On Saturday, March 12, 2005, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “The House of God.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream

This question was asked at the end of the Motion Picture, “Saving Private Ryan,” which was released a few years ago, depicting war in a graphic and realistic way. Private Ryan asked this question of his wife in a very emotional way during a visit to a cemetery of World War II soldiers — while the movie camera focused on thousands upon thousands of casualties of war, identified by white crosses.

Private Ryan’s mother used to have three sons. The War Department had already informed the family that two of her sons had been killed in war. When the fate of her third son — Private Ryan — had become uncertain, the War Department sent out a group of soldiers to locate Private Ryan and to bring him home safely. It was felt that losing two sons in war was a sufficient sacrifice for any family. The soldiers who were sent out to locate Private Ryan were all killed in the process of saving him. They sacrificed their lives to save him. This was the reason why he asked his wife whether he had been a good man. Was he really “worthy” enough for the ultimate sacrifice these men had made for him by paying with their lives so that he could live?

The question for us today is this: Have we been a good man or woman in our lives? As in the case of Private Ryan, someone was willing to die for us so that we could live. That Person was a Righteous Man Who was willing to die for our past sins so that we would not have to suffer eternal death. This Righteous Man was more than just an ordinary person; He was our beloved Savior, the God of the Old Testament Who gave up His Divinity to become a Man, so that He could die for us.

When Christ gave His life for us, we were NOT good people. None of us were. In fact, we were His enemies, deceived by the god of this world–Satan the devil–following the carnal lusts of the flesh. We were most certainly not “worthy” to receive the opportunity for eternal life through the Sacrifice of Christ.

But we CAN become good people. It is interesting what Christ said about being a good man in Matthew 12:35: “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things.” On another occasion He said: “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17). He recognized that it was God the Father, living in Him, Who made Him good. This is true of us also. David said, in Psalm 119:172: “For all your commandments are righteousness.” We too can be righteous if God’s Spirit in us is leading us and we are obedient to His commandments.

Very soon now we will be keeping the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread. This is a special time for us, both to examine ourselves and to work on putting sin out of our lives. While we meditate on these things, let us never forget the tremendous sacrifice Christ made for us, willingly giving up His life as a God being, and subsequently His physical life, to make available to us eternal life. As we reflect on these things set before us, let us ask ourselves the same question which Private Ryan asked: “Have I been a good man?”

Germany and the Arab World

On March 10, 2005, www.wsws.org published a remarkable article, titled, “German Chancellor Schröder’s business trip to the Gulf States.” The article pointed out:

“US President George W. Bush had hardly finished his four-day European tour when German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder began a seven-day tour of the Arabian peninsula. He travelled to seven Gulf States, five of which had never before received a visit from a German head of government. Schröder’s journey casts into sharp relief the reasons for the INCREASING TENSIONS between the US and Germany, which were barely concealed during Bush’s stop in Mainz. At stake are naked ECONOMIC and STRATEGIC interests — not peace, stability, liberty or democracy, as the official propaganda of both sides would have one believe.

“The Gulf possesses the world’s largest supplies of oil, the most important strategic raw material for the economy of the twenty-first century. Moreover, thanks to the billions of dollars that flow into their coffers as a result of the high price of oil, those in power in the Gulf States are among the biggest international investors and purchasers of Western products. Schröder’s journey was aimed at cashing in on German reservations towards the Iraq war and US policy in the Middle East. To some extent, the German chancellor was acting as a poacher in what is usually considered Washington’s preserve — a region that the US endeavours to keep firmly under its influence economically and politically. The billion-dollar contracts for the reconstruction of war-torn Iraq went nearly exclusively to American companies and, to a lesser degree, British firms… According to Ulrich Schäfer, writing in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Schröder’s message read: ‘Our vacuum cleaner can do everything. The German economy sucks up everything.’

“America’s aggressive actions in the region have UNSETTLED many Arab regimes. They fear the loss of their power if the US further DESTABILIZES the region or brings about further ‘regime changes’ — as is presently being attempted in Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Washington’s close collaboration with ISRAEL is also a cause of constant tension.

“Schröder’s offering of German products, investment in German companies and the redenomination of foreign currency holdings out of dollars and into euros represents an attempt to lure the Gulf States with an alternative strategic orientation — AWAY FROM THE US and TOWARDS GERMANY. The German government attaches ‘great strategic significance’ to the region, according to the correspondent of Germany’s leading financial daily, the Handelsblatt, who accompanied the chancellor on his journey. A comment in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung makes this even clearer. ‘The chancellor is using the economic power of German enterprises for a second mission,’ the newspaper writes. ‘He wants to entrench the Federal Republic of Germany as a CENTRAL POWER IN WORLD POLITICS…'”

The article concluded with the following remarks:

“Schröder’s journey to the Gulf States makes clear that his demands for more power and influence for Germany, which he aired at the Munich Security Conference last month, were meant seriously… [T]he growing rivalry between the great powers in the struggle for markets and economic influence must inevitably lead to INCREASING INTERNATIONAL TENSIONS AND THE GROWTH OF MILITARY CONFLICTS.”

The Bible reveals that there WILL BE a confederacy between Germany and certain Arab nations in the Middle East. It is also prophesied that that alliance will be in competition, BOTH ECONOMICALLY AND MILITARILY, with the United States of America, Great Britain and the state of Israel. Mr. Schroeder’s business trip to the Gulf States could be a step toward the fulfillment of those Biblically prophesied developments.

Old and New Europe

The International Herald Tribune reported on Friday, March 4, 2005, that “‘New Europe’ renews its links with the old.” The article stated: “Frustrated by travel restrictions and uneasy about the war in Iraq, citizens of Central Europe who once pledged allegiance to the United States are now recalling their European roots and looking to a united Europe for their economic and political futures… A decade ago, Central Europe was heavily focused on getting into the U.S.-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization and assuring their security in the region. At that time, Hungarians, Poles, and Czechs spoke worriedly about the possibility that Russia might be a menace to its neighbors again.

“But now, Central Europeans are paying attention to building their economies and making their mark in a united Europe… Western Europeans are buying Budapest real estate, and the local newspapers are owned largely by Swiss and German interests… The cultural and political differences between Europe and the United States are present as well. Europeans in general are at odds with Americans on matters such as the death penalty, the environment and the roles of international institutions and religion… Hungarians and Czechs overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq, despite the support from their governments. Polish popular opposition to the war, muted at first, has grown.”

Based on Biblical prophecy, we can safely say that “old” and “new” Europe will unite and that they will, in time, develop a mighty power bloc in competition with and hostile to the United States of America. For further information, please read our free booklet, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

Israel’s New Sanhedrin

On March 8, 2005, www.israelnationalnews.com reported about startling developments within the state of Israel. The article stated:

“The reestablished Sanhedrin has concluded extensive deliberations on the disengagement plan, rejecting it as a contradiction to the Torah of Israel. The current format of the Sanhedrin is the renewal of the historic Sanhedrin, Judaism’s highest legal-religious tribunal during Holy Temple times. The 71-man assembly convened in one of the Holy Temple chambers, and existed from several decades before the Common Era until roughly 425 C.E. The renewed body was launched last year in Tiberias, and convenes in Jerusalem.”

This renewed body, which might gain strong influence in Israel, issued the following proclamation on Monday:

“The disengagement plan, involving the uprooting of Jewish communities in Gaza and Samaria and the abandonment of these areas to a foreign entity, is in direct contradiction to the Torah of Israel, and is null and void. Future governments of Israel will have to re-conquer the areas in question… The Government of Israel and the Knesset, in their present form and power structure, are institutions that have no authority according to Jewish Law to render decisions that contradict the Torah of Israel… Any Jew–including a soldier or policeman–who supports the uprooting, whether directly or indirectly, whether by voting in its favor, or by giving counsel, or by supplying vehicles or materials, and certainly anyone who actively participates in the uprooting, thus transgresses a large number of Torah commandments, such as not standing idly by one’s neighbor’s blood (Lev. 19,17)… By this declaration, the Sanhedrin, as the link of continuity of the Torah received by Moses at Sinai, hereby expresses the stance of Israel’s Torah… The Sanhedrin, as the representative of the Jewish people throughout history, hereby affirms that the Jewish people — regardless of this or that government — does not relinquish, and is not entitled to relinquish, so much as the span of a solitary man’s foot of the Land of Israel according to its Biblical boundaries, for it is [God’s] land.”

Lebanon and Syria

On March 8, 2005, The Associated Press reported about most recent and unsettling developments in Lebanon. The article stated: “Hundreds of thousands jammed a central Beirut square Tuesday, chanting support for Syria and anti-U.S. slogans in a thundering show of strength by the militant group Hezbollah–a rally that greatly outnumbered recent demonstrations against Syria’s presence in Lebanon. The demonstration came hours before Syria began redeploying its troops within Lebanon to an area closer to the two countries’ border. President Bush, who rejects this as a half-step, said Tuesday that ‘freedom will prevail in Lebanon’ and demanded that Syria withdraw completely. But that was not the sentiment among the protesters in Riad Solh square.”

Hezbollah has been labeled as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Administration. They are a Shiite group, while the former prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri, who was recently murdered, was a Sunnite.

Some have claimed that the above-mentioned demonstration was a hoax. The WorldNetDaily stated on March 9, 2005: “The giant Hezbollah rally that drew nearly half a million purported supporters of Syria’s occupation of Lebanon actually was a staged hoax with non-Lebanese citizens, Syrian workers, students and municipal employees coerced into joining the protest, former Lebanese Prime Minister Michel Aoun told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview this morning.”

Whether WorldNetDaily’s report is correct or not, it is clear that Hezbollah — a militant Shiite group–is supportive of Syria, and it can be expected that they will not stand idly by, if Syria should withdraw its troops.

Which Ten Commandments?

On March 8, 2005, www.msnbc.com and Newsweek published a controversial article about the public display of the Ten Commandments. As the article pointed out, “The state of Texas has a statue of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the capitol building, similar to thousands of Ten Commandment plaques hanging all over the country. An Austin lawyer challenged the Texas display as a violation of the First Amendment’s rejection of government sponsorship of religion… Last week, the Supreme Court finally heard the case, along with a suit against two Kentucky counties that have been displaying the Commandments. During the oral arguments, the Bush administration and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argued that the Ten Commandments is such a fundamental part of our national culture and heritage that they are, effectively, non-religious. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, who openly expressed his support for public displays of the Commandments, mocked Abbott’s argument. ‘If you don’t believe that it sends a religious message, you’re kidding yourself’, he said. (The Supreme Court’s decision in the cases is pending).”

The article then pointed out the crux of the matter, by stating:

“I also found that nobody knows all 10 of the Ten Commandments. ‘Honor your parents, don’t covet your neighbor’s wife, don’t lie, don’t kill, don’t steal, um, um, how many is that’ said Kristen, a woman from Brooklyn. ‘Don’t steal, don’t bear false witness, don’t kill, don’t commit adultery, and honor your parents,’ said Olga, who was smoking a cigarette outside her office. ‘Don’t kill, don’t commit adultery, don’t covet thy neighbor’s stuff, don’t steal, and honor your parents,’ said Dan, who rents out a six-seat ‘party bike’ in Times Square. No matter whom I interviewed, the same five or six commandments kept coming up. And no matter whom I interviewed, I heard the same thing: ‘They should be displayed,’ said Dan. ‘They’re just the basic rules that everyone can agree on.’ And then I reminded them about the other four or five commandments. One: I am the Lord thy God. Two: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Three: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Four: Keep the Sabbath. And then people started changing their minds… Besides, there’s hardly any unanimity about what the Ten Commandments even are. The Protestant and Jewish decalogue is basically the same, but the Catholic Church got rid of the ‘make no graven images’ commandment…, so the Church split the 10th commandment–don’t covet your neighbor’s wife or stuff–into separate commands.”

Of course, even the Protestant and Jewish Decalogue is not the same! It may READ the same, but Protestants and Jews have totally different ideas as to what it says. Most professing Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike, have replaced the Fourth Commandment (instructing us to keep the Sabbath holy) with their human tradition to keep Sunday holy. Sunday, however, was never a day which was holy to God. It was set aside by pagans to worship the sun god Baal and other sun gods. The Bible calls this practice an abomination. For more information, please read our free booklets, “Don’t Keep Christmas,” and “God’s Commanded Holy Days.”

When we hear the argument that this country must publicly display the Ten Commandments, let’s ask the question first: “Which Ten Commandments?”

The Bible must always be the last word on all doctrinal matters, not the personal opinions of man. Unfortunately, there can be an attitude of “pick and mix” where doctrines can be summarily dismissed that may not suit someone’s personal life-style; that are “uncomfortable,” or “not acceptable” in today’s society; or that don’t fit in with someone’s general approach. On the other hand, if the Bible purportedly backs up personal opinions and beliefs, then Biblical teaching is readily accepted. This means that there are those who, because of their own personal behavior, amend their understanding of Scripture in order that their practices can be (in their own eyes) accommodated by the Word of God. The subject of homosexuality is just one example.

But God does not play games. As Proverbs 14:12 tells us, there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. The Bible states in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Therefore, all Scripture from the first book of Genesis to the last book of Revelation is valid — irrespective of human traditions, customs or politically correct or incorrect viewpoints.

One pro-homosexual website puts forward the following observations when talking about quotations from the book of Leviticus (which condemns homosexuality, as we will see): “Clearly many of these laws reflect the cultural mores of their time and can have little or no relevance for us. The problem comes when we try to decide when a law or a piece of teaching has relevance today or when it should be rejected or disregarded.”

It is plain from such attitudes that the Word of God is used when supportive and discarded when inconvenient, but it must be remembered that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, as Hebrews 13:8 explains. Clear Biblical instructions are therefore not open to alterations or amendments, when cultural views change.

The instruction in the Old Testament on homosexuality is clear. In Leviticus 18:22 it states that: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” This is but one of the instructions on illicit sexual behavior where the Israelites are told that such conduct not only defiles them but also the land (verse 27). Some may conclude that ungodly conduct affects only the perpetrators and those around them, but the lack of righteousness — including sexual immorality — affects the very land on which we dwell. In verse 28, God reminds the Israelites that because the Canaanites (see verse 3) committed abominable sexual acts, the land was going to “vomit them out.” This reveals a very real spiritual law: When a nation becomes sinful, even its land is defiled because sin affects everything.

Two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13, God again rejects homosexual conduct, when He states: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”

If the practice of homosexuality was acceptable to God, why would God mention this practice in condemnatory terms on so many occasions? In Genesis 2:24 we read that “…a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Here, at an early stage of Biblical instruction, we see that the natural union was to consist of a man and a woman — not of a man and several women, and not of two people of the same sex.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is well known. In Genesis 18 and 19 we read about their depravity. The men of the city (Genesis 19:4), both old and young, surrounded the house where the two angels dwelled as Lot’s guests. They wanted to know them carnally (verse 5). This means, the Sodomites practiced homosexuality. [Today, the word “sodomite” is also used in respect to another form of depraved sexual conduct.] We know from Ezekiel 16:49-50 that the iniquity of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was not limited to this sexual practice, but it was certainly a hugely contributory factor.

There are a number of references that refer to sodomites, in the Authorized Version (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 1 Kings 15:12; 1 Kings 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). Sodomites were the inhabitants of Sodom. As we saw, the term refers to those practicing homosexuality. They were to be banished from the land — hardly a ringing endorsement!

In the New Testament, we continue to find the same condemnation of this practice. We read in the first chapter of Romans: “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting…” (verses 24-28).

While the Western world today seeks to popularize and legitimize homosexuality, the Word of God clearly reveals that it is not acceptable to God. God has set in motion certain laws, and those who misuse their bodies receive in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. The word “debased” in verse 28 means “unapproved” or “undiscerning.” Since they had suppressed the truth of God revealed to them, they did not retain God in their knowledge and consequently, God gave them up (or over) to what they wanted to do all along. The results were and still are disastrous.

l Corinthians 6:9-10 clearly states that neither homosexuals nor sodomites will inherit the Kingdom of God: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

However, in verse 11 we read: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

Notice what Paul said: “Such were some of you.” This is a telling phrase. Paul cited the fact that there were some in the congregation who were formerly characterized in the catalogue of sinful conduct listed in verses 9 and 10. But Paul makes also clear that there is hope for those who are willing to repent and turn from their evil ways. With the help of God, they can be washed, sanctified and justified — but only on genuine, sincere repentance. This shows, then, that homosexuality CAN be repented of — it is not something men are just born with, and which they cannot overcome, even if they wanted to. Unfortunately today, many have convinced themselves that homosexuality is acceptable to God, or even the way God created some men, merely because it has become culturally acceptable. The Bible clearly reveals otherwise. As was wisely observed by someone: “Fashions may change but standards do not.”

In the final book of the Bible, this same theme is repeated in Revelation 21:8, pointing out that those who refuse to repent, including the “sexually immoral”–including those who practice homosexuality and other unacceptable sexual conduct–will have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone.

Some might ask the question: Does it matter? Of course it does! It is amazing to observe the lengths that those who support their homosexual practice will go to in order to justify it. If we believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God, then we should live by every word of God (Matthew 4:4). And the Bible, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, roundly condemns the practice of homosexuality.

At the same time, we must be careful that we don’t lose God’s perspective on the matter of homosexuality, by replacing one extreme viewpoint with another. As we saw, the practice of homosexuality is most certainly a sin which MUST be repented of, if one wants to enter the Kingdom of God. We are told that if we don’t repent and give up wrong habits, replacing them with God’s righteousness, we will not enter the Kingdom of God. Homosexuality is most certainly a SIN that must be overcome — but it is NOT the ONLY sin that must be overcome. Notice Revelation 21:7-8:

“He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly [those who know better, but are afraid to change and stand up for what is right], unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and ALL LIARS shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Those who know better, but WILLFULLY and with HATE AND ANGER permanently and irrevocably REFUSE to repent of their evil conduct will end up in the lake of fire. They will NOT enter the New Jerusalem. Revelation 22:14-15 states:

“Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs [compare Philippians 3:2] and sorcerers and sexually immoral [including homosexuals, AS WELL AS those who engage in other sinful sexual conduct, such as fornication and adultery] and murderers and idolaters, and WHOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE.”

For some, it is easy to see that homosexuality is sinful. At the same time, it is very difficult for them to see that lying or killing (even in war) is sinful and must be repented of as well. God calls homosexuality an “abomination.” Note, however, what else is an “abomination” in God’s eyes:

“These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an ABOMINATION to Him: A proud look, A LYING tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A FALSE witness who speaks LIES, And one who sows discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19).

The Biblical teaching is clear and consistent: EVERY SIN that we REFUSE to repent of — including, but not limited to the sinful practice of homosexuality — will keep us out of the Kingdom of God.

Our new booklet on war and related issues will be sent to the printer in England this Friday.

A new member letter was sent out this week. It has been posted on the Web. The letter is signed by the ministry and gives a detailed report about the most recent Church Conference and planned new projects for 2005.

[From the Editors:

We are pleased to introduce a new feature that will be appearing in both this and future Updates. In response to requests to involve a broader segment of our readership, we have invited young people–and that includes the broadest possible definition of “young”–to contribute brief essays and personal commentaries which they feel might be helpful reflections in living Christian lives.

This column’s first author will also serve as coordinator for future articles. Michael Link (24) may be reached through Email at mrmikey24@yahoo.com. We welcome your comments and participation.]

A Constant Challenge

by Michael Link

“We’ve all been there.” That’s what the adults say. “We’re all going through this right now.” That is what the youth are saying. I am right in the middle as a young adult and I can say that I’ve been there, and on the same token, I’m going through it right now. I’m talking about peer pressure. We have all been faced with peer pressure many times, but the important thing is how we learn to deal with it.

There are many ways in which peer pressure can affect us. We go through it at school, at work, with our friends and peers, with the opposite sex, when asked about religion, and when confronted with alcohol and drugs. There are many more ways, but these listed are what I have been faced with personally. I’m sure a lot of you can relate to these situations. I’ve been through it at public school when evolution was being taught, or even at a church school (Imperial Schools) when doctrinal changes started happening in the Worldwide Church of God. I’ve been through it at work when the Sabbath became an issue. I’ve been through it with my friends and people I associated with when I was offered a cigarette and even drugs. I’ve been through it when girls outside the Church wanted to date and have a relationship. I’ve been confronted with religious questions and have been on the “hot seat” several times. These are just a few examples, and I have not always dealt with them perfectly.

We have all done things wrong in the past and we have learned from those mistakes. I can say that I have learned and am learning from my mistakes. However, that doesn’t mean that I am still not faced with peer pressure every day. I now have a better understanding of what it is that I have to do when these situations appear. We must remember that we are never alone. Whenever we are in a sticky situation, just remember that when we are willing to do it right, God backs us up.

On Saturday, March 5, 2005, Edwin Pope will give the sermon, titled, “Responsibilities in Judgment.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Bible prophecies forewarn of global disasters, of wars and national enslavement, of every living creature in the sea dying, and of human death on a scale that is, quite frankly, unimaginable! There is this and much more yet ahead for those who live in the very last generation before Jesus is sent to save this planet.

All of these bad things can seem far-off or unreal if we are not careful.

How about you? Do you really believe what God has said? The record of other generations and of other ages shows that the vast majority ignores warnings. Jesus spoke of the time leading up to His return in this way: “‘But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be'” (Matthew 24:37-39).

What can we say about ourselves? Are we doing what we should to be prepared for the future, or have we become comfortable–even judging ourselves as ready for the times ahead?

Jesus taught that His followers must continue to serve Him. He did so against a backdrop of admonition that even some of His servants would let down (Compare Luke 12:35-48). This very thing is happening right now to Christians of our day! Is it happening to you?

One measure–one way of evaluating ourselves–is to look at our service to God. In that service, there are requirements, and it is indeed a challenge to live up to those things we know we should do. However, even fulfilling our minimal “duties” is not sufficient if we want to be considered good and faithful servants of God.

Our attitude, or at least the approach we must strive to have as members of God’s Church, is summarized in the following teaching from Jesus: “‘So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, “We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do”‘” (Luke 17:10).

If we understand the unparalleled gift of God’s calling and if we understand that God has placed upon all of us responsibilities for service to Him, then we need to also consider the following: “‘…For everyone to whom MUCH is given, from him MUCH will be required; and to whom MUCH has been committed, of him they will ask the MORE'” (Luke 12:48).

When that happens, we will have an opportunity to abundantly serve God, but just doing that once or for a little while–even, perhaps, for a few years–is not enough! We must continue to serve God faithfully with the goal to do all that we can–to go beyond what is required and to become truly profitable servants of God.

Crisis in Lebanon

The Associated Press reported on March 1, 2005:

“Hundreds of protesters blowing whistles and chanting anti-Syrian slogans returned to central Beirut on Tuesday after forcing out the pro-Damascus prime minister, and Lebanon’s president sought candidates for a new government. About 400 people marched through downtown demanding the resignation of pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud and the withdrawal of Syrian soldiers. On Monday, 25,000 flag-waving demonstrators demanded – and got – Prime Minister Omar Karami’s resignation…

“Elsewhere in the country, shops, businesses and banks reopened after a one-day strike Monday to protest the Feb. 14 assassination of former prime minister and billionaire businessman Rafik Hariri, whose killing was the catalyst for the massive, peaceful protests demanding Syria release its military and political hold on Lebanon. Syria keeps about 15,000 troops in Lebanon and all key political decisions get a stamp of approval from Damascus, but pressure from Lebanese as well as from abroad, including the United States, has led to talk of a troop withdrawal…

“The dramatic developments – reminiscent of Ukraine’s peaceful ‘Orange Revolution’ last year — were broadcast live across the Arab world, including Syria, where some people have access to satellite TV. They could provoke a strong response from Syria and perhaps plunge this nation of 3.5 million back into a period of uncertainty, political vacuum OR WORSE.”

AFP added on March 1, 2005: “Lebanon faced an uncertain future after the dramatic resignation of pro-Syrian Prime Minister Omar Karameh in the face of massive public protests sparked by the murder of his predecessor Rafiq Hariri… The anti-Damascus opposition which spearheaded the campaign against the government hailed the move but vowed it would not stop its protests until Syria was out of Lebanon… Since the bombing, international pressure led by the United States has mounted on Syria with suspicion it may have had a hand in the Hariri bombing. Hariri’s killing had raised fears of a return to the sectarian strife that ripped the country apart during the 1975-1990 civil war, but the murder served to unite various religious and political groups in their calls for an end to Syria’s domination.”

On March 2 and 3, 2005, additional news items were reported pertaining to the crisis in Lebanon. According to an article of The Associated Press, which was published on March 2, “President Bush increased pressure on Syria Wednesday, demanding it withdraw its troops from Lebanon.” In a follow-up article, The Associated Press stated on March 3, that “Syria has told Arab countries it needs to keep 3,000 troops and early-warning stations inside Lebanon to maintain its security despite international pressure for a full withdrawal, an Arab diplomat said Thursday. At a meeting in Cairo, meanwhile, Arab leaders publicly urged Syria to follow through on a 1989 accord to withdraw its troops from neighboring Lebanon, with no timetable set – even as they negotiated behind the scenes to push Syria to move quickly. Syria, which has 15,000 troops in Lebanon, has said it would comply with the accord.”

In addition, Reuters reported on March 3 that “Russia and Germany joined an international chorus of demands for Syria to leave Lebanon… ‘Syria should withdraw from Lebanon, but we all have to make sure that this withdrawal does not violate the very fragile balance which we still have in Lebanon, which is a very difficult country ethnically,’ Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the BBC late on Wednesday… German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, visiting Yemen, also called on Syria to take its troops out immediately. ‘Lebanon should be given an opportunity for sovereignty and development and this can only be achieved by compliance with Security Council resolutions that stipulate immediate Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon,’ Yemen’s state news agency quoted him as saying at a meeting with his Yemeni counterpart on Wednesday.”

The AFP published an article on March 3, 2005, titled, “Lebanon in political limbo as screws tighten on Damascus.” The article continued: “Lebanon’s embattled president was struggling to find a new premier after the opposition insisted on a Syrian pledge for a troop pullout before it would hold talks on joining a new government.”

Crisis in the United States

The “Executive Intelligence Review” reported on February 25, that “A series of international conferences… has led to the open airing of panic within the international financial elite. Top on the agenda is concern over the U.S. dollar, which declined about 30% between early 2002 and early 2004, but, equally importantly, the debt-drowned condition of the U.S. economy, which an increasing number of bankers believe cannot be sustained.”

Austria and Hitler

On February 28, 2005, China Daily reported about Austria’s past dealings with Hitler and Nazism. The article pointed out: “The latest look at the country’s relationship to Hitler is through the melodic looking glass of ‘The Sound of Music’ — the first full staging in Austria of a musical beloved the world over but virtually unknown in the nation it portrays. After years of denial, official Austria has turned in the past two decades from depicting itself as a victim of Adolf Hitler to acknowledging its key role in the Holocaust. But some Austrians remain sensitive to the country’s Nazi past, and Saturday’s premiere in German, with actors dressed as Nazi storm troopers standing guard in the audience, a theater box filled with mock Nazi dignitaries, and a huge swastika banner draped onstage dredged up painful memories…

“Still, Joerg Haider powered his rightist Freedom Party into the government in 2001 with populist rhetoric sometimes tinged with anti-Semitism. Though he has toned down his comments in recent years and his Freedom Party has lost much of its support, it still has an extreme right-wing element known to admire Hitler. Last year, a poll showed that more than a third of Austrians believe the Nazi era was in some ways positive.”

In other news, the EUobserver stated on February 20, 2005, that “A large majority of Austrians are in favour of a common European army, a poll has found. The survey, presented on Thursday (19 February) by the Austrian society for European Politics, found that 75% of those asked would like such an army. Of these, 42% would be in favour of just having a European army to replace all national armies. Austria, along with Finland, Sweden and Ireland, is one of the neutral member states of the European Union.”

USA and Europe

On February 27, 2005, www.suntimes.com published a remarkable article about an indifferent and somewhat arrogant approach of Americans and US governmental institutions toward the rising power bloc of Europe. The article was titled: “U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode.” It continued to state, in light of President Bush’s visit in Europe:

“And at the end what’s changed? Will the United States sign on to Kyoto? No. Will the United States join the International Criminal Court? No. Will the United States agree to accept whatever deal the Anglo-Franco-German negotiators cook up with Iran? No… Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there’s no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying…”

The truth is, the “old” Europe is not dying, but emerging! The final and last resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire, which later became known as the Holy Roman Empire, under Catholic leadership, IS happening right now! And the United States of America will NOT find itself on friendly terms with that new emerging power bloc, but in fierce competition. For more information, please read our free booklets: “Europe in Prophecy” and “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

Iraq and the Sabbath

The following article may pose the question, as to whether the US has inadvertently created a “Frankenstein monster” in Iraq. As The Associated Press reported on February 27, 2005, “Iraqis are complaining about their first-ever weekend break, and some high-school students even went to class Saturday to protest a decision introducing a second weekly day off that coincides with the Jewish Sabbath… ‘We don’t want Saturday! It’s a Jewish holiday!’ students chanted as they marched in protest last week to the governor’s office in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad… ‘We will keep going to school with determination and persistence’ on Saturday, sixth-grader Nassen Dawoud said. ‘We can’t be like Jews. Saturday is a Jewish holiday and I hope the government listens to us,’ sixth-grader Nada Alwan said. The influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, believed to be close to the insurgency, said that by making Saturday a weekend ‘the invaders, the occupiers are trying to impose their principles’ on Iraq… In Ramadi, the heart of the insurgency in the so-called Sunni Triangle, the head of Anbar University decided to change the weekend on its own. ‘The official weekend is Thursday and Friday,’ the university announced.”

US Nuclear Weapons in Germany

On February 10, 2005, the China News reported that: “The United States still keeps as many as 480 nuclear weapons at air bases across Europe… Short-range nuclear bombs are stored under American control and regulated by secret military agreements at eight bases in Germany, Britain, Italy, Belgium, Turkey and the Netherlands, the study said. American and allied air forces regularly rehearse nuclear bombing missions at training ranges in Europe in the case a war calls for striking nuclear, chemical or biological weapons sites or command posts in countries that threaten to use unconventional arms, the study said. Military officials confirmed that the training continued as part of prudent military contingency planning.The stockpile’s presence and its long-term fate have caused simmering tensions among senior NATO political and military officials, the officials were quoted as saying. “

The EUobserver added: “Germany tops the list hosting some 150 US nuclear weapons at two locations: Ramstein and Büchel. France and the United Kingdom, in addition, have approximately 350 and 185 nuclear weapons respectively but the United States is the only country that has nuclear weapons outside its own territory.”

The big question is, of course, whether in the case of a future crisis, Europe will use some of these US weapons against the United States? Has the US created a “Frankenstein monster” in Europe as well?

The New Europe

In a recent article, titled, “A fatal blow for liberty,” the EUobserver warned against the ratification of the EU Constitution. It stated: “The draft constitution contains… critical changes, argues Roland Vaubel, professor of political economy at Mannheim University… Finally and irreversibly, the parliaments of the member countries would lose control over the distribution of competencies between the union and its members. The constitution marks the end of their sovereignty in the union.”

Biblical prophecy reveals that 10 European “core” nations or groups of nations will ultimately “give their authority” to a central power (compare Revelation 17:12-14) — thereby giving up their individual competencies and sovereignties.

In this context, the following report, which was published on March 1, 2005 by www.telegraph.co.uk, may be interesting: “Plans have been drawn up to create an ad-hoc ‘core’ of countries determined to pursue closer integration, in case Britain rejects the draft treaty establishing a European constitution, it was claimed yesterday [by] [s]enior officials close to the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder… They [the core nations] would work on eight or nine chosen goals, such as merging their armed forces and embassies. France and Germany would lead the core, inviting Belgium, Luxembourg, and other pro-integration EU states to join them. Britain would become increasingly irrelevant.”

The Pope’s New Book

The Pope’s new book has angered Jews and other interest groups. In the book, the Pope compared the Holocaust with today’s abortions. Jewish leaders in Germany and elsewhere sharply criticized the Pope for “belittling the Holocaust.” Cardinal Ratzinger was quick to “explain” that this had not been the Pope’s intention. The news.telegraph.co.uk added the following comments about the Pope’s book, on February 23:

“The Pope published a new book yesterday strongly attacking the ‘negative’ society of the West, calling it a godless ‘anti-Gospel and new totalitarianism’ masquerading as democracy… John Paul II’s fifth book, printed first in Italian, blames the moral permissiveness of the West for undermining society with divorce, free love, abortion, euthanasia, and genetic manipulation.”

We assume that you are referring to the concept, taught by some, that ministers can only ordain other ministers to a rank equal to or lower than the rank held by the ordaining minister. Although it is true that the Bible does contain examples reflecting such a procedure, there are other examples reflecting a different procedure.

A correct understanding of this question includes the correct concept of ranks in the ministry. We read in Ephesians 4:11-12 that Christ “Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”

Although this passage addresses “ranks or positions of responsibility” (Compare W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 21, under “Elder, Eldest”), it also clearly talks about functions. We read Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:5-6 that there are “differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but the same God who works all in all.” Paul goes on to explain, in verses 28-29: “And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues [languages]. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?”

In 1 Corinthians 12:5-6, 28-29, Paul is clearly addressing functions, rather than ranks. Note that “evangelists” and “pastors” are not even mentioned in that Scripture. But Paul says that God has appointed “teachers” in the “third” position. If Paul was addressing ranks, he would have had to list them in the “fifth” position, in order to not contradict his statements in Ephesians 4:11-12.

It is for this very reason, that the passages also emphasize functions of responsibility, that Paul referred to himself, not just as an apostle, but also as “a preacher… and a teacher of the Gentiles” (2 Timothy 1:11). These functions are also explained in 1 Timothy 2:7: “I was appointed [by Christ] a preacher and an apostle… a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” In addition, Peter, an apostle, called himself a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1), and John, who was also one of the original apostles, called himself “the elder” (2 John 1; 3 John 1).

Although God has always used His ministry to ordain others into the ministry [and “raising them in rank”], through the laying on of hands and prayer, it is likewise evident that it is God who must inspire those ordinations. We read about this principle in Hebrews 5:4, addressing the ordination to the office of high priest: “And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.”

We also find, in the Old Testament, that the prophet Samuel anointed Saul and David as kings, but it can be hardly said that the office of prophet was “above” the office of king. Again, we see how certain men were chosen by God to fulfill certain functions. We might also remember how Elisha, when he received Elijah’s mantle, also received a double (!) portion of the Holy Spirit, that had dwelt in Elijah (2 Kings 2:9-14).

When we analyze Paul’s life, baptism and ordination, we find that Christ had already set aside Paul (known at that time as Saul) for the purpose of the ministry, before he became converted (compare Acts 9:15-16). When the time had come, the disciple Ananias (most likely a minister, compare our Q&A in Update #171) baptized Saul and laid hands on him for the purpose of receiving the Holy Spirit and for being healed from his blindness. We find, in Acts 11:26, that Barnabas and Saul assembled with the church at Antioch for one year “and taught a great many people.” Then they went to Jerusalem to bring the elders of the church relief from the famine that plagued the areas. Acts 12:25 continues to report that “Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem [to Antioch] when they had fulfilled their ministry, and they also took with them John whose surname was Mark.”

At this juncture, we read, in Acts 13:1: “Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” We notice that all these prophets and teachers were functioning in the church at Antioch, and that both Barnabas and Saul were included in the group referred to as teachers and prophets at that time. Continuing in verse 2: “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, ‘NOW, separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'”

It was at that moment in time that Christ made it clear to the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch that Barnabas and Saul were to be “separated” for a particular aspect or function of the work of Christ. Notice verse 3: “Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.”

The word “apostle” means, “one who is sent.” We read, in Matthew 10:1-8, that Christ SENT OUT the original twelve apostles to preach the gospel, heal the sick and cast out demons. It is of special note that Jesus Himself established the office of apostle–even selecting that name as the title: “And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles” (Luke 6:13). Consider, also, that first, Jesus prayed about those whom He should choose to be apostles: “Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God” (Luke 6:12).

The same was now happening with Barnabas and Saul. The prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch ordained them to the office of apostles, to be sent forth to do a particular work. We know this to be true as they were never referred to as apostles before, but they were subsequently called apostles (compare Acts 14:4, 14). This has also been the long-held understanding of the Church of God. In addition, Paul said that he was ordained as an apostle (compare 1 Timothy 2:7, Authorized Version). The only record of his ordination can be found in Acts 13:1-3.

What is important to realize is that Barnabas and Saul were appointed to the office of apostle by “prophets and teachers” — that is, by ministers of lower positions than that of apostle. But, this was inspired and approved by God, as we have seen.

Some believe that the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch were actually sent by the apostles from Jerusalem, charging them with the task of ordaining Saul and Barnabas to the office of apostle. This, however, is mere speculation, and cannot be proven from Scripture. In fact, Scripture strongly suggests the opposite. We need to realize that Paul and Barnabas had just been in Jerusalem, and returned to Antioch. It was THERE, in Antioch, that Christ inspired the ministry to ordain Paul and Barnabas as apostles — not in Jerusalem. Also, the fact that prophets came from Jerusalem is normally specifically mentioned in Scripture (compare Acts 11:27; 21:10).

In any event, it is THE Apostle, Jesus Christ (compare Hebrews 3:1), Who directs the ministry to ordain people in His Church. And it was Christ Who inspired the prophets and teachers (ministers of lower positions than that of apostle) in the church at Antioch to ordain Barnabas and Saul (who belonged to the group of prophets and teachers), to the rank and office of apostle. It is therefore clear, from Scripture, that pastors and elders are authorized, by God, and under God’s inspiration and direction, to ordain a fellow minister to a higher rank and office — such as evangelist.

Our new booklet on war and related issues has reached our final review cycle. It is anticipated to distribute the printed booklet by Passover.

On Saturday, February 26, 2005, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Predestination and the Heavenly Books.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Almost a year ago, I wrote in an editorial, “Would we be ready if Christ were to return today? Not that He will — but ARE WE READY, NOW?… Rather than trying to figure out when, exactly, Christ will return, we should concentrate on getting READY for that event… ‘Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect’ (Matthew 24:44).” (Editorial, “Are We Ready–Now?”, Update #152, July 16, 2004).

In about two months, baptized members of the Church of God will be partaking of the annual Passover. Before they do, they will examine themselves as to their spiritual condition, so that they may eat the bread and drink the wine in a worthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). When they are ready to eat the Passover, they proclaim “the Lord’s death till He comes” (verse 26).

Some have wondered what being “ready” for Christ’s return means, in practical application. We must be SPIRITUALLY ready, not living in spiritual darkness (1 Thessalonians 5:4). Rather than sleeping and being drunk with the ideas of this world, we are to be “sober” and to watch our own spiritual make-up (verse 6). But, getting or being “ready” does definitely NOT mean, ceasing to work hard, pursuing a career, or putting our whole being into the necessary activities of this physical life. It may be tempting to say: “Since Christ will be returning soon, why should I concentrate on going to college, getting an education, finding a satisfying and somewhat stable job, getting married, having children, or enjoying this physical life in the right way?” But such thoughts are not in accordance with the Holy Scriptures.

The Bible’s timeless admonition in this regard is very illustrative, and must be carefully applied, especially by members of God’s Church. Notice just a few examples, dealing with our duty to work:

“For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good” (2 Thessalonians 3:10-13).

“Let him who stole steal no longer [including wasting time — the time of others, as well as God’s time given to us, by not doing what God has instructed us to do], but rather let him labor, working with his hands [and with his mind and energy] what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (Ephesians 4:28).

“He who tills his land will be satisfied with bread, But he who follows frivolity [Lit. vain things] is devoid of understanding” (Proverbs 12:11; compare Proverbs 28:19).

“In all labor there is profit, But idle chatter [Lit. talk of the lips] leads only to poverty” (Proverbs 14:23).

“Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might…” (Ecclesiastes 9:10).

“In the morning sow your seed, And in the evening do not withhold your hand” (Ecclesiastes 11:6)

“The hand of the diligent will rule [including preparing diligently for a career in which one will ultimately excel; compare Proverbs 21:5: “The plans of the diligent lead surely to plenty…”], But the lazy man will be put to forced labor [e.g., he will have to work in an unsatisfying position]” (Proverbs 12:24).

“Laziness casts one into a deep sleep, And an idle person will suffer hunger” (Proverbs 19:15)

“Wealth gained by dishonesty will be diminished, But he who gathers BY LABOR will increase” (Proverbs 13:11).

Of course, God warns us not to overwork for the purpose of becoming rich (Proverbs 23:4), and not to “trust in uncertain riches” (1 Timothy 6:17). But this does not mean that we should cease working, if we are able to work (We are not addressing, of course, those who are unable to work because of health reasons or old age). In fact, Proverbs 27:23-24 tells us: “Be diligent to know the state of your flocks, And attend to your herds; For riches are not forever…”

In addition, God commanded that a man and a woman should get married — provided, that they are compatible. If we are patient, God WILL provide the right mate for us. Proverbs 18:22 tells us: “He who finds a wife finds a good thing, And obtains favor from the LORD.” We also read that “a prudent wife is from the LORD” (Proverbs 19:14). And notice that a prudent or virtuous wife works hard, as described in Proverbs 31:

“(Verse 13) She seeks wool and flax, And willingly works with her hands… (Verse 16) She considers a field and buys it; From her profit she plants a vineyard… (Verse 21) She is not afraid of snow for her household, For all her household is clothed with scarlet. (Verse 22) She makes tapestry for herself… (Verse 24) She makes linen garments and sells them… (Verse 27) She watches over the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness… (Verse 31) Give her of the fruit of her hands, And let her own works praise her in the gates.”

At the same time, we are told that we are to first prepare financially for marriage through our work and a good education: “Prepare your outside work, Make it fit for yourself in the field; And afterward build your house” (Proverbs 24:27). Some may feel that they should not get married or have children, because of the times that we are living in. There may indeed come a time in the future, when this might be an appropriate advice (compare 1 Corinthians 7:26-27). But that time is not here yet! And we don’t know, exactly, when it will arrive. In the meantime, we are to live by obeying the specific commands of God.

To get ready for the return of Christ INCLUDES living diligently in obedience to God’s laws of labor, so that we are able to provide for ourselves and those in our care (compare 1 Timothy 5:8; Proverbs 13:22). Our physical labor will have a reward, and the way we conduct our work may even determine whether we will inherit eternal life. Proverbs 10:16 says: “The labor of the righteous leads to life, the wages of the wicked to sin.”

Special Report — President Bush in Europe and Russia

Before President Bush began his trip to Europe and Russia, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported on Sunday, February 20, 2005, about President Bush’s “mission to heal European relations.” In the front-page article, the following astonishing and telling comments were published:

“With U.S.-European relations thawing and U.S.-Russian ties frayed, President Bush departs today in a five-day fence-mending trip to the heart of some of the harshest criticism of American foreign policy… The president’s decision to begin his three-country trip in Brussels, Belgium…. is seen as highly significant by European diplomats, who feel Bush finally is giving a UNITED EUROPE THE RESPECT IT DESERVES… Bush is scheduled to spend tomorrow [Monday] and Tuesday in Brussels, a city some in the administration call ‘THE BELLY OF THE BEAST’ BECAUSE IT IS HOME TO THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND IS WHERE MANY PLANS ARE HATCHED TO BUILD UP EUROPEAN INFLUENCE AS COUNTERWEIGHT TO AMERICAN SWAY.”

In the book of Revelation, the presently developing European power bloc is indeed identified as the last resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, or, “the beast.” It is therefore remarkable that some in the Bush administration use this term to refer to the city of Brussels — the seat of the European Parliament — as the “belly of the beast.” The Bible shows that the relationship between the United States of America and the European power bloc, in its final configuration, will NOT be friendly. The following excerpts from various publications show that we have clearly reached the beginning stages of these Biblically prophesied developments:

Reuters reported on February 19, 2005, that President Bush “is taking issue with a Chirac notion that a united Europe would serve as a counterbalance to the United States… Bush as well took exception to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s recent comment that NATO was no longer ‘the primary venue’ for trans-Atlantic dialogue.”

On February 18, 2005, The Associated Press stated: “… throughout Europe — in countries like Italy whose governments supported the Iraq war and in those like France which vehemently opposed it — antagonism toward Bush remains widespread… For Europeans, the friendlier new Rice doctrine seems to amount to this: We’d be delighted to work with you — as long as it’s on the U.S. agenda of spreading democracy around the world. Most Europeans think that’s a very dangerous idea. A recent German Marshall Fund poll indicated that 65 percent of the French felt American leadership in the world was undesirable. Europeans are all the more wary of U.S. leadership because they feel they were lied to about the main reason for going to war in Iraq: Weapons of mass destruction. A German poll this month illustrated just how widespread the feeling is in Europe that Washington can’t be trusted. The Infratest dimap research group survey indicated about 70 percent of Germans believe the United States was already planning an attack on IRAN over its nuclear program.”

In spite of the friendly appearances for the cameras and the press, President Bush and Chancellor Schroeder remain sharply divided on certain issues. As The Associated Press reported on Wednesday, February 23, 2005, “Bush and Schroeder remain far apart on the subject of how to make Iran give up any plans it has to build such an arsenal, although both said they agreed that the end result must be a nuclear-arms free Iran.” In addition, according to the report, “The two remain far apart… on Europe’s desire to end a 15-year-old arms embargo on China.”

Reuters added in an article, dated February 23, 2005: “‘Europe is America’s closest ally,’ Bush said on the second stop of a European tour. ‘In order for us to have good relations with Europe we have to have good relations with Germany.'”

Although this statement is absolutely correct, Biblical prophecy and present reality show that it is more or less wishful thinking. The article continued: “Germans remain bitter about the Iraq war and polls show they do not trust Bush, who told a Berlin audience in May 2002 he had ‘no war plans on my desk’ 10 months before the invasion.”

The German press has been rather outspoken in regard to the Bush visit to Germany. Der Spiegel Online referred to President Bush as the “most endangered man in the world” (“Bush-Besuch,” February 17, 2005). Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt wrote in Die Zeit that the relationship between the United States and Europe is a “question of dignity.” He stated: “We Europeans don’t want to be vassals. We want to maintain our dignity.” In a related article, Die Zeit wrote that the “temperature between Europe and the United States will remain chilly” — mainly because of “different interests.” The German newspaper raised the question whether the real reason lies in the fact that it is just popular these days, in the eyes of the world, to differ from the United States.

Der Spiegel Online reported on February 23, 2005, that President Bush avoided supporting his father’s [former U.S. President George Bush’s] expressed opinion that Germany and the United States are to be the leaders in the world, to guarantee freedom and peace. Der Stern reported that even after President Bush’s visit to Germany, 80 percent of Germans believe that Bush will continue to refuse to listen to his European allies in questions of foreign politics.

Euobserver.com published several additional articles, dated February 23, 2005, showing the remaining and even deepening rift between the United States and Europe, including Germany. The publication pointed out:

“US President George W. Bush has resisted calls from some quarters in Europe for a forum other than NATO to discuss transatlantic relations… ‘In order for NATO to be vital it’s got to be relevant, and if it stays stuck in the past it’s slowly but surely going to fade into oblivion”, said the president. His remarks were a rebuff to French President Jacques Chirac who on Tuesday backed a call by Germany suggesting that NATO was no longer the ‘primary venue’ for transatlantic relations. ‘Europe and the United States are real partners. So we need to dialogue and listen to each other more’, said Mr Chirac.”

In addition, President Bush and President Putin continued to disagree on certain important issues. As The Associated Press reported on Thursday, February 24, 2005, “President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed Thursday on new efforts to keep nuclear arms out of dangerous hands, but their sharp differences over Russian backsliding on democracy spilled into an open and sometimes prickly exchange.”

Biblical prophecy shows that the United States will become more and more isolated in the world. Alliances will be formed without or even in opposition to the United States. It is also revealed in Scripture that a mighty power bloc in the East, consisting of countries such as Russia, China, Japan, and India, will be at odds with Europe in the near future. For more information, please read our free booklets, “Europe in Prophecy,” and “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

The account referred to can be found in Judges 11:30-31, 34-40. We read:

“And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, ‘If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.’… When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah [after having defeated the Ammonites], there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it.’ So she said to him, ‘My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth… let me alone for two months, that I… bewail my virginity…’ And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.”

Before addressing whether Jephthah actually sacrificed his own daughter, let us point out that Jephthah will be resurrected, as an immortal spirit being, at the time of Christ’s return, to enter the Kingdom of God, as Hebrews 11:32, 39-40 clearly implies. This fact alone does not answer the question, however, whether or not Jephthah committed the abominable act of killing his own daughter — we understand that EVERY sin can and will be forgiven by God upon true repentance.

Commentaries are divided as to the question whether Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. The Ryrie Study Bible explains:

“Some understand that Jephthah’s daughter was only dedicated to the service of God in a life of celibacy and not actually slain. Others hold that she was killed according to Canaanite practices which Jephthah had embraced.”

Rienecker, Lexicon of the Bible, points out:

“The question of Jephthah’s vow is not clearly resolved. He had vowed to offer to the LORD as burnt offering what (or possibly, according to the Hebrew, who) would meet him upon his victorious return (Judges 11: 30, 31). That was his only daughter. After granting her two months to bemoan her virginity, he did what he had vowed (verse 39). This seems to indicate, in combination with his grief (verse 35), that the burnt offering was actually completed. On the other hand, the law of the Israelites did not allow human sacrifices, but it permitted to redeem a person who had been dedicated to the LORD (Leviticus 27:1-8). Some have concluded that Jephthah, who is mentioned with approval in 1 Samuel 12:11 and Hebrews 11:32, was able to circumvent the literal fulfillment of his vow. Some have speculated that a celibate, withdrawn life (Judges 11:39) could also show complete dedication to the LORD, as a burnt offering would have shown. The right conclusion is difficult, as the Holy Scriptures only report, without expressly judging either the vow itself or its fulfillment.”

The Nelson Study Bible seems to prefer the understanding that Jephthah did not actually kill his daughter. The following is stated in support of that view:

“Some have interpreted Jephthah’s vow ‘whatever comes out of the doors’ as a clear intention to offer a human sacrifice. His surprise then is not that he had to sacrifice a human being, but that the unfortunate person was his daughter. The phrase ‘to meet me’ seems to refer more appropriately to a human than to an animal… Undoubtedly, Jephthah knew that human sacrifice was strictly forbidden in Israel (Lev. 18:21; 20:2; Deut. 12:31; 18:10; Jer. 19:5; Ezek. 20:30, 31; 23:37, 39), but his foolishness and lack of faith impelled him to make a reckless vow in order to try to manipulate God (11:39).

“… But did Jephthah have to follow through on his vow? Ordinarily the answer would be yes. Vows were made only to God, and they were solemn pledges that had to be kept. People were not forced to take them, but if they did, they had to be honored (Deut. 23:21-23; Ps. 15:4; Eccl. 5:4, 5). But Jephthah had vowed something sinful in itself if his intent was to make a human sacrifice in the literal sense.

“… The text does not explicitly say that he killed his daughter, only that ‘he carried out his vow.’ When the verse goes on to say that ‘she knew no man,’ some take this to mean that she was ‘sacrificed’ by being dedicated to a life of perpetual virginity. Several arguments can be made for this interpretation. First, human sacrifice was contrary to the Law of Moses… Second, the great respect that Jephthah had for God surely would have prevented him from making such a perverse offering. Third, the fact that Jephthah permitted his daughter to bewail her virginity… for two months fits an explanation of perpetual virginity better than human sacrifice. Fourth, the indication that his daughter ‘knew no man’ also seems to be a detail that would support the idea of celibacy. Fifth, the Bible provides evidence that such devoted service for women did exist at the central sanctuary (Ex. 38:8; I Sam. 2:22; Luke 2:36, 37). In ancient Israelite society, the father had the power to prohibit a daughter to marry. Sixth, the conjunction in Jephthah’s pivotal statement in v. 31, that whatever or whoever came out of the door ‘shall be the LORD’s, AND I will offer it up as a burnt offering’ could be translated OR. Thus, if a person came out first, he would dedicate that person to the LORD, OR if an animal came out first, he would offer the animal as a burnt offering.”

However, several problems exist with that interpretation. To begin with, it is possible that Jephthah had strictly an animal in mind, when he made his vow, as Jephthah’s words (in Judges 11:31) can be translated from the Hebrew, as follows: “Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me…, I will offer IT up for a burnt offering” (compare Authorized Version). It was common at that time for houses to have enclosed courtyards where animals were kept.

In any event, whatever Jephthah’s original intent, the earliest Christian and Jewish commentators all seem to have accepted the story at face value; that is, that Jephthah killed his daughter. It appears that the medieval Jewish commentator David Kimchi was the first to suggest that rather than having sacrificed his daughter, Jephthah merely kept her a perpetual virgin. The New Bible Commentary: Revised explains:

“It has sometimes been inferred… that Jephthah commuted his daughter’s fate from burnt-offering to perpetual virginity, but this is hardly warranted by the narrative. The plain and restrained statement that he ‘did with her according to his vow’ (v. 39) is best taken as implying her actual sacrifice. Although human sacrifice was strictly forbidden to Israelites, we need not be surprised at a man of Jephthah’s half-Canaanite antecedents following Canaanite usage in this matter. The author of Judges does not approve of his action; he may well have regarded it as a symptom of the state of affairs at a time when ‘every man did what was right in his own eyes’ (cf. 17:6; 21:25). The closest biblical parallel is Mesha’s sacrifice of his eldest son (2 Ki 3:27).”

The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, agrees with this conclusion. So do Matthew Henry’s Commentary; The Broadman’s Bible Commentary; Unger’s Bible Handbook; Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible; and, apparently, Halley’s Bible Handbook.

It has also been the long-held understanding of the Church of God that Jephthah did in fact sacrifice his only daughter. It is stated in “The Bible Story”: “Though some commentators have thought Jephthah kept his daughter a perpetual virgin, the Jews and most commentators have understood this tragic story as explained in the Authorized Version of the Bible. Jephthah learned a mighty lesson. He discovered, through this tragedy, the real lesson of faith — that one does not have to vow to God in order to have Him perform what He has promised. What God expects is that we learn to trust Him in everything. When Jephthah finally learned that lesson, he became an outstanding example of faith. Paul even referred to him in Hebrews 11:32 as one of the outstanding examples of faith in the Old Testament.”

An older letter from the Letter Answering Department of the Worldwide Church of God added: “Jephthah made a very rash and foolish vow. He further compounded his error by keeping his vow (Judg. 11:39). That, no doubt, was greatly displeasing to God. Nevertheless, Jephthah is mentioned among the faithful listed in Hebrew 11 (see verse 32). This leads us to conclude that — like other servants of God — he ultimately realized the error of his own ways, repented, and received God’s forgiveness.”

In conclusion, it appears that Jephthah, following faulty human reasoning, sacrificed his own daughter. Upon his repentance, God forgave him, and Jephthah will be resurrected to immortal life, when Jesus Christ returns. This fact should give us great comfort and hope. Whatever sins we might have committed in our lives, God will forgive, when we genuinely and sincerely repent of them.

We would like to thank all of you for your prayers for a successful Church Conference, which ended on Wednesday. We will announce soon exciting new projects to be implemented, to fulfill our God-given duties to preach the gospel and feed the flock.

On Saturday, February 19, 2005, Rene Messier and Brian Gale will give split sermons in San Diego.

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 12:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 2:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

When God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of its depravity (compare Genesis 18 and 19), Lot lingered (Genesis 19:16), rather than fleeing from such an ungodly place. But eventually sanity prevailed, and Lot, his wife and his daughters escaped from the scene of such ungodliness. Lot’s wife, however, “looked back” and died (Genesis 19:26). While there are a number of aspects of this story that could be discussed, I want to just briefly mention two of them in this editorial.

First, it seemed that Lot and his family had become so accustomed to wrong behavior and a society that had strayed so far from the way of God, that escaping from such a place seemed madness, so much so, that Lot’s sons-in-law thought he was joking (Genesis 19:14). Apparently, even righteous Lot did not think that God would actually DESTROY the place. So, why should they flee? For example, today homosexuality is considered an alternative life style rather than the perversion and the abomination that the Bible describes. No doubt, many of the attitudes displayed today are a reflection of the same sort of attitudes that prevailed around 4,000 years ago in Sodom and Gomorrah. Nothing, it would appear, seems to change! But the place was obviously a hotbed of sin of all descriptions. Lot and his family were to forsake the city emotionally as well as physically, and were to loathe it as God loathed it. Do we feel the same about the Sodom and Gomorrah-type-society that we live in, and loathe its many sins?

Second, it is obvious that such reluctance to flee the place was because they accepted the society which afforded them a pleasant life and a comfortable standard of living. Even though Lot “tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds” (2 Peter 2:8), he still had chosen to dwell and stay there (same verse), because of the wealth it had to offer (compare Genesis 13:9-11). As an Englishman abroad at present, currently in southern California for the Church conference, I have, yet again, been reminded that this is truly a land flowing with milk and honey, probably much greater than that promised to ancient Israel (compare Deuteronomy 6:3). There is a super abundance of everything which just seems to be taken for granted by so many. But, do we trust in our riches and have we set our hearts on them, so much so, that we would be unwilling to leave them behind, if God were to require it?

Let us remember these two important lessons that can easily be forgotten:

(1) We must not accept ungodly behavior, irrespective of what is happening around us and what society deems to be acceptable.

(2) While we must never take for granted the many blessings that God constantly gives to us all, we must never set our hearts on physical things. A godly attitude in every aspect of our life will enable us to obey God and to cope with whatever faces us in the future. Failure to trust God as we should will prove to be a recipe for disaster.

1 Corinthians 10:11 sums it up perfectly: “Now all these things happened to them as examples and were written for our admonition….” Let us be among those who learn from history, which is something that rarely seems to happen.

Anniversary of Destruction of Dresden

As the Associated Press reported on February 13, 2005, “Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder warned Germans not to forget their Nazi past Sunday as far-right supporters rallied in Dresden on Sunday to protest a devastating Allied bombing in Second World War that killed an estimated 35,000 residents 60 years ago. Schroeder said the anniversary was an occasion for people everywhere to unite against the ‘inhumanity of war.’ But the rally – and fears of street clashes – cast a shadow over a day of remembrance and reflection on the U.S.-British air raids, which set off firestorms and destroyed the centuries-old city centre. ‘Today we grieve for the victims of war and the Nazi reign of terror in Dresden, in Germany and in Europe,’ [Schroeder] said in a statement. ‘We will oppose in every way these attempts to reinterpret history. We will not allow cause and effect to be reversed.'”

The article of The A.P. continued: “Some 5,000 far-right activists later rallied at the Saxony legislature and then marched through the city. Heading the march were leaders of the nationalist, anti-immigrant National Democratic party, which won seats in the legislature last fall. Dozens of marchers carried flaming torches and loudspeakers blared music by Richard Wagner, Hitler’s favourite composer. Banners described the attack as a ‘bomb Holocaust’ and said, ‘The day of revenge will come.’

“At least 4,500 people demonstrated against the far right, and police were out in force to keep the two sides apart. At dusk, residents in the old town lit 4,000 candles that were arranged to spell ‘This city is sick of neo-Nazis’ in Germany.”

According to the German press, including Bild Online and Der Spiegel Online, the number of those who demonstrated against the Neo-Nazis was FAR GREATER than the figures reported by the Associated Press. Bild Online stated that more than 50,000 (!) residents of the city of Dresden [not, as stated by The A.P., 4,500] demonstrated AGAINST the Neo-Nazis.

Chancellor Schroeder is absolutely right, when he warns against the abominable activities of Neo-Nazis in Germany; the re-writing of history; and the attempt to reverse cause and effect. He is also to be applauded for pointing out the inhumanity of war — ANY war! The Bible agrees with this assessment — war only leads to more war and terrible suffering, pain and death of many innocent people. The death of 35,000 civilians in Dresden 60 years ago is only one example of the many cases of history, which prove this point beyond the shadow of any doubt. And still — have we learned the lesson of history? Sadly, the answer is a resounding, NO! Man still thinks that war may solve ANYTHING — and so, we still hear of wars and of rumors of wars (compare Matthew 24:6). Paul’s words are still true today: “Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known” (Romans 3:15-17).

Election Results in Iraq — Good or Bad?

As The Associated Press reported on February 13, 2005, “Clergy-backed Shiites and independence-minded Kurds swept to victory in Iraq’s landmark elections, propelling to power the groups that suffered the most under Saddam Hussein and forcing Sunni Arabs to the margins for the first time in modern history, according to final results released Sunday. But the Shiites’ 48 percent of the vote is far short of the two-thirds majority needed to control the 275-member National Assembly… Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the secular Shiite chosen by the United States to lead this country for the last eight turbulent months, fared POORLY – his ticket finishing a distant third behind the religious Shiites and Kurds. ..

“The election results highlighted the SHARP DIFFERENCES among Iraq’s ethnic, religious and cultural groups – many of whom fear domination not just by the Shiites, estimated at 60 percent of the population, but also by the Kurds, the most pro-American group with about 15 percent. The results also draw attention to the close and longtime ties between now-victorious Iraqi Shiite leaders and clerics in neighboring IRAN. The Shiite ticket owes its success to the support of Iraq’s clerics, including Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.”

In spite of the optimistic reactions to Iraq’s elections, the fact that the person supported by the US fared poorly; that the different groups in Iraq are sharply at odds with each other; and that the elected Iraqi Shiite leaders have close ties with Iran raises cause for concern regarding the future developments in Iraq.

Iran and the West

The Associated Press reported on February 13, 2005, that “Germany appealed Saturday for the United States to join Europe in ending Iran’s isolation, saying economic and security incentives were needed to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions… Germany, France and Britain are leading European efforts to persuade Iran to drop activities that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, and have been offering technical assistance and trade talks as incentives… The United States has worried Europeans by refusing to rule out military strikes if diplomacy fails. Washington has urged the Europeans to take a tougher line by threatening Tehran with U.N. sanctions.”

In a related article, The Associated Press reported on February 13, 2005, that “Iran rejected a European demand to stop building a heavy-water nuclear reactor that provides a simpler way of extracting weapons-grade fuel, and it warned the United States on Sunday ‘not to play with fire’ by repeatedly threatening Tehran. Iran has indicated previously it will keep its heavy-water reactor, but Sunday’s announcement that it will not replace it with a light-water reactor was the clearest statement yet of its nuclear plans and represented a hardening of its position… The statement underscored the unresolved differences between Iranian and European negotiators, who are continuing their talks over Iran’s nuclear program even as the United States escalates its criticism of Iran.”

It is interesting that it is, again, Germany, in alliance with France and Britain, which is taking a leading role on the world scene. It is also noteworthy that Europe (especially Germany and France) and the United States are, once more, in disagreement — in this case, as to how to deal with Iran. If European peace efforts fail (as the U.S. contended happened in the case of Iraq), will the U.S. once again pursue its course of action toward Iran without, or even against, the interests and concerns of the Europeans? The distinct possibility exists — and we are called upon to watch events like these, as they could very well lead to a further fulfillment of end-time prophecy.

NATO Forces in the Middle East?

The Associated Press reported on February 12, 2005, that “NATO should be ready to play a major role in supporting any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, if the two sides ask for its help, the alliance’s top diplomat [Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer] said Saturday… Also, German Defense Minister Peter Struck told the conference his country was ready to take part in any NATO peacekeeping mission in the region… In Munich, [Scheffer] underlined NATO’s long peacekeeping experience and its ability to bring together the United States – Israel’s close ally – and Europeans, who are perceived as closer to Palestinians… However, officials from France and some other European nations have expressed caution about entering the Middle East. Israeli officials are wary about bringing in a NATO force, and some Arab leaders have doubts about an alliance led by the United States… The EU’s foreign affairs chief, Javier Solana, also called for increased international assistance for the revived peace process, particularly by supporting the Israeli pull out from Gaza and aiding economic development for the Palestinians.”

The Bible prophesies that Jerusalem WILL BE surrounded by armies — in the future (compare Luke 21:20, 22, 24). We also know from Scripture that it will be a mighty European military force, under German leadership, which will enter the Middle East, perhaps with the declared goal to create or maintain peace in the region. The present discussion, as reported in the quoted article, is therefore worth observing.

NATO Outdated?

As RFE/RL reported on February 14, 2005, “German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder surprised participants at an international security conference over the weekend by suggesting the NATO alliance is outdated. Speaking through Germany’s defense minister [Peter Struck], Schroeder [who did not attend the meeting] told the meeting in the German city of Munich that NATO no longer is the main vehicle for setting trans-Atlantic strategy… ‘[NATO] is no longer the primary place where trans-Atlantic partners consult and coordinate their strategic ideas,’ Struck said. ‘The same goes for the dialogue between the European Union and the United States, which in its present form does not correspond with the growing weight of the alliance or the new challenges of trans-Atlantic cooperation.’… Schroeder’s comments came as a shock. Several European and U.S. delegates [including U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld] told the conference they regretted Schroeder was not present to explain his remarks. Struck said he was not in a position to do so but added that it was not Schroeder’s intention to put NATO in the grave but to improve international cooperation. [Struck] began by saying circumstances in both Europe and the United States had changed with the end of the Cold War and Europe wanted to be more deeply involved in decision-making.”

Whether or not Chancellor Schroeder’s comments are “premature,” the Bible clearly reveals that in the future, NATO will indeed lose more and more importance and influence, and it will be replaced by a powerful European power bloc, which will be ultimately at odds with the United States.

Assassination in Lebanon

As The Associated Press reported on February 15, 2005, “An angry mob attacked Syrian workers in southern Lebanon Tuesday and another group threw stones and set fires outside a Syrian government office in Beirut, blaming Damascus for the bomb that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria has denied any involvement in Hariri’s assassination, which raised fears that Lebanon might revert to the political violence of the 1970s and ’80s, and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut warned Americans in the Lebanese capital to exercise extreme caution. Condemnation and expressions of shock came from around the Arab world and beyond. The United States called Monday’s attack ‘a terrible reminder’ that Lebanon still must shake free of occupation by Syria, which maintains 15,000 troops [there]… since the civil war ended in 1990 and has the final say in internal Lebanese politics. Before his assassination, Hariri had positioned himself in opposition to a faction more solidly backed by Syria.”

The Holy Scriptures do not record Paul’s death, and although historians agree that Paul was murdered, they are somewhat divided regarding the precise events leading to Paul’s death.

For instance, the 27th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, copyright 1959, writes on page 394, under “Paul”:

“Paul’s fate is hardly obscure. He himself saw that the charge against him, unrebutted by independent evidence, must bring him to the executioner’s sword, the last penalty for a Roman citizen. With this late and century tradition agrees (Tertullian, ‘De praescr. haer.’ 36), namely the very spot on the Ostian Way, marked by a martyr-memorial (‘tropaion,’ Caius ‘ap.’ Euseb. ii 25), probably at the modern Tre Fontane, some three miles from Rome. But the traditional date (June 29) reaches us only on far later authority. Acts simply suggests summer A.D. 62; and we may perhaps imagine Timothy reaching Rome in time to share Paul’s last days.”

Historians are by no means in agreement regarding the actual year of Paul’s death.

“The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,” by James Hastings, copyright 1917, states on page 694:

“The close of Paul’s life, therefore, like its beginning, is enveloped in obscurity. That he suffered martyrdom at Rome there can be no doubt. That it was by beheading, and that the place of execution was three miles outside the city on the Ostian Way, is the consistent tradition of the Roman Church. The date will lie between A.D. 64 and 67, most probably nearer the former date than the latter limit.”

Historians are divided, whether Paul’s death took place immediately after the end of the events described in Acts 28:30-31, that is, around A.D. 62, or whether a few years after those events, that is, between A.D. 64 and 67. The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 10, states on pages 151-152:

“Luke brings his book to a close with a summary account of Paul’s stay in Rome and tells us that he had full freedom in his preaching and teaching… The abruptness of the author’s conclusion has led to much speculation among New Testament scholars. Some believe that the work was unfinished due to the author’s death. Others maintain that the ending of Acts was lost. A few contend that Luke intended to write a third volume…”

We might interject here that some feel that Luke ended the account in the book of Acts in such a drastic way, as he was not inspired to reveal, at that time, the location of the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel. The book of Acts does not report the later activities of the original apostles, such as Peter, because, as some contend, they preached the gospel to the lost ten tribes (compare Matthew 10:6).

The Broadman Bible Commentary continues: “Cadbury (The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 333) cites an imperial edict attributed to the reign of Nero which specifies the time limit when cases were dropped. For capital cases in Roman provinces across the sea which were brought to Rome, the accuser and the accused had to appear in court before the maximum limit of 18 months. If the time limit should be exceeded, the case went by default. Perhaps Luke implied that Paul’s case was dropped by telling us that the apostle lived in Rome for two whole years at his own expense. If this was the situation, the author did end his book in a highly dramatic manner. The default was equivalent to an acquittal before Caesar’s court and gave tacit legal approval to the Christian movement…

“Clement of Rome about A.D. 95 says that Paul ‘preached the gospel to the uttermost bounds of the west.’ It is quite possible that Cement’s information is based on Paul’s express hope to go to Spain (Rom. 15:24,28). Tradition also tells us that the apostle, after his release, was arrested again by Roman officials and put in prison at Rome. Further, during the persecution of Christians by Nero in A.D. 64, Paul was put to death by the executioner’s ax. He was spared from crucifixion because he was a Roman citizen.”

Eusebius explains in “The History of the Church,” edited 1965, pp. 98-99, that Paul was spared in his first trial, as he was “rescued out of the lion’s mouth, the reference being apparently to Nero [or Satan, compare 1 Peter 5:8, using Nero as one of his instruments], because of his bestial cruelty.” Eusebius also explains that “Nero’s tyranny did not begin till A.D. 62, when Paul’s first imprisonment was over.”

Frank J. Goodwin writes in “A Harmony of the Life of St.Paul,” edited 1951, on pages 194-196:

“Paul was acquitted after his first trial, and was remanded to prison… After the first trial nothing is certain. ‘That he underwent execution by the sword,’ says Alford, ‘is the constant tradition of antiquity, and would agree with the fact of his Roman citizenship, which would exempt him from death by torture.’ (Proleg., p. 97). Of his last trial and death there is tradition only, but no history (see Conybeare and Howson, II., pp. 488-490).”

Nevertheless, Conybeare and Howson state, in “The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,” reprinted 1976, on pages 782 and 783, that Paul was released from prison after his first trial, but subsequently again arrested and killed by the Romans. They point out: “The death of St. Paul is recorded by his contemporary Clement…; also by the Roman presbyter Caius (about 200 A.D.) (who alludes to the Ostian road as the site of St. Paul’s martyrdom), by Tertullian, Eusebius…, Jerome, and many subsequent writers… The statement that Paul was beheaded on the Ostian road agrees with the usage of the period, and with the tradition that his decapitation was by the sword not the axe.”

A handout on the Epistles of Paul, by the Ambassador College of the Worldwide Church of God, in the fall of 1982, stated the following under “Rome”:

“Rome, an ancient city dating back some 700 years prior to Christ’s birth, was in the time of Paul the powerful capital of a world-ruling empire. The city sat upon seven hills along the Tiber River in what is today modern Italy. The city itself rests nearly fifteen miles inland from Italy’s western coast.

“Paul’s first visit was in chains from Caesarea. He arrived in Rome after a long troublesome voyage and immediately held conference with Jewish leaders there (Acts 28:16-17). His first imprisonment was in his ‘own hired house’ (Acts 28:30). He received Onesimus here (Philemon10) as well as Epaphroditus (Philippians 4:18). He wrote the ‘Prison Epistles’ of Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians and Philemon probably in 60-61 A.D. He expected acquittal as recorded in Philemon 22.

“Activities between his two Roman imprisonments are rather sketchy. We may wonder if he was able to visit Philippi (Philippians 1:26; 2:24), Colossae (Philemon 22) and Spain (Romans 15:24, 28). We may be rather sure he did visit Ephesus and Macedonia (1 Timothy 1:3; 3:14, 15) as well as Crete (Titus 1:5), Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20), Troas (2 Timothy 4:13), Corinth (2 Timothy 4:20) and Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). It was during this time Paul probably wrote Timothy (first epistle) and Titus from Macedonia.

“Finally we come to Paul’s second arrest, his imprisonment and martyrdom. He is imprisoned as an evil-doer (2 Timothy 1:8; 2:8, 9), and writes his final epistle to Timothy in anticipation of death between 65-67 A.D. The epistle gives detail to Paul’s situation during his second imprisonment. It was here in Rome that tradition stated Paul was beheaded.”

In his remarkable book, “The Drama of the Lost Disciples,” edited 1993, George F. Jowett writes on page 127: “In the year A.D. 66 we are told that Claudia, with her husband and children, rescued the murdered body of St. Paul, interring it in the private burial grounds on the Pudens estate [at Rome], where they were all to rest together.” He continues, on pages 179-180:

“But what of Peter and Paul? Did they remain buried at Rome, in the grave where the loving hands of Claudia, Pudens and their children had placed them?… The positive answer is found in a document written by Pope Vitalian to the British King Oswy, A.D. 656. The letter is still in existence. Probably to the astonishment of many, the letter states that Pope Vitalian permitted the remains of the bodies of St. Paul and St. Peter, with the remains of the martyrs St. Lawrence, St. John, St. Gregory and St. Pancras, to be removed from Rome to England and re-interred in the great church at Canterbury. This historic record is beyond refutation… The full facts concenring this amazing incident are related by the Venerable Bede, A.D. 673-735, in his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation.'”

Excerpts from the Pope’s letter to King Oswy read [quoted from Opera Historica, Volume I, p. 501]: “But to your messengers, the bearers of this our letter, we have caused to be given the benefits of the saints, that is to say, the relics of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and of the holy martyrs, Laurence [or Lawrence], John and Paul and of Gregory and Pancras, all to be delivered truly to your excellency.”

It is therefore reasonably certain that Paul was murdered under Nero through beheading. He was buried in Rome, but his body was later transferred to England, where it is today. Paul is still dead, lying in his grave, and waiting for his resurrection at the time of Christ’s return to this earth, in a few years from now.

As announced in last week’s Update, please remember our annual Church conference, which will begin on Friday, February 18, 2005. Please pray for safety for all those who will still be traveling to San Diego. Please also pray to God for inspiration during the conference, and that He would give us the wisdom and understanding of His Will for us.