Chapter 3 The Spirit of the Law

Christianity 101

Chapter 3: The Spirit of the Law

Back in the dark ages before I understood and believed the true gospel, I did not understand the spirit of the law. To a legalist, the spirit of the law was where one had internalized the letter of the law; having that law “written on the heart” which in hindsight now is an impossibility. That law was the law written on tables of stone, and penned on parchment. When God inspired the prophesy concerning the new covenant and stated that He would write His Law on the heart, the legalist assumes this must be the old covenant law embodied in the ten commandments, despite the plain language of that prophesy that states this new covenant was not going to be like the one made with Israel when they left Egypt (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

To those few legalists who have even a rudimentary comprehension of the spirit of the law, they view it as an impossibility to abide by the spirit of the law without conforming to the letter of the law. If you try to point out to these few people the examples in Scripture where Jesus fulfilled the law in the spirit while breaking the law in the letter, they refuse to see it. Because they believe Jesus could not have “sinned” thereby disqualifying Himself as Savior, the idea is rejected out of hand. To them, sin is the transgression of the law ( I John 3:4) and that is that. The example of David eating the show-bread and being blameless is lost on them. The law comes first, and all must conform to that overarching belief.

To those who have bought into the legalism of the old covenant and have concluded that this law is “the” law of God, the true law of God; the spirit of the law, becomes incomprehensible as a result. A blindness results, as even Paul points out in II Corinthians chapter 3. This is the veil before the eyes that people have who insist on remaining in the teachings and writings of Moses; the old covenant. Point this out to a legalist, and this too is rejected without any critical evaluation. Ask them what this veil is if it is not before those who remain in the teachings and writings of Moses and they cannot answer. Regardless, they will not admit to the obvious. If you believe you have to keep the old covenant law, regardless of the rationales used to justify the practice, that veil will be firmly there, obscuring the mind from the comprehension of spiritual things and a spiritual, new covenant Jesus Christ.

In order to understand the spirit of the law, one must first understand the difference between “keeping” the law in the letter versus “fulfilling” the law in the spirit.

The spirit of the law is described in a few different ways in the Scriptures. Paul gives us the widest applications and descriptions of the spirit of the law.

Paul calls this law the law of faith (Romans 3:27), the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2); the law of God (Romans 7:22); the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2). Legalists redefine the law of God for Christians as being the old covenant law of God for Israel, which Paul contrasts with the law of God for Christians in the context of Romans chapter 7. Elsewhere this law of the spirit is called by James the law of Liberty. The legalist’s definition of liberty in this context ends up being Orwellian in scope.

The old covenant dictated when and where one had to worship; in Jerusalem on those holy days the people were commanded to assemble together. In Jesus’ conversation with a Samaritan woman, He brings out that to worship God in Spirit and in truth is to do so without the restraints of location. The legalist reinstates the restraints of worshiping God, not based on location, but rather by restraints of time. A sabbatarian legalist redefines the sabbath as a day of corporate worship, and then uses this argument in order to construct a straw-man argument against Sunday. Yet the weekly sabbath was never a commanded day of corporate worship. The Sabbath was a “holy convocation” where one came before God on that day in their dwellings individually or as a family. They were envisioned as being in the presence of God on that day. That time was owed to God, and they were not to be about doing their own business or pleasure.

Some of them go so far as to claim Sunday worship as being the sign of the beast. To them, worship on Sunday instead of Saturday is to follow and worship the beast and to bear the mark of the beast. There is no evidence to support the teaching. The real purpose of the claim though is to induce phobia and fear into a person so as to better control them with a forced worship on sabbaths.

The old covenant law demanded that no work be done on a sabbath:

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. — Exodus 31:14-15

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. — Exodus 35:2

Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings. — Leviticus 23:3

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. — Deuteronomy 5:14

Jesus healed people on sabbaths. This was work on the part of Jesus, and he did not deny it was work. Notice again in the citations above and the prohibition against “any” work.

The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. — John 5:15-18

The sabbatarian legalists have their own particular spin to this passage, claiming that healing a person really wasn’t a “work.” This redefining of work also serves to obscure the spirit of the law, which is also anathema to the legalist who redefines the letter of the law as being spiritual also. To them, Jesus didn’t really work, and therefore Jesus really didn’t break the law. You can’t have Jesus going about breaking the law that defines sin for them, thereby resulting in a saviour who sinned, disqualifying Himself as the Saviour.

Herein lies the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is a case of fulfilling the law through love. Jesus was fulfilling the law through works of love and compassion done on sabbaths. The Scriptures show Jesus intentionally doing these works on sabbaths in order to confuse the Jewish religious leaders and expose their real sin, hatred:

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. — John 15:22-25

The Jewish religious leaders could not comprehend the spirit of the law any more than the modern religious old covenant legalist. Love fulfills the law. You cannot break the spirit of the law when doing acts of love and compassion. You might however break the letter of the law by not “keeping” it in the strict sense the law required in the letter. The spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law, even under the ministration of that law.

If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. — John 7:23-24

But they could not judge righteous judgment. Their righteousness was enhanced through the observance of the minutia of the law, and the last thing they were ever going to do was jeopardize their perceived righteousness by going outside the perceived limits of the letter of the law.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. — Matthew 23:23

Judgment, mercy, and faith are claimed by Jesus here to be of the law, yet under the ministration of the letter of the law, things like mercy were not comprehended. If, for example, two people were caught in the act of adultery, they were to be put to death as a warning to Israel, so that the people would not fall further into the depravity of sin.

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. — Leviticus 20:10

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. — Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Proper mercy and judgment are related to love. The zealous religious leaders of Jesus’ time were full of hatred. To them, the law was a tool that they could wield in order to rule and control others, all the while appearing righteous in the process. Then Jesus comes along, and exposes them and their hypocrisy time and again.

Keeping the letter of the law makes no one righteous or moral. The law states that a person is not to murder another. If one refrains from murder while harboring hatred, this behavior does not make that person any better of a person. The real problem is with the human heart (psyche) and not whether or not they transgressed a point of law found in the old covenant. Hatred, after all, is the spirit of murder.

It needs to be understood that all the old covenant law could do was condemn the one who lived by it, being under that law. The law was limited in scope, for the most part, dealing with the actions that followed the intent of an evil heart. The last of the ten commandments touches on the heart by commanding that one not covet that which belonged to another, the implication being, if one did, they would follow up by taking away by force or subterfuge the possessions of another. It also serves to demonstrate that, no matter how much a person tried, they were eventually going to covet regardless, exposing that imperfect heart we were all born with.

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, . . . — 1 Timothy 1:9

The law proves no one is righteous based on their own efforts, through the law.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. — Galatians 2:21

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. — Galatians 3:21

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: — Philippians 3:9

The law was not given to Israel to make them over into a more righteous and godly people, but to be a witness against them, showing them to be exactly what was written of them; a stiff-necked, rebellious and faithless people. They were placed under the law because they were faithless, etc. and the law was played up big time, playing into their desire to be God’s special people and be blessed by Him.

Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. — Deuteronomy 31:26-29

In order to better understand the spirit of the law, it is helpful to understand the letter of the law.

Those points of law that required an action on the part of the one under the law are referred to as the “works” or “deeds” of the law. Many are unique to the old covenant as contrasted to points of law that are commonly found in most all cultures, such as prohibitions against murder and theft which are not “works” or “deeds” oriented. One does not have to actively “do” something in order to comply with such laws; one merely refrains from performing an illegal act.

The works of the law were of such a nature that one did have to do something in order to comply. Circumcision and the sacrifices are good examples of points of law that are works oriented. What a sabbatarian legalist refuses to admit is that the sabbath commandment comes under the letter of the law, being works oriented. The sabbatarian legalist insists that since a person is resting on that day; not working, it cannot be a “work” of the law, seeing as one does not “work!” This is nothing more than arguing semantics. A person, in order to “keep” the sabbath, must alter their normal routine and activity on the sabbath day. Seeing as they like to play with the word, “work” in this context, let’s use the word, “deed” of the law, seeing as the apostle Paul uses the two words in relation to the same concept.

A sabbatarian would agree that the sacrifices were of the letter of the law, and that one who performed a sacrifice was doing a work of the law. But technically, the average Israelite did not actually make the sacrifice, a priest did the “dirty work.” The Israelite brought the animal of his to the priest who dispatched the animal, and did what was necessary with the animal in accordance with the law. So did the Israelite “work?” Was this a “deed” that he performed? Yes, because the Israelite had to give up an animal that had value, and surrender the life of that animal. Likewise, the Israelite surrendered that period of time in order to comply with the sabbath command. It was a sacrifice of time that otherwise the Israelite could have profited from through normal work.

This line of reasoning though just won’t work with the sabbatarian legalist who is determined to keep the sabbath in order to demonstrate his or her dedication and obedience to God, even though Scripture nowhere commands the sabbatarian legalist to do so. This then is a case of trying to produce one’s own righteousness through law, and the legalist has no problem putting forth a ton of rationalizations to justify his behavior, even insisting that the sabbath is a morally based law and not sacrificial in nature, even though Jesus Christ Himself equated the sabbath to being ceremonial and sacrificial in nature.

The endpoint of this debate is found in the spirit of the law. Even the sabbatarian legalist will admit that the sacrifices were a shadow of Christ and His sacrifice. The animal sacrifices of the old covenant pointed to Christ in this regard. But what of the sabbath then?

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. — Colossians 2:16-17

Sabbatarians have done more to this passage of Scripture than perhaps any other in order to obfuscate the obvious. These things that are works of the old covenant law are shadows of Christ; they point to Christ who has the “body” that has substance – something shadows are devoid of. Now, the sabbatarian insists Christ points us back to the shadows! Why then doesn’t Christ point us back to the sacrifices?

The clever twist you will get here from a legalist is in their interpretation of the phrase, “which are a shadow of things to come.” To the legalist, there are things yet to come, therefore these shadows need to continue to be observed. However, the thought is not taken out to its logical conclusion by the legalist if this were true. Once all these unspoken things do come, then what? Then they are no longer observed? Not quite, for the legalist also holds to the belief the law is eternal, therefore the sabbath is eternal and is going to be kept even in the new heavens and earth. So this is nothing more than an argument to get around the “here and now” in the hopes the topic won’t come up and conflict with the other beliefs the legalist holds dear to his heart of stone.

One of the most important things to take into consideration in this regard is the nature of the old covenant and how such covenants work in the first place. That old covenant was between God and Israel only. If anyone not of Israel wanted to join themselves to Israel, they had to undergo circumcision in order to enter into the nation of Israel, and they then came under that law. Were Gentile converts to Christianity required to undergo circumcision? No. Were they required to keep the law? No. Anyone with a fourth grade reading comprehension ability can understand this. What happens if you are a party to a covenant; a legally binding agreement between two parties, and you fail to meet even one condition or requirement of that covenant? You have violated said covenant, and whatever was promised in return for your completion of that covenant will not happen, and even James attests to this concept:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. — James 2:10

Legalists will cite this out of context as a proof the law is required of Christians, overlooking the fact it refers to the “whole” law; the entirety of the old covenant. Again, does the legalist keep all of the law? Hardly. They pick and choose, claiming the sabbath and the ten commandments were a separate covenant and eternal. No proof or evidence is offered in support of this claim. It was the book of the law that was sprinkled with blood along with the people when that covenant was ratified. The tablets with the ten commandments inscribed on them did not undergo a separate ratification, and neither did the sabbath. That, and the only thing that is truly eternal is God. To claim the law is eternal is to set the law up as a god, which is exactly what happens. The legalist serves the law, and attributes it to being like God, thereby violating the very law he claims he is “keeping.” Without any realization at all, the legalist has set the law up alongside God, making the law an idol. The legalist has embraced the wrong tree; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the law teaches just that; good and evil. Like that tree, the law has a fruit that leads to death, which is why Paul refers to the law; the old covenant, as the ministration of death and condemnation in II Corinthians chapter 3.

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. — Romans 13:9

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. — Romans 13:8

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. — Romans 13:10

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. — Galatians 5:14

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: — James 2:8

The Two Great Commandments revolve around complete love for God and fellow man. A deceiver who believes in keeping the old covenant in the letter insists that in order to love God, one must do what God commanded in the old covenant, and this is the rationalization used to convince others to keep that law. This in turn bolsters the legalist’s belief that he is right and all others are wrong, despite all the Scriptural evidence to the contrary. Force of numbers overcomes truth of Scripture.

If you have love for others; that Godly love that is shed upon the heart of the believer, which is God’s Spirit, you will not do anything to harm another. You will have love for even an enemy, thus fulfilling the law. Without God’s spirit, the best you could do was “keep” that law in the letter, despite the heart that is inclined to sin, which that law was designed to expose. After 3500 years, it should be obvious by now that the heart we are born with is exposed for what it is by that law that imparts a knowledge of good and evil, and concludes that no one, no matter how hard they try, will ever make their own heart over into a heart of “flesh.” It is God who does this, and not the individual. God gets the credit and not man through his own efforts and any boast in the law, deceiving the self.

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. — Ezekiel 36:26

Jesus, when He walked the earth, performed works and deeds of love and compassion, often healing people on sabbaths in order to demonstrate the spirit of the law. Did the religious people and religious leaders who were under the law understand? No. They were focused on the letter of the law, and they were blinded to all else. Today, religious people and leaders who look to the letter of the law are also blinded to all else, even to the point of denying Jesus broke the letter of the law while fulfilling the law through love.

Did Jesus come to fulfill the law, or keep the law?

These people judge according to the deeds and actions of that law; some putting a great deal of emphasis on the sabbath, while at the same time denying that the sabbath is related to deeds and actions! This is called “cognitive dissonance” and is covered elsewhere. It is where a person holds to two beliefs that in actuality cannot be held as true at the same time, yet it is common in all false religious systems.

Jesus came and fulfilled the law. Did He fulfill the law by keeping all 613 points of that law, down to the most minute detail? No, he broke the sabbath by working on the sabbath. He worked on the sabbath. He admitted He worked on the sabbath. The legalists of that time condemned Him and sought to destroy Him, and the law was their weapon they wielded to accomplish this. In the process, they revealed their true nature; the true nature of their hearts, despite all their law keeping. Through the law, they cloaked their evil hearts of hatred. Today’s legalists work in much the same manner. Instead of validating the truth of Scripture regarding Jesus working on sabbaths, they deny the spirit of the law by claiming He really didn’t break the sabbath; that he transgressed the added restrictions placed upon the sabbath by the post-exilic Rabbis. They have redefined and reformed Christ in order to comply with their image instead of complying with Scripture and Christ.

Keeping points of law in the letter has no value in Christianity. There is nothing to be gained, and nothing to be proved by doing so. It is counter-productive, as brought out by Paul in places like Galatians chapter 3. That law was for the “immature”. A Christian is seen as being spiritually mature, living by faith. The believer is not perfected through law:

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? – Galatians 3:2-5

Teaching the law to the Gentile Christians was seen as a perversion of their Christian soul's (Acts 15:24). One's focus comes off of faith in Christ, and once again is placed upon compliance with points of law, jumping through legalistic hoops.

The law, being for the immature, is like telling a child not to cross the street. Why? Because the child is not mature enough to evaluate traffic so as to cross safely. When a person gets older and mature, they no longer need to be told not to cross the street.

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

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

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

Chapter 2: In the Beginning

Christianity 101

Chapter 2: In the Beginning

What led up to where we are today? It has been said that if you don’t know where you are going, chances are you won’t get there. Likewise, it is important to know where you are coming from; what led up to where you are now.

Genesis to Revelation

The opening chapters of the Bible contain much symbolic language as well as the last book of the Bible, Revelation. As such, much speculation goes into trying to understand the symbolism employed. Oddly enough, many have attempted to imply a literal meaning to passages of scripture where the language is symbolic and allegorical, and imply allegory to language that should be taken more literally. But such is the nature of the study of the Bible by various people over time.

In the opening pages of Genesis, we read the narrative of God’s creation of the heaven’s and the earth, culminating in the creation of man, said to be created in God’s image. Is this to be taken literally in the sense that we physically look like God, or are we to take this more symbolically and figuratively in a more non-physical way, such as mental make-up, for instance? After all, God is described as a Spirit, and strictly speaking, spirit is not physical. Yet we try to anthropomorphize such statements as a means of trying to understand that with which we have no experience or association. If one is careless, they might just end up making God after their own image!

The man and the woman are placed in a garden with instructions to care for this garden, and that their provision is provided for by the God who created them. They live in Eden, a place name that has come to be associated with a place of perfect peace and harmony; an idyllic setting where everything they could want or need is literally at their finger tips. But, as the story goes, the plot thickens. There is a creature there, identified as a serpent, elsewhere identified or at least equated with the one known as Satan, the devil; the adversary of God, who had rebelled against God and was cast to the earth.

Another item important to the plot development is the existence of two trees within this garden of Eden that have a symbolic importance: The tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – a rather cryptic name for this particular tree.

God instructs the man what He wants him to do in relation to the one particular tree: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. — Genesis 2:16-17

In the New Testament writings, Jesus the Christ is identified as this tree of life, where it comes out that eternal life only comes through Him; that He was with God from the beginning, and indeed is God (John chapter 1). He is the bread of life, and that those who partake of Him will have eternal life (John chapter 6). But not much thought is given by many as to the nature of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The association will surprise some people, and outright anger others, for that tree represents that covenant law given to and required of Israel when they came to Sinai after leaving Egypt. This will be explained in further detail elsewhere, but for now suffice it to say that it is the law that taught the Israelites good and evil; right from wrong, and prescribed punishments upon all who transgressed that law. The fruit of the law indeed was death, for all that law could ever do was condemn the one who transgressed it, and all who were ever under the law transgressed the law.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. — Romans 7:7-13

All too many today believe the law is an end in itself, teaching that Christians should be keeping that law. One of the keys to understanding Scripture and indeed our own selves is to comprehend that the law proved no one righteous. All that law could do was condemn the transgressor and prove man to be sinful in nature.

Those who are big on the law are quick to cite Jesus from Matthew chapter 19 and claim Jesus is saying one must keep the law in order to be saved. The context proves otherwise further on in the chapter. What these proponents of law do not stop to consider is that, if keeping the law results in eternal life, and they can indeed keep it, then what need is there of Christ? Is He some pocket sacrifice they think they can pull out every time they transgress the law, wave it magically in the air and put it back in their pocket again, to be taken out the next time they break the law?

In the beginning, a pattern was set; the Adamic nature where it is all too easy for us to imagine evil, and act on the imagination. The onset of this Adamic nature was in the thought process that led to their rebellion against God. Adam and Eve entertained the idea God had lied to them. They entertained the idea of eating that fruit believing there was something greater to gain. The serpent had told them that to eat of that fruit they too would be as gods, knowing good from evil. The unspoken declaration? You don’t need God. You can, based on your own efforts, be as God. The unspoken declaration of those who insist on keeping the law states the same thing; you can, based on your own efforts, become like God by keeping the law. You can “prove” yourself worthy by keeping that law. You can prove yourself righteous.

The devil was out to make man over into his own image; a rebellious creature that believed he could be like God, and no longer dependent upon God, having abandoned faith in God.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. — Isaiah 14:12-14

Man was destined to fall, but under conditions mankind could be redeemed, unlike the angelic beings who followed the lead of Satan.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. — 1 Peter 1:18-21

Adam to Noah God evicted Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. You know how it goes... violate your lease agreement, and out you go. With their departure went their provision by God, and now Adam and Eve were going to have to make it on their own with the added difficulty of having the ground cursed, where it would be even more difficult to bring forth groceries from the earth. God wanted to really drive it home that Adam and Eve messed up big time. Their “death” was their separation from Him and everything that went with being in His Presence.

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; . . . — Ephesians 2:1

The Patriarchs are examples of those willing to follow God and live by faith, with Abraham being the father of the faithful. The balance of the old testament revolves around the children of Israel, and the examples of their faithlessness, and their relationship to the law of the old covenant that was given to them in order to be a witness against them in relation to their faithlessness and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 31:26-27).

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

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

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

Christianity 101, Chapter 1: The Basics

Christianity 101

Chapter 1. The Theme of Scripture: Faith

There is an over-arching theme to Scripture from beginning to end. A *legalist concludes the theme is law. All things are viewed from the perspective of law; Adam and Eve sinned, sin being transgression of law. God gave “His Law” to the Israelites in the furtherance of God’s revelation to mankind. Jesus came to “magnify and make honorable the law” and that Christ will rule the nations through law; a law that will remain eternal. God, in the new covenant puts “His law” in the believer.

This however is not the theme of Scripture. As there is one true gospel and many false gospels, there is one over-arching theme of Scripture, and many false themes. The theme of Scripture is faith; Faith lost, and faith restored. Faith in Christ; faith in God.

What was the sin of Adam and Eve? Was it a violation of law? God gave a commandment to them, that of every tree in the garden of Eden, they could freely eat, with the exception of one tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

One with a legalistic paradigm concludes they violated the “law” of God in the transgression of His commandment. But we need to make a distinction here between the action of violating a command of God and the intent of heart, which is where the issue truly begins. Adam and Eve had to first make a decision to eat of that tree. There was an intent of heart.

But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; ... Matthew 15:18-20 NASB

Why then did Adam and Eve decide to eat that fruit? What was their motivation? What was the real sin here?

They did not believe God. God said they would surely die. The serpent told them otherwise, that;

1. They would not die

2. They would be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The lesson was learned the hard way. They learned what evil was alright, and the consequences of evil; in this case their faithlessness in God and subsequent disobedience.

Their minds were now corrupted. There was now a separation from the mind of God, and soon this was to be followed by a physical separation from God and His Provision, being ejected from the garden of Eden. This was their “death.”

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; — Colossians 2:13 KJV

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. — Ephesians 2:1-2 NASB

Jesus came to redeem mankind. To redeem something is to return it to a former state or condition.

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; — Colossians 1:12-23

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. — Ephesians 1:6-14

Adam and Eve abandoned faith in God. Christ came to restore mankind to a condition of faith in God; a faith of trust, belief, dependence and assurance in God; a faith based in love.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. — Galatians 3:22-29

Abraham is the father of the faithful. The example of Abraham in Scripture is one of a relationship with God and the development of Abraham’s faith. Abraham received a covenant of promise from God that extends out to Abraham and his children, which in time will include children of faith.

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. — Galatians 3:7

* A legalist is broadly defined as one who believes in some form of law of the letter being adhered to, whether it be the law of the old covenant, or parts of it, or some entirely different set of laws concocted by their particular organization that the membership are required to comply with.

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

Sunday, or Herbert Armstrong?

My thought of the day is about a certain view which I was taught as a devout Armstrongist. This view pops up often when an Adventist of any stripe sets out to defend the doctrine of the mandatory weekly Sabbath. This view is in regards to prophecy.
This idea goes something like this "As Christ often warned in the gospels, there would be false prophets and false doctrines coming, in an attempt to betray believers." The false doctrine, in this case at least, is set up to be Sunday observance. The "true" doctrine, of course, would then be mandatory weekly seventh-day Sabbath observance.
(Mandatory partial Sabbath observance, that is, because the law is never actually followed as written. It's just insisted that Saturday is the "true" day of worship, which the law says nothing about.)

In Armstrongist and other Adventist circles, the prophecies of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are almost universally interpreted as referring to the time immediately prior to the Second Coming, That is precisely the way they were taught to me. More specifically, I am referring to Matthew 24: 24 and Mark 13: 22.

Is it not true that the official interpretation of the Mark of the Beast (REV. 13: 17; 14: 9, 11; 15: 2; 16: 2; and 20: 4) would be Sunday worship? And that this mark would be given immediately prior to the Second Coming? Yes it is.

Is it not true that the oldest extant historical documents all appear to show that "church services" were held on Sunday in the early church? Yes it is.

Is it not true that these ancient documents, often lumped under the name "Early Church Fathers," are castigated and demonized as heretical, false, distorted, full of lies, and many other such accusations, and the reading of these documents is frowned upon by Armstrongists and other Adventist groups alike? Yes it is.

Why mention any of this? Because, here are the facts:
1) Sunday observance is recorded from the first century AD. It is an exceedingly old practice.
2) The prophecies used against Sunday observance are interpreted by these groups as being for a time yet future to now. The time has not come yet.
3) If the false doctrines referred to in the prophecy are to arise before the Second Coming, and Sunday has been observed nearly 2,000 years, then according to their own teachings Sunday observance cannot be the thing these prophecies refer to.

It's a pretty simple line of logic to follow, really. If prophecy = new, and Sunday = ancient, then prophecy cannot = Sunday.

I would continue this line of thinking further.

According to their own prophetic interpretation, these teachings (the ones that turn out to be false) are to arise in the "end-times." Do we know of anything that has arisen in this late age? Of course we do! And that would be Adventism.

Around 1840, one William Miller decided that he had figured out the timing of the second coming of Christ. He claimed Christ would return by March 21st, 1844 at the latest. That day came and went. A second date was set at October 22nd, 1844. That day came and went. It would come to be known as "The Great Disappointment". Yet the Millerite faithful muscled on. Soon, Ellen G. White would rise to take over the group, claiming her visions and her teachings were the only truth. The Whites and their friends came into contact with some Seventh Day Baptists in New York, and took on the Sabbath doctrine from them. Ellen White would gather a huge following which eventually took the name "Seventh-Day Adventist Church." The SDA church is the largest seventh-day Sabbath keeping Christian denomination on earth. Her prophecies are held in high regard in that church to this day. But there was one man who would have none of her prophecies; his name was Gilbert Cranmer. Even though Cranmer parted ways a few short years earlier, he officially parted ways with Ellen G. White at the 1863 meeting in Battlecreek, Michigan where the Adventists officially took the name "Seventh-Day Adventist Church." Gilbert Cranmer and a small group went on to form the "General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh Day)." It was this group, the COG7, that hired and credentialed one Mr. Herbert Armstrong in 1927, electing him to the governmental body known as "The Seventy." This is the very same Herbert Armstrong who went on to found the Radio Church of God in 1934.

Herbert W Armstrong based his church on spurious beliefs such as British-Israelism. He relied heavily on material from the SDA church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons. He made a series of prophetic speculations which failed to pan out. One popular claim of his was that he was the first to preach the "true gospel" in 1,900 years.

OK, so to make a long story short, the main thing we've learned here is that Adventism has popped up recently. In fact, HWA claimed that he was the first person in 1,900 years to teach the "true gospel" and that all other churches since antiquity had been preaching a false one (including all churches he considered "true" ancestors of his own). Now, if that's not something new arising in the end-times, I don't know what is. By definition this was something arising in the end-times because HWA's Adventist ministry preached the imminent return of Christ from the very start. In fact he first predicted the return of Christ in 1936. ..which obviously failed to happen. I cannot think of any piece that fits this puzzle better than the ministry of Herbert Armstrong and the current Church of God splinter group leaders.
But the modern imitators of HWA have become even more bold in what they teach. Some have gone so far as to say that HWA was a false prophet and a law-breaker, others say HWA was not the Elijah he claimed to be even though they still treat HWA as the Apostle of his time, and even though they recognize their entire authority and credentials as ministers come from him, they have rearranged what he taught and prophesied as they see fit. Some teach Jesus was created a man, some teach Jesus is Satan's brother, some teach Mohammad is a prophet of God, some teach that all Christians are physical descendants of Israel and that Gentiles were never called (they explain away this blatant error by claiming we simply misunderstand what the word "Gentile" means), and some just plain appear to teach whatever pops into their head at the time. None of it makes sense in any context apart from the self-appointed authority of the wild-eyed prophet who makes the claims.

(II TIM. 3: 13) But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

I would continue this line of thinking even further!

(MAR. 13: 22) For false christs and false prophets will rise....

False prophets are supposed to rise. Do we know of any false prophets? Of course we do! And that would be Herbert W Armstrong and his current imitators.

As we've seen earlier, Herbert Armstrong left the gate breathing out prophecies which were all claimed to be the "absolutely SURE!" and "REAL" and "TRUE MESSAGE FROM GOD" given "on authority of God Almighty." [Emphasis his; not mine.] His crowning failure came in 1972 when a two-decade long series of prophecies, all supposedly culminating in the 1972 escape to "The Place of Safety" in preparation for the Second Coming in 1975, all failed to materialize. (For a great deal more info on this, please see the post "All Systems Are Go!") All total, not a single prophecy HWA ever made has come true.
To this day, his faithful defend him by claiming that he was not a prophet at all. Ahhhh! AsBereandDid has demonstrated several times that this is a ploy at best. (And we are not by any means the only ones who have done so.) HWA made multiple date-specific claims about the future, claiming they were given by authority of God Almighty, and even staked his authority on their accuracy in clear reference to Deuteronomy 18: 20-22. He was a false prophet, in a long line of false prophets. No if's, and's or but's.

"JESUS CHRIST chose and appointed me"
-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor General's Report, p. 3, Jan. 31, 1980

OK, so here we have 2 categories met. New teachings arising in the "end-times" and false prophecies.

I would like to continue this line of thinking further still!

(MAT. 24: 24) For false christs and false prophets will rise...

Matthew 24: 24 and Mark 13: 22 both refer to false Christs. Do we know of any false christs? Of course we do! Let's get a closer look at what a false christ is, shall we?

What is a false Christ? The Greek is "pseudochrist." This isn't necessarily a person claiming to be Jesus Christ. These verses don't say, "False Jesuses will rise." It says false Christ. "Christ" is just the Greek word for "Messiah" which basically means "anointed" and in this context refers to a savior. A false christ is someone who isn't Jesus Christ and who holds themselves up as a form of savior to the people. In other words, if Jesus is the Vine, and we are the branches, a false Christ either attempts to replace the vine or attempts to position themselves or their ministry between us and the vine. To put it bluntly, a false christ will claim to have the only truth and the only true ministry. So, a false christ in reality is claiming to be pivotal to your salvation.
Now, do we know of anyone who might fit that description? Yes! For decades, HWA taught that this was the Pope. Well, even though the Vicar of Christ who goes by the title "Holy Father" may appear to fit the description, the Catholic Church is ancient. Do we know of anyone else who may be a better fit? Someone appearing recently? Of course we do! You guessed it - Herbert Armstrong himself.

It was a mainstay of the Worldwide Church of God under Herbert Armstrong that the WCG was the only true church and the only entity on earth for 1,900 years that had the "true gospel". Oh, from time to time a sermon would include a blurb about how God may have hidden some people somewhere on the earth that we didn't know about (perhaps hidden in some mountain range in Russia somewhere), and those would also be His people, but for the most part, we were it. HWA specifically taught, in his book "The Incredible Human Potential", that it was the whole duty of the Christian to support his ministry through tithes and prayers. Excommunication from the WCG meant eternal death, since the WCG was the only path to the Kingdom of God. Only WCG trained and credentialed ministers were qualified to teach "the truth." Only WCG ministers were validated to perform rites such as laying on of hands, anointings for the sick, anointings to office in the church, or baptism. Even such seemingly innocent things as group Bible studies were frowned upon without the presence of a church official. Only WCG leadership was capable of receiving and spending tithes. Their judgments were to be unquestioned. It was accepted as truth that the higher up the hierarchy of church leadership one went, the closer to God they got. So, one could only get close to God through one of them. At the apex of it all sat HWA - the Elijah, God's appointed Apostle, the spiritual and temporal leader of the church on earth.
Herbert Armsrtong's official position, according to legal, state of California court documents filed during the 1979 Receivership, was thus:

"I am the founder, Pastor General, and spiritual and temporal leader of defendant Worldwide Church of God, Inc. (" Worldwide") . In addition, I am chief executive officer, chairman of the board of directors and chairman of the board of trustees of Worldwide and its two related entities, defendants Ambassador College, Inc. ("Ambassador"), and Ambassador International Cultural Foundation, Inc. ("AICF"); together with Worldwide, Ambassador and ASCF will collectively be referred to herein as "the Church".
The Church, which was originally known as the Radio Church of God, was founded by me in the mid-1930's for the purpose of proclaiming "the Gospel throughout the world as a witness of the coming of the Kingdom of God." Matthew 24:14. [Prophet!] I am the appointed Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and, as such, have been both the spiritual and temporal leader of the Church from its inception."
-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor's Report, pp. 28-29, Jan. 8, 1979

Not just temporal, but spiritual and temporal!

"Mr. Armstrong has been the spiritual and temporal leader of the Church since its inception"
-Mike Blackwell, Pastor's Report, p. 3, Jan. 30, 1979

Yes, Jesus founded a church, but not this one! Herbert Armstrong founded the Worldwide Church of God. Ask just about any former Armstrongist and one thing they will note is how very little was preached about Jesus Christ and His work. There was no mention of a "finished work on the cross" at all. Jesus was virtually absent from most sermons, booklets, and even the modern websites! You think I'm exaggerating? Here, read this article "On Following Men" if you need more convincing.

He was the first to preach "the gospel" in 1,900 years. What gospel was that? Did it include Jesus' earthly  ministry, who He is, or what He did? Barely. How could it? That is the Gospel other churches preached. False churches. His was new! Jesus was actively downplayed. It wasn't about Jesus' first coming, the cross was a symbol of Tammuz, but His second coming. End times. "Gospel of the coming Kingdom of God" is what Armstrong preached. Grace is cheap. The New Covenant is really the Old Covenant. The law given under Moses was key. Sabbaths and holy days and tithes and meats. And you needed him to teach you about it. And fast! Jesus is headed down any minute! You need Herbert Armstrong and his modern descendants, or all hope for you is lost.

So, we have the founder, Pastor General, and spiritual and temporal leader of the Church since its inception in one man - Herbert Armstrong, not Jesus Christ - who was Divinely appointed to proclaim the soon-coming Kingdom, which was prophecy, thus making him a (false) prophet speaking in the name of God.
We have the modern imitators following suit. For example Ron Weinland who still teaches that if you weren't baptized into Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God then you will never see the Millenial reign of Christ. In fact, Ron Weinland takes it farther and proclaims - in print - that if you do not join his church and accept him as what amounts to being your master, then you will die horribly in the Great Tribulation before Jesus' return by May 27th, 2012. Or for another example, Dave Pack. How many times must his prophecies fail before people have had enough of him?
These are men who set themselves up as gateways to Christ. They, not Christ, are set up as your path to safety and salvation. They are christs! False ones!

Now, to summarize, we have three things: new teaching, false prophecies, and false messiahs. Sunday observance, which is even found in Revelation 1: 10 (the Greek is specific and in fact refers to Sunday), is not in that list of three things... it must be read into the text. However, all three of these things are demonstrated in Herbert Armstrong and the men who continue what he started.
Yet, these ones drive ahead undeterred and teach people to point the finger at mainstream Christianity and say, "these prophecies are about Sunday-keeping." I reject that conclusion.

Current Armstrongists, loved and cherished by God, I am not saying that these prophecies definitely are fulfilled in these men. All we here are saying is that people should take the time to consider what is going on with these men and to prove out these things for themselves, as the Bereans did, rather than avoid the issue. I urge you to pray and to challenge yourself to ask the tough questions. I've made some hefty claims - claims most Armstrongists wouldn't even bother themselves to read because they would shut down the conversation at the start. If you've made it this far, good on you! But I am not claiming that these things are definitely so, I am merely presenting a different perspective to get you to think about points of view. Can you see how there is a possibility that these men may not be what they claim to be? Is there any chance in the world that what I'm saying might be even remotely possible? Might it be too much to ask for you to investigate whether or not these things fit the puzzle more accurately than other things you may have been taught, but perhaps you never thought of it like this before? Is there a possibility that you have been taken by a slick salesman? Then ask the tough questions! The truth is not in any danger of no longer being true simply because you investigate it. If it keeps anyone from stepping into a deeper faith in Christ, in the New Covenant in His blood, then such a one owes it to themselves to investigate the matter.

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

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

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

Do Post-Armstrongists Keep The Law?

What I often hear from people who consider themselves keepers of the law is a series of condemnations and/or predictions concerning my future all centering around my failure to meet their ideals regarding the Sabbath and other Old Covenant laws. I, of course, challenge them with the idea that they don't keep the law either. That has been true in each case, however it never seems to sink in.

What I have found recently is a new and particularly virulent strain of law-keeper; a group of former Armstrongists who now profess that Herbert Armstrong was a false prophet and a lawbreaker, and the Worldwide Church of God was never truly "God's Church." (I agree, but that's neither here nor there.) This, conveniently enough, leaves them as the "true church," and their teachings as the right ones, and their leaders as the only genuine ministry, and etc etc.
The odd thing is, most of what they preach is exactly the same as what HWA preached! (It even has the same flaws.)

So, to test my theory, I questioned one of these new über legalists. I did my usual thing and pointed out how they aren't keeping the law they profess to keep so much better than anyone else. They asked me to explain how they were failing to keep the law. I mentioned the details of a few laws, for example foods laws, Holy Days, and tithing. Yadda, yadda... Predictably, they made a small attack against me and danced completely around my questions.
That's about the point where I get tired of the game, and I just get directly to the issue. I focused on tithing. And here's the gist of how that went.

Über legalists attempt to appeal to our emotions by spinning a tale about how we borrow things from God, and we must respect Him by giving Him some back. Why would God give you something, and then expect some of that back in return for His generosity? It doesn't make sense from the start. Why didn't He just keep the 10% in the first place?

As much as I might desire to agree about wanting to give to God, I disagree that anything belongs to us at any time. Just because we use it doesn't make it ours and not God's any longer. All the universe belongs to God, what can anyone "give" to Him? In addition, He neither wants nor needs material things. His desire is mercy, justice, prayer, love, faith, etc. Which, by the way, He gives us. Do we also tithe 10% of our faith? Or 10% of our life? He gives us those things, too! Why not give Him 10% of our children, or 10% of grace? Am I to believe that God gives us all things, but for some reason only wants 10% of my paycheck back?
God is a "pay it forward" kind of God. If we want to give to Him, we must give to those that are in need of what He has given us (MAT. 25: 35-40).

So these people tithe as a requirement of law. Let's see if they follow tithe law rather than just tithing whatever they want to whomever they want.

Contrary to popular belief, tithes don't go to God, as they claim, nor do tithes go to "the Church." They go to the Levites because God was their part and inheritance in Israel. That's the law. All of this "giving to God" misses the point of tithing entirely. The tribe of Levi depended upon these tithes.
Only the Levites and the very poor are ever said to be able to receive tithes. Are they tithing to a bona fide and credentialed Levite? No. So they are adding to the law!

Also, they tithe on wages or other monetary income, and these tithes are paid out in the form of some money.
However the laws on tithing are specific. The tithes were to come from the farm, field, orchard, or flock - only! Yet they completely ignore this, to do away with the law in favor of the commandments of men. Once again, they have added to the law!

They boast strenuously in their more accurate law-keeping. But the things the law says to do, they do not do, and the things they do are not things the law says to do.
I find it a bit disconcerting that people would make their boast in the law, claiming to know the law and keep it better than all others, yet they obviously disregard it when it becomes inconvenient for them.

A challenge came across that tithes are commanded for the New Covenant in Matthew 23. Let's look at this confirmation of tithes in Matthew 23, shall we?

(MAT. 23: 23-24) 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

First things first, context! To whom is this comment directed? Us? No! To the scribes and Pharisees. How do we know this? Because it says right there, "scribes and Pharisees." So, why on earth would we take a comment directed specifically towards the scribes and Pharisees, then say it was directed towards us? If we are so quick to say "this means we must tithe" then we must be equally as quick to demand "Jesus calls us hypocrites who neglect the weightier matters of the law." Because we cannot easily dive right into the middle of a chapter, zero in on one phrase out of a hundred, extract it from context, and then start making demands.
"Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"
But that's not all! They do the very same thing in Matthew 15! Jesus corrects the Pharisees regarding the 10 Commandments, and these people say "He was commanding us!!" Yet when Jesus turns to the crowd and says “Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” They ignore it completely.
When Jesus speaks to the Pharisees, they demand He was speaking to us. When Jesus says to the crowd, they ignore as if it doesn't apply. Thus they admit, in a round-about way, that they are Pharisees.

Next thing, more context. When was this statement made? During the time of the Old Covenant. Jesus had not yet died, so the Jews were very well commanded to tithe. Rightfully Jesus instructed them on the law.

Next thing, items tithed. If Jesus is commanding us to tithe (which He most certainly is not doing) then He has commanded us only to tithe upon mint, anise, and cumin. Those are the items mentioned in the verse; those are the only things we could possibly conclude He would be commanding should have been tithed upon in the verse. Anything else is out of context.

Next thing, verb tense. Notice how "These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone" is past tense. Their time was almost up! The axe was already at the tree. There was no implication whatsoever that Jesus wanted the Pharisees to start tithing now. For 1,400 years they had the law witnessing against them. If they wouldn't listen to Moses and the prophets, then they wouldn't listen even if One rose from the dead. So this is in no way a command for us, but rather it was a judgment on them.

Next thing, blatant selective reading. Notice how tithes are demanded, but precisely the point Jesus was trying to make is utterly ignored. Tithes are demanded; justice, mercy, and faith, are abandoned. It should be obvious, and it cannot be denied, that those who do not view the scripture as demanding tithing (tithing as redefined by men) are condemned. Where is the justice and mercy in that?

Next thing, the details. Notice how the scribes and Pharisees understood the details of the tithe law. What did they tithe on? Their income? No! They tithed on what the law said to tithe on: farm, field, flock, and orchard. They were anal retentive tithers; tithing even leaves of herbs. Tiny little herbs! Not 10% of their paycheck. Jesus didn't remark "For you pay tithe on the gross of your business income."
Have you ever wondered why Deuteronomy 14: 25 told us that we can exchange our tithe for money? No?? Here, read it:

(DEU. 14: 25) then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses.

Now, why would we exchange a tithe of money... for money? Because the tithe was not of money. Look 3 verses up:

(DEU. 14: 22) You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year.

Tithe on the field, not on business income. So, here one has 10% of their field in a hopper, and they can't take it all with them to Jerusalem, so they exchange it for money. That is the law!

But watch out! Here come the modern law-keepers to tell you how important it is to keep the law - except they aren't keeping the law.
We are to believe that we can take the law, rearrange it as we see fit, demand God accept our generosity contrary to the law, then others are condemned for not following suit.
They will tell you that God has given to you, and you must give back; which sounds nice but it's not a law-based argument. It's a rationalization. Where do they find that law? All things belong to God, even our very lives. Do we tithe 10% of the fruit of the Spirit? No. We are living sacrifices. A Christian gives 100%. So, we do give to God. But the law says if you will tithe, you tithe only of field, orchard, farm, and flock. Period. But they don't do that. They have changed the law!
Also, the law says to tithe to Levites. But they don't do that either! They argue over which church has the appropriate minister to whom all may legitimately tithe. But where do they get such a law? There is no law anywhere that says to tithe to anyone but Levites (and the destitute). They borrow clever phrases like "modern-day Levite" to anoint their ministry with the ability to accept tithes. But the Levitical Priesthood has ended (HEB. 7: 11-12). If it has not, then Jesus is illegitimate as our High Priest (HEB. 7: 14), and we are hopeless! Still, do their "Levite" ministers obey the laws of the Levites? Have you ever seen one in an ephod, or linen vestment? No?? So, they are not Levites!

Oh, the law! The law!
Just not THAT law.

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

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

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

A Generation Since the "Last Generation"

It's time again for me to dive into the old Armstrongist material from days long gone and pluck out some choice quotes for you. Today we will answer what a "generation" is according to Herbert Armstrong's reckoning of time, and we'll add more fuel to the fact that the much-hyped "prophetic understanding" was no understanding at all.

"Only the Church of God has the Key of David which is the understanding of where Israel is today - Rev. 3:7. God has set open the door of radio before His Church today - Rev. 3: 8. We are the only generation to have been allowed to understand the future. Most of the Bible was written for the understanding of the last generation HERE! NOW! To us only - to have a near complete understanding."
-Wilbur Ball, "Church of God News", Chicago-Midwest edition, August 1963, volume 2 Issue 8, page 3

How did they get the "Key of David"? Only Jesus Christ has the "Key of David" (ISA. 22: 22; REV. 3: 7). Herbert Armstrong and friends often claimed to have this key, but if you read the letter to the Philadelphian church in Revelation 3: 7, we see that the Jesus has the key. For all the talk about how God opens doors, one would think that God had the key, but Herbert Armstrong somehow has obtained said key.

Near complete understanding, eh? Last generation? In case you're confused as to the technical definition of a "generation", Wilbur Ball gives us that:

"A generation is considered to be 35 to 40 years."
-Wilbur Ball, "Church of God News", Chicago-Midwest edition, August 1963, volume 2 Issue 8, page 3, column 1, paragraph 3.

This definition is something I've wondered for a while. What is the working definition of "generation" in the WCG. Now I know.

Seeing as that article was written in 1963, and that this article you now read was written in 2010, a difference of 47 years, I see a discrepancy. Of course, that generation didn't begin in 1963, it was already under way. In fact, knowing what was being preached in that era of the Worldwide Church of God, the generation was to come to an end by 1982 at the latest. Remember, the work was to end in 1972 so the church could flee to Petra during the Great Tribulation in anticipation of the second coming of Jesus in the "push-button, leisure year of 1975." (For a great deal more detail about this, see the article "All Systems Are Go!")

"'We are not setting any dates,' said God's Evangelist Mr. Roderick Merideth, 'but it could be as short as 6 1/2 YEARS TO COMPLETE THIS WORK!'"
-Jim Howell, "Church of God News", Chicago district, August 1965, Vol. 4 Issue 8, p. 1, in article "Only 6 1/2 Years to Go!!!".

Take August 1965, add 6 1/2 years, and you get..... 1972!!!
..But we're not setting any dates here!! No sir. We're not setting any dates down to the half-year; not here, nor in countless other articles and publications and sermons and private conversations that don't set that exact same 1972 date.

So, did they get it right? Did they have near complete understanding? Well, I can tell you that I wasn't even conceived in August 1972, so I am personally going to go with "no" on this one. In 2007, a generation of 35 years had passed since 1972, 40 years will pass in 2012. It has been a generation since the last generation! Did they understand the future? Taking into consideration thie STARTLING and EARTH SHATTERING information, I'm only all the more motivated to go with "no" on this.

If "Most of the Bible was written for the understanding of the last generation," then it wasn't written for those people who said it was written for them, it certainly wasn't understood by those people who said they had "near complete understanding." The proof is in the undeniable fact that what they said would happen did not happen!

"During this time we are to herald the Kingdom of God because it will be set up in our time."
-Raymond Cole, "Church of God News", Chicago-Midwest edition, August 1963, volume 2 Issue 8, page 3.

Sure. ...Or not.

(ACT. 1: 7) And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority."

"We were only speculating," they say in desperate self-justification. Here is one example of many:

"So what are all those predictions Herbert Armstrong made? Rather than call them prophecies (which they were not) and Him a false prophet (which he was not), his predictions are more correctly speculations, theories based on true but insufficient and unclear evidence."
-Richard Ritenbaugh, "Was Herbert Armstrong A False Prophet?", Forerunner "Prophecy Watch", January 2000, p. 5.

Is that so?

“I want to tell you that all this weather disturbance means a terrible famine is coming on the United States that is going to ruin us as a nation inside of less than 20 more years. Alright, I stuck my neck out right there. You just wait 20 more years and see whether I told you the truth. God says, if a man tells you what’s going to happen, wait and see. If it does not happen, he was not speaking the word of God; he was speaking out of his own mind. You watch and see whether these things happen. You’ll see who’s speaking to you, my friends.”

-Herbert Armstrong, taken from audio recorded somewhere in mid-1950's

HWA all but comes right out and says that God gave him that timing, and bet his legitimacy on it!
He "stuck his neck out" and taunted both man and God with Deuteronomy 18: 20-22. Read those verses, they are what his quote here is referring to. How can he bet on this in 1956, but cop out and claim it doesn't apply in 1972 and beyond? Not possible!
Speculating? Not setting dates? Not prophesying? HA! Laughable.
I will close with one of my personal favorite quotes of all time:

"But who today understands what the prophets foretold? Why, only the ministers today whose word comes to pass!-those who are appointed and guided by God to preach the truth! Those whose utterances do not come to pass have not spoken the prophecies truly. We give you here the record of what we have been proclaiming for the past 2 years-a message which no other voices, to our knowledge, have been proclaiming.... But what we have been warning you about is happening!-precisely as we have stated.... This is how you can know that our work is not of men but of God!"
-Rod Meredith, Plain Truth magazine, December 1956, p. 3.

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

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

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