Many believe that the “many” of Matthew 24:12 refers to the true
Church of God rather than to society in general. Is this true?
Matthew
24:12And because iniquity shall abound, the
love of many shall wax cold.
It has been frequently stated by many in the
“Churches of God” that only
God’s true people (true Christians) can express “agape” love. Anyone without God’s
Holy Spirit dwelling in them (the “unconverted” as they call them) is assumed to be
utterly incapable of possessing or sharing this special love. This ‘unique’
“agape” love is said to be “God’s Love”, and that no human can “love” with
“God’s agape love” unless that person has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. On
the other hand, the so-called “unconverted” may express an apparently ‘second
class’ type of love, “phileo”, or “philos” (brotherly love) as we have also been
taught. Indeed, many “prophecies” have been built upon this “understanding”. Is
this concept Biblical? Actually, it is quite inaccurate, and the error is simple to
explain and illustrate. Let’s take a look at the use of this word in the Bible. By the
way, “agape” is the “noun” and “agapao” is the verb in the Greek. The noun
form is #26 in Strong’s and the verb form is #25.
Please note the following scriptures:
Matthew
5:43-44,46Ye have heard that it hath been said,
Thou shalt love <25> thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love <25> your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you;46For if ye love <25> them which
love <25> you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Matthew
6:24No man can serve two masters: for either
he will hate the one, and love <25> the other; or else he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Matthew
19:19Honour thy father and thy mother: and,
Thou shalt love <25> thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew
22:37,39Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love
<25> the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou
shalt love <25> thy neighbour as thyself.
The Confusion
Now, let’s ask a couple of simple, basic questions concerning each
of these just quoted scriptures. First of all, concerning Matt. 5:43 and 44, who was
Christ speaking to? Undoubtedly it was the disciples and anyone else who followed them up
the mountain. Matt. 7:28 indicates that the “people” were astonished
at His teachings. Verses 43 and 44 were part of this teaching. Furthermore, Christ said
that this was an “old” saying or instruction to them (Israel), “you have heard
that it has been said”. So this was not “brand new” to them.
The question then is: How could anyone,
including the disciples, having heard Christ’s instruction, possibly have obeyed this
instruction prior to the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ? They could not
have if the former WCG’s doctrine, being addressed here, were true. Wouldn’t the words
of Jesus Christ all have been in vain and wasted, at least until “that” Pentecost?
Continuing, we see that Matt. 5:46 reveals more about this subject.
How could the lowly unconverted “publicans” “agapao” anyone? Yet this verse says
that they do “love” (#25, agapao, the verb) “the same”, in other words, those that
love them.
Matt. 6:24 presents more of the same. This verse
shows that there are those who will “love” mammon as their God. Those who “love” (agapao)
riches are not “true believers”, yet they are shown to possess this particular
“love”, but it just happens to be very misdirected. Certainly this is not the type of
“love” that a Christian could possess! Is loving ‘mammon’“God’s love”?
In Matt. 19:19, Christ was essentially restating the last six
“commandments” issued to Israel at Sinai. If it were impossible to “love”, [agapao/agape
love] then why would God have thundered it to Israel, as they stood afar off, in the first
place? Why, too, would Christ have required it of the presently “unconverted” young
man, to whom He was speaking, who did not have ‘a personal relationship with the
Savior’? It is worth noting that Christ told this young man that “eternal life” is
obtainable, on one level, by simply having agape love for your neighbors! Jesus initially
stated no spiritual awareness of God as a requirement for “eternal life”. Jesus also
missed an excellent opportunity to stress the necessity of ‘confessing Christ’.
In Matt. 22:37, 39, Christ quoted from Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18. (Deut
6:5 5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God
with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. Lev. 19:18 … but
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD)Notice that Christ quoted from ‘Old Testament’ scripture, which uses a word for
“love” that includes all of the meanings of the previously mentioned Greek words for
“love”, yet demonstrates that this was “expected” and required of
“unconverted” Israel. Furthermore, notice that the form of “love” that was
expected and required of Israel was “agape/agapao” love. A quick look at Deut. 6:6
supports this, and that this “love” was possible.
Deut. 6:6And these words, which I command
thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
If you still need more evidence, simply continue
your own study into this. We believe you will find that this truth is irrefutable and
manifestly evident. Ultimately, everyone is required to have possessed and shared
“agape” love, during his lifetime, in order to live in any
resurrection! If they fail to, they will not have an opportunity to ever possess
“eternal life”, as the young man in Matt. 19 desired to obtain. Rom.
2:14 “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law,
these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing
witness, and between themselves their thoughts
accusing or else excusing them 16in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ,
according to my gospel.”Christ’s seemingly simple answer to that young man may be
one of the most significant statements in the Bible! There is no stipulation whatsoever
that would prevent anyone from “loving” (agape/agapao) even though they have not been
begotten by God with the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the opposite is true; everyone is expected
to “love”! In actuality, it can be demonstrated that a person must “already”
possess and give “love” (agape/agapao) before God will impart His divine Holy Spirit
into that individual! Whether or not a person has an understanding of God’s long-term
plan concerning The Kingdom of God, one still needs to possess this kind of love in order
to obtain salvation (to be salvaged). There are a number of ramifications to quite a
number of WCG doctrines that were built either partially, or wholly, on the belief that
only a truly converted person could have agape love.
We’ll use one final glaring scripture to illustrate the point. There
are several more that could be used.
Luke
11:43Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love
(#25,
agapao) the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and
greetings in the markets.
Christ stated in this verse that the Pharisees have “agape” love
and that they use it to agapao (love) the uppermost seats in the synagogues. How can we
possibly disregard these words of Jesus Christ and claim that “only” the
Church has agape love!
What
About the “Other” Love?
Here is another point to consider. If “agape” is only “God’s
Love” then what is “phileo”? “Phileo” is the Greek word for ‘love’ in the
following scriptures.
John
5:20For the Father loveth <5368> (phileo)
the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works
than these, that ye may marvel.
John
16:27For the Father himself loveth
<5368> you, because ye have loved <5368> me, and have believed that I came out
from God.
Revelation
3:19As many as I love <5368>, I rebuke
and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
We cannot have it both ways. If agape is God’s Love and no
one else’s, then what about phileo? God uses ‘phileo’ to describe His love for Jesus
Christ. What could be stronger? Do you see any ‘second class’ status for love here?
God also uses ‘phileo’ to describe His love for us, too. Yet, we never ‘claimed’
that phileo was God’s exclusive love, and there are numerous scriptures available to
show that ‘phileo’ can be used for selfish motives and desires just as there are for
‘agape’. For examples of this for ‘phileo’ see: Matthew 6:5, 23:6; Luke 20:46;
Revelation 22:15. Both ‘agape’ and ‘phileo’ are words for love, not God’s love
only, but any kind of love.
When Did The Confusion Begin?
When did the Churchmiss
the mark in its understanding of agape love and its application to our
understanding of prophecy? Herbert Armstrong taught that true “agape” love was only
available to those who had been called, baptized, and who had received God’s Holy
Spirit. During this discourse, we refer to this group of people as the “Church”, or
“true Church”. In his booklet, “The Missing Dimension in Sex”, beginning on page
75 of the Second Edition, Revised, April 1971, (Page 65 in the 3rd edition) in
the section subtitled, “Three Kinds of Love”, he wrote concerning the first of the
three that he explained:
“First, is agape, which is
moral or spiritual love. This is the love God expresses toward humanity. It is the divine,
spiritual love, supplied by God’s Holy Spirit. The natural and unconverted man does
not have this love!” (Italics are HWA’s)
In the above quote, which we were pleased to accept
as a true and innocent statement, lies the entire premise that led to the erroneous
teaching (doctrine) concerning “agape” love. Did you notice it? For decades it went
completely unnoticed. It is a “presumption” offered without support or evidence, and
as you now see, it is actually contrary to the Holy Scriptures. What is that
“presumption”? We presumed, simply because we were told so, that “agape” love is
somehow only “spiritual”. Agape love was presented as being only present at the
“spirit” level, but actually, not just at the “spirit” level, but restricted to
the “God Spirit” level. For some reason, the WCG never came to even consider that
agape love could, does, and indeed must, exist within the “spirit” of man, on the
human level. While there are actually several “inconsistencies” contained in the above
quote, this aspect would appear to be the most significant.
The result of this error led to our misinterpreting significant
portions of “Christian Living” scriptures as well as a significant number of, if not
most, “Prophetic scriptures”. It even touches upon salvation itself. This same
approach has continued in the scattered and shattered splinters of the former WCG to this
very day.
Signs of The Confusion Today
The misuses and misapplications of scripture administered by so many
of the Churches of God today, not to mention the WCG of the past, are vast and too
numerous to list here. The following concepts are the “key” indicators that ought to
alert us to erroneous applications of scripture as it relates to this subject. Not in any
particular order:
1) “This verse (or prophecy) can only
apply to the Church because only
the Church has ‘agape’ love.” (Odd, isn’t it? It often appears that some of the
people of the world have more “love” than many “in” the Church today.)
2) “Of course, we know that the words
- Jerusalem, Israel, Judah, Zion, Jacob, Samaria, etc. are code
words for the Church (Laodicean, Philadelphian, etc.).” (Hmmm, God sure needs a lot of
“code” words to express Himself. I wonder why God just didn’t say
what He means and mean what He says?)
3) “The Bible was written for the
Church.” (Please feel free to disregard the hundreds of years in which there was only
Israel (and Judah) in which no “Church” existed. You know God was just kidding poor
old Israel about their future. This is not
meant as sarcasm, but rather to present what so many have seemingly chosen to overlook in
their effort to elevate the Church’s role.)
4) “These prophecies (especially the
Minor Prophets) are for the ‘Church’ first and Israel second.” (Except that in
virtually every prophecy used, these teachers must omit or ignore a number of verses within the prophecy that could
only apply to Israel, or to whomever else the
prophecy is concerned.)
Could this issue be at the core of the death
of the Church? The “Church” is dying. We hear the claims that “Satan has attacked
the Church”, “God has allowed Satan …”, and so forth, but whether these claims are
true or not, let’s ask the question, “Why?” Could the answer be as simple as, “The
Church has committed idolatry!” Why couldn’t it? The Churches of God have put
themselves ahead of their Creator God and pretty much do not realize it. They have
‘miss-taken’ a surprising portion of God’s Word and interpreted it to elevate the
Church or themselves (ourselves). Too many simple truths were simply being squashed so
that we could “all speak [the Church’s, not the scripture’s] same thing”! We are
under a self-imposed curse and we must repent of this idolatry now.
Conclusion
In light of the above evidence explaining that “agape” love is not
restricted to the “Church”, it then becomes a “private interpretation” and
erroneous to teach that Matt. 24:12 refers exclusively to the “Church”. To see whom
this scripture does refer to, please read our article entitled “The
ActualMessage of Matthew 24”.
The end of the matter is this:
Any “Doctrine” (teaching) or “Prophecy”, which is based on a so-called
“understanding” that only
the “Church”, “true Church”, or only “God’s (converted) people” can do such
and such, or that any particular “prophecy” can only apply to them and no other, because they only can have this “agape” love, is utterly without
merit, invalid and false.
Further Considerations
This
article was not written to explain what “Godly Love” is. It was written to show that
agape is not “exclusive” to any group of people. “Agape love” is simply
“love”. “Phileo” love is not a second place kind of love, but rather simply a
slightly different aspect, use, or perspective of “Love” than agape. Both words are
expressions for the same exact thing, “Love”! We are to employ love in the agape way
in our lives daily. Every human on the planet has the opportunity and responsibility to
employ the agape aspect and the phileo aspect of love in and during his physical life,
even if he is a monk in Tibet. God employs agape love, too, just better than we do. If you
have God’s Holy Spirit dwelling in you, then your “opportunity and responsibility”
to express “agape” becomes even more necessary. Now you must learn to apply
“agape” as God applies it. This is a part of your covenant with God that you made at
baptism. As a human, you will
“agape”. It can be for righteousness or not. You will agape, just as the Pharisees,
the Publican, or anyone else. God commands those with His Spirit to “agape” the God Way.Do You?
Now Please Consider
Does your church (organization) teach that Herbert W. Armstrong was the
“End-Time” Elijah, or that he was the “End-Time” Apostle? Or does it teach that an
apostle, or that a man who is an apostle, is the only one authorized to “SET”
doctrine into the church?
If it does, then please consider whether that means that the members of that
church are following a man rather than following Jesus Christ. I do not mean to infer that
anyone who thinks that Herbert Armstrong was the Elijah or an apostle is following Herbert
Armstrong, they are not. However, they are following a human nevertheless. The church
organizations teaching that Herbert Armstrong was anything more than a servant of God have
placed themselves in a very dangerous position. And any who follow these men, or that kind
of thinking, who have done so, whether blindly in ignorance, or knowingly, are also in
potential danger.
Today, we see numerous splinter Churches of God soliciting members by saying that
they are “faithfully” following everything that Herbert Armstrong had “set” it in the “church”. Other
groups claim to follow nearly
everything, with the exception of prophecy, which they claim is “different” because
HWA had no way of knowing, or that God just blinded him to “this” point or “that”
point because “it just wasn’t for him to know”. Still others claim that they are
“helpless” to change any “doctrine” that HWA “set” in the church and they
proceed to support their “righteous” position by stating that: “If
Herbert Armstrong was not an apostle, then he was a false prophet”. Apparently
there is no room allowed for anything in between.Tragically,
all of these organizations have marred the memory of a simple servant of God by
establishing Herbert Armstrong as an infallible (or nearly so) ‘substitute’ for the
pope. Thus, the real damage is to the people who succumb to any of these lines of human
reasoning. This brief article on “agape” has provided you with just one simple
doctrine that permeated the thinking and doctrines of the once proud WCG, and the error
still continues in the majority, if not all of the splinter groups to this day. If this
simple WCG doctrine is wrong, and you are judged by your own judgment, then what
justification can there be to claim that a man “restored all things”, some “things” of which were erroneous?
Be assured that this particular example is but one of many. We need to let Herbert
Armstrong stay dead and await his change; it is certain for him, regardless of one’s
opinion of him. However, judgment is still in progress for you and me. Don’t put
yourself in the position of letting some man take your crown by telling you that Herbert
Armstrong was much more than what God made him. Let this article on “agape” test your
awareness, and see for yourself how the judgment determining your own future is
progressing. Are you able to rightly divide the Word of Truth? Are you “teachable”? Is
Christ your Head? Only you and God will know. Prove whether or not these things are so and
then act as God commands you to.
If
you find yourself in agreement with this straightforward conclusion pertaining to this
truth about “agape”, then tell your minister, and tell your church. Give them the
opportunity to reconsider their position; are they willing to grow? Give them the
opportunity to “change”. If they do, then that is wonderful. If they do not, or they
are not willing to change in the face of the Words of Jesus Christ,
will you conclude that you must be wrong because “the ‘Church’ wouldn’t tell us
something wrong, would they”? That question faced thousands at one time or another over
the last sixteen years. Does it really matter anyway, whether they (or you) are willing to
change or not? What do you think? It probably doesn’t matter in the least, unless of course God is watching! The choice of what you do and say is yours.
If you ‘agape’ God, then you would never put the “Church” before Him if
the two are in conflict!Wasn’t that the situation faced by so many during
the last decade or so? Interestingly enough, using the logic of the “church
organizations” being discussed, we should all be back in the WCG! If HWA was the
End-Time Elijah – who
restored all things, or if he was an Apostle, “end-time” or otherwise, who
“set” the doctrine into the “Church” and if Joseph Tkach was the successor and
Pastor General of the Church, then by what authority are you able to split or leave the
church? (A “doctrine” is simply a teaching,
which includes ‘policies’, and as evidenced by Acts 15, it can be the result of a
“decision” made within the Church, correct?)If
we are to “keep” everything as HWA left it then how can we possibly reject
his last and most important edict? The answer to that question was just stated; “if
the two are in conflict” obey God rather than man! No human has any authority to
“set” doctrine into the Church of God, only Jesus Christ, our Head, and we had better
comply with Him! According to the Bible we have a “Captain”, an “Advocate”, a
“Prophet”, a “High Priest”, and an “Apostle” right
now, and not one of these titles belong to a human. These titles or offices all
belong to our Savior, Jesus Christ.
If you have a thought,
comment, or question about any of these “approaches”, or would like to discuss this
matter personally, or in more depth, then please contact Richard Fix at rfix@hyperusa.com.