Sukkah (Booth) at Neot Kedumim Park, Israel (Fair Use)
The Armstrongist Mini-Torah
Doing an End-Run Around the Law
By Scout
Jesus in that sermon (Sermon on the Mount) said He did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets. He came only to fulfill. And I've shown you that according to the New Testament in James that we are commanded to fulfill the Law following in His steps — He set us an example that we should follow His steps and we too must fulfill the Law or else we are sinners and love is the fulfilling of the Law. And He said that not the dotting of an "i" or the crossing of a "t" would be removed from the Law until everyone is really fulfilling it. ― Herbert W. Armstrong, “Spirit of the Law”, Sermon, 1979
Cult theology can become a comedy of errors. When I was at the Big Sandy Feast site one year, back in the Seventies, I heard someone criticize Ambassador College faculty members and administrators who lived on Faculty Row for not moving into a temporary dwelling for the duration of the Feast of Tabernacles. Some people on Faculty Row did have their kids living in tents in the backyard. It was funny, because I think the critic was probably living in one of the nearby hotels or a sleek tent in Piney Woods. He probably felt that he was in the right because his residence was temporary, for him at least, but he conveniently overlooked the other characteristics of the prescribed suka (Hebrew) for the Feast of Tabernacles. From the name of this holy day alone, we know that the suka occupied a central role in the liturgy for this observance.
The Torah is explicit about what qualifies as a temporary dwelling for Sukkot. But there is a discrepancy between the inspired scripture in the Old Testament and the modern-day re-imagining of the Torah by Armstrongists. The Armstrongist version of the Torah is smaller and in some cases not as demanding. As in the case of the suka. This reduction of the Torah seems to be out of rhyme with Herbert W. Armstrong’s (HWA) statement above that speaks of keeping the Torah, the same law Jesus kept, down to the jot and tittle. The Armstrongist rendition of the Torah could be called a Torah Lite, but I prefer mini-Torah. The suka case needs to be examined further.
The Case of Suka at the Feast of Tabernacles
Herbert W. Armstrong was always an advocate of letting the Bible interpret itself. So, I will do that in this case. The word suka, translated as booths, means “thicket”. It definitely has an arboreal connotation. In Nehemiah 8:13-15, we find this statement:
On the second day the heads of ancestral houses of all the people, with the priests and the Levites, came together to Ezra the scribe in order to study the words of the law. And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month: And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, TO MAKE BOOTHS (SUKA), AS IT IS WRITTEN.
It is clear that this refers to brush arbors. This is how Ezra and the august body of authorities read the scripture. Why should we read the passage differently? This dwelling is something that you make yourself with your own hands, is temporary (That is, the suka is temporary, not your dwelling there. It wasn’t there before Sukkot, and it will go away after Sukkot), and for the express purpose of observing Sukkot. A hotel room does not fit this profile in the least. The people who dwell in hotels, motels, and rented houses for the FoT, do not comply with the Torah at the jot and tittle level that HWA says is required. Re-read his statement above..
In fact, the Torah on this issue will never be observed among Armstrongists. Can you imagine what would happen if an Armstrongist minister told his wife that she is going to help make a brush arbor and live in it for eight days? You would see a mass exodus from the Armstrongist denominations. It would be a problem that no amount of second tithe could fix. The brush arbor is in the inspired Torah in the Tanakh. A swank hotel room is in the uninspired mini-Torah used by Armstrongists. Because of this departure from the Torah-prescribed brush arbor, nobody in the Armstrongist realm actually observes the Torahic Feast of Booths even though in Armstrongist theology the Torah is written on the hearts of all true Christians.
The lowly brush arbor seems to be without esteem among modernists but Dr. Eitan Bar said the following of it:
The practice of building and living in sukkot—simple structures crafted from branches and foliage—carries profound symbolic meaning. It brings to life the reality of human frailty and transience, reinforcing the truth that ultimate security is found not in human achievements but in God's enduring care. Sukkot is a festival of sensory richness. The waving of the "Four Species" (etrog, lulav, myrtle, and willow) during prayer symbolizes unity and the blessings of creation. The festive meals shared under the open sky, the storytelling, the songs—all foster a deep sense of community, humility, joy, and gratitude. It is a festival where theology becomes tactile, where faith is not merely professed but lived and experienced.
Staying at an expensively appointed hotel for eight days just doesn’t do the same thing.
The Torah Cannot Really be Miniaturized
After the Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the Torah, which was Temple-dependent, was repackaged by Yohanan ben Zakkai, a prominent Pharisee, along with the sages of the Academy of Jamnia, to function without a Temple. This was the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism practiced in the synagogue system. The only other repackaging of the Torah that I know of has been the repackaging done by Armstrongists. While ben Zakkai had the authority of the Bet Din behind his effort, the Armstrongists seem to have not hearkened to any authority. Armstrongists might say that their authority is simply the Bible. But it is not clear that there is a scriptural authority that justifies either the Rabbinic or Armstrongist repackaging.
And Paul and Moses put a great obstacle before those who would edit and streamline the Torah. Paul stated in Galatians 5:3, “Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law.” You cannot do just part of the Torah. It functions like a unit, an operational whole. It cannot be downsized into a “more manageable” package. Moses said in Deuteronomy 12:32, “You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it.” The Torah may have had multiple sources, but the claim of scripture is that Deuteronomy 12:32 encompasses the holy days. My guess is that sometime in the post-exilic period the Law, Prophets and Psalms were essentially frozen and later Jesus had no trouble referring to them as having authority. The Tanakh became a recognized and stable body of writing.
I have no history of how the Armstrongists packaged the Torah and recast it as their denominational mini-Torah. Maybe change accreted through a case-by-case resolution of issues that naturally emerged over the history of the Worldwide Church of God. Maybe nobody in the Armstrongist camp really ever set out to rewrite the Torah.
Level of Observance
A potential argument is that a hotel room in a high-end hotel is not the same as but is functionally similar to a suka. It is a place to live for a while. To start with the concept of a suka from scripture and arrive at the concept of a hotel room just requires disregarding a “few irrelevancies” listed in scripture – like brush, like the temporary status of the structure, the fact that it is hand-made and that kind of thing. Hence, the Torahic requirement is not abandoned; it is just practiced at a different, less stringent level of observance. This argument should not have traction among Armstrongists broadly. Armstrongists generally believe that Jesus defined the Torah for their keeping at the jot and tittle level. The example that Jesus set living under the Law is their example for Christian living today. And the Sermon on the Mount made the Torah even more stringent, not less so. And Armstrongists assert that the Holy Spirit makes it possible for them to keep the Torah when the ancient Israelites could not. And the Holy Spirit is not in their lives to abbreviate Torah-keeping but to expand it. So, the idea that replacing the suka with a hotel room at a top-drawer hotel is just an insignificant matter of observance level is a dog that won’t hunt.
Conclusion
The Torah was the national charter for a certain group of people at a certain time and a certain place. It defined the way to live a good and Godly life on this planet on the pathway to Sheol. It was an effective means to a desirable end. But the New Covenant is a covenant of better promises. It is not about living in a suka unless you just want to as a learning experience. It is about salvation by grace through faith. And sleeping in a suka (or a posh hotel room at the Feast of Tabernacles) won’t make you a Christian any more than sleeping in a garage will make you a car.
132 comments:
The people of Jerusalem didn't wave hotel rooms at Jesus when He entered Jerusalem. They didn't even wave lumber and bricks and stucco.
To detach the Feast of Tabernacles from this vital imagery is to fail to understand the Savior and His commanded Feast almost entirely.
Armstrong's "mini-Torah" or as I say "partial lawkeepers" lulls Armstrongists and other similar "mini-torahists" into believing they are lawkeepers. And, they have the belief that they are now righteous (they will say through Christ). But, they believe it is only they who are righteous in their minds because they consider themselves to be lawkeepers when they are nothing of the sort.
So, these Armstrongists judge Christians who don't keep the partial law that the Armstrongists have decided they want to keep. Non-Armstrongist Christians keep almost the same amount of Sinai Law as the Armstrongists do (but their law keeping doesn't matter as it does not contain the laws that Armstrongists hold most dear), but then those Christians also observe the new covenant better.
I am concerned for these Armstrongists (and similar) because the law keeping they hold most dear is easily achieved (their version of sabbath and holy day keeping and not eating pork) and they have always downplayed grace. They believe they are justified through these easy efforts. This smugness without realizing they need grace as much as anyone else is a risky combination.
Wasn't the Feast of Tabernacles exclusively kept in Jerusalem by the ancient Isrealites? The idea of Feast sites around the world is exclusively an Armstrongism idea.
Anonymous 5:24
Jerusalem was the location where God placed his name. This is where the Temple was and the various holy day ceremonies would be done. In the early history of the Worldwide Church of God, the leadership decided that God, through them, had placed his name in Gladewater, Texas (really Big Sandy). Since the WCG was the only true church and its leaders were God's only true ministers, then they could administratively change the Torah to reflect Gladewater instead of Jerusalem. I know. It sounds whacky. After that, anywhere the Festival Administration Department could find a logistically convenient location for the Feast, that is where God placed his name.
The reality is that God himself placed his name in Jerusalem and that authority was never delegated out as far as I know. So, Jerusalem remains the only place where the Feast of Tabernacles can be legitimately observed. In Rabbinic Judaism I believe they use the precedent of dispersed high places throughout Palestine in ancient times as underpinning for a policy of holy day observance in the geographically decentralized synagogue system. I don't know how the Armstrongists authorized the formation of their policy. My guess is that it was simply a decision made by HWA by his own authority.
Since Armstrongists believe their salvation is achieved through accurate Torah-keeping (called qualification), they should all ask their ministry where their ad hoc Torah version came from and what decisions went into its creation and on what authority the decisions are based.
Scout
Earl wrote, "Non-Armstrongist Christians keep almost the same amount of Sinai Law as the Armstrongists do..."
I think you are right about that. Christians just do not ornament their law-keeping with all the physical stuff.
Scout
Jesus was totally against Christianity as we know it today.
People who were dumb enough to believe Herbertism are probably dumb enough to believe whatever they replaced it with.
Keeping the feast is the road to salvation. Do what Jesus did!
Yeah we should all travel to Jerusalem. Great idea. Very practical. More spiritual. Lets stop at Mecca on the way. Did the church at Rome all go to Jerusalem for the feast? Not likely. Would have spent the whole tithe on the boat fare.
All good points you make cheers
Yes Feast of Tabernacles was exclusively kept in Jerusalem by ancient Israelites once the Temple was established. The idea of Feast sites scattered around the world is entirely an Armstrongist invention, with no grounding at all in Scripture, Jewish history, or early Christian practice. Artmstrong was very inventive at making things up and loudly proclaiming it was biblical truth.
"Since Armstrongists believe their salvation is achieved through accurate Torah-keeping (called qualification),"
Scout doesn't understand Armstrongism, he never did and he never will.
I'm not even going to try and explain how totally wrong the above statement is.
Well ok, since you'll ask. The qualification is about righteous character, not at all about if someone did or did not attend perse....
Nck
I had read some comments years ago on one of the blogs which credited the Seventh Day Adventists with parsing the laws of Torah in light of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and also the destruction of the Temple. They started with the animal sacrifices and, of course, intuited that sacrifices are no longer required because the death of Jesus Christ serves as our eternal sacrifice. Next were the rituals such as the mikvahs. And the result became an actual hierarchy which progressed into a remnant which they believed to be in force today. If the source or my recollections are accurate, the SDAs had the mini-Torah all packaged and ready for HWA's eager plagiarism, a plagiarism to which he added his own spin as he made it his own. He had a habit of fixating on precepts which he had read in other churches' literature, and then claiming that God had revealed them to him personally. At least he was consistent in his methodology, as he applied the same tecnique to prophecy and the daily news.
I am hoping that someone more deeply familiar with SDA history and writings will see this and might actually cite the references which will corroborate it. The Radio/Worldwide Church of God most definitely owes much to Millerism, COG7, GG Rupert, and the Mormons! Martial artist extraordinaire Bruce Lee studied many branches of the martial arts and synthesized them into his own art, which he called Jeet Kune Do. Stevie Ray Vaughan did much the same with the Blues, working the fret board and strings, applying his finger karate to his guitar in ways unknown to those before him. HWA studied the teachings of many Christian religions and synthesized them into his own super religion. Fortunately for Bruce, and SRV, there were no martial arts or Blues heresies to contaminate their artistry, or ruin people's lives!
BB
Well ok, since you'll ask. The qualification is about righteous character,
This is true but we need recall Armstrong’s teachings about doing the law and commandments. Thus he seems to be saying this is the means to developing such character. I suspect this is what Scout is suggesting.
I am convinced that God looks around and sees people who even without the aid of his Spirit are being "of better character" than any so called Christian in whatever Church....
As my pastor said....
"When you look around you might see proof that God indeed has for now called the "weak and despised" as it is written........However, God never and nowhere said that it ought to remain that way......"
So get to work in whatever manner works for you.....
nck
That’s exactly what Scout is saying. HWA taught that upon joining the WCG, salvation was achieved by keeping his version of the law which leads to the development of holy and righteous character. So, we gain salvation through our ability to do this. This kind of teaching takes Christ out of the equation, even as he said it wasn’t a salvation by works teaching. He contradicted himself constantly by stating it was not salvation by works, buuuuut, if you don’t keep the law and the holy days once you’ve come to “the truth”, you’re on the outside looking in. This is something Nck has never understood about Armstrongism, and never will. Because HWA would say that salvation is through Christ and the development of holy righteous character, Nck took that statement like a simpleton, and never understood what he actually taught in real practice and never understood the danger of all the conditions he applied.
NCK 11:25 and Anonymous 12:25
Armstrongism has a dual soteriology. It pays lip service to standard "by grace through faith" soteriology at one level. But on another, less obvious level, Armstrongism advocates salvation by works - the works being conformance to the Torah - which is written on the heart. This latter, parallel salvation track is called "qualification."
You will find this discussed in the following article:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/01/bootstrapping-salvation-disturbing.html
-- Scout
Byker Bob wrote, "HWA studied the teachings of many Christian religions and synthesized them into his own super religion"
This is called syncretism. I heard a WCG minister decades ago explain how it developed. He said that many worldly churches have a little bit of the truth but none of them have all of it. But HWA put the whole picture together and that is why the WCG's beliefs may resemble the beliefs of other churches.
That is a glib explanation. I believe every cult that has a modicum of recognition of the Bible has some beliefs that resemble Christianity.
Scout
Anonymous 9:23 wrote, "Yeah we should all travel to Jerusalem. Great idea. Very practical."
I think this was meant tongue-in-cheek. But on the serious side, practical logistical considerations are not the issue. The issue is what the Torah says. And HWA claimed that the Torah should be kept at the jot and tittle level. That rigorous standard should not give way to practicality. If the principle of practicality is advocated, then we could change a lot of the Torah - anything that someone felt was inconvenient could be eliminated. It is really inconvenient to have to clean the breadcrumbs out of your house every year. Besides, you can't really get the house clean anyway. Why bother?
I think you get the point.
Scout
Anonymous 12:25 wrote, "Thus he seems to be saying this is the means to developing such character. I suspect this is what Scout is suggesting."
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that qualification is a system of earning salvation through works. And the works are defined as keeping the Torah - probably at a minimum. The sound-bite is: No works, no salvation.
HWA explains this in the quote below from the Mystery of the Ages:
“But what of the person who thought he “had it made into the kingdom” without spiritual growth and development? He shall have taken away from him that first portion of the Holy Spirit—he shall lose the salvation he mistakenly thought he had.“ (MOA, p. 254)
This is why no Armstrongists have salvation now. They must wait in suspense until the judgement when they receive salvation as payment for the works they performed during this life, if those works are adequate. In Christianity, works only determine rewards. Salvation is by grace through faith and it is received now and leads a person to do good works.
Scout
Considering the intent of the feast of tabernacles, there's no reason that every member world wide needs to travel to Jerusalem for the feast. This falls into the "what's bound on earth will be bound in heaven" principle.
Byker Bob writes, "Fortunately for Bruce and SRV there were no martial arts or Blues heresies to contaminate their artistry or ruin peoples lives".
I believe it is common for all to learn and borrow ideas and techniques from others, then incorporating them into our own mindset. We are all products of this kind of influence and education. For individuals this is a good thing, for it is how our personal artistry is developed.
The problem arises when our individual uniqueness is hijacked by collective institutions, those in power and authority, those possessing agendas and narratives, who turn education into indoctrination and brainwashing. For them, the ultimate question is not WHAT is truth, but WHO gets to decide what it is and what the consequences are for not adhering to their version of it.
In Christ's day, one could get kicked out of the community for listening and believing on Jesus. In the WCG one could get disfellowshipped for reading certain materials that challenged the official narrative. Dr. Fauci, backed by the media, demanded we " trust the science " or else. It turns out it wasn't true science at all, just a agenda and power play.
By being part of this one world system, every institution on the planet uses these tactics, and it's these tactics that ruin lives! But these tactics only have power when we believe and accept their authority. The ultimate end to this is, "the whole world wondered after the Beast", Revelation 13:3-5. Thankfully, Scripture admonishes us to TAKE HEED, for in the end we are responsible for our own actions.
Feast of Tabernacles: it's all moot!? It was the Feast of Ingathering that the people agreed to in the "Old Covenant". "Tabernacles" were imposed "under" the Levitical Priesthood so future generations will know about booths - Lev 23:43, but now booth laws are removed - Heb 7:11-12, 18.
This point about the booth described in Torah perfectly demonstrates the absurdity of Armstrong's teachings about a Christian's obligation relative to Torah. Armstrong emphasized that NOTHING could be added to or taken away from God's Law, and yet he did that very thing over and over again with reckless abandon.
Torah specified ONE place to observe the pilgrimage festivals. Armstrong designated sites all over the United States and world for folks to observe the Feast of Tabernacles (and completely ignored this requirement for the other two festivals). Torah specified the construction of a temporary shelter of tree branches. Armstrong mandated a stay in a hotel/motel room or campground (which probably explains how he ended up saying that booths represented the Kingdom of God - instead of the temporary nature of the temporary housing (bodies) that both Christ and we have experienced in this temporal life).
Herbie cherry-picked the Law and made those parts of it obligatory for "true" Christians. This while the words were still ringing in his ears: "Thou shalt not add to it or take away from it!" The cognitive dissonance and irony are stupendous!
........a leader ("king" but see Prov 30:27) with a vehement countenance, and "understanding dark sentences" shall stand up........Dan 8:23
Another banger Scout!
Another thing is the third tithe that goes along with “the every jot and tittle” concept. So that’s why armstrongist keep it. Another thing is personally for me, I am not a native Israelite, and neither am I circumcised, so I am not qualified to keep the feat of booth if we’re are going along with keeping everything in tact. See this verse
Leviticus 23:42-43 You shall dwell in booths ( shelters made of boughs) for seven days. All who are native Israelites shall dwell in booths, that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.’ ”
This is why Paul wrote rightly dividing the word of truth, Armstrongist take liberty in applying this.
Tank
I have seen MANY Management Development Programs and All professed that "the renewal of the mind" can ONLY be achieved through Works........ It is as clear as that..... Also in addiction programs or other mind renewal courses ALL PSYCHOLOGY asks for WORKS.
Nck
See....I did get how Scout turned Armstrongs teaching around.
He believes people, character and mind change are a gift from which good flows. Yet Character, Change etc ONLY comes through challenge, trial, friction, WORKS..... then the good comes..... THEN God can reward it.
All psychology, science and men with real life experience will back me up on this one.... it is too easy..
Nck
Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Old Covenant (Torah). He personified and obeyed them. He instituted a NEW Covenant based on better terms and promises than the one offered to the children of Israel. Christians will stand before God clean, whole, hand righteous because of Jesus Christ - NOT because of any works of their own! We are a new creation in Christ. We have been given the GIFT of the Holy Spirit which impregnates these temporary shelters with eternal life and love. If we believe in and accept Yeshua and walk in love, we are (present tense) and will be (future tense) in God's Kingdom - PERIOD! This is the Good News/Gospel!!!!
Tank
The church used the law as their reason for collecting 3rd tithe but the law was never the true reason, it was revenue. Stan the man admitted on 60 Minutes that, like the government does with Social Security, 3rd tithe went into the general fund. They spent it as they pleased.
So correct Millar/Lonnie……believers are justified from that which the Law could never do. We are saved with a great calling, not of works but by His purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before time began. What liberty we have in Him, that is the Good News of the Gospel. The Law was but a tutor to bring us to Christ and now He has come we have no need of the tutor. Cheers.
Thank you BP8, yea that 60 minutes had GTA on it as well. Things were interesting back then. Armstrongism was getting mainstream attention back then. We appreciate your insights and knowledge BP8
Tank
Anonymous 7:39 wrote, "This falls into the "what's bound on earth will be bound in heaven" principle."
It was inevitable that loosing and binding would come up as an underpinning for Armstrongism’s modification of the Torah. This is a controversial topic with many viewpoints. I will give you the viewpoint that I side with. This would be the Historical-Cultural form of interpretation.
When Jesus mentioned loosing and binding it was not without a historical background. It is terminology that was used by Rabbi’s in the Second Temple period. Jesus’ statement about this must be viewed in the Second Temple context. Regarding this, Google AI says this about loosing and binding:
“In Second Temple Judaism, the rabbinic/Pharisaic power to "bind and loose" (asar and hitter) meant to forbid or permit actions through legal interpretation, but there is no record of religious authorities using this power to formally alter, rewrite, or permanently nullify the written text of the Torah. Instead, the authority was understood as an interpretive tool for applying God’s law to daily life.
“There is no record of Second Temple Jews using the concepts of "binding and loosing" to alter the written text of the Torah. Instead, phrases like asar (to bind/prohibit) and shra (to loose/permit) were technical legal terms used by sages and the Sanhedrin to interpret, apply, or legislate Jewish law (halakha), rather than to change the biblical text itself.”
An example, is our Supreme Court. The Court should not legislate but only interpret the Constitution. They do not have the authority to change the Constitution. That power belongs to Congress through the process of amendment. Of course, the Court is always accused of legislating rather than interpreting by political critics.
A further case in point, Jews recognize that God placed his name in Jerusalem. But since the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD., Jews are in a state of exile or Galut. So, they have made an adaptation. This means that they did not simple revoke the passage in the Torah where God places his name but as an adaptation in exile, have many places of worship in the Diaspora. The placement of God’s name is still in Jerusalem. They look forward to the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem so that the proper observation can be restarted.
Armstrongism, instead, simply set aside the Jerusalem decree and innovated the idea of God placing his name at various locations, including Gladewater, Texas. I don’t know if Armstrongists would term this a deletion, cancellation, modification, a binding/loosing or if they thought about it at all. The point is, historically, the Jewish authorities did not permit altering the Torah itself. It could only be interpreted. Unlike the Jewish leaders, Armstrongism seems to have altered the Torah. Now the placement of God’s name is wholly under the control of the Armstrongist denominations rather than the Torah. I know of no other explanation for what Armstrongists did. I am interested in any further details anyone may know about this.
Scout
They also took great liberties with the dietary laws as well! If one is truly observant of Torah, one will never eat in a non-Kosher restaurant, purchase meats in the store from animals which have been improperly bled, or dine with friends who have unclesn meats on their premises. The Torah carefully dealt with situations not only in which unclean meats would be eaten, but also environments in which cross-contamination could take place. We surely read all the labels, but paid no mind to the one meat slicer in the sandwich shop, or the grill in the restaurant where steaks were cooked in close proximity to pork chops, or sausage next to pancakes! So much for the jots and tittles!
Scout does not even know what the jews believe where God dwells during Sukkoth. How rhan can he possibly understand what Armstrong taught.
Nck
MOA, “works” are shown to be obedience to God’s government and God’s law,. the comment was we need recall Armstrong’s teachings about doing the law and commandments. Herbie held that law keeping develops that character.
Hey Scout,
Well when you feel and believe that you are the one true church the ACOGs believe "what's bound on earth will be bound in heaven” applies to only them. So their interpretation of this concept impacted how they treated divorce and remarriage, makeup for women, and even the decision of not seeing a doctor when seeking medication. It goes beyond their use of scripture, but it also goes into scripture and even causes them to misinterpret scripture such as their BI doctrine about David’s throne being “overturned” when it means to put in ruin. Over 30 modern translations have it as ruined because that’s the Hebrew meaning. But Armstrongist use their bound on earth designation to make it try and mean transfer. That’s them!
Very correct Nck. Scout is like a unchastised child, spoilt with his own mischeviousness in accusing Sabbatarians of being devoid of God.
So he writes rubbish accusations about Sabbath keepers turning his nose up and marches on in life too stubborn to realise he exposes what he doesn't understand. A tradgedy of sorts.
NCK
Sorry. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your first sentence does not make sense. I can't give you a response.
Scout
5:45
All the pilgrim feasts (3 in all) were observed in Jerusalem since the Temple was there and believers were to present themselves to God on these holy occasions. However as the believers began to live elsewhere (ie Diaspora Jews and then early Christians after the destruction of the Temple) they observed the holy festivals wherever they lived (like Christians today observe Easter and Xmas wherever they live not in a central location or sponsored church site). See Paul for example who observed the holy days wherever he was at the time and not always in Jerusalem.
Re HWA’s tradition of a mandatory annual FOT holiday I believe at the start his church group observed PO/FOUB in the same way, but then for economic reasons decided that the FOT would be the sole “pilgrim” feast for his followers rather than all the 3 pilgrim feasts of Lev 23.
Of course like I said as Xians today we don’t need to go to a central place to worship God on His holy festivals for where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name and His Son’s name He is with us.
Anonymous 10:15
There are variations on the absurd theme of the Armstrongist ministry and church being in control of all things - kind of like a replacement for God. I remember a guy I knew coming to Spokesman Club in Texas all glassy-eyed and excited. He had just heard a sermon by an Armstrongist minister. The minister assured the audience that the return of Jesus was imminent. But also threw in that the near-future return is what the Armstrongist ministry was declaring and that "God backs up his ministers."
That was decades ago. i don't think he is glassy-eyed any more.
Scout
Don’t forget Jesus “tabernacled” with us as flesh and blood which is why I believe booths (not hotel rooms or apartments) represent our physical temporal lives.
NCK
The validity of the training effect does not impinge negatively on Christian soteriology. We all benefit from experience. But we are imperfect beings having imperfect experiences that produce imperfect results. Performance cannot cause salvation to accrue to us. Christians believe they are blessed with the imputed righteousness of Jesus. HWA held a different view that is based on human effort. His belief in his Qualification Doctrine was that experience was an input to the salvation process not an output. That is, training is the cause of salvation. HWA is not alone in believing in the value of training. Christianity has a doctrine of Sanctification that deals with the spiritual formation of Christians. But the works do not produce salvation. In Christianity works are correlated with salvation and are rewarded in the afterlife.
HWA did not discover the training effect. But he recognized its usefulness. He just got the cart before the horse. He put works in the wrong place in the Ordo Salutis.
Scout
Or they would use the phrase "Church is here to replace Christ and His ministry" since He had to go back to the Father (Meredith). I hope that man is wearing glasses by now.
Nck, no one knows, because per usual you make absolutely no sense yet write as though you have knowledge beyond others. Your arrogance is matched only by your retardation. You are truly amusing and the epitome of COG arrogance.
I like Nck's comments they are thought provoking and make alot of sense. He knows his own mind and doesn't degrade others but tries to enlighten others.
Yeah, but a lot of us were forced into it by our parents, 7:58. . It is difficult for me to understand how an intelligent adult could be hornswoggled into it, but often people who have suffered illness or tragedy are temporarily weak, and think it's a life raft. And, then they just stick with it.
Still, having been mostly raised in it, it was difficult for me to leave it, but everything drew to a point at which leaving, and repairing all the damage was the only logical course of action. Of course, people asked me "What about the tribulation?". We now know how that has gone. There have been many things which caused great hardship in peoples' lives, even in the most prosperous nations and empires in history. Bottom line is that ol' William was right. Cowards die a thousand times.
I just made a comment on the "parsing" post which is relevant to the conversation here.
Scout
1st The jews believe that God placed his name and dwells wherever a group in the diaspora meets
2nd No Armstrong did not teach that experience was an input to salvation
Salvation was a gift open for all humanity only achieved through Christ's sacrifice. Qualification for "Priest", "Teacher", "Ruler of Tatooine" or "Sheepshearer exteaordinaire" in the Kingdom would be through character training in this life only achieved IN COMBINATION with the Holy Spirit..... Gods impersonal sustaining power (as is StarWars The Force).
Nck
NCK 10:20
I take exception to what you have written. As follows.
You wrote, “1st The jews believe that God placed his name and dwells wherever a group in the diaspora meets.”
You are conflating the Shekhina with the Placement of God’s name. These are two different concepts. A summary from Google AI:
“God's Name in Jerusalem - Centralized Location: Placing God's name (shmo) in Jerusalem refers specifically to the Temple in Jerusalem (Beit HaMikdash), designated as the permanent, singular earthly address for formal divine worship and sacrifice.
“The Shechinah in the Diaspora - Portable Presence: The Shechinah (Divine Presence) is a rabbinic concept meaning "dwelling" or "settling".
Rabbinic Judaism acknowledges the following scripture, “but look only to the site that the Lord your God will choose amidst all your tribes as His habitation, to establish His name there. There you are to go, and there you are to bring your burnt offerings and other sacrifices… Together with your households, you shall feast there before the Lord your God…” (Deuteronomy 12:5—7). For this reason, Jerusalem remains the center of Diasporic Jewish worship. (Jewish Theological Seminary webpage, Melissa Crespy, Rabbi). Note that this is where liturgical "feasting" is to occur not some restaurant in Branson, Missouri.
You also wrote, “2nd No Armstrong did not teach that experience was an input to salvation.”
Armstrongism lacks a cohesive documentation of its Doctrine of Qualification although it exists a fragments as a theme in Armstrongist theological writing. You will never find an explicit statement where HWA says that works are required for salvation. But you will find it implicitly in statements such as this one I cited earlier:
“But what of the person who thought he “had it made into the kingdom” without spiritual growth and development? He shall have taken away from him that first portion of the Holy Spirit—he shall lose the salvation he mistakenly thought he had.“ (MOA, p. 254)
HWA sees the calculus of salvation as by grace through faith plus a life time of works (these works are the qualification for salvation and are generated by living by the Torah). And for this reason, works are on the input side of the equation whereas in Christianity works are on the output side of the equation.
Scout
Thanks for explaining your view.
According to the jews God is omnipresent. The temple is a place of focus. Like a magnifying glass as the sun ia everywhere.... (as the intro start of each and every wtm tv program light radiated from the auditorium)
God is in the heart and brought into the world through WORKS and ACTIONS of the believer.
Nck
Scout, if you don't know by now, faith and works go together, as taught by James, but it starts with faith. Both faith and works are required.
Simon Magus wanted that power that comes by faith but didn't get it because his works reflected how warped he really was. There is a standard of righteousness to meet for you to be saved. You can't just sit on it like the servant with one mina in Luke 19. Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, you will not be saved. (Mt 5:20)
Thus works should always be on the input side when we teach the gospel. Otherwise, Peter would have let Simon Magus in with his evil doctrines.
"Works" is another area and reason why Christianity is divided into many denominations. They played a major role in the Reformation and even now fuel many debates. Scout says that "Christianity works on the output side of salvation", but that could be argued considering that the largest body of Christians on the planet do NOT believe in sola fida.
When considering imput verses output, how should we define " works", or, what should be considered as "works"? Lonnie at 227 says, " IF" we believe in, accept Yeshua, and walk in love, we are and will be in the Kingdom. Since "if" usually implies something as conditional, the question is, are these 3 things (works) imput requirements for salvation? Some would say yes and actually see it in those terms.
In my opinion, output is a given according to Ephesians 2:8-10. But what about imput? Is conviction of sin an imput work? Is repentance a work required for salvation? Rome considers baptism a "work" that is required for salvation which is why they do not accept sola fida. To their chagrin, Armstrongism is probably closer to Rome in this regard although they would differ on which "works" should be considered.
I do see Nck's point of view and it has merit, but so does Scout and Lonnie's. The question is, can these views be reconciled and co-exist? It depends on how we define our terms.
Daniel and his friends in Babylon captivity seemed to cope with the sitiation they found themselves. Are you going to condemn them too?
Anonymous 10:32 and BP8 5:58
The issue of faith versus works in salvation is a centuries-old conflict and we are not going to satisfactorily litigate here on this blog. But the problem can be framed.
Paul stated, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Pretty clear. Works are not a cause of salvation. But James says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
So, you tell me how you reconcile these two scriptures. If you don’t have a reasonable exegesis maybe the real issue is not Scout but that you should just concede that the Bible is hopelessly contradictory and cannot be believed.
I have an answer that I am satisfied with. But I would like to see how you deal with the tension between Paul and James on this topic.
Scout
In agreement 10:32. It's a question of faith, always has been. Faith with works affecting character.
In agreement 10:32. It's a question of faith, always has been. Faith with works affecting character.
Scout
I have no issue with your view on the causation of salvation nor do I see any tension between Paul and James. I was merely observing the topic from a distance and pondering how the various denominations use the term "works" in their input and output scenarios.
Is repentance a required "work" leading to salvation? Paul talks about doing "works meet for repentance" in Acts 26:20. Clearly repentance by its very nature is not something someone would normally "boast" about, like fasting twice a week, nor does it earn one anything, but it is clearly tied to faith as a condition of salvation. Perhaps the better way to view it is, as a "step" to salvation and not a work. Either way, there are steps the individual is called to do (confession, belief, repentance) in the journey on the road to salvation, and some might view this process as imput "works".
I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself but I do believe that the way it is written it is open to multiple interpretations and even abuse. A case in point, look at Acts 5:32, a favorite Armstrong passage.
" And we are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given (salvation) to them that OBEY Him".
To some, this reads like obedience is required for salvation. But WHAT kind of obedience and obedience to WHAT? I believe it is referring to the steps laid out in Acts 2:38, but Armstrong and countless others would insert the entire Torah into the passage, which is quite deceptive and contrary to sound doctrine.
In Christianity there are 41,000 ways at looking at various things, and I think that for the sake of some kind of perceived unity, we need to try to understand (not necessarily agree with) what the other guy is talking about and how he uses his terms. In Scripture that's called the spirit of tolerance, something I know that I need to exercise more of.
I hope you guys don’t come across that Torah Class guy on YouTube. He’s getting a lot of traction. I think he’s messianic Jews or something.
BP8 4:30 “Paul talks about doing "works meet for repentance"
No criticism meant, but you are spelling input as “imput.” I have a feeling that you pronounce it that way. I know you are a sharp guy. I knew a guy some years back who was also sharp but always said “imformation” instead of information. He had a learning disability that he never talked much about so I never really knew what it was. I have trouble with the word “solely” among others. When I write it out, it never seems right. Spell-checker catches me. I have dyslexia.
Let me lay some more ideas on the table. Paul and the other NT authors were writing from a certain perspective. Paul writes about this historical perspective in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8. Paul asserts that the people who in this Age are Christians, were Elect “before the foundation of the Cosmos”. With God “…having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Christ unto himself.” (I am not asserting Calvinism but I won’t take time to explain that here.)
Christians are saved by grace through faith. That grace, according to Paul, began before the Cosmos was created. Then according to Romans 8:29-30, God secures the Ordo Salutis for each individual. So, the salvation cycle for each individual begins before the foundation of the Cosmos. (I don’t know if the pneuma was then created or if the plan to create the pneuma in the future was developed.) Then we have the faith of Christ imparted to us through the Holy Spirit and then we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. We are blessed with salvation through the Vicarious Humanity of Christ. And God will bring each Christian to salvation (1 Corinthians 1:8, “…Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”) What then is it that we do?
Each Christian seeks to be as much like Christ as possible. But this imitation of Christ is not something that produces salvation. God grants salvation as a gift outright. What we do is just an echo of the behavior of Jesus as the Holy Spirit permits. We do not earn our salvation through qualification by works for the Kingdom of God as HWA taught. The obvious indicator of the fact that Armstrongists believe in salvation by works, though they hide it behind qualification, is that they do not believe that one receives salvation until a lifetime of accumulating works is completed and these works are determined to be adequate on the Day of Judgement. Whereas, Christians understand that they have salvation now and will be rewarded according to their works. Works are an output and not an input to salvation.
Just some thoughts.
Scout
Paul is looking at salvation. Works do not save you, only grace through faith.
James is looking at evidence of faith. If you do not have an outward expression of good actions that comes from your faith, then your faith is dead. Whether simply inactive or non-existent is a question. I think mostly "inactive" here as there is some belief but its faith needs stirring.
The works spoken by James are not "works of the Law" but rather works/actions that should naturally flow from the Spirit.
Paul is generally focusing on "works of the law", but no sort of work can save you either. It is the gift of God.
Scout
Believe it or not I probably have as many issues with my touch screen tablet as you do with your laptop. I typed in IM put once and now it comes up on the screen prompt all the time alongside of INput. And since I'm in a hurry and can't see that well, I press one of them and move on. Thanks for the correction.
Again, let me say, I agree with you on this issue. Unfortunately there are many out there who apparently don't, and those are the ones I'm trying to figure out what exactly they mean by using various terminology. We can sometimes get stuck on the meaning of certain words (works, deeds, actions, steps, expectations, conditions) which can often be misleading in one's intent.
I read about some of my ancestors postponing the extreme unction to the very last moments of their lives. Some financed many monestaries and some lived after receiving the last rites and moved into such Monestary to increase. "spoiling" their chances of going to heaven after a ligetime of warring neighboring counties.
Nck
As per Scout above,
"Christians just do not ornament their law-keeping with all the physical stuff (of HWA Christians)."
Oh, really? You forgot about Xmas and Easter traditions, baptism rites, and all the imagery inside their churches (not from the Bible)? BTW, their so-called lawkeeping is a lot of licentiousness if you haven't noticed.
As for HWA Christians, woe to us that we strive to keep Lev 23 in a NC way? Oh, my, forgive us this sin.
Scout wrote above:
Unlike the Jewish leaders, Armstrongism seems to have altered the Torah. Now the placement of God’s name is wholly under the control of the Armstrongist denominations rather than the Torah. I know of no other explanation for what Armstrongists did. I am interested in any further details anyone may know about this.
Scout, uneducated fellow you are, haven't you been doing your homework? Haven't you read Heb 7:12 enough? A verse that sometimes is mutilated on this site?
With the coming of the Melchizedekian order (the NT ministry of Christ) there has come a change or transferral in the law from the Levitical ministry to the new one as to how it should be administered and interpreted. Thus we see the Lord doing that in Mt 5-7 and why HWA taught as he taught, though he wasn't always right (on the Pentecost date, for example)
Some ignoramuses on this site want to remove all the law and the Levites on the basis of this verse, when they don't know what they're talking about.
Look at Catholic and Protestant doctrines. They are all over the map. If you aren't happy with the truth, you'll still be unhappy and lost if you go somewhere else.
I should not have made that comment off-handedly. It does require some explanation. First, Xmas and Easter are liturgical activities, and I do not regard them as law-keeping. What I am referring to specifically is the physical seventh day which ornaments the Rest or the Sabbath. And the physical removal of the foreskin that ornaments circumcision of the heart. And the physical calendrical days that ornament the holy days. Anywhere something is a shadow and not the very substance, I am calling an ornamentation because it is a physical manifestation whose outward appearance is regarded as a desirable measure of righteousness. Probably not the best description. But that is what I wrote at the time.
Scout
Anonymous 1:31
I see you cleaned up your act a little. But not enough. I am not interested in discussing anything with you.
Scout
Anonymous 1:31
Please have the common courtesy and integrity not to bother me in the future.
Scout
Scout, you seem to abide in perpetual confusion. You're still stuck in AC in bewilderment yet you've found something that fits your schema after you left for Luther's Protestant brand, which made salvation a little easier for you to acquire.
Good comments, BP8, at 5:58, something to build on.
Yes, those 3 (actually 5) works you, BP8, mention in paragraph 2 are required for salvation; believe the gospel (faith), repent (change), accept Christ (subjection), and walk in love (the law), and be baptized (NC rite carried over from John conveying forgiveness) and receive the Spirit (life) by laying on of hands. This is the input side that preachers of Christianity should be preaching. Yes, we COGs are in a sense similar to Rome that broke off from the tree (re law), but closer to Protestantism which came out of Rome (re faith) and produced "sola fides" as a counter to "justification by law".
Scout, re reconciling Eph 2:8 and Ja 2:24, see Earl's comments at 9:36. Both apostles present SPECIFIC arguments that highlight the points they attempt to make. Paul is going up against the Jews' lawkeeping and trying to emphasize faith as a requirement for justification and salvation. James meanwhile is balancing it with the other requirement that works must accompany faith after conversion (the ones before conversion are listed above), as we see with Abraham who believed the promises yet still had to be tested on God's ability to raise the dead. Both apostles got their doctrines from the Lord. Again, I say, Paul is presenting a dichotomy, a specific argument that lawkeeping alone cannot save one unless it is accompanied by faith. When faith comes, then the Spirit leads you to keep the righteousness of the law as taught by the Melchizedekian priesthood.
BP8, re Acts 5:32, no problem here, though it became a source of controversy during the apostasy. If you don't obey, you will not get the power because disobedience is a sin. Who's talking about earning it? If we received grace beforehand, it was for obedience to the faith! (Rom 1:5) So you have to obey if you hope to receive it. Obedience to the faith, repentance, and the baptismal rite are required to receive the righteousness that comes by faith. This is separate from the fact that your salvation was pre-determined by the grace of God. And you don't want to "fall from (this) grace" by trying your own methods. (Gal 5:4)
BP8, good point about being careful not insert the entire torah into Acts 2:38. Though we keep the law of Christ and teach it, we should not demand more than what is necessary from a prospective believer before he is baptized. Remember the command from John (Mt 3:8) to bring forth fruits meet for repentance? What did the Pharisees say, "Oh, no John, you're wrong, we are saved by grace and not by the fruits we produce"? We saw at the Jerusalem conference that the apostles did not give a bunch of do's and don'ts to the members to keep re the law. The elder isn't there to give a prospective member a written test for him to pass in order to baptize him. I recollect HWA mentioning where he baptized someone who had basic faith but who was not well-versed in the law. Knowledge growth happens later.
Earl says that James is just referring to the works of the spirit and not to the works of the law in his epistle, but in 2:8 James refers to the law as "royal" and cites impartiality as a good principle from the law (Pr 28:21) and cites the decalogue in 2:11 as a law we should keep. When Paul used the phrase the "works of the law", did he mean the same thing? Suffice it say that no matter what law, whether least or greatest (Mt 5:19), that a man keeps he cannot be saved unless he undergoes a change of heart and receives faith first.
The works of Abraham and Rahab cited by James, what were they? Works of the law or general good deeds? Doesn't the law teach 1. Obey God 2. All the firstborn are Mine 3. Sacrifice to Me 3. Save souls 4. Love your neighbour 5. Believe My word (that I will destroy Jericho for its sins)?
It seems this man had a synagogue built for the jews.
Works and Faith go hand in hand here. It doesn't tell he ever got baptized, yet tradition has that he received salvation.
For I am a man under authority.
I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.
Nck
Agree 2:40. Thanks for your comment.
I meant 12:57 not 2:40.
2:40, Xmas and Easter are only liturgical activities and not regarded as law, while the Sabbath is not liturgical even though all 3 of these dates are on the calendar?
Huh?
If you don't want to regard them as "law", the state does.
How shameful is it when you don't care to call Xmas and Easter as "law" even though you claim to have been saved by grace through faith in the blood of Christ that is honoured at Easter? The governments of the world give more honour to them than you do.
And you claim to know what the law was intended for?
No wonder the devil mixes you up on the Sabbath, no less.
Anonymous 12:22
What I meant by “law-keeping” is the OT model. That is our relevant context for this thread. A law in the OT model resembles what we call a tort in the Western legal system. A tort is an offense that is punishable and is enforced by some legal authority. Christmas and Easter do not fall into the OT category. I am a Christian and I do not have to observe Christmas or Easter in the traditional fashion – on a certain day with a certain set of ceremonies. In fact, Christmas is celebrated in different ways by different denominations. But if you were a Jew keeping the Torah back in the time of Moses, if you broke the Sabbath you would be stoned. If you are an Armstrongist, you believe that if you neglect the Sabbath you will be incinerated in Gehenna fire.
But that is all a rabbit trail. My point was a simple one. Armstrongists have retained many of the physical implementations of the law even though under the New Covenant these have been transformed into spiritual principles. To wit, the real circumcision is now of the heart not the foreskin.
Now that I have explained that to you, you need to explain to me why HWA taught that you should keep the Torah at the jot and tittle level and you do not. How do you expect to receive salvation when your day of judgement comes?
Scout
Scout,
That is the great question most in the COGs will never answer or skirt around. They can't really give a suitable answer. They read the verses about those that keep the commands of God and they think that applies to them because they think "commands" means the Sinai Law and that they are Law keepers. Thus, they believe they are special and have qualified to have Christ's grace placed on them.
But they miss the mark on two counts:
1. The term "commands" is mostly entole which refers to a broader set of commands/instructions than the Torah and not the more specific Sinai Law/Torah (nomos) which they consider the foundation of law keeping.
2. They are not lawkeepers anyway. They observe, as you have pointed out, the Armstrong mini-Torah which ignores many laws of the Torah.
So many will say, "I don't follow Armstrong, I do it because it's in the Bible." Often this is in reference to the Sabbath.
However...they follow Armstrong's mini-Torah or "partial Law" which in no way qualifies as being a lawkeeper since they only only do the laws they want to or do not feel are too inconvenient while ignoring so many other laws.
This can be pointed out to them, but somehow it doesn't register. They still heedlessly believe they are Law keepers because they keep that old Armstrong mini-Torah while claiming they "don't follow Armstrong". They desire to be under the Law (opposed to Gal. 4) but even then they stubbornly choose to ignore much of that Law. It's a pitiable position they have chosen. And, seems to at best simply separate them from an equal reward with those that have chosen the free woman and the new covenant.
And does Scout apply this same critical attitude towards himself? No he does not.
You create a strawman argument that only favours your highly condemning opinion and then complain when others can see how pointless it is to engage in such arguments.
Every trouble making argument you present scripture has already warned people not to engage in.
Perhaps you should remove the forest from one's own eyes before you hold others in judgment of not being allowed to be christians. Do you think hating on Sabbatarians will give you bonus points with God? The opposite could be occuring.
1045,
It is truly absurd for Armstrongists and most Sabbatarians to complain about someone questioning the spiritual condition of Armstrongists. Armstrongist and many/most Sabbatarians draw their members in with assertions that non-sabbatarian Christians are deceived by satan and are not real Christians.
Anyone that has left Armstrongism is fully aware of the dangers of judging others faith because they know that is exactly what they have been awoken from. There is nothing I have said that is not true as I have lived it amidst Armstrongism. How God deals with the position that Armstrongists have placed themselves, I do not know. Yet, Gal. 4 tells me that those that choose to be under the Law will not share the reward of those who embrace the new covenant and the free woman. I didn't make a dogmatic salvific statement akin to the way Armstrongists do, but it is a legitimate concern.
I will say that I do believe those in the COGs are likely Christians on the road to salvation, but I do think that their embrace of the Law and “the bond woman” can remove their inheritance greatly.
Earl,
Bravo!
Scout
So if "the bond woman" can "remove their inheritance greatly.......can we then all have an Amen on that Ivanka is going to Hell......???
nck
Earl 617, 928
Since "the bond woman" event pictures human planning (working out God's plan through self performance, Genesis 16:1-2), then its negative connection with the law makes it a commentary on the abuse and unlawful use of the law and not the law's rightful and lawful role (1 Timothy 1:8). The law is good when used lawfully, not good when misused.
You are right, salvation is based on God's plan and promise, which makes us, like Isaac, children of the free woman (Galatians 4:28, 22-23).
So no responses to my last comment....................Hiding behind "well we cannot pressume God's thoughts since her WORKS are rather splendid"??
nck
BP8,
Wow. Now that's a pile of eisegesis. Paul explains his meaning. You are bringing in Armstrongism.
nck, I don't believe Ivanka is going to Hell. At most some sort of Purgatory. She married poorly though.
1029
Why don't you explain to us Paul's meaning. Your previous comment is just empty words.
Married poorly?? She is a converted Jew.......2026 years AD....??
But hey. I'm with you. A bit of purgatory is never good for skin care....;-) ;-) So it might suffice.
nck
Gal. 3 tells us the Law was not of faith. So, I would say that the Law and faith are not coupled together. Works (not mere law keeping) and faith DO go together however, and they are the Output of a faithful life as Scout said. These works are loving and helping others and loving God and proclaiming Him..
This train of thought seems to have mostly run its course. I would like to make the point of my writing clear.
The repackaging of the Torah, which was Temple and Priesthood dependent, is not a light undertaking. It begins by identifying the scriptural authority for the Ekklesia in modern times to even do so. My guess is that Armstrongists cannot relate to this statement I just made. They believe they are keeping the Torah as it was originally delivered by Angels. It has just been somewhat tweaked by their leadership. So, there is no need for a full-scale repackaging and fidelity to the original Torah is maintained in their praxis. The interpretation of the suka is an example among many others of how this presumption has led them astray. For Armstrongists, their Feast of Booths is principally about the Millennium although no such meaning is explicit in scripture. A tangible, subtextual meaning, however, of their Feast of Booths is that they do not keep the Torah at the jot and tittle level of resolution that Herbert W. Armstrong taught as a requirement. And Paul stated that the Torah is an all-or-none body of legislation. As Christians we now live under the "Torah" of Jesus - the law of Christ.
Scout
Scout, you don't know what that law of Christ is, what Christ meant when He said that He came not to destroy it, or of the importance of the lesser laws. (Mt 5:19) You take several points out of focus and try to blend them into focus but keep failing. You keep ragging on about the COGs selective application of the law when this right has been given to us through Christ, the founder of the NC ministry who was of the order of Melchizedek, the divinely ordained priesthood that teaches the law today. It's been said enough times that Mt 5-7 is an illustration of the NC ministry's right to take the law and tweak it or nullify it altogether. This is what we do and what the early church did in Acts 15. The church has to judge what is valid and what isn't. Meanwhile, you keep droning on about us having to keep the whole law when such is not the case (except for some who are deceived who want to include more of it).
Almost 40 years and people still don't understand Gal 4. It's a comparison between being under the law as opposed to being under grace for justification. Circumcision (lshmael) is the sign of the first while the promised birth (Isaac) symbolizes the second. The Sinai covenant with its law didn't bring life or justification from sin but the New Jerusalem mother did through Christ when He shed His blood for sin (against the law) after delivering to us first the gospel, the NT law (Mt 5-7) and the NT ministry.
As for Ivanka, I suspect that her Jewish husband had some influence on her decision to keep the sabbath but what applies to her applies to us too. If you don't keep the Sabbath as a true rest in God, you are keeping it in vain. And to keep it properly, you need to be born again with new life. Otherwise, one seeks to be justified and to find life through the law (apart from Christ), which, as Paul said, cannot be done. James supports this by saying, "show your faith by your works". (Ja 2:18) And, for Earl, James says that we shall be judged by that "law of liberty" (Ja 2:12), of which he quotes the commandments in v11.
But if you continue with an enmity toward the law (Rom 8:7, Eph 2:15) that makes you uncomfortable, because your faith isn't strong enough to make your conscience clear, you will not be convinced.
Anonymous 3:23 wrote, "Scout, you don't know what that law of Christ is..."
Let's start where you begin. Your statement implies that you know what the law of Christ is and I do not So, tell me, with whatever exegesis that you can muster, what you believe the law of Christ is.
Scout
BP8,
In Gal. 3 Paul says the Law is not of faith. In comparing the Law to hagar God is distinguishing faith from the law. Faith is represented by the freewoman Sarah. Isaac was the child specifically connected to God's promise.
Hagar represents slavery and Mount Sinai which is the Law. I believe you are bringing "plan" and "good vs bad use of the law" into the scripture and the scripture really does not say such a thing. Paul is not being delicate here; he means hagar is "the law" not just the bad use of the law. Sinai wasn't about bad use of the Law; Paul uses Mt. Sinai to represent THE LAW.
Paul is explicitly associating Hagar with the covenant associated with Sinai and that it is likened to slavery (bond woman).
This represents trying to establish righteousness through the Law rather than receiving God's promise through faith in Christ.
Sarah obviously represents freedom and the promise of God.
That's why Paul says believers in Christ are like “children of promise.”
Paul's argument throughout Galatians is you become God's offspring through faith in Christ.
Galatians 4 begins by describing people as being like children who are technically heirs but are still under guardians until the appointed time. Then Christ comes, and believers receive adoption as God's children.
Under the law you are under slavery/guardianship. then when Christ comes we are adopted giving us freedom and an inheritance. Note AT NO TIME does Paul mention the need for a little law keeping to qualify as being worthy to receive this adoption. It is only through faith, BP8. With faith good fruits are an outgrowth...the Holy Spirit becomes obvious.
It has taken me 15 years to see how we simply are not under the Law (not just the penalty of the Law).
The Law is compared to Hagar, Sinai, slavery, Jerusalem
We are looking for the Jerusalem Above of Gal. 4 and the promise that only goes to those of the faith inheritance, not to those of the Law and the slave woman.
It is such a better promise and I have improved EVEN through the turmoil that such a change in understanding produces. Even through the turmoil of friends and family not understanding (though thankfully some have and others yet are beginning to see).
“So, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman” (Galatians 4:31).
In other words: In Christ, your identity is not “slave trying to earn God's approval.” You are a child and heir who has received God's promise.
Earl 1:09
Paul wrote, "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."
I believe Paul's words match not only the content but the tenor of what you have written. Excellent comment.
Scout
Earl 109, you bring up some excellent points and I'm more than happy to respond.
First of all, allow me to say, that just because I believe like Paul, that the law is holy, just, and good (if used lawfully) does not mean I am promoting Armstrong's rigid view and use of the law. I am not! I actually agree with you on most of what you have written.
The law is not of faith? AGREE!
We become God's children through faith? AGREE
We are children of the freewoman, not the slave? AGREE
We are not trying to earn God's approval? AGREE
Where we disagree is on your point blank statements that Hagar is the law and the law is slavery. How could something the Bible calls GOOD, and "that which is right in God's sight" (Ex.15:26, Rom.7) be "slavery"? Or the holydays, which we all agree point to Christ, how are they slavery? God and His law are not the authors of slavery. But if the law is abused and misused, it could definitely lead to that.
If you read the original Hagar account in Genesis 16 there is no mention of the " law" at all. The allegory Paul uses in Galatians 4:24 is not the law, but "are the 2 covenants" , and you said it yourself. Quoting you, you say:
"Paul is explicitly associating Hagar with the COVENANT associated with Siani and THAT is likened to slavery, the bondwoman. THIS REPRESENTS TRYING TO ESTABLISH RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH THE LAW rather than receiving God's promise through faith in Christ, which is why we are the children of promise"! BINGO EARL, this is it, this is my point and we agree on this.
So what does the Hagar event and the old covenant have in common? Both illustrate man's attempt to work out the will of God through his own efforts, which can never work. That's what the book of Galatians is about. Hebrews 8:8 tells us the fault of the OC was not the law, but with the people (THEM)! The NC works because it is based on God's promise, What HE does, not man. Ishmael was born because of Abraham and Sara's scheme (born after the flesh). God caused Isaac to be born (after the spirit, by promise).
The Bible Hub offers a good summary on this:
LAW VS. PROMISE
The OC (Hagar) is about human effort and legalism. The NC is about faith and grace.
CHILDREN OF THE FLESH VS. CHILDREN OF THE SPIRIT
Ishmael and Hagar represents those who rely on their own works. Isaac and Sara represent those who receive God's promise by faith.
WHY THIS MATTERS (The Bible Hubs conclusion)
Paul's allegory was a direct response to Judaizars in the Galation church who insisted Gentile believers must adopt the law FOR SALVATION.
The problem was never the law, but human beings trying to work out God's will through their own human effort. That was the case in Genesis 16, the case with the OC, and the case in the book of Galatians. The Bible emphatically says, " The law is GOOD (IF) a man use it lawfully ". Armstrong definitely abused the law, but that's on HIM, not God's holy law!
Earl 1:09
I might add: There is no Gospel or Good News in the Torah. It functions as the yardstick to measure sin. Under the Old Covenant, after everyone had their sin measured throughout their lifetime, they went to Sheol where they lived a conscious life in a dim, subterranean world. The Good News is in Jesus who brought us grace.
Scout
Scout 831 writes,
"There is no gospel or good news in the Torah???????" You are notorious for making off comments like this!!
I thought the Lord Jesus Christ said the law, prophets, and psalms POINTED TO HIM (Luke 24:44, John 5:39)?? And the apostle Paul, who you love to quote, said that ALL SCRIPTURE (including Torah) was profitable for doctrine and instruction in RIGHTEOUSNESS (2 Tim.3:16)?
Allowing Scripture to speak for itself, it sure reads to me like the Torah contains a lot of good news, AND many lessons for us too (1 Corinthians 10:1-12).
Scout, thou dost protest too much!
BP8 8:19 wrote, “How could something the Bible calls GOOD, and "that which is right in God's sight" (Ex.15:26, Rom.7) be "slavery"? Or the holydays, which we all agree point to Christ, how are they slavery? God and His law are not the authors of slavery.”
If I might interject. I think this is something that everyone who reads Pauline Theology must deal with. The Torah is the God-created standard given to ancient Israel to define how a good life on earth should be lived. But Paul, an educated Pharisee and one-time advocate of the Law of Moses, calls it slavery. His word, not mine, though I agree. This is because devout Israelites served the Torah all their lives, were unable to keep it and then, when life was over, were consigned to the dark shadows of Sheol. Just as a slave serves a master for all of life and then dies with nothing. The slave-master might even be a good person, though highly unlikely, but the slave lives as a slave and dies as a slave with no expectations of anything better.
Keeping the Holy Days does not seem likely slavery in modern America. You go to services, maybe hear an encouraging message, fellowship with friends and go out and spend some second tithe on a big dinner. But consider you are not really keeping the Holy Days as intended by the Torah. You did not go to the Temple in Jerusalem like a good Israelite. And you ate in a restaurant that would not be in operation in ancient Israel – you had someone work for you. And would all the attention to logistics have permitted you to retain a Holy mindset all during the 24 hours of the day? I “kept” the Sabbath and Holy Days for 30 years of my life and know in my heart that I never kept them. People who do believe they have been sterling in their observance are people who live a life of self-congratulation and are far from knowing actual Torah observance or the intents of God.
The Torah, shining and bejeweled though it might be, is a yardstick to measure ones failure. Paul said that the letter of the law kills. He called the Torah the ministration of death (though he also stated that it was glorious). He stated with confidence that “… all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And he says, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Scout
Scout 732 writes, "Paul calls the Torah / law of Moses slavery. His words, not mine".
My response is, WHERE? Where does he call either one slavery? I'm guessing you will reference Galatians 2:4, 4:3, 9, 24-25, but even that's a stretch. We have discussed those scriptures before and how they relate to carnality, works, legalism, self effort, pseudo salvation, and the many pitfalls of the old covenant. I have no issue with your analogy regarding the Israelites and their hardships in dealing with the law and the OC. The OC was indeed a covenant of bondage for it was dead on arrival. It had no chance for success at the outcome. It was purely an experiment meant to teach Israel an object lesson, which, unfortunately for them will not be realized until the resurrection.
I don't see the law itself as slavery but the transgression of the law is what brings bondage. Jesus said, " whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin, John 8:34. In Romans 7:14 Paul contrasts the Law with this bondage:
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold in slavery under sin. Who shall deliver me from this slavery? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Here the law is pictured as GOOD. Carnality and sin = slavery!
In Romans 7:7 the point is further made with the question, "is the law sin (a bad thing, slavery)? God forbid, for I had not known sin but by the law". The law has a legitimate purpose, role, and function. It is a good thing and a delight for those possessing the new nature, but for the old man it brings forth the ultimate bondage, death.
We will forever be at an impasse on this subject because we can't get around the semantics. That's just another reason I guess there are 45,000 denominations. We see things differently.
BP8 5:00
You make a good point. I need to qualify what I said. The Torah does foreshadow Jesus and in that sense is itself a kerygma. I was not referring to that content. I was referring to the operation of the Torah in soteriology. It is not a pathway to salvation, but a yardstick used to measure sin. There is a duality here that is sometimes confusing. The Apostle Paul referred to the Torah as "glorious" and the "ministry of condemnation" in the same passage. I belong to that club. I believe both are true but in different contexts.
Scout
NCK 12:21
Paul wrote in Galatians, "I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors." What more could you ask for in regard to expertise.
Paul did appeal to Roman Law a few times, either invoking its legal power on his behalf or using it as allegory. Because of Paul's explanations, I do not believe Earl and I (or other students of the Bible) are hindered by not being Roman lawyers. We rely on Pau's expertise as Jew and also a Roman.
Scout
BP8 2:58 wrote, “My response is, WHERE? Where does he call either one slavery?”
First, I believe that to Paul the Law of Moses and the Torah are the same. Modern research indicates that the Torah is a post-exilic compilation of a collection pericopes that were preserved by different religious factions in Israel. Dr. Richard Elliot Friedman asserts that the contribution directly from Moses is principally the Book of Deuteronomy. My view is that the Law of Moses historically is only a subset of the Torah though in Second Temple era usage they are equated.
Second, an important point is that the Old Covenant and its Torah function together. The Old Covenant implements the Torah. The New Covenant implements the Law of Christ. Paul himself starts (Galatians 4:21) an extensive allegory using the covenants and their legislations with a statement about the Torah but then segues a little later in the same carefully constructed argument to the covenants. And at one point in the allegory, he states that Hagar is to be identified with Mount Sinai where the Torah was given. Then Paul states that Hagar “corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.” The images of Mount Sinai and the present Jerusalem make no distinction between the Old Covenant and the Torah that it implements but treats them as operating together as a single dispensation.
Paul concludes (Galatians 5:1) by saying, “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” The Armstrongist idea that this passage of scripture means we are set free from the Old Covenant but not the Torah is a blatant, and I think purposeful, misreading. Once again, the unanswered refrain, if Armstrongists really believe that the Biblical Torah is in effect, why don’t they keep it?
Scout
BP8,
Gal. 3:24 explicitly says that once Christ came, we were no longer "under the guardian (the law)"/"had need of the guardian". Both phrases have the same actual meaning...the guardian brought israel to the Teacher (Christ). The guardian does not stick around at that point and there is no need for the guardian. It is now the Teacher that instructs and it is the Teacher we follow and obey.
What happens to the Law at this time? In Acts 15 it is not placed on Gentiles as they do not need the Law because Christ had come.
But, still the Law was called holy just and good. So, how in the world could that be put aside? Frankly, because the Holier and Juster and Gooder Christ had come.
Why hang on to the inferior one? Think about it, the superior Christ Who is better in every way is here.
I actually started going through all the 613 laws of Maimonades (he missed some). There are many of them the COGs do not do (nor do the Jews and others). Some of them are due to the temple being destroyed, some are inconvenient, and some are specifically mentioned as no longer necessary.
Without Christ and the New Covenant replacing the Law and Old Covenant, the Law could be described as essentially demolished. Instead, the Law which is holy just and good is simply replaced after serving its purpose admirably.
When you remove the Levitical priesthood, circumcision, the purity/cleanliness laws (e.g. rules on nocturnal emissions, women's periods, pan washing), Sacrifices, the temple, the holy day symbolism and sacrifices, (the blood for cleansing the temple, the sanctuary, the priest, the altar) the firstfruits, the epha, the wave sheaf, etc. And then, the arguably clean/unclean foods through Peter's vision, and arguably the Sabbath as Jesus proclaims He is our Rest, WHAT has become of that which was called holy just and good? How could it be so radically changed if holy just and good? There is nothing in the Sinai Law that says anything about Jesus replacing the symbols...all this came after.
The fact is that if you try to maintain the Law as holy just and good while fundamentally changing it to its bare bones, Does that even make sense? If the Law needs so much editing to work then what does that mean to Paul's description of the Law? But, to recognize the Law for its role as a guardian given to the Israelites and replaced by Christ and the New Covenant upon Christ being here, then the Law remains complete and holy just and good FOR the purpose it filled.
I think this shows that you cannot put the new wine of the new covenant into the old wineskins of the stony and rigid law. That would work for neither the new covenant nor the law. Instead, new wine is put into an entirely new wineskin that can expand and breathe through faith, grace, love, and mercy.
So, the Law remains holy just and good as it served its fine purpose rather than being split asunder.
AND, the New Covenant brings salvation through the better terms and promises that can grow and breathe through Faith and the Holy Spirit.
Piggybacking off of Scout's comments, the
yoke of Galatians 5:1 is not the covenant and it is not the breaking of the Law. The yoke is the requirements of the Law. This is what Christ removes.
The promises within the covenant would certainly not be a yoke...the promises are the good stuff.
Breaking the law is not the yoke...breaking the law is resisting the yoke.
The problem is the yoke and being unable to keep it...no one does. No one is coming close to the 613 laws. All are lawbreakers and no one is a doer of the Law.
The yoke IS THE LAW. And, Christ has removed it and replaced it with Him, the Way the Truth and the Life that gives us Rest.
Gal. 5:1 "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of slavery".
If one wishes to go back and review my previous comments they will see that I have already delt with Earl's objections, so I will not repeat myself. However, when certain outlandish statements are made, like "the Torah contains no good news" or "the yoke is the requirements of the law" then I feel like I should respond.
If the yoke is the law (its requirements). . . .
Then why did Christ keep and magnify it? Matthew 5:21-27
Why did Paul serve and delight in it? Romans 7:22,25
Why was Paul using it as an authority when instructing Gentile Corinthians, First Corinthians 9:8-14?
Why does the NC promise include ALL OF IT (commandments, statutes, ordinances, judgements). to be written on the heart?
Hebrews 8:10, Ezekiel 11:36. Where's the logic?
Please read all these scriptural references, because when one misquotes Scripture it causes a lot of confusion. An example of this is Galatians 5:1:
"Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage".
Funny, nothing here about the law or its requirements. So what is it Christ has freed us from?
John 8:31-36, from our bondage to sin
Romans 6:18, you have been set free from sin
Romans 6:22, but now you have been set free from sin
Galatians 5:2, If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing! Most Christian males have been circumcised. Does that mean we are severed from Christ? No, because the context here is a specific heresy and sin.
Galatians 5:4, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW, ye are fallen from grace.
In these verses, what is our freedom from and what is the yoke of bondage? It's twofold: Freedom from sin (transgression of the law), and freedom from the burden of justifying ourselves by our works, which is sin!
I've covered this many times before because THIS IS THE CONTEXT OF PAUL'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MISUSE OF THE LAW. It was not given for justification, PERIOD. Paul battled this all through his ministry, and the book of Galatians along with Romans makes this clear. In fact, Galatians is more concerned with salvation and how to obtain it than the dos and don'ts of the law! Justification HOW (2:16, 3:8,24, 5:1-4)? Righteousness HOW (2:21, 3:21)? Perfection HOW (3:3)? Receive the spirit HOW (3:3)? These themes are advanced in support of Paul's correction of those who had accepted "another gospel", which was a perversion of the true gospel and the true role of God's law (1:6-7). The condemnation are not that they were keeping the law, but that they were using the law in an unlawful context, as a method of salvation and instrument.
The conclusion of the book is found in ch. 6:15 and 5:6, and it is here where the dynamics of the law takes a radical shift!
" For in Christ Jesus, circumcision and uncircumcision avail nothing, but a new creation (the new man), where faith works by love".
Part 2
It is here where "those born after the FLESH" and those "born after the spirit" are distinguished, and their approach to the law is drastically different.
The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be (Romans 8:7). When God proposed the OC to Israel, the only response they knew was, "all that the Lord has spoken, WE WILL DO". God says, build a brush arbor, we will build a brush arbor. God says, feed an ox, we will do that even if we have to go out and buy one. This was a covenant based on the rank obedience of a carnal people acting purely on human effort. It had no chance of working and the most predominant downside to it was it led to legalism and self righteousness (Romans 9:30-10:4).
The new man is radically different. His approach to God's law surpasses mere obedience for he looks for meaning. The law says, thou shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox, and the new man now having the mind of Christ asks, what does this mean? What is the principle behind it? Why did God give this in the first place? What does God want from me? , then he allows the spirit of God interpret what is the true will of God. It would never enter into the mind of the carnal Israelite that there existed a hate/murder or lust/adultery connection, for he has no such capacity for that understanding. It's foolishness for him. But the new man knows, for Christ has " revealed it to us by His spirit, for the spirit searches all things, yes the deep things of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10). Some might call this new radical approach to the law, the law of Christ, and I can't argue with that, just so we remember where that law originates from.
Paul uses the term "law" nomos at least 110 times in his epistles, but not uniformly. This one term is used to refer to the Mosaic law, the whole OT, the will of God (Romans 2:14-15), governing principles of conduct (works or faith, Romans 3:27), evil inclinations (Romans 7:21), and the guidance of the HS (Romans 8:2). He makes reference to the law of Christ twice. Depending on the context, Paul's use of the law is seen as both positive and negative, unnecessary (Romans 3:28) and necessary (1 Cor.7:19, Eph.6:2-3), having a useful role (Romans 3:20) and an unlawful use (1 Tim.1:8-10). By way of contrast, the word "yoke" in the NT parallels this phenomenon. It is used twice in a positive sense, Christ's yoke (Matthew 11:29-30), and twice in a negative sense, a yoke of bondage (Acts 15:10, Galatians 5:1). To say without context that the law is that yoke of bondage is an over reach and brings in many scriptural contradictions, especially when we are dealing with this twofold dynamic of carnal / spiritual, input / output, works / faith, old covenant / new covenant.
Unlike Armstrong, I have never advocated that a NC Christian was obligated to offer rank obedience to the letter of the law in the same manner as the Israelites. We don't. But that doesn't do away with the law or its requirements. It merely places both at the highest level possible, the way God intends.
God's law a yoke of bondage? For the carnal minded, yes, for the spiritually minded, no. For them our service is now rendered in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter, where the the RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW are satisfied by our walk in the spirit of love (Romans 7:6, 8:4, 13:8-10). Do we then make void the law though faith? God forbid, yea we establish the law (Romans 3:31).
Yes BP8
I have on this blog often used the analogy of that famous documentary where talented Chinese kids are taught to play the violin.... I think it was Menuhin.
At one point he is abhorred by their playing although they all hit the NOTES/Law of the classcal piece right on tbe mark.
Then he continus to explain that the real music is or happens or exsts or is realized between the notes and starts in the mind:spirit... (for which these confucian minded chinese kids need aditional training...
To free their mind from their communist confucian taskmasters and be guided by the LAW!/Nores Score in freedom according to the Western mind.
Nck
BP8 6:00 wrote, “God's law a yoke of bondage? For the carnal minded, yes, for the spiritually minded, no.”
This is just two sentences and a few words but in it is the dividing line between Armtrongism and Christianity. Armstrongism asserts that the Torah is still in force and that the Holy Spirit gives the Christian the ability to actually keep it at the jot and tittle level (See Rod Meredith’s article titled “Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation?”) – an ability that the ancient Israelites did not have. Armstrongists also believe that by magnifying the Torah, the Torah in its NT rendition becomes more stringent. If you do not believe that, then you are not an Armstrongist and we are arguing past each other.
Now for the division between Armstrongism and Christianity. (This may be only somewhat relevant to your viewpoint.) To be “spiritually minded” is to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in your mind. Armstrongists claim the indwelling Spirit is to enable you to keep the Torah in its most stringent form. Christians claim that the indwelling Spirit is itself the Law of Christ in action, and the Law of Christ is not the Torah but consists of whatever the Spirit leads you to do and also the behavioral standards contained in the New Testament. And these behavioral standards contain part but not all of the Torah. (For instance, the Law of Christ says nothing about mixed fabrics or whether or not you’re guilty if you beat your slave to death or which nations you should exterminate.)
Philosophically, the Torah is a beautiful body of national, historical legislation. But if you cannot keep it, it becomes a death sentence no matter how beautifully conceived. Someone can bludgeon you to death with a knobby stick or they can stab you to death with a beautiful golden knife. The results are the same no matter what praises are sung to the beauty of the knife. In the last analysis, the Torah is a yoke of bondage to death without the grace of God. The Jews also believe it cannot be kept perfectly. To my knowledge, only Armstrongists propose that it can be kept without flaw if one is sufficiently yielded to the Holy Spirit.
Scout
Scout is digging his own grave by getting more ridiculous on Armstrongs teachings by the minute.
Is that bad.
No.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Nck
NCK 10:27 wrote, “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”
It is an odd twist that you have taken a treatise in Romans 8:1-17 that Paul wrote on how the Law of Christ is implemented through the action of the Holy Spirit in our lives and turned it into an Armstrongist soundbite for observing the Torah. The verse you cite above actually supports the commonly accepted Christian thesis that the Torah cannot be kept and is in practice a yardstick to measure sin. This passage in Romans asserts conclusively that the ancient Israelites, lacking the Holy Spirit, were given a Law that they could never keep. And Paul observes elsewhere in scripture that the Torah became slavery and death to them. He stated that the letter of the law kills.
While Christians see the Law of Christ through the guidance of the Holy Spirit in these verses, Armstrongism sees that now that the Holy Spirit has come, Christians can keep the Torah in the perfect way that the Israelites could not. Quoth Roderick Meredith from his article titled “Is Obedience to God Required for Salvation”:
“You will have to repent of breaking God’s law…Then God will give you the Holy Spirit, through which you will receive the love to keep His law.”
Earlier in the article, Meredith explains that the law includes not only the Ten Commandments but also the statutes and judgments. He argues that the statutes and judgments have gravitas because they are based on the Ten commandments. In fact, Meredith explains that the only thing removed from the Torah for Christians is the exaction of the death penalty and the sacrificial laws. Hence, the law stating that you must live in a brush arbor in order to observe the Feast of Booths is unchanged. I know of no subsequent article in the Armstrongist realm that rescinds Meredith’s assertions.
So, the question remains, NCK, for you and other followers of Armstrong, if the Torah is written on your hearts and the Holy Spirit is there to enable you to keep it, then why don’t you do that? Why instead have Armstrongists liberalized an abbreviated the Torah?
Simply saying, “Scout is digging his own grave by getting more ridiculous on Armstrongs teachings by the minute” doesn’t fly. You have to bring it.
Scout
Scout 329
Again, let me start off with my customary disclaimer: these are my personal opinions and are not meant to be representative or in defense of Armstrong doctrine. Having said that I would like to offer my 2 cents on a couple of things you mention.
"Armstrongist believe that by magnifying the Torah, the Torah in its NT rendition becomes more stringent".
As I said on a previous comment, that would depend on one's approach. If the letter or spirit of the law is viewed from the standpoint of do's and don't (the carnal approach that leads to legalism), everything will become more stringent and burdensome. When viewed through the mind of Christ, the mind that hungers and thirsts after righteousness looking for meaning, God promises to reveal His will in due time. It's called growth. We don't have to fight it.
Also, " Christians claim that the indwelling spirit is itself the law of Christ in action, and the law of Christ is not the Torah, but consists of whatever the spirit leads you to do, and also the behavior standards contained in the NT".
To borrow a phrase from Paul, you that trust in the NT, do you not hear the NT? The term "law of Christ" is mentioned twice in the NT and in both cases it is not defined. Yet the NT is clear on what the law of Christ is based upon.
2 Timothy 3, All Scripture, the OT, is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness.
Romans 7:6, but now we serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the LETTER (the letter of WHAT)?
The sermon on the mount is based on WHAT?
The Golden Rule, for this is the LAW AND THE PROPHETS.
The 2 great commands (taken from the Torah), On these hang ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS!
Love fulfills WHAT? Romans 13:8-10.
Walking in the spirit fulfills WHAT? Romans 8:4.
The royal law of liberty is based on WHAT? James 2:8-12.
The New covenant is based on WHAT? God writing his laws ( commandments, statutes, ordinances, judgements) on the heart (Heb.8, Ezekiel 11, 36).
You can fill in the blanks, but it's obvious to me that for the Church, the Apostles, and Lord Jesus, the OT was of paramount importance, being the word of God, and the Torah is that "form" of instruction we have for our consideration and learning.
In the NT, mixed fabrics are not specifically mentioned ( like the ox law ), but it doesn't have to be in order to have value. It's in the Torah, and like the ox law example and model, it's there for our learning and understanding. And with the mind of Christ, we have the tools to give it the consideration it deserves as to its meaning and application.
The LAW is the "form" and the SPIRIT is the "substance". We are called upon to " live by the spirit" every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, not merely "keep" it.
Yes.....But this is what Armstrongists believed.......They did not believe in the Torah AT all...Your entire premisse is wrong.
Why did not a single Armstrongist have 2 kitchens to separate meat from milk, why did no one switch of the lights at friday since Saturday is holy..
btw I will see if I am going to find time to read that Meredith article. As I recall the Holy Spirit was all pervasive and all powerful...... The only thing "we" were able to do was "quench" it's full power through sin. (exactly like the Star Wars Force.)
nck
I did a very quick 2 min scan of the Meredith article..
It looks like he is making a point that receiving Gods grace is like an 18 year old who simply passed his exams....... but the true fulfillment of his life and career is yet to embark (through Christ).... and the principles (LAW) that are the foundation or lense for decisions that are going to be made in that proces of fulfillment.
But correct me if I'm wrong.
Nck
NCK 1027
Your comment was hilarious, although I wouldn't go to the extent of calling Scout carnally minded, for we are all carnal to some extent and will be until the trump sounds when we will be delivered from the body of this death.
Scout wants us to believe that the positive statements about the Law refers to the Law of Christ but the negative statements apply to the Torah. The NT makes no such distinction! The Law (Torah) is what it is and what God says it is, and that doesn't depend on how it affects man (the letter kills) or what we do with it (the Israelites couldn't keep it). For us the holy spirit clearly bridges the gap.. We now walk in the spirit and that satisfies the Law's requirements (the ox law Scout, the ox law, found where, the law of Moses, the Torah Scout)!
I marvel that those things God calls holy, just, and good are framed on this site as bad because the filter used is strictly that of the abuse or failure of "man". It's like an atheist framing Christianity through the lens of the inquisition, and nobody what's a piece of that! It's no wonder modern Christianity is dying on the vine.
BP8, NCK
I am not the Marcionite that you seem to think I am. I believe there is value in the Torah. I have stated that before. Paul even says that it was glorious. I also believe there are some laws in both the Torah and the Law of Christ that are the same. This is because both originated with God. I believe that some members of the Jerusalem Church observed the Torah liturgically prior to 70 AD without peril to their salvation. I believe the Torah has value in ethics, culture and liturgy.
The Torah was never a pathway to salvation. It was the behavioral standard for ancient Israelites that, if kept, produced temporal blessings on earth but did not save anyone from consignment to an afterlife in Sheol. And the Edenic loss of Paradise was never remedied in the Old Testament. The Torah which encompassed both the covenant and the law given at Sinai never provided a remedy for the repatriation of Adam and Eve and their descendants to Paradise, the intended home of mankind. That is why the New Testament is founded on better promises.
Because we cannot successfully keep the Torah is the reason why Paul has observed that all have sinned. This is also the reason why Paul relates that the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to us. If we could keep the Torah on our own, this imputation would not be on the critical path to salvation.
So why did the Torah have to be replaced by the Law of Christ? Package for Package? Because the Torah package is articulated with Temple liturgy, the Levitical Priesthood, death penalties, tribal commissions, laws without a spiritual dimension, amputation as punishment and the absence of an eternal afterlife in Paradise involving Theosis. Plus, tacit approval of slavery, genocide and polygyny.
Anyway, I think we have said about all that can be said. My question remains. If the Torah is so all-fired wonderful, why don’t Armstrongists keep it. Instead, they re-worked it to their liking. Not a good sales pitch for the Torah.
Scout
Lk 1:6 And they were both righteous [dikaioi] before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Gal 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of slavery.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled [peplērōtai] in one word, in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (BLB).
“Paul has spoken against the law as a means of justification before God and denied the law as the external guide to Christian living. Here he states that the law is “summed up” in the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself. This mention of the law here has been considered by some as an inconsistency, as Paul speaking against the law for getting in but then opting to use the law in a nomistic fashion for staying in (so Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People). Others argue that this is an example of Paul’s outright contradiction (so Heikki Raisanen, Paul and the Law [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983]). He is said to argue against the law at one point and then to attempt to use the law as a means to govern behavior at another point. Does Paul misunderstand the law? Does he wish to have it both ways, to have his cake and eat it too? How are Christians to relate to the Mosaic legislation?
“The key to Paul’s thought in this verse is the term translated “summed up” (peplērōtai, GK 4444, lit., “has been fulfilled;” (cf. Mt 5:17-20; Rom 8:4; 13:8-10). Paul does not state here that Christians are to “do” or “perform” the law or works of the law to achieve righteousness or a relationship with God. Rather, he maintains that Christian love fulfills the law, as the result of one’s Christian identity and not as its origin... Paul argues earlier against the law as a means to redemption or achieving righteousness.... He will not ... abide the thought that anyone, Jew or Gentile, might gain soteriological favor or standing before God on the basis of the law (cf. 2:11-16). But in Christ, the believer has the Spirit’s enablement to “fulfill” the requirements of the law to love God and love neighbor. Thus, as one loves one’s neighbor in Christ’s Spirit, one fully satisfies the demands of the law. So then, this understanding of Paul’s intent here fully accords with his argument throughout the letter (2:15-21; 3:6-25; 4:21-31)” (Robert K. Rapa, Galatians, EBC, Rev., Vol. 11, pp. 625-26).
“3. Christian Freedom is not Freedom to Disregard the Law (verse 14).
“For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ We must notice carefully what the apostle writes. He does not say, as some of the ‘new moralists’ are saying, that if we love one another we can safely break the law in the interests of love, but that if we love one another we shall fulfil the law, because the whole law is summed up in this one command, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’
“What is the Christian’s relation to the law?... It is quite true that Paul says to us, if we are Christians, that we have been set free from the law, that we are no longer under the law and that we must not submit again to the ‘yoke of slavery’ which is the law (verse 1). But we must take pains to grasp what he meas by these expressions. Our Christian freedom from the law which he emphasizes concerns our relationship to God. It means that our acceptance depends not on our obedience to the law’s demands, but on faith in Jesus Christ who bore the curse of the law when he died. It certainly does not mean that we are free to disregard or disobey the law.
“On the contrary, although we cannot gain acceptance by keeping the law, yet once we have been accepted we shall keep the law out of love for Him who has accepted us and has given us His Spirit to enable us to keep it.
Part 2
“In New Testimony terminology, although our justification depends not on the law but on Christ crucified, yet our sanctification consists in the fulfilment of the law. Cf. Romans 8:3-4” (John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST, pp. 142-143).
Mt 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness [dikaiosynē] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Rom 8:4 so that the righteous [dikaiōma] requirement of the law might be fulfilled [plērōthē] in us, those not walking according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (BLB).
“In Galatians 5:14, he maintains, ‘The whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself”’ (cf. Mark 12:28-31; Gal. 6:2) This statement occurs in a similar context where Paul contrasts the Spirit and the flesh. He commands that Galatians to ‘live by the Spirit’, with the promise that they then will ‘not gratify the desires of the flesh’ (Gal. 5:16). This interpretation is strengthened by his declaration in Romans 13:8-10,
“Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet’; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.
“Paul is not speaking of the observance of the law but its fulfilment...
“Living according to the Spirit means we allow a personal divine power to abide in us who gives us the willpower and strength to resist these sinful influences and to behave in accordance with God’s will. The law that is so ineffective in the sphere of the flesh becomes renewed in the sphere of the Spirit when God gives believer a spiritual heart transplant. Paul does not cite God’s promise in Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Jeremiah 31:33; nevertheless, they inform his views (cf. 2 Cor. 3;3, 6):
“A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statues and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ezek. 36:26-27).
“This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be my people. (Jer 31:33).
“Paul assumes that these promises that once were understood to be limited to Israel have been universalized to include Gentile believers, since all believers receive the Spirit” (David E. Garlkand, Romans, TOTC, pp. 262-64).
Dt 30:3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.
Dt 30:6 And YHWH your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.
Dt 30:8 And you will turn back and listen to the voice of YHWH and do all His commandments that I command you today.
“... Even granting that all that is said about the covenant, its law, and its promise for the future, does not the covenant itself, backed up by the entire past history of Israel, show that the same disasters would overtake the nation again? If disobedience to the law carried such terrible consequences, and if the nature of Israel in the future remained what it had been in the past, would not the same consequences inevitably befall Israel yet again? One way or another the nation was doomed!
Part 3
“This serious objective is counted by the words of 30:6: “God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.” God would transform the inner mind and spirit of Israel by “circumcising” the hearts of the people in order to implant the will to obey the commandments. The theology is virtually identical to that expressed in Jer 31:33-34 and Ezek 36:25-27. By a spiritual transformation the power of God would create a new spirit of obedience within every Israelite. God would give the power and the willingness to obey” (Ronald E. Clements, The Book of Deuteronomy, NIB, p. 513).
Jer 30:3 The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,’ says the LORD.” (NIV).
“MOSES, JEREMIAH, AND PAUL. In this portrait of Israel’s inevitable restoration Moses has planted numerous seeds that will sprout and grow in later texts. Jeremiah paints his picture of Israel’s restoration climaxing in the establishment of a new covenant (Jer 31:27-37) with this passage in the background. In the prophet’s declaration of his thesis in Jeremiah 30:3 we hear clear lexical and conceptual echoes of Deuteronomy 30:1-10. Although Jeremiah does not refer to the circumcision of the heart, his understanding of the divine inscription of the Torah on the hearts of the people and his vision for all Israel participating in the new order fall within the same theological field.
“... in Jeremiah 31:31-34 he looks beyond the judgment to the day when “all Israel” will (1) have the Torah inscribed on their hearts, (2) be related to Yahweh by covenant, (3) know him, and (4) will have experienced the forgiveness of their sins...
“Affirmed from both sides, the bond of commitment will be indissoluble. In the new covenant there is no freedom from the law, nor is there any adjustment in God’s standards of righteousness. Jeremiah envisions a future when the original Torah of Yahweh will be internalized in the hearts of all Israel and all Israel will be freed to walk in the ways of Yahweh. The so-called “new covenant” is not actually new; it means the fulfillment and realization of the ideals represented in God’s covenant with Abraham, which was transferred to the entire nation at Sinai and renewed with this generation on the Plains of Moab...” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, pp. 700-02).
“This paragraph [Gal 5:13-15] speaks relevantly to the contemporary situation in the world and the church... It is concerned with the relationship between liberty, licence, law and love.
“It tells us at the outset that we are ‘called to freedom’, the freedom which is peace with God, the cleansing of our guilty conscience through faith in Christ crucified, the unutterable joy of forgiveness, acceptance, access and sonship, the experience of mercy without merit.
“It goes on to describe how this liberty from systems of merit expresses itself in our duty to ourselves, our neighbour and out God. It is freedom not to indulge the flesh, but to control the flesh; freedom not to exploit our neighbour, but to serve out neighbour; freedom not to disregard the law, but to fulfil the law. Everyone who has been truly set free by Jesus expresses his liberty in these three ways, first in self-control, next in loving service of his neighbour, and thirdly in obedience to the law of his God.
“This is the freedom with which ‘Christ has set us free’ (verse 1) and to which we ‘were called’ (verse 13). We are to stand firm in it, neither relapsing into slavery on the one hand, nor falling into licence on the other” (John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST, pp. 143-144).
Scout 302
You are right, we should be done with this, but your last comment regarding slavery etc. seemed in your mind to marginalize the Torah in some way. I don't see it.
Genocide was not based on legislation, but on the judgement and justice of God and the enforcement of His will. I remember hearing a liberal female religious professor on the History Channel comment that the narrative of the 2 witnessess in the book of Revelation could not be true because they were KILLING PEOPLE and that contradicted Christ on turning the other cheek and loving your enemies. The poor thing also objected to a "literal" Day of the Lord". It was too violent for her.
For time sake I am going to summarize slavery, polygamy and even divorce together. The Bible Hub has much to say about all three. It says, all should be understood within their historic and cultural framework. The law was not giving commands of endorsement, but cultural accommodation, and tolerance within the context of the fallen condition of humanity. Divorce was permitted to protect the disadvantaged and contain societal damage. If man was hell bent on doing such things because of "his hardness of heart", God was going to regulate it, even if He did not approve. The Adventist have a similar belief concerning alcohol and eating meat. They believe God tolerates it but it is not really His will.
Bible Hub: The Bible addresses slavery as a regulated social institution, providing protections, limits, fairness, human dignity, and ethnical guidance. Also, the NT does not explicitly abolish slavery, but redefines relationships between slaves and masters, as in Ephesians 6:5-9.
So once again it is demonstrated that the Law is just, good, and profitable, and everything the 119th Psalm declares it to be. As far as Armstrong reworking the Torah, it was actually God who reworked it by revealing its true intent, purpose, and application. "You have heard it said, but I say unto you". "Does God care about oxen? or is it for our sakes this is written"? In this manner it can be called the Law of Christ, but the Torah will forever be the base and foundation upon which it is built.
We are not called upon to keep the Torah or ANY law by our own power. It is through the power of the spirit we are called to "LIVE BY" the word, not just "KEEP" it! Big difference.
I see multipart man is back. Once again he really nails it down.
One last post from me as Scout is correct in saying what has been said is most of what can be said.
We taught that Jesus "filled full" the Law. The physical portions remained and then there were mental/spiritual additions. We did not say He diminished the physical aspects. For a couple of examples:
Adultery the physical act remains wrong with the addition of lust itself being wrong. Murder, the physical act, remains wrong, but now to hate is also wrong.
Obviously, adding the spiritual element does make these laws more stringent. Armstrong would say that. But, of course, that only applies to the laws Armstrong selected as the ones he wanted his church to do.
This goes back to the whole point of Scout's original article about the mini-Torah. The point cannot be pushed aside.
Are you a lawkeeper? Are you a lawkeeper for keeping the laws of Armstrong’s mini-Torah?
BP8, you state, "Unlike Armstrong, I have never advocated that a NC Christian was obligated to offer rank obedience to the letter of the law in the same manner as the Israelites. We don't. But that doesn't do away with the law or its requirements. It merely places both at the highest level possible, the way God intends."
Are you diminishing adherence to the physical Law? Or does your aversion to “rank obedience” mean that you believe the physical Law still must be adhered to, but that there is a spiritual element as well?
Still much of the physical portions of the Law are not practiced. One can accurately say that circumcision is no longer necessary through the New Covenant. One can argue that sacrifices are no longer necessary, but the COGs teach they will be practiced in the future. So, why not now? That has been an argument for keeping the sabbath and holy days as they are not taught after the Resurrection (ICor. 5 and Heb.4 notwithstanding). Surely one can gain an understanding of sacrifice and cleansing of sin through the practice of sacrifice…
What about the cleanliness/holiness laws? There is no mention of their being removed from lawkeeping; why aren’t you keeping them?
What about the Sabbath? We are told that our Rest is through Jesus and that we should not count one day greater than another. And, at no time is there exception made for sabbath keeping after the Resurrection, Heb. 4 notwithstanding and in fact supporting my comment here. This seems explicit really and perhaps as strong as the scriptures that remove sacrifices as a requirement.
Maybe this is just repetitive of what I’ve written in earlier posts, but I’m trying to point out that if the Law is still in effect it has been gutted by God, by men like Armstrong who further reduced those things to be kept arbitrarily, and our modern lack of understanding, our stubbornness, our preference, and our weakness. We are assuredly NOT lawkeepers. We are not DOERS of the Law.
Why any want to continually place themselves under the Law despite the admonition of Gal. 4 is baffling. Thankfully we are not under the Law or we would be condemned for selecting a mini-Torah and never repenting of all the laws we prefer not to do.
Earl
Read multi-part man's treatise at Anon 827. It is very thorough and I can't state it any better.
Multi-part Man 8:27
The Distinction Between Laws
One of my pet peeves in reading theology is that Paul used the term Law without any qualifying tags. He did not always say the Law of Moses or the Law of Christ. And discerning what he was referring to requires careful and challenging parsing of the context. Modern writers, such as John Stott, seem to follow the approach of Paul, unfortunately. It is often difficult to tell what Law they are writing about without reading paragraphs or even chapters to discover the meaning from context. Under these circumstances, when the Law is at the center of controversy, disarray can easily set in.
To an Armstrongist, the writing of Stott may sound like he is pledging allegiance to the Torah. You cite the following from his book, “On the contrary, although we cannot gain acceptance by keeping the law, yet once we have been accepted we shall keep the law out of love for Him who has accepted us and has given us His Spirit to enable us to keep it.” This sounds like Stott was trained at Ambassador College (although he writes of law observance as an output of salvation not an input as Armstrongists would see it). But he is not an AC grad. If you look at the larger context, you will find that, in the quotation above, Stott is referring to the Law that Christ brought and Paul elaborated and not the Torah. Especially, early on in his book “Message to Galatians” where he speaks of Judaizers. The frustrating part is that I scanned parts of this book and could not find a terse definition that would unequivocally set the boundaries for the reader. But I assure you that Stott is a traditional and orthodox Christian.
As near as I can tell and recall, Armstrongists believe that the Law of Christ and the Torah are the same thing - they are just have different covenantal wrappers. Armstrongists would probably admit that the Torah wrapped in the New Covenant has spiritual extensions and is, therefore, a new rendition. Then, paradoxically, after defending wholeheartedly the OC Torah, they have created without any discernible authority their own mini-Torah and follow that instead. Go figure.
Paul draws a line between the Torah and the Law of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul wrote, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to gain Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might gain those under the law.” So, when Paul uses Law here, he is talking about the Torah. Note the reference to the Jews. In v. 21, Paul explains further, “though I am not outside God’s law but am within Christ’s law.” What he is saying, putting verses 20 and 21 together, is that he is not governed by the Torah but by a different law – the Law of Christ. He is not keeping the Torah but he is still within the boundaries of God’s law through the Law of Christ. This strengthens the idea that the Law of Christ and the Torah both originate with God but, yet, have differences. So, it behooves us to cautiously interpret when Paul uses the term Law. I did not read your three parts entirely because it “floods the zone” and many unresolved references to the Law can create a fog. I just wanted to mention your use of Stott’s writing.
Scout
bp8 9:47 wrote, “So once again it is demonstrated that the Law is just, good, and profitable, and everything the 119th Psalm declares it to be.”
To what end? If you want to keep the Torah, then knock yourself out. But understand that your personal predilection is not amount to Christian doctrine. Paul said the Torah, including the ministration of death, was glorious. I will not gainsay this. But he also said it had a dark side. I did not say it was slavery, Paul did.
Paul said in Galatians 4:1-7, to those “born under the Law” and redeemed by Christ, “So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir through God.”
Maybe you have an issue with Paul rather than me.
Scout
Doing verses Fulfilling
Ro 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
“For Paul, doing the law (10:5; cf. Gal. 3:10, 12; 5:3) is different from fulfilling the law (cf. Gal. 5:14; 6:2). Doing the law means obeying commands. Fulfilling the law means living out the divine intention of the commands.
Lev 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
The command to love one’s neigbour in Lev 19:18 breathes life into all the commands...
Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
“Paul can equate this with fulfilling ‘the law of Christ’ (Gal. 6:2), which entails acting this with another’s best interest at heart. The love that fulfills the law is now defined by the self-giving sacrifice of Jesus (Gal. 2:20; cf. Rom. 8:34) and God’s action on behalf of enemies (5:5-8). Believers are enabled to fulfil the law’s intention through the power of the Holy Spirit (8:4) who has poured out God’s love in their hearts (5:5)” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, p. 411).
Law of sin and death verses Law of the Spirit
Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Ro 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
“In the new epoch inaugurated by the sending of God’s Son and the outpouring of God’s Spirit, the Spirit acts on human hearts to bring about obedience to the law and engender life. Many commentators regard the word law (nomos) in the phrase the law of the Spirit to refer to a ‘principle’ (cf. 7:21). Paul uses the word ‘law’, however, in 8:3 to refer to the Mosaic law and presents it as coming under the control of the flesh or the Spirit. He does not intend his original audience to guess whether the word nomos refers to the Mosaic law or a principle. He uses the words seventy-plus times in the letter consistently to refer to the Mosaic law. Here he describes it under the influence of different force fields. The law of the Spirit ... in Christ Jesus refers to the Mosaic law in the power sphere of the Spirit that makes believers’ fulfilment of the law possible. The law of sin and death refers to the Mosaic law in the power sphere of the flesh where sins warps and exploits it (7:11) so that it produces condemnation and eternal death. Since the law is ‘spiritual’ (7:124), it only operates as God intended it in the sphere of the Spirit.
“Living in the force field of the Sprit frees believers from the law that is engraved on stone and in the sphere of the flesh is so easily forged as a tool of sin. ‘The obedience of faith among all the Gentiles’ that Paul understands to be objective of his apostleship (1:5; 15:18; 16:26) is possible only through the operation of the Spirit who does not work ‘on tables of stone but on human hearts’ (2 Cor 3:3).
“Paul’s argument is this. Sin worms its way in through the portal of the flesh and distorts the law and deforms humanity. The Spirit’s power re-forms those who are in Christ and transforms them so that they can fulfil ‘the just requirements of the law’ (8:4) and be conformed to the image of God’s Son (8:29). Freedom does not come from trying to conform to a written code but only from surrendering oneself completely to the control of God’s Spirit. Paul asserts that under the Spirit’s power the external Mosaic law develops into an interior law (Jer 31:33) - in this case ... the Christian law of love” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, pp.258-60).
Paul "can call it "the law of Christ" (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-21). By that he does not mean a different code or document; it is the Mosaic law, but summed up in the command to love and interpreted in the light of Christ" (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Int., p.82).
Anonymous 6:23 cited, “Paul "can call it "the law of Christ" (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-21 ). By that he does not mean a different code or document; it is the Mosaic law, but summed up in the command to love and interpreted in the light of Christ" (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Int., p.82).”
I agree with what Cousar has written. One could think of the Law of Christ as the interpretation of the Torah. Christ said the law was summed up in love God and love your neighbor. So, Cousar’s statement is not surprising. Likewise, the interpretation of the seventh-day is rest in Jesus. The interpretation of circumcision of the foreskin is circumcision of the heart. The interpretation of do not muzzle the ox is compensate people fairly.
Since some might think that Cousar is equating the law of Christ with the Torah. I asked that question to Google AI and got a good credible response. The response:
“No, the prominent New Testament scholar Charles B. Cousar did not believe that the "law of Christ" and the Mosaic Torah were simply the exact same thing, nor did he believe they were completely unrelated. Instead, he viewed the law of Christ—which Paul pairs with the command of love and bearing one another's burdens—as the correct interpretation and Christological fulfillment of the Torah”
A sidebar. I think it is better to construct a single good argument rather than flooding the zone. Flooding the zone tends to create a fog of misunderstanding. It’s like a submarine deploying a cloud of countermeasures.
Scout
A law is not a mirror of society, a law is an ideal, a beacon to remind us how to be our better selves/potential and we have gotten the opportunity to just do that. The Torah is Law and Christ is also the fulfillment of that Law. All God asks in Genesis is to apply the discretion given to us to to affirm both. It is clear that God has changed his mind (either intentionally planned or through experience with (his chose) people) as to how it would be possible for man to ad aspera ad astra. Therefore we will all be judged independently according to our choosings and our works in Christ as what we do in this life will echo into eternity.
nck
Charles Cousar writes, "Paul can call it the Law of Christ. By that he does not mean a DIFFERENT CODE OR DOCUMENT; it is the MOSIAC LAW, but summed up in the command to love, and interpreted in the light of Christ".
Scout, if you are in agreement with Cousar on this then we are on the same page, for this is the same point I have been trying to make all along. The Torah and the Law of Christ are NOT the exact same thing! The Law is the "form" and Christ's interpretation of said law is the "substance". Matter of fact, your entire comment at 724 mirrors my very position and what I believe to be Paul's stand concerning the Law's place in the life of the believer.
In this regard I want to thank multi-part man for his opening paragraph at 623, "Doing verses Fulfilling", for it is a brief but superior summary to what has taken many words for me to {try to} explain.
Nobody wants to be misunderstood. For this reason I thank Scout, Nck, Earl, and MPM for their excellent contributions. In the end I feel like we are all walking away from this thread with greater clarity than we had going in, at least I am. Thanks to all!
BP8 and multi-part,
Nothing written in the multi-part shows the physical keeping of the Sinai Law. Nothing. And, no small wonder as none of the theologians quoted believed they were subject to Sinai Law. They all serious in their personal faith and attended Sunday services and such. No sabbath keepers, no holy day keepers, no following of clean/unclean laws. They are current Christians or died as Christians.
The quotes you use do not say what you want them to say and your intended use is not the intent of the writers. It is as Scout calls it, flooding the zone without tying any of the pieces together.
There are things to learn from the OT and things in the Law that are consistent with the New Covenant. Two of the authors said that love fulfilled the law and that is what they mean in our fulfilling the law.
I still have no idea why anyone wants to be under the Law, the Law that will condemn any that choose to be under it. I don't get it.
Can either of you say you are Law keepers? Neither of you have taken on this question.
If you are saying you are by keeping the two great commandments, then welcome to mainstream Christianity.
Paul knows no human is a DOER of the Law and thus made righteous because of it.
However, in James 1:22 we are told to be doers of the Logos. That actually is doable because it requires our knowing that we need Jesus's sacrifice and grace as part of the "doing".
In the end, the COGs think touting a few extra laws (sabbath, holy days, pork) put them in a better position than "mainstream" Christianity (which seems to follow the sermon on the Mount better).
Even setting aside whether one is talking about the Law of Christ versus the Law of Moses or entole vs nomos, you cannot sabbath, pork, holy day your way into being a lawkeeper. You must keep the Law to do that and the COGs are intentionally choosing to disregard much of the Law.
This is a fatal flaw in the COGs and more and more will come to see it.
I too gained from this thread with you all.
Religion has always evolved. It seems to have started with animism. It is changing more rapidly today than it ever has. It might even be evolving itself out of existence. Lengthy religious debates are folly. Before long everyone will believe something different anyway. It is better to spend your time reading about who really wrote the plays of "Shakesphere" or picking somebody's nose.
“They are current Christians or died as Christians.”
Unfortunately these insightful commentators are/were Sabbath-breaking-Sunday-keepers. Still God’s people. The northern kingdom, after the split of the United Kingdom, chose their own way to worship God and so Gentile Christians, after the split in the Church, also chose their own way to worship God.
Below is a typology for the above argument; while it may be considered a ‘stretch,’ time will tell if there is something to it.
Typology
David, son of Jesse, and the Old Testament Temple and its Aftermath and
‘David’, Son of God, and the New Testament Temple and its Aftermath
One is aided in making this typology from Paul’s application of an OT scripture:
Ro 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
“In applying the Hosea prophecy to the Gentiles ... Paul affirms that they too are heirs of the promises to Israel” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.242).
This means that grafted in Gentiles should worship God on the sabbath. But unfortunately, as typology suggested, the Gentiles, precursors of today’s Sunday-keepers, like the northern kingdom, went their own way and chose to worship God differently.
Typology may repeat or rhyme; and people and events in the antitype may not occur in the same way as in the type.
In typology the type and antitype may both be good or both be bad. The type may also be ‘bad,’ think Adam, and the antitype may be good, think “the last Adam”.
So in this typology David = Jesus; David = Peter; Solomon = Peter; Rehoboam (bad) = James (good); and Jeroboam (bad) = Paul (good).
Both Temples were built after the death of David and Jesus
1 Ki 5:3 You know my father David was not able to build a temple for the name of Yahweh his God. (HCSB).
Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (AV).
David and Jesus provided for the building of the temples
1Ch 22:3 And David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the joinings; and brass in abundance without weight;
Ac 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Though the temples were built after the death of Davidic kings, they both provided for the building of the future temples - David iron for the nails, and Jesus “names”.
Temple - People and Building - Dwelling
1Ki 6:14 So Solomon built the temple [LXX, oikos] and completed it.
2 Ch 7:1 and the glory of the LORD filled the house [LXX, oikos]
1Ki 8:13 I have surely built You an exalted house [LXX, oikos], And a place for You to dwell in forever." (NKJV).
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house [oikos] where they were sitting.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit... (NKJV).
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (AV).
“The Spirit is God as he dwells in his church” (Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians, TOTC, p. 71).
Part 2
David and Peter
2Sa 5:3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD: and they anointed David king over Israel.
2Sa 5:5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah. (AV).
Ac 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
Ac 2:47b And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (NIV).
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 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him
Ac 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”
In the type it was David who united the southern kingdom with the northern kingdom. In the antitype, as the Gentiles typify the northern kingdom, it was Peter who played a foundational role in joining Jew and Gentile.
Peter plays a dual role uniting Jew and Gentile (typing David) and ‘church/temple’ building (typing Solomon).
Jeroboam and Paul
1Ki 12:20 And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only. (AV).
Ro 11:13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry (NIV).
Jeroboam is identified with the northern ten-tribes. Paul is identified with the Gentiles; and it was Paul that applied a Scripture that referred to the northern kingdom to the Gentiles.
Rehoboam and James
Ac 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Ac 18:6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. (AV).
“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 separation of the church from the synagogue leads eventually to the separation of the Gentiles and Jews; which ultimately led to the separation of Sunday-keepers and Sabbath-keepers.
Part 3
Counterfeit worship
Lev 23:34b The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD.
1Ki 12:32 And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Beth-el, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Beth-el the priests of the high places which he had made. (AV).
While it was Jeroboam, the leader of the ten-tribes that instituted a religion with similarities to the religion in Judah, in the antitype it was the followers of Paul that instituted a religion with similarities with the religion of Israel.
Sunday, Good Friday-Easter, and Christmas verses Sabbath, Passover-Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles.
“Most Gentile Christians, whether as slaves or as other workers, would not have the liberty to stop work on the seventh day of every week, but they surely knew it was the Jewish Sabbath (probably ideally applicable universally; see Gen 2:2-3)” (Craig S. Keener, Acts, aEC, pp. 737-738).
So it was not only anti-Judaism, social pressures, pagan influences and Sun worship that contributed to the change from Sabbath to Sunday.
Type Reversal
2Ki 17:18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. (AV).
“The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel refer to the ten northern tribes of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, exiled by the Neo-Assyrian Empire around 722 BCE after the kingdom fell, who then disappeared from recorded history...” (AI).
Instead of the more numerous northern ten-tribes disappearing from recorded history and Judah remaining visible; it was the Sabbath-keeping Christians that virtually disappeared from recorded history and the Sunday-keeping Christians having the visibility.
Messianic Age
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. (AV).
“To whom are the promises given? Just to the people of Israel? Hardly. They are given to those of all flesh who worship from month to month and Sabbath to Sabbath. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE END OF ISRAEL'S RELIGION, THAT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF JOINING ISRAEL IN WORSHIPING THE ONE GOD (cf. Zech. 14:16-21)" (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, NICOT, p.691).
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. (AV).
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. (AV).
In the Messianic Age the ultimate end of Israel’s worship will be realized; non-Israelites will join Israelites in worshipping the One True God. Everyone will be resting and worshiping God on the same day of the week — the seventh day of the week — the Sabbath.
A lot of details are provided in Zech. 14 not just sabbaths and tabernacles. The gates and towers and winery of the then current Jerusalem are also specifically mentioned...but all of those have been destroyed...so that which Zechariah described specifically are not there. This cannot just be rebuilt and renamed. Zechariah saw the old gates and towers; that is what he described. This indicates that much of the vision has occurred in a way or manifestation that does not include something beyond the timing of the destruction of those landmarks.
This is true for the plague on the camels, horses, and cattle.
I cannot accept that this is something yet in the future when all those landmarks and camels/horses are from a time gone by.
Post a Comment