The Sabbatarian Inner Conflict

Sabbatarianism may seem like it has the answers and "just makes sense," but when we zoom out we see there is more conflict than coherence.

---

I feel the need to rant today, because sometimes doing this gets to you.

I was once an Armstrongist. I know how the system works. I lived it for 30 years. I studied it. I preached it. I haven't stopped studying it.
To us, the Armstrongist view was truth. Period. We didn't need to prove it because we were right by default. It started out that way. It had to be. We had our very own Apostle, the first to preach the Gospel in 1,900 years, and he said anything else was pagan and might cost us our place in the Kingdom. That alone is enough to make the quality of evidence take a back seat because so long as it agrees with the system then it's truth. The number one concern is getting a certain result. We Armstrongists were so focused on trying to make the evidence fit the narrative one bit at a time that we didn't realize the issues we were causing. We would say anything we thought we had to in one place to support one thing, without a thought in the world of what we had just caused in another place with another thing.

Today, I would like to zoom out and go over some examples of these unintended consequences and the conflict that is caused by not thoroughly investigating our own doctrines. I want to approach this as if the starting point was never proved to begin with, and so the evidence should matter. This is a post about evidence.

LAW FOR ALL

Let's start with the claim that the law was given to the world. That is something we force into the biblical narrative, not something we receive out of it. The law as written, I mean. We went over that recently in "Editing the Commandments" and again in "Denying Babel, Erasing Israel". The law and the prophets were written quite specifically for the covenant people Israel (DEU. 5:3; JER. 31:31; HEB. 8:7-8; ROM.9:3-5). Gentiles were strangers to the Old Covenant and its terms (EPH. 2:11-12).

The law was for Israel, Israel was for the Messiah, and the Messiah is for the world.

This claim of 'the law is for everyone' is an Adventist claim from the mid-1800s. It started in response to pushback stating 'the Sabbath is Jewish'. But 'the Sabbath is for everyone' and 'the entire law is for everyone' are two different magnitudes of claims.
Sabbatarianism started with the realization that the Sabbath day is Saturday, not Sunday. OK, fine. That's actually correct. Sunday is the Lord's Day not the Sabbath day, regardless of what some modern Christians might think. But early Sabbatarians were challenged on why we need to keep a Jewish day. That forced their hand, and they turned to the Ten Commandments for justification. "The Ten are moral." But why just those laws? And so it became any "moral law". But by what authority do we keep only some of the law and not others? And so it became all laws. "The law is eternal and perfect and binding on everyone; always have been and always will be." All of this was in place by the end of the 1800s. That is still the claim to this day, but that goes too far, and it gets pared back down again to moral laws plus tithes and meats laws, and maybe a few more depending on which group you're with.
A little law always leads to more.

Everything we claimed turns out to be after the fact scrambles to justify ourselves. We had to innovate to prove we had been right this whole time.

That the law was for Israel was an essential idea underlying the debate of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The debate within the Council affirms, and James some years later reaffirms in Acts 21, that the law was not for the Gentiles, and this affects everything Sabbatarianism holds dear.
Therefore, the Armstrongist explanation requires that the Pharisees were not arguing what they said they were arguing, and the Apostles did not decide what they said they decided.

But now we've created the need for workarounds, like the idea that we can get some of the law by avoiding circumcision, and the end result is a law buffet where no two Sabbatarian groups can seem agree what should be on their plate. Other Sabbatarian groups, like the Hebrew Roots, take this even farther and they claim the Gentiles were attending synagogue with Jews ...where they would learn straight from non-believing Pharisees every single thing they just got done claiming the Apostles were against barely 5 verses earlier. And now we have to rewrite history as well because this is not what we see in the history books.

No one seems to notice that we argued for the whole law, only to turn right around and throw that out the window because we only want some of the law.
No one seems to notice that we argued that 'the law is perfect' only to turn right around and change the law so we could keep it.
No one seems to notice that we argued strongly against man-made traditions, only to make a man-made tradition the very centerpiece of our identity (I refer to going to church on Saturday).
We literally argued two completely incompatible things at the same time. These three are not by any means the only examples I can give. We will see more as we go.

Do you see the conflict?

MORALITY

The Sabbath day is the trunk of this tree. But if you think about it, the Sabbath is just a means to an end. It is a means to please (some people think it's not please but manipulate) God. If you want to dig to the root of this tree, the nagging, biting, unresolved issue here is ultimately one of the nature of righteousness. At the end of the day, Sabbatarians are just normal people who want to please God, and they feel the law can tell them how to do that.

Sabbatarianism starts from the conclusion that righteousness and sin are revealed to us through law. Without law, morality stops making sense in a Sabbatarian system. Without law, why did the angels fall? Without law, what did the world do so wrong as to be flooded and disinherited? Without law, what did Abel and Noah and Abraham obey? Without law, what is hedonism and why shouldn't we do whatever comes to mind? Without law, why shouldn't you commit adultery?

But not just "law" -- the Old Covenant law.
Sabbatarianism believes the Old Covenant law is the only law, and that law is the primary means all mankind was given to know good and evil. (Pun intended.) Everything else is considered to flow from this. So, we believed the Old Covenant law was there from creation but was forgotten and then merely reiterated to Israel, and they will be with us forever.

Only, that is not what the Bible says.

So, everything is made to fit this ...even if we have to rewrite history, use Strong's concordance to edit the meanings of words, completely ignore context, make baseless assertions, claim two incompatible things at the same time, or quote demonstrably problematic translations of the Bible to achieve this goal (I refer to the KJV rendering of I John 3:4). The facts must be made to fit the narrative; anything else is pagan.

Anything that uses the techniques I just listed will inevitably end up causing more problems than it solves. For example, Romans 5:13-14 makes absolutely no sense:

(ROM. 5:13-14) 13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Sabbatarianism has no clean answer for how sin can exist apart from law, and how there can be a time in the world before law, especially a time lasting from Adam to Moses. This cannot be accepted because it is a fundamental incompatibility. So it is denied. Perhaps by saying God created the Sabbath on day 7 (read "The Sabbath Rest of Genesis 2"), or Abraham kept the law (read "Genesis 26:5 - Did Abraham Keep the Law?").

But if not from law, then where else might righteousness originate? Answer: Directly from God's nature! The righteousness God desires does not come from the law, it comes from Himself. Directly. We go over this in "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III".

If good and evil come directly from God's nature and our relationship to God or lack thereof, then there is no problem here. God is righteousness (and love, and truth, and wisdom, etc). God does not need a law to be righteous. Sin is anything not in alignment with God's nature. No law necessary.

The law had a different function altogether. Not to create "sin" or "righteousness" - because both exist apart from law (for more see "The Road to Sabbatarianism - part III") - but to make sin inescapably obvious and to add concrete penalties for sin -- and thereby to guide Israel away from the Gentiles' idolatry until Messiah came. Law is merely one way to express this. Hence the ceremonial laws which taught Israel about God's holiness. But if those ceremonial laws are no longer necessary, this must mean we can learn about God's holiness another way, or that we can learn it from laws that do not apply to us.

But now we have the Christ event.
Sin is anything that is not in line with God's nature and you know you are out of line? (Let that humble you.) There's good news. With Jesus, there is no condemnation. When we become one with Jesus by faith, His success is credited to us. Since He is the perfect law-keeper who fulfilled all the whole law, we have fulfilled the law in Him. The righteousness God desires is His own righteousness, in us, undeserved, which is credited to us by faith alone, due to our oneness with Him. Faith, expressed in acts of love. Righteousness is a covenant word. Righteousness is not about law-keeping, but about relationship. An active relationship with God, expressed in following the Holy Spirit into acts of love for God's images. And if you read what Bill has been writing lately about a good heart versus a bad one, you will see a lot more than what I can fit here.

That simply isn't how it works in Sabbatarianism, though. It needs a Sabbath day and it relies on the law to justify the day. We were taught good and evil do require laws, and those things I've said above are lies. We were told Jesus only came so we could be forgiven. We used terms like "greasy grace." We were told Jesus would never change "His Father's laws" (except the ones we changed). We were told God wants us to struggle and to 'qualify'. We were told that to be loving to those in the world is to actively fight against God - even to the point where voting is banned. We were told the New Covenant is basically a continuation of the Old.

Do you see the conflict?

A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE RESULTS

Sabbatarianism relies on a series of proofs, some stronger and some hastily constructed. While defending the system, once we felt we had achieved our goal we would rarely think deeply beyond it. "It makes sense," we would say. There we would stop. We would rarely think about the things we just did to achieve our desired conclusions. Were they valid or reasonable or thorough? Doesn't matter. We would rarely continue on and think things all the way through to the logical conclusions of what we've just claimed. And we would ignore what kind of mess we've made elsewhere. One might say, emotional satisfaction trumped intellectual honesty.

This post might sound like a bunch of criticisms (it is a rant after all) but that is not really my intent. This post is about evidence and standards and methodology. It's about staying through to the logical conclusion and considering the consequences. If I claim X, then what are all of the things X leads to? What about Y?
I will give you an example of unintended consequences.

Does, "Every time I see the word 'commandment' in the New Testament, it means the Ten Commandments," really make sense? Sabbatarians use this thinking to support the Sabbath, citing verses like John 14:15:

(JON. 14:15) If you love Me, keep My commandments.

So, Jesus is advocating the Ten Commandments and we should all observe the Sabbath day. Right?
Then explain Hebrews 7:18, or Romans 7:10, or Ephesians 2:15.
If "commandments" means "Ten Commandments" then the Ten are annulled. That's what it says! Saying "commandment" means "Ten Commandments" might get us what we want in a soundbite proof-text of John 14:15, but that exact same standard in other verses blows our own goal out of the water. We cannot say it only means the Ten Commandments when it gets us what we want, but turn right around and deny this very same thing when it does not get us what we want. If you are going to set a standard than follow the standard.
But when I point this out, what is the usual response? "God's law is eternal!" "God's law is not a burden!" Not, "Huh. I didn't realize I had built my case on a double-standard. Perhaps I should think about this."

Do you see the conflict?

Sabbatarianism makes little edits as it goes along, all the while claiming it is not editing anything. The New Covenant must become a simple continuation of the Old ... only with more people and less laws. The claim is the New Covenant did nothing to change God's eternal and perfect law ...except discard 97% of it, rewrite what's left so it is not only for Israel anymore, completely change the priesthood, all new promises, and make it much harder. Other than those fundamental changes, nothing changed in any way. (Yes, that was sarcasm there.)

Therefore, it is necessary for Sabbatarianism to believe two opposing and utterly incompatible things at the same time:

1) That the law is eternal and universal and perfect and cannot be changed,
and
2) That the New Covenant ejected most of the law and fundamentally changed the rest.

This struggle - we must keep the eternal and perfect law, but to keep the law we must change the law - directly affects even the very Ten Commandments themselves; the most central and sacrosanct and perfect and eternal and unchanging and universal laws of them all. They are the very foundation of the Old Covenant. The Ten were written for Israel alone. So, those details are conveniently edited out of the perfect and unchanging law. That is what precisely what we reviewed in "Editing the Commandments".

No one seems to notice that there is no way to escape the law being changed. If it started out at creation applying to all people, then it was changed later when it was rewritten to be for Israel. That's a change! If the ceremonial and national laws were added for Israel, that's a change! If they were later removed for Christians, that's a change! If it was once "letter of the law," then it was changed to now be "spirit of the law". That's a change!
We believed "the law changed not because God changes not" -and- that the law keeps getting changed.
The very 'straw that broke the camel's back' that finally caused me to leave Armstrongism is when a friend of mine said to me, "Mr. Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." My friend did not think through what he was saying in the moment.

Do you see the conflict?

And what about Gentile inclusion? Some Sabbatarians, most notably Adventists, claim God is not calling the world at this time; He is only calling certain people. Armstrongists, a branch of Adventism, say God is only calling people who are secretly Israelites. I refer to British-Israelism/Anglo-Israelism. So, does the law apply to everyone, or must you be secretly an Israelite for it to apply? And if you're an Israelite, then how can it be that circumcision doesn't apply to you? If you really are an Israelite, as you claim, then avoiding circumcision does not exempt you from the law, it gets you exiled from Israel. That's the law! You are beholden to the whole law no matter what you do. No law buffet for you.

Now, at the exact same time, according to Armstrong, the law is being purposefully hidden from most people by God because they don't love the law. But we also claimed people need the Holy Spirit or it is literally impossible for them to comprehend that they need the law. They cannot understand that they need to keep the law in the first place unless God reveals it to them, but He is hiding it from them because they do not understand that they need to keep the law. And so He calls secret Israelites to keep it, and the rest await a terrible punishment for not doing what they literally could not do.

Do you see the conflict?

Circling back again to where we began, the belief that sin and righteousness come from laws rather than the nature of a perfectly righteous God and our faithful relationship with Him, is at the heart of all of this, and it introduces a whole series of dilemmas to contend with. Sabbatarianism is locked into a dance between law and grace, New and Old, covenant and terms, changing and unchanging, perfect and flawed, binding and deprecated, spirit and letter, goal and end, moral and ceremonial, Jew and Gentile, literal and figurative, scripture and literature, history and conspiracy, Greek and English, lie and true, etc etc etc. On and on and on.

The inner conflict isn't just here and there every once in a while; it's the whole thing.
And all this time all we needed to accept is that Christ is sufficient.

CONCLUSION

There is a peculiar thing that happens when a doctrine starts in the wrong place: it ends in the wrong place, and everything afterward has to be adjusted to protect it.

• A word doesn't fit? Use a concordance to redefine it.
• A verse doesn't quite fit? Call it a "difficult scripture" and explain it differently.
• A chapter doesn't quite fit? Isolate a verse.
• An entire book doesn't quite fit? Pull out a few individual proof-texts.
• The Jerusalem Council doesn't fit? Change what the Council was actually deciding.
• The New Covenant doesn't fit? Make it a mere continuation of the Old Covenant, where the parts you need will continue on while the rest falls away.
• A language doesn't fit? Treat it like it was originally written in English.
• History doesn't fit? Say it was corrupted and change it to how it should have been.
• Other systems don't fit? Write them all off as pagans.

Eventually, we can make almost anything fit. But there is a problem with that approach:
At some point, the sheer number of adjustments becomes evidence that the problem isn't with the words, the verses, the chapters, the books, the councils, or the history.

Sabbatarianism is swimming in a pool of inner conflict. How many contradictions and conflicts and fallacies and bandaged cracks must we endure before we say, "STOP! This is evidence that something is fundamentally very wrong. I need to go back and rethink my most basic starting point. I need to see what happens if I change the equation."
I suggest you start with: What if righteousness and sin do not require a written law?

I know how it feels to face this daunting task. I went through it myself. It is more than just daunting; it's terrifying. And to be fair, all systems have caused certain problems while trying to answer other problems. This is the human condition. This is not a perfect world that we live in. I am not saying Sabbatarianism is very wrong but Mainstream Christianity is very right ...or that I have it so right.

All I am claiming about myself is: I was once an Armstrongist Sabbatarian ...until I couldn't be anymore. Because I asked what if.

As Bereans Did has several articles intended to help people see that there are other things to consider here, other ways to look at verses, other critical facts that have been left out of the Sabbatarian equation.

Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII
The Road to Sabbatarianism - Part I
If You Love Me Keep My Commandments
What Does The New Testament Teach About Law and Grace?
Sunday, or Herbert Armstrong?
The Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4
What Did Jesus Say In Relation To The Sabbath?
The Covenant and The Testimony

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

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

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

When Did The Women of Galilee Buy Spices?

Comparing Wednesday and Friday crucifixion timelines to see which best fits the Gospel narrative and first-century customs.

---

Sixteen years ago, I did a post called "Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28" where we investigated Herbert Armstrong's Wednesday crucifixion timeline and his claim there were two Sabbaths in that week. We saw several things, one of which was the timing of when the women from Galilee purchased and prepared spices to anoint Jesus' corpse. It recently dawned on me there is no article on As Bereans Did dedicated specifically to this topic. We do go over it in the article I mentioned, but you wouldn't know it was there unless you stumbled over it. I want to correct that. This article is only going to focus on this topic - the women of Galilee and their spices - with no side quests.

To understand this article, you must be familiar with the Wednesday crucifixion scenario. I am going to assume you know it already. In summary, it claims Jesus died on a Wednesday, Thursday was an annual holy day, Friday was a normal week day, and Saturday was the weekly Sabbath. Clearly different from the traditional Friday crucifixion timeline.

Time to dust off the old As Bereans Did patented gauntlet! Will Armstrong's version survive or come out a wreck?

THE SPICE MUST FLOW

For the "final clinching proof" of his Wednesday timeline, Armstrong said this:

"There is only one possible explanation: After the annual high-day Sabbath, the feast day of the days of Unleavened Bread - which was Thursday - these women purchased and prepared their spices on Friday, and then they rested on the weekly Sabbath, Saturday, according to the commandment (Ex. 20:8-11)."
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday", 1972, p. 13

Is it the only possible explanation, though? Let's find out.
But first, just to be thorough, let's put up the two verses we need.

(MAR 16: 1) Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.

(LUK 23: 55-56) 55 And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid. 56 Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.

The women from Galilee are usually recognized as Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Joanna the wife of Chuza, and Susanna. There may have been others besides these who went unnamed in the Gospels.
Now, notice Mark says "bought" and Luke says "prepared". They did not have to buy spices twice. Nothing precludes it, but it isn't necessary.
Also notice Mark says after the Sabbath and Luke says before the Sabbath. That's the key here. A contradiction? No. There are explanations. Armstrong says his explanation is the only one and it clinches the debate. Other authors from the Armstrong tradition copy and reprint his booklet almost verbatim, so they must agree. I used to agree, but no longer.

Let's put this into a chart to help you visualize when the women could buy and prepare spices. Here is how to understand the chart:
The following chart compares the Wednesday and Friday crucifixion scenarios. It gives the date in half days, because seeing day and night is important. Then it shows when the ladies could work (green) versus when they had to rest (red) for religious reasons. The chart starts on the day Jesus was crucified (Wednesday for the Wednesday scenario; Friday for the Friday scenario). The chart stops on Saturday evening, before the Sunday morning when they found Jesus alive. All the green cells in that chart are opportunities for the ladies to purchase/prepare spices.

	Nissan 12 Wednesday	Nissan 12/13 Wed/Thu	Nissan 13 Thursday	Nissan 13/14 Thu/Fri	Nissan 14 Friday	Nissan 14/15 Fri/Sat	Nissan 15 Saturday	Nissan 15/16 Sat/Sun
	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night
Wednesday	Work	Rest	Rest	Work	Work	Rest	Rest	Work
Friday	----	----	----	----	Work	Rest	Rest	Work

Friday
In the Friday scenario, the events before Friday are not relevant to the spice purchase. That's why they are empty. In this scenario, the women inventoried and began preparation of spices and oils on the Friday on which Jesus was crucified, then they rested as commanded, then they bought more spices on Saturday evening after sundown when the Sabbath ended.
So, the two days to do spices are Friday and Saturday after sundown.

Wednesday
In the Wednesday scenario, Herbert Armstrong tells us the only possibility was that the women purchased and prepared spices on Friday. But you can see for yourself Friday was not the only opportunity. Their options were Wednesday evening before sundown, Thursday evening after sundown, all Friday until sundown, and Saturday evening after sundown.
So, there are four opportunities to do spices, not just one.

I want you to consider something ---  a Friday spice purchase is not necessary at all in the Wednesday scenario. Because they had four options, they could have worked the spices on any of them.

Armstrong prefers a one-time purchase and preparation - his entire final clinching proof stands on it - but nothing in the Gospel narrative demands this. If all we care about is a one-time event, Thursday evening would have worked just as well as Friday. They could have gotten everything done on Thursday then taken Friday off.
Or, the women could have done it in the same way as the Friday scenario - meaning, on two different days. Look at the chart. They had other opportunities besides just Friday (I grant Wednesday would have been of little use for anything more than getting started, but it still counts).
Armstrong never explains why he ignores those opportunities. He simply concludes one purchase on Friday and that is that. But if nothing in the language demands it, and there are clearly other options, then why should we insist on it?

We know that Nicodemus brought 100 pounds of myrrh and spices to anoint Jesus before His entombment (JON. 19: 39). Apparently this was something one could do rather quickly. So, there is no good reason to exclude the evening after the crucifixion.

Also, we know from historical sources that shops would be open to the last possible moment before Sabbath began, then they would reopen as soon as possible in the evening after sundown when Sabbath ended, especially at this very busy time of year (for example, read Nehemiah 13: 19). So, there is no good reason to exclude Thursday evening after the annual holy day or Saturday evening after the weekly Sabbath.

All of those work opportunities are legitimate opportunities.

In case someone from the Armstrong camp wishes to eliminate Saturday evening as an option because Jesus was resurrected on Saturday in their scenario, I remind you this is not about when Jesus was resurrected. This is only about when the ladies bought spices. They didn't know a thing about the resurrection yet. Whether Jesus was resurrected on Saturday evening or Sunday morning is neither here nor there to either scenario.

The Wednesday crucifixion scenario has all the time the Friday crucifixion scenario has plus an entire free day. So, already we have proven Armstrong's version of events is not the "only possible explanation". He simply declares it so.

ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD

Herbert Armstrong ignored another important point. The biggest issue I have with his explanation is the eagerness of the women to go to the tomb.

One must ask why did they not visit the tomb on Thursday evening or Friday or Saturday evening?

As I said, the Wednesday crucifixion scenario has all the time the Friday crucifixion scenario has plus an entire free day. This is very bad for Armstrong's explanation. If Nicodemus can obtain what he did in such short order, then these women couldn't possibly need all that time. They weren't afraid to travel in the dark, which only adds more time. They could have visited Him at any time on Friday. Why didn't they go? If they were so eager, then why wait until Sunday morning?
In Armstrong's timeline, we must conclude the women were not actually eager at all ...except, inexplicably at 4 AM on Sunday. They sat around for days until they took off like a shot in the dark. This requires some explanation, because the Bible narrative here is about how eager the women were to anoint that body, and Armstrong contradicts this. But no explanation is given.

Here's the catch -- they did not have all the time in the world. There is a hard stop in there.

If we take a note from John 11: 39, they knew the body would stink by day 4. No point in anointing at that stage. The attempt itself would not just be in vain but potentially dangerous. So, this has to happen before day 4.
But there is more to it than just this. Jewish writings, such as the Mishnah, tell us more:

"We go out to the cemetery and examine the dead within three days and do not fear [being suspected of] superstitious practices. It once happened that [a man who was buried] was examined [and found to be living], and he lived for twenty-five years and then died."
-Mishnah, Semachot, chapter 8 (from Sefaria.org)

The Jews had a deep respect for the dead. They would want the body cared for quickly and properly. One was even allowed to do certain preparations on the Sabbath (see Mishnah 'Shabbat' 23:4-5), which the women could not do because of that stone.
Taken together, we can see the women likely felt pressured to inspect the body and anoint the body on or before day 3.

In the Wednesday scenario, according to how Armstrong counted days (meaning like a modern American), day 4 would be Sunday. That's too late. Even if everything goes Armstrong's way, Sunday is too late.
But there's another detail we must know. The Jews did not count days like we do. If we use "inclusive reckoning" and count days like ancient Israel did, Saturday is day 4 and Sunday would be day 5 in a Wednesday timeline. From bad to worse. (For more on inclusive reckoning, see "Was Jesus Entombed 72-hours?".)

Why would the women waste good time then rush to the tomb when it was far too late? By day 5, there would have been no point, it would have been dangerous, and they would even have risked accusations of superstitious practices. In a Wednesday crucifixion scenario, their last day to get the body anointed was Friday. What were they supposedly doing Friday? Using up the last of their time preparing spices.

In the Friday crucifixion scenario, however, there is a very good reason for why the women were so anxious to get to the tomb on Sunday morning - this was their first real opportunity. And, by inclusive reckoning, Sunday was only day 3. Only this scenario has the opportunities for the ladies to do what they need, and gets it done before time runs out.

Does the Wednesday scenario provide the better explanation versus the Friday scenario? I cannot agree that it does. It doesn't work and it makes the ladies seem rather aloof and lazy.

EASTER SEAL

I ask you to consider another point which greatly complicates Armstrong's timing. The Romans sealed the tomb on the Sabbath after the crucifixion (MAT. 27: 62-66).
Let that idea roll around in your head a bit.

In Armstrong's Wednesday crucifixion scenario, LUK 23: 56 (the women return and prepare spices) must happen on Friday. Allow me to quote Armstrong again: "After the annual high-day Sabbath, the feast day of the days of Unleavened Bread - which was Thursday - these women purchased and prepared their spices on Friday."
But have you read verse 55? It says, "...they observed the tomb and how His body was laid..."
It is quite clear, they saw the body. They cannot see the body if the tomb is sealed. So, they saw the body on the day of the crucifixion before the guard was set.

Why is this important? Why am I making a big deal about it? Because the Wednesday scenario causes a time gap in Luke 23.

In verse 55 they see the body. In verse 56 they return and prepare spices. How, pray tell, could the women go to the tomb on Friday and see the body if the tomb was sealed the day before? They could not. So, to fix this, we might imagine a day-long gap hidden in verse 56. The women went to the tomb and saw the body on Wednesday evening, returned, - insert gap here - then on Friday they prepared spices. That seems like the only way to solve this. But it also seems like convenient excuse making.

There is nothing in the original Greek which precludes this, but nothing to support it either. In fact, verses 55 and 56 read strongly like one continuous action. Luke is the most chronological of the Gospel writers, after all. Pay close attention to the verses. They see the body in verse 55, but it was in verse 56 that they return form seeing the body. So, the day-long gap is inside verse 56 itself, not between verses 55 and 56. Verse 56 does not say they returned, rested, then prepared spices. It only says they returned and prepared spices.
The Wednesday scenario causes issues.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that gap. Now, let's see the other issues it has caused.

UNINFORMED

The ladies took their spices on Sunday morning before sunrise, expecting to have the stone rolled away so they could anoint the body. But no one could roll the stone away because the tomb was sealed. The women obviously were not yet aware of this seal and guard.
This causes us to ask - why didn't the women know this?

The sealing was quite public, after all. This was not done in a corner. The chief priests and Pharisees all went in a cluster to the Romans, risking ceremonial uncleanliness on a high holy day. It is a hard sell indeed to claim three full days had passed but word hadn't yet gotten around.

Now, which makes more sense regarding the women on Sunday morning:
A) The tomb had been sealed since Thursday, four days ago by their reckoning, but the women had not heard about it yet, or
B) The tomb was sealed Saturday, a half day ago at this point, but the women had not heard about it yet?

I am going with option B!
Considering the amount of interest these ladies had in the death, the time pressure they were under, and the several days they would have had in a Wednesday scenario, it makes practically no sense at all to go with option A.

Not only that, but there is a second issue.

TEMPORARY

Pay attention to the wording in Matthew 27: 64: "Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day". This does not work cleanly in a Wednesday crucifixion.

Armstrong said the guard was set on Thursday. What is the third day from Thursday when we count as the Bible does? Saturday. The guards should have packed up and left earlier on Saturday. The Wednesday scenario needs them to stick around. The guards passed out when the tomb was opened. That happened, according to Armstrong's timeline, at very the end of day 3, as day 3 was about to turn to day 4. What would the guard be doing there heading into day 4 when they were only supposed to be there until day 3?

I know a person who believes the Wednesday scenario would argue that, because they don't count inclusively. They would say Saturday was only day 2 from Thursday. I say we must understand this as the people in that place and time would have, and they did not count like we do. In inclusive reckoning, Saturday is day 3 from Thursday.

So, insert the gap between verses 55 and 56 of Luke 23 to save the Wednesday timeline and you only cause an issue with Sunday morning which harms the Wednesday timeline. The Friday timeline, however, fits naturally.

CONCLUSION

Did Armstrong really deliver the crushing blow of arguments? Does the timing of spice preparation clinch the victory and demonstrably prove there were two Sabbaths? I have no choice but to conclude no.

Wednesday scenario is indeed the only possibility if we insist on one spice preparation. However, there is no good reason to insist on this. Also, in a Wednesday scenario, Sunday is two days past the three-day limit. I think that, when we look at all the details critically, the Wednesday scenario is not a clincher at all but is quite weak because there is more to it than just spice preparations. If we only read Herbert Armstrong's material, the explanation he offers will seem to work. It is only when we question it critically that the issues arise. Armstrong simply ignored the problems his scenario created and hoped we wouldn't notice.

Decide for yourself which scenario best explains the behavior of the women of Galilee. Did they buy and prepare spices during the limited time available then rush to the tomb at the first opportunity, or did they lazily take their time over multiple opportunities, avoiding gossip about Roman guards, then inexplicably decide they needed to rush to the tomb on Sunday morning after the corpse should already have started to stink?

I prefer the Friday timeline for these and many other reasons, and here is how I propose things went:

The timing of Luke 23: 55-56 is one continuous thought with no gap, taking place immediately after Jesus was taken down from the cross on Friday. The ladies observed the way He was buried and considered the burial incomplete. They returned to inventory and begin preparation of spices in the very limited time they had that same evening, concluding they did not have enough material on hand to complete the burial to their preference. I do not think they bought anything this night, only "prepared". They rested on the weekly Sabbath, unable to do anything more or even discuss it - because even discussing what to do after Sabbath would be considered participating in work - while the Pharisees plotted further. At sundown Saturday, they busied themselves with purchasing more spices and finishing the preparation. Then, at the first opportunity early on Sunday - roughly between 4:30-5:00 AM on day 3 by their count - they hurried out, not yet aware the tomb was sealed and under guard.

Rather than clinching the argument, we are left clenching two logical fallacies in the Wednesday scenario:

Circular Reasoning (using something as evidence for itself)
How do we know the crucifixion was on Wednesday? Because the ladies bought spices on Friday. How do we know the ladies bought spices on Friday? Because the crucifixion was on Wednesday.

Begging the Question (assuming the truth of the conclusion without supporting it)
Armstrong concludes the ladies bought spices on Friday, but ignores the opportunities on Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday. He offers no other support for this. He just declares Friday the only option, when it was not.

The flaws in logic we see here are not unique for Armstrong. They are less a one-off mistake and more a way of life.

I know many will punt to "three days and three nights" (we have an article for that), or argue for there being two Sabbaths in Matthew 28 (we have an article for that, too). Today's post is not about those things, so we did not get into them here. I invite you to read our other material on the Categories page which address any additional concerns you may have.

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

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

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

The Quartodecimans and Epiphany

Back in early 2024, I did a series of posts on a group commonly known as the Quartodecimans. The Quartodecimans were Christians, mainly from the east, who are best known because they emphasized that the Last Supper should be observed annually, on the date of Nisan 14 whenever possible. This led to the "Quartodeciman Controversy". I started out that series by saying any good discussion on Easter ought to mention the Quartodecimans. And it should!
But I bet you didn't know any good discussion on Christmas should mention them, too.

The Quartodecimans celebrated Christmas?? Well, perhaps some did, but not overall. They celebrated the nativity of our Lord, yes, but not usually on December 25 as Christmas. Instead, they celebrated it on January 6 as Epiphany.

Let's go on an adventure and see how the Quartodecimans were involved with Epiphany.

TOOLBOX

There are some things you are going to need to know in order to fully understand today's post. Tools to work with, so to speak. I usually assume people read my other articles, but I will summarize to save you time. Skip this if you're already familiar.

The first thing you will need to know is Epiphany.

Epiphany started in the eastern church as a memorial of our Lord's incarnation and birth. Same idea as Christmas, but on a different date. Later, it was decided Christmas would honor the nativity, and Epiphany became the day to honor major events of Jesus' life including the arrival of the Magi, His baptism, and the wedding at Cana. That's how things are to this day in Catholic and Orthodox churches, but Epiphany has been mostly abandoned by Protestants (which is why I'm explaining it in the first place).

The second thing you will need to know is "integral ages".
The ancient Jews had an unusual idea where multiple important events happen on the same date. These are called "integral ages". In the minds of the ancient Jews, important people were believed to have been conceived or born on the same date on which they died. I know this sounds odd, but you must understand that, whether it's true or not, it is built on quite a lot of evidence.

The third thing you will need to know is Calculation Theory (CT).
CT is a theory about how the date for the nativity of Christ was originally chosen. According to CT, Christian scholars came to the date on their own through calculations. They first determined the date of His crucifixion, then used integral ages to reach the birth. Hippolytus championed March 25, and that date caught on in the west. In the east, however, the popular date was April 6. Today's post is mostly going to be about this April 6 date.
Now, you add in integral ages, and you get Jesus being conceived on a certain date (March 25 / April 6), then nine months later comes His nativity (December 25 / January 6).

Now that you are fully armed and operational, let's dive into April 6.

PIECES OF APRIL

I am going to give you scholarly references but I'm going to try my best to explain things plainly.

In the early 200s AD, calendar issues were taking the spotlight. Many Christians were attempting to determine when the crucifixion occurred, and for several reasons. Everyone knew Passover was Nisan 14, yet it was becoming clear there was an issue with the Jewish calendar - Nisan 14 was no longer reliably anchored to the start of spring following the Bar Kokhba revolt. Correcting Nisan 14, then converting that into the other calendars in the empire, was quite difficult. At the same time, there were theological debates that needed answers, such as the human and divine natures of Jesus. And then, there were natural curiosities, such as Hippolytus trying to find every Passover back to the 4th day of creation. The answer to all of these included calculating dates.

We know Christian scholars were calculating dates because we have the written evidence. In the west, Tertullian and Hippolytus converted Nisan 14 to March 25 in the Julian calendar.
That is not how they did it in the east.

"In the East, too, the dates of Jesus’ conception and death were linked. But instead of working from the 14th of Nisan in the Hebrew calendar, the easterners used the 14th of the first spring month (Artemisios) in their local Greek calendar—April 6 to us. April 6 is, of course, exactly nine months before January 6 - the eastern date for Christmas."
-Biblical Archaeology Review, "How December 25 Became Christmas", 7-10-2025. 

Please allow me to explain this more plainly.
Eastern Christians used a completely different calendar than the Jews or the western Christians - the Macedonian lunar calendar. They took the idea behind Nisan 14 (the fourteenth day of the first Jewish spring month) and replaced it with their equivalent (the fourteenth day of their own first spring month). Thus, Nisan 14 was traded for Artemisios 14. This was not a date-to-date swap, but an idea-to-idea swap. (Artemesios 14 and Nissan 14 would not usually be on the same day, but they are always the 14th day of the first spring month.)
Later, others converted Artemisios 14 into April 6 in the Julian calendar. (If you're interested, Thomas Talley explains how that worked on page 8 of his book "Origins of the Liturgical Year". But that's not important right now.)

This is the majority scholarly consensus on what they did. Understand that this is circumstantial evidence. No ancient source explicitly says, "This is what we did." But this is the best reconstruction from the scattered evidence that we do have. Here's how it went:

• Many eastern Christians put Artemisios 14 in place of Nisan 14.
• Artemisios 14 is April 6 in the Julian calendar.
• Observance on Artemisios 14 / April 6 is well attested in regions like Syria and Egypt.
• These regions were known to have populations of Quartodecimans, and it would logically be Quartodecimans who were most interested in Nisan 14 date conversions.
• Besides Quartodecimans, the only other group who might have observed April 6 were the Montanists, but they were relatively few in number, and most agree the Montanists inherited this practice from the Quartodecimans.

Simple and condensed takeaway:
The Artemisios 14 / April 6 date most likely comes from the Quartodecimans.

Now, let's get some source material in here to back this up.

Talley, who got this ball rolling for me in the first place, agrees:

"In both Asia and Cappadocia the concern was not to observe a given Julian date, April 6 or March 25, but to observe the fourteenth day of the first month of spring..."
-Thomas Talley, "Further Light on the Quartodeciman Pascha and the Date of the Annunciation", p. 4

"Although for him [Sozomen] that paschal date of April 6, the old Asian 14 Artemisios, was peculiar to a Montanist group, there is every reason to believe that the early Quartodeciman Christians in Asia had observed the same date..."
-Thomas Talley, "Origins of the Liturgical Year", pp.8-9.

Every reason to believe Quartodecimans were observing Artemisios 14 / April 6? Interesting! Talley is so convinced of this, he calls April 6 "that Quartodeciman date" ("Origins" p. 97).
Talley refers us to Epiphanius. In his book "Panarion", Epiphanius says this about the Quartodeciman beliefs:

"And there is no little dissension in their [the Quartodecimans'] ranks, since some say the fourteenth day of the month [this is the eastern date], but some, the eighth before the Kalends of April [this is the western calculation]."
-Epiphanius of Salamis "Panarion" Quartodecimans 50.7 (374-378 AD). 

Epiphanius is writing about the Quartodecimans here, specifically. This makes it abundantly clear at least some Quartodecimans did observe April 6. But not all Quartodecimans. Some had adopted Hippolytus' date of March 25.

We can list several other names that support these conclusions: Louis Duchesne (Conferences), Hans Lietzmann (A History of the Early Church), Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson (The Origins of Feasts, Fasts, and Seasons in Early Christianity), Andrew McGowan (Ancient Christian Worship), Susan K. Roll (The Feast of the Nativity), Hans Förster (The Celebration of Christ’s Birth in the Early Church), Paul Barnett Simmons (The Origins of Christmas and the Date of Christ's Birth), and of course, reputable online resources like Biblical Archaeology Review.

Here is your simple, condensed takeaway:
Many Quartodecimans were almost certainly observing Artemisios 14 / April 6. But why is that important? Because in the same way March 25 becomes December 25 when integral ages are applied, April 6 becomes January 6 - the date of Epiphany. This means the Quartodecimans are the primary suspects for why we have Epiphany on January 6.

This is clearly Talley's position.

"The same relationship is visible between April 6 and January 6 without any reference (pace Norden!) to the quarter days [solstices and equinoxes]. Rather, these winter dates can both be seen as the result of the same paschal calculation, with the conception/annunciation on March 25 leading to the nativity on December 25 in the West, and the conception/passion on April 6 leading to the nativity on January 6 in the East. [...] The persistence of the April 6 date in the East for the passion, long after the Quartodeciman controversy had been resolved in favor of the Sunday observance, suggests that it was the paschal full moon date of the Asian calendar that underlay the January 6 nativity observance."
-Thomas Talley, "Origins of the Liturgical Year", pp.129. [bold mine]

"As the association of April 6 with the conception would lead to the dating of the nativity on January 6, so such an association of the conception with March 25 would lead to dating the nativity to December 25."
-Thomas Talley, ("Further Light on the Quartodeciman Pascha and the Date of the Annunciation", p. 4. [bold mine]

Other scholars, such as Paul F. Bradshaw and Maxwell E. Johnson (The Origins of Feasts, Fasts, and Seasons in Early Christianity), agree with Talley that Quartodecimans honored the nativity and did so on Epiphany.

So, although nothing explicitly says this, it very much looks like the Quartodecimans not only observed the nativity of our Lord on Epiphany, but they are the reason why we have Epiphany in the first place. Remember from the Toolbox section: Epiphany started in the eastern church as a memorial of our Lord's incarnation and birth. It started in Quartodeciman strongholds, and it persisted there. They were observing "Christmas" so to speak ...but on Epiphany.

The pagan co-opt theory (also called the History of Religions Theory or HRT) cannot explain both Christmas and Epiphany. Nor can it respond to the abundance of records from the early 200s which plainly show Christians in various places working out these dates. These calculations happened decades before there was any Roman celebration on December 25, and there was no corresponding pagan festival for Epiphany to co-opt. Epiphany demonstrates the Nativity was not some generic solstice co-opt, either. Compare that to the grand total of zero ancient records positively demonstrating a pagan co-opt.

HRT cannot overcome these points. The claim that Christmas and Epiphany are pagan is built on sand.

ROBOT ROCK

Given what I wrote about in my article "Writing in the AI Age", I decided to run my conclusions past multiple AI platforms. After those AI platforms gave me rave reviews for accuracy and unassailability (some, of course, telling me I could neutral it up a bit), I decided to ask follow-up questions to only two platforms. I asked ChatGPT and Grok what I thought were simple questions:

How can I know when those old sources say something like "14th of the month" (or similar) that they were referring to Nisan 14 and not Artemisios 14?

Did the conversion of Nisan 14 to Artemisios 14 happen early enough that it could have led to or influenced the choice of Epiphany on January 6?

I was wholly unprepared for the AI vs AI battle that I would spark. I liken it to a dispute on the scale of the Quartodeciman controversy.

ChatGPT went on a wild tangent, completely reversing everything it had just minutes earlier assured me was accurate and unassailable. It reassured me I was still correct, but I was also wrong and would have to rewrite everything. That startled me. How could I be wrong with so much scholarly support? So, I took its concerns to Grok. Grok disagreed. Strongly. Grok insisted my article was perfectly defensible and aligned with the majority scholarly opinion.

I found myself copy/pasting responses between the two platforms for several minutes (yes, the AIs argued with each other). One would say the other was wrong, and back and forth we went. Until ... after several rounds of back-and-forth, ChatGPT, the cautious one, finally conceded Grok's point that the consensus of modern liturgical historians is exactly what I had written in the first place. Thus, ChatGPT timidly reversed itself a second time, and Grok had a hardy crow for its victory.

Turns out even the robots need to read Talley, Bradshaw, and Roll before they render a verdict.

[This is not an endorsement of any AI system. They each have strengths and weaknesses. If you use AI, make sure you a) understand how it works, and b) require it to triple-check everything it tells you.]

TENTATIVE DECISIONS

Why do I care about these Quartodecimans and their ties to Epiphany so much in the first place? Please allow me to explain, briefly.

Readers here already know this but others may be unfamiliar - As Bereans Did is a polemics blog dedicated to the investigation of what we call Armstrongism, after its founder Herbert Armstrong. Armstrongism - a branch of Seventh Day Adventism - has long claimed to be modern theological descendants of the Quartodecimans.

"Among the Gentiles the churches in Asia remained the most faithful to the word of God. We pick up the story of the true Church in the lives of such men as Polycarp and Polycrates. They were called 'Quartodecimani' because they kept the true Passover celebration instead of Easter."
-Herbert Armstrong, "True History of the True Church", 1959, p.15 

The claim is still alive and well. The United Church of God repeated it recently in their article "Church Driven Underground" from July 27, 2025. Author Tom Robinson said:

"Faithful Christians in the first few centuries after Christ were sometimes called Quartodecimans, from the Latin for 'fourteen,' as they continued to observe Passover on the 14th of the Hebrew month of Nisan..."

"Faithful Christians" is code for "one true church" which is code for Armstrongism. Armstrongism is not descended from the Quartodecimans, of course, neither directly nor indirectly. But this claim by Herbert Armstrong, the "founder, Pastor General, and spiritual and temporal leader of the church since its inception", forces the system to own the Quartodecimans ...and everything we learn about them, which now includes the Nativity (Epiphany at first, then later Christmas).

If we only listen to Armstrongists, we would believe the Quartodecimans were opposed to honoring the resurrection on Sunday (Easter). But upon further inspection, it turns out they were not. They did observe the resurrection on Sunday, they just put an emphasis on a Nisan 14 date for the Last Supper. (See our Quartodeciman posts for more.)
And if we only listen to Armstrongists, we would believe Epiphany was pagan and the nativity resolutely to be ignored. In my post "Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?", we explored how Herman Hoeh "the most accurately-informed historian in the world" tied both Christmas and Epiphany to Nimrod. That is patently false, of course. Absurdly false. But it was the official line from the church for decades! No going back now. Today, we have seen the Quartodecimans were not in any way opposed to observing the Nativity of Christ, and they did it on Epiphany.

Out of one side of the mouth, Armstrongism calls the Quartodecimans "the true church", but out of the other, they call anyone who observes Easter and Christmas/Epiphany "Nimrod-worshipping pagans". Now we see that must include the Quartodecimans. 

So, Armstrongists have a decision to make:
A) Own that the very "true church" itself observed Easter and the Nativity, and admit Herbert Armstrong et al were wrong.
-Or-
B) Stop claiming Armstrongism is theologically descended from the Quartodecimans, and admit Herbert Armstrong et al were wrong.

Paganism or one true church - which? One of those two pillars must fall. I’ll let you decide.

CONCLUSION

What did we see today?
1) Quartodecimans likely started Epiphany.
2) HRT cannot withstand this.
3) Any church who claims the Quartodecimans as their ancestors must deal with this.

Let’s put it all together one last time.

Early Christians determined the dates of Jesus' crucifixion - March 25 in the west and April 6 in the east. Then, they used the principle of integral ages and careful reasoning - not pagan festivals - to arrive at the dates for Jesus’ birth - December 25 Christmas in the west and January 6 Epiphany in the east.

The people who first championed the western date of March 25 were Tertullian and Hippolytus. The primary suspects for who first championed the eastern date of April 6 are the Quartodecimans - the same people Herbert Armstrong and his successors have long hailed as the one faithful “true church” that kept the pure apostolic faith. Pascha on the 14th wasn't the only thing the Quartodecimans did. They had an entire life beyond that day, which included honoring Easter Sunday and, it seems likely, celebrating the Nativity of Christ on Epiphany.

After Nicaea, the Quartodecimans gradually blended into the greater church and began keeping both Epiphany and Christmas. But Epiphany is with us to this day.

Armstrongism can’t have it both ways.
You can either keep claiming the Quartodecimans as spiritual ancestors, but then you must also own Easter and Epiphany - or - you can keep calling Christmas and Epiphany pagan, but then you must admit the Quartodecimans were pagan as well, and out goes "true history of the true church".
Either way, Herbert Armstrong et al were wrong.

As for the rest of us who believe - whether you observe December 25, January 6, both, or neither - may we all rejoice that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Christmas and Epiphany are not birthdays; they honor ideas - BIG, theological ideas - of the incarnation and the birth of God. The early church, Quartodecimans very much included, did not forget this astonishing truth.

It’s a good day to remember it again.

Merry Christmas! Happy Epiphany! And grace and peace to you in the Name that is above every name, Who became flesh like we are so He could die to save us all. This is the true meaning of Christmas and Epiphany.

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

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

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

Everything I Don't Like Is Pagan

I am from an Armstrongist background. Armstrongism is a fringe Protestant group split off from Seventh Day Adventism. There are a few pillars which the system rests on: doomsday prophecy, Saturday Sabbath, Old Covenant legalism, a couple other points, and finally the belief it and it alone is a super-exclusive system revealed by God to the mind of Herbert Armstrong (through various sources like his time as a Minister in the COG7 church, the Watchtower Society publications, the Mormons, the book "Main Kampf", and G. G. Rupert's material, to name a few).

Being "the one true church" practically requires Armstrongism to attack other systems. This means anything Armstrongists are not familiar with, anything foreign to the every day humdrum of modern push-button, leisure life, is assigned the status of "pagan". In politics, the sentence, "everything I don't like is...", usually ends in something like "a Nazi" or "Communism". But in Armstrongism, it's "pagan".
I don't like Christmas. It's pagan!
I don't like the Trinity. It's pagan!
I don't like Chronicles of Narnia. It's pagan!
I don't like Proctor and Gamble. It's pagan!

Take for example this comment we got from "Larry" some years ago on the "Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?" article:

"If anyone believes that Christmas, Easter, etc. Are not pagan look up where there orgin comes from. Question. Do Rabbits lay eggs. Is there a deer that fly threw air. These things are all based on a lie for little children to believe and once they even understand it they grow up believing that is ok too tell a lie. Then by doing this you only get closer thinking well its ok to tell a little white lie. Does God say it anywhere in the Bible it's ok to tell a white lie. What does this tell are children can you blame them for telling you a lie sine you teach them several every year. And all these things have a Pagan origin. Think about it."

Translation: I don't like these things, and deer can't fly, so it has to be pagan.

Now, Larry meant well in his heart. I get it that people are naturally uncomfortable with the unfamiliar. It's just how we're wired. It helps us survive. But going from "I'm not used to that" to "it's pagan" is a huge leap. It takes a personal preference and elevates it to a truth claim.
"I don't like that" = personal preference.
"It comes from paganism" = truth claim.

What do truth claims require? Evidence. And what evidence are we given? Either none at all, or 9 times out of 10 it's garbage. Hokum. Fake. Some old trope from the bottom lefthand corner of the Internet. 

Did anyone ever think to ask, what if it's not actually pagan? Oh yeah! We did.
Larry gave good advice, "look up where their origin comes from". So, we did. Many times. One example is the post Larry commented on and completely ignored.

Over the years, As Bereans Did has tried to dig into the claims and see if they have merit or if they're garbage. We have tried to test claims against the best available information. We even gave it a nickname. We call it, "The As Bereans Did Patented Gauntlet." What have we seen over and over again? The things we were told are "God's truth" were actually false. What we were told is pagan was actually not. The truth claim was false and built on bad information. No, seriously. Did you read "Review of COGWA Origin of Easter"? It doesn't matter how many magazines and booklets make the claim, and it doesn't matter how many sources are cited, if the sources are wrong. No court case was ever won where the legal defense started with, "My brother-in-law at the trailer park told me..." And every time I think we've looked it up to death, something new appears, like our recent articles on Samhain.

And we aren't the only ones. Our friends over at the God Cannot Be Contained blog also have great material along these lines. I recommend "Are You Giving Thanks to Ceres or God?". Makes some interesting and relevant points!

We have two options with bad information: either it was ignorance or it was a lie.

Morally, it's far better to be ignorant than a liar. At least you can admit your fault, eat a little crow, grow from it, and try to never make that mistake again. I've had to! How can I ever forget the king's feast of crow I consumed when I told my mother I had been wrong all those years while I was in Armstrongism? I bet my entire life on that system from the time I was old enough to make a decision for myself until I was 36. And I was wrong.
I am not at all recommending either ignorance or lies. If you have a choice at all, then choose to be accurately informed. But even so, better a Vegas-style buffet of crow over ignorance than to intentionally deceive.

Decide for yourself. Which is it - ignorance or outright lies?
When Armstrongist publications to this very minute parrot known falsehoods -- claims that have been known to be false, in some cases for centuries?
When they distort the past, including their own past?
When they willfully misrepresent the claims of other systems to attack those straw men?
When they make repeated claims about the future which fail to come about - and sometimes do it "in the name of and by the authority of Almighty God"?
So which is it?

They have every opportunity and resource in the world to be accurate, yet they refuse. When those publications aren't even trying to be truthful, not really, but their errors are called "God's truth", which is it - ignorance or outright lies? If we call it ignorance, then it is willful ignorance. If they had an opportunity to correct themselves but refused, that betrays purpose and intent. It is willful! Like when Dave Pack gets the timing of Christ's return wrong ...for the 927th time. At what point does willful ignorance cross over to an opportunistic lie? Do the willfully ignorant not lie to themselves? Yes. Does sharing that with the world in hopes of finding a few who will agree and provide some affirmation make it any less a lie? No.

Did anyone ever consider that maybe, just maybe, Christian people are fully capable of inventing new, ridiculous things all on their own? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, medieval Christians did not absorb every last thing they did from defunct pagan societies 1,000+ years prior? I've shown over the years that some things are demonstrably pagan in origin. I've never denied that. It happened! (I reject "once pagan, always pagan". It's anti-Biblical.) But that really is the minority of things. Want to know what I believe is the "most pagan" holiday of the year? No, not Halloween. Not Christmas. It's New Year. It goes to show you, Christians have invented - all on their own - quite a bit of absolutely nonsensical things.
Think about it. Christians are capable of reading one book and coming up with 45,000 different denominations from it. I think they've got sufficient imagination for the task.

I get it! Some of those things are just weird. They are! How could Christians come up with silly, infantile things like kissing under mistletoe, or hunting rabbit eggs, or Adventism? How could Christians come up with a fat guy who flies around delivering toys down chimneys? Why would Christians call a tradition after Yule, like the Yule log, if it wasn't from Yule? Sure seems pagan to me!
Well, there's the problem right there. "Seems" and "Is" are entirely different things. It doesn't matter what we think; all that matters is what actually is. And if there's one thing I've hammered away at since 2008, it's showing the thing everyone just knows is true is rarely actually true at all. There are definitely some details to history that we all need to be aware of before we judge, and most of us were never told those things, so we make exceedingly poor judges.

This isn't a matter of doctrinal viewpoint we're talking about. If you say you believe in soul sleep and provide some verses to explain, I could say I disagree but I see how you built your case and we can discuss. But if you say Christmas Trees are really Nimrod Trees and everyone's a pagan pagan pagan, then there is nothing to discuss because it's completely fake. A lie. If you say God didn't want people to know the truth so He let Satan change the historical records to hide facts, then there is nothing to discuss because it's ridiculous. It's unsupportable. Made up. Yet, year after tiresome year, there we go hearing this same story. Christmas is coming up fast and I bet we'll hear it again this year.

Larry the quote guy up there, he just wanted well enough. He warned about the moral failures in little white lies. OK. I hear ya. I know where his motivation came from and I genuinely appreciate it to a point, yet ... he called specific things pagan which are actually not pagan. So, that's a little lie too.
Whoops.
Gonna talk, "Does God say it anywhere in the Bible it's ok to tell a white lie," while telling a white lie? That has an appreciable effect on one's credibility.
(I don't mean to pick on Larry. He's just got the misfortune of being my example for this post.)

To go around "enlightening" people about how they really need to know some absolutely false claim, and that faithful Christians are really demon-worshipping pagan enemies of our Lord because of it, is not something I would recommend. You see, there's this little thing called the Ninth Commandment. You know, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." I take a very different approach to the Ten Commandments now than I used to, but I still find there are good lessons in them for all people. Making the shortcomings of our sinful nature plain to us is one of those legitimate uses of the law. Bearing false witness against your neighbor is to judge them falsely, and to judge your neighbor falsely is to condemn yourself. The entire business is a violation of the New Covenant law of love. The only way to be counted as righteous and forgiven is to be faithful to the Covenant you are in. "Righteousness" is a covenant word. Can't maintain that if you're violating the Covenant, now can you? No. So, it might be a good idea to just stop and think things out.

Which is the worse offense: to condemn yourself by falsely accusing your fellow Christian, or to participate in an old tradition with uncertain origins? I think Paul answered that one in Romans 14.

Don't like trick-or-treat? Don't go! Don't feel comfortable with Christmas Trees? Don't have them in your home! Hate pastels and eggs and bunnies? I sure do! Nothing says you have to have them. If it's wrong for you then it's wrong for you. Don't do it. Your faith is between you and your Lord. Please keep in mind your faith is not between someone else and their Lord, though. Let them stand before their Lord because their Lord is able to make them stand. Our job is to help and defend our fellow Christian, not accuse and condemn them (or ourselves).

I urge you - avoid the false accusations, backing up your claims with misguided opinions and ridiculous nonsense from known charlatans (like Alexander Hislop for instance) - or worse still, backing them up with nothing at all - and repeating lies told by Peddlers of Paganism whose real intent is just to fleece people like a sheep anyway. There's money to be made in these false accusations - like spiritual arms dealers, condemning people for fun and profit. As if there was no way to make lying even worse than it already is.
Avoid these things. That's my advice.

I pray God bless you and guide you to Himself, dear reader, this day and always.

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

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

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

Third Tithe

If you are here to read an article on third tithe, chances are you are from an Armstrongist church or you have somehow come in contact with one. For those unfamiliar with Armstrongism, they preach mandatory tithing. As Bereans Did has multiple articles on tithing (see our Categories page). Those articles compare and contrast what the Bible says and what ancient Israel did versus what the Armstrongist splinter churches practice currently. That's what we do here.
Today, I want to look at that third tithe. We will focus on the two main proof-texts used, from Deuteronomy 14 and 26. We are going to put the third tithe through the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet. Will it survive?

But before we begin, let's get something straight....

Tithing, as a system, was unique to the Old Covenant. Regardless of what someone might tell you about Abraham and Jacob tithing, there was no law for them (or us). What Abraham and Jacob did and what the Old Covenant law says to do are not the same. For example, Abraham gave a tenth of war spoils (then gave the rest away) whereas in Israel spoils were either not tithed at all or they were given at a far lower fraction than tenth. And Jacob negotiated his tithe as a reciprocity for God blessing him first. In Israel, it was non-negotiable. Just because Abraham and Jacob did a thing does not mean we must do that thing, else we would all be offering burnt sacrifices. Trying to bind tithing on us by referencing the priesthood of Melchizedek is also a dead end for the same reasons. Melchizedek accepted war spoils from Abraham. There is no mention of any other tithe there. No law. No precedent. No further examples. To say, "Jesus is in the order or Melchizedek," cannot bind anyone to anything beyond what the story of Melchizedek tells us. Melchizedek was not a priest of the Old Covenant. What Israel did with spoils and funding the priesthood when they left Egypt and what Israel did a century later are not the same. That is simply a fact. My point in this is - trying to shoehorn an Old Covenant law into the New Covenant will fail.
I am not a proponent of required tithing in the New Covenant era. I am opposed to any taking of law from the Old Covenant and by fiat moving it forward into the New Covenant (see our article "Confusing the Covenants"). Does tithing set a decent example of giving? Only when properly understood! Tithes were not gifts, they were mandatory, and accompanied with an oath. The system today is freewill giving. In the early church, people would sell extra land and items and give it all to the church. That's more than a tenth. And Peter once said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you". That's giving of a completely different sort. The Lord loves a generous giver.

I know some out there might think I am only here to do anything and everything I can to trash the idea of third tithe. I promise you that is not the case. That is not how the As Bereans Did patented gauntlet works. I am only interested in investigating the issue from the whole and best evidence I can find without insisting on a particular conclusion. In the absence of forcing a conclusion because I demand that conclusion, things turn out the way they do on their own. If it's valid then it's valid, and if not then not. The truth can take care of itself. But this I will say - if you are not prepared to challenge, or even change, your ideas, or if you search only to be affirmed, As Bereans Did articles aren't going to be very valuable to you.

BASICS

Tithing is one of the main pillars of Herbert Armstrong's doctrine. I think there are five main pillars in the system, mostly from the Old Covenant:

• Weekly seventh-day Sabbath
• Seven annual holy days
• Tithing (10% on money income) x3
• Clean/unclean meats
• End-times prophecy

See how tithing is multiplied by three there? Traditionally, Armstrongism recognizes three tithes. Yes, 30%, all off the gross. The first tithe goes to the church, the second is retained and set aside to fund the annual holy days (actually, just the Feast of Tabernacles), and the third goes to the church to assist needy church members (which is not always how it is used).

The third tithe only happens every third year. So, it's not like every year they are paying 30% of their income. In no year is the amount ever 10%, but in the third year, all total, the amount coughed up can be well in excess of 30%.

There is at least one notable splinter church, the United Church of God, who now rejects third tithe. But overall, that's how things go in broad strokes.

You can imagine what losing 30%+ of your income would do to a family. Some endure extreme poverty every third year. Canned beans have been a staple meal for some families. The alternative is simply not to pay that third tithe. Some few do get an extraordinary dispensation to skip third tithe, as this tithe was supposed to go to the poor not come from them. But to discourage people from seeking an out from the third tithe, a stream of stories are released telling tales of the unexpected blessings one receives by giving the third tithe. "You cannot outgive God," is frequently repeated. I personally attended a COG splinter church where one man would talk about blessings during the third tithe year and at the same time another man would talk about wearing shoes with holes during third tithe year. As a young man with very little to my name, I decided to skip third tithe. I felt pretty blessed by that. In addition, it was frequently said that since the third tithe is for the poor, and since most societies have a social safety net (e.g., Welfare and Social Security in the U.S.), then the third tithe was not necessary. I tend to agree with that, but if the entire reason why we're talking about this in the first place is "God's law" then how can you just bypass it?

If so many obvious blessings, then why so many attempts to circumvent it? If it was required in the unchanging law, then why try to get out from under it via social safety nets? If it was intended to go to the poor, then why require it of the poor? And why did it not actually go to the poor, all of it? It was well known that third tithe was not actually exclusively employed to assist to members in need. (That is not to say the churches did not do anything for their own poor members, but members were offered some form of assistance if requested, which was sometimes required to be paid back, rather than being handed a fair share of the third tithe.)

JEWISH PRACTICE

When talking about the Old Testament it is only natural to ask, do the Jews recognize third tithe? Yes! ...and no.

There is evidence in Rabbinical literature and some ancient sources like Josephus and Philo to support the notion of three tithes. I will start with the modern Jews and get to the ancient ones in a bit.
This from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Tithes:

"...there were three kinds of tithes: (1) that given to the Levites as stated in Num. xviii. 21 et seq., and termed "the first tithe" ("ma'aser rishon"); (2) the tithe which was to be taken to Jerusalem and there consumed by the landowner and his family, and which was termed "the second tithe" ("ma'aser sheni"), it being taken from what remained after the first tithe had been appropriated; and (3) that given to the poor ("ma'aser 'ani"). Therefore two tithes were to be taken every year except in the seventh year: Nos. 1 and 2 in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years; Nos. 1 and 3 in the third and sixth years."
- Joseph Jacobs, M. Seligsohn, Wilhelm Bacher. (2021). "Tithe". Jewish Encyclopedia. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14408-tithe.

To summarize, the Jews recognize three tithes but in any given year only two were taken. 

Notice the second and third tithes are the same tithe. Hence why I say yes and no. The difference is in how it is used. For two years it is taken on the three annual pilgrimage festivals to Jerusalem to be enjoyed by the one who gave it, and for one year it was collected locally and given to the local poor and the Levite.

One additional thing to bring to your attention here: there was no tithe at all in the seventh year. How can this be? Because of the Land Sabbath (EXO. 23: 10-11; LEV. 1-7, 20-22). Since tithing was primarily of the land, and because certain verses were very specific about the tithe coming from grains, then there could be no tithe in the seventh year. Granted, the tithe of the sixth year would be more. Still, all sources that I could find agree that there was no tithe at all in the seventh year, the Year of Release. Why there would be no tithe on items like cattle or fruit trees, neither of which stop in the seventh year, is unknown to me at this time. Some sources seem to suggest they did not stop, others say there was no tithe in the seventh year because it was the Year of Release.

One last thing to bring to your attention here: the tithes are not all equal in size. They are not all taken from the gross total. The first tithe was taken off the top, then the second/third tithe from what was left over. This effectively makes the second/third tithe 1/10th smaller than the one before it. Tithes were not 10% of the gross total, but 1/10th of the increase you had before you. This forces each tithe to be smaller than the previous. (See our article "Tithing - You're Doing It Wrong" for more.)

Armstrongism would be challenged by this arrangement, since the second tithe is understood as the primary means of funding the Feast of Tabernacles, and since they recognize no seventh year break, and since all tithes are taken as 10% of the entire income as a whole. How can there be a Feast without funding? (Bear in mind the unchanging law says to go three times a year, not just once.) And how can there be a Millionaire's Row or the Tsar's gold flatware or $2,500 bottles of Remy Martin Louis XIII cognac in the special baccarat decanter or television shows or ads in the Reader's Digest without a constant stream of money, money, and more money? Why become a false prophet in the first place if not to soak sheep of their money?

So, we have a dilemma - Jews or Armstrong? We need more evidence to help us decide. The two places in the Bible to get that evidence are Deuteronomy 14: 28-29 and 26: 12.

DEUTERONOMY 14

Let's go to Deuteronomy 14, but let's start in verse 22.

(DEU. 14: 22-23) 22 You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. 23 And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always.

Anyone from the Armstrongist system will recognize these verses. "They describe the second tithe." These verses are seen as the tithe for funding the Feast of Tabernacles, because it says this tithe is taken to "the place where the Lord places His name" (which actually refers to where the Holy of Holies was kept, but Armstrongism interprets it as meaning any and all cities where the church chooses to host a Feast of Tabernacles site).

You might be thinking I've started too soon, in the wrong section. I came here for a reason. A textual reason.

The lack of any clear thought-break between verses 27 and 28 creates some options:
1) Is 14: 28 an unbroken continuation of the prior section that starts in verse 22, thus taking from second tithe?
2) Or, does 14: 28 start a completely new idea but take from the first tithe?
3) Or, does 14: 28 start a completely new idea that institutes a separate third tithe?
All options have their supporters and their complications.

1) Second Tithe

If you side with verse 28 being an unbroken continuation, that means the tithe mentioned in verse 28 is one and the same as the tithe mentioned in verse 22. In other words, the second tithe and the third are the same tithe. This option damages both second and third tithes.

It damages the second because in that year the tithe was not to go to "the place where the Lord places His name" but it was to be stored up and given to the local Levite, the poor, and the needy. This means every third year the second tithe was not used for funding holy days. It became a local fund instead.

(DEU. 14: 28) At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce of that year and store it up within your gates.

This damages the third tithe because there is no distinct third tithe here at all. The second tithe becomes the third.

You should know, this appears to be the option the Jews go with. This from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Tithes:

"Every third year the tithes were not to be carried to the city of the Temple, but were to be stored at home ("within thy gates"), and "the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow" were to "eat and be satisfied" (ib. verse 29). It is to be concluded that, the seventh year being a Sabbatical year and no tithing being permissible therein, the tithe of the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of every cycle of seven years had to be brought to the Temple and eaten by the landowner and his family, while the tithe of the third and sixth years was to be left at home for the poor."
- Joseph Jacobs, M. Seligsohn, Wilhelm Bacher. (2021). "Tithe". Jewish Encyclopedia. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14408-tithe.

A big difference exists between how the Jews view the second tithe and how Armstrongists view it. Armstrongists view it as a means to pay for the Feast of Tabernacles. Jews view it not as a means to pay for the holy days but as a bonus to be enjoyed at the holy days. The funding was entirely separate.

The biggest fault in this option is that all males still needed to go to "the place where the Lord places His name" three times each year, "and they shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed" (DEU. 16: 16).

2) New Idea Taking From First Tithe

Some people feel verse 28 starts a completely new idea, but it does not institute a new tithe, rather it gives modified instructions for the first tithe. This is similar to option 1. Where the Jews see the third and second tithes as being the same, some people feel the third and first tithes are the same. This option complicates the first tithe and damages the third tithe.

This complicates the first tithe because these tithes always went to the Levites. If you read DEU. 14: 29, you can see the first group mentioned to whom this third tithe was given is the Levite. Why mention the tithe should go to the Levite if the tithe already went to the Levite? Then again, the way the Bible is written, it almost makes sense. God is big on details like this. So, if the tithe was for the Levite normally but for the Levite and the poor in the third year, mentioning the Levite does fit the pattern of how the Bible is worded elsewhere.
Of course, this would mean the Levites and the Aaronic Priests lived on less in the third year. I do not find this to be a deal breaker because no matter what you do - add a tithe or modify an existing tithe - someone is going to live on less.

This damages the third tithe because there is no distinct third tithe here at all. The first tithe becomes the third.

The biggest fault in this option is the lack of historical support. I can find nothing in modern or ancient Jewish literature to support this option. I can't imagine any Levites would be in favor of this.

3) New Idea Creating A Third Tithe

Some people feel verse 28 starts a completely new idea and creates a distinct tithe in the third year. This does not complicate the first or the second tithes at all. It does not make the Levites live with less, in fact it appears to offer them even more than normal because now they get the entire first tithe and part of the third. We just need to find some support for this option.

Josephus actually writes about tithes in his book "Antiquities of the Jews":

"(22) Besides those two tithes, which I have already said you are to pay every year, the one for the Levites, the other for the festivals, you are to bring every third year a third tithe to be distributed to those that want; (23) to women also that are widows, and to children that are orphans."
-Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews", book IV, chapter 8, verse 22-23, from Early Jewish Writings https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant4.html.

Isn't that odd now? Josephus clearly supports option 3 even though the modern Jewish Encyclopedia sides with option 1. I guess it's true what they say - where there are two Jews there are three opinions.

Do we have any other evidence from antiquity? Yes. Evidence comes to us from the apocryphal book of Tobit.

(TOB. 6: 8a) But every third year, I would give a third tithe to widows and orphans and to foreigners living among my people, and we would eat the festival meal together.

Armstrongists usually rail against the apocryphal books, calling them all forms of negativity. I bet they aren't doing that right now. Say what you will about Tobit, it is without a doubt an old writing. In this case, old equals good.

Additionally, Josephus and Tobit make it clear the three tithes were distinct from other requirements such as sacrificing the first fruits of harvest and cattle. The third year must have been quite the leap of faith!

The biggest fault in this option is ... well, there is no particular fault. It's pretty sound.

I am forced to side with option 3! The best candidate of the three options is #3: there is a distinct third tithe in the Old Covenant. Herbert Armstrong was actually right.
Bet you didn't see THAT coming, did ya?

But, we aren't quite done yet. Let's go to Deuteronomy 26.

DEUTERONOMY 26

(DEU. 26: 12a) When you have finished laying aside all the tithe of your increase in the third year—the year of tithing...

Even though the case for a third tithe is solid by this point, I wanted to come here anyway to look at a certain detail.
See verse 12 there, how it says, "in the third year"? Contrast that with Deu. 14: 28 where it says, "At the end of every third year". Some people who simply abandon Jewish history and attempt to define these things on their own get confused over them. Why? Why reinvent the wheel on a point like this? They aren't tithing according to what the laws says anyway, so why get hung up on a detail like this? Yet, alas, the weeds are too tempting a place to play for some.

There is quite a bit of consensus that "in" and "at the end of" mean the same thing. It had to be the same thing since all the people acted all together. What was that time? It depends on what was tithed. Different dates were necessary since the items tithed upon cannot all be stored up for the same length of time without rotting.

From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Temple Scroll 11Q19 [p.166 of that link] mentions two dates: the Day of Firstfruits (which happens after Passover day during Unleavened Bread) and the 3rd of Av (Day of New Wine). It is unclear if there were other dates.
The Mishnah, on the other hand, lists three different dates to gather tithable items. Grain, wine, oil, and vegetables were the 1st of Tishri. Fruit trees were the 15th of Shavat. Cattle were not part of the third tithe but their day was 1st of Elul.

So, you see, it depends.

Is this a huge point to inspect? No. But I have read many articles recently and there seems to be confusion on this point. I find it perplexing that so many who bind themselves to Old Covenant law seem to be comfortable with a "make it up as you go along" approach to things. Throwing away clear Bible instruction (like what to tithe on and to whom) then striving against unclear instruction (like when the year of tithing begins and ends) seems to me to be straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

THE THIRD YEAR

There is one final detail I want to bring up. When the bible says "third year" what does it mean?

The nation of Israel worked altogether as one in cycles. There was a weekly cycle of seven days. There was a Pentecost cycle of seven weeks. There was an annual cycle of seven years. And there was a Jubilee cycle of 7x7 (49) years. These cycles were not independent per each citizen of Israel, they were communal. Everyone followed the same cycle at the same time. In Armstrongism, tithing is personal. Each person independently tithes 20% for two years then 30% on the third year, based on when they were baptized. That is not how it went in Israel. It was communal.

All Israel experienced at one and the same time an event the Bible calls "the year of tithing" (DEU. 26: 12a). The question is: was this only year 3 out of 7, or was it years 3 and 6 out of 7? As with everything else in this life, you can find articles supporting either option. When I first started researching for this post I used DuckDuckGo to search for "year of tithing" and its AI assistant told me it's year 3 out of 7. The most reliable evidence I've found since, however, sides with years 3 and 6 out of 7. Lesson: take AI with a big grain of salt.

But I want you to be aware of something here. Saying "years 3 and 6 out of 7" is not the same as saying "every third year". Why not? Because Israel was in a seven-year cycle. After year seven, it resets. I will explain.

Ancient Israel worked on a cycle of seven years. That is 1 through 7, then 1 through 7, then 1 through 7, repeatedly. When we say "every third year" it can be misunderstood as 1 through 3, then 1 through 3, then 1 through 3, repeatedly. The difference comes crashing in at year 9. In a 7-year cycle, year 9 is not a third tithe year. In an "every third year" cycle, year 9 is a third tithe year.

Perhaps this table will make it easier to visualize:

Year #	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
7-Year	1	2	third tithe	4	5	third tithe	NO tithe	1	2	third tithe
3-Year	1	2	third tithe	1	2	third tithe	1	2	third tithe	1

See there? In year seven, there should be no tithe at all. In year eight, the 7-year cycle begins again. You will not have a third tithe again until year ten. There is a three-year break from third tithe in there because the system resets.
That is not the same as how an "every third year" cycle works. Armstrongism employs an "every third year" cycle. This is not Biblical!

CONCLUSION

Today we put the third tithe through the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet and ... it survived!!

Turns out the oldest sources I could find - Josephus and Tobit - are all in on the idea. This means that anciently (at least during the Second Temple period) Israel had three distinct tithes.
This is a surprising turn of events. And for anyone of an Armstrongist bent, hopefully this demonstrates the patented gauntlet is aligned true neutral.

That doesn't mean I have nothing to criticize Armstrongism for.

The system claims to demand tithes because of the law. "The law! The law! God's unchanging law!" Bear in mind Armstrongism makes many claims of following the eternal law, but frequently changes or ignores the law.
For example, the law says tithing is a 1/10 not 10%, of the increase not the total gross, and of field, orchard, garden, and flock not money income, but they ignore that. Or, when the law says three tithes not just two, but they ignore that. Or, when the law says there are three pilgrimage holy days not just one, but they changed that. Or, when the law says to whom the tithe should go but the tithe never goes to a Levite because they changed that. Or, when the law says to tithe and give the entire tithe to the needy, but they mostly ignore that. Or, when the law says a tithe-of-a-tithe is to be paid by the Levites to the Aaronic Priests, not by the people in the seats to the Ministry, but they changed that. Or, when the law says to let the land rest every seventh year, which means there can be no tithe that year, but that is entirely ignored. Armstrongism doesn't strictly adhere to any of these laws, just to name a few.
"The law! The law! ...Just not that law."

Why do we tithe? Because the unchanging law says so. But the unchanging law says exactly how to tithe. That law has changed; ignore it.

See?

And, once again I feel compelled to remind you, beloved of God, none of these Old Covenant laws apply in the New Covenant anyway. Laws do not migrate from contract to contract. And none of these laws applied to Gentiles. Gentiles were strangers to that Covenant. Gentiles need not become Jews in order to be Christians.
The New Covenant runs on freewill giving not compulsory tithing. If you opt to tithe for your giving, then tithe, but if you opt not to, then don't let anyone guilt you into tithing. Those who tell you we must all tithe are not tithing in the manner the law demands anyhow. The next time you are told you must tithe, ask if you can pay in tomatoes. I bet that doesn't go over well.

If tithe laws do not apply to us, is there any benefit in them for us? Yes!
At the outset of this article, I said this, "Does tithing set a decent example of giving? Only when properly understood!" A proper understanding is critical. The law was not written to us but it was written for our benefit and edification. Imagine you are sitting on a park bench listening to two people have an interesting conversation. Were they talking to you? No. But can you still benefit? Yes! The laws of tithing taught Israel to depend on God, to thank God, and to be generous to others. Those principles are still good! They are good for us because of the divine principal of Love rather than the Old Covenant law. Though these laws do not apply to us directly, we can still learn their lessons. Let your contemplation of tithe law bear the fruits of faith, thankfulness, and generosity. Faith and Love! It's our calling.

God bless you in this, dear reader!

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

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

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