Firstfruits and the Beauty of God's Timing

Herbert Armstrong was absolutely right when he said,

"Few professing Christians have ever thought to question or to prove this "Good-Friday-Easter" tradition. Yet the Bible tells us to prove (test) all things."
-Herbert W Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday", 1972, p3

He lived in a time when average people generally did not have access to information. They didn't know anyone who questioned or proved, and didn't think to question or prove. When I tried to question Easter, I got garbage answers from people who were completely unprepared. I took their lack of ability to explain as evidence there was no good answer. For that mistake, I served a 26-year stint in Armstrongism.

These people had answers. I asked, and they PROVED! (Armstrong would always capitalize for emphasis.) But did they? Armstrongism was feeding me completely one-sided answers; the same few points over and over, which I was not allowed to question. I went from not knowing I should question, to knowing I should not question. I thought we were supposed to question and prove! No. Only enough to get you in the door. After that, it just gets you back out the door again.

Is confirmation bias and beating up on straw men really the same thing as proving? Was it really any different than when I questioned Easter at the outset? There are two sides to every story, but after all those years it dawned on me I had still only heard the testimony from one side. But if that was so, then I had never really PROVED either side of this. All this time I had been hearing only what I wanted to hear. This made me no different than the Easter-keepers who only heard what they wanted to hear. I didn't need to be coddled, I needed proof! But I didn't know Easter from Adam. Who was going to give me the answers I still needed? No one. I was going to have to get the answers myself. Thus began a 16-year journey here at As Bereans Did.

I made life-altering choices based on the information I had at the time. Now, dear reader, we have access to better information. Now we can finally PROVE as we should. As Bereans Did has several articles on Easter. Those articles do the heavy lifting on topics like "three days and three nights", the two Sabbaths of Matthew 28, the Quartodeciman Controversy, Constantine the Great, Eostra, Old Covenant vs New Covenant, and all the rest. See our Categories page for a list.

In my last post I promised another article. I did this because I have stumbled across something that I want to share with you. I was reading through the article "History of Easter - part I" when I was sidetracked reading about the Feast of Firstfruits. That led me to a little detail I thought was interesting enough to warrant its own article.

Today's post is going to be about the beauty and intricacy of God's timing. Specifically, the timing of Good Friday and Easter Sunday (the timing everybody loves to hate) and how it fits with the Feast of Firstfruits. But to get to that point, we need to learn about the Feast of Firstfruits.

FEAST OF FIRSTFRUITS

Firstfruits (Yom HaBikkurim = Day of Firsfruits) was an important ceremony within the timing of the Days of Unleavened Bread. We can read about it in Leviticus 23.

(LEV. 23: 9-11) 9 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted on your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12 And you shall offer on that day, when you wave the sheaf, a male lamb of the first year, without blemish, as a burnt offering to the Lord. 13 Its grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering made by fire to the Lord, for a sweet aroma; and its drink offering shall be of wine, one-fourth of a hin. 14 You shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain until the same day that you have brought an offering to your God; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

The Day of Firstfruits was the very day when the Wave Sheaf Offering was performed.
The Days of Unleavened Bread, which the Jews call Passover, was a harvest festival. Actually, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were all harvest festivals. Passover was the festival of the first harvest of the year - the barley harvest. Since the first and best of everything is dedicated to God, the barley harvest couldn't begin in earnest until after the Wave Sheaf Offering. And the Wave Sheaf Offering couldn't happen until the barley was ready to harvest. The ripening of the barley and the Spring Equinox keep Passover tied to its particular time of the year. The Day of Firstfruits also helped to tie Passover to Pentecost. The 50-day count to Pentecost starts on Firstfruits.
The Day of Firstfruits was actually pretty important.

Firstfruits wasn't emphasized by Herbert Armstrong, therefore it is mostly overlooked by the Church of God splinter groups. Oh, you'll get mention of it here and there from detail-oriented ministers, but most people glossed right over it. Here is where I would usually give my catch phrase "The law! The law! Just not THAT law!" and where Armstrongists would object that this was ceremonial so it was done away, then I would respond that if you keep Pentecost then it isn't ceremonial and keeping 2% of the law is not keeping the law. Yada yada. Round and round it goes. Today's article isn't meant to be so polemic as that.

There is a fairly interesting detail hidden in here which you probably glossed right over. I'll put it here again for you -
     "On the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it." (v.11)

Why is that important, you ask? Because, as fate would have it, that little word right there - Sabbath - caused issues that I think display the beauty and intricacy of God's timing.

WHICH SABBATH?

That's the big money question right there. Which Sabbath is verse 11 referring to? In my last article, I shared this quote from the UCG, "Two kinds of 'Sabbaths' leads to confusion." Not in Matthew 28, no, but in Leviticus 23 it really does. 

If you're here reading this blog, you already know there are two kinds of Sabbaths: weekly Sabbaths (Saturday) and annual holy days. In a multi-day festival like the Days of Unleavened Bread, you will always have at least one weekly Sabbath. By the nature of the DOUB, you will also have two annual Sabbaths - the first day and the last day. One feast, two kinds of Sabbaths.

When you have a thousand years to think on things, details like the word Sabbath can cause big disputes. By the time Jesus was born, that Sabbath in v.11 was interpreted in two very different ways. The Sadducees decided the regular weekly Sabbath was the one being spoken of. For them, the date didn't matter, only the day of the week - Sunday. The Pharisees, on the other hand, tied it to the annual Sabbath. Why tie the Wave Sheaf to a regular weekly Sabbath when you're reading a section of Torah detailing annual Sabbaths? For them, the day of the week didn't matter, only the date - the 16th. In any given year, there were two completely incompatible interpretations of the timing of the Day of Firstfruits.

You can read about this topic on any number of Jewish sources (e.g., Chabad).

Harder to find is information on when other Jewish sects observed the Wave Sheaf. From what I can find, Kenneth Strand (at the time of Andrews University) claims the Essenes sided with the Sadducees and observed after the weekly Sabbath.

We have mentioned in other articles the Church of God splinter groups disagree on when to keep Pentecost in years where the first day of Unleavened Bread falls on a Saturday. The nature of this debate is is why.

Which side was in the right? The Bible doesn't clarify elsewhere. If it were clear, there wouldn't be a debate. I am not going to attempt an answer. That is not the point of this article. I wish to show something quite different. I for one am amazed at something good that comes from these debates. I see God glorifying Himself in them.

I'll explain how in a bit! Don't rush me!

JESUS - FIRST OF THE FIRSTFRUITS

I said earlier that the Wave Sheaf is mentioned by the more detail-oriented ministers in Armstrongism. Some use it to dispute over the timing of Pentecost. The better sermons would explain how Jesus fulfills the symbolism of the Wave Sheaf offering. I like to give credit where credit is due - and these ministers deserve credit for being correct.
See? We at ABD always admit where people are right.

Christ is called Firstfruits in I Corinthians 15: 20 & 23. Christ is also indirectly called the Firstfruits in Romans 11: 16. The idea of associating Jesus with the firstfruits is an old one. Granted, Jesus isn't the only one associated with it. All Christians will eventually be associated. But that's for another article. Suffice it to say it is possible to demonstrate a tie between Jesus and Firstfruits.

Know that when Christ is called Firstfruits in I Corinthians, this is in reference to resurrection from the dead. The entire chapter is, overall, about resurrection.

(I COR. 20: 20-23) 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

God isn't interested in harvesting barley. Ultimately, we are the harvest God has planted. Jesus is the very first of the harvest. "The firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." Firstfruits and resurrection are linked so closely that, at least in Corinthians, Jesus' resurrection is the fulfillment of the Day of Firstfruits.

Taking what we've seen about Firstfruits, let's put that together with Passover.

Passover is fulfilled by Jesus' crucifixion, as He is our Passover lamb. The first day of Unleavened Bread is fulfilled by Jesus' death taking away our sin, as the leaven in the bread is representative of sin. And the Firstfruits is fulfilled by Jesus' resurrection, as He is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Three days that point directly to Christ.

Now that we've talked about imagery, let's talk about the beauty of how that played out.

GOD FULFILLS EVERYTHING

Remember how the Sadducees always put Firstfruits on a Sunday while the Pharisees always put it after the holy day? Imagine what a mess that must have been. The powerful and wealthy yet less numerous Sadducees, in control of the Temple, performing rituals according to their own views, versus the numerous and fastidious Pharisees, tithing to the last seed, wanting everything done according to their views. It had to have been a frustrating dynamic even on normal days. Yet, as providence would have it, in a Friday-Sunday scenario, both systems snap into alignment. But only in a Friday-Sunday crucifixion scenario.

I want to put a chart up for you so you can visualize what I just said:

	Nissan 13 Thursday	Nissan 13/14 Thu/Fri	Nissan 14 Friday	Nissan 14/15 Fri/Sat	Nissan 15 Saturday	Nissan 15/16 Sat/Sun	Nissan 16 Sunday
	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day
Traditional		Passover	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf
Pharisees		Passover	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf
Sadducees		Passover	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf

The "Traditional" row shows how the traditional Good Friday-Easter Sunday scenario fits. For the Pharisees (and modern Jews), Firstfruits could be on any day of the week but it was always on the 16th. For the Sadducees, it was always on the same day of the week, Sunday, but it could be on any date.

See how that lines up? Only in a Friday-Sunday scenario is everything aligned. I find this to be an absolutely wonderful testament to the intricacy and beaty of God's timing. When our God says "fullness of time" He really means it!

What would this look like in the Thursday-Sunday and Wednesday-Saturday timelines?

Thursday-Sunday

	Nissan 14 Thursday	Nissan 14/15 Thu/Fri	Nissan 15 Friday	Nissan 15/16 Fri/Sat	Nissan 16 Saturday	Nissan 16/17 Sat/Sun	Nissan 17 Sunday
	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day
Thu-Sun	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Sabbath / Firstfruits?	Sabbath / Wave Sheaf?	Firstfruits?	Wave Sheaf?
Pharisees	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Sabbath / Firstfruits	Sabbath / Firstfruits		Wave Sheaf?
Sadducees	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Sabbath	Sabbath	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf

For the Thursday-Sunday scenario, you now have a choice for Firstfruits. Which will it be, the Saturday or the Sunday? That all depends on who is writing the article you read. For the Pharisees, Firstfruits moves to Saturday because it is the 16th and comes after the annual holy day on Friday. But now there is a problem. Usually, an homer of barley was cut immediately after sundown at the start of the Firstfruits, then the Wave Sheaf happened the next morning. With Firstfruits on a double-Sabbath, neither of those can happen. The Wave Sheaf would have to be postponed. Except, Exodus says not to delay this kind of ceremony.

(EXO. 22: 29a) You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices.

Whether they delayed or not is beside the point. The point here is, the perfect alignment is ruined. Look at the chaos in that chart.

Wednesday-Saturday

	Nissan 15 Thursday	Nissan 15/16 Thu/Fri	Nissan 16 Friday	Nissan 16/17 Fri/Sat	Nissan 17 Saturday	Nissan 17/18 Sat/Sun	Nissan 18 Sunday
	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day
Wed-Sat	First Day UB	Firstfruits?	Wave Sheaf?	Sabbath	Sabbath	Firstfruits?	Wave Sheaf?
Pharisees	First Day UB	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf	Sabbath	Sabbath
Sadducees	First Day UB			Sabbath	Sabbath	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf

For the Wednesday-Saturday scenario, you again have a choice for Firstfruits. With whom will you side, the Pharisees or the Sadducees? Again, that depends on the opinion of who is writing what you are reading. For the Pharisees, Firstfruits moves to Friday, while nothing at all happens on Friday for the Sadducees. (Why didn't the women go to the tomb on Friday?) As you can see, this scenario completely ruins the beauty of the alignment.

A Friday Firstfruits complicates the symbolism of Jesus' resurrection fulfilling Firstfruits. Pharisees would never agree that He did. He was resurrected two days afterward. Alignment obliterated!

If you know what Armstrongism teaches about the Last Supper, then you know they claim Jesus was correcting the timing of the Jews. That means the slaughter of the lambs should be moved to Tuesday and Jesus was crucified a day later than He should have been. That wreaks havoc on the imagery of Jesus as our Passover Lamb. 
This time scenario ruins the imagery of Passover and Firstfruits. How does that fix the timing exactly?

Read our article "History of Easter - part I". In it we talk about whether Jesus was correcting the timing of Passover when He ate the Lord's Supper a day early.

Notice how the alignment gets uglier and more chaotic the farther away you go from the Traditional timing. Contrast that with the beauty of the traditional timing and the intricacy of the planning that must have gone into it on God's part. The alignment only happens in the traditional Friday-Sunday scenario. What a little detail, and easy to miss. Yet God did not miss it.

You will never see a chart like this in any Church of God splinter group's material. It would never occur to them to make one in the first place. The information is just as much in front of them as it is you, yet they cherry pick right past it. They don't concern themselves with things that don't support their desired outcomes. And they most definitely do not make charts that show there could be issues with their predetermined conclusions. Too much money is at stake.

It's about time we took Herbert Armstrong's advice to "prove (test) all things".

CONCLUSION

At the start of this article, I said, "I for one am utterly amazed at something good that comes from these debates. I see God glorifying Himself in them." I hope now you understand what I meant.

Is this some slam dunk of a point I'm making today? Standing on its own, no. But it is interesting! Good thing this point doesn't stand by itself. Taken with the evidence in our other articles we have written for you, it builds a decent case.

When we genuinely prove something, we look at all of the evidence, both for and against. Not like our friends in the Church of God splinter groups who only look at evidence for their claims, and hide everything else. If we refuse to accept any contrary evidence even exists, how are we proving? We here at As Bereans Did spent most of our lives in Armstrongism. We know what is said and what evidence is given. We don't deny it. What we realized we hadn't done was exactly what Herbert Armstrong said to do in the first place - really prove out the Friday-Sunday scenario. Well, against all expectations, turns out there is quite a bit to it when we let the Bible interpret the Bible, use the right definitions of words, count like a Hebrew, take into account extra-Biblical evidence, and genuinely try to poke holes in our own understanding in order to let the truth just be what it is.

God is a God of order, not chaos. He defeats chaos. Because of some points in the law that were not clarified, such as which Sabbath should mark the start of the Day of Firstfruits, the Jews fell into disagreement. The Jews debated timing and ended up with two incompatible timing scenarios. God, being wiser and more capable than all our greatest faults, found a way to satisfy everything. He patiently waited, and when the fullness of time had come, He acted. Truly, He was up to the challenge of whatever our confusion threw at Him. He practically wraps it all up in a pretty bow. Praise the Lord! Glory and laud and honor to the One who sits on the throne, surrounded by beauty and power, and who humbled Himself for us so we could be with Him.

And this alignment only happens in the traditional Friday-Sunday scenario.

God bless you, dear reader! You are why ABD exists. Thanks for reading.

If you have more questions about Easter and timing, please read our "Easter FAQ". I update it from time to time.

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

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

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

Refusing To Understand

Hello readers! It’s me again. I had retired from blogging. I came out of retirement, briefly, to write this post. And the most succinct thing I can say about it is - I don’t know why I do this to myself. 

Lately, I have been working on updating the Easter FAQ (if you’ve never read it, or haven’t read it in a while, please do check it out, we answer almost everything there). After finishing, an idea popped into my head. I haven’t been to a Church of God website in a couple years. I was curious to see if they’ve improved their research skills. Maybe all of this information on the Interwebs has gotten through. Maybe things have changed for the better. I figured the most recent article on Easter from the United Church of God should be a fairly good representative. So, I pulled up the showpiece from 2023, “Good Friday + Easter Sunday It Doesn’t Add Up!” by Scott Ashley and Mario Seiglie.

Why, oh why do I do this to myself!?

Have research skills improved? No. Has intellectual honesty increased? No. Have they stopped posting the same old nonsense from 75 years ago? No. Have they stopped posting blatantly false information? Sadly, no.

Let’s see if the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet still works. It might need a little oil.

WHAT SIGN DID JESUS GIVE?

Mr. Ashley and Mr. Seiglie start with the classics, and quote Matthew 12: 40.

“This was the only specific sign Jesus gave that He was the promised Messiah: ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’”

It's the good old “72 hours is the only sign Jesus gave” claim. We address this in depth in our 2013 article “Three Days and Three Nights”. Where did they get this claim? From Herbert Armstrong.

"He expressly declared that the only sign He would give to prove He was the Messiah was that He should be just three days and three nights in the rock-hewn sepulcher in 'the heart of the earth.' "
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday", 1972, p.4

But let’s ask - is that the only specific sign Jesus gave? No.

Jesus gave one sign, stated in two ways.
In Matthew 12: 39-40 & 16: 4, and Luke 11: 29-30, He gave the sign of Jonah the prophet. Only Matthew 12 mentions time. The others do not. So, are the specifics of the timing really the point when only one selection out of three mentions it? Jonah is mentioned in all three. Some people can't see past the time aspect as if that's all there is to it. There is another thing to consider.
When we go to John 2: 18-19, we see an entirely different sign, the sign of the temple being destroyed and rebuilt in three days. Notice, three days, not three days and three nights. Seems pretty specific to me.
So, straight off the starting line, the UCG is wrong. That temple sign means the sign of Jonah is not the only one.

Yet, Jesus said only one sign would be given. A clear Bible contradiction? No. If we understand what Jesus was really referring to. Both the sign of Jonah and the sign of the Temple are the same sign, spoken in two ways. That sign is: His death and resurrection.
That is the one and only sign.

Ashley and Seigli will disagree, of course, because the founder of their church said this:

"That evidence was not the fact of the resurrection itself. It was the length of time He would repose in His grave, before being resurrected."
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday", 1972, p.4

But as you can see with your own eyes, it really was the fact of His resurrection after all. There was a time component in the resurrection, but the time component itself is not the sign.

There was one sign stated in two ways. Just as Jonah and the Temple are one sign spoken of in two ways; the phrases "three days and three nights" and "three days" are one time period spoken of in two ways. It's the same.

We have quite a bit more for you on this topic in our article "Three Days and Three Nights".

Now that we know what the only sign actually is - the fact of a death and a resurrection - we can put to bed any talk about, "The only sign is a literal 72-hour three days and three nights." That was never the sign. If the time were the sign, don't you suppose someone would have been there to witness it? The only people there were Roman guards who were passed out in fear. Exact time isn't much of a sign if nobody witnessed it. But that He was dead and came back on the third day .. no lack of witnesses for that sign.
The whole claim about 72-hours is nothing but a gross oversimplification of the intricacies and beauty of the Biblical narrative. (That's for another article.)

These UCG authors aren’t exactly hitting a bullseye on Jesus’ signs. I imagine this is going to devolve into arguing over what the definition of “specific” is.

MATH DOESN’T WORK IF YOU DO IT WRONG

Next stop is the well-worn argument about Friday to Sunday not being 72 hours. 

Did you know you can use the truth to misdirect and deceive? I’ve read countless times in my day how, “Satan quotes the Bible, too.” It is actually true that Friday evening to Sunday morning is not 72-hours. But could there be a very important detail we are not being shown? After that last section about signs, can we be confident Ashley and Seiglie have looked at all of the evidence? I don’t think so.

If we let the Bible interpret the Bible (people still do that, right?), we might be able to go in search for the Bible’s own definition of “three days and three nights”. Let’s do that now.

Jesus refers to Jonah. Is there any marker of time in Jonah that will prove this is a literal 72-hours? None at all. It just says three days and three nights, then moves on. A definition of 72-hours is not something we got from Jonah. It has to be read into Jonah.

If we turn to I Samuel 30: 12, we will see the same phrase. The young Egyptian hadn’t eaten for three days and three nights. Then, in the very next verse he says, "I fell sick three days ago". That doesn’t seem to be 72-hours. In fact, it gives the sense of less than 72-hours. It seems like “three days and three nights” and “three days” are two different ways to say the same thing. It's as if "three days and three nights" is an ancient idiomatic expression not intended to be understood as a specific time down to the hour. A definition of 72-hours is not something we got from Samuel.

If we go to Esther 4: 16, we see the phrase "three days, night or day". Not exactly the same, but practically identical. Esther tells the Jews, "Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day ... then I will go to the king." Chapter 5: 1 says, "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace." Did you catch that? The time marker in Esther shows this "three days, night or day" period ended "on the third day". There is no way “on the third day” is 72-hours here. Esther puts a nail in that definition.

A definition of 72-hours is not something we get from the Bible. It has to be put into the Bible. When we let the Bible interpret the Bible, its own definition of "three days and three nights" is clearly less than 72-hours.

Here is where Herbert Armstrong and all who read his material will remind us Jesus said there are 12 hours in a day (JON. 11: 9). No one on either side denies there are 12 hours in a day. But this isn't about there being 12 hours in a day. This is about whether "three days and three nights" is meant to be understood literally. From its other uses, clearly is not. If you are going to hold "three days and three nights" to this literal standard, then all the rest of the descriptions must be literal as well. That simply is not possible.

Ashley and Seigli speak only about Matthew 12, as had everyone since Herbert Armstrong. But did you know that isn’t the only verse where the length of Jesus' interment is described? The length of Jesus' entombment was described in much more than one way:

• "The third day" 11 times.
• "In three days" 5 times.
• "After three days" 2 times.
• "On the third day" 1 time.
• "Within three days" 1 time.

    (These come from the KJV.)

Several different phrases that all describe the exact same event, yet some say “within” and some say “after”. Some of those are the same phrases used in Esther and Samuel. Of course they are! They are very Hebrew ways of talking about time. Do you get the sense the Israelites didn’t talk about time in the same way we do today? Do you think there might be even a small chance that forcing a modern American view of time into an ancient Israelite discussion while completely ignoring idiomatic figures of speech is why the timeline doesn’t make sense to Ashley and Seiglie? Maybe if they stop trying to make the Bible say what they want it to say, and just let it say what it does say, there won't be so much confusion?

They go on,

“Most theologians and religious scholars try to work around it by arguing that any part of a day or night counts as a day or night.”

Yes, most theologians do argue that. And for good reason. Because that is how the Jews understood time. The concept is called the onah. 

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (circa 90-155 AD), was President of the Sanhedrin after Gamaliel II (grandson of the Gamaliel that taught Paul) and is considered one of the great Rabbis whose views are recorded in the Mishnah. In the Jerusalem Talmud, in the Sabbath tractate chapter 9 part 3j, it says this:

“It has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, ‘A day and a night constitute a span [onah], and part of a span [onah] is equivalent to the whole of it.’"

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba (circa 180-230), who was also considered a great sage of his day, is recorded in the Mishnah as well. In the Talmud, Pesachim 4a v6, Rabbi Hiyya says this:

"...and part of the day is as the whole of it".

This cannot simply be ignored as something the theologians made up. It cannot be dismissed as if this is some perversion of the Pharisees. This is how they understood things. If you want to understand how people of that time and place thought about time, then heed this. It might not be what we think. But our opinions do not matter. The Bible wasn't written by modern minds in King James English. It was written in Hebrew by people who genuinely consider a part of a day to count as the whole of it. They even had a word for it! Put yourself in their shoes. If they read about how we count time, they would say we are the ones who don't make sense.

The word onah is ancient Jewish word that describes what we call inclusive reckoning. Inclusive reckoning is where the first item and last item in a series are included in the count. This isn’t some novel concoction. All the Mediterranean counted inclusively. It can be demonstrated in the Bible itself, from start to end. You want to talk about “God-given time reckoning”, this is it!
Would you like an example? Here:

(EXO. 19: 10-11) 10 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. 11 And let them be ready for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people."

Do you see how God says today (day 1), tomorrow (day 2), and the third day? That's inclusive reckoning. To put this another way, today (Friday), tomorrow (Saturday), and the third day (Sunday). Neither the first nor the third days are full days, but they are still counted. Do you suppose the Israelites arrived at the foot of Mt. Sinai directly exactly 72-hours later? No. So, even God included part of a day as the whole of day 1 and and part of a day as the whole of day 3. Onah!

It's completely Biblical, folks!

Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, the math actually does add up and makes sense IF you are willing to think like the people who wrote the Bible?
Yet, Ashley and Seiglie say:

“Clearly something doesn’t add up. Either Jesus misspoke about the length of time He would be in the tomb, or the “Good Friday–Easter Sunday” timing is not biblical or accurate.”

Or! They were counting like ancient Jews.

The length of time Jesus was in the grave was spoken about in six different ways in over twenty verses. The only thing that doesn’t add up is why these two gentlemen had every opportunity to read their Bibles and see for themselves what I'm telling you - but they refused. What they are really saying in that quote is, "If the Bible doesn't say what we want it to, then it's wrong." We here disagree. We feel if we don't conform to what the Bible is really saying, then we are wrong.

Jesus was talking to the Pharisees in a way they would understand. Did the Pharisees think Jesus meant "exactly 72-hours"?

(MAT. 27: 63) “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’

The priests and Pharisees say "after three days". That isn't at all 72-hours. Oh, they got the point. They understood exactly what Jesus was claiming. Yet, not a single one of these people who spent years of their lives memorizing and analyzing the scriptures took Jesus or Jonah to mean 72-hours.

Doesn't that say something?

Read our article “Three Days and Three Nights” for more.

PROPER DEFINITIONS LEAD TO CLARITY

Now we go on to the two sabbaths of Matthew 28. Typical fare. Predictable. So typical that we have an article on that, too. Written in in 2013. It's called "The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28". The name's not very creative, but it's super practical. Nothing has stopped the authors from reading it, or any of the myriad other articles online like it.

We are told, “Two kinds of ‘Sabbaths’ lead to confusion.” Well, I can’t argue against that. It sure does!
…but not in Matthew 28.

The authors review how Old Covenant annual holy days operated, and how work was prohibited, and how that made them Sabbaths. So far so good. Then they say,

“Because traditional Christianity long ago abandoned these biblical annual Sabbath days (as well as the weekly Sabbath), for many centuries people have failed to recognize what the Gospels plainly tell us…”

Is that what it is? People don’t keep a Sabbath, therefore they aren’t aware of them? Well whadda ya know! All this time I thought it was because the Greek word sabbaton doesn’t actually support being defined as a combination of an annual Sabbath and a weekly Sabbath.

Let’s see the Strong's Concordance definition of that word. 

4521 Sabbaton: the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: - sabbath (day), week.

Do you see anything in there that says "sabbaton means a combination of an annual Sabbath and a separate weekly Sabbath two days later"? No. You don’t see it because that isn’t one of the possible definitions. It cannot mean what they say it means.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

The word sabbaton only refers to the weekly Sabbath; never an annual Sabbath. Greek has an entirely different word for annual Sabbaths: hoerte. In Colossians 2: 16, Paul separates "Sabbath day" (sabbaton) from "holyday" (heorte) in the same sentence. They are separate.

Even if for sake of argument we accept a Friday-Sunday timeline, and see John 19: 31 as saying the weekly Sabbath was also a high day, sabbaton still does not refer to a holy day. John says the sabbaton (weekly Sabbath) was high - using the Greek word "megas". Two days overlapped but separate. The words are still distinct in their use and their meaning.

Do you know why not a single Bible translation renders Matthew 28: 1 as Ashley and Seigli do? (Except maybe Fred Coulter's.) It’s not because Bible translators don’t keep the Sabbath and therefore don't know what a Sabbath is. It’s because they do know Greek.

What Ashley and Seiglie do here is utterly intellectually dishonest! It's one thing to redefine "three days and three nights" but it's another thing entirely to redefine Greek words. To be fair, it wasn't them. This is a very old claim. It was really Herbert Armstrong who committed the crime. These two just repeat it. But that makes me wonder who is worse? Herbert Armstrong's booklet "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday" first came out in 1951. Ashley and Seiglie have had decades to correct this error. They just refuse to. It's not like they didn't have a Strong's Concordance! Or Bible dictionaries, or commentaries, or the internet, or experts in Greek, or...

Read our article “The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28” for more. 

Pointing you at this article allows me to skip rebutting the rest of their misinformation and go straight on to … well, more ridiculous misinformation about another topic. Why do I do this to myself?

ANCIENT EVIDENCE?

In the final section, Ashley and Seiglie promise us evidence of a Wednesday crucifixion and a Saturday resurrection hidden in arcane documents you’ve never heard of (unless you've read Herbert Armstrong's booklet "Plain Truth About Easter" which is apparently where they got both of these sources). They then proceed to deliver a nothing burger.

First, they mention the Didascalia Apostolorum.

The document is real, it claims to be from the Apostles but it really isn't, and it does show a Tuesday evening Last Supper. They are only interested in a Tuesday Last Supper because they are looking for support for a Wednesday crucifixion. Alas, it is quite clear about the Friday crucifixion.
Just because Armstrongism and the Didascalia both have a Tuesday evening Lord's Supper doesn't mean anything. They are very different otherwise. The authors get no support here.

What's more, the Didascalia was written in the 200s. Ashley and Seiglie just quoted from a document that exonerates Constantine. He is innocent of the charges of inventing the Friday-Sunday timeline.
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea for Ashley and Seiglie to refer to the Didascalia after all!

Next, they quote from Epiphanius of Salamis.

Epiphanius is known to have read the Didascalia Apostolorum. I would venture a guess that Ashley and Seiglie happened across Epiphanius while reading about the Didascalia. Epiphanius believed the Didascalia to be genuine. That's why he was quoting it. Since he's quoting the Didascalia, Epiphanus isn't really a second source apart from the Didascalia, is he? No, he isn't.

Ashley and Seiglie wouldn’t mention either the Didascalia or Epiphanus if they didn’t think there was some way of spinning it to their benefit. And so they do. They say:

“Nonetheless, the document demonstrates that Passover was then understood by some to have been on Tuesday evening, which would place the crucifixion on the next day, Wednesday.”

No. It doesn’t place the crucifixion on Wednesday at all. It ends the paragraph with these words, “…they crucified Him on the same Friday.”

Does it support the idea that some people believed the Last Supper was on Tuesday? Yes. Does that fact provide any support for a Wednesday crucifixion? No.
If you’re going to reference a source, you can’t just yank out the parts you like and change the rest. The Didascalia, in chapter XXI, goes into a good amount of detail about the timeline between the Tuesday Last Supper and the Friday crucifixion. It doesn’t support Ashley and Seiglie at all. The authors don’t seem to care what the Didascalia says. What they do here is presumptuous.

This is exactly what they did with the Bible commentaries they mentioned in their article. The commentaries agree with them in one point, that sabbaton can be plural, but completely disagree with their conclusion, yet they cite the commentaries anyway as if everyone is in harmony.
But it gets worse.

Feeling they've demonstrated the crucifixion was on a Wednesday - which they have not done - Ashley and Seiglie add two more references. These last two are intended to demonstrate that there were some people who believed Jesus rose on Saturday. They mention Socrates of Constantinople and Gregory of Tours. When I checked, I honestly don’t know where they got this idea that these sources support them.

I cannot find the provided quote from Gregory of Tours. They didn't give the name of the writing. In his “History of the Franks” Book I chapter 18, Gregory only says, “The day of the Lord's resurrection is the first, not the seventh.” (Meaning the Lord was resurrected on Sunday not Saturday.) He doesn’t mention anyone believing it was on the seventh. Might be possible some did. People believe crazy things (like sabbaton can mean an annual holy day and a weekly sabbath two days apart). But I can't find where he say so.

As for Socrates of Constantinople, Ashley and Seiglie straight up butcher what he says.
In his book "Ecclesiastical History" chapter XXII, Socrates is referring to the account of the Quartodeciman Controversy recoded by Eusebius. Socrates is paraphrasing Eusebius.

Ashley and Seiglie look at the quote, they see the word “sabbath”, and they conclude it means the weekly Sabbath. But that isn’t what Socrates means when he uses that word.
To understand why not, you must understand that Socrates is talking about the differences over Pascha, and summarizing Eusebius’ account.
The issue being discussed wasn’t about when Jesus was resurrected. It was about when people were honoring the Last Supper. The word sabbath here does not refer to Saturday or to a resurrection on Saturday. It refers to a remembrance of the Lord's Supper.

Read it for yourself:

“In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the sabbath: yet they never separated from those who did otherwise, until Victor, bishop of Rome, influenced by too ardent a zeal, fulminated a sentence of excommunication against the Quartodecimans in Asia. Wherefore also Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in France, severely censured Victor by letter for his immoderate heat; telling him that although the ancients differed in their celebration of Easter, they did not desist from intercommunion. Also that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who afterwards suffered martyrdom under Gordian, continued to communicate with Anicetus bishop of Rome, although he himself, according to the usage of his native Smyrna, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, as Eusebius attests in the fifth book of his Ecclesiastical History. While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above-mentioned, others in the East kept that feast on the sabbath indeed, but differed as regards the month.”
-Socrates of Constantinople, "Ecclesiastical History", book V, chapter XXII

Do you see there how it says "fourteenth day of the moon"? The fourteenth of Nissan is Passover. That is not the day on which Jesus was resurrected. Ashley and Seiglie know this. So, how can they use this to conclude He was resurrected on the Sabbath? They cannot.

From the context, nothing I've read in this book or any other leads me to believe Socrates was referring to the weekly Sabbath. When the weekly Sabbath is mentioned in relation to Pascha, it is in reference to strict fasting and a vigil in remembrance of the entombment, not the Pascha itself. No one regularly observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday.

Wait just a minute. This is the same mistake Herbert Armstrong made in his booklet "Plain Truth About Easter" (see 1973 version, pages 20-21). Funny, Socrates and the Didascalia were his two cited sources as well. Isn't that a strange coincidence?
They are just copying off of Armstrong this whole time. I thought Armstrong was irrelevant these days? I do recommend allowing him to be.

I can't tell you how many articles and booklets have been written to condemn Sunday observance which reference this very same Quartodeciman Controversy. Armstrongist material since the start have condemned mainstream Christianity as pagans for not being like the Quartodecimani. Socrates says the Quartodeciman side disregarded the sabbath. If Socrates uses sabbath to mean Saturday (which he does not), then guess what - Socrates undermines everything Armstrongist literature said in favor of the wonderful law-keeping Quartodecimani.
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea for Ashley and Seiglie to refer to Socrates after all!

Ashley and Seiglie never read through their source until they understood it. They just trusted Armstrong. They were so ideologically committed to a conclusion decided in advance, they couldn't see the source material literally says the opposite of what they were claiming.

For all the promise of Wednesday crucifixions and Saturday resurrections, they managed to come up with naught. All we got was more false history, more cherry picking, and more misquoting, and more redefining words, just like we used to get from Herman Hoeh.

HOW NOT TO DO RESEARCH

Have you noticed what these authors have been doing this entire time?
They have a pre-existing ideological commitment. Maybe it's to 'three days and three nights' being 72-hours exactly. Maybe it's to a Wednesday crucifixion. They start with the conclusion, then they go looking for evidence. Is it any wonder they only accept evidence they think supports their conclusion?

Mind you, they didn't start with a hypothesis then set off to see if the evidence supports it. No. They started with a conclusion and went to see if they can cherry pick something to support it. They were so committed that they went out in search of people who understood the Lord's Supper was on a Tuesday, then didn't care when the source utterly contradicted everything else they had to say. Because, to them, a Tuesday Passover demands a Wednesday crucifixion, even if what they are reading specifically says otherwise. They were so ideologically committed that they saw the word sabbath in Socrates of Constantinople and concluded it had to mean weekly Sabbath, even though the source wasn't even talking about Saturday, or the resurrection for that matter, and literally contradicts their point. As if there is no way that word could mean anything else. They were so ideologically committed that they redefined the word sabbaton. If you know the larger story that I don't even didn't get into here, then you know they in fact redefined sabbaton twice! And not just sabbaton, but prosabbaton as well (MAR. 15: 42). The word prosabbaton was the  name for Friday.

If they read the Didascalia and Socrates and the Greek dictionary this way, you can be certain they read the Bible this way.

They are ministers in the system, though. They get paid to have this conclusion. If they don't tow the line they are out of a job. But for you and I, is that how we should research? No.

If we genuinely search for truth, what we should do is be intellectually neutral and unbiased arbiters in that search for truth. Let the material say what it says. Let the truth be what it is. Truth can take care of itself. It doesn't need us to protect it.
I have always liked the definition of truth as "reality as it actually is." Truth is reality as it actually is. If we try to force reality to be one thing or the other, what is that called? Error, delusion, or worse, deception. If we do that, are we really looking for truth in the first place? This is why you see me using the phrase intellectual honesty. Being honest with the evidence.
When evidence is flat out ignored, when definitions of words are changed, when a source is used to come to a conclusion specifically denied by that very source - they pointed out that it disagreed with them for crying out loud - is that being intellectually honest?
Is that reality as it actually is?
Is that God's truth?
No. It isn't.

The best advice I can offer is to do the opposite of what your gut tells you and try to prove yourself wrong. Yes, be your own critic. Before I write a single word, I read and reread the source until I believe I understand what the author was saying. I try my best to understand the source as the author intended. Just like when I read Matthew 28 I try to understand it as the ancient Hebrews would have, not the way I want things to be. Then I mull the possible meanings over in my head until I think I understand. Then I try to poke holes in my conclusions and prove myself wrong. I do that until I can't poke any more holes. That way, I get as close to the truth as I can.
Sometimes you get what you want. Sometimes you don't. And sometimes the best conclusion you can come to is - I don't know. The answer can be uncertain. So, let it!

If you do these things, at least you will end up far closer to the truth than otherwise.

These authors could be fine people, with families and folks who love them. I don't know. I've never met them. My article is not about who they are as people. This article is about what they've written and the methods they've used. (Or is it about Herbert Armstrong's ideas and methods? They are the same, after all. I thought he wasn't relevant anymore.)
They've written a propaganda piece. They have access to all this history, sure enough. Rather than quote it accurately, learning what was meant to be understood, they twisted it beyond recognition because they had an agenda to satisfy.

If they do this to history books, do you think maybe they do the same thing to the Bible? Do you think they only treat this one subject in this way?

CONCLUSION

Why! Why do I do this to myself??

I could have left well enough alone, but no. I just had to go and look into that Palantir. I had hope! But now none. I am sorely disappointed to see that not only have things not improved in the Armstrongist splinter churches, but they've somehow managed to degrade just that much farther.

The Church of God splinter group articles on the last days of Jesus' life are, well, not so good. They don't understand what sign Jesus gave. They don't understand how Hebrews counted time. They don't understand the proper definition of Greek words like sabbaton or prosabbaton or paraskeue. They don't understand ancient documents when they read them.
Is it really honest to purposefully make a mess of things then complain how everything is a mess? "I redefined, and obfuscated, and misrepresented, and cherry picked, now things don't make sense. Why!?"
It's not that things can't add up, it's that when we try to force an answer from bad math it won't add up. It's not that they can't understand, it's that they refuse to understand.

I started out looking for hope. I couldn't find a single ray of hope in any of this, except possibly that the piece seemed to lack any heart. How is that a ray of hope? Because it means they don't really love what they're dishing out anymore. Maybe there's an end to this tunnel after all.

I want to share with you the reason this blog has so many articles on the holidays. It's not because we are stuck on holiday topics. It's because these fields are always so ripe with examples like the ones in today's article. Few other topics make it so easy to demonstrate the rank ideological bias in Armstrongism. Every time they write an article on holidays it has this same kind of thing like we saw today. We just grab that low-hanging fruit.

Dear reader, beloved by God, I plead with you to read our articles on this topic. We have a Categories page with articles on every topic you need. If you only read one thing on this topic, at least read our Easter FAQ. It could have saved you, and Scott Ashley and Mario Seiglie - and me - quite a bit of headache.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have one more article on the topic to write. Better get to it.

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

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

Acts 17:11

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

Help Us Help You

Hello, dear reader. I bet you didn't expect to see any more posts here. I sure didn't! But, I think I have a good reason.

With Seeker passing away, I started wondering what kind of legacy did she leave behind. I have believed in this blog since before I joined it back in 2009. But there is always room for improvement. I would like to know if any improvements could be made.

Bearing in mind the point of this blog is investigating the Churches of God (ie. Armstrongism) from a Christ-centered perspective...
Is this blog being helpful to people looking for answers? Could we do something differently and be even better? Is there something we've missed that you would like more answers about? Have we said something that throws you off and we could re-phrase it to make it more accessible?

Please be aware that you can use the Search bar over on the right and down just a little >>>
And don't forget we have a Categories page and a FAQ page, created to help you find answers more easily.

If you have found any help or comfort here, please reach out, in a comment or preferably by email, and let us know. Share your experiences and suggestions with us. Perhaps you can help us to help you. And others!

God bless you and thank you for visiting!!

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

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

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

Farewell To A Friend

I wanted to write a post letting everyone know that the founder of this blog site, my good friend, Seeker of Truth, has passed away. I wanted to say a couple words to honor Seeker's memory. She deserves so much more than this, but we do what we can do with what we have.

Seeker started this blog with her husband on April 17, 2008. She started it with these words:

A Warm Welcome to You, the Reader!

This blog is about the importance of seeking the truth of God's Word, for those in search of truth, and those leaving Legalism in search of truth: 

When we consider what others say/teach about God's Word, it's vital to make sure it's TRUTH. We should NEVER take anyone's word for it, but ALWAYS prove it for our self. It's OUR responsibility. We cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. Don't we prefer the truth, whatever it may be? Even if it's not what we had thought? Of course! 

Because we desire to PLEASE God! So... we do 'As Bereans Did.'

Amen to that!

About four months after I escaped Armstrongism, I started my own blog. It was a way to vent and share ideas. I went looking around for others who were seeing the errors of the system and giving themselves permission to prove what they had been taught, just as the noble Bereans had done (ACT. 17: 10-11), regardless of where that truth lead them. Not many people were fighting this good fight back at that time. Not from a faith-based perspective, anyway. Wasn't hard to find Seeker and the ABD blog.

Seeker and I both attended Ron Weinland groups, and we both wanted particularly to focus on him. We formed somewhat of a partnership. Then we tried to form a larger partnership with other bloggers out there at that time. Then we decided to try one grand unified blog where everyone can write. It wasn't but a few months later, on March 16, 2009, I closed my own blog and started writing here. The idea quickly grew past Ron Weinland and started addressing the larger ideas of Armstrongism that we began to see as we studied. We tried recruiting other authors. Soon, we had Bill, James D H Bruce, Corrinna, Caleb, Penny, and Martha, and not only that but a guest post from readers here and there, like Dillon, Centurion, Child Survivor, and others. 

Seeker eventually retired from actively blogging. The day of the blog had come and gone, for the most part. But she left us with her blog to keep going until we felt like we had said enough, too. She didn't stop writing and praising God, she just went to other venues.

None of this would have happened if it wasn't for Seeker. So many people were blessed because of what she did. All of the authors, guest authors, and readers around the world were blessed by God working through the seemingly small and insignificant efforts of one person. When I say people around the world, I mean it. We have gotten visitors and letters from literally all around the globe! All of those people who found any blessing from this effort have ultimately one person to thank for it. All blessed because one person followed the Holy Spirit and started a blog to write about grace and truth. She did what she could with what she had. Isn't it true that we plant and God provides the increase!

Well, God harvests what He grows. Last night, He brought home a good friend and faithful witness for Christ who blessed many in His name. 

If there is any truth to what Charles Dickens stated when he wrote, "It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide [and turn what they can to happiness]," then truly Seeker did so. She will be missed! But I for one am confident wherever she is now she is working for Him still.

Go, enjoy your rest. You've earned it. And shine on you crazy diamond.
Until we meet again.

How To Move Forward

I left Armstrongism in August of 2008. I remember that day like it was yesterday. What I've learned in these twelve years I cannot even begin to describe. Many of the things I learned I put here in this blog, but even more are not here. Let me tell you, there is a lot to learn. I want to share a couple summary ideas with you.

The thing I want to emphasize most is something that should be obvious and go without saying, but so help me I see people making mistakes here all the time. That is:

Un-learn everything you have learned in the COGs.

Yes, un-learn everything you have learned in the COGs. To explain why, let's do a brief re-cap of the history of the COGs. 

In 1843, the false prophet William Miller started preaching the return of Christ. It didn't happen, and is called "The Great Disappointment." He doubled down and failed again. Some of his many followers refused to un-learn what they had learned. Instead they tripled-down. They adopted the Sabbath doctrine from the Seventh Day Baptists and eventually named themselves the Seventh Day Adventists. Thus began one of the most ridiculous episodes in modern history - the life and times of Ellen G White. If you are not emotionally invested in her, and approach her writings with honesty, you will see how this woman must have been demon influenced. Many of the most outrageous cults in the last 150 years are directly descended from this Adventist movement. Some Adventists refused her leadership and split off to form the Church of God - 7th Day (COG7). This is the group who hired Herbert W (the W doesn't stand for anything) Armstrong, a down on his luck detergent salesman, as a Minister. HWA saw dollar signs and used his sales experience to reach more people over the radio. His new angle was a deep reliance on end-time prophecy. HWA split off and formed his own church, the Radio Church of God, which later renamed as the Worldwide Church of God. In 1933, HWA began to repeat the mistakes of William Miller from exactly a century earlier.

"...19 years after the first seige, or 585 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar made his final siege, drove out all the Jews, took complete possession of the land, and the Times of the Gentiles came fully in. And 2520 years later, or 1936 A.D., the Times of the Gentiles will have completely ENDED. As nearly as we can calculate from the dates of ancient history, the year 1936 will see the END of the Times of the Gentiles. Those "Times" have not been completely fulfilled until that year."

-Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, June/July 1934, pp.4-5

The date came and went. And exactly like William Miller, HWA doubled down. No, he more than doubled down. HWA spent the rest of his life preaching the immediate return of Christ. Over and over and over his prophecies failed. The grandest of all was in 1972. We have articles detailing all of this. Did his followers un-learn what they had learned? No. They did exactly as the Adventists before them.

When HWA died in 1986, his lieutenants peeled away to start their own church groups and promoted themselves to the rank of leader. So, you get what you have here today. Did they learn anything from the past 150 years (other than starting a church is a great way to make some easy money)? No. Here we are, with one tiny little splinter group after another competing for the spotlight, and the tithe dollar of the remaining members. Still teaching the same end-time scenarios that false prophet William Miller invented, still preaching the same Sabbath message that false prophet Ellen G White borrowed from the Seventh Day Baptists, still passing on the same garbage Alexander Hislop penned which has been proven false more times than I care to count, still holding to the doctrines and practices of false prophet Herbert W Armstrong. What are the results? False prophecy after false prophecy after false prophecy. Confusion upon confusion. Can you expect fresh water from this well?

It's not just the prophecy that you must un-learn, it's everything. Un-learn it all. "But, xHWA," you may exclaim to me, "certainly not everything! I would have to un-learn Jesus Himself." Yes, everything. "Blasphemy!" No. I tell you that God is on His throne and Jesus is His only begotten Son. But what you have learned about both the Father and the Son is both flawed as well as nowhere near the whole story.  

There is a great deal more to learn about the Father and the Son that I cannot even begin to scratch the surface here. Un-learn the overly-simplified version of God that you have in your mind or else when you hear the rest of the story you will certainly be so confounded that you might even turn away from God. Think I'm crazy? There is a reason we say, "Armstrongism is an atheist-making machine."

Hundreds and hundreds of people who have left the COGs have gotten so confused and so frustrated that they gave it all up and abandoned their faith. Why? There are many reasons. No one can say it's this one or maybe two things. But I can tell you that in my experience the theme underlying it all is that people leave Armsrtongism but take half of it with them. It was that half that was incompatible with their way forward and unable to handle the challenges.

You have to un-learn even the simple things that you take for granted. Let me give you just a hint of a list here:

The COG's teachings are not unique to the COGs. COG doctrine is a lot like Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon. Protestantism is not the Daughters of the Whore. The Trinity is not an un-Biblical and unfathomable contradiction. Christmas and Easter are not pagan.There is no dark period after the first century where Christianity was completely changed. Apocalyptic literature is highly symbolic and never meant to be taken literally. The United States is not modern day Israel. The Bible does have a few issues (no, that isn't a deal breaker!). Moses didn't write every word of the Pentateuch. The Bible sometimes does contain elements found in other cultures that are older than the Bible. The understanding, world view, and context of ancient Israel is VERY different from yours today. Israel was not the first people to worship Yahweh (not even close) (yes, this is absolutely compatible with our faith). Many elements in Jewish worship are borrowed from paganism. "Once pagan always pagan" is a lie.

None of those things above, and there are a whole lot more than these I promise you, are deal breakers. God is on His throne. It all fits into the Biblical narrative. It's not the Biblical narrative that is flawed, it's your approach to it. I tell you, if you approach mainstream Christianity from a COG perspective, you will be hard pressed to accept them and will be more likely to give up your faith. How then can you handle the things that are even more difficult truths than the ones I've said above? I'll bet some of those things are a shock to you, yet they are demonstrably true. If you leave the COG and hold on to half of what they taught you, you are in danger. You need to be flexible. Bend, or you will break.

It's not just the factual aspects, but even the very approach itself that you should leave behind. 

No, you don't have to have every I dotted and T crossed. No, you don't need to have all the answers. You don't need to fit everything into a tidy little box. Humanity is messy, and God has chosen to work through us, so faith is by necessity a messy thing. The Bible is messy because God inspired humans to write it. Not just that but humans then edited it and translated it. If you leave the COGs yet maintain this trait of having to have everything figured out, you will break yourself. I am not saying give up study, just to change your approach.

Do you want the answer to what the "thorn in the flesh" was that Paul had? Here is the answer:
     We don't know.
And that's OK. We don't need to know. And we won't know until we ask him ourselves. Saying we don't know is the most honest, most relieving thing we can say. Just takes some getting used to.

Un-learn what you have learned in the COGs and bring yourself back to the one, simple, and foundational idea of faith. Faith. It's a simple, one-syllable word. Yet it is as profound as the universe itself.

If you can wipe the slate clean, clear your mind, let go, and possess nothing whatsoever in this life but belief that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, then you have everything else already. He possesses all things. In Him you possess all things. Faith is literally all you need and all He demands of you. Contemplate this. Revel in this. Revel in Him. It's all about Him! Because Jesus accomplished His goals, and you are one with Him in faith, then in Him all your goals are already accomplished. He did it. Accept His gift. Accept it, and never let go.

Soon the wheel will turn and you will start looking more deeply into things again. This is how it goes. We start with a basic faith, we get interested in a detail, which leads to other details, which eventually complicates the entire business and makes amok of everything, then we do a reset and come back to the simplicity of a basic faith again. The wheel forever turns.

Eventually you will want to investigate some matter more deeply. Do it! Only do it without the COG baggage. You may be tempted to say, "I need no man to teach me; I am not going to trust in anything other people say or write." I say to you, this is a clear indicator that you have not left behind your COG indoctrination. You are still caught up in black and white thinking. You thought that to leave the COGs behind you must now do the opposite? No! Doing the opposite is just falling into the other ditch. It's not black and white. The world is not just filled with shades of grey, but a 16 million colors besides. If you step out to take on the world like a teenager out of school, you will soon learn the world is far more ready for you than you are for it. When you have this kind of approach, you will fall into the same old ditches that millions before you have fallen into. Don't reject what people have written, just don't be naive about it. Some of it should be rejected because it's garbage, but don't reject it all - and especially not just to spite your past. There is an ocean of information out there which you haven't even been exposed to yet. It's not all false! There are also 2,000 years of lessons and debates in the Christian experience you probably haven't read. "In the multitude of counselors there is safety." You don't need to make the same mistakes. You don't need to reject it all, or reinvent the wheel, or become a scholar so you can review every little thing for yourself. There are some excellent resources out there already. Use the excellent ones and reject the rest. This requires a certain flexibility.
Want to know a secret? You will eventually find that not everything the COGs teach is false!

You might not understand why I tell you to let go of the COG now and you will eventually circle back to some few parts of it later. When you get to where I am now, at that time you will understand. But I digress.

Challenges to your faith will come. Meet them head on! The truth will take care of itself. I can give you this advice - draw on your past experiences of the presence of God in your life. 

When the "dark night of the soul" comes upon you - as it will (and not just one time only) - recall those times in your past when you felt the presence of God and saw His hand at work in your life. Don't discount your past experiences. Don't discount the experiences of others, either. The Bible is the past experiences of people who dealt with God. You will come to a crossroads. I tell you now, when you stand there it isn't going to be as simple as you might think. You will have a choice to make. In fact there are three paths at any crossroad, not just two! The three roads are these: 1) you can remain in faith, 2) you can go into faithlessness, or 3) you can sit on a fence and waffle back and forth. Set your mind to believe that God is real and His only Son is Jesus Christ, because that is your life experience and it matters, and this decision will make the rest of your life a whole lot simpler.

To those who went down road #2, what I just said sounds like a cop out. No, it isn't. I promise you that faith isn't just a blind thing. God has given and still yet gives evidence. Evidence is a rational thing. Therefore, faith is a rational thing. So is the decision to remain in faith. We are rational beings.

The entire book of Revelation is far less about some future events and more about how you approach life RIGHT NOW. We've had the book for nearly 2,000 years. Everyone who has read it has waited for the fulfillment but had to apply its lessons to their lives in their time. What does it say to us?

(REV 1: 3) Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. [Even today! Every day!]

Hear it and take it to heart. Look past the apocalyptic imagery, stop trying to figure out the who and the when, and see the big picture of what it is really saying. Learn the lessons and make the conscious decision to incorporate the lessons into your life. What lessons? Does I Peter 4: 17 not tell us to "obey the Gospel of God"? What do you mean "obey the Gospel"? If the Gospel is the good news, what is there to obey? Faith! Faith is the lesson!

We obey by maintaining faith in the truth of it. Jesus is Lord. He did die on the cross and on the third day rose again and ascend into Heaven. He is who He says He is and will do what He says He will do. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. His Kingdom will have no end. All else are wolves and imposters. There are imposters but there is the true. There are upheavals but there is a reward. And this very faith, which we choose and upon which we insist, will guide our lives ...if we let it. This is the understanding of the Book of Revelation. Faith. In our regular and every day lives.

Is it not obvious, even axiomatic, that this is a conscious, rational decision for us to make? Then why wonder when I say to consciously, rationally make the decision? When you stand at that crossroads, recall your experiences and the experiences of others and make the conscious decision to be a Christian. That decision is the very purpose of the crossroads metaphor in the first place.  

"I have experienced God in my life. I have seen God at work in my life and the lives of many others. I will not discount these experiences. I am having doubts and am very confused, but I know this is for a purpose that I will eventually come to understand. I will not throw it all away. I will not sit on a fence. Lord Jesus, you are my Lord, and I choose to side with you. Help my unbelief!"

And then, to the faith in our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, hold fast!

So to sum up, the best advice I can give you today, when you leave your COG and step out into a wider world, are these two things:

1) Un-learn what you have learned.
2) Insist on faith.

That said, I advise you to take this with you - God allowed you to have the COG experience you did for a reason. What is that reason? Find the good, and be thankful to God for it. You can be miserable, or bitter, or fearful, or thankful. Be thankful! God has never abandoned you and it wasn't all for naught.

God bless you and keep you and may the Spirit of Holiness go with you and guide you always. Thank you for having visited this blog.

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

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

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

Dave Pack Is A Fraud

Back on March 31, 2020 we posted an article called "COVID-19: No More Fearmongering". In that post I vented some frustration on the blatant fear mongering inherent in Armstrongism. What got me started was No2HWA over at the Banned By HWA blog reported about Dave Pack telling his flock that they will not see another Sabbath. In my Fearmongering article, I stated:

"God did not send Dave Pack this prediction. If you read this blog post on or after May 1, 2020, then you have your proof that Jesus did not come by "next Sabbath" and you are surrounded by a false system."

Guess what day it is? (No, not Hump Day.) It's May 1, 2020. And SURPRISE! Jesus did not make his second coming that week as Pack assured us.

So Dave Pack asked all of his top Ministers and they all agreed that none of them could see how we would be here another week. Well, it hasn't just been a week but another month. Out of the generosity of our hearts we gave Pack an extra month. Here we are. Not a single one of them could see how we would be here today reading this. Not. A. Single. One.

Funniest thing is, No2HWA has plenty of other articles in the meantime about how Pack just kept making more and more statements. Any hint of an apology, or remorse? No. And that, dear reader, is how it always goes. That's how it's been going since 1843. When are people currently in the system going to say enough is enough?

===UPDATE 1/1/2023===
Still here! We haven't died. We haven't been Armageddoned. No return of Hitler or escape to Petra. About a thousand new Pack predictions have all come and gone since this article was written.

Dave Pack is a fraud.

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