Is It Appropriate to Appropriate Prophecies Intended for Israel?
Alright, so you've demonstrated that Armstrong's brand of Anglo-Israelism is NOT consistent with Scripture, but what about America as a type of Israel? After all, didn't the founders of the United States see themselves as God's "chosen" people? And didn't they regard themselves as planting a "Christian" nation in the wilderness of a new "Promised Land"? Isn't it reasonable to assume that God would hold the United States and its leaders to the same standard that he instituted for ancient Israel and its leaders? Haven't the English-speaking nations of the world embraced Israel's Bible and been its greatest proponents around the globe? So, isn't the entire question of whether or not the English-speaking peoples of the earth are the physical descendants of Abraham irrelevant?
Herbert Armstrong and his followers have traditionally regarded Anglo-Israelism as the key to understanding Bible prophecy. Indeed, they think that this "understanding" gives them a "prophetic advantage" over all other Christians! Moreover, these folks have used this teaching to justify their focus on the English-speaking folks of the earth! Hence, we should not be surprised that Armstrongites would be extremely reluctant to give up something which has proven to be one of their trademarks - one of the things that has set them apart from the crowd!
However, it is as they say: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. In order for someone or something to by a type of someone or something, there must be some clear and convincing parallels/similarities between the two. Hence, it is entirely appropriate to point out that the United States is very different from ancient Israel. To begin with, there are the obvious differences between a Bronze-Iron Age, agrarian-based economy and a modern, industrialized, technologically advanced nation. The big differences relative to size of the population, territory, and military power of the two nations is also rather glaring. Likewise, Israel was an absolute monarchy with a state religion, and the United States is a democratic republic which has eschewed the establishment of a state religion. Israel was a party to a formal covenant/agreement with God and was subject to the terms outlined in the Torah, and the United States is governed by a constitution which is more in the nature of a contract/covenant between the people and their government. Israel was subject to the imperialism of its much stronger neighbors throughout its history as a nation, while the United States has actively participated in the Imperialism which engulfed the Western World in the 19th and 20th Centuries! Israel was guilty of idolatry and breaking the terms of their covenant with God, and the United States has been accused of killing its unborn, tolerating homosexuality, and racism by its critics. In other words, there are some very profound differences between the ancient nation of Israel and the modern nation of the United States!
What about the similarities in the religious and political leadership of ancient Israel compared to that of the United States? Aren't the abuses of power, lying, hypocrisy, wickedness, and bad examples exhibited by the leaders of ancient Israel also present in the religious and political leadership of the United States? Yes, but couldn't we characterize the leadership of every other country on the face of the earth in exactly the same way? Moreover, very unlike ancient Israel, the people of the United States can periodically vote to remove their leaders and replace them.
In terms of the Hebrew Bible, we should also point out that the entire Western World has adopted that book! Hence, the suggestion that the United States and other English-speaking nations are unique in this regard is shown to be absurd. Indeed, Christianity has the MOST adherents of any other religion on the face of the earth! Also, in this connection, we must not forget that Judaism is an active religion, and that a nation of Jews named "Israel" currently exists within the boundaries of the ancient nation of the same name!
I would also point out that one of the primary rules of biblical interpretation is CONTEXT. How do we justify taking something that was clearly addressed to a particular people in a specific time and place and applying it to someone else in another time and place? Moreover, if we are serious about trying to find a place for the United States in the context of biblical prophecy, isn't the Babylonian/Beast system of the book of Revelation infinitely more appropriate? Take a look at Babylon as a prophetic template and let me know what you think!
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix
The phrase "cultural misappropriation" did not exist during HWA's lifetime. Today, it is a "thing". Think of the teenage white girl up the street suddenly appearing with her hair done in corn rows! And her Mom, always sensitive to the latest trend, following that example a couple of weeks later! Even if in their heart of hearts they sincerely wish they had been born black, the corn rows constitute cultural misappropriation.
ReplyDeleteSo deeply engrained was HWA's cultural misappropriation of things Jewish that most of us who were once members of his church diligently searched for Jews in our own family trees! Especially ones named Cohen (allegedly the Levites).
To this day, in spite of my common sense attack back in 1975, I still largely self-identify as a Jew, even though I left Armstrongism behind. I mean, when you think of it, that was pretty much our culture, wasn't it?
Anti-American as well as anti-God no surprises. I'd throw in a huge dose of Anti-semitisim as well.
ReplyDeleteHow are you doing with the hate that dwells within you ?
Let me guess, Jesus was born in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, laid in a manger as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry brought gold, frankinscence and myrrh, led by the sign of an eagle named Small Government.
DeleteIf anything, the oracles of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, etc that the COGs harvest as prooftexts in the name of "duality" make for a modern-day warning against trying to predict world events. In both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the monarchy's end was brought on by gambling on Egypt's ability to push back the Assyrians and the Babylonians. They were "watching world events" and thought Egypt was going to come out on top. And they were wrong.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of WW2, it was the American navy that enforced the freedom of navigation for all international shipping. By contrast, all nations blundered each others merchant ships during the 17th and 18th century. This hardly sounds like America is some type of babylon.
ReplyDeleteWhen American military power collapses in the near future, this and many other freedoms that most take for granted, will no longer exist. Those who consider America an oppressive power will find out what real oppression looks like.
Miller:
ReplyDeleteInteresting essays. Your writing on this topic has caused me to reflect on how the Bible comprises many themes and templates. I think G.G. Rupert and Herbert W. Armstrong in their pursuit of BI missed an important theme that is related to what you have written.
You stated, “Israel was guilty of idolatry and breaking the terms of their covenant with God …”. Ancient Israel lived under a Deuteronomic system. This system is expressed in laws of the form of “if you (Israel) do this, then I (God) will do this.” For instance, “if you obey, then I will bless you.” And what happens to Israel, if they do not obey, is the same thing that happened to Adam and Eve. They are separated from the land, land which is a major part of their blessing, and they are driven or taken into exile. This template was applied to both Israel land later Judah and yet later after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD. But it was foreshadowed in Genesis by the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.
But in the NT, the Deuteronomic system – laws and national penalties such as exile - no longer holds sway. Instead, we have a system of grace, mercy and forgiveness. In the NT, God does not talk about sending his church into exile. Punishments are mentioned but they are not the draconian, broad-scale punishments of the Deuteronomic system. The first hint that the Deuteronomic system did not describe reality was in the Book of Job. Jobs friends rendered up many Deuteronomic judgments against Job, Job denied culpability and God said in the end that Job was right. And God forgave Job whatever missteps he may have taken in his self-defense. But was angry at his lawyerly friends.
Rupert and Armstrong seemed to have missed the break between the OT and the NT, between the Deuteronomic and grace, entirely. They simply perpetuated the OT ethics and methodologies into the NT era. HWA was strong on the Law but seemed to regard grace as a kind of infirmity. Grace is hardly mentioned in the Mystery of the Ages, yet it is the hallmark of Christianity. The real mystery of the ages is how HWA could read the NT and never stumble across grace. He does propound an anemic version of grace, gutted of any real substance. But grace is what distinguishes Christianity from the many other rule-based religions developed by humankind.
Oran
Anonymous Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 11:58:00 PM PST,
ReplyDeleteExactly! Anglo-Israelism is very anti-American - trying to convince the people of the United States that God is taking away their blessings and is about to drop the bomb on them and lead them away into captivity. It is also anti-God - perverting Scripture and the Gospel message and making God a petty player on the current world stage (propping up human thrones and governments and manipulating the bad guys to do his bidding. Moreover, your point about the antisemitism in that culture hit the proverbial nail on the head - discounting who the Jews are and what they've accomplished and elevating English-speaking folks as the true Israelites! And, finally, your question is the precise question which all supporters of this pernicious doctrine should be asking themselves - their hatred for other Christians, critics of their heretical teachings and progressives/liberals is deep-seated and visceral!
The MOST important sentence in your great article, Lonnie, is the fact that Israel entered into a covenant with God. No other nation on earth has done that. It is NOT transferable. No other nation was present on that day, with a representative (Moses) going between God and the people of that nation.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot enter into a covenant with God, thousands of years later, just because your founder thought he found a gimmick. America is neither Israel nor any of the lost tribes. It is a gentile nation, whose founders may have wanted to represent God faithfully, but that still does not turn it into a covenant relationship. Sorry COGs...HWA really sold you a pig in a poke on this one. Believing that huge lie of HWA was/is an enormous mistake. Israel is Israel. Everyone else is considered a gentile nation. Reading your Bible with that in mind will be a game changer....I hope!
Thanks for this article, Lonnie. To me, this is incredibly important for cog members to understand and, hopefully, get out of cogdom and enter the grace/rest of Jesus!
The church has continuously appropriated Judaism to fit its needs. It is just that now there is a name for it and it is blatant. Look at how we took on the observance of Jewish days as a path to salvation instead of following Christ. We were so good at pretending we were Jewish that we put the Jewish people to shame, though, at this point in time, we all know what a sham our pretending has been.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 9:37
ReplyDeleteThe WCG seemed to have a sprinkling of Judaism weenies. I have never really understood it. It was like they wanted to out-Jew the Jews. I think it may have been driven by lingering doubts about BI. If you could imitate the Jews, maybe that would give BI greater cred by some odd logic.
There were those in the Big Sandy realm who did adopt an anti-Semitic stance. They read Koestler, I think. The Ashkenazi stuck in their throats. Rader was an Ashkenazi, I think.
And the Ashkenazi are really mixed Jews - they are from 30 to 70 percent European. So, Armstrogists are not all Judeophilic.
I took a genetic test and discovered that I am part Jewish. The biology doesn't really mean a lot in Christian terms. It is nice to think of myself as descended from Abrham, Isaac and Jacob with all the historical and literary connections. But what is important is that I am a spiritual descendant of Abraham and a spiritual Jew though Christ. That part of the picture never seemed to play well in Armstrongist congregations. The flesh seemed to always be more important than the Spirit.
A few thoughts. The "it is as they say" comment misquotes Carl Sagan, who noted “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (referred to by some as ECREE) which was a general appeal to skepticism (also, Sagan used "required," not "demand" - substantive difference). This oft-misquoted phrase was made popular by Sagan who reworded a principle noted by French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace. This principle asserts that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” Other authors note flaws/inconsistencies in Sagan's extrapolation: "As in the case of extraordinary claims, there is no clear distinction between what constitutes ‘ordinary’ evidence and what constitutes ‘extraordinary’ evidence."
ReplyDeleteThe authors of the Banned column might also consider that while they assert that the collective assumptions of COGs reflect some form of a post hoc fallacy in a form of superstitious or "magical" thinking (where coincidences and unrelated events are assumed to be connected), they themselves seem to reflect the same line of reasoning. This seems to be particularly evident in the comparisons and contrasts between modern Western nations and ancient Israel. Many commentators, including those of a secular persuasion, would recognize (even assert) that humans have not advanced much in universal ethical and fair behavior (the current Ukrainian situation serving as a sadly poignant example).
As a side note concerning Sagan, it might be of interest to note that he was the son of an Ukrainian immigrant father and his parents were Reform Jews in Brooklyn (Sagan and his sister said of their mother: [she] "definitely believed in God, and was active in the temple...and served only kosher meat"). Many erroneously assume/believe that Sagan was an atheist, which is not strictly true (if at all). As he said in 1981: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence." He certainly was no proponent of a generalized Western-influenced "god," but he did find meaning beyond rational science: "when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual."
I would also point out that one of the primary rules of biblical interpretation is CONTEXT.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would like to point out that giant hypocrites like Miller Jones take the whole bible out of context. Put it in the context of the pagan world the Jews lived in, and it is impossible to miss the fact that dishonest rabbis merely STOLE it from pagans (whom they pretended to be morally superior to) and twisted the pagan myths and created fake histories out of them.
The Bible (James, Peter John, Paul) They all talked about inheriting an imperishable crown, or a crown that doesn't fade away. But the COGs are primarily focused on the British crown. Like that's the actual goal or look to.
ReplyDeleteArmstrongism gets very close to christian white nationalist. It's sad.
But what about King Gerald when he ascends to the throne of England with Herbert's Rock?
ReplyDeleteLoonie Lonnie said, "How do we justify taking something that was clearly addressed to a particular people in a specific time and place and applying it to someone else in another time and place?"
ReplyDeleteMY COMMENT – What a ludicrous statement! It's really simple Lonnie. It's called learning from history and understanding what happened in the past so that past mistakes are not repeated in the future.
Lonnie Loonie continues to beat the dead horse of British Israelism to death. By his many posts on this subject matter here on Banned, one could say Loonie Lonnie seems obsessed with beating the dead horse to death. One might even say he has an extreme obsession or might be practicing "extremism". I invite Loonie Lonnie to review the generic definition of extremism that he posted last year in reply to me - after he refused multiple times to answer which of my stated beliefs constituted "extremism" - and tells us why his generic definition doesn't apply to Lonnie's BI obsession. Pot meets kettle!
One doesn't have to believe in British Israelism to learn from the historic experiences of ancient Israel. For example, Deuteronomy 13:1-4 describes the test of false prophets addressed to ancient Israel at a specific time/place in the Old Testament. Yet, here on Banned, we apply these Old Testament scriptures to contemporary people in another place and time right here in America. We do it regularly here on Banned in reference to the Common thief Dave Pack and the dreamer of dreams loser Bob Thiel. I could give other examples.
The Old Testament is in the Bible for a reason. Lessons can be learned. One doesn't have to believe in British Israelism to learn and appreciate the history. I liked Tonto's comment to one of the many Loonie Lonnie blithering posts on this subject which he quoted from Ron Dart (I remember Dart before the toupee or hair transplant if that is what it was, lol). According to Tonto, Dart said something to the effect that the Old Testament gives us insight into how God thinks. There is truth, and smack's Lonnie Lonnie's ludicrous statement as a false statement.
Richard
Well, I see loonie Richard is back to being a jerk. There ware ways to disagree and be decent, you apparently lack that skill.
ReplyDelete@1:04: Dude! He learned this from his idol! Remember, Richard has stated in past posts that he is promoting and wants to see the reelection of Donald Trump! He's gone after Lonnie because Lonnie has made it perfectly obvious that he sees through former President Trump. Even many of the Evangelicals have turned on Trump because he threw Mike Pence (one of their own) under the bus and really endangered him on January 6.
ReplyDeleteIn geopolitics, it is always possible to learn from history. I do not think that Miller is talking about that simplistic and long appreciated case. He is talking about whether or not it is valid to apply the detailed story arc of ancient, Biblical Israel to the modern USA. Anyone in a college class on government would agree that the OT story arc contains useful general elements. Politicians quote the Old Testament in speeches. The Afrikaners see themselves as a latter-day instantiation of the OT Israel model and justify racial segregation based on fundamentalist OT interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, the USA is a very different nation from ancient Israel as Miller points out. We have a very different population composition and function in a very different global context. How valid then will be the proscriptions of Deuteronomy or the predictions of Isaiah? There is a tension between the precise imprecations of prophecy as interpreted in Armstrongism and the chain of events comprising the national life of the modern USA. The means of integrating ancient Israel with the USA, in history and theology, is the idea that the majority of the population in the USA is descended from the ancient Israelites. Now we know that this is solemn malarkey. We have the attestation of science, notably genetics. Science resolves this debate in favor of viewing the OT prophecies concerning Israel as ancient wisdom literature (now that it has been superseded by Jesus and the NT) rather than the Armstrongist view that we are "reading tomorrow's headlines today." We aren't and we never have been. The empirical data is in. Failed prophetic interpretation after failed prophetic interpretation.
He is not looney Lonnie (sounds like a boilerplate trope generated by the Great Orange Prevaricator) but rather realist Lonnie. There is, in fact, a real disjunction between Armstrongist interpretations about ancient Israel and the modern-day USA. This has resulted in an accumulation of failed prophecies. Hard to argue with, that. The loonies are the people who suck oxygen from the fantasy world of BI, conspiracies and mythology as history.
Oran
Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:02:00 PM PST,
ReplyDeleteFor those of us who still believe in the ten commandments (or ten suggestions as some here on Banned may believe), Deuteronomy 5:7-10 makes very clear we are to have no other God’s or idols before the true God. I deny your false allegation that Trump is "my idol". Please see Deuteronomy 5:20. Another example of the Old Testament Sinaitic Law applicable beyond ancient Israel to many countries today including America (i.e. civil and criminal laws against stealing, murder, committing perjury, and adultery in alimony cases). Another example of belief in British Israelism as being irrelevant in applying these Old Testament Laws to today’s world.
Your comment actually contained two false allegations that “He learned this from his idol”. Long before President Trump ran for President in 2016 as a complete outsider, I ran for Mayor of my hometown, a medium size City in 1992. Like Trump, I had no political experience. I made the unelected City Manager’s incompetence a primary campaign issue. His name was Moore. In the two years leading up to the 1992 City election, I re-titled and always referred to him as “City Mis-Manager” Moore at City Council meetings. Even the newspapers at the time took note of my public re-titling of the City Manager. It caught on and others did the same publicly at City Council meetings. Throughout my personal life and in my public and corporate life, I have had on occasions to label people for what they truly are - such as Loonie Lonnie. I didn’t learn this from Donald Trump. I can say it was the other way around, but I know that that isn’t true since I am sure Trump has never heard of me. BTW, while I lost my Mayoral campaign, my campaign did set a City record for most votes garnered against an incumbent Mayor in City history at the time and I am credited for ousting the City Manager as he resigned shortly after that election.
I do want to give you credit where credit is due! You had the guts and integrity which Loony Lonnie didn’t and still doesn’t have to this very day when Loonie Lonnie FIRST SMEARED ME last year as practicing “extremism”. I was smeared by Loonie Lonnie because of my support for Trump’s POLICIES. This is why he refused to answer me more than three times about which of my stated political beliefs (which align with Trump’s POLICIES) justified his smear. I honestly wanted to know. He couldn’t and would answer, and finally he came up with his generic definition of “extremism”, which as I read it, fits Loonie Lonnie more than it fits me. Loonie Lonnie is a hypocrite! This is what people of Loonie Lonnie’s political persuasion do. If you don’t support Hillary Clinton’s POLICIES, then they smear you as sexist. If you didn’t support President Obama’s POLICIES, then they smear you as a racist. If you vote for Donald Trump, then you’re NOT Black and you are an extremist. The Loonie Lonnie’s of the world can’t debate on POLICY as he demonstrated last summer, so they smear you. I thank you for having the guts that Lonnie didn’t have by highlighting why Loonie Lonnie smeared me.
This website is about our experiences in Armstrongism. When I left the WCG to the estrangement of my family in 1976, I told my family, “I am not the weak of the world. I am not a base thing”. In the intervening years since then, perhaps my character has lived up to the "Richard the Lionhearted" moniker for my name. I did not and I do not allow anyone to smear me and go unanswered as Loonie Lonnie did FIRST or allow anyone to walk all over me. Perhaps this is why I rose to senior management and Executive ranks for the companies I worked for - because I wasn't afraid to confront ISSUES. My character would not have been compatible with the subservient status – a tithe slave doormat to an entitled WCG Ambassador College ministerial class - and I simply would not have taken whatever the WCG ministry dished out as coming directly from God. I wasn't afraid of their fear religion.
Richard
This comes off as bloviated whining,, not the flex you think it is.
DeleteWell, I'm not going to break out Roget's to establish parity in my response to you there, Oran. Suffice it to say that (to use the vernacular) I think you nailed it with your 7:21 comment! Kudos!
ReplyDeleteMy thanks to Oran, RSK, DW, and all of the others who made supportive and/or thoughtful contributions to this thread! I'm sorry too that I didn't say thank you or respond sooner to the comments - I was busy with my Wisconsin grandchildren and away from the computer for a couple of days.
ReplyDeleteRichard,
I, of course, believe that the Old Testament is full of examples which can and should inform our behavior in the present. Indeed, in the series on Anlo-Israelism which I recently posted on my own blog, I talked in some detail about the examples of faith found in the OT. Likewise, I believe (as the authors of the New Testament believed), that Jesus of Nazareth is the fulfillment of the Torah and the Prophets - that it is possible to preach Christ from those writings (the only Bible the First Century Church possessed).
Your obsession with a slight which you imagined marks you as an extremist. Your name-calling and incessant criticism marks you as unkind and cruel. I applaud you for having the sense to leave Armstrongism behind, and I wish you well going forward. However, if you think that your attacks will cause me to shrink away and be less inclined to post or comment here, I must avail myself of this opportunity to tell you that you're wasting your time! Like you, I've emerged from a great deal of mistreatment and delusion, and I'm not easily intimidated or cast aside anymore!
Now, if we could all just get back to helping those who have been snared by the heretical teachings of Herbert Armstrong, we might just do some good. Indeed, if we could help just one lost sheep to rediscover Jesus Christ and the grace and salvation which are available through him, I'm confident that we will hear "well done" someday!
God promised Abraham a "nation (USA) and company of nations (the British empire)" in Genesis 35:11. Taking a step back and viewing world history, Britain and America fit. The anti BI believers claim to have science on their side. Well, the commies claimed that their ideology was scientifically based, as did the Nazis.
ReplyDeleteNo science, just Scripture:
ReplyDeletehttps://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2023/01/introduction-scriptural-basis-for-anglo.html
please note the six parts which follow!
Richard 11:04
ReplyDeleteYou have a blind spot. You cannot support Trump's policies without buying into the total package. The delivery system is just as important as the cargo. The influence comes from the whole package. We might class the January 6th Insurrection as the exemplification of a non-executive, non-judicial, non-legislative policy by example. January 6th is part of the package.
You are not doing yourself any favors by attaching yourself to Trump. It's like saying, "I'm a proud supporter of George Wallace." He is a national embarrassment and everyone who rides his coattails will so classed. The idea that you support the Ten Commandments and The Donald at the same time would be a huge source of cognitive dissonance for most people. If it is not to you, like many White Nationalist Evangelicals, it should make you want to reflect.
I am a conserative, especially in the social realm, and could support some parts of some of The Donald's policies. I just don't like the other noisome stuff that comes along with it.
anon655,
ReplyDeleteI entirely disagree. You can definitely separate policy from the man. We do it all the time. Trump has some skills and he has failings. With our system of checks and balances, his failings wind up being tweets people don't like. His behavior in Office was good, yes, much better compared to some notable others. The support gap among women was his downfall.
We shouldn't watch movies or sports if we can't separate the individual talent/skill/performance from their failings.
JFK (who I like), LBJ, WJC displayed their moral failings in Office to a far greater extent than DJT. Obama's fAIlings prevented him from taking the golden opportunity to further improve race relations rather than set them back. Biden and his family have proven corrupt.
I am much more concerned about actions than words and tweets.
Still, I implore Richard to stop getting bent out of shape towards Lonnie's slight. Who cares? It does not change your life as a disparaging comment in "real life/business" might affect you. I miss your reliably good comments.