Preparation and Consistency; The Two Witnesses and Christ’s Return

On July 21, 2018, Kalon Mitchell will present the sermonette, titled, “Preparation and Consistency,” and Norbert Link will present the sermon, titled, “The Two Witnesses and Christ’s Return.”

The live services are available, over video and audio, at http://eternalgod.org/live-services/ (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time; 8:30 pm Greenwich Mean Time; 9:30 pm Central European Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

I was talking with my son the other day about how each of our lives are different. We don’t do the same things for work and for fun; we do not have the same friends and there are many other examples which could be stated. Occasionally, things overlap and that is where friendships and shared interests come into play. But everyone’s paths are unique.

For the most part, we are each on our own paths. As a Church, we work together towards the same goals, but as Proverbs 14:10 points out, we are responsible for ourselves: “The heart knows its own bitterness, And a stranger does not share its joy.”

Growing up, I remember hearing about the end coming and all the ins and outs. I remember feeling scared and nervous about the things that were to happen. And then we add the knowledge that we don’t know the exact time of Christ’s return. This has made it tough at times to live with the right perspective. But indeed, it takes the right perspective to live, not swaying to the right hand or to the left (compare Proverbs 4:27; Deuteronomy 5:32; Joshua 1:7; Isaiah 30:21). The choice is ours. That should be the scariest part for us as Christians. God has already decided before time began that He would call us in this day and age. Science has shown us that the odds of you and me being born is 1 in 400 trillion. Think about that for a moment, let it sink in. Is it odd that we were born, in the time and place that we have been? I think not! 2 Peter 1:10 asks us how we are doing in our calling, in our diligence, in our effort to make sure that we don’t fall, that we don’t stumble.

As I stated before, our paths are all unique. We go through the issues in life to learn. Oftentimes, we don’t learn from others’ mistakes, even though we could and should if we were wise enough (1 Corinthians 10:11; Proverbs 1:1-9). Rather, we have to trudge through the trials and learn the hard way (Proverbs 11:2; James 1:2-4; Romans 8:28; Proverbs 24:16). The key is to pick up the pieces, learn, repent and move forward. In Philippians 3:13 Paul had every reason to be regretful and discouraged about his past, but he didn’t dwell on those things. He worked diligently to move forward.

How are we dealing with the fact that we are starting to see how end-time prophecy is being fulfilled? Are we scared? Are we happy? Are we joyful? Are we blasé and indifferent?  What is our perspective as we watch the world unraveling?

Do we understand that prophecy in and of itself is very sensational, but yet we should not be seeking prophecy for prophecy’s sake alone? Prophecy should help us to discern the times that we are living in and help us to temper our mindsets and attitudes and to give us additional motivation and zeal to do the Work and the Will of God. Paul was keen to tell this to Timothy, a young minister, in 2 Timothy 3:10-17. Wisdom and salvation are mentioned in verse 15. They are vitally important in keeping us going each day. If we are doing these things, then they help us to decide what we should be doing.

We need to acquire and keep the right and proper perspective at all times.  1 Corinthians 10:12-13 warns us to take careful note, think deeply, study hard, and lean in more and more fervently on God. God doesn’t want us to fail. Our own failings take us away.  2 Timothy 2:15 asks us to be diligent in presenting ourselves to God as worthy of the calling given to us.

So what is our perspective in regard to our calling? What are we doing about it? Where do we stand? These types of questions can only be answered truthfully by each Church member. If we find that the answers are not good and promising, then it is high time that we make the necessary corrections while we still can.

by Norbert Link

We begin this special report with the events as they transpired at the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki and the extraordinary backlash Mr. Trump experienced by fellow Republicans and other conservative commentators (and of course from liberal newscasts and Democrats); Mr. Trump’s attempt of damage control and an interesting perspective by Pat Buchanan; and we continue to focus on events in Great Britain pertaining to Mr. Trump’s visit and the ongoing Brexit negotiations.

We address the war of words between America and Europe (especially Germany); the perception of a dying or already dead NATO; and Europe’s concern for their own interest (please note in this regard another thought-provoking article by Pat Buchanan).

We ask the question as to how trustworthy the FBI is in light of FBI agent Peter Strzok’s startling admissions; address China’s desire for world domination; speak on ongoing violence at the Gaza strip in spite of an agreed-upon “ceasefire”; report on Canada’s descent into ungodliness; and conclude with new evidence proving that the “Shroud of Turin” was not the burial cloth of Jesus. 

Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.

The Controversial Putin-Trump “Summit”

Daily Mail wrote on July 16:

“[Putin] denied meddling in the 2016 presidential election but admitted he had hoped Trump would defeat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton… Trump backed up Putin’s denials, saying he thought Russia had no reason to interfere in the election and contradicting his country’s own FBI which believes Moscow was responsible for hacking during the campaign.

“He said that ‘we’ve all been foolish… we’ve both made mistakes’…

“Putin said Moscow and Washington could jointly conduct criminal investigations into Russian intelligence officials accused of hacking during the campaign. In what Trump described as an ‘incredible offer’ Putin said Washington could use a 1999 agreement to request that Russian authorities interrogate the 12 suspects, adding that U.S. officials could ask to be present in such interrogations.

[As Newsmax reported on July 15, “A U.S. grand jury issued an indictment against the agents on Friday, charging them with hacking into email accounts controlled by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The charges stem from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the election and any involvement by Trump’s campaign, a probe the president has repeatedly derided as a ‘witch hunt.’…”]

“Trump had said in a CBS interview that he had given no thought to asking Putin to extradite the dozen Russian military intelligence officers… Extradition is unlikely as the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty with Moscow and can’t force the Russians to hand over citizens. Russia’s constitution also prohibits turning over citizens to foreign governments…

“… at least in his public remarks at the outset, [Trump] mentioned none of the issues that have lately brought US-Russian relations to the lowest point since the Cold War: Moscow’s annexation of territory from Ukraine, its support for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, as well as Western accusations that it poisoned a spy in England…”

Many additional important issues were not addressed during the news conference, including Russia’s abominable persecution of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 16:

“… Putin spoke frankly on the topic of Crimea, saying that the US delegation had expressed its view that the invasion was illegal. The Russian president disagreed with Trump on the issue and concluded that ‘the Crimea question is closed for Russia…’”

Trump in League with Putin?

The Week wrote on July 16:

“… it is simply beyond question that Trump is really deferential to the Russian president… This is a terrible development for many reasons. First and most importantly is that it’s bad for the hugely powerful American executive branch to be even partially in league with a man like Putin…”

Trump Strongly Criticized by Republicans

The Huffington Post wrote on July 16:

“President Donald Trump’s performance during a press conference after a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on Monday left critics of all stripes howling… Trump’s comments drew fierce criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike…

“On Fox News Business, several guests reacted by saying that Putin outmaneuvered Trump during the summit. On the channel, the network’s Neil Cavuto termed Trump’s performance ‘disgusting.’ George W. Bush’s press secretary Ari Fleischer… said he can understand why some Democrats believe Putin must have compromising information on Trump… Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, a Republican, said Trump ‘failed America today’…

“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell… said succinctly: ‘The Russians are not our friends. I’ve said that repeatedly, I say it again today. And I have complete confidence in our intelligence community and the findings that they have announced.’…”

The Guardian wrote on July 16:

“House speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican, said: ‘… There is no question that Russia interfered in our election and continues attempts to undermine democracy here and around the world. That is not just the finding of the American intelligence community but also the House Committee on Intelligence. The president must appreciate that Russia is not our ally. There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals. The United States must be focused on holding Russia accountable and putting an end to its vile attacks on democracy.’

Deutsche Welle added on July 16:

“Top Republican Senator John McCain called Trump’s summit in Helsinki a ‘tragic mistake,’ lamenting that the US president was ‘unable’ to stand up to Putin. ‘Coming close on the heels of President Trump’s bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain, today’s press conference marks a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency,’ McCain’s statement read. ‘No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant,’ McCain said…”

Newt Gingrich and Bret Baier Strongly Criticize Trump

Newsmax wrote on July 16:

“President Donald Trump choosing not to endorse the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election is ‘the most serious mistake of his presidency,’ former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tweeted Monday: ‘President Trump must clarify his statements in Helsinki on our intelligence system and Putin… [It] must be corrected—-immediately.’”

Fox News (Bret Baier) wrote on July 16:

“President Trump left many deeply disappointed in his approach to his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin… For a sitting U.S. president to say publicly that he believes a foreign leader over his own intelligence team is shocking and admonishable. At a time when our democracy faces grave threats, it is deeply troubling that the president would side with the very country who attacked us… Crucially, there were no concessions from Russia on any of the issues that needed to be addressed…

“Despite each nation backing different sides in the Syrian conflict, Trump suggested he and Putin would begin working in conjunction to bring humanitarian aid to the people of Syria, regardless of the fact that the need for humanitarian aid largely stems from Putin’s unabashed support for Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad. Additionally, Trump also failed to address the concerns of our NATO allies Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the Baltics regarding the territorial threats they persistently face. Trump, throughout the entire press conference, failed to condemn or even acknowledge the illegality of Putin’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine…”

When Trump supporter Newt Gingrich and moderators on Fox News disapprove of Mr. Trump’s conduct, then this is worthwhile contemplating.

BBC News wrote on July 16:

“Washington’s Nato allies and many seasoned observers on Capitol Hill must have been watching in horror…”

While many Russian papers approved the summit, most German papers overwhelmingly condemned Mr. Trump’s behavior.

Trump’s Attempted “Damage Control”

Huffington Post wrote on July 17:

“President Donald Trump on Tuesday responded to the widespread condemnation of his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, claiming that he believes the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. His words came a day after he sided with Putin in an extraordinary press conference. ‘I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place,’ he said Tuesday, appearing to read from prepared remarks, before suggesting that it ‘could be other people also. A lot of people out there.’

“During Monday’s press conference with Putin, he refused to condemn Russia’s interference, saying that he accepted the Russian president’s denial and took Putin’s word over the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies, which he has continually attacked during his presidency. ‘President Putin just said it’s not Russia,’ Trump said. ‘I don’t see any reason why it would be.’

“But on Tuesday, Trump claimed that he misspoke, explaining that he meant to say that he saw no reason why it would not be Russia. ‘I would like to clarify, in a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word “would” instead of “wouldn’t.” The sentence should have been: “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia,”’ he said.”

Fox News added: 

“It’s unclear whether the clarification will calm the backlash in Washington, as Trump also said following his meeting with Putin that the Russian leader gave a ‘strong and powerful’ denial.”

Whether this “clarification” will satisfy most of the Republican critics will indeed have to be seen. After all, here is the exact quote:  “They (the US intelligent agencies) said they think it’s Russia. President Putin just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be. I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.” (Compare The Daily Mail, July 17.)

No One Is Buying

nzherald.co.nz wrote on July 18:

“In a shocking revelation, no one is buying Donald Trump’s latest backflip… Trump said it was ‘sort of a double negative,’ adding, ‘I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.’ That didn’t go down too well online.”

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 18:

“Maas criticized the US president once again on Wednesday…  Asked to assess Trump’s reversal of remarks, Maas was quoted as saying: ‘This is apparently an attempt at damage limitation. It doesn’t appear particularly convincing.’

“Germany’s foreign minister went on to say he regretted that Trump didn’t backtrack on his most recent criticisms of the European Union — which he described as a foe — shortly before setting off for Helsinki…”

Another Viewpoint by Pat Buchanan

On July 17, Newsmax published the following commentary by Pat Buchanan who has been an adviser to three presidents and a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination:

“Beginning his joint press conference with Vladimir Putin, President Trump declared that U.S. relations with Russia have ‘never been worse.’ He then added pointedly, that just changed ‘about four hours ago.’ It certainly did. With his remarks in Helsinki and at the NATO summit in Brussels, Trump has signaled a historic shift in U.S. foreign policy that may determine the future of this nation…

“He has rejected the fundamental premises of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and blamed our wretched relations with Russia, not on Vladimir Putin, but squarely on the U.S. establishment. Looking back over the week, from Brussels to Britain to Helsinki, Trump’s message has been clear, consistent and startling.

“NATO is obsolete. European allies have freeloaded off U.S. defense while rolling up huge trade surpluses at our expense. Those days are over. Europeans are going to stop stealing our markets and start paying for their own defense… We are not going to let Putin’s annexation of Crimea or aid to pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine prevent us from working on a rapprochement and a partnership with him, Trump is saying…

“America is coming home from foreign wars and will be shedding foreign commitments…

“When Trump spoke of the ‘foolishness and stupidity’ of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that contributed to this era of animosity in U.S.-Russia relations, what might he have had in mind?

“Was it the U.S. provocatively moving NATO into Russia’s front yard after the collapse of the USSR? Was it the U.S. invasion of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have that plunged us into endless wars of the Middle East? Was it U.S. support of Syrian rebels determined to oust Bashar Assad, leading to ISIS intervention and a seven-year civil war with half a million dead, a war which Putin eventually entered to save his Syrian ally?

“Was it George W. Bush’s abrogation of Richard Nixon’s ABM treaty and drive for a missile defense that caused Putin to break out of the Reagan INF treaty and start deploying cruise missiles to counter it? Was it U.S. complicity in the Kiev coup that ousted the elected pro-Russian regime that caused Putin to seize Crimea to hold onto Russia’s Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol?… Russia annexed Crimea bloodlessly. But did not the U.S. bomb Serbia for 78 days to force Belgrade to surrender her cradle province of Kosovo? How was that more moral than what Putin did in Crimea?”

May: “My Deal [Soft Brexit] Is the Only Brexit Deal”

Theresa May Prime wrote the following on July 14 for The Mail On Sunday:

“Our Brexit deal for Britain seizes the moment to deliver the democratic decision of the British people and secure a bright new future for our country outside the European Union… If we don’t [accept it], we risk ending up with no Brexit at all. This is a time to be practical and pragmatic – backing our plan to get Britain out of the European Union on March 29 next year and delivering for the British people…

“… we can get a good deal and that is what is best for Britain. But we should also prepare for no deal… Our Brexit deal is… a complete plan with a set of outcomes that are non-negotiable.

“People voted to end free movement. So free movement will end. People voted to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in our country; and we are going to deliver that too. We will leave the Single Market and customs union, and get out of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. We will have that independent trade policy and a new UK-EU free trade area with a common rulebook for industrial goods and agricultural products. And we will maintain close co-operation with the EU on security to keep our people safe while ensuring we have our own independent foreign and trade policy. None of these things is up for debate…”

May Compromises on Brexit Deal

Deutsche Welle reported on July 16:

“British Prime Minister Theresa May gave in to demands from her party’s hardliners on Monday, accepting four amendments that would limit the government’s ability to set up customs arrangements with the European Union after Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019… Monday’s vote once again exposed deep divisions within the Conservative Party over Brexit…”

May’s Soft Brexit Gives Germany What It Wants

Handelsblatt Global wrote on July 13:

“Theresa May’s long-awaited White Paper aims to keep manufacturing in Britain, and is willing to surrender London’s financial access to the EU in return… Berlin would surely prefer that Britain simply stay in the European Union. But as alternatives go, London’s latest proposal for the post-Brexit relationship suits Germany just fine…

“The paper aims to jump start the process of reaching an ‘association agreement’ with the European Union to govern relations after Brexit. With Britain formally leaving the European Union in March 2019, time for a deal between London and Brussels is quickly running out…

“That deal would effectively keep Britain’s rules and regulations aligned with those of the European Union, allowing trade in goods to flow freely and the Irish border with Northern Ireland to remain open. It’s almost like still being in the EU’s single market and customs union, which is what has Brexit supporters so outraged…”

It does not appear that this will be the deal to which all sides agree.

“EU Urges No-Deal Brexit Preparation”

The EUObserver wrote on July 19:

“Four million UK and EU citizens stuck in a legal limbo, border checks re-installed, transportation severely disrupted, trade and supply chains breaking down… This gloomy scenario would kick in the day after Brexit, if no divorce deal is agreed by the EU and the UK, the EU Commission warned on Thursday…

“The commission urged citizens, businesses and member states to take action on preparing for 30 March 2019 now, highlighting the rising concerns of a no-deal exit in European capitals…”

Trump Wants to Run Again; Reveals Details of Conversation with the Queen on Brexit

Newsmax republished the following article by Reuters on July 14:

“President Donald Trump said in an interview that he intends to run for re-election in the 2020 election, the Mail on Sunday newspaper reported. When asked by Piers Morgan in an interview given on Friday in Britain whether he was going to run, Trump said: ‘Well I fully intend to. It seems like everybody wants me to,’ the newspaper said. Trump said he did not see any Democrat who could beat him…

“In the interview with Morgan, Trump took the unusual step of disclosing details about his conversation with British Queen Elizabeth. When asked if he had discussed Brexit with the monarch, Trump said: ‘I did. She said it’s a very – and she’s right – it’s a very complex problem, I think nobody had any idea how complex that was going to be… Everyone thought it was going to be “Oh it’s simple, we join or don’t join, or let’s see what happens.”’…

“When asked about North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump said: ‘… Sure he is, he’s ruthless, but so are others.’”

As we have announced for a long time, in case of elections in 2020, Donald Trump will be re-elected.

Charles and William Refused to Meet with Trump

The Hill wrote on July 15:

“Prince Charles and Prince William refused to meet with President Trump during his visit to the United Kingdom, according to London newspaper The Sunday Times… It’s a very, very unusual thing for the queen to be there on her own. Usually she is accompanied by somebody. Prince Charles has been substituting for Philip a lot recently.’ Prince Philip, who, at 97, has officially retired from royal duties, ‘goes to what he wants to go to,’ the source said, adding that ‘if he had wanted to be there he could have been.’…

“Charles reportedly attended a board meeting for his company and an event with Gloucestershire police, while William participated in a charity polo match and Prince Harry attended other private engagements, according to the Times.”

NATO Dying or Dead?

Euractiv wrote on July 13:

“‘There is no longer confidence in NATO,’ a diplomat told EURACTIV. Fewer and fewer European countries trust that the US would defend them if they were invaded by Russia. Under Trump, NATO will soon be as dead as the proverbial dodo. The EU needs to overcome its internal divisions fast and make sure NATO is replaced by a real European defence alliance.”

And that is exactly what will happen.

The Washington Post wrote on July 12:

“Trump has been calling NATO a waste of money for decades. ‘America has no vital interest’ in Europe, he wrote in 2000: ‘Their conflicts are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use.’ During his election campaign, he refused to reaffirm any commitment to NATO’s Article 5 security guarantee. During his first NATO summit last year, he again refused to reaffirm Article 5, though an administration official had promised he would…” 

NATO–Defending Others?

The Huffington Post wrote on July 18:

“President Donald Trump on Tuesday once again threw cold water on NATO… Trump expressed skepticism over the decades-old defense pact, which obligates member countries to defend any other member country that comes under attack, during an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.

“When Carlson asked why the U.S. should protect a country like Montenegro, which joined NATO last year, Trump said he has asked himself the same question. ‘Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people,’ Trump said. ‘They’re very aggressive people, and they may get aggressive, and congratulations, you’re in World War III. But that’s the way it was set up.’”

NATO Hits Back at Trump’s Montenegro World War III Remarks

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 18:

“NATO officials on Wednesday scrambled to reassert the alliance’s collective defense clause— commonly referred to as Article 5 — after US President Donald Trump appeared to suggest NATO’s newest member Montenegro could instigate World War III. A NATO official told Germany’s DPA news agency that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was ‘unconditional and iron-clad,’ reaffirming that ‘an attack on one is an attack on all.’…

“According to reports in Montenegro, Russia… attempted to organize a coup in a bid to derail Montenegrin accession. Fourteen people are on trial for attempting to assassinate then-Prime Minister Milo Djukanovicduring the 2016 election…”

Buchanan Coming to Trump’s Defense

On July 13, Newsmax published the following commentary by Patrick Buchanan:

“Of President Donald Trump’s explosion at Angela Merkel’s Germany during the NATO summit, it needs to be said: It is long past time we raised our voices. America pays more for NATO, an alliance created 69 years ago to defend Europe, than do the Europeans. And as Europe free-rides off our defense effort, the EU runs trade surpluses at our expense that exceed $100 billion a year. To Trump, and not only to him, we are being used, gouged, by rich nations we defend, while they skimp on their own defense.

“At Brussels, Trump had a new beef with the Germans, though similar problems date back to the Reagan era. Now we see the Germans, Trump raged, whom we are protecting from Russia, collaborating with Russia and deepening their dependence on Russian natural gas by jointly building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline under the Baltic Sea. When completed, this pipeline will leave Germany and Europe even more deeply reliant on Russia for their energy needs…

“Germany spends 1.2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, while the U.S. spends 3.5 percent. Why? Why — nearly three decades after the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the crackup of the Soviet Union and the overthrow of the Communist dictatorship in Moscow — are we still defending European nations that collectively have 10 times the GDP of Vladimir Putin’s Russia?… Trump is not bluffing. He is visibly losing patience.

“… it could be the beginning of the end for NATO. And not only NATO. South Korea, with an economy 40 times that of North Korea, spends 2.6 percent of its GDP on defense, while, by one estimate, North Korea spends 22 percent, the highest share on earth. Japan, with the world’s third-largest economy, spends an even smaller share of its GDP on defense than Germany, 0.9 percent. Thus, though Seoul and Tokyo are far more menaced by a nuclear-armed North Korea and a rising China, like the Europeans, both continue to rely upon us as they continue to run large trade surpluses with us.

“… We are giving the world a lesson in how great powers decline. America’s situation is unsustainable economically and politically, and it’s transparently intolerable to Trump…”

And so, the final break between America and Europe will occur very soon.

EU Bad for USA and America’s Foe?

The Sun wrote on July 15:

“Theresa May has finally revealed the explosive Brexit advice Donald Trump gave to her… The Prime Minister said the US President told her not to even enter into a negotiation with Brussels at all, and just to start a legal war instead. She made the startling revelation while speaking to the BBC this morning, but said she did not take Mr Trump’s ‘brutal’ suggestion on board.”

The Sun wrote on July 13:

“[Mr. Trump] suggested Mrs May’s plans for a soft Brexit was a hostile move towards the US because ‘the European Union is very bad to the United States on trade’…”

CBS News reported on July 15:

“In an interview with ‘CBS Evening News’ anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President Trump named the European Union… when asked to identify his ‘biggest foe globally right now.’ ‘Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn’t think of the European Union, but they’re a foe. Russia is [a] foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe…

“I respect the leaders of those countries. But, in a trade sense, they’ve really taken advantage of us and many of those countries are in NATO and they weren’t paying their bills… EU is very difficult… Maybe the thing that is most difficult — don’t forget both my parents were born in EU sectors okay? I mean my mother was Scotland, my father was Germany. And — you know I love those countries. I respect the leaders of those countries. But — in a trade sense, they’ve really taken advantage of us and many of those countries are in NATO and they weren’t paying their bills and, you know, as an example a big problem with Germany…”

The EUObserver wrote on July 16:

“Trump… designated the EU as an enemy while talking about a trade war with Europe… To add insult to injury, the state department said that it would impose sanctions on EU firms doing business with Iran, the NBC network also reported… The refusal to exempt EU firms comes despite the fact Russia is to invest $50bn in Iran’s energy sector. Russia also sold Iran high-tech anti-aircraft systems, with no Trump objections. That US messaging turned the world upside down for the European Union.”

Wars begin with words. To call an ally one’s foe is a further step. So are Germany’s responses. Note the next article.

Germany on the Attack Against Trump

The Local wrote on July 13:

“Berlin was still reeling on Friday from US President Donald Trump’s attacks on the NATO military alliance, with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas warning that the US President was willfully damaging western security. ‘Europe can’t accept that which has been built up over many decades being damaged willfully out of a desire to provoke,’ Minister Maas wrote in a Tweet on Friday…

“Meanwhile, Minister Maas’ predecessor had stronger words for the US President. Former German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said Europe should stand up to Trump, warning that the US President is pushing for ‘regime change’ in Germany… ‘We must no longer have any illusions,’ added the Social Democrat (SPD) politician. ‘Donald Trump only understands strength. So we have to show him that we are strong. If he demands billions back from us for the USA’s military spending, then we should demand billions back from him for the refugees produced by failed US military interventions, for example, in Iraq.’”

Bloomberg wrote on July 16:

“Germany’s foreign minister urged the European Union to ‘readjust’ its relationship with the U.S. and said the bloc can no longer fully rely on the White House after President Donald Trump identified America’s long-term ally as a ‘foe.’… ‘If the American president identifies the European Union as a “foe,” this unfortunately shows once more how wide the Atlantic has become in political terms since Donald Trump has been in office,’ German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told the Funke newspaper group in an interview.

“The comments reflect those of Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has reinforced her statement from May 2017 that Europe’s full reliance on relations with the U.S. since World War II is ‘to some extent over’ — and that the bloc must take its destiny more into its own hands…

“Maas, a member of Germany’s Social Democrats, the junior partner in Merkel’s ruling coalition, said that nations must stand together ‘in a self-confident and sovereign Europe.’ EU member states mustn’t allow themselves to be divided, ‘no matter how harsh the verbal attacks and how absurd the tweets may be.’”

Due to current developments, Europe feels that it must unite militarily… and it will.

Europeans Seeking Their Own Interest

Handelsblatt Global wrote on July 17:

“We saw a new world order loom like an iceberg at the meeting of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. The Russian leader emerged victorious at a press conference which was historic for all the wrong reasons…

“Trump also ignored Europe… Mystifyingly, Trump elevated Russia, an enemy, to an equal, despite the major disparity in their economies and powers. That insistent support will have done lasting damage to trans-Atlantic relations… eastern European countries close to Russia… have to wonder whether they [can] count on support from Washington in the future…

“Meanwhile European leaders are busy defending their countries’ interests. Today they sign JEFTA, the trade pact between the EU and Japan… It’s the biggest deal negotiated by the bloc so far and creates the world’s largest open area for trade.

“And in Beijing, Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk found a new rapport as both blocs fend off US tariff disputes. The two sides said they are seeking to uphold a ‘free trade and multilateral order.’ That embrace is all the more surprising given that, at last year’s summit, the EU and China had so little in common they didn’t even issue a joint statement. How much has changed in a year.”

Soon, America will become totally irrelevant on the world scene in just about every respect.

Trump Defends Google Against EU

The Telegraph reported on July 19:

“Donald Trump hinted that he may block trade routes with Europe after its lawmakers hit Google with a record £3.9bn fine over its smartphone business.

“The US president took to Twitter to lash out at the European Union, which handed the penalty to the search giant over its Android operating system. ‘I told you so! The European Union just slapped a Five Billion Dollar fine on one of our great companies, Google. They truly have taken advantage of the US, but not for long!,’ he wrote on the social network.”

The Week published an article on July 19, with the headline: “Europe’s Idiotic War on Google.”

Most Germans Fear Trump More than Putin, but Don’t Trust Either…

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 15:

“… two-thirds of Germans think that the US president is more dangerous than his Russian counterpart… When asked which world leader was the greater threat to world security, 64 percent of respondents chose US President Donald Trump over his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin… And the German antipathy for Trump doesn’t end there: 56 percent of respondents thought that Putin was more competent than Trump, with only 5 percent preferring the latter on that score. Thirty-six percent of Germans find Putin more likable than Trump, while 6 percent say the opposite — although most respondents refused to indicate a preference on that question.

“And, perhaps most surprisingly, 44 percent said Putin was more powerful than Trump, compared with only 29 percent who thought the US president has more power… German… conservative voters were slightly more likely (66 percent) to class Trump as the bigger threat than people overall in the poll…

“‘The world’s two most powerful men have one thing in common,’ Bild’s lead story on Sunday reads. ‘They want to weaken Europe.’ That’s a widespread view around Germany, where many people fear that Trump’s occasional hostility to NATO, for instance, plays into Putin’s strategic aim of dividing the West and increasing Russia’s influence in the world…

“The distrust of Trump’s motivations and leadership capabilities is apparent in how Germans see the United States as a whole. In a YouGov poll published earlier in July, Germans were asked whether they had a generally positive or negative view of the United States. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they viewed the US negatively, compared with only 29 percent who chose positively…”

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 13:

“Germans are under no doubts that Putin, for his part, is pursuing… a long-term aggressive, anti-European policy… and is trying to drive a wedge between the US and its European allies… [Moscow] has an interest in America withdrawing from Europe…”

The Bible indicates that this is exactly what America will do.

FBI Trustworthy?

CBN wrote on July 12:

“Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring testimony from embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok erupted into absolute chaos shortly after opening statements. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was the first to question the agent, asking Strzok how many people had been interviewed in the Russia probe from July 31-Aug. 8. Strzok declined to answer, saying that FBI counsel instructed him not to answer questions about an ongoing investigation. This set off pandemonium, as lawmakers exchanged heated barbs and bickered over hearing rules…

“Strzok’s anti-Trump text messages took center stage and caused congressional leaders to question Strzok on his partisan bias over the course of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton’s use of her email server. Strzok exchanged troubling text messages with FBI attorney, Lisa Page. Page and Strzok both worked on the FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails and, later, on special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation…

“Strzok said that while the texts reflected his personal beliefs at the time, they did not ‘ever enter into the realm of any action I took.’ Strzok noted that there are numerous procedures and guidelines in place at the FBI to stop such instances of agents who are acting in any way other than an official capacity…

“Strzok says a text message suggesting that he would stop then-candidate Trump from being president was written late at night, and ‘in no way suggested that I or the FBI would take any action’ to intervene in Trump’s election…”

However, there can be no doubt that such bias may very well influence decisions being made in the course of official business.

China’s Challenge to US Naval Supremacy

The Sydney Morning Herald wrote on July 14:

“China’s biggest challenge to the supremacy of the US Navy will come within the year, a well regarded Australian strategic analyst predicted in Washington this week. It will come in the form of the announcement that China’s armed forces will hold exercises in the international waters of the South China Sea and that, to protect public safety, it will close the air and sea space in the area, he said. Even though this would be presented as a temporary measure – a few days, perhaps a week – it would be the end of freedom of navigation and overflight if it went unchallenged.

“Seventy years of American dominance would be over. The US Navy effectively would have been pushed back from China’s coastline by more than 1000 kilometres, right out to the limit of China’s nine-dash line marking its disputed claim to the South China Sea. Beijing would have asserted de facto control of the world’s most valuable commercial artery and 3.6 million square kilometres of ocean. The other six countries with claims to parts of the South China Sea would have been sidelined. Other countries would be permitted to use it only with China’s consent. ‘The question is, what are we going to do about it?’ posed the director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, a former head of strategy for the Defence Department…

“The question was an uncomfortable one for many in the audience, which included senior officials, politicians and others from both countries… Australian and American representatives… agreed that the Jennings scenario was plausible; some said it was likely. None thought it implausible.

“What would Donald Trump do? Would Trump’s America be steadfast in a crisis? Or would the administration be too distracted, too confused, or too compromised by its other negotiations with China to stand its ground?… While the US has dithered, China’s President Xi Jinping has been clear and purposeful. ‘Like clockwork,’ says Jennings, ‘every three to four months they take another step to consolidate their gains in the South China Sea’, where Beijing has constructed man-made islands in contested waters and equipped them with runways, reinforced hangars, and batteries of anti-ship and anti-air missiles. A Chinese heavy bomber recently touched down on one of the islands for the first time…

“If China presses its case and the US fails to act, does the Royal Australian Navy have the option of trying to crash through any new Chinese exclusion zone? Australian and American experts were unanimous on this, best summed up by a former US official: ‘Try that without us, you’re screwed.’… Australia needs to be more active, more robust and more assertive than it has ever been. It has the advantage that its main political parties are so far united in confronting the dawning reality of frontline responsibility. If Jennings is right, there’s no time to waste.”

Watch China’s Desire of World Dominion

Project-Syndicate wrote on July 13:

“The contrast between the disarray in the West, on open display at the NATO summit and at last month’s G7 meeting in Canada, and China’s mounting international self-confidence is growing clearer by the day…

“Since 2014, China has expanded and consolidated its military position in the South China Sea. It took the idea of the New Silk Road and turned it into a multi-trillion-dollar trade, investment, infrastructure, and wider geopolitical/geo-economic initiative, engaging 73 different countries across much of Eurasia, Africa and beyond. And China signed up most of the developed world to the first large-scale non-Bretton Woods multilateral development bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

“China has also launched diplomatic initiatives beyond its immediate sphere of strategic interest in East Asia, as well as actively participating in initiatives such as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. It has developed naval bases in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Djibouti, and participates in naval exercises with Russia as far away as the Mediterranean and the Baltic…”

Israel Strikes Hamas During Gaza Ceasefire

The Times of Israel, July 15:

“The strike came hours after a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect, following the most severe exchange of fire between Israel and Hamas since the 2014 war. Over the weekend, Palestinian terrorists fired some 200 rockets and missiles at Israeli communities near the Gaza border…

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday reiterated that Israel would not tolerate the continued kite and balloon arson attacks that have burned thousands of dunams of forests and agricultural land adjacent to the Gaza border in recent months, including fresh fires started on Sunday… Netanyahu denied reports that said the ceasefire brokered by Egypt did not include the cessation of the arson attacks… Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman also warned Hamas they would ‘pay a heavy price’ if it did not cease hostilities…

“Domestic pressure on the military to halt the burning flying objects has intensified, leading to Israel carrying out warning airstrikes and increasing the possibility that violence could escalate.”

JTA wrote on July 16:

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Sderot, where at least two rockets from Gaza caused serious damage and injured a family of four… [He said:] ‘There is an exchange of blows here. It is not over in one go… and I cannot comfort those who have taken the most difficult losses. This is very hard to take, but we know that we are in a prolonged Zionist struggle.’

“In a warning to the terrorist organization that runs Gaza, Netanyahu said: ‘It is important that Hamas understand that it faces an iron wall and this wall is comprised, first of all, of a determined government, of strong local leadership and Zionist settlement, and that we will continue to strengthen it… I do not want to tell anybody that it is over.’”

New Legislation: Israel the Nation-State of the Jewish People

JTA wrote on July 19:

“The Knesset passed controversial legislation making Israel the ‘nation-state of the Jewish people’ … It passed early Thursday morning after hours of contentious debate by a vote of 62-55, with two abstentions.

“Much of the bill, sponsored by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, deals with obvious signs that Israel is a Jewish state, such as affirming the symbols on the flag and shield, setting the Hebrew calendar as the country’s official calendar, recognizing Jewish holidays and days of remembrance, the national anthem and naming Jerusalem as the capital.

“Other parts of the law, however, have raised the hackles of segments of Israeli society and the Jewish Diaspora. These include clauses relegating Arabic to a ‘special’ status instead of an official language [declaring Hebrew as Israel’s only official language], promoting the establishment of Jewish communities throughout Israel and addressing the state’s relationship with Diaspora Jewry.

“Netanyahu called the passing of the law ‘a defining moment… This is our state — the Jewish state’…

“The chairman of the Arab Joint List party, Ayman Odeh, said in a statement that Israel has ‘declared it does not want us here,’ meaning its Arab citizens, and that ‘we will always be second-class citizens.’”

Canada’s Troubling Journey Towards Ungodliness

LifeSitenews.com wrote on July 13:

“Last month the Supreme Court of Canada decided in the Trinity Western University case that the right to freedom of religion, entrenched in Section 2 of the Charter, can be infringed by the rights of the LGBTQ community… This was the most recent example of a troubling situation that has developed since the Charter came into effect in 1982.

“The Court in the Trinity case concluded that the Law Societies of British Columbia and Ontario had the right to decide on the admission policies of a private religious university in British Columbia that wanted to obtain accreditation for a law school. The law societies objected because of the university’s Covenant that, among other matters, upheld that sexual relationships be only within marriage between a man and woman. The Court concluded that the law societies were permitted to raise objections based on vague and undefined concepts of ‘public interest’ and Charter ‘values’.

“This decision confirms that judges are making decisions… based on their own policy preferences. Examples of other such decisions include the legalizing of prostitution; the striking down of the abortion law; the prohibitions against physician-assisted suicide; the right to strike granted to essential services such as firemen, policemen, ambulance workers (which puts public safety at risk); legalization of drug injection sites; the redefinition, and narrowing of the interpretation of pornography; and that sex clubs for couples and single individuals meeting each other for group sex are not illegal nor indecent. There have been many other decisions as well that have profoundly changed Canadian society.

“Whether one agrees with any or all of these decisions is not the point. There is a much deeper and more profound aspect to these decisions. It is whether nine appointed, unaccountable judges should be making such decisions isolated from the public – the latter having no input into the formation of such public policy decisions… There is no longer any doubt that the Supreme Court of Canada decisions are not impartial and objective, but are based not on law or precedent, but rather on the personal policy preferences of the judges.”

Shroud of Turin NOT Burial Cloth of Jesus

Express wrote on July 16:

“For centuries, Christians had believed the Shroud of Turin was used to wrap Jesus Christ’s deceased body in after he had died. Many even thought you could still see the imprint of his face. However, new evidence has emerged which would suggest the Shroud of Turin is fraudulent.

“Forensic evidence revealed the blood stains on the cloth came from a vertical position as if someone were standing over it. This would mean the stains are not consistent with someone who had just been crucified.

“John Moores University, Liverpool, forensic expert Matteo Borrini and his team had been hoping to see if the blood stains were consistent with someone who had been executed on a T-shaped or Y-shaped cross. Instead, the research found the blood splatter came from neither.

“The study says: ‘The two short rivulets on the back of the left hand of the Shroud are only consistent with a standing subject with arms at a ca 45 degree angle… The BPA of blood visible on the frontal side of the chest (the lance wound) shows that the Shroud represents the bleeding in a realistic manner for a standing position while the stains at the back — of a supposed post-mortem bleeding from the same wound for a supine corpse — are totally unrealistic.’

“… Previous research also suggests the Turin Shroud is a fake. If it were the real burial cloth of Jesus, it would date back to around 2,000 years ago. However, carbon dating shows that the Turin Shroud also only goes back to the Middle Ages…”

Please read chapter 8 of our free booklet, “Do you know the Jesus of the Bible?”

Acknowledgement and Disclaimer

These Current Events are compiled and commented on by Norbert Link. We gratefully acknowledge the many contributions of news articles from our readership. The publication of articles in this section is not to be viewed as an endorsement or approval as to contents or accuracy of the selected articles, but they are published for the purpose of pointing at worldwide developments in the light of biblical end-time prophecy and godly instruction. Our own comments are provided in italics.

The question relates to two passages in the book of Genesis. When Joseph met his brothers in Egypt who had sold him into slavery, he did not make himself known and tried them instead to see whether they were willing to leave one of their brothers, Benjamin, behind in jail, while enjoying their own freedom and escape from the Egyptian court. Joseph ordered that money and his special cup be placed in the sacks of his brothers upon their departure, but then to pursue them.

In this very context, we read in Genesis 44:4-6: “When they had gone out of the city, and were not yet far off, Joseph said to his servant, ‘Get up, follow the men; and when you overtake them, say to them, ‘Why have you repaid evil for good? Is not this the one from which my lord drinks, and with which he indeed practices divination? You have done evil in so doing.’ So he overtook them, and he spoke to them these same words.” The Authorized Version (AV) reads: “Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth?”

Also, in Genesis 44:15, we read that Joseph told his brothers, after the cup was “discovered” in Benjamin’s sack: “Did you not know that such a man as I can certainly practice divination?”

In Genesis 44:6 and 15, the Hebrew word for the English expression “practice divination” or “divine” is nachash. Young’s defines it as, “use enchantment.”

It is clear that the word can describe demonic divination or enchantment.

We read in Deuteronomy 18:10: “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft [AV: that useth divination], or a soothsayer [AV: observer of times], or one who interprets omens [AV: enchanter, Hebr. nachash], or a sorcerer [witch], or one who conjures spells [charmer], or a medium [consulter with familiar spirits], or a spiritist [wizard], or one who calls up the dead [necromancer].”

Also, note the following passages in the Authorized Version:

Numbers 23:23: “… [There is] no enchantment [nachash] against Jacob, no divination [Hebrew: qesem] against Israel.”

Numbers 24:1: “… to seek for enchantment [nachash; New KJB: sorcery].”

2 Kings 17:17: “[The evil Israelites] used divination [qesem] and enchantments [nachash].”

2 Kings 21:6: “[The evil king Manasseh] used enchantments [nachash].”

2 Chronicles 33:6: “[Manasseh] used enchantments [nachash].”

Leviticus 19:26: “… neither shall ye use enchantment [nachash] nor observe times.”

From this, some commentaries conclude that Joseph used demonic enchantment or divination.

For instance, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states:

“The word shews that the silver cup was a sacred one, by means of which Joseph sought and obtained oracles. Some have inferred that he must have been admitted into the priests’ guild, in order to be able to practise divination. It appears that water having been poured into a vessel or cup, gold or silver or precious stones were thrown into it, and the oracle or divination was derived from the rings, ripples, or sparkles, which appeared. The name given to this class of magic was ‘hydromancy.’”

Similarly the Broadman Bible Commentary, which expresses the hope, however, that Joseph did not do so:

“The silver cup was used for divining. Small objects were placed in the cup so that veiled references could be seen in their configurations. Von Rad cites a custom in Germany of pouring lead into water on New Year’s Eve as ‘a final vestige of the custom.’ Did Joseph really divine in this manner? Or was he just playing a game with the brothers? The cup was certainly a part of the paraphernalia of his office, and he was probably expected to use it. One could hope that he had not substituted this method of determining the future for the spiritual insight he had formerly known…”

Other commentaries leave the question unanswered as well:

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible writes:

“Divining by cups… was a common custom in Egypt (Herodotus ii. 83). It is here mentioned to enhance the value of the cup. Whether Joseph really practised any sort of divination cannot be determined from this passage.”

The concept that Joseph practiced demonic divination is difficult to accept. Joseph is mentioned as one of the faithful patriarchs who will receive the promise of eternal life (Hebrews 11:21-22, 39-40).

Therefore, many commentaries conclude that in order to test his brothers, Joseph did not practice divination, but that he pretended to do so, or that he did not dispute the superstition attached to his cup.

The idea seems to be that “Joseph may have allowed them to think he practiced divination with this cup to instill more fear in them—as it would look to them like they would be charged with the theft of something of great importance in Egypt.” In other words, as some put it, “Joseph may have claimed he used it to divine matters in order to raise the stakes and incite more fear in his brothers’ hearts.” Some say that “Joseph was representing himself as an administrator of a pagan land. He adapted himself, his actions, and his language to the character of such an administrator, as it would appear in the eyes of his unsuspecting brothers.” It is alleged that he acted in this way, including the possession of a valuable cup from which he could divine, to “keep up the appearance of being thoroughly Egyptian” and a great and powerful Egyptian, as such.

For instance, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary writes:

“Divination by cups, to ascertain the course of futurity, was one of the prevalent superstitions of ancient Egypt, as it is of Eastern countries still. It is not likely that Joseph, a pious believer in the true God, would have addicted himself to this superstitious practice. But he might have availed himself of that popular notion to carry out the successful execution of his stratagem for the last decisive trial of his brethren.”

The Geneva Study Bible states:

“Because the people thought he could divine, he attributes to himself that knowledge: or else he pretends that he consults with soothsayers: which deceit is worthy to be reproved.”

The Ryrie Study Bible states:

“It is unlikely that Joseph used divination; rather, this statement (made in order to attach specific significance to the cup) was part of the situation Joseph contrived in order to test his brothers.

The German Schlachter Bibel comments:

“The cup was a holy vessel, which symbolized the authority of his office as the Egyptian vice-king. The reference to superstition does not have to mean that Joseph engaged in such pagan-religious rites. He later allowed his brothers to assume such.”

Torahclass.com states:

“Actually, it was a bowl… a silver bowl. The master of the house in Egypt in those days, if judged a sage, a seer, had a special bowl from which he and he alone drank. But, it was also used for the purpose of divining messages from the gods. One can only imagine how Joseph came by this ‘diviner’s bowl’… likely it was a gift from the Pharaoh, because Joseph was undoubtedly, after accurately interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams, determined the highest and best sage, diviner, in all the land. Typically, the bowl was filled with water, and then gold or silver objects, amulets, sometimes with magic inscriptions written on them, were put into the water, and from the reflections the seer would attempt to see the future.  It is unimaginable that Joseph actually used the bowl for anything except to drink from… but to keep up the appearance of being thoroughly Egyptian, he used the common knowledge of the bowl as an implement of divination to continue to test his brothers.”

However, even the concept that Joseph wrongfully pretended to practice divination to “test” his brothers is difficult to believe. Some argued that “Joseph did not order his steward to tell a direct lie—rather, he simply told him to ask a question. The real answer would have been no. But the brothers didn’t know this.” But this conclusion is not convincing and does not agree with the plain context of the passage.

Another interpretation has been proposed, that “this is one of the few cases in which God permitted the use of objects to discern His will. Other examples include the casting of lots (Leviticus 16:7-10), the priest’s use of the Urim and Thummim (Numbers 27:21), and Gideon’s use of the fleece (Judges 6:36-40). If Joseph did practice divination with the silver cup, it was not divination in the pagan sense but seeking God’s will through a particular method.”

However, the examples, cited above, never use the Hebrew word nachash to describe these godly practices. Even though some, such as the Eastons’s Bible Dictionary, speak of these godly activities as “divination by lot”, “divination by dreams” and “divination by Urim and Thummim,” these are just human descriptions, since the Bible nowhere refers to these acceptable methods as “divination” or “enchantment.”

However, a much more acceptable and compelling understanding evolves when we consider that the Hebrew word nachash can also have a different meaning than “divination” or “enchantment.”

Strong’s defines it as: “to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; gen. to prognosticate, certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) enchantment, learn by experience, indeed, diligently observe.”

And so, the Benson Commentary explains:

“Genesis 44:5. Whereby indeed he divineth — The original word may be rendered, For which he would search thoroughly…”

The Commentary on the Bible by Adam Clarke agrees, stating:

“I take the word… nachash here in its general acceptation of to view attentively, to inquire…”

Based on this evaluation, the following commentary in Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible makes interesting reading:

“Joseph never practised any thing of this kind, so neither would he… make as if he did… but the words… may signify to tempt, to try, to make an experiment, and by experience to know a thing… and so the Arabic version, ‘and indeed he hath tried you by it’: so Aben Ezra interprets it of his trying of them by it, whether they were thieves or not… it seems best of all to understand this not of the cup as the instrument by which he tried, searched, and inquired into things, but as the object searched after and inquired of; for the word signifies to inquire, and make a strict observation of things, and thereby make shrewd guesses and conjectures… diligent inquiry would be made after it, and it would be at once conjectured that it was taken away, not by any of the household, but by those strangers that had dined with Joseph…”

We find the use of the Hebrew word nachash in the following two passages which do not refer to divination at all. Genesis 30:27 is translated as: “I have learned by experience that the LORD has blessed me”; and 1 Kings 20:33 states that “the men were watching closely to see whether any sign of mercy would come from him.”

Also, Joseph’s statement in Genesis 44:15 is rendered in the Living Bible as: “Didn’t you know such a man as I would know who stole it?”

Some German translations render Genesis 44:15 in the way that Joseph would be able to “discern” (“durchschauen”; Hoffnung fuer Alle); “certainly find out” (“gewiss erkunden”; Zuercher); or “figure it out” (“erraten koennte”; Luther 1891).

An additional interesting parallel has been proposed regarding Joseph’s cup of great financial value and the partaking of the cup of wine at the time of Passover. A write-up by Aletheia Bible College points out:

“The Hebrew for ‘divineth’ means literally ‘to make trial’; their taking of the cup was their trial / judgment. Thus we drink either blessing or condemnation to ourselves by taking the cup. The word used by the LXX for ‘divineth’ in Gen. 44:5 occurs in the NT account of the breaking of the bread [and drinking of the wine] service: ‘everyone should examine himself, and then eat the bread and drink from the cup’ (1 Cor. 11:28)…”

In conclusion, it does not appear that Joseph practiced demonic divination or that he lied to his brothers by pretending that he was engaged in divination or enchantment; nor, that that type of divination by using his cup would have been acceptable in God’s eyes. Rather, Joseph had his valuable cup of prestige placed in Benjamin’s sack to test the bothers thereby whether they would forsake Benjamin (as they had forsaken and even sold Joseph into slavery) or whether they would stand by him. The cup was not a cup through or by which Joseph “divined” or “searched” the future–but it was the object which was “lost” and for which Joseph was searching, and it was the object by which the brothers were being tested or examined as to whether they would be loyal to Benjamin and their father Jacob.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

compiled by Dave Harris

“Could America Be Attacked Soon?” is the title of a new StandingWatch program, presented by Evangelist Norbert Link. Here is a summary:

Preposterous? Unimaginable? Don’t dismiss this possibility out of hand, because the BIBLE tells you that it IS going to happen! Recent events give unmistakable signs for those who understand God’s Holy Word. Will you ignore them or even scoff at them, at your own peril? Will you belong to those who will be caught unawares, when the day of destruction overtakes the USA and other countries like a thief in the night?

“Die zwei Zeugen und Christi Wiederkehr,” is the title of this Sabbath’s German sermon, presented by Norbert Link. Title in English: “The two Witnesses and Christ’s Return.”

“Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians,” is the title of a new Global Trailer, presented by Pastor Brian Gale. Here is a summary:

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians is one of the most comprehensive letters written by Paul to explain to us the nature of God and God’s great plan and purpose for His creation, especially the future of mankind. Sadly, it has been greatly misunderstood by almost everyone who reads it.

“Truth or Legend?” the sermonette presented last Sabbath by Michael Link, is now posted. Here is a summary:

How do we know that the Bible is true and that the many stories within this book are in fact the truth? Is there proof? Do we believe the Bible and how can we truly understand it?

“The Prophet Elijah in the Past, the Present and the Future, Part 2,” the sermon presented last Sabbath by Norbert Link, is now posted. Here is a summary:

Why did Elijah ask for fire from heaven to consume the soldiers of King Ahaziah? How are we to understand Elijah’s ascension to heaven? What connection exists between Elijah and John the Baptist? What is the explanation for Christ’s transfiguration on the mount when He spoke to Moses and Elijah who appeared in glory? Finally, what do biblical passages mean to tell us about the coming of Elijah just prior to Christ’s return?

On July 14, 2018, Michael Link will present the sermonette, titled, “Truth or Legend?,” and Norbert Link will present the sermon, titled, “The Prophet Elijah in the Past, the Present and the Future, Part 2.”

The live services are available, over video and audio, at http://eternalgod.org/live-services/ (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time; 8:30 pm Greenwich Mean Time; 9:30 pm Central European Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

We wouldn’t say we have too much love for God or our neighbor, nor say that we are way too zealous in serving God or that our faith is far too strong. In fact, we would all very likely admit to wanting much more of such good things as these.

Nevertheless, some good things might actually be too much if we aren’t careful!

There is a deeply profound lesson for all of us in the example of the young man who had great wealth and who asked Jesus what good thing he should do to have eternal life (compare Matthew 19:16-22). What Jesus told him required an abrupt reshaping of his life—and he was unwilling to go that far. Riches and the lack of commitment stood in his way to eternal life.

When the children of Israel were about to enter the land which God had promised, they were sternly cautioned to beware when abundant blessings came to them (compare Deuteronomy 8). Here is God’s warning:

“‘Then it shall be, if you by any means forget the LORD your God, and follow other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroys before you, so you shall perish, because you would not be obedient to the voice of the LORD your God’” (Deuteronomy 8:19-20).

We must be very careful to not suffer the same kind of fate. We live in a time of remarkable and unparalleled abundance—so much so, we might get caught up in pursuing things that will not last. Things which are not eternal! Most of us don’t have great wealth, but we can become self-satisfied with our circumstances and lose our true focus. Jesus left this message for us—for those who understand the gospel of the Kingdom of God:

“‘Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful’” (Matthew 13:22).

My title is a phrase we have probably all heard. We get its meaning by experience. We know that too much dessert, for example, is just too much of a good thing (compare also Proverbs 25:16; 25:27). It takes understanding to balance the use of things. And so it is when it comes to our daily living as Christians in this world.

There is, however, something which lies ahead which will never be too much of a good thing, and that is eternal life in the Kingdom of God.

by Norbert Link

We begin reporting about events pertaining to President Trump’s attendance at the NATO summit in Brussels which started with a bang; and the increasing controversy and escalation between the USA and especially Germany as well as the concern that the USA might withdraw its troops from Europe (Please view our new StandingWatch program, “How God Views the 2018 NATO Summit”) and we speak about the vulnerability of Germany’s present government, especially of Angela Merkel and Horst Seehofer, and the rising star of Austria, Sebastian Kurz, as well as some concerns of former EU Parliament President Martin Schulz.

We address the current Brexit disaster after the resignations of Boris Johnson and David Davis, evolving around concepts of a “hard Brexit,” a “soft Brexit” and a “disorderly no deal.”

We point out the increasingly dictatorial and autocratic government of Turkey’s President Erdogan; and we report on a new-found friendly relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrea and the escalation of a worldwide trade war with grave consequences for everyone concerned.

We conclude with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court Justice; the struggle of the unpopular Jehovah’s Witnesses with the EU’s new data protection law and their persecution in many countries; Jimmy Carter’s strange and unbiblical opinions about Jesus Christ; and the reported odd opposition of a US delegation to breastfeeding.  

Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.

“Brace Yourselves—Donald Trump Is Coming”

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 8:

“On Wednesday, the US president will be in Brussels for the NATO summit, where he will likely continue to ruffle feathers… And then, on July 16, Trump will travel to Finland to meet his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin…

“There is great anxiety at NATO about how the meeting will go… At a recent speech in the state of Indiana ahead of the US midterm elections in November, Trump made clear his anger about Germany… He directly attacked Chancellor Angela Merkel, claiming that the United States pays for Germany’s security but receives little in return. And then he accused Germany of prioritizing energy deals with Russia and leaving the United States to foot the bill. Trump… has already indirectly threatened to pull US troops from Germany if the country does not increase its defense spending.

“In the worst-case scenario… the United States could demand that European members directly pay for US troops to be stationed on the continent…”

Die Welt wrote on July 9:

“When more money needs to be spent [by the Europeans] for their own defense, then it must be done as efficiently… as possible… Nothing but a unified European army would fulfil those demands—not as replacement, but as a compliment to NATO which becomes less and less interesting for the USA.“

It may be interesting to note that “Donald” is an Anglicization of the Scottish Gaelic name, Domhanll, which means world-ruler. As the above-quoted articles predicted, President Trump did indeed ruffle feathers after arriving in Europe. Note the next articles.

Trump Attacks Germany—Merkel Counters

The EUObserver wrote on July 11:

“US leader Donald Trump, backed by Poland, has begun the Nato summit with a tirade against Germany’s plan to build a pipeline with Russia [The president appeared to be referring to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would bring gas from Russia to Germany’s northeastern Baltic coast, bypassing Eastern European nations like Poland and Ukraine and doubling the amount of gas Russia can send directly to Germany]… ‘Germany is a captive of Russia,’ Trump said after meeting Nato head Jens Stoltenberg in Brussels on Wednesday (11 July). ‘Germany’s totally controlled by Russia because they’ll be getting from 60 to 70% of their energy from Russia, and a new pipeline … and I think it’s a very bad thing for Nato,’ he said. ‘We [the US] are supposed to protect you [Europe] from Russia, but Germany is making pipeline deals with Russia … explain that’, he added. ‘We’re supposed to be guarding against Russia and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia,’ he said.

“Trump… was loose with the facts, given that Russian oil and gas account for just 20 percent of Germany’s energy mix and that NS2 is being financed by private firms from Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, rather than by German public money. His comment on Berlin being Moscow’s ‘captive’ also overlooked Germany’s leadership on EU economic sanctions against Russia.

“The remarks… met with a swift rebuttal by German chancellor Angela Merkel. ‘I experienced first hand that a part of Germany was occupied by the Soviet Union. It’s good that we can now make our own decisions,’ she said…

“Trump’s assault on NS2 pleased Poland, which sees the pipeline as a strategic threat… ‘NS1 helped Russia to modernise its army, then attack Georgia and Ukraine and violate international law. NS2 would also help Russia to pursue revisionist policy. The question is what we are going to do about that?,’ Polish foreign minister Jacek Czaputowicz said… he also repeated calls for the US to create a permanent military base in Poland, despite German concern that this could mean moving out tens of thousands of US troops from Germany…

“[NATO-chief] Stoltenberg indicated that other allies, as well as Germany, were increasingly confused by US foreign policy.”

The Nord Stream 2 Pipeline–Trump Has a Point!

The Telegraph wrote on July 11:

“Donald Trump was right to criticise Germany for its billion dollar energy deals with Russia at the Nato summit in Brussels on Wednesday morning. He hit the nail on the head – and Angela Merkel where it hurts –  when he took aim at the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project… The lead Russian company is the state-owned Gazprom, which has former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on its staff roster and a controlling 51 per cent share in the project, which will cost at least $15 billion.”

The Guardian wrote on July 11:

“Trump is not only one to ask questions.

“… the US president’s view that this will make Europe particularly dependent on Russian gas is widely shared by European politicians, thinktanks and energy specialists, including some in Berlin. No country is more angry about the pipeline than Ukraine [which] stands to lose billions of much needed dollars if Russia can transfer its gas transmissions to Europe across the Baltic Sea, away from a pipeline running across Ukrainian territory…

“Sweden, Denmark and Finland have expressed ecological reservations about a second natural gas pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic… The UK has also been objecting, albeit less stridently… The biggest fear is that the pipeline allows Russia a boot on the throat of Europe. It had not been afraid to cut off supplies faced by price disputes with Ukraine.”

The Gloves Are Off

The Guardian wrote on July 11:

“[Merkel] also hit back at Trump’s criticism that Germany contributed too little to European defence. ‘Germany does a lot for Nato,’ she said. ‘Germany is the second largest provider of troops, the largest part of our military capacity is offered to Nato and until today we have a strong engagement towards Afghanistan. In that we also defend the interests of the United States.’…

“This summit is shaping up to be the most divisive in Nato’s 69-year history…

“Trump [seems to be] keen to see Merkel replaced as chancellor. His outburst could be part of a strategy to try to undermine her at a time when she is domestically vulnerable. Merkel has been one of the most outspoken critics of Trump among European leaders… Trump’s antagonism towards Merkel is partly personal, a reaction to a senior European politician standing up to him and her very evident dislike of him, which she makes little attempt to hide…”

Merkel has been known to be very timid in her criticism of Donald Trump. When she is described as “one of the most outspoken critics of Trump,” then imagine what would happen if a leader were to come to power in Germany who would be REALLY outspoken, and whose words would be followed by actions. The Bible prophesies that this is exactly what will happen soon.

Handelsblatt Global commented: “‘Germany is totally controlled by Russia.’ Donald Trump, US President. Quote of the Day. Always the diplomat.”

On July 11, Newsmax re-published the following article by The Associated Press:

“Trump predicted as he departed Washington that the ‘easiest’ leg of his journey would be his scheduled sit-down [with] Putin — a comment that did little to reassure allies fretting over his potential embrace of a Russian leader… European Council President Donald Tusk pushed back against Trump’s constant criticism of European allies and urged him to remember who his friends are when he meets with Putin in Helsinki. ‘Dear America, appreciate your allies, after all you don’t have all that many,’ he said.”

America will soon lose even those few remaining allies…

Now Up to 4%?

The Wall Street Journal wrote on July 11:

“President Donald Trump pressured allies to double their military spending target to 4% of GDP, while questioning NATO’s value… Following the 4% proposal, Mr. Trump and NATO’s 28 other leaders agreed to a joint summit declaration that recommitted them to moving toward the 2% target by 2024… Then, after leaving the summit, Mr. Trump called for allies to raise their military spending to 2% ‘IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025’—misstating the year and avoiding mention of his 4% proposal…”

The Week wrote on July 12:

“President Trump told NATO leaders in person and on Twitter that he wants member nations to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense spending more quickly than the 2024 deadline agreed to in 2014, and maybe raise it to 4 percent, prompting an emergency session of NATO leaders Thursday morning.

“Trump also reportedly threatened to break with NATO and go it alone if other members don’t raise defense spending quickly. In a news conference afterward, Trump said he believes he can withdraw the U.S. from NATO without Congress but sees no need to after the other countries, he said, made ‘a real commitment’ to raise spending to 2 percent of GDP in a ‘relatively short period of years.’…”

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 12:

“French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters the alliance had not agreed to anything new during the meeting. ‘There is a communique that was published yesterday,’ he said, adding, ‘It confirms the goal of 2 percent by 2024. That’s all.’ A German government spokesman also said the meeting had merely reaffirmed the 2 percent goal by 2024.”

BBC News wrote on July 12:

“… no other country has confirmed any increased commitments as yet… French President Emmanuel Macron meanwhile said that no country had signed up to anything more than what was agreed four years ago.”

Will America Withdraw Its Troops from Europe?

McClatchydc.com wrote on July 6:

“European leaders… fear the United States may… begin to bring American troops home from the continent…  Some worry… Trump, at the U.S.-Russia summit, could agree to take the first steps to embolden Russia, such as halting military exercises or agreeing that Crimea, a region of Ukraine annexed by Russia in 2014, belongs to Russia…

“A third of active-duty U.S. military troops overseas – more than 60,000 – are stationed in Europe, including 35,000 in Germany, 12,000 in Italy, 8,500 in the United Kingdom and 3,300 in Spain… Thousands more rotate into other European countries temporarily…”

At this point, the White House has denied that plans are being discussed to withdraw troops from Europe, and it is alleged that Congress would have to agree to such withdrawal. If so, one cannot take it for granted that Congress would necessarily oppose such withdrawal, given the tremendous amount of expenses necessary for stationing US troops in Europe.

Many Germans for US Troops Withdrawal

The Local wrote on July 11:

“A survey… has revealed that close to one in two Germans want all the US troops still stationed on German soil to leave… 42 percent of Germans would be happy if the US pulled its troops out of the Bundesrepublik. At the same time 37 percent said they want the US soldiers to stay, while 21 percent gave no answer.

“In particular, voters for the far-left Die Linke and far-right Alternative for Germany [AfD] wanted an end to US army bases, with 67 percent and 55 percent, respectively, saying the Amis should go. On the other hand, only 35 percent of voters for Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) support this.

“… Germany… still hosts more US soldiers than any other country except Japan.”

Germany Must Step Up and Lead

Handelsblatt Global wrote on July 12:

“The consequences for security and German identity are vast. Angela Merkel understands this. That’s why she is worried. She knows that the German domestic debate lags far behind these geopolitical realities.

“The question is not when exactly Germany reaches the NATO goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. It is how to explain to Germans that their country must start leading Europe to create… a European substitute for American power, as America increasingly turns its gaze from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Ready or not, Germany must step ‘up’.”

Europe’s Key Problem

The Project Syndicate wrote on July 5:

“Europeans are more worried about the future than they were a decade ago, not least because they are not convinced that their political leaders can respond effectively to current challenges…

“A key problem lies in the intricacy of the EU, which is poorly equipped to function amid chaos… The world of 2018 is one of chaotic play… Europe has too many moving parts. The EU is deliberately complex… That complexity is fine in normal times, but it is problematic at exceptional moments, when the play is frenetic. At those moments, the EU looks more like the Habsburg empire…

“The Habsburg empire had its own potential grand deal… but it was never concluded. Instead, the political elite began to believe that only an external political challenge – in the event, a brief war – could solve the problem. But World War I was no brief war, and far from rescuing the empire, it destroyed it. After 1918, nostalgia for the old empire surged. It looked better, more tolerant, and even more capable than the group of competing nation-states that succeeded it…”

In other words, what is being advocated, but missing at the moment, is a unifying authority with more or less swift and dictatorial powers. The Bible predicts that this is exactly what Europe will get very soon, at a time when, to reiterate a statement from the article, “the political elite began to believe that only an external political challenge – in the event, a brief war – could solve the problem.”

“Merkel Must Go”

The New York Times wrote on July 5:

“Admirers still speak of Merkel as if she is Europe’s last lion, the only leader with the vision and capacity to save the E.U… the longer she’s in office, the more the forces of reaction will gain strength…

“Europe needs a real security policy, backed by credible military power and less dependence on Russian energy… The stakes are too high for a muddler like Merkel to stick around.”

Half of the Germans agree.

The Circus of the Immigration Fight Continues…

News Channel 5 wrote on July 10:

“Germany’s Interior Minister Horst Seehofer presented his migration ‘master plan’ Tuesday in another jab at Chancellor Angela Merkel and her asylum policies. Seehofer has been pushing for more hard-line immigration and asylum policies and even threatened to quit over Merkel’s open-door policies. A recent agreement within Merkel’s governing coalition strengthened Germany’s asylum laws slightly.

“But Seehofer wants to take it a step further. Notably, his plan includes the establishment of ‘transit centers’ along Germany’s border, where migrants would be held during asylum proceedings. That term had been removed from the coalition’s agreement, in part because the Social Democratic Party feared the centers might be compared to World War II-era internment camps…”

Seehofer Asked to Resign

The Local wrote on July 11:

“An Afghan man deported from Germany has been found dead in a hotel room in Kabul after committing suicide, officials said Wednesday. The 23-year-old man… was forcibly returned to the Afghan capital on July 4th along with 68 other failed Afghan asylum seekers. He had been staying at a hotel used by the International Organization for Migration as temporary accommodation for returnees while he waited to go to the western city of Herat…

“According to Spiegel, he lived in Hamburg where he had been convicted of theft and assault. He came to Germany in 2011 and applied for asylum but his case was rejected. The apparent suicide is set to heap pressure on Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, who had already faced criticism for a comment made on Tuesday in which he joked that the 69 deportations to Afghanistan had coincided with his 69th birthday.

“Kevin Kühnert, leader of the youth wing of the Social Democrats responded to the news of the suicide by calling for Seehofer to resign… ‘Horst Seehofer is a reprehensible cynic whose character doesn’t befit his office. His resignation is overdue.’…

“Civilians continue to bear the brunt of the bloody conflict that has been raging since 2001, making the issue of deportations from Germany and other European countries highly controversial. Germany itself is deeply divided over the issue… Some of the deportees have spent most of their lives living outside of Afghanistan before being deported. More Afghans are likely to be deported after Merkel’s shaky three-party coalition agreed last week on a tougher migration policy that will reduce the number of asylum-seekers in the country…”

Seehofer’s popularity has sharply declined in Germany, and the call for his resignation gets louder, while the right-wing AfD party—Germany’s biggest opposition party– has gained further support.

How Martin Schulz Sees It

El Pais wrote on July 6:

“Martin Schultz’s story is right out of a Greek tragedy. President of the European Parliament from 2012 to 2017, he did not seek re-election… [He gave the following] joint interview with EL PAÍS, La Repubblica and Le Figaro:

“It is almost fascist for the interior minister [of Italy] to want to register the Roma people. What we are experiencing is a brutalization of language in politics… this means the end of democracy… the right has been organizing itself for a long time now… In this case, ‘the right’ means anti-democratic, anti-European and populist forces. It is disgraceful the way they attack minorities…

“This will take us to the abyss… Matteo Salvini in Italy, Heinz-Christian Strache and Sebastian Kurz in Austria, Viktor Orban in Hungary and other right-wing populists are determined to liquidate the EU…

“It’s understandable that people want more security and simple things. Those who paint the world in black and white, like Trump or Salvini, propagate their simple ideas and that’s very attractive. You need to have the courage to say that the world is complicated…

“The domestic chaos [in Germany] caused by the Christian Social Union (CSU) is dramatic for Europe. At a time when we are experiencing American unilateralism and Russian authoritarian expansion, Europe cannot engage in regressive politics… I want to be a deputy who will defend the European chapter of [Germany’s] coalition agreement. This coalition must wage the battle for the European Union.”

Schulz’s assessment that Kurz is willing to liquidate the EU, is overblown. Kurz supports the EU, as the next article shows, but not that kind of EU which Schulz would like to see.

Sebastian Kurz—Europe’s New Leader?

Bloomberg wrote on July 6:

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel has often been called the European Union’s real leader… A different chancellor seems positioned for leadership now: Austria’s Sebastian Kurz…

“Few people care much about the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, which Austria assumed on July 1. It’s usually just a public relations opportunity for member states that otherwise get little time in the limelight. It’s different with Kurz, though. In the six months since he became chancellor at the head of a coalition between his center-right People’s Party and the far-right Freedom Party, he has positioned himself as a go-to figure for European politicians as well as for powerful outside forces…

“Kurz has said that he’d like to be a ‘bridge-builder’ between the Visegrad Four (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia) and the rest of the EU.

“… Russian President Vladimir Putin, who rarely travels to Europe, has visited Kurz in Vienna and asked for his help in arranging a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump… The Austrian chancellor is one of the Trump administration’s favorite European politicians. ‘Look, I think Sebastian Kurz is a rock star,’ Richard Grenell, Trump’s unloved ambassador to Germany, told Breitbart News in a recent interview. ‘I’m a big fan.’

“… Kurz is at the center of events, hated by no one, blamed for nothing… a poll in May showed that if he led a party in Germany, it would have won more votes than Merkel’s center-right bloc, the country’s most popular political force…”

England’s Brexit Disaster

Breitbart wrote on July 9:

“Prominent Brexiteer and senior government minister Boris Johnson resigned his cabinet post Monday afternoon, following his colleague David Davis who departed as Brexit Secretary Sunday evening. The development will leave Theresa May looking increasingly vulnerable, as a growing Brexit rebellion attempts to face off her move to lead Britain into a so-called Brexit in name only [so-called “soft Brexit”], where Britain will remain mostly tied to the European Union…”

The Project Syndicate wrote on July 9:

“May now has a full-blown political crisis on her hands – and all the while, the massive economic and social costs of crashing out of the bloc are beginning to sink in.”

Newsmax added on July 9:

“If Davis’s resignation rattled May, Johnson’s shook the foundations of her government… Johnson is one of Britain’s best-known politicians, and one of the most prominent advocates for Brexit… With Britain due to leave the currently 28-nation bloc on March 29, 2019, EU officials have warned Britain repeatedly that time is running out to seal a deal spelling out the terms of the divorce and a post-split relationship…

“Britain and the EU hope to reach broad agreement by October so the national parliaments of the remaining countries can ratify a deal before Britain leaves. The timetable increasingly looks overly optimistic, and EU frustration with British division and chaos is growing. European Council President Donald Tusk said Monday that ‘the mess caused by Brexit is the biggest problem in the history of EU-UK relations and it is still very far from being resolved.’

“Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said the government was incapable of delivering Brexit… The fear among May’s allies is that more resignations may follow…”

The Huffington Post wrote on July 9:

“May promised to deliver a ‘hard’ Brexit when she came to power, but has since dialed back those aspirations… ‘Theresa May’s Government is in meltdown,’ deputy leader of the Labour Party Tom Watson said. ‘This is complete and utter chaos. The country is at a standstill with a divided and shambolic government. The Prime Minister can’t deliver Brexit and has zero authority left.’”

Coming—a Disorderly No Deal?

Politico wrote on July 11:

“May herself conceded to MPs that unless the EU changes its negotiating position, ‘there is serious risk it could lead to no deal.’ She said this would be a ‘disorderly no deal’ as well because neither side would be able to countenance signing a withdrawal treaty under this scenario. Despite the chaos in the British Cabinet Monday, Brussels showed no sign of changing track…

“But if the EU’s red lines do not change, May will be back facing another crisis by the end of the year. Only this time, she may not be able to survive.”

Trump Backs Johnson

Breitbart wrote on July 10:

“President Trump has poured petrol onto the flames of UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit crisis by coming out for her chief opponent Boris Johnson…

“To his numerous enemies – in which the UK media abounds: even in the conservative press, Trump coverage is almost uniformly negative – this will [be] seen as yet further evidence that Trump is entirely unsuited to any political office, let alone the leadership of the free world. To his admirers, though… this is precisely the kind of behaviour that makes Trump one of the most… winning presidents ever…

“At the weekend, Britain was effectively hijacked by a Remainer coup… Trump does not want that coup to be successful for a number of obvious reasons, from his friendship with ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage… and his instinctive loathing of the EU project to his sense that the Brexit vote in the UK was the precursor to his own victory in the presidential elections.”

Turkey’s Dictatorship Increases

The Week wrote on July 8:

“The Turkish government on Sunday fired and canceled the passports of some 18,000 civil servants, about half of them police officers, alleging ties to terrorist organizations. Another 6,000 are members of the military, and many of the remaining 3,000 are teachers and professors.

“The move comes shortly before President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to lift the two-year national state of emergency imposed following a failed coup in 2016. About 160,000 Turkish civil servants have been similarly purged since the coup attempt, and 50,000 of them have been charged and jailed.”

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 9:

“Recep Tayyip Erdogan is set to hold greater powers than any other Turkish leader has seen in decades… Turkey’s transition from a parliamentary democracy to a system featuring an all-powerful executive president marks the country’s largest shift in governance since the Turkish republic was founded out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire almost a century ago.

“Several foreign leaders were set to attend Monday’s inauguration. They included leaders from Ankara’s allies in Africa, the Middle East and Soviet Union, although relatively few EU figures. The only sitting EU leaders expected were Bulgarian President Rumen Radev and Hungary’s hardline Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

“Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was set to attend on behalf of the German government. According to a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry in Berlin, it was usual for the government to send to a former leader to such an inauguration ceremony.”

Schröder was invited by Erdogan as a special friend. This fact, combined with Schröder’s special friendship with Putin, has led to much consternation in Germany.

Ethiopia and Eritrea End War

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 9:

“Ethiopia and Eritrea officially declared an end to a two-decades-old war on Monday, a day after their leaders held a historic summit in the Eritrean capital Asmara. The two neighbors also agreed to resume flights, open embassies and develop ports together… The rapprochement is a result of the peace talks… in a bid to end 20 years of enmity. Eritrea was part of Ethiopia until 1993, when it declared its independence in a referendum.

“The two neighbors started a frontier war in 1998 that killed an estimated 80,000 people. Full-blown fighting ended in 2000, but their troops have faced off across their disputed border ever since…”

The united country of Ethiopia/Eritrea fulfilled an end-time prophecy in Daniel 11, when it, as the “king of the South”, pushed against the king of the North (the emperor of Italy) who then responded via an attack under Mussolini. It will have to be seen whether the prophecy was dual and will find a further fulfillment in the days ahead through a modern king of the North and a king of the South.

Trade War Escalates

Politico wrote on July 10:

“The Trump administration escalated a mounting trade war with China on Tuesday by publishing a list of $200 billion worth of Chinese goods that it proposes to hit with an additional 10 percent tariff. ‘Rather than address our legitimate concerns, China has begun to retaliate against U.S. products,’ U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said… ‘There is no justification for such action.’

“The new tariff list broadens the types of goods caught up in the trade war by targeting items like seafood, minerals, chemicals, and personal care items, such as shampoo and soap. It also includes a number of consumer products such as handbags, luggage, gloves and paper. The new U.S. move came after China retaliated in kind against tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed last week. Other Chinese-made goods [are] slated to face the new 10 percent tariff. The list include[s] building supplies, such as plywood and floor panels; certain wool products, cotton yarns and threads; woven cotton fabrics; and certain automobile parts, including tires…”

JTA wrote on July 11:

“Israel will not be exempt from steel and aluminum tariffs recently imposed by the Trump administration. The 25 percent tariff on steel and the 10 percent tariff on aluminum has the potential to seriously harm the Israeli metal industry… The United States is Israel’s largest goods export market…

“The lack of an exemption was announced Monday… Canada, Mexico and the European Union also did not receive exemptions. Australia, Argentina, Brazil and South Korea have received permanent exemptions.”

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court Justice

The Associated Press reported on July 9:

“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says that Judge Brett Kavanaugh [a practicing Roman Catholic] is a ‘superb’ Supreme Court pick and that senators should ‘put partisanship aside’ in considering him… Democrats are already lining up against Kavanaugh as too conservative. But McConnell says senators should give him ‘the fairness, respect, and seriousness that a Supreme Court nomination ought to command.’…

“Republicans hold a mere 50-49 Senate majority, with the prolonged absence of the ailing Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain. The defection of one Republican would kill the nomination unless at least one Democrat votes yes.”

Kavanaugh first faces a bipartisan Senate committee, which will issue a recommendation to the full Senate following their hearing. That is followed by a debate and vote by the full Senate. Kavanaugh will need at least 51 votes to receive confirmation. Vice President Mike Pence can cast a vote to break a tie.

The Huffington Post wrote on July 9:

“If confirmed, the 53-year-old U.S. circuit judge could tilt the balance of the court in a solidly conservative direction for decades to come, likely affecting decisions on abortion… gay rights and capital punishment…

“Kavanaugh’s most prominent opinion on abortion rights came in 2017 when he wrote in dissent not to allow an undocumented teenager to seek an abortion while in federal custody at the U.S. border in Texas… Kavanaugh also dissented with the majority in Priests for Life v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, arguing that the Obama administration had imposed a “substantial burden” on the rights of religious groups by requiring them to include birth control coverage in their health insurance plans…”

JTA wrote on July 9:

“Kavanaugh… is well respected by the Republican establishment, although some on the right have said he is not conservative enough. Trump reportedly was wary of Kavanaugh’s close ties to George W. Bush, who nominated him to his current position in 2003… He helped draft the Starr Report, which called for President Bill Clinton to be impeached because he lied about having had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky… He fought on the legal team urging Florida not to have a recount in the 2000 presidential election between Bush and Al Gore, Clinton’s vice president. The Supreme Court decision not to do so led to Bush becoming the president…

“… the Jewish establishment tends to take progressive stances on domestic issues such as reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, gun control and separation of church and state…

“Orthodox groups are likely to welcome a court that protects public religious expression over strict separation, as it did in recent rulings confirming a baker’s right to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding…”

Jehovah’s Witnesses Bound by EU Data Protection Law

Reuters reported on July 10:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses must obtain consent from people before they take down their personal details during door-to-door preaching in order to comply with EU data privacy rules, Europe’s top court ruled on Tuesday. The case arose after Finland in 2013 banned Jehovah’s Witnesses from collecting personal data during door-to-door visits.

“The U.S.-based Christian denomination… challenged the decision, saying that its preaching should be considered a personal religious activity and as such the notes taken down during such visits are also personal. A Finnish court subsequently asked the Luxembourg-based Court of the Justice of the European Union (ECJ) for advice, which said on Tuesday that such religious activity is not covered by exemptions granted to personal activity…

“Jehovah’s Witnesses differ from mainstream Christianity in a number of their beliefs, including rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity and opposing blood transfusions and military conscription.”

Newsweek elaborated on July 10:

“‘The Court concludes that EU law on the protection of personal data supports a finding that a religious community is a controller, jointly with its members who engage in preaching, of the processing of personal data carried out by the latter in the context of door-to-door preaching organised, coordinated and encouraged by that community, without it being necessary that the community has access to those data…’

“The group’s tenets significantly differ from other mainstream sects of Christianity and forbid participating in military service, giving blood and celebrating holidays, including religious feasts [the reference here is to “religious feasts” such as Christmas, Easter or New Year’s] and birthdays…

“As a result, the EU court found that ‘the concept of a “filing system” covers a set of personal data collected in the course of door-to-door preaching, consisting of the names and addresses and other information concerning the persons contacted, if those data are structured according to specific criteria which, in practice, enable them to be easily retrieved for subsequent use…

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses have run into trouble elsewhere, too. Russia has arrested a number of the group’s followers in the country after declaring the religious community to be an ‘extremist organization’ in 2017 and utilizing other methods to crack down on their activities.

“Like Russia, South Korea has mandatory military service and has so far denied offering Jehovah’s Witnesses a pass. Seoul’s constitutional court ruled last week that such a strict stance was unconstitutional and that the government must present an alternative option, but the group’s representatives told Newsweek that over 2,000 of its followers remained imprisoned in South Korea for refusing military service.”

Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would Approve of Gay Marriage and Certain Abortions

Breitbart wrote on July 9:

“Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Sunday that Jesus would approve of gay marriage and certain abortions… Asked about gay marriage, he replied that it is ‘no problem with me. I think everybody should have a right to get married regardless of their sex.’

“Regarding whether he thinks Jesus would approve of gay marriage, Carter replied ‘I don’t have any verse in Scripture,’ but added, ‘I believe that Jesus would approve of gay marriage.’ ‘I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else,’ he said… ‘The only thing I would draw a line on,’ he said, is ‘I wouldn’t be in favor of the government being able to force a local church congregation to perform gay marriages if they didn’t want to. But those two partners should be able to go to a local courthouse or to a different church and get married.’

“Mr. Carter said that abortion has always been a struggle for him, because he does not believe Jesus would be in favor of most abortions… ‘I have a hard time believing that Jesus would approve abortions unless it was because of rape or incest or if the mother’s life was in danger’… he said.”

Well, the Jesus Mr. Carter believes in is most certainly not the Jesus of the Bible who taught marriage between a man and a woman and who condemned homosexuality and the killing of innocent life (abortion) for any reason.

US Delegation Opposed to Breastfeeding?

Ars Technica added on July 9:

“In May, a US delegation to the World Health Organization issued stunning trade and military threats in its opposition to a well-established and otherwise uncontroversial resolution encouraging breastfeeding… The resolution simply put forth that mother’s milk is the healthiest option for infants and that countries should work to limit any misleading or inaccurate advertising by makers of breast-milk substitutes. It affirms a long-held position by the WHO and is backed by decades of research.

“But more than a dozen participants from several countries—most requesting anonymity out of fear of US retaliation—told the Times that the American officials surprised health experts and fellow delegates alike by fiercely opposing the resolution. At first, the US delegates attempted to simply dilute the pro-breastmilk message, voiding language that called for governments to ‘protect, promote, and support breastfeeding’ and limit promotion of competing baby food products that experts warn can be harmful. But when that failed, the US reportedly put the squeeze on countries backing the resolution by making aggressive trade and military threats—a move that further stunned the assembly.

“The Ecuadorian delegation, for instance, was expected to introduce the resolution but was weaned off the idea after the US threatened to impose harmful trade measures and withdraw military assistance—which the US is providing in the northern part of the country to help address violence spilling over the border from Colombia. Officials from the US, Uruguay, and Mexico said that at least a dozen other countries—many of which are poor countries in Africa and Latin America—dropped the resolution…

“The Times notes a 2016 series in the Lancet in which researchers estimated that universal breastfeeding could spare the lives of 823,000 children each year and save $302 billion in economic losses. The WHO has long said that breastfeeding is the optimal feeding method for infants and recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of a child’s life and continued feeding with introduction of other foods up to two years of age.

“In the end, the US’s effort to dash the WHO resolution encouraging breastfeeding was largely unsuccessful. Russia ultimately sponsored the resolution and the American delegation did not issue any threats to the country.”

We wonder why the US delegation opposed encouragement of breastfeeding. It is indeed well-established and beyond any reasonable dispute that it is the most preferable feeding method for infants.  

Acknowledgement and Disclaimer

These Current Events are compiled and commented on by Norbert Link. We gratefully acknowledge the many contributions of news articles from our readership. The publication of articles in this section is not to be viewed as an endorsement or approval as to contents or accuracy of the selected articles, but they are published for the purpose of pointing at worldwide developments in the light of biblical end-time prophecy and godly instruction. Our own comments are provided in italics.

In the first part, we discussed the biblical passages pertaining to the second Passover, i.e. Numbers 9 and 2 Chronicles 30. We read that those who were unable to partake of the first Passover [at the beginning of the 14^th day of Nisan, the first month in the Hebrew calendar], due to ritual uncleanness or absence because of a long journey, were allowed to take the second Passover. They would do so EXACTLY 30 days later [at the beginning of the 14^th day of Iyar, the second month in the Hebrew calendar], and in EXACTLY the same way as the first Passover was observed. We also saw that under King Hezekiah, the whole congregation kept the second Passover, and they proceeded to keep seven Days of Unleavened Bread, followed by another seven days of celebration.

In the past, there has been some confusion as to whether or not to keep the Days of Unleavened Bread [or some resemblance of abstaining from unleavened bread for seven days], following the second Passover.

For instance, it has been recommended that if a person keeping the second Passover did NOT observe the Days of Unleavened Bread after the first Passover, he or she should observe seven days of unleavened bread after taking the second Passover. It was also mentioned, however, that the first and last days of this period of unleavened bread following the second Passover would NOT be Sabbaths.

This approach does not seem to find biblical support. Numbers 9 does not mention anything about keeping any of the Days of Unleavened Bread after the second Passover. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible points out correctly that in Old Testament times, the second Passover was to be eaten “in the same manner as the first passover was eaten, Exodus 12:8; only no mention is made of keeping the feast of unleavened bread seven days…”

When reading about how the Jews observe the second Passover (“Pesach Sheni” in Hebrew), it is pointed out that the festival is only one day this time, rather than seven. In other words, a “shifting” takes place from a seven day festival to a one day event (the Jews consider the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread as constituting one festival, calling it “Passover,” even though technically, the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread are two different festivals). They continue explaining that it is not necessary to remove leaven from one’s premises for seven days, following the second Passover, or to abstain from eating leavened products during that time.

When reviewing the incident in 2 Chronicles 30 under King Hezekiah, we find that the whole occurrence was quite unorthodox in that people partook of the second Passover who were, under the ritual law, not permitted to do so, due to their ceremonial uncleanness (verse 18), but that Hezekiah prayed to God for “atonement” (verse 18) and God listened to him and forgave and “healed” them (verse 20), while the Levites ate throughout the feast for seven days, “making confession” (verse 22). Subsequently, the whole assembly agreed to continue the celebration for another seven days (verse 23; notice that the words “the feast” in this verse are in italics, meaning that they are not in the original Hebrew). The 14-day observance after the second Passover was done voluntarily; there was no biblical command to do so.

We do not know how exactly those 14 days were kept. But in any event, this occurrence cannot be used as a precedence for those today who keep the second Passover, so that they would need to also keep seven days of unleavened bread, because IF we were to look at the occurrence under King Hezekiah as binding for us today, then 14 days would have to be kept in some way, not just seven.

We should also understand why God was willing to “overlook” or pass over the inaccurate observance of the Passover at that time. Until King Hezekiah, there is no record that the children of Israel and Judah even kept the Passover after Joshua and Samuel (compare 2 Chronicles 35:18). They might have done so, but not with the same zeal and dedication as they did under King Hezekiah. And it appears that they did not keep it again after Hezekiah, at least not with the same zeal, until the service was temporarily restored under King Josiah (2 Chronicles 35). In the incident of 2 Chronicles 30, under King Hezekiah, God forgave them their inadequacies as He looked at their new-found zeal and dedication to His Word, even though their understanding was not perfect. Even under Moses, it appears that only very few Passovers were actually held.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers states the following pertaining to Joshua 5:10:

“This is the third Passover in Israel’s history. The first two were kept under Moses–(1) in Egypt, when the Lord delivered them; (2) the second at Sinai, when He had ‘brought them unto Himself.’ (3) The third is on the other side [of the] Jordan under Joshua. Two belong to the Exodus, or going out; one to the Eisodus, or coming in… The law in Exodus 12:48 is, “no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.” Hence, while they wandered in the wilderness, this uncircumcised generation could not keep the Passover.”

The Benson Commentary agrees, stating this pertaining to Joshua 5:10:

“The children of Israel kept the passover — Which was their third passover: the first was in Egypt, Exodus 12.; the second at mount Sinai, Numbers 9.; the third here; for in their wilderness travels, these and several other sacrifices were neglected, Amos 5:25. While they were in the wilderness, they were denied the comfort of this ordinance, as a further token of God’s displeasure. But now God comforted them again, after the time that he had afflicted them.”

Likewise Matthew Poole’s Commentary: “This [in Joshua 5:10] was their third passover: the first was in Egypt, Exo 12; the second at Mount Sinai, Num 9; the third here; for in their wilderness travels these and all other sacrifices were neglected, Amos 5:25.”

Very little has been published in the past in Church of God literature about the specific circumstances allowing or even encouraging a person to take the second Passover, when he or she did not partake of the first Passover. If anything was said at all, it was stated that the person was “unable” to take the first Passover; that “he or she inadvertently misse[d] the first Passover due to circumstances beyond their control”; that “strenuous circumstances occurred”; or that they were “not able” to keep the first Passover “due to illness or other emergency circumstances.”

Commentaries are also very vague. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states that it “was understood in later days to include all good reasons which might prevent anyone from keeping the festival.” The Benson Commentary says that “the Hebrews think that other hinderances [sic] of like nature are comprehended; as if one be hindered by a disease, or by any other such kind of uncleanness.”

We are informed that the definition of “distant journey” has been interpreted very liberally by the rabbinic tradition.

In the Church of God, it has been understood for a long time that the examples in Numbers 9 are not exclusive. A baptized person who was unable to keep the Passover because of sickness (perhaps lying in a hospital bed without any privacy) was always permitted and encouraged to take the second Passover.

There might be additional unusual circumstances which might have to be scrutinized carefully; and it is important to provide here a few more specific details for the purpose of assisting and guiding in this process. The following comments are not introducing “new doctrine,” nor are they meant to be understood as providing definitive doctrinal or administrative decisions of the Church, but rather, to help sharpen our thinking pertaining to what might or might not constitute “unusual circumstances” in specific situations. However, converted members contemplating to take the second Passover should never do so without prior consultation and counsel with the ministry.

If baptized members did not take the first Passover because of what might be described as “spiritual uncleanness” (more on this term below), which was followed by genuine repentance, would they be allowed to partake of the second Passover, or would they have to wait another year and then partake of the next first Passover? Would this situation be analogous to the ritual uncleanness prohibiting a person to partake of the first Passover? Persons who were ritually unclean could not take the first Passover, but they could take the second Passover when they had become ritually clean. Would the spiritual analogy apply so that those who were “spiritually” unclean could not/should not take the first Passover (that is why it is always emphasized during the Passover ceremony that no one should take the Passover if he/she is harboring grudges against someone else), but once they became spiritually clean, they could partake of the second Passover?

[On the other hand, a person thinking that he or she should not partake of the first Passover because of “spiritual” uncleanness would make a mistake when unilaterally deciding not to do so. Such a person might very well be sinning, as Paul commands us to examine ourselves and then to TAKE the Passover (1 Corinthians 11:28). A decision in this regard, pro or con, should always be first discussed and counseled with the ministry.]

In addition, when someone is not baptized, he would not be spiritually “clean,” but once he is baptized, he would be spiritually “clean” and therefore able to take the Passover. Does this understanding help us in determining certain developments pertaining to the second Passover? Let us suppose that someone would be ready for baptism prior to the (first) Passover, but could not be baptized just before the Passover, because of practical problems, such as no minister being present prior to Passover. Would this person who becomes baptized a few days after the first Passover be allowed to take the second Passover? We saw that a person could not partake of the first Passover when he was ritually unclean, but he could partake of the second Passover if he became ritually clean in the meantime. Would this analogy apply to spiritual cleanness due to baptism; in other words, could the spiritual analogy apply that when an unbaptized person who is spiritually unclean and therefore prevented from taking the (first) Passover, as he or she would take it unworthily, would be able to take the second Passover after he or she becomes spiritually clean through baptism?

One argument against this concept might be that the ritually unclean person was physically circumcised; that is, he could have taken the first Passover if it had not been for his ritual uncleanness or his being on a journey. The spiritual analogy might mean that the person was baptized (spiritually circumcised), but could not take the first Passover for reasons other than not being baptized, while an unbaptized person could not have partaken of the first Passover in the first place. In addition, there is no biblical record that a man who was not physically circumcised could partake of the Passover. On the other hand, as mentioned above, there are very few biblical records when the Passover was kept in the first place, and the command of physical circumcision only applied to men, not women, but women did participate in the Old Testament Passover observances.

One might also consider that just because conditions prevented the baptism from taking place before the first Passover through no one’s fault, should this preclude taking the second Passover after baptism which took place right after the first Passover? Had all the relevant conditions been in place; e.g., availability of a minister and a suitable place for baptism, then the baptism would have taken place prior to Passover. The person had no fault in not being baptized in time for the first Passover. The Israelites who could not keep the Passover because they were defiled by the dead body of a man, asked Moses: “Why are we kept from presenting the offering of the LORD at its appointed time among the children of Israel?” (Numbers 9:7). Today, a person presents himself, as a living sacrifice, to God the Father and Jesus Christ at Passover, while accepting THE Sacrifice of Christ for the ongoing remission of his sins.

We should also consider that in the situation under King Hezekiah, the first Passover could not be observed, among other reasons, as there were not enough Levites present who had “consecrated “ themselves (2 Chronicles 30:3). Could this analogy apply in a situation today when no minister was present prior to the first Passover to baptize a person?

In Matthew 18:18 we read Christ’s words to His ministry: “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

It ultimately requires a decision by the Church ministry, considering all the facts and circumstances in a given situation, as to whether it should be recommended to a person who did not observe the first Passover to be allowed to observe the second Passover. It would have to be an individual decision of the local minister, reviewing all the facts and circumstances, whether to recommend the second Passover for someone who was baptized right after the first Passover, because the baptism could not take place before the first Passover, through no fault of the person. The same might apply when a baptized person did not take the first Passover due to “spiritual” uncleanness but subsequently genuinely repents and is desirous of taking the second Passover. This might also include a situation when an ill-advised “decision” by a member was made not to take the first Passover which might turn out to have been incorrect, due to a wrong evaluation of the circumstances or due to a wrong understanding of pertinent facts, and when the member repents of his or her mistake and has the strong desire to take the second Passover. In either case, an individual should not take it upon himself or herself, without the consultation with a minister, to take the second Passover on his or her own. Although the ultimate decision rests with the individual member, it is strongly recommended that he or she counsels first with the ministry on the matter of the second Passover.

From the way Numbers 9:10-12 is rendered in some translations, one might conclude that a person MUST take the second Passover if the situation warrants it, and that the person were to sin if he or she would not do it. The Authorized Version states that those who could not keep the first Passover “shall” keep it on the 14^th day of the second month. (The Revised Standard Version and the Revised English Bible state it in similar terms, i.e. “shall” keep it, or even “must” keep it). However, this is not what Numbers 9:10-12 seems to want to convey. Rather, the idea seems to be that when the second Passover is to be observed, it must be at that particular time; it must be “to the LORD”; and it must be in accordance with the ordinances of the (first) Passover. The New King James Bible renders these verses in this way, thereby accurately reflecting the intended meaning:

“… he may still keep the LORD’s Passover. On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all of the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it.”

Also compare the New International Version; the New American Bible (“he may still keep the LORD’s Passover”); and the New Jerusalem Bible (he “can still keep a Passover for Yahweh”).

In any event, applying the principles of Numbers 9 to the New Testament Church, it will be the ministry who is to make a recommendation in a given situation, as to whether it is advisable or recommended to take or not to take the second Passover, based on godly inspiration, conveying what God may bind or loose in heaven in a specific case. Undoubtedly, the ministry has been given authority to make decisions in such cases, as God has given the ministry authority to declare, based on godly-revealed wisdom and discernment, whether someone has repented of his or her sin, or not (John 20:23). However, if the ministry, under godly inspiration, concludes that the second Passover “may” or “should be” taken, then a person’s decision to ignore the ministry and act contrarily might very well be sinful.

This would also be true for the first Passover when the ministry concludes, under godly inspiration, that there are no reasons to prevent someone from taking the first Passover, and the member just chooses to ignore such advice. The reverse is true as well: When the ministry, under godly inspiration, concludes that the first or second Passover should not be taken under the particular circumstances, then the member might sin if he or she acts contrary to that conclusion and partakes of the first or second Passover anyhow. It really boils down to the question as to whether we believe that God inspires His ministry in cases like these, or whether we are entitled to just do whatever we please (compare Judges 17:6; 21:25). [Of course, if it is concluded that a second Passover should not or does not need to be taken, then the person is of course required to partake of the next first Passover, unless circumstances dictate otherwise, as discussed above.]

Another question is how the second Passover is to be kept. The answer is: Similarly as to how the first Passover is being kept at home by those who are scattered and unable to attend the Passover service in person. The Church of the Eternal God and its international affiliates have prepared pre-recorded material for those baptized Church members who are eligible to take the first (or second) Passover at home. Normally, the Passover service consists of three parts: The footwashing; the partaking of the bread; and the partaking of the wine. When only one person is observing the Passover at home, then the footwashing ceremony must be dispensed of, for obvious reasons.

When two or more persons are partaking of the Passover at home, then—if husband and wife—they would wash each other’s feet, and if additional men and women are participating, then men would wash the feet of the other men, and women of the other women. If a ministerial couple who had partaken of the first Passover are present for the second Passover in order to assist someone who might need help, then the minister could officiate the second Passover service, but he and his wife should not partake of the Passover themselves, as otherwise, they would keep the Passover more than once within a year, which would be against God’s Law.

In conclusion, we would strongly recommend that converted members who may be in doubt as to whether or not to take the first or second Passover, should not make a unilateral decision in this regard, but counsel first with the Church ministry for guidance and direction.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

compiled by Dave Harris

A new Member Letter (July 2018) has been written and mailed our subscribers. In this letter, Michael Link encourages Christians to set our goal to be victorious in God’s calling.

“How God Views the 2018 NATO Summit” is the title of a new StandingWatch program, presented by Evangelist Norbert Link. Here is a summary:

 It started with a bang. President Trump voiced his strong objections to Germany’s plan to build a pipeline with Russia that would bring gas from Russia to Germany, thereby becoming dependent on and being held captive by Russia. Mr. Trump is not alone with his criticism of Germany. In addition, he chided NATO members, especially Germany, for not paying enough to NATO, comparing it with the huge amount which the USA provides. Disagreements exist as to what was really committed to during the summit. Fears have resurfaced that the USA may leave NATO and withdraw its troops from Europe, especially Germany. What DOES the Bible say about these developments?

“Schon sehr bald–Weltweite Vernichtung vor Christi Kommen!” is the title of this Sabbath’s German sermon, presented by Norbert Link. Title in English: “Very Soon–Worldwide Destruction Before Christ’s Coming!”

“Turbulence Along the Way,” the sermonette presented last Sabbath by Frank Bruno, is now posted. Here is a summary:

This sermonette makes the point that true chaos as we humans experience it is well within God’s plan for his creation. What appears to be chaotic and discordant is actually quite ordered and precisely designed by God. We are not unlike a small creature living among the branches of a great tree with seemingly endless limbs, sub-branches, and intricate leaves—each with their own complex structure that God planned and designed. When we are converted and we trust and believe in God our Creator—all falls into place with His order.

“Great Leadership,” the sermon presented last Sabbath by Eric Rank, is now posted. Here is a summary:

Throughout the history recorded in the Bible, leaders emerge and come to power with a wide range of quality. Some leaders were bad, some were good, and a few were great. What are the attributes that make a great leader? What can we learn and apply in our own lives where we have a scope of leadership?

On July 7, 2018, Frank Bruno will present the sermonette, titled, “Turbulence Along the Way,” and Eric Rank will present the sermon, titled, “Great Leadership.”

The live services are available, over video and audio, at http://eternalgod.org/live-services/ (12:30 pm Pacific Time; 1:30 pm Mountain Time; 2:30 pm Central Time; 3:30 pm Eastern Time; 8:30 pm Greenwich Mean Time; 9:30 pm Central European Time). Just click on Connect to Live Stream.

Magicians are impressive to watch. While their skill at performing seemingly impossible feats is fascinating, I find the psychological aspects mostly intriguing. The most important element of a well-performed trick involves causing the observer to form a false belief by manipulating his or her attention. Magicians perform tricks by drawing attention away from the hand that pulls an object out of a secret hiding place, and instead brings the observer’s focus to the other hand whose purpose is to distract. The simple action of paying attention to the wrong thing causes the unwitting observer to draw all kinds of false conclusions.

Magic tricks are designed to entertain, so the impact on those sitting in the audience is generally inconsequential. However, not all tricks that employ the use of deception are harmless. Satan is a master at distracting people from the Truth. He does this just as a magician does — by drawing attention to some other tantalizing fiction while the actual Truth is concealed. By misrepresenting facts, Satan has successfully drawn angels away from serving God. He has likewise deceived the world to believe that all of creation has somehow materialized from nothing. The contrived creation theories inspired by Satan to leave God out of the picture fit the profile of a magic trick. These creation theories provide so-called intelligent explanations that distract people from seeing how Satan hastily hides the actual Creator of all existence behind the curtain. Unlike entertaining magic tricks, Satan’s tricks have a severely dangerous effect. Those who fall for his lies are led away from obeying God.

Avoiding deception is very challenging though. Just as a magic trick can leave the observer wondering how it was possible to defy the laws of physics, a deceptive argument that is logically sound can derail good judgment — unless we are rooted in faith. Paul warned the disciples of his time about this: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (compare Colossians 2:8). If we allow ourselves to focus our attention away from the Truth that can be proven from the pages of the Bible, and instead give our trust to any other way of understanding, we allow ourselves to be cheated. When we turn our beliefs away from the simple Truth of God and entertain other contradictory teachings instead, we set in motion a process which may lead to our eternal death. Unless we reverse the process of embracing and following Satan’s lies, we become cheated out of our salvation.

Fortunately, we have a choice as to what to give our attention. We can choose to pay attention to the Truth of God, hanging on to it faithfully, or we can choose to believe the lie. It might sound like an easy thing to focus on the Truth, but it can be a great challenge. The world that we live in bombards us with ideas that tug at our faith, which may compel us to give up on the Truth that stands so opposed to the ways of the world. But we need to dig in our heels and trust in God’s Truth, not man’s. Our love for the Truth is what will keep us grounded, protect us from becoming cheated, and keep us far from condemnation (compare 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

Our sight must remain fixed on God so that we don’t become deceived by distracting arguments and ideas that pull us away from the Truth. Even though the world says otherwise, we have to remember that seeking pleasure in unrighteousness has an ultimate end that is deadly. We are instructed in this regard by the wisdom of Solomon: “My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings. Do not let them depart from your eyes; Keep them in the midst of your heart; For they are life to those who find them, And health to all their flesh” (Proverbs 4:20-22). If we don’t want to allow ourselves to be fooled by the tricks of Satan, we need to focus on the Truth and never allow our gaze to turn away from it.

by Norbert Link

We begin with a thought-provoking article pertaining to America’s Independence Day, and continue with reporting on the inconsistent and unsuccessful attempts of Europeans to deal with their “migrant crisis,” showing complete disharmony, backstabbing, blackmail, compromise, selling out and defeat of moderate voices, while the view points of the extreme right seem to become more and more victorious. In this context, please view our new StandingWatch program, titled, “Europe’s Immigration Nightmare.” 

We speak on President Trump’s unhappiness with European failure to pay adequately for their defense and rumors of US willingness to withdraw American troops from Europe, as well as a catastrophic worldwide trade war.

We also address, among other things, Prince William’s controversial visit to Jerusalem; France’s reintroduction of mandatory national service for minors; North Korea’s continuation of producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons; the ongoing military collaboration between Russia and China; the upcoming summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Finland; and Mexico’s new leadership.

Throughout this section, we have underlined pertinent statements in the quoted articles, for the convenience and quick overview of the reader.

What Would Jesus Do?

Fox News published the following article on the occasion of America’s 4^th of July Celebrations:

“What does it mean to be a patriotic American in today’s divisive climate? What are our values as a nation? How should we treat each other and those outside – or at – our borders? It’s an understatement to say we don’t all agree. The only way I can cut through the confusion is to cling to my identity in Christ. I love this country and have always felt blessed to live here. But I’ve seen enough of the rest of the world – more than 60 countries – to know that people outside of America face hardships we can’t even imagine. And I wonder just what God expects from us when so many are suffering…

“My true citizenship is in heaven. I’m a Christian first and an American second… there’s no better way to think through the hotly debated issues of our day than to ask, ‘What would Jesus do?’… Jesus was one of the least politically correct people of his day… Jesus didn’t care about politics; he cared about people. His love for little children is clear. His regard for women is well-documented. When he saw someone in need, he stopped what he was doing and responded with compassion. He treated everyone with dignity, no matter their choices or circumstances.

“… Jesus was clear about priorities. When religious leaders tried to trap him with questions about the law, he boiled it down for them – and for us: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments’ (Matthew 22:36-40).

“Let’s not forget, the ‘neighbor’ Jesus commands us to love doesn’t only apply to citizens of our country. The parable of the Good Samaritan is Jesus’ timeless lesson on who our neighbor is: anyone in need. So what would Jesus do with unborn children? With immigrant families arriving at our border or refugees seeking safe haven? With people of different races and religions? With disadvantaged children in the U.S. lacking basic necessities?…

“As citizens of God’s kingdom, we’re called to stand apart and resist cultural and political influence… When we wield spiritual power rather than political power, Christians become a force for good – in any country… This can happen here in America, if we choose biblical correctness over political correctness; if we follow Christ, not the platform of either political party…”

Europe’s Nightmare

The following articles on the topic of European immigration are selected to show the reader the hopeless attempts to deal with migrants, while resorting to controversial means and playing into the hands of far right voices, leaders and movements. We do not only quote these articles to show the way in which Satan rules this present evil world, but also, how these developments in a divided Europe pertaining to the migrant crisis will contribute to the biblically prophesied formation of a strong CORE Europe under the leadership of a powerful charismatic political and military leader. Present developments do not appear to give reason for much hope in a future peaceful and humane European power bloc.

European Immigration Deal because of Blackmail?

Deutsche Welle wrote on June 29:

“After 12 hours of negotiations, exhausted EU leaders presented an agreement on migration. It is above all a shift to the right of the political spectrum toward making it harder to cross into the EU. The populists have prevailed.

“The problem is supposed to be moved outside of Europe’s borders where screening centers will be set up. They’re supposed to scare off Libya and other North African countries, so that African migrants don’t even try to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe in the first place… The EU wants to strengthen its partnership with Libya of all places, where migrants face exploitation and torture. The Libyan coast guard, already receiving EU support, will in future be responsible for fishing migrants out of a much larger area of the Mediterranean…

“Lots of money will cloak this strategy, as will the praise for EU-African cooperation… This is, of course, much too tedious for the current political problem. It’s unfortunate that Italy’s new government of right-wing populists, with its ruthless rejection of people stranded at sea, came out on top: Reception centers in the bloc will be closed. So, Italy got its wish, at least on paper. Blackmail, as it turns out, was effective…

“Hungary’s prime minister, Victor Orban, can now rightly point to the fact that his idea – fences, fear and forcing people back to the border – won in the end… The number of migrants heading for Europe has dropped by 95 percent compared to 2015, according to the summit agreement. The question is how to prevent the remaining 5 percent from entering the EU.”

EU Plan Immigration “a Farce”

Daily Mail wrote on June 29:

“A Brussels plan to build EU migrant detention centres descended into [a] farce last night as European leaders lined up to refuse to host them… French president Emmanuel Macron said he would not host one of the ‘controlled centres’ and Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz mocked the prospect of one being built in his country… Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte rejected Mr Macron’s suggestion that the asylum centres would be hosted in countries such as Italy.”

Egypt Refuses EU Call for Migrant Reception Centers

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 1:

“Egypt… will refuse to host migrants aiming for the European Union… Egypt… will not build refugee camps for migrants deported from the European Union if asked. The announcement came after details of a new EU-wide migration deal revealed that bloc leaders will seek to build centers for asylum seekers in ‘partner countries’ in the Middle East and Africa.

“The leaders of Albania, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria have also said they will refuse to build reception centers for migrants attempting to reach the EU…”

Hungary’s New Anti-Immigration Measures

Herald Net wrote on June 29:

“… lawyers risk jail time if they so much as help a client fill out a complicated Hungarian-language form. Hungary’s parliament last week approved a legislative package aimed not only at barring the gates to almost any outsider — but also decreeing punishment for those who try to aid would-be migrants…

“Even before the latest stringent measures, Hungary earned a reputation for hostility toward migrants who surged through Europe three years ago… Hungary erected a barrier on its border with Serbia and Croatia…”

In the Arms of the Extreme Right?

The Daily Mail wrote on June 29:

“From Greece to Germany, from Sicily to Scandinavia, people are unhappy about mass migration, are punishing the politicians they blame for it and are increasingly drifting into the arms of the extremist Right.

“In Austria, the 31-year-old Right-wing Chancellor Sebastian Kurz sent hundreds of troops to the border to prepare for a possible migration surge this summer. In Hungary, the authoritarian leader Viktor Orban recently announced plans for a special 25 per cent tax on organisations that support migration…”

Core Europe–Merkel’s Deal with EU Nations

Express wrote on July 1:

“[The] German Chancellor secured ‘rapid return’ migrant return deals with 16 countries at an EU summit on Friday. At the EU summit, Germany, Spain and Greece reached a trilateral migration deal of ‘reciprocal cooperation’, along with a wider EU migration agreement. Mrs Merkel struck the deals with countries including Hungary, Belgium, France, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden, Portugal, Poland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia and Luxembourg…

“The wider EU migration agreement aims to minimise the ‘secondary movements’ of migrants, who register in one EU country and then cross into another. Asylum seekers whose ‘first entry into the European Union was Spain’ will be returned by Germany to Spain, the Spanish government said in a written statement. Germany will also pay for the cost of their return… In return, Mrs Merkel will give the go ahead for family reunification to take place in Germany. The move will see 2,900 people who presently live in Greece, reunited with their families in Germany…”

Even though some of the above-mentioned countries subsequently denied that such a deal was struck, it still shows that a core Europe or a Europe with two speeds is bound to develop. Some don’t seem to understand that a core Europe IS prophesied in the Bible. God’s Holy Word speaks of TEN European nations and groups of nations… not of 28 European member states. By no stretch of the imagination can 28 member states constitute 10 nations.

Merkel Safe for Now by Agreeing to “Transit Centers”?

Deutsche Welle reported in July 2:

“Chancellor Angela Merkel and Bavarian conservative leader Horst Seehofer have reached a deal on migrant policy that could save the governing coalition [if the] Social Democrats accept the deal…

“Merkel said Germany would be putting in place national ‘transit centers’ [on the Austrian border] to ‘order and steer secondary migration’ — the movement of migrants within the EU… In order to retain its absolute majority, the CSU is anxious to present a hard line on migrants and head off competition from the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party…”

Newsmax republished the following article by AFP, dated July 2:

“The deal… drew immediate fire from critics, such as Bernd Riexinger of the opposition far-left Die Linke party, who on Twitter slammed the plan for what he labelled ‘mass internment camps…’”

Breitbart London added on July 2:

“While Seehofer’s comparatively strong stance has caused this clash with Merkel, the Bavarian leader remains a centre-right figure fundamentally unopposed to mass migration, and the new compromise will do nothing to undo the effects of decades of mass migration to Germany…”

Germany’s Junior Coalition Party SPD May Have to “Compromise”

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 3:

“Anyone hoping for quick approval by Social Democrats [CDU’s junior coalition party] was sorely disappointed… one of the biggest problems is that the party [SPD] already resoundingly rejected transit centers back in 2015 during Germany’s previous grand coalition government.

“In late 2015, SPD leaders including now-Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, Ex-Foreign Minister and former Party Chairman Sigmar Gabriel and Secretary-General Lars Klingbeil took to social media to portray the zones as ‘gigantic prisons’ and ‘mass camps in no man’s land.’ ‘The SPD has won the day,’ Gabriel wrote on Twitter back then. ‘Transit zones are off the table. No house arrest, no fences.’

“With that in mind, the SPD is almost certain to insist at least upon a change in name for the facilities proposed by the CDU and CSU… That choice of phrase leaves enough wiggle room for Social Democrats to reach some sort of agreement with conservatives on new migrant processing facilities, provided they’re called something else. But whether the SPD’s own grass roots will allow the leadership to exploit that leeway is another matter…

“It’s in the SPD’s best interest to facilitate a reconciliation between Germany’s two conservative parties. A divorce between the CDU and CSU would almost certainly prompt a fresh national election. That’s something that the SPD, currently mired in historic lows of 16 to 18 percent in public opinion polls, can ill afford.”

And in fact, they did compromise.

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 5:

“The leaders of Germany’s three-way governing coalition [CDU, CSU and SPD] agreed on a deal concerning migration and asylum policy after German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a deal with Interior Minister Horst Seehofer to introduce tougher controls at Germany’s border with Austria…

“The leaders agreed on ditching so-called transit centers to process incoming asylum-seekers, rather there will now be ‘transit processes in police centers,’ CSU leader Seehofer told reporters.”

The fact is that the “transit centers” are to remain, only with a different name. Seehofer now speaks of “transfer centers.”

What political dishonesty and despicable maneuvering.

Merkel Under Fire

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 4:

“Addressing parliament for the first time since her clash with Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, the German chancellor sought to stress a common way forward. But things remain tense both inside and outside her coalition… if Merkel was trying to sell peace and prosperity, the largest opposition party, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), wasn’t buying. Before Merkel’s speech, AfD joint parliamentary leader Alice Weidel, took direct aim at the chancellor. [Weidel] called the deal on migrants a ‘Pyrrhic victory’ and prophesied that the governmental crisis over the issue would continue. She added that the conflict was symptomatic of a general failure on the part of the government… The far-right populist concluded by calling upon Merkel to resign…

“[The SPD] insisted that the foundation of government policy remained the coalition agreement signed by the CDU-CSU and the SPD in March and not any deals struck between conservatives alone… ‘You lost sight of the basics,’ the co-leader of the Green party’s parliamentary group, Toni Hofreiter, said [to Merkel]. ‘What you’ve created is chaos.’”

“Merkel Hangs on by Selling Out”

Handelsblatt Global wrote on July 3:

“If you believe their spin, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union and Horst Seehofer’s Christian Social Union last night snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. One moment Seehofer was still heard jibing that ‘I won’t let myself be sacked by a chancellor whom I made chancellor in the first place.’ A few hours later, besotted by the thought of clinging to his office a bit longer, he was gloating that the deal they had struck contains everything he had demanded and ‘allows’ him to remain interior minister.

“There is nothing good about this deal. Neither for this governing coalition… nor for Germany, which will keep teetering on the brink of a governmental crisis; nor for Europe, which now lacks a reliable partner in its largest member state; nor for refugees, who will be caught in a legal and humanitarian limbo as Europe keeps fighting about them…

“For Merkel, this amounts to 99 percent capitulation. Since the fall of 2015, and with renewed vigor in recent weeks, she had insisted that Germany’s nine borders (which all lie within the Schengen area) remain open, and that no asylum seekers will be turned back before their case is heard. Now they will be turned back: into camps that mustn’t be called by that name (lest they remind people of concentration camps). Any reverse flow from the camps to Austria or Italy will cause those countries to close their borders, which amounts to precisely the ‘nationalist’ and ‘un-European’ solution Merkel had claimed to oppose…

“Merkel has sold out. The deal… will not restore peace to the relationship between CDU and CSU. There is no more trust among them. The sparring parties will stumble from fight to fight, all the way up to the regional election in Bavaria in October. It remains hard to imagine that both Merkel and Seehofer can stay in office. Meanwhile, the Social Democrats are fed up with both of them…”

The Chicago Tribune wrote on July 2:

“Relations between Merkel’s CDU and its Bavarian sister have been badly strained, and the CSU itself is now riven by competing factions… ‘How often have… Merkel and… Seehofer said they’ve found a “good compromise” that then resulted in an escalation just a few hours / days / weeks later?’, Katrin Göring-Eckardt, the leader of the Green Party, tweeted after the compromise was announced. ‘It’s exhausting. It doesn’t solve any problems, it just creates new ones.’”

“Transit Zones” Already Exist in Hungary

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 3:

“The transit zones… already exist in Hungary.

“In the transit zone, which Hungary has declared a no man’s land, officials… check whether the asylum-seeker has been registered in another European Union country or whether the asylum application is obviously unfounded for other reasons…

“Rejected asylum seekers are returned to Serbia from the transit zone. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg condemned this practice back in March 2017… The court called their internment illegal. The deportation to Serbia was also criticized because there was a risk of a ‘chain deportation’ to Greece. Hungary has appealed this judgment. A final verdict is still pending…

“For transit zones to work, it is imperative to seal off the border with a fence or very tight border controls… In the case of Germany, this would mean that the border with Austria would have to be closed off and controlled along its entire length of 817 kilometers. But this wouldn’t comply with the rules of free movement within the Schengen area…”

Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz: The EU’s New Power Broker?

Deutsche Welle wrote on June 30:

“Austria takes over the EU Council presidency on July 1. Its conservative new leader Sebastian Kurz sees himself above all as a gatekeeper, with migration at the top of the agenda for his country’s mandate… With a right-wing populist chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, at its helm, the bloc is about to be led by a country whose policies on migration in recent years have shown little willingness to compromise…

“Austria’s EU presidency coincides with the final stretch of the Brexit negotiations, set to be finalized this year in order to pave the way for the UK’s exit from the bloc in early 2019. Whether such deadlines can be met remains to be seen…”

It also remains to be seen what else Austria will do while “in charge” of the EU.

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 3:

“Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz… said that a migration deal that ended a bitter dispute between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, would force Austria to ‘protect’ its southern border…

“Analysts have warned that other EU countries may mimic Austria’s reaction…”

“US Considering Troop Withdrawal from Germany, Report Says”

Deutsche Welle reported on June 30:

“The US Department of Defense is examining options for withdrawing US forces stationed in Germany after President Donald Trump expressed interest in such a move, The Washington Post reported on Friday. The newspaper… said officials were analyzing the cost and consequences of shifting either some or all 35,000 US troops to the US or Poland…

“The US Department of Defense rejected The Washington Post‘s report on Friday evening. A Pentagon spokesman told German news agency DPA that the National Security Council had not received any cost analysis from the Ministry of Defense for relocating US troops stationed in Germany. Trump had reportedly showed interest in shifting US forces during a White House meeting earlier in the year after he had voiced shock at how many US troops were in Germany, the largest contingent of US forces in Europe…

“European officials have learned about the analysis, according to the newspaper, and are trying to ascertain whether it reflects Trump’s intentions or is part of a negotiating ploy ahead of a July 11-12 NATO summit in Brussels…”

“Trump Warns NATO Allies to Spend More on Defense, or Else”

The New York Times reported on July 2:

“President Trump has written sharply worded letters to the leaders of several NATO allies – including Germany, Belgium, Norway and Canada – taking them to task for spending too little on their own defense and warning that the United States is losing patience with what he said was their failure to meet security obligations shared by the alliance… In his letters, the president hinted that after more than a year of public and private complaints that allies have not done enough to share the burden of collective defense, he may be considering a response, including adjusting the United States’ military presence around the world.

“‘As we discussed during your visit in April, there is growing frustration in the United States that some allies have not stepped up as promised,’ Mr. Trump wrote to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in a particularly pointed letter… ‘The United States continues to devote more resources to the defense of Europe when the Continent’s economy, including Germany’s, are doing well and security challenges abound. This is no longer sustainable for us… Continued German underspending on defense undermines the security of the alliance and provides validation for other allies that also do not plan to meet their military spending commitments, because others see you as a role model.’”

Handelsblatt Global wrote on July 3:

“Trump actually has half a point. At another NATO summit in Wales in 2014, the allies had agreed to a long-term goal of spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Germany currently spends only 1.3 percent… The budget for 2019 does include more money for the army: €42.9 billion, or €4 billion more than this year. But that only sounds good until you realize that Germany should in theory be spending more like €72 billion a year… In a nightmare scenario, Trump starts drawing down the US military presence in Europe, or makes other gestures that cast doubt on NATO’s ability and will to defend itself…”

Ultimately, Europe will have their own powerful army, as the Bible clearly prophesies.

Trade War Between USA and its Allies and Foes

AFP wrote on June 29:

“Canada hit back at the United States Friday with retaliatory tariffs on $12.6 billion in American goods, including summer barbecue essentials such as orange juice, ketchup and bourbon. The 25 percent tariffs on steel products and 10 percent on consumer goods take effect on July 1 in the opening salvo in a trade war with President Donald Trump.

“Ottawa also announced Can$2 billion (US$1.5 billion) in aid for Canadian steel and aluminum industries and workers hurt by US metals tariffs.”

AFP wrote on July 4:

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday warned US President Donald Trump against unleashing an all-out trade war after he threatened to impose steep tariffs on cars from the European Union. In a speech to the Bundestag federal parliament, Merkel said both sides were effectively locked in a ‘trade conflict’ since Trump’s decision to slap punitive tariffs on steel and aluminium [sic] imports. ‘It is worthwhile to prevent this conflict from becoming a real war’… Trump on Sunday charged that Europe is ‘possibly as bad as China’ on trade, as he reiterated that he is mulling import taxes of 20 percent on EU cars.

“The EU has slapped tariffs on iconic US products including bourbon, jeans and Harley-Davidson motorcycles, as a symbolic tit-for-tat response to the metals duties. Taking aim at Trump over his complaint that the EU, and in particular economic powerhouse Germany, is running a massive trade surplus against the US, Merkel said that his calculation is skewed as it is based only on goods, not services.”

Fortune wrote on July 2:

“The European Union is reportedly preparing to slap tariffs on up to $300 billion of U.S. products, if the White House goes ahead with its threatened tariffs on auto imports from the EU. This is based on a letter, reported by the Financial Times, from the European Commission to the U.S. Commerce Department.

“The threatened figure is enormous, dwarfing the levels of tariffs that have been lobbed at the U.S. in the early stages of what may turn out to be a fully-fledged trade war. It’s around the same as the value of U.S. imports of foreign cars and parts…”

Newsmax wrote on July 3:

“Major U.S. trading partners including the European Union, China and Japan voiced deep concern at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Tuesday about possible U.S. measures imposing additional duties on imported autos and parts… Over 40 WTO members, including the 28 countries of the European Union – warned that the U.S. action could seriously disrupt the world market and threaten the WTO system, given the importance of cars to world trade… A Russian official told the WTO meeting that the issue of U.S. investigations had been raised over the past year in different WTO meetings, only to see things change for the worse. The United States was losing its reputation as a trusted trade partner, the Russian delegate told the meeting…

“China, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Turkey, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Venezuela, Singapore, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Qatar, Thailand and India all echoed the same concerns and said they doubted the U.S. tariffs were in line with WTO rules…”

AFP wrote on July 5:

“Steep American tariffs on Chinese goods worth tens of billions of dollars are due to take effect at midnight Thursday, as US President Donald Trump fires the decisive salvo in a trade war between the world’s top two economies.

“Beijing has vowed to retaliate dollar-for-dollar, ‘immediately’ imposing counter-tariffs on American exports despite warnings the burgeoning conflict will send shockwaves around the global economy and strike at the heart of the world trading system…”

“Horribly Intolerant Behavior” by Democrats in Opposition to Trump’s “Disgraceful Policy”

Piers Morgan wrote on June 25 in the Daily Mail:

“Last week was a very bad week for President Trump. His disgraceful new policy of separating migrant children from their parents rightly blew up in flames of hellish vitriol and scorn. There was no defence for such a vile, heartless action and Trump fully deserves all the criticism that has since rained down on his head – including from his own wife and daughter, and senior Republicans. You can tell just how bad it was by the way he performed an almost unprecedented, panicky U-turn within days of the scandal being exposed.

“Yet America’s liberals… still conspired to get it horribly wrong and allow Trump to regain the high moral ground. First, actor Peter Fonda tweeted: ‘We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles and see if mother will stand up against the massive giant [real bad language] she is married to.’ I read this disgusting post with a mixture of shock, horror and head-scratching bemusement. What on earth possessed Fonda to write such a thing about an innocent young 12-year-old boy who must already be suffering considerable angst from being the son of such a divisive president?

“… the owner of a Red Hen restaurant in Virginia threw out Trump’s press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the weekend – simply because she works for Trump… This incident came a few days after Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was interrupted by protestors in a Mexican restaurant in Washington DC, and after Trump adviser Stephen Miller was branded a ‘fascist’ while dining in another Mexican restaurant…

“Regardless of what you think of Trump, it’s absolutely pathetic that a White House employee like Sarah Sanders cannot eat with her family in an American restaurant without being humiliated in such a way. It’s even more pathetic that U.S. politicians are now demanding more of this kind of nonsense…

“Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters openly called for more Trump staffers to be targeted in public… This is a member of Congress actively encouraging crowd disorder against anyone in the Trump administration, regardless of whether they are out in a private capacity, perhaps with young family. It’s hard to think of a more intolerant, or dangerous, command from someone who professes to want more tolerance.

“… This kind of horribly intolerant behaviour only serves to further strengthen Trump’s support, especially amongst those who voted for him, and thus further increases his chances of winning another term in 2020. So ironically, and inexplicably, liberals are currently doing everything in their power to help get Trump re-elected.”

This shows how terribly divided the USA is today.

How the Post-War German Government Used Nazis for their Services

Fox News reported on June 29:

“The daughter of Heinrich Himmler [Gudrun Burwitz-Himmler], who led Adolf Hitler’s ruthless SS, worked as a secretary for West Germany’s [foreign intelligence] spy agency [BND] in the 1960s [from 1961 until 1963] in Munich under a different name despite never renouncing Nazism and remaining active in far-right extremism for decades…

“Burwitz-Himmler, who was famously photographed with her father at various Nazi events when she was a child, was a notorious postwar supporter of the extreme right and remained active in those circles into her old age. She died last month in Munich at 88… She worked at the BND at a time when it was led by Reinhard Gehlen, a controversial ex-WWII German general who also worked for U.S. intelligence postwar and employed many former military officers and Nazis as spies. Gehlen ran the then-West Germany spy agency until 1968.

“After the war, Burwitz-Himmler was arrested and made to testify at the Nuremberg trials and repeatedly sought to justify her father’s actions. She married journalist Wulf Dieter Burwitz, who later became a party official in the Bavarian section of the far-right NPD. She was also affiliated with Stille Hilfe, or “Silent Assistance,” which helped accused Nazi war criminals find refuge and avoid extradition. It is believed the group was first created by a group of SS officers and right-wing German clergy. She remained a committed Holocaust denier until her death.

“… the BND has come under criticism in recent years for failing to root out right-wing extremists in the post-war era. Critical historians have said ex-Nazis and far right sympathizers working inside security agencies after World War II may have protected others. Himmler, who as commander of the SS was a principal architect to the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust, killed himself while in British custody in 1945.”

Prince William’s Controversial Trip to the State of Israel

Breitbart wrote on June 28:

“Prince William reportedly refused a request to meet with Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat in the capital out of concern that it would come across as a political statement. Barkat in turn refused to meet with the British royal outside the capital. According to Israel’s Channel 2, Barkat asked to meet with the British royal in the capital but was told that meeting in that location would imply British recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. Instead the prince was told that he could meet with Barkat at a reception at the British ambassador’s residence in Ramat Gan. Barkat refused, saying he would rather not meet at all ‘out of respect for Jerusalem.’…

“The prince’s trip was the first official visit by a member of the royal family since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The visit sparked a minor controversy even before it took place when Kensington Palace used the term ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’ to describe his upcoming visit to Jerusalem’s Old City. UK Ambassador to Israel David Quarrey defended the decision, saying that all ‘the terminology that was used in the program was consistent with years of practice by British governments. It’s consistent with British government policy.’

“The prince also drew criticism for referring to ‘our two countries’ during his meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas… Britain’s Foreign Office said… that ‘the UK government supports the creation of a sovereign, independent and viable Palestinian state… The UK will recognize a Palestinian state at a time when it can best help to bring about peace.’…

“William had a poignant last day on Thursday, with visits to the Western Wall, the Temple Mount and the [Russian Orthodox Church of St. Mary Magdalene to visit the grave of his great-grandmother, Princess Alice] on the Mount of Olives… The prince also visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and received special dispensation to enter the Dome of the Rock, despite the fact that he is not Muslim.”

The Times of Israel wrote on June 27:

“Although prince visited PM and president, a mayoral meet in the capital was apparently a step too far, given UK stance on [the] disputed city… Apparently a meeting by the prince with the mayor in Jerusalem, however, would have implied an unacceptable degree of British recognition of Israeli rights in the city.”

The Bible shows that ultimately, Israel will find no support from either Britain or America, let alone from Europe or other nations.

France to Reintroduce Compulsory National Service for all 16-Year-Olds

The Independent wrote on June 28:

“The French government has begun putting into action its promise to reintroduce national service for all 16-year-olds. During his election campaign Emmanuel Macron, France’s prime minister, said restoring national service would inspire patriotism and social cohesion. Both girls and boys will serve in the two-stage programme.

“The first stage will be a compulsory month-long placement with a focus on civic culture… The options being looked at include voluntary teaching and working with charities, alongside traditional military training with the army, police or fire service. This would largely take place during France’s school holidays.

“A second, voluntary stage of at least three months and up to a year would also be available. In this phase, young people would be encouraged to serve… in an area linked to defence and security… However, they would also be able to volunteer for work in social care, culture or the environment…

“The plan represents a watered-down version of the ‘direct experience of military life’ Mr Macron promised during his election campaign. Between 600,000 and 800,000 young people would have faced military training and spent at least a month with the armed forces…

“Mr Macron is the first French president not to have done military service, as he came of age after the practice was scrapped. National service ended in Britain in 1957, though military service remains compulsory in Greece, Russia and Finland.”

This crazy but dangerous idea reminds us of the type of compulsory national services in communist countries and in Nazi Germany. The fruits of such indoctrination have always been terrible. Furthermore, we feel strongly that France will, in due time, introduce compulsory military service, and other European nations will do likewise.

North Korea INCREASES Production of Enriched Uranium for Nuclear Weapons

The Huffington Post reported on June 30:

“North Korea has been secretly increasing production of enriched uranium for nuclear weapons at clandestine sites, several U.S. intelligence sources have told NBC News.

The information, based on the latest U.S. intelligence assessment, follows CNN’s publication of satellite photos earlier this week showing expanding work on a nuclear research site in North Korea.

“The news also comes just weeks after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met with President Donald Trump in a historic summit in Singapore. The leaders said they would ‘work toward’ denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but they didn’t settle on specific details or deadlines…

“The North Koreans have stopped nuclear tests, but ‘there’s no evidence that they are decreasing stockpiles, or that they have stopped their production,’ said one U.S. official, the network reported Friday. ‘There is absolutely unequivocal evidence that they are trying to deceive the U.S.’ Another senior intelligence official told NBC: ‘Work is ongoing to deceive us on the number of facilities, the number of weapons, the number of missiles’…

“Satellite images from June 21, which CNN revealed Wednesday, appear to show upgrades to a major nuclear research facility in North Korea. Analysts at 38 North, which tracks North Korean activity, said the images revealed that ‘improvements to the infrastructure at North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center are continuing at a rapid pace.’”

Was it really believable that one could trust the North Korean dictator’s “promises” to denuclearize his country?

China and Russia to Collaborate Militarily

MSN wrote on July 3:

“China’s defense minister has pledged his country’s support to the Russian army in the latest in a series of high-level contacts between the top U.S. military rivals… [It was] emphasized that the military leaders expand and deepen cooperation in all areas… [and that] the friendly cooperation between Chinese and Russian militaries has maintained a sound momentum of high-level development, and the two armies have yielded great results in such fields as personnel training, joint training and exercises, and military competitions…

“China and Russia… both expand their military power and enhance their political clout abroad. They have pursued a number of joint military exercises, enhanced bilateral economic relations and have vowed to support one another in the face of what they see as U.S. Cold War-era aggression toward their rise.

“… China and Russia also have unique relationships with their mutual neighbor, North Korea… China and Russia attempted to persuade the United Nations Security Council last week to introduce measures that would gradually remove tough sanctions against North Korea amid a thawing in its relationship with the U.S., but Washington refused, citing a lack of progress in Pyongyang’s denuclearization.”

Upcoming Trump-Putin Summit on July 15 in Helsinki

Breitbart wrote on June 29:

“President Donald Trump will demand Russian leader Vladimir Putin force Iran to pull out their military presence from Syria, an unnamed source told the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat. ‘If the Putin-Trump summit is held on July 15, its core will be to negotiate Washington’s insistence on Iran’s withdrawal from Syria,’ a Western diplomat told the newspaper in anticipation of the meeting between the two men next month. Iran, alongside Russia, has been providing military assistance to Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian Arab Army in its civil war against the government rebels…

“The Kremlin has since confirmed that preparations are underway for the meeting, with the Finnish capital of Helsinki as the chosen location… this meeting will be the first official one solely between the two leaders. Their relationship has been subject to much speculation from the media, as Trump remains under investigation by the FBI for alleged collusion that occurred during the 2016 election with the Russian government…”

Invading Venezuela?

On July 4, Newsmax re-published the following article of The Associated Press:

“As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country? The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration…

“In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship… But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.

“The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head. The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a ‘military option’ to remove Maduro from power… shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos…

“Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos… Trump… went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution [and] each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.

“… a National Security Council spokesman reiterated that the U.S. will consider all options at its disposal to help restore Venezuela’s democracy and bring stability. Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S., Canada and [the] European Union have levied sanctions on dozens of top Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself, over allegations of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights abuses. The U.S. has also distributed more than $30 million to help Venezuela’s neighbors absorb an influx of more than 1 million migrants who have fled the country.

“Within days of the president’s talk of a military option, Maduro filled the streets of Caracas with loyalists to condemn ‘Emperor’ Trump’s belligerence, ordered up nationwide military exercises and threatened with arrest opponents he said were plotting his overthrow with the U.S….”

Mexico’s New Leadership

Deutsche Welle wrote on July 2:

“Mexico’s new left-wing president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (“AMLO”), has all the political means he needs to reinvent the country, for better or for worse… [He] will have an enormous amount of political power. Not only did he and his Morena party make history by capturing more than half the presidential vote for the first time in modern Mexico in a competitive election, they also won several state governorships, the influential post of Mexico City mayor and… the majority of both chambers of congress…

“Lopez Obrador… is regarded as a messiah. He has made many promises, too. He wants to put a stop to organized crime’s rising influence, curb Mafia-like government bureaucracy, end impunity, be an advocate for the poor, fight for justice, commit himself to democracy and national sovereignty and, of course, be tough in the face of US President Donald Trump.

“AMLO will have to unite Mexico’s various political groups if he wants to make good on his promises, in particular to reduce the huge gap between rich and poor… Every single day, 70 percent of Mexican exports go to the US… to prevent a further deterioration in US-Mexico relations, continued cooperation in important areas like immigration and cross-border crime is vital.

“Mexico needs peace. These days, the universities are empty because young people prefer to make easy money in organized crime. Last year alone, more than 26,000 people were murdered in the country. AMLO must change that if he wants to show that millions of Mexicans were right in supporting him. There will not be a run-off ballot, so the dye is cast. There is no second chance — Mexico has reached a crucial turning point in its history…”

Tarot Cards an Ancient Evil

Breaking Israel News wrote on June 25:

“Sales of tarot cards have risen sharply in the last year as self-proclaimed witches claim that divination and dark-magic are effective…

“The BBC published an article last week noting a 30-percent increase in sales in tarot cards last year, citing data collected by US Games Systems, a publisher of tarot games. Tarot may be a modern trend but its roots are ancient, with some sources claiming the deck has its origins in the Book of Thoth, a legendary tome of Egyptian occult and idolatry. Based on four suits, tarot cards are similar to common playing cards but with some significant differences that serve its primary purpose: divination.

“The Latin root of the word ‘divination’ means “to foresee, to be inspired by a god,” but the Torah expressly forbids the practice. ‘Let no one be found among you who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer’ Deuteronomy 18:10.

“Rabbi Daniel Asore, a member of the Sanhedrin, noted that the anti-divine aspect of divination is precisely the reason why the practice is proscribed and considered one of the more egregious forms of evil…”

Acknowledgement and Disclaimer

These Current Events are compiled and commented on by Norbert Link. We gratefully acknowledge the many contributions of news articles from our readership. The publication of articles in this section is not to be viewed as an endorsement or approval as to contents or accuracy of the selected articles, but they are published for the purpose of pointing at worldwide developments in the light of biblical end-time prophecy and godly instruction. Our own comments are provided in italics.

There are two passages in the Bible which deal expressly with the “second Passover.” It is first introduced in Numbers 9:1-14, where we read:

“Now the LORD spoke to Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying: ‘Let the children of Israel keep the Passover at its appointed time. On the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight [literally, “between the two evenings,” designating the time between sunset and nightfall], you shall keep it at its appointed time. According to all its rites and ceremonies you shall keep it.’ So Moses told the children of Israel that they should keep the Passover. And they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, at twilight, in the Wilderness of Sinai, according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did.

“Now there were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day [compare Numbers 5:2; 19:11-12]; and they came before Moses and Aaron that day. And those men said to him, ‘We became defiled by a human corpse. Why are we kept from presenting the offering of the LORD at its appointed time among the children of Israel?’ And Moses said to them, ‘Stand still, that I may hear what the LORD will command concerning you.’

“Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, saying, “If anyone of you or your posterity is unclean because of a corpse, or is far away on a journey, he may still keep the LORD’s Passover. On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it.

“‘”But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be cut off among the people, because he did not bring the offering of the LORD at its appointed time, that man shall bear his sin. And if a stranger dwells among you, and would keep the LORD’s Passover, he must do so according to the rite of the Passover and according to its ceremony; you shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger and the native of the land.”‘”

In the Old and the New Testaments, the Passover was to be observed as a memorial once a year. In our free booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days“, we state:

“We read in 1 Corinthians 11:26: ‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.’ Many have interpreted this Scripture to say, ‘Take it as often as you please.’ But this is not what the Scripture teaches. By reading in context, we learn that Paul was reminding the disciples of the events that happened on the ‘same night in which He (Christ) was betrayed’ (verse 23). Paul stated that on that night, Christ took the bread and the wine, gave it to His disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat…do this in remembrance of Me… This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me’ (verses 24, 25)…

“Christ commanded His converted disciples to partake of the symbols of bread and wine ‘in remembrance’ of ‘the Lord’s death.’ This is clearly a memorial—as the first and last Days of Unleavened Bread are memorials—and memorials of momentous occasions are always observed annually—once a year—on the anniversary of the event they commemorate. It should be noted that God specifically denotes seven ANNUAL Sabbaths or Holy Days to be observed in their appointed times. These annual Holy Days are either memorials of events that have already taken place, or they foreshadow events that will still occur. It is during these annual observances that we are instructed to keep exactly what God has commanded.

“Christ and His disciples were keeping the Passover—an annual celebration of the time when Old Testament Israel was spared from death… the Israelites had to take some of the blood of the Passover lamb and put it on the two door posts and on the lintel of the houses where they ate the lamb (Exodus 12:7–8). God had promised to ‘pass over’ the Israelites when He saw the blood (Exodus 12:13, 23). The entire service was called the ‘LORD’S Passover’ or the ‘Passover sacrifice’ (Exodus 12:11, 27).

“Luke 22:15 tells us that Christ had ‘desired with fervent desire to eat this Passover.’ We read in Matthew 26:17–20 that the disciples had prepared the Passover, and that Christ and His disciples ate it—the Passover lamb—’when evening had come’ (Matthew 26:20; notice also Mark 14:12–18, 22). Christ changed the symbols that night from the flesh and the blood of a lamb, to the bread and the wine of the true ‘Passover Lamb’—Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7)…

“By partaking of the bread and the wine on the Passover night, Christ’s disciples symbolically partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ for the continued forgiveness of their sins, as well as for their physical and spiritual healing, eventually leading to eternal life (John 6:58). So we see that it was the night of Jesus’ last Passover supper that He introduced the new symbols. Note that the Passover symbols were changed, not WHEN, or how often, Passover itself was to be observed.

“The Passover was kept once a year—’as a memorial.’ On the night when Christ was betrayed, He kept the Passover. The Passover was, at that time, celebrated as a supper—that is why it is called in Scripture ‘the Lord’s supper.’ Christians are today to continue keeping the Passover, but not as a meal—not as ‘the Lord’s Supper.’ They are only to partake of the symbols of bread and wine on the Passover night. They do not eat a full meal during the Passover service… Christians are told that they must ‘discern the Lord’s body’—they must distinguish the symbols of bread and wine from an ordinary meal (1 Corinthians 11:29). 1 Corinthians 11:20, 34 tells us, ‘Therefore when you come together in one place, it is NOT to eat the Lord’s Supper… But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.’ (As an aside, nowhere does the Bible describe the Passover service as ‘communion,’ when we are to partake of bread and/or wine)… Paul did NOT say in 1 Corinthians 11 that Christians should partake of the ‘Lord’s Supper,’ and that they can do so ‘as often as they please.’ Rather, they are partaking of the New Testament Passover symbols of bread and wine once a year—during the Passover service—in memory of and as a memorial of Christ’s death and sacrifice. Every year, when they do so, they proclaim Christ’s death until He returns.”

The introduction of the second Passover does not change anything in regard to what is stated above. Those who are allowed to observe the second Passover did NOT keep the first Passover. Those who have kept the (first) Passover would not keep it again one month later. That means, the Passover is still being kept only once a year.

As Israel forsook God and His laws, they also forgot to keep the Passover and the Seven Days of Unleavened Bread, which follow the Passover. In due time, King Hezekiah of Judah restored the proper worship temple service in Judah, and in the process, he told the Jews and those from the house of Israel who had not been taken away by the Assyrians to keep the Passover (2 Chronicles 30:1, 6). However, as “they could not keep it at [the] time [of the first Passover], because a sufficient number of priests had not sanctified themselves, nor had the people gathered together at Jerusalem” (verse 3), the king, his leaders and all the congregation in Jerusalem had agreed to keep the Passover in the second month (i.e., to keep the second Passover) (verse 2). Many of the remnant of the house of Israel refused to come to Jerusalem for the second Passover, but some “humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem” (verses 10-11). Some of those who assembled had not “cleansed themselves” “according to the purification of the sanctuary”, even for the second Passover, they “ate the Passover contrary to what was written.” Hezekiah prayed for God’s forgiveness for them, and God healed them (verses 18-20).

God had decreed that the Seven Days of Unleavened Bread were to be kept in the first month, following the (first) Passover. The king and the people proceeded to keep them however in the second month, following the second Passover (2 Chronicles 30:13, 21-22). And because of the restored feelings of gladness and joy, it was decided to observe the Days of Unleavened Bread for another seven days (verse 23). We read that “since the time of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel, there had been nothing like this in Jerusalem” (verse 26).

We note that the first Passover was not observed because there were not sufficient priests who had [ritually] sanctified themselves “because the cleansing of the temple was not finished until the sixteenth day, see 2 Chronicles 29:17 and… because the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently; that is, a sufficient number of them were not sanctified, to slay all the passover lambs” (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible); and because the people had not gathered together in Jerusalem which “they could not do, because neither was the matter agreed upon, nor were the people summoned thither, till the proper time was past” (Benson Commentary).

In addition, we read that there were those who ate the second Passover even though they had not cleansed themselves. They were not ceremonially clean, but God forgave them upon the prayer of Hezekiah.

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary explains that the priests slaughtered the Passover lamb for those who were ceremonially unclean (see verse 17), stating: “This was a deviation from the established rules and practices in presenting the offerings of the temple. The reason was, that many present on the occasion having not sanctified themselves, the Levites slaughtered the paschal victims… for everyone that was unclean. At other times the heads of families killed the lambs themselves, the priests receiving the blood from their hands and presenting it on the altar. Multitudes of the Israelites, especially from certain tribes (2Ch 30:18), were in this unsanctified state, and yet they ate the [second] passover—an exceptional feature and one opposed to the law (Nu 9:6); but this exception was allowed [better: it was not held against them] in answer to Hezekiah’s prayer (2Ch 30:18-20).”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible adds the following comments to verse 17: “For there were many in the congregation that were not sanctified,…. Or purified from uncleanness, contracted either by idolatry, or through such things which, according to the ceremonial law, made them unclean, and from which they had not now time to cleanse themselves according to the law: therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the passovers for everyone that was not clean, to sanctify them unto the Lord; this they did for the masters of families, who were ceremonially unclean, who otherwise might have killed their passover lambs themselves, see Exodus 12:6, but now the Levites did it for them, that their passovers might be sanctified and consecrated to the Lord; for, as Philo the Jew says… one day in a year the whole sacrificed, everyone acted as a priest, and brought and slew his own sacrifice, meaning at the passover.”

The Benson Commentary adds this in commenting to verse 18:

“A multitude of the people had not cleansed themselves — Either they did not know, after such a long night of ignorance and superstition, what ceremonies were required, in order to their purification, or they had not time to use them. Yet having an eager and pious desire to commemorate their wonderful deliverance out of the Egyptian bondage, they were permitted, in their uncleanness, to eat the [second] passover, lest they should be discouraged if they were denied it, in this their return to the true religion. But Hezekiah prayed for them — It was his zeal that had called them together in such haste, and he would not that they should fare the worse for being straitened for time in their preparation. He therefore thought himself concerned to be an intercessor for those that ate the [second] passover otherwise than it was written. And he had confidence that God was so gracious that he would not, on account of the omission of some prescribed ceremony, be wroth with men whose hearts were upright before him.”

We need to emphasize that the second Passover is still to be observed today with the new symbols introduced by Jesus, but ONLY by those who did not and could not partake of the first Passover. We note that in Old Testament times, the second Passover was observed exactly in the same way as the first Passover, only that it was kept exactly one month later, but still on the 14th day of the (second) month, “at twilight” (between the two evenings of sunset and nightfall); with unleavened bread and bitter herbs; and with Passover lambs which were not to be kept until morning, and the bones of which were not to be broken. (Of course, blood was not put on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses during the first or the second Passover, as this was strictly done during the very first Passover night. That part of the original ceremony was not carried out during subsequent first and second Passover celebrations.)

We should also note that Numbers 9:10-12 does not say anything about observing Seven Days of Unleavened Bread AFTER the observance of the second Passover. We will discuss in the next installment as to how we are to understand and apply today the events described in 2 Chronicles 30.

In addition, we read that only those could observe the Old Testament Passover (both the first and the second Passover) if they were physically circumcised (compare Exodus 12:48). This fact has important ramifications for the observance of the New Testament Passover as Paul warns against partaking of it in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27, 29). In ancient Israel, a foreigner could not partake of the Passover if he was not physically circumcised, and from this, the Church of God has concluded and teaches that a person must be “spiritually” circumcised in order to partake of the Passover.

Note this from our free booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days,” regarding the Passover:

“The Old Testament demands that no male who was uncircumcised was to participate at the Passover… Even though physical circumcision is no longer a requirement for New Testament Christians, they are circumcised spiritually (Colossians 2:11–12; Romans 2:26–29). This can only occur through the indwelling Holy Spirit, which God gives us after proper baptism. Christ’s disciples had been baptized (even though, in the extraordinary case of the eleven apostles, they had not yet received the Holy Spirit—they would receive it, however, on the Day of Pentecost)…

“No male was allowed, in Old Testament times, to partake of the Passover, unless he was circumcised. True Christians are circumcised spiritually, in the heart, by and through the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, after proper baptism. Therefore, only properly baptized members of the spiritual body of Christ—the Church—who don’t hold grudges against anyone, and who do not have hate toward others in their hearts, are to partake of the annual symbols of bread and wine. In doing so, they reflect on the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. This teaching is supported by the fact that Jesus waited until Judas had left them, before He introduced the New Testament symbols of bread and wine…”

As there is, in spiritual application, “neither male nor female” in God’s Church today (Galatians 3:28), the requirement of having been “spiritually circumcised” by having been properly baptized and having received the gift of the Holy Spirit in order to partake of the Passover symbols applies to both men and women.

We should take note of the fact that the second Passover was for those who could not take the first Passover because, among other reasons, they were ritually unclean or defiled by having touched a corpse. When they became ritually clean, they could take the second Passover. In the next installment, we will discuss if and under what circumstances the spiritual analogy might apply when a person who is spiritually unclean and therefore prevented from taking the first Passover, as he or she would take it unworthily, would be able to take the second Passover after he or she has become spiritually clean. In this context, we will also address the important point that the men who were not able to keep the first Passover due to ritual uncleanness asked Moses why they should be deprived from presenting the offering of the LORD on Passover. Finally, we will explain how eligible participants should observe the second Passover.

(To Be Continued)

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

compiled by Dave Harris

A Tech Team Meeting was conducted on July 1, 2018, via SKYPE. Hosted by Eric Rank, plans for ad campaigns on the Internet, podcasts and specific equipment needs for our live broadcasts were discussed.

“Europe’s Immigration Nightmare,” is the title of a new StandingWatch program, presented by Evangelist Norbert Link. Here is a summary: 

Europe is involved in an unparalleled immigration scandal, showing complete disharmony, backstabbing, blackmail, compromise, selling out, a defeat of moderate voices and a victory of the far right. A European “deal” of establishing “screening centers” in African countries has been described as a “farce.” Germany’s Angela Merkel is fighting for her political survival and striking controversial and probably illegal deals with Bavaria’s Horst Seehofer regarding transit centers on European soil. Austria’s Sebastian Kurz is proposing more controversial ideas. Where will this all end?

“Europas katastrophale Einwanderungspolitik,” is the title of a new AufPostenStehen program, presented by Norbert Link. This is the German language version of the subject described above.

“Die Bibel zeigt: Der Dritte Weltkrieg kommt bald!” is the title of this Sabbath’s German sermon, presented by Norbert Link. Title in English: “The Bible Shows: World War III Comes Soon.“

“Hungering for the Unknown,” the sermonette presented last Sabbath by Robb Harris, is now posted. Here is a summary:

Man’s arrogance led him to build the tower in Babel, not to glorify God but to stand as a monument to man. God commanded man to be prosperous and fill the earth, something quite opposite to what those in Babel were doing. We must not fall into a similar trap, through arrogance, assuming our own desires and knowledge are sufficient to please God.

“Is This the Time of the End?” the sermon presented last Sabbath by Dave Harris, is now posted. Here is a summary:

We live in a period when things are about to change. In fact, they already are—IF we understand what to look for! By all indications, this is the time of the end spoken of in the Bible. It is the closing generation of Satan’s rule over mankind.