The Roots of Armstrongism in the First Century Jerusalem Church
By Neo
Christianity at its inception was a form of Late Second Temple Judaism. Jesus was a Jew who preached a form of Judaism to Jews. Jewish factions worshipped together in the Temple and in synagogues. The Jews in one faction of Judaism followed a man named Jesus and believed him to be the Messiah. Only years later would the name “Christian” be applied to this faction. The times were filled with expectations of the apocalypse. Judaists, in general, were waiting for the first coming of the Messiah to overthrow the world regime. And the Jews who were followers of Jesus were waiting for the second coming of the Messiah to overthrow the world regime. Everyone seemed to understand that something revolutionary was going to happen.
Within the Jesus faction, a man named James, the brother of Jesus, became the leader of the Jesus Movement. James was a Jew and held Jewish practice in high regard. Two other men who were also leaders, Paul and Peter, did not have the same commitment to Jewish practice. Paul was concerned that these practices would develop into a wall of division between Jews and Gentiles. Peter seemed to vacillate between the Jewish pole and the Gentile pole. At one point, Paul said to Peter “I said to Cephas (Peter) before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews? (Galatians 2:14).” Peter who accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry and was very close to Jesus had set aside Jewish practice in his personal life. There was a tension between James on one side and Peter and Paul on the other with Peter functioning as a kind of liaison, purposely or by accident, between the two sides.
This tension culminated in a controversy over circumcision, the archetypical requirement in Jewish theology and practice. Circumcision represented the outward symbol of salvation as understood in Judaism. It symbolized the covenant made with Abraham. It was the indispensable sign that Yahweh was Israel’s God and Israel was Yahweh’s people. So it is easy to understand that some Jews would regard this as a necessary condition, exceeding in significance such conditions as the Sabbath or dietary restrictions, for belonging to the Jesus Movement. Within the Jerusalem Church led by James, a faction that has been called by some historians “the Circumcision Party,” came into sharp conflict with Paul. There is no definitive indication in the New Testament that James supported these people. But neither is there any indication that he tried to oppose this faction while it was incipient.
Paul opposed the circumcision faction with Peter’s sometimes wavering support (Acts 15:8-9). (Jesus had pointed out to Peter his wavering tendency.) Paul understood the profound meaning of what the Circumcision Party was asserting. They were saying that salvation within the Jesus Movement could not be appropriated without circumcision. They stated explicitly, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” The Circumcision Party added an Old Testament requirement to the salvation that was in Jesus, a physical requirement that had now become only a cultural tradition in the teaching of Jesus. Paul was not anti-Jewish. He wrote that everyone who followed Jesus was a spiritual Jew but he did not concede to modifying soteriology as it was understood in the Jesus Movement. Paul also stated that circumcision was of the heart and had a continuing spiritual meaning for spiritual Jews – but the physical requirement was no longer a part of the theology. Of the followers of the Circumcision Party, Paul stated, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Paul expanded the principle beyond circumcision to include justification by the law to the exclusion of Jesus.
I would have speculated that Paul’s attitude towards the body of Old Testament litigation would be relatively mild and accepting. He was, after all, “an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee.” The litigation was now no longer the pathway to salvation but a colorful collection of ethics, customs, and traditions. But there is a passage, Colossians 2:8-19, that reflects a much more intense and negative attitude on the part of Paul. (New Revised Standard Version throughout the remainder of this paragraph.) Paul starts in Colossians 2:8 by saying: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe . . .” He is speaking of human traditions and pagan philosophies. But later he includes the Old Testament litigation in this category. He says first, “. . . He forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.” This seems to be a reference to the litigation of the Old Testament. How else could past sins be defined among the Jews? Sin is the transgression of the law. If there is any doubt about the reference he writes the following statement: “Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” Only the Old Testament could contain foreshadows of Christ. Paul, by interweaving the Old Testament litigation into this passage that also refers to human traditions and pagan philosophies, places the now superseded Old Testament litigation, such as circumcision, in the same category as these worldly traditions and philosophies.
Herman Hoeh stated years back that he had met an important person in Israel and explained to him the theology of the Worldwide Church of God. I regret to say that I do not remember the Israeli’s name. But after hearing Hoeh’s description, the Israeli said, as I recall Hoeh’s account, “If your description is accurate, then the WCG is heir to the Jerusalem Church.” Hoeh indicated that he was gratified by that observation. I believe the observation to be true. I would add a refinement. Armstrongism is heir, not to the Jerusalem Church proper, but to the faction of the Jerusalem Church known as the Circumcision Party.
The Jerusalem Church seemed to fade out after the calamity of 70 AD. Christianity expanded enormously in the Gentile sphere. The fervid conflict over circumcision is now long forgotten. But here and there, the principle behind salvific circumcision still finds traction. And those who sustain this ideology can rightfully claim ancient provenance and even invoke the name of the Jerusalem Church. But this claim to a high-born heritage must be understood in its theological context.
Note: It is worth mentioning that Paul and Peter were not antinomian. Christianity, correspondingly, is not antinomian. In some quarters, that is a persistent calumny against the Christian Church. Both men believed in the law given in the Sermon on the Mount. Paul, in particular, was highly moralistic and explicit about moral rectitude in the opening chapters of Romans. Neither is the theme of this opinion piece antinomian. Those who are advocates of viewing the New Testament as just a patina on the Old Testament have a personal obligation to understand this issue if they claim to be Christian. The replacement of the Old Testament litigation does not equate to antinomianism no matter how often repeated.
