Why COG Ministers Are Not Levites

Armstrongite ministers, Worldwide Church of God and its offshoots, are not Levites for several clear biblical, historical, and logical reasons. Some Armstrongite groups or teachings drew parallels between their full-time ministry and the ancient Levitical system—especially regarding receiving tithes without paying them, or serving in a "priestly" role—but this analogy does not hold up under Scripture or facts.

1. Levites Were Defined by Physical, Hereditary Descent from the Tribe of Levi

In the Old Testament, Levites (including the subset of Aaronic priests) were members of one specific Israelite tribe: the descendants of Levi, son of Jacob (Genesis 29:34; Exodus 2:1; Numbers 3:1-10; 18:1-7).

• God set apart the entire tribe of Levi for tabernacle/temple service in place of the firstborn of all Israel (Numbers 3:12-13; 8:14-19).

• Only biological males from this lineage qualified. Physical qualifications applied (e.g., no physical defects for priests—Leviticus 21).

• They had no tribal land inheritance; instead, they received tithes, offerings, and cities among the other tribes (Numbers 18:20-24; Deuteronomy 18:1-2; Joshua 21).

Modern Armstrongite ministers have no verifiable genealogical descent from the tribe of Levi. They come from various ethnic backgrounds (often claiming British or American "Israelite" heritage via British-Israelism, but even that theory does not make them Levites—Levi was one of the tribes that stayed with Judah in the southern kingdom, not "lost"). Armstrongism's British-Israel doctrine itself identifies modern "Israel" as Anglo-Saxon nations, but it does not (and cannot) prove specific Levitical lineages for its ministers.

Without hereditary proof from the tribe of Levi, no one today can biblically claim to be a Levite in the Old Testament sense. Claims of "spiritual Levites" stretch the text beyond its plain meaning.

2. The Levitical Priesthood Was Temporary and Shadowed the Coming Reality in Christ

The entire Levitical system (priesthood, sacrifices, tithes tied to agricultural produce and land) was part of the Old Covenant, which was a shadow or type pointing to Christ (Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:1-10; 10:1).

• Hebrews 7 explains that the Levitical priesthood was weak and imperfect, so God changed it. Jesus became High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (not Levi)—a non-hereditary, superior priesthood (Hebrews 7:11-17, 23-28).

• The old system ended with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. No sacrifices, no temple service, no Levitical roles continue. 

• Armstrong himself acknowledged that Levites do not currently offer sacrifices, yet some teachings still treated modern ministers as receiving tithes "as Levites."

New Testament church leadership (elders/pastors, deacons, etc.) is based on spiritual gifting, calling, character, and appointment—not tribal bloodlines (Ephesians 4:11-12; 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1; 1 Peter 5:1-4). All believers form a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6), not a special ministerial caste modeled on Levi. 

 

3. New Testament Ministry Differs Fundamentally from the Levitical System. 

No tithing command for ministers: The New Testament never commands Christians to tithe to church leaders as a Levitical obligation. Giving is voluntary, cheerful, and proportional (2 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Corinthians 9:7-14—ministers can be supported, but not via the Old Covenant tithe law). Armstrongite practice of ministers receiving tithes (and not paying them) while living at a higher standard directly mirrored the Levitical model, but this imported an obsolete system into the New Covenant.

No hierarchy as a "priesthood" standing between God and people: Some Armstrongite writings promoted a top-down "government of God" with ranks (apostle → evangelist → pastor → elder), likening it to theocratic Levitical rule. Critics inside and outside the movement noted this turned ministers into a mediating priesthood, contrary to the New Testament where Christ is the sole mediator and all believers have direct access to God (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 4:14-16; 1 Peter 2:5, 9).

Early Armstrong himself expressed confusion about church government and initially rejected heavy centralization. Later developments created a pyramidal structure that critics compared (unfavorably) to the Levitical model or even Catholic hierarchy.

4. Practical and Historical Reality

Armstrongite ministers were ordained through laying on of hands within their organization, often trained at Ambassador College—not through Levitical genealogy or Temple service. They functioned as teachers, administrators, and pastors in a modern context, not as temple officiants handling sacrifices, cleansing rituals, or the duties assigned exclusively to Levi (e.g., carrying the ark, specific musical roles in the Temple—1 Chronicles 23-26).

The analogy was largely pragmatic: it justified a full-time paid ministry supported by member tithes in a way that echoed the Old Testament support system for Levites. But equating the two ignores the fundamental shift from Old Covenant shadows to New Covenant reality in Christ.

In summary, Armstrongite ministers are not Levites because:

• Levites required biological descent from Levi.

• The Levitical priesthood was fulfilled and superseded by Jesus' Melchizedek priesthood.

• New Testament ministry operates under grace, spiritual gifts, and voluntary support—not hereditary tribal law or temple ritual.

The parallels drawn in some Armstrongite teachings were an interpretive overlay, not a biblical identity. True Christian service today emphasizes servant leadership for all believers under Christ's headship, without reviving Old Covenant tribal distinctions.

No one needs to tithe to Bob Thiel (Continuing Church of God), Dave Pack (Restored Church of God), Gerald Flurry (Philadelphia Church of God), the United Church of God (UCG), Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA), the Living Church of God (LCG), or any of the other Armstrongite splinter groups.

These leaders and organizations are not biblical Levites. They lack any hereditary descent from the tribe of Levi, and the Old Covenant Levitical system—with its mandatory tithes supporting the priesthood and temple service—has been fulfilled and superseded by Jesus Christ, our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:11-28; 8:13; 10:1-18). The New Testament nowhere commands Christians to give a mandatory 10% (or more, including second and third tithes) to church leaders or organizations. The tithe was part of the temporary Mosaic Law, which included agricultural produce tied to the land of Israel and support for the physical temple system that no longer exists.

Jesus and the apostles taught a completely different approach to giving under the New Covenant. Giving is to be voluntary, cheerful, and proportional—according to how God has blessed and prospered each individual (2 Corinthians 9:6-7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 8:12). It flows from a heart of gratitude and love, not from fear, guilt, pressure, or legalistic obligation. The New Testament emphasizes supporting the work of the gospel, helping the needy, and caring for those who labor in teaching (1 Corinthians 9:7-14; 1 Timothy 5:17-18; Galatians 6:6), but always as freewill offerings, not enforced percentages that can burden families or enrich leaders.

Many of these groups have used tithing teachings to fund ambitious building projects, media efforts, personal luxuries, or unfulfilled prophetic claims, sometimes at the expense of members' financial well-being. Such practices import an obsolete Old Covenant model into the age of grace and turn ministry into a salaried system disconnected from the servant-hearted leadership modeled by Christ and the apostles.

If you want to give money, do so because you have been blessed—not because you are required to meet a quota or fear missing out on God's favor. Give joyfully as an expression of worship and thankfulness for what God has done in your life through Jesus Christ. Let your giving be guided by prayer, conscience, and the leading of the Holy Spirit, whether to help the poor, support genuine gospel work, or bless others directly. God loves a cheerful giver, and He is able to make all grace abound toward you so that you always have sufficiency in everything (2 Corinthians 9:8).

True freedom in Christ means you are no longer under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14). Release any sense of compulsion, and give from a heart overflowing with gratitude for the blessings you have already received. That is the New Testament way.

Silent Pilgrim

The Tithing Lie vs. Joyful Giving

 

Tithing is not a command for Christians under the New Covenant, and the core reason is a fundamental biblical shift from the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law given to ancient Israel) to the New Covenant established by Jesus. This isn't about "doing away with" the whole Old Testament—it's about recognizing what Jesus fulfilled and what applies to the church today. I'll explain the biblical case step by step, then address why Armstrongism (the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong and groups like the original Worldwide Church of God and its splinters) is considered mistaken for treating tithing as a binding requirement.

Tithing in the Old Testament

Under the Mosaic Law, tithing (giving 10% of produce, livestock, etc.) was a specific command for the nation of Israel:

• It supported the Levitical priests and temple system, since the Levites had no land inheritance (Numbers 18:21-24; Leviticus 27:30-33; Deuteronomy 14:22-29; Malachi 3:8-10).

• There were actually multiple tithes in the full system (first for Levites, a second for festivals, a third-year one for the poor), totaling more like 20-23% annually in practice.

• It was part of the civil and ceremonial law tied to Israel's theocracy, priesthood, and temple—not a universal moral law like "do not murder" or "love your neighbor."

This was never presented as a timeless rule for all people everywhere; it was covenant-specific to Israel.

Why the New Covenant changes this

The New Testament teaches that Jesus inaugurated a new covenant that fulfills and replaces the old one (Jeremiah 31:31-34, quoted in Hebrews 8:6-13). The old system—including its priesthood, sacrifices, temple, and associated laws—is now "obsolete" and "ready to disappear" (Hebrews 8:13). 

Key reasons tithing is no longer commanded:

• Believers are not under the Mosaic Law. Romans 6:14-15, Romans 7:4-6, Galatians 3:23-25, and Galatians 5:18 state we died to the law through Christ and now live by the Spirit under grace, not a system of rules. The law was a guardian until Christ came; now we're adopted sons, not slaves to it.

• The priesthood changed, so the supporting laws changed. Hebrews 7:5-12 explicitly discusses tithing: the Levites received tithes "according to the law." But when the priesthood switched from Levi to the order of Melchizedek (fulfilled in Jesus), "the law must be changed also." Jesus is our high priest forever; there's no Levitical system left to support. The entire package tied to it (tithes included) is fulfilled in Him.

• No New Testament command or example of mandatory tithing for the church. The word "tithe" appears in the NT only when Jesus addresses Jews still under the old law (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42—he rebukes Pharisees for tithing herbs while neglecting justice, but this is pre-cross). After the resurrection, the apostles teach generous, cheerful, proportionate giving instead:"

• Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).

• "On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper" (1 Corinthians 16:2).

• Support for ministers is encouraged (1 Corinthians 9:13-14; 1 Timothy 5:17-18), but never as a fixed 10% tax.

Early church practice and most Christian history confirm this. The apostles never imposed a percentage. Giving was voluntary, sacrificial, and Spirit-led (Acts 4:32-37; 2 Corinthians 8-9). The tithe as a legal requirement faded with the old covenant, just like animal sacrifices, circumcision, and food laws.

Many Christians still use 10% as a helpful guideline or starting point for generosity (it's practical and biblical in principle), but it's not obligatory. The NT calls us to more than a legal minimum—generosity from the heart, often exceeding 10% for those who can afford it.

Why Armstrongism is wrong to command tithing

Herbert W. Armstrong (founder of the Worldwide Church of God) taught that tithing (plus a second tithe for festivals and sometimes a third) remains a New Testament command and God's "permanent financing system" for His work. He argued:

• Tithing predates the Mosaic Law (e.g., Abraham to Melchizedek in Genesis 14) and continues under the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ.

• Malachi 3:8-10 ("robbing God") applies directly to modern Christians, bringing curses for non-payment.

• The "law" didn't change in a way that abolishes tithing—it just transferred to the new ministry.

This view is critiqued (even by the later Worldwide Church of God itself after Armstrong's death) for these reasons:

• It misreads Hebrews 7 and covenant theology. Armstrong claimed the priesthood change preserves tithing as law. But the text says the opposite: the change in priesthood requires a change in the law (Hebrews 7:12). The old tithing system was tied to the obsolete Levitical order and is fulfilled, not transferred. The post-Armstrong WCG leadership explicitly corrected this in the 1990s, declaring tithing voluntary, as part of a broader return to mainstream biblical teaching on the New Covenant. This shift caused a financial crisis and massive membership loss precisely because Armstrong had made it central.

• It imposes Old Covenant legalism on the New Covenant church. Armstrong selectively kept certain OT laws (Sabbath, holy days, clean meats, tithing) while claiming the New Covenant. But the NT consistently says we're not under that system (see Galatians 3-5; Colossians 2:16-17). Commanding a percentage under threat of curses or spiritual loss contradicts "not under compulsion" (2 Corinthians 9:7) and turns grace-giving into obligation. Critics (including former members and biblical scholars) note this created heavy financial burdens on members while funding a large organization.

• It doesn't align with the full New Testament witness. Jesus and the apostles never commanded tithing for the church. Treating Malachi 3 as a direct threat to Christians today ignores its original context (post-exile Israel under the old covenant) and the finished work of Christ.

Armstrong's position stems from a particular interpretive lens that prioritizes continuity of Old Testament practices unless explicitly repealed— but this overlooks how the New Testament presents the entire old system as fulfilled and obsolete in Christ. Mainstream Christian theology (across Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions) sees this as a form of legalism that misses the freedom and joy of New Covenant generosity.

The Bible encourages sacrificial, joyful giving to support the church, the poor, and gospel work—without a fixed percentage or threats. If you're wrestling with this personally, the key is prayerful, Spirit-led generosity "as you prosper," not a checklist. Different Christians land on slightly different applications, but the consensus is clear: mandatory tithing is not a New Covenant command.

Tithing is simply not a command for Christians under the New Covenant. The entire Old Covenant system — including its priesthood, temple, and required tithes — was fulfilled and set aside when Jesus became our eternal High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:12 is crystal clear: “When the priesthood changes, the law must be changed also.” The New Testament never once commands the church to tithe. Instead, it calls us to generous, cheerful, Spirit-led giving from the heart, without percentage or compulsion (2 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2).

Armstrongism’s continued demand for mandatory tithing (including the second and third tithes) is therefore biblically incorrect. It misreads Hebrews 7, treating the priesthood change as a mere transfer of the old law rather than its fulfillment. It revives an obsolete Old Covenant practice and places believers back under a form of legalism the apostles explicitly rejected. By applying Malachi 3:8–10 as a direct threat of curses to Christians today, it contradicts the finished work of Christ and the freedom of the New Covenant. Even the Worldwide Church of God itself later repudiated this teaching and returned to voluntary giving — precisely because it could not be defended from the New Testament.

In the end, insisting on tithing as a binding requirement distorts the gospel of grace. It turns joyful generosity into obligation, burdens God’s people with an outdated system Jesus already fulfilled, and misses the far greater call of the New Testament: to give sacrificially, cheerfully, and “as you prosper,” supporting the church and the needy out of love rather than law.

The Bible’s message is liberating: you are not under the old system. Give freely, give joyfully, and watch God’s grace abound through you. That is the true New Covenant way.

Silent Pilgrim

Crackpot Prophet Says He Is A Better Elijah Than HWA Was Because He Has Restored More Truths

The Church of God Clown Show is in full swing again today, with our resident Crackpot Prophet tooting his itty-bitty horn about how magnificent he is and how he’s revealed truths hidden even from Herbert W. Armstrong. How quickly he forgets: if Herbert were alive today, Crackpot Bob’s ass would’ve been booted out the church door so fast he wouldn’t know what hit him. Even Rod Meredith already kicked him to the curb once for his narcissistic presumptions. Real prophets learn their lesson. Fake, self-appointed ones just keep digging the hole deeper—with no way out.

Crackpot Bob is particularly perturbed that those wild and crazy folks in Edmond, Oklahoma, keep claiming Herbert W. Armstrong restored ALL things. He can’t stand it. According to him, Herbert didn’t restore squat. Only he—the Great Bwana, the Second Elijah—has restored all truth. Truth that poor old Herbert was never privy to. Stand in awe, peasants, of the Magnificent One!

"Malachi 3 continues: “and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap” (verses 1-2). … 

 

Herbert W. Armstrong expounded on this prophecy in a landmark sermon on Dec. 17, 1983. “As John the Baptist was the physical messenger in the physical wilderness of Jordan, so there would be a messenger with a message—with a voice crying out in the spiritual wilderness of the modern 20th century,” he said. “Preparing the way for … Jesus to come to His spiritual temple [speaking of the Church] … this time to set up the Kingdom of God and to rule.” 

 

Christ said this Elijah would “restore all things.” Mr. Armstrong then noted, “Now John the Baptist didn’t restore anything. They already knew about the law, and he called them to repentance; but he didn’t have to give them sermons about what all the law is. They knew that. He just called them to repent and turn to another way, and baptized them.”

The “restore all things” part of Christ’s statement is at the heart of what makes this the most pivotal end-time prophecy. 

 

There are many end-time prophecies, and people naturally tend to focus on the ones about wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes and supernatural disasters. Some people focus on things like blood moons. 

 

But this prophecy is what Jesus Christ focused on. 

 

This prophecy is directly connected with His Second Coming: He said this man would restore all truth within the Church just before the Day of the Lord. This is a sign of the nearness of Jesus Christ’s return that you must not ignore! 

 

And what makes this even more important is that this prophecy has already been fulfilled!"

But according to the Bible (and basic math), Herbert couldn’t possibly have been the end-time Elijah. He died in 1986, the “very end of the Church age” hasn’t arrived yet, and the 6,000 years from Adam aren’t up. Crackpot Bob helpfully points this out while dragging in Dibar Apartian and Aaron Dean like yesterday’s toilet paper—about as useful as either would be plugging a hole in a dam.ording torackpot Bob, Herbert cannot be the endtime Elijah:

But, according to the Bible, could Herbert W. Armstrong have been the Elijah to come (Matthew 17)?

Let’s start with Malachi 4:5-6, but as shown in the Jewish Publication Society translation:

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet

Before the coming Of the great and terrible day of the LORD.

And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children,

And the heart of the children to their fathers;

Lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction.

Notice that the Elijah is to come just before the great and terrible day of the LORD, and if he did not come, utter destruction would occur.

Herbert W. Armstrong died in January 16, 1986.

Now let’s see what Herbert W. Armstrong actually wrote about the timing of the final Elijah:

Also Malachi 4:5-6 pictures the Elijah to come at the very end of the Church age (Mystery of the Ages. 1985, p. 349).

When did Herbert W. Armstrong write that the Church age was over? Notice:

At the end of the Church age and 6,000 years from Adam, Christ would return to earth as King of kings and Lord of Lords, ruling all nations, with the saints, for one millennium. (Armstrong HW. What If Adam Had Taken of the Tree of Life? Plan Truth, March 1983)

The “very end” of the Church age was not over 37 years ago! The 6000 years have NOT yet been fulfilled. Since the “very end of the Church age” has not happened, and Herbert W. Armstrong died decades ago, his writings support that there must be another Elijah. And he was referring to an individual in the Mystery of the Ages.

So who in the entire world could the entime Elijah be???? It is impossible to understand who this is. Oh, wait! Its none other than Crackpot Bob, teh Great Bwana! Woo Hoo!

But wait! Before he offers the proof that he is the choden one, he drags of Dibar Apartian and Aaron Dean. Apartian's words are about a suseless as a roll of toilet paper being used to plug a hole in a dam.

That being said, sometimes Herbert W. Armstrong did think that he may have fulfilled the Elijah role, but he told the late Dibar Apartian (who told me) that he was NOT the Elijah. Dibar Apartian did not believe that Herbert W. Armstrongwas the Elijah when we discussed this several times and he agreed with me about this. Furthermore, essentially on his deathbed, Herbert W. Armstrong admitted to his closest aide, Aaron Dean (who told me this multiple times) that there could be an Elijah to come after he died (see also The Elijah Heresies).

Combining what Herbert W. Armstrong wrote in The Mystery of the Ages and the length of time since his death demonstrates that Herbert W. Armstrong could not have been the final prophesied Elijah.

Crackpot Bob, The Great Bwana, then starts offering the PROOF that we should all be standing in awe of and trembling in fear that we are lost and without hope because we deny him.

Since the Bible does teach that there will be an ‘Elijah’ who is alive right before Jesus returns (Malachi 4:5-6), thus it is not possible that Herbert W. Armstrong was the prophesied final Elijah.

Now, presuming Jesus will return within the next couple of decades, then that ‘Elijah’ would need to be alive now. And he would be part of the church that places the highest priority on the truth.

Yet, most Christians seemingly refuse to accept that.

We in the Continuing Church of God are regularly restoring more truth about church history...

Then comes the grand reveal: since Jesus is obviously returning in the next decade (trust him, he’s checked), the real Elijah must be alive right now. And wouldn’t you know it, he just happens to be part of the one organization that places the “highest priority on truth”—the Continuing Church of God. What an amazing coincidence!

There is a 21st century Elijah, and that individual would be expected to be part of the Continuing Church of God.

Was the restoration of more knowledge supposed to happen?

Yes. 

 Herbert Armstrong later wrote that he was NOT a prophet:

I have definitely NOT been called to be a PROPHET (Armstrong H. Personal from the Editor, The 19 Year Time Cycles. The Good News of Tomorrow’s World. February, 1972, p. 1).

Since Herbert Armstrong was not a prophet, Elijah was a prophet (1 Kings 18:36), the Elijah to come is to be a prophet (Malachi 4:5), and the two witnesses will be prophets, Herbert W. Armstrong was not the Elijah to come

Crackpot Bob, the Great Bwana, argues that because Herbert Armstrong openly said he was NOT a prophet, he couldn’t have been Elijah (who was a prophet). Therefore, the job is still open… and guess who’s humbly volunteering? The same guy who’s already preached an entire sermon alluding to the fact that he might be one of the Two Witless Witnesses, too. (If only he talked about Jesus half as much as he talks about himself.)

Was John the Baptist the prophesied Elijah or at least a type of Elijah? Is there an Elijah to come? Have Sabbatarians been teaching this a long time? What were 18 truths that Herbert W. Armstrong said God had him restore? Was anything to be restored in the last days, consistent with Daniel 12:4 and Matthew 17:11? Was God supposed to restore dreams and prophets in the last days? Did the Worldwide Church of God teach such would happen again? Have we seen signs of Acts 2:17-18 in the Continuing Church of God? Is Bob Thiel the final Elijah or one of the two witnesses? Why or why not? Has there been the restoration of important truths in the CCOG? Is the CCOG at least setting the foundation for the 21st century Elijah? Dr. Thiel gives information relating to all of that in this sermon. 

He finishes by broadly flicking his limp wrist at anyone who dares disagree, labeling them Laodiceans—because nothing says “man of God” like rebranding everyone who won’t worship you as doomed.

Crackpot Bob, the Great Bwana, then goes on to preach another sermon on how magnificent he is. If only he talked about Jesus as much as he talks about himself!

Jesus stated that an Elijah to come would restore all things (Mathew 17:11). Did Herbert W. Armstrong restore anything? Consistent with Daniel 12:4, were there truths that were to be restored in the 21st century? What are some that have been restored? What about church history, the original catholic church, the faith once for all delivered to the saints, and apostolic succession? What were the last days signs of Acts 2:17-18? What about teachings on violent sports, the fulness of the Gentiles, using scores of languages to help fulfill Matthew 24:14, non-trinitarian ramifications, prophetic matters, the identity of the man of sin, Daniel 11:39 and the start of the Great Tribulation, the identity of Samaria, the connection between Habakkuk 2:1-8 and the United States of America, the final phase of the work, the mark of the Beast, and the third resurrection? Has the Continuing Church of God been restoring matters in the 21st century? Dr. Thiel addresses these questions and more. 

Oh, Bwana Bob. Sweet, self-anointed Bob. If humility were a spiritual gift, you’d still be begging for the crumbs under the table. You strut around declaring yourself the final Elijah, the restorer of all things, and possibly one of the Two Witnesses—all while producing more hot air than a Laodicean hair dryer. Newsflash, Great Bwana: real prophets don’t spend their waking hours writing sermons about how spectacular they are and how everyone else is too blind to see their brilliance. They don’t need to beg for awe; it follows them naturally.

You’re not restoring truth—you’re restoring your own bruised ego, one narcissistic sermon at a time. Keep polishing that itty-bitty horn, Crackpot. When the real Elijah shows up (or, heaven forbid, when Christ actually returns), your carefully crafted fantasy is going to collapse faster than your relevance in the real Church of God. Until then, enjoy your tiny kingdom. Clown shoes on, Bob. The show must go on. 

Armstrongism and The Gap Theory

In Armstrongism, the Gap Theory is not merely one possible interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2—it is presented as a foundational “revealed truth” that unlocks the Bible’s hidden meaning and harmonizes Scripture with the scientific evidence of an ancient earth, fossils, and dinosaurs. Armstrong wove it deeply into his theology in works like Mystery of the Ages (1985) and the booklet Did God Create a Devil?, calling it a “surprising truth… unrecognized by religion, by science and by higher education.”

Armstrongism’s Core Teaching on the Gap

Genesis 1:1 records God’s original perfect creation of the heavens and the earth “in the beginning.” This creation was beautiful, harmonious, and “very good.” It happened an unknown length of time ago—Armstrong said it “might have been millions—or even billions—of years” (or even “trillions” in some statements). This original world included plants, animals, and the full fossil record we see today. 

 

A long, unrecorded “gap” of time follows. During this period, Lucifer (Satan) and one-third of the angels rebelled against God. Their sin turned the earth into a state of ruin and chaos. Armstrong taught that this angelic rebellion caused a global catastrophe—sometimes called “Lucifer’s flood”—that destroyed the original creation, leaving the earth “without form, and void” (tohu wa bohu—waste and empty, chaotic and in confusion).

Genesis 1:2 therefore describes the ruined earth after that catastrophe, not the initial state of creation. Armstrong emphasized: “God did not create the earth in a state of waste and confusion. The earth became chaotic as a result of the sin of the angels.” The Hebrew word hayah (“was”) is understood here as “became,” showing a transition from perfection to ruin.

Beginning in Genesis 1:3, God performs a re-creation or restoration of the earth in six literal 24-hour days, roughly 6,000 years ago. This is the week that produced the world we know, including Adam and Eve and the animals listed in Genesis 1. The original creation (including dinosaurs) is not re-created; only a new order is established on the ruined planet.

This view allows Armstrongism to accept the mainstream scientific timeline for the earth’s age and the fossil record while preserving a strictly literal six-day creation week—just not the original one.

How Armstrongism Specifically “Deals With” Dinosaurs

Dinosaurs (along with the entire pre-Adamic fossil record—trilobites, marine reptiles, extinct mammals, etc.) belong entirely to the original creation of Genesis 1:1. They lived, died, and were buried during the long gap period. When Lucifer rebelled, the resulting cataclysm wiped them out, producing the layered fossil beds and geological formations we observe today. The six-day re-creation in Genesis 1:3 onward does not include new dinosaurs; they remain only as fossils in the ground from the ruined former world.

Armstrong tied this directly to Satan’s fall: the decay, death, and destruction visible in the fossil record (including diseased bones and extinction events) resulted from angelic sin before Adam, not from human sin. This fits Armstrongism’s broader doctrine that Satan was once the ruler of the earth, that sin and chaos entered creation through him, and that the six-day week was God’s act of restitution—a preview of the ultimate “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) at the end of the age.

Key Differences from the General Gap Theory

The version taught in Armstrongism is essentially the classic “ruin-reconstruction” or “Lucifer’s flood” form of the Gap Theory, but presented with unique emphasis:

It is not just a scientific accommodation—it is central to understanding God’s plan, the origin of evil, and why the earth was in chaos when the Spirit of God began moving on the waters in Genesis 1:2.

Armstrong rejected evolution but fully embraced deep time via the gap, insisting the Bible itself requires it.

He used the same proof texts as other gap theorists (Isaiah 45:18, Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 34:11, Ezekiel 28, etc.) but framed them as “God’s revelation” through him as apostle.

A Note on Broader Scholarship

While Armstrongism holds this as essential doctrine, the grammatical, contextual, and theological problems with the Gap Theory (the waw-disjunctive structure of Genesis 1:2 forbidding a chronological gap, the normal meaning of “was” rather than “became,” the lack of any biblical mention of a prior world or Lucifer’s flood, and the conflict with passages like Exodus 20:11 and Romans 5:12) remain the same as outlined in the earlier responses. Most Hebrew scholars and creationist organizations across the spectrum still consider it unsupported by the text itself.

In Armstrongism, however, the Gap Theory is embraced as the correct understanding that resolves the apparent conflict between Genesis and the fossil/dinosaur evidence—placing the ancient world and its destruction firmly in the unmentioned “gap” while keeping the six literal days of re-creation intact.

Yes, the Gap Theory directly attempts to "deal with" dinosaurs (and the broader fossil record) by placing them in the supposed long period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

How the Gap Theory Handles Dinosaurs

Genesis 1:1 is interpreted as God’s original, perfect creation of the heavens and the earth — a fully functional world that included plants, animals, and creatures like dinosaurs (and possibly other extinct life forms or even "pre-Adamic" beings in some versions).

During this ancient "gap" period (millions or billions of years), the geological ages unfolded, dinosaurs lived and died, and the fossil record formed.

Then, a catastrophic judgment — often called "Lucifer’s flood" or a global cataclysm linked to Satan’s rebellion and fall — destroyed that original world, leaving the earth "without form and void" (tohu wa bohu) as described in Genesis 1:2.

Starting in Genesis 1:3, God begins a re-creation or restoration of the earth in six literal days, populating it with new animals and eventually Adam and Eve. The dinosaurs from the gap period do not appear in this re-created world (except perhaps as fossils in the ground).

This approach allows gap theorists to accept the mainstream scientific view that dinosaurs lived and went extinct tens of millions of years ago, while still holding to a literal six-day creation week (just not the original creation).

Common Details in Gap Theory Versions

Dinosaurs and the entire fossil record (trilobites, marine reptiles, mammals, etc.) belong to the pre-gap "original creation."

Death, suffering, and extinction happened long before Adam’s sin — the catastrophe in the gap is blamed for the mass die-off.

Some versions also squeeze in ice ages, "ape-men," or other prehistoric elements into this gap.
Criticisms of This Explanation (from Young-Earth Creationist Perspectives)

Young-earth creationist groups (such as Answers in Genesis, ICR, and Creation Ministries International) strongly reject this handling of dinosaurs for several reasons:

• It introduces death and suffering on a massive scale before Adam’s fall, which conflicts with passages like Romans 5:12 (death entered through sin) and the idea that the original creation was "very good."

The Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1:2 does not support a chronological gap or a "became" ruined state, as explained previously.

Exodus 20:11 says God made everything (heavens, earth, sea, and all in them) in six days — leaving no room for a prior creation full of dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs can be accounted for without a gap: they were created on Day 6 as land animals (Genesis 1:24-25), lived alongside humans, and most died in Noah’s Flood (with some possibly surviving briefly afterward). Biblical descriptions like Behemoth in Job 40 are sometimes seen as fitting certain dinosaurs.

Reasons Why the Gap Can't Be Supported

 
The Gap Theory claims that a vast period of time (millions or billions of years), including Lucifer’s rebellion and a global catastrophe (“Lucifer’s flood”), occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It places dinosaurs and the fossil record in this “gap,” while Genesis 1:3 onward describes a six-day re-creation. This view, popularized in Armstrongism, attempts to reconcile the Bible with an old earth. However, it is fundamentally flawed for several key reasons:

• Hebrew Grammar Forbids It 
• Genesis 1:2 begins with a waw-disjunctive construction (a standard Hebrew way to give background information). It does not allow a chronological gap or the translation of “was” (hayah) as “became.” The verse simply describes the initial unformed state of the earth, not a ruined world after catastrophe.
• No Scriptural Support for a Prior World 
• The Bible never mentions a pre-Adamic creation, Lucifer’s flood, or a ruined earth before the six days. Exodus 20:11 clearly states that God made the heavens, earth, sea, and everything in them in six days — leaving no room for an earlier creation and destruction.
• Theological Problems with Death Before Sin 
• The theory places widespread death, suffering, and extinction (including dinosaurs) before Adam’s fall. This contradicts Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, which teach that death entered the world through human sin, not through angelic rebellion.
• Misinterpretation of Key Phrases 
• The phrase “without form and void” (tohu wa bohu) describes the raw, unformed state of creation before God shaped and filled it — not a state of judgment or ruin. Isaiah 45:18 simply means God did not create the earth to remain empty, not that an initial formless state was impossible.

In short, the Gap Theory is an understandable but unsuccessful 19th-century attempt to accommodate deep time. It reads ideas into the text that are not present and creates more contradictions than it solves. The straightforward reading of Genesis 1 presents one creation event: God created the heavens and earth, initially unformed and unfilled, then shaped and filled it in six literal days.

This interpretation upholds the unity and clarity of Scripture without forcing an artificial gap between the first two verses.

One of the main reasons people adopt or promote the Gap Theory is precisely to "deal with" dinosaurs and the fossil record by shoving them into that unmentioned ancient period. However, as noted, the theory itself is not supported by the actual text of Genesis or standard Hebrew exegesis. It remains a popular attempt at harmonizing the Bible with deep time, but it creates more theological and textual problems than it solves for many Bible believers.

The 1975 Prophecies That Never Happened: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Worldwide Church of God Built—and Then Denied—Expectations of Doom

When you watch this video, you will see how the WCG was almost exactly like the JW's 

when it came to members dealing with the prophecies.

The 1975 Prophecies That Never Happened: 

How the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Worldwide Church of God 

Built—and Then Denied—Expectations of Doom

In the decades after World War II, two fast-growing religious movements captured the imagination of hundreds of thousands of believers with urgent warnings about the end of the world. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, both tied Bible prophecy to the specific year 1975. Their publications painted 1975 as the climax of 6,000 years of human history, the trigger for global catastrophe, and the possible start of Christ’s millennial reign. Followers sold homes, quit jobs, postponed marriages, and poured resources into the organizations in anticipation. When nothing apocalyptic occurred, both groups faced mass disillusionment—and sharp accusations that they had lied to their members.

Neither organization ever printed the exact words “Armageddon will strike in 1975.” But both used language that made the year seem inevitable, authoritative, and biblically certain. When the date passed quietly, they pivoted to denial, blame-shifting, and quiet revisions. Here is the documented record.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Six Thousand Years End in 1975”

The foundation was laid in 1966 with the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God. It presented a “trustworthy Bible chronology” showing that Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E. Adding 6,000 years brought the timeline to the fall of 1975:

According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man’s creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E. … How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a Sabbath period of rest and release, a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants!

The Watchtower magazine amplified the excitement. A 1968 article titled “Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?” asked readers to consider whether the Battle of Armageddon might conclude by autumn 1975. A 1968 Kingdom Ministry bulletin told congregation leaders: “Less than a hundred months separate us from the end of 6000 years of man’s history. What can you do in that time?” District conventions featured slogans like “Stay Alive Till ’75.” In some countries, elders openly urged members to sell property, pioneer full-time, and avoid long-term plans.

The message was unmistakable to those inside the organization. Thousands of families liquidated assets, delayed having children, and devoted every spare hour to preaching. When 1975 ended with no Armageddon, the exodus began. Many who had sacrificed careers and savings felt betrayed.

The Watch Tower Society’s response was consistent and revealing. In October 1975 it acknowledged “considerable individual speculation” but insisted its publications “have never said that the world’s end would come then.” By 1976 it blamed members’ “own understanding” based on “wrong premises.” A later article claimed the disappointment was a faith-testing “sifting” process and quietly adjusted the chronology by inserting an undetermined gap between Adam’s and Eve’s creation. The organization has never admitted it manufactured false hope; it has only denied making an official prediction.

The Worldwide Church of God: “1975 in Prophecy!”

Herbert W. Armstrong’s Radio Church of God (renamed the Worldwide Church of God in 1968) took a different but equally dramatic approach. In 1956 Armstrong published the 32-page booklet 1975 in Prophecy!, lavishly illustrated with apocalyptic artwork by Mad magazine cartoonist Basil Wolverton. The booklet contrasted humanity’s “fantastic push-button world” of technological progress with God’s coming wrath. It warned that by the mid-1970s a devastating drought would kill one-third of the world’s population, followed by nuclear war that would kill another third, with the survivors sold into slavery. Christ would then return to establish the Kingdom of God.

The booklet became a cornerstone of WCG outreach, distributed by the millions alongside The United States and Britain in Prophecy. Armstrong’s radio broadcasts and The Plain Truth magazine hammered the same theme for nearly two decades: the Great Tribulation and Christ’s return were scheduled for the early-to-mid 1970s, with 1975 as the outside limit. Members were told the church would flee to a “place of safety” (often identified as Petra, Jordan) in 1972, emerging in 1975 to rule with Christ.

When 1975 arrived and passed without tribulation, famine, or nuclear holocaust, Armstrong quietly withdrew the booklet from circulation. He never issued a formal retraction or apology. Instead, later writings simply stopped mentioning specific dates. After Armstrong’s death in 1986, the WCG underwent massive doctrinal changes and eventually abandoned Armstrong’s prophetic framework entirely. Offshoot groups that retained the original teachings have since tried to reinterpret or downplay the failed timeline.

The Common Pattern: Bold Implication, Then Denial

Both organizations followed the same playbook:

• Authoritative chronology presented as “Bible truth.”
• Urgent language that stopped just short of an explicit date.
• Life-altering actions encouraged among the rank-and-file.
• Post-failure blame placed on members’ “misunderstandings” or “speculation.”
• No formal admission of error—only claims that the organization never said what everyone inside clearly heard.

Critics argue this constitutes deception. When leaders publish detailed timelines, circulate countdown bulletins, and celebrate slogans like “Stay Alive Till ’75” while simultaneously insisting “we never set a date,” the result is classic bait-and-switch. Followers who acted in good faith were left financially and emotionally devastated, while the organizations retained power and continued to demand loyalty and donations.

The 1975 episode is not ancient history. It remains one of the clearest modern examples of how date-specific prophecy can be used to control behavior, extract commitment, and then be memory-holed when it fails. Both groups survived the scandal, but thousands of former members never recovered their trust—either in the organizations or in the very idea of end-time prophecy delivered by men. The record shows that when religious leaders promise the end is precisely calculable, history has a way of proving them wrong—and their followers pay the price.

A Devastating Legacy: The Human Wreckage of 1975

When the calendar flipped from 1975 into 1976, the world did not end. But for thousands of sincere believers in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God, something far more personal did collapse: their entire sense of reality, security, and hope.

They had believed with all their hearts. They had sold their homes, emptied their savings, quit their jobs, postponed marriages, skipped college, and turned their backs on careers—because their leaders had painted 1975 as the unmistakable, Bible-guaranteed finish line of human history. The promises were delivered with the full authority of “God’s organization” and “God’s apostle.” The urgency was relentless. The stakes were eternal.

Then the date passed in silence.

What followed was not merely disappointment. It was a slow-motion spiritual and emotional catastrophe. Families who had liquidated everything woke up to empty bank accounts and no retirement. Young people who had sacrificed their educations found themselves in their thirties with no credentials and no future. Parents who had refused to have children because “this system won’t last that long” faced the quiet grief of empty nests and irreversible regret. Marriages fractured under the weight of dashed expectations and mutual blame. Depression, anxiety, and in some cases suicide shadowed the years that followed.

The organizations offered no apologies, no restitution, and no accountability—only the cold insistence that they had “never said” what every member clearly heard. The very leaders who had stoked the fire of urgency now stood back and watched the faithful burn, then blamed the victims for misunderstanding.

For both groups, 1975 was not just a failed date on a chart. It was a betrayal that shattered lives. It robbed people of their best years, their financial stability, their education, their families, and, for many, their faith itself. The damage was not abstract theology—it was measured in foreclosed homes, broken marriages, abandoned dreams, and decades of quiet despair.

Decades later, the survivors still carry the scars. Some rebuilt. Many never fully recovered. All of them learned the same bitter lesson: when religious leaders weaponize prophecy to demand total sacrifice, the only thing that truly ends in 1975 is the innocence of those who believed them.

The world kept spinning. But for countless ex-members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God, time itself stopped in the autumn of 1975—and part of them has never moved forward since.

Progressive Revelation In Armstrongism Is An Escape Hatch For Members To Turn A Blind Eye To Outright Lies

Progressive Revelation

more commonly used in COG groups: "new revelation," "new understanding," 

or "God is revealing more truth", 

is a key doctrinal mechanism in Armstrongism that lets members reinterpret failed prophecies as "incomplete earlier understanding" rather than outright lies or false prophecy. 

It keeps many loyal because it turns potential disillusionment 

into renewed hope and commitment.

What "Progressive Revelation" Means in Armstrongism

Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA) taught that God reveals His truth gradually—first the basics, then deeper insights as the end times near. He didn't always call it "progressive revelation" exactly, but he practiced it: adjusting doctrines over decades (e.g., on divorce/remarriage, healing, or prophecy timing) and presenting them as God opening new understanding through him as God's apostle.

Post-1986 splinter groups kept this idea but supercharged it. Current leaders claim God is now giving them fresh revelation or clearer insight into prophecy, end-time events, church government, or specific details HWA "didn't fully understand." This is not the standard Christian idea of progressive revelation (where later truth builds on earlier without contradicting it). In COG splinters, it often means revising or spiritualizing past predictions when they fail.

Examples tied to the leaders you asked about earlier:

• Gerald Flurry (PCG): Heavily pushes "new revelation." Malachi's Message was called a "new vision from God." He has introduced things like the "new stone of destiny" (HWA's prayer rock) as a major divine update that "clarifies" prophecy and moves the throne of David to PCG. Failed timelines (e.g., Obama/Trump predictions) get reframed as God giving "sharper focus" or additional revelation.

• David Pack (RCG): Constantly announces "new truth," "new doctrines," or "growth in understanding" revealed directly to him. Dozens of specific return dates or reunification prophecies that failed are explained as partial earlier understanding—God is progressively revealing the full picture through Pack.

• Ronald Weinland (COG-PKG): Adjusted his 2008/2012 timelines and Two Witnesses claims by saying God revealed more as events unfolded.

• Crackpot Bob: While Crackpot Bob often criticizes "progressive revelation through tradition" in other Christian churches, he still uses the functional equivalent: special dreams, the "double portion" mantle, and his unique prophetic role give "new understanding" of current events as prophecy fulfillment. Failures or unfulfilled expectations get folded into "God is revealing more through the Philadelphia remnant" narrative.

Why do members stay in spite of failed prophecies?

It solves the cognitive dissonance problem perfectly for those who want to stay:

• It absolves the leader (and God) of error: Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says a true prophet's words must come to pass. "Progressive revelation" dodges this: "It wasn't a false prophecy—it was based on incomplete revelation at the time. God has now given us more light." Members aren't forced to call their leader a false prophet; instead, they see him as the humble channel for ongoing divine updates.

• It turns failure into excitement and urgency: Every missed date becomes proof that "we're getting closer—the revelation is accelerating!" It creates a cycle: prediction → failure → "new understanding" → new prediction → renewed zeal and tithing. Members feel privileged to be part of the "cutting-edge" group receiving God's latest instructions.

• It reinforces loyalty to the current leader: Leaving would mean rejecting God's current channel of revelation. You're not just leaving a church—you're becoming "Laodicean," blind to what God is doing now. Staying shows you're submissive to the "mantle" and willing to grow in understanding.

• It fits the sunk-cost and fear psychology: Many have decades invested (family, friends, identity, tithes). Progressive revelation lets them salvage all that: "We weren't wrong; we just didn't have the full picture yet." Plus, the fear of the Tribulation and "place of safety" only for the faithful remnant makes questioning risky.

Cult recovery groups call this a classic false-teacher tactic. True biblical revelation doesn't require constant resets or blame-shifting. When circumstances change, genuine prophets don't "update" failed words—they repent or admit presumption. Instead, these groups modify expectations to protect the leader's authority, exactly as happened with the Elijah/HWA identification over the years.

In short, "progressive revelation" (in its Armstrongist form) is the escape hatch that lets members stay psychologically and spiritually comfortable despite the track record of unmet prophecies. It keeps the system going by promising that this time—with the latest revelation—the end really is near and the leader really is God's man. That's why, even with all the documented failures across PCG, RCG, COG-PKG, CCOG, and others, some dedicated members double down rather than walk away.

Dave Pack/RCG: Blind faithfulness that abandons critical thinking is a doom spiral

 

Certain Uncertainty

There is one certain thing about David C. Pack: He is uncertain.

The wanna-be/hafta-be apostle, inept prophetic guru, and theological yarn-spinner vacillates between having “an avalanche of proof” about the date for the arrival of the Kingdom of God one week, but then dismantles his own theories the next.

The Pastor General of The Restored Church of God was certain his understanding of the unicorn date of Abib 24 (April 10) was God-inspired during “The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 628),” given on March 21, 2026, but became certain of his uncertainty during Part 629.

Part 629 – March 28, 2026
@ 26:38 Abib 24 is impossible. And now we can put it to bed, and we can start talking about are we waiting for three and a half days to Passover?

What took him two hours to preach during Part 628 was dismantled in seconds during Part 629. This triggered the Part 628 Regret-O-Meter bigtime.

Dave whined like a little schoolgirl about how hard his self-assigned job is, while again blaming the Jews for his biblical blunder. The irony of his using multi-sided dice as a visual aid for how challenging prophecy is was lost on him. I cannot help but wonder if this was Bradford Schleifer winking at us.

“The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 629)," given on March 28, 2026, is peak Dave Uncertainty. The Pastor General was Mister Wishy-Washy, Mister Maybe-Maybe Not, and Mister I Dunno in one wrapper.

One moment summarized the heart, spirit, and tone of Part 629. It is certain to make you chuckle.

@ 1:04:48 And and then you hope you can figure it out. If he knew, he'd tell you. It's pretty obvious that I don't know, or I'd be telling you. Or if I or I do know, but I'm not yet ready to tell you. I guess you could see it either way. I don't wanna tell you which it is. I may not know. I may know. I've thought I knew before.

That is a stellar example of WCG Ambassador College's preaching skills in action.

Tell them what you might tell them. Kinda tell them maybe sorta, I guess. Express your doubts about what you may or may not have told them if they wanna see it that way, perhaps.

David C. Pack is certainly uncertain throughout Part 629. Members in the Main Hall at Headquarters must have been wondering why he would even bother to preach if he was so uncertain about so much.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The tone of a sermon is often set within the first few minutes. The brethren of The Restored Church of God certainly felt the same dread I used to when Dave would introduce doubts up front.

@ 02:31 Well, we have Abib 24 in hand. It's right, or it's not.

In times past, I knew that was to point at which to set my pen down. The rest of the sermon was just like that, but worse because it took him one hour and 49 minutes to build to a stunning conclusion:

@ 1:47:58 I’ma just tell ya what I think. I have big doubts about Passover, but it's a very real possibility. I have big doubts about it.

Those bookends encapsulate what members are subjected to week after week after week. And they pay this guy to do that. He studies the Bible all week just to preach uncertainty on the Sabbath.

@ 04:28 Two enormous problems drove last week's position, where we where we went to Abib 24. They got resolved, and we're gonna talk about them.

That is Packian-speak for "I'm gonna throw out what I just preached." But someone has to accept the blame.

@ 19:17 And the unicorn date we talked about last week became the 24th. Why? Because the Jews said so. And they have a wonderful track record of getting nothing right. That's the beauty of ‘em. They get nothing right.

In my mind’s eye, I can see Brad at the back of the hall subtly smirking and shaking his head when Dave blurts out unintentional comedy like this.

The exquisite irony that pours forth from David C. Pack’s mouth is astonishing perfection. From his own lips, he has said. God has a sense of humor and is a fan of irony. Dave’s ears cannot hear what Dave’s mouth says. The fatty hubris mass within his skull cannot tolerate self-awareness because it would have a devastating effect on the candy glass walls of his delusion.

Nobody at Headquarters would dare ask, “Mr. Pack, how is your track record?” That person would be certain to know they would be escorted off the property post haste.

For those who wonder if David C. Pack’s certain uncertainty is just a colorful exaggeration, this archive of accurate quotes stands as a witness to who speaks the truth.

@ 27:10 Because it could be Passover, or maybe we’ll see, no, it's not.

@ 29:43 So, you see how what as I study, I'm conflicted. Now, I'm I’m not really conflicted anymore…

@ 55:08 …and they overlay the seven Days of Unleavened Bread. I am not saying, and this where they [chuckles – plays with dice] you could they they move, and you try to figure out, “Wow, that would mean it’s Passover.” It would mean it could be. Or it could be a different seven days. Now, I hope you find this very interesting because I'm taking you deeply into why this was complicated for so long. For so, so long.

@ 1:04:08 Did you think, “Oh, that’s Passover?” Or did you think it could be? Certainly could be. This has been my challenge for a long time, on when God is gonna act.

@ 1:05:21 I'm trying to help you understand. Get ready for Passover, what we're covering. Wanna say it again. Because it could be Passover, and it may not be.

Why RCG members should never take David C. Pack seriously in 3…2…1…

@ 1:31:50 We wondered if the 1335 back there was the date. Then is it Abib 1? Is it Abib 3? Then my next question in the back of my mind, is it Abib 10? I I could I could I could just take a sidebar right now and spend two hours telling you why it looks like it could be Abib 10.

Just like he spent two hours telling them it was Abib 24 the week prior. Abib 24 was a unicorn date that was revealed to him by God, and he had an avalanche of proof to support it. Ponder that.

David C. Pack cannot discern between God’s inspiration
and his own imagination. That should sober
every member in The Restored Church of God.

The theme of certain uncertainty was carried from beginning to end. No topic was spared.

The theme of certain uncertainty was carried from beginning to end. No topic was spared.

@ 1:46:49 There’s an entirely different way to mark the 1335 days that we’ve never once discussed, and I’m pretty sure it’s right. It’s either now over ten days ago. Or we haven’t even gotten to it.

@ 1:48:37 You could ask, “Why would God have us go through all the preparation and all the messages and so forth, and we don't keep it?” [chuckles] …Maybe it's just to test our faithfulness to see if we will.

Right. This is what the brethren of The Restored Church of God need more of, since they have been needlessly suffering continuous uncertainty since August 30, 2013: Testing their faithfulness.

Blind faithfulness that abandons critical thinking is a doom spiral.

David C. Pack is an incompetent, blaspheming, hypocritical liar, false prophet, false apostle, false teacher, theological nincompoop, ineffective speaker, biblical fraud, religious charlatan, covetous thief, and notorious faith breaker. All of that is certain.

@ 1:48:57 So, it’s important to prepare for Passover. And we did. …and we'll know in three and a half days. But I have pretty big doubts, and I wanna leave those with you because you'll prepare and run through the tape in case the tape is further out by some little bit.

The brethren who seek the finish line tape will certainly come to understand it is further out by a lot. So far out that David C. Pack and those who worship him shall never see it in this lifetime.

All these doubts and uncertainties did not stop Dave from dropping a single hint of where they are heading next: Iyar 1 (April 17, 2026).

@ 26:09 The chag that Israel kept, the unicorn date we may be waiting was surely the next Sabbath of Iyar 1.Which, by the way, again, was not just a Sabbath, it was a new moon, and would make it really a chag. A double season of refreshing, if you will. I’m not saying that’s the date. But if it is the date, we ought to know which date we’re waiting for.

After he officially announces Iyar 1 as the unicorn date, there will be a sense of more certain uncertainty.

After 142 failures, it is hard to feel any empathy for the brethren of The Restored Church of God. David C. Pack needs to keep cranking out new dates just over the horizon to continue the impression of growth and better understanding.

One thing is certain: No one should feel uncertain about the perpetual failure of David C. Pack and the deceptive treachery of those who support him.

Marc Cebrian

See: Certain Uncertainty