DARWIN DIED A CHRISTIAN (1809-1882)

To commemorate the 100th anniversary of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, the following extracts were reproduced from Dr. Oswald J. Smith's book, The Challenge of Life.

IT may surprise students of evolution who do not know, to learn that in the closing days of his life Darwin returned to his faith in the Bible. Many a man, as he approaches the end, and consequently comes more consciously into the presence of God and Eternity, has regretted both his views and his conduct. Such a one was Darwin.

The story is told by Lady Hope of Northfield, England, a wonderful Christian woman who was often at his bedside before he died. She herself writes it, and not only is it interesting, it is also most enlightening. Here it is in her own words:

It was on one of those glorious autumn afternoons that we sometimes enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well known Professor, Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some time before he died. I used to feel when I saw him that his fine presence would make a grand picture for our Royal Academy; but never did I think so more than on this particular occasion ... His noble forehead and fine features seemed to be lit with pleasure as I entered the room. He waved his hand toward the window as he pointed out the scene beyond, while in the other hand he held an open Bible, which he was always studying.

'What are you reading now?' I asked as I was seated by his bedside. 'Hebrews', he answered -'still Hebrews. The Royal Book, I call it.'

I made some allusion to the strong opinion expressed by many persons on the history of the Creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the

earlier Chapters of the Book of Genesis. He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said, 'I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.'

He suddenly said,'I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people ... Tomorrow afternoon I would like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours, to gather there. Will you speak to them?'

'What shall I speak about?', I asked. 'Christ Jesus!', he replied in a clear, emphatic voice - adding in a lower tone, 'and His Salvation. is not that the best theme?'

The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this, I shall never forget ... How I wish I could have made a picture of the fine old man and his beautiful surroundings on that memorable day!

WAS THERE EVER A MORE DRAMATIC SCENE? DARWIN, ENTHUSIAST FOR THE BIBLE!

Back To Archive Contents

CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS NOW

THERE is much evidence to prove that Monday, October 5th, is the anniversary of the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

ON this date in the year 4 B.C., the Babe Jesus was born, although, ironically enough, Christendom does not celebrate the event until December 25th, whilst the true date is allowed to pass by without so much as a sign from the

leaders of organized religion.

The belief unfortunately persists that the birth occurred on December 25th between the years 7 B.C. to 3 B.C. Although those holding these beliefs appear to agree on the day and the month, there is a certain amount of disagreement regarding the actual year.

Let us examine some of these statements wherein December 25th is presumed to be the correct date.

The Encyclopedia Britannica (11 th edition) vol. 6, page 293, states: 'The earliest identification of December 25th with the birthday of Christ is in a passage otherwise unknown and probably spurious, of Theophius of Antioch (A.D. 171-183) preserved in Latin by the Madgeburg Centuriators to the effect that the Gauls contended that as they celebrated the birth of the Lord on December 25th, whatever day of the week it might be, so they ought to celebrate the Pascha on March 25th, when the Resurrection befell.

'Certain Latins as early as A.D. 354 may have transferred the human birthdate (of our Lord) to December 25th, which was then a Mithraic Feast, and is referred to by certain chronographers as Natalis Invicti Solis, or the birthday of the unconquered Sun.'

Although we have abundant evidence that Christianity was introduced into Britain by the Apostles themselves within the fifth year after the Crucifixion, the so-called Christian Calendar giving the Nativity of our Lord as falling on the Winter Solstice, December 25th, was generally adopted by the Western Church about the third century, although the Eastern Church did not do so until near the end of the fourth century, when it was received from Rome with the intimation that the census role in the Roman archives contained the date December 25th as the correct date.

St. Luke (2:2-7) records that Christ was born when Quirinus, the Governor of Syria, commenced to enforce the Decree of Caesar Augustus that all the (then known) world should be taxed, and reports that Joseph accompanied

Mary to Bethlehem to be so taxed, and that she, whilst there, was delivered of her child.

History reveals that the Romans were averse to disturbing Jewish Feasts and Customs, and this particular decree would operate during the civil year which commences in Tisri, the equivalent of our September or October. This period, falling as it did between the harvest and the ploughing season, proved the most convenient time for the making of a register of census.

The Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was held on 15th Tisri, and this would explain why all places were filled, so that Joseph and Mary had recourse to the stables of an inn wherein the Babe was born.

Quirinus was Governor of Syria from 4 B.C. to 1 B.C., and the Register was commenced during the first year of office. It was in the year that the Feast of Trumpets was held on the seventh day of the seventh sacred month, a Saturday or Sabbath day, and therefore the probable day on which the Babe was born.

The Gospels state that the tidings were given to the shepherds who were attending their flocks by night, but here again we have evidence that it was not customary to keep the flocks out in the open during the night after the end of October, certainly not during the winter nights.

St Luke (2:21-39) further records that after the Circumcision and days of purification were ended, Mary went to the Temple at Jerusalem to present the Babe to the Lord in accordance with Jewish custom.

It was about this time that Herod gave orders for the destruction of all boys under the age of two years, and St. Matthew (2:12-15) records that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, warning him to take the Babe and mother into Egypt, as Herod was seeking to destroy Him. He further records that Jesus was taken a journey of, roughly, 200 miles into Egypt, where He remained until after the death of Herod.

It is well to note here that records at our disposal show how impracticable such a journey would be if undertaken after mid-November, unless, of course, one travelled via the sea route, but of this we know Joseph and Mary did not avail themselves. At the time of this journey the Babe was about six weeks old, and this exactly fits in with all the other known facts.

Now Herod was proclaimed king by the Romans at the 184th Olympiad, which was a period of four years, at the end of which were held the games that commenced the next period. The first Olympiad was during the period 776772 B.C., and was reckoned as from Midsummer to Midsummer. The end of the 184th Olympiad would therefore be Midsummer 40 B.C.

According to the celebrated historian Josephus, Herod actually reigned after the death of Antigonus in the Autumn of 37 B.C., and he frequently states that over three years elapsed between the Roman Proclamation and the death of Antigonus.

Josephus counted his year from Nisan to Nisan, the equivalent of our March, and he would therefore have counted the portion of the first year of Herod's reign before Nisan as being one whole year, and as he states that Herod reigned 34 years after the death of Antigonus, his reign terminated before the Passover of Nisan 3 B.C.

Certain writers have endeavoured to prove that Herod died on a date different from the actual date in order to prove correct their theory that the Holy Babe was born on December 25th.

The records made by Josephus, however, are very complete and authentic. He states that Herod burnt the Priest Matthias and on the same night there was an eclipse of the moon. There is no record whatever to show that such an eclipse of the moon, visible from Jerusalem during the beginning of the year 3 B.C. ever took place, but a record does exist of such an eclipse occurring during the night of March 12th to13th in the year 4 B.C.

The Feast of the Passover in the year 4 B.C., occurred on April 10th, which is barely a month after the eclipse, and we know that Herod was then alive.

Josephus records that after the death of Herod, the funeral preparations and the procession of the golden bier to Herodium, together with the period of mourning, amounted to some five weeks. He also records that as the time for the holding of the Feast Of the Passover, following the funeral, approached, there was feasting and rioting among the populace, and the authorities were compelled to call out a regiment of soldiers to quell such rioters.

From this it is obvious that the death of Herod must have occurred at the beginning of the year 3 B.C. as the eclipse of 4 B.C. occurred within one month of the Passover of that year, and it has already been shown that the period of time between Herod's death and the Passover was about ten weeks, so that the eclipse, death, burial, riots and Passover could not possibly have taken place within the period of the same year. The Jewish Megillah Taanith states that the death occurred on Sebat 1st or January 18, 3 B.C., and with this date the records of Josephus agree.

Referring back to St Matthew 2:19-23, it is recorded that another Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to return to the land of Israel, and that Joseph did take Mary and the Babe to Nazareth.

St Luke 2:41 states that Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover, and it is presumed that they attended the one held on March 31st, 3 B.C., following the death of Herod.

The correct chronology would therefore be:

1). Decree of Caesar Augustus, about May, 4 B.C.;

2). Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem for census, late Septernber or very early October;

3). The Nativity, October 5th, 4 B.C.

4). Presentation at the Temple (43 days after), November 16th, 4 B.C.;

5). Flight to Egypt, November 18th, 4 B.C.;

6). Death of Herod, January 18th, 3 B.C.;

7). Funeral, mourning, etc., to February 28th, 3 B.C.;

8). Feast of Passover, March 31st, 3 B.C.

This proves very conclusively that the present-day Christmas celebrations do not connect in any way with the anniversary of the Nativity.

What then, is this celebration connected with?

Professor Waddell in his The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots and AngloSaxons produces evidence, that as far back as 1500 B.C., certain inhabitants of Britain were Sun worshippers, similar to the ancient Egyptians of 2000 B.C., and that one of their festivals was Natalis Invicti Solis, the birthday of the unconquerable Sun, and such festival was held on December 25th, which date originally coincided with the Winter Solstice.

The 'Christian' Church did not include any festival in December, certainly not the Christmas festival, until the end of the third century, and it is presumed that this festival was probably adopted by the Roman Church at that time when many pagans were being converted to their faith, and no doubt it was considered advisable to hold such a festival in order to retain them in the

Roman Church.

As we are now approaching the close of the 'Latter Days' so often referred to in the Bible, and in addition have had days set aside for National prayer to God, seeking God's aid to deliver us from the trials and tribulations that now beset us, is it not a little incongruous that we still hold on to our pagan feast days which obviously are opposed to God, inasmuch as, through the celebrations conducted in many Churches, they lead us to break the first and greatest commandment? We cannot expect God to deliver us from our enemies and still continue with our idolatrous rituals. That surely is sheer hypocrisy which the church seems all too eager to accept, inasrnuch as they have consented to both in the past; and it would appear to be high time that the churches reconstituted their Calendar.

It is gratifying to know that Scotland has managed to resist such pagan influence. Let us hope that in the not-too-far future the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America will be equally sensible.

In the field of ideas the aim of international finance is to defile and destroy. For the money power nothing is sacred but its law. Every noble idea of honour, family, nation, faith and race is systematically dragged through the mire of 'homogeneity', 'equality' and 'debate', until the genetic and moral fibre of nations lies in ruins.

(From Kingdom Tracts. Published by Kingdom Digest 1981)

Back To Archive Contents

GENTILES OR NATIONS?

A study by J.O.Adams

T hroughout this study I have used my own translation unless otherwise marked. I have used italics for 'understood' words required in translating. Where the definite article occurs in the original language but is not required in English I have used an asterisk. Thus at times *God is used to represent 'the God'. I have also used italics for Hebrew, Greek or Latin words. In typing Greek words 'e' is used for epsilon, 'E' for eta, 'o' for omicron and 'O' for omega.

In our English Bibles, in the books of both the Old and New Testaments, the word 'gentiles' occurs frequently. The word is used to translate the Hebrew word goi of the Old Testament, and the Greek ethnos of the New. (There is also another word rendered 'gentiles' in the A.V of the New Testament. This is the Greek, 'hellEn', but I will mention this later.)

Both words denote 'a nation' or 'people' - i.e. they refer to a body of people, irrespective of racial origin, organized as a separate political state, and occupying a definite territory. The Hebrew lexicons tell us that goi, properly 'a confluence of men', denotes 'a body politic, or whole people' (Gesenius). It is also pointed out, that in the singular, goi usually refers to the 'nation' of Israel, and in the plural it is specially used of the (other) nations besides Israel. However both singular and plural are at times used of Israel. For instance it was said to Jacob; 'A nation (goi) and a company of nations (goyim) shall be from thee,' (Gen.35:11). The N.T word is used similarly. In the A.V we find both words represented by 'nations', 'gentiles', 'heathen', and 'people'. The following remarks are pertinent to both Old and New Testaments, but I will confine them to the N.T. ethnos.

In translating this word the A.V. uses 'heathen' five times and 'people' twice.'Nations' occurs 64 times and 'gentiles' 93. Of these, 'nations' occurs 21 times in the gospels, and 43 in the other books. 'Gentiles' only occurs 15 times in the gospels, but 78 times in the other books. (Only one of these is in the Book of Revelation). It is the usage in the epistles, and especially those of Paul, that most interests me.

It has been suggested that 'gentiles' should he replaced by the correct meaning of ethnos, which is a 'nation'. However this is not as clear cut as it may appear. Paul does not always apply this word to nations as a whole, but rather to groups of his 'brethren' - persons of Israel stock, who are residing in

nations other than Israel. It is noteworthy that all his epistles were written to Greeks. (Even his epistle to the Romans is directed to Greeks living in that country.)

His letter is addressed: 'to all those beloved of God, called ones, set apart (or 'holy') ones, being in Rome'. (Rom.1:7) 'Called' and 'set apart ones' are terms that are specifically used of Israel. It is noticeable that Rome is only mentioned twice in the whole epistle. It was well known, both to the Jews and the Greeks at this time, that they were kinsmen. (See I Macc. 12, and Josephus - Books 12 & 13.)

Paul then, was writing to his 'brethren' - a word which should always be given its literal meaning of kinsmen. He makes this clear in Rom. 9:3, which in the A.V reads: 'For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.'

I would like to digress here to explain this verse, for this is an incorrect and misleading rendition. Could anyone imagine that Paul would wish to be accursed from Christ! The first verb in the verse is in the imperfect tense. Giving this its proper value, Paul's words become: 'For I used to wish, I myself, to be accursed (or 'anathema'); alienated from the anointed One (or 'the Christ'), for the sake of my *brethren, my *kinsmen according to flesh.' As the correct translation shows, Paul was alluding to the time before his conversion, when, as Saul, he persecuted our Lord's followers.

So then the people Paul was addressing in all his epistles were his blood brothers - people of his own race, the sons of Jacob. This being so he was not addressing other nations as such, but his fellow countrymen, who were living in other countries. These are people to whom the word 'gentile', if properly understood, is applicable. Before dealing with the proper meaning of this word, let us look at a few passages, which clearly show to whom he was writing when he used ethnos, 'a nation'.

Romans 11:13,14.

'But to you, the nations I say, Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of nations, I magnify my ministry if by any means I may excite my flesh to emulation and save some from among them.'

Paul was not speaking to whole nations, but to those of his kinsrnen, his 'flesh', who were residing in Rome. Continuing in verse 15, he speaks of their 'casting away'. The reference can only be to the outcasts of the people of Israel.

I Corinthians 12:2.

In the preceding verse these people are also called his brethren.

'Ye know that when ye were nations ye were led astray' These too, were not whole nations (plural). These were Paul's kinsmen, scattered among the nations. They had become part of the Greek nation and were residing at Corinth.

Galatians 2:12.

Paul was speaking of Peter: 'For before certain men came from James, he ate with the nations' Peter did not eat with a number of whole nations, but with persons (of his own people) belonging to another nation - i.e. not Jews.

Ephesians 2:11, 12.

'Wherefore remember that when ye were the nations, those being called uncircumcision in flesh, by those called circumcision, which was in the flesh, made by hand, that ye were at that time set apart from an anointed people, having been alienated from the citizenship of *Israel, and become strangers in relation to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world-order.' These Ephesians were also people from the cast off House

of Israel. They were not 'nations' (plural), but people of Israel stock residing at Ephesus - originally a Greek city, but under Roman rule. They had been 'apart from' the Israel nation -not 'without Christ' as in the A.V. The time Paul referred to was prior to the Lords coming.

Ephesians 3:6.

'That the nations should be joint heirs and a joint body, even joint sharers of the promise, through the good news ('gospel') in respect of an anointed people belonging to Jesus.' The promise is singular, and is that given to Abraham and his seed. I see this as the promise of Genesis 17, the promise of life after death, which is the gist of the covenant symbolised by circumcision. Other nations cannot be heirs to, or share in, that promise. The 'gospel' is that of the kingdom - the good news that the outcast sons of Jacob can be received back into the Israel nation through belief. This too cannot apply to nations other than Israel. Again we see that these Ephesians were not a number of whole nations, but were Paul's kinsmen living in another nation.

The Hebrew goi and the Greek ethnos are equivalent to each other, both meaning 'a nation, a people'. In the Vulgate version, the Latin gens, and occasionally gentilis, is used to represent these two words. From this the word gentilis has been adopted into our language as 'gentile'. The Douay version, a translation of the Latin Vulgate into English, has frequently used 'gentile' for both goi and ethnos. Our A.V. has gone further, and in the N.T, uses 'gentile' more than 'nation' to represent ethnos. Many have said that 'gentiles' is wrong and should be replaced by 'nations' on each occasion. However when the proper meaning of 'gentile' is known this is not always true. Although I dislike the incorporation of this Latin word into our language, in many places it actually expresses the intended rneaning better than does 'nation'. This is particularly the case in many of Paul's writings.

The Latin gens used in the Vulgate, is equivalent to either goi or ethnos. Like these two words gens is a noun and means 'a nation'. From gens the adjective gentilis is formed, and this is the word we have absorbed into the English language. Being an adjective, gentilis does not mean 'a nation', but means 'of', 'belonging to', or 'pertaining to', a nation. If it is employed as a noun it means 'one (or 'ones') belonging to a nation. If used as a noun to represent ta ethnE, which is the plural of ethnos with the article, it means

'those belonging' to the nations'. These meanings also apply to our English word, 'gentile'. In fact the Oxford Dictionary defines gentile as an adjective: 'of or pertaining to any or all of the non-Jewish nations'. as a noun: 'one of any non-Jewish nation'. It is now interesting to go back to any of the examples I have quoted and to substitute either 'gentiles', or 'those belonging to nations', in place of the word 'nations'. For example Ephesians 2:11: 'Wherefore remember that at one time ye were the gentiles' (Or better, 'belonging to another nation.') Ephesians 3:6: 'That those of our people belonging to other nations ... should be joint-heirs, etc.'

I have also mentioned that in the A.V., the meaning 'gentile' is given to another word, the Greek, 'hellEn'. HellEn means 'a Greek', and there are just six occasions where the translators have rendered it, not as Greeks, but as 'gentile'. These are, John 7:35: Romans 2:9,10; 3:9; I Corinthians 10:32; 12:13. Nevertheless this use of 'gentiles' where the Scripture has 'Greeks' is interesting, for it shows that in the minds of our translators, the Greeks were synonymous with the gentiles. In other words they were applying the plural word ethnE, 'nations', to the one nation of the Greeks. It also implies that they, like Paul, used ethnE to indicate some of the people residing in a nation, or nations, other than that of the Jews (or Israel).

Each of the five passages mentioned above will repay closer attention, keeping in mind, that in the places where the A.V. has 'gentiles', the Scripture has 'Greeks'. In Romans 2:9,10 Paul compares Jews and Greeks, but a few verses later, while still discussing the Greeks, he refers to them as gentiles.

Throughout the Book of Acts, and in Paul's epistles, Jews and Greeks are mentioned together, and compared or contrasted on about 15 occasions. In addition to these, the Greeks are frequently referred to in the N.T. books, and their relationship to the Jews - the only official remnant of Israel at that time is a rewarding study. (See Josephus and I Maccabeus 12).

Back To Archive Contents

THE BRITISH (COVENANT) CHURCH

By

David Jones

BEFORE we can study the history of the true British Church, we should first understand the real meaning of the words 'British' and 'Church'. In all matters concerning Christianity the one true authority is, of course, The Bible. It may be useful at this stage to confirm that the word 'British' actually means 'Covenant man'- but more of that statement later

If we look at the word 'church', we see that this comes from the Greek word ekklesia, which is translated in the New Testament as 'church'. The Greek word ekklesia means 'the called out ones'. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word qahal describes the same people - God's assembled people.

The 'called out ones', are God's chosen ones, His elect or those whom God has predestined to be His. These people God 'called out' of the world, to be His own. Only one people can fit this description in Biblical times and today. The Hebrew/Greek words translated as 'church' do not refer to modern church denominations or their members.

Jesus Christ said, as recorded in Matthew 21:43, that The Kingdom was to be given to another Nation. Do we know anything of this Nation or people 'called out' by God over the last 2000 years since Jesus Christ used these simple, but quite definite words that cannot be misconstrued? Which people, above all others, has done most to spread God's Word? Are we too ashamed to admit that no Nation or people has 'brought forth the fruits' to the extent that Britain has over the past 2000 years?

Concerning the modern usage of the word 'church', it is no longer a well known fact that the first church was established here in Britain within a few years of the ministry of Jesus Christ in Palestine. Yes, the first church! Many think that the first churches were established in the Middle East but this is not so. The persecutions that took place immediately following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, ensured that any such assemblies were small and

secret, especially when the Jews and later the Romans started to fear the socalled new religion.

If, as Jesus Christ confirmed; a Nation rnade up of God's church or elect, would 'bring forth the fruits', we should surely be able to see such a Nation in the early years following Jesus Christ's ascension. What can we learn, in this respect, from the writings of the early authorities? *

Tertullian. A.D. 155-222. He was Christianity's first genius after the apostles, and he wrote, 'The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms have received the religion of Christ'.

Eusebius. A.D. 260-340. He was Christianity's first great historian, and he wrote 'The Apostles passed beyond the ocean to the isles called the Britannic Isles'.

Dorotheus. The Bishop of Tyre in A.D. 303 said 'Aristobulus, whom Paul saluted, writing to the Romans (Romans 16:10) was Bishop of Britain'. He also mentions by name another disciple as visiting Britain. 'Simon Zelotes preached Christ through all Mauretania, and Afric, the less. At length he was crucified at Britannia, slain and buried'.

Theodoret the Blessed. He was the Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, and writing in A.D. 435, said, 'Paul, liberated from his first captivity at Rome, preached the gospel to the Britains and others in the west. Our fishermen and publicans not only persuaded some Romans (i.e. Roman citizens, just like Paul) and their tributaries to acknowledge the Crucified and His laws, but the Britains also and the Cymry (the Welsh)'.

Chrysostom. The Patriarch of Constantinople A.D. 347- 407 wrote, 'Though thou shouldest go by the ocean to the British Isles, there thou shouldest hear all men everywhere discoursing matters out of the Scriptures with another voice, but not another faith, with a different tongue but the same judgement.'

Gildas the Wise. A.D. 425-512 the early British historian wrote, 'Christ the True Sun afforded his light, the knowledge of his precepts, to our Island in the last year of Tiberius Caesar.' This was in A.D. 37, only four years after the Crucifixion!

In the Diocletian Persecution. In A.D. 300, there were martyred in Britain by Rome, Stephen and Argulius, both Bishops of London; Socrates, Bishop of York; Arnphibalus, Bishop of Llandaff; Nicholas, Bishop of Penryn (Glasgow); Melior, Bishop of Carlisle; St. Alban; Julius and Aaron, elders of Caerleon; and 889 communicants in different grades of society.

The British Bishops. Eborius of York, Restitutus of London and Adelfius of

Caerleon were present at the Church Council of Aries in A.D. 314. British Bishops were also present at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, Sardica in Illyria, A.D. 347 and Ariminium in Italy, A.D. 359.

It is important to know that it was over FIVE CENTURIES after the founding of the early British Church that the first representatives of the so-called Rornan Christianity came to these islands. The rnonk, Augustine, sent by Pope Gregory arrived in Kent in the year A.D.597 - please reflect on the dates mentioned above!

This same Augustine, writing to Pope Gregory about the early British Church in A.D. 600 said, 'In the western confines of Britain, there is a certain royal island of large extent, surrounded by water, abounding in all the beauties of nature and necessities of life. In it the first neophytes of catholic law, God beforehand acquainting them, found a church constructed by no human art, but by the hands of Christ himself, for the salvation of His People'. This was Glastonbury's church, originally built with wattle.

This statement refers to the tradition that between the ages of 12 and 30, during which period the Gospels make no mention of Him (compare St Luke 2:42 & 49 with 3:23), Jesus Christ Himself visited these Islands with Joseph of Arimathea. Traditionally, Joseph was the uncle of the Virgin Mary, and came to Ynis-witrin, later called the Isle of Avalon, now Glastonbury, Somerset. Tradition and history further assert that when Joseph of Arimathea returned here after the Resurrection and Ascension, he and the eleven Disciples, who came with him built a wattle church. This was The First Church building above ground and it stood where the Norman Chapel of St. Mary stands in the Abbey grounds.

William of Malmesbury. A.D. 1080-1143, who was the best British historian of his day and who was asked by the monks of Glastonbury to write their history, says that after the Crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea came here with eleven missionaries and that the King Arviragus gave them twelve Hides of land.

The Doomsday Book has the following entry which lends support to the above words of Augustine and of William of Malmesbury; 'The Church of Glastonbury has its own ville, twelve Hides of which have never paid tax'.

Maelgwyn of Llandaff. Circa A.D. 450. He was Lord of Anglesey and Snowdonia, and Uncle of St David of Wales, who forswore his realm in order to become a monk. He has left these words: 'Joseph of Arimathea, the noble decurion, entered his perpetual sleep with his eleven Companions in the Isle of Avalon'.

Polydore Vergil, a learned Italian historian in England, A.D. 1470-1555, wrote, 'Britain, partly through Joseph of Arimathea was of all kingdoms the first that received the Gospel'.

Superior dignity and antiquity was claimed for the British Church at the Roman Catholic church Councils of Pisa 1409, Constance 1417, Sienna 1424 and Basle 1434. This was on the grounds that 'the churches of France and Spain must yield in points of antiquity and precedence to that of Britain, as the latter Church was founded by Joseph of Arimathea immediately after the passion of Christ'.

After studying the above facts, can anyone say that the Roman Catholic church is the first true apostolic church? The Roman Catholic church was not even represented in these British Isles, over five centuries after the British Church was founded. To place this fact in perspective, this is like comparing the present date with AD. 1492, when Columbus had just landed in America

and Henry VII ruled in England.

How can it be that many in this country still believe that Augustine brought Christianity to this land? Why do the Archbishop of Canterbury and other church leaders still speak of this lie whenever they have the opportunity? This, of course, is the 'unity' of ecumenism! We should know that true Christian unity is not the same as conformity!

When Augustine arrived here in A.D. 497 (incidentally he never travelled much beyond the area which we now know as Kent) he was met by the British Church representatives and he was told by them:

'Be it known and declared that we all, individually and collectively, are in all humility prepared to defer to the Church of God, and to the Bishop of Rome, and to every sincere and godly Christian, so far as to love everyone according to his degree in perfect charity and to assist them all by word and in deed in becoming the children of God. But as for any other obedience, we know of none that be, whom you term the Pope, or Bishop of Bishops can demand. The deference we have mentioned we are ready to pay to him as to every other Christian, but in all other respects our obedience is due to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon, who is alone under God our ruler to keep us right in the way of salvation'.

The Synod of Whitby in A.D. 664, marked the First entry of Roman Catholic influence into the native British church, which was now of both British and Celtic origin. Here, it was agreed that Roman Catholic usage on three points was to be followed. This was the first British ecumenical movement - just as wrong then as now! One far reaching result was that the native Church, distinguished for its evangelistic zeal and piety, was now controlled centrally under increasing Roman Catholic encroachment.

The first notable resistance to Roman usurpation was made by Williarn the Conqueror, when Pope Gregory demanded of him homage for William's realm of England. King William replied 'Fealty I have never willed to do, nor will I do it now. I have never promised it, nor do I find that my predecessors did it to yours'. Later, he refused to allow Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, to go to Rome at the summons of the Pope to answer for his conduct.

In later years, King Edward III in refusing to give homage and to pay the tribute to the See of Rome, asked parliament for their advice. The Bishops, Lords and Commons after full deliberation gave it in these words, 'That any king, could bring himself, his realm and people under such subjection without their assent and that if done, it was without the consent of parliament and contrary to his Coronation oath, and that in case the Pope should attempt to constrain the King and his subjects to perform what he lays claim to, they would resist and withstand him to the uttermost of their power'. Compare this statement with the compromise and cant of today's church leaders and politicians!

The continuity of our British Church is seen in Archbishop Cranmer's statement to Parliament in 1549 that the Prayer Book, then being authorised, contained the same prayers that had been in use in Britain for over 1500 years - that is from the days of Joseph of Arimathea and the Apostles. The breach with the foreign Roman system was made absolute in the words of Article 38 of the British Church's Articles of Religion contained in the Book of Common Prayer. To these Articles, all clergy of the Church of England are still required to subscribe. Article 38 reads, 'The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and over his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction ... The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.'

The Sovereign, by virtue of his position, undertakes even today in the Coronation Oath 'to the utmost of his power to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel; to the utmost of his power to maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law. And to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government thereof, as by Law established in England'.

Furthermore, in contradistinction to the headship of a Pope, the appointment of the Sovereign to the headship of the Church of England marks an exact following of Scriptural precedent. 'We give not to our Princes the ministering of either God's word or of the Sacraments but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God

himself, that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers.'

The British Isles can claim that, from the days when the first wattle church was built at Glastonbury, it has never lacked a Church, subject to no other church on earth. This Church recognising the apostolic Scriptures alone for its rule of faith, and its form of Government. This British Church has not only received its faith direct from the Apostles but may also claim that Jesus Christ visited the place of its foundation.

What can we learn if we now look at the word 'Covenant'? In Britain, we look on the Bible as two separate books known as the Old and the New Testarnents. This is quite wrong. The Bible when correctly translated contains no word for 'Testament'. The Hebrew word 'berith' means Covenant. There can be no argument over this fact; reference to any Hebrew dictionary or lexicon easily and quickly proves this point. Therefore, the Bible is correctly divided into two parts the Old and the New Covenants. God made these Covenants with man. It is important to remember that God not man made the Covenants! In both instances, Old and New, the Covenants were made with the same people - God's chosen people, the Israelites.

It is of vital importance that all should realise that the people we today refer to as the Jews are not Israelites; but proselytes from many nations to the Talmudic Jewish religion. This religion, Judaism, is not the religion of the Old Covenant (Testament) Israelites and people should not give the impression that the two faiths have a common inception or intent.

Jesus Christ said, speaking to the Jews as recorded in Matthew 21:43, 'Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof'. Jesus Christ told the Jews, who had attempted to usurp The Kingdom from God's chosen people, the Israelites, that they would not inherit The Kingdom. The Kingdom was to be given to another Nation - an Israelite Nation, just as promised by God in the Old Testament Covenants.

1) Whom did God 'call out' in Genesis? It was Abraham. Genesis 12:1.

2) Whom did God 'call out' in Exodus? It was the Israelites, Abraharn's descendants. Exodus 3:16-17.

3) With whom did God make all His Covenants? It was the Israelites alone.

4) With whom did God make the New Covenant? It was with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Hebrews 8:8.

5) Whom alone did God say He had called? It was Abraham. Isaiah 51:2.

6) To whom alone did Jesus Christ say that He was sent? It was to the House of Israel, Abraham's descendants through Isaac and Jacob (renamed Israel by God Himself). Matthew 15:24.

The Israelites alone comprise God's true Church as defined by Scripture itself.

When we consider the Hebrew words for 'covenant' and 'man' we see 'berith' and 'ish' respectively. The word 'ber-eeth' and the word 'ish' is pronounced as'eesh'. If we place the two words together to mean 'Covenant Man', we see that the pronunciation is 'ber-eeth-eesh'. Now after approximately 4000 years usage and allowing for ever so slight a change, 'ber-eeth-eesh' is extremely close to British!

When one considers that the old English word 'ain' means land, we have 'bereeth' plus 'ain'; that is Britain! Alternatively, more simply the Covenant Land. To confirm this point further we can deliberate upon the word 'Britannia'. How many know the meaning of this word? Well, the word 'annia' comes from the Hebrew word 'oniyah' which is pronounced 'onee-yaw' and means, 'ship'. Therefore, the Hebrew words pronounced as 'ber-eeth- on-ee-yaw', actually means Covenant Ship! Co- incidence? God made the Covenants with our ancestors for their benefit. These same Covenants are here today for our benefit - spiritual and secular! When will we return to The Faith of our fathers?

When will we stop trying to fill our churches, rather than fill our minds with the love and knowledge of God?

'Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, but they said, we will not walk therein'. Jeremiah 6:16. When will we listen?

We are commanded to, 'Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness'. Matthew 6:13. When will we listen?

God's promise is sure to those that accept The Faith (His Word) and try to carry out His commandments. Our ancestors knew this, as did our early British Church. When we listen, repent and trust The Word, we too shall understand; 'Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him'. I Corinthians 19.

We should ask ourselves which Nation, descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) was to be called 'Great', as noted in Genesis chapter 12:2? 'And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great'.

It is quite apparent that History over the last 4000 years since God gave His promise to Abraham records only one - 'Great Britain'!

*With acknowledgement to Revd G. M. Nicholson for the information concerning the early authorities.

Back To Archive Contents

WHO IS THIS JESUS?

By the late DR. PETER MARSHALL Chaplain of the United States Senate

'And when He was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is This?' (Matthew 21:10)

FOR nineteen hundred years one Figure has haunted the memory and troubled the conscience of mankind. This one Figure has divided all history into two great divisions, so that every event is now dated with reference to His coming, either before or after. Whenever the years are numbered, whether by believers or unbelievers, time is counted from the year of His incarnation, before Christ and after Christ. No other name has so dominated history. No other influence has so profoundly affected human life. No other birthday is so widely observed. No other teachings so much discussed. Of no one else have so many books been written. To the cause of no other leader have so many followers given their lives.

'Who is this?' they asked at the street corners in Jerusalem long ago. It is no mere academic interest that prompts the question in our time. It is life, history. It is all that is deepest in your experience and mine that forces it upon us. Who is this Jesus?

Now let us recognise at the outset that the Christian religion is first and foremost and in its heart a message about God. It is not primarily a new ethic. It is not just a philosophy of brotherliness and loving our neighbour and accepting the Golden Rule. It is not a way of thinking or looking at life. Nor is it a social programme. It includes all of these, to be sure. But basically it is a message about God.

That message is this: that the living God, infinite, eternal and unchangeable had at one definite point broken into history in an unprecedented way. Once and for all, in an actual life lived out upon this earth, God has spoken, and has given the full and final revelation of Himself. In Jesus, God has come! Such is the dramatic and astounding statement on which the Christian

religion is built. That is the foundation of it.

With almost two thousand years of Christian tradition behind us, we may have become almost too familiar with this fact so that we fail to grasp it as they did back there in the first century.

They tell us that for the greater part of His life He was a working carpenter. He stood among the shavings making tables and chairs and yokes for the oxen. His home was in an obscure provincial village. He was born in a stable adjoining a roadside inn. He had no money, no standing in society. He wrote no books. As far as we know, He wrote nothing. He left no written message, for the only time we read of His writing anything, it was traced with His Finger in the sand, and the eddies of wind that swirled round the pillars of the temple porch covered it up. He fought no battles. He had no army. The applause of listening senates was never His to command. His friends were mostly as poor as He was, fishermen and peasants. When He began His public ministry and took to preaching, His family tried to talk Him out of it, thinking and actually saying He was mad.

The theologians and the learned people of His day ridiculed His teachings because they said He had never been to school. At first He attracted great crowds, whether moved by curiosity or the attraction of the new and the sensational. But they soon dwindled away and, at one time, He feared His own followers might likewise melt away. At the end they did desert Him and leave Him to His fate. He died a criminal's death, reviled and mocked, tormented and laughed at, hanging between two thieves and murderers. He was buried in a borrowed grave.

But then a strange thing happened. It was rumoured that death had not finished Him. It was reported that He had been seen alive. True, the body with the marks of the nags and the spikes had disappeared. On this they all agreed. The body was gone. There were many attempted explanations but, somehow, none of them were adequate.

Suddenly, His disciples, the very men who had run away, who had gone underground for a tirne, appeared in the streets proclaiming that He had risen from the dead. They said that He had come back to them. They were

different, not the same men at all. Their terror had gone, and they were no longer afraid. They spoke boldly. Threats did not intimidate them. They said fantastic things-that this Jesus had risen from the dead and was at the right hand of God in heaven. They said that now they saw clearly, what had been hidden from them before, and from the first God had been uniquely present in Jesus, making the invisible apparent, the eternal a matter of history, and God had become man.

Such a message, as you would suppose, was laughed at. 'These men are drunk,' was the first popular verdict. Then, 'They are mad.' The tale was so incredible. And when the wild story began to circulate beyond Jerusalem, the whole Roman Empire began to ring with contemptuous laughter for a tirne. Then they tried to stop it by force and threats. 'Don't say these things again,' the disciples were told, 'if you value your lives.' But they did not stop. They even seemed to become more eloquent and more bold. Throw them into prison and they made the cell a pulpit and the dungeon a choir. Stone them with stones, and they rose from the dust bleeding and bruised, but with more convincing testimony. Lash them with whips, and they praised God the more. Nothing could stop them. They made human torches of believers in this fantastic rigmarole. They illumined the arenas to light up Roman holidays and yet, in their death, they made converts to this strange preaching. Hunted and persecuted, thrown to the lions, tortured and killed, yet they seemed to live on, and grow.

Rome could not stop Jesus. What actually happened was that Jesus stopped Rome, and on the ashes of her broken splendour set the foundations of the empire of God which was to be. That is why the question comes back to us today nineteen hundred years afterward, 'Who is this Jesus?'

Now when the first Christians called Him Lord, and when they worshipped the Galilean Carpenter, were they just dreaming, yielding to the intoxication of a foolish fancy? Were love and imagination running away with them? Or was the thing true?

You will find that there is mystery here - great mystery, supernatural mystery. You have to deal with a personality, a power and a presence. His personality is a startling study in contrasts. He was rneek and lowly with an amazing humility yet, He said, He would come on the clouds of Heaven in the glory of

God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out at His coming, yet little children ran to Him as a friend and climbed up on His knee. No one was ever half so kind or compassionate to sinners, and no one ever spoke such red-hot searing words about sin. His whole life was love, yet He demanded of the Pharisees how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. He was a seer of visions, and a dreamer of dreams, yet a realist of the first degree. He claimed their loyalty and obedience, yet He washed their feet. A changed woman came weeping to anoint His feet, and the hucksters and traders fell over one another in the Temple to get away from the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, they all admitted that in the end, but He could not save Himself. What a union of contrasts in the mystery of this personality!

But what about the mystery of His power? What is the secret of it? In His name great movements have swept the earth. In His name men and women of every age and race have 'wrought righteousness, stopped the mouths of lions, and out of weakness have been made strong.'

Consider our institutions that have sprung from this mysterious power, the churches everywhere pointing their spires like fingers of stone to God, the hospitals, the schools, the Red Cross, the Community Chests, all philanthropic and benevolent work, all stemming back to this power and influence.

After nineteen centuries we still dedicate our children in His name. When love and marriage come, His is the blessing we invoke, and at His altar we plight our troth. When the last call comes, and the clock has chimed for our loved ones, we lay them down beneath His cross, and it is in His message that we find our comfort and our hope. His is the power that sets the prisoners free, in whatever bondage they languished. Testimonies are without number. Changed lives all ascribe the glory to Him. It is to Him that credit belongs for newness of life and victories that men and women have achieved. How many there are who will testify to this power - the power that saves, that forgives, that pleads and guides through life. There it is. What a mystery! What a power!

But it is still more. It is the mystery of a Presence. 'Lo, 1 am with you always,' He had said, and they found it true, gloriously true. Part of the mystery is this, that He lived nineteen centuries ago, in a far-away little land of Palestine. He

wore oriental robes and sandals. Yet His words and His presence are as real and as relevant as if spoken last night on the radio in English from New York or San Francisco. Even in our day of neon signs and penthouses, of skyscrapers and fast aeroplanes, He is authoritative for us. And this is because the human heart is still the same in its loves and hates, its joys and sorrows, its fears and hopes, its passions and defeats. And also because this Christ is not a dead memory, not a pious legend, not an embalmed relic, but a Living Spirit. This Christ is a present fact and men know it.

Read the new Testament for yourself, and see if this same Jesus does not step out of the page and walk beside you. See if He does not look at you from the record with eyes that see into your very soul. It is not merely speaking metaphorically to say that to many men and women He is a Presence tapping them on the shoulder, nudging them now and then, walking beside them in sorrow, standing in the shadow watching, waiting always. Yes, it is the mystery of a Presence.

What then are we to say of Him? Have you answered that question in your own mind? Has your heart whispered its own answer? What think ye of Jesus? That is an old question, but it keeps coming up, again and again, and every one must answer it sometime. Reason and conscience alone demand an answer,'Who is this Jesus?'

I am not sure which is the greater heresy, to deny that He was God, or to deny that He was man. It is worthy of note that the first heresy that ever vexed the Christian Church, the so-called Docetic heresy of the first and second centuries, was not a denial of the deity of Jesus, it was a denial of His true manhood. It asserted His God-head and virtually emptied His manhood of all reality. There is some danger that we might do the same thing today. Let us never forget that Jesus was truly man - really man, tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. It is a mystery how the two natures were in One person - the human nature and the divine. I cannot explain it, nor do I understand it. I only know that both were there, both full and real.

He was no stranger to pain, for He explored all the vast treasuries of it that we may never know. It was no rnakebelieve when the Roman lash fell across His shoulders. And the nails - were they not real? - as real as the blood He shed on the cross!

No, you cannot read your Gospels without feeling that here was a Man - The Man - He is true rnan, this Jesus. That truth can never grow dim.. Could you possibly find in Him your Saviour were He not fully rnan? 'There is one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.' That's what it says. The Book declares it. Let us not forget it!

But that is not all. That is not the final word. That alone does not explain Christ. There is more, much more. He was truly man - He was more - He was God in the flesh.

As you consider yourself in relation to the question: 'Who is this Jesus?' I ask you to consider the claims He made for Himself. Do you realise that He placed Himself at the very centre of His message? He sought to win their devotion of His own person. He does not merely claim to have found the answer to all men's needs, He claims to be the answer. 'Come unto Me, all ye who labour and are heavy laden, and 1 will give you rest.'

Who ever before or since has dared to say a thing like that? He declares that at the Day of Judgment the final test will be 'Ye have done it unto Me .... Ye did it not to Me. ... He that loseth his life for My sake, shall find it.' His whole attitude is 'God and I'. I could quote you scores of such statements.

Now what shall we say about all this? Either it is sheer nonsense, or it is true. Either He speaks as a deranged megalomaniac, or else He is who He says He is. You have to choose one or the other. Somehow, on His lips, these claims do not appear to be ridiculous. On the lips of anyone else, they would, but not on His.

His own life - His public life and His private life - is as startling as His claims, for in it there was no sin, no fault, no blemish. Neither friend nor foe could find anything of which to accuse Him. And He alone flung over His shoulder His challenge to time and history: 'Which one of you accuseth me of sin?' Who else could have said that? The saintliest people in all the world have been most conscious of their own sin. Read the biographies of Paul, Thomas a Kempis, Francis of Assissi and, again and again, you will come across their

feelings of guilt and unworthiness. But not with Jesus. He never confessed to any sin, for He had none to confess.

But you find Him forgiving sin in others. Not merely mumbling the words of absolution, but bringing into troubled and contrite hearts the feeling of being forgiven, the sense of being at peace with God. It was this action of His that roused the Pharisees so. They pointed out that nobody could forgive sin but God only and argued that, consequently, Jesus must be an imposter and a blasphemer. Their premise was absolutely correct. Their conclusion absolutely wrong.

Only God can bring peace to the human heart. Yet Christ has done it for unnumbered millions of souls. Only God can open the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven. For how many has Christ opened it? Only God can supply the power to break the chains of enslaving habits. Yet Christ has done it for men and women in the New Testament, and in nineteen hundred years of history since the New Testament was written. Only God can redeem, yet I am sure that Christ is my Redeemer, and I know that my Redeemer liveth. Millions of souls have said that, and believed it most surely. If Christ thus does what only God can do, who then is this Jesus?

Consider the universality of Jesus. How else could you account for it? Think of some modern writers who have written books about Him, caught alike in the spell and adoration of the Carpenter of Galilee, Giovanni Papini and Bruce Barton, as different as an Italian mystic and American businessman could be. Scholem Asch and Emil Ludwig, Middleton Murray and Lloyd Douglas, and a host of others as different as the poles, yet all fascinated by this one mystery of Christ! Who can this be Who can grip and captivate the souls of people so utterly different as Luther and Loyola, Dwight L. Moody and John R. Mott, General Booth and George A. Buttrick, Muriel Lester and David Livingstone, Father Damien of Molokai and Robert E. Speer, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Niemuller and Gypsy Smith? What an amazing universality! What sort of beleaguering spirit is His?

But here is the most amazing thing of all, and you will find it today if you have never found it before. You begin exploring the fact of Christ, and before you know it, the fact is exploring you, spiritually and morally. Is not that so? You set out to see what you can find in Christ, and sooner or later God in

Christ finds you. And then you will have the final and complete proof of His deity in your own heart.

Maybe there is someone who has never acknowledged Christ; maybe someone who has said that he or she did not believe in Christ. Well, there are some who have no right to believe in Him because they have no qualifications for believing or understanding the fact of Christ, because they have never really faced it. Will you face it now?

But I would not be satisfied simply to have you face the fact. I now want to ask you what you will do about it?

When Saul of Tarsus was confronted on the Damascus road with Christ, his first impulsive cry was 'Who art Thou, Lord?' But then immediately and instinctively a second question came, 'What wilt Thou have me to do?' That is the point to which I would bring you now. What is your response going to be?

Back To Archive Contents

SOUTH AFRICA

By

Margaret Kilner

AFRICA is one of the largest continents in the world. It is divided into many states, and the boundaries of these are often defined by rivers. For instance the Zambesi River which is approximately 15 degrees south of the equator and other rivers in that area, have their source in ancient Ethiopia. This

brings us to the regions of Rhodesia (now named Zimbabwe) and South Africa. Smaller protectorates are also in that region, bordering the two major lands named.

The southern tip of the continent (South Africa) is a country of contrasts and complexities. Its terrain contains mountains and valleys, gorges and waterfalls, bushland and deserts, wild coast-lines and sand dunes sheltering beautiful beaches. It would be impossible to single out any one area as the most beautiful but several are portrayed in travel guides to this quite amazing continent. At the southern most point the Cape Peninsular has a back drop of mountains, the better known being Table Mountain with Lion's Head, Signal Hill, and the Twelve Apostles alongside. Along the coast-line 'families' of whales can be observed as they make their way North to fresh breeding grounds. A worthwhile trip along the Garden Route towards East London and Port Elizabeth affords the traveller opportunities to soak in further contrasting scenery of land and seascapes. Arriving in Durban the visitor is swept into a hive of activity both in the city and along the coast. Bathing, boating, seal watching, dolphins dancing, fishing and many other water sports can be indulged. Both the South and North coasts have much to offer.

Leaving the coast-line to travel North agriculture, industry, including mining for gold and diamonds, and there are areas rich in metals and minerals. Game Reserves and Conservation areas are popular for holiday makers with excellent accommodation provided.

The architecture generally in South Africa portrays much of the Dutch culture, with gabled houses. Most dwellings have well laid out gardens and fruit trees add to the beauty in the spring rnonths and following on with summer fruits.

The first settlers in South Africa were the Hotentots and Bushman. Not much can be said about these people who are no longer in existence at least in the areas of our study, but their brief history can be traced through art works discovered in caves.

When the pioneers disembarked in South Africa the land was uninhabited. These people had arrived from Europe and the United Kingdom - they were law abiding people generally of the Protestant Faith and upheld Christian ethics as they settled into this unknown land. At the same time the Bantunegroid people began to invade from northern states. It must be said therefore that there are no indigenous peoples among these inhabitants. These tribal people even in those early days came to 'claim their land'. Some of them did become labourers in the developments which evolved and they were treated reasonably well although due to their arrogance, firey disposition and warrior-like ways, trouble ensued between the white settlers and black invaders.

Every child was taught the history of The Great Trek (1836) which was a massive movement of people, many travelling in ox-carts, at times, over some extremely difficult terrain.These people opened up vast areas of uninhabited land which became part of an extensive development programme. A rich and prosperous country soon emerged.

At that that time South Africa was governed by one party and law and order was evident. As the country grew it divided into four provinces Cape Province, Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal. Each had their own government. When a Union was later formed it brought the provinces together but maintaining the original names. For a long time there were only two major political parties. The United Party which was made up of mainly English speaking people, and the National Party of Afrikaans speaking people. The language of Afrikaans is based on a mixture of Dutch, German and English. Most South Africans are bilingual (that is changing to 'trilingual' at present).

The United Party had a long and prosperous term of office. In some respects they were more tolerant of the black people and gave them employment in the domestic field particularly. Their opposite number disliked the black people and kept them in a very low rating.

Having a considerable number of different Bantu tribes together often led to faction fights in the township areas allotted to them, and on occasion it would overflow into the towns. There was rioting and devastating demonstrations.

These townships provided by the Government provided homes for the black workers who commuted to the cities for work. The houses were basic and originally had no piped running water, inadequate sanitation and little electricity. When these facilities were upgraded some of the primitive black people not understanding the use of mod cons seemed to prefer their original way of life.

One cannot deal with this subject without mention of Nelson Mandela. He was an active member of the African National Congress. He was tried and sentenced for treasonable offences as were other senior members of that party. They were incarcerated on Robben Island a few kilometres off the coast of Cape Town. The island was once used as a leper colony and a cemetery reveals that history. The island is flat and uninteresting with few trees or anything of beauty small bushes being the main vegetation. The prison dominates the island but is now used only as a tourist attraction. A few administration buildings can be seen. Visitors must be accompanied round the island and guided through the prison. An ex-prisoner undertakes this chore and seems to have pleasure to include graphic descriptions of the punishments meted out to prisoners even for minor crimes or disobedience to the governors of the prison. In one room there is an obelisk staging photographs of important prisoners, that includes Nelson Mandela and his friends who all now hold office in the South African Government.

When Mandela was released from the prison and housed in Cape Town to complete his sentence, he was given many home comforts and a computer and spent his rime drawing up the strategy for a New South Africa to be ruled by blacks.

Following several years of a National Party Government leading it, pressures from the ANC and others (from many parts of the world), the policy of Apartheid was slowly coming to an end. Apartheid means 'separation' and was enforced during the United Party regime. The Reforms at First were gradual but then accelerated.

By the time Mandela had been released the black population were taking full advantage of their freedom. He had promised them good houses, expensive cars and many luxuries of life. What they did not understand was that they had to work for these, and what they couldn't afford to buy they stole. This

was the beginning of NEW SOUTH AFRICA.

Two national elections have been held in South Africa in ten years. The ANC have won them both. To ensure the majority of votes, blacks from neighbouring states have been bussed into the Republic and given the vote. Most of these have been dumped overnight and have no money and no housing. Shanty Towns spring up in prominent places in every city and town. Every voter regardless of colour or domicile is finger-printed at the polling stations. The method of proportional representation is used. In the last election twenty-three parties were contending.

The crime rate in the New South Africa is one of the highest in the world. This includes killings, maiming, theft, hi-jacking, arson, and rape. The latter is the most serious in some respects because AIDS is rife. It is a well-known fact that this deadly disease is carried by Africans from all over the continent. Rape may be black to black or black to white the endeavour is not only to cause suffering but to diminish the unwanted in the population.

Schools and Colleges by law admit all races, regardless of learning disabilities.These unfortunates are forced into groups by others in order to disrupt completely the education system. Some white teachers have been sacked, others have given up because of the stress of unlawful situations. Schools have been vandalised and campuses resemble a rubbish tip in parts.

It is most obvious that black rule is out of control, the economy is nil and to quote one person 'South Africa is now a third world country'. Human rights means nothing, the black person who it has been said is backed by Russia, is out for everything he can get no matter who is hurt on the way or what discomfort is caused.

The New South Africa is not interested in the past - to assist the obliteration of history, vast changes are being made. It was the whites who worked in developing and preserving a beautiful country and it is now on the slippery slope down, with neglect and devastation. Once street names and names of towns and cities, airports and buildings etc. portrayed something of its history. They are now being given unpronounceable and, to some, meaningless names. The City of Johannesburg is now called IGOLI for

Johannesburg and Gauteng for the Transvaal.

Out of this dark and sinful situation it can be reported with some pleasure that there are pockets of the provinces which are still a joy to behold, untouched well preserved and at peace with God and man. You obliterate the history, you may destroy a city, but the terrain will always be there in its pristine beauty.

Contrasts and complexities - so much more could be written but space here does not permit further indulgences.

The question may now be asked "why should anyone single out South Africa for any reason?". If we turn to the Holy Bible the answer will be obvious. The prophet Zephaniah not only identifies this location and its people but God by His Holy Spirit has written very clearly that there is a future. The prophet writes:

3:10 'From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed shall bring mine offering'

3:12 'I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people and they shalt trust in the narne of the Lord'

3:19 'Behold,at that time I will undo all that afflict thee and I will save her that halteth and gather her that was driven out and I will give them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to sharne.'

David, the author of most of the Psalms, in the second of these which describes a situation which is, and has arisen in many places where God's chosen and elect people dwell. It is appropriate to remind readers of his words, here, as we have the New South Africa in our mind.

Verse one, 'Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed saying: 'let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their cords from us'. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision'.

All those who have an interest in this wonderful country should take time to look into the precious Word of God and its message for that nation today. The daughter of His dispersed will have an offering to bring to the Lord, even the sacrifice of praise from her lips. When His people humble themselves before Him and hear His voice then we shall witness not the new South Africa as it is today, rather an Old South Africa, revived, refreshed and redeemed.

There two National Anthems sung in South Africa, First the Bantu KOSI SIKELE AFRIKA which translated indicates a call to God for deliverance, and second in Afrikaans UIT DIE BLOU VAN ONSE HEMEL, which translated indicates out of the blue of the heavens.

This land will not be wiped out or destroyed, God who is Faithful has His hand on His People and He will hear their call. May it be soon.

Back To Archive Contents

FOLLOWING IN CHRIST'S FOOTSTEPS

There is a theory that Jesus himself may have actually visited Britain - and it's a belief that Christian historian Walter Seaman has faith in.

'And did those feet

in ancient time

Walk upon

England's mountains

green...'

WALTER SEAMAN thinks they did. He has collected a mass of evidence to show that Jesus may well have visited Britain. And if not Jesus himself, almost certainly some of His disciples in the years immediately after the Crucifixion.

In the comfortable garden room of his home in Bexhill-on-Sea, where he lives with his wife Elizabeth, Walter lovingly handles the book that started him on this epic project. For that is what it has become, taking over much of his life and almost every available space in his house.

The book, published in 1906, is The Coming of the Saints by Professor John W. Taylor, an eminent surgeon, who was also a poet. It was lent to him by a friend in the late 1960s when he was living in Hertfordshire. "I think you'll enjoy this," his friend had said, knowing that Walter had had a scientific training and was also a Christian.

For two years the book gathered dust on Walter's shelves; it was a busy period in his life - he was working fulltime in the paper industry and he just

never got around to opening it. Then one day he did ... and it would be true to say that his life has never been the same since.

'I was absolutely riveted by what I read. Taylor believed, as did several other authors who later wrote books on the same theme, that in 36 A.D. Joseph of Arimathea, the great-uncle of Jesus, together with a group of the Disciples travelled from what was then Palestine, across the Mediterranean, up through France, across the English Channel to Falmouth, then finally to Glastonbury in Somerset, where they set up what could be regarded as the world's first Christian church above ground.

'The story unfolds in a very logical way: Joseph of Arimathea, the man who had taken responsibility for the body of Jesus after the Crucifixion, was a rich merchant trading in valuable ores tin, copper and lead. He was accepted by the Romans, not for any love of him personally, but because he supplied them with the metals from the British Isles that they needed for making weapons. A well respected man, Joseph would have travelled frequently to the west of Britain where he was known to the ruling king, Arviragus. He was also known in rnany places in France where he stopped on his overland journeys to Britain; he probably owned shares in shipping as well because a lot of ore was exported by sea frorn Cornwall.'

'So to me it makes complete sense, that when the Roman and Jewish authorities were in pursuit of the Disciples after the Crucifixion, Joseph, who had both the money and the means, should take them to safety in Britain, and there set up a church. It is also believed that Joseph and his companions died and were buried at Glastonbury.'

'As to the other story, of Jesus visiting Britain in those 18 unrecorded years between his appearance in the Temple aged 12 and the beginning of His ministry, well, that seems reasonable, too. It would be a very natural thing for the boy Jesus to have accompanied His great-uncle on his travels, especially when he made the journey to Britain by sea, where His skills as a carpenter would have been of value. This tradition is, in fact, known in Israel. An American bishop, a friend of ours, was talking to a young Jewish girl about this subject and she said, "Why are you so surprised? That story is well known."'

Walter's charitable Foundation teaches Christians

about the history and traditions of their faith

Having read The Coming of The Saints and other works on the subject, Walter was convinced of the truth of the stories. So was Elizabeth. Neither of them is what you might call "airy headed rnystics"; they both have their feet very firmly on the ground. "And we have the same sense of humour," says Walter. "We laugh together a lot!"

They were born in Altrincham, Cheshire, in almost adjoining streets. They even had the same doctor, yet they never met until several decades later, after the war.

'I was by then living in London,' says Walter. 'We had a large five-storey house and my parents let out parts of it as flats; the top flat was occupied by several girls, Elizabeth was one of them. Something had gone wrong with the aerial which involved my going into her flat to get on to the roof. That's when I met her, and we took it from there and married in 1950.' They now have three grandchildren.

During the war Elizabeth was a boats crew Wren stationed at Portsmouth she was arranging a WRNS reunion (advertised in the Old Comrades pages of Saga magazine) the day I visited them while Walter was in a reserved occupation, involved in technical design of national importance.

After taking his degree in mechanical engineering at Imperial College, London, Walter worked in various engineering firms, including British Aerospace. Later he worked for Bowater, the paper company. In the meantime he had become interested in what he calls 'the human engineering

side of industry'; how people in business relate to one another.

'I introduced into the Bowater complex something called Management by Objectives. I said to the chap at the top, "I am going to start with you. Who do you have reporting to you? Do you breathe down their necks or let them get on with it?" We went from the director and the factory manager right down to the foreman and the men on the shop floor. They began to realise that everybody in a business should know how much was expected of them and why.' Eventually Walter became Personnel Director of all the Bowater companies in Britain.

Before he read The Coming of The Saints Walter hadn't really cared as to how, or even when, the Christian faith had come to Britain. 'It was the faith itself that mattered to me, not its history,' he says. The book made him appreciate how important the history could be. It astounded him that most people, including himself, didn't know about these traditions.

He decided to rectify this by setting up a foundation, with charitable status, to spread the word. Walter enjoys telling the story of its inception. 'I was in the bath,' he says, 'in our home in Frant, near Tunbridge Wells - it was 1970 and as I lay there thinking about all the information I was gathering and all the things I wanted to do with it, I decided it was time to give a name to this project. So I thought, well ... it's about Christianity; it's Historical; it involves Research, definitely; Education, yes; Study, continuously; and Tradition. CHREST And that's how the name of the foundation arose.

'I felt I must write something which could be made into a CHREST film. I'd recently met a cameraman who was also interested in these traditions, so we discussed the idea and I wrote the first script, Let There Be Light. Elizabeth and I visited some of the places on Joseph's route and we asked our cameraman to film these, as well as many of the other places referred to in the script.'

That was in the early 1970s. Since then there have been two more films (on video), Light in the West and The Thread of Gold.

In 1984 Walter conducted a party of enthusiasts, mainly Americans, on a tour of the west country, visiting the sites shown in his second film, and in 1993 he published a paperback, The Dawn of Christianity in the West -'a short, readable book to whet people's appetite,' a condensation of the authoritative writings on this subject.

Now he is busy planning another tour, but not one he will conduct in person. Scheduled for the spring of 1996 this two-week CHREST Foundation tour in collaboration with Interchurch Travel will begin in London, from where the group will fly to Marseilles, the port at which Joseph would have landed. Then, travelling by coach, they will visit a number of places in the area where there is evidence that the Disciples stayed, such as Arles and Les Saintes Maries de la Mer.

They will journey north through France, up the Rhone valley following the tin trade route, then move northwest towards the Channel, stopping at one or two interesting places in the Loire Valley before making the crossing from Roscoff to Plymouth. 'It would be lovely if they could land at Falmouth,' says Walter, 'but that doesn't seem practicable.' From Plymouth the tour continues to Glastonbury, Bath and Stonehenge and ends in London.

Walter's arguments for his belief in Joseph's journey are very persuasive, but if this story of the early Church in Britain is so credible and there is sufficient evidence to make a good case for it, why is it not accepted, nor even generally known?

'Well yes,' says Walter, 'It is extraordinary. Professor Taylor had spent years visiting holy places in France and he had a wealth of evidence, but there was antagonism from the Roman Church. As there had been much earlier, in the 16th century when Robert Parsons, a Jesuit priest, had been despatched to Britain to disprove the theory. Being an honest man, however, he actually proved the reverse, which he recorded in a book, The Three Conversions of England, in which he said, 'The Christian religion began in Britain within 50 years of Christ's ascension.'

'There is also the feeling, deeply rooted in the Anglican church, that there is no historical proof for these happenings. An archdeacon in the west of

England said to me, "You don't really believe this, do you, that this is historically true?"'

'I said, "Yes I do". Walter then told the archdeacon everything that he knew in support of the theory, including the fact that there are references to it in the writings of the early priests and monks.

To trace the development of the Christian faith through the ages, particularly during those neglected early centuries, as Walter has done, is one of the aims of the foundation. Another is to make you stop and think. Walter Seaman, with his enthusiasm and commitment, certainly makes you do that: I left Bexhill with a great deal to think about ... and a completely fresh and enthralling view of part of our English history.

Reproduced from the January 1996 edition of Saga Magazine with their with kind permission

Back To Archive Contents

WHO DO YOU SAY HE IS?

By

Revd. Ken Kemble

SOME say Jesus was an outlaw who hung out with unschooled ruffians and went about causing trouble.

Some say He was a magician, who could do tricks like turn water to wine, walk on water and read your mind. They say the real showstopper was that He could even raise people from the dead.

Some say Jesus was a just a wise man like Mohammed or Buddha. They say people would come from miles around to hear Him philosophize.

The Jews say He was just another bastard, an illegitimate child born out of wedlock, and was quite worthy of the death which He suffered.

There are many opinions about Jesus. Yes, it seems everyone has an opinion on the subject. To me, that just reinforces the position which I take; and that is that He was not just another man.

I am one of those people who says that He was and is and ever shall be God! The Bible says that He was 'Immanuel', or 'God with us' (Isaiah 7:14).

As God, He deserves our respect, our allegiance, our loyalty, our all! For those of us who are His, He is our King! And He should be regarded as such. Too often in religious circles today (especially so with the youth) we overemphasize His humanity and make Him out to be a 'pal' or a 'buddy'.

Yes, He is our friend; and by His own Word, He even called His followers 'friends' (John 15:15). But don't forget the grounds for being His friend; He said we are His friends if we do whatsoever He commands (verse 14 of the very sarne chapter).

Yes, He is our friend - the best friend you or I could ever hope to have; but He is so very much more. He is our God and our King! He is the great creator of heaven and earth and all that is in them, for 'without Him was not anything made that was made' (John 1:3). He is our Kinsman-Redeemer, the God of the universe (our God) who took upon Himself human flesh to redeem His own from their lost state. He is our everything! He is 'the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world' (John 1:29). Everything begins and ends with the Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 1.8), and He will ultimately be all in all (Colossians 3:11), for He will draw all unto Himself (John 12:32). PRAISE HIS HOLY NAME!!

He is not to be addressed 'Yo, Dude!', 'Main Man' or 'J.C.', or by any other such disrespectful appellation which is to be heard in rnany youth groups and 'christian' concerts these days. While in Britain last year, I was watching the evening news with some friends, and there came on to the screen a news story about a famous Christian recording artist who lives here in America. There was video of some young people on a stage doing what can only be described as 'jungle dancing', while the entire stadium full of people addressed the Lord and Master, the creator and sustainer of all life, as 'J.C.'! The news commentator wondered what in the round world any of that had to do with christlanity, and I must say I wonder the same thing.

He is not just one of the guys! And He is not your 'gofer' either. He doesn't exist for us; we exist to live for Him and to give Him pleasure (Ecelesiastes 12:13; Revelation 4:1)!

Jesus Christ said that He was the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). He told people that if they had seen Him, they had seen God (John 10:30). To make such statements, He was either a blithering idiot, or a stupendous liar, or else He was exactly who He said He was: GOD!

If you do not believe me, study His life for yourself. He did not claim to speak for God; He sald 'Verily, verily I say unto you' and 'You have heard it said ... but behold I say unto you ...' Jesus referred to Himself as the Great I AM (John 6:35; 8:12,58; etc.).

Also, let His works speak for themselves (John 14:11).There's more than enough evidence out there for me and this evidence is not found in the Bible alone. The secular historian Josephus (1st century A.D.) even wondered in his writings if it were lawful to call Him a 'rnan', 'for he was a doer of wonderful works' and 'He was [the] Christ' (Antiquities: Book XVIII, Chapter 3:3).

The clincher, however, is the resurrection. A man can make many a claim for himself, but when he pulls something like that off, he is no mere man! 'And there were over 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ! And if they were all liars, Josephus could have set the matter straight; but he confirmed it (ibid).

Even so there is a growing group of 'Higher Critics' and 'Bible Scholars' which still seem to be hell-bent on 'proving' that Jesus was just a another man. They have also determined that He didn't even say many of the things which He is quoted as saying in the Holy Bible! Some of you may have read about that. They have whittled away the Bible to suit their own ideas, and they are always quite the 'scholar' when they commit such heresies. I even heard one so-called 'theologian', a professor, at a seminary, say on national television that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had never even met Jesus personally. And he said it with such an 'I know what I'm talking about' attitude that many people probably believed it! These wolves in sheep's clothing have crept in to undermine the deity of Jesus and the authority of the Holy Bible. And these ignorant men and women (God forbid) are teaching our future congregational leaders?! God help the coming generation!!

Jesus is God (Colossians 2:9)! He was God when He made the heavens (John 1:3); He was God when He died on the cross, and when He rose up from the dead (Luke 1: 68); and He will be God when every knee shall bow to Him and when every tongue shall confess Him as LORD (Rornans 14:10-12 with Philippians 2:10).

I ask you today ... Who do YOU say He is?

Back To Archive Contents

AMERICA IS MANASSEH

By

John Lovell

THE mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly sure. God gave Israel a world commission down through the ages, to break every yoke and lift every burden. But the Arnerican or the United States section of Israel broke this law of God by placing yokes on negro men and women and making them slaves. With what result?

When the tribe of Manasseh, USA., were in Canaan, they were in two parts, as divided by Joshua: east of the Jordan and west of the Jordan. It is coincident that, when they were in America, 2500 years later, the Mason-Dixon line divided them again into two parts, North and South.

God raised up Moses to unite and lead the united tribes of Israel out of bondage in Egypt. So again He raised up Abraham Lincoln, man of God, born of Puritan stock from Britain, the great leader of Manasseh to establish peace between the two sections.

When the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, were playing around the public square and Temple of On in the Egyptian city of Memphis they saw the great Pyramid. In the public square in front of the temple stood two obelisks - and there are no other two in the world, like them today. Does it not seem strange that one of these obelisks, several thousand years later, should find its way from Egypt to America; and should be set up in our largest city? This Egyptian obelisk is of rose-red granite and was presented to the City of New York by Ishmael, Khedive of Egypt, in 1877. It was erected in Central Park in 1881, where it stands today, pointing skyward as a wayrnark to all America of the place of origin of our forefather Manasseh, and the starting place of our world-wide wanderings since we left Egypt under Moses. England has the other obelisk.

When America won her Independence they put on their Great Seal the great Pyramid of Gizeh with its capstone missing. This seal (see below) was adopted by Congress June 20, 1782. But Manasseh means 'forgetfulness' and the seal was not used until recently.

Our Pilgrim Forefathers were a God-fearing body of men. 'They entered into

covenant to walk with God and with one another, in the enjoyment of the Ordinances of God,' according to the Word of God. But finding by experience they could not peaceably enjoy their own liberty in their native country they came to America.

The 'Mayflower' had a rough passage, encountering many gales, but they made land November 9-16, 1620, at Cape Cod. The crew refused to sail down the coast in the teeth of the gales, and the Pilgrims had to land and stay in Massachusetts though their patent was only for Virginia. Had they landed on any other section of the coast than where they did, they could not have survived the winter and the Indians. A plague had struck this section of country two years before and wiped out the Indians, but left in a cave some Indian corn, which the Pilgrims used for seed for the season 1621, as they brought none from England.

In 1621 they secured a patent, granted by the British Council, for New England (the new bull or Engle land). Israel was to settle the coasts and drive the heathen before them. You can see that the heathen were driven out by the plague and the way made possible for them to build homes and become installed peacefully.

As early as 1623 these English-men kept days for fasting, humiliation, and prayer and in 1637 passed an ordinance: 'That it be in the power of the governor to command solemn days of humiliation and prayer,' and their American descendants have eaten the November turkey and cranberry, with or without humiliation and prayer and in many cases have forgotten what their predecessors knew in their souls, namely, that God had been and still was looking after them and 'prospering their undertakings,' as our Great Seal of State with its all-seeing eye declares.

Our Pilgrim forefathers kept the Sabbath as did the British from whom they sprang and the Anglo-Saxons are the nations, and the only nations, who do keep it, by the law of the land as well as by observance of doing no work, etc. At the Paris Exposition in 1889 every nation had their exhibits wide open on the Sabbath but Great Britain and the United States. They closed their sections each Saturday and did not open them until Monday morning.

Israel was to keep the Sabbaths throughout Israel's generations and 'twas a sign between Him and us as to who we are. Every Sabbath of the year the Protestant Episcopal Churches in America repeat frorn their prayer-book the Benediction or Jubilate Deo.

Luke 1:68-75: 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people; And hath raised up a mighty salvation for us: in the house of his servant, David; As he spake by the mouth of His Holy Prophets: which have been since the world began; That we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us. To perform the mercy promised to our forefathers: and to remember his covenant; To perform the oath which he sware to our forefathers: Abraham; that he would give us; That we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies: might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him: all the days of our life.'

If this Book of Common Prayer means what it says - why say we will be saved from all our enemies, which was promised only to Israel - if we are not Israel?

Who have been the people to carry the light, God's laws and commandments and light to the Gentiles, and to the ends of the earth? God's servants, Israel, were to do it. The Anglo-Saxons alone have done it, therefore the AngloSaxons are Israel. They have a divine commission and the specifications are interwoven throughout both the Old and New Testaments, that the wise who search the Scriptures may understand. Had the Anglo-Saxons made the job of searching the Scriptures as they were instructed to do, they would be wise on how to deal with all the problems that now afflict the world.

America's stand will be decisive in more ways than one. It is up to us! We have the wealth of the mine, and the forest, the sea, and the fertile earth at our command and we will have to give account of our stewardship; because God has given us His plan to work to, which covers all the details we would require during our life time. It shows how we are to invest and how to spend the talents - golden talents - He put in our way.

The kingdom will be right here on earth. In that day how many of us will wish we had spent the time in clothing the naked and feeding the poor - while our profiteers are getting rich on starving the people?

The church can see the prophecies about Judah and the Jew coming true , but when you ask them, about the Kingdom, Israel, who were ten times as many, where they are, they say, 'Israel is God's church!' Has God's church been the Creator's battle-axe and weapons of war with which He was to smash nations? If so, what nations has the church smashed? Does the church possess the 'gate of his enemies?' If so, what gate? What enemy and where? Has God's church become a nation, a great nation, and a company of nations?

The church sees the Cross of Christ but fails to see that He left His Kingdom on earth to His ten servants, the Ten Tribes of Israel, 'my chosen,' 'my dispersed,' 'my outcasts,' 'my people Israel,' who were to 'occupy' until He comes as foretold by Jesus in Luke 19:11-13.

Therefore, America, let us wake up to our identity, mission, purpose and destiny; return to God's Law and acknowledge Him as our King.

Back To Archive Contents

WHAT ISRAEL OUGHT TO DO

By

G.E. Altree Coley

OF all the tribes of Israel from which one would be proud to trace descent, the tribe of Issachar probably holds small appeal. Not a leading tribe, its scutcheon bearing an ass couchant between two burdens, it attracts little attention. Yet one of the highest appreciations in Holy Writ is recorded of the men of lssachar who 'had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do'. Such an understanding is like the accurate diagnosis of a skilled physician, without which much precious time may be lost and much suffering

entailed through a mistaken course of treatment.

THE FIRST STEP-CONFESSION OF SIN

What is the first step required of Israel to end the present unhappy disorder and enter the new order foretold by all the prophets since the world began? God's Word has left us in no shadow of doubt about it. From Leviticus to Revelation the first step prescribed for an improved condition, personal or national, is confession of sin. This is associated, in both type and teaching, with faith in Christ for cleansing from sin, but the first act necessarily is confession.

No other course will be of the slightest avail until this essential step demanded by God is taken. The study of the further steps to the Kingdom will by itself never put us in the pathway thither. A witty Frenchwornan, hearing the legend of a saint who walked after he was beheaded, responded that the incident was not significant after the first step. It is the first step that makes the rest of the journey possible. We might well ask ourselves-are we really making any progress toward the Kingdom or are we only hopefully, wistfully scanning the way to it?

CONFESSION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Let us consider this first step from Scripture. Leviticus 26:40 ff., must be our starting point. In this chapter, thundering from Sinai, are summed up the 'penalty clauses', for disobedience to the Mosaic Covenant. These have all gone into effect, and the 'seven times' of chastisement of each of the four sections have reached their final close now. Consequently what follows is of the first importance in the days in which we are now living. Here is the provision for restoration. If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they have trespassed against me, and that they have walked contrary to me ... if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant...'

The same condition is reiterated in Solomon's prayer when, dedicating the Temple, he foreshadowed the golden age which is to be. If there is to be any blessing after sin and disobedience there must first be confession and turning from sin to God. (See I Kings 8:33, 35 and 47-50.) This principle is enunciated in Psalm 32 which describes the blessednesses (Heb.) of the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Until confession there was misery and dispeace. But after confession there is the joy of forgiveness. Then the fruit, safety in presence of great perils - 'floods of great waters' such as confront us nationally now - deliverance and songs of praise. Surely these are blessednessess our race yearns for to-day. How are they reached? By confession of sin.

This principle or law of Confession as the first step to Restoration and Blessing was thoroughly understood by Daniel. His prayer of intercessory confession should be our pattern now. The circumstances are similar. As Daniel 'knew by books the number of the years' during which Jerusalem should lie desolate, so it has been given to us to know the times of Israel's chastisement and the times of the Gentiles. We have witnessed their closing scenes. But Daniel did not assume that since the time of punishment was at its close the restoration would automatically begin. He knew that one important thing had to be done first. Therefore he set himself to make confession on behalf of his people with fasting and sackcloth and ashes (Dan. 9:1 ff). Nehemiah did the same at a later date (Neh. 1: 11 ff). It was on the ground of such confession that the remnant was restored.

CONFESSION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The same fundamental law remains unchanged under the New Covenant. A prophecy concerning Christ said, 'Behold I send My messenger before Thy face who shall prepare Thy way before Thee.' The record of its fulfilment says that the first word of John the Baptist's message was, repent,with the result of confession and cleansing. The people were 'baptised of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.' The work was imperfect. The people proved materialistic and the rulers hostile. Yet it was on the ground of that confession that Jesus was able to manifest the grace of God to the Jewish people.

Our Lord in His ministry emphasized the same message. His words have special weight in our own day: 'The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at

hand, Repent ye, and, believe the Gospel.' His warning has not exhausted its meaning yet -'Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.' The story of the prodigal son is the story of repentance, return and confession of sin to a loving father. The value of repentance is left in no doubt -'There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance." Nor may the Church feel itself exempt from the rule. In the vision of Revelation the risen Christ sends solemn warnings to repent to Five Churches out of seven (Rev. 2 and 3). Lastly the Apostle Peter's words should come with fresh meaning and power now at the end of the age -'Repent ye, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you.'

THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF CONFESSION

Can we adduce a reason for this stern insistence upon penitent confession? There are many reasons, but let us state the case like this. Accumulated and unconfessed sin might be compared to an insulating shield, a cloud intercepting and nullifying God's will to blessing. The full revelation of the Bible shows that the God Whose name is Love is always ready to bless. So Isaiah says, 'The Lord's hand is not shortened that it cannot save ... but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you that He will not hear.'

Therefore it is useless to say in effect, Yes, we have done very badly in the past, but we will forget all that and do right in future. The cloud still remains. It is necessary to remove the cloud. Now, in one sense, and in a terribly real sense, we cannot remove it. Here is the situation. A loving God has showered upon His people every possible evidence of love, yet they have wantonly rebelled against Him. The very wealth of the earth has been wasted in luxurious forgetfulness of God. That sin can never be undone, the guilt can never be removed; it has set up effects which can never be arrested by anything we can do. What our generation needs desperately to know is that sin is a tremendous reality. As a father God might forgive the sin, but that does not remove it. But what repentant confession can do is dissolve our complicity with it.

Ever since God created man with a will, made him a glorious being in His Own image with a will to choose, He has never invaded that Divine faculty and coerced man's will. Man must choose to give up sin. He can do no more. He is so utterly vitiated and devitalised through sin that he cannot even keep his resolve to sin no more. But he can will to let it go. He can confess his weakness - and as quick as an electric flash the power of God can do the rest. When once the sin is acknowledged, the whole weary weight of it can then he referred to the all-availing transaction of the Cross where the Son of God died to put away sin, and in the light of that redemptive mediation the heart has peace with God. Praise His infinite grace! Well might Micah say, prophetic of our own times, 'Who is a God like unto Thee, which pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His anger for ever because He delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, He will have compassion upon us, He will subdue our iniquities, and Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob and the mercy to Abraham, which Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.' (Micah 7:18-20)

NATIONAL REPENTANCE

What, then, ought Israel to do? The whole race of Israel that is, the Britannic Commonwealth of Nations, with the United States and the remnant of Judah, are required by the law of God to make solemn confession of sin. Until that is done we can expect no removal of the difficulties and dangers which thicken around us every day. Let that be solemnly realised. Therefore, to that end all Christians, and especially those who know that our race is under the covenant of Abraham, should put the necessity of national repentance in the forefront of their thoughts, their teaching and their prayers. While we may thankfully acknowledge that, owing to long racial training and Christian teaching which has not entirely lost its power, we can as a race still show some example of mercy and justice, we must confess that internally we are a sinful nation laden with iniquity.

Nor must we suppose that we have discharged our responsibility when we have personally admitted the truth. National repentance will have to be worked for with the same consecrated and selfless devotion that all great movements have demanded. It is a dangerous excuse for inaction to suppose that pressure of events alone will bring about the change. We suffered the agony of the world war without coming to repentance. Nothing will take the

place of witnessing for God and His truth though we have the assurance that events will work with us. Let us take up this vitally important task, sure that the outcome will be the cleansing of the nation, the bringing in of the kingdom of Christ and the blessing of the world. In the field of ideas the aim of international finance is to defile and destroy. For the money power nothing is sacred but its law. Every noble idea of honour, family, nation, faith and race is systematically dragged through the mire of 'homogeneity', 'equality', and 'debate', until the genetic and moral fibre of nations lies in ruins. ROGER C. ELLETSON Auckland Branch, B.I.W.F.

Back To Archive Contents

WHAT IS AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN?

By

Rev. Anthony Martlew, Dip. Th.

YOU may well consider this to be an unnecessary question. However, it is very evident, during this materialistic age, that even many Christians are unaware of basic issues regarding the faith they profess.

The writer's attention was recently drawn to a report in the Daily Telegraph of an address given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey, to members of the clergy at a Swanwick Convention.

He said:

Britain has an 'allergy to religion' and regards Christianity as unnecessary and outdated. Christian evangelists faced an uphill task in an 'affluent, self-

assured First World', which thought that it did not need God. 'The Church is one generation away from extinction', Dr. Carey said. 'Our generation is being called to hand on our faith to the generations of the Third Millennium. It will require all our vigour, all our energy, all our faith and enthusiasm'. 'We are a society oppressed not by lack, but by surfeit, not by strife, but by ease. Of course, there is real poverty in our midst, but most people have benefited enormously from the rises in incomes over the past decades.We have paid a price for such comfort and ease'.

Christians, Dr Carey said, could only hope to reach others by following the example of Jesus Christ and be fully engaged with society.

For once, Dr Carey has summed up the situation very well indeed.

There is no doubt that our nation does have an allergy to religion. In this context , we assume that the Archbishop is referring to Christianity, for if we are to understand the word 'religion' in its widest sense, we could include many 'Isms', Humanism being a case in point. Certainly, there is no allergy or antipathy in that direction.

We may also include paganisrn under this heading. Whether we care to admit it or not, pagan religions are growing at an alarming rate in these islands. Many of our towns and cities are littered with temples dedicated to heathen gods.

So, assuming that Dr Carey is referring to Christianity, then it is undoubtedly true that the nation is suffering in the way that he suggests. He has also pointed out a great spiritual truth when he equates the abundance of material wealth with a paucity of spiritual awareness. A brief examination of the history of nations will confirm that this has always been so. Many of the great world empires of the past have eventually destroyed themselves through an excess of worldliness and spiritual arrogance. When power is in the hands of the wrong people, the inevitable result is corruption in high places. The Roman Empire is a case in point. In order to blind the populace to what was going on around them, the people were encouraged to seek more and more entertainment, - a ploy which has become known as 'bread and circuses'.

Today, we may not feed Christians to the lions in the arena, but watching the Lottery on T.V, does, however, put one in mind of such events!

Whilst our rulers systematically destroy our history and our culture, and lead us into a union which the majority of people have no wish for, the powers that be blind the populace with trivia that will inevitably destroy the entire edifice.

Yes, Dr. Carey is right, (for once!), but having said that, we may well ask, what is the remedy? His summing up was:

'Christians could only hope to reach others by following the example of Jesus Christ, and be fully engaged with society'.

We must certainly agree with the first part of the remedy, but of the second, we do have several reservations. As Christians we must exercise caution, tempered with common sense, as to how we involve ourselves with worldly pursuits. We must appear 'norrnal' in many respects, but never lose sight of the fact that we are in the world but not of the world.

We have our being here, we eat, sleep, bring up our families, and have to earn a living. Yes, of course we visit the theatre, or enjoy a dance or a concert. We may even take part in dramatics, or whatever our interests may be. But moderation must be the key as to how much time and energy we may put into these activities.

Returning for a moment to the first part of Dr Carey's remedy, that of 'following the example of Jesus Christ', that in principle, is the correct answer but like many things which may appear to be simple at first sight, there are pitfalls. Whilst it is true that the Church has, in the main, preached the Gospel faithfully, the situation has altered somewhat in many churches today.

There is a great tendency to preach a gospel of 'love', to the exclusion of the

righteousness and holiness of Almighty God. It is almost unknown to hear a sermon which mentions the wrath and justice against those who do not believe.

Many preachers today preach a gospel which is politically correct. It has not occurred to them that Almighty God is most definitely not politically correct!

An examination of Scripture, both the old and the new Testaments, reveals that the Creator's plan is based upon selection. His Plan of Redemption began with selecting one righteous man, Abram. From him was built a special nation which was eventually to become a blessing to every other nation. Israel was tied to Jehovah by a Covenant relationship. Israel was so special that the Lord said:

For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God.. the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.(Deuteronomy 7:6)

There's racism for you! We are being constantly reminded today that we must not be racist. Will the time come, we wonder, when the Creator will be served a summons for breaking the law?

This is not all, for the Lord then went on to choose special men as prophets to warn the nation when it stepped out of line. Should the Lord send prophets to our nation today, there would be little doubt that they would be given a cool reception.

Again, the Father sent His Son into the world in order to establish that there is all the difference between those who believe, and those who do not. That those who do believe are the children of light, with everlasting life in Him, and that the others are:

... by nature the children of wrath ... (Ephesians 2)

From these examples we can well understand that to be 'politically correct', it would not be possible to preach a full Gospel message. Indeed, every aspect of God's Word would present a problem.

We began this by asking the question, 'What is an evangelical Christian?' Are we certain of the ground upon which we stand?

The dictionary states: 'The Protestant school, maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in doctrine of salvation by faith in atonement'.

That explanation is, of necessity, only very brief, so we ask, what does an evangelical Christian believe?

There are five main points which are essential. The first is his (or her) total commitment to the supremacy of Holy Scripture.

Whilst there are rnany helpful aids to teaching available today, nothing can replace Scripture.

Obviously, it is helpful to have books, videos, audio tapes, and to listen to sound teaching and preaching; all these, however, are the works of fallible minds.

Having stated that evangelical Christians are totally committed to Scripture, this presupposes that they actually read it on a regular basis. There is no other way to grow spiritually.

The second point upon which an evangelical Christian stands, is his understanding of the doctrine of human sinfulness and corruption. It is important these days that we understand this, because it cuts right across

what secular counselling is all about.

Until we appreciate the fact that we are:'... by nature the children of wrath ...' (Ephesians 2:3), and that, however a good life we may lead, we are as filthy rags in God's sight. This is a very sobering thought, that we can do nothing in our own strength to remedy the situation.

The third thing which an evangelical Christian understands is his total reliance upon the completed work and office of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Once we have appreciated the second point, that of understanding the depravity of mankind, we can then, and only then, throw ourselves upon the completed work of our Lord and Saviour in order to be granted the gift of eternal life.

The fourth point concerns the inward work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. We must accept the fact that there are many regular churchgoers who know nothing of this, they may be pillars of their church, serving on all the committees, but this does not guarantee that they possess the Holy Spirit.

So, we ask, what are the inward signs that we should look for? Firstly, there must be an inward repentance, not merely an outward show of spirituality. There would also be a deep inward faith.

Again, we would possess an inward hope. Not hope in the sense that we use the word in ordinary conversation, such as 'I hope it will not rain tomorrow'. The hope which the Holy Spirit gives to the true believer is beyond mere words to express. It is a living experience which puts a totally different aspect upon life.

Yet again, one would have an inward hatred of sin, because we know that the tirne is coming when we will experience:

(1 Corinthians 2:9) '... the things which God hath prepared for them that love him'.

Because of this we hate the works of Satan, who blinds the eyes of countless people, thus excluding them from this promise.

The fifth and final test of an evangelical Christian is the outward sign in his lifestyle. We would expect to see a difference in behaviour between those who possess the Holy Spirit, and those who do not.

What better way of summing this up than by quoting the words of our Lord from the Sermon on the Mount:

(Matthew 7:20) '... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.'

It is hoped that this short article may have helped to clarify what an evangelical Christian is, and what he believes. In these last days we are surrounded by an 'Information explosion'. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this information concerns secular subjects, and the earnestly seeking Christian enquirer is left out in the cold.

We must be quite certain of our facts in order that, when called upon, we rnay be able to:

'... be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear' (1 Peter 3:15).

Back To Archive Contents

COUNTDOWN TO CHAOS

By

the late F.M. Nithsdale

Read Jeremiah 6:10-19

EVEN a cursory reading of the Biblical history of God's dealings with the people of Israel would lead one to the conclusion that He is a very long suffering God. Other wise He would have wiped the People of Israel off the face of the Earth long ago.

Perhaps it is true that Old Testament history seems to be too far fetched for our secular societies - which is why people look at you and say, 'You don't believe THAT do you?' when we try to explain how Almighty God made and raised up a special nation to do His will in the earth.

The scripture we read was written by the prophet Jeremiah at a tirne in history when the TWO-tribed House of Judah was being punished for their sins - for their rejection of Jehovah and His Law. The people, the scribes, the priests AND the House of David - all came under the condemnation spoken by Jeremiah.

Unhappily the Old Testament is a closed book to our leaders these days. Our leaders of government and of the church appear to be completely ignorant of the record of History. In fact our 20th century leaders would flatly refuse to accept the idea that present day events could bear any resemblance to events in the far away Palestine of the 6th centuryB.C.

Perhaps WE can see the situation put into the words of the prophet Isaiah ...

They have not known or understood for He shall shut their eyes, that they cannot see, and their hearts that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge or understanding. (Isa.44:18-19)

When one thinks about it there must have been a time when men, leaders of this Israel people CONSCIOUSLY turned away from God's Word and God's commandments. After all, they did have the five books of Moses which contained their national history, and the Laws of Jehovah their God, AND the record of the unbreakable promises made to their forebears, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: together with the listings of punishments which would fall upon them as a result of disobedience. It is obvious that the Israelites addressed by Isaiah must have consciously ignored God's Laws, just as later the men of Jeremiah's day did.

And are not we and our leaders exactly the same? With history repeating itself once again? Almighty Cod saw the hearts and minds of Ancient Israel and can NOW see the hearts and minds of modern Israelites. He turned away from the people in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah ... Is He not doing exactly the same thing Now?? ... so our leaders have lost 'Knowledge and Understanding'.

We meet this whenever we, as individuals, try to explain 'B.I.' to friends or acquaintances ... we get the usual response 'I can't accept that'- just as Isaiah said they won't consider in their hearts, so there is no hope of knowledge or understanding.

So - rnost of us today believe we have reached a point in the history of God's Israelites which is perhaps the greatest crisis that has ever happened.

History is not a fashionable subject these days. No-one, neither the clergy, nor the politicians, nor the ordinary people want to consider the numerous events in past history which could give warning or hope regarding the present situation.

History, especially that of God's chosen people as recorded in the Bible, is a closed book today, just as is the history of our own country - and this applies to Canada as well as to the United Kingdom - and to New Zealand and Australia also for that matter. It is only recently that the Australian PM. exhibited a total lack of knowledge of WW2!

In Britain, History has, until recently been considered an essential subject on the school curriculum but no longer is anyone encouraged in anyway to value our past be it good or bad.

There IS great concern at the present time about the teaching of Christianity in our British schools. The presence of large numbers of aliens who are either Muslims of Buddhists or members of the smaller heathen sects in many parts of Britain is really the source of the problem. Although the law states that there shall be a Christian content to school worship we hear of schools where modern ideas of 'multi faith worship' take pride of place. Nor is this surprising when we hear that such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, instead of measuring the problem against the Word of God written, believe that ALL religions are valid, and concentrate on developing modern ideas of 'multifalth worship'.

How many of these, clerics, scholars, politicians etc. entirely miss the point. This has nothing to do with 'religion' - it is a matter of LAW. Not for nothing did Alfred the Great start his codification of the Law with the first Commandment given at Sinai ... 'Thou shalt have no other gods but Me'. Of course we know that Old Testament Law dealing with sacrifices, ritual and offerings ended at Calvary but the Law given at Sinai was, is, permanent.

Jesus Himself said that He had not come to destroy the Law but to fulfil the requisites of the Law for the redemption of Israel. He gave us a summary that we 'Love the Lord our God with all our hearts and our neighbour as ourselves'.

I am sure that this audience knows that the Greek word Agape used by Our Lord does not mean just physical or sentimental affection but means Love

with overtones of duty and self sacrifice. (See Bullinger etc.).

From reading the Bible - or even studying our own history one might conclude that the keeping of the Law would be a matter of self interest, especially if one considers the Blessings and Cursings listed by Moses in Deut. 30:19-20. But we must not forget that Moses was also a prophet ...

Israel then, shall dwell in safety alone, the fountains of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine, also his heavens shall drop down dew. Happy art thou 0 Israel. Who is like unto thee, 0 people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency. And thy enemies shall be found liars unto thee, and thou shalt tread upon their high places. (Deut. 33:28- 29)

A people saved by the Lord! We who live in the British Isles know full well the repeated outworking of this prophesy but these days it would be no wonder if The Lord God despaired of us and left us to our own destruction. Indeed at the present time it looks as if that has in fact happened. For someone of my age the changes which have taken place are simply unbelievable. As a child and a teenager I lived in two very different places, one a town in Cheshire, England and the other a small prairie town in Canada. They could not have been more different - but they were also very much alike being poor, perhaps old fashioned, but church going and law abiding with streets safe for young and old. Should one really have to choose between being poor and law abiding or affluent in a lawless society?

So where have we, the modern descendants of the Biblical Israelites gone wrong? Why is it that In 1992 Law and order in society is at a premium. How and why have law abiding people degenerated so rapidly? It would be easy to sit self righteously and blame it on THE WAR, on the modern MEDIA - or even on SATAN. But Satan can only be successful when men and women listen to him, and begin to believe his lies.

How easy it is to believe that the Bible is out of date and has no relevance for the 1990's. How easy to believe that there cannot be a loving God in heaven or on Earth for that matter when there are millions of innocent people all over the globe living in unspeakable squallor and dying of starvation and disease. And - what is more to the point, when there are so many poverty stricken

people in our own lands. In Britain we have a new word for it. They are DISADVANTAGED.

Our Lord had something to say about our kind of society ...

For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore, shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when He cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:36-38)

Such were the words of Jesus and surely are a clear indication of the malaise which afflicts all the Israel nations today

The prophet Ezekiel had a very pertinent comment to make ...

When the land sinneth against me, by trespassing grieviously, then will 1 stretch out my hand upon it, and will break the staff of bread, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it. Though these three men, Noah, Daniel or Job were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord. (Ez. 14:13.)

This shows clearly that every man - every woman is responsible for their own soul. Unhappily few churches seem to be able to preach and teach such a simple sense of responsibility but without a doubt there is one great cloud hanging over our world, our Kosmos and it is sirnply lack of confidence in the Word of God written. Is it any wonder that we look with increasing concern at our world and begin to think that indeed we have a COUNTDOWN TO CHAOS!

Which ever way we look, in every continent there is trouble. When I was preparing this talk the NEWS centred on Yugoslavia and particularly on Bosnia. There was still trouble with Saddam Hussein who is quite happy for the UN to blow up his nuclear factories - for since the break up of the Soviet Union atomic arms are readily available on the black market. And I expect

todays news casts will bring us the latest on riots, civil wars etc..

It cannot be a coincidence that the last date in the Great Pyramid was August 20th 1953. Next year August 20th,will be exactly 40 years from that Pyramid date. 40 means trial, preparation, probation - the time of Jacob's trouble, and as Jesus said, nation rising against nation.

We Identity believers consider that we not only understand the situation, but we also believe that we have the answers. The fact that we, the Anglo-SaxonCeltic peoples ARE - as can be proved in so many ways - the descendants of the ancient Israelite tribes of the Bible should somehow enable us to move people to turn again to the Bible, to the God of Jacob and to the laws and constitution He gave us ... So why does it not work? My friends, do not think that I am criticizing your efforts. Anyone like myself who has worked and lectured for this teaching for over 30 years knows full well how many good and true Israelites have given their lives in the service of this cause. It simply must be admitted that Identity groups all over the world are small, and in some places simply fading away, seemingly unable to attract younger more active members.

I am sure we have all thought along these lines at one time or another ... In my working life as an analyst in the laboratory attached to a large chemical factory I was sometimes given a sample which had lost its label or came from an unmarked container. Its exact contents must be determined so that it could be safely dealt with. It could be a poison, or an explosive, or even a harmless salt ... One could get a clue from its appearance or perhaps its smell, but such were scientifically just guesses. I had to produce facts. And in Chemistry there is only one way. One must go back to basics and determine exactly what elements are present and in what proportion.

So it seems to me that we Identity believers, with our invaluable key to prophecy should be prepared to go back to basics, to our basic argument, to make sure that in our eagerness on making the literal modern identification of the Descendants of the Biblical Israelites we haven't overlooked some point or factor which might give us the light and incentive we need in these dark days. For we do have the word of God written and unless we interpret God's words correctly our teaching will be in vain.

Ever since I became interested in the historical aspect of, our teaching I have been finding in my reading of books, newspapers etc., etc. items of historical or archaeological interest which shed, little by little, more light on the history of our migrating forefathers. Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we do as much research into the Bible ... Certainly it is a question that I have asked myself. There are more and more English versions of the Bible being produced and while we must admit that from a scholarly point of view some of them are little more than paraphrases, we must also admit that our treasured King James version has its share of errors. Sometimes it is not so much actual error as change in the meaning of a word. A good example is the Greek word AGAPE which is translated in I Corinthians l3 as 'Charity' in the A.V. but as 'love' in the Revised Versions. Sadly other errors are not always as easy to recognise, but a book such as Dr Bullinger's Companion Bible, or Scoffield's Reference Bible can help. Important also is prayer that God will guide our studies.

Now I must stress that I am not a Hebrew scholar, nor do I know any Greek (I was lucky that the High School in Lloydminster had a teacher who could - and did, teach Latin!) So in my researches I have to rely on others for some of my information. Well ... as I said, in the Lab. we would go back to basics. Back to the scriptures we would quote if we were telling someone about the Bible promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for the first time.

As we all know - all Identity talks, or teaching if you like, begin with ...

Now the Lord said unto Abram, get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that 1 will show thee. And 1 will make thee a great nation, and 1 will bless thee and make thy name great,. and thou shall be a blessing: And 1 will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (Gen. 12:1-3:)

And if we want a second witness we quote ... Seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. (Gen.18:18)

Do we have a problem here? If we all believe that we are nearing the end of the age and the return of The Lord Jesus what about these promised blessings?

When I First heard a B.I. lecture in about 1933, the statement that in Abraham all nations would be blessed seemed to be a plausible argument. I remember the lecturer pointed out that Britain had abolished the slave trade because she controlled the seas. Britain stopped the practice of suttee in India. Missionaries from all the Israel nations took the gospel to many, many countries. Many of them were doctors and nurses dedicated to taking modern medicine to backward areas. Even the fact that we fought wars to protect small nations from aggression could be said to be a 'blessing'- at least for the rescued nation if not for the rescuers who suffered very many causualties ...

Can we really look at the world in 1992 and say that the Israel nations ARE a blessing to 'all the nations of the earth'? We might try - and hope .... but ARE WE???

Looking into History can we discover a time, even in the Bible when these blessings existed? In Abraham's day there were few people to be blessed. The Israelites were not blessed in Egypt, they were slaves, and certainly the Egyptians were not blessed. When the Israelites reached Palestine they were told to exterminate the Ammonites and Moabites - that was no blessing! We cannot describe the lives of the Israelites under the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities as blessed. Were the people of the Roman Empire blessed, or the millions who lived and died during the Dark Ages? Nearer our own time the men, women and children who perished in two world wars could not be described as blessed.

So we do have a problem! We must go back to basic Bible study. Even if we do not understand Hebrew we can consult translations with notes and references such as Bullinger, as well, as other translations such as the NIV, Moffat, Ferrar Fenton, and Young.

The statement we must examine is simply 'And in thee shall all the families of

the earth be blessed'. In other words we need to identify the 'families' who are of the 'earth'. Further study reveals that the families are those families or nations who in time were literally descended from Abraham. We haven't time in one lecture to explore the history of Abraham's descendants which includes those of Ishmael, of the sons of Keturah and those of Esau. But we must realise that one by one these families were rejected in that they were removed from the families of promise leaving only the 12 sons of Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel.

Let us therefore look at the only other noun in this statement - the word 'earth'. You will think that that is easy as we all know that - it means the planet, the world. But does it? We do use the word often to describe the planet, but it does have other meanings, it can mean soil, or the nest of an animal. However we must use scientific methods in our research. I have always been told that if we have problems with a word in scripture we can turn to the very first time that word is used in the Bible. This will illustrate the exact meaning of the word.

Let us then look at the first tirne the word 'earth' occurs in our Bibles. Nor do we need a concordance for every person here can quote the opening verse of Genesis:

In the beginning God created The Heavens and the earth.

The word 'earth' occurs 20 times in Genesis chapter one and it is obvious that it means the planet Earth. There is a change in Genesis chapter two. It states that 'Elohim CREATED the heavens and the earth'. In Genesis chapter two verse four we read that 'THE LORD GOD' made the earth and the heavens. So the two accounts differ, Elohim 'created' and The Lord God 'made'. Dr Bullinger tells us that this title 'The Lord God' represents Jehovah, He Who revealed Himself to Moses and the Israelites at Sinai. There is another point to consider. In Genesis chapter one we have 'heavens and earth' - in Genesis chapter two we have 'an earth and an heaven'. For further witness to Jehovah MAKING the earth we can look at the fourth commandrnent where we are told 'The Lord MADE heaven and earth' (Ex.20:11) and again in Exodus 31:17.

Genesis chapter two goes on to tell us how The Lord God caused trees and

herbs to grow in the earth or ground that He had rnade - then he FORMED Adam frorn the dust of the ground.

The Bible continues with the story of the 'earth' the Lord God made, of how Adam and Eve 'fell' and were driven from the Garden - How in time most of their descendants became so corrupt that God destroyed them all except Noah and his family in the great Flood. How Noah and his family were told to 'replenish' the earth and so we come to Abraham who was told (in the Hebrew)... 'Leave thy Earth and go ... unto an earth that I will show thee'.

So we come full circle back to Abraham. The land or earth promised to Abraham, then Isaac and then Jacob-lsrael. was the earth which The Lord God had MADE and the blessings conferred on the descendants of Abraham as in Genesis 12:1-3 are also for these same people ONLY . Or to put it another way, these blessings, promised in turn to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/ Israel were and still are applicable to them and them alone. It is necessary to note that in Genesis 12:3 the word translated 'earth' is in the Hebrew adamah which properly translated means 'ground' or'soil' under foot. If it is used in association with people it refers to the soil of the region which belongs to God - the region He made.

As we know the Covenant with Abraham was repeated to his son Isaac and finally to his grandson Jacob who became Israel. The history in the Bible tells us how the other descendants of Abraham were either disqualified like Esau (by his own action) or given their inheritance and sent away like Ishmael.

There is no doubt that the world in which we live is a terrible place. Even the modern Israel Nations who have God's Laws written on their statute book now ignore them. The churches are no longer the worshipping congregations of the Lord - and our cities are become like Sodom.

Lest we are accused of quoting the Old Testament only, let us remember our Lord's own words in Matthew 15:24, 'I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel'. And in Matthew 10:6 when He sent out the disciples He commanded them saying, 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to, the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, and as ye go, preach, saying; The kingdom of heaven is at

Hand'.

Was it not the Lord Jesus Himself who asked 'Shall He find Faith in the Earth?' - The Faith!! It is time we who know and believe in the wonderful truth we call the Identity must accept that whenever we have tried like the theologians to widen the scope of God's blessings to include nations and peoples other than those literallly descended from Jacob-lsrael we are in fact working against God and will find no blessing for either ourselves or for the nations and people we try to help. Surely we can see from our history that when our people were God fearing and lived by God's laws our achievements and fame were incalcuable. Satan is, or so it seems, rapidly achieving HIS objective. But God does not of necessity need great crowds like a Billy Graham mission. There were only seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal in Elijah's day and Gideon triumphed with 300. If we believe that we are in very truth counting down to the final chaos, and can we doubt it? WE MUST BELIEVE and TEACH the Word of Jehovah exactly as it is written.

Back To Archive Contents

GOING OUT WITH A BANG

In Revelation 13, verse 10 says: 'Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.' It links the previous verses about an assault upon Christians to an assault upon mankind.

THE first ten verses of the chapter describe a 'beast' full of blasphemy and bent on persecution. Humankind worships it and accepts the overthrow of witness by past generations - saints and martyrs who would die cruel deaths rather than deny their Lord in word or deed; who died for freedom and high principle. There is coming a day, says Revelation in effect, when even World Wars I and II will have their millions dead discounted. The freedoms fought and died for - lost. Patriotism and valour will be no more as 'the beast' rules without frontier over every tribe and people, and tongue and nation. 'All who dwell on earth will worship it ...' says verse eight: everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.'

This Lamb can be found through Genesis 22. Here we have the story of Abraham, father of nations and tribes, and his son Isaac. It pertains to The Last Days because therein is God's promise of provision for these same Last Days. God Himself shall provide the sacrifice.

Back in Revelation 13, the 'beast' afflicting the church in the first ten verses is joined by a second 'beast' - and this is manmade. It has two horns and is like a lamb, says verse 11. It resembles the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, but it is not The Lamb.

Is it just co-incidence that the first stage on our way to the full cloning of a human has been Dolly the Sheep at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh? Is it just co-incidence that the picture in Revelation is of a two-horned lamb - an adult child; a child already an adult mature in its physical aspects before due time. Is it just co-incidence that the Director of the Institute, once worried about the ethics of cloning a full human has now reportedly had his fears allayed and it is quite possible there will be a baby clone for the millennium. How fitting - a baby clone announced like getting to the top of Everest for the Coronation. It is ultimate blasphemy out of an anti-Christian way of life.

The clone factor began in March 1953 when Francis Crick rushed into the Eagle pub in Cambridge at lunchtime, spreading the news that he and his partner James Watson had found the secret of life. What they had done, in fact, was decipher the structure of the molecule of DNA, something present in almost every living cell. They had found that DNA can do two things: carry information and - replicate itself. The processes of life were now on display.

A recent Sunday Times supplement itemised what the knowledge could do from modifying plants to making designer babies. The Sunday Times writer summed up: 'In short, we shall have the power of a god in the living world.'

'Both Watson and Crick said that the idea that drove them on to unravelling of the structure of DNA was anti-religious. They wished to show that vitalism was wrong, there was nothing special about life and no need for God. Life was chemistry and ultimately, physics.' (Life was Chemistry..)

The writer, Bryan Appleyard, described their position: 'Science is the only source of true wisdom.'

And yet, there are limits ... science has no mercy.

Witness a paragraph in The Scotsman of February 25th this year. It says:

'The millennium bug could cause breakdowns in nuclear reactors and strategic missile systems and lead to severe disruptions in world trade and oil shipments, a senior CIA official warned yesterday.'

General John Gordon, deputy director, was testifying in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. He said midwinter power failures could have 'major humanitarian consequences' in Russia. Most countries were far behind the USA in preparations for the crisis.

Leaving aside how odd it is for a spook to be the authority on such matters, we have to recognise that the USA may be ahead of the field in crisis containment, but that is not saying much.

The chairman of the Y2K Committee of the U.S. Senate charts the countdown.

August 22nd, 1999: the end of the first 1,024-week cycle for the Global Positioning System network. Most of the U.S. military is locked into this system guidance for almost all inter-continental ballistic missiles and other navigation in warfare. All world financial transactions are dependent on the Global Positioning System so this will mean a complete shut-down of financial services worldwide.

September 9th, 1999: reads complete erasure for many files.

October 1st, 1999: U.S. Federal Government begins its fiscal year. Nowhere near ready - huge internal crisis.

January 1st 2000: national power grids, fuel refineries, telephone networks, rallroads, air traffic control, social security payments, pensions in turmoil over 24 time sectors of the earth. 'I call this time ... the day the earth stands still, as far as computers are concerned' says the chairman, Senator Dennet (R Utah).

But the earth could stand still in another sense.

'Cosmic cloud could cause Armageddon' said the Scottish Daily Record of 29th March last year. It was on page 23 then, but will it soon be on the front page?

'A bump with a tiny gas cloud could rnean the end of the world' we are told.

'The earth would be raked by deadly cosmic radiation and could suffer severe global warming, a great flood or an ice age.'

Gary Zank of the Bartol Research Institute at the University of Delaware is quoted as saying:

'As our sun moves through extremely 'empty' or low- density interstellar space, the solar wind produces a protective bubble - the hellosphere around our Solar System - which allows life to flourish on Earth.

'We could bump into a small cloud at any time, and we probably won't see it coming.

'Without the hellosphere, neutral hydrogen would interact with our atmosphere, possibly producing catastrophic climate changes, while our exposure to deadly cosmic radiation in the form of very high energy cosmic rays would increase.

'The protective solar wind would be extinguished, and cosmic radiation might lead to gene mutations.

'Hydrogen would bombard the earth, producing increased cloud cover, leading perhaps to global warming, or extreme amounts of precipitation and ice-ages.'

Then we have a report in The Scotsman of 29th April last year. It sends the message right across the top of page 22: 'Prepare for the sunspot bug'. It goes on:

'Scientists predict ferocious storms on the surface of the sun could hit satellites and cripple computer systems.

The text says these are a thousand times faster than the tornadoes experienced on earth. These are a major source of magnetic storms disrupting power supplies and interfering with satellites. Dr Richard Harris, principal investigator at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire says the peak of such activity will be reached in 2000 A.D. and should be added to the concern over the millennium bug, because they affect microchips.

Now all this is connected to Genesis one verse 4 where in the beginning, God divided the light from darkness. And another separation, verse 7.

'God made the firmament and He divided the waters under the firmament from the waters above the firmament.' And verse 8, God called the firmament

Heaven.

The upheavals forecast by the scientists are already signposted. In Revelation chapter 21, verse 1, we read that the visionary John saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth were gone, and the sea no longer existed. Verse 5 declares the re-creation of all things. In the process, the pollutions and the polluters of earthly existence will experience what is called in verse 8 the second death.

But first, there is a living hell to go through.

Revelation 13, verse 16 says the 'beast' 'causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead.'

This is where Jews wear their phylacteries - the little leather boxes containing the passages of Deuteronomy about the one true God. The wearing of these items denotes obedience to God in their actions (the arms) and their thinking (the forehead). Jesus used this same quotation when asked what was the greatest commandment. So we find that the beast will demand that both the ancient Hebrew belief and the New Testament word of Jesus be superseded.

As verse 17 emphasises:

'No one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is the name of the beast, or the number of its name.'

Verse 18 says it is a human number - a manmade number. E.W Bullinger in his book Number in Scripture published in 1894, over a hundred years ago, says this:

'If six is the number of secular or human perfection, then 66 is a more

emphatic expression of the same fact, and 666 is the concentrated expression of it. 666 is therefore the trinity of human perfection, the perfection of imperfection, the culmination of human pride in independence of God and opposition to His Christ.'

Then Bullinger states this:

'The number, however, has to be computed to reckon, to calculate, not merely to count or enumerate.'

So here we are - back at the computer crash where everything is wrapped up in figures. According to Revelation, we will have a purely commercial lifestyle and whoever does not conform to the five points of economic tests, as Chancellor Gordon Brown would say, will die. Anyone who does not reckon in money has no future. Parochially, we will enter Euroland only for the money, says the Chancellor. There is no objection in principle. That is our world writ small.

Jesus Himself forecast this state of affairs: 'You cannot serve God and Mammon. You will love, honour and obey one or the other, but not both.'

Many people have already chosen - they are the microchip society. They are preparing for the mark of the beast. And, in a sense, they are prudent. When the millenniurn bug hits, there will be a financial crisis - stock markets all round the world will fall. Panic will ensue.

There will be a run on the banks, devaluation of currencies, civil unrest on a giant scale. The salvation plan will then be trotted out - the microchip embedded in the back of the hand or on the forehead. It is, after all, a mere extension of the smart card facility. Those with it will enjoy preferential treatment, what goods and services are available. In fact, the loyalty card, for supermarket customers only. Only the multinationals can ride the storm.

There need be no surprise about this. Already livestock are tagged - the BSE

scare was the excuse -why shouldn't it now be humans? Infopet is only one of several companies that can inject a bio-chip by syringe. The chip is read by a scanner and the code identifies the owner. This calls up a whole file.

Already over a billion pets can be tracked by satellite and cellular towers. Motorola is into human versions. It says a chip the size of a grain of rice can cover 34 billion unique sets of individual identification codes. Enough for every living person in the world. Using three entries of six digits each (666), every member of the human race can have their own social security number.

Such a chip in the body would be able to contain details of every aspect of one's life - ID, passport, driver's licence, bank status, benefits, family history, address, next of kin, medical and income tax records, criminal convictions. Above all, this chip keeps track of you. You will be never out on your own anywhere in the world. But there is no hiding place either. The planners estimate they need only 66 low-level stationary satellites to achieve this.

Of course this implanted chip needs power - rechargeable batteries, automatically. After million-dollar research it was found that human heat did the trick. Only two locations met the requirements: the back of the right hand and the forehead, just under the hairline.

The implanted chip will be sold to the public as an aid to the cashless society (cut-down on thieving); as a welfare safeguard (benefits paid direct into a bank account and purchases deducted from weekly lump sum - if you overspend, go out and work for it); as a general short-cut on bureaucracy; and as a constant watch on lost or runaway children, paedophiles and recidivists. We will be rendered more circumspect in the Orwellian cornmonsense of it all. But we will be not only psychologically affected - the chip will alter our physical make-up. It will likewise interfere with the spirit of God...

The Kingdom of God within will be out of touch, the guidance and care of God will have interference.

Users of mobile phones should watch carefully how they go for they are subscribing to the same processes and there may be some fire under the smoke of newspaper scare stories about loss of memory. Memory after all is at the heart of our identity. If we lose that, we lose everything personal and collective, we lose every significance God promised in Genesis 22, verse 18.

We have then, nothing more to lose - only God is left for us. Will Jesus not come back now?

We know well enough the situation attendant upon the Second Coming: Jesus describes it in Matthew 24: wars, famine, disease, earthquakes; martyrdom, hatred; sun and moon darkened, stars failing.

Then He will be back on the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem - the precise spot frorn which He departed after his Resurrection.

We know the nations of the world will be at war, all over Jerusalem, and the eyes of the United Nations will see Him. Indeed, we shall all see Him wherever we may be and whatever we are doing. His arrival will be so evident that no one will miss it. The only way that every eye will see Him, and every knee bow and every soul shall call Him Lord is by a cloudburst from beyond the solar system.

Why must it be from outside the solar system? Because the solar system runs on the schedule described in Genesis and that means half the world is awake while the other half sleeps. There is night and day in the planet governed by the solar system but for us all to be awake and watching, there must be a trumpet blast and an abolition of the night and day regularity of the solar system. According to the scientists, the solar system could be breached, abolished really, any time. There is nothing scientifically to rule that out. If the solar system is afflicted, so are we. It dictates our existence.

We are what we eat, they say. But we don't eat if the solar system goes wrong. It controls our crop yield, it supplies our water, or not. It all depends on the weather. And the weather relies on the solar system - does it rain?

does the sun come out? do we have frost, snow, mild or hot climate - it all depends where we are under the solar system. No wonder we are fixated on the weather forecast ... and most phone calls ask a question: "What's it been like your end?"

Looking at the mess we've made of planet earth, can we wonder that God should intervene with the weather, at the last, as His demonstration of power. From beyond the solar system, He comes again spreading from east to west His glory in what is the twinkling of an eye, in the person of Jesus as ultimate prophet, priest and king. We know this from Revelation.

It has been proved true by events so far - may we not believe what it now says: verse 4: Revelation, chapter 21, verses 3, 4 and 5:

'God's dwelling place is among men, And he will dwell among them and they shall be His peoples. Yes, God Himself will be among them. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death shall be no more; nor sorrow, nor wail of woe, nor pain; for the former things have passed away ... BEHOLD, I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW.'

[Reprinted from Bible Class July/August 1999]

Back To Archive Contents