The Sheet Vision

In an ongoing effort to investigate Armstrong's keeping of the clean and unclean meats laws, I would like to go over the Sheet Vision of Acts 10.

Not that anyone knows for certain, but some put the calling of Cornelius around 40AD. Peter was staying at the house of one Simon, a tanner, when God caused a centurion named Cornelius to send three of his servants (all of whom were Gentiles) to meet Peter.

(ACTS 10: 9-17)

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill [Strong's 2380 burn for ritual sacrifice] and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure [2839 ceremonially or morally unclean, common, polluted] or unclean [169 ceremonially or morally lewd or demonic]." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure [2840 ceremonially or morally unclean, common, polluted] that God has made clean [2511 make clean, purge, purify]." 16This happened three times [one for each man coming to him], and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. 17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate.

I want to draw your attention to the word “kill” in verse 13. It is not just kill, but to burn in sacrifice; yet again, food laws are associated with sacrificial laws. From the days of Adam, animals were separated for sacrifice. Now, God says to Peter “sacrifice even what was once the unclean.” To a Jew, this must have been utterly impossible to accept. To those who feel the foods laws are still in place, think of how it makes you feel now, and then multiply that by a billion.

“Peter had God’s Spirit, and certainly was as much an apostle as any man,” Armstrong argued, “shouldn’t he have been taught by Jesus that the food laws were no longer valid, if that were the case?” 

The answer is obvious: at the time of Jesus’ life the Gentiles were not called, but this vision shows that by Jesus’ death and life God had changed the paradigm.

The Worldwide Church of God taught that this took place 10 years after Jesus’ death. I’ve heard numbers as high as 20 years and as low as 3 years. This was most likely from 7-9 years after the death of Jesus. 

Should we use this very same logic, the “Peter didn’t know x years later” argument, then we must conclude that physical circumcision is still in force since he didn’t know about that, and Gentiles are not called since he obviously didn’t know about that either, as well as Talmud laws are still in force since he and several others continued to regarded those even 20 years past this point. Peter didn’t understand those things at this time. This logic cannot selectively apply to one area (meats) and not the others (Gentiles, circumcision, Talmud, marriage laws).

Is it any wonder Peter didn’t understand all things? Clearly he didn’t see Jesus’ meaning in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. When Jesus taught them He would be killed, and then it came to pass, what did Peter do? He went back to fishing (JOHN 21: 3). Peter is one of the men who asked the resurrected Jesus on the day He was taken up, (ACTS 1: 6) “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel”. Jesus simply did not teach everything the Apostles would need to know while He was alive, nor did they grasp it all. This is clear in His statement in John 14: 25-26 “25 These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” Clearly, God was at this time teaching Peter something he did not previously receive (JOHN 16: 12-13). 

That lesson, I regret to add, Peter was not always straightforward in following even 20 years after the death of Jesus as we read in Galatians 2: 11-14. He was eating with the Gentiles, in a manner that he knew the Jewish converts would not approve of. But he regarded their opinion more than he regarded the calling of the Gentiles.

(GAL. 2: 11-14) “11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?”

We can see even further that Peter had no understanding at the time of Acts 10 about Gentile cleansing by the first words out of his mouth to Cornelius in Acts 10: 28, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.” 

ONLY this vision gave Peter any inkling of any removal of the rules against associating with Gentiles, so therefore it most certainly did change things. It was not something Jesus taught them before this day. Certainly it is clear that no one else at that time understood either, because the first thing the people said to Peter when he returned to Jerusalem to tell about his experience was “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” (ACTS 11: 3). Those who were zealous for the law were offended and accusing him of sin and betraying not only the food laws of Moses but the circumcision laws of Abraham. 

It is clear that Jesus openly and plainly taught no one about the calling of the Gentiles, yet the Gentiles are called. The argument that “Peter wasn’t taught meats are cleansed by Jesus, therefore meats are not cleansed” is completely invalidated. People who make this claim often haven’t the foggiest idea what a great many and very strict rules there were in Judaism to separate them from the Gentiles, both in the Torah and in the Talmud. It wasn’t just food by any means, but food and rules against intermarriage were the main separators. The symbolism of the unclean animals includes separation. The animals were separated from them as unclean (LEV. 20: 25).

According to Worldwide’s own theology, “God instituted His law of clean and unclean to show the difference between His people and the nations around them.” 

Absolutely correct! This is how some of the Jews understand it as well. However, we now know there is no substantive difference in God’s eyes any longer.

(GAL. 3: 28) “28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

All of these separations were wiped away – including the intermarriage between Jew and Gentile (especially between Christ and His Church). If the separators weren’t removed, the Apostles, being Jews, couldn’t go to the Gentiles effectively. If they weren’t wiped away, what Paul corrected Peter for in Galatians would have been normal behavior. Remember, Peter was the original Apostle to the Gentiles (ACTS 15: 7). Is it any wonder Paul took over that spot (GAL. 2: 8)?

Until that time, all who preached the gospel went to the Jews only:

(ACTS 11: 19) “19 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.” 

Of course that’s what they did. The gospel was to the Jew first, then the Gentile (ROM. 1: 16). But at that time they simply didn’t understand. Peter said to God, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” Peter never went into a Gentile’s house until that time either. Yet he was about to. And he was about to eat with them. Peter ate with uncircumcised men!

 

Now, let me inform you of a little known fact about the clean/unclean meats laws as practiced – it was (and still very much is in some circles) considered an offense for anyone who is neither Jewish nor seeking to become a proselyte to Judaism to keep the food laws. Many Jews consider that a sign between them and God only. All Gentiles are discouraged from even attempting to keep the food laws. There are 613 laws in the Torah, given by Moses, called mitzvahs, which are binding on the Jews. However, there are only 7 laws binding on the Gentiles, called the 7 Noachide laws. The food laws were not among them. So, Peter ate with men who were not keeping the food laws! Now, in all honesty and candor no one can claim to know what Peter ate. But the opposite is also true – no one can claim to know what he didn’t eat. Best chances are however, in a Gentile house that until a few hours beforehand he felt was forbidden for him to enter, he ate something unclean.

“But Peter’s reaction to the vision clearly showed that the Gentiles are now called,” one would argue, “it doesn’t clearly show meats are cleansed”. Yes, Gentiles, the reality to the shadow, are cleansed. And no it does not clearly show this. That is correct. But one must take the evidence as a whole. This is only one specific area of the Bible. We cannot prove nor disprove the entire meats argument here - this is supporting evidence only.

Take circumcision for example - the other great physical sign given to physical Israel; commanded from the days of Abraham himself. The first people Peter reported his experience to complained that he ate with uncircumcised men. Later we learn that circumcision of the flesh was done away with – however we have no direct command from God showing Paul this was so. The evidence must be taken as a whole. 

So this argument then becomes completely undone. Gentile separation and circumcision are shown as being done away with, yet not all in one place. Even so, nothing separates Jew from Gentile now in God’s eyes. But we are to believe the unclean meats laws are still in effect? This makes no sense!

What did Peter see? Gentiles? No, he saw unclean beasts of all sorts. What did God ask him to do? Go to the Gentiles? No, God asked him to sacrifice and eat. How much more clear can you get than that?? Is God a liar? Does God tempt us to sin? What did Peter say to three direct commands from God? “No.” And we side with Peter against God, as if God didn’t know what He was talking about but Peter did, as if God were asking Peter to sin? “God never rebuked Peter,” Worldwide says. As if saying no to God and getting away with it makes it alright. However God most certainly did get after Peter.

(ACTS 10: 15) “15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’”

Yet some still insist “God was not talking about meats.” If the vision wasn’t about meats, why did Peter respond about what he put in his mouth? I conclude God most certainly was talking about meats – if the vision wasn’t enough to convince people, then He was talking about meats by associating them with Gentiles.

Some quote Acts 10: 28 “But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Then they say, “See? Peter concluded that he should call no MAN common or unclean.” And so God did instruct Peter as such. What God has cleansed we should not call common. Obviously God’s point in the vision was primarily about men. The disconnect is some people claim it is only about men, which makes little sense given the weight of other Bible verses touching this subject. They forget Peter was a Jew and believed the meats laws didn’t apply to Cornelius anyhow. Why mention them, then?

If the meats had nothing to do with the equation, why did God use them in the vision? Why not use some other symbol, for example seas or perhaps Gentiles? But if meats represented Gentiles here, why not let the Bible interpret the Bible and see that meats represent Gentiles, and most likely have represented the Gentiles since the day God instructed Moses concerning them. It was the food laws that worked the front line on the separation of the Jew from the Gentile. Now that separation is abolished by a miracle of God. Why then the continued need for the separator? Also think about this, if the meats are a shadow of the Gentiles, and the Gentiles (the reality) are cleansed, then how can one reason the meats (the shadow cast by the reality) are not cleansed? Can a fountain give fresh water and impure water? Can a cleansed reality cast an unclean shadow? Not possible!

Look at Peter’s reaction to the vision – he wondered about its meaning. The Worldwide Church of God asks, “If the meaning of the vision was so simple as to cleanse all foods, why did Peter wonder about the meaning?” Two things: 

First, this wasn’t so simple as foods; that statement is misleading. It was a sea change in God’s direction unheard of for 1,400+ years. Things are being changed here that went back before the law and the prophets all the way to Abraham. While Jesus was alive as a man, He challenged the Talmud openly. Now He is challenging the Old Covenant and the calling of the Jews only.

Second, any man would wonder. The proven fact that Peter did not understand up until this point makes that his obvious natural human reaction. Most certainly he marveled at what God was doing. We can imagine what went through his mind. “Could it be so? Is God really doing this? It was against all the law – what else does this change?”

And what was his conclusion? Peter did not previously understand the New Covenant, or the gospel, or even God’s love. Now he does – just that much more.

(ACTS 10: 34-35) "34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."

He knew the Jews were no longer separated.

“The vision was of God, but the vision was symbolic,” they argue. You find me one vision that isn’t symbolic! Much of the book of Revelation is symbolic. Of course it was symbolic! But that doesn’t give us license to undo what God was doing. What a weak argument this is.

Feast of Tabernacles 2008

I used to keep the Feast of Tabernacles with the scattered Armstrong churches. I would have been in Panama City, Florida right now having an incredible vacation. I seriously miss the people and the fellowship and the 'spirit' that was certainly there. It wasn't just a vacation for me, though in effect that is what it is.

Who can fault people who seriously want to be godly people? Who can say anything against people who pray to be Christlike and led by God, and be good examples of Christianity? In listening in to services this morning I heard deeply, honestly believing people who believe what they do because they feel they see it in the Bible. They genuinely believe they follow Christ and refer to Him as the Head over all things to His Church. They concern themselves with a close relationship from the heart with God. It's beautiful!

Let me tell you a little about the people I used to fellowship with. These are people who do not elevate Herbert Armstrong. They do not play his recordings nor quote him nor refer to him often. They see themselves as being a group who owes much to the Worldwide Church of God, but they see many flaws and shortcomings in the old teachings. They seek to correct those errors. Everyone who still speaks to me only has good and kind words to say to me; filled with hope that my family and I will work out whatever we are going through and return to their family. Is this condemnation? No! They do not condemn at all in the way most certainly anyone doing what I am doing would be ensured of in the old days. I have NO condemnation in return for these people and I am not bitter against them. I cannot help but love them deeply and rarely a moment goes by when I do not miss them.

Why separate myself then? Because it's not so simple as to say "circumcision is of the heart". Circumcision must actually be of the heart. I hope you understand what I mean by that. As much as I firmly believe that these people are not far from the Kingdom of God [I know that you sneak in here from time to time to read - I do not say this to flatter you.. I mean it], there are some points which simply cannot be ignored or paid lip service to. I do have deep, fundamental disagreements with Armstrong's basic theories; and to those theories it is undeniable that all COGs cling. It is the base and foundation of all they believe. One can say they follow Christ and not a man, but what one says is inconsequential compared to what really is. There is an old saying, "perception is reality". I think a change in perception is desperately needed.

What are some differences? See any post here at my blog discussing 'law vs. grace' or 'cherry-picking', or 'legalism'. I recommend reading Three Times in the Year parts 1 and 2. A good summation is my post on Old Covenant vs New Covenant. 

You see, I believe that the Old Covenant was not just expanded but completely superseded by the New Covenant. This is contrary to Armstrongism. For decades I could not grasp the concept of the removal of the Sabbath and Holy Days. "Sin is the transgression of the law;" I would say, "without those things how can I know what sin is so that I can avoid it?" I didn't want to be the one left behind while the other was taken. I didn't want weeping and gnashing of teeth. Since these are the verses often read to keep the minds in line through fear. They talk a wonderful game about Christ and salvation and peace and being part of God's Family. I really wanted those things. I still want those things! Then one day it became inescapable that within Armstrong's attempt to reconcile the Old Covenant with the New, there were irreconcilable errors. When Paul says in Galatians 3: 10 and again in Galatians 5: 2 also James says in James 2: 10 that anyone who attempts to keep the law but does not keep the whole law, that one has fallen from grace and is under a curse. Even the COGs read these verses. However, they say "Look! You have to keep the Old Covenant law!" To which I often have asked "Then why on God's green earth don't you keep the whole law??"

Christ, whom they say is the Head over all things to them, becomes NOTHING in that case. "...for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain" (GAL. 2: 21)! How much LESS then does righteousness come through a partial keeping of the law? Even so, to compensate for this short falling I was often told "Herbert Armstrong changed the law by necessity". No man can change the law!!

(GAL. 3: 1-5) 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you  as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Is this "using liberty as an opportunity for the flesh" (GAL. 5: 13)? Not at all! There is still law - an even better, greater, magnified law! Only not the Old Covenant shadowy, burdensome, temporary law. There is reality. There is salvation. There is justification. There is true righteousness. NONE of those things came or could come through the Old Covenant law, and most especially not from a cherry-picked and incomplete keeping of that law. Paul says that FALSE brethren taught such a keeping of the law (GAL. 2: 4). And why? To keep people in bondage and to prevent them from achieving the freedom of the New Covenant!

I heard a message that said such and such are the rewards Christ will bring to you. Then this disclaimer was added: IF you are among those who are being spoken about. What do you mean IF?? How can one know? Haven't you ever asked yourself why you can never be sure if you've 'qualified'? The clear and certain answer is that no one can "qualify"! But you know that it is a gift. No one receives the reward because they've earned it. But then, why do you try to earn it? You say it is a gift, and you are right. But then you say the gift will only be given to those who keep the law. So you then you immediately turn right around and make it no longer a gift. 

Here is the logic:

It's a gift that no one deserves; but to get it you need to keep the law; so you must qualify for it; but no man keeps the law fully so no one qualifies; so the law isn't the qualifier since Jesus' grace is needed; then it must be by faith; but if so, then it is a gift apart from the law; but you need to keep the law in order to qualify; but no man keeps the law fully so no one qualifies; so the law isn't the qualifier; then..... and round and round it goes.

Or do you see that as the old way? The new way goes like this: 

It is a gift that no one deserves - you just get it. However, if you don't keep the law you will LOSE that gift. 

Is that how you feel? Don't you see that this is no different from the "old way" of viewing it. You still have set up the law as a qualification - only now it's not for the receiving but for keeping the gift. So therefore you wonder if you actually have kept the gift or thrown it away in a moment of weakness.

Let me offer you this what I think I see to answer your dilemma. It is a gift indeed; undeserved indeed. Not by law and not by qualification. It is a gift by PROMISE! There is no qualification to be met save accepting Christ as Lord and proclaiming as much. (I suggest reading my post By This All Will Know.)

(GAL. 3: 16-18) 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

So Christ is the inheritor and object of the promise. How, then does it come to us?

(GAL. 3: 26-29) 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

You are heirs NOW! In Christ, by faith - NOW! One with Christ NOW! Will there be things to come? Will there be a reward Christ will bring at His second coming? Certainly! But at that point the guarantee is already past. The inheritance is already sure. It should be no surprise to you whether or not Christ comes for you. So how do you know? By the evidence of the fruits of the Spirit in you. And that Spirit does not come by the law.

Yet many of you would say "I have that now". Do you? Are you so certain? Why, if you have that now, do you look forward to a time years in the future when you will share oneness and peace with God? Have you not read?

(I COR. 10: 16-17) 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

(EPH. 5: 23, 30) 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. ... 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 

(GAL. 2: 20) I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 

(REV. 3: 20) Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

If the Spirit is in you, then you are one with Christ at this moment. Is this not a closeness? I know that one would say the closeness doesn't compare to that promised in the future. But I would respond that you shouldn't discount the closeness we have now. Don't lessen it because it perhaps is less by comparison. Let me show you something even further!

(I COR. 3: 16) Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you

(I COR. 6: 19) Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

IF you are the temple and that Spirit is in you, then this verse takes on a whole new meaning:

(JOHN 14: 2) In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

You no doubt hear that at every Feast. You no doubt are told this will happen at some future point after Christ returns. But in the New Covenant understanding, taking all of the previous verses we have just read above, let's look at this more closely. A "mansion" is a dwelling place, a residence, an abode. It is a place where God lives. In God's house there are many places -not for YOU to live in, but for for HIM to live in. What is "God's house"? Is it not His temple? What's more than that - is it not His Church (EPH. 2: 19; HEB. 3: 6; I PET. 2: 5; I PET. 4: 17)? So we see here that Christ had to leave to prepare a place for God in us. Have we not achieved that now? Certainly we have! When did we receive it? When the Spirit came. "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you" (JOHN 16: 7). John 16 explains this so well. Jesus had to depart to prepare a place for us in God's household. And He has prepared that place even now. The deposit of the final fulfilment of that is the presence of the Spirit in us - God's presence... in us.. now. We are the place that was prepared in God's household and God has come in and made His abode with us.

Do you see the incredible difference in the way Armstrong views scripture - future, distant, unsure - and the alternative? It is a gift. It is a promise. Am I saying there is no way to lose the gift? Certainly not. Reject it and it will be taken back for sure. How do you reject it, in a moment of weakness? Hardly! One must grow into it over a lifetime. To reject it you have to both accept it to begin with, then willfully turn completely from it without repentance. But for the COGs the real question is have you ever accepted it in the first place? You say you have the Spirit in you, and I pray you do, but with your words you show those things have yet to occur.

While you who are still in the COGs are at the Feast or if you have just come home, or whenever you read this, think of the Feast of Tabernacles. Think of the first resurrection for which you strive to achieve. What amount of risk are you willing to take that you might lose part in this resurrection? For what would you trade a share in the glory of Christ? For a man? For a group of friends? If you do not love Christ MORE than family, friends, and even self, then you are not worthy of Him (MATT. 10: 37). You know this. Then you know why I had to separate myself from Armstrongism. Are you so certain that Galatians is not referring to you? That you can sit on a fence between the Covenants and not offend both? That you can achieve by the Old Covenant law all those many things the New Testament clearly shows you will never receive from the Old Covenant law? Are you certain you should bury your head to these things and cover your ears and cry DECEPTION! DECEPTION!  Have you proven? If you will not look or seek or ask, then in what way have you proven??

You don't have to stop keeping the Feast. (Although, it's probably better that you do.) Just stop keeping the Old Covenant law and step boldly into the New Covenant. If you so deeply desire to fellowship with old friends at the Feast, then go. However, go in newness of Spirit rather than in the oldness of the letter. Don't believe that righteousness can come of keeping the law. If you want a happy Feast, certainly this is the only way to truly achieve it.

Old Covenant vs. New Covenant

Got this from Tentmaker.org. I have seen it elsewhere on the COG blogs, but I thought I would like to have a copy here. (Not that this is an endorsement of everything on Tentmaker.org; I just think they did a fabulous job with this material.)

It gets to the root of what I think the major error of Armstrongism is: that HWA tried to resurrect the Old Covenant, but it cannot be resurrected and shoehorned into the New Covenant. All he accomplished was a cherry-picked version of the law, which is not good for anything. In fact, it could very well be quite harmful to its adherants.

Mosaic Covenant	New Covenant
Old covenant II Cor. 3:14	New covenant II Cor. 3:6
First covenant Heb. 8:7, 9:1	Second covenant Heb. 8:7, 10:1-9
Came by Moses John 1:17	Came by Christ Heb. 8:6, 9:15
Law of Moses Acts 13:38-39	Law of Christ Gal. 6:2
Law of sin Rom. 7:5-6	Law of righteousness Rom. 9:30-31
Law of the flesh Rom. 7:5-6	Law of the Spirit Rom. 8:2
Not of faith Gal. 3:2	Law of faith Rom. 3:27
Yoke of bondage Gal. 5:1	Law of liberty Jam. 1:25
Ended by Christ Rom. 10:4	Established by Christ Heb. 8:6, 10:9
Law of death II Cor. 3:7	Law of life Gal. 3:11, 6:8
Entangles Gal. 5:1	Makes free John 8:32, 36
A shadow Col. 2:14-17	The reality Heb. 10:1-18
Fulfilled Mat. 5:17-18	Now in force Heb. 8:6, 10:9
Leaves imperfect Heb. 7:19	Makes perfect Heb. 7:19
Glorious II Cor. 3:7	More glorious II Cor. 3:8-10
Powerless to save Heb. 9:9, 10:4	Saves to uttermost Heb. 7:25
Many sacrifices Heb. 9:12-13	One sacrifice for sin Heb. 10:12
Temporary priest Heb. 7:23	Eternal priest Heb. 7:17
Remembers sins Heb. 10:3	Forgets sins Heb. 8:12, 10:17
Yearly atonement Heb. 10:3	Eternal atonement Heb. 10:14
Priests have sin Heb. 5:1-4	Sinless priest Heb. 7:26
Aaronic priesthood >Heb. 7:11	Melchisedec priesthood Heb. 5:5-10, 7:21
Out of Levi Heb 7:11	Out of Judah Heb. 7:14
Animal sacrifices Heb. 9:12	Human sacrifice Heb. 9:14-28
Earthly tabernacle Heb. 9:2	Heavenly tabernacle Heb. 8:2
Imperfect mediator Gal. 3:19	Sinless mediator I Tim. 2:5
No inheritance Rom. 4:13	Eternal inheritance Heb. 9:15
Instituted upon animal blood Heb. 9:16-22	Instituted upon blood of Christ Mat. 26-28
Law of works Rom. 3:27	Law of grace and faith John 1:17
Works wrath Rom. 4:15	Saves from wrath Rom. 5:9
Non-redeeming Heb. 10:4	Redeems Gal. 3:13, Heb. 9:12-15
Non-pleasing Ps. 40:6	Pleasing to God Heb 10:5-18
Abolishment predicted Is. 51:6	Establishment predicted Heb. 8:7
Circumcision Ex. 12:48	No circumcision Rom. 4:9-12
Made to change Heb. 7:12, Gal. 3:25	Made eternal Heb. 13:20
Faulty Heb. 8:7	Perfect James 1:25
Weak Heb. 7:18	Strong Heb. 7:25
Unprofitable Heb. 7:18	Profitable Heb. 7:19,25
Natural program Heb. 9:10-14	Spiritual program II Cor. 3:6, 18
Daily program Heb. 7:27	Finished program Heb. 10:10-18
Infirm high priests Heb. 5:2, 7:28	Perfect high priest Heb. 7:26
Made priests by law Heb. 7:12, 28	Made priests by an oath Heb. 7:21, 28
No salvation Heb. 10:2-4	Eternal salvation Heb. 5:9, 10:10
Perfected nothing Heb. 7:19	Perfects believers Heb. 7:19, 10:14
Earthly priests Heb. 5:1-4	Heavenly priest Heb. 9:24, 10:12
Repeated inability Heb. 10:11	Glorious success Heb. 10:10-18
Many offerings Heb. 9:7	One offering Heb. 10:10-14
Good promises Dt. 28:1-14	Better promises Heb. 8:6
A good covenant Rom 7:12	A better covenant Heb. 7:22, 8:6
Many high priests Heb. 7:23	One high priest Heb. 7:24-28
Typical tabernacle Heb. 9	True tabernacle Heb. 8:2, 9:11
No mercy Heb. 10:28	Complete mercy Heb. 8:12
Handmade things Heb. 9:1-5, 24	Not handmade Heb. 9:23-24
An old way Heb. 8:13	New and living way Heb. 10:19-20
Unavailing ministers Heb. 7:18	Able ministers II Cor. 3:6
Carnal ministry Heb. 9:9-10	Spiritual ministry II Cor. 3:6
Ministration of condemnation II Cor. 3:9	Ministration of righteousness II Cor. 3:9
Glory covered II Cor. 3:13	Glory uncovered II Cor. 3:18
Brings bondage Gal. 4:24-25	Brings liberty II Cor. 3:17
Cannot justify Gal. 2:16	Does justify Acts 13:38-39
Brings a curse Gal. 3:10	Redeems from the curse Gal. 3:13
Live by works Gal 3:10	Live by faith Gal. 3:11
Cannot give life Gal. 3:21	Does give life John 6:63-68
Exposes sin Gal 3:19	Covers sin Rom. 4:1-8
Under law Rom 6:14-15	Under grace Gal. 3:22-25
Done away II Cor. 3:7-14	Not done away II Cor. 3:11
Abolished II Cor. 3:13	Continues glorious II Cor. 3:11
Ministry of death II Cor. 3:7	Reconciliation ministry II Cor. 5:18
For Israel only Dt. 4:7-8, 5:3	For all men Luke 22:20, Mark 14:24

A Few of My Favorite Quotes

I've been doing some light reading today and I wanted to share some of my favorite quotes with you.  

"But who today understands what the prophets foretold? Why, only the ministers today whose word comes to pass!-those who are appointed and guided by God to preach the truth! Those whose utterances do not come to pass have not spoken the prophecies truly. We give you here the record of what we have been proclaiming for the past 2 years-a message which no other voices, to our knowledge, have been proclaiming.... But what we have been warning you about is happening!-precisely as we have stated.... This is how you can know that our work is not of men but of God!" 

(The Plain Truth, Dec. 1956, p. 3.)

"There is no other church or work on the face of this earth that either understands or dares to proclaim these vital warnings!... This is the very Work of God!... You are now being warned!" 

(The Plain Truth, Roderick Meredith, Aug. 1957, p. 6.)

"We have been daring, as no other church on earth, to proclaim definite, specific prophetic events to occur-and they have been happening!... For the specific prophesied events which this Church alone proclaims will soon be demonstrated as a physical reality! There will be no reasoning or argument about this. You will see and feel these things happen!" 

(The Plain Truth, Rod Meredith, June 1959, p. 32.)

"It doesn't take an understanding of certain 'Bible doctrine,' or necessary agreement with it, to admit to yourself candidly that what Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong was faithfully proclaiming back before, during and right at the close of World War II, and what he and others who have since come to join him in this great work of God have been proclaiming day in and day out ever since-is actually happening before your very eyes!" 

(The Plain Truth, Ted Armstrong, Nov. 1962, p. 21.)

"We do not set dates!... Yet in our human zeal and enthusiasm for getting this greatest mission on earth done, we have a few times come close to it or appeared to-and that we deeply regret...if we...appear to set a date, I feel I do not need to apologize!" 

(Tomorrow's World, Herbert Armstrong, Feb. 1972, p. 31.)

"[We prophesied in] fifteen years the U.S.A. will no longer be a nation, and 15 years has come and gone. Was that a mistake or not? Yes!"

(Garner Ted Armstrong - speaking at a ministerial conference, January 1974)

(DEU. 18: 20-22) 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’— 22when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Bill Hughes assembled these for us and I simply cherry-picked (d'oh!) these certain ones to post here for you because of their hard-hitting nature.

The Word Was With God

In support of my friend Seeker of Truth over at As Bereans Did, I am posting about Jesus' preexistence. I'd like to look closely at John 1: 1.

(JOHN 1:1) [Greek] en archê ên ho logos kai ho logos ên pros ton theon kai theos ên ho logos

(JOHN 1: 1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This document will explore, in depth, the meanings of the Greek words used in John 1: 1, and their English translation and usage. It will look at the verse in three parts: part 1 – in the beginning was the Word, part 2 – and the Word was with God, and finally part 3 – and the Word was God. This is going to be a word-study, so it may be a bit heady. I tried to make it as plain and easy to understand as possible.

I seek to show how at the time of the first creation the Logos already existed. And at that time, the Logos was toward, or to, or in an active and involved relationship with God – which can be none other than God Almighty the Father. And at the time of creation the Word was God – not THE God or A God.. just 'God' (Elohim, if you will). We will also see how the ‘Jesus as created being’ doctrine has no support here.

PART 1: In the beginning was the Word

[Gr] en archê ên ho logos

[En] In the very beginning of all creation the Word already was. 

To read over this statement quickly, one gets the sense that at the time of the beginning, the word was there. In the English, it takes an additional leap of logic to consider the Word already was there BEFORE the beginning. But this is exactly what this statement says in the Greek. Let’s look at it word by word, phrase by phrase.

"en"

Strong's Greek 1722 

 ἐν

Thayer Definition:

1) in, by, with etc.

Part of Speech: preposition

'En' denotes a specific point in time. We now consider the exact timing of whatever comes after it.

"arche"

Strong's Greek 746

ἀρχή

Thayer Definition:

1) beginning, origin

2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader

3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause

4) the extremity of a thing

4a) of the corners of a sail

5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy

5a) of angels and demons

Part of Speech: noun feminine

'Arche', in this sentence, is the beginning of the creation. Whatever came first – angels, water, air, energy, etc. – is not important (if you must know, we can assume this is angelic, since later in the chapter the logos is shown as having created all that was created). What is important here is the timing. ‘Arche’ is the beginning, and “en arche” is the specific moment of the start of all creation. Although the Greek doesn’t say “the” before arche, “in the beginning” is translated well enough since it is implied that this is the very farthest beginning possible.

For further background about the idea of 'arche' as Greek culture during John's time may have known it:

In the ancient Greek philosophy, arche is the beginning or the first principle of the world.

The idea of an arche was first philosophized by Thales of Melitus, who claimed that the first principle of all things is water. His theory was supported by the observation of moisture throughout the world and coincided with his theory that the earth floated on water.

Thales' theory was refuted by his successor and pupil, Anaximander. Anaximander noted that water could not be the arche because it could not give rise to its opposite, fire. Anaximander claimed that none of the elements (earth, fire, air, water) could be arche for the same reason. Instead, he proposed the existence of the apeiron, an indefinite substance from which all things are born and to which all things will return. [energy?]

Anaximenes, Anaximander's pupil, advanced yet another theory. He returns to the elemental theory, but this time posits air, rather than water, as the arche. Anaximenes suggests that all is made from air through either rarefication or condensation (probably meaning thinning and thickening). Rarefied, air becomes fire; condensed, it becomes first wind, then cloud, water, earth, and stone in order.

From Wikipedia.com  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arche

"en"

Strong's Greek 2258

ἦν

Thayer Definition:

1) I was, etc.

Part of Speech: verb

Notice this is a different 'en' than before.

“En” is a timeless word, it doesn’t state or point to a specific time at all, it simply shows that previous to whenever we are referring to something was. And the time we refer to is ‘in the beginning’, “en arche”. So, previous to the very beginning, something already was.

John refers to the Word in this manner all the way up to verse 14 where the Word “was made” [ginomai] is used. Being timeless, no matter how hard we try, we cannot conclude there ever was a time when the Logos was not in existence. This information is not available. Even so, this one ‘became’ incarnate flesh at a definite point - yet how long this one “was” before that point is not given (nor either can it be given).

"ho"

Strong's Greek 3588

ὁ / ἡ / τό

ho / hē / to

Thayer Definition:

1) the definite article, “the” in its masculine, feminine or neuter gender

2) the demonstrative pronoun

Examples:

“this”

“that”

“these”

Part of Speech: definite article or demonstrative pronoun in all their inflections. The specific part of speech is dependent upon the context

‘Ho’ means “the”; ‘ho’ is masculine.

"logos"

Strong's Greek 3056

λόγος

Thayer Definition:

1) of speech

1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea

1b) what someone has said

1b1) a word

1b2) the sayings of God

1b3) decree, mandate or order

1b4) of the moral precepts given by God

1b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets

1b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim

1c) discourse

1c1) the act of speaking, speech

1c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking

1c3) a kind or style of speaking

1c4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction

1d) doctrine, teaching

1e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative

1f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law

1g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed

2) its use as respect to the MIND alone

2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating

2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration

2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score

2d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment

2e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation

2e1) reason would

2f) reason, cause, ground

3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

Part of Speech: noun masculine

The 'Logos' – universally accepted to be Jesus the Christ; the representative, the expression, the messenger, the spokesman – the Logos.

When we read ‘en archê ên ho logos’, we read that at the very moment of the beginning of creation, the Logos already existed.

PART 2: and the Word was with God

kai ho logos ên pros ton theon

And [at the beginning of creation] the Word [already was] in a relationship with God.

"kai"

Strong's Greek 2532

καί

Thayer Definition:

1) and, also, even, indeed, but

Part of Speech: conjunction

'Kai' simply means “and”

Using the words from Part 1, we can see “kai ho logos en” means “and the Word was”. Again the Word “was”. The Word was from some unspecifiable eternity in existence. If we use the context of the beginning of the sentence as a reference point, we can conclude that ‘at the beginning of creation, and for some unspecified length of time before that, the Word was’… something.

"pros ton"

Strong's Greek 4314

πρός

Thayer Definition:

1) to the advantage of

2) at, near, by

3) to, towards, with, with regard to

Part of Speech: preposition

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a strengthened form of G4253

Christ has always given men direction toward God in all He did. Similar to the prefix ‘pro’, it means ‘in support of’ (like pro-life, for example). And it denotes an active, involved relationship is in place.

Some try to take the word “pros” and apply a definition to it meaning “out of” or “away from”. They say the Logos is simply the spoken word of God Almighty, and it went out from Him from the beginning. This is demonstrably false. Unfortunately, in the "against God" claim we only see the only word ‘pros’. But the phrase is actually “pros ton”.
In the Greek, even when "pros ton" means "against" it still means "towards". Why? Because, the idea is to be face to face against something. Even if you are against something, you are still facing or pointing in its direction.

‘Pros’ has 35 different English translations; almost all indicate movement toward someone or something. Now, notice some things about the phrase ‘pros ton’. The phrase ‘pros ton’ appears 13 times in the New Testament - 3 times it is translated “with”, 10 times “to”, “unto”, “toward”, and “against” (but to be against someone, you are still moving toward them).

(ACTS 4: 24) toward God

(ACTS 12: 5) unto God

(REV. 13: 6) against God

In translating the phrase ‘pros ton’ in a manner denoting direction away from, certain ones have injected their own philosophy into the phrase where it has no place. It cannot mean such a thing.

Finally, the phrase is translated “with”, but the Greek doesn’t say ‘with’ (although ‘with’ isn’t exactly wrong, it is very weak). The Logos wasn’t near or in association, but He was ‘toward’, ‘to’, or ‘in a relationship with’. The use of “with” is most likely a product of the translator’s belief in the Trinity doctrine.

In the very beginning of creation, the Word already was in a relationship with, or pointing us to… something.

"theon"

Strong's Greek 2316

θεός

Thayer Definition:

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity

2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity

2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity

2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3) spoken of the only and true God

3a) refers to the things of God

3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

4a) God’s representative or viceregent

4a1) of magistrates and judges

Part of Speech: noun masculine

‘Theos’ means “god”. Not THE God, or any specific god for that matter, just ‘god’. Two main words are translated “God” throughout the New Testament: kurios and theos. So the Word was in an active relationship with whom? God. Which God? The Bible makes that clear elsewhere – God the Father; THE God. Jesus was timelessly ‘with’ God Almighty. Meaning from time without beginning the Word was in a relationship with the Almighty God, facing the Almighty God, pointing us to the Almighty God. 

This has the benefit of showing the distinction of the two beings. They are not the same, yet they were always together.

When we read “kai ho logos ên pros ton theon”, we read “and from the very beginning of creation the Word already was in a relationship with the Almighty God, pointing toward the Almighty God”.

PART 3: and the Word was God

kai theos ên ho logos

And [at the very beginning of creation] the Word was already God.

Now, since all of these words have been defined and discussed in parts 1 and 2, we need not define them further. Except there is yet something to notice here. “Ho” is the article whose English translation is “the”. Notice the word “theos” has no such definite article. It is “anarthrous”, meaning it has no article.

The lack of an article before theos and the presence of one before logos clearly shows logos as being the subject, therefore John is not introducing the Almighty God (who later is shown to be the Father), but he introduces the Logos. The Father is not the subject in parts 1 or 2 either. We can conclude the Word is being spoken of throughout this sentence.

In a move that simply had to be intentional, John leaves out the article. This does not have the side-effect of dismissing the Trinity doctrine, as I once believed. In a proper understanding of the Trintiy doctrine, the two are distinct, yet one. Even so, it doesn't handily prove the Trinity doctrine either.
It does handily dispose of the ‘Jesus as a created being’ doctrine (arianism) by claiming the Word was eternally God.

The lack of article displays that theos shows the nature of logos, not his identity. Since logos is theos, Jesus is clearly God. Not THE God, not even A God, but simply God. 'Elohim', if you will.

John calls Jesus ‘theos’, as he calls the Father ‘theos’. This is not the same as the Greek word “theion” (notice the I in theion), which would indicate a divine nature, that is to say what the logos consists of. To describe what something consists of we would have to use the word ‘hypostasis’. But the word is “theos”, which would indicate He IS God. And the phrase doesn’t use an adjective, so it doesn’t imply Christ was ‘like’ God. He is God.

There is also the presence of the word “was”, ‘en’, again. This is just as timeless as always. From even before the beginning of creation, the Word was God.

When we read “theos en ho logos”, we read “the Word [subject] was [timeless, from before the beginning of creation] God [theos – not THE theos, or even A theos, just theos].”

CONCLUSION

We’ve seen how at the time of creation (whether angelic or physical is unimportant) the Logos already existed. And at that time, the Logos was toward, or to, or in an active and involved relationship with God – which can be none other than God Almighty the Father. And at the time of creation the Word was God.

We have also seen how the ‘Jesus as created being’ doctrine are shown to have no support here.

A summary transliteration of John 1 and verse 1:

"At the very time of the beginning of the very first creation the Word already existed, and at that time the Word was already in fellowship with God Almighty, and at that time the Word was already God."

Helpful reference:

Alpha And Omega Ministries: "John 1: 1 Meaning and Translation"

The Day of Atonement

I would like to investigate this annual holy day to see if what Herbert Armstrong taught is true or not.

To get a better understanding of what the Day of Atonement is all about, we have to go to those to whom it was given - the Jews.

AskMoses.com answers the question "What is Yom Kippur?" thusly:

"Yom Kippur [aka Day of Atonement] commemorates the day when G-d forgave the Jewish people for the sin of the Golden Calf. Forty days after hearing from G-d at Mount Sinai, "You shall not have the gods of others in My presence; you shall not make for yourself a graven image," Jews transgressed and committed the cardinal sin of idolatry. Moses spent two forty-day stints on top of the mountain pleading with G-d for forgiveness, and on the tenth of Tishrei it was finally granted. From that moment on, this Day of Atonement is observed annually as a commemoration of our special relationship with G-d, a relationship which is strong enough to survive any rocky bumps it might encounter. This is a day when we connect with the very essence of our being, which remains faithful to G-d regardless of our outward behavior."

They add,

"On Yom Kippur, we complete the Teshuvah steps we began in the Hebrew month of Elul—we express regret for last year’s misdeeds, and express resolution to be better this year. Yom Kippur thus comes on the heels of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year; we want to start the year with a clean slate."

In answering the question "How is Yom Kippur Observed?", they say:

"On Yom Kippur we are commanded to "afflict yourselves"2. This is understood to mean we should refrain from animalistic/humanistic pleasures, and instead focus on humanistic/angelic behaviors. We do the things that make us like angels the most and like animals the least. That’s why we refrain from eating, drinking, bathing, wearing leather shoes3, applying creams, perfume or colognes, and marital relations. "

In answer to "How do we fast on Yom Kippur?", they say:

"A. Fasting on Yom Kippur is mandated by the Torah and is Positive Mitzvah #164. The Torah1 commands us to “afflict” ourselves on the “Tenth of Tishrei,” i.e. Yom Kippur. The Mosaic tradition teaches us that “afflict” (in this context) means de-emphasizing the body’s needs in five areas: bathing; using creams, oils, perfumes or other skin accessories; wearing leather shoes; sexual relations; and eating and drinking.

B. What’s the big deal about eating and drinking? Actually, it’s a very big deal. Yom Kippur is G-d’s designated annual day of total spirituality. On Yom Kippur, we get into things that make us like angels the most, and out of things that make us like animals the most: we spend the whole day in Tefillah, and we put our bodily cravings on the back burner. Tefillah is what makes us most like angels, and eating/drinking is what makes us most like animals. On Yom Kippur, we try to soar as high as we can. Not worrying about what’s to eat helps keep that in focus.

On Yom Kippur, a day of Moshiach in microcosm, we divorce ourselves from our needs for physical maintenance and rely on G-d...

C. Ultimately, fasting on Yom Kippur is an expression of pure faith in G-d. Yom Kippur is compared to Shabbat [Sabbath], and Shabbat is compared to the Era of Moshiach [Moshiach=Messiah] In the Era of Moshiach, G-d will obliterate hunger, starvation, need and blight from mankind. On Yom Kippur, a day of Moshiach in microcosm, we divorce ourselves from our needs for physical maintenance and rely on G-d, as we will when Moshiach comes."

Now, notice that these things only slightly resemble what Herbert Armstrong instituted for the Day of Atonement. Today the COGs will read a few verses about affliction and repentance, talk about how the sacrifices relate to Jesus Christ, and ask for "holy day offerings" contrary to Deuteronomy 16. 

But what really was the Day of Atonement? 

We have to start in Exodus 30 where the Atonement rituals begin to be relayed. We also get a great deal of information from Hebrews which explains how the first covenant was merely a shadow of the second covenant. It is important to know those things were merely copies of the true (HEB. 9: 23-24).

In EXO. 30: 10, God sets the yearly ritual for the High Priest to cleanse the altar. According to HEB. 9: 24-28, Jesus has once and permenantly fulfilled that in His own blood. Doesn't that in itself say it all? Once a year at Atonement the High Priest performed a ritual that in no way could grant atonement (HEB. 9: 9-10), but now, once and for all time, we have attained that very thing?!

According to LEV. 16: 11-14, the High Priest had to make a blood offering for himself before he could enter. Hebrews 9: 6-10 deals with this. But Jesus has fulfilled that and needs no annual sacrifice.

(HEB. 9: 25-26) 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Exodus 30: 11-16 speaks of ransom money for the atonement of the people. Acts 20: 28 tells us the ransom was paid in Jesus' blood. He gave His life as a ransom for us (MATT. 20: 28; I TIM. 2: 6). We were all ransomed for a great price (I COR. 6: 20; I COR. 7: 23).

According to LEV. 16: 2, even the very High Priest was not to come before God at just any time. HEB. 10: 19-23 says we all may now boldly go before God at any time. We know we should pray as often as possible (ROM. 12: 12). 

And why was all of that necessary? Because the way through the veil and direct access to God was not yet made available to mankind. It has been, however (MATT. 27: 51; 2 COR. 3: 16). The time of reformation is not future, as HWA would have us believe, it is clearly past; fulfilled by Christ at His death. Christ paid the price already; He is High Priest now. The rituals and sacrifices of the Day of Atonement are clearly no longer needed. The driving force of Hebrews is to make this very thing clear. If it wasn't so, then we are not only in our sins to this very day, but exceedinly so!!

A root reason why HWA believes the fulfllment of Atonement is yet future is because he interprets the identity of the scapegoat (Azazel goat) of Leviticus 16 as Satan, and he explains how Satan will not be punished until far in the future (REV. 20: 7-11). And thus he says the meaning of the Day is in the putting away of Satan forever and that is why the day is still to be kept. But I ask, why is the day picturing the putting away of Satan when it so clearly points to what Christ did for us at His death?

Are these things HWA taught so self-evident in the Bible? Why, then, does a person need to understand the plan of God in order to know the Holy Days must be kept; while at the same time the Holy Days must be kept in order to understand the plan of God?

The meaning of the scapegoat has been argued for millennia. But to throw my 2 cents in, the two goats were for a sin offering (LEV. 16: 5). It is no stretch to say that all of the offerings pictured Christ in some way. That is the very claim that the COGs make. So why this exception? In recent times, the idea of a scapegoat became one of a person wrongly blamed for something. Doesn't that description perfectly fit Christ? The sins of Israel were laid on the scapegoat, and it bore their sins (LEV. 16: 21-22). Does that description not perfectly fit Christ (I PET. 2: 24)? Hebrews 9, a chapter dealing with the Day of Atonement, even directly associates the bearing of sins, which the scapegoat did, to Christ (HEB. 9: 28). I propose (as many of you in the COGs also believe) the scapegoat also pictured Christ and not Satan at all. But this undoes HWA's theories because, once again, this fulfilment is already past.

(HEB. 9: 8-10) "8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

The "time of reformation" was the time of the giving of the New Covenant. We are in that time now, but some resist it. I want to emphasize what a risk it is to misinterpret what Christ has done. To cling to the Old Covenant, especially only in part, may perhaps bring an undesirable result.

(2 COR. 4: 3-4) 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

The good news of what Jesus did is indeed veiled when we reject it.

HWA has made it a point to emphasize Leviticus 16: 29-34 and Leviticus 23: 26-32.

Notice how those verses state the Day of Atonement is eternal. Yet, few have stopped to ask "what does that mean?" I will get deeper into that in another post, but I just want to point out a couple things in that direction since it relates to this topic. First, the temple, the Aaronic priesthood, the sacrifices both in these verses that we've covered and in Numbers 29, and all else, are no longer.. they are gone, kaput, fulfilled, removed. Those things were "eternal" as well. So, how do we understand this?

We must understand that there was a changing of ages when Jesus died and was resurrected. Those things instituted at that time were never intended to be truly eternal, meaning on into all eternity, but were only meant until the end of that Old Covenant period. They were passing away from the time Moses gave them (2 COR. 3: 7-13). Instead, it is the reality that they pointed to, which is Christ and His priesthood, that is truly eternal. Read through Hebrews 9 and see how the Day of Atonement was kept with things that were temporary, but what Christ did in fulfillment of those things is truly eternal.

(2 COR. 4: 18) 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Truly, you who are still there in the COGs see clearly that those things were fulfilled, or else you would be doing all of them. So I ask you, why do you allow someone to teach you that all those things were fulfilled yet you must still go on partially keeping the day? Why do you assign a meaning to the day that is nowhere laid out in scripture nor in the Jewish interpretation? Why do you allow a day that so completely pictured Christ's death be transformed into a day that pictures Satan's death? 

I will tell you something - HWA, in misunderstanding the New Covenant in Christ, looked at all of the things that were taken away and decided to salvage what he could of the day. That is why the COGs only fast on this day and do none of the other rituals. But Paul and James say if you set out to keep the law then you are bound to keep it all (GAL. 5: 1-4; JAS. 2: 10). In no way do you keep it all! If you wish to fast on this day in remembrance, I cannot find a reason why you shouldn't, unless you intend to keep it as a law (which the COGs do), then you take the risk of falling from grace! Is that really what you want? Is that really the end to which you labor? You think you're obeying the law and teaching the truth, but you know you only keep a fraction of the law. I know that you don't see it that way; but that is because you weren't ever taught it that way. Yet the reality of Paul's clear words remains. And what's more is this: Jesus Christ alone - not the law, not the prophets, not the Apostles, not the human leaders of this age - is the only way to God the Father (JOHN 14: 6), He is the only door by which we may enter (JOHN 10: 1-7), and He is the only salvation (ACTS 4: 12). Have we heard nothing that is said in Hebrews? Christ is the reality! Christ is the fulfillment! Those shadowy things were taken away that the reality could come in! The Day of Atonement is all about foreshadowing Christ!

I emplore you who are in the COGs, pray about this and ask God to open your mind to whether this is true or not. God loves you and cares deeply about you. He has done so much for you. This day pictures those things He has accomplished. He has extended an invitation to the New Covenant in His blood - for the love of God, walk in through that door!

By This All Will Know

As a member of the COGs, I believed that God had revealed certain knowledge to me. This is pretty much the case for all religions. But I felt God had specifically opened my mind to receive certain hidden and encoded knowledge which no man can naturally accept because God is not opening their minds to accept it at this time. It was this knowledge (gnosis) that we believed set us apart. The understanding of this special, secret knowledge is what made us unique and proved God is in us. I felt that I had won the universe's greatest lotto!

An unusual thing occurred to me one day while listening to a message about exactly what it is that God had revealed to the COGs which He had not revealed to anyone else. So many people have been trying to pin it down. It had never occurred to me that rarely would two people agree, nor would those things mentioned be unique to the COGs. So I asked, how on earth could special knowledge set us apart if we didn't even know exactly what that knowledge was? And how on earth could anything be specially revealed and make make us unique if other churches also knew?

In one of my last conversations with my former minister (who I love and respect even now), he mentioned to me that what we were right - meaning other religions had missed the mark. I replied, "That's not proof. EVERYONE thinks they're right. Or else they wouldn't be doing what they do." Can everyone be right? Of course not. Not when so many people believe so many things that are completely at odds. Who is right? I think all Christians would agree God is right. So the question becomes 'what does the God of the Bible have to say about this?' I would like to investigate what the Bible says that sets a person apart and what is real proof of the in-dwelling of the Spirit.

Let's look in to what the situation is. 

Truths had been hidden by God since the fall of Adam that needed to be revealed to mankind (I COR. 2: 7; EPH. 3: 9; COL. 1: 26). Jesus came with the task of doing that (MATT. 13: 10-17) This privilege was given mainly to the 12 Apostles, and they were commanded to go into all the world and spread this message (MARK 16: 15). They did not fail at that. 

God gives us now what He gave them then, and He did not give to either of us what He did not give to the other. The faith was delivered once, and for all time (JUDE 1: 3). All of those who claim God is giving them special knowledge that He did not give to the Apostles are certainly greatly suspect of being false prophets, hungry wolves, roaring lions, and deceivers. God has revealed these same truths continually from the time of the Apostles to those who reciprocate to His calling. If the gates of death will not prevail over His Church, then there was no time when that truth was not being made continually available to men. Specifically it says that those who believe Jesus is coming [continually coming; present tense] in the flesh, are of God (I JOHN 4: 2-3).

No man can find word one in the Bible of a predicted 1,900 year gap in God's work as Herbert Armstrong has claimed in his book 'Mystery of the Ages' (and indeed in many other places). Even so, there is certainly predicted by God to be those who do not receive the message. Take for example the prophecies of deceivers existing at the return of Christ. When Christ returns, He will call the Jews to Himself, so there will yet be Jews. And there is certainly predicted to be a time where there is a famine of the word. When that is, how long, who is involved, and other such questions cannot be answered with confidence because the details are not there. It could already be past for all we know.

I find it an odd thing that the Churches of God claim mankind lost God's truth in a 1,900 year famine and this is the time when God is re-revealing His truth in full again to a select group of mankind before the return of Christ. We know what is believed and taught in the COGs, and we know nothing in 1,900 years exactly matches it, so it is indeed unique (although not nearly as unique as people would like to believe), therefore it is reasoned God must have specially re-revealed it to HWA at this time. It's the only thing that makes sense to a faithful member. The alternative is to see the uniqueness as evidence of error. But if the vast majority of those things were not kept by what the COGs claim are their ancestor churches, then how can those things be that important to salvation?

As far as errors go, they are not unique to any group. No one has the whole truth. Is the whole of what Christ gave not made available to us? Sure it is. However, we are human and have our own weaknesses to deal with. We have pride, prejudice, tradition, laziness, assumptions, conformity, complacency, stubbornness, respect of persons, fear, etc that distracts us from the whole of what Christ gave. Not to mention the revealed secrets were only partially revealed. (I COR. 13: 9-10) "For we know in part and we prophesy in part." It would appear that many groups have varying degrees of the revealed message. Is it then the possession of the 'whole truth' that sets a person apart? How can it be? The whole truth is not given. Nor would I believe a human being can accept the whole truth were it given. OK then, is what sets a person apart the acceptance of the whole of what Christ did reveal? How can it be? Even the COGs commonly say 'no one has the whole truth'. Who among the COGs would be so bold as to say you understand entirely what Christ was given to reveal? *chirping crickets* That settles that.

We've looked in to what it isn't. Any idea on what it is?

**I am going to post a LOT of Bible verses here, so please either follow along with a Bible, or follow along with Bible Gateway. Actually, I highly recommend downloading e-sword, the add-ons are fantastic.

Short answer: sanctification is by the Spirit and belief in the truth (2 THS. 2: 13). Even some in the Churches of God readily admit that "the truth" consists of who Jesus Christ is and what He is doing. So what is this truth?

It is Jesus who saves, and everyone that faithfully believes in the Son and acknowledges their belief to others will be saved (JOHN 6: 47; ROM. 10: 9-13; JOHN 3: 16-17; JOHN 10: 9, ACTS 4: 12; ACTS 16: 31; I THS. 5: 9); such faith comes by exposure to the word of God (ROM. 10: 14-16); it involves knowing He died and has risen (I COR. 15: 1-8); it involves God's grace through Christ (ACTS 15: 11; EPH. 2: 5, 8; TIT. 2: 11; 2 PET. 3: 15); along with that comes baptism (MARK 16: 16). Certainly there is more to being a Christian than this, like holding fast to the end, but we have to stop somewhere.

It IS a calling. 

(JOHN 6: 44-45) "44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

It doesn't say "will come to Herbert Armstrong", but to Christ. It doesn't say "will come to the Old Covenant", but to Christ, along with His gospel (ROM. 1: 6; EPH. 1: 13), and the New Covenant (JER. 31: 31; MATT. 26: 28). After hearing the word of truth, and believing in Christ Jesus, then a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit (EPH. 1: 13).

By the very nature of that, it is not in Herbert Armstrong  or any man (I COR. 1: 12; I COR. 3: 4), and not in the Old Covenant law. But the COGs counter "I need the law and holy days to understand what Christ is doing." I partly disagree with that. Take for example the sacrifices and offerings that we know pictured Christ. Do we need to do those things in order to understand them? No. But they indeed hold much value if we do look into them. 

The difference is in keeping the Old Covenant (more importantly, keeping it partially). Many in the COGs read Romans 8: 14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.", but they skip the next verse "For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption". Do those who aspire to keep the Old Covenant understand this? Galatians 4: 21-31 clearly represents those who attempt to keep the Old Covenant laws as being in bondage, and those who attempt to keep the New Covenant as being sons. The COGs believe one of the signs of the Spirit working in a person's life is that they will keep the Old Covenant laws. I could not disagree more! I think one of the main failings of Armstrongism is that it gets tripped up with the Old Covenant.  (GAL 5: 8) "This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you."

The Old Covenant is profitable only to those who keep it in its entirety (GAL. 5: 3; JAS. 2: 10). Keeping the laws of Moses is NOT necessary in order to be saved (ACTS 15: 1-2; 2 TIM. 1: 9; TIT. 3: 5). To say such a thing means it is no longer by grace. And not just no longer by grace, but to say so means one has fallen from grace (GAL. 5: 4). The Old Covenant is the Ten Commandments (EXO. 34: 28). And the Ten Commandments are NOT Spirit and they are NOT life, they are quite the opposite (2 COR. 3: 6-7). It is not by anything that we do that we are saved. God is not looking for us to have our own righteousness, which is from the law (PHP. 3: 9). It must be His righteousness (JOHN 6: 63). It MUST be by faith, and cannot be by the Old Covenant law (ROM. 3: 21; ROM. 4: 13; ROM. 9: 30-31; GAL. 2: 16). 

(GAL. 2: 21) "for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." 

Am I saying the Old Testament is useless? Certainly not (2 TIM. 3: 15; I PET. 1: 10)! They are two parts of one book, and both very good for us to read and know (2 TIM. 3: 16-17; I COR. 10: 11). 

We've looked at what it is. Now, is there anything, any indicator, which may help us know who is being saved?

Yes. That indicator is our conduct (PHP. 1: 27-28; PHP 2: 12-13; HEB. 5: 9). I do not say that you must have works of faith and righteousness and therefore you will be saved. I say that if you have heard the truth, believed, and received the Spirit, then by that Spirit in you there will be works of faith and righteousness. It can be no other way. Works do not produce salvation, but they are evidence of it (JAS. 2: 17-18). Do not confuse "works" with "law"; they most certainly are not the same! We've already discussed the works of law. These are the works of faith James is talking about here. James is talking about the result of the faith, hope, and love inside you, through which you fulfill the whole law if you do these things (ROM. 13: 8-10; GAL. 5: 14; JAS 2: 8). Just as you will know a false prophet by his fruits (MATT. 7: 16, 20), those who have God's Spirit will be known by their fruits (MATT. 21: 43; PHP. 1: 11; JAS. 3: 17)

So it is not just in what you know. It is not in what man you follow. It's not in what law you keep, or Sabbath, or Holy Day. It's not in your flesh at all - but it is entirely about God and Christ (I COR. 12: 6; I COR. 15: 28; EPH. 1: 22-23; EPH. 4: 15-16; COL. 1: 18). These things are straight from the Bible and true, and need no speculation.

But if you really want a summation of the entire matter, here it is:

(JOHN 13: 35) By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.