We think that we live in violent times, and of course, to some extent, we do. The evening news regularly carries stories and images of war, terror, or murder. But the big question is whether violence is going up or down. Because if violence is not going up, how can we be in the end times?
Stephen Pinker, author of the 2012 book The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined has studied the trend of violence in history and his data shows, surprisingly to many, that violence is going down!
According to Pinker, whether we believe it or not, we may be living in the most peaceful time in human history. People who think violence is going up don’t realize how much violence there was in the past.
The bible does not say that we are in the end times now; it does not give a date. It only gives us signs to look for. One of the major signs is that of violence. (“You will hear of wars and rumours of wars”—Matt 24:6). The Churches of God have been telling us that violence has been going up. Herbert Armstrong lived during the time of two major conflicts: World Wars I and II. In such a time it was easy to conclude that violence was going up, and for those few years, it was. But we need to look at the whole picture (we were always told to “get the big picture” in any situation) and do the math. We must not assume. The second world war ended a long time ago (69 years ago, in 1945). Since that time violence has gone down, not up. We might now be living in the most peaceful time in history! This comes as a great surprise to people who live by impressions and short-sighted data rather than by historical trends. People rely too much on sensationalist daily news, which focuses on current events and other short-term trends. Some people will refuse to believe that violence is in decline. They will not look at the actual data. The two world wars of the early 20 century were temporary “blips”. They did not lead to the end, and they were not signs of the end. And there are no conflicts in the world today even close to that scale.
In his booklet, “What Science Can’t Discover About the Human Mind” (here). Herbert Armstrong stated that the difference between human and animal intelligence could not be explained scientifically, and that this difference was due to the spirit in man. Armstrong also claimed that humans can reason, due to the spirit in man, but that animals can operate only on instinct.
Was Armstrong right? Or can science explain the difference in intelligence between man and animals without the spirit in man?
Herbert Armstrong’s followers need to revise their views on animal intelligence after digesting the material below.
Let’s start by looking at some statements made by Herbert Armstrong (HWA) in the booklets, and my (GL) response.
HWA: “There is virtually no difference in shape and construction between animal brain and human brain.” (p. 3-4)
GL: That statement is ridiculous! There are big differences in shape, construction, size, structure, function, and quality, as we shall see.
HWA: “The brains of elephants, whales, and dolphins are larger than human brain …” (p. 4)
GL: Elephants and whales are large animals, and since the brain plays a vital role in coordination and other body functions, those animals need large brains to coordinate their large bodies. We’ll talk about dolphins later.
HWA: “… the chimp’s brain is slightly smaller [than ours].” (p. 4)
GL: To say that a chimp’s brain in only “slightly” smaller is rubbish. The chimp’s brain is only 1/3 the size of a human brain! That’s a big difference. Why would Armstrong call that only “slightly” smaller? Was Armstrong trying to prove that the difference between humans and chimps must be spiritual, since or brains are (supposedly) only slightly different? Did he intentionally minimize and ignore brain differences in order to confuse the issue?
Size does not tell us everything (as we can see from whales and elephants) but it still makes a difference. How smart would you or I be if we only had 1/3 of our brains?
The human brain has much more cerebral cortex than the chimp’s brain. That’s the part of the brain that we use to think (in particular, we think with our prefrontal cortex). An animal without legs can’t walk, and an animal without a prefrontal cortex simply can’t think. (The exception would be an animal, if any, specially equipped with some special brain region that can perform a similar function).
Herbert Armstrong taught his followers that Christians are not to become involved in the politics of this world. He did not even allow his church members to vote.
The COGs say that when they write about political events and wars, they are writing about events fulfilling prophecy. Writing about these events is one thing, but losing balance and objectivity is another matter. So is taking sides in politics, as some churches are doing. That is not being a good Christian in the COG tradition, and it’s not even good journalism.
Yes some churches of God openly take sides on the Israeli-Palestinian land issue. Vastly out-gunned Palestinians are portrayed as land-poachers while Jews in tanks are portrayed as heroes defending their God-given land.
Not only are some supposedly inspired church leaders taking sides, but they seem to have forgotten who owns that land!
According to British-Israelism, God gave the land of Palestine to the tribe of Joseph, not to the Jews. The Jews therefore, have no right to that land at all. This is something that some Church of God leaders do not seem to understand, even though their founder, Herbert W. Armstrong, at least at one time, made it very clear.
Here is what Armstrong wrote about who rightfully owns Palestine, in his 1955 Plain Truth article Palestine Sputters all over United Nations.
The Jews think they are birthright Israel, and believe this land belongs by God’s birthright to them. And “silly dove” Ephraim (Hos 7:11), not realizing that she is really the birthright tribe of the House of Israel–the nation that God decreed should obtain Palestine December 9, 1917–blindly tried to build a national home for the Jews in this land, and at the same time blundered into a contradictory pledge to establish it as a home for the Arabs! (The Plain Truth, Nov-Dec 1955, page 5, here).
Later in the same article, he reiterates his point:
What a muddle! The Arabs believe Palestine should be theirs because they are descended from Ishmael. The Turks want it because they come from Esau. The Jews want it because they come from Jacob, but through Judah. Yet it belongs to none of them by divine right! It belongs to Great Britain and America, into whose hands God placed it, but who have been so valiantly trying to maintain it for Jew and Arab. (The Plain Truth, Nov-Dec 1955, page 7, here).
In other words, the Jews have no more right to the land than the Arabs! According to Armstrong, the land “belongs to none of them [Arab, Turk or Jew] by divine right!”
That Warm And Fuzzy Feeling (Mostly One-Sided)
Some COG writers, those from the PCG in particular, seem to be losing their composure on this issue, getting indignant and almost hysterical in their condemnation of Palestinians, while getting “warm and fuzzy” in their support for Israel.
Instead of supporting Israel, perhaps the COGs should be outraged that Judah has occupied (in a sense, stolen) Joseph’s land. If the Arabs were taking land from the U.K. or the U.S.A., invading Oklahoma for example, probably all these churches would condemn them as land-poachers. So why do some churches think it is a light thing for the Jews to do it? If anything, stealing land from a brother could be even worse.
Some “ministers of God” think the Jews really should have the land. Herbert Armstrong, at least in 1955, was thinking more logically on this issue than some of his followers do today. They seem to have forgotten what he said and seem to have become swept up in the emotions and political discourse coming from the news media.
Thou Shalt Not Kill
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is politics. Churches and their members are not supposed to be involved in politics. But it’s not just politics. Let’s not forget that it is a WAR. There are tanks, guns, and rocket launchers involved. Planes are dropping bombs. People are dying. Civilians are dying. Children are dying.
Much of what goes on in “Journalism” today is politics, as “Journalists” attempt to influence public opinion, rather than merely report events. It is clear that some COGs often write and report in the same spirit, trying to persuade their readers that the players on one side in a conflict are, to a large extent, the good guys, and those on the other side are pretty much the bad guys.
In the PCG’s booklet, A Warm Friend of Israel (subtitled, “Herbert W. Armstrong, The Ambassador Without Portfolio”) we read that “Though he met with the greats of the world from Asia to Africa to Europe and beyond, Herbert W. Armstrong’s greatest affection was for one tiny, new country at the heart of the world. He loved Israel, and Israel loved him back. (p. 7, here)
If such statements are true, it seems that Armstrong also lost his political neutrality somewhere along the way.
Man’s Laws
The COGs place great emphasis on obedience to man’s law, but do the Jews respect man’s law? Not according to Amnesty International which says the Israelis are bulldozing Palestinian homes in defiance of international law:
For years, the Israeli authorities have pursued a policy of discriminatory house demolition, on the one hand allowing scores of Israeli settlements to be built on occupied Palestinian land, in breach of international law, while simultaneously confiscating Palestinian lands, refusing building permits for Palestinians and destroying their homes. The land vacated has often been used to build illegal Israeli settlements. International law forbids occupying powers from settling their own citizens in the territories they occupy. (March 11, 2008, Palestinian Homes Demolished Without Warning, www.amnesty.org, here).
Is the PCG just as critical of Israel every time a Palestinian house is bulldozed (as shown in the photo) as they would be if a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up a house owned by Jewish settlers? All I can remember from my days in the PCG is that we were very pro-Israel, and that the Palestinians were always the bad guys for whom we had little sympathy. I hope other COGs are better, and, to some degree they probably are, since Gerald and Stephen Flurry seem to be going off the deep-end. But I would still be surprised if any COG exists which is not at least somewhat biased in favour of Israel. They have all inherited a lot of Armstrong’s views. Despite what he wrote in 1955, later in his life Armstrong seems to have been pretty cozy with the politicians in the state of Israel.
Despite the source, let’s see what the PCG says about Armstrong’s (alleged?) special friendship with the Jewish state.
Mr. Armstrong believed in the glorious future of Jerusalem. He flew to the new nation of Israel more frequently than anywhere else; during one four-year period, he returned about 50 times. (A Warm Friend of Israel, page 5, here).
From that description, we might think Armstrong cared more about the biblically illegitimate (according to British-Israelism) nation of Israel than he did about biblically legitimate nations such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, or other “nations of Israel.” How many times did he visit those nations?
The PCG booklet continues:
The first official to welcome Mr. Armstrong into “a partnership with Israel” was a signer of the 1948 Declaration of Independence, Tourism Minister Moshe Kol. From that initial partnership at the Knesset in 1968 to his death in 1986, Mr. Armstrong met with President Zalman Shazar, Prime Minister Golda Meir, President Ephraim Katzir, Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, President Yitzhak Navon, President Chaim Herzog and Prime Minister Shimon Peres. (page 5).
Consider the list of names of Jewish leaders that we just read. How many of them have presided over the illegal destruction of Palestinian homes in the Israeli occupied territories?
The PCG booklet states that “… following his first meeting in the Knesset in 1968, Mr. Armstrong was welcomed by every prime minister and president of Israel for the rest of his life.” (p. 17).
So it sounds like, from 1968 on, HWA was cosy with all the Jewish leaders (criminals?) who were breaking international law by settling Jews in Arab lands (Jacob’s land from the BI perspective). The settlers began moving in soon after the 1967 war.
Note that, according to the PCG, Herbert Armstrong had a “partnership” (p. 5) with a nation of this world–Israel. The bible tells us not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers or to get involved in the politics of this world. Yet, for some reason, the PCG has no problem with Armstrong’s very warm and friendly “partnership” with Israel.
And, if the PCG booklet is accurate, neither did Armstrong.
“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (New American Standard Bible, 2 Corinthians 6:14).
Instead of kissing up to Jewish leaders, Armstrong should have been blasting them. Jesus called the Jewish religious leaders of his time snakes (Matthew 3:7; 23:33). Are today’s political leaders much better?
“Cry loudly, do not hold back; raise your voice like a trumpet, And declare to my people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their sins.” (New American Standard Bible, Isaiah 58:1). Though it says “Jacob” here, would God want his messenger to cry aloud against the sins of Jacob and at the same time, partner up with Judah, as if Judah is so much better than Jacob?
Terror
Note that Menachem Begin is on the PCG’s list of Armstrong’s Israeli friends. Begin was head of the Zionist terrorist group that carried out the attack at the British headquarters in Jerusalem which killed 91 people. That is what our “brother” the Jew who was a big friend of Armstrong did to us.
The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out on 22 July 1946 by the militant terrorist right-wing Zionist underground organization the Irgun on the British administrative headquarters for Palestine, which was housed in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured. (Wikipedia article King David Hotel Bombing, taken from Wikipedia on Nov 14, 2012).
Page 7 of the PCG booklet shows a picture of Herbert Armstrong and Menachem Begin in a big hug. The photo caption reads “Prime Minister Menachem Begin warmly welcomes Mr. Armstrong in 1980 during one of his many trips to Israel.”
The Wikipedia article elaborates on the Jewish terrorist attack:
The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The attack, which initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine) and was conceived of as a response to Operation Agatha (in which widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, had been carried out), was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920 to 1948). The explosion caused more casualties than any subsequent bombing carried out in the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Wikipedia article King David Hotel Bombing, Nov 14, 2012).
The article on Menachem Begin, says:
Menachem Begin … was an Israeli politician, founder of Likud and the sixth Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Before independence, he was the leader of the Zionist militant group Irgun, the Revisionist breakaway from the larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah. He proclaimed a revolt, on 1 February 1944, against the British mandatory government, which was opposed by the Jewish Agency. As head of the Irgun, he targeted the British in Palestine. (Wikipedia article Menachem Begin, Nov 14, 2012).
So, Herbert Armstrong’s good friend was the head of a terrorist group. I don’t remember hearing any COG ever mention that, yet some COGs rail against Arab terrorism today. Arab terrorists today are merely using the same tactics of warfare that the Jews used before the Jews were the official government in Palestine. But are the Jews really the official government? Not according to British-Israelism! So, does that mean they are still terrorists? They have nuclear weapons. Does that make them nuclear-armed terrorists?
Should Herbert Armstrong really have been such a good friend to Israel? What about the Churches of God today? Should they support Israel? Should their members really support those churches if they do?
Why did the PCG write this booklet in the first place? Are they hoping to snuggle up to Jewish leaders?
The WCG used to say our mission was to “tell MY people [Jacob and the Jews, not the Arabs] their sins” (Isa 58:1). If these churches are who they claim they are, they have a special mandate to expose the Jews (and the other tribes), rather than turn a blind eye to killing or to get cosy with politicians who order those killings.
If a church is hysterically, or even marginally, taking sides in a war, does that church have blood on its hands?
And if a church member financially supports church publications which adamantly or even marginally favor one side in a war, does that member have blood on his hands?
I guess that would include me because I used to think the same way. I was a victim of biased propaganda and often one-sided reporting from the media and the PCG. The reality is that Israeli treatment of Palestinians has often been positively brutal. Only a person filled with pro-Jewish bias, such as that arising from religious zeal, could support such brutal oppression and repeated defiance of international law.
Lobby Groups
In the U.S.A. the campaign finance laws are such that politicians on both sides are bought and paid for by special interest groups. Because of the wealth and political power of pro-Israel lobby groups in the U.S.A., both parties in the U.S.A. have turned a blind eye to Israeli crimes. These lobby groups are a big reason the US has been Israel’s biggest supporter. To a large degree the news media let the parties and the lobby groups get away with it. One reason they do that is because the media all support the two-party system and both parties are guilty. To expose one party would be to expose both parties. The media, both left and right (and they all seem to have a favorite party) will not so severely discredit their favorite party or the undemocratic two-party system. The news pundits and their employers are among the well-off elites that benefit from the current system.
Probably the most influential lobby group in the U.S.A. is the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Summary
Some COGs have lost sight of their own ideals. They are getting involved in politics (writing to influence public opinion), writing slanted articles on wars, and forgetting what they are supposed to believe about who has a right to the land. If the bible is true, God will hold those church leaders and the members accountable, and anyone else who supports Israel, or any other warring nation or people.
Note on AIPAC.
From the Wikipedia article American Israel Public Affairs Committee
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee … is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. … Describing itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby”, AIPAC is a mass-membership, American organization whose members include Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The New York Times calls it “the most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel.” It has been described as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a “stranglehold” on the United States Congress with its power and influence. (Nov 14, 2012).
Due to their wealth, AIPAC enjoys enormous power over U.S. foreign policy, even though they have been found guilty of spying on the U.S..
In 2005, a Pentagon analyst pled guilty to charges of passing US government secrets to two AIPAC staffers in what is known as the AIPAC espionage scandal. (same article)
Disclaimer: Wikipedia is usually accurate on purely technical matters, but must be viewed with suspicion on all other matters. I quote it here because it is an easy source for readers to check and because other sources basically corroborate the above position.
Note on Zionism.
Zionism is defined as “a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel” (dictionary.com, emphasis mine). Zionism today is the fight for the preservation of that Jewish state, which is biblically illegitimate in the eyes of British-Israelism. But those who question the “right” of Israel to Palestine are often tarred with the derogatory label “anti-semite”. To question the “right” of Israel to displace Palestinians is to be attacked as a hater and persecutor of Jews. This kind of talk is really just intimidation used to prevent public debate.
Note on the term “condemn”
Some COG members might object to my use of the term “condemn.” On a number of occasions I have heard COG ministers (e.g. Dennis Leap) and members insist that they never “condemn” anyone. They speak as if “condemn” always means to condemn one to eternal damnation, and only God can do that. If you look up “condemn” in a dictionary you see that one definition is simply to criticize harsly. Some COGs do that constantly.
Note on the Party System
I call the two party system undemocratic because politicians (“representatives”) are supposed to represent the people who voted them in, not the party bosses who set policy for the party. All political parties are undemocratic. Anyone who believes in democracy should probably vote for a independent candidate who is not a member of any party.
Note on David Ben-Ariel.
David Hoover, once a member of Gerald Flurry’s Philadelphia Church of God, was a staunch supporter of Israel and Jerusalem (under Jewish control). He changed his last name to Ben-Ariel. Mr. Ben-Ariel, before he passed away, was a fairly prolific COG blogger. He often described himself as a Christian Zionist. Zionism is the term for the supposed “right” of the Jews to a homeland in Palestine.
The “blurb” for his book Beyond Babylon on Amazon.com (Nov 14, 2012) reads as follows:
Mr. Ben-Ariel clearly has a God-given love for the Jews and the nation of Israel. His Israeli lawyer has stated that David’s “future is linked with that of the Jews,” and Gershon Salomon, chairman of the Temple Mount Faithful says, “God has some special task” for him. His sacred bond with the land and people of Israel has been strengthened over the years by his service as a volunteer on eight kibbutzim (collective farms) throughout the Holy Land, including during Operation Desert Storm.
Note that David had a love “for the Jews and the nation of Israel.” I interpret “nation of Israel” here to mean the nation in the Middle East, not “modern Israel.” Why did David love the nation of Israel if Armstrong essentially said that the nation of Israel had no right to exist in the eyes of God? It seems to me that David had forgotten, or never read, what Armstrong said in the 1955 Plain Truth that I quote in this article.
Regarding his change of name, Ben-Ariel wrote,
… Isaiah 29:1 … reveals that Ariel is a nickname for Jerusalem! I now understand why God the Father had chosen Ariel for me. Anyone who knows me knows that Jerusalem is always on my mind (Jer. 51:50), especially after my first visit there to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) in 1980. God has shown me that He’s stirred me up and given me a burning desire for Jerusalem and Israel (Isa. 62:1, 6-7). I finally realized that God was calling me a “son [Ben] of Jerusalem [Ariel].” (Article Source: here)
It seems likely that the eccentric Zionist Mr. Ben-Ariel was suffering from the negative effects of his former close association with the eccentric Zionist Gerald Flurry, and was still partly under Flurry’s spell. Both men thought that God was using them for a special purpose and both were hysterical supporters of Israel.
After an experience in an abusive group, the victim needs to understand how he got himself into that predicament in the first place. He needs to ask questions like: How did this happen to me? Whose fault was it? Answering those questions can help prevent being deceived again.
Well, there is a lot of blame to go around. According to the “buyer beware” principle, the victim is partly at fault for being too trusting and deceivable. But the main culprits are the liars who trapped him. We don’t put victims of other frauds (e.g. financial fraud) in jail even if they were naive. We only put the perpetrators in jail.
I put together a list of people, institutions, and organizations who share some of the blame. A few of the items on the list require a bit of explanation, which can be found in the footnotes.
In no particular order, here are some of those who deserve a share of the blame.
All those ministers who lie (no shortage of those).
All those ministers who are opinionated (there are a lot of those too!).
Downright bullheaded ministers who have seen proofs they are wrong but refuse to accept them (there are a lot of those too!).
Governments, IF they legally protect the “religious rights” of dishonest church leaders to lie and deceive, but not those of the abused church members to not be lied to and not be robbed of their time and money (see footnote 1).
Schools and parents for not teaching children to recognize scams, deceivers and sociopaths.
Schools and parents for not teaching children how to think more logically (what we get is mostly memory training).
Parents for leaving education to inept and politically correct schools.
Parents, if we grew up in a Church of God.
A ruthless, crazy, global political system that offers no security and threatens the safety of everyone on earth (see footnote 2).
Corrupt, predatory, sick societies that make people long for a better world (the blame here must be shared by everyone to one degree or another, but mostly by those who are the most corrupt and predatory).
Corrupt mainstream churches that make people seek better alternatives.
Mainstream churches with no inspiring vision, that make people seek better alternatives.
Mainstream churches that cannot properly refute many claims made by leaders of unorthodox sects.
The people who wrote the books of the bible, the scholars who defend it, and the preachers who promulgate it.
The news media for scaring people with the idea that “runaway global warming” is producing abnormal weather that is only going to get worse (see footnote 3).
The victim himself for being too trusting (gullible) and maybe too hasty, not doing enough research beforehand.
Church members who knew there were serious problems and should have got out a lot sooner, but set a bad example by continuing to attend, and helped the churches to deceive others by continuing to support the churches financially.
Well, that’s my list. I hope I didn’t miss anything major.
In my view, most of the blame goes to those who knew, or should have known, that they are promulgating error but did little or nothing about it.
Footnotes:
1. Actually, certain religious frauds are already illegal. It might be possible to sue some of these churches in some jurisdictions. I don’t know if that is possible, but I wouldn’t rule it out. It’s been done before, e.g. the Church of Scientology has successfully been sued.
I’m not talking about making doctrinal errors illegal, just outright frauds, e.g. publishing altered versions of someone’s writings without informing the reader of the alterations or why they were made. If that’s not illegal, it should be.
By the way, if some church publishes material with the author’s name on it (e.g. Herbert Armstrong’s name) and they misquote the author by altering his words, is that not bearing false witness to what he said and stood for? How can a church can justify such actions? Yet it is our understanding that some of Herbert Armstrong’s works have been altered and republished without the readers being told about critical doctrinal changes that were made.
2. The insecure global system makes people seek safety in religion. It also makes people uncertain of the future, which makes prophecy seem attractive because prophecy claims to explain where world events are leading and the basic causes behind them.
3. After spending over 100 hours (estimated) researching “global warming” I’m now convinced most of what we hear is hype. Many religious people think weather is getting worse and that this is proof that the end is near, as prophesied by Jesus. Therefore I blame the media for unwittingly creating end-time hysteria. Their intent often seems to be to exaggerate what they think is a real phenomenon in order to “save the planet”, but the effect is to play into the hands of apocalyptic groups. Many of the increased costs from bad weather are just due to monetary inflation and increased populations in urban areas.
2 Peter 3:3-4 says that scoffers will come in the last days. Many churches believe that we are living in the last days now, a time just before the return of Jesus Christ. One “proof” they use is what they call the increasing number of “scoffers” who scoff at the Bible. Here is an example of such thinking from a Living Church of God article.
The increasing number of scholars and writers making headlines by openly challenging fundamental teachings of the Bible should come as no surprise to students of Scripture. Long ago, God foretold that “scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts” (2 Peter 3:1–6). … They will agree with Dan Brown’s phrase, “The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God” (The Da Vinci Code, p. 250). … This is where we are today! Modern writers and scholars are twisting the Scriptures, denying the inspiration of the Bible, rejecting fundamental teachings of Christianity and creating in their imaginations entirely different views about the life of Jesus Christ. Prophecies are indeed coming alive! [Douglas Winnail, Tomorrow’s World, May-June 2007, p. 15]
The LCG makes it sound like prophecy is being fulfilled by modern scoffers and that this proves we are in the last days. All these scoffers “should come as no surprise to students of Scripture” because “God foretold” this and “This is where we are today [exclamation mark]” which shows that “prophecies [of the last days] are indeed coming alive [exclamation mark]”.
There have always been critics who scoff at the teachings of Jesus Christ. If we assume that the mere existance of scoffers proves we are in the last days, then we have been in the last days for 2000 years.
Yes, there was a long period when Europe was dominated by the Catholic Church, and during that period “heretics” were persecuted. I suppose there weren’t too many scoffers then, but there must have been a few, even in Europe.
If there have always been scoffers, how do scoffers indicate that the end is near?
Are soffers more prevalent today than ever before? Probably not. The Bible says Jesus himself was persecuted by an angry mob, spat on, crucified, and scoffed at while he was still on the stake. The original apostles were also persecuted. After that, Christians were persecuted for hundreds of years. Such intensity of persecution is not going on today.
Some churches will argue that the increase in scoffers proves we are in the last days. Note that the LCG says “Modernwriters and scholars are twisting the Scriptures, denying the inspiration of the Bible, rejecting fundamental teachings of Christianity…” (from the quote above).
It’s true that scoffing has increased in “modern times”, but the trend of increasing Bible skepticism has been going on for hundreds of years. Are these churches going to tell us that the last days are hundreds of years long?
Have the last few years seen a drastic upswing in Bible criticism that proves the return of Christ is near, and that this prophecy about scoffers is “coming alive” today?
To help answer that question, let’s get a little perspective on the history of “modern” Bible criticism.
In The History of the Higher Criticism, Volume 1 ch. I, Canon Dyson Hague (see the footnotes more more information) says Higher Criticism “is not modern by any means” but that it has been going on since about 1521 or 1670, depending on which starting point we choose. That’s roughly 350 to 500 years.
I don’t think the LCG would claim that the last days began 350 to 500 years ago. Yet that’s when the “modern” academic “scoffers” started to appear. Surely, the rise of such scoffers does not prove we are in the last days, or we would have been in the last “days” for centuries.
Mr Hague divides the movement into “three great stages.” So perhaps this lastest stage, if we can call it that, brought to us by people like Dan Brown of The Da Vinci Code, is just a stage that the world is going through. Perhaps there are a few more stages to come, which will last a few more hundred years. Only time will tell. It’s a long-term trend so it does not prove the end is near. People will continue digging up old artefacts, reading old documents, writing criticisms of the Bible, and making books and movies like The Da Vinci Code.
Unless someone can use statistics to prove we are in a sharp upswing in skepticism, rather than part of a growing but long term trend, I don’t see how anyone can use 2 Peter 3:3 (“there shall come in the last days scoffers”) to claim that the last days are here.
What about Peter’s comment on lust? “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts… ” (2 Peter 3:3). Well, people have always had lust. Lust is the result of hormones. Anyone could have predicted that. Once again, this tells us nothing, and predicting that people would come walking in lust is like predicting the earth will continue to spin.
But there was more to Peter’s prophecy than that. Let’s read it in context.
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers [ancestors] died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:3-4, NIV)
Notice the quotation marks. This is Peter’s prediction of what scoffers would say in the last days. According to Peter, these scoffers would be saying “everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”
Does anyone today say things like “everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation”? Most of these Bible scoffers probably don’t even believe in divine creation. Most probably believe in evolution, which states that life is changing, not going on “as it has since the beginning of creation.”
So Peter predicted these scoffers would believe in and speak about divine creation, which is the opposite of what most Bible scoffers seem to believe and teach. He was propesying that they would continue to believe in creation. The scoffers would be scoffing at the return of Christ, not at divine creation.
Furthermore, even creationists today would not say that “everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation” because we live in a world of rapid changes. People today are more likely to say “everything is changing” rather than “everything goes on the same.”
The truth is Peter did not foresee the coming of the theory of evolution and he did not foresee this modern age of rapid changes. He expected people to believe in creation and he expected things to be continue on pretty much the same, not for the world to go through a period of rapid changes.
If we really are in the last days, this passage cannot be inspired because it prophesies viewpoints for scoffers in the last days that do not accurately reflect the views of modern scoffers.
On the other hand, if this passage really is inspired, then we are not in the last days and Bible scoffers will return to believing in divine creation before Christ returns. Even if so, we would have to explain how, after all of the great scientific, technical, and social revolutions that the world has witnessed, people in the last days could say things are going on the same since creation.
If Peter mis-predicted what would happen in the last days, then he was a false prophet and this passage was not inspired.
Summary:
There have always been scoffers.
Academic Bible criticism is not a recent trend.
Bible skepticism has been increasing for hundreds of years.
The last days are not supposed to go on for hundreds if years. If they do, the end could still be hundreds of years away.
Scoffing, or a gradual increase in scoffing, does not help us identify when the end is near.
People like Dan Brown of The Da Vinci Code are part of a very old trend that could go on much longer. Where is the statistical proof that we are currently in a dramatic upswing in this trend?
This passage (2 Peter 3:3-4) does not accurately describe most scoffers alive at this time.
If we are really in the last days, this passage cannot be inspired.
If this passage is accurate, we are not in the last days.
Note: In The History of the Higher Criticism, Volume 1 ch. I, Canon Dyson Hague, writes:
It is not easy to say who is the first so-called Higher Critic, or when the movement began. But it is not modern by any means. Broadly speaking, it has passed through three great stages:
1. The French-Dutch. 2. The German. 3. The British-American.
In its origin it was Franco-Dutch, and speculative, if not skeptical. The views which are now accepted as axiomatic [self-evident] by the Continental and British-American Schools of Higher Criticism seem to have been first hinted at by Carlstadt in 1521 in his work on the Canon of Scripture, and by Andreas Masius, a Belgian scholar, who published a commentary on Joshua in 1574, and a Roman Catholic priest, called Peyrere or Pererius, in his Systematic Theology, 1660. (LIV. Cap. i.)
But it may really be said to have originated with Spinoza, the rationalist Dutch philosopher. In his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (Cap. vii-viii), 1670, Spinoza came out boldly and impugned [impugn: to fight with words or arguments] the traditional [i.e. of traditional Christianity] date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to Ezra or to some other late compiler. [http://user.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter1/hague.php]
Note: It also sounds like Peter expected the scoffers to continue to believe in “the fathers” which often refers to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, some skeptics today even question whether such persons existed. Once again, it calls into question whether Peter really had an accurate foreknowledge of today’s conditions, as Bible fundamentalists assume he did.
Note: For the record, I have preserved the complete Living Church of God article. It appears on page 14 in this PDF file.
Note: To make the analysis easier I’ve ignored the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc, scoffers, and just looked at scoffers in the Christian West. I’ve also ingored most of the scoffing done by scattered Jews for the last 2000 years. To my knowledge, the churches also ignore these scoffers when they look at this verse.
