Many health care professionals state that a person can live anywhere between 4 to 6 weeks without food, and a week without water. According to the World Health Organization, “hunger is the gravest single threat to the world’s public health… [It] is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality… [It] currently affects more than one billion (1 out of 6) people on earth.” Prolonged starvation can also cause permanent organ damage and eventually death. Images of starving children with distended bellies, swarming flies and little or no clothing have almost become commonplace in society.

Many look at this suffering and blame God for “His lack of compassion and involvement in humanity.” But quite the opposite is true! God warned humanity that if they lost love for Him and focused their concern away from God, our present world would be the result: “Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything…”  (Deuteronomy 28:47-48).

Christ survived starvation for 40 days and was strengthened because of the event. He accomplished this feat because He was filled with—not starving for—the Spirit of God. His thirst for God’s Spirit was never quenched, even though it was given to Him without measure. Christ stated: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6). 

What mankind eats and partakes of today does not satiate. A prophet wrote: “You shall eat, but not be satisfied; Hunger shall be in your midst” (Micah 6:14). To God, this world, which is spiritually starving, must appear much like famine-stricken people throughout the world. Mankind is starving, yet refuses to take in the nourishment that would ultimately save them!

A proverb states: “Laziness casts one into a deep sleep, And an idle person will suffer hunger” (Proverbs 19:15). It takes effort and commitment on our part to satisfy our hunger and fulfill our desire for the understanding of God’s Word. We were spoon-fed as babes, but as adults, WE must lift the fork to our mouth. If we have that willingness, Christ promises: “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).

Our lead articles deal with the ongoing Health Care debacle and President Obama’s long-awaited speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 (or 9-9-9, the upside-down version of 6-6-6, according to a statement by CNN). In trying to find a “middle ground” due to the so-called Baucus Bill and opposition from the far left and the right, President Obama resorted to compromise and abrogation of earlier promises during the Presidential Campaign. However, as the Drudge Report stated on September 9, in spite of the President’s efforts, at least “44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in opposition to the current health care bill in the House, a Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will vote against a health care bill without a strong public option. Unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone.”

On top of that, the “voluntary” resignation of Green Czar Van Jones earlier this week says “much about the Obama White House… marking the latest sacrifice to the political gods after a long summer of compromises and surrenders highlighted the limits of White House power” (Politico, September 6, 2009).

Further articles deal with the German attack in Afghanistan and the national and international condemnation of that action. While Chancellor Merkel strongly supported the attack, the German media expressed the fear that the “public discussion” will do more harm than good; that is, for the relationship between Germany and the USA and NATO, as well as for Afghanistan itself. And although it is being recognized that German military involvement in Afghanistan is highly unpopular in Germany, and that the latest debacle will only increase the demand to withdraw German troops, the opinion is being expressed that such withdrawal would have disastrous consequences for Afghanistan–especially in light of the creation of a new breeding ground for radical Islamists.

What damage a “strict interpretation of Islam” can do to citizens having to live under those repressive restrictions can be seen in developments in Sudan, which sound like reports from the times of barbaric conditions and persecutions in the Middle Ages.

In other news, we report about rifts between the USA and Europe over proposed ridiculous measures by the USA involving overseas travelers; widening rifts between the USA and Israel over new housing settlements; and widening rifts between the USA and Britain over the British-Libyan oil deal. While Britain has denied over the last two weeks that a deal was struck involving purchase of oil for the release of a convicted Libyan mass murderer and terrorist, finally Justice Secretary Jack Straw’s admission of such a deal was grudgingly and reluctantly forthcoming. And even though it is difficult to determine how much we can believe those British politicians who were involved with the deal, the charge by British officials that “Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return” and that the subsequent public U.S. reaction to the release was highly hypocritical, is quite telling. 

While China is warning the USA to stop printing more and more dollars and the UN proposes to replace the U.S. Dollar, the Financial Times explains why Germany’s economic “recovery” might actually be bad news for the country and for the entirety of Europe. Mass hysteria in the USA and elsewhere, pertaining to the swine flu “pandemic” and the “need” to get vaccinated, is not matched at all in Germany. There, the overwhelming majority of citizens stated that they would definitely not participate in any mass vaccinations.

Turning to Europe, we are reporting on a very interesting, but widely unknown defense pact–the so-called “Modified Brussels Treaty” from 1954, which is still in force and effect today. It states that if “any of the… contracting parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other… contracting parties will …afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.” This treaty, which reminds us of the existence of a treaty which led to World War I, was adopted and ratified by ten European nations–France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece. We need to be aware that irrespective of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (which “got past one more stumbling block after the German parliament voted for legislation that would ease the treaty’s ratification”), the Bible shows that ten nations or groups of nations will ultimately rule Europe. THEY will give their power and authority to a military leader, who will invade the Middle East and the Holy Land. Also, the role that Turkey or “Edom” will play in the future should be of some interest.

For more information, please read our free booklets, “Europe in Prophecy,” “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord,” “Is That in the Bible? The Mysteries of the Book of Revelation!” and “The Book of Zechariah–Prophecies for Today!” 

Our last article reports about an astonishing discovery of a lost world in a remote volcanic crater on the Pacific island of Papua New Guinea–populated by fanged frogs, grunting fish and tiny bear-like creatures, as well as, probably, the biggest rat in the world. This shows that there are still unexplored locations on this earth–including our vast oceans–which are populated with previously unknown animal species. Our recent Q&A on the biblical Leviathan addresses this phenomenon in more detail.

The U.S. Health Care Debate

Before President Obama’s long-awaited Health Care speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, September 9, 2009, the press reported about a new proposal circulating in Congress on Tuesday, which–it was felt–could create a problem for the President.

The Associated Press wrote on September 8:

“Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday… Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in most states, [Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee] would a require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to get insurance would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level – about $66,000 for a family of four – would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

“The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it. ‘Punishing families who can’t afford health care to begin with just doesn’t make sense,’ he said during his party’s primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children…

“The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They’ve drawn a line, saying they won’t vote for legislation if it doesn’t include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs… An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

“It would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.”

The President’s Speech–More Broken Promises

In his speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama showed his willingness to “modify” his stance and to alter or abrogate promises which he made during the Presidential campaign.

The Associated Press reported on September 9:

“The change was subtle, but significant. In his speech to Congress on Wednesday night, President Barack Obama gave a more accurate — and less reassuring — account of the impact of his proposed health care overall than he has done in the past. It went by in a blink…

“[The plan does not] guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they’d be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it…

“House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill was actually deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn’t have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts. Their only-in-Washington reasoning was that they already decided to exempt this so-called ‘doc fix’ from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn’t have to be paid for because they decided it doesn’t have to be paid for…

“In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did NOT embrace as a candidate. He proposed during the campaign — as he does now — that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he REJECTED the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance WITHOUT BEING FORCED to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage… Now, he says, ‘individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.'”

The Times added on September 9:

“President Obama vowed tonight to succeed where a century of American politicians have failed and introduce comprehensive reform of a healthcare system that had led the US to ‘breaking point’… The plan would make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage because of patients’ pre-existing conditions, to drop coverage when they become ill or to set arbitrary limits on the amount a policy-holder can claim in a given year…

“Mr Obama’s strategic dilemma is whether to insist on a state-run insurance plan to compete with private ones and lose all hope of Republican backing in the process, or to sacrifice the so-called public option for the sake of bipartisan support. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is urging him to abandon the Republicans and insist on a shift towards a European-style government role in medical coverage. The President appears ready to risk their wrath for the sake of a Bill that might not win even a single Republican vote in the Senate, and that centrists in his party can sell to constituents at the mid-term elections…

“Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the finance committee, said that he would produce a Bill for the committee to debate by the week of September 21, with or without Republican support. The Baucus Bill would not contain a public option… Howard Dean, the former Democratic presidential contender, has threatened to organise primary challenges in next year’s elections against any House Democrats who fail to insist on a public option in whatever Bill the President ultimately endorses… [Powerful] Democrat… Mike Ross… said that he would refuse to back any Bill containing a public option…

“Tonight [President Obama] channelled some of that fire into the most hallowed forum in American democracy, but he will need to save some for the horse-trading that begins in earnest on a Bill likely to cost more than $900 billion over ten years. He faces [a] long, arduous autumn on the political high wire.”

One Czar Left–More to Follow?

Politico wrote on September 6:

“The resignation early Sunday of ‘green jobs’ adviser Van Jones says as much about the Obama White House as it does about Jones – marking the latest sacrifice to the political gods after a long summer of compromises and surrenders highlighted the limits of White House power.

“The departure – nominally the choice of a still-defiant Jones, who said he feared distracting from important business – confirmed Obama’s choice of pragmatism over confrontation and a belief that controversies sometimes are better solved by capitulation, a view that infuriates Obama’s allies on the left…

“White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs [stated:] ‘What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual,’… agreeing with the show’s host, George Stephanopoulos that Obama ‘doesn’t endorse’ Jones’s remarks on race and politics, his apparent flirtation with the ‘9/11 Truth’ movement, and his advocacy for the convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal…’

“The resignation, in turn, confirmed [Fox News’ Glenn] Beck’s stature as the administration’s most potent foe. Along with the talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report’s Matt Drudge, Beck helped drive a summer of protest against health care reform that turned the legislation into a referendum on change and government.”

The Afghan Debacle–Rift Between Germany and USA

The Associated Press reported on September 6:

“An airstrike by U.S. fighter jets that appears to have killed Afghan civilians could turn into a major dispute between NATO allies Germany and the United States, as tensions began rising Sunday over Germany’s role in ordering the attack. Afghan officials say up to 70 people were killed [according to other reports, at least 125 or 135 people allegedly died, including a large number of children] in the early morning airstrike Friday in the northern province of Kunduz after Taliban militants stole two tanker trucks of fuel and villagers gathered to siphon off gas.

“Afghan and NATO investigations are just beginning, but both German and U.S. officials already appeared to be trying to deflect blame. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said the Taliban’s possession of the two tankers ‘posed an acute threat to our soldiers.’ German officials have said the tankers might have been used as suicide bombs…

“[Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, the top U.S. and NATO spokesman] said he hopes a U.S.-German rift does not develop over the strike…”

Afghan Debacle Big Problem For German Politicians

Der Spiegel Online reported on September 7:

“The attack has drawn international condemnation amid fears that the civilian casualty rate could undermine the Western effort to bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan. It has also prompted criticism of the German army from its NATO partners and is set to put the German government under mounting pressure to come up with an exit strategy for its around 4,200 troops in Afghanistan. The attack is dominating the German election campaign with less than three weeks to go before the Sept. 27 vote.

“The mission is deeply unpopular in Germany, which has a strong pacifist streak because of its Nazi past… Senior German commanders were reported on Monday to be furious at NATO’s decision to allow the Washington Post reporter to accompany the seven-member NATO investigative team in its probe of the bombing. ‘It stinks to high heaven,’ one unnamed commander told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung newspaper. The report said German commanders accused the US army of ‘deliberately leaking misinformation about an ongoing investigation’…”

Deutsche Welle reported on September 8:

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel has delivered a staunch defense of her country’s mission in Afghanistan, following international and domestic uproar over last week’s deadly NATO airstrike… While promising a thorough investigation and a full report on the raid, which is believed to have left dozens of Taliban militants as well as civilians dead, Merkel slammed critics for drawing premature conclusions.”

German Media Reactions to Afghan Debacle

Der Spiegel Online reported on September 7 about the reactions of the German media to the debacle in Afghanistan:

“Germany, which has often condemned US military operations in Afghanistan that led to civilian deaths, is now on the receiving end of international criticism following Friday’s air strike. The criticism seems justified, write German media commentators, but they add that internal disputes within NATO can only help the Taliban…

“Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: ‘The allies are fundamentally embittered about Germany’s tendency to offer advice and little in the way of action… Now this nation that always knew everything better and criticized the military strategy of the troop providers in the south is responsible for an air strike with what may turn out to be the highest number of civilian casualties.’

“The left-wing Frankfurter Rundschau writes: ‘…Jung’s strategy of avoidance is explosive. He’s provoking the allies by trying to whitewash the German army’s role…’

“Business daily Financial Times Deutschland writes: ‘The air strike clearly violated NATO’s mission guidelines. Air strikes may only be ordered if there’s imminent danger. And that is hard to see when two fuel tankers are stuck in the sand…’

“Conservative Die Welt writes: ‘There was no imminent danger for Allied troops or the Afghan population. The tankers were stuck in a river bed and weren’t rolling towards German positions as mobile fire bombs. But deriving serious errors and accusations from that, as some European allies are now doing, doesn’t do justice to the tense situation facing the German army in northern Afghanistan… This mustn’t lead to accusations within the alliance. That would be the beginning of the end.’

“Mass circulation Bild writes: ‘The days when a divided Germany could stay out of international conflicts are over… The Americans — who still have the massive German criticism of them ringing in their ears — can barely conceal their schadenfreude: look, the good Germans too are responsible for killing civilians… If allies wage war against each other, they only end up doing their enemy’s job. It’s clear that leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban would be the greatest mistake — and would make a mockery of our soldiers. A fixed date for withdrawal would send a fatal message too…'”

Is Withdrawing German Troops the Solution?

Deutsche Welle added its opinion on September 7, as follows:

“The alliance in Afghanistan appears to be more deeply split than was commonly known. Germany’s Bundeswehr has been openly criticized by its partners in Washington and London – even before there are any official inquiry results. The Bundeswehr has been as harsh in its criticism of the US military, which it says deliberately leaked false information in order to discredit the German commitment in Afghanistan. The dispute is being carried out in the media… The consequences: the Afghan people will lose faith in the process of democratization… The Taliban must be rubbing their hands in glee…

“The Bundeswehr’s image as a reconstruction force has been damaged – with unforeseeable consequences. Attacks on German troops will increase. The public – in Afghanistan and in Germany – will see less of a difference between fighting the insurgency and war… All of this is poison for the development in Afghanistan. Allies who are at odds on one hand, an increasing number of civilian victims and a triumphant Taliban on the other hand… The appeal to get German troops out of Afghanistan may garner votes, but it is by no means a stable concept for the future of Afghanistan.” 

The Netzeitung wrote on September 7:

“A NATO air strike in northern Afghanistan has exposed the German government and military to unprecedented criticism from its closest allies. This is unlikely to increase Berlin’s resolve to help fight the Taliban or bolster the transatlantic alliance… Germany has long purported to be doing a better job of helping Afghanistan by focusing on policing and reconstruction efforts rather than brutally eradicating the Taliban and al Qaida – as the US military is wont to do. Such arguments, of course, conveniently overlook the fact that Germany has consistently refused to join America and its other allies in the fiercer fighting taking place in the southern part of the country…

“Some German commentators have begun mooting that the heavy criticism of the air strike is retaliation for Germany’s supposed readiness to point out the military mistakes of its allies in Afghanistan while keeping its own troops safe in their northern bases. They are also questioning the unusual indiscretions during the investigation of the incident… Is it merely payback time for the Germans? Are they being punished for first being combat shy and then for being too trigger-happy? For the sake of the transatlantic alliance – not to mention the people of Afghanistan – we have to hope that NATO members are above petty games involving such extremely high stakes…

“Unfortunately, the controversy surrounding the air strike is unlikely to make most Germans think about why their troops were sent to Afghanistan in the first place. The deployment remains deeply unpopular here… While German reluctance to use lethal force is commendable, the idea that Germany retreat from its international commitments to let its allies take the bullets is absolutely unacceptable.

“But if it turns out scores of civilians were killed in the air strike, it will not encourage most Germans to redouble their military efforts in Afghanistan. Instead, calls to end the Bundeswehr’s deployment along the Hindu Kush are sure to increase. This would be troubling not only for the NATO mission in Afghanistan, but also the implications for Berlin’s place in the transatlantic alliance. Afghanistan is not Iraq. That doesn’t mean NATO forces should remain there indefinitely, but allowing the country to descend back into the kind of chaos conducive to breeding Islamist terrorism is simply not an option.”

If You Lived in Sudan…

The Associated Press wrote on September 7:

“A Sudanese judge convicted a woman journalist on Monday for violating the public indecency law by wearing trousers outdoors and fined her $200, but did not impose a feared flogging penalty. Lubna Hussein was among 13 women arrested July 3 in a raid by the public order police in Khartoum. Ten of the women were fined and flogged two days later. But Hussein and two others decided to go to trial…

“The case has made headlines in Sudan and around the world and Hussein used it to rally world opinion against the country’s morality laws based on a strict interpretation of Islam… Hussein’s lawyer said… the judge ignored his request to present defense witnesses. ‘The ruling is incorrect,’ he said, adding that the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements… [He] said the judge had the option of choosing flogging, but apparently opted for fine to avoid international criticism…

“Human rights and political groups in Sudan say the law is in violation of the 2005 constitution drafted after a peace deal ended two decades of war between the predominantly Muslim north and the Christian and animist south Sudan.

“[An] Amnesty statement said Sudan had been urged to amend the law which permits flogging… after eight women were flogged in public in 2003 with plastic and metal whips leaving permanent scars on the women. The women had been picnicking with male friends… In a column published in the British daily the Guardian Friday, Hussein said her case is not an isolated one, but is a showcase of repressive laws in a country with a long history of civil conflicts.”

Rift Between Europe and the USA?

The Associated Press reported on September 4:

“The European Union is strongly criticizing a congressional proposal to charge a $10 fee to some visitors to the United States and suggesting it may carry a price for U.S. travelers. If it passes, the EU says, some U.S. travelers to Europe could face retaliation… Europeans see the issue as yet another potential hassle that the United States is preparing to burden Europe’s citizens with…

“Early, this year… the United States began requiring people traveling to the United States under the visa waiver program to register online at least 72 hours before travel and renew their registration every two years. If the new proposal is passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, it would require all visitors to pay the fee when they register… [The European Commission’s Ambassador to Washington, John Bruton] said the EU will have to reconsider whether the U.S. registration system with the new fee would amount to a visa. The EU might then have to consider visas for U.S. travelers.”

Widening Rift Between Israel and the USA

The Associated Press reported on September 4:

“Alarmed by Israeli plans to build new housing units in settlements and dimming prospects for American peace efforts, the Obama administration on Friday put out a rare and harsh public rebuke of its main Mideast ally. The White House said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s settlement plans were ‘inconsistent’ with commitments the Jewish state has made previously and harmful to U.S. attempts to lay the groundwork for a resumption in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. ‘[The] United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge that it stop,’ White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement…

“Netanyahu’s aides… said any Israeli settlement freeze would not halt building the new units and or block completion of some 2,500 others currently under construction. They also said the freeze would not include east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians hope to make their future [capitol]. The unusually blunt White House criticism reflected the administration’s growing frustration with Netanyahu…

“Netanyahu’s refusal to bend on the settlement issue despite repeated U.S. appeals threatens to damage Obama’s credibility in the Arab world. The administration is counting on Arab support for a resumption in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations but will not likely get it unless Netanyahu makes concessions on settlements.”

Bloomberg added on September 7:

“Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved the building of 455 housing units in the West Bank, defying U.S. demands for a freeze on settlement construction. The Palestinian Authority immediately condemned the move, saying it ‘undermines the belief that Israel is a credible partner for peace.’… Jewish settlers, who provide support for Netanyahu and many of his Cabinet ministers, said accepting a freeze on construction would be ‘catastrophic for the government.’… Reacting to reports Sept. 4 that Israel would approve more construction in the West Bank, Amre Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, said such a move would ‘destroy the peace prospects entirely.’” 

Oil Deal Admitted–After All the Denials…

BBC wrote on September 5:

“Trade and oil played a part in the decision to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner transfer deal, Jack Straw has admitted. Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, the UK justice secretary said trade was ‘a very big part’ of the 2007 talks that led to the prisoner deal with Libya. However, Mr Straw’s spokesman accused the press of ‘outrageous’ innuendo…

“On Wednesday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisted there was ‘no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double dealing, no deal on oil’ over his release. But officials admit the prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) was part of a wider set of negotiations aimed at bringing Libya in from the international cold, and improving British trade prospects with the country.”

CNN added on September 5:

“An oil deal and trade concerns with Libya were at one point considered as factors in the Lockerbie bomber’s release, British Justice Secretary Jack Straw said in an interview published Saturday. And Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son, who was involved in negotiating accords between the two nations, told CNN that Libya pressured the British government to include the convicted terrorist in a 2007 prisoner release agreement that was tied to trade deals…

“Straw first assured Scotland he would tell the Libyans that Britain would not agree to any prisoner transfer treaty unless al Megrahi was specifically excluded. But only three months later, he told Edinburgh he was giving up efforts to keep al Megrahi out of the deal ‘in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom.’

“Gadhafi’s son Saif al-Islam Gadhafi told CNN that initially, Britain refused to heed to Libya’s demands that al Megrahi be included in the prisoner release agreement. ‘There was no mention of Mr. Megrahi until the British said, “we are ready to sign but there should be a clause mentioning that Mr. Megrahi is excluded.” And then we said no,’ Gadhafi said. ‘We were very very angry. It’s not acceptable.’

“The agreement was eventually signed and days later, Libya approved a huge oil exploration contract with BP.”

Widening Rift Between UK and USA

Mail-On-Line wrote on September 5:

“Downing Street has hit back at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for attacking the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber. President Obama and the US Secretary of State fuelled a fierce American backlash against Britain, claiming Abdelbaset Al Megrahi should have been forced to serve out his jail sentence in Scotland…

“British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return. The officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.

“‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide. ‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US…’

“American politicians claimed the Anglo-US ‘special relationship’ had been damaged ‘for years to come’ because the UK had gone back on a joint pledge that Megrahi would stay behind bars in Scotland.”

UN Proposes to Replace U.S. Dollar

The Telegraph wrote on September 7:

“The dollar should be replaced with a global currency, the United Nations has said, proposing the biggest overhaul of the world’s monetary system since the Second World War… Although a number of countries, including China and Russia, have suggested replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, the UNCTAD report is the first time a major multinational institution has posited such a suggestion… The proposals, included in UNCTAD’s annual Trade and Development Report, amount to the most radical suggestions for redesigning the global monetary system.”

Irresponsible US Economic Policy?

The Telegraph wrote on September 6:

“The US Federal Reserve’s policy of printing money to buy Treasury debt threatens to set off a serious decline of the dollar and compel China to redesign its foreign reserve policy, according to a top member of the Communist hierarchy.

“Cheng Siwei, former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and now head of China’s green energy drive, said Beijing was dismayed by the Fed’s recourse to ‘credit easing’. ‘We hope there will be a change in monetary policy as soon as they have positive growth again,’ he said… ‘If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies,’ he said. China’s reserves are more than… $2 trillion, the world’s largest…

“Mr Cheng said the root cause of global imbalances is spending patterns in US (and UK) and China. ‘The US spends tomorrow’s money today,’ he said. ‘We Chinese spend today’s money tomorrow. That’s why we have this financial crisis.’ Yet the consequences are not symmetric. ‘He who goes borrowing, goes sorrowing,’ said Mr Cheng. It was a quote from US founding father Benjamin Franklin.”

Germany’s Uncertain Economy

The Financial Times wrote on August 31:

“The European Union’s biggest member goes to the polls in less than four weeks. Yet while Germany’s economic prospects rest precariously on a recovery in foreign demand, the campaign has been free of any real debate about the country’s extraordinary export dependence. This is worrying… addressing the underlying disequilibriums will require changes in member states’ economic structures. If this does not happen, long-term growth in Europe will be weak and tensions within the eurozone inevitable.

“… the return of the German economy to growth may be a mixed blessing for Europe. Mounting confidence in Germany that it is on the cusp of a return to rapid export-led growth is likely to reduce pressure on the country’s authorities to focus more on domestic demand…

“There is a tendency in Germany to portray criticism of German policy as ‘anti-German’ or as a product of envy. But it is no more anti-German than German criticism of the poor management of the US and British economies is anti-American or anti-British. As for envy, Germany’s growth performance has been one of the weakest in Europe for years… A reinforced German belief in the superiority of export-led growth would be a recipe for weak growth in Germany and serious problems elsewhere in Europe…”

Mass Vaccinations Against Swine Flu?

According to Bild Online, dated September 7, when asked whether they would be immunized against the swine flu, 62% of Germans answered, “No way.” Only 14% said that they would be immunized “for sure,” while 33% responded that it was not “likely” that they would do it. 82% of Germans believe that the danger of being infected with the virus is relatively small or very small. Only 4% feel that the danger of an infection is very great.

Modified Brussels Treaty of Ten European Member States

The EUobserver wrote on September 3:

“A group of the EU’s major foreign policy players is waiting to find out what happens to the Lisbon Treaty before deciding if it should keep or scrap an old ‘musketeer’ defence pact. The security pact is found in Article V of the Modified Brussels Treaty, created in 1954 at the height of the Cold War. ‘If any of the high contracting parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other high contracting parties will …afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power,’ it states.

“The contracting parties are EU and Nato member states France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece… The Brussels Treaty is significant because it is the only European defence pact in existence. In terms of legal theory, if a Nato and Brussels Treaty member state was attacked and the US-led Nato alliance failed to honour its musketeer clause, the country could instead invoke the Brussels Treaty as a back-up.

“… the 1954 treaty is also significant because some of its 10 parties are interested in keeping it alive so that Article V could in future be used as the basis of a new EU-level defence pact, a source at the Western European Union (WEU) told EUobserver…

“The WEU expects its 10 member states to hold talks on its future in the few months after the fate of the Lisbon Treaty becomes clear… The Lisbon Treaty does not contain a European defence pact. But Lisbon would give EU member states a mandate to progressively frame ‘a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.'”…

One Step Closer to Lisbon Treaty Ratification

Der Spiegel wrote on September 8:

“The beleaguered Lisbon Treaty got past one more stumbling block on Tuesday after the German parliament voted for legislation that would ease the treaty’s ratification in the EU’s biggest country… However, the so-called ‘accompanying laws’ will still need to be passed by the upper house or Bundesrat on Sept. 18, before Germany can finally give the green light to Europe’s star-crossed treaty.

“The treaty, which is designed to ease decision-making in the 27-member European Union, has stalled in a number of countries, including Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. In Ireland a second referendum is to be held on Oct. 2 after the Irish government secured a number of guarantees on issues such as neutrality, abortion, taxation and the right to a commissioner. The latest opinion poll, conducted by the Irish Times, showed only 46 percent of respondents saying they would definitely vote ‘yes,’ a slump of eight points from the last poll in May.”

EU and Turkey

The EUobserver wrote on September 7:

“The EU’s relationship with Turkey has turned into a ‘vicious circle’, with growing distrust on both sides, the Independent Commission on Turkey, a panel of experts chaired by Nobel Peace Prize winner Martti Ahtisaari warns in a report issued Monday (7 September). ‘Continued negative comments by European political leaders, combined with growing public hesitation about further EU enlargement, have deepened resentment in Turkey and slowed the necessary reforms,’ the document reads.
 
“French President Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly questioned Turkey’s right to become an EU member, pointing to its geography, which stretches from southeastern Europe to Asia Minor. The question of 70 million Muslims set to become EU citizens is also frequently invoked by opponents to Turkish membership in countries such as Austria, Germany or the Netherlands.”

It is very unlikely that Turkey–the biblical “Edom” in history and prophecy–will become a member state of the EU. At the same time, the Bible shows that end-time Turkey will be on “friendly” terms with Europe against Israel.

A Lost World–Found

The Guardian wrote on September 7:

“A lost world populated by fanged frogs, grunting fish and tiny bear-like creatures has been discovered in a remote volcanic crater on the Pacific island of Papua New Guinea… A team of scientists from Britain, the United States and Papua New Guinea found more than 40 previously unidentified species when they climbed into the kilometre-deep crater of Mount Bosavi and explored a pristine jungle habitat… In a remarkably rich haul from just five weeks of exploration, the biologists discovered 16 frogs which have never before been recorded by science, at least three new fish, a new bat and a giant rat, which may turn out to be the biggest in the world…

“They found the three-kilometre wide crater populated by spectacular birds of paradise and in the absence of big cats and monkeys… the main predators are giant monitor lizards while kangaroos… live in trees. New species include a camouflaged gecko, a fanged frog and a fish called the Henamo grunter, named because it makes grunting noises from its swim bladder.

“‘These discoveries are really significant,’ said Steve Backshall, a climber and naturalist who became so friendly with the never-before seen Bosavi silky cuscus, a marsupial that lives up [in] trees and feeds on fruits and leaves, that it sat on his shoulder.”

James 2:2 contains a statement which, at first sight, may be difficult to understand, as it seems to contradict other biblical passages. A careful analysis of the Scripture shows, however, that there is no inconsistency, and that James addresses an important principle related to our Christian way of life.

James 2:1-6 reads, in context:

“(1) My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. (2) For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, (3) and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and say to the poor man, ‘You stand there,’ or, ‘Sit here at my footstool,’ (4) have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?… (6) But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into courts?”

Some commentaries understand this passage to refer to Church worship services of early Christians. If this is correct, how can we harmonize the fact that the Bible demands of us to appear before God in proper and acceptable clothing, as we will show below, while James seems to be saying that we must honor a poor man in “dirty” clothing when he worships with us on the Sabbath?

For a general discussion on proper dress of Christian men and women — including on the Sabbath — please read our Q&A on that topic.

That we ought to appear properly dressed for worship services, has been the long-standing teaching of the Church of God, and for good reason:

We must understand that we are appearing before GOD. God is a great King. God is the Creator of everything that is good and costly and priceless. He is the Creator of beauty. He most certainly is the Creator of quality. He owns all the gold and silver, and it is He who made it all. If we were to be invited by an earthly king, how would we appear in front of him? Imagine, that the Queen of England would invite you to visit her at Buckingham Palace. Would you want to appear in unwashed, dirty clothing, wearing washed-out jeans, a T-shirt, and sneakers?

How much more should we appear before GOD, the KING over His creation, in proper clothes! The famous parable in Matthew 22:10-13 about the king’s wedding feast for his son contains a spiritual lesson, but it also describes a physical principle–that we dress appropriately for the occasion. It DID matter to the king–God the Father–how the guests were dressed for the wedding of His Son, Jesus Christ.

In this context, we must not neglect culture. In the Western World, it is normally appropriate for men to wear a suit, or a nice combination, with a shirt and a tie. But even in certain parts of the Western World, it may perhaps be appropriate to wear a shirt without a tie, or to wear something else, instead. Other countries have still other customs. In the Philippines, Hawaii or Africa, people may dress up differently. But the key is – they dress up. They know what it means to dress up. In the U.S.A., Canada or in England, men don’t dress up, when they appear in worship services with an open shirt, a T-shirt or jeans.

Ladies should also wear appropriate clothing, of course. In addition, their dresses should not be too short or too tight or too revealing–but this principle would also apply in general, not just during Church services. But especially when focusing on our worship of God in an official setting, we should always think in terms of how we would want to dress if we were invited to appear before the Queen of England in an official capacity. (When discussing worship services, we are of course not talking about a ball, when we would wear a tuxedo or an evening dress.)

God gives us the freedom to determine what is appropriate clothing, within the acceptability of proper dress in our cultures, but to clarify, God does not give us the freedom to violate His specific instructions so that we can follow our culture. For example, God has told us how to wear our hair. We are told that it is a shame for a man – young or old – to wear long hair. If Native Americans are called to God’s Way of Life, they cannot continue wearing long hair, following their cultural upbringing, as God has specifically said not to do it. Also, God told us that women – young or old – are to wear hair long enough to distinguish a woman from a man. You might want to review our Q&A on proper hair length for men and women.

In addition, some brethren are scattered. They cannot physically join with other members on the Sabbath, so they listen to sermon tapes, or they sit in and listen to live Internet worship services (In passing, those who can physically attend are commanded to do so, and they are not permitted to just use Internet access as a substitute and as an excuse for not “having” to attend Church services in person). If scattered brethren have Sabbath worship services “in their home,” while listening to tapes or to live Internet Church services, they still appear before God during that time, and again, we don’t want to appear before God uncombed, unshaved and unwashed, or by just wearing our pajamas.

Having said all of this, how are we then to understand James 2:2, which seems to be teaching the opposite–that is, that it does not matter how we appear before God in Church services, and that we can appear in dirty or vile clothes and God does not mind.

However, this is not what James is saying at all.

If we apply James’ statements to worship services on the weekly or annual Sabbaths, two factors have to be kept in mind.

First, James is drawing a comparison. He compares the appearance of a rich and prosperous man — who is aware of his riches and manifests them without any sense of recognition or compassion for others — with the appearance of a poor man. The translation of the words “with filthy clothes” in James 2:2 (“vile raiment” in the Authorized Version) is somewhat misleading in the context. The Greek word for “filthy” or “vile” is “rhuparos” and can ALSO have the meaning of “relatively cheap” (compare Strong’s under No. 4508). Some translations say, “shabby,” but it is used in comparison with the splendid appearance of the rich man.

Second, if applied in that sense, it is important to note that the context speaks of a person “coming into your assembly.” James does not seem to be talking about regular Church members (who know how they ought to dress when they appear before God), but a newcomer or a guest.

Albert Notes’ on the Bible writes: “The reference here seems to be, not to those who commonly attended on public worship, or who were members of the church, but to those who might accidentally drop in to witness the services of Christians. See 1 [Corinthians] 14:24.”

In addition, there is another possibility as to how to understand this passage–and that is, that the context does not even address worship services, but formal judicial or administrative proceedings within the Church.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible writes that “assembly” refers to the “place of religious worship where saints are assembled together for that purpose; though some think a civil court of judicature is intended, and to which the context seems to incline; see [James] 2:6.”

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible elaborates:

“Assembly here is meant of those meetings which were appointed for deciding matters of difference among the members of the church, or for determining when censures should be passed upon any, and what those censures should be; therefore the Greek word here used, sunagoge, signifies such an assembly as that in the Jewish synagogues, when they met to do justice. Maimonides says… ‘That is was expressly provided by the Jews’ constitutions that, when a poor man and a rich plead together, the rich shall not be bidden to sit down and the poor stand, or sit in a worse place, but both sit or both stand alike.’ To this the phrases used by the apostle have a most plain reference, and therefore the assembly here spoken of must be some such as the synagogue-assemblies of the Jews were, when they met to hear causes and to execute justice…”

Whatever the exact context and application of the passage, it is James’ desire to show that we must not condemn another person or judge him or her based on his or her outward appearance, and that we should not show preference or partiality by honoring one person more than another, only because one is rich and one is poor. James was not saying that it is immaterial how we appear before God. When representing ourselves in Church services (or even during an internal “court” proceeding within the Church, see 1 Corinthians 6:4-5), we must be dressed for the occasion.

But others are not to condemn a “poor” person who is visiting for the first time or who has just begun attending because he is not dressed in an appropriate way. In addition, the way in which he is dressed might be the best the person can do. Also, when a person shows up for the first time for Church services, he or she may not know exactly what the proper dress standards for worship services are. And finally, rather than condemning a person or looking down on him for not dressing up, we should be lending a helping hand and give the needy what is necessary to meet the proper standard.

The same would be true in the context of a court setting within the Church. Even though proper etiquette and dress code would be important even in such a situation, the failure of applying such appropriate standards must not induce a minister to look down on a poor person–and to elevate the rich at the same time–and to render an unrighteous judgment as a consequence.

James points out that we must be careful not to condemn or mistreat one who is not appropriately dressed, because he may not know better, or because he or she does not have better clothes. James discusses our approach and conduct toward the rich and the poor. We are not to look down on a poor person, dishonoring him or her, while giving preference and undue attention to a rich person. We must love the poor person, and not reject him, even though he comes in with less than appropriate clothing, but rather than condemning, we could try to help him to dress more appropriately in the future.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

A new StandingWatch program was recorded last week and posted on StandingWatch and YouTube, titled, “America in Deep Trouble!” The program discusses the fact that America’s problems are increasing with lightening speed, and national and international confidence in America’s President and Congress is rapidly decreasing. Friendly relationships with Israel, Britain and Japan are in decline, and threats against America’s economy and its very survival are mounting. Also, pending health care proposals are of frightening consequences, once the intended concepts are fully realized, but the mass media seems to be unwilling to discuss them.

A new German StandingWatch program, titled, “Risiko!–Massenimpfungen gegen Schweinegrippe?” [“Risk–Mass Vaccinations Against Swine Flu?”] has been posted on You Tube and on our German Website.

A new German sermon, titled “Sondert Euch Ab!” (“Be Separate”), was posted on the Web.

On September 5, 2009, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “Fellowship.”

The services can be heard at  www.cognetservices.org (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Recently, Norbert Link has begun an important and eye-opening series of sermons about the book of Galatians. One aspect that immediately stands out is his clarification of the true source of a Christian’s faith–that it is Jesus Christ and not ourselves!

Galatians 2, verse 16, states: “‘…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith [of] Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith [of] Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.'”

Note that the NKJV along with most translations do not accurately portray the real meaning of this powerful verse; hence the bracketed word “of”–instead of “in”–renders more accurately what Paul actually wrote. The continuing verses (17-19) reinforce this meaning, and verse 20 is very explicit in showing that it is Christ’s living faith at work in us that we now have:

“‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith [of] the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.'”

We have been taught–and we should know with certainty–that Jesus Christ, our Savior, is not only alive and seated at the right hand of God acting as High Priest on our behalf, but He and the Father live in us through the Holy Spirit (compare John 14:23). Without such a godly relationship, we would have no basis for hope beyond this life! Note how Paul explained this in writing to the brethren in Colosse about the mystery God was revealing to them:

“To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27).

People talk about Jesus Christ–and hundreds of millions of people have said He is the Messiah. This is not enough, and Jesus very specifically warned His followers to not be deceived by these proclamations (compare Matthew 24:4-5).

The real test to know for sure is to know that Christ is living His life in us, and Paul challenges us on this point:

“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, THAT JESUS CHRIST IS IN YOU?–unless indeed you [do not stand the test]” (2 Corinthians 13:5).

The relevancy for us could not be more urgent! Just take time to consider the trials faced by those called to the knowledge of the Truth in both this and past decades. Now also think about what we know from God’s Word about prophecies for the times ahead! In speaking about what His servants would face–especially, in the closing generation of this age–Jesus makes a promise. His statement shows the absolute proof that He both is and will continue living in His followers to impart His faith, His wisdom and whatever we need from Him:

“‘[F]or I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist'” (Luke 21:15).

The Word of God abounds with the true understanding of the relationship we are to have with the Father and His Son. That same document challenges everyone to make certain–even to “test yourselves”!

We begin with an article discussing the distinct possibility of an imminent Israeli attack on Iran without giving prior notice to or obtaining consent from the U.S.A. We continue with another article about the terrible prospect of the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and the potentially catastrophic consequences for the USA. One commentator suggests that a “regional war or nuclear attack could cause an already shaky U.S. economy to collapse… Within a year of that attack, nine out of 10 Americans would be dead… That would be a world without America, as a practical matter.”

While the evidence strongly suggests the existence of an oil-related deal between Britain and Libya to release a convicted Libyan mass murderer and terrorist (in spite of the weak denial of Justice Secretary Jack Straw)–leading to a further erosion of the U.S.-British “friendship”–surprising election results in Germany and Japan show that one can never be too sure of political outcomes. The “erosion” of the main German parties and the fact that the main winners were the “smaller parties in Germany’s increasingly fragmented political landscape” (such as the Left party, descendants of the former ruling party of communist East Germany), bring back grim memories of the Weimar Republic, which led to the rise of Hitler. And it is exactly 70 years ago, that World War II started, on September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland.

Arab nations are gaining economic influence in Germany, foreshadowing a biblically-prophesied economic and political arrangement or “confederacy” between Germany and certain Arab countries; and the outcome of the Japanese election suggests that the “U.S.-led Pax Americana era has come to an end.” At the same time, the new Japanese government vows to improve ties with Asian neighbors–which is remarkable in light of biblical prophecy, showing that a powerful huge army of Far Eastern nations will invade the Middle East in the near future.

Turning our attention to the USA, American voters are disillusioned with their Congress as never before. 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over. Still, more than 90% of Congress routinely gets reelected every two years–showing how absolutely ludicrous our voting habits are. While more REALLY bad news surfaced regarding President Obama’s health care proposals and California’s troubles don’t seem to end–now being engulfed with seven terrible wild fires–UPS faces accusations of willful discrimination and violation of their employees’ constitutional rights (such as the right to observe the Seventh-Day Sabbath); and more and more U.S. banks are collapsing.

We conclude with a macabre development in Europe and the USA–the merchandise of human bodies and body parts. One of the main villains in this despicable but highly lucrative business worth billions of dollars is a German company, headquartered in Bavaria. But man’s willingness to stop at NOTHING will find its sudden end, as Revelation 18:9-20 reveals. In that context, Revelation 18:13 refers specifically, among other things, to the merchandise of “bodies and souls of men.”

For more information on biblical prophecy in light of world news (including those developments reported herein), please read our free booklets, “Europe in Prophecy,” “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord,” and “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America.”

Will Israel Attack Iran Without Prior Notice?

The LA Times wrote on August 30:

“Iran has until late September to respond to the latest international proposal aimed at stopping the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear weapon. Under the proposal, Iran would suspend its uranium enrichment program in exchange for a U.N. Security Council commitment to forgo a fourth round of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

“But if diplomacy fails, the world should be prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons facilities… If Israel attempts such a high-risk and destabilizing strike against Iran, President Obama will probably learn of the operation from CNN rather than the CIA. History shows that although Washington seeks influence over Israel’s military operations, Israel would rather explain later than ask for approval in advance of launching preventive or preemptive attacks. Those hoping that the Obama administration will be able to pressure Israel to stand down from attacking Iran as diplomatic efforts drag on are mistaken.

“The current infighting among Iran’s leaders also has led some to incorrectly believe that Tehran’s nuclear efforts will stall. As Friday’s International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s nuclear programs revealed, throughout the political crises of the last three months, Iran’s production rate for centrifuges has remained steady, as has its ability to produce uranium hexafluoride to feed into the centrifuges.

“So let’s consider four past Israeli military operations relevant to a possible strike against Iran.

“In October 1956, Israel, Britain and France launched an ill-fated assault against Egypt to seize control of the Suez Canal. The day before, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles grilled Abba Eban, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., about Israel’s military buildup on the border with Egypt, but Eban kept quiet about his country’s plans.

“In June 1967, Israel initiated the Six-Day War without notice to Washington, despite President Johnson’s insistence that Israel maintain the status quo and consult with the U.S. before taking action…

“On June 7, 1981, Israeli fighter-bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak shortly before it was to be fueled to develop the capacity to make nuclear weapons-grade plutonium. Again, Washington was not informed in advance. President Reagan ‘condemned’ the attack and ‘thought that there were other options that might have been considered.’

“A few days later, Prime Minister Menachem Begin told CBS News: ‘This attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel. … Every future Israeli prime minister will act, in similar circumstances, in the same way.’

“Begin’s prediction proved true on Sept. 6, 2007, when Israeli aircraft destroyed what was believed to be a North Korean-supplied plutonium reactor in Al Kibar, Syria. Four months earlier, Israeli intelligence officials had provided damning evidence to the Bush administration about the reactor, and the Pentagon drew up plans to attack it. Ironically, according to New York Times reporter David Sanger, President Bush ultimately decided the U.S. could not bomb another country for allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction. An administration official noted that Israel’s attack went forward ‘without a green light from us. None was asked for, none was given.’

“These episodes demonstrate that if Israel decides that Iranian nuclear weapons are an existential threat, it will be deaf to entreaties from U.S. officials to refrain from using military force…”

Could Iran Destroy the USA?

Newsmax wrote on August 30:

“Concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities — and their potentially devastating impact on America — are mounting… The Islamic republic has test-fired missiles capable of reaching Israel, southeastern Europe, and U.S. bases in the Mideast — and published reports say Iran is within a year of developing its own nuclear bomb…

“The United States is caught in the middle of a Mideast faceoff between one of its strongest allies, Israel, and Iran. Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel refuses to rule out a preemptive strike against its adversary, while insisting that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

“If the United States tries to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons, its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has vowed a campaign of bloody revenge. Iran’s hatred of Israel ‘is rooted in ideology,’ said Walid Phares of Foundation for Defense of Democracies. ‘The Iranian regime is jihadist, and they do not acknowledge nor accept the idea that a non-Islamic, non-jihadist state could exist in the region.’

“Although Iran is thousands of miles from America’s shores, its belligerent actions could have far-reaching repercussions. A regional war or nuclear attack could cause an already shaky U.S. economy to collapse. Even scarier is the growing threat of an electromagnetic pulse attack, security analysts say. Such an attack could destroy all electronic devices over a massive area, from cell phones to computers to America’s electrical grid, experts say.

“’Within a year of that attack, nine out of 10 Americans would be dead, because we can’t support a population of the present size in urban centers and the like without electricity,’ said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy. ‘That would be a world without America, as a practical matter. And that is exactly what I believe the Iranians are working towards.'”

The British-Libyan Deal

The Sunday Times wrote on August 30:

“The British government decided it was ‘in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom’ to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal. Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

“The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release. The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests…

“Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi… Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included…

“In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: ‘I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion. The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.’

“Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody. Saif Gadaffi, the colonel’s son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal…”

Not surprisingly, Jack Straw denied allegations of a deal. In an article published by the BBC, dated August 30, it is stated:

“Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said reports that the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was released over an oil deal are ‘wholly untrue’…

“Responding to the report [of the Sunday Times, quoted above], Mr Straw said on Sunday that the ‘normalisation of relations with Libya’ was in the UK’s interests… Mr Straw said a prisoner transfer agreement was part of that agreement. ‘But was there a deal? A covert, secret deal ever struck with the Libyans to release Megrahi in return for oil? No, there was not and there is no evidence whatsoever because it is untrue'”…

“Liberal Democrat MP Sir Menzies Campbell, a member of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said: ‘Jack Straw’s intervention has simply muddied the waters. We need a full and frank comprehensive statement about the extent to which Mr Megrahi’s fate may have featured in any trade negotiations between the United Kingdom and Libya…’

“David Lidington, the Conservatives’ foreign affairs spokesman, said leaks and ‘secrecy’ around the case were damaging to international relations and public trust…”

Special Relationship Between Britain and USA Is Dead

The Times wrote on September 1, 2009:

“Michael Jackson is dead — and so now is the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the United States. The row over the decision to allow Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi to return to Libya is the final nail in the coffin for the transatlantic bond first identified by Winston Churchill after the Second World War. Even Barack Obama abandoned his normal diplomatic tone to criticise the ‘highly objectionable’ arrival of the bomber in Tripoli. Robert Mueller, the head of the FBI, said that the release of the man convicted of murdering 270 people on Pan Am Flight 103 made a ‘mockery of justice’ and would give ‘comfort to terrorists around the world’. There was a widespread assumption in Washington all along that the decision was linked to a trade deal.

“For the Americans, this is not just about justice it is also about trust — the White House sees the release of al-Megrahi as a blatant breach of an agreement given by the British Government that he would serve out his sentence in Scotland. It is impossible to sustain a relationship, let alone a special one, if one partner can no longer believe what the other one says. In Whitehall there are already nervous mutterings about whether intelligence-sharing and military co-operation will be able to continue in the same way.

“This may be a tipping point but in fact the United States has been tilting away from Britain for some time. Ironically, at the very moment when people in this country are rediscovering after years of hostility their love of America — as a result of the election of the first black president — the Americans are tiring of their old European flame.

“On holiday on Long Island this summer, I was struck by the anti-British mood… In different areas, antipathy towards Britain is taking hold just as anti-Americanism in this country fades… Newsweek, the magazine that hailed Cool Britannia in the 1990s, recently redefined us as ‘Little Britain’, a nation struggling to keep a foothold in a rapidly changing world…

“There was always an inequality between Britain and America, but the US used to respect the UK because it was reliable. With the release of al-Megrahi the bond of trust has been destroyed. The special relationship is over, but the real problem is that it is not at all clear what if anything will replace it. It is 45 years since the late US Secretary of State Dean Acheson said that ‘Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role’. As the balance of power shifts around the world, it is even farther from finding one now.”

Could World War II Have Been Prevented?

Der Spiegel wrote on September 1 and 2:

“World War II began 70 years ago when Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. It would last six years… But the Allies missed several opportunities to stop Hitler in the run-up to the war… The inferno Hitler had unleashed led to an escalation of violence unprecedented in the history of mankind. About 60 million people were killed, more than half of them women, children and the elderly. Six million people died in the Holocaust alone…

“In the years leading up to World War II, Britain and France underestimated just how determined Adolf Hitler was in his lust for conquest. The failure of Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement meant war was inevitable.”

Bad State Election Results for Merkel

The Financial Times wrote on August 30:

“Angela Merkel, German chancellor, suffered an electoral setback four weeks before the country’s general election… Elections in the small western state of Saarland and in the eastern states of Saxony and Thuringia revealed an erosion of the CDU’s influence. But they also failed to deliver the good news its Social Democratic (SPD) rivals had hoped for.

“The main winners were the smaller parties in Germany’s increasingly fragmented political landscape. The polls showed voters turning away from the CDU and SPD, which have ruled together in a grand federal coalition for four years and have held a dominant place in German political life since the second world war.

“The two main parties saw their total vote share fall from 78.3 per cent to less than 60 per cent in Saarland and from 57.5 per cent to 50.9 per cent in Thuringia… In the two eastern states, the SPD ended behind the radical Left party. In Saxony it also finished behind the pro-business Free Democratic party… The regional polls are a key milestone before the September 27 general election and are a bitter disappointment for the SPD…”

Der Spiegel Online added on August 31:

“If Sunday’s vote showed anything, it was that a ‘black-yellow’ coalition — as the CDU-FDP alliance is known, after the parties’ official colors — is far from certain on the national level. Even in the eastern state of Saxony, where the CDU got 40 percent of the vote, a coalition government featuring the FDP as junior partner is not certain. Reports that the national election had already been decided appear to have been greatly exaggerated…

“It’s safe to assume that the SPD will attack more strongly in the coming weeks… But their main target will not be the current chancellor and CDU leader, Angela Merkel — she is too strong and most Germans seem to want to keep her in the top slot. The attacks will be aimed at FDP chief Guido Westerwelle. As the designated foreign minister (a position traditionally given to the governing coalition’s junior partner) with no obvious expertise in international politics, he represents the weakest point of a CDU-FDP coalition. As Sunday evening showed, the weaker the FDP, the greater the SPD’s chances of staying in government.”

Deutsche Welle added on August 31:

“… on Monday, many German newspapers warned against reading too much into Sunday’s election results. ‘Interpreting this setback [for Merkel] as a clear signal of a turnaround in the battle for Berlin in four weeks is wide of the mark,’ the Financial Times Deutschland wrote. Business daily Handelsblatt noted that ‘trying to predict the outcome of the federal election from Sunday’s results is about as reliable as reading tea leaves.'” 

The Netzeitung wrote on September 2:

“Germany’s neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) stands to gain a taxpayer-funded windfall for being re-elected to Saxony’s state parliament on Sunday, according to daily paper Die Tageszeitung. The paper reported this week that the NPD is set to receive EUR 100,000 of Saxon state money to fund its political foundation Bildungswerk für Heimat und Nationalstaat… The NPD says the foundation’s far-right message aims to educate people about the German homeland and nationalism.

“‘This [re-election] shows the NPD has a core voting public,’ Anetta Kahane, chairwoman of the Amedau Antonio Foundation in Berlin, told Die Tageszeitung, adding it was ‘sheer luck’ that the NPD didn’t also win seats in the Thuringia state parliament at the weekend. In Thuringia the NPD fell just below the five-percent limit with 4.3 percent of the popular vote.”

However, the Left party (“Linke”), descendants of the former ruling party of communist East Germany, and the FDP, a conservative-leaning business-friendly party, were Sunday’s biggest winners. The “Linke” received 21.3% of the votes in Saarland; 20.6% in Saxony; and 27.4% in Thuringia. The CDU lost 20 seats in all three states and the SPD lost one. The FDP gained 16 seats; and the Linke gained eight. In addition to the victory of the “Linke” in two former East German states and in Saarland, on the French border, Germany’s increasingly fragmented political landscape is of great concern, as it might remind us of the terrible times of the Weimar Republic, leading to the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Qatar Invests Heavily in Volkswagen

Netzeitung wrote on August 29:

“The Gulf state of Qatar has taken a 6.78-percent stake in Europe’s biggest carmaker Volkswagen as part of a plan to take over around 17 percent of the company… Qatar’s investment will total some EUR 7 billion and the country will become the third biggest shareholder in Volkswagen behind the Porsche and Piech families and the German state of Lower Saxony.”

This development is interesting in light of the fact that the Bible speaks of a coming “confederacy” between Germany and Arab nations in the near future.

Changes in Japan–Has the U.S.-Led Pax Americana Era Come to an End?

The Associated Press wrote on August 30:

“Japan’s ruling party conceded a crushing defeat Sunday after 54 years of nearly unbroken rule as voters were poised to hand the opposition a landslide victory in nationwide elections, driven by economic anxiety and a powerful desire for change… ‘These results are very severe,’ Prime Minister Taro Aso said in a news conference at party headquarters, conceding his party was headed for a big loss. ‘There has been a deep dissatisfaction with our party’…

“The loss by the Liberal Democrats — traditionally a pro-business, conservative party — would open the way for the [left-of-center] Democratic Party, headed by Yukio Hatoyama, to replace Aso and establish a new Cabinet, possibly within the next few weeks. The vote was seen as a barometer of frustrations over Japan’s worst economic slump since World War II and a loss of confidence in the ruling Liberal Democrats’ ability to tackle tough problems such as the rising national debt and rapidly aging population…

“The Democrats have also said they will seek a more independent relationship with Washington, while forging closer ties with Japan’s Asian neighbors, including China…”

Reuters added on August 31:

“The Democrats want to forge a diplomatic stance more independent of the United States, raising fears about possible friction in the alliance. They have also vowed to improve ties with Asian neighbors, often frayed by bitter wartime memories.

“‘(Hatoyama) is basically articulating the idea that the U.S.-led Pax Americana era has come to an end,’ said Sheila Smith at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. ‘My sense… is that they have wanted a little distance between Tokyo and Washington.'”

Incredible News on Japan’s New First Lady

The Independent wrote on September 3:

“Miyuki Hatoyama, wife of Japan’s Prime Minister-elect, Yukio Hatoyama… has travelled to the planet Venus. And she was once abducted by aliens… The 62-year-old also knew Tom Cruise in a former incarnation – when he was Japanese.”

And these are the people who are “helping” to govern countries and who are very influential in the political affairs of this world…

America Has Spoken: Get Rid of Entire Congress

The Rasmussen Report wrote on August 30:

“If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again.

“… the number of Democrats who would vote to keep the entire Congress has grown from 25% last fall to 43% today… 70% of those not affiliated with either major party would vote to replace all of the elected politicians in the House and Senate. That’s up from 62% last year.

“Republicans… overwhelmingly support replacing everyone in the Congress… 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.

“Three-out-of-four (74%) trust their own economic judgment more than Congress’… Seventy-five percent (75%) say members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than they are in helping people… Despite these reviews, more than 90% of Congress routinely gets reelected every two years…”

More REALLY Bad News on Obama’s Health Care Proposals

On September 3, the Drudge Report published the following article which was first published by the Washington Examiner on September 2:

“Under the Democrats’ health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers. In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.

“Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an ‘acceptable’ health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don’t have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credit; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.

“The Democrats’ plan would require all Americans to have ‘acceptable’ insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of ‘acceptable’) and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have ‘acceptable’ coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

“If it all matches up, you’re fine. If it doesn’t, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don’t have ‘acceptable’ coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.

“Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill, the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for insurance. Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans who can’t afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come directly from the Health Choices Administration.

“In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work. Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not, the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would give the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive, confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The IRS would have to provide it…

“So far, there has been little substantive public debate about the integral role of the IRS in nearly every aspect of the various national health care proposals. But people who are closely involved with the process are deeply concerned about what they view as a massive, and in some senses unprecedented, expansion of the Internal Revenue Service…”

California on Fire

The Wall Street Journal reported on August 31:

“California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Monday declared a state of emergency for four California counties as [at least eight] wildfires burn throughout the state, including a massive one near Los Angeles… With flames about a half-mile away from the communications and astronomy centers on Mount Wilson, crews planned to set more backfires and planes dropped fire retardant around the mountaintop complex, which hold transmitters for more than 20 television stations, many radio stations and cell phone providers…

“Mandatory evacuations were in effect for neighborhoods in Glendale, Pasadena and other smoke-choked cities and towns north of Los Angeles… In La Crescenta, where the San Gabriel Mountains descend steeply to suburban neighborhoods, streets were nearly deserted Monday morning as smoke rose up some flanks of the towering peaks.”

As of Wednesday, the biggest fire near Los Angeles (“Station Fire”), which began on August 26 and was apparently “human-caused,” was only 22 percent contained. So far, the blaze has destroyed more than five dozen homes, killed two firefighters and forced thousands of people from their homes.

Is UPS Violating Employees’ Constitutional Rights?

The National Law Journal wrote on August 31:

“Late Thursday, in what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is calling a ‘major class lawsuit,’ UPS was sued in federal court in Chicago for allegedly denying sufficient medical leave to disabled employees. The Thursday suit claims UPS sets arbitrary deadlines for returning to work after medical treatment — in one case firing an employee who would have exceeded its 12-month leave policy by mere weeks — in violation of federal law.

“Just two months ago, UPS settled a religious discrimination lawsuit with the EEOC in Tennessee, in which the company was accused of requiring a 19-year driver to work past sundown on his Sabbath, which violated his beliefs as a member of the United Church of God. UPS denied that it engaged in discrimination, but agreed to pay $23,500 in damages to the employee.

“And in January, a federal jury in New Jersey ordered UPS to pay $10,000 to a man who was denied a job because his Rastafarian religious beliefs forbid him from shaving his beard.”

More U.S. Banks Fail

Bloomberg wrote on August 29:

“Regulators closed banks in California, Maryland and Minnesota yesterday, pushing U.S. bank failures to 84 this year amid continuing fallout from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

“The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was named receiver for Affinity Bank of Ventura, California, Bradford Bank of Baltimore and Mainstreet Bank of Lake Forest, Minnesota, after yesterday’s closings, the FDIC said. Assets of $1.9 billion and deposits of $1.7 billion from the three banks were turned over to new lenders at a total cost of about $446 million to the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund…

“Regulators have closed banks at the fastest pace in 17 years and more are likely… A total of 416 banks with combined assets of $299.8 billion failed the FDIC’s grading system for asset quality, liquidity and earnings in the second quarter, the most since June 1994…

“The FDIC insures deposits at 8,195 institutions with roughly $13.5 trillion in assets and reimburses customers for deposits of up to $250,000 per account when a bank fails. The surge in failures has depleted the Washington-based regulator’s deposit insurance fund, which fell to $10.4 billion at the end of June from $13 billion in the previous quarter… The total was the lowest since 1993.”

Macabre Merchandise of “Bodies of Men”

Der Spiegel wrote on August 31:

“The German company Tutogen’s business in body parts is as secretive as it is lucrative. It extracts bones from corpses in Ukraine to manufacture medical products, as part of a global market worth billions that is centered in the United States… In addition to strips of skin, tendons, bones and cartilage are removed from the bodies…

“The incident in the Ukrainian capital is part of the secretive daily routine of a little-known but highly lucrative branch of the medical industry, in which companies use corpses to make medical spare parts. In doing so, they reuse almost everything the human body has to offer: bones, cartilage, tendons, muscle fascia, skin, corneas, pericardial sacs and heart valves. In the jargon of the profession, all of this is referred to as tissue…

“According to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, more than a million bone parts are used in transplants every year. In no other country [other than the USA] is it possible to make so much money with body parts. If a body were disassembled into its individual parts, then processed and sold, the total proceeds could amount to $250,000 (€176,000). For a single corpse! The US tissue industry generates total revenues of about $1 billion a year…

“Tutogen paid its Ukrainian partners a fixed price for each body part. In January 2002, the company paid €42.90 for a complete femur, €42.90 for a humerus and €13.30 to €16.40 for a pericardial sac, depending on its size. Graduated prices were also arranged with the Ukrainians. Take, for example, the removal of patellar tendons with bone segments, known as ‘bond-tendon-bone,’ or BTB. When coroners supplied less than 40 BTBs on-site, Tutogen paid €14.30 apiece. For larger numbers of BTBs, the price went up: to €23 apiece for 40 or more BTBs and to €26.10 for 60 or more. For a coroner, who makes about €200 ($287) a month in Ukraine, such graduated prices must have been an incentive to remove as much body material as possible…

“The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently lists 20 facilities in Ukraine that are authorized to supply body parts for the US market. But no matter which of these facilities one clicks on in the FDA database, all share the same contact information: the telephone number of Tutogen Medical GmbH in northern Bavaria.”

We have explained this passage, in detail, in our booklets, “Is That in the Bible?–Man’s Holidays or God’s Holy Days,” and “God’s Commanded Holy Days.” In these booklets, we show from Scripture that Colossians 2:16-17 does not teach–as many have erroneously concluded–that the weekly Sabbath and the seven annual Holy Days are no longer binding; in fact, correctly understood, that particular passage teaches the exact opposite.

First, we want to quote from our booklet, “Is That in the Bible?–Man’s Holidays or God’s Holy Days,” which contains a more general discussion of the passage. This will be followed by a very specific discussion of, among other concepts, the grammatical structure of the passage in the original Greek, as quoted from our booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” revealing in much detail the intended meaning of that Scripture.

To begin with, please note the following excerpts from our booklet, “Is That in the Bible?–Man’s Holidays or God’s Holy Days“:

“In the New King James Bible, Colossians 2:16–17 reads as follows: ‘So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival [margin: ‘feast day’] or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ’…

“Let’s first look at the phrase, ‘the substance is of Christ.’ The word ‘is’ is not in the Greek. It was added by the translator in an attempt to make the meaning clearer; however, this addition has, to the contrary, confused and perverted the meaning. Without the word ‘is’ in that particular phrase, it simply states, ‘…but the substance of Christ.’ What is the substance of Christ?…

“The literal meaning for the word ‘substance’ is ‘body.’ The Greek word here is ‘soma’ and is otherwise translated as ‘body’ throughout the New Testament, and especially in the letter to the Colossians… With that understanding, let us turn again to Colossians 2:16–17, where Paul says: ‘Let no one judge you… regarding a festival or Sabbaths… but the body of Christ.’ In other words, let no one, except the body of Christ—the Church—judge in those matters. The Church—the body of Christ—the preserver of the truth—CAN, and should, judge in that regard.

“The Colossians were criticized by their opponents, not by Paul, when they kept the Sabbath and the Holy Days (Note that Paul refers to ‘Sabbaths’; that is, to both the weekly and the annual Sabbath or Holy Days.) Paul is essentially saying to them: I am speaking on behalf of the Church when I tell you that you should continue keeping the Sabbath and the Holy Days, as this is what the Church has judged and resolved to do, based on the Scriptures.

“Colossae was a predominately Gentile city, although some Jews undoubtedly lived there as well. The Christian converts in Colossae had begun to keep the weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days, and Paul essentially told them: ‘Don’t listen to your former friends and your relatives who try to convince you not to keep those “Jewish traditions”—but rather, listen to what the Church is telling you’…

“What did Paul mean when he described these things as being a shadow of things to come? The weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days have tremendous meaning for us today. They foreshadow events to occur in the future at a time when the whole world will be ruled by Christ and taught by Him to keep God’s Law—including the weekly and annual Sabbaths—as God’s people already do today.

“Rather than doing away with the keeping of the Sabbath and Holy Days, Colossians 2:16–17 teaches the exact opposite. It teaches us not to worry about people who say that we should not do so, but rather to concern ourselves with the truth of the matter, which is being taught by Christ’s Body—the Church…

“Some tried to convince the Gentile Christians in Colossae to cease from keeping the weekly and annual Sabbaths. Others went to the opposite extreme—they tried to convince the Gentile Christians in Colossae that they had to fast on the weekly and annual Sabbaths.

“Since both the weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days are Feast days, the Christians in Colossae kept them, of course, as FEAST days. They would eat and drink on those days (except, of course, during the ‘Fast’—on the Day of Atonement). Some, though, apparently criticized them for that, teaching that no eating and drinking should take place on any of those days.

“Colossians 2:16, correctly translated from the Greek, states: ‘Let no one judge you regarding eating and drinking.’ Paul is addressing here the ACT of eating and drinking, not the KIND of food and drink being partaken of. Some critics felt, however, that Christians should fast on those days, rather than eating or drinking anything. Notice Paul’s reference to this kind of self-imposed ascetic, or austere, religion in Colossians 2:20–23 (‘…why… do you subject yourselves to regulations—”Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?’).

“Paul told the Colossians to continue keeping the Sabbath and the Holy Days in the same way as they were doing it, rather than listening to those who were trying to tell them not to do it at all, or not to keep them as feast days…”

As mentioned, our booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” discusses the passage of Colossians 2:16-17 in greater detail. For the spiritual benefit of our readers, we would like to quote from this more detailed, albeit perhaps somewhat technical discussion, to destroy any doubt as to what Colossians 2:16-17 is REALLY teaching:

“Colossians 2:16–17 reads, in the New King James Bible, as follows: ‘So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival [margin: ‘feast day’] or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ’…

“If you have a New King James Bible, you might want to check the margin. It says there that the literal meaning for the word ‘substance’ is ‘body.’ That is correct. The Greek word here is ‘soma,’ and it is otherwise translated as ‘body’ throughout the New Testament.

“Limiting this discussion just to the letter to the Colossians, the New King James Bible has translated the word ‘soma’ consistently as ‘body.’ Only here, in Colossians 2:17, it is translated as ‘substance.’ Why? Simply because the translators did not, and do not, understand the meaning of the passage.

“Notice it for yourself. Notice, too, what is being referred to when the phrase ‘body of Christ’ is used elsewhere in the following passages:

“Colossians 1:18: ‘And He is the head of the body [‘soma’ in Greek], the church.’ Christ is identified here as the Head of the body, which is the Church.

“Colossians 1:24: ‘I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body [‘soma’ in the Greek], which is the church.’ Again, we see that the body of Christ is identified here as His Church.

“Colossians 2:19: ‘… and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body [‘soma’], nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.’ Again, the reference is to the spiritual body of Christ, the Church.

“Finally, let’s notice Colossians 3:15: ‘And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body [‘soma’].’ We all belong to that one body—the Church, of which Christ is the Head.

“These Scriptures clearly show that the references in that letter to the body of Christ is to the Church of Christ. With that understanding, let us turn again to Colossians 2:16–17, where Paul says: ‘Let no one judge you… regarding a festival or Sabbaths… but the body of Christ.’ In other words, let no one, except the body of Christ—the Church—judge in those matters. The Church, the body of Christ, the preserver of the truth, can and should judge in that regard…

“It is interesting that Greek scholars recognize—in simply looking at the Greek structure of the sentence—that the first part of the statement, ‘Let no one judge you…’ requires a second statement to explain who should do the judging.

“Professor Troy Martin wrote an article entitled, ‘But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ (Col. 2:17),’ which was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature in the Summer of 1995. In that article, he confirms—based on the Greek structure of the sentence—that the second part of the statement in Colossians 2:16–17 explains who is doing the judging.

“He first points to a parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 10:24 that states: ‘Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well being.’ In order to understand this passage correctly, one has to repeat in the second phrase the opposite of the beginning of the first phrase. In other words, the clear and intended meaning of this passage is: ‘Let no one seek his own, but let each one seek the other’s well being.’

“This Scripture is grammatically structured in the same way as Colossians 2:16–17. Therefore, according to Professor Troy in regard to both 1 Corinthians 10:24 and Colossians 2:16–17, ‘The verb judge determines the action that is forbidden [by the first phrase = let no one judge you…] and then enjoined [or commanded, by the second phrase].’

“With this understanding, the sentence in Colossians 2:16–17 has to read this way: ‘So let no one judge you… regarding a festival or Sabbaths…, but let the body of Christ judge you.’

“Professor Troy gives a second example to prove this conclusion, namely Romans 14:13, which reads: ‘Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.’ In the Greek, the word for ‘judge’ and ‘resolve’ is exactly the same, namely ‘krino.’ This word is used in Colossians 2:16–17 and translated there as ‘judge.’

“Romans 14:13 tells us that we must not judge one another, but that we must judge how not to become a stumbling block for others. This statement in Romans 14:13 is identical in structure with the structure used in Colossians 2:16–17. No one is to judge the Colossians regarding the Sabbath and the Holy Days, except for the body of Christ, the Church. This means, then, that Colossians 2:16–17 says exactly the opposite from what critics of the Sabbath and the Holy Days want us to believe. The Colossians were not criticized for NOT keeping the Sabbath and the Holy Days, but rather, they were criticized for KEEPING them.

“Comparing Romans 14:13 with Colossians 2:16–17, Dr. Troy concludes that Paul is telling the Colossians in Chapter 2 that they should not let a man judge them for keeping the Holy Days and the Sabbath, but that the Church—the Body of Christ—should judge this matter. The Colossians were criticized by their opponents, not by Paul, when they kept the Sabbath and the Holy Days. Paul is essentially saying to them: I am speaking on behalf of the Church, when I tell you that you should continue keeping the Sabbath and the Holy Days, as this is what the Church has judged and resolved to do, based on the Biblical Scriptures.

“The Church [of God] has understood the correct meaning of this passage in years past. In 1976, Herbert Armstrong, late Pastor General of the Church of God, wrote a booklet entitled, ‘Pagan Holidays or God’s Holy Days—Which?’ On page 35 he writes: ‘So these little-understood verses ought to be translated clearly: “Let no man therefore judge you… but [rather let] the body of Christ [determine it].” Let Christ’s body judge these church matters. Greek scholars recognize that the last clause “but [rather] the body of Christ” demands that a verb be added, but have often not seen that the missing verb should be supplied from the most logical and grammatical parallel clause so as to read properly, “Let the body of Christ judge [these matters].”‘

“Unfortunately, a few years after Mr. Armstrong’s death in 1986, the wording of this section in the same booklet was changed. A new and unauthorized explanation was given regarding Colossians 2:16, paving the way, of course, for subsequent drastic [erroneous] changes. The revised wording was: ‘Therefore the Christians at Colossae were not to let themselves be taken to task by heretical teachers concerning matters such as eating, drinking, holy days, new moons and Sabbaths… After all, how could such matters possibly transcend Christ? He is the body, the substance, the very center of God’s plan of salvation. All else is a mere shadow that holds no value as a replacement for him’…

“What did Paul mean when he described these things as being a shadow of things to come? Let’s review once again the insightful comments of Prof. Troy in the above-mentioned article. He states: ‘These Christian practices may comprise the shadow, and they are not presented negatively except by the opponents…The tense is present [Note carefully that the text reads, ‘these ARE,’ not ‘WERE’ ‘a shadow of things to come’], and affirms that these things are now shadows. [Some] commentators translate the past tense and conclude that these stipulations have ended now that the true substance has arrived since they were only shadows… In spite of this…, the text affirms a present… validity to the shadow.’

“The weekly Sabbath and the annual Holy Days have tremendous meaning for us today, foreshadowing events to occur in the future, when the whole world will be ruled by Christ and taught by Him to keep God’s Law—including the weekly and annual Sabbaths—as God’s people already do today.

“Rather than doing away with Sabbath and Holy Day keeping, Colossians 2:16–17 teaches the exact opposite. It teaches us not to worry about people who say that we should not do so [or who try to convince us of their personal ideas as to HOW and HOW NOT to keep these days], but to concern ourselves with the truth, as taught by Christ’s Body—the Church…”

In conclusion, Colossians 2:16-17 teaches without a shadow of a doubt that true Christians are obligated and commanded to continue keeping the weekly Seventh-Day Sabbath and the seven annual Holy Days.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

A new StandingWatch program was recorded this week, titled, “Dangerous Swine Flu Vaccinations.” The program addresses the questions whether massive swine flu vaccinations are warranted; how serious is the swine flu threat, and what do we know about the vaccines’ serious complications and side effects; why are most German doctors opposed to mass vaccinations; and whether participation in the governmental vaccination program will be strictly “voluntary”? Viewers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS); the preservative Thimerosal; and the “1976 debacle” in the U.S.A, before they get vaccinated.

Watch this now on StandingWatch or YouTube.

Norbert Link’s new German sermon from this week, titled “Die Schrecknisse der Zukunft” (“The Terrors of the Future”), has been posted on the Web.