The Coming of Grace (Fair Use)
Misunderstanding the Intent of the Torah
A Fundamental Armstrongist Mistake
By Scout
When I was a teen, I became aware of Jews and Judaism. And one of the first things I learned about Jews is that they did not believe in an afterlife. That was not quite accurate. But this was the view among some midwestern Protestants. According to an article in the Jerusalem Post newspaper more than half the Jews in the United States believe there is no heaven or hell. The same article states, “…with the exception of some kabbalistic texts, there is virtually no mention or description whatsoever of heaven in the Tanach (Bible).” So, it is no wonder that the afterlife does not get much air time in Judaism.
In fact, the book of the Bible that some scholars believe was most likely written by Moses, the Book of Deuteronomy, offers no promises concerning a salvation that involves life eternal. The Torah was never presented as a pathway to a heavenly salvation. It was offered as the way that the descendants of Israel could live an earthly life of blessing. Leviticus 18:5
states, “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.” It’s all about living by the laws while you’re alive on this earth. You might have noticed that many of the laws are earthbound. They involve the seventh day, which food you should eat, what is clean and unclean, how you should treat your slaves – concerns that are not likely to exist in heaven.
So, it is odd that someone would conclude that the Torah is the pathway to eternal life. But someone did. And I have no idea how it happened. The Pharisees during the time of Christ came to believe somehow that there was a resurrection. The Sadducees, the priestly caste, the people whom one would believe to be closest to the scripture, did not believe in a resurrection. And the Pharisees stirred up some dust in the early Christian church over this. Those Pharisees who professed belief in Christ began to push the idea that circumcision and Torah observance were required for salvation.
Fast forward to the Twentieth Century. Herbert Armstrong, Herman Hoeh and Rod Meredith concluded that Torah observance, which did not contain any kind of promise of a wonderful world tomorrow, was a requirement for salvation. Meredith wrote, “Paul shows right here that God’s law is not abolished — that it is "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart" (II Cor. 3:3). God's laws — His commandments, statutes and judgments — are to be in our hearts — we are to live them by the power of God's Spirit.” (Rod Meredith in “Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation?”) Hoeh observed that the “statutes and laws magnify the Ten Commandments.” So, the Torah is just as binding as the Decalogue in Armstrongist doctrine. In doing this, they were recruiting the Torah to do something that it was never intended to do – be a pathway to salvation as defined by Jesus.
There is a revealing contrast in John 1:17. John wrote, “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” And it is grace that leads to salvation as we know from Ephesians 2. Paul wrote in Galatians 5, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” The Armstrong-Hoeh-Meredith model of using the Torah to secure salvation is like trying to use a wet noodle as a crowbar.
22 comments:
Scout,
This is a well-articulated post about just how flawed the Armstrongist view of Torah is! Although the scriptural evidence is overwhelming that Torah was given to ISRAEL and was tailored to meet their needs and circumstances, they refuse to accept it. After all, the obligation to observe Torah (actually, just parts of it) is one of the things that makes them different from the rest of Christianity (a distinction of which they are very proud).
Also, as I have posted many times previously, they refuse to see Torah as a single body of legislation - a whole which is not divisible. Likewise, they fail to see Torah as the foundation and terms of God's covenant with Israel. And, as you pointed out, the nature of that covenant was both physical and transactional - the opposite of the New Covenant. The Christian Covenant being based on grace and faith in and through Jesus of Nazareth, and on profoundly spiritual promises guaranteed by HIS life, death, and resurrection!
Finally, for the record, the Decalogue is also NOT separable from the rest of the legislation. Dividing Torah into moral, civil, and ceremonial categories may be helpful to us in studying that legislation; but we must not forget that those distinctions are NOT apparent in Scripture. Jesus identified TWO commandments as comprehending the whole, NOT ten (indeed, the TWO comprehend the TEN). The Sabbath rest for Christians under the New Covenant is NOT about a physical break from work - it is about a complete rest from our own spiritual works and resting in the work which Christ has done for us! In short, the notion that Christians would be obligated to observe the tenets of the Old Covenant is illogical and inconsistent with what is revealed in both Testaments!
Within the Torah, the concept of bearing fruit isn’t required.Peter and Paul wrote about the attitude of bearing fruit. I like how Christ starts out with the beatitudes. He also said if ones righteousness doesn’t exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees….. And you know they kept the Torah. It was their attitude that was the one of their problems.
Yep Miller Jones, And that’s what makes Armstrong’s BI doctrine so dangerous. It’s a doctrine that puts the majority of those members as the actual descendants of Israel, therefore adhering to a great deal of the Torah than necessary (since ancient Israel was supposed to follow it).
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.
So the cognitive of Armstrongism goes like this, say like it’s 1973: Well since you are not an Israelite you can’t be a leader of this congregation, since you are not an Israelite you cannot marry a person of the Israelite race (even though you both happen to be in our WCG). We gotta follow all the aspects of this Torah that we can, because we are Israelites.
What I like is how God chose Paul, a pharisee of a pharisee, to squash this, and serve the Gentiles. That’s why he was able to write:
Romans 9:30-32
Tank
We have somewhat of a conundrum. The Jews canonized, revised, edited, and preserved the Hebrew scriptures, and the Catholics did the same with the Greek ones. These are both part of our Christian Bible. Yet, very little if any time was ever spent in the old WCG studying the thought processes and perspectives which either of those groups had accumulated and assimilated into the beliefs regarding those texts which were formulative to their religions.
About fifteen years ago, I spent some time as a lurker on the Catholic Forum. I also purchased a Catholic Study Bible, and read it cover to cover including all of the footnotes. Prior to that, all I had known about Catholicism was the rather myopic and most definitely prejudicial teachings which were part of Armstrong
indoctrination. Needless to say, there were many surprises for me.
I've heard numerous times that HWA had absolutely zero understanding of the Jewish religion, or of the Torah. Yet he taught the laws of Torah to us! Brief foray into the linguistics and nuances thereof demonstrated how far off base HWA was. So, I'm going to go a little deeper, and will be studying the historical Jewish interpretations of the Torah, Tanakh, and perhaps the Talmud. This does not mean that I am converting to Judaism any more than my Catholic studies meant that I had become a Jesuit type (Anonymous COGlodytes did actually accuse me of that!). Hopefully there will be nuggets to share!
BB
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ..." - Galatians 3:24
.
Believe it or not, some COGs actually do teach that. How well they do it clearly is an issue on this site.
The basic problems here are BS and bullheadedness. 100% of the population has been under constant attack by the former, and 99% (or more) are deeply infected by the latter. Not a formula for success.
Thank you for your post Scout.
I agree. The ‘Law’ was given to these Semitic tribes called Israel as a way to build and develop a cohesive society, one distinct and different from the other peoples around them. And one from which our Messiah would be borne into and hence salvation would come, via Him. The rest is history as is said. Today the people of Israel, commonly know collectively as the Jews, this Semitic
people; are still distinct adhering to many of these regulations within Torah, although much ‘refined’ by The Rabbis down through the ages. A far cry from what I am sure was envisioned by God. But He knew this would occur. But they are still His people. Even tradition has become ‘Law’ lol. Much can still be written about this subject. What is evident is how wanting the Armstrong movement has being in their doctrinal interpretations and presentations of the ‘Law’. And the fundamental belief that their interpretations are infallible.
When's the "holy convocation"?
4:13 "What is evident is how wanting the Armstrong movement has being in their doctrinal interpretations and presentations of the ‘Law’. And the fundamental belief that their interpretations are infallible."
It's also not only their belief system of their interpretation of the Torah/Law that is infallible, but their interpretation of prophecy is infallible according to wonderful world of armstrongism. And yea, Scout killed it on this post.
Tank,
I agree. Paul was the perfect choice to bring Christ to the Gentiles and explain how Torah related to Christ and Christians (Jews and Gentiles). I believe that he understood what Jesus of Nazareth had done even better than did the original twelve. They were slow to act on the commission given to them - Paul ran with it!
Insightful comments there Miller.
Yes Paul understood and he ran with it.
The perfect choice to bring the message of the cross to the masses.
The original twelve were a little slow on the uptake ha ha.
A future time points to people grasping the sleeves of Jewish people in acknowledgment that God is with them. A far cry from today.
A remarkable development and statement indeed. The penny will have fallen and the message of the gospel will spread out and cover the earth with the law going forth from Jerusalem. And not an Armstrong minster in sight.
There are numerous incredible implications to the story of the stoning of Stephen, and how it deeply affected Saul/Paul. Paul later utilized Stephen's style and approach on some occasions, appropriating his example.
Paul gave us very effective insights throughout his writings. He definitely had the exceptional understanding of a man highly educated. I wonder if much of this might have been due to an important part of his training, the part which he received from Gamaliel. He certainly had a unique way of melding, and/or juxtaposing "the Way" with Torah, an understanding which differentiated him not only from the circumcision party, but also from some of the other followers of Jesus..
BB
"Paul ran with it"........after he fell to the earth and didn't see for 3 days.
Miller Jones,
yep, he had a greater mission than the original twelve so to speak. Not only did he understand that the Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised physically (Torah), he had to correct Peter and others about their issue (whether Peter's vision to call no man common or unclean was before the Jerusalem council or not) he required a correction. Then in the book of Revelations, the letters to the churches are going out to many areas where Paul served, so Christ validated his work. 70 AD happens to Jerusalem, so Paul is the greater chess piece for God to reach the Gentiles. Paul sort of admonishes the jewish christians in the book of Hebrews and said they should have been teachers by then. Before the sieges, in Judea, the temple was still there and the chief priest were there, during the original twelves commission until the Roman army siege and before most of them were killed (except John), so yea they were slower but they also were facing persecution by the jewish opposition that wanted to keep Judaism. The guy who wasn't a part of the original twelve was responsible for writing most of the NT (who had persecuted The Way). Nobody would have ever thunked it.
Tank
R.L. 1:45 wrote, “Believe it or not, some COGs actually do teach that. How well they do it clearly is an issue on this site.”
You need to be cautious about this. I can show you emphatic statements where GTA denied that the WCG taught salvation by works. Yet, the WCG did teach salvation by works and the Armstrongist denominations still do. It is hidden in the semantics. They refer to it as “qualification.” You must “quality” for the Kingdom of God. What this means is that you must spend your entire life producing an acceptable level of performance in the works of the Law of Moses so that at the end of life you may be adjudged worthy to receive salvation. The odd phenomenon is that I don’t think most Armstrongists actually understand this. They don’t know what they signed up for.
HWA hinted at this view. For example, I heard him say on tape that he did not believe that the lay membership would receive salvation. Only the ministry of the WCG would receive salvation. This has been greeted with disbelief when I have cited it and unfortunately I do not know of how the tape might be accessed or even if it is archived any place. But I assure that he said that. And this aligns with a theme that runs through many of his sermons. He has many times angrily accused “the brethren” of wanting to “get” salvation.
So, Armstrongists may teach that the Law is a schoolmaster but elsewhere they teach that it is pre-condition to salvation.
Scout
Byker wrote 7:37 wrote, “Paul gave us very effective insights throughout his writings.”
I am a big fan of Paul. It is interesting that Jesus chose a devout Pharisee to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Because of Paul’s background, I believe he knew personally many of the Pharisees in the Circumcision Party. These were Pharisees who professed belief in Christ and hung around the Jerusalem Church trying to convince people to keep the Law of Moses. Paul mentions no names but I believe these people were among his past associates. It must have really put in him a challenging spot.
Paul also persecuted the early Ekklesia. So, he would have known many Christian leaders. And no doubt had a trove of intelligence on their statements, their personal connections and their movements. He just didn’t expect to end up being a Christian Apostle.
It is noteworthy that much of Paul’s profound writing emerged in the context of his ministry to the Gentiles. This contrasts sharply with the WCG. A former Pasadena student who worked at AC Big Sandy told me that Gentiles (aka, Black and Brown people) were not permitted admission to AC Pasadena in the early days. This is because the leaders in Pasadena did not believe that the Gentile mind could actually understand the Gospel. (Another reason for some to be proud to be “Israelite.”) I think Paul would take great exception.
Scout
Yea Scout, when you get to the nuts and bolts or the intent of the matter, you get to see they are really not in congruence with Paul's Gentile ministry.
And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
), it says it.
“Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!” And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves.
.
I know that Mr. Meredith used this verse for qualified/disqualified (v. 27).
1 Corinthians 9:25-27
But it's actually God the Father that qualifies us (Colossians 1:11-14
But what I always found funny concerning Paul and the Jew/Gentiles topic of Christianity is near the end of the book of Acts, Paul says this:
Acts 28:28-29
This was sort of a repeat of earlier in Acts 13:46-47
The 3 phases of "salvation" described in Scripture are justification, sanctification, and glorification. They are a natural progression. Justification leads to sanctification and the outcome of sanctification is glorification.
When defining "salvation", many go no further than justification (accepting Christ). Armstrong did the very opposite by focusing almost exclusively on the final outcome, the resurrection into the kingdom of God (glorification). He gave no credence to the 2 prior phases as having any legitimate claim to the definition of the term. Hence, his view on all 3 phases was faulty.
Scripture speaks of sanctification several ways: Christ (living) in us, the putting on of Christ (the new man), walking, growing in the spirit, etc. Armstrong liked the phrase, " developing character ", and it was one of his prerequisites for qualifying for the Kingdom. But we are not qualifying for something here! Character is a fruit of the Christian life (sanctification), a natural progression of something we already possess, salvation.
Have been saved; Are being saved; Shall be saved. The key word here is "saved", a word Armstrong would never use. I think it's apparent he didn't understand it!
Tank writes:
And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.
Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.
with 4:13 suggests that Luke was a Gentile.
We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to WHAT WE HAVE HEARD, so that we do not drift away. 
This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, WAS CONFIRMED TO US BY THOSE WHO HEARD HIM.
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
“The guy who wasn't a part of the original twelve was responsible for writing most of the NT (who had persecuted The Way).”
But is this so?
It appears that a GENTILE was the largest contributor by volume (27.5%) to the New Testament.
Col 4:11
Col 4:14
Colossians 4:11
Heb 2:1
Heb 2:3
Hebrews itself suggests that Paul was not the author of this letter.
“... it is because we have other indubitable writings from his pen that we can say confidently with Calvin: “The manner of teaching and the style sufficiently show that Paul was not the author, and the writer himself confesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples of the apostles, which is wholly different from the way in which Paul spoke of himself.” What Paul and the author of Hebrews have in common is the basic apostolic teaching; but when we come to distinctive features we may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul’s, the language is not Paul’s, and the technique of Old Testament quotation is not Paul’s. In brief, “I can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author.” So Calvin wisely sums up” (F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Hebrews, Rev. NICNT, pp.19-20).
Heb 8:8b
“BUT EVEN IN THIS PASSAGE THERE IS NO HINT OF A NEW COVENANT WHICH COULD EXTEND TO ALL PEOPLE, GENTILES AS WELL AS JEWS, AS HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF THE GOSPEL. INDEED IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THIS UNIVERSAL ASPECT OF THE GOSPEL FINDS NO PLACE IN THIS EPISTLE, but a sufficient explanation of this would be restricted destination for a Jewish audience” (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.177-178).
Anonymous 9:16 cited, “1 Corinthians 9:25-27
And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.”
It is worthwhile to examine this. This scripture uses a word in Greek that has been translated as “disqualified” but it can mean castaway or rejected and is used in regard to rejecting the metal in coins. Paul clearly tells us in Ephesians that salvation is by grace through faith not of works. Would he then tell us in this passage in 1 Corinthains that salvation is by works? What the passage is referring to is not salvation but rewards for works given in the resurrection. The “crown” refers to those rewards.
In this same epistle, Paul elucidated this issue when he wrote, “If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” This indicates that the value of works is separate from salvation. The outcome is that we have two meanings for the term “disqualified” – the Armstrongist meaning and the Christian meaning. The Armstrongist meaning is about losing or gaining salvation. The Christian meaning is about receiving salvation but losing rewards. The former meaning is theologically incorrect. The latter meaning is supported by contextual scripture. This is because for Armstrongists, disqualification/qualification in 1 Cor. 9 is about losing or receiving salvation based on works. It fits with their belief that qualification equates to salvation by works. Meredith applies the Armstrongist meaning in 1 Cor. 9 not the Christian meaning.
Scout
Greetings 2:38
Greet all those who rule over you, and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.
Know that our brother Timothy has been set free, with whom I shall see you if he comes shortly.
and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things,
clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.
who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
, “ was confirmed to us by those who heard him.”
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have [a]fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
I think I had this discussion with you in a previous post a few years ago. And thank you for your comments and feedback, even though I disagree. There are 3 main reasons I do, and they are found in the text of Hebrews. I get using outside sources, but I find peace with simply using the bible on this topic.
Italy
Hebrews 13:24
Timothy
Hebrews 13:23
Peter said that Paul wrote to the jewish converts in his epistle.
2 Peter 3:15-16
So at some point in time, Peter wrote to the jewish christians. Peter admitted to it., so I think it was the book of Hebrews, but you can disagree.
I think that covenant thing is within a different timeline in the future. We live in the present. During Paul’s ministry in his day to the letter towards the Corinthians he wrote:
2 Corinthians 3:3
2 Corinthians 3:6
Paul here does use the term “new covenant” l as well as in his previous letter concerning the NT symbols of the passover for the Gentiles. On a side note, I hope the newly converted jewish Christians in the 50’s & 60’s AD weren’t still using animal sacrifices in those days (but I think they were). That’s why the writer made it such an emphasis (Hebrews 10). Who knows, it really doesn't matter who wrote it, it's in the canon and it aligns with the other scripture.
One more point about Hebrews 2:3
1 Corinthians 15:6-8
So here in Paul’s epistle he admits that Christ saw him to the Corinth church. And I feel that if Christ appeared unto Saul/Paul, then Paul heard what He had to say. God loves you Anon 2:38.
Tank
Precisely Scout,
Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
2 John 8
If there is a full reward, there can be lesser rewards (Parable of the Talents).
Thanks for clearing that up.
Post a Comment