Showing posts with label Yahweh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yahweh. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

The Only True God

The purpose of this article to examine the expression, the only true God, which appears in the scriptures. There is a similar and related expression which appears a second time in the scriptures.

The gospel according to John opens with a message that is often cited and quoted about the Word who became flesh. My own reason for citing this reference, here, is for what John reveals about the mission of the Begotten Son several verses into the first chapter, namely, that the Begotten Son came to explain God. We understand that thoughts, and then explanations, are communicated with words and through words. This is what Jesus states often in his own message. He declared that the words that He spoke were not his own words. They were the words which the Father had given him to speak, to explain God. Additionally, there are the true works that Jesus performed. The works which Jesus did were just as He saw the Father doing the same works. The words and the works is what Jesus cited for Philip and the disciples as proof that the Father dwelt in him.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

YaHWeH, LORD of hosts

The scriptures testify of God and of his purposes and the fulfillment of his purposes from antiquity to the time Jesus and the apostles walked this earth. (see Ephesians 1 for a succinct testimony of the Lord God and his purpose for redemption, the fulfillment of redemption and the affirmation of redemption.) My purpose in this article is to align a small glimpse of this testimony from the Tanakh, that is, the Old Testament along with the New Testament reference to those same testimonies. I will present the ways in which God refers to himself, the mindset of the hearers and his purpose to fulfill and accomplish his will. I prefer to leave it to the reader to draw the inferences and conclusions concerning the meaning and significance of this testimony of God for themselves.

Israel is a people and a nation who has the unique distinction of having being the people with whom the Lord God chose to associate himself and to declare himself as the God of Israel. Yet, for all the works, wonders and words which Israel heard, both directly from God and through his servant Moses and later the prophets, they did not believe in him. Initially, the first time when Moses informed the leaders of Israel of the words that the Lord had spoken to him they were quick to tell Moses that they would do all that the Lord spoke to Moses. Immediately following that session with the leaders the people heard the voice of God. Their reaction was one of terror and fear. They couldn’t bear to hear the voice of the Lord and pleaded with Moses to talk with God and whatever God told Moses for them to do they would do it.

(check out these two blog articles Christianity Unmasked & Human Sacrifice at Mt Moriah and Egypt
The first article was my response to Rabbi Blumenthal's article. Six months are I published it he learned about my article. This led to a prolonged amiable and respectful discussion with the rabbi as well as a few of his congregants who were a little less genial, but it was good that they joined us too. You can read our exchange in the comments  The rabbi saw the second article and we engaged in a much shorter discussion again.)

seeing, but not believing
Of course, it was not long after the Lord had delivered Israel from their bondage of slavery in Egypt that they cried out to Moses their longing desire to have stayed in Egypt. Pharaoh’s army was closing in on Israel. Then, again they cried out to Moses that it had been better for them if the Lord had killed them in Egypt rather than die of starvation in the wilderness.

These are just two instances of numerous times when the scriptures testify to the unbelief of Israel of the Lord God whom Moses and various of their leaders saw. Yet, they would not believe in him. They were an obstinate people such that they created a molten calf and declared it to be their god who had delivered them from Egypt. (It is with dire, but tireless unbelief that many of those who profess to lead, teach and preach parrot the standard line: no man can see God. This is with total disregard for the footnote in the verse that follows, namely, that they saw God, but he did not stretch out his hand against them, that is, to strike them dead.)

All this is to say that merely because Israel heard and various of their leaders saw God is not an assurance that they believed God. Does the joint alliance between the Lord and Moses bear any parallel similarities to the Father and Jesus? Let us not deceive ourselves that surely we are wiser than Israel when they could not believe what was manifested before their eyes anymore than we can believe what the Son has explained about God.

The discussion concerning the question of deity with respect to the Father and Jesus is often characterized by the same talking points. These include certain negative assertions and positive assertions. Sometimes, but not always, these are associated with a particular verse. It is just as common to have no biblical verse or passage to which the hearer can turn to for verify and confirm the assertion for his or her learning. Of course, there is the fire exchange of labels such as unitarian and trinitarian. Usually the discussion shapes up as though the other person were not present. Each one busies themselves peddling what they might know or assume that they know about the other person’s belief and understanding and not what they hear from the other person is saying in the moment.

6: shmo hear-you ! יִ שְׂ רָ אֵ ל ishral Israel יְ הוָה ieue Yahweh אֱהֵ ינוּ alei·nu Elohim-of·us יְ הוָה ieue Yahweh אֶ חָ ד achd one : :

Isaiah 53

the sending of Moses
God sought to prepare Israel for life without and after Moses whom he had sent to Israel. What God did in Deuteronomy 6 was to impress on Israel his unity, harmony and oneness. Israel was to learn and teach the statutes and commandments for themselves and for every successive generation. This is how God defined his unity, harmony and oneness for Israel. Everything that God said was to be obeyed, everything that Moses said God said was to be obeyed, everything that the prophets said God said was to be obeyed, everything that Jesus said was of the Father was to be obeyed, everything that the apostles said was of the Holy Spirit was to be obeyed, everything that the saints in Christ read from the written word of the revelation of the Lord God is to be obeyed. There was never to be a time when the will of the Lord God was not to be obeyed, not when it was spoken, not after it was spoken, not after it was repeated, not when it was written, not when it was printed, and not when it is read. When the Lord God spoke these things Moses pronounced, "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6) Here it is in Hebrew for those who prefer it so. (verse 4,4)

4 shmo hear-you ! יִ שְׂ רָ אֵ ל ishral Israel יְ הוָה ieue Yahweh אֱהֵ ינוּ alei·nu Elohim-of·us יְ הוָה ieue Yahweh אֶ חָ ד achd one : : (Deuteronomy 6)

The greatest point of contention between self-professed so-called unitarians and self-professed so-called trinitarians is that they share equally in the same mistaken notion. Both blithely ascribe a numeric quantitative value of one or three to the passage even as they (like the Jews who acknowledge it) disregard the plural forms which Moses used to refer to the Lord God. What neither one address cohesively is the terms elohim (plural) which is rendered Yahweh or YHWH and the term echad which is rendered one. Yes, the term elohim, or Yahweh, is used of the pagan idols and gods. These things are not a theological interpretation or notion. These are a matter of grammar and merely reading it in the English or Hebrew languages does not necessary mean that we understand or that we accept the significance and implications of those words. Single word definitions in isolation are much touted with little understanding or edification coming from for the saints in Christ.

The sending of Isaiah
The prophet Isaiah describes a vision in the sixth chapter. There is interesting response to the vision to which some of hold firmly. What they state is that what or whom Isaiah saw Isaiah is was simply mistaken. Isaiah thought he saw God or the Lord. The upper or lower case is of no significance, but I will use it here to illustrate this misunderstanding. The explanation states that Isaiah saw the Lord, but not the LORD. (This is akin to what my daughter as a child would distinguish as God or God God.) Isaiah initially states in verse one that he saw the Lord. (adonai) This fringe hanging-on-by-the edge explanation is nullified by the seraphim. It is the seraphim who declare to Isaiah in their own reference as to what Isaiah is seeing as being Yahweh of hosts. (verse 3, 3) Furthermore, after Isaiah hears how the seraphim refer to the one whom he is seeing Isaiah changes his word use to match that of the seraphim. (verse 5,5 ) (I have been consistent in my use of the verse numbers in this message to the English text from the NASB and the interlinear with this format as in this example: verse 3, 3, respectively.)

3 And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory." (Isaiah 6)

3 u·qra and·he-called זֶה ze this-one אֶ ל al to ־ - זֶה ze this-one וְ אָ מַ ר u·amr and·he-said קָ ד שׁ qdush holy-one קָ ד שׁ qdush holy-one קָ ד שׁ qdush holy-one יְ הוָה ieue Yahweh-of And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the LORD of hosts: the whole earth [is] full of his glory. 3 צְ בָ א ת tzbauth hosts מְ ל ֹא mla fullness-of כָ ל kl all-of ־ - הָ אָ רֶ ץ e·artz the·earth כְּ ב ד kbud·u glory-of·him : :  (Isaiah 6)

5 Then I said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." (Isaiah 6)

5 u·amr and·I-am-saying א י aui woe ! ־ - לִ י l·i to·me כִ י ki that ־ - נִ דְ מֵ יתִ י ndmithi I-am-stilled כִּ י ki that אִ ישׁ aish man טְ מֵ א tma unclean-of ־ - שְׂ פָ תַ יִ ם shphthim lips אָ נֹ כִ י anki I . Then said I, Woe [is] me! for I am undone; because I [am] a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. 5 וּבְ ת
u·b·thuk and·in·midst-of עַ ם om people ־ - טְ מֵ א tma unclean-of שְׂ פָ תַ יִ ם shphthim lips אָ נֹ כִ י anki I י שֵׁ ב iushb dwelling כִּ י ki that אֶ ת ath » ־ - הַ מֶּ לֶ
e·mlk the·king יְ הוָה ieue Yahweh-of צְ בָ א ת tzbauth hosts רָ אוּ rau they-saw עֵ ינָי oin·i eyes-of·me : : (Isaiah 6)

Isaiah is then sent to proclaim the word of the Lord to an obstinate and unbelieving people as Yahweh of hosts has commanded him.

Moses, unlike Isaiah, was not a prophet. In fact, Moses was no more a prophet than Jesus. God did not speak to either one through visions or dreams as he did with his prophets. What is significant to note is what God declared when he defined for Miriam and Aaron what constitutes a prophet in Numbers 12. God stated that he spoke face to face with Moses. Knowing that Moses and elders of Israel had seen God how does this statement by the Lord and the reality concerning Moses and the elders compare with each other? The point is that God spoke clearly with Moses concerning his will for Israel. God held nothing back from Moses as far as it concerned Israel. Yet, Moses, not unlike the prophets, did not know what it was all about.

The sending of the Son
Here I want to present the twofold testimony concerning the Son from Isaiah and a different testimony from Ezekiel. It is the apostle John who quotes Isaiah 6 in John 12. Although there were some of the leaders who were believing in Jesus this did not negate or nullify the overall unbelief of the people towards Jesus. It is this unbelief among the people to which Isaiah had been sent. Now John quotes from Isaiah and emphasizes the unbelief towards Jesus in the words of Isaiah.

But, what is even more significant is what John states: 41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. Whom was that Isaiah saw? Whom was it that the people did not believe?

The second testimony concerning the Son is from Ezekiel 34. The Lord God declares his great displeasure and that he is against the faithless and unfaithful shepherds who have not cared for his flock. He declares that he himself will search for, gather and care for his sheep. (verse 11, 11)

11 ki that כֹּ ה ke thus אָ מַ ר amr he-says אֲדֹ נָי adni my-Lord יְ הוִ ה ieue Yahweh הִ נְ נִ י en·ni behold·me ! ־ - אָ נִ י ani I וְ דָ רַ שְׁ תִּ י u·drshthi and·I-inquire אֶ ת ath » ־ - צ ֹאנִ י tzan·i flock-of·me For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, [even] I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. 11 וּבִ קַּ רְ תִּ ים u·bqrthi·m and·I-make-quest·them : :

Jesus declared, 11 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

Furthermore, Jesus not only searched for and gathered and cared for his sheep, but he laid down his life for his sheep. Whom did Ezekiel say would come and himself search for, gather and care for his sheep?

conclusion
As close as Israel was to the visible manifestations of the Lord God as well as Moses and the elders of Israel Israel never understood because, as God testified numerous times, they were an obstinate people. Certainly, God did not break faith with Israel nor did he reject Israel because of their obstinance. I will not say it is obstinance on the part of some Christians, but the truth is that most of their misunderstanding of the God whom they love is not because God has not revealed it. The mission of the Word who was with God and was God (John 1) was to explain, John notes, God.

The prophet Isaiah went forward and proclaimed the word of the Lord God as he was commanded. Even though he desired to understand his own message or to see the subject of his prophecies he was revealed to him that it was not about himself. Jesus attested to the same about the prophets and righteous men. There is more than a bit of irony which involves the Word who became flesh and who explained God. The irony is that for all the incarnate manifestation of the Word it was this which was a stumbling block of unbelief for many. Why? Because they looked and judged what they saw of Jesus, as he said, according to the flesh. This is what blinded them and which preoccupied and consumed them such that they could never focus to hear and understand the explanation of the Lord God who is one and of his will as testified by Jesus. It was as easy for them to judge according to the flesh rather than to understand what Jesus explained about God as it is for some to disregard the testimony of the written word of the Lord God concerning himself.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Do You Hear The One I Saw?

A Christmas song lyric played in my mind as I read this book: Do you hear what I hear?

It is commendable and praiseworthy how these three men, three brothers in Christ, have co-authored and penned their discussion concerning the God who is one in their book, The Son of God. The essay format followed by challenges by the other two men and then explanations by the original essayist is an excellent one. I do not feel compelled to disparage or assail any one of them no matter our differences. The format of the book, especially the spirit of the authors, is worthy of imitation by those who would engage in discussion or in that loathsome, grandstanding format of public debate. I understand their struggle to understand the God who is one is not unlike that of other saints in Christ.

I read the book not because I expected to fulfill some unmet need in my understanding of the God who is one.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Book: The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus . . . a response

I have no need to rail against, cast aspersions, engage in name-calling or pinning labels on Charles Lee Irons, Danny Andre Dixon and Dustin R. Smith. I am mindful that they are no different than many saints who struggle to know the God who is one. However, inasmuch as they are teachers they bear a greater burden for their teaching. There is, too often, a quickness to flash one’s own righteousness with respect to doctrine and the scriptures when engaged with those whose understanding of doctrine and scripture is at odds with our own understanding. I read all the available excerpts and then the entire co-authored book, The Son of God while I was waiting on my hard copy to arrive.


I did not read the book because I was looking to fulfill some need in my understanding of Jesus.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Matthew 24 & I Timothy 2: Power and salvation in Rome and Artemis

power and salvation

This article is about two different factors which affect the saints in Christ, particularly as these factors are seemingly outside of their control. Two instances for our learning in which these factors appear are Matthew 24 and I Timothy 2. They appear in the two different geographic areas of Jerusalem and Ephesus. These factors are 1) a power, and 2) the salvation of the saints. These scripture passages do not name the power to which the Holy Spirit alludes, but the passages do give instruction for the enlightenment of the saints concerning their salvation as they were affected by those powers. How the Holy Spirit spoke to us through these passages speaks is for our understanding and enlightenment concerning other areas not the least of which includes the teaching and preaching of the gospel of Jesus by the saints who are the royal priesthood of believers.


The purpose for the focus on these passages is that the saints in Christ might gain an understanding and appreciation for the awareness of New Testament speakers and writers of the historical context.


Specifically, it is about how history and context are assumed and acknowledged in some passages of scripture, but they are ignored in other passages.


If you are like me it probably grates on your ears when you hear history and context; especially when the two appear together in the same sentence. It is not that either of these represent a problem. Rather, it is that too often the mere mention of the terms of history and context are given as the default answer and explanation for passages and concepts which we struggle to understand much less teach. Those writers, and speakers such as Jesus, were aware of the power under which they lived, struggled, and in the case of Jesus, would be put to death. Those writers and speakers understood that what was paramount was the salvation, that is, the preservation of the saints, not at all costs, but such as would bring glory to God.


an unnamed power/salvation made certain


God makes no apology for the reality of the world in which the saints reside. Although God was the ultimate mediator between Israel and the world powers which rose to prominence his warnings with respect to those powers was about how God could and would unleash them as his instruments of punishment on Israel should they ever fall away from the commandments of the Lord their God. Jesus instructed and warned the saints at various times about those world powers. The saints were to be wise and aware in their response towards the actions of those powers if they were to preserve and save their lives. God does not always refer to those powers by name as he did in the numerous visions which Daniel received from God. It would be careless for the saints to gloss over or dismiss the relevance of a passage in the first or twenty first century on the basis of a shallow, yes; shallow claim, namely, because a specific power is not named. Just as bad as dismissing a passage is the false notion of a so-called conservative interpretation which purports to just follow the word without taking into consideration the factors of a power and salvation of the saints in the historical context of the scripture.


Matthew 24: the power of Rome in Jerusalem


For example, Jesus never revealed by name the governing power to which he alludes in his prophecy in Matthew 24 in that historical context. Jesus expected that the disciples would look, understand and discern that when that unnamed power brought on the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem it would be in accordance with the judgment which he had foretold in their presence. The disciples had received instruction and insight from Jesus 40 years prior to the destruction of the temple. Generally, we assume and acknowledge the history and the context of Matthew 24. How is it that history and context seem impersonal enough and easier so as to attain a general understanding and acceptance at a discussion level while an unnamed power receives less than a similar understanding and acceptance?


Those disciples who listened and remembered knew what they were to do;  emerged, their salvation made certain because of the words of Jesus. Those who either did not listen, forgot, or dismissed the instruction from the Lord; perished. Those who might have foolishly and arrogantly reassured themselves that “God will save us;” perished. This false reassurance had abounded in Israel in the days leading up to their final captivity; first by Assyria and later by Babylon. Even as all the signs of which the prophets had forewarned them about were being made manifest they mistakenly believed and expected deliverance and salvation from those powers from God.


When Jesus revealed to the disciples who marveled at the enormous and beautiful temple that not one stone would be left unturned they were astonished. This was not history. It was the future. Certainly, the Jews could draw on the scripture and their collective memory of their Babylonian captivity and the destruction of the temple at that time. However, for the most part they could not connect or see a need to draw the connection between those past things in their history with world powers and the future destruction by an unnamed power which Jesus spoke to them. It was prophecy. Jesus opened a window for them to reveal to the disciples in much the same as God had done for Daniel as to what was to happen, not centuries later, but during their lifetime:


Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.


Yet, the prophecy of Jesus bore the certain knowledge that there would be some, not all,  who would not survive the events of those days because they failed to listen, understand and remember. They were unwilling or unable to understand and accept that the power in the prophetic message of Jesus was Rome. Subsequently, they perished.


I Timothy 2: the power of Artemis in Ephesus


A second example is found in the I Timothy 2 passage which involves the ministry of Paul in Asia.


Yahweh was to the Jews in Jerusalem and all Judea what Artemis was to the Gentiles in Ephesus and all Asia.


This reality is attested to by Demetrius in Acts 19 whose testimony was preserved for the saints by the Holy Spirit. Yet, Paul, like Jesus, never named that power in Ephesus. The saints  were expected to look, understand and discern what Paul’s instructions meant and how they were to respond to those instructions under the shadow, not of the temple of God in Jerusalem, but of the temple of Artemis; the power in Ephesus. It is quite plausible and likely that some of our brothers and sisters who had come to faith in Jesus had emerged from the cult of Artemis. They knew and had lived under the power of Artemis. In Ephesus, the female dominant cult of Artemis held sway and its hold over women: Artemis was the savior of women in childbirth.


Women in Ephesus and throughout Asia had, like Eve, been deceived by Artemis. They had believed Artemis was their savior. But Paul boldly asserts and affronts that message of Artemis when he declares of our sisters in Christ that:


she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.


The mistaken assumption by which some teachers and preachers of the word in the body of believers impose the additional qualifier of childbearing to salvation in Jesus borders on appalling and apostasy. Yet, those same teachers and preachers remain as oblivious as those who in Jerusalem who perished. They do not listen, they have forgotten, or they reason that their message of salvation, not just for women, but for men, too, has been made more sure and better secured than what the Holy Spirit who indwells them revealed through his servants, the apostles.


Women in the cult of Artemis were not saved through childbearing anymore than our sisters in Christ are saved through childbearing. Women in the cult of Artemis were saved by Artemis. Women in Christ were saved through childbearing without regard or reliance on Artemis. This is Paul’s confident assertion that the salvation of our sisters was through their continued walk in faith, love and sanctification with sobriety, _ without Artemis. The fact that they bore children without the aid or reliance on Artemis not only silenced the adversary (typically, Satan by name, but in Ephesus his name was Artemis) but it shut up the insults of the adversary that women who departed from Artemis were gossips and busybodies. (I Timothy 5:15)


How is it possible that despite the mention of women’s costly apparel, (perhaps former priestesses in the temple of Artemis) women teaching and women bearing children under the shadow of the temple of Artemis the saints remain adamantly oblivious to power of Artemis whom the Holy Spirit saw fit to introduce to us in Acts 19? Those who wonder blithely why Paul did not mention Artemis by name and therefore feel justified to reject the unnamed power of Artemis in their understanding of I Timothy and Paul’s letters must also wonder and reject the unnamed power of Rome which carried out the destruction of Jerusalem in which those who did not heed the message of Jesus perished.


just like old times


The understanding which some saints claim concerning, for instance, the I Timothy 2 passage is akin to another fatal forgetfulness and misunderstanding by some of our first century brethren. It does not seem likely, given the admonition of Jesus prophecy to the disciples in Matthew 24, that there were some disciples who probably concluded before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple that everything would return back to life as usual; just like old times _ as long as they remained faithful.


They were determined to the end, in their disdain for the power of Rome, to disregard Rome in no less the same manner as the saints disregard Artemis, today. After all, the call by Jesus was for the discerning saints to be faithful, right? Isn’t that enough? Those who escaped death during the destruction of the temple thought they could resume life as a Jew and be neither the wiser nor be filled with the Holy Spirit for what God had just granted them. But, Jesus expected the saints to consider, to discern, to understand and to act accordingly with respect to the power of Rome which would soon come down hard on them.  Those who thought to seek safe refuge in the city, Jesus alerted them, would seal their fate because they failed to heed his words.


There is a staunch explanation which exalts men as leaders which is not even a matter in discussion in I Timothy. It is bad enough to mistakenly equate teaching and preaching with leadership, but it is even worse to glibly ascribe spirituality to a man simply, not even because he is a man, but because he is a leader and must therefore be spiritual. It escapes our notice that if those who were to wait on tables (Acts 6) were to be full of wisdom and the Holy Spirit how much more so those who lead the people of God. It is another mistaken notion to equate spirituality with being full of the Holy Spirit. The explanation purports (faithfully and lovingly, if not biblically, the saints are reassured) to put and keep women in their place because of their gender as ordained by God. The thought behind this rank and file order is derived from Paul’s reference to the Genesis creation account. This egregious explanation pins Eve’s sin in the garden on those sisters in Christ who have been, like their brothers, redeemed and washed by the blood sacrifice of Jesus.


This explanation borders on apostasy, not unlike Israel’s apostasy under the reign of their kings, when the sacrifice of Jesus for the salvation of women must be enhanced with childbearing. The view of these teachers and preachers is as mistaken and ignorant as those saints who scrounged for reassurance in the familiar, “God can do anything” even as Rome unleashed her judgment of Jerusalem according to the decree of God. It is a view not unlike that of believing that everything would return to normal after the destruction of the temple; a notion which reverts to the garden to make certain the salvation of women by imposing on them Eve’s sin in the garden and the condition of childbearing. It is a impression about male dominance not unlike the female dominance in the cult of Artemis; just good ol’ boys, just like old times. Yes, Paul clearly and undoubtedly makes a reference to the Genesis creation, but any explanation about that reference which is oblivious to and rejects the unnamed power of Artemis is as flawed as to reject the unnamed power of Rome in the destruction of Jerusalem.


conclusion


The settings of history and context are reflected in the scriptures. It is within these settings in which the Holy Spirit brought out and presented various factors concerning the powers which affected the salvation of the saints in Christ. They, like us, were to understand and be enlightened by these things. The result of the saints who persevered and overcame either the power of Rome in the destruction of the temple or the power of the cult of Artemis, was that the priesthood of believers not only remained faithful, but they continued faithfully in the teaching and preaching of the gospel of Jesus.

This is a call and support for those brothers and sisters in the royal priesthood of believers who are not only not against Jesus but who are with him in the teaching and preaching is to listen, understand and heed the words of Jesus for the salvation of those who know not Jesus as Lord and Savior. Just as Jesus warned about the false messengers in the day of visitation on Rome telling the saints to go there or come here to preserve their lives, beware of messengers who clothe themselves with an assumed spirituality merely because they are men and they happen to lead. peace in Jesus.