Shabbat shalom kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah and welcome back, everyone, whether home here at MLT or abroad, to the fourth and final part of our Jonah Enigma series. I am glad to be here, not only to share fellowship with you, but to be alive and given yet one more opportunity to share what Yahweh has been laying on my heart. Because of the urgency I feel in getting everything recorded, I am increasingly skipping writing things down and recording directly on video instead. I mention this only because last week I made an importasnt 3-part series on Grace (SM016-18) and yesterday shared some, for me at any rate, important experiences (SM019). I mention this because I was not sure I would be able to finish today's sermon which, as I said, is the last of a 4-part series that probably ought to have encompassed twice as many sessions to do it justice. So once again I can only take a broad theological sweep. And then next week, Yah willing, we will move onto other things.

Let's go back nearly 30 years to 1992. Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist, declared triumphantly that humanity had arrived at the final form of human government, namely Western 'social-liberal democracy'. There was no improving to be done. We had reached the pinnacle of our civilisation. I had to laugh because, you see, his bold claim reminded me of the inside front cover of the first volume of a two-volume set of East German communist historical atlases, published in 1973. Here it is! (see below) As you can see the 'march of history' was portrayed rather like the spiral shell of a snail gradually but confidently and unerringly unwinding and at the end culminating, viâ feudalism, capitalism, and socialism, into triumphant communism. Never forget, by the way, that every social democratic party has, as its final aim, fully-fledged communism, though the democrats believe at arriving at communism gradually and the communists rapidly through violent revolution. Well, all know what happened to East Germany - the 'German Democratic Republic' - and the rest of the communist world nearly 30 years ago, at least in Europe. It went broke, as did the Soviet Union, and the people were fed up with it and wanted a change. So the deep state cult 'moved' the Communist system HQ from Moscow to Brussels and mutated, turning from red to pink to make it more acceptable to the West, and no doubt Fukuyama was describing the same anticipated end but using the labels of democratic socialism and liberalism instead. But the same communistic goal of the corporate élites remains firmly in place. Today we get the first results of the European General Election and we're expecting the British, thanks to the phenomenal success of Nigel Farrage's brand-new Brexit Party, to give Brussels a massive 'thumbs down', the biggest vote of no-confidence in the EU's history.

The devil's own system, what Scripture euphemistically calls 'Babylon', is still unfolding into its 'final form', hell's own masterpiece, the diametric opposite of the Kingdom of our Elohim (God). Indeed, Fukuyama's 'social-liberal democracy' was tame compared to the social madness we have today; and what we have today will seem tame compared when what is coming 20 or 30 years down the line finally emerges fully matured, and fully ripened in iniquity - the Beast's very own version of the Anti-Messiah, Antichrist, totalitarian state, an absolute, murderous dictatorship worse than anything ever set up by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or ISIS. All of this has happened, and will continue to happen, in small increments, following the linear progression of the philosopher Hegel's 'thesis, antithesis and synthesis' method of moving the planet ever closer to 'hell on earth'...unless Yahweh intervenes. And one such intervention is happening right now with Donald Trump upsetting their apple cart (see the Mishpatim Yahweh) with new 'Trumps' springing up all over the place in countries like Australia, Britain, Poland, and Hungary.

Like theologians and scientists, political scientists are keen to ensure that history takes the human race into a man-made Utopia through either gradual change or violent revolution. We saw plenty of disasterous secular Utopia's in the last century, both left and right, didn't we? And now we have a new 'liberal' one (actually a hybrid communist-fascist system that has ridden on the back of liberalism) which is just as extremist. But there are planned religious Utopia's too, with their hoped-for method of ushering 'Paradise' into the world: the Jehovah's Witnesses with their 'Armageddon', the charismatics with their 'Rapture', and even people who have got their theology of the end-times broadly correct in their anticipation of the Second Coming, can fall into the same trap as the political utopians by becoming overly self-absorbed and narcissistic, not to mention getting the timing all wrong. Worse, great disappointment, disillusionment and depression can follow when the predictions don't work out. Accordingly I have been urging everyone who will listen to me not to get too excited and hopeful about sudden end-time events. They will come when they come and we must simply get on with our business. In the meantime we do need to be well prepared. Two segments of Christendom and Messiandom that concern me the most, because of the spiritual and mental crises that will follow the failure of their schools of theology, are the rapturists and Zionists, plus there are those who have already initiated countdowns to the Second Coming. All of these will be left floundering when no Rapture occurs (which it never will), the Zionist state comes to a sudden end (which it will), and when Yah'shua (Jesus) does not return accoring to their expected prophetic timetable. So many of our man-made expectations never materialise, do they? The world will not come to an end even though it may seem to at certain times even if our way of life definitely will.

Last week we started to take a look at the denominational problem again. Why did the Protestants go down the avenue they did, turning Paul's letters into a 'core canon' - a 'canon within a canon within a canon'? Because, they claimed, the harder parts of the Bible had to be interpreted in the light of the easier ones. But is that true? No, I don't believe so, yet Protestants have been doing this now for the last half millennium and arriving at so many conflicting doctrines. And not just them, I hasten to add...I don't wish to be accused of tarring just one group with this particular brush, for the Catholics too were uniquely fond of allegorising everything literal out of sight until it no longer became recognisable. Thus in the Middle Ages, for example, they turned a Hebrew love poem into an exclusive allegory about the love of Messiah (Christ) for the Messianic Community (Church) [1]. Now there is, of course, an important place for allegory to be sure but we do have to maintain sight of literal realities and not get too carried away, otherwise we will then end up, like liberals, in claiming that the creation account in Genesis has no literalness at all but is a mere 'myth', a symbol of something intangible - then that's used to compromise with secular evolutionism and, ultimately, with atheism. Many, then, are the potential pitfalls.

What the Protestants (and others) did, for whatever reasons, however well-intended, was blatant subjectivism. We're so used to seeing this kind of theology being done that we don't even give it a second thought. We do, though, urgently need to look closely at what we do, and how we do it, and make a serious review of how we do theology. Here's the problem: every interpreter operates with some kind of inner canon. Everybody comes to the biblical text with some set of questions that begins their encounter with theology. And then our questions become a kind of Procrustean bed by which we measure, and condemn, the other parts of Scripture which don't fit our models. This is a kind of theological totalitarianism because it seeks to enforce uniformity by violent methods, in this instance, cutting out or mutilating passages of scripture that don't 'fit' with our models. For those of you who may have forgotten your Classics, Procrustus was a legendary robber who fitted his victims to his bed by stretching or chopping off their limbs. You'd be surprised just how Procrustean theologians and official denominational teachers of doctrine can be.

This seems to be an unfortunate human tendency. Atheistic scientists do it too. Evolutionists do it with their many 'just-so' stories as they imagine, without any concrete evidence, missing links (like four-legged mammals going for a swim in the sea and turning into whales) and planetery development (thanks to an infinite number of fortuitous asteroid collisions to 'get' all the planetary bodies to be where they are, and to look like the way they do, today). The space probes sent into the outer reaches of the Solar System have been turning their subjective theories on their heads and unbelieving scientists are frankly astonished, as they were recently when Pluto was photographed close-up for the first time. But then things never are the way you imagined them to be, a reason why the two extremes - wild imagination and the reductionist theologian's butcher's table - have to be rejected.

Have you ever been taught the smug notion that 'scripture must interpret scripture'? I should know, I have said it myself often enough, in uncritical mimicry of other teachers. It is true, up to a point - sometimes it works - but you have to be careful especially when you make the subjective claim that you are going to use 'easier' scriptures to explain 'harder' ones, because that's what it can often become: subjective. You then end up with such imaginary species as 'New Testament theology', specifically, isolated Pauline theology which is typically misunderstood, a reason N.T.Wright insists Paul be understood within the context of the national story of Israel. I totally agree with him, and I know most Messianics do too, which makes N.T.Wright all the more credible since he's an Anglican going against his denominational tradition, and sticking his neck out in the process.

There is a good reason why we, in this ministry, teach an internal hierarchy of scriptural authority. We begin with the authority of the writings of the Father (through the prophets, beginning with Moses), then the authority of the Son (through the Gospels with parts of Acts and Revelation - good sons are always subject to their fathers), and finally the authority the Apostles (their letters), which is the third and final level. We start with what our Heavenly Father said because that's Whom Yah'shua (Jesus) said He imitated to the letter ("Do not believe Me unless I do what My Father does" - John 10:37, NIV), and then we go to the Son because that's whom the Apostles (including Paul) imitated, but especially those before Paul who knew the Master one-to-one in the flesh. Paul was not only not exaggerating when he said he was the "least of the apostles" (1 Cor.15:9) - he literally was, and is, at the bottom of the apostolic hierarchy. Does this make him inferior to the others? By no means! He was an inspired genius but, because he sometimes is "hard to understand" (2 Pet.3:16), Paul must be interpreted by the other apostles, who must be interpreted by Messiah, who must be interpreted by the Father. Paul must be interpreted by, for example, James and Peter; James, Peter, John and the other apostles by Yah'shua (Jesus); and Yah'shua (Jesus) by the Father Yahweh. Paul was the first and only theologian who contributed to the Bible and you do have to be careful with theologians, because theology is the study of complex systems of religion! It's important to keep it as simple as possible whenever possible.

It's exactly the same hierarchical structure in families with fathers (husbands), mothers (wives) and children, which are the equivalent of the Father, Son and Apostles that I have just described. Thus what Dad teaches, Mum passes to the children, and where necessary, the elder children re-enforce the teachings and rules of the parents when the parents are absent. Yahweh has His good reasons for this order, even if you can't make sense of them because you think you know better, so don't flout His rules! There can be no cohesive, unified Remnant if this rule is ignored. The generations since the hippie revolt of the 1960's pout at this but the generations alive absolutely need to grow up and get over this hangup because it's so important that believers get past this Western liberal stumbling block that has nearly destroyed our civilisation. Agree, if you would, with this very wise and astute Messianic lady, Hassadah Levi, who correctly and unapologetically taught according to scriptural tavnith (pattern) when she said:

"Democracy is a satanic disorder from pagan Ancient Greece. There's no democracy in the Bible, it's [a] theocratic dictatorship. [The] husband [like Jacob-Israel] is head of his wives [Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah], Messiah is head of the husband, [and] YHWH is head of Messiah. If we want to follow Torah, we have to obey our head or we follow a deception".

Now I agree that this may not appear particularly efficient, especially when it comes to fallible human heads, which is one reason why many things have to proceed slowly, over many generations sometimes, because it's the safest way for carnal man to go, who is still at the intersection between the Old and New Creation. Just look at what has happened to those who have impetuously raced ahead and broken the divine tavnith (pattern) concerning Yahweh's established authority structure - they leave wrecked marriages, families, churches and nations behind them. Recall as often as possible this very wise saying by Spencer Kimball that has stuck with me over the years: 'No success in life can compensate for failure in the home.' Learn from the way Yahweh has set marriage and the family up and be obedient in the way Jonah wasn't. If you don't, your story will remain unfinished, like Jonah's, and your inheritance will be frustration and sorrow, your children confused and more liable to make serious mistakes in their lives.

Let me give you an illustration of why, as a default, it's often safest to 'wait and see' how things unfold, and to do so in a state of spiritual calmness and reflection. "Be sober," the apostle Peter said (1 Pet.1:13, NKJV). After the Ascension, the first believers were waiting for Yah'shua (Jesus) to return. Without exception, all - including the apostles - were expecting Him to return in their lifetime. He had given them some prophetic markers to enable them to 'discern the times' (Mt.16:3), and one of these was the enthronement of the Anti-Messiah (Antichrist) in the Temple. Do you remember the passage?

"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those [women] who are pregnant and to those [women] who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened" (Matt 24:15-22, NKJV).

The Herodian temple in Jerusalem was still standing when Yah'shua (Jesus) spoke these words, and for years and years after He left, so it was a simple matter for them to picture in their minds this servant of the devil sitting enthroned in the House of Elohim (God) - this was a building they were very familiar with, weren't they? However, when that temple was destroyed in AD 70, they quickly realised that that particular stone temple was not the one where this prophetic event would take place. So the anticipated marker was gone and they had no idea what temple it could be that the Saviour had spoken of, if it indeed were a stone structure at all (remember the cryptic remark made by Matthew, "whoever reads, let him understand") and not something like the human body which Paul identified as the "temple of the Ruach (Spirit)" (1 Cor.6:19, NIV; also 3:16). Centuries of theological speculation have resulted in all sorts of ideas, most of them probably wrong, not least a failure to understand that Ezekiel's Temple is prophetically-speaking never to be built now. So there is a lot of disinformation about a 'Third Temple' in circulation and believers accordingly have their eyes trained on the earthly Jerusalem in search of fulfilled prophecy instead of the Jerusalem above!

In 500 AD, Hippolytos predicted the Second Coming would take place that year. It failed. When the year 999 AD rolled along, Catholic Europe likewise readied itself for the 'grand finale', for the 'end of the world' and Second Coming, by having a grand repentance. When Yah'shua (Jesus) didn't come back in 1000, they returned to sinning shortly thereafter. The Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the 'End of Days' in 1975 and they all went and sold everything they had and gave the cash to the Watchtower organisation. Nothing happened, of course, and the Freemasons who run the Watchtower didn't give tne members their money back. I remember that well because the Organisation lost a lot of members for yet another failed prophecy. I was also around, as most of you were, in 2000 AD, and yet again there was a huge scramble to get ready for the Second Coming in 1999, or at the very least people were expecting their computers to stop working, the 'Y2K event'. I was in Stavanger, Norway, at the time. Christians were disappointed, yet again, which is really rather astonishing when you come to think about it because Yah'shua (Jesus) warned against making such predictions - even He doesn't know when He's coming back (Mt.24:44; 25:13), but only the Father (Mk.13:32) (proving, by the way, that He is neither the Father nor co-equal with Him). In all these historical cases the world just moved on and people stopped fearing Elohim (God)...again...and unbelief increased...just a little more.

Only later, after the first generation of believers had died, did it become the practice of believers to both live in expectation of the Second Coming and to live in daily remembrance of their own mortality. Millions of believers have died since that first generation, Yah'shua (Jesus) has not yet returned, and yet all knew, know, and yet anticipate, His return. You younger ones will do the same as we did - you will wonder, you will hope, and then - maybe, or maybe not - you will realise it will be your own children's generation. You know what I believe about that! That means that we must live with a true perspective of life which in turns means living in readiness for our own death since it is more likely than not that we will die before He returns. And, remember, there are believers who die young. So these two 'awarenesses' have to be kept in balance - to live life to the full for Him and yet, simultaneously, to be realistic about being ready for death at any time so that we do not die with any regrets, so that we may daily be ready to stand before Elohim (God) with a clear conscience when the moment finally comes to meet Him.

When talking about Scripture, and its interpretation, we must eventually come around to serious the business of toqef or authority. And as we saw with the story of Jonah, carnal men and women don't do very well when it comes to submitting to authority. They have a strong disposition toward disobedience so long as they remain in the Old Creation nature called the 'flesh'. So we'll make this very, very simple by saying right off - which no one can disagree with here, I hope - that all authority belongs to the Creator, Yahweh-Elohim. Next, to remove a swathe of ambiguity stirred up by doubt and rebellion, we must state categorically that Yahweh-Elohim the Creator has made Himself known supremely in Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). From these two truths we may indisputably say, even if this may cause cardiac arrest in some of the Sola Scriptura folks, that:

• 1. Yahweh-Elohim holds an authority that is superior to all writing about Him; and
• 2. Yah'shua (Jesus), by virtue of the authority He holds, is superior to all writing about Him too.

Is this a false antithesis, as most Protestants will cry out, who will say that what we know about Yah'shua (Jesus) is precisely because of these writings? Please understand, I am not - absolutely NOT - saying that the New Testament or Bible is not authoritative for mankind. What I am emphatically saying, though, is that the Scriptures by themselves, as stand-alone pieces of written or printed text, do not give us direct access to either Yah'shua (Jesus) or the Father without a functioning, operational, invisible, supernatural component in play. I am, of course, talking about the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) which, let's be honest, can be very hard to pin down in a consistent manner.

There are other issues. It could be argued that on one verse of Scripture the basis of a whole theological system is made to hang - denominations rest their claim to authority on it. Did Paul say to Timothy:

"All scripture is inspired by Elohim (God) ('God-breathed' - NIV) and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to Elohim (God) may be proficient, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim.3:16-17, NRSV)

Can we know which translation is correct? Is it, "all scripture is inspired by Elohim (God)" or "every scripture inspired by Elohim (God)". Absolutely, we can know. How? Because the Aramaic, the language Yah'shua (Jesus) and the talmidim (disciples) conversed in together, reads:

"Every writing which was written by the Ruach (Spirit)..." (2 Tim.3:16, HRV)

Here's the problem. What we have done, over time, is taken an ordinary word such as 'scripture' (from the Latin from which we also get the English words 'script', 'enscription', and so on), which in biblical Greek literally means 'writing' (i.e. a letter, parchment, scroll, document, or book), and we have forced it to mean something else. A dictionary is as much 'scripture' as the Bible because both are 'writings'. So is a romantic novel, a physics textbook, or a letter you've written to your parents by hand on a piece of paper. They are all 'scripture' in the original sense of the Greek even if the English word today pretty much uses the word exclusively to refer to a written religious text, whether true or false. Thus the use of the word 'scripture' is wrong here. The Greek word is graphe (from which we get the English words 'graphic' and 'graph') and literally means a 'document' (remember, all text was handwritten in those days - Guttenberg hadn't invented the printing press yet). The word appears 53 times in the Greek version of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) and only once in the Tanakh (Old Testament) in Aramaic Daniel where the word 'kathab' again means 'writing' or a 'register'.

Therefore the biblical word we translate as 'scripture' is not necessarily 'holy', 'set-apart' or 'qadosh', i.e. what we mean by the English word 'Scripture'. You have to qualify it to be accurate. If a passage reads 'sacred writing', then you can call it 'Scripture' in the sense that our modern English word means, or if a passage is specifically pointing to written revelations in the Tanakh (Old Testament), for example. That is why Paul writes in the way he does: "Every writing which was written by the Ruach (Spirit) is profitable" (2 Tim.3:16, HRV) makes a clear distinction between uninspired religious literature and profane or secular literature. Why otherwise would he bother to write that? He's warning Timothy, and us indirectly, to beware of both profane (secular) writing and religious writing that is false, as neither will do us any good spiritually. In other words, if you want to be "complete and whole" (v.17, HRV), make sure you're staking your life and spirituality on that which was given by Yahweh through His Ruach (Spirit) and not the spirit of man. Make sure they're "qadosh - holy, sacred, set-apart - scriptures (writings)" (v.15, Barclay) and not the Quran, Haddiths, Bhagavad Gita, Tao Teh Ching, Talmud, Book of Mormon, the mutterings of shamans, psychics and witches, or whatever because if you believe them, they will shape you into something else that isn't qadosh (holy). That also means seeking out accurate translations of the Bible and being selective about which preachers you listen to and accept, and to test what they say carefully. So do you see the extreme importance of correctly defining words? Of doing your homework carefully? This is why a sound education is important.

The other day I was shown a post made by a desperate wife who bewailed the fact that her husband had fallen away. A well-meaning but deceived Calvinist told her not to worry because her husband had been born again when he was 11 and that the scriptures teach, 'Once Saved, Always Saved' (OSAS). The wife, who we must assume was not Reformed, was incredulous, and said, paraphrasing, 'Are you serious? He is following the norse gods now!'. I don't know what Bible version that well-meaning but deceived Reformed Baptist was reading but someone who was once a believer and is now worshipping the pagan gods or Northern Europe is no longer a believer. And whilst none of us knows what the cut-off point is, or even whether some people who claim to have been saved were actually saved, we can know without a shadow of a doubt that someone worshipping Thor and Odin is not a saved, Torah-obedient believer. A properly translated Bible would have left no room for the lie of 'OSAS'. Some parts of their Bible were likely not 'Sacred Scripture' because the translation was not inspired by the Ruach (Spirit).

So what are the "sacred scriptures" that Paul here speaks of to Timothy? Well, for one thing, they are not the Bible as we know it, with 'Old' and 'New' Testaments, because it didn't exist when Paul wrote this epistle. The "sacred scriptures" were, and are, the Tanakh or Old Testament alone, as far as the Messianic Community (Church) was concerned at that time. When in the next verse, Paul says, "every scripture inspired by Elohim (God)" he is not saying that all 'scripture', 'religious texts' or 'writings' are of Elohim (God) but only that which is "inspired by Elohim (God)". The word 'scripture' simply means that which is written down, of which there are two categories - inspired and uninspired. Are you with me?

Most Protestants will tell you that the "scriptures" spoken of here are the whole Protestant Bible, including the 'New Testament', but that would not be true for the reasons given. Does that mean the 'New Testament' is uninspired? Not at all. It simply means that here - in this passage, in this letter to Timothy - Paul is not talking about a Book (the 'New Testament'), let alone his own writings, which haven't fully come into existence yet and have not been canonised! Only the Tanakh (Old Testament) is officially recognised canon. That means, if you want to talk about "scripture" as Paul referred to it, then your PRIMARY true, spiritual text is obviously the Tanakh (Old Testament). This is how, amongst other things, we get the idea of a hierarchy of Scriptural authority, because this was, and is, PRIME SCRIPTURE - or first order inspired text. Even if Paul's writings later came to be accepted as Scripture, as they did, it does not necessarily mean that his writings are of equal authority to the Tanakh (Old Testament). In other words, they cannot be regarded as a 'canon' on their own.

Am I being pedantic here? I hope you don't think so. All I am doing is seeking to be historically, linguistically, theologically, and methodologically accurate. At this point, Protestants (in particular), but also other believers (in general), will point out the numerous passages that speak of "the Word". But here you have got to be very careful, because this word "word" means many different things, as you know from studies we have made of it in the past. Thus when in the Gospel of John Yah'shua (Jesus) prays to the Father, "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth", He is referring to something far greater than merely truthful written words, important though these obviously are. Thus Paul would say:

"...you also were included in Messiah when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation" (Eph 1:13, NIV).

We know from the Aramaic Targums, which were commentaries of the Tanakh (Old Testament), that the Davar (Hebrew), Memra (Aramaic) or Logos (Greek) of Yahweh was understood to be the operational power of Yahweh, and specifically the 'Lesser Yahweh' which the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) identify as Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), the Son of Elohim (God). It was in, through, and out of this historical theological language - the thought patterns of the day - that is the matrix in which our Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) were written. So whatever the pagan Greeks thought about the Logos (and they had their own different ideas about that) in the 1st Century AD, John in his writings would have viewed and explained the meaning of the Logos/Memra/Davar (Word) out of the word usage of his day. Thus, "In the beginning was the Word" would have meant, "In the beginning was the Power of the Lesser Yahweh, namely, the Son, Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ)" (John 1:1). Thus in the Targum Onkelos of Genesis 15:6 we read:

"And [Abraham] trusted (believed) in the Word (Memra) of YHWH (Yahweh), and He counted (reckoned) it to him for (as) righteousness" (Gen.15:6, Onkelos).

For one thing, this particular "word" was spoken - remember we talked a lot about the importance of the spoken word recently? I take it you will agree with me when I say that behind any written or spoken word there is something far greater and more tangible, the substance, as it were, of that which is written or spoken. For we learn that the "Word" was "with Elohim (God)" "in the beginning" long before any aspect of it was ever written down as Scripture or read out as Scripture and that "Word" was, is, and forever shall be a Person who is alive and who communicates and transmits chayim (life) to all those who will accept Him, trust Him, and obey Him. And if we are to believe the Protestant version of biblical history, there was no written Word or Scripture in the pre-flood Patriarchal era! So the spiritual giants of that aeon (age) were not poring over sacred texts as we do. How did some of them get so close to Yahweh that one or two like Enoch were translated - taken off the earth to heaven - because they were too pure for this world? Why aren't we, with all our sacred scripture, experiencing the same thing? Or are you a sceptical liberal who believes that period of history was all myth, all made-up like a fairy-tale?

Moreover, I am sure you will agree that not every collection of words in the Scriptures is of equal life-bearing capacity. Thus someone mediating on, "Elohim (God) is ahavah (love)" (1 Jn.4:8,16) is going to have a very different spiritual encounter with the Davar or Logos than someone who meditates on some of the bad advice given by Job's friends or, worse, some of the deceptive words of the Serpent to Eve. When David meditated, it was on Yahweh's mitzvot (commandments) or Torah and it was these that edified him. We, too, may - and should - do the same, and you will recall how last week we read Clement's counsel to the Corinthians to do this very thing. Are the words of Job's friends and indeed the words of Satan to Eve, then, a part of Yahweh's 'Word'? Only inasmuch as they provide contrast which is why we need to know about evil so as to avoid it and not displease Elohim (God) and end up hurting ourselves and others, not to menion to risk losing our salvation. Thus there are 'words' in Scripture of very different spiritual value and purpose.

So what, then, do you suppose Yah'shua (Jesus) meant when He said:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away" (Lk.21:33)?

The Bible contains all kinds of literature some of which is poetic and not to be taken literally, so it is not enough to string words together into sentences and declare that the sentences are literally inspired. You have to know what concepts these sentences are communicating. Are the individual words important? Yes, in the sense that if by changing them you change the meaning of what it being communicated, but if changing them does not alter the meaning, then they do not matter as much. That is why many different translations of the Bible are fine, provided accuracy is maintained. It's why we aren't reliant on just one Bible version like the King James and why it's fine to have the Scriptures rendered into many languages.

Sometimes we find in what we call 'the Scriptures' what can only be described as the personal theology of an apostle and as we know, in at least one place, Paul only gives his opinion and says quite frankly he thinks what he says is inspired but he isn't sure. That was when, you will remember, he was giving advice on whether it's wise to get married and have children in times of extreme persecution. Are these opinions inspired? Maybe, maybe not. Are they to be regarded on the same level as what the Torah and what the Master teaches about marriage? Clearly not, yet they are good pastoral advice for a specific circumstance. Do you see what I mean about being careful? That is why I stress, again and again, the importance of scriptural hierarchy, and why a certain amount of wisdom and care are needed in interpreating the Scriptures. I realise this may be inconvenient and upset some people's ideas about the Bible, but this is one reason Yahweh has appointed experienced teachers in the congregations of the Messianic Community (Church). And as we have also seen, there are limits to knowledge in any one particular age, because each age can only avail itself of the collective wisdom that has gone before it.

As we saw, none of the first believers got the timing of the Second Coming right - even the apostles got it wrong - despite the prophetic markers given them which were written down to subsequently become Scripture and which we are still interpreting because certain meanings are still hidden or sealed. If all authority belongs to the Creator, as it indisputably does, what we have to discover - quite urgently - is how such 'authority' comes to be vested in the New Testament (and further, the whole Bible), and what the limits of this authority might be. Clearly, nobody had the authority in the first century of believers to declare that the Second Coming was going to be in their lifetime. It wasn't, and that's OK, and it doesn't reflect badly on the first believers. It just means they didn't know what they thought they should know and what they thought Yah'shua (Jesus) had meant about His return. That is why we need to retain a big dollop of humility when it comes to interpreting Scripture.

Now we all know how common it can be for someone to pick up a Bible, read it, interpret it, and claim to have 'authority' to expound it, who then goes out and can be thoroughly obnoxious to people who don't agree with him, drive them away from Christ, unnecessarily damage relationships (even though we know Christ predicted the gospel rightly used would bring division - Lk.12:45-53) and not uncommonly get the theology wrong too, and maybe go off and start another denomination to boot. How do we stop this happening? Well, you can't, can you? Not without denying that person his free agency, at any rate. At a certain point in history, we are told, all the falsehood will be swept away. So long as we clean our own yards, and warn people not to mess up their own, we have done all we can reasonably be expected to do.

Now, of course, almost without exception, the people who go and do all of this - interpret wrongly and start new groups - claim to be inspired by the Ruach (Spirit) and from that perspective, they come to regard themselves as untouchable. 'I'm anointed, back off!' Or, 'I have been baptised in fire and you haven't because you don't speak gibberish like me!' Just think of all those men who predicted various Raptures, started groups and churches, prophesied dates, were proved wrong, and have since died like the rest of believers for the last 2,000 years. This claimed 'authority' often becomes their justification for starting a new denomination, or at the very least, what is euphemistically called an 'independent church'. Of course, that's usually how denominations form, congealing around an 'independent church' which then becomes a 'mother church' of sorts.

Let us make an observation here. Whether in the scientific or theological spheres, most changes, particularly in doctrinal and theological understanding, are seen to happen slowly and gradually over many generations. A reason we know absolutely that the earth isn't flat is because so much science has been done gradually, slowly and painstakingly over so long a period of time - at least 2,500 years. Likewise, nearly every theology around is the result of sometimes centuries or millennia of gradually, slowly and painstakingly 'doing theology'. The different theologies have diverged from each other because somewhere along the line each religious teacher has usually made false doctrinal assumptions based on poor understanding of an ancient language like Hebrew or there has been an improper historical appreciation of the cultural surroundings of the texts. They have not understood the full context. As a result, a whole spectrum of theologies has formed, some of which are quite strange species indeed. But most commonly, at least as far as Protestants are concerned, they have gone and made 'canons within canons' and distorted everything as a result. And had Martin Luther had his way, some of the books of the New Testament, like the Epistle of James, would have been completely excluded.

So, to repeat, we have to be very careful in the conclusions we reach about theology and prophecy. With all the big political changes going on, believers are in a frenzy and making wild predictions. What I want to ask you to do is pause and soberly consider some things. Pursue both the bigger picture and that which is at local or at home - that which is near you - but don't race ahead precipitously. Focus on removing personal blindness. Guaranteed, a large part of it, along with personal frustration, will be due to unforgiveness which marrs our spiritual eyesight. As far as the 'big picture' is concerned, remember that Christianity - Messianic Israelitism - began in the Book of Acts with a metaphorical 'Big Bang' at which point true, pure, and unadulterated Christianity appeared briefly, within the span of just a few short years, and ever since it has been cooling down and getting muddled up through schisms and through multiple, abortive reformations and restorations. And Christians have been trying to 'explain' what happened, what's happening, and what's going to happen ever since. They all have different ideas, different hypothesis, and many haven't a clue what they are saying because they are relying on human intellect and wisdom more than they are on Yahweh Himself. What is the solution? They must allow themselves to be ground to fine spiritual flour. Then they will see, but not before.

How we view the history of the Messianic Community (Church) is very important too. What have theologians said or claimed? How have they explained things? Well, there are those who believe in what one might call a 'steady state' development of Christianity, according to which theological and practical ideas and agendas develop in straight lines, without twists, turns or second thoughts. Then there's the old German Tübingen hypothesis, according to which Christianity developped in two parallel and distinct ways, divided by racial background - Jews and Greeks (and then Romans) - and then came together in the second generation into the Catholic Church, which then needed to be 'Reformed' and that, they believe, was the final goal, in spite of the thousands of denominations that were generated. We recently talked about the Enlightenment, didn't we, and how that impacted everything, for good and evil? Many, perhaps unwisely, would view that as part of the ongoing 'Reformation'. Then there are Messianics like ourselves who believe the restoration of Torah is a part of the Restoration, et cetera. But is it really all so neat and tidy? Have either the Reformation or Messianism brought order and harmony? No. They have contributed important things but they have just added to the denominational chaos.

So which, if either, of the 'Steady-State' or the 'Tübingen' schools is the correct one? To answer that question we have to return to the Book of Revelation and establish what that is talking about for there are four principle interpretations of that volume of Scripture:

• 1. The Preterist School which understands the book exclusively in terms of its first-century setting, and claims that most of its events have already taken place;
• 2. The Historicist School which interprets the book as describing the long chain of events from Patmos to the end of history;
• 3. The Futurist School which places the book primarily in the end times; and
• 4. The Idealist School which views the book as purely symbolic pictures of such timeless truths as the victory of good over evil. Thus, in the last case, the 'New Jerusalem' would be viewed as representing the blessedness, even in this earthly estate, of true believers whose lives are hid with Messiah in Elohim (God).

Why, you may ask, is it even important to know the answer to this question? Aside from our committment to all emet (truth) and the fact that so much rests on what the contents of this book mean, our answer will determine our attitude to the book as a whole, and indeed Scripture in general. It took the Roman Church (Western and Eastern before the split) until about 500 AD to make up its mind and conclude that the Book of Revelation was authentic. And the reason it was doubted for so long was because no one was sure how to interpret it! Were the Catholic believers alone? Not at all. The Reformers were confused by it too. Luther was hostile to the book at first and wanted to get rid of it altogether. Later he softened, but not completely, and wanted to put it into an appendix with Hebrews, James and Jude because these four disagreeed with his 'saved-by-grace-alone' doctrine. (He made no pretense of that as modern Protestants do - at least he was honest). The other major Reformers were no less sceptical - Zwingli considered Revelation to be non-biblical, and Calvin ignored it altogether as though it didn't even exist!

These are indeed troubling historical truths, are they not? Yet once again we see certain realities dawning only gradually over centuries. Today the Book of Revelation is unquestioningly accepted but still poorly understood. At such a time as this, with trouble again threatening the world, we do need to understand it. But I want to suggest that we will not - and cannot - until other matters are straightened out. For like it or not, Yahweh will not reveal His deeper secrets until we have become trustworthy enough to receive them and use them responsibily.

So this piece of history should not be ignored...which is why I stress the importance of history so much. How can Protestants toot the Sola Scriptura or 'Scriptures Alone' horn so loudly and defiantly, while unapologetically promoting their 'canon within a canon' (Paul before all else) when their three founding 'Sola Scriptura' fathers - Luther, Zwingli and Calvin - were so hostile to the Book of Revelation and other non-Pauline books of the New Testament? What were they so uncertain about? So scared of? And what are their modern followers still so uncertain about, and scared of, today, that causes them to scurry back to their 'canon-within-a-canon' every time other writers like James and John contradict them? It is because they have misread and misunderstood Paul and created an uneven, top-heavy theology, like a ship listing to one side with a locked rudder, going around in circles and in danger of capsizing. The ship may, in most instances, get its 'passengers to the heavenly port' but precariously and only just. But as a 'Remnant Vessel' it will not do - it cannot do. The Reformers have had their day. It is now the day of the Restorers.

Don't get me wrong. I am a huge admirer of Martin Luther and, to a lesser extent, of Ullrich Zwingli, who was a forerunner of John Calvin's cult. Luther's courage changed Europe, Christendom, and the world, but the result was a mixed bag. Luther had in any case only sought to internally reform the Catholic Church, not start a new denomination. Messianic Evangelicals do not look, and have never looked, to the Reformation as the final manifestation or revelation of the Kingdom of Elohim (God). It manifestly isn't, though it is in part, a reason we consider ourselves 'Evangelical' in so many areas. The Protestant churches have been continually evolving though with the older mainstream ones either degenerating (like the Lutherans) or sailing up an historical backwater and there setting up a last-ditch defence (Calvinism).

I cannot tell you how anxious I am to reach out to Calvinists, Lutherans and other Protestants. There is much that is good in the Reformation but it is seriously defective because of lawlessness and doctrinal imbalance caused by the 'canon within a canon'. There is so much contradiction, fear and insecurity in their systems, in spite of the bravado, especially amongst Calvinists. They really don't know whether they are saved or not and one has to wonder what kind of a Heavenly Father they worship, or whether they even know Elohim (God) as a 'Father'. Yes, my Father in Heaven is strict but. Yes, He holds us to account. Yes, He does not compromise with emet (truth) or His mitzvot (commandments); but He is also overflowing with undeserved loving kindness too! He is patient, He is kind, He is long-suffering, He is generous to a fault, as we are called to be too. And He deals with human beings as a true parent should. He knows and understands our struggles. He knows whether we are being honest and genuine or not and that means more than whether we are right or wrong. And I agree with Eric Metaxas who says that the Besorah (Gospel) is first and foremost about people, not about bloodless ideas.

I also believe the emet (truth) is more than capable of defending itself. I believe that Elohim (God) is more than capable of defending Himself. He doesn't need us to set up inquisitions. And He certainly doesn't need theological policemen who don't properly understand Scripture. One of the reasons I have commented so little on the Book of Revelation over the years is not because I don't believe in it but because I freely admit I don't completely understand it yet, and I am not about to make confident pronouncements about what I don't know for sure. But I am trying. I am working on it. And that's why I am digging by asking hard questions, not only about that Book but about all the Bible.

We do now need to understand it if, as I firmly believe, we are now entering the last of the 'last days' which the Book of Revelation talks a lot about. Why, even satanists use it! It's unlike any other book in the Bible which is why it flummoxed even the big wigs of the Reformation and sent them into a tail-spin. Their theology could not accommodate it because their theology was flawed. You can see lots of the Tanakh (Old Testament) nevi'im (prophets) in the Book of Revelation [2], especially Ezekiel and Daniel, much of which is given a messianic meaning. There are also striking parallels with the Gospels that prove to my satisfaction not only that they had been written down by this time but that John at least had copies of the Synoptic Gospels in his possession, or at the very least knew them back to front [3].

So what is the truth about the Book of Revelation? I can only share with you as much as I have discovered and therefore what I believe thus far. This is an on-going work alongside my extensive Pauline studies. I do believe that in the first instance the setting is the first century and that the book was written for the seven congregations (churches) of Asia Minor. There can be no doubt that the Preterist School in on the right track - it is primarily directed at the qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) of the late first century AD. But, knowing what I do about prophecy, there can be no doubt that contained within this is a revelation about the rest of Christian/Messianic history, so I accept the Historicist School on another level simultaneously. And I also believe, because prophecy is multi-layered, that the Futurist School is correct too, since there is undoubtedly a lot of future material important to us. Finally, there is no doubt that most of the material is symbolic and therefore it contains a strong Idealist element. So all four are correct but none of them can make an exclusive claim. The task, then, becomes unwrapping that four dimensional creature we call the Book of Revelation, which we shall do, by the by, and with Yahweh's grace, at another time as we have need of it.

Which brings us finally to the denominational question and, in a way, a supplement to the series of sermons I gave you on Unity in the Body of Christ. If the Reformers, who were well-meaning, did not get it fully right, as is evidenced by the chaos of the denominational spawning ground which they created; if the Messianics, who were also well-meaning in restoring the Torah, simply contributed to more denominations, not to mention seeding some very ugly and dangerous heresies (just consider how many of them deny the Deity of Messiah and quibble endlessly over pronunciations, making believers offenders for a word); if those trying to effect a restoration like Alexander Campbell (founder of the Churches of Christ) and Joseph Smith (who created the Mormon cult) have fared no better...and so it could go on as we work through the Seventh-Day Adventists, a sort of halfway house between Protestants and Messianics. If none of these has resolved the message, what is the major problem and what is the way forward?

I have spent the last 30 or so years bursting nearly every metaphorical blood vessel in my body trying to figure that one out and I have come to an inescapable conclusion - two, actually:

• 1. The moment you try to 'figure it all out' by intellectually networking the Scriptures into a theological and practical blueprint for life apart from a key ingredient, you end up creating a theological cage - a prison house, a Frankenstein-like monster - that drives out the Ruach (Spirit) and crushes the human spirit; and

• 2. I have observed - consistently - that those with the greatest simcha (joy), the greatest freedom, the greatest ahavah (love), the most successful inter-personal relationships (horizontally with people as well as vertically with Yahweh) and the greatest harmony are those who have supernaturally been filled with DIVINE CHAYIM (LIFE) who may or may not - at least initially - have a good grounding in the Scriptures. I come across these people in nearly all the denominations and it is plain to me that Elohim (God) is in them and is using them to great effect. I seek them out before all others because that is where the living Body is.

And now it simply remains for me to leave you with the nucleus of a vision, perhaps the hardest thing of all for me to do. Maybe it's impossible but I shall try. May Yahweh give me grace and help me as I try to wrap this Bible business all up in one mouthfull. Here goes:

• 1. The Western or Catholic Church stresses centrality and standardisation. Hierarchical authority makes doctrinal proclamations and controls how the Bible and the teachings of the Church are to be understood. It expects it's faithful to slavishly follow;

• 2. Protestantism, which spang up in the 16th century, was a reaction to, and protest against, this and was, and is, entirely unbounded by any kind of structure, placing a strong emphasis on individualism. The Protestant says: 'I have the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit), therefore I am capable of interpreting the Bible and I am the sole criterion for determining emet (truth). The 30,000 or so denominations that have sprung up from Protestantism are proof that this is only a half truth. Thus the Protestant, if he disagrees with his pastor, can start his own church, and does so;

• 3. The Eastern Orthodox (principally the Greek and Russian, but also the Romanian, Serbian and Bulgarian) Church, which arose in the 11th century, is really somewhere between the Catholic and Protestant positions. It, like the Catholic Church, is united by a common Bible interpretation and shows even more consistency. It pursues many superstitions and idolatrous practicles like the Catholic, such as the veneration of images and relics. It is not, however, centralised like the Roman Church, nor does it have a Pope - not every member or church father says the same thing about the same passage of Scripture. Nevertheless, there is an interesting self-imposed limitation by its members, invisible boundaries they will not cross. The Eastern Church has a completely different way of thought to Catholics - a different mentality, outlook, way of thinking), which they describe by the Greek word as the 'Phronema' - the 'mind of the church community'. This unspoken reality is what is best described as 'culturation' that is acquired from just regularly attending church. The Eastern Orthodox don't approach theology from an academic perspective but from an acquisition of the mentality of the church. Like the Catholics, Mormons and a number of others, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims to be the 'One-and-Only-True-Church' or OOTC. Now we know this isn't true today and wasn't true even at the time the Eastern Church split from the West in the 11th century but what they have undoubtedly preserved is the idea of an original, authentic mode of thought, interpretation, and teaching, the phronema), even if their own version of it is off the mark somewhat. It would be true to say that Orthodox Bible scholars are not generally respected in the West because there are things they will not say and conclusions they will not reach because, no matter what the academic theologians propose, they don't want to do speculative theology or engage in independent thought apart from the phronema.

Now you might think this to be very negative but bear with me for this is their desire - their intention: they want to think as the first Christians thought because they're the ones who wrote the Bible. They conclude, quite correctly, that if you want to understand the Bible you must acquire the mentality of the people who wrote it. (Whether they have actually done so is another matter altogether). In other words - and this is the critical point - you can only obtain this by pursuing a way of life rather than by an academic pursuit or by 'pure', isolated 'Bible study'. In other words, if you don't have the phronema when you read the Bible, you are reading things into the Bible which aren't really there. And if you're bathing in the wrong phronema by attending a church with wrong ideas and a wrong spirit you will end up viewing Scripture through a distorted lens without even being aware of it.

This brings me to the final historical factor:

• 4. The Messianic Movement, which arose principally in the mid to end part of the 20th century, began the restoration of the way of life that was, and is, the authentic phronema, but the problem with the Messianic Movement, as I have already mentioned, is that it is full of false Jewish rabbinical tradition and deadly messianic heresy. One of our urgent tasks at NCAY has been to sift through all of this and clean it out. This has taken us the better part of 20 years to accomplish.

My investigation into the Eastern Orthodox tradition, which has occupied me for the last few months, has completed the circle which involved:

• 1. Protestant Evangelical Christianity;
• 2. Messianism;
• 3. Catholicism; and
• 4. Eastern Orthodoxy.

Eastern Orthodoxy is important because a huge chunk of Christian/Messianic history is ignored by the Western Church (Catholic and Protestant), namely, the Greek Christian period in the first five centuries, the first quarter of Christianity's history - the Western Church doesn't really 'start' until the Latin period with Augustine and Jerome. That is why Yahweh led me to dig so deep into the Greek Fathers where the last key doctrine was hidden in plain sight - the doctrine of Universal (Graded) Salvation which was plainly the doctrine of the Messianic Community for the first four to five centuries. The Eastern Church has always historically been more comfortable with that than the Western Church which came to repudiate it and invented the awful doctrine of eternal torment. Messianism, which has arisen in the West, is much more tied to Western or Roman theology than it cares to admit, whereas in reality the Hebraic Besorah (Gospel) is much closer to the Greek East than to the Latin (Roman) West historically. The way things developped in the West is really the major abberation even if many good things did come through the West, a reason why Eastern Orthodoxy strayed so far itself in so many doctrinal areas.

So I am going to leave you with a shocker: Western (as opposed to Biblical) ideas about sin and salvation really aren't in the Bible. The atonement theology which developped in the Catholic Middle Ages is not there, something that Anglican scholar N.T.Wright has been saying, at least in respect of certain doctrines, and a reason Yahweh has led me so strongly and insistently to him. If you approach the Bible with that Western (Protestant-Catholic) mentality you are really bringing something foreign into it. You are reading it with a lens that distorts what is being read.

Now I am all in favour of what might be called here in the West 'modern studies' and by that I mean you do the following. You

• 1. Understand the language of a passage;
• 2. Study the history; and
• 3. Study the background of the text.

• 4. Connect to that missing phronema - the whole life or lifestyle of the authentic Messianic Community (Church).

In other words, you not only have to approach the Scriptures from the Torah way of life BUT YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY LIVE IT BEFORE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THEM FULLY! You can't separate the studying from the living. The moment you do, you are disconnected from its vitality, its chayim (life), and the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) that inhabits it, and no restoration of the Remnant can take place. You have to live the New Covenant Israelite way of life fully because until you do, it will just be academic and lifeless, and the lifestyle you do currently live, which isn't Messianic Israelite, will taint everything, distorting your vision. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE AUTHENTIC PHRONEMA!

I praise Yahweh that He has given me the words to complete this message. I feel an enormous relief and happiness. I am sorry it once again took so very long but this absolutely had to be said today. I honestly thought my health would give out before I was able to complete this message but it is done and should Yahweh take me home, I at least know I have completed the circle. Many of the details are all in my other sermons and teachings, though obviously there is much more work to be done. May Yahweh bless you as you carefully ponder all of these things. If Yahweh wills, until next time, in Yah'shua's (Jesus') Name. Amen.

Endnotes

[1] The Song of Solomon, Song of Songs or Canticles
[2] e.g. Daniel 1:13; 4:6ff.; 13:1ff.; 18:9f.
[3] e.g. Matthew 24 = Mark 13 = Luke 21:20-37; 12:35-48 - see, for instance, Rev.1:1 = Mt.24:36, and Rev.2ff. shows the situation foretold in Matthew 24:3-14; also Revelation 6:12-17 = Matthew 24:3-14; Revelation 6:12-17 = Matthew 24:29-31; Revelation 8:1 = Matthew 24:29; Luke 21:25