On Saturday, November 6, 2004, J. Edwin Pope will be giving the sermon, titled, “Your Relationship with God”, Part 2.

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

This week much of the world has watched the presidential elections in the United States. People understand that the leadership of this nation will influence the course of events for the entire planet.

History is in many ways a chronicle of leaders: emperors, kings and queens, presidents, premiers, popes, priests, ayatollahs, chancellors, governors, generals, mayors–these and many, many more have shaped this world.

Entire generations have hung their hopes–indeed their very lives–on the promises or the commands of someone who holds a powerful or influential office. A new leader can electrify the hopeful with grandiose promises, but, as history has so often shown, the old leader once stood for these same unanswered dreams.

Bad leadership is the rule–it is certainly not the exception! There is a reason for this, and that reason falls on the shoulders of Satan the devil and his angels, the demons. They are the spiritual rulers of this age (Compare 2 Corinthians 4:4; 11:14-15). Consider what Satan boasted to Jesus Christ: “‘All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I WISH'” (Luke 4:6).

Jesus recognized that, for the time being, Satan was “‘the ruler of this world'” (John 16:11). However, Jesus also made this remarkable statement about Himself: “‘…be of good cheer, I HAVE OVERCOME THE WORLD'” (John 16:33). When asked by Pilate if He was the King of the Jews, Jesus answered: “‘You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world…'” (John 18:37). At the same time, He mentioned to Pilate that he “could have no power at all” against Him, “unless it had been given to [him] from above” (John 19:11). God is in overall control, and although He has not yet replaced Satan as the ruler of this world, He will intervene in human affairs, to appoint, at critical times, over the kingdom of men whomever He chooses (Daniel 5:21; 4:17, 32) — to see to it that prophecy is being fulfilled. You might want to listen, in this regard, to our sermon of July 3, 2004, titled,
“Who is in Control?”

Jesus pointedly told His disciples that “‘I WILL COME AGAIN…'” (John 14:3). Two of God’s faithful angels proclaimed the same message to the stunned disciples following Christ’s resurrection and at the time of His ascension to the Father: “‘This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven'” (Acts 1:11).

This good news is the only true hope for this world! As “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20), we proclaim this hope in the continuing work of the Church which Jesus Christ now leads (Compare Matthew 24:14). As representatives of Jesus, we also follow His lead–we no longer follow the lead of Satan and those to whom he gives authority and who practice his deeds.

As Christians we are to pray for the humans who now rule and to submit ourselves to their laws (Compare 1 Peter 2:13-17; Romans 13:1-7). Foremost, this kind of approach is how God requires us to act if He is ruling in our lives. The only exception is if man’s laws are against God’s laws (Compare Acts 4:19; 5:29).

Who leads the nations of this world at this time is not the most important issue facing Christians. God has preserved a warning for those who are called to His way of life: “‘Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins and lest you receive of her plagues'” (Revelation 18:4). This is a message for all of the people of God throughout the ages and leading up to the promised return of Jesus Christ.

Until then, it might be good to regularly check up on where we each stand, and to ask ourselves, “who leads us?”

The 2004 U.S. Election

The U.S. election — the arguably most important election in this generation — has been decided. President George W. Bush has been re-elected for another four-year term. International reactions to this result were mixed. While most politicians and commentaries stated a desire for peace and reconciliation between the power blocs, caution and concern were expressed at the same time. AFP ran the following headline on November 4, 2004: “World leaders hail Bush’s re-election, call for healing of global divisions over Iraq.”

The article stated: “World leaders rushed to congratulate US President George W. Bush on his re-election to a second four-year term and pledged cooperation with Washington to heal deep divisions over a host of international issues, notably Iraq and the Middle East. In Brussels, the European Union’s executive arm extended ‘warm congratulations’ to Bush on his re-election and pledged Europe’s renewed commitment to the transatlantic link.”

The article continued: “‘Together, Europe and the United States face many critical challenges in the years ahead. As in the past, our best hope for success lies in common action,’ EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana said in a statement. Congratulatory messages also poured in from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and leaders from Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland and South Africa, among others. Annan said… that he was ‘committed to continuing to work with President Bush and his administration on the whole range of issues facing the United Nations and the world.'”

Reactions by International Leaders

AFP expressed the following on November 4: “French President Jacques Chirac, a strong opponent of the US-led war in Iraq, expressed hope that Bush’s second term ‘will provide an opportunity to reinforce France-American friendship’ and the transatlantic partnership. ‘On behalf of France, and on my personal behalf, I would like to express to you my most sincere congratulations for your re-election to the presidency of the United States of America,’ Chirac wrote in a letter to Bush. ‘I hope that your second term will provide an opportunity to reinforce the Franco-American friendship.'”

In spite of these words and letters of congratulations, concern and worries remain. As the article continued to point out: “Many countries remain worried about Bush’s foreign policy and its implications for the Middle East … especially given fears of international terrorism. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said from Bonn that he hoped the new US government ‘would help to bring peace to the Middle East.’… Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country is a wary neighbor of Iraq, expressed hope that the Bush re-election would contribute to world peace. In Madrid, Spain’s Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said his government ‘wishes to contribute to effective and constructive cooperation with the Bush government.’… In Israel, a top foreign policy adviser said: ‘Israel and the free world has every reason to rejoice over this result.’… ‘The Americans have made a clear choice,’ Portuguese Foreign Minister Antonio Monteiro told national news agency Lusa. ‘For Portugal there is no change. We would work with any US administration although with this one we have come to establish a very close working relationship.’ In Italy, President Carlo Ciampi reaffirmed the need for renewing ‘the spirit of transatlantic solidarity’ because ‘terrorism is far from weakened.’ ‘Italy is at the side of the United States in …the struggle against the common enemy, in the determination to work together for the security of our nations and the stability of world order,’ he said in his message to Bush.”

Before Senator Kerry gave his concession speech and President Bush declared his victory, Associated Press had reported the following, on November 3, 2004:

“President Bush’s allies in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cautiously welcomed signs Wednesday that he could be re-elected in America’s tight presidential race. But on the streets outside the United States, many people were disappointed. Most foreign governments took care not to make comments that could be interpreted as favoring one candidate over another… ‘This is a catastrophe for the rest of the world,’ said Syafii Maarif, chairman of Muhammadiyah, a mainstream Muslim group in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Islamic country. ‘We have already seen that Bush has made a mess of the world over the last four years.’

“In Europe, governments said that the election was a chance to repair ties strained by Bush’s decision to go to war despite opposition from European powers such as France and Germany. ‘I hope that a re-elected President Bush would use the chance offered by his re-election for a new beginning in European-American and German-American relations,’ German Foreign Ministry official Karsten Voigt told ARD television. French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said: ‘We have lots to do on current crises: Iraq, the Middle East, Iran, the challenges of the African continent, to rebuild, to renovate trans-Atlantic relations.'”

In a related article, Associated Press added on November 3, 2004, prior to the declared victory of President Bush:

“As President Bush edged close to an election victory against Sen. John Kerry, France, Germany and other European countries he alienated during his first four years promised Wednesday to work with the new U.S. administration. Some European leaders expressed hope that Bush would reach out to the continent in his second term. But others gloomily forecast no major tack in White House policy and continued trans-Atlantic bickering…

“Russian President Vladimir Putin hailed Bush as a ‘predictable partner’ and said that if his slim lead in the U.S. election is confirmed, it would mean the American people had not given in to the threats of international terrorists. ‘If Bush wins, I would feel happy that the American people have not allowed themselves to be scared and made the decision they considered reasonable,’ Putin said… [According to Putin,] U.S.-Russian relations have improved under Bush’s presidency ‘for the benefit of our peoples and global security.'”

Other leaders did not agree. A.P. continued:

“Swedish Prime Minister Goeran Persson predicted that Bush would not revamp his policies, and the sniping between Europe and the United States would continue. ‘This means that we could have a very dramatic situation ahead of us, not least in Iraq,’ said Persson, who opposed the Iraq war. ‘Sweden and Europe will continue to criticize Bush the same way as earlier. But I do not believe that he will be more willing to listen to it.’ Finland Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen, whose country also opposed the war, said a growing number of international issues will require trans-Atlantic and global cooperation. ‘General stability, terrorism, environmental issues, energy, social development and similar issues will come increasingly to the fore and to solve them we need good companionship between Europe and the United States,’ Vanhanen said.”

Reuters elaborated on November 3, 2004:

“‘Terrorism has to be rejected in today’s world and in this respect George Bush is a very decisive leader who is right, simply right,’ said Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski. ‘From Poland’s perspective continued cooperation with George Bush is really good news.’… Germany… opposed the Iraq war. There, Interior Minister Otto Schily said: ‘Despite the issue of our differing positions in the past, we all have to contribute to ensuring that the situation in Iraq stabilizes.’ But Karsten Voigt, Germany’s top official on relations with Washington, called on Bush to move toward the Europeans. ‘I hope for gestures, for offers to work together,’ he said.”

In a related article by the Associated Press, dated November 3, it was stated: “Europe Allies Extend Olive Branch to Bush.” It continued: “European allies alienated by President Bush’s first four years in power offered Wednesday to let bygones be bygones, saying they want to work with the new administration and seeking, right from Day 1, to get the new White House to listen more to overseas opinion… German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who… clashed with Bush over Iraq, wrote the president a congratulatory letter expressing ‘great expectations’ for renewed cooperation. ‘The world stands before great challenges at the beginning of your second term: international terrorism, the danger of weapons of mass destruction, regional crises – but also poverty, climate change and epidemics threaten our security and stability,’ Schroeder wrote. ‘These challenges can only be mastered together.'”

On the other hand, as stated above, Schroeder’s recent statements don’t coincide with political views of his own party members. As the Independent pointed out, “several German politicians reflected widespread popular dismay at [the] result. Michael Möller, the deputy parliamentary leader of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s ruling Social Democrats described Mr Bush as a ‘fundamentalist’ and added [while the election results were still being counted]: ‘If he wins it will be neither good for the world, nor for democratic America.'”

The article also stated: “Election interest in Europe was intense, as was the disappointment many felt over Bush’s victory. Some saw it as proof that Europe and the United States are farther apart than ever… [Some] worried that Bush, strengthened by a bigger win than in 2000 and backed by a Republican Congress, would turn a deaf ear to world concern
s.”

AFP added on November 4, 2004: “Prime Minister Tony Blair warmly congratulated his war ally US President George W. Bush on being re-elected, saying he hoped the ‘unique bond’ between their countries would prosper over the next four years. But Blair also served notice that he plans to pressure the American leader over the Middle East during Bush’s second term, calling peace in that region ‘the single most pressing political challenge in our world.'”

Reactions by International Press

The German press voiced cautious optimism, combined with a stern warning directed at President Bush. As far as can be ascertained, the only major influential daily newspaper, which reported positively about Bush’s re-election, was the weekly tabloid, Bild. The paper published a commentary by Lord George Weidenfeld, who, according to Bild, “is viewed as one of the most brilliant thinkers in the world.” The commentary stated:

“Beginning of a New Chapter. The people in America have spoken, the new President is the old one: George W. Bush. The nation has given him a clear mandate. The believing Christian Bush has worked out his victory, but he also prayed for it: ‘God bless America,’ as it is also stated in the National Anthem. Bush should give his best in this hour of his triumph, so that the old coalition can be resurrected with old trust. We in Europe must finally take the President seriously. We must cease to defame him, make fun of him, or libel him. Europe and the USA must work together, in order to build a new and free society in Iraq. We must open a new chapter of reconciliation on both sides of the Atlantic — without winners and losers. As was once the case with Ronald Reagan, who had been underestimated and belittled during his first term in office, George W. Bush has now received a mandate for a second term from the American people. He has now — just as Reagan — the chance to become one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the world.”

The popular German weekly, Die Zeit, stated: “We have to wish that Bush ceases to be Bush. This means: less aggressive and self-righteous, more willing to listen, even in his own interest. For, whatever America is trying to accomplish within the next four years, close and true friends will be needed. Those friends want not only an open ear, but also respect.”

The “Sueddeutsche Zeitung” wrote: “America has become strange and hard to understand for many Europeans. The current election has only confirmed this impression… Bush represents the majority of his country, which has adopted political division as their goal… The world should not become affected by this explosive atmosphere.”

The Bonner General Anzeiger wrote: “It is now the duty of Europe to deal sensibly with [that approach of] America, which has been chosen by the Americans… Europe has to be able to live with America — even an America under George Bush.”

The “Rhein-Neckar Zeitung” (Heidelberg) wrote: “George Bush convinced his American [followers] with simple and partly false concepts, that Iraq had been the logical result of September 11, 2001. And so, he was re-elected — the strong man, the commander-in-chief, who is not to be replaced during a war, the one who stands for determination and security. Fear voted, too.”

“Neues Deutschland” (Berlin) wrote: “The majority of the voting Americans chose war… Bush is no longer the president of the minority. This makes the result of this election so frightening.”

“Kieler Nachrichten” stated: “Most Germans would have preferred Kerry… No other American president is viewed here with so much disfavor as George W. Bush.”

Der Spiegel Online asked in its lead article: “How could it happen?” It continued: “That America voted the first time for George W. Bush… is explainable and excusable. But twice?” The liberal and highly influential weekly magazine stated that most observers did not realize how “unique” Americans are: “America is a foreign country, with its own values… They [the observers] did not realize how much the Americans want a strong leader who gives clear direction in times of fear, and who follows that direction, even if it is the wrong one. And they have underestimated how easily simple messages can become highly effective.”

Especially much of the British press voiced disappointment and consternation. The left-wing Daily Mirror asked on November 4, 2004: “How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?” It ran several articles about the “U.S. Election Disaster,” stating, “On the world stage, we can expect some sort of showdown with North Korea and Iran over nuclear proliferation – and who knows where that will take us. In the Middle East we can only hope that Bush finds his way again on the Road Map to Peace… Polls show Bush won Florida largely through the Jewish vote, because of his strong backing of Israel. But he mustn’t show any favours if he is to live up to his promise of the establishment of two separate states, one Palestinian, one Israeli. On the environment, Bush’s record is terrible and don’t expect it to get much better. Apart from kissing goodbye to the Kyoto global warming accord, you can also expect Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge to be opened up for oil drilling. Clean air laws will be scrapped and moves to cut pollution from power plants left to the ravages of the market place… But the most worrying thing for most people will be what [Bush] will do about terrorism. Nobody knows where his policy of ‘staying on the offensive’ against al-Qaeda will take us. ‘Axis of Evil’ countries like Syria, Iran and North Korea are still out there, defying Washington to whip them into line. The one consolation is that with Iraq in such a mess, America just doesn’t have the troops to get bogged down in another theatre of war. If you think Iraq was bad, it would be a picnic compared to Iran.”

In a possible response to those allegations, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that it would be “inconceivable” that the US “would attack Iran over its nuclear programme,” according to AFP of November 4.

Bild Online published a summary of the most telling comments of the international press. Here are a few excerpts:

“Basler Zeitung, Switzerland: ‘Against the rest of the world’… Berner Zeitung, Switzerland: ‘After this election there is reason for concern’… Gazetta Wyborcza, Poland: ‘Bush’s victory not good news’… Blikk, Hungary: ‘Four more years, four more wars?’… The Daily Telegraph, Great Britain: ‘Triumph of freedom…’ La Repubblica, Italy: ‘Bush is finally grown up…’ Adevarul, Rumania: ‘Bush has won out of defeat.'”

Time will tell what the future holds. According to Biblical prophecy, this world will not become a safer place, prior to the return of Christ, and wars and rumors of wars will increase. It is also clear from Biblical prophecy that the relationship between Europe and America will consistently deteriorate. We need to watch and pray that coming events don’t surprise us and find us unawares.

The Bible specifically states that Christ became both sin and a curse for us, when He died on the cross. Notice 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13, in the New King James Bible:

“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’)” (Galatians 3:13).

These two passages are correctly translated from the original Greek. The Interlinear Literal Translations renders the two passages as follows:

“For him who knew not sin for us sin he made… Christ us ransomed from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse…”

Christ became sin for us, in that He carried our sins, as Isaiah 53:6 explains: “And the LORD has put on Him the iniquity of us all.” He was the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Likewise, He became a curse on our behalf, by paying for us the penalty or curse for our breaking of the law. As the Ryrie Study Bible explains, “Christ… was made a curse for us. The crucifixion brought Him under the curse of the law, as explained in the last half of the verse (quoted from Deut. 21:23).” The New Bible Commentary:Revised adds the following thought: “Sin’s penalty was borne in a substitutionary way. He bore our curse, the curse cited from Dt. 21:23, which is equivalent to the wrath of Rom. 1:18 and 2:8.”

Some, since they can’t understand how Christ became sin for us, attempt to interpret this passage by claiming that He became a sin offering for us. Although it is true, of course, that Christ became the perfect sacrifice or sin offering, the addition of the word “offering” detracts from the full meaning of the passage. The Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, explains:

“…sin — not a sin offering, which would destroy the antithesis to ‘righteousness,’ and would make ‘sin’ be used in different senses in the same sentence…, but ‘sin,’ i.e., the representative Sin-bearer (vicariously) of the aggregate sin of all men past, present and future. The sin of the world is one, therefore the singular, not the plural, is used; though its manifestations are manifold (John 1:29).’ Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the SIN of the world.'”

Compare, too, the Commentary’s note on Galatians 3:13: “Having become what we were, in our behalf, ‘a curse,’ that we might cease to be a curse. Not merely accursed (in the concrete), but a curse in the abstract, bearing the universal curse of the whole human race. So II Corinthians 5:21, ‘Sin for us,’ not sinful, but bearing the whole sin of our race, regarded as one vast aggregate of sin.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary agrees: “It is often thought that the opening clause, ‘he made him to be sin’ means that God made Christ to be a ‘sin-offering.’ The occurrence of the term sin in its usual meaning in the immediately following phrase however makes that suggestion difficult; and in any case there is little evidence in the New Testament to support this interpretation.”

Regarding Galatians 3, the Commentary explains: “Paul finds in this passage [in Deuteronomy 21:23] scriptural support for his claim that Christ became a curse in our behalf. In the death that he died he took the curse [or penalty] of the law upon himself.”

The Biblical teaching is inescapable: When Christ died on the cross, He became sin and a curse, on our behalf. At that moment, when God the Father forsook Him (Matthew 27:45-46), Christ personified the sin of the world, as well as the curse [or penalty] of the law. When Christ died, all those sins as well as the curse or penalty for sinning, “died” with Him — were eradicated with Him — provided, that we, individually, claim Christ’s sacrifice, repent of our sins, accept Christ as our personal Savior, and are baptized in the Biblically prescribed manner. When Christ was on the cross, and all the sin of the world had been placed on Him, God the Father had to forsake Him, because He could not look at that much evil (compare Habakkuk 1:13), and what He saw at that time was SIN. Also, we need to obtain forgiveness for what we are, not only, for what we have done. We have sinful human nature — one might say, we ARE sin, as we are the curse. Christ became sin in that He became one of us — not, that He ever sinned — but He came into sinful flesh, with human nature (Romans 8:3), being tempted in all points as we are, but without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

This is not to say that God created Adam and Eve as sinful human beings, or that He created Lucifer who became the devil, and the other angels, who turned to demons, as evil spirit beings. Adam was not created sinful — he was created neutral. But — since Adam did sin, under Satan’s influence, and Satan has been tempting man ever since, every human has sinned, too (compare Romans 3:9-20). The same is true for angels. They were not created as sinful spirit beings, either — they were created neutrally, with free moral agency, capable of sinning or of rejecting sin. Lucifer sinned (Ezekiel 28:16) — nobody tempted him to sin — and the angels, who became demons, followed Satan’s evil influence, and sinned likewise (2 Peter 2:4).

Returning to the question at issue as to how Christ could BECOME sin and a curse; sometimes we just have to accept the Word of God in these matters. Exactly how all this was done–even why in the greater framework of God’s purposes–involves the deeper aspects of God’s work.

Clearly the Bible says that Jesus gave up His existence as a godly Spirit being, to come into this world as a man. The Bible also clearly states, as has been pointed out, that Christ “bore the sin of many” (Isaiah 53:12); that “the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6); that “He shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11); and that “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Jesus did not die because of His righteousness. He died for our sins! He alone, as the Creator of mankind, through whom the Father created everything (Hebrews 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16), was able to pay the price of the sin of all of mankind. He assumed our guilt, and He died in our stead. Now, as Romans discusses, we, through His obedience, and through His life in us, are also being made righteous (Romans 5:19, 10)–also spoken of as the “gift of righteousness” (Romans 5:17). We believe this, because God is the Author of these things. We may not be able to fully understand all the “how” of the matter, but we must accept, in faith, God’s Word.

Certainly, a great deal of faith is required, when it comes to the life and death of Jesus Christ. It is hard for the average person to believe that:

1) Christ was very God;

2) Christ gave up His divinity, to become physical man (John 1:1, 14), just as we are physical man;

3) Christ emptied Himself of His position as a glorified God being (Philippians 2:5-8), and of His godly relationship with the Being we understand to be the Father, for our benefit, to come to this earth in the flesh;

4) As a human being, Christ was now capable of sinning — when He had never known sin, personally, in His life before — but through His own choice and will, and with the help of God the Father, living within Him through the Holy Spirit, He never sinned while in the flesh;

5) Christ was willing to take our sins upon Himself, thus offering us forgiveness and giving us the potential to put on perfection in our lives (Matthew 5:48) — if we would let Jesus Christ live in us through the Holy Spirit –, even though while in that state on the cross, Christ was totally cut off from God, the Father;

6) By being sacrificed on that stake, and receiving the beating He received, we, through that sacrifice, could not only be forgiven all our sins, such that we have a chance of becoming members of the Family of God; but also, while in the flesh, we can be healed of our physical infirmities (Matthew 8:16-17);

7) God, the Father, was pleased with all that Christ did, and has now received Him back into the Godhead (Philippians 2:9-11), the First of the Firstfruits; and both now await the next step in this whole process, whereby we, too, will become Firstfruits, with Christ, at the resurrection of the just; we become then without sin, totally, just as the Father and Jesus Christ are today, and the Father and Christ will not remember our sins anymore!

It’s all a matter of faith! If we believe all of this, why should we not believe that Christ BECAME sin and a curse? God has inspired it to be written — therefore, it must be true.

A new Standing Watch program was recorded last week, and was posted on the Web last Friday. The program is titled, “U.S., Europe and Halloween.” It discussed, among other things, the U.S. election; the recent signing of the EU Constitution and its potential consequences for the world; and the steady rise of devil worship

On Saturday, October 30, 2004, Dave Harris will be giving the sermon, titled, “The Road Ahead.”

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.

The previous Editorial written by this author was entitled “Choose Righteously!” That Editorial addressed the necessity of living our lives righteously. But what is the ultimate objective of God in His requirement of our making right decisions? We have just completed our observance of the Feast of Tabernacles for 2004. We previewed once again, according to God’s instructions, the wonderful world which will soon be established on this earth — 1,000 years of perfect rulership by Christ and those who qualify to rule under Him, during this coming Millennium — and a subsequent 100 year period, called the Great White Throne Judgment. During that time all who have ever lived without knowing God’s Truth, will have an opportunity to choose to live their lives according to God’s Way — to live righteously!

But who will do the ruling? And how will they rule?

While only a handful of this world’s population kept the Feast of Tabernacles this year according to the commandment, we are told in Zechariah 14:16-19 that all peoples of the earth at the beginning of the Millennium will go up to worship God and to keep His Feast at the appointed time! All will be taught the Truth of God’s Way and He will enforce the obedience to that Way throughout the world! In Revelation 2:26-27 Christ tells us that: “…he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him will be given power over the nations.” And that “He (this one who keeps His works) will rule over them with a rod of iron.” (Notice in the KJV that this “he” is not capitalized, thus showing the translator’s understanding that this refers to the one who overcomes). Christ shows that He also received such authority from the Father (verse 27).

But what is this “rod of iron” with which those who overcome will rule? A rod in the hand of a ruler is also referred to as a scepter — a symbol of one’s authority. To give one a scepter is to vest in such a one the authority to rule. A king over a nation will carry such a symbol of his authority. What does God reveal to us about this in Hebrews 1:8? Notice: “But to the Son He says: ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.'” Yes, Jesus Christ will rule the nations with a scepter of righteousness! And if we have qualified to rule with Him, we will rule with that same scepter of righteousness.

In Proverbs 29:2 we read: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan.” Isaiah prophesies that: “…a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule with justice” (Isaiah 32:1). In Isaiah 30:20-21 we are told: “…though the Lord gives you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, Yet your teachers will not be moved into a corner anymore, But your eyes shall see your teachers. Your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, ‘This is the way, walk in it,’ Whenever you turn to the right hand Or whenever you turn to the left.” They will rule according to Psalms 111:7-8 (KJV), which reveals: “…All His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever…” And Isaiah 11:9 adds: “The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord.” Daniel tells us that: “…the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever” (Daniel 7:18). Verse 27 reveals: “Then the kingdom and dominion, And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.”

Christ discussed our future as He taught His disciples while on the earth. In Luke 22:29-30 He said: “And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My Kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6:2, asked of those of the Church in Corinth: “Do you not know that the saints will rule the world?” And John, speaking to the seven churches in Asia, stated that Jesus Christ: “…has made us kings and priests to His God and Father…” In Revelation 22:12, Christ states: “…I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.”

This Feast which we have just observed was a wonderful blessing to those who have remained faithful to God or who are being drawn to God at this time, and who observed the festival as God has commanded. It spoke to us of this soon coming Kingdom and the wonderful opportunity we will have if we continue in this Way and are faithful to Him; to His commandments, statutes and judgments, whereby He continues to rule. If we are faithful, we will have a part in ruling with Jesus Christ with the “rod of iron” with which He will rule, to establish the righteousness of God’s Way of Life!

Germany’s Economic Interests

On October 18, 2004, Spiegel Online reported: “Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is hurriedly redefining the priorities in German foreign policy. Human rights have become a subordinate issue, business is the way to maintain influence. First Turkey, then China and most recently Libya — what started off as a vague outline is now assuming concrete shape: an about-face in German foreign policy. Instead: the focus lies on promoting German economic interests. The new strategy does not only include the demand for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council; the portfolio also comprises a new attitude towards German arms exports and overall a more relaxed approach to Germany’s own interests.”

In a related article, Associated Press reported on October 26, 2004: “The euro hit an eight-month high against the U.S. dollar on Tuesday, with fears over high oil prices weighing on the greenback. The euro traded at $1.2841 Tuesday morning, the highest since a record of $1.2927 on Feb. 18 – the peak since the shared currency came into existence in 1999.”

The Bible reveals that in the very last days, a United States of Europe under German leadership will emerge. This power bloc is prophesied to be very strong politically, economically and militarily. Revelation 18, in particular, describes the enormous and wide-ranging economic influence of this soon-coming power bloc.

The U.S. Presidential Elections and Germany

On October 26, 2004, the German mass tabloid, Bild, has become the first — and so far, the only European newspaper or magazine that endorsed an American candidate as president. Under the headline, “Why George Bush Is the Better President,” the tabloid listed 10 reasons for its endorsement, as follows: (1) Bush’s priorities are clear — he views Islamic fundamentalism as the greatest danger in the world; (2) Bush has learned the lessons from history — that one must fight with military strength against fanatics; (3) Under Bush, mostly the US will carry the costs and responsibility in the “Holy War” against Islamic fundamentalists; (4) Bush will do everything to prevent that new nuclear powers develop; (5) Bush will seek international cooperation, without being dependent on Syria or Iran; (6) Bush knows that Europe has no means of helping the U.S. militarily and won’t therefore ask for their help; (7) Under Bush, America will be a reliable partner of Israel; (8) Bush will support free trade; (9) Bush made mistakes, from which he learned; and (10) We know what to expect from Bush.

Der Spiegel speculated what Bild is trying to accomplish, given the fact that Germans don’t vote in American elections, and that, according to the poll by the weekly, Der Stern, 75% of Germans are favoring John Kerry as the next President. Could it be that Bild, on behalf of Germany, wants to tell Bush that not all Germans are against him, should he be re-elected?

Churches and the IRS

Tax-exempt churches and religious organizations must be careful that they don’t violate IRS regulations, when they are tempted to endorse a political candidate for the U.S. Presidency. As WorldNetDaily reported on October 28, 2004, “In a letter of clarification requested by a traveling minister, the Internal Revenue Service has declared people gathered in tax-exempt churches can’t pray for President Bush to win the election on Tuesday.” In addition, the Pittsburgh Tribune reported on October 27, 2004, that “A watchdog group [Americans United] that pushes separation of church and state claims that ministers at churches in Pennsylvania and Ohio are abusing their tax-exempt status by supporting Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry from their pulpits. Under the Internal Revenue Service code regulating tax-exempt organizations, churches can be cited for a violation if they endorse political candidates… Americans United says churches that support or oppose a candidate may face an IRS audit, fines and loss of tax-exempt status.”

More Money for War

On October 26, 2004, the Washington Post reported: “The Bush administration intends to seek about $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, pushing total war costs close to $225 billion since the invasion of Iraq early last year, Pentagon and congressional officials said yesterday… In making cost estimates for the supplemental budget request, Pentagon officials have distanced themselves from the Bush administration’s public optimism about trends in Iraq. Instead, they make the fairly pessimistic assumption that about as many troops will be needed there next year as are currently on the ground… Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus estimated that in inflation-adjusted terms, World War I cost just under $200 billion for the United States. The Vietnam War cost about $500 billion from 1964 to 1972, Nordhaus said. The cost of the Iraq war could reach nearly half that number by next fall, 2 1/2 years after it began.”

What a world it will be, when all nations recognize the futility of war and when they, as prophesied in Isaiah 2:4, “beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore.”

Murder Rate High in the U.S.

On October 25, 2004, Associated Press stated: “After reaching a low point in 1999 of about 15,500 homicides, the number has crept up steadily since then to more than 16,500 in 2003 – or almost six murders for every 100,000 U.S. residents… James Alan Fox, criminal justice professor at Northeastern University, said the recent rise in murders is partly traceable to an upsurge in urban youth gang violence. The FBI report indicates there were 819 juvenile gang killings last year, compared with 580 in 1999… The report showed more than two-thirds of last year’s murders were committed with a firearm, roughly the same portion as every year since 1999.”

Especially young people are growing up with violence and without hope for the future. Easy access to firearms is a terrible indictment against a society which is unable to control its fears and to eradicate capital crime, such as murder.

Biological Weapons Biggest Threat

On October 26, 2004, thescotsman.scotsman.com reported: “The threat posed to the world by biological weapons is now far greater than that from nuclear and chemical because of the ‘riotous’ development in biotechnology, a leading scientist [Professor Malcolm Dando, the head of Peace Studies at Bradford University] has warned. He said if nothing is done, bio-weapons technology could be harnessed by terrorists to target specific ethnic groups to release devastating diseases, such as the 1918 Spanish flu. Among the biological weapons with the potential to wreak havoc are genetically engineered anthrax and a synthetic version of the polio virus.”

Halloween, Witchcraft, All Saints and Guy Fawkes Days

On October 27, MSNBS reported about Halloween and its connection with witchcraft, All Saints Day and Guy Fawkes Day:

“Over the weekend, millions worldwide will adorn a witch’s hat, cape, and broom or some other outlandish garb, but how do real witches celebrate Halloween? And where did the holiday originate?… The Catholic observance of ‘All Hallows Day’ — or ‘All Saints Day’ — now lends its name to the occasion. But, the holiday is actually rooted in a harvest festival first celebrated around five centuries before the birth of Christ by the Celts who lived in what are now Ireland, Britain, and northern France. The Celtic summer officially ended on the last day of October and the New Year, called Samhain (pronounced Sow-en), began on the first of November. On the night between years, the Celts believed that the living and the dead could interact with each other. And most modern-day witches believe they can too…

“While the modern American version of Halloween — which has recently been exported back to Britain — is a potluck of Celtic, Roman, and Christian tradition, heavily infused with its own commercial traits, practitioners of witchcraft relate more closely to the original celebration of Samhain… Until 1951, witchcraft was illegal in Britain. Since then, the ancient religion has crept out of the occult and into the mainstream… Although Halloween has its origins in Celtic Britain, until recently the holiday was largely celebrated here in unison with Guy Fawkes Day — the Nov. 5 anniversary of a conspiracy to blow up the English Parliament and King James in 1605… From Britain’s most haunted city of Exeter to its mysterious stone circles, thousands of witches and pagans will be gathering to commune with the dead this Oct. 31.”

This is clearly not our understanding! In fact, such a teaching would totally misrepresent and ignore what God is saying about circumcision.

As we explain in our free booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound…”, God gave man timeless physical and spiritual laws, including health laws, as well as temporary ritual laws, which had a passing and time-related purpose. For instance, God told man that certain animal food is good to eat, while other animals are not fit for consumption (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). These are health laws, given for the good of man, which are still in effect today. In fact, they will still be in effect at the time of Christ’s return (compare Isaiah 66:16-17).

The law of circumcision was clearly not a timeless health law, but a temporary ritual law. We should, first of all, consider why God commanded circumcision. God commanded the practice of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (Romans 4:11; Genesis 17:11), which God made with Abraham and his descendants, along with any who would want to come under the same covenant of promise. At the same time, circumcision constituted itself a covenant (Acts 7:8). But circumcision was not to be understood as a timeless health law. The reason is that the law of physical circumcision only came into effect long after the creation of man, and that it is no longer required today. If it were a health law, then it should have been in effect from the time of man’s creation, and God would still require it today, as He would not deprive man of something that is good for him.

In some regions of the world, including the state of Israel, parts of the Middle East, and the USA, circumcision is still popular and it is being practiced by some or many. In other parts of the world, for instance in Europe, circumcision is mostly ignored. Some claim that circumcision has beneficial physical effects; for instance, that it reduces the risk of urine infection; lowers the risk of cancer of the penis; or protects women, married to circumcised men, from cervical cancer. Those claims are by no means undisputed — and the same results can be achieved, in any event, by proper hygiene and cleaning. In fact, there exist today two streams of scientific medical schools, which either advocate or speak against the wisdom of physical circumcision.

It is clear to us that God would not have asked Abraham and ancient Israel to become circumcised, if this procedure had been harmful to them, and if it had produced medical side-effects. At the same time, we must emphasize that God did NOT give this law as a health law. It was strictly a temporary ritual law, such as the laws of sacrifices and washings.

IF circumcision were a health law, why did God conceal the knowledge of the same from those who lived prior to Abraham, including righteous people such as Abel, Enoch or Noah? There is no hint that they practiced circumcision — but this does not mean that they thereby violated any health law. The same is true for righteous Abraham, BEFORE God asked him to get circumcised, at the age of 99 (Genesis 17:1, 24), and to circumcise his son Ishmael at the age of 13 (Genesis 17:24) and newborn sons on the eighth day (Genesis 17:12), in addition to all the men of Abraham’s household (Genesis 17:27).

We also read that Paul taught the Gentiles, who wanted to become Christians, that they did not have to become circumcised. IF circumcision were a health law, Paul would have taught them to violate and break one of God’s timeless physical health laws. This very concept, that Paul would have taught this, is preposterous.

Notice Paul’s teaching in Galatians 5:1-3:

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed, I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes uncircumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law” — including all of the other rituals and sacrifices, which were likewise abolished at the time of Christ’s death.

In fact, as Acts 15 reports, a big controversy arose in the early Church over the issue of circumcision (Acts 15:5). Some felt that Gentiles had to get circumcised to become part of the body of Christ. We see that this question had nothing whatever to do with whether circumcision was a health law — that thought did not seem to have even entered the minds of the advocates of circumcision — but, as mentioned before, it had to do with an outward sign (Genesis 17:11; Romans 4:11) of the “covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8). The apostles and elders agreed, however, that circumcision was not required for Gentiles, in order to become a part of the Church. Note Peter’s clear response to the advocates of circumcision: “Now, therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke [the yoke of bondage, referred to by Paul in Galatians 5:1] on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:11).

In Ephesians 2:11-15, Paul explains again that uncircumcised Gentiles can become part of the “commonwealth” of spiritual Israel — the Church — without having to be first physically circumcised. (At the same time, the Bible teaches that the heart of a converted, baptized person is spiritually circumcised, compare Colossians 2:11; Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25-26). Therefore, the law of circumcision never was a physical health law, nor was it ever intended to be understood as one. It was a ritual law that served a purpose from Abraham until the time, when Christ died for man.

This is the reason why Paul tells us, in 1 Corinthians 7:18-19: “Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.” Notice, too, Romans 2:28-29: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly [i.e., by being circumcised, verse 27], nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” Finally, notice Galatians 6:15: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.”

Whether parents decide to have their son(s) circumcised or not, is a matter of individual choice. We neither advocate nor condemn the practice, as long as it is not done with the erroneous belief that it is required today, either from a spiritual or a physical standpoint. Circumcision must not be practiced, if one believes one can become justified thereby (in that case, Christ will profit him nothing, compare Galatians 5:2), and it would be a misconception if it is practiced in erroneous compliance with the belief in a time-less godly “health law” for man.

A new member letter was sent out this week, showing from the Bible that the Church of God has an ongoing duty to preach the gospel as a witness into all the world. You can find the member letter at “Letters to the Brethren.”

We received the following note from the Philippines: “Thanks for the booklets. By next week we’re going to photocopy all your booklets for distribution in our area.”

On Saturday, October 23, 2004, Norbert Link will be giving the sermon, titled, “Balanced Christian Living.”

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.

From all the reports that we have received, attendees at our Feast sites in the United States and England had an enjoyable, uplifting and spiritually refreshing time. The messages that were delivered should help us on our journey toward the Kingdom of God. As the old saying goes, “And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14). Feast messages, as well as weekly Sabbath sermons, are given by God’s “preachers” or ministers, as well as those who have been selected by the ministry: “And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” (verse 15).

Many understand the need for true and faithful ministers of Christ, who have proven, through their service and dedication to the truth, that they CAN be trusted. But due to the disappointments in times past, when the teaching, behavior and approach by certain ministers fell far short of the required standard, some have concluded that NO minister can or should be followed. They have set themselves on a course of constant criticism
— trying to find fault with the messages delivered — only to find a reason as why NOT to follow.

This is not the attitude we ought to have regarding true and faithful ministers of God. Rather, “As it is written: ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!'” (Romans 10:15).

It is true, of course, that we are not to follow a minister — even a true minister of God — when he deviates from the Word of truth or acts in a way that is opposed to true Christianity. This does not mean, however, that we are to spend all of our time in desperately looking for mistakes. Since nobody is perfect, mistakes will be made, and if we look long and hard, we will find them. If that is all we are looking for, we are judged by the Bible as self-righteous, proud, and contentious. This is not the attitude, which the proverbial Bereans had. Rather, we read: “These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all READINESS, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). They did not accept and follow blindly, what was preached. They compared what was said with the Scriptures. They SEARCHED the Scriptures to see whether these things were so. Notice, however: They did NOT search the Scriptures to “establish” that these things were NOT so. Their attitude was one of wanting to accept the truth, not one of wanting to find error!

What was the consequence? “THEREFORE many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men” (verse 12).

The ministry of God is here to serve and feed God’s sheep. God’s sheep will recognize the voice of God, as it is being preached through His shepherds, and they will follow them (John 10:1-5). This is the attitude we ought to have toward God’s ministry, as so strongly and boldly put by John, an apostle of Jesus Christ: “We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us” (1 John 4:6). Didn’t Christ Himself say: “If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:20)? And: “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word” (John 17:20)?

Someone who rejects God’s ministers, thinking that he has no need of them, is in mortal spiritual danger. God gave the ministry to the body of Christ to edify, strengthen and enlighten the body (compare Ephesians 4:11-16).

Paul encouraged the brethren to follow him, as he followed Christ. He URGED the brethren to follow or imitate him (1 Corinthians 4:16). He said: “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). He reminded the Thessalonians that they “became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 1:6). Paul did not preach: “Don’t trust us! Rely on your own understanding. There is no minister whom you could trust or follow.” No, Paul preached exactly the opposite.

Paul had proven, through his converted life, that he was approved of God. And as such, he could and should be followed. He held fast the faithful word as he had been taught (compare Titus 1:9). He, as well as all of those with the same mindset, kept and would keep Christ’s word, never denying His name (compare Revelation 3:8).

In these last days, God has preserved faithful ministers to lead and serve His body — the Church. Christ said that the “gates of hell (in Greek, Hades)” would never prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), and that He would be always with His Church — until the very end of this age (Matthew 28:19-20). For, so He said, the gospel of the kingdom of God will be preached (through God’s faithful ministry, which is supported by the body of Christ) in all the world as a witness unto all nations, and THEN the end WILL come (Matthew 24:14). The end has not yet arrived. The Church of God still has a job to do. And true and faithful ministers are needed, as well as the loyal and dedicated flock, to carry out this job. Many are waiting to hear God’s truth: “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” (Romans 10:14). And so, Paul continues, as we read earlier: “And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (verse 14). This world, as well as God’s Church, NEEDS true ministers of God. Christ tells us that we are to pray: “…The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore PRAY the Lord of the harvest to SEND OUT laborers into His harvest” (Matthew 9:37-38).

Why the ministry? To help fulfill the job that God has given His Church to do. And what a great and awesome job it is!

Halloween — the Feast of the Devil!

On October 15, 2004, CNN.com ran an interesting article regarding this year’s celebration of Halloween, as it falls on a Sunday. Many claim that Halloween, as a celebration for the devil, should not be kept on Sunday, the “Lord’s Day, the Day of Jesus,” but should be kept on Saturday, instead. The interesting fact is that Saturday, NOT Sunday, is the “Lord’s Day” (compare Mark 2:28), and that Halloween is recognized as Satan’s feast. We must ask: Why, in the world, would ANYONE want to celebrate Halloween, recognizing the fact of WHO is worshipped on that day? CNN reported:

“Across the Bible Belt this Halloween, some little ghosts and goblins might get shooed away by the neighbors — and some youngsters will not be allowed to go trick-or-treating at all — because the holiday falls on a Sunday this year. ‘It’s a day for the good Lord, not for the devil,’ said Barbara Braswell… Some towns around the country are decreeing that Halloween be celebrated on Saturday to avoid complaints from those who might be offended by the sight of demons and witches ringing their doorbell on the Sabbath… ‘You just don’t do it on Sunday,’ said Sandra Hulsey of Greenville, Georgia. ‘That’s Christ’s day. You go to church on Sunday, you don’t go out and celebrate the devil. That’ll confuse a child.'” At least for those true Christians and others, who refuse to celebrate Halloween, this debate might help them. As CNN stated: “With so many towns split over when Halloween should be celebrated, many are going with a porch-light compromise: If people do not want trick-or-treaters, they simply turn off their lights, and parents are asked not to have kids knock there.”

Halloween Madness

“According to the National Retail Federation’s (NRF) 2004 Halloween survey, total Halloween spending is estimated to grow 5.4 percent to 3.12 billion from $2.96 billion last year” (cnnmoney 10/16/04).

This article, appearing on CNN/Money’s web site continues with these astounding statistics: “The report said Halloween is the sixth-largest spending holiday of the year. The winter holidays top the list at $219.9 billion in sales followed by $12.79 billion spent on Valentine’s Day, $10.47 billion spent on Easter, $10.43 billion spent on Mother’s Day and $8.04 billion for Father’s Day.”

All of this is occurring in the United States. In this light consider the results of a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey report from December 19, 2002: “Religion is much more important to Americans than to people living in other wealthy nations. Six-in-ten (59%) people in the U.S. say religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self-avowed religious people in Canada (30%), and an even higher proportion when compared with Japan and Western Europe” (www.people-press.org).

One must wonder at the commercialism of what passes for religion in America. God reveals that the modern descendants of Jacob’s birthright would indeed talk about religion: “‘Hear this, O house of Jacob, Who are called by the name of Israel, And have come forth from the wellsprings of Judah; Who swear by the name of the LORD, And make mention of the God of Israel, BUT NOT IN TRUTH OR IN RIGHTEOUSNESS'” (Isaiah 48:1).

You can find the Biblical truth of these practices and about what Christians should and should not observe in our free booklets: “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” and “Don’t Keep Christmas.” In addition, please note our comprehensive discussion on Halloween in the Q&A of Update #114, dated October 24, 2003. All of these are available at www.eternalgod.org.

God’s Word No Place in the EU?

On October 11, 2004, www.eubusiness.com reported about the EU’s rejection of “the nomination of the proposed new commissioner for justice because of his views on homosexuals.” The article explained: “The parliament’s civil liberties committee voted by 27 to 26 to reject the nomination of Italy’s Rocco Buttiglione, a devout Roman Catholic, as Justice, Security and Liberty commissioner in the new 25-member college that takes office at the end of this month. During confirmation hearings Buttiglione outraged some members of the parliament with his views on homosexuality, which he called ‘a sin’…”

Most shocking is the way in which this incident was reported. For instance, the German tabloid Bild castigated Buttiglione for having voiced such an antiquated view, stemming from the Middle Ages. German politicians were quoted as saying that such a viewpoint does not belong in today’s Europe. This might not be that surprising, as there are several high-ranking politicians in Germany, who are known to be homosexuals. In other words, what is being told to us is that God’s Word, the Bible, must be rejected and does not belong in today’s Europe. This is an interesting assessment, indeed!

Iran’s Missiles

On September 25, 2004, WorldNetDaily published a frightening report about the capacity of Iran’s nuclear missiles. The article stated: “Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range ‘strategic missile’ and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the ‘big powers.’ Iran’s new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia, according to weapons and intelligence analysts…. The news comes shortly after Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards staged military maneuvers near the border with Iraq, seen as a signal to Washington Tehran is prepared to fight back against any attempts to prevent the development of a nuclear reactor that could be used to make weapons-grade plutonium.”

How England’s Press Views Iraq

The British newspaper, The Week, published the following article on September 25:

“For once, Tony Blair is ‘telling the unvarnished truth,’ said the Daily Mail. We are indeed engaged in a horrific new conflict in Iraq. But if Iraq is now the ‘crucible’ of the war on terror, it is Blair who has helped make it so by joining America’s reckless invasion in the first place. Be that as it may, said The Independent, ‘Blair’s judgment is sound on one point’. This is not the time for anyone to ‘wobble’ over the election timetable. ‘Having so abysmally failed in our promises to bring peace to Iraq, the very least we can do now is stick to our pledge on elections.'”

The article continued: “If the coalition is to achieve that formidable task, said The Times, it will need all the help it can get from the U.N. To that end, Kofi Annan has not helped matters by ‘raking over the past with his highly debatable and essentially irrelevant comments about the legality of the intervention’. We should be looking forward, not back, said the Washington Post. In his relentlessly upbeat speech, he [President Bush] refused to admit to the worsening situation on the ground, still less give any clue as to how he proposes to respond to it. This ‘duck-and-cover’ strategy may play well politically, ‘but it is also deeply irresponsible and potentially dangerous.”

In a related article, the paper stated:

“Iraq: the warnings Blair ignored… A cache of secret documents, leaked to the Daily Telegraph last week, has revealed that some of Tony Blair’s closest advisors warned him repeatedly of the perils of invading Iraq… There was, after all, no real justification for it — as Peter Rickens, the Foreign Office policy director, bluntly informed Blair. ‘Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years,’ he wrote. ‘Military operations need clear and compelling objectives. For Iraq, ‘regime change’ does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam.’… ‘No one has satisfactorily answered how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better,’ [Foreign Secretary Jack Straw] warned. ‘Iraq has no history of democracy, so no one has this habit or experience.'”

Tony Blair in Trouble

The British newspaper, Daily Express, commented on October 8, 2004, on Tony Blair’s attempts to create an army in Africa. The paper stated: “Tony Blair was accused of ‘living on another planet’ yesterday when he committed the over-stretched British Army to new foreign missions. The Prime Minister pledged to put up to 1,500 troops on permanent standby to be raced into African war zones to ‘hold the fort’ for up to 210 days. They will form part of a European force ready to dash into trouble spots at 10 days’ notice. Mr Blair made the announcement in Addis Ababa.'”

In a related article, titled, “Blair’s African Absurdity,” the paper said: “Whenever Tony Blair is in trouble at home, as now, he slips into the role of world statesman. This time, he is trying to solve the problems of Africa… It all sounds so noble. But the number of soldiers involved is too small to make much difference in Africa. However this crazy plan will place an extra burden on our already under-manned and under-resourced British army, as well as putting more of our soldiers in mortal danger. Mr Blair’s meddling has involved us in many conflicts around the world but, he has cut it. Our army is already stretched to breaking. What would happen if more forces were needed in Iraq or if there was renewed unrest in Afghanistan or Northern Ireland? It is possible that an entirely new conflict not currently on the military’s radar could begin. Britain’s forces are too small for us to take on the role of world’s policeman.”

Rift Between Washington and Europe Widens

The Week reported on September 25: “Paris Snubs Washington. The rift between Washington and ‘old Europe’ widened still further last week when France and Belgium blocked an American plan to establish a Nato military academy in Iraq… [Reportedly] Germany and Spain backed the French stance. The move was widely seen as a strong signal to the US that it should not ask for more help from Nato to help control the violence in Iraq.”

In a series of related articles, the German weekly magazine, Focus, on October 11, 2004, addressed the issue of the widening rift between Washington and Europe, as well as within the United States, and asked the question whether an election of John Kerry as the next President would help or hurt the relationship between the two power blocs. The magazine stated:

“Both candidates exemplify the seemingly incurable rift within the American people. It is a rift that has polarized the people in the USA within the last two years into two political worlds. Rarely has a president divided the nation before so much as President Bush… Frightening questions loom at the horizon: Will Bush start additional wars, if he wins?… But if one thinks that Kerry is a dove, he is mistaken. ‘Iran and North Korea are more dangerous than ever before,’ he warns. ‘I don’t know yet whether we have to act in a preemptive manner, but I will keep my watchful eye on them.’ Contrary to Bush, Kerry wants to bring the traditional allies back on board.. Some of it is wishful thinking. France has clarified that they will not send troops to Iraq, even under Kerry [In the meantime, Germany has said the same.].”

In an interview with the magazine, former German Minister of Defense, Rudolf Sharping, stated that the relationship between the US and Germany might even get worse and more difficult under Kerry. The magazine pointed out that a German refusal to send troops to Iraq might be viewed by Washington, under Kerry’s leadership, as an even greater and more serious affront than under Bush.

The International Press on Putin

The Press in Great Britain, France, Russia and the United States condemned Putin’s recent “unambiguous step towards tyranny.” As The Week reported on September 25, “The Russians expected draconian action following the terrorist outrage in Beslam. And they got it, says… Le Monde (Paris), but not quite as they imagined… President Putin simply tightened his grip on power, ending the system of direct elections for regional governors and abolishing the first-past-the-post contents to Russia’s parliament… Even President Bush, who has praised Putin as an ally in the war on terror, was moved to protest at this undermining of democracy… Our would-be dictator has made his move, says… the Moscow Times… Of course Russia must take action to fight terrorism, says… The Washington Post. But the changes Putin has imposed aren’t directed at that: they’re an ‘unambiguous step towards tyranny.’ Bush was right to speak out against them; but he must go further, and put pressure on Putin to preserve democracy. ‘Did the US help undo Soviet Communism only to watch tyranny take its place?'”

Israel Fears Strong EU

Deutsche Welle reported on October 14, that Israel is concerned about a strong and powerful EU. The article, titled, “Israel Fears Strong EU,” stated: “A confidential report from the Israeli Foreign Ministry has predicted relations with the European Union could further deteriorate in [the] future, hitting Israel economically and diplomatically… The EU and Israel have been at loggerheads for months over the implementation of a Middle East peace plan and the construction of Israel’s security barrier. Israel also regards Europe as a bulwark of pro-Palestinian sentiment and has long complained of what it sees as growing anti-Semitism in Europe… The report also warns that influence over world politics by the US, Israel’s most important ally, could diminish as the EU’s role grows, German daily Berliner Zeitung reported on Thursday… Though Europe is Israel’s major trading partner, they have very definite differences of opinion over Mideast peacemaking. Earlier this week, EU foreign ministers criticized Israel’s use of force in Northern Gaza… In the security area, the EU is said to be considering a police mission on the ground to help train Palestinian security services in the event of an Israeli withdrawal [from Gaza in 2005], in co-ordination with the Egyptian government. ”

Beatification of Karl I

On October 3, 2004, MSNBC.com reported about the recent beatification of Austrian Emperor Karl I. The article pointed out: “Another newly beatified figure stirring controversy was Karl I, who led the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the final years of World War I. Also known in the West as Charles I, he took the throne in 1916 and worked for peace, abdicating at the end of the war, a few years before his death in 1922. Critics have said the Vatican had no business honoring a monarch who commanded troops who used poison gas in the conflict. The pope hailed Karl as a model ‘especially for those who have political responsibility in Europe today.'”

The article continued:

“John Paul declared Oct. 21, the date of Karl’s marriage in 1911 to Princess Zita, as Karl’s feast day. ‘He was a man of peace,’ said the Rev. Ivan Csete, a pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Forestburgh, N.Y., who rode to the ceremony in a city bus crowded with Hungarian students. ‘History would have been different had he succeeded in 1916’ in his efforts to end the war, added Csete, who said he fled his native Hungary after participating in the ill-fated 1956 uprising there against Communist rule…. The Vatican ruled that the required miracle for beatification included the recovery… of a Brazilian nun whose varicose veins were healed after she prayed to the monarch, who died in 1922. The church was ridiculed for the miracle it attributed to Karl’s intercession.”

In a related matter, Bild, on October 16, 2004, asked the surprising question whether Germany and Austria will return to a monarchy. The paper said: “Otto von Hapsburg (91), oldest son of the last Emperor of Austria [Karl I], stated to the TV station Phoenix that he perceives the possibility that Germany and Austria will once again embrace a monarchy.”

Cat Stevens a Terrorist?

In a bizarre development of events, Yusuf Islam, formerly known as the famous pop-singer Cat Stevens (“Morning Has Broken,” “Peace Train,”) was refused entry to the United States during the week of September 25. He was informed that he had been placed on a “watchlist for terrorists,” and that he was not allowed entry for reasons of security. The British citizen had been on a United Airlines flight from London to Washington. In mid-flight, the plane was diverted to Bangor airport, Maine, and, after a brief interview, Stevens was returned to Great Britain.

On September 30, 2004, the LA Times published the following letter from Cat Stevens, aka Yusuf Islam, introducing the same as follows: “Something Bad Has Begun.The former Cat Stevens says he hasn’t changed but the U.S. has.”

In the letter, Stevens wrote: “I was flying to Nashville last week with my 21-year-old daughter to explore some new musical ideas with a record label there. Ironically, I was trying to remain low-profile because of the speculation that it might have raised in the music world about a return of ‘the Cat.’ Media attention was the last thing I wanted. But it seems God wanted otherwise. Toward the end of our journey from London to Washington, the plane was diverted. The captain announced something about ‘heavy traffic.’ After landing in Bangor, Maine, six tall, blue-uniformed officers boarded and surrounded me and my daughter. ‘Is your name Yusuf Islam?’ they asked. ‘Yes,’ I confirmed. ‘Do you mind coming with us and answering a few questions?’

“At that point my heart stopped, and my daughter’s face turned aspirin-white. This was the start of the nightmare. Three FBI agents escorted me away from my daughter and asked me questions. At first, it sounded like they might have me mixed up with somebody else, as they repeated the spelling of my name. ‘No. Y-u-s-u-f,’ I carefully spelled out. The agents looked a bit puzzled. As they continued asking questions, some of their queries were obviously not related to me, so I thought this must be a matter of simple mistaken identity. Whether it was a mix-up or not remained unclear because they weren’t under any obligation to give me a reason; the green visa waiver form I had so neatly filled in earlier had effectively denied me any right to appeal or answers. It was only when an immigration official read out to me a legal reference number that he mentioned some implication with ‘terrorism’ — no further details necessary.

“The most upsetting thing was being separated from my daughter for 33 hours — not knowing how she was or when and where we might be united. Because my phone was confiscated, I couldn’t contact my family… Is this the same planet I’d taken off from? I was devastated. The unbelievable thing is that only two months earlier, I had been having meetings in Washington with top officials from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to talk about my charity work. Even further back, one month after the attack on the World Trade Center, I was in New York meeting Peter Gabriel and Hillary Rodham Clinton at the World Economic Forum! Had I changed that much? No. Actually, it’s the indiscriminate procedure of profiling that’s changed. I am a victim of an unjust and arbitrary system, hastily imposed, that serves only to belittle America’s image as a defender of the civil liberties that so many dearly struggled and died for over the centuries.

“Need I say that any form of terrorism or violence is the antithesis of everything I love and stand for? Anyone who knows me will attest to this. I have spent my life in the search for peace and understanding, and that was mirrored clearly in my music. Since becoming a Muslim, I have devoted my life to education, charity and helping children around the world. Consistently I have condemned the attacks of 9/11, stating that the slaughter of innocents, the taking of hostages and coldblooded killing of women and children have nothing do with the teachings of Islam. I’ve openly and publicly repudiated the actions of groups that resort to such acts of inhumanity — whatever their names. Any allegations to the contrary are fabricated. The Koran equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of all of humanity.

“Ever since I embraced Islam in 1977, people have regularly tried to link me with things I have nothing to do with. Take the Salman Rushdie case as an example, or the regurgitating of the accusation that I support groups like Hamas. I am a man of peace, and I denounce all forms of terrorism and injustice; it is simply outrageous for anyone to suggest otherwise. The fact that I have sympathy for ordinary people in the world who are suffering from occupation, tyranny, poverty or war is human and has nothing to do with politics or terrorism.

“Thank God my daughter and I were relieved of our ordeal and delivered home safely. I also thank all those who prayed for me and supported me through this dark episode; I have never harbored any ill will toward people of God’s great Earth anywhere — and wish the reverse was also true.”

Since then, Cat Stevens has tried to have his name removed from the watch list, and he has asked for an explanation as to how he ever got on the list. It has not been reported, so far, whether his attempts have been successful.

Originally, the Church under Mr. Herbert Armstrong was not sympathetic towards cremation as a form of burial, as there doesn’t seem to be any Biblical examples, as will be explained herein, where holy people of God actually chose this method of burial. The Church later, under Mr. Armstrong, changed its stance on the matter, realizing that the form of burial today differs from the form used in Biblical times. Cremation was not known in Biblical times, as it is known today. In ancient times, one would have only had a funeral pyre which did not burn bone, but only tissue. The bones would still need to be buried much in the same way as the body, making the procedure rather pointless. Today, we only have the ashes in a small container which then can be “buried” in a vault or in the ground, if so desired. In addition, the Church rightly concluded that it is not a matter of salvation. In certain instances, cremation might be the only kind of burial which some families can afford. On the other hand, we must be careful that we do not unnecessarily offend family members and friends who might be conscientiously opposed to cremation.

Much is said in the Holy Scriptures concerning the disposition of a body after death. Solomon wrote these poignant words in the Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapter six: “If a man begets a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with goodness, or indeed he has no burial, I say, that a stillborn child is better than he” (Ecclesiastes 6:3).

In the book of Deuteronomy, God commanded His people Israel: “If a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God” (Deuteronomy 21:22-23).

Even in such a case, unless God pronounced a specific curse on an individual or nation because of their abominations, He required their burial in the ground to be in an expedient manner.

In one case where God was extremely angry with certain people because of their gross disobedience to His Way, He inspired Jeremiah to write out what God said to him concerning these matters, in Jeremiah Chapter 16: “The word of the Lord also came to Jeremiah, saying, ‘.concerning the sons and daughters who are born in this place, and concerning their mothers who bore them and their fathers who begot them in this land; They shall die gruesome deaths; they shall not be lamented nor shall they be buried, but they shall be like refuse on the face of the earth.’ For thus says the Lord: ‘Do not enter the house of mourning, nor go to lament or bemoan them; for I have taken away My peace from this people’ says the Lord, ‘lovingkindness and mercies. Both the great and the small shall die in this land. They shall not be buried; neither shall men lament for them . Nor shall men break bread in mourning for them, to comfort them.'” (Jeremiah16:1, 3-7).

In the case cited above, God was angry because of the evils being performed by these people in their disobedience to His commands. The curse He pronounced upon them was in the form of their not being allowed to bury their dead.

A proper burial was a blessing from God and according to the New Bible Dictionary (page 171), the “Lack of proper burial was a great misfortune,” pointing to 1 Kings 13:22, which says, “‘but you came back, ate bread and drank water in the place of which the Lord said to you, “eat no bread and drink no water,” your corpse shall not come to the tomb of your fathers.'”

“It was customary for successive generations to be buried in the family tomb; thus Sarah, (Gen 23:19); Abraham (Gen 25:9); Isaac and Rebekah, Leah (Gen 49:31); and Jacob (Gen 50:13) were all buried in the caves of Machpelah, east of Hebron. Individual burial was sometimes necessitated by death at a distance from the family tombs; so Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, was buried near Bethel (Gen 35:8) and Rachel on the road to Ephrath (Gen 35:19, 20), their tombs being marked by an oak and a pillar respectively” (page 170).

Again, according to the New Bible Dictionary (page 172), “Jewish practices in New Testament times differed little from those described in the Old Testament . The corpse was washed (Acts 9:37); it was then anointed (Mark 16:1), wrapped in linen garments with spices enclosed (John 19:40), and finally the limbs were bound and the face covered with a napkin (John 11:44).

The discussion continues by stating that “Cremation was never a Jewish practice .” (Page 172). We need to add, here, that neither the use of coffins during burials, as is customary today, was a Jewish practice.

According to Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Page 158), “Interment in Bible times followed soon after death, as is evident in the narration of the burial of Sarah (Gen 23:1-20), Rachel (Gen 35:19, 20), and Rebekah’s nurse (Gen 35:8). The Hebrews did not normally cremate, as in the case of Saul and his sons (1 Samuel 31:11-13). Neither did they generally use coffins or embalm. Joseph’s burial in a coffin (Gen 50:26) and his being embalmed, as was his father, Jacob (Gen 50:2, 3) are to be explained as due to His eminent position and station in the land of the Nile.”

Whether or not the fact that Jacob and Joseph were embalmed was due to their eminent position and station, we point out that the Bible does not condemn them for using this procedure.

Moses, a faithful servant of the Lord, was apparently buried by the Lord Himself, or by His angel, in the land of Moab. You can read of the account of this event in the last book of Deuteronomy: “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows his grave to this day” (Deuteronomy 34:5-6).

The evidence is, in most cases, people called of God whom we are familiar with in the Bible, where they had a choice, chose burial as the method of disposing of their bodies upon death – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Deborah, Leah, David, Solomon, Job, Lazarus, Stephen, and many others, plus, of course, the greatest example of all, Jesus Christ. It is true that they did not choose cremation or the use of coffins, as commonly used today in our Western society.

Does this mean that anyone not buried according to the ancient Jewish and New Testament custom, but embalmed, placed in coffins, or cremated and the ashes placed in a container or vault, or being scattered or dispersed into the ocean, has lost his or her opportunity in the first resurrection? What about those lost at sea, eaten by fish or wild animals? What about those who were, or will be, evaporated during atomic blasts or nuclear holocausts? Have these lost their opportunity for salvation?

No, absolutely not! We have a gracious and all-powerful God Whom we look to in these matters. He has all power and the ability to resurrect any He chooses. And He is faithful to those who are faithful to His way in this life.

Jacob was embalmed according to the customs of the Egyptians. Yet the Scriptures tell us that Jacob will sit with Abraham and Isaac in the Kingdom of God (Luke 13:28). Joseph, a man of God, was also embalmed according to the customs of that day in the land he was in (Genesis 50:26). Jonathan, son of Saul, was cremated and his bones and ashes buried (1 Samuel 31:11-13). There were others who were martyred in their efforts to observe this Way and received no burial. No matter the final state of a person’s physical remains, whether ashes, dust, or whatever trauma they may have encountered, the promise to the faithful in this Way, will be in the first resurrection (Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:4).

Upon final analysis, God will look upon the way we live our lives based upon the knowledge we have and upon those criteria, we will be judged based on what we do in this life (Matthew 16:27; Romans 2:6; 1 Corinthians 3:8).

Correction:
In our last Q&A on “Fruit Trees” (Update #163), the last two paragraphs of the Answer were inadvertently omitted. The complete Q&A has been posted, as part of Update #163, on our Webpage (www.eternalgod.org).

Our current ad campaign in the United Kingdom has, so far, resulted in 850 responses for our booklet, “Europe in Prophecy,” and 1,400 responses for our booklet, “Angels, Demons and the Spirit World.”

On Saturday, October 16, 2004, Edwin Pope will be giving the sermon.titled: “Your Relationship With 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.

During the Feast of Tabernacles that we just finished observing, there were many “meaty” messages. One of the themes that emerged during this time was that the Kingdom of God should be the most important priority in our life. We have all heard this at one time or another in our lives, but it was particularly poignant at the feast this year and rightly so.

There is NOTHING that is more critical, outstanding, pressing, essential, pre-eminent, foremost, grave, imperative, prominent, meaningful, momentous, substantial, remarkable, paramount, relevant, serious, crucial, significant, urgent and vital. This is and should be our number one motivation.

When we weigh the differences between a physical temporal life and an eternal spiritual life the latter wins hands down. This life that we are living here and now on this earth cannot be compared with what awaits us as
part of the God Family. What would we do that we might attain such a great reward? What wouldn’t we do?

Spending eternity in the God Family is a gift that God has offered to us if we do as He has commanded. Though it cannot be earned there are still many things He asks of us. These are the things that we are to be doing NOW. Let’s take the spiritual rejuvenation and impetus gained at the feast and refocus our efforts on our first love, the Kingdom of God.

To learn more about these subjects we suggest our booklets: God’s Commanded Holy Days, God is a Family and The Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

“A Real Ecological Catastrophe”

These are the latest charges against U.S. influence in the world–made by French President Jacques Chirac.
As reported in www.expatica.com, “The outspoken French president warned that the world’s different cultures could be ‘choked’ by US values. This, he said, would lead to a ‘general world sub-culture’ based around the English language, which would be ‘a real ecological catastrophe.’ “

This speech was made in Hanoi, Vietnam–a former French colony. Mr. Chirac insisted that France was correct to stand up for “cultural and linguistic diversity.” The article also noted that among businessmen English is a very valuable and practical second language.

The well-publicized animosity that has emerged between France and America over the U.S. fight against terrorist continues unabated.

85 to 1

www.comcast.net reports that “The United States has refused to join 85 other heads of state and government in signing a statement that endorsed a 10-year-old U.N. plan to ensure every woman’s right to education, health care, and choice about having children.” This Associated Press article continues: “President Bush’s administration withheld its signature because the statement included a reference to ‘sexual rights.’ “

Following up on statements from U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan, the article noted: “Ryan did not elaborate on the Bush administration’s objections to the phrase ‘sexual rights,’ but at past U.N. meetings U.S. representatives have spoken out against abortion, gay rights and what they see as the promotion of promiscuity by giving condoms to young people to prevent AIDS.”

In explaining the purpose of this current statement which is designed to support the original U.N. plan, we note this comment: “While progress has been made, the statement says the world is facing an exponential increase in HIV/AIDS, a growing gap between rich and poor, persistently high death rates related to pregnancy and childbirth, and inadequate access to family planning services.”

Indeed these are real issues in a world going headlong in rebellion against the laws of God. Fixing these problems will never result from greater and greater rebellion by mankind to the will of God. Unfortunately, we are witnessing the closing stages of a world without God and the marvelous blessings that come from obedience.
The cure to all of these ills is found in the statements of God’s Word–this is the document upon which this world needs to “sign-off”. We encourage those who have not yet done so to carefully study our enlightening booklets explaining in detail the promises of God for a future time of peace and abundant blessings–please look for this material at www.eternalgod.org.

Ten Commandments on Trial

“The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on government property, ending a 25-year silence on a church-state issue that has prompted bitter legal fights around the country” (Rocky Mountain News, Associated Press, 10/13/04).

Ten Commandments displays are found throughout the U.S.–even in the courtroom where the justices will hear arguments in this case! In an ever increasing departure from some of the rudimentary aspects of Biblical influence in America, liberal and non-religious factions are pitted in bitter opposition to the core of citizens who openly espouse a role for religion in their lives.

Jerusalem

A report on Comcast’s site and from apnews 10/13/2004 states: “Israel said Wednesday it would severely limit the access of Muslim worshippers to Jerusalem’s holiest site during the holy month of Ramadan, claiming it could collapse. Violence flared overnight as a series of Israeli airstrikes left five Palestinians dead in Gaza.”

The Al Aqsa Mosque compound holds about 250,000 people when filled to capacity. It was the riots in 2000
against Ariel Sharon’s visit to this temple site that has now led to such unrestrained bloodshed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We note that the land of Israel, and Jerusalem in particular, will continue to plague world stability. What happens there has sweeping international implications. Biblical prophecy shows that dramatic future events will culminate in a worldwide conflict–all focused on Jerusalem! Note the first 9 verses of Zechariah 12 which also reveal that this end-time event will include the intervention of God in human affairs. It is at this period of time that Jesus Christ will return to establish God’s rule over the entire earth.

A New Evangelization

This headline appeared in www.zenit.org (10/04/2004): “European Bishops Eye Ways to Re-evangelize Continent.” Quoting from this article: “Catholic leaders from 34 European countries have met for the first time in England to discuss the role of Christianity in Europe.”

The significance of this meeting is profound–even from the perspective of its historical reference: “The event–a four-day assembly of the Council of the Bishops’ Conferences of Europe (CCEE) at Hinsley Hall, Leeds–has been the largest gathering of senior Catholic bishops in Britain since the Synod of Whitby in 664, more than 1,300 year ago.”

“In a message to the meeting, John Paul II said he would pray that ‘you will guide your respective peoples to rediscover their common spiritual roots and the enduring wisdom of their Christian heritage.’ “

We find that the main theme, as introduced by Archbishop Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bordeaux, was: “the significance and role of Christianity in Europe today.” The Archbishop also “…pointed out that there are moral toxins which Europe has to fight and reject for the sake of its harmonious development: the slide into secularization, with the phenomena of individualization and mass production; the tendency to consider religion as a hindrance; and the rise of fundamentalism and terrorism.”

One particularly insightful paragraph shows how the role of religion in Europe will soon emerge powerfully to dominate the lives of its citizens: “Three practical engagements were formulated: to strengthen the dialogue with contemporary culture; to look for a closer dialogue with the Islamic communities in Europe, especially in universities; and TO CAMPAIGN FOR THE DEFENSE OF SUNDAY AS A DAY DEDICATED TO GOD” (emphasis added).

As Europe grows more unified, indeed, the Catholic Church will play an ever increasing role. That influence will ultimately spill over the boundaries of Europe itself to capture the attention of the whole world. These events are leading to the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies, and they are setting the stage for shocking changes in the world as we now know it!

Leviticus 19:23-25 prescribes what we are to do with newly planted fruit trees. This law, which is still valid today, states:

“When you come into the land, and HAVE PLANTED all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as uncircumcised (or: unclean). Three years it shall be as uncircumcised to you. It shall not be eaten. But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, a praise to the LORD. And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, that it may yield to you its increase: I am the LORD your God.”

These verses prohibit the consumption of fruit from a NEWLY PLANTED fruit tree for the first three years. The Ryrie Study Bible explains: “When they came to Canaan, they were not to eat fruit from the [newly planted] fruit trees [for a certain number of years].” To abstain from eating the fruit from the newly planted fruit trees for the first three years allows the trees to become established, and what little fruit may be produced during the first three years of a new tree, should be allowed to fall to the ground and to serve as manure or fertilizer. The passage refers to the AGE of the tree — not to the number of years it has borne fruit. We are to begin counting, when the tree is planted or rooted, or when it comes up.

In the fourth year, the fruit is to be used to praise God. In ancient times, the fruits were given to the Levites, together with the tithe. Today, the fruit could be given to the minister, or the equivalent of the wholesale value of the fruit — in the fourth year — should be sent to the Church. (In that case, the individual is of course permitted to eat the fruit during the fourth year). In the fifth year, and all following years, the fruit belongs to the individual — but the individual is of course still obligated to tithe on the increase.

This law only refers to newly planted fruit trees that bear fruit. It does not refer to existing fruit trees, which are older than three or four years. This means, if one plants a three-year old fruit tree, one does not start counting that year as year #1. Rather, it is already year #3. Further, this law does not refer to shrubs, bushes, grapefruits, or olive trees. Those “trees” are described in the Bible as field crops, as they have a different production cycle.

The distinction is shown in the law of gleaning (Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:19-22). It is also shown in the law of the Sabbath rest (Leviticus 25:3-5; Exodus 23:10-11). Notice carefully that the law of gleaning and the Sabbath rest does NOT refer to fruit trees.

Although some have forgotten this important distinction, it is clearly revealed in Scripture, and it has been the long-standing teaching of the Church.

For further information, how to apply the law of the Sabbath rest today, please read our Q&A on Leviticus 25:1-7, in our Update # 72 (dated December 20, 2002).

A related question was recently asked of us — whether it is within the Biblical injunctions to mow down the hay on our land and to let it lie for green manure, during the Sabbath year. The person asking the question was wondering whether this might violate the principle not to prune our trees for the purpose of producing a better harvest.

Leviticus 25:3-4 instructs us not to sow our field, nor to prune our vineyard during the Sabbath year. (Again, this passage does not refer to fruit trees.) We are also told, in verses 7 and 8, that the Sabbath produce of the land shall be food for us and our livestock and other beasts during the Sabbath year.

While we must replace grain when we mow it down, this is not the case with hay, as hay will grow back the next year. Whether hay is mowed or not, it goes back “as manure” into the ground in either case. To mow hay and let it lie on the ground is not the same as pruning our vineyard (note the distinction in Scripture) and does therefore not fall under that same kind of prohibition.

The newest booklet, “Jesus Christ – A Great Mystery!,” was distributed to those attending the FOT in both England and the U.S. Also, copies to those on our mailing list have now been sent.