Archive for March, 2009

The Rapture

I thought I would post an explanation of the origin of the rapture doctrine for informational purposes.   I realize that there are many who believe in a pre-tribe rapture; however, I do not believe that the NT shows us this.  One of the problems, perhaps the most puzzling is that it comes through Dispensationalism, which places the Jews outside of salvation until after the rapture [dispy also replaces the Jews with the church as if God has disassociated Himself of them – which is completely opposite of what Paul taught – they come to God through Christ, just as the gentiles do].

Dispy/rapture presents two brides and two returns of Christ, which cannot be found in Scripture.  Jesus only returns once – with the sound of one Trump and one shout.  The dead in Christ rise first, then believers who are alive meet Christ in the air, as they with Him, descend to earth where we will dwell in the New Heaven and New Earth.  Truly this is how we will be forever with the Lord.  It is during His appearance that EVERY eye will see Him, and EVERY tongue will declare that He is The Lord of lords and The King of kings.   Christianity’s deception in this area is that Christ will appear to only a select group and zap them off to Heaven, while people stand around scratching their heads at the “disappearance” of these select Christians.  That was never a NT concept.

Although the rapture doctrine took hold in 1830 with the vision of Margaret McDonald and then further published by Edward Irving, there is some historical evidence that Manuel Lacunza, in 1761, wrote a book hinting that Jesus would return twice – the first time to take the church out of the world before God would pour out His wrath. Irving was familiar with Lacunza’s book as he translated it into English. Irving appears to have taken some of his theories along with the rapture vision to promote this doctrine.

Lacunza’s contribution to present day Evangelicalism was to go back to the literal truth of Scripture; to reassert the restoration of the Jews in the end-times; the two-fold coming of the Lord; the millenial reign; the setting up of the temple sacrifice once again; and, the restoration of the earth following the yet future and final defeat of Satan. His position has been described technically as ‘futurist post-tribulational’.


Please note, that no early church fathers or early christian writings refer to a rapture – this is a very late “new” doctrine that has taken hold of a great share of the christian community.  To presume that this “revelation” came to a “select” group of people is, to say that God “hid” this “knowledge” – for such a time as this – from the bulk of Christians for the last 2,000 years.  We read that God does not have favorites or special revelation to a select group.

I have taken a few quotes, just a sampling, from a rather lengthy but interesting article with the whole history and how this doctrine made its way into the church at large. It’s excellent reading full of history and the associations between major church theologians.


Quote:The origin for the pretribulation rapture is well documented. The doctrine was publicly revealed first by a London preacher named Edward Irving. After receiving information by a woman named Margaret McDonald, who claimed to receive a revelation from God, Irving began to publish teachings about the pretribulation rapture in his journal, The Morning Watch, about 1830.

About the same time period, an Anglican minister by the name of J. N. Darby came up with the idea of Dispensationalism while studying the Book of Revelation during a time of recovery after falling from his horse. Even though many have wrongly credited John Darby of the Brethren with originating the pretribulation rapture doctrine, he was still defending the historic posttribulation rapture view in the December, 1830 issue of “The Christian Herald.” As late as 1837 Darby saw the church “going in with Him to the marriage, to wit, with Jerusalem and the Jews. And we now know that he didn’t clearly teach the pretribulation rapture doctrine before 1839. It was not until 1839 that Darby finally began to clearly teach a pretribulation rapture. Later on in the nineteenth century Darby incorporated the idea of the any-moment secret into a last-days scheme which has come to be known as Dispensationalism.

A little over a half a century later, C. I. Scofield took a fancy to the doctrine and thought up the plan for a reference Bible that would help to explain the complicated structure of Dispensationalism to the masses. He constructed his reference Bible to include Darby’s dispensational error, which included the doctrine of pretribulation rapture. The Scofield Reference Bible introduced Dispensationalism into the American church shortly after the turn of the 20th century. It was first met with great resistance, and caused much confusion and conflict among professing Christians. Throughout time, it has gradually become accepted and defended by many as true, Biblical doctrine.

Quote:Manuel Lacunza

Manuel Lacunza was a Spanish Jesuit Priest. Lacunza was banished from Chile in 1767 with other Jesuits. Shortly after, he fancied himself to be a converted Jew and changed his name to Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra. In about 1791, Lacunza finished writing a book entitled “The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty” under the name of Ben-Ezra. In his book, Lacunza hinted that Jesus would return two times for the Church. His first return would be to get His Church out of the world so that God the Father could pour out His wrath. This may be the portion from which came the idea of a pretribulation rapture.

The book never became very popular. In fact, it would probably have slipped into oblivion as so many unpopular books have done throughout the years. However, Lacunza’s book somehow made its way to England, where Edward Irving—whom we will discuss later in this chapter—found it in the library of the Archbishop of Canterbury in London. Irving translated Lucunza’s book into English and became enamored by some of the doctrine in it. However, it is most likely that Irving did not get the pretribulation rapture from Lacunza’s book.

However, I believe that Irving gleaned some information form Lacunza that helped him to form his doctrine. There were theories in Lacunza’s book that were not traditional. Irving took a bit from here and there to feed his active imagination. Lucunza helped to provide some fodder for his thoughts.

Quote:Not long after reading Lacunza’s book, Irving began to preach the secret rapture of the saints, claiming that he heard a voice from heaven commanding him to do so. This may be the reason that some people attribute the origin of PTR to Lacunza. Some of his meetings during 1828 in Scotland brought crowds of approximately10,000 people. Irving’s church in London was famous for his prophetic declarations and for attracting famous, influential people of society. The building seated one thousand people, and was filled to capacity each week. The many prophetic declarations that Jesus was coming soon that produced great excitement. A person might see from this a parallel to the exciting Charismatic and Pentecostal churches today who revel in prophesies and sensationalism and draw huge crowds.

However, he [Irving] may also have been influenced by a woman named Mary Campbell, who was a friend of Margaret McDonald. Mary Campbell sought the gift of the Holy Spirit and she spoke in tongues about March of 1830. Later, she “received the gift of automatic writing, which is writing while in a trance. The letters were often unintelligible. But just as unknown tongues were interpreted, one could also interpret automatic writing. Campbell and her husband, a Scottish clergyman, visited Irving in his home. It is reported that they were Irving’s guests for a considerable time. During that visit, Mary Campbell spoke frequent messages to Irving that were allegedly from the Holy Spirit. Although Campbell spoke the prophecies in the church meetings, she spoke them in the meetings in Irving’s home.

Quote:Margaret McDonald

Now we come to Mary Campbell’s friend, Margaret McDonald. What hadn’t been widely known until recent time was that the Irvingites had been influenced by a young Scottish woman who had privately told Irving, John Darby, and some other clergymen in early 1830 that the Lord had revealed to her that part of the Christian church would be raptured before the revealing of the Antichrist during the tribulation while the rest of the “church” would endure that period. However, the first public teaching of the pretribulation rapture was in a September, 1830 article in The Morning Watch, a British journal published by Irving. After Irving received Margaret McDonald’s handwritten account of her revelation, The Morning Watch began echoing her novel view. The article clearly stated that part of the Christian church (described as the “Philadelphia” of Revelation 3) will be raptured to meet Christ in the air before the “great tribulation,” adding that “Laodicea” (described as the “church” that will face the Antichrist) will be left behind to go through it.

The Vision:

Quote:Here is the McDonald vision in totality that is being circulated as the one Irving is supposed to have gotten his theory of a secret rapture from.

“It was first the awful state of the land that was pressed upon me. I saw the blindness and infatuation of the people to be very great. I felt the cry of Liberty just to be the hiss of the serpent, to drown them in perdition. It was just ‘no God.’ I repeated the words, Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men’s hearts failing them for fear. Now look out for the sign of the Son of Man. Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of Man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is.

I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father’s glory. I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but ’tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people.

Many passages were revealed, in a light in which I had not before seen them. I repeated, ‘Now is the kingdom of Heaven like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom, five wise and five foolish; they that were foolish took their lamps, but took no oil with them; but they that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.’
‘But be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is; and be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.’ This was the oil the wise virgins took in their vessels – this is the light to be kept burning – the light of God – that we may discern that which cometh not with observation to the natural eye. Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance.

No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. ‘Tis Christ in us that will lift us up – he is the light – ’tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air. I saw that we must be in the Spirit, that we might see spiritual things. John was in the Spirit, when he saw a throne set in Heaven. But I saw that the glory of the ministration of the Spirit had not been known. I repeated frequently, but the spiritual temple must and shall be reared, and the fullness of Christ be poured into his body, and then shall we be caught up to meet him. Oh none will be counted worthy of this calling but his body, which is the church, and which must be a candlestick all of gold. I often said, Oh the glorious inbreaking of God which is now about to burst on this earth; Oh the glorious temple which is now about to be reared, the bride adorned for her husband; and Oh what a holy, holy bride she must he, to be prepared for such a glorious bridegroom. I said, Now shall the people of God have to do with realities – now shall the glorious mystery of God in our nature be known – now shall it be known what it is for man to be glorified. I felt that the revelation of Jesus Christ had yet to be opened up – it is not knowledge about God that it contains, but it is an entering into God – I saw that there was a glorious breaking in of God to be. I felt as Elijah, surrounded with chariots of fire. I saw as it were, the spiritual temple reared, and the Head Stone brought forth with shoutings of grace, grace, unto it. It was a glorious light above the brightness of the sun that shone round about me. I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing – so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived. – This is the fiery trial which is to try us. – It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed – but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest – the love of many will wax cold. I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth, and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive – for it is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness he will work – he will have a counterpart for every part of God’s truth, and an imitation for every work of the Spirit. The Spirit must and will be poured out on the church, that she may be purified and filled with God – and just in proportion as the Spirit of God works, so will he – when our Lord anoints men with power, so will he. This is particularly the nature of the trial, through which those are to pass who will be counted worthy to stand before the Son of man. There will he outward trial too, but ’tis principally temptation. It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out. The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept. I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit – have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan – be full of eyes within -be clay in the hands of the potter -submit to be filled, filled with God. This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb. I saw it to be the will of God that all should be filled. But what hindered the real life of God from being received by his people, was their turning from Jesus, who is the way to the Father. They were not entering in by the door. For he is faithful who hath said, by me if any man enters in he shall find pasture. They were bypassing the cross, through which every drop of the Spirit of God flows to us. All power that comes not through the blood of Christ is not of God. When I say, they are looking from the cross, I feel that there is much in it – they turn from the blood of the Lamb, by which we overcome, and in which our robes are washed and made white. There are low views of God’s holiness, and a ceasing to condemn sin in the flesh, and a looking from him who humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation. Oh! it is needed, much needed at present, a leading back to the cross. I saw that night, and often since, that there will be an outpouring of the Spirit on the body, such as has not been, a baptism of fire, that all the dross may be put away. Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been – the servants of God sealed in their foreheads – great conformity to Jesus – his holy holy image seen in his people – just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her. This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air – and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. Amen and Amen Even so come Lord Jesus.”

Quote:Even though one may conclude that Margaret McDonald did not expressly state a pretribulation rapture in her revelation, it is for certain that she presents the idea of a secret rapture. It is also clear what Irving understood her to mean. She evidently thought that it was very important since she sent hand-written copies to various clergymen and Christian leaders. Not long after receiving her hand-written copy, Irving published her revelation in The Morning Watch. (It was also published in 1840 in Robert Norton’s Memoirs of James and George Macdonald. It was again published in 1861 by Norton in The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic Church.) After publishing McDonald’s revelation, Irving began to publicly teach the idea of an invisible secret appearing of Christ to gather His saints, then another appearing when He brings judgment on the earth.

Read Full Post »

Innocent Blood


A doctrine has been floating around for a number of years called “Innocent Blood”.  This doctrine promotes that Jesus Christ did not have human blood, but the “blood” of God.  It is also stated that this blood made Jesus physically God and therefore, by conclusion, He was not a human being.  Because Jesus’ blood was of God, it was the only way He could have “innocent blood” in order to be a perfect atonement for sin.

Other facets of this teaching:

*  All members related by His blood. The life of each member depends solely on His blood We are blood relatives to Adam, who sinned. Christ gives us new life (blood).

*  After victory over sin, Jesus makes us “immune” from it.

*  The child’s blood comes from its father Its mother’s blood is not transferred The mother provides only the flesh, not the blood.

* If our Lord Jesus, who is to occupy David’s throne (Luke 1:32-33), had been begotten by Mary’s husband Joseph, who was of the line of Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12,16), it would have contradicted this divine prediction [no kingly descendents]. Christ’s dynastic right to the throne came, through his foster father Joseph, from Jeconiah, but the physical descent of Jesus from David came through Mary, whose genealogy is traced to David through Nathan rather than through Solomon (cp. Luke 3:31 with Matthew 1:17).


Let’s look at the basic statements of “Innocent Blood” – my comments in brown, follow the statements in black:

*  All members related by His blood. The life of each member depends solely on His blood We are blood relatives to Adam, who sinned. Christ gives us new life (blood).

The blood of Christ was shed for sin as He bore our sins – taking them upon Himself.  The shed blood, in and of itself, does not propitiate for sin.  Sin is birthed in the heart [mind, soul] not in the blood.

Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:  20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man.

It is fact that Jesus was sinless, incapable of sin, not that the blood itself had properties to cleanse from sin, or that sin can be washed physically out of the blood.  Jesus is God and therefore, incapable of sin.   If the blood itself had properties to cleanse from sin, we would all have to be physically dipped in the shed blood of Christ in order to be sanctified and forgiven from sin every time we sin – and God would have to transfuse into us brand new blood.  As God does not have blood – He is a Spirit, a “Heavenly blood” is impossible.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

What the NT tells us is that we are born again or given new life, spiritually, by the Holy Spirit.  We are changed, transformed, renewed into the image of Christ – we have the mind of Christ, we are lead by the Holy Spirit, we are born again of Spirit.  It is not physical change, but a spiritual one. We do not have new “blood”.

*  After victory over sin, Jesus makes us “immune” from it.

Overcoming by the blood of the Lamb is not overcoming all sin.  We are in the flesh and will continue to sin until we die.  Immunity of the blood is against disease, not sin.  We overcome by being faithful to God; being led by the Holy Spirit; by resisting temptation; by a continual regeneration of our spirits to be like Christ.  This is an ongoing process and one that we fail at continually.  By the grace of God, are we His workmanship and perfected by Him.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The child’s blood comes from its father Its mother’s blood is not transferred. The mother provides only the flesh, not the blood.

Blood is made in the bones of the body.  Blood type comes from both mother and father.  This is basic biology 101.

From Wikipedia:

“Blood is a specialized bodily fluid that delivers necessary substances to the body’s cells — such as nutrients and oxygen — and transports waste products away from those same cells.

Blood is considered a specialized form of connective tissue, given its origin in the bones and the presence of potential molecular fibers in the form of fibrinogen.

Blood performs many important functions within the body including:

*  Supply of oxygen to tissues (bound to hemoglobin, which is carried in red cells)

*  Supply of nutrients such as glucose, amino acids, and fatty acids (dissolved in the blood or bound to plasma proteins (e.g., blood lipids)

*  Removal of waste such as carbon dioxide, urea, and lactic acid

*  Immunological functions, including circulation of white blood cells, and detection of foreign material by antibodies

*  Coagulation, which is one part of the body’s self-repair mechanism

*  Messenger functions, including the transport of hormones and the signaling of tissue damage

*  Regulation of body pH (the normal pH of blood is in the range of 7.35 – 7.45)[2] (covering only 0.1 pH unit)

*  Regulation of core body temperature

*  Hydraulic functions [Blood flow to help lift, move, expand]”


From another article:

Bone marrow is the spongy tissue in the cavities of the bones. It is the blood cell ‘factory’. Healthy bone marrow releases blood cells into the blood stream when they are mature and when required. The different blood cells made inside bone marrow are:

*  Red blood cells that carry oxygen around the body

*  White blood cells that make up the body’s immune system

*  Platelets which are needed for clotting.


* If our Lord Jesus, who is to occupy David’s throne (Luke 1:32-33), had been begotten by Mary’s husband Joseph, who was of the line of Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12,16), it would have contradicted this divine prediction [no kingly descendents]. Christ’s dynastic right to the throne came, through his foster father Joseph, from Jeconiah, but the physical descent of Jesus from David came through Mary, whose genealogy is traced to David through Nathan rather than through Solomon (cp. Luke 3:31 with Matthew 1:17).

The earlier concept:

*  So then, since the blood of Jesus came from the Father (making Him innocent), Jesus was PHYSICALLY (as well as spiritually) the Son of God.

Therein lies the contradiction …… either Jesus came from “divine blood” or from human blood.  If Jesus came through the line of Mary, He fulfilled the OT prophecy of coming from David’s blood line.  However; if Jesus’ blood is “God’s blood”, then we have a huge problem ….. Jesus cannot be the Messiah because He could not have fulfilled prophecy.  Oopps … Thinking2

Read Full Post »

I started a new page for any comments and questions that people have who have come to my blog.  You can also comment at the end of the articles I have published here on my blog, but if you prefer to do it here, that’s cool.  Sometimes you might have a question that is doesn’t fit any category, so this is the place to “bring it to the table” 🙂

I would love to hear from YOU!



sheep wrecked


Read Full Post »

The Hebraic Hook

Many people have asked me how I got interested in, and then intertwined with Messianic Judaism [MJ], or as it’s more recognizably known – Hebrew Roots [HR]. Because of the constant promotion of a Jewish perspective, also known as a Hebraic mind set, I wanted to clarify from a very personal perspective of how traveling on that particular road of thought landed me into HR.

For those of you not familiar with Hebrew Roots – it’s a movement that promotes going back to keeping the Law of Moses in varying degrees dependent on the group one is affiliated with or by personal beliefs. Most of the movement’s doctrines progress away from “normative” Christianity by choice, convinced that Christianity is the paganism that is warned of in the NT. HR is centered around the departure of anything “Greek” minded and incorporating as much Jewishness as possible into their lifestyle and religious practice.

Disclaimer: My comments are based on what one finds generally in HR and what I experienced. Adherents are found in differing extremes and others are in the middle somewhere. HR is a very diverse movement.

The first barb of the “Hebraic hook” came before I got involved into HR. I had been made aware that the NT was written primarily in Hebrew. That really intrigued me, because I had spent considerable time in the OT compared to the NT and it seemed quite plausible to me. I was informed that if the disciples were Jewish, then the Gospels and letters would be penned in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek. It made a lot of sense to me then, as it does to many in HR, for I hear this argument often and continuously. Historical facts prove that this is just not so [please see my article: https://fortheloveoftruth.wordpress.com/holy-hebrew/ ]. But when a great bulk of Messianic leaders push this concept and some produce their own versions based on erroneous information, it’s pretty hard to dismiss when you want Hebraic primacy so badly. It is a critical foundation for belief in going back to Torah [Mosaic Law] because if one can prove that the Greek is in error, then there is nothing to keep one from the “real” truth or the Hebraic mind set [the Greek NT is said to be mistranslated on purpose by the “church” to prevent people from knowing the “truth” about keeping “all” the commandments of God].

The need to find a Hebrew NT drove me for years. It was impossible back then to find any real information. I was not aware of the internet until I was firmly ensconced in HR, but when I did discover it – it sped me light years ahead in falling head over heels for everything Hebraic I could get my hands on.

Enter barb two …. I found the Complete Jewish Bible about three years before I knew of Messianic Judaism. That became truth for me. I loved what I thought were Hebrew words [actually a mixture of Hebrew, Yiddish, and incorrectly applied Hebrew words]. The glossary was like a treasure chest to my ignorant eyes. Having that Bible, because it was JEWISH, pushed me constantly to find out what the Bible “really” had to say about Jesus and about everything written in the Bible. I was convinced that until I found someone who could help me see things from a Jewish perspective, I would not fully understand the Bible, both OT and NT. The CJB fueled my motivation to seek all things Jewish. It was a rush back then.

Around the same time that I found my CJB, I also discovered a couple of books on the Bible Codes which truly “enhanced” my Hebraic experience. This little barb was particularly “captivating” — I was geeked for real. How cool that the OT had hidden words in the “original” Hebrew!!! It’s one of the more embarrassing moments of my whole journey into HR. The simplest way to respond to this error is to show that before 900BCE, Hebrew was not a language. Hebrew evolved from proto-type Canaanite/Addadian, so until after the time of David, the Bible was not written in true Hebrew. We do not have any of the “original” OT. What we have today are copies of copies. This is not to say that we do not have God’s inspired Word, only that we do not have the “original”. There is also a lot of resources on the net which show other reasons why the Bible Codes are a farce and based in kabbalah’s gematria.

A couple of interesting expose`s on the Bible Codes:


A running list of math professors to object to the validity of the Bible Codes:


Information on the history of the Hebrew language:





My all out desire to find the true Jewish perspective led me to a church that was teaching some Jewish concepts. So I settled in there one Sunday excited that I might learn something relevant. Sitting next to me was a woman who noticed my CJB and commented that she also had one. Then she asked me a question that forever changed my life. Did I know that there was a Messianic congregation in my town? I was floored. It never occurred to me to even look for one! “Messianic” meant nothing to me. But when she hooked it up with Jewish believers, I was one thrilled and ecstatic accident waiting to happen. I could hardly wait until the following “Shabbat” [7th day Sabbath].

It was there that I got my first taste of Jewishness and I loved it. There was not only the opportunity to speak with real Jewish converts about the Bible, but fellowship with those who had a Jewish perspective on Jesus and the first century – this was a very tenacious barb. Of course I found out as time went by that no one there was really Jewish. They just wanted it so bad that they dressed the part. Lots of star of David jewelry, full length beards, prayer shawls, skull caps, Hebrew words interspersed in their conversations, Hebrew names for God and Jesus, Hebrew music, etc. They were all wanna be gentile Christians like myself searching for the impossible dream. At the time I could not admit that, I was too swept up into the Hebraic hook – so many barbs, so little time ……..

I bought into the trappings whole heartedly. It was obvious that if I truly wanted to be like Jesus, then I had to live that way too [huge barb on that Hebraic hook!]. If He was Jewish, that meant my “Greek” view was skewed. Whatever the Jews did today, was simply an extension of first century. After all, they were God’s chosen people and God had given them their Jewishness. He does not change, therefore; if He instilled that culture in the Jewish people, then as followers of Christ, we must also find our home within that culture as well. The course of action was to locate what was Jewish and incorporate it into one’s life, worship, and adopt it as one’s true culture. There was no lack of resources. The congregation that I attended had a full library and courses to help implement a lifestyle that was “truly of God”. How sad, I was encouraged to believe that the church had been misled and was in grave error in regard to her “true origins”. I believed what was said about the lies of Christianity and it broke my heart.

A particularly effective Hebraic “barb” zeros in on some of the things that Jesus said that we could not possibly understand with our “westernized Greek pagan mind set”, because they are “Jewish idioms”. For instance, the example of “an evil eye” is used to promote Hebrew primacy of the NT. This is pointed out as a Hebrew idiom not translated correctly into Greek which means “stingy”. Something that Christians totally “miss”. Excuse me while I chuckle 🙂 – read on and you’ll see why.

Here is the context – from Matthew:

Matthew 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust does corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust does corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore your eye be single, your whole body shall be full of light. 23 But if your eye be evil, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness! 24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Ok, here is the huge DUH that is supposedly “missed in the Greek” > Jesus was quoting Proverbs. Ouch!

Proverbs 28:22 He that hastens to be rich has an evil eye, and considers not that poverty shall come on him.

Wow! – that was pretty tough for this old western Greek pagan mind 🙂

There is also plenty of support to clarify throughout the NT like the “love of money is the root of all evil” [1 Tim 6:10] or “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes” [1 John 2:16]. So what was that about a “Jewish perspective”? (smile)

As a brief side note – the term “stingy” for “evil eye” comes from the Talmud:


In another post I detail out what the Talmud is comprised of and why it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, other than to denigrate Him:


Going back to the ideas that held the superiority of a Hebraic mind set, a biggie barb is that we are grafted into Israel – which is the olive tree spoken of in Romans 11. I bought that one too. It seems that my discerner was way off (smile). This is a huge teaching in HR, which again would keep people into Torah observance. If one is really Jewish when they become a believer, then one will consider Law keeping as a prerequisite.

I was pretty geeked at this whole deal. It meant that although I was a gentile, I could claim preferential treatment by God because He really viewed me as a Jew. Amazing! Of course it’s pretty obvious that my Biblical knowledge was way off kilter. The Romans reference says that the root is Holy. Now we know from reading the OT that Israel was anything but holy. It’s like a real “duh” moment 🙂 So how can we be grafted into Israel? If we partake of the root and the fatness of the olive tree – it’s not Jewishness, it is the righteousness found in the faith that Abraham had for the promise of God > his seed aka Jesus Christ. For unbelief, the branches were broken off. This concept is explained in more depth in Hebrews 4.

Romans 11:16 For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if you boast, you bore not the root, but the root you.

19 You will say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Be not high minded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not you.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in his goodness: otherwise you also shall be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

There is a lot more to the Hebraic hook, as it is pretty pervasive within the HR movement. Please read my testimony which goes into a lot more detail: “My Journey on the Ancient Paths: https://fortheloveoftruth.wordpress.com/ancient-paths/

Read Full Post »

Guest article – posted with permission from author.


Holy Hebrew!

Is Hebrew a special Holy language (leshon ha Kodesh) that is special and different than all of the other languages? Some Hebrew roots teachers have stated that Hebrew is a language so Holy, that it is impossible to even curse in it. Some have also stated that because of its Holiness, it was the language used to create the world, and most assuredly will be the language of Heaven.

Here is one of the Hebrew roots teachers, who state that Hebrew was the language of creation.


Hebrew: Restoring the Pure Language

Brad takes a fascinating journey into the history of Hebrew, the pure language of Adonai (Tz’fanyah 3:9), the language that created all things. Brad proves through the dynamics of the Hebrew language that this heavenly tongue is the Mother Tongue and is being restored in these last days. This series covers the use of gematria, equidistant letter sequencing, and many other fascinating aspects of Hebrew to show that this language is revived today to be the foundation of bringing Adonai’s people back together to serve Him in one consent. Through the restoration of Hebrew, many long-held, erroneous, religious doctrines are being exposed. The true followers of Y’shua are being revealed and unity is being re-established in the latter days. Brad concludes this series with a lesson on how to research and discover the wonderful truths of Adonai contained in the Hebrew text.


Let’s first take a look at where all the languages originated from, so that we can better understand the origins of the Hebrew language:

Genesis 11
6 And The LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and the lip one to all of them, and this they are beginning to do, and now all which they have purposed to do will not be restrained from them.
7 Come, let Us go down and confuse their language so that they cannot understand one another’s speech.
8 And the LORD scattered them from there, over the face of all the earth. And they stopped building the city.
9 On account of this its name is called Babel, because the LORD confused the language of all the earth there. And the LORD scattered them abroad from there on the face of all the earth.

Hebrew is a language that evolved historically from proto Canaanite/ancient Hebrew, into paleo, middle, and late Hebrew, which finally ended up becoming the Biblical Hebrew (with vowels) that we have today in the Masoretic text. From there modern words were added, which again evolved into the modern Hebrew that is spoken in Israel today.

Because of the history of Hebrew, clearly the Original Ten Declarations were not written in what we consider Hebrew, because of the time frame that they were written. The Ten Declarations were written before the Torah, which is dated approximately 1500-1400 bce. The language of that time was proto Canaanite which has been established through archaeological finds. Proto Canaanite did evolve into what we know as Hebrew, but other languages also evolved from it as well. If the Ten Declarations had been written in Hebrew as we know it, Moses and the children of Israel would have not been able to understand what they said as it is a different alefbet, because Hebrew script, which is a derivative of Proto Canaanite, has been only used since the 9th century bce. It should be noted that proto Canaanite was used by idol worshipping pagan cultures.

Here is how it developed over time:



Proto Hebrew/Aramaic:




A recent archaeological find in King David’s time:


If you take a look at Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew, it looks different than today’s Masoretic text (1000 years difference). Hebrew didn’t really develop until 900 BCE. The Torah was written in 1500-1400 BCE (2400 years difference. Moses was raised in the court of Pharaoh, and also spoke Akkadian. Moses could read and write proto Canaanite as well, so I am sure he knew what the tablets said.

Also, the difference in writing style and refinement between the oldest Masoretic text known as the Aleppo codex, and the DSS style:


And the Dead Sea Scrolls:


and the Leningrad codex:


Those changes occurred in only 1000 years after Hebrew was established. What

Let’s take a quick look at Biblical Hebrew so that we can examine the “Holy” status of it during Biblical times:

Isaiah 6 (written approx700 bce)
5 Then I said, Woe is me! For I am cut off; for I am a man of unclean lips (H8193), and I live amongst a people of unclean lips (H8193); for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of Hosts.
6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, snatched with tongs from the altar.
7 And he touched it on my mouth, and said, See, this has touched your lips;
and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is covered.

שׂפת / שׂפה
̂phâh / śepheth
BDB Definition:
1) lip, language, speech, shore, bank, brink, brim, side, edge, border, binding
1a) lip (as body part)
1b) language
1c) edge, shore, bank (of cup, sea, river, etc)
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: probably from H5595 or H8192 through the idea of termination (compare H5490)
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2278a

Here is another example of how the same word lip or language is used:

Zephaniah 3 (approx 620 bce)
9 For then will
I restore to the people a pure (H1305) language (H8193), that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one accord.

BDB Definition:
1) to purify, select, polish, choose, purge, cleanse or make bright, test or prove
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to purge, purge out, purify
1a2) to choose, select
1a3) to cleanse, make shining, polish
1a4) to test, prove
1b) (Niphal) to purify oneself
1c) (Piel) to purify
1d) (Hiphil)
1d1) to purify
1d2) to polish arrows
1e) (Hithpael)
1e1) to purify oneself
1e2) to show oneself pure, just, kind
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 288

Since we know that Isaiah spoke and wrote in Hebrew, and he himself said that he is a man of unclean lips (speech), and since God stated in Zephaniah, which is a book that was written after Isaiah that he will restore a pure language, then it is obvious by the text that Biblical Hebrew is not a pure language currently, nor was it at the time of Isaiah.

Secondly, we need to examine the fact that there are parts of various books in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) that are written partially in Aramaic (Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, Genesis). Aramaic is a language that came out of Canaan, where the people worshipped idols, and was also spoken in pagan Babylon during the captivity. If Hebrew is a Holy language, then why would God mix the language used by a pagan cultures with Hebrew in the Scriptures? In the book of Daniel, in the portion where the Aramaic begins, it opens like this:

Daniel 2
4 And the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic: O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will reveal the meaning.

In the passages directly following the opening, we find Aramaic words such as Melecha (H4430), Shamaya (H8065), Elahh (H426), and others throughout the text. The Aramaic continues until to the end of chapter seven, spanning almost five chapters. It should be noted that Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees, and then in obedience he left his pagan culture, and crossed over into the land that God had promised him which became Israel.

Nehemiah 9
7 You are the LORD the God who chose Abram, and brought him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and appointed his name, Abraham.

Many Hebrew roots teachers have stated that the only way one can really effectively understand the Old Testament Scriptures, is by learning to read and understand them in the Hebrew language. Currently, English is spoken (sometimes as a second language) by a much larger percentage of the six billion people in the world today, than the five million people world wide who currently speak Hebrew. This works out statistically to be a negligable percentage of the worlds population that speaks and understands Hebrew. Would God have been so short sighted as to write His word into Hebrew, which for the most part was a dead language until resurrected in the last half of the nineteenth century as modern Hebrew, if it could not be accurately translated and comprehended in other languages such as English? This should be something for us all to consider seriously.

Going forward into the NT, it should be noted that Jesus spoke Aramaic on the cross, and in some other passages found in the New Testament. He most likely conversed in Greek or even possibly Latin with Pilate at His

trial. Jesus also spoke in a Hebraic language (some scholars say Aramaic) to Paul on the road to Damascus in the book of Acts. Paul, who wrote thirteen or fourteen books of the New Testament spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin (Roman citizen), and because he lived in Tarsus at an early age, he possibly would have spoken a local dialect which would probably be related to modern Turkish, and possibly even a few more dialects of other languages that he learned in his travels.

Next, we should examine the use of languages in first century Judea. Listed below (parenthesis) are a few of the possible languages spoken in those regions at that time. Please keep in mind that the list is by no means comprehensive:

Acts 2 (written approx 63 ce)
1 And in the fulfilling of the day of Pentecost, they were all with one mind in the same place.
2 And suddenly a sound came out of the heaven, as being borne along by a violent wind! And it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And tongues as of fire appeared to them, being distributed, and it sat on each one of them.
4 And they were all filled of the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave ability to them to speak.
5 And Jews were living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation of those under the heaven.
6 But this sound occurring, the multitude came together and were confounded, because they each heard them speaking in his own dialect.
7 And all were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all these, those speaking, Galileans?
8 And how do we hear each in our own dialect in which we were born,
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites (Persian), and those living in Mesopotamia (Turkish dialect, Syrian, Persian, Akkadian), both Judea (Hebrew,Aramaic,Greek) and Cappadocia, Pontusand Asia (Turkish dialect, Greek)
10 both Phrygia and Pamphylia (Turkish dialect,Greek), Egypt (Arabic dialect, Greek), and the regions of Libya over against Cyrene (Latin,Greek,Aramaic), and the temporarily residing Romans (Latin,Greek), both Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretans (Greek, Aramaic) and Arabians (Arabic dialect, Greek); in our own languages we hear them speaking the great deeds of God?

Would God through His Holy Spirit allow the apostles to speak, in what some Hebrew roots teachers have claimed to be pagan languages, if they truly were according to Gods standards? If this was the case, wouldn’t it have been easier for the apostles to speak only in Hebrew, and then for God to miraculously have all of the different people who spoke the many other languages, be able to understand what the apostles said in the “Holy language” of Hebrew? Instead the apostles spoke, and praised God in what some have taught are unclean pagan languages that they claim no self respecting Jew would ever speak.

Some Hebrew roots teachers have circulated the “myth” that the Jews of that day believed it was better to eat swine flesh, than to speak Greek. I guess the apostles never got the memo on that, nor did the Holy Spirit, or maybe there was a shortage of swine flesh at that time, because as they were being led by the Holy Spirit, they spoke Greek as one of the many languages. This is detailed in the passage recorded in Acts. Keeping in mind, that since Greek was established as the common language, and the language of trade since the rule of Alexander almost four centuries before the time of Christ in 332 BCE, that many others throughout the Roman empire also spoke and understood Greek as well.

Various Hebrew roots teachers have emphatically stated that the New Testament was definitely written in Hebrew or Aramaic, because no self respecting Jew would have written it in Greek. How does that stand up in light of what we have reviewed thus far? Also how could this statement have any validity, seeing as how the first five books of the Hebrew OT was translated into Greek two centuries before Christ by Jewish scribes?

In conclusion, it would appear that those striving to keep Hebrew as the pure, Holy Heavenly language that true followers of the Messiah need to read and speak, need to re-examine their teachings. The Hebrew posturing that is being touted as “truth” falls completely short of historical documentation and factual evidence. One more Hebrew Roots “myth” ………. busted (smile)

Read Full Post »