https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDxV2PCDIGk
Prasch introduces his teaching on "the ten and the forty" towards the very end of this session at approximately 52 minutes. After explaining how the Counting the Omer of Leviticus 23:15–16 is also applicable to the period between the resurrection and Pentecost, Prasch goes on to falsely apply the Omer eschatologically to the end of the age.
Prasch: "Eschatologically however the same thing happens at the end of the age.. there will be a bride in travail - there will be another harvest of Israel - all Israel will be saved.. These things will happen again. At the end of the seven weeks there was a ten day period between the ascension and Pentecost that was very very difficult for the apostles and the believers, the hundred and twenty.." (55:45) ..Remember the ten is always from Satan." (57:25)
The contention that the ten day period between the ascension and Pentecost was "very very difficult" for the apostles and believers is completely unfounded. A simple review of Acts 1 shows the very opposite to be the case:
On the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection, the apostles received the Holy Spirit: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: (John 20:19-22). During the forty day period before his ascension, Jesus taught them and gave them many convincing proofs, speaking things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3). After Jesus' ascension, during the ten days before Pentecost, the believers were praying together and planning ahead: They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. (Acts 1:14). Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot. (Acts 1:15-26). The number ten, in this instance, is a picture of faith and confidence as the believers waited for the Holy Spirit and their future mission as His witnesses. (Acts 1:8). Where are Prasch's "difficulties", and what has any of this got to do with Satan? Neither the number ten or forty are applicable to Prasch's warped eschatology!
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: (Acts 1:1-3).
We need to question why Prasch teaches such a thing, or rather several things, that are the diametric opposite of the scriptures, things that completely misrepresent the events that will take place at the end of the age.
Referring to the ten days in between Jesus' ascension and Pentecost as "that point", Prasch continues: "It was at that point they finally realised who the son of perdition was.."
There is no evidence to suggest that the disciples realised who the son of perdition was during the ten days prior to Pentecost. Actually, there is every indication that the disciples knew exactly who the son of perdition was on the first day, on the Emmaus Road, and not during this ten day period. Jesus revealed that Judas Iscariot would betray him at the last supper. (John 13:21-26). After betraying him, Judas returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders and went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:3-5). It seems extremely likely that the disciples would be aware of these events.
On the Emmaus Road - the same day as the Resurrection: And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27).
Peter reviews the events concerning Judas Iscariot after Jesus' ascension. This review precedes the proposal to choose Judas Iscariot's replacement. (Acts 1:20-26).
“Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Acts 1:16-17).
Prasch: "At the end of the age it will be the same. At this point we will realise who the Antichrist is..."
If Prasch's supposed eschatological Omer is equivalent to the tribulation as he teaches, then the revelation of the Antichrist "at this point" is unsound. The scriptures tell us very clearly that the Antichrist will be revealed at the mid point of Daniel's 70th week i.e. immediately prior to the tribulation. (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
Prasch: Now it has its equivalent in the ?, the Ten Days of Awe in between the Feast of Trumpets and Yom Kippur, a ten day period.. ten is always Satan.
This is an extraordinary piece of misinformation in light of the Jewish explanation of the Ten Days of Awe:
"The ten days from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur are known as Aseret Yemei Teshuvah, or the Ten Days of Repentance (more accurately translated as the Ten Days of Return). When the prophet Isaiah tells the Jewish nation to repent for their sins, he says, “Seek G‑d when He may be found; call Him when He is close.”1 When is that? The sages say that this verse refers to these ten days, when G‑d is especially close to us." {1}
Prasch also teaches inaccurately about the ten and the forty on his website:
Prasch: “Forty is the number of testing when the test comes from God. Ten is the number of testing when it is not from God. God may allow it for His purpose. In Daniel’s day Israel was tested at the hands of the Babylonians. In Smyrna believers in Jesus were tested at the hands of the Romans and the Pagans. When the test comes NOT from God, the number is ten.” {2}
There are a number of instances that the number forty, not necessarily days, is associated with testing in the scriptures. However, we cannot apply it in this instance. In this context, the appearances of Jesus to the disciples for forty days after the resurrection was a period of instruction and preparation: (Acts 1:1-3). Its counterpart can be found on Mount Sinai when Moses received the commandments for forty days and nights. (Exodus 24:18; 34:28).
Prasch has based his tenuous argument for “the ten and the forty” on one short excerpt of scripture from Daniel 1. He has previously linked the ten days tribulation in Smyrna with Daniel 1:8-16, specifically, verses 12 and 14, where the period of ten days is repeated three times.
Prasch: “Then there is this period of ten days. It says it four times. Explicitly three times, and then it refers to it as ‘the end of the days’ the fourth time..... Then at the end of the days which the king had specified for presenting them, the commander of the officials presented them before Nebuchadnezzar. (At the end of the ten days.)”
The phrase: “the end of ten days” appears once in verse 15, and “ten days” appears twice in verses 12 and 14. Prasch's assumption that the phrase “the end of the days” in Daniel 1:18 relates specifically to the end of the ten days is false. Verse 18 does not refer to the end of the literal ten days at all; in fact it refers to the end of the three year period specified by Nebuchadnezzar, see Daniel 1:5. The omission of the word “ten” in verse 18 is inserted by Prasch in order to fit in with his “end of the (ten) days” tribulation theory.
But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. 9And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, 10and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.” 11Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 12“Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’s food be observed by you, and deal with your servants according to what you see.” 14So he listened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days. 15At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king’s food. 16So the steward took away their food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables. 17As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. 18At the end of the time, when the king had commanded that they should be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. (Daniel 1:8-18).
There are several problems associated with Prasch’s eisegesis of “the ten and the forty” and the meaning of “ten days” in biblical typology. He makes the assumption that we always read Daniel in light of Revelation. This is true of the prophetic material found in Daniel, but the context of Daniel 1 is historical and not prophetic. Furthermore the context of Daniel 1 does not match Revelation in the sense that Prasch teaches. The ten days that Daniel and his companions were tested was not a period of tribulation, much less the terrors of the persecution that took place in Smyrna. Although they had been taken into captivity, God gave Daniel favour and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs. (Daniel 1:9). Christ tells the believers in Smyrna “be faithful to death..” - this was not the case with Daniel who invited the test (v 12). The ten days that the Christians in Smyrna were to be tested was, in my view, a literal ten days, whereas the great tribulation goes on for 3.5 years (cut short). (Matthew 24:22).
When we come across the words test, trial and tribulation, we do need to look at the context. A test, peirazó, is to test or to tempt, whereas tribulation, usually, but not always, goes a stage further, thlipsis in this case. Revelation 2 uses both words in relation to Smyrna. Daniel 1 (Hebrew nasah) has the same meaning as peirazó prove, tempt, try. The word “test” (nasah) in Daniel 1:12 is frequently used of God in relation to men, as in Genesis 22:1. God did prove Abraham.
Apart from Daniel 1, ten days are specifically mentioned in the scriptures in Nehemiah 5:18, Genesis 24:55; Jeremiah 42:7. Ten relates to God’s authority over human government and law, as in Exodus 20:1-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21; 1 Kings 11:31-35; Ruth 4:2). Ten also represents human government under the influence of Satan e.g. the ten toes of iron and clay (Daniel 2:42), and the beast with ten horns (Revelation 10:24; 13:1 17:12). “Ten is viewed as a complete and perfect number, as is 3, 7 and 12. It is made up of 4, the number of the physical creation, the number of man. As such, it signifies testimony, law, responsibility and the completeness of order.” {3} Daniel 1 actually fits into the ten day paradigm perfectly. Nebuchadnezzar, a type of the Antichrist, seeks to impose his unrighteous will upon the faithful believers who are his captives. However, Daniel and his companions prove the government of God over the government under the influence of Satan over a period of ten days, and indeed ultimately. The king’s "choice food" is unfit for consumption by the people of God.. there is much symbolism here, but tribulation is excluded.
Prasch: He first going to try to destroy the church? Do you understand?"
The Antichrist will go after Israel (the woman) first before he turns his attention towards the church:
And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman (Israel) which brought forth the man child. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 12:13-17).
Prasch's false eschatology identifies the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 as the Holy Spirit. This is a further case of blatant eisegesis! The scriptures do not identify the Restrainer at all! It was false teacher John Nelson Darby who originally identified the Restrainer as the Holy Spirit. This dubious assumption concerning the identity of the Restrainer forms part of pre-trib eschatology to this day.
Prasch not only deprives the world of the Holy Spirit for the entire seven year period of Daniel's 70th week, he now begins to deny the Holy Spirit's presence among believers during the tribulation! On two separate occasions Prasch teaches that the presence of the Holy Spirit will diminish among believers as we proceed into his fictional Omer.
Moriel Scottish Conference 2018 - Jacob Prasch - Gartmore - 3 Nov 2018:
Session 4 - Saturday 3rd November 2018
Prasch: "The presence of the Lord in the churches is going to become more scarce as we proceed into the Omer." (33:00)
Prasch: The same thing happens again. At the end there will be no church, there will only be individual believers, disunited with no power, standing in hope of the return of Christ. As Jesus went and sent the Spirit, the Holy Spirit goes, not from our hearts, but from restraining in the world, and sends Jesus.. There is a gap period, a ten day period it has its equivalence in the Oran? for Israel and the Jews in the Days of Awe. This is the Omer. The Omer shows us what it is going to be like at the end of the age..... Secondly, there will be a very serious testing of faith.. His presence will be more and more withdrawn, although he is not gone yet. (1:05).
For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20).
And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20 cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4; John 10:10).
Prasch's denial of the presence of the Holy Spirit eschatologically is nothing less than blatant heresy!!!
As mentioned in my previous post, Prasch brazenly switches the Emmaus Road events to the day after the resurrection. The fictional "second day of the Omer", is Prasch's pièce de résistance as far as deception goes. {4}
Prasch’s phony eschatology and his scripture twisting is beyond ridiculous. Not only is it beyond ridiculous, it is extremely dangerous for those who are foolish enough to take it on board. I am astonished that the men who share a platform with Prasch have not corrected him scripturally. Surely they cannot be unaware of the problems, not only with his heretical denial of the presence of the Holy Spirit eschatologically, but also the vile behaviour exhibited by his vicious attack upon David Nathan and others. Their silence makes these men culpable. I have recently asked Bill Randles for his thoughts on Prasch's intra-seal theory and his more recent false teaching in Scotland.
{1} https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1620809/jewish/The-Ten-Days-of-Repentance-The-Aseret-Yemay-Teshuvah.htm
{2} https://www.moriel.org/online-sermons/23-sermons-in-english/5920-when-god-speaks.html
https://youtu.be/DIyCfAs7Li0
{3} http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/10.html
{4} https://bewareofthewolves.blogspot.com/2018/11/jacob-prasch-moriel-ministries-counting.html
