The Jot, the Tittle and Liberalism:
The Retaining of the Law of Moses in Armstrongist Theology
By Neo
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Acts 15:5, KJV.
“Paul shows right here that Gods law is not abolished — that it is "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart" (II Cor. 3:3). God's laws — His commandments, statutes and judgments — are to be in our hearts — we are to live them by the power of God's Spirit.”
– Rod Meredith in “Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation?”
“GOD’S MESSAGE is NOT one of LICENSE, BUT one of OBEDIENCE. For God says, “One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5: 17-18). EVERYONE everywhere, who would live forever, MUST COME TO LIVE BY ALL THE LAW!”
– Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, Lesson 23, p. 3.
Armstrongist theology requires that the Mosaic Law kept by adherents to the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong. Not only must the Law of Moses be kept in toto but it is also written on the heart under the New Covenant. This means not only the preservation of the letter but any greater stringency that is exegeted out of, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount. Given this doctrinal position in Armstrongist theology, it is worthwhile knowing what Jesus was speaking of in Matt 5:18 – the jot and tittle verse. He was talking about nothing less than the full Mosaic Law – including not only laws, statutes and judgments but also ritual, sacrifices and other prescribed elements of liturgy. Further, the compliance with some of this litigation required the context of the Temple in Jerusalem. Required Temple worship was removed from Judaic practice in Rabbinical Judaism after 70 AD - not in the Bible.
Later, after the sacrifice of Jesus, both the animal sacrifices and the ministration of death were excluded from the New Covenant. So Jesus in Matt 5:17-18 was not speaking of the New Covenant law that would be instituted in the future for the church but the intact Mosaic Law that he kept when he was living under the Old Covenant. And the jot and tittle constraint immediately underwent revision after Jesus’ death. Other laws such as circumcision were magnified to become spiritual principles.
Rhetorically, why then would Armstrongists use Matt 5:17-18 that refers to a transitional and superseded condition pertaining to Jesus’ life on earth to move elements of the Mosaic Law into the New Covenant? For instance, Matt 5:17-18 is cited as part of the Armstrongist argument for retaining the Old Covenant tithing law as a New Covenant church requirement for salvation. But by using Matt 5:17-18 to retain tithing, Armstrongists make themselves doctrinally liable to keep the entire Mosaic Law – every jot and every tittle. They target tithing and the Sabbath and other select laws, for instance, but seem to almost inadvertently open the door to the full scope of the Mosaic Law as a requirement for salvation. Re-read the quotation from the Ambassador College Correspondence Course above.
The frightening (for Armstrongists) issue is that they have bound up their salvation in the keeping of the Mosaic Law in its full scope by misapplying Matt 5:17-18. Whereas, they have readily adopted tithing and the Sabbath, what about this law of equal status and written also on their hearts:
"Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!'” (Leviticus 13:45, NIV)
The term “defiling disease” is in Hebrew tzara’at. It is not clear what this means medically but the Jewish Study Bible analyzes it extensively and concludes that it refers to a “scale disease” or “surface affection.” It does not refer to leprosy. How many Armstrongists follow this law, for instance, when their teenagers develop acne? The only way you can get around this would be to claim that it falls below the threshold of being a jot or a title and, hence, can be disregarded. (Note: I see in this scripture the endorsement for using masks to prevent the spread of diseases – at least as translated in the NIV.) So here is an example of a law in the Old Testament, written on the heart and required for salvation, that no Armstrongist keeps.
So how do Armstrongists reduce the cognitive dissonance – the uneasy state of mind stemming from the discrepancy between what the Law of Moses states and what they actually do? From what I learned when I was an Armstrongist is that they resort to liberalism. They void the jot and tittle principle by brazenly modifying what Herman Hoeh taught was God’s eternal, moral law. This is a radical liberal approach. A conservative approach is to retain every jot and every tittle just as Jesus defined the scope. HWA many times used the term “liberal” as an epithet. One wonders why. A radical liberal revisionist approach is to believe that the Mosaic Law can be modified at will. So the jot and tittle principle is nullified and now Armstrongists can stay at a nice hotel rather than experience the rigors of a scripturally prescribed brush arbor. To make it clear, Jesus’ statement in Matt 5:17-18 encompasses the idea of staying in a brush arbor only. And so apparently for Armstrongists God’s Great Moral Law is not really so eternal after all. It only lasts until there is a need to change it for convenience.
55 comments:
As far as I'm concerned, trading in the brush arbor for a hotel room comes under the category of "what's bound on earth will be bound in heaven," Religious leaders have the God given right to make judgments on such technical issues.
As for tithing, when I fell behind on my tithing, I heard from the holy spirit. My personal experiences trumps NEOs interpretation of scripture.
Good post. Yes, HWA railed against liberalism and "watering-down" God's truth, and yet his theology was all about embracing parts of the Law and rejecting others! Armstrongism NEVER fully embraced God's law - even with things like the Sabbath and Holy Days!
After all, James did say "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." For those who are interested, I've posted a number of pieces on this subject within the last month:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-lords-appointed-festivals.html
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/09/christ-as-offering-and-sacrifice.html
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/09/christ-didnt-abolish-law-he-fulfilled-it.html
It's will be no surprise if all of the Armstrongists reject this truth. I used to wonder about the very functionality of their minds, basically reduced to rejecting all of the readily available information which could be used as checks and balances on the teachings of their leaders. At the time, they (we) seemed so not mainstream, I mean like really out of it, man! But now we see. People follow those whom they have embraced as leaders, even when those leaders either do not know what they are talking about, or are plainly lying. We have reached a point in the development of mankind when followers of a demagogue, or an agenda, believe a vehemently shouted lie, in spite of the actual facts which are as plain as the nose on one's face. This is what happens when one allows a strong man to control one's mind.
Somehow, I can't fathom how this abominable mentality has jumped from cults to one of the major political parties. If Armstrongism is any teacher at all, most of the infected ain't ever comin' back.
Neo, you’ve really out done yourself on this one. Are you willing to stand up for your twists, or will you cop out with your famous “bye” now? I suspect the later.
It’s time to challenge this misunderstanding of yours, or will the moderator keep protecting you. If not, let the facts begin.
So how DO you live your life in cool cold reality NEO as opposed to this Matrix life on a blog?
Ron Dart took apart any argument you pose here many years ago..
Antinomian theology cannot be correct.
However, trying to fit Mosaic Law into a modern era is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. The Law of God is referred to as a "light unto your feet". It certainly does reveal the mind of God on many issues.
With the help of the Holy Spirit, one must rely on its leading and good judgement in helping one to discern the will of God. For example, the Mosaic Law says to bury ones body waste with a shovel. No one does that today, but discernment says that God is implying that "you have to deal with this issue" and not just defecate anywhere. So the idea of a septic system or sewer to deal with it.
The reconcilliaton of all of this is a complex one. It is not simple, and has many loose ends for sure. Similar to the many calendar issues as well. Do the best you can , use wisdom, and come before God as an innocent seeker. We all surely error in one way or another.
The simplicity that is in Christ is complicated
Hey, 3:20, since you are schooled in the art of Dart, why don't you share his poignant points which you feel counter NEO? It does no good to the discourse here to merely allude to Ron's points. Bring them into the present! Put them to use, and allow NEO to address them.
Hi Anon 8.39,
To what degree can leaders "unbind" a direct commandment? What about the Sabbath? What about the day of Pentecost? I think if you read that "binding and loosing" verse you will note a few things: firstly it was said to the apostles and never explicitly or implicitly "passed down". Secondly if you read it is some other translation it says "bind what has already been bound in heaven". So rather than the leaders making an official judgement as the vicar of Christ on earth, God would make it clear His decision, and humans merely recognise it. Circumcision is a good example of this- the apostles and elders didn't unbind circumcision, God made it abundantly clear that this was His decision.
Or do we make it so?
Many times this B&L verse is used as a justification to make others "do what we say" and claim higher authority.
It IS exasperating that when “law” is mentioned in the NT it is not described in more detail in the verse. For clarification the terms “first law” and “added law” are discussed: the first law Abraham obeyed long before Moses – Gen 26:5. The first law is detailed in Exodus 20-23 but for the way of life back then. Tithing is not mentioned. Clean and unclean meats are not mentioned. Neither is “feast of trumpets”, the feast of tabernacles (!!), nor the 8th day. But three feasts are mentioned. The added law was added 430 years after Abraham left Ur because of transgressions of the first law – Gal 3:17-19 – but this added law, described partially in Hebrews 9:10 – was until the time of reformation – same verse – until Jesus came – Gal 3:19.
So what to conclude? Jesus had to be referring to the first law when He mentioned “jot and tittle”. He of course knew about “added law”. Which of some disputed laws are in the first law or added law is questionable. Here are some of my conclusions: three feasts are to be observed with the 14th passover as the first day of unleavened bread, and Pentecost, and the feast of ingathering without having to dwell in tree booths. But “trumpets”, atonement, and 8th day may indeed not be observed in the future, which are sabbaths and not feasts but all sabbaths and feasts are fixed appointed times (translated “feasts” in Lev 23:2). Not all laws in Leviticus but not in Exodus 20-23 are done away as indicated by the NT. Sex laws are still believed lawful – 1Cor 6:18 and other verses. Acts 10 shows clean/unclean meat laws are still valid; Peter learned not to call non-Jews “unclean”, not that you can eat anything. Tithing is now removed, were laws to support the Levitical priesthood but that priesthood no longer exists – Hebrews 7 - and there was no tithing in the “first law”.
Anonymous 8:39 wrote, "Religious leaders have the God given right to make judgments on such technical issues."
If Jesus himself stated "one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law," I am wondering where your "religious leaders" (I assume you are not including the Pope) get the authority (authority that exceeds that of Jesus) to change the law? I would think there is a solid case based on Matt 5:17-18 that the Law of Moses should be excluded from "loosing and binding." After all, Herman Hoeh wrote in an article titled "Which Old Testament Laws Should We Keep Today" that the Law of Moses was God's eternal spiritual law. Hoeh also wrote:
"God will not alter his spiritual laws. The spiritual laws describe the character of God."
(Bottom of page 2, last column)
And the passages dealing with loosing and binding do not identify a category of issues that are just "technical issues." You cannot see that an advertising guy from Des Moines altered the unalterable Laws of God because your mind is saturated with the radical liberal indoctrination that declares that a mere man may alter the laws of God. If God says sleep in a brush arbor and you say "No!" are you really sure that is the Holy Spirit you are communicating with?
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 3:20 wrote "Ron Dart took apart any argument you pose here many years ago"
What are you doing awake in the middle of the night? Doesn't that violate HWA's third law of success?
OK. Any argument? How about bringing me some of Dart's arguments? Otherwise, I will regard your statement above as just cheap talk.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NEO—
Which version of the AC correspondence course did you quote? As Bullinger said, it is important to be accurate when it comes to Bible things!
There is more than one version of the course, and only one version has your quote. Why should everyone have to go through several versions to find your pulled out quote to build a false case? Be specific.
I sent LCG a question to respond to their Q & A on Christians serving in the military. I asked pointed questions, but rather than answer them, they referred me to a publication, which didn't address my questions. Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy a sword? How could Cornelius, a soldier, be called a righteous man. If military service is to be avoided, how about the FBI, and all the other agencies that provide authority to use deadly force? Also, I asked them one time about the wearing of tassels. They love to pick and choose which laws they want to impose and refuse to answer specific questions. The use the passages that tend to support their views and ignore others which don't.
One of the laws of God is thou shalt not lie.
Tonto, you wrote "Antinomian theology cannot be correct."
I don't think you are suggesting that I am antinomian but just to clarify, I do believe that there is a Law to which Christians must be obedient. It is the Law of Christ as defined throughout the New Testament. It includes the 10 commandments and is similar in some respects to the Law of Moses but is not identical with it. The Law of Christ replaces the Law of Moses wholly.
In your second paragraph, you advocate discernment. I agree with this but it is important to recognize that this is a New Covenant viewpoint. In the Old Covenant religion and in Armstrongist theology, which professes the need for Christians to keep the Law of Moses, there is no role for discernment. It is a jot and tittle viewpoint as Jesus stated.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
HWA and splinter leaders spout convoluted logic for mandating some laws and refuting others. As well as copying CG7, Allen, Rupert, and others, HWA could well have looked into the law-avoiding methods of Progressive and Reform Judaism to explain his cafeteria style, cherry picking law selection. Or he could have looked at Philo and Origen, who considered the laws to be allegories.
From what HWA put in his autobiography, it appears laws had to "make sense" to him. For example, unclean meats: what's up with making someone "ritually unclean" and have to go through some waiting/washing/whatever process to return to "ritually clean"? So --- it must have been a "health" law. Now to him, that made sense - particularly as he followed some other health fads, such as the one that made him a "calcium man".
Anonumous 12:33 wrote, "It’s time to challenge this misunderstanding of yours, or will the moderator keep protecting you."
OK. Bring it.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Reading this NEO, I am trying to decide if this is the most juvenile thing you have ever written or should I try and defend Roderick C. Meredith or should I call you out for making Jesus Christ an outright liar.
Since it is late in the evening, Matt. 5:18 is a good place for a little bit of jurisprudence. You said: "Given this doctrinal position in Armstrongist theology, it is worthwhile knowing what Jesus was speaking of in Matt 5:18 – the jot and tittle verse. He was talking about nothing less than the full Mosaic Law – including not only laws, statutes and judgments but also ritual, sacrifices and other prescribed elements of liturgy."
If this is true then what verity is there in Christ's own words stating that, "Til heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law ...." because you then go on to explain that: "Later, after the sacrifice of Jesus, both the animal sacrifices and the ministration of death were excluded from the New Covenant. So Jesus in Matt 5:17-18 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] was not speaking of the New Covenant law that would be instituted in the future for the church but the intact Mosaic Law that he kept when he was living under the Old Covenant. And the jot and tittle constraint immediately underwent revision after Jesus’ death. Other laws such as circumcision were magnified to become spiritual principles."
Correct me if I am wrong NEO, but I see four wrongs in your interpretation of this verse. (A) The last I looked, heaven and earth have not passed away. (B) All things certainly have not been fulfilled (happened). (C) The jot and tittle does not refer to the full extent of the Mosaic Law. (D) Eisegesis never trumps exegesis especially when it comes to the very words of Jesus Christ.
Then there's the father of Christianity as we know it today: Saul of Tarsus
He proclaimed sabbaths, feast-days, new moons..done away - Colossians 2:16
1.06 PM
Thank you for responding to my 8.39 post. Matthew 18:18 "what things soever YE shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever YE shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The "YE" tells me that church leaders have been given responsibilities regarding technical issues. The spread of opinions on holy day dates is one example why such authority is needed.
If it's God simply passing down judgments as some translations imply, there is no need for the above wording. A more direct wording would have been more appropriate.
The "passed down" interpretation is part of many denominations church culture of treating members like literal children. I recall a 'Focus on the family' article that instructed married couples to immediately inform each other if they are physically attracted to another person. How humiliating. "Mummy, mummy, I saw this women and I was attracted to her. Please keep an eye on me so that I don't get up to no good." Treating members like untrustworthy children is an abusive cult ploy.
Rather, having been given God plane minds, God gives humans great responsibility. It's there in the parable of the talents. And no, these responsibilities aren't given exclusively to church leaders as in HWAs church culture. Talents are given to each INDIVIDUAL. And notice it says Christ goes off to a far country, ie, He is not a micro managing, helicopter parent.
9:34 said:
Then there's the father of Christianity as we know it today: Saul of Tarsus
He proclaimed sabbaths, feast-days, new moons..done away - Colossians 2:16
Actually, that verse says let no man judge you in those things. So, why are you judging them?
And, checking verse 17 in the Greek and other translations, we see it is the body of Messiah that does the judging.
So, that verse does not not say they were done away. Try the other verses.
Neoism has only two legs to stand on, neither of which is valid, “armstrongism/ist” and “bye.”
In “neoism” as in atheism, one must always denigrate the opposition in the eyes of the audience.
Ergo, use an epithet, or denigrating title.
Thus, for example, the Armstogists, implying someone who blindly follows a fool, because they are too dumb to think for themselves.
Now comes the attack, they only follow the law of Moses as interpreted by Armstrong, who never went to college, (but, don’t notice, he founded three colleges. But, ignore that, that was just a fluke. OF COURSE, none of us biased critics has even come close to building a mega multimillion dollar organization, annually, like he did. But, ignore that, it only came because he could force the ignorant to send him money without ever seeing or touching them.)
Never mind that, we know better than he did, he was just a high school drop out, but we know the Bible better, see how we can criticize all the coglydites. We can’t build anything big like he did, but see, he cheated and we don’t, we are just jealous because with all his blatant sins and faults he did what we can’t,, and we are better and have no sins because the law is done away. We are the good people, follow us. Or, was there something behind that Armstrong man that caused “his success.” Oh, never mind that, in fact ignore it.
Besides, this freedom to criticize is so much fun, it’s how we get our kicks in life. Otherwise we have nothing else to build up our self esteem esteem. Oops, ignore that.
The binding and loosing argument is absurd and contradicts many of Herbie's own statements on the matter. As NEO pointed out, Armstrong believed that God doesn't change, and that it was a grievous sin to add to or subtract anything from what God had required. However, his teachings about his own apostolic authority relative to binding and loosing are clearly inconsistent with these principles - talk about cognitive dissonance! Clearly, if it is wrong for one man to change the Christian day of worship from Sabbath to Sunday, it has to be wrong for another man to change the tree branch shelter to a Holiday Inn! NEO is absolutely correct. These folks are clearly advocating for the modification/alteration/rejection of some of the jots and tittles, and he is absolutely within his rights to ask "Where does that stop?"
Ron Dart believed and taught that the New Testament observance of the Sabbath and Holy Days was clearly different from what had been required under the Old Covenant. Hence, with Mr. Dart, we are definitely NOT talking about the wholesale transference of the old to the new. Once again, we are left with an argument that cherry-picks which provisions of the old are to be included as part of the requirements of the new.
Finally, although NEO is certainly competent to make his own points and arguments, I am compelled to point out the cognitive dissonance inherent in WHAT ABOUT THE TRUTH's arguments against his thesis. Yes, heaven and earth have not passed away. Are you suggesting that Christ meant that they would have to disappear for anything relative to the Law to change? And, if that is what you're saying, then how do you justify Christ's modifications of the Passover service or Moses' teaching on divorce? And, what will happen when heaven and earth do pass away? Are those provisions of the law eternal or not? Are you also suggesting that Christ didn't fulfill ALL of the requirements of the Torah Law? Are you suggesting that Christ didn't fulfill ALL of the prophecies relative to the work and mission of the Messiah? And, if you are saying that, then please explain why anyone should continue to regard him as the Messiah? Are you suggesting that Christ meant that the whole of prophecy must be fulfilled before any alterations to the Law's requirements will be permitted? If so, see some of the same previously addressed questions in this section. And, finally, if Christ's remarks about the jots and tittles did not encompass the entire Law, then please identify which elements are excluded and your rationale for excluding them! Yes, I agree that we should all be very careful in how we handle the words of Jesus Christ!
WHAT ABOUT THE TRUTH
Point by point:
(A) The last I looked, heaven and earth have not passed away
You tailored what Christ said to fit your argument. You omitted that important clause that states "not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law *until* all is accomplished (NRSV)." Jesus intended a replacement for the Law of Moses. He spoke later of the New Testament symbolized by his blood. Now who was it that made Christ to be an outright liar?
(Note: A salient point in this scripture is the intention of Christ to issue a new ethical code. The Law of Moses was to persist only "until all is accomplished." This demonstrates that Herman Hoeh's assertion that the Law of Moses was God's eternal spiritual Law is wrong. God would not be altering the eternal spiritual Law about which Hoeh elsewhere states in the same article states: "The spiritual laws describe the very character of God." and "God will not alter his spiritual laws."
(B) All things certainly have not been fulfilled (happened).
You will have to provide an exegesis for this, otherwise, I will be shadow boxing. In particular how do you exegete "fulfilled" to merely mean "happened." The use of happen creates an open ended process that essentially goes on for eternity. Events will always happen. If Christ's intended fulfillment date has not already passed then the First Century Church could never have transformed the physical act of Circumcision into a spiritual status.
C) The jot and tittle does not refer to the full extent of the Mosaic Law.
Yes, it does. Jesus' figure of speech could not be clearer. You have not supported this attribution to Jesus in any way.
D) Eisegesis never trumps exegesis especially when it comes to the very words of Jesus Christ.
I believe your response gives us a classical example of Armstrongist eisegesis. You have essentially rendered an eisegetic interpretation to support the mistaken idea that HWA and others can legitimately alter the Law of Moses. Hoss contributed a beautiful figure of speech in reference to HWA's approach: "...his cafeteria style, cherry picking law selection."
Your arguments do not fly although I think this is what commonly circulates around Splinterdom as doctrine.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Hoss wrote, "HWA could well have looked into the law-avoiding methods of Progressive and Reform Judaism to explain his cafeteria style, cherry picking law selection."
This is an important observation. While Armstrong/Hoeh asserted the necessity of the Law of Moses, they looked not to the Bible for their model of that law but to post-70AD Rabbinical practice. The Temple-less movement was begun just after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD by Yohanan ben Zakkai. Ben Zakkai was in the favor of Vespasian who endosred a movement to reorganize postwar Judaism (Harris, Stephen L., "The New Testament", 6th ed., p. 49) Ben Zakkai founded the Academy of Jamnia that created what is called formative Judaism. Essentially, Jewish religous leaders at Jamnia re-packaged Judaism to function without a Temple.
Jesus' "jot and tittle" statement referred to Temple Judaism. If Armstrongism wished to use Matt 5:17-18 as the raison d'être for bringing the whole of the Mosaic Law, jot and tittle, into the New Covenant, they were looking at the wrong model of the Mosaic Law. Instead of looking to the Temple-based Judaism of the Old Testament that Jesus obviously referred to, they looked to Temple-less and re-packaged Rabbinical Judaism innovated in the period after 70AD.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Watt,
If I may partially answer your question.
A) "Till Heaven and Earth pass away" was an idiom at the time, but more importantly it only kicks in IF all is NOT FULFILLED. So, if ALL is Fulfilled...then Heaven and earth need not pass away neither figuratively or literally.
B) Why has all not been fulfilled? Jesus came to earth to save whomever believeth in Him. This occurred with His "successful" life and His sacrifice on the cross. As He gave up the Spirit He said, "It is done!" I get goosebumps writing that.
C) Why does it not refer to the full Mosaic Law? Anyway, more than a jot and tittle of the Law changed after Jesus's sacrifice and proclamation "It is Done!" Circumcision, sacrifices, and the Levitical priesthood were three things that were explicitly done away which is far more than a jot or tittle.
So, as a jot and a tittle did change, it necessarily means that "ALL WAS FULFILLED" sometime between the Matt. 5:18 and the great changes in the Law listed above. Christ's Death and Resurrection occurred during that time. That was the ENTIRE FULFILLMENT of the purpose of Jesus's physical life and death.
Anonymous 1:37 wrote, "Which version of the AC correspondence course did you quote?"
One of the ones at http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/
The question of change control on the Correspondence Course is too complex to explore because there is likely no documented tracking of the changes and why. If you wish to assert the converse of the statement I cited, maybe you can find something. Then we can research why the inconsistency on such an important viewpoint that persists in its effects in Splinterdom today was introduced.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anon 9:34
If all the Apostolic scriptures (aka NT) are authentic, Peter was correct in writing that Paul's words can be twisted to appear to mean what they do not.
If your claim, based on a cursory, isolated reading of Col 2:16, is correct, Paul was a liar, and his Jewish brethren were correct in wanting to have him stoned.
Depending on your take on NEO's screed, that could also mean that Paul contradicted Jesus' words as well.
Anonymous 1:19 wrote, "Jesus had to be referring to the first law when He mentioned “jot and tittle”.
By the "first law" I understand that you are referring to the law in the time of Abraham and prior to Moses. Jesus was not referring to that law. Matthew 5:17 states:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Jews understand this use of the term "law" when coupled with "the prophets" to mean the Torah or the Law of Moses. See "The Jewish Annotated Bible New Testament", 2011, p. 10.
What Paul means by the term law is often a matter of carefully parsing the context.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
3.20 AM
In that case Ron Dart must have known that he was AWOL by joining a
splinter before HWAs death. He was a deserter.
Neo wrote:
The question of change control on the Correspondence Course is too complex to explore because there is likely no documented tracking of the changes and why. If you wish to assert the converse of the statement I cited, maybe you can find something. Then we can research why the inconsistency on such an important viewpoint that persists in its effects in Splinterdom today was introduced.
My post was not about change control. Nice diversion attempt.
My post was about accuracy, which was/is your responsibility if you are writing to convince others. All you had to do was quote the year, which was above the heading. Surely you would have quoted the vol. if it was the ency. brit. etc. So easy, but you messed up.
As to the converse, that wasn’t the question. Please be accurate.
“Human nature wants to be right, but it doesn't necessarily want to do right! So people often say, "Well, here's the way I look at it"- thus putting their concept of righteousness above the Bible. If it "looks right" to them, it becomes their law. This is nothing but self-righteousness. And we already know where doing what "seems right" to us will lead (Prov. 14:12; 16:25), unless we recognize the futility of this kind of thinking and repent of it.”
Ambassador Correspondence Course, Lesson 9, p. 11 (which one is on the site you mentioned.)
Trypho: Paul contradicted [gospel]Jesus
Not surprising as there were no gospels yet, Paul just had rough oral traditions.
When the Gospels came along, they had a totally different conservative slant.
Anonymous 12:54
Come back when you have something worthwhile to say.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Some background comments/thoughts:
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mt 17:20 ... for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a seed of mustard, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
“... “faith as a mustard seed” ... refers to the smallest possible amount (as the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds” [13:21-32]. Just that small amount of faith has unlimited potential and through God’s power makes everything possible... This point is driven home with the proverbial and hyperbolic analogy of moving mountains... Consideration of the context leads to the conclusion that the clause “nothing will be impossible” refers to the signs of the kingdom... There is furthermore the conditioning factor of the faith of the intended recipients of these signs (cf. 13:58), as well as - and most basic of all - the will of God itself” (Donald Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, p.505).
“iwra (“iota”) is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet but translates an underlying reference to the smallest Hebrew letter , the yod... We have here thus a deliberate hyperbole -an overstatement that is designed to drive home the main point that the law be fully preserved...” (Donald Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, p.106).
“The law is unalterable, but that does not justify its application beyond the purpose for which it was intended. To speak of a change in application of the law is not to regard it as now discarded” (R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, p.186).
The “law is dynamic and adaptable rather than static and rigid” (Roy Gane), that is, it can, according to ANE thinking, be “revised to fit changing social and historical circumstances” (Patrick Miller), without being in conflict with the law delivered at Sinai.
“A “high” view of the inspiration of Scripture was held by all, since God was seen as the ultimate author. The Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes, and other sects, including the Jesus movement, disagreed vigorously about how various passages should be interpreted and applied, but there was no disagreement at the theoretical level. The shared assumption of the rabbis and the authors of the New Testament is that “Scripture cannot be set aside” (John 10:36, NEB), because “all scripture is inspired by God” (II Tim 3:16). This theoretical “fundamentalism” did not inhibit innovations in interpretation that in fact departed radically from the strict letter of the law. Many of the prescriptions of the Mosaic code had become dead letters by the first century, including the majority of death penalty rules. It was thus possible for Matthew to affirm the categorical statement of verse 18 while himself exhibiting remarkable freedom in altering jots and tittles in his scriptural quotations...” (Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew, INT, pp. 47-48).
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
“It seems likely, therefore, that verse 19 was aimed by Matthew at radical Christians who challenged the authority of Scripture. If this is the case, however, it is significant that these radicals are not denied a place in the age to come but are simply assigned the lowest rank in the kingdom. Why? Because, for Matthew, the truest test of belonging to Jesus (and thus having a place in the kingdom) is ethical behavior (see 7:21-28). To reject the inspiration of certain passage of Scripture was, for Matthew, a serious theological error but not a mortal sin” (Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew, INT, pp.48-49).
“Brush arbors” - some background information/opinions (part 1):
Nu 24:5 How goodly are thy tents [’ohel], O Jacob, and thy tabernacles [mishkan], O Israel!
Lev 23:43 That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths [sukkot], when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
The Law of Moses reads:
Lev 23:40 And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs [peri, lit., fruit] of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.
Lev 23:41 And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.
Lev 23:42 Ye shall dwell [yashab] in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths:
Ne 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
Ne 8:14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:
Ne 8:18 Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God...
The late Rabbi Jacob Milgrom [Yaacov Avinu] commented:
“Regarding the use of the prescribed plants (v.40a), the matter is more complex. The case will be made that these plants were used in processions around the altar (see NOTE on “you shall rejoice before YHWH,” v.40b). If so, how could it viably be interpreted in the exile? To be sure, later Judaism had no difficulty in doing so. The circumambulations were resumed in the synagogue, and the central platform from which the Torah scroll was read substituted for the altar.... I surmise, therefore, that the altar circumambulations fell into desuetude, for there was no way of reviving them in the exile. Thus we can plausibly explain Ezra’s apparent bewilderment of how to interpret v.40 during his reading of the Torah to the assembled Jerusalem throngs on the second day of the seventh month (Neh 8:13). Without an exilic precedent and separated from Temple observance by a century and half, he made the understandable error of interpreting the command uleqahtem ‘And you shall take ‘the enumerated branches as construction materials for the booths (Neh 8:14-15)...” (Leviticus 23-27, AB, p.2038).
“As will be shown, the returning Babylonian Exiles clearly modelled themselves on the text of Lev 23:40, but they interpreted it in the light of v.42, namely, that the prescribed species of vegetation referred to the building materials of the booths. As I have maintained, this is not the plain meaning of the text: the object of taking these species is “you shall rejoice before YHWH” (v.40b) and refers to processions around the altar, as part of a larger ritual complex, to supplicate God for adequate and timely rains during the coming agricultural year...
“We know that the exiles’ interpretation was followed by many Karaites, and earlier by the Samaritans. That the controversy - processions or booths - raged for a long time is reflected among the rabbis... (Leviticus 23-27, AB, pp.2064-65).
“The command “you shall rejoice before YHWH” (v.40b) was therefore restricted to constructing and dwelling in booths for all seven days of the festival. To be sure, Ezra’s interpretation was subsequently overruled, since all sources agree that processions with the four species were resumed in the Second Temple...” (Leviticus 23-27, AB, p.2067).
Part 2
“To “rejoice before YHWH” always means the sanctuary. But how should one rejoice?... the command to rejoice follows and must result from the command to take the enumerated plants. What seems to be taken for granted in Scripture is made explicit by the rabbis:
“Each day they walked in procession (with the branches) around the altar and recited, “We beseech you, O Eternal, save we pray; we beseech you, O Eternal, send prosperity, we pray...” But on that day (the seventh) they walked round the altar seven times... When would they wave (the branches)? At “Praise the Lord,” at the beginning and at the end and at “We beseech you, O Lord, save us” (Ps 118:25a), the words of the school of Hillel. The school of Shammai says: also at “We beseech you, O Lord, prosper us” (Ps 118:25b; m. Suk. 4:5; 3:9)...” (Leviticus 23-27, AB, p.2043).
Ezr 3:4 They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the custom, as the duty of every day required;
Ezr 3:5 And afterward offered the continual burnt offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the LORD that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a freewill offering unto the LORD.
Ne 8:15 And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.
“It had been celebrated before, according to Ezra 3:4, while Ezra 3:5-6 implies its regular celebration. The issue was not whether is should be celebrated but rather how. In Ezra 3:4 the focus was on sacrificing, in line with Numbers 29. Here the account of Leviticus 23:39-43 is in view, particularly its prescription to commemorate the wilderness period after the exodus by camping in booths (vv.42-43), which the postexelic community had evidently not practiced. From this passage, the people extrapolated instructions for making the shanty structures. Leviticus 23:40 mentions fruit and branches, which the people were presumably to carry, as in later tradition. The people have reinterpreted these as materials for the booths, with necessary adaption according to availability. The eventual rejoicing in verse 17 also marks an implementation of Leviticus 23:40...” (Leslie C. Allen, Nehemiah, NIBC, p.127).
“... the concluding words - “as prescribed” (“written” kktwb) - demonstrates clearly that the words spoken are not intended as a literal quotation from the law, but are a summary of its contents... The text itself thus leaves adequate indications that we would be mistaken to look for these words as a direct citation of the law... the continuation of the narrative shows that there has been a subtle shift from an account of what was “found written” to an account os what the leaders actually did about it...
“We may conclude, therefore, that Ezra’s teaching concentrated on Lev 23, though with influence from Deut 16, and that, despite the lack of verbal correspondence, there is no need to look further for the text of the Law.
“Palm” and “leafy trees” are found also in Lev 23:40, but not the other trees mentioned, while Lev 23:40 itself contains others not mentioned here. If our general analysis above is correct, however, this should pose no difficulty. The present proclamation is dealing with materials for making of booths, and thus need not be expected to correspond with the separate stipulation concerning produce for the festival” (H.G.M Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC, p.295).
Earl writes:
“Circumcision, sacrifices, and the Levitical priesthood were three things that were explicitly done away which is far more than a jot or tittle.”
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Reading the Bible, informed by ancient Near Eastern rhetoric (though seeing through a glass darkly), this is not a conclusion I draw.
Ac 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Ac 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
My understanding is that the promise of consolation to Jeremiah, when the twin pillars of the Israelite theocracy were toppling, will be fulfilled in the future:
In those days [the Millennium] ... the LORD says: ‘... the priests, who are Levites ... [will never] fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices [zebah]’ (Jeremiah 33:16-18).
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
(For Millennial circumcision see Eze 44:7).
Colossians 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"
The rest of the statement is: "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body (substance) is of Christ."
The first part above is a declarative statement. It tells you about something you should not permit to happen, that is, let others condemn you for keeping Jewish observations. The second part is an explication. It tells you why. The substance is Jesus. The Jewish dietary laws and calendar rituals listed are just shadows - meaningful shadows but nevertheless shadows.
Armstrongism has reversed Paul’s statement. The shadows have become the substance - on the critical path to salvation. And Jesus has become the shadow. One could not expect otherwise with a pre-occupation with the Law of Moses. Paul said to the Circumcision Party, an early forerunner of Armstrongism: "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
There is no condemnation for people who wish to keep the Jewish dietary laws and calendar rituals in a cultural or heuristic way. No doubt many Jews in the First Century Jerusalem church did do just that. Paul is saying the observations are not a big deal; we all know they are just shadows. Others (probably Gentile Christians) might condemn you because they think you believe salvation is in these shadows. What is wrong is to make the keeping of these observances to be requirements for salvation. Salvation is exclusively in Jesus. If you read verses 8-23 you will see that the topic of this passage is the salvation that comes through Jesus.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Neo wrote:
“Come back when you have something worthwhile to say.”
Ah, so here we have the second leg of neoism, a subtle twist to “bye.”
In the meantime, for the rest who are searching for the full truth, let’s ask a question I’ve never heard asked before.
When the NC ekklesia was begun, Acts 2, the temple was still standing and in operation, right?
Ok, did the disciples give their tithe to the temple, or the ekklesia?
Did they pay two tithes? One to the temple and one to the ekklesia?
Where is there an actual verse that gives an example of giving the tithe to the ekklesia?
Verses show they gave to the ekklesia but nothing shows they gave an actual tithe.
Also, when did the apostles ask for the temple to grant corporate status, or the State?
When did the ekklesia get instruction from the Bible to have presidents, vice-presidents, etc?
I’m sure we will see the same old justifications, but where are the actual example verses?
Miller, you ask me many questions of me. Since you have castigated me as a cognitively dissonant fundamentalist, you should already know what all my answers would be. How about going about the worthy exercise of answering those questions and thereby take the opportunity to elevate yourself and your standing on this blog.
Neo, I find it intriguing that your answers in the discourse of debate are obstinate and obstructive.
This was your article NEO, why wouldn't you substantiate in any way your theory that Christ was talking about the whole of the Mosaic law. Who is tailoring what Christ said to fit the argument?
You ask me this: "how do you exegete "fulfilled" to merely mean "happened." Again NEO, I didn't write this article - you did, and I would have expected that you would have at least looked at the original Greek word. Fulfill is not the correct interpretation - read it for yourself.
For another why, why do you use two apposing statements to form a conclusion in your introduction and not see and plainly describe the false scriptural exuberance using II Cor. 3:3 by R. Meredith?
You have created nothing but a juvenile mess here and what conclusion are we to come to with that?
By the way NEO, your not on a island. Obviously you don't know, but you too are indeed a self entity Armstrong Splinterest - welcome to the club!
NEO
How can a brush arbor rather than a hotel room be a law? We are not talking about a law of physics or chemistry. Christ said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath, so He can allow a hotel instead of a brush arbor.
Why is it that I feel that this parallels the Pharisee's criticizing Christ for healing on the Sabbath?
Hey Earl: I like the way you write and you've got the facts.
As you cited, Hebrews 7:12 is the corollary verse to the jot and title passage.
I also appreciate how you explained the phrase till heaven and earth passes away.
You should write an article; your style may be better received than offerings from those with an unpleasant reputation.
Anonymous (11:59), wrote "Why is it that I feel that this parallels the Pharisee's criticizing Christ for healing on the Sabbath?"
I am not sure why you feel that way considering that such a conclusion is irrelevant. A brush arbor is not a law - it is a brush arbor. A hotel room is not a law - it is a hotel room. There is a law in the Bible that specifies the keeping of the FoT. It is not a physical law like the laws of physics and chemistry but a law given through Moses specifying ethical behavior. That law prescribes a brush arbor.
Christ can allow a hotel rather than a brush arbor but he didn't. That decision was made somewhere within Armstrongist organization. Armstrong/Hoeh have made a very strong case for the idea that the Law of Moses is God's eternal spiritual law and that it is inviolate. That it is the very reflection of God Himself. That it is written on the heart of every true Christian. This is a argument intended to support the observance of the Sabbath, the Holy Days and tithing principally. But when a law imposes a requirement that is undesirable, the Armstrongist organization revises it. Moreover, much of the Law of Moses is simply ignored. Suddenly the law is not so important, not so immutable, not so spiritual and not so reflective of God Himself. All of that idealism is subordinated to practical organizational goals and purposes.
To argue that loosing and binding applies to God's eternal spiritual law that reflects God Himself, is to set a precedent for men to abrogate anything that God has decreed at will. I think you must see the legal issue. Suddenly, there is no "one and only true church", no truth, no law, no valid ministry. There is only a collection of men revising anything and everything at the putative inspiration of Christ.
This is an enormous, show-stopping issue for Armstrongism. The issue is "Is the Law of Moses the currently operative law of God or is it not?" Christianity does not have this issue because it is understood that the Law of Moses has been abrogated by Jesus and replaced by the Law of Christ. Armstrongism is left to pick out expedient parts of the Law of Moses - a corpus of litigation that both Jesus and Paul argue is to be intact - based on who knows what policy. Armstrongists speak of "the Law" but it must be understood that it is not the Biblical Law of Moses but the latter day Armstrongist rendition of the Law of Moses. It might be appropriately labelled that Law of Armstrong - a liberalized version of the Law of Moses. This is the same thing the Circumcision Party did in the First Century. The same thing that Paul passionately opposed.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
WHAT ABOUT THE TRUTH,
I was interested in your reaction/answers to the questions I posed. Is this a new way of saying "Bye"?
NEO
The Pharisee's added about 1500 rules to what can and can't be done on the Sabbath. Next we have your slippery slope fear that chaos will be result if technical changes are made on Sabbath/holy days keeping.
Believe it or not, there is the narrow gate at which some technical changes can be made without the sky falling down.
You also ignore that the holy spirit can make it known whether such changes are acceptable or not.
I have been corrected many times by the holy spirit, but never for staying in hotel rooms rather than brush arbors.
This is similar to the late James Malm insisting that eating out at restaurants on the Sabbath was a sin.
I wrote to him several times pointing out that the holy spirit never rebuked me for doing so. He just ignored me.
NEO @ Oct 18 8:41 AM wrote "Anonymous 1:19 wrote, "Jesus had to be referring to the first law when He mentioned “jot and tittle”. By the "first law" I understand that you are referring to the law in the time of Abraham and prior to Moses. Jesus was not referring to that law".
OK. But anon 1:19 also wrote the first law was Ex 20-23. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It's very doubtful the laws of Gen 26:5 were way different than Ex 20-23.
Anonymous 10:30 wrote, "Next we have your slippery slope fear that chaos will be result if technical changes are made. . ."
I do not have a "slippery slope" fear at all. I am a mainstream Christian so in my mind the Law of Moses is obsolete and has been replaced by the Law of Christ. And I do not believe there is a slope at all for that matter. Either you believe that the Law of Moses is operative or you don't. Armstrongists believe in the former and I believe in the latter proposition. It is not a matter of degree but, rather, a binary decision. "We believe in the Law of Moses a little" doesn't fly. Christ said it was operative at the jot and tittle level - down to the punctuation marks.
I am not sure what you mean by "technical changes." This doesn't seem to be a concept that has any kind of Biblical foundation. Does this mean that staying in a hotel rather than a brush arbor is acceptable because of the technologies involved in modern hotel living? I don't see any reason to believe this. Maybe you mean "technicality" in the sense of something that isn't a big deal. You would have to then explain how something even very small woud not violate the jot and tittle rule.
The "narrow gate" that you speak of is, I believe, imaginary. Jesus made no such claim for the Law of Moses in Matt 5:17-18. There is no open portal through which you can enter and change eternal spiritual law. Herman Hoeh said, again, "God will not alter his spiritual Laws." If God will not alter these laws why do you believe that men can - even with the pretext that it is only a little "technicality"? This is rank liberalism.
I have never understood the rationale behind eating in a restaurant on the Sabbath. I have done so because I felt that someone in the authority chain did the necessary research and exegesis to determine that it is acceptable. Now I feel that my confidence in those shepards was not well placed. To me eating in a restaurant on the Sabbath seems to be an act of participating in the greater Babylon of our society that does not acknowledge the seventh day. Another place where liberalism holds sway. I am not a Sabbatarian so this for me is a philosphical/theological musing.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
716,
No evidence of tithes for Christian believers. In fact, Paul did not go to the Law and the law of tithing for support when he was preaching the Gospel and said that it was his right to ask for monetary help. Paul knew that tithing was no longer in effect with the end of the Levitical priesthood.
Instead he goes to Isaiah and a principle that you should not muzzle an ox that is working for you. So, it was a principle of giving, not tithing. But, Paul didn't press the point and still made tents.
They don’t like Lev-13:45 so it’s done away! But in its place the “king” inserted 3-1/2” heels max and white shirts only! So it’s all good!
Above is referring to the PCG
Some musings on the terms of the New Covenant:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-new-covenant.html
Post a Comment