Shabbat shalom kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah. First of all, my apologies for not giving you the third sermon in the Shavu'ot series today for as you all by now know my work PC 'died' the other day following a lightening storm and I am still waiting to see whether all the lost data can be recovered or not. We'll know in a week or two. This isn't the first time our equipment has fallen foul of the unpredicatble stormy weather we get here in our Swedish summers. On one occasion, many years ago, which some of you here will remember, ALL our computer equipment was literally fried by a direct lightening strike which took us off line for 6 months until we could afford to replace everything. So it's an occupational hazzard.

So in place of the scheduled sermon, I am answering a request by a brother who is an evangelist in the UK to talk to you today about a common dilemma we all face, particularly in witnessing and having discussions with brethren of different traditions. The essence of his question was this: when do you show kindness and when do you give an open rebuke? The context of his question was a gospel teacher who had horribly mutilated the famous prologue of John with his own translation in order to justify his very 'strange' ideas about the Godhead. He asked me to watch a video discussion between this man and a classical Trinitarian which was over an hour long, something I don't ordinarily do as I don't have much of a stomach for theological debate any more these days. Both men were very clever, seasoned scriptorians, very respectful of each other, and yet they were miles apart. They were appealing to historical beliefs as much as to Scripture.

Now I don't want to get into a theological discussion today but rather I'd like to address the specific question about when to be 'nice' and when to be 'sharp'. The short answer is, of course, you can't know the right way to respond to someone without direction from the Ruach (Spirit). That answer is not a cop-out, by the way, but absolutely true: every situation is different because everyone is different. You can have two people asking an identical question yet having very different attitudes and needs. You all know what I mean. The gospel witness is, by definition, personal. As any experienced pastor, evangelist or apologist will tell you, many of the questions people ask you are in any case just smoke screens covering up a cry for help and getting into a theological battle is precisely what the Enemy wants you to do because then you are more likely to miss the main issue. You can answer someone's question accurately and respectfully but in many instances it will just wash over them particularly if it's one of those common stock questions like, 'Why does a loving God allow so much suffering in the world?'

But what if you're dealing with a sincere but dangerously misguided believer, as my friend and I were yesterday, who questions whether Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) is the 'Most High God' or not? He wasn't denying the Deity of Messiah like the Jehovah's Witnesses do (who view the Son as a secondary god), and he wasn't saying that the Son wasn't fully Elohim (God) as we Patriarchinitarians do and as Trinitarians do [1]. Nor was he just saying that the Son is subordinate in authority to the Father as we and Eastern Orthodox Christians do. He was going one step further and claiming that there was a time, because Yahweh the Father alone is the 'Most High God' (or El Elyon as it's written in Hebrew), when Yah'shua (Jesus) didn't even exist! And as you know, one of the core doctrines of the true faith - whether you're Western (Catholic or Protestant) or Eastern (Orthodox) - is that the Son has always existed and is eternally Elohim (God). To claim otherwise is, in our view, to rob Him of His glory. It's quite simply blasphemous to view Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) as a 'creature', that is to say, a 'created being' like humans and malakim (angels).

So here is the question posed by the brother: do you sternly rebuke such a heretic or do you deal kindly with him? How do you know when to be generous and tolerant of a divergent doctrinal position or strict and condemning? Most of us have passion in our conviction, and that is a good thing, but it is also true that all of us, in our turn, have been ignorant about certain key truths at some time or another in our lives and have appreciated the grace that was shown to us that encouraged us to grow and change. Sometimes - on occasion - a stern rebuke has brought us to our senses but more often than not - in my experience (and this is the question I am fielding to you all today) a harsh response has actually driven an earnest seeker away rather than led him to change his mind. Most often a person just needs someone who is patient and loving to work through the theoloigical difficulties he has. But what if that person is totally close-minded and stubbornly refuses to talk a matter out in the face of clear contrary scriptural evidence? Again, I have to stress, that every situation is unique and only Yahweh knows what the best approach is for an individual, which is why you have got to be tuned to the Ruach (Spirit). You can't tolerate any and every teaching - if someone denied that Yah'shua (Jesus) came in the flesh or died on the cross for their sins, permitting such a person to have free reign in a local congregation would be irresponsible and foolhardy in the extreme. Lines do have to be drawn somewhere and it requires a degree of spiritual maturity to know where to draw them. Sometimes the kindest thing we can do is rebuke someone who has an antichrist spirit. And John the apostle taught that someone who denies Yah'shua (Jesus) came in the flesh (i.e. wasn't just a phantom, as gnostics claimed), is an antichrist.

There is, of course, the classical illustration of this matter in John chapter 10 so if you'd like to turn to that chapter with me (p.1516 in your Evidence Bibles) and to verse 30, we can look at the various attitudes here since the issue is a related one. This is the end of a longer discourse:

"'I and My Father are echad (one).' Then the Judeans took up stones again to stone Him. Yah'shua (Jesus) answered them, 'Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?' The Judeans answered Him, saying, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself ('claim to be' - NIRV) God'" (Jn.10:30-33, NKJV).

Here, as we can see, the Judeans had murderous intent. They were enraged, accusing the Saviour of being blasphemous, because of the claim He made to be Elohim (God). We're told that the Judeans tried to grab Him to stone Him but that He "escaped out of their hand" (v.39, NKJV). Without getting into the issue about Yah'shua's (Jesus') Divinity, which is a 'given' as far as we're concerned, what we're examining was the way Christ responded, remembering that He was mortal and that it was not yet His time to die on the cross for the sins of the world. So He went out of His way not to provoke them any further and made a rapid exit from the scene.

Now He could have boldly stood upright, rebuked the people sternly and called down fire from heaven like an Elijah although that would have been totally out of character with His whole bearing which was consistently to be behave like an inncocent, uncomplaining lamb (Is.53:7) except on those very few memorable occasions when he rebuked the religious leaders for hypocrisy, overturned the tables of the money-lenders in the temple and (possibly) angrily cursed a fig tree (although that was not a fit of divine bad-temper but a purposefully and deliberately orchestrated prophetic sign).

Now the reason I think this and the related incidents I just mentioned are important is because Yah'shua (Jesus), although proclaiming His divinity and therefore true identity, was nevertheless acting in a rôle that we are called to imitate. That is to say, in His incarnated form, He was primarily walking in His humanity just as we are totally walking in our humanity. Please notice that He did not respond to the unbelief of religious people concerning His heavenly origin by rebuking or condemning them, even if He did castigate some of His listeners for unbelief such as the inhabitants of Chorazin and Bethsaida (Mt.11:21; Lk.10:13). Again, may I remind you, that Yah'shua (Jesus) reserved His harshest condemnation for hypocrisy - when people teach or say one thing but live by an entirely different standard - and for polluting His Father's House, the Temple. That's an interesting one since the nearest equivalent might be a church or a meeting hall dedicated to Elohim (God). Satan's agents do seem to take a particular delight in defiling houses of worship or burning them down.

As you read through the Gospels in particular, what are the things you most commonly find Yah'shua (Jesus) really upset about? Did He rant and rage over the woman caught in adultery? Perhaps He thought that the prospect of her being stoned was enough to put the fear of Elohim (God) up her and didn't need to? I'm sure she thought her time on this earth was up. He certainly had a big go at the tradition of the elders but unfortunately we can't tell what His tone of voice was in many of the accounts. I guess calling someone a "viper" is a pretty strong indicator of anger! Turn with me to Matthew 3:7 (p.1325) and as we read it, ask yourself what kind of a tone you think was in His voice when He spoke these words:

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, 'Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?'" (Mt.3:7, NKJV).

By the way, the word translated ""brood" here literally means ""offspring", and baby vipers have more poison in them than adult ones! So He's not exactly being 'kind' to or soft on these people. There's no 'meek and mild lambkin' talking here. Indeed there are nearly 20 references to hypocrites in the Master's sayings. You should check them all out sometime because I guarantee that His voice was raised in harsh condemnation in all these situations. What did they include? Let's start with the Matthean sayings:

• 1. Insincere, showy prayer to impress others (Mt.6:2,5):
• 2. Putting on a false show of suffering and piety - putting on a miserable face - as when fasting (Mt.6:16) - a kind of 'virtue signalling';
• 3. Inventing religious excuses for not taking care of ones parents - not looking after them in old age (Mt.15:6-8);
• 4. Testing a spiritual man by trying to trip him up deliberately (Mt.22:17-19);
• 5. Obstructing earnest seekers by inventing burdensome rules not issued by Yahweh (Mt.23:12-15);
• 6. Using the ministry for personal financial gain - i.e. extortion (Mt.23:24-26); and so on.

• 7. Self-exaltation like ministers who want to be serenaded and have the important places in an assembly - the fancy, gold-decked, upholstered antique chairs on the stage, for example (Lk. 11:43-45); and, one of the most interesting ones;
• 8. Ministers who cannot prophetically discern the times (Lk.12:56-57) because they aren't listening to Yahweh and can therefore warn their flocks of approaching danger.

So if you want a 'shopping list' over what to be harsh over, especially when it comes to religious people and especially religious ministers who are out of the way, I think you'll find this a pretty comprehensive one. But make absolutely sure you're in the Ruach (Spirit) before you imitate Him for the Master said nothing beyond what His Father told Him to say. One thing you'll consistently notice is that Yah'shua (Jesus) is very particular about Yahweh's mitzvot (commandments) being taught as opposed to the doctrines and traditions of men (Mk.7:5-7). Now I'm sure you could extend this list but I have here been particular only to choose those areas where Yah'shua (Jesus) roundly condemns religious leaders for failing to act righteously. Interestingly enough, the British evangelist brother and I were yesterday discussing the one thing that seems to get Christians riled or very angry, and that's when you tell them the requirement devolving upon true born-again believers to obey the Torah or mitzvot (commandments) - and yet Yah'shua (Jesus) here was very particular that we obey His commandments which were His and our Heavenly Father's commandments and not the ones invented by men.

The greatest flak I personally get as a believer is from fellow believers who are enraged that I tell them they are required to obey our Heavenly Father's mitzvot (commandments) as Yah'shua (Jesus) taught. They have a litany of excuses for not obeying them but one of the most pathetic ones is the claim that they don't need written commandments any more because the Spirit has written in advance what they need to obey on their hearts. So basically they just follow their feelings. Actually, not really. What actually tends to happen is they will search the scriptures and obey the commandments they like and ignore all the rest, and then find excuses for not obeying those, typically by saying that Yah'shua (Jesus) has 'nailed the Law to the cross' (as opposed to the penalty for disobeying them) so now it's all 'spiritual'. And, of course, they twist Paul's writings left, right and centre. So it doesn't, in the end, matter what Scriptures you point out to them. Some of them will limit themselves to the commandments repeated by the apostles - sometimes Yah'shua (Jesus) too - and yet when you ask them if it's OK to marry their sister or uncle they will scurry back to the commandments of Moses and point out that it's not allowed. And they're perfectly correct to do so, only they're not actually entitled to be selective. Indeed, Paul reminds them:

"Do we then make void (nullify, canecl) the law (Torah) through emunah (faith, trusting)? Certainly not. On the contrary, we ESTABLISH THE LAW (TORAH)" (Rom.4:31, NKJV, p.1609)

So why, then, do people get so enraged when you remind them that not one jot or tittle of the Law will pass away until the end of the æon (age)? (Mt.5:18) Because they are children of disobedience. And what happens when believers, who know what the Scriptures demand of them, disregard them and are disobedient? (We aren't obviously held to account in the days of our ignorance). They give rights to demons to plague them. That's where the anger - the rage - is coming from. It isn't human and it ceretainly isn't from Yahweh. It is the spirit of lawlessness. And what are some of the demonic doctrines we are warned against? Here's a classical one and as we read it I want you to cast your mind back to encounters with other believers who have been disquietened or enraged and accusatory when you have pointed out one or more of these things to them:

"Now the Ruach (Spirit) expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the emunah (faith), giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which Elohim (God) created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the emet (truth)" (1 Tim.4:1-3, NKJV, p.1730).

I'll share a little secret with those of you who are listening to our broadcast today by first of all asking you a question: apart from our insistent message that saved believers are required to obey the mitzvot (commandments) in general as evidence of a full salvation, which of these commandments in particular has most upset people? What is it that most sears their conscience with a metaphorical red-hot iron, a sure sign they are giving heed to doctrines of demons? What doctrine do they most readily throw back at us and accuse us of what they themselves are guilty of? People are usually very touchy when it comes to food, sex and money. This passage mentions the first two. Why does Paul specifically bring up the false doctrine of forbidding to marry? That one gets fellow believers more enraged than anything else even though it's something we hardly ever talk about. But when we do, they get really nasty. I've seen otherwise 'nice' believers chase the Ruach (Spirit) away time and time again when this hot potato comes up.

I have watched believers' countenances change from day to night in a second over these and related "doctrines of demons". I have had people tell me that my ministry is one of the most anointed they have ever experienced only to completely change their minds and call me a devil in the next breath when I have called them out on these their dark pet doctrines. One minute I am told I am a true 'man of God' and the next that 'I will die in my sins' or that I am a 'spiritual whore' and - irony of ironies - a 'law-breaker' though not necessarily of the Law of God but (as their last resort to try and trip me up) the 'law of the land'. Talk about spitting vipers! And I admit it - I have broken the laws of lands like the former Soviet Union and German Democratic Republic (East Germany), not to mention the People's Republic of China (all communist nations) when back in the 1980's I helped Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals and others smuggle Bibles across their borders. So you could accuse me, fairly, of dealing with 'contraband'! And I have preached the Gospel in countries where it is illegal to preach the Gospel. Sometimes you have to break the law of a country to obey the Law of Yahweh. As Peter and the apostles once boldly said in public, "we must obey Elohim (God) rather than men" if there's ever a conflict between the two (Acts 5:29, NIV). Otherwise we strive to be good citizens and pay our taxes, pray for our governments and political leaders, and sustain the maintenance of law and order.

A lot of people can get upset these days if you aren't vegetarian or vegan. There's nothing wrong in choosing not to eat meat or dairy products if you don't want to; but to teach, as some believers do, that it is a sin to eat them is a "doctrine of demons" because Yahweh has never forbidden us to. He has told us to live moderately and it's up to you how you interpret that. I once got a long letter of rebuke from a couple of believers in Austria for saying it was OK to eat meat, provided it's on Yahweh's approved kosher list. And in the same paragraphs I was accused of being a devil for not forbidding believers from marrying. And, no, they weren't Catholics or Shakers advocating compulsory Celibacy for the Priesthood or members. In fact they were a husband-wife team or ministry. So what were they so upset about? The fact that we did not condemn those men in Africa - in countries like Kenya, for example - for marrying more than one wife at a time or forbid them from serving in the ministry. It is none of my business to forbid anyone from doing what Yahweh permits and protects in Scripture. I personally don't recommend that men do this but I don't forbid them either because that would be a "doctrine of demons". It is up to Elohim (God) to define who we can marry and what we can eat, not us or anyone else.

There are lists of what is permitted and what is forbidden in the Torah and when you follow man-made lists, you are following the instructions of men inspired by demons and making those men and the churches they represent out to be Elohim (God). That's blasphemy. Actually, I'm all in favour of those who want to eat a meat-free kosher diet, it's very healthy if you do it well, just as I am all in favour of those who want only to ever marry monogamously in their lives because that's by far what most men and women desire. And if anyone demands that I teach to the contrary then I am bidden by Scripture to rebuke them for teaching the doctrines of demons even if it enrages them. "Let the heathen rage", even professed Christians, and "imagine a vain thing" (Ps.2:1, KJV) if they so choose, say I, because I am not about to be intimidated by their dark breathings. Let them turn their sulphurous breath on lumps of coal and have a burned BBQ instead.

We should try to the best of our ability to live peacefully amongst not only fellow believers but amongst unbelievers as well. However that does not give us any sort of licence from Heaven to compromise the Davar Elohim (Word of God). I won't do it even if the hounds of hell come after my blood, as they often have, but I'm still here and living with a clear conscience. Personally, I don't like stirring things up, I hate controversy, arguing, debating, and the like. But I won't be bullied by religious hypocrites or secular tyrants, and I hope you won't either.

Paul doesn't cover financial matters in this letter to Timothy though he could well have done so. There are so many fraudulent ministers these days out to fleece their flocks promising them things that Yahweh has not promised loike unconditional 'health and wealth'. They remind me of the money-changers in the temple whose tables Yah'shua (Jesus) knocked over in disgust. I'll not give any prosperity teacher an endorsement, let alone a platform. They are deceivers, robbers and thieves. Nor do I give any quarter to those trying to terrify unbelievers into the Kingdom with threats of eternal punishment and torture if they won't relent. At the same time, I will be truthful about the awful reality of hell. You really don't want to go there, believe me, and you won't escape your unforgiven sins - ever. We will all be held to account because there is Justice in this Universe. But there is also grace - undeserved kindness - for those who will put their hand in the Hand of the Saviour of mankind.

Finally, I believe in kindness - lots of it - because kindness is the sign of a loving heart, making it one of the greatest virtues. A kind person is pleasant, good, and gracious. In a world that is becoming more and more starved of good deeds, kindness is needed more than ever. We should be generous in our kindness, more especially as I don't know anyone who doesn't appreciate it. The kindest act ever committed was Elohim (God) sending His own Son, Yah'shua (Jesus), to die on the cross for our sins so that we might one day live forever with Him on a glorified earth as resurrected beings. In the meantime, Heaven awaits those sojourning as spirits in anticipation of that glorious day. Yahweh, our Father in Heaven, also showers us with kindness each day, sending sunshine and rain, food and friends, comfort and encouragement, boundless ahavah (love) and wisdom. If, as the Scripture says, "a kind man benefits himself, but a cruel man brings trouble on himself" (Prov.11:17, NIV) and if, as Christ Himself taught, "anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because He is my talmid (disciple), I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward" (Matt.10:42, NIV), then it seems to me that we have everything to gain, and nothing of any value to lose, by justing Yah'shua (Jesus) as our Saviour and by living lives that combine strictness to emet (truth) and generosity of heart in our dealings with men and women everywhere.

I hope this has been helpful and that you have been suitably provoked and assured! Until next week, Yahweh bless you all richly in Yah'shua (Jesus)! Amen.

Endnotes

[1] There are two principle differences between Patriarchinitarians and Trinitarians: (1) Trinitarians believe the members of the Elohim (Godhead) are co-equal - Messianic Evangelicals believe their is a hierarchy of authority with Yahweh the Father being superordinate or 'at the top'; (2) Trinitarians believe the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) is a male personage - Messianic Evangelicals believe the Ruach (Spirit) is female and is our sevenfold Heavenly Mother.