In his booklet Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?, Herbert Armstrong asserted that human religious leaders influenced by paganism had done away with God's Sabbath and replaced it with Sunday observance. Likewise, in a 1984 article in The Plain Truth magazine (Why Churches Observe Sunday), Armstrong claimed that Catholic and Protestant Christians acknowledged that Scripture taught Sabbath observance, and that men had taken it upon themselves to change the Christian observance to Sunday. Was Herbert Armstrong right? Is that really what Catholics and Protestants teach about Sabbath vs Sunday observance?
In the online Catholic Encyclopedia's very detailed article on the "Sabbath," we find the following statements:
"The Sabbath was a day of rest 'sanctified to the Lord' (Exodus 16:23; 31:15; Deuteronomy 5:14). All work was forbidden, the prohibition including strangers as well as Israelites, beasts as well as men (Exodus 20:8-10; 31:13-17; Deuteronomy 5:12-14)."
"The Sabbath was the consecration of one day of the weekly period to God as the Author of the universe and of time. The day thus being the Lord's, it required that man should abstain from working for his own ends and interests, since by working he would appropriate the day to himself, and that he should devote his activity to God by special acts of positive worship. After the Sinaitic covenant God stood to Israel in the relation of Lord of that covenant. The Sabbath thereby also became a sign, and its observance an acknowledgment of the pact: 'See that thou keep my sabbath; because it is a sign between me and you in your generations; that you may know that I am the Lord, who sanctify you' (Exodus 31:13)."
"Under the influence of pharasaic rigorism a system of minute and burdensome regulations was elaborated, while the higher purpose of the Sabbath was lost sight of. The Mishna treatise Shabbath enumerates thirty-nine main heads of forbidden actions, each with subdivisions. Among the main heads are such trifling actions as weaving two threads, sewing two stitches, writing two letters, etc. To pluck two ears of wheat was considered as reaping, while to rub them was a species of threshing (cf. Matthew 12:1-2; Mark 2:23-24; Luke 6:1-2). To carry an object of the weight of a fig was carrying a burden; hence to carry a bed (John 5:10) was a gross breach of the Sabbath. It was unlawful to cure on the Sabbath, or to apply a remedy unless life was endangered (cf. Matthew 12:10 sqq.; Mark 3:2 sqq.; Luke 6:7 sqq.). This explains why the sick were brought to Christ after sundown (Mark, I, 32)."
"Christ, while observing the Sabbath, set himself in word and act against this absurd rigorism which made man a slave of the day. He reproved the scribes and Pharisees for putting an intolerable burden on men's shoulders (Matthew 23:4), and proclaimed the principle that 'the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath' (Mark 2:27). He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day. In His arguments with the Pharisees on this account He showed that the Sabbath is not broken in cases of necessity or by acts of charity (Matthew 12:3 sqq.; Mark 2:25 sqq.; Luke 6:3 sqq.; 14:5). St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5). The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day. (See SUNDAY.)"
Likewise, from the Protestant Got Questions online ministry, in their article How is Jesus our Sabbath Rest?, we read:
"The key to understanding how Jesus is our Sabbath rest is the Hebrew word sabat, which means 'to rest or stop or cease from work.' The origin of the Sabbath goes back to Creation. After creating the heavens and the earth in six days, God 'rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made' (Genesis 2:2). This doesn’t mean that God was tired and needed a rest. We know that God is omnipotent, literally 'all-powerful.' He has all the power in the universe, He never tires, and His most arduous expenditure of energy does not diminish His power one bit. So, what does it mean that God rested on the seventh day? Simply that He stopped what He was doing. He ceased from His labors. This is important in understanding the establishment of the Sabbath day and the role of Christ as our Sabbath rest."
"The various elements of the Sabbath symbolized the coming of the Messiah, who would provide a permanent rest for His people. Once again the example of resting from our labors comes into play. With the establishment of the Old Testament Law, the Jews were constantly 'laboring' to make themselves acceptable to God. Their labors included trying to obey a myriad of do’s and don’ts of the ceremonial law, the Temple law, the civil law, etc. Of course they couldn’t possibly keep all those laws, so God provided an array of sin offerings and sacrifices so they could come to Him for forgiveness and restore fellowship with Him, but only temporarily. Just as they began their physical labors after a one-day rest, so, too, did they have to continue to offer sacrifices. Hebrews 10:1 tells us that the law 'can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.' But these sacrifices were offered in anticipation of the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross, who 'after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right of God' (Hebrews 10:12). Just as He rested after performing the ultimate sacrifice, He sat down and rested—ceased from His labor of atonement because there was nothing more to be done, ever. Because of what He did, we no longer have to 'labor' in law-keeping in order to be justified in the sight of God. Jesus was sent so that we might rest in God and in what He has provided."
"Another element of the Sabbath day rest which God instituted as a foreshadowing of our complete rest in Christ is that He blessed it, sanctified it, and made it holy. Here again we see the symbol of Christ as our Sabbath rest—the holy, perfect Son of God who sanctifies and makes holy all who believe in Him. God sanctified Christ, just as He sanctified the Sabbath day, and sent Him into the world (John 10:36) to be our sacrifice for sin. In Him we find complete rest from the labors of our self-effort, because He alone is holy and righteous. 'God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Corinthians 5:21). We can now cease from our spiritual labors and rest in Him, not just one day a week, but always."
"Jesus can be our Sabbath rest in part because He is 'Lord of the Sabbath' (Matthew 12:8). As God incarnate, He decides the true meaning of the Sabbath because He created it, and He is our Sabbath rest in the flesh. When the Pharisees criticized Him for healing on the Sabbath, Jesus reminded them that even they, sinful as they were, would not hesitate to pull a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath. Because He came to seek and save His sheep who would hear His voice (John 10:3,27) and enter into the Sabbath rest He provided by paying for their sins, He could break the Sabbath rules. He told the Pharisees that people are more important than sheep and the salvation He provided was more important than rules. By saying, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath' (Mark 2:27), Jesus was restating the principle that the Sabbath rest was instituted to relieve man of his labors, just as He came to relieve us of our attempting to achieve salvation by our works. We no longer rest for only one day, but forever cease our laboring to attain God’s favor."
"There is no other Sabbath rest besides Jesus. He alone satisfies the requirements of the Law, and He alone provides the sacrifice that atones for sin. He is God’s plan for us to cease from the labor of our own works. We dare not reject this one-and-only Way of salvation (John 14:6)."
And, from their article What does it mean that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath?, we find the following excerpts:
"The phrase 'the Lord of the Sabbath' is found in Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, and Luke 6:5. In all three instances Jesus is referring to Himself as the Lord of the Sabbath or, as Mark records it, 'The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath' (Mark 2:28). In these verses, Jesus is proclaiming that He is the One who exercises authority even over the rules and regulations that govern the Sabbath day."
"As such, Jesus was proclaiming to the world, especially to the legalistic Pharisees, that He was greater than the Law and above the laws of the Mosaic Covenant because, as God in flesh, He is the Author of those laws."
"As Creator, Christ was the original Lord of the Sabbath (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:10). He had the authority to overrule the Pharisees’ traditions and regulations because He had created the Sabbath—and the Creator is always greater than the creation. Furthermore, Jesus claimed the authority to correctly interpret the meaning of the Sabbath and all the laws pertaining to it. Because Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, He is free to do on it and with it whatever He pleases."
"The Lord of the Sabbath had come, and with His death and resurrection He became the fulfillment of our 'Sabbath rest.' The salvation we have in Christ has made the old law of the Sabbath no longer needed or binding. When Jesus said, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath' (Mark 2:27), Jesus was attesting to the fact that, just as the Sabbath day was originally instituted to give man rest from his labors, so did He come to provide us rest from laboring to achieve our own salvation by our works. Because of His sacrifice on the cross, we can now forever cease laboring to attain God’s favor and rest in His mercy and grace."
Hence, from these excerpts, we see that Herbert Armstrong's characterization of Catholic and Protestant attitudes toward God's Sabbath were simplistic and inaccurate. Indeed, the above statements make very clear that Traditional Christianity has a great reverence for the concept of the Sabbath rest, and see Christ as the embodiment and fulfillment of that rest! For these Christians, the Sabbath is clearly viewed through the text of the fourth chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews. In other words, they look to both Christ and Scripture as the standard for their beliefs about the Sabbath - NOT to pagans or the traditions of men!
Posted by Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix
We are all familiar with what traditional Christianity has to say about many things!
ReplyDelete"the Gentiles held their religious meetings on Sunday"? Acts 20 and 1Corinthians 16 say they may have done that ONCE, but not EVERY WEEK!! Read the text again!
"Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances not obligatory on Christians"?
If Galatians 4 takes out the Sabbath, it takes out ALL DAYS!!! sunDAY, Christmas day among others.
As many of you have admitted, Romans 14 actually allows one to keep the Sabbath if they choose. Right? Or are we changing the rules again?
Colossians 2 is open to interpretation but I prefer to do as Paul says and not allow anyone to judge me for keeping the Sabbath. So judge away!
Traditional Christianity? I'm not impressed!
“ Traditional Christianity? I'm not impressed!”
ReplyDeleteTraditional Armstrongism? I’m not impressed! Been there, lived it, abused by it, exploited by it and lied to by it. Rot in hell!!!!!
Wow. Quite a nasty piece of work aren't you ??
DeleteAre you really cursing someone to rot in hell?? Nobody wished you any harm.
DeleteTraditional Christianity has great reverence for the CONCEPT of the Sabbath. Really? That's why they trample all over the ACTUAL Sabbath once every seven days.
ReplyDeleteThe is blog is not about Armstrongism. It's about supporting traditional Cbristianity by bashing Armstgonism and portraying traditional Christianity as the alternative. Both are posion.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant Lonnie! Just brilliant. A succinct, factual and Biblical exegesis of the sabbath passages and the understanding of them by Christianity for 2000 years. I wish the legalists would try to understand this subject, because if they did, the rest of the law will tumble and they could FINALLY rest in Jesus, not their own works.
ReplyDeleteIf the dishonest brokers like HWA and 7th Day Adventists had simply done their own homework they would also learn that the absurd argument about pagans and Catholics changing the Sabbath to Sunday would crumble like dust as well. Whatever some Pope in the 5th century AD may or may not have said makes absolutely no difference to an already existing (by some 3 or 4 hundred years) Biblical practice of gathering to worship on Sunday. It is also clearly enumerated in the Didache. The Catholic church did not even exist when newborn Christians and Jewish converts to Christ began gathering on the Lord's Day as the Apostles did (Acts 20:7 among others). Until you truly belong to Jesus, I don't think you can't fully grasp just what He accomplished for us on the Cross and why believers gather to celebrate His (and ours, if we are in Christ) victory over sin and death on Sunday.
How these groups can possibly read the New Testament, (particularly Galatians, Hebrews and Romans) and still think anybody is under the law is beyond me. The Scriptural, theological and mental gymnastics are quite something to watch, but ultimately, deadly serious given that legalism has severed its adherents from God. In Galatians 5:4 Paul says, "Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourselves from Christ and fallen from God's favor". WE can NEVER work or earn our way into a right relationship with God. Salvation is a supernatural act of love by God that is beyond our understanding, but not beyond our believing that it is exactly what He declares it to be in Scripture. That's all He asks. Believe Me. I have done everything needed to save you and what I began in you, I will finish. I suppose I should add that if the Sabbath is the day someone chooses to worship God, that's fine, as long as they understand it has nothing to do with earning their salvation (NO ONE EARNS IT). And if they understand no one, Jew or Gentile, is under the law anymore. It has been used by deceptive groups as a gateway to lead people into/further into legalism, so in good conscience, I would not encourage anyone not FIRMLY GROUNDED in Christian theology to keep the Sabbath as taught by the legalistic groups.
Thanks again Lonnie. You made my weekend! I pray that those who need this truth the most will receive it in the spirit of love from which it came.
Those who are saved will rest in Christ and the physical seventh day is irrelevant. Just as those who are saved will have a circumcised heart and the physical surgery is irrelevant. HWA innovated the idea that the Torahic observance of the physical seventh day is a condition for salvation. This militates against the salvific effectivness of Christ's sacrifice and puts human performance on the critical path to salvation. Jesus is then diminished to a partial saviour.
ReplyDeleteThis is really difficult for Armstrongists to understand and they have never exhaustively addressed it: What Paul writes about circumcision he is also writing about the Sabbath and every other Torahic Law. Paul says the Law is one piece.
Miller's post is an incisive exploration of how Christians view the Sabbath. Anything that HWA has said about Christianity should be validated by any serious reader. HWA spun up the idea that Christians thought they were going to heaven when the Kingdom of God was really to be on earth. That is a calumny against Christianity. Some believe that the Intermediate State may be in the third heaven, but those who read the Bible understand that the utopian Kingdom of God will be on earth. My Mother-in-law regrettably went to her grave believing that "the churches" taught that the Kingdom of God will not be on earth because she held the opinion of a man as sacrosanct.
Scout
Some more tiring sophistry (false arguments to avoid keeping the law) and casuistry (clever but unsound reasoning) from the holder of the golden cup of impure wine that makes a man senseless and mad. (Rev 17)
ReplyDeleteThere are too many errors here to address for you people who are drinking her wine.
In the Catholic write-up, they conveniently overlook the fact that in Acts 20:7 it was a Saturday night and not a Sunday when Paul spoke to the church. This desire to elevate Sunday above Sabbath also is reflected in some of the poor translations of the events surrounding the resurrection, which has led the masses to believe in a Sunday resurrection.
Lots of good reasons to keep the Sabbath are noted here but they dare not call it a commandment, lest they break from tradition and endorse the law of Moses.
So traditional Christianity was right all along and the martyrdom of the true saints by her was a hoax? And Satan really hasn't deceived the whole world? (Rev 12:9) So why are their churches empty?
And why do you people work at your jobs if your rest is in Christ every day?
What I find interesting is that Armstrongism taught that "God's True Church" inherited the primacy of Peter, the ability to bind and loose. Yet, the changes which appall Armstrongites today were made by the people who had that primacy during the early centuries of the church, and made these changes as their understanding was increased, guided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, HWA explained all of that away by theorizing an expanded role for Simon Magus, but today we know about Irenaeus, and realize that HWA's theory is just not possible.
ReplyDeleteFor those who may be interested in exploring this topic in more detail, I have written a number of related posts:
ReplyDeletehttps://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/06/early-christianity-from-sabbath-to.html
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/06/sabbatarian-christians-vs-sunday.html
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-reasons-i-continue-to-observe.html
Don't see 1John 2:4 and 5:3 in this anti-sabbath screed.
ReplyDeleteYes . The Sabbath and the law are shadows of the good things to come in the Kingdom of the heavens. These religious are not to make people citizens, they are here to disqualify and grade people out of kingdom.
DeleteCalm down Armstrongites, the Acts 20:7 "tradition" is quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Lonnie is not saying he agrees with it.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that Christianity conveniently filled the vacuum left by radical Pauline reform with a popular existing Roman weekly tradition, no harm done, relax, it was latter-day Pharisees who added "Blue-laws" to Sunday.
What'ya gonna do about it Armstrongites? Expunge Paul from the NT canon?
Anonymous 6/25 @ 10:35 AM,
ReplyDeleteContext! Quote the whole thing:
I John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (ESV)
John was talking about Christ's commandments, NOT Torah!
I John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (ESV)
By the way, this post is NOT an "anti-Sabbath screed." After all, I continue to observe the Sabbath! It's just that I am no longer under any illusion that doing so will earn my salvation or a place in God's Kingdom. Jesus Christ did that for me - PERIOD! I've also done the hard work of investigating the history and theology of this topic and have discovered that Mr. Armstrong's take on history and theology were deeply flawed. The narrative that Sunday-keeping Christians are not "real/true" Christians is FALSE. Indeed, relative to the subject of a Christian's obligation toward Torah observance, their understanding is clearly superior to Herbie's.
DISAGREEING WITH THE GOD OF THE HOLY BIBLE
ReplyDeleteThe Holy Bible clearly teaches that the seventh day of the week (Saturday) is special to God. Religious Jews and some other people, including Church of God people, simply believe in remembering and observing the biblical, weekly, seventh-day Sabbath, which is what one of the Ten Commandments is all about.
The Roman Catholic Church and its approximately one billion people believe that the first day of the week (Sunday) is special. They actually hate the biblical Sabbath.
The RCC's Protestant daughter churches with almost another one billion people also believe that the first day of the week (Sunday) is special. They learned this from their mother RCC, not from the Bible. The biblical Sabbath is a weird thing to them.
Just to be different, about one billion Muslims think that the sixth day of the week (Friday) is special.
Evilutionists think that no day is special.
Those of the Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Evilutionist religions simply all disagree with the God of the Holy Bible and refuse to obey Him.
A Doctrinal Catechism (question & answer format) (a Catholic publication)
ReplyDeleteQuestion: When Protestants do work on Saturday, are they following the scripture?
Answer: On the contrary - in profaning Saturday, they violate one of God’s commandments, which he has never changed.
“What do Catholics and Protestants really teach about the Sabbath?”
ReplyDeleteThey teach that people should forget about the Sabbath, despise it, hate it, reject it, and trample on it each and every week on their way to their unbiblical, man-made, pagan-based, demon-inspired, false church meetings that they hold on “the venerable day of the sun.”
Additional to consider:
ReplyDeleteMath 19:17 if you will enter into life keep the commandments
Rev 22:14 blessed are they that do His commandments that they may have right to the
tree of life
Remember that Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix will try to normalize all sorts of major sins, from Sabbath breaking to homosexuality, with what he thinks are clever arguments. Do not go down the drain with him.
ReplyDeleteI just re-read EVERY word in the Book of Acts (no cherry picking scripture to form a false narrative). The Book of Acts teaches the opposite of Herbert W. Armstrong. Herbert W. Armstrong twisted the scriptures. He didn't know what a prophet was or did.
ReplyDeleteInstead, Herbert W. Armstrong operated in the "spirit of divination" which the Bible forbids. He stole money through fear and pride. His books focused on telling future events, date setting, focusing on "hidden knowledge." He was a crooked, twisted man steering people away from Jesus. Burn every book, notes, everything connected to this false prophet
Paul, if you pay attention, in every new town preached to the Jews first on Saturday in the synagogue & to the Gentiles on Sunday. The Jews that believed would tell the Gentiles so the next day Paul would preach on a Sunday to a large crowd of Gentiles who also wanted to experience the signs and wonders and healing miracles of people being set free in mind and body and soul from demons. They were easy to heal once the demons left since the demons were causing the sickness, disease, and infirmities in the first place. The Gentiles were not required to worship on Saturday. They weren't Jewish. They were never required to be part of a synagogue on Saturday. The Gentiles worshipped for years on a Sunday way before Constantine.
ReplyDeleteHistorically, Sunday Sabbath keeping was very common. The idea of "just a REST in Christ" is much more modern in actual application.
ReplyDeleteEven in my younger days, there were still "Sunday Blue Laws" for stores, car dealerships, and more. Many restaurants were closed, a practice that Chik Fil A still practices to this day.
Back in the 1800s , there would be debates in tent meetings of SUNDAY vs. SATURDAY. The debate was never about whether there was a Sabbath or not, but rather WHEN the Sabbath Day was.
Isaiah 66 is a prophecy of things YET FUTURE and here we read this ...
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one SABBATH to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
Excellent post Lonnie! It is interesting to watch the comment stethoscope who are bound up by the law and legalism and how they refuse to do what the New Covenant teaches.
ReplyDeleteBob Thiel is the bigger offender of the Catholic/Protestant sabbath myths Armstrongism lies about which he learned from Rod Meredith and HWA.
Who cares if a person chooses to worship on a Saturday or Sunday. It has nothing to do with a person's salvation. God looks on the heart.
ReplyDelete1). Do you read the Bible a lot and pray so we have a personal relationship recognizing the Holy Spirit's voice?
2). What did you do with the opportunities I gave you?
3). Did you feed the hungry,
take care of the fatherless (the orphans), the old widows too old to work with no husbands or children to support them?
4). Do you meet people's needs using the gifts and talents I gave you in your community?
5). Do people know who you are because you stand up and you stand out doing good being brave when you don't feel brave?
Anonymous Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 12:29:00 PM PDT,
ReplyDeleteThanks for launching an ad hominem attack that seeks to poison the well instead of actually addressing the arguments put forward in the post. Moreover, I encourage everyone to examine these issues for themselves and reach their own conclusions. I want to help others - I'm not in the market for followers, but I would like to prevent anyone from going down the drain (including you).
My thanks to the many others here who have contributed positive and thoughtful comments to this thread.
Armstrongists do not actually keep the fourth commandment concerning the seventh day as it is written in Exodus 20. As is their manner, they filter this through modern requirements to come up with a more liberal statement of the commandment. Some points need to be noted. I will use the Jewish Study Bible for the translated text:
ReplyDeleteExodus 20:9 "Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God, you shall not do any work ..."
The Sabbath commandment consists of two parts:
1. You must work for six days.
2. You must rest on the seventh day.
In order to expand the interpretation of the first clause, we have the following in verse 11:
"For in six days God made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day;"
God set the example of working fully for all six days. There was no hiatus and no short days. He did not take Sunday off and stay home and watch the Dallas Cowboys. It does not make an allowance for a vacation. The only departure from the rule are the Holy Days elsewhere defined in the Torah. To keep the Sabbath command you have to do both the working part and the resting part or you have not complied.
Paul wrote concerning the Circumcision Party that they were debtors to do the whole law. What this indicates is that HWA did not go back to the scriptures to see how the Sabbath should be kept. He relied on tradition passed down through the Church of God Seventh Day. And as many Armstrongists assert, the traditions of men will not do you any good.
Scout
Why was the Sabbath made?
ReplyDeleteMark 2:27-28
King James Version
27 And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.
Pagans can rationalize anything, even worshipping Jesus on the day of the Sun God.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic church admits that the Bible endorses Saturday, and that THEY are the authority for Sunday worship.
ReplyDeleteI hate to break it to the Sabbath supporting Catholic/Protestant haters in the comments, but approximately 50% of Catholics/Protestants actually attend services on Saturday. Almost all Christian denominations offer Saturday services as well as Sunday. I have never heard of anyone who "hates" the Sabbath and wants to trample it underfoot. I do know that is what Adventism teaches about non sabbatarian denominations. That is flat out insane...and wrong!
ReplyDeleteSome of you have broken a commandment or two by the unnecessary and un-Christian like hatred on RCs/Pts (not to mention Lonnie) and assuming the worst about your supposed brothers and sisters. What that says is that you either think you know better than everyone else in the past 2000 years or you feel the ground tremble under your feet because you know it isn't stable, theologically speaking. Calm down and read your Bible. Stop listening to your minister and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into the truth on this subject. Read other people's opinions. Study the church Fathers. Read the Didache. Hurling insults will get you nowhere. Go back to why God instituted the Sabbath for Israel in the first place. You will note a marked difference in the language about the sabbath as you go from Exodus to Deutoronomy. By New Testament times, the Scripture flat out says it was the shadow to lead people to the reality, which is Christ. You might also note that all the encounters with the resurrected Jesus were on Sunday.
God bless you all! I pray you find the rest and peace that is only IN JESUS.
"Pagans can rationalize anything, even worshipping Jesus on the day of the Sun God."
ReplyDeleteThis is EXACTLY what those in the Church of God do. They will rationalize all kinds of doctrine and beliefs instead of actually following Jesus.
"Who cares if a person chooses to worship on a Saturday or Sunday. It has nothing to do with a person's salvation. God looks on the heart. "
ReplyDeleteIn Armstrongism and all the splinter groups, Sabbath keeping is a requirement for salvation.
Protestants worship on Saturday, Sunday, Wednesday evenings & in-between. I don't know what Catholics do. Protestants worship in churches, stadiums, homes, tents. We just want to be where Holy Spirit is moving freely and see people set free.
ReplyDeleteArmstrongites did not as a rule read Eusebius. Had they done so, they would realize that during times of persecution, both Saturday keeping and Sunday keeping Christians in the early church were being tortured and put to death side by side. The torture was so extreme that one would have had to have had the Holy Spirit to avoid renouncing one's faith right up to the death. This exemplary strength of belief was what caused so many to become part of the church in spite of knowing one would be killed.
ReplyDeletePeople worshipped on Sunday before Constantine. I guess the Catholics haven't researched back far enough
ReplyDeleteSome notes:
ReplyDelete"You might also note that all the encounters with the resurrected Jesus were on Sunday." ******After 8 days from Sunday is Tuesday - John 20:26.
We're saved by His life, not by law keeping apart from Jesus - Rom 5:10.
Torah does not rise and fall as a complete package but has laws including from creation, such as the sabbath, and added laws because of transgressions of those laws which added laws are now removed - Gal 3:19, were until Jesus came, such as tithing laws which were added to support the Levitical priesthood but now removed.
Jesus' commandments include some which were/are in the Torah.
The Sabbath was directed toward the Jews including working 6 days because Jesus had to fulfill every prophecy. It was meant for a certain people for a certain time frame.
ReplyDeleteIt is legalistic to force it beyond that telling Gentiles it is a salvation issue when it is not. If I was going to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, I would want the best experience and go directly to Jerusalem to eat with Messianic Jews and learn about all the symbolisms. God has never stopped showing signs in the sky over Jerusalem during the feasts. That's never stopped. Messianic Jews like Jonathan Cahn are awesome in keeping us current in that area.
I can't learn from Armstrong's compromised feasts leaving out the symbolism and not celebrating it the way the Jews do. The Holy Spirit as a separate personality is clearly seen in the original feasts.
Finally, the false brethren who the Bible predicted are coming out. Sneak in, pretend to be converted, but constantly and covertly tear down. This is what destroyed the WCG. And, now that they think they are in the clear, full blown attack. Easy to see if one actually reads the Bible.
ReplyDeleteWatch out folks, the wolves are removing their sheep’s costume. What they can’t grasp is we already knew they were coming.
1948 Israel re-established.
50 years later (year of declaring liberty) 1998.
1998 begins “THIS generation.” Lasts 33 1/2 years.
2025 (April) last seven begins?
2032 (April) “THIS generation” ends?
Are you ready? All the signs are now in place.
Enjoy the ride. And the final deceptions. Take a close look, stand still and see the salvation of Yahweh.
Gnashing of teeth may now begin. “INGAGE.”
Don't blame Catholics for moving the Sabbath to Sunday, they just made Sunday the day of Christian worship as did the NT church. Just look up 'first day of the week' in the NT and see what you find. It was the Puritans in their zeal for the Ten Commandments to make the established day for Christian worship into an all-day sabbath. Just look up 'Puritan Sabbatarianism'.
ReplyDelete"1948 Israel re-established.
ReplyDelete50 years later (year of declaring liberty) 1998.
1998 begins “THIS generation.” Lasts 33 1/2 years.
2025 (April) last seven begins?
2032 (April) “THIS generation” ends?
Are you ready? All the signs are now in place.
Gnashing of teeth may now begin. “INGAGE.”
What a load of pure unadulterated crap! This is what Armstrongism has turned into such a mockery of faith. Jesus does not even know you or you him!
Of course, pick on “Ingage vs Engage.”
ReplyDeleteMust keep the critics happy.l
6:36 Congratulations, first gnashing of teeth goes to you.
ReplyDeleteDigital ID coming your way. Keep up with the news.
"Romes Challenge" has been refuted here and elsewhere, and no one here is arguing AGAINST the Sabbath! Some of us are arguing for a different interpretation of the Sabbath from the one advanced by Seventh Day Adventists and Herbert Armstrong. Finally, if we say that the "truth" of the Sabbath was recovered as part of the Protestant Reformation (Incidentally, the modern Sabbatarian movement began with the Seventh Day Baptists, NOT the Adventists or the COGs), what does that say about the saints for some 1,300 years? Christ said that the gates of the grave would never prevail against HIS Church. So, at least some of those Sunday-keeping Christians had to be part of HIS ekklesia (there wasn't any consistent seventh day Sabbath observance during this period)! And, please don't bother quoting any COG histories regarding the pedigrees of their churches - they are historically worthless.
ReplyDelete"Math 19:17 .. keep the commandments"
ReplyDeletePauline epistles overrule this as Paul has primacy, Galatians first Christian writing
Having a conversation about facts does NOT = "wolves in sheep's clothing."
ReplyDeleteName calling to avoid real conversations doesn't work anymore. We are
above that. Armstrongism is known for shutting down conversation with angry outbursts and sweeping generalizations. That is because the leadership are afraid of conversation with little to no facts.
REMEMBER to REST
ReplyDeleteREMEMBER to actually REST on the weekly Sabbath day in obedience to the commandment.
Do NOT travel hundreds of miles, especially in bad weather, on the weekly Sabbath day in order to listen to a recording of more lies and nonsense from one of Satan's false prophets like Gerald Flurry or David Pack. Everything they say and do is warped.
I have never heard of "people or churches who hate the Sabbath" either after all these years of church attendance. I started out Methodist, was raised Lutheran, once on my own headed toward Pentecostal /Assemblies of God, and later Baptist.
ReplyDeleteNo one "hated the Sabbath." Herbert W. Armstrong made that up.
It is a cult tactic to encourage the "we vrs. them mentality." Also, being and saying you are small is not proof you are correct about anything
which is another cult tactic. There were different moves of God in history so these churches wrapped themselves around different attributes of God during the Holy Spirit encounter. Charles Wesley the Methodist was the Holiness movement.
Luther was saved by grace, not works. Whenever LBGTQ has permission to move into the pulpit, it is common for the cross to blow off that building as that decision is actually being made in the meeting.
Recently, lightning hit the church that endorsed the Gay Pride Parade & burned it to the ground. The church splits over those kinds of meetings. People get pissed & head the opposite direction under a different name or frequently head toward the Baptist Church.
"Jesus does not even know you or you him."
ReplyDeleteAnother sweeping Armstrong generalization.
God knows my heart and my life story. I read the Bible and pray almost every day. My family, parents, grandparents, & great grandparents
have seen miracles and prayer results with amazing stories to tell passed on through the generations. We recognize His voice.
You have a cult mentality & appear not to recognize Holy Spirit's still small voice.
What's really interesting is not what Catholics and Protestants say but what Pagans said thousands of years before the Jews changed the day of worship to Saturday just so they could be set apart from other peoples.
ReplyDeleteHow many Catholics and Protestants do you actually know author of this post ?
ReplyDeleteIt is fascinating to watch the defenders of the Old Covenant Sabbath requirement defend it today when they are supposed to be under the New Covenant, when at no point in time have they EVER kept it properly since learning about it from Herb Armstrong. Heck, even Abraham never kept ti and yet he is the father of all nations.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to facing their errors, people have psychological problems, so don't expect people who write about religion to fess up.
ReplyDeletehttps://romeschallenge.com/
ReplyDeleteClever argument that writer admits dates back to the Counter-Reformation/Council of Trent.
Naturally Adventists/HWA used it, but it doesn't reflect the spirit of the Council of Nicea that worked with the dilemma of Pauline antinomianism.
It is amazing the extent that men will go to in order to avoid obeying the commandments. Law-keeping has never been the means to gain salvation, Old Testament or New. In Acts 15, what was the burden "that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear"? Circumcision? No, they bore that just fine, for generations. The burden was the idea that they had to be circumcised in order to be saved ("Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved"). That was never possible, nor was any level of law-keeping ever sufficient to gain salvation. This is confirmed in verse 11 -- ALL people will be saved through the grace of Jesus Christ. "But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
ReplyDeleteSo then, why bother to keep the law? Because it was given to mankind as a great gift from our loving Father Creator for OUR GOOD. (Deut 10:13, Josh 1:8, Psalm 119:165, Deut 28:1, Prov 4:4, Neh 9:29, Ezek 20:11, Deut 5:33, Ex 15:26, Deut 5:29, 2 Chron 24:20, 2 Chron 31:21, and many many more, including many in the New Testament) So, if you don't want to keep the Sabbath, go ahead, you're only hurting yourself. You can twist all the scriptures you want; you're free to do so.
The law was given to make it evident that we all have a sin nature, we all need a savior. Only Jesus was able to keep it..He gave us His righteousness.
ReplyDeleteThe WCG and most of the splinters have almost always emphasized going to church. It doesn't matter how far you have to drive. You may spend nearly 1/2 the Sabbath going to and from church including the several hours in you are there. So, where is the rest? Do you really feel refreshed after a long day like that? To me many Sabbath days were even worse than working.
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time, I was raised a Catholic and later became acquainted with the WCG/HWA, when I began to learn about such things as the Sabbath, tithing, law, clean/unclean food, 7 annual holydays, all basically spiritual milk, along with lots of spiritual junk food in the form of so-called prophecy. Stuff like Doug Winnail, and all fleeing hirelings of the former WCG?HWA organization and led by "another spirit," taught, especially one regarding "another gospel" about "another Jesus" to return in 3-5 years (& on and on it went) to "very soon" return to earth and reign for 1,000 years. There was very little, if any, spiritual meat. The current stale xcogs are still feasting on that spiritual diet.
ReplyDeleteBut, one thing I was introduced to was the following Catholic admission by one of the Cardinals (James Gibbons) regarding God's Sabbath:
******
A Candid Admission
(Extracts from a lecture delivered by Father Enright at Harlan, Iowa, December 15, 1889. Reported by the Harlan American.)
The attendance at the Catholic church on Sunday evening was unusually large, many being unable to gain admittance. The subject treated on that evening was “The Power and Authority of the Catholic Church.” Father Enright claimed that the authority and existence of his church antedated that of the Bible. His remarks upon Sunday observance created something of a sensation. He said:
“My brethren, look about you upon the various wrangling sects and denominations. Show me one that claims or possesses the power to make laws binding on the conscience. There is but one on the face of the earth – the Catholic Church – that has the power to make laws binding upon the conscience, binding before God, binding under pain of hell fire. Take, for instance, the day we celebrate – Sunday. What right have the Protestant churches to observe that day? None whatever. You say it is to obey the commandment, ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ But Sunday is not the Sabbath according to the Bible and the record of time. Everyone knows that Sunday is the first day of the week, while Saturday is the seventh day and the Sabbath, the day consecrated as a day of rest. It is so recognized in all civilized nations. I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who will furnish any proof from the Bible that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. If any person in this city will show me any scripture for it, I will, tomorrow evening, publicly acknowledge it and thank him for it. It was the Holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, the first day of the week. And it not only compelled all to keep Sunday, but at the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, anathematized those who kept the Sabbath, and urged all persons to labor on the seventh day under the penalty of anathema.
“Which church does the whole civilized world obey? Protestants call us every horrible name they can think of – Anti-Christ, the Scarlet Colored Beast, Babylon, etc., and at the same time profess great reverence for the Bible, and yet by their solemn act of keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the power of the Catholic Church. The Bible says, ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,’ but the Catholic Church says, ‘No, keep the first day of the week,’ and the whole world bows in obedience.”
The Scriptures enforce the Religious Observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. (The Faith of Our Fathers, 89th page), by Cardinal James Gibbons.
******
So what? What means it? We're all learning to hate evil and God's Plan is to save all human beings and subsequently destroy Satan and his angels.
Whether one is of Ephesus, Smyrna,......Philadeliphia or one of the Laodiceans, or Catholic or Protestant: Does God love every one of them enough to not impute trespasses upon them (2 Corinthians 5:19; John 3:17; I John 2:2; i Cor 5:7, Luke 15:24, 23:43, etc.) and hence save them?
Time will tell...
John
@ LCG Expositor
ReplyDeleteHow do you deal with the dilemma of Pauline antinomianism? (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:10; Romans 14:5...)
How many Catholics and Protestants do you actually know author of this post?
ReplyDeleteMy mother and four of my siblings are Roman Catholic, and most of the rest of my family and friends are Protestants (mostly Baptists, Church of Christ). I also "know" some "Mormons" and Jehovah's Witnesses. In times past, I have also attended Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Congregational, Quaker and Seventh Day Baptist services. Hope that answers your question.
"Finally, if we say that the "truth" of the Sabbath was recovered as part of the Protestant Reformation (Incidentally, the modern Sabbatarian movement began with the Seventh Day Baptists, NOT the Adventists or the COGs), what does that say about the saints for some 1,300 years? Christ said that the gates of the grave would never prevail against HIS Church."
ReplyDeleteThe Church has been around since its beginning. It has always kept the 7th Day Sabbath. Being overshadowed by the Sunday Church is irrelevant. It continues on as it always has, sometimes being visible to the world, and sometimes undetected, but it has been carrying on and will continue to carry on.
"Who cares if a person chooses to worship on a Saturday or Sunday. It has nothing to do with a person's salvation. God looks on the heart. "
ReplyDeleteAnd if you know that the Sabbath is the seventh day and refuse to keep it that tells God a lot about your heart.
""Romes Challenge" has been refuted here and elsewhere, and no one here is arguing AGAINST the Sabbath!"
ReplyDeleteYou most certainly do! You refuse to keep it and encourage others to disregard it as well, choosing another day. Man always wants to do things his own way, kinda like his god, Satan.
LCG Expositor wrote, "ALL people will be saved through the grace of Jesus Christ."
ReplyDeleteYou can find in Armstrongist literature various forms of this same statement. I would balk at saying it is an outright lie. In fact, Armstrongists believe there are two moments of salvation: grace plus works. When they need to claim Biblical credentialing, they emphasize the former. The latter, salvation by works, is implemented in Armstrongism through the dogma of "Qualification for the Kingdom."
That is why Armstrongism fits the mold of a Jesus Plus Cult. They pay lip service to Jesus and grace but they do not believe that Jesus is adequate for salvation. And they do not see the observance of the Law of Christ as a behavioral output of salvation. Rather they see the Law of Moses as a behavioral input to salvation. If you do not sort this out, you will always be confused about Armstrongism's portrayal of the Law in regards to salvation. Their words will always sound plausible.
Note: There is an ideological thread that runs from the Arianism of the 19th Century Adventist movement to the modern-day denominations of Armstrongism and the Church of God Seventh Day, among others. Arianism in its original form was the idea that Jesus is the Son of God but is also a created being. In its latter day instantiation, it is simply the diminishment of the role of Jesus. The idea that Jesus is not adequate for salvation and works are, therefore, necessary coresides nicely with Arianism. I have yet to establish how this thread of Arianism began and why it is so persistent among some of the denominations of Millerite origin.
Picking And Choosing Which Laws To Obey
ReplyDeleteA newspaper article quoted a homosexual as asking “Why should we obey God's laws?” and saying that “Christians” (meaning Catholics and Protestants) do not obey God's laws. The homosexual specifically mentioned professing “Christians” keeping Sunday rather than the Sabbath and eating pigs.
Catholics and Protestants claim to love God. They falsely claim that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday morning and that because they are so happy about that and love Jesus so much they observe Sunday in honor of His resurrection. They got the laws of various countries to pass off their Sabbath-breaking and Sunday-keeping as “righteousness” for so long that they think it is acceptable behavior.
Homosexuals and transvestites also try to pass off their behavior as “showing love.” They think that if they can change the laws of various countries to approve of their behavior it will make it acceptable.
Some churches are now going along with the LGBTQ+ agenda, while other churches continue to pick and choose which laws of God they will try to obey. They believe what the Bible says about homosexuality and transvestitism being wrong, but think that their own Sabbath-breaking and Sunday-keeping is okay. The Catholics, Protestants, and LGBTQ+ types do not like to think that all their own “righteousness” really is as “filthy rags.”
"The Church has been around since its beginning. It has always kept the 7th Day Sabbath. Being overshadowed by the Sunday Church is irrelevant. It continues on as it always has, sometimes being visible to the world, and sometimes undetected, but it has been carrying on and will continue to carry on."
ReplyDeleteThis is a typical Armstrongist counterpoint. First, the statement "The Church has been around since its beginning" is a tautology. Everything has been around since its beginning. The rest of the statement is without foundation.
"It has always kept the 7th Day Sabbath."
You need to exegete this rather than parrot Armstrongist sound bites. The Jerusalem Church no doubt kept the Sabbath but not as a requirement for salvation, as in modern-day Armstrongism, but as a Jewish cultural continuation. Otherwise, there would have been a major conflagration between James and Paul at the Jerusalem Council.
"...sometimes being visible to the world, and sometimes undetected..."
This is a pretextual interpretive principle that permits one to pick an choose what data is relevant. This was used extensively by Dugger, Dodd and Hoeh. No doubt it would have been used by the the Ministry of Truth in the Orwell's 1984.
7:05
ReplyDeleteWe are discussing the issue of HWA's calumny against Christianity concerning the Sabbath. Not about homosexuality. That's a cheap shot.
If you want to talk about picking and choosing which laws to obey, why don't you write a treatise on all the parts of the Torah that Armstrongists ignore. Start with how God explicitly places his name at Jerusalem and Armstrongists, with great liberal/revisionist aplomb, redefined it to be placed at Big Sandy, Squaw Valley, Tucson, Wisconsin Dells, etc.
Anonymous at 8:09 AM said...“We are discussing the issue of HWA's calumny against Christianity concerning the Sabbath. Not about homosexuality. That's a cheap shot.”
ReplyDeleteI have noticed in life that when the wicked get called out on their extreme wickedness that they thought was so sneaky and clever it upsets them and they refer to it as a “cheap shot.”
Why is it that COG followers cannot prove sabbath requirements without a COG booklet in hand?
ReplyDelete7:06, what would you do if your son came home from school one day and said, "Mom, Dad, I have something very important to discuss with you! Last week, I discovered that I was gay in the back seat of James's car!" Get him annointed? Disown him? Mock him at every opportunity? Or would you still love him and hope that maybe there were things that might not be completely understood about the scriptures on this topic?
ReplyDelete6/26 9:38AM
Deletetbh I’ve thought of that kind of scenario of late since I know one couple whose son has chosen to live as a homosexual and has had at least 2 homosexual lovers since. I also know of a divorced mother of 4 whose eldest daughter has chosen to transition to a boy and a widowed mother whose only daughter has likewise chosen to transition to a boy. I definitely empathize with parents who have to respond to this situation in their own homes. What’s the right response I don’t know yet. I know I’d probably be debating in my own mind what to do and going from one extreme to another like either throwing them out of the house and having nothing more to do with them unless they repent or telling them I love them and although I will always be here for them I cannot and never will condone it.
Anonymous at 8:09 AM,
ReplyDelete“The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he” (John 4:19-26, KJV).
The people who leave at the point of the LBGTQ meeting (where they are suddenly being allowed into leadership positions) head toward Baptist and Assemblies of God. Their numbers are growing fast.
ReplyDeleteWhat is really exciting is the deliverance ministry.
That has taken off like an eagle rising and soaring.
They are the Book of Acts
all over again. Now we have video of legs growing out even, the blind see, the deaf hear, the mute talk, cancer free, etc. They go to their doctors to confirm it with X-rays. The demons leave screaming. They are regularly filled with the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues and there are interpretations. It is the Book of Acts returning.
Very, very exciting.
Legs, eh?
DeleteAtheist filth always trying to prove God's end time apostle wrong!
ReplyDeleteThat is why Armstrongism fits the mold of a Jesus Plus Cult. They pay lip service to Jesus and grace but they do not believe that Jesus is adequate for salvation. And they do not see the observance of the Law of Christ as a behavioral output of salvation. Rather they see the Law of Moses as a behavioral input to salvation. If you do not sort this out, you will always be confused about Armstrongism's portrayal of the Law in regards to salvation. Their words will always sound plausible.
ReplyDeleteCriticizing Armstronism is what this forum is all about -- no argument there. But I regularly see the phrases "law of Moses" and "law of Christ". What are these? Further, what is the law that Jesus said not one jot or tittle will pass from until heaven passes and everything has been accomplished? What law is He talking about?
How do you deal with the dilemma of Pauline antinomianism? (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:10; Romans 14:5
ReplyDelete“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” Does this say that we shouldn’t keep the Sabbath or holy days? Does it say that we don’t need to keep them? Does it say that it is wrong to keep them? No, no, and no. What it says is don’t let anybody pass judgment on you when you do keep them. And Paul would have no reason to put these verses in this letter to the Colossians unless they were actually keeping them, and needed encouragement. Let’s not forget, this was a mostly gentile church. Many on this forum have been criticized for keeping the Sabbath -- don't let anyone judge you for doing so! Don't let anyone intimidate you. Verse 17 “These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” The argument made is that these Old Testament practices were only a shadow of what was to come, namely Jesus Christ. And when He came, it was no longer necessary to keep them, the real thing was here. That’s not a bad argument except that's not what it says. It doesn’t say “these WERE a shadow what was to come”, no, it says they “ARE a shadow of the things yet to come” (Greek "mello" - about to, going to) and this is written some 20-30 years after Christ’s crucifixion. And they are indeed a shadow of what is to come (the return of Christ, the Millennial kingdom, the whole plan of God, etc.), which is exactly why we need to keep them, so that we never forget all that is yet to come in God’s plan, pictured by the holy days. And Jesus is indeed the substance, He is the center the holy days and the reason why the holy days have far more significance for the Christian than they ever did for the Jews.
Lcg exp, but you neglect the next verse, Col. 2:17 “these are shadows of things to come, but the substance is Christ.”
DeletePaul, is assuredly diminishing all those things in light of Christ. In 2:18-19 he goes on to diminish asceticism and angel worship and states we must hold to Christ (the Head).
So, while Paul condemns the pagan practices. He does appear to be grouping them and the Law together as earthly. And in col. 3:1-2 says we have died to those earthly things and should look to Christ above seated at the right hand of the Father.
Col. 3:3 and having died to these earthly things, our “LIFE is now hidden with Christ in God.”
Don’t you agree?
11:59 Glad you asked. Have a look at:
ReplyDeletehttps://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jot-tittle-and-liberalism-retaining.html
How do you deal with the dilemma of Pauline antinomianism? (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:10; Romans 14:5...)
ReplyDeleteGalatians 4:10 "You observe days and months and seasons and years!"
Some think that since Jesus has now come, and done away with the requirement to keep the Sabbath and feasts, and that many of them are returning to the Sabbath and the seasonal feasts and they shouldn’t. That’s not the days and seasons that Paul is talking about.
The whole context (Gal 4:8-11): "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain."
First, Paul would NEVER have called the sabbath and holy days “weak and worthless” or "weak and beggarly". Neither would he have called the God those people worship "by nature are not gods". Also, Paul is worried that these people are returning to “principles of the world”, not of God.
His concern is that the Galatians are returning to pagan days and months and seasons and years, worshipping what are by nature, not gods. He is not talking about returning to Jewish days.
I thought that what Lonnie posted was plain, honest, and very logical. But based on some of the comments here, you'd think he had gifted the blog with something abstract, and psychedelic like the works of his distant cousin Jimi!
ReplyDelete9:31 wrote,"I have noticed in life that when the wicked get called out on their extreme wickedness that they thought was so sneaky and clever it upsets them and they refer to it as a “cheap shot.”
ReplyDeleteYour statement had all the earmarks of a cheap shot. I see no reason to revise my viewpoint.
In counterpoint to you statement above, I have a meme: when Armstrongists get cornered because of their extreme heresy, they always try to create a sneaky and clever distraction. In this case, the artful dodger used a cheap shot.
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2023/06/you-would-dosay-anything-to-avoid.html
ReplyDeleteHow do you deal with the dilemma of Pauline antinomianism? (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:10; Romans 14:5...)
ReplyDeleteRomans 14:5
The Sabbath is nowhere mentioned in the entire book of Romans. Neither is Sunday. It is a non-issue. The issue here is related to fasting. The entire chapter is about eating and fasting and how the brethren are not to judge one another in these matters. Some fast on schedules, some are vegetarians. So what? Don't ruin the fellowship over your squabbling about such issues.
Tonto, I agree with your assessment of Isaiah 66. Why would God even use the word "sabbath" if it had no REVELANCE to the context? It certainly wasn't required to count from 1 to 7 or 8!
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 66 along with Zechariah 14 is devastating to the many human arguments presented on this site!
You might have thought that if people really believed in a creator God that they would be eager to read His inspired book and go along with His laws and customs. But, nope!
ReplyDeleteTonto wrote, "Isaiah 66 is a prophecy of things YET FUTURE and here we read this ..."
ReplyDeleteThis is a kind of a little song at the end of Isaiah. It places the events in the eschaton. The reference to the Sabbath is a chorus. What it says is that the Sabbath will still be used to mark time. What it does not say is that keeping the Sabbath is a condition for salvation as it is construed by Armstrongists.
There is nothing wrong with keeping the Sabbath, now or in the future. I believe that the First Century Jerusalem church kept the Sabbath, not as a requirement for salvation but as a cultural/liturgical observance. There is something very wrong with making it a requirement for salvation. If it were being taught in Jerusalem as a condition to salvation, James and Paul would have tussled at the Jerusalem Conference.
My guess is that its purpose in the eschaton will be instructive. It in no way supports the current Armstrongist use of the seventh day.
Scout
These proceedings remind me of the Friday night Bible Study sessions at Manor Del Mar. With the lounge full of students. They got hot and heavy at times too. But not in the sense of emotional, but more intense concentration.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the big difference that strikes me is this: The intent was to find out what the Bible itself said. The Bibles were open, and were quoted verbatim by each person making a point. Each person present had his Bible with him, and as each verse, or chapter, was read verbatim, we all read along with whoever was speaking.
If any word was in question then Strong’s, or Hebrew, or Greek concordance was checked. I don’t recall anyone pulling out a booklet to check or read from.
Too bad so many here create non-facts to try and weaken those more interested in what the BIBLE SAYS versus what some person or church said/says the Bible says.
With such a simple tweaking the mindset here could turn these postings into marvelous openings of biblical insight.
But, is it worth it for an average of only 30 a day, of which over half are the same folks with minds already set in stone?
Scout,
ReplyDeleteMust you put words or concepts in the mouth of your opponent and say that is what they believe, so you can dismiss their stance????
For example “keep Sabbath to be saved.” When the real fact is “we keep the Sabbath because WE ARE SAVED.”
Over a period of decades I don’t remember ever being taught I was saved because I keep the Sabbath.
But, please, show us where you got that idea from. Do you keep Sunday to be saved? Or, any other day/days?
5:18 wrote, "For example “keep Sabbath to be saved.” When the real fact is “we keep the Sabbath because WE ARE SAVED.”
ReplyDeleteIf you are an Armstrongist, you are not saved. You are in a state of suspense and salvation is yet future. Some quotes:
“Jesus tells us that our OBEDIENCE to the Ten Commandments is an absolute PREREQUISITE
to receiving God' s gift of eternal life (Mat. 19:16-17).” (Ambassador College Bible
Correspondence Course, Lesson 17, 1966.)
Note that Jesus did not use the term "prerequisite" - Armstrongists did. Jesus was not giving and full picture of all that went into salvation in this passage. For instance, he did not mention his sacrifice. He was not laying out a sequence of events. Armstrongists imposed their model on what he said.
“If you continue overcoming, growing spiritually — and all this actually through God's power — you shall inherit the Kingdom of God, and be made immortal to live forever in happiness and joy!” (HWA, “What do you mean…SALVATION?”, 1973)
So, you have a life of overcoming and growing spiritually before you inherit the Kingdom (aka, salvation).
"Therefore salvation actually is "eternal life" — a gift! But do you know the accusers who try to discredit this very work of God deny that? They actually deny that eternal life comes only as God's gift by grace and through Christ. They say you already have eternal life." (HWA, “What do you mean…SALVATION?”, 1973)
This statement equates salvation to the final receiving of eternal life. Notice that HWA includes a denial of the orthodox Christian doctrine of salvation. And he finishes by condemning the idea that you have - that you are already saved.
If you are an Armstrongist and you believe that you are now saved, you need to get serious about studying Armstrongist theology because it says something very different from what you believe.
Scout
Scout,
ReplyDeleteOnce again you miss the mark.
We are in a saved condition. We are not in eternal life at the moment. That part will be given at the resurrection of each of us.
Your bias, to me, is too complicated.
One does not receive salvation by one day starting to keep the sabbath. There is no salvation in that. Salvation comes through repentance, conversion, and accepting the Messiah. Then, the receiving of the Father’s spirit. Thus, with the Messiah, and the Father living within us, we do their will.
Paul explained it quite clearly. He said he couldn’t do himself what he wanted , but did, in essence the opposite. Then, he went on to describe that what he did that was right, it was the Messiah living within him that actually did it.
That is why I do not keep the sabbath on my own merits for salvation. My Savior and Messiah does it. Read Paul, you might like it.
Scout, you live in a biased world that does not exist. We who believe the Bible believe what it says, not what man’s “theology” says it says, which appears to be what you profess and prefer.
Please try again.
Well, 5:05, why should we restrict ourselves to the Bible? Probably most of us have studied it enough already. I'd love to have a group read and discussion of maybe the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Vedas. Or, even the Talmud.
ReplyDeleteWe 10:27?
DeleteDont forget to list the all time favourite of apostates and two faced athiests 'The book of knowledge'. You know spiritual sickness abounds when that gets mentioned.
The encyclopedia?
DeleteThis topic and its variations has been debated so many times on this blog that I've given up posting on it.
ReplyDelete"This topic and its variations has been debated so many times on this blog that I've given up posting on it."
ReplyDeleteObviously not! You had to run off at the mouth and say something anyway. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
This topic and its variations has been debated so many times on this blog that I've given up posting on it.
ReplyDeleteLCG Expositor quotes GAL
ReplyDelete"how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles"
Quoting Adventist/Armstrongite proof-texting, 'LCG Expositor' gets himself into fine mess here:
You might be interested to know that Paul uses the same word "elements" (rudiments) in Col 2 - there applied to sabbaths & dietary taboos! This was first pointed out in Brinsmead's 'Sabbatarianism Re-examined'(1981) https://www.exadventist.com/home/articles/sabbatarian/tabid/452/default.aspx
LCG Expositor should follow the advice of the fatman and "let the bible interpret the bible"
12.07 am, don't be silly. I haven't entered the debate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, most of these topics have appeared here repeatedly over the years, but they are still "NEW" to some folks. There are folks who come here who have accepted Armstrong's theology for years and have just begun to allow themselves to consider alternative views and information. Others may not have even been aware that people named Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong ever even existed - they've never even heard about a Worldwide Church of God. When we say "been there, done that," we may be denying these folks some of the valuable insights into these topics which our many years of experience have accrued to us. After all, to our children, ALL of the things which you and I know and have experienced throughout this life are new and fresh, and I don't believe that anyone would seriously dispute the NEED to share our knowledge and experiences with them!
ReplyDelete8:53
ReplyDeleteWe are talking past each other. You are talking about what you believe and I am talking about what Armstrongists believe. If you want to switch gears and address the Armstrongist issues, you can respond to the statements I have quoted from Armstrongist literature. Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss.
Scout
LCG Expositor quotes GAL
ReplyDelete"how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles"
Quoting Adventist/Armstrongite proof-texting, 'LCG Expositor' gets himself into fine mess here:
You might be interested to know that Paul uses the same word "elements" (rudiments) in Col 2 - there applied to sabbaths & dietary taboos! This was first pointed out in Brinsmead's 'Sabbatarianism Re-examined'(1981) https://www.exadventist.com/home/articles/sabbatarian/tabid/452/default.aspx
LCG Expositor should follow the advice of the fatman and "let the bible interpret the bible"
RESPONSE:
The word is used twice in Colossians 2 and both times it is used, it is referring to the "elementary principles of the world", not of the Jews, and certainly not of Christ -- principles which you died to in Christ. This is the same thing Paul is saying in Gal 4 -- these things are not of God and are of the world. Don't return to those pagan days and seasons. Thank you for the confirmation!
Lcg exp, but you neglect the next verse, Col. 2:17 “these are shadows of things to come, but the substance is Christ.”
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't. Read the whole post. I address Col 2:17 quite a bit.
@ LCG Expositor
ReplyDeleteexadventist.com/home/articles/sabbatarian/tabid/452/default.aspx
A good part of Brinsmead's book is at the end regarding "applying the letter of the law", the Adventists really got tripped up here, but they had a solution: they had their own Prophet, Ellen G White, who could get answers directly from heaven - thus she "resolved" difficult problems like ruling on the International Dateline & Arctic. Her solution to the Arctic? "don't live there"
It comes in handy if your denomination has an actual Prophet like the Mormons and the fortunate few at the Continuing Church of God.
Anonymous 2:53 and LCG Expositor:
ReplyDeleteMy attention was drawn to Colossians 2 by a WCG minister back in the late Nineties. I will not pretend to understand what Paul is writing here fully. I can only offer a hypothesis. I will introduce this by asking the question:
What happened to the Torah after it was rendered obsolete by the New Testament?
If one connects Col 2:14 with Galatians 3:13, it is clear that Paul’s “ordinances” refer to the Law of Moses. This is understood from the context of Galatians 3:13. Further, it is the Law of Moses (‘written by hand against us’) that defines sin not the philosophies of men. In Colossians 2:20, Paul connects the ordinances to the Elementals of the Cosmos, terminology which seems to refer to the Archons and Powers in v 15. Paul makes this yet more complex by introducing this section with references to “philosophy and empty deceit according to the traditions of men.” (Hart’s translation throughout.)
The theory that fits all of these data points with facility (Occam’s Razor) is that Paul now regards the Torah, which at one time defined the sin that stood against us, as nothing more than another worldly philosophy. And Jesus triumphed over the Law of Moses at the same time that he triumphed over the Archons and Powers, vv. 14-15.
Here is the part that gives me heartburn. I have trouble seeing that the Law of Moses, an instantiation of God’s eternal moral law for ancient Israel, as now becoming just another rudimentary philosophy of the world. It was knocked out of its divine estate and became of none effect through the Cross. It now lacks inspiration and the backing of God in toto. This is especially troubling since there is an obvious common origin for the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. And even now there is an intersection between both sets of principles. Yet, according to this theory, which fits the scriptures, Paul tosses the Torah on the trash heap. Yet Paul advocates the related Law of Christ.
I haven’t figured this out yet. I am interested in anyone’s viewpoint.
Scout
Brinsmead's clarity & logic continues to astound:
ReplyDeletehe illuminates 1st century Christianity like non other!
For instance he notes how large numbers of slave class (who don't get Saturday off) Romans became Christians and this would have been a major administrative disruption if the church had a strict mandated sabbath a'la'HWA'. Yet not a peep of that in the epistles or by historians!
The WCG (and others) maintained the 1st century was murky, lost to history...
ReplyDeleteBrinsmead brings it alive, a changing world, an astonishing and touching story!
Hey LCG Expositor, if only your shrinking sect had its own actual prophet, with a hotline-to-heaven, who could resolve nagging mysteries like Pauline-sabbatarianism?/antisabbatarianism?
ReplyDeleteOh wait, you did have one, but you kicked him to the curb.
Funny how all these "Final-Prophets", Joseph Smith, Ellen White, Herb Armstrong, Bob Thiele turn out so disappointing.
Burn Herb's legalistic books in a fire pit & read every word of the Bible without Herb's commentary. You can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He is waiting for you.
ReplyDelete" Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI just re-read EVERY word in the Book of Acts (no cherry picking scripture to form a false narrative). The Book of Acts teaches the opposite of Herbert W. Armstrong. Herbert W. Armstrong twisted the scriptures. He didn't know what a prophet was or did.
Instead, Herbert W. Armstrong operated in the "spirit of divination" which the Bible forbids. He stole money through fear and pride. His books focused on telling future events, date setting, focusing on "hidden knowledge." He was a crooked, twisted man steering people away from Jesus. Burn every book, notes, everything connected to this false prophet
Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 12:35:00 PM PDT"
Hey Satan, you're projecting again.
" Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteRemember that Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix will try to normalize all sorts of major sins, from Sabbath breaking to homosexuality, with what he thinks are clever arguments. Do not go down the drain with him.
Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 12:29:00 PM PDT"
Lonnie is angry, like a lot of those that were "in the Church" but not really IN. I've known several through the years. They simply followed family tradition even though they didn't really "get it" themselves.
They become disillusioned in adulthood and want to hit back because of their "lost childhood". He thinks he's doing a great thing by leading people away from that evil thing that stole his childhood.
To those with understanding his arguments are quite silly. To those without understanding his arguments give them an out so they can continue on their way with a clear conscious.
Their day is coming. There is a resurrection just for them. They will finally see clearly.
Hey LCG Expositor, if only your shrinking sect had its own actual prophet, with a hotline-to-heaven, who could resolve nagging mysteries like Pauline-sabbatarianism?/antisabbatarianism?
ReplyDeleteOh wait, you did have one, but you kicked him to the curb.
Who are you talking about? Who was kicked to the curb?
Anonymous Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 6:19:00 AM PDT,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the condescending comment, but I see the flaws in Armstrong's theology very clearly in the present. Someday, all of us will no longer see through a glass darkly, but today is NOT that day. I don't have all of the answers, and neither did Herbie (or you). In the meantime, try this blast from the past:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2019/12/youll-have-to-overlook-him.html
"Who was kicked to the curb?"
ReplyDeleteYour ephemeral LCG 'prophet' Bob Thiele.
Pity, his divination could have "resolved", a'la'Ellen White, the contradiction of Petrine & Pauline Christianity. Paul was a genius in formulating what would become the world's greatest universal('catholic')religion out of Judaism. He knew the Law of Moses had to go. He knew the lower the socio-economic stratum, the higher the uptake: and the lowest at that time was pan-Mediterranean slavery, who were not allowed, for instance, Saturdays off - that alone would put a wrench in Petrine/Armstrongic dogma. Also, most of the third-world gets its protein from pork - this would've been another problem for a universal church, but Paul fixes that as well.
Anonymous at 3:25 AM said...“He knew the Law of Moses had to go. He knew the lower the socio-economic stratum, the higher the uptake: and the lowest at that time was pan-Mediterranean slavery, who were not allowed, for instance, Saturdays off - that alone would put a wrench in Petrine/Armstrongic dogma. Also, most of the third-world gets its protein from pork - this would've been another problem for a universal church, but Paul fixes that as well.”
ReplyDeleteSo, is that the TRUE ORIGIN of the ham-eating Sunday-keepers? Low-class slave laborers who couldn't get Sabbaths off and who couldn't afford roast beef?
Yes 1217, 325 has basically turned Paul into the Joe Bidin of his day!! Lol
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteNuances
“It is not the thing but the wrong use of the thing”.
It is suggested that the missing of the nuance in Hebraic argument leads to wrong conclusions.
Isa 1:14 YOUR new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
Gal 4:10 YE OBSERVE days, and months, and times, and years.
"St Paul is not condemning the observance of ‘days and months and times and years' but their mis-observance... What St Paul condemns is the observance of the day in a legal spirit, in compliance with the minute and childish prohibitions of the Rabbinic system and as a matter of merit with God" (E. H. Perowne, Galatians, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges).
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
"Those who wish to be "under the law" (live according to the Mosaic law IN SUCH A WAY THAT CHRIST IS ECLIPSED) need to read the law in light of what God has done in Christ" (Scot McKnight, Galatians, NIVAC, p.230).
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
"What is revolutionary here is that Paul considers "moving into Judaism" as nothing other than a reversion to "paganism" to "non-gods" (cf. Gal 1:6). He asks, "Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?" Their move from idolatry to Christianity and now to Judaism is for Paul no different than a venture back into "idolatry" or "paganism”... (Scot McKnight, Galatians, NIVAC, pp.247-48).
"Beyond question, Paul's lumping of Judaism and paganism together in this manner is radical in the extreme. No Judaizer would ever have accepted such a characterization of Torah observance; nor would those in Galatia who acceded to their message... For Paul, however, whatever leads one away from sole reliance on Christ, whether based on good intentions or depraved desires, is sub-Christian and therefore to be condemned” (R.N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC, p.182).
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
"To begin with, Paul uses the middle voice here, expressing the notion of "submitting oneself to the rite in a personal way." BUT SIMPLY BEING CIRCUMCISED IS NOT THE ISSUE. Rather it is the reason for circumcision that provokes Paul. If the Galatians go ahead with circumcision because of the influence of the Judaizers, they will be confessing, in the act of submitting to the rite (hence the middle voice), that they think Christ is insufficient, that the Spirit is not a good guide for living, that Moses needs to be obeyed for acceptance with God, and that one needs to become a Jew to become a child of God. This is what Paul reacts to in our letter - NOT CIRCUMCISION PER SE BUT TO CIRCUMCISION WHEN DONE WAS A CONFESSION OF FAITH IN THE MOSAIC LAW AND THE SUPERIORITY OF THE JEWISH NATION (cf. Rom 2:25).
"So Paul spells out the ramification: "Christ will be of no value"... (Scot McKnight, Galatians, NIVAC, pp.247-48).
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
"Paul is speaking to Gentiles; hence the expression, the uncircumcision of the flesh" (Donald Guthrie, Colossians, NBC, p.1147).
Col 2:14 Blotting out [exaleipho] the handwriting [cheirographon] of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Phm 1:19 I Paul have written [grapho] it with mine own hand [cheir], I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.
Part 2
ReplyDelete“There seems no evidence for the custom often referred to in this context that bonds were cancelled by being pierced by a nail” (Ernest G. Ashby, The Letter to the Colossians, PBFT, p.1533).
Apocalypse Zephaniah 7:2 Now after he had spread it out... I found that all my sins which I had done were written in it, those which I had done from my youth until this day.
Apocalypse Zephaniah 7: 8 so that I threw myself upon my face and prayed before the Lord Almighty, “May thy mercy reach me and may thou wipe out [exaleipho] my scroll [chirographum] because Thy mercy hath come to be in every place and hath filled every place.”
“The actual term cheirgraphon is employed for such books in Apoc. Zeph 3:6-9; 7:1-8...” (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Letter to the Colossians, NIB, Vol.9, p.625).
“The verb ... exaleipho ... is the natural one to use in the context, since it denotes the erasure of an entry in a book, and is so used in several of the above contexts (Exod. 32:32–33; Ps. 69:28; 1 Enoch 108:3; Apocalypse of Zephaniah 7:8 [chirographum as the object]” (reedominchrist.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Handwriting-of-Ordinances-11-27-2020.pdf, p.6).
“But to what do this cheirographon and its accompanying regulations actually refer. Some believe the Mosaic law is in view (so Harris, 107-08; Vaughan 201; cf. Eph 2:15), while others maintain that Paul employs cheirographon to speak of a heavenly book or registry where records of wrongdoing are kept (so Lincoln, 625). I am inclined, however, to take the term as a more general reference to the indebted incurred through human sinfulness (cf. O’Brien, 125, Garland, 151)...” (Todd D. Still, Colossians, EBC, Revised, Vol.12, p.315).
“Paul dwells on God’s method of forgiveness. He uses the metaphor of a bond (cheirographon), which Moule describes as an “IOU,” a statement of indebtedness which was to be SIGNED BY THE DEBTOR as an acknowledgment of his debt” (Donald Guthrie, Colossians, NBC, p.1147).
“The letter to Philemon provides a good example of one...
“The NIV translation of 2:14 ... assumes that Paul has in mind the Mosaic law with its legal decrees, which would parallel the phrase in Ephesians 2:15... Yates has objected to this interpretation that the essential characteristic of a cheirographon was that it was written by one’s own hand to authenticate an agreement. He argues that this image would not apply to the law” (David Garland, Colossians/Philemon, p.151).
Col 2:14a Blotting out the handwriting [cheirographon] of ordinances [dogma]
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances [dogmatizo],
“The use of the latter term in Eph 2:15 clearly, because of context, refers to the Mosaic law; but that cannot be determinative for this earlier use in Colossians. The clue here is provided in v.20 in connection with submitting to the acetic regulations of the philosophy” (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Letter to the Colossians, NIB, Vol.9, p.625).
“We do better, then, not to interpret the cheirographon as a metaphor for the written code but as a reference to the debt both Jews and Gentiles acknowledge before God. In Romans 1-2, Paul makes the case that Jews share the same plight as the Gentiles. The Jews have the advantage of possessing the written law, which Paul notes, tells then that none is righteous (3:9-20). The Gentiles, without the written laws, have the inner voice of conscience that bears witness to God’s law. Both Jews and Gentiles, therefore acknowledge in different ways their indebtedness to obey God’s law. Both are guilty of the same wilful disobedience...” (David Garland, Colossians/Philemon, p.151),
“Although the exact meaning of Paul’s phrases cannot be traced with certainty, it is clear that the main point is to emphasize the decisive and complete way Christ’s death on the cross took care of humankind’s indebtedness to God” (Arthur G. Patzia Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, NIBC, p.59).
12:17 "Low-class slave laborers who couldn't get Sabbaths off and who couldn't afford roast beef?"
ReplyDeleteOh wow Armstrongist bully, that's a cruel put-down of the horror slaves endured.
Well, 12:20, extending the principles outlined in Mr. Armstrong's child rearing booklet, shouldn't a parent start with a good spanking? Spank your children for indulging in homosexual acts or expressing desire to transition into the opposite sex? They are probably just rebelling because their parents make them keep the sabbath. Back in the day, some of us started secretly smoking to rebel against our parents. Seems like the trends of today are a bit more extreme, and the kids are more open in their rebellion. But, maybe a good, loving spanking would settle this down.
ReplyDeleteSo while it's true Paul preached on some sabbath days, he didn't preach of sabbaths, pointing out the superfluity of holy days, new moons, sabbaths, food taboos.. (Rom 14 + Col 2)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 2:36 AM said...“Oh wow Armstrongist bully, that's a cruel put-down of the horror slaves endured.”
ReplyDeleteAnd still do endure. After 1,900 years, they still cannot get Sabbaths off. And so they remain, as always, slaves to sin.
The Reformation emphasis on Pauline "righteousness by faith apart from the law" threw poor Herb's brain into Tilt, as did the dogma of the Trinity, and the disorderly nature of early Christianity with its competing philosophies.
ReplyDeleteSo while it's true Paul preached on some sabbath days, he didn't preach of sabbaths, pointing out the superfluity of holy days, new moons, sabbaths, food taboos.. (Rom 14 + Col 2)
ReplyDelete"some"?
Acts 13:27 "which are read every Sabbath"
Acts 13:42 "the next Sabbath"
Acts 13:44 "the next Sabbath"
Acts 15:21 "for he is read every Sabbath"
Acts 18:4 "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks."
Heb 4:9 "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God"
As to Romans 14 -- it is not talking about the Sabbath or the holy days at all. In fact, neither the Sabbath nor the "first day of the week" is addressed in the book of Romans at all. It was a non-issue. And Romans is arguably the most complete of all of Paul's epistles, because he had not been there. One would think that if there was a change from the Jewish practice of Sabbath-keeping, it would at least merit a mention. What Romans 14 is talking about is fastings and food. Which days to fast. How often to fast. Vegetarianism. He admonishes the Romans not argue over these things.
Col 2:16 admonishes the Colossians to not let anybody judge them for keeping the Sabbath and such. There is not even a hint that this is superfluous; just the opposite -- it shows that they are keeping them. Otherwise, why the admonition? Previous posts have explained v14 and v17.
Bottom line is that the laws of God are given for our good. (Deut 10:13 and many more). If you don't want to keep them, fine, you don't have to. You can twist scriptures to your heart's content. But you're only hurting yourself.
"not let anybody judge them for keeping the Sabbath"
ReplyDeletemake that:
'not let anybody [Armstrongists] judge them for not keeping sabbaths'
Well said Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 12:28:00 AM PDT.
ReplyDeleteMost here, however, are unable (and/or unwilling) to see the truth.
Armstrongists are very judgmental (Col 2:16) on sabbaths, new moons, festivals, foods" ... until one brings up the IDL fiasco or countries in Arctic region, then they get kind of fuzzy?
ReplyDeleteJust coz Armstrongists might be in your words, "very judgmental" 9:18 doesn't mean they're wrong about a subject. It simply means their attitude is wrong.
ReplyDeleteColossians-2 is snake-poison to Armstrongism, it's been taking out Armstrongites for going on 100 years. Armstrong had a countermeasure: pumping millions into marketing to compensate for the high turnover.
ReplyDeleteThe same is true today: ACOGS are marketing-oriented organizations, spending most of their money on marketing, executive salaries..
LCG Expositor 12:28 wrote, "If you don't want to keep them, fine, you don't have to."
ReplyDeleteYou do not keep them either. Are you wearing tassels on you clothing. The direct command is:
"Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself."
This is not a ceremonial law, not a sacrifice, not a part of the ministration of death. It has just as much validity as the Sabbath. And it is written on your heart through the Holy Spirit. So if you have been negligent concerning this law, you better get busy. The accusations that Armstrongists make against others not keeping the law is sheer hypocrisy.
I do not agree with how Sabbatarians exegete Colossians 2. This passage refers to the Colossian Heresy which included Jewish Legalism and the keeping of the Torah. It was a heresy among First Century Jewish Apocalyptics who adopted some aspects of Christianity. It is similar theologically to Armstrongism. I could exegete if for you but you might check out a book entitled "Paul and the Law" by Frank Thielmann. It contains a good write up on Colossians 2. And its hermeneutic is historical context not the pre-formed ideas of Sabbatarians.
Scout
"Yet it is too simple to think that Paul's opponents were Jewish teachers, as we shall see from verse 18. The Greek term for "law" (nomos) is strikingly absent from the entire letter, a fact that makes it very unlikely that Paul's problems are the same as at Galatia where he takes on the Judaizers" (Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, INT, p.119).
ReplyDelete"Until this point in the epistle, Paul has spoken of the "philosophy" in rather general and polemical terms (1:23; 2:4, 8). Here, however, the reader is belatedly given concrete clues concerning the commitments of the movement against which Paul is reacting...
"Certain unnamed people were apparently advocating dutiful observance of certain days, including religious festivals, New moons, and Sabbaths... Presumably the "philosophy" was prescribing certain religious activities in conjunction with these special days, perhaps with a promise that these observances would enhance congregants' purity and spirituality. It is now impossible to know precisely who were seeking to pass judgment on the Colossians ... and exactly what motivated them to act as self-appointed arbitrators [Jewish regulations and/or theosophical asceticism?]. The paucity of textual particulars results in interpretative uncertainties. While such ambiguity does not sate our curiosities, "biblical studies are not helped by being certain about the uncertain" (Brown, 596)" (Todd D. Still, Colossians, EBC, Revised, Vol.12, p.311, 316-17).
12:48
ReplyDeleteYou have found some theologians who feel we cannot be certain about who Paul is reacting to in Colossians 2. We can also find theologians who believe that his opponents can be characterized. Frank Thielman is one of the latter. He scans the landscape to see if any group fits the profile given in Colossians 2 and one faction stands out. The First Century Apocalyptic Jewish Movement. While Thielman describes how the details of the Apocalyptics match the details of Paul's description, the salient point is that the Apocalyptics believed that keeping the Law of Moses is a requirement for salvation. As Thielman states:
"The problem lies not with the Law itself but with the false teacher's failure to recognize the limits of its purposes: its regulation of diets and calendar was a shadow of things to come, and Christ is the reality for which the shadow provided a mere outline."
To this I will add this bit of exegesis. Paul writes in Colossians 2:14:
“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross”
In Galatians 3, Paul writes in Galatians 3:10-13:
“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them ... Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:”
Paul is talking about the same thing in these two passages. The ordinances in Colossians, with the meaning gathered from Galatians, refers to the Law of Moses. I see no other interpretation for Paul's term “Book of the Law.” He is not talking about Epicurean Philosophy.
The Jewish Apocalyptics placed the keeping of the Law of Moses on the critical path to salvation. Paul incisively stated that the Law of Moses could not be kept (Armstrongists should resonate with this because they keep only select portions of the Torah) and the sacrifice of Jesus redeems us from this effect.
An interesting arc of logic in Colossians 2 results in Paul stating that the Torah, if it is used in the way the Apocalyptics use it (as a path to salvation), it is just another worldly philosophy – part of the Elementals of the Cosmos. I cannot help but see a reflection of Armstrongism in the Colossian Heresy.
Scout
Part 1
ReplyDeleteI have posted comments on Col 2:14 and Galatians above, (under “nuances”), so no need to repeat.
When looking at the context of Colossians there is more to this than expressed in Frank Thielman quote. (As an aside I have Thielman’s commentary on Philippians).
Some context:
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and WORSHIPPING OF ANGELS, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
“Since the new teaching involved an ascetic discipline which combined food restrictions and calendar regulations with a form of angel worship, Paul goes on to warn the Colossian Christians of the necessity of guarding on those particular fronts the freedom which is theirs in Christ...
“The Jewish food laws did not extend to beverages, but here the reference is to more stringent regulations of an ascetic nature.
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
(Just as the physical harvest occurred on the first day of the week, so the spiritual ‘harvest’ began on the first working day of the week after the Sabbath).)
“... when Paul is not polemicizing against legalism, he can use language which is not far removed from the shadow/substance antithesis. Thus, in 1 Cor 5:7-8, the sacrifice of Christ is the reality which was foreshadowed by the passover in Egypt, and the festival of unleavened bread which followed the passover is used as a picture of the Christian life which the sacrifice of Christ makes possible” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT, pp.113-116).
“... the writer can now exhort the readers not to allow anyone to judge them negatively for failing to comply with the philosophy’s regulation. The regulations singled out are requirements about food and drink and calendar observance. These are clearly parts of the philosophy taken over from Judaism, but now apparently they are put to use in its proponents’ program for dealing with cosmic powers. The issue of food and drink, however, is likely not to be not so much one of purity laws as of absence as part of a strict asceticism. In the OT, there are prohibitions against certain foods, but stipulations about drink are found only in regard to particular cases of priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lev 10:9) and those under Nazarite vows (see Num 6:3), though Jews in the diaspora were also cautious about wine in case if had been offered to idols. But there is no indication here that the motivation for abstinence from food and drink were due to observance of Torah. Rather, the requirement of abstinence should be linked with the mention of fasting in preparation for visions in v.18, of ascetic regulations in vv. 21-22, and of severity of the body in v.23.
Eze 45:17 And through the [Millennial] prince shall be offered the whole-burnt-offerings and the meat-offerings, and the drink-offerings in THE FEASTS, AND AT THE NEW MOONS, AND ON THE SABBATHS; and in all the feasts of the house of Israel: he shall offer the sin-offerings, and the meat-offering, and the whole-burnt-offerings, and the peace-offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel [during the Messianic Age].
“The writer describes the calendar observance required by the philosophy in terms of feasts or festivals, new moons, and sabbaths. These three calendrical features are listed together in the OT (see LXX 1 Chr 23:31; 2 Chr 2:3; 31:3; Ezek 45:17; Hos 2:13), where they were days on which special sacrifices were to be made to God. Again there is no hint that such special days are being observed because of the desire to obey Torah as such or because keeping them was a special mark of Jewish identity.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteInstead, it is probable that in the philosophy they were linked to a desire to please cosmic powers, the “elemental spirits of the universe” (vv. 8, 20), held to be associated with the heavenly bodies and, therefore, in control of the calendar...” (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Letter to the Colossians, NIB, Vol. 11, p.631).
“In particular he brings the following charges of indictment against the philosophers and cultists.
“1. They are mistaken in their bid to gain access to the divine by dreamlike visions, since they turn away from Christ, the true image of the invisible God (1:5). They are thereby severed from him (2:19).
“There veneration of the angelic powers overlooks the role of these being as created (1:16) and subservient to God who has revealed himself finally in his son as preeminent mediator for the church (1:18).
“3. Since Christ is the victorious head and the spirit world is under his dominion, any bid to live be regarding the angels as intercessors is to put the clock back -or, to use Paul’s own expression , to remain in the shadows when the sun is a high noon (v.17).
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after THE COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN?
“4. Negative religion never satisfies whatever it may claim to do (v.21). It leaves unchecked our passions and untouched our real problem which is not with our instinctual drives but with our motives. These latter are prey to our selfish desires, the Pauline “flesh,” (v.23), and can be reorientated to noble ends only by a radial transformation from within, not by an external code or prohibitions (the “regulations” of v.20).
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
“5. Finally, from Paul’s perspective is the exposing of human pride. The so-called “abasement” (vv.18, 23) lamentably fails in its objective simply because if it were to succeed in producing what it promises, the result would be only to make men and women proud of their attainment. Their “sensuous mind” (v.18; lit., “mind of the flesh:) yields only a desire to be on a religious pedestal and is a form of one-upmanship, that is, I am better than the rest and have a pinnacle by my own effort. The next step is to despise others less favored...” (Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, Int, pp.120-21).
(See also Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, WBC).
We can debate forever over the conflicting passages concerning "law". The fact is, a knife can cut an apple or cut a throat! Abuse doesn't cancel out use.
ReplyDeleteIf the law of God, or even a law of our own making like fasting and prayer, is used as a substitute for faith in the work of Christ, it is heretical. But the same Paul who denounces those things says "the law is GOOD if used lawfully".
Which is it? It's BOTH!
This thread is going to 200!
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with sabbatarians' take on Col-2 is they are overly complicated - lack parsimony - violate Occam's Razor - do not jibe with Paul's references to same heresy in Gal, Cor, Eph, Heb..
ReplyDeleteRecall Brinsmead's hierarchical hermeneutical schema: the NT has priority over the OT; the epistles have priority over the Gospels..
Part 1
ReplyDelete10:52 writes:
“The trouble with sabbatarians' [and sunday-keepers?] take on Col-2 is they are overly complicated - lack parsimony - violate "Occam's Razor...”
While the methodology drawn from above may be appropriate for modern-western literature, it may provide problems when understanding ancient-near eastern literature, especially, in this regard, Second-Temple exegesis in the time of Christ.
Below are a few quotes that highlight the challenge of interpretation:
* Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam, p.188:
"In my opinion, the grammatical-historical approach to reading Scripture has its limits, partly because it does not account for the non-grammatical-historical way Paul handles his own Bible..."
* James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.113:
"It was common in Jewish midrash to take a verse (SOMETIMES OUT OF CONTEXT) to try to prove one point or another. On the basis of Genesis 15:6 alone it would be quite impossible to say whether Paul or his opponents were right."
* N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, NIB, Vol.10, p.670:
"At the level of learning to read the Bible, both the ancient Scriptures of Israel and the strange writings of the early Christians, we are bound to be struck by the sheer demand of a text like this [Romans 10:1-21]. Isaiah, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah again, Joel, Isaiah once more, twice more, a psalm, Deuteronomy again, then Isaiah again: and each text Paul quotes opens up a world, a story, an argument, a celebration, a warning, which needs to be understood as a whole, not simply in the short passage quoted. Paul's mental world is furnished by entire biblical arguments and sequences of thought, and when he quotes or alludes to them he wants the whole passage to resonate. And many of the texts he quotes are themselves caught up, both in their biblical originals and in the ways they were read in Second Temple Judaism, in a complex web of allusion and intertexual echo, creating more meanings, sustaining old stories and inventing new ones, so that we sometimes despair of ever recovering more than a fraction of what was in the mind not only of Paul but of a hypothetical ideal first-century reader.
* Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, INT, pp.104-06:
"What can be said for Paul's use of the Old Testament in verse 22-31? To readers schooled in historical interpretation, the passage is a puzzle since it makes connections and draws conclusions not hinted at by the writer of Genesis 21. If this was offered as a modern exegesis of the Old Testament passage, it would not be considered legitimate. Paul describes his own interpretation as allegorical. By this he means the story of the births of Ishmael and Isaac yields a meaning which lies beneath the historical account of the incident. In this respect Paul follows the exegetical methods learned in his days as a student of the torah where linkages such as those made in verse 22-31 would not have been at all unusual..."
"When he interprets the Old Testament, Paul uses methods for the most part strange to the twentieth century reader. In doing so, he follows in the tradition of rabbinic exegesis, and by comparison with others of his day (many more besides Philo could be cited) his methodology seems not at all eccentric...
Part 2
ReplyDelete"Another term needs to be set alongside the one Paul used. This section (4:22-31) is not only an allegorical interpretation of the Hagar-Sarah story, it is also a midrash on Gen 21:9-12. Simply put, a midrash is an exposition of Scripture and came to designate for the Jewish people a body of commentaries on the torah. The intention of the exposition was either to clarify obscure elements in the text so that every word of Scripture could be more intelligible or to demonstrate the contemporary relevance of the text, how it applied in a new and changed context. Paul here does the latter. He provides a midrash on the Genesis text in the sense that his commentary has to do with the situation of the Gentiles in the Galatian context. He shows that the ancient story of Hagar and Sarah still has a function".
* Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, INT, p.80:
"Paul of course is not writing for the twentieth century church and does not answer directly all the questions one might want to put to him. Too often he has been disengaged from his context and dragged into the modern era to support this or that theory in a proof-text fashion...
* Jonathan Lunde, An Introduction to Central Questions in the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p.35:
"In spite of areas of disagreement on these issues, many scholars find a wide swath of agreement on the interpretive, or hermeneutical, assumptions that guided the NT authors as they appropriated texts from the Scriptures. Knowledge of these assumptions can be useful when one is attempting to understand a particular NT use of an OT text. Passages that are initially baffling to modern readers often become clear when these fundamental presuppositions are acknowledged”.
* R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, pp.12-13:
"Those who have studied the interpretation of Scripture among other Jews at the time, particularly at Qumran and among the rabbis, recognised that they are on familiar ground in Matthew, sometimes in the actual interpretative methods he employs, but also more widely in the creative ways he goes about discovering patterns of fulfilment, ways which modern exegetical scholarship often finds surprising and unpersuasive. But Matthew was not writing for modern exegetical scholars, and we may safely assume that at least some of his intended readers/hearers would have shared his delight in searching for patterns of fulfillment not necessarily in what the original authors of the OT texts had in mind but in what can be perceived in their writings with Christian hindsight..."
Personally I'm growing more inclined to believe that God's law or Biblical law (Ex 20-23 at least) is to be kept by God's people today. Does this mean we are saved by keeping His law? No I don't believe our salvation lies in law-keeping since in truth most do not or cannot keep it 100%. Our salvation lies in Christ who kept the law and surpassed it in fact since His righteousness is of God and therefore higher or superior to any human form of righteousness. However, I know that some would say that the physical law or ritual isn't necessary or it's irrelevant now as the spiritual aspect is what counts eg physical circumcision isn't necessary, but spiritual circumcision is; or the physical seventh day rest isn't necessary as spiritual rest in Christ is; etc. But I believe that both are important since the former points to the latter. And even Christ said to the religious leaders of His day when He reprimanded them for rigid tithing of herbs, but neglecting justice, love, mercy and faith, that both are important and need to be observed. Further, I believe the law and the holy days etc will be observed in Christ's Millennial Kingdom so imo it should be kept now as it will be then by all who claim to be followers of God the Father and Christ.
ReplyDeleteBrinsmead's hermeneutic hierarchy - epistles trump gospels - is intriguing: he even drops a hint of liberalism, mentioning some scholars' suspicion that gospel writers may have inserted some of their own (Petrine) bias (he leaves the thought as fast as he touched on it)
ReplyDeleteThis is even more pertinent when one considers Brinsmead's journey from Adventist-Perfectionism to Reformation soteriology was a model later adopted by Tkach, throwing Armstrongic-perfectionism overboard.
On Peter Enns website there was this article, see highlights below, that may be of interest:
ReplyDeleteWhy Paul’s Letters Are Inadequate for Understanding Salvation
Jennifer Garcia Bashaw, December 17, 2021:
I am suggesting here that if we want to understand salvation better, we need to stop constructing our theology of salvation predominantly (much less exclusively!) on Paul’s letters. We run into some huge problems if we rely too heavily on Paul for our understanding of atonement—we may miss the meaning and importance of Jesus’s life, we may draw the circle of God’s love and mercy too narrowly, and we may grossly misunderstand the character of God. Why might a Pauline-based view of salvation mislead us in these ways?
Simply put, Paul’s letters were never meant to explain salvation fully and so they are an inadequate source for a theology of salvation. Let me expound.
Three reasons why Paul’s letters are inadequate for understanding salvation:
1. Epistles, or letters, are occasional literature...
2. Paul provides a gapingly incomplete picture of Jesus’s life...
3. Salvation vocabulary in the Gospels differs greatly from salvation language in Paul...
https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/pauls-letters-inadequate-for-understanding-salvation/
Anonymous at 12:53 PM said...“This thread is going to 200!”
ReplyDeleteFizzled out at 143 comments?
Quick, somebody think of something more to say.
3:23 AM -- R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew " searching for patterns of fulfillment not necessarily in what the original authors of the OT texts had in mind"
ReplyDeleteOne reason given for Brinsmead's Pauline priority was his chronological superiority creating the earliest Christian writing known. Some have said the Gospel writer(s) even used Paul! It must give Armstrongites pause that Galatians is the primal Christian document!
But how did Paul brew his radical model? It seems more generative than the usual derivative, and made the establishment none too happy. So why wasn't he fired at the Jerusalem council? The fate of Christianity was at stake.
On Peter Enns website there was this article, see highlights below, that may be of interest:
ReplyDeleteWhy Paul's Letters Are Inadequate for Understanding Salvation
Jennifer Garcia Bashaw, December 17, 2021:
“I am suggesting here that if we want to understand salvation better, we need to stop constructing our theology of salvation predominantly (much less exclusively!) on Paul's letters. We run into some huge problems if we rely too heavily on Paul for our understanding of atonement—we may miss the meaning and importance of Jesus's life, we may draw the circle of God's love and mercy too narrowly, and we may grossly misunderstand the character of God. Why might a Pauline-based view of salvation mislead us in these ways?
“Simply put, Paul's letters were never meant to explain salvation fully and so they are an inadequate source for a theology of salvation. Let me expound.
“Three reasons why Paul's letters are inadequate for understanding salvation:
“1. Epistles, or letters, are occasional literature...
“2. Paul provides a gapingly incomplete picture of Jesus's life...
“3. Salvation vocabulary in the Gospels differs greatly from salvation language in Paul...”
https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/pauls-letters-inadequate-for-understanding-salvation/
* Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10:
“In the Pauline letters, Paul is opposed by “Judaizers” - Jewish Christians who stipulated that all Gentile converts must also be catechized and circumcised according to the traditions of the Judaizers’ ancestral religion. As a working symbol of his opposition to this “Judaizing” movement in the church, he refused to circumcise Titus, a Greek convert (see Acts 15:1-2; cf. Gal 2:1-10). When Luke wrote Acts, however, the principal internal threat to the church’s faith were “Gentilizers” who threatened to erase anything Jewish from the church’s core identity. To mark this different context, Luke tells the story of Paul’s circumcision of Timothy, who symbolizes the mission’s resistance to the gentilizing of the church’s Jewish legacy (see 16:1-5; cf. 15:19-21, 28-29; 21:25). Surely Luke was right to worry; the attenuation of the church’s Jewish legacy led to Marcionism in the next generation and has cultivated the anti-Semitism that continues to debilitate our own. (p.11).
“Frankly, Luke offers his readers little to explain the mixed results of Paul’s mission to the Jews or why the church has become by his day a gentile institution. Clearly this result does not reflect God’s longing or Paul’s effort... (p.364).
“Fair-minded scholars acknowledge real disagreements between Acts and any Pauline letter, but to privilege either text is theologically and historically tendentious. In fact, when proper consideration is given the conciliatory bent of Luke and the polemics of Paul, the substance and ethos of their reports of a Jerusalem meeting are quite complimentary. (p.204).