jacob prasch moriel ministries: more intra-seal lies!

Jacob Prasch continues to peddle his ill conceived intra-seal "doctrine" with gusto and has recently manufactured some further blatantly untruthful statements:

Jacob Prasch "Who is The Restrainer" Sept 10, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q61kIzMkRqI 

Prasch: "The term katechó (restrainer) is never applied or used in any context with Michael. neither in the Septuagint, the book of Daniel, nor the book of Revelation, he is never called the restrainer, never."

Actually katechó does fit the book of Daniel and Revelation in context with the archangel Michael. It is worth noting that Michael contends (Hebrew mit·chaz·zek root word chazaq) against the Prince of Persia (Daniel 10:21 cf. Jude 1:9). The short definition of the Hebrew word chazaq is strong.{1}  According to Strongs Hebrew and Greek Dictionary, chazaq has a number of words in English to describe its meaning, including restrain.{2} This is a very important point because this is yet another example where we have to question the integrity of Prasch's exegesis. Prasch tells us that he is a Hebrew expert; as such he would know the meaning of chazaq exactly!

Restrain: prevent (someone or something) from doing something; keep under control or within limits.{3} 

Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince. (Daniel 10:21) Michael stands guard (ä·mad'). The Septuagint has "holds with me".{4} This phrase "holds with me" fits perfectly with restrain since katechó means:  I hold fast, bind, arrest, (b) I take possession of, lay hold of, (c) I hold back, detain, restrain, (d) I hold a ship, keep its head.{5}

The Hebrew ä·mad' has a number of different meanings: to stand, remain, endure, take one's stand.

Without going into any further detailed explanations, there is indisputable evidence that Michael does in fact directly restrain Satan in the book of Daniel, in the book of Revelation (future -when he ceases to restrain), and indeed in the Septuagint! We should be asking ourselves the question: Why does Prasch make such a dishonest statement when the exact reverse of what he says can easily be demonstrated? 

Prasch: "Far from preventing Satan from coming to earth and indwelling the person of Antichrist, Michael kicks Satan out at a celestial battle in heaven. Instead of preventing him from coming, he causes him to come. There is a logical and textual inconsistency in what they (the pre-wrath teachers) are saying...."

Prasch is referring to Revelation 12:

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!” (Revelation 12:7-12) 

Obviously there will come a future point when he who restrains will cease to restrain. This is precisely what Revelation 12:7-12 refers to as I am sure Prasch knows very well! Paul referred to the same event when he wrote: he who restrains will come out of the midst (γένηται μέσου 2 Thessalonians 2:7). When this happens, the lawless one will be revealed because he who restrains no longer directly contends/makes war/restrains him. I cannot accuse Prasch of being stupid, so I suggest that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead his hearers! Prasch fails to elaborate on the timing of this event.. in fact the mid point of the 70th week of Daniel. After Satan is expelled from heaven and thrown down to the earth, the time is short - there are only 3.5 years (cut short) for Satan to wreak havoc on the earth through the two beasts, the Antichrist and the False Prophet. Jesus indicated that following the abomination that causes desolation at the mid point of the week: there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be (Matthew 24:21). Daniel indicated that just prior to this same period of distress that Michael shall ä·mad' (Daniel 12:1). There is no logical or textual inconsistency here at all!  Prasch's statement is a blatant inversion of the text and is an outright lie.  

Prasch: "They don't understand the Spirit indwelling and the Spirit outpoured: {6}

The Bible says the precise opposite to Prasch:

In the last days, God says, I will pour out My Spirit on all people; your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. (Acts 2:17 cf. Joel 2:28)

And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:14)

An upsurge of evil takes place in the last days 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Peter 3:3; Jude 1:17-18.

The term “the last days” - refers to the period between the coming of Messiah in the year 29 CE when he began to speak to the Jews, to the time of the end i.e. the return (parousia) of Jesus Christ (Revelation 16:17). The Bible tells us very clearly that the Spirit is outpoured during "the last days" until the end of the age.


The fact that Prasch has made a nonessential into an essential doctrine should be a huge red flag. He continues to peddle his ill conceived doctrine despite all the scriptural evidence to the contrary, and then he has the impudence to tell everyone where the pre-wrath teachers have "got it right" and where they have "got it wrong". He doesn't speak in terms of "I think", "I believe" or "in my view".. Prasch "knows".. and he.."is sure" that the pre-wrath teachers are incorrect about the identity of the Restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2:5-7. This knowall trait of Prasch is blatantly unbiblical (2 Timothy 3:2). Prasch puts himself above some heavy weight Christian scholars in a case where there is no objective proof. There are instances where we can know certain things authoritatively from the scriptures, but the identity of the Restrainer is not one of those instances! A frequent argument of Prasch is that he knows because he "understands" these things better than others due to the illumination of the Holy Spirit. However, somewhat worryingly, Prasch appears to be the only person on the planet who does understand!

According to Prasch, the pre-wrath teachers are generally "cessationist", whereas he is a continuationist. We should be very careful about labelling and dismissing the views other Christians based on subjective biases. Christians who are "cessationist" do actually believe in the illumination of the Holy Spirit where the scriptures are concerned. I am a continuationist myself, but I have to admit that many who boast that they have the illumination of the Holy Spirit are demonstrably not to be trusted (1 John 4:1). Furthermore, where the fruit of the Spirit is not evident in a person's life i.e. love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (Galatians 5:22) then those who claim superior revelation cannot logically claim the illumination of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:1-13).

CF Hogg and WE Vine  

Despite being pretribulationists, CF Hogg and WE Vine (co-writers of Vine's Expository Commentary) rejected the standard pre-trib view that the Holy Spirit is the Restrainer. Their exegesis of the Epistles to the Thessalonians is exceptional, and I dare say, had they been around today, they would have changed their position to pre-wrath.

Hogg and Vine affirm that the allusions to the Restrainer are: "necessarily obsure..... it makes dogmatism on the interpretation of the passage futile and foolish. The difficulties are further enhanced by the fact, that alike in form and in matter, the passage is without parallel in the other writings of this Apostle. His own words 'we know in part and we prophesy in part,' 1 Cor. 13.9, convey a salutary warning here. They go on: "Many attempts have been made to identify this restraining power, but the conditions are such that these are little more than speculative....."  

"The restrainer is the Holy Spirit; that which restrains is the church ; the time of the taking away is the rapture..... This interpretation is without support in other parts of the N.T. Matt. 5.13 has been appealed to, "ye are the salt of the earth," but the idea expresssed in the remainer of the saying is, not that the salt shall be removed, but that it may lose its distinctive character and thus cease to hinder corruption. Neither is it elsewhere stated or implied that the Holy Spirit will leave the earth at the rapture of the saints, for after that event there will be those upon the earth who will witness for God.... in the energy of the Holy Spirit, see Joel 2:28, 29. Yet this interpretation demands not merely that the Holy Spirit change the mode of His operations but that He leave the world entirely. Moreover had the Holy Spirit and the church been in the writer's mind there does not appear to be any reason why he should not have said so plainly..... The suggestion seems to be of quite modern origin, there is apparently, no trace of it in early writings on the subject." {7} 

Hogg and Vine's words "futile and foolish" and "speculative" well describe Prasch's "doctrine", especially since it is now undeniable that his honesty bends to fit his theology.

The Elephant In The Room - Ecumenism

Prasch still has nothing to say about the very worrying question of ecumenist David Noakes whom he recognises as a prophetic voice and to whom he gives a platform. Noakes' "Thus saith the Lord prophecies" throw up some very serious concerns. I will repeat my previous question: Would a true prophet of God be ecumenical? Prasch's close association with the ecumenical "prophet" David Noakes and his accomplice, false prophet, Clifford Hill (Moggerhanger Park) is very revealing.

Prasch seems to have completely missed the major significance of the 2016 Mekudeshet Festival in Jerusalem which saw a major progression of the Counter-Reformation and the one world religion. This event saw "Christians", Jews and Muslims uniting for a “spiritual gathering” dubbed Amen—A House of Prayer For All Believers.{8}  

From Conflict to Communion.. This is Phase V of the Satanically inspired agreement between The  Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Roman Catholic Church. "From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017 -  Published by the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity in the context of the 2017 commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, and the 50th anniversary of dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics."{9} 

These things are taking place under our noses, and yet Prasch and many of his friends do not seem to be cognizant of the breakneck speed of ecumenical developments before us all. Does it make any sense that Prasch is peddling intra-seal at such a time as this? Much less, should his friends at The Columbus Prophecy Conference and Believers in Grace Ministries support him and give him a platform to teach such an easily refuted "doctrine"?  We seem to have the same old problem of irresponsible neglect repeating itself with the Praschites, i.e. the practice of refusing to challenge the unscriptural teachings of powerful individuals for the sake of unity so-called. A timely warning from Prasch's friends before things progressed this far might have done some good (Proverbs 27:6).

Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. (1 Timothy 5:19-21)

Although I personally believe that there is strong evidence to show that Michael is the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9, this post is not about proving that argument. My problem concerns the integrity of Prasch himself as a bible teacher. I have gradually come to the realisation that Prasch is a much more dangerous proposition than I had originally supposed. What do I mean by this? I no longer believe that he is a genuine bible teacher and I now find it perfectly feasible that he could very well be batting for the other side and using diversionary tactics (intra-seal) in order to muddy the waters and confuse genuine believers (Ezekiel 34:18). Prasch's casuistry and equivocation, are, dare I say it, almost Jesuitical. I have come to the point where I would not take anything he says at face value.

My full refutation against intra-seal is constantly developing and can be found at: http://bewareofthewolves.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/jacob-prasch-rapture-holy-spirit-and.html

{1} http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2388.htm
{2} http://whatischazaq.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/what-is-chazaq-its-old-hebrew-word.html  
{3} https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/restrain
{4} http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Daniel/index.htm 
{5} http://biblehub.com/greek/2722.htm
{6}http://www.believersingracevideos.com/01%20Who%20is%20the%20Restrainer.mp3
{7} Hogg CF and Vine WE, 1914: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, pp.254-259 
{8} http://www.cogwriter.com/news/prophecy/is-2016-mekudeshet-festival-leading-to-a-one-world-religion-antipope-francis/  
{9} https://www.lutheranworld.org/lund2016 

Some further concerns about Prasch:
http://galatiansfour.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/jacob-praschs-confusion-regarding.html
http://ukapologeticslibrary.net/ecumenists-clifford-hill-david-noakes-moggerhanger-park/  
http://www.understanding-ministries.com/docs/An%20expos%20of%20shocking%20false%20teaching%20and%20unseemly%20invective.pdf