Herbert W Armstrong

   I have the pastor's report here and would like to read two or three comments from it. The first one is from Mr. Richard Rice, who is in charge of mail processing at Pasadena. He says that the mail is still up in spite of the bad weather: "Despite the serious weather in many parts of the country, our mail is holding up rather well. As a matter of fact, the weekly mail count as of February 10th was the best weekly figure since May of 1977. Apparently those areas of the nation not affected by heavy snows are helping to keep the mail picture quite strong. Currently we are receiving heavy responses to Mr. Ted Armstrong's co-worker letter of January 30th. After only 10 days, the co-worker response reached 16% and member response reached 30%. Many of those responding to the letter have been pleased and excited about the return to 30-minute daily radio programming. Numerous individuals have stated their hope that we will be able to go on the air in their area soon."

   That's all that I'm going to read from the pastor's report, but I have a letter that I would like to read to you.

   I know this letter will probably never reach you, but will be read by someone else. By the way, this was a letter written to the work. But I'll start again: "I know this letter will probably never reach you, but will be read by someone else, but I just had to sit down and write it anyway. You probably don't really realize just how upset some of us local brethren are. We keep hearing rumors about you, about other leading ministers, about the work, and we just can't seem to get any answers. It's rumored that you are getting married soon. You might have a general idea from that as to when this may have been written. It's rumored that you are getting married soon, and some say you're growing weaker and have several infirmities, but they don't reveal what these infirmities are and seem to want to keep it a secret.

   "We have heard a good deal about the way the money is spent, and some say it is mishandled, and frankly, because of these and other suspicions, we have been placing our tithe money in the top drawer of our desk until we get some satisfaction. Further, terrible rumors are circulating about all the drinking that is going on, and whether you know it or not, your own local minister is looking the other way when one of our deacons is openly living with his own mother-in-law, and the whole congregation knows about it and talks about it openly. Recently, one of our deacons took one of our leading members to court, and we know of at least three marriages that have broken up in this congregation just within the past year. We just do not know what to do. With all these things happening, how can this really be God's church? With members leaving and even ministers leaving, how can this be the Church of God and all these things going on?"

   And it’s signed, "Equipus and Crastus, for Narrow Drive, Corinthos, July 31st, 54 A.D." Addressed to the apostle Paul.

   Well, obviously Eriquius and Krasus didn't write this letter, but someone in Corinth, as we call it, could have very well written a letter like this, you know, around 54 A.D., because the points that are mentioned here you'll find mentioned or referred to or implied primarily in the book of I Corinthians, but also in some other places. You may have thought, well, that was probably a letter that was written several months ago to Pasadena, because maybe you might have heard some things along this line, and from time to time, you know, we hear rumors about this, that, or the other thing. Seems like there's always some kind of a rumor going on about the work or about the leading people in the church, and so it would seem to fit very well maybe into current or recent circumstances in the church.

   Well, in reading that letter??"oh, by the way, you'll notice that it's yellowed with age. Well, with letters like that, of course, we might think that the church in the first century had its problems too. I used to read some of the things in the New Testament about the New Testament church, and it seemed rather strange to me because we didn't have that kind of problem in modern times, and it seemed so strange that they had so many problems back then. Well, since that time we've had all the same problems and some more, I guess, that they didn't have.

   Yes, God's church had its problems in the first century. Some people call it the primitive church. I don't think it was primitive at all. It was God's church and, of course, it was the beginning of God's church in the New Testament era as far as that's concerned. But there are a lot of problems that the New Testament church had that it faced, people at that time went through.

   And as we look through the New Testament, covering a period from about 31 A.D. up until the time of John in the 90s??"even less than 60 years, I would say, or around 60 years??"and most of the events that you read in the Book of Acts and the Book of Corinthians and so on, or maybe within 20 years or so or 25 years or a little longer from the time that the church was founded, that most of those problems took place, and I want to go through some of the problems that they were having at that particular time.

   And the first one I'd like to point out is in the book of I Corinthians, and of course many of these that I'm going to point out are found in I Corinthians. I Corinthians chapter 11??"these are not all in the order or in a sequence you'll find in the book, and I'm not including all of them??"I Corinthians 11:21. He's talking here about the Passover, which is not the Lord's Supper, by the way, as he says in verse 20: "For in eating, everyone takes before other his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken."

   It seems rather strange to us, but here were people??"or a person, I don't know how many, but at least one person that he is referring to here??"who comes to the Passover in a drunken condition. If you can imagine such in the Church of God! Now, it's bad enough to have drunkenness at other times, but you know, especially at a very solemn occasion like this, the Passover, to have someone come drunk. You might say, "Well, that's inexcusable. How can this be the Church of God if someone would do such as that?"

   Now, let's turn to the 15th chapter. Do you realize that there were some people in the church who didn't even believe one of the major doctrines of the New Testament era? And what is that doctrine that was mentioned over and over and over again? That of the resurrection??"first of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and also of the general resurrection, the other resurrections. But some of the people in the Church of Corinth didn't believe in the resurrection. If you can imagine such!

   Let's notice that verse 12 (I Corinthians 15:12): "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you, some of you in the church at Corinth, that there is no resurrection of the dead?" If we had someone here in the church in Houston, Houston East maybe, who didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, we might think, well, we ought to put such a person out of the church. But Paul was patient, and he realized that people were not perfect, and some of them had great errors in their thought and their beliefs and so forth.

   And so he sets about, of course, to correct that and to mention here in great detail the subject of the resurrection because here is that chapter that's so often called the resurrection chapter of the Bible. And maybe if that person did not exist, maybe if there was not a person or persons in the church at Corinth that did not believe in the resurrection, maybe we wouldn't have this beautiful chapter here, chapter 15, because very often, you know, a minister will address the problems. And that's what he is addressing. Otherwise, maybe we wouldn't have some of the details that we have in this particular chapter that we don't find elsewhere.

   And believe it or not, some of the people in Corinth were still carnal. Of course, now none of you would be that way, would you?

   I Corinthians 3:3, well, I'm sure you wouldn't, but probably somebody sitting close to you is. I Corinthians 3 verse 3. He says, "For you are yet carnal." Now if a minister would come to you and tell you that personally, I suppose many of you would be rather offended. You know, it's easy for us to be offended, some of us it seems like. And especially if we're told, you know, "You're carnal." Oh, that would be very hard to take, wouldn't it?

   But he doesn't stop there. Let's read the rest of the verse: "For whereas there is among you envying." All right, so here's another point. There are some in the church who are envious. I wonder if any of us are envious here today? "And strife." Here we see that there was strife in the Church of God. "And divisions" or schisms or factions, as the margin says, and of course there is more about that in other places, including the next couple of verses.

   Let's read on. He says, "Are you not carnal and walk as men?" That is, the fact that there was envying, strife, and divisions among them was proof in itself that the people here, some of them were carnal. "For while one says, 'I am of Paul,' and another, 'I of Apollos,' are you not carnal?" Now, of course, the church at Houston wouldn't have such problems as this, would they?

   "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos but ministers by whom he believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." And of course this is mentioned back in chapter one as well.

   Let's see, let's pick it up in verse 12. Chapter 1 verse 12 (I Corinthians 1:12): "Now this I say, every one of you says, 'I am of Paul,' and 'I of Apollos,' and 'I of Cephas,' and 'I of Christ.' Is Christ divided?" We can look at that, you know, and we can see these names??"Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, and so forth??"and we realized, well, there's nobody in the Houston churches by that name.

   But now what if we would put here the names of Herbert W. Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, Herman Hoeh, Roderick Meredith, Ronald Dart, or whoever else you might want to put in there? Because you know some of us are just like that today. Some of us have the idea, well, "I follow Herbert W. Armstrong." Now maybe they don't put it quite in those words, but when you hear what comes out of their mouth, that's really what they're saying.

   And I've heard that, you know, in the Houston church or heard it implied in the Houston churches as far as that's concerned. Some have the idea that Herbert W. Armstrong is the one to follow, and as far as this man Garner Ted Armstrong is concerned, you know, well, he's this or that or the other thing, and he and his father don't believe the same, and he's going in one direction, his father is going in another direction, and so on and so forth.

   So who do you follow? You follow Herbert W. Armstrong, or do you follow Garner Ted Armstrong, or maybe you'd rather follow Herman Hoeh or Roderick Meredith or Ronald Dart or maybe Dan Waterhouse, or maybe none, maybe you know you're following Christ??"you wouldn't follow any of these men. Is Christ divided? Was Herbert Armstrong crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Garner Ted Armstrong? You know, we might put it in those words and make it a little personal.

   Now some think that Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong has departed from what his father has taught, and he's brought in all these new doctrines and so on and so forth. Well, January 2nd of this year??"January 2nd of this year, has not been two months ago??"I sat in Mr. Armstrong's living room in Tucson, Arizona, my wife and I. And he told me with his own mouth, and I didn't ask him, he just, among other things, mentioned this. He said that he and his son Garner Ted Armstrong agree on doctrine.

   Now all I can do is take what the man says with his own lips. And you can believe me or not if you want as far as that's concerned. But we're so quick, you know, when there's something that's new or something is different to think, "Oh well, this is something new now, you know, this is the Laodicean church now. This isn't Philadelphia anymore, you know, we've done this or we've done that or we've done the other thing. We've gotten away from the faith that was once delivered to the saints" and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

   Well, they had divisions back at that time, and you know there are some in God's church today, even in Houston, because we're trying to follow some man instead of following Jesus Christ. We ought to follow these men as they follow Christ, and if they don't follow Christ, then we better not follow them. We better go find somebody who is following Christ and follow them. Well, they had their divisions back at that time just as we do today.

   The next point I'd like to bring out is found over in the 6th chapter. I Corinthians 6:6. He says, "Brother goes to law with brother and that before the unbelievers." Now this is something that was referred to in the ancient letter that I just read to you.

   By the way, if you want to know who wrote that, I didn't write it. A fellow named Garner Ted Armstrong, I guess, wrote that, at least he read it to the headquarters congregation in Pasadena about a year ago. And so I just wrote it off verbatim and read it to you. So I suppose that he is the author of it, but it's based on the things you'll find here in this book.

   So we find here in verse 6 that members in the church were suing others in a court of law. Now they shouldn't have done that, and of course Paul goes on to explain that they shouldn't have done that and that the problems of that nature should be handled in the church without going to a court of law to have them settled.

   Do you realize that there were some people in the church at Corinth who committed fornication? Chapter 5 tells us a lot about that. And this, of course, was also referred to in the letter. I Corinthians 5:1: "It is reported that there is fornication among you," and he says the kind of fornication that even the Gentile people would look down on or feel badly about, or however you might want to put it. "Such is not named among the Gentiles" where this man was living with his mother-in-law. And as it says here, this was well known, you know, it wasn't that he just heard this by some secret report, but rather it was commonly known in the church.

   We read also, of course, in Revelation chapter 2, verse 14 and verse 20 that there was fornication going on in a couple of eras of the church, apparently widespread, otherwise it would not have been mentioned, I suppose. That's Revelation 2:14 and 20, which I won't turn to, but other evidences of it and there are other places possibly as well.

   The next point I wanted to bring out is that there were some people in the Church of God at that time??"in this particular instance that I have in mind is not in the book of I Corinthians, but another group is referred to??"that had gone back to keeping the pagan holidays. Can you imagine that? Some people going back to keeping pagan holidays!

   Now some people get very upset today when they think somebody's gone back to celebrating birthdays. I don't know if anybody's doing that as far as that's concerned, and it's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned, but if they suspicion that something like that is going on, well that means, you know, that the church now is no longer the Church of God. We've departed from the faith that was once delivered to the saints and so on. Well, I don't celebrate birthdays as far as that's concerned, but I don't know that that's my business what you necessarily do one way or the other.

   But let's notice these people who had gone back to keeping the holidays that they were originally observing. Where do you find that? Over in the book of Galatians, Galatians chapter 4 and verse 10 (Galatians 4:10). People apply this to the holy days of God and of course, if you read the context clearly, it shows that that is not the case, that these people, the Galatian people, the Galatian churches??"there were several churches in the area of Galatia. They were Gentile, very clearly from this book. Very evidently from this book, and I think that most commentaries would confirm that and the context itself makes it very clear that they were Gentiles.

   And when they came into the Church of God, they began to keep the holy days of God, and now some of them??"I don't know how many, but some of them??"had turned back to the beggarly elements or to sin, you might say, as it says in verse 9, and now they were observing, as it says in verse 10, days, months, times, and years.

   The Bible, of course, condemns the celebration of times. And even though there are certain days that God commands, there are no months that God commands or no years that God commands as far as observance is concerned, religious observance is concerned. So these people, some of them??"how many I have no idea, but some of them??"had turned away from the holy days of God and some of them were keeping again the holidays of the pagans around about them that they had been taught from their infancy. They'd gone back to those.

   The next point I want to bring out is that there were a lot of contentions in the church, and of course we've seen this in a sense when we saw about the envies and the strifes, the carnality and so forth of I Corinthians 3:3, but let's go back to I Corinthians 1, I Corinthians 1. And verse 11. I Corinthians 1:11: "For it has been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you."

   Here are people contentious with one another, and of course he ties that in with those who are saying, "Well, I'm going to follow this person." The other one says, "I'm going to follow somebody else." And in each case the person obviously feels that they are better than the other one or that they're more spiritual. So they were contentious.

   Verse 11, also verse 10 mentions that??"maybe I should read that as well: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions or schisms among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," which of course was the opposite of being contentious.

   All right, we read of course in the Old Testament about how the people murmured??"that this was one of the great sins, one of the great complaints God had against the people in the Old Testament times back there in the wilderness as they came out of the land of Egypt, going into the land of Palestine??"but it's not limited just to the Old Testament. I'd like to show you that there were people murmuring in the Church of Corinth.

   And excuse me, in this case, it was not the church in Corinth, it was a headquarters church. Acts 6:1, Acts 6:1: "And in those days when the number of the disciples was multiplied"??"here, the church was increasing dramatically, not just adding a few here and a few there, but it was multiplying. And so I guess from that, you know, maybe it would be 100 in the local congregation and then a year later maybe it would be 200 or 300 or 400 or whatever. When you say it was multiplied, that was a tremendous increase and of course that brings problems when the church grows so rapidly.

   "There arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews" in this particular case. At that time, the church consisted of Jews, but some of them had a Greek background as far as culture is concerned. Others had a Hebrew background as far as culture is concerned. It wasn't that there were Greeks and Hebrews, Jews and Greeks quarreling and murmuring and so on, but rather Jews of these different kind of social and economic and other kinds of background, cultural background. And some of them thought that the disciples were being a little one-sided, you know, that they were favoring one group over the other.

   "There arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily administration," and they thought that here was an injustice being done, that the widows of one particular group were being neglected while the other group was being taken care of.

   Next point I would like to bring out is that back at that time there was some time open disagreement with the ministers. Now, let alone, you know, any private disagreement, which might have been rumored about or people might have talked about privately and maybe in their own homes, you know, and the husband would tell the wife, "Well, I disagree with pastor so-and-so or elder so-and-so" and so on, but this was out in the open.

   Let's notice here chapter 15 of the book of Acts. Acts 15 and verse 1 (Acts 15:1): "And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren." They were teaching something now publicly to the people in the church. "And said, except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved."

   Well, that must have been a pretty important thing, you know, to come around to Gentiles??"and of course these people from Judea, they came from the area of headquarters of Jerusalem at that particular time. And they were telling these Gentiles, unless you're circumcised, you cannot be saved. That's pretty important, isn't it? Everyone wants to be saved and be in God's kingdom. And so if someone comes from headquarters or from the environs of headquarters and says, you know, you've got to do such and such, otherwise you're never going to be in God's kingdom. That could be rather important.

   "When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question." So here there was quite a controversy between Paul and Barnabas and these people, certain men. It doesn't say that they were ministers, they were just laypeople of the church, I guess, who came from the area of headquarters. So here was an open disagreement of these people from the headquarters area, you might say, out in a local congregation in regard to a rather important doctrine, the doctrine of circumcision.

   And we'll come back to that doctrine a little bit later. And not only did some people have open disagreement with the ministers, but some of them also looked down on the ministry. Now I won't take time to read all of this chapter, but just about the rest of this chapter deals with this point, of where people were not only disagreeing with the ministers??"in this particular case, Paul??"but they were looking down on them and judging them and condemning them.

   He says, "With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of man's judgment. Yea, I judge not my own self. For I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified," and so on. And then he mentions how he has applied these things that he'd been talking about to himself and Apollos.

   And in verse 6??"well, maybe we better start at the beginning of the verse: "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure" or sort of as a parable or a teaching "transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes that you might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." And they were puffed up, you might say, against Paul.

   Verse 8, he says, "Now you are full, now you are rich, you have reigned as kings without us." So he's showing here the attitude of mind that these people had, that they were, you might say, to use the words of Revelation, the third chapter, "rich and increased with goods"??"spiritual goods. They were rich, as it says here, and also they had already, you might say, begun their reign in God's kingdom. You know, they just sort of in their own mind exalted themselves to that.

   He says, "And I would to God that you did reign and that we also might reign with you, for I think that God has set forth us apostles last, as it were appointed to death, for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. And it seemed like sometimes God’s servants in this age also are in the same way, made a spectacle to the world and to angels and man. We are fools for Christ's sake." You know, people looked at them as fools. "But you are wise." They thought themselves wise. "We are weak"??"Paul is saying here, at least that's the way you look at us??""but you are strong." You think you are strong spiritually. "You are honorable, but we are despised" and so on, and he goes on to elaborate to some degree on this.

   So not only did some people disagree openly with the ministers, but also they looked down on the ministers and they felt themselves much more spiritual than even some of the leading ministers??"in this particular case, specifically Paul the Apostle. One of the greatest men who has ever walked the world or the earth, and yet some people in their great feelings of vanity exalted themselves above Paul and thought they were better than he was.

   And some of the brethren, to go a step further, were false brethren. Let's notice that in Galatians chapter 2. Galatians 2 and verse 4 (Galatians 2:4). He says, "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately, or privately to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." Now that's just one example. There are several other places, and I think particularly of some of the writings of the apostle John, and also of Jude, how that some crept in unawares and in some cases not just false brethren, also false ministers.

   Another point: some of the people in the church were unrepentant. This is in II Corinthians. II Corinthians 12 and verse 21 (II Corinthians 12:21). "Lest when I come again"??"and we're breaking into the middle of the sentence here, we haven’t time to read the whole section??""unless when I come again my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already and have not repented."

   So they were unrepentant. Here were people in the church that originally had repented, been baptized, made a part of God's church, and now they had sinned and they had not repented of that sin. Let's read on. They have not repented of "the uncleanness"??"and so here are other things, other sins, other mistakes that some of the people were guilty of??""uncleanness and fornication," which we've already seen, "and lasciviousness which they have committed."

   Now of course you might think when I read all of these things that I'm just reading about the bad things and there are a lot of good things. Well, that's very true. I'm trying to point out some of the sins, some of the mistakes, some of the errors, some of the wrong attitudes that the church had at that time. Sometimes I think we have the idea that those people were perfect. They never made mistakes and that they were different maybe than things are today. But they made their mistakes. They had their sins just as we have our sins and our mistakes.

   Does that mean it was not God's church? Well, very obviously it was God's church. Now, I've shown you some of the things that the lay members of the church were guilty of. But some of the ministers also fell way short of the mark.

   Let me point out a few scriptures about that. First, let's turn to the book of Philippians. The book of Philippians chapter 1. Philippians 1 verse 15 (Philippians 1:15). He says, "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife," and you might think, well, he's talking here about the false church, but I don't think he is. I think he's talking about the true church of God, that there were some ministers in the church who did preach Christ, you know, they didn't preach a false Christ. He says they preach Christ "even of envy and strife, and some also of goodwill."

   So here were ministers, some preaching Christ because of envy and strife, and others because of goodwill. "The one preached Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds," and so on. So I think from that it should be clear that there were some ministers of the Church of God in that first era, in that first century, that were preaching in the pulpit and doing so from the wrong motive.

   The next point I want to bring out is that sometimes the ministers even disagreed with each other or with one another, maybe I should say. Can you imagine that now if there were two ministers here together maybe on a social occasion or one of the feast days and two ministers speaking against each other or criticizing each other maybe in public or at least with some of the church people around?

   Let's turn to the book of Galatians. Book of Galatians. And I might even say imagine two apostles??"one, the apostle of the Gentiles, and the other that was committed to the circumcision or to the Jews. In other words, I'm talking about Peter and Paul. I suppose you've all read it, but maybe some of you have forgotten about it.

   Galatians 2:11: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed." Now in this case, Peter made a mistake. And what did Paul do about it? Paul told him right to his face, "Peter, you are wrong."

   Before that certain came from James??"and James apparently was the leading apostle at this particular time at headquarters rather than Peter??"and Peter had been sent, I suppose, by James to where was this? Antioch. And when he came to Antioch, Paul was there. It says "before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles."

   Now that doesn't seem like much of a problem to us, you know, to think, well, now I can eat with anybody else in the Church of God. You know, I can eat with people of black skin or white skin or anything in between, or someone who's poor or someone who's rich and so forth. But I can remember a time even in Church of God in this era when some of us, you know, would not have done such. Now there has been somewhat of a change in the attitude of some of us even in God's church today.

   So let's not start throwing stones and rocks necessarily here at the apostle Peter because he had been reared in a world, in a time when the Gentiles were considered as dogs, and it was totally improper and wrong for a Jew to sit down and eat a meal with a Gentile. And here was Peter. He came to an outlying church, sort of a subheadquarters at Antioch. And before certain other representatives came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles.

   But when these other people came from headquarters, it says, "But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision." And he was afraid of what some of those other people would think about him eating with these Gentiles. "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." And so then he elaborates a little bit more on this and then what the conclusion of all of this was.

   So here were two apostles of God who disagree, or where one was wrong and the other was correcting him. If you could imagine something like that. Now Paul seems like he's the one that gets involved in that sort of thing in more than one occasion.

   Let's turn to Acts 15. Acts 15 chapter and verse 36 (Acts 15:36). Prior to this time, Paul and Barnabas had been very active in preaching the gospel in various places and working together as a team. "And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark."

   John Mark. Now, who's John Mark? Well, I guess he was sort of an old buddy??"about the only thing we ever read that he did was to write one book, you know, the book of Mark. But this was early when he was still a young man, quite young apparently, and he had made some mistakes along the line. "And Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia and went not with them to the work."

   So there was a time when this young John Mark was not faithful about a particular thing. And he deserted them or left them in a lurch or whatever you might say on some occasion??"we don't have all the details about it. And so Paul decided, "Well, I don't want him to come with me anymore, you know, because he failed me on this other occasion," so "I'm not going to give him a second chance" or however it was that Paul felt about it. And so he didn't want to take John Mark with him.

   "And the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder"??"and I'm sure that God permitted all of this, and now he used both of them maybe doing twice as much as they would have done otherwise working together. Anyway, "the contention was so sharp between them that they departed asunder one from the other, and so Barnabas took Mark and sailed into Cyprus, and Paul chose Silas," and so on.

   So here were two apostles??"we find elsewhere that Barnabas was an apostle also??"and two apostles that couldn't get along over one point. They had their weaknesses, they had their problems. I don't know who was right. I don't know who was wrong, but it all worked out in the long run to the best.

   Yes, sometimes even apostles disagree with one another. And on another tech: some ministers are not properly concerned for the people that they serve. Let's turn to Philippians again. Philippians chapter 2. Philippians chapter 2, and let's start reading in verse 19 (Philippians 2:19). He's writing to the Church of Philippi, what we call Greece: "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus," or we call him Timothy, "shortly unto you." So he says, "I'm going to send this young evangelist Timothy over to Philippi there to help you."

   "That I also may be of good comfort when I know your state," so he also wants to find out from Timothy how the church in Philippi is faring. "For I have no man like-minded who will naturally care for your state." So he's saying now this young man, Timothy, will really be concerned about you. He will have concern and empathy and sympathy for you and your problems and so forth, and "I don't have anybody else like that in the ministry" is what he's saying.

   Here is the apostle of the Gentiles now, a man that raised up many churches, that had many??"I don't know how many, but he had many assistants or many men that he had trained and taught, many other ministers who went out just like Timothy and raised up, helped raise up more churches or pastor those churches or whatever. He says, "I don't have anybody like this man Timothy, who will naturally care for your state" and be concerned about you as he ought.

   "For all"??"I guess he's saying that all the rest of the ministers, and I don't know how many there were, I don't know whether it was 1 or 2 or 5 or 50, but at least he says??""all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's." But that's a sad, sad state of affairs and maybe this is rather late in Paul's work as far as that's concerned, but it was the state at that particular time. It shouldn't have been that way, but it was.

   You see, ministers then weren't perfect any more than they are perfect today. We have our problems. We're physical as well as you are. We have our shortcomings and our weaknesses that we're striving to overcome, and some of us succeed more than others in doing that. And some have a greater interest in one area than another. We're all different.

   I guess there's as much difference in the ministry as far as personality and likes and dislikes as there are of the lay members of the church. And some have greater concern than others. And because some don't have the concern they should, does that mean then it's not the Church of God? I don't think so.

   Not only were some not concerned properly for the people in the ministry, but some liked to be more important than the others. Let's notice that in the book of John, III John. III John chapter 9??"excuse me, verse 9. III John is just one chapter, of course, just 14 verses. III John verse 9: "I wrote unto the church, but Diotrephes"??"and I think obviously in the context here Diotrephes was a minister or the pastor, and I don't know which of the particular church that he's talking about??""I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, received us not."

   Here was a local minister or elder who even rejected one of God's apostles, if you can imagine such. You might, of course, conclude that Diotrephes was in a very wretched condition, and of course he was. But he was, as I said, a pastor or an elder in a local church and, you know, the local people there, I suppose, at least many of them look to him as whatever he was??"pastor or elder. And he wanted to have the preeminence, you know, he tried to exalt himself over some of the others, and I've seen that happen in this end time age in the Church of God too, you know, where certain ministers were climbers.

   And they were trying to climb over the others to the top, and for that matter, even to climb over those that God had put in authority in the church, that God had used to raise up this church. And then he goes on to say what he will do here in verse 10 against this man who not only wants to be the preeminent one to exalt himself, but also "speaking all kinds of malicious words," that "does not receive the brethren and forbids them that would and casts them out of the church." He was even putting out some of the members, the true members out of the Church of God, and yet he was in the office at that time of the minister of the church, I would take it from what he says here. If you can imagine the ministry doing such things.

   And I'd like to turn next to the book of Timothy, II Timothy. See another point here about what happened in the very late date in the apostle Paul's life. II Timothy Chapter 4. I tend to be before. But this is the time, you know, when he exhorts Timothy in his final exhortation to "preach the word" and so on and so forth, and in verse 7 (II Timothy 4:7), he says that "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith," and then he goes on to say that there's a crown of life that's reserved for him.

   And as best we understand, now this is right at the very end of his life. He was in prison and apparently very shortly??"we don't know how shortly??"he was executed or martyred. He says, "Do your diligence to come shortly unto me"??"and maybe he'd better come very shortly because maybe the time was very short??""For Demas"??"apparently one of the ministers of that time??""Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed unto Thessalonica."

   So here was a man now who was a minister that Paul had probably trained and been around for maybe many, many years, someone that he had great affection and love for, and this man had forsaken him in his time of trouble, in Paul's time of trouble and trial. Just as in our time, you know, there have been ministers who have forsaken Mr. Armstrong or forsaken the church.

   Then he goes on to say, "Crescens to Galatia." Now Crescens apparently was another minister or elder. And he had departed to Galatia, and so it would seem like that here was another minister, a second minister who had also forsaken him. "And Titus unto Dalmatia," the third one. It might not mean that. It could be that Demas had forsaken him where these other two ministers have just departed on church business or whatever to other places. But it would seem like when you put all this together that maybe these other two, Crescens and Titus, had deserted Paul in his time of great need.

   "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry"??"that same John Mark that we heard about earlier. So in the interim, he had received the good graces of Paul once again. Then he says, "Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus." And so here was now a man who had not deserted him, but he had sent him on a mission specifically.

   And he mentioned some personal matters in verse 13, verse 14: "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil"??"and I'll refer to him shortly in another context??""The Lord reward him according to his works, of whom be thou also aware, for he has greatly withstood our words. At my first answer, no man stood with me"??"and apparently what he's saying here when he was in court or before Caesar, Nero or Caesar, whoever it was, he appeared before at that particular time, and he answered, you know, the charges that were against him??""no man stood with me."

   Everyone deserted him. "in his hour of trial, but all men forsook me. I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge," and he goes on to say that God stood by him and how he was delivered out of the mouth of the lion and maybe literally so. And so from that we can see that some of the ministers of God deserted God's apostle at that time in a very crucial trial.

   Now, there were some of the ministers who fell away and spoke perverse things. Let's notice that in Acts the 20th chapter. Now, actually, this chapter does not say that it had happened, but he prophesied and says that it will happen and undoubtedly it did, especially when you read the many scriptures about those who did fall away.

   Acts 20 verse 28. Acts 20 and verse 28 (Acts 20:28). He had called the elders of the church at Ephesus, I believe it was, yes. Together, and he had told them that he is not going to see them anymore. It will be their last visit, his last visit, and he gives them a charge. Verse 28, he says, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers." So they were elders, but they were even a little bit more than that. They were overseers, maybe we would call them pastors or senior pastors or whatever.

   "To feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood, for I know this that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you"??"that is in among you ministers??""not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves"??"you who are overseers, you who are ministers, pastors, or whatever??""of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them." And he warns them about that and so that's what's going to happen. And obviously he's telling them they should not do that. And it did happen.

   So some, even of the ministers of God, fell away speaking perverse things or false things. And there were also some ministers who were false ministers. Let's notice II Peter. II Peter chapter 2. 2 Peter chapter 2, and most of the chapter of course is about this, this very subject. II Peter 2:1: "But there were false prophets also among the people"??"and he's mentioning now that in ancient times there were false prophets among the people??""as there shall be false teachers among you who privately shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious" or "lascivious ways," and so on. And he goes on to elaborate on that, which I won't take time to read now.

   So some were false ministers, false apostles that came in among them in the church. And I referred to this earlier. And the Book of Jude, Jude verse 4: "There are certain men crept in unawares who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus," and he is exhorting them to contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints. So here were some that were crept in unawares and I suppose even some that crept into the ministry as we have already seen referred to.

   Now these were some, and not all, of the problems in the early New Testament church. God tells it like it is. You know, he tells the good, the bad, and the ugly??"to quote what was the name of a movie, I think, or a song, maybe it was. God tells it like it is, you know, he tells the bad parts as well as the good parts.

   Now, of course, most of the rest of it is good. And I've just picked out, you know, here and there in the other place, some of the bad things, some of the problems that occurred in the New Testament church because it was not perfect and where sometimes I think we get the idea that it was, but it was not perfect. They had their problems, we have our problems too.

   But in spite of all of these problems, there were many good points obviously about the New Testament church, and it was God's true church. Many people in that particular era were converted, really converted. They were growing, they were overcoming, and they're going to be in God's kingdom. And obviously some of them are not, just as we've read.

   Another surprising thing about this New Testament church, beside the problems that I've just rehearsed to you, and there are others that I haven't mentioned??"besides this, do you realize that the New Testament Church did something that probably most of you don't think they ever did? The New Testament church changed some of its doctrines. Let me repeat that. The New Testament church changed some of its doctrines.

   Do you remember that when the New Testament church started out, the people in the church were Jewish? They were all Jews. Now this went on even for a matter of years until the time of Cornelius, and that was just sort of a temporary, or I shouldn't say that, a very small thing, and then it was sometimes later in the time of Paul when there were huge numbers of Gentiles who came into the church, but to start with, it was Jewish. All the members of the church were Jews, circumcised Jews.

   And I think in many cases they were not only circumcised Jews, but they were devout Jews. Read for example in the second chapter of the Book of Acts, how that there were people from all over the world at that particular time, the Mediterranean world, that were down there in Jerusalem and they came when they heard what was going on there on the day of Pentecost??"and what were there, 5,000 that were added to the church that day? It seems to me it was 5,000. The number may not be accurate. Anyway, it says that they were devout Jews.

   Now what do you mean by a devout Jew? You know that wasn't talking about the person who was breaking the Sabbath, the one who was irreligious or areligious, someone who was unconcerned about the law of God, the commands of God, and so on. They were devout Jews, probably most of them, maybe not all of them. I don't know what the percentage was, but at least those that are referred to that first group were devout Jews.

   Now what would a devout Jew do during that time? Well, he would follow the rituals that you'll find back in the first books of the Bible, the book of the law, for example. And when they came up to Jerusalem, what did they come up there for? They came up to go to the temple to give their offering, you know, there's animal sacrifice, and to offer it according to the rituals of the law.

   And we find that even many priests came into the church. I'd like to point that out in the book of Acts chapter 6. Acts 6:7: "And the word of God increased and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."

   So not only were there many people from all over the world at that particular time, primarily I presume devout Jews coming into the church, but even "a great company," whatever that means??"I suppose that means a lot, you know, maybe even many scores or even hundreds of priests came into the church.

   Now, what do you suppose those priests did? A priest, if you don't know what, you know, had certain priestly duties in addition to what the Levites did. They were Levites too, but they had duties in connection with the temple. They had duties in connection with the rituals in connection with the offering of sacrifices and so on. Do you suppose then that once they came into the true church of God that they ceased being priests? I doubt it. I imagine they went right on doing their responsibilities and their duties, at least for a time I would suppose that.

   And people with this kind of a background, they didn't have, you know, the kind of background that you have, maybe a Catholic background or a Methodist background or a Jehovah's Witness background or whatever else it might be, you know, they didn't have that kind of a background. They had a background of Judaism. And surely it took time for those people to learn the many new truths on many subjects, especially those relating to Christ.

   Now I'm sure that immediately they had to recognize that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, that he was the Christ. And I presume that it was somewhat gradual that they were able to realize that Jesus Christ was the sacrifice. It probably took them quite a while to realize that there was a change in the priesthood.

   And as far as the Bible is concerned, you have to go quite a ways, you know, you have to go clear down to the writing of the book of Hebrews until it's spelled out. And I presume that when Paul??"well, at least we assume Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, some would contend that. But that whole book you might say relates to such things as I'm talking about now.

   But maybe it's not until that time that the people really understood the relationship of Jesus Christ the Messiah and the fact that he is our high priest now, and to realize that he is our sacrifice, and that he is not after the order of Aaron but he is after the order of Melchizedek, and he is our high priest in heaven and so on. And maybe it wasn't spelled out very much until the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews. I don't know. You don't find very much about that in other areas as far as that's concerned.

   And so I presume that for decades that the church was continually learning new truth and understanding more fully about Christ and his place and his part in salvation and his part in Christianity and so forth. I'm sure that they didn't automatically, you know, when they first say, "Well, I repent and I'm baptized," all of a sudden now that all of their lives, everything that they've learned before, and all of a sudden they just make a total about face and all those things are gone more than all of those things are gone from whatever it was that you were reared in or that I was reared in, you know, some of those things still stay with us for the rest of our lives. They may be false, but it takes time to get rid of error. It takes time to overcome and to really understand and learn God's ways. It takes a lifetime, doesn't it?

   Now I want to deal with just one specific issue at this point. Since Abraham??"you know, the Abraham of the book of Genesis, the father of the faithful??"since Abraham was 99 years old, God's people had practiced the right of circumcision. That's very evident, you know, you, any place you read on the subject is very, very evident.

   And if you in that context, in that situation, in that environment where you had been trained from the time you were a child, in fact, if you were a male child, you know, when you finally realized the facts, you would discover that you had been circumcised. You didn't have anything to do with it. Somebody else took care of it for you. And then when you would grow up and you would be a father and you'd have a child and on the 8th day that if you were a male, he would be circumcised. And this went on generation after generation after generation.

   If you had been reared in that kind of a society, and if you would look in the Bible and all the way from Genesis through??"Corinth to, well, I mean don't come to me all of a sudden here now??"Chronicles. All the way from Genesis to Chronicles. Now you might say, all the way from Genesis to Malachi, but that's not the arrangement of the books that they had. II Chronicles was the end of the Old Testament. And all along there, everything you saw relating to circumcision shows, you know, that it was going to continue on and on and on perpetually and so on and so forth.

   And now consider yourself living in that environment. You would have just taken it for granted, you know, that we should continue to be circumcised. But finally, a problem arose in the church around 49 A.D. This was 18 years after the New Testament church had been established. 18 years have gone by and now some people say you've got to be circumcised to be saved, and others said no, you don't.

   Why didn't they find that out in 31 A.D.? It took them 18 years for this to become a problem or a controversy, and I just read to you about it briefly back there in Acts 15. Let's go back there again. Acts 15. Remember the controversy of these people that went up there to wherever Paul was, was this Antioch? I'm not sure. And the ones from Jerusalem said you had to be circumcised. And Paul and Barnabas talked with them about this, maybe you might say argued, I don't know if that's the right word or not.

   And as a result of this, they and others went down to Jerusalem. They went to the headquarters church to now discuss this subject, whether it was required and I think particularly here for Gentiles, because that's what he's talking about here in verse 3 and so on, whether they needed to be circumcised.

   Now if you were living in that time, and you knew now that all the apostles and the ministers at headquarters and so on, they're going to discuss this subject of circumcision. I think I'm going to study up on that subject too. So you go back and you start in the book of Genesis and you read every place you know where the subject of circumcision is mentioned and what would you conclude? I'll guarantee what you would conclude: that circumcision was required, is required, and always will be required.

   Well, you, you know, you can look back on this and you can say, "Oh, something else maybe," but you go back there and read the account. And you might try to take all of your arguments and write them down and so on, you know, the scriptures you would use, pro or con. And poor old James, he probably wouldn't use the same kind of reasoning or the same scriptures you would use, I'll guarantee you, you read them and see what he used to finally prove his point.

   The decision was that they did not have to be circumcised. Now, talk about a shocker. I don't think we've had one in this age like that. Because here was a custom, here was a law, here was a practice that had dated from the time of Abraham, and those apostles up there in Jerusalem says that it's no longer necessary for salvation. It doesn't say so, but I dare say that a lot of people left the church right there.

   You probably don't think of it in that way because you see, we look back at it historically. But try to put yourself in those people's shoes. And I think you would have to agree that that was a real shocker. That was a major change of doctrine of the Church of God.

   You realize that even in the Old Testament times, there were some doctrinal changes. And how do we know that there were changes? Because Christ said they were changes. I want to mention one, the one that comes to mind. Now, in the beginning, God made them male and female, so forth. And Moses came along, and you'll find this over in Deuteronomy 24:1-3. He said that a man and a wife could be divorced under certain circumstances.

   And you might say, well, it doesn't mean divorce, you know, it means an annulment. And of course we have wrestled with this problem for months and years. The scholars in the church and the ministers in the church have wrestled with this. You might think it's a very simple problem, but it isn't. It's a very complex one that has required great deliberation, great consideration, great research, you know, over a period of many years to come finally here a few years ago to a different conclusion than we had followed before.

   But when you look back there, Moses allowed them to divorce under certain circumstances, and I'm not now dealing with those circumstances. So then Jesus Christ came along, and what did he say? He said, "Well, now it was permissible from the very beginning to divorce and remarry under certain circumstances." No, he didn't say that. He said that Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted divorce under these particular circumstances??"I'm adding some points there, but I think they must have been implied. He says "from the beginning, it was not so."

   All right, so from the beginning up until a particular time, it was not permissible, then Moses came along and he said it's permissible and Christ tells us why: because of the hardness of your heart. You'll find that in Matthew 19:8, I think it's also mentioned also in Mark.

   Now it would seem to me from that that sometimes God permits things because of circumstances or conditions that he otherwise does not permit. Now some of us today would not even permit divorce for the reasons that Christ gave. And he gave a reason. You'll find that in Matthew 19:9, and my subject is not divorce and remarriage. I'm not condoning divorce and remarriage. I think divorce is a very terrible thing. I would think that in many cases, maybe not every case, that it is a sin to do that.

   You know, you have to qualify all of this with what Paul said and many other places as far as that's concerned. I'm not for divorce. I've been married going on 36 years and I hope that I'll be married for the rest of my natural life and then after that in God's kingdom, I hope that my wife and I can work together through all eternity. So I'm not promoting divorce by any means. I think it's a very terrible tragedy.

   But I think some of us, not knowing the circumstances sometimes, might condemn somebody else for doing even what Christ permitted. And he did permit certain things, or a specific cause.

   Well, many people do not want to see change in the church. One of my best friends left the church because of changes that were made in the church. No, people don't like to change, especially??"I'll put this in quote??""old timers" like me. Since I came into the church in 1951, there have been change after change after change. And some think we never made any change until 2 or 3 or 4 years ago.

   Mr. Herbert Armstrong used to broadcast on even national TV??"we were on the ABC network at one time for several months, and I've heard him time after time and he would condemn the churches of this world for sticking to their old doctrines and saying that they would not change even when they saw they were wrong. And he says, "We're different." But some of us aren't, you know, we don't want to make any change.

   I don't want to make a change. Naturally speaking, I don't like to make any changes on any doctrine. You know, I wish I had all laid out in black and white and it was always that way, it's always going to be that way, but the thing is, you see, I have to grow in grace and knowledge and so is the church, and there's a progression and sometimes God changes things, sometimes God permits things because of the circumstances of the time that we may not fully understand. But some of us don't want to change. It's against our nature. Change is not comfortable in many cases.

   Now what is the point of all of this? I've tried to show you the mistakes and the sins of that church at that time. I've tried to show you at least briefly that they had to make changes and some of them very traumatic changes, such as circumcision, and I'm sure that that was a greater traumatic change than anything we've seen in our time. I've tried to show you these things and why.

   The point that I'm trying to get at is this: that we should not criticize the church or its leaders or reject the church and its leaders because of the real or imagined sins of other people. That is one major point. And didn't I amply show you that there were many mistakes, there were many sins of that New Testament church? And if someone rejected the church because of those sins, they'd never be in God's kingdom, and I say the same thing for us today. If we criticize the Church of God and its leaders or reject it because of the real or imagined sins of other people, we're not going to be in God's kingdom.

   Now, secondly, we should not criticize or reject the church or its leaders for changes that may come about, such as doctrine??"that's usually the kind of change that bothers people. And you might say, "Oh, I don't like change." Well, I've tried to show you, you know, that I don't like change either. I'd rather just go right down the same old rut, you know, all the way to God's kingdom. But sometimes that rut leads in the wrong direction, and God has to yank me out of it one way or the other, and that isn't very comfortable usually.

   The changes that have been made and that will be made are usually made very carefully after a great deal of research and study by the best minds we have in the Church of God with the leading of God's Holy Spirit, by the principal leaders of the Church of God in this era.

   And so brethren, let me leave you with a caution. You beware, and this is good for me as well, beware lest you too joined the ranks of Korah, Nathan, and Abiram of ancient time, and if you don't know who they were, you read about what happened to them. They didn't like the way things were going in their time, just like some people today don't like the way things are going in the Church of God.

   Or to join the ranks of such as Diotrephes??"I read to you in 3rd John about him??"or Hymenaeus and Philetus and Alexander of the 1st and 2 Timothy, who made similar mistakes.

   In spite of its real or imagined faults, this is the church of God today. I hope you've all proved that or are in the process of proving it. If it isn't the true church of God, then you'd better go find that church and follow them wherever they may be. But as long as this is the true church of God, we had better stick with it. Let's be a part of this church. Let's be doing our part in doing the work and in personally growing and overcoming and endeavoring to make our calling and election sure.