Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders

Friday, October 20, 2023

Are We Accusers OR Critics?

 

Are We Accusers OR Critics?

Lonnie Hendrix

NO2HWA posted a perceptive article (We Would Rather Be Offended By A Picture of Jesus Than Ever Actually Following Him) about the hypocritical nature of Armstrongist attitudes toward artistic depictions of Jesus Christ. In the comment thread which followed that post, one of the anonymous commentators observed that Armstrongists have always had a jolly time making fun of the beliefs and practices of other “Christians.” The comment grabbed my attention because I had recently posted an article on my blog (The Things That Armstrongists Can Say, BUT Others Cannot) which made much the same point.

One thing, however, that the commentator said really made me stop and think. He/She wrote: “People who come here to this blog from the ACOGs wonder why we have to bash HWA and his church and the ministers. The truth is, we are just turning the bashing they taught us around, and throwing it back at them. We are doing unto them what they have done to others.” Now, while I understand and support the contention that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” I don’t believe that we should accept the Armstrongist notion that we are “attacking” them, or that we have made ourselves “Accusers of the brethren.”

When we accuse someone of wrongdoing, it is generally understood that we are charging them with the wrongdoing – support for the accusation may or may not necessarily follow. Likewise, an attack usually denotes taking some kind of aggressive or violent action against someone, and it is understood that it can be further characterized as having been provoked or unprovoked, justified or unwarranted, etc.. Hence, we see that charging or accusing someone is NOT synonymous with “attacking” someone (an accusation or charge can be leveled against someone with great solemnity and process – we do it all the time in courtrooms across the world).

As far as Scripture is concerned, the passage which Armstrongists like to wield like a club is found in Revelation where “the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, <the one> who accuses them day and night before our God.” (Revelation 12:10) We should have known that this one wouldn’t escape their notice because it immediately follows their favorite passage about Satan deceiving the whole world (which, of course, excludes them). Likewise, in the book of Job, Satan is portrayed as accusing Job before God and urging God to remove his blessings and protection from poor Job. Interestingly, Scripture also portrays Jesus Christ as our Advocate with God – defending us against all accusations (I John 2:1-2). Hence, we see that Scripture sets up this contrast between Satan (Accuser) trying to hurt/destroy, and Jesus Christ (Advocate) working to help/save.

Nevertheless, the Gospels also portray someone who was highly critical of the Jewish religious leaders of his day. Indeed, he is portrayed in all four of those accounts as someone who was NOT bashful about criticizing both hypocritical behavior and teachings. In this connection, it should also be noted that Christ’s criticism often appears blunt and harsh (as in the episode with the money changers at the Temple). Even so, Christ’s criticisms were always directed at correcting error, eliciting compassion and empathy for others, and effecting reconciliation and forgiveness. In other words, the criticism always had a positive purpose behind it – it was never meant to tear down or destroy.

Finally, we should also note that Christ taught his disciples to “turn the other cheek” when they were unfairly attacked by their enemies (Matthew 5:39), and to be quick to forgive offenses in each other (Matthew 18:15-22 and Luke 17:3). He also warned anyone who would offend one of his “little ones.” (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2) However, the clear implication in both of these instances is that the offense is real, not imagined. In this context, we should also note that the first epistle of Peter informs us that we should “not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. For ‘Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.” (I Peter 3:9-11)

Hence, we begin to see the difference between the accusations and criticisms which Mr. Armstrong and his followers have hurled at traditional Christians, and the ones leveled here against Armstrongism and its proponents. The criticism of Armstrong and his disciples that one finds here on Banned by HWA is focused on heretical teachings (those which depart from or contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles), and the harmful policies and behaviors of the Apostle(s) and his/their ministers and followers. Moreover, most of the criticism which appears here is motivated by a desire to improve teachings and behaviors, NOT to destroy faith or assassinate character. Yes, the criticism here is often biting and pointed (as was the case with Christ’s criticism of the behavior and teachings of the Scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees), but it is intended to initiate reflection and bring about repentance/change.

So, rather than screaming “ATTACK” and “PERSECUTION,” it might be more constructive to review the evidence provided in the post for the criticism and evaluate whether it might have some merit. Unfortunately, we have only had a few of the leaders of the ACOGs over the years who have acknowledged the legitimacy of some of the criticisms here and/or asked for forgiveness for past offenses – that has been very rare and precious. Moreover, currently, in the wider culture, we see that the trend is NEVER to acknowledge wrongdoing or ask for forgiveness. Indeed, those things are now anathema in some quarters! Nevertheless, when it is received in the right spirit, criticism can be a very constructive/positive thing. 

40 comments:

  1. “Accusers of the brethren” is too often used to dismiss serious (and truthful) criticism. Is it wrong to highlight how a certain member on LCG’s council of elders covers up for perverts and pedos? It’s kind of important to know if a person might be putting their spiritual well being on the line by letting that person “shepherd” you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Terry Nelson never should have been labelled as an accuser of the brethren, the way Bob T. did to Mr. Nelson.

      Bob actually "accuses" people regarding "losing crowns" that Bob thinks he has the patent on or is the exclusive dealer outlet for kingdom crowns, & he himself is an accuser, gimme 3 steps mister.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for this article!

    I am one of the ones who said we should be careful not to accuse one another. I agree we should advocate for one another in love. It’s hard when those who need to recognize the spirit of accusing (those stuck in Armstrongism) cannot see that’s what they are doing. Having not been out so long, I have to remind myself constantly that there was a time when I would’ve shut my ears off the moment someone tried to tell me I was mistaken. It’s like when two people read the same verse and both say,
    “Exactly!”

    But the understanding of the verse is polar opposite.

    We were all trained parrots of Armstrong beliefs once upon a time. We had one viewpoint and were told that was THE TRUTH. So, those folks who aren’t interested in being gently corrected view everything as an attack on THE TRUTH. It’s what mind control does to people. They’re not able to hear.

    For anyone questioning, pray to God and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you. That’s what the Holy Spirit’s job is. And if that makes you uncomfortable then just pray the verse back to God where Jesus says (and if you don’t like NLT, pick another translation)

    ““If you love me, obey my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you. He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The world cannot receive him, because it isn’t looking for him and doesn’t recognize him. But you know him, because he lives with you now and later will be in you. No, I will not abandon you as orphans—I will come to you.”
    ‭‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭15‬-‭18‬ ‭NLT‬‬

    ““If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.”
    ‭‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭15‬-‭18‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

    ReplyDelete
  3. for the most part it is impossible to avoid calling out Dave Pack & to rightly accuse him of gassing his RCG flock's brains with bamboozling hoodwink & hijinks

    ReplyDelete
  4. ...go and say to that fox....(Herod)

    ReplyDelete
  5. People are interested in justice. Selectively.

    The religion of the self-appointed "chosen-people" has always been an attempt to take over the world. It says as much in the Old Testament, i.e. that Israel would have the riches of the gentiles. We see it playing out in Gaza. Few Christians will admit it because they refuse to accuse their Jewish "brethren" since it would incriminte them as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The cults always play the victim.Its been that way always.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It just occurred to me that perhaps the reason many of the Armstrongite persuasion believe that being a critic is not a grey area on the polar scale between accusing and praising is that they are (drum roll!) Binary Thinkers! They do not see the grey, because their leaders do not see it. In fact, they have all been groomed to cultivate I-O filters.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To answer your question: YES, BOTH.

    ALSO, when, if ever, Lonnie, will you and the others ever follow the scriptures you quoted. It would really help your case if we could see more of that in action here.

    Further, since so many critics here are atheist, or borderline atheists, how can they ever apply the scriptures they don’t believe???

    There are probably at least 50 points where your post falls flat, and is not totally Truthful.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hendrix is an accuser of the saints, but they are not his brethren. He accuses those who keep the Sabbath of misguided thinking and wasting their time. Jesus kept it. Paul kept it. Paul taught the gentiles under him to keep it. Hendrix is accusing the saints because they follow Jesus and Paul and the Church that Jesus built. Hendrix is an anti-Christ.

    And no I am not an Armstrongite. What has that got to do with the words of Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  10. An accuser generally does so with the hope that a penalty would ensue.
    One who criticized wants to create change and those of us that criticize would like nothing more than for those in the COGs to see the wrongs of Armstrongism and receive blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The person who said this blog is filled with atheists is way off. I’d say over 90% or more that respond here are Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Troll @ Friday, October 20, 2023 at 6:23:00 PM PD,

    According to the epistles of John, an "antichristos" (adversary of Messiah) is anyone who denied that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah sent by the Father (I John 2:22, 4:3, and II John 7). I, Lonnie Hendrix, confess that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the Messiah sent by Almighty God to this world in the form of a man to save me and all of the other people here from the consequences of our sins and reconcile us to Himself. I continue to observe the Sabbath on a weekly basis and have been blessed for doing so. However, I also believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath rest, and that the physical observance of the Sabbath is NOT a requirement for the disciples of Jesus Christ. I believe this makes your post a false accusation against a disciple of Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Earl said: "The person who said this blog is filled with atheists is way off."

    The word atheist has been used as a weapon to stigmatize anyone who disagrees with Armstrongism. It's not the weapon they think it is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. From a historical perspective, the early Christians were considered to be atheists by the Romans. Anyone who did not believe in the Roman gods and godesses was thought of as atheist by the empire. Of course, as we all know, Christianity triumphed and eventually transformed the Roman empire. What an incredible example of the power of Jesus Christ!

    ReplyDelete
  15. The word atheist is used a bit differently today. If one were to do their due diligence in research, one would find the Christian in the early activities were called ATHEISTS. In that day an atheist was one who did not acknowledge the current gods of Rome, etc. Today the atheist is one who believes in no gods.

    So, the statement still stands for this site.

    Try Encyclopedia Brit. If you don’t know where to start.

    Oh, the Messiah criticized the leaders of the whole nation of Israel. This site criticizes one small insignificant group compared to HWA questioning the doctrines of a world religion made up of billions. Critics say this world size religion is the cause of death for millions. How does/did the WWC compare with that? This site doesn’t seem to realize the difference.

    There’s more, but I doubt any of the critics want to see it. But, in any case comparisons reveal a lot.

    By the way, Paul gave a terrific alternative for the folks this site claims it wants to help?? He presented this choice for anyone who can’t find a trustworthy group to fellowship with. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” He wrote this during a similar time to our day. If one does that they will find slowly but surely other trustworthy friends and believers will show up.

    So, if you want to change, try Paul’s solution. It works.

    Phil. 2:12-13.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh please, the writers and organisers and ultimate managers of this blog are two faced hypocrites who use "Armstrongisim" (as they name) for power and control whilst this blog is a side hustle. An entertainment interest to them to mock and scorn and deceive.
    They are the 2023 version of Joseph T Tkach Snr. Only God knows how far and how deep the hypocrisy spreads. It is a continuous corruption of high places, as in Ezekiel with the very high priests of God's temple. The hypocrites on here are small town versions Joe Sr and Garner Ted. Living double lives fooling none, causing all manner of DISASTERS within the churches of God they dwell in.
    Same old, same old as with Joe snr and Garner Ted.
    I stand as one who is NOT fooled and NOT afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 11.30. Working out one's salvation with fear and trembling is always the case whether one is with or without a support group. There were many failed Christians while I attended WWCOG services. By their fruits, they had obviously waived the white flag and had given up on trying to live God's way.
    Attending services (in the right church) is only a helpful tool, with the responsibility for success or failure always residing with each individual.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Twenty plus years ago, there was a lot of anger about Herbert W. Armstrong. People did literally express a desire for him to go to Catholic and Protestant eternal hellfire. I always said that I did not want anyone to go to this type of punishment for anything related to me. I even quipped that if in the Kingdom, HWA were in some public place, being made to polish the Pope's sandals, I'd even join in and help him!

    Speaking of our critics (We have them too, the Armstrongites aren't the only ones being critiqued here!), I have to say that I've watched the anger in these "dissident" venues dissipate considerably over the years. I know that in many ways, I am a completely different person than I was when I first hit "publish" here and in other places. For one thing, my own odyssey has included going back, trying to discover how and why we went so wrong, studying a wide variety of materials, while also attempting to correct the evils Armstrongism brought into my life, and the lives of others. Early on, one of my chief joys in life was to mess with peoples' heads, or freak them out. I actually enjoyed flaming! These blogs and sites have caused me to approach things more deeply, rationally, and with a degree of seriousness that I had never possessed before. I admired the people who approached our plights from a standpoint of intellect and logic, rather than anger and ridicule, although it is sooo tempting to ridicule people who still hold on to that cultish attitude. But, alas, the ridicule is kind of a modern equivalent of "raca".

    People say, "Twenty years? And you still haven't gotten over it?" I've never been to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. However, this blog and others have been my "Armstrong-a-holics Anonymous", with one small difference. It's more like AA would be if the meetings included having some of the currently practicing alcoholics also attending the meetings, while they were in various stages of inebriation! Is that a bad thing? No. How else are THEY going to get their help???

    ReplyDelete
  19. Leonnie writes:

    “the physical observance of the Sabbath is NOT a requirement for the disciples of Jesus Christ”

    This is not a conclusion that I can make from reading the Bible.

    One of the books that I am presently reading is Robert Wall’s commentary on Acts. Below is mainly some comments by him that informs my conclusion:

    Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    “Acts was written in response to a theological crisis...

    “We should note that Luke’s response in Acts is different from Paul’s in Romans; Paul wrote a generation earlier...

    “In the Pauline letters, Paul is opposed by “Judaizers” — Jewish Christians who stipulated that all Gentile converts must be catechized and circumcised according to the traditions of the Judaizers’ ancestral religion... When Luke wrote Acts, however, the principle internal threat to the church’s faith were “Gentilizers” who threatened to erase anything Jewish from the church’s core identity” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, pp.10-11).

    “The spiritual crisis as Luke sees it is the possible loss of a distinctly Jewish memory without which the church cannot be the church...” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.214).

    1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

    “Even though the recipients of Paul’s letters (e.g., 1-2 Corinthians) are primarily Gentile, their future with God is predicated on their congregation’s Jewish roots - the very point that Acts illuminates by its narrative emphasis. The connection between Acts and the Pauline letters suggests, that “to the Jew first, then the Greek” is an ecclesial calculus every bit as much at it is a prophetic protocol” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.215).

    "Luke does not perceive paganism as the church's principal threat; rather, the church's outreach is substantially weakened by the loss of its connection with the core beliefs and practices of repentant Israel" (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.9).

    It is suggested that the ‘gentilizing’ of the church resulted in the day of rest moving from the seventh day to the first day. Yes Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday but this no justification for a change in the day of worship — Sunday worship being a loss of a connection with repentant Israel.

    Ex 19:6a And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.

    Isa 49:3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel [i.e., Jesus Christ], in whom I will be glorified.
    Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

    In the future Christ is going to raise up the tribes of Jacob as a kingdom of priests to be His agency as a light to the Gentiles and His salvation to the ends of the earth.

    Ac 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
    Ac 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
    Ac 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
    Ac 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

    Isa 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Part 2

    Isa 56:6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—

    When David’s hut — dynasty and kingdom — is rebuilt, in the Messianic Age, Gentiles will bind themselves to the Lord, take hold of the covenant and keep the Sabbath.

    Mk 3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

    David’s hut is restored in type in the Church Age when Christ raided up repentant Israel, at his first coming/appearance.

    Ac 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
    Ac 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

    “For Luke ... unlike Paul, the promise of Israel’s “refreshment” has already been fulfilled among repentant Jews (see 3:19-20).

    Ro 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
    Ro 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

    “In the meantime, the pattern of God’s faithfulness to Israel agree with (rather than reverses) biblical prophecy: Israel is restored first and only when [should be “then”] repentant gentiles are “grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom 11:17)” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.11).

    Ac 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
    Ac 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

    Ac 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

    “This passage has performed an important, if sometimes notorious, role in the history of Acts criticism. On its basis, many have argued that Paul’s Gentile mission is both occasioned and justified by Jewish rejection of his gospel, or that Paul’s words express “a divorce between gospel and Judaism.” Such general statements, however, typically fail to note that “many Jews” and proselytes are converted to Jesus (v.43) and that Paul does not cease his mission to the synagogue in any case (see 14:1). The scope of his denunciation is local and pertains only to those Jews of Pisidain Antioch who have twice rejected the gospel (cf. 18:4; 28:8). According to Scripture’s prophesied pattern Paul carries the Word of God to the Jews first, and then a second time if necessary; those who are still unrepented are justly condemned by God (see 2:17-26; 10:34-43). Moreover, Paul “turning to the Gentiles” in Pisidian Antioch personifies the missionary vocation of repentant Israel. His statement, a defining moment in Acts, is ironical of divine sovereignty, since an episode of conflict both clarifies and accomplishes God’s redemptive purposes rather than subvert them (see 13:27-30). Paul’s turn toward the city’s Gentiles, no doubt a practical move given the Jewish opposition there, satisfies Scripture’s command that faithful Israel “be a light for the Gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (13:47; see 1:8; 9:15-16; 26:23; cf. Isa 49:6; Luke 2:32.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Part 3

    Ac 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

    “In this light, note should be taken of the formula that introduces Isaiah’s prophecy, “I have set you [... entellomai] to be a light [... phos] for the Gentiles [= nations].” The word entellomai is a term of vocation (see 1:2), and Isaiah’s original sense of it, carries over to Acts, it of faithful Israel’s purpose in the world. While Paul appeals to Isaiah to justify his mission to the Gentiles, he does so ironically since he personifies the missionary identity of repentant Israel. The biblical metaphor of “light” refers to the theological illumination occasioned by the hearing of “the word of the Lord” (see 26:23; 13:44, 48-49). In Acts this proclaimed word is informed by memories of the risen Jesus and the prophets inspired interpretation of Scripture...” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.195).

    Ac 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

    “The door is opened to repentant Gentiles not because of unrepented Israel, but because of a repentant, restored Israel, which is now able to lay hold of its prophesied vocation, embodied in Paul and Barnabas, to be “a light for the Gentiles” (13:47)... The reader’s mind is concentrated upon what God has done in partnership with these prophets-like-Jesus to save repentant Gentiles” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.205).

    Ac 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
    Ac 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

    “The primary theological subtext of this first half of Acts is whether God is faithful to the biblical promise of a restored Israel (1:6; 3:19-20). The short answer is yes. According to Acts 2:22-15:12, the Spirit’s repeated outpouring testifies to God’s continuing faithfulness to Israel, not so much by its transforming presence as by its empowering agency that enables a people’s compelling witness to the risen Messiah. The church’s Spirit-filled mission goes first to the entire house of Israel to call out a community of repentant Jews for a “season of refreshment” (Acts 2-9). The same Spirit then empowers this community to fulfill God’s call as “a light to the nations,” beginning with Peter (Acts 10-12) and more fully personified in Paul (Acts 13-14). God’s salvation of the Jew first and then the Gentiles through common prophetic witness with shared blessings envisages the stunning impartiality of God’s faithfulness (10:34-38)” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.210).

    Ac 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
    Ac 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together:

    To say that the Sabbath is only for the Jews and it is not required for Christians is contrary to God’s program of salvation; and, of course, the breaking of the fourth commandment.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Why a sabbath command if a physical observance is not required?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous in 3 parts,

    Your extensive and well-articulated use of Wall and Scripture is appreciated, but it is based on a number of premises which I find are not Scripturally sound. In my humble opinion, these are the premises that are missed in your treatise: 1. Acts was originally written by the author of the Gospel of Luke as a companion and sequel to that document and to provide an account of how Christ's disciples carried forth his message to the Jews and Gentiles after his ascension to heaven, NOT in response to a theological crisis within the Church. 2. The entirety of the New Testament (including the book of Acts) is constructed on the foundation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Moreover, ALL of those writings (the ones we refer to as the Old Testament) are interpreted through the lens of the Christ event. In other words, the old points to the new, NOT the other way around. 3. The promises to Abraham and David are fulfilled exclusively and entirely through Jesus Christ, NOT through the other physical descendants of Abraham (known as the children of Israel) or the other physical descendants of David (known as the dynasty or house of David). Christ is the light of/to the Gentiles, and Israel is restored through HIM. Likewise, he is our connection to Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and David. 4. The commission which Christ gave to his original disciples (all Jewish) was to carry his teachings into ALL the world and make disciples of ALL nations. According to the book of Acts, unfortunately, those original disciples largely failed to carry out that commission (even after Peter was prompted by a vision), and Jesus raised up Paul to carry out that commission. 5. The fifteenth chapter of Acts is crucial to a proper understanding of that book, and the story of the First Century Church (and I notice that it is largely ignored in your remarks). According to the account, there were some Jewish Christians who thought that Gentile converts should be required to observe Torah. However, at what is popularly referred to as the Council of Jerusalem, it was decided that Gentile converts would NOT be required to observe the tenets of the Old Covenant. 6. Jesus is God's program of salvation. Jesus is the fulfillment of ALL of the Law, Prophets, and Writings (including the fourth commandment). The Sabbath rest finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. He is the ultimate rest from our own works. Finally, our obedience to Christ's summation of Torah - the two great commandments (to love God with our whole heart and soul, and to love each other as ourselves) also fulfills Torah (including the fourth commandment). In my remarks, I spoke only of a Christian requirement for the physical observance of the Sabbath (and I have given my own reasons for my continued observance of it elsewhere). In other words, the principle of the Sabbath is very much alive within the context of the New Covenant (even for those saints who observe Sunday as their day of worship and fellowship).

    ReplyDelete
  24. Simply off the Wall. In response to Miller by his numbering: 1. Acts 15 was a crisis but of course not all of Acts is a response. 2. Statement is too general. Much of the NT is new revelation. 3. The promises include descendants of Abraham, David. 4. The original disciples did not fail. 5. The Council did not tell the Gentiles you don't have to obey all tenets of the OC. They knew the Gentiles would attend services each sabbath to learn more as to what to do, what to obey some commandments of Torah but not all. 6. Comments are confusing. Sunday is not a principle of the sabbath. Jesus came to magnify the law but after His death the laws added because of transgressions of other laws have been removed. The two great commandments are summations of more detailed laws. Working on the sabbath and then declaring "rest in Christ" is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "when it is received in the right spirit, criticism can be a very constructive/positive thing."

    Go take your own advice.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jesus fulfilled the law and told us to to likewise. Keep the Sabbath.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Simon of Niger was a prophet/teacher in the congregation at the Gentile city of Antioch (Acts 13:1). There isn't any Scriptural basis for making him synonymous with Simon the Zealot.

    Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

    Acts 1:1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. 4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

    Acts 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES.”

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Lonnie,

    “While the narrative unity between the Gospel and Acts links Luke’s story of Jesus to the events that follow his departure, the commentary will treat Acts as an independent biblical writing with its own literary, theological, and canonical integrity. While not disconnected from the purpose of his Gospel, Luke’s reasons for writing a second book may be inferred from the distinctive theological emphases in Acts. Powell usefully summarized these emphases in six categories: irenic, polemical, apologetic, evangelistic, pastoral, and theological. His index catologs those historical contingencies at the end of the first century that occasioned and helped shape this narrative as edifying communication from Luke for Theophilus” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.210).

    As the subject is large and involved I was only focussing on number 6 of Luke’s reasons for writing to provide an argument why I cannot agree with your conclusion that “the physical observance of the Sabbath is NOT a requirement for the disciples of Jesus Christ”.

    Ac 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

    "It may be true that in Acts the only good Gentile is a "God-fearing" one — one who is attached to the synagogue. It is noteworthy that most Gentile converts are those whom Paul finds in the synagogue... Even within the distinctive narrative world of Acts clear religious distinctions are made between Gentiles that indicate a preference for God-fearers as more ready to embrace the gospel and to live in appropriate ways with their Jewish sisters and brothers. Perhaps the missionary subtext of James's halakhah is that uncircumcised Gentiles attached to the synagogue where Moses is preached every sabbath are to be privileged. If so, then certainly the Paul of Acts seems to agree, since he finds most of his Gentile converts in the urban synagogues of the Disapora" (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.220).

    In discussing “Which laws of Leviticus apply today, and how do they apply?” Jay Sklar provided this footnote: “A fifth category could be added to the above: laws that are not repeated in the NT because they are assumed, e.g., the command not to use the Lord’s name in vain (Exod 20:7). We must be careful to avoid making this a catch-all category...” (Leviticus, TOTC, p.61).

    "Even though some Gentiles worship with the Jews in the local synagogue, they are unable to socialize with them because of the Jewish laws on table fellowship (see 11:2-3). The Jews recognized only converts to Judaism; only these people have attained full recognition in the Jewish community (see Isa 56:3); they are permitted to visit and eat with them. The Gentiles know that the Jews do not even buy their food from Gentiles for fear of contamination" (Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts, NTC, p.387).

    Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
    Ac 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

    “The council decree is a compromise solution that pacifies the circumcision part (by treating Gentile converts as God-fearers) rather than ratifies Gentile converts’ full status as members of God’s people. Nevertheless it was a compromise that saved the day and prevented a major schism from forming” (Craig S. Keener, Acts, aEC, p.2194).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Part 2

    “It is clearly wrong to cause needless difficulty for Gentiles turning to God (Acts 15:19), nor should there be any concern that the law will be neglected (15:21). But as a compromise solution, Gentiles can be asked to follow basic, minimal expectations for table fellowship to maintain unity with the Jewish believers (15:20)” (Craig S. Keener, Acts, aEC, p.2258).

    Ac 13:43 When the congregation was dismissed, MANY of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

    “Only by visiting the synagogues could Paul find these Gentile ‘God-fearers’. When the almost inevitable breach with the synagogue authorities followed, he detached these believing Gentiles from the synagogue, together with a minority of Jews who believed, and constituted a new congregation in which the distinction between Jew and Gentile played no part. The Gentile believers now provided a channel of communications with other Gentiles, not ‘God-fearers’ like themselves but worshippers of pagan deities, who now ‘turned ... from idols, to serve a living and true God’ (1 Thess 1:9)” (F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, p.277).

    "The advance of the gospel into central Asia Minor had momentous implications for Christianity. It did not mean that there were now more Gentile Christians in the world than Jewish Christians, it suggested that the time was not far distant when this would be so. The character and ethos of the church were bound to be affected by this influx of Gentile converts, and, unless the greatest care were taken to safeguard the position, Christian doctrine and Christian practice might be radically changed..." (F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, p.279).

    Ac 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
    Ac 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: (cp. also 16:4)

    It is suggested that when the Jerusalem conference was convened, between Paul’s first and second missionary journeys, there was no mention of Sabbath as this was not an issue at that time; especially as the Gentiles, as God-fearers, were already keeping the Sabbath in the synagogues; and Antioch and Jerusalem were centres of Sabbath worship. Only later was the day of worship an issue.

    You write: “even for those saints who observe Sunday as their day of worship and fellowship”.

    I can agree with you that the saints include those who keep Sunday. (Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week, after keeping the Sabbath in the grave, as there was work to do — the start of the physical harvest types the start of the spiritual harvest — so that worship on the first day is not compatible with a work day, at least for me).

    When the more-populous northern kingdom adopted Rehoboam-instituted religious practices — including having the FOT in the eighth month - they didn’t stop them being God’s people. So the soon to be more-populous saints that adopted the eighth day for worship are also still God’s people. Both kingdoms went into captivity so both Sunday and Sabbath keepers will go into the Great tribulation to be refined.

    ReplyDelete
  30. There are several theories about Simon of Niger. Some say he was the same man as Simon of Cyrene, who was compelled to carry Jesus' cross.

    So far as his being black goes, while niger means black in Latin, the NT was written in Greek, and Greek for black is Mayros. Other interesting facts, Simon and Simeon are alternate spellings for one another and are actually the same name. I don't know whether we can back write current history into the first century and assume that just because Simon had a son named Rufus, he was black, but he was from the coast of Africa, so that kind of factors into the evidence. Honestly, I really wish the Bible had been more specific about the races of the various heroes in it The old WCG always weighted the whole Nimrod thingie just a little too heavily, and read way too much into the mark of Cain, the curse which was placed on Ham's son Canaan, and others examples. The Ethiopian Eunuch was an exemplary character, but who would pick a eunuch as their super hero? Such things today are recognized as being racist dog whistles, but we have to remember that Armstrongism was time and date stamped for a completely different era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean, for all we know he was a convert, or maybe even from the Jewish community in Norrh Africa or Ethiopia at the time. Or maybe not. This is, of course, assuming that he was a black man at all.

      Delete
  31. I feel that there is most likely a hidden or obscured history of the contributions of black people to the shared Jewish/Christian experience, which if known would be very enlightening to the wilfully ignorant amongst us.

    ReplyDelete
  32. For those of you who may be interested in an elaboration of my statement about the failure of the twelve to fulfill the commission which Christ gave to them before his ascension to heaven, you may want to check out this post of mine:

    https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2023/10/why-apostle-paul.html

    ReplyDelete
  33. Failure of the 12? No.

    Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous @ 10 AM,

    Failure in the sense of the original commission, NOT in terms of their devotion to Jesus Christ or the salvation offered through him.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Am referring to the original commission as in Mat 28:20, NOT devotion or salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 5:45,

    Then, for me, Colossians 1:23 doesn't trump the Scriptures and reasoning employed in my latest post on the subject.

    ReplyDelete