On Saturday, November 20, 2004, Dave Harris will be giving the sermon, titled, “To Obey Is Better.”

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.

Many of the most “brilliant” minds of our time do not believe that God exists or that we can really know that He exists. Most of their doubt comes from the fact that they have not seen, heard or touched Him. In other words they have no empirical evidence; that which is proved or derived from observation or experiment.

Yet, what is ignored is the preponderance of circumstantial evidence or indirect proof of God’s existence. Perhaps when we hear the term circumstantial evidence we have a tendency to not give it credibility because of the way in which it is bandied about on television and in other mediums.

If we were to go to sleep tonight and wake up the next morning to find that the whole city or county had a foot of snow covering it, we would think that we had direct proof that it snowed. But this isn’t the case. Even though there was no snow when we went to sleep and a foot when we woke up, this would still be circumstantial evidence. We didn’t see it snow so we couldn’t testify to the fact that it did, BUT it would be entirely ludicrous to assume otherwise.

In the same way this is a case for the existence of God.

Around us is all the proof that we will ever need that God does indeed exist. In Romans 1:20 it states, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

God says there is no legitimate reason that any one can give when Christ returns for being an atheist, because of the overwhelming evidence that was there all along. The more technically sophisticated man becomes, the more we are able to see just that, in the most minute, as well as the most grand of scale. With each advancement we make we can see more and more that there is a great design too incredible to have happened by chance.

If anyone saw a watch they would assume that someone produced the watch. When they look at its design and careful organization they would have to conclude that it required a designer. Even though they did not see it produced, its mere existence proves this.

As we look at the entire universe in its magnificence, the only conclusion that we can come to is that this creation and its design points to God who designed and created it. There truly are too many illustrations and occurrences of the fact that God exists to enumerate and expand on them here. However, if we have an eye to see, His handiwork, His circumstantial evidence will declare that He does exist without a doubt.

Ohio Recount?

WorldNetDaily reported on November 15, 2004, that “Ohio Recount” is all “but certain.” The article pointed out:

“Two third-party presidential candidates say they’ve raised enough money to file for an official recount of the vote in Ohio, which President Bush won on Nov. 2 and where some observers claim there were irregularities and fraud in the election… Bush won Ohio by a vote of 2,796,147 to John Kerry’s 2,659,664. Despite reports of irregularities and outstanding provisional ballots, Kerry conceded Ohio and the election on Nov. 3.”

The article also stated that once the vote is certified (on December 3 at the latest), the candidates can file for the recount.

Christians No Right to Vote?

WorldNetDaily published a rather strange article on November 15, stating: “Speaking in the aftermath of the presidential election, Democrat radio host Garrison Keillor says he is on a quest to take away the right of born-again Christians to vote, saying their citizenship is actually in heaven, not the United States.” The article explained that Keillor made his comments in jest. However, he correctly addressed the problem with true Christians voting in Presidential elections. That is why we have consistently stressed that true Christians should not vote in Presidential elections. We are to be ambassadors of Jesus Christ, and of a better world to come. Ambassadors don’t vote in foreign elections. Neither should we.

France an Enemy of the US?

On November 18, 2004, WorldNetDaily published an article with the following headline: “French nation is U.S. enemy?” The article stated: “A new poll reveals most Americans do not hold the nation of France in high regard, with almost a third believing the European country is an enemy of the U.S. in the war on terror… The numbers stand in stark contrast to feelings about Great Britain… More than four out of five Americans – 83 percent – view the UK as an ally in the war on terror… Germany, Russia, and the United Nations fall in between the extremes. Forty-four percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the U.N. while 42 percent have an unfavorable view… Forty percent of voters have a favorable opinion of Germany, while 34 percent have an unfavorable view. For Russia, the numbers are 33 percent favorable and 38 percent unfavorable.”

In a related article which addressed the “love-hate” relationship between France and the USA, as well as Great Britain, Reuters stated on November 17: “Last year’s U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and ousting of President Saddam Hussein has, if anything, made the world more dangerous, French President Jacques Chirac said on the eve of a state visit to key U.S. ally Britain… Chirac, whose strong opposition to the war prompted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to dismiss France as part of ‘Old Europe,’ has questioned what Blair has gained from his unstinting support of the invasion… In a newspaper interview Tuesday, Chirac said he had urged Britain before the invasion to press President Bush to revive the Middle East peace process in return for London’s support for the war. ‘Well, Britain gave its support but I did not see much in return,’ Chirac was quoted as saying in the Times. ‘I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors systematically.’… Blair’s support for the war prompted bitter faction fighting inside his ruling Labor Party and torpedoed his public approval ratings ahead of elections expected by mid-2005. A poll in the Independent newspaper Wednesday showed that 64 percent of the British public believed that having good relations with continental Europe was more important than maintaining close ties with Washington… The French leader questioned whether Britain could act as a bridge between the United States and Europe to help heal the transatlantic rift.”

An additional article by Reuters stated on November 16, 2004:

“In other remarks that will sting the Bush Administration, he [Chirac] again outlined his vision of a ‘multipolar’ world in which a united Europe would be equal with the US, and mocked Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, for his division of Europe into old and new… [Chirac also said:] ‘I am not sure, with America as it is these days, that it would be easy for someone, even the British, to be an honest broker.'”

New U.S. Secretary of State

When the news was received that Colin Powell resigned and Condoleezza Rice would replace him in the office of Secretary of State, the reactions, especially in Europe, were mixed. Associated Press wrote on November 16, 2004:

“In Europe, it’s hard for some to think of Condoleezza Rice – Colin Powell’s expected replacement as U.S. secretary of state – without recalling the low points in trans-Atlantic relations that grew out of the war in Iraq. After all, it was Rice who raised eyebrows last year with her Machiavellian suggestions for how Washington should treat European opponents of the U.S.-led invasion. ‘Punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia,’ Rice was widely quoted as telling associates in the spring of 2003… Many in Europe, Asia and the Middle East believed Rice will add a more conservative, hawkish bent to U.S. diplomacy after Powell, seen by many as a moderating voice in a Cabinet of hawks… World leaders, meanwhile, lavished praise on Powell, hailing his efforts to build international consensus. To many, particularly in Europe and China, Powell was seen as a multilateralist influence in a U.S. administration seen as too willing to act on its own.”

In a related article, Associated Press added on November 16, 2004: “German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who was visiting New York, told reporters that Powell knew Germany well because of the years he spent there in the U.S. military and said the government had an ‘excellent’ and ‘friendly’ relationship with him. ‘I want to thank and wish him the best for the future,’ said Fischer, whose government opposed the war. ‘We operated very closely even in the most critical issues.'”

Ethiopia and Italy

Reuters reported on November 16: “Italy finally looks set to heal a feud with Ethiopia by returning one of its most cherished relics, the obelisk of Axum, taken by fascist invaders almost 70 years ago… The 24-meter obelisk, believed to be at least 2,000 years old, was split into three and hauled off when fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1937. After the fall of the dictator Benito Mussolini and his nascent Italian ’empire,’ Rome signed an accord in 1947 agreeing to return stolen relics and art works to Ethiopia. Another accord was signed in 1956 and another in 1997, but the obelisk with its geometric designs remained in Rome, in front of what had been the Ministry of Italian Africa. Two years ago, Ethiopia threatened to sever diplomatic ties, eliciting a fresh pledge… A national holiday has been promised for the day it is finally returned home. ‘Until the obelisk is returned to Ethiopia, Mussolini will be laughing at us from his grave,’ said Richard Pankhurst, a British historian living in Addis Ababa who has led the demands for the return of Ethiopian treasures.”

EU, USA and Iran

AFP reported on November 16, 2004: “The EU deal that got Iran to freeze key nuclear activities puts the United States on the spot since Washington must now decide whether to continue confronting Iran as an enemy or join Europe in trying to engage it… The United States charges that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons and wants Tehran to be brought before the Security Council. But Iran’s agreement to suspend uranium enrichment to prove its peaceful intentions, and the IAEA’s inability to find a ‘smoking gun’ proving Tehran’s alleged atomic weapons intentions after a nearly two-year investigation, leave the United States with almost no chance of convincing the 35 member states of the IAEA’s board of governors to punish Iran. The pressure, in fact, will be on the United States to change its policy.”

However, the Washington Post stated on November 18, 2004, that “the United States has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday. Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran is enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons… Powell’s comments came just three days after an agreement between Iran and three European countries — Britain, France and Germany — designed to limit Tehran’s ability to divert its peaceful nuclear energy program for military use. The primary focus of the deal, accepted by Iran on Sunday and due to go into effect Nov. 22, is a stipulation that Iran indefinitely suspend its uranium enrichment program… Iran has long been known to have a missile program, while denying that it was seeking a nuclear bomb. Powell seemed to be suggesting that efforts not previously disclosed were underway to arm missiles with nuclear warheads.”

Russia’s Secret Weapons

Associated Press reported on November 17, 2004, that “President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported… No details were immediately available, but Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said earlier this month that Russia expected to test-fire a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile this year and that production of the new weapon could be commissioned in 2005. News reports have also said Russia is believed to be developing a next-generation heavy nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of 4.4 tons… Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States’ proposed missile-defense system useless. Details were not given, but military analysts said the claimed new weapon could be a hypersonic cruise missile or maneuverable ballistic missile warheads.” In a related article, A.P. pointed out: “The White House reacted cautiously Wednesday to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement that his country is developing a nuclear missile ‘of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have.’ [White House press secretary Scott] McClellan suggested that close ties between Bush and Putin makes alarm unnecessary – but doesn’t eliminate Washington’s concern.”

Fastest Airplane

AFP reported on November 17, 2004: “A US hypersonic experimental scramjet, the X-43A, raced into the record books, flying at a world-record speed nearly 10 times faster than sound, NASA confirmed… The 230-million-dollar (177-million-euro) project spans 20 years of research. Other countries, including France and Japan, are also exploring scramjet technology. The US Air Force is seeking to develop an airplane capable of reaching any point on the globe in under two hours while transporting six tonnes of bombs or cruise missiles.”

Locusts in Egypt

Reuters reported on November 17, 2004, that “Swarms of pink locusts swept through Cairo on Wednesday that recalled the plague of biblical Egypt, flying high above tall towers and scaring pedestrians who stamped on them or ran for cover. The swarms arrived from neighboring Libya after devouring the countryside in central and western Africa in past months… The locust swarms have already traveled on the wind from North Africa to Cyprus. They can form swarms of tens of millions, occupying hundreds of square kilometers (miles). In the Old Testament, locusts were the eighth of 10 plagues which God brought on the Egyptians before Pharaoh, their ruler, relented and let the enslaved children of Israel go.”

EU and Turkey

In an article published by Yaleglobal Online in May, the question was raised whether Turkey might or might not join the EU. It was stated: “Critics also claim that the entry of a country as big as Turkey will destabilize current EU power politics, giving the country as many votes as current EU giant Germany in the bloc’s decision-making machinery. In fact, on current demographic trends, by 2020, Turkey, with a population of about 70 million could have more people than Germany, which currently counts 80 million people. Given its size and still largely under-developed economy, there is also concern that Turkish accession will mean additional burdens on already cash-strapped EU budgets.”

In March, the same organization posted an article, pointing out that the German “finance ministry published a study concluding that Turkey is not ready to join the European Union. ‘Despite major reforms, it is unlikely that the country will be able to fulfill the required political criteria by the EU Commission’s next progress report,’ the study says. The report also says that Turkey would cost the European Union around EUR14 billion ($17 billion) without a major overhaul of Brussels’ subsidy rules. A recent Emnid survey shows that 47 percent of Germans are for, and 47 percent against, Turkish accession, while other surveys have said that as much as 59 percent of the population is against letting the country become a full member.”

Presently, most European governments are favoring full-fledged EU membership of Turkey. Based on Biblical prophecy, it appears that Turkey will not become one of the final ten “core members” of the EU, as mentioned in Revelation 17:12-13. On the other hand, Turkey — or Edom — will play an important role in the future, and will find itself in hostility with the modern nations of Israel, as the book of Obadiah clearly reveals.

Actually, Acts 14:23 teaches the exact opposite. Looking at the context, we find that the ones who “appointed elders in every church” (verse 23) were “the apostles Barnabas and Paul” (verse 14; compare, too, Acts 15:2).

As we have pointed out before, for instance, in the Q&A of Update #147 (June 11, 2004), God used ordained ministers to appoint others to the ministry (Titus 1:5). Titus was a minister. He is also referred to as a brother. After all, a true minister is a servant and a spiritual brother. This is why Paul could call Titus a brother, but this does not mean that Titus was not also ordained to the ministry. The Bible shows that ministers or elders are ordained or appointed by other ministers or elders. The laying on of hands through the ministry is very important in this regard (1 Timothy 5:22).

Some feel that the Church does not need any ministers, or that every Church member is a minister. This is simply not true. James tells us that sick persons are to call for the elders of the Church to anoint them with oil and pray over them. This is not talking about unordained brethren. In this regard, please read our free booklet, “Sickness and Healing — What the Bible Tells Us.” Also, baptism and the laying on of hands are to be done through the ministry — otherwise, no promise of the receipt of the Holy Spirit is given. Only when Peter and other ministers placed their hands on baptized people, did they receive the Holy Spirit. For more information, read our free booklet, “Baptism — a Requirement for Salvation.”

We read in Ephesians 4:11 that Christ has given the ministry to the Church, “for the equipping of the saints” (verse 12). Verse 11 speaks about certain ranks, offices and functions within the ministry, including apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Paul referred to himself on several occasions as a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher (1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11).

God has set in place a ministry (ordained elders), through which He administers the Church. The Church is clearly not run as a democracy. This is not to say, however, that the ministry is to run the Church in a dictatorial or autocratic fashion — rather, as shepherds concerned for the welfare of the sheep, the ministry is to always have the good of the flock in mind. The ministry is well advised to consult with the membership before decisions affecting the members are made, including decisions pertaining to ordination. This does not mean, however, that the ministry is conducting its affairs by vote, but it is always good to obtain and receive a multitude of counsel.

The concept that an entire congregation “ordains” or “appoints” someone to the ministry is not biblical. We don’t read anywhere that Church decisions were reached through a majority vote of the membership. Note how it was done in Acts 15. The Church “agreed” with the decision of the ministry, but by that time, the decision was already made, and when the decision was made, non-ordained members were not even present.

It is claimed by some that the word” ordained” or “appointed,” as it is used in Acts 14:23, allegedly conveys the meaning of “voting.” The Concordant Literal New Testament renders this verse: “Now, selecting elders for them according to the ecclesia, praying with fastings, they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

However, this is NOT an accurate rendition of the literal Greek. “The Englishman’s Greek New Testament…An Interlinear Literal Translation,” renders Acts 14:23, word-for-word, as follows: “And having chosen FOR THEM elders IN every assembly, having prayed with fastings they committed them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.”

Again, we see that Paul and Barnabas “chose” FOR THE CHURCH elders IN every congregation or assembly. The word for “ordained,” “appointed” or “chosen,” as it is translated from the original Greek in Acts 14:23, is defined by “Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible,” as “to elect by stretching out the hand.” Note again that it is Paul and Barnabas who do the “electing” — not the entire congregation. There remains no room for contending that the assembly voted on the matter. The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine (under “appoint”) explains that the Greek word does not have the meaning here of voting, as the same Greek word is also used for God in Acts 10:40-41, as follows: “Him [Jesus Christ] God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses CHOSEN before by God.” Vine explains that the Greek word in Acts 14:23, translated as “ordained,” “appointed” or “chosen,” refers to the “appointment of elders by apostolic missionaries in the various churches which they revisited.”

God is not the author of confusion, but of order. He has designated that the ministry is to ordain or appoint qualified members to the ministry. This is the clear teaching of the Bible, which we must uphold and practice.

A new member letter was sent out this week. Dave Harris discusses in it the present state of affairs of our countries, and the continued obligation of God’s Church. You can find a copy of the member letter at: Letters to the Brethren.
A new StandingWatch program was recorded last week and placed on the Web, titled, “Balanced Living.”

On Saturday, November 13, 2004, Norbert Link will be giving the sermon, beginning a series on the life of David.

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.

Images of death are all around us. We switch on the television news and right there in our living rooms are images of people dying or being killed, with all the trauma and upset that the bereaved go through. We pick up a newspaper and similar images assail us. We can become somewhat anaesthetized by the regularity of pain and suffering of others. But, when it comes close to home, our focus and attention are sharpened.

Both my wife and I have lost our fathers this year. They were “old and full of years”; nevertheless, when it happened, it was still a painful experience. More recently, two deaths occurred in our local congregation – after much suffering that preceded them.

While those of us who have been called into the Church and have been given the precious knowledge of God’s truth still grieve for the loss of a loved one, the understanding of future events is most comforting. Uniquely, we know that our loved ones who have never been called in this life will have their first opportunity, and those who died in the faith will be in God’s Kingdom at the first resurrection. What fabulous knowledge!

At the Feast of Tabernacles in England this year, we had a most marvelous piece of special music titled, “New Heavens, New Earth.” The words, “God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There will be no more pain,” are taken from Revelation 21:4. What knowledge could be more inspiring? The last enemy to be destroyed is death (1 Corinthians 15:26), and death is to be swallowed up in victory (1 Corinthians 15:54). We know that death is an enemy that will be removed.

When a family member, a relative, a church member, a friend or an acquaintance dies, we can be saddened and it can weigh heavily on our minds. We also understand, however, that life here and now is temporary, and that our great Creator God has so much more in store for us in the future. We have to have that vision – and how comforting that can be.

Halloween Christian?

Not only the United States is celebrating Halloween. Germany, for example, began several years ago to adopt this terrible custom. The weekly magazine MAX reported: “Halloween is finally absolutely ‘in’ in Germany… During the night of November 1, vampires crawl out of their graves… Halloween… has its roots in Britain. The Celts kept it 5,000 years ago. This makes it one of the oldest festivals of man…. It was the time when the living were able to communicate with the dead…[ and when] the dead and ghosts appeared.”

As we mentioned before, Halloween is clearly a festival to worship the devil. Unbelievably, there are those, claiming to be Christians, who don’t seem to care, and who even try to justify its celebration. On October 29, 2004, The Californian published an editorial, titled, “Halloween works for Christians.” The article stated: “I believe that there is indeed an evil one. However…, the one thing Satan cannot stand is ridicule. And to have little kids running around in spooky costumes, dressed as ghoulies and ghosties and things that go bump in the night parodies the powers of darkness, thus insulting them.”

We may ask, how can anyone be so naive as to think that Satan will flee when little kids dress up in costumes, picturing the powers of darkness? The article continued:

“Some are put off by the fact that Halloween has roots in pagan religion, which is absolutely true — Samnhain was about darkness… And ‘All Saints Day’ was truly the Catholic Church’s way to adopt and change the holiday…”

One would think that with this kind of understanding, the author would come to the only right conclusion, that is, to strongly speak out against the celebration of Halloween. However, he continued:

“But if we’re to avoid holidays with Pagan origins, then we’d better forget about Christmas, for nobody really knows when Jesus was born, and at the time we celebrate Christmas near the winter solstice the Romans had a very raucous holiday called Saturnalia. Likewise, while we do know that Christ died during the Passover, the Church appropriated ‘Eostre’ — a celebration of an ancient goddess of fertility.”

So true! But what should be the consequence? Obviously, to AVOID the celebration of Halloween, AS WELL AS Christmas and Easter. However, that is not the conclusion of the article. Rather, the author argued as follows: “So, having Christian convictions doesn’t necessarily preclude celebrating Halloween… avoiding a cultural festival is not a way of doing it.”

Incredible! There is indeed a way that seems right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death (Proverbs 14:12). For more information, please read our free booklet, “Don’t Keep Christmas!“

The Second Amendment and Firearms

Several years ago, a member of the Global Church of God in England wrote to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and received an interesting response. In the reply, it was stated: “We consider violent crime, especially crimes committed with guns, to be one of our predominant law enforcement concerns… Despite the arguments of opponents of gun control that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess firearms, the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently rejected this argument. These courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment protects only against federal attempts to disarm or abolish organized state militia, and does NOT confer upon an INDIVIDUAL the right to own or possess firearms.”

In addition, the same member wrote to the Home Secretary of the British Government. In their response, it was stated: “… the United Kingdom has a comparatively low rate of violent and armed crime compared with other countries in Europe and the rest of the world. We believe that in part this is due to our strict controls on firearms… As a matter of long-standing practice, firearms are not issued to civilians for personal protection.”

The Bible predicts that a time will come when the nations will destroy their weapons of war and violence, beating their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks (Isaiah 2:4). They will set on fire and burn their weapons (Ezekiel 39:9). This time has not yet arrived, but as ambassadors for Christ and as pioneers of that better world to come, we must show the way in our conduct and teaching.

US Citizens Immigrating to Canada?

On November 5, 2004, Reuters reported: “The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada’s main immigration Web site has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President George W. Bush’s election win this week… On an average day some 20,000 people in the United States log onto the Web site, www.cic.gc.ca — a figure which rocketed to 115,016 on Wednesday. The number of U.S. visits settled down to 65,803 on Thursday, still well above the norm. Bush’s victory sparked speculation that disconsolate Democrats and others might decide to start a new life in Canada, a land that tilts more to the left than the United States. Would-be immigrants to Canada can apply to become permanent residents, a process that often takes a year. The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which requires a work permit… Canada is one of the few major nations with a large-scale immigration policy. Ottawa is seeking to attract between 220,000 and 240,000 newcomers next year.”

Mount St. Helens

Associated Press reported on November 6, 2004, that the fear of an eruption of Mount St Helens is far from over. It stated: “A lava formation inside Mount St. Helens’ crater has a new, glowing protrusion the size of a 30-story building. The protrusion, which glows red at night, has risen by 330 feet in the past nine days, pushed up by magma, or molten rock, within the volcano, scientists said Friday… The overall lava formation began building last month and has grown to roughly the size of an aircraft carrier, 900 feet long and 250 feet wide. Magma is reaching at the surface at the rate of 7 to 8 cubic meters, about one large dump truck load every second… Like the old lava dome, formed in the six years after St. Helens’ devastating May 18, 1980, eruption, the new formation is made of a type of volcanic rock called dacite… Temperatures on the new protrusion can spike as high as 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. The volcano rumbled back to life Sept. 23, with shuddering seismic activity that peaked above magnitude 3 as hot magma broke through rocks in its path. Molten rock first reached the surface Oct. 11, marking the resumption of dome-building activity that had stopped in 1986. A more explosive eruption, possibly dropping ash within a 10-mile radius of the crater, is possible at any time, scientists have said.”

Does the U.S. Need Europe?

On November 5, 2004, Reuters reported about further European reactions relating to the re-election of President Bush. It was stated:

“The European Union urged re-elected President Bush on Friday to make a fresh start in transatlantic cooperation, but internal EU differences over ties with Washington refused to die down…. But the future of relations with the United States prompted a fresh outbreak of public sparring by European rivals Britain and France at an EU summit in Brussels. British Prime Minister Tony Blair rubbed salt into wounds opened by the Iraq war by saying that some leaders, whom he did not name, were in ‘a state of denial’ about Bush’s victory. In the anti-war camp, President Jacques Chirac said France would not forget its differences with the United States and believed a stronger Europe was the natural response to U.S. foreign policy assertiveness in ‘an ever more multipolar world.’… Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who chaired the summit, appealed to Bush to realize in his second term that he needed European help to meet global challenges from fighting terrorism, AIDS and poverty to stabilizing the Middle East… Several of the leaders who supported Bush in Iraq, including the Danish and Polish leaders, urged him to reach out to the whole of Europe and make more of an effort in his second term to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace.”

U.S. Isolated?

OneWorld reported on October 25, 2004: “In addition to setting the stage for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s entry into force early next year, Friday’s overwhelming ratification by … Russia’s lower house of Parliament underlines the degree to which the administration of President George W. Bush has isolated the United States from its industrialized partners… With Russia’s ratification, the only remaining holdouts are Australia and the United States, which signed the accord under former President Bill Clinton but then withdrew from negotiations surrounding its implementation under Bush. Bush defended his decision by insisting that any attempt to reduce emissions as required by the treaty would unduly damage the U.S. economy.”

The article continued: “In 1990, the United States was responsible for more than [a] third of global greenhouse emissions, Europe for more than a quarter of emissions, while Russia claimed about 17.5 percent. Under the treaty’s terms, a minimum of 55 countries, whose combined emissions came to more than 55 percent of global emissions, had to ratify the treaty for it to take effect. All member states and aspiring members of the European Union (EU), which has been the treaty’s foremost champion, ratified the treaty, as did Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and all non-EU western and northern European nations. Altogether, however, the ratifies accounted for a total of only 44 percent of global emissions. With the U.S. boycotting the treaty, the only country that could put the Protocol into effect was Russia.”

Berlin Wall

On November 9, 2004, Associated Press reported about unified Germany – 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The article pointed out: “Germans marked a subdued 15th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall on Tuesday, with high unemployment in the formerly communist east and a sense in people’s hearts that the nation has not yet fully reunited. No big celebrations, parades or fireworks recalled Nov. 9, 1989, the day East Germany’s communist regime opened the wall almost by accident and set off national euphoria that peaked with German reunification 11 months later… As time has passed, Germans have focused on the staggering cost of rebuilding the east, not the peaceful revolution that toppled the wall and the Stalinist rulers who built it… The east’s jobless rate – 17.5 percent – is more than twice that of the west… Jewish leaders marked Nov. 9 for another reason. It’s also the anniversary of the Nazis’ 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom, or Night of Broken Glass, when synagogues and Jewish businesses across Germany were attacked.”

Violence at Ivory Coast

On November 9, 2004, CNN reported that “South African President Thabo Mbeki has flown to Ivory Coast to launch an African effort to reign in chaos here, amid four days of sudden mob and government confrontations with French troops that have wounded more than 600 and killed at least 20 others…. The bloodshed began when Ivory Coast warplanes killed nine French peacekeepers and an American aid worker in an air strike on the rebel-held north. France, Ivory Coast’s former colonial ruler, wiped out the nation’s airforce on the tarmac in retaliation, sparking massive anti-French rampages by mobs of thousands in the fiercely nationalist south… At the United Nations, Security Council diplomats weighed a French-backed draft resolution for an arms embargo on Ivory Coast and a travel ban and asset freeze against those blocking peace, violating human rights and preventing the disarmament of combatants.”

The fact that the Security Council of the United Nations has not authorized France’s use of force prompted CNN to criticize, in a broadcast on November 9, 2004, the “incredible hypocrisy of France.” The newscast stated that France condemned the U.S. for invading Iraq without a Security Council’s resolution, while it is now doing exactly the same.

EU Sanctions US and Canada

As Euobserver reported on November 8, 2004, “The EU on Monday (8 November) announced the launching of WTO action against the US and Canada. Both countries are refusing to lift trade sanctions on the EU amounting to 116 million US dollars per year plus 11 million Canadian dollars per year, which were imposed after the EU slapped a ban on importing hormone beef. The World Trade Organization (WTO) deemed the EU ban illegal because it was not based on proper scientific research. The EU consequently conducted an independent scientific research project and changed its laws to comply with the WTO ruling. But the US and Canada have still not lifted their sanctions, prompting Monday’s action.”

The Netherlands and Muslims

The New York Times reported on November 11, 2004, about growing problems with The Netherlands’ Muslims. It was pointed out:

“Anger toward the Netherlands’ Muslim community percolated among the crowd that gathered outside the funeral for the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was killed by an Islamic extremist a week ago. The public debate over how conservative Islam fits into Europe’s most tolerant, liberal society had already become a no-holds-barred affair before the killing of van Gogh, who had publicly and repeatedly used epithets against Muslims. But his killing has now polarized the country, giving the rest of Europe a disturbing glimpse of what may be in store if relations with the continent’s growing immigrant communities are not managed more adeptly. The anger is such that for the second time in two days an Islamic elementary school was attacked Tuesday, this time in Uden, part of what Dutch authorities fear are reprisals after van Gogh’s killing, The Associated Press reported. The authorities said that Muslim sites had been the target of a half-dozen attacks in the past week, The AP reported. In apparent retaliation, arsonists attempted to burn down Protestant churches in Rotterdam, Utrecht and Amersfoort, the news service quoted the police as saying. The attacks have scratched the patina of tolerance on which the Dutch have long prided themselves, particularly here in their principal city, where the scent of hashish trails in the air, prostitutes beckon from storefront brothels and Hell’s Angels live side by side with Hare Krishnas. But many Dutch now say that for years that tradition of tolerance suppressed an open debate about the challenges of integrating conservative Muslims.”

The article continued:

“For many years, such criticism of Islam and Islamic customs, even among Dutch extremists, was considered taboo, despite deep frustrations that had built up against conservative Islam in the country. Many here say that began to change after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, when the Netherlands, like many countries, began to consider the dangers of political Islam seriously. The debate fueled an anti-immigration movement and helped propel the career of the populist politician Pim Fortuyn, who was murdered by an environmental activist shortly before national elections in 2002.”

The Inquisition Overrated?

As Associated Press reported on November 9, 2004, “Church, academic and cultural experts will work together to gather documentation on religious and civil trials for witchcraft, heresy and other crimes against the faith during the Inquisition, the Vatican said Tuesday… Earlier this year the Vatican presented researchers’ findings that victims of torture and burning at the stake during the Inquisition were far fewer than widely thought.”

This last statement is incredible. As the article continued to point out: “Starting in the Middle Ages, the Inquisition was a systematic crackdown by church officials intent on defending doctrinal orthodoxy. Catholics suspected of being heretics… or others considered of dubious faith, including Muslims and Jews who had converted to Catholicism, were among the targets.”

History has established the terrible pain and suffering inflicted by the Catholic Church on countless victims who did not share the official orthodox “Christian” belief. It is only hoped that any attempts to “re-write” history and in some way belittle the horrors of the Inquisition will fail.

EU Constitution Signed

Although this fact did not receive much attention in the United States, the members of the EU signed their first Constitution. Even more remarkable, perhaps, is where it was signed. On October 29, 2004, MSNBC.com pointed out:

“The EU leaders signed the document at the Campidoglio, a Michaelangelo-designed complex of buildings on Rome’s Capitoline Hill. Also present at the ceremony were the leaders from Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Croatia — four candidates for EU membership… The constitution foresees simpler voting rules to end decision gridlock in a club that ballooned to 25 members this year and plans to absorb half a dozen more in the years ahead. It includes new powers for the European Parliament and ends national vetoes in 45 new policy areas — including judicial and police cooperation, education and economic policy — but not in foreign and defense policy, social security, taxation or cultural matters. [It also created the office of a powerful European Foreign Minister, in addition to the office of the European President]. The constitution was signed in the sala degli Orazi e Curiazi, the same spectacular hall in a Renaissance palazzo where in 1957 six nations — Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg — signed the union’s founding treaty.”

The place where the Constitution was signed has great symbolic significance. Euobserver stated on October 29:

“EU leaders from the 25 member states will arrive in Rome today for the formal signing of the new European Constitution – officially starting the two-year ratification period. Symbolically, the ceremony will take place in the same room as the signing of the original Treaty of Rome by the then six member states – France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg – in 1957. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi fought a hard battle to get the document signed in Rome – although Italy failed to get the document agreed under its EU Presidency in the second half of last year. It was eventually agreed under the Irish EU Presidency in June.”

The EU Constitution was signed in the same room in Rome where the original Treaty of Rome was signed, which gave BIRTH to the European Unity. That all of this happened in Rome is highly significant. The Bible shows that a final resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire will occur in Europe, just prior to the return of Christ. And the very foundation of that final resurrection will be a city which is built on seven hills — Rome (compare Revelation 17:9, 18).

For more information, please read our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy.“

The Constitution must still be ratified by the 25 member states. What happens if not all ratify? The article of Euobserver continued to point out:

“There is much speculation over whether a no vote in a small country would be allowed to sink the whole ship. However, a no vote in a larger country or in several countries would be difficult to overcome and could send politicians back to the drawing board. In any case, Europe is entering a new two-year phase today of national ratification – the Constitution will enter into force on 1 November 2006, provided it has been ratified in all 25 member states.”

IF the target date of November 2006 can be met, then this, too, might have some interesting significance. It would be exactly 49 years (7X7) after the Treaty of Rome was signed. In the Bible, the number 7 stands for completeness.

Euro at All-Time High

On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, the dollar fell to an all-time low against the euro, with analysts forecasting more declines to come. The euro crossed the “magical line” of 1.30 dollars. As Der Spiegel Online reported, the euro is now more expensive than ever before since its creation in January of 1999. Reasons given for this unprecedented climb were the fragile state of Arafat at that time and the re-election of George Bush to the U.S. Presidency.

Joerg Haider Speaks… Again

Some have been waiting for Joerg Haider’s official response to the re-election of President Bush. Although, reportedly, a friend of California’s governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who supported Bush during the election campaign, Austria’s Joerg Haider has been an outspoken critic of Bush. News Networld published Haider’s statements, as follows:

“With Bush’s victory, a prolonged continuation of American politics of arrogance and self-aggrandizement has been assured. The consequence will be a world of additional radicalism and increasing fanaticism. The trenches between the Western and the Muslim world will become deeper, and the threat of terrorism will remain evident. In addition, the relationship with Europe will continue to be tense, as Bush carries out his politics without consideration for international treaties and cooperation. The tendency of a basic anti-American feeling of society will be strengthened. The re-election of Bush could have unimaginable consequences for the world. In particular, the danger of war in the Middle East is great.”

Cat Stevens Honored with Peace Award

In what might be viewed as a direct response to the recent bizarre events involving the refusal of the United States to allow Cat Stevens to enter the country, the famous singer received a peace prize for his humanitarian efforts. As AFP reported on November 10, 2004:

“Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev presented singer-songwriter Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, with a peace prize, two months after he was refused entry to the United States on ‘national security grounds’. The ‘Man for Peace 2004’ prize was presented at a ceremony in Rome city hall marking the opening of the Fifth World Nobel Summit, an annual gathering here of Nobel peace laureates led by Gorbachev, who won the prize in 1990. The award is given annually ‘to a distinguished personage of culture and entertainment for peace messages, fraternity and integration between nations.'”

Reuters added the following:

“Yusuf Islam, the pop star formerly known as Cat Stevens, says he has received ‘more apologies than you can count’ from Americans embarrassed after their government deported him over potential terrorism links…. ‘So, I’m quite satisfied with the spirit of most people and probably it was a mistake. But let’s hope it will be solved soon. The lawyers are looking into it,’ he said…. The citation [as ‘Man for Peace 2004’] commended Islam ‘for having condemned terrorism’ and contributing to charities that helped victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.”

Arafat – Dead At Age 75

AFP reported on November 11, 2004:

“Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat… died at the age of 75, plunging the Middle East into a new era of uncertainty… Fears of violence were underlined when the radical Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades… urged its fighters to attack Israel to avenge the ‘Zionist assassination’…Israel, which has long accused Arafat of being the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East, did not try to mask its delight at his death.”

Bild Online asked the question: “Will Violence Explode in the Middle East?”

According to AFP, Tony Blair is flying to the USA to discuss with President Bush the “international community’s highest priority” to create “peace in the Middle East,” following Arafat’s death.

Associated Press reported about the condolences received from world leaders:

“Egypt called him a ‘historic leader’ who strove for ‘peace, security and stability.’… Condolences came from as far away as China, where President Hu Jintao said Arafat was ‘an outstanding leader of the Palestinian cause.’ Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi praised Arafat’s efforts on behalf of peace and his people, citing his signing of the 1993 Israel-PLO accord that gave him control of most of Gaza Strip and 27 percent of West Bank. ‘Yasser Arafat spent his entire life for the Palestinian cause. We pray that his mission is completed after his death,’ Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told The Associated Press from Saudi Arabia, where he was performing the Muslim pilgrimage.

“German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder credited Arafat with striving to lead the Palestinians to independence, regretting that ‘it was not granted to Yasser Arafat to complete his life’s work.’ Russian President Vladimir Putin said the Palestinians had suffered a heavy loss, and his Foreign Ministry called for the international community, Israel and the Palestinians to redouble peace efforts. French President Jacques Chirac, who had visited Arafat days before his death, called him a ‘man of courage and conviction who, for 40 years, has incarnated the Palestinians’ combat for recognition of their national rights.’ Praise also came from the European Union, the Arab League and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said Arafat had ‘expressed and symbolized in his person the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.’

“Even Arafat’s critics acknowledged his death was ‘a significant moment in Palestinian history,’ as President Bush put it. Bush, who had accused Arafat of blocking peace with Israel, expressed condolences to the Palestinian people… British Prime Minister Tony Blair, expressing his condolences to Arafat’s family and to the Palestinian people and noting that Arafat was a Nobel Peace laureate, also looked ahead… Australian Prime Minister John Howard said history would judge Arafat harshly. Arafat could have helped secure Middle East peace by accepting a deal in 2000 that would have resulted in the Israelis ‘agreeing to about 90 percent of what the Palestinians had wanted,’ Howard said. Howard said he also found it hard to believe that Arafat could not have done more to restrain terrorists.”

Der Spiegel Online published the following additional comments:

“Josef Lapid, Israel’s Minister of Justice, said during a radio broadcast: ‘I hated Arafat…’ Former leader Shimon Peres said, ‘It was Arafat’s biggest mistake to move toward terrorism… He accomplished the most when he tried to create peace.'”

First of all, it is important to realize that we must receive our teachings from the Bible; so even IF Mr. Armstrong HAD taught that there would still have to be a future king of the South, we still would have to be able to back up such a teaching with Scripture. We have published several articles in previous Updates (Q&A in Update 154; Comments from our Readers in Update #156), and we have also placed a StandingWatch program regarding the king of the South on our Web, showing that Scripture does NOT DEMAND a future king of the South. In addition, we are also pleased to state that Mr. Armstrong did NOT teach something contrary to this fact, several false claims of some notwithstanding.

Hours of research have established that Mr. Armstrong has never written that the final fulfillment of the prophecies about the coming king of the South are certainly yet to come. In fact, Mr. Armstrong wrote an Editorial in 1967, which was published in the Plain Truth, pointing out that the prophecy of Daniel 11:40 WAS fulfilled. There is no further mention of a king of the South after Daniel 11:40. It is clear that Mr. Armstrong, since 1967, never taught that there would definitely be a future king of the South, “attacking” or “pushing at” the future king of the North or Europe.

Further, Mr. Armstrong never taught that the king of the South would be a confederacy of Arab nations, in some way led by Egypt, as some teach today. In 1983 Mr. Armstrong wrote, “Ethiopia… is the only possible government that could be the king of the South.”
The idea of an Arab confederacy at odds with Europe seems to somewhat contradict, to an extent, the prophecy in Psalm 83, implying a confederation between Arab nations AND the future leading nation of Europe, Assur or Germany, AGAINST Israel.

Mr. Armstrong expressly rejected the idea that Egypt would or could be the king of the South. He clearly taught that at the time of Daniel 11:42, Egypt is NOT the king of the South. Compare his booklet on “Middle East in Prophecy.” He wrote that for the last 2,000 years since 31 B.C., the “king of the south… cannot be the king of Egypt.”

It is true that there have been occasional articles published in the Church, suggesting or stating that there still will be a future king of the South. None of these articles were written by Mr. Armstrong. It is correct that in December of 1980 and in June of 1983, a staff writer wrote in two Plain Truth articles that some type of Arab-Moslem confederation is coming as a king of the South, but Mr. Armstrong did not teach this. In his articles, the staff writer omitted to mention Mr. Armstrong’s strong belief that Daniel 11:40 HAS already been fulfilled.

We cannot assume that Mr. Armstrong agreed with the staff writer’s articles, only because they were published in the Plain Truth. Mr. Armstrong wrote in the Good News of October/November 1979, page 1, in response to a personal letter from a member concerning a discrepancy between what he preached and what the Church published: “With all the day-to-day administration responsibilities over the entire globe-girdling Work, it is difficult for me to read every article in The Good News and The Plain Truth before publication.” Thus it is clear that we cannot be certain of Mr. Armstrong’s approval for every article and idea presented in the Church’s publications during this time period. Especially when important details of prophecy were omitted [such as the fulfillment of Daniel 11:40] and thus by default the teaching contradicted what he himself wrote.

Prior to his death in 1986, Mr. Armstrong wrote one more time on the subject in the September 1983 issue of the Plain Truth, once again stating the historical fulfillment of Daniel 11:40. He at that time also wrote: “Ethiopia… is the only possible government that could be the king of the south.” This article appeared in the very next issue in the publishing cycle after the staff writer’s article, so it appears to be a correction of erroneous doctrine done with as little humiliation for the author as possible on Mr. Armstrong’s part.

In conclusion, it is important to let the Bible be our guide. The Bible is not clear that there needs to be a future king of the South, since history has shown that the prophecy in Daniel 11:40 concerning the king of the South was fulfilled, and Scripture could allow for, but does not demand, that this prophecy be dual in fulfillment. The current view of some, which DEMANDS the coming of another king of the South and identifies him as a confederation of Arab nations, under Egpyt’s leadership, is certainly in contradiction to the clear teachings of the Bible.

A new StandingWatch program was recorded last week, titled, “Christ’s Return and You.” The program discusses our individual physical and spiritual responsibilities in preparation for Christ’s return.

It is planned to record another StandingWatch program this Friday.

Ad Campaign in the UK

The recent UK advertising campaign offered two booklets, “Europe in Prophecy,” which received 1,450 responses, and “Angels, Demons and the Spirit World,” which received 1,427 responses. In addition, other booklets have been requested and so far, a further 135 have been sent out with more requests expected in the next few weeks. Requests for additional literature are still being received by telephone, post and e-mail.

Just a few comments from this latest advertising campaign:

“I would like to peruse your ‘America and Britain in Prophecy’ booklet, having found much that has troubled since schooldays, and is covered in ‘Europe in Prophecy’ which I have just read. Since schooldays are some 75 years ago, you may understand the state that applies.”

“Thank you for sending me a copy of the booklet ‘Europe in Prophecy.’ From the list on the back page, I am intrigued; would it be possible to send me ‘The Theory of Evolution’, ‘Is God a Trinity?’, ‘Baptism – A Requirement for Salvation?’ and ‘Angels, Demons and the Spirit World.’ Thank you very much. I appreciate all and everything I have and can learn from you.”

“Thank you very much for recent booklet ‘Europe in Prophecy.’ I found this very good and very informative. All I can do is thank you for this information as I find it very sad when I see the turmoil, war and hurt that is commonplace world wide at this moment in time. Once again, thank you for your publication.”

“After reading ‘Europe in Prophecy’ I am now intrigued to read your other publications. I would be delighted if you could send me a copy of each of those below.” (The writer then requests a further 14 booklets which will be sent to him over the next several weeks).

“Thank you very much for the two booklets which you have sent me, which I found informative and thought provoking. You also sent a list of what is available and so will you allow me to impose on your kindness and request further booklets.”

“Thank you for the booklet entitled ‘Europe in Prophecy’ – it’s quite fascinating to say the least. I must confess that I hadn’t heard of the Global Church of God, that is until I received the booklet. Perhaps I should throw a little light on my simple beliefs. I do not accept in any form or shape the Devil or Satan. I do not accept the Trinity or ascension into heaven. I have been baptised into the saving name of Christ my Saviour and await the judgement morning when I will alone answer for my sins. This is my simple faith as I walk towards Jehovah’s Vineyard in the sincere hope that I will be granted an abiding place in that glorious Kingdom. This I write in the hope of our Master’s quick return.”

“I have read your book ‘Europe in Prophecy’ and it is very interesting but there are a few things that I don’t agree with. I would like to read the book ‘Angels, Demons and the Spirit World’ as I belong to the Spiritualist church.”

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