AS BEREANS DID: Law of God

Showing posts with label Law of God. Show all posts

Saturday, August 15, 2026

Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part II

What were the Pharisees really trying to require of the Gentiles in Acts 15? Sabbatarians argue it wasn't what Luke plainly wrote. In this article we'll examine the last of the three most common explanations and see if it can withstand scrutiny.

We've been deep-diving into Acts 15, stress testing some claims about what was really going on in the Jerusalem Council. In the first post, we investigated the Sabbatarian interpretation of verse 21 to see if the plan was really to send Gentile converts to synagogue to learn more law later on. We saw that the best approach is to let the context speak for itself rather than read a bunch of predetermined conclusions into it. In the previous post, we looked at what the debate was about in the first place.

Most people seem to believe the debate was between the Apostles who were 0% in favor of the law vs the Pharisees who were 110% in favor of the law. That is not the case. The Apostles were in favor of letting the Jewish converts retain their Hebrew traditions, yet binding none of that on the Gentile converts. If you want an example of a Jewish convert keeping their Old Covenant traditions, I offer you --- the very Pharisee converts at the heart of this debate.
Sabbatarians, however, assert the Apostles were roughly 3% in favor of the law vs the Pharisees who wanted something else entirely. But what? The three main explanations are:

A) Circumcision only, or
B) Pharisaical traditions, or
C) All the law - particularly the ones which Sabbatarians don't believe are necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses".

In the last post, "Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part I", we went over the first two of these. We saw how they don't hold up. Today, we investigate the third.

Let's get crack-a-lackin.

LAW OF MOSES?

The Council was not only about the "law of Moses".

Some people realize this could not only have been about circumcision or the customs, but they still have an ideological commitment to protect the Ten Commandments, therefore they redefine what the phrase "the law of Moses" means. Some redefine it as the ceremonial and national portions of the Old Covenant law. They claim there is a difference between the "law of God" (ie. the Ten Commandments plus a handful of other things like tithing, meats, and holy days) and the "law of Moses" (pretty much everything else). This has become a very popular claim.

I disagree there is such a difference in the first place. We have articles on that (see "Law of Moses - Law of God" and "Law of God - Law of Moses").

Now, I realize those two posts that I just mentioned can be very confusing. They made sense when I wrote them, but they are admittedly challenging to follow. I will distill down the best parts for you here. Let's start with Nehemiah 8.

(NEH. 8:1,8) 1 Now all the people gathered together as one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law [torah] of Moses, which the LORD had commanded Israel. ... 8 So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law [torah] of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.

Same book, same law, two descriptions. In one verse it's "law of Moses". In another verse it's "law of God". In both it's "Torah". It's all the same thing.

Joshua 8:30-35 calls the whole Torah the "book of the law" and "book of the law of Moses". Remember, in Joshua's time they only had the first five books. All of it was "the law of Moses". And what will we find more than once in this 'law of Moses'? The Ten Commandments.

It's the same in the New Testament.

(Luke 24:44) Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

That's the whole Old Testament. Jesus recognized the three divisions in the scriptures: the law, the prophets, and the psalms. But He refers to the whole law as "the law of Moses".

I Kings 2 presents this even more clearly:

(I KIN. 2: 3) And keep the charge of the LORD your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses.

Oh my.
I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

My conclusion, that there is no difference between "law of God" and "law of Moses", is precisely what was written in the Worldwide Church of God's "Systematic Theology" document, 1978 version, page 3 paragraph 2. They wrote:

"It is also important to note that the term 'law of Moses' is itself used interchangeably with the term 'law of God.'"

Except, the Systematic Theology was a bit controversial and contradicted other things that were written by the same church both before and afterward. (Armstrongism always has liked to have its cake and eat it too.) Still, I find it interesting that the Worldwide Church of God in its heyday, for brief and shining moment, officially recognized what I am telling you now.

Referring back to Josephus - read his works and you will see he consistently treats the laws, the Torah, the books of Moses, and Moses' legislation, as one body of material. So, now we have biblical and extra-biblical reasons to believe it's all the same thing.

You see, when the Bible says "of Moses" or "of [insert name here]", it doesn't necessarily mean those things belong to that person or were invented by that person. It means those things were either primarily about that person or they were given through that person. For example, "Jesus of Nazareth" doesn't mean Jesus belongs to Nazareth. Likewise, "the book of Isaiah" was not really about Isaiah so much as it was about the prophecies that God gave through Isaiah. They were God's prophecies, but called Isaiah's because he was the conduit. "The Gospel of Mark" doesn't mean there is a gospel about Mark or a gospel that belongs to Mark, separate from “gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (MARK. 1: 1). That's all "the law of Moses" means. Those laws didn't belong to him; they were given through him.

(JON. 1: 17a) For the law was given through Moses...

There is no "law of Moses" with a separate and distinct "law of God". They were all the law of God. They were all the law of Moses. The whole third claim is artificial and based on a predetermined commitment; a commitment to take the singular body of law and break it up into chunks, keeping a few and discarding the rest.

I realize this is a critical point for Sabbatarians, so they will disagree with me. They must. So, let's look at some of the top arguments in favor of there being a "law of God" and a separate "law of Moses".

Perhaps the foremost argument is:
The Ten Commandments were written by God's own finger and were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, while the book of laws that Moses wrote was placed beside the Ark.

The point of this is to make the Ten separate and superior. This has some serious problems.

The first problem is: It was the second set of tablets that were put into the Ark, but it's not clear who wrote the second set of tablets.

God wrote the first set of the Ten Commandments with His own finger, but then Moses broke those tablets. As for the second set:

(EXO. 34:1) And the Lord said to Moses, “Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.
(EXO. 34:27) Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

Who wrote the second set? Scholars have debated for a very long time whether it was God or Moses. It isn't clear. If you want to believe it was God, that's fine. But...

The second problem is: the Ten Commandments were written in the book Moses wrote, too.

It's in both places. How can the Ten Commandments be superior to the Ten Commandments? If we ignore Nehemiah 8 and forge ahead claiming "the law of Moses" was that book, then it was all "the law of Moses". In fact, I'm willing to bet you've never read the Ten Commandments straight from the tablets. You got "God's law" from descendants of that book that was placed beside the Ark, same as the rest of us.

The third problem is: no Sabbatarian church that I've ever heard of believes only the Ten Commandments are required.

A little law always leads to more. What about tithes? What about meats laws? What about holy days? None of those are in the Ten, or the "moral law" for that matter (another artificial term). So, if those aren't "Law of God" then why must anyone bother with them? And what about the four laws the Apostles said were necessary for Gentiles to observe in Acts 15? They were not in the "Law of God". And what about circumcision, which got this ball rolling in the first place? All of these are solidly in what Sabbatarians call "the law of Moses".

So, were the tablets placed in the Ark with the Aaron's staff and a pot of mana because:
A) Those three things were creating a special category of law,
or
B) Because they were special physical items that represented God's relationship with Israel?

I am going with B.

I do not find this argument convincing at all. And it's arguably the best one.

There is another claim which is very similar to the first.

Herman Hoeh, "the most accurately informed historian in the world", had a slight variation. In his article "Which Old Testament Laws Are In Force Today?", he claimed:
The Ten are special because they are the only laws God spoke directly to Israel, while Moses merely delivered the statutes and judgments.

While those base facts may be true, the conclusion he is attempting to reach does not hold. The way they were delivered does not make them a separate class of law. God spoke many of the laws to Moses, who them wrote down in his book. The issue is not whether God spoke these words directly vs. indirectly through Moses. The issue is that they came from God. I am not convinced by the claim, "All mankind must keep these laws because these are the ones God spoke to Israel."

In Israel's view:

"All 613 of those mitzvot are equally sacred, equally binding and equally the word of G-d. All of these mitzvot are treated as equally important."
-Judaism 101, “Aseret ha-Dibrot: The Ten Commandments”.

I am not saying the Ten aren't special. They are! But even the Jews don't believe their delivery or where they were placed makes them a separate and particularly binding class of law.

There are more arguments than these, of course, but I am not going to get into them here. They get more and more ridiculous as you go along. I will simply suggest reading "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VI".

This whole section boils down to this: modern Sabbatarians say "law of Moses" refers to a particular subset of the law, but if we cannot prove that's what the people at the Jerusalem Council thought then it all falls apart. And we have no good reason to believe that's what the Apostles and Pharisees thought.

The initial trouble was not only about some portion of the law called "the Law of Moses".

CONCLUSION

The three main explanations given by Sabbatarians of what the Pharisees were trying to bind on the Gentiles are either:
A) Circumcision only. It cannot be this because Luke says, "and the law." Circumcision was not about merely being circumcised.
B) Pharisaical traditions. It cannot be this because Luke says, "the law of Moses." The oral law was not called the law of Moses.
C) The "law of Moses". It cannot be this because there is no separate "law of Moses" distinct from "law of God". They are the same thing.

We have reviewed each and shown how each of these has insurmountable weaknesses. Each one collapses under its own weight.
These three aren't reasonable explanations so much as they are rescue attempts.

I was an Armstrongist. I know the motivation - there must be a Sabbath day, and that means there must be the Ten Commandments, and that means the Apostles must be for some of the law, and that means the Pharisees must be arguing something other than what Acts 15 actually says. These three explanations are the result.
And that means the "Early Church Fathers" were all liars, and this is all Constantine's fault, and mainstream Christians are all deceived, and so on and so forth. I get it.

The Sabbatarian understanding of Acts 15 comes out of prior commitments to the Sabbath day. In short, eisegesis.
But, in case you haven't noticed, this blog has been systematically going through each individual point in the universe of Sabbatarian proof texts, and we've been pointing out the issues in each and showing other ways to understand them. What we've been driving at is - what if there is no prior commitment to the Sabbath day? What if the Apostles really did decide against requiring the law for Gentile converts? What if the New Covenant really is different from the Old, as the prophecies of Jeremiah predicted? What if these three explanations we saw today fall apart because the prior commitment itself is not valid in the first place? If these three points really are the explanation, then why are they completely incompatible with one another? It sounds like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. None of them do!

So what were the Pharisees really debating in Acts 15? I believe they were debating how to join the Covenant.

The fourth explanation is that Pharisees meant exactly what Luke wrote: The Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law.
That's what the text says.
And the decision of the Apostles was exactly what Luke wrote, and several years later reiterated when he quoted James: "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing."

But the Gentiles were not joining Israel. The Gentiles already received the Holy Spirit. They were accepted into the New Covenant without joining Israel first. Instead, both Jew and Gentile were joining the body of Christ, and all the Gentile converts had to do to keep the peace with the Jewish converts were those points of the law required of all Gentiles in Israel from Leviticus 17 & 18.

Or, to put this entire thing another way:

Christ is sufficient.

Saturday, August 8, 2026

Acts 15 - What Was Debated? - part I

What were the Pharisees really trying to require of the Gentiles in Acts 15? Sabbatarians argue it wasn't what Luke plainly wrote. In this article we'll examine the first two of the three most common explanations and see whether they can withstand scrutiny.

In my last post, "Acts 15:21 - More Law Later?", we saw how the Sabbatarian explanation for Acts 15:21 is not the only way to understand the verse. I proposed the initial trouble in Acts 15 - the thing which disheartened the church, the thing which Paul and Barnabas sharply opposed, which Peter called a yoke, and which the Council ruled against - was exactly what was written: circumcision and the law.
The Pharisees felt that in order to join the Covenant, the Gentiles must join Israel, and to join Israel meant they must first be circumcised, and the result is that they must keep the law. Circumcision and law was the burden, and joining the nation of Israel was the root error that needed to be corrected.
We also saw how the "more law later" claim can be tested. We turn to Acts 21 where James contrasts the converts from Judaism, who were zealous for the law, with the converts from the Gentiles, who were taught no such thing. If even years later James was still saying the Gentiles would be taught no such thing, then there is no "more law later" for the Gentiles. The Sabbatarian reading of Acts 15:21 is flawed.

Sabbatarians disagree, of course. They assert the Apostles were fully in support of a small fraction of the law, while the Pharisees were not insisting on that but something else. The three main explanations for what the Pharisees were trying to bind on the Gentiles are either:
A) Circumcision only, or
B) Pharisaical traditions, or
C) All the law - particularly the ones which Sabbatarians don't personally think are necessary and which they call "the Law of Moses".

I disagreed with all three and said I will go over this more in another post. This is that post. (Which I have since changed into a two-parter because it was too long for one post.)

Keep in mind who we're talking about here: converts from the Pharisees. What were Pharisees like? Fastidious about the law. Tithing on every seed. Memorizing every word. Analyzing every nuance. Did they add traditions? Yes. But those traditions come from their attempt to more accurately understand and rigorously apply the law. (I agree with ABD author Bill's take on their approach to the law.)

A simple reading of the Council's decision clearly plays havoc with Sabbatarianism. Sabbatarianism needs the Old Covenant law. More specifically, it needs the Sabbath day. And to justify the Sabbath day, early Sabbatarians chose to emphasize the Ten Commandments. Yes, a commitment to the Sabbath came before an emphasis on the Ten Commandments. Sabbatarianism is now locked in to the Ten Commandments. Later Sabbatarians added additional laws, arguing amongst themselves over them. Sabbatarians reframe the debate to bring the Gentiles under certain laws while avoiding the appearance of siding with those Pharisees, claiming the debate was only about one of those three things listed above. But was it?
Let's take a look at each of those three things and see if they make sense.

CIRCUMCISION ONLY?

Let's start with circumcision because it's easiest. (That doesn't mean it's simple.) The Council was not only about circumcision alone.

Back in Armstrongism, many were taught the Council was only debating circumcision (for example, read "Reader Testimonials - Centurion", or I could pull up any number of official Armstrongist materials to demonstrate this, for example the Youth Bible Lessons series). Armstrongism at one time or the other taught all three of these incompatible explanations. But the claim is demonstrably false. If it were only about circumcision, then why was the argument said to be over circumcision and the law? Twice! (v.5 & v.24.)
I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

Think about the position of Sabbatarianism - that only about 1/6 of the law is required. Now think of the attitude of the Pharisees. Do you think they would only care about circumcision, especially when 5/6 of the law supposedly just became unnecessary? I can't see how that is possible.

Think about the conclusion of the Council which they wrote in the letter to be sent out to all the church. If the initial trouble was about circumcision only, then what on earth does teaching the Gentiles to keep a short list of laws have to do with a debate over circumcision alone? "We had a debate which was only about circumcision, and decided against it. And because circumcision isn't needed, Gentiles should keep these four points of law that have nothing whatsoever to do with circumcision." That seems a rather odd way to solve the problem of circumcision.

It also fundamentally misses the concept of circumcision. Circumcision was never just about a snip. It was about joining a covenant people. It was the sign; the seal.
But which covenant? The Abrahamic! Not the Mosaic.
Circumcision was the required gateway to the Abrahamic Covenant (GEN. 17:10-14) and therefore the covenant people of Israel. It was joining Israel that placed one under Israel's Old Covenant obligations. Paul warns strongly that you could not snip in this context without getting the whole law (GAL. 5:3), along with its condemnations. (This doesn't mean every individual had to personally perform every law, for example some were only for the priesthood, but every person was beholden to the complete system, which included a priesthood.)
What I'm driving at is - the debate in Acts 15 could not be only about circumcision because by its very nature circumcision was not only about circumcision.

Everyone there understood the ramifications of circumcision. That is why the Pharisees insisted on circumcision in the first place - until then, that was how one joined the covenant people. "You want God? Then you join Israel." They misunderstood that the Gentiles were now covenant people without joining Israel first, and that both Jew and Gentile together were joining something new: the body of Christ (EPH. 2:11-18), and that through Christ we join the Abrahamic Covenant. It was being one with Christ that qualifies you to be a child of Abraham and inheritor of the promises.

The Pharisees did not want Gentiles to be circumcised simply to be circumcised, and the Apostles did not oppose it simply so males did not have to be injured for a few days. It was a much bigger conversation than that. It was about what we join and how. It was about the sweeping differences between the Old and New Covenants. The decision of the Council was not just about bypassing circumcision, but avoiding the entire older process.

And I realize some Sabbatarians will argue the Apostles wanted Gentiles to avoid circumcision specifically so they did not have to keep the whole law, and therefore they would be free to only keep certain parts of the law. But a) that's really claim #3, and b) that's not how this works.

A running theme in Sabbatarianism is attempting to find a way back into the Old Covenant, but only so far as to get specific items from it. Bypassing circumcision doesn't mean you now get to enter the Covenant but only so far as you'd like.
In the Old way, the progression was (in a nutshell): circumcision → join Israel → Old Covenant law. So, yes, the Pharisees were arguing for the whole law. But that was how it goes. The law are the terms of the Old Covenant. The law is a singular whole; it's an all or nothing proposition. If you take out circumcision then you are not a party to the Covenant, and so the rest falls apart.
What bypassing circumcision does not do is give us a back door straight to the Sabbath day, dividing the singular body of law into chunks, and excusing us from other parts we would rather not keep. Where is it ever written that bypassing circumcision makes one free to treat the Old Covenant like a buffet? That would mean the whole world could have been doing this the entire time! We've just undermined everything from Moses to Jesus!

You realize this is all still arguing over Old Covenant ideas, right? They are obsolete! We have so many articles on this.

The initial trouble was not only about circumcision.

PHARISAICAL TRADITIONS ONLY?

Let's move on to the Pharisaical traditions. The Council was not only about Pharisaical traditions.

Some people realize this could not have been only about circumcision, but they still have an ideological commitment to protect the Ten Commandments, so they must redefine what "and the law" means. Some redefine it as Pharisaical traditions.
But it cannot be that, either.

(ACT. 15:5) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

The Pharisaical traditions were not called "the law of Moses". Moses didn't write the oral law. The traditions were distinct from the Torah because they came after the Torah and were meant to describe the Torah. I shouldn't have to say another word about this ...but I will.

It is true that the Pharisees added many traditions and that these traditions had the weight of law, at least among the Pharisees and those who follow them. But the Pharisaical customs are not called "the law" in the New testament and were never said to be "the law of Moses". The New Testament particularly distinguishes the law from the customs. Historically, there was the written law ("Torah") and there was the oral law ("the customs", the "Oral Torah", and eventually "the Mishnah").

Josephus is helpful here because he was from that time and place:

"What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to consider to be obligatory only those observances which are in the written word, but need not observe those which are derived from the tradition of our forefathers."
-Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" book XIII, chapter 10, paragraph 6, verse 296-297.

Josephus rejects the idea that the oral law was the law of Moses.

Did we not spend a great deal of time on Acts 15:21 in my last post? Does that not say Moses was read? The oral law, the Mishnah, wasn't written until around 200 AD. It couldn't have been read. And do Sabbatarians not use that verse to claim it refers to Gentiles learning the Torah law? You can't have it both ways. Either the discussion was about the law or it wasn't.

And let's not forget, synagogues are a tradition of the Pharisees (for more, see "Common Legalist Arguments - Part VIII"). Nowhere in the Bible is there a law that commands going to synagogue (or church) on Sabbath. Synagogues developed in the Second Temple period. It was the Pharisees who ran most synagogues. How can you reject the traditions of the Pharisees and base your entire plan on a tradition of the Pharisees?

So, when Acts 15 says "and keep the law" (v.24) and "keep the law of Moses" (v.5), there is no good reason to conclude this is referring only to the Pharisaical customs. I am sure that if Team Pharisees had their way the Gentile converts would also have been required to keep the traditions, but I see no possible way that this can be only about the traditions.

The initial trouble was not only about the Pharisaical customs.

CONCLUSION

We've gone over the first two of the three main explanations given by Sabbatarians of what the Pharisees were demanding, and we have seen how they fail.

A) Circumcision only. It cannot be this because Luke says, "and the law." By its very nature, circumcision was not only about circumcision.
B) Pharisaical traditions. It cannot be this because Luke says, "the law of Moses." The oral law was distinct from the law of Moses.

Next time, we will go over the final explanation: "the law of Moses".

Sunday, September 22, 2013

You SHOULD keep the Feast of Tabernacles!

Indeed, if you are convinced that God commands Christians to observe the Feast of Tabernacles, well then you should keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

So let’s start examining the Feast from the premise that God requires Christians to keep the portion of the Law that contains the Feast of Tabernacles. Please be patient as we review familiar material and come to a point that every person attending the Feast of Tabernacles right now may wish to consider.

As I write this many of my friends are at designated “feast sites” keeping the Feast of Tabernacles. I did the same for 28 years and had many good times and experiences with my family and friends. In this day and age it is rare for families to be able to travel to different locations every year, some even international, and stay in high-class hotels and resorts together while enjoying the sites, food and activities of the local tourist areas. Just to name a few, my family’s been to Niagara Falls, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Panama City, Hawaii, Bahamas, Tucson, Branson, Palm Springs, Gatlinburg, and even a resort on the Mediterranean sea in Italy. My family has been able to enjoy the many tourist areas, Disney World (three times), Dolly World, historical sites, mountains, beaches, jet-skis, museums, (we even toured the Vatican), boating, horseback riding, and so on. We even enjoyed the feast on a cruise ship one year. So yes, the Feast of Tabernacles has been a great time for the family; it has been like an annual family vacation.

It's true, in many ways keeping the Feast of Tabernacles has been a lot of fun!

And sermons? Yes, we heard many sermons didn’t we? If you are attending a feast site, then as you read this you are getting a steady diet of “spiritual meat” as we would say. But back in the day, the pinnacle of the Feast of Tabernacles was the satellite link-up in which Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong spoke to all of us together. I remember getting goose bumps believing that I was witnessing God’s apostle speaking the end time message to all of the church at once. Time was drawing near, we only had a few years left and the end was coming, “surely within the next 10 to 20 years!" We were going to need to “tighten our belt” and be ready to support “the work”. It really was exciting to feel like I was part of something special.

Things didn’t work out the way we thought at the time, but the Feast of Tabernacles continues on because the churches of God teach that “true Christians” keep God’s commandments. And many believe sincerely that the Feast of Tabernacles is commanded. Let’s review the passages regarding the Feast and list a few of the commanded instructions.

Four Feast of Tabernacles Instructions

We find in Leviticus the instruction to Israel to observe the Feast of Tabernacles. Of course, those of us with a history in the Church of God are very familiar with these passages, probably more so than most. I remember hearing that we were to appear before the Lord in the place that the Lord would choose and that we were to stay in temporary dwellings and have an offering ready to give to the church. Those instructions are derived from the instructions given to Israel in Deuteronomy chapter 16 and Leviticus chapter 23.

For seven days you shall keep the feast to the Lord your God at the place that the Lord will choose, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful. “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths. They shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed. Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you. Deut 16:15-17

Let’s notice a few things here. First, we see that they were to keep the Feast of Tabernacles in the place that the Lord would choose. Where was that? It was the tabernacle, the tent of testimony. God’s presence was clearly in the tabernacle; his glory filled the place as the cloud of the Lord covered it during the day and fire at night (Ex 40:34-38). And once Israel finally crossed the Jordan, Jerusalem became the place that the Lord chose to place his name.

But when you go over the Jordan and live in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to inherit, and when he gives you rest from all your enemies around, so that you live in safety, then to the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell there, there you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, and all your finest vow offerings that you vow to the Lord. Deut 12:10-11

So Jerusalem became the place that the Lord chose to place his name, the tabernacle and later more specifically the temple became that place at which the burnt offerings and sacrifices were carried out.

Deuteronomy chapters 14 and 16 describe the Feast of Tabernacles as one of three “pilgrim feasts” to which citizens of Israel were to travel to Jerusalem to celebrate and eat of their tithes. That is why so many people were in Jerusalem for Passover and Unleavened bread when Jesus was arrested. And that is why so many people had traveled to Jerusalem for that first Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon the church. And that is why so many traveled to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles as described in the gospels. And yes, this is why the Jews and Hellenistic Jews who became Christians traveled to Jerusalem for these feasts in the early days of the church before the temple was destroyed.

There can be no doubt that the place that the Lord placed his name at that time was Jerusalem and that the people were to travel to Jerusalem to celebrate the pilgrim feasts including the Feast of Tabernacles.

1 - The Feast of Tabernacles was to be celebrated where the Lord placed his name in Jerusalem.

We also see the instructions to bring the tithe, but I’m not going to go down that path in this review. Let’s just focus on the command to keep the Feast of Tabernacles and how they were instructed to keep that festival.

These are the appointed feasts of the Lord, which you shall proclaim as times of holy convocation, for presenting to the Lord food offerings, burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each on its proper day. Lev 23:37

We read here in Leviticus that each day of the feast there were specific offerings, daily there were to be food offerings and the first and eighth day were to be holy convocations (verse 36). So let’s list our next basic instructions for the Feast.

2 – There were specific offerings required each day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

3 – There were holy convocations on the first and the eighth days of the feast.

Let’s take a look into the instruction for dwelling in booths.

And you shall take on the first day the fruit of splendid trees, branches of palm trees and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. You shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord for seven days in the year. It is a statute forever throughout your generations; you shall celebrate it in the seventh month. You shall dwell in booths for seven days. Lev 23:40-42

So here we see that they were to dwell in booths made from the branches of specific trees. The Jews built these booths on the flat roofs of houses, in the streets or in the fields. And it is commonly understood that these four trees were the citron, the palm, the myrtle, and the willow. Nehemiah chapter 8 also addresses this and specifically identifies the trees and instruction to dwell in booths.

The Hebrew word for booth is sukkâ, which means a crude temporary shelter made of woven branches. They were to construct these crude shelters to be reminded of when they had to dwell in crude shelters following their exit from Egypt.

“that your generations may know that I made the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt” Lev 23:43

4 – God instructs his people to dwell in booths made of the branches of four specific trees.

Once again, the purpose stated in the Law for these booths was to remind Israel of the time that God brought them from Egypt. They were to be annually reminded that they dwelt in crudely constructed booths when they left Egypt on their way to the Promised Land. There is no mention of the Messiah’s coming or the future fulfillment of the Kingdom of God in these instructions. However we are not questioning the Church of God interpretation of imagery here, simply looking at the instruction in the law to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

To those with a history in the Armstrong churches of God, none if this is new. So let’s summarize our four instructions:

The Feast of Tabernacles was to be celebrated where the Lord placed his name in Jerusalem.

There were specific offerings required each day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

There were holy convocations on the first and the eighth days of the feast.

God instructs his people to dwell in booths made of the branches of four specific trees.

I wrote earlier that if you believe that a Christian needs to observe the commandment to keep the Feast of Tabernacles then you should keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

But after reviewing the commandment that we are all so familiar with, I ask you plainly, are you actually keeping the Feast of Tabernacles? Are you really observing the Law as it was instructed?

If the answer is yes then great, consciences are clear. But if the answer is no, or uncertain, then could you be judged by our own words? If you believe that “true Christians” keep God’s Law including all the Holy Days of the Old Testament, then you need to be certain that you are indeed keeping the Feast of Tabernacles, right?

Let’s look at the commands in the Law that we have just reviewed. First, let’s just make the assumption that any offerings and sacrifices are no longer required as they have been fulfilled in Christ. This is the assumption that all the Armstrong Churches of God make. But how do we know where the Lord has placed his name? According to the Bible that place was Jerusalem. If you are keeping the Feast of Tabernacles then ask yourself:

Why don’t the Churches of God go to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Tabernacles?

That is what the Law instructs. So how do you know where God has placed His name for the feast if it is not in scripture? Each Church of God organization has its own feast sites in different locations; did God choose all these places to put his name? I attended the feast in Panama City one year during which there were concurrently feast sites from eight different Church of God organizations in the same general area. Think about it, does this make sense to you?

One might argue that in today’s society it is not possible to go to Jerusalem. Well, why not? I traveled to Italy for the feast. Besides, the Law is the Law and if God says to go to Jerusalem then we should do it, right? Let me remind you of a favorite scripture of the Churches of God. It is the proof, they say, that the Christian church should observe the feast because the Feast of Tabernacles is identified as being observed after the return of Jesus to the earth.

Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. Zech 14:16

But notice that they are keeping the feast in Jerusalem. It is so important to travel to Jerusalem that the surviving people of the nations who do not come to Jerusalem at that time will not receive rain. If these verses prove that the church should be keeping the Feast of Tabernacles today, then why do not the Churches of God observe it in Jerusalem as commanded?

And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain on them. Zech 14:17

The Law commands that the Feast of Tabernacles be observed where the Lord has placed his name. The scriptures identify Jerusalem clearly to be that location. And yet, the Armstrong churches observe their feasts in various cities that they choose. I recall being in meetings in which we discussed which cities would be chosen based on special rates given to the church, activities for families, cost and size of convention centers, parking, and so forth. That is how feast sites are chosen and there is no biblical authority for doing so.

Another question for feast goers to ask themselves:

Why do we have church services every day of the Feast of Tabernacles?

Over the decades that I attended and taught in the Armstrong Church and its splinter churches, I many times heard it stated that a “holy convocation” was a gathering of the church; a church service if you will. Not that I necessarily agree with that interpretation, but let’s assume that to be the case. According to the Law there is a holy convocation on the first day and the eighth day. So why do the churches of God have church services every day of the feast? Don’t misunderstand, we could have church services every day and that would be just fine, there’s nothing wrong with that. But I distinctly remember the feelings of shame and guilt if I were to miss a service due to any reason other than extreme illness. If you are a feast goer you must admit that missing a church service is tantamount to not properly keeping the Feast of Tabernacles. No doubt we were made to feel like we were sinning if we missed church. And missing opening night, that was really frowned upon too. A lot of judging goes on regarding church attendance. But why is that? A church service every day is nowhere to be found in the Law even if we accept the Church of God interpretation of a holy convocation. If you are attending the feast this year try telling your pastor that you are only going to attend on the first day and the eighth day since that is what the Bible commands. I doubt they will find humor in that statement.

The final and perhaps most important question for feast goers to ask themselves:

Why do we not dwell in booths when we keep the Feast of Booths?

Dwelling in booths made of the four trees was central to the commandment to keep the Feast of Tabernacles; there is no way around that fact. Please read this excerpt from a blog appearing on the United Church of God website.

In 2013, United Church of God members and families will travel to dozens of Festival of Tabernacles sites around the world to take part in this biblical assembly… However, proper biblical observance of the Festival of Tabernacles requires that members reside in temporary quarters as outlined in Leviticus 23:42 (Peter Eddington, “United Church of God to Celebrate Coming Kingdom of God in Eight-Day Christian Festival of Tabernacles”, September 16, 2013)

Mr. Eddington explains that the “proper biblical observance” of the feast requires that one dwell in booths. We know that the leaders of these churches understand what the Law states. That is why he carefully changes the wording to “temporary quarters” in order to make hotels and resorts appear to be equivalent to the “booths” commanded in the Law. Please do your own research into the word for booth, it’s meaning, and how it is used. Do expensive hotels and resorts fulfill the instruction in the Law to dwell in crudely built booths of woven branches? Do hotels somehow remind us of being brought out of Egypt?

No. There is no biblical authority for this change or for the imagery used to support the change.

In the same blog article, we read the following explanation,

members typically stay in nearby hotels to fulfill the temporary nature required by the biblical command. "Staying in a temporary dwelling such as a hotel underscores the transitory nature of this present world and illustrates how it will be replaced by the prophesied Kingdom of God," noted Mr. Kubik.

Where does the Bible give the authority change booths to hotels, rented houses, cruise ships, cabins on the lake, and so on? Where is “transitory nature of this present world” identified in scripture with booths? There is no biblical authority for this change in the Law.

Church of God members often like to quote Matthew Chapter 5 in which Jesus states, “until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven”. Ah but you must be intellectually consistent. If nothing in the Law can be changed, and that is your argument for requiring Christians to observe the Old Covenant Holy Days, then how can you change the Law that instructs us in how to keep those Holy Days?

Okay? Let me ask that again.

If nothing in the Law can be changed, and that is your argument for requiring Christians to observe the Old Covenant Holy Days, then how can you change the Law that instructs us in how to keep those Holy Days?

This is cognitive dissonance! The reasoning goes like this: "The Law cannot be changed. You must keep the Law. The Law instructs us to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. But we’ve changed the Law in order to keep the feast in the church age according to the direction of a man. But the Law cannot be changed. Therefore we keep the holy days because they are commanded in the Law. Other churches are false because they do not keep the Law like we do…"

You who observe the feast claim to be keeping the commandments. And yet you do not observe the feast in Jerusalem, you go to church every day when this is never mentioned in the Law and make people feel guilty if they miss a service, and you do not dwell in the booths instructed very clearly in the Law you claim to keep.

The New Testament writers make it clear that if one is going to keep a point of the Law then they must keep all of the Law. Why put out leaven during the Feast of Unleavened bread but not dwell in booths during the Feast of booths? Why do you fast on the Day of Atonement but do not blow trumpets or shout on the Feast of Trumpets?

So if you believe that you should be keeping the Feast of Tabernacles, then by all means go to Jerusalem, build a booth, and keep the festival as it is commanded. But what the Worldwide Church of God splinter churches are doing is keeping a tradition unique to that church. And the sole authority for making these changes to the Law of God is none other than Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. Are you sure that Herbert Armstrong was given authority by God to redefine these festivals and change the Law of God?

There simply is not one passage in scripture that connects the Feast of Tabernacles with Jesus’ millennial rule on earth. There is not one scripture that states that crudely made booths should be replaced with hotels and resorts that picture “quality” living in the millennium. There is not one passage in the Bible that indicates that Christians should spend large amounts of money on themselves and their own entertainment and send the rest in to their corporate organization leadership. And there is not one passage of scripture that grants the authority to the church to annually decide where God has placed his name for their own rendition of the Feast of Tabernacles.

I have a business associate whose father is a rabbi. Back when I was a faithful follower of Herbert Armstrong I explained to this friend that I kept the Feast of Tabernacles just as he did. When I explained that we went to hotels, beaches and amusement parks while attending church every day in a convention center he looked at me bewildered. I thought we had something in common, but we didn’t. The Feast of Tabernacles “observed” by the churches of God has absolutely nothing in common with the Feast of Tabernacles commanded in the Law. Really. It is common for the Churches of God to claim that the early church kept the feast just as they do. But the Church of God feast tradition would not be recognizable by any of the apostles.

No, the Feast of Tabernacles tradition in the churches of God is a creation of Herbert W. Armstrong. It is a “tradition of men”, if you will. If you believe that Mr. Armstrong was given the sole authority by God to change the law then your conscience is clear. But if you’re not so sure, then I suggest you look into the Law that you claim to be observing to make sure that you are indeed keeping the feast and the other holy days according to God’s instruction. I'm confident that such a study done honestly will lead you to God's grace.

Those of you who are convicted to keep the Old Testament holy days, you really should keep the Feast of Tabernacles according to the commandment.

But are you really keeping it?

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

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Must Christians Observe The Old Covenant Passover?

Today I would like to see the Bible's answer to the question, "Must Christians observe the Old Covenant Passover?".

And the answer is - No, Christians are not commanded to keep that observance.

Let’s look at why not.

(EXO. 12: 43, 48-49) 43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it.

48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.

What’s the very first thing we see? All non-Israelites are forbidden from eating it. Gentiles may not observe Passover. That’s the law. End of story.

THE MEANING OF CIRCUMCISION

Foreigners and even servants had to be circumcised to observe Passover. All the males had to be circumcised. Is it possible that circumcision just meant nothing for those people? Is it possible that the Gentiles would say, “Hey, we would like to eat that fine unleavened bread and lamb roasted with bitter herbs with you,” and the Israelites would reply, “Let’s get you circumcised and then we’ll have dinner”?

Hardly.

Genesis 17 makes it clear that every male was expected to be circumcised in order to enter the covenant with Abraham. Verse 12 indicates that anyone wishing to join Abraham’s family must be circumcised. Anyone not circumcised was cut off from the people. That’s a bit more serious than just a quick trim and off to supper, wouldn’t you say?

In Genesis 34, circumcision as a condition of joining Israel was misused in order to take advantage of Hamor and Shechem. This should also demonstrate that the circumcision required to observe Passover was no light undertaking. This was a commitment!

In Exodus 4, God sought to kill Moses for neglecting to circumcise his firstborn son. In Joshua 5, all Israelite males had to be circumcised before they entered the land of Canaan and before God would take away the reproach of Egypt from the people. Uncircumcised became an idiomatic expression meaning unclean (LEV. 26: 41; JER. 9: 26; EZE. 44: 7-9). Like the word "Gentile", "uncircumcized" was an epithet.

Many of Paul’s statements indicate that circumcision was understood in his day as a sign of being part of Israel (GAL. 2: 7-8; PHP. 3: 5; COL. 3: 11).

It became part of the understanding of some Jews that no Jew could be saved if they went uncircumcised.

Simply becoming circumcised was not good enough. If all one needed to do was be circumcised, then several of the surrounding cultures had circumcision and all of those people would therefore be Israelites. Egypt practiced circumcision long before circumcision was adopted as a sign for the covenant with Abraham, yet they would never have been seen as anything other than Gentiles. The other half of the equation was the requirement to join the physical nation of Israel and participate in its Covenant. If you haven't done that, then it doesn't count.

Hopefully this gives us a better look at the importance of the act. It was no light matter. To require circumcision before Passover was not the same as requiring clean hands before supper. The only way a Gentile could eat it was to be circumcised, cease being a “Gentile”, and join with the nation of Israel. They were "as natives of the land". There is one law for all people for Passover. If the law is unchanged, and binding on all, with not one jot or tittle removed, then this is the law of Passover.

THREE MAIN WAYS PEOPLE BIND THEMSELVES TO THE LAW

Some people refuse to accept this, however. There are many views within the various Church of God splinter groups on how this can be circumvented. I want to mention three of the main ones.

First is the claim that the law is eternal and binding.

The point is to simply bind us all to the Old Covenant law.

The base assumption is that all of the law of Moses is just somehow binding on all people. As Bereans Did has many articles on why this is impossible. I recommend you start by familiarizing yourself with what the Law of Moses is.

More later, but for now I won’t bother with it. Suffice it to say if the law is eternal then so is the condition that Gentiles cannot participate. If the law is unchanged then the Pharisees were right in Acts 10, Paul and Barnabas were wrong, and physical circumcision is a requirement. The only alternative is that the law has been changed, which means the law is not eternal nor binding on everyone.

So option #1 in circumventing the law in order to bind yourself to the law is self-defeating.

Second is the classic teaching of Herbert Armstrong; specifically I refer to British-Israelism (BI).

The point was to convince people that they are genetically Israelite, and therefore the Old Covenant applies to them.

BI is the belief that the English are descendants of the mythical “Lost Ten Tribes of Israel”. A Brit named Richard Brothers is generally credited with inventing BI around the turn of the 19^th century. Most of the “proofs” of BI are nothing but fantasy and nonsense. BI has been convincingly refuted again and again. Here is just one example from the Bible.ca website.

There are many variations to BI. Herbert Armstrong taught that England is Ephraim and the United States is Manasseh. We would like to present to you an interesting alternative to Armstrong’s interpretation of the Genesis Prophecies. Ephraim and Menasseh might represent something wholly other than what you were told. Herbert Armstrong came to his variation by plagiarizing a book written by J. H. Allen (see Allen.Armstrong.org for details). At the end of the day, the Old Covenant is still abrogated and gone; it is binding on no one.

So option #2 in circumventing the law in order to bind yourself to the law is a plagiarized bit of fantastical pseudo-history.

Third is the oft-repeated claim, “New Testament Christians are Spiritual Israel.”

The point in this claim is to say that Gentiles have become Israelites by becoming Christians.

Notice how this claim flies in the face of Acts 15. The desire to undo the law has now undermined the authority of the Apostles and the very Holy Spirit of God. This is not something I recommend!

There are flaws in this claim. Have you ever tried to find the phrase “Spiritual Israel” in the New Testament? It’s not there. Being “Spiritual Israel” would not somehow grandfather anyone into the abrogated Old Covenant anyhow. We do not somehow all stand at the foot of Mt. Sinai. You don’t want to be at the foot of that Mountain anyway, in bondage (GAL. 4: 24-25), where 3,000 people died and Moses wore a veil to cover the glory of God. That Covenant is gone! Its terms and its blessings/curses are no longer an option for anyone.

The claim assumes that all Christians are Israel, when that is not what the Bible says. The two loaves of the Wave Loaf ceremony, in our understanding, represent the Jewish and the Gentile converts to Christianity. Not one loaf, but two; distinct but together. Paul speaks of only one metaphorical olive tree, but the tree isn’t Israel. The tree is Christ. He is the root. He is the Vine. He is the Seed. He is the cornerstone. We are His body. It is in Christ that we receive the promises of Abraham, not in Israel. The metaphorical tree spreads into Israel, many of whom rejected the Gospel and were cut off so the Gentiles could be grafted in. Gentiles are not grafted into Israel but into Christ.

Throughout Romans Paul contrasts the Gentiles and Israel. Know that Romans 9: 6 does not make a single Gentile into an Israelite; rather it disqualifies physical Israelites who reject the Gospel. Paul isn’t adding people in, he’s pruning people out until only a remnant is saved. These rejected Israelites are blinded until the full number of Gentiles are grafted into Christ alongside of the Israel of God. This cannot be so if we are suddenly all Israel.

So option #3 in circumventing the law in order to bind yourself to the law is to misapply scripture and contradict the Apostles and the Holy Spirit.

There are others ways than these three. There are many assumptions people make and string together with proof-texts in order to reach the desired outcome of binding themselves to a host of cherry-picked laws. But these are three of the most popular options. We can see they don't quite work.

MUST WE BE JEWS IN ORDER TO BE CHRISTIANS?

Acts 15 should have settled this issue forever.

The Jewish converts were demanding that Gentile converts had to be circumcised (thus ceasing to be Gentiles) and keep the law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas opposed them. A Council was called to settle the matter. The decision of the Holy Spirit was no, they do not have to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

Acts 15 was towards the beginning of Paul’s ministry; Acts 21 was towards the end. Acts 21: 25 solidifies that the Council’s decision remained in force and was never changed. No further expectation was left out. No later training in the law was implied.

It is preached from the pulpit in the Armstrong splinters that the Jews only complained about circumcision and that is the only issue the Council took up. Not so!

(ACT. 15: 5) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

So as we can see the Council was not just called to decide about circumcision. If you took my advice earlier and read our article on the law of Moses, you would see what the claim of the Jewish converts really was. It entailed the whole law.

Hear the words of Trypho, a Jew of the early second century. Justin Martyr the Christian was having a conversation with Trypho the Jew, when Trypho made it clear what the Jews expected:

“If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God.” -Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, chapter VIII

The expectations of the Jewish converts in Acts 15 and the expectations of Trypho are the same: circumcision, Sabbath, new moons, annual holy days. As Paul put it, “Days and months and seasons and years” (GAL. 4: 10). In other words they expected a return to the Old Covenant. To put it plainly - physical circumcision brings the whole law with it, and to reject one is to reject the other.

(GAL. 5: 3) And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

The decision of the Council was not that Gentiles should keep a little law now and a lot of law later on, but that no other burden would be laid on the Gentiles (v. 20, 29). That decision was not amended later, as Acts 21: 25 demonstrates.

Yes the “necessary things” expected of the Gentiles can be found in the Old Testament. This does not somehow negate the decision of the Council, however. These necessary things were also found in the Noachide Law, which all Jews would accept. These necessary things were expected of the Gentiles so that the Gentile converts wouldn’t be a complete offense to the sensibilities of the Jewish converts. It was a compromise in love, reminiscent of Romans 14.

Think about it. Why would Paul and Barnabas dispute with the Jewish converts if they really agreed with them the entire time? What sense is it to call a Council to decide whether the Gentiles had to keep the law of Moses and then say “yes, they do” but only in some linguistic loophole? If the answer was “yes, they do” then why not just come out and say so? Why hint? Why leave things unsaid? Worse yet, why go out of your way to make it look like the answer is "no"?

The reasonable explanation is plain – they said precisely what they meant and they meant precisely what they said. The answer really was "no". They never came to the conclusion of changing the law in order to bind the Gentiles under the law. Law was not added later because when we look at later we see the original decision unaltered. The Gentiles were strangers to the Old Covenant and never under the law, and that wasn’t going to change.

TWO CHOICES

This leaves us with two choices: Passover is forbidden to Gentiles, or the law was changed.

If you believe the law must be unchanged, and if you quote “not one jot or one tittle”, then Passover remains forbidden to people who are not physically Israelite. If you wish to observe any of the law without changing it then you must be circumcised if you are a male, or marry an Israelite if you are a woman (like Ruth), and thus join yourself to the physical nation of Israel. Only after you have joined and become like one of the natives of the land is there any expectation of observing the law of Moses. That is the law.

If you believe this law was changed, then there are far-reaching consequences for you. I know that Herbert Armstrong taught that only the sacrificial laws and the national laws of Israel were changed; this is not one of those. This is law regarding Passover, which Armstrongism demands is binding. Ergo, if one demands Passover then one admits the law itself was changed; the "eternal and unchanging law" is neither eternal nor unchanging. "Not one jot or one tittle" becomes fulfillment in Christ. And that is tantamount to admitting precisely what Mainstream Christianity claims.

Choose wisely.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, no, Christians are not expected to be Jews in order to be Christians, nor are they expected to observe the Old Covenant Passover.

And now, for the rest of the story regarding the Days of Unleavened Bread in the New Covenant, please continue on to read this fine article from Caleb: Were Gentiles in Corinth Observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

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

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

***********

ABD Pages