The Law

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:

  1. Tithing
  2. Clean and Unclean Meats
  3. 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.

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. In his ENTIRE explanation, he used the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament.
  3. In his explanation, he claims the “Civil law” was restored “to it's... perfection”, spiritually.
  4. 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. :)