Truth Magazine

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: We are to pray for wisdom (Jas. 1:5). What is wisdom and how do we acquire wisdom? The Scriptures thoroughly furnish us unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). This being true, why must we pray for wisdom?

Reply: (1) “Wisdom” is translated from the Greek word sephia, and while it is an attribute of God (Lk. 11:49), it is also an understanding of the will of God on man’s part (Matt. 13:54) and the proper application of His teaching. Webster gives this definition of the word: “ability to discern inner qualities and relationships: insight; good sense: judgment” (Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1025). Wisdom is thus distinguished from knowledge. Knowledge is the possession of information, whereas wisdom is the proper application of that information. Spiritual knowledge is to be obtained from the study of God’s word. Wisdom, on the other hand, is a gift of God; and we pray for it just as we pray for other blessings to be bestowed upon us from God’s bountiful hand.

The context of James 1:5 clearly shows that “wisdom” is spoken of in connection with the manifold trials that would befall Christians. As a sample of wisdom, in the midst of these adversities (such as persecution), wisdom would enable these brethren to realize good as a result of these trials. Instead of becoming discouraged, wisdom would enable them to rejoice in such tribulations. This is the reason in this case that they are told to pray for wisdom.

(2) The Scriptures thoroughly (completely, ASV) furnish us unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). There is a difference between a gift (the bestowal of a blessing) and works which we are taught and motivated by the Scriptures to perform. These are specific deeds: teaching, visiting the sick, encouraging the weak, giving our money, time and ability, studying and living godly, etc. We are to always abound in the work of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58). The Scriptures thoroughly provide us with the what and how of these good works but the Scriptures do not supply us with the blessing of wisdom. Every good and perfect gift comes from God (Jas. 1:17), and wisdom is one of those gifts for which we are to pray. Grace (God’s loving and unmerited favor), like wisdom, is one of the gifts for which the Christian is to pray. It should be remembered, that while the Scriptures furnish us completely unto every good work, they also teach us to pray and specifically teach us to pray for wisdom. Wisdom from God will enable us to use good sense and properly discern and apply what we learn from the Scriptures. We should also remember, that the Scriptures which teach us to pray and which teach us for what we should pray, also teach us to pray in faith, nothing doubting (Jas. 1:6).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 11, p. 345
June 2, 1983

By Dan King

We have under consideration, in this study, one of the most oft-abused of chapters in the Bible. Especially is this so given the current popularity of doctrines which concentrate upon the things that are to happen in the “last days” of the world. With this interest in final events, there has ever been a mood to abuse the “difficult” portions of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). Matthew 24 is one of those which fit into this. category. Admitting it is difficult to understand does not equal saying it is impossible, however. Given careful study and comparison with other biblical literature of the same type, the chapter yields its meaning quite readily. The fact that diligence and deep study are required will prove a hindrance to the lazy; that much of it is incredibly simply will be a stumbling-block to the man who wants to make of it a dark mystery.

As we shall see, some things about this chapter are surprisingly simple. Speculators have made complex a good deal that is straightforward and plain. Premillennialists and dispensationalists are the chief culprits. Those saturated with these errors really cannot be expected to produce an accurate commentary of any text which seems to lend itself to their hypothetical system. This portion of the Bible is no exception to that rule.

Further complicating matters for us in the present investigation is the view, of recent vintage, and spread by some among us, that offers an almost allegorical interpretation of the last portion of the chapter. They see the whole as accomplished in the destruction of the Jewish Temple and State, and some from their number view the end of the Hebrew economy as the single decisive event of the New Testament. It is our intention to give this view a thorough examination in this article, and to supply what we hope the reader will consider a refutation of its major arguments. Though it may seem a bit old-fashioned for some readers, we offer below a defense of the “traditional” approach to Matthew 24, that nurtured on the pages of the older commentaries, and – we still believe – attested by the overwhelming bulk of the evidence, external and internal.

Premillennial Perversions of Matthew 24

The “signs” that were to portend the fall of Jerusalem have universally been taken by premillennialists as being the identifying marks of the “end time.” Eschatology holds a fatal fascination for them anyway, and Matthew 24 has become one of their principal targets. In every book that comes off the presses from the hand of a self-styled “prophecy expert” you will find numerous references to Matthew 24. We may take as representative the comments of one of their most vocal and popular advocates on the contemporary scene, Hal Lindsey, product of the dispensational Dallas Theological Seminary:

As Christ told of the world conditions that would immediately precede his coming, He said, “For then there will be great tribulation (affliction, distress and oppression) such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no and never will be. And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved” (Matt. 24:21, 22).

In other words, this period will be marked by the greatest devastation that man has ever brought upon himself. Mankind will be on the brink of self-annihilation when Christ suddenly returns to put an end to the war of wars called Armageddon (The Late Great Planet Earth, p. 44).

Jesus Christ also pinpointed the general time of His return when His disciples asked Him two important questions. “What will be the sign of your coming?” they wanted to know. And “What will be the sign of the end of the age?”

The coming referred to in the question above is commonly referred to as the second advent of Christ. It was only natural that they wanted to know what signs would indicate his return to set up God’s promised Kingdom.

In answer Jesus gave many general signs involving world conditions which he called `birth pangs.’ He said that these signs, such as religious apostasy, wars, national revolutions, earthquakes, famines, etc., would increase in frequency and intensity just like birth pangs before a child is born.

One of the great signs He predicted, however, is often overlooked. He speaks of the Jewish people being in the land of Palestine as a nation at the time of His return. He speaks of `those who are in Judea’ fleeing to the mountains to escape the great battles that immediately precede His return (Matt. 24:16).

Another statement of Jesus demands a national existence with even their ancient worship restored. `Pray that your flight may not be… on a Sabbath’ (Matt. 24:20). This indicates that the ancient traditions regarding travel on the Sabbath would be in force again, thus hindering a rapid escape from the predicted invasion.

Even the Temple has to be rebuilt according to the sign given in Matthew 24:15. . . (Ibid., p. 54).

Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ‘at the door,’ ready to return. Then he said, `Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24:34 NASB).

What generation? obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs – chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years.’If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so (Ibid., p. 54).

In our study of Matthew 24, several things must be explained properly to prove the premillennial-dispensational approach a pure deception:

(1) The true context of Jesus’ remarks in the chapter.

(2) The correct application of the questions as asked by the disciples and answered by Jesus.

(3) The meaning and duration of the `generation’ of v. 34.

(4) The connection of the modern state of Israel to Matthew 24.

(5) The proper interpretation of Jesus’ metaphors as they stand in the broader stream of prophetic tradition.

To these five things, then, we turn our attention.

Matthew 24: Text and Context

The first three verses of this chapter set the stage for all that is said later on.

And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when his disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And he answered and said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (NASB).

It seems the disciples were proud to show off this masterpiece of human architectural skill to their master. It is no wonder, for it was popularly said that “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a fine building.” Josephus gives a full description of the structure in his Antiquities of the Jews 15.11. This Temple was the pride and glory of the Jews the world over. It was four or five times the size of its predecessors, and was from 20 BC till 64 AD in the building process. Josephus says the stones were 50 ft. long, 20 ft. wide, and 16 ft. thick. They were cut of white and green-spotted marble. It glistened in the sun “like a white mountain” in the distance as one approached from afar. They surely considered it built to last, maybe even forever! But Jesus dashed their hopes with His few words which heralded God’s retributive act of judgment. He portrayed the coming destruction as absolute, leaving no vestige. Josephus (Wars of the Jews 7.9) says Titus in counsel with his generals declared his plan to save the edifice as an ornament to the Empire. But one of the soldiers in his zeal climbed upon the shoulders of one of his fellows and tossed a burning torch into a golden window. Titus, hearing it was aflame, attempted to get it stopped, but to no avail. In the Talmud, tractate Taanith, ch. 4, it is said, “that Turnus (Terentius) Rufus, one of Titus’ captains, did, with a ploughshare, tear up the foundations of the Temple.”

In spite of the valiant defense of the city made by the zealots and other Jewish patriots, and even in spite of the efforts of Titus and his generals, the utterances of Jesus were brought to complete fulfillment in 70 AD! What could have provoked such an awful act of judgment by God? The Babylonian Captivity of 70 years was visited upon by the Jews for the sin of flagrant idolatry. But the severest imaginable punishment was meted out upon the Jews in 70 AD and thereafter: their city was razed to its foundations, the Temple was left in utter ruin, the nation was carried captive into other countries or else slaughtered on the spot, those who survivied were banished from their homeland for nearly two millennia, perennially persecuted, they became a hiss and a byword among the peoples. Alexander Campbell asked a Jew on one occasion, “Have you not been led to suspect that, as this evil came upon your nation shortly after your rejection and crucifixion of Jesus, that probably it came upon you on that account?… Did not Moses say, that if you would not obey that prophet of which he informed you, that such a calamity would befall you?” [Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I (Dec. 6, 1830), p. 565]. The terrible tragedy of the “holocaust” (as Jews are want to call it) of the last World War, brings home anew the reality of God’s fearsome judgment of His recalcitrant people. This is just one more instance, though, of what began with God’s rejection of Israel in 70 A.D.

The questions asked by the disciples were three in number: (1) When shall these things be? (2) What shall be the sign of thy coming (presence)? (3) What shall be the sign of the end of the world? The disciples’ error was that of a false synthesis, i.e. putting things together that do not belong together. They figured a devastation so catastrophic as to include the total leveling of a structure of the magnitude of the Temple must surely herald the end of the world. As it was it only heralded the conclusion of the Jewish economy. We ought not be surprised to find them confused over a thing like this, since they were still completely in the dark as to the spiritual nature of the kingdom even after the resurrection of Jesus, to the point of asking out-of-sorts questions on that issue in Acts 1:6-8.

Comparison with Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 (the parallel accounts) show that the only distinction between them lies in the ommision by the other two writers of the line, “and of the end of the world (age)?” Mark records it this way, “What shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?”, and Luke has it thusly: “Teacher, when therefore shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?” Exclusion of the third question, about the end of the world, is followed up by deletion of the final section which actually describes the events at the end of the age (Matt. 24:37ff.).

The conclusion which must be drawn, therefore, is that this section which Matthew alone records is given in reply to the last question. Since it does not occur in the others, all three questions cannot be mere “Semitic parallelism, saying the same thing three times” as Stanley Paher argues (If Thou Hadst Known, p. 65.). Luke records the section, or (more likely) a similar dialogue, at Luke 17:22-37. The context and subject matter there clearly demonstrate its connection with the end of the world and the second coming of Christ. Jerusalem’s fall is nowhere in sight or mind. Making them fit into the scheme of 70 AD is, to my way of thinking at least, a rather transparent case of proof texting.

Going back to the disciples’ question for a moment, the identical expression (sunteleias tou aionos, “end of the world”) occurs several other times in the book of Matthew (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49; 28:20). It does not appear in the other gospels. I think that it is safe for us to assume that it means the same thing whenever it is used unless there is proof to the contrary. Of course, the word aionos may mean either “world” or “age,” and the phrase itself may refer either to the termination of a period of history or of all history. The other usages of this expression all point to a meaning encompassing the conclusion of all history, i.e. the “end of the world” of the older translations. The reader may judge for himself: “the enemy that sowed them is the devil: and the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are angels. As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire; so shall it be in the end of the world …. So shall it be in the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth” (13:39, 40, 49); and, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). Clearly the disciples thought of the conclusion of the world’s history when they used this line. It was left to the Lord to clarify matters on that count with respect to the fall of their Temple and its lack of connection with the end of the world. We believe He did just that, explaining it so that it could be understood.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 11, pp. 343-345
June 2, 1983

By J. T. Smith

I recently acquired the book The United States and Britain in Prophecy by Herbert W. Armstrong. In this book Mr. Armstrong takes the position that there is a distinction in the “House of Israel” or “Children of Israel” and the Jews. In fact, Mr. Armstrong entitles chapter three of the book “National Greatness Promised Israel – Yet The Jews Never Received It – Why?” He takes the following position regarding those today who comprise Israel. “Yet we must face the astounding fact that our white, English-speaking people – not the Jews – have inherited national and physical phases of those promises” (Ibid, p. 12). The promises of which he speaks are those promised to Abraham by God. Thus, the doctrine is that the Anglo-Saxon people are the ten tribes of Israel which lost their identity when they were taken into Assyrian captivity. Thus the Anglo-Saxon people (Mr. Armstrong’s Israel) are the ones to take part in the Millennium, not the Sews.

One interesting thing that I discovered while doing research for this article, was the fact that this doctrine did not originate with Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. In fact, an article in an old Bible Banner edited by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. produced some interesting facts. The article by Yater Tant on this very subject sets forth the fact that “Richard Brothers (1757-1824), `a half-pay officer of eccentric habits in the British navy,’ has given to the world one of the most amazing religio-political theories to be found in all history. It was this odd character who was the first in modern times, to advocate the singular theory that the British nation is in actual fact the true and real Israel of God. He claimed that the Anglo-Saxon race was descended from the `ten lost tribes’ of Israel; that he, himself, was a lineal descendant of David, and the rightful claimant to David’s throne; that very shortly God would overthrow all the enemies of Israel (England), and that he, Richard Brothers, would become the ruler of the whole world.”

“Quite understandably, the Britishers confined this man to a lunatic asylum, but, even so, he secured and retained many admirers. Outstanding among them was C. Piazzi Smyth.” Mr. Smyth said that while Brothers was absolutely right about the Anglo-Saxons being the true Israel, he (Brothers) had mis-calculated the matter. It was the Queen of England, not Brothers, who was rightful heir to the throne of David.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics lists a number of the proof-texts used by Brothers and also by Armstrong, who hold to Anglo-Israelism. It reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the childish way that take passages and make some point in the passage fit their theory. Here are some of them:

“Jeremiah 3:12. God’s word should be proclaimed in the north. (Britain is to the north of Palestine).

“Isaiah 49:10. Heat or sun should not smite them. (Britain is foggy and cloudy most of the year. The sun rarely ever shines upon the people there.)

“Isaiah 24:15. God’s name should be glorified in the isles. (Britain is an island kingdom.)

“Micah 5:8. The remnant of Jacob shall be as a lion among the nations. (Britain is traditionally the `lion,’ even using the symbol of a lion in her coat of arms.)

“Isaiah 49:19-20, 54:3. Colonies should be established. (Britain is the world’s greatest colonial empire.)

“Genesis 48:19. One of Joseph’s sons, Manasseh, was to become a separate nation. (Who can deny that this refers to the United States?)”

Many of these same passages are used by Armstrong with the same childish kind of comparisons made by him. Also, the same kind of arbitrary meaning is given to many of the passages discussed by Mr. Armstrong. However, as I have already pointed out, the greater part of the material in Mr. Armstrong’s book is given to show that Israel is never referred to as the Jews, and that the Jews did not include Israel. In fact, Mr. Armstrong said on page 68 of his book, “the terms `house of Israel’ or `all Israel,’ when the meaning is national, or the terms `Jacob,’ or `Rachel,’ or ‘Ephraim,’ or `house of Joseph,’ or ‘Samaria,’ often used in the Bible in prophecy, relate to the ten-tribed birthright people, not to the Jews. This is a key and a master key, to Bible understanding!”

It is claimed by Mr. Armstrong that Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph who were blessed by Jacob, would be the heads of the tribe of Israel. Mr. Armstrong makes a special point to talk about Jacob “crossing his hands” in giving the blessing to Ephraim and Manasseh and what that means in prophecy. He believes that Ephraim represents the British Isles, and that Manasseh represents the United States. But, Mr. Armstrong has “his wires crossed.” For, according to the Scriptures, Ephraim, which received the right-hand blessing of Jacob, should be greater than Manasseh, who received the left-hand blessing. This would mean that Great Britain is a greater nation that the United States which is supposedly represented by the boy who received the lesser blessing, Manasseh. So Mr. Armstrong’s calculations will not work.

The Ten Lost Tribes

Mr. Armstrong insists that the ten tribes are the real Israel, not the Jews which consisted of Judah and Benjamin. He also affirms that we, the Anglo-Saxons of to day, are descendants of the ten tribes and, therefore, are the true Israel.

In reading Mr. Armstrong’s book, I found that the majority of his problems come as a result of his endeavoring to “squeeze” the millennial theory into every passage that discusses Israel’s return after their captivity by the Assyrians.

In an effort to show the ridiculousness of Mr. Armstrong’s reasoning, I want to note his teaching on the millennium. Not long ago, I was returning home from a trip and listening to Mr. Armstrong on the car radio. He was discussing Daniel chapter two, describing Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. He was doing an excellent job of describing the interpretation of the dream. He showed how the Babylonian empire was represented by the head of gold, the Medo-Persian empire was represented by the breast and arms of silver, the Grecian empire was represented by the belly and thighs of brass, and then “bingo,” he jumped from the Grecian kingdom all the way to time in which we live as a time when God would set up His kingdom which would never be destroyed. Why not just continue to show the next kingdom in the historical line was the Roman kingdom when God would establish His kingdom? That is the mystery indeed. But after taking the above position, you can see the problem that anyone would have in trying to explain the return of Israel. But let’s note some Bible facts.

Fact 1. When Jeremiah was prophesying of the Babylonian captivity, he included Israel in his prophecy. We read in Jeremiah 23:7-8, “Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I have driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.”

Fact 2. The book of Ezekiel was written by Ezekiel to try to comfort his companions during the’time of their tribulation in Babylonian captivity. The book may be divided into three main divisions. The first division (chapters 1-24) contains predictions of the conquest of the Jews. The second division (chapters 25-32) was delivered during the invasion of Jerusalem. The final division (chapters 33-48) foretells the return of all God’s people from Babylonian captivity. Israel is mentioned in every division of Ezekiel’s prophecy.

In the first division (Ezek. 3:1), Ezekiel was told, “. . . go speak to the house of Israel.” In the second division, God told Ezekiel, “Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel . . .” (Ezek. 33:10). And in the third division, Ezekiel is carried out in the spirit of the Lord and set in a valley of dry bones. Ezekiel was shown by the Lord that these bones would take on flesh and they would be given breath and they would become a great army (Ezek. 37). What was meant by that which Ezekiel saw? God explains it in Ezekiel 37:11-14. “Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus said the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord when I have opened up your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And I shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land, then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.” Not only that, but in the next verses (15-22) God shows that Judah and Israel would be united in the return. (See also Jer. 23:7-8).

Not only did God say that both would be brought back from the Babylonian captivity, but that all the kingdoms of the earth would be turned over to Cyrus king of Persia and those among all of God’s people who desired could return to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 36:22-23). This would include both Judah and Israel and God declared that He would be their king (Hosea 13:9-11).

Fact 3. When we come to the New Testament, we find that the word “Jew” was applied to “Israel,” and those of Israel were referred to as Jews.

When the birth of Jesus was made known, what is said? “Where is he that is born king of the Jews?” (Matt. 2:2). But in verse 6, I read, “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.” You will note that in one verse Christ is said to be king of the Jews, and in the other He is said to be the ruler of Israel. He was also referred to as King of Israel (John 1:49).

When Christ sent forth His disciples on the “limited” commission, you will observe that He sent them “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:6). So it was not that they were “lost” in the sense of not being able to find them, but in the sense that they were lost spiritually. Otherwise, how would they be able to find them to preach to them?

In Acts 2:5 we read that “there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.” However, in verse 22, Peter referred to them as “Ye men of Israel,” and in verse 36, he referred to them as “all the house of Israel.” Hence, these “Jews” were referred to as “the house of Israel.”

When Paul went into the synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia, he was given the opportunity to speak. He addressed those who were there as “Men of Israel” (Acts 13:16). However, verse 42 tells us that at the close of his lesson “the Jews were gone out of the synagogue . . . .” Also, Paul said in Galatians 2:15 that he was “a Jew by nature.” But he also said that he was “of the stock of Israel,” and yet in the next breath said he was “of the tribe of Benjamin” (Phil. 3:5). You will recall that the tribe of Benjamin was included with Judah in the two tribes that, according to Mr. Armstrong, were not at all Israel.

Conclusion

Many other instances could be cited to show that the New Testament identifies a Jew as an Israelite and an Israelite as a Jew, but surely the above passages are sufficient.

The reason Mr. Armstrong missed the truth on this subject is because of his many false premises upon which he bases his theory.

1. He, like Mr. Brothers of long ago, puts his own connotation on the verses that he needs to prove his theory.

2. He misses the teachings of the Scripture on the fact that both Judah and Israel were included in those who were in Babylonian captivity.

3. He will not allow for the return of Israel after the Babylonian captivity, as many of the Old Testament prophets prophesied, but desires to make their return at some future time in harmony with his millennial theory.

4. He must deny plain passages in the New Testament that show that the Jews were Israelites, and that the Israelites were called Jews. So, my friends, neither Britain nor the United States may be found in prophecy, Mr. Armstrong to the contrary notwithstanding.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 11, pp. 338-340
June 2, 1983

By Irvin Himmel

One error leads to another. The theology of Herbert W. Armstrong is a network of error. His peculiar view of the new birth is an outgrowth of denying that the kingdom of God now exists. He insists that the kingdom is to be a literal reign of the divine government over the nations of the world. His strange doctrine of placing the new birth in the future connects also with his concept that man is now wholly mortal in nature.

According to Armstrong and his comrades, no one is born again until the resurrection. Man ceases to exist, they say, between death and the resurrection, so it is when the faithful in Christ are raised and glorified that they are born anew.

Armstrong’s theology has it that when one dies his soul (physical life) ends and the body returns to the earth as it was. The spirit returns to God. The spirit functions like a computer tape or disk, containing millions of bits of information, but is inactive and silent. “This spirit is kept by God and serves as a kind of blueprint by which God will one day resurrect each individual even though that person’s body may long have disintegrated and returned to dust” (“Why Christ Arose From the Dead” by Clayton Steep, Plain Truth, March, 1983, p. 43).

It is asserted that Jesus ceased to exist at death. His resurrection therefore made Him the “first fruits” of them that slept (1 Cor. 15:20), or the “firstborn” from the dead (Col. 1:18). Jesus is now very God at the right hand of the Father in heaven.

Armstrongism maintains that true Christians are only “begotten” of God while humans, but “we shall be born of God in the resurrection” (“Why the Resurrection?” by Roderick C. Meredith, Plain Truth, March, 1983, p. 14). Armstrong says God is “reproducing Himself after His own kind” (Why Were You Born? p. 29). When a person is impregnated with the Holy Spirit he is begotten of God. This is conversion (Just What Do You Mean . . . Conversion? p. 8).

In a booklet entitled What Do You Mean . . . Born Again? Armstrong sets forth a detailed explanation of his theory of the new birth. He argues that the kingdom of God (the Government of God – the God Family – saints converted into divine spirit persons) is something that can be seen, but not during the physical lifetime! It is for the next age. Therefore since Jesus told Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3), the new birth is the change (resurrection) that brings one into the succeeding age as a spirit being.

Pressing the idea that the new birth is for the next age, Armstrong says that according to Jesus, “when one is born of the Spirit HE WILL BE SPIRIT! Look at it! Read it in your own Bible” (p. 14). Well, I have read my own Bible and that is not what Jesus said. Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Jesus did not say that which is born of the Spirit “will be” spirit. Jesus is showing that the spirit is what is changed in the new birth. In this life man is both flesh and spirit. The flesh is not changed in the new birth; it is the spiritual part of man that is born anew. Jesus did not say that the new birth is a change of flesh into spirit, or transformation of man from a fleshly being to a spirit being.

Armstrongism makes the new birth a literal birth. “There will be no blood in the body of one `born of the Spirit.’ He will not have to breathe air to exist. He will be literally COMPOSED OF SPIRIT . . . . The new birth is not an emotional experience, but a literal birth!” (Ambassador College Correspondence Course, Lesson 8).

Now we are told that the born again person will be invisible like the wind. The God Family (divine spirit persons) cannot be seen during the physical lifetime. It is contended that Jesus was the “firstborn” of such beings. The correspondence lesson quoted above states on p. 15 that Jesus in His resurrected body “looked the same as He had before in the flesh, except He now was composed of spirit instead of flesh and blood.”

That does not square with Scripture at all! After His resurrection Jesus was visible and touchable to men living in the flesh. He affirmed that He was there in the flesh. He challenged them in these words: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Lk. 24:39). Which do you believe, Jesus Christ or Armstrong?

There are five kingdoms, says Armstrong: (I) vegetable; (2) animal; (3) human; (4) angel; and, (5) God. The God Kingdom is future but the Church is present, therefore it must be human. Yet he calls the Church “the spiritual Mother.” He reasons that just as one is delivered from his mother’s womb into this world when born, he will be “delivered from the CHURCH of God (physical)” into the Kingdom of Spirit Beings when born again. So the “spiritual Mother” is “physical.” (If that sounds confusing, I agree!)

Here is a chart showing Armstrong’s analogy of things:

GOD	FATHER
HOLY SPIRIT	SPIRITUAL SPERM
HUMAN MIND	SPIRITUAL OVUM
CHURCH	SPIRITUAL MOTHER
TRUE CHRISTIANS	BEGOTTEN CHILDREN (Fetuses) (Heirs, not Inheritors)
PRESENT AGE	GESTATION PERIOD
RESURRECTION	NEW BIRTH   (Delivered from Mother) (Spirit Composition) (Divine as God) (Cannot Sin) (Eternal Life Inherent)

“When begotten by God the Father by receiving His Holy Spirit, we are put into the Church, which during this gestation period is our MOTHER” (What Do You Mean . . . Born Again? p. 19). Is the Church a spiritual Mother dwelling in the flesh? If so, why may not spiritual children be born while dwelling in the flesh.

Armstrong in his typically dogmatic style asserts that Christians are children of God only in the unborn stage. A child may be aborted but cannot be delivered or born until the resurrection. “When Jesus was talking with Nicodemus, He was referring to the TIME when we may see, enter into, the kingdom of God. And that is the TIME of the final BIRTH” (p. 34).

Armstrong misses the point completely. Jesus was not discussing- a “time element.” He was referring to the spiritual nature of the new birth in contrast to the physical nature of the old birth. When Jesus did discuss the “time element” pertaining for the kingdom, He placed its coming in the life span of some to whom He spoke (Mk. 9:1). And Paul taught that Christians are in the kingdom (Col. 1:13). Armstrong cannot envision any kind of kingdom as belonging to Christ except a Government over the Nations of the World.

The Greek word gennao refers to the production process. It is translated “brought forth” in Luke 1:57; “delivered” in John 16:21; “begotten” in 1 John 5:18; and it is “born” in John 3:3-8; Matthew 1:16 and other passages. The context would determine how it should be rendered in English.

Armstrong arrogantly asserts that in every case where gennao refers to Spirit-begotten Christians, it should be rendered “begotten” (p. 36). Why? Because to translate it otherwise would not harmonize with his view of the new birth!

The Greek word anagennao is used in 1 Peter 1:3, 23. Armstrong insists that anagennao should be translated “begotten.” It does not bother him in the least to dismiss scholarly renditions that might disagree with his views. He is wiser than all the scholars whose translations do not teach his 1-iar concepts. Here is a list of fifteen translations of #wo passages using anagennao:

1 Peter 1:3

King James Version: “hath begotten us again”

American Standard Version: “begat us again”

New American Standard Bible: “has caused us to be born again”

Revised Standard Version: “have been born anew”

New English Bible: “gave us a new birth”

Jerusalem Bible: “has given us a new birth”

Beck: “has . . . given us a new birth”

Today’s English Version: “gave us new life”

New King James Version: “has begotten us again”

New International Version: “has given us a new birth”

Moffatt: “have been born anew”

Living Oracles: “has regenerated us”

Knox: “has begotten us anew”

Amplified: “have been born again”

Montgomery: “have been born anew”

1 Peter 1:23

King James Version: “Being born again”

American Standard Version: “having been begotten again “

New American Standard Version: “have been born again “

Revised Standard Version: “have been born anew”

New English Bible: “have been born anew”

Jerusalem Bible: “your new birth was”

Beck: “You were born again”

Today’s English Version: “have been born again”

New King James Version: “having been born again”

New International Version: “have been born again”

Moffatt: “are born again”

Living Oracles: “having been regenerated”

Knox: “have all been born anew”

Amplified: “have been regenerated – born again”

Montgomery: “have been born anew”

Peter tells Christians that as newborn babes ‘we are to desire the pure milk of the word that we may grow thereby (1 Pet. 2:1-2). Although Armstrong repeatedly urges that Christians are unborn children – in a gestation state, he says Peter compares this gestation period to the growth of a newborn human “because it would be awkward indeed to compare it to a physical embryo or fetus.” Why would it be so awkward for Peter but not for Armstrong? Could it be that Peter understood that Christians have been born again, therefore the growth of Christians is compared to newborn babes rather than unborn babes? Here it is well to note that the Bible never refers to a Christian as a fetus or embryo!

Does the Bible say, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the unborn sons of God?” Better read Romans 8:14. And note that the Bible does not say that God “hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in spiritual ova in Christ.” Better read Ephesians 2:6. And the Bible never refers to this present age as “the gestation period. “

Armstrong teaches that there are only two conditions for being saved – repentance and faith. Baptism is regarded as an ordinance symbolizing faith. “Now water baptism is a required CONDITION to receiving the Holy Spirit” (All About Water Baptism, p. 18). He says the Holy Spirit must be received for one to be begotten, but conversion is not the new birth – only the begetting.

Hence according to Armstrong, through repentance and faith (symbolized in baptism) one is begotten by the Spirit. The whole life of the Christian is but the gestation period for the unborn child. Strangely, the Bible represents this child as walking (2 Cor. 5:7), speaking and ministering (1 Pet. 4:11), running (Heb. 12:1), bearing burdens (Gal. 6:2), fighting (1 Tim. 6:12), being persecuted (2 Tim. 3:12), behaving like a man (1 Cor. 16:13), working and laboring (1 Thess. 1:3), pulling down strong holds (2 Cor. 10:4), and many other things; notwithstanding, the little fellow is still in his mother’s womb; he is only an unborn fetus. He must remain an embryo until the resurrection!

That, patient reader, is Armstrong’s doctrine of the new birth!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 11, pp. 336-338
June 2, 1983