On Saturday, October 4, 2003, Edwin Pope will be presenting the sermon, “Fast to Draw Near to God.” Services will start at 2:30 pm Central time (which is 12:30 pm Pacific time).

On Monday, October 6, 2003, is the Day of Atonement. Norbert Link will be covering important aspects of the meaning of that annual Holy Day in his sermon, “The Two Goats.” Services will begin at 2:30 pm Central Time (12:30 pm Pacific time).

This will be the last Update prior to the Feast of Tabernacles, which will begin Friday evening, October 10, 2003. Opening night services will start at 9:30 pm Central time (7:30 pm Pacific time).

Our next Update is scheduled to appear on October 24, 2003.

We wish all our members, supporters, and readers a rewarding and uplifting Sabbath, Day of Atonement and Feast of Tabernacles.

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at the appropriate time, just click on “Connect to Live Stream.”

A SPECIAL NOTE: All of our services during the Feast of Tabernacles (beginning with the opening night) will be broadcast on the Internet. For dates and times go to www.cognetservices.org.
 

In Deuteronomy 16:13-14 we are admonished by God in this manner: “You shall observe the Feast of Tabernacles seven days, when you have gathered from your threshing floor and from your winepress. And you shall REJOICE in your feast, you and your son and your daughter…”

We are told not just to observe or keep the feast but to rejoice in it, together with our families. For many of us, the only family we have to rejoice with is our Church family. Others are blessed of also having their flesh-and-blood family with them. Here are some tips to rejoice at the feast:

1) Let us make every effort to pray and study the Bible during the feast. It is not sufficient to just attend services. Personal study and prayer during that time are very important. Some have found it very helpful to take time out and review, as part of their personal study, the sermonette and sermon notes that they took down on the previous day. In doing this, our relationship with God will be strengthened, and we will be able to reflect God’s joy in our lives.

2) Let us pray for a positive personal attitude. We might run into problems before or during the feast, but they should not influence us to become upset and negative. When we notice that bad feelings seem to overpower us, let us immediately pray to God and ask Him to restore in us the joy we all need to have and to express to others.

3) Let us pray for one another that we will all arrive at the feast safely. This would include praying for the safety of the ministry who are there to serve all of us. We need to also pray for those who cannot be there this year, be it for personal or other reasons. Sending them a card is a nice way to let them know that they are not forgotten at this time. Most importantly, let us pray that God would restrain the hand of Satan so that the Internet broadcasts, Church services and other feast activities would go well.

4) Let us make this an opportunity to take brethren out for dinner who may not have been able to save enough second tithe. This would include, perhaps, a widow or a large family. I remember my first feast when I did not have a lot of second tithe since I was baptized in August. Another member took me out for a meal. It left a lasting impression on me. In subsequent years I was able to do the same for others. It has had a cumulative effect. I was able to pass on to others, what someone else had done for me first.

5) Let us strive to meet and converse with new people. It is amazing how we can draw close to one another and learn more about one another just by conversing and enjoying the fellowship afforded us at this time. This is perhaps the only time we will get to see some of our beloved brethren in the year.

6) Let us make every effort to stay in good health and get sufficient rest. This will enable us to attend every service to get the spiritual food which has been prepared for us, and also, to participate in all of the planned activities at the feast.

7) Let us serve as much as we have opportunity. There are many ways to serve the brethren at the feast, be it with ushering, offering someone a ride or giving them other needed assistance, or participating in choir or the Talent Show. If you have a talent in singing or playing an instrument, share it with others at the feast. This will help all of us to enjoy the feast more fully.

It is our hope that you will have a wonderful and inspiring feast this year. When we follow the time-proven admonitions set forth in this Editorial, it will be much easier for us to truly REJOICE at the feast.
 

The United States and Germany

DER SPIEGEL Online reported on September 29, 2003, about the “new-found friendship” between President Bush and Chancellor Schroeder. The magazine commented, as follows:
“… the most important objective of the meeting with Bush already seemed to have been achieved: The Chancellor wanted to reestablish a basis for discussion, something the German government and its most powerful ally, following their heated dispute surrounding the Iraq policy, had lacked for a sixteen-month period. The prevailing opinion at the White House was that it’s about time, and Schröder also felt that it was time to break the silence. He likes to say that nations do not pursue romantic relationships, and in this respect his sentiments echo the words of Otto von Bismarck, former Chancellor of the German Reich, who once wrote in his memoirs that ‘not even the king’ has the right to subordinate the interests of the state to his personal sympathies or antipathies…

“After all, the meeting was poised to begin on a less than positive note. In an earlier meeting, French President Jacques Chirac had given his US colleague an affected lecture on war, peace and international law. According to American sources, George Bush was… [extremely angered] and became all the more so when Chirac railed against a ‘policy of fait accompli’ in his speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations…

“Have German-American relations returned to their former state of normalcy? Schröder and Fischer, at least, would disagree, since they did not in fact abandon any of their prewar positions. On his flight to New York, the Chancellor declared that he was not traveling to the United States as a supplicant, and on his return flight one of his advisors repeated the sentence that was considered a rallying cry just a few months ago, but now describes little more than a state of affairs: ‘German foreign policy is determined in Berlin.’

“… So the relationship between the superpower and the ‘European central power’ (Schröder) has returned to that sober footing where personal sympathy is important but not decisive. In the future, both sides will deal with one another more cautiously and with fewer illusions. ‘There can be no greater error,’ said the first American president, George Washington, ‘than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation.’ When seen in this light, Americans and Germans are henceforth partners without pathos.”

BILD Online published a commentary, dated September 23, addressing the deteriorated relationship between the United States and Germany. The commentary stated, “When the United States got rid of one of the worst dictators, Saddam Hussein, we saw anti-Americanism unleashed in Germany. The world power [United States] hit back. That was bad politics. And it will take a long time until the consequences will disappear. But at least — a beginning has been made.”

The United States and Europe

DER SPIEGEL Online published on September 29, 2003, an interview with Washington’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, discussing the feud between transatlantic allies, the US role, the Europeans’ failings and perceptions. We are bringing experts of Mrs. Albright’s insightful interview, as follows:

“…What has happened here in the United States as well as in Europe is so painful to me. There have always been times when there were anti-European sentiments in the United States and anti-American feelings in Europe. But when both trends occur at the same time, we have a vicious circle. This is precisely what has happened now. It’s disgusting to watch Europeans gloat over the chaos in Iraq or the recent power outages in the United States, for example. Conversely, should we be pleased when 10,000 people die in a French heat wave? Well, at least the squabblers are talking to each other again. But both sides bear responsibility for letting things get so far out of hand…

“There were some [European leaders] who preferred an entirely different approach to Saddam. There were many attempts in the Security Council, especially on the part of France, to ease the sanctions regime against Iraq. This already complicated the relationship with Europe… Chancellor Schröder could certainly have campaigned for reelection somewhat more elegantly – not exclusively at the expense of the United States. And President Chirac made the situation unbelievably complicated. In truth, both sides prevented the UN from playing an important role before the war. President Bush because he kept saying: ‘I don’t care what they say,’ and President Chirac because he said: ‘I will submit my veto, no matter what.’ Both contributed to the decline in the UN’s significance…

“The Europeans allowed a horrible disaster to happen in Bosnia, and that’s why it was important for us to intervene. But not alone. It’s sometimes difficult to do anything right for the Europeans. If the role the United States takes is too strong, we’re criticized. If we do nothing, we’re neglecting our commitments. It isn’t always easy to be the United States… I’ve always been fascinated by Germany. I was born in Czechoslovakia. When we fled to London, I knew that the bombs that were falling around me were German bombs. Consequently, my impressions of Germany were of course very negative. But in every conversation with Joschka Fischer I sensed that he was quite conscious of Germany’s responsibility for the past. When we discussed the Kosovo conflict and talked about how intellectuals from Pristina had been taken away, he said: ‘Yes, that is exactly what happened with the Nazis.’ I asked him more than once about his days as a street protester. His only response was this: ‘You know, Madeleine, you would have done the same thing if you had literally suspected every single authority figure around you – the police officer, the doctor, the teacher – of having supported the Nazis.'”

New European Plans?

The Guardian reported on September 23, 2003 about a “super region” plan to revive the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. The article pointed out: “Political leaders from three countries, including Austria’s controversial far-rightwinger, Jorg Haider, are pushing for creation of a new European ‘super-region’ that would slice through national boundaries and take in a large part of the old Austro-Hungarian empire.

“The plan is likely to meet a frosty response from Tony Blair and other European leaders who are keen to ensure that power in the European Union stays with nation states.

“Riccardo Illy, recently elected president of the north-eastern Italian region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, told the newspaper La Stampa the projected ‘super-region’ was planned to extend from Austria to Rijeka on the Croatian coast. It would also include his own region and parts of Slovenia.

“He said Mr. Haider, governor of the Austrian state of Carinthia, had been ‘very positive.’ The scheme had won the backing of the mayor of a key Croatian local authority and was under discussion with the Slovenian government… His plan would reunite territories that all formed part of the Austro-Hungarian empire that ended in 1918.”

Euobserver.com reported on October 2, 2003, that “France and Austria clash over [the proposed European] Constitution.” The article continued, “Austria finds itself at the head of the group of smaller countries arguing for substantial changes to the draft, whereas France — along with the UK and Germany — are wary of unravelling the text drafted by former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing.”

Water Shortage in Australia

ABC News reported on Wednesday, October 1, 2003, about mandatory restrictions for Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains. The article pointed out that “the region’s main water supply, the Googong Dam, is now at 36 per cent capacity. Recent rain has done little to alleviate the region’s water crisis. Even though water consumption is already below the stage three target of 127 megalitres a day, total dam levels are still below 50 per cent. The ACT Government has described Canberra as being on a knife-edge, warning there is no room for complacency, particularly during summer. From today sprinklers are banned, as is washing your car at home. Private gardens can only be watered with hand-held hoses or buckets on alternate days, though pools can be topped up as long as they are covered. Anyone caught breaking the rules could face fines of up to $5,000.”

We are informed that there have virtually never been water restrictions in Canberra before. The Googong dam, about five minutes drive from Canberry, has usually been fairly full. An additional indication for the unusual events in Sydney can be seen by the fact that Sydney usually has high rainfall and is semi-tropical.

Meteorites in India

BBC News reported about a meteorite that crashed in eastern India. Fortunately, only three people had been injured as a result of the meteorite falling to earth. Officials investigating the event say it was part of the most spectacular meteor shower in the country’s recent history, according to BBC News.

The article continued, “Flaming debris from the space rock lit up the sky in Orissa state on Saturday night, and sent villagers running after its burning fragments set fire to their houses. ‘I have never seen a meteor covering such a large area with a huge fireball and roaring sound,’ said Basant Kumar Mohanty, senior director of the Geological Survey of India. According to state authorities, two large fragments of the meteorite, weighing roughly five kilograms each, have been recovered.”
 
 

It sure does. Although tattooing our bodies is extremely popular amongst many peoples and even in our Western society, including amongst sailors, marines, teens and others, the Bible clearly prohibits this practice.

Leviticus 19:28 tells us:

“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD.”

The translation “tattoo” is an accurate rendering of the original Hebrew. The Authorized Version states, “…nor print any marks upon you.” The intended meaning is “tattoo” or “tattoo marks.” The New International Version states, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourself.” The Revised Standard Version states, “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you.” The Revised English Bible states, “You must not gash yourselves in mourning for the dead or tattoo yourselves.” Compare, too, Moffat, the New American Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the Elberfelder Bible.

The Hebrew word, translated as “tattoo,” is “qa’aqa.” Strong defines it under Number 7085 as an “incision” or “gash” or a “mark.” The Interlinear Bible Hebrew-Greek-English edition by Jay P Green Sr uses the word “tattoo” as a literal translation of Strong’s Number 7085.

The Ryrie Study Bible comments on Leviticus 19:28: “Both cutting and tattooing the body were done by the heathen.”

Soncino remarks, “…’nor imprint any marks,’ i.e. tattooing with a needle. The flesh should not have any marks other than the ‘sign of the covenant,’ circumcision.”

Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary has this to say about “tattoos”:

“A permanent mark or design fixed upon the body by a process of picking the skin and inserting an indelible color under the skin. The moral and ceremonial laws of Leviticus declare, ‘You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks upon you,’ (Leviticus 19:28). Any kind of self laceration or marking the body was prohibited amongst the Hebrew people. Such cuttings were associated with pagan cults that tattooed their followers while they mourned the dead.”

The Nelson Study Bible adds, “The human body was designed by God, who intended it to be whole and beautiful. Disfiguring the body dishonored God, in whose image the person was created. Cutting one’s flesh for the dead and tattooing (or perhaps painting) one’s body had religious significance among Israel’s pagan neighbors. In Israel, such practices were signs of rebellion against God.”

Henry’s Commentary points out, “The rites and ceremonies by which they expressed their sorrow at their funerals must not be imitated… They must not make cuts or prints in their flesh for the dead; for the heathen did so to pacify the infernal deities they dreamt of, and to render them propitious to their deceased friends.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, has this to say about the subject: “… nor print any marks upon you — by tattooing — imprinting figures or flowers, leaves, stars, and other fanciful devices on various parts of their person — the impression was made sometimes by means of a hot iron, sometimes by ink or paint, as is done by the Arab females of the present day and the different casts of the Hindoos [sic]. It is probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden, for they were signs of apostasy; and, when once made, they were insuperable obstacles to a return…”

The Broadman Bible Commentary adds, “The peculiar markings referred to in vv. 27-28 were all customary mourning rites practiced by the ancient world. Their intention was to make the mourner unrecognizable to evil spirits who might hover around a dead person. In Israel such deference to the presence and power of evil spirits was prohibited.”

Some religious people, although they are aware of Leviticus 19:28, nevertheless claim that they tattoo their bodies just for decoration, without thinking about evil spirits, or mourning for any dead person. They feel Leviticus 19:28 only prohibits tattooing in the context of mourning for the dead. We need to realize, however, that tattooing, even if it was originally done for the purpose of expressing sorrow for a dead person, had a somewhat permanent nature — the person would still continue to wear the tattoo long after his mourning for the dead had ceased. It is also important to consider the origin of a certain practice. If tattooing was originally done to placate evil spirits and to mourn for the dead, as most commentaries suggest, and was therefore prohibited, it would still be wrong to carry out such practice today, even if it was done for different motives. For instance, members of God’s Church don’t keep Halloween, because this festival is clearly of a pagan or demonic origin. This fact is not changed by the argument that most people keeping Halloween today don’t do so for the purpose of placating or expelling demons.

In addition, Leviticus 19:28 contains two commandments. The first commandment prohibits cuttings in the flesh for the dead. The second commandment is broader than that. It says, “…and do not tattoo yourselves” (New American Bible). Although tattooing “for the dead” is included, it is not limited to it. According to Leviticus 19:28, all kinds of tattooing are wrong.

We need to realize, too, that tattooing is a form of “mutilation” (compare Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.21, ed. 1959). A Christian is not to “mutilate” himself, except where it is expressly commanded or impliedly permitted by God, such as in the case of circumcision. A Christian is to take care of his body in a right and cherishing way (Ephesians 5:29). He is to glorify GOD in his body, knowing that his body is the temple or dwelling place of God’s Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19-20).

More proof on the background of this now popular activity of tattooing may be found in Deuteronomy 14:1 wherein God strictly forbids pagan practices about cutting or disfiguring oneself. Also, in the account of 1 Kings 18, Elijah confronts the false religious leaders of his day. Verse 28 states: “So they cried aloud, and cut themselves, as was their custom, with knives and lances, until the blood gushed out on them.” When Jesus confronted demon possessed people, one of the common manifestations was that these people mutilated themselves in destructive ways.

Tattooing has given rise to other forms of body mutilations that often prove to be permanent disfigurations. Right and true worship of God not only avoids these practices, but Christianity is a way of living in which individuals seek to honor God through the kind of obedience that is rooted in love–not body mutilation.

On Saturday, September 27, 2003, Holy Day services for the Feast of Trumpets will be broadcast live from Colorado and San Diego. Dave Harris will give the sermon in the morning, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time. The title is, “The Warning!” Edwin Pope will give the sermon in the afternoon, at 1:30 pm Pacific time. His sermon is titled, “Make Your Calling Sure!”

The services can be heard at www.cognetservices.org at the appropriate time, just click on “Connect to Live Stream.”

We wish all of you a MEANINGFUL FEAST OF TRUMPETS.
 

One thing that God hates is a rebellious house — a rebellious people — a people who have been taught truth, but refuse to follow that truth. God spoke to Ezekiel and said to him, “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house” (Ezekiel 12:2).

One of the major problems in Israel at that time was that the prophets of Israel, whose responsibility it was to relay God’s message to the people, followed their own spirit instead of the Spirit of God (Ezekiel 13:1-3). They had “… not gone up into the gaps to build a wall for the house of Israel to stand in battle on the day of the Lord” (verse 5). They had not stood for God’s truth before the people. They prophesied, but God stated He had not sent them with the message they proclaimed (verse 6). He said that what they were doing was futile (verse 7).

God had a desire for a people who would stand for His way of life. He has not changed in that desire, and desires such a people, today!

We see in the 22nd chapter of Ezekiel, verses 23-30, that God hated what was being done by His people, by virtue of their rebellious acts. He says that His people were devoured and His holy things profaned, all because the priests did not make known the difference between the clean and the unclean (verse 26). They even hid their eyes from His Sabbaths! How clear that these same problems have existed in recent years among the people of God.

And so, in verse 30, God states that at that time, He “… sought a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the gap…” before Him, “on behalf of the land,” that He should not destroy it. And yet, He was unable to find such a man to do that.

We have seen down through the history of God’s people, many of those who have been faithful to God, and who have stood firmly for God’s truth and His way. Noah was such a man, as were Abraham and Moses. God’s way was taught in their words and in their actions. Of course Jesus Christ is the prime example of One Who stood in the Gap for God’s way, even to His death! The apostles, except for one, were firm in their stand for God and were promised tremendous future blessings because of their loyalty to God (Matthew 19:27-29).

You and I have been called at this time, brethren, to stand in the gap for God’s way. Will we be faithful? Let us pray for one another for the strength, the power, not to let down at this critical time in history; but to be a light in this world of darkness as Satan is taking every opportunity to see that we fail in this wonderful calling we have received from Almighty God.

Germany and the United States

On September 22, 2003, Der Spiegel Online published a very insightful lengthy article on the German-American relationship. The article was titled, “Schroeder’s New Center,” discussing the German Chancellor’s search for a “German direction” in foreign policy. The article, which was published only days before Mr. Schroeder’s visit with President Bush, pointed out the following:

“There is hardly a region that escapes [German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s] interest, particularly as German troops are currently serving in EIGHT countries… So far no consistent foreign policy discernible to the man on the street has emerged from the loose ends of Schröder’s various activities. Unlike former Chancellor Konrad Adenauer with his connection to the West, Willy Brandt with his reconciliation with the East, or Helmut Kohl, who was a clear proponent of Germany unity, the current German head of state is still searching for solid ground… Although Schröder wishes to embody a ‘self-confidence without arrogance’ to serve the interests of an enlarged Germany, his approach so far has been characterized by questions:

“Just how much of a friendship with France can the German-American relationship tolerate? Could the close ties within Europe that Schröder currently values so highly isolate him worldwide as well as on the continent?
“What will become of German-British relations, as difficult as they are important? In light of growing British skepticism about the Euro and a pronounced anti-war mood in Germany, where does future common ground lie? Should the expansion of the European court system be advanced without London, given the fact that every EU convention only serves to widen the rift between the continent and the island kingdom?

“Added to all of this is the complicated relationship with the United States, that stubborn and often self-loving world power, without which neither NATO nor the UN can survive. Even Schröder knows that the cool relations of the recent past cannot be allowed to continue. However, a return to the old German-American friendship is also UNLIKELY… [About] 60 percent of the EU population feels that the UN and NATO represent the strongest guarantees of German security – well ahead of the United States, which only 38 percent of respondents felt was capable of guaranteeing German security… Germans are essentially in favor of a course diverging from that taken by Washington… [Two-thirds] were even in favor of Europe becoming a ‘counterweight’ to America…

“A German delegation visiting the White House heard Condoleeza Rice, the President’s powerful National Security Advisor, utter a sentence they had not expected to hear for some time: ‘OUR RELATIONS WITH GERMANY ARE OUR CENTRAL RELATIONS WITH EUROPE.’… Schröder, until recently an unwelcome guest in Washington, seems to be making an effort to tone down his cockiness. He knows that his sudden popularity is not a result of his own performance, but rather of the poor fortunes of the Americans, who have managed to get themselves into an untenable situation in Iraq and are now desperately seeking partners… [In] Berlin last Thursday, Chirac loudly and enthusiastically proclaimed that the GERMAN-FRENCH PARTNERSHIP represents ‘the FUTURE of our people and OF EUROPE,’ then promptly moved closer to his German partner…”

Before addressing the United Nations and meeting with Gerhard Schroeder, President Bush stated that he understands the German resistance to the war with Iraq, since the “Germans are fundamentally pacifists” (Der Spiegel Online, September 23, 2003; Die Welt, September 24, 2003). This questionable assessment, judging by the long history of the German peoples, was undoubtedly prompted by Mr. Bush’s wish to normalize the American-German relationship and to gain support from Mr. Schroeder. Before meeting with Mr. Schroeder, President Bush spoke on September 23, 2003, to the United Nations, following U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s address, who had “criticized Bush’s ‘pre-emptive’ attack on Iraq” (USA Today, September 24, 2003). Reactions to President Bush’s speech were overwhelmingly negative — both in the U.S. and abroad.

The “Tages-Anzeiger” in Switzerland commented, “The United Sates are not able to stabilize Iraq. Bush wants financial and military help from the world community. At the same time, he does not want to… admit mistakes… Under those conditions, he will not get much support.”

The “Financial Times” in London stated that President Bush did not show an inkling of repentance, when talking about the right of the US to act alone. The paper also pointed out that he did not clarify that he would not go alone again — and that is what the world fears the most.

“de Volkskrant” in The Netherlands commented that Mr. Bush “presented a picture of a powerful president over a powerful country, who is standing more and more alone.”

The “Washington Post” pointed out that President Bush missed an important chance to gather international support in a decisive matter.

After his speech, President Bush and Chancellor Schroeder met for 45 minutes on September 24 — the first meeting between the two leaders in 16 months. They were accompanied by Colin Powell and Joschka Fischer. After the meeting, both leaders declared that they had left any differences behind, and that they both wanted to look into the future together. These declarations should not prompt one to think that from now on, everything will be fine between the two countries. Der Spiegel Online stated on September 24, 2003, that there was little agreement between the two leaders in regard to the issues. “Schroeder continues to consider Bush’s Iraq policy as wrong,” the magazine pointed out.

After the meeting with President Bush, Chancellor Schroeder addressed the United Nations. Reuters reports:

“German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder appealed Wednesday for a DECISIVE ROLE FOR THE UNITED NATIONS in the reconstruction of Iraq but softened past differences with the United States…. Schroeder said Germany was prepared to provide humanitarian, technical and economic aid and train the Iraqi security forces. Berlin has ruled out sending its own troops… [Schroeder] warned against states going it alone in crises and said the United Nations’ monopoly on the use of force must be strengthened… Schroeder also said the International Criminal Court, which the United States strongly opposes, was an important instrument of global justice against war crimes… Schroeder spelled out Germany’s ambition to win a permanent seat on the Security Council… ‘On behalf of Germany, I repeat that we are prepared to take on more responsibility in the framework of such a reform,’ he said.”

He who has ears to hear, let him hear…

The Jesus Box–Fact or Fake?

The scientific discussion regarding the genuineness of the “Jesus Box” continues. Christianity Today published in its October 2003 (Vol. 47, No. 10, page 42) edition an insightful article by Ben Witherington, professor of the New Testament, titled, “Bones of Contention — Why I still think the James bone box is likely to be authentic.”

In the lengthy article, the following was stated:
“The press conference of the Israeli Antiquities Authority was announced with much fanfare, and headlines went out around the world — JAMES OSSUARY DECLARED HOAX, INSCRIPTION SAID TO BE CERTAINLY A MODERN FORGERY… Two months later, as I am writing this, only a summary of the findings has been released (though it is called a ‘final report’). One must wonder why the IAA is holding back the data, when the commission finished its work nearly three months ago… Something is rotten in Jerusalem, and this whole investigation begins to look more and more political… No internationally known scholars on this commission were from anywhere outside Israel. Nor were there any Christian scholars on this commission, even though some outstanding ones live in Jerusalem. Christian participation would have assured us that theological agendas were not at play…

“There are serious problems with a self-chosen body like the IAA commission, especially when several of the members on the commission spoke publicly against the authenticity of the ossuary inscription before they conducted scientific tests on it… it is simply mind-boggling that the IAA can be so confident that the inscription cuts through the patina on the ossuary, when the Toronto team (which also examined the letters carefully under electron microscope) says it does not… There are some glaring omissions in the summary report… Why has the IAA ignored the data presented by other scholars?… I am still convinced the inscription is likely to be genuine, and will be vindicated as even further study and testing is done. In the meantime, let the scholarly debate continue, and let no one think that the IAA report is anything like the definitive word on this issue….”

Canadian Christians Accused of Hate Crimes?

Christianity Today published an article on September 15, 2002, reporting that the Canadian House of Commons “passed a bill adding sexual orientation to the country’s hate-propaganda law.” The bill must still pass the Canadian Senate and be given royal assent. The article continued, “‘Canadians who are speaking out against the redefinition of marriage are already being accused of “hate” speech by homosexual activists,’ Canada Family Action Coalition executive director Brian Rushfeldt told The Vancouver Sun. ‘[Under C-250,] the activists will begin to insist on prosecution to silence their critics with criminal sanctions.’… Under the law, promotion of hatred is punishable by up to five years in prison.”

Saudi Arabia and Nuclear Weapons

“Saudis consider nuclear bomb,” according to the headline of an article published by The Guardian in the U.K., dated September 18. The article pointed out, “Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, the Guardian has learned. This new threat of proliferation in one of the most dangerous regions of the world comes on top of a crisis over Iran’s alleged nuclear programme.”

These and similar announcements serve as a reminder that we will yet see a mighty and unified power bloc emerge as described in the Bible as the King of the South. This will happen despite all the good intentions of the US and its allies to “fix” the Middle East with Western Democracy.

The Vatican and the World

Zenit reported on September 21 that “the Holy See would be prepared to become a full member of the United Nations, says the Vatican’s secretary of state [Cardinal Angelo Sodano]… Currently, the Holy See is a permanent observer of the United Nations, which allows it to address meetings called by that organization. But it has no voting power. Since 1978, the Holy See has established diplomatic relations with 82 countries, INCREASING THE TOTAL NUMBER TO 174… ‘Papal sovereignty in the international realm is not determined by its temporal power,’ [Sodano] said.”
 

A: We read in John 7:37-39, “On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, [which] those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

We read in verse 2 that the Holy Days that were celebrated at that time evolved around “the Feast of Tabernacles.”

Several commentators feel that the reference to the “last day, that great day of the feast,” applies to the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles. For instance, Edward Chumney, “The Seven Festivals of the Messiah,” points out the following on pp. 173-174:

“‘Hoshana Rabbah (literally, the great hosanna or the numerous hosannas) is the seventh day of sukkot (Tabernacles)… It has some special rituals and customs that make the day more like a full festival day than any of the intermediate days… On the seventh day of the feast, the people circled the altar seven times… Yeshua’s [Jesus’] statement in John (Yochanan) 7:37-39 was said on Hoshana Rabbah.”

Other commentaries state that Christ spoke those words on the eighth day, the last day of the Tabernacles season. The eighth day is an annual Holy Day, a special Sabbath, and is mentioned, for instance, in Leviticus 23:36 and in Numbers 29:35. This day is also referred to as “Shemini Atzeret (the eighth day of assembly)” and was treated by the rabbis as “an independent festival” (Chumney, p. 187).

Unger’s Bible Handbook, 1967, states on page 553: “The last day of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:36) was the most solemn and climactic of the entire festival cycle. It was the eighth day of rest and holy assembly. During the seven days prefiguring their wilderness wandering, water was drawn from the pool of Siloam and then poured out, commemorating the water supplied Israel in the desert. The eighth day signified the enjoyment of the springs of the land itself and no water was poured out.”

The Ryrie Study Bible concurs: “Though it is not mentioned in the O.T., the Jews had a ceremony of carrying water from the Pool of Siloam and pouring it into a silver basin by the altar of burnt offering each day for the first seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles. On the eighth day this was not done, making Christ’s offer of the water of eternal life from Himself even more startling.”

Further insight is given by William Henry Green, “The Hebrew Feasts,” copyright 1885, pp. 281 and 292:

“… at Tabernacles they remained not only through the full term of seven days, but an eighth day was added at the end, which in later times at least was reckoned ‘the great day of the feast,’ John 7:37… This eighth day is particularly mentioned in the observance of the feast by Ezra and Nehemiah, Neh. 8:18, and from the increasing concourse of pilgrims, it had risen to great consequence in the time of our Lord, John 7:37.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1961, also say that the reference to the “last day, that great day of the feast,” in John 7:37, applies to the “eighth (Lev. 23:39). It was a sabbath, the last feast day of the year…”

The Worldwide Church of God under Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong taught that Christ spoke the above-quoted words on the eighth day, the Last Great Day, and not during the seventh day of the feast. The Church of the Eternal God and its affiliates in Canada and Great Britain have also concluded that Christ spoke these words on the Last Great Day of the Feast — the eighth day (compare “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” page 32). John 8:1 shows that these words were spoken in the evening — at the beginning of the eighth day.

It is important to note what Christ said. He pointed out that the time would arrive when EVERYONE who thirsts could come to Him to receive from Him the gift of living waters — the Holy Spirit. That promise will not be fulfilled until the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-12) — AFTER the Millennium (Revelation 20:4, 6). While the Feast of Tabernacles pictures the Millennium, the Great White Throne Judgment is pictured by the Last Great Day or the EIGHTH Day. When THAT time has arrived, all persons who had not been called before will be resurrected to physical life and will then be given their first real opportunity to accept God’s calling. Christ’s words in John 7:37-39 speak of a time when God’s Spirit will be offered to all, for at that time, all will be CALLED to salvation.

We have placed another Standing Watch program on our website, titled, “Who and What is God?”

Our current member letter, addressing the Feast of Tabernacles, which you can find at: http://www.eternalgod.org/lit/letters/brethren-20030929.pdf, will be sent out this Monday.

The Global Church of God in the UK has by now received in excess of 1,200 responses to our ad campaign, offering “God’s Commanded Holy Days” and “Don’t Keep Christmas.”
 

One of the greatest problems that people in general have, is that of right balance. Why is it that so many can be extreme in their approach, behavior and attitude? Of course, some would see balance as the middle road where fence sitting is a prime attribute and where indecision can reign. That, however, is not true and right balance. Whilst there may be individuals that can fall into such a category, they would not exemplify real balance.

We are to be a light to the world and to set the very best example. Do others see us as truly balanced individuals? Lack of true balance in our Christian lives can impact negatively on the way that others view us and the Christianity that we espouse. It can reduce our effectiveness in this area.

True balance means stability and constancy. It means that we have to become more like God the Father and Jesus Christ. They are the two most balanced individuals that it is possible to be. Malachi 3:6 is a simple little verse but with so much meaning: “For I am the LORD, I do not change.” God is never changing, always constant and balanced. Hebrews 13:8 gives us the same ringing endorsement of Jesus Christ: “Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

God wants us to build His characteristics — the traits of His own nature — into our lives and into the way that we act and behave. Over the years, the true Church of God, “the mother of us all,” has engendered stability and growth in us through a balanced diet of sound doctrinal teaching, personal prayer, study and occasional fasting. The ministry strives to have a balanced approach to sermon subjects, including Christian living, doctrine, and prophecy, as we all continue to strive to be balanced in all things.

True balance is so important. Balance is not extreme. Suicide bombers are extremists. Trappist monks, known for their silence, are extremists. How can extremists interact with fellow human beings and be useful in society? People who watch television all day, every day, are extreme in their behavior, and so are Church members who focus solely and exclusively on prophecy.

We should be thoroughly balanced individuals. In short, balance is required in every aspect of our lives. We are to be followers of Christ. Let us follow Him in this most important area of our Christian lives — that of true and godly balance.
 

ISRAEL & THE UNITED STATES vs THE WORLD?

Dramatic developments in the Middle East during these past two weeks have shown how quickly Israel and the United States can find themselves isolated and condemned by world opinion.

As the Jerusalem Post reported on September 13, 2003, “the United Nations Security Council’s 15 member-nations warned Israel Saturday against carrying out its decision to ‘remove’ the Palestinian leader [Yasser Arafat].” The threat “set off pro-Arafat marches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and drew opposition from the European Union, the United Nations and Arab countries,” according to the article. The paper continued, “The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the military wing of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement, threatened it would wage an ‘all out war’ against Israel if Arafat were to be harmed in any way. In a statement released Friday, the group said Israel would be ‘flooded’ with suicide bombers if action was taken against Arafat. ‘We will prove that we know how to defend our leader and symbol of our resistance,’ the group said.”

The newspaper also pointed out that “a poll conducted Thursday evening and published Friday in the Yediot Ahronot daily shows sixty percent of Israelis would like to see Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat killed or expelled.”

Israel’s reaction to the unanimous view of the Security Council, including the United States, Great Britain, Germany and France, was one of defiance, stating that Arafat is “a complete obstacle to peace and should have been cast aside years ago,” according to the Jerusalem Post.

Subsequently, the United States vetoed a proposed Syrian-sponsored resolution of the 15 Security Council members that would have demanded of Israel not to expel or kill Arafat. Bulgaria, Germany and Great Britain abstained, while France, China, Russia, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico, Syria, Angola, Pakistan, Chile and Spain voted for the resolution. Many commentators see the US veto as having been prompted by pressure from Israel. As USA Today reported, Washington vetoed the resolution as it did not condemn terrorist groups attacking Israel. Although Washington explained that it continues to oppose expelling Arafat from the West Bank, many observers are doubtful. “Arabs were dismayed by the veto, with some saying the vote showed the United States had lost its credibility as an honest broker in the Middle East,” according to USA Today. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said that the reasoning for Washington’s veto was “baseless.” He voiced his concern that the veto might be seen as a license to go after Arafat. France said “it regretted that the U.N. resolution on Israel didn’t pass. The resolution had ‘ a balanced message that we believed could bring a consensus,’ Cecile Pozzo di Borgo, the French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said in Paris.”

Der Spiegel Online added that observers predict serious consequences for which the United States will be held responsible. Germany’s ambassador to the UN, Gunter Pleuger, stated that he was disappointed by the vote, as it had sent the wrong signal, and not all options had been explored.

Arafat dismissed the aborted effort of the Security Council to pass the resolution against Israel. A resolution “will not shake us,” Arafat said, “regardless as to where it’s coming from. We are more important than any resolution,” he added, according to Spiegel Online.

IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

The London based Sunday Times newspaper reported that inspectors had found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It stated that British defense intelligence sources had confirmed that the Iraq Survey Group, an Anglo-American team of 1400 scientists, military and intelligence experts, has delayed indefinitely the publication of a full report, which had been due on September 15. The newspaper added that the report may not be published at all.

JAPAN vs NORTH KOREA

news.independent.co.uk reported on September 15 that “Japan’s Defence Minister [Shigeru Ishiba] has stressed his country’s right to strike North Korean missile sites if an attack is thought imminent.” The article continued that North Korea has allegedly “at least 100 Rodong ballistic missiles capable of striking Japan.” According to Ishiba, “‘the threat from North Korea…. is not just aimed at Japan and the U.S., it’s a problem for the whole world.’… He believes that President George Bush’s strategy is closer to his own approach, than the strategy of Bill Clinton. ‘Clinton’s policy toward North Korea was based on two false premises: one, that Pyongyang would keep its promises [regarding the 1994 agreement to abandon its nuclear programme]; and two, that North Korea would collapse,’ he said. ‘North Korea neither kept its promises nor collapsed. We are now faced with the consequences.'”

The article pointed out, too, that “a number of senior politicians have recently floated the idea of Japan developing its own nuclear weapons, and in June, a bipartisan defence group of 103 junior politicians called for the government to change its defence-only policy to allow for a ‘minimum’ level of offensive capability to attack an enemy.”

SWEDEN AGAINST EURO

“Sweden got a clear message on Monday that it will pay a political price for snubbing the euro by being frozen out of EU decision-making,” according to MSNBC News of September 15. The article continued, “The resounding 56-42 percent ‘No’ to the euro in Sunday’s referendum follows a rejection of the European Union single currency by the Danes in 2000 and a ‘not yet’ from Britain… Asked if Sweden would lose influence by staying outside the 12-nation euro zone along with fellow EU members Britain and Denmark, [European Commission chief Romano] Prosi told Swedish Television: ‘Certainly, yes.’… Britain saw the rejection of the EU’s most ambitious economic project as a blow to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Tabloid daily the Sun said it would ‘send shock waves round Europe and dent Tony Blair’s dream of getting Britain to dump sterling.'”

GERMANY’S NEO-NAZIS

“The threat to Germany from neo-Nazis has risen to a new level, Interior Minister Otto Shily has warned,” according to news.bbc.co.uk of September 15. The article continued, “The discovery of a suspected plot to bomb a Munich Jewish centre during a visit by the German president [Johannes Rau, as well as Bavarian governor Edmund Stoiber and Jewish leader Paul Spiegel] has ‘dramatically confirmed’ the danger to society, he said on Monday… Officials believe plans were being made to bomb the centre on 9 November, when its foundation stone is due to be laid at a ceremony… The suspected attack would have coincided with the anniversary of the Nazis’ 1938 Kristallnacht attacks, when thousands of Jewish targets were attacked and dozens murdered… ‘There have been hints that right extremists are really a great potential danger for our society… This has now been dramatically confirmed,’ [Schily said]… ‘Faced with the flood of pictures from the Middle East, we had forgotten what extremists could also plan here at home,’ wrote Guido Heinen in Die Welt. ‘German political terrorism is back.'”

SCHILY CONDEMNS UNITED STATES ANTI-TERROR PRACTICE

In other news, Schily attacked the United States in an unusually serious way. According to Der Spiegel Online, dated September 9, Schily condemned the U.S. practice in its fight against terrorism to neutralize suspects without trial, stating that this practice violates fundamental principles of International Law. Schily, himself an attorney who had defended German terrorists in his earlier years, continued that the U.S. did not resolve fundamental questions, but he was hopeful that the thought process in the United States would lead to acceptable solutions.

GARNER TED ARMSTRONG DIES AT 73

As Associated Press reported on September 16, “Evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong … died Monday from complications of pneumonia… He is survived by his wife, three sons and five grandchildren.”

A: 1 Kings 15:5 reads, “…David did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

The account of David’s transgressions “in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” can be found in 2 Samuel, chapters 11 and 12. First, David committed adultery with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba; then, he tried to cover up his sin in different ways; failing that, he had Uriah murdered in war, so that he could take Bathsheba to become his wife. We read that “the thing that David had done displeased [or better: “was evil in the sight of”] the LORD” (2 Samuel 11:27). Later, after David came to his senses and realized what he had done, Nathan the prophet communicated God’s words to David: “Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife” (2 Samuel 12:9-10). Nathan added, “…by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme” (2 Samuel 12:14).

David’s conduct “in the matter of Uriah” constituted a great sin. This does not mean, however, that this was the only sin that David ever committed. The passage in 1 Kings 15:5, quoted above, must be read in context with all the other Scriptures on this subject. For instance, note the following statement in 1 Kings 14:8, “… yet you have not been as My servant David, who kept My commandments and who followed Me with all his heart, to do ONLY what was right in My eyes.” Taken all by itself, this Scripture would say that David did not sin at all — not even in the “matter of Uriah.”

A similar passage can be found in Acts 13:22, where Paul relates the following: “And when He had removed him [Saul], He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.'” Again, a superficial reading might suggest that David did not sin at all.

The truth is, of course, that David sinned in many different ways. For instance, David sinned when he numbered the people at the end of his life. We are told in 2 Samuel 24:10: “And David’s heart condemned him after he had numbered the people. So David said to the LORD, ‘I have sinned GREATLY in what I have done; but now, I pray, O LORD, take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have done very foolishly.'”

David sinned on other occasions, too. Notice his words in Psalm 38:4, “For my iniquities have gone over my head; Like a heavy burden they are too heavy for me.” Notice Psalm 40:12, “… My iniquities have overtaken me, so that I am not able to look up; They are MORE THAN THE HAIRS OF MY HEAD…” Notice, too, David’s prayer in Psalm 25:18: “Look on my affliction and my pain, And forgive ALL MY SINS.”

The Bible makes it very clear that everyone sins — even after conversion — and that there is no human being [with the only exception of Jesus Christ, when He was here on earth] who does not sin (compare 1 Kings 8:46). Job thought that he was not guilty of sin, but he deceived himself (compare 1 John 1:8). He was guilty of self-righteousness, thinking that he was more righteous than God (Job 32:1-2). God had to deal with him very severely so that he could see himself for what he really was (Job 42:6).

We are also told in Scripture that God forgives us our sins and even forgets about them, once we confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). In that case, God cleanses us from all unrighteousness (same verse). He will remember our sins no more (compare Jeremiah 31:34).

David had a loyal heart. When he sinned, he repented and asked God for forgiveness. He did not try to hide his sins, but he was truly heart-broken. He desired earnestly to be forgiven. He said in Psalm 51:3-4, 7, 9-11: “For I acknowledge my transgressions, And my sin is always before me. Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight… Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow… Hide Your face from my sins, And BLOT OUT ALL my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me away from Your presence, And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.”

When God forgave David, He removed his sins — not to be remembered anymore. Upon forgiveness, David was justified or righteous — but he always understood where his righteousness came from. He said in Psalm 24:5, “He shall receive blessing from the LORD, And RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM THE GOD of his salvation.” Other passages confirm that our righteousness must come from God — in fact, it is God’s righteousness within us that makes us righteous (compare Philippians 3:7-9; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

God said that David followed Him with all his heart. When David sinned, he repented and obtained God’s forgiveness. God would forget his sins. That is why God could say, “David has kept My commandments. He followed Me with all his heart, to do ONLY what was right in My eyes.” (Compare, again, 1 Kings 14:8).

We also understand, of course, that God forgave David his sins “in the matter of Uriah.” Still, in the one passage, in 1 Kings 15:5, God brings this matter one more time to our attention. Not, because God had not forgiven David, but because this was a sin that belonged to a slightly different category. It was not the unpardonable sin, to be sure, since David will be in the Kingdom of God (compare Jeremiah 30:9; Hosea 3:5). However, it was not a sin that was committed “in ignorance” — because of a temporary, passing weakness that had “snuck up” on David. This was a planned, premeditated, carefully designed sin. David thought through very diligently how to cover up his sin with Bathseba, until he resorted to the murder of Uriah. God brings up the “matter with Uriah” one more time, because He was terribly grieved that David would have acted in such a way — and He wanted to impress on the reader the awful consequences of that sin for David and his entire household.

When we sin and subsequently confess our sin to God, God is faithful to forgive us (Compare, too, Proverbs 28:13: “He who covers his sins will not prosper, But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy.”). We should not sin (1 John 2:1), but as humans, we will (compare again 1 John 1:8-9). Upon forgiveness (compare Romans 11:27), God will remember our sins no more (compare Hebrews 8:12). This should show us that we must strive to do the same. When we forgive, we must also forget. David sinned in many different ways — as we all do — but he obtained complete forgiveness from God, as his heart was right. In God’s eyes, David kept God’s commandments; following God with all his heart, to do ONLY what was right in God’s eyes.

We have placed another Standing Watch program on our Web site. It is titled, “Train Your Child…”

Our new booklet on “Angels, Demons and the Spirit World” is finished and on its way to the printer in Canada. It has been placed on our Web site at: http://www.eternalgod.org/lit/booklets/spirits.htm.

The Global Church of God in the UK has by now received about 1,000 responses to our ad campaign, offering “God’s Commanded Holy Days” and “Don’t Keep Christmas.”