On this coming Sabbath, Dave Harris will be giving the main message — “No Lie!”

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

In organized volleyball there are specific positions that you go to on the court when attacking on offense or defending on the other side of the net. Coach used to say, “A lesser player in the right position is more valuable than a good player in the wrong position”

Solomon and Saul were great men that were caught “out of position” (1Kings 11:4; 1Sam 16:14 ) at different times in their lives. Solomon, as we know, was one of the wisest men of all time and Saul was a strong man and a mighty warrior. Yet, with all of their wisdom and strength, they often “missed the mark”.

That being the case, what chance do we, the weak and foolish of the world, have?

With Satan roaming the earth looking to take advantage of us in any way that he can, we only have one place where we will find safety. That “position” is right on the heels of Christ, our example (1Pet 2:21). Saul and Solomon did not follow Him all the days of their lives and the chinks in their armor were found and were exploited.

Our position should be one of following Christ as He leads us to God the Father. We are to walk with Him daily keeping all the commandments of God. If we do this, we, the weak called of God, can accomplish what the great often did not and make our calling and election sure.
 

PROPHECY IS BEING FULFILLED — A GROWING GULF BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE

We have taught it for so long, that some in the church of God have apparently grown too familiar with it — and they have looked for alternatives. Thinking that they might perhaps have received some kind of special insight, they rejected the prophetic truth, as it had been “delivered to the saints.”
 
What are we talking about?
 
We are discussing here the well-established Biblical teaching that the last resurrection of the Roman Empire — the United States of Europe — will end up on a collision course with the United States! They won’t be friends — and they won’t be part of a big happy family, either. We have known and proclaimed this for decades — but, sadly, some choose to forget.
 
It is remarkable that very recently, historical and political voices have been heard in the United States and elsewhere, pointing out this inevitable outcome. We would like to bring this astonishing development to the attention of our readers.
 
We start with a surprising article in “The Times Digest,” dated November 3, 2002, publishing excerpts from the “New York Times.” On page 8, Thomas L. Friedman writes in “Come to Berlin”:
 
“Where’s the [Berlin] wall? My German friend explained that the only trace left is a cobblestone path that snakes across Berlin, drawing a line in the pavement where the wall once ran. It’s easy to cross that line without even knowing it. And therein lies the core of the crisis between America and Germany today — triggered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s use of anti-Bush and anti-Iraq-war rhetoric to win re-election, then fueled by a German minister comparing President Bush to Hitler… Would somebody please bring back the Berlin Wall? Since World War II, America and Germany have had many disputes, but always within limits, because both sides saw a dangerous foe on the other side of that wall… But without the wall clearly defining our side and the enemy’s, all sorts of lines are being crossed.”
 
We might note here that the relationship between the United States and Germany, in particular, has not improved. According to Der Spiegel Online, dated November 27, 2002, Donald Rumsfeld still considers the relationship as critical, and even a German participation in a war against Iraq would not eradicate the damage. It seems, however, that Chancellor Schroeder will not change his position in that regard, anyway. Spiegel Online reported on November 27, 2002, that Germany will not permit the United States to use German offensive tanks, presently stationed in Kuwait, in a war against Iraq. Although Germany did grant the U.S. military forces overflight and transit rights, Germany’s refusal regarding its tanks, according to the magazine, “could bring about a new fight between the United States and Germany.”
 
We continue with a thought-provoking article by Charles A. Kupchan, titled, “The End of the West.” This article was published in the November 2002 edition of “The Atlantic.” Mr. Kupchan is Professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. This is what he has to say:
 
“The next clash of civilizations will not be between the West and the rest [of the world] but between the United States and Europe — and Americans [and we might add, far too many in the church of God] remain largely oblivious.”
 
A little later in the article, he writes, “The EU’s annual economic output has reached about $8 trillion, compared with America’s $10 trillion, and the euro will soon threaten the dollar’s global dominance. Europe is strengthening its collective consciousness and character and forging a clearer sense of interests and values that are quite distinct from those of the United States. The EU’s member states are debating the adoption of a Europe-wide constitution…, building armed forces capable of operating independently of the U.S. military, and striving to project a single voice in the diplomatic arena. As the EU fortifies its governmental institutions and takes in new members…, it will become a formidable counterweight to the United States on the world stage. The transatlantic rivalry that has already begun will inevitably intensify… The coming clash between the United States and the European Union will doubtless bear little resemblance to the all-consuming standoff of the Cold War. Although military confrontation remains a remote prospect, however [we might note here that there will be, at the very end, a military confrontation between the United States of Europe and the United States of America], U.S.-E.U. competition will extend far beyond the realm of trade… Washington and Brussels will just as likely lock horns over the Middle East. Europe will resist… U.S. leadership…”
 
Near the end of the 8-page-article, Prof. Kupchan writes, “The consequences of the growing rift between the United States and Europe are only just becoming apparent. The two sharply disagree on the Middle East… History is coming full circle. After breaking away from the British Empire, the United States came together as a unitary federation, emerged as a leading nation, and eventually eclipsed Europe’s Great Powers [Note that this reference to America’s greatness is absolutely prophetic. In Genesis 48:19, we read that Jacob blessed Manasseh, stating that the nation descending from him — the United States of America — would be “great.”]. It is now Europe’s turn to ascend and break away from an America that refuses to surrender its privileges of primacy.”
 
This last statement is prophetic as well. Indeed, Europe will “ascend” one more time. The Bible describes this last resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire this way, “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit [a metaphor for the fact that it had been forgotten in the pages of history] and go to perdition.” (Revelation 17:8). Compare, too, Revelation 11:7 and Revelation 9:1-11. Especially the passage in Revelation 9 shows that the forming United States of Europe will at the very end engage in war with other nations.
 
Prof. Kupchan concludes his article with this dire warning, “Europe will inevitably rise up as America’s principal competitor. Should Washington and Brussels begin to recognize the dangers of the growing gulf between them, they may be able to contain their budding rivalry. Should they fail, however [and the Bible predicts that they will fail, and it also prophecies that Great Britain and the Commonwealth nations will not be a part of the United States of Europe in its final configuration], to prepare for life after Pax Americana, they will ensure that the coming clash of civilizations will not be between the West and the rest [of the world] but within a West divided against itself.”
 
We have also repeatedly pointed out the influential role that the Roman Catholic Church will be playing in regard to the last revival of the ancient Roman Empire — later to be named “Holy Roman Empire,” to designate the Catholic influence and involvement. In a recent article published by “Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc.,” Breffni O’Rourke writes, “With the Convention on the Future of Europe now drawing up a constitution for an expended European Union of 25 members, the question arises: how can the Christian heritage of Europe be reflected in this document?… It is in this context that the pope is pressing for the world of the spirit to be recognized in the new constitution… [T]he pontiff said that building a united Europe needs leaders with ‘will and determination, with a desire to build the union on common values, aware of the Christian roots of different peoples which are an inescapable part of European history.'”
 
The article continued that some, such as Professor Hans Kung, a “German-based theologian” and “dissident who has previously clashed with the pope,” disagreed, feeling that the pope “is sending the wrong message. ‘A lot of people have the impression that this pope is precisely promoting a mo
del of Europe which is basically Roman Catholic, which tolerates other [religions], but does not really have a common understanding [with them] and which has not acknowledged the other religions as also true religions.'”
 
Of course, it has not. The official teaching of the Catholic Church, as has been recently reiterated by German Cardinal Ratzinger, is that it is the only true “mother” church, willing to embrace its dissident “daughters” upon repentance and return to the Catholic fold.
 
We pray that those who could know, and who once knew the truth, will embrace the Biblical teaching, as it is so clearly revealed in Scripture. For more information, please read our free booklet, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord,” as well as “Europe in Prophecy: The Unfolding of End-Time Events.”
 

Both are correct.

In most cases, when using the expression, “the LORD” [“Yahweh” in the Hebrew, basically meaning “The Eternal” or “The Everliving One”], the Old Testament refers to the One Who later became known as the Son, Jesus Christ. There are statements, however, which use the expression “Yahweh” for the One Who later became known as “the Father.” This also proves that both the Father and Jesus Christ have always been God beings, and that the Old Testament teaches that there is more than just one God being.

Notice Jeremiah 23:5-6, which uses the term “Yahweh” for both God beings in the same context:

“‘Behold, the days are coming,’ says the LORD [Yahweh], ‘That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD [Yahweh] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.'”

We see, then, that the LORD (Yahweh) will raise a “Branch of righteousness,” to be also called the “LORD” (Yahweh). It is the Father who raises Jesus Christ. Both are called here LORD or Yahweh.

We find a similar statement in Zechariah 4:8-9. We are quoting from the New King James Bible, as it conveys the intended meaning more clearly:

“Moreover the word of the LORD [Yahweh] came to me, saying: ‘The hands of Zerubbabel Have laid the foundation of this temple; His hands shall also finish it. Then you will know That the LORD [Yahweh] of hosts has sent Me [i.e., Yahweh] to you.'”

We see, here, that the LORD [Yahweh, i.e. Christ] speaks to Zechariah and tells him that He [Christ] was sent by the LORD [Yahweh, i.e., the Father]. In other words, the LORD sends the LORD. The expression “Yahweh” applies to both God beings.

This is not a reference to a human messenger or an angel, conveying the “word of the LORD,” while the LORD is speaking about Himself. Notice that the New King James Bible capitalizes the word “Me” in “…the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you.” They convey the intended meaning that the word “Me” refers to one of the two God beings, and not to a human or angelic messenger.

You may also want to check, for further proof, Zechariah 6:12-15, in the New King James Bible. In that passage, the LORD (Yahweh, i.e. the Father) speaks about the LORD (Yahweh, i.e., Jesus Christ), the “MAN whose name is the BRANCH.”

It is true that in most cases, the expression LORD or Yahweh is used for Jesus Christ. Notice, for instance, Hebrews 1:10-12. In that passage, God the Father (vv. 1, 5) says to the Son, Jesus Christ (v. 10): “‘You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth…'” This is a quote from Psalm 102:12-15, speaking about Yahweh. Paul, in the Book of Hebrews, applies this Psalm, and the term LORD or Yahweh, to Jesus Christ.

There are a few statements in the Old Testament, however, which use the expression LORD or Yahweh to describe God the Father. For further evidence, notice Micah 5:2-4, referring to the Father, when using the term, LORD or Yahweh. Notice, too, Psalms 2:2, 7, 11, likewise referring to the Father as the LORD (Yahweh), and to Christ as “His Anointed,” or “My Son.” Finally, notice Psalm 110:1, which is quoted by Christ in Matthew 22:42-45, which also refers to the Father as the “LORD” (Yahweh), while referring to Christ as “Lord” (“adon” in the Hebrew, meaning “Lord, sir, master.”).

The Sermon, “Living Faith”, will be given, this Sabbath, by Edwin Pope.

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

Thanksgiving – Should We Observe It?
By J. Edwin Pope

Next Thursday, November 28, the United States will be celebrating the national holiday of Thanksgiving. While some question whether members of the church should observe this annual holiday, since it is not one of God’s Holy Days, established by Him and recorded in Scripture – the principle of participating in and celebrating national holidays is made clear in the Scripture.

The first observance of this holiday occurred in the fall of 1621, when the Governor of Plymouth Colony, William Bradford, appointed a day for feasting and thanksgiving. That observance was established to show gratitude to the Almighty as that difficult year drew to an end and the harvest was plentiful. Following that first observance, the colonists continued to celebrate days of thanksgiving annually, in recognition of the blessings received of this new land. When we observe this day traditionally, we think of that group of Englishmen who settled at Plymouth in 1620.

This day has been preserved and continued by Presidents of these United States who believed in God and the Bible as a source of national greatness and integrity. Our first President, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving proclamation in honor of the new Constitution. He stated, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

God illustrates this principle in Deuteronomy 17:18-19. He specifically shows that it is His desire that the leaders of nations govern based upon the principles and laws of the Bible.

Abraham Lincoln recognized the need for the people of this nation to stay close to God if we would continue to receive the blessings, which were being afforded us by the Almighty. On October 3, 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday of November as Thanksgiving Day; a day set aside to give God thanks for the blessings He continued to bestow upon the nation.

Then in December 1941, the U.S. Congress established the fourth Thursday of November from that year forward, officially, as Thanksgiving Day.

But would God have us keep this day as a national holiday in respect of all that He has done for this people and nation, since this is not a day He established and specifically requires in Scripture?

We have examples of national holidays established by the Jews and recorded in Scripture for historical purposes – days, which were not established specifically by God to reflect His overall plan. Thus, the fact that Thanksgiving Day was established by the early colonists rather than by divine authority, does not, in itself, make it wrong for a Christian to celebrate such a day.

In John 10:22-23, we find Jesus attending the “Feast of Dedication,” which was established by the Jews to commemorate the purification of the Temple at Jerusalem. That feast was celebrated on the anniversary of the day that the re-establishment of divine worship occurred, after Antiochus Epiphanes had been vanquished and the Temple purified. This occurred around 165 A.D.

Thus, Christ’s attendance at the annual holiday clearly illustrated that it was good and right to attend and celebrate a national holiday established for the right purposes. There was nothing wrong in celebrating this holiday and giving special thanks to God on that day!

God led Esther and Mordecai to establish the Feast of Purim to commemorate the deliverance of the Jews from Haman (Esther 9).

A very significant point here is that in neither of the Jewish holidays of the “Feast of Dedication,” nor the “Feast of Purim,” is there any hint of a pagan origin. That is true also in relation to the establishment of Thanksgiving as a national holiday. It is not true with Christmas, Easter, and Halloween, all three of which were originally celebrated in honor of pagan gods and pagan traditions and which, today, continue to be used as counterfeits of God’s ordained Holy Days.

Numerous Scriptures reveal to us that we are to submit to the laws and ordinances of the land as long as these laws and ordinances do not conflict with God’s Laws and His Way of life. Examples of such Scriptures are: I Peter 2:13-18; Matthew 22:21; and Romans 13:1-4.

The overall point in these Scriptures is that orderly government is part of God’s provision for the land, even in a wicked world. No ruler exercises control except as God permits (Daniel 4:17). Under normal circumstances, one who would follow God’s Way is to be obedient to the laws of the land except where those laws contradict the Laws of God. In such a situation – the Christian must obey God, rather than men (Acts 5:29; Daniel 3:16-18; and Daniel 6:10-28).

Of all the national holidays observed in this great land today, Thanksgiving stands out as one that we as Christians can truly embrace.

In the San Diego Union-Tribune, Tuesday, November 19, 2002, there is an article of significance, in which a federal judge in Montgomery, Alabama, ruled a day earlier that a Ten Commandments monument installed in Alabama’s judicial building must be removed (within 30 days) because it violates the separation of church and state. One might wonder how long a national holiday of the stature of Thanksgiving will continue to be allowed in this country.

Thanksgiving is a day that points the family and the nation to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is that God Who will soon be returning to this earth to establish a Kingdom and a Government, which will rule this world based upon the Laws of God. In the meantime we must utilize every opportunity to direct those we come in contact with – to that One, True God. Time for this world is swiftly running out!

ROME: ASSERTING ITS ROLE

The International Herald Tribune (Online) reported on November 15, 2002:  “Pope John Paul II made a historic visit to the Italian Parliament on Thursday (11/14/02), seeking both to move beyond past tensions between the Vatican and the Italian government and to weigh in on challenges that currently confront the country.  In a 45-minute speech that marked the FIRST TIME a pope had ever addressed the legislature here, John Paul told Italians to make sure that the expansion of the European Union did not diminish the role and importance of Christianity on the Continent.”
 
Just how significant this address was is attested to by the attendance of some 800 lawmakers and national leaders–including Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi.  The article goes on to point out, “The pope’s visit was preceded by day after day and page upon page of news coverage here, and it was suffused with an EXTRAORDINARY SENSE OF OCCASION.”
 
On November 15, Zenit News Agency summarized  the event in this way, “Pope’s Visit to Italian Parliament Mark Full Church-State Reconciliation.” It pointed out that the papal visit “made front-page news in all Italian newspapers today, some dedicating as many as nine pages to the event. Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls described the visit as ‘an homage that the Pope wishes to offer to the unique historical role of Italy with Christian humanism,’ adding in comparison to other papal visits to parliamentary assemblies, ‘I think that, in this case, it is about something singular, in a certain sense unique.'” The article pointed out, too, that “according to historian Pietro Scoppola, John Paul II’s presence in the Italian Parliament marks a ‘full and unconditional reconciliation with Italian institutions.'”
 
A further quote on this historic address, this time from CNN.com for November 15, 2002, shows the authoritative influence wielded by the Pope:  “John Paul appealed to European leaders, who are drafting a new EU constitution, to recognize the role Christianity has played on the continent.  ‘There is a need to guard against a vision of the continent which would only take into account its ECONOMIC and POLITICAL aspects, and not its RELIGIOUS ones,’ the pope said.”
 
We bring excerpts from the pope’s speech, as follows:
 
“A self-confident and internally cohesive Italy can be a great enrichment for the other nations of Europe and the world. I wish to share this conviction with you at this time, when the institutional shape of the European Union is being defined and its expansion to include many countries of Central and Eastern Europe appears imminent, as it were sealing the end of an unnatural division. It is my hope that, thanks also to Italy’s support, the new foundations of the European ‘common house’ will not lack the ‘cement’ of that extraordinary religious, cultural and civil patrimony which has given Europe its greatness down the centuries… In this noble Assembly I would like to renew the appeal which in recent years I have made to the various peoples of the Continent, ‘Europe, at the beginning of the new millennium, open once again your doors to Christ!’… Italy and the other nations historically rooted in the Christian faith are in a sense inherently prepared to open up for humanity new pathways of peace… Illustrious Representatives of the Italian People, a prayer arises spontaneously from the depths of my heart: from this ancient and glorious City — from this ‘Rome where Christ is Roman,’ in Dante’s celebrated phrase (Purgatorio 32:102) — I implore the Redeemer of man to grant that the beloved Italian Nation will continue, now and in the future, to live in a way worthy of its national tradition, and to draw from that tradition new and abundant fruits of civilization, for the material and spiritual progress of the whole world.”
 
We have proclaimed for decades the Biblical teaching that the Catholic Church will play a very dominant and influential role in restoring in Europe the ancient Roman Empire. In fact, the coming United States of Europe is the final and last resurrection of the Roman Empire, which was later called the Holy Roman Empire. The Bible pictures the city of Rome, which is built on seven hills (Revelation 17:9), as that “great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 17:18).
 
The Bible also shows that the final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, under the influence and direction of the Catholic Church, will not remain a peaceful power bloc. It will become responsible for bringing havoc on this earth, launching this world into World War III.
 
The Bible also indicates very strongly that most of the Protestant churches, including the Lutheran Church, will unite again under the Catholic umbrella. In this light, the following development is very interesting:
 
On November 17, 2002, Zenit News Agency reported that “‘the Catholic Church continues toward full unity with the Lutheran Church,’ John Paul II said Saturday… ‘We are committed moving further ahead on the path of reconciliation… The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, signed in 1999, paves the way for more extensive common witness,’ adding that it ‘brings us a step closer to the full visible unity which is the goal of our dialogue.'”
 
These events occurred against the backdrop of American bishops of the Catholic Church struggling to restore confidence after sex abuse cases rocked the whole institution.  In a conference meeting, the bishops were attempting to produce a national policy to address abusive priests–an earlier document had been rejected by Rome. 
 
In the Denver Post, November 17, 2002, the repercussions of the abuse cases were noted, “One in five Catholics has stopped donating to a diocese because of the scandals, according to a Gallup poll released two weeks ago.”  This article closed its report with this final statement:
 
“‘Only the pope can oust a prelate, and he will resist doing so in response to public outcry,’ said… Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit magazine America.  ‘Rome would never want to look like it’s giving in to pressure,’ Reese said.”
 
Finally, in The Coloradoan, November 17, 2002,  “A Pittsburgh priest who was accused but never convicted of child molestation was defrocked by Pope John Paul II for disobeying orders to not serve as a priest in public.”  However, having gone to Rome to appeal the Pope’s order, the priest found little success, because, “The Vatican decree stated that ‘the penalty is unappealable.’ “
 
News reports such as these highlight an emerging power in Rome as the Catholic Church opens new doors, participates in empire building and rules its own with unflinching authority.
 

The Bible teaches that God creates both good and “evil.” Isaiah 45:7 reads (quoted from the Authorized Version throughout), “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” We are also being told in Jeremiah 6:19, “Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not harkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.” (The New King James Bible translates the Hebrew word for “evil” with “calamity” in both passages. The Hebrew word (“ra”) is the same, though, as used in Genesis 2 to describe the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.)

Originally, God created Lucifer as a perfect being (Ezekiel 28:15), but he was created with the freedom to choose.This meant that Lucifer, by necessity, could and might turn to evil. God, then, created Lucifer with that potential. In the same way, God created man as a free moral agent. He also created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in order to give man the opportunity to choose life and to reject evil and death (compare Deuteronomy 30:19). Later, Jesus Christ, who gave up His divine attributes to become a human being like us (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 2:14-18), had to “know” or to learn how to “refuse the evil” (Isaiah 7:14-16; compare Hebrews 4:15). He never sinned, but He had to struggle against sin, and He “learned obedience [or, how to obey in temptation] by the things which He suffered.” (Hebrews 5:6-8).

God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not in order to tempt man to sin (God does not tempt us to sin, James 1:13), but to test man, whether he would obey God or not. When God tests us, He desires that we don’t sin. His tests are giving us opportunity to choose the good and to resist the evil. We read that God let ancient Israel hunger in the desert, to “humble thee, and to prove [or, test] thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.” (Deuteronomy 8:2).

God wants to know the same about us today. Are we willing to resist sin and the desire to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, even in the face of adversity? God wants us to continuously eat instead from the tree of life — to drink in His Holy Spirit, which gives us the power and the strength to resist evil and follow the good. The choice, though, is ours.

Norbert Link intends to begin this Sabbath with a series on the “Books of the Bible.”

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

How careful are we with our words? When we speak, do we do so to edify the hearer? Or do we, intentionally or inadvertently, tear down and criticize others?

Rather than being or coming across as accusatory or assumptive, we all must strive to be positive, uplifting, edifying and constructive, thereby showing the fruits of God’s Spirit.

This is not always easy, since we must overcome our own human nature and replace it with the nature of God. This is a life-long struggle. Human nature, being what it is, can invariably latch on to the negative; it always seems easier to pull down rather than build up. Proverbs 6:16-19 has something to say about those things that God hates:

“(16) These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
(17) A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,
(18) A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil,
(19) A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.”

We should edify, not destroy. We should follow the wise instruction in Romans 14:19:

“Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.”

Let us speak words of praise about the good in other people. Let us encourage others to do their best. Let us comfort other people when they are discouraged. Let us be a shining example of the way God wants us to be.

Let us always seek to build up and not to pull down; to edify, never to destroy. In short, let us use our tongue and the written word to be a force for good, and not let our arch enemy, the devil, trap us into doing otherwise.

We need to always remember Christ’s words in Matthew 12:36-37, before we speak:

“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

In light of this, let’s meditate over and apply Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:29-32:

“Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom [better: whereby, Authorized Version] you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.”

“AS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH…”

Jesus Christ very precisely identified a future time when mankind would be immersed in self-indulgent pursuits at the cost of understanding that God would shortly intervene to put a stop to the runaway madness of a world headed into oblivion (compare Matthew 24:36-39).  If we look at the cause for God destroying the civilization that existed in Noah’s day, we are plainly told, in Genesis 6, that it was due to man’s continuing evil ways and his great wickedness. 
 
You can turn on your television, read newspapers and magazines–and you should come to understand that our time fulfills what Jesus warned of for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear!
 
Now, in these late months of 2002, wickedness is all-pervasive.  Wars and rumors of wars have the whole world reeling in uncertainty–overtures for resolution of conflicts and the hopes for peace simply bear little real and lasting success.  Let’s just witness the events of this week.
 

RUSSIA’S VLADIMIR PUTIN

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s comments in a press conference in Paris on Monday caused an extraordinary outburst:  “Islamic ‘radicals have much more ambitious goals.  They talk about setting up a worldwide Caliphate and the need to kill Americans and their allies.’ ”  (From The Scotsman–Scotland’s National Newspaper Online, 13th of November, 2002.)
 
These heated comments erupted after Mr. Putin was challenged on his and his country’s handling of Chechen separatists–predominantly Muslims.
 

OSAMA BIN LADEN

Add to this the possible emergence of Osama bin Laden calling for a continuing Islamic Jihad.
“An Arab TV station broadcast an audiotape Tuesday of a voice that a U.S. official said sounded like Osama bin Laden’s.”  The Coloradoan, November 13, 2002.
 

GERMANY

Most of Germany’s newspapers and magazines expressed hope, joy, and a lot of wishful thinking earlier this week, when they reported, “The ice between Germany and the U.S. is broken.” Cause for this wave of optimism was a 10-minute phone conversation between Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Bush (initiated by Mr. Schroeder) and a meeting in excess of one hour between Donald Rumsfeld and Germany’s Minister of Defense, Peter Struck. German and American governmental officials were anxious to declare that there was “hope for a good working relationship,” and that “we are moving slowly towards a normalization of our relationships.”
 
However, notice this headline in Der Spiegel of November 13, 2002, “New attack from Washington against Berlin.” The article continues, “Just when it seemed that the German-American relationship had relaxed, an American defense-expert has criticized once again the German Iraq policy.” Reference is made to Richard Perle who, according to the magazine, is “a driving force behind the harsh position of the United States towards Iraq.” Perle stated in an interview with the British Guardian, “Germany has fallen into a morally paralyzing pacifism.” In a German parliamentary debate on November 14, the opposition attacked the German government for its “unjustifiable foreign and defense policy.” It was causing “fear of war and anti-American feelings,” according to Wolfgang Schaeuble, second-in-command of the opposition party, as quoted in Der Spiegel. 
 
It is somewhat ironic, perhaps, that this debate followed an article published by Die Welt on November 9, stating, “All Count on War.” Die Welt is an opposition-friendly newspaper. In the article, it did nothing to eliminate any fear of war or anti-American feelings. Quite to the contrary, it stated, “It happened right after the terrible September 11, 2001. At that time, the President of the United States supposedly asked his minister of defense and his security advisor how many countries around the world are threats for the security of the United States. The answer: ‘About 60, Mr. President.’ And George W. Bush reputedly replied, ‘Then let’s start, one after the other.’ For one right on the top of the list, time is running out — for the dictator Saddam Hussein.”
 

IRAQ

All of the above comes at the very critical moment when Iraq has accepted U.N. demands to meet conditions for disarmament–thus avoiding an immediate war with the U.S. and its allies. Newscasts report that President Bush has a “zero tolerance” for any non-fulfillment from Iraq.
 
Most commentators agree that Saddam’s response will probably not prevent war — it will only delay it. The Leader of the German Middle Eastern Institute, Udo Steinbach, predicts a military attack against Iraq. He stated that he cannot imagine that Saddam will agree to a search of all his palaces.
 
USA Today opinioned Thursday that “there will be other potential crisis points in the weeks to come — deadlines that could ultimately lead Washington and its allies to invade Iraq to force compliance. Baghdad faces a December 8 deadline to declare the banned biological, chemical and nuclear programs Washington is sure Iraq still has,” according to the paper. “If Iraq’s declaration fails to match a U.S. list of suspected weapons sites, the Bush administration could view that as provocation for an invasion. U.S. officials say they believe that there is virtually no chance Iraq will fully comply with the [U.N.] resolution…. Instead, the question reverberating through the Bush administration is whether to wait weeks or months to allow Saddam to build a pattern of deception or omission — or to push for war much sooner if Iraq defies any of the measure’s key demands.” The paper also pointed out that “Washington believes that the resolution sanctions the use of force against Iraq whether the council gives further approval or not.”
 
This might very well prove to pose a serious problem for the United States. As the paper continues to explain, “Judith Yaphe, an Iraq expert of the National Defense University, also predicts that Saddam will not reveal any new sites and that it might be difficult for inspectors to find incriminating evidence.” But what, if they don’t find anything? What happens, if the inspectors under chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix do not locate any sites of illegal biological or chemical weapons? (After all, Mr. Blix did not locate any sites during his prior investigation.) What if most of America’s allies declare themselves “satisfied” with that outcome? Will the United States, with the possible support of Great Britain and Israel, find themselves alone, when they decide to declare war on Iraq under those circumstances?

FAMINES AROUND THE WORLD

The past several days have witnessed a most welcomed easing of some of the most severe drought conditions in living memory for much of the Western United States.  In the critical “reservoir states” such as Colorado, we witness now above average snow levels in the mountain river basins upon which so many downstream population centers rely.  Though not out of danger, this early sustained snow fall is gratifying for deeply concerned farmers, ranchers and city dwellers–all of whom were made dramatically aware of the personal cost for limited water resources.
 
Contrast this good news to the very sobering and pitiful reports coming out of Africa.  A report from World Vision International on October 23, 2002, states, “Ethiopia is bracing for the worst drought it’s ever seen.  The country’s rainy season, for the third consecutive year, has passed with no rainfall and child deaths and malnutrition are climbing.”  The article goes on to point out that “up to 14 million people… may face starvation.”
 
Mass famines now ravage remote and underdeveloped parts of this earth.  There is often little hope for help simply because of the frightening scale and the challenge that faces a world in which too many of its citizens suffer from hunger as a way of life.
 
Week by week, we find ourselves watching the fulfillment of biblical warnings that will quickly usher in the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of God’s rule.  Until then, this world will continue to descend into ever more evil–ever more violence on a greater and greater scale. For us, we must heed this admonition, “‘WATCH therefore, and PRAY always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.'” (Luke 21:36).
 

These are not the words of a pacifist.” Could you please explain this passage in light of your strong stance against Christian participation in war?

A: Luke 22:35-38 reads in context:

“And He said to them, ‘When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?’ So they said, ‘Nothing.’ [God took care of them.] Then He said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: “And He was numbered with the transgressors.” For the things concerning Me have an end.’ So they said: ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them: ‘It is enough.'”

This passage cannot be used to justify participation of a Christian in war. In fact, the passage teaches the exact opposite. Firstly, “two swords” would be hardly enough to defend themselves against the coming Roman persecution. Secondly, Christ Himself makes clear why they were to buy swords — so that prophecy regarding Him could be fulfilled. What specific prophetic saying had to be fulfilled? “And He was numbered with the transgressors.” What transgression did the disciples — who had swords — become guilty of?

Note, first, that sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). We read, in Matthew 24:51, that Peter took the sword and struck the servant, in order to “defend” Christ. When he did that, he became guilty of the transgression of the spirit of the sixth commandment (Exodus 20:13; 1 John 3:15; Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36). Notice Matthew 26:51-52: “And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword in his place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'”

Christ does not advocate that His disciples take up weapons to defend themselves, or others, in war. Note His clear statement, “ALL who take the sword will PERISH by the sword.” When Peter took the sword to harm or kill another human being, he became a transgressor of the law. The other disciples had undoubtedly similar feelings as Peter, supporting his conduct in their minds. They were all with Christ, so Christ was “numbered with the transgressors.”

We must also realize that at that time, neither Peter nor any of Christ’s disciples were converted. Their attitude and conduct changed, however, after their conversion (compare, for example, 1 Peter 2:21-23). We also read in James 4:1-3 that the origin of wars comes from “our desires for pleasure that war” in our members. Verse 4 continues, “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?” James tells us here that we become “enemies” of God, if we were friends with and join the war machine of this world.

Returning to Matthew 26, Christ goes on to explain that His protection does not come from men, but from God. Verse 53, “‘Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?” He continues, however, “‘How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?'” (Verse 54). The point is, God would have protected Him, but it was not God’s time for His intervention. Jesus made a similar comment in John 18:36, “‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants [twelve legions of angels whom the Father would have sent Him for protection] would fight, so that I would not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Christ was not talking here about His eleven disciples who had two swords — they could have hardly prevented Jesus’ arrest by “a great multitude with swords and clubs.” (Matthew 26:47).

Christ’s disciples are not to participate in war. Our Master tells us, “Put your sword in his place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” We, who believe in Christ and His Word, are not to perish, though, but to have everlasting life (John 3:15).

We read a similar warning and admonition in Revelation 13:10. The context is a coming persecution of the saints by the beast power (Verse 7). Christ introduces His warning in this way, “If anyone has an ear, let him hear.” (Verse 9). Then, He says, “He who leads into captivity [including through the means of war], shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.” Christ warns HIS END-TIME CHURCH NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN WAR. He continues, “Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”

Christ’s true disciples will have the patience to endure even war, without resorting to violence and responding in kind. They will have the faith that GOD can and will protect them, even in the face of adversity, and that they must never transgress His law.

Luke 22:36-38 does not teach us that we must arm ourselves to protect ourselves in war. Rather, if we do that, we are “transgressors” in the eyes of God.

Dave Harris will be speaking this Sabbath over the Internet. The title of his sermon is: “Our Approachable Father.”

Today, the more popular use of “I love…” ends with an activity, a food, some song, movie or personality. It would be stunning to hear someone actually say, “I love God with all my heart and with all my soul.”

How about us – those of us who have responded to the calling of God? God is surely finding out the answer by how we live our lives – day in and day out.

It was revealed to Israel that in order for them to have God engaged in their lives, they must love Him unconditionally. In Deuteronomy 13, verse 3, Moses records that Israel would be tested concerning the depth of their commitment and love for God.

Paul sums up that time period with these words, “But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.” (1 Corinthians 10:5).

How about most of us?

Jesus Christ gives us the answer. In John 14:21, ” ‘He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me.’ ” Also, continuing in verse 24, ” ‘He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.’ “

It is really the “love OF God”, that is, God’s very love in us, that enables us to keep the commandments (1 John 5:3). In other words, although it is important that we have love towards God and His word, that alone is not enough. Rather, it is God-through His Holy Spirit – Who places His love within us (Romans 5:5). So, the key is to let God’s love in us operate and guide our lives.

In the Book of Revelation, in chapters two and three, Jesus speaks to the generations of believers who were to make up the church of God. In their times of testing, the core issue that remains is that of truly loving God.

Of the many trials to be overcome were things such as false doctrines and false teachers, immorality and personal sins, a lack of fervency and a self-satisfied sense of complacency.

To the first church, the church represented as Ephesus, Jesus has this grave and fateful admonition: ” ‘Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your FIRST LOVE.’ ” (Revelation 2:4). Continuing, the solution given is to “remember,” to “repent,” and to “do the first works” (verse 5).

But that cautionary advice from Jesus Christ is not just for that time. To all seven churches, He says the following: ” ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’ “

If we are to love God with all our heart and all our soul – which is the state of first love – then, we, too, must awaken to “remember,” to “repent,” and to “do the first works!”
 

U.S. ELECTIONS — A MANDATE?

From the web site for “Voice of America,” November 7, 2002, the following:  “The White House is interpreting the Republican gains in Tuesday’s congressional elections as an endorsement of President Bush’s agenda, including his strong stand on Iraq and national security.”
 
This same article goes on to point out that “…European capitals are viewing Tuesday’s Republican gains with a bit of caution.”  In a “United Press International” article entitled, “World braces for ‘triumphant’ Bush,” this telling comment: ” ‘ We are dealing with a power that has no limit in its dealing with foreign issues,’  said Mohammed Shaker, head of the Egyptian Council on Foreign Relations, whose wariness of a Bush administration unrestrained by any other branch of government was widely shared beyond U.S. shores.” (www.upi.com–11/6/02).
 
The undertow following this week’s elections in the U.S. certainly points to an empowerment and sanctioning from American voters for the President’s worldview.  It is widely accepted that his popularity and active participation in strategic races won the day.  Outside the United States there is a kind of fatalistic acceptance that this President and his nation will impose their will internationally.  Only the tiny enclave of Israel, itself presently going through a political internal upheaval, has happily embraced the newly found platform for an even more stringent “get tough” foreign policy that will steadily emerge as a result of Republican control in America’s government.
 
How cautionary and pessimistic the European reaction to Mr. Bush’s victory has been, the following excerpts will tell:
 
Germany’s Spiegel Online, November 6:
 
“Bush, the Almighty… For George Bush, the way is now clear — new laws, new judges, new wars… The clarity with which voters decided to switch to the right, has baffled political observers… There would have been many causes for criticism. But where were the Democrats? They were caught helplessly in the patriotism-trap…”
 
The U.K.’s The Guardian (quoted from Der Spiegel on November 6):
 
“The Americans have made this week a fatal decision. They, as well as the rest of the world, will have to live — and in some cases, die —  with the consequences.”
 
The U.K.’s Daily Telegraph (quoted from Der Spiegel, on November 6):
 
“We are convinced that he [President Bush] will carry out his plans to deliberate Iraq, regardless of what happens at The United Nations.”
 
The Netherlands’ De Volkskrant:
 
“[President Bush’s victory] symbolizes the giant cliff which now exists between both sides of the Atlantic.”
 
Spain’s El Periodico de Catalunya:
 
“The Americans support the imperial politics of President George W. Bush… This might persuade Bush… to enforce on the whole word his … politics, without regard to his allies. A dark scenario.”
 
Luxembourg’s Luxemburger Wort:
 
“America’s international partners, as well as her enemies, should be prepared for an even more self-conscious leader in the White House. Iraq might be the first one to experience this.”
 

THE GERMAN WAY

On November 4, 2002, Der Spiegel Online published an article, titled, “The German Way.” The subheading read, “Why Schroeder was right in his fight with Washington, and why Europe should challenge the United States.” American David Binder, a long-time German correspondent of the New York Times, wrote the article.
 
In the article, it states, “What we [i.e., the U.S.A.] need is an equally strong rival that forces us to regain a lost balance…. The only possible rival for the United States — and not even an unfriendly one — would be the European Union… Chancellor Schroeder’s lonesome way — which is now being supported by France — is of critical importance and at least a forerunner of change… Perhaps we could again learn something from the Germans.”
 
In an interview at the end of October, published by Online News Hour, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, in explaining the basis for “the German Way,” and Germany’s consistent refusal to participate in any military action against Iraq, made the following quote:
 
“… the question is the day after. What would it mean for the whole region? This is a very terrible, dangerous region, and what will it mean for regional stability in the Middle East? This is the Middle East, and are the United States ready to stay there for long-term? Because to go in and the United States have the military capacity to get rid of Saddam, there is no question about that, but what will be there the day after? Will the United States then stay there and guarantee peace and stability in these very dangerous neighboring regions of Europe? Europe without the strong role of the United States, I think, is no option. We need the United States worldwide for peace and stability, but also in Europe because transatlantic relations, this is the real pillar of our peace and security on both sides of the Atlantic… “
 
Regarding the formation of Europe and Turkey’s application for membership status, Mr. Fischer had this to say [please note that in Turkey’s recent governmental election, the Islamic party has gained the majority]:
 
“To be a member of the E.U. means to be a member of the coming United States of Europe. We are talking about a marriage. And to marry someone [i.e. Turkey] because a good friend [i.e., the United States] says to you, ‘You should marry this person,’ I don’t know whether this is sufficient enough for a marriage. But with the E.U. enlargement, and be full member of the enlarged union, it means to marry in a political and economical and democratic sense.”
 
These are remarkable words. The Bible does compare political alliances with marriages. And it is also interesting to note Mr. Fischer’s conviction that the United States are absolutely necessary to guarantee peace in Europe. What will happen, however, when this stabilizing influence no longer exists in Europe?
 

HAIDER’S WAY?

Austria’s Joerg Haider got into the news again, when he revisited Saddam Hussein last week. As News-Networld, November 7, 2002, reported, most Austrians disapprove of his visit. Almost 90 % believe that Haider’s visits with Saddam damage Austria’s reputation. On the other hand, 16 percent felt that Haider’s visit will help him for the next general election to the national parliament which is to be held on November 24. Many party members are now begging Haider to return as their party leader, according to Der Standard of November 6.

 
Haider applauded himself upon his return. He explained that his visit dealt foremost with economical projects. Austria’s exports to Iraq have increased from 14.5 million Euros in the first six months of 2001 to 65.6 million Euros in the first six months of 2002.
 
Haider also proclaimed that he was instrumental to reach an “extremely important step” to prevent war against Iraq, by convincing Saddam to consider a new U.N. resolution. He also strongly attacked the politics of the United States, voicing his opinion that President Bush only wants a war with Iraq to get the focus away from his problems. Haider also stated that Israel will use the war as an excuse to expel all Palestinians.
 
The Bush administration compared Haider with Saddam. They are “birds of a feather,” Richard Boucher said in commenting on Haider’s new visit with Saddam. 
 

There are different Biblical principles involved. We believe that the following will best express our religious convictions against participating in jury duty:

A true Christian is a stranger, alien and exile (1 Peter 2:11; Hebrews 11:13) while here on earth; an ambassador for Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20); and a representative of God’s Kingdom. As such, and in being a light to the world by proper conduct (Matthew 5:14-16), a true Christian does not take part in this world’s governmental or political affairs, as presently, it is not God who rules this earth, but Satan the devil (Revelation 2:13; Luke 4:5-6). Christians are challenged to come out of the governmental and political systems of this world. Christ, knowing that God’s Kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), refused to judge a civil matter when He was asked to do so (Luke 12:14). Paul, likewise, condemned judging those “who are outside” the church (1 Corinthians 5:12).

Further, man’s judgments are concerned with the letter of the law. In contrast, God looks on one’s heart, and is concerned with the spirit and intent of the law. Man’s laws usually do not take into account repentance, forgiveness of sins, and other spiritual factors, as God does (Acts 2:38). Jesus, in looking at the heart of the accused, refused to condemn a woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). Jesus taught that true Christians must be willing to forgive others (Matthew 6:14-15).

Another principle against participation in jury duty is, that true Christians are to learn to judge according to the law of God as seasoned by judgment, mercy and faith (Matthew 23:23). They are also to render “righteous” judgment (John 7:24). Selectively presented evidence, where facts may be suppressed for technical, legal reasons as permitted in the courts, may not necessarily lead to Godly justice, mercy and truth, and to the rendering of a righteous judgment.

In following the biblical injunctions, one could not convict a person, in any event, unless the accusation is supported by the testimony of at least two witnesses (John 8:16; Deuteronomy 17:6-7). Since the witnesses would have to “cast the first stones,” circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient, under God’s law, for the requirement of two witnesses.

Since we may be required, as a juror, to apply man’s laws in conflict with the law of God, we could not take the oath as a juror, as we would, in principle, agree to obeying man rather than God (Acts 5:29; Acts 4:19).

Therefore, jury duty will invariably create a conflict of conscience in a Christian between the requirements of God and the requirements of jury service. A Christian who violates his conscience would be guilty of committing sin (Romans 14:23; 1 John 3:4).