ensign issue 1 vol 4
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
1/81
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 hisconduct. 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
2/81
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 theanniversary 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
3/81
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 apassage 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 thebirthday 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 dateDecember 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
4/81
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 wasnot 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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
5/81
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 weeksold, 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 776-
772 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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
6/81
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;
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
7/81
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 Anglo-
Saxons 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
8/81
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
9/81
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' foromega.
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
10/81
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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
11/81
'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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
12/81
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
13/81
'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 Ephesians2:11: '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' isinteresting, 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 fewverses 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
14/81
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 Greekword 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
15/81
secret, especially when the Jews and later the Romans started to fear the so-
called 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 regionsof 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 wascrucified at Britannia, slain and buried'.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
16/81
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
17/81
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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
18/81
The Doomsday Book has the following entry which lends support to the abovewords 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 orderto 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 thatreceived 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
19/81
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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
20/81
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 withouttheir 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
21/81
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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
22/81
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 'ber-
eeth' 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?
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
23/81
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 shallunderstand; '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?
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
24/81
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 Hisincarnation, 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 uponus. 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
25/81
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
26/81
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, andGod 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 intoprison 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
27/81
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 thefirst 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 womenof 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 apower!
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
28/81
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 thisChrist 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 themystery 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!
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
29/81
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 placedHimself 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
30/81
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
31/81
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
32/81
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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
33/81
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 Bantu-negroid 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 amassive 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 butmaintaining 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 blackpeople 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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
34/81
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 fewadministration 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 tocomplete 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
35/81
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
36/81
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 Africafor 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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
37/81
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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
38/81
'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'llenjoy 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
39/81
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."'
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
40/81
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 byseveral 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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
41/81
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.
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
42/81
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
-
7/30/2019 Ensign Issue 1 vol 4
43/81
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