"Jesus Christ Superstar": The Gospel according to Judas Iscariot Inspired by the Devil

The Rock Opera "Jesus Christ - Superstar" has come to Belfast. The Ecumenical Churches have been its defenders and apologists. The cry from Irish Presbyterian ministers is that it is helpful and certainly not blasphemous. Our readers should be aware of the vile blasphemings in which it indulges.


We take the following from Dr. Garlock's tract, Jesus Christ Superstar:

First, what do the writers themselves say are their reasons for writing this work? They answer that question in the "official" interview with the album as it was sent out to radio stations across the notion. On bond two of the recorded interview, or on page five of the printed copy, a question is asked of Tim Rice, the one who wrote the words of the opera. Question: "Was the basic idea that of Jesus, as seen through the eves of Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber?" - Answer: "Well, it's bound to be Jesus seen

Continued Page 6

A Sermon preached by Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley. PSALM 109 v. 24 and 25. Theme - DELIVERANCE

We have entered a new year. The newness of that year is still upon us. It is true that no man liveth to himself. It is also true that no year liveth to itself. The past year rubs off on the new. There is no clean break. Where the last of the old year left us the first of the new year finds us.

Where did 1973 leave us here in Ulster. It left us in a state of calamity. Our cities, towns and villages have been bombed. Our beloved Province has been burned. Our Parliament has been over-thrown by the capitulation of Westminster to Republican agitation and violence. Almost 1,000 lives have been taken and to crown it all former IRA men and fellow travellers have been set over us in an autocratic regime with as much semblance of democracy as Hitler's government in Fascist Germany. While the bombs off a lying press, lying parsons, lying politicians and a lying premier tell us glibly that this road of gore is in reality the road of peace.

Is it any wonder that Ulster people are outraged and frustrated. Is it any wonder they turn from such leaders with the utmost of contempt? While even ungodly people are utterly disillusioned and despair the people of God need not suffer any such disillusionment or despair. Deliverance full and complete can be theirs. Where others stagger around blinded in the intense darkness the man of God with eye of faith can see a way through.

He is steadfast for His God is steadfast. He is confident for His God cannot fail. He is hopeful for the anchor of hope is the safe keeper of his heart. Such a man of God was David. He possessed the eye of faith an eye which without aid can penetrate the darkest gloom. He was steadfast. He was confident. He was in the highest sense the MAN WHO WAS SURE.

Amidst the storm David wrote a chorus of praise rather than a dirge of despair. He sings as he strikes the strings of his harp.


His theme is CERTAIN DELIVERANCE. He has no doubts, no fears. All is well because God is sovereign and because He is sovereign His supremacy is unchallengeable and unimpaired.

David's first emphasis is AGREEMENT. Note how he plays it out Help me, O LORD MY GOD, O Save me. God is in an intimate and personal relationship with him. "The Lord is my LORD" he cries.

Secondly DAVID stresses ARGUMENT. His argument is simple "according to Thy mercy".

Lastly David speaks of ACHIEVEMENT. "That they may know that this is Thy hand that Thou Lord has done it".


"Help me, O LORD my God, O save me". The Psalmist knew a blessed [3] relationship. "The "LORD" (note it is printed in small capitals in your Authorised Version. I hope you are not misled to use any other) which means in the Hebrew it is "Jehovah" God in personal Covenant with His people".

In the Old Testament that wonderful name of God has linked with it in a dual capacity some wonderful things about God in His personal dealings with His people.


1. JEHOVAH-JIREH, "Jehovah will see" or "provide." Gen. 22:14.

2. JEHOVAH-ROPHECA, "Jehovah that healeth thee." Exod. 25: 26.

3. JEHOVAH-NISSI, "Jehovah my banner." Exod. 17:15.

4. JEHOVAH-MEKADDISHKEM, "Jehovah that doth sanctify you." Exod. 31: 13. Lev. 20: 8; 21: 8; 22: 9, 16, 32. Ezek. 20: 12.

5. JEHOVAH-ELOHENU, "Jehovah our God." Ps. 99: 5.
JEHOVAH-ELOHEKA, "Jehovah thy God." Ex. 20: 2.
JEHOVAH-ELOHAY, "Jehovah my God." Zech. 14:5.

6. JEHOVAH-SHALOM, "Jehovah send peace." Judg. Y: 24.

7. JEHOVAH-TSEBAHOTH, "Jehovah of hosts." I Sam. 1: 3, etc.

8. JEHOVAH-ROHI, "Jehovah my shepherd." Ps. 23: 1.

9. JEHOVAH-HELEYON, "Jehovah most high." Ps. 7: 17; 47: 2; 97: 9.

10. JEHOVAH-TSIDKEENU, "Jehovah our righteousness." Jer. 23: 6; 33: 16.

11. JEHOVAH-SHAHMMAH, "Jehovah is there." Ezek. 48: 35.


"According to Thy mercy".

The greatest argument that human lips can express to the Almighty God is the argument of God's mercy. We must not, we cannot, we dare not at any time as sinners plead the argument of God's justice except in relation to His mercy.

On a basis of justice His answer would be immediate damnation but on a basis of mercy His answer can be immediate deliverance.

The Psalmist pleads "God's mercy". The mercy of man is tyranny compared to the mercy of God. The Psalmist's argument is with the Infinite God so he pleads infinite mercy. The Psalmist's argument is with the omnipotent God so he pleads omnipotent mercy. The Psalmist's argument is with the unlimited God so he pleads unlimited mercy. The Psalmist's argument is with the sovereign God so he pleads sovereign mercy.

Now what is the infinite mercy, the omnipotent mercy, the unlimited mercy, the unmeasureable mercy and the sovereign mercy of God but GRACE the sweetest word in the Gospel vocabulary. Grace I cannot define it. It is deep, deeper than all my sins. It is high, higher than all my sins. It is wide, wider than all my sins.

Although I cannot define I can however describe it in its operation because I have experienced it in my inmost soul. I try to read one of Spurgeon's sermons every day. This week I read the following which really illustrates the operation of free and sovereign grace.

There was once a poor man in a small country town who had not all the sense people usually have, but he had sense enough to be a great drunkard and swearer [4] as God would have it, he once listened to a poor woman, who was singing -

"I'm a poor sinner and nothing at all;
But Jesus Christ is my all in all."

Home he went, repeating these words, he put his trust in a crucified Saviour, and was really converted. Well, he soon came to the church, and although he was a pedlar, and always travelling about, he said, "I want to join your church." They, remembering his sinful way of life, required some great evidence of a change before they received him, "O!" says he, "I must come in." "But you have been such a great sinner, and you are unconverted," added the elders. "Well," said poor Jack, "I don't know if I'm unconverted, and I confess I am a great sinner - but:

"I'm a poor sinner and nothing at all;
But Jesus Christ is my all in all."

They could not get from him any other testimony save this. He would only say -

"I'm a poor sinner and nothing at all;
But Jesus Christ is my all in all."

They could not refuse him, and therefore accepted him for fellowship. After this he was always happy. When a Christian man said to him "But you always seem so happy and pleased, John; how is it?" "Well," said he, "I ought to be happy, for -"

"I'm a poor sinner and nothing at all;
But Jesus Christ is my all in all."

"Well but," said the gentleman, "I can't see how you can always be so happy and sure. I sometimes lose my evidences." "I don't," said Jack,

"I'm a poor sinner and nothing at all;
But Jesus Christ is my all in all."

"Ah," said a friend, "I am at times miserable because I remember my sad sinfulness even since conversion." "Ah," said Jack, you have not begun to sing,

"I'm a poor sinner and nothing at all;
But Jesus Christ is my all in all."

"Oh!" said the friend, "how do you get rid of your doubts and fears? My faith frequently fails, and I miss my sure hope in Christ. My frames are so variable and feelings so contrary, what do you think of that?"

"Think," said poor Jack, "why master I have no good things to care about -

"I'm a poor sinner and nothing at all;
But Jesus Christ is my all in all."


"That they may know that this is Thy hand that Thou Lord hast done it".

The glory of God is the supreme goal of the true Christian. He needs deliverance, He wants deliverance, He cries for deliverance, He insists on deliverance. That deliverance however is not merely for his own safety, satisfaction and salvation but rather that God may have all the glory. He doesn't want deliverance by any method or in any way whatsoever. He wants it in such a way that all may see and none can gainsay that it is the Lord's hand which did it".

The Psalmist has learned that great principle which governs all the divine interventions of God in history. This principle is set forth by Paul in I Corinthians chapter one verses twenty-six to twenty-nine.

"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. (The Countess of Huntingdon, George Whitefield's great helper, said as she read that, Thank God it does not say "not any" for that would have excluded me) are called.

"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

"And base things of the world, and

Continued page 6

New Minister for Ards

On Friday night, 14th December, 1973, the Rev. Harry Cairns was ordained to the Ministry of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. This solemn service took place in Trinity Free Presbyterian Church, Portavogie, and was witnessed by a very large company of people which packed the church to capacity.

The Rev. Fred. Greenfield, Mount Merrion Free Presbyterian Church, who had been Mr. Cairns' Senior Minister, presided at the Service. The service opened with the singing of a great hymn of testimony: "My faith has found a resting-place, Not in device nor creed; I trust the ever living One, His wounds for me shall plead."

The Rev. Austin Allan led in the opening prayer, followed by the Scripture reading, Psalm 103.

The Rev. Fred Buick of Banbridge Free Presbyterian Church, being the last minister ordained, preached the Ordination Sermon taking as his theme "The beauty of the Church." Mr. Buick expounded Song of Solomon, 6: 1-5. Making it clear that the Church was made up of those and only those, who were saved by God's grace, and washed in the precious blood. Mr. Buick went on to say the Church was beautiful because of her walk. It was a walk of faith, faith in Christ alone. He said she was also beautiful because of the food she lived upon, The Word of God. He then said she was beautiful because of her head. Jesus Christ the Lord was the Head of the Church. In closing his message he urged those who had not yet trusted Jesus Christ as Saviour to trust Him now.

This was followed by the singing of another hymn, "I'm not ashamed to own my Lord."


The Ordination took place after Mr. Cairns had answered the necessary questions put to him by the Rev. Fred Greenfield, and his subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Rev. Bert Cooke, Armagh Free Presbyterian Church led in the Ordination Prayer.

The Rev. Stanley Barnes, Hillsborough Free Presbyterian Church preached the charge to the newly ordained minister, preaching from Matthew 4: 9. "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." Mr. Barnes said if Mr. Cairns wanted to be a fisher of men he must continually follow Christ his Lord. Mr. Barnes went on to say that a fisherman was a brave man for he went out in all weathers to catch fish, and if Mr. Cairns was going to win men for Christ he would have to be on the search for souls in all kinds of circumstances. He then said a fisherman was a patient man in his work. Mr. Barnes finished by saying that a fisherman, because of his bravery and patience, was a blessed man, blessed with catching fish, and he said if Mr. Cairns was brave and patient he would [6] surely be blessed of God in winning many souls to Christ.

This was followed by the singing of the hymn "I must have the Saviour with me."

The Rev. Bert Cooke of Armagh brought the charge to the congregation, speaking on the necessary characteristics of the congregation from I Thessalonians.1:1-3.

The newly ordained minister testified to a personal saving faith in Jesus Christ as his Saviour, and of the call which he had received from God to serve Him in the Ministry of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. Mr. Cairns thanked the Portavogie congregation for calling him to their ministry and said he looked forward to times of real blessing from God. He also expressed his appreciation of the Professors in the Theological Hall whose patience and interest was a source of great encouragement to him. He also thanked Rev. Fred Greenfield.

The Rev. David McIlveen, Sandown Road Free Presbyterian Church brought the service to a close with prayer, after which supper was served by the ladies of the congregation.


things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are : "That no flesh shall glory in His presence".

Note that great abiding all controlling principle "No flesh shall glory in His presence".

The Shorter Catechism that great little compendium of Biblical Theology has as its first question "What is the chief end of man ?" The answer is, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever".

Our chief end as we cry for deliverance must be solely and absolutely the glory of God and the glory of God made unmistakeably clear to His enemies round about. "That they may know that this is Thy hand and that Thou Lord has done it".


through our eyes, I suppose. But basically, the idea of the whole opera is to have Christ seen through the eyes of Judas, and Christ as a man, not as a god. And the fact that Christ himself is just as mixed up and unaware of exactly what he is, as Judas is." In other words, these men openly say that they are trying to show Christ through the eyes of one who was possessed by the devil, and then naturally the devil would have Him presented as just another man, not as God.

On the third band of the recorded interview (pages 9-10 of the printed

Continued Page 14

The Preacher and Bible Teacher - Genesis (Part Four)


"It is worthy to remark that the staple of the Bible revelation is fact, not theory or doctrine. Doctrine and theories may be easily invented, but facts cannot be made to order. There is no important doctrine of Scripture that is not wedded to some fact in history which gives it basis. And wherever the Bible and history meet its facts are confirmed, and thus a solid foundation is given for its doctrines. This can be affirmed of no other book claiming to be a revelation from God." - J. Monro Gibson in "The Ages Before Moses."


We must notice carefully the fact that a different name for God is introduced here. Before the verse 4 of chapter 2 the word for God is the word for God as Creator and is used concerning Deity's creative activity. Now with the use of a very significant word in verse 4 "generations," the word for God alters and the redemption word is used, Jehovah God (translated Lord God), for here we have Deity in redemptive activity. Satan, ever the implacable foe of redemption, refuses to give God His Redemptive name. See chapter 3, v 1.

Notice the divisions of Genesis as they come into sharp relief in Gen. 2: 4.

Genesis 1-2: 3, we have "The Genesis."

Genesis 2: 4-end, we have "The Generations."

See Genesis 2: 4; 5 : 1; 6: 9; 1 0 : 1; 11: 10; 11 : 27; 25: 12, 19; 36: 1; 37:

Notice also the combination in the name. Our Redeemer is Jehovah God. Lest any should doubt that the God Who redeems is different from the God Who creates, the two names are combined. There is a change of name, but no change of person. Jehovah is the covenant name.

"When God created man He entered [8] into a covenant of life with him upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil upon the pain of death." Ans. 12, Shorter Catechism.


Matthew Henry quaintly remarks: "The man was dust refined, but the woman was dust double refined - one remove further from the earth." As man was the crown of creation, of which he was the head, so woman was the crown of man. The satanic strategy was to trample down the crown and so dethrone man the head of creation, thus striking at God the Creator of all things. When the woman got out of Adam's company she got herself and her husband into trouble. A lesson which womenfolk do not yet seem to have learned! She wandered not only from the side from which she had recently been taken, but out of the garden, for it is evident that Satan had not a right of access to the tree of life, which was barred from all sinning men and angels. Wandering has always led to the most serious consequences.


The serpent became the first satanic medium, and, alas, the race was destroyed by this means. How many are still being further destroyed by this old time policy of hell? Instead of seeking her husband's side when this strange voice addressed her she held converse with the enemy. This started her on the road to destruction. The devil will always get the better of humanity in any argument. Resist him and he will flee from you. What a different story would have been told if the woman had only resisted him.


How we need to be alert to the temptations of the serpent. The Scriptures warn us concerning satanic DEVICES (II Cor. 2: 11), satanic DEPTHS (Rev. 2: 4), and satanic WILES (Eph. 6: 11).

He attacks the Word of God. This attack upon the Word is still going on along these same lines. First of all he SCOFFED at God's command, "Yea hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" The devil is a scoffer, and the scoffers of these last days are his own begotten brood. Behind the subtle suggestions of the Higher Critics and Modernists who crave like the editor of Ulster's only evening newspaper for "a rationalisation of doctrine" ('Belfast Telegraph,' May 1st, 1957), we discern the scoffing of hell.

Secondly, he SETS ASIDE the Word of God. "Ye shall not surely die." His scoffing is but the prelude to his lying. How true this is of his brood today. How they scoff and how they lie hoping that the veneer of their official church position will sufficiently cloak their corrupted and besotted souls. They claim to be in the apostolic succession, but in reality they are in the diabolic succession.

Joseph Parker indicts these scoffers and [9] liars thus: "Some knavish preachers are not ashamed to do this: they have lived on the dear old book, it has kept them and their families in food and lodging these last thirty years and yet they have nothing good to say about it. They like better the last book which they do not understand, or the last novel which is as hemlock or cruel strychnine to the soul. Thieves they be, knaves with pulpit robes reluctantly thrown over thievish breasts. Beware of them. They are clever liars, swindlers who look innocent, to be quite guiltless, hirelings who hunger for the pelf. They are killers of men, bandits who thrust weapons into souls and slay the young, the unsuspecting, and the frank. The man in the pulpit who insults the Bible on which he lives and wriggles out of the professions by which he climbed into the pulpit he dishonours I charge with worse crimes than those which blackened Barabbas or damned Iscariot."


In the seducing of the woman we have the threefold line into which temptations can be defined. I John 2: 16. (1) LUST OF THE FLESH - the tree was good for food; (2) LUST OF THE EYE - pleasant to the eye; (3) PRIDE OF LIFE - a tree to be desired to make one wise. See Gen. 3: 6. Notice also in our Lord's temptation (1) lust of the flesh - turn stones into bread; (2) lust of the eye - kingdoms of the world and their glory; (3) pride of life - cast thyself down from the top of the temple.

Whenever sin conquers it is because one has yielded to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye or the pride of life.


How simply the Bible tells the story! "She took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat" (Gen. 3: 6). 1 Tim. I : 14, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." The sin of the fall has been summed up by Matthew Henry, "There was in it disbelief of God's Word, together with confidence in the devil's, discontent with his present state, pride in his own merits, an ambition of the honour which comes not from God, envy at God's perfections, and indulgence of the appetites of the body."

NOTE - The many trees of Eden could not hide the first sinner, but there is one tree, blessed be God, where the foremost sinner found sufficient refuge, the old tree of the Cross. [10]

A Study of the Types By HERMAN WITSIUS, D.D.


Moreover, as the interpretation we are now examining is foreign to the end and intention of that day, so almost all the ceremonies that were then used, strongly dissuade us from it. 1st, Aaron was commanded to receive both goats from the congregation of the children of Israel, and that for sin, that is, to expiate and take away sin, ver. 5. "But the goat, which was given by the people, shows that what was from them is offered for them;" as these learned men themselves speak very justly. If that be true of the one goat, why may it not be said of the other, even that it represented its being from the people, in order to take away sin? For so far both are on a level. Both being from the people both bought at the common expense, both of them for sin; thus far there was no distinction in the types. What can then constrain us to imagine that there was so great a difference in the signification? It is consonant to reason, that what was appointed to represent their eternal curse, was bought at their expense, that is, with their consent and approbation? And was the rebellious nation of the Jews given to the rest for sin, that, in this respect, they might be joined together with the Lord Christ? Be it far, says the learned person, they should thus be joined along with Christ, "for whose honour we are too much concerned to speak so impertinently." We are thankful to God, that he speaks so far piously. But he denies that one of the goats was taken for sin. He says, "that is asserted of both which is true only of one. Before the lot distinguished them, that could be affirmed collectively of both, which after the lot was to be the case only of one." But I think, we are by no means to depart from the plain meaning of the words; nor to understand only of one, what is affirmed of both. Though we are to understand with some difference, what the following words of the law intimate, namely both goats were for sin, which the law expressly affirms; yet with this difference, the one was sin, because it was slain for sin; the other because by bearing the sins of the people it took them away. To sum up all in a word, the whole of this sacred expiation consisted of two parts; first, the slaying the one goat, whose blood was shed to expiate the sins of the people; and then the sending away the other goat which took away the sins which are laid upon it, by virtue of the sacrifice just offered. Both therefore concurred in their place and order to the solemn atonement.

2ndly, Aaron was commanded to present both before Jehovah, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, ver. 7. By which both were declared to be equally devoted to God. Without all [11] controversy Aaron is here a figure of Christ as priest; the goat to be slain signified Christ as the sacrifice. For he presented himself to God, when "he went up to Jerusalem, that all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man might be accomplished," Luke 18: 31. But how did our High Priest, when he was about to make an atonement, at the same time present before God the rebellious Jews, who were to be given up to the devil? To say that they were presented before God, so far as they were sanctified in the root, and were to be the fathers of the sons of the promise, is quite from the purpose. For, the rebellious Jews consigned to the devil, who are to be wholly distinguished from the holy root, from which those degenerate branches took their rise, and from the children of the promise who were to descend from them, in their appointed time. These certainly the priest daily presented to God in the names of the twelve tribes, which he wore on his breast; the very same he also now presented to God, though without that symbol. But it cannot be explained, how the high priest when making atonement, could present those to God, if by this goat they were represented as the portion of the serpent.

3rdly, After both the goats, which were purchased for God at the common expense of the whole people, were consecrated to God, by bringing them before Jehovah, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, Aaron was commanded to find out by lot, which was for Jehovah and which for Azazel, because this was unknown both to the people and the priest, till the lot determined it. But it scarce admits of a favourable meaning, if that which fell to Azazel was the figure of the rebellious Jews. For that sortition, or decision by lot, must be referred either to the figure, or to the thing represented is plain; for the Israelites neither ought, nor could have any doubt, which should fall to the devil, Christ, or the rebellious Jews, so there was no need to make a trial of it by lot. What pious ears would not be offended to hear any person assert, that the high priest, at the command of God, cast lots between Christ and the rebellious Jews, whether he or they should be offered to the Lord? I imagine none will contend with me on this point. Though the wicked Jews had a controversy with Christ concerning the priesthood, yet it was not proper for that to be decided by lot, as was really done, by a demonstration from the Sacred Writings. It therefore follows, since it was unknown that each of them was to prefigure. Moreover, as both were purchased at the common expense for the benefit of the whole people of Israel, and consecrated to the service of God, neither the one nor the other seems to have adapted symbolically to represent those who were to be given up to the devil. For though the goat fell by lot to Azazel, yet it ceased not to be the Lord's. The very learned Frismuthus speaks to the purpose, de hirco Emissar. Dissert. ii 14: "We must not think that the former goat alone was consecrated to God; for as both were usually presented before him, it is evident that the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel was also the Lord's, as even R. Nachman has granted. [12] But that the one on which the lot fell for the Lord did peculiarly and by special right become the Lord's, was because it was slain upon the altar. Such a sacrifice offered in honour of God is called, in the Hebrew phraseology, the bread of God, (Lev. 21: 6). Which appellation could not be given to the other that was to be sent to Azazel, it being appointed to be separated from the flock, and carried to remote places to be exposed, perhaps to the teeth of wild beasts." The goat therefore, which is, and in the whole ceremony remains, consecrated to God, seems not adapted to be allotted for a symbol of those who, on all accounts, were to be the slaves of the devil.

4thly, A strong argument may be taken likewise from the imposition of the hands of the priest, and of the sins of Israel, with those prayers of the high-priest and applause of the people, which are very easily applied to Christ, when he bore, according to his own and his Father's will, and the wishes of all the godly, the sins of the whole mystical Israel. And if any thing was to be represented to the Jews on the day of expiation, certainly this was the thing which is the alone foundation of a true expiation. But with great difficulty, nay, indeed in my judgment, on no account can that which is signified in the sacred ceremonies, by the imposition of hands and of sins, be referred to the rebellious Jews, whom the faithful Israelites never constituted to stand in their room and stead. Do they, the most abandoned of mankind, "who please not God, and are contrary to all men," I Thess. ii. 15, bear the iniquities of all Israel laid upon then, by the priest, into an uninhabited land, carrying them away from Israel? Why do we yield so much to that most pestilent sect the Socinians, as to try to overturn an argument for the satisfaction of Christ, hitherto happily defended from this rite, by this extravagant fiction.


In fine, who can digest so hard a saying? "It appears, how justly the vessels of wrath may be said to bear the sins of the faithful." Which of the prophets or apostles ever said so? Is this to speak with the Scriptures? Who has to this day ever heard, that "those make all the sins of all men their own, who refuse to confess their own?" or that "all the sins ever committed are avenged on the rebellious Jews?" This is an imputation of sin, altogether new and unknown in the schools of divines. Certainly, our modesty forbids us to dispute against that right of God, whereby He punishes the sins of parents in their children and posterity, which he himself, such is his clemency, usually confines to the third and fourth generation of those that hate Him. Nor is it lawful for us to deny that the severity of God's anger may at times burn to a farther degree, if the sins are above measure atrocious; and posterity shall, for a long series, not only equal, but even exceed their ancestors in wickedness. God was pleased to give us an example of [13] this in the wicked Jews, according to that threatening prophecy of Christ, Matt. 23: 35, Luke 11 : 50 - "So that from this instance his wrath might be seen, burning from the beginning of the world against hypocrites, enemies of righteousness, and murderers;" as the learned person very well speaks elsewhere. But, that "all the sins of all men are punished in some one person or people," I do not remember that I ever read or heard till now; neither that "the wicked bear the sins of the faithful." I know that when God, in His pathetic language, Isa. 43: 3, 4, commends His love towards Israel, He declares that He gave the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Sabeans for their ransom, and other men and people for their life. But, as our Calvin judiciously observes, the prophet borrowed that way of speaking from the common method of men, as if he had said, "the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Sabeans, have been substituted-for thee, and, as it were, by way of exchange, forced to undergo that destruction which was hanging over thee; for that I might save thee, I have destroyed them; and turned against them the power of the enemy, that was ready to fall upon thee." Or, to return to the learned person's own words: "the meaning of that passage is; such is my esteem for thee, that I am to bring to nought the greatest and most flourishing empires of the world in order to relieve and comfort thee." This certainly is quite different from bearing the sins of the faithful, as was typically done by the goat.

It is with joy we learn from Paul, that the time will come when all Israel shall be saved, after the fulness of the Gentiles is come in. But we think this cannot be inferred from these words, "the scapegoat shall be presented alive before - Jehovah to make an atonement with it." The learned persons themselves teach us that signifies an instrument, as Gen. 27: 40, Deut. 13: 3. And why not here? That the meaning should be, to make an atonement with or by it. We shall presently show how this was done by the live goat.


Others, therefore, and, if I can form any judgment, to better purpose affirm, that the scapegoat, no less than that which was killed, was a type of Christ. But these run into different sentiments. Some maintain, that here are represented the two natures of Christ; the human to be exposed to misery and torment; the other the divine, as being impassable, to remain free and to live for ever; which Cornelius a Lapide relates, was the opinion of Theodoret, Hesychius and Cyril. Others say, that the twofold state of Christ, before and after His resurrection, was here set forth. Thus the slain goat was the type of Christ, lifted upon the cross; but that sent away alive, of the same Christ raised from the dead, and living for evermore. Of this opinion, after Augustine and Procopius, were Bochart and other celebrated divines. Yet two things seem very much to oppose this sentiment: 1st, That the sins of Israel were laid upon the live goat; but Christ rose from the dead, and entered into glory [14] without sin," Heb. 9: 28. 2ndly, That the same goat, as loaded with sin, was accounted unclean, so that the person who conveyed it into the wilderness stood in need of cleansing, ver. 26. But no uncleanness can so much as be conceived to be in Christ after His resurrection.


Others, therefore, to whom I readily yield, imagine that a twofold relation of Christ the mediator is signified; the one to God the judge, to whom satisfaction was to be made by the merit of his death; the other to the devil His enemy, with whom He was to encounter by the efficacy of His life. With respect to the former, the goat, to be slain, fell to God: in the latter respect, the live goat fell to Azazel. Let us add, that, in the slain goat, a true expiation of sin was represented, which is performed by shedding of blood and undergoing punishment; but in the other, the effect of this expiation, namely, the removing and taking away of sin by the bearing it away so far as never to come into the sight of God against us. And this seems to be the reason of the order, why, after slaying the former goat, sins were laid on the other to be carried a great way off. Because there could be no taking away of sin without shedding of blood. Both, indeed, were done in the ordinary sacrifices: God was pleased to set it forth by a peculiar symbol in this solemn festival, for the greater consolation of his people. And thus the riches of the divine goodness and wisdom manifestly appear, when he laid before the eyes of his people, by different types, all the relations of Christ the redeemer, which could not be distinctly exhibited in one single piece or picture.


one) Andrew Lloyd Webber, who wrote the music, and Tim Rice are asked another question: "There (were) some comments that the lyrics were negative about religion. Did you feel that way, Tim?" Answer: "No - In a way, its neither positive nor negative, it's just asking questions... The fact that an awful lot happened in Christ's life that could easily be legend, I don't think diminishes the importance of the legend. But I think, as the years roll on, in the 20th and 21st centuries, I think less and less people are going to think of Christ as a god, and I think more people are going to see him as a generally good thing. I don't see him as a god at all, and the opera doesn't categorically say he wasn't, but I think it leaves the question very open." These men very plainly say they do not believe that Jesus Christ is God.


The most diabolical portrayal is given of God and our Lord Jesus Christ. [15]


The script reads Judas saying

"My God I am sick I've been used/And you knew all the time/ God! I'll never know why you chose me for your crime/for your foul bloody crime/You have murdered me! You have murdered me!"


Judas is speaking as we tune in:

"It seems to me a strange thing, mystifying,
That a man like you can waste time on women of her kind;
Yes I can understand that she amuses
But to let her stroke you, kiss your hair, is hardly in your line."

What kind of a picture do we get from reading these lines of Judas ? They are truly casting a reflection on the character of God's Son.

Let us hear more of what Judas says:

"It's not that I object to her profession
But she doesn't fit in well with what you teach and say
It doesn't help us if you're inconsistent
They only need a small excuse to put us all away."

You know what Judas is implying when he says, "It's not that I object to her profession." And did you know that the Saviour of men was inconsistent by teaching one thing and practising another? "They only need a small excuse to put us all away." That sounds like another gospel to me. It is certainly not what I read in my Bible.

We should also notice that SUPERSTAR has Mary Magdalene taking part in this scene from Mark's Gospel. The fact is that it was not Mary Magdalene but rather Mary of Bethany who was there. This shows clearly that these ungodly writers know nothing of the Bible in trying to destroy the holy character of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Let's listen in again and hear the answer of Jesus to Judas in SUPERSTAR.

"Who are you to criticise her? Who are you to despise her?
Leave her, leave her, let her be now. Leave her, leave her, she's with me now
If you're slate is clean . . . then you can throw stones
If your slate is not then leave her alone
I'm amazed that men like you can be so shallow, thick and slow
There is not a man among you who knows or cares if I come or go."

Then Mary is made to sing:

"Close your eyes, close your eyes
And forget all about us tonight.
I don't know how to love him
What to do . . . how to move him;
I've been changed, yes really changed
I seem like someone else.
I don't know how to take this
I don't see why he moves me
He's a man, he's just a man
And I've had so many men before.
In very many ways
He's just one more."

Does that not bother you as a responsible parent or as a Christian? It ought to. It is blasphemy against the Son of God.


Now let us read the script of SUPERSTAR: Jesus is talking:

"The end . . .
It's just a little harder when brought about by friends.
For all you care this wine could be my blood
For all you care this bread could be my body.
The end!
This is my blood you drink.
This is my body you eat.
If you would remember me when you eat and drink . . .
I must be out of my head."


"Can you show me now that I would not be killed in vain?
Show me just a little of your omnipresent brain.
Show me there's a reason for you wanting me to die
You're far too keen on where and how
But not so hot on why.
Alright I'll die.
Just watch me die!
Then I was inspired
Now I'm sad and tired.
After all I've tried for three years
Seems like ninety.
Why then am I scared to finish what I've started?
What you started . . . I didn't start it.
God thy will is hard
But you hold every card.
I will drink your cup of poison.
Nail me to the cross and break me . . .
Bleed me, beat me, kill me.
Take me now before I've changed my mind."


The Rev. R. W. Gillespie, Broadway Presbyterian Church, said that while not completely attuned to the rock presentation one could not but be impressed by the challenge of the life of Jesus which would appeal to modern youth in a way that a 19th century presentation might not.

"One criticism I might offer is that it was rather a pity that the film finished with the tragedy of the Crucifixion without going on to the triumph of the Resurrection.

"But on the whole I think it could do nothing but good," Mr. Gillespie added.

Another Presbyterian minister, the Rev. W. A. Finlay, of May Street Church, agreed that the film was challenging, putting the life of Jesus in both a historic and contemporary setting.

He said that while the influence of Puritanism led the Church to turn its back on artistic presentations of the Gospel, the Church today could recover a useful ally in the film industry.

One of the many things which impressed him was that at the end of the showing there was a reverential hush over the entire audience.

The Revs. Gillespie and Finlay praised the film.

When professed ministers of Christ back up such vile attacks on God and the purity of Christ surely it is the end time. The Irish Presbyterian Church has sunk to an all time low. "Come out of her my people" is the command of heaven.