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

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

What About the Gentiles? - Part II

Some say the Covenants and the Savior were for Israel only. This series explores one of the Bible's biggest themes: how God called Israel to reclaim all people through Jesus Christ. Along the way, we'll ask what that means for the covenants, the law, the Gentiles, and Israel itself.

---

I've seen it thrown at Christians many times in the past, by a very small but vocal minority, that the Biblical covenants were made with Israel only. The conclusion we are supposed to reach form this is: therefore Gentiles are rejected unless they become Jews first in order to become Christians. (Or, to be more precise, unless they become like the people who are making these kinds of accusations.) And so we end up hearing questions like, "Is Jesus the Messiah of the Gentiles?" and "Are the Gentiles even called?"

In the last post, we went over the backstory to see why the world needed reclamation in the first place. We found the Bible story is all one big loop. And it turns out, we owe quite a bit of thanks to God for what He accomplished through Israel to bring Jesus Christ to us, and through Jesus to draw us back to Him. He wanted it so badly that He was willing to die for it.
In this post, we are going to look at the Bible verses throughout the Old Testament and the New which predict the reclamation of the Gentiles.

The challenge we set for ourselves is, we have to do this post without relying on Paul. And so we shall.

The next section is going to be verse-heavy. I am going to try to make this as easy for everyone as possible. I will put a few lists of verses for you to check out later on. Don't feel obligated to read these now (unless you really want to). This is a handy place to keep these for when you're ready. After that, I have chosen a few select verses which really emphasize the points we are trying to get at.

FOUNDATIONS

Let's get started with the Old Testament first.

OLD TESTAMENT

Here are two lists of verses about the inclusion of the Gentiles:

Universal worship for the nations:
GEN. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14.
PSA. 22:27-28; 67:2-7; 72:17; 86:9; 96:3, 7-10; 98:2-3; 102:15; 117:1.
ISA. 2:2-4; 11:10; 25:6-8; 40:5, 22; 42:1-4; 45:22-23; 49:6; 52:10; 60:1-3; 62:2; 66:18-19.
JER. 4:2; 16:19; 3:17.
DAN. 7:14.
MIC. 4:1-3.
HAB. 2:14.
ZEP. 2:11; 3:9-10.
ZEC. 8:20-23; 9:9-10; 14:16.
HOS. 2:23
MAL. 1:11.

Inclusion of Gentiles into redemption:
GEN. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14.
DEU. 32:43.
ISA. 11:10-12; 19:23-25; 42:6; 49:6; 56:3-8; 66:19-21.
JER. 12:14-17.
AMO. 9:11-12.
ZEC. 2:11.
ZEP. 3:9-10.

And now, I have chosen some interesting selections for you.

(GEN. 12:3b) [speaking of Abraham] And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

(GEN. 22:18) [speaking of Abraham] In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

(PSA. 67:1-7) 1 God be merciful to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us, Selah. 2 That Your way may be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations. 3  Let the peoples praise You, O God; let all the peoples praise You. 4 Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, and govern the nations on earth. Selah. 5 Let the peoples praise You, O God; let all the peoples praise You. 6 Then the earth shall yield her increase; God, our own God, shall bless us. 7 God shall bless us, and all the ends of the earth shall fear Him.

(ISA. 19:23-25) 23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, 25 whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”

(ISA. 42:1,6) [speaking of Jesus (MAT. 12:17; LUK. 2:32)] 1 “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; ... 6 He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, as a light to the Gentiles.

(AMO. 9:11-12) 11 “On that day I will raise up the  tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; 12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” says the Lord who does this thing.

(ZEC. 2:10-11) 10 “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the Lord. 11 “Many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you.

(ZEP. 3:9) “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one accord.

This is perhaps my favorite selection of all:

(ISA. 49:6) [speaking of the Jesus and the Apostles (ACT. 13:47)] Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’

Does that sound to you like the Gentiles are not saved? Doesn't sound like that to me.
The prooftexts from the first post were not by any means the only material we have on this subject. Reading the Bible did get us a bigger picture after all. The reclamation and salvation of the Gentiles was prophesied in the Old Testament. They were to become His people and be called by His name. It was to happen through the Messiah. The prophets and writers expected it. They waited and hoped for it.
What are people going to do now, rip out Isaiah, Zechariah, the Psalms, and Abraham from their Bibles?

Now, let's look at this from the New Testament.

NEW TESTAMENT

Here is a list of verses about the inclusion of the Gentiles:

MAT. 5:14-16; 8:11–12; 12:18–21; 21:43; 26:28; 28:19.
MAR. 11:17; 14:24.
LUK. 2:32; 3:6; 24:47.
JON. 1:29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 8:12; 95; 10:16; 12:32.
ACT. 1:8; 10–11 (all); 15 (all); 21:25; 28:28.
I PET. 2:9–10.
REV. 5:9; 7:9; 14:16; 15:4; 22:2.

And now, I have chosen some interesting selections for you.

(MAT. 2:28)  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

(MAT. 28:19) [Jesus giving commission to the Apostles] Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

(LUK. 2:29-32) [Simeon speaking about Jesus] 29 “Now, Lord, You are letting Your bond-servant depart in peace, according to Your word; 30 for my eyes have seen Your salvation, 31 which You have prepared in the presence of all the peoples: 32 A light for revelation for the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel.”

(LUK. 24:45-47) [Jesus, after His resurrection, to the Apostles] 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

(ACT. 10:34-35, 42-45) [Peter to Cornelius] 34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him. ... 42 And He ordered us to preach to the people, and to testify solemnly that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify of Him, that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles.

(I JON. 4: 14) And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.

(REV. 5:9) And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the scroll and to break its seals; for You were slaughtered, and You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation.

(REV. 21:24-26) 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; 26 and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it;

The New Testament did not invent this. What was predicted in the Old is fulfilled in the New. At the exact same time as God set His mind to reject the Gentiles and build Israel, God planned and promised salvation, forgiveness, justice, and regathering for all the peoples of the earth, both Jew and Gentile. That promise has been fulfilled. By Sabbaths and meats? No. In the person of Jesus Christ by faith. Before He died, while it was yet in the Old Covenant period, He told His Apostles to go to the Jews only. After His death and the coming of the New Covenant, the orders He gave them were very different. He sent the Apostles to spread the good news to the ends of the earth - starting at Jerusalem. Because it was time. "To the Jew first, and then to the Gentile." And even to us. As Jesus said, "for many."

CIRCLING BACK

Everything in these two posts tell the same story. What was predicted in Eden has come to pass. What was broken at Babel is now healed. The Gentiles who were disinherited are now reclaimed. He who was not our God is again our God. We who were not His people are again His people. Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, everyone who believes in Him, to the glory of God the Father, so the entire earth can be filled with the knowledge of God (HAB. 2:14).

How can anyone look at this and still wonder if the Gentiles are included in the New Covenant? Because the Jesus never says the exact phrase "The New Covenant hereby includes the Gentiles"?? Did Jesus not say His blood is the New Covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins? Did Jesus Himself not say that He has cleansed the Gentiles? And did Peter not say the Gentiles who believe in Him have remission of sins? How can that happen without His blood, which is the blood of the New Covenant? It is a miserable, desperate argument to dismiss a thing only because it isn't worded a certain way.

But this is where the Gentile needs an extra helping of humility and thankfulness. God was not required do any of this. We certainly did not get here on our own. Thank God we were reclaimed from that hopeless condition ...by the Messiah who came through Israel from Abraham. Glad you are saved by faith in the Messiah? Consider thanking a Jew for Israel's part in the coming of the Messiah.

PAUL

Notice something. We have now gone from Abraham, through Moses, the Psalms, Isaiah, Amos, Zechariah, the Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, and Revelation... without needing Paul. 

Only after establishing all of this would we need to mention Paul. Paul didn't invent the inclusion of the Gentiles. He plainly says as much (GAL. 3:8). Notice that the narrative about Cornelius, the first Gentile to receive the Holy Spirit, technically begins in the same chapter of Acts where Saul is converted (ACT. 9). You can't blame that on Paul! By now, we've long since demonstrated the point: Paul did not invent Gentile inclusion. All he did was read his scriptures. He is one witness among many to a plan that runs from Eden to the New Jerusalem.

I ask, do some people reject Paul because he preached something contrary to the Bible, or does the Bible itself teach something contrary to these people's own narrative and agenda? Hopefully you can plainly see the answer for yourself. So, which should we reject?

(II PET. 3:16) as also in all [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Now, let's include Paul into the mix --

In Jesus, the blessings promised to and through Abraham have come. Abraham is the father of us all (ROM. 4:13-16), spiritually speaking, through our joining to Jesus (GAL.3:14), the rightful heir of the promises and the one through whom all the promises come. Gentiles are no longer required to join the physical nation of Israel in order to join the covenant. Instead, we all - Jew and Gentile - join Jesus, the true Israel of God. Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches (JON. 15:5; ROM. 11:17-24). Gentiles are grafted into this "olive tree", as Paul metaphorically puts it. The two peoples are made one (EPH. 2:14-18). In Him, we are no longer what we were, but a new creation (GAL. 6:15; II COR. 5:17; REV. 21:5). We are born again (JON. 3: 3-8; I PET. 1:22-23; II COR. 5:16-17; TIT. 3:5).

Remember this from the last post? All mankind → Abraham → Isaac.  Abraham → Messiah → All mankind.
Now, read Galatians 3:7-9.

It all fits together.

CONCLUSION

What have we seen about Jesus saving the Gentiles?

1. The Old Testament promises it (the list of prophetic passages).
2. Jesus announces it and commands it (the Gospels).
3. Luke records it happening (Acts, especially Cornelius and the Jerusalem Council).
4. Peter and John affirm it (1 Peter 2; I John 4).
5. Revelation shows its consummation (especially the vision of every nation worshiping God).
6. Paul preaches it (reframing everything in the light of Christ).

Were the Covenants (plural) made with Israel? Yes.
Is Jesus the Savior of the Gentiles? Yes.
Is the New Covenant extended to the Gentiles? Yes.
Do we need Paul to demonstrate this? No.

I put six verses in the first post to build the case against Gentile inclusion. There is so much more to this than just, "Here is a verse about the Covenants being made with Israel, so how can the Gentiles be saved?" For the people who say the Gentiles are not reclaimed, or that Jesus is not the Savior of the Gentiles, I say try reading the whole Bible. It explains everything.

Does any of this mean Israel is now rejected the way the Gentiles once were? No!! Israel is not at all rejected. The two have been made one. Of course we still need Israel. Israel is not abandoned now that the Gentiles are reclaimed. Israel was the first one invited into the New Covenant. Gentile inclusion does not lessen what was done through Israel, it fills it up. And, by the way, believing Jews don't need to stop being who they are in order to join.

But that is for another article.

I leave you with a prayer, dear reader and beloved by God. I pray the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ looks on you with mercy and love and opens your heart to the wonderful story of salvation, which is for all peoples, and was thousands of years in the making. And that in this salvation, achieved and secured by Jesus Christ for all of us who believe, you find true rest.

(PSA. 40:9-10) 9 I have proclaimed the good news of righteousness in the great assembly; indeed, I do not restrain my lips, O Lord, You Yourself know. 10 I have not hidden Your righteousness within my heart; I have declared Your faithfulness and Your salvation; I have not concealed Your lovingkindness and Your truth from the great assembly.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:
Once And Future Kingdom - Part I
Once And Future Kingdom - Part II
Just What Do You Mean 'Gospel'?
What Is The Gospel?
'Born Again' and the Kingdom of God
Gennao: Just What Does It Mean?
Two Trees - Two Covenants
My Opinion Is God's Truth

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

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

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

What About the Gentiles? - Part I

Some say the Covenants and the Savior were for Israel only. This series explores one of the Bible's biggest themes: how God called Israel to reclaim all people through Jesus Christ. Along the way, we'll ask what that means for the Covenants, the law, the Gentiles, and Israel itself.

---

BIG ideas to discuss. Guessing this will have to be a two-parter. I wonder if I can even do this topic justice, and if not then why bother? But I think I have to at least try to write about this. I've touched on this topic in the past but never really went into any depth on it. Time to weigh in, it seems. I go where the Spirit leads. Now, on to the set up!

I've seen it thrown at Christians many times in the past, by a very small but vocal minority, that the Biblical covenants were made with Israel only. The conclusion we are supposed to reach form this is: therefore Gentiles are rejected unless they become Jews first in order to become Christians.
(Or, to be more precise, unless they become like the people who are making these kinds of accusations.) And so we end up hearing questions like, "Is Jesus the Messiah of the Gentiles?" and "Are the Gentiles even called?"

I strongly disagree with these people.
...mostly.

It should be obvious that this entire "Jesus isn't the Messiah of the Gentiles" line is patently ridiculous on its face from a reading of the Bible, or church history with its 2,000 years of miracles and faith. But apparently a person can believe anything if they want it badly enough.

Looks like our work is cut out for us. In this series, we go through the Bible.
Let's start where they get it right. The two great covenants were made with Israel. It's true!

PLURAL

Here are some fundamental verses which we cannot simply ignore. This calls for humility on the part of the Gentiles. Swallow your pride with me, and read on.

(JER. 31: 31) Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...

Notice with whom God intended to make the Covenant. The author of Hebrews does not modify it.

(HEB. 8: 7-8) 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...

Paul confirms the covenants were made with Israel. Gentiles aren't mentioned.

(ROM. 9: 3-5) For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants [plural], the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Notice, "the covenants" is plural. The covenants are Israel's. Contrast that with the Gentiles.

(EPH. 2: 11-12) 11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants [plural] of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Again, covenants is plural. Strangers to the covenants.

Now, of course the New Covenant was going to be made with Israel because it replaces the Old Covenant. But there's more.

JESUS' MISSION

Let us not overlook what Jesus said about His own mission:

(MAT. 15:14) But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

That whole interaction there is quite telling. Easy to misunderstand, but telling.
The same thing happens when Jesus sent out the twelve on their first missionary journey:

(MAT. 10:5-6) 5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Not sent to Gentiles. Ouch.

By now I bet you're wondering what are the implications for the Gentiles? The verses above build a terrible case for us Gentiles. Let's not fool ourselves.

CONVENIENCE

Do we Gentiles have no place in the New Covenant? Are we without a Savior? Are we hopelessly and eternally lost?

No!

We are included. We are saved. We are reclaimed.

Didn't I just built up a case that the Gentiles are not included? Yes. But those verses are not the whole Bible. All I've given you so far are one-sided proof-texts. In the Protestant Bible, which is smaller than others, there are 66 books by 40 authors. I bet we can find more on this subject if we actually look.

I bet there are some who are already guessing I am about to rely entirely on Paul. There are some who reject Paul and call him a false Apostle because he says things they don't like ...until he starts saying things they do like. No, I am not at all basing this only on Paul. Not even close. And this very thing, dear reader, is what this post is really about:

Gentiles are reclaimed and we don't need Paul to demonstrate it.

That doesn't mean I will avoid citing Paul, though. I am not ashamed of Paul at all. I accept Paul. The other Apostles accepted Paul. The early church accepted Paul. I see no reason at all to avoid Paul. I think calling Paul a false Apostle is merely an act of convenience rather than a solid position. It's an attempt to eliminate the biggest rival. I won't go along with it.
That said, I am not going to rely on Paul in this post.

Even worse are the "Red Letter Christians"; the ones who only accept the parts of the New Testament that are direct quotes of Jesus (except for the Sheet Vision, the calling of Saul, quotes in Revelation, etc etc). So, we can agree enough with the Apostles to believe they followed and accurately quoted Jesus, but we think they are unreliable about everything else? <sarcasm>Makes perfect sense.</sarcasm>

I couldn't disagree more with a theology that rests on 'if I can't get my way, then I will rip content from the New Testament until it no longer says what I don't like.'

To start building a case, I think we must see how the Gentiles got into this mess in the first place. Understanding the start of the story is necessary if you want to understand the finish.

THREE STRIKES

How did the Gentiles come to this low state to begin with? Cut off from the Living God. Disinherited. Hopeless. Cursed.

I went over this already in "Once and Future King - Part I" and "Once and Future King - Part II". So, I will summarize. This is critical to the whole idea. Please, don't take this lightly.

All mankind rejected God three times: 1) the Garden of Eden, 2) the Great Flood, and 3) the Tower of Babel. Bear in mind there were no "Jews" or "Gentiles" yet. All peoples bear some responsibility for what happened then. At that point, God let us have it our way. We did not want God as our God? So be it. We can have our lesser spirit beings and our wood and stone idols, and our knowledge of good and evil, and everything that comes with it, including disinheritance from God. So, God chose to do what He did several times in the Old Testament: He started again through one person. Immediately after Babel begins the story of Abraham.

Abraham was called for several reasons: 1) to be the progenitor of God's chosen people, Israel, 2) to provide a way for the coming of the Messiah, 3) to initiate the eventual reclamation of the nations, and 4) because of 1-3, to bring blessings to all people.
Yes, reclamation and blessing. Read the commission God gave to Abram:

(GEN. 12:3) I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

All the families. In order for all families to be blessed, all families have to participate. That means the nations would be reclaimed. That means Gentiles.

Think about that. So here God is, separating Abraham so He can create Israel as His called and chosen inheritance in the whole world, because the world rejected Him, but before He even gets through the initial conversation, He is talking about the reclamation of the nations. Undoing that rejection was part of the rejection.
I mean, seriously ... that's amazing!

The Old Covenant had certain terms (laws) that were intended to keep Israel distinct from the Gentiles, and to keep Israel from following the Gentiles down the path toward idolatry and disinheritance. It's not that Gentiles weren't allowed near Israel, but the repeated warning was about the Gentiles' idolatry. Don't do what the Gentiles do and you won't get what the Gentiles got.
...but they did.

Once Messiah comes - more specifically, once Messiah dies - the goal is reached, the reason for Abraham being called out and Israel separated is fulfilled, the wound that happened at Babel is healed, the rejection is undone, and the distinctions made within the law between Israel and Gentile are no longer necessary (GAL. 3:19-24).

Remember those verses above where Jesus' mission was to Israel only? Well, yeah. None of those goals were reached yet. What time was it? The Old Covenant didn't end when He was born, it ended when He died. Of course His ministry before He died was to Israel only. It was the Old Covenant period!
A large part of what He came to do was to personally represent all Israel, as the True Israel, and fulfill Israel's end of the covenant because the Israelites wouldn't do it on their own. They wouldn't keep their end of the bargain, so God kept it for them. He is the law-keeper. He is the Covenant-keeper. Once it was fulfilled, then the Old Covenant could end. Was He supposed to confirm a New Covenant that wasn't even inaugurated yet?

He fulfilled it all. He died. The Old Covenant dissolved. In comes the New Covenant.

...but it wasn't revealed that the Gentiles were part of the plan for several more years. That means the New Covenant was ratified with Israel, precisely as scripture says. And that means Israel continues to have a special place in the New Covenant. The question becomes ... what do you mean by "Israel"? 

ABRAHAM AND ISAAC

Before we finish off, consider the puzzle that is Abraham.

Abraham was not an Israelite. Israel was Abraham's grandson. How can Abraham be a descendant of his own grandson? Yet he was not exactly a Gentile, either. Abraham was a special case. Called out of the nations, but never called a Gentile. He is a special hybrid. Like Noah, Abraham had one foot on either side. No other person can quite be said to have these qualities, not even Isaac.
Have you ever wondered why it is Abraham and then Isaac and then Israel? Why is Isaac in the middle like that?
Isaac has the very special role to play in that he mirrors where the Messiah comes in. He was the beloved son, the son of promise, born miraculously, symbolically sacrificed, through whom the promises and inheritance flowed.   Abraham → Isaac.     Abraham → Messiah.

To put that another way: All mankind → Abraham → Isaac.     Abraham → Messiah → All mankind.

It all fits together. It's all a circle. The end is pictured in the beginning.

Do you see how this is all a loop? The rejection at Babel and the healing at Calvary are connected. All people had a hand in rejecting God at the start, and all people had a hand in rejecting the Messiah at the finish. The finish loses context without the beginning. The finish corrects and heals the beginning. And now you understand why the Messiah is not for Israel only. The healing was not all about Israel alone. All peoples had a hand in causing the problem in the first place, so the solution is also about all peoples.

CONCLUSION

To recap -
It wasn't just the Gentiles who rejected God, it was all peoples. As a result, God called out one man, Abraham, in order to build Israel, His special covenant people. Israel was built specifically in order to bring about the Messiah. The Messiah is the means to heal the rejection that led to the calling of Abraham. It all comes around. If you know the overarching story in the Bible, then you know the Gentiles are going to be reclaimed.

(JON. 12:32) And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.

To think the Messiah came for Israel alone is to completely misunderstand the entire Bible.

People tend to think Jesus Christ came to save them from their personal sins. Sure. He did. But there's a whole lot more to it than just that. He came to save you from a much larger issue. Great and awesome is our God!

All of that was buildup, backstory if you will, a setting of the stage to what I really wanted to get into. In the next post, we are going to see how the reclamation of the Gentiles was predicted in multiple verses throughout the Old Testament and the New. No Paul necessary.

To help you move forward, I suggest these articles:
Common Legalist Arguments - Part VII
E Pluribus Unum
'Born Again' and the Kingdom of God
Gennao: Just What Does It Mean?
Two Trees - Two Covenants

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

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

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

It Literally Says Friday

When you encounter someone claiming that Jesus died on a Wednesday or Thursday, pay close attention to how Greek terms are being improperly redefined.

---

"There is not a verse, or a line, or a word anywhere in the New Testament that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday."
-H. A. Griesemer, "Crucifixion Day", The Religious Herald, April 13, 1922

I spent most of my life believing and preaching that the Friday crucifixion is a lie. I was convinced by what seemed like irrefutable evidence. No one from the Friday-Sunday camp seemed willing to explain their side to me. I concluded they didn't because they couldn't.
But are these claims, like the ones in the quote above, true? Is there nothing that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday? Did the people who were taught by the Apostles fumble the ball? Is Good Friday completely baseless?

Today, we are going to dig into the Bible and see for ourselves. Words have set meanings. That's why dictionaries were invented. We will see that the Greek tells us plainly what the English obscures.

WORD GAMES

We are going to look at the Greek words sabbaton and prosabbaton to see their proper definitions. It will become clear how they have been significantly altered to make way for a Wednesday or even Thursday crucifixion. I promise to do my best to make this complex information as simple as possible so everyone can understand it.

Sabbatōn σαββάτων "week" (MAT. 28:1)

This is the first of two different forms of sabbaton that we will look at. This one is plural, the other is singular. Same word, different form.

Let's look at the standard scholarly definition of sabbaton in the leading Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG):

1. the seventh day of the week in Israel’s calendar, i.e., the Sabbath (often used in both singular and plural forms).
2. by extension, a week (the period between two Sabbaths), again appearing in both singular and plural.

Proponents of a Wednesday crucifixion look at Matthew 28:1 and see that sabbaton is plural, then conclude there must have been two different kinds of sabbaths on two different days that week. Look through the definitions again and notice this possibility is not there. So, "there were two Sabbaths that week," is not a possible interpretation of Matthew 28: 1.
It's an interesting theory, it just cannot work, because it's based on defining the word sabbaton in an improper way.

Words are like containers, they contain thoughts and meanings. This word does not contain that meaning. The idea of two different kinds of sabbaths isn't coming from that container, it's being crammed into a container that cannot hold it. Should anyone translate it that way, then? No. But they do anyway.

So, how should it be translated? "Week".

This corresponds to definition #2 above, "the period between two Sabbaths." The plural sabbaton here is an idiom. It means "week" by referring to the time between two Sabbaths. That's weekly Sabbaths, specifically. A week is not defined as the time between two annual sabbaths or a combination of weekly and annual sabbaths.
In fact, every time you see the word "week" in the New Testament, it is translated from this form of sabbaton. Plural sabbaton was their main word for week.
It was also how the Greek-speaking Jews said weekday names. Sunday was "one of the Sabbaths" (first of the week), Monday "two of the Sabbaths" (second of the week), Tuesday "three of the Sabbaths" (third of the week), etc.

Also, know this - the plural sabbaton appears twice in Matthew 28:1. If the Wednesday camp is going to redefine the first sabbaton, then consistency demands they must treat the second in the same way, which would leave us with four sabbaths, not two.
"After the two Sabbaths were over, toward dawn on the first of the two Sabbaths."
Does that make any sense? No. Was Sunday a sabbath? No.

So, how should this second plural sabbaton be translated? "Week". They should both be week. But!
Matthew qualifies "week" with the words "one of" (first of). That addition turns this into a phrase meaning "Sunday" or "first day of the week". As I said earlier, Sunday was "one of the Sabbaths" (first of the week). This is exactly what Matthew wrote here for the second sabbaton.
So, transliterating this as "Sunday" or "first day of the week" is actually more accurate to the idea Matthew was trying to get across.

As you can see, the plural sabbaton is being stretched far beyond its proper usage in order to support a timeline it cannot naturally support. This causes more harm than it's solves.

Sabbatō σαββάτῳ "weekly Sabbath" (John 19: 31)

This is the second of two different forms of sabbaton that we will look at. It is the same word as Matthew 28, but singular. Same word, different form, still refers to the weekly Sabbath.

The Wednesday camp will protest that sabbaton here in John is an annual holy day. Yes, we do have a holy day here. No one denies that. But there's something we need to pay close attention to. Let's take a look at the relevant section from John:

τῷ (the) σαββάτῳ (weekly Sabbath) ἦν (was) γὰρ (for) μεγάλη (a high) ἡ ἡμέρα (day)

Sabbaton still refers to the weekly Sabbath as sabbaton naturally does, but it is qualified after the fact by additional words that indicate it was also a high day.

It was not a standalone high day separate from the weekly Sabbath. We saw in the previous section how "there were two Sabbaths that week," is not possible. If this were not the weekly Sabbath but a high day only, then the Greek word heortē (holy day) would have been used, and none of those extra words would have been there because they wouldn't be necessary. It would make little sense to say, "The annual sabbath was for a high day." And so it doesn't say that. It says, "The weekly Sabbath was for a high day."

The Wednesday timeline proponents treat sabbaton as if it is a kind of catch-all term that could be any kind of sabbath, and John had to clarify for the reader what sort of Sabbath this was out of the many options available. Look through the definitions of sabbaton again - “annual Sabbath” is not among them. That is not how the word is used.
John is doing the opposite of what is being claimed. He isn't paring down, he's adding on.

With that in mind, let's look at John 19: 31 again:
"Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day)..."

Here, the "preparation day" is the Greek word paraskeuē. Paraskeuē can refer to preparation for any kind of Sabbath. Paraskeuē is ambiguous. But the kind of sabbath John tells us we are dealing with is sabbaton (not heortē). This preparation day was for a weekly Sabbath.
Wednesday timeline proponents play fast and loose with paraskeuē by, once again, improperly redefining sabbaton.

Do you realize what this means? John's use of weekly Sabbath to qualify preparation day points directly to the sixth day.
         It literally says Friday!

OK. Maybe not literally but it's the next best thing.

Now, think back to the quote at the start of this post, "There is not a verse, or a line, or a word anywhere in the New Testament that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday." Are we sure about that? When we use proper definitions of words, John 19: 31 goes well beyond intimating.

As you can see, much like the plural sabbaton, the singular sabbaton is being redefined improperly in order to support a timeline it cannot naturally support.

The final term we need to see is prosabbaton. I've saved the best for last.

"Prosabbaton" προσάββατον "day before weekly Sabbath" (MAR. 15: 42)

It's not just sabbaton that must be redefined, but prosabbaton as well.

In Israel, all weekdays were numbered. Only one day had a formal name - the seventh. Its formal name was "Sabbath". That's its name. The Greek word for weekly Sabbath is "sabbaton". But in the second temple period, the sixth day gained an informal name as well: "prosabbaton". The standard Greek lexicon (BDAG) defines prosabbaton as 'the day before the Sabbath'. Not the day before any sabbath, but the day before the Sabbath, sabbaton, the weekly Sabbath. Prosabbaton wasn't a formal name like Friday is a formal name, but prosabbaton was nonetheless the term they used for the sixth day of the week.

Supporters of the Wednesday timeline would have you believe that both paraskeuē and prosabbaton mean the same thing, are totally interchangeable, and should be read as "preparation day". Not so! Is the sixth day always a preparation day? Yes. Always. Paraskeuē is the word for preparation day. But prosabbaton is not. Prosabbaton refers specifically to the sixth day of the week, apart from any preparations. It is a very focused term.

Mark uses both prosabbaton (day before the weekly Sabbath) and paraskeuē (preparation day) in chapter 15 verse 42. Why would he use both if they mean the same thing and one would do just as well?

Do you realize what this means? Mark's use of prosabbaton points directly to the sixth day.
         It literally says Friday!

This time it really is literally.

By using both prosabbaton and paraskeuē, Mark is going out of his way to let us know this was Friday. I cannot imagine what else Mark could have done to make it more plain. Yet H. A. Griesemer denies it exists: "There is not a verse, or a line, or a word anywhere in the New Testament that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday," he said. Yes, there is! It's right here: prosabbaton! The Wednesday timeline requires it not to exist. Yet, there it is.

This takes 'words being stretched far beyond their proper usage' to an entirely new level. If you don't like what the Bible says, change it.

Now, add to this the testimony of Cleopas on the road to Emmaus, when he says Sunday was the third day since the trial and crucifixion (LUK. 24: 21). Friday is the third day before Sunday when we count in the way the Bible itself counts. No redefinitions needed.

OLD TESTAMENT

Someone will no doubt protest that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew shabbat (שַׁבָּת) as the Greek sabbaton (σάββατον) in Leviticus 23: 32 when this verse is talking about the Day of Atonement. They will conclude therefore that sabbaton does not always refer to a weekly Sabbath but can refer to annual sabbaths as well. Then they will use this to redefine verses like John 19: 31.

I do not find this convincing. Here's why:

1. None of this applies in the New Testament. Sabbaton is consistently used to refer to the weekly Sabbath in the New Testament. If we could define sabbaton this way in the New Testament, then the definition in lexicons like BDAG would already reflect this.
2. LEV. 23:32 is an exception not the rule. In most other places in the Septuagint, sabbaton is distinct from holy days (I CHR 23:31; II CHR 2:4, 8:13; EZE 45:17; HOS 2:11; JUD. 8:6). These verses separate the weekly Sabbath (sabbaton) from new moons and holy days, using different words for each. They are not always interchangeable. It depends on context.
3. And we still have the definition of prosabbaton (Friday) to deal with. In the Bible, it consistently refers to Friday. Outside of the Bible, there is no known example of it referring to the day before an annual holy day. This is part of the crucifixion context. We can't just ignore it.

What sabbaton does in Leviticus is important to know but it does not directly affect how we interpret John, and it does not give us permission to redefine it however we want wherever we find it.

CONCLUSION

We began with a bold claim:
“There is not a verse, or a line, or a word anywhere in the New Testament that so much as intimates that Christ was crucified on Friday.”

We ended with a bold claim:
"It literally says Friday!"

We have looked at the Greek terms at the core of this crucifixion timeline debate. We have seen how sabbaton consistently refers to the weekly Sabbath in the New Testament. We have seen how sabbaton in Matthew 28:1 cannot mean a combination of two different types of sabbath in a week. We have seen how John 19:31 qualifies sabbaton with additional words to tell us the weekly Sabbath was also a high day. If it were only a high day, John would have used heortē instead of sabbaton. Lastly, we examined prosabbaton (day before the weekly Sabbath) and paraskeuē (preparation day) in Mark 15:42, where both terms appear together. The use of prosabbaton tells us in no uncertain terms that day was Friday.

The problem with the Friday-Sunday timeline isn't that there's no support or that it doesn't make sense. The problem is most people just assume it's true, so they never had to work through it, so they don't know how to explain it.

The New Testament does not avoid Friday, the alternate timelines do, by pulling the meanings out that should be there and inserting new ideas in that cannot go there. A Wednesday-Saturday timeline does not come out of the Bible, it is being forced into the Bible. Once those redefinitions are removed, the structure collapses. A Friday-Sunday timeline fits naturally.

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

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

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

Common Anti-Christmas Arguments

Good [insert time of day here], students. My name is xHWA. I will be your defense against the dark arts teacher this term. Today, I have a super-concise article to help you defend yourself against the most popular anti-Christmas claims.

A friend sent a video made by some guys talking about origins of Christmas trees. The hosts mentioned a couple, like St. Boniface and Passion Plays. I didn't watch the full video (after so many years of doing this, I rarely watch long videos because they just review what I've already seen 1,000 times). Instead, I went to the comments section to see what flak they received. That's where I prefer to rut around. I get a kick out of seeing the objections roll in from back seat scholars. They're always the same. You can count on it. The top five are almost always these:

• Nimrod and Semiramis
• Jeremiah 10
• Saturnalia
• Solstice festivals
• Constantine

It's odd to me how many people fall for these. Everything you need has been available for decades now, or much longer. Yet, they still linger. The most difficult one to answer out of all of these is Saturnalia, and it's not really all that difficult to answer. How ironic that most of them say, "Look it up." Well, we did! And here's what we found. In short --
All of those are false. Fake. Fraudulent. Phony.

Nimrod and Semiramis - completely fictitious. Not a shred of evidence whatsoever in support, and every reason in the world to ignore it. All this Nimrod nonsense comes from Alexander Hislop. His material was demonstrated to be false the very decade he published it, over 170 years ago. He's been proven false again by Ralph Woodrow. You can't even find Nimrod's real name in history, let alone particular details of his life. There are multiple options for which person in history was the biblical Nimrod, but who can know? And Semiramis - she lived hundreds of years years after Nimrod. Depending on what identity you choose for Nimrod, it could be almost 2,000 years after. Awful hard to marry and have kids with those timeframes.
(See "Some Background On Hislop", "The Babylon Connection", "On Nimrod and Christmas Trees" and "Nimrod's Birthday Was January 6?" for more.)

Jeremiah 10 condemns Christmas trees - false. Jeremiah mentions trees and gold, and people conclude Christmas tree. But the context of Jeremiah, taken together with nearly identical depictions in Isaiah, show clearly the item in Jeremiah 10 is a carved idol god. An idol god, carved with tools, into a human form with a mouth and feet, overlayed in beaten gold, dressed, set up, carried around, prayed to and looked to for help, is not a Christmas tree by any stretch of the imagination. Can we find a tradition in the Middle East around 600BC that resembles the Christmas tree? No. So, it's bunk in imagery and from lack of evidence.
(See "Jeremiah 10 and Christmas Trees?" and "Jeremiah 10 Then and Again" and "A Dialogue on Jeremiah 10" for more.)

Saturnalia - fallacious. Christmas does not come from Saturnalia. Saturnalia was on December 17th. After Caesar's calendar reforms, it ran to the 19th. At its longest, and only for a short while, it lasted to the 23rd. At no time was Saturnalia ever on the 24th or 25th. Saturnalia did not merge with Christmas; it merged backwards in the month with Bruma, on November 24th. Only one tradition from Saturnalia made it into Christmas, but not on Christmas day, and that is the inversion of social order. The "Lord of Misrule" tradition, where a servant becomes the master for a day, was usually done on the 12th day of Christmas - January 5. Gift giving at Christmas does not come from Saturnalia, either. It comes from New Year. Gift giving wasn't done on Christmas day until the 1800s. Romans decorated with greenery swags at Saturnalia, sure enough. But Romans decorated with swags all the time. Decorating was not specific to Saturnalia. Google "Roman fresco" and see for yourself. Most of them have greenery swags of some kind; usually laurel. It was year-round. If anyone says, "I'm not honoring the nativity of our Lord and Savior, whose birth is the second greatest miracle in mankind's history, because of greenery," well then that's more of a matter of priorities.
(See "The Plain Truth About December 25" for more.)

Solstice festivals - fraudulent. Christmas is not nor was it ever on the actual solstice. December 25 was the traditional date of the solstice in Rome, but only because Julius Caesar set it that way when he reformed the calendar. Did you notice the solstice is on December 21? That's because Caesar's calendar lost a day every 130 years or so. Christmas is not a solstice festival. Rome had no solstice festival. There was no festival on December 25 until after it became associated with Jesus. December 25 was not chosen because of any festival. There was nothing for them to steal from. We have records from Hippolytus on why it was chosen - and it has to do with the crucifixion and "Integral Ages". Hippolytus was so important in Rome that they made a statue of him and carved his calculations into it.
(See "The Plain Truth About December 25" and "The Quartodecimans and Epiphany" for more.)

Constantine started Christmas - phony. December 25th was chosen as the date of the nativity in the western church 50+ years years before Constantine was born. If the scholarly consensus on the Donatists from north Africa is correct, then Christmas became a festival several years before Constantine became emperor. As for all the false claims about Nicaea - proof please. There is none. Constantine gets more hate than almost anyone else in history, but most of it is for things he never did. What ever happened to "you shall not bare false witness"?
(See "Christmas With The Donatists" for more.)

There are a handful of other silly excuses for Christmas.

Druids is one. Come on, people. The Druids? Seriously? Do people do any kind of actual research at all? The Druids were practically gone when Christmas was starting. They were 1,500 miles away. Christians hadn't set foot in Britain yet, so far as we know. Christmas has no connection to the Druids at all. Even mistletoe at Christmas does not come from the Druids. It came from being used medicinally for the 1,000 years from when the Druids disappeared to when mistletoe became a Christmas ornament after the British civil war. Usually, the claim is about Druid solstice festivals. They had no known solstice celebration. They had winter celebrations, yes, but in late October or early November, and again perhaps in January.
(See "Misinformed On Mistletoe" for more.)

Generic, nameless pagans is another. This one is just a desperate stretch. "It can be traced to pagans." Which pagans? They don't know. Name your pagan and then dig up the history, else why burden us with your miseducation. Just because some things are similar does not mean they are related. Correlation does not prove causation. Or, to put it another way, it isn't enough just to say something looks similar, you have to prove - from genuine evidence - that one thing actually comes from another thing. "I was a pagan and pagans like trees and winter festivals!" Which pagans, in which area, at which time, doing which specific thing? Pagans took quite a few things from Christians, don't you know. Wicca? Wicca was invented in the 1900s. Pretty sure I can show how Christmas is a little older than that. Not everything is pagan just because pagans do it. Pagans like worship ceremonies. Are worship ceremonies pagan? Better stop going to church! Pagans pray. Is praying pagan? Better stop praying! Pagans wear clothes. Are clothes pagan? Better sto... no, on second thought, please keep doing this one. If people actually stuck to the "pagans do it, so we can't" standard, they wouldn't be able to function.
(See "Everything I Don't Like Is Pagan", "Superstitions Be Gone!" and "Peddlers of Paganism" for more.)

I think this confusion can be laid at the feet of several things, but, in my opinion, the biggest culprits are 1) The Reformation, and 2) garbage "history" produced from 1600-1900 that's still being passed around on, 3) social media. You can trust everything you read on social media. (I read that on social media. It's a quote form Abraham Lincoln.)

The Reformation is when everything started coming apart. I'm not going to get into the details here, but in digging through various histories as long as I have, the pattern has become clear. In short, after the Reformation, no idea was too outrageous. 45k denominations later and it's still going.
The histories produced from the 1600s throughout the 1800s are a mixed bag. Some are of fantastic quality. Surprising, really, given what they had to work with back then. But many others are ridiculously poor quality. And it seems those are the ones that float around social media the most. It doesn't help that the many "one true church" -es out there promote the garbage heavily.

Lastly, there are the holier-than-thou type. They take personal offense, on God's behalf, that we are celebrating a day with no direct command to do so. Because they are offended it must mean God is, too. It doesn't seem to matter that there is no command against it. It doesn't seem to matter that the Bible shows not one but two holidays the Jews invented for themselves - Purim and Hanukkah. No command from God needed. And not only does the Bible give its full support, but Jesus Himself is seen observing Hanukkah at the Temple - which means Jesus, as a Jew, likely celebrated both. Lastly, it doesn't seem to matter that even going to synagogue on Saturday is a manmade tradition of the Jews, with no command or even mention of this in the Old Covenant. God Himself celebrated manmade holidays that He did not command. We see that establishing and imposing a new, un-commanded holiday to honor God is completely biblical in every way. I think people should be required to know what their Bibles actually say before they preach about it, let alone be taken seriously about that preaching. So, thanks but no thanks on this one.
(See "Established and Imposed" for more.)

And if there are any more things (and there are, but most of them are not so popular) then we have an article for that, too. Want to know the real history of Christmas? (See "Christmas Eras Tour" or "Christmas With The Donatists" or "The Quartodecimans and Epiphany".) Want to know the real history of Christmas trees? Hint: it wasn't Nimrod or St. Boniface or Martin Luther. (See "Falsely Accused?".) Have a more esoteric question? (See our most comprehensive Christmas article of all, "Christmas FAQ".)

So, there you have it. A handy little reference to help you defend yourself against anti-Christmas ridiculousness. Our articles come with references so you can trace our work. And our references are never, "I read it in an encyclopedia," or worse, "ChatGPT told me so". We insist on the oldest, most reliable material available. I hope this is useful to you.

God bless, and have a very Merry Christmas!

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

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

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