Covenant Loyalty, Righteousness In Faith

I have stumbled across an idea that interests me. I was listening to a podcast during my commute. For whatever reason, when the podcast ended, I decided I wanted to listen to it again from the middle. Something told me I had not paid sufficient attention to it. I did that again two more times. I was certain I'd missed something good, I just didn't know what it was. (Obviously! Because I'd missed it.) On the fourth go around, I finally caught on.

Today, I want to investigate the relationship between covenant, loyalty, obedience, disloyalty, transgression, righteousness, and faith. They are interwoven. Is that a lot? Let me simplify. I want to look at how our righteousness can be from faith in the New Covenant. Righteousness from faith is a difficult concept for people like me, from legalist backgrounds. I think it's important for any Christian from any system to understand.

When you think of righteousness, what comes to mind?
I would guess you are saying to me, "Moral behavior, right thinking, obeying God's laws etc." You wouldn't be far from what most readers of this blog would say.
When you think of transgression, what comes to mind?
I would guess opposite things from righteousness, "Breaking God's laws, sinful thinking, immoral behavior, etc."
No doubt you have at least one Bible verse in mind. So would I!

I am going to ask you to consider tweaking your response just a bit, by being acutely aware of the concept of a covenant at the center of your responses. In our responses above, we never mentioned faith. We should have started with that. This is a post about how righteousness and faith are linked.

Funny how this all ties in so well with my post "Are The Ten Commandments Removed?".

THE MISSING DIMENSION IN LAW

In Armstrongism, the system I was once in, we were taught the way to follow God is to keep His laws. That seems reasonable enough. You want to be a good Christian, right? Of course you do! How? If you want to know how to live rightly, why not turn to the Old Testament and ask the law what to do?

(DEU. 7: 9, 11) 9 “Therefore know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments; ... 11 Therefore you shall keep the commandment, the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today, to observe them.

(JON. 14: 15) If you love Me, keep My commandments.

See? Not only is Jesus blatantly insinuating that He is God, but He says if you love God, you will do what He commands. Seems reasonable that this refers to the law.
Well, you know, 2% of the law, anyway. Most of the time.

But there's something missing here: the Covenant.
The missing dimension is the commandments, statutes, and judgments - in other words, the law - are the Covenant. Along with the promises; the blessings and cursings. The law is the Covenant and the Covenant is the law.

Look at how God speaks to Abraham (this is not the Old Covenant but the Abrahamic):

(GEN. 17: 9) This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised...

Covenants are contracts, and they have terms. Terms are things you have to do to satisfy the covenant. For man's side of the Abrahamic Covenant, circumcision is the only term. The rest was up to God.
The terms are the covenant and the covenant is its terms. Because it is. Because that is the nature of covenants.

This same thing happens with the Old Covenant:

(DEU. 4: 13) So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

Here that same peculiar language is. The terms are the covenant and the covenant is its terms. For the Old Covenant, those terms are called "laws", because they apply to a nation - the nation of Israel.

The same thing happens in the opposite direction, from the perspective of breaking the terms.

If you did not keep the term, then you broke the Abrahamic Covenant:

(GEN. 17: 14) And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.

And if you did not keep the terms, then you broke the Old Covenant:

(JER. 11: 10) They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers who refused to hear My words, and they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken My covenant which I made with their fathers.

Keeping the terms is keeping the covenant; breaking the terms is breaking the covenant. Because the terms are the covenant and the covenant is its terms.

When an Israelite broke a law, did they break a law only or did they violate the Old Covenant? They violated the Covenant! That is how James was able to say if you've stumbled in anything, you've broken everything (JAS. 2: 10). Transgressing a term defaults the entire agreement. You've been disloyal.
Or, think of it in marital terms. If you commit adultery, did you transgress the adultery rule only, or did you violate the entire marriage covenant? You violated it all! Only an idiot would say, "All I did was commit adultery. I kept most of the marriage covenant. It's just one rule out of many. It's not so bad in the grand scheme." You were disloyal to the marriage covenant as a whole.

Failing the outward signs, transgressing the laws, changing ordinances, committing idolatry - it is all breaking the covenant. Because the law does not exist apart from the covenant. The covenant is the law and the law is the covenant.

Do you see how obedience, loyalty, transgression, disloyalty, and covenant are all related? They are covenant words. Loyalty to God is through loyalty to the covenant God made with you. You want to be considered righteous? Then be loyal to your covenant. Don't want to be loyal to your covenant? That's considered wickedness. Do you see how it all relates?

It all comes back to covenant. Covenant is the missing dimension in law.

WHICH COVENANT?

People in our time - who are not Israelites and not party to the Old Covenant - will take those covenant terms (the laws) and remove them from their covenant context (the Old Covenant). Then they claim the laws continue forever, apart from the covenant. Laws just leap like a deer from covenant to covenant, all on their own. Then they divide the laws up, throw most of them out, and claim they are keeping the law.
But that is not how any of this works.

"The seventh-day Sabbath is a sign between God and His people," the Sabbatarians say. The Sabbath was a sign, yes, but a sign of what? Of loyalty to a covenant. If you kept the Sabbath, it was an outward sign that you were loyal to that covenant. "It shows we are God's people," they say. Yes, a sign does identify loyal people. That was it's purpose. But not apart from the covenant. The sign shows you are loyal to God by being loyal to the covenant. It was a sign of covenant loyalty.
But you aren't a part of that Old Covenant. No one is.

Tell me, which books of the Bible did you read about the Sabbath being a sign of the covenant? Exodus and Ezekiel. Those books were part of what Testament? The Old Testament. And which covenant was in effect then? The Old Covenant.

Loyalty to terms of a covenant identifies which people are members of the Covenant. The weekly Sabbath was one of the two outward signs of the Old Covenant. It is difficult to know who is coveting, but it is easy to know who is circumcised or resting on the seventh day. If you are keeping the Sabbath as a sign of loyalty, and using proof-texts from Exodus and Ezekiel to back it up, then what covenant are you showing loyalty to? The Old Covenant! Of course you are using Old Covenant dialogue to back it up, because it is an Old Covenant sign.

But which Covenant are we supposed to be loyal to? We are supposed to be loyal to the covenant we are in: the New Covenant! The weekly Sabbath is never once at any point made a term of the New Covenant, by anyone, ever. It is not the sign of the New Covenant. What is?

(JON. 13: 35) By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

Love is the New Covenant sign of loyalty.

I had to speak about covenant in this article because it is critical. I hoped to take your mind off of "The law! The law! The law!" and refocus it on "The covenant! The covenant! The covenant!"
I want you to keep in mind this phrase: covenant loyalty.

RIGHTEOUSNESS IS IMPUTED

We've talked about covenants. We've talked about loyalty to your covenant. Now let's talk a little about the nature of righteousness. There is something critical we need to be very much aware of. Righteousness does not come from what you do. It is always imputed.

You already know about the "faith chapter", Hebrews 11. People were heroes for having faith. You already know that righteousness was imputed to Abraham because he believed. But you might not know the same happened to Israel because they were loyal to their covenant.

(DEU. 6: 25) 24 And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. 25 Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.’

That doesn't say they will become righteous. As if to say their fallen nature will be changed. It says it will be their righteousness. As if to say righteousness will be imputed. Sacrificing and resting and blue thread in your clothes does not make you a good person. But if that is your covenant loyalty, then righteousness is imputed to you for those things.

Some tried to keep the covenant and some did not. Altogether, however, the law did nothing for what they were inside.

(PSA. 14: 2-3) 2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. 3 They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one.

Psalm 54 repeats this. No, they did not become righteous.

So, how does the Bible say out of one side of its mouth that some people were righteous, and out of the other side of its mouth that no one is? It says none are righteous because none of us are righteous, it's true! We tend towards wickedness by nature. God alone is righteous by nature. But to those with covenant loyalty, righteousness was imputed. You never really deserve it. It's given to you. It is given even though you don't really deserve it.

Why is this so important to understand? Because the question shouldn't be about how we become righteous, but how we get that righteousness imputed to us. The way to imputed righteousness is loyalty to the covenant you are in. It is not through some covenant you are not in. You want righteousness? Be loyal to the covenant you are in. God is not going to impute righteousness to you for things He didn't ask you to do.
"God, I didn't really do what you asked me to do, but I did like 2% of those things you told those people to do. I knocked it out of the park, too. I went above and beyond. Now, give my my inheritance." How about no.

Back when I was an Armstrongist, I tried to be right with God by keeping the law (some of it ... some of the time). I had such good intentions! I only wanted to be a good and faithful person. I went about it all wrong. I listened to people who told me to get righteousness by keeping Old Covenant laws; terms of a covenant none of us were in. I was doomed to fail before I even started. The very base assumption - that God wants us to obtain righteousness from the Old Covenant law - is not correct under the New Covenant.

The people I was listening to told me the terms of the Old Covenant pretty much were the terms of the New. "The laws are brought forward into the New Covenant unless otherwise stated," they said. That was simply not correct. If you want more about why not, please read our post "Confusing the Covenants". Since that post explains this, I will skip it here. Suffice it to say, that is not at all how covenants work. Terms do not jump from covenant to covenant all on their own. Two different covenants, two different sets of terms, two different sets of promises.

In the Old Covenant, Torah was the means to covenant loyalty. So long as they also had faith, that is. But there were issues. Law-keeping was insufficient to please God (LUK. 17: 10). The law does not justify us (GAL. 2: 16). The law made nothing perfect (HEB. 7: 18-19a). The law made no one truly righteous (ROM. 8: 3). The law wasn't enough for the Rich Young Ruler, it wasn't enough for the Pharisees, it wasn't enough for Israel, and it isn't enough for us. Is that the law's fault? No! The law is good and just. It's our fault. The law from outside of us could not change our sinful nature. That is why we need a Savior.

(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.

Do you understand the magnitude of what this verse says? It means if we could accomplish our goal of pleasing God through the law, then Jesus died in vain! That means the law only ever showed us our own inability to obtain righteousness by our own efforts. It also means Jesus' death fundamentally altered the entire landscape.

I was proving God right. "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (ROM. 7: 24). Where is the solution??

FAITH!

RIGHTEOUSNESS IN FAITH

'What?! xHWA, do you mean to tell me, this whole time, I just do nothing and believe, then I will be right with God?"
No.
I mean to tell you that this whole time if you are loyal to your covenant, then you would have been right with God.

Faith is not about doing nothing. That is something legalists say to make faith look bad. "Greasy grace" and other slanders. Everyone needs faith, even a legalist. A law-centered person looks at a grace-centered person and says they aren't doing anything because they don't keep the law. But they are doing something -- they are being loyal to the covenant they are in.

We are saved by our faith. We are called to love. Do you think love is easy??

Hebrews 11, "the faith chapter", talks about a lot of people who had faith and were right with God, but none of them did nothing. Even some people who kept the law are listed, but not because of law-keeping, rather because of their faith. None of them did nothing. Some of them, like Rahab, did quite risky things. All of them let their faith manifest as action. But what action is expected of us? The action required by our Covenant. We must follow the Holy Spirit into works of charity and love, that's what we do (GAL. 5: whole chapter). But it starts with faith.

Righteousness is loyalty. Transgression is disloyalty. Loyalty or disloyalty to what? To God, via His covenant. Which covenant? It depends on who you are and when you lived. For us today, it's the New Covenant. What are the terms of the New Covenant? Faith and love! Loyalty to God via loyalty to His New Covenant means having faith in God and following the Holy Spirit into acts of love to one another. We are saved by faith, we are called to love. That is our covenant loyalty. Not Sabbath. Not circumcision. Covenant loyalty in the New Covenant is faith and love.

This is why the New Testament talks about obedience to the faith (ACT. 6: 7; ROM. 1: 5-6). This is also why the New Testament talks about judgment for those who do not "obey the Gospel" (ROM. 10: 6; II THS. 1: 8; I PET. 4: 17 ). What do you mean "obey the Gospel"? It means believing Jesus is who He said He is and will do what He said He will do, and then becoming His disciple. Not Moses' disciple but Jesus'. Obeying the Gospel does not even factor in under the Old Covenant system, but it factors heavily into New Covenant system and only makes sense under that system. (Are you sure the Gospel isn't for today? Not even a little?)

I think some people have an issue with righteousness imputed for faith because in their minds they see righteousness being directly related to things we do. In other words, works. We do good works, and that makes us good people. Like I said at the very start of this post,

When you think of righteousness, what comes to mind? I would guess you are saying to me, "Moral behavior, right thinking, obeying God's laws etc."

But here is the thing -- righteousness is not caused by things we do. The things we do are a result of the righteousness imputed to us by faith. More specifically, works are a result of us following the guidance of the Holy Spirit in-dwelling.

The focus is backwards in some people. They think faith → works (in other words law) → righteousness, when it really is faith → righteousness → works (in other words love).

That is why I want to impress upon you the idea of covenant loyalty so much. Righteousness is always imputed. God alone is good. Righteousness is not imputed for law-keeping, but for covenant loyalty. Your covenant loyalty is faith and love. Faith IS our obedience, and it is expressed in love. That will be righteousness to us.

For people in the New Covenant, to try and obtain our righteousness from law is to stumble at the stumbling stone (ROM. 9: 30-33). That stumbling stone is Jesus Christ - the guy you're tying to please by failing at keeping the law you weren't asked to keep.

So, to summarize --
Righteousness is imputed to us by faith, and that faith is expressed in works of love as we follow the direction of the Holy Spirit. That is our New Covenant loyalty.

CONCLUSION

What was the idea that interested me? Righteousness is imputed to us for covenant loyalty. Our way to be loyal to the New Covenant is faith. Our visible sign is love.

At the start, I said, "Today, I want to investigate the relationship between covenant, loyalty, obedience, disloyalty, transgression, righteousness, and faith. They are interwoven."

Do you see how this all comes together? Do you see how this all relates?

Covenant loyalty. Imputed righteousness in faith. Evidenced in love.

Do you want to be a good Christian? The trick is to be mindful of what Covenant you are in. The Bible was not written directly to us, but it was written for us. The wise know the difference. There are so many lessons in the Old Covenant for us, but it was not given to us. It was given to Israel. We were given the New Covenant. Faith is how you remain loyal to the covenant you are in. The outward sign of your faith is love. I hope the phrase "covenant loyalty" helps you to understand.

"Covenant! Covenant! Covenant!" not "Law! Law! Law!"

Good thing I listened to that podcast the fourth time! Or I would have missed it.

Do you know what the truly mind-bending thing in all of this is? If you follow the Holy Spirit, and pursue covenant loyalty through faith and love, you will end up fulfilling the whole law - the very thing the legalists hoped to do in the first place (ROM. 3: 31; GAL. 5: 14).
Like I said in the post "Are The Ten Commandments Removed?":

"Am I throwing Matthew 5: 19 out the window? No. I am not telling you to break the commandments. I am telling you the only way you can possibly hope to keep them as expected."

No doubt many will have lingering questions. If you have questions about the law being eternal, we have two posts for that: "Common Legalist Arguments - Part V" and "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI". I would also recommend to you "Are The Ten Commandments Removed?". If you have questions about moral laws continuing into the New Covenant, we have a post for that: "What Use Is The Old Law?". If you have questions about the sabbath rest that remains, we have a post for that: "The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4". And don't forget we have a general FAQ Page where we answer some standard questions.

This post is dedicated to Angela. God bless you.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Where Do We Draw The Line?

Greetings, dear readers. It's your punctilious proliferator of peeves and profundities, presenting a post about paganism and principles. Today, I would like to talk about where to draw the line with people of weak conscience who take issue with holidays and birthdays. Also, there is something you should know about the people who peddle these message about holidays being evil.
Yes, it is that time of year.

I was reading through my old 2018 article "Three Reasons Why I Stopped Keeping Christmas - Part II", because I honestly could not remember what it was about, and in the comments I noticed a small mention of scruples. To refresh your memory, scruples are, "An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action" (from the American Heritage Dictionary).
I said in a comment:

"I can promise you that once you start down that road to scrupulosity, there is virtually no end to that road. There is practically no limit to the things a person can question and worry about. You can become a slave to it. Trust me on this one, I have seen some seriously enslaved people who worry about the smallest little things and constantly need reassurance. Their lives are beset by it."
-Me, back then.

Nothing has changed my mind about that statement.
But the reason I said that was in response to a request for more holiday articles on things even like the Fourth of July or Thanksgiving. I never did write those articles. It's not that I thought it was an unreasonable request. I thought at the time it would be more efficient to get directly to the heart of the matter - which I think is scrupulosity.

Scruples are good. Scrupulosity is not. Scrupulosity takes our good conscience and twists it into fear and doubt. It can paralyze us with questions and worries. It can take over our lives. It can negatively affect our relationship with our Savior. Not good!

It can be beneficial to go away from your own posts for a while then visit back again after forgetting all about them. When I am thinking about what to write, I know just what I mean. When I write, that doesn't always come across as I'd thought. Coming back later erases all those thoughts and gives me the perspective of a first-time reader. Many times I say to myself, "I think I know what I was getting at, but it could have been stated so much clearer." This is one of those times.

I had hoped it would be more efficient to comment on scrupulosity rather than write more articles. But I never really explained what I meant by scrupulosity nor gave any advice at all on what to do about it. I was asked about holidays and responded with scrupulosity, and that was that. It all made sense to me back then, but now it seems I sidestepped the request without heeding it at all. Not what I intended!
You know what they say about good intentions.
Maybe I can make amends six years later?

As I discussed in my post "Peddlers of Paganism", there are people out there who make their living off exploiting people's fears and scrupulosity. They twist good things, things created to be received with thanksgiving, into doubtful things. They tell you God cannot save you if you enjoy pine trees or lights or candy or various mundane things, even when God Himself used these items in His worship in the Bible. They use shifting definitions they themselves don't meet. They tell you once a thing is tinged with paganism it remains pagan forever. They tell you that you can secretly contract paganism without even being aware of it. They tell you that you are headed for condemnation if you celebrate God's own miracles. And it doesn't matter at all how terribly false their claims are, so long as the end result affirms what they want to hear. How preposterous!
I disagree with all of these things, and ABD has several articles that explain why.

I also said in that same post:

"The question is - how far do we take this? Do we let people of weak conscience control our lives and our homes and our churches? No. Their weak conscience is not a license for manipulation."

Much of this discussion on drawing a line rests on good taste and Christian charity. Paul is clear, in I Corinthians 8 and 10, that a good Christian bears those of weak conscience with patience and charity. Sometimes, doing the right thing means avoiding what we fully believe is perfectly acceptable if that thing upsets our brethren of weak conscience. We bear it until they mature in the faith.
But that has to have its limits.

We cannot let people of scrupulosity and superstition take over our churches, our faith, and our good conscience. To bear with a brother or sister in Christ with patience and understanding is good! It's the loving thing. It's the Christian thing. But not when it ends up making people feel terrible about themselves and causes division.

The anonymous commentor on my Christmas post said:

"If there is truly a pagan holiday out there then I'll give it up for God. No pagan holiday is worth participating in if it risks our relationship with God."

That is noble! There is a very commendable spirit at work in this heart. Look at how they are willing to repent and change anything they feel comes between them and their Savior. Well done!

But!

That good intention is easily taken advantage of by people of weak conscience and ignoble motives who peddle paganism. The comment started, "If there is truly a pagan holiday..." Therein lies the rub. The holidays are most often not pagan. The claims most often false.
The good intention of avoiding paganism is taken advantage of. That particular commentor might not be easily taken advantage of, but I have had several other readers over the years who were/are.

Do pay attention to your conscience. Do not violate it! But at the same time, do not base your conscience and decisions on the questionable information you get from peddlers of paganism. Test the spirits!

I want you to know something else, most esteemed reader. The story you are being told about pagan holidays, from many sources but not all, is not really about informing you. What it is really about is uplifting themselves in their own eyes by putting you down.
Those are not informative messages you are reading. Those are accusations.

In Armstrongism, the system the As Bereans Did blog is mainly about, my former church system, we did not tell people about their pagan ways to educate and reform them. That would be a misunderstanding. We were told the rest of the world is not being called by God right now. We literally were told that to help the world is to fight against God. We were even discouraged from giving to charity because of this. Those messages about paganism were never intended to bring the world to repentance. Then why did we put out so much material about pagan holidays and etc? We did it for us! We preached about the world's pagan ways so we could feel superior! That message isn't for you, it's for them. And it goes far beyond holidays.

Herbert Armstrong's Church of God movement is a branch of Seventh Day Adventism. They preach seventh-day Sabbath, Old Covenant holy days, meats laws, tithing, and various other Old Covenant traditions. They are anti-Trinitarian, and believe the Holy Spirit is not a person. They are iconoclasts, and believe the image of the Cross of Christ is a pagan symbol of Tammuz. They used to believe (and some still do) whites are a superior race descended from Noah's son Shem, and other races are cursed. They believe British-Israelism (aka. Anglo-Israelism) which says God secretly preserved people of Israelite descent who populate western Europe, America, and Australia in this modern day, to be His only called people. They believe all Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and almost every other Christian tradition besides (sometimes including other Armstrongist churches) are all condemned, deceived followers of Satan the devil, who have all been purposefully relegated by God Himself into the system of "Babylon the Great and her Harlot daughters". They believe that grace is a very different thing than how mainstream Christians understand it, and grace is only for those who keep the things they keep and don't keep the things they don't keep. They believe if you do not join them in ALL of their beliefs, then you are doomed in this life, and only in your next life will you be given an opportunity to repent, and then you will live in eternity under their rulership and benevolent guidance.

This is not just about holidays, dear reader. Not by a long shot.

These people who accuse you of paganism are not calling you pagan just because of holidays, and they are not going to stop calling you a pagan just because you stop keeping holidays. Holidays are but the tip of the iceberg. This was never really about Christmas or Easter or birthdays. You don't keep Christmas? OK. But you're still a pagan to them for so many other reasons.
None of their annual messages about pagan holidays are to help you stop being a pagan. There are two very real reasons for it: 1) to accuse you of being a pagan, and 2) to reassure themselves of their superiority. They put you down to lift themselves up.

You cannot challenge them. You cannot reason with them. You cannot plead. This isn't about facts and truth, it's about reaffirmation. Do you understand now why the accuracy of their source material does not matter to them? Do you understand now why they will not listen to anyone no matter what evidence is offered? It was never about accuracy. It was always about affirmation. You need to be aware of this so you can truly be informed about what this message about pagan holidays really is. 

They might not post their content for your good, but I hope As Bereans Did does. That is my sincere hope in every post. That you are helped, and God is glorified.

Now, we go back to Paul's advice.

In I Corinthians, Paul said to be aware of your fellow Christian's weak conscience. But Paul also said to Timothy (in the context of bondservants, but I believe the lesson applies here):

(I TIM. 6: 3-5) 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.

This very same Paul who was very conciliatory in I Corinthians has clearly drawn a line in I Timothy. A line must be drawn at some point. We cannot infinitely give way to our brethren of weak conscience. We cannot treat them poorly, because that is uncharitable and un-Christian, but we cannot allow people of weak conscience to stay immature in the faith forever, and we cannot allow ourselves to be led by those who are immature in the faith.

If people will not listen to what the Bible unambiguously says in Esther and John, that celebrating man-made holidays is completely acceptable - something even Jesus Himself participated in - but instead continue to dispute and argue and accuse, from such withdraw yourself.
If people will not listen to what history says, that Saturnalia and Brumalia were not on December 25th - to name just one of many examples where the claims are false - but instead continue to intentionally promote incorrect information, from such withdraw yourself.
If people will not listen to Ralph Woodrow or countless other researches besides, that Alexander Hislop was wrong and his claims were unfounded and conjured from his own imagination, but instead falsely accuse their fellow Christians of Nimrod worship and paganism based on known lies, from such withdraw yourself.
If people will not learn what makes for good research even though the Internet has made good research not only possible but easily obtainable, but instead persist in quoting nonsense, misrepresenting their sources, and presenting confirmation bias and century-old encyclopedias as "God's truth", from such withdraw yourself.
If people are "Refusing To Understand", but are willfully ignorant, from such turn away.

Before you who are new to this blog get too upset with me, I wrote this post assuming most people who will read it are already familiar with this ABD's extensive catalog of material on holidays, "once pagan, always pagan", and etc. Please do read our posts. I cannot expand on them all here.

If you want to know what my own personal line is, knowing what I know and having experienced what I have experienced, I draw the line at well-informed conscience. Not scrupulosity, but scruples. If I feel guilty about it, I don't do it. Easy peasy.
But then I research it. I need to know if I feel guilty reasonably or unreasonably; rightfully or mistakenly.

Scrupulosity. Superstition. Bad information. Hidden motives. Fear. Pride. Willful ignorance. Legalism. I definitely feel guilty about those things, and I won't have anything to do with them.

I also said in my Peddlers of Paganism post:

"If you really feel that badly about a holiday or a decoration, don't do it!! There is freedom in Christ. Do, or do not - it's the same. So long as it is to Christ that you do or do not do. I am not here to convince you to keep holidays. I am merely telling you that you are being falsely accused and there is no valid reason for you to feel like a pagan. Yet, if you do feel badly about something, then don't violate your conscience.
But ask yourself - do you feel badly because it is bad, or because peddlers of paganism made you think it is bad, falsely? Our articles are here to help you decide that. Test the spirits."

So, where are you going to draw the line?

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

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

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

Peddlers of Paganism

Is it that time of year already? Time for another "once pagan, always pagan" post.

The number-one subject I have been asked about over the years is in regards to holidays, and can people be pagan for participating. Got an email just last week about it. People out there are truly concerned if they are still a good Christian, not because they've renounced their faith, but because they celebrate Jesus Christ.

When a good Armstrongist friend of mine called me after many years of no contact, he just wanted to small talk. He told me he still thought I was a faithful Christian despite leaving the church (I like to think I am). He is a quality man. It was nice of him. But there was one and only one message of importance he wanted to convey: don't start keeping Christmas. He didn't call or write or anything for several years, and hasn't since, but he made a special effort to deliver me this one critical message. He could have said so many other things, like don't stop keeping the Sabbath, but he didn't. That's how important it is within that system.

Some of the messages I get are from people who are curious, some are concerned, but some are suffering. You wouldn't believe how many people from around the world live their lives in fear. I receive messages from God fearing Christians who get crippling anxiety because they had pleasant thoughts by looking at a billboard or having a passing conversation. Do we serve a God of fear? No. But fear is what they have.

Here is from one such message:

"xhwa, I am terrorized by guilt again today. Today, I was talking to receptionist and she brought up a small sentence on the Christmas tree."

Terrorized! By a conversation.
Here is from another:

"Ever since I have been made aware of pagan origin of certain traditions, my life has been a living hell. I wish I had never been exposed to such literature because it hasn't been profitable to my life. It has only given me guilt trips, moody feelings, sadness, depression. I cannot go about life without these thoughts and people infiltrating my head."

A living hell! Afraid of plants and wreaths and lights and sweets and colors and shapes. They feel happy, then guilty for feeling happy, then anxiety hits. My heart truly goes out.

Those are extreme examples, you might think. Maybe so, but they are real none the less, they are God's all the same, and they deserve dignity and truth. They feel terrible inside like they have betrayed their God all because of what they were told by media pumped out by peddlers of paganism year after year around this time.

You might wonder what I mean by "peddlers of paganism". I am referring to leaders from systems, like Armstrongism just for one example, who create media that tries to sell faithful Christians on the idea of being pagan for participating in mundane, non-salvational activities such as holidays or birthdays or for having certain decorations. They peddle the idea that sugar and wax and plants can defeat the God who ransomed you. They peddle the idea that you are a pagan. Even when you are not.
Bearing false witness.
What happened to "the TEN COMMANDMENTS, God's great SPIRITUAL LAW"? Apparently, that greatness ends at the 4th Commandment.

FORETHOUGHT AND INTENT

Let's answer the big question right up front. Are you, a God-fearing Christian, now a pagan for participating in mainstream Christian holidays? My answer is a qualified 'no'.

Merely participating in a Christian holiday, or having holiday decorations, does not - I repeat, does not - make you a pagan. Calendar dates and bits of paper and plastic and colors and shapes and flowers and candles and treats do not have the power to snatch you out of the hands of your Father in Heaven.
My "no" is qualified because it all depends on your heart and your intention. What makes you a pagan is actively, knowingly, intentionally worshipping another deity. Are you intentionally celebrating Christ? Then, no, you are not a pagan. Are you actively, knowingly, intentionally honoring some other deity, like the Gentiles of old? I am not talking about having a decoration or doing some pastime activity. I am not even talking about idols in our lives, like avarice or sex, that take your focus off your Christian walk. I am talking about actively, currently, knowingly dedicating your time and honor and hopes and worship to another deity. No? Then you have nothing to worry about. Yes? Then you are participating in something inadvisable and you really ought to rethink your path. There is no better way to utterly violate the New Covenant than that.

Notice how you would be fully aware of this. It will come as no big surprise to you. You will not need a peddler of paganism to stop by and inform you of anything because you will be well aware already. A Christian cannot accidentally or unknowingly be a pagan.

You cannot bend down to slide a gift under a tree, with thankfulness to God in your heart, and accidentally be a pagan. You cannot see an old television show, get nostalgic feelings, and suddenly be a pagan. You cannot see a display at a store, get a sense of beauty from it, and suddenly be a pagan. You cannot eat a cookie, really enjoy it, and suddenly be a pagan. That just isn't how paganism works. Did you worship the cookie or the ballet or the decoration? No. Did you replace God in your heart and intent? No. Then that was neither idolatry nor paganism.

Part of the game these peddlers of paganism play is they use such a loose definition of idolatry and paganism (when it suits them) that it goes off the deep end into superstition. Their superstition. They say a Christmas Tree is the same as child sacrifice. They say you can overpower God even by the mere presence of a candy cane. Sugar is bad for you, but not that bad! They say once a thing is pagan, it is always pagan - no matter how many millennia pass by. But is that so?

PAUL'S TAKE

What did Paul say?

(I COR. 8: 1-7) Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him. 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

An idol is nothing. How can the peddlers of paganism sell us the idea that so many things have dreadful power when Paul tells us the idol is nothing? Is Paul discounting idolatry here? No. Paul is simply saying that, to a mature Christian whose heart is solidly with God, the idol is nothing, because the idol has no power. As we saw in my post "Once and Future Kingdom - Part II", Jesus took that power away from the false gods. Idols have no power against you. How much less things that were never idols to begin with.

Then Paul continues to verse 7. He says not everyone understands that Jesus took all power away from the false gods and now those idols are nothing. For some, the idol is something, and it defiles their weak conscience. That is what the peddlers of paganism hope to get from you. They want your conscience defiled ...because their weak conscience is defiled.

(I COR. 10: 25-28) 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”

Paul, continuing the idea from chapter 8, addresses the notion that all things are lawful for us (v.24). He never denies that! But he exhorts us to remember not all things we do in our freedom are helpful or edifying for others. We should consider others in what we do. Then he gives an example.
Paul tells us we are free to go to a non-believer's house. Because we are free to! That they are pagan doesn't matter. Does their paganism make us pagan? No. We can eat whatever they set before us, asking nothing about it. Does eating and celebrating make us pagan? No. What if the meal were dedicated to pagan gods without our knowledge? Still no! That was the entire point in verse 25. Much of the meat sold in the market was openly dedicated to a pagan god within the past few days. Paul knew that. The people who asked Paul about it, prompting him to write about it, knew that. Still no. Here, Paul says that if anyone expresses concern that the food was offered to idols (he does not say the host expresses this, but anyone), then you stop and do not eat. Because it becomes pagan when someone brings it to your attention? No. You stop for their conscience, not for yours. Our conscience is clear, because our hearts belong to Jesus. But their conscience is weak.

Presumably there might be other Christians there, and those people might be put off that the food was offered to idols. Does this make the person claiming idolatry correct? No. For an idol is nothing. But it does make it a matter of good taste to treat them kindly. The question is - how far do we take this? Do we let people of weak conscience control our lives and our homes and our churches? No. Their weak conscience is not a license for manipulation. I feel this is more of a "when in Rome" sort of a thing.

Do you see how this relates to holidays and birthdays and treats and decorations?
It has to do with the notion of once pagan, always pagan. The peddlers of paganism build their entire case on it. Paul blows that up. Kindly.

Note how the dedication of the food was immediate, not thousands of years ago. And the dedication was real, not made up. Not false accusations. Paul knew that meat in the market was quite recently offered to idols within a functioning temple to a pagan god he could name by pagan priests he could see, and Paul still said to eat it. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” If that food is not once pagan, always pagan, then how much less is a Christmas cookie? Christmas decorations are dedicated to Christ, and none besides - at least by Christians anyway. Similar decorations may or may not have been used in the distant past by a defunct religious system. What does that have to do with us? Nothing. Peddlers of paganism will protest that God hates those things forever, but Paul blows that up.

Are you seriously going to tell me that I can put meat in my mouth that was dedicated to Aphrodite not 72 hours ago and it's perfectly fine, because “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness”, but if I put up a wreath-shaped cookie in my mouth that I dedicate directly to the Lord, then I am a pagan because that shape was used 2,000 years ago for a pagan purpose? Nonsense!

BIBLICALLY UNBIBLICAL

If once pagan, always pagan is a genuine issue, as the peddlers would have us believe, then we all are in big trouble, them included. If people who preach once pagan always pagan understood how many things they do which have "pagan" connections, they would be unable to function. (I am putting “pagan” in quotes because these things aren’t actually pagan. They are just falsely accused of being pagan.) There is nothing that you do that does not have a "pagan" connection except actually having faith in the Living God. You name it, if it is in our world then it has "pagan" connections.

How many times have I gone over lists of things that are used by God in the Bible or by Christian churches today that were once pagan? Many times! Here I go again:

Priesthoods, ministers, elders, sermons, temples, sacrifices, prayer, rest days (sabbaths), holidays, religious rituals like baptisms, circumcision, instructions on morality, laws and codes of behavior, parables, special decorations, sacrifices, special meals, fires, candles, incense, hymns, psalms, choruses, ritual meals, religious texts, religious schools, religious heroes, marriage, honeymoons, wedding rings ... I could go on and on.

Many of the things in the list above, which qualify as once pagan always pagan, are things the peddlers of paganism do regularly. We all do. But they excuse themselves. They excuse themselves while condemning others. "Paganism for thee, but not for me." All of these things have exactly the same "pagan" connections as jack-o-lanterns. All of these can be found in pagan religions first before they were in the Bible or in Christian practice. All of them. I thought a pagan item was the same as child sacrifice? Funny how that story changes. All of those were pagan, yet they were all adopted in worship of God.

Don't get me wrong here. God is no fan of actual, genuine idolatry. But the peddlers use a definition of idolatry that they themselves don't meet, and that changes to suit their situation.
They will tell you that God is a believer in once pagan, always pagan. That is not what we see in reality. Almost every aspect of what God commanded Israel to do, right down to the Ark of the Covenant, had some counterpart in a pagan religion. You didn't know the Ark of the Covenant was patterned directly after an Egyptian box used in religious worship? It was! God used it anyway. (Biblical Archaeology Society blog has an article on it, titled "The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context") 
God did that?? YES!
God adopted "pagan" things into His worship. It's not just Paul that blows up once pagan, always pagan. God does, too!

I have been told, "Well, those things were used by God, so that makes them OK." Fine. Let's go with that. That is the standard now. If God did it, then it's OK.

In addition to novel holidays (EST. 9: 20-28; JON. 10: 22-23), and gift-giving (EST. 9: 22), God also lists the use of statues in His worship (EXO. 25: 17-19), garland, bells and fruit (EXO. 28: 33-34; 39: 25-26; II COR. 3: 16), lights, flowers and ornamentation (EXO. 25: 31-37), greenery (LEV. 23: 40; NEH. 8: 13-15), and evergreens and pine trees (ISA. 60: 13), to name a few. Miller Jones over at the God Cannot Be Contained blog reminds us the very crown God will place on our heads, "...is indicative of the wreath, garland, coronet which was worn by the Roman emperor or given as a prize to the victor in the public games of that time..." God is going to award us a pagan wreath to wear?! Scandal!
All of these "pagan" items are used in the Bible in the proper worship of God. All of them used at Christmas. All of them condemned by peddlers of paganism.

What happened to if God did it, then it's OK? That didn't age well. Do you see how their standards change?

What's more, they will claim if God did not directly command it then we shouldn't be doing it. In other words, God never commanded Christmas, so we shouldn't do it. But is that what the Bible says?

In the Bible, God never commanded most of the Old Covenant law to Gentiles. That doesn't seem to stop anyone from doing what God didn't command. In the Bible, God sanctioned the creation of novel holidays. The Jews made up Purim and Hanukkah - and God honored both. Matha wrote one of the best articles in the ABD catalogue, "Established and Imposed". It is biblical and acceptable to create a new holiday that honors God.
So, what God does not command, that they do. They do things God did not command and then they condemn those who do not follow them. And what God allows, that they do not do. They abstain from things God allows and then they condemn those who do not follow them. If it was never pagan, then it's pagan anyway, and if it is biblical, then it's still pagan. Unless it's something they like, then it's OK. Nonsense!

(ACT. 10: 15b) "What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

They tell you December 25 was an ancient pagan holiday. It wasn't. They tell you early Christians ignored Jesus' birth. They didn't. They tell you Christmas was Nimrod's birthday. It wasn't. They tell you Christmas Trees were pagan. They weren't. They tell you Jeremiah 10 condemns Christmas trees. It doesn't. They tell you all trees are pagan. They're not. They tell you Santa is an anagram for Satan. It's not. They tell you gift-giving is wrong. It's not. They tell you Easter was an ancient pagan day. It wasn't. They tell you Easter means Ishtar. It doesn't. They tell you Jesus wasn't resurrected on Sunday. He was. They tell you it's wrong to have a holiday God didn't command. It's not. They tell you birthdays are pagan. They aren't. I could keep going and going like this, but I don't need to. We have articles for that. Go to our Categories page and look for Christmas or Easter or whatever. There it all is! I recommend starting at the Easter FAQ and the Christmas FAQ. All of the questions you have will be addressed there. If not, write me.

We can see the real story is quite the opposite of the one they peddle.

When God does it, it is redeemed and becomes clean. Unless you're a peddler of paganism. In which case you will continue to condemn those things as unredeemed and unclean. When God does it, it points to Him and is contrasted with paganism. Unless you're a peddler of paganism. In which case you will continue to condemn those things as idolatry and paganism. When God does it, the items find their proper use, as all things should be used to glorify God. Unless you're a peddler of paganism. In which case you will continue to say those items are abominations.

RIDICULOUSNESS

Does it surprise you to learn the peddlers of paganism have not been straight with you about holidays and what their history is? Their source material is garbage. They will quote anything that says what they want to hear. It doesn't matter how low the quality of the source. And if their source doesn't say what they want, they selectively quote it so it comes out how they want, or they just misrepresent it altogether. Or else they just make things up out of thin air. I can show you examples of this. I have a whole section on the Categories page just for false history, but check out these three articles, just for example. As you read them, pay attention to their sloppy research methods.

A Pattern of Dishonest Documentation
Review of COGWA's Origins of Easter
Quartodecimens - Were They Law Keepers?

Over the years , the authors at As Bereans Did have dedicated countless hours to studying the truth, and sometimes we study holidays. We have dug down deep into the dusty annals of history to bring you the facts about the origins of holidays and dates and traditions. Because we hate ourselves? It might seem that way, but no. Because they lied to us, too! Now we want the truth. And we want you to have it, too. We have investigated if holidays make us pagan. They don't. We have investigated whether or not attempting to keep "biblical" holy days is a better option. It isn't. We have deeply investigated this notion of once pagan, always pagan. It's bunk.

Debate with the peddlers all you like. It won't help. Read Dillon's article "A Dialogue on Jeremiah 10". Research and write blog posts for decades. It won't do any good. The peddlers of paganism do not change when exposed to facts and reason. There is nothing you can tell them they haven't already been exposed to. They just don't care. Do you think the people who write the books and make the videos misunderstood? Maybe they didn't read the same things as the authors here at ABD? Of course they have! I started reading the things I read because I read about them in Herman Hoeh's material. (Herman Hoeh was once the top official Armstrongist historian. "The most accurately informed man in the world.") I thought he was trustworthy. To my surprise, Hoeh selectively quoted, misrepresented, outright changed parts he didn't like, and even made things up as he went along. I know this because I went to his sources and read them (if he bothered to cite sources). I was shocked! So, I wrote blog posts (plural) about this. I quoted Hoeh, I quoted his sources, I pointed out how they were not the same, I even gave links so the reader could verify on their own ... and for my efforts I was called a liar. No, seriously. They called me the liar. Hoeh said he accurately quoted a source, I demonstrated he did not, and I am the liar for it.

You want another example? They condemn birthdays. Show me the place in the Bible where birthdays are condemned. You can't. It's not there! They condemn you based on their own opinions, not commands from the Bible. What happened to not doing things that aren't commanded? Oh, they say, "The only birthdays recorded in the Bible were celebrated by pagans," but 1) birthdays aren't religious celebrations, 2) Herod Antipas was not a pagan, he was a practicing Jew, just not a good one, so it is not true that only pagans had birthdays, and 3) there is one more birthday in the Bible they prefer to leave out: Jesus' own birthday.

(LUK. 2: 9-14) 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings 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. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” 

If that isn't celebrating, I don't know what is. I've heard of cowboys and I've heard of princesses, but I have never heard of any other time when a multitude of angels showed up and shouted for joy at a birthday.
Let us not forget that the angels, shepherds, Magi, Anna the prophetess, John the Baptist, Zecharias and Elizabeth the parents of John the Baptist, and Mary and Joseph all rejoiced to see His first coming. All of the angels and heroes of old eagerly awaited that time. Abraham rejoiced and was glad to know He was coming. There is nothing wrong with being overjoyed that the Lord was born. It remains the second-greatest miracle in the history of mankind. He couldn't die if He wasn't born.

Alas. Once again, if God does it it's still wrong, and they aren't above leaving things out they don't like.

WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON

They peddle paganism, not because the things actually are pagan, but because they need them to be pagan. They need to differentiate their product from the mainstream, or why would you send your money to them? Think about it. If church 1 is exactly like church 2, why do we even need church 2? But if church 2 can scare you into believing church 1 is pagan, then you might send them your money. That's the real game, ladies and gentlemen: money. The peddlers aren't here to help you. They are only here to help themselves ...to you and your cash. (We don't take donations here. Only prayers. Our services are completely free. You couldn't pay us even if you wanted to. Praise God!) The very same people who tell you it does not honor God to give gifts to your loved ones and the poor (like the Bible says in Esther 9: 22), will tell you it honors God to give your money to them. That's the reason why I am calling them "peddlers". They are selling a product. The product is fear.

You're a pagan Nimrod worshipper, and Jesus can't save you if you sing those carols and find joy in colored lights. But if you take up Old Covenant legalism and send them your money, they might put in a good word with God for you.

They accuse you. That makes you feel bad, doesn't it?
Let me ask you this. In centuries past, when the fundamentalists Protestants were - in the name of God - accusing people of witchcraft and burning them at the stake (or various other tortures), do you think those accused people were real witches? No, they weren't. Those weren't witches at all. Those were Christians! Do you think those accusing them were correct? No, they weren't. Do you think those accusations were based in truth and well-researched fact? They did have the handbook "Malleus Malifecarum", after all! No, not really. Do you think those who accused their fellows in order to avoid torture were being honest and altruistic? No, they weren't. Fear makes people do strange things. Oh, how they professed they were doing God's good justice, up to an including murdering people, yet they were wrong all the same. Their victims were innocent of the charges, yet they did what they did all the same. They were killing their own brothers and sisters in the faith, all the while saying they were honoring God. Did that honor God? Even the fundamentalists later admitted it did not.
How are these modern peddlers any different than those past fundamentalists? Only in that they do not burn people at the stake. Otherwise, it's the same. They still falsely accuse you. They still condemn you. They just can't kill you. No, they say God is going to do that. You are judged and condemned on false witness by people who are making up fake histories and who believe God cannot overcome a candy cane.

It reminds me of what Jesus said to the Apostles:

(JON. 16: 2) They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.

Of all people on earth, the Apostles were put out of the synagogues and killed. How are these modern peddlers any different than those past Jews? Only in that they don't have letters from the Sanhedrin permitting them to stone you. Otherwise, it's the same. Remember, Jesus Himself was - in the name of God - falsely accused and tried and sentenced for blasphemy.

Look. Let's get something straight.
If you really feel that badly about a holiday or a decoration, don't do it!! There is freedom in Christ. Do, or do not - it's the same. So long as it is to Christ that you do or do not do. I am not here to convince you to keep holidays. I am merely telling you that you are being falsely accused and there is no valid reason for you to feel like a pagan. Yet, if you do feel badly about something, then don't violate your conscience.
But ask yourself - do you feel badly because it is bad, or because peddlers of paganism made you think it is bad, falsely? Our articles are here to help you decide that. Test the spirits.

In absolutely no way should this article be understood as excusing actual idolatry or paganism. The message at ABD has been consistent over the years - there are many false gods but only one true God, our New Covenant duty is faith in and loyalty to God through Jesus Christ, our Christian calling is to follow the Holy Spirit into service and charitable works, our freedom in Christ is not a license to sin. Pretty standard, really. If something is genuinely pagan or idolatrous, we highly recommend having nothing to do with it. Knowingly, willfully, intentionally turning away from God to idolatry is a salvational issue and it is genuinely dangerous. Again, we just disagree with the peddlers of paganism on what real idolatry is. They use a shifting definition and shifting standards, and we call them out for it.

CONCLUSION

If you knowingly and intentionally devote your worship and honor to Jesus Christ, trusting in Him for your salvation, then an idol is nothing. He has taken all power and authority, and you are a citizen in His Kingdom now. Believe that. Rejoice in it! "Once pagan, always pagan" is an unbiblical and broken line of reasoning that no one really follows. Paul didn't preach it. God didn't heed it. Neither should you. How much less pagan is an item that was never an idol in the first place?
And no, you cannot accidentally or unknowingly become a pagan. As the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, you cannot accidentally be a pagan while worshipping Jesus Christ. The peddlers' accusations have no power over you.

You just want to be a good Christian. Your heart is in the right place. It's the peddlers that are the problem, not you. They have taken your eyes off the righteousness that comes from faith (ROM. 3: 21) and put your eyes on efforts that can never bring righteousness. Not even the law could bring righteousness (GAL. 2: 21), how much less can avoiding poinsettias? Mundane things do not overpower God. Avoiding them cannot bring you righteousness. So, stop looking there.

The peddlers want to be good Christians, too, but they have terrible information and were trained by people with less than honorable motives. Don't listen to them. Don't give them power over your life. Have faith and follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Look at the fruits! Do the peddlers bring you peace and truth? Or, do the peddlers bring you torment and fear, based on false claims? (You will know the claims are false when you read our articles and pray about it.) You know it's torment and fear. Do they bring you the Gospel of Jesus Christ or accusations? You know it's accusations. So don't heed them. Just walk away.

At what point do we look ourselves in the mirror and in all seriousness tell ourselves, "I will, from this moment forward, stop believing in once pagan, always pagan, because it is a thoroughly un-biblical notion, and I will stop listening to these peddlers of paganism who lie to me and themselves, and who only seek to enrich themselves at my expense" ?

I am bashing people pretty hard in this article. I don't usually do that. It is normally my way to go light and try to build bridges. I prefer to ease people toward the truth. The issue is, a light touch isn't always called for. Sometimes Paul writes Titus, and sometimes Paul withstands Peter to his face. When I get letters from good, God-fearing Christians who doubt themselves and their families and their faith - over demonstrably false nonsense peddled by fundamentalists - I get upset. I believe I am justified in getting upset. That's why I'm in a snit today and ranting on.

I would like to give you a short list of some recommended articles to get you going in the right direction. If you still have questions in your mind, like may we celebrate birthdays, or may we celebrate holidays God did not command, or should I be keeping "biblical" holy days, or even questions about "learn not the way of the heathen" - we hope we can be of some help.

• Established and Imposed
• Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees
  
• Falsely Accused? Christmas Trees and Germanic Paganism
• Why Not Keep Biblical Days?
• On Nimrod and Christmas Trees Part I
• Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?
• Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28
• Easter History Part I
• Three Days and Three Nights

Keep in mind we have a Categories page with abundantly more than just this. Scroll on down to the Holidays section.

May the Living God, in whose hands you are held, guide you and teach you, strengthen your faith, uplift you, assure you, bring you to a better understanding of who you are in His eyes, and keep you safe in the sure salvation obtained for you by our Lord Jesus Christ.

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

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 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.

Once and Future Kingdom Pat II.

 

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

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

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