Preaching the Gospel and Feeding the Flock

A new StandingWatch program was placed on StandingWatch and on Google Video, titled, “Christmas and Worldwide Peace.” In the program, Norbert Link discusses the paradox that Christmas tells us that Jesus Christ came two thousand years ago to bring peace to this world. If so, why don’t we have peace today amongst all nations? And why did Jesus say that He did not come to bring peace, but the sword? Did He want His disciples to fight others in war? What WAS the purpose of Christ’s First Coming, and what did He really teach and promise mankind?

We have begun to post our StandingWatch programs on You Tube. So far, 25 programs have been posted, including the recent programs on the Law of God, the Origins of Britain and America, Halloween, the Mystery of Revelation, Ghosts, Alcoholism, Christmas, Sunday-keeping, World Conditions, and others. In addition to Google Video, You Tube provides us with a diverse international audience, specifically in Europe.

Our Internet advertisement campaign in the USA has, so far, produced 51 requests for our booklet, “Human Suffering…Why, and How Much Longer?”, and 15 requests for our booklet, “Don’t Keep Christmas.” Most requested additional booklets, which we are offering with the Christmas booklet, i.e., “Jesus Christ–A Great Mystery,” “Angels, Demons and the Spirit World,” and “God’s Commanded Holy Days.”

Choice or Confusion?

by Robb Harris

When the first two people walked the earth, God gave them the ability of choice.  He made it clear what the consequences of their choices would be, based upon the simple act of eating or not eating a fruit.

When I fill up my car with gas, I have to select the grade from the many different ones available, and I have to decide on a station of the few which are usually clustered next to each other.

On a recent supermarket trip I had vanilla extract on my list.  When staring at the spice aisle, I was confronted with many brands of the same item, and lingered for a minute or two, figuring out which one I really needed.

Although these are mundane tasks, they are indicative of the many choices that confront us on a daily basis.  The effect of having all these choices can turn into time-consuming irritation and confusion, because this is a world entangled in Satan’s many diverse beliefs and ideologies.

The simple choice of right or wrong that Adam and Eve were given so many years ago, is still applicable today.  Satan has given us a world of grays with no easy answers.  The more time we spend in the avalanche of mundane choices, the less time we spend in the simplicity God has given us.

Does God require an individual to tithe on the gross or on the net? Also, is an individual required to tithe on the sale of investments, such as real property, including a house or a condominium?

The answer to this question depends on many different circumstances.

As a general statement, God makes it very clear that His tithing laws are still in force and effect today, and that He commands us to tithe to Him. For a full explanation and discussion of this vital question, please read our free booklet, “Tithing-Today?”

In our booklet, we also discuss how to calculate God’s tithe. We state the following, which sets forth the teaching of the Church of God for many years:

“MONEY—a sensitive subject for many people. Those who have money, don’t want to part with it. Those who don’t have it, long for it. Yet from the time of man’s creation on this earth, God has given instructions on tithing—paying ten percent of our income to God who gave it in the first place…

“The question has been asked many times whether we are to pay tithe from the gross (before taxes are deducted from our paychecks) or from the net (after deduction of taxes). It has been the long-standing policy of the Church to advise that there is no duty to tithe on the gross, as this would be impossible in certain countries, where taxes are so high. At the same time, the Church has always emphasized that it is up to the individual whether he or she wants to tithe from the gross or the net. Many tithe from the gross, following the principle as expressed in Luke 17:10, but this is a personal decision, based on personal circumstances. God looks at the heart of a person. If one chooses to tithe from the net, he would then be obligated, of course, to pay tithe on any tax refunds he might receive in the next year…

“God requires that we pay tithe from our increase. This would include everything that we have acquired through our own labor or our own money (such as salaries and profits from our business, as well as profits from capital investments, interest from savings accounts, or money from renting out property). We are permitted to deduct from our [tithable] income the amount we need to use in order to achieve the increase. For instance, if we own a business, we are permitted to deduct all the costs we spend to run the business. We are only required to pay tithe from the actual increase or profit…

“God requires that we tithe from our increase—what we ourselves produce through our efforts or investment. Gifts or inheritances are not acquired through our own labor and don’t have to be tithed on. The same is true for money given to us in the form of unemployment benefits, pensions or social security. However, it would be advisable, at least in some of those cases, to consider whether a generous special offering would be appropriate. If in doubt, it is always better to err on the side of generosity, again, showing God where our heart is.”

The general guidelines are clearly revealed: We are to tithe from our profit–which is Biblically defined as the increase from our labor and investments. To determine the amount of increase, we are allowed to deduct our expenses. Increase from our labor or our money does not include gifts and inheritances. Therefore, if a person inherits real estate, such as a house or a condominium, or if they are received as gifts, there is no obligation to tithe on them. If a person sells his own house or condominium and uses the proceeds to buy another house or condominium of equal or higher value, there is no tithable increase, either.

Generally speaking, houses or condominiums are paid for over a long period of time. Also, for many, these homes are paid for out of money that was tithed on–if the person has known of this Godly command and has practiced it. Due to increasing values over the years, most homes are sold for more than their original purchase price, and it is this increase that involves tithing considerations.

If a person is selling his house without buying another one–because, for example, the person may own more than one house–then, generally, the person is obligated to tithe from the increase, while being allowed to deduct the amount for any existing mortgage; expenses which were incurred over the years for the upkeep of the house; as well as any loss or decrease in value incurred due to inflation or depreciation. If someone buys a house for $200,000.00, and sells it ten years later for $500,000.00, then the increase would be $300,000.00, minus deductible expenses, as described above. If the calculated final increase turns out to be $200.000.00, then the amount to be paid as tithe would be $20,000.00.

As mentioned, these are very general guidelines, but the principle of paying tithe is clear. God warns all of us not to rob Him by refusing to pay tithes and offerings. He says in Malachi 3:8-9:

“‘Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, “In what way have we robbed You?” In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me…'”

Surely, no one–and especially no true Christian–would want to be called a cursed robber–and not only an ordinary thief, but one who robs from God and is guilty of defrauding Him.

If in doubt, a Church member should counsel with a minister of God about this matter, before assuming that a tithing obligation exists –or that no such obligation exists–regarding the sale of a house or condominium, or any other matter related to tithing.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

The Glory of God

On December 15, 2007, Dave Harris will give the sermon, titled, “The Glory of God.”

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

Preaching the Gospel and Feeding the Flock

A new member letter has been written and posted on the Web. Hard copies will be sent out early next week. In the letter, Norbert Link contrasts Christmas celebrations and the “Christmas dream” of peace for all men with the gospel of the Kingdom of God, which alone can tell us HOW true and lasting peace will come to this earth.

A new StandingWatch program was posted on StandingWatch and on Google Video, titled, “The Law of God, Part 3.” In the program, Norbert Link asks the following questions:

Did Jesus Christ come to abolish the “Old Law” of the Ten Commandments, and to bring a “New Law,” which happens to include nine of the Big Ten, while omitting one? Are the Old Covenant and the Ten Commandments identical? What is a covenant? Did Christ abolish the Ten Commandments when He abolished the Old Covenant?

Would you please explain the apparent inconsistency of Christ's sayings in Mark 9:40 and Luke 11:23?

Christ’s statements are not inconsistent, but they complement each other. Please understand that Christ was addressing two different sets of circumstances.

In the passage in Mark 9:40, we read the following, beginning with verse 38: “Now John answered Him, saying, ‘Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.’ (verse 39) But Jesus said, ‘Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. (verse 40) For he who is not against us is on our side.'” Compare, too, Luke 9:49-50.

On the other hand, in the passage in Luke 11:23, Christ responds to an accusation against Him to the effect that He was casting out demons by Satan the devil, the ruler of the demons. He states, beginning in verse 20: “But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you… (verse 23) He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” Compare, too, Matthew 12:30.

(1) “He Who Is Not Against Us Is For Us”

In Mark 9:38-40, Christ addressed a person who was not opposing Christ or His disciples; rather, he performed miracles IN THE NAME OF JESUS and OPPOSED their common enemy–SATAN THE DEVIL.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible points out:

“Many copies read, ‘he that is not against you, is for you’; as this man; he was not against either Christ, or his disciples; he was doing the same work, promoting the same interest… he was opposing the same common enemy [Satan and his demons], and did nothing against them [Christ and His disciples], he ought to be reckoned as one for them, and on their side.”

The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown adds:

“Two principles of immense importance are here laid down: ‘First, No one will readily speak evil of Me who has the faith to do a miracle in My name; and second, If such a person cannot be supposed to be against us, ye are to consider him for us.'”

The Nelson Study Bible adds the following timeless admonition that is very relevant for the churches of God today: “… this statement was meant to remind the disciples that God’s work was not necessarily restricted to their small group.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary includes further insightful remarks, when discussing Christ’s comments, as recorded in Luke 9:50:

“The disciples claim that the unnamed exorcist was not following with them (cf. Mark 9:38). That is to say, he was following Jesus but not as a part of their group. By casting out demons in the name of Jesus, he was exercising the prerogatives of discipleship without having what they considered to be valid credentials… The man whom the disciples had rebuked was ministering to broken lives in the name of Jesus… Jesus’ principle is contained in the words ‘he that is not against you is for you’… Through the centuries some Christian groups have turned this around to say: ‘He who is not following with us is against us.'”

Some Church of God organizations–or some members belonging to such organizations–claim today that only they comprise the true Church of God. They don’t seem to understand that the true Church of God is not limited to any human organization, but that it is a spiritual organism, consisting of all members in whom God’s Holy Spirit dwells. In their misguided zeal, they even go so far as to claim that unless someone belongs to their particular group, he will not enter the Kingdom of God–or, at the very least, God won’t protect him during times of trials, including the soon-coming Great Tribulation.

Those who believe, teach and proclaim such a false message–either by posting it on public or private websites, or by printing it in their literature or preaching it in their sermons–would be well advised to listen to Jesus Christ’s words in Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50!

(2) “He Who Is Not With Me Is Against Me”

As we have seen, in the previous passages, in Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50, Christ addressed those who wanted to be His followers. They were determined to live a Christian life–to do things in the name of Christ–that is, with His backing and approval.

On the other hand, Christ addressed quite a different situation in Luke 11:23. In that passage, self-righteous and envious enemies OPPOSED JESUS. They accused Him of casting out demons with the power of Satan; that is, He was accused of being a tool in Satan’s hands, a worshipper and follower of Satan himself.

Christ was not dealing here with people who wanted to follow Him; rather, He had to address people who opposed Him and who tried to convince others that He was a false prophet, a deceiving teacher, a son of Satan.

When it comes to deciding whether to follow Christ and His way of life, or to continue to follow Satan and the ways of this world, there can be no neutrality. We cannot follow God and the false prophet Balaam; we cannot serve the God of Israel and Baal; we cannot worship God and do things which bring us in contact with demons; we cannot walk in light and in darkness; we cannot serve God and mammon.

As the Nelson Study Bible states: “Jesus’ ministry forces everyone [who is being called to the Truth] to make a choice. Neutrality is not an option. Either Jesus comes from God or He does not. Not to align with Jesus [against Satan] is to be against Him.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary adds: “Jesus affirms that there can be no middle ground… Neutrality is as much an expression of unbelief as is open hostility.”

It states in its comments to the parallel passage of Matthew 12:30: “Before Jesus, man is called to decision. One may not remain neutral. One who is not positively with Jesus is against him. One who does not gather the flock… scatters it.”

In conclusion, Christ addressed two different situations in Mark 9:40 and in Luke 9:50. As long as members of God’s Church–the spiritual organism, the “Body of Christ”–are following and serving Christ, while OPPOSING SATAN and his ways, they are our friends and brethren–they are “on our side.” On the other hand, if someone OPPOSES the true JESUS CHRIST of the Bible and His followers, he is not “with Christ.” This would even include a person who is called to understand the Truth, but who prefers to stay “neutral”–neither supporting nor condemning Christ and His way of life. Such a person might not actively persecute Christ and His followers and speak evil of the Way of true Christianity. Still, he is not “with Christ”–he is not one of His disciples–when he fails to make a decision to leave and OPPOSE SATAN and fully and totally cleave to God.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Truth With Consequence

Fort Collins, Colorado, has recently been in the forefront of the news with its debate on how to handle decorating the city and government buildings for the upcoming Xmas season.  The initial feeling was that the city should only put up white lights so that they would not offend those that kept Hanukkah (Jews) or Kwanzaa (African-American).  Well… one man, the local Sheriff, had had enough and decided that he was going to put his foot down and put up a Xmas tree and decorate it.  He was going to defend what he thought was right no matter what… and he did!  And many showed up to help him decorate the tree in spite of the contrary opinion.

Of course, the problem is that while he thought he was standing up for what was right, he was not.  Putting up a tree for Xmas is not something God wants us to do.  Note what Jeremiah 10:2-4 says, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Do not learn the way of the Gentiles….For one cuts a tree from the forest….They decorate it with silver and gold; They fasten it with nails and hammers So that it will not topple.'”  It really does not get any more simple or straightforward than this.  God does not want us to take some day of our choice and its customs that are founded in paganism, and “make” it a day of honor towards Him.  God wants us to worship Him in truth (compare John 4:23-24), following His directives. He does not want us to worship Him pursuant to the creations of man (compare Matthew 15:9).

Hopefully, one day the Sheriff will be able to take his zeal and combine it with truth as God desires.  What a powerful combination this will be in the future!  But for those that have an ear to hear now, there is the opportunity, and even more importantly, the obligation to live His way of life with a  fervor and enthusiasm that is becoming of the Word of God.  We are admonished not to lose our first love (compare Revelation 2:4), lest we are found unprepared when Christ returns (compare Matthew 25:5).

Let us be ready to give an answer or a defense for what we believe (compare 1 Peter 3:15).  Now is the time to not take “standing up” sitting down!

Sex and Marriage, Part 4

On December 8, 2007, Norbert Link will give the sermon, titled, “Sex and Marriage, Part 4.”

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

Preaching the Gospel and Feeding the Flock

Our new booklet on man’s holidays and God’s Holy Days has entered the first review cycle.

A new StandingWatch program was posted on StandingWatch and on Google Video, titled, “The Law of God, Part 2.” In the program, Norbert Link asks the following questions:

Do you believe that Christ’s death abolished the Law of the Ten Commandments? If so, why did Christ tell us to obey Him and keep the commandments? Many think Paul taught in the book of Galatians that the law of the Ten Commandments was our tutor that brought us to Christ, but that we are today no longer under a tutor. But DID Paul speak about the Ten Commandments in that context? And if not, what law did he refer to?

In a recent Q&A on the throne of David (Update #315), you quote Jeremiah 33:17, 21 for your assertion that there will always be a descendant sitting on the throne of David, until Christ returns. You state that after the beginning of the Babylonian captivity of the house of Judah, the throne of David was transferred to Ireland, then to Scotland, and finally to England, where it is occupied today by Queen Elizabeth II. But how does this square with the passage in Jeremiah, saying that a "man" or a "son" of David, and not a woman, would always be sitting on that throne?

Although in the vast majority of cases, men have been sitting on the throne of David, it is indeed correct that on a few occasions, a woman, rather than a man, occupied the throne.

We are told that the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed on May 1, 1707, with the merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, which had been in personal union under the House of Stuart since 1603. In 1801 Great Britain merged with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. After most of Ireland left the union in 1922, in 1927 its name was amended to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In looking at lists of the English monarchy, we find that for instance Anne, from the house of Stuart, ruled England and Scotland from 1707 until 1714; Victoria, from the house of Hanover, ruled England from 1837 until 1901; and Elizabeth II, from the house of Windsor, has been ruling England since 1952.

How, then, was the prophecy in Jeremiah 33 fulfilled, stating that “a man” or “a son” of David would always sit on his throne?

(1) David Won’t Lack a “Man”

Let us consider the Hebrew meaning of the word, translated as “MAN” in Jeremiah 33:17, where we read: “David shall never lack a MAN to sit on the throne of the house of Israel.”

According to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew word for “man” is “adam.” Young’s explains that the word “adam” does not just mean “man,” but it includes a woman as well; in other words, a better translation would be “human being.” For instance, we read in Genesis 1:27: “So God created man (“adam” in Hebrew) in His own image; in the image of God He created him; MALE and FEMALE He created them.”

Many other Biblical passages could be cited, using the word “adam” or “man” for both males and females, or men and women. For instance, please note Genesis 6:1, 4, 5, 7; 7:21; 8:21, etc. etc.

According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, No. 376, the Hebrew word for “man” in Jeremiah 33:17 is not “adam,” but “iysh.” Without determining which Concordance is correct, the meaning of the Hebrew word “iysh” is not limited to a male, either; it can also include a female, so that a better rendition would be, “human being.” Note, for example, the following passages, which, according to Strong’s, use the Hebrew word “iysh”: Job 15:16; 34:11; 38:26; Psalm 34:12; 39:11; 78:25, etc. etc.

Many Bible translations have recognized the fact that God did not limit the descendants of David, sitting on the throne of David, to males, while excluding females. As a consequence, note how they render the passage in Jeremiah 33:17:

“David shall never lack an HEIR to sit on the throne of the house of Israel” (Lamsa; compare also the Living Bible).

“David will never lack a SUCCESSOR on the throne of Israel” (Revised English Bible; compare also the New American Bible).

“A Davidic KING shall never be lacking to sit upon the throne of Israel” (Moffat).

“David shall never lack a DESCENDANT to sit on the throne of the house of Israel” (Menge and Zuercher).

“David shall never lack SOMEONE sitting on the throne of the house of Israel” (Luther).

(2) David Shall Never Lack a “Son”

However, how are we to understand verses 20-21 of Jeremiah 33, which state:

“… If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a SON to reign on his throne…”

The Hebrew word for “son” is “ben” and just means “offspring” (compare Young’s). As with the Hebrew word “adam,” the word “ben” is not limited to male offspring, but can and does at times include female offspring, depending on the context. For several examples, where the word “ben” is translated as “sons,” but clearly means, “offspring,” note the passages in Ecclesiastes 2:3; 3:18, 19; 8:11; 9:12.

In addition, according to Young’s, the two words “ben adam” are used in Ecclesiastes 3:21, clearly referring to male and female. We read: “Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward…” Young states that the meaning of “sons of men” simply is, “human beings.”

Again, many translations render the phrase in Jeremiah 33:21 in such a way as to convey their understanding that the word “ben” does not have to mean a “male son,” but could simply mean “offspring”:

“… Then may also my covenant which I made with David my servant be broken, so that he should not have an HEIR to reign upon his throne…” (Lamsa).

“… so that he would not have a DESCENDANT reigning upon his throne…” (Tanakh; compare also the New International Version and the Menge Bible).

“… none of his LINE… ” (The Revised English Bible).

That the Hebrew word “ben” cannot literally mean “son” in Jeremiah 33:21, is clear from the context anyway–God was obviously not just talking about David’s SON Solomon; rather, He was referring to David’s DESCENDANTS who would be ruling on the throne for thousands of years to come, until Christ returns (who, as a descendant of David, would then take over the throne).

(3) God Explains the Meaning

It is, therefore, a question of context, as how to translate the Hebrew words “adam” or “iysh,” and “ben.” In the case of Jeremiah 33:17, 21, “offspring” and “descendant” seem to be the correct choices, regardless of the gender, as God Himself explains the meaning of His covenant in the same 33rd chapter of the book of Jeremiah, in verses 25- 26:

He says about David: “If My covenant is not with day and night… then I will cast away the DESCENDANTS of… David My servant, so that I will not take any of his DESCENDANTS to be rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” The Authorized Version translates “seed” for “descendants.” The Hebrew word is “zera” and means “progeny,” irrespective of gender. Compare passages such as Genesis 15:13; 16:10; Malachi 2:15.

(4) God’s Law Includes Female Descendants

In addition, even if the Hebrew terms “adam” or “iysh” and “ben” were to be understood as “man” and “son,” female descendants would STILL be included, according to the Word of God. Howard B. Rand writes in “Study in Jeremiah,” on pages 203 and 204:

“… church leaders have for the most part completely failed to recognize that with the death of the sons of Zedekiah [the last king of Judah ruling in Jerusalem] the inheritance passed to a daughter who became the heir apparent to the Throne of David. This was in accordance with the following judgment rendered by God at the request of Moses in behalf of the daughters of Zelophehad: ‘And thou shall speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughters (Num. 27:8).”

(5) Women “Ruled” on David’s Throne Before Jeremiah

There were times in Judah PRIOR to Jeremiah, when a queen, and not a king, ruled on the throne of David (compare 2 Kings 11:1-3). When God reiterated to Jeremiah the covenant that He had made with David, He surely knew that not only males, but also females had been ruling on David’s throne, and that they would sit on David’s throne in the future (including Zedekiah’s daughter). He therefore intended female rulers to be included in His promise.

We might also remember that there were times in ancient Judah when a young male was technically “king,” but practically, the throne was occupied by the son’s mother. Man would have looked at this situation, perhaps, as a woman–the king’s mother–sitting on the throne, but in God’s eyes, she just administered the throne for her royal child (compare 2 Kings 15:1-2; 22:1-2).

Based on all the foregoing, including the historical facts and developments, both before and subsequent to the prophet Jeremiah, we must conclude that God’s covenant with David was meant to include male and female descendants. Today, Queen Elizabeth II, who is a direct descendant of King David, sits on the throne of David, and her son, Prince Charles, or her grandson, Prince William, might very well be sitting on that throne in the not-too-distant future.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

©2024 Church of the Eternal God