|
At the end of November 2019, Hebrew Roots guru Adam Fink and his friend Mike decided to upload a "documentary" on the Name of Jesus and how this would somehow be the mark of the beast. In Fink's opinion, the name of Yahusha would be more appropriate, but even they themselves do not agree on that. Mike prefers Yeshua, so one could wonder how credible a documentary like this is when there's a dispute on such a major part of the topic. As Mike points out later in the video, when quoting Acts 4:12: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." So which one is it? Yahusha? Yeshua? These men have a hermeneutical problem that leaves a big trail through the entire documentary and leads thousands astray. Let's explore where they go wrong.
Revelation 12:9 Fink then quotes Revelation 12:9 to further substantiate his viewpoint. Satan deceives the whole world, so the majority must be wrong, is the idea. But that's not what's being conveyed here. It tells us that Satan is deceiving, which doesn't say anything of itself about how successful his attempt is. If we would assume that the adjective "whole" has anything to say about the amount of people that are believing his lies, it wouldn't be very hopeful. Even for Fink's own ministry. Whole means whole. So in that sense, we can dismiss about anything! Of course Satan is trying to deceive as many as possible, but this text doesn't say anything about how successful he is in doing so and therefore we cannot conclude that the Name of Jesus must be part of the deception. Whole Bible Believers The lion's share of the documentary contains a portion of a video from another Hebrew Roots group called Whole Bible Believers. Mike, the guy doing the voice-over, is showing pictures of your typical prosperity teachers, such as Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar. He's not saying it black and white, but the message is clear. We are to associate these with mainstream Christianity and therefore dismiss anything that goes with that. The Name of Jesus of course is part of the lie, in their view. But how can we throw all Christians under the bus for a twisted message from a prosperity teacher? This hits me personally, as I don't believe in that either. What we are seeing here, is the beginning of a very big straw man argument. A caricature of Christianity. 1 John 2:18, 22 Mike starts off with his version of First John. I say that, because he doesn't read from a wellknown Bible like the KJV or NASB. Of course not. Actually, only one Bible that would phrase it like that comes to mind. The Halleluyah Scriptures. According to Mike, he who denies the name of Yeshua has the spirit of the antichrist. Even the other Hebrew Roots Bible called Cepher would disagree here. They would have Yahusha instead of Yeshua. I have always been fascinated with these folks that think the New Testament should be retranslated "back" to Hebrew. One could argue that the book of Matthew was originally in Hebrew, but that's about as far as we can stretch this idea. In fact, there is very strong evidence that the New Testament was written almost entirely in Greek. Not even because the copies have been delivered to us in Greek, but also because we see a difference in quotations. Most quotes in the New Testament show that they are extracted from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, centuries before Jesus was even born. The Septuagint differs a bit from the Hebrew text, not to the point that it butchers the entire message, but a different translation style can be noted. Why quote from the Septuagint if there are Hebrew copies available? Simple. The target language was likely also in Greek. The Greek text tells us that His Name is Iesous, so if we go by Acts 4:12 or 1 John 2:22, we should be using that Name even over Yeshua or Yahusha. Don't tell me that Luke was a Hebrew (he was a gentile) and was talking about Yahusha when he wrote Acts. One of the strongest arguments against the sacred name mania, is possibly Acts 2:4-11. The wonderful works of God (YHWH) are proclaimed in every language. "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." (Acts 2:4-11, KJV) Context Another useful thing to do when studying the scriptures, is considering the context. In fact, this is pretty obvious. When you read about anything in daily life, wouldn't you start at the beginning, then read until the end and then come to your conclusions about what the writer is trying to convey? You wouldn't skip this verse and that one. Or entire chapters. We can't make theology out of one single verse. We need context. Which is what Mike here is not doing at all. He picks a verse (1 John 2:18), then skips 3 verses and builds a whole theology on that. The interesting thing is that this documentary is called Spirit of the Antichrist Revealed. If we want to learn about the spirit of the antichrist, this is not the text we should be going to. We should be aiming for chapter 4, verse 3. Later on, Mike does, but explains this verse in his own manner. Here, John tells us exactly who's having an antichrist spirit. It's the folks who do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh. It has nothing to do with a sacred name like Yahusha or you name it. This Jesus, who came in the flesh, was the anointed one (the Christ) that the old testament talked about. The Messiah. So, in essence, John is not saying we should call Him Yahusha, but rather that we should not dismiss Him as being the prophesied Messiah (the anointed one, the Christ) that came in the flesh to save us from sin and the wrath to come. Therefore, the hubbub is not about how His Name sounds, but about what His credentials are. It's a semantic statement, not a phonological one. What Mike does, is called eisegesis. It's forcing his own interpretation on the scriptures (2 Peter 1:20). The opposite of that would be exegesis. Extracting the message that the authors intended, from the text and context. Fallacies Mike goes on to talk about how Satan supposedly deceived the whole world, except their little sect of course. "Who is smarter, you or Satan? Who knows more about the scriptures? You or Satan?" This of course only applies to the people opposed to their extreme Hebrew Roots thinking. Obviously, it's not at all possible that they themselves are deceived by that same Satan that deceives the whole world. We see the same type of fallacious arguments over and over again, as the "documentary" progresses. Pictures and videos of Clinton and Trump are shown, to imply that they call themselves Christians, but are not. The deeper implication of course is that everyone that professes to be Christian (but still holds on to the Name of Jesus), is having the spirit of the antichrist. Adam Fink later crawls back a bit on his view with a video he calls Addendum, because he admits that he was saved by the Name of Jesus in the first place. He is somehow shocked that people are opposed by this video and didn't understand him and Mike well. Actually, what is there not to understand about this? Mike just said it plain and simple: He who does not believe Yeshua is the Messiah, has the spirit of antichrist. And in the next shot, all Christians are thrown under the bus for proclaiming they are Christians, but not acknowledging the proper pronunciation. How else could we understand this? At first, they are dead serious about it. And in a later video, when Adam receives heavy opposition (and rightly so), he's acting like we should take this with a grain of salt. That we shouldn't be questioning our faith. Then which one is it? The radical first video? Or the more wishy-washy second addendum? 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Another attempt to smear the Name of Jesus surfaces about the 8 minute mark. Mike informs us that he believes that the antichrist is going to sit in the temple of our hearts and declare that he is god. Let's contemplate on that idea. So, a nefarious entity is actually going to sit in our hearts, and declare that he is god? When we were still in the flesh, our hearts were anything but a temple to the Holy Spirit. So in that sense, this must be talking about the heart of the believer then, if we follow Mike's string of thought. Now, I didn't know the Holy Spirit would accept roommates? Would he let himself being pushed back to the point that an antichrist spirit is actually usurping the most important place in our hearts? The context tells us the Lord will even consume him and his followers with the fire of His mouth (verse 8-12). So, how can one lose his salvation here? How can the Holy Spirit be so utterly grieved that the seal of protection is even broken (Eph. 4:30)? Mike is giving his flawed theology also an eschatological flavor when utilizing this passage. Because Paul tells us in verse 1 that this has to do with the gathering together (the rapture or in a broader sense, the parousia), this documentary is moving in a very dangerous direction. This will become more clear in a few minutes. This is the second attempt of connecting the Name of Jesus with the antichrist. I don't understand how Adam and his aides think we understood it all wrong. I believe we understand perfectly what Mike is trying to say here. If Adam was really serious on tracking back, this would require a complete removal of the first video and a full apology. Temple of God "John told us the antichrist is a spirit", Mike says when we approach the 11 minute mark. Well, that is another example of eisegesis. Of a fallacious argument. In fact, John didn't tell that the antichrist would manifest himself solely as spirit. Verse 19 of 1 John 2, which Mike skipped for obvious reasons, tells us that there are in fact some believers that went out of the community, being antichrists themselves. This is not talking about spiritual beings. In fact, the word spirit is in italics, in 1 John 4:3. This means it's not even in the original text, but inferred by the translators. The phrase "spirit of antichrist" is not in the original text. The antichrists that John is talking about, are actual physical human beings. They once belonged to the community, but never really gave their hearts to Christ, because if they did, they would have stayed with them. John is equating them in a spiritual sense with the coming antichrist, a future entity that will be forcing humankind into a very powerful one world-religion. He prefaces that idea perfectly in verse 18. So, we have a specific antichrist that is going to come in the not so distant future (Rev. 13), and a group of people that show the same characteristics, and which he also calls antichrists. What they have in common, is that they both deny that Jesus came in the flesh and that He is the promised Messiah. That's John's whole point! Mike quotes Acts 7:48, which in turn paraphrases 1 Kings 8:27 or Isaiah 66:1, where God insinuates that He dwells in a temple not made with hands, but in the heavens. So, in effect, there was never a temple of God on the surface of the earth, if we take that extremely literal. Matthew 21:12 however, would disagree. Jesus went into the temple of God, Matthew tells us, and cast out all the moneychangers and threw over their tables. It's clear that even a defiled temple would still classify as a "temple of God". So how can we explain this supposed controversy then? It's rather simple, actually. To say that something is "of me" doesn't mean I have to live in it. I can have a car that can be identified as "my car" but still don't live in it. I drive it. A poor example maybe, but you get the idea. It's the difference between a possessive pronoun and an actual living place. So in that sense, it's not at all far fetched that a literal temple that could identify as a "temple of God", will be rebuilt in the latter days and an antichrist will be sitting inside, declaring that he is god. Revelation 11 clearly hints at this idea, and so do Daniel 11:36-39 or Matthew 24:15-21. Revelation 13:18 Now comes the most disturbing part of the video. In this section, Mike addresses the so called "mark of the beast". This is the third time Mike uses scripture that ties into the doctrine of the antichrist, and attaches it to the Name of Jesus. In the previous paragraph, we already saw Mike moving in an eschatological direction with the sacred name mania. At this point, it becomes undeniable that he is in effect declaring Christians that use the name of Jesus, anathema. The ones that take the mark at any point in their life, are destined to hell, Revelation 14:9-11 explains just one chapter later. So, how did Mike become Christian? Did he at one point believe in the Name of Jesus and later "see the light" and start calling Him Yeshua or Yahusha, like Adam Fink did? According to their own logic, that would mean that they are already destined to hell. Because clearly, the text says "any man". It doesn't say, "if any man took the mark and didn't repent from it, he will suffer the wrath of God and be tormented forever." There is no indication in the Bible that when someone takes the mark, there is an option to repent from it and dodge eternal punishment. Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's see how Mike explains his view. Mark of the Beast Mike is actually right about the mark of the beast being a perverted copy of the mark of God that is being talked about in Revelation 7. He tells us that he believes the mark is in the forehead, rather than upon the forehead. Eventhough the Greek word epi can mean both, and is used in both texts, it is more logical to assume that there will actually be placed something inside someone's head. However, what Mike is saying, is that this mark of Rev. 7 and Ezekiel 9:4 have to do with the Name of God, according to Revelation 14:1. At 18:40 he even explicitly says that the mark of God is His Name. Okay, so far, so good. Now pay close attention. Try to follow his thoughts. He then goes back to Revelation 13:17, which indeed says that one cannot buy or sell if he has the mark, or the name, or the number of his name (the beast). He capitalizes both the word mark and name, but strangely doesn't do that with the word number. Why not? I thought he was so opposed to inferring the idea of the mark being a number? Now, he just ignores that part of the text completely. Because the Greek Chi Xi Stigma (translated as 666) doesn't form a natural word, it is most logical to assume that it has a numerical value, as Greek letters naturally did in those days. Examples of that can be traced way back, until the 3rd century before Christ. He also didn't pay a lot of attention to the word "or". This word is pretty important, because it tells us there is a distinction between the name, the mark and the number of the beast. In his view, these all mean pretty much the same. He uses an example of a drink, a beverage and a cold refreshment. But that example is another fallacious argument. Those are synonyms, while a mark, a number and a name are not necessarily synonyms. More often, they're not, actually. And even then, if the word number is used, it still is significant, even if it was a synonym. Because if it carries no significant meaning, the writer wouldn't have any reason to put it in there. There must be a numerological aspect to all of this, if we really do our homework. It even says so: "His number is.." (verse 18). John even tells us we can calculate it. Mike goes on to say that John literally says that the mark is the name of the beast. That's actually demonstrably false. John doesn't phrase it like that at all. Pronunciation It's painful to hear Mike say at 21.30 minutes, that John wrote in Greek. Why then did he just about 10 minutes ago, say that the name of Yeshua should be in First John? How then can we read Yeshua into 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3 and 2 John 1:7? Wouldn't that be Iesous? Anyway, Mike argues that numbers should be written in full, and not in some mystical form like gematria. Why would that be so? Before we go to his answer, I would like to give you my suggestion. The verse clearly says we need wisdom. That we need to calculate. And also notice that Revelation is a mysterious and difficult book to understand. In that sense, gematria isn't such a strange way to convey such a message at all. Mike however believes that we are to search the answer to this mystery in the pronunciation. Now, this is going to be one of the worst cases of eisegesis that I've encountered in my life. Stay with me. According to Mike, we should pronounce Iesous without the letter J. Like Yay-Sousse. More of an I-sound and not the typical American Djay-sound. Granted, the letter J has a history and if we want to pronounce Iesous the way they did back then, we shouldn't be using that Djay-consonant. What Mike however does next, is take the three Greek letters Chi, Xi and Stigma, and pronounce them as a word. We just learned that this isn't a word in Greek, so it would be strange to do so. Anyway, he plays some clips from the Blue Letter Bible and individually, those letters do indeed show some similarity with the first, third and especially last letter of the American pronunciation of the Name Jesus. Now, it has to be noted that Mike makes a few adaptions to make the outcome of his little eisegesis fit his preconceived ideas. 1. He infers the vowels, which he has zero basis for. It could be either Chay-Zess, Choy-Zass, Choo-Ziss or whatever. Checklist At 25:15, Mike states that if we were to translate Yeshua into English, we should translate it Joshua (note that he pronounces this with a Djay-sound - I thought this J was of the devil and a modern invention?) Anyway, are you still following the messy explanations? It gets worse. What follows next, is a checklist of what a supposed antichrist should be doing, with no scriptural reference. All of which the "false" Jesus supposedly did but the "true" Yeshua did not. It's a hermeneutical nightmare. Where do I even start? I mean, Jesus is in most temples? Did Mike mean church? Since when is a temple called a church? I thought our hearts were the temple of the Holy Spirit? But now it's a building. The "false" Jesus ended the sabbath? No, he did not. The sabbath was never intended for gentiles anyway. It was meant for Jews, and that law will be until heaven and earth will pass away (Matth. 5:17-18, Rev. 21:1). The gentiles however should not be burdened with these laws, James tells us in Acts 15:28-29. Paul also acknowledges this in Colossians 2:16-17. Jesus fulfilled the law for us, so we don't have to. He is the end of the law for all who believe, unto righteousness, Romans 10:4 says. The whole letter to the Galatians was meant to instruct the Christians to not go back to the law! "Who ended the feast days?" Mike asks in his "checklist". Jesus did? He may have fulfilled them, but that doesn't mean we're saying they shouldn't be celebrated? Mike is making a straw man out of Christianity. He throws all extremes of Christianity on one big pile and attaches Jesus' Name on it as if this Jesus is supposedly a totally other entity. Again, how was Mike born again in the first place? What attracted him to Christianity? I guess the name of Jesus. I know of no one that gets born again into Hebrew Roots immediately. Almost always, if not solely, those people come via mainstream Christendom. So, if we follow his logic, all those people that came by that route, are condemned to hell according to Revelation 14:9-11. And all those people were attracted by a lie. By a "fake" Jesus. So how then can we know this Jesus is to be trusted leading them into Hebrew Rootism? "Whose image is worshipped?" the checklist proceeds. I'm sorry, you lost me there. I never worshipped an image. I'm not a catholic. You can't just throw all versions of Christianity on one pile. There's something called nuance. Not everything is black and white. Not everything outside of Hebrew Roots, with a Savior called Jesus is part of the antichrist system. Adam even acknowledges that in his addendum. Foreign language Another video surfaces, in which two unnamed "experts" tell us that the ancient alphabets don't have vowels. That's also demonstrably false, as we discovered a few paragraphs earlier. Iesous contains at least three vowels, in the same original Greek New Testament as the Chi Xi Stigma was written in. What these "experts" are saying, is therefore utter nonsense. At least use good hermeneutics! If we apply the rule in one end of the New Testament, we should also apply it on another segment. The last verse of the previous chapter (Rev. 12:17) has Iesous spelled out with vowels, so how do you explain that? Another thing is that this "switch" to Jesus was supposedly a conspiracy to insert Zeus into the story of the Bible. Yay-Zeus. You get it? The problem is that Djee-Zuss sounds different at the first consonant and the last vowel. It's a very poor argument. Also, this would only apply in the Anglo-American world. When we look at Spanish, which is also a world language, and very religious as well, this wouldn't qualify. Or French, which is spoken in a big part of Africa. Or China, which harbours a vast amount of Christians. What to think of them? Are they all deceived by this "big switch"? Think about it. This argument, based on a supposed similarity, makes no actual sense. It is so shallow, that it can be rebutted easily. It doesn't even sound the same! I could go on and on with all foreign languages, but I think I got my point across. Commandments Fink continues the "documentary" and adds a few complementary thoughts. He sees a connection in the mark of the beast being attached to or implemented into our hands and heads, by using Deut. 6:1-8 as a parallel text. What he fails to understand here, is that this is talking about the commandments. I thought the mark of the beast was supposed to be a name? Now, which one is it? Do you see what I mean by a "hermeneutical nightmare"? They're not consistent in their reasoning. One time it's Iesous, then it's Yeshua, and then it Yahusha. And later on, Adam even tells us that God knows our hearts. So if that is the case, why bother uploading this blasphemous video? Or the strange logic that the name, number and mark are the same. Or that the mark is the Name of Jesus, but later on, the mark is "not following the commandments". Of course they will argue that Yeshua is the same as the Torah, a well known mantra among extreme Hebrew Rooters. Which group is making a big switch here? Yeshua is the Torah? Because He fulfilled the law, He is the law, is their logic here. So, if I pass my exam, am I an exam? If I pay my taxes, am I my taxes? That makes no sense! Just because Jesus fulfilled the law, doesn't mean that He actually is the law! Fink continues along this path with an even more ridiculous claim, based upon Ezekiel 20:12. The sabbaths are a sign between Him and the Jews. Okay, Adam Fink may be Jewish, but I'm not. And what happened to the mark being the Name of Jesus? Now the sign is the sabbath? How do you explain that away? We're talking about a very specific commandment now. This lacks every hermeneutical principle. He's just flip-flopping through the Bible in order to get us Christians back under the law. If we don't follow the Torah, and specifically the Sabbath, we are following an antichrist system, is the implication here. Actually, it would be the other way around, if we carefully look at Ephesians 2:8-9. We are not to do works to earn our salvation. Paul calls the Galatians fools in Gal. 3:1, for crawling back under the yoke of the law. A burden that even their ancestors weren't able to fulfill (Acts 15:10). No one is justified by the law, Paul tells us in Romans 3:20. Some Hebrew Rooters might argue that we should keep the Torah for sanctification. But even that is far fetched, when we consider Acts 15:28-29 or Col. 2:16-17. Galatians 5:22 names 9 fruits, but keeping the law is not one of them. Oral law Adam explains this away by saying that we are not to keep the so called "oral law" or traditions of men, but we do have to keep the Mosaic law. As we have previously explored, that is not what Paul and James are saying. Remember, Jesus is a Jew, addressing Jews in Mark 7:6-9. We are mainly gentiles, not needing an actual circumcision but rather a circumcision of the heart (Gal. 6:15, Col. 2:11). We are circumcised in Jesus Christ. Hebrew Rooters also love to quote John 15:10, where Jesus tells us that who loves Him, will keep His commandments. But they fail to read on, as verse 12 clearly explains what this commandment is about. It is about to love one another. Adam does the same thing with Revelation 22:14 at the end of the video. Verse 12 clearly tells us that these commandments have to do with rewards. Not with salvation. The commandments are also unspecified, so we will have to rely on what John wrote earlier in his other book, chapter 15, verse 12. Spiritual Israel Adam believes we are all Israel, and utilizes Galatians 3:27 to prove his point. But actually, he's got this reversed. Paul uses this phrase in order to get the legalistic Christians away from the Mosaic law (verse 10-13, 18-24) and towards faith in Jesus Christ Who fulfilled it. Also, Fink uses this phrase to throw everyone in a "spiritual Israel" tree, but clearly has not studied the context of this verse. He doesn't say that everyone is Israel. He says that there is neither Jew not Greek. In effect, your background is not important anymore, when you are baptized into Christ (verse 27). You're all rooted in Him and therefore in the promise that Abraham received. Fink says that Abraham's seed "always has been Israel", but that isn't as obvious as he claims. A phrase we find in Galatians 3:7 and also Romans 9:8, is "Abraham's children". This has been used a lot to defend the idea of spiritual Israel as the church. But Genesis 17:5 makes clear that Abraham will be father to MANY nations. Is Ishmael Israel? Of course not. Is Midian Israel? He was a son from Abraham with Keturah (Gen. 25:1-2). No. Israel is Israel. And the church in a sense is Abraham's seed. But it's not Israel. Not even spiritually. Yes, there are similarities sometimes. But that doesn't mean they are one and the same. There is no such thing as "spiritual Israel" in the Bible. Look it up, you won't find this combination anywhere. The church is the church and Israel is Israel. Galatians 6:16 has been used to promulgate such a doctrine, but notice the small word "AND". This is indicating a distinction, as the entire context of the letter made clear. The people according to this rule are the ones that have their hearts circumcised in Jesus, not needing an actual circumcision (verse 15, ref. Col. 2:11). The phrase "Israel of God" is thus referring to believing Israel and furthermore insinuates very strongly that there is also an Israel that is NOT of God. Today, we call this Rabbinic Judaism. The same people that are not only showing unbelief in Christ, but also trying to work against Him in every manner possible (ref. Joh. 8:44). However, it is not to say that we should not pray for them (Rom. 9:1-5). Paul is addressing his ethnic relatives here (verse 3-4), and takes three chapters to make his point. He concludes that they will eventually be saved, but only after the fullness of the gentiles will come in first (Rom. 11:25-26). Here, we can clearly see the distinction. There's an olive tree that represents Abraham. We, in Christ, are grafted in, but come from a wild olive tree (verse 17). Some natural branches were cut away in order to make place for us. This part that is cut away, is unbelieving Israel. Paul makes clear that God is able to put them back in (Rom. 11:23-24). So yes, inside the Body of Christ, it is of no importance what our background is. But outside of that Body, we can still recognize the distinction. Paul does that, as we have seen in Rom. 9:3 and 11:25-26. So Adam may have his own thoughts about it, the Bible is very clear about it. We're not Israel. We as Christians are not appointed to follow the Mosaic law. It is of no importance, because there is neither Jew nor Greek inside the Body of Christ. We are to according to faith, not the law, that's what Paul is pointing to in Galatians 3:27. So when we actually look into this verse, it is an argument against what Fink is trying to convey. The 10 virgins This parable out of Matthew 25 has been abused a lot. Adam makes no exception. In his view, the lamp refers to the Torah, because we see the same key terms in Proverbs 6:23. Granted, lamp and light are indeed found here. But notice that a word can mean different things in different contexts. Because that same Matthew wrote prior to this, in the same book, in chapter 5:14-16, about the light being the Israelites. They were to be a light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6). The verse prior to Matthew 5:14 makes a good comparison with the parable of the 10 virgins. If the salt loses its taste, it will be trampled upon. Also notice Jesus is talking about the Kingdom of Heaven in both sermons (Matth. 5-7 and 24-25). It would be more logical to assume that this is what Jesus had in mind, than Proverbs 6:23. Jesus is talking to His fellow brethren. His ministry was focusing mainly on the Israelites (Matth. 10:5-7), especially when preaching about the gospel of the Kingdom. So the parable isn't talking about the Body of Christ at all. It is talking about Israel. One part is believing, and therefore they are shining their light. Another part is in unbelief, and in effect not shining their light. Fink takes another shot at "keeping the commandments" and uses 1 John 2:3-6 to prove his point. "We know Him if we keep His commandments." Okay, fair enough, but notice that these commandments are not specified. Yet. If he were to read only one chapter further, John would make very clear what these commandments are. 1 John 3:23-24 tells us that it is: 1. To believe in the Name of God's Son, Jesus Christ, and Conclusion
Can it be any more clear? And yet, still these Hebrew Rooters want to throw themselves under the yoke of the law, because admit it: It appeals to our pride. But pride comes before destruction (Prov. 16:18). We are not to boast before the throne of God, because of our works (Eph. 2:9). Anyway, let's wrap up. Adam goes to the last verse to make his point. Matthew 7:21-23. He insinuates that some people that claim to have healed in the Name of Jesus, are actually following a false Jesus. While I can agree on this partially, what Adam is aiming at here is the group of Christians that aren't Hebrew Rootish and use the Name of Jesus. He doesn't say it explicitly, but given the context of the documentary and the harsh words Mike just said prior to this, it would be a logical assumption. I could expound more on so many things that are said in this video, but I want this article to be brief and readable. I feel that it is already too long. I hope this blessed you and I pray that you will not fall for this grave deception. God bless! :-)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
RSS-feed
