Update 267

On November 11, 2006, Norbert Link will give the sermon, addressing the topic of Christian suffering.

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

The tiny, landlocked nation of Bhutan, sandwiched between Tibet and
India in the Himalayas, has a philosophy that could be taken straight
from the pages of the Bible. In a Buddhist country of around 700,000
people, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck decreed, when he ascended the
throne in 1972, that instead of seeking a gross national product, the
official goal was to enjoy gross national happiness.

A journalist
with the Bhutan Broadcasting Service made the following observation
about the King’s edict: “He basically meant, let my people be happy,
you know. And how do you be happy? Well, if kids go to school, kids
that live healthy, and if the forests are there, you take them out on
walks on the weekends.”   And that, he agreed, is the
opposite of a consumer society. Selfishness is exactly what “gross
national happiness” is trying to avoid–the excesses of consumerism
experienced by many nations of the world.

Gross National Product
(GNP) measures only the sum total of material production and exchange
in any country and was never intended to be a measure of actual
well-being.  An international conference on Gross National
Happiness, hosted by the Bhutan government in the capital city of
Thimphu in 2004, attracted 82 eminent participants from 20 countries.
This conference showed that basic happiness can be measured since it
pertains to quality of nutrition, housing, education, health care and
community life.

During the last few weeks, the true Church of God
has been keeping God’s autumnal Feast Days as part of the Holy Day
calendar. There will be much happiness when the Feast of Trumpets (kept
on 23rd September this year) becomes reality as Christ returns to the
earth to set up the Kingdom of God. Ten days later (2nd October), the
Church kept the Day of Atonement which heralds the putting away of
Satan for 1,000 years. As our adversary, and the one who has caused so
much suffering during the last 6,000 years is banished, there will be
much rejoicing and happiness at this event. And then, four days later,
the Feast of Tabernacles (7th to 13th October in 2006) was kept for
seven days which represents Christ’s millennial rule on earth, followed
by the Last Great Day (14th October in 2006) which foreshadows a time
during which all who have not previously been given an opportunity to
accept or reject God’s calling will be given their first opportunity
(see our free booklet “God’s Commanded Holy Days”).

These
events will provide the answer to all of the world’s ills. And the
praiseworthy efforts of Bhutan will be completely overshadowed by the
perfect rule of Christ over all the earth. This will bring happiness on
a scale previously unrealized during man’s 6,000 years of misrule. And
Gross National Happiness will be the order of the day!

Special Report on Iraq

The former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, and six subordinates were convicted and sentenced Sunday for the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single Shiite town after an attempt on his life there. The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeals panel, which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days. The Iraqi president Jalal Talabani said Monday that he wouldn’t sign Saddam’s death sentence. However, he emphasized that his personal signature was not necessary for it to be carried out. Saddam Hussein was appearing in court again on Tuesday in a separate genocide trial investigating the Anfal campaign of 1987-88 during which up to 180,000 Kurds died.

The worldwide reaction to Saddam’s death penalty was mixed and brought into focus the failed attempts of the United States to bring peace and democracy to Iraq, as well as the American inability to prove the accuracy of the stated reasons for beginning the war in the first place. Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 7 that “Europe [was] united in opposition” to the verdict.

World Leaders Say Their Peace

The Associated Press wrote the following on November 5 about the reactions of world leaders to Saddam’s conviction and sentence:

“… The White House praised the Iraqi judicial system and denied the U.S. had been ‘scheming’ to have the historic verdict announced two days before American midterm elections, widely seen as a referendum on the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq… symbolic of the split between the United States and many of its traditional allies over the Iraq war, many European nations voiced opposition to the death sentences in the case, including France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden… Lost in the drama of Sunday’s death sentence was any mention of the failed search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction that Bush said led the United States to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003.”

In a related article, The Associated Press stated: “At the Vatican, Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI’s top prelate for justice issues, called the sentence a throwback to ‘eye for an eye’ vengeance… Intervening militarily was ‘a grave error,’ said Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose country withdrew its troops from Iraq, contending that conditions there have worsened since the U.S.-led invasion… The Council of Europe called it ‘futile and wrong’ to execute Saddam… Iran, which fought an eight-year war against Saddam’s Iraq and is a bitter opponent of the United States, praised the death sentence.”

Reuters added in its article of November 5:

“The European Union urged Iraq on Sunday not to carry out the death sentence… ‘The EU opposes capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, and it should not be carried out in this case either,’ Finland, current holder of the rotating EU presidency, said in a statement…

Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 6:

“The conviction of Saddam Hussein is dividing the world… Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said: ‘The condemnation reflects the judgment of the entire international community. But however ferocious a crime may be, our traditions and our ethics distance us from the concept of a death penalty.’ German Chancellor Angela Merkel pointed out that the EU opposes the death sentence. ‘But it’s right and important that the courts deal with Saddam Hussein’s deeds.'”

The magazine also reported that the Foreign Ministers of Italy and France appealed to the Iraqi government not to execute Saddam. Surprisingly, even Tony Blair, when pressed by journalists, commented that “he was against the death penalty, including against Saddam Hussein… thereby rejecting the position of his war-ally, George W. Bush.” In typical political fashion he went on to say, however, that the issue was an internal Iraqi affair.

This last sentiment was echoed by the U.S. government. According to AFP of November 7, “US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejected criticism from European and other allies over the death sentence… ‘This is not something for Americans or, frankly, Europeans to comment on. I think this is something for Iraqis to decide,’ Rice said in a television interview… Rice also angrily rejected suggestions Washington had manipulated the timing of the Saddam verdict, which came two days before crucial US elections.”

A.P. added on November 6 that due to the verdict, “the divide between Shiite and Sunni” in Iraq was “widening.”  It also mentioned in its article of November 5 that “Shiites and Kurds, who had been tormented and killed in the tens of thousands under Saddam’s iron rule, erupted in celebration–but looked ahead fearfully for a potential backlash from the Sunni insurgency that some believe could be a final shove into all-out civil war.” AFP commented on November 7 that “The verdict served only to deepen Iraq’s bitter religious divide.”

Strong Accusations from Human Rights Groups

Reuters stated on November 5: “Human rights groups and legal experts have called the year-long trial, during which three defence lawyers were killed, deeply flawed.” According to The Associated Press, Amnesty International actually said it “deplored” the sentence, and condemned the trial as a “shabby affair, marred by serious flaws” which had not met basic international standards. According to Der Spiegel Online, dated November 7, “A United Nations legal expert has likewise urged the Iraqi government not to carry out the death sentence. Leandro Despouy, the UN special investigator on the independence of judges and lawyers, questioned the fairness of the trial and called for an international tribunal to either retry Saddam or handle the appeals process.”

What The International Press Thinks…

The reaction of the international press to the verdict was sharply divided as well. As AFP pointed out on November 6, “The world’s media has been torn between applause for the death penalty given dictator Saddam Hussein and warnings that killing him would only exacerbate divisions threatening to destroy Iraq.” The article continued:

“The New York Times called for Saddam’s execution to be deferred, saying his trial had given Iraq ‘neither the full justice nor the full fairness it deserved’… Europe’s press reaction broadly reflected where the countries or individual newspapers stood on the Iraq invasion. ‘It’s a shame the verdict can give the impression of legitimizing a military intervention taken under false pretexts, when it should be before all else a founding act for a state based on the rule of law after 24 years of dictatorship,’ said Le Figaro in France, a fierce critic of the war.

“In Britain, the main US ally in the Iraq invasion, the response ranged between the tabloid Sun’s gloating over Saddam’s ‘fitting’ sentence to strong criticism in the broadsheets.The Guardian said that if ‘a new Iraq is to ever … emerge from the ruins of the old, eschewing judicial murder would be a good start.’ The Independent lamented that the trial had ‘solved nothing, ended nothing, healed nothing.’

“Some European papers saw the trial as a missed opportunity, arguing that hearings under an international tribunal would have delivered justice better, while the faulted process in Iraq was only likely to fuel fighting. The Berliner Zeitung said it should have been a ‘historic chance’ to learn about the brutalities of Saddam’s rule and help the nation move on. ‘Instead of that, the trial was manipulated by the occupational forces.'”

Schröder’s Point of View on Iraq

In his memoirs, which were published at the end of October, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder recalls the difficult period during the run-up to the Iraq war. On November 6, Der Spiegel Online introduced excerpts from Schröder’s book as follows:

“The trans-Atlantic Ice Age was intense. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and US President George W. Bush — close allies during the post-Sept. 11 offensive in Afghanistan — had nothing but disdain for each other when it came to Iraq. On Aug. 1, 2002 Schröder elected to take the final step in severing his relationship to the president. With an eye on autumn elections, he promised that Germany would not take part in a US-led military ‘adventure’ in Iraq. The statement marked the start of a major diplomatic rift between Washington and Berlin — one that is still being mended today.”

One can safely say that without the Iraq war, the relationship between the United States and Germany would have been much better.

Der Spiegel Online continued as follows:

“Cheney gave a firebrand speech on Aug. 26, 2002 in Tennessee that Schröder describes in his memoir as a ‘tough one,’ a ‘carefully prepared bit of agitation for the coming conflict.’ Cheney infamously claimed that ‘only idiots or cowards could possibly believe’ the invasion was avoidable. With US special forces unable to capture al-Qaida head Osama bin Laden, Schröder suggests the CIA was eager to shift focus to Saddam Hussein — America’s ‘sworn enemy’ in Cheney’s words. ‘To justify this change in strategy,’ he writes, ‘Cheney turned mere assumptions into certainties.’ Cheney also predicted in the speech that Saddam’s collapse would give people a chance to ‘promote values that can bring lasting peace’ and that the people of Basra and Baghdad would cheer the American soldiers when they arrived. ‘What a string of miscalculations!’ Schröder writes. ‘Cheney was never held accountable for any of these mistakes — or perhaps they were deliberate distortions?'”

The magazine went on to point out:

“During those crucial months, the United Nations’ chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was busy criss-crossing Iraq with his team searching fruitlessly for weapons of mass destruction. Schröder says that Blix’s inspection reports had often been used in top-level discussions about Iraq in Berlin. He describes the results of Blix’s work as clear: ‘There were no traces of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.’ The ex-chancellor describes Blix as having maintained a ‘stoic and unwavering stance’ during his thorough inspections and writes that he ‘continue(s) to respect’ that work today. Schröder also found the political campaign waged against Blix by the Bush administration to be deeply troubling…

“Jan. 30, 2003 proved to be a watershed day for European Union relations. Under domestic pressure at home in a country where the majority opposed an Iraq war, Tony Blair’s government sought signatures of prime ministers of seven other European countries for a letter that offered indirect support for the imminent invasion of Iraq. The letter served as a snub for Germany, France and other Western European Countries that had been critical of the calls for war. ‘As much as I could understand the new EU members from Eastern Europe who, for historical reasons, wanted to take sides with the United States, I was equally unable to recognize any even remotely equivalent legitimacy behind the other EU states signing the document.’ The letter, published in newspapers across Europe, drove a wedge between EU countries and spoiled hopes for a common European foreign policy. Three of the signatories were new EU member states from Eastern Europe. ‘What an opportunity we missed with all these quarrels!,’ he laments. ‘A united European stance could have contributed to dissuading America from making a fatal mistake.’

“On Feb. 5, Colin Powell gave his famous speech before the UN in which he laid out the case for the invasion of Iraq. It was only after this that France officially teamed with Berlin and became part of the anti-war alliance… Days later, millions took to the streets across Europe and the world to protest the coming war — including a half million in Berlin…

“Looking to the current state of affairs in Iraq, Schröder sees the recent rebellion of top retired US military generals as a sign that ‘Americans are beginning to deal with the lack of rationality within the government and among its representatives.’ Schröder ventures that the time to start thinking about a pullout has arrived. ‘Perhaps the time has come to encourage the United States to leave Iraq. However, this would require immense strategic preparation that would have to enable all parties involved to save face, and would also include safe withdrawal of the troops.’ This, he argues, would require a ‘peace initiative that takes away support for the terrorists and discourages them.’ He argues the US will be unable to achieve this on its own. ‘Europe and, if possible, another worldwide coalition, including the Arab countries and Israel, would have to be involved. We must begin paving the way now, otherwise we run the risk of terrorists establishing additional footholds worldwide. If that happens, there will be more at stake than a trans-Atlantic spat.'”

Iraq has become an absolutely unbearable burden for the United States and its very few allies–much worse, in a sense, than Vietnam, as the dangers involved are so much greater. The whole world might be set on fire because of an idle attempt to bring democracy to a terribly divided country. Swift concerted action is necessary, but, as Schröder rightly fears, very unlikely. Please make sure to read our member letter, dated November 8, 2006, which discusses the fiasco in Iraq and the reasons for it in more detail.

A Major Catastrophe Is Imminent

Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 6:

“Vesuvius has been quiet for the last 62 years — and that’s cause for concern. Italian authorities are preparing for the next eruption of the most dangerous volcano in the world.”

The magazine continued:

“The ground south of Mt. Vesuvius has been shaken by tremors 52 times during the last 24 hours… Three hundred tons of sulfur dioxide have spewed out of the crater. Other ominous signs of an impending catastrophe are mounting: The coast guard has sighted gaseous bubbles in the sea, and dead fish are floating on the waves. The water in the boroughs of Ercolano and Torre del Greco tastes sourer and sourer. And, as if that weren’t enough, GPS stations have observed that the ground in the region is rising — by no less than 20 centimetres (8 inches) in a single day. ‘No doubt about it, the magma is rising,’ [Italian researcher Franco] Barberi concludes…  Barberi speaks of a ‘dramatic acceleration of events.’ The evacuation has to begin immediately, he says — tonight…

“Nowhere else on the planet do so many people live in the death zone… Some 55,000 people live by the foot of Vesuvius — in towns that have crept farther and farther upward along the volcano’s fertile slopes during the past decades. Hardly any other region of Europe is as densely populated — and construction work is ongoing. Fifty thousand new buildings were built here during the past 20 years — even including a hospital in the town of Torre Annunziata… Vesuvius has been slumbering for 62 years now — and that’s a bad sign, according to the volcanologists. After all, each of the volcano’s major eruptions occurred at the end of such a calm period. The rule of thumb seems to be: The longer the volcano remains outwardly peaceful, the worse the disaster being prepared in its innards.”

In this context, you might want to view one of our older StandingWatch programs, titled, “The Last Days of Pompeii.”

Worst Drought in 1,000 Years

AFP reported on November 7 that “The world’s driest inhabited continent was in the grip of the worst drought in 1,000 years, a river management expert told Australia’s political leaders… The drought has already been described variously as the worst in living memory, the worst in a century and the worst since white settlement more than two centuries ago… statistics showed that the country’s most important river system, within the Murray-Darling Basin, could run out of water in six months, after six years of drought. About 30 rivers and hundreds of tributaries run across the basin, which feeds about 70 per cent of Australia’s irrigated farmlands.”

America’s Midterm Elections

American Voters Send A Clear Message!

Democrats ousted Republicans from power in the House of Representatives in Tuesday’s midterm elections. They also took the Senate with a majority of 51 seats, including two independents who said that they would work with the Democrats.

The Washington Post commented that the Democrats did not win the midterm elections, but that the Republicans lost.

Some of the noteworthy developments are:

Minneapolis’ Democrat Keith Ellison has become the first Muslim to win a seat in the US Congress; and California’s House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi is set to be the first female speaker of the House. The most noted Republican who won a convincing re-election as California’s Governor was Arnold Schwarzenegger. Many observers feel that his land-slide victory was largely due to his recent willingness to distance himself from President Bush on issues such as global warming, setting aside partisan differences, and to concentrate on working together with Democrats to try to solve California’s mounting problems.

Also, in the wake of the elections, having come under much criticism and having lost more and more support even within the military, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resigned on Wednesday, to be replaced by Dr. Robert Gates. Gates is former CIA Chief (1991-1993), and currently President of Texas A&M University. He was selected in order to bring, in the words of President Bush, “a fresh perspective.” Although he changed his mind regarding Rumsfeld, having stated just before the elections that Rumsfeld would stay in office, President Bush reiterated on Wednesday during a press conference that Vice-President Cheney would remain Vice-President for the next two years.

When asked to comment on the election results, President Bush said that he had thought that the American people would have known the importance of security. “But, ” he added, “the people have spoken.”

According to commentators, American voters, disappointed with President Bush’s overall job performance, as well as upset about scandals, ethic problems and corruption in the House and Congress, sent a clear message to both Republicans and Democrats, which is: “Stop bickering and attacking each other, but get something done, including on hotly debated ethical issues and health care.” And: “Solve the debacle in Iraq!” These are tough demands, given the political climate in Washington and the fact that most Democrats had voted for the war in Iraq.

Der Spiegel Online reported on November 8:

“Exit polls showed that 42 percent of voters called corruption an extremely important issue in their choices at the polls, followed by terrorism at 40 percent, the economy at 39 percent and the war in Iraq at 37 percent… Karsten Voigt, a German government adviser on German-American relations, said the election outcome meant Bush would be forced to seek consensus positions with the Democrats on key issues including Iraq. ‘…the mere fact that they won seats will shift the debate there and the president will have to take account of that,’ said Voigt. He added that he didn’t think a majority of Democrats backed an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, though. ‘There are no good options for America in Iraq, only a range of options that are less bad,’ said Voigt, a member of the center-left Social Democrats.”

What Will the Democrats Do?

On the eve of the US Midterm elections, Der Spiegel Online wrote on November 7:

“It’s almost a foregone conclusion that the Democrats are going to win back the House of Representatives — and maybe even the Senate [which they did]. But what will the Democrats do with their victory?… Congressional elections are often a reflection of the White House’s popularity, and right now, a failing policy in Iraq and abundant political scandals are casting a dark shadow over the Republican Party…

“[The] center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung… cautions the [Democratic] party to wield its power thoughtfully. Two years from now, when the Americans go to the polls again and look at what Democrats have done with their mandate, their typical refrain of ‘we wanted to but couldn’t’ will not be good enough. A difficult balancing act lies ahead. Democrats will have to become an effective ‘counterweight to the president,’ but they’ll also have to ‘prove their willingness to cooperate.’ The paper suggests Democrats resist the temptation to exact revenge on a President that has proven so divisive. Instead, they should focus on the central question of Iraq and suggest a timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Democrats, writes the editor, ‘must prove they deserve America’s trust.’

“The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung makes little effort to downplay the US Midterm elections, referring to Tuesday as ‘World Voting Day.’ Europeans so desperately want the Democrats to win — and the image of ‘Bush as the enemy’ has become so deeply ingrained in the European conscience — that they are starting to believe a real shift in power is happening. Not so fast, writes the daily. ‘Whether this is actually the end of Republican dominance will only be seen in two years,’ when Democrats will have to answer for their time in power. Iraq is certainly the core issue in the campaign, but Democrats can’t forget the domestic issues — like corruption and pension reform — that need to be tackled. Many say the American political system is paralyzed when the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties. But with respect to American democracy, writes the paper, it wouldn’t be all that bad.

“Conservative daily Die Welt would like to remind its readers that America is the only superpower in the world. So, those Europeans who fantasize about an ‘alternative model to America,’ need to stop dreaming. Regardless of the outcome of the US Midterm elections, the US’s role in the world will not change. A Democratic victory will not lead to withdrawal from Iraq, and the threats from rogue states Iran and North Korea do not depend on who controls the US Congress. This, writes the paper, ‘Europe likes to forget.'”

AFP wrote on November 8:

“Victorious Democrats were quick to throw their newfound political weight behind demands that President George W. Bush change course in Iraq… But the opposition politicians [Democrats]… have offered few clear ideas for how to deal with the disastrous situation in the country US troops invaded more than three years ago… they appear almost as divided as Republicans over how to resolve the crisis.”

And Here We Go Again…

To end this week’s Current Events section with a laughable example of scientific “intelligent reasoning,” The Associated Press reported that “Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land… Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.”

This is utter nonsense, of course. No “evolution” from sea animals to land animals to sea animals took place. It is amazing that scientists teaching this concept seem to be unwilling to ask and answer the pertinent question: If animal life developed in the ocean, as they contend, and if fish developed into sea-living reptiles, which then moved to land to evolve into birds and mammals, in order to become more adaptable to their environment, why in the world would those land animals then decide to move back into the sea, in order to give up their sophisticated characteristics that they developed as land animals? This makes no sense, does it?

For more information on the utter ridiculousness of the whole evolutionary concept, which is being taught to our poor children in school, please read our free booklet, “The Theory of Evolution–a Fairy Tale for Adults?”

In Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus speaks about literal murder as well as feelings and expressions of hate. The passage reads as follows:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ [Margin: Lit, in Aram., Empty head] shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell [Margin: Gr. Gehenna] fire.”

As seen above, the New King James Bible, as well as most translations, render the last expression as “fool.” However, as this word is understood today by the common reader, it does not seem to be much worse than the term “Raca” (i.e., “empty head”). Why, then, the strong difference in potential judgment?  Some commentaries and
translations admit that they don’t really know what the word means, which they render “fool.” Some say, one cannot translate this word.

Others equate the word for “fool” with “child of hell” or “profane.” Some say, “godless person,” or, “go to hell.” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words feels, the word means, “a morally worthless person.”

An interesting possibility is proposed by the Lamsa Bible, which renders the passage in this way:

“You have heard that it was said to those who were before you, You shall not kill, and whoever kills is guilty before the court. But I say to you that whoever becomes angry with his brother for no reason is guilty before the court; and whoever should say to his brother, Raca (which means, I spit on you) is guilty before the congregation; and whoever says to his brother, you are effeminate [Footnote: Aramaic, brutish; abnormal. We might want to add here that the word “effeminate” conveys the thought of being “womanly” or “unmanly”–a sexual reference to homosexuality], is condemned to hell fire.”

Throughout the Bible, the concept of a “fool” is equated with one who denies the existence of God or His role in man’s life. In Romans 1:21-22, 26-27, Paul explains the truth that man, when acting and being foolish, may engage, in some cases, in the practice of homosexuality: “… although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their FOOLISH hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became FOOLS [Note that this is not the same word as the one used in Matthew 5:22, but it conveys a similar concept]… For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful…”

The Nelson Study Bible gives the following explanation to Matthew 5:21-22:

“‘You have heard’ refers to the teaching of various rabbis rather than to that of Moses. Jesus was questioning the interpretation of the Jewish scholars, not the Old Testament itself. The scribes and Pharisees said that a person who referred to another as Raca, meaning empty head, was in danger of being sued for libel before the council (or the
Sanhedrin). On the other hand, Jesus said that whoever calls another a fool will have to answer to God. That is not to say that calling someone a fool will condemn a believer to eternal punishment in hell. Rather Jesus was saying that to utter such words is to place oneself in a worse condition at the time of judgment (see 1 Cor. 3:12-15).”

We might note, in this context, Christ’s warning in Matthew 12:36-37:

“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.”

Matthew Henry makes the following well-considered comments to Matthew 5:21-22:

“The laws of God are not novel, upstart laws, but were delivered to them of old time; they are ancient laws, but of that nature as never to be antiquated nor grow obsolete. Killing is here forbidden, killing ourselves, killing any other, directly or indirectly, or being any way accessory to it. The law of God, the God of life, is a hedge of protection about our lives.”

We remark, in passing, that these comments do not leave any room and do not give any exception or justification for killing in war. God considers killing in WAR as MURDER as much as any other intentional killing of a human being, including abortion and suicide (Please read our free booklets, “Should YOU Fight in War?” and “Are You Already Born Again?”). To continue with Henry’s comments:

“[The Jewish teachers contended that] the law… was only external, and forbade no more than the act of murder, and laid no restraint upon the inward lusts, from which ‘wars and fightings come’ [compare James 4:1-2]. This was indeed the fundamental error of the Jewish teachers, that the divine law prohibited only the sinful act, not the sinful thought… Christ tells them that ‘rash anger’ is ‘heart-murder’ (v. 22)… he that is thus angry [please note here that righteous indignation is excluded, i.e. godly anger with cause; compare Mark 3:5], would kill if he could… he has taken the first step towards it… He tells them, that giving opprobrious [i.e., showing scorn or reproach; abusive] language to our brother is tongue-murder, calling him ‘Raca,’ and ‘Thou fool’… ‘Raca’ is a scornful word, and comes from pride, ‘Thou empty fellow.’… ‘Thou fool,’ is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred; looking upon him, not only as mean and not to be honoured, but as vile and not to be loved… ‘he that is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment’ and anger of God; he that calls him ‘Raca, shall be in danger of the council,’ of being punished by the Sanhedrin for reviling an Israelite; ‘but whosoever saith, Thou fool,’ thou profane person, thou child of hell, ‘shall be in danger of hell-fire,’ to which he condemns his brother. Christ would thus show which sin was most sinful, by showing which it was the punishment whereof was most dreadful.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown likewise point out in their “Commentary on the Whole Bible,” that Christ, as the “Lawgiver and the Judge,” gave the “true sense” of the law against murder, explaining with an “authoritative tone” the “deep rich of the commandment.” The violation of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” leads to “judgment,” that is, “to the sentence of those inferior courts of judicature which were established in all the principal towns, in compliance with Deuteronomy 16:16. Thus was this commandment reduced, from a holy law of the
heart-searching God, to a mere criminal statute, taking cognizance only to outward actions.”

The commentary continues to explain that Christ focused on the heart and mind of the perpetrator.  We might add that John later explained: “Whoever hates his brother IS a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15).

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown also take the position that all three punishments, listed in Matthew 5:21-22, are references to “divine retribution… though this is expressed by an ALLUSION to Jewish tribunals. The ‘judgment’… was the lowest of these; the ‘council,’ or ‘Sanhedrin,’–which sat at Jerusalem–was the highest; while the word used for ‘hell fire’ [in Greek: Gehenna fire] contains an allusion to the ‘valley of the son of Hinnom’ (Josh. 18:16). In this valley the Jews, when steeped in idolatry, went [to] the length of burning their children to Molech ‘on the high places of Tophet’–in consequence of which good Josiah defiled it, to prevent the repetition of such abominations (II Kings 23:10); and from that time forward… a fire was kept burning in it to consume the carrion and all kinds of
impurities that collected about the capital.”

The commentary continues to explain that the ancients understood that “the final punishment of the [unrepentant] wicked [was] described in the Old Testament by alluding to this valley of Tophet or Hinnom (Isa. 30:33; 66:24).”

In other words, Christ’s allusion to punishment in Gehenna–elsewhere described as the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15), which will DESTROY or “BURN UP” the wicked [compare Malachi 4:1]–has reference to those who maliciously refuse to repent of their evil ways. Christ said that EVERY sin can and will be forgiven man, upon repentance, except the sin against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32). If we reject the workings of the Holy Spirit in our lives, we reject God’s power in us which could change us. Permanent refusal to change is tantamount to sin against God and His Spirit. For instance, if we refuse to overcome hate toward others, God’s Holy Spirit, dwelling in us, will ultimately leave us (compare again 1 John 3:15).

To understand why it is so serious to call a brother a “fool”–the meaning of which might include a “child of hell” or an “effeminate,” that is, a sexually abnormal person–is because it is the fate of those kinds of people to end up in the lake of fire, unless they repent (compare Revelation 21:8; 22:15). It is a serious matter to falsely call a brother or a sister in Christ a sexually immoral person or a “dog,” i.e., a homosexual. This is not to say that we must blind our eyes to true facts. Paul was not afraid to point out that some, including in the church, were–or had been–sexually “abnormal” (compare 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 5:9-13). However, Christ warned us not to make incorrect charges of immoral conduct against others, and especially our brethren, because of motivation of hate and malice.

To conclude, we want to quote from the following helpful analysis, found in The Broadman Bible Commentary:

“Jesus traced sin back to disposition, attitude, or intention. The overt act of murder has its root in anger, hostility or contempt for another. Jesus cited anger…, insulting one’s brother… and calling another fool… as being crimes for which one is [or should be] brought before the court (local court of 23 persons), the Sanhedrin (highest ruling body of the Jews), or for which he is liable to Gehenna. No court seeks to convict a person on the grounds of feeling or attitude, but feelings of anger or contempt are as dangerous as are the outward crimes for which one is brought into the courts or considered liable to hell [i.e. Gehenna fire–that is, ultimate extinction]. Jesus’ words… are to be understood as radical protests and warnings against wrong feelings toward another… That Jesus had his own community in mind is reflected in the recurrence of ‘his brother,’ a term reserved in Matthew for a Christian brother. Anger and contempt are not only self-destructive but destroy the fellowship of the church.”

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

A new member letter
was written and sent out on Wednesday, November 8. You can find a copy
of the letter on the Web. In the letter, Norbert Link discusses some of
the reasons why God’s Church is not voting in governmental elections,
encouraging all of us to keep watching world conditions and to keep
praying. We enclosed with the letter a copy of our booklet, “Teach Us to Pray.”

A new StandingWatch
program was recorded and placed on our Webpage and also on Google
Video. It is titled: “Germany In Trouble!” Set forth is a brief summary
of the program:

“Just to name a few of the mounting problems of
Germany’s Grand Coalition: The travesty in Afghanistan, involving
scandalous photos of German troops; Israel’s attack on German aircraft
and vessels in the Middle East; Lebanon’s position that Germany cannot
operate in the region without prior approval in certain circumstances;
the charge that the German government misrepresented the true scope of
authority and responsibility of German marines in the region; Germany’s
failure to implement an acceptable social welfare system; and President
Koehler’s refusal to sign legislation to privatize German airlines…
What does it all mean for the development of Biblical prophecy?”

The
video-recorded version of Norbert Link’s latest sermon, “Jonah Speaks
to Us,” was placed on Google Video (The audio version was placed, as
usual, on our Webpage).