@ 2022-09-12: LET'S NOT BE "ARMSTRONGITES"!

By way of introduction: My background differs from that of most of you. I am neither a minister, nor a farmer, tradesman, or businessman like many members are. Since 1982, I have devoted myself to two things: studying the Bible and its background, and studying the original, God-inspired music to which the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures were sung. For about twenty years, I earned my living studying and writing about these things for the Living Church of God and its Personal Correspondence and Editorial Departments.

If you want a title, it is “Let’s Not Be ‘Armstrongites’!” Never mind that Wikipedia and everyone else wants to call us such, no matter what we say or do. Do we follow Herbert W. Armstrong and his teachings blindly, without question? Or do we go to the Bible, as he did, and come out of error one doctrine at a time?

Mr. Armstrong was the best self-taught logician I have ever known—surpassing even both of his brilliant sons, in my humble opinion. On that strictly human level, he and I thought in a very similar way. Mr. Meredith noted this, to me and to others. I learned from Mr. Armstrong’s successes and failures alike, again on this strictly human level. This aided me tremendously in my work for the Worldwide, United, Global, and Living Churches of God.

But was everything Mr. Armstrong taught perfect, even by the end of his life? Of course not! Too often, brethren, we in the modern Church of God have come to basically the right conclusions for basically the wrong reasons. Some conclusions also have been wrong of themselves. Often this has been because we have not understood the biblical languages and background.

Today I will discuss a very, very partial list of such cases. Some have been presented from our own lecterns, by our own people—without proper critical examination, it seems, despite all the claims that “we have ‘proven’ this to be true”. I will start with small points and go on to larger ones.

True or false? 

1) Job was the Pharaoh who built the Great Pyramid. 

FALSE! Job lived in the land of Uz (Job 1:1), which was Edom (Lamentations 4:21). His four friends, especially Eliphaz the Temanite, were Edomites from all evidence—not Egyptians or even Israelites.

Job was the greatest man of the “East” (Job 1:3)—the land east of the Jordan, and of Jerusalem, not south as Egypt always is described. He was a rancher, not a ruler or even an architect. No trappings of Pharaoh’s court are so much as hinted at. Job was not one of the foreign “Shepherd Kings” of Egypt!

Job 29:25 does not say Job was a king! It says, “and I dwelt as (or like) a king among the troop” [k^emelekh bag^edud (כְּמֶלֶךְ בַּגְּדוּד)]. Job drew an analogy—he did not state he was a king. Had he meant this, “as/like” would have been omitted in the Hebrew text (as in Psalms 29:10). In “and I sat as chief [w^e’eshev rosh (וְאֵשֵׁב רֹאשׁ)], earlier in Job 29:25, that very omission is found. 

2) Job 38:6 describes the capstone of a pyramid, not the cornerstone of a foundation. 

FALSE! In Job 38:1-7, the Eternal describes the laying of the foundations of the earth—not its completion, not even as Genesis 1:1 describes it (cf. Psalms 102:25).

Every ancient building—including the Great Pyramid of Giza—had a cornerstone in its foundation, by which the rest of the building was aligned (including the capstone of a pyramid). In Hebrew, this “cornerstone” was called [‘even pinnatah (אֶבֶן פִּנָּתָהּ)] (“its stone of the corner”), as in Job 38:6, or the [rosh pinah (רֹאשׁ פִּנָּה)] (“head of the corner”), as in Psalms 118:22. This verse is prophetic of Jesus Christ, the “chief cornerstone” which aligns the foundation and the rest of the Church as His spiritual Temple (Ephesians 2:20-22 and other verses).

[Ha-‘even ha-roshah (הָאֶבֶן הָרֹאשָׁה)] (“the chief stone” or “the capstone”), on the other hand, is found in Zechariah 4:7. It refers to the last stone, not the first stone, to be laid in a building. The context makes that clear. 

3) Genesis 1:1 describes a “perfect creation”. 

ONLY TRUE TO AN EXTENT. First, the perfect tense of the verb only shows a completed creation. Second, the verb bara is used only of God’s works. But however perfect His original creation was, all the physical evidence shows it began as what Mr. Armstrong described as “unfinished furniture”.

The physical universe outside the earth, to this very day, remains “unfinished furniture”. Perfect and complete as such, yes; finished according to God’s long-term purposes, no (except in the sense of Genesis 2:1-3); subject to decay from the very beginning, also yes (otherwise, for example, no stars could shine). Only the New Heavens and New Earth will change that built-in bondage to decay (Romans 8:19-22; Revelation 21:5). The curses on the Serpent, Eve, and Adam only added to the decay (“entropy”) which is part and parcel of the original physical creation. 

4) The whole physical universe was brought to ruin thanks to Lucifer’s rebellion, as the earth was in Genesis 1:2. 

FALSE! First, the Bible says nothing about this. Second, Mr. Armstrong did not understand what he saw, when he was shown photos of the surface of Mars. Everything outside the earth, including the cratered state of our solar system’s rocky planets and moons, is 100% consistent with time, chance, and natural law as God ordained these (including the “Law of Entropy” or “Decay”). Only on earth has intelligence, whether Divine, angelic, or human, clearly intervened in the natural order (since Genesis 1:1, that is).

Incidentally, thanks not just to the words of Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 34:11, Jeremiah 4:23, and (for comparison with Isaiah 34:11) 2 Kings 21:13, but above all to the original melody to which Genesis 1:2 was sung, we now know beyond doubt that the correct, precise translation of Genesis 1:2a is “but the earth had become chaotic and disordered”—because it figuratively had been wiped clean like a dish and then turned upside down! God, not Satan, did this. God alone brings things to [tohu wavohu (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ)] as punishment for sin. But without the original biblical melody, not even scholars such as Rotherham could be so precise in their translations.

As another side point: We cannot argue, as Mr. Armstrong did, that hayah as used in Genesis 2:7, 9:15, and 19:26 illustrate the meaning of hayah in Genesis 1:2. Mr. Armstrong was many honorable things, but a Hebraist was not one of them! The verb hayah is used differently in the verses he mentioned, as a matter of both grammar and syntax (phrase structure). In those verses, hayah either must mean “to become” or else must have some “becoming” in the “being”. But [haytah (הָיְתָה)], the 3^rd person feminine singular, perfect-tense form found in Genesis 1:2, normally means “was”—full stop!

The real parallel with Genesis 1:2 is Jonah 3:3. The form of hayah and the verbal syntax are the same in these verses. The perfect-tense verb form must mean “was” in Jonah 3:3 [haytah (הָֽיְתָ֤ה)] and “had become” in Genesis 1:2 [haytah (הָֽיְתָ֥ה)] because the melodic accents demand it—not because the verbal grammar and syntax do. This is not something any of us could have understood, when Mr. Armstrong wrote Did God Create a Devil? 

5) Satan’s former name was Lucifer. 

FALSE—although this is nitpicking! In Isaiah 14:12, the Hebrew reads [Heylel ben Shahar (הֵילֵל בֶּן־שָׁחַר)]. The RSV translates this nicely as “Day Star, son of Dawn”. Mr. Armstrong’s paraphrase, “Shining Star of the Dawn”, also is apt.

Heylel (“Shining One”) in Hebrew, Lucifer (“Light-bearer”) in Latin, and [ho Heoosphoros (ὁ ἑωσφόρος)] in the Greek Septuagint (meaning essentially the same as Lucifer), all were ancient names for the chief of the five (not three) ancient “morning stars”. We know it today as the planet Venus when it appears in the morning sky. The Latin Vulgate used “Lucifer” to translate the whole original Hebrew phrase. The KJV used “Lucifer” only to translate “Heylel”—just for the record.

Much more could be said of this angelic “morning star” and his original four (not two) companions (cf. Ezekiel 1:13 and 28:14 concerning the “fiery stones” among which he walked in heaven)—but that would require a separate treatment!

On another subject: 

6) ‘Elohim, in biblical Hebrew usage, is a “family name”. 

FALSE! [‘Elohim (אֱלֹהִים)] is not a family “surname” in the way that “Smith” is. Nor indeed is ‘Elohim in any way like “church, family, or team”. The rules of Modern English do not apply to the biblical languages!

Let me clarify this point a little. 'Elohim is a name that describes the Kind of Being (or else at present, of One Personage or of the Two Personages) God is. The correct analogy would not be “John Smith” or even “John Wheeler”, but “John Human”, or else perhaps “John Humanity”. In like manner, one could have (to allude to some good ministers I know) “Sheldon Human”, “Jason Human”, and so on. Likewise, my wife could be called “Trisha Human”. But all these are not "family names” by the rules we use in English. Rather, they denote what “genus/species” or “kind” we all are. 'Elohim, in biblical Hebrew, has the same function in the Divine name Y^ehawweh ‘Elohim (“the Eternal God”).

Thus, should I attain the resurrection of the just, God the Father and Jesus Christ just might allow me to be called by my Hebrew pen name “Johanan Rakkav” (normally, I spell it in King James English); but if He adds 'Elohim to that, then the name will only denote what Kind of Personage I am: Divine! It will not be my “last name” as we would understand such a thing in this life!

On the other hand, “son of God” and “son of the Eternal” are “family names” in biblical usage. They are “patronymic surnames”. When Paul wrote, “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named” (Ephesians 3:14-15), he alluded to the normal use of a “patronymic surname”—a surname including the name of the Father (“son of God” or “son of the Eternal”). He did not imply that either “God” or “the Eternal”, of themselves, are “family names” in the sense we understand that phrase today.

Now has ‘Elohim been a Family since the time of John 1:14—a Family which humanity can join? Of course! ‘Elohim planned to become a Family from the beginning. We may be assured of this fact. But this leads me to my next point. 

7) We can tell ‘Elohim is a Family because ‘Elohim is plural in form. 

FALSE! ‘Elohim, quite simply, is a masculine plural noun. When it refers to the true God, however, it almost always takes a singular agreement. When ‘Elohim (again, when referring to the true God) has a plural agreement, in all but a very few cases, the famous “plural of majesty” is meant.

In Genesis 1:26 and 3:22, however, ‘Elohim takes both a singular and a plural agreement simultaneously. Thus, it is “uniplural” in these contexts. In like manner, in Genesis 3:22 and 9:6-7, Y^ehawweh, although singular in form, takes both singular and plural agreements. It too is “uniplural” in these contexts.

In Deuteronomy 6:4, Y^ehawweh ‘Elohim is described as One Being. Yet the melodic accents in that verse show that the Eternal God’s Oneness of Being is a Unity of Parts: One Being, More Than One Person, as the rest of the Bible explains.

We cannot argue that ‘Elohim is a Family simply because ‘Elohim is plural in form. Rather, ‘Elohim is plural in form, yet both singular and plural in agreement, because ‘Elohim is One Being, More Than One Person. But because that Oneness of Being is made possible by God’s Holy Spirit, ‘Elohim could plan from the beginning to become One Family also—thanks to what Jesus Christ did, does, and will do for us. That is how we should explain the vital truth about who and what God is, and of who and what humanity can become!

Another subject: 

8) The “seven times” in Leviticus 26:18 refers to seven prophetic periods of time, that is, 2,520 years. 

FALSE! When any number is found alone in Hebrew Scripture, if it does not denote a number as such, then it denotes either a repetition of action or else an intensification of action. If a period is meant, then that period (of days, months, years, or whatever) must be specified. There are no exceptions to this rule.

In every instance—not in every instance but one—“seven times” in Leviticus 26 means an intensification of punishment, never a period of years. Quite frankly, Mr. Armstrong read into the Hebrew something it does not and cannot say.

Now the Hebrew Masoretic Text may offer its own solution to this conundrum. Its own ancient paragraphing system suggests a division of prophetic fulfillment between verses 26 and 27. But this deserves its own careful study.

Meanwhile, neither is it true, as Mr. Armstrong claimed at times, that what Leviticus 26 prophesied did not all happen to ancient Israel and Judah. There are plenty of indications, in the Bible, in history, and in archaeology, that it all did happen—save when God chose (often) not to “pour out all His wrath”. The Bible itself does not mention every detail of how He did punish Israel and Judah, but the pattern is there.

This point is worth another detailed, careful study. How this prophecy may foreshadow end-time events is worth yet another detailed, careful study--if for no other reason, because the Sabbatical Year cycle is mentioned with certain implications in fulfillment. We know that the parallel prophecies in Deuteronomy do have a direct end-time fulfillment—because they say so.

Now prophetic Babylon was revived after 2,520 years (cf. Daniel 5:25-28). But for the rest of prophecy to be fulfilled, Israel and Judah had to be revived sometime prior to this. As a matter of history, this appears to be exactly what happened. Is that not enough to make our point?

Another subject: 

9) We do not know how [YHWH (יהוה)] originally was pronounced, although the most likely form is Yahweh. 

BOTH FALSE! We know the root on which YHWH is based (hawah). We know how its class of verbs is conjugated. We know, thanks to the melodic accents of Psalms 96:10 and other verses, that YHWH must have three syllables, not two. We know the verb stem must be active. Only one possible verb stem fits all the facts: [Y^ehawweh (יְהַוֶּה)], the Pi`el or intensive stem - meaning, the Eternal Creator God. [Yahweh (יַהְוֶה)] is valid Hebrew—it follows the rules of Hebrew—but it is not correct Hebrew!

Originally, [Yhwh (יהוה)] would have been spelled [Yhwy (יהוי)] because the verb root [hawah (הוה)] originally would have been spelled [haway (הוי)]. A whole class of verbs in Hebrew now end in “h” but originally ended in “y”—as they do in certain related languages. The verb roots [hawah (הוה)] and [hayah (היה)], both meaning “fall out, come to pass, become, be”, are part of this class of verbs.

This qualifies as new truth, brethren! It is not something either Mr. Armstrong or anyone else in the Church of God has understood until recently. Yet the evidence of the Hebrew Masoretic Text is clear. It simply has not been believed by all but a very, very few—even among Hebrew scholars. When analyzing the Tetragrammaton, Hebraists considered the Hebrew Masoretic Text last—not first, as they should have done! When a now-deceased Hebrew professor and rabbi dared to consider the Masoretic Text first, he solved the problem with ease and published his results!

One side point should be mentioned: “the Ever-Living One” is not a correct translation of Y^ehawweh! The Bible says, “The Eternal lives” (Psalms 18:46 and other verses), but it never says, “The Ever-Living One is eternal”! Why is this? Because “the Eternal” points to God’s fundamental State of Being (Deuteronomy 6:4), while eternal life is a Divine attribute which God also grants to created beings: to angels, and to the resurrected saints.

Had the Bible meant to call God chiefly, “the Ever-Living One”, the Name which was to be remembered to all generations (Exodus 3:15) would have been based on the root [hawah (חוה)], not ]hawah (הוה)]. The Name itself would have been Y^ehawweh, not Y^ehawweh.

Yet another subject: 

10) God has not preserved or revealed the music to which the Psalms were sung (according to Mr. Armstrong’s claim in the Introduction to his The Bible Hymnal). 

FALSE! Many Jews and professing Christians have known otherwise for the past 1900 years! Only the original meaning of the written music was lost.

Every verse of Hebrew Scripture from Genesis to Malachi (or Chronicles, in the Hebrew order), including the Psalm headings and words such as selah, has a melodic notation: the so-called “Masoretic accents”, which date from biblical times (the proof of this demands a separate treatment). The evidence is clear: from Moses onward, all Hebrew Scripture was inspired, written, read, recited, and transmitted as “art song”.

The accents transcribe an ancient series of gestures of the two hands and of the fingers of the right hand. These gestures, like the written accents, are both ingenious and judicious. As already noted, the written accents provide a vital yet neglected key to the original pronunciation of Y^ehawweh.

Starting exactly 1900 years from the fall of Second Temple Jerusalem (AD 70-1970), the accents’ original meaning was deciphered—not by a Church member, but by a Reform Jew; not by a Levite, but by a qualified Jewish musician and composer; not even by a man, but by a woman! Look up online the book, recordings, and musical scores called The Music of the Bible Revealed by the late Suzanne Haik-Vantoura (including a YouTube channel featuring the original four recordings).

Mr. Armstrong knew nothing of this work (although his brother Dwight may have learned of it, just before his death). In the Worldwide Church of God, Dr. Herman Hoeh heard of it first—then Mr. Richard Paige and I.

From 1982-2000, I had the honor of assisting Mme. Haik-Vantoura in her work, and of presenting it many times to the Church and to the world. (I also helped her decipher the system of gestures.)

This too is new truth, brethren! Combined with the vocal accents of the Greek New Testament, as deciphered by other authors, 1/3rd of the Bible’s original message may now be restored.

Nothing demands that we sing the Bible in its original languages, today (unless we want to and are able to). We could not adapt the ancient melodies to modern languages either, even if we wanted to. Their structure will not allow this. But “the music of Hebrew Scripture” especially allows us to examine thousands of verses in a long-lost light—beginning with Genesis 1:2!

Now I am really going to be controversial: 

11) Mr. Armstrong “restored all things” to the Church of God. 

FALSE! First, Mr. Armstrong had important predecessors in the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20^th—both in and out of the Church of God. The second resurrection, the Festivals and Holy Days, the first resurrection in God’s own image, the identity of northern Israel, Church government, the framework of prophecy—all these doctrines and others were discussed and believed long decades before Mr. Armstrong came along. The tragedy, as Jesus Christ said to prophetic Sardis, is that such knowledge was lost among most of the brethren!

Most of you have not seen the historical information on this point that I have. Besides, Mr. Armstrong always compared what he read by other authors to the Bible—but after the 1950’s, he did not always tell the rest of us what he read where!

But more importantly, there are major areas of human knowledge that have a biblical foundation, but which Mr. Armstrong did not address! They include the biblical foundations of: 

·       Normal human psychology, as led by God’s Spirit (beginning with Matthew 5:3-16: the relationship between personality and character)—which itself is key to understanding abnormal psychology and mental illness;

·       The close connection between the Nine Beatitudes on the one hand and the Seven Church Eras, with the two following periods of persecution, on the other;

·       The seven principles of God’s government, as symbolized by the Ark of the Covenant (top-down direction is only one of them);

·       The fundamental principles of “good music”, of which modern Western classical music (what Mr. Armstrong often promoted) has only a part;

·       The original pronunciation of YHWH (Y^ehawweh) and what that implies not only about its meaning, but about the origins of both language and music, and even of the universe itself.

 Mr. Armstrong did address important pieces of most of these puzzles (e.g., the “spirit of man” and the human brain). But it was not he who completed them! I had a part in completing all of them. These matters arguably qualify as new truths. But this fact gives me no human credit. “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven” (John 3:27).

This brings me to my most controversial point: 

12) Mr. Armstrong was “the Elijah to come”. 

Toward the end of his life, Mr. Armstrong himself said publicly that this was FALSE! This was recorded at the time, and years ago, I was sent the sound recording. Unfortunately, Mr. Armstrong did not say this either loudly enough or publicly enough. To my knowledge, he never said so in print.

But let us leave this rare evidence aside. The reader who knows of Mr. Armstrong may ask: “What more could Mr. Armstrong have done?” My plain answer—as one who was there at the time—is, “He could have succeeded!”

Let us be serious: if Mr. Armstrong were the “Elijah to come”, would the Church he had founded been destroyed from within so totally? Would his reputed heirs be divided into hundreds of sects? Would his legacy need to be preserved primarily through Web sites founded by a few of his lay students? Would he have suffered the fate of those he described in his The Seven Laws of Success: saved from obscurity mostly by the historical footnotes about him, both by his friends and his enemies? Elbert Hubbard is quoted by the world far more often than Herbert W. Armstrong—and so is Billy Graham!

When “Elijah” does come, he will be sent not to the Church per se (note this!), but to “Israel” (Malachi 1:1)—and specifically to Judah (see the context of the whole book). Never have we been willing to face this fact. Surely Israel and Judah will know who and what he is, whether they like it or not. Was that ever true of Herbert W. Armstrong, famous as he was in his day? No, indeed!

When Elijah comes, “he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I [the Eternal] come and strike the earth with a curse” (Malachi 4:6). Seriously, did Mr. Armstrong do this through Ambassador College and Youth Opportunities United? If he did, why has “the end” not come? Why has this “turning” not lasted meanwhile? Can we believe seriously that the tiny handful of people who really “get it” these days qualify as a fulfillment of prophecy?

If we think the “generation gap” and the sexual anarchy we see now are horrible, “we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet”! Surgical advances aside, we probably have yet to catch up with the last days of the pagan Roman Empire—let alone surpass them!

Let us not think for a moment that we will not need an “Elijah” more, not less, in the future. Even “Church members” will be betraying each other then, within families. Let us not think that Matthew 10:21-22 will apply only to unconverted family members. It will not!

And finally, Mr. Armstrong did not “restore all things” even to the Church, not even doctrinally. There is much indeed we need to learn yet—even beyond the areas I discuss above. Imagine how much we could learn, just from examining the 1/3rd of the Bible’s original information that was lost for 1900 years! Is it any coincidence that the restoration of the meaning of the Hebrew melodic accents is one thing knowledgeable Jews have expected of the “Elijah to come”? Well, we have that knowledge now and Herbert W. Armstrong had nothing to do with it!

Now am I somehow “the Elijah to come” because I had the chief role in bringing this knowledge to the attention of the Church of God? Of course not! It simply means we need to rethink our position on the subject. Indisputably, Herbert W. Armstrong was the ordained apostle of the Work of Philadelphia—which is honor enough for any man. He was not, however, the “Elijah to come”. That most likely will be one of the Two Witnesses, as Roderick C. Meredith came to believe. There are indications in the last two verses of Malachi, in the Masoretic Text, as to what the emphasis of each Witness’s ministry will be.

Meanwhile, we cannot simply look to the Herbert W. Armstrong Library or the Herbert W. Armstrong Searchable Library, nor merely encourage others to do so. Many thousands are doing so, but what is the predictable result? Without guidance, the reader almost always will either accept what he reads uncritically (as from argument from authority), or else “pick and choose” which of the doctrinal positions we took over the decades he wants to accept. Either way, the readers of these Web sites will become “Armstrongites”—not Christians as Jesus Christ wants us all to become.

“Restoring all things” is not merely about a body of doctrine, let alone one established by a now-deceased minister. It is about a living ministry, exercising the Government of God in His Church and teaching the whole truth. No one is doing this presently as it should be, and quite frankly, even Herbert W. Armstrong (for all his valiant, God-guided efforts) was not doing it when he was alive! How dare I say this, for all that I loved, honored, and obeyed him in Christ, and for all his claims to the contrary? Not because of what he had done, but because of what he had left undone—not just doctrinally overall (as in the areas I mention above and far more), but specifically, in terms of understanding and applying all seven principles of God’s government systematically, as one would expect “the Elijah to come” to do. Mr. Armstrong emphasized three of those principles in my hearing: top-down direction, a foundation of justice (God’s law), and love. But three out of seven is nowhere near enough—even though, ironically, he knew perfectly well what the others were (mercy, faith, cooperation between peers, and the most neglected in the modern Church, support from below) outside of any theoretical governmental model!

We have unfinished business in the Church of God, brethren! Herbert W. Armstrong left us a legacy. We should treasure it. But we must do something more than “hold fast” to it. We must expand on it.

Meanwhile, those ordained as God’s ministers need to “step up to the plate” and sift the wheat from the chaff—or else delegate the task to certain Ambassador College graduates (if possible) under them. There is more chaff in our teachings than many of us want to admit. We are running out of time to do the sifting. Let us not force the real “Elijah to come” to do all our work for us! 

John Wheeler