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) Job's children were not pagans and neither was Herod Antipas. 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 themselves 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

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

Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?

In my last post, "A Primer to the Quartodeciman Controversy", we looked at the general timeline of events in the Quartodeciman Controversy at a macro level. I didn't address things in detail. As I said in that post, the topic is far larger than I ever imagined. Take that as a word of warning should you get the same ridiculous idea I had, to go looking into this topic. It is maddening.

Today, I want to look more closely at one point in particular - were the Quartodecimans really Old Covenant law-keepers?

In the Church of God movement founded by Herbert Armstrong (which I call Armstrongism) certain points of Old Covenant law are required - like the Sabbath, holy days, tithing, and clean/unclean meats. Armstrong knew the Quartodecimans were observing a day called Passover on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nissan. Well, so did he. He concluded, if they were doing what he was doing then they must be doing it for the same reason: law-keeping. He adopted the Quartodecimans as theological ancestors, saying they were early members of "Christ’s true Christianity" that kept the Old Covenant laws.

While reading about Quartodecimanism, I noticed something odd. If you read the writings of a group who believes in law-keeping, you are going to read about Quartodeciman law-keeping. If you read the writings of a group who believes in Hebrew roots, you are going to read about Quartodeciman Hebrew roots. And so it goes. That doesn't sit well with me. How odd the Quartodecimans were so exactly like all of these dissimilar groups. Something about that sounds uncomfortably like spin. It seems the conclusion is based on certain assumptions.

And so we ask - is that really so? Were they law-keepers? Can history give us enough detail to verify this?

BE A QUARTODECIMAN?

During my own time in Armstrongism, I was told the Quartodecimans were preserving a true observance of Old Covenant law. Meaning, the law in the way I, a Sabbatarian, would understand it, of course. We understood that to mean, take up Old Covenant law and follow the Hebrew calendar. They were just like us, we thought. "If you aren't a Quartodeciman, you should be," we are told by the Living Church of God.

Armstrongism starts from certain assumptions and works its way out from there. (We didn't see them as assumptions, we saw them as God's truth.) One assumption is that the Old Covenant Passover must be kept by Christians, and therefore it was being kept. Now we just needed to find out by whom. The Quartodecimans were the target. They were keeping Passover and doing it on the 14th. How can that be anything other than law-keeping?

"Among the Gentiles the churches in Asia remained the most faithful to the word of God. We pick up the story of the true Church in the lives of such men as Polycarp and - Polycrates. They were called 'Quartodecimani' because they kept the true Passover celebration instead of Easter."
-Herbert Armstrong, "True History of the True Church", 1959, p.15 

How are they a "true church"? Because they kept the Gospel, or because they had faith? No. Just an observance on the 14th of Nissan. That's good enough.

This should come as no surprise to those who have been following along here at ABD. Herbert Armstrong also claimed the Waldensians as doctrinal ancestors (as well as other groups like the Henricians, Paulicians, etc). He told a story of how the Waldensians were Old Covenant law-keepers. They were also an era of God's true church. He didn't come up with this idea on his own. Armstrong plagiarized the idea from A. N. Duggar and C. O. Dodd of the Church of God (Seventh Day).

The Waldensians were Sabbatarian law-keepers, right? No.

It turns out the assumptions made about the Waldensians weren't even close to reality. You can find the truth about the Waldensians quite easily. Ask the Waldensians what their history was. They have the receipts. We have several articles of our own to demonstrate this. We recommend starting with "True History of the True Church??"

Having a terrible track record of historical fantasy, can we know if the Quartodecimans were law-keepers?

The Quartodecimans, unlike the Waldensians and other more modern groups, are not so easily discerned. These things happened long ago. Most of the documents that could clear this up completely are lost. What we have remaining is a cloud of scholars and commentators with almost every opinion possible. We are going to have to work for this. Are we going to have better luck with than we did with the Waldensians?

QUARTODECIMAN PURITANISM

There are some clear points of similarity between the Christian Pascha and the Jewish Pesach: the relative date, the name Passover, the reading of Exodus, a fast in advance, and the involvement of some kind of meal.
The Quartodecimans had all these. And more!

There was once a Persian named Aphraphat. He was a fourth century Syriac Christian and a Quartodeciman. Several of his works were discovered in the 20th century. Just read what Apraphat has to say:

If the Passover of the passion of our Savior happens to us on Sunday, it is right to celebrate it on the Monday, so that the whole week with his passion and with his unleavened bread is observed."
-Aphrahat, Demonstration XII "On the Passover" XII [bold mine]

Unleavened bread? Yes. Seven days! And not just that. Here is an example from Aphraphat's demonstration on the Sabbath:

"But let us observe the Sabbath of God, in a manner which pleases His will. Let us enter into the Sabbath of rest in which the heaven and the earth take Sabbath rest, all creatures will dwell in peace and take rest."
-Aphraphat, Demonstration XIII "On the Sabbath" section 13 [bold mine]

Looks like they were Sabbatarians keeping the law. Game over. Thank you for reading my blog. Go send away for some Armstrongist literature. God be with you 'til we meet again.

BUT!
Before you go, there's one tiny detail you are going to want to know -
None of what I just quoted means the Quartodecimans were Sabbatarians keeping the Old Covenant law. It only looks that way on the surface.

To understand why not, let's start by looking at the law.

HORSESHOES AND HAND GRENADES

Or rather, the impossibility of keeping it all.

Armstrongism is considered by many outside the system to be a "legalist" church. There is a heavy emphasis on law. It is assumed the early church also had this influence. But, as I said, it only seems that way. Armstrongism teaches the mandatory observance of Passover annually on the 14th of Nissan. This is particularly central to the Quartodeciman issue. That is the law, we said.

Did you know Gentiles were forbidden by law from participating in the Passover (EXO. 12: 43-49)? The Gentile converts to Christianity would have to be circumcised, join the nation of Israel, and become Jews in order to keep the Passover according to the law. What's more, the law forbids practicing Passover outside of Jerusalem. The Passover was a pilgrimage festival (EXO. 23: 15) - along with Pentecost and Tabernacles - and could only be observed in the area of Jerusalem (DEU. 16: 5-7).

That is the law!

The Traditionalists and Quartodecimans were both well aware of these laws about Passover. You can read about it yourself.

On the traditional side, none other than Athanasius (famous for his role in the Council of Nicaea) mentions these things in his "Festal Letters".
On the Quartodeciman side, Aphraphat mentions it several times in his "Demonstration on the Passover" section 2, and Ephram the Syrian mentions it in his "Hymn 21".

How could anyone keep law under those conditions? They could not. If you don't keep all the law, then you're not keeping the law at all (JAS. 2: 10). Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. And the law could not be kept as written. That was the entire point of those ancient writers. Not even the Jews could keep the law anymore. How could they? They could not. But if even the Jews could not then how could the Gentiles, whom the law expressly excludes? (I suppose, if you think about it, the Gentiles kept the law better because the law excluded them, so by not keeping it they were doing what it said. But let's not go there right now.)

Since that is the case, it is fair to ask, if they weren't keeping the law then why did they mention the law? And why insist on the 14th?

LOST IN TRANSLATION

I just got done telling you how the Quartodecimans knew the law couldn't be kept. Yet, some of the things they wrote make it look like they kept it anyway. How? If you really want to know how the Quartodecimans can use words like Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread, yet did not keep the Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread, then you have to read all of their writings. Not just enough of their writings to see the words Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread and that's where you stop.

Sometimes, it can be a simple misunderstanding.

In my post "Refusing To Understand" I reviewed an article from the United Church of God that was claiming the weekly Sabbath was being kept in Asia Minor (Quartodeciman home turf). They quoted from a Quartodeciman named Socrates of Constantinople, who lived just after Aphraphat and Ephram. They saw the word Sabbath, then they stopped. But on further inspection, it turns out "Sabbath" in this context cannot mean Saturday.

“In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the sabbath [this would be the Quartodecimans disregarding the Sabbath] ... While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above-mentioned, others in the East kept that feast on the sabbath indeed, but differed as regards the month.”
-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "Ecclesiastical History" chapter XXII

There were two groups observing a thing they called Pascha, yet no one observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday. Well, not unless the 14th of Nissan happened to be a Saturday in that year. No one on any side regularly observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday.
Can you see that 'Sabbath' here cannot refer to Saturday? Socrates uses the phrase "sabbath of the Passover" earlier. Sabbath can mean annual holy day. In later years, Sabbath eventually became interchangeable with Sunday. Haven't you read articles that ask, "Is Sunday the Sabbath?" We cannot just assume Sabbath always means Saturday.

But sometimes it's not a simple misunderstanding. Context is key!

That quote from Aphraphat earlier, the one about "let us observe the Sabbath", came from his demonstration written against the Jewish keeping of the Sabbath. That makes it a polemic against how the Armstrongists understand Sabbath. Context is key! How can you get Sabbath observance from a treatise against Sabbath observance? You can't.

The entirety of his demonstration shows there is no salvation value at all to a Sabbath rest, nor does it convey any righteousness, nor any justification, nor any purity, nor profit for sinners. If it could do any of those things, then it would have been given to the patriarchs, but it was not. The physical Sabbath was given for a physical rest only, to the Jews and their animals.

Immediately prior to that quote, he says this:

"He [God] took and threw them [the Jews] out of His land, and scattered them among all the peoples because they did not observe the rest of God, but observed Sabbath according to the flesh. But let us observe the Sabbath of God in a manner which pleases His will..."
-Aphraphat, Demonstration XIII "On the Sabbath" section 13 [bold mine]

So, the Sabbath was good for physical rest only, and the Jews were doing that, and it had no other value, but something about it displeased God. It seems those two words 'of God' makes a world of difference. We need to figure out what a 'Sabbath of God' is.

From other areas in his demonstrations, we can reasonably conclude Aphraphat sees the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kokhba rebellion as the point the Jews were expelled. It was in the Christian era. The Christian era changed things. God was displeased because they kept the Sabbath physically, as the Armstrongists understand it, but not according to the true Sabbath rest. The true rest had come, but they rejected it for the physical rest.

(MAT. 11: 28) Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

To a Syriac Christian, everything in the Old Testament pointed to Christ. Everything that came before Him was a type or a symbol or a mystery that, when properly understood, points to Jesus - Passover, bread, and Sabbath included. They read the Torah every Passover, but they didn't see it for Israel being freed from Egypt. They saw Jesus in every word. They read about Moses and saw Jesus. They read about lambs and saw Jesus. They read about unleavened bread and saw Jesus. They read about Sabbath and saw Jesus.

"I do that, too," an Armstrongist might say. Perhaps. But not like they did.
Let's see an example from the Quartodeciman author Ephram the Syrian:

1. The lamb of Truth arose and broke his body for the innocent ones who ate the lamb of Passover.
2. The paschal lamb he slaughtered and ate, and he broke his body. He caused the shadow to pass over and he provided the Truth.
3. He had eaten the unleavened bread. Within the unleavened bread his body became for us the unleavened bread of Truth.
4. The symbol that ran from the days of Moses until there, was ended there.
-Ephram the Syrian, Hymn 19 on unleavened bread [bold mine]

Physically unleavened bread ended there. The unleavened bread they wanted was Jesus. Can it get more plain? I think maybe it could.

Melito of Sardis, contemporary of Polycrates and mentioned in Polycrates' letter to Victor of Rome, says this:

"35) Nothing, beloved, is spoken or made without an analogy and a sketch; for everything which is made and spoken has its analogy, what is spoken an analogy, what is made a prototype, so that whatever is made may be perceived through the prototype and whatever is spoken clarified by the illustration. 
...
37) When the thing comes about of which the sketch was a type, that which was to be, of which the type bore the likeness, then the type is destroyed, it has become useless, it yields up the image to what is truly real. What was once valuable becomes worthless, when what is of true value appears.
...
41) So the type was valuable in advance of the reality, and the illustration was wonderful before its elucidation. So the people were valuable before the church arose, and the law was wonderful before the illumination of the Gospel.
42) But when the church arose and the Gospel came to be, the type, depleted, gave up meaning to the truth: and the law, fulfilled, gave up meaning to the Gospel.
43) In the same way that the type is depleted, conceding the image to what is intrinsically real, and the analogy is brought to completion through the elucidation of interpretation, so the law is fulfilled by the elucidation of the Gospel, and the people is depleted by the arising of the church, and the model is dissolved by the appearance of the Lord. And today those things of value are worthless, since the things of true worth have been revealed."
-Melito of Sardis, "On Passover" [bold mine]

Now that is plain!
And it's just like Colossians.

(COL. 2: 16-17) 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Armstrongism is aware of this verse, and a shadow and a fulfillment. We read this verse all the time. Only, we read it to support law-keeping. The shadow (law) was even more important than before. That is clearly not how the Quartodecimans saw things. As you can see from Ephram and from Melito, the law was completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ then discarded. The Torah did not point them to law, nor to some "fulfilled" and harder law-keeping, but only to Christ! They didn't see the law as God's tool for our righteousness or necessary for His plan. The law had done it's job, it guided Israel until the Messiah could come, and was now fulfilled, depleted, worthless.

But maybe not completely worthless. The law still holds many lessons for us, even if it doesn't apply directly to us. You might even find it unusual to learn that Anatolius of Alexandria in his "Paschal Canon" used the law in Exodus to better determine when to observe Easter. The law helped bring the timing of Easter in Rome and Alexandria together in unity. All while not feeling bound to the law.

When an Armstrongist sees "unleavened bread" or "Passover" or "Sabbath" written by a Quartodeciman, they naturally draw from their own worldview and think, "I know those words. Those speak of the law."
But that is not what the Quartodeciman mind thought. The law is not why they insisted on keeping Passover on the 14th. The 14th had value only in Christ, not Moses. They did not follow the Hebrew calendar as sacred. They only needed that one day, and only because it was the day Jesus was betrayed. It had nothing to do with law-keeping.

(Matthew 5: 18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

He fulfilled it all. All of it. Then, the Old Covenant being satisfied, was replaced. Those words now have very different meanings.

(HEB. 8: 13) In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now, Christ is the Sabbath. Christ is the Passover. Christ is the unleavened bread.

Hippolytus was a Bishop of Portus near Rome. This is the same Hippolytus that I wrote about in my article "The Plain Truth About December 25". A fragment remains in which he quotes some unnamed person who is likely a Quartodeciman. Here are the words of the alleged Quartodeciman: 

"Christ kept the supper, then, on that day, and then suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it in the same manner as the Lord did. But he has fallen into error by not perceiving that at the time when Christ suffered He did not eat the Passover of the law. For He was the Passover that had been of old proclaimed, and that was fulfilled on that determinate day."
-Hippolytus, "On the Passover"

Regardless of whether you believe Jesus ate the Passover according to the law or not, it was not because of the law that the Quartodecimans kept the 14th, but because of Christ. That is not some kind of back door into the law. The law doesn't only say to eat at a certain time. It says other things, too. Those things weren't being done, which is why I included the last section "horseshoes and hand grenades" first.

And so it is when Aphraphat says "his unleavened bread" it doesn't mean physically unleavened bread, it means participating in Jesus. And when he says "Sabbath of God" it doesn't mean Saturday, it refers to a new life in Jesus. This is exactly what Paul was trying to say.

(I COR. 5: 7-8) "7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

In the Church of God splinters, this verse is read annually, used as a proof-text in support of law-keeping. "It says 'let us keep the feast'," we would point out. But no, law-keeping is not what any of these people had in mind. Jesus Christ was in mind.

They couldn't keep the law as written. If you cannot keep it as written then you cannot keep it period. They didn't see themselves as obligated to try. It wasn't that they abandoned the law, per se, but that in Christ the law was fulfilled. If you have Christ, and they did, then you have faith and love, and if you have faith and love then you have fulfilled the whole law (ROM. 13: 10; I JON. 3: 23). A righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees is in you (MAT. 5: 20). So, in this way they were able to talk about points of the law but not keep to the letter of the law, because these words and the fulfillment meant something quite different to them.

If you want to know a little more about what Quartodeciman belief really was, apart from Passover, read "Early Syriac Theology" by Seely Joseph Beggiani. You aren't going to find very much in common with Herbert Armstrong. Remember how the Waldensians are still here and can refute claims about their law-keeping? Same is true about the Syrian Church. Go ask them what their history is. They have the receipts. Aphraphat, Melito, Socrates, and Ephram were Syriac Christian. Polycarp, Aphraphat and Melito are venerated as Saints. And Ephram the Syrian is a Doctor of the Catholic Church! Didn't you know that?

Still think you should be a Quartodeciman?

I am sure the protest will be, "The pagans had already infiltrated and perverted the truth by the time of Melito and Ephram and Aphraphat etc."
But that's not what Herbert Armstrong said. He called Polycrates "another disciple of Christ’s true Christianity" ("Mystery of the Ages", p.53). Go to "Life, Hope, and Truth" ministries, a media outlet for the Church of God, A Worldwide Association, and see how they call these men true followers of God.
Polycrates outlived Saint Melito. Mystery of the Ages is the grandest book Herbert Armstrong ever wrote. It was called 'another book of the Bible'. If Polycrates was a "disciple of Christ's true Christianity", and Polycrates agreed for the most part with all of these people I've quoted here, then they are also disciples of "Christ's true Christianity". What does that say? It can't be "Christ's true" and pagan, both. So, which is it?

If you choose pagan, then the words of any Quartodeciman author no longer hold any benefit. Stop reading them. All that talk about why we should all be Quartodeciman just went right out the window. But if you don't choose Christ's true, then welcome to mainstream Christianity, my friend. You can cancel that subscription to Armstrongist literature now.

And what shall we say about the blessed Polycarp, disciple of John, who lived well before the other examples I've given so far. He says:

"...it is by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
-Polycarp, "Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians"

CONCLUSION

At the start of this post, I asked, "were the Quartodecimans really Old Covenant law-keepers?" Confidently, we can answer no.

Were there some we could describe as Judaizes? I'm sure. Socrates of Constantinople records some instances of this sort (e.g., Sabbatius in "Church History", book V, chapter XXI). It was a problem enough in Galatians 2 for Paul to mention both Peter and Barnabas struggled with it. But for the most part that does not describe the Quartodecimans.

Some see Pascha on the 14th and think, the law! But that is not the case here. They read words like Passover, unleavened bread, and Sabbath and think, our ancestors! But that is not the case here. How can the Living Church of God say, "be Quartodeciman," when they don't have the slightest idea what that means? They cannot. As it turns out "be Quartodeciman" actually means "be our version of Quartodeciman". But their version is a fake.

Just like the Waldensians, the Quartodecimans are not at all Armstrongist theological ancestors. It's all a fraud. Again and again and again, a pattern of dishonest documentation. Do you see the emptiness of these fabrications now that you know the Quartodecimans never kept the law to begin with?

We absolutely must read more than just a quote here and a paragraph there to understand any topic. If we are going to read, we must understand what we read in the context the Quartodecimans intended. Or what's the point? Are we reading at all? In order to get that context, we need to read as many of their works we can. We see the people who create content for the Church of God splinter groups do not understand them. They clearly didn't read to understand. They have no interest in context. They read many things, but only to find what they think will support predetermined conclusions. Is that reading at all? If what they find doesn't match what they hoped for, we either never hear about it at all or they make something up whole cloth to explain it away. Wouldn't it be better just to tell the truth? Oh, but they've already said too much to go back now.

In my next post, I will further explore the similarities between Quartodecimans and Traditionalists. You think their views on the law are unexpected? I think you might be quite surprised indeed to peek behind this curtain.

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

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

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

Antinomianism and Motivation of Heart

Antinomianism has become more of an accusation; a perjorative aimed at those who prescribe to the belief that salvation is a matter of faith only where religious “moral” law is of no consequence when it comes to salvation.

Critics, while often agreeing with the basic “salvation through faith only” rationalize that one cannot be a murderer, adulterer, idolater, (and even sabbath breaker) without compromising salvation. It sounds rational. However, it begs the question, does a person, who is in receipt of the Holy Spirit, continue in a custom of sin, or does a person abandon a former lifestyle of sin? Both sides of the debate would agree. Where the divergence occurs is in the definition of “sin” and a person's motivation.

Legalists, with a heavy emphasis on sabbatarians, insist on defining sin as translated in the KJV, found at I John 3:4, sin being translated as: “the transgression of the law”. This translation is found in the earlier Geneva Bible, borrowed in whole by the KJV translators. The problem is, this is not what the Greek says or means, but rather is an extrapolation or interpretation that goes beyond translation. Another example is how the same translators translated “Passover” into “Easter”-- an Anglicized interpretation.

The transliteration states that sin is “anomia” ('a' – against 'nomia' law) What is important to understand when translating languages is to seek and understand how a particular word was used in the time and place it is found. In the first century AD, “anomia” was the word one used to convey the concept of iniquity. Therefore, sin is iniquity, and iniquity is sin.

Legalists prefer the KJV translation, flawed as it is, simply because it fits in so nicely with their theological model. What they shut their minds to are the examples that demonstrate the translation to be untrue. David ate the show-bread that was unlawful for him and those with him to eat, yet he was blameless, according to the Words of Christ.

One could even be iniquitous without actually breaking a law in the letter. Hatred is the spirit of murder. A person could hate another person, yet refrain from murdering them, yet Jesus points out that one is just as guilty of murder should they hate another just as much as someone who actually commits a murder. The same with lusting after someone sexually in regards to the prohibition against adultery.

The result of holding to the mistranslation of sin is that much of what Christ said and taught is relegated to the theological trash heap in favor of a pet flawed belief. Judging righteous judgment as contrasted to judging according to appearance genders lip service only. Jesus is actually re-created in the legalist's image, and attributed with teaching law, even as the prophets of old did. Jesus taught the law alright, but not in the way the legalist insists. Jesus' examples regarding the law demonstrated the utter impossibility of anyone truly keeping the law, telling people to go to drastic measures, such a plucking out eyes, or cutting off hands in an attempt to avoid the clutches of hell. Yet, even without eyes to see, a person can still find themselves thinking about lusting sexually.

There are two most likely scenarios that play out in relation to the law; the first is the realization that a person can never truly live up to that standard and be judged free of sin, thereby hopefully driving the person to Christ and His mercy and salvation based on faith. The other extreme is an act of denial, believing that the self can indeed keep the law, with the help of God of course, but keep the law nonetheless. There is a “faith” in Christ in that He will enable them to keep the law. Salvation ends up being a partnership deal of sorts. Jesus paid the penalty for sin, so that, should the “believer” sin due to human weakness and lack of spiritual growth/maturity, it is forgiven and this striving to overcome continues. As long as one is actively engaged in overcoming sin by keeping the “law”, all is well. It also sounds reasonable. The problem is, there is no real biblical support for this entire concept. Even ancient Israel suffered from this blindness when it came to the law, as attested to in Psalms chapter 44. Israel collectively cries out to God over their being punished, claiming all the while that they are in compliance with the law, keeping the law. God however was judging their hearts. Their hearts condemned them. God declared that their works were evil, even from their youth. Evil works come from evil intent of mind.

What goes unperceived by the legalist is that God Himself set up the conditions as they are, with that law, knowing full well that the egocentric nature of people would attract them to the law and the self-righteousness they would seek through the law. A proud person wants to demonstrate he or she is better than others, and what better way than to comply with a law set others “give up on”? So the proud and boastful set off on their journey on self-improvement, as taught also by the false religions of the world. Some seek nirvana, through their own efforts. Some seek enlightenment, through their own efforts. All false religions are based on improving the self through whatever personal means. True Christianity is about what God/Christ has done for us, due to our sinful nature that we come to realize we cannot alter on our own. A gorilla may aspire to be a human, and mimic a human and human behavior, but at the end of the day, he is still a gorilla. At the end of the day, a son of Adam is still a son of Adam. A person MUST be born again, of the Spirit. Whatever alteration is necessary, God will perform it through the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Scripture is full of traps waiting to snare the unwary; those who are careless with the written Word of God. Scripture “weeds out” the proud and arrogant. The law is one of those traps. On the surface, it appears attractive and as something to impart wisdom and understanding, which it can, up to a point. But, its fruit is still death. For to transgress in even one point of the “whole” law is to be guilty of the entirety.

You can spend all day long, extolling the virtues of the law, but in the end, the law ends up condemning the law breaker, and rightly so.

God wants no more Satans. Satan thought to himself that he could be like God. He took his faith off of God, and placed his faith on himself. The legalist also declares that he too can be like God, and he is going to prove it by keeping that law. The legalist cannot and will not believe that he is abandoning total faith and reliance on Christ in favor of striving to keep the law, so much so that he believes God will actually help him keep that law whose purpose was to bring all under sin. Some however refuse to admit defeat.

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. – Romans 3:19

The legalist points to the law and states it is a sin to murder; that no murderer shall abide in the kingdom of Heaven. The one walking in faith will point out that the Spirit of God that now dwells within him motivates him to have love for even an enemy, and to do good to an enemy, and not evil. One is motivated by law; the other is motivated by the Spirit. One is motivated by the law not to do evil. The other is motivated to “do” good.
Which then demonstrates the greater morality? The one who insists on being led by the law, or the one being led by the Spirit?

Which is a demonstration of righteousness? The one who refrains from murder, or the one who has love for others, including his enemies?

The written “moral” law would be better described and defined as the “immoral” law, seeing as those points of law deal with man's immorality instead of man's morality. It is immoral to murder. Do not commit an act of immorality. Does refraining from murder demonstrate a man to be moral therefore? No, for a man can still harbor hatred while refraining from murder. The law proves no one righteous; the law proves men to be unrighteous and immoral. The “righteousness” of the law indeed is self-righteousness, where one merely believes himself to be morally upright, despite the heart that God describes that we are all born with:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? – Jeremiah 17:9

The real problem is not law versus “antinomianism”. The problem is the heart. You need a new one. You cannot develop it yourself, by your own actions and deeds. God must place it in you. It is an action that only He can do, and He will only do it for those who have surrendered themselves to Christ, confessing themselves to be sinful by nature and in need of His intervention in their lives, taking hold of Christ in faith.
If you believe you have to keep the law for the sake of salvation, you missed the point here. The law is not there to prove you worthy, or keep you worthy. The law was designed to prove men sinners and sinful so as to drive you to Christ and the salvation found in Him ONLY. You don't get to participate in your salvation beyond surrendering to Him. You don't get to brag or stroke your own ego. You are the clay; He is the potter, and He will make of you what He wants.

If you are of those who insist on keeping the law and sabbath, then you get that veil before the eyes Paul wrote of in II Corinthians chapter 3 regarding those who hold to the law, regardless of how you define it. You will continue to be held in darkness until such time you finally come to realize that you cannot keep even a fraction of the law (the ten commandments) and that God is not going to help you do so. I have challenged you people time and again to step forward and proclaim to me and others how God has enabled you to now keep the law, perfectly, as He required, so that you are now without sin. You never have a lustful thought. You never have a thought of hatred. You even keep the sabbath perfectly as prescribed in Scripture, preparing your meals the day before, and not performing “any” work on that day. You are now without sin.

God did not dumb down the law for you. Christ magnified the law, showing that the heart you were born with ultimately condemns you as a sinner, for God judges the heart. He said that if your eye offended you; made you sin by what you saw and by the thoughts of lust that followed, to pluck it out rather than find yourself cast into hell as a result of the lust of the eyes. If your hand made you to sin, to cut it off also. Let's take the idea and concept one step further. If your heart of stone causes you to stumble; if you find yourself thinking evil thoughts of lust and hatred, then maybe you need to rip out your heart in a last ditch effort to overcome sin.
Through mistranslation and misinterpretation, you have chosen a “path” you cannot walk down. You cannot keep the law, perfectly, as was required. You will always stumble and fall on that path.
You have chosen the wrong tree; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that represents the law. The law taught one sin and evil. The law teaches good and wisdom. But its fruit is still death.

You need to fully grasp the other tree; that tree of life that is Christ. You either follow Christ and serve Him, or you follow and serve the law; no man can serve two masters.

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

Faith Versus Law -- The Example of Naaman

II Kings chapter 5 gives the story of Naaman the Syrian; a high ranking officer in the Syrian army who was a leper. His wife's servant girl, captured in a raid into Israel, related how there was a prophet of God in Israel who could heal Naaman of his leprosy.

This claim is related to the king of Syria, who in turn sends Naaman to Israel in order to be healed should the claim be true as related by the Israelite girl. There was some political intrigue also attached to the situation, but that is not the focus here. The king of Israel sees the act of sending Naaman to him as a provocation, but the prophet of God hears about it and instructs the king to send Naaman to him.

Naaman shows up at Elisha's door, and Elisha does not even so much as come out to face him. Elisha sends his servant out to inform Naaman to go and dip himself 7 times in the Jordan and he will be clean.
Naaman is outraged. He expected at the very least the prophet to come out and perform some ritual and incantation along with the attendant hand waving and all. His expectation was that he would have to pay a hefty price for his healing, hence the silver and gold he brought, along with expensive attire. Another expectation was to be required to perform some mighty deed or deeds in order to secure his healing.

All he was required to do was something simple, and easily accomplished: Go soak your head in the Jordan and wash away some of that ego.

Naaman relents, does the simple task that went against the grain of ego and pride, and was healed. He tries to pay for his healing, only to be refused. Naaman then makes an interesting declaration:
And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD. – 2 Kings 5:17

Naaman put the pieces together. This God of Israel is the One to serve and believe in. What a contrast to the false gods of Syria, who demand much, and give nothing.

Now the curios twist in the plot:

In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing. – 2 Kings 5:18

Naaman was expected to attend his king when his king went in to pay homage to this false god Rimmon. Naaman now knew this god was nothing, but he was duty bound to attend his king, and go through the motions.

This action on the part of Naaman was a case of directly violating the commands found in the ten commandments!

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. – Exodus 20:3-5
Poof! Naaman's leprosy returns to him, seeing as he violated one the the most important commands in the Bible, which, according to some, applies universally to all mankind for all time.

Not quite.

God showed mercy to him, despite the fact he let it be known he would be violating this law, whether he knew about this law or not. According to this command, his actions would be seen by God as iniquity.

What then was Elisha's response to Naaman?

And he said unto him, Go in peace. – 2 Kings 5:19a

You would think that the prophet would have informed Naaman not only was he to not bow down to a false god, he was responsible for keeping all of the ten commandments, including the sabbath, seeing as they are universal in application; the eternal, moral precepts of God.

Nope. Didn't happen. Quite the opposite.

The servant of Elisha figured Naaman got off cheap for his healing. He felt Naaman should have surrendered something in return for his healing, and so ran off after Naaman in order to extract something of value from him.

But God required nothing of substance from Naaman. It was a lesson in faith, with no real strings attached. What was “required” of him was to humble himself; an act of humility.

Jesus weighed in on this story to the Jews of His time, pointing out that there were many lepers in Israel when Naaman was healed, yet none of those lepers in Israel, who had the law, were healed. The Jews responded to Jesus' observation by trying to kill him. His words were an affront to them and the law.

So, we have the example of Naaman, an enemy of Israel, who intentionally let it be known he was going to violate the ten commandments, healed by God as an act of, and example of faith, as contrasted to Israelites who had the ten commandments/law and were trying to live by them, yet deemed faithless by 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
************

Truly Unleavened, Resting in Christ

I'd like to wish a meaningful spring Holy Day season to any readers who are celebrating the Days of Unleavened Bread (DUB). Especially at this time of year, we should remember the great sacrifice Jesus Christ made for us and the hope His resurrection gives us. I hope you find some quiet time to reflect upon both of these amazing truths. On a physical level, I hope you find some quiet time, period.

For me, there was not much rest around the DUB. I spent most of my spare waking moments cleaning crumbs from every nook and cranny of my house. I'd meditate on my spiritual state while wiping down the pantry, only to get distracted moments later. I'd try again later that evening and dose off, drained from the extra housework. This cycle continued until Passover, where I was almost thankful for the cold water in the footwashing basin that jolted me into alertness.

Afterwards, I'd race home to start preparing for the Night to Be Much Observed - because everyone knows only Laodiceans pay a restaurant to cater a meal on the Sabbath. Later that week, when I finally got a chance to sit, I'd realize that I failed once again. I got so caught up in the physical preparations that I glossed over the spiritual ones. I hoped God was merciful enough to consider me worthy to take the Passover, because I certainly didn't think I was. Maybe you've found the balance between spiritual and physical aspects of the DUB. If so, I commend you. I readily admit I did not. And I know I wasn't the only one.

Please know I'm not criticizing anyone for keeping the DUB or questioning their sincerity. I kept it for decades, and most of my family still does. I know that the majority of people who keep the Holy Days of Leviticus 23 believe they are obeying and honoring God by doing so. Who could blame them for that? Not me.

In more recent years, some ministers admonished us not to go crazy cleaning our homes, since the physical act was only symbolic of the spiritual. I understood what they meant, but it just didn't seem logical. If removing leaven was a command, and if it symbolized putting sin out of our lives, then was it possible to go overboard? God would never tell us to give less than our best efforts at removing sin. Deep down, I knew God didn't really expect me to find every crumb. But how much was enough? After all, these same ministers also warned us that we might not "make it" into the Kingdom if we didn't eradicate sin from our lives.

Really, my struggle with the DUB reveals the COG's faulty salvation model on a smaller scale. We believe that, by grace, our past sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. And we rightly believe there is nothing we can do to earn that forgiveness. But after that, as UCG explains it, "to remain justified after being forgiven, one must behave in a righteous or just manner from that time forward" (from The New Covenant - Does it Abolish God's Law?). This sounds good on the surface. Scripture instructs us to do things like flee temptation and overcome sin. Besides, we have the Holy Spirit - the power of God - as a tool to help us! And who would argue that refraining from sin is a bad thing?

Here's a question that no COG minister has been able to answer for me: how much sin do I have to overcome to "make it?" Most agree God doesn't expect me to become 100 percent sin-free. So how righteous do I need to be? I'm not playing games like Paul's opponents in Romans 6:1. This is a deadly serious question - your eternal destiny hangs in the balance. If God doesn't expect you to be perfect, what percentage do you need to achieve - 98 percent righteous? Is "C" a passing grade for the Kingdom? And does God grade on a curve?

Rod Meredith, LCG's presiding evangelist, sets the bar pretty high in his booklet, Who or What is the Antichrist: "When we accept Christ's sacrifice we must also make a literal covenant with our creator to quit sinning in the future." In the same passage, Meredith explains that we abide in Christ and the Father "by obeying God and living as Jesus actually did - by every word of God."

How do you define "every word of God?" That's important to know if we've promised God that we will quit sinning in the future, presumably by the end of our physical lives. Is it every command ever given in the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments? Including observing new moons and swearing off clothing made from mixed fabrics? Is it every instruction Jesus gave? Must we completely root out every impulse of lust? What about snapping at someone who's hurt us, or even just wanting to do so? Is it the list of do's and don't-s that Herbert W. Armstrong intuited as he developed COG doctrines? Is it the ones that Meredith carried forward to LCG? Or maybe to be on the safe side, we should stick to Gerald Flurry's more conservative restrictions. Hope you didn't like spending time with those non-member grandkids. I apologize if I sound irreverent, but I'm just trying follow these doctrines to their logical conclusions. Because if you accept them, you believe that your behavior factors into your salvation.

Underpinning the COG's doctrines about salvation is the related teaching that, in this lifetime, believers are like fetuses who will be born into God's Family at Christ's return. If we don't achieve a proper, yet undefined, level of righteousness in this life, God aborts us. Think that sounds horrific? Don't blame me, I didn't come up with it. You can thank Herbert W Armstrong. Check page 45 of his booklet, "Just What Do You Mean... BORN AGAIN?". I can't post a link directly to the paragraph containing this statement, but electronic versions of the publication are easy to find online.

Most COG splinters still embrace Armstrong's fetus analogy, although they conveniently leave out the part about God aborting His own children. Splinter groups can edit and sanitize their literature all they want, but this is the foundation of their doctrines, directly from the man who created them.

So back to God's grading scale. Righteous behavior is a pass/fail proposition, according to James 2:10-11. Would God have accepted Jesus' sacrifice if He had sinned even once? LCG's Meredith tells us we are to live by every word of God. Well, in His his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that sin is about the attitudes in our hearts, not just our physical behavior. I don't know about you, but my Passover examination always showed me how badly I was failing in this area. I might as well have been dusting crumbs off of a bakery counter covered with doughnuts. Just "trying harder" to be more patient with my kids, or to avoid silly spats when someone hurt my pride wasn't working. That approach wouldn't change my heart if I lived to be 250 years old.

Yet ministers like UCG's Darris McNeely would have us believe it's possible - in fact, it's the reason God created the DUB, he says. In a recent episode of Beyond Today (What Easter Doesn't Tell You), co-host McNeely tells us we can become a new creation in Christ "as a result of our putting sin out, by working on our lives and living a righteous life, and God helping us to accomplish that."

That's absolutely false. He blatantly twists 2 Corinthians 5:17, which directly states that anyone who is in Christ IS a new creation. Not he WILL BE a new creation, or that he is in the process of becoming a new creation. He is one now.

Even worse, McNeely makes this transformation about our efforts. But, oh, yeah, God helps us do it. The very next verse, 2 Corinthians 5:18, tells us that this change is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ. We are not a new creation because of what we do; we are a new creation because of what He did, both at the Cross and in our lives each day once we place our faith in Him alone for salvation. Our righteousness is nothing more than filthy rags.

It's an incredible blessing that our eternal destiny doesn't depend on just "trying harder." It's based on grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-24). And it includes all of our sins, not just those committed before we accept Jesus' sacrifice. It's ridiculous to teach that His sacrifice almost 2000 years ago paid for my past sins but did not cover my future sins as well. That it paid for the future sins of my unborn, unconceived grandchildren, but only until they officially accept His sacrifice. Jesus died once for all, covering our sins completely. We must let go of any dependence on our own efforts or goodness for salvation and place our faith in Christ alone. When we do, His righteousness is reckoned to us, just as it was to Abraham (Romans 4:18-5:1). Just as all our sins are credited to Him (Romans 5:17-19, 2 Corinthians 5:21), His righteousness is credited to us (Romans 5:17). Protestants call this doctrine imputed righteousness.

COG leaders like Rod Meredith malign this doctrine. In fact, he ridicules the teaching in the booklet I quoted earlier, Who or What is the Antichrist: "Now we just 'accept Christ' and His righteousness is somehow imputed to us - without any requirement for righteous works?".

In a word, yes. Rod Meredith's Bible must not include Ephesians 2:8-9, because that's exactly what it says. Salvation has nothing to do with our works. If it did, we could boast about what we've done. Instead, if we boast, it's supposed to be about what Jesus has done (Galatians 6:14).

The "works" part, which Ephesians 2:10 mentions, comes after we repent, accept Jesus' sacrifice and receive the Holy Spirit. Good works are part of a Christian's life, as the book of James states. They are evidence of our conversion, proving we didn't just utter idle words. That's evidence, not cause. If we are truly converted, our hearts are regenerated (Ephesians 2:1-6 and other verses describe this, which some call being "born again"), making us a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17, 1 Peter 1:23). Then God begins the process of sanctification - or making us more and more like Christ. Our lives outwardly will reflect this change within us. How could it not? But this is an effect of sanctification, not a cause.

Yes, we have a part to play in the sanctification process. It's our job to follow Jesus' example (1 Corinthians 11:1), live an obedient life of sacrifice (Romans 12:1), live at peace with others (Hebrews 12:14), avoid covetousness and coarse joking (Ephesians 5:3-4) as well as other behaviors that do not bring honor to God. It's our duty to obey the commands of Jesus and His apostles. But our responsibility is to cooperate with God, not to lead or guide the process. God is the one who transforms us into His image (2 Corinthians 3:18) through discipline (Hebrews 12:10), the truth of His word (John 17:17, Ephesians 5:25-27) and His Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13). It may seem like a trivial distinction,  but it makes all the difference in the world when we put it into practice in our lives.

Remember, Christians who accept this doctrine don't believe it gives us Jesus' character instantly, as COG ministers claim. The imputation of Christ's righteousness simply changes our legal standing with God from "guilty" to "not guilty". This justification (Romans 3:20-25), or covering of our sins, is foreshadowed in prophetic passages like Isaiah 61:10. (I plan to discuss justification, regeneration and sanctification in detail later this year. If you have questions now, please feel free to email me at marthacog@gmail.com)

We are the clay, not the potter. We can't change just by committing to trying harder. We can't just grab hold of the Holy Spirit and use it as a tool to shape ourselves. Trying to do so either leaves us with a self-righteous sense of accomplishment or a hopeless sense of despair, depending upon how honest we are with ourselves. Either way, Satan wins. Our focus is taken from Christ.

Sure, it's possible that God intended for the DUB to teach Israel about sin. Instructions about the festival urge Israel to remember God's deliverance from Egypt, though, not to purge sin. Other scriptures talk about leaven in both negative (Matthew 16:5, 1 Corinthians 5:6-7) and positive terms (Matthew 13:33), although they refer to leaven's ability to permeate, not to puff things up. I don't know if the Israelites found DUB preparation overwhelming. Maybe only modern-day crumb traps like toasters and child car seats show the total futility.

Anyway, doesn't 1 Corinthians 5 tell us to keep the DUB? There's no doubt Paul used leavening as a metaphor for sin here. But notice that 1 Corinthians 5:7 tells the church that they already are unleavened. This likely means that God sees them as officially sinless, not that their houses are deleavened. We know many Jews exiled from Jerusalem were living in Corinth. On a related note, one major concern in Acts and Galatians is that Jewish converts were pressuring Gentile believers to follow physical observances from the Sinai Covenant. So the Corinthian church might have been keeping the DUB, but Galatians 4:21-31 reminds us it was not required for gentiles, to put it mildly. (Nor was it required of Jews who accept the New Covenant, if there is no longer a difference between Jews and Gentiles). For more information, please visit the post Were gentiles in Corinth observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread?

So if Jewish believers and some Gentile Christians kept the DUB, is it OK to do so today? I can't say for sure. Many in the COGs say they do it because they want to obey God, and that certainly is a commendable reason. But if we believe that NOT doing so will cost us our eternal life, then it logically follows that we are keeping it, at least in part, to ensure our salvation. Which is a problem, according to Ephesians 2. To me, it seems like a slippery slope, tempting those who do it to think they are more obedient and righteous than those who don't. That line of reasoning encourages us to look to ourselves and our efforts, instead of Christ, for our salvation - comparing ourselves to others instead of to Him. And that definitely is sin.

In Galatians 3:24, Paul tells us that the law was our tutor - our teacher - to bring us to Christ. For me, the DUB was exactly that. Not as the COGs explain it - as an annual cycle teaching me the way to live - but as a teacher that showed me my own efforts were in vain. That placing my full faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross was my only hope. The purpose of the Sinai Covenant and the prophets was to point us to Christ - that is what Paul meant when he wrote that Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). One doesn't continue practicing elementary addition drills when they are enrolled in college algebra.

God loves you. He loves you so much that He willingly suffered a brutal death on the cross for you. He wants you to live a happy, abundant life - not brimming with self-righteous pride or wallowing in depression. Step into the New Covenant and enter into His rest - into a life that's humble yet secure in your salvation. A life, not just a week, that's truly unleavened.   

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