Forerunner Magazine - pdf.cgg.org · PDF fileRodriquez, Rizal 1860 ... along with chapter 13, warns against such people. ... reaction because that is where most of them appear in the

Forerunner · January 20042

Forerunner Forerunner Forerunner Forerunner Forerunner MagazineMagazineMagazineMagazineMagazineEditor-in-ChiefJOHN W. RITENBAUGH

Managing EditorRICHARD T. RITENBAUGH

Associate EditorMARTIN G. COLLINS

News EditorDAVID C. GRABBE

Graphics and Layout EditorKRISTEN M. COLLINS

January 2004 January 2004 January 2004 January 2004 January 2004 ContentsContentsContentsContentsContentsVolume 13, Number 1Volume 13, Number 1Volume 13, Number 1Volume 13, Number 1Volume 13, Number 1

3 PERSONAL FROM JOHN W. RITENBAUGHElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the Baptist

9 A READY ANSWER:Are the Jews Cursed for Deicide?Are the Jews Cursed for Deicide?Are the Jews Cursed for Deicide?Are the Jews Cursed for Deicide?Are the Jews Cursed for Deicide?

—Charles Whitaker

10 PROPHECY WATCH:The Blood Libel and the Holocaust:The Blood Libel and the Holocaust:The Blood Libel and the Holocaust:The Blood Libel and the Holocaust:The Blood Libel and the Holocaust:The Cost of Wrong DoctrineThe Cost of Wrong DoctrineThe Cost of Wrong DoctrineThe Cost of Wrong DoctrineThe Cost of Wrong Doctrine

—Charles Whitaker

13 How to Conduct Ourselves as Ambassadors for ChristHow to Conduct Ourselves as Ambassadors for ChristHow to Conduct Ourselves as Ambassadors for ChristHow to Conduct Ourselves as Ambassadors for ChristHow to Conduct Ourselves as Ambassadors for Christ—David F. Maas

19 WORLD WATCH—David C. Grabbe

20 BIBLE STUDYThe Parable of the Great SupperThe Parable of the Great SupperThe Parable of the Great SupperThe Parable of the Great SupperThe Parable of the Great Supper

—Martin G. Collins

(800) 878-8220 / (803) 802-7075(803) 802-7811 fax

ForerunnerForerunnerForerunnerForerunnerForerunner is published ten times ayear as a free educational and religiousservice in the public interest. Articles,illustrations, and photographs willnot be returned unless specificallyrequested, and if used, become theproperty of the Church of the GreatGod. Comments, suggestions, requests,and changes of address should be sentto the address listed at left.

This free publication is made possiblethrough the voluntary tithes andofferings of i ts subscribers andmembers of the Church of the GreatGod. All American and Canadiandonations are tax-deductible.

© Copyright 2004Church of the Great God

All Rights ReservedPrinted in the U.S.A.

PO Box 471846Charlotte, NC 28247-1846

U.S.A.

http://www.cgg.org or http://www.sabbath.orgor http://www.worldwatchdaily.org or http://www.bibletools.org

Contributing WritersMARK BAKER, TED E. BOWLING, JOHN F. BULHAROWSKI, MIKE FORD,RONNY H. GRAHAM, WILLIAM GRAY, PAT HIGGINS, BILL KEESEE, ROD KEESEE,WARREN LEE, DAVID F. MAAS, BRYAN NELSON, JOHN PLUNKETT, JOHN REID,MARK SCHINDLER, CHARLES WHITAKER, BRIAN WULF

Box 30188Saanich Centre Postal Outlet

Victoria, BC V8X 5E1CANADA

Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Church of the Great GodChurch of the Great GodChurch of the Great GodChurch of the Great GodChurch of the Great God

About About About About About Our CoverOur CoverOur CoverOur CoverOur Cover

Theologians and artists havedepicted John the Baptist invarious ways through thecenturies, but what doesthe Bible say about him—specifically what does Jesussay about him? And what isthe connection between Johnand Elijah the prophet?

Cornelis van Haarlem,Cornelis van Haarlem,Cornelis van Haarlem,Cornelis van Haarlem,Cornelis van Haarlem, The Preachingof Saint John the Baptist, c. 1602

Caravaggio,Caravaggio,Caravaggio,Caravaggio,Caravaggio, Beheading of Saint Johnthe Baptist, c. 1608

Titian,Titian,Titian,Titian,Titian, Saint John the Baptist, c. 1542Raphael,Raphael,Raphael,Raphael,Raphael, Saint John the Baptist

Preaching, c. 1505

No. 13 Mt. DahoAmityville

Rodriquez, Rizal 1860PHILIPPINES

3Forerunner · January 2004

MMMMM

P E R S O N A LP E R S O N A LP E R S O N A LP E R S O N A LP E R S O N A L ➤ from John W. Ritenbaugh

Moses writes in Deuteronomy 18:15-18:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophetlike me from your midst, from your brethren. Himyou shall hear, according to all you desired of theLORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly,saying, “Let me not hear again the voice of theLORD my God, nor let me see this great fireanymore, lest I die.” And the LORD said to me:“What they have spoken is good. I will raise up forthem a Prophet like you from among their brethren,and will put My words in His mouth, and He shallspeak to them all that I command Him.”

All of us desire to know the future so we can beprepared for it. We want to be in control of our destiniesand not at the mercy of events. However, some havethis desire so strongly that they set themselves up aschannels through which the future is revealed.

Such people have misled many. Deuteronomy 18,along with chapter 13, warns against such people.Whether they are called diviners, charmers, spiritists,or channelers, using methods like reading tea leaves,casting lots, or conducting séances, they are to beseriously and carefully avoided because there is nogodly reality to their prognostications. Those seekingto know are being misguided, putting themselves atthe mercy of lying demons, or at the very least,imaginative men and women.

At other times, simply following a church traditionregarding a prophecy can also mislead a person. Thisoccurs because someone in the past, sincerely believ-ing he understood a particular prophecy, began preach-ing his belief, and many in his audience then believed

without the resources to prove the interpretationwrong. Due to frequent repetition, it came to beaccepted as truth.

It is important for us to understand that prophetswere not merely temporary and occasional expedi-ents God would turn to. They played a vital andcontinuing role in Israel, especially in those timesbefore the Word of God was widely distributed.This is why God makes provision for them withinthe law. He shows in many places that those Heappoints to the prophetic office will always preach thekeeping of the commandments of God as evidence ofthe Source of their inspiration. They will teach theconservation of past truths even as they break newdoctrinal ground.

They both forth-tell—that is, proclaim a messagetruthfully, clearly, and authoritatively to those forwhom it is intended—and they will on occasion, butnot always, foretell—that is, predict events beforethey take place.

It is misleading to believe these verses in Deuter-onomy 18 apply only to Christ. His is undoubtedly theirultimate application, but the promise and descriptionapplies to all true, God-ordained prophets. Noticesome of the identifiers in these verses:

1. God established the foundational pattern for theprophetic office in Moses (“like me”).

2. God will raise a prophet up from among theIsraelitish people. Later biblical sources showhe might be drawn and appointed from any ofthe tribes and from any occupation. In otherwords, he did not have to be a Levite.


P E R S O N A L P E R S O N A L P E R S O N A L P E R S O N A L P E R S O N A L ➤

3. He will perform the function of a mediator be-tween God and men (verses 16-18).

4. He will stand apart from the system alreadyinstalled. He will not be antagonistic to the sys-tem, but he may be very antagonistic to the sins ofthose within the system, especially the leadership.

5. God will directly appoint and separate him for hisoffice. Thus, the thrust of his service as God’srepresentative is direct and authoritative. By con-trast, the priest’s function flowed from man toGod by means of sacrifice—far less direct andmore appealing and pleading than demanding.The New Testament ministry combines elementsof both, but parallels the prophet’s function morethan the priest’s.

Simply and broadly, a prophet is one who is given a

message by another of greater authority and speaksfor him to those for whom the message is intended.Thus, Moses was God’s prophet, but Aaron was Moses’prophet.

Without a doubt, when we hear the word “prophet,” weimmediately think of the Old Testament. This is a naturalreaction because that is where most of them appear in theBible. Our memory instantaneously brings forth nameslike Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and David—allgreat men. However, without a doubt, the two greatestprophets of all time appear in the New Testament: Johnthe Baptist and Jesus Christ. John the Baptist is the lastand greatest under the Old Covenant, and Jesus Christ isthe first and greatest of the New.

One will quickly concede the name of Jesus Christ, butJohn the Baptist? Compared to the other great OldTestament prophets, the Bible says hardly anything abouthim! Yet, in the judgment of the greatest One of all, Johnthe Baptist is greater!

In Matthew 11:7-11, Jesus says of John the Baptist:

What did you go out into the wilderness to see? Areed shaken by the wind? But what did you go out tosee? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed, thosewho wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. Butwhat did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say toyou, and more than a prophet. For this is he of whomit is written: “Behold, I send My messenger beforeYour face, who will prepare Your way before You.”Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of womenthere has not risen one greater than John the Baptist;but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven isgreater than he.

Despite the greatness of the Old Testament prophetsthat filters through the record of their deeds, Jesus de-clares that none was greater than His cousin, John. Infact, several commentaries contend that Jesus’ statementliterally means that John was the greatest of all men, notjust the greatest prophet! When we consider the great-ness of the other prophets, we must marvel at how greatthis man was! Yet we know so little of him.

The Greek literally says He was much more than aprophet. Part of the reason for this is that John fulfilled theprophecy given in Malachi 3:1. No other prophet, aside fromJesus Christ, was ever the fulfillment of a distinct proph-ecy—and such an important prophecy on top of that! Theremay be a great deal more to John than we ever considered.

Luke 1:5-7, 15-17 records some features of John’s birth:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea,a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of

Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, andher name was Elizabeth. And they were both righ-teous before God, walking in all the commandmentsand ordinances of the Lord blameless. But they hadno child, because Elizabeth was barren, and theywere both well advanced in years. . . . [The angelsaid to Zacharias,] “For he will be great in the sightof the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strongdrink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, evenfrom his mother’s womb. And he will turn many ofthe children of Israel to the Lord their God. He willalso go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah,‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ andthe disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to makeready a people prepared for the Lord.”

God miraculously caused John’s conception and birth,even as He did Isaac’s and Jesus’. Jesus’ conception ina virgin woman without the involvement of a human maleis an exception. Isaac and John’s conceptions werenormally produced except that Sarah and Elizabeth werebeyond childbearing age.

John appears in each of the four gospels, and in eachcase, his story is subordinated to that of Jesus. This is asit should be, yet John was quite effective in what he didin preparing the way before the Christ. Even Josephuswrites about him. Though Josephus pens only a vaguefew sentences about Christ, he devotes an intriguing,longer paragraph to John. By putting together whatJosephus records with what the Bible provides, we get apicture of a vigorous man of God who was turning thesmall nation of Judea on its spiritual ear.

Judeans had no radio or television, but knowledge of

GreatGreatGreatGreatGreat,,,,, DistinctiveDistinctiveDistinctiveDistinctiveDistinctive,,,,, RespectedRespectedRespectedRespectedRespected


Elijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the Baptist

him spread quickly by word of mouth. His ministry ap-pears to have been short, perhaps about the same lengthas the three and a half years allotted to Jesus. Someauthorities feel John’s ministry may have only been oneyear long. If so, he must have been an electrifyingspeaker! However long he preached, most of it occurredbefore Christ began His ministry.

Mark 1:1-8 gives these descriptions:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Sonof God. As it is written in the Prophets: “Behold, Isend My messenger before Your face, who willprepare Your way before You.” “The voice of onecrying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of theLORD, make His paths straight.’” John came baptiz-ing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism ofrepentance for the remission of sins. And all the landof Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to himand were all baptized by him in the Jordan River,confessing their sins. Now John was clothed withcamel’s hair and with a leather belt around his waist,and he ate locusts and wild honey. And he preached,saying, “There comes One after me who is mightierthan I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoopdown and loose. I indeed baptized you with water,but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

In his dress and diet, he was distinctive from what wasnormal for the times. His dress was durable and service-able—what would normally be associated with the cloth-ing of the poorest of the land. The same is true of his diet.His diet would be unusual for us but common for the poorfolk of his time.

Regarding how he lived, Luke 1:80 adds, “So the childgrew and became strong in spirit, and was in the desertstill the day of his manifestation to Israel.” Mark 2:18shows that he and his disciples lived an ascetic lifestyle.Taken together, these verses indicate that despite John’sgreatness, God kept him a poor man. People who live theirentire lives in the desert do not usually become rich. Hishome, though undoubtedly not a hovel, was certainlynowhere near what we are familiar with in wealthy,modern Israel. From this we can learn that God does notowe us what we would like to have, but He provides whatwe need to serve His purpose for us.

We can be assured that since he had God’s Spirit frombirth, as Luke 1:15 states, he was in no way the almost wildman he is usually perceived as in movies. Paul says in IITimothy 1:7, “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, butof power and of love and of a sound mind.”

Also note that, though John was of the Aaronic linefrom both parents, no direct connection is ever madebetween him and the already installed system of Templeworship.

Mark 1:1 says, “The beginning of the gospel of JesusChrist, the Son of God.” The Bible positions John’sministry as the starting point of Christ’s gospel, notbecause John literally preached the gospel, but apparentlybecause of his preparatory work to Jesus preaching it.Verse 5 records, “And all the land of Judea, and thosefrom Jerusalem went out to him and were all baptized byhim in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.” Thisreveals the impact of his ministry: All Judea, including folkfrom Jerusalem, went out to hear and be baptized by him,believing he was a prophet. While “all” does not meanevery last person, it indicates a sizeable majority of thepopulation was conversant about John and his message.

Mark 11:32 provides insight as to how the peopleperceived him: “[T]hey [the chief priests, the scribes, andthe elders] feared the people, for all counted John to havebeen a prophet indeed.” Clearly, the common peopleconsidered John a prophet, and indeed, he was. This alsoshows that the highest Jewish authorities were fullyaware of his reputation as a prophet and feared it. We canbegin to see that in many respects the magnitude of John’swork was similar to Jesus’.

Mark 1:9-11 speaks of Jesus and John’s first recordedcontact:

It came to pass in those days that Jesus came fromNazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in theJordan. And immediately, coming from the water,He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descend-ing upon Him like a dove. Then a voice came fromheaven, “You are My beloved Son, in whom I amwell pleased.”

The “all” of verse 5 includes Jesus both as believing hismessage and being baptized of him. God at this time fullyrevealed to John who the Messiah was. However, verses7-8 make it plain that, before baptizing Jesus, he alreadyknew he was preceding someone. The prophecy given tohis father Zacharias (Luke 1:76) had undoubtedly beencommunicated to him.

Despite the fact that he was no wild man, he wasradically alienated from those who were part of thesystem God had installed during the time of David athousand years earlier, reestablished under Hezekiah andJosiah, and then later still reinstituted under Ezra followingthe Jews’ return from Babylon.

Powerful FoesPowerful FoesPowerful FoesPowerful FoesPowerful FoesAs mentioned earlier, the prophets tended to operateoutside the priestly system established by God. Nowhere

is this more evident than in the lives of John, Jeremiah, andAmos. Jeremiah 15:17 records the prophet’s complaint



about his solitude: “I did not sit in the assembly of themockers, nor did I rejoice; I sat alone because of Yourhand, for You have filled me with indignation.” Amosprovides us with his experience when receiving God’scalling: “Then Amos answered, and said to Amaziah: ‘Iwas no prophet, nor was I a son of a prophet, but I was aherdsman and a tender of sycamore fruit. Then the LORD

took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said to me,“Go, prophesy to My people Israel”’” (Amos 7:14-15).

John’s separation from the system is clearly noticeablein Matthew 3:7-10:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees andSadducees coming to his baptism, he said them,“Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from thewrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy ofrepentance, and do not think to say to yourselves,‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to youthat God is able to raise up children to Abraham fromthese stones. And even now the ax is laid to the rootof the trees. Therefore every tree which does notbear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

Notice that his scathing attack is against both the Phari-sees and Sadducees: The Pharisees had public power be-cause they tended to be successful people in private life.In spite of this, they also had the admiration of the people.The Sadducees were largely from the priesthood and thuscontrolled the Temple. Consequently, they pretty muchcontrolled the religious life of the people. Yet, becausethey also tended to be wealthy but haughty in disposition,the feelings of the people were prejudiced against them.

John courageously confronts the establishment’s lead-ership. His was an unpopular message of judgment aimeddirectly at the powerful, and they did not take kindly towhat he said. “And when all the people heard Him, eventhe tax collectors justified God, having been baptized withthe baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyersrejected the counsel of God for themselves, not havingbeen baptized by him” (Luke 7:29-30).

Matthew 21:32 confirms John’s rejection when Jesusspeaks to the chief priests and elders at the Temple: “ForJohn came to you in the way of righteousness, and you didnot believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believedhim; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent andbelieve him.” The powerful knew John was speakingabout them, so in disdainful anger, they rejected him, whilethe publicans and harlots accepted his teaching.

His most powerful foe was Herod Antipas, the tetrarchof Galilee. Herod and John had an interesting relationshipbecause Herod respected John, yet at the same time hefeared what he perceived to be John’s growing politicalpower because of the prophet’s popularity.

Josephus provides a bit of background the Bible lacks.Herod was married to the daughter of Aretas, king of

Petra. However, before John became a popular figure,Herod divorced her and married his sister-in-law, Herodias.This caused a problem, as Herodias was already marriedto Herod’s brother, Philip. At this point, a convergencetakes place between John’s rising influence with thepeople and Herod and Herodias’ adulterous and incestu-ous marriage, which clearly violates the sexual purity lawsin Leviticus 18.

Mark 6:17-20 explains:

For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, andbound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, hisbrother Philip’s wife; for he had married her. ForJohn had said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you tohave your brother’s wife.” Therefore Herodias held itagainst him and wanted to kill him, but she could not;for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a justand holy man, and he protected him. And when heheard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

Josephus writes that Herod took John prisoner becausehe feared the prophet’s prominence, believing that rebel-lion against his rule was growing in response to John’spreaching. Apparently, during John’s captivity, he warnedHerod that he and Herodias were in an adulterous rela-tionship.

This made Herodias boil with anger. Verses 21-27 add:

Then an opportune day came when Herod on hisbirthday gave a feast for his nobles, the high officers,and the chief men of Galilee. And when Herodias’daughter herself came in and danced, and pleasedHerod and those who sat with him, the king said tothe girl, “Ask me whatever you want, and I will giveit to you,” He also swore to her, Whatever you askof me, I will give you, up to half my kingdom.” So shewent out and said to her mother, “What shall I ask?”And she said, “The head of John the Baptist!”Immediately she came in with haste to the king andasked, saying, “I want you to give me at once thehead of John the Baptist on a platter.” And the kingwas exceedingly sorry; yet, because of the oaths andbecause of those who sat with him, he did not wantto refuse her. And immediately the king sent anexecutioner and commanded his head to be brought.And he went and beheaded him in prison.

Thus, when a convenient occasion presented itself, shetook her revenge, getting away with John’s murder be-cause of Herod’s foolish timidity. Subsequently, Aretascame against Herod in war, seeking revenge for Heroddivorcing his daughter. Josephus writes that Aretas soundlydefeated Herod’s forces. The people of Judea concludedthat Herod’s defeat was God’s punishment for takingJohn’s life.


Elijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the Baptist

MoreMoreMoreMoreMore ononononon JohnJohnJohnJohnJohn’’’’’sssss GreatnessGreatnessGreatnessGreatnessGreatnessLuke gives the most comprehensive account of John’sbirth. Luke 1:5-25 covers the announcement of John’sbirth to his father Zechariah, and verses 68-79 recordZechariah’s hymn of praise to God for John. However,verses 76-79 comprise a prophecy devoted without quali-fication to John and his work:

And you, child, will be called the prophet of theHighest; for you will go before the face of theLord to prepare His ways, to give knowledge ofsalvation to His people by the remission of theirsins, through the tender mercy of our God, withwhich the Dayspring from on high has visited us;to give light to those who sit in darkness and theshadow of death, to guide our feet into the way ofpeace.

From the very beginning, John and Jesus are allied inthe salvation scheme. However, the Bible shows ininteresting ways how John is subordinate to Jesus. Forinstance, in Luke 1:36, Mary and Elizabeth are shown tobe related, probably cousins. Both women conceive in amiraculous way, but Mary’s conception of Jesus by theHoly Spirit is far more miraculous. Then, when Elizabethgreets Mary (Luke 1:39-41), John, while still in her womb,leaps for joy in the presence of our Lord in His mother’swomb. Finally, Luke 1:76 shows John to be only a prophet,but verses 32-35 show Jesus to be the Son of God and Heirto the throne of David.

The apostle John subordinates John the Baptist toJesus in John 1:6-9:

There was a man sent from God, whose name wasJohn. This man came for a witness, to bear witnessof the Light, that all through him might believe. Hewas not that Light, but was sent to bear witness ofthat Light. That was the true Light which gives lightto every man who comes into the world.

To appreciate this subordination of John, we mustrelate what is said here to the cultural environment inwhich these books were written. We must consider what

the apostles wrote from the perspective of first-centuryJews who witnessed John the Baptist’s ministry.

In the twentieth century, we tend to think that John’sministry was little more than a blip on a radar screen.However, in terms of impact and importance, there wasno true ministry greater than his except Jesus’. Thinkingthat John’s ministry was insignificant flirts with diminish-ing what Jesus says about none born of a woman beinggreater than John.

In God’s own estimation, recorded in Luke 1:15—thevery first thing said about him by the angel speaking forGod—John would be great! He was the prophesiedmessenger who fulfilled Isaiah 40:3, “The voice of onecrying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the LORD;make straight in the desert a highway for our God’” (seeMatthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 1:76; 3:4; John 1:23). Healso fulfilled Malachi 3:1, “Behold, I send My messenger,and he will prepare the way before Me” (see Matthew11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:76; 7:27).

His greatness lay:

1. in the office he filled;

2. in the subject he dealt with (repentance and trueknowledge of the Messiah);

3. in his humility in calling no attention to himself andvoluntarily receding into the background when theMessiah appeared (John 3:30), as well as his greatzeal in performing his function;

4. in his personal attributes of character, abovereproach in terms of sin;

5. in his self-denial in terms of his manner of life;

6. in his courage in the face of opposition;

7. in his lifelong service to God.

John was the crown of a long line of Old Testamentprophets.

tained in the Scriptures regarding Christ. Perhaps it alsoincludes working with a similar zeal, though he accom-plished his function without miracles (John 10:41). Obvi-ously, God does not measure a man’s greatness by themiracles he does.

On two separate occasions, in Matthew 11:13-15 andagain in Matthew 17:10-13, Jesus says John is the Elijahto come. Notice first Matthew 11:13-15: “For all the

JohnJohnJohnJohnJohn IsIsIsIsIs thethethethethe ElijahElijahElijahElijahElijahThe angel tells Zacharias before John’s birth, “He will gobefore Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn thehearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedientto the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people preparedfor the Lord” (Luke 1:17). “In the spirit and power ofElijah” indicates he resembled Elijah in doing a similarwork of revealing the true God through a ministry devotedto preaching repentance and the certainty of things con-


(continued on page 15)


prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you arewilling to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. He whohas ears to hear, let him hear!” Let him who has ears,listen! Jesus wants His audience to pay the utmost atten-tion. To what? To the fact that John is the Elijah to come!He had fulfilled Malachi 4:5-6.

Notice, too, Jesus’ introductory comment in verse 14,“And if you are willing to receive it. . . .” This stronglysuggests that He was about to say something differentthan what His listeners expected. They supposed Elijahwould appear in person! This explains why, when Johnwas asked by the delegation from Jerusalem whether hewas Elijah, he replied, “I am not” (John 1:21). Though hewas Elijah in spirit and power, he was not the literal Elijahthey were expecting. The Jews of Jesus’ day were just aswrong about Elijah as are many today who are looking foranother Elijah to appear before Jesus’ second coming.Yet, Jesus gives no indication that anyone will follow Johnin that office.

Matthew 17:10-13 is the second occasion Jesus de-clared John as Elijah. Again, He gives no indication thatHe expected yet another Elijah to appear.

And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Why then dothe scribes say that Elijah must come first?” Jesusanswered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah truly iscoming first and will restore all things. But I say toyou that Elijah has come already, and they did notknow him but did to him whatever they wished.Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer attheir hands.” Then the disciples understood that Hespoke to them of John the Baptist.

This is Jesus’ commentary on Malachi 4:5-6. He isneither indicating there will be another Elijah to come, norcontradicting what He said earlier in Matthew 11. Inverse 11, He speaks in a future sense because that is howMalachi 4:5-6 is written. He also did it to emphasize thatthe scribes had correctly interpreted the prophecy interms of Elijah preceding the arrival of the Messiah.

Jesus begins the next sentence of His reply with “but,”an adversative conjunction indicating disagreement. Butmeans “on the contrary,” “conversely,” or “however,”and it is used here to indicate an exception. Jesus makesit clear He did not agree with the scribes beyond the pointthat they had correctly taught Elijah must come first. Heclarifies further by saying that the scribes did not recog-nize Elijah when he came and badly mistreated him.Matthew 17:13 clearly establishes that the disciples un-derstood He meant that John was the Elijah of Malachi4:5-6. In other words, Jesus is saying Malachi 4:5-6 hasalready occurred—the greatest of the Old Testamentprophets already fulfilled it.

What about “restore all things”? Does it refer todoctrine? Not specifically. It is a very general statement.The Greek word means “to put back again,” “to reorga-

nize,” “to set up,” “to bring back,” “to reclaim.” It canrefer to health, authority, or government—or, for thatmatter, to straightening out or bringing back true con-ceptions about the Messiah. What did the originalElijah do? He straightened out—restored—right con-ceptions about who God is because the Israelites had lostsight of Him.

Who says “restore all things?” Jesus does. This ismentioned in no other place in reference to John theBaptist or Elijah. The Bible’s marginal references refer usto Luke 1:17 and Malachi 4:6 where nothing is said directlyabout either Elijah or John restoring all things. Remember,this is Jesus’ commentary on what John did. Even asElijah restored right conceptions about God in his day,John the Baptist restored right conceptions about theMessiah, God with us.

That is not all. John, the Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6, turnedthe hearts of the fathers to the children and the childrento the fathers. Logic demands this refer to his preachingas having a positive impact upon family life. Turninghearts is a fruit, an effect, that happens alongside prepar-ing a people to receive the Messiah.

Malachi 2:14-15 reveals that in Malachi’s day the Jewishcommunity was having serious marriage problems:

Yet you say, “For what reason?” Because the LORD

has been witness between you and the wife ofyour youth, with whom you have dealt treacher-ously; yet she is your companion and your wife bycovenant. But did He not make them one, havinga remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeksgodly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit,and let none deal treacherously with the wife ofhis youth.

Family problems were extant, and they continued amongthe Jews down to John’s day.

Secondly, this cannot refer to “the Fathers” in terms ofAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob because they were dead, andwhen they died, their thoughts perished. Their hearts cannotturn to the children. What John restored in anticipation ofthe Messiah’s coming were right conceptions about Him,and his preaching of repentance led to right relationshipswithin human families and within the Family of God.

What is lacking in the Bible by God’s express design isa detailed review of all John preached. We know only thathe was very effective in what he did. We do not know allthat he restored, but we can understand that he restoredeverything necessary for the Messiah to be recognizedand received. To take “ restore all things” beyond thescope of what was prophesied to be the extent of John’sministry is getting into the area of fanciful interpretationsbecause Jesus confirms both that John was the Elijah tocome and that his ministry was great. Who can arguewith that?


R E A DR E A DR E A DR E A DR E A D Y A N S W E RY A N S W E RY A N S W E RY A N S W E RY A N S W E R“Be Ready A lway s To G i ve An Answe r ” – I Pe t e r 3 : 1 5 (K JV )


“And all the people answered and said,

“His blood be on us

and on our children.”

Matthew 27:25

E

T

Either out of a genuine concern for justice or outof a sardonic resistance to the Jews’ petty poli-tics, Pontius Pilate wanted to free Christ. Lack-ing in the end the requisite moral strength, heremanded Christ over to the garrison for crucifix-ion, but not until he had literally “washed hishands” of the whole affair. Matthew alone tellsus that, at this juncture in the proceedings, “Allthe people answered and said, ‘His blood be on usand on our children.’” The phrase “all the people”probably refers to the rabble, instigated by theTemple leaders.

They did nothing other than what God hadordained from the foundation of the world. Nomore, no less! Furthermore, in the execution ofGod’s plan, both Gentile and Jew had a hand.Notice Acts 4:27-28, which records the words ofPeter and John:

For truly against Your Holy Servant Jesus,whom You anointed, both Herod and PontiusPilate, with the Gentiles and the people ofIsrael, were gathered together to do what-ever Your hand and Your purpose deter-mined before to be done.

However, not all are given to see the hand ofGod so clearly as Peter and John saw it. Con-cerning Matthew 27:25, one former minister ofthe church of God commented that God would be“remiss” (that is, lax in carrying out His duties) if

Are the Jews Cursedfor Deicide?

He did not bring this statement on the Jews’ heads.In making that statement, he tacitly expressed hisagreement with the “blood libel”—the traditionalCatholic and Protestant interpretation of this pas-sage as a self-imposed curse that God has honoredover the centuries.

Properly understood, however, the peoples’ state-ment is absolutely not a curse. Moreover, God hasnowhere bound Himself to chastise Jewry as awhole for the actions of a relatively few people inPilate’s judgment hall that morning.

“The Soul Who Sins Shall Die”The peoples’ comment indicates the strength of

their conviction that Christ was an enemy of Godand the nation. They were thoroughly persuadedthat their actions in pursuit of Christ’s death werecorrect. Rather than being a curse, their statementemphasizes the extent of their deception. For, assincere as they were, they were totally wrong inseeking Christ’s death, utterly blind to the realitythat He was their hoped-for Messiah. Their com-ment was a formula: “We know we’re right, andwe’re willing to die for our stance. So sure are wethat we’re willing to stake our children’s lives onour position as well.”

In stating their convictions in those terms, theybetrayed their lack of understanding of God’s law,for they based their statement on the incorrect



Achille Ratti was elected Pontiff of the RomanCatholic Church in 1922; history knows him

as Pius XI. He occupied the papacy during adecade of missed opportunities, during those mo-mentous years of “the gathering storm,” an ex-pression Winston Churchill used to describe therun-up to the Second World War. Pius XI died in1939, before the storm unleashed its full fury. Argu-ably, his most important achievement was the fa-mous Concordat with the German government, anagreement the Catholic Church negotiated in 1933 inthe hopes of protecting the interests of the Churchfrom the worst of Hitler’s abuses.

Speaking in Rome to a group of Belgian pilgrims,Pius XI departed from his prepared remarks. Withtears in his eyes, the ailing Pontiff—he was 81 andonly months from death—spontaneously and emo-tionally, declared the inadmissibility of anti-Semitismbased on, of all things, Semitism. He was respondingto a Missal the pilgrims had presented to him,referring to the “offering of Abel, Abraham, andMelchizedek.” In this context, it is clear that thePope was aware that his audience—not only thosepilgrims, but many of the Europeans and Americanswho would read his comments in the printed me-dia—was descended from Shem, and was, hence,largely Semitic. Indeed, most of them were thedescendents of Abraham, as we know.

Behind the Pope’s statement lies the doctrine ofinclusion. The Catholic/Protestant theological ar-gument is complex, with a number of denominationalvariations, but the doctrine of universal inclusiongoes something like this:

God loves everyone, playing no favorites. ThisHe has demonstrated through the sacrifice ofHis Son and His universal gift of the Holy

Spirit. Moreover, it is His will that mankind, Hisagents on the earth, collaborate with Him inshowing love to everyone. Everyone is in-cluded in His love, and everyone should coop-erate with His purposes.

The ramifications of this thinking—its effects onsocial, political, and economic policy—are stagger-ing. For instance, through the application of univer-sal inclusion, capital punishment becomes an evilbecause it denies God His chance to bestow Hissaving grace on the felon. Capitalism becomes de-monized (Pius XI was an outspoken critic of laissez-faire economics) because it can marginalize thepoor, excluding them from the physical benefits ofGod’s love. Tolerance to all, no matter what hisbeliefs may be, becomes valuable because it reflectsGod’s freely given grace to everyone. In practicalterms, inclusivity is the backdrop to many majordecisions and directions we see today. For example,universal inclusion provides the rationale for ordain-ing women into the priesthood. Ideologically, it ex-plains a good part of the thinking behind the electionof an unabashed homosexual to the leadership of theEpiscopal Church USA.1 One can think of anynumber of other examples.

We of God’s true church understand that thisdoctrine, as understood by most Catholic and Prot-estant churchmen today, flies in the face of God’srevealed truth. God’s Word teaches that God workson a timeline—He follows a plan, which excludessome from His grace at certain times in history. Godis working only to bring salvation to some individualstoday. Peter’s comment that “the time has come forjudgment to begin at the house of God” (I Peter 4:17)implies that such judgment has not come for thosecurrently outside that house. We recognize that God


PR

OP

HE

CY

W

AT

CH

The Blood Libel a

“Anti-Semitism is inadmissible.Spiritually we are all Semites.”

—Achille Ratti

The Cost ofWrong Doctrine


takes the prerogative to exclude some from Hisgrace today: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I havehated” (Romans 9:13). The apostle Paul alludes toGod’s plan when, in I Corinthians 15:22-23, heaffirms, “All shall be made alive. But each in his ownorder.” Ultimately, all people will be included inGod’s work of grace, but only in His time.

Pius XI, heir to the doctrine of universal inclusion,at least recognized a common ancestry shared byEuropean Gentiles and Jews. As we will see, hisstatement, however well-intentioned and sincere,failed to stop, or even to hinder, German anti-Semitism of the 1930s. It did nothing to reopenclosed kosher butcher-shops, to help Jews regaintheir jobs in the universities or public sector,2 or toderail the Auschwitz-bound trains.

The Hypocrisyof Inclusivity

Some have said that the Pontiff’s statement, uttered in September 1938, was a classic ex-

ample of “too little, too late.” That is true. However,there is more to the story. At bottom, the Pontiff’sunreserved rejection of anti-Semitism failed to changehistory because it did not at all square with long-standing Catholic attitudes and practices con-cerning the Jews.3 In this sense, the Pope’s statementregarding the inadmissibility of anti-Semitism washypocritical, for as one Catholic priest admits,

[B]y the beginning of the twentieth century Chris-tian anti-Judaism, traditional for centuries, hadattained virtual canonical status. In associationwith modern racial doctrines, . . . it had developedin many instances into a Church-promoted anti-Semitism, which in the years following the FirstWorld War grew in scope and intensity.4

For centuries across Europe, Catholicism taughtthat the Jews as a people were guilty of deicide—themurder of God in the person of Christ. At varioustimes in its history, the Church felt no compunctionto ghettoize the Jews, ostracize them, confiscatetheir goods, and murder them.

Given that dark background, it is not surprisingthat the Catholic hierarchy’s reaction to Jewishsufferings under the Nazis was at best ambivalent—at worse unsympathetic. Notice this excerpt from a1933 sermon by Austrian Bishop Johannes Gföllner:“Nazi racial views [represent] regression into theworst kind of paganism . . . [and are] completely

irreconcilable with Christianity, and must thereforebe totally rejected.”5 So far, so good. However, notethe bishop’s quick retreat. Many

irreligious Jews [have] a very damaging influ-ence in almost all areas of contemporary cul-tural life. . . . [M]any of our social and politicalupheavals are permeated by materialistic andliberal principles stemming primarily from Jews.Every committed Christian has not only theright but the conscientious duty to fight andovercome the pernicious influence of suchdecadent Judaism.6

The Church’s history of anti-Semitism morallycompromised it, rendering it unable—indeed, unwill-ing—to take a stand against the ever-worseningpersecution Jews were undergoing at the hand of theGerman government.

With some notable exceptions, the Church re-mained silent, even in the early days when protestmay have been effective. Note the hierarchy’sambivalence and posturing, as exampled in thiscommentary on a “Holy Decree” (published in March1928) condemning anti-Semitism, which it defined as“hatred of the people once called by God.”7 Thecommentator, a Jesuit priest, “clarifies” the Church’sposition in this decree by stating that it condemnedanti-Semitism “only in its anti-Christian form andmentality.” The Church rejected “excessive andextreme” anti-Semitism.8 However, it recognizedthat secularized, liberal Jews, often associated withBolshevik and socialist causes, were especially dan-gerous in Christian countries. Hence, “Jews are adanger to the whole world because of their perni-cious infiltration, their hidden influence, and theirresulting disproportionate power which violates bothreason and the common good.”9

The Protestant approach to the Jews was nomore enlightened. Germany, remember, is (or was)a Protestant country, basically Lutheran, but with alarge population of Catholics, especially in the south.Martin Luther, an avid anti-Semite, transmittedCatholic anti-Semitism into Lutheranism. His racialthinking was basically in lockstep with those of theCatholics: If the Jews suffered, it was because Godwas punishing them for despising Christ.

The Blood-Libel

Wrong doctrine hurts, and it can hurt a lot. The virtual destruction of European Jewry provides


PR

OP

HE

CY

W

AT

CH

11

and the Holocaust

Forerunner · January 200412 Forerunner · January 200412

PR

OP

HE

CY

W

AT

CH

no better example of this fact. For, the ancienttradition of Catholic and Protestant anti-Semitismrendered these confessions unwilling to help the Jews.That tradition was based on a totally wrong doctrine.It is connected to the doctrine of the “blood libel.”

The “blood libel” has its roots in a misinterpreta-tion—and misapplication—of one biblical passage,Matthew 27:25. Near the end of Christ’s trial beforePilate, the Jews cried, “His blood be on us and onour children.” The excerpt below, taken from anarticle in Junge Front, a German Catholic Youthmagazine, provides probably the clearest expositionof the Catholic interpretation of this scripture. Thearticle was written by the magazine’s editor andpublished in 1933: “The cry of the people whocrucified Christ, Son of the eternal God, ‘His bloodbe on us and on our children,’ echoes down thecenturies and brings upon the Jewish communityever new human suffering.”10

In fairness, the author did make it plain that noperson has the right to cause or augment this suffer-ing. At the same time, however, the author remainssilent about anyone’s responsibility to help thoseJews who are suffering, to protest against theperpetration of the suffering, or even to pray for itsremission.

In a later issue of Junge Front, another authorasserts (beyond all reason) that race had nothing atall to do with the suffering of the Jews. The realreason for their persecution, he concludes, was theirdeicide: “From the standpoint of sacred history theirsituation must be viewed as punishment.”11

This view squares with that of the Lutheranconfession. The leading Lutheran commentary of itsday interprets Matthew 27:25 in this way:

Unhappily, this has now come to pass. . . . Withtheir blood-guiltiness resting upon them, [theJews] are in travail under the judgment, scat-tered among every nation, and the prophecy inDeuteronomy 28:26ff, has been abundantlyfulfilled.12

In other words, Catholic and some Protestanttheology understand Matthew 27:25 to be a self-imposed curse which explains Jewish sufferingthrough the ages. If the doctrine is taken to itsconclusion, it legitimizes such suffering as God’spunishment on Jews for their rejection of Christ.

The Tragedyof Wrong Doctrine

French historian Jules Isaac (1877-1963) has called this “the teaching of contempt.”13 His-

torically, it soothed the conscience of otherwisegenerous churchmen who, seeing the persecution ofJews in the Middle Ages and after, could simply say,“Praise God. Your suffering is just.” Given the

proclivities of human nature, the understanding ofMatthew 27:25 as a curse actually provokes anti-Semitism. At the same time, this interpretationwrestles down any motivation a person might have tooppose anti-Semitic acts and argues against takingany action to assuage suffering on the part of Jews.After all, who wants to fight God as He implementsthis curse?

It would be wrong-headed to assert that Naziracial policies were grounded solely on Catholic/Protestant anti-Semitism. No, those policies had anumber of roots. Yet, it is absolutely true that,without this false doctrine as a part of the Germanreligious zeitgeist, Nazi racism would have notbeen able to thrive in Germany. Those policiescertainly flourished in the fertile ground of the anti-Semitism taught for centuries by the Catholic andProtestant confessions.

This is not an overstatement. The fact is, Hitleractually exploited Church-sanctioned anti-Semitism,feeling no need at all to cloak his own racism whenjustifying his policies to the Catholic hierarchy. Heused the Church’s traditional anti-Semitism tojustify his actions. Notice the German Fuehrer’sremarkable statement to Wilhelm Berning of theGerman Bishops’ Conference, April 1933:

I have been attacked because of my handlingof the Jewish question. The Catholic Churchconsidered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hun-dred years, put them in ghettos, etc., becauseit recognized the Jews for what they were. Inthe epoch of liberalism the danger was nolonger recognized. I am moving back towardthe time in which a fifteen-hundred-year tradi-tion was implemented. I do not set race overreligion, but I recognize the representatives ofthis race as pestilent for the state and for theChurch, and perhaps I am thereby doing Chris-tianity a great service by pushing them out ofschools and public functions.14

Hitler knew that the Church’s solution to the“Jewish problem” for centuries had been theghetto. He was, he asserted, simply carrying onthat tradition.

Although some in the Church hierarchy wereuneasy, the Church officially took Hitler’s racismwithout blinking an eye. It is true, of course: Hind-sight is better than foresight. No one would arguethat there is a manifest difference between theremoval of Jewish professors from university chairsin 1933 and the ovens in 1940. Perhaps few pro-tested Hitler’s actions in 1933 because few imag-ined Hitler’s actions in 1939. Historians believe thatthe Nazis actually did not conceive of their “finalsolution”—the gas chambers and the ovens—untilthe late 1930s.



A Real AmbassadorI met my first ambassador aboutseventeen years ago in Pasadena,California, when a fellow Ambassa-dor College faculty member intro-duced me to the Press and CulturalConsulate of Finland, Mr. JaakoBergquist. I struck up an informalconversation with him, mentioning Ihad lived and taught in a Finnishcommunity up in Moose Lake, Min-nesota. Since the faculty memberhad previously told AmbassadorBergquist that I hosted a classicalmusic program on KBAC, the col-lege radio station, I also informedhim that Jean Sibelius—a Finn—wasmy favorite composer.

A week later, my colleague and Iwere invited to a get-together at theconsulate’s home in Beverly Hills. Ihad no idea what to expect, but Icounted it as an opportunity to learna little bit more about the diplomaticcommunity. Through this, as well asother later encounters, I gained abetter insight on what an ambassa-dor does. Subsequently, I have hadseveral opportunities to talk withDr. Zion Evrony, the Israeli ConsulGeneral to the Southwest Region,when he visited Longview and Tyler,Texas.

A consulate, incidentally, is a

branch embassy headed by a ConsulGeneral and many junior consuls.The Israeli Consulate for the Ameri-can Southwest region, for example,is based in Houston. Its service areaincludes Texas, Louisiana, Arkan-sas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Itdoes not have the same kind of dip-lomatic immunity as the main em-bassy in the nation’s capital, but it isa real branch of an embassy, carry-ing on the same business that anembassy does.

Consulates are found in everymajor city, conducting the businessof the countries they represent withinthe regional spheres of influence ofthose cities. We might draw a paral-lel between the embassy of a foreigncountry and the churches of God(whose real citizenship and head-quarters are in heaven). The mainembassies of Finland and Israel arelocated in Washington, DC, but con-sulates are found in New York City,Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, anda number of other major metropoli-tan areas.

We could consider one of God’sembassies to be the headquarters ofone the churches of God with theleading pastor or evangelist servingas the Chargé d’Affaires or the Con-sul General. The branch consulates


T o the members of God’schurch in Philippi, the apostle

Paul writes, “For our citizenshipis in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). Whilesome may spiritualize this factaway, Paul’s words come acrossas literal and real to those who un-derstand that God has called us outof this world (John 15:19) and trans-ferred us into His Kingdom(Colossians 1:13).

Having our citizenship in the King-dom of God by definition makes usaliens in the physical country inwhich we live. Like ambassadors ofa foreign government, we cannotparticipate in the politics of anothercountry, a practice that would dis-tract us from our real spiritual goal.However, we realize that the apostlePaul has challenged us to be am-bassadors for Christ: “Thereforewe are ambassadors for Christ, asthough God were pleading throughus: we implore you on Christ’s be-half, be reconciled to God” (IICorinthians 5:20).

Do we have what it takes to beambassadors of Jesus Christ? Doany of us know what an ambassadoris supposed to do, or how an ambas-sador should behave? Do we knowhow an ambassador is expected tointerface with the various publicswith which he comes into contact?


W

M AM AM AM AM A T T H E W 2 7 : 2 5T T H E W 2 7 : 2 5T T H E W 2 7 : 2 5T T H E W 2 7 : 2 5T T H E W 2 7 : 2 5“And a l l the peop le answered and sa id , ‘H i s b lood be on us and on our ch i ld ren . ’ ”

belief that God punishes children fortheir parents’ sins. The prophetEzekiel speaks at length of this erro-neous idea and of the misleadingproverb it had engendered over theyears. He quotes the false proverb inEzekiel 18:2: “The fathers have eatensour grapes, and the children’s teethare set on edge.”

A question the disciples asked ofChrist, recorded in John 9:2, indi-cates that they too were still underthe spell of this false proverb. Con-cerning the blindness of a particularman, they ask, “Rabbi, who sinned,this man or his parents, that he wasborn blind?” Christ, not acceptingthe false premise of their question,comes up with a totally differentreason: “that the works of God shouldbe revealed in him” (verse 3).

The disciples in John 9—and theJews in Matthew 27—made theirstatement at a time when God’sprophecy, expressed in Ezekiel 18:3,had not come to pass: “’As I live,’says the Lord GOD, ‘you shall nolonger use this proverb in Israel.’”

In Christ’s day—and down to ourown!—people still believed that Godpunished children for the sins of thefathers. Beginning in Ezekiel 18:4,God sets forth four scenarios to pointout the fallacy of this manmade be-lief. Notice verses 14 and 17, part ofthe third scenario:

If, however, [a man] begets ason who sees all the sins whichhis father has done, and consid-ers but does not do likewise, . . .[but rather] has executed Myjudgments and walked in Mystatutes—he shall not die forthe iniquity of his father; heshall surely live!

God summarizes the teachings ofthese four scenarios in verse 20:

The soul who sins shall die. Theson shall not bear the guilt ofthe father, nor the father bearthe guilt of the son. The righ-

teousness of the righteous shallbe upon himself, and the wick-edness of the wicked shall beupon himself.

In saying this, God is telling us thatHe Himself follows the law He es-tablished for us, recorded in Deuter-onomy 24:16: “The fathers shall notbe put to death for their children, norshall the children be put to death fortheir fathers; a person shall be put todeath for his own sin.”

Amaziah obeyed this law when“he executed his servants who hadmurdered his father the king. How-ever he did not execute their chil-dren. . . .” The writer of Chroniclesthen continues by quoting Deuter-onomy 24:16 verbatim (see IIChronicles 25:3-4). Though Exodus20:5; 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Deuter-onomy 5:9; Isaiah 14:21; andJeremiah 32:18 seem to contradictthis principle, these verses speak,not of God’s judgment for sin, whichis always on the perpetrator himself,but of the disastrous consequencesof the fathers’ sins affecting “thechildren to the third and fourth gen-eration of those who hate Me.”

Nowhere does Matthew—noranyone else—ever tell us that Godacquiesced to carry out vengeanceon those who cried, “Crucify Him!”before Pilate’s judgment hall. No-where does Matthew intimate thatGod consented to punish their chil-dren over the centuries. If He hadcommitted Himself to carry out thesepeoples’ so-called “curse,” He wouldhave knowingly bound Himself toviolate His own law for centuries.

“To the Jew First”Why, then, have the Jews found

themselves so often in such direstraits over the years, not only afterthe crucifixion of Christ, but for cen-turies before? They have been per-secuted by the Egyptians, thePhilistines, the Edomites, theCanaanites, the Sidonians, theHivites, the Moabites (see Judges

3:3-12), and the Midianites (seeJudges 8:1). The catalog of theirtormentors includes the Persians ofHaman’s time, the Greeks ofAntiochus’ time, the Romans of Im-perial times, and afterwards variousEuropean and Muslim peoples to thepresent. Their history of persecutionwould fill volumes.

Why?Anciently, only the Israelites, of

which the Jews are one tribe, were therecipients of God’s revelation: “Youonly have I known of all the familiesof the earth” (Amos 3:2). God countsthat revelation as a precious blessingto the family of Abraham, as Paulwrites in Romans 3:1-2: “What ad-vantage then has the Jew, or whatis the profit of circumcision? Much inevery way! Chiefly because to themwere committed the oracles of God.”

To Paul, the Jews were not cursed,but were first, the Greeks second(Romans 2:9-10). He took seriouslyhis commission to carry God’s name“before . . . the children of Israel”(Acts 9:15). The book of Actsrecords that in every town and cityhe visited, he went first to the localJewish synagogue; after that, hepreached the gospel to the Gentiles.Indeed, he admonished the churchat Thessalonica to “become imitatorsof the churches of God which are inJudea . . . ” (I Thessalonians 2:14).

God gave the Jews a lot. Here, theprinciple of Luke 12:48 enters thepicture: “For everyone to whom muchis given, from him much will be re-quired; and to whom much has beencommitted, of him they will ask themore.”

As we know from the Old Testa-ment and as history since has demon-strated, the Jews have repeatedlyrejected God, treading His oracles un-derfoot. Today, many are the Jewswho have forsaken God and joinedthe vanguard of liberal secularism(read “atheism”) in the arts, law, poli-tics, science, education—in virtuallyevery field of human endeavor.Throughout their history, many Jewshave scorned God’s revelation, pur-

(continued from page 9)


R E A DR E A DR E A DR E A DR E A D Y A N S W E RY A N S W E RY A N S W E RY A N S W E RY A N S W E R“Be Ready A lway s To G i ve An Answe r ” – I Pe t e r 3 : 1 5 (K JV )

posefully making themselves a pro-fane people. So, the corollary ofChrist’s principle applies, as statedin Luke 12:47: “And that servantwho knew his master’s will, anddid not prepare himself or do ac-cording to his will, shall be beatenwith many stripes.”

The Jews, more than any singlepeople in history, knew God’s will, asit is expressed in the “oracles”—Hisrevelation to them. They often haverejected it. As often as they do, theirapostasy has carried with it the pen-alty of “many stripes.”

This cycle of rejecting God andpaying the price will not go on for-ever. Though Jerusalem and the tribeof Judah will be “a cup of drunken-

ness to all the surrounding peoples”and “a very heavy stone for allpeoples” (Zechariah 12:2-3) in theend time, the Jews will be among thefirst to turn to the returning Christ:

“The LORD will save the tentsof Judah first. . . . And I willpour on the house of David andon the inhabitants of Jerusalemthe Spirit of grace and suppli-cation; then they will look onMe whom they have pierced;they will mourn for Him as onemourns for his only son, andgrieve for Him as one grievesfor a firstborn. . . . In that daya fountain shall be opened forthe house of David and for

the inhabitants of Jerusalem,for sin and for uncleanness. Itshall be in that day,” says theLORD of hosts, “that I will cutoff the names of the idols fromthe land, and they shall nolonger be remembered. I willalso cause the [false] prophetsand the unclean spirit to departfrom the land.” (Zechariah12:7, 10; 13:1-2)

At that time, both the burden ofsupposed blood libel and the cycle ofrejecting God will be laid aside, andthe Jews can begin anew as a peopleunder the rule of Jesus Christ in Hismillennial Kingdom.

—Charles Whitaker

P E R S O N A L P E R S O N A L P E R S O N A L P E R S O N A L P E R S O N A L ➤ Elijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the BaptistElijah and John the Baptist

(continued from page 8)What about the phrase in Malachi 4:5, “before the

coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD”? Thislures people into interpreting this as occurring just beforeChrist’s second coming. However, the verse does not say“immediately before”—that is an assumption—it onlysays “before.” The apostle John writes that the worldwas passing away in his day 2,000 years ago (I John2:17)! In terms of time, verse 18 is even more incrediblebecause John says that by biblical reckoning it wasalready the last hour (Romans 13:11-12; I Peter 4:7)!It is imperative we learn to consider time as God doesrather than men.

The last days began with the arrival of Jesus Christ.John the Baptist, the prophesied Elijah, appeared as oneepoch ended and the next began. He was the last andgreatest of the Old Testament prophets, his preachingturned the hearts of the fathers to the children, and heprepared the way for the Messiah. He most certainlycame before the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

Only one commentary delved into the possibility of a“second” Elijah. Even as it did so, it claimed the conceptwas weak since Jesus made His case so clearly. Matthew16:18, often used to support this concept, does not sayquite what we assume it does. In it, Jesus proclaims, “AndI also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I willbuild My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevailagainst it.” Does this say the church will never die out?Yes, but only indirectly.

The translation of one word, “prevail,” alters the focusof what Jesus says. It could also be rendered “stand.” By

choosing to translate the word as “prevail,” it changes thechurch from being on the offensive against the kingdom ofSatan, represented by the word “Hades,” to being on thedefensive, as continually under attack.

Jesus is promising that He would enable His church tobe on the offensive and triumphant against Satan anddeath. Is the church constantly under attack? Of courseit is, and there have been several times that, as far as weknow, it has almost died out, but it has always emergedtriumphant and continued on.

How was this accomplished? Jesus Christ would raiseup a man to preach the gospel once again. Peter Waldo isone of the clearer examples. In the process, he becamethe one God used to call others into His truth, andaround him, He formed a continuation of the church ofGod. The commentary remarked that, using this interpre-tation, even the first-century apostles, as they took thegospel into new areas, became weak types of Elijah—as did all the men God used down through the ages, likePeter Waldo.

Each of them, in type, had to reestablish things andpreach repentance in preparation for the receiving of thegospel and the Messiah. But not a single one of them wasthe Elijah to come because that office and prophecy—byJesus’ own words—has already been fulfilled, and thereis no higher authority.

In Christian love,


(continued from page 13)are the individual, outlying congre-gations with its members serving asjunior consuls. Every baptized churchmember’s home could be designatedas a branch consulate for the King-dom of God. Realizing that we aremembers of God’s diplomatic corps,it is important to know how to behaveas a diplomat.

The first thing that impressed meat the get-together was the humbleand gracious attitude and manner ofour host, Jaako Bergquist. Mr.Bergquist assumed the position of ahumble servant or steward, lookingafter the interests of his country, aswell as serving and helping peoplelike me to learn more about his coun-try and its culture. For example, whenhe learned about my classical musicradio program, he asked me if I wouldlike to receive some musical record-ings. Later that week, I received apackage of fifteen long-playingrecords containing the complete sym-phonic works of Jean Sibelius. Weplayed these recordings many timesover KBAC and KBAU.

Jaako Bergquist was not a glad-handed super-salesman for his coun-try, but more of an accommodatingsteward practicing what the apostlePaul counsels us to observe inPhilippians 2:4: “Let each of you lookout not only for his own interests, butalso for the interests of others.”Accordingly, the Finnish diplomat didnot seem to be self-interested in theleast, but was always interested insupplying the needs of others, ac-tively esteeming others more thanhimself (verse 3).

A CulturalRepresentativeA member of the diplomatic commu-nity realizes his extreme vulner-ability as a minority member of amajority alien culture. Whether welike it or not, that role fits all of us.In such a position, a diplomat mustbe circumspect in all his words andactivities, careful not to offend hishosts or bring disrepute upon hishomeland.

I was amazed at how many of thequalifications of an elder or overseer

Paul lists in I Timothy 3:1-7 thatJaako Berquist possessed, includinghospitality, the ability to teach, hav-ing his home in tip-top order, andexercising temperance and self-con-trol. Like a busy switch engine in theUnion Pacific freight yard, the in-dustrious ambassador constantlymoved from guest to guest, linkingpeople together with common inter-ests. At one point during the evening,he made sure I became acquaintedwith the Program Director of KUSC,a classical music station run by theUniversity of Southern California.Later, he introduced to me an elderlycouple from Esko, Minnesota, whohad lived close to the communitywhere I used to teach.

He made available, but did notpush, the culture of Finland, some-what like the philosophy of theHershey Chocolate Company, whichat one time relied largely on goodwilland word of mouth to advertise itsproducts.

Occasionally, we may be affordedopportunities to assist other churchof God groups with a special need.Not long ago, a local minister wassomewhat vexed by intruders fromother groups attempting to persuademembers of his flock about the Nisan15 Passover. Sabbath.org—one ofour church’s websites—contains aseries of abstracts on sermons thatthoroughly examines the subject.After downloading and printing thesesermon abstracts, I dropped themoff at the local minister’s office onmy way home from work. I reas-sured him that I did not want toproselytize or steal sheep, but onlywanted to provide resources to helphim defend his flock. To what extenthe used those documents or howdeeply his curiosity was piqued, I donot know, but he expressed a greatdeal of gratitude for those resources,promising that he would bookmarkour site.

Another of our websites,BibleTools.org, provides anothernon-threatening resource to thegreater church of God and the worldat large, providing a lavish smorgas-bord of truth and choice spiritualmeat for those starving for under-standing. Just pointing people to these

resources can be a diplomatic wayof availing others of the culture ofthe Kingdom of God.

At the Consulate’s get-together inBeverly Hills, there were gentle butubiquitous reminders that we guestswere at a Finnish party: abundantFinnish food, Finnish vodka, Finnishartwork, murals and paintings of Finn-ish lakes and forests—reminding meof northern Minnesota and of north-ern Wisconsin—Finnish books, andFinnish symphonic and folk musicplaying over speakers throughout theresidence. I became extremelyhomesick for Suomi or Finland—andI am not even Finnish!

Gracious SpeechBesides humility and hospitality, Mr.Bergquist demonstrated diplomacyand wisdom, speaking very circum-spectly, carefully considering the con-sequences of what he said, extremelycareful not to injure the feelings ofothers needlessly. Later, while com-paring notes, my colleague mentionedthat he never heard Jaako Bergquistor any other member of the diplo-matic community let his personalfeelings enter the discussion. Hemerely repeated the official positionof his country.

Likewise, we junior consuls of thegovernment of God need to keepour pet opinions to ourselves (or atleast qualify them as our own petopinions). However, we must beknowledgeable of God’s Word onany given subject, being ready togive an answer (I Peter 3:15). Inaddition, our words must model thegracious speech of our ElderBrother, who in John 14:10 says,“The words that I speak to you I donot speak on my own authority; butthe Father who dwells in Me doesthe works.”

Without scriptural backing, ourown opinions are largely useless hotair. Consequently, as diplomats ofGod’s government, we must learn tosubmerge our own feelings, beingquick to listen and slow to speak,reflecting Jesus’ half-brother’s ad-monition in James 1:19.

The apostle Paul was perhapsone of the most skillful diplomats


the world has ever seen. In ICorinthians 10:32-33, he explains histask when he meets diverse peoplesand cultures:

Give no offense, either to theJews or to the Greeks or to thechurch of God [perhaps duringthe current scattering the mostdifficult task of all], just as Ialso please all men in all things,not seeking my own profit, butthe profit of many, that theymay be saved.

Paul’s mentor in diplomatic skills,Jesus Christ, had earlier proclaimed,“Woe to that man by whom the of-fense comes!” (Matthew 18:7). Someof us have been past masters atcreating offenses, being wise asdoves and harmless as serpents! AsChrist’s ambassadors, we must re-pent of such behavior.

If we want to follow the exampleof the master diplomat, the apostlePaul, schooled under both JesusChrist and Gamaliel, we should lookat a significant encounter he hadwith the philosophers at Athens inActs 17. To begin, Paul paid theAthenians a compliment: “Then Paulstood in the midst of the Areopagusand said, ‘Men of Athens, I perceivethat in all things you are very reli-gious’” (Acts 17:22).

If we were to read between thelines, Paul might be saying, “YouAthenians are to be commended foryour devotion to spiritual things.”The King James’ rendering of “reli-gious” as “superstitious” exposes thelatter word as having undergonewhat linguists call semantic drift.In Shakespeare’s day and KingJames’ time, this word did not havethe negative connotation as it doesnow.

From the context of this account,it is plain that the apostle Paul wasnot, as some theologians like to char-acterize him, a feisty, wrangling, ar-gumentative hothead. The men ofAthens, who vastly outnumberedPaul and loved a good philosophicaldebate, could have made short workout of any know-it-all smart aleck.The apostle Paul was thus lavish inhis compliments.

Throughout his ministry, he fre-quently resorted to diplomatic lan-guage. At one point, he acknowledgeda cultural debt both to the Greeksand to barbarians (Romans 1:14). Inaddition to complimenting strangers,Paul continually sought out similari-ties he shared between him and othergroups. In a conflict in which boththe Sadducees and the Phariseeswere breathing fire down his neck,Paul masterfully ingratiated him-self to the Pharisees, remindingthem that he and they shared thesame view on the resurrection(Acts 23:6-8). Paul, to the rightpeople, let it be known that he wasa Roman citizen (Acts 16:37-39;22:25-29).

Common GroundWe also need to find commonground, not only with people in theother groups of the church of God,but with the world at large, empha-sizing (like mountains) the thingswe agree upon and de-emphasizing(like molehills) the things we dis-agree upon.

In the process of finding commonground, we dare not compromise ourcore values or syncretize them withthe world. We should instead prac-tice more of what the late church ofGod minister, Sherwin McMichael,counseled, “You don’t have to tellall you know.” Oftentimes, keep-ing our traps shut is the most diplo-matic behavior of all (Ecclesiastes3:7; Lamentations 3:28-29; Amos5:13).

In Acts 17:23, the apostle Pauldeliberately builds a bridge of com-mon understanding and similarity,referring to something the Atheniansalready understood:

For as I was passing throughand considering the objects ofyour worship, I even found analtar with this inscription: TOTHE UNKNOWN GOD.Therefore, the one whom youworship without knowing [amore proper rendering than“ignorantly,” another word thathas also undergone semanticdrift] Him I proclaim to you.”

Later, in verse 28, Paul again seekscommon ground by quoting fromtheir own literature: “For in Himwe live and move and have ourbeing, as also some of your ownpoets have said, ‘For we are also Hisoffspring.’”

The important thing to rememberis that the apostle Paul started at theAthenians’ current level of under-standing, continually finding common-alities between himself and hisaudience upon which to build mu-tual understanding and fostergrowth. An ambassador skillfullydemonstrates how his country andanother’s country share similar in-terests. As the late Rabbi MeirKahane pointed out, an alliance isnot so much built on friendship as oncommon interests.

To summarize, in successful dip-lomatic negotiating, points we agreeupon must be stressed and any dis-agreements must be de-emphasized.An ambassador should never be apushy salesman or a glad-handedpublic relations man. Whatever hisrank in the diplomatic community,Ambassador, Consul General,Chargé d’Affaires, junior consul,envoy, or diplomat, he has the fol-lowing characteristics:

1. He is a representative ofanother culture, another wayof life.

2. In this capacity, he does notgive his own opinions, butadvances the positions of hishome country.

3. He functions as a servant orsteward, representing hiscountry faithfully.

4. As such, he practices hospi-tality, courtesy, and gracious-ness.

Proverbs 13:17 reads, “A wickedmessenger falls into trouble, but afaithful ambassador brings health.”As faithful ambassadors of Christ,we ought to bring health, refresh-ment, and comfort to the people withwhom we come into contact.

—David F. Maas

Forerunner · January 200418 Forerunner · January 200418

PR

OP

HE

CY

W

AT

CH

It is also true that the Catholic Church had its ownvery real problems with the Nazi government in theearly 1930s, concerns that naturally deflected itsattentions from the plight of the Jews. The Germangovernment was proposing the takeover of Church-sponsored schools, orphanages, hospitals, and asy-lums; it was proposing the involuntary sterilization ofthe mentally ill (something it carried out later on); itwas proposing a law prohibiting parents from bring-ing up their children in their faith. In addition, by1937, it was producing virulent, anti-Catholic propa-ganda. Yes, indeed, the Church had plenty of prob-lems on its plate.15

Still, there remains a certain hypocrisy between aPope’s statement that “anti-Semitism is inadmis-sible” and his hierarchy’s historic and unremittingoppression of Jews. The matter is driven home by amiserable exchange between two cardinals in late1941. In a letter, Cardinal Faulhaber questioned thelack of protest on the part of the Church in the lightof the “brutal deportation of non-Aryans to Polandunder inhuman conditions paralleled only in theAfrican slave trade.”16 In reply, Adolph CardinalBertram admonished that bishops must “concen-trate on other concerns which are more importantfor the Church and more far-reaching, . . . [particu-larly] the ever more urgent question of how best toprevent anti-Christian and anti-Church influenceson the education of Catholic youth.”17

We today, Monday-morning quarterbacks, rec-ognize the vast disconnect between the clear-and-

(continued from page 12)

Endnotes1 Turner, Philip, “The Episcopalian Preference,” First Things,November 2003, p. 28.2 The German government enacted the “Law for the Restorationof the Civil Service” in April 1933. This law prevented all “non-Aryans,” regardless of religion, from holding positions in thecivil service sector.3 Let us be plain: Hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives weresaved through the intervention of Protestant and Catholiclaypeople and clerics (in Germany, Poland, France, and espe-cially in Holland) during the years between 1939 and 1945. Manypious church people jeopardized their lives—some lost them—in their efforts to rescue and provide succor to Jews. EugenioPacelli (Ratti’s successor, Pope Pius XII) even used his villa innorthern Italy as a safe house for escaping Jews. More than afew Jewish mothers delivered their babies in the Pope’sbedroom, which had been pressed into service as a maternityward. All this took place outside the “official” silence of theChurch concerning the tragedy. (See especially, Henry, Patrick,“Remembering the Rescuers,” First Things, April 2000, p. 13.)4 Rhonheimer, Martin, “The Holocaust: What Was Not Said,” FirstThings, November 2003, p. 18. Rhonheimer is a priest of theOpus Die Prelature and professor of Ethics and Political Philoso-phy at Rome’s Pontifical University of the Holy Cross. (See also,Wistrich, Robert, “The Old-New Anti-Semitism,” The NationalInterest, Summer 2003, p. 59. Wistrich, Neuberger Professor ofModern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, writes:“The main elements of 20th-century ideological anti-Semitismwere already in place by 1914. . . .”)5 Ibid., p. 21.6 Ibid. “The Jewish Question,” an article published in 1933 in theCatholic Augsburger Postzeitung, deplored “the increasing‘judaizing’ of our intellectual, cultural, and scholarly life in

present-danger to people awaiting the ovens versusthe anxiety over conditions in the Catholic schoolsystem. The German Catholics of the 1930s, thoseSunday quarterbacks on the gridiron, did not recog-nize that disconnect, blinded as they were by theirancient tradition of oppressing Jews.

Wrong doctrine, taught for centuries, had deeplyimplanted anti-Semitism into the minds of GermanCatholics and Protestants, rendering them unwillingto take a decisive stand against German maltreat-ment of European Jewry. This wrong doctrinewas not an unimportant determinant in the historyof the times, for “anti-Semitism was what madethe Nazis’ racist ideology . . . into an engine ofdeath for Jews.”18 “Racism alone did not lead toAuschwitz. . . . Something more was needed:hatred of Jews. Rooted in large part in Christiantradition, it was this hatred that made modern anti-Semitism possible.”19 Millions of people died, tosome extent because of the false doctrine of “bloodlibel” of mainstream churches, a doctrine off whichNazi racism fed.

Next month, we will take a look at anti-Semitismfrom another perspective, that of the German “lawof ethnic groups.” This was the law that provided thelegal framework for Nazi racism in the 1930s.Amazingly, that same law, wearing some modernclothes, defines minority rights in today’s EuropeanUnion, rendering the Jews (and other minority groups)virtually without legal protection. What church iswilling to protest now?

—Charles Whitaker

Germany.” With typical retrenchment, however, the articlecontinued: “There is a certain kind of Jewish intellectualismwhich, despite its high intelligence, mixes with the Germanelement in a destructive and baneful way. A people striving fornational and intellectual renewal is reacting in a healthy mannerwhen it opposes this admixture, and demands that the Germanmind be thoroughly cleansed of Jewish influences.”7 Ibid., p. 19.8 Ibid., p. 21.9 Ibid. The phrase “their hidden influence” must certainly reflectthat the Church had at least tacitly subscribed to the conspiracytheories prevalent at the time. Such theories, extant in one formor another to this day, were publicized in Wilhelm Marr’s FinisGermaniae (1879), Edouard Drumont’s La Dernière Bataille(1889), Houston S. Chamberlain’s Foundations of the 19thCentury (1899), and, of course, in the infamous The Protocolsof the Elders of Zion.10 Ibid., p. 23.11 Ibid.12 Ylvisaker, Johann, The Gospels: A Synoptic Presentation ofthe Text in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Augsburg PublishingHouse, 1932, p. 733. This commentary was first published inNorwegian in 1905. Ylvisaker was the professor of ExegeticalTheology, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota.13 Rhonheimer, p. 24.14 Ibid. Is this an example of Satan’s misquoting Holy Scriptures?How eerily reminiscent these words are of Christ’s comment,recorded in John 16:2, that “the time is coming that whoever killsyou will think that he offers God service.”15 Ibid.16 Ibid., p. 25.17 Ibid.18 Ibid., p. 24.19 Ibid., p. 23.

NEW

S A

ND TRENDS


WORLD WATCH

Watc

h th

ere

fore

, fo

r yo

u k

no

w n

eit

her

the d

ay n

or

the h

ou

r w

hen

th

e S

on

of M

an

is c

om

ing

. (M

att

hew

25

:13

)

http://www.worldwatchdaily.org

by David C. Grabbe

E U R O P E A N D I S U N I T YThe development of a united Europe hasseen a number of setbacks recently. InDecember 2003, the nations of the Eu-ropean Union (EU) failed to reach anagreement on the proposed EU consti-tution. (Incidentally, French national tele-vision accused the United States oforchestrating the impasse in order tohead off the emergence of a rival “su-perpower Europe.”) The biggest pointof contention is over the distribution ofpower: how to prevent the large statesfrom overriding the will of the smallstates—or, how to prevent a majority ofsmall states from overriding the will ofthe popular majority.

Another hot topic has been whetheror not to include a reference to Chris-tianity in the constitution. Certain coun-tries, notably Spain and Poland, wereadamant that a reference to Europe’sChristian heritage be included in thewording. But others, especially Francewith its secular tradition, were equallystrong in their opposition to such a ref-erence. The Pope has repeatedly urgedthe heads of state to include such areference, but so far his voice has notbeen heeded.

Other controversial topics on whichthere is widespread disagreement in-clude the issue of European foreignpolicy (whether Europe speaks with asingle voice or the individual nations

maintain their own foreign policy), EUdefense (whether to have a commonarmy, what role it would play, how itwould affect NATO, etc.), and the pro-posed mutual-defense pact (which theneutral countries, Austria, Finland, Ire-land and Sweden, have opposed on thebasis that it would threaten their neutralstatus if they were forced into a militaryresponse).

Because of these disagreements,an idea has arisen which is gainingsome popularity. Some national leadersare in favor of a “two-speed” Europe,which would consist of core nationsthat could come into agreement quicklyon economics, defense, and crime fight-ing, while the other nations could sortout their differences.

As it stands now, one thing is cer-tain: European unity and integration is avery slow and painful process. TheEuropean constitution could possibly bevoted upon again in six months, but morelikely, it will be a year or more before itcomes up again. Since few EU stateshave much enthusiasm for a project thatwas essentially foisted on them by Brus-sels insiders, a game of “pass the buck”can be expected until the ultra-federalistLuxembourg presidency in early 2005.

• According to a Eurobarometer pollreleased in December, less than half

the population in the European Union’smember states now support the EUproject. The poll found that just 48%of EU citizens viewed membershipas a “good thing,” down from 54% inthe spring of 2003. Britain was by farthe most negative state, with posi-tive feelings tumbling to 28%, buteven the French were below half forthe first time after months of battleswith Brussels over various issues.

• Two years after the introduction ofthe euro, an increasing number of EUcitizens feel that the single currencyhas led to a hike in prices, the EUObserver reports. A Eurobarometersurvey reveals that 89% of thosepolled feel that price inflation hasoccurred with the currencychangeover, some 5% more thanlast year. Most dissatisfaction wasfound in Italy, the Netherlands, Ger-many, and Greece. Moreover, satis-faction with the new currency hasbeen falling steadily since January 1,2002, when the euro was introduced.Although 51% of citizens in the 12countries that adopted the euro donot have any problems using theeuro currency, just 47%, down from50% last year, said they were happywith the changeover.

Even as the European Union argues cer-tain foundational issues, an interestingcoalition has risen from the shores of thewestern Mediterranean. The Washing-ton Times reports that ten African (Mus-lim) and European (Catholic) countries,with a combined population of nearly 250million and a gross domestic product of$3.7 trillion, have implemented an ambi-tious plan to build an economic, political,and cultural bridge across the Mediterra-nean Sea. The summit participants in-clude five European countries (Portugal,Spain, France, Italy, and Malta) and fiveAfrican states (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria,Morocco, and Mauritania). Delegatesportray it as a “challenge and opportu-nity” to overcome differing levels of de-velopment and political differences andturn the Mediterranean into “a sea ofpeace.” French President Jacques Chirachails the agreement, known as the “5Plus 5,” as “historic.” Italian PresidentSilvio Berlusconi says it paves the wayto a “permanent dialogue between Eu-rope and Islam.”Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben

Western-Mediterranean AgreementWestern-Mediterranean AgreementWestern-Mediterranean AgreementWestern-Mediterranean AgreementWestern-Mediterranean Agreement(Tunis Declaration)(Tunis Declaration)(Tunis Declaration)(Tunis Declaration)(Tunis Declaration)

According to a report released bythe Federation for American Immi-gration Reform (FAIR) and detailedin the Washington Times, totalimmigration to the United Statesrose dramatically by 1.4 million ineach of the past two years—ofwhich about a third were illegalaliens. If the numbers remain un-changed, this decade will mark themost massive wave of immigrationin American history, with 45 millionimmigrants—about 14% of thecountry’s total projected popula-tion—forecast to live in the U.S. by2010. The report remarks that thefigures show that immigration to-tals are unrelated to labor needsand economic conditions in theU.S. Despite a weak U.S. economyand rising unemployment since2000, immigration has significantlyoutpaced record levels seen in the1990s and shows no sign of abat-ing. In September, the Census Bu-reau said the foreign-bornpopulation in America had grownto more than 33 million in 2002, ajump of 5% in one year, account-ing for 44% of the nation’s popu-lation growth.

U.S. Immigration

Ali, host of the meeting, describes thecharter as the “beginning of a new pro-cess of cooperation and solidarity” inwhat was once the center of the RomanEmpire. In the summit’s final communiqué,the signatories jointly agreed to struggleagainst international terrorism, improvetrade relations, and halt illegal immigra-tion toward Europe. Plans include coop-eration among the interior ministers of the5 Plus 5 to “fight terrorism in all its forms,”hold annual business forums, and createa Euro-Mediterranean bank. Participantsagreed on “the importance of seeing theEuropean Union accompany its enlarge-ment process by a parallel supportiveeffort towards countries of the southernflank of the western Mediterranean re-gion.”While this mix of nations is not a signifi-cant political, economic, or military threat,the symbolism is worth pondering: TenEuropean and African nations, five oneach side of the Mediterranean Sea,covering a significant portion of terri-tory anciently occupied by the RomanEmpire.

BIBLE STUDY:THE PARABLE OF THE

GREAT SUPPER

r r r r rr r r r rr r r r rr r r r rr r r r r

In analyzing the Parable of the Great Supper (Luke 14:15-24),we must consider the two parables that precede it: the Parables ofthe Ambitious Guest (verses 7-11) and the Feast (verses 12-14).Although all three are spoken at the same time in the same house,Jesus describes three different occasions: a wedding, a feast, and agreat supper. It is evident that His entire conversation contains asingle main theme.

First, Jesus tells the Parable of the Ambitious Guest, whichis about a wedding and the right and wrong ways of invitingpeople. He adds to what He had said about the Pharisees lovingthe best seats in the synagogue (Luke 11:43), making it clear thathumility comes before true exaltation. Those not seeking promo-tion are to have the important places in social life. Those who

exalt themselves will be abased, and the humble will be exalted(James 4:10; I Peter 5:6).

Then, Jesus tells the Parable of the Feast, giving his host a lessonon whom to invite to a meal. The key to the parable is, “Lest theyalso invite you back, and you be repaid.” If the host invited only hisrich friends, of course, he would expect them to offer him likehospitality, but when people act on this basis, they derail truehospitality. Godly hospitality occurs when one serves others whileexpecting nothing in return (I Peter 4:9).

The Parable of the Great Supper is Jesus’ response to a fellowdinner guest exclaiming, “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in thekingdom of God!” All three parables deal with the general theme ofhospitality, but the last adds humility and self-examination.

1. What spiritual principle did the guest stimulate in Jesus’ mind?Luke 14:15.COMMENT: The Jews thought the Messianic Kingdom would have anearthly prince in whose magnificent and splendid reign they wouldbe delivered from all their oppressors to become the most distin-guished and happy nation on earth. They anticipated that time as oneof great happiness and joy when even the just ancient Israeliteswould be resurrected to enjoy the blessings of the Messiah’s reign.This guest understands the “resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14)in the common Jewish way and speaks of the special happinessthe Jews expected to enjoy due to their arrogant view of theirspiritual state. He presumes that only Jews would receive theblessings of the Kingdom. In the parable, Jesus exposes and correctsthe ignorance of those who, in their pride, misjudge their true moralcondition (I Corinthians 10:12).2. What does the first lame excuse expose? Luke 14:18.COMMENT: This excuse raises some questions: Would a Jew buy landsight-unseen? If he had, how could he see what it was like in the dark?Could he not wait until morning to inspect it? Most likely, the manhad seen it before buying it, but he was more concerned about hisinvestment than in an invitation to supper. He represents thosewhose possessions require all their attention. He allows his physicalwealth to rob him of spiritual wealth (James 5:1-3; Matthew 6:19-21). People sometimes plead that they must neglect obedience toGod, justifying themselves as so pressed by the affairs of the worldthat they cannot find time to pray, read the Scriptures, or worshipGod (Matthew 13:22). This kind of thinking reveals spiritualblindness. God does not allow any excuse for neglecting His way oflife, commanding us to seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness(Matthew 6:33).3. What does the second lame excuse expose? Luke 14:19.COMMENT: Unlike the first excuse, this one seems to be an unneces-sary act. However, the man’s tone is definite and final, evenunapologetic in refusing the invitation. He never doubts the validityof his excuse, putting his work first and assuring himself that he hasno responsibility to the host (Ecclesiastes 2:22-23; 12:14; ICorinthians 3:9-13). The oxen he wants to test can representtechnology. Many falsely believe that advancement in technologyequates to human improvement and progress.

This man’s conduct shows his inclination to satisfy himselfbefore accepting a friend’s invitation. Like all sinners, he was selfish,

justifying his own worldliness and sins and refusing to accept God’soffer of salvation. He represents those who are so absorbed in theirwork or hobbies that they set aside no time for prayer, meditation,or the weightier matters of life (Matthew 6:24). What a catastropheit is when a job, finances, entertainment, or self-centeredness leaveus no time for God and self-examination!4. What does the third lame excuse expose? Luke 14:20.COMMENT: This is the most insignificant excuse of all, yet suchexcuses are used frequently. It is amazing that people allow them-selves to be excluded from the Kingdom of God with such weakreasons. The man’s abrupt, brusque, and impolite excuse is emptyof substance and void of thought. He represents those whosedomestic cares and responsibilities control so much of their time andinterest that they neglect their relationship with God.

Balanced and right marriage and family relationships never keepus from a right relationship with God. Quite the contrary, theyenhance and promote it. Nevertheless, Jesus intends to teach us thatthe love of relatives and friends often distracts our affections fromGod, preventing us from accepting the blessings that He wants tobestow on us (Luke 14:26-28; 18:29-30; I Corinthians 7:29-33). Forinstance, some excuse themselves from appearing before God on theSabbath to worship Him because another family member cannot ordoes not want to attend.

Jesus pictures God’s choice in the kind of guests He desires atHis table. The parable shows a progression of urgency as time growsshort. The first invitation is conveyed to the Israelites simply as“come.” The second, “bring in,” is directed at the spiritually poor,injured, crippled, and blind, symbolizing the Gentiles withoutprevious access to the truth. The third, “compel,” affects an evenlower class of people representing the spiritual fringes of this world.

None of the three invitees has any desire to fellowship, express-ing the same willing captivation by the cares of this world. Manyfail to realize that the invitation is from God the Father to hischildren, and failure to respond constitutes willful disobedience.None who so decidedly reject the offer of the Kingdom will besaved (Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-31). It is dangerous to reject thetruth of God. The invitation is full and free, but when people turnwillfully away from it, God leaves them to their chosen way ofdestruction. How important it is to cherish God’s offer of theblessings of His way of life and eternal life in His Kingdom and toexamine our own dedication.

Documents

Forerunner Magazine - pdf.cgg.org · PDF fileRodriquez, Rizal 1860 ... along with chapter 13, warns against such people. ... reaction because that is where most of them appear in the