What's Written Between the Lines in LCG's "Tomorrow's World"?

Man, LCG. You got me again. I don’t know how you do it. Maybe it’s the attractive mushroom cloud on the cover of your magazine. Maybe I have mommy guilt because I’ve let my emergency canned food supply dwindle. Either way, when the November-December issue of the Living Church of God’s Tomorrow’s World arrived in the mail this week, I couldn’t resist turning to the issue’s featured story, “Are You Ready for Christ’s Return?”

The thing I enjoyed most about this article was that it never actually mentioned how to be ready for Christ’s return. Instead, the author, Richard Ames, detailed the terrifying events that will lead up to the Battle of Armageddon - in between heart-warming pictures of fiery oil wells and abandoned gas masks lying in piles of rubble.

Now, I don’t mean to imply I think there’s a way to be physically prepared for the Second Coming. Bottled water, food rations, whatever – it isn’t going to cut it. But I would assume there would be some spiritual admonition given here, like “start keeping the Sabbath,” “Throw out your Christmas decorations” or even something vague like “Get right with God.” But there was none of that. It didn’t even mention contacting LCG.  Ames totally missed the point.

Unless that wasn’t the point.

Once again, I’m inclined to believe that this article is largely intended to scare LCG’s disgruntled membership into staying with the embattled organization. Sure, it might frighten a few anxious newcomers into Rod Meredith’s cold, clammy embrace. But with no mention of the Sabbath, Holy Days or other standard COG doctrines, my guess is it’s intended for folks who already agree on these points.

When you consider that, just pages earlier in the magazine, Meredith warns that “within the next several years, a genuine ‘spirit’ war will break out,” after which Satan will finally be cast into the bottomless pit, we can almost certainly conclude the target audience is LCG members who are ready to jump ship. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “several” as more than two - but not very many more - which seems to undermine Meredith’s longstanding teaching that Christians cement their  salvation through a lifetime of obedience.  Are we to believe a human who joins LCG this year could prove him or herself trustworthy “not to become another Satan,” as the COGs teach, in just a few short years? Hardly. Fresh fish don’t seem to be his target.

Honestly, I struggled to find a true “action point” that would get me “ready” for Christ’s return. Ames warned that that our world will experience increasingly severe weather extremes “unless we wholeheartedly return to God.” Can’t do much more than I’m already doing with that one, although I’m sure Ames would disagree.  Still, I can’t do anything about the rest of humanity. What else? I should “wake up and heed what is happening around the world.” Check. “Be spiritually alert for signs of Jesus Christ’s second coming.” “Look forward to His return with confidence, hope and faith.” Besides that? Have a satchel packed for Petra? Buy extra can openers? A portable water filter? Anything?

And this is why I suspect this is article is intended more to control than to inform. It’s certainly in line with LCG’s track record and modus operandi: Don't look around. Don't ask questions. Don't prayerfully consider why God has led you to this blog. If it doesn't come out of Charlotte, it's heresy. 

Ames did have ONE helpful recommendations - to check up on LCG and all preachers by reading my Bible. Luckily, my “false Christian” preacher recently gave a message on the end times. That makes my job easy. Ok, Richard. Let’s see how my pastor is misleading me and the rest of his flock about Christ’s return. These are quotes directly from the sermon transcript:

“It (the Day of the Lord) will include what the Bible calls the Great Tribulation.  That's a seven-year period during which the anti-Christ will rule the earth as a self-proclaimed god.  And during the second half of those seven years, God will begin to pour out His wrath upon the earth.  That's part of the Day of the Lord.  The Day of the Lord also  includes the coming of Jesus Christ.  He'll come to the earth, and He'll rule on a throne in Jerusalem, and for a thousand years, Jesus Christ will rule the earth.  The Bible talks about that, not only in the book of Revelation, but also in Isaiah and other places in the Old Testament.” (Revelation 11:2; 13:5, Daniel 8:19, Daniel 12:7, Revelation 6, Revelation 8, Revelation 16, Revelation 20)

(Note: The COGs dispute that the Tribulation will be 7 years but agree that the destructive phase, when God pours out His wrath, will be a period of about 3-1/2 years)

“Now, you drive up to a railroad crossing, and as you drive up to that railroad crossing, the crossbars come down, the bells begin to ring, the lights are flashing, and you see the train coming  down the line.  When the train comes and crosses in front of your car, when you see that engine coming, there is something that you know for certain.  Now, think about this: When you see the engine coming, there's one thing you know for certain.  Here's what it is: Eventually, the last car on that train will pass by.  Would you agree with me on that?  If you see the engine, eventually, you're going to see the last car.  Now, it may come in five cars, or it may be 10 cars down the line, or it could be 100 cars down the line.  You don't know how long that train's going to be.  But eventually, the last train is going to come.  It's coming.  The Bible says the Day of the Lord comes.  It is coming.  It is certain.  It may come in 10 years.  It may come in 100 years.  It may come in 1,000 years.  It may come in 10,000 years.  I believe it's coming very soon, very shortly, but it is coming.  Time on earth is running out.  The Day of the Lord is coming.  The end of time is coming." (Matthew 24:32-33; 36)

“Do you know something?  The Bible shows us that the people who ridicule us or scoff at us or make fun of us because we believe that Jesus is coming and that judgment is coming and that the end is coming, those people themselves, and their mockery, is a sign that judgment is coming.  Look in your Bible over in 2 Peter, chapter 3.  I want you to see what the Bible has to say.  The Bible says that one of the signs of the end times is that people will mock those who believe that the end times are coming.  Isn't that something?  Look in 2 Peter, chapter 3, beginning in verse 3.  This is a picture of the world today.” (2 Peter 3:3)

Wow. That guy has some nerve. What twisting of God's Word. What distortions of scripture. I guess everyone outside LCG, certainly everyone outside the COGs, is totally deceived about Christ's return. I guess he's also deceived when he reads the following: 

(2 Peter 3:9)  “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Now wait a minute. Why would Jesus delaying His coming keep anyone from perishing? And how is this whole “perishing” thing necessarily a bad thing, eternally speaking? Why would He be concerned whether as many people as possible come to repentance before He returns? Wouldn’t they just come up in the second resurrection and get their chance to repent and accept God’s way? Out of all the Armstrongist teachings I was raised with, this is the one I desperately want to be true.  But the more I study, the more I come across stuff like this: 

(Hebrews 9:27) And as it is appointed for men to die once, then after this the judgment.

My pastor makes his reason for speaking on this topic clear - he cares about your eternal destiny:

“Why would God choose to warn us about the Day of the Lord?  Why would He choose to warn us about judgment? Does He do it to scare us?  Does he do it to frighten us?  Does He do it because He has a bad intent toward us?  No.  He warns us against the Day of the Lord, and He warns us against His judgment, because He does not want you to experience judgment and condemnation at the Day of the Lord."

You can nitpick him on the rapture (a theory on which I'm undecided) or scoff at him because he thinks unbelievers will go to hell immediately after they die (a theory which gains more credibility the more I look at it) rather than rising in a second resurrection. But in this discussion, my pastor, Ames and Meredith are all in agreement that the saints will rise; that Christ will return; that there will be a real Armageddon; and that there is a real hell. They're mostly in disagreement about the timing.  

You can write off my pastor and others like him in the "so-called" Christian world as deceived loons because they disagree with the COGs about timing. But at least they are forthcoming about their motivations for preaching about the end times: they hope you will avoid the judgment and repent, place your full faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice for salvation and then grow to be more like Him in the time you have. What is Richard Ames' reason for publishing his article? It's not to get anyone ready for Christ's return. It's not to implore them to leave "false" Christianity. So what is it? You can be sure they're not just spending their dwindling tithe dollars for the fun of it.

If you are happy in LCG, stay. If you believe it is God’s true church and you see the fruit of the Spirit there (Galatians 5:22-23), then stay. If you admire your leaders, aspire to be like them and desire the kinds of outcomes in your life that their conduct has produced in theirs, (Hebrews 13:7), then stay.  But don’t stay because Rod Meredith and Richard Ames tell you that anything outside LCG is Sodom and Gomorrah. Because they hint that the end is imminent, and that you just have to endure the miserable environment they’ve created a couple more years. Or risk the Lake of Fire. 

Don’t let Rod and his henchmen bully you. You are more than a tithe check. You are more than a backside in a chair, or a number LCG gets to claim in the ongoing COG grudge match for the most members. You are a human being. Jesus loved you enough to die a brutal death for you on the cross. And He still loves you that much today. Any message about the judgment or the terrifying times to come must be rooted in that love. That love is the reason the Lord gave us those sobering passages of Scripture in the first place. To reassure those who are His that He is still in control, no matter what unfolds on earth. To plead with those who are not yet His to turn to Him while they still can. Any message about Armageddon that is not grounded in God's love for you is nothing more than an attempt to scare you, manipulate you and control you.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Babylon the Great

I have wanted to write a post on this topic for some time. I figure I’d better do it now.

After recently discussing at length with several members of various Armstrongist Churches of God on the topic of judgment and condemnation (they weren't talking much about it but I sure was), I spoke with one man who seemed to make a personal crusade of condemning the Catholic Church because he so deeply believes that the Catholic Church is Babylon the Great, as taught by Alexander Hyslop and Herbert Armstrong. Considering my recent posts on True History of the True Church and Who Is the Beast, how deeply and deliberately flawed those teachings were, how they were clever deceptions crafted for no other reason than to bring down the Pope and raise up Herbert Armstrong, I thought it would be appropriate to point out a few flaws in this theory as well.

Mystery

(REV. 17: 5) And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Revelation 17: 5 says the word “mystery” and the word “Babylon” in the same sentence. Mr. Alexander Hyslop concludes, and Herbert Armstrong swallows whole, that it refers to an entity known as a mystery religion. However, we can conclude only one thing: the Bible must interpret this “mystery”.

In 27 places in the New Testament, Strong’s 3466, the Greek “musterion”, is translated as “mystery” or “mysteries”. Including the one in the statement on the forehead of Babylon the Great.

Mystery: Musterion (Strong’s 3466, Greek) from a derivative of ‘Muo’ (to shut the mouth); secret or “mystery” (through the idea of silence imposed by initiation into religious rites)

The word carries the inference that it is something secret that is only revealed to the initiated. The initiated in this case can only be the saints.

(COL. 1: 26) the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

Speaking from the perspective of Armstrongists for a moment, Presbyterians are not saints – they are the harlot daughters of the harlot church. [I personally disagree with this, but it is an accurate statement from the Armstrongist perspective.] One must ask, then, how could the mysterious identity of Babylon the Great be revealed to Alexander Hyslop, a Presbyterian Minister, in the 1850’s?? He is the man who wrote “The Two Babylons” in 1853, from which Herbert Armstrong took his interpretation of Babylon the Great. Is he a saint, or is he wrong? Think on that.

Being a Greek word, musterion is found nowhere in the Old Testament. But the idea is there. God revealed secrets to Daniel and others. My point is, the truth must come from God. No man will think his way into the correct understanding of it. God’s word is the Bible. If your understanding comes from somewhere other than the Bible, chances are high that you’re speculation is wrong.

(REV. 17: 7) When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns.

The angel explains the mystery. Not Alexander Hyslop.

A Great City

Herbert Armstrong taught that the woman is a church. Let’s ask the Bible.

(REV. 17: 18) The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.

The woman is “the great city”. She is again described as a city in this and the next chapter. One can scream and cry that it’s a false church, but that’s not what the one who explains the mystery says.

Search the Bible and you will see that a city is not a prophetic symbol of a false church at all but of a city directly and a nation by association and symbolism. In the same way that when we say “Washington D.C.”, we mean it, but we could also mean the whole United States since that city is a symbol of our nation as a whole – and Paris is a symbol of France, and Moscow of Russia, and Jerusalem of Israel. In order to believe this is referring to a church, we would have to ignore the angelic explanation and redefine the Bible’s own symbolism. That isn’t letting the Bible interpret itself!

Reference that in Hosea 2 and 4. Now notice how a nation’s children are her citizens. Thus, God usually refers to the citizens of a nation as “daughters” (eg. daughters of Zion). If that is so, then Babylon the Great being the “mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” actually means her citizens are harlots.

Israel and Babylon

I would like to investigate a few oddities in the Bible. Specifically I will be showing the similarities between Israel/Judah/Jerusalem, and Babylon the Great, and Babylon. Am I doing this to bash Israel? Certainly not! Israel will be brought back to God. I only do this to show that there is an alternative to the speculative interpretation of prophecy pawned as truth by Herbert Armstrong.

1) Adultery and Prostitution

Throughout the Bible idolatry is likened to adultery. Here is a major clue as to the identity of Babylon the Great.

In doing a word search for adultery, I have come across some interesting things. Idolatry is likened to adultery and spoken of more often than actual marital infidelity. Yet more interestingly, there are only two entities who are ever called an adulteress - Israel (including Judah), and Babylon the Great. Both Israel and Babylon the Great are also called prostitutes.

In the NIV, Revelation 17: 2, 4; 18: 3; 19: 2 all translate the Greek word “porneia” as “adultery” in reference to Babylon the Great. Other versions use “fornication” instead of “adultery”. Porneia can refer to adultery. Figuratively, it refers to idolatry.

If adultery is violating a marriage contract, and Babylon the Great commits adultery, then Babylon the Great was in a marriage contract. Only Israel was ever said to be in a marital relationship with God. Only Israel can commit adultery against God. How, then, can this Babylon the Great be something other than Israelite? She commits spiritual adultery against God, therefore she had to be in the marriage relationship.

Israel’s sin was abandoning its marriage contract with God to rebel against Him, lusting after idolatry and sin, and preferring friendship with the world over devotion to God (adultery and prostitution). These are the only definitions given for ‘spiritual’ adultery and prostitution. What, then, could possibly be different about Babylon the Great’s adultery and prostitution? If prostitution is leaving God to love the world and its idols, then Babylon the Great left God to love the world.

Personally, I feel this going on about adultery is mere details and much ado about semantics. I included it anyway simply to make a point.

2) Tender and Delicate

(ISA 47: 1) about Babylon

¹ Go down, sit in the dust, Virgin Daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, Daughter of the Babylonians. No more will you be called tender or delicate [Str. 6028: luxurious].

(JER 6: 2) about Jerualem

² I will destroy the Daughter of Zion, so beautiful and delicate [Str. 6026: luxurious].

3) Receives Double

(REV. 18: 6) about Babylon the Great

⁶ Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup.

(JER. 16: 18) about Israel

¹⁸ I will repay them double for their wickedness and their sin, because they have defiled my land with the lifeless forms of their vile images and have filled my inheritance with their detestable idols."

(ISA. 40: 2) about Jerusalem

² Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins.

(ISA. 51: 19) about Jerusalem

¹⁹ These double calamities have come upon you- who can comfort you? - ruin and destruction, famine and sword - who can console you?

4) Queen

(REV. 18: 7) about Babylon the Great

In her heart she boasts, 'I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.'

(ISA. 47: 5) about Babylon

⁵ Sit in silence, go into darkness, Daughter of the Babylonians; no more will you be called queen of kingdoms.

(LAM. 1: 1) about Jerusalem

¹ How deserted lies the city, once so full of people! How like a widow is she, who once was great among the nations! She who was queen among the provinces [nations] has now become a slave.

(EZE. 16: 13) about Israel

¹³ So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. Your food was fine flour, honey and olive oil. You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen.

5) Widowhood

(REV. 18: 7) about Babylon the Great

⁷ Give her as much torture and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself. In her heart she boasts, 'I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.'

(ISA. 47: 8-10) about Babylon

⁸ Now then, listen, you wanton creature, lounging in your security and saying to yourself, 'I am, and there is none besides me. I will never be a widow or suffer the loss of children.' ⁹ Both of these will overtake you in a moment, on a single day: loss of children and widowhood. They will come upon you in full measure, in spite of your many sorceries and all your potent spells. ¹⁰ You have trusted in your wickedness and have said, 'No one sees me.' Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you when you say to yourself, 'I am, and there is none besides me.'

(ISA 54: 4) about Jerusalem

⁴ Do not be afraid; you will not suffer shame. Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated. You will forget the shame of your youth and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.

6) Scarlet, Gold, & Jewels

(REV. 17: 4) about Babylon the Great

⁴ The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.

(REV. 18: 16) about Babylon the Great

¹⁶ and cry out: " 'Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! ¹⁷ In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!'

(JER. 4: 30) about Jerusalem

³⁰ What are you doing, O devastated one? Why dress yourself in scarlet and put on jewels of gold? Why shade your eyes with paint? You adorn yourself in vain. Your lovers despise you; they seek your life.

7) Sorceries

(ISA. 47: 12) about Babylon

¹² Keep on, then, with your magic spells and with your many sorceries,

(ISA. 57: 3) about Israel

³ But you-come here, you sons of a sorceress, you offspring of adulterers and prostitutes!

8) Swift Destruction; One Hour

(REV. 18: 10) about Babylon the Great

10 'Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come!'

(REV. 18: 17) about Babylon the Great

¹⁷ In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!'

(REV. 18: 19) about Babylon the Great

In one hour she has been brought to ruin!

(ISA. 47: 9) about Babylon

⁹ Both of these will overtake you in a moment, on a single day

(JER. 4: 20) about Israel

²⁰ Disaster follows disaster; the whole land lies in ruins. In an instant my tents are destroyed, my shelter in a moment.

9) Blood of the Saints

(REV. 17: 6) about Babylon the Great

⁶ And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

(REV. 18: 24) about Babylon the Great

²⁴ In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth."

(ACTS 26: 9-11) about Jerusalem

⁹ I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. ¹⁰And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. ¹¹Many a time I went from one synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. In my obsession against them, I even went to foreign cities to persecute them.

(REV. 11: 9) about Jerusalem

⁸ Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

(I KING 18: 4) about Judah

⁴ While Jezebel was killing off the LORD's prophets, Obadiah had taken a hundred prophets and hidden them in two caves, fifty in each, and had supplied them with food and water.)

(I KING 19: 10) about Israel

¹⁰ He replied, "I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too."

(NEH. 9: 26) about Israel

²⁶ But they were disobedient and rebelled against you; they put your law behind their backs. They killed your prophets, who had admonished them in order to turn them back to you; they committed awful blasphemies.

(MATT. 23: 34-35) about Israel

³⁴ Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. ³⁵ And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

(MATT.23: 37; LUKE 13: 34) about Jerusalem

³⁷ O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

(LUKE 11: 47-51) about Israel

⁴⁷ Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. ⁴⁸ So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. ⁴⁹ Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' ⁵⁰ Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, ⁵¹ from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

(ACTS 7: 52) about Israel

⁵² Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him

(I THS. 2: 14-15) about the Jews

¹⁴ For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, ¹⁵ who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men

10) Great City

(REV. 18: 21) about Babylon the Great

²¹ Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: "With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again.

(REV. 14: 8) KJV about Babylon the Great

⁸ And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

(REV. 11: 9) about Jerusalem

⁸ Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

(REV. 16: 19) about some city, probably Jerusalem because of the context

¹⁹ The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.

(JER. 22: 8-9) about Jerusalem

⁸ People from many nations will pass by this city and will ask one another, 'Why has the LORD done such a thing to this great city?' ⁹ And the answer will be: 'Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD their God and have worshiped and served other gods.'

(LAM. 1: 1) about Jerusalem

¹ How deserted lies the city, once so full of people! How like a widow is she, who once was great among the nations! She who was queen among the provinces has now become a slave.

The Seven Hills

(REV. 17: 9) Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.

At this point, some may be wondering about the seven hills of Rome.

First off, these are symbolic hills, they are not real hills. They represent nations and their leaders. I find it convenient that we spend so much time demanding that a woman is a symbol for a church, but we immediately forget what hills and mountains are symbols of. Second, they don't belong to the "woman in Rome", they belong to the beast she rides. From an Armstrongist perspective - that would be the seven German hills of the 10-nation European combine. Makes no sense when you look at it like that, does it? This whole teaching from HWA is full of such holes.

I did a quick internet study on the cities of the world which are built on 7 hills. I found 7 other cities around the world that are listed as being built on 7 hills: Tallahassee, Florida; Seven Hills City, Ohio; Nevada City, Nevada; Cincinnati, Ohio (this is just a nickname, it is not literally on 7 hills); Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Istanbul, Turkey (formerly Byzantium and Constantinople); and finally Jerusalem, Israel.

That’s right, Jerusalem was a city on seven hills before Rome was built. It is not hard to find more information about this. Byzantium was the capitol city of the eastern Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine chose the area specifically because it has seven hills. It was a tradition with origins in superstitious religious beliefs that the number seven made something sacred. But the name “city on seven hills” is not exclusively a Roman title!

Something to Think About

At one time or the other, Herbert Armstrong claimed the Pope was the "little horn", Babylon the Great, the False Prophet, and the Image of the Beast. How can the Catholic Church be Babylon the Great who rides the Beast -and- the little horn of the Beast -and- the Image of the Beast that is besides the Beast -and- the False Prophet that empowers the Beast?

(REV. 17: 16) And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire.

So let me get this straight... The Pope is the "little horn" of the Beast that comes up among the other 10, the Pope plucks up three of those horns, yet all 10 join with him to burn his own church with fire? Not possible under HWA's timeline. Not possible under HWA's interpretation. Yet there it is in the Bible, plain as day. And then we see this:

(REV. 19: 20) Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

So, the Catholic Church rides the Beast, is hated and killed by the Beast, yet it works false wonders for the Beast and creates the mark of the Beast, and is later thrown alive with the Beast into the lake of fire? If the Pope is killed by the Beast, how can he make war with Christ at His return? These things cannot be!

Conclusion

Certainly this is exciting and dreadful. Who could Babylon the Great be? Odds are she is Israelite in nature. The similarities between Jerusalem and Babylon are dumbfounding. Jerusalem is a city, symbolically representing Israel and Judah; Babylon the Great is a city, symbolically representing some heretofore unrevealed nation. But from what we’ve read, one would think “Babylon” is a Biblical nickname (so to speak) of Jerusalem - along with Egypt and Sodom. Only the Bible can interpret the Bible, and this study comes straight from it. But I make no claims of knowing for sure.

I am in awe at the sheer volume of information linking Israel to Babylon the Great which has been overlooked by Herbert Armstrong. I overlooked it for the majority of my life because I followed him. I was at fault for not proving what I heard, as the Bereans did!

When I point these things out to people, they do not want to hear it because they love what they already accept – even though it is based on the ravings of a 19^th century fraud and not on the Bible itself. They swear it’s true! They boldly proclaim the next Pope will fight Christ. They continue to point out problems with the Catholic Church as if they themselves have none to worry about. They judge and condemn a billion of God’s hand-crafted children with nothing more than speculative interpretation. It appears that they love to judge and condemn. Is this right? Is this Godly? We should be comparing ourselves to Christ and letting Him judge! Ask yourself - what if I am wrong?

(MAT. 12: 7) But if ye had known what this means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless.

(LUK. 6: 37) Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

(ROM. 2: 1) Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

(ROM. 14: 4) Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

Concentrate on your own walk with Christ!

Am I concluding Israel or the Jews certainly are Babylon the Great? Absolutely not! Then what on earth am I doing? This and this alone: offering an alternative. What if you are wrong?

God calls for us to wake up and watch! Does a watchman stare off in one fixed direction? What if the enemy sneaks in from behind? Was he, then, actually watching? No! If we stare in one fixed direction, the one people have been staring in for over 150 years, we are not living up to what God expects of us. What if you are wrong?

By all means, keep looking at churches to fulfill this symbolic Babylon the Great. Look at other things as well. But stop all the judgment and condemnation because you don’t know it to be sure! There are convincing alternatives. What if you are wrong? What, then, comes of your judgment and condemnation?

I personally believe Alexander Hislop’s conclusion was dead, dead wrong; he couldn’t understand the mystery; his motivation was clearly slanderous accusation and condemnation. His was a cleverly crafted deception. Read “The Babylon Connection” by Ralph Woodrow for a detailed and easy to understand look into Alexander Hyslop’s folly. What we’ve been taught was incorrect. We must look to God by His Spirit through the Bible to clue us in as to who she is because nothing and no one else can. When the time comes, it will all become clear.

Who Is The BEAST?

I would like to ask some tough questions about the understanding of the Roman Empire as it was taught to us by Herbert Armstrong. I do not have many answers, but I do have some questions. I was reviewing a post I wrote a while ago and found it to be incomplete. I would like to revisit this subject once more.

Could it be the description of Rome as the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (the seventh head of Rev. 13) was incorrect? Could it be that we were taught to WATCH intensely in one direction, but that direction isn’t the right one? (If we were staring off in the wrong direction, were we really watching?) Could it be that history doesn’t agree with the traditional COG interpretation of the prophetic beasts – and therefore we need to study our Bibles again on a subject we thought we already knew?

Let’s review some quotes from a booklet entitled “Who Is the BEAST?” by Herbert W. Armstrong (1960 edition). All quotes will be from this booklet.

“The text says one of his HEADS was wounded to death.”

Yes, one of his heads was wounded, not the entire beast! If the head was merely wounded, then why did the Western Roman Empire fall in its entirety? Think of that in terms of Greece. We know Greece had four divisions. If Greece is the third beast, and historically two of its four heads (Cassander and Lysimachus) were absorbed by a third (Seleucus), and the fourth (Ptolemy) was in constant battle with the third, then why didn’t the entire Greek beast die when two of its heads were lopped off and the other two fought bitterly? But we are to believe that the one head of the fourth beast is wounded, and that equals the downfall of Rome – the entire fourth Beast from Daniel’s perspective? Remember, we’re just talking about one head here. And why did the Eastern Empire remain in tact? Can half of a head die? Can half a beast die?

“The BEAST INCLUDED THE SEVEN HEADS and the TEN HORNS.”

Notice this as well, all ten horns are part of the Roman beast.

“John sees the beast living in the days of its seventh head, the Roman Empire. And when that HEAD of the beast had its deadly wound, HIS -- the beast's -- deadly wound was healed. The horns now reign, one by one.”

OK, note closely what is said here… the head gets a wound, and after the wound is healed the ten horns begin to reign. This will also be turned around in the next paragraph.

“The Roman empire in Northern Africa was overrun by the Vandals, who sacked Rome in 455.”

But the Vandals were neither Roman, nor part of the Roman Empire, so they don’t count. They stole some territory but never took down the Western Empire. So they don't count. “Overrun” is a bit of an exaggeration, I’d say. This fact overruns what HWA just got done saying! The Vandals, who were not Roman, nor conquered Western Rome, both wounded the Roman Beast and were part of a Roman beast? I think not!

They, as the "first horn", weren’t the first to invade, either. The Visigoths (meaning Western Goths - not to be confused with the Vandals) invaded in 408-410. These Goths went on to remove Britain, Spain, and France from Roman control by 423. This is years before the Vandal invasion in 455. And this is completely ignored! In fact, it was the Visigoths that drove the Vandals down through Spain, out of Europe, and into North Africa in the first place. The Vandals then worked their way across Northern Africa and up onto the Italian peninsula. Why then aren’t the Visigoths counted as a horn? They did an awful lot more than the Vandals did. All of this is ignored. What else is ignored? Where is mention of the Angles, Saxons, Franks, Lombards, and Bergundians? The people who took over in Visigoth areas. Missing!

Also ignored is the fact that the capital of the Western Empire at that time was Revenna, not Rome. So capturing Rome didn’t mean as much as it would have. Capturing Rome would be like capturing Philadelphia and declaring the capital of America has fallen. The Vandals then quickly withdrew from Italy, keeping only the island of Sicily. Horn plucks up itself?

“Then in 476 Odoacer set up his government at Rome, called the HERULI.”

This is incorrect. Odoacer (aka. Odovacar, aka Otto) of the Heruli set up his government at Ravenna, not Rome. The date 476 is generally accepted as the fall of the Western Roman Empire. If head = Western Rome, then head = dead. As a side note, he drove the Visigoths from Sicily. Horn plucks up horn?

“But it did not heal the deadly wound, for this was a government IN Rome. It was not a ROMAN government, but one of foreign barbarians.”

I hope you caught that. By his own criteria if you are not a Roman government then you are not a horn. Vandals, anyone?? His logic is overrun!

Now pay close attention. Odoacer voluntarily renounced any title of Emperor that he gained by defeating the West, and made peace with Eastern Rome by recognizing the rule of Emperor Zeno. Odoacer submitted to Zeno to prevent trouble from the East. Zeno then made him Patrician of the Western Empire - in other words, Odoacer was an official of the Eastern Roman government. Thus HWA was again incorrect.

“Then there was the kingdom of the Ostrogoths, 493-554, another outside foreign people who ruled in the territory. But they were driven out of Italy and disappeared.”

How do we categorize Theodoric the Great, King of the Ostrogoths? He grew up in Constantinople, the capitol of the Eastern Roman Empire, he was favored by Emperors, was made master of their soldiers, and even rose to the rank of Consul. This was a Byzantine Roman indeed! But at age 31, he returned to his people and was made King. So, was he Roman or Barbarian? Here we have another group who were (uncomfortably) allied to Eastern Rome, and led by what was practically a Roman, now ruling in Italy.

In 493, Theodoric of the Ostrogoths (an ally of Constantinople) fought Odoacer of the Heruli (a viceroy of Constantinople) to a stalemate. They declared co-regency and held a banquet to celebrate. At that banquet, Theodoric killed Odoacer with his own hands and became sole ruler. Horn plucks up horn again?

“These three kingdoms, sweeping into the Roman territory, filled the period known in history as the ‘transition age.’ (See Myers' Ancient History, page 571.) That is, a TRANSITION between the wound and the healing.”

They are part of what Myers calls “The Transition Age”, but they do not by any means fill that period. Myers lists the “Transition Age” as being from 476 - 800 AD! The Vandals came in 455 A.D. That is 99 years before the start of the “Transition Age”. They weren’t even in Italy at the start of this age. The Ostrogoths were conquered in 554 A.D. That is 246 years before the end of this age. That is longer than the time the United States has been a nation.

It was not a transition between the wound and the healing. This isn’t even remotely accurate. HWA actually misrepresents what Myers said! Why? Maybe it was because the word “transition” was too tempting to leave off. He figured none of us simpletons would check anyhow. (In fact, at that time, most people could not check even if they wanted to.)

To my shame, I did not check. No. Rather I had pride in my own ignorance! A prideful fool! I condemned others for not holding to this “truth”! And I am ashamed.

In HWA’s mind, the Vandals, Heruli, and Ostrogoths were not Roman. But does that really matter? Allow me to remind you that the prophecy states the head was wounded, not the horns were wounded, and not wounded by the horns! One might reply "the head is the horns." But that's not what HWA says. Remember, “And when that HEAD of the beast had its deadly wound, HIS -- the beast's -- deadly wound was healed. The horns now reign, one by one.” Also, some of these “horns” we are seeing ruled before HWA understood the wound to be healed. Since this is the case, according to HWA’s own qualifiers, they cannot count among his 10 horns of Rome!!

What’s more is HWA completely ignores the fact that the city of Rome was not the Roman capital at that time, Ravenna was. The capital was moved by Emperor Honorius in 402.

And he completely ignores that both Odoacer of the Heruli and Theodoric of the Ostrogoths were working for Eastern Rome.

The explanation - because it doesn’t fit the theory. Facts? BAH! This information does not fit the theory, so it is overlooked. Can we trust the historical interpretations of men who ignore such critical history as this?

“Now Daniel saw a ‘little horn’ coming up AMONG these ten, before whom these first three were ‘plucked up by the roots.’”

Let’s define two terms according to Herbert Armstrong’s understanding. “Little Horn” = the Pope. “First three” = Vandals, Heruli, & Ostrogoths.

With those definitions in mind, two things here are incredibly important. First, the little horn [Pope] comes up among the other 10 (not the first three only). The Pope as the Bishop of Rome preceded these people by a couple hundred years officially, and over two thousand years according to Alexander Hyslop’s teachings which HWA promoted as gospel. The Pope didn’t come up among the groups here mentioned, so he cannot be the little horn. Secondly The Vandals, Heruli, and Ostrogoths could not be the first three horns!!! They aren’t horns to be plucked up! They don’t count!!

“That leaves 7 horns to come.”

No!! It leaves 11 horns to come!! The little horn has not been identified, nor have his 10 companions.

“And of the little horn, Daniel 7 says ‘his look was more stout than his fellows.’ The papacy dominated completely all the horns to follow.”

No, it didn’t! Neither Odoacer the Arian, or Theodoric the Arian and supposed persecutor of Catholics, or Justinian – maker of Popes, nor Napoleon - who crowned himself, nor Hitler’s Third Reich (or, if you would like, Mussolini’s Italy) were dominated by the Pope.

Besides this fact, did anyone consider it wasn't the papacy who plucked up the Vandals, the Herulii, or the Ostrogoths? But actually the Vandals plucked themselves up, the Herulii were plucked up by the Ostrogoths upon request by the Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno, and the Ostrogoths were plucked up by Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian – not the Pope!!! The Pope wasn’t in the slightest bit involved!!! Besides, prophetically the little horn is not the Pope, it is in fact one of the horns – the 11th horn!

“The Deadly Wound HEALED
It was the fourth kingdom (symbolized by the fourth horn),”

But this is contrary to everything he said previous to this point!! According to what was said at the start, we can’t start counting off horns until after the wound is healed. So at best this is the first horn! And will someone please explain to me in what way is Western Rome healed at this point?

“succeeding the fall of the Empire in 476, which really HEALED the deadly wound, and restored the EMPIRE.”

Let’s ask… who felled the empire in 476? Why, it was none other than Odoacer of the Heruli, Byzantine Patrician in the West. Didn't that both fell and restore the empire? (I'm not arguing with historians, just asking questions.) He was the second horn and not the first. What was the qualification of the first horn then? Odoacer was followed by Theodoric, ally of the East, the third horn. What nonsense statement is that quote, then? Why was Emperor Justinian, the fourth horn, the healer of the Head and not these two men who worked on behalf of his empire? Yes, the Western Empire fell in 476 (not by the first horn), and yes another Roman Empire did come after that, but as stated that sentence makes no real sense. What did Justinian do that these two men did not do? And let’s not even get into the fact that Italy was conquered by the Lombards (yet another Germanic barbarian tribe) three short years after Justinian’s death. So the healing was not very well healed after all.

This brings us back to the wounding of the head. Why is the Byzantine Empire ignored by HWA? Is the West the fourth beast/seventh head, or is the East? How can only HALF of a head die? How can only half of a beast die? Why aren’t there two heads for the Roman beast? There are two emperors, and two separate but connected empires. They were linked through a common history before 395AD, but separate from one another after 395AD. But the East was clearly the greater. Why is only the West the beast? These are questions I don’t have the answer to. Except to say that looking at Rome for the Beast is most likely not correct at all.

“In A.D. 554, Justinian, Emperor of the East, from Constantinople, set up his government through an Imperial Legate at Ravenna, Italy, and brought about what is known in history as the "Imperial Restoration" of the Empire.”

It may have been an “imperial restoration”, but think about this detail – if the Western Roman Empire is the beast in question here then it is now not healed but conquered completely by the Eastern Roman Empire. Justinian ruled from Constantinople, not Rome. Legate or no, it was a vassal in no real way different than Odoacer or Theodoric. The western beast isn’t healed, the western beast is dead!

How did the beast move from Greece to Rome in the first place? Rome absorbed Greece. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that the beast is now in the East (and had been since Odoacer’s time)? And according to one of his earliest statements, THIS is where the ten horns should BEGIN to reign one by one, “And when that HEAD of the beast had its deadly wound, HIS -- the beast's -- deadly wound was healed. The horns now reign, one by one.” So why do we look to the Holy Roman Empire as a continuation of the Beast? Why not to the Byzantine Empire?

That the Holy Roman Empire is the ten toes seems very unlikely. It doesn’t fit the pattern of the Bible. Justinian “restored the Roman Empire” in 554. However, the Holy Roman Empire (it’s full name is the Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic Nation) was not begun until four centuries later in 962 by Otto I. What happened in the mean time? The Germanic empires, some very small and rather insignificant to the world, were neither Roman, nor a continuation of Rome, nor significant to the area of Judea. The Bible focuses on that area mainly. Focusing on the Hapsburg dynasty isn’t typical. Similar to that would be focusing on the Mongol invasion of Europe. It doesn’t add up.

There were more than just seven “restorations” of the Holy Roman Empire. There were dozens, perhaps even hundreds of restorations. It was always a difficult point to make that a highly select group of five or seven or ten of these “empires” were the right ones. And not a single one of those entities remains today. The Holy Roman Empire ended in 1806. There is no prophecy of the horns or toes being “wounded”. If the Head of the Beast was “wounded” in it’s downfall of less than 100 years, then what of the horns who have been wiped from the Earth now for multiple generations of men?

What complicated this even further is that we have seen there aren’t merely seven horns left in HWA’s reckoning, there are ten, and one little horn, totaling eleven, and a restored head, which brings the count up to 12 entities. Many things have to be overlooked in order to fit this in, and that just isn’t right. I’m not even going to get into the details of how HWA proclaimed that Mussolini was the Beast in 1930’s, only to drop that story and claim Hitler was the Beast, only to drop that story and claim Hitler was not killed but was hiding out and waiting to restore his kingdom in the 1950’s.

If you really REALLY want to complicate matters, read Daniel 2. In the statue dream, all ten toes exist at the same time and they are all smashed by the returning Christ. Jesus didn’t return at the end of each restoration of the Roman Empire. Now read Revelation 13: 11-14, and Revelation 17: 9-13, & 16-17 -- this clearly states the final beast (which is the little horn and the King of the North) and the ten horns all exist contemporaneously. This matches Daniel 7: 24 which states the little horn will come up while the other ten are there. Speaking of Daniel 7, verses 11-12 states the fourth beast was destroyed, but the other three remained for a season and a time. Put those together and we cannot have a little horn coming up separate from and thousands of years before the other ten.

I believe that Herbert Armstrong’s interpretation of the beasts was flawed by a very charismatic interpretation of the Bible found in Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons. I believe that HWA was sincere in wanting to understand. The fact of the matter is that it simply wasn’t time for God to reveal the meanings of the prophecies back then. Never the less, HWA’s description simply does not fit the account of the fourth beast of Dan. 7, or the beast of Rev. 13. The area of the Western Roman Empire may yet be the area of the fourth beast of Dan. 7 and the seventh head of Rev. 13. But maybe it isn’t! Has anyone checked to see if other nations or empires fit better? Then we have not watched! We have not proved! We have speculated and theorized, observed and opined, overlooked and rearranged, debated and accepted – but like a politician, we are long on words and short on real action. How can this please God?

I don’t have all the answers, my only viable alternative is more speculation about how the nature of the Beast closely resembles the plans of the certain Muslim nations. Even the United States from time to time looks like it could fit. But there’s no denying the traditional description is flawed. And I believe it to be fatally flawed because WE tried to fit history to the theory put forth in the book The Two Babylons when WE should have been fitting our beliefs to the Bible.

Crazy or Not, Here I Come

“There are crazies out there listening to me right now” Ron Weinland said, diverging momentarily from his regular pre-sermon patter. I was thinking, I guess I’m included in this indictment. I could just imagine the heads nodding in agreement right on cue, the people feeling a little ting of anger against the persecutors.

In church, years ago, the scene would have been powerful; an aura of sobriety; all eyes fixated on our leader. We knew that, for us, he was the mouth piece of God. When we were together, we knew we were among the only people for miles around, who perceived reality correctly. And all the people who knew this true reality were doing the same thing we were.

Yes indeed, the people of the world were insane, and we knew Jesus had predicted this very thing would happen. He said deceivers would come and deceive the many. Herbert Armstrong made this more clear. We knew it actually says, “The many,” or virtually everyone. So we understood why the world couldn’t see the true reality we saw. It’s because the god of this world had blinded them, and they were all his pawns.

Wherever I walked amongst people, as they were going to classes, gathering for an event or shopping at the mall, I knew that I was the only one present who was not under the spell of the great deceiver. My Granddad could see it. The eternal law of God commanded that we must keep the Sabbath on the seventh day, and we should keep holy days too. Without these, the key to turning off Satan’s broadcast, we could not know truth.

The Sabbath is the key. This we learned from Mr. Armstrong, the latter day Elijah. When the great man himself spoke, we were all children. “You just don’t get it,” he’d say in a mournful voice, shaking his head. The lessons of those two trees in the Garden of Eden had meaning beyond our comprehension; but our great leader saw deeper than we ever could. Afterword, people spoke softly, having been in the presence of one second only to God himself. People asked; “where would we be without Mr. Armstrong?”

I’d ask myself that question frequently. I think about everything I learned from HWA; and the things I didn’t. I learned, from Herbert, that the covenant from Sinai was to last forever. He’d virtually yell this, his finger stabbing at his open bible. “Why can’t people understand, it clearly says forever?”

What I didn’t learn, from Herbert, was that the word translated “forever”, doesn’t mean forever, or Jonah would still be in the belly of the fish. Jonah 2:6, the word more correctly means ‘ages’, which is what it probably felt like. Herbert didn’t tell anyone about this; most likely, he didn’t know. His ‘law’ orientation probably wouldn’t have allowed him to accept the truth.

Truth, his favorite word; Too bad he didn’t have it; but how well he could make himself sound like he knew so many things he didn’t. Because most everyone was disconnected from this “truth” that Herbert had revealed to me; and like he always said, “It’s so plainly evident, right there in black and white;” It only followed, in my young mind, that I could trust no one. Everything was corrupt. No institution of man was anything more than a tool of Satan. I turned my back on anyone who disagreed with Herbert, and that included my Dad. Somehow, “Honor your Father, “was overruled by the need to disassociate with the enemies of God.

It seems I was more radical in my beliefs than most. The fortunate ones, who didn’t care what God thought, were much less damaged. What an Irony. I cared enough about what God thought, that I accepted the Idea that my fate was “to be brought before magistrates and be martyred for Jesus’ sake, by the forces of the beast power after they destroyed our country.”

Some have asked me why I became so paranoid about the government. We were taught to be law abiding, but Herbert’s minions referred to our form of government as “demonocracy,” a government in league with the great whore, and shortly to be destroyed by the wrath of God; by the rod of Assyria. No minister told me to treat my Dad like I did. So now they’d say, “don’t blame me.” What I thought and did only followed the input. Since our government is demonocracy and protestant churches are daughters of the great whore, and my Dad believes in both, then he’s the enemy of God.

How can people, who preach such extremism, duck responsibility for the conclusions an impressionable kid comes to. Nothing matters anymore but the kingdom. I took this seriously. Frankly, I can relate to the Muslim suicide bombers. If I were asked to do something like this for God during my teenage years, I would have considered it to be an honor.

The years of seeing everyone as “the walking dead” only succeeded in creating a callous over my heart. In later years, I seriously considered myself to be a sociopath. If I asked myself, could I kill someone? I would have answered, “Without a doubt.” All that would have stopped me is, God said, “thou shall not.” I don’t think I felt anything the way most people do. I truly had to fake the emotions I thought I was supposed to be feeling I could only see irresolvable evil in myself, and eventually, trying to stick to the rules seemed to be pointless. “If I’m beyond salvaging, what does it matter what sin I add to the pile?” I found myself thinking such things, but couldn’t completely buy into it, fortunately. As it was, I adopted situation ethics, and what I did was bad enough, motivated mostly by the pain in my brain. But if I had totally let go, I could have been one of those sicko’s that kill a bunch of people, and then myself. The Old Covenant kept me guilty. The New Covenant gave me a solution for the sin within that I couldn’t overcome. Guilt lead to more guilt and it’s a slippery slope into insanity.

The guilt made me crazy, but freedom from guilt returned my sanity. What can I say Ron? I’m not crazy, but I used to be.

The US & Britain; In Prophesy? Pt.1 of 2

By CW (Contributing Writer)

I can barely imagine how the world must have looked to other kids my age as I was growing up. What I saw, I saw through a dark cloud of gloom. I saw, hanging over everyone’s head, the indiscriminate annihilation of virtually everyone in a grizzly blood bath by invading armies, followed by the burning, searing, element-melting nuclear holocaust that Herbert Armstrong so vividly described. On top of the tension of my Old Covenant authoritarian home, and the “us against all the outsiders” paranoia; this specter haunted my every waking moment. From Herbert’s perspective, most of the prophecies about Israel’s destruction were both, for the end times, and talking about my home, the USA. I was taught that we were Manasseh, the birthright tribe of the lost house of Israel, and the British Commonwealth was the tribe of Ephraim. I was taught Herbert’s hybrid version of British Israelism.

The theory of British Israelism goes way back before the times of King Henry VIII. Most experts on British Israelism agree, the theory was promoted by theologians to justify the break of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church.

“In its simplest form, British-Israelism claims that the British people are the descendants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, deported, initially, by Tiglath Pilezer III, king of Assyria, when he launched an invasion of the Kingdom of Israel in 740 B.C.E., and later by the successor of Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, who destroyed its capital city, Samaria, in 721 B.C.E.” Excerpt from JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EMPIRE

What early proponents used for justification of authority, mutated in America, and Herbert, among others, connected prophesies of Israel’s demise, and applied them to the current time. Herbert continued promoting the idea that the British throne is of the line of King David of Judah. He cited ancient Irish legends as fact, and referred to non-existent annals of written history, as in this excerpt from United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy (henceforth ‘USBP’); “Then, in 569 B.C. (date of Jeremiah's transplanting), an elderly, white-haired patriarch, sometimes referred to as a "saint," came to Ireland. With him was the princess daughter of an eastern king and a companion called "Simon Brach," spelled in different histories as Breck, Berech, Brach, or Berach. The princess had a Hebrew name Tephi -- a pet name -- her full name being TEA-TEPHI.”

Funny thing is no legitimate scholar can find these annals. You can read more about this at the following link; JEREMIAH IN IRELAND--FACT OR FABRICATION?

I have such vivid memories of the voice of HWA booming through the house. This would have been the early sixties. He always spoke with such authority, and over the years his arguments became familiar. Quoting the Hebrew made him sound like the wise sage as he presented his argument that both, Gen. 12:2 and Gen. 48:19 say, “many nations” in a prophesy that he said “could only be fulfilled by the USA, and Britain.” When making his case about the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh He pointed out ad nauseam the Hebrew word ‘gowy’ in the first, but did not bother to mention that gowy is not used in the latter, rather; ‘am and male maw-lay, as we will see below.

God promised Abraham; Gen 12:2 “I will make you into a great nation (H1471 gowy; nation)”, and 17:4 “You will be the father of many nations” (H1471). 17:6 “I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you.” OK, But what’s the connection to the USA? Herbert believed that what Jacob told his children, were prophesies of what kind of nations they would become in the last days, before the return of Jesus, and thus, believed the promises to Abraham needed to have a physical manifestation before that time. He would ask, “How could God leave the most blessed nation on earth out of prophesy?”

Herbert’s ‘proof’ started with (KJV) Gen 49:1 “And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.” To Herbert, any time the term, “the last days,” was used, it meant; “The time just before Jesus’ return.” The word translated, “the last days,” is (H319 achariyth; the last, or end, hence the future). It doesn’t say; “end times or days.” It’s an idiom for the future, and an example of Herbert jumping to conclusions.

Thus, Herbert decided that the following applied to the “end times;” (KJV) Gen 48:19 This is where Israel is adopting the sons of Joseph and crosses his hands putting his right hand on the head of the younger son. Joseph objected…; 19 “And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” Herbert claimed, “This is a description of the British Empire and the US” (as do his disciples today - such as: Ron Weinland, Rod Meredith, Gerald Flurry,David Pack...); but Herbert didn't do his home work.

The verse I just quoted when read from the interlinear (the original Hebrew or Greek) reads: “He shall be a people,”H5971 (‘am; a people, as a congregated unit; spec. a tribe as those of Israel) “and shall become great. But his younger brother shall become greater than he, and his seed shall become the (fullness of the nations.)”(H4392 Male maw-lay; full, filling, fullness).

Herbert said it meant, (his famous); “a nation and a company of nations.” Nothing is said about becoming a separate nation, let alone a group of nations. The next scripture puts this into context; Gen 48:20 (Interlinear) “And he blessed them in that day, saying, in you shall Israel bless, saying, may God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh.” They were blessed to the point that, nations of the day had reason to envy them. Look at a bible map of Israel during its pre-captivity days. Manasseh had two large parcels of land on either side of the Jordan River. They had the birthright, thus, were given a double portion exactly as per Deut 21:17 “… the firstborn by giving him a double share… The right of the firstborn belongs to him.”

Followers of Herbert say, “Either the nations promised to Abraham are here in the world today, or God lied, and God can’t lie,” but read Isa 60:21, it tells of these very things promised to Abraham being fulfilled in a much more amplified way;
21 “Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor. 22 the least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation. I am the LORD; in its time I will do this swiftly.”

That’s an enormous promise that happens when all the people are righteous. This is obviously yet to come. So why believe that the ‘Kings and nations’ promised to Abraham must be present now?

Zech 10:4 From Judah will come the cornerstone, from him the tent peg, from him the battle bow, from him every ruler.” If every ruler comes from Judah, then the Promise to Abraham will be fulfilled, in that; not just rulers come from him, but every ruler. And these rulers come through Jesus, in light of what He said in Rev 3:21; “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne;” and what Gal 3:7 says about those who believe; 7 “Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.

As his disciples do to this day, Herbert relied equally on; text supposed to prove the line of descent of the English royal family from the house of David, and other texts that claimed to reveal the identity of Britain and the United States, as mutually supporting his claim that they are of Israelite origin.

Herbert claimed that the throne of David would be maintained without a break from David’s time, until Jesus returned to claim the throne. His proof was (NIV) 2Sam 7:12 “When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.” Herbert claimed that this could only be King Solomon because of the line:” When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.”

On pg. 21 of the USBP, Herbert speaks of a, “self professed scholar’ who makes some “ridiculous statement” to “reject this important truth.” Herbert could condescend to the “ignorant” while failing to show any scholarship himself. If he had looked at the original language for, “when he does wrong, I will punish him " he would have seen; “When he sins,” is derived from a single word; (H2399 chet: a crime or it’s penalty). Then, “I will punish him,” is derived from the single word; (H3198 yakach),which does mean to correct, but can also mean to convict. So I ask you; who for sin (chet) is convicted (yakach), and is a physical descendant of David whose kingdom will last forever? Who was convicted of crimes he didn’t commit and was punished to death with the rod of men? This seems more consistent with the bibles pivotal message; Jesus, but more proof is needed to confirm the choice of words.

Herbert conveniently avoided a verse that is virtually a duplicate of (NIV) 2Sam 7:12-14; 1Chron16:11-14, v11 “When your days are over and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He is the one who will build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, as I took it away from your predecessor. 14 I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever.” Does God set Solomon over his house forever, or Jesus? The verses in 2Samual and 1Chronicles are talking about the same thing.

Herbert pointed out that when the name Israel is used in scriptures, it doesn’t necessarily mean Judah, he’d say with an exasperated tone, "Israel and Judah were no longer one kingdom after 2Chron 10." He was right about this, therefore when Israel is addressed, it may include Judah, but it definitely means the tribes of the Northern Kingdom (all the other tribes).

How then could he reason around Ho 3:4 “For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol”. (This is the situation until when?) 5 “Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days.” If England is Israel, it should have no king.

Herbert claimed a king of the Davidic line would always rule over at least part of Israel. This verse disagrees, as does the next example; Ez21: 25 "O profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it.” Both these verses tell us that there will be a long period of time without a king over Israel that only ends when Jesus returns.