The Purpose of the Holy Spirit

by Ken Rank

What exactly was the purpose of the Holy Spirit when it was given on that Shavuot day (Pentecost), 2000 years ago? Was it to guide and teach us? I believe so, since the God we serve has ways that are not our ways and to understand Him we need His guidance. Was the Spirit given to comfort us? To that I also have no doubt; I am not sure how we could deal with the effects of sin (i.e. the death and decay of ourselves and loved ones) without His comforting hand upon us.  How about as a promissory note, was the Holy Spirit a down-payment toward something even greater to come? Again, yes, Paul wrote about this in 2 Cor. 1:22 and 5:5 where the Spirit is plainly called a down-payment. What is then promised will come in the form of the completed work of writing the Torah (Law) on our mind and hearts by God and the perfecting of these deteriorating bodies we now live in. There are even other works the Holy Spirit does like convicting us of sin, empowering us in whatever calling God has ordained for us, as well as helping us to transform into more godly men and women, and more.

There is another work the Holy Spirit is doing that I have not heard mentioned and quite frankly I can’t say it is directly stated in the Scriptures. Yet, I do believe this work is true, I believe this work began 2000 years ago, and I also believe it is being done by the Spirit today. The work I speak of is the work of building a house. Starting in Exodus 35 and going on for the next few chapters, we see the preparation for and then the building of, the Tabernacle. In Exodus 35:30 we see a man named Betsal’el singled out as something of an architect and/or craftsman and who was called to work on the building of the Tabernacle. An interesting thing happens to this man to complete this task; God fills him with His Holy Spirit.

There is then precedent of God filling a man with His Holy Spirit to do a work like building a house of God as seen in Exodus. At this point you might be wondering what all of this has to do with the Upper Room or with our work today. Well, we too are building a house, or perhaps better stated, rebuilding a house!

Around 2900 years ago, after the death of king Solomon, Israel divided into two separate kingdoms. The Southern Kingdom became known as Judea and the Northern Kingdom became known as Israel. We have one nation that was once one family; it divided into two Kingdoms, and is referred throughout Scripture as two people, two houses, and even two sticks.  A couple of hundred years after the division, Israel, the Northern Kingdom, composed of 9 full tribes plus half of Levi, was taken captive into Assyria as punishment for their stubborn heart and idolatrous ways. This event was first prophesied in Deut. 30:1-6 which includes the promise to one day be called back out of the nations where God scattered them, and when this happens, they would be given a circumcised heart so that they might properly show their love for God as well as live in a manner that pleases Him. So, from the Assyrian captivity, Israel was then scattered (as a farmer sows a field) as prophesied out into the nations. This would be, brothers and sisters, how God would begin to bring about the promise made to Abraham that he would be a father to many nations (Gen. 17:4-5). Moreover, it would also provide the means for the blessing over Ephraim to come to fruition (Gen. 48:19 – he would become a “multitude of nations”).

I personally believe that either we are descendants of these very people, or if we are not, we are at the very least, like the foreigners who attached themselves to Israel coming out of Egypt who were to be treated as native born and ultimately assimilated into the tribes they traveled with. Why do I say this? The Northern Kingdom, Israel, having been scattered into the nations and promised to be returned by God, have been referred to as “The Lost Tribes” virtually since the event took place. They are also called the Lost Sheep and when Yeshua comes he says something rather unique:

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I can’t emphasize enough that there is a clear differentiation of people being referred to in regards to the new covenant. In Jeremiah 31:31-34 (and repeated in Hebrews 8:8-11) we see the covenant made (or renewed) with only the House of Judah (the Jews) AND the House of Israel, those lost in the nations. Yeshua said he came only to call the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, not Judah. That is not to say that Judah does not need his work in reversing the curse of sin and death applied to them, they certainly do as proven by the fact that they still decay and die like everyone else. However, Judah, the “older brother” in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), didn’t leave the land of the Father. He wasn’t perfect, but he was not the one out in the nations giving no thought to God’s commandments or for that matter, to God at all. It was the Lost Sheep, the ones scattered into the nations as punishment, Israel in the nations; that gave no thought to God and His ways. This is why Yeshua says this:

Mark 2:17  When Yeshua heard it, he said unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

He wasn’t coming to call the righteous, the ones that were at least trying to walk according to divine command, he came to call those living outside of divine command. That is how 1 John 3:4 defines what sin is.

1 John 3:4 every one practicing sin also practices lawlessness because sin is lawlessness.

So Judah, the older brother, who does need Messiah’s redemptive work applied to him, was not the target as much as those who lived without Torah (without the Law). Ephraim, the kingly tribe of the Northern Kingdom and a word used poetically throughout Scripture to describe Israel in the nations, was who Yeshua was coming to call. Again, “I have not been sent BUT to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” We are those sheep, we have heard his voice and have come in faith and he said, “My sheep hear my voice.”(John 10:27)

So what is another function of the Holy Spirit? 2000 years ago, God sent His Spirit into the hearts of those He called out of the nations to begin a work that would take some time, the work of rebuilding the House of Israel. Just like Betsal’el in Exodus 35 who was filled with the Spirit of God to build the Tabernacle of God, so too has God filled the followers of Yeshua with His Spirit to build a House, the House of Israel, in whom God dwells. When the work is complete, when the time of Israel in the nations is complete (see Rom. 11:25 and Luke 21:24), then the focus will shift from building one house, to the reunification of both Houses. And that is a process, brethren; I very much believe we see beginning to happen today.

Don't Live in Fear!

                                    by Ken Rank

In a recent bible study we came across the following verse:

Revelation 21:8  But for the cowardly and unbelieving, and those having become foul, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all the lying ones, their part will be in the Lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

I found the word cowardly (fearful or timid in other versions) to be of interest seeing it is counted among murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars. That hardly seems fair seeing that as humans it doesn’t seem reasonable to expect that something won’t cause us fear, at some point. Fortunately, the word that fearful is translated from, deilos (δειλός, G1169), appears to carry the concept, at least according to Strong’s, of beingfaithless. Fearful and faithless, are these two even connected? It is important we discover any potential connection, if any, between these two words seeing the idea of being fearful is counted among things we might consider to be fairly grievous sins.  The entire list, which includes being fearful, all stand in stark contrast to the character of God.

To see any potential connection it is important that we know that we are dealing with good definitions. For the sake of brevity, I will take the time only to define faith. If Strong’s Concordance is correct, and being fearless has an implied connection of being faithless, we surely need a good definition of faith.

The Modern Webster’s Dictionary (Online) defines faith in three ways:

1. strong belief or trust in someone or something
2. belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
3.  a system of religious beliefs

In order to make sure we have a good all-around picture of what faith means, at least according to Webster’s, let’s pull out some key words from the above three definitions:

We have belief in all three definitions, trust, as well as strong belief andstrong feelings and a tie to religion (i.e. their secular way of saying “Belief as pertaining to God”). In essence, Webster’s is saying that faith is a strong belief or trust in something, probably related to God. And in short…faith equals belief.
However, in the bible we have three verses that seem to go out of their way to define faith as God sees it. And, as I read these, faith becomes more than simple belief, faith becomes tied to action. They are:

Romans 10:17 so then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
James 2:17 so also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself.
Hebrews 11:1 now faith is the essence of things being hoped, the evidence of things not having been seen.

Like before, I want to pull out some key words and phrases that might give us the best overall concept of faith as defined by Scripture:

We have faith coming first by hearing God. If it lacks works (action, labor) it is dead, and it is the evidence (proof) of that which is not seen.
So, we hear God (unseen) and then act on what we heard (evidence of the unseen). What we hear is not seen it is heard, and what we do based on what we heard becomes the proof of what we heard. For example, in Hebrews 11 we see many great examples of faith. Noach heard God (unseen) and then built the ark (evidence of what was unseen). We have Abraham hear God and then he moves to a place he was a stranger in.  And we also have Moses hearing God and then holding out the staff to see the water part. Hearing God and acting upon what we hear, that is faith. So how does this all tie back to the fearful in Revelation 21:8?

When we live by faith, and the bible tells us that the just live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4), we live hearing God and then doing what we hear.  So we hear and we can stand firm or act boldly because the source of what we heard was God. But when we don’t live hearing God we cannot stand with that same level of boldness or fearlessness, instead, we live in fear and there is nothing bold about our actions. In other words, the fearful do not live hearing God and they certainly don’t live doing what God directs them to do. And that is why the fearful, or perhaps better stated, the faithless, join the ranks of the murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars!

The Evolution of Words

Being a word person, I find the progression of definitions to be an interesting study. The meanings of words change and often we don’t realize that has happened. When the KJV was translated, the word “prevent” meant “to go before,” rather than “to keep from happening,” which is what it means today. Back at that same time in history, if I had said to you, “We engaged in gay intercourse,” you would have not thought twice and knew I meant, “pleasant (or happy) discussion.” That doesn’t exactly carry the same meaning today, does it?

While my latter example is an obvious one in regards to the evolution of words, a word like prevent is less so. For example, Psalm 59:10 states, “The God of my mercy shall prevent me: God shall let me see my desire upon mine enemies.” One has to wonder how many readers of the KJV truly understand that the first half of that verse means, “The God of mercy shall go before me,” which is how most English bibles, rightly, render the Hebrew in that verse today.

There are other English words that carried a meaning back at the time of the KJV that differs from the meaning it carries today, yet those words continue to appear in all modern translations, perhaps misleading us in the same manner a word like “prevent” would to the KJV reader. One word in particular has changed dramatically over time and yet that word continues to appear in modern versions with the modern definition being applied to the word. The word I am referring to is the word “gentile.”

Today, most Christians see themselves as gentiles. The online Webster’s dictionary defines the word gentile in this manner: 

Gentile - often capitalized :  a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith;especially :  a Christian as distinguished from a Jew

The second definition of a gentile as provided by the online addition of Webster's comes in the form of two words, heathen and pagan. So a gentile according to one of the most respected dictionaries of our day says a gentile is a Christian who is not a Jew or a person who is a pagan or heathen. With the word gentile used for Christians but also tied to one who honors a false deity, you might think that would be cause for alarm? Strangely, it is not. Yet, perhaps there should be cause, because the meaning of this word has changed dramatically over time, and yet we continue to use it but with a definition not intended for the word when it was first chosen as the English equivalent of the Greek word ethnos, the word translated as gentiles. Please understand, a word like prevent once meant one thing, and when the meaning of that word changed we ceased using that word in our bible translations, instead, we chose other words that carried the meaning that prevent once held. Yet with the word gentile, we did not choose another word in our newer translations, we continued to use the same word but with a completely different meaning.

Back in 1828, Noah Webster (b1758 – d1843) standardized the modern English language by producing his dictionary. When he did, he defined words as understood in the English bibles of his day. The most popular of which, the KJV, had a revision in 1769 so he grew up using the KJV and later in life, used it as the basis to give us our first modern English dictionary. Webster defined the word gentile in a manner which should cause alarm to Christians who consider themselves to be gentiles. His entry looked like this:

Webster's 1828:

GEN'TILE, n. [L. gentilis; from L. gens, nation, race; applied to pagans.]

In the scriptures, a pagan; a worshipper of false gods; any person not a Jew or a christian; a heathen. The Hebrews included in the term goim or nations, all the tribes ofmen who had not received the true faith,and were not circumcised. The christians translated goim by the L. gentes, and imitated the Jews in giving the name gentiles to all nations who were not Jews nor christians. In civil affairs, the denomination was given to all nations who were not Romans.

GEN'TILE, a. Pertaining to pagans or heathens.

Please take note of what I made bold in the above definition. So let's key in on the main points here… a nation or race but “as applied to pagans.” Any person who is not a Jew OR a Christian, not just “not a Jew” as it is defined today. A gentile was a nation that was uncircumcised, or that had not received the “true faith,” which to Webster and all Christians in that day was obviously understood as a reference to Christianity. In short, a gentile was a pagan, a worshipper of a false deity. If you weren’t a Jew or Christian in 1828 you were viewed as a pagan, a heathen, somebody outside the true faith, a GENTILE! Therefore, I can boldly say that in 1828 the idea of a “gentile-Christian” would not have been spoken by any Christian, in fact, it would have been an oxymoron!

That is not to say we weren't once gentiles, we were, but we cease to be a gentile when we become part of the true faith. This is why Paul said this:

Ephesians 2:11  Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; (12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.

In times PAST you were a gentile, in times PAST you were without Christ, in times PAST you were an alien of the Commonwealth of Israel, in times PAST you were a stranger to the covenants of promise, in times PAST you had no hope, and in times PAST you were without God. But now:

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.

NOW we are not strangers to the covenants of promise, NOW we have hope, NOW we know God, NOW we have Christ, NOW we are fellow citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel. We can no more be a gentile AND a Christian than Yeshua haMashiach, Jesus the Messiah, can be a Roman! Now, go back and read the entire NT, because when the word gentile is defined as it was intended when first used, we begin to see another story unfold.

The Spirit and Letter of the Law

                                            by Ken Rank

Over the last decade I have become increasingly aware of influences upon Scripture that are external of Scripture. I have begun to realize that the culture and language of the time period play a key role in the context of what we read. For example, many times in his letters, the Apostle Paul writes about the contrast between the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law. “The Spirit” he says, “gives life.” While the letter when alone, apparently in contrast, “kills.” These are incredible statements and aspects of the faith that have been argued about and divided over since the face of Christianity ceased being predominantly Hebraic. Yet, are these two entities in conflict, or do they work together to reveal the intent of God? Ironically, in that day and within that culture, there was a very clear understanding regarding these two perspectives.

Paul attended Beit Hillel (Beit = House or School) and was taught by Hillel’s grandson, Gamaliel. Hillel himself began the school which carried his name and the school was known for teaching, “The spirit of the law.” In contrast, another Pharisaical school existed in that day, it was known as Beit Shamai. That school’s moniker was, “The letter of the law.” So you had two dominant schools of thought at the time the NT was written and the main dividing line between their teachings was the letter of the law verses the spirit of the law. I would like to briefly mention that most of the rebukes and disagreements with the Pharisees that we see throughout the NT are not with both schools, they are centered mainly on one of them.

Not long ago on Facebook I posted a question the heart of which was centered on the differentiation between the letter and the spirit of a command. I thoroughly enjoyed the responses, and many people made some great points. For context, I would like to share that question with you now.

A father finds his son, swinging a baseball bat in the house. The father commands his son not to swing the baseball bat in the house. One day, the son is trapped upstairs as the house is on fire. His only means of escape is to break the window open with the baseball bat. Once he has broken the window, he climbs out to safety.

The question for the above story was, “Did the son obey his father?” Many people chimed in with an answer like, “No, but the circumstances made the offense forgivable.” Others decided that the father’s “intent” was tied to playing, not the preservation of life. I agree with the latter, but I see a clearer message here, one that differentiates between the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. The letter is the essential foundation of a particular commandment, but it if taken alone, is more ridged and less forgiving. Whereas, the spirit reveals the intent the letter always carried, but which “alone” was unable to articulate. Yeshua came to reveal the intent of the law, the spirit behind the letter, that is exactly what Matthew 5:17 is saying. That verse reads like this:

“Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.” (Modern KJV)

The word for fulfill is pleroo, which means to fill or fulfill, but there is another definition provided by Thayer as well as Liddel-Scott which truly stands in harmony with Messiah’s work.

Pleroo - To fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment.

It wasn’t that he was coming to bring an end to the commandments of God, He was coming to show us how to obey them, how to properly understand them and His will for us as pertaining to them! We see him give us instruction regarding the depth of the commandments, the spirit behind the letter. And there might be no better example, then the topic of adultery.

The “letter” of the commandment stated simply, “You will not commit adultery.” But Yeshua revealed the intent by sharing, “Everyone looking at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This is a harder saying, is it not? If one doesn’t go through with the physical act but in his heart performs the action, it is as if he did the act in the flesh and it is still considered sin. In fact, it is worse because his heart ceased aiming at the righteousness of God, and aimed instead at something which was designed only to please the flesh.

So, let’s go back to the question of swinging the bat in the house. The boy was playing; his father sees this and doesn’t want anything broken, so he gives an order that the child is not to swing the bat in the home. By the letter any swinging of the bat at all would be a breaking of the father’s order. But the spirit of the law reveals the intent, which then includes the preservation of life, thus using the bat in the home to save a life was within the intent of the law. Somebody who responded to my question said simply “Sounds like a ‘donkey in the ditch’ scenario right there.” She was correct, that is exactly what this was. The law of God was not intended to be a burden. He takes His commandments seriously and we are expected to follow them, but at the same time, there are on occasion special circumstances that require action and helping a farmer pull his donkey from a ditch on the Sabbath, performing a healing act on another human being, or swinging a bat in the home to save a life after being told not to swing the bat in the home, are examples of special circumstances.Special circumstances do not break the law, they are considered within the law. When God said, “Do not commit adultery,” it was ALWAYS about a heart condition, not a physical act. Yes we were not to take part in the physical act, but we also were not to train our hearts on anything but Him and His righteousness. So to look upon another in lust reveals a heart condition in need of serious attention. The letter of the law does not consider the heart; the spirit of the law is and always has been ALL about the heart.

Righteousness and God's Law

                                                              by Ken Rank

I am growing increasingly fascinated at the depths to which our modern culture will go in order to mold the paradigm through which we read Scripture. Certain words and phrases have meanings today that are somewhat evolved from what they meant in the past. At the time the KJV was translated, for example, the word prevent meant “to go before,” whereas today it means “to keep from happening.” Adoption is another word that has a meaning today that is not in line with the concept it originally carried in Scripture. Today, adoption is taking in a child and making it as your own; in the days of old, adoption was more in line with the idea of joining a family for the purpose of doing the work of that family. Samuel was born an Ephraimite, yet he was offered to the Lord and thus taken in by Eli and trained to do the work of Eli, who was a Levite. Samuel, an Ephraimite, was a priest by adoption.

Recently I have begun to key in on another word, righteousness. The church treats the word righteousness as meaning to be justified, pardoned, or made whole through the work of Messiah. Incredibly, this isn’t close to the meaning of the word. Let’s go ahead and define this word….

The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, which standardized modern English, used both cultural understanding and definitions as understood in the bible in that day as the basis for defining words. Its entry for righteousness was “Purity of heart and rectitude of life; conformity of heart and life to the divine law. Righteousness, as used in Scripture and theology, in which it is chiefly used, is nearly equivalent to holiness, comprehending holy principles and affections of heart, and conformity of life to the divine law. It includes all we call justice, honesty and virtue, with holy affections; in short, it is true religion.” I want to key in on the idea of “conforming to divine law” because the modern online Webster’s defines righteousness as “acting in accord with divine or moral law.” There it is again; so to confirm this I went to the Thayer Greek Lexicon to define the underlying Greek word dikaios, and Thayer defines that word as “righteous, observing divine laws; in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God.” I think what is becoming very clear is that righteousness is dealing with obedience to God’s instructions, His commandments, His Law (Torah).

The implications here are rather amazing. To go back now with this definition and read much of the “NT” and see how the context of some verses change is nothing short of remarkable, especially considering how anti-law the church at least claims to be. I say that because while they say one thing, they do indeed follow most, although certainly not all, commands that are applicable today. Here is an example of how context changes things dramatically:

Luke 5:32, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (KJV)

Ironically, as I scan many Christian commentaries on this verse, they all seem to unknowingly contradict themselves. Most consider the “righteous” in this statement to be the self-righteous, yet it says Yeshua wasn’t coming for righteous but rather for the sinner. Isn’t self-righteousness sin? Why wouldn’t they need him to come to them as well? If we instead use the definition of righteousness as used in the 1828 Webster’s, the Modern online Webster’s, and Thayer’s definition of the underlying Greek, then what is being said in this verse changes dramatically. But before I share it, let’s define sin:

1 John 3:4, “Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” (KJV)

The word for “transgresses the law” is anomia; it actually means “to be without Law.” So sin is living outside or being without Torah, the Law. And righteousness is conforming to divine law. When we put these together, Luke 5:32 becomes in my own paraphrase: “I have not come to call those who are already living according to Torah, but rather to call those who are living outside of Torah to repent, or return to it.”

This is literally the opposite of how this verse would generally be taught, but I have not stretched anything here. Sin is living outside of Torah, transgressing or breaking commandments. And righteousness is following the commandments. So to live righteously is to live in obedience. Yeshua said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15) This stands in harmony with many verses like Titus 2:12 which says in part, “live righteously.” Indeed, come in faith and then live righteously.

May your walk be a righteous one!
Ken 

Distractions

                                                                      by Ken Rank

As sons and daughters of the Living God, we know one another not by our deep and insightful understanding, not by how many Hebrew or Greek words we know and use, not by how many commands we follow, but rather, by the fruit we produce. When we produce fruit that is in line with the character attributes of God (Fruit produced in His Name), we are known outwardly to those around us because it is the Father’s work we are doing. But that is not how God knows us. God knows us first and foremost by the condition of our heart. Is it aimed at Him? Is it open to walking in His righteousness rather than our own? Only God can see the heart, only God knows motive and intent, thus only God knows where a heart is aimed!

God knows us in other ways, too. John wrote that the love of God is seen in us keeping His commandments (1 John 5:3). There is another way God knows we are His… His sheep hear His voice! The Shepherd knows when His sheep are hearing Him.

We have to understand the concept behind my last statement. The Hebrew word “shema” which is translated as hear, is truly better defined as “hear and do.” So when Yehoshua (Jesus) says in a place like John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice,” he is, as one born into a Hebrew culture, saying, “my people shema my voice.” This is to say, “My people hear my voice and do what I say.” This is backed up in two ways, the first is the remaining portion of that same verse, it ends, “and I know them, and they follow me.” They hear and they follow, they do, they obey. The second way this is backed up is in the word faith. Faith is not just believing, faith is hearing from God, believing what you heard was true because the source was God, and then “living in expectation that what was heard WILL come to pass.” In other words, you heard and did because the voice you heard was God, shema= hear and do.

How do we hear God? In 1 Kings 19 we see Eliyah being given a lesson on this very thing. There was before him as he stood on the mount, a strong wind, a great earthquake, and then fire. Yet, God was not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire. After all these things, there was a soft still voice, the voice belonged to God. God can be heard in His Word, He can even speak through a servant or even through the imagery around us, but we must be willing and able to receive these words. He can also I believe, still speak through that soft and still voice.

We have a problem today that I don’t think people like Enoch or Eliyah or Elisha, or the many prophets of old we read about had to deal with, they didn’t have to attempt to hear God over the distractions we have today. Can you imagine Enoch sitting in front of a television all day being filled with all manner of pop culture? Can you see King David cranking his iPod up all day? What if Noach spent all his time reading jokes on the internet? Would these people have heard God and been used in the mighty ways they were? These are things of the world, and as His sheep, how can we hear that soft still voice of the Shepherd and then conform to whatever it is He is speaking to us, when we force Him to have to yell over top of all the modern technologies we place before Him?

I am not saying you can’t ever watch TV, listen to a radio, or even take in a ball game… but when we don’t set time aside to hear God because of all the distractions “we allow” before Him, we can’t get to the place He desires us to be because He finds Himself competing with politics, football, and dance contests. We find ourselves my dear brethren, in a culture that cares more about whom the next American Idol will be, who the next NFL champion will be, or what our favorite singer’s next album will be like over hearing God and doing what He desires of us.

Many people believe we are in the end times. Some think they need to prepare, they store food, water, even ammo. But the number one preparedness item that is a MUST HAVE when confronted by anything that will come before us, is an ability to hear and discern that soft still voice, and then DO what He tells us to do. He knows ALL things, how do we claim Him as Lord and then NOT make the time to hear His direction? His sheep hear His voice…do you hear His voice? If you don’t, He isn’t the issue, you are. Remember, faith comes by HEARING the Word of God, so remove some distractions, and take the time to hear, because you can’t have faith if you can’t hear. He can’t use you in the manner He would like to, if you can’t shema.

Blessings.
Ken                                                                    Visit Ken @ Facebook

United 2 Restore

                                            by Ken Rank

United 2 Restore is a mission, even a vision, to unite those who identify with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and His Israel. While we understand there will always be diversity of opinion and we acknowledge each individual’s right to come to their own understanding, we hold the view that Judah (the Jews) and Ephraim (found mainly within Christianity), after 2700 years apart, are slowly being drawn toward each other and will soon return to a land promised as one United House of Israel.

We are not seeking to create a sect or denomination; rather, we prayerfully seek to network with like-minded servants of the Most High. As stated, we understand that we simply will not all agree regarding every theological position possible, yet we also believe there is a larger picture, a gathering of all of God’s people, and that any differences that currently exist within those who are His, short of acts against His people, should only be addressed by Him. In other words, let's not allow minutia to slow or halt progress as we have a common goal, the coming reunification of God’s people, a coming Messiah, and a coming Kingdom. We seek only to unite to work together toward that goal. We ask you to join us in this mission and pray for this group and all who join as partners in this mission. Surely forces will stand against us all as we re-build bridges which have been previously burned. May God bless you all!

Follow Ken @ Facebook and please pray for this mission YHWH has laid upon his heart.