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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anniversary of Destruction of Dresden

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

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

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

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

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

Election Results in Iraq — Good or Bad?

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

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

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

Iran and the West

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

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

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

NATO Forces in the Middle East?

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

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

NATO Outdated?

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

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

Assassination in Lebanon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USA and France

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

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

Abortions in the U.S.A.

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

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

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

Israel and the Palestinian State

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

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

Byzantium and Bavaria

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

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

EU and the Catholic Church

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

Human Cloning?

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

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

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

Tsunamis Threaten the U.S.

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

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

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

Royal Marriage in England

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

Evolution — Scientific?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Saturday, February 5, 2005, J. Edwin Pope will give the sermon, titled, “What Does God Require?”

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.

On the Sabbath of January 29, one day before the elections were to take place in Iraq, there was an article in “The Californian” in which three Iraqi scholars, who are presently students at the University of Arizona in Tucson, were interviewed. These three individuals, two men and a young woman, would travel approximately 1,000 miles round trip from Tucson to the nearest polling place for them, to cast their vote. This polling place was in Irvine, California, at El Toro, the former Marine Corps Air Base, one of five polling places established in the United States for this election.

Iraqis were to choose a 275-member assembly that will draft the country’s new constitution and appoint a president and a vice-president.

When asked their feelings concerning the potential turnout for the election in Iraq, which election was being held to establish a democratic form of government to replace the dictatorship which existed under Saddam Hussein; these three scholars (one a Shiite lawyer, one a Kurdish – Sunni lawyer, and one a Chaldean Catholic who is working toward a masters degree in teaching and teachers education) were in agreement that the people of Iraq are looking for leadership to improve the safety and economic health of their nation.

Additionally, they were unanimous in their belief there would be a “big turnout” for the election in Iraq, in spite of the threats of insurgents and terrorists expected to create violence inside their country. They felt that many of these people causing fear in their country are from neighboring countries “who fear a unified, economically powerful, democratic Iraq.” They were adamant in their belief that the people would no longer put up with the likes of a Saddam Hussein and his “false elections,” and that the people of Iraq are “anxious” for a change. They also felt that the new government will not become a religious government, because the people of Iraq have learned from the bad experiences with such governments in surrounding countries.

Articles in the same newspaper gave many other such examples of Iraqis with similar beliefs. Editorials by Thomas L. Friedman and Jay Bookman seemed to reflect much the same feelings about the Iraqi elections and the new government to be established.

It does appear on the morning following the elections in Iraq that perhaps as many as 60-72% of those qualified to participate in these elections have turned out to support the dream which surely the people of Iraq have had in spite of such odds against them. This has been the vision of many of the Iraqi people for a long time. Of course, we are told in Proverbs 29:18 (KJV) that “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

It is easy for you and me to understand how a people who have lived under the rule of tyranny for a long period would look longingly to such an opportunity that is before the Iraqi people today. No country desires to be ruled by a conquering nation or a tyrant, no matter where he is from. We all desire to live in peace and freedom.

When the people of this country, the United Sates of America, first came to this new land, they were desirous of a government to be established where all men would have an opportunity to live in peace and harmony with religious and political freedom. They were finally able to establish such a government that has existed now for over 200 years. However, we must realize that the freedom guaranteed by that government has been terribly abused by some, if not many, who have misused it as a license to sin in manifold ways.

The people of Germany, at the end of World War II, desired to live in peace and freedom without the rule of an individual over them in the manner that they had been under with the rule of Hitler. Many in the democratic “Federal Republic of Germany” (BRD) and the communist-ruled so-called “German Democratic Republic” (DDR) had a vision of a unified Germany with the freedoms that would allow each individual to live peaceably, each man able to support himself and his family without having to live in fear of those who ruled over them. And it was years later before they would fully realize that vision, with the fall of the Berlin wall.

Today, however, many Germans are unhappy with the German unification, and anti-American feelings and sentiments are being heard in Germany. Some have long forgotten or are deliberately willing to ignore Germany’s liberation after World War II through the Allies and the American support of the free part of Berlin, when the entire city was isolated by the Russian Communists.

The future will show what the elections in Iraq have accomplished. Commentaries warn that the elections should not be over-evaluated, as they are mainly symbolic in nature. The grim facts of violence and bloodshed will continue to occur in Iraq. The Scripture mentions in Jeremiah 6:14, and in other places, people who speak of peace, when there is no peace! That is certainly occurring on a continuing basis, today. And the main reason there is no peace in this world today is that the world does not look to God for His Divine guidance. The people look to themselves, never considering the fact that the inspiration of this world comes mainly from Satan the devil, who is the real ruler of this present world and its systems.

In Ephesians 2:2 we read of “…the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience.” It is this being who directs “the course of this world” and who inspires men to “conduct” themselves as they do in the lusts of the flesh, “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind” and “are by nature children of wrath…”

However, Satan’s time is short, and you and I look to the day when his rule will be put down. You and I have this vision, which is the reason we take no part in this world’s political systems. We look forward to the time when the Government of God will be established over this earth – and finally this entire universe – with Jesus Christ taking His rightful place on the Throne of David, and removing Satan from his seat of authority. He will then replace the false systems, which have been inspired by Satan, with God’s Righteous Government. At that time, there will be safety and economic health, as well as true freedom, established around the world, and God’s peace will rule over all of mankind for 1,000 years!

State of the Union Address 2005

As The Associated Press reported on February 2, 2005, “President Bush challenged a hesitant Congress on Wednesday to take political risks to make Social Security ‘permanently sound,’ saying the nation’s costliest social program was headed for bankruptcy unless changed. Bush’s plan would cut guaranteed retirement benefits for younger Americans but would not affect checks for people now 55 and older… He pledged to confront regimes that promote terror and pursue weapons of mass destruction, and singled out Syria and Iran… Bush also promised to push forward for Mideast peace, including $350 million in aid to the Palestinians… With the United States spending more than $1 billion a week in Iraq, Bush urged Congress to support his request for an additional $80 billion.”

To quote from the transcript of President Bush’s speech, as published by WorldNetDaily on February 2, 2005:

“Tonight, with a healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work, with our Nation an active force for good in the world – the state of our union is confident and strong… So next week I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009… Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra 200 billion dollars to keep the system afloat – and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than 300 billion dollars. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs… For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage…. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity…

“We are working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions… The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom… To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act – and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. Today, Iran remains the world’s primary state sponsor of terror – pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you. “

The Democrats are strongly opposed to President Bush’s plans to privatize social security. The Democratic National Committee also pointed out, on February 2, 2005, that ” Experts recently announced that Bush’s growing $8 trillion dollar debt translates to roughly $26,000 per person… 4.3 million more Americans are now in poverty… 5.2 million more people are uninsured today than in 2000.”

To quote from the transcripts of the “Democratic Reponse” to the State of the Union Address, by Senator Harry Reid (Democratic Leader in U.S. Senate — Nevada) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (House Democratic Leader — California):

“After World War II, through the Marshall Plan, we rebuilt Europe and they went from poverty to an economic powerhouse. Today, we need to invest in our nation’s future with a Marshall Plan for America – to build the infrastructure our economy needs to go – and grow…. This 21st century economy holds great promise for our people. But unless we give all Americans the skills they need to succeed, countries like India and China will take good-paying jobs that should be ours… And that’s why we so strongly disagree with the president’s plan to privatize Social Security… it’s wrong to replace the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned with a guaranteed benefit cut of 40 percent or more… The Bush plan would take our already record high $4.3 trillion national debt and put us another $2 trillion in the red. That’s an immoral burden to place on the backs of the next generation….”

“Despite the best efforts of our troops and their Iraqi counterparts, Iraq still faces a violent and persistent insurgency. And the chairman of the National Intelligence Council said in January that Iraq is now ‘a magnet for international terrorists.’ … Yet, the gaps in our security exposed by those attacks remain… airline cargo still goes uninspected, shipping containers go unscreened and our railroads and power plants are not secure… The greatest threats to our homeland security are the tons of biological, chemical, and even nuclear materials that are unaccounted for or unguarded.”

The Run from the U.S. Dollar

As WorldNetDaily reported on February 3, 2005, “Decisions by the world’s two wealthiest men to bet on a further weakening of the U.S. dollar, coupled with China’s lack of confidence in American currency should grab the attention of every working person, says Craig Smith, CEO of Swiss America Trading… Citing widening U.S. trade and budget deficits and a federal debt of $7.62 trillion, [Bill] Gates said in a TV interview at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last weekend he expects the dollar to extend its three-year decline…

“Smith said the actions of Buffett, worth more than $42.9 billion, and Gates, $46.6 billion, [to sell the dollar and to buy foreign currencies] are significant in light of the lack of confidence recently expressed by leaders of the world’s fastest growing economy, China, which has its currency pegged to the dollar… Since the beginning of 2002, the dollar has dropped 26 percent against a basket of six major currencies, and the trade deficit grew to a record $609 billion. In addition, the Bush administration expects the budget deficit this year to hit an all-time high of $427 billion.”

The EU Constitution — Unknown in Europe?

On January 28, 2005, the EUobserver reported that “one third of EU citizens [are] unaware of [the] European Constitution.” The article continued to explain that “a new poll has shown that a high percentage of EU citizens feel they know little about its content and a third are completely unaware of the document… Thirty-three percent have never heard of the new EU charter which was signed with great ceremony last year and is to be put to a referendum in at least nine member states – starting in Spain next month. In individual member states, the figures are higher – 50% of Britons, 45% of Irish and 39% of Portuguese are unaware of the document.”

In addition, “only 39% of citizens know that the Constitution does not foresee the creation of a direct European tax; meanwhile only 38% of respondents know that the President of the European Council will not be directly elected by citizens…”

The article also pointed out that most people in the UK are opposed to the ratification of the EU constitution (while, at the same time, 50% don’t even know of its existence). The article explained: “The UK, which many feel may reject the Constitution in its planned referendum next year, has among the most extreme results. At 30%, it has the most people against the Constitution; while, at 20%, the least in favour of the document. This contrasts strongly with Italy and Belgium where the figures in favour are 72% and 70% respectively.”

The article stated in its concluding remarks: “The Constitution, which will introduce an EU foreign minister, a permanent chair of the EU and greater powers to the European Parliament, has to be ratified by all 25 member states before it can come into force.”

In light of these statistics, and the lack of knowledge amongst many Europeans as to what the EU Constitution entails, the following prophecy in Revelation 13:3 is remarkable: “And all the world [inside and outside Europe] marveled and followed the beast” [a modern resurrected Holy Roman Empire, forming right now in Europe].

Australia vs. Europe?

The Australian reported on January 31, 2005, that Australia’s “John Howard has lashed out at ‘old Europe’, describing criticism of the US as ‘unfair and irrational’, as global tensions grow over the Iraq war and free trade. During a vigorous panel debate on US global relations at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, several European officials attacked President George W. Bush’s Iraq policy, but Mr Howard stood up to defend his ally. Earlier in the summit, Mr Howard attacked the European Union over the reintroduction of wheat export subsidies, which he said harmed underdeveloped nations and were contrary to free trade. ‘Some of the criticism (of the US) by some of the Europeans is unfair and irrational,’ Mr Howard said in the panel debate, organised by Britain’s BBC TV. ‘I mean the negative mindset of the last five minutes (of this debate) is ridiculous – of course America has made mistakes,’ he said. Later Mr Howard told The Australian he found the European ‘irrational level of anti-Americanism’ perplexing. ‘It is a sign of parochialism and it is disturbingly intense.’ He said the BBC debate ‘was based on an anti-American mindset which was established right at the beginning by the moderators from the BBC’. “Mr Howard said anti-Americanism had already affected world co-operation. ‘But it is very important to remember it is confined to sectors of Europe – not all Europeans. In that debate there was a significantly different tone taken by the Latvian President to that taken by the German and other contributors,’ Mr Howard said. ‘The British have a different view through their Government, but there remains in Britain some of the old jealousies that have always been there. I found the French and German attitude has lingered longer than I thought it might, and longer than is in anyone’s interests.'”

The Bible describes ongoing “jealousies” between the United States of America and Great Britain. It also prophesies increasing feelings of Anti-Americanism in Europe, especially in leading nations, such as Germany.

Elections in Iraq — Legitimate or not?

On February 2, 2005, The Associated Press filed this report about the recent elections in Iraq:

“Iraq’s leading Sunni Muslim clerics said Wednesday the country’s landmark elections lacked legitimacy because large numbers of Sunnis did not participate in the balloting, which the religious leaders had asked them to boycott… Large numbers of majority Shiite Muslims and Kurds participated in Sunday’s election for a new National Assembly and regional parliaments. Although no results or turnout figures have been released, U.S. officials say participation appeared much lower in Sunni areas where the insurgency is strongest. The low turnout has been blamed variously on the clerics’ own boycott call and on fears of insurgent reprisals against those who voted… “In its first statement since the balloting, the Association of Muslim Scholars said the vote lacked legitimacy because of low Sunni participation. The association months ago urged Sunnis to shun the polls because of the presence of U.S. and other foreign troops, and insurgents threatened to kill anyone who voted. Iraqi officials have acknowledged voting problems, including a ballot shortage in Baghdad, Basra and Mosul, which have substantial Sunni populations and which also may have contributed to a low Sunni turnout. With many Sunnis having stayed away, a ticket endorsed by the Shiite clergy is expected to gain the biggest number of seats in the 275-member National Assembly, followed by the Kurds and a list headed by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite. Shiites comprise an estimated 60 percent of Iraq’s 26 million people, and Shiite candidates were expected to fare best regardless of Sunni turnout. However, low Sunni participation was believed to have reduced the totals of other tickets.”

Russia and China — a New Power Bloc?

The Associated Press reported on February 2, 2005, that “Russia and China will hold regular security consultations, President Vladimir Putin and a visiting Chinese official announced Wednesday, moving to further strengthen close military cooperation between the two Cold War-era adversaries… Putin hailed an increasingly close cooperation between the former Communist rivals, saying that ‘relations in the political, economic and security sphere and in the field of military cooperation have been developing intensively.'”

The article continued to point out: “The maneuvers, set to begin in August, were seen by many observers as Russia’s response to the cooling of relations with the United States and other Western nations, most recently over the presidential election in Ukraine… After decades of rivalry, Moscow and Beijing have developed what they call a strategic partnership since the 1991 Soviet collapse, pledging their adherence to a ‘multipolar world,’ a term that refers to their opposition to a perceived U.S. domination in global affairs. China has purchased billions of dollars worth of fighters, missiles, submarines and destroyers, becoming the No. 1 customer for struggling Russian defense industries.”

The Bible prophesies that Russia and China will unite, militarily, to form a mighty power bloc. Ultimately, it will find itself in opposition to Europe.

Terrorists in Germany?

On February 1, 2005, The Associated Press reported about the arrests of suspected terrorists in Germany: “In coordinated nationwide raids last month, police arrested 15 people on suspicion of belonging to an extremist network allegedly centered on Ulm and neighboring Neu Ulm… In the Jan. 12 raids, 700 police officers searched 60 mosques, homes and shops across Germany. Suspects included nationals of Germany, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya and Bulgaria; police said their activities included raising money, producing fake passports, and recruiting people for jihad, or holy war. The Ulm area operation focused on the mosque and an Islamic Information Center… The raids were part of a general crackdown on Islamic extremism in Germany that included the apprehension of three Ansar el Islam suspects alleged to have plotted to assassinate Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi when he visited Berlin in December, and the arrest of two others at the end of January on suspicion they belong to al-Qaida.”

Global Warming a Deadly Threat

AFP reported on February 2, 2005, about the widely underestimated deadly threats of global warming. The article pointed out that “Global warming will boost outbreaks of infectious disease, worsen shortages of water and food in vulnerable countries and create an army of climate refugees fleeing uninhabitable regions, a conference here was told.”

According to the article, “Global warming will also add significantly to Earth’s worrisome water problems. Already around 1.4 billion people live in water-stressed areas, a term defined as having less than 1,000 cubic metres (35,000 cubic feet) of water per person per year… Most of them live in southern and southwest Asia, the Middle East and the Mediterranean. By the 2050s, water availability in these water-stressed regions — but also in parts of central, north and south America — may be further crimped because of changed rainfall patterns. Between 700 million and 2.8 billion people in such areas will be affected, depending on population growth and the pace of temperature rise… Between the 1970s — when temperatures first rose significantly — and the year 2000, climate change cost around 150,000 lives from malnutrition, diarrhoea, malaria and floods. That tally will ‘approximately double’ by 2020, mainly because of diarrhoea, which is propagated easily in floods, and hunger, [an expert] said.”

Germany’s Staggering Unemployment Rate

Bloomberg reported on February 2 about Germany’s unprecedented unemployment rate since WW II. The article stated: “German unemployment jumped to the highest since World War II as new rules added welfare recipients to the jobless register…The number of people out of work in January rose by 227,000 to 4.71 million in seasonally adjusted terms [However, as is pointed out below, the accurate figures seem to be much higher.]… Germany’s rising unemployment contrasts with the U.S., where the jobless rate probably remained unchanged at 5.4 percent in January as 200,000 jobs were created outside farming, a Bloomberg survey of 70 economists showed… In December, Germany had the second highest unemployment rate after Spain among the 12 countries that share the euro, at 10 percent on a comparable basis. The rate in France was 9.7 percent. In the U.K., the latest available comparable rate is 4.6 percent for October….

“‘Unemployment has grown steadily over the last three decades and then reunification came on top of that,’ [a German expert said.] ‘There is no silver bullet for the reduction of unemployment and if anybody claims this can be done quickly then that’s simply false.’ While the German economy resumed expansion in 2004 after three years, there’s been no corresponding growth in job numbers… Germany is losing 1,200 full-time jobs a day… Siemens AG, Germany’s largest engineering company, plans to shed about 700 jobs at its fixed-line networks unit in Munich and Berlin, the company said Jan. 28. T-Mobile International AG, Deutsche Telekom AG’s wireless unit, plans to eliminate as many as 1,200 jobs in Germany by the end of 2006 to cut costs.”

According to Bild Online, the reality of Germany’s unemployment figures is even much worse. In an article, dated February 2, 2005, the German tabloid writes: “In Germany, there are 6.5 million without work… And even that is not the whole truth. In addition to the 6.5 million, there is the ‘silent reserve,’… people who are not entitled to benefits and who therefore don’t even register with the government, as they could not find a job… An improvement is not in sight. The [government] has already announced increasing figures for February.”

In a strongly worded commentary to the German government, the tabloid wrote: “Do you even care for these people [who are without work]?… In our country, [employees of the government] are disconnecting electricity in private homes, as the unemployed cannot afford paying electricity bills. Thousands of Germans are living without light or heat. Do you know… how many Germans are freezing today?”

Historians will recall that the unprecedented unemployment rate in Germany after WW I, and the inability of the government to improve the situation, was one of the reasons why Hitler came to power.

The Next Pope

The Associated Press reported on February 2, 2005, that in light of the pope’s recent health crisis, speculations of a successor have been increased. The article pointed out: “After 26 years in the papacy, Pope John Paul II has outlived many of the men once considered possible successors. Should he die, there would be no clear favorite, making the question of papal succession as unpredictable as any in recent history…

“On the theory the cardinals may seek a transitional figure, one name that has emerged in Rome is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a German who heads the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He’s 77 and has proposed retiring several times to John Paul, but the pope has turned him down. Ratzinger is favored by those who want assurances the conservative policies of John Paul – opposition to contraception, women priests and any loosening of mandatory celibacy for priests – won’t be relaxed, according to a prelate who closely follows the succession maneuvers.

“Another camp is touting Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras, who at 62 is seen as a dynamic churchman from Latin America. Other prominent names mentioned include Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Vatican-based Nigerian; Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina; Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium; Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico; Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Austria and Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi of Italy [and] Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes… But Chicago Cardinal Francis George does disqualify one group – his fellow Americans. ‘An office like the papacy needs to be free. And to some extent, even the appearance of being in some sense captured by, as we say now, the world’s only superpower, would not be helpful to the mission of the church,’ he told reporters in Rome during a 2003 visit.”

God never promoted polygamy or intended that His followers should engage in that practice. Although the Old Testament records that several of the patriarchs practiced polygamy, it was never in accordance with God’s will and His intent for marriage. When a man took more than one wife, curses and punishment were the consequence.
Abraham sinned when he had sexual relationships with Sarah’s maid Hagar. This was not only a sin because he lacked faith in God that He could give him a son through his wife Sarah, who was barren, but he also sinned, because he was married to Sarah and therefore committed adultery with Sarah’s maid.

Even though Sarah had consented to this act, it did not in any way negate God’s law. And so, we read that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, “to be his wife” (Genesis 16:3), but when God speaks to and of Hagar, she is only referred to as Sarah’s maid (Genesis 16:8) or the bondwoman (Genesis 21:13). God never calls Hagar Abraham’s wife, but when God is referring to Sarah, He speaks of her consistently, even after the episode with Hagar, as Abraham’s wife (Genesis 17:15, 19; 18:9-10; 20:2, 7). In Genesis 21, it is recorded that Abraham sent Hagar away, as Hagar’s and Ishmael’s presence created problems for Sarah and Isaac. After the episode with Hagar, the Bible does not mention that Abraham had sexual relationships with any other women but Sarah, until Sarah’s death.

Isaac had only one wife – Rebecca. Although Isaac repeated Abraham’s mistake when he lied about his wife, by calling her his sister, he did not repeat the mistake of his father Abraham to try to produce offspring through Rebecca’s maid, but he waited on God to give him children through Rebecca, trusting in God that He would heal Rebecca who was barren (Genesis 25:21-22).

Jacob took more than one wife (Leah and Rachel), and he repeated the mistake of his grandfather Abraham and produced offspring through the maids of his wives, but he was unconverted at that time. His conversion apparently took place when he wrestled with God, as recorded in Genesis 32:22-32.

Israel’s first king, Saul, took more than one wife, and he thereby sinned, following the practices of the pagans all around him. He violated God’s specific command to Israel’s kings in Deuteronomy 17:17, not to “multiply wives for himself.”

David had more than one wife. We read of his wives Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba, and of other wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13). At least ten of his concubines (2 Samuel 15:16) are also called his wives in 2 Samuel 12:11. It seems to follow from 2 Samuel 19:5, that David had even more concubines and wives, than just the ten whom he left in Jerusalem, to guard his court, when he fled from his rebellious son Absalom. David followed the practice of Saul and other kings, to multiply wives, against God’s explicit commandment prohibiting such practice.

We read in 2 Samuel 20:3 that David no longer had any sexual relationships with his concubines, after they had been disgraced by his son Absalom. We also read that Michal was once his wife (1 Samuel 25:44), but ceased to be so, when she had become the wife of another, namely Paltiel. When that happened, the Bible calls Paltiel her husband (2 Samuel 3:15), and David was not supposed to take her back, when he had become king, under the law in effect at that time (compare Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Update #73 discusses the question whether or not this law is still in force and effect today). David probably did so for political reasons, so he could say that he was the husband of King Saul’s daughter. The Bible does not refer to Michal as David’s wife, after he had taken her back, but consistently refers to her as “Michal, Saul’s daughter” (2 Samuel 6:16, 20, 23).

David’s son Solomon took seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, transgressing thereby God’s commandments, and they turned away his heart. What Solomon did was “evil in the sight of the LORD” (1 Kings 11:6).

These Old Testament examples only prove to show that polygamy always has been wrong and against God’s law. This fact is clearly confirmed in the New Testament.

Christ explained, in Mark 10: 6-9, that God’s intent for marriage was a relationship between one man and one woman. The “TWO” (verse 8) were to become one flesh. We don’t read that the “three” or the “four” are to become one flesh.

Human marriage is a symbol of the spiritual marriage between Christ and His Church, as Ephesians 5:25-33 brings out. There, too, we read about the fact that “each one of you… so love his own wife as himself” (verse 33). We don’t read about a husband loving his own WIVES as himself.

Christ will only marry ONE wife – not many wives. It says in Revelation 19:7: “His wife has made herself ready.” It does not say: “His wives have made themselves ready.” Christ’s Church is a spiritual organism, consisting of all in whom God’s Spirit dwells. But it is ONE body (Colossians 1:18) – not several bodies.

We read in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 that a minister or a deacon must only have one wife. But this does not mean that unordained Church members are permitted to have more than one wife. As we saw, God intends marriage to be a bond between one man and one woman. When addressing the requirements for ministers and deacons, Paul emphasizes God’s teaching, not to have more than one wife, as he emphasizes other character traits required of ministers and deacons (such as, to be “temperate,” “of good behavior,” “not violent,” “not greedy for money,” etc.). This does not mean that these are just requirements for ministers and deacons, and that other Church members don’t sin when they behave badly, or when they are violent or greedy for money.

The teaching of the Old and New Testament is clear and consistent: It is not the Will of God that a man should have more than one wife.

A new StandingWatch program will be recorded on Friday, and should be on the Web shortly. It will be titled, “The Last Days of Pompeii.”

On Saturday, January 29, 2005, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Predestination and the Book of Life.”

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.

Do we sometimes get discouraged or have feelings of disappointment because we may think that there does not seem to be enough spectacular growth in the Church of God, which is a spiritual organism? What we have to realize is that growth can be measured in more than one way. It can be measured by focusing on “numbers” — as far as quantity of members and coworkers is concerned — and it can be measured by focusing on increase of spiritual understanding and better conduct (2 Peter 3:18; Ephesians 4:15) — as far as quality of living is concerned. Which, do you suppose, is more important in God’s eyes?

We may want to compare the growth of the Church with the foundation of a building. When it is strong, one can build on it. However, God must lay the foundation.

When David faced Goliath, it seemed to the human eye like an impossible task to defeat him. Goliath was a giant, close to nine feet tall, and David was just a teenager — he would be termed in our day as a “little runt” by comparison. Yet, this young man who did not have the impressive stature of Goliath, brought God’s enemy down. He did it with God’s help, not relying on his own strength. However, if they were taking bets at that time, you can imagine where the money would have been placed; yet, it did not turn out the way most people thought. The champion of the Philistines went down hard and with finality. You can read the entire account in 1 Samuel 17.

You can also read an interesting account in the seventh chapter of the book of Judges, in regard to God accomplishing a lot with Gideon and a small group of his supporters. God reduced the manpower down to 300 soldiers. With that small “army,” Gideon was able to overcome humanly insurmountable odds, because God was on his side. From a human point of view, it would have seemed to be an impossible task. You may recall, too, that Mr. Armstrong and his wife kept the Feast of Tabernacles, by themselves, for seven years, before God added anyone to the Church. Seven stands for completeness. The foundation had to be laid first.

After Christ’s death and resurrection, only 120 people were willing, at first, to follow Christ totally and completely (Acts 1:15). Prior to Christ’s death, there were many who had followed Him, but only up to a point. In fact, not every one of His disciples was willing to grow, by accepting more spiritual knowledge. When Christ tried to expand the spiritual horizon of His disciples, many refused to embrace His teaching and ceased to walk with Him any longer (John 6:60-66). At that time, the group of believers DECREASED in quantity, but those who stayed were willing and ready to INCREASE in quality (John 6:67-68).

We firmly believe that in God’s due time, He will add more people to Christ’s body — the Church — as He sees fit. In the meantime, let us ensure that we grow in the quality of our relationship with God. We must never despise the day of small things (Zechariah 4:10). In the end, God can and will accomplish growth in every respect (Isaiah 55:10-11).

President Bush and the Foreign Press

On January 21, 2005, csmonitor.com reported about the overwhelmingly negative reaction of the foreign press to President Bush’s second inaugural speech. The article pointed out:

“… So when Mr. Bush made it clear on Thursday that he was not about to ‘turn back from his doctrine of taking pre-emptive action, in the interests of American security (or, as he would put it, American freedom)’ as the BBC characterized his speech, there was little room for [the] noted British understatement in the headline of the Beeb’s stellar roundup – ‘World press electrified by Bush vision.’ ‘Hold on to your hats, this may be the most ambitious presidency ever.’ That’s the message from one Israeli paper [Haaretz] after President George W. Bush’s inauguration – a message echoed across the world’s press. For China’s press his speech raises the question whether Washington will head further down a ‘unilateral’ path in foreign relations. One Polish paper heralds the speech as the dawn of a conservative revolution, while in Germany and Turkey there’s a bleak forecast for the new Bush era.”

The article continued: “Iraq was never mentioned by name, yet its recent history resonated when Bush applied Abraham Lincoln’s words: ‘those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it’ to his own phrase ‘the rulers of outlaw regimes.’ This was too much for The Toronto Star which called such language ‘unabashedly aggressive.’… The BBC viewed such words as ‘warning bells… ringing in foreign capitals such as Tehran and Damascus.'”

Der Spiegel Online editorialized last week, that no matter what President Bush tries to do, it always seems to backfire and invite criticism. Even though he is right on many issues, according to the magazine, it seems he can’t get many foreign supporters for any of them.

This is a remarkable observation, but why would this be the case? The answer becomes clear in light of Biblical prophecy for the United States of America. Speaking to the modern house of Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh, i.e., the GB and USA ), Isaiah states: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: ‘I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against Me. The ox knows its owner And the donkey its master’s crib; But Israel does not know, My people do not consider… The whole head is sick, And the whole heart faints. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it… When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:2-3, 5-6, 15).

Japan Shows Its Muscles

As The International Herald Tribune reported on January 22, 2005, “Japan is once more going from strength to strength, and this time not just on the economic front. Militarily, diplomatically and in terms of cultural influence and general global activism, Japan is transforming itself, and at speed – not merely into a ‘normal’ country, but into a formidable player across a wide front. Militarily, the Japanese have embarked on a huge upgrade of their overall power-projection capabilities, reinforced by a big expansion of intelligence resources and of their already large satellite program.”

The article continued to explain: “In effect, this is a farewell to the old ‘Yoshida doctrine,’ which based security strictly on national self-defense. Instead, it ushers in a new phase of ‘equal partnership’ defense arrangements, especially with the United States, with interlocking ground, air and maritime forces at an unprecedented level of interoperability and intimacy… In short, Japan is re-emerging as a major military power both in East Asia and globally.”

These developments are highly remarkable, as Japan, according to Biblical prophecy, will play a strong military role in an upcoming conflict between Europe and Asia.

Weather Chaos in Midwest and Europe

On January 22, 2005, itemonline.com stated: “Hundreds of airline flights were canceled Saturday and fleets of road plows were warmed up as a paralyzing snowstorm barreled out of the Midwest and spread across the Northeast with a potential for up to 20 inches of snow driven by 50 mph wind. Storm warnings were posted from Wisconsin to New England, where the National Weather Service posted blizzard warnings in effect through Sunday.”

The Boston Globe reported on January 27, 2005, that “The dazzling oceanside setting that makes Cape Cod a tourist destination contributed yesterday to another furious onslaught of snow that fell from Falmouth to Provincetown, as Massachusetts endured a winter storm that helped set a record for the highest monthly snowfall in 113 years.”

Bild Online reported on January 27, 2005, about chaotic weather conditions in Europe, with snowstorms and blizzards in Majorca and Algiers, and snow and frozen roads in Sicily. Bild Online stated: “Majorca encountered the biggest snowstorm for 100 years… The weather conditions in Algeria have not been as bad since the 50’s… In Germany, temperatures dropped to minus 20 degrees Celsius [in some areas].”

USA vs. GB vs. Iran?

In a remarkable development, showing potential disharmony between the United States of America and Great Britain over the issue of Iran, “JACK STRAW [Great Britain’s foreign minister] has drawn up a dossier putting the case against a military attack on Iran amid fears that President George W Bush’s administration may seek Britain’s backing for a new conflict,” according to The Sunday Times of January 23, 2005.

The article explained: “Straw and his officials fear that hawks in Washington will talk the American president into a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, just as they persuaded him to go to war in Iraq… The document says a peaceful solution led by Britain, France and Germany is ‘in the best interests of Iran and the international community.’ It refers to ‘safeguarding Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology’… The approach contrasts with the government’s two Iraq dossiers, which were trumpeted to make the case for war… Fears in London of an attack were fuelled when Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, said that Iran was ‘top of the list’ as a trouble spot for the administration. Rice said it was an ‘outpost of tyranny’… The message that the British government wants no part in another war in the Middle East will be reinforced by Tony Blair when he meets Bush in Brussels next month and at an Anglo-American summit in Washington after the British general election, which is expected in May.”

The article continued: “In a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times today, 65% of [the] people said that Britain should not support American military action against Iran, compared with 16% who were in favour. However, a consensus is emerging among the ‘neoconservative’ hawks in Washington who are close to Bush that European-led diplomacy with Iran is failing to produce results. A prominent Washington defence hawk said: ‘At some point the Americans are going to turn to the Europeans and say: “The goal is disarmament but all we are getting is arms control. It’s time for a bigger stick.”‘”

This developing disagreement over Iran MIGHT be one of several contributing factors to the prophesied disharmony between the United States of America and Great Britain in the near future. Isaiah 9:21 states: “Manasseh [modern USA] shall devour Ephraim [modern GB], and Ephraim Manasseh, Together they shall be against Judah.”

USA’s Astronomical Budget Deficit!

Bloomberg.com reported on January 24, 2005, that “Germany and France said the drop in the dollar has unfairly punished European economies and called for coordinated action by the U.S., Asia and Europe to stem the currency’s decline. German Finance Minister Hans Eichel and his French counterpart, Herve Gaymard, said the U.S. current account and budget deficits were the chief causes of the euro’s 34 percent rise against the dollar the past three years.”

In addition, The Associated Press reported on January 26, 2005, that “China has lost faith in the stability of the U.S. dollar and its first priority is to broaden the exchange rate for its currency from the dollar to a more flexible basket of currencies, a top Chinese economist said Wednesday.”

It was also reported by Bloomberg.com that “The U.S. must attract about $1.8 billion of investment a day from overseas to fill the current-account gap and maintain the value of the dollar, based on Bloomberg calculations. The shortfall increased to a record $164.7 billion in the third quarter… The federal budget deficit widened to a record $412.3 billion in the year ended on Sept. 30.”

It is evident that this cannot go on much longer. It should be obvious that the USA is facing an UNAVOIDABLE terrible economic disaster in the near future. This is true, even though it was announced during a press conference on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, that the Bush administration will propose to Congress how to cut the deficit in half, while, at the same time, asking for another 80 billion dollars (!) to be spent in Iraq. It should be clear, however, that these ideas will not help in the long run.

The situation in at least parts of Iraq can only be described, objectively, as chaotic. Elections are scheduled for Sunday, but due to violent attacks by Iraqi “insurgents,” some, if not many, of the Iraqi people will not vote. The most recent U.S. helicopter crash in Iraq, killing all 31 marines on board, which was apparently due to mechanical failure, is another indication that the U.S. endeavors in Iraq are simply not blessed. Most Americans would agree with this assessment, stating, according to published opinion polls, that the Iraq war was a failure.

Iraq Before Elections

On January 26, 2005, Zenit published an interesting interview with Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk (Iraq). He clearly favors elections and warns against an early withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq (President Bush just stated that he cannot foresee that American troops will withdraw from Iraq within a year, according to Bild Online, dated January 27, 2005). Bishop Sako stated in the interview:

“The elections are something immense and new. Nothing of the kind has happened in the past 50 years: first because of clashes and revolts, then due to 35 years of dictatorship. There has never been freedom of expression. But now, anything is possible: If there are people and parties arguing and clashing, that is because they are free to do so. Now, Iraqis must learn to discuss in a civil manner. But the people of Iraq have never been trained for coexistence; they have always lived in the midst of violence: three wars, a dictatorship, 13 years of embargo. This is why freedom is not used in a responsible way and problems arise… There are, of course, people who are frightened by threats, but I say that achieving normality has its condition, and this condition is the election process…

“The media is a big problem in Iraq: a lot of lies and provocations are being written and broadcast. It’s enough to think of al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya that are misinforming a great deal, in what amounts to utter fanaticism, which even Iraqi Muslim leaders themselves have condemned. These television broadcasters are continuously trying to spark violence against the Americans and even against Iraqis… But if the Americans leave Iraq today, there will be civil war between Kurds, Arabs, Sunnis, Shiites, Muslims, Christians… The U.S. must stay on until Iraqis can take command of the nation. For the moment, they can’t do this, the necessary structures are not yet in place.”

Swastika a “Harmless” Good Luck Charm?

On January 20, 2005, www.news.bbc.co.uk and Der Spiegel Online reported about the Hindu reaction to German MEPs call “for a Europe-wide ban of the symbol [swastika] after Prince Harry wore it on a fancy dress costume.” According to the articles, “Hindu Forum spokesman Ramesh Kallidai said the swastika had been a Hindu good luck charm for centuries.” He described it as “the second most sacred symbol in the Hindu tradition which has been used for 5,000 years to ward off evil.”

The articles explained that “Displaying the swastika is illegal in Germany. However… a similar ban in the UK would have an adverse affect on Hindus who regarded a swastika in much the same way as a Christian viewed a cross.”

The articles also pointed out the fact that “The Hindu swastika faces to the right, unlike the one adopted by the Nazis which faces to the left.”

To understand the German concern in this entire matter, we need to look at the recent origin and purpose of Hitler’s swastika.

Klaus P. Fischer explains in his outstanding work, “Nazi Germany — A New History,” on page 38, Hitler’s relationship with Georg Lanz von Liebenfels (1874-1954), “a man who gave Hitler many of his racial ideas.” Liebenfels “disseminated his racial ideas in his periodical Ostara, a magazine usually adorned with a swastika on its front page.” Liebenfels was “a former Cistercian monk in the Heiligenkreuz monastery… Liebenfels also gathered like-minded cultists in a ruined castle in upper Austria at Werfenstein. Here he hoisted a swastika and chanted magical incantations to the Teutonic spirits… Hitler actually met Liebenfels on one occasion, asking him for some back issues of Ostara. In fact, the swastika symbol, the racial theory of history, the Holy Grail of Aryan purity, the extermination of apelike humans (Tiermenschen) — all these mental aberrations were prefabricated for Hitler by Liebenfels.”

Fischer continues to state, on pages 129-130:

“Hitler placed great emphasis on the need for symbols and myths in party organization. As early as August 1920, he approved the swastika as the party’s prime symbol… [T]he swastika had been used by a variety of voelkisch groups and paramilitary organizations, but as a symbol it dates back to ancient times [For instance, the ancient Assyrians used the swastika as well]. In Sanskrit the word swastika originally meant ‘good luck,’ and in the pictorial records of various religions… the swastika denoted an object of veneration. The final swastika emblem, although approved by Hitler, was not Hitler’s idea but came from a design by Dr. Friedrich Krohn… Hitler approved this design except for one modification–namely, that the arms of the swastika extended in right rather than in left angels. He later explained the symbolic meaning of this design by saying that ‘in the red we see the social idea of the movement, in the white the national idea, in the swastika the mission of the fight for the victory of the Aryan man, and at the same time also the victory of the idea of creative work which in itself is and always will be anti-Semitic.'”

Auschwitz Remembered

BBC News reported on January 27, 2005: “Holocaust survivors and world leaders have held an emotional ceremony in Poland, 60 years after the liberation of the Nazis’ Auschwitz death camp… ‘It seems as if we can still hear the dead crying out,’ Israeli President Moshe Katsav told the crowd. The Nazi regime murdered six million Jews and many others during what became known as the Holocaust. Auschwitz, the largest of the Nazi camps, where 1.1 million people died, was liberated by the advancing Soviet army on 27 January 1945. Expressing fears over a resurgence in anti-Semitism in Europe, Mr Katsav questioned whether the memory of the Holocaust had lost its power to deter attacks and insults against Jews…

“Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski and Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the crowd. But German President Horst Koehler remained silent, in recognition of Germany’s role as perpetrator of the Holocaust. Touring the camp with survivors before the ceremony, he said: ‘We have the duty to ensure that something like this never happens again – and we Germans in particular.’… Other world figures at the ceremony included US Vice-President Dick Cheney and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. In the nearby Polish city of Krakow, before the ceremony in Auschwitz, Mr Putin spoke out against anti-Semitism and admitted that it was a problem in his country… French President Jacques Chirac, opening an exhibit in honour of French victims, said his country must bear its responsibility for the deportation of Jews from Nazi-occupied France. In the German capital, Berlin, parliament held a special ceremony including an address by a German-Jewish camp survivor, Arno Lustiger, and the readings of poems by a man murdered in Auschwitz.”

The Bible distinguishes between the house of Israel (also referred to as the lost ten tribes) and the house of Judah, or the Jews. At the time of Paul, the house of Judah was politically composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and part of Levi. A careful study of Paul’s writings reveals that he uses the term “Jew” many times as a SUMMARY TERM, which also includes all the tribes of the house of Israel; for instance, Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh), Simeon, Levi, and Reuben.

We read, in Acts 21:39, that “Paul said, I am a man which am a JEW of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia.” However, in Romans 11:1, Paul explained: “I also am an ISRAELITE, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” Notice that Paul called himself a Jew and an “Israelite” — a descendant of ancient Israel or Jacob — and not just a Jew.

Acts 9:15 shows Paul’s 3-fold mission; i.e., to bear Christ’s name before GENTILES, kings and the children of ISRAEL. Here, the Bible makes a distinction between Gentiles and the children of ISRAEL — not just Gentiles and Jews. This passage shows that the children of ISRAEL are NOT Gentiles.

In Matthew 10:5-6, the same distinction is made. We read, in the Authorized Version: “These twelve [apostles] Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The twelve were forbidden, at that time, to spread the gospel among the Gentiles, but they were to preach it to the house of ISRAEL — not just the tribe of Judah, commonly referred to as “Jews.” Again, we see from this passage that the children of ISRAEL (not just the Jews) are NOT Gentiles.

James defined the children of Israel in his letter as “the twelve tribes of ISRAEL.” The TWELVE tribes include not just the Jews, but ALL of the tribes of Israel (compare Revelation 7:4-8). James 1:1 says: “James a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the TWELVE TRIBES which are scattered abroad.”

As was mentioned, the term “Jew” in Paul’s writings is, many times, a summary term for all from the house of Israel and Judah. As we saw, Paul says he is a Jew and an Israelite; Christ says that “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), but Paul writes in Romans 9:3-5: “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my BRETHREN, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are ISRAELITES, to whom pertain the adoption [better: sonship], the glory, the COVENANTS, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises, of whom are the fathers [Abraham, Isaac and Jacob] and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came…”

Although the tribe of Judah is included here, the passage goes beyond the Jews and includes ALL tribes of the house of Israel. Many commentaries do not understand this distinction and equate Jews with Israelites, as if all of the tribes of Israel are “Jews.” This is, however, untrue. The Jews are ONE tribe of Israel. So, it is correct that all Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews, and none of them are “Gentiles.” The law and the covenants were given to ISRAEL, not just the tribe of Judah (compare, too, Ephesians 2:12, speaking about the GENTILES who were formerly aliens from the commonwealth of ISRAEL, and strangers from the covenants of promise). The promises were made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the “fathers” — the forefathers of all of Israel, not just the tribe of Judah.

As “Jew” in Paul’s writings is many times a summary term for all the tribes of Israel, the term “Greek” is many times a summary term for all Gentile nations. Please note that Paul, many times, uses the terms “Greek” and “Gentile,” interchangeably. In Romans 1:16, Paul speaks about Jews and Greeks, but in Romans 2:9-10 (in the AV), in the same context, he speaks about Jews and Gentiles. (Compare, too, Romans 9:24.) At times, there might be a distinction between “Greeks” and other “Gentiles,” but at other times, the term “Greek” is all-encompassing. The Ryrie Study Bible explains in a footnote to Romans 1:14: “‘Greeks’ — Those who spoke Greek and who had adopted Hellenistic culture, in contrast to ‘Barbarians,’ who had not. However, in v. 16 ‘Greek’ means ‘Gentile.'”

In passing, we are not addressing here the additional aspect of “spiritual” Jews, that is, true Christians (compare Romans 2:28-29). It might be noteworthy, that even in that regard, the Church is referred to, in Galatians 6:16, as the “ISRAEL of God.”

The letter to the Galatians says much about Jew and Gentile. One key passage is Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Here the contrast between nationalities (ethnic), between slave and free (social) and between male and female (sexual) is drawn. The first one covering nationality is restricted to either “Jew” or “Greek”–REPRESENTATIVES of either Israelites or Gentiles. Especially considering that rulership arises from the Jews, the term “Jews” is used here as a summary term for all the tribes of Israel, represented by the RULING tribe. “Greeks” served as representatives of all other nations.

When Paul speaks in his writings about “Jews,” he is addressing, many times, all of the tribes of Israel. He did not mean to imply that everyone, who is not a descendant of the tribe of Judah, is a “Greek” or a “Gentile.” Today, the descendants of the house of Israel can be found in the United States of America, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Europe. They are not “Gentiles,” but of the house of Israel. This is important to understand, if one wants to comprehend what is prophesied about their future. For more information, please read our free booklet, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord.”

A new StandingWatch program was placed on the Web, titled, “Are you a Peacemaker?”

Our new booklet on Military Service and War, Jury Duty and Governmental Elections has entered the second stage of the review cycle.