Category: Language

METAPHOR

8/22/2014

Yesterday, I had an interesting discussion with a friend. She has a unique way of seeing things which often blows me away. She commented that she sees the building of the woman almost literally as YHVH removed the rib from the Adam and made it stand before him. Then she asked, “Why a rib? Why not another bone? What is the function of ribs?”

Think about it. The function of the rib cage, as the main upper part of the torso in the human body, is to protect the vital organs that lie within. These include the majority of the torso organs such as the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and partially the intestines. Without this protection, fatal damage to these organs could easily occur. They also anchor the muscles that work the lungs and literally keep us breathing by lifting and lowering the rib cage. This is the primary function of ribs, however, they do so much more.

The human rib cage consists of three types of bone. The large flat bone or sternum, in the front center, twelve thoracic vertebrae of the spine, and twelve pairs of ribs. Without the rib cage, the skeletal system would collapse. Individual ribs are composed of inflexible hard bone tissue and flexible cartilage to allow for both protection and breathing.

Interestingly, given the important job of protecting the vital organs, the ribs are actually fairly easily broken. Taking a direct hit during sports or horsing around, a fall, and even a violent sneeze can break a rib. The pain of a broken rib is excruciating and care must be taken that the sharp edges of a broken rib do not puncture a vital organ causing serious, possibly mortal consequences.

WoW! I wonder if it is even necessary to go into the parallels with the role of ezer k’negdo. Protection, aiding in life processes, support, complexity, strength as well as delicateness. What a stunning choice of body parts!

I am intrigued by the information about how easily a rib can be broken. When something is not allowed to perform its function, is abused, fractured, seen as insignificant, not properly respected, can it fulfill its purpose? The answer is: It can try, but with such obstacles, how long will it last? And more to the point, how long can the body that rejects the purpose of the rib(s) continue to be productive?

Ishshah is not like a rib (simile). She IS a rib (metaphor).

Definitely Different

8/13/2014

Ok. So paul is going to have to wait. A while, as a matter of fact. There is too much that needs to be said before we go there. Lest you think that I am about de-gendering or uni-sexing, I think I need to clarify some things.

I was born a woman. I want to be what I was created to be. A woman. The reason I am blogging on this subject is because I have studied for a very long time just what that entails.

I have two sons. The first one was 6 months old when we moved to New Orleans. We lived in an apartment complex next door to another young couple with a little girl exactly 1 day older than our son. I had determined that I would not stereotype my son and included dolls and age appropriate play dishes in his toy box. He did not play with these toys, but the little neighbor girl liked them when she came over.

I was particularly struck one day when they each had a doll. Little Kimberly was cradling hers as she toddled along. My son had his by the foot dragging its head on the ground. I thought about that for days. Boys and girls were definitely different even at the tender age of 12 months. There was an instinctual psychological nurturing reflex in this little girl that was simply not evident in my son.

He loved balls. Any kind of ball. By the time he was 18 months old, he could identify balls. Footballs, golf balls, basket balls, baseballs. His first word was ‘ball’, much to his mother’s chagrin. You wait and coax and long to hear ‘mama’. What I got was “baa’ as he held one of his balls up and then promptly threw it across the room.

Somehow, I feel the need to reassure that I am not going for unisex or transgender. That is not the point of this at all. There are both physiological and psychological differences between men and women and they are good because YHVH designed it that way.

It is said that if you take the actual genetic makeup of men and women, the difference of the one pair of chromosomes that determine sex constitutes only a 4% difference in the entire genetic code. But, what this sets in motion as human beings mature into either male or female, becomes the fodder for books with titles like Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars, clearly delineating the vast differences.

What we do with these differences is the key. Do we try to see how we fit together and make each other better by incorporating the differences? Or do we tear down the opposite sex because they are not like us, implying that there is something bad or wrong with them just because they are the opposite sex?

The Body of Messiah has failed to remain faithful to YHVH’s original design by introducing extra biblical ideas and beliefs into the gender issue, thereby setting the stage for dehumanization, inequality, and injustice.

There are no two identical human beings on the planet, be they two men, two women, or a man and a woman. We were all created for a purpose with a plan for living that purpose out. We must be able to work together, to try to understand the blessing of other than ourselves, and respect the beauty of maleness or femaleness as it is the original building block of relationship between humans.

Separate But Equal

7/30/2014

Really?

Some may bristle with my comparisons today and that is ok. Bristling means to me that I am about to find out something about myself. Usually, it’s because I am holding onto a need to be right. Once in a great while, a very great while, it is because I am coming up against something that is not good. I pray that today’s post causes a bristling against something that is not good.

Separate but equal. The same but different. You can have input (as a woman), but I (as the man) have the final say. Hmm. I have heard these phrases used in church settings to cut the sharp edge of genderism, to placate a woman who is having problems being casted as second class. Problem is that these terms have been repeatedly used in other situations where people were considered second class.

I will never forget the shockwave that went through me as I watched the movie, The Help, the first time.There is a scene where Hilly (a white affluent female in 1960’s Mississippi) is having an outside toilet installed for her black maid. She says something to the effect: “Now isn’t this nice? Your own bathroom. Separate but equal.”

WoW! I thought. That’s me in church. This is where the bristling may occur. How can I compare women in church to the problem of black suppression? Easy. In my last post (read through it if you haven’t), you will see that church has for the last 2000 years portrayed women as subhuman or at best less than. This is exactly how black people were treated in this country for years. Do you think for a minute that being told they were equal when everything about them had to be separate, when everything about them was seen as inferior, when they were not considered capable of thinking for themselves, made them believe it? Of course not. Human beings are human beings created in the image of YHVH, regardless of their skin color, their eye shape, or their sex.

Domination over another human being is not scriptural. It is part of what we have inherited from the church fathers where women are concerned. It may seem unrelated but when a people group is singled out as needing to be controlled or dominated in the sense that they cannot function without being told what to do or even worse, do not have the right to function without being told what to do (given permission/covering) by the powers that be, we will end up with an abused/hated group of people - all justified with Scripture! The Jews did it to the Samaritans, Hitler did it to the Jews, Muslims do it to the world, and church leaders do it to women - and also men who cannot further their agenda.

Where in Scripture is injustice ever tolerated? Where in Scripture are we told 1/2 of humanity is to be accused, abused, and berated? “ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Um. I may be missing something here, but does that include men and women? Ahhh, but what about Paul? Yes, what about Paul?

and the band plays on . . . .

If you tell a big enough lie often enough . . .

7/24/2014

I have spent the first few postings on this predicament trying to discover what is meant by the Hebrew term ezer k’negdo. I want to know what it means to me as a woman. What was I brought into creation for?

My struggle is largely the part of me that will not accept that I am nothing more to YHVH than a slave laborer and baby maker; that my purpose must always remain inferior to that of a man. I know there are women out there who say they have not been treated like this. I am happy for you. The traditional church has definitely made some headway with respect to women and how they are viewed and this is good. I am not convinced, however, that the roots of the misogyny tree have been pulled up and cast into the fire. These roots go deep and their fruit is still in evidence today. We are subjected to it by misguided men whom I have watched disrespect women by walking out on them when they speak, using them sexually and when it goes south, blaming the ‘Jezebel’, and banging their chests like Tarzan and yelling, “You will not usurp my authority!”

From the text in Genesis, various other places in Scripture, and from many early to late Jewish writings, the intent and position of the woman is shown to be one of equality and honor. (Clearly, some Jewish writings and prayers do denigrate women, but by and large, that is not the case.) Yeshua, himself was especially attentive to women and related to them as he related to anyone else. Did the culture cause problems for women? Definitely! Was it ok with YHVH for women to be treated as property? No. Is our culture any different? Has context been sacrificed for a doctrine that says men are somehow better than and more capable than women?

What follows is not nice. But it must be brought to light if we are to understand where this way of thinking came from and why it persists today. I will start close to Yeshua’s day and move forward to today. Please, google and discover that I am not making this up. (See author's comments in purple)

160-225 CE: Church Father Tertullian: “You [woman] are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die.” So Yeshua, who died for all, died more for women and less for men?

150-215 CE: St. Clement of Alexandria (Greek Father of the Church) : "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman...the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame"

347-407 CE: St. John Chrysostom (Bishop of Constantinople) : "It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?...The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food ... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre."

347-420 CE: St. Jerome (well known scholar) : "Woman is the root of all evil.

354–430 CE: St. Augustine (Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Hippo) : "I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?" Augustine’s arrogance basically says that if YHVH were really smart he would not have created woman as his helper.

480 - 524 CE: Boethius (Christian Philosopher) : "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer.”

540-604 CE: Pope Gregory: "Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her 'use' is two fold; sex and motherhood."

1200-1280 CE: St. Albertus Magnus (Doctor of the Church) : "Woman is less qualified [than man] for moral behavior.
"Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his"

1225-1274 CE: Thomas Acquinas: "Woman was made only to assist with procreation."

1483-1586 CE: Martin Luther: "Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house and bear and bring up children"

"If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

"the wife should stay at home and look after the affairs of the household as one who has been deprived of the ability of administering those affairs that are outside and concern the state…."

"There is no gown or garment that worse becomes a woman than when she would be wise." Martin Luther’s vitriol against women is second only to his anti semitism.

1509 -1564 CE: John Calvin: "All women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior to the male."

1703-1791 CE: John Wesley, founder of Methodist movement (1703-1791), letter to his wife, July 15, 1774: . . .of what importance is your character to mankind, if you was buried just now Or if you had never lived, what loss would it be to the cause of God.

1992 CE: Pat Robertson, Southern Baptist leader, fundraising letter July 1992: The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

1999 CE: James Fowler, Women in the Church, 1999: The Holiness of God is not evidenced in women when they are brash, brassy, boisterous, brazen, head-strong, strong-willed, loud-mouthed, overly-talkative, having to have the last word, challenging, controlling, manipulative, critical, conceited, arrogant, aggressive, assertive, strident, interruptive, undisciplined, insubordinate, disruptive, dominating, domineering, or clamoring for power. This is character unbecoming to ANY believer, not just women! Rather, women accept God’s holy order and character by being humbly and unobtrusively respectful and receptive in functional subordination to God, church leadership, and husbands.

This is where we are and it is not ok, beloved.

k'negdo = like opposite of him = pure contradiction

7/21/2014

The word "neged" comes from the verbal root "nagad" meaning "to be face to face." This verb is always used in the causative form where it would literally be translated as "to make to be face to face" and also means "to tell." The noun form, "neged" is often used for something that is face to face with something else such as in Genesis 21:16 (min-neged) where Hagar went and sat down "opposite to" her son but a distance away.

neged = in front of; in sight of; opposite to - from nagad; to be conspicuous; tell

Used 370 x. translated as: answered (3), another (1), certainly told (1), confess (1), confront* (1), declare (46), declared (13), declares (6), declaring (4), denounce (2), describe (1), disclosed (1), display (1), explain (3), fully reported (1), give evidence (1), indeed tell (1), inform (3), informed (1), informs (2), know (1), known (1), made known (4), make...known (1), messenger (2), related (2), remind (1), report (2), reported (10), reported* (1), show (2), shown (2), surely report (1), surely tell (1), tell (101), telling (2), tells (3), told (131), told plainly (1), uttered (1).

This root - nun/gimel/dalet - relays two nuances that are ignored in the traditional church view of the woman. First, the woman is brought out of the man to face him, to be in front of him in a way that he cannot dismiss, one with equal footing, and second to denote one who speaks, tells, declares, explains, informs.

The prefix "ke" in the word “k'negdo" means like, as, corresponding to, and the suffix "o" means "of him." Putting all of this together, ezer k'negdo is translated literally: "a helper like one opposite of him."

Sorry to seem to be beating this horse, but let's look again at "very good" becoming "not good". Remember, the Adam (humankind) had been created in the image of YHVH and something happened that made it necessary to separate the single entity of the Adam into the manifestations of man and woman or ezer k'negdo as defined above.

Question: Was it possible that Adam was shutting out this part of him and in order for it to be fully realized, YHVH had to bring it out to face him, to make it impossible for him to ignore? Once again, this is not about sex as much as it is about relationship.

Let's say for a minute that they had to be separated to fulfill the mandate to procreate, which is one of the teachings used to put woman in her place. Where in the text does it say this? Yes, they are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but that is not the stated FUNCTION as defined by the term ezer k'negdo. She is brought out for the role of ezer k'negdo. The fact that she is physiologically capable of bearing children is a side issue at this point. YHVH did not say, "I will make you a child bearer", He said, "I will make you someone corresponding to, yet opposite, with ability to inform."

Please, don't take this to mean I am against women bearing children. I think this is one of the most amazing things about being woman. No man could ever know the conflicting emotions of having another human being growing inside you, the pain of birthing and the wonder of seeing the fruit of your womb the first time! BUT!!!! The life and purpose of woman cannot be summed up in the ability to bear children. I am not trying to discount the different aspects of womanhood, I am simply trying to get back to the original intent (the Truth) of what YHVH had in mind when He separated the woman out of the man. And that means seeing what He said and not what years of misinterpretation make it mean.

Before we move out into Genesis three, I will share a little of where the idea that woman is subordinate came from. Also look at the difference between subordination and submission.

until next time . . .

It Is Not Good . . .

7/13/2014

Adam has been given his job description and has named the animals. What happened between Genesis 1:31 when it was ‘very good’ and Genesis 2:18 that it had become ‘not good’? YHVH does not make mistakes, so what is going on here? There are any number of commentaries and speculations as to why this suitable helper had to be brought forth and some make sense while others are, in my opinion, products of fanciful imaginations. In some cases ideas that are generated out of myths and opinions have been forced backward into the narrative to prove specific doctrinal bias. May I propose an idea that is supported by the text but not generally talked about?

Let me start by addressing the ‘who sinned first’ issue. We are taught (or at least I was) from the time we can think that Eve ate first and therefore she brought the sinful state to mankind and had to be punished - or variations on that theme. Scripture is used, including creation and Genesis 3:16 to ‘prove’ that she is the problem and needs to be controlled. I propose that sin did not enter because of Adam and Chavah’s disobedience. It was already there. The rebellion of the angels had already established sin, which by definition is disobedience to YHVH. Let's look at the phrase in Romans 5:12 - for by one man sin entered. The word in the original Greek for entered is: eisdechomai which means to open to or enter in and does not carry the idea that this is where sin began; that if not for Eve and Adam’s disobedience there would be no sin. Perhaps a better way to say this would be “Adam opened the door to sin, which was already sitting outside and could be just as rightly be stated "for by one man the door was opened to sin,’ which correctly establishes sin as previously existing, as opposed to the biased translation that supports man and by extension, woman as the first sinner. This would be the first time humankind sinned, but according to Scripture's own definition, not how sin entered the world.

Next, I would like to point out that the Adam (humankind pre separation into man and woman) had been given instructions. One of those instructions was to guard or protect the garden. From what? The animals were content at this time to cohabit with one another. Abba and the Adam were in fellowship together. My question is this: What was Nachash (the shining or luminous one, translated as serpent) doing in the garden? Had the human already been less than attentive to the guard duties before the separation occurred? Was there a door that had been left unprotected, unguarded?

To understand this, the phrase- ezer kenegdo - needs to be defined. We will be looking at it from the original language and how Scripture itself uses these words and how they establish a purpose or function that could not be fully realized outside of the separation of the Adam into man and woman.

to be continued . . .

CONUNDRUM

7/3/2014

This post is the first of several looking at the doctrine of female submission. I have been told I am a glutton for punishment. It's probably true, otherwise, why would I be taking on this subject? I am going to try, to the best of my ability, to look at what Scripture says, and not what I have been told and/or taught it says. Please, bear with me. I do not claim to have it all figured out, but I do know from personal experience that there are enough problems and contradictions with this way of thinking to warrant a serious re-thinking of it. Let’s try real hard not to impose post creation paradigms to this. Just for the sake of humoring me, let’s pretend that all we have is what we are told in the first two chapters of Genesis. Here we go . . .

During the week of creation, YHVH separated. He separated the water from the water, the water from the land, and the light from the dark. YHVH finishes His creation work and pronounces it “very good.” He gave instruction to the Adam to cultivate the land, and to keep (shamar - to watch, preserve and guard over) the garden, and to not eat of a specific tree. In Gen 2:18 YHVH says, “It is not good for the Adam (humankind) to be alone.” What is meant by this? He was not “alone”. Adam had one-on-one intimate contact with YHVH. Adam had relationship with the Creator and they fellowshipped together. This word (alone) in the Hebrew is from the root 'bad' and means separation; a part. Hmmm. Interesting.

What most seem to dismiss is that the Adam was man/woman unseparated (Gen. 2:23). The “man/woman” became man and woman only when they were separated. Did YHVH make a mistake in creating one being with both attributes? The text says He created this being “in our image.” Based on this, what can we understand? The Adam (complete humankind) was created in the image of YHVH and included in the Adam was the possibility of separating the Adam into different manifestations - man and woman. I believe it can be logically observed from the text that when YHVH said it is not good for the Adam to be alone that it could also mean - it is not good for the Adam to be unseparated.

Just as YHVH has different manifestations in his Echad (oneness), he created the man in this likeness. The different manifestations of YHVH include His physical manifestation in Yeshua and the manifestation of His Ruach (Spirit) which dwells within His children. This is NOT three gods in one, it is One God with different manifestations.* I believe that at the time of the separating of the man/woman, there was a prophetic inkling of the possibility of YHVH separating Himself into humankind as The Messiah and a short time later as a way of putting His Spirit within us.

Did the separating make one manifestation less than the other? Are not both manifestations still the Image of YHVH? The idea of creation establishing a hierarchical order for men and women simply cannot be supported if we believe that Adam, literally humankind, inclusive of man and woman, was created in YHVH’s image. Either they both are the image of YHVH and as such equal bearers of that image or YHVH lied.

More to come . . .

*Semantics. Could be, but one of the things I am coming to terms with is the way language is used and abused. The three gods/persons-in-one concept is not Scriptural in relation to YHVH.

TRUTH or CONSEQUENCES

6/27/2014

I think I have mentioned this before. I am a live-in caregiver for my aunt, my dad’s sister. I love her dearly, but anyone who has done this job knows it comes with many challenges. A group of ladies meet here every friday for “bible study”. This is actually a misnomer as we do not actually study the bible. We get books and read them chapter by chapter and gather from week to week to discuss the material in the books.

We are presently reading Philip Yancy’s The Jesus You Never Knew. Throughout my time with my aunt, I have participated in these studies and have formed some interesting friendships with these lovely ladies. I appreciate that the ladies who come allow me to interject an ‘Hebraic’ understanding and yet I do not see that it has made much of an impact.

Case in point is the chapter we went through today. Chapter 9 titled: Death: the final week, dealing with the week just preceding Yeshua’s death on the stake. Sometimes, it is such a struggle. I mean the writing is from a totally ‘christian’ perspective without so much as a shred of context that has anything to do with why or how the events unfolded as they did.

There are speculation and opinion and statements made that cram the events into a “christian” paradigm which did not exist until the 4th century. Until that time followers of Yeshua were known as followers of The Way - a sect of Judaism that was recognized as Judaism. Now, there were leaders who didn’t like The Way, but never was there a question that those who believed that Yeshua was their Messiah were anything but Jewish in their practice and belief. Similarly today, we have Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals, and although they have differences in the way they practice their belief, not one of these groups would state that the others were not christian.

I commented that the waving of palm branches at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was not, nor has it ever been a Pesach tradition. It was customarily done at the Feast of Tabernacles and is laid out in Lev. 23:40. The people waving branches just before Yeshua’s death were under the impression that the kingdom of YHVH was being ushered in and Yeshua was the Messiah/King/Anointed One who was to rule; the time when YHVH would once again “tabernacle” among His people, a thoroughly “Jewish” concept!

Uncomfortable silence. Furtive glances back and forth. Here she goes again. One of the women said she did not know this and thought it was interesting. One wondered why the author would come from any other perspective than a christian one since he was a christian writing to christians. I open my mouth again. Why would you not want to see these events in the light of their original context instead of trying to force it into a paradigm established three to four hundred years after the fact?!?!

All the doors are shut, now. You can just hear the wheels turning - I like it the way I like it and am NOT going to listen to this. I am familiar with this place. I know that the Father uses me in a way that provides people with an opportunity to do the right thing.

Years ago, I was led to put together a challenge to a large Denver area school district. It dealt with the psychological teaching methods being used which had been proven to be damaging to the adults subjected to them let alone foisting them onto unsuspecting children. In the car on my way to the hearing, I heard the Ruach say, “This isn’t going to change anything.” In my calm and gentle way - NOT - I pounded on the steering wheel and asked rather rudely, “Then what am I doing it for?” The answer I got was to forever change the issue I had with the way Abba has chosen to use me. He said, “Because they will not ever be able to say again - I didn’t know.” From this point forward, they are not being led down the proverbial primrose path without knowledge. They now know that what they are doing is causing damage and they will be held accountable for their participation, if not by the “law”, most certainly by YHVH. The end result of this encounter was a letter from the district stating that they understood the potential risks but were not going to change anything because what they were doing was not against the law.

I will continue to allow the Father to speak through me, even though it means uncomfortable silences and eye rolling and even rejection. I remember how hard it was to come to terms with the fact that a lot of what I believed was a lie, but it never occurred to me to reject Truth to stay in the lie. This is what I struggle with: when the agenda of a school district is more important than the children’s lives, when your comfort level in what you currently believe is more important than the Truth. . .

the new tower of babel in reverse

6/23/2014

DECONSTRUCTION:

A linguistic theory that applies to techniques for reading texts developed by Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man, and others; these techniques in turn are connected to a set of philosophical claims about language and meaning. The term has been used to describe what happens when texts are allowed to mean whatever a person wants them to mean. That is to say that a word or phrase can have as many definitions as the number of people reading it, thus making the word or phrase meaning-less.

We have seen what culture does to language in our lifetime. Certain terms have morphed into something not remotely resembling their original intent. A few days ago, I visited a website and scrolled down to read some comments. Now, I do not do this very often as it tends to make me cranky, and I suppose this case turned out to be pretty normal, as far as the crankiness goes, because here I am blogging about it!

apostasy: wikipedia: from the Greek word apostasia ("ἀποστασία") meaning defection, departure, revolt or rebellion. It has been described as "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against. "Apostasy is a theological category describing those who have voluntarily and consciously abandoned their faith in the God of the covenant, who manifests himself most completely in Jesus Christ."[3] Another way of saying this is: falling away from the Truth.

The posted comment stated: Apostasy is the mass rejection of christianity. Maybe I am nitpicking, but I think the things we say, how we say them, and the reasons we say them are critical. The power of life and death is in the tongue. Too many Scriptures dealing with this to list. The message is clear. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The definition of apostasy is not mass rejection of christianity. It is the falling away from the Truth. In order to fall away from the Truth, you have to have known it. "christianity" is a religion. You can be a “christian” and have a relationship with the One True Living God, but you can also be a "christian" and not have one. Yeshua was not a christian and neither was Peter, John or Paul. As Believers in Messiah, we are the body of Messiah. It is not, nor has it ever been the world/enemy against christians. It is about The Lie masquerading as Truth to deceive if it were possible, even the elect, the body of Messiah.

For Such A Time As This

6/18/2014

In YHVH's economy, there are no accidents. We have each been assigned our place and time on this earth according to the Father's design and purpose. The title quote was spoken by Mordachai to Esther when she was given the choice to be YHVH's chosen vessel for the deliverance of the Israelites still living in Sushan: "Do you not imagine that you in the king's palace can escape any more than all the Jews? For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the people of YHVH from another place and you and your father's house will perish."

I am acutely aware how often the microcosm of my life mirrors the macrocosm of world scenarios. There are those close to me that have made choices against Torah and the consequences of those choices are laid out in full technicolor detail for all to see in the same Scriptures being violated. The kidnapping of the precious Israeli young men is a larger than life physical parallel to the spiritual kidnapping of souls I see all around me. We are told in no uncertain terms that Yeshua Messiah's return will not occur until the apostasy comes first. For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Apostasy is defined as 'the falling away from the Truth'. What this tells me is that you must know the Truth in order to fall away from it. Like a constant ringing in my ears, I hear - knowing about YHVH does not equal knowing Him. To all those who are walking out their own desires and using the Word of YHVH to justify/cover/legitimize those desires, I can only say you are on dangerous ground.

It remains to be seen whether the young Israeli men will be returned. We hope and pray that is the case. It is my heart for the captives of deception to be returned to Truth. Father, let us know Your will in this as we choose to be available and willing vessels for such a time as this.