Folks, there’s no way to get this pill down without a little choking. The article on the “Wright Jesus” is long and involved, so we have our work cut out for us to break it down.  We could ignore it, of course, but something tells me we shouldn’t.

          Something funny is going on here, funny-peculiar and not funny-ha ha. Beck’s article supposedly gives us the teaching of N. T. Wright. In spite of being a “liberal,” Wright says some true things and seems to have a better grasp on what he’s doing than do the King’s. But if he really said some of the things they say he does, untrue things, then he is a nut and the sooner we find it out the better.

          We’re still in the dark about two important things. One is, what Israel are these folks talking about? They don’t make that clear. The other is, who is Jesus? They don’t make that clear either. This article is supposed to tell us, but it doesn’t.

          The name Israel here is in complete fog. In the Bible, St. Paul saw an “Israel within Israel,” a core of true faith in a sea of disobedient and hard-nosed rebels, who were punished repeatedly, sent into exile, and promised a bitter end by their prophets, a desolation pronounced by Jesus when he was here.

          The “Israel within” were those who believed, like Abraham, and it is they who survived in the holy remnant. To this remnant was added the believing Gentiles, and this body of believers were called “The Israel of God.”  It was this new Israel that would inherit the promise given to Abraham. Paul was careful to show us that the son of promise was Jesus, the “second son” who inherited. He was also careful to show us the “mystery of the ages,” which was the two sons, Jew and Gentile, becoming one because of their faith in Jesus, the Son of God.

          Thus, having the “right Jesus” is important, and I’m not at all sure the “Wright Jesus” is the right Jesus. When people get tangled in their words, I get suspicious, and Mr. Beck, like the Kings, gets tangled. Whether N. T. Wright is part of this tangle, or simply being used, is not clear. The suspicion grows that the stature and brains of Dr. N. T. Wright are being “borrowed” to give credence to a philosophy that has no credence. 

          The Rev. Dr. Wright is Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey, a leading “Jesus scholar,” and Kevin Beck has high praise for him. Certainly, in the position he holds, he should know something, and it should be the right something, at that. If the Wright Jesus is the right Jesus, I will be first to say Amen. But you won’t find it in this article.

          Wright’s image doesn’t start off well, for he supposedly draws from “significant theologians” such as Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Kasemann, and E. P. Sanders, modern liberals all. I know little of the others, but I know Schweitzer is highly over-rated. He agrees with the atheists that Jesus gave a false prophecy in Matt 24:34, and even the lowliest preterist has the wisdom to see that Jesus gave a true prophecy here. So why would we go to Schweitzer for wisdom?

          The King’s don’t really seem to know what side of the fence they’re on. They want to dance with modern liberals, and still be preterists. They are like those “boids who have their mugs on one side of the fence and their wumps on the other.”

          We will not question Dr. Wright’s scholarship. He sounds like he might be “less liberal” than the company he keeps, for some liberals have complained that he is too conservative. And he has the good sense not to be a transmillennialist™. However, according to Mr. Beck, he “illuminates the essence of transmillen-nialism™.” We’ll reserve judgment until things clear up, if they ever do.

          Wright challenges us to “wipe the slate clean of what we think we know about Jesus and God and take a fresh look.” That could be either good or bad, depending on what was on your slate. Someone who has read the Bible for 70 years, like me, and believed it, would be reluctant to throw it out. So I’ll hide and watch.

          Wright wants all of us to look at Jesus again for the first time and discover who “God really is.” Now, that’s right on. Jesus was the exact image of God, and we cannot know God unless we know Jesus. That’s in the Bible, been there all along, though some folks miss it.

          Wright asks basic questions, “Who was Jesus? What did people think of him, why was he executed, why did he do what he did?” I’ve known the answers to those question most of my life. So what’s new? Presumably, we will find it here.

          Oh dear. Beck, and supposedly Wright, begins with Jesus’ historical context, and that’s not a good sign. There’s a whole klachen of people out there who are trying to hide the Son of God behind “the historical Jesus,” giving us only a man who lived at a certain time in history. Which will it be? Read on.

          Beck: “In other words, Jesus was a first-century Jew living in the rich milieu of second-temple Judaism under the domination of Roman overlords.” We all know that. I’m not quite sure what “second-temple Judaism” is. Is it a second temple that replaced the first one? (The second “temple,” according to scripture, is the new and living way. But the feeling grows on me we will not find that here.) ...  Jesus was fully acquainted with [all things Jewish], and addressed the concerns and fears, the hope and desires, the wants and wishes of first-century Jews.”

          What! That’s not in my Bible. Jesus knew Judaism inside out, and he was here to shake them up, not to pacify them. He reminded them they were headed for destruction, and that swift and without remedy.

          Now hear this gem: “For those of us who are used to applying the specifics of Jesus’ teachings directly to ourselves, this shifts Christianity to its core.”

          Hold on, Mr. Beck, or Dr. Wright, or whoever is doing the talking here. Do you mean to tell me that all those years I’ve read the Bible, and believed it, sought to understand and apply its teachings, were futile? I thought Christianity got its name from Christ, and I’m in no mood to discover that the whole thing is a big fake.

          Now we approach the bottom line: “The Sermon on the Mount is not a set of suggestions or even commands, on how to be good, nor a guideline for going to heaven. It is rather, as it stands, a challenge for Israel to be Israel.”

          What sort of talk is this? If they meant the new “Israel of God,” composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, they might be making some sense, but they carefully avoid telling us what they are talking about, and it seems to be national Israel. Have they not read the scriptures? Israel of old was doomed to desolation, and Jesus pronounced it when he was here, Matt 23:38. He told them the exact moment: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand” Luke 21:20. Armies filled the countryside in AD 66, and completely surrounded Jerusalem in AD 70. This is historic fact, something the whole world knows. This fulfilled prophecy is at the root of the preterist movement.

          These people seem bent on wiping out history itself.

          I fear the worst, for Wright also “maintains Jesus’ parables speak to the world of first-century Israel, not to 21^st century America or to an ongoing millennial-long battle between good and evil.” You have just lost me, gentlemen. Only to first-century Israel? Not to Christians? We’ve fallen into something here.

          We continue to hear the refrain: “Jesus referred to Hebraic themes and relied on the Hebraic thought mode. He aimed neither to begin a new religion nor to destroy an old one....”

          Is that so? Then why did Jesus tell the Hebrews who rejected him that they were in line for the “wrath to come”?

          Wright: “Instead, he sought to fulfill and become for Israel what she could neither fulfill nor be for herself.” I wanted to give Dr. Wright credit for something more than he is. Sounds to me like heretics are taking Christianity away from Christians and giving it to Israel!

          Why is the word Israel not properly defined? Where is the change of people prophesied by Hosea, when God would call a people who were not his people “my people”? Where are the Gentiles named by Paul in Ephesians who were joined to Israel so the “two men” became one new man?

          The refrain continues: “Several of the best-known parables find an obvious setting... as miniature stories which evoke the underlying narrative of Israel.” True, the stories, and much else belonged “rightfully” to Israel. But they gave up their birthright and went to desolation as defectors. The birthright was given to the second son. Nothing is said here about the holy remnant of Israel, with all who believed Jesus was The Christ, now a new nation named the “Israel of God.”

          Jesus indeed spoke in the language of the people, and his stories are as fresh and alive, as easy to understand today as they were then. God reveals his truths to babes, and we get a new crop of babies every generation. There is no reason to bury Jesus parables, and his truth, in the first century! I don’t plan to stand still while I am being robbed of anything so precious as the stories and teachings of Jesus. I’m going to make an awful fuss.

          Next there’s some muddled talk about Jesus’ focus on Roman occupation, on Herod’s temple, and revolutionary fervor, as opposed to Russian invasion, the Oslo accords, or nuclear missiles (as in our modern world). But we as preterists are not even thinking of such things. This mini-battle with the dispensationalists serves only as a distraction, and does not tell us what we want to know.

          What we want to know is, is Dr. Wright a Christian with a significant message? Are the “transmillennialists™” Christians with a significant message?

          After reading the article twice, I have found the answer to these questions is “No.” They are not Christians. And there is even worse to come.

          Next the talk is about covenants, and again, nothing is clear. Did old Israel get the new covenant? What happened to spiritual Israel? Did Jesus come to the Jews only? Why didn’t he speak to us who bear his name, the Christians?

          I’m not liking what I read. I’m not quite sure who is confused, Dr. Wright, or Mr. Beck, or both.

Jesus and Israel

          I have been asking, “What Jesus are they talking about?” and “What Israel do they mean?” Now we have a subtitle, which I have borrowed, “Jesus and Israel.” Maybe at last we are going to find out what we want to know!     

          It has a good beginning. I quote: “Biblical Israel was a story-formed community. They not only told stories, but they saw themselves as central players in the story of God’s interaction with the world.”

          “Jesus formed and lived his message within Israel’s biblical narrative, but with a twist. He redefined the meaning of the story and gave it a surprise ending.” I’m getting excited. Maybe we’ve found the right road at last! Most of the Old Testament and a lot of the New are stories; Israel lived on them. The stories contain profound thoughts in simple words a child can understand, and in this way, God lived near and in his people, and “revealed things to babes.” 

          But Presence magazine, Kevin Beck, and N. T. Wright (at least as quoted here) have no intention of explaining anything so we can understand. It almost sounds good, but it’s not leading anywhere. 

          “In explaining Israel’s story, Wright contends that Israel had three basic beliefs: monotheism, election, and eschatology. Monotheism, there is one God and He is YHWH. Election is the belief that YHWH chose a people, Israel, through whom he would reconcile the world to himself. Eschatology is the decisive action of God to accomplish reconciliation.” Please note, you don’t find the Elect One, Jesus, here. It was “Israel” who would accomplish reconciliation.

          There are a few more good lines. “Israel would not be restored through Torah keeping or through revolutionary fervor, but through his [Jesus] ministry.” Hey, that’s what I’ve always believed! “Jesus redefined the covenant people of God as those who found their identity in him.” That sounds like Christians, who got the name from “identifying” with Christ. That is what I’ve always believed. But using familiar words is, I fear, a trick “the better to deceive you with, my dear.”

          Our expectations evaporate as we go along. Read this: “He would redeem Israel from their real oppressors, and by so doing he would end their exile and inaugurate the victory of God over evil.” Since their real oppressors were themselves, maybe we’re getting ready to hear the gospel? But no, I’m afraid not.

          Nobody has yet made the transition from old, disobedient Israel to the new Israel, the “Israel of God. I’m still looking for the New Israel. It is just not mentioned. The words keep going all wrong.

          “According to Wright, Jesus believed himself called to work as a prophet, announcing the word of Israel’s god [sic] to his wayward people, and grouping around himself a company who... would be regarded as the true people of YHWH.” That’s kind of what happened all right, but this “new group” and the old group were at loggerheads with each other, and the new group was persecuted and hounded and even lost their lives when they preached Christ.

           On the surface, the words sound OK, but they are not OK. “Jesus believed himself called to work as a prophet.” He didn’t believe it, he knew it. Moses foretold: “One will come among you greater than I; listen to him.” It was so obvious he came from God, that if the Israelite leaders had known God, they would have known him.

          Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me; for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me,” John 8:43. "He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.” John 3:34, 35. “... I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. I speak the things which I have seen with My Father... John 8:28, 38. Jesus told us who he was, where he came from, and who he was keeping company with. There’s no room for doubt.

          After all the reading and wrestling, I still don’t see the Jesus of the Bible, nor the Israel of God. The words seem designed to hide this Jesus and this Israel. What’s the big secret?

                                   We Discover Transformed Living

          We’ve been working up to it for some time now, and to get the full impact of what is being said, let’s  back up and repeat the end note of the last section, the “word according to Wright.”

          “Jesus believed himself called to work as a prophet, announcing the word of Israel’s god [sic] to his wayward people, and grouping around himself a company who... would be regarded as the true people of YHWH.” There is a smoky element here, a false note. Jesus “believed himself to work as a prophet.” Jesus knew he was a prophet: Moses said he was. He did announce the word of God to the wayward people of Israel, and they killed him for it. Some believed and “gathered around” him, and this holy core from Israel furnished the rootstock of a new Israel. Then he “called in other sheep,” called them from the Gentile world.  "And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd” John 10:16.

          Beck, and evidently Wright as well, forget to mention that old Israel came to desolation. The missing element of this entire “transmillennial™” effort is found here. They seem unaware that Jesus brought the old Israel to desolation so he could establish the new. Israel got a whole new house. The old one was burned up.

          Wright says, “Jesus redefined biblical Israel’s most cherished symbols, including the Sabbath, the temple, food, family, and the land.” Jesus did more than redefine their symbols; he gave them a whole new set. Why doesn’t Wright say so?

          More disturbing are these words: “Since the exile was ending in and by the work of Jesus, then these items were redundant, even unnecessary. Through Jesus, the Sabbath had begun, the temple would be rebuilt, family would identify, and God’s people would dwell.”

          Bible words, bud sadly rearranged. The “exile” certainly ended, in the flames of AD 70 and Roman hands. The “new temple” was not a “rebuilt” job; it was a new temple, established in the hearts of people, a “new and living way.”

          Jesus announced the end of Israel: desolation. It happened in AD 70. So why not say so? Wright’s clever words leave the impression that Jesus re-vamped Israel.  But in truth he purged disobedient Israel, and gave the kingdom to faithful people.

          "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom” Luke 12:32.

          The whole of ancient, ethnic, national, and disobedient Israel was simply destroyed, saving only the “little flock” of believers. They got the kingdom.

          We have more smooth words from Wright: “Exile had reached its height in Jesus’ death; how he had come through death, the ultimate exile, and was set free, not just from Greece or Rome, from Herod, Pilate, and Caiphas, but from sin and death, the ultimate enemies.”

          Jesus came through it all right, and he conquered sin and death. But disobedient Israel succumbed to it, leaving behind one thing only: a holy remnant. To the holy remnant was given all that was once meant for Israel, which they rejected, and at this point, the invited guests who would not come to the wedding were cast aside and the outsiders from the highways and byways were invited in.

          I don’t care for this misbegotten attempt to juggle words to retain rejected Israel, making a liar of Christ and punching holes in the Bible story. And it is this heresy that leads to the hidden purpose of the “transmillennial™” jargon. They have no Christ who is Son of God, Savior, who was with God from the beginning, and who is God. They have no divine Jesus who “came through” the cross; they have a first-century Jew who somehow (they don’t really explain how) revived Israel and furnished the power for everyone after to have a “transformed life.”

          Beck says, “All this has tremendous relevance to the message of transformed living. The exile is over. God through Jesus has redeemed Israel, and therefore all of humanity....”

          We can no longer avoid what has become obvious. Note that “redeemed Israel.” We have made a complete transition from the Bible to modern lingo.  There is no Jesus who came from God to save the world. The transmillennial™ movement is heresy.

                                               Back to the Covenant

          “As a first-century Jew, Jesus lived with a covenantal awareness.... Jesus redefined covenantal identity by making himself the central feature. God’s covenant people now gathered around him. [Severing all else], Jesus would now become the climax of the covenant... and identifying with covenant would hinge on identifying with Jesus.” These are clever words, surely, but inadequate.

          Jesus brought the old covenant to an end, and gave us a new covenant. The “first had to be taken out of the way so the second could be established.” Jesus became the guarantee of a better covenant, Heb 7:22; he obtained a more excellent ministry. So why do the TMs, and presumably Dr. Wright as well, continue to talk as though the new covenant is a new function of the old? If they would only clarify the new Israel and the new covenant, identify Jesus and Christians, then all would be well. But they do not.

          Yet this very “transmillennialism™” muddle is the source of power for their “transformed living.” Neither the Law nor the Old Covenant had the transforming power needed to change people. The TMs talk about the new covenant, but they leave the impression that it was the Israel of the Old Covenant who are given the New Covenant. They leave out the new people of the New Covenant, the ones who gathered around Jesus, who were given the kingdom.

          In our new day, God has moved from the temple of brick and stone and metal into the living hearts of people. This is the new temple and the New Covenant that has power to transform lives. And this power comes from Jesus Christ, the central player, for “Christ in you is the hope of glory.” The TMs will go so far as to say Christ can be “beside you,” but they will not say he is “in you.”

          Yet the Bible says: “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts...” 1 Pet 3:15. Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies; so that “in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever” 1 Pet 4:11. “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... to Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity” 2 Pet 3:18. “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever” Rev 1:6.

          From the TMs we don’t hear about Christ as Lord. Their Christ seems to have become obsolete when his work was done for Israel (which Israel?), and now you can “latch onto the transforming power of God” and use it to transform the world.”

          What a sorry departure from the Bible story.

          “This AD 70 vindication of Jesus and the people of God (what people?) marks a claim of the return of the true Israel from exile, the defeat of evil, and the return of YHWH to Zion.” Since it was old, national, ethnic Israel who went into exile, we have been given our “clue.” They have been talking about Old Israel all along.

          They have hidden their real purpose for a reason: they don’t want you to know what Israel they are talking about. If you knew what they were saying, you would discern their heresy.

          We’ve come to the end of this miserable affair, and I cannot help noticing that we have had this kind of stuff dished up to us before, except crudely and amateurishly, in several cults. The Jehovah’s Witnesses got rid of Jesus by replacing him with “a God.” They hid Jesus by pretending to honor God. Today’s more educated times demands better language. But they have the same trickery. They hide Jesus behind Israel.

          God gave all honor to his Son. In his resurrection body, Jesus told his disciples, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” Matt 28:18. And the power and authority was given for all time:  “He raised Jesus to his right hand, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come” Eph 1:20-21.

          “We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” 1 John 5:20. In the Bible, God and Jesus go together, and they add up to eternal life.

                                                  Jesus and the End

          The almost final subtitle is “Jesus and the End.” We won’t find the right end, any more than we find the right Jesus, but at least we have come to an ending. You can sigh with relief, folks, for there is little here worthy of comment.

          There is a difference of opinion between Wright and the Kings, for Wright foresees an end beyond AD 70. King thinks we are in the “kingdom of God” now, but wait, there’s a catch. Beck writes, “The creation, that is, Israel, and hence, humanity, is redeemed.”

          Universalism? I’m afraid so. Elsewhere we will find the Kings have given universalism a new name, “comprehensive grace.” But it turns out to be the same old heresy of universalism.

          Beck ends this garbled section with the words, “What Jesus was to Israel, the church must now be for the world.”

          I want to know who is going to help us. We have just officiated at the graveside of Jesus’ life, given to Israel and not the world. They haven’t noticed that he would have died for them in vain, for Israel itself died long ago. 

          If Jesus is not present now, he is not “in” us to work out the hope of glory. We lost him. If we are going to transform the world, we had better get busy, for it is a big job, and we are “on our own.” Except for the Kings, who will tell us how to transform ourselves, and subsequently the world.

          I am appalled, disappointed... forget that polite language. I’m angry. We are supposed to be angry with heresy, and we have certainly found one here.

          They have tried to hide it with sophisticated words (some of them mis-spelled), and slick publishing, but the old game shows through: Jesus was not The Christ of the Bible. I’m going to repeat John’s test for truth and heresy in another article, and using that test, there can be no doubt whatever that the Kings have given birth to a modern heresy. For them, Christ is only a man, not the Christ who was with God and who was God.

THE END

 ________________________________________________________

                                          THE TEST FOR ALL TEACHINGS

      By Pat Forseth

            The Apostle John told us to test all teachings, and he gave us the test that would reveal whether they were of God, or not from God.

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they

            are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus

            Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” 1 John 4:1, 2.

            The test sounds simple, but it is not as simple as it sounds. People will say “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” but they do not mean what John meant. John had spelled out the divine origin of Jesus the Christ. First, in his gospel, he told us, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God, John 1:1, 2.  The whole of 1 John describes Jesus Christ. He was:

            pre-existent, “from the beginning” 1:1

            the Word of Life                                           1:1

            the one who cleanses us from sin                1:7

            in union with the Father                                2:23

            Savior of the world                                        4:14

            the true God and eternal life                        5:20

Jesus was a divine person who appeared in the flesh. John heard him, touched him,

“bore witness” to who he was.

            Many today would make Jesus a good man, a teacher, a rabbi, even a prophet, but they deny him as Son, Savior, the one who cleanses from sin and gives eternal life. Any deviation from this truth is a contrary spirit. John called it the spirit of anti-christ.

            The test can be used by anyone. I have a rather dog-eared little book that tells an amazing story about a man who was ignorant of everything in the Bible except I John. It was the first thing he read. Yet he understood it and applied it to the “church” he had attended all his life. 

            His name was Victor Ernst, and he had been raised in “spiritism.” He thought the spirits he worshiped were good spirits from God. But in a meeting, sitting beside his mother, he heard her gasp, “But that’s not what the Bible says!” Luckily the “medium” didn’t hear her, for any disruption in their meetings was severely reprimanded.

            Victor had never owned or read a Bible, and her remark aroused his curiosity. He bought a Bible. Like any other book, he started reading page one. But he soon bogged down in genealogies, and decided to turn to the last pages to “see how it all came out.” But he couldn’t understand a word of that, either, and was about to throw his Bible away in disgust. But he had paid his money, all of $4.98, and thought he should try to get his money’s worth. So he leafed through, and noticed it had short sections.

            He made a random selection. The first epistle of John seemed short, so he read it. In chapter four he discovered the test for all “spirits.” Even though he was a novice Bible reader, it made sense to him. He decided to test the spirits in his own church.

            At the next meeting they were allowed to ask three questions each, an unusual event. Victor’s first question was, “Is Jesus Christ the Son of God?” The answer was, “Why, of course, my son, just believe it as the Bible tells you.” Next he asked, “Is Jesus Christ the Savior of the world?” He got the same answer!

            With only one question left, Victor searched his mind. He had to make this one count. He asked, “Did Jesus Christ atone for the sins of the world?” Incredibly, this question threw the “spirits” of spiritism into such confusion that the medium was catapulted off his chair onto the floor in a spasm, and had to be revived. Victor left the meeting, never to return, for they had failed the test.

            There is nothing remarkable about being flesh; all men are flesh. What was remarkable was that God appeared in the flesh. The Bible calls it a visitation, Christians call it an “incarnation.” A divine being came to us as one of us, in the flesh. The very name Mary was given for her child was Immanuel, which means God with us.

            Isaiah called him a holy child, and gave him the names of God: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, Isaiah 9:6. An angel came to the child’s parents to tell them of his holy origin, Matt 1:20. An angel told shepherds who he was the night he was born, Luke 2:10-12. They sang from heaven, Luke 2:14. Two old crocks who hung around the temple recognized him for who he was. Simeon and Anna pronounced him the salvation sent by God. Zacharias, father of John Baptist, recognized the event: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,” Luke 1:68. Jesus came to save the people from their sins.

            Today, antichrist fads are getting ever more sophisticated. Mormon and Jehovah Witness heresies look like primers compared to them. A new one has appeared under the exotic name “Transmillennialism™.” It follows the pattern: Jesus is an ordinary man, a first-century Jew who became a rabbi, and he did a work for the Israel of the first century. They aren’t quite clear what it was he did. But they fail to finish the story. They have nothing to say about his redemptive work for the world.

“But that isn’t what the Bible says.”

            The Bible is very clear about who Jesus is, and its stories explain him in terms that even a baby Christian can understand. There is no excuse for this deviation, except their intent to deceive.

            Jesus identified himself with God: “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” He is described as “the radiance of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of His nature,” Heb 1:3. He called himself “I Am,” and Lord, the divine names of God.

            When Moses asked God for a name that would identify his authority, God gave him two names, higher names than God Almighty. One of these names was I Am. “Tell them I Am That I Am has sent you. The other name was Lord (Ex 3:14 and 6:3.) Jesus Christ shared these highest names.

            Jesus whole life had one purpose: atonement for sin. By the power of his holy life, he conquered sin and death. What we could not do for ourselves, he did for us.

            What is most ridiculous about the new fad, transmillennialism™, is that they propose to “transform the world.” How can they do that, when they have rid themselves of the source of transforming power? “Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” 1 John 5:5.

            The right belief is crucial: “The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness that God has borne concerning His Son, and the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.” 1 John 5:11-12.

            By John’s test, transmillennialism™ is a false teaching. It fails the test.

THE END