Once And Future Kingdom - Part II

In the first part of this series, we looked at how the Armstrongist view of the Kingdom has some contradictions. Contradictions in who it belongs to, where it is, and when it is. We saw that they are only contradictions when the Gospel butts heads with Herbert Armstrong's Adventist demands for prophecy. In other words, the belief that these things are all for a future time with very little if anything for the present besides an exclusive promise. I proposed a both/and approach. A little now, a lot more later. The once and future kingdom.

At the end of that post, I said we need to go back to the past. The events leading up to the first century church tell so very much more of the story of the Gospel and the Kingdom. The good news is so much more than just a chance to win a prize in the far future. This is definitely "once and future kingdom" material we're getting into.

This is a post about what the Gospel is, and your part in it.

A word of warning... There is a lot packed in here. I do not intend to flesh out. I am only going to skim the surface. You might want to dig in more on your spare time.

MI CHAMOCHA BA'ELIM ADONAI
(Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods?)

If you recall from my post "Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?", an euangelion is about wars and kings, their birth and accomplishments. Those things are what a gospel was to people in the first century. When they heard "euangelion", those are the things they thought of. Kings and accomplishments. That is entirely true here. There was a grand victory imminent in Jesus' day, and it was not only about Jesus dying for our sins. But to see it, you need to understand the backstory. This is the highly abbreviated backstory.

-----

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This act, and the knowledge that came with it, guaranteed their deaths. It also initiated the plan of salvation. In other words, it also guaranteed Jesus' death. The plan absolutely required a death (HEB. 9: 22) because God is not only a God of love but of justice, and both need to be satisfied. The plan of salvation commenced immediately. It is important for today's post to be aware of this fact.

Mankind was then evicted from the Garden, partly in punishment and partly for their own safety. There is something about that good Tree of Life that concerned God. If Adam and eve ate from it, they would be in terrible trouble. They were already alienated from God for certain, but if they ate from that other tree, irredeemably so. See my post "Banished Or Saved From Eden?" for more.

Mankind was now on its own, each one sinning, and sin was growing worse and worse in the world. God eventually decided to end the experiment. Good news for us, Noah changed His mind about that (GEN. 6: 7-8). We lived to sin another day!

Mankind, ever immune to good sense, learned precisely nothing from all of that. We built cities and filled them with idols. We worshipped everything that walked or crawled. We even decided we were going to build structures that ascend toward the sky so we could walk among the gods.

There wasn't just one Tower of Babel. Ziggurats dotted the landscape. If you only read the Bible, you miss a lot of the details of what the people who built the Tower of Babel were really doing. The gods preferred to live in gardens and on mountains, you see. The higher, the better. But here's an idea -- what if we build our own mountain? Ancient documents from Mesopotamia seem to indicate the ziggurats were meant to recreate the environment the gods lived in, so to bring the gods closer to men in order to extract magic and knowledge from them more easily. If you had a mountain in your city, your god could live there, right in your back yard, and your priests could commune with them directly and hopefully get from them knowledge and protection and all sorts of things. As an added bonus, it makes the king look pretty important. That's just what they did.

The question many people have is -- did it work? Some think it might have.

God found this to be quite enough. He decided to disown mankind. If they didn't want to retain Him, the God of gods (JOS. 22: 22; DAN. 2: 47), as their God, then so be it. He gave them what they wanted. He placed them under the control of lesser spirit beings. You can get a short glimpse behind the curtain in this regard in Daniel 10: 13, 20-21. Paul called them, principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this age, spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (EPH. 6: 12).

So, God scattered mankind and left them to their fate (GEN. 11: 9). These people would eventually be called Gentiles - "the nations". God would bring about the plan of salvation without them. The Messiah would not come through them. They were banished to their false gods and their idols of wood and stone.
The true God would only be accessible by one nation, whom He reserved for Himself out of all the earth: Israel. One tiny nation in a speck of land. Immediately after the Tower of Babel incident, God called Abraham. Through Abraham, a Gentile, Israel would be built. Israel would be the means for the arrival of the Savior.

Notice something here. Even from the very beginning of the Gentile banishment, Abraham was meant to bring about the undoing of this Gentile punishment.

(GEN. 12: 3b) And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

That good news right there is referring to Jesus. The Gentiles were banished, but not permanently.

The challenge was keeping Israel in tact until the Messiah could come. God's chosen people needed to remain separate from the Gentiles and their idolatry (GAL. 3: 24-25). After all, idolatry is what set this path in motion in the first place. Can't have that. But it's more than just statues and decorations and trinkets. The Gentiles were given over to devils. This is very real. If Israel followed after the Gentiles, they would belong to devils, too.

(EXO. 20: 3-5a) I am Yahweh [the LORD] your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image - any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous [zealous/passionate] God...

Well, that didn't go smoothly, even with priesthood and the promises and the law and the prophets. You won't even get through the book of Judges and the Israelites are already failing. Israel did not keep themselves from idolatry, so off they went to Assyria. Judah took the mantle. Judah did even worse than Israel! So, off they went to Babylon.
Persia eventually allowed them back, where they rebuilt and started again. They overcorrected and went into the other ditch. They turned Torah into an idol, and the law into an end unto itself. Malachi's message was they had failed in almost every expectation, the priesthood was useless, and their Covenant was an utter trainwreck.
Yet, they succeeded in this, the most important mission: the Savior did arrive. The world owes Israel a debt of gratitude.
...and then they killed Him.
To be entirely frank, we all killed Him, in our own way.

Who is man that You should be mindful of him?

Mankind, proving ourselves utterly unworthy over and over, were whittled down and whittled down until there was only one small, poor, unassuming family, from the wrong side of the tracks, robbed of their royal birthright, sheltered in a barn of all places. Just when things seem darkest and most hopeless, the Savior is born. An euangelion can include the birth of kings. The long-awaited arrival of the Savior was the first part of the good news to the people of Jesus' day.

(LUK. 2: 14) Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace to people of good will.

Are we sure the Gospel isn't about Jesus? Not even a little?

(EXO. 15: 11) “Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like You, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

FORWARD TO THE PAST, MARTY!

Euangelion is about the births of kings and their accomplishments. If the first part of the Good News was the Savior had arrived, the second part of the Good News was the time for the restoration of Babylon had also arrived.

The restoration of Babylon?? Yes!

Don't take that in the wrong way. I don't mean Babylon would be built, as a doomsday worldview would be inclined to take it. I mean something quite different than that. I mean a healing.
The time for the restoration of the scattering that happened at Babylon, and the promise that Abraham would bless all nations, had arrived. The Jews were waiting for the regathering of scattered Israel ("Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"), but the real story was much more than just that. The Gentile banishment was over, and the Gentiles would be gathered as well.

(ACT. 1: 8b) ...you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

It is easy to see the Jews expected to be regathered, and somewhat easy to see how God will one day restore Eden, but it is not so obvious that God would regather the Gentiles to Himself as well. Not so obvious until you go looking for it (PSA. 67: 2-4; PSA. 72: 17; ISA. 11: 10-12; 40: 22; 42: 1-4; 49: 6; 56: 7; 60: 1-3; 62: 2; 66: 19; JER. 4: 2; 16: 19; DAN. 7: 14; ZEC. 9: 9-10; ZEP. 2: 11; MAL. 1: 11). Just look at all of those. It's there! Hidden in plain sight. Hinted at. Here a little, there a little.

Israel became the means to bring the Messiah after Babylon, but the plan to bring the Messiah began before there was an Israel. Indeed, the plan was initiated in Eden. The Savior of Israel is for all mankind, not just Israel.

Think of Jesus' first coming as a pivot point. History progressed to this point - or maybe regressed down to it - but now the direction is reversed. We are going backward. Or is it forward, to the past? The ultimate goal is to get back to Eden. But first we needed to undo what happened at Babylon. 

Recall that after the Babylon event, these two things happened: 1) humanity was split into Jew and Gentile, and 2) Gentiles were given to the control of lesser, created spirit beings.

At first, all preaching was to the Jews only, then Peter preached to the Gentiles, and then Paul was sent to bring the Gospel to them. Gentiles were to be gathered with the Jews.

(GAL. 3: 28) There is neither Jew nor Greek [Greek here represents the idea of Gentile], there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now, in the church era, the division between Jew and Gentile is gone. They are no longer split. But let's not ignore that second part. Jesus is taking back the Gentiles from the lesser spirit beings and the idolatry they were given up to.

It was no coincidence that Jesus had the discussion He did right at the "Gates of Hell", a pagan holy site called the Cave of Pan, at Caesarea Philippi. It was there God the Father inspired Peter to declare Jesus the Son of God, and it was there Jesus openly declared war on the lesser spirit beings. From that moment on, He prepared the Apostles for His death. His victory would come in the form of a resurrection and a church, and the Gates of Hell wouldn't withstand them (MAT. 16: 13-21).

It was no coincidence that on the very first Pentecost, as people from scattered areas all around the realm stood listening to the Apostles preach, they all heard and understood the message (ACT. 2: 1-11). This miracle was symbolically the reversal of the confusion of languages. Where there was scattering and confusion, now there was gathering and understanding.

(MAR 1: 15) The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.

This is such a pivotal verse! The time was fulfilled back then. The Kingdom of God was at hand back then. This was why Jesus declared the Kingdom of God was at hand, because the effort had begun. He has delivered [past tense] us from the power of darkness and conveyed [past tense] us into the kingdom of the Son of His love  (COL. 1: 13).

The Apostles got their theology from the Old Testament. You recall Isaiah 9: 6-7, the verses that start "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given" (v6). A child is born. That is one of the parts of euangelion. It talks about His glorious titles and His government on the throne of David. Then, it says this, "From that time forward, even forever" (v7). I want to state that again - "from that time forward". Notice it doesn't say anything about His second coming in these two verses.

I could go on and on with more verses. The Sheet Vision, the dialogue in Acts 15 and 21, the two loaves of the Wave Loaf ceremony at Pentecost which were made from the Wave Sheaf at Passover, the Prodigal Son, etc etc. (Like I said, I am not going to flesh everything out here.) The banishment of Gentiles created after Babylon is undone! The reclamation of the Gentiles is a big part of the reason why we needed a New Covenant - the Gentiles needed to be included, too.

If a victory at Marathon was euangelion, how much more was this! If the Jews were in diaspora, how much more the Gentiles? The Gentiles were rejected for 2,000+ years, removed from the face of God, but now the promise to Abraham has come. That is exceedingly good news! (It's not a competition. Both are being regathered.)

Are we sure the Gospel isn't about Jesus? Not even a little?

(ROM. 1: 16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

The power of God, it says. Which of these two projects a message of power:

A) "You have a chance to win! Avoid certain meats and believe."
-or-
B) "I have been given all authority. I am taking you back to Myself. I have declared war on the powers in heaven and they will not withstand Me. Repent and believe."
??

I am choosing B.

The Gentiles were reclaimed in power and authority. By no means is the Kingdom only about the second coming. It includes the second advent, yes, but that is the culmination of efforts, not the start of it. And what do we see at the second coming, when the effort is complete?

(ISA. 21: 9) And look, here comes a chariot of men with a pair of horsemen!” Then he answered and said, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen! And all the carved images of her gods He has broken to the ground.”

(REV. 18: 2) And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!

In Hebrew, repeating something twice in a row like that is a way to emphasize an idea. The "is fallen, is fallen" means VERY fallen. It is a complete fall.

There are those - whose prophecies fail over and over and over again - who tell us Babylon is the Catholic Church. Oh, if only it were that simple. I am unhappy to inform you they are woefully short of the mark on just what Babylon really is and where it is.

THE WORLD TODAY

If we hadn't reviewed the past nature of the Gospel of the Kingdom, there might be someone out there still wondering what does the Gospel of the Kingdom have to do with the present. As you can see, it has much to do with the present.

Herbert Armstrong said the coming Kingdom of God is the Gospel. Prophecy. Adventism. That is what the Kingdom is in Armstrongism. The Gospel is diced up, huge parts tossed out, then everything that remained is kicked into the future. A future you can only participate in if you are legalist failings make you fearful enough to pay, pray, and stay with your Armstrongist splinter church.
But the future is only part of the story. An important part! But not so important that we should ignore the present reality because of it.

That post "Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?" addressed how the Gospel is not only about the future. The Gospel is about who Jesus is, what He preached, and what He accomplished. The post "Once And Future Kingdom - Part I" addressed the Kingdom is both/and. The Kingdom is the Father's and the Son's and ours, in heaven and on earth, now and in the future. It's all of the above. A little now, a lot more later. Once we untie them from being only about the future, we can see how there indeed was an immediate message for the people of Jesus' day.

We still needed to flesh out what that message for the present is. That is what today's post is meant to do.
It would help if you stop relying on material from people who really are only interested in pushing an Adventist narrative of prophecy and Sabbath.

What happened at Babylon is reversed. All things that separated Jew from Gentile is undone. All that was banished is reclaimed. All authority that was given to the principalities and powers is revoked and given to Jesus. And all of this was done at that time. He declared war on them - on the principalities and powers. It is about God vs all that opposes Him. That effort is our task today.

The Gospel message is complex. When we tie in yet another post "The Gospel and the Powers In Heavenly Places", we see the Gospel is not just good news for mankind, it's also terrible news for false gods and idols. Their power is revoked. Their captives are freed. We are no longer theirs, they are fired, case dismissed, we are free to go.

Are we really sure the Gospel isn't about Jesus and what He accomplished at His first coming? Not even a little?

What does it say if you are fearfully awaiting judgment because you didn't Sabbath hard enough? Where is your citizenship? Whose family are you in? Don't you know who He is? Don't you know who you are? You don't know if you will be in the Kingdom or not until you're there (or not)?? That is the message of fear and doubt, not assurance and faith. How can you deliver a message of power to others if you lack that message in your own church? How much less when your church commands you not to deliver a message to others at all, because you aren't qualified and they are fallen and cannot receive the Gospel?? That isn't a message in power by any stretch of the imagination! That does not reflect Jesus' accomplishments, or His authority, or the reclamation of the Gentiles.

My underlying point in this post is about who you are. Right now. If you have incredible value in the future, then it stands to reason you have that value right now. Value that has been sapped away from you by a message of hunting through news reports for tragedies and lamenting your failures to keep the law as you think you should have. What I am telling you is, you don't need to wait for some untouchable future. You have assurances right now -> because of who you are --> because of who Jesus is and what He really did accomplish. Because of the Gospel. The REAL Gospel ...of the Kingdom.

The Gospel of the Kingdom wasn't just about, "Good news, everyone! I will be back in a few thousand years. For now, shut up, grab your folding chair and head to the Alps, and hope for tragedies in Judea until I get back. And if you Sabbath hard enough, and vacuum enough crumbs at Passover, you might just get collected up! Who knows?" The absurdity of that statement of mine reflects the absurdity of the Armstrongist position. Think about it.
Jesus shows up exactly when He did for no discernable reason, goes through all of this ... and then intentionally keeps most people from turning to Him while He waits thousands of years for permission to restore His Kingdom? Ridiculous! In His 7,000 year plan, He spends the last 2,000 of that sitting around, calling at most 24 people - of ancient Israeli descent, specifically - per year (144,000 people / 6,000 years = 24 people per year). Nonsense! In the "last days" He calls a series of plagiarizing, self-aggrandizing, false prophets to heap titles to themselves (like Spokesman of the Two Witnesses, Elisha, Zerubbabel, and The Inkhorn, to name just a few) and to build auditoriums around the United States. Ludicrous! And it all hinges on your personal ability to adhere to a cherry-picked list of laws you don't actually keep. Is that a powerful Gospel? No!

CONCLUSION

Have I melted anyone's brain today? I do apologize. There is much to chew on here. I wish I could flesh it all out. Such is the way of blog posts. I do not have the time or space.

Today, we saw the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven is for the world today and tomorrow. We saw how mankind messed up epically in turning to other, lesser "gods". So, they were given over to what they wanted. We saw how the plan of salvation marched on all the same through Israel, and then Judah, getting whittled down more and more as it went until there was only one poor family in a barn. We saw how all authority was given to Jesus at that time, and He and declared war on those principalities and powers at that time. He redeemed us right out from under them, and they helped Him do it. The Gospel is great news for us, but terrible news for the principalities and powers. We saw how Babylon has been reversed, both the Jews and Gentiles are reunited, and we are marching back to Eden together, where this mess began, reclaiming the lost as we go. We saw how there is yet a goal to return to Eden. We are not there yet. The battle goes on.

This is a big part of why faith is so important in the New Covenant. We need to choose our loyalty. Will it be Jesus, who is true God and has real authority and died for us, or devils, who are called gods and usurp authority and want you to die for them? Take your pick.
Choose the sovereignty of Yahweh, have assurance of what is not fully here at this time, and then stay loyal to it. That is your New Covenant calling. That is why the Gospel is in power and assurance (ROM. 1: 16; I THS. 1: 5).

To commence is not to complete. In part I of this series, we talked a lot about how things are partial now but will have a fuller fulfillment in the future. It's the same here. The Great Commission will not be finished until He returns a second time. It's a process. Therefore, we see the time had come and the time was yet to come. The Kingdom was at hand and waits for a future enlargement. You don't have to pick one or the other. It's both! Like a mustard seed, it grows and grows. We may have reversed Babylon, but we haven't gotten back to Eden. That's our true destination - Eden. So, you see, it's both now and future.

Forcing all these things into a purely future fulfillment makes absolutely zero sense, especially given all the verses that say He received His Kingdom right then and there, and how we are citizens of that Kingdom today. It distorts the reality of the Kingdom into something unrecognizable. The verses and plotlines one has to throw away in order to keep this view grossly outweigh those retained.
I contend the only reasonable solution is one that merges the now with the then. A little now, a lot more then. That is the answer you have been searching for all these years. The once and future kingdom.

And if you were wondering, yes, there is a lot more to it that I haven't gone into here. There is a bunch more for you to explore on your own. For example, just read Miller Jones' article "The Kingdom of God: A Different Kind of Authority". 

I pray the Holy Spirit guides you to a prayerful study and a deeper understanding of the Gospel and your part in it.

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

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

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

Once And Future Kingdom - Part I

Today, I am starting a two-part series on the Kingdom of God. This series goes hand-in-hand with my post "Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?". The Kingdom and the Gospel are inseparable, are they not?

I didn't sit down intending to write today's article. What you are reading grew out of a couple introductory paragraphs that were meant to build toward the main topic which we will get to next time. A few paragraphs turned into an entire post. Then I had to split it up.

I want to remind you what the COG splinters believe about the Gospel:

"Notice, Jesus said, 'Believe THE GOSPEL!'
WHAT Gospel? The one He was proclaiming - 'the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.'"
...
"The Gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT man's gospel ABOUT THE PERSON of Christ. It is CHRIST'S Gospel - the Gospel Jesus PREACHED - the Gospel God SENT by Him, and therefore it is also called, in Scripture, the Gospel of God. The Gospel of God is God's GOSPEL - His Message - His Good News which He sent by Jesus."
-Herbert Armstrong, "What Is The True Gospel?", p. 6, 1972

In short, the Gospel God gave is about the future Kingdom of God.
There are some qualities about the Kingdom that the booklet specifies:

• It isn't some condition you feel in your heart.
• You must be resurrected into it, which doesn't occur until Jesus returns.
• It is a single, world-ruling entity.

The Kingdom of God in Armstrongism is all about prophecy and law. It is almost entirely a situation in the future. Perhaps the not-so-distant future for us, but undeniably the far distant future to those people alive when Jesus preached about it two millennia ago. It was as far from them in their future as Abraham was in their past - but they didn't know that because they didn't know when it would be. I came up with a purposefully absurd phrase that exaggerates the claims in order to illustrate the issue: "Good News, everyone! I will be back in a few thousand years with more of the same." News like that would not seem so very good. Least of all to Jews in the diaspora.

So many questions come to mind.
Was there no message for the people of that day, or us for that matter, now, today, immediately, besides, "Keep Sabbath-ing until I get back"? Is the Kingdom of God purely a future item? What of the verses that say the Kingdom is at hand? If it is not entirely in the future, then what is the Kingdom now? Are we in it now or not?

The Gospel goes hand-in-hand with the Kingdom, I do not deny this. I only claim the Kingdom is not the whole Gospel message. But what is the Kingdom? And what is the message for the first century, and by extension for us today? These are the types of things I want to explore in this series.

Today, we will explore some issues and puzzles with the Kingdom of God. Next time, we will get to the message for the first century.

THREE ISSUES AT HAND

Let us explore some issues with the Kingdom of God. There are some contradictions here. Don't brand me an enemy of Christ for using that word just yet. I will give you the end of the story at the start: they are only contradictions if you unquestioningly accept the timing and claims of Armstrongism. That ending probably didn't make it much better for some of you. Well, I think we can clear all of this up. But it won't do any good to clear up a problem if we don't look at it first.

Issue #1: When?

First, was it imminent, or distant?

Jesus said multiple times that the Kingdom was at hand (MAT. 3: 2; 4: 17; 10: 7). And that's just a short list. There are more. Let's look closely at Matthew 4: 17:

(MAT. 4: 17) From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

This verse makes it sound like "the Kingdom is at hand" was a regular message of His. If it was, then there could be countless unrecorded times when He said the Kingdom was 'at hand'. It changes things quite a bit if the regular message was not just "the Kingdom of God" but "the Kingdom of God is at hand."

Does "at hand" refer to that time or our future? Do we have to use some odd turn of phrase to make sense of it, such as "a thousand years to God is like a day, so really it was only two days away"? As if you have Ben Kenobi there saying, "It is at hand ...from a certain point of view."

But!

There are other verses that make the Kingdom look far away. According to Herbert Armstrong, there was no Gospel in our Lord's birth, nor His death, nor His person, but only in a the Kingdom that would not come until Jesus returned. "Good news, everyone! I will be back in a few thousand years..." To be fair, it's not like that is entirely baseless. There are in fact several verses that place the Kingdom at His return. I hope you don't mind if I do not go through them here. I will assume we are all already familiar.

Does that mean it is only a thing of the future? Is there no portion at all for us now?

The timing is an issue.

Issue #2: Whose?

Second, to whom does the Kingdom belong - the Father, the Son, or us?

We have several other verses where Jesus says the Kingdom belongs to His Father, for example Matthew 13:43, and 26: 29.

So, the Kingdom belongs to the Father.

But!

In John 18: 36 , Jesus says, "My Kingdom"? He does it again in Luke:

(LUK. 22: 29) And I bestow [present tense] upon you [that's us] a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed [past tense] one upon Me.

I pointed out the verb tense for a reason. Don't ignore those.
Paul also says it in Collosians:

(COL. 1: 13) He [the Father] has delivered [past tense] us from the power of darkness and conveyed [past tense] us into the kingdom of the Son of His love...

So, the Kingdom belongs to Jesus already, past tense. And we are delivered into it already, past tense. So it's His? And we're in it? And it's ours?

According to Armstrongism, the Kingdom isn't His. Not yet, anyway. The Kingdom won't be handed to Him until His second coming. That is because Armstrongism believes Daniel 7: 13-14 shows Jesus receiving the Kingdom from the Father, while verses 11-12 set the time at the end times. Nor are we in it because we have to be resurrected to be in it. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. All of this talk about present tense and past tense is really just poetry that actually mean future tense. But does it?

So, it's the Fathers, and Jesus', and ours? Whose Kingdom is it anyway? Are these all just references to the far future?

Possession is an issue.

Issue #3: Where?

Third, where is this Kingdom anyway, and who are its citizens?

Jesus says the Kingdom is not of this world. Jesus says the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" 45 times in the Gospel of Matthew. That is the entire Gospel according to Herbert, no? That His Kingdom is not here but is going to be coming here. The "coming Kingdom of God". The World Tomorrow.

Jesus says "of heaven" often, but never "of earth" nor "of heaven and earth". The Lord's Prayer does say "Thy Kingdom come" does it not?

Armstrong spent several words explaining how flesh and blood cannot inherit this Kingdom (I COR. 15: 50), and how we must be born again as spirit to participate, which means resurrected (JON. 3: 1-8).

But!

We also have several references to the Kingdom here on earth. Just for two examples:

(MAT. 12: 28b) ...surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
(LUK. 10: 9) And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’

Near? Upon? Heaven?

This causes people to think, "Well, Jesus has not returned yet, and I believe in soul-sleep (that is a critical factor here, but I won't get into it today), so it must still mean that the message is for the future. Maybe it was only present while Jesus was present."
OK. A reasonable line of thinking given the belief system.
But it doesn't explain how we are delivered into it now, or how it is given to us now, as Luke and Paul clearly wrote. It only explains how it can be here at the second coming. It takes all past and present tense and makes them future. Plus, it actively combats the idea that the church (all the people who repent and believe) are citizens of the Kingdom right now - even while at the very same time maintaining the church are citizens of that Kingdom now. They aren't, but they are.

And if that isn't enough, these three conditions are placed on the Kingdom:

1. Not physical but spirit beings,
2. Who believe and repent,
3. And aren't of this world.

But when Jesus returns at the start of the Millennial period, look at the Kingdom:

1. Physical beings,
2. Who might believe and might have repented,
3. On earth.

How can Herbert Armstrong emphasize that physical beings cannot participate in the Kingdom, then immediately turn right around and say Jesus will bring the Kingdom to physical beings at the start of the Millennial Period? To reiterate: Flesh and blood cannot be in the Kingdom, but flesh and blood will be in the Kingdom. How?
Don't go saying we will find out who was really in it at the end. No, they will all be citizens in it. Despite all the avoiding pork and the Sabbath-ing that are supposedly going to bring universal peace, many will simply throw it all away when they are tempted.

So, is it spirit or flesh? Is it the church or not? Is it on earth or in heaven? Is it in heaven now but here only later on?

Location is a problem.

I PROPOSE A SOLUTION

We have problems in timing, possession, and location. What can the answer to these issues be? I wish to propose to you a solution.

The answer: it's all of the above.

The Kingdom is now and future. The Kingdom is spirit and physical. The Kingdom is the Father's, the Son's, and ours. The Kingdom is in heaven and on earth. There is no either/or. It's both/and. Those aren't contradictions at all. They are all true.

I know you are inherently disappointed with my proposal. You are saying my solution is also contradictory. That's because you are still thinking either/or. It hasn't sunk in yet. The Armstrongist solution to the three issues is prophecy and law. If we kick this can down the road, we can ignore the issues. That's not what I am proposing, though. I am proposing that we ditch the either/or in favor of both/and. One does not need to preclude the other.

Still unconvinced? Hear me out, please. There is a little more to it than just this. I have not given you my entire solution yet. There is a second part. As a bonus, I do honestly think most of you already believe it.

ONCE AND FUTURE KINGDOM

I fully admit and agree that when we look around at the miserable conditions of the "push-button leisure world" of today, we wonder where God could possibly be hiding. I pray for His will to at long last be done on earth as it is in heaven, just like you. But He is here. Like a still, small voice. All Christians believe this.

As a Westerner, I am not huge on both/and reasoning. Westerners are either/or folk. In fact, I personally tend to be a pessimist. Perhaps, when I get in a mood, I am best described as a neither/nor. But in this case it just makes sense, once you fully understand what I'm saying. Emphasis on fully.

The trick here is to let go of Herbert Armstrong's demand that the Gospel is only for some future time, and just let the Gospel also be about who Jesus is and what He accomplished. Precisely as we saw in the post "Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?" Let the Gospel be the full message that it is.

I know that is a lot to ask.

If Jesus only went around preaching the "far future Kingdom of God" as His Gospel, then why go around regularly preaching the imminent Kingdom of heaven? The Armstrongist version makes it a bait and switch. It isn't! Jesus preached that way because it in fact was imminent. His message was a Kingdom at hand because it was at hand. There is no need to explain it away with things like, "It was at hand only while He was here."

"But, the Millennium and peace and holy days in Jerusalem..." I hear someone saying. Yes. I know that is the picture you have in your mind of what the Kingdom is like. Kingdom = paradise. I do not ask you to throw that out. Just set it aside for now, briefly.

No one involved in this discussion claims the Kingdom of Heaven is of Heaven only, and will never be of this world, ever. In Armstrongism that isn't true because it's coming here, to earth, where there are physical people. And it will be like that for 1,000 years. If Jesus is coming to bring the Kingdom to earth (and He is) then it will be of this world at some point (and it will). That's the whole Gospel according to Herbert. We all accept the Kingdom can be in Heaven and here.

But I propose it makes more sense that the Kingdom is here now, since the Holy Spirit is here now, and we are God's Temple now, and we are citizens of the Kingdom now. All of these are here and all of these are now. The church is the body of Christ now (I COR. 12: 27). One body, yet still individuals. It's both! How can we be the body of Christ, yet Christ is not here? He is here! The Son is here and the Spirit is here. Now. Today. Do you think you were called to Christianity because God is away on a far journey and needs you to stand in? He was personally involved in your life to bring you to faith, was He not? So, if the Kingdom is here while He is here, then it is here..
...yet not fully here.

Do you still think what I am proposing makes no sense? I'll tell you what makes no sense, dear reader. Claiming the Kingdom of God can only be here while Christ is here, and yet He is here - in us - while maintaining Christ and the Kingdom are not here because He isn't here. That either/or thinking is what makes no sense.

If God is here now (and He is), because we are His body now (and we are), and the Spirit is in us (and it is), and we are His Temple now (and we are), and we have citizenship in the Kingdom now (which we do), then the Kingdom is at hand right now for us who love Him. It's both!

Your Minister tells you the church is not the Kingdom on earth. Why? Because that's what the Catholics say? Well, they also say to pray. Are we to reject prayer because it's what the Catholics say to do? Catholics also say the Kingdom will be on earth after the final judgment, don't you know? So, are you forced to reject the coming Kingdom now? Luke and Paul and John all say the church is in the Kingdom. If you recall, even Herbert Armstrong said the church is Kingdom "en eutero". Well, that counts!

How many more things do you need to accept before you accept you are part of the Kingdom now? How many times have you said, "My citizenship is in heaven"? Plenty, I'll wager. Probably every time you skip voting. Realize that you already accept what I'm saying. So, what's the issue?

I know some of you are inherently disappointed with my proposal. We both know merely saying "it's both" is unsatisfying because it doesn't answer everything. How can the Kingdom be of this world yet not of this world, here but not here, ours yet not ours, at the first coming yet at the second? How can it be both/and when it seriously looks either/or? It sounds just as conflicting as the things I mentioned earlier. There is another factor in the equation.

NOW, BUT NOT FULLY

To this point, I have only hinted at the second part of my solution. Let's dig into it in earnest.

Do you reject my solution because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom? Are you thinking I am ignoring that verse? Have you forgotten your own beliefs? When Jesus returns, flesh and blood will be in the Kingdom for a thousand years. No?
It says flesh and blood cannot inherit, but it does not say flesh and blood cannot be citizens of. There are plenty of citizens in every Kingdom, but only one is going to inherit it. You accept this, too. The key here is to think of it as a process.

Do you recall your Minister teaching you that there is duality in prophecy? Some things in prophecy are fulfilled twice. Yes, you do. I don't even need to give you an example because you're already trying to think of at least one right now. I propose it's the same thing here.

The Kingdom is here now, but it is only partial at this time. When you were an infant, were you any less yourself than you are now? No. There was so much more to come, but you were still completely you. Same with the Kingdom. It is here, now, and we are citizens now, but not fully here now and not fully ours at this time. A little now, a whole lot more later.

Add "a little now with a lot more later" to the "both/and" and you get the whole solution I am proposing.

We yet live on faith and hope now, but we do have a down payment as insurance.

(II COR. 1: 21) Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

(II COR. 5: 50 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

Many things are promised and are partially realized but are not fully realized at this time. The Kingdom is in stark contrast to this world, as our faith should be. But we who have faith are citizens of the Kingdom that is in heaven now. Your life should be a mini Kingdom, right now. Therefore, the Kingdom is in heaven now and on earth now. Yet, the Kingdom is coming in a more concrete, tangible, complete way in the future. The Holy Spirit is our guarantee that when it is fully realized we will be part of it. Yet, not as citizens but as inheritors.

This is precisely the message preached at every Feast of Tabernacles I've ever been to. You already believe what I'm saying. I am just presenting it in a different, less contradictory way. All you need to do is give yourself permission to accept the whole Gospel message. It is not just a future Kingdom only, but who He is and what He accomplished - now. That good news is for us! He accomplished those things so we can participate with Him - now. Only, it's a little now and a lot more later.

It is the once and future kingdom.

This explanation I give you resolves all three contradictions. They are only contradictory in the first place when the Gospel butts heads with Herbert Armstrong's Adventist demands for prophecy.

If the "prophecy and law" view is to be believed, everything that looks like it refers to the here and now is just a message about the there and then. The world tomorrow. There was no immediate good news for the world today, let alone the first century, other than, "When you are resurrected, things will be better ...IF you Sabbath hard enough." That's not very good news. There is no substance to the here and now. The here and now is just metaphoric, or poetic, or something. Despite the deposit of the Holy Spirit, there is no real assurance in that system. Not even for the faithful and repentant. Because we sin, we are all supposed to be surprised when Jesus resurrects us to His Kingdom at His second coming, or else resurrects us to the "second death" later on. "Fantastic news! You have a chance to win!"
I disagree.

The Gospel is about who Jesus is and what He already accomplished, PLUS what He will yet accomplish. It's about assurance in faith and hope now, PLUS a fuller, tangible, in-hand realization of what has been promised in the future. It's about citizenship now, PLUS inheritance in the future. It's here with us now until we are there with it then. It is not perfect now but it will be more perfect in the future.
It's both/and. A little now, a lot later.

And in the far, far future, it will be even more perfect still!

(I COR. 15: 24-28) 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Utter perfection. Amen!

You see, I have not ignored those verses about "of heaven" or "flesh and blood cannot inherit". I have already said, "Jesus says the phrase 'Kingdom of Heaven' 45 times in the Gospel of Matthew." (And "coming Kingdom of God" zero times.) And some of those say, "the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." I did not ignore or discount this truth. I have not ignored Philippians 3: 20, which says "our citizenship is [present tense] in heaven". I also have not ignored are other verses, like Revelation 1: 9, where John says he is a companion in tribulation and kingdom. He and they were in the kingdom 1,900 years ago. It's now. ...but it's also not now. It's both! Because it's a little bit now and a whole lot more later.

(EPH. 2: 19) Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God

CONCLUSION

It is the Son's Kingdom, and our Kingdom, yet it never stops being the Father's Kingdom - at the same time. It's both/and.
If the Son and the Spirit are here, in the church, which is the body of Christ and the Temple of God, then God is here, and the Kingdom of God is in heaven and on earth - at the same time. It's both/and.
If the Kingdom was given to the Apostles, and they brought us in, and we yet hope for more to come in the future, then it is now and in the future - at the same time. It's both/and.

Partially at hand now, fully in hand then.
Partially on earth now, fully on earth then.
Partially ours now, fully ours then.

Just like prophecy, the Gospel of the Kingdom of heaven is fulfilled in duality. There is a partial fulfillment followed by a more optimal fulfillment. A type and an antitype.
Is it not the same with the law?
(HEB. 10: 1) For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
The Old Covenant law was a shadow of the fulfillment brought by Christ.
Think of your own Christian walk. You were not the person you are, and you are not the person you will become. It's the same thing.

Is it really so unusual when I say the Kingdom we have now is just a shadow of the better fulfillment Jesus will bring when He returns?

I told you - you already believe this.
All you really need to do is let the Gospel be the Gospel.

But there I go with the future again. I want to force our eyes back from the far future, back from the near future, back from our present, and back onto the people of Jesus' day. We need to go to the past.

But this has been quite a post already. I think we should stop here to give everyone a chance to breathe.

In my next post, let's look more closely at the message Jesus gave to the people of His time so we can see how it did apply straight to them, and to see how the message to them has rippling effects on our lives and our calling today. There is so much more to it. There is real meat to it, right now!

For weeks, I've had this need to explore the message to the first century. I started writing this post before I started writing "What Do You Mean ... Gospel?" and that post and this came from thinking about the next post. When I sat down to write, and even after three weeks of writing and editing, what I was doing is working on Part II of this series. I didn't expect today's post to get so big. All of this was supposed to be a couple paragraphs of intro. This wasn't meant to be a two-parter. I haven't even gotten to the topic I intended to write about!

And, completely by accident, this turned out to be a decent post for this time of year, what with the Feast of Tabernacles and all. Bonus!

See you next time. For now, beloved of God, I leave you with a prayer of blessing. May God bless you and open your heart to a more full, more hopeful, more reassuring understanding of your place in His plan and His love.

 

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

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

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

Testaments vs Covenants

I wanted to do a very brief post to explain something that I think confuses a lot of people, especially in Sabbatarian systems like Armstrongism. I thought a graphic might help. The issue is one of Testaments versus Covenants. They aren't the same thing, and they do overlap. It's important to know this.

Let's start with the basics:

Testaments refer to collections of books. There are two testaments of the Bible: the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The Old Testament contains all of the books from Genesis to Malachi. They center mainly around the history of Israel. The New Testament contains all of the books from Matthew to Revelation. They mainly center around Jesus and the Apostles.

Covenants refer to contracts with God's involvement. There are two great covenants in the Bible: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant was between God and Israel only, and starts at Israel's experience at Mt. Sinai, which you can read about in the book of Exodus. The Old Covenant ended when Jesus died on the cross. The New Covenant is between God and anyone who accepts the covenant. The New Covenant began when Jesus died on the cross. The New Covenant has no end.

The confusion I am referring to is that many people seem to think the Old Covenant stopped at the same place the Old Testament stopped, and the New Covenant starts in the same place the New Testament starts. That is not true! The Old Testament stops before the Old Covenant does. Yes, the Old Covenant continues into the New Testament.

This handy graphic explains it all -

You will have to imagine the four Gospels stacked one on top the other, so they all start and end in the same place. But you get the point.
Notice how the Old Covenant extends to the end of the four Gospels. The Old Testament stops at Malachi, but the Old Covenant keeps going.
To be even more precise, the Old Covenant ended at the cross. It was just easier making the graphic the way I did.

People are mistaking where the Covenants begin and end versus where the Testaments do. How does this mistaken understanding manifest? We see it in Armstrongism quite frequently, when people say things like, "Jesus kept the Sabbath, so we should too."

How is that a mistake? Jesus did keep the Sabbath, after all. Don't we want to be like Him?
It is a mistake because He had to do that. He lived His entire regular human life as a Jew during the Old Covenant period. You read about it in the New Testament, but it's during the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant did not end until He died on the cross. Jesus did everything an Old Covenant Jew would have normally done (only He never sinned, so He never had to do the ritualistic parts regarding atonement for sin/defilement). Of course, Jesus did not do everything the way the religious leaders thought He should. That much is obvious. Yet, He was a Jew during the Old Covenant period none the less and would have behaved accordingly. He had to. He was under that Covenant. Hence, the Sabbath observance.

Are we in that Old Covenant? No. So, claiming we are beholden to the terms of the Old Covenant because Jesus was is a mistake. What Jesus wanted us to do as His disciples is clear: be loyal to the Covenant we are in.

Jesus is not a way backwards to the Old Covenant.

The same with the Apostles. Same with the Rich Young Ruler. Same with every Jew in the Gospels. All of them lived during the Old Covenant. None of them are secret entrances back to the Old Covenant.

Even if they were, they wouldn't lead to one or two or Ten laws only. It's all or nothing.
Most people who try to sneak their way into the Old Covenant don't want all 613 laws. They only want one or two things, and usually that's the Sabbath day. Maybe they will pinch tithes and meats on the way out. Well, that's just not how Covenants work. One does not sneak into the Old Covenant to enjoy a buffet.

So, bear in mind the difference between the Testaments and the Covenants, and pay particular attention to where they begin and end. It might just clear up a few things.

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

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

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

Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?

Euangelizo. It's Greek. Sound strangely familiar? It is a verb, a conjugation of euangelion. Euangelion is a message or an announcement of something positive. Good news. From the Greek eu, meaning good, and angellein, meaning message. The Hebrew equivalent is the word bawsar. Euangelion in Greek becomes evangelion in Latin. It takes a turn when translated into English. In Old English, it is god, meaning good, and spel, meaning story. The -d was dropped in the 13th century. You know where I am going with this. Euangelion is Greek for gospel.

An evangelist is a person who spreads the gospel. Why we have evangelist instead of gospelist is a mystery to me.
On a related note, angellein is the act of delivering an announcement (just like euangelizo is the act of delivering good news), but angelos is a messenger that does the delivering. That's angelos, as in angel. Angels deliver messages.

Enough with the interesting trivia. But I've done that for a reason.

Today's post is about gospel. I want to explore what an euangelion is. What does the word mean? I think knowing what a gospel is will help us better know what the Gospel is.

THE GOOD NEWS ACCORDING TO HERBERT

There are lots of messages of good news in the world, but only one we call "the Gospel", with a capital G. People think all sorts of things about what the Gospel is. The Gospel usually contains these three elements:

1. A message about who Jesus is. He is the promised Messiah; the Son of God made flesh.
2. The message Jesus preached. He preached the Kingdom of God and forgiveness of sins.
3. A message about what Jesus accomplished. On the cross He atoned for our sins, saved us all from death, ushered in the New Covenant. By His resurrection He was shown to be who He claimed to be.

That isn't a comprehensive list, but it seems reasonable enough.

In Armstrongism, however, the Gospel is not about Jesus, and has little if anything to do with what He accomplished at His first coming, but is ultimately about prophecy and law (especially the Sabbath) via the "soon-coming Kingdom of God". Being an Adventist off-shoot, it is no great surprise Armstrongism spends quite a bit of time on Sabbath and prophecy. That is the Adventist way. The Gospel, they say, is a message Jesus preached, not a message about Jesus.

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT man's gospel ABOUT THE PERSON of Christ. It is CHRIST'S Gospel - the Gospel Jesus PREACHED - the Gospel God SENT by Him, and therefore it is also called, in Scripture, the Gospel of God. The Gospel of God is God's GOSPEL - His Message - His Good News which He sent by Jesus."
-Herbert Armstrong, "What Is The True Gospel?", p. 6, 1972

Jesus is not the good news (euangelion), only the bringer of good news (angelos). The good news (euangelion) is the future Kingdom of God. In other words, prophecy and law. 

To spell this out so unfamiliar people can understand - the good news is that Jesus will return at some unknown point in the far future, bringing to the whole world the Old Covenant law that the Jews already had for thousands of years, and those conditions will usher in an eternity of peace.

An eternity of peace is good news! I wouldn't argue against that.
It's the rest of it that I have trouble with. 

There are at least two instances of sleight of hand going on with Armstrong's version of the Gospel. 

In the first, what Armstrong did was he claimed the Gospel is only what Jesus said, not what anyone or anything else said. What anyone else said is "man's gospel".
In this, Armstrong split the Gospel from having all three parts that I mentioned at the start of this article into a message of one of those parts only. There is only one Gospel, the Kingdom is the part Jesus gave, and the rest are man's false gospel, so just ignore those other parts. I disagree.

When the Apostles preached the Gospel, they did not preach solely on what was going to happen in their far future, they primarily focused on what Jesus did and how it affected the people alive in their own time. Were the Apostles and Prophets "mere men"? Is Jesus the only one who preached the Gospel? Did the Apostles and Prophets preach a different Gospel? Were those things they wrote not inspired by God? Right on page 5 of the booklet it admits the Gospel came from God the Father through men. Is their message really just "man's gospel" then?  When Paul described the Gospel he preached, he didn't use the phrase "Kingdom of God" at all, so was Paul's message from "mere men"? When Jesus preached, He said the Kingdom of God was at hand (MAR. 1: 14), effectively making it one of His own accomplishments, so was He preaching a false Gospel because even He didn't limit the Kingdom to His second coming?

We will get to man's gospel later, but I cannot accept that unless it came from Jesus' mouth, and it was about the future and the law, then it's man's gospel. It genuinely sounds contrived to me, like this claim was specifically crafted to get a predetermined conclusion out of the text. Prophecy and law were Armstrong's message. Therefore, we see it's God's word when Armstrong thinks he can benefit from it, but it's man's word when he doesn't. He wants to have it both ways.

The second sleight of hand is that all those different messages are really just the Kingdom of God anyway. So, it's not that you ignore them, you just blend them into the one and only true message.

Jesus preached grace and peace and healing and salvation to the people of His day and to us. Notice closely, on page 3, Armstrong says people who bring those messages are false preachers. Yet, on page 8 of his book, Armstrong quotes the phrase "Gospel of GRACE" as if it is legitimate, and even refers to the New Covenant as a time of grace. He even has grace in all caps. On page 5, he quotes Peter as saying Jesus preached peace. On page 11, he quotes Jesus commanding His disciples to heal the sick. On page 8, he calls it the "Gospel of SALVATION". Again in all caps. So, which is it, really? Here it's false; there it's true. Are they false gospels, man's gospels, or part of the one true Gospel of the Kingdom?
It's all of the above! ...depending on what he wants to get from it.

In Armstrong's booklet on the true Gospel, there is no mention of the cross. At all. The words cross and crucifixion do not appear once. No mention of how Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets at that time. And the only resurrection mentioned is man's. So, not a word about Jesus' death and resurrection. The single most important event in the history of creation, central to the Gospel, the central thing Paul preached, merits no mention whatsoever.
It does mention Covenant, and how Jesus was Malachi's messenger of the Covenant, but nothing about how Jesus accomplished that at His first coming. We know the New Covenant is now. Jesus initiated that at His death. So, if Malachi says Jesus was the messenger of the Covenant, then Jesus was not exclusively a messenger of the far future Kingdom. Is the message of the Covenant a true Gospel, then? Oh, that would be an accomplishment and we can't have that, plus it's now rather than at His second coming, so it's doubly verboten. Instead, he immediately takes that ball and runs it in the direction of ... prophecy and law. Indeed, the underlying theme of the entire booklet is prophecy and law. Because of course it is. Prophecy and law were Armstrong's message, so he made the Gospel to be prophecy and law, even when it wasn't.

In your mind's eye, imagine yourself a faithful Jew in the first century. You are a child of Abraham, inheritor of the Covenant, keeper of the Commandments, oppressed by Rome, waiting for the re-gathering of the diaspora. You can almost imagine yourself transported back to that ancient place and time, listening intently to the fantastic message:

"Good news, everyone! I will be back in a few thousand years. In the meantime, practice your Sabbath-ing just like you have been since Sinai."

Somewhat less inspiring "news" than advertised.
I don't see a message like that inspiring many Jews to convert. Although, a message like that would explain why Armstrongists believe their ideological ancestors spent the past 2,000 years as tiny groups holed up in the Alps (which didn't really happen).

Fore more on how there is another Gospel in Armstrongism, I recommend Martha's article "A Different Gospel".

Speaking of imagining yourself as an ancient citizen of Jesus' day, what would the people in that place and time understand the word "euangelion" to mean? I want to inspect what the word euangelion (gospel) would have meant to the original audience of the message. It wasn't some made up nonsense word that the Apostles invented to describe this new thing they preached. The word already existed. But what did euangelion mean? Maybe if we investigate what a gospel even is, we will see if the Armstrongist view holds up.

GOOD OLD NEWS

A common misconception is that the first time you are going to find euangelion in the Bible is in Matthew. But did you know that euangelion is found in the Old Testament, too? If you read the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, you will see euangelion in some telling places. Or bawsar, if you read the Masoretic in Hebrew.

For example, you remember in Luke 4: 16-19, when Jesus read Isaiah 61: 1-2a in the synagogue. "Good tidings" in Isaiah is translated from euangelion/bawsar. Some translations even render it "gospel" in Luke 4. It is a very interesting list of things Jesus came to preach. Gospel, healing, liberty (mentioned twice).

Here is another one:

(ISA. 40: 9) O Zion, you who bring good tidings [euangelizo], get up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, you who bring good tidings [euangelizo], lift up your voice with strength, lift it up, be not afraid; say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!”

"Behold your God," it says. That is the good news this verse had for Israel. That is the gospel.
Reminds me so much of another verse:

(LUK. 2: 10-11) 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings [euangelizo] of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Behold your God. Jesus' birth is the good news of great joy for all people. This gospel is about Jesus.

Are we really sure the Gospel isn't about Jesus? Not even a little?

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ is NOT man's gospel ABOUT THE PERSON of Christ", Armstrong said. When we look at euangelion in the Old Testament, we see Armstrong may have missed the mark.

Earlier, I said I would get to man's gospel. I think it's important we do, or else we might miss the meaning in the word. Let's look at some history and see an important detail or two.

MAN'S GOOD NEWS

Another common misconception is that the only place you are going to find euangelion is in the Bible. As if the Bible invented good news, or that the Gospel is the only gospel there is. Oh, the Bible is the place to go to find the Gospel, sure enough. But other good news existed. We should look for how euangelion was used outside of the Bible. I believe it is critical to do this particularly so we can understand how the first century readers of the Bible would have understood that concept of an euangelion. "Gospel" wasn't a thing the Apostles invented. It was already a thing. But what kind of thing was it? How would the people the Apostles preached to understand the concept of gospel?

Why should we ignore the definition and use of a word? Why should we ignore what the audience would have understood a gospel to be? We shouldn't.

So, what did the audience understand?

Want to know what I find interesting? Euangelion was a political thing.

I don't mean political modernly. This isn't a right vs left post. I mean political anciently. I try to never do politics here, but this is the kind of political message that needs to be told.

From ancient Israel to ancient Greece to the Roman Empire, the evangelion message was about:

1. Military victories.
2. The birth of kings.
3. The great accomplishments of kings.

Sounds like the same list I started this post with. I believe that's no coincidence. Why wouldn't the Gospel match the components in the accepted definition of the word gospel?

Let's start with those victories. Here we see an example in the Bible:

(II SAM. 18: 19) Then Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said, “Let me run now and take the news [euangelizo] to the king, how the Lord has avenged him of his enemies.”

You won the war and lots of people are dead or severely injured. That's great news!
I joke, but it's relevant to understanding euangelion. It has a victory component.
Now, let's see one from outside of the Bible.

Perhaps you've heard of a sporting competition called the marathon? When Greece defeated Persia at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC, they sent a man named Pheidippides to run the news from the battle site at Marathon to Athens 25 miles away. Pheidippides made the run and successfully delivered the euangelion, "Nike!" (That means victory.) Which was fantastic news for the Athenians, because they were severely outnumbered.   ...And then he died.
Running marathons began in honor of this event.
You should know, the rest of the story is that Pheidippides had run about 300 miles already that week. He made a trip from Marathon to Sparta and back, on foot, in less than five days. The combined runs were just too much for him. He should have stopped for some gyro or something. Poor guy.
Mental note - the limit is 324 miles.

Note that Pheidippides did not run to Athens to proclaim, "In about 150 years, after you're all long dead, a great king of Greece will rise up and rule a great kingdom! Isn't that fantastic news?" Notice how these examples of gospel are quite immediate, quite applicable in the day of the audience.

Another famous example of man's evangelion is the birth and accomplishments of Caesar Augustus. The following is taken from a Calendar Inscription which was found in the ruins of Priene in western Turkey:

"It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] for the world that came by reason of him,” which Asia resolved in Smyrna."
-"Priene Calendar Inscription", Wikipedia, accessed 9-15-2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priene_calendar_inscription

Notice all the uncanny similarities between this citation and what you are familiar with in the New Testament. We have an appearance, a savior, ending war, peace, order (law and government), and good tidings for the world. Striking similarities! I mean, just look:

     "....the beginning of the gospel [of the god Augustus]..." (Priene calendar inscription)
     "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (MAR. 1: 1)

Euangelion about great kings starts with a gospel message about their birth. Same with Jesus. Birth and accomplishments, that is what people in that day and area expected from an euangelion. It was political. When the Apostles wrote a Gospel, this is what the concept meant to them.

It's as if Mark wrote his Gospel specifically to behave like a polemical response to other gospels his culture already had. It is reasonable to believe he did. He took some wording from an existing gospel about Caesar and used it to promote Jesus. 

As an aside, that kind of thing happens throughout the Bible. It's not cheating or copying, it's polemics. People say the Bible copies other ancient material. It does! But it does so in polemical response to those other materials. Baal isn't God, Yahweh is. Augustus isn't the savior, Jesus is. If the Apostles were doing that here, they would only be directly in line with longstanding Hebrew tradition. Paul used the Athenian inscription of the unknown god to preach Jesus. It's a perfectly valid move. I do the same thing here all the time. I am contemplating whether or not to title this post "Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?" Why would I do that? Because "what do you mean" was in the title of several old Worldwide Church of God booklets. That's the entire point of it. But, I admit, it is a particularly fitting title for this topic. It is about the meaning of gospel after all.

The message in the inscription reminds me of the Triumphal Entry, and the cries of "Hosanna!" (MAT. 21: 9) The people were crying for salvation, and here was the bringer of that help, now, in their presence immediately, not at some point in the far future. This was a fully and purposefully provocative, political move on Jesus' part. It was intended to be a challenge to the Sanhedrin. You don't need me to tell you whether or not the Sanhedrin appreciated it.

(MAT. 21: 15-16) 15 But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant 16 and said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?”

It was a direct challenge, and it brought His swift death. As it was meant to.

Euangelion is inherently political. It's important to put yourself into that time and place, to understand events as the people of that time would have understood them, or you might miss something important.

War and politics and the Gospel, Jesus and Augustus and the Sanhedrin, strange bedfellows indeed. That's because the Gospel is a highly political message. Euangelion is about births and victories and kings. The Gospel is about a birth and victories and a King. It was an immediate message for the people of that day and for all time, not just the future only.

Are we really sure the Gospel isn't about Jesus? Not even a little?

CONCLUSION

Today, we explored the meaning of euangelion to get a better idea on what the concept even is.

Euangelion. It's good news. It's political. It's powerful. It's the Gospel.
It's about kings and what they accomplished. And it's a polemic response to them.
It's about Jesus, and about what He accomplished, and about the Kingdom message He preached.

Herbert Armstrong taught a small fraction of what the Gospel really is. He ignored what euangelion meant in the first century. He ignored what gospel meant to the people who were receiving it. He took the Biblical words inspired by God, called it "man's gospel" (lower case g), and then, just like the law, threw most of it out. But it wasn't man's gospel, as if it were written recently and is the fault of those tricky Catholics. The good news about who Jesus was and what He accomplished was the very Gospel the Apostles preached. Look in their writings. Why do you suppose your Minister always goes to Revelation or a few scattered verses in Paul's epistles to find a message about the second coming? Because a message about the second coming was not what the Apostles mainly preached. If the Kingdom of God is defined as what happens after the second coming, most of the New Testament would be about it. That just isn't what we see. We see the Apostles preaching Christ being who He said He was and doing what He said He would do - which precisely matches euangelion. The Apostles did not ignore what euangelion means.

We have quite a bit more on what we think the Gospel is over in our FAQ page. I also recommend Bill's article "The Gospel In Detail".

If you really think about it - the one singular Gospel isn't one monolithic thing, it's a multifaceted thing. There are several parts. Sort of like the law, it isn't just the moral parts, or the Bible, it isn't just Deuteronomy. The message Jesus preached, the Kingdom of God, yes, that's undeniably a part of it, but that's not all of it. "Good News, everyone! I will be back in a few thousand years with more of the same," just isn't euangalizo, within the Bible or without.

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

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

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

Review - Written By The Finger of God

Given my recent foray into the Seventh Day Adventist view of "The Law (the Ten Commandments)", I thought it would be interesting to see if SDA ideas and interpretations had already made their way into Armstrongism. It only took minutes to answer that question. Yes, they have. And for quite a while now, at that.

Today's post is going to be a companion to the post I just linked to. If you haven't read that post, you won't fully understand this one. And if you haven't read that post recently, you will miss some parallels in this one.

In that post, I received a comment from a long-time reader, Child Survivor. They say, "Their [the SDA's] reasoning for distinguishing the 10 from the rest is simple. It was written in stone by the finger of God."
I decided if I was to learn if Adventism has infected Armstrongism this would be where I start looking. It wasn't long until I found an article on the United Church of God's Beyond Today site, entitled "Written By The Finger of God", authored by one Robert Berendt, and posted July 3, 2001.
All of my quotes from Mr. Berendt will be from this publication. It is web-based, so there are no page numbers to reference.

Herbert Armstrong, it is said, got his inspiration from God by borrowing material from other churches. One of his favorite sources was the COG7's "Bible Advocate" magazine. We talk about this in our article "This Has All Happened Before". Could it be the tradition of taking ideas from other churches lives on at the UCG? I suspect so.

There are three things you should keep in mind as you read this:
1) All the Old Covenant law, including the Sabbath, only exist as terms within a covenant. God didn't bring laws on their own. God brought a Covenant. That covenant had terms.
2) The Old Covenant was for Israel only and excluded the Gentiles almost entirely.
3) The Sabbath was not a day to go to church. It was a day of rest. It's about resting from normally assigned tasks, not going to corporate worship.

IT'S LIKE SO AMAZING

"It is quite amazing that we humans do not recognize the importance of the Biblical statement that the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God."
-Robert Berendt

Is it truly that important, though, or is this just rhetoric? Is it true that, specifically because they were written by the finger of God, we can set the Ten above all other laws? Is that the critical MISSING KEY (to borrow a phrase from Herbert Armstrong)? What other evidence supports this?

Moses didn't think it was that important when he smashed those tablets. The Jews don't think it to be critically important. All 613 mitzvot are equal to them. When Jesus was asked what are the great commandments in the law, He did not respond, "Why, the Ten, of course, because I wrote those with my own finger." No, He spoke of other laws on which all the law and the prophets hang. The Apostles never mentioned it. Paul didn't feel the ministry of death was any less deadly just because it was written and engraved on stone by God (II COR. 3: 7), or any less the law of sin and death (ROM. 8: 2). It wasn't emphasized in the early church. Even Herbert Armstrong didn't make a big deal about it. What Armstrong made a big deal about was the "Law of Moses - Law of God" issue. Rod Meredith wrote the Worldwide Church of God's official booklet on the Ten Commandments. Although he does say the Ten are the spiritual law, he didn't base that on the finger of God. He didn't base it on anything, really. He didn't mention the finger of God at all. In fact, it didn't seem to be all that important to anyone anywhere until the Seventh Day Adventists decided to make it a big deal. This is a claim they make central. The UCG only borrows the notion.
Bear this in mind the next time you say, "I don't care about the traditions of men."

It's as if it only has importance when you're already a Sabbatarian surrounded by other Sabbatarians and you're trying to reinforce what everyone already agrees on. In a phrase, confirmation bias. Perhaps what is amazing is that people think it's amazing.

You can see this is mere confirmation bias from questions such as this:

"Do we comprehend the magnificence of the Ten Commandments? Why would God take the time to speak them and then write them twice?"
-Robert Berendt

Because Moses broke the first set. That's why He did it twice. It's no grand mystery.

Someone might ask, was it not amazing, though, that God wrote these Himself? I would say it was a direct divine act, and so, yes, it was amazing. But, then again, so is "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin". Am I supposed to hold those words in incredible regard, too? Since those words were written by the finger of God, are they universal moral law, too? Amazing, yes, but to what end?

"But xHWA," one might say, "the Bible doesn't say those words were written by the very finger of God."
Oh please. In Exodus 18: 9, it says the plague of lice were the "finger of God." Do we really need to parse the use of "finger of God" to see if it is literal or idiomatic? I would rather not. A disembodied hand writing on a wall in a language no one but Daniel can interpret is plenty miraculous no matter how you argue about exactly whose finger it was.

There is no justification for the type of emphasis people are putting on the Ten. "God wrote them Himself, therefore they are moral and special above all other laws, and eternal, and binding on all mankind" simply does not make logical sense.

We've already reviewed this in our series "Is Ceremonial Law Removed?" and "Are the Ten Commandments Removed?"

Let me ask you this question. Which is more amazing: that God wrote on stone, or that God became man and died and was resurrected and now puts the Holy Spirit into your heart? I don't know about you, but I'm choosing the latter. Writing on stone just isn't the amazing, crucial thing the author is trying to build it into. At the end of the day, those laws could not accomplish God's purpose (ACT. 13: 39; ROM. 8: 3; GAL. 3: 21), and the Old Covenant is gone (HEB. 8: 6, 31).

Don't get me wrong here. I am not making the case that there is nothing at all unique about the Ten. What I am saying is, I do not see any evidence that being written by the finger or God conveys any special powers on the Ten, or makes the Ten somehow timeless and binding on all men. In other words, this claim just doesn't do what the author hopes it will. We just do not see that in the other evidence we have. It seems like a gross overstatement of the case.

WE ARE GATHERED HERE TODAY

Before I get too far in, I want to acknowledge that not everything Mr. Berendt writes is wrong. For example, he writes:

"It is astonishing to think that humans can presume that God would allow them to change His commandments ... there are those who try to change the commandments such as moving the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday."
-Robert Berendt

Well, yeah. I agree. Anyone who thinks Sunday is the Sabbath, or even the Christian Sabbath, simply does not understand the difference. Sunday is not the Sabbath and never has been. It's precisely this kind of misunderstanding that got us into this mess with Sabbatarianism in the first place.

I want to briefly and roughly explore the history which got us to the problem we face today. If you think history is boring, just skip to the next section.

Shortly after the Reformation, the common person had access to the scriptures but had no access to original languages, or formal training, or understanding of proper hermeneutics, or most any resource whatsoever they would need to correctly interpret what they were reading. They started from the false premise that Sunday is the Sabbath, which it is not, and things only got worse from there. They opened their Bibles and what did they see? Lo and behold, the seventh day is the Sabbath. "Hey," they thought, "it says right here Saturday is the Sabbath. My church is wrong!" And the solution in their less than expert opinions was, "We should be going to church on Saturday."
This is the genesis of Sabbatarianism and all those "you can't change the 4th commandment" complaints.

The problem we face today comes directly from people forcing Sunday to fulfill the 4th Commandment, compounded by other people who shouldn't be making doctrinal decisions trying to resolve the issue and coming to a very wrong conclusion that everyone must go to church on Saturday.

In the 1500s, small groups of people in Europe start going to church on Saturday. In the 1600s, we have evangelists like Stephen Mumford travelling to New England to convert Sunday Christians to Saturday. In the 1700s, we have Seventh Day Baptists in New England. In the 1800s, a few Seventh Day Baptists converted a few Adventists to Sabbatarianism. And then a few Seventh Day Adventists split to form the COG7, and then Herbert Armstrong was fired from the COG7 and formed his own church, and today you're reading my blog.

We see starting from a false premise leads to wild conclusions.

I don't know when Sunday started being viewed as the Christian Sabbath and the new way to interpret the 4th Commandment. I cannot find anything like that in the first few centuries. I owe yet another thanks to Terracet, who sent me an email a while ago. In the email, Terracet mentioned this footnote from Philip Schaff:

"i.e. Saturday. Sunday is never called ‘the Sabbath’ by the ancient Fathers and historians, but ‘the Lord’s day’ (κυριακε)."
-Schaff, Philip, "Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers: Second Series", Edinburgh, 1890.
Specifically, footnote 789, "The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus", Book V, Chapter XXII.
On Sacred-Texts, https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/202/2020187.htm#fn_788.

I agree with Schaff on this point. Reading early works such as "The Didache" or Justin Martyr's "Dialogue With Trypho", we can see a very clear distinction between the Lord's Day and the Sabbath. As we learned in our study into the Quartodecimans, they were also not the Sabbath keepers we were led to believe they were. The Quartodecimans had a radically different view of Sabbath-keeping than Armstrongism.

Some people want to create a hard dichotomy in the early years. They imagine there were either people who went to church on Saturday, or on Sunday, but not both. That is not true. Most people did things on both days. There were Jewish converts who rested on the Sabbath per their national heritage and observed the Lord's Day. It is possible to do both. More than that, there were many who treated neither like a Sabbath day. The Jewish Sabbath just did not exist for most Gentiles. The rest given us by Christ is the Sabbath rest that remains. Even so, they did not treat Sunday like a new Sabbath. That started later on.

Some say the one who first came up with the notion was Origen. But what did Origen mean when he said, "On Sunday none of the actions of the world should be done"? Was it work, or sin?

Some prefer to blame Constantine. We write about that in our article "Constantine vs The Sabbath". The answer is not entirely there, either. Constantine did make Sunday into a day of rest, but in a purely civil capacity not a religious one, and not for everyone because farmers were still allowed to farm. We have to look elsewhere for the full reason Sunday became a day of rest within the church.

The first genuinely unmistakable thing I find is in the Council of Laodicea (about 365 AD), Canon 29, which is translated:

"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."
-Schaff, Philip, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers", Second Series, Vol. 14.
On Christian Classics Etherial Library, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.xxxiv.html

This makes me somewhat comfortable in accepting the change happened in the 4th century. But, again, farmers were allowed to farm on Sunday. So, a more complete change must have happened later still.

Note: I am not saying Sunday as the Lord's Day started in the fourth century. That started early in the first century. Nor am I saying the bulk of people moved from Saturday to Sunday in the fourth century, as if there were some great shift at that time. I know someone out there will read what I wrote and conclude, "See! xHWA just said Sunday worship started in the 4th century!" No. I did not say that. I said treating Sunday like it fulfills the 4th Commandment seems to have started in the 4th century.

If Archbishop James Cardinal Gibbons, about whom we write in our article "Rome's Challenge", wanted to flex against the Protestants, he would have done better to say the Protestants observe Sunday as a Sabbath due to the authority of the Catholic Church. Sabbatarianism is a direct response to this. So, if you think about it, Sabbatarianism is built on the authority of the Catholic Church.

We should talk about that for a second. The Catholic Church does not hesitate to claim it is the church Jesus started and it has the authority to make doctrinal decisions. Same goes for the Orthodox. The Unified Church (the church before the Catholic/Orthodox split in 1054 AD) made this decision at Laodicea. The Council of Laodicea is an "ecumenical council". So, we have to decide whether they have the authority to bind or loose these kinds of things on their own adherents. Maybe you think they have no right to bind it on you, but do they have the right to bind it on themselves? They think they do. All churches make decisions for themselves, or else there wouldn't be any denominations. The COG splinter churches do the exact same thing all the time. And I'm sure you and I make decisions for ourselves. So, was it entirely unreasonable?
But that debate is outside the scope of this post.

If that one change had been avoided, Protestants wouldn't have retained it, other Protestants wouldn't have reacted to it, and there would be no Seventh Day Adventists - just Adventists only, with their failed prophecies - and Armstrong never would have been converted to it. All of this nonsense we are mired in today could have been avoided. And best of all, I wouldn't have to blog about it and you wouldn't be here reading and being angry at me.

What Jesus did with the Sabbath Day was dissolve it when He ended the Old Covenant at His death. He is our eternal Sabbath rest. Perhaps it should have been left at that.

ONE COVENANT

"There is a huge difference between all that Moses later relayed to Israel from God and the Ten Commandments that were written by the finger of God."
-Robert Berendt

Ummmmm ... no. There is no difference.

Mr. Berendt here is trying to distinguish the Ten above all other laws. Correction, he is trying to distinguish the Sabbath Day - because we all know Sabbatarianism isn't a quest to get the world to stop bearing false witness. They bear false witness all the time. Let's not pretend this is about anything other than the Sabbath day.

There is no functional difference at all between "all that Moses later relayed to Israel from God" (and by "later" we mean over the next several weeks) and the Ten Commandments. Why is there no difference? Because there is only one Covenant.

All were part of one Covenant made with Israel at Sinai. Period. Full stop. All the whole law are co-equal terms of one and the same Covenant. We've said it here a thousand times -
      The law does not exist apart from the covenant.
The individual laws do not stand alone. The whole Old Covenant law only exists within and because of the Old Covenant. The law is the singular body of terms of the singular covenant. The covenant is what binds the law on the people. They agreed to the terms of the covenant (the law, plus the promises, ie. blessings and cursings).
Sabbatarianism simply ignores the Covenant altogether in favor some of its terms.

We have gone over all of this many times before. I suggest you read "The Covenant and the Testimony".

Here is what the Jews believe about their law:

"All 613 of those mitzvot [laws] are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important..."
-"Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments", Tracery R Rich, Judaism 101. Accessed 6-2024.

James, a Jew and zealous for the whole law not just the Ten (and in the very next breath reminds us the law was not binding on Gentiles), tells us if you've stumbled in any of the whole law, you've broken it all (JAS. 2: 10). The law is one unit. The law is not divided by the Bible into the moral law, the national law, and the ceremonial law. Those are manmade constructs. Helpful, but manmade. It's the same thing here. The law is not divided into the Ten and all those other ones over there somewhere. There is no functional difference at all. There is no difference because regardless of who wrote them or when they were given, they are all terms of one Covenant.

If you aren't keeping all the law, then you aren't keeping the law at all. (GAL. 3: 10)

TRANSGRESSION

"The Ten Commandments define sin and give guidelines for humans to live by."
-Robert Berendt

Ummmmm ... what??

I don't know where Mr. Berendt gets this idea that the Ten define sin; the Ten specifically. Not from the Bible! He might grab his King James Version and open to I John 3: 4, which reads:

(I JON. 3: 4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

We address the horrendous translation of this verse in the KJV in several articles. We recommend "Antinomianism and Motivation of Heart". In short, that mistranslation is not what the Greek means.
But Mr. Berendt does not grab his KJV to support his claim. He does not use this verse to support his claim at all. He does cite this verse later in his article, but from another version which translates it very differently. If the author didn't get his claim from this verse in the KJV, where did he get it? He doesn't say. He just makes the claim as if it is axiomatic and we are all just going to agree with it. But it isn't obvious at all.

I will tell you where he gets it. He gets it from Herbert Armstrong. 

"...the TEN COMMANDMENTS, God's great SPIRITUAL LAW..."
-Herbert Armstrong, "What Is The True Gospel?", 1972, p. 10

The main justifying verse Armstrong used was Matthew 19: 17-19, where Jesus tells the Rich Young Ruler to keep the Ten Commandments in order to enter into life.

Except! The Rich Young Ruler replies he has been doing that his whole life. Clearly this was a set up. Jesus was leading the young man to something. Jesus then tells him to sell everything he has and follow Him, which saddens the man, who then walks away. The point was never the Ten. Jesus knew the man was already keeping the Ten. It is good that he did so! He was a Jew in the Old Covenant period, after all. It just wasn't sufficient. The point was faith. Jesus demonstrated that even the Rich Young Man's best actions and intentions were insufficient where salvation is concerned, and encouraged him to place his faith in Him. The man didn't like that and went away. He had the Commandments, but refused faith. The "great SPIRITUAL LAW" got him precisely nowhere.
When the Apostles asked Jesus about all of this, His point was not at all about keeping the Ten Commandments. It was entirely about faith. This is the same chapter and selection where you get these two very popular sayings:

“With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (v. 26)
"But many who are first will be last, and the last first." (v. 30)

Martha goes into more detail on this topic in her article, "Who Requires What For Salvation?"

That is where Mr. Berendt gets his claim about the Ten Commandments - from Herbert Armstrong bungling a proof-text.

What Mr. Berendt does here is the exact same thing the Adventists do when they say "the law (the Ten Commandments)". They take the whole law, throw away almost all of it, and limit it to the Ten only. We talked about this very thing in my article in the link at the start of this post. Clearly, Adventism has infected Armstrongism. My fears seem confirmed. But where do the Adventists get it? Nowhere! They just make it up and expect us to accept it.

"Can we humans discard or change that which God wrote?"
"Can we add to the laws or take away portions? I think not!"
-Robert Berendt

Well, apparently yes, we can. Because he's doing it right here! He is discarding 98% of the law and retaining 2%.

And it's not just here. Armstrongism changes the law all the time. Just look at how Armstrongism flagrantly changes the law in order to receive tithes. For example, read my post "Who Pays Tithe of a Tithe?"

Again and again and again we see legalism wants it both ways. They don't want anyone to touch the Sabbath, claiming the law is eternal and inviolable, but they immediately discard or change the vast majority of the other laws. And if you want to really split hairs, they change the Sabbath, too. They change it from a day of rest to a day of church and other activities.

This approach causes more issues than it solves. If the Ten define sin, anything not mentioned in the Ten cannot be sin. That is a terrible issue for a legalist system. If the Ten define sin, then you can ignore tithing, meats, holy days, and etc. And, to split hairs again, you can ignore what day you go to church. Whoops!

What did we just explore in the previous section? That the Ten are not above and beyond the rest of the law. Peculiar among the laws in how they were given, yes, ten that represent the entire body of Covenant law, yes, but above and beyond the rest of the laws, no. There, Mr. Berendt drove a wedge between the Ten and the rest of the laws, but at least he kept the rest around. Here, Mr. Berendt replaces all laws with just the Ten. I cannot agree that is how the Old Covenant functioned. More importantly, I cannot agree that is how the New Covenant functions.

Bear in mind, we can debate all day long about how the Ten were this or that, or how the Old Covenant operated this way or that, but the Old Covenant is gone. There is no Old Covenant anymore. We are not under that Covenant. We are in the New Covenant. Everything we are discussing here is purely academic.

But if you think what Mr. Berendt did in this section is unorthodox, just you wait. It gets worse.

AD ABSURDIUM

"Hebrews 8:5 reveals that what God instructed Moses to make was a COPY of that which is in heaven! Moses was to be careful of each detail. Can we not see that what was within the ark was also a copy?"
-Robert Berendt

Again ... what??

For some background, Mr. Berendt is trying to build a case for the Ten by saying they are special in that they are a copy built after a master original in Heaven. The Bible never says this. The Bible never even remotely says this.

Mr. Berendt starts by saying the Ten were placed in the earthly Ark. And they were. That much is true. What Ark? The Ark of the Covenant. The Ten, which represent all the terms of the Old Covenant, were placed in the Ark, the container, of the Covenant. Again, the star of this show is the Covenant, not the Ten.
Mr. Berendt proceeds to point out God told Moses to make a careful copy of things in Heaven. And this is true. But not in Exodus 25: 10-22, where the construction of the Ark was described. In the case of the Ark, God never said to make a careful copy. Mr. Berendt's implication is that the Ark and the Ten are copies of originals that exist in Heaven. For his proof text, he cites Hebrews 8: 5. Let's read that for ourselves:

(HEB. 8: 5) They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Mind the details! It says sanctuary. Does it say the Ark is a copy? No. More importantly, does it say the tablets are copies? No. They also put the Book of the Law in there (DEU. 31: 26). Nothing says that was a copy. Aaron's rod that budded was in the Ark, too. Does it say the rod that budded was a copy? No. "But xHWA," I hear someone saying, "Moses didn't make the rod that budded." Correct. He also didn't make the tablets. Remember, Mr. Berendt spent most of his time emphasizing how God wrote on the tablets, not Moses. Why, God's participation is the very thing at the center of this entire post, is it not? But now it's Moses making the tablets. Did God make them or did Moses? Can't have it both ways!

What does it say? The tabernacle, the sanctuary where the Levites served, was a copy. It wasn't that the Ark was a copy, but the sanctuary, the place where the Ark was kept, was a copy. Nowhere does the Bible say God sits on a box with two cherubs over His head. Even when we see representations of God's mobile throne, does it look like the Ark (EZE. 1: 4-28)? No. So, how are the Ark and the two tablets an exact copy? They aren't.

And again, let's read how Paul continues his point:

(HEB. 9: 23-24) 23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence.

Does it say Christ entered the Ark? No. Does it say Christ entered the tablets? No. It says He entered a sanctuary. Were the tablets purified with blood every year at Atonement? No. The altar was purified with blood, but not the contents of the Ark.

To support his claim of the Ark being a copy, Mr. Berendt points to Revelation 11: 19, where the Ark is seen in Heaven. He uses this as support that the Ark was always in heaven and the earthly one was just a copy. That is indeed a novel way to interpret this verse. I am unconvinced. I had always been taught this was the Ark that Moses made. We can't find it because it's in Heaven. Yet, I have never found that convincing, either. The Catholics say that is Mary. I am not getting into that here. Just mentioning it as a curiosity and to show there are other ways of interpreting this verse. I interpret Revelation 11: 9 as being just more apocalyptic symbolism.

So, was Paul's (or whoever authored Hebrews) point that absolutely everything, right down to the Ten, is a copy of heavenly originals? No.
The point had nothing to do with the greatness of the Ten, but the superiority of Christ  - particularly the the Priesthood of Christ, the blood of Christ, and the New Covenant in His blood (HEB. 9: 15) - even over Torah. Jesus was greater than the Priesthood and Torah. That is the point.
If Mr. Berendt read Hebrews 8 & 9 and came away with the notion that it demonstrates the superiority of the Old Covenant, I must doubt that he was paying any attention at all.

In our rush to glorify the Ark, let's not forget what Jeremiah said about it:

(JER. 3: 16) “Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days,” says the Lord, “that they will say no more, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore."

The Lord doesn't seem too concerned over it.

Mr. Berendt starts at a definite and extrapolates to the completely unnecessary.

Personally, I do not think the copies are meant to be understood as exact copies. For example, I don't think there is a tent in Heaven, or a mobile table for bread, or that there was a curtain obscuring access to the throne, or that the throne was on a box. I get the sense that what Moses was told to make are representatives of ideas. God has a temple, so Moses made a tent for a temple. God has an alter, so Moses made a mobile table for an incense altar. He had to be careful to do exactly what He was told, but they aren't exact copies, they just represent things that are in Heaven. That's just my opinion.

ALL COMMANDMENTS ARE THE TEN COMANDMENTS

The rest of the article is pretty much a grand finale of proof texts containing the English word "commandments" - that do not mean what he takes them to mean - and a bunch of talk about writing the Ten Commandments on hearts - to the exclusion of all other law - and an exhortation to love the Sabbath. Errrr, the Ten, I mean. Typical fare.

As for the English word commandments, we refer you to our article "If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments". It is well past time we get a better quality of discernment in here about this word. I would remind you that the Ten Commandments were never called "commandments" to begin with. That is a mistranslation. Again, I will quote Judaism 101:

"In the Torah, these words are never referred to as the Ten Commandments. In the Torah, they are called Aseret ha-D'varim (Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 and Deut. 10:4). In rabbinical texts, they are referred to as Aseret ha-Dibrot. The words d'varim and dibrot come from the Hebrew root Dalet-Beit-Reish, meaning word, speak or thing; thus, the phrase is accurately translated as the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements, the Ten Declarations, the Ten Words or even the Ten Things, but not as the Ten Commandments, which would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot."
-"Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments", Tracery R Rich, Judaism 101. Accessed 6-2024.

We cannot give the Ten a new name in English, then use that new name as a basis for interpreting every instance where the English word commandments appears. "Look, these laws are called 'Ten Commandments' now, and there is the word commandments over there, so they are the same thing!" Uhhh .. no. That isn't how proper Bible interpretation works. That is far beyond irresponsible handling of the Word.

As for writing the law on our hearts, we need to think about when God said that. The quote comes from Jeremiah 31: 33. What was the law at that time? Was it the Ten only, or the Ten plus all of those other laws over there somewhere? Obviously it was the whole law. Do you feel like Armstrongists who quote this verse have all 613 laws in mind? No. Does Mr. Berendt have all 613 in mind? No. They all have taken the law, split it into three groups - moral, ceremonial, and national - then evaporated 2/3. We can see every legalist who pulls this proof text fails to believe it themselves. It sounds great when you want to support Sabbath-keeping, but not so great when you understand that package comes with a requirement for New Moons, Gentile exclusion, three trips to Jerusalem every year, booths, shofars, tzitzit, and a Sanhedrin (just to mention a few things). So, I say no legalist who cites this verse really believes it.
My old catch phrase seems particularly relevant here, "The law! The law! Just not that law."

For more on the law being written on your heart, see Bill's article "The Spirit of the Law".

CONCLUSION

Did you keep those three items in mind form the start of this article? Do you see how nothing in this entire article changes any of those three? 

In his article, Mr. Berendt took an idea, blew it grossly out of proportion, and hoped the wonder and glamour of it would sufficiently distract you from noticing there is no substance to it.
The main thrust of this article is the mere fact that the Ten were written by the finger of God makes them superior to all other laws, replacements for all other laws (the ones we don't like), universally applicable to all mankind, and all people should go to church on Saturday. The biggest flaw in the article is the main idea is unproved. He never proved that being written by the finger of God has those results.

I counter "written by God therefore universal" makes no sense, because then anything written by God would need to have those same attributes, including "mene mene tekel upharsin". And "written by God therefore they replace all other laws" makes no sense, which should be self evident, because that should have been true from the very start yet the rest of the law was given after the Ten. If the rest of the law was so replaceable, why give it at all? And "written by God therefore part of the New Covenant" makes zero sense at all, because they were specifically given for the Old Covenant. That just isn't how covenants work. And "written by God therefore go to church on Saturday" makes no sense, because the Sabbath was about rest not church. Going to church on Saturday is a tradition of men.

Are the Ten special? I think so. They were written and engraved on stone separately from the rest. Those Ten represented the entire body of terms of the Old Covenant. Not replace, but represent. So, they are special. I just don't agree that gives them all these attributes Mr. Berendt and the Adventists claim it gives them.

I find the argument that God wrote the Ten with His own hand to be much less convincing than most other arguments. It seems like a grand stretch to me. It definitely bears the marks of confirmation bias. Even when taken with the totality of the rest of the claims of Armstrongism, I just cannot find enough to convince me. Too much other evidence has to be altered or ignored or redefined, or in some cases outright lied about, and that is something I just can't get past. After all that effort, in order to get the Ten to be binding on all mankind, the author is still left trying to find something in the New Covenant that ties the Ten to Gentiles. Being written by the finger of God at Sinai just is not that something.

As for the article itself, it was merely typical at best. Nothing in particular stood out to me. Clearly, it was written for people who already believe like the author. I agreed with the part where he claimed the Sabbath cannot be changed to Sunday. It cannot. I was most disappointed at the section where the author tried to claim the Ten are a copy of originals in Heaven. They were not. That was just taking it too far for my taste. And I believe all this mess stems from unqualified Protestants in the 16th century coming to regrettable conclusions. But at the same time, the article wasn't particularly ridiculous or poisonous like other articles I've reviewed. One particularly bad example would be "Review of COGWA's Origin of Easter". That article was really bad!

The main reason I came to this article in the first place was to see if Adventism had infected Armstrongism in this specific topic, due to a comment by Child Survivor on my earlier post "The Law (The Ten Commandments)". It is the Adventists who make a big deal about the finger of God. Sadly, we can see that, yes, the infection has spread. A little. Good thing not too many Armstrongists seem to be more excited about this particular claim than I am.

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

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

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