The Interpretive Methods Employed

More from Ambassadors of Armstrongism:

Extreme Literalism

If a word itself is to mean anything, it must e defined in its normal use.  This is certainly a recognized principle of Biblical Interpretation. Words must be interpreted literally or one loses the valid base of interpretation.  This is not to say that a word might be taken figuratively if the context demanded it.

In Armstrongism, however, literal interpretation is sometimes taken to an illegitimate extreme in order to prove a point.  For example, it identifies the Christmas tree in Jeremiah 10: 2-6, and then uses this portion to prove that Christmas trees are condemned by God.

There is a perfect description of the Christmas tree, termed by the Eternal as "the way of the heathen -   the  custom of the people.'  We are commanded not to learn the way or follow it.

However, even a cursory reading of these verses reveals the subject to be idolatry of Israel and not Christmas trees.


"Knight-jump' Exegesis

In his excellent book The Four Major Cults, Anthony Hoekema the expression "knight-jump" exegesis to describe an interpretive method of the Jehovah's Witnesses.  It is also an apt description of Armstrongism.  In chess, the "knight' can jump over other pieces and move a total of three squares forward and to the side, landing on a square of a different color from that on which it started.  Armstrongism will sometimes jump from one part of hte Bible to another, bypassing contexts, in order to establish some teaching.  In his pamphlet on Armstrongism, Paul Wilson records an example of this method ion action.  In Matthew 19, Jesus told the rich young ruler  that he must sell all that he had if he were to really keep the commandments.  The young man was sadden by these words and Jesus then commented on riches.

Mr. Armstrong goes on in Mathew 19 to the 25th and 26th verses, and makes a false use of them.  H e connects the 127th verse to the 25th, as though the disciples said, "Who then can be saved?" when they heard Him refer the young inquirer to the ten commandments. The fact is, however, that in the intervening verses the Lord took up the case of riches as being a hindrance to man's entering the kingdom of God.  This was what amazed them, and not, as Mr. Armstrong says, How then can a man be saved if it is a matter of keeping the commandments?  That is not the subject, so Mr. Armstrong's use (vs 26) is in error.  It is a twist to make keeping the law for eternal life seem easy, with God's help.

One of the classic examples of the "knight-jump" exegesis in Armstrongism is to be found in the explanation of how the ten "lost" tribes got to England from Canaan.  Ephraim (Israel) was taken captive to Assyria.  Armstrongism then turns to Hosea 12:1 which states that "Ephraim followeth after the east wind."  Since an East wind travels west, therefore, it is reasoned that Ephraim went west from Assyria. Psalm 89:25, speaking of David's throne says, "I will set his hand in the sea."  The throne had to be planted west of Assyria in the sea.  Jeremiah 3:11, 12 records Jeremiah's commission to Israel: "Go and proclaim these words tot he north."  So the location of Ephraim is then stated to be towards the north, also west, an in the sea.  Isaiah 49:2 says Israel will come from the north and from the west, which means "northwest."  Isaiah 49:1 is said to teach that Israel is in the "isles."  Jeremiah 31:9, 10 is said to refer to Ephraim and Manasseh: "Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations and declare it in the isles afar off."  Therefore, Israel went afar off the northwest and dwelt in the isles (coastlines) of the sea.  This is the biblical evidence presented by Armstrongism to support its position.  A refutation is not in order here. The jumping from text to text with complete disregard for context is amazing to behold. The combining of totally unrelated passages is characteristic of "knight-jumping."


Neglect of Biblical Differences

This particular factor is more  than an error of omission rather than one of commission.  In the process of interpreting, the Worldwide Church of God evidences little knowledge of the fact that God has dealt with men differently in the history of mankind.  For example, a command given to Moses and Israel would not automatically qualify as a requirement imposed on the saints in the church of Ephesus.  The failure to discern some of these differences has its resulting confusion.  The Old Testament Prophets, especially Ezekiel, are seen directing their messages only to the church today. The messages of these prophets had almost no importance tot he people of their own day.  Any valid system of biblical interpretation acknowledges the historical situation of a particular message, though there are differences in an understanding of the full significance of many of these messages.  It is, of course, the British -Israelite theory which leads Armstrongism to blur these biblical distinctions.  The neglect of such distinctions enables the Worldwide Chruchof God to wrongly appropriate and apply old Testament truths in New Testament settings.

Misuse of "Double Fulfillment"

Throughout the literature of the Worldwide Church of  God, one reads about the "duality' and "dual fulfillment."  It is stated that throughout the Scriptures "there is usually a former, typical, and then antitypical fulfilment of many prophecies."  This concept has given Armstrongismexegete find a second fulfillment relating to the Untied States and Britain.

It is this kind of abuse that has caused some to shy away from the concept of double fulfillment as a hermeneutical principle.  However, it does have a legitimate place in biblical interpretation, because of the principle which is not nearly as flexible as one might think.  This principle is clarified by this statement.

The concept of double reference is not the Pandora's Box of Biblical Hermeneutics as some opponents would claim.  It is the failure of many to distinguish application from interpretation that has caused such an accusation to be leveled at the principle. To accept the law of double reference as a legitimate tool for interpretation of prophecy is not to open the door to all kinds of fanciful notions as to the hidden and allegorical meanings that might be alluded to in a prophetic passage.
To speak of the law of double reference is to speak of interpretation, not application.  Double reference is to one interpretation and manifold applications. It is one message for two audiences separated in time.

Armstrongism consistently fails to make this distinction and does much of the application, thus abusing a legitimate principle.

Allegorizing

When pressed by a potentially damaging passage of Scripture,the Worldwide Church of God has been known to leave its literal interpretation, which it loudly proclaims, and resort to allegorizing. For example, in the Book of Revelation (6:9-11), he Tribulation martyrs cry out to the Lord to avenge their blood. Now such consciousness after death does not fit into Armstrong theology, so it is said that these martyrs (who died previously) "allegorically are asking how long before the second coming of Christ and the end of the age."  One wonders how a person can allegorically   cry out.

This same approach to the Scriptures was observed as well in the previous discussion of Lazarus and hte rich man. "Abraham's bosom" was taken allegorically, without any justification, to represent Canaan in the millennium.

All evangelicals with a loyalty to the Scriptures realize that the Bible does employ figurative language.  Symbolic expressions are sued throughout, but the evangelical, whether amillennialist or dispensationalist, strenuously objects when theological bias is allowed to move interpretation into the realm of the absurd.  In the example of Lazarus and the rich man, only one with preconceived notions would see an earthly kingdom in these words of the Lord.  This is clearly an abuse of the symbolism and figurative language of Scripture.

after analyzing the interpretations of Armstrongism, one wonders how it can claim to simply be taking the Bible at face value and teaching "plain Bible truth."  The wrenching and twisting of Scripture goes on page after page in its writings, defying the hermeneutical principles built on grammatical, contextual and historical considerations.

It is the conclusion of non-Armstrongites that Herbert W Armstrong is the interpreter for the Worldwide Church of God.  After a person has read Armstrongite literature for a while, he notices a most interesting phenomenon. Unless the reader checks the author of the article he cannot guess who is writing, since all the staff writers sound alike. They ave the same basic writing style and they arrive at the same conclusions based on the same argumentations. There is obviously just one mind behind the interpretations.