Once And Future Kingdom - Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is man that You should be mindful of him?

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

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

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

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

FORWARD TO THE PAST, MARTY!

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

Wait. What? The restoration of Babylon?? Yes!

Don't take that in the wrong way. I don't mean Babylon would be rebuilt, as a doomsday worldview would be inclined to take it. I mean something quite different than that. I mean a healing. A reformation.
Not the restoration of that evil empire called Babylon. I mean a healing of what happened after the Tower of Babel.

The time for the restoration of the scattering that happened at Babylon, and the promise that Abraham would bless all nations, had arrived. The Jews were waiting for the regathering of scattered Israel ("Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"), but the real story was much more than just that. The Gentile banishment was over, and the Gentiles would be gathered as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is such a pivotal verse! The time was fulfilled back then. The Kingdom of God was at hand back then. This was why Jesus declared the Kingdom of God was at hand, because the effort had begun. He has delivered [past tense] us from the power of darkness and conveyed [past tense] us into the kingdom of the Son of His love  (COL. 1: 13).
In other words, anyone from that time on who accepted Jesus as their Lord were then snatched away from the powers and principalities in the Kingdom of Death and transferred into the Kingdom of Life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am choosing B.

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

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

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

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

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

THE WORLD TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

To commence is not to complete. In part I of this series, we talked a lot about how things are partial now but will have a fuller fulfillment in the future. It's the same here. The Great Commission will not be finished until He returns a second time. It's a process. Therefore, we see the time had come and the time was yet to come. The Kingdom was at hand and waits for a future enlargement. You don't have to pick one or the other. It's both! Like a mustard seed, it grows and grows. Yet, it is no less a mustard plant when it is small. We may have reversed Babylon, but we haven't gotten back to Eden. That's our true destination - Eden. So, you see, it's both now and future.

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Once And Future Kingdom - Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THREE ISSUES AT HAND

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

Issue #1: When?

First, was it imminent, or distant?

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

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

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

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

But!

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

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

The timing is an issue.

Issue #2: Whose?

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

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

So, the Kingdom belongs to the Father.

But!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possession is an issue.

Issue #3: Where?

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

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

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

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

But!

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

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

Near? Upon? Heaven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Location is a problem.

I PROPOSE A SOLUTION

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

The answer: it's all of the above.

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

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

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

ONCE AND FUTURE KINGDOM

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

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

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

I know that is a lot to ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOW, BUT NOT FULLY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is the once and future kingdom.

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

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

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

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

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

Utter perfection. Amen!

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once and Future Kingdom Pat II.

 

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

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

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

Why Not Keep Biblical Days?

From all different corners of the world, and from people of various flavors of Protestantism, some version of this question has been popping up more and more lately:
Why do we keep made up holidays when the Bible gave us days we can keep?

It's a valid question that deserves an answer.

This is something we have hit on over and over again here at As Bereans Did since around 2010. We don't mind repeating ourselves (at some point we are going to want to stop, though, because frankly we've gone over this). Usually, the target audience is Armstrongists. Today, I am going to talk past the usual audience to address a more general population.

So, what is our response? Why not keep biblical days? I will start by answering the question with a question.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'KEEP'?

So, you're going to "keep" a day that you see in the Bible. How do you plan to do that, exactly?

--HOW/WHERE

What do you plan to do to "keep" the biblical day? Are you going to keep this biblical day according to the biblical instructions for it? So, for example, let's imagine it's Passover. You're going to do what exactly? Eat a Seder? Do you know the Seder as it is kept today by the Jews is not what is instructed in the Bible? The Bible doesn't say to have four cups of wine and a hard boiled egg and vegetables in salt water and gefilte fish. If you are going to keep a biblical day - stressing the idea that you got it from the Bible rather than some made up holiday - don't you think you should keep it the way the Bible says to, rather than, you know, making up ways to keep it?

Don't worry. We have you covered. Here's what you do --

First, you travel to Jerusalem. You can opt to travel to Jerusalem if you're female, but if you're male you are required to. Because that's the only place you are allowed to keep it (DEU. 16: 5-7). You're going to have to do this a little early, because you need to select a lamb or a goat without blemish then keep it with you for four days (EXO. 12: 3-5). So, get there by the 10th of Nissan. Then, at the very start of the 14th of Nissan, you go ahead and remove all leaven from your household (EXO. 12: 15). That means no yeast or baking soda or rising agents of any kind. And no already leavened bread, which includes dough starters, cereals, cookies, crumbs, and etc. Jews will remove grains as well, to make sure they aren't contaminated with microbes that might cause them to rise when cooked. (It's a valid concern as that was how risen bread was made in the ancient times.) The Jews also include any alcoholic drink made form grains. Anything with leavening in it has to go (DEU. 16: 4). Hint: you might want to check inside your toaster and under the seats of your car, too. (I know that from experience.) For seven days, the only bread you may eat must be unleavened (EXO. 16: 3). It's not just that you must avoid leavened bread, you must actively eat unleavened bread (EXO. 12: 20). Matzo is an easy option. Make sure it's Matzo rated for Passover, because not all Matzo is. (I know that from experience, too.) Removing leavening from your home will be difficult while you're in Jerusalem, we know. Perhaps you might want to divide the responsibilities, because as someone is at home removing the leaven, someone else is going to have to go to the Temple and sacrifice that lamb, or goat if you're bougie (EXO. 12: 6). Then, once the animal is properly sacrificed by the Temple Priests, you can go back to wherever you are staying in town and roast that lamb on its bones with some bitter herbs (EXO. 12: 8). Don't get fancy and try cooking it any other way, as that is not permitted (EXO. 12: 9). Goat burger with feta, arugula, and a mint aioli is verboten. Leftovers are also not allowed. Anything you can't finish eating that night will have to be burned up (EXO. 12: 10). No gyro for you tomorrow.

And while you're doing all that, the Temple Priests will be doing the offerings in Numbers 28: 19-24.

And that is the minimum requirement for how you keep a Passover! You are now ready to keep your first Biblical day.

You may have noticed an issue regarding the Temple and the animal sacrifices. Yes, that has been a thorny problem lo these past 1,900 years. It does have the unfortunate effect of making it nigh impossible to keep a biblical Passover. And that is a main reason why the early church didn't even try. So, how are you going to "keep" this biblical day, exactly, when you literally cannot keep it as the Bible says to? Make something up? The Jews did! It was the only reasonable thing they could do. So, they made up new traditions. Oh, we are not criticizing the Jews at all. Not one bit. They did what they had to do to continue observing ordinances given to them. It was either that or stop altogether. Can you blame them? We don't. But, that takes us right back to the initial problem, doesn't it? You've made up a holiday.

Oh, you can add in things that were done during the Last Supper, like foot washing - which was also made up, as there is no law for foot washing - but it might be good to bear in mind that Jesus did not have the Last Supper apart from its Jewish context. It was a Jewish Passover performed by Jews living during the final hours of the Old Covenant period. Jesus was doing the things we've reviewed and adding new elements. Adding Last Supper elements to your biblical Passover doesn't do anything to remove your obligation to also do what is required for your biblical day to be Biblical. Forgoing Passover elements and only going for Last Supper elements definitely turns Passover into Easter. It's what the first century church did. They got rid of Passover elements, only kept the bread and wine, and went forward calling it Passover. That would be the opposite of what you're going for, though. You're going for keeping a biblical day, not Easter. But isn't the Last Supper biblical? And you can't do the things required for your biblical day. There is no Temple, nor Priesthood, nor animal sacrifices. So I guess that leaves everyone in a difficult spot. The exact same spot as the first century church.

--WHEN

Now, when will you be enjoying this Passover?

The Bible says to observe it on the 14th day of the month of Nissan (aka Abib) (EXO. 12: 6). But when is that, precisely? Will you follow the Jews? Don't you know the modern Jewish calendar is not the same calendar used at the Temple in Jerusalem? After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and after the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem due to the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 AD, the calendar used at the Temple no longer worked. So, Rabi Hillel II revamped the calendar in 359 AD. The calendar the Jews use today is based on but not the same as the one used at the Temple. In fact it's better. But better is still different. You are going to want a biblical calendar to go with your biblical day. What calendar did they use at the Temple? We aren't entirely sure. They kept the formula somewhat of a secret. What we know for certain is it's not exactly the one used today. Since we are on the topic of calendars, didn't you know the Jews had at least three "Hebrew" calendars in the first century (Essene, Galilean, and Judean/Babylonian)? And none of those three are exactly what Moses used. So, you need to decide which calendar you are going to follow. Don't choose a made up one!

What's more, when will you be enjoying this Passover meal?

You should know there is currently a timing dispute among people who attempt to "keep" this biblical day. Not calendar timing. This is different. The dispute is over when on the 14th the Passover rituals, like the Seder & etc., should be performed. Should it be on the evening at the start of the 14th or the evening at the end of the 14th? Hebrew days went from sunset to sunset, so each day technically had two evenings. Several verses say Passover rituals should be "at twilight" or "evening" on the 14th (EXO. 12: 18; LEV. 23: 5; NUM. 9: 3-5, 28: 16; JOS. 5: 10). But what does "at twilight" or "evening" or "between the evenings" mean, exactly? The first or the second? A casual reading could get you equally to either evening. I will spare you the details. Suffice it to say it gets complicated. Jesus kept His final Passover on the first evening, while the Jews kept it on the second. (There is nothing to indicate Jesus always kept Passover this way. It is reasonable to conclude He did not.) Who shall you follow? The one keeping the biblical day, or the one keeping the biblical day? In the end, we have two camps of people "keeping" the same biblical day on two different evenings. Which will you choose? And what will you say to the other camp, or about the other camp, when they question your decision? What will you do if they accuse you of heresy? The majority of non-Jews who "keep" biblical days aren't doing it because they find it fulfilling, they are doing it because they feel commanded to. They call them God's holy days. Any departure from their doctrine will threaten them and win you a negative response. You are a heretic in defiance of God in their eyes. And they will be happy to share that fact with you. You might want to be fully educated on why you chose what you did. But not for their sake. They are right and you are wrong and that is that. No, for your own sake. I suggest starting with a good understanding of the two Great Covenants.

--WHO

I am going to assume you are a Gentile since I cannot imagine any Jew would ever ask a question like this in the first place. So, Gentile, how do you plan on "keeping" Passover as a Gentile? Don't you know that according to the law of Passover, Gentiles were forbidden from observing Passover (EXO. 12: 43-49)? That's the law! That law likely includes Firstfruits and the Days of Unleavened Bread, since they were often lumped together under the term Passover. You must become a Jew in order to observe these days. Men, schedule your circumcision. Ladies, marry an Israelite. People like to say, "God gave us days to keep." But, did He? Because He didn't give them to us Gentiles at all. He gave them to the Jews, and Jews only. This is another main reason why the early church didn't even try to "keep" biblical days.

Jews can be some of the most welcoming people. Once they get to know you, they will invite people to share in their observance of Passover. They do so without expecting anything, including conversion. Conversion is generally not what they want at all. They just want to share who they are. I respect that, deeply. I would go without hesitation. However, it isn't exactly what the Bible prescribes. For a Jew to share their Passover is one thing. It's their day. It was given to them. They can share it if they want to. It's another thing entirely for a Gentile to take the day upon themselves. It's not our day. It wasn't given to us. If you are taking up this day when the Bible clearly says not to, are you doing the right thing, biblically speaking? The point is to be biblical, right?

I would imagine being prohibited from keeping a day we aren't sure when to keep and which we cannot keep as prescribed even if we wanted to is really going to complicate this plan to "keep" a biblical day.

So far, we have only gone over Passover. I haven't gone into the other biblical days, such as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Pentecost, Rosh Hashanah, Atonement, or Tabernacles. Not to mention Purim, which is in the Bible, so it's biblical, but it's also "made up" by the Jews (EST. 9: 22-27). Or Hanukkah, which is mentioned in the Gospels (JON. 10: 22-23), so it's biblical, but is detailed only in the Apocrypha, because it's "made up" by the Jews, too. Biblical and made up? Yes. It's enough to make a person think "made up" holidays are entirely permitted by the Bible. Because they are. In other words, it's biblical to make up days to honor God. The Bible allows that. How does that affect your decision?

But believe me, the other days come with just as much if not more detail as Passover. Do you even own a shofar? You'll need one. Will you side with the Pharisees or the Sadducees on when to observe Firstfruits? It matters. Are you going to have a last great day to your Tabernacles or not? Remember when I said you have to travel to Jerusalem to keep the Passover? You actually have to do that three times a year. Yeah. Please take the time to understand what you're getting yourself into before you start down this road of "keeping" biblical days.

Maybe you thought this was going to be a simple thing. Perhaps you thought you would just take a made up day out and put a biblical day in, like changing socks. The reality is it's not so simple in practice as it is in theory. This section has been about the days as they actually are. Using Passover as an example, we have shown you the law. In other words, the days as they actually are, not as they are reinvented, or romanticized, to be. Do you love the days as they are, as they actually are, or have you built up an idea in your mind about the days that changes them into something else?

DAYS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

What days are given in the New Testament to remember events of the New Testament? Answer: none.

Passover does nothing to recall His resurrection - the greatest single event in the history of the physical universe. Keeping biblical days does not take you back to the early church, it takes you back to Sinai.

What days are directly commanded in the New Testament? Answer: none.

There is nothing new commanded to remember events of the New Testament. The Apostles commanded no mandatory days of observance at all. The early church observed the Last Supper, but with newly made symbols and meanings of our Lord not with old symbols and meanings of Old Covenant law, and by tradition not command.

Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me," but He didn't exactly specify when (LUK. 22: 19). It does not say, "Do Passover in remembrance of Me every year." It says bread and wine "in remembrance of Me" (I COR. 11: 24-25), and that isn't really Passover. Yes, the bread is a Passover element, but it is one element out of many and hardly enough to constitute all of Passover. The wine is not commanded as a Passover element anywhere, and Jesus doesn't say anything at all about the rest of those things we went over in the last section. So, when do we remember Him with bread and wine? It doesn't say. Doing something is clearly assumed, but what, and when?

For the most part, the early church decided weekly and annually. Is that "made up"? Yes and no. Which will you go with, the 'yes' or the 'no'? Or both? People talk about "made up" days like there was some cut and dry system which most of the early church decided to ignore. That's simply not the case.

Paul said, "Let us keep the feast," apparently in reference to Passover, but then he went right on to change the imagery, saying, "not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth," (I COR. 5: 8). Some people say this is a command to keep Old Covenant holy days, but we disagree since the context cannot support such a far-reaching conclusion as that. Paul is using imagery to make a point about morality vs immorality. Goes well with what he said in Romans 7: 6.

So, what does the New Testament say about days? It says a couple things.

First off, it says the Jewish converts were "zealous for the law" (ACT. 21: 20-21). What this means is, the Jewish converts were fully permitted to continue in their Old Covenant traditions in the New Covenant era. That includes days. Those things are their culture. Those things were given to them (ROM. 3: 1-2; 9: 4-5). It's theirs to keep (ROM. 11: 29). They can both accept Jesus as their Messiah and keep the Old Covenant traditions of their forefathers. Jews were not required to become Gentiles in order to be Christians.

Second, conversely, it says Gentiles were under no obligation to observe Old Covenant traditions (ACT. 20: 25). How could they be obligated if they are in fact forbidden? They cannot. Acts 15 is all about how that decision was made. It was God Himself who revealed the Gentiles were under no such obligations (ACT. 15: 28-29). So, the Gentiles were not to be circumcised nor keep the whole law (ACT. 15: 5). That includes days. Almost the entire book of Galatians is a record of Paul dealing with this issue. Yet, even as Paul zealously defended the Gentiles from legalism, he never abandoned his own Jewishness (ACT. 21: 24). Gentiles do not need to become Jews in order to be Christians.

Third, Paul made it abundantly clear that there are no obligatory days in the New Covenant (ROM. 14: 5-7). There is no command from the Apostles in the New Covenant to observe any day. We know days were observed. The Lord's Day was definitely observed. I am not saying days were not observed. I am only saying days were not commanded to be observed. Observe days, don't observe days, it's all the same. Either way, what you choose to do, do it to the Lord. Now, the Quartodeciman Controversy taught us a good lesson about how this freedom affects unity, so take that lesson with you.

Fourth, Paul specifically expresses concern about it.

(GAL. 4: 10-11) 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

Paul is not talking about divination or paganism. If Galatians were doing those sorts of things, Paul would express more than just concern. Paul goes back to Genesis 1: 14 to get this phrase. The days and months and seasons and years he refers to are in reference Old Covenant law (EZE. 45: 17). You know, those biblical days you are thinking about keeping. If we follow the context of Galatians, we know Paul is specifically warning the Gentiles about taking up Old Covenant days. That is the overarching context of the book. It concerns him so much because if people start mixing law with grace, it can ruin their faith (GAL. 5: 1-4). That's why Paul says, "I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." That's some very serious stuff. Why do we not "keep" Old Covenant biblical days? Because it's not as great an idea as it sounds.

This is where it gets important to know your motivation.

KNOW YOUR MOTIVATION

This comes from introspection. There are many questions to ask yourself. Primarily, why would you want to do this in the first place?

Be honest with yourself and peal away the rhetorical buzz phrases like "made up" and "biblical" that are only there to manipulate. What is your true motivation? Are you bored? Are you disappointed? Do you feel there is a more genuine experience to be had in those days? Are you looking for more spirituality? Do you think the Old Covenant Pesach will bring you closer to Jesus than the New Covenant Pascha? Are you tired of secular encroachment on Christian holidays? (I am!) Do you think the Old Covenant days are commanded for Christians? Do you prefer days that remember events from the Old Testament versus days that remember events from the New Testament? I bet it's not that last one. I hope it's not this next one! Do you feel you will become more pure or holier than others if you "keep" these biblical days while they keep their "made up" days?

So, we ask, what is your motivation? Do you really love these biblical days as they actually are, or do you love the idea of these days that you (or someone else) have made up?

We also ask, why stop there? Why stop at annual days? Why not go on to weekly Sabbaths? The biblical rest day. And why stop there? Why not also have tithes? The biblical way to pay. And why stop there? Why not have clean/unclean meats laws, too? The biblical way to eat. And why stop there? Why not also prohibit mixing of fabrics? The biblical way to dress. And why stop there? Why not do everything according to the Jewish calendar (or whatever calendar you chose earlier)? The biblical way to tell time. And why stop there? Why not add various other laws? The biblical way to be. Why stop there....

It's a slippery slope! Be cautious! A little law leads to a little more. After all, what is so biblical about these days besides the command? Both "biblical" and "made up" days have their roots in the Bible, in worshipping the God of the Bible for things God did in the Bible. So what is the difference? The command. The law. (Even though that same law tells you not to.) Thousands before you have been tripped up over this. Your motivation will either make or break you on this point. This is precisely what worried Paul!

Don't think that could ever happen to you? Look at the original question. It sets up two options: biblical vs made up. You could see that as a wrote matter of cold fact. Sure. Or, you could see that as a rhetorical dichotomy. Words meant to set one idea up and pull another idea down. One is biblical. Godly. Yay! The other is made up. Worldly. Boo! Hiss! Therein lies the rub. The toe is already dipped into the pool of us vs. them before you even make a choice. Who would want to choose made up days? :-( Only people who don't obey God, am I right? So, off people go by the score, to "keep" a godly and holy biblical day ...that they make up. Only a few steps down that road, and "made up" day becomes "pagan" and "sinful" day. Oh, beloved by God, be so very careful about your motivations! The road to self righteousness lies before you. Again, I come back to Paul's worry.

CONCLUSION

Why do we keep "made up" holidays when the Bible gave us days we can keep?

• Because we can. There's nothing wrong with it. The book of Esther makes that clear enough.
• Because there's a lot more to it than taking Easter out and putting Passover in. Or any other biblical day. There is a whole lot more to it.
• Because unless you modify them, biblical days miss important parts of New Covenant events. Where is God's incarnation? Not in Trumpets. Where is Jesus' resurrection? Not in Passover.
• Because Gentiles are forbidden by law from keeping those days. When contemplating what days "the Bible gives us", it is a good idea to remember to whom the Bible actually gave those days. Hint: it's not us, the Gentiles.
• Because it's a matter of Covenants. They aren't the same! Know which one actually applies to you. Making the wrong choice will have far-reaching consequences.
• Because there is no command to observe Old Covenant days in the New Covenant. No day is commanded in the New. People want commands. Having none in the New, they go to the Old. Which brings us right back to knowing which covenant applies to you.
• Because it's not a safe option to mix law with grace. Be wary, lest you start seeing days as having some part to play in your salvation, as meriting you something, as obligatory, or as making you somehow better off than your fellow Christian. That's when Christ's righteousness in you by faith becomes self-righteousness by law, where "gift" becomes "merit", and you fall from grace.
• Because we can no longer "keep" biblical days as the Bible demands they should be kept. And if you aren't keeping them as the Bible says to, are you really keeping them at all? Are they really biblical? Or are they ... made up days? And if it's made up, then what's the point?

Be cautious! Mind your motivations. Know your covenants.

Hopefully this article goes over the highlights of the issue and helps you to get a better idea of what this decision really entails. As I said, there is a lot more to it. An informed decision is a better decision. We have many articles in our Categories page to help you.

We pray you make the right choice for your walk with God. Whatever choice you make, make it in faith, make it to the Lord, and stay humble. We hope for you God's guidance, grace, and blessings.

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

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

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

Our prayer for you this Feast of Tabernacles

Every year, As Bereans Did likes to offer some food for thought with regards to the fall holy days. This year, we spent some time in prayer trying to narrow things down, because we found several topics that sounded interesting to explore further. But we kept coming back to the same thought:

Anyone who's checking this site during the Feast of Tabernacles is probably not having the "best Feast ever." What you need is encouragement, not an argument.

We know that the Feast can be a challenging time for those who are questioning within the Church of God movement. We've been there. It feels like everyone around you is having the time of their lives. They are rejoicing amidst the sight-seeing adventures, snorkeling and winery tours. Meanwhile, the same canned, reheated sermons and polite lunchtime fellowship are leaving you feeling spiritually empty.

Maybe you're excited to see some old familiar faces - faces of acquaintances you haven't seen since the last split. Maybe they're back! Or maybe your Feast site was closer to home, or in a dream destination they've always wanted to visit. A principled choice, indeed, for folks who left a handful of years ago, saying they wondered if those who lead your organization had ever really been "called."

Or maybe the division within the COGs is hitting you in a different way this year. Your site is smaller than ever before, with friends you're missing noticeably absent. Maybe you're making plans to meet them for lunch when your respective services on the opposite sides of town get out. Or maybe you're praying not to run into them at all, as the friendship dissolved, tragically and painfully, during the last split.

How can this be in God's one true church? Celebrating God's true festivals? In His chosen place? There must be something wrong with you.

Oh yes. Something is wrong. But it's not with you.

We're so, so sorry that you're feeling this way. Truly. We've been there, and it's no fun.

But we're glad these questions are coming up. God often uses pain to wake us up and reach us. It's hard to get our attention when we're comfortable and content.

Trust Him. Listen and follow Him. His sheep hear His voice. And know that we are earnestly praying for you at this time. And that we're here for you, because of you. And that things will get better.





_____________________________________________________________________

But... for those who came here for some comic relief, or miss the usual level of snark ABD delivers, we're throwing in our top 5 Feast of Tabernacles ideas as a bonus:

• Beachfront resort towns seem like a counter-intuitive spot for God to place His name annually during the Atlantic hurricane season. Thanks to the late feast this year, most sites seem to have dodged the bullet – unless you had reservations in the Bahamas. (All joking aside, we pray for those in the Bahamas. If you have excess second tithe, consider donating it here to the disaster fund administered by the Grand Bahama Port Authority). But if the National Weather Service can predict paths with somewhat reliable accuracy several days out, surely the Lord can do even better. Maybe the Feast was never intended to be celebrated in the New World – or even after the fall of the Temple. 
• Speaking of Jerusalem – if you're not keeping the Feast there, you may be doing it wrong. Those who support celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles based on the claim that nothing from the Sinai Covenant has passed except the sacrifices need to explain why it's ok to celebrate the festival in locations like Panama City Beach. In a hotel, rather than a palm frond sukkot. (Wait, I know! Because they're not up to hurricane construction codes: see also previous point).
• If you subscribe to the view that the holy days were established at creation, then there's precedent for celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles elsewhere. However, we'd like to see hard evidence that He has placed His name somewhere besides Jerusalem, after the fall of the temple. Aside from Panama City Beach, that is, where as many as 11 Church of God groups keep the Feast in separate venues. After all, things did not go well for Israel after Jeroboam changed the date and location of the festival. (I am starting to notice a pattern. See both points 1 and 2).  
• That Paul's dogged determination to get to Jerusalem for ONE Pentecost celebration is not a mandate for the entire gentile world to celebrate the Hebrew festivals. Scripture doesn't clarify whether Paul went primarily to celebrate the festival or to publicly exonerate claims against him through fulfilling a Nazirite-like vow. What it does make clear, though, is that he spent two uninterrupted years at the School of Tyrannus in Ephesus, more than a thousand miles from Jerusalem. And that when he finally did make his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he didn't try to convince the Ephesian brethren they were obligated to join him. 
• That, despite recent claims from the United Church of God, you do not need to celebrate the Hebrew festivals to enter the Kingdom of God.  One recent Beyond Today article we find particularly annoying tries to link the Hebrews 10:25 admonition to assemble with meeting to celebrate the holy days. The author completely inserts this idea into the text, which primarily deals with not losing the faith and assembling to encourage and serve one another. Not to mention that the concept is in complete contradistinction to Acts 16: 30-34. Paul and Silas had the perfect chance to instruct the jailer – likely a Philippian gentile – on UCG's finer points of salvation. Alas, they did not. 

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

The Feast: Celebrating the Coming Kingdom of Law

Last time I wrote, I said that I would talk about the biggest reason I believe that many who are struggling in Armstrongism might not feel like rejoicing at the Feast of Tabernacles. In that post, I poked fun at a handful of smaller annoyances that many experience. But I believe there is a bigger problem with the Feast - an underlying cause for the feelings of emptiness.


The Kingdom of Law

I noticed that, this year, COGWA created a shareable “Feast of Tabernacles” social media guide that the group encouraged its members to share with their friends.

It explains what the Feast is, includes references from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, tells how to choose a site, talks about meeting friends and celebrating a foretaste of God's Kingdom, and concludes by encouraging readers to go home, plan for next year and learn more about the holy days.

Anybody notice something missing? Something kinda important? Um, maybe something, ANYTHING, about the king who returns to rule this kingdom?

On this explicitly sharable, social-media ready statement to the world, we have little indication that this document came from a Christian organization. The only oblique reference to Jesus Christ comes in point 3 of 5:

“We look forward to the time when all who have not had an opportunity for salvation will be resurrected to physical life and have a chance to live life according to God's plan in the world created by Christ during His millennial rule. God will then judge all people by their actions.”

Sure, it's not exactly vintage Herbert W Armstrong:

“Then I stated with all the power God gave me that I was the representative of the Great God, and that I was there to warn them that the 6,000 years are just about up, and that God would very soon supernaturally INTERVENE, and send the Messiah, Christ, in supreme power and

glory to SET UP THAT WORLD-RULING GOVERNMENT, to rule with GOD'S GOVERNMENT – and His Laws that will CAUSE peace, happiness, and universal well-being, for the next thousand years on earth. That the nations would FIGHT against Him, but that God will FORCE a rebellious humanity to have PEACE, prosperity, and happiness. This, I said, is the Message of the Kingdom of God.” (HWA Co-worker letter, 11/26/73, courtesy of Banned by HWA). 

Rather, it's a kinder, gentler translation of HWA's words. COGWA's message may be carefully cloaked in millennial language and allusions to “Christ,” but the underlying message is the same. The Feast of Tabernacles - as celebrated by the COGWA and the other Armstrongist Churches of God – has the same basic theme as its other observances and messages - living by the Sinai Covent law of Israel; and being judged for salvation on how good of a job you do.

Thank I'm exaggerating? I took some time to listen to the featured Feast sermon on the United Church of God's member web site. Now, UCG is often criticized by more hardline Armstrongist groups for being the most evangelical splinter group to come out of the Worldwide Church of God. Can you guess upon which book the speaker, longtime pastor Jerold Aust, based this keynote Feast of Tabernacles sermon?

Nehemiah. Yup, some of the classic millennial, gospel-centered, forwarding-looking chapters of the Old Testament right there. (imagine sarcasm font here).

So, according to Aust, God sent Israel into captivity because they didn't celebrate His feasts. To be fair, that may have been a part of it. But Jeremiah 25 tells us specifically that God sent Judah into captivity because of their idolatry. Verses 5 and 6 tell us that the Jeremiah warned Judah: “saying, turn now, every one of you, from his evil way and evil deeds, and dwell upon the land that the Lord has given to you and your fathers from of old and forever. Do not go after other gods to serve and worship them, or provoke me to anger with the work of your hands. Then I will do you no harm.”

Judah did not listen to the prophets and continued to worship false gods, so the Lord used Nebuchadnezzar to defeat them and put them in captivity. But I digress.

Anyway, Aust noted that Ezra and Nehemiah read the book of the law to the Israelites, and then reminded them not to weep, because it was a feast day to the Lord and they were commanded to rejoice. And so instead, the people made booths and feasted, and the heads of the households came together to study the law. Happy Feast!

But rejoicing isn't just for the Old Testament! Aust then scripture-flips forward to Philippians 4:4, which reminds us to always rejoice in the Lord. Now, Philippians doesn't mention the Feast of Tabernacles or any millennial reign. In fact, it appears that Paul is writing from prison and spends his letter recounting many of his trials, exhorting his brothers in Christian living and talk about the fact that he has learned to rejoice and be content in any situation, including his current imprisonment. But...he says to REJOICE! So it must jive with Nehemiah and the Feast of Booths!

If that isn't enough evidence, Aust then turns to Romans 5:2, which breaks in mid-thought: “Through Him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”  

Now that MUST be millennial! Paul is rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God!

Yes and no. Mostly no, but a little bit yes. Paul has just finished a treatise on justification by grace through faith, and is talking about our standing before God in Jesus. We can have hope of being glorified because God promises it to those who place their faith in Jesus, according to the verse that immediately precedes it. Immediately after, Paul talks about rejoicing in our suffering because it builds character, and that character produces hope – a hope that is bolstered by God's love and the Holy Spirit.

But wait, Mr. Aust mentions the Holy Spirit, too! It is, after all, the down payment we receive on our eternal life. And if we are able to try hard enough to foot the rest of the bill, well, then, God will make good on His promise!

In fact, Aust says, it is our responsibility to do so, including keeping the Feast! After all, the Bible says God will shorten the tribulation for the sake of the elect. Then, once we have fulfilled our responsibility by qualifying through keeping the law, we can get back to rebuilding the earth and teaching the generations who are still alive and are resurrected how to keep the law. Which brings us full circle back to COGWA's social media campaign.

In summary: we keep the Feast of Tabernacles in order to obey the law. If we do a good enough job keeping the law, we will qualify to be in God's Kingdom, where we will teach others how to keep the law, so that they can also eventually be judged on their ability to keep the law.

But this isn't earning our salvation, the COGs tell us.


Veiled Hearts and Minds

This whole discussion reminds me of the spiritual blindness that mixing the covenants seems to promote in the COGs.  Specifically,  2 Corinthians 3. Here, I'll throw in a few for free.

Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? (v. 7-8).

Indeed this is the case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that has surpassed it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. (v. 10-11). 

But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day

 whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. (verses 14-16). 


In fact, many COG articles I've read spend so much ink demonstrating to us that Jesus kept the Feast that they barely have time or space to explain why Jesus really matters.

Let's get this straight. Yes, Mr. Aust is correct. The New Testament writers discuss topics like hope and joy quite a bit. And their hope and joy came from the fact that they stood justified before God through Jesus Christ's sacrifice, not in their keeping of the law. They were grateful that they no longer had to fear eternal punishment when they fell short of this law, the law which they themselves stated they were unable to keep:

“Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee, as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith...” Philippians 3:4-9.

Let's be clear, because I know many claim Paul is just talking about circumcision, just like they claim he is talking about circumcision alone in Acts 15. Not true. The use of the Greek conjunction “te” in Acts 15:5 indicates the Judaizers were stating Gentiles must both be circumcised AND keep the law of Moses, not be circumcised in keeping with the law of Moses. This same law which, as Peter states in verse 10, neither he nor his fathers could bear? Circumcision wasn't the yoke of bondage. The Law of Moses was the yoke of bondage.

Here are some other statements the New Testament writers - those guys whom Aust seems to think are all about rejoicing over the law - made about the law:

Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by Him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38-39). 

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law, there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring – not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the  father of us all.” (Romans 4:13-16). 

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions around by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:2-6). 

For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. Hebrews 8:7

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13). 

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and now by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16). 

In Galatians 3:2-3, Paul could just as easily be asking Jerold Aust, or Jim Franks, or Gerald Weston, or Stephen Flurry: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?


Mixing Wineskins

The Feast of Tabernacles, as taught and observed by the COGs, try to do just that: they celebrate a theology in which the “down payment” of the Holy Spirit is gained by repentance and confession of faith, then grasped onto for dear life by observing cherry-picked tenets of the law. If you hit an unquantifiable, unmeasurable threshold of obedience to that “law,” you qualify for eternal life in God's Kingdom, where you will teach survivors of Armageddon, and eventually the whole world, how to keep the law well enough to qualify for eternal life.

(I am not getting into an argument about the Great White Throne judgment in what is already a ridiculously long post. Suffice it to say that most Christians believe the book of Hebrews when it says that it is appointed for all men to die once and then be judged, and the book of Romans when it says that there is no condemnation in the judgment for those who are found in Christ).

However, the Bible describes things a little differently for those who accept grace through faith, but return to law-keeping to maintain their right standing with God.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:2-4). 

Again, I remind you, this is not just circumcision we are talking about. Acts 15 clearly tells us, unequivocally in the Greek, that Gentiles were being pressured to be circumcised AND keep the law. So, if you are keeping components of law in order to have right standing with God, then Galatians states that Christ's sacrifice does nothing for you.

You are probably asking, how do I know whether I am keeping the festivals in order to maintain my standing with God? Well, let me ask YOU a question: what do you think would happen to you if you stopped?

Do you believe you would be forfeiting your eternal life? If so, there's your answer.


So, that's why the Feast begins to feel hollow to those who see the cracks in Armstrongism. You are mixing wineskins. You are seeking the joy, fulfillment and peace of the New Covenant as described by Paul, Peter and John, but trying to grasp it - told you it is possible to obtain it – told you MUST qualify for it or else - through the practices of Israel. You are searching for light among the shadows.

If you are part of the bride of Christ, you can only be party to one covenant at a time – the Sinai Covenant or the New Covenant.  The Sinai Covenant can't help but leave you feeling empty. It was specifically designed to do so, in order to point to future fulfillment in Christ. Feeling that hollowness isn't an indication that there's something wrong with you. It's an indication that there's something right, and that God is calling you into that better covenant with better promises. You've learned the lesson. Maybe it's time to leave the tutor behind.

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