Stay Home for the Sabbath?

The Bible contains no requirement to go to church on Saturday, but does it require Sabbath-keepers to stay home? And where does a Sabbath day's journey fit in to this? Let's see if we can find an answer.

---

While I was studying for the article "What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?", an interesting point came up which I wanted to go over in more depth but I didn't have the space in that article. So, I thought we could go over it here. It has to do with what ancient Israel did on the weekly Sabbath, or more specifically, where they would be.

To start, let's review the underlying issue so we know why we're going over today's topic in the first place.

Sabbatarianism tends toward legalism and fixating on commands. Sabbatarians believe the weekly Sabbath is a command for Christians and going to church is how the Sabbath is commanded to be "kept". Church on Saturday is central to their identity. Meanwhile, going to church on Sunday, specifically, is condemned in the strongest terms as a man-made tradition in defiance of the laws of the Almighty.
The catch is, there is no command to 'go to church' on Sabbath anywhere in the Bible. Search all you wish, you will not find one. That's a big part of what the post "What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?" was all about. The Sabbath is not about when you go to church, but Sabbatarianism is.

At this point, the conversation usually shifts to traditions, but I will spare you that. Instead, I recommend the posts "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII" and "Established and Imposed".

This is the background issue that brings us to today's post. Today we ask, perhaps God did not give a command to go to church/synagogue on Sabbath, but did God command Israel to be anywhere in particular? Some will turn to Exodus 16.

PLACE

(EXO. 16:28-30) 28 And the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

The Israelites, to whom the law was given, were commanded by Moses to stay in their homes for the Sabbath.

There is no doubt that this command exists. But it's more than that. I want to share this interesting tidbit from Barnes' Commentary:

"The expression in Hebrew is unique and seems almost to enjoin a position of complete repose: “in his place” is literally under himself, as the Oriental sits with his legs drawn up under him."

So, they were to stay not just at home but where they were. As we should expect, it was understood in different ways. Just look at this interesting tidbit from Adam Clarke's Commentary:

"Some of the Jews have carried the rigorous observance of the letter of this law to such a length, that in whatever posture they find themselves on the Sabbath morning when they awake, they continue in the same during the day; or should they be up and happen to fall, they refuse even to rise till the Sabbath be ended! Mr. Stapleton tells a story of one Rabbi Solomon, who fell into a slough on the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, and refused to be pulled out."

Have you ever followed the law that closely? In my 30 years as a Sabbatarian, I never did. So much for my righteousness in the law exceeding that of the Pharisees!

For all those who ask, "can we follow Jesus and ignore the Torah," will you ignore this part of Torah?

But don't make up your mind yet. There is more to this story. The question becomes: was Israel really forevermore required to stay home for the Sabbath?

MANNA

What do we say here at As Bereans Did? Context, context, context. And what is the context of Exodus 16:29? Manna.

The Israelites were being tested with the manna and they were failing. They were told not to keep it overnight. They did anyway. God sent worms and rot. They were told not to gather it on Sabbath. They did anyway. Moses commanded them to stay home. The command to stay at home appears to be a way to get the people to follow the rules of manna collection. Can't quite collect it if you're home.

Now, we find ourselves with two options:

Option 1:
Exodus 16:29 could be understood as only pertaining to the Israelites in the Desert Wandering at that time when both manna and the law were being introduced and Israel had to learn how to navigate the new conditions; a temporary command. There is no 'this shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations' attached.

Option 2:
Exodus 16:29 could be understood as a permanent command. There may not be a 'this shall be a perpetual statute' but there also is no clear indication that it ended or was intended to end. Keep in mind, even though this might look like it was about manna collection, the manna collection was itself set up in such a way as to teach Sabbath observance. We've come full circle.

Can I justify one over the other? Well ... it's complicated.

There is no small amount of scholarly work to go on here. Just for example, see Biblehub's list of commentaries on this verse. Many commentators understand the command as being specific to the gathering of manna. Many do not. Commentators aside, what did Israel understand it to mean? Many, perhaps most, Israelites understood it as a permanent command. So, we have evidence for both options.

But! At the same time, the Israelites who did believe it was perpetual do not appear to believe the perpetual command was to stay home ...or in a ditch. I mean, there couldn't be people offering to pull that guy from the ditch if they all were all at home, or in agreement with the guy in the ditch.

Let's get more detail to see if we can make some sense of this dilemma.

DWELLINGS

(LEV. 23:3) 3 ‘Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings [moshevoteykhem].

This verse has implications for Exodus 16:29. I am going to pull a short selection from that Holy Convocation article:

We have another Hebrew word now: moshevoteykhem (מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם) which means dwelling places, habitations, places where people live - be that homes or home towns. The result of this is the opposite of being commanded to travel to Jerusalem. For the non-pilgrimage holy days there were no large gatherings. They were all smaller.

So, we have two places where miqra qodesh [holy convocation] can happen: at the Temple in Jerusalem, and wherever you dwell. Neither of those are 'at church'. Some portions of miqra qodesh were national and some familial. Some large assemblies and some small assemblies. Some at designated places and some wherever you happen to be.

So 'dwellings' can mean 'homes', sure enough, but must it mean homes? I don't think so. Why not? Because let's look at another place where "in all your dwellings" appears.

(NUM. 35:29) And these things shall be a statute of judgment to you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

This part of Numbers 35 talks about murderers, and witnesses necessary for the death penalty, and posting bail, and refuge cities, etc. How in the world are those supposed to be 'in your house'? This is only one example. Other examples are quite similar. Insisting that dwellings must mean homes plays havoc with this and other laws.

I just do not see how we can get moshevoteykhem to always mean 'at home'. It can mean 'at home' sometimes, but not always. And if it's not always, then it's contextual. I do not see anything in the context of Leviticus 23:3 that makes me believe it should be understood as exclusively at home. Even the extremist who refused to be pulled from a ditch did not believe this meant to be at home, as certainly there was no ditch inside his house. It would be better understood as, "It is the Sabbath of the Lord in all the places where Israelites settle." In other words, in their towns. And if you weren't in your town at the time, then by implication this means something closer to 'wherever you happen to be.'

If this is how Leviticus 23:3 is understood, then this has implications for Exodus 16:29.

This detail isn't the only clue we have.

FAMILIAL

Let's look at the law for the Sabbath and note something:

(EXO. 20:10b) In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.

(DEU. 5: 14) but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.

These clearly speak in household terms. These words aren't, "You and your constituents and your townsfolk and your country sides, etc." These words aren't, "You and your congregation and your choir and your service organizer and your prayer leader and your sound crew, etc." These are familial words.

I am trying to make two points here:

First, there is a clear focus on family. Who was responsible for ensuring regular duties had stopped? The head of household. Who did the teaching on Sabbath? The parents. This isn't about going to church. This isn't about sitting for an hour trying not to fall asleep while someone else presents part 38 in a 52-part sermon series. Not a single word spent on Ministers and their fiefdoms and their importance in prophecy and how they are the only ones qualified to teach. Not one jot or one tittle wasted on "pay, pray, stay."

Second, on the pilgrimage holy days, Israel was required to assemble as a nation. But apart from those three, nothing in the laws regarding the sacred assemblies (that includes the weekly Sabbath) ever says what size the assembly had to be, or where it had to be. It could be a town, or a home, or a large gathering, or even as little as a single family, or perhaps it was two families gathered together in a home for a Sabbath visit. Leave your house, stay home, it's all good ...just don't go far.

Finally, let's wrap this up with a few smaller clues.

CLUES

There is a tiny clue hidden in II Kings that demonstrates ancient Israelites did not understand that they were required to stay home. Apparently, it was normal to go see a prophet on Sabbaths and New Moons.

(II KIN. 4:23) So he said, “Why are you going to him [Elisha] today? It is neither the New Moon nor the Sabbath.”

Ancient Israelites might not have been going to synagogue on Sabbath, because synagogues didn't exist at that time, but it seems going to see a prophet was within the realm of possibility. Going to see a prophet by definition means not staying at home. So, maybe not stay at home, but stay close to home.
Also, for all those who say the Sabbath is mandatory but New Moons aren't important, you might want to rethink that.

Interestingly, most of the commentaries I've read mention Exodus 16:29 as the source for where the idea of a Sabbath day's journey comes from.

(ACT. 1:12) 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey.

If the Israelites, including the Apostles, understood that they were to stay at home on Sabbath, then the concept of a Sabbath day's journey should not exist. A Sabbath day's journey should be across the room. Once again, Israel saw it as a permanent command, but not to stay still or even to stay home, but to stay in their dwellings. It is a restriction on travel, but not a restriction on leaving home.

And now maybe this verse also makes more sense:

(ACT. 16:13) And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.

How can one go to see a prophet or on a Sabbath-day's journey, or gather at a river, when they were supposed to be at synagogue? How can one be at synagogue when they were supposed to stay home? They can't.

The answer is, none of these things were required. Going to synagogue was never a requirement in the first place. Even in the time of synagogue, it wasn't mandatory to go there. But more importantly for today's article, staying home for the Sabbath appears more and more like it was not mandatory.

One last clue to point out here. There were three annual pilgrimage festivals where all the males in Israel were commanded to appear at the Temple in Jerusalem: Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. We know Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles were seven days long (Tabernacles was eight if you count the last day). There was guaranteed to be a weekly Sabbath in there somewhere. Tell me, how can one be at the Temple in Jerusalem for the annual holy days and at home for the weekly Sabbath at the same time? Not possible. But this can be done: stay close to where you are dwelling at that time.

One might wonder what the official word from Armstrongism was on this. Well, there wasn't really one. Here, read this typical comment:

"Some people ask about the mention of 'a sabbath day’s journey' in Act; 1: 12. There is no special command anywhere in the Bible limiting travel on the Sabbath. This 'sabbath day’s journey' was a custom of the Jews and is not a biblical command."
-Rod Meredith, "Rejoice In God's Sabbath!", Good News Magazine, Dec. 1957, p.5

Hopefully, you can now see why this was not correct. There is a law limiting travel: Exodus 16:29, which says, "Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." The Sabbath day's journey is not merely a custom of the Jews, it is their way of interpreting how Exodus 16:29 applied to them in light of all the other relevant evidence. Disagree with the conclusion Israel came to if you must, but at least address it. Armstrongism did not address it; it ignored it. The same way it ignores how the Fourth Commandment was written specifically for Israel. This is entirely par for the course with Armstrongism.

Meredith goes on to say how a walk on Sabbath is good but you shouldn't walk so far as to tire yourself. The Sabbath law of rest was not about staying well rested, it was about ceasing from normal activity and treating the time as holy and set apart, belonging to God, not for ordinary use. He didn't even understand the primary feature of the day. These are Sabbatarians we're talking about. What irony! A group whose entire identity is this one thing, yet they clearly misunderstand the very core of the thing.

CONCLUSION

Did God command Israel to be anywhere in particular on the Sabbath? Yes. He said to stay in place. The question is not whether Exodus 16:29 says to stay in place; it does. The question is: what does that mean, exactly, and to whom does it apply? It applies to Israel, to whom the law was given, and none besides. The evidence as I see it points away from it literally meaning 'stay in your house' (or staying in a ditch all day). There appears to be more leeway to it than that. To Israel, "place" seems to have meant something closer to 'surrounding area'. So, no, a Sabbath-keeper does not appear to be required to stay home for Sabbath.

This post isn't really about a Sabbath day's journey. That is a secondary item, but one I thought was helpful to the main point. During my time in Armstrongism, we were never told how the Sabbath day's journey came about. We read about it in Acts and dismissed it as yet another odd tradition of the Pharisees. Turns out it is built on grappling with Exodus 16:29 and other evidence, like we did today. We don't know exactly how it started or by whom, but I imagine it started because there is no clear answer in Scripture, and some Rabbi probably got fed up with being asked about it and just came up with an answer. I can't fault that.

The upside of today's article is:
Sabbatarians narrowly escape repeating the error of the Pharisees. There is no law to go to church on Sabbath, and it doesn't look like there was a law to stay home either. So, going to church does not vacate any law in favor of tradition.

The downsides include:
1) Most Sabbatarians simply ignore this command entirely. They either aren't aware of it or they simply ignore it as if it isn't there. They neither stay still, nor at home, nor a Sabbath day's journey, nor anything else besides.
2) We still have the issue of not having a command to go to church. Sabbatarianism turns an opinion about a man-made tradition into a command, all while condemning man-made traditions.
3) Sabbatarian churches are going to have to decide for themselves how to interpret Exodus 16:29. Does that make it ... a tradition?
4) This has implications for the annual holy days as well. I have the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles particularly in mind, since people often begin their long journeys home on that day.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:

What Do You Mean... ‘Holy Convocation’?
Established and Imposed
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2
The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part I
Editing The Commandments
Acts 15 - What Was Debated - Part I
Confusing the Covenants
If You Love Me, Keep My Commandments
For Paul, Jesus Is The Answer

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Calendar Conflict Costs COGWA Couple

Calendar disagreements have plagued the Churches of God almost since their inception. Two members of the Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA) appear to be the latest casualties of this recurring issue.

The Shining Light blog reports that COGWA has permanently suspended members Andrew and Sarah Henderson over a paper the couple submitted to COGWA's doctrinal committee at the request of a COGWA elder. We at As Bereans Did do not endorse the doctrinal content of The Shining Light blog, but its author, James Malm, has been a fixture in the COG blogosphere for years and generally is in-the-know about drama in the splinters.

Malm says that the Hendersons began studying one of his papers on the Biblical Calendar about two years ago and later went to their local COGWA elder with questions. Malm does not name the elder, but it appears that the Hendersons at one point attended COGWA's Columbus/Cambridge Ohio congregation. This information came from COGWA's Godly Women blog, to which Sarah Henderson had been a regular contributor.

The elder with whom they met reportedly asked the Hendersons to write up a study paper on the topic for submission to COGWA's doctrinal committee. He then suspended them until the paper was presented. They complied, although the suspension remained in effect even after they submitted the paper. After a few exchanges, COGWA made the couple's suspension permanent.

We are not reporting this issue because of any ill will toward the Hendersons, or because we take any pleasure in spreading troubling news. We pray for them - COG membership is isolating enough, even before one is prohibited from attending church services or activities, or before one's "friends were being personally called." Instead, we simply wish to bring to light another episode COGWA probably would like to sweep under the rug. Another issue that damaged relationships and fractured congregations.

There are two sides to every story, but we have to wonder whether our readers' reports are true - that COGWA is returning to a more hard-line brand of Armstrongism reminiscent of the Worldwide Church of God. After the COGWA-UCG split, UCG detractors whispered that the COGWA ministry was well-rid of the more liberal UCG pastors; accusing them of turning their back on Herbert W Armstrong. While in fact, UCG does have an Armstrongist foundation, it seems to have shed much of the heavy-handedness to which it appears COGWA may be returning. It wouldn't be the first time - remember what happened to Ed Oliver in 2012? The lesson - don't try to dig deeper into the Bible than the COGWA ministry (and it's not hard). It won't end well for you.

To be fair, calendar issues are complicated, as xHWA recently explained, and they are vital to determining when to observe the annual holy days. But the modern Hebrew calendar is not the same one Israel used. In fact, there were multiple calendars in effect in Israel by Christ's time. The calendar was based on the New Moon, which Jewish law required to be visually confirmed even though astronomical science could predict when it would occur. If the New Moon was visually confirmed, the news was spread throughout Israel to the diaspora by a series of hilltop fires, from the centuries following the exile until just before the Temple fell. If it was not confirmed, they waited a day, throwing the whole calendar off. This is where postponements came into play; and is why some Jews observe holy days for two days instead of one.

In short, if observing the holy days on the self-same day established in the Sinai Covenant is a factor in salvation, we are all doomed. Christ's wedding feast will be more like an intimate dinner party for the six people throughout history who were able to accurately divine the correct dates. We can only hope that God takes pity on us for trying really hard to get it right, or that we've at least gotten enough of it correct for Him to show us mercy. But really, that is the plan of salvation, as the COGs describe it. If being "good enough" or "right enough" is a factor in our salvation, then we'd better get it right when it comes to the calendar. And everything else.

Or maybe there's another way. A way that doesn't require us to spend our lives learning intricacies of the Hebrew calendar or scanning yogurt labels for code words that mean "beetle shell scrapings". Maybe our wise Creator wanted to eliminate bickering over lunar sightings on cloudy nights, or calculating sunset times during arctic winters. Perhaps it is as Ephesians 2:8-9 puts it - that our salvation comes by grace through faith in the shed blood of our Savior, not in our works. Perhaps we are no different from Abraham, as Romans 4:5 tells us:

 "But to him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness."

After all, isn't this what Jesus Himself told the crowds that sought Him in John 6:28-29?

"Then they said to him, 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

There's probably more to the story than James Malm relates, but situations like this are sad nonetheless. They have played out over and over in the history of the Churches of God. And they are doomed to happen again, as long as COGWA and other WCG splinters teach their followers that their salvation hinges in part upon their observances and works. Because there will be disagreements on how to carry out those works and observances, and neither side feels they can afford to be wrong on matters of eternity.  But we know all things work together for good for those who love God, and we don't doubt the sincerity of those who go out on a limb to obey what they think God expects of them. Perhaps this incident will lead COG members to question the strife and division their doctrines often cause, and step into the New Covenant and the finished work of Jesus Christ.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

New Moons - What Josephus Says They Were Really Doing

In my last post, we looked at some of the word games COGWA and other Churches of God play to fit their theology around the shadows of Colossians 2. The COGs recognize that they need to make "food" and "drink" mean "eating" and "drinking" in Colossians 2:16, otherwise their teachings about clean and unclean meats, the Holy Days and Sabbath start to unravel.

So COGWA asserts just that, without sources or much scholarly support. In the COGWA article, Colossians 2:16-17: Did Paul Warn Against Keeping God's Law?, Cecil Maranville asserts that the early Church celebrated the Holy Days, in part, through joyous eating and drinking, and that others criticized them for that.

"In summary, Colossians 2 shows that people in the congregation who were promoting ungodly doctrines were criticizing the Christians (both Jews and gentiles) for their joyous observance of festivals, new moons and Sabbaths," Maranville writes. "Paul confronted these heresies, and he told the members who were feasting according to God’s festival and Sabbath laws to carry on as they had been doing."

COGWA correctly recognizes a Gnostic element in many of the criticisms that are leveled at the brethren in Colossians. Although Christian Gnosticism didn't really take the stage until the second century AD, non-Christian Gnosticism had been around for centuries. It's reasonable to assume that Christian Gnosticism didn't spontaneously appear - that some Gnostic beliefs were on the scene in around 60 AD, when most scholars believe Paul wrote Colossians. And of course, one Gnostic tenet included asceticism - the believe that indulging physical pleasures was sinful and should be avoided. Many Gnostics believed in consuming food and drink practically at a subsistence level, and would have frowned on the joyful, bountiful meals COGWA claim believers enjoyed together on Sabbaths and Holy Days.

So, if Maranville's claims about this passage are accurate, we probably should find evidence that the early church similarly feasted on New Moons. COGWA hasn't written much about this topic, so instead I'll turn to The United Church of God's 2002 New Moons study paper. It's ok, Maranville and COGWA were part of UCG then anyway. This was before the split. UCG says that instructions on the New Moon are vague - the first part is found in Numbers 10, and called for a blowing of trumpets at the beginning of the month. Unofficial new moon traditions are mentioned from time to time - like King Saul holding a special meal at the palace or sacrifices, funded by a new tax instituted by Nehemiah. During some periods, oral law restricted women's workload during the New Moon.

But by the end of the end of the second temple period, UCG says, New Moon celebrations had become virtually nonexistent. There is no evidence that Christ or his apostles did anything special on the day of the New Moon, UCG concludes. This is probably why they also feel free to conclude that brethren in Colossae were holding some kind of New Moon observance, and Paul was telling them not let ascetics judge their feasting.

"We have no indication of what members in Colossae were doing on New Moons," UCG says. "We only have Paul's instructions not to let heretics impose ascetic practices on them."

Well, guess what? I have an indication of what was going on in Colossae during the New Moons. While the COGs correctly identify the Gnostic elements of the Colossian heresy, they are totally blind to its Jewish aspects, probably because they embrace many of the same teachings. The COGs habitually read right over passages in which Judaizers pressure Gentiles to adopt the laws and practices of the Sinai Covenant, since they do the same thing to a lesser, more cherry-picked degree.

But most others have concluded that the Colossian heresy was a syncretist movement combining Judaism, a pagan forerunner of Gnosticism, and elements of Christianity, according to Expositor's Bible Commentary. For more details, please read my first post on this topic.

In their rush to blame the Gnostics, the COGs miss the detail that the Jews did have a ritual marking the New Moon in Paul's day - Rosh Chodesh. A ritual that had nothing to do with food, liquid, eating or drinking.

Rosh Chodesh (literally "head of the month") corresponds to the Greek word for New Moon, according to David H. Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary. In Paul's day, when the New Moon was confirmed visually, "word was brought to the rabbis in Jerusalem at the first sighting of the new moon; fires were lit on successive hilltops to signal Rosh-Chodesh to the Diaspora," or Jews who no longer lived in Jerusalem.

After the first Babylonian exile, when many Jews still lived in Babylon, the Jewish courts in Jerusalem set up a system to relay confirmation of the new moon so that those in the Diaspora knew when to keep the holy days (http://www.jewishmag.com/29mag/moon/moon.htm). This was important because only the Sanhedrin could legally set the Holy Day calendar. Astronomical science was advanced enough to predict the date rather reliably, but Jewish law required the testimony of two witnesses to officially establish the New Moon. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus documents the critical role of the witness on page 685 of his Sequel to the History of the Jews. If a person who was one of the first to see the New Moon was physically unable to walk, he was not exempt from the duty to testify about his observation. Instead, he was required to ride on an animal or to be carried on a bed. And even if the witnesses had to travel on the Sabbath, "it will be lawful to profane the Sabbath to travel thereon, to give their evidence as to the appearance of the New Moon." Why? Because establishing the dates for the feasts of the Lord was that important, Josephus indicates.

Once visual confirmation was made, thread and flax were attached to staves of cedar wood, canes, and olive branches and lit on fire on the mountaintops around Jerusalem, Josephus says. They were waved repeatedly until someone was spotted on the next mountain doing the same thing, until "the whole country of the captivity appeared like a blazing fire."

Jews in each community throughout the region would see the fire on the next mountain over, gather on their own hilltop and light their own bonfire (http://www.ritualwell.org/ritual/fire-rosh-chodesh-opening-ritual). At the height of this practice, the fires could be seen from Egypt to Babylon. The Mishna tells us that the first fire was lit on the Mount of Olives and the next relay fire was at Sartaba, a place that was approximately 24 miles away. Sounds like that had to be more than just one guy named Aaron waving a single torch on top of a hill.

The tradition only stopped just before the temple fell, because the Samaritans started lighting fires at conflicting times to try to confuse the Jews and disrupt the holy days. At that point, they started sending messengers out from Jerusalem to carry the news. This is where the Jewish practice of Diaspora Jews celebrating many festivals for extended periods originated - in case the messenger was waylaid.

I don't think it's a stretch to believe that the heretics at Colossae were participating in this tradition. Even a group with Gnostic leanings - like the Essenes- would be concerned with Jewish New Moon traditions if they held the Holy Days and other aspects of the Sinai Covenant. Not only does it sound like an enjoyable tradition (fire, camaraderie and an awesome vantage point), but it included a strong sense of duty. Your town was responsible for passing the important message of the New Moon to those even further away from Jerusalem. If you didn't do your duty, you could be responsible for others missing the New Moon, miscalculating the Holy Days. In other words, you could be responsible for their sin.

So, given all that, tell me, which scenario is more likely?

a. The COG explanation - that no one had celebrated the New Moon for hundreds of year, then brethren at Colossae spontaneously started their own New Moon observance, which involved feasting, and Paul was telling them not to let the ascetics judge them for celebrating.

b. The explanation from Jewish history - that the Jews had been marking New Moons in the way documented by Josephus and many others for around 600 years, and that the Jews and Judaizers were criticizing Colossian brethren who did not gather with them participate in this monthly practice?

Why does it matter? Because if the answer is "b", then Colossian brethren were not being criticized for New Moon practices related to food, and the COG argument that this scripture points to criticism from ascetics alone falls apart. And casts doubt on whether the brethren really were being criticized for their feasting on Sabbaths and Holy Days, as the COGs claim.

Also, if the answer is "b", the COGs are encouraging their followers to sin by not celebrating the New Moons. In its paper, UCG claims that, according to Colossians 2:16-17, the brethren were being judged on how they kept the Sabbath and Holy Days, not for keeping them. But if this passage reinforces that the Sabbath and Holy Days are still commanded, then the New Moons are still commanded and those in the COGs who do not observe them are sinning. It's got to be one or the other. If New Moons are not required today, then the other things on the list aren't, either.

In his second book on the annual Holy Days, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi also concludes that the New Moon is important primarily for its role in determining when to celebrate the Hebrew festivals.

"Since the dates of the new moon were determined in ancient Israel by actual observation, the appearance of the new moon was essential to the stability of the civil and religious calendar. It signified worship regularity in the observance of the annual feasts which were dependent upon appearance of a new moon." (God's Festivals in Scripture and History, Part II: The Fall Festivals, p. 232).

Without a precise date, one could miscalculate and celebrate a festival on the wrong day, profaning an annual Sabbath. So when Paul told the brethren at Colossae not to let others judge them for not participating in the Rosh Chodesh ritual, it was tantamount to him saying they didn't need to concern themselves with the timing of the Holy Days any more.

Yes, I know Paul's other writings include several references to the Holy Days. Let's remember he was the apostle to the Gentiles, and many of his epistles warned against imposing tenets of the Sinai Covenant on Gentiles. Let's also remember Acts 15. If Gentiles can receive the gift of salvation without keeping Holy Days or abstaining from unclean meats, then Jews can, too, because there is only one path to salvation. Many Messianic Jews still observe these shadows, Stern says, because they are a pleasant part of their culture, but have the substance of Christ as well. But these shadows are irrelevant to Gentiles, since God did not give these commands to them, and Paul urges the Colossians not to be bound to them (p. 611-612). In the early church, Scripture indicates that Christian Jews were pressuring gentiles to adopt practices from the Law of Moses, but it doesn't indicate that Gentiles were pressuring Jews to give up their traditions.

(At this point, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but if you're in the COGs, unless your last name is Levy or Goldman, your ethnic heritage probably is not Hebrew. At this point genetic research has refuted British Israelism - the theory that Western Europeans and Americans are ethnically descended from the "Lost 10 Tribes of Israel." In short, you are a Gentile. A Gentile God loves, a Gentile for whom Jesus willingly suffered and died, but a Gentile, nonetheless.) For more information along these lines, please visit:

http://dnarefutesbi.com/

http://armstrongdelusion.com/2010/11/01/a-broken-key-the-case-against-british-israelism-part-one/

http://armstrongdelusion.com/2011/01/02/a-broken-key-the-case-against-british-israelism-part-two/

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2008/05/us-britain-in-prophesy-pt1-of-2.html

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2008/05/us-britaininprophesy-pt-2-of-2.html

http://xhwa.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-cog-theological-ancestry.html

http://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/09/genesis-prophesies.html

Though I'm probably a little biased after this research, I think there's a high probability that the brethren aren't being criticized for feasting on the New Moons. The odds are very good that their absence at the Rosh Chodesh fires were the issue.

And if the brethren weren't being criticized for feasting on the New Moons, then it's also possible they weren't being criticized simply for their feasting on Sabbaths and Holy Days. Consider also that food and drink, or eating and drinking, or however you would like to translate it, are listed in addition to the Sabbaths and Holy Days. Though Paul was a wordy guy, he wasn't overly redundant.

If the heretics at Colossae were judging the brethren for NOT participating in the Rosh Chodesh ritual, what are the chances that they were also judging them for NOT participating in the Holy Days? Especially when Paul all but said there was no reason to mark the New Moon, the main purpose of which was to calculate the Holy Days.

When we start considering the full context of Colossians 2, we can see the pieces of the puzzle starting to come together. Reassurances about the Colossians' physically uncircumcised state. Discussion about a legal document being nailed to the Cross. Food, New Moons, Sabbaths and Holy Days being described merely as shadows that pointed to Christ. Faith in Jesus being emphasized as the important thing, the current reality. The picture these puzzle pieces create is not a good one for the COG interpretation of Colossians 2.

(This series, and specifically this post, is intended to explore one passage of scripture, not to definitively disprove COG teachings on the Sinai Covenant, clean and unclean meats, Sabbaths and the like. For more information along those lines please visit the following links:

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/10/nailed-to-cross.html

http://xhwa.blogspot.com/2009/02/meats-universal-and-plain.html

http://xhwa.blogspot.com/2009/02/meats-and-i-timothy-4.html

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/10/if-you-love-me-keep-my-commandments.html

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/10/law-of-moses-law-of-god.html

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/11/law-of-god-law-of-moses.html

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/09/without-law-there-is-no-sin.html

http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/06/do-post-armstrongists-keep-law.html

http://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-covenant-vs-new-covenant.html

So far, in this series, we have seen COGWA turn to the Greek language to support their interpretation, yet try to twist the Greek to fit the rules of English and their erroneous doctrine. They've provided no sources for their assertions on how to translate "eating" and "drinking" in Colossians 2:16, and have disregarded rules of Greek grammar in the process. They also have failed to properly translate a simple word like "but."

As UCG employees a decade earlier, these same ministers claimed that no one marked the New Moon even as late as Jesus' day. They seem to be totally unaware of the Rosh Chodesh ritual, which lit skies afire from Egypt to Babylon each New Moon for around 600 years.

So, I ask, after seeing all the COG's twisting and spin throughout Colossians 2, will you continue to give them the benefit of the doubt? Or does what you've read raise questions about the conclusions they've drawn from this passage?

In my next two posts, we'll explore Colossians 2:17 as it pertains to the word "shadow." We'll also examine Jewish meaning and symbolism behind the fall Holy Days as shadows cast by Jesus. It's only by understanding this context that we can grasp the heart of what Paul says in this verse.

------- Other posts in this series -------

Word Games

[you are here]

Shadows of the Fall Holy Days

Tabernacles - The Bittersweet Feast of Booths

Walk In The Light

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11

************