Truth Magazine

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

By Donnie V Rader

Tithing

Those who are familiar with material published by the Worldwide Church of God know that it contains a lot of advice concerning one’s finances. I have before me three of their booklets: Ending Your Financial Worries, Managing Your Personal Finances and Tithing. Each one of these, as well as many articles that appear in the Plain Truth, have a lot of advice as to how one should handle his money. They will tell you ways of getting out of debt, how to establish a budget, how to live within your means and avoid financial pitfalls. However the point that stands out most in all of their material is that you need to pay your tithes. This is the key to managing your personal finances. Armstrong has always put great emphasis on tithing.

Tithing is “tenthing” or giving of ten percent (10%). Tithing did take place under the old covenant. Actually it began much earlier and was practiced before the law of Moses was given. Ve read of Abraham paying tithes to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:20). Paul later said, “Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils” (Heb. 7:4). Jacob vowed that “of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee” (Gen. 28:22). The fact that tithing was ever practiced or required no one will deny. The question is whether or not God requires that of people today.

Let us now examine some of Armstrong’s proof of tithing today. In their booklet Tithing, they cite a number of Old Testament examples of tithing. Our attention is called to Abraham and Jacob (Gen. 14:20; 28:22). Next, those under the law were required to tithe (Lev. 27:30; Num. 18:21; 1 Sam. 8:15). Then beyond the day of Moses, during the period of captivity and restoration the people were instructed to pay their tithes. A failure to do so was considered robbing God (Neh. 10:37-38; Mal. 2:8; 3:1-ff). Reading all of this is interesting, but it proves nothing relative to tithing today. The law has ended. Paul shows in Galatians 3:24-25 that the law was our schoolmaster. He then says we are no longer under the schoolmaster. Hence we are no longer under the law. The law has been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). We now are living under the law of Christ (Heb. 9:16-17). Paul says that whatever we do in word or deed, we must do it by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17)., Where in the new covenant does God bind tithing? Will Armstrong and his followers do all that is found in the Old Testament? In Tithing they make a plea for the fact that the Old Testament is inspired. Well, I don’t know of anyone who denies that. Does that prove that we are bound by all that is found in the law and before the law? Will Armstrong offer animal sacrifices (Heb. 9:1-7; 10:4)? Will we find them dwelling in booths (Neh. 13)? The old law is a package deal. Paul told the Galatians that if they kept part of it, they were bound to keep it all. “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. 5:3).

Another argument with reference to the Old Testament is made from Ephesians 2:20. It is argued that since the true church is founded on the apostles and prophets, then what the prophets taught (i.e. tithing, Mal. 3:5-9) is bound upon the church.(1) Again we ask if Armstrong will be bound by all that the prophets taught? Will Armstrong rebuild the temple and the wall around Jerusalem (cf. Haggai, Ezra and Nehemiah).

When we come to the New Testament their arguments are interesting. They begin by citing passages that show that the work must be supported (1 Cor. 9:13-14). Other passages on giving are cited (Matt. 22:16-ff; Acts 20:35). None of these even hint at the concept of tithing. The New Testament is silent on the subject. Listen to their own words concerning the silence of the Scriptures. In answering a question on how one should figure his tithe, it was stated that we cannot say because “the biblical record is silent on the matter.”(2)Likewise we cannot rightfully bind tithing on people today because “the biblical record is silent on the matter.” If I speak I must do so from the word of God (1 Pet. 4:11). If I practice something I must do so by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17). And so I ask, “Where is the passage in the New Testament that even suggests that we are to tithe?”

In an effort to find such a passage, the writers for the Worldwide Church of God cite Hebrews 7 and Matthew 23:23. Neither passage proves anything about us today.

Hebrews 7 just shows that there were some in the Old Testament that paid tithes. Matthew 23:23 states that Jesus instructed some Jews while the law was still in effect to pay tithes. It is obvious to the careful student of the Bible that these verses prove nothing about us today.

What does the New Testament say about giving? Though we are not required to tithe, we are required to give of our means. We are to give as we have been prospered (1 Cor. 16:1-2). We are to give willfully and cheerfully (2 Cor. 9:7). We are to give liberally (2 Cor. 8:1-7).

Someone may ask, “How much should I give?” The answer to that question is really no problem to one who desires to give. One who desires to pray has no problem with the question, “How much do I have to pray?” If the Jews under a temporal kingdom could give a minimum of ten percent, should we not exceed their righteousness (Mt. 5:20) and give the most we can? The real question is “How much do you want to give?”

The Extravagance Of The Armstrong Empire

Our purpose here is to show that the Worldwide Church of God is an empire and show its extravagance. They collect money from all over the world into one fund to accomplish all that they do. This is nothing like the church of the New Testament.

The mail that this group received in 1970 consisted of 3 million pieces which required 180 employees to open, read and process daily.

The annual budget was $40 million in 1974. It has doubled every 2 years and 7 months or on the average every 3 years. Armstrong himself said that it grows at a rate of 30% annually. That being true, then by 1978 the budget would have been over $100 million, making the 1983 budget between $400 and $500 million if it increased at the rate Armstrong said it would.

They have three major printing plants. One is in California, another in England, and another in Australia and a smaller one in Texas. They have only the latest and the best equipment. As of 1974 they had a Goss p-50 press that could “transform a reel of blank white paper 50 inches wide into, printed pages with full-color pictures at the rate of 1200 to 1500 feet per minute. That’s one mile of paper every three and one-half minutes.”(3) “The August, 1971 issue of Tomorrow’s World boasted: `The Ambassador College Press complex in Pasadena occupies more than 100,000 square feet of floor space. Last year this plant used 2,500 tons of paper and 70,000 pounds of ink to print 33 million pieces of literature – including 10 million PLAIN TRUTH’s and 3 million TOMORROW’s WORLD magazines . . . . “(4)

“Armstrong’s school, Ambassador College, is described as `ONE COLLEGE with THREE uniquely different campuses.’ The original one, in a Pasadena, California residential area, is a 45 acre campus with `contoured lawns, sparkling fountains and colorful gardens.’ The second campus, located in the `Green Belt’ area of St. Albans, is just a few miles from London, England. The newest campus is in East Texas at Big Sandy. It has a 4,500-acre campus utilized largely by its agricultural research department.

“Leslie L. McCullough called the Big Sandy campus a `capsule society’ and said: `We operate our own water treatment plant, dispose of our own waste, maintain our own grounds, produce the majority of our own dairy products, raise all our own beef (for both United States campuses) and grow a portion of our own vegetables.”(5)

The vast empire of Herbert W. Armstrong has grown tremendously since 1934. At that time he started with a home-made “magazine” that was printed on a borrowed mimeograph. By 1970 the empire was publishing the Plain Truth magazine with a circulation of 2,136,000. Tomorrow’s World had a circulation of 500,000. The World Tomorrow was broadcast over 300 radio stations and 50 television stations.(6) And remember that has been 13 years, ago!

You may ask how they do what they do. They do this by begging tithes and contributions. “Everything is free” is the song they sing. Your subscription to Plain Truth is prepaid. That is made possible by the tithes they receive.(7)

They make claims that they do not solicit your money and yet they do. On the inside cover of every Plain Truth we read, “Contributions are gratefully welcomed and are tax-deductible in the U.S., Canada and N.Z. Those who wish to voluntarily aid and support this worldwide Work of God are gladly welcomed as co-workers in the major effort . . . .”

Armstrong has stated that to be unfaithful to their annual feast days is a “tremendous sin.” Yet he stated, in connection with that, that many were not paying their tithes as they should and hence putting their business office in a “serious bind.” He urged the members not to forget God’s work during the days of unleavened bread. Armstrong put it this way, that it would be far better to miss meeting with others during this season than to cripple God’s great work. In other words, it would be far better to commit what he calls a tremendous sin than to stop those tithes from coming in.(8)

Armstrong begs from outsiders as well as those who are members. That is seen in the statement found on the inside of the cover of Plain Truth. Armstrong has stated that tithing is for non-Christians as well.(9)

You are promised great blessings if you will send in your tithes. Armstrong’s own experience was that at the time he made a study of tithing, he had very little on hand. He then sent a tenth plus an offering to the Oregon Conference treasurer. That very day Armstrong was able to stock up at home with a reasonable amount of food. He never went hungry from that day until now.(10) We are told that the best assurance of getting and holding a job – of continuous and increasing income is to end in your tithe.(11) Now if that wouldn’t be appealing to a man with financial problems, I don’t know what would.

I think it is obvious to anyone who has a fair knowledge of the Bible that the Worldwide Church of God and its money is nothing like the New Testament church and the funds it may use.

Endnotes

1. Herbert W. Armstrong, Ending Your Financial Worries (U.S.A.: 1959), p. 14.

2. Tithing (Worldwide Church of God publication: 1975), p. 36.

3. Robert L. Sumner, Armstrongism: “Worldwide Church of God” (Biblical Evangelism: 1974), p. 25.

4. Robert L. Sumner, Ibid, p. 25.

5. Robert L. Sumner, Ibid, p. 29.

6. Salem Kirban, Doctrines of Devils: Armstrong’s Church of God (Penna.: 1970), p. 40.

7. Inside Cover of all Plain Truth magazines.

8. Robert L. Sumner, op. cit., pp. 360-361.

9. Robert L. Sumner, op. cit., pp. 370-371.

10. Tithing, op. cit., p. 10.

11. Robert L. Sumner, op. cit., p. 368.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 11, pp. 334-335
June 2, 1983

By Weldon E. Warnock

Yes, man is commanded to keep the Sabbath today, says Herbert W. Armstrong. But what does God say?

Sabbath Forever

Armstrong contends the Sabbath is a perpetual covenant that is to last forever.(1) He bases his position on Exodus 31:12-17 where God said to Moses: “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever. . .” (vv. 16-17). You will notice that the covenant and sign were between God and national Israel – not man in general.

The words, “perpetual,” “throughout your generations” and “forever” mean that the Sabbath would continue as long as national Israel was God’s chosen nation. God’s working through fleshly Israel ended when Jesus established His spiritual kingdom (Matt. 21:43; Jn. 18:36; Rom. 2:28-29; 9:8; 11:15).

This argument would also perpetuate many other Jewish ordinances, such as the passover, circumcision, incense, burnt offerings, etc. Observe that circumcision would be an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:13), the passover was to be kept forever (Ex. 12:14), and that incense was to be a perpetual incense before the Lord (Ex. 30:8). Meat offerings (Lev. 6:18), oil for the lamps in the tabernacle (Lev. 23:3) and the feast of tabernacles (Lev. 23:41) were to be forever. It becomes obvious that “forever” denotes the Jewish dispensation, or throughout their generations. Armstrong’s argument embraces more than he is willing to accept!

Sabbath For Man

Jesus said, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath” (Mk. 2:27-28). Armstrong wrote: “Notice Mark 2:27 again! It was not only one of those things that was made – it not only had a Maker – but it was made for someone. Now today the prevalent idea seems to be that it was made `for the Jews.’ But what did Christ, Himself, say? He said it was made `for man’!”(2)

Of course, the Sabbath was made for man. It was not made for a horse, a cow or a dog, but it was made for man. A Jew is a man and it was made for that man – the Jew. God gave the law to Israel (Deut. 5:1-21). No other nation had a .law so good (Deut. 4:8). The Ten Commandments were a part of this law that no other nation had (Deut. 4:13). God, through Moses, set this law before Israel, not the Gentiles (Deut. 4:44). Paul said the Israelites had the law (Rom. 9:4), and that the Gentiles did not have the law (Rom. 2:14). Sounds like Mr. Armstrong is wrong again.

Sabbath Given At Sinai

The Bible teaches that God instituted the Sabbath at Mt. Sinai. However, Armstrong maintains that the Sabbath was kept from Eden. Armstrong wrote:

Now when did the Lord bless and hallow this seventh day? You will read, as explained before, in Genesis 2:3, that He did this blessing and hallowing on that seventh day of original CREATION WEEK. And this Sabbath Command says plainly, “The LORD blessed the sabbath day.” He did this blessing and hallowing the very day after creation of Adam and Eve. And what He then blessed and hallowed, says Exodus 20:11, was THE SABBATH DAY. It was God’s Sabbath day from the very original creation week. That is when the Lord made the Sabbath.(3)

But neither Genesis 2:3 nor Exodus 20:11 tells us when God sanctified or hallowed the seventh day. We learn this from other passages. Genesis 2:3 reads: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” This passage does not say that God ordained the Sabbath on the seventh day of the creation week. Verse 2 states “he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.” Then, in verse 3, Moses wrote that “God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.” This took place at Mt. Sinai.

Harris Dark said: “The mentioning of the sanctification in Genesis 2:3 has been called a case of prolepsis, or joining together in statement two events that were separated in time. Other examples of prolepsis may be found in Genesis 3:20, 4:20, and Matthew 10:4. No one can show where God sanctified the seventh day, much less where he commanded anyone to keep it, until after the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt.

“The seventh day of the week is first called the sabbath in Exodus 16, in connection with the giving of the manna to the Jews in the wilderness. In anticipation of the law soon to be given at Sinai, God instructed the people to gather two day’s supply on the sixth day and warned them not to expect any on the seventh day. The manner in which the sabbath is thus introduced shows that they were not accustomed to keeping it. In spite of these special instructions, some went out to gather manna on the seventh day and found none. This shows their lack of familiarity with the seventh day sabbath. The sabbath was a new institution soon to be established. Here it was first introduced. At Mt. Sinai a few days later it was made known” (God Hath Spoken, pp. 149-150).

Let us notice the following things that the Bible says, or does not say, about the Sabbath:

(1) The word “Sabbath” is never found till the time of Moses (Ex. 16:23).

(2) There is no record that the Sabbath was ever kept before the Jews kept it.

(3) The Sabbath was given to the Jews (Ezek. 20:12). In giving the Sabbath, God used the same day upon which He had rested, or ceased work of creation (Ex. 20:8-11; 31:17; Deut. 5:15).

(4) The covenant which included the Sabbath commandment was made to Israel only (Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:2-3).

(5) The Sabbath was not given, or made known, until the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai (Ezek. 20:10-12; Neh. 9:13-14).

(6) The Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, not all nations (Ex. 31:12-17; Ezek. 20:12, 30).

(7) Israel was commanded to keep the Sabbath because they had been delivered from Egyptian bondage (Deut. 5:15).

(8) God calls the Sabbath, “her sabbath” (Hos. 2:11), meaning Israel’s sabbath. Hence, it is the Jewish Sabbath.

There is no proof that the Sabbath was intended for anybody but the Jews.

Sabbath In The New Testament

Armstrong wrote: “Now briefly let us look through the commas or punctuation marks, all the translations, such as New Testament to find WHICH DAY Paul kept and the King James, American Standard, Revised Standard taught the Gentile converts to keep.” To try to prove his and New American Standard, place the comma after assertion, he cites Paul’s preaching in the Jewish “week,” rather than after “risen.” There is good reason synagogues on the Sabbath as proof-texts for Sabbath- keeping in the New Testament (Acts 13:14-15, 42-44; 17:2; 18:1-11).(4) Now, this is the best Mr. Armstrong has for proof (?) of Christians keeping the Sabbath in the New Testament – examples of Paul and others attending a Jewish synagogue on Saturday to preach the gospel to unbelieving Jews and Gentile proselytes to Judaism. Surely, Armstrong would not say that Paul was going to a Jewish synagogue to worship, to keep the Sabbath, with a group of religious people who did not even believe in the deity of Jesus? Yet, when you read what he writes, that is exactly what he says because that is all he has to offer. Paul went to the synagogues on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, because that was the day the Jews came together. What Armstrong needs to find is one passage where Paul and other Christians kept the Sabbath in an assembly of the Lord’s church.

Was Jesus Resurrected On The Sabbath?

To try to further enhance his position of a New Testament Sabbath, Armstrong labors fervently to get Jesus resurrected on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, instead of Sunday, the first day of the week. For example, Armstrong changes the comma in Mark 16:9, thereby making the time of the resurrection indefinite as far as that specific text is concerned. The verse states:

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

However, Armstrong moves the comma to make the verse read as follows:

Now when Jesus was risen, early the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.(5)

Although the original Greek manuscripts did not have for this as Luke 24:1-21 plainly teaches that Jesus arose on the first day of the week.

Verse 1 of Luke 24 states: “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre . . . .” In verse 13 Luke records: “And, behold two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus . . . .” The “same day” would be the “first day” of verse 1. Now then, in verse 21, we read: ” . . . . and beside all this, today is the third day since these things were done.” “Today” is the “same day” of verse 13 and the “first day” of verse 1. Hence, the first day (Sunday) is the “third day” of verse 21 and Jesus said again and again that he would be raised the third day (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Lk. 24:46). This should settle the matter for honest hearts.

First-day Of The Week

In the Old Testament the seventh day stands out among the days of the week, but in the New Testament, the firstday of the week is given the emphasis. Observe the following:

(1) Jesus Christ arose from the dead on the first day of the week (Mk. 16:1-9; Lk. 24:1, 13, 21, 46).

(2) On the first day of the week He was thus declared to be the Son of God (Rom. 1:3-4).

(3) Between His resurrection and ascension, Jesus met with His disciples (several times) on the first day of the week (John 20:1, 19, 26). (4) Pentecost came on the first day of the week (Lev. 23:15). Hence, all the events of Acts 2:1-47 took place on the first day of the week.

(5) The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles on the first day of the week and began His mission of conversion (Acts 2:1-4, 38). (6) The first gospel sermon proclaiming Jesus as the Christ was preached on the first day of the week (Acts 2:22-36).

(7) Three thousand souls, the first fruits of the gopsel harvest (Lev. 23:17), were added to the church which began on that Pentecost, the first day of the week (Acts 2:41-47).

(8) The church assembled on the First day of the week to break bread and to worship God (Acts 20:7; 2:42; 1 Cor. 16:2; 1 Cor. 11:23, 33; Heb. 10:25).

(9) Yet, in the face of all these New Testament facts, modern Sabbatarians will cling to the seventh-day Sabbath and seek to bind its observances upon Christians.(6)

Armstrong, in commenting on these first-day of the week passages, tries to explain away their significance by miscontruing the texts and by asking for a text that puts sort of a Sabbath-day concept on the first-day of the week. He fails to see that the New Testament does not make a Sabbath out of Sunday.

Armstrong quotes Today’s English Version on Acts 20:7 to try to establish that the disciples came together at Troas on Saturday night and that the “breaking of bread” was not the Lord’s Supper but was only a common meal.(7) As to whether the disciples came together on Saturday or Sunday, Greek scholars tell us that the first day of the week is the correct translation. The Greek words are mia ton sabbaton. W.E. Vine states that “the first day after the sabbath” is signified (Vol. 3, p. 138). Thayer says it is “the first day after the week” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 187). Arndt-Gingrich also say it means “on the first day of the week” (A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 231). Hence, Today’s English Version is incorrect.

Concerning whether “breaking of bread” in Acts 20:7 means the Lord’s Supper or a common meal, Vine states that “the breaking of bread became the name for this institution (Lord’s Supper, WEW), Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23” (Vol. 1, p. 146). Arndt-Gingrich tell us that bread (artos) in Acts 20:7 was “of the bread of the Lord’s Supper” (p. 110). So, it is apparent that Herbert W. Armstrong is dead wrong about the significance of the first day of the week and that he, obviously, ignores the overwhelming evidence of noted scholars, both lexicographers and translators. Frankly, the man is grossly deceived or flagrantly dishonest, or both.

Conclusion

The first day of the week is the day that is important to Christians. It is the day of the resurrection of Christ. Because of its great significance, let us rejoice and be exceedingly glad!

The Sabbath was given to the Jews only and it was done away in Christ. Paul wrote: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross . . . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days” (Col. 2:14, 16). Paul is saying that since the law has been annulled, let no man, including the man, Herbert W. Armstrong, judge you or impose upon you the Jewish ordinances, such as the Sabbath.

Endnotes

1. Herbert W. Armstrong, Which day is the Christian Sabbath?, p. 58.

2. Ibid., p. 23.

3. Ibid., p. 49.

4. Ibid., pp. 93-96.

5. Ibid., p. 84.

6. Homer Hailey, Let’s Go Fishing for Men, pp. 165-166.

7. Herbert W. Armstrong, op. cit., pp. 87, 89. Note: Acknowledgment is also given to: D.M. Canright, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced; in the preparation of this article.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 11, pp. 331-333
June 2, 1983