Make-A-Will Month Special: Leave It to LCG, Because Family Is Just a Bunch of Esaus Waiting to Squander Your Money

 

“Dear Brethren… Please Die Conveniently”

Gerald Weston’s Latest Money-Grubbing Masterpiece

The classic Armstrongist con: wrap a naked cash grab in a few cherry-picked Bible verses, sprinkle in some “we never beg” false humility, and watch the faithful sign over the family farm. Gerald E. Weston has once again polished Herbert W. Armstrong’s favorite parlor trick—telling members that the best way to “lay up for their children” is to make damn sure a hefty chunk of that inheritance never reaches those children.

Weston opens with the charming discovery that August is “National Make-A-Will Month.” How convenient! Right on cue, the letter arrives in members’ mailboxes like a friendly reminder from the Grim Reaper’s accounting department. He assures everyone he “spends most of the time updating you on what your prayers and financial contributions are doing, rather than begging for more money.”
Translation: “I am totally not begging… except for the part where I am about to beg for your entire estate.”

Then comes the biblical smoke screen. Parents should leave an inheritance to their children (2 Corinthians 12:14, Proverbs 13:22). Noble! Heartwarming! Until you notice the immediate pivot: some kids are responsible, some are Esau-level losers who will “quickly squander” it. God Himself “discriminated” between Jacob and Esau, after all. So if your offspring look a little too much like the biblical bad boy who sold his birthright for a bowl of stew… well, maybe the Living Church of God would be a safer bet.  

Weston even throws in the Prodigal Son for good measure. The younger kid blew it, the older one came out ahead. Moral of the story according to LCG: better to give early and often to headquarters, just in case your own flesh and blood turns out to be a disappointment.  

But the real emotional blackmail arrives with the tragic tales of two dearly departed members who wanted to leave everything (or a “substantial sum”) to “this Work of God”… yet failed. One neglected to put it in writing. The other forgot to sign the will. Cue the collective gasp: their money went to the state! Or worse—actual blood relatives! The horror! Weston doesn’t say the quiet part out loud, but the message lands like a brick: Don’t be those guys. Don’t let your hard-earned assets slip through the church’s fingers just because you were too busy dying to update the paperwork.

And if you do feel a sudden holy urge to remember the Living Church of God in your will? Why, they’ll happily mail you their free booklet Planned Giving—only if you request it, of course. No pressure. Just a gentle, loving suggestion from the same organization that historically demanded multiple tithes while living and still keeps the collection plate open after you’re in the ground.

This is pure Armstrongist tradition, distilled. Herbert used to preach that the “Work” was the only thing that mattered in the end times. His successors refined the pitch: your family might waste it, the government will seize it, but we—the self-appointed guardians of “true” Christianity—will use it for prophecy charts, telecasts, and whatever else keeps the headquarters lights on. Families get the guilt. The church gets the check.  

Disgusting? Absolutely. But in the world of Armstrongism, it’s just another Tuesday… or rather, another “Make-A-Will Month.” So next time Gerald writes to remind you that “death does not always come at old age,” remember: he’s not worried about your legacy. He’s worried about theirs.  

Your kids can always get a nice framed photo of Dad instead. The church prefers the cash. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot is happening around the world, but I want to get back to something I only learned a few days ago. I opened a letter from an organization that I follow and learned that “August is Make-A-Will Month” in the U.S. I wondered: Is that correct? Is there really a month to highlight this purpose? Sure enough, a quick Internet search shows that August is recognized as National Make-A-Will Month to encourage individuals to create or update their wills, thus protecting loved ones and preserving their legacy. Canada is beginning to do the same, though our friends north of the border designate the month of November.

Now before you stop reading, those of you who receive these letters know that I spend most of the time updating you on what your prayers and financial contributions are doing, rather than begging for more money. You also know that on our telecasts and in our literature we do not ask the public for contributions. Everything we have we give away absolutely free of charge, thanks to you members and co-workers. You are the only ones who receive these letters.

However, I do want to say a few things about the subject of wills and legacies, as this is vitally important no matter how you distribute the assets you accumulate in this life. What you do regarding your legacy is very personal, and although we greatly appreciate the fact that a few people do remember us in this way, my message to you, and why I bring this up, is that the advice to make a will and keep it updated is important. Death does not always come at old age. As Solomon wrote, “For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, like birds caught in a snare, so the sons of men are snared in an evil time, when it falls suddenly upon them” (Ecclesiastes 9:12).

God tells us that even in death we have responsibilities. We are told in 2 Corinthians 12:14 that parents ought to lay up for their children. And Proverbs tells us, “A good man leaves an inheritance [even] to his children’s children” (13:22). But it is important to make your wishes known in writing to ensure that the assets you have worked for all your life are distributed as you desire. If you die without a will, your wishes may not be fulfilled.

My parents left equal amounts to my sister and me, and they had everything in perfect order, but some parents may have valid reasons to leave a greater or lesser amount to each of their children—not because some are favorites, but because a parent may realize that one child is responsible and he or she will benefit from that gift, while another child would quickly squander it. Even God discriminated between Jacob and Esau. Neither child was perfect. Jacob was a crafty man who had to learn some painfully hard lessons in life—and he did—but Esau is described as a “fornicator” and a “profane person… who for one morsel of food sold his birthright” (Hebrews 12:16). We also read that “Esau despised his birthright” (Genesis 25:34). He failed to value the inheritance that would normally have been his by right of birth. Even though Jacob was not a very nice brother in his younger days, he looked beyond the immediate and God knew it would be better to pass along the birthright promises to his descendants rather than to those of his brother.

But even here, if you read the whole story, you see that God did not totally neglect Esau, and it is important that parents leave something to each child, if for no other reason than to mitigate a legal challenge that could follow. We must also not forget one of the most famous of Jesus’ parables, that of the Prodigal Son, who squandered the inheritance his father gave him early in life. Yet, his father still loved him, as God our Father does us despite our sinfulness. Nevertheless, since the younger son squandered his inheritance, the older son would have come out further ahead as his inheritance would have grown greater over time before it finally came to him.

It is remarkable how selfish people can be when it comes to inheritances. We have all heard stories about how one sibling cheated (stole) an inheritance from the other siblings. How sad, but it happens all the time. Maybe it happened to you. There is a proverb addressing this subject that indicates this problem is not new. “An inheritance gained hastily at the beginning will not be blessed at the end” (Proverbs 20:21).

The importance of putting your house in order was brought out this last year when two individuals that we know of wanted to leave all or a portion of their estates to this Work of God. However, in both cases, they failed to have their wills or trusts in order. One man I personally knew quite well, and I know that he wanted to leave a substantial sum to the Church. Even though he was in failing health the last few years, he neglected to put his heart’s desire down on paper. The other man made out his will but failed to sign it. In this latter case, the man had no heirs, and his substantial estate has gone to the state in which he lived—something he definitely did not want.

Whether you want to pass along a portion of your legacy to the Living Church of God, which is the sponsor of Tomorrow’s World, or to family, friends, or another charity, please be sure to make your wishes known in a manner consistent with your desires and the laws where you live. Having a simple will is a starting point, but it is always better to receive legal advice to ensure that your legacy goes where you want it to go. And if you do want to give a portion to the Living Church of God, or need general advice on wills, we can send you a copy of our short and easy-to-read resource Planned Giving. We will only send it if you request it. It can also be accessed online at lcg.org/planned-giving.

Thank you again, dear brethren and co-workers, for your dedication to this Work of the living God. Let us remember one another, recognizing that there are many dangers in our world and that we are one body. Let us pray for one another, whether in our own country or somewhere far away.

Sincerely, in Christ’s service,

Gerald E. Weston

Shake, Rattle & Roll… Straight Into the Cult: Crackpot Bob's Earthquake Evangelism

 

Crackpot Bob, the self-appointed prophet of perpetual doom, is once again staring into the camera from his book-lined bunker of doom, waving his hands like a man who’s just spotted a magnitude-12 personal crisis on the horizon. This month’s special? Earthquakes. Not the ordinary ones that keep seismologists employed and insurance companies solvent—no, the really big one. The Revelation 16 special. The “cities of the nations fell… every island fled away… mountains were not found” model. Bigger than anything Pliny the Elder ever hyperventilated about. And conveniently, if you’re one of Bob’s loyal followers and manage to scramble into the rocky embrace of Petra, you’ll get a front-row seat to the fireworks while the rest of us heathens get turned into tectonic confetti.

Armstrongism has always been a masterclass in marketing misery. Herbert W. Armstrong perfected the formula decades ago: scan the headlines, cherry-pick every famine, pestilence, and tremor, then scream “BEGINNING OF SORROWS!” until the donation envelopes start arriving. Bob simply inherited the family business. His writings don’t just mention tragedy—they dwell in it, roll around in it, build a timeshare on it. Every article is a guided tour of the apocalypse gift shop: “ San Andreas Research is Small Potatoes Compared to the Really BIG ONE!" And don’t forget the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 who dare to suggest that tectonic plates have been doing their thing for a few billion years! The message is crystal clear: the world is a dumpster fire, Jesus is basically the fire marshal with a very specific guest list, and the only way to avoid getting roasted is to join the club, keep the Sabbath, avoid the unclean meats, and start packing for Jordan.

New Covenant Christians, however, have this radical idea that the New Testament might actually mean what it says.

Under the New Covenant, we are not trembling children waiting for Daddy to finish the global demolition project so He can finally notice us. We are already reconciled. Already seated with Him in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). Already sealed with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee (Ephesians 1:13-14). The “day of the Lord” that will melt the elements is not a surprise pop quiz for those who are in Christ; it is the final cleanup of a creation that has been groaning for redemption (Romans 8:19-23). And when that day arrives, believers are not scrambling for a cave in Petra—we are “looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God” because we already belong to the One who holds the keys.

Perfect love, Scripture insists, casts out fear (1 John 4:18). Not “perfect doctrinal charts about the place of safety.” Not “perfect attendance at the Feast of Tabernacles in a Jordanian canyon.” Perfect love. The kind that flows from knowing the finished work of the cross. The kind that lets us watch the news, shrug at the latest 6.8, and still sleep at night because our security is not measured in Richter scale readings or the slip rate of the San Andreas.

Bob, of course, cannot dwell there. Armstrongism never could. If you stop selling fear, the entire revenue model collapses. No more “watch therefore… that you may be counted worthy to escape.” No more urgent calls to “consider your ways” while the real consideration—grace, rest, the indwelling Christ—gets quietly ignored. Misery is the product. Tragedy is the branding. And the New Covenant is the competition that must never be mentioned, lest people realize they don’t need a cult membership card to survive the end of the age.

So keep watching those earthquakes, Bob. Keep updating the “biggest one ever” spreadsheet. Keep pointing the faithful toward Petra like it’s the ultimate Airbnb for the elect. New Covenant Christians will be over here, sipping coffee, reading the actual gospel, and marveling that the same Jesus who predicted “earthquakes in various places” also promised, “Peace I leave with you… Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27).

The ground may shake. The mountains may move. But the New Covenant doesn’t.

The Vine and the Dead Sticks: How the “One True Church” Became a Forest of Splinters

Fitly Joined Together? Herbert Armstrong’s One True Church Meets the Reality of a Thousand Splinters

Samuel Kitchen recently posted a 1981 quote from Herbert W. Armstrong that paints a picture of beautiful, organic unity. Armstrong declared that the Church of God is “fitly joined together,” founded on the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. He leaned on the vine-and-branches imagery of John 15: the branches are joined to the vine and to one another through that vine. Break one off, he warned, and you break it off from Christ. God has one Church. He never said He would create several different groups. “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And, Armstrong insisted, that Church was still here in 1981—organized, together, and speaking the same thing.

Illustration by Samuel Kitchen 

Forty-five years later the landscape looks less like a single healthy vine and more like a vineyard after a hurricane.

The organization Armstrong led did not remain “fitly joined together.” Before his death, there were already hundreds of splinter groups and self-appointed group leaders. Then, HWA had to go and die, and all hell broke loose. The Worldwide Church of God became a cascade of competing claims: United, Living, Philadelphia, Restored, Continuing, Church of God Eternal, and hundreds more. Each new group insisted it was the true remnant, the Philadelphian era, the sole organization still joined to the vine. Leaders rose, declared themselves the rightful successor or the end-time Elijah or the final apostle, and promptly cut off anyone who questioned the new arrangement. Disfellowshipping became the preferred pruning method. Congregations split, re-split, and split again. Today the COG world operates as hundreds of independent fiefdoms, each demanding exclusive loyalty, each warning that leaving their particular group is the same as leaving Christ.

The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. Armstrong’s own words are now used by men who lead separate, mutually exclusive organizations to prove that only their group is the one true Church. The very quotation that insisted God would never create several different groups is posted by leaders who have spent decades creating and maintaining those groups. The “one thing” they claim to speak is no longer a shared voice; it is a chorus of competing claims about calendars, governance, prophecies, titles, and who is allowed to sit at the table.

This is the natural fruit of the exclusivity model Armstrong taught. When the identity of the true Church is tied to a single hierarchical organization, every disagreement becomes a potential schism. Every strong personality becomes a potential new headquarters. Every failed prophecy or internal scandal becomes an opportunity for the next man to declare that the previous group has been rejected and that he now carries the true mantle. The result is not a fitly joined body. It is a landscape of rival claims, competing websites, parallel Feast sites, and endless accusations that the other groups have “broken off from Christ.”

New Covenant Christians are under no obligation to play this game. The New Testament never requires believers to locate the one correct corporate organization in order to remain joined to Christ. The Church is the body of those who are in Christ by faith. The vine is Christ Himself. Union with Him is by the Spirit through faith, not by membership cards, hierarchical approval, or the ability to recite the correct list of end-time titles. Believers are joined to one another through the vine, not through a single human headquarters that claims exclusive rights to the vine.

That means a Christian who fellowships with other believers outside the Armstrongist orbit is not automatically “broken off.” A believer who refuses to accept the latest self-appointed leader’s claims is not cut off from Christ. The gates of the grave have not prevailed against the Church Christ is building—because that Church is not identical with any one of the splinter groups that claim the Armstrong brand.

Armstrong’s 1981 words reveal the high ideal he held. The history since then reveals how quickly that ideal collapses when it is married to organizational exclusivity and hierarchical control. The fractured COG world is living proof that tying spiritual life to the claim of being the sole true Church produces endless division rather than the unity it promises.

New Covenant believers are free to leave any COG out there and the exclusivity contest behind. The vine is still there. The branches that abide in Him remain joined—both to Him and to one another—without needing permission from any of the competing headquarters that still insist they alone hold the keys.

Crackpot Bob's “Greco-Roman” Smear: When Historical Illiteracy Masquerades as Spiritual Superiority

Crackpot Bob’s “Greco-Roman” label is not the devastating smear he imagines. It is a self-refuting rhetorical tic that collapses under the weight of the New Testament itself, the historical setting of the apostolic church, and basic honesty about how ideas and cultures actually work.

Thiel uses “Greco-Roman” as a pejorative shorthand for the Catholic and Orthodox traditions and, by extension, the Protestants who emerged from them. In his wildly misguided view, these churches compromised the pure, original faith by absorbing Greek philosophy, Roman imperial structures, and pagan practices, while his Continuing Church of God supposedly preserved an uncontaminated stream that somehow avoided all of that. The term is meant to sound damning—syncretistic, worldly, philosophically polluted, and therefore not truly Christian. It is none of those things. It is simply descriptive of the world in which Christianity was born, grew, and produced the very documents Thiel claims to follow.

Jesus lived and died under Roman rule in a thoroughly Hellenized Jewish environment. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean. The Jewish Scriptures most early Christians used were the Septuagint—a Greek translation produced in the Hellenistic world. The New Testament itself was written in Koine Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul’s letters, the Gospels, Acts, and the rest are Greco-Roman documents in language, rhetorical style, and cultural reference points.

Paul quotes Greek poets with approval when it serves the gospel (Acts 17:28). He debates Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens and frames the unknown God in terms they could grasp. He is a Roman citizen who invokes Roman legal protections. He travels the Roman road system. The church expands through the infrastructure, urban networks, and multilingual culture of the empire. To treat “Greco-Roman” as a contaminant is to treat the actual historical matrix of the New Testament as a problem. That is not biblical fidelity; it is historical denial.

Second Temple Judaism was already interacting with Greek thought long before Jesus. The idea of a pure, isolated “Hebrew” Christianity floating above Hellenistic culture is a later myth. The apostles did not operate in a cultural vacuum. They operated in the real world of the first century—and that world was Greco-Roman.

The label reveals more than it accuses. Thiel’s dichotomy requires two cleanly separated streams after the apostles: a pure Church of God that kept the original faith, and a “Greco-Roman” confederation that sold out for imperial favor and philosophical respectability. Reality is messier. Early Christianity was diverse. Practices and emphases developed over time. Some shifts were gradual, some contested, some influenced by surrounding culture—as every religious movement in history has been. Pretending there was a pristine, non-Hellenized remnant that simply continued unchanged until Herbert Armstrong rediscovered it in an Oregon library, requires selective reading of the sources and the invention of a purity narrative that the evidence does not support.

There is also a glaring practical irony. Thiel writes in English, attempts to use modern Western historical methods, organizes a church with contemporary administrative structures, and argues using categories of evidence and logic that are products of the broader Greco-Roman intellectual tradition filtered through later Western development. He selectively cites “Greco-Roman” church fathers and scholars when their words can be made to support his reconstruction, then dismisses the same tradition as compromised when it does not. That is not historical method. It's typical Armstrongist wishful myth-making.

The gospel was never meant to remain a Palestinian Jewish sect. Paul insists it is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). The inclusion of the nations—Gentiles living in the Greco-Roman world—was not a late corruption. It was the point. The cultural forms of that world (language, rhetoric, urban life, legal categories, philosophical questions) became the vehicle through which the message traveled. Using those forms is not betrayal; it is incarnation in history.

Calling mainstream Christians “Greco-Roman” is therefore not the exposure of a fatal flaw. It is an admission that Christianity took root in the actual Mediterranean world of the first centuries rather than in an idealized, culturally pure alternative universe. The smear only works if one already accepts the Armstrongist premise that any development after a certain early cutoff, any engagement with surrounding intellectual culture, and any organizational continuity outside the preferred lineage is automatically apostasy. Once that premise is questioned, the label loses its force.

The phrase functions as identity boundary maintenance. It creates an in-group that is pure by definition and an out-group that is compromised by definition. It allows Thiel to claim continuity with the apostles while treating the vast majority of historical Christianity as a deviation. It flatters the small remnant that stays with him by portraying everyone else as the product of philosophical and imperial sellout. That is useful for group cohesion. It is not useful for understanding history or the New Testament.

Christianity has always been a faith that enters cultures, uses their languages, answers their questions, and is in turn shaped by the encounter. The New Testament itself is the first and most important example. Pretending otherwise, and turning the very setting of the apostolic church into a slur, is not a defense of original Christianity. It is a refusal to take the historical particularity of the gospel seriously. But, when has Bob ever taken the gospel seriously?

Bob Thiel can keep saying “Greco-Roman” as if the words themselves prove corruption. They do not. They simply describe the world God chose for the incarnation, the apostolic mission, and the writing of the New Testament. Treating that world as the enemy is not a mark of greater faithfulness. It is a mark of a historical narrative that cannot survive contact with the sources it claims to revere.

Bwana Bob’s Exclusive Bible Franchise: From the Apostles Straight to Arroyo Grande, CA

Bob Thiel’s grand claim is that the true “Church of God” alone possessed and preserved the New Testament canon (and for that matter, the ENTIRE Bible) from the apostles forward, that Catholics and Protestants were latecomers and interlopers, and that this pure chain of custody somehow terminates in his own “Continuing” Church of God in 2026. This is not history. It is pure fictional COG mythology.

There was no organization in the first or second century that looked, taught, or behaved like modern Armstrongism. The groups Thiel waves at (Nazarenes, certain Asia Minor congregations, later Waldenses) did not keep the Armstrong package: British-Israel identity, the specific holy-day calendar HWA adopted, the rejection of the Trinity in the exact way the COGs do, the mandatory third tithe, or the “one true church” hierarchical structure that ends with a living apostle/prophet. Claiming them as “our people” is the same move every restorationist group makes: find someone who kept the Sabbath or rejected Rome and declare them your spiritual grandparents.

Bwana Bob's “chain of custody” is pure mythology. Yes, the apostles and their immediate successors knew which writings were authoritative. That is not news. What is news is the leap that only a continuous, doctrinally pure “Church of God” line ever possessed them while the rest of Christendom wandered in darkness. Polycarp of Smyrna is claimed by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants as one of their own early witnesses. He did not hand a sealed packet of 27 books to a secret COG courier with instructions to keep it away from those nasty Greco-Romans. The early lists, quotes, and disputes show a broad Christian community gradually recognizing the same core writings. The fact that some later Catholics and Orthodox included extra books (or temporarily disputed a few) does not magically transfer ownership of the canon to a 20th-century American splinter movement.

Crackpot Bob's timeline is a classic Armstrongist history rewrite. It treats every mention of “sacred scriptures” by an early writer as proof of the full modern Protestant canon already locked down and exclusive to “us.” Then it jumps centuries, waves at the Waldenses (who were not Church of God or Armstrongist in nature), skips the total absence of anything resembling the Radio Church of God or Worldwide Church of God for most of Christian history, and lands triumphantly on Herbert Armstrong in the 1930s. From there it is only a short, bitter hop through successive splits until Bob Thiel declares that his group now holds the true custodianship. This is not a chain. It is a series of historical non-sequiturs connected by wishful thinking and the magic phrase “Church of God.”

The claim that “the Bible is entirely a COG project” is laughable on its face. The books were written by first-century Jewish and Gentile believers, circulated among multiple congregations, quoted by a wide range of early Christian writers, and eventually standardized through the broader church’s process of recognition. No exclusive COG copyright office existed. The idea that God left His word only with a tiny, mostly invisible flock that somehow resurfaces every few centuries just long enough to hand the baton to the next true remnant is the same mythology every exclusive group tells itself.

Bwana Bob's endpoint is pure farce. Even if one granted every previous claim, the final link—“and therefore the Continuing Church of God under Bob Thiel is the true custodial church in 2026”—requires believing that a man who left Living Church of God over personality and prophetic disagreements, started his own group, and began issuing dreams and self-promotions is the living terminus of the apostolic canon. That is not continuity. That is a man writing himself into the story replacing God's hand in the entire matter.

Greco-Roman and Protestant churches have their own historical problems and anachronisms. That does not make Thiel’s alternative true by default. Two competing myths do not produce one historical fact. The books of the New Testament were recognized, preserved, and transmitted by the wider Christian movement. The idea that only one tiny, doctrinally specific stream ever truly “had” them is the kind of claim that sounds profound only if you already need it to be true.

In short: the apostles wrote letters. Later Christians recognized them. Centuries of ordinary transmission followed. Then, in the 20th century, a former advertising man in Oregon decided he had restored the true church. Decades of splits later, Bob Thiel decided he was the final custodian. That is not a chain of custody. That is pure Armstrongite myth making..

Crackpot Prophet Tries To "One Up" Wade Cox's 2030 Date by Claiming Christ Returns 2033/34

 

We had wade Cox opening his asinine mouth the other day about Jesus retiring in 2030. Now Crackpot Bob is trying to one up Wade and claim Jesus is returning in 2033/34, maybe, possibly, could be, might be...you know the drill by now.

Bwana Bob Thiel has once again blessed us with another installment of “Let’s Play Calendar Roulette with the Gospels,” this time courtesy of Jordan’s very practical plan to cash in on Christian tourism for the alleged 2,000th anniversary of Jesus’ baptism in 2030. Because nothing says “divine timeline revealed” quite like a Muslim kingdom building a $120 million pilgrim village, museum, and green corridor so Western tourists can selfie next to the spot where John dunked the Messiah. New Covenant Christianity? Islam? End-times speculation? Strap in, folks—this one’s a triple-threat of stretch marks.

Under the New Covenant—you know, the thing Crackpot Bob never talks about, the one actually sealed by Christ’s blood, where we’re no longer slaves to speculative arithmetic or Mosaic stopwatches—most of us are content to watch, pray, and live as if He could return tomorrow or in a thousand years. Jesus Himself said no one knows the day or hour (Matthew 24:36), and the apostles treated “the last days” as the entire church age, not a pair of neat 1,000-year “days” that conveniently start ticking just before the resurrection so we can land the plane in 2034. 

 But Bob? He takes the minority view that baptism was in 30 AD (most scholars still prefer 27–29), assumes a rigid 3½-year ministry, slides the resurrection to 34 AD, then invents a “days 5 and 6 of the last days” framework so the Great Tribulation must kick off in 2030 and Jesus shows up by 2034. It’s the theological equivalent of using a sundial to predict the Super Bowl winner. New Covenant believers tend to roll their eyes at this exact brand of date-setting because it turns the finished work of the cross into a countdown clock for brochure sales. Spoiler: the New Covenant already delivered the Spirit, the Church, and the promise of His return—without requiring a Jordanian tourism ministry or a spreadsheet.

Islam Angle: Prophets, Tourism, and Convenient Overlaps

Bob correctly notes that Muslims revere Jesus (Isa) as Messiah and prophet, expect His return to smash the Dajjal, break the cross, and usher in a short golden age (usually 40 years, not 1,000). The Quran and hadiths do overlap with biblical themes on a future conflict involving a southern power and a northern beast-like figure. Fine. Jordan—being a Muslim-majority nation that still hosts Christian sites and likes tourist dollars—is investing heavily so more pilgrims will show up in 2030. That’s economics, not eschatology. 

Yet Bob can’t resist the prophetic cackle: “Perhaps there could be ramifications…” as if a museum groundbreaking is the first trumpet. Muslims already believe Jesus returns after their Mahdi; Christians believe He returns to destroy the Beast. The fact that both traditions talk about Jesus coming back doesn’t magically make Jordan’s visitor-center project a sign that the King of the South is warming up the tanks. It’s the same level of insight as claiming every new mosque in Europe proves the caliphate is next Tuesday. Coexistence tourism ≠ fulfillment of Daniel 11.

Now we arrive at the pièce de résistance—the part that smells exactly like Wade Cox’s old “Christ returns in 2030” charts, just with fresher paint. Bob’s chain: 

• Baptism = 30 AD (despite the evidence leaning earlier) 
• Ministry = exactly 3½ years → resurrection 34 AD 
• “Last days” = literal thousand-year days 5 & 6 that somehow began before the resurrection 
• Therefore Great Tribulation starts 2030, Jesus back by 2034

This is the classic Armstrongist parlor trick: force every number into a 6,000-year plan, ignore the scholarly consensus on the chronology, and declare “we will see,” "maybe," "possibly," "could be," "might be," Wade Cox did the same dance s few days ago with 2030 as the magic year; Bob just moved the goalposts a few years and tied it to a baptism anniversary that Jordan is promoting for the same reason Disney promotes new rides—money. Both men treat the New Testament timeline like a Sudoku puzzle that only their group has the correct pencil.  

Reality check: 

• The baptism year is debated; 27 AD is more common. 
• Ministry length is approximate, not a Swiss watch. 
• “Last days” language in Acts and Hebrews is already present-tense for the apostles. 
• Every previous generation that did this math was wrong, and Jesus still hasn’t returned on their schedule.

So yes, 2030–2033 is just as crazy as Wade Cox’s 2030 return date. It’s the same fever dream wearing a nicer suit and holding a Jordanian press release. New Covenant Christianity doesn’t need these calculations; it already has the Spirit as down payment. Islam doesn’t need them either—its own hadiths give Jesus a 40-year reign after the Dajjal, not a precise Gregorian countdown. And end-times speculation of this variety has a perfect track record: 100 % failure rate so far.

We’ll see, Bob. We’ll see. Every prediction and prophecy you have made has been an abject failure. Just don’t be surprised when 2030 arrives, the pilgrim village is full of selfie sticks, and the only “great tribulation” is the traffic jam on the road to Al-Maghtas while you are sitting at home dreaming up more lies and goalpost changes.

Wade Cox Absurdity: Jesus Returns In 2030 - Get Your Act Together So You Can Be On The Holy Seed Bus

Wade Cox’s 2030 Timeline: Another Armstrongite “Holy Seed” Fantasy That New Covenant Christians Can Safely Ignore

Wade Cox, Coordinator General of the Christian Churches of God, has once again blessed the world with a detailed prophetic roadmap. According to the latest communiqué, the next four years will unfold like a carefully scripted Armstrongite disaster movie:

• A war
• The Empire of the Beast
• The arrival of the Two Witnesses 1,264 days before the Messiah
• Their 1,260-day ministry and subsequent death
• Four days later… the Messiah arrives in 2030
• Satan and the Fallen Host get tossed into the pit
• And only those who have diligently obeyed “the Law” will qualify as the Holy Seed who get to live on into the Millennium

Cox is crystal clear: “Your capacity to stay alive into the Millennium depends on your capacity to obey the Law.” The people who make it through 2030 will be the Holy Seed. Everyone else? Presumably compost.

This is classic late-stage Armstrongism. Take a handful of prophetic numbers, rearrange them until they point to a date just far enough away to keep the faithful nervous, then declare that survival itself hinges on perfect law-keeping under the authority of the one true Coordinator General. The 120th Jubilee, the Witnesses as the real educators of the planet, the careful warning not to “bring the muck of this world into the next” — it’s all there, the usual mix of chronological gymnastics and spiritual intimidation.

Armstrongite groups have been issuing these precise end-time schedules for decades. 1975 came and went. Multiple “final” dates under Herbert Armstrong, then under the various successors, came and went. David Pack has set and reset dates for Christ’s return to Wadsworth more times than most people change their oil. Ronald Weinland went to prison still insisting his timeline was correct. Bob Thiel continues to adjust his own prophetic charts while claiming special insight. And yet every new Coordinator, Pastor General, or self-appointed Elijah produces another ironclad sequence that somehow never quite arrives on schedule.

The deeper problem is not merely that the dates keep failing. It is the theology underneath. Cox’s message assumes that entrance into the Millennium is a reward for successful law performance. That is pure old-covenant thinking dressed up in Revelation charts. The New Covenant does not operate that way. Justification is by faith in the finished work of Christ, not by one’s track record of Sabbath-keeping, holy-day observance, or avoidance of “muck.” The people who inherit the kingdom are those who are in Christ, not those who managed to stay on the correct prophetic calendar and clean enough for the Coordinator General’s approval.

New Covenant believers do not need to monitor 1,264-day countdowns or worry whether they have sufficiently purified themselves to be counted among the Holy Seed of 2030. Christ already secured the future. The Spirit already indwells. The law that matters is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, not a reconstructed Mosaic checklist administered by yet another splinter group claiming exclusive insight into the Jubilee cycles.

So when the next four years fail to produce the Beast Empire, the Witnesses, and the Messiah on Cox’s timetable (as every previous Armstrongite timetable has failed), the response from those who actually trust the New Covenant can remain simple: we were never depending on it in the first place. The same Jesus who already came, already died, already rose, and already sat down at the right hand of the Father does not require Wade Cox’s permission or timeline to finish what He started.

Never give in? To what, exactly — to another round of date-setting legalism that has already been falsified a hundred times over? Every single Church of God leader has lied to us.

New Covenant Christians can safely file this one under “more of the same” and keep walking in the freedom for which Christ set them free. The only Holy Seed that ultimately matters is the one that was planted in the ground and rose again. Everything else is commentary — and increasingly absurd commentary at that.

"...parsing the laws of Torah in light of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ"

A reader here with an SDA background sent this to me:

BB wrote:

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!

Yes, with important qualifications. Seventh-day Adventists have long taught a structured distinction among the laws of the Torah (primarily moral vs. ceremonial, with civil/judicial often grouped with or treated similarly to the ceremonial in terms of discontinuity), interpreted in light of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, and the end of the Temple system. This is a core, longstanding SDA position, not a fringe or modern one. It provided a ready framework that HWA and related groups adapted (with their own additions and emphases), consistent with documented influences from Adventist and Church of God (Seventh Day) literature.

Core SDA Teaching on the Laws

From the pioneers onward (including Ellen G. White and official statements), SDAs distinguish:

• Moral law (especially the Ten Commandments / Decalogue): Eternal, reflecting God’s character, written by God’s finger on stone, placed in the ark. It existed before Sinai (in principle), was not abolished at the cross, and remains binding. The seventh-day Sabbath is treated as part of this moral core (a creation ordinance, not merely ceremonial). Transgression of it is sin.

• Ceremonial (or ritual/typical) law: The system of animal sacrifices, priesthood, Temple/sanctuary rituals, annual feasts and sabbaths, circumcision, and related ordinances. These were temporary “shadows” or types pointing forward to Christ. They were “nailed to the cross” / abolished when type met antitype in Jesus’ death (citing Colossians 2:14–17, Ephesians 2:15, Hebrews 9–10, etc.). The tearing of the Temple veil and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 underscored the end of that system. Continuing sacrifices after the cross would deny Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice.

• Civil/judicial laws: Often treated as specific to ancient Israel as a theocratic nation. They expired with that national arrangement (or their “general equity” principles continue in a limited way). Many SDA discussions fold them with the ceremonial under the broader “law of Moses” or “handwriting of ordinances” that passed away, while the moral law remains.

Ellen White repeatedly emphasized the “two laws” contrast: the moral law is abiding and changeless; the ceremonial was provisional, added because of transgression, and ceased at the cross. Official SDA belief statements and commentaries reaffirm that the ceremonial system (including annual sabbaths and festivals) ended with Christ’s death, while the moral law (including the weekly Sabbath) continues. This is not a full “mini-Torah” ranked by progressive residual force in the exact hierarchical packaging some later groups used, but it is a clear parsing that retains a remnant of Torah precepts as still in force (the Decalogue + related moral principles) while discarding the sacrificial/ritual core.

Mikvahs/ritual washings fall under the ceremonial category that ended. Clean/unclean food distinctions have been more debated or retained in modified form by some Adventists (health emphasis), but the core sacrificial and Temple-centered system is unequivocally ended.

Relation to HWA

HWA did not invent the moral/ceremonial distinction—it is older Christian (and specifically Adventist) territory, with roots in broader Protestant discussions of the tripartite division (moral/ceremonial/civil), though SDAs put special weight on the Sabbath remaining moral. HWA and the Worldwide Church of God drew heavily from Seventh-day Adventist and Church of God (Seventh Day) sources early on. He retained the Sabbath, clean meats, and a version of the moral/ceremonial split, then expanded it with his own emphases (British Israelism, holy days as still binding in modified form, tithing systems, etc.) and frequently presented discoveries as personal divine revelation. Critics and researchers have long noted the pattern of borrowing from Adventist literature while claiming unique restoration.

The recollection you describe is substantially accurate on the SDA side: they did systematically set aside sacrifices and related rituals because of Christ and the end of the Temple system, retain the Decalogue (especially the Sabbath) as still binding, and package this as the continuing obligation for God’s people. Whether it was a neat “hierarchy progressing into a remnant” ready for direct plagiarism depends on the specific blog comments you recall; the foundational categories and the Christ/Temple rationale were already clearly articulated in SDA teaching long before HWA’s public work. HWA’s “spin” and claims of personal revelation fit his documented methodology across prophecy and doctrine.

Are YOU Paying Enough to Be Philadelphia? A 1966 Checklist for the Truly Special

Samuel Kitchen has reposted Leroy Neff's 1966 article on Are YOU a Philadelphia Christian?

This article has zero relevance to modern Christianity. It is pure 1960s Worldwide Church of God (Armstrongist) propaganda designed to manufacture exclusivity, enforce loyalty, extract money and effort, and keep members terrified of becoming “Laodicean.”

Leroy Neff takes the message to the church in Philadelphia in Revelation 3 and turns it into a self-congratulatory checklist for Herbert Armstrong’s organization, then headquartered in Pasadena. The logic runs like this:The WCG is the Philadelphia era because it has an “open door” (radio and the printing press). Therefore every true member must show the same “fruits”: fervent daily prayer for “the Work,” faithful tithing plus generous offerings, fasting, zeal for the organization’s growth (the famous 30% annual increase claim), submission to the ministry, awareness of personal weakness, and endurance.

Those who do this get the special promise of protection from the Great Tribulation. Everyone else (including most of “Israel” and the supposed Laodiceans) gets tortured and martyred.
Bonus reward: after the resurrection you become a “pillar” at headquarters in Jerusalem, help run the modern technological World Tomorrow, get God’s name written on you, and literally become God (same divine family as Christ, just lower rank).

This is classic Armstrongite framing: one true church, sequential church eras, British-Israel prophetic identity in the background, hierarchical authority, mandatory financial support of “the Work,” and the promise of divinity.

The church-eras theory is not Christian doctrine. Mainstream historic Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, evangelical) has never taught that Revelation 2–3 describes seven successive eras of the true church across 2,000 years, with the final two being “Philadelphia” and “Laodicea.” Those chapters are letters to seven real congregations in first-century Asia Minor. The messages contain warnings and encouragements that apply to believers in every age. Turning them into a secret timeline that conveniently ends with Herbert Armstrong’s radio work is an Armstrong invention, not New Testament teaching.

There is no biblical “Philadelphia Christian” identity test tied to one organization. The article’s entire purpose is to make members of one specific group feel uniquely special and protected while implying that everyone outside (or insufficiently zealous inside) is lukewarm and headed for tribulation. That is the opposite of the New Testament emphasis on the universal body of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the fruits of the Spirit rather than organizational metrics.

The “open door” and “works” claims are self-serving. Neff equates going through the open door with supporting Armstrong’s media outreach via prayer, tithes, offerings, and fasting. That is fundraising and loyalty language dressed up as Revelation. Modern Christianity does not measure spiritual standing by how much one funds a particular headquarters or how closely one matches a 1960s growth statistic.

The “we become God” teaching is outside orthodox Christianity. The article explicitly says believers will be born into God’s family and “be God, just as Christ is now God.” That is the Armstrongist God-family doctrine (sometimes called the “God-kind”). Historic Christianity rejects it. The New Testament speaks of adoption, sharing in the divine nature, and reigning with Christ; it does not teach that humans become additional members of the Godhead.
Fear-based performance religion is the opposite of the New Covenant. The piece constantly pressures readers: check your fruits, don’t let someone steal your crown, don’t become Laodicean, cry out because you are weak and helpless, keep supporting the Work or miss the place of safety. This is classic legalistic control. It produces anxiety and conformity, not the freedom and assurance the New Testament offers those who are in Christ.

This is not a serious exposition of Revelation. It is mid-1960s WCG internal messaging intended to make members feel they alone are the faithful remnant while everyone else—including the rest of Christianity—is dismissed as deficient. It has no more relevance to contemporary Christian faith and practice than a 1966 sales memo for “the Work.” The New Testament does not require you to identify with a 20th-century American radio church, measure your spirituality by its growth rate, or fear tribulation if your offerings or zeal drop.

Bwana Bob’s Eternal German Beast Hunt: Why Baron Guttenberg Remains the End-Time Führer No Matter What the News Says

Bob Thiel has done it again.

An AfD candidate in Saxony-Anhalt gets called “Germany’s most dangerous man” by Der Spiegel. Mainstream politicians openly discuss whether the party should be banned. Actual Germans are debating migration, crime, and the future of their democracy in real time.

And what does the self-appointed prophet of Arroyo Grande do with this material?

He uses it as yet another launch pad to remind us that the real man to watch is still… Baron Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.

Of course he does.

For more than sixteen years Bob has been treating the former German defense minister like a prophetic lottery ticket that somehow never expires. Since at least 2009–2010 he has informed the faithful that this particular aristocratic Catholic with a long name is a prime candidate for the final King of the North, the Beast of Revelation, the Great Monarch of various medieval Catholic private revelations, and the man who will one day revive a version of the Holy Roman Empire, crush the United States, and march people off into captivity.

The latest article follows the familiar script with almost comic precision.

Yes, the AfD is rising. Yes, people are comparing them to pre-WWII conditions. Yes, Bob even recycles his own 2023 video titled “AfD: Prelude to a Hitler Beast?”

But then comes the inevitable pivot:

“Probably much more than Ulrich Siegmund. Though Ulrich Siegmund may trigger factors to get Germany to change, etc. The Baron remains someone to watch (Mark 13:37).”

There it is. The sacred formula. Whatever happens in actual German politics, the Baron is still the one.

Bob’s confidence is impressive when you remember the academic foundation supporting it.

He holds a legitimate Ph.D. in the sciences from a regionally accredited American university. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the idea that this equips him to function as an authoritative interpreter of biblical apocalyptic literature or as a reliable identifier of the final Beast.

His Th.D. comes from a foreign, non-regionally-accredited program that critics have repeatedly noted does not carry the weight of a recognized theological doctorate from an established seminary. In the world of serious biblical scholarship this matters. In Bob’s world it does not, because the real training program was Armstrongism itself — a system famous for identifying specific modern individuals as prophetic figures and then quietly adjusting the timeline when reality refuses to cooperate.

That training shows.

One of Bob’s favorite “proofs” is a 2011 Die Zeit interview in which Guttenberg described himself as a “political animal, a ‘zoon politikon.’”

Bob has repeated this line for years as if the Baron had casually confessed to being the Beast of Revelation.

In reality it is Aristotle’s ordinary description of human beings as social and political creatures. The German press at the time mocked Guttenberg for name-dropping classical terms he barely understood. Bob treats the same throwaway line as prophetic self-identification.

This is not exegesis. This is a man with a hammer seeing every German aristocrat as a nail.
Sixteen Years of “One to Watch”

By Bob’s own count he has been tracking Guttenberg since the late 2000s. He has published lists of “speculative predictions” that the Baron has supposedly partially fulfilled (advocating more European military cooperation, having a certain kind of background, etc.). He has even gotten excited when the man grew a beard.

Meanwhile Guttenberg left government after a plagiarism scandal, spent years in the United States, returned to Germany, and settled into the life of a well-connected consultant, crypto advisor, and occasional talking head. He is not running a political party. He is not building a new European army. He is not the chancellor-in-waiting.

Yet every time a German headline appears that can be stretched far enough, Bob dusts off the same article template and declares that the Baron is still “one to watch.”

This is the prophetic equivalent of a sports commentator who has been predicting the same aging quarterback will win the Super Bowl for a decade and a half. Eventually the audience is allowed to notice that the prediction has become more important than the evidence.

Armstrongism already had a track record of failed date-setting and overly specific identifications. Bob has taken that tendency and refined it into a permanent personality cult around one European politician who shows no particular interest in fulfilling the role assigned to him.

Catholic private revelations that mention a “Great Monarch” of certain bloodlines are treated as near-canonical. Vague similarities to Daniel 11 are elevated into near-certainty. The fact that dozens of European aristocrats over the centuries could have been made to fit the same medieval descriptions is ignored.

The result is not careful prophetic warning. It is a closed loop in which every political development in Germany is forced to orbit the same man Bob decided was special in 2010.

Ulrich Siegmund may or may not become a significant political figure. The AfD may or may not gain real power in eastern states. Germany may or may not lurch further right. Those are actual questions for actual political analysis.

Bob’s contribution is to announce that whatever happens, the Baron is still the one to watch — because Bob has been watching him for sixteen years and sees no reason to stop now.

That is not prophecy.

That is a man with no serious theological credentials from an accredited school of theology, trained in a system already famous for over-identifying people and under-delivering on timelines, who has simply found a German aristocrat he cannot let go of.

The Beast of Revelation may one day appear.

Whether Baron Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is that man remains, after more than a decade and a half of breathless watching, exactly as unproven as it was the day Bob first typed the name.

But rest assured: the next time a German politician says something mildly interesting, Bob will be ready with the same article, the same video clip, and the same solemn declaration that the Baron remains “someone to watch.”

Some habits, it seems, are harder to break than the Holy Roman Empire.

Jim Franks’ Latest End-Time Sales Pitch: Same Old Fear, Same Old Collection Plate

Jim Franks of COGWA has once again dusted off the classic Armstrongist playbook.

In his July member letter, he opened with Matthew 24:7, listed every war, famine, disease, and earthquake currently in the news, declared that “never have we seen so many of these events, back-to-back,” and then solemnly reminded everyone that only the return of Christ can save the world. The unspoken subtext? Stay scared. Stay loyal. And while you’re at it, keep those tithe checks coming—because the end is always nearer when the offering needs a boost.

Let’s be clear. New Covenant believers do not deny that the world is broken. Wars rage. People starve. Diseases spread. The ground shakes. Jesus Himself said these things would happen. What He did not say is that every generation of self-appointed watchmen should turn the evening news into a fundraising telethon.

Armstrongism has been running this exact script for decades. In the 1960s and 1970s it was “1975 in Prophecy.” Then it was the next failed date, and the next, and the next. David Pack has made an entire career out of announcing Christ’s return to Wadsworth on a schedule that keeps getting revised. Bob Thiel regularly discovers that this year’s conflicts are the final ones. Jim Franks continues in the endless COG chorus, cataloguing conflicts from Ukraine to Sudan to Venezuela’s earthquakes as proof that “we are living in the time that Christ referred to as the end of this age.”

The pattern is transparent. Fear keeps people watching the horizon instead of examining the organization. Fear makes members feel they dare not leave “the one true church” because the Great Tribulation is just around the corner. And fear, historically, has been excellent for the budget.

New Covenant reality is different. Christ already came. He already finished the work. The Kingdom is not a distant event we must anxiously finance into existence; it is already breaking forth wherever the Spirit of the risen Lord is. We are not under a system that requires constant end-time adrenaline to stay faithful. We are free to live, love, work, raise families, and serve without the background music of perpetual panic.

Yes, we watch. Yes, we pray. “Your kingdom come” is still the right prayer. But we do not pray it while clutching our wallets in terror that the next earthquake proves our particular corporate charter is the only safe place. We pray it as people who already belong to the One who has overcome the world.

So when the next COGWA or XCOG letter arrives listing the latest wars and pestilences and urging us not to “pretend all is normal,” New Covenant believers can answer calmly: We already know it isn’t normal. We also know that the remedy is not another round of fear-driven loyalty tests. The remedy is Christ Himself—already given, already sufficient, already enough.

The world is messy. The gospel is not. Stop selling fear. Start living freedom.

The Armstrongist Mini-Torah Doing an End-Run Around the Law

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.