Update 190

Rejoice Always!

Friday evening, April 22, 2005, is Passover. If you won’t be able to attend local services (which are being held in the USA in California, Colorado and Oregon, starting at 7:30 pm local time), and want to keep the Passover at home, please read the special announcements in this Update, under “Feasts.”

On Saturday, April 23, 2005, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Rejoice Always!”

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.

Saturday night, April 23, 2005, is the Night to Be Much Observed.

Sunday, April 24, 2005, is the First Day of Unleavened Bread. Rene Messier will give the sermon in the morning from Oregon. His sermon is titled, “The Anatomy of Sin.” Edwin Pope will give the sermon in the afternoon from San Diego. His sermon is titled, “We Must Walk Out of Egypt.”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at 9:00 am and 1:30 pm Pacific Time (which is 11:00 am and 3:30 pm Central Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Back to top

Reconciliation

by Rene Messier (Canada)

Several years ago, I saw an interesting movie. Its real message wasn’t evident until the last three minutes. It involved a man with two sons who, over the years, because of major issues between the two sons, had drifted apart.

The man who lived on the west coast was the owner of an automobile on the east coast which needed to be driven to his new residence. This was no ordinary car. It was a beautiful fully restored older vehicle — I believe, a Cadillac — and it looked just like a new car. He asked his eldest son to pick up the car with his younger brother.

As the two young men drove five days across the nation, they got into all kinds of problems. They were bickering at first because of the animosity between them, but it slowly changed. By the third day, the younger brother got into a squabble with a few other men at a bar, and the older brother came to his rescue. They had to flee the scene with their dad’s car, and they were chased by the other men, resulting in damage to the car — scratches on the paint job and dents in the fender.

However, the brothers had finally developed a deep bond for each other. When they arrived at the west coast, the eldest brother went alone to deliver the car to his dad. He knocked at the door with a bit of fear and trepidation. The father came out, walked towards his car, and the son was very apologetic about the damage on the car. To his complete surprise the father said: “Never mind the car, how was the trip with your brother?” The eldest son indicated it went well and that although it started off a bit rough, they had bonded as brothers. The only reply from the father was: “That’s great, that’s just great.”

The father died from cancer three months later, and that’s when the eldest son realized why the father wasn’t concerned about his restored car as much as the relationship between the brothers. To the father, the relationship between the two of them was more important than the car, as he did not want to die while there were bad feelings between his sons.

This movie reminded me of Matthew 5:23-24, where we read: “Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.”

We are keeping the Passover on Friday night. How is our relationship with God and with our brethren? Have we reconciled with God, since it is His law that we transgress when we sin, and reconciliation is through the blood of His beloved Son Jesus Christ? Passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, and Romans 5:10-11 make this very clear.

Christ, as our elder brother, was willing to die for our sins so we could be reconciled to God. In this life we can get caught up in the physical things and get our focus on wrong and unimportant matters. However, we read what is really important, in 1 John 4:7-11:

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born [better: begotten] of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”

The Passover season is a time to get focused on the important things and to be truly reconciled to God and, as much as depends on us, to our brethren, with the realization that reconciliation through the sacrifice of Christ is far more important than anything else.

So let us keep this Passover with a deep feeling of appreciation for the sacrifice which Christ made for all of us.

Back to top

Turmoil at the Temple Mount

As WorldNetDaily reported on April 18, 2005, “A group that led a Jewish protest at the Temple Mount last weekend in hopes of reclaiming the site from its Islamic custodians told WorldNetDaily this morning it will hold monthly protests until Jewish sovereignty is restored, while over 100,000 Indonesian Muslims rallied yesterday for continued Islamic dominance over the Mount. ‘The police blocked most of the people we tried to bring to the Temple Mount last week, so we will continue every month until Jews have a right to pray again at our holiest site,’ said David Ha’ivri, director of Revava, a group with the stated mission of ‘restoring self-esteem to the state of Israel by restoring national pride and values.’

“Revava had announced plans to bring 10,000 Jews to the Mount April 10, prompting Palestinian groups, including Hamas and the Islamic Movement, to threaten violence if a large group of Jews ascended the holy site. Only about 200 Jewish protestors were allowed past intense security, which included over 3,500 Israeli police stationed at checkpoints and entrances throughout the Old City, the walled section of Jerusalem that houses the Temple Mount… Still, over 10,000 Palestinians, including a top Hamas terrorist, made it last week to the Al Aqsa Mosque, where Muslim leaders vowed violent confrontations with any Jews who ascended the Mount. Islamic Jihad issued a press release claiming Jews were planning to ‘attack’ the Mount, which they said would explode the entire region and open an unprecedented confrontation with the ‘Zionist entity.’ … ‘The situation is simply intolerable,’ said Ha’ivri. ‘This is a Jewish state. The Temple Mount is the most holy Jewish site. We’re not going away until Jews can once again pray there unrestricted.”

Haider’s New Party

As the BBC reported on April 17, 2005, “Far-right politician Joerg Haider has launched a new party in Austria after a split in the Freedom Party he once led which threatened the ruling coalition. The new Alliance for Austria’s Future elected Mr Haider as its leader in Salzburg, and it looks set to remain in office with the majority conservatives. All Freedom Party cabinet ministers have defected to the new party…. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, leader of the conservative People’s Party, said he had received sufficient guarantees to work with the new Alliance.”

European Constitution

As the EUobserver reported on April 15, 2005, French president Jacques Chirac is facing opposition to the Constitution from within his own ranks, as well as fighting an uphill battle to win the sympathy of the French people. ‘If this Constitution wins, it is the end of Europe,’ Niclolas Dupont-Aignan, a French MP from Chirac’s own UMP party, declared in Copenhagen on Friday (15 April)…. ‘The system has been built without the will of the people and they will revolt within ten years if this [treaty] is passed. We see it already with the Bolkestein directive and with Turkey’s possible entry into the EU,’ he warned. ‘The EU must adapt to the new world. We don’t want a return to nationalism, but we need a Europe based on democracy.'”

The AFP reported on April 16, 2005, that “The European Union struggled to contain mounting alarm at signs that French voters could reject the EU constitution, in what would be a devastating blow for the expanding bloc… The constitution, which aims to streamline decision-making in the expanded 25-member European Union, must be ratified by all member states. A rejection in France, one of the EU’s largest countries, would effectively kill the treaty. French President Jacques Chirac, alarmed at a series of polls indicating a ‘no’ vote [on May 29], launched a personal effort to persuade voters this week, warning on television that France would be turned into the ‘black sheep’ of Europe.”

In the meantime, Greece ratified the EU Constitution on Wednesday. It was the fifth country to do so (following, for example, Italy and Hungary). Spain was the first country in which the Constitution was accepted via referendum, but the Parliament still has to ratify it. In Germany, the Parliament will vote on May 12, after it was argued that a referendum of the people was “unconstitutional.”

The New Pope

Cardinal Ratzinger (the German “Panzerkardinal,” who was in charge of the office formerly known as the Inquisition) was elected as the new pope. A German paper reportedly stated recently that if Ratzinger was elected, the Inquisition would start again. As reported in this article, Ratzinger talked on Monday about the worst enemies of the Catholic Church, listing “sects” as number 1. Ratzinger recently wrote a paper, stating that one must belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved, and that all the Protestant “daughter” churches must return to the fold of the “mother church.” He also stated that the core issues of orthodox Christianity are the observance of Sunday and Christmas.

It is also noteworthy that Benedict XV was elected just prior to World War I. Ratzinger adopted the name of Benedict XVI. According to the Washington Post, he elected the name to honor “Saint Benedict, the patron saint of Europe, and Benedict XV, the pope who tried to stop the First World War.”

Also, the late pope, John Paul II, had recently stated, that Satan had been cast down from heaven, and that the Great Tribulation was about to begin.

As AFP had already reported, prior to the election, on April 16, 2005, “Vatican intrigue intensifies as conclave looms to elect new pope.” The article continued: “Ratzinger, who turned 78 on Saturday, was John Paul II’s prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — his theological ‘enforcer.’ He has come from behind in the sweepstakes as a potential new pope, despite his age, uncertain health and a bloc of cardinals, including fellow Germans, who consider him too conservative…The identity of the next pope is critical to the Church as it struggles to retain influence in an increasingly secular world. John Paul II took a strongly conservative position on issues ranging from abortion, divorce, contraception and euthanasia to the ordination of women. Many in the Church, however, want his successor to adopt a more liberal stance in line with changing social values, notably on contraception — particularly in the fight against AIDS — and women.”

The Associated Press had added on April 18, 2005: “German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, considered a top contender to be the next pope, lashed out Monday at what he called threats to the fundamental truths of the Roman Catholic Church as he sought to set a conservative tone for the conclave to elect a new pope…. It was a clear message that Ratzinger wanted his fellow 114 cardinal electors to pick a new pope who will hold fast to the strict doctrinal line that John Paul charted and that he upheld as the powerful prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Ratzinger ticked off the threats facing the church and the next pontiff: sects and ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism and agnosticism, collectivism, and what he called ‘radical individualism’ and ‘vague religious mysticism.'”

Finally, on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, it was announced that Joseph Ratzinger had been elected the new pope. The Associated Press reported:

“Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, the Roman Catholic Church’s leading hard-liner, was elected the new pope Tuesday in the first conclave of the new millennium. He chose the name Benedict XVI and called himself ‘a simple, humble worker.’… Benedict XV, who reigned from 1914 to 1922, was a moderate following Pius X, who had implemented a sharp crackdown against doctrinal ‘modernism.’ He reigned during World War I and was credited with settling animosity between traditionalists and modernists, and dreamed of reunion with Orthodox Christians… Ratzinger served John Paul II since 1981 as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that position, he has disciplined church dissidents and upheld church policy against attempts by liberals for reforms…It was one of the fastest elections in the past century: Pope Pius XII was elected in 1939 in three ballots on one day, while Pope John Paul I was elected in 1978 in four ballots in one day. The new pope was elected after either four or five ballots over two days. ‘It’s only been 24 hours, surprising how fast he was elected,’ Vatican Radio said.”

The Times on Line wrote on April 19, 2005:

“In 1981 he became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly the Inquisition, where he earned the nickname ‘The Enforcer,’ and Dean of the College of Cardinals in 2002. He and the late Pope were referred to as ‘intellectual bedfellows.’ … Pope Benedict XVI is the eighth German pope. His accomplishments are many, he speaks ten languages and likes to play Beethoven on the piano. But it is in his enforcement of Church doctrine that he has made so many enemies around the world. He said it was ‘an enormous mistake’ to allow Turkey to join the European Union, has described rock music as a ‘vehicle of anti-religion’ and believes cloning is a more serious threat to humanity than weapons of mass destruction. He believes the ban on women priests is necessary to safeguard doctrine, is against multiculturalism and believes that the Church of England is not a proper church. Other religions he regards as deficient and homosexuality in his view is an ‘intrinsic moral evil.'”

In a related article of The Associated Press, it was pointed out:

“… opinion about [Ratzinger] remains deeply divided in Germany, a sharp contrast to John Paul, who was revered in his native Poland. A recent poll for Der Spiegel news weekly said Germans opposed to Ratzinger becoming pope outnumbered supporters 36 percent to 29 percent, with 17 percent having no preference… Many blame Ratzinger for decrees from Rome barring Catholic priests from counseling pregnant teens on their options and blocking German Catholics from sharing communion with their Lutheran brethren at a joint gathering in 2003…”

At the same time, as Bild Online reported, German political leaders welcomed the election of Ratzinger. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a Protestant, and Angela Merkel, Protestant leader of the CDU-opposition party, remarked that the fact that a German was elected pope “fills us with honor and pride,” and that it was “a great honor for our country.” The German tabloid Bild Online, originally very critical of Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote on the front page, in big letters: “We Are Pope!” According to Der Spiegel Online, American Catholics are not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the election of Ratzinger (As a CNN report showed, the reasons can be seen in Ratzinger’s conservative position and his remarks of an alleged conspiracy within the US press regarding the recent U.S. sexual child abuse scandal, involving Catholic priests). In Russia, according to the magazine, they don’t like him, either. The magazine added that the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian-Orthodox Church is “chilly,” and that it will remain that way. In addition, the magazine wrote that many British papers are “fuming.”

The Independent in the UK wrote on April 20, 2005:

“… the softly spoken, courteous, Bavarian cardinal is the iron fist in Catholicism’s velvet glove. Nicknamed ‘God’s rottweiler’ and the ‘Panzerkardinal’ he takes the same unyielding stance on issues such as artificial contraception, abortion and homosexuality — which he has personally called ‘intrinsically evil.’ He called for pro-abortion politicians to be denied communion during the US election campaign. He has argued that Europe should be re-Christianized and that Turkey should not be admitted into the European Union.

“In many areas he is more hardline than his predecessor. He undermined Pope John Paul II’s attempts at reconciliation with the Orthodox churches. After the last pope visited Athens to apologize for the Great Schism of the 11th century, Cardinal Ratzinger issued a document insisting that the Catholic Church was the ‘mother’ of other Christian denominations as opposed to a ‘sister,’ the more common description in ecumenical circles. It wa
s typical of his stance as a more rigid outrider to the positions adopted by John Paul II.”

MSNBC stated on April 20: “The line between religion and politics isn’t clear, but the papacy of Benedict XVI could erase it altogether… If the denial of Communion — the central sacrament of Catholicism — was a weapon used only occasionally before,… it will be more widely used now. In his writings and interviews, the former Cardinal Ratzinger declared that politicians who support abortion rights should be turned away — and that it is a sin for Catholic voters to support a pro-choice candidate if their main reason for doing so is the candidate’s abortion views. We are eons away from the days when John Kennedy wanted to assure voters that the Vatican would hold no sway over his actions. Now everyone frankly acknowledges the Holy See’s role in the American public square. The question is: How will the electorate view the advent of a new Church Militant?”

Der Spiegel Online published an interesting article about the German popes — pointing out that none of Ratzinger’s predecessors were too fortunate on the Roman Catholic throne. Gregory V (996-999), the first German pope, had to flee from Rome naked and without financial means. Shortly after he returned, he died of Malaria. Clemens II (1046-1047) died of poisoning within a year. Damasus II (1048) died within 23 days of Malaria. Leo IX (1049-1054) was captured by the Normans, and under his rule, the Catholic Church split into the Eastern and Western Churches. Victor II (1055-1057) was compelled by the emperor to become pope, but he never gave up his office of bishop in Germany. Stephen IX (1057-1058) died within eight months, while traveling. Finally, Hadrian VI (1522-1523) was unable to prevent the Reformation under Martin Luther.

The future will show how close we have now come to the return of Jesus Christ. Surely, tumultuous and frightening times are ahead of us.

Back to top

What is the "root of bitterness," as mentioned in Hebrews 12:15?

The passage in question reads in full, beginning in verse 14:

“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled; lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected… (verses 14-17).”

Paul gives us several examples to avoid, in order to make sure that we will inherit the blessing of the Kingdom of God. He tells us that if we don’t pursue peace with all people, but rather continue to live a contentious life style, we will not see or be accepted by Jesus Christ. The same is true when we don’t live holy or God-pleasing lives. He also explains that we won’t inherit the blessing either, when we allow a root of bitterness to spring up causing trouble; and finally, we won’t be accepted by God if we commit spiritual fornication by rejecting, through our words, thoughts and deeds, the gift of eternal life which God has in store for us.

Especially the term, “root of bitterness,” is very meaningful, as it can and will defile the bitter person, as well as others, if it is not immediately rooted out.

The Broadman Bible Commentary explains:

“It is interesting to observe that this… [phrase] (‘root of bitterness’) was used by Peter in his denunciation of Simon Magus, who tried to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit with money (Acts 8:23). The writer may be referring to the passage in Deuteronomy 29:18: ‘Beware… lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit.’ Here the warning is against one who assures himself that he is in the covenant relationship, even though he continues to keep a stubborn heart.”

The Commentary continues to point out that Hebrews is referring to “those people who are like Esau, who value immediate gratification of sensual desire above the final approval of God.”

The Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, explains that the root of bitterness “comprehends every person and every principle of doctrine or practice so radically corrupt as to spread corruption all around. The only safety is in rooting out such a root of bitterness… So long as it is hidden under the earth it cannot be remedied, but when it ‘springs up,’ it must be dealt with boldly.”

The New Bible Commentary:Revised adds that a person with a root of bitterness “can bring defilement on the whole congregation.” It refers in this context to the story of Achan, in Joshua 6:18; and 7:25.

When checking the Greek word for “bitterness,” i.e., pikria, it is defined, by W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, as “denot[ing] bitterness.” The Dictionary continues to point out that it “is used in Acts 8:23, metaphorically, of a condition of extreme wickedness, ‘gall of bitterness’ or ‘bitter gall’; in Rom. 3:14 of evil speaking; in Eph. 4:31, of bitter hatred; in Heb. 12:15, in the same sense, metaphorically, of a root of bitterness, producing bitter fruit.”

We can see, then, from the forgoing that the springing up of a root of bitterness must be avoided at all costs. This root does not suddenly appear, without having first been nurtured in the heart of a person. We see from the Biblical examples that the root of bitterness can be the result of wrong motives, thoughts, desires and actions. It is therefore important that we examine our hearts, to see whether Jesus Christ lives in us (compare 2 Corinthians 13:5), or whether we have a bitter, hateful, stubborn or hardened heart and a contentious spirit. If we do have such an arrogant heart (compare Isaiah 9:9), we must repent of it immediately, purify our hearts (James 4:8), and ask God to give us a humble and submissive heart (Matthew 11:29).

Back to top

Preaching the Gospel and Feeding the Flock

A StandingWatch program, titled, “Submitting to Authority,” was posted on the Web.

Our new booklet on the future of the USA and Great Britain has completed the first review cycle.

From the Philippines: “We received your booklets and tapes yesterday. We are very thankful and appreciate every material for spiritual growth you’ve given us. Most of the original booklets you sent us were distributed to old time members who also like to read them… I’m reading your booklet, ‘Should You Fight in War?‘ I plan to photocopy this after Passover. This is a very timely booklet and it coincides with the election of the new pope… Would you think he may be the last pope or may he serve as a transitional pope to pave the way for the last pope?”

Our comment: Both possibilities exist. The near future will tell for sure.

Back to top


How This Work is Financed

This Update is an official publication by the ministry of the Church of the Eternal God in the United States of America; the Church of God, a Christian Fellowship in Canada; and the Global Church of God in the United Kingdom.

Editorial Team: Norbert Link, Dave Harris, Rene Messier, Brian Gale, Johanna Link, Eric Rank, Michael Link, Anna Link, Kalon Mitchell, Manuela Mitchell, Dawn Thompson

Technical Team: Eric Rank, Shana Rank

Our activities and literature, including booklets, weekly updates, sermons on CD are provided free of charge. They are made possible by the tithes, offerings and contributions of Church members and others who have elected to support this Work.

While we do not solicit the general public for funds, contributions are gratefully welcomed and are tax-deductible in the U.S. and Canada.

Donations can be sent to the following addresses:

United States: Church of the Eternal God, P.O. Box 270519, San Diego, CA 92198

Canada: Church of God, ACF, Box 1480, Summerland, B.C. V0H 1Z0

United Kingdom: Global Church of God, PO Box 44, MABLETHORPE, LN12 9AN, United Kingdom

Current Events

Bush and Clinton on Pope’s Legacy

The Associated Press reported on April 8, 2005, that “President Bush on Friday said that attending the funeral of Pope John Paul II was ‘one of the highlights of my presidency’ and made clear that he disagrees with former President Clinton’s assessment that the pontiff leaves a mixed legacy. Bush, the first U.S. president to attend a papal funeral, led a U.S. delegation to the 2 1/2-hour funeral Mass… Bush talked about his time in Rome in extraordinarily personal terms, saying it strengthened his own belief in a ‘living God.’ … As he viewed the pope’s body, Bush said, he felt ‘very much at peace’ and ‘much more in touch with his spirit… I knew the ceremony today would be majestic but I didn’t realize how moved I would be by the service itself,’ the president said. ‘Today’s ceremony, I bet you, was a reaffirmation for millions… No doubt in my mind the Lord Christ was sent by the Almighty,’ Bush said.”

Russia, China and India?

The Russian newspaper, Pravda, reported on April 12, 2005, that “India, China and Russia [are desirous] to create [a]new alliance to challenge USA’s supremacy.” Even though the article pointed out that especially India is reluctant to create such an alliance, as it does not want to jeopardize its friendly relationship with the USA, an extremely important trading partner, the article continued: “It was reported on Monday, however, that India and China concluded a strategic partnership agreement. Details of the new document were not exposed, although it is known that the parties came to agreement on the issues of the long-standing border dispute, bilateral trade relations and… economic cooperation. Indian and Chinese prime ministers stated that the document would boost diplomatic and economic links between China and India and help the two states resist ‘global threats.’ For the time being it is not known if Russia is going to have at least something to do with the ‘strategic partnership’ of India and China.”

Outbreak of Deadly Marburg Disease in Angola

The New York Times reported on April 9, 2005, about a new deadly virus in Angola. The article stated: “The death toll in Angola from an epidemic caused by an Ebola-like virus rose to 174 Friday as aid workers in one northern provincial town reported that terrified people had attacked them and that a number of health workers had fled out of fear of catching the disease. International health officials said the epidemic, already the largest outbreak of Marburg virus ever recorded, showed no signs of abating. Seven of Angola’s 18 provinces have now reported suspected cases and several neighboring countries have announced health alerts. ‘It’s becoming a huge problem,’ said Dick Thompson, a spokesman for the World Health Organization… ‘We clearly don’t know the dimensions of the outbreak.’ …

“There is no cure or vaccine for the highly contagious virus. Victims suffer a high fever, diarrhea, vomiting and severe bleeding from bodily orifices and usually die within a week…. The disease is spread through bodily fluids, including blood, excrement, saliva and vomit… Allarangar Yokouidé, an epidemiologist with the World Health Organization, told reporters that more than 80 percent of those who contracted the virus in Angola had died, a mortality rate that surpassed previous Ebola epidemics in the region. ‘Marburg is a very bad virus, even worse than Ebola,’ he said. .. A cousin to the Ebola virus, Marburg is named for the town in Germany where it was first identified in 1967 after laboratory workers were infected by monkeys from Uganda. … Scientists do not know the source of the virus or how the current outbreak began, but they suspect that the virus was transmitted from an animal, possibly a bat. Health experts say that to control the epidemic, medical workers must check everyone who had contact with a victim after the first display of symptoms. That can mean 10 or 20 people to follow for each suspected case, each of whom should be checked once a day… In one Ebola outbreak, he said, epidemiologists had to track 3,000 people a day… The task may be especially daunting in Angola, with its rutted dirt roads, teeming townships, remote villages and countryside still littered with land mines from decades of conflict.”

U.S. Trade Deficit at All-Time High

The Associated Press reported on April 12, 2005, that “The U.S. trade deficit… soared to an all-time high of $61.04 billion in February… Trade deficits of this magnitude have raised worries among economists about America’s ability to continue to attract the foreign financing needed to cover the shortfall between exports and imports…. Demand for foreign petroleum products shot up 10.3 percent to $18.2 billion, the second highest level on record, surpassed only by $19.6 billion in imports of petroleum last November. The February increase reflected higher prices as crude oil climbed to $36.85 per barrel, compared to $35.25 in January, offsetting a drop in the volume of oil imports. Analysts said America’s foreign oil bill is likely to climb even further in months ahead, reflecting further increases in global oil prices.”

Volcano Eruption in Indonesia

As AFP reported on April 12, 2005, “A volcano spewed into life on Indonesia’s disaster-blighted Sumatra island, spreading new panic after the recent tsunami and earthquakes and driving thousands from their homes… More than 20,000 people have been evacuated from the volcano’s slope.” Reuters added that “Mount Talang’s eruption was likely triggered by a series of earthquakes that have rocked Sumatra in recent weeks, including one on March 28 that killed more than 600 people on outlying islands… The mountain is among at least 129 active volcanoes in Indonesia, the world’s largest archipelago nation. The country is part of the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’ – a series of volcanoes and fault lines stretching from the Western Hemisphere through Japan and Southeast Asia.”

Lebanon in Crisis

Reuters reported on April 12, 2005, that “Lebanon slipped deeper into a political vacuum on Tuesday after bickering among officials held back the formation of a new government and made a delay in general elections set for May almost inevitable… The United Nations and Washington have led calls for the polls to be held on schedule after Syria finishes withdrawing its military and intelligence forces from Lebanon by the end of this month.

“A senior military source said 10,000 troops had left Lebanon since the withdrawal began on March 8. He expected the remaining 4,000 soldiers to return home before April 30. Top pro-Syrian officials failed again on Monday to form a government, six weeks after Prime Minister Omar Karami resigned under popular pressure over the killing of his predecessor. But he was reappointed days later and tried, but failed, to persuade Lebanon’s anti-Syrian opposition to join a unity cabinet alongside pro-Syrian loyalists.”

EU Constitution in Jeopardy?

The EUobserver reported on April 12, 2005, that “A top German economist has warned of serious economic consequences if there is a No to the EU Constitution in the 29 May referendum in France.The chief economist at Deutsche Bank, Norbert Walter, told FT [Financial Times] Deutschland that a French No might cause a currency crisis in the new member states… ‘One problem is that the EU has absolutely no strategy about how to react to a failure in the Constitution referendum,’ Mr Walter indicated. He added that a debate about closing the eurozone to any more new members is also conceivable. Several countries are planning to have a referendum on the Constitution. Successive polls have predicted that the Treaty will fail in France and beyond, but the importance of France as a pioneer of European integration means that a French No could have grave implications for the 25-strong bloc.”

Earthquakes in California

Edison International issued the following press release on April 11, 2005: “April is Earthquake Preparedness Month… Southern California Edison (SCE) is reminding its customers that April is Earthquake Preparedness month and a good time to plan for disaster preparedness. ‘California is not only known for its golden beaches and snow-capped mountains, but for its earthquakes, which can create widespread damage and extended power outages,’ said Rose Pearson, manager of consumer affairs. ‘We’re encouraging our customers to take steps now to ready their families should a strong earthquake strike.'”

On April 12, 2005, around 4:00 a.m., an earthquake with the magnitude of 4.0 on the Richter scale struck Southern California. It was centered near the city of Santee, close to San Diego.

Update 189

Put On The Lord Jesus Christ

On Saturday, April 16, 2005, Edwin Pope will give the sermon, titled, “Put On The Lord Jesus Christ.”

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.

Back to top

When Things Go Wrong

by Dave Harris

In spite of our best efforts, problems do arise. There are many issues that are within our control, and it is a point of personal character to be responsible in these areas. For instance, preparation for the future is our duty. If we acquire a good education and career skills, we are able to direct our lives from a position of strength.

Notice how God teaches us in this regard: “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, Which, having no captain, Provides her supplies in the summer, And gathers her food in the harvest…” (Proverbs 6:6-8). The lesson here is to be motivated to recognize the need and to be ready.

This same principle applies in our relationship with God. Right now, we who are Christians must be building for the future–both for the events of our own lifetimes and for the opportunities God has promised relative to eternal life. In order to do that, we will need help, and the way for us to prepare is found in James 4:8: “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you…”

For our part, this kind of relationship with God takes constant effort. It is far too easy for us to get caught up in the moment and to relegate our contact with God to second or third place–or to no place at all! Time passes us by, and we suddenly wake up to the fact that our lives are unraveling with problems on every side.

When things go wrong in our lives, what should we do?

Our answer is to seek God with all of our heart, and to put God first in our lives by turning to Him in humility and repentance! We have the record of nations and individuals who have taken this approach, and we see how merciful and loving God is toward those who obey Him in this way.

We find this assurance from God–a way out for us when things do go wrong: “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you” (1 Peter 5:6-7).

Back to top

Bush and Clinton on Pope’s Legacy

The Associated Press reported on April 8, 2005, that “President Bush on Friday said that attending the funeral of Pope John Paul II was ‘one of the highlights of my presidency’ and made clear that he disagrees with former President Clinton’s assessment that the pontiff leaves a mixed legacy. Bush, the first U.S. president to attend a papal funeral, led a U.S. delegation to the 2 1/2-hour funeral Mass… Bush talked about his time in Rome in extraordinarily personal terms, saying it strengthened his own belief in a ‘living God.’ … As he viewed the pope’s body, Bush said, he felt ‘very much at peace’ and ‘much more in touch with his spirit… I knew the ceremony today would be majestic but I didn’t realize how moved I would be by the service itself,’ the president said. ‘Today’s ceremony, I bet you, was a reaffirmation for millions… No doubt in my mind the Lord Christ was sent by the Almighty,’ Bush said.”

Russia, China and India?

The Russian newspaper, Pravda, reported on April 12, 2005, that “India, China and Russia [are desirous] to create [a]new alliance to challenge USA’s supremacy.” Even though the article pointed out that especially India is reluctant to create such an alliance, as it does not want to jeopardize its friendly relationship with the USA, an extremely important trading partner, the article continued: “It was reported on Monday, however, that India and China concluded a strategic partnership agreement. Details of the new document were not exposed, although it is known that the parties came to agreement on the issues of the long-standing border dispute, bilateral trade relations and… economic cooperation. Indian and Chinese prime ministers stated that the document would boost diplomatic and economic links between China and India and help the two states resist ‘global threats.’ For the time being it is not known if Russia is going to have at least something to do with the ‘strategic partnership’ of India and China.”

Outbreak of Deadly Marburg Disease in Angola

The New York Times reported on April 9, 2005, about a new deadly virus in Angola. The article stated: “The death toll in Angola from an epidemic caused by an Ebola-like virus rose to 174 Friday as aid workers in one northern provincial town reported that terrified people had attacked them and that a number of health workers had fled out of fear of catching the disease. International health officials said the epidemic, already the largest outbreak of Marburg virus ever recorded, showed no signs of abating. Seven of Angola’s 18 provinces have now reported suspected cases and several neighboring countries have announced health alerts. ‘It’s becoming a huge problem,’ said Dick Thompson, a spokesman for the World Health Organization… ‘We clearly don’t know the dimensions of the outbreak.’ …

“There is no cure or vaccine for the highly contagious virus. Victims suffer a high fever, diarrhea, vomiting and severe bleeding from bodily orifices and usually die within a week…. The disease is spread through bodily fluids, including blood, excrement, saliva and vomit… Allarangar Yokouidé, an epidemiologist with the World Health Organization, told reporters that more than 80 percent of those who contracted the virus in Angola had died, a mortality rate that surpassed previous Ebola epidemics in the region. ‘Marburg is a very bad virus, even worse than Ebola,’ he said. .. A cousin to the Ebola virus, Marburg is named for the town in Germany where it was first identified in 1967 after laboratory workers were infected by monkeys from Uganda. … Scientists do not know the source of the virus or how the current outbreak began, but they suspect that the virus was transmitted from an animal, possibly a bat. Health experts say that to control the epidemic, medical workers must check everyone who had contact with a victim after the first display of symptoms. That can mean 10 or 20 people to follow for each suspected case, each of whom should be checked once a day… In one Ebola outbreak, he said, epidemiologists had to track 3,000 people a day… The task may be especially daunting in Angola, with its rutted dirt roads, teeming townships, remote villages and countryside still littered with land mines from decades of conflict.”

U.S. Trade Deficit at All-Time High

The Associated Press reported on April 12, 2005, that “The U.S. trade deficit… soared to an all-time high of $61.04 billion in February… Trade deficits of this magnitude have raised worries among economists about America’s ability to continue to attract the foreign financing needed to cover the shortfall between exports and imports…. Demand for foreign petroleum products shot up 10.3 percent to $18.2 billion, the second highest level on record, surpassed only by $19.6 billion in imports of petroleum last November. The February increase reflected higher prices as crude oil climbed to $36.85 per barrel, compared to $35.25 in January, offsetting a drop in the volume of oil imports. Analysts said America’s foreign oil bill is likely to climb even further in months ahead, reflecting further increases in global oil prices.”

Volcano Eruption in Indonesia

As AFP reported on April 12, 2005, “A volcano spewed into life on Indonesia’s disaster-blighted Sumatra island, spreading new panic after the recent tsunami and earthquakes and driving thousands from their homes… More than 20,000 people have been evacuated from the volcano’s slope.” Reuters added that “Mount Talang’s eruption was likely triggered by a series of earthquakes that have rocked Sumatra in recent weeks, including one on March 28 that killed more than 600 people on outlying islands… The mountain is among at least 129 active volcanoes in Indonesia, the world’s largest archipelago nation. The country is part of the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’ – a series of volcanoes and fault lines stretching from the Western Hemisphere through Japan and Southeast Asia.”

Lebanon in Crisis

Reuters reported on April 12, 2005, that “Lebanon slipped deeper into a political vacuum on Tuesday after bickering among officials held back the formation of a new government and made a delay in general elections set for May almost inevitable… The United Nations and Washington have led calls for the polls to be held on schedule after Syria finishes withdrawing its military and intelligence forces from Lebanon by the end of this month.

“A senior military source said 10,000 troops had left Lebanon since the withdrawal began on March 8. He expected the remaining 4,000 soldiers to return home before April 30. Top pro-Syrian officials failed again on Monday to form a government, six weeks after Prime Minister Omar Karami resigned under popular pressure over the killing of his predecessor. But he was reappointed days later and tried, but failed, to persuade Lebanon’s anti-Syrian opposition to join a unity cabinet alongside pro-Syrian loyalists.”

EU Constitution in Jeopardy?

The EUobserver reported on April 12, 2005, that “A top German economist has warned of serious economic consequences if there is a No to the EU Constitution in the 29 May referendum in France.The chief economist at Deutsche Bank, Norbert Walter, told FT [Financial Times] Deutschland that a French No might cause a currency crisis in the new member states… ‘One problem is that the EU has absolutely no strategy about how to react to a failure in the Constitution referendum,’ Mr Walter indicated. He added that a debate about closing the eurozone to any more new members is also conceivable. Several countries are planning to have a referendum on the Constitution. Successive polls have predicted that the Treaty will fail in France and beyond, but the importance of France as a pioneer of European integration means that a French No could have grave implications for the 25-strong bloc.”

Earthquakes in California

Edison International issued the following press release on April 11, 2005: “April is Earthquake Preparedness Month… Southern California Edison (SCE) is reminding its customers that April is Earthquake Preparedness month and a good time to plan for disaster preparedness. ‘California is not only known for its golden beaches and snow-capped mountains, but for its earthquakes, which can create widespread damage and extended power outages,’ said Rose Pearson, manager of consumer affairs. ‘We’re encouraging our customers to take steps now to ready their families should a strong earthquake strike.'”

On April 12, 2005, around 4:00 a.m., an earthquake with the magnitude of 4.0 on the Richter scale struck Southern California. It was centered near the city of Santee, close to San Diego.

Back to top

Would you please explain Matthew 28:1?

Some, in an attempt to teach a Sunday morning resurrection, have used Matthew 28:1 in support of such a teaching. We do know, however, that Jesus Christ was resurrected on Saturday afternoon, around sunset, after having been in the grave for three days and three nights. He was killed on a Wednesday, and placed in the grave on Wednesday afternoon, just around sunset.

We have set forth in detail the Biblical and historical proofs for a Wednesday crucifixion and a Saturday resurrection in our free booklet, “Jesus Christ — A Great Mystery.” In that booklet, we have also explained the correct understanding of Matthew 28:1, as follows:

“We read in Matthew 28:1-6 (Authorized Version): ‘In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it… And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for HE IS RISEN, AS HE SAID.’

“We note from the passage that Christ was already resurrected by the time the women came to the grave. We are told that they appeared ‘in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.’ Many commentaries point out that this phrase discusses the END of the SABBATH, that is, Saturday evening or late afternoon, and NOT Sunday morning.

“The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament renders this verse in this way: ‘Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward (the) first (day) of (the) week, came Mary the Magdalene…’

“A.T. Robertson’s Harmony of the Gospel comments: ‘This phrase once gave much trouble, but the usage of the vernacular Koine Greek amply justifies the translation. The visit of the women to inspect the tomb was thus made before the Sabbath was over (before 6 p.m. on Saturday).’

“Cockrell states: ‘When does the Bible say that Jesus rose from the dead? The two Marys came to the tomb ‘in the end of the sabbath’ (Matth. 28:1). The Sabbath always ended at sunset: ‘From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath’ (Lev. 23:32). Then they went to the tomb before sunset on Saturday. Jesus had risen from the dead before their arrival (Matth. 28:1-8)…’

“The Moffat Bible translates: ‘At the close of the Sabbath, when the first day was dawning…’

“The Elberfelder Bibel reads: ‘But late at the Sabbath, in the dawn of the first day.’ It comments: ‘Days started at sunset.’

“The Lamsa Bible states: ‘In the evening of the Sabbath, when the first day of the week began to dawn…’

“The revised Luther Bibel of 1984 translates: ‘When the Sabbath was over and the first day of the week began…’

“The Menge Bible renders this verse as follows: ‘But after the Sabbath, when the first day after the Sabbath was about to begin.’

“Finally, the revised Zürcher Bible of 1942 states: ‘After the Sabbath, when it was shining (lightening up) towards the first day of the week…’ It adds the following comments: ‘For the Jews a day began with sunset. The expression [in] Luke 23:54, “The Sabbath lightened up…” [The King James Bible states: ‘The Sabbath drew on’ or ‘drew near’] does not mean that the morning began, but that lights were kindled for the evening… Whether Matthew 28:1 likewise refers to the evening with which the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began, is not clear.’

“However, based on the evidence presented herein, it is very clear that Matthew 28:1 refers to the end of the Sabbath, and NOT to Sunday morning.

“For instance, please note the following comments from ‘The Easter Sermons of Gregory of Nyssa,’ edited by Andreas Spira and Christoph Klock, 1981, pages 265, 266, and 269: ‘The only testimony about the time of resurrection is produced by Matthew 28:1: “Late on the sabbath”… That means, explains Gregory, it was already late in the evening (this evening being the beginning of the night before the first day of the week) when the angel came… Matthew alone remains testifying the hour of resurrection on Saturday evening… The time of resurrection is Saturday evening according to Matthew 28:1… The time of resurrection [was] “late on the Sabbath.”‘

“This fact is also established, when considering the meaning of the Greek word, translated in Matthew 28:1, as ‘in the end of the Sabbath.’ The Greek for ‘in the end of ‘ is ‘opse.’ It is defined as ‘late in the evening.’ It is not a reference to ‘early in the morning.’ Compare Mark 13:35 and Mark 11:19, where the word ‘opse’ is correctly rendered as ‘even’ or ‘evening.’

“Other passages confirm that Christ was resurrected long before Sunday morning. We read that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb on the first day of the week, when it was still dark, and Jesus was already resurrected by that time (John 20:1). This means, Christ was not resurrected on Sunday morning, at sunrise, but He had already been resurrected, ‘while it was still dark.’ In addition, John 20:1 might not even be talking about events that occurred Sunday morning, ‘while it was still dark,’ but it might be talking about events on Saturday evening, when it was getting darker. In the Greek, the word translated as ‘still’ [or ‘yet’ in other translations] is ‘eti.’ It can also be translated as ‘more,’ ‘yet more,’ or, ‘still more,’ as was done in Revelation 9:12 (‘Behold, still two more woes are coming after these things.’ Compare New International Version: ‘two other woes are yet to come’; and New Jerusalem Bible: ‘there are still two more to come’). In addition, Hebrews 11:32 states: ‘”What more shall I say?”‘ This could mean that John’s account is telling us that the women came to the grave when it was getting ‘even more’ dark-or ‘darker,’ after they had begun their walk to the grave when it was getting dark, at sunset. This would then also refer to events on Saturday night, not on Sunday morning.

“A similar explanation can be given for a passage in Luke 24:1, stating: ‘Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they and certain other women with them, came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.’ This passage may not be talking about events on Sunday morning, but it could refer to events occurring Saturday night. Word Studies in the New Testament by Martin Vincent, Volume 1, page 433, explains the correct meaning of the phrase, ‘very early in the morning’: ‘Literally, “at deep dawn, or the dawn being deep.”… Plutarch says of Alexander that he supped “at deep evening,” i.e. late at night.’ In any event, Luke 24:1 does not address the time of the resurrection, but the arrival of certain women at the grave, when the stone was already rolled away from the grave (Luke 24:2)…

“However, there is one Scripture, Mark 16:2, which clearly talks about events that took place on Sunday morning, at sunrise. It does not address the time of the resurrection, but rather the time of the women’s arrival at the grave. We read: ‘Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.’

“Since we know from other passages that some of the women visited the grave Saturday evening, and we know that Mark 16:2 describes the arrival of some women at the grave early Sunday morning, we must conclude that these Biblical accounts describe several different trips to the grave by various women. In other words, they did not all happen at the same time. This is also supported by the fact that the purposes of the trips to the grave were different. Matthew 28:1 tells us that women came to see the grave. Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:1 tell us that certain women came to anoint Christ. We also note that it is not always the same women that are mentioned. While Matthew 28:1 mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, Mark 16:1 mentions the two Marys and Salome. Luke 24:1 does not identify the women, but implies that quite a number of women went, at certain times, to the grave (compare Luke 23:55). John 20:1 and Mark 16:9 only mention Mary Magdalene.”

In addition to these quotes from our booklet, “Jesus Christ — A Great Mystery!”, we would like to point out that, as mentioned in those quotes above, A.T. Robertson, in “A Harmony of the Gospel,” likewise teaches that Matthew 28:1 refers to “late Saturday afternoon and early evening.” This Commentary was used as a classroom text at Ambassador College (AC), an institution of education of the Worldwide Church of God, under the late Herbert W. Armstrong. Although Robertson has a few errors in his harmony, which were pointed out at AC, the fact that Matthew 28:1 describes events occurring on Saturday evening, was not one of these mistakes, but it was correctly taught at AC, under Mr. Armstrong.

In addition, although Mr. Armstrong was somewhat inconsistent over the years, in two different booklets, as to when the event in Matthew 28:1 occurred, he did write the following in his booklet, “Which Day is the Sabbath of the New Testament?” in 1952: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre [Matthew 28:1]… This is the first place in the Bible where the first day of the week is mentioned. Matthew wrote these words, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, six years after the New Testament church came into being. The text says that late on the Sabbath day it was drawing TOWARD the first day of the week.” Mr. Armstrong had these statements republished in his booklet, “Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?, in 1962, 1964, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1976. [In his booklet, “The Resurrection was not on Sunday,” copyrighted 1952, 1971, and 1972, Mr. Armstrong seems to be saying that the events in Matthew 28:1 occurred on Sunday morning. At best, we have an inconsistency here. Those who claim that we must follow every word uttered or written by Mr. Armstrong must decide which of his words they want to follow, and which of his words they must reject. The answer is, of course, we must follow every word written in God’s Holy Scriptures. A different approach borders on blasphemy].

Some have said that the word “dawn” in Matthew 28:1 can only mean, “morning.” First of all, this is false. Any good dictionary will tell you that the word “dawn” can also mean, “beginning,” as for example in “dawn of civilization.” In addition, it is somewhat immaterial what the word “dawn” means in English, if it does not convey correctly the original Greek. [The idea that ANY translation is inspired is, of course, false. We have always understood that NO translation is inspired, although some translations are more reliable than others. ONLY the original Hebrew and Greek texts are inspired, NOT ANY translations, which have been produced by unconverted men]. As we pointed out, the Greek expression means, translated word for word, “…as it was getting DUSK toward (the) first (day) of (the) week.” Compare, too, the Interlinear Translation of the Greek New Testament, by Berry. Note that it was getting dusk TOWARD the first [day] of the week. The Greek word for “toward” is “eis,” and means here “toward,” “to” or “into”, according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible.

Again, if one wants to be honest with the Scriptures, there is no way to say that this refers to Sunday MORNING. According to the Hebrew calendar, days start and end with sunset. The Sabbath ends with sunset, and the first day of the week begins at sunset. Matthew 28:1 CLEARLY states that the Sabbath was ending and it was getting dark, as the first day of the week began (AT SUNSET).

The New Bible Commentary concedes that it is possible that the women appeared first on Saturday evening, stating: “It may mean late on Saturday evening as the Sabbath was giving place at sunset to the first day of the week, which began at that hour by Jewish reckoning… see Luke 23 v 54.”

Some have wondered why the women — especially Mary Magdalene — would return on Sunday morning to the grave, as Mark 16:2, states, if they already had seen previously, on Saturday evening, that the tomb was empty, as Matthew 28:1 and other passages explain. They have concluded that therefore, all passages in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John must refer to the same identical occurrence on Sunday morning — that they all address the same identical moment in time, when the women arrived at the grave.

However, that explanation is erroneous.

First, please notice the obvious distinctions in the four accounts.

Matthew 28:1 tells us that late on the Sabbath, when it began to dawn [or, getting dusk] toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary come to SEE the sepulcher. We read about ONE angel who rolls the stone away, sits on it, and talks to the women, while the watchers become as dead men (verses 2-4). When the women return from the grave, Jesus appears to them, and they worship Him (verse 8-9).

John 20:1 mentions that Mary Magdalene appears ALONE, when it was yet dark (or, as mentioned above, when it was getting darker), and she sees that the stone is already taken away. She runs back to tell the disciples, and Simon Peter and John run to the sepulcher and find it empty (verses 2-10). NO angel is mentioned in this episode, until verse 11. In verse 11, Mary stands outside the sepulcher, weeping, and she sees TWO angels WITHIN the sepulcher (not ONE, sitting outside on the stone). Then, in verse 14, she sees Jesus, thinking that He is the gardener. When she recognizes Him, He tells her not to touch Him (verses 15-17). Verse 18 reports that Mary Magdalene went back to the disciples to tell them that she had spoken with Christ.

Luke 24:1 tells us that women, who are first NOT specified, come very early in the morning to the sepulcher to ANOINT Christ’s body. They did not come just to SEE the body (as we are told in Matthew 28:1), but to anoint Him. Mark 16:1 explains to us that Marry Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Salome BOUGHT (not: HAD bought) spices PRIOR to the annual Sabbath — which was a Thursday. They rested during the annual Sabbath, prepared the spices on Friday, rested on the weekly Sabbath, and came to the sepulcher “early… the first day of the week… at the rising of the sun” (Mark 16:2). Luke 24:1 does not mention that this happened “at the rising of the sun,” and the women mentioned in Luke 24:1 probably included additional women, as Luke 24:55-56; 24:1 says: “And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre… and they returned… now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came… and certain others with them.” Some of the women are later identified as “Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James and other women that were with them” (Luke 24:10). They ALL told the apostles (not just Mary Magdalene, as we read in the book of John), but nobody believed (verse 11). Then Peter arose and ran to the sepulcher (John is not mentioned!) (verse 12).

Even these two accounts in the books of Mark and Luke — when women appear to ANOINT the body of Christ — may not be describing the same event. In both accounts the stone was already rolled away. But in Luke, we read about two angels (Luke 24:4), while Mark only mentions one angel (Mark 16:5). The most important distinction is, too, that while Luke reports that the women ran to the disciples to tell them, prompting Peter to run to the sepulcher, Mark 16:8 records that they did not tell anyone about this incident at that time. Only later, in Mark 16:9-10, we read that Mary Magdalene told the eleven, after Christ had appeared to her.

Why, then, do we find these discrepancies? Are we really to believe that all these records report about the same identical occurrence, all happening at the very same time, involving identical persons, although they record many inconsistencies that cannot be harmonized — if one really wants to be honest with the Scriptures? The answer is, every record is inspired, but they do not all talk about the same event. For instance, there were not only three women who prepared spices, but more. They did not all come to the grave at the same time. Some came just to see the grave, not for the purpose of anointing the body of Christ. On one occasion, the women told the others, but on another occasion they did not tell anybody. In one case, only one angel was there; in another case, two were there. In one case, the angel (s) was (were) inside the grave; in another case, he was sitting outside the grave on the rock. In one case, the women saw the angel rolling away the stone; in other cases, the stone was already rolled away when the women appeared [If one wants to insist that all the events took place on Sunday morning, one would also have this inconsistency to explain: That is, when the women in John’s account appeared at the grave, while it was yet dark (as the reasoning goes), the stone was already rolled way, while in Matthew’s account (following the reasoning of a Sunday morning description), the women arrived at dawn — that would not be “yet dark” anymore — and SAW the stone being rolled away by the angel.]

But let us now ask and answer this question:

Why did Mary Magdalene and the other women wonder, on Sunday morning, who would roll the stone away from the grave (Mark 16:3), if Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw already on Saturday evening, how the stone was rolled away (Matthew 28:1-5)?

The answer is actually quite simple, when we realize the state of mind the women (and the apostles) were in, when these events took place. Matthew 28:8, 10 states that they were afraid. Mark 16:8 tells us that they trembled and were amazed. Mark 16:11 tells us that the apostles did not believe. Luke 24:4 said that the women were perplexed, and John 20:11 tells us that Mary stood outside the open tomb, weeping. They were going through traumatic times, thinking their whole life with Jesus had been in vain — that everything was over. They did not know whether they were sleeping and dreaming, or whether they were actually experiencing reality. Later, Peter would have a similar experience in Acts 12, when he was imprisoned. When the angel appeared to him and freed him, he “did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision” (verse 9). Only after Peter “had come to himself,” he realized that what he had experienced was real (verse 11). The other disciples did not first believe it, either — they thought an angel had appeared to them, instead of Peter (verse 15).

Even though the women saw (in Matthew 28) how the stone was rolled away Saturday evening — after a traumatic week during which they had witnessed how Jesus Christ had died a horrible death — it appears that they did not believe that this had actually happened (as Peter later likewise doubted that his rescue from prison was real), rather thinking that they had somehow dreamed this — and so they were wondering on their next visit who would roll the stone away for them. In any event, when we want to be honest with the Scriptures and when we believe in the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures in their original writings, we must conclude that the women came to the grave more than once, on different occasions, and that the first visit took place at the end of the Sabbath, as it was dawning toward the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1), that is, right after sunset, when the first day of the week BEGAN.

Back to top

Back to top


How This Work is Financed

This Update is an official publication by the ministry of the Church of the Eternal God in the United States of America; the Church of God, a Christian Fellowship in Canada; and the Global Church of God in the United Kingdom.

Editorial Team: Norbert Link, Dave Harris, Rene Messier, Brian Gale, Johanna Link, Eric Rank, Michael Link, Anna Link, Kalon Mitchell, Manuela Mitchell, Dawn Thompson

Technical Team: Eric Rank, Shana Rank

Our activities and literature, including booklets, weekly updates, sermons on CD are provided free of charge. They are made possible by the tithes, offerings and contributions of Church members and others who have elected to support this Work.

While we do not solicit the general public for funds, contributions are gratefully welcomed and are tax-deductible in the U.S. and Canada.

Donations can be sent to the following addresses:

United States: Church of the Eternal God, P.O. Box 270519, San Diego, CA 92198

Canada: Church of God, ACF, Box 1480, Summerland, B.C. V0H 1Z0

United Kingdom: Global Church of God, PO Box 44, MABLETHORPE, LN12 9AN, United Kingdom

Looking to God

How committed are we to God? How much trust do we really place in Him? Is there anything that could cause us to lose sight of God and fall into error? What would it take for you to begin to waiver? You may think, this could never happen, but we are warned that those who think they stand must be careful lest they fall.

Is our trust in God based on conditions? On circumstances perhaps, or on the trust that other people have? The true faithful heroes of the Bible had unconditional faith — regardless of what others might have done — and we must grow into that kind of trust as well.

Download Audio 

Current Events

Haider in the News

As The Associated Press reported on April 4, 2005, “[Austria’s] Joerg Haider and his supporters broke Monday with the once-powerful populist Freedom Party to form a new movement meant to reflect the former rightist firebrand’s turn toward relative moderation… The party’s fall in popularity has been accompanied by growing infighting among party pragmatists and the rightist fringe that extends to those with links to neo-Nazi publications.”

Prince Rainier of Monaco Dies

As the Associated Press reported on April 6, 2005, “Prince Rainier III [Europe’s longest-reigning monarch of Europe’s longest-ruling royal family, the Grimaldis], whose fairy-tale marriage to Hollywood star Grace Kelly brought elegance and glamour to one of Europe’s oldest dynasties, died Wednesday, nearly a month after he was hospitalized with a lung infection. He was 81… Rainier, who assumed the throne on May 9, 1949, had to endure the tragedy of his wife’s death and relentless scandals — including international criticism of the principality’s tax laws — that plagued the final two decades of his rule… Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II sent a message of condolence to the family. Rainier’s death means the queen [Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II], who acceded to the throne in 1952, becomes the longest-serving monarch in Europe.”

European Visas Required?

As AFP reported on April 6, 2005, “New US passport rules ‘threaten business relations'” between the USA and European countries. The article stated: “Sir Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, said US demands for visitors to hold passports containing biometric information would cause ‘enormous problems’ for UK business… The UK is one of several countries expected to miss an October 26 deadline to start issuing the high-tech passports, which include a digital photo embedded with a chip. Only six European countries — Belgium, Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Luxembourg — are expected to meet the deadline. People with passports issued after the deadline without biometric features will need a visa to enter the US.”

However, the Austrian-based “Networld” reported on April 5, 2005, that Austria might not be ready to issue the required new passports by the deadline, and that the USA would be unwilling to extend the deadline.

It should be noted, though, that in the rising heat of the discussion, an important aspect is overlooked. As AFP pointed out: “The new rules apply only to new passports issued after October 26, meaning that people with documents issued before the deadline will still be able to enter the US without a visa or biometric information.”

EU “Retaliates” Against USA

The EUobserver reported on March 31, 2005, that “The European Commission… intend[s] to impose an extra 15 percent duty on some types of paper, textiles and machinery from 1 May after ‘the continuing failure of the US to bring its legislation into conformity with its international obligations’…’The level of retaliation… is slightly below US $28 million,’ says a statement by the Commission…. The EU’s move is likely to raise transatlantic trade tensions… The European Commission’s decision has to be approved by member states before it can come into effect on 1 May — but no opposition is expected.”

In the USA, the decision of the European Commission has been sharply criticized by the media — including CNN. In a special report, CNN questioned what the EU is expecting of the USA — given the high amount of trade with the USA, which is already enormously benefiting the EU.

The Death of Pope John Paul II

With the death of Pope John Paul II, speculation is running high as to who his successor is going to be. Will it be the last pope in the history of the Catholic Church — a black pope perhaps (such as Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria), and will he adopt the name of Peter, as Nostradamus and other “seers” have prophesied? In the annals of the Catholic Church, there has only been one black pope before.

Will it be a European — a German, perhaps? Could it be Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (77)? Time magazine felt, at the beginning of this year, that he was the top candidate — something like a transitional pope. He has been presiding over the Office responsible for religious questions — formerly known as the Inquisition. He is described as “highly intelligent” (Bild Online, April 3, 2005). Whether or not it will be Ratzinger, he has already become known as the “creator of popes,” as Bild Online stated on April 6, 2005.

One thing is certain — this new election will be of tremendous prophetic importance. It is interesting that the new election process of 117 cardinals (under 80 years) — or 116 cardinals, as the Cardinal from the Philippines, Jaime Sin, fell sick and might be unable to attend — will begin on April 18, 2005 — exactly 16 days after the pope’s death, and less than a week before Passover. And, that during the burial of the pope, there will be a partial solar eclipse (as The Associated Press reported on April 6, 2005). The late pope’s testament “did not name the mystery cardinal he created in 2003… ending speculation that a last-minute cardinal might join in the April 18 start of the conclave [the papal election process],” according to The Associated Press of April 6, 2005.

To be able to elect a new pope, the cardinals, in sequestered meetings at the Sistine Chapel, have to agree on one candidate with a two-thirds majority (plus one). If there have been 33 unsuccessful attempts (ballots are cast each day, two in the morning and two in the afternoon, as AFP reported on April 4, 2005), the cardinals are allowed to elect a pope with a simple majority, or to agree on the most likely candidate, choosing from the two who had received the most votes. The longest election process occurred in 1268, when it took three years to elect a new pope (Bild Online, April 1, 2005). The shortest election took place in 1978, when Pope John Paul I was elected. He only ruled for 33 days, before he died (Bild Online, April 3, 2005). Some believe that he did not die of natural causes.

When the cardinals decide on a candidate, the traditional white smoke that for centuries has announced the selection of a new pope to the world will be joined by the tolling of bells (The Associated Press, April 6, 2005).

On April 6, 2005, Bild Online published an article, stating, “Not Every Pope Died in His Bed.” The article pointed out that Pope John XII (937-964) was killed by a jealous husband, after he had transformed the Vatican into a house of prostitution. Pope Benedict IX (1020-1055) died in battle, when he fought against a German “counter-pope.” Pope Paul II (1417-1471) died while he had sexual relationships with another man. Pope Innocence VIII (1432-1492) died, after having violated his eight daughters, when a blood transfusion from a boy failed. Pope Leo X (1475-1521) died of syphilis, after he had had sexual relationships with boys, men and women.

Der Spiegel Online pointed out on April 4, 2005, that historically, “many conclaves were dictated by intrigue and corruption.”

The Scotsman added on April 4, 2005:

“The world is on the brink of witnessing an ancient rite, one redolent with history, power and intrigue… Yet the late John Paul II could be responsible for initiating a long conclave. He ordered the construction of Casa Santa Marta, a £12 million, 134-room hotel, which will permit the cardinals to deliberate in comfort, 108 of them in three-room suites.”

Bild Online even went so far as to state, on April 6, 2005: “There is already a power and election struggle going on in the Vatican… Intrigues, conspiracies, cheating… Is every method acceptable? Mysterious organizations, which could be decisive as to who might be the next pope, are: Opus Dei, the army of the pope, also known as the Italian Mafia; Communione e Liberazione, a powerful Italian lay member movement; Sant’Egidio, a community similar to an order; and the Fokolaries, a ultra-conservative youth group, which very strongly worships Mary. About one-third of the 117 cardinals sympathize with one or the other of those groups. Whether it’s Opus Dei or the Fokolaries, they all are extremely rich… and run universities and seminaries for priests — in which cardinals are forged.”

Unknown to most is the fact that every baptized Catholic male can be elected pope — he does not even have to be a priest. But since 1378, only cardinals were elected popes (Bild Online, April 3, 2005; AFP, April 4, 2005).

The worldwide reaction to Pope John Paul II’s death was stunning. President Bush said that he had been “a hero for all times — a fighter for peace and freedom” — even though he had been strongly opposed to the Iraq war. Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said that Pope John Paul II was instrumental in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the division in Germany and Europe. More than 100 governmental officials, as well as many more prominent figures, are planning to attend the funeral, from virtually every country around the world. Pilgrims are flocking into Rome by the millions. Even the wedding of Prince Charles was postponend (reportedly much to the anger of Prince Charles), as it would have coincided with the pope’s funeral.

Bild Online reported on April 6 about miracles that the late Pope John Paul II had allegedly performed during his life — including the healing of blind people; of individuals sick with cancer; and of lame and paralyzed persons. The paper stated that the Vatican is already considering sanctifying or canonizing the pope — a process which normally could last decades, if not centuries, except for popular demand of the masses. For instance, Franz of Assisi was sanctified as early as two years after his death (in 1226).

Der Spiegel Online discussed in its article of April 2, 2005, titled, “The Testament of the Lion,” why the late pope enjoyed such popularity–given the fact that he was extremely conservative. The paper pointed out that he did not compromise, and that he demanded unquestioned obedience. “His stance regarding abortion was terribly against the Zeitgeist [the commonly accepted view of the time]… He looked for reconciliation between Catholics and Jews — while declaring that the Catholic way was the only true one… The media loved this pope so much that they did not understand his radical stance on social issues… He could not prevent the Iraq war, but his resistance against it brought him admiration and love.”

The Bible prophesies that the final pope of the end-time will be able to perform miracles and propagate the Catholic way as the only true way — and he will do so in such a convincing manner, that most people will follow his lead. At the same time, important commandments of God will be ignored and neglected. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.” Have we now reached this final phase of human history, which will end with the return of Jesus Christ to this earth?

One has to be struck by the unending news coverage and the — overall — unquestioning admiration by the nations and people of the world for the late Pope John Paul II, and his religion. Only the tiniest mention is ever made about the deeply held beliefs embodied in Catholicism, and beyond that, only scant coverage of the recent problems of child molestation uncovered among so many priests of the Catholic Church.

In reading Revelation 13 and what is stated about the final
global impact of Catholicism, one has to be impressed how the world, more than ever before in recent times, is galvanized around Rome and the religious figure-head of this time!

Right now, the true Church of God — the spiritual body of Christ — seems indeed very small, very scattered and, overall, little prepared for what is coming…

But I Think…

Have you ever had someone respond to you, by saying: “but I think…”, followed by a lengthy explanation of his or her personal opinion?

It happens all the time, doesn’t it? And far too often, it occurs in areas in which the person you are talking with has absolutely no expertise and experience — whether it is in the field of business, law, education — or, of course, religion.

Especially when focusing on the true worship of God, everybody seems to have an opinion — and many times, it is “THE one and only correct position.” Far too often, it is something comparatively negligible which has become THE issue of salvation in the person’s mind. But God is not interested at all in your or my OPINION — He does not care what WE may think — and neither should we.

When God calls us to His way of life, He expects us to give up OUR opinions and replace them with the way GOD thinks.

Notice what God tells those who believe that they are wise and full of understanding: “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile” (1 Corinthians 3:20). Paul even remarks: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything [especially something “new” which only he or she is able to “see”], he knows nothing yet as he ought to know” (1 Corinthians 8:2).

But this is not what the human mind wants to hear. Rather, we are, so often, far too anxious to justify our thoughts to God — or His true ministers — rather than taking a deep breath, stepping back, and considering whether our thoughts are futile or vain in the eyes of God.

Notice Paul’s question in Romans 9:20: “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?” The scribes and Pharisees at the time of Christ have become known to us as those who seemed to be always ready to argue with God. We find this telling report in Luke 5:22: “But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answered and said to them, ‘Why are you reasoning in your hearts?'” Christ had just forgiven the sins of a sick person (verse 20), but “the scribes and Pharisees began to reason, saying, ‘…Who can forgive sins but God alone?'” (verse 21). They were suffering from the typical “but I think”- syndrome. They did not agree with what Christ was doing or saying. But rather than submitting to God, replacing their thoughts and opinions with the mind of God, they began to reason and justify their own positions. They should have done, however, what Paul tells us to do in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5: “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty IN GOD for… casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every THOUGHT into captivity to the obedience of Christ…”

Even members in God’s Church have to be careful not to embrace the “but I think”-approach, which clouds Godly understanding. Maybe, we don’t openly argue with God, but what about arguing with God’s true ministry, when they teach and expound to us the Word of God or Godly principles? Let’s notice Hosea’s warning to all of us today: “Now let no man contend, or rebuke another; For your people are like those who contend with the priest. Therefore you shall stumble in the day…” (Hosea 4:4-5).

Next time, when we are tempted to say, “but I think…”, let’s reconsider and ask the right question instead: “What does GOD think?”

Update 188

Looking To God

On Saturday, April 9, 2005, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Looking To 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.

Back to top

But I Think…

by Norbert Link

Have you ever had someone respond to you, by saying: “but I think…”, followed by a lengthy explanation of his or her personal opinion?

It happens all the time, doesn’t it? And far too often, it occurs in areas in which the person you are talking with has absolutely no expertise and experience — whether it is in the field of business, law, education — or, of course, religion.

Especially when focusing on the true worship of God, everybody seems to have an opinion — and many times, it is “THE one and only correct position.” Far too often, it is something comparatively negligible which has become THE issue of salvation in the person’s mind. But God is not interested at all in your or my OPINION — He does not care what WE may think — and neither should we.

When God calls us to His way of life, He expects us to give up OUR opinions and replace them with the way GOD thinks.

Notice what God tells those who believe that they are wise and full of understanding: “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile” (1 Corinthians 3:20). Paul even remarks: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything [especially something “new” which only he or she is able to “see”], he knows nothing yet as he ought to know” (1 Corinthians 8:2).

But this is not what the human mind wants to hear. Rather, we are, so often, far too anxious to justify our thoughts to God — or His true ministers — rather than taking a deep breath, stepping back, and considering whether our thoughts are futile or vain in the eyes of God.

Notice Paul’s question in Romans 9:20: “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?” The scribes and Pharisees at the time of Christ have become known to us as those who seemed to be always ready to argue with God. We find this telling report in Luke 5:22: “But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answered and said to them, ‘Why are you reasoning in your hearts?'” Christ had just forgiven the sins of a sick person (verse 20), but “the scribes and Pharisees began to reason, saying, ‘…Who can forgive sins but God alone?'” (verse 21). They were suffering from the typical “but I think”- syndrome. They did not agree with what Christ was doing or saying. But rather than submitting to God, replacing their thoughts and opinions with the mind of God, they began to reason and justify their own positions. They should have done, however, what Paul tells us to do in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5: “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty IN GOD for… casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every THOUGHT into captivity to the obedience of Christ…”

Even members in God’s Church have to be careful not to embrace the “but I think”-approach, which clouds Godly understanding. Maybe, we don’t openly argue with God, but what about arguing with God’s true ministry, when they teach and expound to us the Word of God or Godly principles? Let’s notice Hosea’s warning to all of us today: “Now let no man contend, or rebuke another; For your people are like those who contend with the priest. Therefore you shall stumble in the day…” (Hosea 4:4-5).

Next time, when we are tempted to say, “but I think…”, let’s reconsider and ask the right question instead: “What does GOD think?”

Back to top

Haider in the News

As The Associated Press reported on April 4, 2005, “[Austria’s] Joerg Haider and his supporters broke Monday with the once-powerful populist Freedom Party to form a new movement meant to reflect the former rightist firebrand’s turn toward relative moderation… The party’s fall in popularity has been accompanied by growing infighting among party pragmatists and the rightist fringe that extends to those with links to neo-Nazi publications.”

Prince Rainier of Monaco Dies

As the Associated Press reported on April 6, 2005, “Prince Rainier III [Europe’s longest-reigning monarch of Europe’s longest-ruling royal family, the Grimaldis], whose fairy-tale marriage to Hollywood star Grace Kelly brought elegance and glamour to one of Europe’s oldest dynasties, died Wednesday, nearly a month after he was hospitalized with a lung infection. He was 81… Rainier, who assumed the throne on May 9, 1949, had to endure the tragedy of his wife’s death and relentless scandals — including international criticism of the principality’s tax laws — that plagued the final two decades of his rule… Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II sent a message of condolence to the family. Rainier’s death means the queen [Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II], who acceded to the throne in 1952, becomes the longest-serving monarch in Europe.”

European Visas Required?

As AFP reported on April 6, 2005, “New US passport rules ‘threaten business relations'” between the USA and European countries. The article stated: “Sir Digby Jones, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, said US demands for visitors to hold passports containing biometric information would cause ‘enormous problems’ for UK business… The UK is one of several countries expected to miss an October 26 deadline to start issuing the high-tech passports, which include a digital photo embedded with a chip. Only six European countries — Belgium, Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Luxembourg — are expected to meet the deadline. People with passports issued after the deadline without biometric features will need a visa to enter the US.”

However, the Austrian-based “Networld” reported on April 5, 2005, that Austria might not be ready to issue the required new passports by the deadline, and that the USA would be unwilling to extend the deadline.

It should be noted, though, that in the rising heat of the discussion, an important aspect is overlooked. As AFP pointed out: “The new rules apply only to new passports issued after October 26, meaning that people with documents issued before the deadline will still be able to enter the US without a visa or biometric information.”

EU “Retaliates” Against USA

The EUobserver reported on March 31, 2005, that “The European Commission… intend[s] to impose an extra 15 percent duty on some types of paper, textiles and machinery from 1 May after ‘the continuing failure of the US to bring its legislation into conformity with its international obligations’…’The level of retaliation… is slightly below US $28 million,’ says a statement by the Commission…. The EU’s move is likely to raise transatlantic trade tensions… The European Commission’s decision has to be approved by member states before it can come into effect on 1 May — but no opposition is expected.”

In the USA, the decision of the European Commission has been sharply criticized by the media — including CNN. In a special report, CNN questioned what the EU is expecting of the USA — given the high amount of trade with the USA, which is already enormously benefiting the EU.

The Death of Pope John Paul II

With the death of Pope John Paul II, speculation is running high as to who his successor is going to be. Will it be the last pope in the history of the Catholic Church — a black pope perhaps (such as Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria), and will he adopt the name of Peter, as Nostradamus and other “seers” have prophesied? In the annals of the Catholic Church, there has only been one black pope before.

Will it be a European — a German, perhaps? Could it be Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (77)? Time magazine felt, at the beginning of this year, that he was the top candidate — something like a transitional pope. He has been presiding over the Office responsible for religious questions — formerly known as the Inquisition. He is described as “highly intelligent” (Bild Online, April 3, 2005). Whether or not it will be Ratzinger, he has already become known as the “creator of popes,” as Bild Online stated on April 6, 2005.

One thing is certain — this new election will be of tremendous prophetic importance. It is interesting that the new election process of 117 cardinals (under 80 years) — or 116 cardinals, as the Cardinal from the Philippines, Jaime Sin, fell sick and might be unable to attend — will begin on April 18, 2005 — exactly 16 days after the pope’s death, and less than a week before Passover. And, that during the burial of the pope, there will be a partial solar eclipse (as The Associated Press reported on April 6, 2005). The late pope’s testament “did not name the mystery cardinal he created in 2003… ending speculation that a last-minute cardinal might join in the April 18 start of the conclave [the papal election process],” according to The Associated Press of April 6, 2005.

To be able to elect a new pope, the cardinals, in sequestered meetings at the Sistine Chapel, have to agree on one candidate with a two-thirds majority (plus one). If there have been 33 unsuccessful attempts (ballots are cast each day, two in the morning and two in the afternoon, as AFP reported on April 4, 2005), the cardinals are allowed to elect a pope with a simple majority, or to agree on the most likely candidate, choosing from the two who had received the most votes. The longest election process occurred in 1268, when it took three years to elect a new pope (Bild Online, April 1, 2005). The shortest election took place in 1978, when Pope John Paul I was elected. He only ruled for 33 days, before he died (Bild Online, April 3, 2005). Some believe that he did not die of natural causes.

When the cardinals decide on a candidate, the traditional white smoke that for centuries has announced the selection of a new pope to the world will be joined by the tolling of bells (The Associated Press, April 6, 2005).

On April 6, 2005, Bild Online published an article, stating, “Not Every Pope Died in His Bed.” The article pointed out that Pope John XII (937-964) was killed by a jealous husband, after he had transformed the Vatican into a house of prostitution. Pope Benedict IX (1020-1055) died in battle, when he fought against a German “counter-pope.” Pope Paul II (1417-1471) died while he had sexual relationships with another man. Pope Innocence VIII (1432-1492) died, after having violated his eight daughters, when a blood transfusion from a boy failed. Pope Leo X (1475-1521) died of syphilis, after he had had sexual relationships with boys, men and women.

Der Spiegel Online pointed out on April 4, 2005, that historically, “many conclaves were dictated by intrigue and corruption.”

The Scotsman added on April 4, 2005:

“The world is on the brink of witnessing an ancient rite, one redolent with history, power and intrigue… Yet the late John Paul II could be responsible for initiating a long conclave. He ordered the construction of Casa Santa Marta, a £12 million, 134-room hotel, which will permit the cardinals to deliberate in comfort, 108 of them in three-room suites.”

Bild Online even went so far as to state, on April 6, 2005: “There is already a power and election struggle going on in the Vatican… Intrigues, conspiracies, cheating… Is every method acceptable? Mysterious organizations, which could be decisive as to who might be the next pope, are: Opus Dei, the army of the pope, also known as the Italian Mafia; Communione e Liberazione, a powerful Italian lay member movement; Sant’Egidio, a community similar to an order; and the Fokolaries, a ultra-conservative youth group, which very strongly worships Mary. About one-third of the 117 cardinals sympathize with one or the other of those groups. Whether it’s Opus Dei or the Fokolaries, they all are extremely rich… and run universities and seminaries for priests — in which cardinals are forged.”

Unknown to most is the fact that every baptized Catholic male can be elected pope — he does not even have to be a priest. But since 1378, only cardinals were elected popes (Bild Online, April 3, 2005; AFP, April 4, 2005).

The worldwide reaction to Pope John Paul II’s death was stunning. President Bush said that he had been “a hero for all times — a fighter for peace and freedom” — even though he had been strongly opposed to the Iraq war. Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said that Pope John Paul II was instrumental in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the division in Germany and Europe. More than 100 governmental officials, as well as many more prominent figures, are planning to attend the funeral, from virtually every country around the world. Pilgrims are flocking into Rome by the millions. Even the wedding of Prince Charles was postponend (reportedly much to the anger of Prince Charles), as it would have coincided with the pope’s funeral.

Bild Online reported on April 6 about miracles that the late Pope John Paul II had allegedly performed during his life — including the healing of blind people; of individuals sick with cancer; and of lame and paralyzed persons. The paper stated that the Vatican is already considering sanctifying or canonizing the pope — a process which normally could last decades, if not centuries, except for popular demand of the masses. For instance, Franz of Assisi was sanctified as early as two years after his death (in 1226).

Der Spiegel Online discussed in its article of April 2, 2005, titled, “The Testament of the Lion,” why the late pope enjoyed such popularity–given the fact that he was extremely conservative. The paper pointed out that he did not compromise, and that he demanded unquestioned obedience. “His stance regarding abortion was terribly against the Zeitgeist [the commonly accepted view of the time]… He looked for reconciliation between Catholics and Jews — while declaring that the Catholic way was the only true one… The media loved this pope so much that they did not understand his radical stance on social issues… He could not prevent the Iraq war, but his resistance against it brought him admiration and love.”

The Bible prophesies that the final pope of the end-time will be able to perform miracles and propagate the Catholic way as the only true way — and he will do so in such a convincing manner, that most people will follow his lead. At the same time, important commandments of God will be ignored and neglected. For more information, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.” Have we now reached this final phase of human history, which will end with the return of Jesus Christ to this earth?

One has to be struck by the unending news coverage and the — overall — unquestioning admiration by the nations and people of the world for the late Pope John Paul II, and his religion. Only the tiniest mention is ever made about the deeply held beliefs embodied in Catholicism, and beyond that, only scant coverage of the recent problems of child molestation uncovered among so many priests of the Catholic Church.

In reading Revelation 13 and what is stated about the final
global impact of Catholicism, one has to be impressed how the world, more than ever before in recent times, is galvanized around Rome and the religious figure-head of this time!

Right now, the true Church of God — the spiritual body of Christ — seems indeed very small, very scattered and, overall, little prepared for what is coming…

Back to top

Is it a sin to eat in a restaurant on the Sabbath?

The Church of the Eternal God in the USA and its corporate affiliates in Canada and Great Britain have consistently taught that it is not wrong to eat out on the weekly Sabbath or annual Holy Days (which are also called “Sabbaths” in the Bible), depending on the circumstances. At the same time, we must always keep firmly in mind that whatever we do or say or think on the Sabbath should be in realization of the fact that we are spending time that God has set aside for a holy purpose (Isaiah 58:13-14).

Quoting from our booklet, titled, “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” pages 21 and 22, we have said:

“It was Jesus Christ-the LORD of the Sabbath-who created the Sabbath, following the directive and command of God the Father. It is God-both the Father and the Son-who expects man to keep the Sabbath holy. Only God has the right to tell us how to keep the Sabbath holy. In Matthew 12:1-8, Christ tells us that mercy allows for a hungry person to get and eat food on the Sabbath. We see here a very important distinction to the time when God did not provide ancient Israel with manna from heaven on the Sabbath. In Christ’s day, food was available. The disciples could pluck heads of grain from the field. Under the law, the landowners were not allowed to harvest completely all grain, but they had to leave some of it in the field, so that those who were hungry could pluck and eat it.

“While this is true, it must be emphasized that the disciples did not ‘harvest’ the field on the Sabbath. They just plucked a few heads of grain to satisfy their hunger. We should also take note of what the Scripture does not address here. Notice that it does not reveal whether the disciples were traveling or whether they were close to home. We are not told why the disciples were hungry to begin with, and why they had not prepared food on the previous day for the Sabbath. The reason we are not told is that it is irrelevant for the point that Christ is making here. The message rings loud and clear: Don’t condemn the innocent as to how they keep the Sabbath. They will have to give account to their own Lord and Master-Jesus Christ (Romans 14: 4, 9-13). Instead, WE are to show mercy and compassion. Mercy teaches us that it is wrong to prohibit a hungry person from getting food for himself and to eat it on the Sabbath.

“This is not to say, however, that a Christian should engage in shopping on the Sabbath, except in a real emergency (compare Nehemiah 13:15-22). Nor should this episode be used as justification or an excuse for a refusal to prepare for the Sabbath on the previous day.

“Note also that the disciples were in the presence of Christ while they were eating. They were with God-in the person of Jesus Christ-and were focusing on God. They did not profane the Sabbath by forgetting the sanctity of the day when they plucked grain to eat it. If Church members today eat occasionally in a nice, quiet restaurant on the Sabbath or a Holy Day after Church services, for instance, while, at the same time fellowshipping with other brethren and speaking about the things that pertain to God, then we must not condemn them for that. For instance, Church members might be traveling for quite a distance to attend Church services, looking forward to spending additional time with their brethren after services. If, on the other hand, your conscience does not allow you to go to a restaurant on a Sabbath or a Holy Day, then you must not do so, since ‘whatever is not from faith [or conviction] is sin’ (Romans 14:23). It would be advisable, though, to review the Scriptures to see whether your conscience is based on the Bible or merely on man-made traditions. God never accepts our conviction as justification for the violation of His law, and man-made regulations can, as we saw, cloud the intent of God’s commandments in the minds of men.”

We might want to add here that anyone who sincerely believes that he or she would compromise God’s Sabbath by eating away from home in a commercial establishment must also consider their own example within the body of believers and the effect on other believers — especially those who might be weak in the faith.

This teaching, that it is not wrong to eat out on the Sabbath, is in accordance with the long-held understanding of the Church of God. In a letter from the Letter Answering Department of the Worldwide Church of God, dated October 1988, this understanding was correctly explained, as follows:

“The Church has long taught that it is not wrong to eat out on the weekly Sabbath occasionally or on the annual Holy Days, depending upon one’s circumstances and preferences. Those waiters, waitresses, chefs, and the like, who may serve in a restaurant, are not our ‘servants’ in the way described in the Fourth Commandment. They are the employees of the owner of the restaurant. They would be working regardless of whether or not we ate there. God does not hold us responsible for their working on the Sabbath just because we use their services — unless we are the only ones who ever ate in that restaurant on the Sabbath. Obviously, we make up a very small portion of the customers served in restaurants on the Sabbath or Holy Days. Further, eating out occasionally on the Sabbath can enhance spiritual fellowship with brethren and allow family members more time to be with one another.”

Mr. Armstrong, the late human leader of the Church of God, who died in 1986, explained once during a Bible study that he did not feel that it was inappropriate to go to a restaurant on a Sabbath. His long-time assistant, Aaron Dean, subsequently confirmed Mr. Armstrong’s understanding on the issue, to the effect that eating or not eating did not stop the cooks and servers at a restaurant from working on the Sabbath. Mr. Armstrong did not make it a practice of going out on the Sabbath (except on trips), and he didn’t comment a whole lot about it. He would not have formal dinners on the Sabbath (Friday nights or on Saturdays, during the day) at his house or Ambassador College — a college which was run by the Church — because that would have required employees or College students to work on the Sabbath. He would go out on a Friday night if he had guests, and if he had served his guests in his house, it would have meant a lot of work for Mr. Armstrong’s housekeeper and cook.

The Church of God in Germany published a booklet in the early 70’s, titled “Gottes Sabbat–ein Tag der Freude” (“God’s Sabbath — A Day of Joy”). It reflected the Church’s understanding on the issue, and stated: “In Matthew 12:1-5, Christ shows clearly that it is not prohibited to acquire food on the Sabbath, when one is hungry and has nothing to eat. If one is not at home, it is not wrong to go to a restaurant on the Sabbath. There are people who do not have the means of cooking at home. In such cases it is permissible to buy food on the Sabbath.”

Some have felt that we must never eat out on the Sabbath, as this would be engaging in the business of buying and selling. Sometimes, Exodus 16:22 and Nehemiah 10:31; 13:16-22 are quoted for that proposition. However, none of these Scriptures apply to eating occasionally in a restaurant.

Exodus 16 refers to a limited situation at the time. If we wanted to apply the entire passage literally today, we would not be allowed to leave our houses on the Sabbath (compare Exodus 16:29). But, we generally must leave our houses today to attend Sabbath services (Leviticus 23:3; Hebrews 10:24-25). In regard to the extreme and unusual circumstances at the time of Exodus 16, please also note that today, our food lasts longer than just for one day (compare Exodus 16:18-20). In addition, Exodus 16 does not even address the question of buying and selling.

Nehemiah 10 and 13 seem to apply more to the situation of a farmer’s market. If we were to apply it to occasionally eating out on the Sabbath, we would have to answer the following questions:

If Nehemiah were to prohibit eating out on the Sabbath, as it would violate, in principle, the prohibition to engage in commerce, then we could not stay at a hotel during the Sabbath (which Mr. Armstrong did on numerous occasions), as we would pay for the hotel’s services during that time (including eating complimentary breakfasts, room cleaning, using electricity), and we could never ride a bus to get to services (which Mr. Armstrong did habitually for a while). However, Christ made it very clear in the parable of the Good Samaritan that it is not wrong to stay in a hotel or an inn on the Sabbath and to pay for the services of the inn keeper (compare Luke 10:30, 33-35). Please note that in the parable, the man was severely beaten, and left almost half dead (verse 30). The Samaritan bandaged his wounds, brought him to the inn, took care of him (verse 34), departed the next day, giving the inn keeper money, and told him to take care of him, until he returned, when he would repay him (verse 35). Since the man was severely wounded and half-dead, he could not have been restored in just a week — which means, there would at least have been one Sabbath in between.

If Nehemiah were to prohibit eating out on the Sabbath, as it would violate, in principle, the prohibition to have a person labor for us, then we could not use a bus on the Sabbath to drive to services (as the bus driver “labors” for us); and hotel personnel could not do anything for us on the Sabbath (including cleaning our rooms and beds, bring us fresh towels, etc.).

If Nehemiah were to prohibit eating out on the Sabbath as it would violate, in principle, the prohibition to “work,” then one would have to answer the question why a person can “work” by preparing food on the Sabbath. For instance, Christ made it clear that it was not wrong to circumcise a baby on the Sabbath. This year, the Passover evening falls on the Sabbath, and work will have to be done during the ceremony. In addition, the Night to Be Much Observed falls this year on an annual Holy Day, following a weekly Sabbath. Some members of the Church of the Eternal God keep the Night to Be Much Observed in a nice, quiet restaurant, so as to reduce the work load on the women that night. Otherwise, the ladies would have to work during the weekly Sabbath to prepare meals for the evening. To prepare meals on Friday might pose several problems, as Friday, as the preparation day for the Sabbath, should be spent more properly to spiritually prepare for the Passover evening (in addition to finishing removing all leavening from the house, which must be completed this year by Friday evening).

In the early 70’s, it was the practice of the Church of God in Germany to meet together in a restaurant during the Night to Be Much Observed. This was always a most inspiring experience, and rightly observed, did not at all take away from the spirit of that occasion.

Some have said that we can eat out on an annual Holy Day, or on a weekly Sabbath, when we are traveling, but that we cannot eat out on a weekly Sabbath, when we are “within our gates.” However, there is no Scriptural evidence supporting this claim. Apart from the fact that the issues of having someone work for us, or engaging in business, would still be the same, the only Scripture occasionally used to justify the distinction is Deuteronomy 16:13. However, if anything, this passage would say the exact opposite (compare verse 14). Some have said that we can eat out on an annual Holy Day, as we are to “rejoice” on such a Day (compare Deuteronomy 16:14 and 15). However, this permission would equally apply to the weekly Sabbath, as we are to “rejoice” on the weekly Sabbath as well, which is a delight and a feast (compare Leviticus 23:2-3; Isaiah 58:13).

The religious leaders of Christ’s day made religion a burden (compare Matthew 23:4). However, in speaking of God’s commandments, John stated: “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).

In conclusion, to teach that it is a sin to eat out in a restaurant on the weekly and annual Sabbaths is not Biblical.

Back to top

Preaching the Gospel & Feeding the Flock

A new booklet on the future of the USA and Great Britain has been written, and has entered the first review cycle.

The printing of our booklet on Fighting in War has been completed. We trust that we will be able to send out the booklet next week to our readers.

A new member letter has been written by Edwin Pope, and will be sent out next week. The letter addresses the current condition in the world and in the Church and encourages Church members to diligently prepare for the Passover. It has been posted on the website.

A new StandingWatch program will be recorded on Friday.

Following Internet Sabbath services from Colorado on April 2, Alistair Wuckert was baptized. Alistair lives in the Denver, Colorado, area and is married. He and his wife, Andrea, are parents of an infant son named Malakai.

Back to top

Youth Forum

GIVE—GET IT?

by Kalon Mitchell (19)

We all know the story of the good Samaritan; how a man lay bleeding in a ditch but most people who saw him turned away. They had things to do, meetings to attend, school to catch. They didn’t want to get their clothes dirty–in essence, they couldn’t be bothered. What about you and me? What would we have done?

Sometimes it can seem like there’s never a break in our activities. We are just too busy with our thoughts and problems to stop and think about others. Have you, maybe, noticed that someone’s feelings were down; that the lawn needed to be mowed; that the trash needed to be taken out, but you felt like you didn’t have time to help? Are you and I just superficial Christians?

What is the opposite of being superficial? Mr. Armstrong used to say that there are two ways to live–the way of give and the way of get. When we give, we practice God’s law of LOVE. When we live this way of life–of taking time to help others–we will still have the time to get the IMPORTANT things done; and we will have a sense of peace in knowing that we have helped to make someone’s life a little better. That’s the way of give—get it?

Back to top


How This Work is Financed

This Update is an official publication by the ministry of the Church of the Eternal God in the United States of America; the Church of God, a Christian Fellowship in Canada; and the Global Church of God in the United Kingdom.

Editorial Team: Norbert Link, Dave Harris, Rene Messier, Brian Gale, Johanna Link, Eric Rank, Michael Link, Anna Link, Kalon Mitchell, Manuela Mitchell, Dawn Thompson

Technical Team: Eric Rank, Shana Rank

Our activities and literature, including booklets, weekly updates, sermons on CD are provided free of charge. They are made possible by the tithes, offerings and contributions of Church members and others who have elected to support this Work.

While we do not solicit the general public for funds, contributions are gratefully welcomed and are tax-deductible in the U.S. and Canada.

Donations can be sent to the following addresses:

United States: Church of the Eternal God, P.O. Box 270519, San Diego, CA 92198

Canada: Church of God, ACF, Box 1480, Summerland, B.C. V0H 1Z0

United Kingdom: Global Church of God, PO Box 44, MABLETHORPE, LN12 9AN, United Kingdom

Current Events

Australia vs. USA

As www.smh.com.au reported on March 29, 2005, “Australians are just as concerned about United States foreign policy as Islamic extremism and regard the US as more dangerous than a rising China, according to a new poll.” According to the poll, “57 per cent of Australians were ‘very worried’ or ‘fairly worried’ about the external threat posed by both US foreign policy and Islamic extremism… More than two-thirds–68 per cent–said Australia took too much notice of the US in its foreign policy deliberations.”

Germany — Still Divided?

As Reuters reported on March 27, 2005, “Nearly a quarter of western Germans and 12 percent of easterners want the Berlin Wall back–more than 15 years after the fall of the barrier that split Germany during the Cold War, according to a new survey. The results of the poll, published Saturday, reflected die-hard animosities over high reunification costs lowering western standards of living and economic turmoil in the east… The Berlin Wall was breached on November 9, 1989, paving the way for the unification of Communist East Germany with the West on October 3, 1990. But billions of euros (dollars) spent rebuilding the east have failed to prop up the depressed region, which is plagued by high unemployment and a shrinking population. The poll also found that 47 percent of the easterners agree with the statement that the West ‘acquired the east like a colony,’ while 58 percent of the westerners back the statement that ‘easterners tend to wallow in self-pity.'”

Make War, Not Peace?

An appalling editorial was published in WorldNetDaily on March 22, 2005, in connection with the Church shooting by a parishioner in Wisconsin. Although this may be hard to believe, the editor actually recommended the following violent strategy to prevent further shootings in schools or churches:

“If just one other member of that congregation were carrying a gun, lives would have been saved. And that’s the real answer to this kind of murder and mayhem… I’m advocating that law-abiding people carry firearms wherever they go – especially in places where guns are thought to be unnecessary, especially in schools and other ‘gun-free zones,’ especially in the high-crime cities where guns have already been banned. It’s a matter of life and death… That way, when the next inevitable attack comes – whether it is at a movie theater, a school, a church, a shopping mall, and no matter who the perpetrator is – there will be return fire. That’s called deterrent. That’s called civil defense. That’s called common sense.”

Sadly, in our violent societies which place guns and weapons over trust in God’s protection, even this incredible recommendation might be welcome by some deceived supporters. What we would see then is that violence will lead to more violence, and if that kind of recommendation would be followed by everyone, we would pretty soon have an armed camp — with freedom and peace gone forever. We only pray that true Christians don’t fall for such God-defying and God-denying concepts. As Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:1-5: “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be… brutal, despisers of good, … headstrong… having a form of godliness BUT DENYING ITS POWER. AND FROM SUCH PEOPLE TURN AWAY!”

The Death of the Dollar?

www.silverstockreport.com wrote on March 18, 2005:

“Caesar was supposed to be a god. Julius Caesar was killed on the Ides of March. (March 15th). Today, we don’t make men gods. Instead society has made our financial system into a false god. On March 15th, 2005, (the Ides of March) we may have just witnessed the beginning of the death of our financial system as General Motors stock took a nosedive from $34/share down to $30…GM’s stock price decline is like a dagger right into the heart of the U.S. financial system, and the dollar itself!… Apparently, someone in power did the equivalent of shouting ‘the emperor has no clothes’ and people woke up, and are beginning to see more clearly! The media decided it was time to expose the truth that GM is nearly insolvent, and will expect to lose $1.50/share in the first quarter alone!
“But the story is worse than that! GM has $300 billion in debt… The implication is clear–that GM is headed towards bankruptcy, and will default on the bondholders, who will then own a company worth less than $16 billion dollars!… So, therefore, GM will soon be a $300 billion dollar blow-up! How big is that? It’s bigger than Enron, Global Crossing, LTCM, K-Mart, and the IRAQ war all put together! … $300 billion going belly up is a big enough event to topple the U.S. government! How so? It will shake the confidence in the entire financial system… Either way, the dollar is dead. Long live gold and silver!”

Never-Ending Problems in Iraq

As The Associated Press reported on March 29, 2005, “Iraq’s fledgling parliament failed Tuesday to agree on who would be its speaker, with the interim prime minister and president storming out of the chaotic session that exposed deep divides among the National Assembly’s Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members. The short session – mostly held behind closed doors after leaders kicked out reporters and cut off a live television feed – adjourned until this weekend… The Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish coalition, which finished first and second in the landmark elections, have reached out to the Sunnis and to members of Allawi’s coalition, hoping to form an inclusive national unity government. But haggling over the level of participation of the Sunnis, as well as jockeying for Cabinet posts and efforts to resolve differences between the various groups, have left Iraq without a government almost two months after the 275-member National Assembly was elected. Lawmakers have until mid-August to draft a permanent constitution.”

Another Powerful Earthquake in Indonesia

As The Associated Press reported on March 29, 2005, “Indonesians searched through smoldering rubble for survivors on Nias island Tuesday and relatives wept over the bodies of the dead after an 8.7-magnitude earthquake hammered the region, triggering a tsunami scare and killing at least 330 people. Some officials said the death toll could rise as high as 2,000… The earthquake – which occurred along the same tectonic fault line as the massive 9.0-magnitude temblor that caused the Dec. 26 disaster – triggered panic in several Asian countries.”

The German press reported that scientists fear for additional powerful earthquakes in the region. It was pointed out that the December earthquake was three times stronger than the quake on Monday, but that Monday’s quake was not an aftershock of the December quake, but an entirely new one.

Jurors Without the Bible

As The Associated Press reported on March 29, 2005, “Ruling that juries cannot turn to the Bible for advice during deliberations, a divided Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a convicted murderer because jurors discussed verses from Scripture.” This latest decision follows a long line of cases, ruling in effect that jurors have to ignore or violate their own conscience, when they become jurors, as they have to unconditionally and without reservation obey the judge’s instructions. This alone should be reason enough for any true Christian to be conscientiously opposed to participating in jury duty.

U.S. Sovereignty Tested?

As The Associated Press reported on March 29, 2005, “The Supreme Court, confronting a case that tests the effect of international law in domestic death penalty cases… [heard arguments regarding the] violation of a U.S. treaty that requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the United States… Several justices seemed wary of deciding who has final say on interpretation of that treaty – state or federal courts, the U.S. president or an international tribunal – after President Bush last month ordered new state court hearings for [51] Mexicans on death row… The case, which has attracted worldwide attention, is seen as a test of how much weight the Supreme Court will give in domestic death penalty cases to the International Court of Justice, or ICJ, in The Hague, which ruled last year that the 51 convictions violated the Vienna Convention… The administration also announced it was withdrawing from a section of the Vienna Convention that gave the ICJ authority to hear U.S. disputes, to avoid future questions about the role of international tribunals in domestic death penalty cases.”

Terri Schiavo Died

As The Associated Press reported on March 31, 2005, “Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman who spent 15 years connected to a feeding tube in an epic legal and medical battle that went all the way to the White House and Congress, died Thursday, 13 days after the tube was removed. She was 41… Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 after her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance that was believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder. Court-appointed doctors ruled she was in a persistent vegetative state, with no real consciousness or chance of recovery. She left no written instructions…”

The article continued:

“Florida lawmakers, Congress and President Bush tried to intervene…, but state and federal courts at all levels repeatedly ruled in favor of her husband [to remove the tube]. The case focused national attention on living wills and stirred a furious debate over the proper role of government in end-of-life decisions. It also led to allegations that Republicans in Congress were pandering to the religious right and violating their own political principles of limited government and states’ rights. In Washington, the president said he was saddened by the death. ‘The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak,’ Bush said. ‘In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in favor of life.’ In Rome, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, head of the Vatican’s office for sainthood, called the removal of the feeding tube ‘an attack against God.'”

The article concluded, as follows: “Schiavo’s feeding tube was briefly removed in 2001. It was reinserted after two days when a court intervened. In October 2003, the tube was removed again, but [Florida’s] Gov. Jeb Bush rushed ‘Terri’s Law’ through the Legislature, allowing the state to have the feeding tube reinserted after six days. The Florida Supreme Court later ruled that law was an unconstitutional interference in the judicial system. Nearly two weeks ago, the tube was removed for a third and final time.”

Should YOU Fight in War?

Viewable PDF
Printable PDF

To Request a FREE hard copy of this booklet, please write to: contact@eternalgod.org

Introduction

What does the Bible teach us about our Christian responsibility when it comes to fighting for our country?

Is it correct, as some teach, that the Bible allows, if not enjoins, Christians to participate in the military and to engage in warfare, either to attack another country or to defend their own country against aggressors? Do the teachings of Christ and His followers allow, or even demand, that we take up arms to fight against those who want to harm and destroy us, our loved ones, or our nation?

Should a true follower of Christ participate in wars that are fought by the powers of this world, based on whatever “logical” reasoning would lead to justification for such action?

What Civil and Religious Leaders Say

Before we look at the very clear teachings of the Bible, let us review a few statements from civil and religious leaders that address this subject. Consider whether you would agree or disagree with the following quotes:

Pope Pius XII declared at the beginning of World War II: “Everything is gained by peace, nothing is gained by war.”

Shortly after the end of World War II, General Omar Bradley had this to say: “The world has achieved … power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.” He also said: “We have built the atom bomb, but forgotten the Sermon on the Mount.”

Pope Paul VI stated in 1965 during a UN assembly: “If you want to be brothers, put your weapons down. You cannot love with aggressive weapons in your hands.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed his viewpoint in this way: “There is only one solution for our generation: It is the return to a life based on Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his sermon, “The Most Durable Power”: “Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn generations will be recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos.”

On the other hand, former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt said: “You cannot rule a country with the Sermon on the Mount.”

A Catholic Catechism, published in 1975 in Switzerland, stated: “The injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount are not to be taken literally, as this would lead to unacceptable circumstances both in private and public life.”

The Book of Common Prayers reasoned: “It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.”

Francis A. Schaeffer said in “A Christian Manifesto“: “I am not a pacifist because pacifism in this fallen world in which we live means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.”

C.S. Lewis wrote in “Mere Christianity“: “Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment – even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy.”

Who is right? Would you agree with any of these?

Is it “perfectly right” for a Christian to sit in judgment over another person – be it as a judge or a juror? Is it “perfectly right” for a Christian to kill another person – be it as a soldier or as a policeman? And what about innocent bystanders – the proverbial, unavoidable “casualties of war”?

Albert Einstein noted: “Mere lip services for peace are easy, but without effect. What we need is active participation in a fight against war and everything leading to war.”

Terrible Consequences of War

Throughout this booklet, we will consider some interesting quotes from famous persons who might have understood something regarding the issue of war and peace, which sadly, most people have failed to comprehend. However, regardless of the conclusions of our discussion, one fact should be clear: Every war has terrible consequences, both economically and in terms of human suffering and pain.

On October 26, 2004, the Washington Post reported: “YaleUniversity economist William D. Nordhaus estimated that in inflation-adjusted terms, World War I cost just under $200 billion for the United States. The Vietnam War cost about $500 billion from 1964 to 1972, Nordhaus said. The cost of the Iraq war could reach nearly half that number by next fall, 2 1/2 years after it began.”

Der Stern Online published a shocking article, describing the terrible psychological consequences for soldiers returning from war. The article was published on July 15, 2004, and was titled, “The Trauma of War.” Doctors and scientists examined German soldiers returning from Kosovo and Afghanistan, and reported their frightening and disturbing findings: “Some say that they beat their children, when helping them with their school work – something that they had never done before… In other cases, they show no more emotions, neither joy nor sadness… Many try desperately to forget the past. They withdraw, drink or take drugs. Some become depressive and avoid their friends… In extreme cases, returning soldiers go berserk and kill others.” The article also pointed out that “traumatic developments, following experiences in war, can be proven bio-chemically in the brain.”

On May 7, 2004, ABC News published an insightful article, discussing the horrible effects of war. The article stated (emphasis supplied):

“The specifics of the incidents at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq [where Iraqi prisoners were tortured by U.S. soldiers] remain to be sorted out. But the answer seems apparent for experts in the psychology of war and other mental health professionals contacted by ABC NEWS – such behavior is not uncommon in a time of military conflict and the potential to abuse others may lie in all of us. `In war, things do happen, often from emotion of the moment, exhaustion, frustration – a buddy killed, a unit hurt,’ maintains Samuel Watson, a former infantry officer in the Vietnam War who is now associate professor of public health at [the] University of Pittsburgh… And Dr. Carlyle Chan, professor of psychiatry at [the] Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, says prisoner abuse is probably more prevalent than we would like to believe, given the trauma soldiers can experience.”

The article continued to ask: “What drives soldiers to abuse others in time of war? The key, believe these experts, is `the MILITARY CULTURE’ the soldiers and guards were immersed in. In war, `the enemy is not represented as a similar human being to oneself, but rather as a brute who is savage and single-minded in destructive intentions,’ says Rona M. Fields, director for cognitive sciences at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies at GeorgeWashingtonUniversity in Washington, D.C. This depersonalization, explains Evans, is a psychological defense against the horrible events soldiers witness during war. But once the enemy is seen as LESS THAN HUMAN, it can be easy to treat them accordingly.

“Another motivation for U.S. soldiers to mistreat Iraqi prisoners may have been simple RETALIATION, suggests Dr. Paul Ragan, a Navy psychiatrist during Desert Storm and now associate professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. `The emotional center of the brain, or the limbic system, wants to strike back…'”

ABC News asked this question: “But what if the leadership itself is commanding soldiers to behave in abusive ways? Would normal individuals be willing to follow morally abhorrent orders?”

The history of man has proven that the answer, tragically, is affirmative. Nazis, working at and supervising concentration camps, defended their brutal tortures and murders with these words: “I only followed orders.” And so, ABC News continued, in quoting another expert: “Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process… [even] when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality.”

The New Testament Teaching on War

What, then, is the Biblical view of war? We will first look at the very clear and decisive teachings on the issue of war and peace in the New Testament.

As a general truism, we are encouraged by Christ, as well as His apostles after His resurrection, to live in peace with ALL men. This includes, of course, a prohibition to fight against others, or to retaliate, or even to condemn. Romans 12:17-21 says: “Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to [God’s] wrath; for it is written, `Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. Therefore, `If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

We are told to overcome evil with good. We are also told that this means, NOT to avenge ourselves, but rather, to give our enemy food and drink. Obviously, this is telling us that we are not to kill him. That would be “evil.” Rather, we are to overcome evil with “good.” In feeding our enemy, we heap coals of fire on his head; that is, he will see our good deeds and he will be embarrassed when considering his animosity toward us, compared with our good will toward him.

This Biblical principle teaches HOW to overcome evil with good, not by using a weapon and killing the person [which is evil], but by helping and providing for him [which is good].

Romans 14:19 tells us: “Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.” And 1 Peter 3:8-12 adds: “Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. For `He who would love life And see good days, Let him refrain his tongue from evil, And his lips from speaking deceit. Let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, And His ears are open to their prayers; But the face of the LORD is against those who do evil.'”

Notice that NOT seeking peace and pursuing it is labeled as “evil.” Refraining our tongues from evil means to refrain from speaking evil about our enemy. Each war begins with words, with propaganda, with hateful comments about others, until a government’s decision to attack and fight against a foreign country – the enemy – seems to be justified in the eyes of the citizens. As a prime example, Adolph Hitler could never have convinced many Germans to approve of “total war,” if his propaganda machine, under Joseph Goebbels, had not carefully prepared them, far in advance, for such a viewpoint.

God says in His Word that He considers us to be righteous when we turn away from evil or when we refrain from saying or doing evil against others. But just refraining from evil is only half of the picture. We must complete the picture by truly seeking peace by actively pursuing it, in effect, making peace. We must want peace enough to make the effort to create it, and you can be sure, such an effort will be plainly evident in both our words AND our actions.

A German TV moderator, Dr. Franz Alt, wrote a book, “Peace Is Possible,” in which he addressed the way to peace and the way to war, as follows: “Nothing is without consequence. Long before a war breaks out, it has been prepared, that is, it has begun before in the minds of the people and the media … Our history books are dominated by Alexander and Caesar, Nero and Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin. Jesus … [is] just a footnote … We learn the wrong things about the wrong people. We focus too much on the representatives of violence and too little on the important and sense-giving people … What has more reality for us – the faith in God or in weapons? Whom do we trust more – the Son of God or world powers? Whom do we hope to receive salvation from – the Spirit which makes alive or the weapons which bring death?”

The Way of Peace

Let us consider what Christ’s half-brother, James, tells us in James 3:18: “Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”

Here, we see the relationship between righteousness – or right living – and the creation of peace. Christ teaches us in Matthew 5:6-10: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

When we hunger and thirst for righteousness, as evidenced by not hurting others through our words or actions, we are showing mercy toward them. Our hearts will become purer and purer when we live Christ’s way of mercy, compassion and peace. We will become more and more successful in substituting God’s pure word for the wrong concepts of this world, which falsely teach that anger, condemnation, and ultimately war, is the answer to our problems.

Consider these famous words from General Douglas McArthur that he uttered at the end of World War II: “It must be of the spirit [that is, we need a new way of thinking] if we are to save the flesh.”

Albert Einstein said something similar, when discussing the destructiveness of nuclear bombs: “A new way of thinking is inevitable if mankind wants to survive and prosper.”

Sadly, the vast majority of mankind has not subscribed to this new way of thinking which was revealed in the Bible thousands of years ago.

Rather, mankind has followed the philosophy of war – a philosophy expressed, for example, by Mao-Tse-Tung in this way: “We want to get rid of war – we don’t want war. But we can only get rid of war through war. If we don’t want guns, we must take up guns.”

This wrong philosophy has not brought peace, and it will never bring peace. On the other hand, Mahatma Ghandi understood something that most people don’t when he said, “Absence of violence is not a sign of weakness, but it is the weapon of a brave heart.”

The purity of God’s doctrine will convince us to become peacemakers. Ironically, when we advocate peace, pursue and practice it, we can expect persecution from others who believe in and teach the concept of war. But if we want to be children of God, we must be peacemakers – we must teach and live the way that leads to peace. We must reject the opposite way, which only brings about war, misery and death. As true followers of Christ, we must not participate in war in any manner, shape or form.

Christ tells us very clearly what He means when He commands us NOT to fight our enemies – but to live in peace with them. He said in Matthew 5:43-45: “You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Compare, too, Luke 6:27-28, 35-36.)

Let us ask ourselves: How do those teachings match up with the philosophy of hate and war – the concept that we must forcefully avenge ourselves against those who have overtaken us; who are trying to rob us of our land and possessions; who are in the process of suppressing our ideals and our philosophy?

Christ advocated a peaceful way of life, leaving it to God the Father to bring vengeance upon His enemies, and we must do the same! The Bible explains to us the only way to peace, a way which we MUST learn and put into practice. That way has never been taught, nor applied, by man in general. Rather, the world would have us believe that “That way does not work.” Even professing Christianity often teaches that it won’t be practical until everyone else is already living that way. But Christ tells us something altogether different and if we SAY that we are Christ’s disciples – the true followers of Christ – then we must DO what He commands. Remember what Christ said: “But why do you call Me `Lord, Lord,’ and not do [let alone, believe] the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).

Professor Dr. Rossi, a Seventh-Day Adventist in Switzerland, wrote in Conscience and Liberty: “Wars begin within the spirit of man, and it is within that spirit that the battle for life and peace must be won.”

John the Baptist was called by God to teach man the way to peace. We read the following prophecy about him in Luke 1:76, 79: “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways … To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace.”

Let us notice a striking example of how John guided people into the way of peace.” When Roman soldiers came to him, asking him what to do, he told them: “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14). The Authorized Version says here: “Do violence to no man … ” If they were not allowed to do violence to anyone, they were most certainly not allowed to kill their enemies in war.

Jesus Christ came to proclaim peace – and the WAY to peace – not war. Acts 10:36 tells us that God the Father was “preaching peace through Jesus Christ.” God wants man to understand the way to peace, but sadly, most have refused to accept Christ’s teachings. And it is even more sad that most people today, professing to be Christians, continue to refuse to actually ACCEPT and PRACTICE Christ’s teachings on war and peace. His teachings are very simple. They are not difficult to understand, but people who are not willing to accept them, have tried to make them very complicated.

At one time, Christ lamented the fact that ancient Jerusalem did not know the way to peace. This is still true today. We read in Luke 19:41-42: “Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, `If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.'”

The way of peace was hidden from their eyes because of not having a desire to open their eyes to see what Christ showed them. What about our eyes, our minds, our hearts? Are they open, or are they still closed?

Unless mankind allows God to open their eyes, man cannot know or understand the way to peace. Paul commented on this fact, in Romans 3:17. That is the reason we don’t have peace today. Man has pursued the way of hate, revenge and war, as so vividly described by Paul in Romans 3:10-16. The true reason for all this evil is found in verse 18: “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

The way of war is totally opposite to the way of peace. This should be obvious when we consider where wars come from, how they originate, and why.


“War or Peace – Which?”

How accustomed have we become to war? Would we agree with most people that our wars – although perhaps undesirable – are nevertheless necessities? Do we believe that our wars will solve at least some of our problems, and that they will bring lasting peace? Are we prepared to accept the death of thousands of innocent people in the course of man’s wars, thinking that these “casualties” are necessary by-products for the ultimate goal of peace?

The Bible tells us that Satan has deceived this whole world (Revelation 12:9). It is Satan, the author of war, who has caused man to think that destruction can produce construction – that war can result in peace.

Man wants peace. But, man does not know how to achieve it. Even so-called peace talks do not result in lasting peace and brotherhood. Paul tells us in Romans 3:11, 15-17: “There is none who understands… Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known.” Peter was willing to kill with the sword to defend Jesus. His Master had to tell him: “`Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword'” (Matthew 26:52). This same message is repeated in Revelation 13:10: “…he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.” When James and John, the “sons of thunder,” were prepared to call fire from heaven to devour the Samaritans, Christ rebuked them with these words, “`You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save
them'” (Luke 9:55-56).

6000 years of human history of pain and misery have proven that our wars do not bring peace, but only result in more wars. Just looking at the last century, we know that there would not have been a Second World War without the first. And as prophecy reveals to us, there will be, in the near future, a Third World War – the deadliest of them all – caused to a large extent by the last two wars. Indeed, wars only breed more wars. Man is not capable of ending all wars!

God has given His people understanding, including the understanding that the way of peace is not found through the wars of men. God will send Jesus Christ back to this earth to END ALL WARS (Psalm 46:9). In the Kingdom of God – the government of God under the rulership of Christ, ON THIS EARTH – man will not learn to fight in war anymore (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3). Christ is called the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), and we are told that of the increase of His peace, there will be no end (Isaiah 9:7; compare Psalm 72:7).

Christ has commissioned His Church to proclaim His way of peace to all nations (Ephesians 6:15; Acts 10:36). This means that we must be living this way ourselves! As His true disciples, we will not participate in any war fought by men AND we will not even advocate such wars. We will not allow ourselves to become deceived again, thinking that any human war is justified. Rather, we will counsel peace (Compare Proverbs 12:20: “Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, but counselors of peace have joy”). We will be found doing today what Jesus Christ will do when He rules on the earth: We will “speak peace to the nations” (Zechariah 9:10).

God’s way of peace and Satan’s way of war are total opposites. A true Christian will not practice or endorse anything that will bring destruction and pain for others – and war ALWAYS brings destruction and pain for others, as is self-evident. Our conscience must object to human warfare. That is why we are called “conscientious objectors.” Notice Christ’s commission to His end-time Church: “Behold, on the mountains The feet of him who brings good tidings, Who proclaims peace!” (Nahum 1:15; compare Romans 10:15).

Christ has enabled us to proclaim peace to others because Christ has given us HIS PEACE to dwell in us (John 14:27; compare Colossians 3:15) through His Holy Spirit. Christ guides our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1:79) – far away from the destructive road of war. We are called to “follow peace with all men” (Hebrews 12:14, Authorized Version), knowing that peace will be given to us if we are peacemakers (James 3:18; compare Matthew 5:9). If we ourselves “seek peace and pursue it” (1 Peter 3:11), if we make every effort, “as much as depends” on us, to “live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18), then we can be used by Christ as His ambassadors of peace. We are to represent His government, His kingdom, His rulership, and as such, we cannot participate – neither in word nor in deed – in this world’s ways of war.

We are to live and proclaim a way of GIVE. The wars of this world are the result of the way of GET. James 4:1-2 tells us, “Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?… You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask.”

Why does man go to war against his neighbor? Because he wants what his neighbor has, or he wants to make sure that his neighbor does not get what he has. At the same time, he does not ask God for help, and even if he does ask, he does not live the way God wants him to. God promises us in Proverbs 16:7: “When a man’s ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”

When our enemy is hungry and thirsty, we are to give him to eat and to drink, thereby heaping “coals of fire on his head” (Proverbs 25:22; Romans 12:20). The carnal mind says, “This does not work. One cannot rule a country with the Sermon on the Mount.” And so, man has never really tried to live this way of life. Rather, man has chosen Satan’s way of war, destruction and death, and as a consequence, man is now facing the distinct possibility of eradicating all human life from off the face of this earth.

God’s disciples – His children – MUST be different. We have a unique opportunity today to preach peace to the world – by our words AND by our deeds. Perhaps some will listen and try it out in their lives. What a surprise they will experience when they find out that God’s Way of Life DOES work!


The Origin of War

James 4:1-4 clearly explains the origin of war: “Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

James calls us friends of this world, when we participate in wars and fights. During times of patriotic and nationalistic euphoria – when one is called upon to be part of the crowd, the people, the nation, in order to support, advocate, and endorse “our nation’s” war – one can easily be considered to be an “enemy” when that person stands out as a conscientious objector. Doubts will arise and questions may be asked, such as, “Is that person perhaps a secret spy, a secret supporter of the enemy, a traitor, a deserter or even a coward?”

We might think in this context of the prophet Jeremiah. He taught the Jews not to fight the Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar, but rather, to surrender, as God had decreed that sinful Jerusalem should fall into the hands of the king of Babylon (Jeremiah 27:1-22). The king and the people of Judah did not like that message, and so, they imprisoned Jeremiah, charging him wrongly with being a traitor (compare Jeremiah 37:1-16).

On the other hand, when one strongly advocates war along with everyone else, that person is immediately considered to be a patriot. But we must understand that the war-waging nations of this day and age belong to this world, not to God’s future world to come, when He will rule the nations. This is a world in which times of peace are the exception and times of war are the rule. This is a world that may view a particular action as a capital crime of murder in times of peace, while it may declare it as an heroic act of liberation in times of war. However, the Bible says that if we are friends with the world (the world’s ways), we will be enemies of God.

Let us quote here from another influential proponent of peace, a true Christian who was even called by national and international politicians and governmental leaders an “unofficial ambassador for peace,” and a “builder of bridges between the nations.” That man was Herbert W. Armstrong, who wrote many books and booklets until his death in 1986. We are quoting excerpts from his booklet, “Military Service and War,” which was written in 1967 and republished in 1985 (pp. 54, 65, 67, 68, 70; emphasis in the original):

“War is so needless. War is WRONG! … Nearly all the really great religious and political leaders of the world have acknowledged the utter FUTILITY of war … More lives have been snuffed out prematurely, more suffering has been endured, more homes have been wrecked and broken, more time and property has been utterly wasted because of the scourge of war than through any other means in the history of man! And war has NEVER solved the problems of men or brought permanent peace. Instead, it only breeds more war! … Countless millions of lives are killed or crippled or ruined. And millions of young men are taught to become effective killers – murderers! Indeed, one of the most devastating indictments against war is that it breeds in whole populations the spirit of violence and MURDER … More than any other one thing, war breeds the spirit of murder! And that evil spirit is growing and increasing throughout the world today … War involves learning to hate and kill! … we must realize that the spirit of war is the spirit of MURDER – and avoid it with all of our strength … ”

In an earlier article of September of 1939, Herbert Armstrong stated the following (emphasis omitted): “God commands us not to fight or kill, whether for Caesar, or anyone else … . God’s laws forbid fighting, strife, or murder … Christ did condemn strife, fighting, killing, hating … I cannot personally participate in war or killing … I cannot bear arms or participate in war … Politics and war, even though the other nation be in the wrong and the evildoer, are of the world … [I object to killing because] it is sin, the penalty of which is death … It is wrong, because God condemns it, and I believe He condemns it because it only results in human suffering and misery and death. I believe no one ever WINS a war – it is, at most, only a matter of which side is the heavier loser. I believe God’s ways are RIGHT.”

Killing in War Breaks the Ten Commandments

Some have said that killing in war is not in violation of the Ten Commandments. However, James 4:1-2 proves that, according to the Bible, killing in war IS murder. In that passage, which deals with war, James equates war in verse 2 with “murder” when he says, “You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war.” The Greek word used for “murder” is “phoneuo.” Jesus uses the same word in Matthew 5:21, quoting one of the Ten Commandments (“You shall not kill” or “murder” – in Greek, “phoneuo.”) So both Jesus and James make it clear that the commandment, “You shall not kill,” does include the commandment against killing in war.

This can also be seen when considering Christ’s statement in Luke 22:36-38, where He asked the disciples to buy swords. Why did He do that? So that prophecy could be fulfilled. And what was the prophecy that had to be fulfilled? That He, Christ, would be numbered with the transgressors. What transgression were the disciples guilty of? That of attempted murder when Peter took the sword to defend the innocent Christ against an illegal arrest. (For a detailed discussion of this passage, see the accompanying box on the next page) Not that the disciples did have swords, and the fact that Peter would later use a sword to injure or perhaps kill someone else, constituted “transgression.” It constituted sin, since sin is the transgression of the law, the Ten Commandments (compare 1 John 3:4, Authorized Version).

Just as John the Baptist and Christ proclaimed and taught peace, so we, too, must be willing, even in light of adversity and persecution, to actively work for peace. In Ephesians 6:15, Paul includes in the armor of God, which we are to wear, “feet [shod] with the preparation of the gospel of peace.” The gospel of the Kingdom of God is also called a gospel of peace, as it announces a future time of peace when there will be absolutely no more war – a time that has not been experienced in all of the history of mankind from the time Cain slew his brother, Abel!


Q: How do you explain Luke 22:35–38? Doesn’t this passage allow, if not command, Christian warfare?

A: Luke 22:35–38 reads in con- text: “And He said to them, ‘When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?’ So they said, ‘Nothing.’ [God took care of them.] Then He said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: “And He was numbered with the transgressors.” For the things concerning Me have an end.’ So they said: ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them: ‘It is enough.’”

This passage cannot be used to justify participation of a Christian to fight in war. In fact, the passage teaches the exact opposite. First of all, “two swords” would hardly be enough for Christ’s disciples to defend themselves against the coming Roman persecution. Secondly, Christ Himself makes clear why they were to buy swords. It was so that the prophecy regarding Him could be fulfilled. What specific prophetic saying had to be fulfilled? “And He was numbered with the transgressors.” What transgression did the disciples—who had swords—become guilty of?

Note, first, that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4, Authorized Version). We read, in Mat- thew 26:51, that Peter took the sword and struck the servant in order to “defend” Christ. When he did that, he became guilty of the transgression of the spirit of the sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13; 1 John 3:15; Matthew 5:21–22; Matthew 5:43–48; Luke 6:27–36). Notice Matthew 26:51–52: “And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’”

Christ does not advocate that His disciples take up weapons to defend themselves, or others, in war. Note His clear statement, “ALL who take the sword will PERISH by the sword.” When Peter took the sword to harm or kill another human being, he be- came a transgressor of the law. The other disciples had undoubtedly similar feelings as Peter, supporting his conduct in their minds. They were all with Christ, so then, Christ was “numbered with the transgressors.”

We must also realize that at that time, neither Peter nor any of Christ’s disciples were converted. Their atti- tude and conduct changed, however, after their conversion (compare, for example, 1 Peter 2:21–23). We also read in James 4:1–3 that the origin of wars comes from “our desires for pleasure that war” in our members. Verse 4 continues, “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?” James tells us here that we become “enemies” of God if we are friends with this world, including joining the war machine of this world.

Returning to Matthew 26, Christ goes on to explain that His protec- tion does not come from men, but from God. Verse 53 reads: “‘Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?” He continues, however, “‘How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?’” (Verse 54). The point is, God could have protected Him, but it was not God’s time for His intervention. Jesus made a similar comment in John 18:36, “‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants [twelve legions of angels whom the Father would have sent for His protection] would fight, so that I would not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Christ was not talking here about His few disciples who had only two swords—they could hardly have prevented Jesus’ arrest by “a great multitude with swords and clubs” (Matthew 26:47). Christ’s disciples are not to par- ticipate in war. Our Master tells us, “Put your sword in his place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” We who believe in Christ and His Word, are not to perish, but to have everlasting life (John 3:15). We read a similar warning and admonition in Revelation 13:10. The context is a coming persecution of the saints by the beast power—a mighty military power bloc still to arise in Europe (verse 7). Christ in- troduces His warning in this way, “If anyone has an ear, let him hear” (verse 9). Then, He says, “He who leads into captivity [including through the means of war], shall go into cap- tivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.” Christ warns HIS END-TIME CHURCH NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN WAR. He contin- ues, “Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”

Christ’s true disciples will have the patience to endure, even war, without resorting to violence and responding in like manner. They will have the faith that GOD can and will protect them, even in the face of adversity, and that they must never transgress His law.

So we see that Luke 22:35–38 does not teach us that we must arm ourselves to protect ourselves in war. Rather, if we did that, we would be “transgressors” in the eyes of God.


A Future Peaceful World

Let us review some of the remarkable prophecies that reveal a time when the world will look much different than it does today. While we are reading, let us ask ourselves how those Biblical passages also apply to us in this present world. We are called to be ambassadors of Christ – representatives of God’s Kingdom which will soon be established on this earth. We are to be pioneers of a future better world! Our lives today are supposed to reflect how all of mankind will live their lives in that future better world.

Isaiah 28:6 explains that rather than stirring up strife or fighting in war, God’s people will “turn back the battle at the gate.” This is what God’s people should be doing now. They are to be peacemakers, not warmongers. We are to proclaim peace today, not only in words but in our actions, as Isaiah 52:7 clearly shows: “How beautiful upon the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who proclaims peace … ”

When God’s reign on this earth begins, that proclaimed peace will have become reality. People will not join the military to learn how to hate the enemy and how to fight in war; rather, they will be taught how to live in peace. Isaiah 2:2-4 prophesies: “Now it shall come to pass in the latter days That the mountain of the LORD’S house Shall be established on the top of the mountains, And shall be exalted above the hills; And all nations shall flow to it. Many people shall come and say, `Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the LAW [including the law which says: “You shall not kill”], and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; NATION SHALL NOT LIFT UP SWORD AGAINST NATION, NEITHER SHALL THEY LEARN WAR ANYMORE.”

When Christ, who is called the Prince of Peace, begins His rule on this earth, He will not allow wars to be fought any more. Yes, Christ will make an END to all wars, as we read in Isaiah 9:5-7: “For every warrior’s sandal from the noisy battle, And garments rolled in blood, Will be used for burning and fuel of fire. FOR unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the GOVERNMENT WILL BE UPON HIS SHOULDER. And His name will be called … Prince of Peace. Of the INCREASE of His GOVERNMENT AND PEACE There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom … From that time forward, even forever.”

If we understand correctly the purpose of Christ’s future Second Coming, we realize that Christ will not return to fight in war, but to END ALL wars. Psalms 46:9 states: “He makes wars CEASE to the END OF THE EARTH; He BREAKS the BOW and CUTS THE SPEAR IN TWO; He BURNS THE CHARIOT in the fire.” Christ will come to scatter those who delight in war (compare Psalm 68:30).

God will not help people through the means of war. Hosea 1:7 predicts: “Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, Will save them by the LORD their God, And will NOT save them BY BOW, Nor by SWORD or BATTLE, By horses or horsemen.” Rather, God will destroy all weapons and instruments of war, as Hosea 2:18 explains: ” … Bow and sword of battle I will shatter from the earth, To make them lie down safely.”

In Zechariah 9:10, God repeats this future prophecy, as follows: “I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim And the horse from Jerusalem; The battle bow shall be cut off. He shall speak peace to the nations; His dominion shall be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Men, at that time, will listen to God and will destroy their weapons. We read in the second chapter of the book of Isaiah that they will beat their swords into plowshares. Ezekiel 39:9-10 confirms this fact: “Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go out and set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and bucklers, the bows and arrows, the javelins and spears … They will not take wood from the field nor cut down any from the forests, because they will make fires with the weapons … ”

The Christian Duty – Today!

True Christians need to understand that they must already haveGod’s attitude toward peace and war, knowing that PEACE, not WAR, will be the reality of the future world under God’s rule. They must lead by their good example TODAY, showing others that we can live the way to peace and avoid the way to war.

Clearly, we cannot participate in war – neither in a literal sense, nor in the sense of advocating war with our lips, or even entertaining thoughts of war. Rather, we have to bring “every thought” into captivity to the obedience of Christ (compare 2 Corinthians 10:5). That is, we must be sure that our thoughts conform to Christ’s thoughts, and if we think thoughts of war, rather than peace, we must eradicate those thoughts from our minds.

This would even include the habit of watching extremely violent movies or participating in violent video games, in which war is glorified and depicted as the solution to our problems. If we are not careful, such a habit could lead to numbing our conscience to the point where killing seems normal to us. Some video interactive entertainment has been purchased and used by the military since it has been proven more effective than the military’s own training programs for desensitizing the human instincts against randomly killing other human beings, including women and children. In case of a draft and an examination by the draft

board, those who claim to be conscientious objectors must convince the examination board that they are in fact convicted that they cannot participate and kill in war. A habit of watching extremely violent movies, depicting killings and murders just as a means of entertainment, may raise questions in the examination boards as to one’s convictions.

The same is true in respect to what we say, because we understand, as Christ tells us in Matthew 12:34-37, that we will have to give account of every idle word we speak.

Rather than speaking words which advocate, endorse or support war, we are told in Proverbs 12:20 that “counselors of peace have joy.” When we advocate the way of peace, then the “God of love and peace” will be with us (compare 2 Corinthians 13:11).

Proverbs 16:7 tells us: “When a man’s ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” Do we believe that? Or, do we think that God’s way is not practical, and we must instead do what the world has been doing for thousands of years – trying to bring about peace through war? Emphatically NO! History itself has established the fact that we can NEVER experience and enjoy true peace that way.


Peace on Earth?

We oftentimes hear those most familiar words, “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” Leaders of the free world continually speak of this ideal of peace between nations. And yet, it seems whatever course these well meaning leaders take in this regard, peace continues to elude them.

As we examine the conditions in the world, between men and between nations, we find conflict, we find turmoil, and we find a world devoid of the peace that is so keenly desired. Why is that? Why, with so much effort being put forth in the form of negotiations between nations, and with the religious leaders in much of the world speaking continually of peace, does peace continually elude the nations of the world? Why is the reality so far removed from the ideal?

The Authorized Version of the Bible states that there was “…a multitude of the ‘heavenly’ host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men’” (Luke 2:13–14). But what is the real meaning of this message that was proclaimed to the shepherds as they tended their flocks on that very eventful, autumn night some two thousand years ago?

The Amplified Bible more correctly translates this Scripture (Luke 2:14), as follows: “Glory to God in the highest [heaven], and on earth peace among men with whom He is well-pleased—men of good will, of His favor.”

The Living Bible quotes the Scripture in a similar fashion: “Glory to God in the highest heaven … and peace on earth for all those pleasing him.”

The Ryrie Study Bible notes that this phrase, “good will toward men,” would more accurately be translated, “among men with whom He is pleased.” Ryrie goes further to say: “The peace promised is not given universally to men who possess good will toward God but individually to men who are the recipients of His favor and grace.”

Adam Clark’s “Commentary on the Holy Bible” states, in reference to this passage which reads, “Peace, good will toward men,” that “Men are in a state of hostility with Heaven and with each other. The carnal mind is enmity against God. He who sins wars against his Maker. When men become reconciled to God, through the death of His Son, they love one another. They have peace with God, peace in their own consciences, and peace with their neighbors; good will dwells among them, speaks in them, and works by them.”

Jesus Christ states in the book of Matthew: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household” (Matthew 10:34–36). At the time of Christ’s First Coming, He did not bring universal peace to this world. One of the purposes for His coming was to establish His Church, calling some out of this world to acquire and develop a different mindset. Christ predicted that this would cause conflict with those not called by God.

But how does one receive favor and grace from Almighty God? One must learn the way to peace! Notice, from the book of Isaiah: “Their feet run to evil, And they make haste to shed innocent blood; Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; Wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they have not known, And there is no justice in their ways; They have made themselves crooked paths; Whoever takes that way shall not know peace” (Isaiah 59:7–8).

And from the book of Jeremiah: “Because from the least of them even to the greatest of them, Everyone is given to covetousness; And from the prophet even to the priest, Everyone deals falsely. They have also healed the hurt [margin: crushing] of My people slightly [margin: superficially], Saying, ‘Peace, peace!’ When there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:13–14).

Ezekiel prophesies for the end-time: “Destruction comes; They will seek peace, but there shall be none” (Ezekiel 7:25). But why is this? God tells us that man does not know the way to peace. The reason is, of course, they reject the Way of God. The festival of Christmas is an example. Christmas is clearly derived from paganism, and so is Easter. While men keep pagan festivals in direct rebellion to the command of God, they also refuse to keep His Festivals, which He requires. (For more information as to what Festivals to keep, and which holidays to avoid, please read our free booklets, “God’s Commanded Holy Days” and “Don’t Keep Christmas.”) They observe Sunday worship, but refuse to keep God’s Sabbath. They are selective as to which of God’s commands they will keep and they determine for themselves how they will apply the Scriptures.

David asks the question in the Psalms: “Who is the man who desires life, And loves many days, that he may see good? Keep your tongue from evil, And your lips from speaking deceit. Depart from evil and do good; Seek peace and pursue it” (Psalm 34:12–14).

David continues in Psalm 37: “For evildoers shall be cut off; But those who wait on the LORD, They shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; Indeed, you will look carefully for his place, But it shall be no more. But the meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace” (verses 9–11). And, again, David states in Psalm 119:165: “Great peace have those who love Your law, And nothing causes them to stumble.” As God’s law continues to come into David’s mind, he states: “LORD, I hope for Your salvation, And I do Your commandments. My soul keeps Your testimonies, And I love them exceedingly. I keep Your precepts and Your testimonies, For all my ways are before You” (Psalm 119:166–168).

Of course, we see in these words why God referred to David as a man after His own heart (Acts 13:22). Scripture tells us in Proverbs 14: “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death” (verse 12). The way that the world has accepted and followed is none other than Satan’s way, as this is presently Satan’s world, but the Bible shows us that the ways of Satan must be rejected!

Such action, of course, requires God’s intervention with the individual life, as well as with the world as a whole. In order for the world to come in line with God’s Way, He will have to intervene powerfully to end Satan’s hold on the earth. But the good news is that God intends to do just that! In fact, if He did not intervene at just the right time, ALL life would cease on the earth. What a sobering thought!


A Righteous War?

Christianity Today published an interesting article on October 28, 2003, proving from ancient historical records that early Christians were opposed to military service and war. The article stated (emphasis added): “The ancient church understood that war has been around as long as human beings and [war and] SIN have coexisted. It is a consistent tenet throughout the Christian tradition that WAR IS THE RESULT OF SIN. The responses to war, however, have followed two basic trains of thought: pacifism, and the idea that certain wars can be just.”

The article went on to show that the very early Christian Church was preaching and practicing PACIFISM. Later, though, due to pagan influences and Christian involvement in the affairs of the state, the concept of a so-called “just war” developed.

Continuing with the article: “Pacifism is characteristic of the EARLY CENTURIES OF CHRISTIANITY like the North African apologist Tertullian (160-220 A.D.), who regularly warned Christians to DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM PAGAN CULTURE. He wrote: `How will he serve in the army even during peacetime without the sword that

Jesus Christ has taken away? … We are not allowed to wear any uniform that symbolizes a sinful act’ (On Idolatry 19.3). The third-century Roman Presbyter Hippolytus wrote the Apostolic Tradition, Canon 16 (ca. 215 A.D.) which opposed serving in the military as a matter of church discipline: `A soldier in lower ranks shall kill no one. If ordered to do so, he shall not obey, and he shall not take an oath. If he does not want to comply with this directive, let him be dismissed [from the church].'”

The article went on to say: “The Constantinian era brought about a change. Previously marginalized Christians were now involved in THE AFFAIRS OF STATE. Though there were many Christian soldiers before the time of Constantine, IT WASN’T UNTIL previously marginalized Christians BECAME INVOLVED IN THE AFFAIRS OF STATE that the church fathers BEGAN NUANCING THEIR OPPOSITION TO MILITARY ACTION. The issue then became how one could remain a Christian when the demands of the state required use of force to combat evil or prevent injury.” As the article pointed out, this then led to the Catholic teaching of a “just war.”

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) taught that war, although evil (!), was justifiable as a last resort, after peaceful options had been exhausted. A complicated body of rules and regulations was created, defining a “just war.” Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was instrumental in that regard. Those man-made rules provide that a “just war” must be declared by a proper governmental (human) authority; that it has to be waged for a morally legitimate purpose (defined by man); that it must have the intention of correcting a wrong (defined by man); and that it must be fought in the right way; that is, civilians must not be intentionally harmed (but we all know that every war will lead to the death of civilians – the so-called “casualties of war”).

Based on these ideas, the Protestant leaders of the Reformation accepted warfare. The Swiss reformer Zwingly was killed in battle!

Christ, however, did not approve the concept of a “just war” fought by man. He showed us very specifically that His disciples are NOT to participate in warfare in any manner, shape or form. If there ever has been a so-called righteous or just war, a war which would have been justified – or if there has ever been an action of defending oneself or others which would have been acceptable, if not recommended – then it would have been Peter’s attempt to protect the totally innocent Jesus from the illegal arrest of the Romans and the Jews.

But when Peter drew the sword in the garden of Gethsemane and cut off the ear of the servant Malchus, Christ told him: “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

We find a similar warning and repetition of Christ’s statement to Peter in Revelation 13:10, where we read: “He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is [required] the patience and the faith of the saints [so that they do not kill with the sword in the face of persecution, but faithfully rely on God to fight their battles for them].”

Let us also remember the incident, when James and John were willing to wipe out the Samaritans who had refused to grant shelter to Christ and to them. We read in Luke 9:54-56: “And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, `Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?’ But He turned and rebuked them and said, `You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.’ And they went to another village.”

The Spirit of Satan

The spirit that James and John were following at that moment was the spirit of Satan. Satan is a destroyer, especially through the means of war, as Revelation 9:11 reveals. There, a warring army is described as being led by Satan, “the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.” The word Abbadon means, “Destruction,” and the word Apollyon means, “Destroyer.”

While Christ said that He did not come to destroy men’s lives, Satan is the one who is anxious to destroy as many human lives as he possibly can.

Satan is also called, in John 8:44, a “murderer from the beginning.” In the Greek, the word for “murderer” is “anthropoktonos.” It literally means, “mankiller” or “manslayer.” The same Greek word is used in 1 John 3:15: “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer (in Greek, “anthropoktonos“), and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”

Therefore, whoever kills his neighbor, whether in times of peace or in times of war, is described in the Bible as a “manslayer” or “murderer,” and such a person does not have eternal life abiding in him.

“My Servants Would Fight … “

When Christ was asked to defend Himself before Pilate, He told him: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36).

We need to take note of several points Christ brings out in this passage: First, Christ told Pilate that His Kingdom was not of this world, and that therefore, His servants would not fight in this world. Some have claimed that Christ was referring to His human disciples, when He talked about His servants. Even if that were true, they still would not be permitted to fight in war today, as Christ’s rule over this world is still future.

In addition, let us notice that Christ said that IF His kingdom were of this world, His servants would fight ” … so that I should not be delivered to the Jews.

This was a statement that Christ made to Pilate at that time. He said, in effect: If My Kingdom were of this world, that is, if I had come at that time to establish the Kingdom of God on this earth, then My servants would fight against those who try to prevent the Kingdom of God from being established.

WHO WERE the servants Christ was talking about? Surely not His few human disciples who were with Him at that time! They would not have been a match for the Roman army.

To whom then is Christ referring?

Matthew 26:53 provides us with the answer from Christ’s own lips, directed at Peter who tried to fight for Him: “Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels [A Roman legion consisted of 5,000 soldiers. Twelve legions of angels would then consist of 60,000 angels]?”

When Christ talked about His servants who would not allow Him to be arrested, if He had come at that time to set up the Kingdom of God, He was referring to more than twelve legions of angels – who were and are much more powerful than all of man’s armies combined. He was not talking about His human disciples. He had told them earlier that He did not call them servants anymore, but friends, as He had revealed His Will to them (compare John 15:15).

In effect, what Christ was telling Pilate in John 18:36 was simply this: “If I had come to establish My Kingdom, My servants, the angels of My Father, would not allow Me to be captured and put to death.” But, as we understand, Christ’s First Coming was not for the purpose of establishing the Kingdom of God on this earth; rather, one of its purposes was for Christ to DIE for you and me! But His Second Coming will be exactly for the purpose of establishing God’s Kingdom on this earth! And so we find that the angels will fight for and with the returning Christ against those who will oppose Him at that time. Revelation 19:14, 21 states: “And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses … And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse.” A description of that battle can also be found in Zechariah 14:3-4, 12-15.

Christ’s statements in John 18:36 do not provide any justification for His human followers to fight in war. The Biblical teaching is very clear – a Christian who wants to follow Christ and His teachings, will not fight in war.


GOD’S 6,000-YEAR PLAN FOR MAN

We read in the first chapter of the book of Genesis that God created the seven-day week and the Sabbath, as the seventh day of the week. Man is to rest on the seventh day of the week, as God rested (Exodus 20:9–11). The Bible also teaches that in God’s prophetic plan, one day is treated as 1,000 years (2 Peter 3:8). Adam died on the “day” he ate of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17). Although he lived to be 930 years old (Genesis 5:5), he died before the first 1,000-year “day” was completed. (This was also the understanding of early Church commentators like Methodius.)

In Hebrews 4:4, 11, the seventh day of the week—the Sabbath—is pictured as a type of the peaceful “rest,” when Christ has returned to this earth to rule mankind. Christ will rule for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4). Since the last “day” of God’s plan—His rule over man—is 1,000 years long, the preceding six “days” amount to 6,000 years of man’s rule over man.

The concept that each day of the week represents a thousand years of God’s plan was known throughout history. Rabbi Elias wrote about 200 years ago: “The world endures six thousand years: two thousand before the law, two thousand under the law, and two thousand under [the] Messiah.” Edward Gibbon stated in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, that the tradition of a 7,000-year plan “was attributed to the prophet Elijah,” and that this tradition was “carefully inculcated” in the early Church.

For example, the apocryphal book, “Epistle of Barnabas,” although not part of the inspired Holy Scriptures of the Bible, nevertheless points out what Jewish people believed at the time of the author’s writings (probably as early as A.D. 70–79, compare Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 3, copyright 1959, “Barnabas, Epistle of.”). In the Epistle, the author, calling himself “Barnabas,” states: “… in six days, that is, in six thousand years, shall all things be accomplished… when His Son shall come…then He shall gloriously rest in that seventh day.”

The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion confirms that the rabbis of Christ’s day taught that the seventh “world day” would be 1,000 years of the Messiah.

Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, later departed, to a large extent, from the truth. However, he retained the tradition of the 7,000-year plan of God. In “Against Heresis,” he wrote, about 150 A.D.: “For the day of the Lord is a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed; it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the [end of the] sixth thousand years.”

Others, who are known of having believed in and taught the 7,000–year plan of God, include Rabbi Ketina; Lactantius; Victorinus; Hippolytus; Justin Martyr; and Methodius. In 1552, Bishop Latimer wrote: “The world was ordained to endure, as all learned men affirm, 6,000 years.”

Although nobody knows the exact time of Christ’s return (compare Matthew 24:36, 44), we are able to show, by using known dates and the overlapping ages of the patriarchs of the Bible, that Adam was created approximately 4,000 years before Christ. This means, then, that Christ’s return to this earth cannot be that far off.


True Christians Don’t Fight

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 explains: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God … ”

Paul is describing here a spiritual warfare against the evil forces of the demon world, not a carnal warfare against other human beings. Note Ephesians 6:11-12: “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

Christians Refused to Fight

By no stretch of the imagination can one read those clear passages and still conclude that Christ or Paul permitted Christians to fight in the wars of this world. And so, those who have followed the plain teachings of the New Testament have, throughout history, refused to participate in war, as previously pointed out. Please note these additional quotes:

Professor Rossi wrote in Conscience and Liberty (emphasis added): “The Christians of the first century … were decisively against any form of war. In the middle of the second century, the Christian Philosopher Justin declared to his pagan readers, `And we, who once delighted in war, in murdering each other and in all kinds of sins, we have all over the world changed our weapons into instruments of peace … ‘”

Edward Gibbon wrote in “The Triumph of Christendom in the Roman Empire,” on page 41, about the early Church: ” … they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defense of the empire.”

In “Of the Crown,” Tertullian (A.D. 150-225) wrote: “I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians … Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword?”

Tertullian is also quoted as saying: “The divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword.”

In the September/October 1985 edition of the magazine, “Liberty,” the following statements were made (emphasis added): “Until the end of the second century, the church appeared to be staunchly pacifist. No records exist of any Christian soldier prior to A.D. 170. A pagan named Celsius in A.D. 173 chastised Christians for their pacifism: `If all men were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent the king from being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the forces of the empire would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians.’ Justyn Martyr, describing the early church, wrote: `We who formerly murdered one another now not only do not make war upon our enemies, but we gladly die confessing Christ … [Justin Martyr (A.D.100-165) also said: “We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for plowshares, our spears for farm tools.”] After A.D. 170, however, references to Christian soldiers appear … Worldly paganism saturated religion, and the church succumbed to its militaristic influenceChristians, alienated from the Roman Government by persecution, soon became the

Roman Government. In A.D. 314, the Council of Arles declared that Christians could officially join the army, and by A.D. 416 ONLY Christians could join. Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity helped turn Christian plowshares into swords…”

The Paulicians, who lived about 550 A.D., preached against participating in war. So did the Waldenses in the 12th and 13th centuries. Later, some Waldenses decided that they could fight in war, while others refused to do so. One Waldensian wrote in 1655: “The Christians who allegedly fight battle for God and religion cannot justify their acts, because they do something which God did not command, yes, which Christ prohibited.”

The article in Liberty continued: “During the Reformation and the centuries following, Mennonites, Hussites, Quakers, the Brethren, and Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to take part in war. The larger Protestant bodies justified warfare as long as they were able to rationalize the justness of each conflict. The Kaiser’s armies marched `for God, the Kaiser, and the Fatherland,’ while across the English Channel, Reverend Winnington-Ingram, the bishop of London, exhorted young Englishmen to `kill Germans … to kill the good and the bad, to kill the young and the old, to kill those who have shown kindness to our wounded … As I have said a thousand times, I look upon it as a war of purity.'”

The record of history is clear. Those who followed the clear teaching of Jesus Christ regarding peace and war REFUSED both to fight and to join the military.

In the April 23, 1865 issue of the Church of God publication, “Hope of Israel,” it was stated: “We thank God that President Lincoln … did cause to be made such laws as would deliver God’s saints from participating in war.” In April 1917, Andrew Dugger, president of the Church of God (Seventh Day), met with President Wilson and received exemption for Church members from combatant service. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God petitioned the government to recognize Church members as having conscientious objector status.

True Christians will not participate in war, nor will they advocate war! Anyone who advocates going to war bears a grave responsibility. If young people who follow such advice are killed in war, or if they kill others, including innocent civilians, widows and children (who may even be members of a church who kill young people from the same church), and once God, the Judge of us all, declares such warfare to be sinful, He will also hold those responsible who have advocated the same.

Notice the following excerpts from a poem that a Mennonite wrote in 1873. This poem entitled, “Christianity Requires Peace,” reads:

“How can men be so blind in this

Clear peaceful gospel light,

As to believe and say, It is

The Christian’s legal right

To forge the instruments of carnal strife,

And learn the fiendish art of taking life!

With sword and gun join in the mad affray

To kill his fellow men in every way!

May God save us from this sight.

“Come, blessed time, seen from afar

By holy seers of old,

When none shall sanction deeds of war

Within the Christian fold.

Oh, when shall appear the glorious day,

When carnage and strife shall have passed away?

When all men on earth love the Prince of Peace,

And obey his gospel, then wars will cease –

`Tis the hope we firmly hold.”

The New Testament teachings on war forbid Christians to participate in war, as the spirit of war is the spirit of murder, and it is therefore clearly in total opposition to Christ’s teachings reflected, for instance, in the Sermon on the Mount. In the future, the way of war will not be taught anymore. So then, it behooves us today to teach and live God’s way of peace, not Satan’s way of war. Christ told Peter that whoever takes up the sword, shall perish by it. He rebuked the “sons of thunder” – James and John – for their desire to destroy the Samaritans, asking them if they did not realize whose spirit they were following at that time. John later became known, however, as an “apostle of love.”

Satan Invents War

Let us focus a little bit more on that spirit – the spirit of this world that is responsible for men’s miseries, sufferings, killings and wars. We already saw from the letter of James that wars come from lusts that fight in our minds. But where do those lusts come from?

Once we fully understand who is the originator of war, we can also clearly see why we must not participate in war.

We read in the book of Genesis that God, in the beginning, created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). When this happened, God’s angels shouted for joy because this original peaceful creation was full of majesty, beauty and splendor (compare Job 38:4-7).

The Bible also reveals to us that a mighty and powerful spirit being, called Lucifer, was taught and trained by God at His very throne in heaven (compare Isaiah 14:12; Ezekiel 28:14-15), to rule over the earth. Not being satisfied with what God had given him, he rebelled against God! He tried to knock God off His heavenly throne – to replace God and become “like Him,” or, perhaps, even become God Himself. His coup failed, and he was thrown back to this earth, together with about one-third of all of the angels that he had swayed to his way of thinking (Ezekiel 28:16; Isaiah 14:13-15; Revelation 12:3-4; Luke 10:18). Lucifer’s name was changed to Satan (Revelation 12:9), and his angels became known as demons. They are also known as evil or familiar spirits.

This ANGELIC rebellion was the first recorded battle, or war, in the history of creation! Satan – then called Lucifer – was the originator. This war ended in total destruction and the earth became void and empty – filled with death, decay and darkness. (Genesis 1:2, correctly translated from the Hebrew, reads: “The earth BECAME without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.” For more information, please read our free booklet, “The Theory of Evolution – A Fairy Tale for Adults?“)

This very first war was premeditated! Yes, Lucifer had prepared his rebellion very carefully! We don’t know how long it took Lucifer after feelings of lust, greed, envy and pride had begun to fill his mind, before he began to work on the angels under his command, bombarding them with his war propaganda, until they, too, were willing to follow their leader in the first violent attack against other beings. But we can be sure that it was a well thought out plan to overthrow the Creator!

Satan invented war and he is still responsible for war today. He sustains that warring spirit today by provoking nations to come against each other in wars, having absolutely no care for the tremendous loss of human life and suffering. He also provokes the minds of people with the spirit of hatred and contentiousness on an individual level. True to form, he will once again – in the near future – become the originator of a universal war, this time on this earth. We also know, from prophecy, that Satan will fight another spiritual war against God and the holy angels just prior to the return of Christ. Revelation 12:7-9 describes that war.

The Bible records in verse 13 of Revelation 12 that Satan will again be thrown back to this earth and will be filled with tremendous, uncontrolled wrath and anger! (In fact, there are some indications that this event might have already taken place.) In that frame of mind, he will influence people to fight the most violent and vicious war ever fought by humans on this planet! It will be so devastating that all of mankind will surely perish unless God intervenes at the last minute, so to speak, to stop such senseless fighting. Only the returning Jesus Christ – King of kings and Lord of lords – will be able to stop Satan and prevent the total annihilation of mankind (compare Matthew 24:21-22).

Even though God will swiftly and supernaturally intervene at that time and make a stop to that war, mankind will still, at the beginning of Christ’s rule here on earth, be eager to fight, motivated by their own lusts which have become part of their Satan-inspired nature. We read in Ezekiel 38 that peoples from the east will attempt to overthrow the peaceful nations of Israel. This will happen at the very beginning of the “Millennium” – a period of 1,000 years when God will rule on this earth and Satan will be bound, unable to deceive the nations anymore. These peoples will not have rid themselves of their lust to fight and murder, which they acquired from Satan. Yes, it will take a while, even in the Millennium, until physical man will be able to overcome his Satan-inspired human nature and replace it, gradually, with God’s nature.

But lo and behold, even after that event which occurs at the BEGINNING of the Millennium, the Bible describes yet another future war that will be fought when the “thousand years have expired” (Revelation 20:7). This war will be fought before the “Great White Throne Judgment” period begins, which is mentioned in Revelation 20:11-12. (For more information regarding this “Great White Throne Judgment,” please read our free booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days.”) Remember, Satan had been thrown in prison so that, as we read in Revelation 20:3, he could “deceive the nations no more.” And what was, and is, and will be Satan’s biggest deception?

Revelation 20:7-10 provides us with the answer to this all-important question: “Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone … ”

We see that man, under the influence and deception of Satan, will be willing to fight again in war. Man who wants to kill in war today, or thinks that war will solve our problems, is deceived by Satan. After all, we read that Satan has deceived the whole world (Revelation 12:9).

Man NEVER needs to fight in war. We see that in that very last future war, involving humans, God will do the fighting for His human servants, by devouring the enemy through fire. That will be the right time for God to intervene and destroy the enemy, but it was not the right time or occasion when James and John asked for fire to come down from heaven – essentially calling on God to devour the Samaritans. We must leave all fighting to God. It is not our prerogative or responsibility, and if we think and act differently than what God tells us, we are playing right into the deceptive hand of Satan.

After that final war or “battle” recorded in Revelation 20:7-11, there will never be another war! Can you comprehend a world WITHOUT WAR? A world that is full of PEACE and HARMONY? Revelation 21:4 predicts: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Why Did Ancient Israel Fight?

All well and good, you might say. But, if war is un-Christian, then why did ancient Israel fight and kill? Good question! And here are a few more questions that warrant Biblical answers! Why did God permit Israel to fight in war? Why did God sometimes even order Israel to fight? If it is always a sin for man to fight in war, did David – a man after

God’s own heart – sin when he fought in war? Did Moses sin when he ordered Israel to fight against Amalek?

Some might answer that it was all right for people in the Old Testament to fight, because God was their Commander. Somehow Israel was justified because they lived under some kind of a different administration. But this explanation CANNOT be correct, and, in fact, shows a total misunderstanding of the character and purpose of God and His law!

God is the same throughout ETERNITY – yesterday, today, and forever. His character, His values, His way of thinking did not, and do not change! He is not a respecter of persons. If it is sin for US today to fight and kill – which it is – it was likewise sin for those in Old Testament times to fight and kill. Most of those who fought in Old Testament times were carnal – unconverted – like most people are today. Nevertheless, as Christ told Peter, everyone who kills in war must be killed in war, unless he comes to repentance and obtains forgiveness of his sins. Killing in war is one of those sins that a person must repent of and obtain forgiveness for.

But some in the Old Testament, like David, Moses and Joshua, who did fight and kill in war, were converted. They had God’s Holy Spirit! They were living under the terms and conditions of the New Covenant, as we do today. Again, since it is wrong for us to kill in war, it must have been wrong for David, Moses and Joshua to kill in war; otherwise, God would NOT be the same! He would have different standards and laws for different people, in effect, being a respecter of persons – which would be against His own written Word, the Bible!

Some say, David, Moses and Joshua were justified to kill because God ordered them to kill. We will look into all of these arguments, but let us state here that Moses and David both killed people in some wars that were NOT commanded by God. We do not read, for example, that God commanded David to kill 200 Philistines. Rather, Saul – not God – asked David to kill 100 Philistines in exchange for becoming his son-in-law, and David responded by killing 200 Philistines (1 Samuel 18:25-27). Was that killing justified? If not, where do you draw the line? As we will see, David’s killing in war was not in any way justified – not under any circumstances!

Let us go back, in our Old Testament survey, to the very first war that ancient Israel fought, and let us see how the nation of Israel decided to become a war-waging nation.

How Israel Became a Warring Nation

As mentioned before, very early in the recent history of the Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong wrote a booklet, in 1967, entitled “Military Service and War.” In the booklet, he explains HOW Israel decided to go to war, and WHY God used Israel, even sometimes ordering them to fight.

We begin quoting from pages 24-26 of the booklet (emphasis in the original): “Right here, before they reached Mt. Sinai – before they heard God’s own great voice thundering His Ten Commandments – God demonstrated the pattern He would follow in preserving His people from having to undergo military service, or fighting in war, or taking human life!… `And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Eternal, which HE WILL SHOW YOU today. … The Eternal shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace’ [Exodus 14:13-14]. The Israelites were not to fight – but STAND STILL! They were to see God save them from Pharaoh’s ARMY. God was going to SHOW THEM that He would fight their wars for them! They were to remain at PEACE!”

Mr. Armstrong goes on to explain that Israel’s faith in God’s help was only of a short duration. They soon began to doubt when they came to Marah and only found bitter water (Exodus 15:24). They also complained in the wilderness because of lack of food (Exodus 16:2-3). Also, when in Rephidim, they lost faith, tempting God (Exodus 17:1-2).

Continuing with Mr. Armstrong’s booklet, on pages 29-32: “Now we come to the CRUCIAL INCIDENT that explains WHY Israel went to war. Regularly they had been grumbling, complaining, accusing, disobeying, LOSING FAITH – in face of constant MIRACLES from God. Now, again, as God performed another miracle, causing water to gush forth out of a rock, the people DOUBTED that God was with them. `… they tempted the ETERNAL, saying, “Is the ETERNAL among us, or not?”‘ (Exodus 17:7).

“Now consider what had happened. Repeatedly, God had given these people awe-inspiring and miraculous demonstrations of His intention to fight the battles for them… After all of this OVERWHELMING PROOF, these people DOUBTED God’s faithfulness – DOUBTED His power – even DOUBTED His very existence. They disobeyed. They went the way of SIN! In effect, they had their own `God is dead’ movement!…

[A]t this juncture, Amalek, a Gentile king, came against the Israelites in great strength with an invading army. This time God ALLOWED the Israelites to write the lesson of experience. He allowed them to SIN. God does not forcibly prevent humans from sinning.

“Moses, at the end of his patience trying to induce these stubborn, rebellious people to believe in and TRUST God, said to Joshua, `Choose us out men, and go out, FIGHT with Amalek’ (Exodus 17:9). Lacking the faith to trust God for their protection, Moses feared they would be slaughtered. Although Moses weakened and gave the order of WAR, it was THE PEOPLE themselves who actually MADE THE DECISION for war, by their utter lack of reliance on God. It was altogether unnecessary for these Israelites to arm themselves and wage WAR. It was WRONG! It was SIN. But God let the decision be theirs … This incident was the turning point… They had experienced a taste of war. They could have – should have – turned from it, afterward, and relied on God instead of their own power. But they didn’t… By their continuous disbelief, lack of reliance on GOD, and reliance only on PHYSICAL WARFARE, they made the DECISION to be, like all the nations of the earth, a WARRING NATION!”

On page 33, Mr. Armstrong begins to address the question why God ordered the Israelites at times to wage war: “These descendants of Abraham had made their decision to be a fighting, war-waging nation. That decision was theirs to make. And since they had made it…, God gave orders for them to do what fighting – and killing – was necessary to accomplish God’s PURPOSE of putting them in the land of Promise! But that did not make war RIGHT. Whether to DO right or wrong – that is MAN’S decision! These Israelites did not need to fight! So it was BECAUSE of Israel’s faithlessness and disobedience that God ALLOWED them to SIN by taking up arms. And therefore God used them as His instruments in driving out the nations illegally in their land. Even at that later date the Israelites could have REPENTED, changed their decision, and trusted God to fight their battles for them… Having committed the sin of DOUBT, these Israelites proceeded to commit the SIN OF FIGHTING – of WAR!”

Continuing on page 36: “But one may ask this question: If war is wrong – if it is SIN – if it is contrary to God’s WAY for man, then WHY did God, on occasion, actually order the Israelites to go to war and kill?

Consider these TWO FACTS:

“1) Israel had sinned in a) not TRUSTING God to do the fighting for them; and b) in disobeying God’s Commandment against war. They had CHOSEN to be a war-waging nation. The decision was WRONG. Yet God compels man to decide WHETHER to sin. If he does, he brings on himself the penalty. THE FACT, therefore, must be realized that Israel REFUSED TO RELY ON GOD TO DO THE FIGHTING; and CHOSE to be a warring nation.

“2) God’s PURPOSE must stand, regardless of what men do. It was God’s PURPOSE to install Israel in, and to drive certain people out of God’s holy land, which He had PROMISED to the children of Abraham, Isaac and Israel… Since Israel was not going to rely on GOD to drive out these nations, but elected to be a WAR-making nation, God used them to accomplish His PURPOSE… He ordered them to do what was required to make HIS PURPOSE stand!”

There are some in certain Church of God organizations today, who justify going to and participating in war, or who claim that ancient Israel did NOT sin when they fought in war. They are wrong, as they do not understand the character of God, nor the intent and purpose of God’s Law, the Ten Commandments. Let us quote Mr. Armstrong’s alarming and challenging words from page 38 of his booklet:

“The divine GIVER of human life has the right to take the lives He gave. They belong to HIM. But for any human, or nation, of his or its own volition, on his or its own initiative, to take human life is SIN. The life he takes is not his – but GOD’S! He not only commits murder – he also STEALS or takes what is GOD’S. Even his own life belongs to God. The suicide takes a human life that belongs to God!

“When God has made it one of the ten basic SINS for man to take human life – and made it unnecessary for man to go to war by promising to take care of the wars Himself supernaturally, then the nation which CHOOSES to be a WAR-waging nation has committed SIN. And every individual who enters its military organization is committing SIN.

“Israel had made that decision. Other nations, too – all had made it. Since the nations of this world do fight, God allows them to commit this SIN. Yet, to carry out HIS PURPOSE, God Himself determines the

outcome of wars. And since Israel already had rejected HIM as its war-making Force, He even ordered them to fulfill HIS PURPOSE, which must be accomplished! But that did not whitewash Israel from having deliberately rebelled and chosen to fight in war in violation of GOD’S WAY.”

Yes, ancient Israel sinned when they went to war. THEY DECIDED to do this, rather than waiting for God’s counsel (compare Psalm 106:7-15, especially verse 13). And when man makes decisions on his own, without asking for God’s counsel, he is usually wrong (Compare, for another example, Joshua 9:14). God, the Author of peace, does not want human beings to fight in war. When Christ returns, He will restore peace to this earth – a time when “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).

Man will live a way of peace as originally intended by God. Today, we are Christ’s ambassadors of that future way. We are not to follow the sinful pattern of the ancient Israelites who rebelled against God’s promises and clear commands. Man has chosen to disobey God and to sin by going to war. God, who is the same yesterday, today and forever, condemns, and has ALWAYS condemned, human warfare. We are to pray for our enemies and to do good to them, rather than fighting against them and avenging ourselves. We are to leave “vengeance” to God (Romans 12:19-20). The Biblical teaching on this subject is clear and consistent.

We have read about the incident when God fought for Israel and destroyed the Egyptian army so that Israel did not have to fight. Here are some additional examples in the Bible where God manifested His great power, showing that man does not have to fight in war at all, if he would only rely on God for help.

King Jehoshaphat Did Not Need to Fight

The Bible records in 2 Chronicles 20:1-30 an incident where King Jehoshaphat fully and totally relied on God’s help. As a consequence, he did not have to fight. We read in verse 4 that, in the face of an imminent attack from their enemies, the king and all the people “gathered together to ask help from the LORD; and from all the cities of Judah they came to seek the LORD.” In verse 12, the king admits that he is helpless, “nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.” Jahaziel is inspired to respond, “Do not be afraid nor dismayed becauseof this great multitude, for the battle is NOT yours, BUT God’s” (verse 15). The king was also told that he would “not need to fight in this battle. Position yourselves, stand still and see the salvation of the LORD” (verse 17).

Since the king and the people had the required faith in God’s mighty power, “the LORD set ambushes against the people of Ammon, Moab, and MountSeir, who had come against Judah; and they were defeated. For the people of Ammon and Moab stood up against the inhabitants of MountSeir to utterly kill and destroy them. And when they had made an end of the inhabitants of Seir, they helped to destroy one another. So when Judah came to a place overlooking the wilderness, they looked toward the multitude; and there were dead bodies, fallen on the earth. No one had escaped … And the fear of God was on all the kingdoms of those countries when they heard that the LORD had fought against the enemies of Israel. Then the realm of Jehoshaphat was quiet, for his God gave him rest all around” (verses 22-24, 29-30).


The Way of War vs. the Way of Peace

The following representative Scriptures describe two opposite ways of life—the way that leads to war, and the way that leads to peace. By no stretch of the imagination can the objective reader conclude that both ways achieve the same results. ONLY God’s way of peace produces peace—and a Christian is to follow THAT way, while REJECTING the way of war.

The Way of WAR

“Put your sword in its place, for ALL who take the sword will PERISH by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

“He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword” (Revelation 13:10).

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed” (Gen- esis 9:6).

“As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women’ (1 Samuel 15:33).

“Their sword shall enter their own heart” (Psalm 37:15).

“Shall the sword devour forever? Do you not know that it will be bitter in the latter end?” (2 Samuel 2:26).

“Whoever hates his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3:15).

“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war” (James 4:1–2).

“You have relied on the king of Syria, and have not relied on the LORD your God… In this you have done foolishly; therefore from now on you shall have wars” (2 Chronicles 16, 7, 9).

“The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty… man” (Psalm 5:6).

“The LORD tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates” (Psalm 11:5).

“Their feet are swift to shed blood… The way of peace they have not known” (Romans 3:15, 17).

“If you had known… the things that make for your peace. But now they are hidden from your eyes” (Luke 19:42).

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12).

The Way of PEACE

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh” (2 Corinthians 10:3).

“The LORD will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace” (Exodus 14:14).

“I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen” (Hosea 1:7).

“Some trust in chariots and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the LORD our God” (Psalm 20:7).

“He has redeemed my soul in peace from the battle which was against me” (Psalm 55:18).

“I will wait for You… For God is my defense” (Psalm 59:9).

“He makes wars cease to the end of the earth. He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two. He burns the chariot in the fire” (Psalm 46:9).

“For unto us a Child is born… and His name will be called… Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His… peace There will be no end” (Isaiah 9:6–7).

“The Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (Luke 9:56).

“Bow and sword of battle I will shatter from the earth” (Hosea 2:18). “He shall speak peace to the nations” (Zechariah 9:10).

“Speak comfort to Jerusalem and cry out to her, That her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned” (Isaiah 40:2).

“Scatter the peoples who delight in war” (Psalm 68:30).

“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).

“Israel will go out and set on fire and burn the weapons” (Ezekiel 39:9).

“Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

“Repay no one evil for evil… If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves… Therefore, if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink… Do not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17–21).

“Let us pursue the things which make for peace” (Romans 14:19).

“Let him seek peace and pursue it” (1 Peter 3:11).

“When a man’s ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Proverbs 16:7).

“The LORD will bless His people with peace” (Psalm 29:11).

“Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:18).

“Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9).

“Counselors of peace have joy” (Proverbs 12:20).

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace” (Romans 10:15).

“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who… proclaims peace” (Isaiah 52:7).

“Live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you” (2 Corinthians 13:11).


King Hezekiah Did Not Need to Fight

Another powerful example of God’s awesome intervention – in this case, on behalf of King Hezekiah and His people – can be found in 2 Chronicles 32. We read in verses 20-22 that, after Hezekiah’s “deeds of faithfulness” (verse 1), the king of Assyria proceeded to besiege Jerusalem. But due to faith in God on the part of the king and the prophet Isaiah (verse 20), “the LORD sent an angel who cut down every mighty man of valor, leader, and captain in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned shamefaced to his own land … Thus the LORD saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of … the king of Assyria” (verses 21-22).

Think about what could be accomplished today if those who claim to be followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ would turn to God with a repentant heart and soul, and pray to God for protection and help, fully relying on Him and trusting in Him to do their fighting for them. Instead, we have turned so far away from the Eternal God – our Maker and Sustainer – that such a thought sounds preposterous! God has not changed, but He will not fight our battles if we don’t have faith in Him, CHOOSING rather to rely on ourselves.

God Fought For Israel

Let us return to the example of the ancient Israelites. We have seen that God showed them, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt, that He would fight for them. They did not have to fight. It was never God’s desire that Israel should fight. Notice what He told the Israelites: “I will send My fear before you, I will cause confusion among all the people to whom you come, and will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you” (Exodus 23:27-28).

Later, Moses reminded the Israelites of God’s intent to drive out the enemies through hornets (Deuteronomy 7:20), and Joshua 24:12 reports that this was EXACTLY what God did: “I sent the hornet before you which drove them out from before you, also the two kings of the Amorites, BUT NOT WITH YOUR SWORD OR WITH YOUR BOW.”

Even after Israel had decided to become a war-waging nation, God made it very clear that it was not because of the sword that Israel occupied the land. God wanted the Israelites to understand – and He wants us to understand today – how useless and wrong war is! It was GOD – and God alone – who gave them the Promised Land! God says that He did NOT give it to them by their sword.

Psalm 44:3, 6-8 explains: “For they did NOT gain possession of the land by their own sword, Nor did their own arm save them; But it was Your right hand, Your arm, and the light of Your countenance … For I will not trust in my bow, Nor shall my sword save me. But You have saved us from our enemies, And have put to shame those who hated us. In God we boast all day long, And praise Your name forever.”

Even though Israel had decided to fight in war, it was still GOD who did the “main fighting.” We read, for example, in Joshua 10:11, 14: “And it happened, as they fled before Israel and were on the descent of Beth Horon, that the LORD cast down large hailstones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died. There were more who died from the hailstones than the children of Israel killed with the sword … the LORD fought for Israel.”

God’s Viewpoint On War

We Christians are to align our thoughts and actions with what God tells us in His Word. So then, let us review some additional passages in the Old Testament that show God’s viewpoint when it comes to the human desire and endeavor to fight in war. And let us ask ourselves: Is that our viewpoint also?

Isaiah 31:1-5 states: “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, And rely on horses, Who trust in chariots because they are many, And in horsemen because they are very strong, But who do not look to the Holy One of Israel, Nor seek the LORD! … Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; And their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD stretches out His hand, Both he who helps will fall, And he who is helped will fall down; They all will perish together … the LORD of hosts will come down To fight for Mount Zion and for its hill. Like birds flying about, So will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem … ”

Human warfare will not prevail against God and His Will. And God does not need us to fight for Him, either. Notice Psalm 37:11, 14-15: “But the meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace … The wicked have drawn the sword And have bent their bow, To cast down the poor and needy, To slay those who are of upright conduct. Their sword shall enter their own heart, And their bows shall be broken.”

Let us also take note of the inspired words of Abner in 2 Samuel. 2:26: “Shall the sword devour forever? Do you not know that it will be bitter in the latter end?”

Why Did King David Fight?

But, what about King David? He fought in war, yet he was called a man after God’s own heart. Therefore, as the argument goes, the fact that David fought must have been pleasing to God – in other words, it was not wrong for David to fight. Is that a right conclusion?

Herbert W. Armstrong addressed this issue as follows, on pages 38 and 39 of his booklet, “Military Service and War“: “God called David a man after His own heart. David was a warrior. David killed many people. As King, he waged WAR. But that did not make war right. God held David accountable for this bloodguiltiness … David was a `man after God’s own heart’ NOT because of his wars, his fighting, his killing. God PUNISHED him for that!”

But how can this be right?

We need to realize that David grew up in a nation that was accustomed to fighting in war. It seems that no one questioned the practice of war. And so we find that David was described as a “man of war” while he was still a very young lad (compare 1 Samuel 16:18). When King Saul asked him to kill 100 Philistines as “dowry” to become his son-in-law, David killed 200 Philistines (compare 1 Samuel 18:25-27). Something in David’s nature enjoyed fighting in war. Some of us have that kind of nature, too. And as David did, we too, have grown up in an environment where it is “clear,” “manifest,” “self-evident,” that one “HAS” to fight in war. Notice how David’s time and environment was described in 2 Samuel 11:1: “It happened in the spring of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle … ”

David, then, had to learn from God that war was wrong and without purpose.

First of all, many of the wars that David fought were direct PUNISHMENT for his murder of Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba, as 2 Samuel 12:9-10 clearly reveals.

The prophet Nathan uttered the following words of God to David: “Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword [by ordering the commander Joab to forsake him in Israel’s battle with the Ammonites]; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.”

Can we see that Christ’s words about taking the sword and perishing by it, were already in effect in David’s time? David took the sword and had Uriah killed, and so the sword would not depart from David’s house.


Why Christ Would Not Vote in this World’s Governmental Elections

At a time of ensuing war, and debates on whether or not to fight in war, we bring you excerpts from Herbert W. Armstrong’s article, “How Would Jesus Vote for President?” which was published in the October-November 1984-issue of the Good News, beginning on page 3. The emphasis is in the original. We are sure that you will agree with us that Mr. Armstrong’s words, written more than 20 years ago, could not be more timely today:

“World war threatens to explode in the Middle East and other ‘hot spots.’ Frightful nuclear war! War that means the annihilation of civilization. The world this minute is in grave danger. The issue is a matter of government!… In the fateful test with Satan, Adam disobeyed God, accepted the rule of Satan over him—yielded to human pride, lust and greed. Thus he placed himself and his children under the rule of Satan… Satan found in one of the great-grandsons of Noah, Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, a very able and powerful man who could be used politically… Nimrod organized the present world’s first govern- ment—the city of BABYLON… This BABYLONISH principle of government, intertwined with economic manipulation, has ruled the world ever since. It has ruled under vari- ous forms—whether called oligarchy, monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy, democracy, communism or Nazism—but it’s the same old BABYLONIAN PRINCIPLE under slightly different modes of administration… Regardless of the form in which it appears, it is a system based upon exploitation of the people, aggression, regimentation, delusion and deception… Babylon means ‘CONFUSION.’ Competition and strife have produced confusion in the world. And God is not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33)…

“This is not a world of God’s making. This is SATAN’S world! Satan is the invisible god of this world. He is the author of its organization, its basic philosophies, its systems of government, business, society—yes, and RELIGIONS! This thing we boast of as CIVILIZATION is, in actual fact, Satan’s handiwork, not God’s! Strange as it may seem, that is true! All nations—not just the heathen powers, but all nations, including ours—are DECEIVED, swayed, led, by Satan (Revelation 12:9, 18:3, 20:2–3). The Bible speaks of this world as ‘this present EVIL WORLD’ (Galatians 1:4, AV)… No, Jesus did not enter into THIS WORLD’S politics! He called His disciples out of this present evil world—out of all its customs and philosophies and ways—to live a life of SEPARATION from the world…

“Thus Jesus’ disciples live in this present evil world as though they were foreigners, here merely as the guests of the nation where they re- side, as AMBASSADORS for Christ and His coming Kingdom, not of any of this world’s governments… [For- eign ambassadors do not involve themselves in] making their state [where they live] a better state, or voting, or entering their army or fighting for their cause… [T]he true Christian is one who follows Christ, and Christ did not vote! Jesus did not try to reform Caesar… He preached the doctrine of a radically different world to come… This is Satan’s world and Jesus Christ did not come to reform Satan or improve Satan’s handiwork, but to save His followers from Satan and his system. Since God’s Kingdom is not literally set up as yet, the true Christian’s citizenship is now reserved in heaven (I Peter 1:4, Ephesians 2:19)…

“What, then, would Jesus do in [a time of] presidential election?… HE WOULD BE TOO BUSY PROCLAIMING THE GOOD NEWS OF HIS COMING WORLD-RULING KINGDOM, and the way of salvation, to take any part whatsoever in the politics of this present evil world, or in any man-made form of government that is DOOMED very soon to be destroyed and replaced by the theocratic government of THE KINGDOM OF GOD! Our mission is, as ambassadors of Christ—as advance emissaries of HIS KINGDOM—to WARN the world of its plight and present danger, to proclaim to all nations the good news of the KINGDOM OF GOD!”

The thoughts expressed in Mr. Armstrong’s article, quoted above, belong to the heart and core of true Christianity. False Christianity merely adopts the mantle of Christianity and then betrays the teachings and prac- tices one must embrace and prac- tice if one truly believes Christ. The ability to delineate what a true Chris- tian should and should not do is of vital importance. We either are serv- ing God and Christ, or we are yield- ing to Satan and his world rule. The Church of God must be separate from the world (compare John 17:14, 16; Revelation 18:4).


David Not Allowed to Build a Temple

We read very clearly in the Bible that David was PUNISHED by God because he fought in war and because he was willing to fight. For instance, 1 Chronicles 22:6-10 reports to us David’s own words to his son Solomon, explaining why God did not allow David to build Him a temple: “Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the LORD God of Israel. And David said to Solomon: `My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the LORD my God; but the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'”

David was not allowed to build the temple because he had shed MUCH blood and had made GREAT wars.

Some have said, this passage really only means that the temple should be erected by a man of peace, rather than a man of war, but it does not mean that it was wrong for David to fight in war. But we need to realize

that God said, in effect: David is not allowed to build Me this house, because he has shed much blood on the earth. God did not want His temple to be associated with war, with the shedding of blood. WHY would this be the case, if it is perfectly all right for humans to fight and kill in war?

The obvious answer is that it is NOT perfectly all right to do so. David told the people later, in 1 Chronicles 28:2-3, why God did not want him to build the temple: “Then King David rose to his feet and said, `Hear me, my brethren and my people: I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and for the footstool of our God, and had made preparations to build it. But God said to me, “You shall not build a house for My name, because you have been a man of war and have shed blood.”‘”

David was not allowed to build God a temple because, as he himself said, he had been a man of war and he had shed blood. We don’t read here that David had shed much blood. It only says, that he had shed blood. Whether he had shed much blood or just a little blood was immaterial to God.

Some have argued that David was not allowed to build the temple because he engaged in offensive wars, not only in defensive wars. Again, in God’s eyes, the kind of warfare was immaterial. We read Solomon’s testimony in 1 Kings 5:2-5: “Then Solomon sent to Hiram, saying: You know how my father David could not build a house for the name of the LORD his God because of the wars which were fought against him on every side, until the LORD put his foes under the soles of his feet. But now the LORD my God has given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary nor evil occurrence. And behold, I propose to build a house for the name of the LORD my God, as the LORD spoke to my father David, saying, `Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, he shall build the house for My name.'”

David could not build God a house because of the wars fought against him. Even the fact that David defended himself against those who were attacking him, thereby shedding blood, was reason enough for God to prohibit him from building the temple. THAT fact should really make us think, especially in light of James 5:6: ” … you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.”

David Numbers His Army

Even though David understood that God did not allow him to build the temple because of his past wars, he decided once again, at the very end of his life, to commit another foolish act that was associated with his desire to still fight in war. We are referring here to David’s census of his people, Israel and Judah.

From Biblical chronology, we are able to determine that this census took place AFTER God told David that he was not allowed to build the temple. Although David made certain preparations for the building of the temple, following the census (compare 1 Chronicles 21 and 22), it is apparent that David knew by then that, and why, he could not build the temple (1 Chronicles 22:7-8; 1 Chronicles 28:2-3).

God’s punishment for David taking a census of his people was severe.

The Bible includes two accounts of this episode. One account has been recorded in 2 Samuel 24. We read in verse 1: “Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, `Go, number Israel and Judah.'”

In the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21:1, we are told that “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.”

Since the Bible does not contradict itself, we must read both passages together, to harmonize the accounts. Therefore, it was actually Satan who directly influenced David to number his army, but God allowed it, as He was angry with Israel. Although Joab objected, David insisted that his order be obeyed. We read in 2 Samuel 24:8-9: “So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to the king. And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.”

We now read the remarkable reaction of David, in verse 10: “And David’s heart condemned him after he had numbered the people. So David said to the LORD, `I have sinned greatly in what I have done; but now, I pray, O LORD, take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have done very foolishly.'”

What was David’s great sin and iniquity? In what way had he acted very foolishly?

The context shows that David wanted to know how many men he had who could carry a sword. He was either willing to begin a war, or he wanted to know how many soldiers he had to defend himself in a war. In either case, David considered his action later as iniquity and foolishness, and God agreed with him. He sent the prophet Gad, David’s seer, to David, offering him three different predicaments as punishment for his sin. David chose a “three days’ plague” (2 Samuel 24:13-14), and so “the LORD sent a plague upon Israel from the morning till the appointed time. From Dan to Beersheba seventy thousand men of the people died … Then David spoke to the LORD when he saw the angel who was striking the people, and said, `Surely I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let Your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father’s house'” (verses 15-17).

The parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21 gives additional interesting details. We read in verse 16: “Then David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the LORD standing between earth and heaven, having in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem.”

After David had prayed to God to stop the plague, ” … the LORD commanded the angel, and he returned his sword to its sheath … But David … was afraid of the sword of the angel of the LORD” (verses 27, 30).

Why does the account emphasize three times that God sent an angel with a drawn sword to plague Israel? David, who was willing to take the sword in order to fight in war, saw an angel of God who was killing his people (“his sheep”) with the sword. David simply saw the law in action that Christ later revealed to Peter: ” … for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52; compare, too, 1 Chronicles 27:24).

Many innocent people are likewise bound to die in war. That is one important reason why human war is so wrong – so useless – so ungodly.

But let us ask again, Didn’t God at times even command certain people, including David, to go to war? Yes, He did, only because mankind had already decided that they wanted to fight in war, trying to solve their problems through the means of war. MAN JUST DOES NOT KNOW THE WAY TO PEACE! At times, David even asked God whether he should fight or not, and God told him to fight (compare 1 Samuel 23:1-4). However, David did not ask the question whether war in general was wrong. It was rather always the issue, whether or not he should fight a particular battle.
When David admitted at the end of his life, after having numbered his people, that he had sinned and acted foolishly, it appears that he finally understood that fighting in war IS wrong. But he did NOT have this understanding at the very beginning of his life. Sometimes it takes a long time–maybe a whole lifetime–before God’s disciples come to the perfect understanding on a given issue, including the issue of war and peace, and what constitutes killing, which is a transgression of God’s Law, the Ten Commandments.

Warriors Had to “De-Sin” Themselves

Let us remember that it was never God’s purpose that man should fight in war! We have already seen many passages in the Bible that make this fact very clear. Additional proof can be found when considering what the Israelites had to do AFTER they had fought in war. We read in Numbers 31:19-24: “`And as for you, remain outside the camp seven days; whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves and your captives on the third day and on the seventh day. Purify every garment … ‘ Then Eleazar the priest said to the men of war who had gone to the battle, `This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses: ” … And you shall wash your clothes on the seventh day and be clean, and afterward you may come into the camp.”‘”

The Hebrew word for “purify” is “chata.” Most of the time, this word is translated as “sin.” The Authorized Version translates it 167 times as “sin.”

Interestingly, this word can also convey the opposite meaning; that is, to get rid of sin. In that context, it has been rendered in the Authorized Version as “purify,” “cleanse,” “purge,” or “offer for sin.” Used in that context, it literally means, “de-sin,” or “purify from sin or error.”

What was the sin that the Israelites – the men of war who had gone to battle – had to get rid of? Some say, it was strictly the transgression of the ritual law to not touch a dead person. They refer in this context to Numbers 19:11-12, 16.

It is correct that the entire 19th chapter of the book of Numbers describes the rite of purification of a person who had touched a dead body. In order to be able to enter the tabernacle (verse 13), he had to be sprinkled, on the third and on the seventh day, with the water of purification (the Authorized Version calls it “the water of separation”). This water is identified in verse 9 as a means to obtain purification from sin. Why was it necessary to be sprinkled and purified in that way, after one had touched a dead person?

The answer is that God wanted the Israelites to understand the great distinction between life and death. God is a God of the living, not of the dead. Death is always associated with sin. Death is the penalty for sin. Without sin, there would be no death. Once sin is removed, there will be no more death. There is also involved a symbolic meaning: We need to be spiritually alive, rather than spiritually dead.

We should also notice that the Hebrew word “chata,” when applied to purification, can describe spiritual purification as well, not only ritual purification. For instance, David said in Psalm 51:7: “Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.” The Hebrew word for “purge” is “chata.” David was asking God to remove all spiritual sin from him, to “de-sin” him, to “purify him from sin.”

Now notice! The fact that the Israelites had to purify themselves after they had touched a dead person does NOT explain why the Israelites had to purify themselves from sin when they killed a living person.

Numbers 31:19 makes a distinction between an Israelite who had touched a dead person, and an Israelite who had killed a living person. The command that the Israelite had to be purified from sin because he had killed a person was a new command – it was not contained in Numbers 19. Why did God give it?

Here is why: Although God had commanded the Israelites to wage a particular war – to fight a particular battle – they had to purify themselves from sin, after they had done so. To kill a human being in war was, and still is, against the sixth of God’s Ten Commandments. It is SIN in God’s eyes. Man decided for himself to fight and kill in war, and God saw to it that the wars would end in the way that He wanted for His purpose. But to fight in war was NEVER JUSTIFIED in God’s eyes. It has always been SIN to do so.

In the German translations, the word for “purify” is much better expressed. They use the word, “entsündigen ” – which literally means, “to get rid of sin.” They had sinned by killing humans in war – they had to get rid of that sin by purification.

The Rape of Dinah

Let us consider still another episode showing that killing in war is sin. When Dinah, the sister of Simeon and Levi, was violated by the son (Shechem) of the ruler of Sichem (Hamor), her brothers resorted to violence. We read in Genesis 34:25-26: “Now it came to pass on the third day … that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came boldly upon the city and killed all the males. And they killed Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and went out.”

Simeon and Levi’s action might appear justified to some. After all, we read, pertaining to Dinah’s violation through Shechem, in verses 7 and 31: “And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and very angry, because he had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, a thing which ought not to be done … But they [Simeon and Levi] said, `Should he treat our sister like a harlot?'”

But notice Jacob’s condemning judgment of his sons Simeon and Levi, and realize that Jacob spoke under God’s inspiration: “Simeon and Levi are brothers; Instruments of cruelty [margin: violence] are in their dwelling place. Let not my soul enter their council; Let not my honor be united to their assembly; For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will they hamstrung an ox. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob And scatter them in Israel” (Genesis 49:5-7).

Simeon and Levi’s avenging war was, in the eyes of both Jacob and God, nothing less than murder. Every war fought by human beings is sin and constitutes murder in the eyes of God. Is it sin and murder in your eyes, too?

The Futility of War

Over the centuries, some have recognized the utter destructiveness and futility of war, and have openly admitted that war only results in more war.

U.S. Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman (1820-1891) said about war: “War is at best barbarism … It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain pointed out: “In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers.”

The way of war is fundamentally opposite to the way of peace. The reason why we still have wars today is because people like war too much. The carnal mind does not acknowledge the law of God, nor can it be “subject to” it (Romans 8:7).

Winston Churchill wrote the following about the Confederacy’s two chief generals, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson: “Both these men, though they habitually spoke and no doubt convinced themselves to the contrary, LOVED WAR as a technical art to which their lives had been given. Their sayings and letters abound with expressions of sorrow at the terrible decrees of which they had now become the servants. But on a long night march to a desperate battle at dawn Jackson muttered to his companion, `Delicious excitement,’ and Lee … observed, `It is well that war is so horrible – we could grow too fond of it.'”

God Protects Those Who Trust In Him

In addition to his booklet, “Military Service and War,” which we quoted earlier, Herbert W. Armstrong published two articles in the September and October 1984 issues of the Plain Truth magazine, entitled, “The Sure Way to End the Fear of Nuclear War – NOW,” and, “How the West Can End the Fear of Nuclear War – NOW.”

In these articles, he said the following (emphasis in the original): “Nations Never NEEDED Go to War. Yielding to HUMAN NATURE is the CAUSE of war. Rebellion against God’s law of peace is the CAUSE of war … In respect to WAR, the basic point is the Sixth Commandment. It says, simply, `Thou shalt not kill.’ If all nations obeyed that commandment and followed the way of LOVE toward other humans, there would be no war. But, one argues, that’s a pretty platitude – but it’s not practical – it won’t work. WHY? Because, he argues, if your nation obeys that commandment and is disarmed with no military force, it would be attacked and beaten by some other nation [we might add here, or by terrorists] that disobeyed God’s law, and believed in WAR [or terrorist attacks]. Your nation would therefore be helpless.

“Oh, but it WOULDN’T. The Creator understands human nature better than we humans do. HE PROVIDED FOR THAT! … You think the Almighty Creator-God is impractical – that he leaves those who OBEY him, who accept his GOVERNMENT over them, HELPLESS? … You think – do you? – that the GOVERNMENT OF GOD is so feeble and lacking in power that it is unable to protect the individual or the nation it governs? …

“Notice now, in your Bible, the specific application of the commandment, `Thou shalt not kill,’ to military force and war. Notice how GOD says to those under HIS GOVERNMENT, that his GOVERNMENT … will PROTECT his people against any invading force. God said to Israel: `But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries … and I will cut them off’ (Ex. 23:22-23). God promised supernaturally to fight any invading enemy [nation or terrorists] to protect the nation and people under HIS government …

“A part of God’s PLATFORM OF GOVERNMENT that he laid before the people [of Israel] before they became HIS NATION was the promise that HIS GOVERNMENT would protect its citizens from need of going to WAR. That is the OPEN PROMISE OF GOD, which would later apply to ANY nation … ” (“The Sure Way to End the Fear of Nuclear War NOW,” The Plain Truth, September 1984, pp. 9-13).

Notice the following excerpts from Herbert W. Armstrong’s article, “How the West Can End the Fear of Nuclear War NOW!”, The Plain Truth, October 1984, pp. 20, 30: “War is so needless! War is WRONG! Yes, the West could put an END to the threat of nuclear war [or terrorist attacks] IMMEDIATELY – IF not only leaders, but ALSO the PEOPLE AS A WHOLE, could recognize REALITY – could understand that God is REAL – and would humble themselves before him, BELIEVE HIM – RELY ON him! But, if our people WILL NOT, then it is decreed we shall, in fewer years than you will believe, see OUR CITIES DESTROYED, along with a full third of our populations by a foreign invasion.”

Did God Order His People to Sin?

Some might still say: But God ordered them to go to war, and God would never order anyone to sin. This argument and objection seems persuasive only at first sight, but certainly fails once we understand the truth on the subject.

As we explain in our booklet, “Angels, Demons and the Spirit World,” beginning on page 46, God even uses sinning demons, at times, to carry out His Will. God did not order the demons to sin; rather, the demons decided to sin. God used or “ordered” them to do what they wanted to do, but only what conforms with His plan and purpose. For instance, Jesus told the demons to “Go and possess the pigs” (compare Matthew 8:32). One might say, He gave them an order, but it is clear that the demons wanted to do that – in fact, they asked Christ whether they could possess the pigs (compare Mark 5:12-13; Luke 8:30-32).

In another example, God told Satan that he could plague Job, but only after Satan asked permission to do it (compare the first two chapters of the book of Job). God told the spirit in heaven who wanted to become a lying spirit, to go out and deceive the king (compare 1 Kings 22). It was first the demon’s decision. God then used him to accomplish His Will.

The same is true for Israel’s wars. In reading the accounts carefully, we find that many times, Israel asked God, “Shall we fight this battle?” And God’s answer was often times, “Yes.” Sometimes, though, He said, “No,” as to fight that particular battle was not within the parameters of God’s plan and purpose. We must firmly keep the truth of the matter in mind, that it was Israel who WANTED to fight, generally speaking, otherwise, why would they have even ASKED God to fight in the first place?

It was MAN’s decision to fight, just as it was the demon’s decision, for example, to deceive people. God ALLOWED and PERMITTED such conduct FOR A REASON.

Some may say that Israel was guiltless because God ordered them to fight, even killing women and children. But was the spirit guiltless who became a lying spirit in the mouth of all the false prophets? Was Judas guiltless when he betrayed Christ, under the influence and possession of Satan, although it was determined from the outset that it would be he who would betray his Master (compare John 6:64; Matthew 26:24-25)?

This does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that there is any wrong with God and that God acted wrongly when He commanded the Israelites to fight in war. It was Israel who sinned, not God. It is true that, at God’s command, the Israelites “utterly destroyed the men, women, and little ones of every city” (Deuteronomy 2:34).

Passages like these have led many readers to conclude that the God of the Old Testament was harsh and cruel, while Jesus Christ was gentle and meek. The fact is, however, that it was Jesus Christ – the second member in the God Family – Who appeared to Moses and gave this command (compare 1 Corinthians 10:4). It was He – the Giver of life – Who created mankind (compare Hebrews 1:1-2; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9), and Who rightly determined to take the lives of certain people. Christ, in His wisdom, ended the suffering of those people who lived in that evil, demon-worshipping society, knowing that God would later resurrect them to physical life in a better world – a world in which His right way of life would be taught to everyone and enforced throughout the earth (compare Revelation 20:11-12. For further information on man’s future resurrection, please read our free booklets, “Do You Have An Immortal Soul?” and “God’s Commanded Holy Days“).

Since carnal and unconverted Israel did not trust in God’s might and strength to lead them and protect them, they decided – against God’s Will – to take care of matters themselves. Rather than leaving the fighting to God (compare Exodus 14:14), they CHOSE to become a warring nation. Still, God used them as His instruments to carry out His Will to bring them into the Promised Land, as He had unconditionally promised Abraham.

We find, in Deuteronmoy 20, certain laws regarding the principles governing warfare. Remember, God NEVER intended Israel to fight in war, but after Israel decided to be a warfaring nation, God gave them certain principles to go by. Those principles differ fundamentally from the cruel and merciless way in which wars are being fought today in this world.

Of course, the prerogative to take human life belongs solely to God. Only He has the right to kill a person or command someone else to do it. Angels don’t sin when they kill men, in compliance with God’s Will, as angels are higher than men (Likewise, humans don’t sin, when they kill animals for food, as they are higher than animals). Angels would sin, however, if they were to kill humans against God’s Will (as humans sin, when they kill animals against God’s Will – for example, by slaughtering them just for “fun,” without any need for food or other permissible purposes). And this is why we, once we are glorified members of the God Family, will not sin either, when we take human life in the future. In fact, as God beings, it will be impossible for us to sin, as we will always live in perfect harmony with the Will of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. But as long as we are humans, we are not guiltless if we fight in war and kill other humans. To do so would be, and is, sin.

Some have wrongly concluded that it must be pleasing to God when we fight in war, but they do not understand what happened in Old Testament times, and why. For instance, James Fenimore Cooper quoted a soldier in his historical novel, “The Spy,” saying that since God had ancient Israel fight in war, He could not be against Christian soldiers fighting.


Did God ORDER Ancient Israel to SIN?

Q: Although there are examples in the Old Testament when men decided to go to war, other passages show that God ordered them to war. If human warfare is always wrong, did God order men to SIN? 

A: To answer this question, it would be helpful to recall that sin begins in the mind—many times, long before the physical act is committed.

If a man lusts after a woman in his heart (mind) he has already committed the sin of adultery, in the eyes of God (compare Matthew 5:27–28). If a person hates another in his heart (mind), he has committed murder already, in the eyes of God (compare Matthew 5:21–22). The law has already been broken. Sin has already been committed.

Thus, in David’s and in ancient Israel’s situations, both had already broken God’s law and committed sin against Him, in their hearts, when they desired to go to war. They had already become men of war, in their hearts—sinners, who had chosen to live contrary to God and His Way (but they might not have even realized that fighting in war is sin).

Thus, God, when He saw this was in their heart—men already having made the decision to sin against Him—He used their sinning attitudes to carry out what He would have done in another way. If they had only trusted in Him and had the faith to know that God did not lie when He said He would fight their battles for them, and that He was fully capable of doing that, Israel’s history might have been quite different.

Many times, ancient Israel only wanted to fight in war when that fit their purpose. Generally, they were not even seeking to carry out God’s purpose—otherwise, they would not have made the decision to fight in the first place. Although King Saul destroyed the Amalekites, he and the people kept some of the spoil, even though God had prohibited them from doing so (compare 1 Samuel 15:1–21). This shows, what their general attitude was—it was not one of seeking and obeying God.

In Moses’ time, God used the Pharaoh of Egypt to teach Israel reliance on Him, since it was already in Pharaoh’s heart to commit evil anyway. At various times God used evil Gentile leaders to carry out His purpose. Although what they were doing was sin, the sin or desire to sin was already in their hearts. They already lived the way of sin—the way of this world. So God used them to do His Will.

A decision to live the way of war is a decision to live the way of this world. God tells us to come out of that way. But He does not force anyone to do that. It always comes down to personal will—free moral agency. God wants man to build Godly righteous character—but this requires that man understands, accepts in his heart and chooses the right, while rejecting the wrong. The development of character requires time—it cannot be created “by fiat.”

Ultimately, it is also a question of God’s original intent. God did not intend that man should fight in war or kill human life (even when Cain slew Abel, Cain was protected from a violent death through a mark, compare Genesis 4:13–15). But man chose to live a certain way of life. And so, God would later say—at the time of Noah—that whoever sheds human blood, his blood will be shed through humans (compare Genesis 9:6). God was addressing here cause and effect—as Christ later said to Peter: “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

In addition, God did not intend that man should divorce, but because of the hardness of man’s heart, Moses allowed divorce and gave them bills of divorce. God did not intend that man should engage in polygamy, or that Israel should have a king. Samuel said that Israel sinned when they asked for a king, but God still directed them—“ordered” them—as to whom they should choose for their king.

And so, God’s original intent was not that man should fight in war. God said He would fight for them and that He would bring hornets and fear to the enemy so that they would leave the Promised Land. But when ancient Israel chose to live the way of all other nations, God used them as His instruments to carry out His purpose.

We should also realize that the New Testament commandments against fighting in war are unambiguous. Since God’s character does not change, and since it is WRONG to fight in war TODAY, it MUST HAVE BEEN wrong to fight in war in Old Testament times. No true Christian today would go out and fight in human wars, killing innocent civilians (“casualties”), including women and children. We understand this clearly today, and God judges us based on what we understand. To whom much is given, of him much is required (compare Luke 12:48).

When James and John asked for fire to come down from heaven to devour the Samaritans, Christ rebuked them, telling them that they were, at that moment, following Satan’s inspiration. Christ refused to get involved in judging legal cases, or in carrying out a death penalty against another person. He gave us an example, in that regard, to follow His lead, and that is why we don’t serve on juries or become executioners of convicted criminals. This is not our world. In Old Testament times, Israel was a carnal, unconverted nation without God’s Holy Spirit within them. God administered or “ordered” them in a way that they could understand, to prevent anarchy.

But this was still not done in accordance with God’s original intent!

Laws of war only came into existence after Israel had decided to fight. These laws were “more humane” than any others known to man, but if Israel would not have decided to fight in war, there would not have been a need to have any laws regulating war. The same is true for laws regarding kings. Since God foresaw that Israel would ask for a king, He already placed certain laws
regarding kings in the book of Deuteronomy, but the Bible says clearly that Israel sinned when asking for a king in the first place.

Some passages in the Old Testament are perhaps difficult to understand, but we must appreciate that God will judge people based on what they knew, not on what they did not know. For example, Samson is going to be in the kingdom of God (compare Hebrews 11:32, 39–40), but his entire life, as reported in Scripture, reflects little of a converted person. At the very end of his life, he must have become converted (otherwise he would not be in God’s kingdom)—most likely while he was in the dungeon—but even then, he asked God to give him power to avenge himself against the Philistines (compare Judges 16:28). But somehow, his nature had begun to change—perhaps now he was finally and fully realizing that it was God Who gave him his strength. This mindset might have been sufficient for God to decide that He would resurrect Samson in the first resurrection, as God looks at the heart, and He overlooks ignorance. But today, no true Christian would ask for power from God so that he could kill others and avenge himself.

God saved the harlot Rehab, although she lied. God did not condone lying, but He appreciated her willingness to stand up for God and save the spies. The same is true when David killed Goliath or when Phinehas killed the Israelite and the foreign woman who practiced fornication in front of others. God did not condone killing, but He appreciated their willingness to stand up for God.

If we say that Israel’s fighting in war was right, because God “ordered” Israel to fight, then we must also say that it will be right for the modern king of Assyria to fight against the modern houses of Israel and Judah—and that all Christians should join his army—since God is going to order that future king of Assyria to go to war against modern Israel and Judah (compare Isaiah 10:5–6).

With regard to Abraham, God asked him to sacrifice his only son. We understand that this was also symbolic of the Father’s sacrifice of Christ for man’s sake, but the point still is that Abraham was asked to kill Isaac, quite literally. This was a test for Abraham, to see how strong his faith was, given the fact that God had promised him that through Isaac he would be blessed. That is why Abraham believed that God would resurrect Isaac after his death, trusting God that He would carry out His promises (compare Hebrews 11:17–19). Still, though, he was ordered to kill his son. Why would God give Abraham such a command? It is perhaps interesting to consider that Abraham had shown a willingness to fight and kill prior to that episode when he rescued Lot with his trained servants—trained for war, apparently (compare Genesis 14:13–16). So, is it possible that God was also trying to teach Abraham a lesson—what it means to kill another person—and what it means for a father when his only son is about to be killed?

The Bible does not specifically say WHY God asked Abraham to slay his own son. But we can be quite convinced that God would never ask a true Christian TODAY—one who understands the evil of war and refuses to fight and kill—to kill his son.

Also, God never sins. God gives human life, and He has the right to take it. When He commanded Israel to kill others—in war or in civil situations—He did not sin. He used men—who were willing to kill—so the responsibility was with them. Paul said in the book of Romans, chapter 13, verse 4, that God has given the governments of this world the sword to carry out executions—to prevent anarchy—but as true Christians today, we are not to take part in those activities. Ultimately, taking human life through humans is wrong—but the governments of this world are not judged yet—but we are (compare 1 Peter 4:17).

If Adam and Eve had not rebelled against God and had therefore been expelled from the Garden of Eden, God would not have had to give them laws like “an eye for an eye.” These laws had to be given because of carnal human nature and the evil desires of man’s heart.

Thankfully, there is soon coming a time when the way of war will no longer be tolerated, and when man, because of a change of heart, will WANT to live the way of peace.


No Christian Soldiers!

As we pointed out earlier, originally there were no Christian soldiers. But as paganism crept into the Roman Catholic Church, militaristic ideas began to be embraced by Church leaders as well. And so we find in historical records that even members of the true Church of God were at times – over the centuries – not immune from participating in war. Are we today? Or, are we going to fall into the same trap when the time of temptation comes? Unless we KNOW, and we KNOW that we KNOW that it is a SIN for man to fight in war, we MIGHT be in danger of making the wrong decision when every nation will be engulfed in an all-encompassing future World War, soon to come.

Let us review, at this point, the historical record in more detail.

The Paulicians are first mentioned in historical records in 555 A.D. Traditionally, they have been considered to be a part of the spiritual body of Christ. The word “Paulician” is a derogatory term that means, “followers of wretched little Paul.” They preached strongly against any participation in war. But when, around 800 A.D., the Catholic Church began to persecute them, some of them began to defend themselves with weapons. Their great leader Sergius, who taught them from 801 to 835, condemned fighting and retaliation. But after his death, even those who had listened to him, began to fight. Now the Paulicians became known as a warrior people.

At one time, the Waldenses were apparently part of the body of Christ. Their founder, Peter Waldo, started to teach in 1161. He taught, among other things, that taking a life was wrong. But after his death, and that of early subsequent leaders, many of the Waldenses took up arms in 1380 when the Inquisitors invaded their areas. And in 1619, their leader, Simon Pechi, went to war in Austria, although he still taught and kept the Sabbath. His right understanding regarding the Sabbath did not prevent him from having ACQUIRED a wrong understanding pertaining to killing and war!

When we review the records of the early Sabbath-keepingChurch of God in America, we find that although the Church officially condemned warfare, some Sabbath-keeping members began, as early as 1776, to participate in war.

There are indications in the Bible that members of the true Church of God, who once professed to believe it was wrong to participate in war, will soon take up arms and fight in war, because they have never fully convinced themselves that it is wrong to do so. If, and when they do think to get involved, they would do well to remember Christ’s stern warning to Peter: ” … all who take the sword, will perish by the sword” (compare Matthew 26:52). They should also remember what God says, in effect: “My soul hates those who delight in war” (compare Psalm 5:6; 68:30). And they should recall that, “Every warrior’s sandal from the noisy battle, And garments rolled in blood, Will be used for burning and fuel of fire” (Isaiah 9:5).

At times of temptation we can keep ourselves on track in our relationship with God by recalling the Scriptures God has provided for us, rightly applying them in any given situation. Understanding God’s viewpoint on fighting and war, is one example of “rightly dividing the word of truth” (compare 2 Timothy 2:15).

Several Church organizations, describing themselves as part of the “Church of God,” as well as certain “Christian” writers, claiming to belong to the true Church of God, have already officially adopted the position that it would not be a sin for a Christian to fight in war. There are others, who, although preaching against the participation of a Christian in today’s wars, still do not want to give up their wrong ideas as to why Israel and David fought in Old Testament times.

Let us quote from another article that Mr. Armstrong wrote on the subject of war. It was published in the Plain Truth magazine of February of 1986, one month following his death on January 16, 1986. The article is entitled, “Why Does God Allow Wars?”

“God’s law or way is love. Love is always away from self – not toward self. Never lust or anything of that sort. The opposite way is lust and greed, that’s all toward self – vanity! And it leads to the system in this world – competition and strife – yes, the getting way, the accumulating, the taking way. And that is the cause of wars. Why does God allow war and human suffering? We have competition. Everything is competition in this world. Everything is carried along on the selfish, the getting, basis – greed and vanity. To prevent the evils of competition and wars today God would have to cram his religion down our throats. Our way, the violation of the law of God, the law of love, is causing war, human anguish and human suffering. God had to allow it (to let us have our own way) in order to fulfill his purpose of creating holy character.

“The only way that God could stop war would be to stop the cause. He would have, in effect, to cram his religion down our throats – down the throats of all humanity. There wouldn’t be any free moral agency; there wouldn’t be any [development of Godly] character and God’s purpose could never be fulfilled. That’s why God allows wars, and that’s why God allows suffering.”

Killing in War Breaks the Ten Commandments

God does not change. His character does not change. God gave man the Ten Commandments and He won’t change them. They will stay in force and effect as long as there are human beings living in the flesh. The Ten Commandments reflect God’s character; that is, how He would live if He were a man. And when God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ, that is how God DID live in the flesh. For instance, Christ kept the Sabbath, which was made FOR MAN (compare Mark 2:27).

Christ did not go to war. He did not enter the military. He rebuked Peter for picking up the sword to defend Him against an illegal arrest. When Christ was reviled, He did not revile in return; when He suffered, He threatened not, but committed Himself to God who judges righteously (compare 1 Peter 2:23). Is this our approach to life? Is this how we think and act in the face of adversity?

Since God’s character has not changed, we know that He felt exactly the same regarding ancient Israel and war. It is sin for a human being to fight in war today, just as it was sin in Old Testament times. It has ALWAYS been a violation of God’s spiritual law, the Ten Commandments.

Some disagree, claiming that God never prohibited killing in war. They say that the Ten Commandments only prohibit “murder” (“ratsach” in Hebrew), and “killing in war” is allegedly not “murder.”

We have already discussed the fact that Christ and James equated killing in war with murder. They taught that killing in war is in violation of the Ten Commandments.


Q: Please explain Romans 13:3, stating that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.” I could think of many rulers who are a terror to good works. Also, do we have to obey civil rulers and their laws in everything?

A: Paul is talking here about rulers in general who uphold certain laws to guarantee a civil and peaceful and harmonious lifestyle among their citizens. Paul is referring to submission to and enforcement of civil and criminal laws, such as theft or murder.

Paul is not talking here about the Hitlers or the Neros, who encourage their citizens to betray Christians or the Jews so they can be killed. We need to remember Christ’s statement to OBEY the Pharisees in all that they tell the people—but later, Peter did not obey them when they told him not to preach in the name of Christ. Christ would not obey them, either, in following their rules of ceremonial washings or to have no contact with “sinners.” So, Christ and Paul were talking about matters that were not in conflict with God’s Word. (Notice, too, that John the Baptist openly rebuked Herod for committing adultery with his brother’s wife—see Luke 3:19–20. Also, Daniel refused to obey the order of King Darius, not to pray to God, while his three
friends disobeyed the order of King Nebuchadnezzar to worship the golden image).

In John 19:11, Christ told Pilate, “‘You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the GREATER sin.” Christ is giving here an implicit forewarning of accountability and judgment on those—including rulers—who are evil. We are to be ambassadors of Christ and of the Kingdom of God. As such, we still need to be subject to the laws of man, as long as they are not in conflict with the laws of God.

Also, in Luke 4:6, Satan states to Christ that all authority over the kingdoms of this world have presently been given to Satan, and that it is he who gives it to whomever he wishes. Christ does not dispute this claim. In fact, we read that Satan is the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4, Authorized Version), who still has a throne on this earth (Revelation 2:13). He and his demons are the current rulers over this world (Ephesians 6:12), inspiring civil leaders to obey their will (1 Corinthians 2:7–8).

Today, the world as a whole is cut off from God and is subject to the rule of Satan. God placed Lucifer on the throne of this earth, with responsibility for properly governing it, but he rebelled and became known as Satan. When Satan inspired Adam and Eve to turn against God—to sin by going against what God instructed them—God gave mankind 6,000 years to find out for themselves that they cannot live without God [see accompanying box for more information on God’s 6,000-year plan for man]. And for that same 6,000-year duration, God has decreed that Satan would remain on his throne. That 6,000-year period will end at the return of Jesus Christ, Who will come to replace Satan—a failed ruler—and restore the government of God on this earth. In that sense, there is “no authority except from God” (Romans 13:1), and all authority “has been given…from above” (John 19:11). God has not yet replaced Satan and his demons, but they cannot do anything that God does not ALLOW them to do.

It is with that background that we must understand Paul’s statement that human governmental authorities or rulers are “God’s minister[s]” who do “not bear the sword in vain,” and “avenger[s] to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4). This statement does not permit true Christians to be involved in this world’s system of capital punishment [either as executioners, or as judges or jurors, condemning a criminal to death] and working for the police force by carrying and using guns. Paul’s statement in Romans 13:3 explains the fact that God allows human governments to punish criminals in order to prevent anarchy (compare Numbers 35:30–33). But, while ancient Israel was directly ruled by God for a while, all human governments are today under the direct rule or control of the “god of this world,” Satan the devil.

True Christians are no longer part of this world. They have turned their back on Satan’s rule. They are ambassadors and citizens of a future kingdom—the Kingdom of God. Their citizenship is already preserved in heaven for them.

Paul explained in 2 Corinthians 3 that true Christians are “ministers of the new covenant.” As verse 6 points out, they are to administer life through the administration of the Holy Spirit, even though God allows civil governing authorities—“minister[s]… of the letter,” which are still under Satan’s rule—to administer “the letter [which] kills.”

At times, God might even directly intervene to insure that a particular person takes over rulership in a particular country, so that God’s overall plan for mankind can be fulfilled (Exodus 9:16). But, we are not to follow them or their laws when they oppose God’s instructions for us.

The Broadman Bible Commentary has this to say about Romans 13:3: “…State officials as rulers deserve the loyalty of Christians only when they do approve good conduct (vv. 3–4a). The corrupt politicians who appeal to the Christian conscience to protect their unjust reign of terror and tyranny should be totally repudiated… As God’s public servant the ruler is to promote the good against the bad” (p. 257).

The German “Lexikon zur Bibel,” by Fritz Rienecker, points out under “governing authorities” [“Obrigkeit”]: “The Bible instructs us, because of God, to obey the governing authorities (Romans 13:1–7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13–14), and to pray for them (Jer. 29:7; 1 Tim. 2:2). The reason is, that every authority is appointed by God and that it is His servant (Romans 13:1, 4)… There is, however, a limit to obedience. That limit is reached, when the instructions of the authority prevent a human being from obeying God (Acts 4:19; 5:29). This freedom, not to follow the will of the authority, Peter defends before the spiritual authority of his own people.”


The Avenger of Blood

A brief discussion here of the provisions regarding the avenger of blood might also be helpful in showing the error in reasoning that killing in war is not murder.

A perpetrator who “accidentally” brought about the death of another person (Numbers 35:15), without hating the victim, was allowed to flee to a city of refuge to escape the wrath of the avenger of blood. He was only allowed to escape death if he acted “unintentionally” or “ignorantly” (Deuteronomy 19:4). For instance, he might have killed a person by throwing a stone at him, not realizing that the victim was there (Numbers 35:23). Or, he might have killed the victim without wanting to (Deuteronomy 19:5; Numbers 35:22). If, on the other hand, the perpetrator hated the victim in the past, or if he struck him intentionally with a stone, an iron implement or a wooden hand weapon, even though he might not have hated the victim, he was still to be executed (Deuteronomy 19:4, 6, 11; Numbers 35:20-21; 16-18).

Some misunderstand certain statements in the book of Numbers to say that only the person who acted intentionally, knowingly and/or with hatred is called a “murderer” (“ratsach” in Hebrew; compare Numbers 35:16: “But if he strikes [Hebrew, “nakah“] him with an iron implement, so that he dies, he is a murderer [Hebrew, “ratsach“]; the murderer [Hebrew, “ratsach“] shall surely be put to death.”). This understanding is technically incorrect, as sometimes the perpetrator accidentally or unintentionally causing the death of a person is also called a “murderer” as well (compare Numbers 35:25; Deuteronomy 4:42; 19:4 – in all these cases, the Hebrew word for “manslayer” is “ratsach,” i.e. “murderer.”). In addition, Numbers 35:30 equates the Hebrew words for “killing” [nakah] and “murder” [ratsach]. We read: “Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death … ” In most cases, however, the underlying Hebrew word for “manslayer” is “nakah” – one who smites another.

The meaning of the passage in Numbers 35:15-16 [referred to above] is that a person who kills intentionally, knowingly and/or with hatred is a murderer worthy of death, whereas others are, although still called “murderers” at times, not worthy of death. Note that even the avenger of blood who was permitted – but not required – to kill a murderer worthy of death, is still sometimes called a “murderer” himself, compare Numbers 35:27: ” … and the avenger of blood finds himself outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills [in Hebrew, “ratsach,” i.e. “murders“] the manslayer [in Hebrew, “ratsach,” i.e. “murderer”], he shall not be guilty of blood … ”

The Scriptures tell us that the killing or “smiting” of another human being is wrong in God’s eyes and in violation of the Ten Commandments. The “accidental” manslayer, who did not hate his neighbor whom he killed, was not considered innocent, as his conduct, albeit unintentional or unknowing, led to the death of a person. With proper precautions, such a death could have been avoided. The accidental manslayer still had to flee to a city of refuge and stay there until the high priest died. If he left the city before the death of the high priest, the avenger of blood was permitted, although not required, to kill him.

We might also ask, in this context, how “accidental deaths” of innocent war victims, commonly called “casualties of war,” can be explained in light of these Scriptures.

Killing in War Not Murder?

Some point out that sometimes, the Hebrew word for “killing” in the context of war is “harag,” and since this is a different word than the one used in the Ten Commandments (“ratsach“), killing in war is allegedly not murder and therefore permitted. For instance, we read in Numbers 31:7: “And they WARRED against the Midianites, just as the LORD commanded Moses, and they killed [Hebrew, “harag“] all the males.”

This argument is only convincing at first sight, because the Hebrew word “harag” is also used to describe “murder.” Compare Psalm 10:8: “[The wicked] … sits in the lurking places of the villages; In the secret places he murders [Hebrew, “harag“] the innocent … ” Compare, too, Jeremiah 4:31 and Hosea 9:13. The Hebrew word for “ murderer” in both cases is “harag.”

Please note, too, that Cain murdered his brother Abel, as it is clearly explained in 1 John 3:12: ” … Cain who was of the wicked one … murdered his brother … ” But notice, too, that Genesis 4:8 tells us: “Now Cain talked with Abel his brother, and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed [Hebrew, “harag“] him.” The Hebrew word “harag” in this passage clearly describes “murder.” The concept, then, that the Hebrew word “harag” does not describe murder is clearly erroneous. It cannot be used for the argument that killing in war is not murder, and that it is not a violation of the Ten Commandments.

Another argument is that killing is only “murder,” according to the Bible, when it is done with hate. To support this argument, some quote Christ’s words in Matthew 5:21-22, claiming that murder begins with a hateful heart. Also, they point out that 1 John 3:15 defines a person as a murderer, who “hates his brother.” It is certainly true that hate can lead to murder. This fact does not help those, however, who allege that killing in war is not murder, as soldiers are trained to HATE their enemies, so THAT they can kill them. In addition, as has been explained in our discussion regarding the “avenger of blood,” killing out of hate is not the only way in which one is labelled, Biblically, as a murderer.

With that same rationale, someone would not be guilty of adultery, as long as he or she does not lust after another person (compare Matthew 5:27-28). Adultery can begin, and many times does, with looking at another person to lust for him or her, but this is not the only way in which one can commit adultery. Although Abraham may or may not have lusted after his wife’s maid, when producing offspring through her (compare Genesis 16:1-4), this was clearly a case of adultery, and it had terrible consequences for all of the parties involved.

“Feed Your Enemies” in Practical Application

We find a very powerful example of the application of Christ’s words, to bless and help our enemies, in the sixth chapter of 2 Kings. We read, beginning in verse 14, that the king of Syria “sent horses and chariots and a great army” to the city of Dothan, to capture the prophet Elisha.

The king’s army “came by night and surrounded the city. And when the servant [Gehazi] of the man of God [Elisha] arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots … And Elisha prayed, and said, `LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.’ Then the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha [Christ’s servants – legions of angels]. So when the Syrians came down to him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, and said, `Strike this people, I pray, with blindness.’ And He struck them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. Now Elisha said to them, `This is not the way, nor is this the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek.’ But he led them to Samaria. So it was, when they had come to Samaria, that Elisha said, `LORD, open the eyes of these men, that they may see.’ And the LORD opened their eyes, and they saw; and there they were, inside Samaria! Now when the king of Israel saw them, he said to Elisha, `My father, shall I kill them? Shall I kill them?’ But he answered, `You shall not kill them. Would you kill those whom you have taken captive with your sword and your bow? Set food and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master.’ Then he prepared a great feast for them; and after they ate and drank, he sent them away and they went to their master. So the bands of Syrian raiders came no more into the land of Israel” (2 Kings 6:14-23).

This can be the result, if we obey God and bless those who curse us – if we feed our enemy when he is hungry and give him to drink when he is thirsty, rather than killing him in war. Is this too simplistic, too impractical? Here we see that it is not: When the king of Israel applied Christ’s words to bless his enemies, they did not again try to raid his country.

The Bible is clear that every war fought by human beings is sin. It is murder in the eyes of God. Is it sin and murder in your eyes, too?

Conscientious Objection

Today, most of us are not being called to fight in war. There is presently no draft in the United States of America, Canada or Great Britain, although the question of instituting a draft in the USA is being discussed. In some European and other countries, there is a draft. In any event, members, or prospective members of the Church of God must know the Biblical truth on the matter of military service. A true Christian will not join the military, as he or she is conscientiously opposed to so doing. But in order to be a conscientious objector, one’s conscience must OBJECT to joining the military and fighting and killing in war. In case of a draft and an examination, those who claim to be conscientious objectors must be able to convince the examiners that they are in fact convicted that they cannot participate in war.

A vague answer, such as, “it is probably wrong,” is not going to convince anyone. Neither will an answer like, “It was Godly to fight in Old Testament times, but it is not Godly now, because we are living today under a different administration.” Such an answer will surely prompt further questions, such as, “Do you believe that a soldier who is not a Christian SINS when he goes to war, since he is not yet under the new administration?” If that question is answered with, “No,” the applicant is, in all likelihood, not going to be exempted from military service.

Most countries will not recognize someone as a conscientious objector if his conscience only bothers him in regard to fighting in selective wars, while not being opposed to fighting in all wars. For instance, an American would not be recognized as a conscientious objector if he is opposed to fighting in Iraq, while he would have been willing to fight in World War II.

The Biblically correct answer to all of these questions is that ALL wars fought by humans, are, and always have been, a sin! This applies to all wars fought in Old Testament times, and it applies to all wars that have been fought since the beginning of the New Testament and on into our own recent history. To properly understand the events that took place in Old Testament times, one has to read them with “New Testament” eyes. It is foolish and wrong to attempt to read “New Testament” Scriptures with “Old Testament” eyes.

When someone is being interrogated about his beliefs pertaining to military service and war, the examiners will also look at what the person does, how he lives, how he acts and reacts in his personal life. They want to know that what the applicant says is backed up by what he does. Do your actions back up your beliefs?


Legal Precedence Regarding Jury Duty and Naturalization

Every American citizen has a constitutional right to be excused from serving on a jury, as long as he can manifest his sincere religious beliefs, based on the Bible, that prevent him from doing so. This constitutional right has been confirmed by several Court decisions throughout the country.

At the same time, aliens desiring to become American citizens are en- titled to naturalization, even though, by reason of their religious training and belief, they would not serve in the military, as long as they have es- tablished that they are otherwise at- tached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and that they would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States. This has been ruled upon by numerous Federal Court cases in different Circuits.

In addition, applicants are also entitled under the law, to affirm, rather than to swear, when their religious belief prevents them from swearing and raising their right hand (compare Matthew 5:33–37; James 5:12; Revelation 10:5–6; Daniel 12:7) Federal Case Law, as well as the Immigration Operation Instruc- tions, grant applicants such rights.


How Do We Protect Ourselves?

The question boils down to this: What do we do for our own protection since it is a sin to fight, and even to have a vengeful spirit? Do we believe in God and rely on Him for our protection, having the faith that it is GOD who is our protecting shield, or do we think that we must have additional security in the form of a handgun or some sort of firearm?

Do we think that God is incapable of helping us in certain circumstances?

We should, of course, do everything that we can do to avoid getting into dangerous situations. We obviously should not go to places where gangs assemble, and we should not get involved with people who are known to be active in crimes, for instance.

In addition, Proverbs 15:1 tells us that a soft answer turns away wrath but that grievous words stir up strife. So then, we need to be peacemakers, and we need to avoid everything that would create strife. Proverbs 18:6 reminds us that a fool’s lips enter into contention and that his mouth calls for violent reactions.

We are also told in Proverbs 26:17 that he who passes by and meddles with strife belonging not to him, is like one who takes a dog by the ears. The point is, the battles of this world, which are fought by this world, are not our battles! This Scripture tells us not to be a fool, meddling with strife not belonging to us! We are to be ambassadors for Christ (compare 2 Corinthians 5:20). We are citizens of another kingdom. Our citizenship is in heaven. Our kingdom is not of this world. That is one of the reasons why we don’t vote for leaders in this world (see accompanying Boxes). That is one of the reasons why we don’t fight in the wars of this world. Do you see how the Scriptures teach us right living?

The most important of all the things you can do to avoid using violence is to pray to God, on a daily basis: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (compare Matthew 6:13). We are to plead with God daily to NOT ALLOW a tempting situation that might be too difficult for us to bear, to overtake us.

However, we read in the Bible that righteous persons have sometimes found themselves being attacked by others. What did they do, and what should YOU do, if God allows it?

First, realize that God would NOT allow it if you were not able to bear it, as 1 Corinthians 10:13 tells us. And when God does allow it, He will also provide a way of escape for you. This is sometimes literally the case. Sometimes you need to actually flee, to run away! Christ did so on occasion. We read in John 10:39: “Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.”

What Not to Do!

When we find ourselves, or others, in a dangerous, challenging, life-threatening situation, we must PRAY to God, with faith, to HELP us out of that situation. To fight our fight for us! To give us the wisdom and the power NOT to do the WRONG thing, however tempting it may be.

We must realize that no matter what harm we may WANT to do physically in a given situation, we must not seriously injure or kill the attacker. But unless we understand beforehand, and have in our mind that we are not to do something with the intent to seriously injure or kill the attacker, we might very well do so when the occasion presents itself. If we carry a gun with us or have one handy, say, next to our bed, we will certainly try to use it, but then may be killed in the process.

People who disagree with the foregoing may ask you what you would do if you came home and a robber was in the process of raping your wife or killing your husband. These kinds of questions are reminiscent of questions asked by those who are in favor of abortion. They never address the fact that abortion is clearly wrong when used as a means of birth control. They always use the dramatic exceptions, like that of a young girl who is raped. But even in such a tragic case, the answer is clear: Abortion is always wrong! Since that is the Biblical teaching, abortion is not an option, even in such a tragic situation of rape. But there are solutions. Adoption might be one of them. A young girl in such a situation would need a lot of guidance through spiritual and emotional counseling, as well as physical assistance. But we do not help the girl or the unborn child, by saying, “Well, okay then, let her have an abortion.”

The same is true for an attacker threatening a loved one. Realistically, how many times does this happen? But if it does happen, do you really think that you can take a gun and shoot the attacker, and that the attacker would let you do it without any resistance? Chances are, he will use his gun first. In any case, to use a gun and shoot the attacker would be against the clear Biblical teaching of prohibiting killing. But what about just trying to injure him? In the heat of the moment, you may not be able to do just that, even if you wanted to. And if the attacker would only be injured, he would still have the chance to kill you or others who are with you.

Christ told Peter, when he pulled his sword in defense of Christ and just injured the servant, to put his sword away. Christ’s protection did not depend on human weapons. It depended on God the Father and His angels. So, too, with us. Our real protection comes from the same source.

Some claim that Christ resorted to violence when He overturned the tables of the money changers. In fact, He did so twice – at the beginning of His public ministry and also near the end of His life here on earth. The events are described in John 2:14-17 and in Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; and Luke 19:45-46. A careful study reveals that Christ – the legitimate owner of the Temple – overturned the tables of the money changers who occupied the Temple for inappropriate purposes that were not sanctioned by the owner. We don’t read that Christ injured the money changers – or even, that He drove them out. He used whips to drive out their sheep and oxen – but He did not use the whips to beat the people. The New International Version translates John 2:15, as follows: “So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.”

Where Our Trust Is …

The whole issue really comes down to where we place our trust and confidence for our protection, in EVERY situation.

Notice God’s promise to His people, in Exodus 34:22-24: “And you shall observe the Feast of Weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the year’s end. Three times in the year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the LORD God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year.”

When man places his trust and confidence in God, God will protect man. Ultimately though, no matter the consequences, we must be living a life pleasing to God. We must never fear the ones who can take our physical life from us, but we must fear, or deeply respect, the One who can refuse to give us ETERNAL LIFE.

We must always have the attitude that Daniel’s three friends had when they were asked to violate God’s laws by worshipping an idol, and in case of refusal, were threatened with being thrown into a fiery furnace. We need to speak and act in the same way when we are being tempted to worship Satan – the god of war – by picking up a gun or a knife or another weapon to injure or even kill another person. We read their answer in Daniel 3:17-18: ” … our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”

We must not serve the wisdom of this world, worshipping the power of the air and the god of destruction and war. Rather, we must always follow the PRINCE OF PEACE.

Remember what the angels told the shepherds when Christ was born: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests (Luke 2, 14, NIV), or, as the NRSV renders it, ” … with whom He is pleased.” (Compare accompanying box.)

When God is pleased with us, when His favor rests on us, THEN He will be our shield and protection in times of impending battles. We must trust in God (compare Psalm 56:3-4, 8-11), AND we must be willing to obey His commandments, no matter what the situation, circumstance or consequence. God tells us: “You shall not kill!” Are you listening to Him?


 Q: What are the Biblical reasons compelling a Christian to refuse to participate in military service and war?

A: There are different Biblical principles involved. We believe that the following will best express our religious convictions against participating in military service and war:

A true Christian is a stranger, alien and exile (1 Peter 2:11; Hebrews 11:13) while here on earth; an ambassador for Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20); and a representative of God’s kingdom. As such, and in being a light to the world by proper conduct (Matthew 5:14-16), a true Christian does not take part in this world’s governmental or political affairs, because it is not God who presently rules this world, but Satan the devil (Revelation 2:13; Luke 4:5-6). Christians are admonished to come out of the governmental and political systems of this world (Revelation 18:4).

Romans 12:17-21 tells us that we have to overcome evil with good; that we are not to avenge ourselves; and that we even give food and drink to our enemies if we find them in need. Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27-28 command us to love our enemies. This tells us that we cannot fight or kill our enemies. We are told, in Romans 14:19 and in 1 Peter 3:11, to pursue the things which lead to peace. We are called to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9; James 3:18).

John the Baptist told Roman soldiers to “do violence to no man” (Luke 3:14, Authorized Version). He was showing man how to live in peace (Luke 1:79). Jesus Christ came to preach peace (Acts 10:36), as man does not know the way to peace (Luke 19:41-42; Romans 3:17), living, instead, the way that brings
about bloodshed and war (Romans 3:10-18). Christ will return to make an end to war (Psalm 46:9). He will scatter all those who delight in war (Psalm 68:28-30). After His return, all will learn how to live in peace, and there will be no more wars (Isaiah 2:2-4). Weapons of war will be destroyed (Hosea 2:18). At that time, there will be no end to the increase of peace (Isaiah 9:7).

Today, as ambassadors of Christ, we are to proclaim peace and reject any kind of war (Isaiah 52:7). We read in James 4:1-4 that wars originate with man’s sinful and carnal desires, which MUST be overcome. We must live today the way of peace, the way that all of mankind will learn to live after Christ’s return. Christ told Peter to put his sword away (Matthew 26:52). We are warned that all those who use the sword will perish by it (Revelation 13:10; compare 2 Samuel 2:26). Christ told His disciples that they were not following God’s instructions when they wanted to destroy their enemies (Luke 9:54-56). Christ told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world, and therefore, His servants would not fight (John 18:36). Paul confirmed that Christ’s followers are not to fight (2 Corinthians 10:3-4; Ephesians 6:12). We find that Satan is the one who deceives man to believe that he should fight in war (Revelation 20:7-10).

It is true that in Old Testament times ancient Israel fought in war. This, however, was sin. God never intended that Israel should fight! Israel chose to fight, lacking the faith that God could help them in times of need (Exodus 17:7; Psalm 78:41). Since man is a free moral agent, God does not force man not to sin. God made it clear, however, that Israel was not to fight. He told Israel in Exodus 14:14: “The Lord will fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.” God intended to bring Israel into the Promised Land by driving out the enemies, using hornets in several cases (Exodus 23:27-28; Deuteronomy 7:17-22; Joshua 24:12). When Israel did rely on God, then God did intervene for them and fight their battles. They did not have to fight (2 Chronicles 20:1-30; 2 Chronicles 32:1-23).

David also fought in war, but this, too, was sinful. God punished David with continued wars because of his murder of Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:9-10). Subsequently, God did not allow David to build a temple because he had shed blood in war (1 Chronicles 22:6-10; 1 Chronicles 28:2-3; 1 Kings 5:2-5). God punished David again at the end of his life when he numbered his army, intending to fight in war (2 Samuel 24:1-17; 1 Chronicles 21:1-30).

It is true that God, at times, ordered Israel to fight certain wars. This did not make war right. Israel had chosen to fight in war, as Israel later chose to have a king. God had foreseen that this would happen (compare Genesis 36:31). He gave them their king (1 Samuel 8:22; 9:17), stating, at the same time, that their request for a king was sinful (1 Samuel 8:7, 19; 10:19; 12:13, 19-20). God allowed divorce in Old Testament times because of the hardness of people’s hearts, but it was not God’s intent that people should divorce (Matthew 19:3-9). Since God’s purpose must stand, and since
God promised Abraham, unconditionally, to bring his descendants into the Promised Land (Genesis 15:18-21; 22:15-18), God determined the outcome of those wars that Israel wanted to fight.

Rather than killing our enemies, we are to do them good, if it is within our power to do so. Elisha acted in that way, as recorded in 2 Kings 6:14-23, and lasting peace was the result. When we are confronted with aggression, we need to pray to God to give us strength not to violate His law by killing the aggressors. God will not allow that we are overtaken by a temptation that is too difficult for us to handle (1 Corinthians 10:13). If there is an opportunity, we can hide or escape from our enemies, as Christ did (John 10:39). Christ never fought in war, nor did He ever commit violence to any man. Neither did the early apostles and disciples after their conversion. Neither must we today. God has not changed! God promises us protection from our enemies when we do what He commands (Genesis 35:1-5; Exodus 34:22-24). If God were to choose not to protect us in a given situation, for whatever reason, we must still not violate His law by killing another human being. Rather, we must have the faith and act as Daniel’s three friends did, when Nebuchadnezzar threw them into the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:14-18).

Since it is God who commands us not to kill (Exodus 20:13), we must not violate His law by taking the life of another human being, for ANY reason. We must, therefore, not kill in war, nor enter the military to carry arms, or serve as combatants. We would be able to perform alternate service work under civilian direction, when required by law.


Q: What are the Biblical principles enjoining us not to serve on a jury?

A: There are different Biblical principles involved. We believe that the following will best express our religious convictions against participating in jury duty:

A true Christian is a stranger, alien and exile (1 Peter 2:11; Hebrews 11:13) while here on earth; an ambassador for Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20); and a representative of God’s Kingdom. As such, and in being a light to the world by proper conduct (Matthew 5:14-16), a true Christian does not take part in this world’s governmental or political affairs, as presently, it is not God who rules this earth, but Satan the devil (Revelation 2:13; Luke 4:5-6). Christians are challenged to come out of the governmental and political systems of this world. Christ, knowing that God’s Kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), refused to judge a civil matter when He was asked to do so (Luke 12:14). Paul, likewise, prohibited judging those “who are outside” the church (1 Corinthians 5:12).

Further, man’s judgments are concerned with the letter of the law. In contrast, God looks on one’s heart, and is concerned with the spirit and intent of the law. Man’s laws usually do not take into account repentance, forgiveness of sins, and other spiritual factors in the way that God does (Acts 2:38). Jesus, in looking at the heart of the accused, refused to condemn a woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). Jesus taught that true Christians must be willing to forgive others (Matthew 6:14-15).

Another principle against participation in jury duty is that true Christians are to learn to judge according to the law of God as seasoned by judgment, mercy and faith (Matthew 23:23). They are also to render “righteous” judgment (John 7:24). Presenting selective evidence, where facts may be suppressed for technical legal reasons as permitted in the courts, may not necessarily lead to Godly justice, mercy and truth, and to the rendering of a righteous judgment.

In following Biblical injunctions, one could not convict a person, in any event, unless the accusation is supported by the testimony of at least two witnesses (Matthew 18:16; Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6-7; 19:15). Since the witnesses would have to “cast the first stones,” circumstantial evidence [which is many times based on human interpretation and theory] would not be sufficient under God’s law for the requirement of two witnesses.

Since we may be compelled, as a juror, to apply man’s laws in conflict with the law of God, we could not take the oath as a juror, as we would, in principle, agree to obeying man rather than God (Acts 5:29; Acts 4:19). Therefore, jury duty will invariably create a conflict of conscience in a Christian between the requirements of God and the requirements of jury service. A Christian who violates his conscience would be guilty of committing sin (Romans 14:23; 1 John 3:4).


Q: Why do you teach that a Christian should not vote in governmental elections?

A: In the context of this booklet, we need to understand that the issues of jury duty and voting for the government are both connected with the issue of military service and war.

It is inconsistent to take the position that one cannot join the military because one is an ambassador of Jesus Christ and a citizen of another government – the Kingdom of God – while at the same time serving on a jury or voting in governmental elections. For instance, in the United States, the President is also the Commander-in-Chief, having both the right and the obligation under the Constitution, in certain circumstances, to declare war. How can one refuse to participate in war, while voting for a person who has the right and the obligation to declare war? In the past, people were disqualified as conscientious objectors because they did not refuse to serve on a jury or to vote in governmental elections. It was ruled that such an obvious inconsistency in position showed evidence for non-sincerity of the applicant.

In addition, when one votes for a particular political candidate, one votes for the “totality” of the person. Some have argued that one needs to vote for candidate X, rather than candidate Z, supposedly choosing “the lesser evil.” Following that kind of reasoning, one still would vote for “an evil,” which a Christian should not do (compare 1 Thessalonians 5:22). Somebody might want to vote for candidate X, as that candidate might reject abortion. However, the same candidate might support the tobacco industry or pollution of the environment. A Christian could not support a candidate who might be right on one issue, but who would still be wrong on other issues. In addition, as stated above, every candidate in the United States would support his right as the future president or leader of his nation to declare war on other nations.

Another reason why a Christian is not to vote for a candidate in governmental or local council elections is because he understands the truth about this being Satan’s world at the present time. It is Satan who, with the general permission of God, places candidates into governmental offices. If we were to vote, we might involve ourselves quite directly in Satan’s system. Hosea 8:4 gives us God’s warning in this regard: “`They set up kings, but not by Me; they made princes, but I did not acknowledge them.'”

Sometimes, in order to ensure that certain aspects of His plan are fulfilled, God Himself might intervene to see to it that the person best (or perhaps worst) suited for the job at that time gets the job (compare Daniel 4:17). How would God look at us when He intervenes directly to place a specific person into office, while we did not vote for that person, but rather for someone whom God does not want to see in charge at that time? It is obvious that our vote would be found to be in opposition to God’s Will.

To give a prophetic and an historical example, Biblical prophecy reveals that a final political leader of the resurrected Roman Empire – the “beast” – will soon arise in Europe. According to God’s prophetic plan, this person will be placed in office in the very last days, wreaking total havoc on this planet. It is Satan, with God’s permission, who will give his power and authority to this person (Revelation 13:4-5). A Christian could not and should not vote for this person, of course, as he will persecute and kill many of the “saints” (Revelation 13:7), and he will even attempt to fight the returning Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:19). Neither should a Christian have voted for Adolph Hitler, although it is clear now that Hitler came to power, as prophesied, to bring about the ninth resurrection of the Roman Empire. This is to say that God allowed Hitler to become ruler over Germany so that prophecy could be fulfilled.

The Bible shows that God sometimes appoints directly, or permits Satan to place into office, strong or weak leaders, depending on the situation, in order to insure that God’s purpose will be carried out. For example, God allowed ancient Pharaoh, at the time of the Exodus, to be ruler over Egypt for a very specific reason – “that [God] may show [His] power in [him], and that [God’s] name may be declared in all the earth” (Exodus 9:16).

And finally, in regard to voting in governmental elections, we human beings are incapable of looking into the heart of a person. When God wanted King Saul to be replaced, He had Samuel anoint David as the new king. If it had been left to Samuel, he would have appointed one of David’s brothers (compare 1 Samuel 16:6-13). Participating in voting for governmental elections shows a lack of appreciation for the Will of God. It also shows a misunderstanding of the fact that Satan presently rules this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), and that Christians are ambassadors of Christ, called to come out of this world, to be separate.

As Christians, we are in no way to resist our leaders whom God has allowed to be placed over us, unless it is in direct conflict with Christ’s teachings. Rather, we are to be thankful for whatever good they provide for us, and we are to pray for them so that we can lead a quiet and peaceable life (1 Timothy 2:2) and fulfill our God-given job to preach the Gospel and to feed the flock.


Update 187

Woe to Them!

On Saturday, April 2, 2005, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “Woe to Them!”

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.

Back to top

Marriage Is Holy

by Brian Gale (United Kingdom)

Over the last several decades, the institution of marriage has come under intense pressure as more and more people, both young and old alike, have opted for co-habiting. My wife and I have just celebrated our ruby (40th) wedding anniversary. Over the years of our marriage we have seen the unfortunate changes in society where a more selfish and ungodly approach has become the norm. Unfortunately, many who do get married don’t remain in that God-ordained union.

At present, most of Britain’s 42 million adults are married, but the Government Actuary’s Department predicts that the British society will change significantly over the next two decades. By 2011, just 46% of women and 48% of men will be married in Britain.

Divorce statistics are very revealing. In the UK in 1961, there were 27,000 divorces and yet, 41 years later, in 2002, the figure has risen to 160,000. In the United States, in 1999 there were 8.4 marriages and 4.2 divorces per 1,000 total population, and in the year 2000, there were 21 million divorces. And now, according to one web site, divorce statistics are no longer collated in America. The rest of the world tends to follow, to one degree or another, these unfortunate trends. These statistics cannot possibly relate the sum total of human suffering that is generated by divorce. Perhaps that is a significant factor, but certainly not the only one, for those opting for co-habitation. A senior counselor at Relate, a UK relationship charity, said that many people cannot see the point of marriage since the loss of tax breaks and better rights for unmarried fathers make co-habitation “more appealing.” And, of course, the religious aspect of marriage no longer seems relevant in an increasingly secular society.

Right at the dawn of civilization, God instructed that “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife” (Genesis 2:24). There was no instruction for, or acceptance of, co-habitation, which is a state where there is no real evidence of marital commitment and where therefore fornication takes place. We are told to flee fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18).

When my wife and I were married in 1965, we expected our marriage to last until “death do us part” and we still do believe in this. Unfortunately today, it seems that marriage only lasts until the first sign of trouble. Divorce has been made relatively easy and so many don’t seem to want to work through their problems, instead taking what they think is the easier option.

The spiritual application of marriage is totally lost on an ungodly society which simply has little or no interest in the Creator. In Ephesians 5:22-33 we see that the Christian marriage of a husband and wife has a spiritual application to Christ and the Church. This is further confirmed in Revelation 19:7 where we are told that the marriage of the Lamb (Christ) has come and His wife (the Church) has made herself ready.

How sad that humans (seemingly) think that they know better than the One Who created them. As a consequence, they have to endure all of the misery and suffering that is the legacy of ignoring the wise advice freely available in the Bible. Irrespective of changes in society and the development of new cultural norms and attitudes, the institution of marriage between a man and a woman is holy and was created by God.

Everything else is just an ungodly counterfeit.

Back to top

Australia vs. USA

As www.smh.com.au reported on March 29, 2005, “Australians are just as concerned about United States foreign policy as Islamic extremism and regard the US as more dangerous than a rising China, according to a new poll.” According to the poll, “57 per cent of Australians were ‘very worried’ or ‘fairly worried’ about the external threat posed by both US foreign policy and Islamic extremism… More than two-thirds–68 per cent–said Australia took too much notice of the US in its foreign policy deliberations.”

Germany — Still Divided?

As Reuters reported on March 27, 2005, “Nearly a quarter of western Germans and 12 percent of easterners want the Berlin Wall back–more than 15 years after the fall of the barrier that split Germany during the Cold War, according to a new survey. The results of the poll, published Saturday, reflected die-hard animosities over high reunification costs lowering western standards of living and economic turmoil in the east… The Berlin Wall was breached on November 9, 1989, paving the way for the unification of Communist East Germany with the West on October 3, 1990. But billions of euros (dollars) spent rebuilding the east have failed to prop up the depressed region, which is plagued by high unemployment and a shrinking population. The poll also found that 47 percent of the easterners agree with the statement that the West ‘acquired the east like a colony,’ while 58 percent of the westerners back the statement that ‘easterners tend to wallow in self-pity.'”

Make War, Not Peace?

An appalling editorial was published in WorldNetDaily on March 22, 2005, in connection with the Church shooting by a parishioner in Wisconsin. Although this may be hard to believe, the editor actually recommended the following violent strategy to prevent further shootings in schools or churches:

“If just one other member of that congregation were carrying a gun, lives would have been saved. And that’s the real answer to this kind of murder and mayhem… I’m advocating that law-abiding people carry firearms wherever they go – especially in places where guns are thought to be unnecessary, especially in schools and other ‘gun-free zones,’ especially in the high-crime cities where guns have already been banned. It’s a matter of life and death… That way, when the next inevitable attack comes – whether it is at a movie theater, a school, a church, a shopping mall, and no matter who the perpetrator is – there will be return fire. That’s called deterrent. That’s called civil defense. That’s called common sense.”

Sadly, in our violent societies which place guns and weapons over trust in God’s protection, even this incredible recommendation might be welcome by some deceived supporters. What we would see then is that violence will lead to more violence, and if that kind of recommendation would be followed by everyone, we would pretty soon have an armed camp — with freedom and peace gone forever. We only pray that true Christians don’t fall for such God-defying and God-denying concepts. As Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:1-5: “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be… brutal, despisers of good, … headstrong… having a form of godliness BUT DENYING ITS POWER. AND FROM SUCH PEOPLE TURN AWAY!”

The Death of the Dollar?

www.silverstockreport.com wrote on March 18, 2005:

“Caesar was supposed to be a god. Julius Caesar was killed on the Ides of March. (March 15th). Today, we don’t make men gods. Instead society has made our financial system into a false god. On March 15th, 2005, (the Ides of March) we may have just witnessed the beginning of the death of our financial system as General Motors stock took a nosedive from $34/share down to $30…GM’s stock price decline is like a dagger right into the heart of the U.S. financial system, and the dollar itself!… Apparently, someone in power did the equivalent of shouting ‘the emperor has no clothes’ and people woke up, and are beginning to see more clearly! The media decided it was time to expose the truth that GM is nearly insolvent, and will expect to lose $1.50/share in the first quarter alone!
“But the story is worse than that! GM has $300 billion in debt… The implication is clear–that GM is headed towards bankruptcy, and will default on the bondholders, who will then own a company worth less than $16 billion dollars!… So, therefore, GM will soon be a $300 billion dollar blow-up! How big is that? It’s bigger than Enron, Global Crossing, LTCM, K-Mart, and the IRAQ war all put together! … $300 billion going belly up is a big enough event to topple the U.S. government! How so? It will shake the confidence in the entire financial system… Either way, the dollar is dead. Long live gold and silver!”

Never-Ending Problems in Iraq

As The Associated Press reported on March 29, 2005, “Iraq’s fledgling parliament failed Tuesday to agree on who would be its speaker, with the interim prime minister and president storming out of the chaotic session that exposed deep divides among the National Assembly’s Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish members. The short session – mostly held behind closed doors after leaders kicked out reporters and cut off a live television feed – adjourned until this weekend… The Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance and the Kurdish coalition, which finished first and second in the landmark elections, have reached out to the Sunnis and to members of Allawi’s coalition, hoping to form an inclusive national unity government. But haggling over the level of participation of the Sunnis, as well as jockeying for Cabinet posts and efforts to resolve differences between the various groups, have left Iraq without a government almost two months after the 275-member National Assembly was elected. Lawmakers have until mid-August to draft a permanent constitution.”

Another Powerful Earthquake in Indonesia

As The Associated Press reported on March 29, 2005, “Indonesians searched through smoldering rubble for survivors on Nias island Tuesday and relatives wept over the bodies of the dead after an 8.7-magnitude earthquake hammered the region, triggering a tsunami scare and killing at least 330 people. Some officials said the death toll could rise as high as 2,000… The earthquake – which occurred along the same tectonic fault line as the massive 9.0-magnitude temblor that caused the Dec. 26 disaster – triggered panic in several Asian countries.”

The German press reported that scientists fear for additional powerful earthquakes in the region. It was pointed out that the December earthquake was three times stronger than the quake on Monday, but that Monday’s quake was not an aftershock of the December quake, but an entirely new one.

Jurors Without the Bible

As The Associated Press reported on March 29, 2005, “Ruling that juries cannot turn to the Bible for advice during deliberations, a divided Colorado Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a convicted murderer because jurors discussed verses from Scripture.” This latest decision follows a long line of cases, ruling in effect that jurors have to ignore or violate their own conscience, when they become jurors, as they have to unconditionally and without reservation obey the judge’s instructions. This alone should be reason enough for any true Christian to be conscientiously opposed to participating in jury duty.

U.S. Sovereignty Tested?

As The Associated Press reported on March 29, 2005, “The Supreme Court, confronting a case that tests the effect of international law in domestic death penalty cases… [heard arguments regarding the] violation of a U.S. treaty that requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the United States… Several justices seemed wary of deciding who has final say on interpretation of that treaty – state or federal courts, the U.S. president or an international tribunal – after President Bush last month ordered new state court hearings for [51] Mexicans on death row… The case, which has attracted worldwide attention, is seen as a test of how much weight the Supreme Court will give in domestic death penalty cases to the International Court of Justice, or ICJ, in The Hague, which ruled last year that the 51 convictions violated the Vienna Convention… The administration also announced it was withdrawing from a section of the Vienna Convention that gave the ICJ authority to hear U.S. disputes, to avoid future questions about the role of international tribunals in domestic death penalty cases.”

Terri Schiavo Died

As The Associated Press reported on March 31, 2005, “Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman who spent 15 years connected to a feeding tube in an epic legal and medical battle that went all the way to the White House and Congress, died Thursday, 13 days after the tube was removed. She was 41… Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 after her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance that was believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder. Court-appointed doctors ruled she was in a persistent vegetative state, with no real consciousness or chance of recovery. She left no written instructions…”

The article continued:

“Florida lawmakers, Congress and President Bush tried to intervene…, but state and federal courts at all levels repeatedly ruled in favor of her husband [to remove the tube]. The case focused national attention on living wills and stirred a furious debate over the proper role of government in end-of-life decisions. It also led to allegations that Republicans in Congress were pandering to the religious right and violating their own political principles of limited government and states’ rights. In Washington, the president said he was saddened by the death. ‘The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak,’ Bush said. ‘In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in favor of life.’ In Rome, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, head of the Vatican’s office for sainthood, called the removal of the feeding tube ‘an attack against God.'”

The article concluded, as follows: “Schiavo’s feeding tube was briefly removed in 2001. It was reinserted after two days when a court intervened. In October 2003, the tube was removed again, but [Florida’s] Gov. Jeb Bush rushed ‘Terri’s Law’ through the Legislature, allowing the state to have the feeding tube reinserted after six days. The Florida Supreme Court later ruled that law was an unconstitutional interference in the judicial system. Nearly two weeks ago, the tube was removed for a third and final time.”

Back to top

Can you identify the seven Church eras, as described in the book of Revelation?

In the second and third chapters of the book of Revelation, John received a message for the “angels of the seven churches” (Revelation 1:20). As we have pointed out before [compare the Q&A in Update 157], these messages were to be meant for seven existing local Church congregations in seven distinct cities at John’s time, but they were also directed to all Christians at all times (compare Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, and 22), and they included messages for seven consecutive Church eras, beginning at the time of John, and ending at the time of Christ’s Second Coming (compare Revelation 1:19-20).

The seven Church eras can be briefly described as the eras of Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7); Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-11); Pergamos (Revelation 2:12-17); Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29); Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6); Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7-13); and Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22).

The following sets forth our understanding of the identities of the seven Church eras, as taught by the Church of God for over the past 50 years:

The first era of Ephesus describes the Nazarenes. The Bible itself identifies the early Christians as the “sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). Worldly records tell us that the Nazarenes kept the Sabbath and the annual Holy Days, abstained from eating unclean meats, and practiced the “ceremonies of Moses” — in other words, they adhered to both the Old and the New Testaments. Historians tell us that the Nazarenes and the Ebonites escaped the Roman destruction of Jerusalem by fleeing to the city of Pella in 69 A.D. The Ebonites were not part of the Church of God, however, but they clung to converted brethren. The Nazarenes are still mentioned in records of the 5th century. They preserved the book of Matthew. Paul spent much time in the city of Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:8). According to tradition, John and Philip died in Ephesus. According to Revelation 2:2, the Church of that era was originally zealous, but by the time of the second or third generation, it began to lose “its first love” (verse 4). [This might perhaps constitute a parallel of God’s Church in this day and age.]

The second era of Smyrna began with Polycarp, a minister in Smyrna. After his release from the island of Patmos, John trained Polycarp to become his successor. Polycarp was killed by a mob for his belief in the Sabbath, Passover, and other laws of God. The Smyrna era was to be persecuted for 10 days (Revelation 2:10). A day in prophecy represents a year (compare Ezekiel 4:4-6; Numbers 14:34). This ten-year persecution occurred under Diocletian and Galerius, from 303 until 313 A.D. After that persecution, Constantine, in 325 A.D., expelled all “non-Christian churches,” that is, non-Catholic churches (including the true worshippers in the Church of God) from the Roman Empire. In 365 A.D. he prohibited the keeping of the Sabbath.

The third era of Pergamos began about 650 A.D. True Christians became known at that time as “Paulicians.” One important leader was Constantine of Mananali. Originally, the Paulicians believed what the Nazarenes and Polycarp had believed. Worldly records tell us that they kept the Sabbath, the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread; that they preached the Kingdom of God; and that they baptized by immersion. Apparently, more than 100,000 Paulicians died as martyrs. Later, and perhaps because of persecution, many turned away from the true faith and resorted to violence. They became known as a warrior sect; their ministers were also generals.

The fourth era of Thyatira began at the time of the Reformation. The most important leader of the Church at that time was Peter Waldo, and the Church became known as Waldenses. They were active in the 12th century in the German and Swiss regions of Europe. In 1309, they preached the gospel in The Netherlands, and in 1315, in England. They kept the Sabbath and the annual Holy Days, and they rejected pagan customs which had been embraced by orthodox Christianity, such as Easter. Remnants will still exist when Christ returns (Revelation 2:25). However, when persecution began, many resorted to violence, as the Paulicians had done, and they began to forsake the truth and adopted wrong teachings to save their lives (Revelation 2:20-23).

The fifth era of Sardis began about 1585 in England. The practice of Sabbath-keeping became known again during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603). One important leader was Stephen Mumford who founded the Church of God in the United States in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1664. In the middle of the 19th century, true Christians became part of an Adventist movement, but separated in 1860 and began to publish numerous magazines and pamphlets, including, “The Remnant of Israel,” “The Sabbath Advocate,” and the “Bible Advocate.” Ministers were sent from Missouri, Oklahoma and Oregon to Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and the Philippines, and congregations in those countries began to keep the Sabbath and the Holy Days. Remnants of the Sardis era will exist when Christ returns (Revelation 3:3).

The sixth era of Philadelphia began under Herbert W. Armstrong, who had come into contact with the Sardis era in 1927, and was ordained as a minister in 1931. The Philadelphia era began in 1933. In 1934, the truth was preached from a radio station in Oregon, and in 1953, radio programs began to be broadcast in Europe. The Church of God became known as the Radio Church of God and later as the Worldwide Church of God, with its educational institutions of Ambassador College and Ambassador Foundation, headquartered in Pasadena, California. It is our understanding that the Laodicea era began, when Mr. Armstrong died in 1986. (Mr. Armstrong wondered in his prayer, when appointing Mr. Tkach as his successor just before his death, whether the Laodicea era was about to begin. We believe that subsequent events have shown that this was in fact the case.) Since Christ promises the Philadelphians protection from the Great Tribulation (Revelation 3:10), remnants of the Philadelphia era must still exist and be active (compare Revelation 3:8; Matthew 24:45-47) at the time of Christ’s return.

The last era, that of the Laodiceans (compare Revelation 3:14), will be predominantly in existence at the time of Christ’s return. But this does not mean that those who are called today could not become a part of the remnant of the Philadelphia era. Laodiceans are not limited to any one particular Church organization, but they can be found in every organization. Regardless of our “corporate” affiliation, and regardless of what Church era we actually belong to individually, all of us in God’s Church must remain to be or become zealous and repent (compare Revelation 3:19), and all of us must maintain or acquire the Philadelphia spirit (compare Revelation 3:11) to be accounted worthy to escape the terrible times ahead, and to stand before the Son of God, when He returns (Luke 21:36).

Back to top


How This Work is Financed

This Update is an official publication by the ministry of the Church of the Eternal God in the United States of America; the Church of God, a Christian Fellowship in Canada; and the Global Church of God in the United Kingdom.

Editorial Team: Norbert Link, Dave Harris, Rene Messier, Brian Gale, Johanna Link, Eric Rank, Michael Link, Anna Link, Kalon Mitchell, Manuela Mitchell, Dawn Thompson

Technical Team: Eric Rank, Shana Rank

Our activities and literature, including booklets, weekly updates, sermons on CD are provided free of charge. They are made possible by the tithes, offerings and contributions of Church members and others who have elected to support this Work.

While we do not solicit the general public for funds, contributions are gratefully welcomed and are tax-deductible in the U.S. and Canada.

Donations can be sent to the following addresses:

United States: Church of the Eternal God, P.O. Box 270519, San Diego, CA 92198

Canada: Church of God, ACF, Box 1480, Summerland, B.C. V0H 1Z0

United Kingdom: Global Church of God, PO Box 44, MABLETHORPE, LN12 9AN, United Kingdom

©2025 Church of the Eternal God