(Expanding on what was previously posted)
In the hands of Armstrongist leaders, this verse isn’t a gentle pastoral definition — it’s a sledgehammer. Herbert W. Armstrong, Rod Meredith, Bob Thiel (“Bwana Bob”), and the latest self-appointed contender Samuel Kitchen have all swung it like a club to convince people that the only way to avoid being “wicked” is to keep the full Old Covenant package: weekly Sabbath, annual holy days, clean/unclean meats, and especially tithing as God’s unbreakable “law.”
The problem? That’s not what the Apostle John was saying. And the damage this misuse has caused — and continues to cause — is measurable in broken families, emptied bank accounts, anxious consciences, and people who finally walk away only to discover that the “one true church” they were warned about leaving was never the New Covenant to begin with.
John uses the word *anomia* — lawlessness. It means living in rebellion against God’s righteous character, not “violating one of the 613 statutes of the Mosaic covenant.”
Right in the same chapter he says Jesus was manifested "to take away our sins" and to "destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:5, 8). He says those born of God "do not practice sin" because God’s seed remains in them. Then he immediately defines the real commandment: "believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another" (v. 23).
Later in the letter he adds that God’s commandments “are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). That doesn’t sound like the heavy yoke of Old Covenant regulations that even the apostles in Acts 15 refused to lay on Gentile believers.
The New Testament is crystal clear elsewhere:
- You are **not under law but under grace**” (Romans 6:14).
- Christ is **the end of the law for righteousness** to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4).
- The Old Covenant is “**obsolete** and ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13).
- The shadows of Sabbaths and holy days find their substance in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).
John isn’t contradicting any of that. He’s warning against **practicing lawlessness** — living like the devil — while pointing people to the One who sets us free from it.
Herbert W. Armstrong made this verse foundational. He repeatedly taught that “sin is the transgression of the law” and tied it directly to God’s character and the entire Old Covenant system. In his materials, he framed obedience to Sabbaths, holy days, and tithing as essential markers of true Christianity. The whole edifice of British Israelism, end-time prophecy, and institutional authority rested on this definition of sin.
Rod Meredith, the great law-keeping enforcer, carried it forward. Tomorrow’s World has used the exact KJV wording and declared: “To love God perfectly is to obey Him perfectly. Where there is disobedience against the law, there is sin, and sin brings punishment.” It warns against the “no law” approach of “most professing Christians today” and links godly fear to keeping the commandments. The tone is classic Meredith: surrender or face consequences.
Bwana Bob and his Continuing Church of God don’t even try to be subtle. In official CCOG Bible study materials, he writes:
Since the Bible reveals that ‘sin is the transgression of the law’ (I John 3:4, KJV), those who conduct themselves as though His law is done away, are, in Bible terminology, called ‘the wicked.’
He then ties true wisdom to fearing God and doing His commandments. Anyone who suggests the Old Covenant administration has been fulfilled and replaced is labeled wicked and unable to understand end-time truth. This from the same leader whose group has faced its own well-documented controversies while he attacks ex-members and critics.
Samuel Kitchen is the current self-appointed flavor. Associated sites in the remnant “Worldwide Church of God” orbit explicitly state that members “obey God’s tithing law today.” There have even been formal letters of authorization for him to collect tithes under the old framework. He combines this with grand claims of special missions and authority — the same old pattern dressed up as the latest “Elijah” or restorer. Same verse, same enforcement, same tithing envelopes.
In every case the verse is ripped from its New Covenant context and turned into a loyalty test: Keep the law (our version of it) or you’re in rebellion against God.
This isn’t just bad theology. It has wrecked lives for generations.
Members have been taught that failing to tithe (first tithe, second tithe, sometimes building funds on top) is robbing God and risking curses. On modest incomes, this creates real financial hardship while leaders enjoy the “blessings” of authority and resources. Failed prophetic dates (1975 and many since) didn’t lead to humility — they often led to doubled-down legalism and more pressure to “prove” loyalty by stricter observance.
Disfellowshipping has been used as a weapon to silence questions, enforce conformity, and punish families. Children have grown up terrified of “the world,” of losing salvation, of bringing shame on the church. Scandals and cover-ups in various groups (including serious issues in some African congregations under Thiel’s oversight) have been minimized or hidden while the same leaders thunder about “sin is the transgression of the law.”
The psychological toll is heavy: chronic anxiety, scrupulosity, inability to rest in grace, and a works-based relationship with God that never quite feels secure. Many who finally leave carry years of shame and fear even after discovering the New Covenant. Marriages and family relationships have been shattered over “doctrinal purity” that turned out to be shadows.
And all of it is justified with a verse that, properly read, points straight to Jesus taking away sins and giving us a new heart.
The tragedy is that 1 John 3:4 was never meant to be a club. John was writing to believers already in Christ, urging them not to drift back into the devil’s territory of lawlessness. He points them to the Savior who appeared for this very purpose — to destroy sin’s power, not to re-impose the old administration that could never perfect anyone.
Armstrongism turned the verse into a loyalty oath to an obsolete covenant. It replaced the Spirit-written law of love with external regulations, fear of disfellowshipping, and financial extraction dressed up as obedience. The leaders named above — from the founder to the current self-appointed voices — have all played their part in keeping people looking backward to Sinai instead of forward to the cross and the empty tomb.
But here’s the good news that keeps breaking through anyway: "The New Covenant is better." It is not a slightly improved version of the old one. It is new. It rests on better promises. It is empowered by the indwelling Spirit. It produces genuine love, joy, and rest instead of anxious rule-keeping. Many thousands who once sat under these teachings have discovered that freedom — and they are not going back.
If this verse has been used to keep you afraid, guilty, or financially burdened, hear this clearly: That is not the voice of your Good Shepherd. Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden is light. The same John who wrote “sin is lawlessness” also wrote that perfect love casts out fear. The solution to lawlessness is not more law — it is abiding in the One who fulfilled the law perfectly on our behalf.
So read the whole letter of 1 John. Read Galatians. Read Hebrews. Read Romans 6–8. Then read 1 John 3:4 again. You’ll see it points to freedom, not bondage. To Christ, not to shadows. To grace that actually transforms, not fear that only controls.
The clubs and gavels can stay on the platform with the self-appointed enforcers. The rest of us are free to walk in the light — because the Son has set us free indeed.
Silent Pilgrim
19 comments:
Your 4 Points.
1.You are **not under law but under grace**” (Romans 6:14 [ Under the Law means one is under the penalty of the law, Not at liberty to break. That is like saying, because someone was kind to you (gracious) and paid your speeding fine, you are now free to break the speeding law for life. It would not work here, and it does not work with God, even if that is your belief.
2. Christ is **the end of the law for righteousness** to everyone who believes” ... "End" did not mean the law was finished, but that the product of the law would be like Christ.. End G5056 telos..From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); You know this!!!
3.(Romans 10:4 The Old Covenant is “**obsolete** and ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13 ). What became obsolete, as you know, is the laws pertaining to ordinances. But the FAULT with the old covenant, was not with the law, but with the people, as God said.. Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 (( For finding fault with them,)) he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: If it were the law God would have said so, but instead said this...Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;(( I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts:)) and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: So the law would now be in us through the power of His Holy Spirit. Which sane government would remove laws that are there to keep the peace among free-willed people? God is not stupid.
4.The shadows of Sabbaths and holy days find their substance in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17 ). You know the substance of Christ is "the body," and "the body" is the church, so when Paul wrote that He was writing to people who were once pagans but now were following Christ. They were being judged for keeping different holy days and refusing unclean meats. So, leaving out the" italics" "is " in that verse, it reads.. Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ.... So the church was to be their guide and judge, not the pagans they lived among. Being" shadows of things to come", also meant the days were prophetic. So why would they ignore them?
Amen, brother, preach it!
Apparently some hate the feasts, sabbaths, dietary laws because they want to eat shrimp or bacon and not have anyone tell them what to do at certain times or days of the week.
.The argument above is simply a rehash of Armstrong.
One huge problem - perhaps the single biggest one - is that Paul never uses “body” to mean “church” anywhere in Colossians 2. That meaning is imported from elsewhere.
In this chapter, “body” always refers to Christ Himself, either His physical body or His substance in contrast to shadows. The Greek phrase in Colossians 2:17 is “the body is Christ.” There is no grammatical way to make it mean “but the church of Christ should judge you.”
To get that reading, you would have to remove the verb “is,” add a verb like “judge” that isn’t there, change “body” to mean “church,” change the subject, and change the entire meaning of the sentence. This is not exegesis; it is rewriting Paul.
It is therefore no surprise that no Bible translation renders Colossians 2:17 as Armstrong's preference - “the church should judge you.” The Greek text contains no such idea. It does not mention the church, does not contain the word “judge,” and explicitly says “the body is Christ.”
Not even fringe translations attempt to force this reading. Every major translation agrees:
KJV — “but the body is of Christ”
ESV — “but the substance belongs to Christ”
NIV — “the reality, however, is found in Christ”
NASB — “but the substance belongs to Christ”
CSB — “but the substance is Christ”
NET — “but the reality is Christ”
Even the NWT (Jehovah’s Witnesses) reads: “but the reality belongs to the Christ.”
Not one translation says “church,” “congregation,” or “judge.” Armstrong demonstrated no such support for the simple reason that it doesn’t exist. He just created his own.
This is a textbook example of how Armstrongism wrests Scripture, very much like the Watchtower, by inserting ideas the text does not contain and cannot support. The need to delete words, add new ones, and reverse Paul’s grammar exposes the fundamentally deceptive nature of the system. It reflects very poorly on it.
Armstrong didn’t invent his Colossians 2 argument. He inherited it from 19th‑century Adventist and Sabbatarian writers, passed down through the Church of God (Seventh Day). The idea was already circulating decades before he was born.
COG7 gave him the framework, particularly the misuse of Colossians 2, that made his later doctrines possible. The actual festival system came from G. G. Rupert it seems, not from COG7.
I realise that most of what is presented here is reactionary against Armstrong abuse and faulty interpretations. However, there is a fine line between that endeavor and misrepresenting the lively oracles of God as being worthless heavy burdens and yokes of bondage. Even when reacting to the Pharisees Christ didn't disparage the law, but the heavy burdens put on the people, the hypocrisy, the exclusion, the perversion, the subversion, the inversion, the extortion, and pretension, the same things the WCG was guilty of.
This disparagement presented here is not without its bias. You have said, Christians have liberty regarding days and foods (Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:9-11), then use the same texts in condemning the "days" of God. You treat Acts 15 like it is a summary catch all for what the apostles laid on the Gentile believers as compulsory. Yet Acts 15 leaves many things out that other scriptures emphasize, like loving God, loving neighbor, and the many lists of sins that we are admonished to flee. You make boast of the law of Christ then ignor Christ's own words concerning the sabbath day in Matthew 12:12. All of this is pure bias.
The holydays are called the feasts of the Lord (Jesus Christ). There is no doubt they point to and find their substance in Christ, so why scorn them and label them as unnecessary yokes? How does one understand their meaning if such is the case? There are children in schools today in the middle grades that can't read, write or multiply because they are not taught the fundamentals necessary to achieve a higher degree of understanding. The apostle Paul makes this very point in Hebrews 5:12:
"For when for the time you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again the FIRST PRINCIPLES of the oracles of God".
The fact that the NT is filled with holyday terminology, typology, and symbolism drives this point home that the holydays have value and contribute to a better understanding of God's plan of salvation. Whole chapters (such as John 6) are dedicated to the explanation and meaning of these days which point to Christ. Also, far from these OT oracles being yokes of bondage, we find them presented in the NT in a favorable NC context to Gentile believers (see 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, 9:8-9) in the fullness of sincerity, spirit and truth.
Yes, the NC is superior and, as you put it " better". It's the only covenant that can work because it is based on what God does and not on man's performance. The law in its proper role is not bondage for it is a fundamental part of this covenant (Hebrews 8:10, Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:27).
The old man is not subject to God's law. He scorns it. The new man serves and delights in the law of God, for we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
No. Humans have a long and rich history of keeping a wide variety of holidays and the holy days associated with their religious beliefs. Also they enjoy a wide variety of cuisine. It is not these customs which produce rebellion and hatred. The examples you have cited are all things which are deeply enjoyed by Jewish people around the world!
What former Armstrongites have come to hate are the unwanted passengers which HWA attached to these customs. Authoritarian church governance, Phariseeism, false prophecy and the manipulation which accompanies it, elitism and being schooled to look down upon other Christians, and decisions mandated which should be left to personal choice or accumulated experience and wisdom. Shunning former members,, distancing "unconverted" relatives, being forbidden to give to "the world's" charities, being forbidden to join secular clubs involving your hobby (hobbies themselves being frowned upon), and generally, being victimized by a "ratting" culture, all add to the misery quotient. Beating the crap out if your kids, and sometimes even the wives!
The days, the food, and even tithing are not what make people misrable. It's the harsh verbal accompaniment, and Pharisaic extremes. The presentation. Like someone or other said, if you present ice cream to a kid in a certain way, you can make him hate it!!! The Armstrong method of church government is to use a$$holes to teach and enforce it! Zero tolerance, and no negotiation! To them, any spiritual guidance you may receive through inspiration provided to you personally by your friends in the deity is subject to review and nullification!
Nope! It ain't the days, the meats, etc., folks! It's what the jailers add to them!
ps ''So, leaving out the" italics" "is " in that verse, it reads...''
Armstrong’s demonisation of the little italicised “is” in Colossians 2:17 is a huge beat‑up. The KJV translators added the word “is” in italics to show three things: this word is not written in Greek; but it is required for correct English. And it is clearly implied by Greek grammar.
This is not “adding doctrine”, or “changing the text.” It is not “suspicious.”
This is standard translation practice used by every major Bible version. And this is why the:
ESV
NASB
NIV
CSB
NET
even the NWT
all include the verb “is” because Greek requires it conceptually, even when unstated.
Removing the italics does not change the meaning.
It does not create a new verb.
It does not allow you to insert “judge.”
It does not turn “body” into “church.”
All it does is expose how artificial the Armstrong interpretation really is and how ill‑informed it is to make a big deal about the italicised “is.”
The KJV translators weren’t hiding anything; they were simply marking an English word required by grammar and already implied in the Greek. Turning that into a doctrinal crisis only reveals how weak the Armstrong argument actually is. Like many other things it reflects very poorly on them.
This is very interesting and I want to see how it develops. Silent Pilgrim provided a statement of standard Christian theology and did an excellent job of doing so. Then we got a statement in response that is well composed Armstrongist theology. This doesn't happen often. I get the impression that many of the Armstrongists who reply here are on the fringes and cannot spar over theology, resort quickly to ad hominem attack and often do not seem to understand what HWA, et al., taught.
Before I take my seat in the Peanut Gallery, I will point out that Anonymous 3:57 makes the same fundamental error that most Armstrongists make. They claim that the Torah is written on their hearts, yet they do not keep the Torah. Nobody in the Armstrongist ranks makes their teenaged daughter who has acne yell "Unclean!" as others approach her. This is not an ordinance. It is classified as a health law just like the dietary laws.
Further, Rod Meredith clearly states in his article "Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation" that the civil laws in the Torah, including the statutes and judgements, are based on the Ten Commandments and it is a sin to break them. The only thing excluded for "Christians" is the Ministration of Death and the Sacrifices. Meredith writes,
"God's laws - his commandments, statutes and judgements - are to be in our hearts - we are to live by them by the power of God's Spirit."
That is a considerably broader scope of the Torah than Armstrongists are willing to undertake. They don't even stay in an arbor during the Feast of Tabernacles. You can't label every law an ordinance if you happen to not want to keep it. HWA and his minions set a standard that nobody keeps. So, if it is the path to salvation then salvation has been rejected.
Scout
These four justifications from an Armstrongite perspective attempt to argue that the Mosaic Law’s ceremonial aspects—Sabbaths, holy days, dietary rules, etc.—remain binding under the New Covenant. They reinterpret key New Testament passages to preserve continuity with the Old Covenant. However, they are incompatible with the New Testament’s overall teaching on the New Covenant as a fundamentally superior, replacing arrangement centered on Christ, the Spirit, and faith rather than the old external code.
The New Covenant (promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and explained in Hebrews 8–10) is not merely the Old Covenant with the law “written on hearts.” It is new: a better mediator (Christ, not Moses), a better priesthood (Melchizedekian, not Levitical), a once-for-all sacrifice (Christ’s, not repeated animal offerings), complete forgiveness, and the indwelling Spirit empowering believers. The Old Covenant as a whole has become obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). The law’s moral principles are internalized and summarized in love (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14), but its ceremonial shadows (sacrifices, festivals, clean/unclean rules, priesthood regulations) are fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding.
Here is why each point falls short:
1. Romans 6:14 – “You are not under law but under grace”
The argument claims “under the law” only means “under its penalty,” so grace pardons without freeing us from obligation—like paying a speeding ticket but still having to obey the speed limit forever.
This misreads the context and Paul’s broader theology.
Romans 6 contrasts the dominion of sin with life in Christ. Sin once reigned because the law exposed it and condemned without empowering victory over it (see also Romans 7:7-13). Grace does not merely pardon; through the Spirit it transforms us so sin no longer has dominion. Paul states believers have died to the law (Romans 7:4, 6) and are released from it to serve “in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”
The speeding-fine analogy fails because it treats grace as cheap pardon without heart change. In reality, grace gives a new heart and the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27; Romans 8:2-4). Paul repeatedly says Christians are not under the law as a covenant system (Galatians 5:18; Romans 7:6). We are under the “law of the Spirit of life” and the “law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2), which fulfills the moral intent of the law without the old covenant’s external regulations.
2. Romans 10:4 – “Christ is the end (telos) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes”
The claim is that telos means only “goal” or “purpose,” so the law still leads to Christ-like living and is not terminated.
Telos can mean goal, purpose, or termination (sometimes both at once). In this specific context, it means Christ brings the law to its intended goal and terminates it as a means of achieving righteousness.
Context (Romans 9–11): Many in Israel pursued righteousness through the law but failed to attain it, while Gentiles received it by faith. Christ is the goal the law pointed toward (its prophetic and moral aim), but for believers He ends any attempt to gain righteousness by law-keeping. Righteousness now comes by faith in Him, not by works of the law (Romans 3:21-22; 10:5-13; Galatians 2:16; 3:21-24).
Even if one emphasizes “goal,” once the goal (Christ) arrives, the old path to righteousness via the law is no longer operative. The verse does not say believers must still pursue righteousness the old way.
continued below
3. Hebrews 8:13 – The Old Covenant is “obsolete and ready to vanish away”
The argument says only the “ordinances” (ceremonial parts) became obsolete; the fault was with the people (Hebrews 8:8), and the new covenant simply writes “my laws” on hearts (Hebrews 8:10), so the moral law (including Sabbaths and holy days) remains.This selectively reads the passage. Hebrews 8:13 explicitly says that by announcing a new covenant, God has made the first (the Mosaic/Old Covenant as a whole) obsolete and aging, ready to disappear. The fault was indeed with the people—they broke the covenant (Hebrews 8:9)—but the solution is not patching the old system. It is an entirely new covenant with:
Internal transformation by the Spirit (not external stone tablets).
Complete forgiveness (“I will remember their sins no more”).
A better priesthood and sacrifice.
Hebrews 7:12 states that a change in priesthood (from Levitical to Christ’s) necessarily brings a change in the law. The old covenant’s entire administration—including its ceremonial shadows tied to the temple, sacrifices, and priesthood—is obsolete. The “laws” written on hearts in the new covenant refer to moral principles (love for God and neighbor), not reinstating the full Mosaic code with its temporary shadows. God is not “stupid” for fulfilling and retiring shadows; He is wise. The ceremonial laws were never the eternal core for all people—they pointed forward to Christ.
4. Colossians 2:16-17 – Shadows of Sabbaths and holy days find substance in Christ
The argument claims Paul tells the (former pagan) Colossians not to let pagans judge them for keeping the days, that “the body of Christ” means the church is now the judge, and that because the days are “shadows of things to come” (prophetic), they should still be kept.
This is a strained grammatical and contextual reading.
Paul writes: “Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body [substance/reality] is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17, with standard rendering of the Greek to de sōma tou Christou as “the substance/reality belongs to Christ” or “the reality is found in Christ”).
The contrast is shadow vs. substance/reality in Christ—not “shadows… but the church judges.” The things listed (dietary rules, festivals, new moons, Sabbaths) are shadows pointing to Christ. Since the reality has come in Him, believers are not obligated to observe the shadows, and no one should judge them for it.
Context: Paul warns against false teachers imposing regulations (likely a mix of Jewish legalism and asceticism). The Colossian believers already possess the reality in Christ—they should not return to shadows.
This fits the rest of the New Testament:
Paul rebukes the Galatians for observing “days and months and seasons and years” as turning back to slavery (Galatians 4:9-11).
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) did not require Gentile believers to keep these observances.
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), and believers find true rest in Him (Hebrews 4:1-11).
Early Christians worshiped on the first day of the week (the Lord’s Day), not as a new legal Sabbath but in celebration of the resurrection.
The “things to come” were future from the Old Testament perspective; they have now arrived in Christ. Keeping the shadows after the substance has come is regressive, not prophetic faithfulness.
Summary: Why These Justifications Conflict with the New Covenant
These points selectively reinterpret verses while downplaying or redefining the New Testament’s clear teaching that the Old Covenant is obsolete, its shadows are fulfilled in Christ, and believers are under grace and the Spirit—not the Mosaic law code as a binding covenant. The New Covenant does not abolish moral principles (they are written on hearts and fulfilled in love), but it does retire the ceremonial system that pointed to Christ. Requiring Sabbath-keeping, annual holy days, or dietary laws as obligatory for Christians today adds to the finished work of Christ and returns to the “weak and beggarly elements” Paul warned against.
The New Covenant is better precisely because it is not the Old Covenant renewed with the same external rules.
It is Christ-centered freedom empowered by the Spirit.
Sorry, I meant this response to be under the very first comment which I am responding to.@ 3:57.
If I understand you right, our perspective views the weekly Sabbath, annual holy days (feasts of the Lord), and related ceremonial practices as still binding requirements for Christians under the New Covenant. It sees them as valuable "first principles," shadows that retain ongoing practical and spiritual value, and part of the law now written on the heart (citing Hebrews 8:10). It accuses New Covenant teaching of bias, disparaging God's oracles, and turning liberty texts into condemnations of what God ordained.
This view has some strengths: it rightly honors the Old Testament as Scripture, recognizes the typological value of the holy days (they do point to Christ), and warns against legalistic abuse or dismissing the law entirely. Jesus Himself did not abolish the law but fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17), and He criticized Pharisaic additions and hypocrisy—not the law itself.
However, the core claim—that these specific ceremonial observances remain compulsory for all Christians—is inconsistent with the New Testament's teaching on the New Covenant.
Here's why, based on direct exegesis of the relevant passages.
1. The New Covenant Fulfills and Supersedes the Ceremonial Shadows
The holy days, Sabbaths, dietary laws, and sacrificial system were shadows pointing forward to Christ. Once the substance (Christ) has come, the shadows are no longer binding as covenant requirements.
Colossians 2:16-17: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."
Paul explicitly lists the very things Armstrongism requires (festivals/holy days, new moons, Sabbaths) and says believers should not be judged for their observance or non-observance. These were temporary pointers. Insisting they are still mandatory reverses Paul's instruction.
Hebrews 8–10 (especially 8:13): The old covenant (including its ceremonial system) is "obsolete" and "ready to vanish away." The New Covenant brings better promises, a better priesthood (Melchizedek, not Levitical), and a once-for-all sacrifice. The law written on hearts (Hebrews 8:10, quoting Jeremiah 31) refers to God's moral will being internalized by the Spirit—not the full Mosaic ceremonial code being re-imposed.
2. Christian Liberty Regarding Days and Foods
The texts you mention (Romans 14:5-6 and Galatians 4:9-11) teach freedom, not condemnation of "God's days."
In Romans 14, Paul addresses disputable matters (including "one person esteems one day as better than another"). Each person should be "fully convinced in their own mind." This is liberty, not a requirement to observe specific days.
In Galatians 4:9-11, Paul is alarmed: "You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain." In context, this refers to Judaizers pressuring Gentiles to adopt the Jewish calendar as necessary for righteousness. Paul calls this a return to "weak and beggarly elements" and slavery. He is not attacking the original purpose of those days but their legalistic re-imposition under the New Covenant.
These passages do not "condemn God's days"—they protect believers from being judged or burdened by them as requirements.
3. Acts 15 — The Apostolic Ruling on What Is RequiredThe Jerusalem Council directly addressed what Gentile believers must observe. Judaizers demanded circumcision and "keeping the law of Moses." The apostles and elders, guided by the Holy Spirit, concluded: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:28-29).
No Sabbath. No holy days. No tithing. No clean/unclean meats beyond the listed items.
If these were compulsory "first principles" or part of the law written on the heart for all Christians, the apostles would have included them. Their silence is decisive. This was the binding decision for the Gentile churches that became the majority of Christianity.
4. New Testament Use of Holy Day Language Is Typological/Spiritual, Not Literal Command
1 Corinthians 5:7-8: "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Paul uses Passover/Unleavened Bread imagery to urge moral purity in light of Christ's sacrifice. It is not a command to literally observe the annual feast with physical deleavening. It is "keep the feast" in the reality Christ fulfilled.
The New Testament is full of such typology (Christ as Passover Lamb, Firstfruits, etc.) precisely because the holy days pointed to Him. We honor them best by embracing the fulfillment, not by repeating the shadows.
Hebrews 5:12 ("first principles of the oracles of God") refers to basic gospel doctrines (repentance, faith, baptisms, resurrection, judgment), not holy day observance. The context is maturing in understanding Christ's priesthood and sacrifice.
5. Jesus and the Sabbath (Matthew 12:12)
Jesus said, "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" and declared Himself "Lord of the Sabbath." This was within His earthly ministry under the Old Covenant. He was correcting Pharisaic legalism and showing the Sabbath's true purpose (mercy and doing good). He was not issuing a perpetual command for ritual observance by Gentiles under the New Covenant. Instead, He pointed to true rest being found in Him (see also Matthew 11:28-30 and Hebrews 4).
6. The "Law Written on the Heart" and the New Man
Hebrews 8:10 and Ezekiel passages describe the New Covenant reality: God writes His law (summarized as love for God and neighbor — Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14) on hearts through the Spirit. This produces good works as the fruit of grace (Ephesians 2:10), not as covenant requirements for acceptance.
The old man resists God's moral will. The new man, created in Christ, delights in righteousness by the Spirit's power. This does not require returning to the Mosaic ceremonial system. The New Covenant is "better" exactly because it accomplishes internally and perfectly what the old covenant could only point to externally and imperfectly.
Summary: Why the Armstrongite View Conflicts with the New Covenant
The New Covenant does not call the Old Testament oracles "worthless heavy burdens." It reveals them as divinely inspired shadows whose substance is Christ. The problem with the Armstrongite position is that it treats fulfilled ceremonial requirements as still obligatory, which:
Contradicts explicit NT statements on shadows, liberty, and the obsolescence of the old covenant.
Goes beyond (and against) the apostolic decree in Acts 15.
Risks the very legalism Paul confronted in Galatians.
Ignores that the early church (post-apostolic fathers like Ignatius) largely moved away from mandatory Jewish calendar observance, gathering instead on the Lord's Day (Sunday) in honor of the resurrection.
Observing holy days or the Sabbath can be a matter of personal conviction or cultural heritage for some believers (Romans 14), but making them compulsory for all Christians adds to the gospel and undermines the freedom and sufficiency of Christ under the New Covenant.
The New Covenant is superior because it is based on what God has done in Christ — perfect sacrifice, heart transformation, and rest — rather than on human performance of rituals. That is not disparagement of the Old Testament; it is its glorious fulfillment.
Or.....The Gentiles will learn more every sabbath in addition to the 4 things......Acts 15:20, 21.
The body, the church ....Col 1:18, 24.... is to do the judging.....Col 2:16-17-one sentence.
SP134
You are right, you don't understand my perspective. You are a one trick pony. All your posts are the same. All your arguments are the same, couched in language that can only be interpreted one way, the wrong way! You use supercharged terms like "compulsory", "mandatory", " binding", "covenant requirements for acceptance", and imply that's my approach. It's not. You are at war with the administration of Armstrongism. I'm talking about the administration of the SPIRIT.
Another aspect of your end game is you continually refer to the sabbath, the holydays, and food laws as rituals, old covenant forms, ceremonial observances and practices, BUT you have no scriptural foundation to stand on. Such are NEVER called by that terminology or used in that context. It is simply your interpretation based on your human reasoning.
I'm not going to further engage you on every difficult Scripture we have discussed on this site for years (Acts 15, Colossians 2, Galatians 4), only to say there are multiple interpretations for each. Your view is not exact science.
You also write that early Christians worshipped on the 1st day of the week in celebration of the resurrection. Since I'm assuming that wasn't mandatory or a requirement, would it be wrong to likewise do the same with the sabbath and holydays? In other words, did Paul have any realistic expectation that the Corinthians would/should keep the feast (Gk. Heortazo--celebrate the holyday) as suggested in chapter 5? OR, that they would/ should heed his appeal for physical support based on the authority of the law of Moses (chapter 9)?
Also, if the 2 great commands summarize the entire law, and love fulfills the entire law, and the Golden Rule is the intent of the law and the prophets, then it sounds to me like the ENTIRE LAW is in play in the NC as administered by the spirit, exemplified in 1 Corinthians 5 and 9, and written on the heart. The administration of the spirit doesn't hedge its operation on such buzzwords as binding, mandatory, or compulsory, which are carnal observations at best. For the spirit works within the inner man, where the entire law of God becomes a very part of one's very being, where the works of God are held in the highest esteem, meditated upon, and delighted in. THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
Well, BPB, I guess the one trick pony is actually you. You got eviscerated and now you shut down.
Thanks for your well-thought-out response. I noticed the other day that they were questioning you for not responding to comments. Now that you did, they are silent. Hypocrites..
Post a Comment