WHAT'S HIS NAME

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto
me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end
of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:18-20)

Hopefully we all know the name of the Son. His name is given in the English Bibles as Jesus. In the Hebrew rendering of the New Testament, we read that his name is Yeshua. The Hebrew Names Version of the New Testament has the text in English, but carries the various names of the characters in the English rendering of the Hebrew. Here is how Matthew 1:21 reads in that version.

"She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Yeshua,
for it is he who shall save his people from their sins."

Christians have become familiar with the so called 'great commission' given by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-19. We use it to claim that Jesus told us to be missionaries. We don't normally include verse 20 when we quote the passage, even though that verse is part of what Jesus said. I wonder if we ever think about what the entire passage says? That's a subject for another writing, but let's do consider what Jesus said in verse 19.

"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Do we baptize people in the name of Jesus? The person doing the baptizing usually ends what he has to say by saying: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:". Where was Jesus' name in all of that? Shouldn't we expect to hear something more like; 'I baptize you in the name of Jesus'? There is a scripture supporting that idea.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

An answer might be that we say exactly what Matthew 21:19 says we should say, and perhaps that is as it should be, but then, I would have to ask if I can use that same logic in the application of Jesus' words in John 14:14?

"If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it."

Should we close our prayers by saying something: "in my name, Amen"? Of course not. Look how Peter used the actual name when he pronounced a blessing of health upon the lame man at the gate of the temple (Acts 3:6).

"Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give
I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."

What did Jesus mean when He told us to baptize in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Again, we know the name of the Son, but

What is the name of the Father?

What is the name of the Holy Ghost?

Let me answer with two statements.

1) We are not given separate names for 'the Father' and the 'Holy Ghost'.

2) Acts 4:12

That being said, let me ask a foundational question: How many Gods are there?

The correct answer is: Only one. (Isaiah 43:10-12, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:5-7, Isaiah 46:9)

Another question: Is Jesus, God?

The correct answer is: Yes.

Next question: What is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The correct answer is: Jesus.

I propose that we take Peter's example and use the actual name of God, Jesus when we call on Him and when we baptize people.

Since there is only one God, His name is Jesus. Notice what Jesus said about us praying.

"These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time
will come, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but
I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask
in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father
for you: For the Father himself loves you, because ye have
loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came
forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again,
I leave the world, and go to the Father." (John 16:25-28)

Previously, Jesus had told them that He would pray to the Father on their behalf, and that the Father would grant the request. Here, Jesus says that things will be different after He departs. He will no longer be praying to the Father for them, but they will be praying to the Father "in his name".

What does "in his name" mean? Does it mean that we're supposed to conclude our prayers with words like; "in the name of Jesus" or "in your name"? That's what we have been taught to say.


John 16:28 above says that Jesus came forth 'from' the Father, and will return 'to' the Father. The language presents a somewhat 'side-by-side' image of Father and Son. In verses 27-28, Jesus is trying to explain why the situation will change after his departure. He tells his disciples:

"For the Father himself loves you, because ye have loved me,
and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth
from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave
the world, and go to the Father."

It's almost like we can see Jesus coming away from God; departing from His side. I've highlighted the word from for a reason. We need to look at the original language there. If you click on this link you will see Strong's presentation on that word. Notice the usage numbers.

AV — of 51, with 42, from 24, by ... side 15, at 12, than 11, misc 45

This word can mean either from or of. The problem with it being translated as from in these verses is that it conveys the idea of Jesus being at the side of the Father, and that can confuse the casual reader. The Father and the Son are not two separate beings that can stand side-by-side. They are one and the same being; there is only one God. Take a look at this same passage with the word translated as of rather than as from, and remember, that to the Jewish ear, there is no distinction. It is simply the Greek word; para.

"For the Father himself loves you, because ye have loved me,
and have believed that I came out of God. I came forth
of the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave
the world, and go to the Father."

The Greek word para is translated as of 51 times in scripture, as compared with being translated only 24 times as from. The numbers don't mean everything, but they may indicate something. However, the most important thing to remember is that, to the original writer, it was simply the word para; it was that translators who decided that it would say from.

Now back to Jesus' explanation to his disciples. He told them that once He returned to the Father, He would no longer pray to the Father for them, but that they would pray to the Father directly, "IN HIS NAME" (the name of Jesus). His words indicate that there is significance to His Name.

IMPUTED

When you think back over the past month, was there a time when you transgressed one of God's commandments? He does have laws you know. Many people believe that God's laws don't apply to them. No. I'm not talking about the general public; I'm talking about Christians who don't believe that God's laws apply to them. For some, the favorite quotation from the New Testament is Romans 6:14:

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

So, I ask again; did you transgress one of God's commandments during the last month? How about in the last week? What about yesterday? What about this morning?

Perhaps I should rephrase the question; did you steal anything this week; a pencil or pen or some paper from the office? Did you look at a person other than your spouse and lust after that person? Did you get really angry at someone; angry enough to meet the qualifications of Matthew 5:22? Any of these would be a transgression of God's commandments. Do these commandments not apply to you?

Consider a word: 'Impute'.

Most of us are probably only familiar with this word because we have read it in scripture. Paul used it several times in the fourth chapter of Romans. Perhaps the most familiar sentence containing this word is Romans 4:22; "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." The context shows Abraham believing God, and righteousness being 'imputed' to him as a result of that trust. This verse in Romans is actually a reference to Genesis 15:6.

And he believed in the LORD; and he
counted it to him for righteousness.

Here in Genesis we see that Abraham was counted righteous by God. Was it because Abraham did some great deed of righteousness? Was it because Abraham wasn't a liar? No. Abraham was a liar. Was it because Abraham was faithful to his wife? No. Abraham fathered a son by his wife's Egyptian slave girl. God didn't count Abraham righteous for any of these reasons. God counted Abraham righteous because Abraham trusted Him.

God is a bookkeeper. In the day of judgment, the books will be opened. God keeps books; He keeps accounts on each of us, and what God did in the case of Abraham was to make an adjustment to the books. God put "righteousness" on the page in His books where Abraham's name was. God juggled the books. He imputed righteousness to Abraham.

But, we read in another passage of Romans chapter four;

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Those are the words of verse eight, and they tell us that God can exercise the option to NOT impute sin to someone. What we are seeing here and in verse 22 is that either righteousness or sin can be placed on our sheet in God's books at God's will. In the case of verse eight, we see that even if a man sins, God can elect to not enter that sin into His books.

Question: Is God just whimsical about this sort of thing, or what?

Of course, that answer to that question is that God is not whimsical, and that He uses a specific criterion in 'imputing' both sin and righteousness in His books. The point that we need to see in connection with this process is that God doesn't blink when He makes his entries in the books. He doesn't break His own rules, and He doesn't eliminate them either. His commandments are still very much in place.

Notice that God can elect to not impute sin to someone. That necessarily means that the person in view here sinned; and that means that the person had to transgress God's commandments.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law:
for sin is the transgression of the law. (1st John 3:4)

The religious leaders of Jesus' day claimed that He was trying to do away with the Law. Jesus clearly stated that He did not come to eliminate the Law.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)

The Law is still in place, defining what God expects from His created beings, but God can exercise His option to NOT impute sin when His commandments are transgressed, and blessed is that man to whom God will not impute sin when transgressions occur. The point to remember is that God isn't whimsical about it, and He follows a long established criteria for doing so.

I trust that I am not the only one who, at one time or other has read scripture and been confused by the words. For a long time, I had trouble reconciling these two verses:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat
loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1st John 5:1)

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God. (1st John 3:9)

I know that I fully believe that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Christ; therefore, according to scripture, I am born of God. And yet, I know myself. I know my nature. I know I transgress God's commandments. I do not doubt one bit that I am born of God; so how can 1st John 3:9 be true?

The answer is that God elects to NOT impute sin to my account when I transgress His commandments. His criteria is that I am born of Him, and this is where we return and again consider the concept of God 'imputing' or 'not imputing' sin.

We have seen from Romans 4:22 that God can impute righteousness based upon whatever criteria He elects to use. Similarly, we have learned from Romans 4:8 that God can choose to NOT impute sin to the transgressor. We also noted herein that 'impute' is an accounting term. As we examine this concept of 'imputation', it may serve us well to think of sins as 'debits' and righteousness as 'credits' on the ledger sheet.

Recognition of God's plan for our salvation is all important. He has established his plan, and only those who follow his plan will be saved. His plan has provided for anyone and everyone to be saved who will follow his plan. The plan was demonstrated by the Old Testament 'scapegoat' imagery. It allows God to impute any particular sin to the scapegoat's ledger sheet, but the condition that has to be met is that the sinner must believe in the scapegoat.

Jesus is the scapegoat. Anyone who desires to have their sins wiped from their ledger sheet, must simply believe that Jesus was provided by God to be the punished for sins. When I trust God on that matter; when I believe that Jesus was who He said He was; when I trust him to have taken the punishment for my sins; God imputes my sins to Jesus' ledger sheet. God counts my sins against Jesus' ledger sheet, and since Jesus paid for all sins, the matter is closed. I walk away scot free.

God didn't just let me off the hook for my sin. He just changed the recipient of the punishment. God didn't do away with the law. His law is eternal. Even Jesus didn't destroy the law, much less any of the apostles of the New Testament time period. God's law still applies to me, but when I transgress God's law, He imputes what should have been my sin to the ledger sheet of Jesus. He doesn't even see me as sinning. This is how our two verses of scripture are reconciled. Now, let's look at them a final time.

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat
loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1st John 5:1)

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin,
because he is born of God. (1st John 3:9)

I believe that Jesus is the Christ, therefore, I am born of God. I am born of God, therefore, I do not commit sin. When I transgress the law, God does not see me as sinning because the sin is imputed directly to the ledger sheet of Jesus who has already paid for my sin.

IN GOOD COMPANY

In February, I posted a series on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27, in which I concluded that the 70 'shabuwa' of that passage were completed by resurrection morning, and that all of the items listed in verse 24 were accomplished by Yeshua of Nazareth prior to the end of his earthly ministry. I am happy to find that this opinion is shared by another person. Let me quote him.

". . . [the] resurrection of Christ; whereby transgression should be finished, and sins ended, iniquity be expiated, and everlasting righteousness brought in, and this Vision be accomplished, and the Prophet consummated, that Prophet whom the Jews expected; and whereby the most Holy should be anointed, he who is therefore in the next words [Daniel 9:25] called the Anointed, that is, the Messiah, or the Christ. For by joining the accomplishment of the vision with the expiation of sins, the 490 years [the 70-weeks of Daniel 9:24] are ended with the death of Christ."

Scroll down to read the name of the man who is the author of the above statement.


















His name was Isaac Newton; Sir Isaac Newton

WHAT AMAZES ME

Statements made by the Catholic Church about the Sabbath day

“Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change...But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that...In observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.” Our Sunday Visitor, February 15, 1950.

“Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.

“The Catholic church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday...The Protestant World at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the (Catholic) Church’s right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant World.” James Cardinal Gibbons in the Catholic Mirror, September 23, 1983.

“It was the Catholic church which...has transferred this rest to Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Therefore the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) church.” Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, p. 213.

“They [the Protestants] deem it their duty to keep the Sunday holy. Why? Because the Catholic Church tells them to do so. They have no other reason...The observance of Sunday thus comes to be an ecclesiastical law entirely distinct from the divine law of Sabbath observance...The author of the Sunday law...is the Catholic Church.” Ecclesiastical Review, February 1914.

“Most Christians assume that Sunday is the Biblically approved day of worship. The Catholic Church protests that it transferred Christian worship from the Biblical Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, and that to try to argue that the change was made in the Bible is both dishonest and a denial of Catholic authority. If Protestantism wants to base its teachings only on the Bible, it should worship on Saturday.” Rome’s Challenge www.immaculateheart.com/maryonline Dec 2003

“Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 edition), p. 72-73 (16th Edition, p 111; 88th Edition, p. 89).

“For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible.” Catholic Virginian, October 3, 1947, p. 9, article “To Tell You the Truth.”

“Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)...The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day...He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy...”The Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. 4, “The Ten Commandments”, 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 Online edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

“Question: How prove you that the church had power to command feasts and holydays?
“Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.

“Question: Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
“Answer: Had she not such power, she could not a done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; -she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day of the week, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism On the Obedience Due to the Church, 3rd edition, Chapter 2, p. 174 (Imprimatur, John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York).

“Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. ‘The day of the Lord’ was chosen, not from any direction noted in the Scriptures, but from the (Catholic) Church’s sense of its own power...People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.” St. Catherine Church Sentinel, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995.

“Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday...Now the Church...instituted, by God’s authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday.” Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, 1927 edition, p. 136.

“Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day - Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day’? I answer no!”
“Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons.” James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, Md. (1877-1921), in a signed letter.

“Question. - How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
“Answer. - By the very act of changing Sabbath into Sunday which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.
“Question. - How prove you that?
“Answer. - Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the Church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin: and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.” An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine, composed by Henry Tuberville, p. 58.

“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The (Roman Catholic) Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.” John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.

“Question. What warrant have you for keeping Sunday preferably to the ancient sabbath which was Saturday?
“Answer. We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and apostolic tradition.
“Question. Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
“Answer. The Scripture commands us to hear the church (St.Matt.18:17; St. Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess 2:15. But the Scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath.

“St John speaks of the Lord’s day (Rev 1:10) but he does not tell us what day of the week that was, much less does he tell us what day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandments. St.Luke speaks of the disciples meeting together to break bread on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7. And St. Paul (1 Cor.16:2) orders that on the first day of the week the Corinthians should lay in store what they designated to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea: but neither the one or the other tells us that this first day of the week was to be henceforth a day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this ancient custom is the testimony of the church. And therefore those who pretend to be such religious observers of Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act more by humor, than by religion; since Sundays and holidays all stand upon the same foundation, namely the ordinance of the (Roman Catholic) church.” Catholic Christian Instructed, 17th edition, p. 272-273.

“Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the (Roman Catholic) Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath.” John Gilmary Shea, American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1883.

“The Sunday...is purely a creation of the Catholic Church.”American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1883.

“Sunday...is the law of the Catholic Church alone...” American Sentinel (Catholic), June 1893.

“Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles...From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.” Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August 1900.

“It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.” Priest Brady, in an address reported in The News, Elizabeth, New Jersey, March 18, 1903.

“From this we may understand how great is the authority of the church in interpreting or explaining to us the commandments of God - an authority which is acknowledged by the universal practice of the whole Christian world, even of those sects which profess to take the holy Scriptures as their sole rule of faith, since they observe as the day of rest not the seventh day of the week demanded by the Bible, but the first day. Which we know is to be kept holy, only from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic church.” Henry Gibson, Catechism Made Easy, #2, 9th edition, vol. 1, p. 341-342.

“Sunday is our mark or authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.

“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath to Sunday) was her act...And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.” H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons.

“The (Roman Catholic) Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday.” The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4.

“Sunday is founded, not of scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday.” Catholic Record, September 17, 1893.

“Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:

“1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.

“2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws...

“It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible.” Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Magazine, USA (1975), Chicago, Illinois, “Under the blessing of the Pope Pius XI”

“I am going to propose a very plain and serious question to those who follow ‘the Bible and the Bible only’ to give their most earnest attention. It is this: Why don’t you keep holy the Sabbath day?...

“The command of the Almighty God stands clearly written in the Bible in these words: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.’ Exodus 20:8-10...

“You will answer me, perhaps, that you do keep the Sabbath; for that you abstain from all worldly business and diligently go to church, and say your prayers, and read your Bible at home every Sunday of your lives...

“But Sunday is not the Sabbath day. Sunday is the first day of the week: the Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week. Almighty God did not give a commandment that men should keep holy one day in seven; but He named His own day, and said distinctly: ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’; and He assigned a reason for choosing this day rather than any other - a reason which belongs only to the seventh day of the week, and cannot be applied to the rest. He says, ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it’, Exodus 20:11, Genesis 2:1-3. Almighty God ordered that all men should rest from their labor on the seventh day, because He too had rested on that day: He did not rest on Sunday, but on Saturday. On Sunday, which is the first day of the week, He began the work of creation; He did not finish it. It was on Saturday that He ‘ended His work which he had made: 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.’ Genesis 2:2-3...

“Nothing can be more plain and easy to understand than all this; there is nobody who attempts to deny it. It is acknowledged by everybody that the day which Almighty God appointed to be kept holy was Saturday, not Sunday. Why do you then keep holy the Sunday and not Saturday?

“You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has the authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, ‘Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day’, who shall dare to say, ‘Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day: but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?’ This is a most important question, which I know not how you answer...

“You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet, in so important a manner as the observance of one day in seven as the holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding. Who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible, and the Bible only you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered.” Excerpts from “Why Don’t You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day?”, pages 3-15 in The Clifton Tract, vol. 4, published by the Roman Catholic Church 1869.

“The arguments...are firmly grounded on the word of God, and having been closely studied with the Bible in hand, leave no escape for the conscientious Protestant except the abandonment of Sunday worship and the return to Saturday, commanded by their teacher, the Bible, or, unwilling to abandon the tradition of the Catholic Church, which enjoins the keeping of Sunday, and which they have accepted in direct opposition to their teacher, the Bible, consistently accept her (the Catholic Church) in all her teachings. Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicism and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.” James Cardinal Gibbons, in Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.

THE 'MAZZAROTH'

It's a word that comes from scripture, at least in the King James Version of the Bible. Many of our English versions have retained this word. Among these are the NKJV, the ESV, the RSV, the ASV and the WEB. Notably, in Young's Literal Version the text says; "Mazzaroth", and in the Hebrew Names Version the text reads; "Mazzarot".

The NIV has rendered the original Hebrew word as 'constellations' which leaves us to wonder as to which constellations are in view, and the NASB translates the word in the singular form as 'a constellation' which may be misleading. The word does have something to do with the constellations in our sky, those groupings of stars that stir the imaginations of so many people.

The closest word I know of that would equate to the Mazzaroth is Zodiac.

Oh, no. I said a bad word. Many people believe that the Zodiac is somehow evil. That belief may come from the way these particular star groupings are used in astrology. We need to understand that there is a major difference between astronomy and astrology, and we need to find out who the author of the Zodiac is.

He who created the stars also created the Zodiac. He didn't call it the Zodiac. He named it the Mazzaroth. God did that. God named this particular group of constellations, the Mazzaroth. He also gave names to the individual constellations that comprise the Mazzaroth. We find a few names of the star groups in scripture.

"Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers
of the south." (Job 9:9)

" Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands
of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst
thou guide Arcturus with his sons?" (Job 38:31-32)

"Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the
shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night:
that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the
face of the earth: Yahweh is his name:" (Amos 5:8)

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth
his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their
voice is not heard" (Psalm 19:1-3)

For more than 6,000 years God has declared himself to mankind via the heavens. The night skies have shown knowledge to man in God's truly universal language. That is why Romans 1:18-20 is able to state:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God
is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

The use of the constellations in the Zodiac in the workings of astrology are the design of Satan. We need to remember that Satan never creates anything. All Satan can do is pervert what God has created, and such is the nature of astrology. His ministers have given different names to the constellations and then used the whole system to prognosticate personal fortunes. If you or someone you know is participating in this business, you (or they) need to repent and get out of it.

The definitive work on what the original names and symbols presented in the Zodiac all mean was done by E.W. Bullinger over a century ago. You can buy the book in hardback or softback, or you can read it for free online at this link.

There are twelve constellations that lie in the plane of the ecliptic, the path that the sun makes through the sky. Each one of the twelve has three associated constellations called Decans. Each constellation portrays a character in the story God designed them to tell to us. Perhaps in a future writing, we will examine the story in depth and the individual players. For now, it is for me to discuss the 'So What' question of the Mazzaroth; so here it is;

So What?

We who are Christians believe that we are saved by God's grace when we place our full trust for salvation in the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary. This teaching is the very essence of Christianity, and is stated in 1st Corinthians 15:1-5. We are also told that Abraham believed God, and God's righteousness was imputed to him in return. We find this teaching in James 2:23 as well as other places. It is a direct reference to the events of Genesis 15:1-6.

Abraham/Abram was distraught that in his old age he still had no son to be his heir. God took him outside to look at the stars as we read:

"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven,
and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him,
So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Yahweh; and he counted it to
him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:5-6)

As Christians, we present these verses to others and explain to them that this is where Abraham got saved. We explain that when Abraham believed God, God saved him, and we never stop to ask ourselves what it was that Abraham believed that resulted in his salvation. Verse six records one short statement made by God after Abraham had looked up at the stars: "So shall thy seed be." Make note of the singularity of the word seed. That will be important later.

We are familiar with the passages which declare that Abraham is promised that his posterity will be as numerous as the sands of the sea. In the same verse, Genesis 22:17, we are also told that his seed will be "as the stars of the heaven".

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply
thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon
the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

The population of Earth is not as numerous as either the stars of the heavens or as the sands of the sea, not even if we include all the many generations since Adam. Abraham's descendants are very numerous, but not that numerous, even if you include all of his spiritual offspring. Will his posterity ever be that numerous? Well, it's not really a question we can answer, but we may possibly be able to answer some different questions:

#1 Is Genesis 15:5-6 saying that Abraham's posterity would
be as numerous as the stars of the heavens?

#2 Was Abraham saved by believing a promise from God
that he would have a lot of posterity?

#3 Isn't salvation dependent upon our trusting the finished
work of Christ at the cross?

#4 Was Abraham saved by believing something else?

Genesis 15:5-6 is commonly interpreted as saying that Abraham believed God's promise of multiplied posterity, and because of that trust, Abraham was saved. This is not correct. What? That's right, Abraham was saved because he believed the gospel; just like you can be saved today; just like I am saved today. Galatians 3:8 tells us that the gospel was preached to Abraham.

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

If the gospel was preached to Abraham, then he had the opportunity to believe it, and if he believed it, then his trust/faith was counted unto him for righteousness. So, it wasn't his belief in God's promise of posterity that was counted to him for righteousness. So, why do we find that God's righteousness was counted to Abraham in the same verses that tell us about God showing the stars of the heavens to him? Because that's when and where God preached the gospel to Abraham, and He did it using the stars to tell the story.

Huh?

Let's look at the verses of Genesis 15 again.

"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven,
and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him,
So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Yahweh; and he counted it to
him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:5-6)

Two distinct words in verse five are translated from the same Hebrew word. What unfortunate translation work of the two words in bold type. Both tell and number come from the Hebrew word (Strong's H5608); caphar. Tell is a better rendering, but number gives us the idea that God wanted Abraham to count the stars. If Abraham's count of the stars was to be the basis for God giving him posterity, then I think Abraham would have gone childless. Have you ever tried to count the stars?

The New King James Version is worse than the KJV which I'm showing here. It actually says;

"Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them."

The NASB and NIV say just about the same thing with slight differences in phrasing, and the same is true for all of the other versions shown on the Blue Letter Bible site.

The translation of the word caphar is the culprit here. Here is how this same word is translated elsewhere in the KJV. [each word is shown with the number of times it is translated that way]

scribe 50, tell 40, declare 24, number 23, count 6,
shew forth 5, writer 4, speak 2, accounted 1, commune 1,
told out 1, reckon 1, shewing 1, talk 1

Caphar is only translated as count 6 times out of the total 160 times it occurs. That means something, but we can also look at how it is translated the most. Most of the time this word is translated as scribe or tell. [Compare Genesis 24:66 and Psalm 71:15] The definition of caphar is:

to count, to recount, to relate

I'm particularly drawn to the 24 times that this word is translated as declare. We've already looked at one of the passages where caphar is so translated. Let's look at it again.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth
his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night
sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their
voice is not heard" (Psalm 19:1-3)

Take a minute and read the full text of Psalm 19.

How can God say what He says in Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God
is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

How can men be without excuse just because they have seen God's creation? When and how has God "shewed it unto them"? For more than 6,000 years, God's witness in his created Mazzaroth has told the story of His plan for the redemption of mankind. It's right there in the stars that you can see every night. It's right there in the same stars that Abraham saw. It's right there in the stars that God used to tell the story to Abraham.

It's right there in the stars that declare God's handiwork. What is God's handiwork? The redemption of mankind. The Mazzaroth tells the story of the redemption of my BY A REDEEMER born of a virgin (Virgo). It tells the story all the way to the end where the Lion (Leo) of the tribe of Judah reigns supreme. It tells the story of the coming seed of the woman. How many is that?

Can we make a paraphrase of Genesis 15:5-6?

"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven,
and profess to me what the stars say, if thou be willing to profess their
story: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in
Yahweh; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:5-6)

It doesn't say; "This is how many offspring you will have."

It says; "So shall thy seed be." How many seed?

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)

God gave the salvation message in the stars so that no one would have any excuse.

Now, just exactly what was Abraham's complaint to God in Genesis 15:2-3?

"And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go
childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo,

one born in my house is mine heir."

And what was God's response in verse four?

"And, behold, the word of the LORD [came] unto him, saying, This
shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own
bowels shall be thine heir."

AND THEN GOD TOOK HIM OUT TO LOOK AT THE MAZZAROTH.

And when Abraham had recounted the witness of the stars, God said; "So shall thy seed be."

Abraham, this promised seed of the woman shall be your heir. How 'bout that Abraham?

This is what was happening in Genesis 15:1-6.


Check out the link

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?