The Books of
the Law are full of exact, specific instructions on exactly how to
keep the Law. In the wilderness, the Law was their key to survival.
The Law was the key to understanding how the line of Israelites were
key to eventually descending, out of it's lineage, the Savior of the
World – Jesus Christ. Without the Israelites, and without the Law –
there was no prophecy of a Savior, and there was nothing to descend
from – and no One to point to.
We in
Armstrongism took the Bible differently – and saw the entire book
as an entire law in itself – changed in application, yes – but
essentially, we saw it as the same, unchanged Law – never ending in
it's authority, forever binding in all generations. What we didn't
see in our zeal is that mixing the Old Covenant and the New Covenant
was like trying to mix oil and water – nice try, but it just didn't
work. It created a casserole out of good things and bad things to
make a good-smelling absolute putrid wreck of a meal. But instead of
us throwing it out, we closed our nose and ate it anyway, because we
were told to. Eventually we got used to it, and tried to get others
to get used to it too.
We always
started from front to back – with the Old Covenant. That was, after
all, where the core tenets of the “Law” were located.
No one
pretended they didn't read the Bible – that's what we were good at.
Many prided themselves at their knowledge of scripture. Many read if
from front to back over, and over again. And they knew what was there
and what wasn't there. What they lacked was the understanding of
exactly who Jesus was, and what he accomplished – and how that
changed everything forever. In Armstrongism, that thinking was
blasphemous - “Think Not that I came to destroy the Law – I came
not to destroy it, but to fulfill it!”, They'll say – but
inadvertantly, they will equate the word “Fulfill” to mean “Keep”
or to mean “Observe” - even “Purpose”. Thinking the word
“Fulfill” meant complete – well, that was out of bounds.
Taking
offerings, for example – a tenet key part of the Law of Moses.
There were,
in the book of Leviticus, specific procedures for offerings. There
were burnt offerings from the flock, the herd, and of birds. There
were grain offerings and baked bread offerings, and offerings from
the first portion of the harvest. There were peace offerings, also
from the herd, flock, and goat. Then, there were specific offerings
for sins. There were specific offerings for guilt. There were
specific offerings for ordination.
There were
rules for clean foods and unclean foods. There were rules to purify
yourself after childbirth. There were rules for contagious skin
diseases. There were rules for contaminated clothing. There were even
rules for mildew contamination. There were rules on bodily
discharges.
There were
further rules on how to make atonement, eating blood, personal
conduct, and punishments for disobedience. There were specific
instructions for peace. And there were appointed festivals throughout
the year.
There were
rules on the Sabbath Year and on property redemption, and rules on
redeeming the poor and enslaved. There were rules on redeeming gifts
offered to the Lord.
To
understand the differences between the law and the church's teaching,
we can refer to an article written by Herman Hoeh called “Which Old
Testament Laws should we keep today.” Herman Hoeh was an evangelist
(read: very high) ranked minister in the church – who the church
relied on to interpret to others, well, why we did the things that we
did in the church. One of the questions he wanted to answer is “Why
do we keep some of the Old Covenant laws today.”
The astute
reader will notice that he never really mentioned much about Jesus in
his whole explanation. This is how he put it:
First:
Herman Hoeh states that “There is only one sacrifice mentioned in
the book of the law, the Passover Sacrifice”.
First, this
is an absolute untruth. Exodus 10:25 clearly states that sacrifices –
not just one sacrifice – but sacrifices – plural – and
offerings – were to be presented to the Lord. That was what Moses
told the Pharoah at that time as to why they needed to leave Egypt.
Pharoah hardened his heart at that and would not let the Israelites
go.
Leviticus
states that there can be, in Chapter 1:3, a sacrifice for a whole
burnt offering – this is different from a “Passover sacrifice”.
There were many types of sacrifice in the “book of the Law” -
whole burnt offerings from the herd, whole burnt offerings from the
flock, and bird offerings. All of these types of offerings were
considered sacrifices. Leviticus 7 states that animals can be
“sacrificed” as guilt offerings. The entire book of the law is
filled with sacrifices and offerings – this was the main way sin
was covered until the time of Christ. Because the Passover sacrifice
was converted into Jesus' substitution of unleavened bread for the
Passover lamb sacrifice, the thinking was then that the Passover
sacrifice was still in effect, but substituted and transformed. In
truth, the entire old Covenant – the old law – was filled to the
brim with offerings and sacrifices. It was the only way the law could
“guard” the Israelites in protection until Christ could come and
be the final sacrifice, once and for all.
Second:
Herman Hoeh states, because of his logic concerning the
transformation of the Passover sacrifice, that the Passover “IS”
Binding. BUT – Using Jeremiah as a crutch – the ceremonial Old
Testament offerings are NOT Binding. He uses Jesus' subtitutiuon of
unleavened bread for the Passover lamb to verify this “point”.
Third:
Herman Hoeh states that only the “Temporary rituals and sacrifices”
were “added” because of transgression until Christ should come.
He is referring only to the temporary rituals and sacrifices. Herman
Hoeh is saying that the other parts of the law existed before the
giving of the law, and that the temporary rituals and sacrifices,
because they were added, are the only parts of the Law that can be
taken away – never mind the many scriptures that are very clear
that the whole law is the law, and breaking one part of it is
breaking all of it. Hoeh claims because there was an “addition”
to the law of sacrifices and offerings, then this is the only part
that is valid for “subtraction” while the rest remains valid.
Hoeh's reasoning is only based on a few scriptures, and is nullified
by the book of Galatians, and the words of Jesus himself concerning
the entirety and totality of the whole law.
Fourth: He
claims the temporary laws “did NOT define sin” - and only the
“laws that define sin” are to be kept. Obviously, the temporary
laws Hoeh was referring to were ritual and ceremonial laws, and
offerings and sacrifices. His assertion that only the laws that
define sin were to be kept is rejected by repeated admonitions in the
Law that state to be careful to observe all laws, regulations, and
commands in the law without adding to them and also without
subtracting to them. Anything broken in the law, in the old Covenant,
was sin – from the smallest infraction to the greatest infraction.
The belief was that the law was eternal, from before Moses to after
Jesus – and thus, by effect, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ did
absolutely nothing to change anything – and Jesus' words and power
were silenced – until later, in his second coming, the church
believed. Until then, there was sort of a limbo period between the
old and new covenants, where the Old was only partially done away
with, and the “new” hadn't come yet. The church then, in this
theology, took the liberty of defining the “interim” period with
their own version of what parts of the Law existed, and what parts of
the Law did not. Though there was, and is, no precedent for this
version of theology anywhere, this was a way the church was able to
develop and implement their own theology – and judgements – as to
what parts of the law were to be obeyed, and what parts of the law
were not to be obeyed. This entire way of doing things in the church
was based on their own definition of the Law, based on a couple of
scriptures that were misinterpreted regardless. It was a way to
validate their beliefs, not having their beliefs validated by
scripture.
Fifth:
Herman Hoeh claims the “physical types” of sacrifices were to
exist until Jesus, but the “Spiritual Sacrifices” are to be
offered up by us today. Yet, the church concentrated their efforts on
the “physical” instead of the “spiritual” - not in regards
to phsical sacrifices – but nearly everything else – money,
finances, days, seasons, years, timeframes, and the list goes on and
goes on – was physical. The emphasis of the church was consistently
on the physical – while the “spiritual” would come later after
the Second Coming. The talk of Hoeh was double-speak, saying one
thing but doing entirely the other. The New Testament talks clearly
about what forms of spiritual sacrifices would happen as a result of
conversion – things such as the fruits of the spirit, the behaviors
of a Christian, the beatitudes – but the church focused so much
more on the physical standards according to the law. As was often the
case, one thing was said, and another thing was done, causing
confusion and hardly ever any real clarity of answer.
Sixth:
Herman Hoeh admits that the word “Forever” means “as long as
the factors involved exist”. The church consistently said that the
Sabbath and Holy Day existed “Forever, in your generations”
because of that word “Forever”. However, that word “Forever”
was used even in aspects of the Law that the church claimed were
“done away with”. One set of scriptures was emphasized, and
another set of scriptures was cancelled – though both used the same
timeframe clause of “forever”. The scripture most often used by
Armstrongism had to be Levitivus 23:41 – where it says it must be
kept by all future generations. Of course, it became impossible for
these commands to be kept completely, as commanded, forever, as
shortly after Christ, the ability to sacrifice offerings in the
temple was abolished with the destruction of the temple in AD 70 with
Roman conquest.
The church
used the word “Forever” as found in Exodus 31:17 to “prove”
the Sabbath was always the sign of the church – because they
believed they were “natural-born Israelites, based on the
British-Israelism theory that has since been long debunked. Yet other
parts of the scripture that refer to a “Permanent Law” include
Leviticus 16 – which are how to make atonement in the Most Holy
Place, and the alter clear to the entire town. This was permanent –
to
be done each
year – and even Heoh himself agreed that this was to be done “as
long as the conditions existed”. In the mind of the church, the
destruction of the temple negated the conditions to exist in regards
to sacrifice and offering – but the conditions still existed for
the Sabbath and the Holy Days. Jesus did absolutely nothing in
regards to days, and seasons, and years – as well as ceremonies of
civil law, in the mind of the church. After all, Jesus wasn't what
was important – it was simply his message that was what was
important. Jesus held no more power in the minds of the church then
the message of a prophet.
Seventh:
Herman Hoeh claims that “Physical” Offerings and “Various
washings” are no longer needed, and the “Physical Levitcal
Priesthood” is no longer necessary. Herman Hoeh admits the “Factors
involved in the Law of Moses ceased to exist”.
After this
foundation, we go from the “physical laws” to the “spiritual
laws”.
Eighth:
Herman Hoeh states that “GOD WILL NOT ALTER HIS SPIRITUAL LAWS” -
Himself using all capital letters. He says they are unchangable. The
problem came with the combining of physical ordinances with spiritual
laws that were ignored for the weightier laws of the physical.
Then, He
turns to Hebrew 9:10 to talk about material gifts and sacrifices
such as meats, drinks, and washings, etc , and claims “Any other
laws not included were not part of the rituals added because of sin”.
Hebrews 9:10
States “For the old system deals only with food and drink and
ritual washing – external regulations that are in effect only until
their limitations can be corrected”.
To
understand this, it's best to look and start at Hebrews 9:8 (KJV):
“The Holy
Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not
yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing; Which
was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both
gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service
perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, which stood only in meats
and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on
them until the time of reformation.”
In short,
the tabernacle was a representation of times to come – a
representation of holiness, but the true way of holiness was not yet
revealed. Gifts and sacrifices could not cleanse the conscience when
sin was committed – because only the physical representations were
imposed – meats, drinks, washings, and ordinances – until the
time of reformation.
He quotes
this scripture to claim that portions of the law existed before the
previously existing “statutes and judgements”.
The point
was not about what parts of the Law were added and what was not
added. The point was the difference between physical representations
and the spiritual reality that was not yet revealed. The portions of
law that were mentioned were the portions of the law that were
imposed to cover sins as prescribed by the law, but were certainly
not additions that separated the law into different components. That
was clearly not the intent, nor was it the context of the verses.
Then, he
states that the Law of Moses is also called the “Law of the Lord”.
He then
connects the Law of Moses as different from The Ten Commandments.
He then
claims that the Law of Moses had no sacrifices connected with it. He
quotes Jeremiah 7:22 to prove this.
This
scripture states:
“For I
spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I
brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or
sacrifices...”
What this
means is that God originally commanded them to obey his voice – and
God would be their God and the Israelites would be his people – so
walk in the ways of God so all may be well – but the Israelites
refused to listen, and stepped “backward, not forward”. It was
because they did not listen to God that God had to enact the Law of
Moses to civilize the uncivilizable. It wasn't his wish to do that
then – and after Jesus is why we are not needed to do that now. To
say that this says that the Law of Moses had no sacrifices connected
with it completely missed the entire purpose and context of the Law.
It is complete theological illiteracy.
He then
claims the Law of Moses was originally the “Civil Law” based on
principles of the ten commandments. He says laws regarding offerings
were added and uses Exodus 28:1 to attempt to prove this. He also
uses Exodus 24:5 to “prove” that offerings were voluntary.
Using these
verses he tries to prove that the Law of Moses has more then one
part, thus being divisible – in contrary opinion to clear opinions
in the Law, and also in the New Testament, that not one jot nor
tittle of the Law was to be removed until fulfillment – and that
you would not be allowed to add nor subtract to or from the Law.
Ignoring this, he quotes Malachi 4:4 to prove that Christians are to
keep the law of Moses and that it is to be kept – but the parts
“added to” the Law, as we shall see - “regulating material
rituals such as sacrifices, lighting of candles, burning incense, and
various washings for the unclean” were not. He divided the law –
where there is no instruction nor precedent to divide the Law
anywhere.
The Church
DIVIDED the Law into two portions, “Civil” and “Ritualistic”.
Therefore,
he claimed “Part of the Law of Moses” is “still in force”.
Herman Hoeh
claims that the “Civil law of Moses” expounnds the Ten
Commandments by “revealing the ten basic principles” - and that
this part of the Law is to be kept “Not in the strictness of the
letter” but “according to its spirit and intent”. Yet no one
can deny that the “Letter” in it's strictness was often quoted
in areas where the church benefited from the quoting of the letter of
the law – especially in regards to the Sabbath and to the Holy
Days. The Spirit and the Intent of the law, as it was, was up for
interpretation only by church judgement as to what was applicable and
what was not.
Herman Hoeh
then claims that the “added” part is “No longer in force”.
Then,
turning to the “controversy” of the “early church”, he claims
it did not intend the “civil” law of Moses, only the “Ceremonial
additions” to the “original civil” law of Moses. Only customs
or added ceremonies. He points to the four points of the “original
law” to prove that those four points were originally part of the
“civil” law of Moses, which was “to be kept”.
Therefore,
he claims, because the “four civil laws” (which were not eating
blood, animals to be strangled, meat offerings or practicing
fornication” were originally part of the law of Moses and ONLY the
ceremonial parts of the Law had “passed away”.
Thus, he
claimed that the “Civil” law of Moses “that defined sin” was
“not involved”.
Then, he
goes into the “civil” laws regarding:
- Tithing
- Clean and Unclean Meats
- Annual Sabbaths
Herman Hoeh
states that the annual Sabbath is still in force. However, his claim
that the “added” parts of the Law are not still in force –
sacrifices and offerings – strips the annual Sabbaths and the Holy
Days to it's core, and takes away their intended purposes completely.
Leviticus 16
is an example of this, as it has detailed instructions concerning the
Day of Atonement. In the Armstrong model, this entire chapter is
completely done away with, because it involves very complex details
concerning sin offerings and burnt offerings. However, somehow, the
command to fast in verse 29 is somehow “still existant” as a law
to be kept, even though it is part of the entire command, and
specifically states how it is to be kept exactly. However, according
to Armstrongism, the holy day has been transformed to “spiritual”
instead of “physical”, but is “still in force” as the laws
containing sacrificial commands were “added” but the day itself
is “spiritual” and still exists, even though the day is
“physical”.
The same
dillema is found in Leviticus 23 which also has commands for
Unleavened Bread which has specific commands of what to do on these
days, as well as the remainder of the festivals. On the days of
unlevened bread, offerings had to be presented to the Lord by fire
each day – as well as various other agricultural commands.
According to Armstrongism, these commands were stripped because they
were ceremonial, but the holy days themselves are “still in force”.
This happened with every single holy day and sabbath.
- “Many Others”
and claims
those laws had NOT passed away and claims they are a seperate law and
NOT part of the added “Law of Moses”.
Therefore,
he reasoned the “Law of Moses” is not in force, but the
“remaining civil law” still is in force.
Then, on top
of all this, he claims, using Matthew 5 as a crutch, that the
APPLICATION of civil laws was changed as given to ancient Israel. He
claims they are raised from a “physical” plane to a “spiritual”
plane by Jesus and claims that the “But I say unto you” underlies
the civil laws of Moses. And claims that Jesus “restored the
spiritual laws” that were from the beginning. He then claims that
Jesus gave the civil law to moses physically, but “restored” the
spirit of the law for the “spiritual” church of God”.
He claims
that the civil law was “restored to it's spiritual perfection”.
Here are
some points that must be considered:
- In his ENTIRE explanation, use of the New Testament, and the words of Jesus Christ is absolutely limited to just a few verses that were picked and chosen to support his view.
- In his ENTIRE explanation, he used the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament.
- In his explanation, he claims the “Civil law” was restored “to it's... perfection”, spiritually.
- The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not part of this equation, in his explanation.
Let's look
at some of the verses he uses to see if they hold water.
First, let's
look at Hebrews 9:10, which reads:
“...which
stood only in meats, and drinks, and diverse washings, and carnal
ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”
Herman Hoeh
says any other laws not included were added, using this scripture as
a basis. But what is this scripture talking about exactly?
In Hebrews
chapter 9, it was speaking mainly about the “old ways” that were
available to worship. Paul made it clear that these were
“illustrations” pointing to what was then the “present time”.
His point was that the gifts and sacrifices that were offered by
priests were not able to cleanse concsiences of those who brought
them. His point was that there were limitations that could only be
corrected, as it says in Hebrews 8, by a ministry far superior to
those of the old Law – the limitations could only be corrected by
Jesus Christ. The verse was not about the types of laws imposed at
the time – the chapter and chapters were about what the old law
could not do compared to what the law of Christ CAN do.
He uses
Jeremiah 7:22, which says “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor
commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of
Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices”, to prove the Law
of Moses had no offerings or sacrifices connected to it. The point of
Jeremiah 7 has to do with what God really wanted from the Israelites.
It is about what God wanted from their hearts. The King James
Version, which Armstrongism loves to use as gospel, stated that “nor
commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of
Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices”. Herman uses this
to prove the separation of ritual and ceremonial law from civil law
and that the two are separate. Yet Jeremiah 7:22 simply states that
he did not command them “in the day that he brought them out
of the land of egypt”. He included these laws because the
Israelites did not want to do what God wanted from that day forward.
They did what they wanted, and followed the desires of their sinful
nature. This is why when the Law of Moses was delivered, it included
the sacrifices and offerings because of their behaviour to lead them
to follow God and not themselves. This verse does not indicate a
separation of law. This verse is part of a narrative that claims what
God really wanted to do with the Israelites until they became
stubborn, rebellious, and obstinate from day one that they
were led out of Egypt. To say the least, they were uncooperative.
This verse was not an example of what was added and what was the law
of Moses and what was not. This verse was an example of what God's
original intent was, how the Israelites responded, and what God had
to subsequently do so that they would realize how wicked and
decrepent that they really were and need God instead of bowing to
their ways of destruction.
Then, Exodus
28:1 was used to prove that there was a time when offerings were
voluntary. In the King James version, again, using what Armstrongism
loves to use, it says: “And he sent young men of the children of
Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings
of oxen unto the Lord”. He is using this verse to prove offerings
were at one time voluntary. Voluntary offerings, however, existed
also during the Law of Moses. There was not a prohibition after the
Law of moses to stop voluntarily giving offerings. The requirements
had to be given, but voluntary offerings existed before and during
the Law of Moses and were acceptable. This verse proves nor disproves
anything that was taught by Armstrongism. For example, during King
Solomon's temple dedication, Solomon offered a sacrifice of
fellowship offerings to the Lord: Twenty two thousand cattle and a
hundred and twenty thousand sheep and goats. Such an offering was
voluntary and part of the Temple dedication – however, the Old
Covenant laws were still in force. What does this prove? It only
proves that voluntary offerings occurred before, and during, the old
testament – while mandatory offerings were part of the Law of
Moses. That's all. (1 Kings 8:63, reference.)
As far as
Exodus 28:1 goes,
In Exodus
16:28, Herman Hoeh muses, “how long do you refuse to keep my
commandments and my laws”? And then states “Israel could not
refuse what did not exist”, as a reference to the Law not “Existing
yet”. However, just a few verses back, Moses had stated that the
Lord appointed “tomorrow” as a day of rest, and gave instructions
as to exactly what to do involving cooking regulations, and the fact
that some of the Israelites went out to gather food, even though they
had just been previously commanded not to go out and gather food on
the Sabbath day earlier. They had been told what to not do, and they
did it anyway – and that is all that this verse meant. A common
mistake was made in reading into this verse what simply was not
there. The scriptures in context are clear that this was about
commandments and laws previously known to them. The Law of Moses
itself in its entirety was revealed in Exodus chapter 20 to the
Israelites on Mt. Sanai, but Sabbath regulations were given earlier
to them which they disobeyed. All this verse meant was that they were
told one simple thing to not do and they did it anyway. The commands
as to what to do concerning the Sabbath were already given, and once
they were given, they were in force – and just after they were
given, they were immediately disobeyed. That's the point. The bigger
point in all of this is Christ had not yet come and paid the price
for all – and he had not come since the fall of Adam.
One can go
back as far as they want concerning the Law of Moses and before the
Law of Moses to the time of Adam, and one thig is clear – Jesus
Christ had not come yet to pay the price and ransom for all.
Regardless of what point was being made concerning offerings and
sacrifices, and the whens, why's and where's, Jesus Christ is the
central figure that changed everything regardless of what laws and
commands, ceremonies and offerings existed from the time of Adam to
the time of Christ, and this is the part that is not being figured in
to this entire equation.
Herman Hoeh
claims that the statutes and laws of God do not magnify Jesus Christ,
but insists that they magnify the “Ten Commandments”, using the
basis of God's commands to Israel not to eat unclean meats – to
“lust after” what he forbids. Instead of magnifying the
principles of the Beatitudes, he claims that the Old Covenant was
magnified, not the New Covenant.
Herman Hoeh
continually goes back to God's “previously revealed law” to prove
that because the law was “previously revealed” before the Law of
Moses was revealed to the Israelites, that the fact it was, to him,
pre-existant proves it is also “post-existant”. Again, Jesus
Christ is not factored into this argument. It is as if his sacrifice
meant absolutely nothing and was not understood whatsoever by Herman
Hoeh in his thesis as to what old testament laws were to be followed.
Herman Hoeh
briefly touched on the “Judgements issie” claiming that the Law
made provision for judgements to be established “over the
centuries”. He used Numbers 27:11 for an example, using the old
covenant law to validate a judgement made as a “general legal
requirement”. He then takes this to state that the church may also
issue “judgements” just as this – using the “case of make-up”
as an example. Therefore, he broad-strokes the law and uses this
verse to add that make-up was a “Church judgement” and gave the
church broad powers – again, basing their principles on the basis
of the rules of the Old Covenant, not on the principles of Jesus
Christ, as happened over and over and over again.
He asks the
question as to when the “carnal ceremonial and sacrifices of the
levitical priesthood began” and uses the entire principle of
previous sacrifices and offerings to prove the point that “well,
they happened before the law, so since they weren't a part of the
law, they had to continue after the law because they were separate”.
Again, using the Passover Sacrifice as the basis of this. He claims
the Passover is binding, but the Passover offering is not binding. He
claims Paul says that the “temporary rituals and sacrifices were
added because of transgression” quoting Galatians 3:19, and “only
those” were added until Christ would come. He claims only these
parts of the law were added to show their transgressions.
The part
“temporary rituals and sacrifices” was added by Herman. Galatians
3:19 says in the KJV:
“Wherefore
then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till
the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was
ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”
The whole
chapter of Galatians 3 was about the law and God's promises. The
scriptures are talking about the promises made to Abraham. Galatians
2:10 was ignored, which states “Cursed is everyone who does not
observe and obey all these commands that are written in God's book of
the law”. (NLV). Paul also states no one can be right by trying to
keep the Law, because there are two ways: the way of faith, and the
way of the law – and if you wish to find life by obeying the Law,
you must obey all of it's commands”. This in itself speaks about
all the commands written in God's book of the Law – and Paul goes
on to state that Christ resuced us from the curse pronounced by the
Law – and that Jesus took upon himself the curse for “our”
wrongdoing. The blessing he gave to Abraham is given to us through
the Holy Spirit by faith, which was NOT a part of the Law.
It is true
that the agreement given to Abraham could not be cancelled 430 days
later when God gave the Law (the same law mentioned earlier in the
chapter) to Moses. Paul states if the “inheritance could be
received only by keeping the Law, then it could not be the result of
accepting the promise of God. NO where does it state only the
temporary sacrifices and rituals were referred to in these verses –
just “The Law”. Jesus Christ himself was left completely out of
this explanation, and what he did.
One of the
main principles of Herman Hoeh's rendition is that we have to live
and be familiar with the “least” commandments, living by “EVERY
word of God” - clearly indicating that he did not have even the
slightest idea of the differences between the old Testament and the
New Teestament, claiming that Matt 5:19 would claim that those who
taught not to keep even the least of the commandments would not make
it to the Kingdom, referring to the Old Testament. He claimed that
the Bible was the final authority, and that “no one can gain
entrance to God's kingdom” until the authority of the rule of God
was recognized. He then states “we are not to argue with God or use
human reason to evade the plain commands of scripture.”, and that
we “side-step” what is of lesser importance to us and “I don't
see why God would want us to keep this. It seems so impractical in
this modern age.” and claims this attitude is “exactly what makes
other churches....of the devil”. He claimed people were using
“human reasoning instead of the Bible as final authority”,
stating that the church has forgotten Dueteronomy 11:18-19, which, of
course, was made for those whom were still under the Old Covenant
before Jesus Christ was a savior of the burden of the Law, and claims
that Dueteronomy 11:18-19 “was for us today”. He wrote this so
people could understand “the laws of God”, but did so not under
the umbrella of the Sacrifice of Christ, but under the umbrella of
the entire old covenant and new covenant combined into one teaching
without understanding and knowledge of what Christ accomplished.
Herman Hoeh
quotes Psalms 110:7-8 that states “All his commandments are sure.
They stand forever and ever, and are done in truth and
righteousness.”, and uses that to state Jesus did not abolish the
ten commandments, stating the scripture that says “Think not that I
came to destroy the law and the prophets, I came not to destroy, but
to fulfill.”
Then, Herman
Hoeh states WE must fulfill the Law, and takes the emphasis off of
Jesus Christ's fulfilling the law. He states:
“We must
follow his example today and FULFILL the Law.”
WE cannot
fulfill the Law. Only Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law. We cannot
do it. For us, it is impossible. His statement of we must fulfill the
Law is nullifying everything Christ came to do in HIS fulfillment of
the Law. This is absolutely untruth and none of us have that purpose
or capability.
The word
“Fulfill” is a verb that means, according to the definition, to
“bring to completion”. It also means to bring to “reality”,
something that was predicted to occur and finally did. It also means
to carry out as required. What this means is “I came not to destroy
the law or the prophets, but to bring it to completion.”
According to
Strong's Greek, 4137, the word (pleroo) means “to make full, to
complete”, which pretty much sums up the above paraphrase. Jesus
Christ brought the law to it's completion through his blood. For him
to say WE must fulfill the law goes against and nullifies what Christ
has ALREADY done, which is, He has already fulfilled it. Our attempts
to follow his example and fulfill it again are completely ignorant
and meaningless.
The focus of
Herman Hoeh, again, is on what existed before the Old Covenant, not
on the fulfillment of Jesus Christ bringing in the New Covenant. The
Statutes and Laws of God did magnify the Ten Commandments. The New
Covenant magnifies Jesus Christ and HIS commands, which is a large
difference which was virtually completely ignored in his entire
article.
When
sacrificial laws began is not the point. The point has to do with who
is now OUR sacrifice – and that is Jesus Christ. The magnification
of the ten commandments in the Law of Moses was strictly examplified
with Jesus Christ who told people BEFORE the New Covenant began,
while still under the Law, how spiritual implications exceeded the
letter of the Law – making them understand their minds and hearts
could break the Law even if they didn't break it by the letter –
making adherance and focus on the law completely meaningless and
impossible to keep – which was exemplifying their need of a savior,
not their need to fulfill a law that only ONE could possibly fulfill.
Herman Heoh continually states the Passover “IS Binding”, but
neglects who are True Passover and True Unleavened Bread IS in the
New Covenant – Jesus Christ.
Herman Hoeh
states it is a spiritual principle to offer oneself to God using
Romans 12:1, but uses that as a “spiritual principle” to keep the
laws that he claimed were still in force. He used the New Testament
to magnify the Old Testament, instead of the New Testament to magnify
the commands of Jesus Christ. Again, Jesus Christ was out of the
picture.
Herman Hoeh
states:
“They also
needed to be reminded of Jesus' sacrifice, so God gave them physical
types in the Law of Moses until the Seed should come” - but then
states that our spiritual sacrifices are still to be offered up to
us today. He admits the “physical offerings and vadious washings
which are types of the Holy Spirit are no longer needed, hence the
physical levitical priesthood is no longer necessary – the old
testament washings and offerings are no longer binding. The factors
involved in the Law of Moses ceased to exist”. But then, tells us
to realize that God ALONE has the right to “add and change or altar
carnal or fleshy laws”. He claims the “obligation to practice the
carnal laws ceased”, and again, that “any other laws not included
in Hebrews 9:10 were not part of the rituals added because of sin”.
What were
those laws again? Food, drink, and ritual washing. He claimed that
rites were added to “statutes and judgements” already in
existence. What the church did was take the Old Testament and
“judged” WHAT statutes and judgements were in existence, and what
laws and ceremonies were “added”. This made the entire law
extremely confusing and very much complicated to those dedicated to
Armstrongism.
What is it
exactly, then, that Herman Hoeh said that “we” were to keep? He
quotes Malachi 4:4:
“Remeber
the law of my servant Moses, the statues and judgements that I
commanded him at Horeb for all Israel”.
He says that
that is the law that “we are never to forget. We are to keep it!”,
then states that the Law was composed of both civil and ritualistic
laws, and the “part” of the Law of Moses is still in force. BUT.
It is to be kept “not in the strictness of the letter, but
according to it's spirit and intent”.
Therefore,
the Law, according to the church, after all this explanation, is NOT
to be kept in the strictness of the letter, BUT “according to it's
spirit and intent” This is the crucial part of what made the law
that Armstrongism kept NOT the Law of “Moses”, but a Pseudo-Law,
picked by scripture-picking, interpreted by the “Spirit” of the
commands and followed by it's intent. It was NOT the Law of Moses. It
was the law of Armstrongism.
Herman Hoeh
then attempts to explain Acts 15, the Jerusalem council, and the
decision made by them for the gentiles not to follow the Law of
Moses. He hones in on Acts 21:21 which says that the Jews were taught
not to circumcise their chuldren or observe the customs. He claims
that the controversy in the early church did not involve the “CIVIL”
(emphasis his) laws of Moses, and only the added ceremonies or
rituals were the only “customs”. He then goes on to say that the
four points mentioned in the Acts 15 letter were four parts that were
originally part of the “civil” law of Moses and added later.
Therefore, he claims that only the “ceremonial customs of Moses
have passed away”, and that only the “civil laws” regarding
tithing, clean and unclean meats, annual Sabbaths (holy days and
Sabbaths), and “many others”, as he puts it, remained, because
they “explain what sin is”.
The emphasis
of the Church was on what sin “is”, not on who the sacrifice for
all sin “was” and what He did to pay for it. Sin was magnified,
not Jesus Christ.
Then, Herman
Hoeh goes into why the “Death penalty” was not enforced for
law-breakers or ten-commandment violators. He says that Jesus “came
to keep the Law, not to destroy it.”
First off,
it does not say Jesus came to KEEP the Law. The scripture says he
came to FULFILL it. The Church interpreted the word “FULFILL” to
mean” Keep”, not to “Complete”. Using the word in it's
original greek would throw off the entire greek meaning of the word
used translated to fulfill. “Keep” was nowhere in the scriptures.
This was very subtle, but the meaning means everything.
Secondly, he
states the “APPLICATION” was changed – mentioned and made “more
honorable”. He states that the spiritual principles of the New
Testament underlyed the civil laws of Moses.
In reality,
the change of “application” of the law changes the entire Law.
The Church did NOT keep the Law of Moses. They kept their own
MODIFIED Law, the Law of Armstrongism. He says the laws “given to a
carnal nation to be administered according to the strict letter”
were changed to “a spiritual plane regulating the whole of human
society”. In other words, the law was made tooth-less of the
letter.
The bottom
line is that the church taught that the “Strict Letter” was given
to Mt. Sanai to a plysical church, and that the “spirit of the law”
was restored by Jesus for the “Spiritual “ Church of God – so
the spirit of the Law was maintained in the commands of the Law which
were separated by the rituals and ceremonies of the Law and
interpreted by the church in it's teachings and judgements – and
that Jesus Christ made it possible for us to be forgiven and the
letter of the law does not need to be administered – just the
interpretation of the spiritual application of the spirit of the law
which is still commanded and in force as to the law of Moses. - not
according to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
This leads
to a complete hodge-podge of the Law of Moses and makes it inapplicable and completely ridiculous when it is broken down.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All Comments are Moderated and will be reviewed by SHT. Comment unto others as you would have others comment unto you. :)