Crackpot Prophet's 15 Year Long Bitterness Causes Him To Lash Out Once Again at LCG and PCG - They Are Too Stupid To Know When The Tribulation Starts

In December 2011 Bob Thiel submitted wording changes to Living Church of God’s Statement of Official Beliefs. Charlotte evangelists and ministers allegedly nodded along like they always did whenever Bob opened his mouth, stroking his overinflated ego. By the end of January 2012 the Great Tribulation paragraph was supposed to start at Daniel 11:39 instead of 11:40, because Herbert Armstrong once said something that later got a better translation, and because “Jacob’s trouble” must line up with an attack on the “strongest fortresses” (read: the United States and its British-descended cousins) before the King of the North whirlwinds into the King of the South.

LCG never changed it. As of 2026, their official statement still cites Daniel 11:40–45. Thiel left in late 2012 in a bitter fit of rage and founded the improperly named "Continuing" Church of God, and has spent the subsequent decade and a half reminding the entire universe that they promised him they would change it, but they never did. The grievance has outlived Roderick Meredith. It has outlived multiple world crises that were supposed to be the crisis. It has become its own liturgical calendar: the Feast of Unimplemented Changes.

This is not “love of the truth.” This is a man who treated a parenthetical citation like a marriage vow and then wrote a memoir about the divorce every year.

Armstrongite prophecy is a fear-management system dressed as truth. British-Israelism tells you that America and Britain are Ephraim and Manasseh; therefore, every bad headline is God spanking His favorite grandchildren. The King of the North (a German-led European beast, Holy Roman Empire 2.0) is coming to smash the “strongest fortresses.” The King of the South (an Arab/Muslim coalition south of Jerusalem) will “push,” get overrun, and then the real fireworks start. The TRUE Philadelphians get first-class tickets to Petra and their premium choice of caves. Everyone else is Laodicean and late for the bus and will be either taken as salves to Europe or butchered in the most gruesome manner. After all, Armstrongism requires the butchery to be the most gruesome ever imagined.

Thankfully, new covenant Christianity does not require you to live inside this delusional bubble Thiel has created.

Jesus did not say “blessed are those who correctly sequence Daniel 11:39 versus 11:40 so they can flee on time.” He said the hour is coming when true worshipers worship in spirit and truth, not on this mountain or that one. He said no one knows the day or the hour. He said do not be anxious about tomorrow. The new covenant is “I will remember their sins no more,” not “update your statement of beliefs or you lose the mantle and die in the tribulation.”

You do not have to decode whether “he” in verse 39 is already dividing the land for gain with a strange god before the king of the south pushes in verse 40. You do not have to treat Herbert Armstrong’s WWII-era reading, later adjusted, then re-litigated by a delusional self-appointed prophet, as the hinge of salvation history. The gospel is not a prophecy chart with a “place of safety” checkbox.

Armstrongism turned the Bible into a national-identity decoder ring and then a loyalty test: if your group won’t adopt my sequence, it cannot hold the Philadelphia mantle and therefore cannot finish the work. That is not New Testament Christianity. That is franchise warfare with extra proof-texting.

Daniel 11 is a long, detailed chapter that tracks the post-Alexander world: Ptolemies in the south (Egypt) versus Seleucids in the north (Syria), then later Rome absorbing the northern role. Armstrongism projects the end of the chapter onto the end of the world:

• King of the North = the final European revival of the Holy Roman Empire / Beast system, frequently German-centered, often with a religious figure riding along (Baron Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg). This power supposedly first hits the modern descendants of Israel (US/UK/Canada/Australia/NZ) and later the Middle East.
• King of the South = a coming Islamic or Arab confederacy, classically Egypt-led or a broader caliphate-style bloc “south of Jerusalem.”

The intra-COG fight Thiel is still having is almost comically small: does the Great Tribulation begin when the northern king goes after the Anglo-American “strongest fortresses” (v. 39, Thiel’s hill), or when he later collides with the southern king (v. 40, LCG/PCG wording)? Both camps agree the US and Britain are prophetic Israel, Europe is the bad guy, Muslims are the other bad guy, and their own tiny group is the one that will know when to run. They just disagree on which verse number starts the horror movie.

HWA originally tied some of this to WWII-era events and a KJV rendering of v. 39 that is less clear than later translations. Thiel’s argument is that Armstrong later shifted and that LCG leaders privately agreed in 2008 and 2011. Whether that hallway conversation happened exactly as remembered is now less important than the fact that it is still the main character in 2026 blog posts.

COG history after Armstrong is a demolition derby of “the other guys lost the mantle.” Global became Living after Meredith was ousted. Living produced Continuing after Thiel decided integrity and footnotes had fled Charlotte. Philadelphia Church of God, Restored, United, and dozens of smaller letters-of-the-alphabet groups all claim to be the faithful remnant. Each one has a slightly different chart, a slightly different villain, and a slightly different reason the others are Laodicean.

Thiel additionally claims prophetic status: dreams, a “double portion” anointing that an LCG minister later said he didn’t intend as a prophet ordination AND that NO ONE can verify ever happened as Thiel said it did, and a running list of world events that “align.” Just because “something vaguely Europe or Middle-East-shaped happened this year” is not the same as “thus saith the Lord.” Thiel loves to boast that he doesn’t take a salary and continuously lets us know he writes an astonishing volume of material. Both can be true. Neither requires you to fear missing the exact verse where Jacob’s trouble begins.

The ongoing bitterness is the proof. A person who left over integrity in 2012 and then spent fifteen years cataloging the same unkept promise is not practicing good theology. He is keeping a wound warm. LCG’s refusal to swap 11:40 for 11:39 in a document most members will never parse is treated as proof they cannot lead the final phase of the work. That is an extraordinary amount of spiritual weight to hang on a citation.

New covenant people can say the obvious thing: if your faith requires you to win an argument about the start-verse of the tribulation against a group you left in 2012, you might have mistaken the appendix for the gospel. The new covenant alternative is almost offensively simple: trust Christ, love people, stop treating speculative timelines by deluded self-appointed prophets as a membership exam, and let a 2011 memo stay in 2011. The end of the age will not be delayed because LCG used the wrong verse number in an article. It also will not arrive faster because Thiel is still nursing a massive butthurt.

Here is is the change I explained and then I submitted in writing to the Charlotte-based evangelists in December 2011 on that topic. They agreed to use the following in their Statement of Official Beliefs by the end of January 2012:

THE “GREAT TRIBULATION”

The Bible speaks of a time of great catastrophe, called the “Great Tribulation” (Matthew 24:21-22; Daniel 11:39[xxiv]-45; 12:1; Luke 21:19-36)—also called “Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:3-7). Jesus Christ Himself will have to shorten those horrific days; otherwise “no flesh would be saved” (Matthew 24:22). We believe that we are fast approaching that time.   We also believe that God promises to protect the faithful Philadelphians from this “hour of trial” (Revelation 3:10).[xxv]

Here are the related footnotes that were submitted as partial explanations of the proposed changes:

[xxiv] Since we teach that the Great Tribulation is the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jeremiah 30:7) and Herbert Armstrong taught that it would begin with something like a nuclear attack on the UK and/or USA, we should not start it with Daniel 11:40 which shows the battle between the King of the North and the King of the South. Verse 39 shows the King of the North going against the “strongest fortresses” (NKJV) and dividing the land for gain. And since we teach that the King of the North will go against the British-Israelite nations first, we should not teach that he goes against the King of the South first. All the HQ evangelists specifically agreed to that sequence in a meeting with me in January 2008 and this would be a good time to modify the Statement to reflect this.

[xxv] Elsewhere in the Statement we mention being Philadelphian. By adding this to the Statement we give outsiders (as well as our own members and those with a WCG background) a reason to understand that God plans to show the Philadelphians special favor.

Yet, despite agreeing, LCG still has not made the corrections over 14 years later.

In the sequence of Daniel 11, the Great Tribulation begins in verse 39, not verse 40. Now there appear to be two reasons that LCG and PCG misunderstand the sequence. First is that the late Herbert W. Armstrong originally taught that sequence because of events related to WWII and a mistranslation of verse 39 in the KJV (which was corrected in the NKJV). Although Herbert Armstrong clearly changed his position by 1979, the leaders of LCG and PCG have overlooked/discounted that. The second reason could be based upon a misunderstanding of a translation of Daniel 11:39-40:

39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. (Daniel 11:39-40, KJV)

The above does not make it clear that the King of the North (the ‘he’ in verse 39) is going against the ‘strongest fortresses like the NKJV and other translations do. Notice a Jewish translation:

39 And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whom he shall acknowledge, shall increase glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price.

40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, as he passes through. (Daniel 11:39-40, Jewish Publication Society, 1917)

Some seem to believe that the ‘time of the end’ does not begin until verse 40, but that is a misunderstanding of how the Hebrew text should be understood. The ‘and’ in verse 40 is not the start of the end, but a continuation of what began in verse 39. This is known by others. For example, the Barnes Notes on the Bible states:

And at the time of the end …. The “time of the end” must properly denote the end or consummation of the series of events under consideration, or the matter in hand, and properly and obviously means here the end or consummation of the transactions which had been referred to in the previous part of the vision. It is equivalent to what we should say by expressing it thus: “at the winding up of the affair.”

The ONLY way to reconcile that the time of Jacob’s trouble (Jeremiah 30:7) starts with the beginning of the Great Tribulation (Matthew 24:21) is to realize that it begins with verse 39 of the sequence in Daniel 11. Those who hold to a start of the Great Tribulation AFTER the King of the North attacks the King of the South will not know until it is too late.

For an English language reader, on the surface verse 40 seems correct as the start of the end, meaning the Great Tribulation there.

Yet, notice the following translation:

40 And in the time of the end the king of the south shall wage war with him: and the king of the north shall rush on like a tempest against him, with chariot and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he came into the lands, and overflowed and passed through. (Daniel 11:40, Smith’s Literal Translation)

The above makes more sense

Armstrongism's Cosmic Real-Estate Scheme: Ronald Weinland’s Latest Sales Pitch for Becoming Gods and Landscaping the Universe

Herbert W. Armstrong’s theology never settled for mere eternal life or a quiet spot in heaven. No, Armstrongism promised something far more extravagant: God is a Family of two (for now), and faithful humans who jump through the right hoops will be “born” as literal spirit gods of the same divine species. These newly minted deities will then inherit the universe itself—ruling it, beautifying it, and busily terraforming barren planets for all eternity. The Promised Land given to ancient Israel? A quaint little prototype for the real prize: galaxies upon galaxies of cosmic development projects.

Ronald Weinland, leader of the minuscule Church of God Preparing for the Kingdom of God, struck out on his own in 1998, later announcing himself a prophet, apostle, and (with his wife) one of the two witless witnesses of Revelation. His prophetic résumé from the Bob Thiel School of Prophecy is a masterclass in missed appointments: the end was supposed to arrive around 2008, then May 2012, then May 2013, then June 2019. In between failed forecasts, a federal jury in 2012 convicted him on five counts of tax evasion for underreporting income, diverting church funds to personal use, and hiding a Swiss bank account. He served 42 months and has been free since roughly 2016. Undeterred, he keeps writing. 

In July 2026, Weinland dropped Chapter 11 of his latest series—“PHASE THREE: GOD’S FAMILY IN AN ERA OF INFINITY”—complete with a companion piece titled “The Inheritance Awaiting God’s Family.” The text is pure Armstrongist greatest hits. The physical universe, we are told, was never an end in itself. Those billions of galaxies and trillions of solar systems have sat largely barren for “billions upon trillions of years” for one very good reason: the spirit beings destined to fill them, build within them, and beautify them had not yet arrived. Earth’s six-day makeover and the garden-tending assignment given to Adam and Eve were only a “very meager beginning.” Once the Family is complete, the real work begins—solar system by solar system, galaxy by galaxy—creating, improving, and enjoying perfect relationships for infinite time. Everlasting life is nice, but the true inheritance is the entire cosmos as a personal renovation project. It sounds majestic until one does the arithmetic.

Roughly 117 billion human beings have ever lived. The observable universe contains something on the order of 10²⁴ to 10²⁵ planets, with potentially habitable ones stretching into the sextillions. Assign every person who has ever drawn breath to a single world, and you still leave the overwhelming majority of the cosmos empty and unused. Armstrongism’s ready answer is that spirit-composed gods will simply create more life over infinite time and keep expanding outward. How convenient. The universe, it seems, has been politely waiting 13.8 billion years for a relative handful of overcomers to show up with their divine hard hats and landscaping tools. One can almost hear the galaxies muttering, “Finally—someone who knows how to dress and keep a solar system.” 

Then there is the family-logistics problem. If these newly deified humans are to populate planets with their descendants or relatives, where exactly does one draw the line? How many generations back must be included before the entire human race collapses into one gigantic, hopelessly interrelated clan that somehow has to fit on a single rock? At some point the celestial personnel office will have to announce, “Sorry, third cousins twice removed, you’re shipping out to that frozen moon on the edge of the Andromeda galaxy—have fun with the in-laws.” The doctrine’s solution is that earthly kinship dissolves once everyone becomes part of the one God Family. Biological family trees are transcended. Problem solved—by declaration. Scripture, of course, never bothers to describe this administrative miracle, any more than it describes resurrected saints personally seeding life on exoplanets.

These are not nitpicking details. They expose the teaching for what it is: an imaginative speculative fantasy draped over a few biblical phrases about sonship, inheritance, and creation’s longing. Armstrong took legitimate themes and inflated them into a detailed future of cosmic public works for which there is neither textual blueprint nor coherent logistics. Weinland’s latest installment adds nothing new; it simply repackages the old dream in the language of “phases” and “infinity,” delivered by a man whose track record on predicting the future is roughly as reliable as a weather forecast issued by a broken barometer.

The appeal is obvious. Who wouldn’t want to believe that ordinary human life is merely the apprenticeship for eternal godhood and endless creative projects free of selfishness, war, and human drama? The narrative flatters. It also collapses under the weight of scale, kinship, and the stubborn refusal of the Bible to endorse planet-by-planet real-estate development as the destiny of the saints. The universe is vast, ancient, and mostly empty. The claim that it has been holding its breath for a finite number of Church of God graduates to arrive and start the remodeling remains one of the more charmingly absurd promises in the crowded marketplace of religious grandiosity. Weinland and Armstrongism keep selling it. Buyers would be wise to inspect the fine print—and the arithmetic—before signing.

Herbert Armstrong's Son-in-Law Drops the Bomb: "It's True. You Can Believe It."

Herbert Armstrong's Son-in-Law Drops the Bomb: "It's True. You Can Believe It." 

The Incest Scandal That PCG and the HWA Worshippers Can't Erase

Article is by an ex-PCG member

In the twisted carnival of Armstrongism, where failed prophecies pile up like unpaid tithes and "God's Apostle" Herbert W. Armstrong is still treated like some untouchable saint by the splinter groups, every so often a voice from the past punches through the denial. This time, it's coming straight from the family. Not some bitter ex-member with an axe to grind, but the husband of Armstrong's own daughter Dorothy—Vern Mattson himself.

Back in 2010, a PCG member (yes, one of Gerald Flurry's loyal tithers) picked up the phone and dialed Sun City, Arizona. What followed was a conversation that should have nuked any remaining illusions about the "one true church" founded by a man who allegedly molested his own daughter for years. But of course, in Armstrong-land, facts are just "attacks from Satan" and reality is whatever the current "leader" says it is.

Here's the letter excerpt from that former COG member, left intact as a raw, unfiltered quote:

They found that at this time, Vern Mattson resided in Sun City, AZ., the year being 2010. Upon finding their number, my dad simply called them. Vern Mattson picked up. Dad just told him that he was a member of the Philadelphia Church of God and had been for a few years, raising his children in the Worldwide and in the PCG. Then, he just told him what my mom had heard and could these things be true? And, if they were, our dad's big question was, to Vern Mattson, why didn't someone, somebody in their family come out years ago, and tell the WCG, the truth?

First thing out of Vern Mattson's mouth was that he couldn't believe that there was now an actual college named after Herbert Armstrong in Oklahoma, and why would they do that? My dad's answer was, starting with Gerald Flurry, right on down, they firmly believed that he (Herbert W. Armstrong) was God's man. Whatever, over the years, that the leaders or members have heard or seen, no way would it or could it be believed! He told him, it's who they are, it's their lives, just like it was ours. 

 

It's what our fathers have taught us and on down the line it goes!! My dad said it was pretty quiet on the other end there, for a bit. Then he heard the words, "Well, it's true. You can believe it." 

 

He said he really had no problem talking about it now, because his wife Dottie [Dorothy], had just recently passed. He said it made him angry, sickened them for a long time, because of the thousands of people out there, in the WCG, that really had no idea! He told my dad things that evening, on the phone, that my dad felt responsible to tell me. 

 

Vern Mattson said, over the years, with all that's out there now, on these computers, David Robinson's book, and plenty others written by his top ministers; he said, you got the Ambassador Report, full of documented facts and dates, exposing all the lies, mishandling of money, the incest with his own daughter. When I found out what he had done to my wife when she was just a young girl, you see we raised a daughter too, this was his own daughter, scaring and hurting her like that, over and over again, I was going to kill him! 

 

I won't forget her words, years ago, when she asked me, how could a great and loving God go against Himself like that, by calling a man to raise up His "one and only true Church," a man that would hurt his own daughter like that? 

 

To all the fathers out there who have a daughter, your little girl, how would you answer that? 

 

I can tell you how Herbert Armstrong answered that, because of the last thing Vern Mattson told my dad on the phone that day, something he said, he has never forgotten. His wife, Dottie [Dorothy], told him of an incident that had happened back in the late `30s or so, that he could never ever repeat, but what he could say, was that she was pleading with her father one night, she wanted it to stop. (Herbert Armstrong had her in a hotel room, and her voice was overheard by others, and a person who worked there came knocking on their door, wondering if anything was wrong?) His reply, his answer--the man we so strongly believed in--his answer when my wife, his daughter, his little girl, cried out to him, was: "God gave you to me and it is my job to teach you. This will help you to be a better wife someday." 

  

So there you are. Shocking Words That Herbert Armstrong Told His Daughter Dorothy

There you are, indeed. Straight from the mouth of the man who was married to Dorothy Armstrong Mattson. Not hearsay from some disgruntled employee, but confirmation from the guy who lived with the victim and raised a daughter of his own. Vern Mattson was ready to kill HWA when he found out. Can you blame him?

Think about that for a second! The same Herbert W. Armstrong who screamed about British Israelism, the "lost ten tribes," Saturday-only salvation, and tithing your way into the Kingdom allegedly took his own young daughter into a hotel room and "taught" her in ways that left her pleading for it to stop. When hotel staff heard her distress and knocked, Papa Herbert's pious response was essentially: "God gave her to me. This is for her own good. Future wife training."

How convenient. The Apostle of Incest turns divine calling into a license for familial rape. And this is the guy whose name still graces Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma, where Flurry's crew indoctrinates the next generation of tithe-payers.

Vern Mattson couldn't believe they named a college after the man. Yeah, Vern, join the club. The cognitive dissonance in these groups is thicker than the Ambassador Auditorium's wool carpet. They heard the rumors for decades—David Robinson's book, the Ambassador Report with its documented facts, ex-ministers spilling the beans—and still doubled down: "No way could it be true! He's God's man!"

Meanwhile, Dorothy lived with the trauma. She questioned how a loving God could anoint such a monster to lead "His one and only true Church." Good question, Dottie. The answer, of course, is that He didn't. Armstrong was a charismatic grifter with a god complex, a serial adulterer (by his own admission in some accounts), and, according to his own son-in-law, an incestuous predator who used theology as a grooming tool.

This isn't ancient history to be swept under the "persecution" rug. This is the rotten foundation of the entire Armstrong empire—WCG, PCG, LCG, RCG, CCOG, and every other acronym still peddling the same legalistic poison while ignoring (or outright denying) the founder's personal corruption.

To all the current members and "ministers" still defending HWA: Vern Mattson, the man who married the victim and heard it from her own lips, said "It's true. You can believe it." Your wives, your daughters, your sons—how do you look them in the eye and keep sending in those tithes to prop up the legacy of a man who allegedly violated his own child?

The New Covenant offers real freedom from this garbage. No more idolizing dead false apostles. No more covering up evil with "don't judge God's servant" nonsense. Just Christ, grace, and the truth that sets people free.

Vern Mattson is gone now. Dorothy too. But the testimony remains. The wackiness, the hypocrisy, and the human wreckage of Armstrongism continue to be exposed—one phone call, one letter, one article at a time.

So there you are.

The Transformation of Torahic Slavery: A Peripheral Issue in Armstrongism

 

Bronze Age Celts were Great Enslavers of Germanic, Iberian and Other Celtic People

The Transformation of Torahic Slavery

A Peripheral Issue in Armstrongism

Dedicated to Anne

By Scout

My Quaker ancestors manumitted their slaves as a moral stand in the 1700s.  I know the name of only one slave that my family owned and manumitted.  Her name was Anne.   Her last name was probably my last name. Later in American history, my Great-Great-Great Grandfather owned a farm in Indiana that operated as a waystation on the Underground Railroad. Abolition was a special interest of the Society of Friends.  Herbert W. Armstrong also came from a Quaker background and condemned both slavery and the Civil War but, based on a short search of Armstrongist literature, did not seem to write about the theological import of slavery with respect to the Torah.  Slavery, as it is described in the Torah, is a model of how some laws were not set aside by the New Testament but were transformed.  The management of the Israelite institution of slavery is detailed in the Old Testament but slavery also continues as a transformed Christian concept in the New Testament.  The line of reasoning begins with the Torah.

Torahic Slavery in the Old Testament 

Slavery was common in the Bronze Age world.  For instance, it was not only an institution among the Northwest Semitic peoples, it was common in the British Isles. The Celts were great slavers.  They enslaved Germanic, Iberian, and other Celtic people.  Slavery had deep roots in the social and economic structures of these societies.   Slavery is not just a phenomenon that affects African-Americans.  All of us are descended from slave owners or the enslaved – probably both.  Mark Twain stated, “The skin of every human being contains a slave."  So, due to its wide social scope, it is not surprising that the Torah, as the national constitution of the ancient Israelite state, would have something to say about slavery.  

The surprising issue is that slavery is not condemned in the Old Testament, whether the chattel sort forced on Gentiles by Israelites or the indentured type forced on Israelites by Israelites.  Slavery is instead regulated in the Old Testament.  If you think that the Israelite form of slavery was a kinder, gentler form of slavery, like some apologists have maintained, look at this case:

“When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property (Exodus 21). 

This does not specify whether the slave is Gentile or Hebrew.  Nor is it limited by gender. Nor is it related to the severity of what caused the slave to be beaten.  So, if your elderly female cook burns the supper, you can beat her nearly to death, and if she lives to the next day, nobody can punish you.  Your whole punishment is the loss of her services.  If you maintain that Israelite slave owners would not do such a disgusting thing, understand that this would be because of their own personal morality, not because they were afraid of the Torah, which is permissive in this situation.  The law supports a specific view of human dignity. 

Armstrongists believe that the Torah is written on their hearts.  This would include the laws concerning the regulation of slavery.  These laws do not belong to the category of things that are no longer to be followed, such as the ceremonies and rituals.  Armstrongists frequently deny parts of the Torah that they don’t want to obey by saying that the particular law is either a “ceremony” or a “ritual.”  And this is generally unchallengeable because Armstrongists have never done a systematic study of the Torah and its applicability.  In a sense, the laws, because they exist, advocate the institution of slavery and a certain view of humanity.  If one believes that the Torah is written on the heart, the slavery laws will be included.  But does the New Testament see slavery from the same perspective?

Transformed Slavery in the New Testament

Certain laws in the Torah exist in a transformed, spiritual version in the New Testament Law of Christ.   This includes circumcision, the Sabbath, the sacrifices, and slavery.   Technically speaking, they did not go away.  They were instead subsumed in Christ.   Their physical implementations are set aside as covenantal requirements, but their spiritual content persists in Christ. 

So, we find that slavery exists in the New Testament, but it is spiritual rather than physical.   Paul stated the following principle in 1 Corinthians 7:22:

“For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave (Greek, doulos) is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave (doulos) belonging to Christ.”

Jesus himself is our model as a slave.  In Philippians 2:7, we have the great Kenosis:

“But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant (doulos), and was made in the likeness of men.”

Jesus elected to come to us in a diminished state as a slave.  And all Christians are slaves to Jesus Christ.  Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and John of Patmos all describe themselves as doulos. This category of spiritual slavery does not diminish human dignity as purely Torahic slavery did.  It is offset by the fact that Christians are also God’s children.  So, the concept of slavery is up close and personal for all of us.  Very likely, our ancestral lineages going way back included slaves.  And for those who walk in The Way, they are slaves of Christ. 

Slavery and the Personality of Armstrongism

A common sermon preached from the pulpits of the Confederacy was that African-Americans were descendants of Canaan and their being held in slavery was justified. This argument was referred to as the Biblical “Curse of Ham.” The Worldwide Church of God (WCG) was the only modern church that I know of that held to a very similar view. The same argument was made, but the conclusion was left unstated.  If there had been a stated conclusion in the WCG, I conjecture it would not have been that slavery was justified but, rather, explainable.  I never heard an official of the WCG say that slavery was justified from the pulpit.  

(Note: Genetic analysis indicates that Black Africans are not Canaanites.  They are y chromosome haplogroup E.  The modern-day Canaanites are the Lebanese.  They are y chromosome haplogroup J like many other peoples in the Middle East. The Lebanese are very closely related to the Jews. Herman Hoeh’s historical studies on this topic were clearly in error.  Hoeh did not have the science of genetics to aid him.)

But the pews formed a kind of notional understanding to fill the void. I had a deacon explain to me at the Feast of Tabernacles in Big Sandy back in the Seventies why African- Americans and Whites sat in separate sections.  He stated, “God’s church believes in segregation.”  I remember an article by Herman Hoeh in which he explained that people of different races should not socialize outside of church services.  If you search around in online Armstrongist archives, you won’t find much about the topic of slavery and its aftermath.  We are left with anecdotes for the most part.  These anecdotes form the personality of the WCG. 

Organizations have personalities.  And this is separate from their charters or other formal documents.  What the loyal organizational members write about the organization and what the organization’s personality actually is, may be two different things.  How the organization formally presents itself is found in carefully authored and redacted documents.  What it really is, is typically found in anecdote. The WCG projected, in my experience, a White Supremacist personality.  And this personality attracted a certain kind of membership.  I don’t know if this appeal was inadvertent or strategic. 

Conclusion

Slavery was not condemned in the Old Testament and was carried over into the New Testament in a different form.  This continuity has meaning.  The New Covenant is a covenant of better promises.  One place where this is clearly evident is in the case of the persisting but transformed institution of slavery.  The physical slavery of the Torah has given way to the spiritual slavery, an attitude of commitment and dedication, of the New Testament. Slavery is now a spiritual concept that pertains to everyone who walks in The Way.  Christians are slaves to God and Christ. 

 

 

Olam and the Seventh Day

 

Olam: it’s so far that we can’t see the end.

Olam and the Seventh Day

By Scout

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual (olam, Hebrew) covenant.  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever (olam, Hebrew): for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (KJV, Exodus 31:16-17)

I have said that God made the Sabbath a SEPARATE, ETERNAL, and PERPETUAL COVENANT, entirely separate and apart from what we term "the Old Covenant" made at Mt. Sinai ― Herbert W. Armstrong in his booklet “Which Day is the Christian Sabbath,” 1972.

 

 “Olam and the Seventh-day” sounds like a Disney movie about a Hebrew boy named Olam who learns about the seventh-day Sabbath.  But “olam” is, rather, a term in Hebrew that usually means “a long time” but can mean “eternity”.  The KJV translators seem to have made facile decisions about how to translate olam in the Old Testament.  I know of no documented, substantive exegesis concerning how they arrived at the decision to translate olam in its various usages in the Biblical text.   

In my examination of this issue, I will be relying extensively on the work of Dr. Eitan Bar who is an Israeli Jew and also a Christian and a graduate of the Dallas Theological Seminary.  Dr. Bar has a valuable word study of olam in his book titled, “Hellfire Deconstructed.”

Briefly, How the Old Testament Views Eternity

Eternity seems to be one of the leitmotifs of the Old Testament.  One gets the feeling of infinite duration as some scriptures are read.  If you get that feeling, the translators have probably misled you.  Dr. Eiten Bar wrote:

“One of the risks in interpreting an ancient Jewish Middle Eastern text—the Bible—from a Western perspective is the anachronism fallacy, which involves injecting modern ideas into the ancient text. This issue becomes particularly apparent when considering the concept of time.  In Western philosophy, eternity is a subject of extensive debate, but the concept, as understood today, essentially does not exist in the Near Eastern biblical context.”

The idea of infinite duration imposed on the ancient Hebrew language of the Old Testament creates an anachronism.  It is like Shakespeare writing of a striking clock in the play “Julius Caesar” when the mechanical striking clock was not invented until the Middle Ages.  The Hebrew term “olam,” which is often translated anachronistically as forever or everlasting, much later concepts, really just means something like “hidden” or “not visible” in the sense that it is beyond sight.  It means something that lasts so long or extends so far, for instance, that we cannot see the end of it from where we stand.  It does not rule out that it is finite or will one day end.  There are many Biblical examples of something that is olam and is of finite duration.  In Jeremiah 5:29, olam refers to a period of 70 years.  This issue of semantics has a direct impact on how Exodus 31:16-17, concerning the seventh-day, is interpreted. 

So, if you are reading the Old Testament and the text is laced with references to eternity, consider that your expansive mood may stem from the wrong impression, that the term olam for the most part does not mean eternity.  And it is time to read more deeply.

A Reassessment of the Seventh-Day Sabbath Covenant Text

When the Sabbath Covenant of Exodus 31 is reviewed in light of the equivocal meaning of olam, the Covenant might be eternal or it might not be. While olam refers to a finite but long duration, the term olam can also be used to mean “eternal” in at least one place in the Old Testament.  God is referred to as El Olam or the Eternal God.  Clearly, there is no finitude or possibility of a distant future ending possible in this usage.  So, how do we figure out what Olam means?  Olam means “a long time” or “eternity” depending on context. So, we must look at the context. 

Exodus 31 does not stand by itself.  In fact, nothing in the Old Testament stands by itself.  It is all under the authority of the New Testament.  This is because Jesus himself is the Word of God. The Old Testament is not superior to Jesus. It is absurd to think that Jesus was just another Torah-keeper, that the law is at the center and Jesus is peripheral. This profound transition from the Old to the New Testament is described by the Apostle John when he said, “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”  Notice that Jesus brought not only grace but the truth.  Jesus brought us the true state of reality. This is one reason that the teachings of the New Testament may legitimately modify the Old Testament. 

We must reassess the seventh-day Sabbath covenant in Exodus 31.  To do this, we must see it in the context of the New Testament.  Prominent in any such review will be the Jerusalem Council’s conclusions.  Prominent will be the model of circumcision and how circumcision was transformed.   This will inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the Sabbath is still in force.  It is eternal just as Exodus 31 states.  But our rest is not in the seventh-day but in Jesus.  The line of reasoning follows.

The New Testament Rest is Not the Seventh-Day

It is important to understand that the concept of the seventh-day and the Sabbath are separate.  We know this from the New Testament.  The word Sabbath in Hebrew does not mean seventh-day or the number seven.  It means a deliberate cessation of activity, therefore, implying rest.  God implemented the Sabbath by resting from creation on the seventh-day in the allegorical language of Genesis.  (God does not need to rest in order to recharge like a human.  But he did cease from a certain kind of activity.) So, only God can re-implement the Sabbath in a different way.  Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28-29, NRSV).” We now find our rest in Jesus. Notice this statement covers both physical and spiritual rest.  Also, in this statement, Jesus separates spiritual rest from the seventh-day by making himself the new source of rest.  The concept of rest is carried forward but the physical ritual of the seventh-day is set aside. 

This change that makes Jesus our rest tells us the intent of the language of the Sabbath Covenant in Exodus in retrospect.  It is important to again consider at this point that the seventh-day Sabbath, like circumcision, is a composite of a spiritual concept and a physical ritual.  It is composed of both spiritual rest and the physical seventh-day observance.   Olam in the Exodus 31 context does mean “eternal” but it is focused on the meaning of the Sabbath as spiritual rest rather than on the physical seventh-day. We would not know the intended usage of olam in Exodus 31 if we did not have New Testament events to refer to. It is safe to conclude that Moses did not know the full extent of what he was saying in Exodus 31 because he did not have access to New Testament revelation.  So, the change Jesus made in how the rest is to happen through him asserts the meaning of olam as eternal in regard to spiritual rest only. 

Let me hasten to add, that the observance of the seventh-day is not wrong.  I am confident that prior to 70 AD, the Jerusalem Church observed the seventh-day and, perhaps, much of the Torah.  Pauline theology and the Book of Hebrews is convincing that this observation must have been liturgical – a worship form.  The seventh-day, like circumcision, only becomes a departure from Christianity if it is asserted that its observance is a requirement for salvation. 

Conclusion

The Hebrew word olam because of its ambiguity is not by itself sufficient to decree that the seventh-day is the Sabbath for all of eternity as Herbert W. Armstrong states.  One cannot cite the Sabbath Covenant in Exodus 13 as a means of settling all debate.  One cannot approach the New Testament scripture with the eternity of the seventh-day observance in pocket as an already-decided issue because the New Testament has the final word.  The covenant of circumcision was also described as eternal (olam) and ceased to be the cutting in the flesh in the Old Covenant and became a matter of the heart in the New Covenant. In regard to both circumcision and the seventh-day, the spiritual meaning has been retained but the former physical implementation has ended.  This is because the New Testament gives completed, present meaning to what was intended in the Old Testament.  Jesus is the Word of God in action and the New Testament message that he brought to us supplants the Old Testament.  

 

 

How One Miserable Little COG Leader Turned America’s Birthday Into His Personal Victimhood Parade...Of Course He Did...

Never in the history of the Churches of God have we had a more miserable, self-serving narcissistic asswipe as a Church of God leader than what we currently have in Bwana Bob Thiel, who is continually vomiting all over the COG, Christianity, and the United States. Bwana Bob is starting to make Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, and Ron Weinland look halfway sane! Is this guy ever happy or appreciative of ANYTHING?

As we approach July 4th, Bwana Bob is sitting in Arroyo Grande, squealing like a stuck pig stuck behind its feed trough.

He writes:

Typically, on the Fourth of July, many in the USA will have barbecues, watch parades, and/or view fireworks.

Those who live in the USA may wish to re-read its Declaration of Independence as its government in this century not only seems to have a disdain for more of the law of God, it also is probably more guilty than the old British rule for committing many acts that caused the colonists to revolt in the first place.

A reader sent me the following:

June and the first week of July, The colonies were at war against the great power of England. Men in a hot humid closed July room debated the future course of history. Lee’s proposal for independence led to a committee of of 5 to write out a Declaration. I will be showing Jefferson’s draft and the paragraph about slavery that was removed. Trumbull’s painting shows the draft being presented to Congress on June 28. Final approval and vote for independence soon followed.

Many years ago, I read my family much of the Declaration and commented upon how the then current USA federal, state, and local governments had committed most of the same actions against our family (directly and/or indirectly) that the USA’s revolutionary leaders objected to from the British king. I did that on the 4th of July a couple of times.

While every other Church of God leader in living memory has spent the Fourth of July the normal way — grilling burgers, watching parades, lighting fireworks, and actually enjoying the country — Bwana Bob has once again decided the holiday exists solely so he can lecture everyone about how oppressed he is. 

In his latest gloomy dispatch, Thiel announces that the Declaration of Independence has basically been weaponized against his family. Yes, you read that right. The same document that launched a revolution is now, according to Bob, a personal indictment of how the U.S. government has been picking on the Thiels. No other COG leader has ever pulled this narcissistic stunt. They celebrated the holiday. 

Bob turns it into a 3,000-word whiny little bitchfest about how the modern American state is somehow worse than King George III specifically because it has offended him.

Here’s what Bob actually wrote, stripped of the pious wrapping paper:

He starts by admitting that normal people do barbecues, parades, and fireworks on the Fourth. Then he immediately pivots to “you should re-read the Declaration because the current U.S. government is committing all the same crimes the British did… and worse.” He even brags that he used to read the whole thing to his family on the holiday and point out how the feds, states, and locals were doing the exact same oppressive things to them. Because of course the IRS audits, COVID rules, and surveillance programs were all about destroying the Thiel household personally. Classic.

He then pastes a reader’s email listing every modern annoyance — taxes, vaccine mandates, travel restrictions, CBDCs, “forever wars,” regulations, politicized justice, and cultural degeneracy — and treats it like fresh revelation. Bob’s big insight: Americans have “less independence to celebrate” every year. Shocking.

The heart of the piece is his line-by-line comparison of the Declaration’s grievances against King George to today’s America. He hits every greatest hit:

The king refused to assent to laws → Today’s presidents and courts do the same (especially when they don’t like what Bob likes) 

 

The king obstructed justice and created new offices to harass people → Patriot Act, Homeland Security, IRS targeting conservatives, COVID restrictions, and now even more biometric surveillance and AI under the current administration. 

 

Taxes without consent → We pay way more than the colonists ever did, so it’s basically the same. 

 

Standing armies and foreign mercenaries → Militarized police and endless foreign wars.  

 

Loss of privacy, property, due process, free speech, and bodily autonomy → Everything from SWAT teams to forced vaccines to government snooping. 

 

He even quotes John Whitehead at length about how the Constitution is already dead and we’re living under a de facto police state. Because nothing says “happy birthday, America” like telling everyone the founding documents are meaningless and the government is coming for your dog.

Thiel tops it all off by complaining that the Declaration is “too religious” for modern media (it mentions “Nature’s God” and “Divine Providence”), that the country has essentially declared independence from God, and that only national repentance can save us. He throws in the usual list of national sins — homosexuality, abortion, pornography, debt — for good measure. Then, in the classic Thiel closer, he says the country is doomed but you personally can still repent and have a brighter future than the nation. Translation: Listen to Bob or burn.

The entire article is one long exercise in turning a day of national celebration into Bob’s personal grievance session. He takes a document written by men who risked everything to create a new country and uses it as a mirror to stare at his own reflection and complain that the government isn’t nice enough to him. Other Church of God leaders managed to enjoy the Fourth without turning it into a sermon about how the entire United States is now a bigger tyrant than the one the founders overthrew — and how it’s all happening specifically to inconvenience Bob Thiel. 

He didn’t write a reflection on liberty. He wrote a 3,000-word complaint that the holiday exists to remind everyone how miserable he is and how everyone else should feel the same way. 

Happy Fourth, everyone. Try not to let Crackpot Bob ruin it.

Precept Upon Precept, Clown Upon Clown: How Armstrongism Turned God’s Mockery Into Their Holy Study Method

 

But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Isaiah 28:13

Ah, yes. The classic Armstrongist party trick. Whenever some wide-eyed prospective member or lingering splinter drone starts asking too many pesky questions about why the "one true church" cherry-picks doctrines like a starving raccoon in a dumpster, out comes the triumphant bellow: "Precept upon precept! Line upon line! Here a little, there a little!" It's their sacred get-out-of-context-free card, the magical incantation that justifies ripping verses from here, there, and everywhere to "prove" British Israelism, mandatory tithing to headquarters, triple tithes and offerings during "God's" feast days, the sacred calendar, clean/unclean meats, and whatever other Old Covenant legalism HWA and his prophetic successors decided was essential for salvation that week.

Let's actually open the Bible and see what Isaiah 28:9-13 says, shall we? (You know, the whole context thing that the "Philadelphia era" remnant claims to love so much.)

King James Version (because that's the one they prefer when it suits them):

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Notice something? The phrases "precept upon precept" etc. are not a divine study method handed down from on high. They are the mocking taunt of drunken, scoffing priests and prophets in Ephraim (and by extension, Judah) who are ridiculing Isaiah's message. They're saying, in effect: "Who does this guy think he's teaching? Babies just weaned from the breast? Blah blah blah, rule on rule, line on line, a little here, a little there—yada yada yada." It's baby talk to their sophisticated, wine-soaked ears.

God is not patting them on the back for their systematic theology homework. He's pronouncing judgment. They rejected the true rest and refreshing found in Him (verse 12 — hello, New Covenant shadow), preferring their own religious game of collecting scattered proof-texts while ignoring the heart of the matter. As a result, the very words they mocked become a trap that causes them to stumble, fall backward, be broken, snared, and taken captive.

How Armstrongism Distorted It Masterfully

Herbert W. Armstrong and his theological descendants (Thiel, Pack, Flurry, Kitchen, Brisby, and the rest of the clown car) turned this passage of divine mockery and judgment into their primary hermeneutical operating system. "The Bible is a jigsaw puzzle! You have to put it together precept upon precept, here a little there a little!" they'd thunder from the pulpit, while conveniently ignoring that the passage is God describing how the unrepentant stumble over His word precisely because of that fragmented, rules-focused approach without the Spirit.

This "method" gave them unlimited license to:

• Proof-text their way to British Israelism by yanking obscure verses about ancient tribes and slapping them onto modern Anglo-Saxon nations. Never mind the mountains of genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence against it.

• Reimpose the Old Covenant (or their mutated version of it) on New Covenant believers. Tithing? Check. Holy Days? Check. Dietary laws? Check. Sabbath policing? Double check. All while Jesus and the Apostles made it clear the shadows have been fulfilled in Christ.

• Dodge the plain teaching of Scripture on grace, faith, and rest in Christ. Why deal with the finished work of the Cross when you can hopscotch through 66 books looking for supporting snippets?

• Maintain control. If everything is "here a little, there a little," only the enlightened Apostle or his chosen successor can properly assemble the puzzle. Question the assembly? You're a Laodicean, rebellious, or worse.

It's peak irony. The passage warns against treating God's word like a bunch of disconnected rules from a drunken religious elite who rejected rest in Him — and Armstrongism built an entire empire on doing exactly that.

The Real Point They Missed (Because It Would Bankrupt Their Empire)

Verse 12 is the heart: 

This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Sound familiar? Jesus said, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). The New Covenant isn't about mastering scattered precepts through human effort and headquarters-approved Bible studies. It's about faith in the finished work of Christ, the true Cornerstone (Isaiah 28:16, right in the same chapter they love to twist).

The Armstrongist approach — endless rule-stacking, fear of "falling away" if you miss a Holy Day, financial extraction disguised as "God's government," and spiritual exhaustion — is the exact opposite of rest. It's the path that leads to being "broken, and snared, and taken." Just look at the devastated lives, failed prophecies, scandals, and shrinking congregations across the splinters. The trap worked exactly as Isaiah described.

Congratulations, COG leaders! You've taken a passage where God mocks religious know-it-alls who treat His word like a rulebook for toddlers and turned it into your infallible method for reinventing Judaism with a thin coat of "Church of God" paint. Precept upon precept indeed — mostly the precepts of men that make the word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13, another verse they probably "here a little" away from).

If you're in one of these groups and feeling weary, exhausted, and spiritually snared... maybe stop treating the Bible like a drunken scoffer’s puzzle and listen to what God actually said about rest. The refreshing is available in Christ, not in another "special" Bible study booklet from Wadsworth, Grover Beach, Edmond, or wherever the latest self-appointed Elijah is holed up.

The word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept... that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken.

New Covenant Christians must grasp this passage not as a clever study tip, but as a stark warning against the very snare that trapped generations in Armstrongism. The "precept upon precept" approach, when stripped of its sarcastic biblical context, becomes a self-perpetuating system of spiritual bondage—piecing together isolated rules while missing the grand tapestry of grace fulfilled in Jesus. It keeps believers perpetually weaned from the true milk of the Word, treating Scripture as a divine puzzle only "God's government" can solve, rather than a living revelation pointing to rest in Christ.

In light of Armstrong's distortions, believers today are called to reject this fragmented legalism entirely. The New Covenant, sealed by the blood of the Lamb, frees us from the exhaustive labor of reassembling Old Covenant shadows. No more hunting "here a little, there a little" for justification through diet, days, or dollars. Instead, we stand on the solid Cornerstone, where the weary find genuine refreshing—not in headquarters-approved booklets or self-appointed apostles, but in the finished work of the Cross. This understanding dismantles the fear tactics and control mechanisms that thrive on confusion, replacing them with the simplicity of faith, love, and liberty in the Spirit. No one needs Bob Thiel, Dave Pack, Gerald Weston, Gerald Flurry telling them jus how things are supposed to be. 

Ultimately, Isaiah 28 exposes how religious elites stumble when they mock God's offer of rest. For those emerging from Armstrongist shadows, this means embracing the full implications of the New Covenant: no more hybrid law-grace systems, no more "one true church" elitism, and no more exhaustion masquerading as obedience. True doctrine flows not from puzzle-solving prowess, but from relationship with the One who is our Sabbath rest. As you study Scripture, do so with eyes fixed on Christ—the refreshing that the scoffers rejected. In doing so, you avoid the trap, walk in freedom, and become a voice of clarity for others still entangled in the wreckage of failed prophecies and man-made empires. The rest is not only better; it is the very gospel itself.

“Line Upon Line, precept upon precept” Is Not What You Think — The New Covenant Warning in Isaiah 28:10

UCG Council of Elders is getting ready to present to their followers a doctrinal paper on Isaiah 28:10.

Isaiah 28:10 (in context) does not teach “line upon line, precept upon precept” as a positive Bible-study method under the New Covenant. That is a common modern misapplication. Here is the accurate meaning, including its New Covenant fulfillment.

The Original Text and Context (Old Testament)

Isaiah 28:10 (NIV): “For it is: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there.”

KJV: “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.”

This verse sits in Isaiah 28, a chapter of judgment against the drunken leaders and false prophets of Ephraim (Israel) and Judah. In verses 7–9, the priests and prophets are staggering from wine and strong drink. They mock the true prophet Isaiah, treating his clear messages from God like baby talk or gibberish—repetitive, childish commands (“do and do… rule on rule”). The Hebrew sounds like nonsense syllables (tsav lātsāv, tsav lātsāv, qav lāqāv, qav lāqāv), similar to “blah blah blah” or “da da da.” 

God’s reply (verses 11–13) is that because they rejected His clear word, He will now speak to them through “strange lips” and a “foreign tongue” (the invading Assyrians). To them, God’s word will sound like the very mocking babble they used—leading to their downfall (“they may go and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken”).

In short: Verse 10 is mockery and judgment, not a recommended way to study Scripture.

New Covenant Meaning (New Testament Fulfillment)

The New Covenant (established by Jesus’ blood—see Hebrews 8:6–13, Luke 22:20) does not change the original meaning of Isaiah 28:10. Instead, the Apostle Paul directly applies the surrounding verses (especially Isaiah 28:11–12) to the New Testament church in 1 Corinthians 14:21–22.Paul writes: 

In the Law it is written: ‘With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,’ says the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:21, quoting Isaiah 28:11–12)

Then Paul explains: 

Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. (1 Corinthians 14:22)

What this means under the New Covenant:

The “strange lips / foreign tongue” of Isaiah 28 becomes the gift of speaking in tongues in the early church.

Just as the Assyrians’ foreign language was a sign of judgment to rebellious Israel (who refused to hear God’s clear prophets), tongues serve as a sign of judgment to unbelievers—especially unbelieving Jews in the first century who rejected Jesus.

If unbelievers hear tongues without interpretation, it sounds like chaotic babble (echoing Isaiah 28:10’s “precept upon precept” mockery). It confirms their hardness of heart, just as the foreign invaders confirmed Israel’s rebellion. Paul is correcting the Corinthian church: Tongues are real and from the Holy Spirit, but they are not primarily for showing off or for believers’ personal edification in public (without interpretation). They point back to this Old Testament pattern of judgment on those who refuse God’s clear message.

This is the direct New Covenant application—not a method for gradual Bible study, but a warning about how God can use unintelligible speech as a sign to the hard-hearted.

Why the Popular “Line Upon Line” Teaching Is a Misunderstanding

Many preachers today quote Isaiah 28:10 positively (“we study the Bible line upon line, precept upon precept”). While the principle of progressive, careful learning is biblical elsewhere (e.g., Hebrews 5:12–14; 2 Timothy 2:15), Isaiah 28:10 itself is not teaching that. It is the drunk mockers’ words (or God’s ironic judgment using their own phrase against them). 

The New Testament never uses it that way. Paul’s quotation in 1 Corinthians 14 confirms the context is about unintelligible speech and judgment. Under the New Covenant, we have the completed revelation in Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit. We grow “from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18), but the specific verse you asked about points us to the proper, orderly use of spiritual gifts rather than a study technique.

The True New Covenant Meaning of Isaiah 28:10

Isaiah 28:10 is not a divine blueprint for “line upon line, precept upon precept” Bible study, as it is so often misquoted today. In its original context, it is the mocking, drunken ridicule of rebellious religious leaders who treated God’s clear prophetic word like childish gibberish—“Do this, do that… rule on rule… a little here, a little there.” Their contempt invited divine judgment: God would now speak to them through the “strange lips and foreign tongue” of invading armies, turning their own scornful phrase back on them as the sound of impending doom (Isaiah 28:11-13).

Under the New Covenant, this passage receives its definitive interpretation through the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22. Paul quotes Isaiah directly and declares that the “foreign tongue” has become the New Testament spiritual gift of tongues. Far from being a personal prayer language or a sign of spiritual maturity for believers, tongues function as a sign of judgment—exactly as the Assyrian invasion was a sign to hard-hearted Israel. When unbelievers hear uninterpreted tongues in the assembly, it sounds like the very babble the drunkards once hurled at Isaiah. It confirms their refusal to hear God’s plain message in Christ, just as the foreign invaders confirmed ancient Israel’s rebellion.

This is the heartbeat of the New Covenant application: God’s Word is no longer veiled or piecemeal. In Jesus, the full revelation has come (Hebrews 1:1-2). The Holy Spirit now indwells every believer, making the Scriptures clear and accessible. Progressive learning is certainly biblical (Hebrews 5:12-14; 2 Timothy 2:15), but Isaiah 28:10 was never the proof-text for it. Instead, the verse stands as a sobering warning against treating sacred things lightly—whether through mockery, drunkenness, or charismatic showmanship without order.

The enduring New Covenant lesson is this:

When people reject the simple, Spirit-illuminated gospel of Christ, God can sovereignly allow their own confusion to become the instrument of their judgment. Yet for those who humble themselves, the same God who once spoke through “strange lips” now speaks with unmistakable clarity through His completed Word and the indwelling Spirit. The call remains: hear clearly, repent fully, and walk in the freedom of the New Covenant—where the veil is removed and the truth sets us free (2 Corinthians 3:16-18; John 8:32).

Silent Pilgrim 

Personal Speculation in the Church of God: A Serious Abuse of the Pulpit

For decades, personal speculation has been the driving force behind much of the preaching in the Churches of God. This problem first exploded across the COG scene many years ago and has only intensified since the great apostasy that shattered the Worldwide Church of God (the Mother Church) in the late 1980s and 1990s. Today, the entire Church of God movement is riddled with abusive speculators such as Bob Thiel, Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, Ronald Weinland, Alton Billingsley, and virtually every human head of the hundreds of splinter groups now in existence.

Almost everything these leaders preach is pure speculation rather than solid biblical fact. Instead of faithfully teaching what Scripture clearly states, they repeatedly offer their own private interpretations, prophetic guesses, date-setting, and imaginative theories — presenting them as if they were direct revelations from God or authoritative “new truth.” Sermons and booklets are filled with bold claims about exactly when the Great Tribulation will begin, who the “man of sin” is, which nation will invade another, or how specific current events are fulfilling obscure prophecies down to the month or even the day.

This practice is not harmless. Nathan Albright has written a White Paper on this issue: “The Importance of Teaching What the Bible Says from the Pulpit and Avoiding Personal Speculation as an Abuse of the Power of the Pulpit”. It explains that the pulpit is a sacred trust, not a platform for personal opinion or philosophical display. A minister is a steward of divine revelation (1 Corinthians 4:1–2), not its owner. When a preacher substitutes personal theories, political opinions, or imaginative conjectures for biblical exposition, he abuses the authority God has given him and distorts the sacred office.

The fragmentation following the great apostasy created the perfect environment for speculation to flourish. When the Worldwide Church of God largely abandoned the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong, thousands of members fled into dozens — eventually hundreds — of splinter groups. With no central authority and intense competition for members, many new leaders felt pressure to distinguish themselves. The easiest and most effective way? Claiming special prophetic insight or “understanding” that others lacked. This turned the pulpit into a stage for one-upmanship rather than humble exposition of Scripture.

The results have been devastating on multiple levels:

• Repeated Prophetic Failures and Loss of Credibility History shows a clear pattern: leaders make specific predictions that do not come to pass, yet they rarely repent or stop. Instead, they often revise the dates, spiritualize the failure, or blame the members for not having enough faith. This cycle has repeated for decades across many groups. When predictions collapse, members experience disillusionment, bitterness, and shaken faith. Some leave the Church of God entirely, while others become cynical and distrustful of all ministry. The credibility of the entire movement suffers, making it harder to reach new people with the true gospel.

• Doctrinal Drift and Spiritual Confusion Speculative preaching erodes doctrinal clarity. Congregations begin treating human guesswork as inspired truth, leading to confusion, division, and spiritual instability (Ephesians 4:14). Members spend more time debating the latest “prophetic update” than growing in holiness, love, or practical Christian living. The Bible becomes a puzzle book for end-time timelines rather than the living Word that equips believers for every good work.

• Cult of Personality Over Christ When preachers promote their own interpretations as “God’s revelation through me,” the focus shifts from Scripture to the man in the pulpit. Loyalty is demanded toward the leader’s latest theory rather than to Christ and the plain Word of God (1 Corinthians 1:12–13). This fosters authoritarian control, where questioning the speculation is treated as rebellion against God Himself. The result is a toxic environment that resembles a cult of personality far more than the humble, Bible-centered fellowship of the early Church.

• Erosion of the Fear of the Lord and Reverence for Scripture Bold speculation about divine mysteries teaches listeners to treat God’s revelation lightly. It implies that human insight can add to, improve upon, or even replace what God has already clearly said. This normalizes irreverence. Instead of cultivating awe and trembling at God’s Word, members learn to chase the next exciting “revelation.” Over time, this weakens genuine faith and opens the door to further error.

• Spiritual and Psychological Coercion Because sincere believers rightly revere the pulpit, they are especially vulnerable. Leaders who equate their fears, preferences, or failed guesses with “the will of God” exercise coercive control over consciences. Members may feel pressured to give more money, isolate from family in other groups, or remain in unhealthy situations “until the prophecy is fulfilled.” This violates pastoral ethics and Christian liberty, turning the shepherd into a taskmaster.

• Institutional Decay and Endless Division Churches that tolerate or encourage speculation from the pulpit eventually suffer theological decay, loss of trust, and repeated schisms. The focus on the preacher’s latest theory rather than the immutable Word of God leads to more splits, more tiny groups, and more isolation. Instead of unity in the faith, we see competition, accusations, and a scattered remnant that cannot effectively do the work God has called the Church to do.

Nathan Albright's White Paper rightly warns that when opinion masquerades as revelation, the pulpit becomes abusive. To speculate beyond what Scripture actually says is not “deep insight” or “prophetic zeal.” It is spiritual malpractice. It distracts from the core gospel message, discourages biblical literacy, and replaces the freedom of God’s Word with the tyranny of human personality.

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

White Paper: The Importance of Teaching What the Bible Says from the Pulpit and Avoiding Personal Speculation as an Abuse of the Power of the Pulpit

Posted on October 14, 2025 by nathanalbright

Edge Induced Cohesion Blog

The pulpit occupies a sacred trust within the community of faith. It is not a platform for personal speculation or philosophical display, but a solemn charge to communicate the Word of God faithfully. This white paper examines the ethical, theological, and practical imperatives of confining pulpit teaching to what Scripture actually says. It warns against the creeping tendency of ministers to substitute personal theories, political opinions, or imaginative conjectures for biblical exposition—an act that constitutes an abuse of authority and a distortion of the sacred office.

I. The Nature of the Pulpit as a Sacred Trust

Divine Commission and Accountability The preacher stands as a steward, not a proprietor, of divine revelation (1 Corinthians 4:1–2). The words spoken from the pulpit are not personal property but entrusted truth. A minister’s authority derives entirely from fidelity to God’s Word; deviation converts stewardship into self-promotion. The Power of Influence The pulpit shapes consciences and directs lives. The hearers assume that what they are being told is the Word of God rightly divided (2 Timothy 2:15). Misusing this trust through speculation or conjecture exploits spiritual authority for personal ends. The Ethical Boundary Between Teaching and Storytelling A sermon may employ illustrations or analogies, but the moment a preacher speaks in the name of God about that which God has not revealed, the act crosses from illustration into invention—a violation of Deuteronomy 18:20 and Revelation 22:18–19.

II. The Dangers of Personal Speculation

Doctrinal Drift and Confusion Speculative preaching erodes doctrinal clarity. Congregations begin to treat theological guesswork as inspired truth, leading to confusion, division, and spiritual instability (Ephesians 4:14). Cultivation of Personality over Principle When preachers promote their own interpretations as truth, the pulpit becomes a stage for charisma rather than conviction. The result is a cult of personality that displaces reverence for God’s Word (1 Corinthians 1:12–13). Erosion of the Fear of the Lord To speculate boldly about divine mysteries teaches listeners to treat God’s revelation lightly. Instead of cultivating awe, the preacher normalizes irreverence by implying that human insight can rival divine revelation.

III. The Biblical Mandate for Faithful Exposition

Preach the Word, Not the Self (2 Timothy 4:2–4) Paul commands Timothy to “preach the Word,” not to entertain the hearers with opinions or fables. The apostolic model of preaching emphasizes reading, explaining, and applying Scripture. Pattern of Expository Ministry Ezra and the Levites “read from the book of the law of God, distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8). This remains the pattern for all who handle the Word publicly. The Model of Christ and the Apostles Jesus consistently grounded His teaching in “It is written,” demonstrating submission to the authority of Scripture even as the incarnate Word. Likewise, the apostles preached “according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).

IV. The Abuse of the Pulpit as a Power Structure

When Opinion Masquerades as Revelation The pulpit becomes abusive when preachers use its authority to sanctify personal conjecture. This blurs the line between divine and human speech, misleading the congregation into obedience to human will rather than divine command. Psychological and Spiritual Coercion Listeners who revere the pulpit are vulnerable. When leaders equate their preferences or fears with the will of God, they exercise coercive spiritual control, violating both pastoral ethics and Christian liberty. Institutional Consequences Churches that tolerate speculation from the pulpit eventually suffer theological decay, loss of trust, and internal schism. The congregation’s faith becomes grounded in the preacher’s personality rather than in the immutable Word.

V. Principles for Faithful Preaching

Textual Fidelity Every sermon should clearly identify, interpret, and apply Scripture. The text must control the message, not the other way around. Transparency of Interpretation Where interpretation is uncertain, the preacher must admit uncertainty rather than disguise it as revelation. Humility protects both the truth and the hearers. Doctrinal Consistency Preachers should anchor every message in the broader biblical witness, ensuring harmony with established doctrine and the full counsel of God. Accountability Structures Churches should maintain oversight mechanisms to ensure that pulpit teaching aligns with Scripture—peer review among elders, post-sermon Q&A, or theological training refreshers.

VI. Restoring Reverence for the Word

Renewed Emphasis on Biblical Literacy Congregations must be trained to discern the difference between what Scripture says and what a preacher merely imagines. The mature congregation becomes a safeguard against pulpit abuse. Cultivation of Expository Habits Teaching line by line through books of the Bible minimizes the temptation to speculate. The preacher’s role becomes that of a guide rather than an oracle. Repentance for Misuse of Authority Ministers who have used the pulpit for self-expression should publicly repent and recommit to faithful exposition. Restoration of trust begins with honesty before God and the flock.

VII. Conclusion: The Call Back to Scriptural Authority

The pulpit must be reclaimed as a platform for truth, not theory. When preachers restrict themselves to what the Bible actually says, they liberate their hearers from the tyranny of personality and return them to the freedom of God’s Word. To speculate beyond revelation is not creative theology—it is spiritual malpractice. The preacher’s calling is not to say something new, but to say again what God has already said, with clarity, conviction, and humility.

Appendices

Appendix A: Scriptural Citations on Preaching and Authority

Appendix B: Historical Examples of Pulpit Speculation and Its Consequences

Appendix C: Practical Framework for Sermon Review and Accountability

Appendix D: Training Outline for Expository Preaching