NOTHING TO FEAR?

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men..." (Mark 7:8a)

It has been a few years since the 'No Fear' logo was all the rage. Today, there is not much more than a remnant of it, but I was able to find several good pictures on the internet.



The idea of 'No Fear' is a bold and strong statement from the secular side of our world. I suspect it is intended to present an image of security and self-confidence. It's as though they're saying that "We are the biggest, toughest kids on the block, able to beat up any other kid on the block."

I suspect that for many, this is probably true; they are the biggest kids on the block, so perhaps they are safe in making that statement? As long as they limit their social involvement to their own 'block', they probably have no need to fear. Maybe they better make sure they have no need to leave their own block?

But, as big as their block is, perhaps even as big as the entire planet, there is a boundary to it, and outside that boundary they may not be so bold. However, I believe that the entire 'No Fear' idea presented by so many is nothing short of blatant defiance of God. Take a look for yourself. Who wears a hat with that logo on it?

Now, how 'bout us Christians? What are we saying along this line?

How long has it been since you last hear a preacher say that the word 'fear' in the Bible, when used in conjunction with our attitude toward God, doesn't really mean Fear? Didn't your preacher tell you that when you read the words 'fear of God' it actually means; awe or respect or reverence? Didn't he tell you that we're not supposed to be afraid of our God? Maybe I'm the only one who has had preachers tell me that.

No. I don't think so. I think that this teaching is quite universal throughout the worldwide body of Christ. We have moved away from the days of such preaching as that done by Jonathan Edwards. We have come to know God as a powerful being whom we need to reverence and hold in awe, but certainly not be afraid of. Then we read what Paul wrote to the Romans:

"What then? are we better than they? As it is written, There is none
righteous, no, not one: No, in no wise: for we have before proved both
Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; There is none that
understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out
of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that
does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their
tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to
shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of
peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."
(Romans 3:9-18)

Quickly now; let's remember that 'fear' doesn't really mean 'fear' in this verse. It just means awe and reverence for God?

Really?

Actually, the Greek word translated as 'fear' in verse 18 is 'phobos'. It is the root word for a word we should recognize in our own language; phobia. Does phobia mean awe or reverence?

In the New Testament, the word fear appears 84 times. In all but four cases it is translated from the Greek words phobos/phobeo. What about the other four times? Let's look at them. 2nd Timothy 1:7 is often quoted in support of not being afraid.

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power,
and of love, and of a sound mind." (2nd Timothy 1:7)

In this passage, the Greek word isn't phobos, and if you are reading from the NIV or from the NASB, you will see what is probably a better translation of the Greek word here: timidity. Paul was encouraging Timothy to bear witness and not be timid about it.

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved
with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he
condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is
by faith." (Hebrews 11:7)

In this passage, Noah built the ark in reverence toward God. The Greek word is not phobos.

"Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have
grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly
fear: For our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:27-28)

Again, the Greek word is not phobos, and the NIV and NASB give a better rendering as awe.

One other verse should be cited before declaring that all the other occurrences of 'fear' come from the Greek word phobos. This example is a reverse version of what we have looked at so far. In this verse, the only one of its kind, the Greek word is phobos, but it ISN'T translated as
fear. I wonder why?

"Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even
as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."
(Ephesians 5:33)

In this passage, the Greek word phobos is actually translated as reverence. It is the only place where such is the case. Wherever the word reverence occurs in the New Testament, except for Ephesians 5:33, it is translated from the Greek word enopion.

So, now we've covered all of the exceptions. Every other New Testament verse where we find the word fear, the Greek word from which it is translated is phobos/phobeo. Let's look at just a few of them.

"But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for
all hold John as a prophet." (Matthew 21:26)

Did the chief priests and scribes hold the people in awe or reverence in this case? No. They feared (phobeo) what the people would do if they didn't give the right answer, so they decided not to answer at all.

"And for fear of him the keepers did shake,
and became as dead men." (Matthew 28:4)

Did the guards at the tomb fall down out of awe or reverence? No. They fell down out of fear (phobos) of the angel.

"Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round
about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with
great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again."
(Luke 8:17)

Were the Gadarenes taken with awe and reverence of our Lord? No. What they saw scared them. They left the area.

These are just some of the many examples that demonstrate that the English word fear is the correct translation from the Greek words phobos and phobeo, and they also demonstrate that fear means 'to be afraid', not 'to be in awe' or 'to reverence.'

But, some will reply and quote such verses as the following:

"That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of
our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness
before him, all the days of our life." (Luke 1:74-75)

Fair enough. Here's my question: Are we to serve him without fear of him, or are we to serve him without fear of what other might say or do? Which answer would not contradict the following verses?

"And his mercy is on them that fear him
from generation to generation." (Luke 1:50)

"Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and
Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and
in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied." (Acts 9:31)

"Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.
Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches,
take heed lest he also spare not thee." (Romans 11:20-21)

"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting
holiness in the fear of God." (2nd Corinthians 7:1)

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12)

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and
body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

Let us not be guilty of what Paul condemns in Romans 3:18.

THE HARVESTS OF THE LORD

The following is a post from my friend, Max Wells, on April 13th, 2010.
It is posted here in its entirety, unaltered in any way.

**
Is the following a certainty? Though it is presented as a certainty, this just simplifies the flow of the presentation. It is, in fact, merely the thoughts this meager servant has compiled in a study of the subject. Please read the following, and share your thoughts, concerns, or contemplations with me in return. I encourage your interaction. However, my e-mail time is somewhat limited, so please be patient in awaiting a return response.

May the Lord bless our continued understanding as we grow in Him,
Max Wells - inhisfootsteps@msn.com

**

HARVESTS OF THE LORD

We know the various harvests are typological for spiritual occurrences where God deals with different groups of people. There are three major types of harvests mentioned in the Word: barley, wheat and grapes. For both the barley and wheat harvests there are two segments: firstfruits and ingathering. For the grape, there is but one - a totality type of harvest. The harvests are linked closely to the festivals of Unleavened Bread, Feast of Weeks, Feast of Trumpets, and Day of Atonement (just prior to Feast of Tabernacles).

The firstfruits of the barley is offered on the morrow after the Sabbath during the week of Unleavened Bread Leviticus 23:11. Deuteronomy 16:9 says: "seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee: begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou BEGINNEST to put the sickle to the corn." We know this to be corns of barley, and Leviticus 23:10 clarifies that this is the firstfruits of the barley harvest. Then in Ruth 1:22 we see that the time when Ruth would be going out into the fields in chapter two was during the BEGINNING of the "barley harvest" of ingathering. It is commonly understood that those of the Jewish faith read the book of Ruth during Feast of Weeks (Shavuot, Harvest Feast, or Pentecost) because that is when this story was occurring. Being 50 days after the waving of the firstfruits of the barley harvest during Feast of Unleavened Bread, it was time for the ingathering of the barley harvest. As Pastor Riley points out in his article called So Simple, Pentecost is "the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest." This is very important to understand: The ingathering of the barley harvest is SIMULTANEOUS WITH the firstfruits of the wheat harvest - at Feast of Weeks, Pentecost or Shavuot. "And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end." - Exodus 34:22 "Year's end" in this verse would be at the transition into the new secular year at Feast of Trumpets during the fall festivals, when the ingathering balance of the wheat crop is harvested. There is only one other notable Biblical harvest, that of the grape. I do not find a time table for this harvest in the Word, but other sources indicate that the totality (being harvested all at one time) of the grape harvest occurs late in the year near the fall festivals, and is usually completed BY Feast of Tabernacles. Since Day of Atonement is only five days prior to Feast of Tabernacles, and is known as being a day of judgment, we will use this as our probable time frame rather than Feast of Tabernacles for the grape harvest.

The preceding paragraph provides your references. The concept, however is simple:

Firstfruits of barley harvest = Feast of Unleavened Bread
Ingathering of barley harvest = Feast of Weeks (Shavuot, Harvest Feast, or Pentecost)
Firstfruits of wheat harvest = Feast of Weeks (Shavuot, Harvest Feast, or Pentecost)
Ingathering of wheat harvest = Feast of Trumpets
Totality of grape harvest = Day of Atonement (just prior to Feast of Tabernacles)

Yeshua was a "firstfruits" per I Corinthians 15:20 which says: But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. Using converse reasoning, might not this imply there will also one day be a firstfruits of them that have not slept? Might the firstfruits of the dead represent the first of the two grain harvests - that of barley? Might not the second grain harvest of wheat then be the typology for the firstfruits of those that have not slept? Using this as a theory, let's see if the pieces fall into place.

Yeshua has been designated "an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" - Hebrews 6:20. It is the High Priest that waves the firstfruit offerings before God. Is Yeshua exempt from that? The Word has an answer: "For EVERY high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of NECESSITY that this man have somewhat also to offer." - Romans 8:3.

Yeshua was the firstfruits of those who SLEPT (barley). As High Priest, however, He would not be able to be His own offering. He needed some firstfruits from His earthly barley crop to wave before God. Maybe the Word helps us with this one too: When Yeshua was crucified, we read: "And behold, the veil was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints WHICH SLEPT arose, and came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Matthew 27:51-53. What happened to them then? The Word does not say. Is it possible that these saints who SLEPT, and were raised from their graves, were taken on into heaven with Yeshua for Him to wave as the High Priest's firstfruits barley offering during Feast of Unleavened Bread.?

The next thing on our harvest schedule would be the ingathering of the barley harvest, and the firstfruits of the wheat harvest. These two events happen simultaneously at the Feast of Weeks time frame. Notice in Leviticus 23:17 that there are TWO loaves which are baked with leaven. They are firstfruits unto the Lord. It is time for the firstfruits of the wheat harvest to be offered. Leaven is often typological for sin. (As it would relate to the human harvests, being baked with leaven might mean that the ones who compose this offering will have been prepared for it in a sin laden world, and may still be subject to slight impurities until they are harvested.) The offering of TWO loaves here is noteworthy also. There are two grain crops, ripening together, and Leviticus does not specify which grains should be used in these two loaves. Since the verse indicates that both loaves are to be "firstfruits" unto the Lord, one might conclude that both of these loaves would be from the firstfruits of the wheat. However, per the Hebrew Strongs #1061 definitions, this word "firstfruits" can also mean "hasty (acting in haste) fruit". It is time for the wheat firstfruits, but also time for the barley ingathering. Ruth 1:22 specifies that it is the BEGINNING of the barley harvest (of ingathering). What was God's intent here? Could it have been that one loaf be of first ripened wheat, and the other of the first of the ingathering barley harvest, hastily gathered and prepared before the harvesters started their work in earnest? Why two loaves, if only one harvest was being represented before God? Is it likely that He could have intended one from each of the two ripening grains? Traditions of men aside, it looks entirely plausible to me. Is there a Biblical passage that could address an ingathering barley harvest loaf here - a loaf to present yet another group (still future) from the barley crop planted by Yeshua which have slept? Could we perhaps even find something in the Word to represent each of these two loaves?

In Revelation we find two groups of 144,000. The first one is in the first eight verses of chapter 7, which is composed of 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Jacob. The second is found in the first five verses of chapter 14, which is a group which was "redeemed from the EARTH" (verse 3) and "redeemed from among MEN" (verse 4). The word "redeemed" is the Greek word "agorazo". Strongs #59 tells us it means "setting a slave free through purchase"; "acquiring". What is the penalty for being a slave to sin? "For the wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" - Romans 6:23. We know that this eternal life is our spiritual gift, but we are prepared to face physical death unless it is supernaturally preempted. Could these be ones who have also been spared (redeemed from) MAN'S curse of physical DEATH, and spared (redeemed from) burial in the heart of the EARTH after DEATH? They were redeemed (set free through purchase) from MAN (verse 3) and EARTH (verse 4). They are designated as "FIRSTFRUITS unto God and to the Lamb" (verse 4). Maybe they are those who were caught up as firstfruits of the wheat harvest! If this is only those who have been marked as those first RIPENED among the wheat (i.e.first[ripened]fruits), it is because they have learned to submit entirely to the Holy Spirit, overcoming their own self wills and the carnality of the world around them. "These are they which FOLLOW the Lamb whithersoever he goeth." - Revelation 14:4. The Greek word for "follow" in this verse is "akoloutheo". The most profound Strongs #190 definition is "to be a disciple of a leader's teaching". This would be the ones who have proven their obedience to the teaching and leadership of the Holy Spirit. There may be another inference as well. If our early supposition is correct, those in the firstfruits barley harvest "FOLLOWED" Yeshua when he went to the heavenlies so He could wave them before the Father as the firstfruits of His barley harvest during Feast of Unleavened Bread. Then Yeshua returned to the earth for 40 days, returning to heaven just 10 days prior to Feast of Weeks. Is it possible that the firstfruits of the wheat harvest will be given a chance to "FOLLOW" him on the anniversary of His previous departure in order to be waved by Him a few days later before the Father's throne as the firstfruits of His wheat harvest in the season of Feast of Weeks?

The 144,000 in chapter 7 are not called "firstfruits" as are those in chapter 14. Those of chapter 7 are not said to be "redeemed", as are those in chapter 14. There are two loaves waved at Pentecost. There are two groups of 144,000 here. There are two types of harvesting occurring at Pentecost - barley and wheat. If barley indicates a resurrection harvest of those who sleep, might not the wheat represent the harvest of those who are spared a physical death through the redemptive power of Yeshua? If the 144,000 of chapter 14 represents the latter, and those in chapter 7 represents the former, what group might fit the criteria for this first group from the tribes of Jacob who have slept?

Presuming that Ezekiel has chronological merit, everyone waits with bated breath the coming of the Gog and Magog battle in chapters 38 and 39. However, there is something in chapter 37 which I do not believe has yet been fulfilled to pave the way for the two chapters that follow it. The dry bones must be resurrected. Some say this has been done because people who have left Israel are returning, and some are finding Yeshua who had never known Him. This is a figurative fulfillment, a shadow of the literal, but I believe this chapter must be LITERALLY fulfilled as well. The raising of the dead of the House of Israel would provide the barley loaf for Pentecost, as we see being framed in Revelation 7. This would be the INGATHERING barley harvest, and would be simultaneous with the FIRSTFRUITS wheat harvest, a loaf from each harvest being caught up together for our High Priest Yeshua to wave together before God the Father. Ezekiel 37 says the Lord will breathe upon those who are raised from their graves, and they will be given the Holy Spirit, and know that He is Lord. (They already knew the Father was Lord - this is referring to Yeshua my friends). Those who are selected to comprise the ingathering barley loaf would be gathered and taken to heaven to be waved with the firstfruits wheat loaf before the Father's throne by our High Priest, Yeshua.

The next thing on the harvest schedule would be the ingathering wheat harvest. Is this Biblically revealed? Revelation 14:1-5 is a picture of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest who have have been caught up and are being waved before God's throne (where they appear in verse 5). The context of verses 6-13 is an overview of the tribulation which occurs after their departure. Then the text of verses 14-16 speaks of a figure like the Son of Man holding a sickle, and being told to thrust it in and harvest the earth, for it is now ripe. This is when Yeshua comes for the rest of His wheat, the wheat which remained here after the firstfruits wheat had departed. It is now totally ripened through the persecutions and hardships of the tribulation, and the time for the ingathering is at hand. His sickle harvests the ingathering wheat, and catches them up to heaven, where they will stand before the Bema throne. I Corinthians 3:11-15 tells of being tried by FIRE at what we might presume to be this Bema. Leviticus 23:24 says: "... In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering MADE BY FIRE unto the Lord." This harvest is symbolized by Feast of Trumpets in the fall.

Notation: Chapter 14 appears to have been taken out of chronological context in order to display a broad spectrum of time which overlays the actual events of the surrounding chapters. The actual timing for the INGATHERING wheat harvest might just be in Revelation 16:15. The departure times for the body of Christ are often designated by the phrase "I come as a thief", and there it is. Furthermore, look at the surrounding text and see if you can figure out why on earth this phrase would just be inserted out of the clear blue sky as it was, unless it was meant to stand out as an intervening event during the ongoing drama at hand. Verse 14 speaks of the world gathering together for the battle of Armageddon, and verse 16 continues the same thought, as though the intervening text had not occurred at all. Simply amazing! Then in verse 17, we hear a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, "IT IS DONE". What is done? I suspect, the Bema throne has just concluded.

If the departure of the ingathering wheat was foreshadowed by Feast of Trumpets, looking down the road a mere 10 days later is Day of Atonement. The grapes are usually totally harvested by that point in time. There is a reference to this as well. Going back to our overview in chapter 14, we paused for commentary after verse 16. Looking now at verses 17-20, we see yet one more sickle, this time being held by an angel. He is told to thrust in his sickle to gather the grapes, as they are fully ripe. This angel reaps the totality of the grape harvest with the sweep of his sickle. These grapes, however, are not taken to heaven. They are thrown into a winepress, and blood came out of the winepress unto the horses' bridles for 1600 furlongs. Who were these grapes? I presume they are those who have hated Israel, and have come against her in the battle of Armageddon. They will be tried at this time, and the retribution for their deeds will follow - the winepress will resolve the conflict! The Day of Atonement judgment has occurred, and the consequences have been administered.

Looking at the total overview of the Festivals, and what they represent, we should step back to include the Passover events which preceded the waving of the barley firstfruits. We remember that Yeshua fulfilled the Feast of Passover, by being crucified as our Passover Lamb on Passover day (Wednesday that year). His body (being our Unleavened Bread) was laid to rest in the sepulchre just hours to moments before sundown, which would begin the high holy day of Feast of Unleavened Bread. There His body would remain for three days AND three nights (Matthew 12:40), rising from the grave 72 hours later at sundown on the Sabbath day of rest. The empty tomb was found before dawn the next morning, which was Feast of Firstfruits (the morrow after the Sabbath during the week of Unleavened Bread). He was seen by Mary, and she was told not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father (John 20:17). Soon thereafter He would tell Thomas to touch Him (John 20:27), indicating that He had briefly ascended to His Father to fulfill His role as High priest in waving the barley firstfruits before Him. Soon thereafter, HOLY SPIRIT WAS GIVEN TO THE BODY OF CHRIST TO INDWELL THEM THAT THEY MIGHT OVERCOME TO PROPERLY ALIGN WITH THE IMAGE OF YESHUA. This occurred at Feast of Weeks, a period of transition that joins the segments of the spring festivals (former fulfillments) to the fall festivals (latter fulfillments). The Holy Spirit was dispensed in the very early church, the former rain (typology of Joel 2:23) event which correlated to the former fulfillment of the spring festivities.

As time goes by and the church age ensues, we draw near to the DEPARTURE OF THOSE firstfruits wheat WHO HAVE OVERCOME TO PROPERLY ALIGN WITH THE IMAGE OF YESHUA. This latter rain (typology of Joel 2:23) Feast of Weeks event launches the fulfillment of the remaining latter fall festival end of the spectrum. The next fall festival would be Feast of Trumpets, when the the ingathering wheat harvest will occur. Ten days later is Day of Atonement and the grape harvest. Five days later is the Feast of Tabernacles, when Yeshua can relax from His duties, and dwell in peace with His people. It will begin His day of rest (the 1000 year Millennial Kingdom).

As it relates to the harvest festivals, we have seen how the barley, wheat, and grape harvests are in various stages (past to future) of completion (firstfruits, ingathering, and totality).

Coming back to our current time frame, we have seen the fulfillment of the spring festivals - Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits (firstfruits of the barley harvest), as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit (the former rain fulfillment of Feast of Weeks). It is now time for the departure of the Bride, (the latter rain fulfillment of Feast of Weeks), and the fall festivals fulfillment events which will follow.

In the meantime maybe it is time for us to pause for a moment to absorb all that has just been shown. Selah!

Keeping the Faith, Max Wells

ONCE SAVED - ALWAYS SAVED

For 1063 by grace 5485 are ye 2075 saved 4982 through 1223 faith 4102; and 2532 that 5124 not 3756 of 1537 yourselves 5216: [it is] the gift 1435 of God 2316: (Ephesians 2:8)

So, you think that you're saved?
Yes.

Okay. What was it that got you saved?
An act of God's grace (Ephesians 2:8).

Good answer. Why did God, in his grace, save you?
Because you put your faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8).

Another good answer, but that was yesterday; what about today?
Once saved, always saved.

Really? I wonder if that's what the Israelites thought after God
saved them out of bondage in Egypt?

I will ¹⁰¹⁴ therefore ¹¹⁶¹ put ^{5279 0} you ⁵²⁰⁹ in remembrance ⁵²⁷⁹ , though ye ⁵²⁰⁹ once ⁵³⁰ knew ¹⁴⁹² this ⁵¹²⁴, how that ³⁷⁵⁴ the Lord ²⁹⁶², having saved ⁴⁹⁸² the people ²⁹⁹² out of ¹⁵³⁷ the land ¹⁰⁹³ of Egypt ¹²⁵, afterward ¹²⁰⁸ destroyed ⁶²² them that believed ⁴¹⁰⁰ not ³³⁶¹. (Jude v5)

It's the same word in both verses; #4982. The Israelites that came out of Egypt with Moses were "destroyed ⁶²² " by God before they could enter the land of promise. How is it that God saved them in the first place?

They trusted God, and put the blood of the lamb on the lintels and door posts of their houses.

Good answer. They trusted God?

Yes.

How many of them trusted God?

All of them.

They all trusted God?

Yes.

Then why did God destroy them before they could obtain his promise? Jude verse five says that they were destroyed ("them that believed ⁴¹⁰⁰ not 3361") because they didn't trust God.

Well, they all trusted God at first, but then they stopped trusting him.

So, at first they were saved, but later they weren't saved?

Yes. They were saved from Egypt when they trusted God, but then when they got to the promised land, they didn't trust God to deliver them from the giants in the land, so God destroyed them.

Okay. So, they quit trusting?

Yes.

How many of them stopped trusting God?

Everybody except Joshua and Caleb, and all the young people.

So, can that happen today? Can people who are "once saved" quit trusting God and lose their salvation?

WHAT ARE THE OTHER SIX HEADS?

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up
out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his
horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet
were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion:
and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great
authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to
death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world
wondered after the beast." (Revelation 13:1-3)

Why do people say that this one head that is wounded is 'the antichrist'?
If this one head is THE antichrist, what are the other six heads?
Revelation 13:11-12 says;

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth;
and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,
and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to
worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed."

This second beast causes everyone to worship the first 'beast'. It' doesn't say that this second beast causes everyone to worship the one head that was wounded.

Many people are expecting the scenario that happened in the famous novels. I think some of them think that the name of the antichrist will be Nicolai.

DETERMINING THE PROPER DAY TO START THE NEW MONTH

The following was written by my friend, Max Wells, on April 4th, 2010.
It is posted here in its entirety, unaltered in any way.

DETERMINING THE PROPER DAY TO START THE NEW MONTH

David said to Jonathan in I Samuel 20:5: "Behold, to morrow is the new moon ...". What was David looking at when he said "BEHOLD". Whatever he saw gave him the information that the new moon would be the following day. The moon is hidden from our view for roughly 2-1/2 days (dawn to dusk on day one, all of day two, and up to dusk on day three would be just that time frame). When David said "behold", he was observing something. About the only thing he could have seen that would confirm the "new moon" being the next day would have been the waning crescent moon, visible about dawn. (Actually, there are Talmudic indicators that the observation for the moon was centered around observing the WANING crescent so they could determine when the new moon conjunction would be.)

Please look through the data below to confirm the 2-1/2 day concept.

Per the website at:
http://www.capeweather.com/moon-phase.html

we find the following chart of moon phases. We see that the day prior to conjunction (this would be dawn that day) the waning crescent is barely visible. The day following conjunction (this would be about dusk that day, bordering the second day after conjunction) the waxing moon sliver comes ever so slightly into view.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

«« April 2010 »»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30
Moon calculations are based on your time zone. Check your computer time to ensure accuracy.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Then according to the following website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase

the waning moon can be seen just prior to dawn or in the early morning. The waxing moon crescent is seen around dusk.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Phase	Northern Hemisphere	Southern Hemisphere	Visibility

Waning crescent moon

Left 1-49% visible

Right 1-49% visible

pre-dawn and morning

Waxing crescent moon .

Right 1-49% visible

Left 1-49% visible

afternoon and post-dusk

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Our I Samuel 20 text indicates that there was some special dining arrangements - presumably a celebration to honor the new month at King Saul's table on the day of new moon, and David was expected to be there. We find this in verse 5, and again in verse 18. Per verse 5, the following day (which would start that same day at sundown) would be new moon. King Saul noted David's absence at the feast, but excused it, thinking something had defiled him and rendered him unclean. Then verse 27 specifies the second meal that David did not attend, and says it was the SECOND DAY of the month. The text clearly shows that this was the following day.

Let's analyze this for a moment. David BEHOLDS the waning crescent, designating the LAST day of the month they were in. Thus he observes that the new moon (hidden conjunction state of the moon) will be the following day (which would begin that same evening). That evening began DAY ONE of the new month (even prior to the actual timing of the conjunction), and Saul was celebrating the arrival of the new month. The day in which the new moon conjunction EVENT occurred was day one of the new month. David was absent from the feast, but Saul postponed criticism until the next such meal, one day later, WHICH WAS the SECOND DAY of the month per verse 27. It all fits like a glove.

However, IF the above interpretation is correct, it should match any precedent set forth in God's word. To see if it does, let's return to the first few verses of God's Word. He sets forth a precedent here. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the FIRST DAY." - Genesis 1:3-5. This was the first step in God's creative process. In verse 3, He brought forth light. In verse 5, He made a statement that has been used throughout time by the Hebrew people to determine the ordering of the 24 hour period we call a "day". He said, and THE EVENING and THE MORNING were the first day. This means that the evening is the first part of the "day", and the morning ends the "day". When we first read these three verses, we tend to think that God brought forth the light, and then called the evening and morning that followed the first day. There is a problem with this though.

For in SIX days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." - Exodus 20:11. It is clear here that the entire creation fell within a six day span. To say the evening and the morning which God called "the FIRST DAY" in verse 5 FOLLOWED the EVENT of bringing forth the light, would be to say that God created outside of (prior to the beginning of) the six days determined for creation. This cannot be! The evening and the morning which God called the FIRST day would have to be the time frame AROUND the EVENT of the creation of light. The evening PRIOR to the EVENT would have to have started the DAY OF the EVENT, which would be the FIRST DAY of creation.

Our God is a God of pattern! If these words (being the very first words of God to mankind), set forth His precedent of time, would it not carry through to the first day of the week, the first day of the month, and the first day of the year? Should the precedent be broken or remain consistent?

The conjunction of the moon is when the life of the previous moon ends (dies), and when the life of the next moon begins (is born). From the instant of conjunction until the next conjunction, the life progresses. The moon waxes (from birth at conjunction to the prime of its life at full moon), then it wanes (the aging process ebbing the light or life of the moon until it dies at the next conjunction). The new conjunction then restarts the cycle, bringing life again.

If the new month is determined by the giving of life to the new moon, is it right to say the new month does not begin for hours after the new life of the moon begins rather than the day that SURROUNDS AND INCLUDES the conjunction EVENT? Do you celebrate your birthday on the first COMPLETE day after you were born or the day that SURROUNDED AND INCLUDED the EVENT of your birth? Did God call the first day of his creation the first FULL day following the creation of light which started creation or the day that SURROUNDED and INCLUDED that EVENT? Should we not continue to follow the precedent He established in the first few lines of the Book He gave us?

I hope this may help to fill any gaps and complete the picture for the timing of the calendar.

Always seeking, and ever learning, Max

COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her,
my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,
and that ye receive not of her plagues."

What do we think that means? I know some who think this means that they need to pack their bags and leave the United States. I actually personally know people who believe that. Who is the 'her' of Revelation 18:4? Please notice that it is a female. It is not a nation; it is a church. The 'her' of Revelation 18:4 is the great, harlot church.

What does the harlot church teach? Among other things, she teaches the observance of the 'sacred' days of false gods and goddesses.

I make no bones about it; the origin of Easter is pagan. The very word 'Easter' is a simple transliteration of the goddess worshiped in ancient times as Ishtar. She is still worshiped today?

No? Ya vol!

We already know all about Easter, so why another post?

Because Christians don't realize what they are doing when they dye some hard-boiled eggs. We don't seem to be getting the point of what's wrong with that activity. We seem to have forgotten Yeshua's mandate to separate ourselves from all the trappings of the worship of false gods.

That is what the dying of eggs is. It is something that the pagans did as part of the worship of Molech. They dipped boiled eggs in the blood of the infants they were offering to Molech. It is still practiced, albeit in a modified form, by the Eastern Orthodox Church. They dye their boiled eggs red (not in blood these days). They don't even remember why they do it. Go online. See for yourself.

Now why would people who know that the dying of boiled eggs was part of a pagan ceremony honoring a false god, dye eggs at the same time of year that the pagans did?

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her,
my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,
and that ye receive not of her plagues."

And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect:
and make no mention of the name of other gods,
neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Exodus 23:13)

Many people say the word 'Easter' without knowing that to do so is an offense to God. Having said that, I'm sure readers will respond in the common way; "Ah, come on. How can it be that saying 'Easter' offends God."

Quite frankly, I don't know. I'm just reading Exodus 23:13 same as you. I just know that I don't want to offend him, and this one seems pretty easy to NOT do.

Do I really believe that saying 'Easter' offends God? Yeah; I do. Praise God for his grace and repent. That's his admonition to us.

TRADITION - F - continued

So, if God himself consecrated the seventh day to be set-apart from all of the other days as a 'holy' block of 24 hours, why is the majority of the Christian church declaring Sunday as the day of rest and the day of corporate worship? Some even go so far as to call it the Sabbath.

To be sure, you cannot find a Bible verse where God declares that He has changed His consecrated day from the last day of the week to the first.

You cannot find a Bible verse where Jesus changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.

You cannot find any statement made by Paul or Peter or John that the church had been instructed to change the sabbath to Sunday.

Instead, the tactic has been to interpret New Testament verses in such a way as to insinuate that the early church used Sunday as their day for communal worship.

One beloved pastor, concerned for my beliefs on this issue, took me into his home, fed me Sunday dinner, and then spent about two hours going over the scriptures with me. He wanted me to see that the early church practice is the basis of our modern-day use of Sunday. I'm certain that he was convinced that the verses he used made that point clear.

I don't know how many of those passages I can remember now, but I know at least one, and I'll begin with it. Acts 20:7 is always used in this way by proponents of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.

"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together
to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the
morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7 kjv)

Two elements in this declaration are the focus of the claim for the Sunday sabbath; the phrase: "upon the first day of the week", and the phrase "break bread".

Does "break bread" mean communion? If it does, then we can move to a discussion of the other phrase, but if it does not, then perhaps the entire subject is moot. So, do these two words speak of the table of the Lord, the communion table, the bread and wine? There are verses that seem to support this interpretation of Acts 20:7.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ?" (1st Corinthians 10:16)

Certainly, in the above verse, Paul is speaking of the communion table element, bread. In addition, we can find many verses in the gospels that speak of Jesus breaking the bread as he instituted the remembrance of his body being broken. Several other passages also speak about the believers breaking bread when they got together.

I think that to use Acts 20:7 as a 'proof' that the early church leaders (the apostles) instigated Sunday as the Christian sabbath, is to falsely accuse them of violating God's consecrated day. If we're going to give someone the credit/blame for making this change in the day, let's give that credit/blame to those who claim that they had the authority to make the change and did so; The Catholic Church. There is a plethora of articles on the net, both pro and con on that subject, and you can do that search for yourself, but I offer one link to get you started.

Let's look now at the other phrase; "And upon the first day of the week". Can we agree that the word 'day' is added here in this KJV rendering of the phrase? The translators have admitted doing just that, and have indicated the location of added words by putting them in italics. [It's unfortunate that those who have prepared the other versions haven't chosen to be this honest.]

Since we can concede the KJV admittal that 'day' is not part of the original Greek version, we can read that phrase leaving that word out. That's exactly what Young's Literal Version has done.

"And on the first of the week, the disciples having been gathered together
to break bread, Paul was discoursing to them, about to depart on the
morrow, he was also continuing the discourse till midnight" (YLV)

This verse doesn't record all that much going on, but this sentence sure has a lot going on.

In other words, it's a long sentence with many commas.

It was the first of the week.
Paul was teaching through the night.
In the morning, Paul was going to leave, and
it was still going to be the first of the week.
All of this uses one verb; was.

But, the verse mentions something else. The disciples had been gathered together to break bread. When was that?

It does NOT say that; "the disciples WERE gathered together to break bread".

It says that they had been.

This is an extremely important distinction.

They had gathered together to break bread. That had happened prior to the rest of the described events. It was over and done.

Now, all the lamps had been lighted.
Sunset was the beginning of a new day; the first of the week.
While Paul was waiting to depart until morning, he taught.
On the morrow Paul would begin his journey.
He would begin his travels in the daylight hours of Sunday.
It would be the same Sunday during which Eutychus had fallen.
It would be the same Sunday that began at sunset on Saturday night.
Sunset Saturday night had seen the conclusion of the sabbath
The 7th-day sabbath was when the disciples had broken bread together.

Now read the literal version once more and see if you can see it that way.

"And on the first of the week, the disciples having been gathered together

to break bread, Paul was discoursing to them, about to depart on the
morrow, he was also continuing the discourse till midnight"

Is it possible that verse seven might mean that the disciples got together to take communion on the first day of the week? Many people have understood it that way. It has been taught that way for centuries in the Catholic Church. The reformers failed to correct the tradition. It has come down to us as though it were fact.

It isn't.

[Quick note: In verse eleven, we read that Paul breaks bread, and eats. Is that communion? Hardly. Look at the Greek word in verse eleven from which we get our word 'eaten'. You will find that this word speaks of nourishment and of the tasting of food for flavor. Verse eleven is not talking about communion.]

Paul openly taught that we are not under the law, but he worshiped at synagogue on the seventh day of the week. Why?

You have been told that it was because the Jews would be there on Saturday. But remember, Paul's ministry was to the gentiles, not to the Jews. He didn't go to the synagogue on Saturday to convert Jews. He wasn't out to convert Jews to Christianity. His mission was to establish the faith among the gentiles.

So, I ask again. Why did Paul continue to go to synagogue on the seventh day sabbath?

Because Paul knew that the seventh-day sabbath was ABOVE THE LAW OF MOSES. The seventh-day sabbath had been established on the final day of the creation week.

Did Paul teach Jews while at the synagogue? Oh, yeah. I'm sure he never passed up an opportunity to teach anyone who would listen. We should examine an new passage in this context.

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles
besought that these words might be preached to them the next
sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of
the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas:
who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace
of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole
city together to hear the word of God." ( Acts 13:42-44)

The Gentiles asked Paul to return the following SABBATH in order that he preach to THEM. And the next SABBATH came, and Paul DID SO.

Acts 13:14 tells us where Paul was preaching. It was in modern day Turkey. This was gentile territory.

Can we get the picture here? Paul was preaching on a seventh-day Sabbath, and the Gentiles approached him after the service and asked him to come back the next week to preach to THEM.

This would have been a perfect opportunity for Paul to say; "Come back tomorrow. That's the new day of worship for Christians. I'll preach to YOU GENTILES then."

He didn't say that. Quite the contrary.

Seven days later, on the following seventh-day Sabbath, most of the town showed up to hear Paul preach. They would have been predominantly GENTILES, and Paul preached to them that day; that Saturday.

Paul had his entire week free. He could have preached to Gentiles any day of the week. Some people tell me that the day we worship doesn't matter, as long as we have one day during the week. This passage tells me that those people are wrong. Paul had the people wait an entire week. They came to hear him preach on the day that he said should be the day; the seventh day of the week.

There is one day in each week set apart by our creator God.

It isn't Sunday. It is the SEVENTH DAY. It is HIS SABBATH DAY.

It is mine. Is it yours?

TRADITION - F - The Sabbath Day

Any discussion of the sabbath day normally gravitates to the teachings of Paul. Many men who I love and respect teach from such passages as Romans 6:14

"For sin shall not have dominion over you:
for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Those men and others just like them are entirely correct in presenting this verse. I agree, but I hasten to add that the law is not why we should observe the seventh day of the week as our sabbath. The Law of Moses is not the reason we should do it. Paul wrote:

"Wherefore then serves the law? It was added because of
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand
of a mediator." (Galatians 3:19)

The Law was added? Added to what? The law was added to what God had already required of His creation. Adherence to a commandment was added, but the keeping of the sabbath day as a day of rest came long before the Law of Moses. That's why the Israelites were already keeping the seventh day before their encounter with God at Mount Sinai. God's people had been given the sabbath day as a day of rest since the creation of the world. Really? Uh, huh.

We all know the story of creation, and we all know that God rested on the seventh day. Is that my justification for the seventh day being the sabbath day of rest? Wouldn't that be enough reason to do so? It would be, but there is more.

God didn't rest simply to give us an example we might chose to follow. He did something more, and that point typically gets passed over lightly in most sermons. Genesis 2:2 says that God rested on the seventh day from all of his creative work, but Genesis 2:3 says what else God did.

"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that
in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

God blessed the seventh day. Okay.

God sanctified the seventh day. What does this mean?

I was hoping you would ask.

The usage of this word is pretty descriptive of what the word means Biblically. How the word is used elsewhere in the Bible is as follows:

sanctify 108, hallow 25, dedicate 10, holy 7, prepare 7,
consecrate 5, appointed 1, bid 1, purified 1, misc 7

On the day after he created man, God sanctified the seventh day of our week . HE dedicated the seventh day of the week as a day of rest. HE consecrated the seventh day of the week from the beginning of man's days on Earth. HE made the seventh day special, set apart from all of the other six days.

Nor is it as some like to say, As long as we take one day of rest, it doesn't matter which one. I suspect that God would challenge that thinking. HE set it up to be the seventh day, and he did so 2,300 years before the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments were ever given.

Tell me you're not under the Law. Fine.

Would you like to observe the same day God observed? Great.

But, God set-up the seventh day to be the Sabbath for man. God did that. It WASN'T just a part of the Law of Moses. It was incorporated into the Law of Moses, but God established the seventh day as THE day of rest for mankind in a code of His Law that predates the Law of Moses; in a code of His Law that is totally independent of the Law of Moses.

I am convinced that Satan will and has used the concept that we are not under the Law of Moses as a springboard, a launching-pad if you will, to bring souls to the idea that we are not under any of God's law at all. [I shouldn't say 'will use' since that indicates a future occurrence. The systematic removal of God's laws from the laws of the USA has been underway for decades.]

People often say to me; 'The day doesn't matter, and they attempt to quote or paraphrase Colossians 2:16 by way of supporting that thinking.' They seem to be saying; "I'll decide which day I want to sanctify as MY sabbath.

Yeshua said that He IS Lord of the Sabbath, not us. God made the sabbath for man, but it is still very much His sabbath.

There is blessing for mankind in the seventh day sabbath.
Don't continue to let tradition get in the way of that.

[A dear brother sent this to me just today.]

TRADITION - E - His name

Israel has been returning to their homeland for almost a century now. It was 1917 when General Allenby walked into Jerusalem with the British Army and declared it to be the homeland of the Jews. Wars continue, but the Jews will never be removed again.

These days, we don't think often about God taking Israel out of Egypt and bringing them into the land He promised them, but hardly a day, scratch that, never a day goes by that the Jews returning to Israel isn't in the news. If your local station isn't carrying such news... well, what can I say? Indeed, we live in the days spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah.

"Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more
be said, The LORD lives, that brought up the children of Israel out of
the land of Egypt; But, The LORD lives, that brought up the children
of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he
had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I
gave unto their fathers." (Jeremiah 16:14-15)

This is a time stamp on what God said to Jeremiah in the verses of chapter sixteen that come next. Speaking of what will happen in the gentile world at this same time, Jeremiah writes:

""O LORD, my strength and my fortress, My refuge in the day of affliction,
The Gentiles shall come to You From the ends of the earth and say,
"Surely our fathers have inherited lies, Worthlessness and
unprofitable things." Will a man make gods for himself, Which are
not gods? "Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know,
I will cause them to know My hand and My might;
And they shall know that My name is the LORD.""
(Jeremiah 16:19-21 nkjv)

"And they shall know that My name is the LORD."??? We are starting to learn; maybe we'll soon know Him by name. Many are dragging their feet. Tradition. His name is NOT; 'the LORD'. The correct reading of what GOD WROTE HERE is:

"And they shall know that My name is יהוה."

Some will be quick to respond; 'But we don't speak Hebrew". Correct; so speak English, but don't change the meaning. Transliterate the name of God here. Don't continue to say something that isn't there. God wrote the book, and God put his name right there. The Gentiles, that's us, are supposed to finally learn his name, not some arbitrary title given to every English land owner.

This is a blog, so I don't know your name. Suppose I'm speaking to someone named Larry. Larry and I are having a discussion. As we speak, I just call him 'the man'.

I say things like; 'Man, do you work for the title company?
He gives me a strange look, and answers yes.
I respond; "And do you, man, know someone there who drives a BMW?
Already Larry is not sure he wants to talk to me; why am I not using his name?
So, he says; Why aren't you using my name as we speak together?
My response is that I think his name is too special to utter it vocally.
He softens and says; 'I told you my name so you could use it'.

And thus it is with God and his name. His name is sacred. His name is holy. He put his name in the open text of scripture almost 7,000 times so that we would know him by name. We don't abuse his name. We don't use it as a cuss word. We don't throw his name around in sloppy conversation or jokes. But we should read his name, aloud if we want to, and speak his name in worship, and especially, we should call upon him BY NAME.

It is only tradition that keeps us from doing it. It was Jewish tradition first. That got things underway. Soon, they had forgotten his name. They referred to him as "the name"; HaShem. Then they gave him a title; Adonay; The Lord. Adonay is a perfectly acceptable title, but it's a title, not a name.

His name is יהוה. Consider Exodus 5:22.

"And Moses ⁴⁸⁷² returned ⁷⁷²⁵ unto the LORD ³⁰⁶⁸, and said ⁵⁵⁹ ,
Lord ¹³⁶, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated ⁷⁴⁸⁹ this people ⁵⁹⁷¹?
why is it that thou hast sent ⁷⁹⁷¹ me?"

Here you will see the numbers that James Strong attached to the Hebrew words. Notice that the words the LORD ³⁰⁶⁸ and Lord ¹³⁶ have different numbers assigned. They are different Hebrew words. #136 is the Hebrew word for 'lord', and it means master. Jewish tradition attached greater meaning to it when it started to be used as a way to address God. Word #3068 is the tetragrammaton; יהוה. It is the very name of God.

His name is often transliterated as Jehovah. At least Jehovah is a name, not a title. I prefer to just pronounce the letters that the Jews won't say aloud. It comes out as; Yahweh, and is pronounced yaw-weigh.

"And they (the gentiles, us) shall know that My name is Yahweh."