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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crisis in Lebanon

The Associated Press reported on March 1, 2005:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crisis in the United States

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

Austria and Hitler

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

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

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

USA and Europe

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

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

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

Iraq and the Sabbath

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

US Nuclear Weapons in Germany

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

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

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

The New Europe

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

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

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

The Pope’s New Book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Report — President Bush in Europe and Russia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rienecker, Lexicon of the Bible, points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anniversary of Destruction of Dresden

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

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

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

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

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

Election Results in Iraq — Good or Bad?

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

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

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

Iran and the West

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

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

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

NATO Forces in the Middle East?

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

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

NATO Outdated?

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

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

Assassination in Lebanon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Saturday, February 12, 2005, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “Haters of God.”

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

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Thus begins the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and what is, according to many, that which makes this country so great. Because of this many denominations within America have thrived peaceably for the last two and a quarter centuries. We have all been able to follow or not to follow God as we have seen fit. Americans have even been able to worship in a myriad of ways, or to reject any worship of God, and we have slapped ourselves on the back, congratulating one another in our open-minded approach to religion.

The twist to all of this is that the true and only God is not a believer in so-called religious tolerance. He is not an advocate of worshipping however we want or whatever we want (compare Matthew 15:7-9; Mark 7:6-7). It’s quite the opposite. He is an extremely jealous God (compare Exodus 20:5; Ezekiel 23:25-27), demanding our full attention and requiring that we shun all “rivals” with the utmost intolerance (compare Isaiah 42:8). He requires that we follow His Word to the letter at the very least (compare Malachi 4:4) and beyond that to the spirit of His commands (compare John 4:23; Matthew 5:17-48).

Sure, we still have the freedom to choose one of the ways set before us. Even in the world of tomorrow when Christ returns, people will still have the free moral agency to opt for one way or the other. But make no mistake about it, God has laid out the rules that we are to play by and with it comes cause and effect as well as blessing and cursing (compare Deuteronomy 11:26-28; Galatians 6:7-8).

So let us choose wisely because our immortality is a matter of life and death.

USA and France

Reuters reported on February 7, 2005, that “France wants a fresh start in relations with the United States and both sides have much to contribute to a renewed transatlantic partnership, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said.” At the same time, Barnier added, however: “Alliance doesn’t signify allegiance… A renewed transatlantic alliance must be based on two pillars (European and American).” The article also pointed out that “France was encouraged by the election in Iraq on Jan. 30 and by a ‘renewed determination’ in Bush’s efforts over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Barnier said. But Washington must understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central and there will be no progress toward democracy in the Middle East unless it is addressed, he said.”

The Associated Press reported on February 8, 2005, that “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday urged Europeans to move beyond disagreements with the United States and join forces to spread liberty…. France was the most vocal opponent of President Bush’s handling of the war with Iraq, and Rice did not engender any goodwill in Bush’s first term when she said the United States should ‘punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia’ for their opposition to the invasion. Rice chose Paris for the major address of her first official tour of Europe, and offered words of encouragement and a promise of cooperation. ‘America stands ready to work with Europe on our common agenda, and Europe must stand ready to work with America,’ she said.”

Abortions in the U.S.A.

On February 7, 2005, CNSNews.com reported about an alarming development in the United States — that of increasing numbers of abortions amongst African-Americans. The article pointed out: “During America’s commemoration of Black History Month, some pro-life activists are charging that legalized abortion has led to a ‘black genocide’ of more than 14 million unborn African-American babies.”

The published figures are staggering. To summarize from the article:

— For every five African-American women who get pregnant, three have an abortion;
— Since 1973, more than twice as many blacks have died from abortion than from heart disease, cancer, accidents, violent crimes and AIDS combined;
— Blacks make up about 12 percent of the population in the United States but account for 32 percent of the abortions; and
–About 1,450 black infants are aborted every day in this country.

Israel and the Palestinian State

Reuters reported on February 8, 2005, that “Israeli and Palestinian leaders declared a cease-fire Tuesday at a summit in Egypt aimed at ending more than four years of bloodshed… But Islamic militants [especially Hamas] behind suicide bombings and rocket attacks said they were not bound by Abbas’s cease-fire, though they would continue to follow a de facto truce at his behest… Political analysts also sounded a cautious note amid the fanfares of optimism [by politicians and governmental leaders around the globe], pointing out the gap remaining on issues that led to the collapse of talks for a Palestinian state on land occupied by Israel in the 1967 war — such as on borders and whether Palestinian refugees get a ‘right to return’ to land in what is now Israel. Some 3,350 Palestinians and 970 Israelis have been killed since September 2000… Despite the optimism voiced by the politicians, many political analysts saw little advance at the summit.”

Only two days later, on February 10, 2005, Reuters reported about the fragile nature of the “truce,” as follows: “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas fired three of his top security chiefs Thursday after militants broke a cease-fire he had agreed with Israel by bombarding Jewish settlements in Gaza with mortars. After the attacks, Israel had put off security coordination talks scheduled as a follow-up to Tuesday’s groundbreaking meeting in Egypt with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. But an Israeli official said troops would not retaliate after some 50 mortar bombs and rockets hit settlements in Gaza. There were no casualties in the attacks by militants who have refused to participate in Abbas’s cease-fire gesture, and plans for him to reconvene with Sharon next week at the Israeli leader’s desert ranch remained in place… In another reminder of armed chaos in the Palestinian street challenging Abbas, dozens of gunmen including Hamas militants had stormed into a Gaza City prison Thursday and shot dead three inmates in a settling of scores between feuding clans… Hamas militants said the barrage was to avenge the death of a Palestinian shot dead by Israeli troops from a settlement on Wednesday. Troops said they fired on suspected intruders. Palestinians said the man was a civilian walking near his home.”

Byzantium and Bavaria

An article which appeared on the Internet, reported that “An exhibition exploring Europe’s Byzantine heritage, which opened in November, is bringing the fascinating but little-understood epoch to life at the Bavarian State Archeological Collection in Munich.” The article pointed out: “Founded in the fourth century when the capital of the Roman Empire was transferred from Rome to Constantinople- modern-day Istanbul – the Byzantine Empire flourished around the eastern Mediterranean for half a millennium….

“Bavaria’s fascination for Byzantine art and culture is at least as old as mad Ludwig II, the 19th century Bavarian king known for using state money to fund his outrageously extravagant castles. Ludwig II incorporated elements of Byzantine art into his castles, most prominently into the interiors of his castle Neuschwanstein. Bavaria has also long been home to the scholarly study of Byzantine history and culture. Germany’s first program dealing with Byzantium was created in 1897 at the University of Munich and remained the country’s only such program until 1945. Thus it may interest many local visitors that a Bavarian countess became the Kaiser of Byzantium in the 12th century, or that Augsburg became the ‘cradle of German Byzantium’ in the 16th century. Critics have suggested that the exhibition overplays the Bavarian influence on European Christendom, but for a state with much pride in its religious character, that’s par for the course.”

EU and the Catholic Church

“VIS” reported on February 4, 2005, from Vatican City that “Josep Borrell Fontelles, president of the European Parliament… met… with Cardinal Secretary of State Angelo Sodano and Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, secretary for Relations with States… President Borrell Fontelles… explained some of the parliament’s current activities and the prospects arising from the enlarging of the European Union, expressing the hope that the constitutional treaty will be ratified by all States. The president, in harmony with the position the Holy See has always maintained, was careful to underline the nature of the European Union as a ‘moral force,’ with its own message of ever valid civilization, to be proposed even in the broader international context… The conversation also touched on problems arising from the presence of three great European bodies – the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) – with agreement on the need for a clarification of their relationship. The Cardinal Secretary of State also highlighted the importance of the apostolic nunciature accredited to the European Union, in order to favor fruitful dialogue on issues of current importance.”

Human Cloning?

AFP reported on February 8, 2005, that “The scientist who created Dolly the sheep, the world’s first cloned mammal, has been given a licence to clone human embryos for medical research, triggering an outcry among opposition groups… [Ian] Wilmut’s team plans to extract stem cells from patients with MND [Motor Neurone Disease] and implant them in unfertilised eggs to create cloned embryos. They will then harvest stem cells from the embryos to grow motor neurones — the long nerves which transmit electrical messages from the brain and spinal cord to the muscles.

“The technique will not be used to correct the disease, which is caused by the death of motor neurones and affects about 5,000 people in Britain, but the study of the cells could help to develop future treatments. Wilmut shot to fame in July 1996 when he created Dolly the sheep, the first mammal ever to be cloned from an adult cell. Dolly was put down two years ago this month after she developed a lung disease. Critics of embryo cloning fear that Britain is one step closer to authorising the creation of human clones, but Wilmut dismissed such fears. ‘This is not reproductive cloning in any way. The eggs we use will not be allowed to grow beyond 14 days,’ he said.”

The Associated Press added on February 8, 2005, that “It is the second such license approved since Britain became the first country to legalize research cloning in 2001… The first license was granted in August to a team at Newcastle University that hopes to use cloning to create insulin-producing cells that could be transplanted into diabetics. Such work, called therapeutic cloning because it does not result in a baby, is opposed by abortion foes and other biological conservatives because researchers must destroy human embryos to harvest the cells.”

Tsunamis Threaten the U.S.

As The Associated Press reported on February 8, 2005, “While the deadly tsunami in the Indian Ocean has focused attention on that part of the world, great waves also pose a threat to the United States. A tsunami struck the Virgin Islands in 1867 claiming 23 lives, and geologic evidence shows giant waves have struck several times over the last 3,500 years, affecting what is now Washington, Oregon and northern California… A 1755 earthquake that devastated Lisbon, Portugal, generated a wave that caused damage in the Caribbean… And there have been reports of a potential threat to the East Coast of the United States from waves that could be generated by landslides in the Canary Islands, across the Atlantic… Tsunami, caused by undersea earthquakes or volcanoes, can travel across the ocean at the speed of a jet plane, suddenly rising up to as high as 90 feet when they reach the shore… sedimentary evidence indicates six or seven severe tsunami have struck that state’s coast over the last 3,500 years, averaging about one such wave every 500 years.”

In a related article, www.smh.com.au reported on February 8, 2005, that “The tsunami that devastated South-East Asia was much bigger than was first believed, reaching heights of 30 metres, the size of a 10-storey building, and speeds of 13.7 metres a second.

“Scientists have found evidence in the Indonesian province of Aceh which shows the world has seriously underestimated the damage tsunamis can wreak… Vasily Titov, a tsunami computer modeller at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, which is host to some of the world’s top tsunami scientists,… said the findings showed scientists needed to rework their theories on tsunamis and would probably prompt a serious upgrade in the predicted size of the tsunami expected from a major quake off the US’s north-west coast. ‘Our worst-case scenario may not be the worst-case scenario,’ he said… Tim Walsh, a chief hazards geologist with the US Government, warned that a tsunami similar in size and destructive power to the December 26 one would strike the US if the plates in the Pacific Ocean collided. ‘We look a lot like the Indian Ocean,’ he said.”

Royal Marriage in England

As CNN reported on Thursday, February 10, 2005, “Britain’s Prince Charles is to marry his longtime lover, Camilla Parker Bowles, the royal family has announced. The wedding will be a civil ceremony in Windsor Castle on April 8, followed by a service of prayer and dedication in St. George’s Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside… On their marriage, Parker Bowles will be given the title of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall. When Charles becomes king, Camilla will not be known as Queen Camilla but as the Princess Consort, according to Charles’ office… Diana was divorced from Charles — heir to Queen Elizabeth II — when she died. Charles’ marriage is a sensitive issue because Parker Bowles divorced in 1995 and her former husband Andrew, a former army officer, is still alive. Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England if he took the throne, and some Anglicans remain opposed to the remarriage of divorcees. The church is officially neutral on the issue, but former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey recently urged the couple to marry.”

Evolution — Scientific?

Reuters reported, on February 4, 2005, about the death of Ernst Mayr, “a Harvard University evolutionary biologist called ‘the Darwin of the 20th century.'” The article pointed out that Mayr “almost single-handedly made the origin of species diversity the central question of evolutionary biology that it is today.”

However, it’s not that simple! University Professor of Law, Michael C. Dorf, wrote in an editorial, published by the Los Angeles Daily Journal on December 30, 2004, that the “two strongest arguments [of the intelligent-design literature] appear to point to the general absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record and to unanswered questions about how certain new, complex patterns of animal bodies could have arisen through random mutation and natural selection.”

Of course, another powerful argument against evolution, not mentioned by Dorf, is the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that one species (for instance, a dog) could develop into another species (for instance, a cat). This cannot occur today, as scientists are forced to grudgingly admit, and there is no proof that it ever could have happened before. If we follow the postulate of science to explain the past by what we can prove today, we must conclude that evolution could not have happened! The evolutionary mandate of the occurrence of so-called macro-mutations (changes from one species into another species, as distinguished from micro-mutations or changes within a species) is without any scientific proof — as more fully explained in our booklet, “Evolution — A Fairy Tale for Adults?”

In spite of the fact that evolution, as taught by Darwin (and scientists like the late Ernst Mayr), could not have happened, Dorf concluded that the courts should not allow the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, as “the fact that some phenomena remain unexplained by natural selection hardly shows that natural selection… will not eventually provide (!) the best account of these phenomena.”

Is this a scientific expression — or is it a dogma of religious wishful thinking?

The passage reads, in the New King James Bible: “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”

Before we address the questions whether this passage is still in force and effect today, and whether it applies to the Church of God, let us try to determine what the passage conveys, as worded.

Several translations, including the Authorized Version, the Living Bible, the Revised Standard Version, Lamsa, and the Elberfelder Bible translate the Hebrew word “mamzer” (“of illegitimate birth” in the New King James Bible) as “bastard.” First, what is meant with the word, “mamzer”? The Broadman Bible Commentary explains that the “meaning of the Hebrew word [“mamzer”] translated ‘bastard’ is not really clear. Rabbinical interpretation points to the offspring of mixed marriages such as are mentioned in Nehemiah 13:23.”

Soncino points out: “Some Rabbis defined the term as the offspring of an incestuous marriage, others as non-Israelite (without any reference to illegitimacy). It means, ‘stranger,’ i.e. one whose descent is unknown.”

The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines the Hebrew word, under #4464, as “a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother.” [Of course, Strong’s makes the common mistake to equate an “Israelite” with a “Jew.”] Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible defines the Hebrew word as, “mixed” or “spurious.” It is also used in Zechariah 9:6.

The Nelson Study Bible equates the word with an illegitimate birth and points out that “it may refer to the offspring of an illicit cultic union, such as the child of a temple prostitute (vv. 17, 18).”

The Tanakh renders this word as “misbegotten,” and explains that the meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain; but that in Jewish law, it has received the meaning of the offspring of adultery or incest between Jews. The New Bible Commentary:Revised defines the word as “the offspring of an adulterous or incestuous relationship or marriage.”

As quoted above, the New King James Bible renders the Hebrew word as, “one of illegitimate birth.” The New International Version states, “born of a forbidden marriage.” The New Revised Standard Version states, “born of an illicit union,” while the New American Bible has here, “of an incestuous union.”

The next question is, what is meant with the statement that the person shall not enter into “the assembly of the LORD.” (The Authorized Version says here that the person shall not enter “into the congregation of the LORD.”)

The Broadman Bible Commentary explains that “the assembly of the LORD… is the official gathering of qualified citizens for purposes of annual religious feasts, war, or the determination of justice involving tribes… It also… presumed circumcision as a sign of covenant participation.”

The Nelson Study Bible adds: “In Deuteronomy the word (for assembly) often refers to those gathered before Sinai (5:22; 9:10; 18:16). Exclusion from the assembly means restriction from full participation in religious rites.”

Based on these explanations, some have concluded that the instruction in Deuteronomy 23:2 only forbade the particular person from holding a public office in the nation of Israel or the congregation (compare Matthew Henry’s Commentary).

Whatever the exact meaning of the passage, it is clear from the reasons given below that it is no longer in force and effect today, and that it does not apply to God’s Church. While Israel was a physical, unconverted nation, which did not have God’s Holy Spirit, the Church of God is a spiritual organism, composed of all those who have received God’s Holy Spirit, after genuine repentance and baptism. God does not exclude ANYONE from His Church, merely based on nationality, gender, upbringing, descent or offspring. The sins or mistakes of the parents are immaterial, when God calls a person. God looks at the heart and mind of those whom He calls — not at the actions in which the parents might have engaged.

The Bible makes it very clear that God is not a respecter of persons, and that all persons from all nations are acceptable to Him, when they repent. Acts 17:30 tells us that “God… now commands all men everywhere to repent.” Titus 2:11 adds that “the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” Peter stated in Acts 10:28, 34-35: “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean… In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.”

We also read in Galatians 3:28-29: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Even in Old Testament times, this future understanding regarding those who would be called to salvation was already revealed. God raised up Jephthah to judge Israel for six years. Jephthah will be in the Kingdom of God (compare Hebrews 11:32), but he was “the son” of Gilead and “of a harlot” (Judges 11:1); that is, he was an “illegitimate child.” Furthermore, The Broadman Bible Commentary adds the following in its discussion on Deuteronomy 23:2: “One passage in Isaiah suggests that in the future of Israel these restrictions will be lifted so that the eunuch and the foreigner will be welcome (cf. 56:3-8).”

This is indeed the case today. Nobody is excluded from the Church of God, the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). Ethnic, cultural or similar backgrounds of the persons are immaterial, once they repent and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.

The passage in Deuteronomy 23:2, and similar passages, are no longer valid today, nor can they be applied to the Church of God. They served their purpose for the carnal, physical nation of Israel, but they have been superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ Who has opened a new way to God the Father, based on personal responsibility and conduct of those who are called today.

A new member letter was written by Dave Harris. It will be sent out on Friday, and has been posted on the Web. In the letter, Dave Harris challenges all of us to make sure that we are not deceived or deceiving ourselves.

Please remember our annual Church conference, which will begin on Friday, February 18, 2005. Please pray for safety for all of those who will be traveling to San Diego, and especially for Rene Messier, who is suffering with a painful back problem. Please also pray to God for inspiration during the conference, and that He would give us the wisdom and understanding of His Will for us.

A new StandingWatch program is scheduled to be recorded on Friday, and should be on the Web shortly.