CGI’s Mike James: The Sabbatarian Churches of God Are REAL Christians - everybody else, NOT so much!
Lonnie Hendrix
In the latest edition of their flagship publication, The International News, Mike James generously admits that he “can’t be sure of who God will raise from death to meet Him in the air at His Second Coming.” He went on to ask: “Could there be Christians there who were not part of the Church of God movement?” Unfortunately, while Mike acknowledges that there might indeed be a few of those so-called Christians in the mix, he makes clear that he believes sincerity isn’t that important in securing a spot in the preferred resurrection! He reminds us that “sincere people can be sincerely deceived.”
To demonstrate the truth of his assertion, James went on to quote the standard ACOG prooftexts about how everybody is deceived except them. Naturally, Herbert Armstrong’s absolute favorite was first. You remember – the one which identifies Satan as “the deceiver of the whole world.” (Revelation 12:9) Of course, it is understood by everyone within the ACOG culture that they are NOT part of the WHOLE world which has been deceived (After all, God has revealed “His” TRUTH to them). In similar fashion, they exempt themselves from the many who proclaim Christ and lead others astray (Matthew 24:5). Likewise, they also exempt themselves from all of those false messiahs and prophets which Christ mentioned in those same remarks (verse 24). This, despite the fact that the movement has produced numerous demonstrably false prophets down through the years (beginning with its founder, Herbert Armstrong)!
From there, predictably, James went on to underscore the importance of the “truths” which he and his associates claim that God has revealed to them. He asked: “Does it matter if we observe holidays or holy days? Does it matter if we keep Sunday for the Sabbath? Do we live on in a conscious state after death or not? Are people in heaven or hell right now?” Of course, for Mike and his brothers and sisters in the ACOGs, there is only ONE TRUTH (and they have it, and others don’t)!
According to Mike, belief in Christ isn’t enough. He wrote: “Many Christians today believe you are a Christian if you believe that Jesus lived and died for us and rose from the dead. Scriptures that are cited for this idea are Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 2:2, and John 3:16. Now let me be clear—I agree with these scriptures, but what does it mean to believe in someone or something?” In other words, you must observe the Old Covenant holy days, shun traditional “pagan” holidays, observe the Sabbath, and believe that people remain unconscious when they die and do not go to heaven or hell! They simply do NOT understand that the entire message of Scripture is ALL about Jesus Christ and salvation through him – that THAT is what we MUST believe and accept. In short, our beliefs and practices are really rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things. What you or I believe about what happens when a person dies does not alter what actually happens one iota! We could keep the Sabbath flawlessly for our entire lives and still accomplish absolutely NOTHING!
So, how does one really know whether or not someone is a real Christian? Jesus once said: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35) Now, Mr. James quoted an impressive list of prooftexts (a favorite device of the ACOGs), but he did NOT reference Christ’s simple statement about how to identify his disciples. Isn’t that peculiar? Instead, Mr. James focused on a long list of things that we should believe and do to demonstrate our love for God. Nevertheless, spiritual understanding is NOT listed among the fruits (or evidence) of the presence of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and Paul said that salvation was NOT accomplished by works (Ephesians 2: 1-10).
Why? Why can’t these folks simply believe in and accept Jesus Christ? Could it be that they’re deceived? Could it have anything to do with a need to feel superior to other Christians? In his article, Mike wrote: “Now I know no one group has all the truth or understands all Scripture completely. But I think most of you would agree that on major doctrines like the state of the dead, the nature of God, the Kingdom of God, heaven and hell, the nature of man, God’s law, worship days, and much more there is a big gap between what the Church of God movement believes and what mainline Christianity believes.” Later, in this same article, he wrote: “God has always been working through a small minority of people. In the book of Genesis there are not many people who walked with God.” For Mike and his associates, it’s all about their special little package of doctrines – it’s what sets them apart from all of the rest! So, don’t look for them to give up on what they see as their advantage over everyone else anytime soon.
117 comments:
I am sitting here in the now very short-lived cool of the morning wondering about UAPs and thinking about how the next election promises to be a doozy. And then I read Miller Jones’ trenchant essay and marvel at how much theological piffle that Splinterland can still produce. I start my days with a plate of breakfast accompanied by a plate heaped with disturbing information.
Isn’t Armstrongism passé by now? There is a great volume of well-reasoned information out there that decisively reduces Armstrongism to its erroneous core. In this storm of cogent opposition, how does Splinterland manage to carry on? Trumpies love him more than ever – seems to be correlated with how felonious he is – and Armstrongist pews are still not empty. But nobody said the world should make sense – my daily mantra.
The problem is that Armstrongism sees salvation in gnosis. I do believe there is some threshold of knowledge that one must rise to in order to be a Christian. But I don’t know where that threshold is and if it is the same for everyone. But it is not about knowledge per se as Miller points out. James said that faith without works is dead. And I believe that James was talking about works of love (see verse 2:8) not about the seventh day or sweeping out leaven. Knowledge without love is also dead. Paul said “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. (1 Cor 8:1)”. And who wants to spend their lives sifting through the relics of the dead?
Scout
How to identify His disciples? "If you have love for one another", John 13.
Without a definite context, this statement could apply to the pharisees, the KKK, the illuminati, the Democratic party, and any of the other 41,000 Christian denominations who obviously love one another while disparaging those who do not agree with them.
Everyone loves those that love them, Matthew 5:46! Everyone has a " special little package of doctrines that sets them apart from the rest", even you!
I know this blogs purpose is to destroy everything Armstrong. But the "feeling of superiority" demonstrated by this post is neither uncommon or new, it applies to everybody, Rev. 12:9!
Keep up the good work!
"Dr Dollar repents for teaching the false doctrine of tithing" is a video on YouTube. When and where will there be repentance in the Armstrong splinters?
Your salvation, available exclusively through one of the Armstrong Churches of God! Contact your local pastor; he has all the answers!
(For those of you who are a little slow, or have been recently visiting your local dispensary, this is sarcasm!) Laugh along! It's supposed to be funny.
I actually appreciate it when these Acog "leaders" accidentally reveal and admit the truth. There is, indeed, a great gulf fixed between Armstrongism and Christianity. They admit they are practicing a man-made religion that in no way remotely resembles Christianity. Yet, ironically, if a commenter here said the very same thing, he or she would be called a tool of Satan!
So many of us have been trying for years to help people in these groups see what these leaders, unknowingly, seem proud to admit! This is an anathema to the gospel and to Jesus Christ's finished work on the Cross. So, don't believe us. Believe your own dear leaders' accidental slip of the tongue/pen. Then run away as fast as possible and come to Jesus!!
Your salvation, avaliable exclusively through JESUS! There is no other name by which we must be saved. Just as long as you think he made a huge mistake when he invented the Sabbath.
HWA: "God does not impute something you don't have" [1]
Bible: "God imputes righteousness without works" [2]
1 - What do you mean Salvation (1961)
2 - Rom 4:6
I’ve had COGers quote Rev. 12:9 to me as if it were proof positive that all of Christianity (except their new Armstrong-flavored brand) was of the devil.
Just as they accuse others of doing, they never consider whether they themselves might be the victims of deceit.
I understand. I was the same way until I more seriously practiced humility and honesty, willing to engage other views without an incorrigible bias.
People like Vance Stinson and Jeff Reed have tried to steer CGI in a more positive and Christ-centric direction, but they also continue to provide platforms for folks like Bill Watson and Adrian Davis (both of whom are old-time Armstrongist true-believers and conspiracy theorists). Over the last year or two, Mike James has served to appease and enable the worst instincts in that church culture. On CGI's official website, we find a program by Bill Watson entitled "Pedophilia - A Growing Pandemic," and "Is the USA in the Bible?" Incidentally, in their sermon postings, they have covered Bill Watson's entire series of "The Prophetic Advantage: The Israel Paradigm" (Anglo-Israelism). Moreover, this same Mike James just did a program for their "Armor of God" program titled "The Throne of David" (defending the notion that David's throne still exists in the guise of the British Monarchy).
Wrong days
While Sunday-keepers get the day of the fourth commandment wrong, they get the days of the crucifixion and resurrection right.
1Co 5:7b Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Christ, our passover, was killed between the evenings on the fourteenth of the first month, according to the calendar employed by John; and his legs were not broken also fulfilling Scripture/typology (Jn 19:36).
Dt 16:9b begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn.
Lev 23:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
Lev 23:11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.
“Note that the day of the ‘omer is not “a sacred occasion” when “laborious work” is prohibited. It thus does not qualify as a mo‘ed ‘festival’”... (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, p.1986).
Both the reaping and elevating of the sheaf, at the start of the harvest, was to occur on the first working day after the Sabbath. (Non-atonement holy days are not Sabbaths).
The ‘omer foreshadowed Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week.
Lk 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
Lk 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
In his comment on 1 Sam 20:5, Solomon Goldman noted:
“third day. In the Hebrew idiom, this means the day after tomorrow (cf. verse 12)” (Samuel, Soncino, p.122).
This concept is behind Jesus saying in 13:32. Both verses highlight ancient-near Eastern inclusive counting.
Looking at 18:33 Christ was to be scourged and put to death on the first day. He was to spend “tomorrow”, the second day, in the grave; and rise on the third day, the day after tomorrow.
This fits with a Friday crucifixion, rest on the Sabbath, and rising again on the first day of the week, the first working day of the week. Both the physical and spiritual harvest begin on the day after the Sabbath.
It is mentioned 12 times that Christ was to raised on the “third day” - the day after tomorrow.
But what about:
Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
First, if this is literal, it contradicts the “third day” idiom above.
The usual explanation is an appeal to “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (Jn 11:9) and “And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Ge 1:13). Hence three days and three nights equal 72 hours.
But the problem with this it doesn’t allow for “a day and a night” having an idiomatic sense.
“It has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, ‘A day and a night constitute a span [onah], and part of a span [onah] is equivalent to the whole of it'...” (Jerusalem Talmud, Sabbath tractate chapter 9 part 3j).
A near contemporary of Matthew notes ‘a day and a night’ had an idiomatic sense.
Taken together the idiomatic senses of “the third day,” and “three days and three nights” are compatible. Seeing that parts of an onah are equivalent to a whole, then, “after three days” and “on the third day” refer to the same day.
Christ died on a Friday [first day], rested on the Sabbath [second day] and rose on the first of the Sabbaths - the first [day] of the week, Mt 28:1 (second use of “sabbaths” in verse), Jn 20:1 - [third day]; Sunday according to the Roman calendar.
In the year Christ died [AD 30], according to John’s calendar, the first day of Unleavened Bread fell on a Sabbath [Jn 19:31].
One thing that Mike James didn't understand is that Christ only lead one true church (RCG) and not many different church of god denominations. Christ is not divided, Mike. It would be messy if I went to one church one week, another the next week, and another one another week. Read Matthew 16:18.
Watch this video on YouTube ("The Story of Desmond Doss, 'The Conscientious Objector'", in case the link is scrubbed from this post) about a Seventh-Day Adventist, and then try to convince yourself that he didn't have divine protection through that night on Hacksaw Ridge. I'm not with SDA, and yet, he is now one of my personal heroes, and I hope that, someday, I might have even half of the faith that he did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od0uv1FzpaM
The "3 days and nights" could be literal if understood they could be part or whole: the days are part Nisan 14, full Nisan 15, part Nisan 16. The nights are part of darkness Friday afternoon, Friday night, part Saturday night.
Anonymous at 11:11 said...
"Your salvation is available exclusively through JESUS! There is no other name by which we must be saved".
So,what happens to believers of other faiths e.g. the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus. Taoists and the Jews who do not accept Jesus? Or are they acceptable to God as they practise "love" to God and fellowmen?
The Bible tells us what happens to believers of other faiths. It holds out no hope for them unless they change and believe in Jesus.
Saved by grace through faith. Not by works or knowledge.
Romans tells us that everyone knows that there is a God. Not everyone knows the God of the Bible.
Faith in God, though poorly understood, is what saves us. Those who never heard of Jesus are saved, not by their level of understanding or knowledge, but by their faith which is demonstrated by works.
we all have imperfect understanding of theology, but we don't have to pass a theology exam to be into heaven.
9.04, "Accepting Jesus" is not just some academic belief. It means doing one's best to emulate Christ since he is the embodiment of every virtue. Muslims, Hindus etc have some truth in their religions, but it's a cheap imitation of the real thing. So yes, one day they must accept Christ or it's no salvation for them.
No annon 700, Christ is not divided, but MAN IS! 41,000 Christian denominations prove that! That's not His doing.
Christ is not the problem, the law and sabbath are not the problem, the old covenant is not the problem but the vehicle that demonstrates the problem.
Guess what the problem is?
9:04
There are a number of theories about what happens to the unevangelized. At one end of the spectrum, we have John Calvin's idea that all the unevangelized simply go to hell for eternity. At the other hand we have Gregory of Nyssa's idea that everyone will accept Jesus, either in this life or post-mortem, and will receive salvation. About half of American Christians, I recall from reading, believe in a theory called Inclusivism. That means that if you are a good whatever, Buddhist, Shintoist, etc., you will receive salvation just as if you were a Christian.
The question then arises, "How can a good Shintoist receive salvation if he lived centuries ago and never heard the name Jesus Christ?" What about "no other name". In response to this issue, some believe that the name of Jesus is an epistemologial necessity for salvation. That you have to actually know his name and call upon it. Others, believe that the name of Jesus is an ontological necessity. That means you may not know the name Jesus but he is nevertheless the hidden causation of your salvation.
Armstrongists believe in the epistemological necessity of the name of Jesus and post-mortem evangelization for those who do not have an opportunity in this lifetime. Those who have opportunity to be Armstrongists and reject it are annihilated. Armstrongists believe that the people who contribute to this website and have exited Armstrongism will be annihilated.
Whereas Armstrongists believe those people who are orthodox Christians are deceived and will have a post-mortem opportunity to become Armstrongists, exiters are the children of hell. I think this is one reason why Armstrongist ministers do not, by far and large, contribute to the debate on these pages. They give short shrift to people who are hell bound anyway. If they had any love at all, the exiter group would be the target of their most active outreach efforts.
Scout
Hey Lonnie: I don’t know much about CGI, so I appreciate your insight and the information you provide.
It seems that CGI is an improved reiteration of Armstrongism while remaining disastrous Armstrongism, nonetheless.
As you noted, CGI replicates Armstrongism’s pride and boasting over having special truth – “truth” as packaged by HWA from the “truth” he lifted from other sources.
It appears that at least some of the leaders of CGI seek to distance their splinter from Pervie Herbie and have acknowledged some of his mistakes.
We know HWA as a false prophet who prophesied specific events would happen during specified years as well as specific time frames – while claiming to preach these happenings under the authority of God.
What about Garner Ted Armstrong, founder of CGI – I assume that since pervie GTA was under the full authority of pervie HWA during the 1975 in Prophecy debacle, GTA also preached the same false message that HWA lied about, in the years prior to GTA splitting – is that correct?
Is there a record of GTA preaching the same false prophesies as HWA and uttering false prophesies of his own, post-rebellion from HWA’s cult?
If yes, how does CGI reconcile their historic roots, conception, and early years under the heavy, dark weight of founding fathers who have such an evil record of false prophesies?
Lonnie: it does surprise me to see that CGI has survived forty-five years after rebelling from the WCG.
Do you know how many people GTA highjacked from the mother cult and what the current size of the CGI splinter is?
Trooisto,
I appreciate your contributions to these threads. Yes, Garner Ted was into news headline theology big time. Indeed, many folks thought he would have made a much better newscaster than televangelist. GTA formed another organization after being demoted at CGI, and his son Mark is an ultra-rightwing conspiracy theorist who suffers the same preoccupation with the end times that possessed his patriarchs.
CGI's story is very similar to the experiences of the others splinters. They have splintered numerous times over the years of their existence as an organization. Also, like most of the rest of them, they tend to keep their numbers pretty close to the vest. The number of baptisms reported in their publications is small, and the number of obituaries usually offsets those. Prior to Ian Boyne's death, the Jamaica branch of CGI was vital and experiencing growth, but I don't know what the current circumstances are there.
Unfortunately, I have family members who are currently part of Bill Watson's congregation. As my past posts have indicated, there is currently an uneasy truce in place within the main organization between the more progressive voices and the more traditional elements. However, as you experienced with Jeff, the more progressive voices are very reluctant to actually challenge traditional Armstrongist theology. Hope this answers your questions.
“For Mike and his associates, it’s all about their special little package of doctrines – it’s what sets them apart from all of the rest! So, don’t look for them to give up on what they see as their advantage over everyone else anytime soon”
I think you are assigning motivations. As one of Mike’s associates, I can say assuredly that we do not look down upon others with other beliefs. We just believe they are incorrect.
I know that it makes some people mad when you tell them they are incorrect. But that is their reaction, not our motivation.
It is only logical that there is only correct set of beliefs. We believe we are right based on our understanding. We may be wrong. I don’t think we are.
I don’t think two things can be true that are contradictory. Either the Bible teaches that Christians are to keep the commandments or it doesn’t. Either Jesus and the writers of the New Testament encouraged a keeping of the Sabbath for God’s people or it doesn’t. We believe it does so we teach from our convictions.
ACOG members wear their blinders, and their rose colored glasses. What we see as failed prophecies, they see as delayed prophecies, delayed because there were certain things that the Armstrongs did not understand. They interpret the failed dates as over-enthusiasm for the fulfillment of the prophecies. Where the science which revolves around the mapping of the human genome is concerned, they look for improbable loopholes in that science, or they reject it outright as something man-made which is countered by the Bible.
ACOG members freely acknowledge the moral failures of GTA, heck, CGI wears a feather in their cap because they actually had the discernment and presence of mind to expel GTA. This is why they can see themselves as part of the "True History of the True Church" endless chain, and not as the result of plagiarism and borrowing. The other ACOGs simply do not accept any information, or direct testimony which suggests that Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong was not as pure as the driven snow. They interpret any negative information about HWA as being Satan's attacks on God's Endtime Apostle who was the restorer of correct doctrine as taught by Peter, James, and John. They ignore the differences involving Paul, and fictionalize him to be a carbon copy of Peter, James, and John, just a little hard to understand.
This is simplistic thinking, by simplistic people. As we all know, HWA made no secret of being a bottom-feeder. He even based that part of his church culture or aura on the scriptures indicating that God raised up the foolish of the world to confound the wise of the world. HWA had a PR-based explanation to diffuse for every curious aspect of his church. How many times did we listen to ourselves being called "dumb sheep", or those in the church who were a little more blessed intellectually as being "cream of the crud".
I came to the conclusion years ago that there are certain ones whom we simply cannot reach. Unfortunately, I witnessed this unfolding with my own parents! They had their barriers erected and strongly in place, and nothing, no matter how sound or factually based it might be, would educate them away from the carefully crafted mindset which is Armstrongism. The bullet-proof counters to Armstrongism do not even make a dent, because they come from people (watch out for the ad hominem!) who "hate God and don't even keep the sabbath". Latter day "mockers" who are given over to evil.
I really did not understand how people could think and believe in this manner until Donald Trump and his devotees provided an even more dramatic example of "believer" type group think. Although it is potentially so destructive, I am so grateful to President Trump for having deepened my understanding about the human propensity for denying facts to preserve a belief and agenda.
Scout: You wrote: “…. exiters are the children of hell. I think this is one reason why Armstrongist ministers do not, by far and large, contribute to the debate on these pages.”
I agree with that statement but also have a slightly different take on the operations of the priesthood of Armstrongism.
I think that the leaders of the Armstrong cults pose an image of superiority for having the truth and the wisdom to hold to it – therefore, they are above stooping so low as to cast their pearls of wisdom before the swine rejectors of Armstrongism, whose bacon is soon headed for a hot, quick, and final sizzle in the Lake O’ Fire.
These ministers can’t abide being challenged or treated as anything but absolute authorities on not only all spiritual matters but also on all issues related to human existence.
While they hold this superiority belief, the pricks stay within the center of the bubble in which their superiority beliefs are given all credence, while avoiding proximity to the walls of the bubble and risking puncture to their world.
I believe that although the ministry of Armstrongism, as a whole, are true believers of Armstrongism, they also have a repressed inkling that they have trouble in the outside world; difficulties defending their beliefs, complications fending off counter points, and deficiencies in navigating biblical doctrines brandished by those they label so-called Christians.
It’s easier and more functional for their motives to keep a stiff air of superiority and not engage in any contact with the devil-deceived dwellers of this blog, or any other worldly types.
You also wrote:
“They give short shrift to people who are hell bound anyway. If they had any love at all, the exiter group would be the target of their most active outreach efforts.”
True; the Armstrongists are so cruel when juxtaposed with Christian missionaries who go to such great lengths to reach those who they believe are bound for hell.
I applaud the ministers of CGI, past and present, who have participated in discussions on this website – they demonstrate more honor, bravery, and Christian concern for others than the other Armstrongite ministers.
It’s intriguing that the CGI ministers seem to think that they can persuade readers of Banned to join their kinder, more enlightened and palatable version of Armstrongism – who knows, perhaps they’ve succeeded once or twice.
You can’t blame them for trying; if you really believe you have the truth, you should go to great lengths to share it.
Thereby, the sharing ministers of CGI put to shame their brothers in law from the other splinters who will not engage in debate.
Thanks for the information Lonnie!
Jeff: how does your church reconcile the failed prophecies, proclaimed to be uttered under the authority of God, by your church’s founding fathers, HWA and GTA?
How does all the written and recorded evidence of false prophesies of your leaders impact the legitimacy your church and your claim to have a “correct set of beliefs”?
Faith, hope, and charity are absolute foundational needs of a Christian if we're going to be in God's Kingdom. God’s Word reveals that love is the greatest attribute one can possess, the highest standard one can achieve. The apostle Paul wrote, “For he that loves another has fulfilled the law. Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:8, 10).
Love is the fulfillment of the law.
Scout wrote: “…. exiters are the children of hell. I think this is one reason why Armstrongist ministers do not, by far and large, contribute to the debate on these pages.”
Most ministers in the COG movement have no real theological education. Most have been ordained just be the mere fact have read HWA and that particular groups literature. Real Biblical studies, criticism, and new covenant teachings are frowned upon. That is why so many have a holier than thou attitude toward members and those who hav left. Most of them could not effectively defend their beliefs here. That is why I appreciate Jeff Reed for at least engaging in conversations. Iron sharpens Iron as the church loved to teach.
Jeff,
I believe that you and Mike are incorrect - that you are deceived. Does that make you mad? As for Mike's motivations, I encourage everyone to read Mike's article in "The International News" in its entirety and draw your own conclusions.
Trooista asked:
"How does your church reconcile the failed prophecies, proclaimed to be uttered under the authority of God, by your church’s founding fathers, HWA and GTA?"
They were wrong. We don't support setting dates, teaching headline theology, or speculative prophecies. And our Church's foundation is Jesus, not HWA or GTA.
Trooista asked:
"How does all the written and recorded evidence of false prophesies of your leaders impact the legitimacy your church and your claim to have a “correct set of beliefs”?"
We don't have any of these false prophecies in our doctrine. GTA left the CGI over 25 years ago. We now follow a servant leadership approach. Our beliefs are not dependent on men's ideas but on scripture. So our legitimacy also depends on scripture and, most importantly, our foundation, Jesus.
Miller said:
"I believe that you and Mike are incorrect - that you are deceived. Does that make you mad?"
No. I appreciate challenges to my worldview.
Jeff,
That's what makes you so different from most of your colleagues. Most of them are very prickly when anyone dares to challenge them.
Jeff: you really took the easy way out of dealing with your false prophet founding fathers by dismissing their evil with just the words “They were wrong”.
HWA is the founding father of CGI in the sense that CGI came out of the Herbie’s WCG.
At its inception, CGI copied the same doctrines that HWA selected – which were different than the doctrines of WCG’s parent church, Church of God, Seventh Day, as evidenced by the forerunner’s rejection of the Old Covenant Holy Days.
CGI also copied the extra-biblical doctrines of British Israelism from HWA and much of the same failed prophesies of impending, in the next few years, catastrophes to fall upon “Israelitish nations”.
You can claim to have a historical foundation in Jesus, but Jesus never identified certain European nations as being lost tribes of Israel and Jesus never mentioned the United States.
So, an honest admission should be given that at least part of your church’s theology came from HWA, as also preached by GTA prior to the inception of CGI and for first twenty years of CGI’s history.
Anything short of that acknowledgement is a dishonest whitewash of CGI history.
With hope of enlightenment, rather than deception, please articulate whether you believe that HWA and GTA should be labeled false prophets to be avoided.
Since you admit that "They (HWA & GTA) were wrong” – what is the chance that their wrongness impacted other areas of CGI doctrines?
Certainly, outside observers of the failed prophecies don’t link the false prophets with any special connection to God, authority to start a church, or any knowledge to impart to followers. Rather, the converse is true: the false prophets were not from God, had no authority to start churches, and people should be warned against consuming their related teachings.
Can you see why outside observers transfer the status of the false prophets onto the CGI that sprang from their preaching and how we believe that status continues to impact the legitimacy your church today?
Someone above again condemns tithing.
Have you read the 4th Council of the Lateran, 13th century, canon 54?
The Catholic church required tithes. If they did, then how much more the true church?
This was during the time of the Waldenses and early days of the inquisitions.
You can't say both were wrong (unless you rely on the poor scholarship of today).
11.46 wrote "love is the greatest attribute one can possess." Though a common belief, the bible does not teach this at all. Romans "love is the fulfilling of the law" is not the same it being the greatest virtue. The same for the love chapter in 1 Corinthians 13. In 1 Corinthians 13:13 it states that of the three: love, hope and charity, love is the greater virtue. Again, it doesn't say that it is the greatest virtue.
According to "worldly" secular books, it's another virtue that's the greatest. If you look close, it's in the bible.
10:39 wrote, "Although it is potentially so destructive, I am so grateful to President Trump for having deepened my understanding about the human propensity for denying facts to preserve a belief and agenda."
Well said. Trumpism is a sociological caricature of organizaions like the Armstrongist denominations. I am appalled that so many White Evangelicals, who should have some sense of morality, are uncritical supporters of Trump. And it is not surprising that some Armstrongists have slipped into the Armstrongist camp. As Jesus said, wisdom is justified of her children.
Scout
Anonymous 11:46 wrote, "Love is the fulfillment of the law."
Armstrongists dodge behind this statement to justify the lack of love in their denominations. While the broad concept of love more than fulfills the narrow concept of the law, that does not mean that, the reverse, keeping the law is the fulfillment of love. Plenty of people who make a lame attempt to observe the Torah do not have much love in their behavior. Think Pharisees and Jesus' condemnation of them. It is paradoxical but such people as the Pharisees use their lame law keeping to substitute for love. Law keeping can actually militate againstn love. Been there, done that.
Scout
Trump was better than the alternative each time. Not too hard to understand why Evangelicals would support him in that way. Though I am sorry they support him over better people in the GOP right now. There is benefit in a Prez that kinda bucks the swamp, but others can do it as well without the baggage.
Scout653,
Well said. Love fulfills the Law. The Law does not fulfill love.
Gal. 4 tells us the Law is not even based in faith. Yet, Faith saves.
Love is a verb and not a noun. Love means fulfilling others needs. With the passage of time, this initial mechanical behavior results in the growth of attitudes of love towards others. There's something wrong if people don't know this from personal experience.
1038
You are absolutely correct. There is something wrong when people confuse what you said with emotion!
"what the current size of the CGI"
The Acog bosses/tithe-receivers do not reveal their membership
- they would be lucky to be in the "1000-club" (over 1000 members)
Just like founder 'Playboy'Garner-Ted may have been in another "1000-club":
those celebrities & rockstars with over 1000 conquests!
Love is feeling and it's also what you do.
10:38, I believe you are confusing that kind of love with muscle memory. The New Testament indicates that love is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and it flows when you have the HS.
Most certainly, it is important to build good positive habits, collectively known as character, but these are all a function of continuously applied will power and strength of mind. There are also some fine examples of people who have natural love that almost seems innate, but comes from being raised in a family where natural love is present.
Jeff has shown a lot of courage and good personality traits throughout his contributions here. Almost reminiscent of Ian Boyne. I've often thought that it must be difficult for people of his worldview to share and have give and take discussions with people who have already tried that worldview and found that it did not work.
Love is most assuredly a noun as well. Agape is a noun. It is generally accompanied with action, but when my mother was physically incapacitated and could not speak, I could see the love she had love for me. That fed my soul. The emotion and feeling of love is cherished.
E
Trooista wrote:
"So, an honest admission should be given that at least part of your church’s theology came from HWA, as also preached by GTA prior to the inception of CGI and for first twenty years of CGI’s history.
Anything short of that acknowledgment is a dishonest whitewash of CGI history."
Our Church came out of WWCG and brought some of the doctrines and beliefs over. But that theology preexisted HWA and GTA. If you look at the beliefs of COG 7th Day, we are very similar.
https://publications.cog7.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2021/12/Statement-of-Faith-Eng.pdf
We also keep the Holy Days. But there were churches in the USA that kept the Holy Days prior to HWA. If you were to compare the belief of CGI and WWCG around 1978, you would see a significant difference.
Trooista wrote:
"You can claim to have a historical foundation in Jesus, but Jesus never identified certain European nations as being lost tribes of Israel and Jesus never mentioned the United States."
You are correct. It was not important to Jesus. Some in our church use that belief to explain some prophecies. That theory originated in the 1800s prior to HWA.
Here is what our STP says on the subject.
"The modern identification of the “House of Israel” as the United States and British Commonwealth is an important part of the Church’s prophetic understanding. While the United States is understood to be specifically represented as “Manasseh” and the British Commonwealth as “Ephraim,” the identity of the remainder of the original Israelite tribes is uncertain (though some evaluations have been made, such as equating France with Reuben.)"
"The identification of the United States and British Commonwealth as the House of Israel leads to serious and momentous prophetic implications for the future. The time of the end is also called “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7), because the modern descendants of the House of Israel shall be taken captive by “strangers” and severely oppressed. It will take the return of Jesus Christ to rescue and free the modern descendants of the patriarch Jacob from national humiliation and restore them to the knowledge of God."
Trooista wrote:
"Can you see why outside observers transfer the status of the false prophets onto the CGI that sprang from their preaching and how we believe that status continues to impact the legitimacy your church today?"
Yes, that is why I maintain that their legacy does not impact the current CGI. It is why we do not refer to them as an authoritative source. Never. Calvinists reference the writings of John Calvin, Wesleyans reference John Wesley, Mormons reference Joseph Smith, and Seventh Day Adventist's reference the writings of Ellen G. White. We never reference HWA or GTA.
It may take some more time to move out from under the pejorative label of Armstrongism, but all we can currently do is continue to focus on Jesus as our foundation. And let people know how we view ourselves.
A prophetic belief has no impact on the validity of our core doctrines. It is not listed as a core doctrine.
What if Israel is just Israel? And what if Israel remains one of the two witnesses. And what if the Gentile church is the other witness. Jesus was never going to abandon Israel completely.
How might that impact your reading of scripture? I’m not looking for a response. It might just be worth considering.
Jeff,
Trooisto's points stand. Your views are NOT universal within CGI (as you well know). Folks like Bill Watson and Adrian Davis continue to regard Anglo-Israelism as one of the pillars of the "truth" which God has revealed to "his" church. In similar fashion, like Herbie and Ted, they and their allies within CGI continue to believe that the primary mission of the church is a warning message to the English-speaking peoples of the earth. You, Vance and Wynn may not agree with their approach, but you tolerate it and continue to provide a platform for it. Moreover, never mentioning the names of Herbie and GTA does NOT change the fact that Herbie founded the movement and GTA was instrumental to the founding of CGI. Jehovah's Witnesses don't like to be referred to as Russellites, but they cannot erase their history (they can only pretend it doesn't exist).
"Well said. Love fulfills the Law. The Law does not fulfill love."
Romans 2
11 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
Yes, love fulfills the law if, through that love, someone does not break the law. For example, the law says do not kill. So naturally, true love would not kill another or even hate. But if someone kills or hates, they are guilty of sin whether they know the law or not.
Romans 2
26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?
Fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law is done through true love.
Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Notice that the law provides knowledge of sin. And everyone is guilty of transgressing the Law of God, whether they have the written code or not. The Law is still in effect. And everyone is guilty and under the penalty of the law.
20 Therefore, by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Because we are all guilty, we only can receive redemption through Jesus.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
But once we are redeemed, we can study God's word to learn how to love more. We can study to learn how God wants us to worship Him. If we have faith, we will let the Holy Spirit lead us into obedience to Christ.
We believe that faith in Jesus will lead Christians to keep the Sabbath and Holy Days as part of their love for God.
True Biblical love is not some happy-go-lucky feeling.
If you are breaking God's law, you're not expressing true love.
Jeff,
A Gentile not under the law does not unknowingly observe the sabbath, the holy days, or avoid pork. These are NOT things one would just naturally do out of love for God and neighbor. However, the gentile can naturally know to not steal, kill, lie about others, commit adultery. And if coming to know Christ, then he will also show reverence for God by not having other gods or their images or using His name without respect.
Anon1146 used Rom. 13:8, 10 “For he that loves another has fulfilled the law. Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
This is plain. If you act in love towards God and Man you fulfilled the Law. Christ said this when He gave the two great commandments as they are "the Law and the Prophets"
You concluded:
"We believe that faith in Jesus will lead Christians to keep the Sabbath and Holy Days as part of their love for God.
True Biblical love is not some happy-go-lucky feeling."
I think this conclusion you give illustrates the disconnect of many/most in the COGs. Somehow, despite the many Christian martyrs/abolitionists/orphanages/half-way houses/etc, you still believe that warming a seat on a saturday instead of a Sunday and going on a vacation in the Fall with your church friends is the sign of Christians that do not confuse love with a "happy go lucky feeling."
No offense intended: this highly suggests an ignorance of history/Christians at best and an alteration of rational thought at worst. I suppose back in the day I was not ignorant of history and only a little ignorant of Christians, but the COGs altered my rational thought on this topic, but thankfully with a whisper of doubt. E
“CGI's Mike James: The Sabbatarian Churches of God Are REAL Christians – everybody else, NOT so much!”
In 1978, Herbert W. Armstrong was finally forced to openly put his own son Garner Ted Armstrong out of the Worldwide Church of God for his ongoing bad behavior that could no longer be covered up. HWA had previoulsy tried to cover up GTA's sins and set up GTA as his successor in the WCG. Even after 1978, HWA asked the WCG people to pray for GTA's willingness to repent. Since GTA became incorrigibly wicked and refused even to pretend to repent any more, his expulsion from the WCG ended up becoming permanent.
GTA quickly started his own little CGI rebel group in 1978, but got forced out of it over his continuing sins. So, GTA then started his even smaller ICG rebel group in 1998 to support his playboy lifestyle. GTA's CGI and ICG rebel groups were never part of the WCG true church, which they and GTA tried to destroy. They were sinful little rebel groups that God would never use.
Remember when CGI founder 'Playboy'Garner Ted had his own 'Falcon' business-jet & pilots'-license while his dad's poor titheslaves were living in trailer-parks struggling to make ends meet?
Do new recruits know the history of 'Playboy'Garner Ted's CGI cult?
Jeff: Was HWA deceived? Was GCI deceived? Or were they purposefully acting as deceivers? Did some of their deception come into CGI from its inception? Since we can’t know their motives, please answer at least three of these questions.
You wrote: “A prophetic belief has no impact on the validity of our core doctrines.”
Are you saying that it’s okay to mix truth and falsehoods?
What you quoted from your Systematic Theology Project was conjecture that has been proven false by science. The Bible certainly does not identify Britain and the US.
As I repeatedly pointed out before, the CGI Statement and Beliefs and the Systematic Theology Project provide no details of essential Christian doctrines found in the New Testament – and these core doctrinal documents contain falsehoods – these are two HUGE problems.
These HUGE problems are a direct result of CGI being founded by two false prophets - and you are overlooking this very Armstrongite connection that exists in all of the splinters.
Since you claim to practice the law, please explain where you stand on Deuteronomy 18:20 in regard to HWA, GTA, and those who preach the same deceptions as HWA and GTA?
HWA had his own skeletons even worse than those of GTA.
Looks like Vance Stinson is responding to these recent CGI criticisms:
https://www.cgi.org/media-app?sapurl=LytxNWdtL2xiL21pLytxanQ4NG1wP2VtYmVkPXRydWUmcmVjZW50Um91dGU9YXBwLndlYi1hcHAubGlicmFyeS5saXN0JnJlY2VudFJvdXRlU2x1Zz0lMkJjYzg0czl0
Hey Vance Stinson, check out this blatant contradiction from your guru HWA:
HWA: "God does not impute something you don't have" [1]
Bible: "God imputes righteousness without works" [2]
1 - 'What do you mean Salvation' (p.24)
2 - Rom 4:6
Vance Stinson is so far off base in regards to the New Covenant that is appalling! All he does is quote word for word the illogical heresies of HWA to back up his statements. He is not well researched in his topic, that is for sure!
Responding to Trooista
"Are you saying that it’s okay to mix truth and falsehoods?"
No. Each individual belief should be examined on its own merits. A belief that is theoretical such as BI is in a different category than one that is solidly supported by scripture. Just like different beliefs on the age of the earth are also not salvational issues, so are prophetic theories.
"Was HWA deceived?" Yes
"Or were they purposefully acting as deceivers?" I cannot judge motivations.
"Did some of their deception come into CGI from its inception?" No, we rejected the HWA Apostle doctrine, place of safety, setting dates, etc. Our Statement of Beliefs is a solid, biblically based document.
"Since you claim to practice the law, please explain where you stand on Deuteronomy 18:20 in regard to HWA, GTA, and those who preach the same deceptions as HWA and GTA?"
Under the New Covenant, this law informs a Christian that speaking false prophecies is a sin. Since the law is now administered under Jesus as our High Priest, we have his example on enforcement: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" So effectively, anyone guilty of this type of sin answers to Jesus. Actually, for every sin, we answer to Jesus and should seek his forgiveness.
"Under the New Covenant, this law informs a Christian that speaking false prophecies is a sin. Since the law is now administered under Jesus as our High Priest, we have his example on enforcement: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" So effectively, anyone guilty of this type of sin answers to Jesus. Actually, for every sin, we answer to Jesus and should seek his forgiveness."
And with that, we just leave HWA and GTA off the hook- how convenient. BTW, Sorry about 1975 folks... oops!
Vance Stinson's sermon on "New Covenant Law" makes the point that the change in the Law referred to in the seventh chapter of Hebrews refers to the change in the Priesthood (Christ being from the tribe of Judah, not Levi). His point, however, ignores the fact that the Law did CHANGE. Moreover, the change in the Priesthood meant changes in many commandments related to sacrifices and rituals - as subsequent chapters in the epistle to the Hebrews make clear.
Mr. Stinson also makes much of the fact that God refers to Torah as "my Law" in the book of Jeremiah. My question is: What's the point? Of course, Torah is God's Law. The commands of the New Covenant are God's Laws too! Moreover, as we have noted over and over again, the two great commandments (Love for God and neighbor) are drawn from Torah and comprehend the WHOLE - especially the Ten Commandments. We have also talked in some detail about how God wrote his Law on the hearts of the people of the New Covenant.
Mr. Stinson also went back to that old ACOG standard prooftext: Matthew 5:17-10. Unfortunately, he perpetuated Herbert Armstrong's misunderstanding of what it meant for Christ to FULFILL the Torah and the Prophets, and what Christ meant when he said: "not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Once again, we have talked in some detail about ALL of the ways Christ fulfilled Torah and accomplished its purpose. Even so, Mr. Stinson and I agree that Torah and the Prophets must be interpreted by Christians through the lens of the Christ event.
Finally, Mr. Stinson quoted from Romans 13 and I Timothy 1, but he refuses to acknowledge that the individual commandments of Torah (including the Ten) are comprehended in the Law of Love, which represents the universally applicable law he was talking about. Moreover, from my perspective, the Law of Love is the ultimate expression of objective morality.
Jeff: thanks for the reply.
I made a mistake in my post yesterday. I meant to ask was HWA deceived and was GTA deceived? You replied that HWA was deceived; therefore, we can also conclude that GTA was deceived – since GTA held closely to the same weird-ass teachings as his deceived father.
The deceived GTA led CGI for twenty years – teaching the same deceptions as his “wrong” father.
Yesterday, you wrote that BI is a “theoretical” belief that is in a different category than one that is solidly supported by scripture. Yet BI is in CGI’s Systematic Theology (not Therory) Project. BI is a doctrine (not theory) of CGI that you admit “is not solidly supported by scripture” and has been proven false by science. Yet, the BI false doctrine remains as an official doctrine (not theory) of CGI. Teaching the false doctrine of BI and including it in the STP is deceiving people. Therefore, CGI is an actively deceptive church.
You also wrote:
"Did some of their deception come into CGI from its inception? No, we rejected the HWA Apostle doctrine, place of safety, setting dates, etc. Our Statement of Beliefs is a solid, biblically based document.”
What? You’ve acknowledged that BI remains in CGI. GTA did not start CGI because he rejected his father's doctrines; GTA started his church because HWA reject him, as an unrepented prodigal son. It took years, under the leadership of the deceived GTA, and after his reign, to reject other weird-ass doctrines of the deceived HWA. Deception definitely entered CGI at its inception and remains today.
The CGI Statement of Beliefs cannot be solid if it’s lacking essential New Covenant doctrines. A non-Christian could compare the text of the New Testament and the CGI Statement of Beliefs and identify doctrines elaborated on in the New Testament but not covered by CGI.
The false prophesies of HWA and GTA prove that they were not used by God to start a church.
In summary, CGI was founded and led by a man who was a deceived false prophet; he led CGI for twenty years with deceptions that exist today. The CGI STP included doctrines (that you call theories) that have been proven to be false – yet CGI deceptively continues to teach these doctrines. And, the Statement of Beliefs is, at best, lacking essential doctrines.
That is a lot of deception and falsehood!
However, that is not too much sin for Jesus to forgive.
Jeff, I’m praying for you and CGI to turn from all this deception and seek those loving gifts of God that you have neglected to include in your Statement of Beliefs.
"The law of love is the ultimate expression of objective morality"?
As a summary, yes! But that didn't stop the apostles from referencing and using individual laws for authority and instruction purposes!
See 1 Corinthians 9:9, Romans 7:1-3, 7, Ephesians 6:1-2, James 2:8-11
"The law of love is the ultimate expression of objective morality"?
As a summary, yes! But that didn't stop the apostles from referencing and using individual laws for authority and instruction purposes!
See 1 Corinthians 9:9, Romans 7:1-3, 7, Ephesians 6:1-2, James 2:8-11
BP8,
There is NOTHING wrong with using individual commandments for instructional purposes, as they were used in the passages which you cited. And, once again, the Ten Commandments are comprehended/summarized by the Law of Love. Hence, if a person internalizes those commandments, he/she will be honoring parents, respecting other people's property, treating others with kindness and respect, being faithful, telling the truth, etc. The Ten Commandments are an elaboration/reflection of the universal Law of Love - Thus, they are NOT antagonistic or contradictory to it. Remember, Love FULFILLS the Law (all of it).
No change
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5a Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things
There has been no change in the priesthood regarding the Levitical priests.
Jer 33:18a And for the priests, the Levites, there will not be cut off [karat] an individual before me making whole offering rise... (John Goldingay).
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with ... the Levites the priests, my ministers.
Jeremiah 33:15-26 is a prophecy for the Messianic Age - Levitical priests will be required to maintain the NC.
1Ch 9:33 And these are the singers, chief of the fathers of the Levites, who remaining in the chambers were free: for they were employed in that work day and night.
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
The success of the Messianic Age requires two priesthood; one in heaven and one on the earth.
The Church Administration of the New Covenant may be seen in two ways.
2Co 6:16b for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly... for he hath prepared for them a city.
First, under the Old Covenant, where God through Jesus had a ‘dwelling presence’ - Tabernacle and Temple - there were three administrations. The Church Administration parallels the Levi Administration of the Old Covenant - the wilderness years.
Dt 18:5a For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.
Jn 15:19b but I have chosen you out of the world,
Nu 8:19 And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tabernacle of the congregation...
Jn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am;
The tribe of Levi ‘types’ one part of the second way. During the Levi Administration, the Levites were chosen and gifted to Aaron the Levitical high-priest; so in the Church Administrations the saints are chosen and gifted to Jesus the ‘Melchisdek’ high-priest.
At the first resurrection the saints are given spiritual bodies so that they can ‘live’ in the spirit realm. Now changed the Resurrected Church will serve as priests in heaven under Jesus Christ.
Nu 16:9 ... the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?
Just as the Levites were separated from the congregation of Israel under the OC and will also be in the NC, so the Saints will be separate, in heaven, from NC Israel.
Ge 14:18 And Melchizedek KING of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the PRIEST of the most high God.
Rev 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.
Part 2
"As the earthly Zion was the meeting point for the tribes of the old Israel, so the heavenly Zion is the meeting point for the new Israel... If the movable tabernacle in the wilderness was constructed according to the pattern of the sanctuary on high, so the temple and city of Jerusalem were material copies of eternal archetypes" (F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Hebrews, NICNT, pp, p.356).
Levi pictures the precisely role of the saints; while David pictures the kingly role of the Saints.
In the second way the Church Saints, as kings and priests, are a covenant within the NC. Where as the Levitical and Davidic covenants were separate covenants within the OC; the Church covenant is a combined priestly and kingly covenant in the NC.
In the parallels below, the first verse(s) quoted refers to the NC with Israel; while the second refers to the OC with Israel:
Eze 43:5a Then the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court,
Ex 40:33 Then Moses set up the courtyard around the tabernacle...
Eze 43:5b and the glory of the LORD filled the temple.
Ex 40:34b and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet,
Ex 29:43a And there I will meet with the children of Israel
Eze 43:7a where I will dwell in the midst (tavek) of the children of Israel for ever
Ex 29:45a And I will dwell among (tavek) the children of Israel
Eze 43:20 You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make atonement for it.
Lev 8:15 Moses slaughtered the bull and took some of the blood, and with his finger he put it on all the horns of the altar to purify the altar... So he consecrated it to make atonement for it.
Eze 43:26 For seven days they are to make atonement for the altar and cleanse it; thus they will dedicate it.
Ex 29:37 For seven days make atonement for the altar and consecrate it. Then the altar will be most holy, and whatever touches it will be holy.
Eze 45:13 " ‘This is the special gift you are to offer:
Ne 10:32a "We assume the responsibility for carrying out the commands to give
Eze 45:15 Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the people, declares the Sovereign LORD.
Ne 10:33 for the bread set out on the table; for the regular grain offerings and burnt offerings; for the offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moon festivals and appointed feasts; for the holy offerings; for sin offerings to make atonement for Israel; and for all the duties of the house of our God.
Eze 45:17 It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel... to make atonement for the house of Israel.
1Ch 6:49 But Aaron and his descendants were the ones who presented offerings on the altar of burnt offering and on the altar of incense in connection with all that was done in the Most Holy Place, making atonement for Israel, in accordance with all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.
Eze 45:18 " ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In the first month on the first day you are to take a young bull without defect and purify the sanctuary.
Eze 45:20 You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance; so you are to make atonement for the temple.
Lev 23:27a "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement.
Lev 16:30 ... the priest [shall] make an atonement for you, to cleanse you ... from all your sins before the LORD.
Lev 16:33 and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community.
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Didn’t the covenant of day and night get broken when in the middle of the day it became night? Dark at noon day. While humans cannot break the covenant of day and night, that doesn’t preclude the Lord breaking that covenant of day and night.
Another demonstration that Jesus was God in the flesh. Not just a good human being who had ceased being God.
Miller Jones wrote:
"The Ten Commandments are an elaboration/reflection of the universal Law of Love - Thus, they are NOT antagonistic or contradictory to it. Remember, Love FULFILLS the Law (all of it)."
Could you explain your understanding of how love fulfills the Sabbath if done on a different day or way? Breaking the Sabbath involves working on the seventh day or work by someone or thing that you control their actions - children, animals, employees. Keeping the Sabbath involves resting and allowing rest for those you control. I think breaking the Sabbath would be contradictory to it.
Loving God involves accepting revealed knowledge about what He created for us. And also worshipping Him in the way that He reveals. If someone worships an idol they are not loving God. Revealed knowledge is important or we could not know about our Savior.
Jeff Reed asked: "Could you explain your understanding of how love fulfills the Sabbath if done on a different day or way?"
Thank you for the opportunity to explain. Speaking to a Jewish Christian audience, we read in the epistle to the Hebrews that "God’s promise of entering his rest still stands." The unidentified author of this wonderful epistle (my favorite) went on to say that the good news about this rest was conveyed to the Israelites (obviously, the Sabbath was revealed to them through the experiment with manna and by making it one of the Ten). However, even though they had this physical symbol of God's rest, they FAILED to enter God's rest (the real one). The author emphasized that "On the seventh day God rested from all his work." The thought culminated in this passage: "So there is a special rest still waiting for the people of God. For all who have entered into God’s rest have rested from their labors, just as God did after creating the world. So let us do our best to enter that rest. But if we disobey God, as the people of Israel did, we will fall."
Thus, for New Covenant Christians, the Sabbath rest means so much more to us than it did to the children of Israel. We Christians must rest from our labors or works - We must enter God's true rest by accepting the labor/work of Jesus Christ on our behalf. The Apostle Paul framed it to the saints of Galatia by saying that "we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." Christ said: "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest."
Moreover, there is another sense by which we sinners (for ALL of us have sinned and fallen short) must stop performing the work of sin. Christ and his apostles commanded their followers to repent and walk within the righteousness with which Christ's work has clothed us - the kind of righteousness which springs from loving God with our whole heart and soul, and loving each other as ourselves (after all, Jesus taught that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath).
For me, this is how love fulfills the Sabbath commandment. For the Christian, it's NOT a matter of resting from our physical work every seventh day. Rather, it is a matter of entering God's rest and remaining there for the remainder of this present life, and then continuing on into eternity when this life is over.
There's always the pesky issue of ancient meanings of the languages to consider as well. Scholars believe that the meaning of the word translated as "rest" in the context of the creation narrative simply means that He had finished His work. I mean, think about it! Does God get tired? Or need prayer and Bible study on the sabbath? Plus, He's got to maintain the creation perpetually, meaning that there's some work every day. The sabbath and holy days were a time of backbreaking work for the priests under Levitical law!
Hebrew was actually a dead language until the late 1900s! There is no other example in history of a dead language being revived and having millions of people come to be speaking it as their daily language. So, of course those who study such things are constantly discovering nuances which King James's translators had no idea existed. Hebrew had not been reinvented at that point in history. Take the superlatives, such as "all" and "every". It is obvious from their context in various scriptures that these words meant "for the most part". And, another gem. Three days and three nights did not literally mean three complete 24 hour days. Parts of days and nights counted by ancient Hebrew reckoning.
There's a way CGI could really help preach/publish founder 'Playboy'Garner Ted's Gospel: go on Wikipedia and edit British Israelism to conform to the 'truth' of 'Playboy'Garner Ted's Gospel!
From Rev. 21:
"1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."
The sun is part of the heavens and it passes away.
"22But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24By its light the nations will walk, and into it the kings of the earth will bring their glory. 25Its gates will never be shut at the end of the day, because there will be no night there."
The golry of God gives all the Light and without shadow.
I find it interesting that when Christ uttered the words, "come unto me and I will give you rest", He was still observing and explaining how to properly keep the sabbath!
Also, people on this site are obsessed with 2 arguments against sabbath and holyday observance, being
1) they were fulfilled by Christ
2) they are shadows.
My question is, why don't these arguments apply to the "days" of orthodox Christianity as well? Christmas, Easter, and mini Easter Sunday were all fulfilled by Christ and all remain shadows. Yet they are applauded and promoted on this site as valid alternatives to God's revealed days.
I already know the answer, but since it has already been admitted that the apostles continued to observe Sabbath after all was fulfilled, and the holydays celebrated in the new covenant as shown by Scripture (1 Corinthians 5:7-8), these arguments are invalid to begin with.
Miller,
Thanks for your explanation. How long have you had this understanding? I know you have a Sabbath-keeping background.
I have heard this explanation from some since I have been in the church. It is usually from former Sabbath-keepers. The majority of non-Sabbath keeping Christians that I encounter believe that the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday. I believed that when I was a part of the Assemblies of God. Much of Alabama believed that when I was growing up. Blue Laws are still enforced in some rural parts of the South.
Do you historically know when your explanation originated? When I look at Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, and earlier sects I have not found this belief present. Historically the Church had different explanations for transferring the Sabbath command to the Lord's Day. I may be missing something.
My personal belief, so not CGI, is that antisemitism is the major factor that moved the early Church to abandon Sabbath-keeping. The historical evidence supports that the majority of first century Christians (Jew and Gentile) kept the Sabbath day as part of their worship. I believe the idea of Judaizers which developed in the second century and applied retroactively to interpreting Paul was a result of hate for Jews. Antisementism continued in much of the different Christian sects until recently.
When we talk about Christian love how can anyone defend Martin Luther who wrote the book "The Jews and Their Lies." He is looked to by many as this great reformer, but I see him as a hateful bigot who didn't understand the first thing about living for Jesus. But he did not write that in isolation, that was the prevailing view for much of Church history.
So when I read people using the term Judaizers in interpreting Paul, I connect it to the underlying racism that was responsible for many evils in past centuries.
No change,
Hebrews 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him,
“You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek.”
18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
MSG Hebrews 4:11
"And so this is still a live promise. It wasn’t canceled at the time of Joshua; otherwise, God wouldn’t keep renewing the appointment for “today.” The promise of “arrival” and “rest” is still there for God’s people. God himself is at rest. And at the end of the journey we’ll surely rest with God. So let’s keep at it and eventually arrive at the place of rest, not drop out through some sort of disobedience."
Disobedience such as not resting from our physical work every 7th day.
Jeff,
After being disfellowshipped by the old Worldwide Church of God, I embarked on an extensive and intensive reexamination of my entire belief system - Nothing was exempt or off limits! While I continue to personally observe the Sabbath, I rapidly came to the conclusion that Herbert Armstrong had mischaracterized both the beliefs and motivations of more traditional Christians on both the Law, and the entire question of the appropriate day for Christians to worship. Yes, there are a wide range of views and justifications among Christians about worshipping on Sunday. Hence, it would be misleading and/or inaccurate to characterize my own views as deriving from any one scholar or group.
Now, while I see a great deal of evidence for antisemitism among Christians down through the centuries, I believe that the origins of Sunday observance were much more benign and practical than that. As I have related in previous posts on this topic, like his various interpretations of Scripture, Herbert Armstrong ignored and twisted a great deal of history to arrive at his narrative about Sabbath/Sunday observance in the First Century Church.
The evidence suggests that the Church remained wholly Jewish and Sabbath-keeping for the first ten to fifteen years after Christ ascended to heaven. History and reason also inform us that the Gentiles who began to come into the Church in ever increasing numbers thereafter had little knowledge of Torah, and no experience in observing it. Moreover, although we know from Scripture that some of those Jewish Christians tried to impose Torah (including Sabbath observance) on those Gentiles, the account of the Jerusalem Council (Acts) and the epistle to the Galatians makes clear that they were unsuccessful in that effort. Also, both Scripture and secular history make clear that Sunday was strongly associated with Christ's resurrection from death by ALL early Christians.
Thus, by the year 70 CE, there were already more Sunday-keepers within the Church than there were Sabbath-observers. And, with the Roman destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in that year and subsequent persecution of the Jews, the minority Jewish Sabbath-observing brethren were scattered and persecuted with the other Jews (initially, there would have been no distinction made between them and other Jews - the Romans would have looked at them as a Jewish sect). Now, this certainly would have incentivized Gentile Christians to make sure that they distinguished themselves from the Jews going forward and probably did eventually lend itself to the growth of antisemitism within the ranks of Christianity. Even so, the net effect of all of these developments was that the vast majority of Christians were Sunday-keepers by the close of the First Century.
Again, I have NO problem with observing the Sabbath (I still do), my problem is with those who would make it an imperative and dismiss their Sunday-keeping brethren on that account. We are saved by the grace of God through our faith in the life, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus Christ - NOT by our diet or the day on which we gather to worship God.
BP8,
Paul told the saints of Colosse that they shouldn't allow anyone to judge their observances. I believe that includes Sabbath, Holy Days, Christmas, Easter, etc. They are ALL symbols or shadows. They ALL point to the reality that is Jesus Christ. In other words, the day or ritual is only useful in so far as it enhances our understanding and appreciation of Christ and his work.
Oops! I saw the typo on Colossae as soon as I hit the "Publish Your Comment" button - too late! Anyway, you all know what I intended :)
My eisegesis: the "law" of Heb 7:11 was based on, given with, the setup of the Levitical Priesthood, was not an "eternal" law. These laws were added - Gal 3:19 because of transgressions of other existing laws, such as in Gen 26:5 and the sabbath day, existing from creation. These added laws, supporting the Levitical Priesthood such as tithing, were removed - Heb 7:12 ("change" in latter part of verse 12 and "removing" in Heb 12:27 KJV are translated from the same Greek word) after Christ's death b/c the Levitical Priesthood no longer exists. The sabbath existed before Moses, is not an added law. There is no record of tithing laws existing before Moses. The Heb 7:12 change in the law was not a reversion to laws before Moses. The change was the removal of the added law(s).
Miller wrote:
"Thus, by the year 70 CE, there were already more Sunday-keepers within the Church than there were Sabbath-observers."
"Even so, the net effect of all of these developments was that the vast majority of Christians were Sunday-keepers by the close of the First Century."
What is your historical source for these statements?
One of earliest non Biblical historical account of Christians was a letter from Pliny the Younger to the Emperor wrtiine around 112CE.
From that letter:
"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food."
"For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented,"
Christians met on a "fixed day before dawn" and it is associated with "Temple worship". That sounds a whole lot like Sabbath keeping from a Roman perspective.
It wasn't until the mid second century that antiSemites like Anticetus, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin the Marty started mentioning Sunday observance outright.
Jeff said:
"It wasn't until the mid second century that antiSemites like Anticetus, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin the Marty started mentioning Sunday observance outright."
Look for the phrase 'first day of the week' in your NT and see what you find.
@ 10:45
what year were you disfellowshiped
Jeff,
The Didache (composed sometime in the second half of the First Century) instructs Christians to gather together on the Lord's Day. Likewise, the Epistle of Barnabas (composed 80-120 CE) mentions eighth day (Sunday) observance by Christians. Early in the Second Century, Ignatius of Antioch spoke of Sunday observance as orthodoxy (Hence, it must have been common practice by that time - suggesting it had been in place for many years). Likewise, you mentioned Justin Martyr's reference to the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday (150 CE) - this is long before Constantine had issued his edict or a Bishop of Rome had said anything on the subject, and it strongly suggests that it had been their tradition for many years.
Anonymous Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 8:37:00 PM PDT,
I was disfellowshipped in 1985 by Jim Tuck and attended CGI for the first time that same year in Huntsville, Alabama.
High-Living CGI founder ,'Playboy'Garner Ted, had his own airstrip in Big Sandy TX for his and his dad's personal jets! You can still see it today crumbling in the Texan sun. Millions of dollars down the drain!
No change 2
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, SEEING THAT THERE ARE PRIESTS THAT OFFER GIFTS ACCORDING TO THE LAW:
"The logic of the book [of Hebrews] is based on ancient rhetorical patterns and pre-modern exegetical principles that makes the reader's task exceptionally difficult" (Richard Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest - Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology, p.141).
"The writer is here arguing HYPOTHETICALLY, for the law itself cannot be changed. He has primarily in mind the law affecting the Aaronic priesthood"...
"It occurs to the writer that some confusion might arise in his readers' mind over the co-existence of two orders of priesthood. He proceeds, therefore, to show that the priesthood of Jesus was not established on the earth... This leads into his thesis that the superior priesthood is that which operates in heaven, not on earth" (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.164 & 174-175).
Donald Guthrie notes a “co-existence of two orders of priesthood”. In regard to the priesthood that operates on the earth, there has been no change.
Zadok was the first high-priest in Solomon’s Temple; his descendant Joshua was the first-high priest in Zerubbabel’s Temple. (Ezra was also of this family).
In the Millennial Temple the sons of Zadok will be the priests:
Eze 44:15 But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok ... shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD:
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with ... the Levites the priests, my ministers.
There has been no change in the priesthood on earth; the priests on earth are from the tribe of Levi; and God’s covenant with the Levitical priests can only be broken when there is no more day and night in their seasons.
Eze 43:12 This is the law [torah] of the Temple...
"Ezekiel's program is a revision - and up-dating and a rectification - of selected topics of existent priestly legislation and practice very similar to, if not identical with, that of the Pentateuch..." (Moshe Greenberg, "The Design and Themes of Ezekiel's Program of Restoration," p.235).
There has been ‘changes’ to the priestly legislation to reflect the higher standards of the New Covenant, that comes in effect when the covenant is renewed on better promises. For example:
Nu 19:11 He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
Nu 19:12a He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean:
Lev 14:19a And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness...
Eze 44:25 And they shall come at no dead person to defile themselves: but for father, or for mother, or for son, or for daughter, for brother, or for sister that hath had no husband, they may defile themselves.
Eze 44:26 And after he is cleansed, they shall reckon unto him seven days.
Eze 44:27 And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering, saith the Lord GOD.
"The restrictions on priests engaging in morning and funerary rites echo HS in Lev 21:1-3, 11...
"Verse 26-27 take the quarantine period required for laypeople after corpse defilement and double it for priests. Numbers 19:11-13 (HS) outlines a seven-day procedure of ritual purification, including application of water of purification on the third and seventh days. Ezekiel 44 stipulates an additional seven days and a purification offering at the temple after the week of cleansing before a priest can return to duty (Konkel 2001, 124)" (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, p.222).
Part 2 - Levitical priests and the NC Sabbath
Nu 28:9 And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof:
Nu 28:10 This is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.
Eze 46:4 And the burnt offering that THE PRINCE shall offer unto the LORD in the sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish.
Eze 46:5 And the meat offering shall be an ephah for a ram, and the meat offering for the lambs as he shall be able to give, and an hin of oil to an ephah.
"Ezekiel 46:4-5 mandates a sizeable increase in Israel's Sabbath offerings (see Num 28:9). It adds a ram, an extra four lambs, and an extra four-fifths of an ephah of gain" (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, p.249).
Ex 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths [plural of the seventh day] ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
Eze 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
Eze 44:24 And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths.
"Rather than "contradicting" Mosaic Torah, Ezekiel 46 aims at intensification... The Sabbath ... has a central place in the ... understanding of God's program to sanctify and ennoble Israel (Exod 31:13 HS; Ezek 20:12, 44:24)" (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, p.249).
Levitical priests will be required to present offerings on the altar in the inner court; the prince, the highest ranking human on earth in the Messianic Age is privileged to worship at the post/threshold of the east inner court gate (Eze 46:2), but is not allowed to step into the inner court.
1Ki 2:35 The king ... replaced Abiathar [the priest] with Zadok the priest.
2Ch 9:8 Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God: because thy God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee king over them, to do judgment and justice.
That is Christ’s human vice-regents, the Davidic kings, who have an earthly priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4), though patrons of the Temple and sacrificial system, are banned from the inner court.
From the time of Solomon onwards, the Davidic kings, as heads of the theocracy and temple patrons, were ‘priests' after the order of Melchizedek.
Mt 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?
With the death of Joseph, Jesus not only inherited the Davidic kingship, he also inherited the priesthood of the ORDER/SIMILITUDE of Melchizedek, that goes along with it, cp. Ge 14:18.
Eze 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Eze 37:28 And the nations shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet [the holy of holies in Ezekiel’s Temple], where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever,
Eze 43:20 You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make atonement for it.
Christ's sacrifice does not eliminate the ‘dynamic" nature of certain sins and ritual impurity, hence animal blood will be required to make atonement so that God through Jesus can have a dwelling presence in the Millennial Temple - "No Purification Offering - No Christ - No Covenant".
Miller wrote:
"The Didache (composed sometime in the second half of the First Century) instructs Christians to gather together on the Lord's Day. Likewise, the Epistle of Barnabas (composed 80-120 CE) mentions eighth day (Sunday) observance by Christians. Early in the Second Century, Ignatius of Antioch spoke of Sunday observance as orthodoxy (Hence, it must have been common practice by that time - suggesting it had been in place for many years). Likewise, you mentioned Justin Martyr's reference to the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday (150 CE) - this is long before Constantine had issued his edict or a Bishop of Rome had said anything on the subject, and it strongly suggests that it had been their tradition for many years."
Thanks for your explanation. I wouldn't put much weight into the Didache since there is no way to accurately date when it was written. I lean more toward the mid-second century, at least the portion that mentions "Lord's Day" which is a concept that was prevalent around that time. Ignatius's writings have long been viewed as forgeries, which scholars still debate.
I would think the Epistle of Barnabas was written closer to 120. The idea presented about the Eighth Day being also the first day doesn't seem very scriptural or logical. And not enough proof to suggest this was a widely accepted belief.
The first sign of a significant difference can be seen in the timing of observing the Passover (Pascha). It was the mid-2nd century when there were two different traditions held by Polycarp and Anicetus. Those wanting to keep it on Sunday believed Jesus rose on Sunday and had been practicing that day as a weekly observation. There were a minority of Sabbath-keeping Christians at this time as well. They were labeled as "Judaizers" by their critics.
Jude
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
There is Biblical evidence that heretical beliefs circulated very early after the church was formed. Their existence doesn't make them right. As for me, that is why I use the scriptures to understand doctrine.
Thank you again for letting me understand how you formed your worldview.
Ronco said...
"Look for the phrase 'first day of the week' in your NT and see what you find."
Come on. That's a tired argument. In the New Testament, the word "Sabbath" occurs 61 times and the phrase "first day of the week" only occurs 8 times. Six of the 8 times refer to the day Jesus ascended to the Father. The other 2 times are when Paul was speaking on a Saturday night and when people were to gather an offering as they worked the fields. If you want to use these to defend Sunday worship, you are free to do so. No doubt the resurrection and ascension were very important events, and some say that Sunday worship is a commemoration of those events. Fine, but just remember, is that a tradition of man or the truth of scripture?
"The deceived GTA led CGI for twenty years – teaching the same deceptions as his “wrong” father."
"High-Living CGI founder ,'Playboy'Garner Ted, had his own airstrip in Big Sandy TX for his and his dad's personal jets! You can still see it today crumbling in the Texan sun. Millions of dollars down the drain!"
Please understand that when GTA left CGI, that was a church split. The ones who stayed with CGI were the ones who rejected his lifestyle of chicanery. After this split, CGI began practicing servant leadership. Maybe for branding purposes, we could have considered a different name. The CGI (Church of God International) identity to the new people that we reach no longer has any connection to GTA.
Ronco wrote:
"Look for the phrase 'first day of the week' in your NT and see what you find."
I find nothing that indicates it was a day of worship for the Church.
Jeff,
Sorry, your response sounds like Armstrongism apologetics. I'm reminded of that old proverb Herbie used to quote: One convince against his will is of the same opinion still! For those who are interested in real historical truth and primary sources, you may want to consider:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Didache
https://aleteia.org/2020/07/05/what-is-the-didache-and-why-is-it-important/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Letter-of-Barnabas
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Ignatius-of-Antioch
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/people/who-was-ignatius-of-antioch.html
You also said: "I find nothing that indicates it was a day of worship for the Church."
Matthew 28:1
Mark 16:2, 9
Luke 24:1
John 20:1, 19
It seems to me that one could reasonably argue that Christ's disciples were assemble on the first day of the week on this occasion to pay homage and worship to Jesus.
Acts 20:7
I Corinthians 16:2
Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
There are more than a few of us who reject the Armstrong narrative about this passage. In short, we believe that John was speaking about the time and place he received this message, NOT the Day of the Lord. Indeed, as he was to deliver these messages to the seven churches of Asia, and his apocalyptic vision was to encompass the history of the entire Christian era going forward (including the New Heaven and the New Earth), there seems little here to suggest that any benefit would be derived from writing from the perspective of the "End Times."
"I find nothing that indicates it was a day of worship for the Church."
They got together, broke bread (Lord's Supper maybe?), collected offerings and while it doesn't specifically say, it's not hard to imagine that they got some worship time in also.
Jeff wrote:
“Those wanting to keep it on Sunday believed Jesus rose on Sunday.”
This is what the Bible teaches.
I believed a Sabbath resurrection for some thirty years.
But around a Passover on a forum someone wrote:
“I do believe there is an issue about how natives of the Roman empire counted and understood days within the passage of time. Look at the following results about what Cornelius said to Peter... It leaves a reader wondering whether it was three or four days ago. Like when it comes to translating, a person would think how hard can it be to know the difference between two different numbers?”
This was the catalyst-to look into the subject for myself - counting time differently - and found that what I was believing was wrong.
When I was introduced to the WCG, I thought that the booklet “The Crucifixion was Not on a Friday” was one of the best booklets produced by the WCG. Unfortunately it was only a great story.
"The Greek word ... to slander, originally meant to deceive, literally "to throw across," that is, to take something out of its proper context and put it somewhere else where it did not belong, but would appear to belong" (George Bailey, Germans, p.426).
The last part of George Bailey’s sentence above sums it up. The booklet was one of the greatest cons perpetrated on the WCG.
Mt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath [sabbatwn],
Mt 28:1 After the end of the week [sabbatwn]
Jn 9:14 And it was the sabbath [sabbaton] day when Jesus made the clay...
In the transliteration in 28:1 above I have substitute the Greek letter omega with the English letter “w” as it is similar to omega; this is to distinguish it from the short “o” used in the singular sabbath [nominative singular].
Herman Hoeh:
“Turn to Matthew 28:1. In the common versions it says, “In the end” - or more correctly, “After the Sabbath.” Notice that both of these renderings use the singular-Sabbath. But in the original Greek the word is in the PLURAL. Fenton renders it correctly by saying, “After the Sabbaths.” In a footnote to this text, he says, “The Greek original is in the plural. ‘Sabbaths’ ” - which all the scholars should know!”
Mt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath [sabbatwn], as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week [sabbatwn],
The Greek word for both “Sabbath” and “week” is sabbatwn - genitive plural.
Scholars do know this, hence the translations above. Either Herman Hoeh was revealing his ignorance or he was being duplicitous.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath [sabbatwn - gen pl] day to keep it holy. (LXX)
In the time of Christ and seen in the Septuagint plurals were used as superlatives, hence the singular and plural were used interchangeably as in:
Mt 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath [sabbasin - dative plural] day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mt 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath [sabbatw - dative singular] day.
The plural is translated as singular.
Lk 4:16 ... he went into the synagogue on the sabbath [sabbatwn - gen pl] day, and stood up for to read.
Jn 20:1a The first of the week [sabbatwn - gen pl] cometh Mary Magdalene early,
Lk 18:12 I fast twice in the week [sabbatou - gen sq].
So while it is literally “first of the sabbaths”, it is to be understood as the “first of the sabbath”.
"In the New Testament passages where sabbaton means "Sabbath," the word occurs forty times in the singular and nineteen times in the plural. But in most of the occurrences of the word in the plural, the context makes it clear that a single day is intended. As a matter of fact, in the Gospels and Acts, the only clear instance in which sabbata is plural in meaning is in Acts 17:2, where the numeral "three" used with it demands that more than one Sabbath is meant...” (Walter F. Specht, "The Sabbath in the New Testament” pp.92-93).
Millar writes:
You also said: "I find nothing that indicates it was a day of worship for the Church."
Matthew 28:1
Mark 16:2
Luke 24:1
John 20:1
It seems to me that one could reasonably argue that Christ's disciples were assemble on the first day of the week on this occasion to pay homage and worship to Jesus.
If your last sentence refers to the above Scriptures, it would be a long bow to make:
Lk 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments: and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Lk 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
Mk 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Mk 16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
Jn 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Jn 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
Wikipedia is calling Church of God International's British-Israelism "pseudoarchaeological & pseudohistorical"
Seems the best thing to do if the Garner-Ted-Gospel is to make any headway is for Jeff to go on Wiki and edit the British-Israel page to fix public perception!
I suggested this a while back, but so far no progress on this front from Garner Ted's intellectuals in Tyler!
458
Jeff could go on Wiki and edit in his objections or clarifications, but it is Wiki themselves who are responsible for the "pseudo" commentary. They are in lock step with the main street media (the world) when it comes to alternative theories of any kind!
@ 7:42
are you serious or sarcastic I can't tell?
What would the alternative be? Garnipedia?
"Jeff could go on Wiki and edit in his objections or clarifications, but it is Wiki themselves who are responsible for the "pseudo" commentary. They are in lock step with the main street media (the world) when it comes to alternative theories of any kind!"
I feel it is unethical to edit our own Wikipedia pages. I have provided information to editors in the past so that they can accurately represent CGI, but it is up to them to write the articles.
Miller,
Regarding Revelation 1:10 and the meaning of Lord's Day. It is the only place this phrase is used in the New Testament. I understand the argument that it means the Day of the Lord, which may be true. But John could have just said Day of the Lord if that is what he meant. So I prefer to examine the background of the writer of the book to see what is meant by that unique phrase.
Some things John wrote before this:
" Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." 1 John 2:3
"He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked." 1 John 2:6
"Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." 1 John 3:4
Also, John knew that Jesus declared himself to be Lord of the Sabbath. John also knew that Jesus was the Creator:
"All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3
So John was fully aware that Jesus not only created the Sabbath at creation that He declared Himself Lord of it.
And the most straightforward answer is most likely true. So, then if John was referring to a day of the week, it would be The Sabbath, that would be the Lord's Day.
We have evidence that later that phrase was co-opted by others to mean Sunday. It doesn't change the intent of John.
Think about it, if John wanted to refer to the first day of the week, there is a phrase for that.
Jeff,
I believe that God's commandments for Christians are more universal and reflective of "His" nature than the list of commandments found in Torah. So, yes, John was aware of Jesus' connection to the Sabbath, but he was also aware of the fact that Christ's work had annulled and superseded the terms of the Old Covenant. In my opinion, the evidence suggests that Sunday would have already been regarded by most Christians as the Lord's Day when John wrote his apocalypse (late First Century). Think about it, based on the other writings of the New Testament, if John had wanted to reference the Sabbath, he would have called it THE SABBATH!
What happens to our relationship with God when we stop arguing over the BEST day to worship and honor God and do good and preach the gospel 7 days of the week?
Is the Sabbath the ONLY day to do good? Is the Sabbath the ONLY day we are allowed to worship God?
Arguing about the best day to worship the Lord is one thing… arguing about the only day is another. When the NT church met every day, is it any wonder they saw every day as an opportunity to do good and to preach the gospel?
Does God not accept worship on Monday or Tuesday? Did He only require sacrifice on the Sabbath? Didn’t He require sacrifices every day? Aren’t we as Christians continually in His presence?
Aren’t our lives supposed to be living sacrifices?
Miller wrote,
"Think about it, based on the other writings of the New Testament, if John had wanted to reference the Sabbath, he would have called it THE SABBATH!"
Good point. Since there were more direct ways to say Sabbath, the first day of the week, and the Day of the Lord, perhaps John's meaning may be a unique way to describe the experience of his visions. I am pretty sure Sunday is ruled out because if God wanted His church to observe a new day, there would be a direct statement in scripture. There isn't anything vague about God's communication with us.
Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
It was interesting to find that Kenneth Gentry, a postmillennialist, argues that the Lord’s day refers to the “day of the Lord”:
“Rev. 1:10 is a verse that I believe widely misinterpreted and misapplied in contemporary discussion. This verse reads: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet.” Contrary to popular opinion, I believe that John is speaking of “the Day of the Lord,” rather than “the Lord’s Day” (Sunday, the Christian day of worship). In this and the two following posts, I will engage the question.”
https://postmillennialworldview.com/2018/05/15/rev-110-as-the-lords-day-1/
The Sunday-keeping Trinitarian Anglican clergyman, E. W. Bullinger is noted in this article as a person who believes the same. See also Bullinger’s comments in his introduction to his commentary on Revelation, pp.9-15.
The Messianic Jew, David Stern, in his “Jewish New Testament Commentary, also argues for this understanding, pp.791-92. It includes this sentence:
“The Jewish calendar is divided into the spring and fall holidays, corresponding to Yeshua’s first and second comings” (p.792).
i tend to agree with 2:49. Then the "Day of the Lord" has already occurred when John was alive and "in it"? Those who are waiting for a bloody moon and a darkened sun may have a loooooong wait! Those who are waiting in ivory towers or smoke filled basements to begin counting 3.5 years from their perception as to when the great tribulation began may have a long wait. Jesus said they knew not until He comes - Mat 24:39-39.
249
You are quite correct concerning E.W.Bullinger. He was one of many who viewed "the Lord's day" as "the day of the Lord".
He also did not subscribe to the idea that Acts 20:7 was a weekly celebration of the Lord's supper, but a common meal, nor that 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 was a weekly event, but instead being a one time collection for a specific group of poor saints at a specific point in time in which Paul himself was to participate in (see Romans 15:26-29, 2 Corinthians 9:1-5).
Another tidbit. Bullinger was not your typical orthodox trinitarian. He did believe in a " trinity in unity and unity in trinity" and that God was expressed in 3 ways, but he did not believe the Holy spirit was an individual "person" like the Father and Son. He says as an analogy,
"as the spirit of man is to man, so the spirit of God is to God; in one sense the same, but in another sense distinct".
See Word Studies on the Holy Spirit, pages 36-40, Bullinger 1905/1979, Kernel Publications
Jeff,
Sunday did NOT become the "new" sabbath. What happened was the Rest was now in Christ and the old covenant was made obsolete. Because the empty grave was discovered on Sunday morn and was the day that Christ revealed Himself to several, that was a day of rejoicing. Can you imagine the excitement, joy, hesitation, hope! So, this momentous day, maybe the climax of history, was memorialized by Believers and became the day on which they met.
Rev. 1:10 the Lord's Day is either Sunday or the day of the Lord. I think I believe it is the former.
Thanks BP8 for mentioning this.
While I have a number of books by Bullinger - Companion Bible, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, Commentary on Revelation, Number in Scripture and The Witness of the Stars I do not have Word Studies on the Holy Spirit. I use to give time to him when I was younger, as suggested by the books, but not very much today.
In regard to “Word Studies on the Holy Spirit” this was a comment on Amazon:
“The Open Bible Trust Consignment
3.0 out of 5 stars
Detailed, as one would expect, but not for the general reader.
“This is based upon the use of the word 'the': whether or not it occurs (in the Greek) before the Greek for 'Holy Spirit'. If it occurs then then 'the Holy Spirit' refers to the person of the Holy Spirit. If it does not occur then 'holy spirit' refers to the 'gifts' of the holy spirit. This did not make sense in many places and, indeed, even Bullinger, had to suggest that 'the' be put in as an ellipsis in places.”
I presume you know that Bullinger believed that “three days and nights” were literal - Wednesday crucifixion (Appendix 165); while I went along with this for some time I no longer do.
As mentioned in previous posts I do not accept the Trinity.
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called THEIR name Adam...
“The singular man ('adam) is created as a plurality, "male and female"... in a similar way the one God ... created man through an expression of his plurality (..."let us make man in our image"). Following this clue the divine plurality expressed in v.26 is seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of the man and woman, thus casting the human relationship between man and woman in the role reflecting God's own relationship..." (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, EBC., Vol.2, p.38).
The typology of Adam and Eve suggests that God existed before he “took of himself” and created the Word.
Jer 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you ["I am your husband", NIV]: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.
Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
"Again the Lord summons Israel to return. The context is one of tenderness and regard for the intimate relationship between the Lord and his people. The ground of the pleas is still the indissoluble marriage bond entered into at Sinai with the nation. Actually, a double figure is employed: Israel is both son and wife... In the OT ba lti means "to possess," hence "to marry"" (Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah, EBC, Vol.6, p.400).
Gen 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
At first, the ‘husband-wife’ relationship pictured the ‘relationship’ between God and the Word; the incarnation added the ‘father-son’ relationship.
"At times prophets like Hosea and Jeremiah made use of the metaphor of the husband-wife relationship to describe the covenant. The father-son relationship was also used (Hos 11). But the most significant metaphor was finally that of the suzerain and vassal or of the Lord and servant" (J. Arthur Thompson, "Covenant (OT)," ISBE, Vol.1, p.793).
Mt 12:18 “Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
“my servant”: Israel as a nation is called the servant of Jehovah, Isa 41:8. Here the same title is given to Jesus, as the representative of the nation” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.
243
I personally have no problem with Bullinger and HWA on 3 days and 3 nights. Truth to tell, Armstrong probably borrowed it from Bullinger!
They do differ however in that Armstrong calls it a sabbath resurrection and Bullinger a 1st day resurrection. How is that possible? Armstrong starts the countdown when Christ died in the late afternoon on Wednesday. 72 hours later is late Saturday. Bullinger starts the count when Christ was placed in "the heart of the earth" and the tomb was sealed at sunset (start of the next day, Thursday). Before sunset, at sunset, after sunset? It's a fine line and I choose not to dispute it either way!
Hi BP8, we will have to agree to disagree on the timing of the crucifixion and resurrection.
To use up the characters of this post and a little more, I have added, for those of us who believe in a Friday crucifixion, a Scripture that I had left out of “The Crucifixion and Resurrection, Nisan 14 and 16, AD 30":
Lev 19:6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
The "third day" is an idiom that means “the day after tomorrow” (see below, from the above sited Bible Study).
In regards to Lev 19:6, a family may go to Jerusalem to worship and fellowship over a long weekend.
On a Friday they could offer a sacrifice of well-being (zebah selamim) - doing so would also be a preparation day activity.
They may eat of it the same day, Friday, and on the morrow, the Sabbath, but if any is left over the must burn it on the third day, which is Sunday in this scenario.
(The three participants: "After the priests burn the special fat on the altar as the portion that is the Lord's, the breast is given for all the priests and the right shoulder [better "thigh"] to the priest who officiates (7:30-34). The greatest part by far is left for the offerer and family and friends, i.e., all who are ceremonially clean. If the peace offering is for thanksgiving, all of it had to be eaten on the same day it is offered. If it is a vow or freewill offering ... part of it maybe eaten on the day it is offered and part of it on the next day; however, if any remains on the third day, that part cannot be eaten but must be burned with fire (7:16-18; 19:5-8)" (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Book of Leviticus, NIB, Vol.1, p.1026)).
In ancient-near eastern inclusive reckoning Sunday is the “third day” from Friday.
Ten times in the gospel it is noted that Christ would rise the third day (cp. also Acts 10:39-40; 1 Co 15:4).
Looking at Luke:
Lk 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
Lk 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
Lk 24:7 The Son of man must be ... crucified, and the third day rise again
Lk 24:8 And they [the women] REMEMBERED HIS WORDS
Lk 24:7-8 is a good introduction to Luke 24:13-35.
Lk 24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, ["the things," IHGEB] Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was A PROPHET mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
Lk 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
Lk 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, today is the third day since these things were done.
"The account is unique to Luke and contains key themes of the Gospel: the importance of the promise of the word, THE STATUS OF JESUS AS PROPHET, and his messianic role..." (Darrell L. Bock, Luke, NIVAC, p.612).
"Three times we have encountered reference to "(these) things" (vv 14, 18, 19). Only now are they specified in a brief precis of Jesus' career, with particular attention drawn to the apparent incongruity between his prophetic ministry and his death at the hand of the Jerusalem leadership, and to the puzzle of the empty tomb..." (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT, p.845).
Part 2
"Having completed their sketch of Jesus' career and demise, Jesus' companions on the road summarize with greater fullness the scene recounted in vv 1-12. Their synopsis is important on four counts. (1) WITH THEIR EXPRESSION "THE THIRD DAY," THEY RECALL JESUS' PROPHECIES (9:22; 13:32; 18:33; cf. 24:7), affirming again though unknowingly his reliability as A PROPHET. In this way, they intimate that all the raw materials for making sense of recent events are available to them, but they are as yet unable to construct a faithful interpretation..." (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT, p.847).
"On the lips of Cleopas, Luke gives a summary of the gospel (vv. 18-24) beginning with the ministry of Jesus and concluding with the report but not the experience of the risen Christ. The summary is thus incomplete...” (Fred B. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation, p285).
Lk 24:25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Lk 24:26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”
Until Christ adds the word of his entering his glory (v.26), which he did at his resurrection, and then makes himself known to them (v.31).
“Concise statements about Jesus, his mighty works, suffering, death, and resurrection are the content of Christian preaching according to Luke and are found repeatedly in Acts (Acts 2:22-36; 3:12-15; 5:29-32; 13:16-39)" (Fred B. Craddock, Luke, Interpretation, pp.285-86).
Lk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus
Theophilus did not need the gospel of Matthew to understand the “third day,” all the information is in the summary of the Gospel which incorporated the “third day” idiom. (According to ancient inclusive reckoning Saturday is the “third day” from Thursday).
Part 3
From "The Crucifixion and Resurrection, Nisan 14 and 16, AD 30":
Hebrew idiom - 'the third day'
The "third day" idiom is employed in both the New Testament and Old Testament:
Lk 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
“The idiom “today, tomorrow ... and on the third day” has attracted considerable attention; it is clearly not literally intended. The imagery is of one period of time giving way to another at the proper point (cf. Exod 19:10-11; with just “today” and “tomorrow,” cf. Luke 12:28; Sir 10:10)” (John Nolland, Luke 9:212-18:34, WBC, p.740).
Lk 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
“ ”Today and tomorrow” (semeron kai aurion) signifies the time of present opportunity in Jesus’ ministry. The time, however, was short. Since “today and tomorrow” are not literal days, so with the “third day,” which must have reminded Luke's readers of the day of Jesus’ resurrection. Perhaps it was intended to do. Verse 32 and 33 are parallel, with the idea of “three days,” implicit in each. In v.32 “the third day” is followed by “I will reach my goal” (temeioumai, “be completed,” “be perfected”). In v.33 it is followed by a reference to Jesus’ death. Clearly the expressions are equivalent...” (Walter L. Liefeld, Luke, EBC, Vol.8, p.974).
Hos 6:2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
“After two days ... on the third day... (After) marks “the period immediately succeeding the limit” (BDB, p.581)... (After two days) thus points to the chronological unit that follows it, that is, “the third day.” The period of three days represents a short while” (Thomas McComiskey, The Minor Propehts, Vol.1, p.88).
The idiom, “today and tomorrow, and the third day,” above refers to a ‘short while’. The idiom is also used to refer to literal ‘successive days’:
Ex 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes,
Ex 19:11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
Lev 7:16 But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten:
Lev 7:17 But the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire.
Lev 19:6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
1Sa 20:5 And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even.
1Sa 20:12a And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about tomorrow any time, or the third day,
“third day. In the Hebrew idiom, this means the day after tomorrow (cf. verse 12)” (S. Goldman, revised by Ephraim Oratz, Samuel, Soncino, p.122).
Annon 355
I appreciate your lengthy comment with illustrations but I assure you, I have no dog in this fight, my mind is open.
One of the knocks in this debate on timing is that the events themselves and their importance are under emphasized and get lost in the mix. Ultimately that is the important thing here!
Another Bullinger tidbit! At one time he actually believed like you and your presentation, Hebrew idioms and all.
See "Things to Come", May 1896, vol.2, pg.200, Question #90, and March 1898, vol.4, pg.105, Question #173.
I do not know when he changed his mind, but we do find in the Companion Bible, App.144, the following statement:
" The fact that 'three days' is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of three days and three nights is not disputed. But when the number of 'nights' is used as well as the number of 'days', the expression becomes a literal statement of fact" (examples follow). See also App.156 for a thorough chronology of events.
This is one of those study topics where my investment of time will not yield any life changing results or new information for consideration. I leave it to the "experts"!
Thanks BP8 for your reply stating your position.
I was aware of Bullinger’s comment on the 3 days and 3 nights not being an idiom.
For around thirty years I believed it was literal, but no more.
When I said:
“we will have to agree to disagree on the timing of the crucifixion and resurrection,” it was based on others who believed as the AACOG on the subject of not agreeing with the counter argument that I presented.
As an aside, non-Atonement holy days are not Sabbaths but Sabbathons; I was going to post below to another thread but will do so here:
Lev 23:3b it is the sabbath [Heb. shabbat] of the LORD in all your dwellings (AV).
Lev 23:3b it is a sabbath [Gk, sabbaton] to the Lord in all your dwellings (LXX).
Lev 23:24a ‘In the seventh month on the first of the month you shall have a rest [Heb, shabbaton] (NASB).
Lev 23:24a In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have a rest [Gk. anapausis] (LXX).
"A shabbaton is prescribed for the first, fifteenth, and twenty-second days of the seventh month (vv. 24, 39), but as indicated by the work prohibition for these days, ONLY A PARTIAL REST IS ENJOINED" (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, AB, Vol.3, p.1959).
Using the principle of gap-filling in relation to non-atonement holy days, which have the same work prohibitions, the fall holy-days provide the terminology - shabbaton (Heb); anapausis (Gk).
The "on" suffix attached to shabbat creates the diminutive.
A modern example:
-let, suffix.
-let is attached to a noun to form a noun that is a smaller version of the original noun or root:
book + -let booklet (= a smaller book);
pig + -let piglet (= a smaller pig).
wordreference.com/definition/-let
Ex 12:16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
The spring holy days of UB provide the explanation of the diminutive.
"Abstinence from work indicates that the[ese] ... days are holy occasions, but not quite as holy as the Sabbath (see Lev 23)" (T. Desmond Alexander, Exodus, AOTC, pp.226-27).
"The term shabbaton implies a minor sabbath (except in the compound sabbat sabbaton) when minor, nonoccupational work is permitted..." (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, AB, p.2040).
Mk 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath [sabbaton],
Food for the Shabbath is prepared on the day before the Shabbath; while food for a Shabbaton/anapausis may be prepared on these days.
I've concluded, particularly from the CORRECTED Luke 23:54 that the sabbath began to grow light, that: the sabbath (14th) was the first day of unleavened bread (Eze 45:21) and darkness began to leave the land after Jesus was in the grave for a few minutes (story flow of Luke 23:44-54), on Friday, rose from the dead Saturday night or Sunday morning. Translation: the 3 days were part Nisan 14, full Nisan 15, part Nisan 16. The 3 nights were part darkness Friday afternoon, Friday night, part or all Saturday night. In 33 AD.
The moon was made for fixed times (corrected Ps 104:19) meaning the calendar, God's calendar, was fixed from creation and Nisan 14 was Friday only in 33 AD from 30 to 33 AD. Incidentally a third mistranslation is Lev 23:2: "feasts" should be "fixed times" (moeds) which include both the 3 feasts (Ex 23:14-16) and sabbaths.
9:06 writes
“Incidentally a third mistranslation is Lev 23:2: "feasts" should be "fixed times" (moeds) which include both the 3 feasts (Ex 23:14-16) and sabbaths.”
I suggest, concerning the 1st and 22nd days of the seventh month, "sabbaths" is a mistranslation/mistransliteration, they should be translated/transliterated "sabbathons".
A sabbath is holier time than a sabbathon.
By calling Sabbathons, Sabbaths, it gives the impression that shabbatons have the same holiness as the sabbath - they do not.
Do you think that it is a little hypercritical that you want people to recognize the difference between haggim (“feasts”) and non-haggim moedim but you don’t make the distinction between Sabbaths and Shabbatons?
Eze 45:21 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.
Eze 45:23 And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering
Eze 45:25 In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil.
Also I disagree that the 14th was a ‘sabbath’. As mentioned before the athnach is under passover (45:21) setting up the AB/A'/B' structure of vv.21-24 - the Bible is written informed by ancient-near eastern thought forms and one must try to understand them to hopefully understand what Scripture means.
In the feast of the first month the fifteen is the first day of Unleavened Bread just as the fifteenth day of the seventh month is the first day of Tabernacles - the symmetry is maintained, confirming the sequencing.
I also disagree about the calendar, I agree more or less with Emil Schurer:
"... unless all indications are deceitful, they did not in the time of Jesus Christ possess as yet any fixed calendar, but on the basis of a purely empirical observation, on each occasion they began a new month with the appearing of the new moon, and likewise on the basis of each repeated observation intercalulated a month in the spring of every third and second years, in accordance with the rule that the Passover under all circumstances must fall after the vernal equinox...
"The system of intercalation was not fixed even in the second century after Christ.
"... in the age of the Mishna, in the second Christian century ... the whole legislation rests on the presupposition that the new month, without previous reckoning, was begun each time upon the new moon becoming visible. So soon as the appearance of the new moon was proved by credible witnesses before the competent court at Jerusalem and later at Jamnia, the new moon was solemnized, and all the rites had been observed, messengers were sent in order to notify the opening of the new month...
"Since naturally, it was known pretty accurately when the appearing of the new moon was to be expected, every effort would be made so as to fix the date when ever possible upon the right day...
"If one therefore towards the close of the year noticed that the Passover would fall before the vernal equinox, the intercalation of a month before Nisan would have to be resorted to...
"And yet, primitive as this calendar was, it had this great advantage, that serious and persistent inaccuracies, such as in the course of the year inevitably crept into a calendar calculated upon an incorrect basis was avoided. - The very complicated later Jewish calendar, calculated upon the nineteen years' cycle, is said to have been introduced by the patriarch Hillel in the fourth century after Christ. Although this is not witnessed to with absolute certainty, it is not improbable..." (Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, First Division, Vol. 2, pp.366-72).
Post a Comment