| As opposed to the true Orthodox spiritual life, the “charismatic revival” is only the experiential side of the prevailing “ecumenical” fashion – a counterfeit Christianity that betrays Christ and His Church. No Orthodox “charismatic” could possibly object to the coming “Union” with those very Protestants and Roman Catholics with whom, as the interdenominational “charismatic” song goes, they are already “one in the Spirit, one in the Lord,” and who have led them and inspired their “charismatic” experience. The “spirit” that has inspired the “charismatic revival” is the spirit of Antichrist, or more precisely, those “spirits of devil” of the last times whose “miracles” prepare the world for the false Messiah. E. “Little children, it is the last hour” (I John 2:18) Unknown to the fevered Orthodox “revivalists,” the Lord God has preserved in the world, even as in the days of Elijah the Prophet, seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal ( Rom. 11:4 ) – an unknown number of true Orthodox Christians who are neither spiritually dead, as the Orthodox “charismatics” complain that their flocks have been, nor pompously “spirit-filled,” as these same flocks become under “charismatic” suggestion. They are not carried away by the movement of apostasy nor by any false “awakening,” but continue rooted in the holy and saving Faith of Holy Orthodoxy in the tradition the Holy Fathers have handed down to them, watching the signs of the times and travelling the narrow path to salvation. Many of them follow the bishops of the few Orthodox jurisdictions that have taken strong stands against the apostasy of our times: the Catacomb Church of Russia, the Russian Church Outside of Russia, the True Orthodox Christians (Old Calendarists) of Greece. But there are some left in other jurisdictions also, grieving over the ever more evident apostasy of their hierarchs and striving somehow to keep their own Orthodoxy intact; and there are still others outside of the Orthodox Church who by God’s grace, their hearts being open to His call, will undoubtedly yet be joined to genuine Holy Orthodoxy. These “seven thousand” are the foundation of the future and only Orthodoxy of the latter times. |
| The charge of demonization recalls what we know from the Synoptic tradition ( Mark 3:22 ). 6407 Here it may involve madness (here specifically paranoia). 6408 Greek sources describe madness in terms of divine possession 6409 and employ δαιμνιον and its cognates (though Greek thought typically lacked the pejorative connotations attached in Judaism) to refer to someone insane, often employing the designation as an insult (i.e., «you are crazy»), as here. 6410 But it in this context may also involve an additional component. The claim that Jesus has a «demon» (7:20; cf. 8:48–49; 10:20–21) may associate his works with sorcerers or false prophets, 6411 who were associated with demons or tried to manipulate their spirit-guides through incantations. 6412 Some ancient circles may have revered Moses as a «magician,» necessitating careful nuancing by writers, like Josephus and Philo, who wished to avoid such associations. 6413 Most circles, both Jewish 6414 and Gentile, 6415 regarded magicians as dangerous, 6416 and many sought to avoid the label for themselves or their heroes, 6417 or to charge opponents with the crime. 6418 Some other prophetic figures who acted in a bizarre, antisocial manner seem to have received this label as well (Josephus War 6.303, 305), 6419 including (according to the Q tradition in Matt 11:18; Luke 7:33) John the Baptist. Some contended that false prophets were moved by demons acting as familiar spirits (Irenaeus Haer. 1.13.1, 3). But because sorcery carried a capital sentence in biblical law (Exod 22:18; cf. Rev 21:8; 22:15), 6420 the charge functions ironically: at the very moment they accuse him of having a demon, they profess to be unaware of who might wish to kill him (7:20)! Jesus frequently claims not to act on his own but in obedience to the one who sent him (e.g., 7:16); by treating his father as a «demon,» they are guilty (like the religious leaders in the Markan tradition) of blaspheming against the Spirit ( Mark 3:22, 29–30 ; Matt 12:24, 32; cf. Luke 12:10). Jesus ultimately reverses the charge of de-monization, calling their father the devil ( John 8:41, 44 ). Such references to the devil and possession ( John 13:2, 27 ) suggest that Johns omission of exorcisms reflects his theological emphasis and not necessarily a disagreement with the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus as an exorcist. 6421 |
| 6812 The contrasting tenses in the two lines of 8allow the interpretation that Jesus «saw» (perfect) the Father in «a préexistent vision» (Brown, John, 1:356); but cf. the present tense in 5:19–20. Bernard, John, 2:310, and Michaels, John, 143, take ποιετε as imperative, hence a challenge to kill him (contrasted with the alternative imperative for true children of Abraham in 8:39). 6813 M. " Abot 5:19; Dibelius, James, 168–74. He even became the model Pharisee (p. Sotah 5:5, §2). 6814 For more detail, see further DeSilva, Honor, 202–6. 6815 See ibid., 194 (citing esp. 4 Macc 13:24–26 and texts in Philo). 6816 Cf., e.g., the «children of the prophets» in 1 Kgs 20:35; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1. See more fully under John 13:33 . 6817 4 Macc 9:21 (βραμιαος νεανας). 6818 4 Macc 15(OTP2:560). 6819 Ps.-Phoc. 178; t. Sanh. 8:6; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:6; Lev. Rab. 23:12; probably Wis 4:6; cf. Aristotle Po1. 2.1.13,1262a. Children were said to bear the images of their parents ( Gen 5:3; 4 Macc 15:4; LA.B. 50:7; Chariton 2.11.2, 3.8.7; Philostratus Hrk. 52.2; P.Oxy. 37). 6820 Homer Il. 16.33–35. 6821 Lysias Or. 13.65–66, §135 (noting that the defendant " s brothers had all been executed for crimes); cf. Rhet. Alex. 35, 1440b.5–13; in nonlegal contexts, Theophrastus Char. 28.2. Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 161, rightly note that ancients could infer ancestry from behavior or the reverse. 6822 A rhetorical attack used, when possible, before classical Athenian juries (Aeschines False Embassy 78; Ctesiphon 172). 6823 Lysias Or. 30.1–2, §183; for honorable background, e.g., Aeschines False Embassy 148–150. For honorable birth as a matter of praise, e.g., Xenophon Agesilaus 1.2. 6824 Lysias Or. 10.2, §116; Plutarch Cicero 26.6. 6825 Phaedrus 6. Aristocrats assumed that thieves usually had some dishonest lineage on one side or the other (Sophocles Searchers 280–283). 6826 Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.25.611; cf. Acts 23:6. Pindar praises a victor who is also son of a victor (Ryth. 10.12). |
| At this Council, it was resolved to celebrate Pascha on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox, after the Jewish Passover. It also determined that priests should be married, and it established many other rules or canons. The Second Ecumenical Council. The Second Ecumenical Council was convened in the year 381, in the city of Constantinople, under the Emperor Theodosius I. This Council was convoked against the false teaching of the Arian bishop of Constantinople, Macedonius, who rejected the deity of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit. He taught that the Holy Spirit is not God, and called Him a creature, or a created power, and therefore subservient to God the Father and God the Son, like an angel. There were 150 bishops present at the Council, among whom were Gregory the Theologian, who presided over the Council, Gregory of Nyssa, Meletius of Antioch, Amphilochius of Iconium and Cyril of Jerusalem. At the Council, the Macedonian heresy was condemned and repudiated. The Council affirmed as a dogma the equality and the single essence of God the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son. The Council also supplemented the Nicene Creed, or «Symbol of Faith,» with five Articles in which is set forth its teaching about the Holy Spirit, about the Church, about the Mysteries, about the resurrection of the dead, and the life in the world to come. Thus they composed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which serves as a guide to the Church for all time. The Third Ecumenical Council. The Third Ecumenical Council was convened in the year 431 A.D., in the city of Ephesus, under Emperor Theodosius II. The Council was called because of the false doctrine of Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople, who profanely taught that the Most-holy Virgin Mary simply gave birth to the man Christ, with whom then God united morally and dwelled in Him, as in a temple, as previously He had dwelled in Moses and other prophets. Therefore, Nestorius called the Lord Jesus Christ, God-bearing, and not God incarnate; and the Holy Virgin was called the Christ-bearer (Christotokos) and not the God-bearer (Theotokos). |
| Darby’s teachings were embraced radically by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921). Scofield adopted Darby’s (Ribera’s) school of prophetic thought into the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909 which was heralded at that time as the “book of books”, and continues to legitimize this false teaching in the eyes of many protestants. The natural evolution of this movement has resulted in the recent emergence of the “Toronto Blessing” (Laughing Spirit) phenomenon, a bizarre experience of uncontrollably ‘laughing in the Spirit.’ Although the modern day view of every believer being taken away in a rapture is different from all of the thoughts that came before it, there is little doubt to it’s error. As you might imagine, confusion ensued. Today’s common belief among believers in the rapture is that only ‘true believers’ will be raptured – a form of the invisible Church teaching so common to protestant ecclesiologies. Belief in the rapture has become so widespread among today’s “evangelicals” and “fundamentalists” that many sitting in the pews assume that the teaching dates back to the apostles themselves. The Rapture as a topic has been a big money maker. The Left Behind series of 16 books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, dealing with Christian dispensationalist End Times and focus, not surprisingly, on the Rapture. The series was first published 1995-2007 by Tyndale House, a firm with a history of interest in dispensationalism. This series has been adapted into three action thriller films, and three PC video games. Of course, Harold Camping who has also profited greatly from his teachings on the Rapture, is not the first false prophet to set a date for the Rapture, nor will he be the last. He declared previously that the Rapture would take place on September 6, 1994. Regardless of whom one regards as the originator of the teaching — whether Ribera, Lacunza, Irving, Darby, or Margaret MacDonald – one thing is obvious; the “rapture” theory is of recent heterodox origin, has no basis in Scripture, the Fathers, is mentioned nowhere in antiquity, nor was it ever a teaching of the Christ, or His Apostles. |
| This is not to deny the historical plausibility of various elements of the scenario. It remains possible that John the Baptist had rebelled against his priestly roots (Luke 1:5) 3814 and it is still more likely that he reacted against an aristocratic Jerusalem priesthood that represented the very sort of ostensibly pro-Roman establishment against which a traditional Israelite eschatological prophet would thunder. 3815 Priests and Lévites gradually lost most of their power base after the temple s destruction, so their role of ensuring stability here is less easily explained as Johannine adaptation than that of his «Pharisees.» 3816 Nor is the Fourth Gospel our only authority that emphasizes that Jewish leaders came to John; Matthew, undoubtedly writing to a Syro-Palestinian community also struggling with ascendant Pharisaism after 70, turns Q " s probable «crowds» (Luke 3:7) into «Pharisees and Sadducees» (Matt. 3:7), 3817 although it remains for the Fourth Gospel to eliminate the mention of the masses following John in this account almost altogether ( John 3:26 ). Ideological conflict between a wilderness prophet on one hand and Jerusalem temple functionaries and teachers on the other is probable should the latter have grown concerned enough about the former " s reputation to investigate him with questions; and if John drew the crowds that both Josephus and the Synoptics should indicate that he did, 3818 the Sadducean aristocracy would want to investigate him before the Romans did. Josephus provides many examples of messianic «false prophets» who brought about Roman intervention. 3819 That John " s interlocutors must provide an answer to those whose agents they are (1:22) underlines their official character in this text (cf. 2Sam 24:13 ). 3820 Following later rabbinic texts here, some writers suggest that the Sanhédrin would have investigated John to see whether he was a «seducer,» 3821 a plausible portrayal of the events in the story world if the tradition is sufficiently early. But John " s audience might have also known that Jerusalem authorities in the Baptist " s day would have been especially concerned with potential political disruptions (cf. 11:47–50), and other historical sources indicate that John " s preaching had already been interpreted politically. 3822 |
| 9284 Kuyper, «Grace,» 3–13; Dahl, «History,» 132; Epp, «Wisdom,» 138; Westcott, John, 13; Stuart, «Examination,» 316; Dodd, Studies, 141–42; Dodd, Bible, 75; Dodd, Interpretation, 82; Boismard, Prologue, 54–56; Barrett, John, 167; Hoskyns, Gospel, 150; Lee, Thought, 40; Schnackenburg, John, 1:272; Gaston, Stone, 209; Ladd, Theology, 230. 9287 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 247. Contrast Bammel, «Paraklet,» 205–6, who regards ν as a clarification or explanation of εις. 9289 Cf. Bultmann, John, 574–75, and notes by some of the older commentators, such as Westcott, John, 230; Tholuck, John, 377–78. Contrast Harrison, «Ministry,» 194. 9290 That is, not «on his own authority» (T, Ab. 15:8; 19:4A; Philostratus Hrk. 8.2). This is also characteristic of the role of prophets ( 2Pet 1:21 ; cf. Num. Rab. 18:12); disciples should also speak what they hear (Socrates Ep. 20). See comment on 8:28. 9291 For a similar apologetic (albeit not experiential) chain, cf. Josh 11:15, where God commanded Moses, who commanded Joshua; or Rev 1:1. 9294 If the false prophets of Rev 2–3 advocate compromise with the imperial cult or with non-Christian Judaism and took John the Baptist as one of their models (as suggested above in comment on John 1:6–8 ), ecstatic experience could have been substituted for the objectivity of the Jesus tradition. The Paraclete passages lack any indications of ecstatic activity (Boring, Sayings, 85–86, citing as an analogy of nonecstatic inspiration Herm. Mand. 11.2–9). 9296 Potterie, «Paraklet,» 95, denies that this is simply «une proclamation kérygmatique» and associates it rather with a nuance found in apocalyptic literature, «révéler, dévoiler,» often in Danie1. On p. 96 he observes that this is not always a new revelation but, as in Daniel and elsewhere, it can mean «to give the interpretation of earlier revelation that is obscure and mysterious.» Young, «Isaiah,» 224, roots the term in Isaiah LXX (where it appears fifty-seven times). 9297 Godet, Commentary, 184, argues for their equivalence through the asyndeton between 16and 16:14. |
| 52. Since, however, I have mentioned Paul, and men like him, I will, with your permission, pass by all others who have been foremost as lawgivers, prophets, or leaders, or in any similar office – for instance, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, the Judges, Samuel, David, the company of Prophets, John, the Twelve Apostles, and their successors, who with many toils and labors exercised their authority, each in his own time; all these I pass by, to set forth Paul as the witness to my assertions, and for us to consider by his example how important a matter is the care of souls, and whether it requires slight attention and little judgment. But that we may recognize and perceive this, let us hear what Paul himself says of Paul. 53. I say nothing of his labours, his watchings, his sufferings in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness, his assailants from without, his adversaries within. I pass over the persecutions, councils, prisons, bonds, accusers, tribunals, the daily and hourly deaths, the basket, the stonings, beatings with rods, the travelling about, the perils by land and sea, the deep, the shipwrecks, the perils of rivers, perils of robbers, perils from his countrymen, perils among false brethren, the living by his own hands, the gospel without charge, the being a spectacle to both angels and men, set in the midst between God and men to champion His cause, and to unite them to Him, and make them His own peculiar people, Titus 2:14 beside those things that are without. 2Corinthians 11:28–29 For who could worthily detail these matters, the daily pressure, the individual solicitude, the care of all the churches, the universal sympathy, and brotherly love? Did anyone stumble, Paul also was weak; did another suffer scandal, it was Paul who was on fire. 54. What of the laboriousness of his teaching? The manifold character of his ministry? His loving kindness? And on the other hand his strictness? And the combination and blending of the two; in such wise that his gentleness should not enervate, nor his severity exasperate? He gives laws for slaves and masters, Ephesians 6:5, 9 rulers and ruled, Romans 13:1–3 husbands and wives, parents and children, Ephesians 6:1–4 marriage and celibacy, self-discipline and indulgence, wisdom and ignorance, circumcision and uncircumcision, Christ and the world, the flesh and the spirit. |
| For so, indeed, did that carnal people understand what was foretold by Haggai the prophet, saying, The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former.Haggai 2:9 Now, that this is said of the new testament, he showed a little above, where he says, evidently promising Christ, And I will move all nations, and the desired One shall come to all nations. Haggai 2:7 In this passage the Septuagint translators giving another sense more suitable to the body than the Head, that is, to the Church than to Christ, have said by prophetic authority, The things shall come that are chosen of the Lord from all nations, that is, men, of whom Jesus says in the Gospel, Many are called, but few are chosen. Matthew 22:14 For by such chosen ones of the nations there is built, through the new testament, with living stones, a house of God far more glorious than that temple was which was constructed by king Solomon, and rebuilt after the captivity. For this reason, then, that nation had no prophets from that time, but was afflicted with many plagues by kings of alien race, and by the Romans themselves, lest they should fancy that this prophecy of Haggai was fulfilled by that rebuilding of the temple. For not long after, on the arrival of Alexander, it was subdued, when, although there was no pillaging, because they dared not resist him, and thus, being very easily subdued, received him peaceably, yet the glory of that house was not so great as it was when under the free power of their own kings. Alexander, indeed, offered up sacrifices in the temple of God, not as a convert to His worship in true piety, but thinking, with impious folly, that He was to be worshipped along with false gods. Then Ptolemy son of Lagus, whom I have already mentioned, after Alexander " s death carried them captive into Egypt. His successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, most benevolently dismissed them; and by him it was brought about, as I have narrated a little before, that we should have the Septuagint version of the Scriptures. |
| 117 Finally, an unnamed publication edited by Joseph Seiss and others is stated to have set out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, “even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.” 118 The fact is, however, that this holds true of all four expositors mentioned by the Society. All of them used a chronology that dated the desolation of Jerusalem to 588 or 587 B.C.E. (not 606 B.C.E. as in Russell’s writings). Brown arrived at 1917 as the terminal date only because he reckoned the 2,520 years from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (604 B.C.E.) instead of his 18th year, as did Barbour and Russell. And the other three arrived at 1914 by counting from Nebuchadnezzar’s accessionyear, which they dated to 606 B.C.E. (instead of 605 B.C.E., the date established by modern historians). 119 Although all of them based their calculations on chronologies that were rejected by Russell and his followers, the Society claims that these expositors “could see that 1914 was clearly marked by Bible prophecy.” How they “could see” this “clearly” by using chronologies that the Society still holds to be false is certainly puzzling. Of course, for a reader to discover such inconsistent reasonings, he or she has to check the works of these expositors. The problem is that the Society’s authors commonly avoid giving specific references. This practice makes it virtually impossible for the great majority of readers to discover the subtle methods used to support indefensible interpretations and cover over embarrassing evidence. As just mentioned, the Society, contrary to earlier claims, concedes in the new book that the predictions attached to 1914 failed. As was shown in the chapter above, the very specific and distinct predictions about 1914 were summarized in seven points on pages 7678 of Vol. II of Millennial Dawn, originally published in 1889. These predictions were there put forward in no uncertain terms. The discussion is teeming with words and phrases such as “facts,” “proof,” “Bible evidence,” and “established truth.” That 1914 would see “the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men,” for instance, is stated to be “a fact firmly established by the Scriptures. |
|
|
