Herbert W. Armstrong

Did Herbert Armstrong Interpret The Bible? Does the Bible Interpret Itself? Copyright © 2012, Gun Lap

The Book

Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA), founder of the Worldwide Church of God, often said that he did not interpret the Bible. Instead, he said that the Bible interprets itself. He taught that once all the pieces of the Bible "jigsaw puzzle" were put together the right way, the Bible unlocked itself, and that this jigsaw puzzle could only be put together in one way.

In Mystery of The Ages he wrote:

I learned that the Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle--thousands of pieces that need putting together--and the pieces will fit together in only one way. Then the picture becomes crystal clear to the one willing to believe what God our Creator says.

This present book merely puts the many pieces of the great puzzle together so they can be clearly understood. (Mystery of The Ages, Author's Statement, 1985, Herbert W. Armstrong).

In his booklet on the kingdom of God he stated that men should never interpret the Bible:

This, then, is GOD'S interpretation. It is decidedly not Herbert W. Armstrong's interpretation. Men ought never to interpret the Bible. The Bible gives us GOD'S OWN INTERPRETATION! (Just What Do You Mean...Kingdom of God? Herbert Armstrong).

In Where is the True Church? he wrote:

I learned that many theologians INTERPRET that verse -- that is, they PUT A DIFFERENT MEANING INTO IT. They change the meaning of the words to make them conform to their belief instead of letting God’s Word change their belief to conform with God’s Truth. They manufacture a new definition of the word ... (Where is the True Church? 1984, Herbert Armstrong).

But is it really true that Herbert Armstrong did not interpret the Bible? Can we find instances where pieces of the puzzle are missing and the gaps had to be filled in by Mr Armstrong? Or can we find places where perhaps Armstrong overlooked the Bible interpretation?

Yes we can, and we now demonstrate that.

Is Australia Mentioned in Isaiah 49:12?

In The United States and Britain in Prophecy Armstrong wrote:

The Vulgate [Latin translation] renders "Sinim" as "Australi," or "Australia." So we now have the location [of Israel] northwest of Jerusalem and even spreading around the world [to Australia]. (The United States and Britain in Prophecy, 1980, chapter 9, section "Lost Israel Located," p. 117, Herbert W. Armstrong).

Actually, Australi in the Vulgate does not refer to the nation or continent of Australia at all. Australi is simply Latin for south, and Australia is derived from australis which is Latin for southern. The scripture was merely referring to some unknown location which some translators thought was south of Judea.

This is explained in detail in our article Is Australia Specifically Named In Bible Prophecy?

Notice that Armstrong does not cite any passage in the Bible to unlock the meaning of this mysterious place. He does not use the Bible to interpret itself.

Why was Armstrong using the Vulgate anyway? Latin is not a Bible language. It was not spoken by the Hebrews in either NT or OT times. It was not used in writing any part of the Bible. The Bible has been translated into many, probably hundreds, of languages, and Latin is only one of them. There could be thousands of translations if there are ten or more in each language, and over a hundred languages. Are we going to go through all of them just so we can find a word that sounds like something we can use? This practice of searching different translations until one is found that "fits" what we are trying to prove is not a sound practice. How many translations did Armstrong have to search to find one that he could use to "prove" this point? The Vulgate isn't exactly the first translation most people turn to. Why did Armstrong use that one and ignore all the English translations that he must have read first? Armstrong didn't even read Latin, so why was he looking in a Latin translation in the first place? Did he always check the Latin when studying a Bible verse, or was it just this one? Most likely he got this from some British-Israel "scholar" who was trying too hard to "prove" something.

By the way, Barnes' commentary (Barnes' Notes on the Bible available on the Web here), discussing the word "Sinim" in this verse (Isa 49:12) says the word "occurs nowhere else in the Bible." In other words, the Bible does not interpret this mysterious word. How can the Bible interpret the word if it does not appear again in some other passage? The Bible does NOT interpret itself, and nobody, including Herbert Armstrong, has been able to tell us what Sinim means. We have only opinions and guesses.

Was Joseph of Arimathaea a Good Man?

The gospel of Luke states that Joseph of Arimathaea was a good man:

And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counseller; and he was a good man, and a just: (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. (Luke 23:50-51, KJV).

Here is what Armstrong wrote about this same verse (note that he mentions the verse in this very quote):

Yes, by HUMAN STANDARDS, as HUMANS view things, there may be some "GOOD" in human nature, and in people. By human standards, Joseph of Arimathaea, who buried the body of Jesus, was a "good man" (Luke 23:50), but, let JESUS CHRIST settle this question once and for all: "If ye then, BEING EVIL, know how to give good gifts (see James 1:17) unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give His Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?" (Luke 11:13) (Bible Correspondence Course, 1967, Lesson 47, page 14).

If the gospel of Luke is inspired, then calling Joseph "good" was inspired. But HWA brushes that aside, as "human standards". But didn't he say that the Bible was God's standard? Perhaps this is a contradiction in the Bible. Or perhaps when Jesus said they were evil, he was referring to specific persons he was speaking to at the time. In any case it seems that Armstrong simply rejected the scripture in Luke 23:50.

What Are The "Gates of Hell"?

Jesus told Peter the gates of hell would not "prevail" against ... something, usually taken to be the church:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18, KJV).

Did he mean the gates of hell would not prevail against the rock or the church? Couldn't it be the rock? Let's skip that problem and assume it refers to the church.

Armstrong's interpretation can be found in the booklet Where is the True Church?

But did not Jesus Christ found his CHURCH? He surely did, and I found where he said the gates of the grave would never prevail against it--IT COULD NOT BE DESTROYED! (Where is the True Church? 1984, pp. 4-5, Herbert W. Armstrong).

Note that HWA interprets "the gates of hell [the grave] shall not prevail" to mean the church would never be destroyed. But is that what it actually says? No. It's an interpretation.

He seems to follow those who take "gates of hell shall not prevail" to mean Satan could not destroy the church. But where is Satan equated with "gates of hell" and where does "not prevail" mean "destroy"? Can anyone show me those things in the Bible?

An alternative interpretation is simply that his followers would someday rise from the dead. After all, a "grave" is were we go when we are dead. Gates are what keeps one in the grave, like the stone at the entrace to the grave where Jesus was buried.

The Bible uses the expression "gates of the grave" several times when it is not talking about Satan or about destroying anything, just dying and going to the grave.

I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave: I am deprived of the residue of my years. (Isaiah 38:10, KJV).

Obviously, cutting off his days and being deprived of his remaining years refers to the phyical death of the individual.

Again:

They shall go down to the bars of the pit [gates of the grave], when our rest together is in the dust. (Job 17:16, KJV).

God's Word Translation renders "bars of the pit" as "gates of the grave" which makes sense because there are bars on a gate. The dust refers to a physical grave; a hole in the ground.

Again in Job:

Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? (Job 38:17, KJV).

Again it is talking about "gates" and "death" in the same breath. Clearly, "gates of death" means the same thing as "gates of the grave" or "gates of hell." It is talking about the death of the individual, not the destruction of some church organization or the eradication of an entire group of people.

So "not prevail" could simply mean the church members would some day be resurrected. They would go into the grave but they would not stay there; the gates that held them there would be overpowered and the individual members would rise again. That interpretation seems to be better supported by the other scriptures we've seen, i.e. it seems to be the real Bible interpretation. It also seems to make more sense because it takes the word "grave" at face value instead of trying to interpret it and put a figurative meaning on it as Armstrong does.

Where Does The Bible Say "Gates" are Sea Gates?

In The United States and Britain in Prophecy Armstrong wrote

Read again the prophetic promises of Genesis 22:17. To Abraham God said: "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies."

And again, the inspired prophetic parting blessing upon Rebekah, leaving her family to become the wife of Isaac: "And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them" (Gen. 24:60).

Earlier we quoted the correct Fenton translation: "... and your race shall possess the gates [plural] of its enemies." As explained there, the "gates" of enemy nations are the strategic SEA GATES of entrance to or exit from these nations. (1980, Chapter 12, pp. 188-9).

The Armstrong Plagiarism Research web site, commenting on this verse, says:

There are some doubts about the correctness of this interpretation. The first is whether it should be singular "gate" or plural, "gates". The next is whether "gate" is the correct translation, since other translations of the same word are "city" (or "cities") and "court" (or "courts").

Armstrong asserts that the Fenton translation, which uses the plural, "gates" in Gen 22:17, is the correct translation. But even the Fenton translation uses the singular in Gen 24:60, which it translates as "... they gave Rebekka their blessing, and said to her; You are our sister. Increase to thousands, and may your descendants possess the gate of their enemies".

The New American Standard Bible, uses "gate" (singular) in Gen 22:17, as does the King James, the Amplified Bible, the English Standard Version, New King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, Darby Translation, and the American Standard Version.

Even if "gates" is taken to be plural, it is doubtful whether it refers to sea gates as [John Harden] Allen [author of Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright] and Armstrong claim.

The New International Version says, "Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies...". The New Living Translation also uses cities: "Your descendants will conquer the cities of their enemies."

Clarke's commentary says, "Instead of gate the Septuagint have, cities; but as there is a very near resemblance between, cities, and, gates, the latter might have been the original reading in the Septuagint, though none of the [manuscripts] now acknowledge it. By the gates may be meant all the strength, whether troops, counsels, or fortified cities of their enemies."

In ancient times many cities were walled and had gates. When a city was overrun the gates were broken and the invading troops came through. This would be a logical reason for the connection between the terms gates and cities. To break through the gates was to take possession of the city. (Armstrong Plagiarism Research website here)

I don't see where the Bible uses the term "sea gates" at all, so the Bible interpretation must be city gates or some other kind of gates.

The People of The Isles Are Not Israel

Again, in The United States and Britain in Prophecy, when Armstrong quotes Isaiah 49:1-3 and Isaiah 41:1-8 he leaves out material in the middle verses which changes the meaning. This is explained on the Armstrong Plagiarism Research web site. Thus, he misinterprets these verses, putting his own un-Biblical interpretation into them.

Armstrong says

The same 49th chapter of Isaiah begins with this: "Listen, O isles, unto me." The people addressed, Israel, are called "O isles" in the first verse and "O Israel" in the third verse. (The United States and Britain in Prophecy, 1980, Chapter 9, p. 117).

Armstrong is trying to prove that Israel migrated to the British Isles. However, as the Armstrong Plagiarism Research site explains, a more careful reading of this passage shows this is a misinterpretation or distortion of scripture.

First, note that "isles" are sometimes translated coastlands, so this passage is not necessarily referring to any islands at all.

Second, these verses picture Israel (referred to as "me") in this passage as speaking TO these isles (referred to as "you"). Therefore, the isles (or coastlands) here cannot be Israel. There are two different groups of people addressed. Israel on the one hand, and the coastlands on the other hand. (Armstrong Plagiarism Research website here)

Here is the complete passage.

Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away. And he said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified." (English Standard Version, emphasis added).

So there is one definite distortion of scripture here (or a "misinterpretation" if we wish to be kind) because the islands do not refer to Israel, and another doubtful interpretation because the "islands" might not be islands at all.

North and West, not Northwest

Another mistake Armstrong made in The United States and Britain in Prophecy is in Isaiah 49:12 where he claims the phrase "from the north and from the west." means from the northwest. (1980 edition, p. 117, chapter 9 Israel's New Land, section Lost Israel Located). There seems to be no translation that agrees with his interpretation. If northwest was the correct interpretation, the translators probably would have used it, but they didn't.

This is explained in more detail at the Armstrong Plagiarism Research site here.

More Errors in The United States and Britain in Prophecy

Other interpretation errors in The United States and Britain in Prophecy are his interpretations of Genesis 49:17 (which reads "Dan shall be a serpent by the way.") and Psalm 89:25 ("I will set his hand also in the sea"). These are also explained at the Armstrong Plagiarism Research site here.

Conclusion:

We have compiled just a short list of scriptures that the Bible did not interpret without some "help" from H.W. Armstrong. There are many more, but these few alone prove the points we are trying to make. The primary point we have made in this article is that Herbert Armstrong did interpret the Bible. A secondary point is that the Bible does not always interpret itself, as we saw in the case of "Sinim," a mysterious word which appears only once in the Bible.