Is Luke 23: 56 Absolute Proof For Christians To Keep The Sabbath?

Greetings again, this is Child Survivor.   When I entered the Worldwide Church of God in December 1971, I was only 8 years old.   My parents' Catholic faith had been a very important part of family life up to that point.   We went to mass every weekend either on Sunday morning or Saturday evening.  We had weekly prayers around the family altar.   We said grace before every meal.  And my parents were actually involved with parish life.  Mom sang in the choir and participated in the Catholic Women's Club, and Dad attended the Knights of Columbus.  Both parents taught the religious education back then as well.   So, it was quite a huge change going into the WCG where absolute obedience was required with a long list of laws and do's and don'ts you had to follow.   But the big sacred cow in the WCG was keeping the sabbath.
A long list of activities were banned from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, including watching television, going shopping, going to the movies or any other recreational activities, or going to see any friends that weren't part of "God's true church".  On Fridays at sunset, the TV went off. We had our dinner and sat around quietly. On Saturday mornings, we drove to the 2 hour service, hung around there for at least an hour afterward, then had different people over every week for a big, holiday-style dinner.  Strangely enough, sabbath laws seemed to change like the wind during my six years in there, but I won't get too much into that.   What I want to zero in on is a claim regarding Jesus' followers keeping the sabbath after the crucifixion.  Sabbatarians like the WCG and it's splinter groups will claim that there is a verse that proves the disciples of Jesus kept the sabbath after He went to the cross.   It's found in Luke chapter 23, vs 56.  It reads as follows, and for context sake, yes context, we will start in vs 53: 

(Luke 23:53-56)   53 And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain. 54 It was a preparation day, and a Sabbath was about to begin. 55 Now the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how His body was laid. 56 And then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.  (NASB)

Now, there is little doubt that the disciples did indeed rest on that Sabbath, the day after Jesus was crucified. (Amazing by the way that this clearly points to the weekly sabbath, and not an annual sabbath. So much for 72 hours in the tomb).  But three things I wish to examine here:
First, what was the mental state of the disciples when our Lord was crucified.
Second, did they even expect Him to rise from the dead?
And finally, why did the disciples keep the sabbath in that verse?

Let's look into this.

THE MENTAL STATE OF THE DISCIPLES:

Any of you who are Sabbatarians or in an Armstrong splinter group have likely read the gospels and the crucifixion and resurrection accounts.  And to those still practicing Armstrongism, I would plea with you to carefully and prayerfully go back and read the passion narratives again and ask the Lord for wisdom.  And when you do this, I trust you will notice that there is more to the passion story than just "three days and three nights".   But one thing you should notice that the disciples were pretty much emotional wrecks when they saw the promised Messiah arrested, beaten, crucified, and buried.   Their mental state was not good.   

DENIAL/LYING: First, we have Peter's mental state.  I don't think I need to remind anyone how Peter denied knowing our Lord not once, not twice, but three times.  He was what many of us would call "cowardly" here.   Peter, one of the inner 3 of the Apostles flat out lied about even knowing Jesus.

VIOLENCE:  But secondly Peter also took to violence to defend the Lord  "Then Simon Peter, since he had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus” (John 18:10) Jesus actually did an intervention here and rebuked Peter’s actions. “But Jesus responded and said, “enough of this” and He touched his ear and healed him” (Luke 22:51)

DISBELIEF: We also have the disciples in a state of disbelief!   And seeing that Jesus had discussed his death and resurrection numerous times, were the disciples expecting it?  Hardly.  

(Matthew 16 : 21-22) " From that time Jesus began to point out to His disciples that it was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem and to suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and to be killed, and to be raised up on the third day. 22 And yet Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You!”

The gospel accounts make it clear the Apostles did not believe what Jesus told the disciples about His death and resurrection.

ABANDONMENT: Another thing they had just committed was abandonment. They left Jesus to fend for himself when He was being arrested and taken away. (Matthew 26:56) ^"But all this has taken place so that the Scriptures of the prophets will be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled."  They left, they fled, they even denied the Lord they had spent over 3 years with! They abandoned not only their own Messiah, but a very close friend.

COWARDICE: I hesitate to use this term, but the actions of the disciples clearly didn’t display bravery. “Now when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were together due to fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, “Peace be to you.”   (John 20:19) Why were they in fear?   They thought the Jews would be coming after them next.   So we know they were not particularly full of great faith at that moment.  So the Apostles were clearly displaying denial, lying, cowardice, disbelief, and abandonment.

Now, please understand, this is not meant as an attack on the Apostles.  I'm simply saying they were human and made some very bad calls here...as all of us would have done had we been in their shoes.   Thankfully our Lord is full of mercy, and He knew it was going to happen. But when we consider what they did after the crucifixion, we need to understand where they were at emotionally. This was not exactly their shining moment, so anything they did, including keeping the sabbath, should not be taken as marching orders for the rest of us.

DID THEY BELIEVE JESUS ROSE AFTER IT HAPPENED?

Another factor to consider is whether or not the disciples even expected Jesus to rise again. The modern day sabbathkeeper will ask us what that even has to do with the question of the sabbath. Yet, when I ask them this question, I receive no answer. And it’s very clear that they don’t take this into consideration when they use Luke 23:56 as absolute proof that the cross didn’t eliminate the sabbath command. Nobody is denying that the disciples rested on the sabbath the day after the crucifixion. But during this “rest” were they anticipating our Lord’s resurrection? The gospel writers do indeed address this. First of all, even when the disciples saw the empty tomb, they still didn’t get what happened. See what Mary says to the angel who spoke to her:

(John 20: 11-13)^"11 But Mary was standing outside the tomb, weeping; so as she wept, she stooped to look into the tomb; 12 and she *saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 And they *said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She *said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they put Him.”

Okay, the tomb was guarded by killing machines otherwise known as Roman guards, tomb burst open after it had been sealed, our Lord's burial garments still rolled up neatly, and what does Mary ask the angel?  "Who took him?".   It doesn't stop there.   The Apostles didn't believe it when the women told them.. 

(Luke 24:5-11)" 5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why are you seeking the living One among the dead? 6 He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise from the dead.” 8 And they remembered His words, 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. 10 Now these women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the Apostles. 11 But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe the women."

The women didn't believe Jesus had risen, the disciples didn't believe He would rise.  I won't even go into the followers on the road to Emmaus or "doubting Thomas", but I think you get the point by now. 


SO WHY DID THEY REST ON THAT PARTICULAR SABBATH?

While the passage doesn't give a reason that the disciples rested, I think we have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.   They kept the sabbath because they thought it was all over.   These disciples had spent 3 and 1/2 years with our Lord listening to Him, getting their marching orders from Him, enduring tough situations with Him, witnessing miracle after miracle from Him, and being close friends with Him.  And yet now in their minds, He's dead and gone.  Because they didn't fully grasp His assurance of rising on the third day. 

So when all their hope for what Jesus promised was gone in their minds, what did they do? They went back to keeping the Sabbath.  It's funny how context can change everything.  Hope is gone, assurance is gone, promises are gone, all is lost...hey everyone, we better keep the sabbath.  The context really makes it clear that this verse is not a glowing endorsement of sabbath keeping.  

In fact, the New Testament never comes close to saying anywhere else that the disciples, or Jesus for that matter, actually kept or rested on the sabbath except in this passage.  Most other sabbath passages like Luke 4 and Acts 13 the stories don't end so nice.  Oh sure, the Sabbatarians love to quote Luke 4:16 where Luke tell us Jesus' CUSTOM (not commandment) to go to the synagogue and read to those assembled. And in Acts 13 and other passages in Acts we read that Paul and Barnabas went and preached in the synagogue and the whole city turned out the following sabbath.   But what Sabbatarians conveniently omit is that in Luke 4, the sabbath keeping Jews tried to throw Jesus off a cliff when He declared Himself Messiah or the fact that the sabbath keeping Jews started a riot to have Paul and Barnabas driven out of the region.   Are these the folks (the sabbath keepers) whose examples we want to follow?  I've asked many sabbath keepers this very question, and I seldom get an answer.  And if I do, it's usually "well, the Jews back then weren't doing it right".   Hmmmm.  They have a point there.   Nowhere in the Old Testament, where the sabbath is instructed to Israel, did God ever instruct constructing synagogues and attending them on the sabbath.  This was an addition to Jewish life between the two Testaments. 

Okay, I'm going to wrap it up here because I don't want to get too deep into the whole sabbath debate.  I just wanted to point out the state of the disciples when they decided to "rest on the sabbath" the day after the crucifixion.   I will say after that, all references to the sabbath in Acts are in Jewish settings.   We have no mention of the church keeping the sabbath and no mention of Paul doing anything more than trying to convert the Jews on their day of assembly.  It says nothing about Paul resting on the sabbath or even worshiping on the sabbath.  We also have no instructions to keep the sabbath in the entire New Testament.   Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not opposed to having a day of the week for resting.   I also never said that it is wrong to assemble for worship on Saturday.  I know a lot of Catholics that attend Saturday vigil mass.   But I am saying, how and when we rest is something God allows us to decide for ourselves in the New Covenant.   In our present dispensation of grace, or the “church age”, God cares about the heart, not the calendar.  The early Christians began assembling on the first day of the week in the book of Acts.  It was not the Catholic church that changed it, even if certain Catholic scholars say they did.   Days are not important in the New Covenant.  What is important is believing in the One Who was sent to save us from our sins.   But taking a passage as proof of obedience at a time when the disciples were in fear, shock, and disbelief is not exactly compelling evidence when you think closely about it. 

" Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”   John 6:29

Peace and Blessings to all!

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Did Herbert Armstrong Follow New Testament Practices For Church Buildings?

Hey readers, this is "Child Survivor".   I have left a good number of comments here on As Bereans Did over the years.   xHWA is actually a very close friend of mine, though we have never met in person, but I do look forward to doing so in heaven someday.  I have found As Bereans Did to be a very helpful tool in helping people understand the origins and unbiblical nature of Herbert Armstrong's teachings.

My story with the cult goes like this, when I was approaching my 8th birthday, I knew something was up with my parents and my older brother.   Men in suits began coming to the house to discuss religious topics with my parents.  I didn't completely understand what was happening until it was announced shortly before my birthday that we would be switching churches soon, but we couldn't do it just yet until the leaders allowed us to start attending.  (That alone is a topic for another day.)  My parents and my older siblings started talking about this new church we would be going to, but it wasn't just ANY church, it was the TRUE church and all other churches were of the devil, especially the Catholic church, which we had been very faithful to ever since I could remember.  Now, in my earliest of years, I was always fascinated with the Catholic parish we belonged to.  The building was a modern building for back then, but built beautifully.  It had beautiful stained glass windows, lots of beautiful marble, these chandeliers that had crosses all over them, and a life sized crucifix, which I would always feel drawn to during the mass.  As a young child, I didn't pay a lot of attention to what was going on during the mass, but I did always stare at the beauty of the building and mystery that encompassed the architecture and statues.    I would say for that reason alone, I didn't mind going to church that much.  I even made it to my first holy communion at age 7, but sadly it was for naught because we joined the WCG the following December...yup, you heard right...DECEMBER.   That was the first year of no Christmas in our house.

Anyway, why am I bringing up the Catholic church building that I went to up to age 8?  Simple. One of the things that I was told about this new and true church is that it properly taught that the church is not a building, the church is actually the people.  Which is actually correct where scripture is concerned, but I might add, just about all churches do acknowledge the people as the church. Armstrong did not get this as a revelation and unique to his religion.    I was also informed because of that the early Christians met in each others homes, so they had no buildings of their own. That is also correct, we'll touch on that further down.   That is why the church would meet in rented spaces, like the congregation we were going to met in a movie theater to follow the "biblical pattern" of not owning property.   BUZZZZZZZ!   Now I don't think this topic requires a lot of in depth analysis, so I want to focus on 2 questions here.  Did the Worldwide Church of God and the modern splinter groups follow the "biblical pattern" as far as meeting places was concerned? AND were they even consistent in practicing what they preached?   Let's look into it.

WAS THE WCG BEING "BIBLICAL"?

First of all, the Worldwide Church of God made it very clear in their practice that congregations would be ruled by headquarters and would meet in rented facilities.   Now there is nothing wrong with a church meeting in a rented space.   When a new church starts, that's usually the route it has to take, especially today with the price of real estate.  Often new Evangelical or Pentecostal churches begin as home Bible studies, then they move into a rented space like a hall, school, or a section of another church's building.     The church I currently belong to started in 2008 and met in a VFW hall up to 2015.  When the Lutheran congregation in our town folded, our church was able to purchase the Lutheran church building.  And I'm happy to report that there's a lot of stained glass in the sanctuary that our church has kept up.   Purchasing buildings from previously defunct congregations is a common trend for Evangelical churches these days.   Now, when I began at age 8 at the WCG, they rented a movie theater on Saturday mornings.  This was an old style, single-screen theater.  While I found the seats more comfortable than the wooden pews in the Catholic church, that was where my comfort ended.   Later on, the congregation was split to accommodate church members who lived closer to or in Rhode Island, and the Providence congregation was in another movie theater after a few short months meeting at the Providence Civic Center.   The last building we met in was an old Grange Hall that the church was actually able to fix up and lease on a monthly basis.   That one actually felt more like a church in my opinion, even though there were those awful metal chairs.  Now I bring up my history with the WCG to simply ask, is this what the early church practiced?  Let's see what scripture has to say:

First, the earliest meetings of the church were held in various locations.  When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost in Acts 1 and 2, the disciples were gathered in the "upper room".  From Acts 1:

(ACT. 1: 13-14) 13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upstairs room where they were staying, that is, Peter, John, James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. 14 All these were continually devoting themselves with one mind to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

After the Holy Spirit descended and miracles were performed, we are told the disciples continued the practice of meeting in the temple, but they also began meeting in each others' homes.  "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart," (ACT 2:46).   Meetings in the earliest gatherings of the church included the breaking of bread, which is a metaphor the New Testament writers used for the Lord's Supper, that we also call "communion".  But they also had meals together.  Does this sound like a pattern the WCG followed?  You decide.   

Not too long after the initial birth of the church, homes of believers became the meeting places.
(ACT. 12:12) “When he [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark, where there were many people gathered in prayer.”
(ACT 16:40) “When they [Paul and Silas] had come out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house where they saw and encouraged the brothers, and then they left.”
(ROM. 16:3-5) “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but also all the churches of the gentiles.  Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ.”
(PHI. 1-2) “Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon, our beloved and our co-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house”.

I could go on, but I believe I've made my point here.  Please keep in mind, the early Christians were outlaws.   The exemptions the Jews received for worship of the Roman emperor was not extended to the Christians.  The Christians were outlaws for much of the first three centuries. So, meeting in secret in homes and even in the catacombs of Rome was necessary for their continued existence.  This does not mean that churches could not own property for meeting, but it's very clear the New Testament church did not own any.    The strange point about the WCG teaching is that because the church didn't have church buildings that they owned, then any other means they used was deemed "biblical".   It's the old case of what I'm NOT doing instead of what I AM doing here.   Renting a high school auditorium, a Grange hall, a movie theater, or a Masonic temple does not constitute meeting in each others' homes and is no more "biblical" than erecting a church building.

WAS THE WCG CONSISTENT?

I can say with full conviction that the WCG was NOT consistent in this practice.   While most congregations met in rented spaces, the church on a denominational level owned numerous properties.   When I entered the WCG at age 8 in the early 1970's, I learned the the church owned at least 3 colleges...Ambassador College in Pasadena (which my two older siblings attended but never graduated from) , Big Sandy, Texas and Bricketwood, England.   Also, the church, at that time, owned at least some of the sites where the annual Feast of Tabernacles was held.   I remember the second year we attended the Feast at Mount Pocono, PA, we stayed over a few extra days because the last great day was a Thursday, so Dad kept us there until Sunday.  So we attended the local congregation there at Mt. Pocono the following sabbath and they met in the administration building outside the Tabernacle.  This was church owned property.  The congregations near the colleges met at the colleges, so the properties served for educational and church meeting purposes.  The church owned these properties as well.  So it doesn't really take all that much intellect to see that the WCG did a lot of cherry picking not only with the Old Testament law that they claimed was still in effect, but they did so with their own laws such as this as well.   

Another way that today's splinter groups are inconsistent is that some of them will meet on Saturdays in other church buildings.   The closest United Church of God congregation meets on Saturdays in a Congregational church, or at least they did last I checked.  And yet, the WCG teachings that they are trying to keep going, used to call all other churches "synagogues of Satan".   Seriously?  You're going to use a synagogue of Satan as your meeting place of for "God's one true church"???    

WHAT WERE THEIR MOTIVES?

So why exactly was it okay for God's true church to own property on the denominational level, but not on the congregational level?   Here I can only speculate, but I know enough about Armstrongism to make a very educated guess.  But one thing I knew about them is that everything with Herbert was about control.   Everything, and I mean everything in that cult was controlled by Herbert and all his decrees and rulings were passed onto the congregations.   Pastors' salaries, housing, rent for church meetings, offerings, etc were all done directly to and through headquarters..i.e. Herbert's staff.   Local congregations had almost NO say in what happened in their own congregations, everything was governed by Herbert himself.   If congregations were to have their own buildings, that would have been a lot of lost control by Herbert.   Buildings take a lot of work to maintain and pay for.    They take a lot of man power and endless committees and meetings to buy or build the structure and maintain it.   This would have taken a lot of power over the congregations away from Herbert.  You couldn't have that now, could you?
 

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Help Wanted

Are you a former Armstrongist who has transitioned into a mainstream Christian tradition, and do you have the urge to tell your story, or do you need to get some things off your chest, or do you feel called by God to reach out to those still in the system? Then As Bereans Did might be the place for you to do just that.

The authors at ABD are getting to the point where we just don't have the time to write here anymore like we used to. We would love to see it keep going. If anyone out there is interested in taking up this task, contact me, xHWA, at escapingarmstrong@gmail.com. Or, just leave a comment here. If you're a good fit, it doesn't take long to get you set up. Pay is terrible (there is none). But the lasting rewards can be worth it.

Give it a think, eh?

Break Your Addiction To End-Times

Several times over several years, As Bereans Did has demonstrated Armstrongism is a branch of the Seventh Day Adventist movement. Even though Armstrongism decries Adventism as a false church, it is undeniably a demonstrable fact of history that Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism, and the core doctrines within Armstrongism originate with Ellen G White. Among those core doctrines I refer to are the seventh day Sabbath and pre-millennialism - and by pre-millennialism I mean the doomsday prophecy. That is where I want to focus today.
But first, I want to point something out.

If you look at the history of the Adventist movement, which came first, the doomsday prophecy or the Sabbath? Answer: the doomsday prophecy.
William Miller, founder of the Adventist movement (aka. Millerites), was entirely a Protestant doomsday prophet. That is the reason for the name Adventist after all - they proclaimed (and still proclaim) the imminent Second Advent of Christ. Doomsday prophecy is right there in the name. Miller was at least honorable enough to give it up in late 1843 when his prophecies failed for the second time. He left his own movement but the movement continues on, still heaping failure upon failure in their doomsday prophecies to this very minute.
Ellen G White, the new de facto head of the movement, invented some ridiculous excuse regarding the failed prophecies and then continued on as if it was all going swimmingly. It wasn't about law at this time. The Whites were introduced to the Sabbath doctrine in late 1844. (For more on the history, read our article "COG Worldwide Association Claims False Roots (long version)".) So, the Sabbath doctrin which inspired the Seventh Day part of the name did not come until some years after the doomsday prophecy which inspired the Adventist part.
The COG7 split from the Adventists in the mid-1800s. Herbert Armstrong was hired as a COG7 minister. He was still technically a COG7 Minister when he started The Plain Truth magazine. What was he printing in 1934? Doomsday prophecies. He predicted the return of Christ in 1936. When that failed, he simply changed his formula and continued on as if it was all going swimmingly. (For more on this, see our article "All Systems Are Go".) This is how it went until the day he died.

Why take you through that? To demonstrate that first and foremost the Adventist/Armstrongist movement is about doomsday prophecy. Before there was a Sabbath doctrine, before there ever was a debate over holy days, before a single word was mentioned about meats or tithes, there was doomsday prophecy. One can make a solid case that is still the core message of the current Armstrongist splinter groups. I defy you to find a single big name in the entire movement today that doesn't go about predicting the time of Jesus' return. The movement is not about first and foremost about law, it's about doom. Or, in other words, fear.

But why does doomsday prophecy have such a hold on people? What is it about us that makes us attracted to it in the first place, and what holds us enthralled for decades after? What causes so many to dump their life savings and life's dreams into the bottomless pit of the doomsday prophet's pockets? The answer is complicated and nuanced. It's slightly different for everyone. But slightly different is still mostly the same. I believe it boils down to fear.

People look around at this world at the ponderous mess we humans have created in what would otherwise have been a beautiful world, and we are inherently disappointed. We know it could be better - SHOULD be better. We are afraid of disease. We are afraid of persecution. We are afraid of enemies foreign and domestic. We are afraid of natural disaster. We are afraid of ruin. We are afraid of the past, present, and the future. Fear, fear, fear, fear. So, we long for a better future, a happier future - the better, happier future promised in the Bible. 

I think doomsday prophecy is first and foremost an escape. A tragic escape, based on what many call "fear porn". It's a coping mechanism with a heaping spoonful of schadenfreude.
I think doomsday prophecy is also a means to get some justice in a world practically devoid of it. When bad things happen, we can say it was deserved. Finally, they got theirs. And someday, someday very soon, the people who hurt me are going to get theirs, too.
I also think doomsday prophecy is a means to get some hope. We can cope with many evils so long as we have an inkling of hope. I just have to endure for 3 or 4 more years.

I could go on and on analyzing it, but that's not what I'm on about today. I don't want to talk about the problem. I want to talk about what to do about it. I just didn't think it best to talk about a solution without talking a little about the problem.
There is one more part of the problem I want to mention because I think it's key to the solution.

We look at all this disappointment ...and we blame it all on anyone but ourselves.

You see, a critical part of the problem is we took ourselves out of the equation for both the cause and the solution. We tend to see ourselves only as victims of something we didn't cause and can't fix. The cause is that other people are godless, and doomsday prophecy becomes the solution. But that misses the mark.

Doomsday prophecy is like a drug. How do you break yourself from its grip? Recognize how you participated in the nastiness of this world in your own way, and because you did in fact help to cause this mess you can therefore take steps to change yourself and your own little sphere of this fallen world.
In a phrase: confess and repent.

"But xHWA, I did confess and I have repented. I am keeping the law as best as I can!" No, that's not what I mean. I am not talking about confessing sin and repenting to law-keeping. I am talking about confessing that you played a part in this fallen world. You have not always been the person you could have been - you SHOULD have been - to those people you've met along the way. In one way or the other, you helped this world to be the misery it is. Confess that. And I am saying that there is still time to try, in whatever small way you can, to make your own little corner of this world a brighter place. That is what I mean by repent.

You know the Lord's Prayer (aka. the Our Father)? It says, "Your kingdom come. Your will be done. On earth as it is in Heaven." (MAT. 6: 10). Let God come to your heart now. Let His patient, merciful, loving will be done through you now. Let His kingdom reign in your heart this very day. Be a light in an otherwise dark world (MAT. 5: 14-16).
In the mind of a person addicted to doomsday prophecy, this prayer points to some future time. To a person who rejects doomsday prophecy, it refers to now and a future time. It referred to now when Jesus said it almost 2,000 years ago. It refers to now today. It is always now and in the future coming Kingdom. I talked about this in my article "Once And Future Kingdom - part II".

You break the yoke of doomsday prophecy and end-times by taking up your cross each day and following the promptings of the Holy Spirit each and every day from now on (MAT. 16: 24).

"But xHWA, I do follow Christ. I keep the Sabbath and tithe and help out around church." At no point did Jesus ever say, "Take up your cross and sit on your hands every seventh day." He didn't say, "Follow Me only on Saturdays." He didn't say, "Wait around until I return and then follow Me into charity." He didn't say, "Tithe and you're pretty much done following Me." He didn't say, "Follow Me but only with people at your local church."
Look at how Mark records Jesus' command to the Rich Young Ruler:

(MAR. 10: 21) Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.

The man literally got done telling Jesus that he kept the Sabbath. That was great and all, because they were yet in the Old Covenant, but Jesus said to take it farther. That is where the man walked away. And that is where we all tend to walk away. When the onus falls on us to take responsibility for our own actions and our own calling to make this world a better place, we fall back on our efforts at law-keeping and we walk away, sad. Precisely as the Rich Young Ruler did.

Herbert Armstrong used to teach that making this world a better place is literally the same as fighting against God. Don't vote. Don't serve. Don't give to charity. Don't pray for. He said God is trying hard to punish this world, and by doing what Jesus clearly taught us to do in multiple places - working to make this a better world - we are fighting against God.
That's not what I read in my Bible.

Don't think I am pointing my comments at Armstrongists only. This blog is about Armstrongism, so naturally that is what I write about. In the interest of fairness, please allow me to hammer Christianity in general for this same thing.
In my own life, if I had to make a list of the top ten people who have done the most awful things to me, most of those would be Catholics. Almost all of them would be Christians. Maybe even all of them. (I don't actually have such a list, so I am just guessing.) So, yeah, in 2,000 years of Christianity we still have a miserable world. We Christians have collectively done a miserable job, for the most part. And guess what --- that includes me! Mea culpa!

But I'm off topic.

When you isolate yourself and dwell on your own fears and problems, the world becomes a prison. End-times becomes your salvation. But when you try to help others in their problems, you tend to forget about your own and the world becomes a better place. When you try to make yourself smile, it's difficult. When you try to make someone else smile, you smile, too. The Kingdom comes, little by little, as His good and loving will is done on this earth as it is in Heaven.

Sadly, we know we aren't going to fix it all. We know Jesus must return. We know there are things actively working against us. It's not like Christians behaving badly is the sole cause of this world's misery (though it certainly is a big part of it) therefore Christians behaving properly will not be the whole solution. You're not going to save the world. But, then again, I am not suggesting you should. I am suggesting you change yourself and your immediate sphere of influence. Don't let not being able to change the world stop you from taking responsibility for your own actions and reactions! Repent and change anyway. Make your personal area of influence a thing that praises the Lord. Withhold that sharp comment. Lend a hand. Do good things so people can see and praise God. If you were given a job to do, then do it. Do what you can do. Today.

How do you break your addiction to end-times? Change yourself. Live your life as if the Kingdom has already come. Become part of the solution. Make someone's life better today as you are able. One man died and the whole world changed. Who knows what great things can be done through you if you are willing.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************