Q&A – Page 87 – Church of the Eternal God

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

November 30, 2007

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

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

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

Does 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 teach a "secret rapture"?

November 23, 2007

It does not. Please look carefully at the context of the passage in light of other Biblical evidence.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 reads:

“But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”

Does Galatians 3 teach that the Law of the Ten Commandments is abolished?

November 16, 2007

Even though many professing Christians believe that the Ten Commandments are no longer binding on us today, and although some Biblical “scholars” quote, amongst other Scriptures, the book of Galatians as evidence for such assumptions, the Bible totally rejects and disproves such ideas.

In fact, if you are a truly converted Christian, you have received the Holy Spirit of God, dwelling in you, and through the Holy Spirit, you have received the love of God (Romans 5:5). The love of God is defined as keeping the commandments. 1 John 5:3 says: “For this IS the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” Paul tells us that “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Love does not do away with it; quite to the contrary, it FULFILLS or KEEPS it. Rather than thinking that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, God’s Holy Spirit in you reveals to you that they are still binding for you, and God’s love in you will motivate you to KEEP them.

Will the Jewish people build an actual Temple in Jerusalem before the return of Jesus Christ?

November 9, 2007

The indications are that they will. Although there have been feeble attempts to build a new Temple ever since the destruction of the Second Temple of God by the Roman army in 70 AD, none have been successful—to date!

Some historical and contemporary background will shed light on the ongoing desire of Jews to once again establish a Temple in Jerusalem, which would include daily animal sacrifices in accordance with Old Testament guidelines, which are clearly revealed to commence soon in Jerusalem, before they are suppressed again by an invading power (compare Daniel 12:11).

Jerusalem itself has become a focal point of international concern, and the Temple Mount is considered the most contested religious site on earth. For centuries, various factions have challenged control of this area. Up until the Six Day War in 1967, Jews didn’t even have access to the area called the Temple Mount.

Why do you teach three resurrections? Does not the Bible reveal only ONE resurrection–THE resurrection from the dead?

November 2, 2007

We are glad to explain this highly misunderstood topic in detail. As we will see, the Bible clearly teaches THREE resurrections–not just one.

Paul was inspired by God to write in 1 Corinthians 15:20-26:

“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep [who have died]. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ ALL shall be made alive. But each one IN HIS OWN ORDER: Christ the firstfruits, AFTERWARD those who are Christ’s [true converted Christians] at His coming. THEN COMES THE END, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an END to all [rebellious human and demonic] rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till he has put all ENEMIES under His feet. The LAST ENEMY that will be destroyed is death.”

Does the throne of David exist today on earth? If so, where can it be found?

October 26, 2007

The throne of David does exist on earth. To show where it is located today, let us consider the following facts:

(1) We are told that the scepter–a symbol of kingship, compare the margin in the New King James Bible–was given to Judah.

Genesis 49:10: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah… Until Shiloh [the Messiah, Jesus Christ] comes.”

(2) We are told that David’s “seed” or descendants would rule or have dominion over Israel. This could be fulfilled in ANY of the tribes of “Israel”–the name given to Jacob by God (Compare Genesis 32:28; 35:10). We are specifically told that God would establish the throne of David’s kingdom forever over Israel, in his son Solomon.

2 Samuel 7:12-13: “…I will set up your [David’s] seed after you, who will come from your body… and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.”

In a recent Q&A (Update #311), you said that the Bible requires the testimony of two eye witnesses to convict a person, but this seems to be incorrect. The Scriptures talk about witnesses who are testifying before the judge–not persons witnessing a crime with their eyes. Therefore, it seems that two witnesses could testify to scientific evidence or circumstances to establish a connection with a crime, including DNA, fingerprints, blood stain or similar evidence. What do you think?

October 19, 2007

To clarify, our stance against serving on a jury is based on many Biblical passages and principles, not just on the requirement of two witnesses. For an in-depth discussion on this issue, please read our Q&A in Update #289.

Regarding the requirement of two witnesses, we discussed this in several previous Q&A’s (compare Update #311 and #66). We pointed out that the Bible requires the “testimony” of at least two witnesses to establish the guilt of a person. The context makes it abundantly clear that these witnesses have to be “EYE witnesses” of the crime–circumstantial or “hearsay” evidence is simply not admissible or sufficient, according to the Bible, to convict a person.

Deuteronomy 17:6-7 reads that “whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” The Authorized Version says, “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death.” It is established, then, that witnesses had to speak or testify. In order to give relevant testimony, they had to testify about the alleged crime of the accused. As we will show, they had to be “EYE” or “EAR” witnesses–who had observed the crime–and who were asked to testify about what they themselves saw and heard, with sincerity, certainty and total honesty. It will also become clear that the term “witness” cannot be applied to someone not present at the scene of the crime. A “scientific expert” who testifies about “DNA evidence” simply does not fit the BIBLICAL definition of “witness.”

What did Jesus mean in John 17, verses 14 and 16, when He spoke to the Father, saying that His disciples "'…are not of the world, just as I am not of the world'"?

October 12, 2007

This statement by Jesus Christ highlights a misunderstood truth that very few have comprehended, about the purpose and message of Jesus Christ, as well as the conduct of His followers–those who would claim to be Christians.

In an earlier account, Jesus pointedly contrasted His origin to that of the Jews who heard His preaching (Compare John 8:21-30). What He addressed were their actions, their lifestyle–their very way of living. He plainly said that they were “‘…OF this world'” (John 8:23); while, on the other hand, He emphatically stated that He was “‘…NOT OF this world'” (Same verse).

In verse 44 of this chapter, Jesus powerfully indicts those rejecting Him and His message: “‘You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.'”

Would you please explain Revelation 17:9? Who or what are the seven heads of the scarlet-colored beast, on which the fallen woman sits, and who is that woman?

September 21, 2007July 12, 2020

There can be little doubt what Revelation 17:9 describes. The previous verses in the same chapter talk about a fallen woman sitting on a scarlet-colored beast, with seven heads and ten horns. As we explain in our free booklet, “Europe in Prophecy,” the scarlet-colored beast on which the woman sits depicts the last seven revivals of the ancient Roman Empire.

In Biblical terminology, a religious entity is many times depicted as a woman. The true Church of God is identified as a woman (Revelation 12:6, 13-17); a virgin (2 Corinthians 11:2); and the wife of Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:7). Likewise, Christ’s true followers are identified as “virgins” (Matthew 25:1; Revelation 14:4).

However, the woman who sits on the scarlet-colored beast is a FALLEN rich woman who has committed “fornication” with the inhabitants of the earth (Revelation 17:2; compare also verse 4, and Revelation 18:3, 9). She is identified as “the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication” (Revelation 19:2). In Biblical terminology, she is a fallen church, pretending to be the true Church of God, but persecuting Christ’s true disciples.

I understand that you teach that Christians, serving on a jury, can only convict an accused if at least two eye witnesses testify against him. But doesn't modern science, such as evidence based on DNA or fingerprints, render that ancient Biblical command obsolete, which was given at a time when people had no concepts of modern scientific advancements?

September 14, 2007

First of all, our stance against serving on a jury is based on many Biblical passages, not just on the requirement of two eye witnesses. Even if two honest eye witnesses were available to testify against an accused, a true Christian should still not participate in the jury system of this world. For a further in-depth discussion of this vital question, please read our Q&A’s in Updates #289 and #66.

In Update #66, we state, indeed, the following, after having discussed numerous additional principles prohibiting true Christians to serve on a jury:

“In following the biblical injunctions, one could not convict a person, in any event, unless the accusation is supported by the testimony of at least two witnesses (John 8:16; Deuteronomy 17:6-7). Since the witnesses would have to ‘cast the first stones,’ circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient, under God’s law, for the requirement of two witnesses.
“Since we may be required, as a juror, to apply man’s laws in conflict with the law of God, we could not take the oath as a juror, as we would, in principle, agree to obeying man rather than God (Acts 5:29; Acts 4:19).”