Just What Do You Mean ... Gospel?

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

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

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

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

THE GOOD NEWS ACCORDING TO HERBERT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOOD OLD NEWS

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

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

Here is another one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAN'S GOOD NEWS

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

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

So, what did the audience understand?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Review - Written By The Finger of God

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

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

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

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

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

IT'S LIKE SO AMAZING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE ARE GATHERED HERE TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONE COVENANT

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

Ummmmm ... no. There is no difference.

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

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

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

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

Here is what the Jews believe about their law:

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

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

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

TRANSGRESSION

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

Ummmmm ... what??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AD ABSURDIUM

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

Again ... what??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lord doesn't seem too concerned over it.

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

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

ALL COMMANDMENTS ARE THE TEN COMANDMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Who Pays the Tithe of a Tithe?

It's Feast season again. Do you have "Feast fever" yet? Ready to go on the biggest vacation of the year? Get ready for some go karting, 'cause you know the track is gonna be right down the road from your hotel. Hopefully this year the big-name Ministers will notice you and say hi when you walk into the restaurant where they are segregated off by themselves.

Yes, I tease a little in there. Tell me those things aren't based in fact, though! You've experienced those things at least once. 

Today, I would like to talk about something else you've likely experienced - tithing. Specifically, tithe of a tithe. I was reading No2HWA's article over at Banned! titled "It's Tithe of the Tithe Time! Get Out Those Checkbooks!" and I just had to chime in. I may be mistaken here, but I don't think tithe of a tithe has ever been forced through the patended As Bereans Did Gauntlet. This oversight ends today.

For people who are new here and not from an Armstrongist background, I will briefly explain.
In Armstrongism, two of the many things that are taught as doctrinal truths are tithing and observing Old Covenant holy days rather than mainstream holidays. One of those festivals, the Feast of Tabernacles, is particularly central in the year because it is basically a week-long Christmas and a vacation wrapped in one. To pay for it, the church requires an entire tithe to be set aside - with tithe defined as 10% of your gross income. You might say 10% isn't so bad, but this is a tithe in addition to the normal tithe. In other words, you've already paid 10% of your income to the church and this is a second 10% set aside for going to the Feast of Tabernacles. It's called the "Festival Tithe".

There is a peculiar tradition in Armstrongism that started decades ago, called "tithe of a tithe". This is where you take 10% of your festival tithe and you give it to the church. Because apparently the first tithe wasn't enough. Why? Well, the explanation is rather benevolent. Your generous and mandatory donation of the tithe of a tithe is used to pay for the rented facilities and to help people who cannot otherwise afford to attend the Feast of Tabernacles. At least some of it is. Usually. Why couldn't they just do that with the first tithe? Well, they could have, but instead they probably used it to build a college auditorium.

TITHING - YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG AGAIN

What is their biblical justification for this tithe of a tithe?

(NUM. 18: 25-26) 25 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 26 “Speak thus to the Levites, and say to them: ‘When you take from the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them as your inheritance, then you shall offer up a heave offering of it to the Lord, a tenth of the tithe.

See? Tithe of a tithe! We accept Cash App.

But hold on just a second here. Didn't I just read that the Levites were supposed to pay this tithe? “Speak thus to the Levites, and say to them," it says. That's the law! It doesn't say, "Speak to the congregation, and say to them."

In order to get tithing in the first place, let alone tithe of a tithe, there had to be a change in the unchangeable law. Armstrongist Church of God splinters make a very large deal out of changing the law. "You can't do it!" they exclaim passionately. Usually, they are talking about changing the Sabbath to Sunday.
I could pull quotes to demonstrate this from any of a hundred thousand places, but I just so happen to have been prepping another post for the past couple weeks. I will pull from there out of convenience. In that post, I quote from a publication on the United Church of God's Beyond Today site by one Robert Berendt. In it, he says this (about changing the Sabbath to Sunday):

"Can we humans discard or change that which God wrote?"
"Can we add to the laws or take away portions? I think not!"
-Robert Berendt, "Written By The Finger of God", Beyond Today, 2001

No? We can't??
Then why was it done here?!

There are no Levites anymore. The law says tithes go to Levites. Then, the Levites give a tithe of that. That is the law. No one can change that.

This is all about tithing, no? Who paid tithes? Everyone in Israel paid them, except for the tribe of Levi. Who received the tithes? The tribe of Levi. Why? Because they were dedicated to being priests and tithes were their source of income.
But that's not how it's done in the "nobody can change the law" churches of Armstrongism.
Who pays tithes? The whole church, except the Ministry. Who receives the tithes? The Ministry. Why? Because the Ministers are dedicated to being Ministers and that is their source of income.

So, the Ministers are in the place of the Levites. But you can't change Levite to Minister. That's a change in the law.

We have other articles on how there are no Levites in the New Covenant, and tithing is a ceremonial heave offering not a moral law, and there is no justification for tithing in Christianity, and tithing wasn't of money in the first place, plus it was not 10% but one-in-ten. For more, read our article "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong", and I especially recommend "Not All That Glitters".
I don't want to get into those details here, though.

WAIT - WHO PAYS?

But changing Levite into Minister is not the only change. The tithe of a tithe was supposed to be paid by the Levites to the Aaronic high priests:

(NUM. 18: 28-31) 28 Thus you shall also offer a heave offering to the Lord from all your tithes which you receive from the children of Israel, and you shall give the Lord’s heave offering from it to Aaron the priest. 29 Of all your gifts you shall offer up every heave offering due to the Lord, from all the best of them, the consecrated part of them.’ 30 Therefore you shall say to them: ‘When you have lifted up the best of it, then the rest shall be accounted to the Levites as the produce of the threshing floor and as the produce of the winepress. 31 You may eat it in any place, you and your households, for it is your reward for your work in the tabernacle of meeting.

Who paid tithe of a tithe? The Levites - it was a tenth of the one tithe they already received. Who received tithe of a tithe? The Aaronic Priests. Why? Because they serve in the tabernacle of meeting.
That's the law!

What did we just read earlier?

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

Then why was it done again here?!

If the Ministry wants to pretend to be Levites, wouldn't it make a lot more sense that the Ministers should be the ones paying tithe of a tithe? Why are you, Mr. or Ms. Average Churchgoer, asked to pay the tithe of a tithe? Are you a Minister? Are they Levites? No.

DEPOSITED IN WRONG ACCOUNT

And I want you to notice a third thing.
The tithe of a tithe had nothing to do with funding the Feast of Tabernacles!

They change the law a third time. What did Numbers 18 say? The Aaronic priests received the tithe of a tithe as a reward for their work in the tabernacle. That's in the tabernacle, not at the Feast of Tabernacles.

Does the Ministry work in the Tabernacle of Meeting? No! There is no Tabernacle of Meeting or Aaronic Priesthood today. So, why does the Ministry get to collect it and use it for unauthorized purposes?

And I want you to notice a fourth thing.
The tithe of a tithe, which tithe did it come from - the first, or the second? The first! (Remember how Armstrongism teaches two tithes.)

If your Minister expects you to pay tithe of a tithe from your second tithe, he clearly did not read Numbers 18. The tithe of a tithe came from the first tithe, the one that the Levites received. It did not come from any funds set aside by regular Israelites to attend the Feast.

Don't even get me started on the requirement for travel "Three Times in the Year". It's not just once. It's three! Everyone is getting "Feast Fever" because of this annual vacation coming up, but I bet no one is pressing their church to explain the other two times in the year they were supposed to travel but didn't.

Yet again, the unchanging law has been changed. So much for Robert Berendt's comments! Apparently "you can't change the law" only counts when it's a change from Saturday to Sunday. Other than that, you can change the law all you like.

As a good friend of mine once told me, "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." So, there's your answer, Robert Berendt.

CONCLUSION

The unchanging law has to be changed in many ways to arrive at the Armstrongist tithing system. Today we saw these four changes:

• The Ministry are not Levites, so they shouldn't be collecting tithes to begin with.
• The tithe of a tithe was supposed to be paid by the Levites, not the average Israelite.
• The tithe of a tithe was supposed to fund the Aaronic Priests for their service in the tabernacle. It was not supposed to fund the Feast of Tabernacles.
• The tithe of a tithe did not come from second tithe.

I probably could come up with more, but this was a quick article I whipped up in short order. I don't want to take forever writing it.

The next time your church reaches out to you to tug on your heart strings and get you to pay them more tithes, you have my permission to quote Numbers 18 and ask your Minister why he isn't paying his due. If they want to ask you for a freewill money donation, that's one thing. But if they want to call it tithing, and point you at tithe of a tithe, you quote Mr. Berendt up there and then put away your checkbooks!

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

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

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

Banished Or Saved From Eden?

(GEN. 3: 22-24) 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

When I was growing up, I was told all about "The Fall" of man and how Adam and Eve sinned and that made God so very angry. So, then God blew His top and banished them from Eden and prevented anyone from ever returning by a scary angel who would straight up end them if they got too close. That's how it's usually told.
I've heard several times recently about a very different way to understand this. I wanted to share it with you.

We have already written here about the first part of verse 22. Seems the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil has similarities to the Old Covenant and its laws. Read our post "Two Trees - Two Covenants" for more. But it's the second half of verse 22 that sets the stage for today's idea. "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

How we are taught to understand that is, "You sinned, and now because you are a filthy sinner I am going to punish you by banning you from eternal life." Here is where God starts sounding like Bill Burr. "You coulda had it! You coulda had eternal life, Adam and Eve! But no! You had ONE job! One job! And you blew it! Now, no Tree of Life for anybody!"

Is that completely wrong? I donno. The real question is - is that the best way to understand this?

What if ----
God was not banishing mankind from Eden out of anger for our sin, but saving mankind from Eden out of love..?

Here mankind stands, in some condition we were never intended to be in. There was something about that Tree of Knowledge, whatever it was that tree represented, that we were never intended to have.

(GEN. 3: 4-6) 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

The word translated wisdom, by the way, is sakal, Strong's H7919, and it can mean any range of ideas from knowledge to skill to intelligence to wisdom. It doesn't necessarily have to mean wisdom. When the serpent explains the results of eating, he doesn't emphasize wisdom but rather knowledge. So, taking this action would result in mankind obtaining some sort of understanding that we had previously lacked. Understanding which definitely revolves around the difference between what is good and what is evil. This is an attribute which, according to verse 5, it seems spirit beings already possessed.
The word translated God is elohim, but elohim can mean any disembodied being. Because of that, you have to pay very close attention to the context to know when elohim applies only to God. The problem in verse 5 is there are no context indicators right there. This could be God, but it could be spirit beings in general. So, it is best to err on the side of generality. It could just as easily have been translated, "you will become like the angels, knowing good and evil." Several versions say, "you will become as gods".

Side note for Ron Weinland fans out there --
Weinland used to go around saying Yahweh was God's first name and Elohim is His last name, a family name. Negative. That is absolutely false. Elohim is not a proper noun. Elohim can mean any disembodied being. It can be as generic as the phrase spirit being. Take II Chronicles 2: 5 just for one example.
(II CHR. 2: 5) The temple I am going to build will be great, because our God is greater than all other gods.
Both of those instances, "God" and "gods", are the same word elohim. Clearly, "all other gods" indicates foreign gods. Is Baal in the family of Elohim?
When Genesis says "Yahweh elohim" it doesn't mean elohim is the family name, it means this particular elohim is Yahweh. The unique Yahweh elohim, as opposed to a generic elohim spirit being.
This is for another day. Back to the point.

As a recap - humanity has taken some action that has imparted upon us our very own ability to discern right from wrong, apparently something spirit beings are capable of. This is the one thing God instructed us not to do. There is something about this which is very, very bad for us. God was clear that this course of action would lead us to our eternal deaths. And then this happens:

(GEN. 3: 22) And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

"He must not be allowed"? Why not?

What is it about the combination of the knowledge of good and evil and eternal life that God could not allow?
There is no obvious answer, but I think the answer is implied.

Here is the thought I'm on about today, and the different understanding I've heard several times recently:
The reason we had to be prevented from the Tree of Life is because He loves us and desired to save us from what we'd done, and eternal life would prevent that salvation.

It's not so much that God furiously banished us from the Garden and the Tree of Life, but that He protected us from the Garden and the Tree of Life. He protected us from making a terrible situation far worse by making it permanent. It's not that God could not abide, but that God needed to act quickly to stop us from making ourselves unsalvageable. He wasn't furious, per se, He was loving.

The combination of knowledge of good and evil and eternal life would indeed make us just like the spirit beings that perhaps we call demons or devils - who sin but cannot be salvaged. Why can they not be salvaged? Because the elohim cannot die. What does death have to do with it? Well, how did Jesus save us? Through His own death. If we cannot die, then Jesus cannot become one of us and, as one of us, die for all of us. That Tree of Life would prevent God's plan of redemption for mankind by preventing death - the means through which redemption could come. Having no way to redeem us from our own folly would result in us having no other destiny except that which will befall Satan. At this point, we don't like death, but we need it.

So, we must ask ourselves - did God curse us with death, or is death some sort of backhanded blessing? Or both?

God's hand was forced. He had to boot us from the Garden for our own good. He placed that scary cherub there with the flaming sword to prevent us from ever entering there again.

...or did He?

Now that we see the banishment from Eden in a slightly different light, perhaps we can see that cherub with the flaming sword in a different light.

Maybe that spirit being is not only guarding the Tree of Life from us, but guarding us from it. Clearly, that Tree which should give us life has become our greatest threat. What was once paradise is now the death of hope. (Another "Good Turnabout"?) If the serpent really wanted to end us for all time, he would have rushed Eve to that tree and told her to eat it, too. (Good thing he didn't know the plan of salvation, or he would have.) I bet he thought it was doubly funny when we were banned from the Tree of Life, not knowing it was to our benefit.
And maybe, just maybe, the angel was also preserving that Tree for the time when we are ready for it. In a time after Jesus died for us, and that terrible mistake in the garden was undone. In a time when there was no threat of permanent Fall because we have entered a condition of permanent salvation.

(REV. 22: 1-3) Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse.

Because of death, Jesus' death, we can be made ready for the Tree of Life. There is no angel with a fiery sword anymore. The Tree of Life isn't just there within our reach, it's on Main Street. And the thing bears twelve crops of fruit, one for each month! It invites us in. That is a poetic way of saying EAT IT! Gorge yourself on it. Don't just have life, have A LOT OF LIFE!

Were we banished from Eden, or were we saved from it? Saved until a time when we were ready for it? This kind of question only comes up if you're looking at it from the perspective of the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Hopefully this different way to view "The Fall" gives you something positive to think about today.

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

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

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