the gospel turned the world upside down in that time. Matthew 24:14 states that in the Last Days God will shake the earth one more time; the gospel will go to the ends of the earth, and in the Last Days God will shake the earth once more. We have seen whole Buddhist nations like Korea turn to Christ within one generation. In the largest Muslim nation on earth, Indonesia, two to three million Muslims give their lives to Christ every year, turning their backs on Mohammed. As the Gospel and Christianity decline in the Western world, they explode in the developing world. As the Gospel declines in Protestant countries, it explodes in the Roman Catholic nations. And as the Gentiles turn away from the truth and the grace given to them, the Jews are returning to it. In the early church, we see in Acts 1: 8, God used the Jews to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. We see in Revelation 7 possibly, Romans 11 certainly - "what will their restoration be but life from the dead?" - that there can be no mistake about it; God is going to bless the church through the Jewish people. He is going to use Jewish people to evangelize Gentiles as well. Just as God used Jews to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles in the first century, so He is using Gentiles to bring the Gospel back to the Jews in the End. When that happens, God will use these Jewish believers to bless the church. Acts 19:33, 34 shows that in the time of the early church there was growing anti-Semitism. In the Last Days, we will again see growing anti-Semitism. The two kinds of people that the Bible calls God's chosen are Jews and born-again Christians; it all goes back to Genesis chapter 3, where God addresses the serpent to say that He will put enmity between it and the woman, between its seed and hers. Anti-Semitism and persecution of the church is like a coin, heads and tails: you can distinguish between them, but you cannot separate them. Who do Moslems hate the most? - Jews and born-again Christians. Under the Communists, behind the Iron Curtain, who was persecuted most? - Jews and born-again Christians. Who did the Roman Catholic Church persecute the most over the centuries with its Crusades and its Inquisitions and pogroms? - Jews and born-again Christians. Who did the Russian Orthodox Church persecute the most? - Jews and born-again Christians. It all goes back to the early church: after the Roman government turned against the church it went after the Jews. That's what happened in 70 AD and again in 120-132 AD with Bar-Kochba's rebellion, and that is exactly what is going to happen again in the Last Days with the Antichrist. He will come after us first, and then he'll go after the Jews. Anti-Semitism will increase, and through certain Restorationists, it is even coming into the church. Martin Luther, as an early example, was a man of God if there ever was one; but how he could end up the way he did is a shocking tragedy: he said that peasants should be stabbed in the back, that Jews should be herded into corrals and forced to confess Christ at the point of a knife, and that the German people were to blame for not murdering them to prove they were Christians. This is what is re-entering the church now. Corrupt political leaders who have tried to exterminate the Jews have always attempted to justify it theologically, by quoting people such as Chrysostum and Luther. Today we have the same situation; just read some of the books being published in our time, such as Whose Promised Land? or Blood Brother - very biased against Israel. People are trying to find Christian preachers who will justify their hatred of Israel and their denial of God's end-times purpose for the Jews, and they are succeeding. Yet God's plan for world redemption will ultimately depend on the redemption of Israel; His plan for the salvation of the world is prophetically bound up with His plan for Israel's salvation. Israel is God's timepiece. This does not mean that the Jews are higher, better, or anything else, but it is true nonetheless. (to be continued...)

Daniel 7:19,20, Revelation 17:9 - Rome ruled the world in the time of the early church. I have no doubt in my mind that the fourth beast of Daniel has to be some kind of a re-confederation of the Roman Empire; we have not heard the last of Rome. The council of Europe was founded by the Treaty of Rome. We must remember this: the emperor was head of the Pantheon of Rome; you could have any god you wanted, as long as you also bowed the knee to the Emperor of Rome. The Hebrew word for 'to worship' and 'to bow down' is the same word - hasta kovot. When you see Roman Catholics genuflecting before a statue of Mary, that is an act of idolatry. All gods came into the Pantheon which was headed by the Emperor, who allowed the people to worship any god they wanted as long as they acknowledged him as the spiritual guide of all religions and the political head. He was called Pontificus Maximus, the Pontiff. After Constantine removed his capitol to Constantinople, the Pope became the Pontiff. It amounted to the same thing - someone had a pagan god of gift-giving, so the Pontiff decided he would be called Saint Nicholas; someone else had a pagan god of love, and he was dubbed Saint Valentine. Artemis, Minerva, and all these other goddesses became Mary. Essentially, it remained the same false religion. This is what will happen again in the Last Days. The Romans had religio licita and religio illicita; a licensed religion was fine so long as it acknowledged the Pontiff as the guide. Unlicensed religions were those that refused to bow the knee to the emperor, and there was only one religion which ultimately fits into this category: ours. The Pontiff condemned it. Pope John Paul II has met with the Dalai Lama, a man worshiped as God by Tibetan Buddhists; he has met with Zoroastrian priests, witch doctors, Moslem imams, orthodox rabbis, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. He says that he respects all religions, and receives the Dalai Lama as a 'great spiritual leader' - a man worshiped as God! That is antichrist. He only asked that all these people acknowledge him as the Pontiff. However, there was one religion that the Pontiff, John Paul II, did not approve of. In Bolivia about six years ago and again in Santo Domingo less than one year ago, the Pope called born-again Christians 'rapacious wolves'. Religio licita and religio illicita; every religion is all right except ours. That is what the Pontiff did two thousand years ago, and that is what he still does today. Looking at the Greek word for Antichrist, we find that it does not simply mean 'against Christ', but 'in place of Christ'. The Pope's title is Vicarius Christus, the Vicar of Christ; translated into Greek, the Vicar of Christ is Antichrist. That is what was happening in the early church, and that is what is happening today. Pope John Paul II has said openly that he wants to see one Europe with one church. He knows very well that with a confederated Europe, they have only one thing in common: Roman Catholicism. The Church of England is dropping dead, going back under Rome. George Cary, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote a book called The Meeting of Waters, urging the Anglican church to go back under the papacy. Across Europe, the only thing those people of different languages, different cultures, and different anthropological heritages have to unite them is Roman Catholicism, and the Pope knows that. He wants one Europe with one Church; in other words, to go back to what existed before the sixteenth century and the Reformation. The Pontiff came after the early Christians, and if the Pontiff gets his way - which he is - he will come after us again. Saved Catholics need to get out of Babylon. In the time of the early church, pagan Rome was the capitol of the world's false religious system. I have no doubt in my mind when I see interfaith meetings that Rome will in some way be representative of the center of the world's false religious system in confederation with its political system in the End. False religion persecuted believers; Acts 19:23-29shows an example of this, based on the worship of Artemis. Today we have the same thing throughout the world with Mary-worship. Though Mary herself proclaimed her need of a Savior, Roman Catholicism denies this and worships her.(To be continued...)

Mary was the greatest woman who ever lived. The angel Gabriel, whose name means 'mighty man of God' in Hebrew, told her "Blessed are you among women" (Luke 1:28). What did the greatest woman who ever lived say about herself? "My soul magnifies the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my Savior"(Luke 1:46, 47); she said, "I need a Savior." Rome, however, denies this, saying that she was conceived without sin. This is very typical behavior that we will see frequently. What happened during the Reformation was relatively mild in comparison to the tremendous revival taking place now in Roman Catholic countries, specifically in South America: In Santiago, Chile, 20,000 people leave the Roman Catholic church every week to become Pentecostals. In Guatemala, 10% of the population left the Roman Catholic church within ten years' time and became Pentecostals. In the Philippines it is the same; in the United States, the number of converted Roman Catholics is incredible. In Ireland, more Roman Catholics are now getting saved than Protestants. In Italy there are over 1000 Assemblies of God churches, none of them small and practically all of them new. While the Assemblies of God denomination is failing in countries that had the Reformation, it is prospering in Catholic countries. We will observe that the Mary issue will be incendiary; "Great is Diana of Ephesus" - see Acts 19:23-34. The Roman emperors were worshiped, and God's people were killed for refusing to participate in it. II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 speak of the same thing. The emperor worship of Rome prefigures worship of the Antichrist. The kissing of the Pope's ring and other similar practices are derived from emperor worship. Once again, in the Last Days the Antichrist - the emperor - will demand to be worshiped in some way. Those who will not do so will be persecuted for their refusal. Scripture notes in Acts 5:37, the nativity narratives, etc., that the Roman emperors took a census. When you really understand the way census was used in the Bible, you will understand why David's taking the census in Israel was even worse than his sin of adultery with Bathsheba. The Roman emperors used census to number people's heads and thus gain financial control of the world; this is what the Antichrist will also do. It happened in the time of the early church, and it will happen again in the end. The worst emperors slaughtered the church, and then turned against the Jews. It began with Nero in 62 AD, and in 68-70 AD the tide turned against the Jews. In the second century emperors such as Diocletian, Marcus Aurelius, and Septimus Severitus were against the church, but then with Hadrian they went against the Jews from 120-132 AD. The early believers had an imminent eschatology; they believed that Jesus was coming back during their lifetime. We, too, will begin to see that happening. The general tide of world events politically at that time fulfilled specific eschatological prophecies. The events surrounding the destruction of the Temple, the burning of Rome, etc. - those things fulfilled prophecy. But once again, Jewish prophecy is pattern, and those same prophecies will again be fulfilled in the future. What I am basically saying is this: When you read the book of Acts, you're not only reading the history of the early church, you're also reading the history of the latter church. What happens to Jesus happens to the Apostles, happens to Paul, and happens to the early Christians; all of these things together teach what will happen to us. What happens to Jesus in His last days happens again to His Body in the Last Days. What happened in the early church will happen in the latter church. The Book of Acts happens again. Forty-eight percent of the Gospel of John deals with the last week of Jesus' life; the Passion narrative. All four gospels devote at least one third of their time to what happened in the last days of Jesus' earthly life. If it is read the right way, the New Testament does the same with us, speaking a great deal about what will happen in the Last Days. Jesus was betrayed, crucified, and raised victorious. We, too, will be betrayed, crucified, and raised victorious. It is important to realize that the kinds of deceptions perpetrated by Satan against the early church are the kinds of deceptions he will use against the church in the Last Days. The same heresies, false doctrines, and deceptions that the devil introduced into Christianity in its early centuries make a comeback in the Last Days. In the early church people with a low Christology - people who did not believe that Jesus was God - were called Arians. Today we call them Jehovah's Witnesses; the two are essentially the same. In the early church they called the Sabbatarian and dietary legalists and Nomianists Judaizers (see Galatians). Today we call them Seventh-Day Adventists. In the early church, people who were hyper-Dispensationalist - who took Dispensationalism to a bizarre extreme and made a radical, tremendous separation between the Testaments - were called Marcionites. Today they are the Exclusive or Closed Brethren. In the early church, the people who said that the Father was Jesus, the Son was Jesus, and the Spirit was Jesus were called Sabaleans, or Patripassionists. Today we call them Jesus-Only Pentecostals, or United Pentecostals. There is nothing new under the sun. Undoubtedly, however, of all these lies and the many others, the two most damaging were the Montanists and the Gnostics, who were related to each other. The Montenists had over-realized eschatology; they believed that the kingdom was now. They made many crazy predictions and prophecies that revival was coming to their capital or that Jesus was coming there Himself in Phrygia, or modern-day Turkey. They had all manner of wild predictions, but the way they sucked people into it was by putting a heavy emphasis on signs and wonders. 'The Apostles had these things, the Bible teaches them, so we should have them', was their philosophy. Irenaeus, the pre-Nicaean church father, wrote against these people while yet defending what was right about them. He did say that signs and wonders and the gifts of the Spirit are Biblical; but this particular group was using them to get people to believe other bizarre things. The same is true today. In the early church, people like Tertullian, the church father - people you would never have expected to get caught up in crazy errors - did. Today, too, I find people I never would have expected being caught up in the same kinds of Kingdom-Now ideas of Triumphalism, Restorationism, and Dominionism. It works the same way, with the emphasis laid on signs and wonders, etc. These people in the early church made insane predictions that didn't happen and led to total anarchy. At any turning point in church history, this same Kingdom-Now theology has surfaced. The Montenists began to surface when the Roman Empire went into decline. During the Renaissance, which was a very important turning point in the history of Europe, believers in Montanist doctrines were called the followers of Joacham of Fiore. This man, leader of Kingdom-Now theology at that time, has such a similar philosophy to that of the Vineyard movement today that he could have written for their magazine. We see in them the same ideas, for example: there are supposedly three ages, the Age of the Father, the Age of the Son, and the Age of the Spirit; the Age of the Father being Old-Testament Israel, the Age of the Son being the church age, and the Age of the Spirit being the latter-day rain, identified with their own movement. They believed they belonged to a new religious order that was going to take over all other religious orders. This is the same belief found today in John Wimber's Vineyard Movement. (to be continued...)

During the Reformation, there were the Prophets of Zwickau. Now, if you're Brethren, Pentecostal, or Baptist, don't ever consider yourself a Protestant. If you had been around during the Reformation, the Protestants would have called you an Anabaptist and they would have killed you as fast as the Catholics would. Zwingli said, "So you want to be baptized again?" and cut a hole in the ice in Zurich, in which they drowned the believers there who believed in believers' baptism. The followers of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli killed Anabaptists. If you're Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Reformed, then you're a Protestant; but anything non-conformist is not Protestant. The Anabaptists were in most ways much closer to the Scripture than the Reformers were. The Protestants ran around pretending they had rediscovered the Gospel, when in fact there were people who had never lost it. Long before Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, there were people on the Continent such as John S. Huss and the Bohemian Brethren, or in England the followers of John Wycliffe, or the Waldensians who were around for centuries - all of whom were Bible-believing Christians. There were always people who understood the basic truth and knew the church at large had gotten away from it. However, in the time of the Reformation something happened. Feudalism ended, and capitalism began. The decline of the Holy Roman Empire - which was neither holy nor Roman - was occurring, and that Empire was being replaced with the nation-state; people began saying 'I am English', 'I am German', 'I am Scottish', etc. Therefore, the Pope no longer had the political leverage to exterminate Christians and suppress the preaching of the Gospel in the way that he had throughout the Dark Ages. Additionally, Gutenberg invented the printing press. You no longer had the Vulgate, which was the Latin edition of the Bible that monks copied; instead you had people like Luther putting the Bible into German and Tyndale into English and so on, and Bibles could be mass-produced because of Gutenberg's invention. So the Bible went out, literacy increased, and the Pope lost his ability to stop the spread of the Gospel politically. That is why the Reformation happened. The only thing people like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli did was get away with something that other people before them had always said, only the political and social circumstances were not ripe for them to live to tell about it. The idea that the Reformers rediscovered the Gospel is a perversion of history. There were some Anabaptists whose capital was Muenster in Germany, near Holland. They followed these 'prophets' called the Prophets of Zwickau, who made a lot of crazy predictions, prophecies, and practices, with excessive abuses of the gifts of the Spirit etc., which led to total anarchy. Today we have the same thing, only instead of the Prophets of Zwickau we have the Kansas City Prophets. After Paul Cain publicly made false predictions with John Wimber in England, the same people who witnessed these false prophecies will get on buses again to go hear a repeat performance by this man, who prophesied falsely in the name of the Lord. The Anglican bishop David Pitchers wrote a book called Some Said it Thundered, telling all Evangelical Anglicans to follow this guy. They did, and Paul Cain has since that time gone to Saddam Hussein, a man who has murdered God only knows how many tens of thousands of his own people, and apologized, repenting on behalf of the born-again Christians in the United States and Great Britain for 'what we did to him'. Kingdom-Now theology has always surfaced at pivotal points in history - there is nothing new under the sun. Related to it is something really crazy: Gnosticism. Alexandria was where the Judeo-Christian world met the Orient. It was where Zoroastrian priests, Jewish rabbis, Buddhist monks, and Christians converged, with the exchange of ideas. At the onset of the Christian era, the Hellenistic ideas of someone named Philo had already begun to come into Judaism. This was picked up by some of the people in Alexandria who were Christians, especially Origen - possibly Clement of Alexandria, but certainly Origen. Let me explain. Midrashically, in the Jewish way of handling Scripture, you use symbolism, typology, and allegory to illustrate and illuminate doctrine, without ever basing doctrine on it. Take the Passover as an example, with the symbolism of the Last Supper. When you understand the Jewish Passover and the Last Supper as a Passover, the symbolism of the Jewish ritual in the Passover seder will help you understand the Lord's Supper on a much deeper level than you otherwise could. The purpose of allegory, typology and symbolism is to illuminate doctrine on a deeper level, never to be the basis of doctrine in itself. Very briefly: A Jewish Christian reading John's Gospel in the first century would have read John 1, 2, and 3, and he would have said that it was, of course, a midrash on Genesis 1, 2, and 3. He would have said that John 1, 2, and 3 narrated the New Creation, while Genesis narrated the Creation; therefore Genesis 1, 2, and 3 and John 1, 2, and 3 are a midrashic parallel. God walks the Creation in Genesis, and God walks on the earth in the New Creation in John. The Spirit moves on the water and brings forth the Creation in Genesis, and the Spirit moves on the water and brings forth the New Creation in John. God comes to separate the light from the darkness in the Creation in Genesis, and He does so again in the New Creation in John. In the Creation in Genesis you have the small light and the great light; in the New Creation you have Jochanan ha Mat Biel (sp?), John the Baptist (the small light), and Yeshua ha Mashiach, Jesus the Messiah (the great light). Midrashically, the fig tree is a metaphor for the Tree of Life that is in the Garden of Eden. The Tree of Life is in the garden, and the fig tree is in John. So midrashically, when Jesus sees Nathaniel 'under the fig tree', in Jewish metaphor Jesus was not merely saying to Nathaniel, "I saw you under a literal fig tree", although he did. He was saying midrashically, "I saw you from the creation; from the foundation of the world I foreknew you." That illustrates the truth; the Bible directly states elsewhere that there are 'those whom He foreknew from the creation of the world'. I am not a Calvinist, but there is a truth in it. The midrash illustrates that truth, but it is not the basis of it. In the same way, "This is the cup of the new covenant in My blood", as Jesus said at the Last Supper, shows that the Passover meal illustrates the doctrine of atonement, while not being the basis for it. That is the way in which Jewish hermeneutics uses allegory. It's totally wrong to reject allegory in the way the Reformers did, because the deeper things of the Scriptures will never be understood if we do that. On the other hand, however, it is just as wrong and even dangerous to base doctrine on it. What the Gnostics did was this: They claimed a subjective mystical insight into the types and allegories in Scripture, then reinterpreted the plain meaning of the Bible in light of this gnosis, which is the Greek word for spiritual revelation. They claimed to have special knowledge, and if you didn't see it, they would say you were under spiritual deception or in rebellion. Roman Catholicism is based on Gnosticism. The Pope erroneously claims to be the successor of Peter; to have your hermeneutics right, you must first have your ecclesiology right. In other words, only the Pope, the Magisterium of the Church, can interpret the Bible. Therefore, although the plain meaning of Luke 1:47 is that Mary says she needs a Savior, Catholicism replies 'yes, but you don't have the gnosis; the Pope has it because he's the heir of Peter, and he says that Mary does not need a Savior because she was conceived without sin.' Hasidic Judaism is the same way. Their rabbis are called rebbes, and they're the descendants of someone called Bal Shem Tov, the Besch in Judaism, a Jewish Gnostic who was into things like astral projection. The Hasidic Jews contend with each other about whose rebbe is the real descendant of Besch; who really has the spirit of the Besch. It's a form of reincarnation that comes from Hinduism. Therefore, for Hasidic Jews there are two ways to God: The Torah and the rebbe, the righteous one. The rebbe goes to God through Torah; you go to God through the rebbe. What the Torah says is not important; what the rebbe says about it is important. Similarly, with Catholicism it is not what the New Testament says that is important, but rather what the Pope says about it that matters. With Sufi Moslems, it's the suf; with Shi'a Moslems, it's the imam, and what the imam says about the Koran. With Zoroastrians, it's their priesthood. With Hindus, it's the Brahman priests, the highest order of the caste system, or the guru. He goes to Vishnu and Krishna, you go through him. With Shamanism it's the shaman. To Tibetan Buddhists the essential figure is the Dalai Lama. All of these groups follow Gnosticism. The essential issue in these forms of Gnosticism therefore becomes, 'who is your guru, who is your pope, who is your imam, who is your rebbe, who is your suf, who is your lama or your priest or your shaman?' In Restorationism, the corresponding question is, 'who is your apostle, who is your prophet?' Joel chapter 2 is the basis for the Manchild/ Manifest Sons of God doctrines of Restorationism. Let's take a look at John Wimber's exposition of Joel chapter 2: Remember that Jewish prophecy is pattern, and therefore somehow this passage is about the Last Days. However, in its historical context it is speaking of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion. Joel 2 says this: "Blow the trumpet in Zion, sound an alarm. There is a great and mighty people - there has never been anything like it, nor will there ever be again to the years of many generations - a fire consumes before them, and a flame after them. The land is like the Garden of Eden before them, and desolate wilderness after them. Nothing escapes them." That is what John Wimber, Paul Cain, David Pitchers, Gerald Coates, and the people in the house churches who follow them have said that the church triumphant is going to be. But let's look more closely: "Their appearance is like the appearance of horses; like warhorses they run. They rush on the city, they run on the walls." It goes on from there to describe this army as locusts; the Restorationists say that the church triumphant will be this army of devouring locusts, that they will conquer all. But now let's look at verse 20: "I will remove the northern army far from you, and will drive it into a parched and desolate land, its vanguard in the Eastern Sea and its rearguard into the Western Sea. And its stench will arise, and its foul smell will come up, for it has done great things." God is going to destroy and judge this army because it is evil, the way He judged and destroyed Nebuchadnezzar's army. That is the context exegetically, grammatically, historically, or any other way you would like to look at it. But John Wimber came along claiming a gnosis, saying 'No, that's not what it means - it's the church triumphant'; if you don't see this, he will simply say that you are under spiritual deception. If you disagree, you'll be accused of having the spirit of Antichrist. Another man who is guilty of this kind of thing is Andrew Shearman, though he is more eisegetical than actually Gnostic. He will take a text which says that the Gospel is preached until John, but then with the Kingdom, men enter it violently; he will twist that text. What 'violently' means here in its original Greek context is 'pressed into'. It can be compared to this hypothetical situation: If you were taking a boat across the Irish Sea, from Hollyhead in Wales to Dublin, and you put on a life jacket and got into a lifeboat, the other passengers would think you were crazy. On these ferryboats there are pubs, discotheques, casinos, etc. The people are thereby amusing themselves, while you sit in the lifeboat with your life jacket on, trying to encourage people to put on life jackets and join you because it will add to the comfort and pleasure of their trip. They would say you were nuts; but as soon as the warning whistle goes off, and these people know the boat is sinking and they're doomed, they'll be pressing into the lifeboats and trying to get life jackets on in order to save their necks. (to be continued...)

The Law and the Prophets are taught until John; in Galatians the Law is called our teacher, because it teaches us that we are condemned and in need of salvation. This is what the text means, but Mr. Shearman says, "No, this is the church triumphant. We're the mighty men who are going to do the conquering." This is nonsensical, and doesn't come close to what the text means. There is no way anyone can read that text in its original context and come up with such a stupid conclusion, yet this is what the man teaches, and if you don't see it you're 'under spiritual deception'. Again, it's not what the Bible says that's important, but rather what the person with the gnosis claims. This is what the Gnostics do today, and it is exactly what they did in the early church as well. In the time of the early church, there were two forms of Gnosticism: the totally pagan form and the form that got into the church under the leadership of people such as Basiili and Valentinus. The same applies today; there are two forms of Gnosticism. The utterly pagan form is the New Age movement; Gnosticism is really what the New Age movement is. It may have occult packaging and so on, but the core of it is Gnostic. The kind of Gnosticism getting into the church today is Restorationism. All of the visualization techniques among many other popular things Restorationists embrace - such as Joyce Hugeet's books - are New-Age ideas, totally alien to the Bible. Using breathing exercises for prayer, as she describes, comes from yoga. She states also that the exercises of Ignatius Loyola should be used as a model for Christian prayer. Ignatius Loyola was the founder of the Jesuits, a religious order designed to stop the spread of the Gospel in the counter-Reformation. He was a man whose order is responsible for the death, torture, and murder of probably a half-million Christians. Yet his shamanistic exercises are being upheld in today's church as a model for Christian prayer! These are New-Age ideas creeping into the church. These were also the kinds of deception faced by the early church; the same ones have come back. It doesn't matter whether you call it Aryanism or Jehovah's Witnesses; it is the same thing. Charles Taze Russell and Judge Rutherford, the founders of the Jehovah's Witness movement, claimed a gnosis. If you don't agree with them, you're under deception. Roman Catholicism = Gnosticism. Shia Islam = Gnosticism. Sufi Islam = Gnosticism. Zoroastrianism = Gnosticism. Hinduism = Gnosticism. Shamanism = Gnosticism. The house churches = Gnosticism. Just look at the damage that heavy shepherding and similar practices have caused people. This Restorationism is a natural bedfellow for all kinds of other errors, one of which is heavy shepherding. We deal with this more in depth in a separate teaching; I am simply saying here that it was a deception in the early church, and it is again becoming a deception now. A person who claims the gnosis naturally going to become a heavy shepherd; what else could he be? Jesus, however, said that One is your Teacher, Who is in heaven (Matt. 23:8-10). God will do a new thing. If a couple has four children and they decide to have a fifth (God help them), God will do a new thing, but they will get the fifth child in the same way in which they got the first four. When God does a new thing, it will always be in character with the way He has always done things. What Gnostics will say is that everything can be abrogated because God is going to do a new thing in the Last Days; that is true, but it will never be out of character with the way He has always done things. There is a lot wrong with abortion, but one of the things that bothers me most is the waiting list of couples who are trying to adopt a baby. This list is three miles long, while other people are killing children. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby. People will adopt handicapped children or just about any child if they want one badly enough; yet other people are killing them. If a couple really loves each other, and they want to share their love with a baby, the mother never says, "I just can't face labor. I can't face morning sickness or contractions; therefore I am not going to have the baby. It's too miserable." The only thing she's thinking of is pushing the baby in a pram, taking him to the park on the swings, and going to the zoo to show him the zebras and the monkeys. Morning sickness and labor are not what occupy her mind; that's just what has to be gone through in order to get the child. I'm glad I am not a female. I watched one of my children being born, and kept my eye on the monitor that measures the intensity and frequency of contractions. Every time the thing started moving I told my wife, "This is the last one, this is it! I wouldn't lie to you, baby," but I was lying. Forget those rugby players at Wiggin; women are the strongest creatures in the world! If one of those rugby players had a baby he'd be out for the season. Birth pangs and earth tremors - but particularly birth pangs - are the most common things Scripture uses to describe what is going to happen to the church before Jesus comes. Think of the nature of birth pangs: Contractions become more frequent and more severe, while letting up for a while in between. They are at their worst right before the baby is born. The same applies to the Last Days; the pressure grows worse and worse, and though it might let up for a while, it returns and continues in that pattern until the birth occurs. That's what Revelation is about; certainly that's what Jeremiah talks about. Jeremiah refers frequently to birth pangs; he is a prophet who prophesied for his own time, for the first coming of Jesus, and for the Last Days, sometimes almost in the same breath. Whenever you see something in Scripture about birth pangs, the Holy Spirit is trying to reveal something about what will happen to the church in the Last Days. I Thessalonians 5 is another example. "When they are saying 'peace and safety', then destruction will come upon them like birth pangs upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape." Read Jeremiah; whenever you see the idea of birth pangs, it is eschatologically significant. In addition, whatever you have in the science of obstetrics has its parallel in the science of seismology. Earth tremors behave in much the same way as birth pangs; before there is a major shift of plates causing a big earthquake, a number of smaller tremors precede it. They tend to become more frequent and more intense before the final quake actually occurs. In America and Japan they spend astronomical sums of money trying to discern patterns in tremors in order to predict earthquakes. But they do know that tremors operate under much the same principle as birth pangs. Tremors, too, teach something about what will happen in the Last Days. The tremors increase, the birth pangs increase, and then the baby comes. Once the baby arrives, and the obstetrician or midwife hands the baby to the mother, all the pain, misery, and mess of labor and delivery is quickly forgotten. The only important thing is the baby, who is well worth it. A woman could be in labor for four weeks, but as soon as she has her baby it's all forgotten. It will be the same way when Jesus comes; as soon as He appears, all pain and misery is forgotten. We should think about Jesus coming; we don't have to consider the tribulation that goes before it, just as a mother anticipates her child's birth rather than dreading labor pains. Yet we must realize that tribulation is going to happen in the Last Days; just as a mother realizes there is no getting around the birth process. What happened with the Maccabees and Antiochus Epiphanes happens again to Israel and the church in the Last Days in some way. The book of Daniel also happens again. What happened in the days of the Maccabees was this: a lot of Jews compromised with the Seleucids, allowing Hellenism and Avodat Zara, in Hebrew, or foreign worship, to begin taking place in the city of God and ultimately in the house of God. Things wouldn't have gotten that far if so many Jews hadn't been willing to compromise. The way the Maccabees stood up against it and others began joining them teaches something about what is going to happen when the Antichrist manifests. Antiochus Epiphanes did not simply come one day, slaughter a pig in the Temple, and set up an image of Zeus and of himself to be worshiped. Nor is that the way the future abomination of desolations will come. Things build up toward that point; the Jews compromised and compromised, until one day things had gone so far they could no longer put a stop to it. The same thing is happening now. The Church of England is a church where someone who will not agree to sprinkle babies for infant baptism cannot be ordained a minister, but someone who is prepared to deny the Resurrection of Jesus Christ can be consecrated a bishop, with two-thirds of the other bishops defending him - including Evangelicals. Canterbury Cathedral is a site of interfaith worship. Greek word demonoi, Hebrew word shiddim; other gods are demons, as Scripture directly states in Deuteronomy and in I Corinthians. Hindu worship takes place in Canterbury Cathedral; 2000 Anglican bishops signed a petition to stop it, but the Evangelical Archbishop stated that he 'respects all religions'. That is an abomination of desolations in the house of God. People give up and give up and give up, continuing to compromise until it is too late. In the same way, don't expect to see the Antichrist being worshiped in the church overnight. It doesn't happen that way, it happens the way it did in the time of the Maccabees, with God's people compromising repeatedly until things have gone too far to be stopped. Daniel 11:33-35 says this: "Those who have understanding among the people will rise up and give understanding to the many. But they will be persecuted . . ." etc. We discuss this on the Christmas/ Hanukah tape; what happened with the Maccabees happens again in the Last Days. The book of Daniel is replayed; Jesus said directly that when we see the abomination of desolations being set up, we could know that our redemption draws near. What happened with the Maccabees as Daniel predicted it has to happen again; Jesus said so directly. When you read Daniel, read Maccabees in the Apocrypha, and see what happens. When you do, you will be reading about one of the main things that is going to happen to the church again. There will be an abomination of desolations. There are different words in Greek for 'church' or 'temple': oikos, naos, hieron; in Hebrew it's ha hekal, beth mishkatn , beth migdash. In no less than seven places, the New Testament says that the church is the temple. When Jesus died, and the Temple veil was torn from the ceiling to the ground, a physically visible event did happen in the Temple. However, what was important was not that the Temple veil was torn; what mattered was what it meant: that sinful man was no longer separated from holy God because Jesus paid the price for our sins. We deal with this on the Typology of the Temple tape. The old-time Brethren emphasized the typology of the Temple, and in many fundamental respects, because of their emphasis on typology, the old-time Brethren were probably closer than the Gentile church has ever been to beginning to interpret the Bible as a Jewish book the way the early church did. Maybe they didn't go far enough; maybe a lot of things, but they were closer than the Gentile church otherwise ever got to reading this Jewish book as a Jewish book. Nonetheless, when Jesus died and the Temple veil was torn, the physical event reflected a deeper spiritual one. If the Temple is rebuilt - and I don't say it won't be; there are many supposedly secret excavations going on in Jerusalem that everybody knows about - and if this image is set up in it, it will only be a reflection of a deeper spiritual reality. Make no mistake: the Antichrist will be worshiped in the so-called church, and it will happen in the same way it happened with the Maccabees. Repeated compromise on the part of God's people until it's too late; look at the Church of England today as a modern example. They deal with this issue of women priests, yet the New Testament is clear that every Christian is a priest. If you are not a priest, you are not a Christian. The issue is not even Biblical, yet over the ordination of female priests people are standing up to walk out. Did you see anyone stand up to walk out when a bishop denied the Resurrection and Virgin Birth of Jesus, or when homosexuality was approved? Did you see anybody stand up to walk out over demons being worshiped in Canterbury Cathedral? No. People will only walk out over something not Scriptural. And where do they walk out to? Rome. That's almost like someone going to Brighton for a holiday and saying, "This place is a dump; I'm going to Blackpool". Look at 2 Thessalonians 2: "We request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed by a spirit, a message, or a letter as it were from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasia, the falling-away, comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as God." On the Antichrist tapes we deal with this. We see in Isaiah and Ezekiel that Satan wants to be worshiped as God like the king of Babylon, etc. "Do you not remember, when I was with you I was telling you these things? And you do not know what restrains him now, so that in his time he may be revealed; for the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." (to be continued...)