Is Ceremonial Law Removed?

Something has been on my mind. It regards how Armstrongism treats the Old Covenant law. The way it binds itself to some parts of the law and excuses itself from all other parts. It has never sat right with me how things are had both ways.

We would regularly quote Matthew 5: 18 when referring to holy days or the other laws we wanted to keep. "Not one jot or tittle," we would exclaim! That was our proof-text. The law is eternal. But did we keep the whole law? No. We only kept a small percentage. When we did not want to keep a law, like travelling to Jerusalem three times a year (EXO. 23: 14-17, 34: 23-24; DEU. 16: 16), or building booths at the Feast of Booths, we would say those laws were gone. "Ceremonial laws are done away," we would state. Well, isn't that convenient! The law is eternal ... except the parts we don't like. And thus we had things both ways.

That is what I would like to write about today. Ceremonies and standards. Is the ceremonial law really as "done away with" as we said?

WHAT IS CEREMONIAL LAW?

The laws in the Old Covenant seem to fit into one of three groups: moral laws, national laws, and ceremonial laws. In Armstrongism, two of those groups are discarded - the national and the ceremonial. They are considered to be removed, abrogated, abolished.

Where does the Bible define what is a moral law versus a ceremonial law and a national law? The Bible does not tell us because these are divisions realized after the fact. The divisions are manmade. Some astute person was reading and realized, hey, it seems the law has three groupings. This dividing the law into three groups is not something specific to Armstrongism. It is a very old idea. And it's not just Protestant, either, as the Catholics also write about it in the Catechism.

Where is it stated the moral law remains but the ceremonial and national laws are gone? Nowhere. That is also manmade. It is simply part of the Armstrongist doctrine that certain terms of the Old Covenant come forward into the New Covenant. That's how we could make claims like, "Jeremiah 31: 33 says, 'I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts,' therefore the law cannot be gone," and yet turn right around and claim two of three groups of law were gone. Completely contradictory, yet we held both as true, depending on which we wanted at the time.

Have you ever said these words: "I only believe what the Bible says, I don't hold the traditions of men"? Yes? Except that you do hold some traditions of men. This is one of them.

So, what are the divisions? Very (actually overly) simply put --
Moral law: those laws which distinguish righteousness from evil (e.g., you shall not murder).
National law: those laws which were specific to the functioning of the nation of Israel (e.g., sanctuary cities).
Ceremonial law: those laws which prescribe the rituals of worship (e.g., animal sacrifices).

Simple. Right?

GREY AREAS

Now we get to the hard part. Things that don't cleanly fit the categories. Grey areas. An example would be the Ten Commandments.

Just about everyone believes the Ten Commandments are moral law. Hard to argue with "you shall not commit adultery" (even when someone is trying to excuse away their adultery). But then we have that weekly Sabbath. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." What really is moral about that? To rest is beneficial, but is it morally beneficial?

Let's compare the weekly Sabbath and see which one fits better.

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" is:
A) Morally good versus evil.
B) Part of the rituals of worship.

Option B fits much better. So, why is it not gone?

Someone out there is thinking the day is holy, therefore it is moral. I want to remind you that holy usually means sacred, consecrated, set apart for a special ceremonial use. It is not exactly the same as morally good. Unholiness can be contracted through physical touch (LEV. 5: 3). Immorality cannot. Inanimate objects can be holy (EXO. 35: 19). Days can be holy (LEV. 23: 4). They cannot be moral. Almost everything that was called holy was part of the ceremonial law (holy place, holy oil, holy garments, holy sacrifices, holy altar, Holy of Holies, etc).

Is it true, then, that the Sabbath is somehow moral just because it is in the Ten Commandments? That's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments."

What if there is a ceremonial law dropped in the middle of a list of moral laws? What then? Why do we see the Ten as one single unit? Why aren't the individual commandments categorized based on their own characteristics? They are the Ten Commandments, after all, not the One Commandments. Seems the only thing causing us to refuse to accept the Sabbath is ceremonial is ... tradition.

For the sake of argument, let's move forward granting that the weekly Sabbath is a moral law only because it is in the Ten Commandments. I grant that so we can complicate matters even further.

MORAL BY ASSOCIATION?

The weekly Sabbath is in the Ten Commandments, but only the weekly. What then of the annual sabbaths? Why are they not gone?

Does the supposed moral goodness of the weekly Sabbath bleed out into the annual sabbaths? How? If the weekly day of rest is only said to be morally good because it is in the Ten Commandments, then how can other days escape their ceremonial nature? Days cannot be morally good, so how can moral goodness extend to the annual days?

You will be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with Herbert Armstrong on the holy days. Just about every other church, including nearly every flavor of Adventism that existed prior to Herbert Armstrong, considers the annual holy days to be ceremonial. The Adventists don't keep "biblical days". The only thing that saves the weekly Sabbath from the same fate is its part in the Ten Commandments. Why mention the Adventists? Because Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism. Herbert Armstrong's ideas about the Sabbath come directly from the Seventh Day Adventists. Yet, they disagree with him on annual days. One of the reasons Herbert Armstrong was fired from the Church of God (Seventh Day) was for teaching the annual days are required. But where did he get that idea? Armstrong took his ideas from one G. G. Rupert. Rupert supposedly got his ideas from a small fringe-group that mixed Judaism and Mormonism.
Traditions of men?

So, the weekly Sabbath is only morally good because it is one of the Ten Commandments, but the holy days are also morally good because ...they are associated with the word Sabbath?? They are moral by association?

Again, that's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments, OR has the word Sabbath associated with it."

Then what do we do with the holy days that are not annual sabbaths? The day of Passover is not, five of the Days of Unleavened Bread are not, the Day of Firstfruits is not, and six of the days of the Feast of Tabernacles are not. Why are those not abandoned as parts of ceremonial law? They aren't Sabbaths and they aren't in the Ten Commandments. So, they are moral by association with something that is moral by association?

Yet again, that's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments, or has the word Sabbath associated with it, OR is associated with something that is associated with the word Sabbath."

Perhaps you think you can't just do away with any annual day once you start keeping annual days. You keep them all or nothing. Or perhaps you think you must keep Passover because it has significance with Jesus. Alright. But then, what of the Day of Firstfruits?

Armstrongism completely ignores Firstfruits. This day is every bit as annual as the others. And it has significance with Jesus. Passover is the day Jesus died; Firstfruits is the day Jesus was resurrected. Herbert Armstrong didn't believe Jesus was resurrected on Firstfruits, but even he taught the rituals of Firstfruits pointed to Jesus. According to the standard set above, does this not make Firstfruits a moral law? So, why is this day ignored while Passover is observed?

And don't get me started on the "Night To Be Much Observed" which is entirely made up. It is made up because Herbert Armstrong misread Exodus 12: 42. Passover is the Night to be Remembered. A made up day is observed, but a legitimate day is ignored?

So, Armstrongism does not teach the keeping of all annual days, or keeping all annual days that have significance with Jesus, but they do keep an invented day. Consistency, anyone?

And not just that, but as we saw in my last article, "Why Not Keep Biblical Days?", even when people say they're keeping a biblical day, they're not keeping it the way the law said to. The name of the day is kept, but nearly everything was removed that made the day what it was. How can the days themselves be moral, but all the things that made the days what they were are ceremonial? Can a day be both moral and ceremonial - at the same time? Parts are moral, like the obligation to "keep" it, but parts are ceremonial, like exactly what you were supposed to do to keep it. How on earth does that work?
And if a single day can be both, why can't the Ten Commandments?

I am at a complete loss. What is the standard here?

Can we get some form of consistency in here, please!

ARE TITHES CEREMONIAL?

There are some other issues besides days that fit this same pattern of being ceremonial but not gone. Take tithes, for instance. Why are tithes not gone?

The Levitical priesthood was entirely ceremonial. The whole Levitical priesthood is gone, the Temple is gone, and the system is gone - replaced entirely by Jesus and the church. In the Armstrongist system, can something that was replaced be moral law? No.
Tithes existed to support the Levitical priesthood because they had no other means. If the priesthood was not moral, why would the system initiated to fund the priesthood be moral? It is not. So why is it not gone? How do we justify saying the priesthood and everything associated with it was ceremonial, except the system for funding it?

Tithes were for Levites (NUM. 18: 21). If tithes remain, who can receive them? Where is the law that says churches can now accept tithes? I can't find that law anywhere. To make that adjustment, the unchanging law had to change. Are ministers Levites, then? I thought the priesthood was gone!

What is so moral about tithing, anyway? The amount? Nine percent is evil, eleven percent is neither here nor there, but ten percent - righteous! How does that make sense?

Are we to believe that being required to hand over money is moral? Then explain Paul's statement in II Corinthians 9: 7, "So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver." It says not out of necessity. A tithe is definitely by necessity. One does not "give" tithes and more or less than one "gives" taxes. Tithes are a requirement, not a gift. Charity and tithes are not synonyms.

Tithes were an offering (NUM. 18: 24). Tithes are closely associated with offerings in multiple verses. Almost all verses where tithes are discussed there is the connotation of an offering.

(DEU. 12: 6) There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 

Offerings are ceremonial and gone. Why not tithes?

And what of second tithe? Armstrongism teaches not one but three tithes. The second tithe, we believed, was for funding one of the annual days - the Feast of Tabernacles. We had to travel and do activities, so we needed funding. Second tithe only exists because the annual days exist ...and we still don't quite know why the annual days still exist.

Yet again, that's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments, or has the word Sabbath associated with it, or is associated with something that is associated with the word Sabbath, OR it is associated with something that is associated with something that is associated with the word Sabbath."

What's more, why was second tithe only associated with the Feast of Tabernacles? Because that was the one time per year church members were required to travel. Is that what the law says, though? No. The law required travel three times a year, not one.
Armstrong started out requiring travel three times per year, but it was too expensive, so he took that down to once per year. What then? Two of the three travel requirements were ceremonial? How does that make any sense? How is that justified? I was once told, "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." Changed the law!??
The law is eternal ...except the parts that are gone, or that we've changed.

Hopefully by this point you see the absurdity of the standard here. Or, rather, the complete lack thereof.

Oh, but there's more!

ARE MEATS LAWS CEREMONIAL?

What about clean / unclean meats laws?

In the Old Testament, clean and unclean pertain to ritual purity. From the first mention, clean and unclean animals references ceremonial cleanliness for the purposes of sacrifice.

(GEN. 7: 1-2) 1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean [ceremonially pure; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean [not clean; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate.

CLEAN [Strong’s 2889, Heb. Tahor, from 2891]: pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial, or moral sense):- clean, fair, pure (-ness).

Do you think the animals were morally pure or impure? No. They are animals. By their nature, they cannot be held accountable for the morality of their actions. No, they were ceremonially pure or impure. This is entirely ceremonial. This can be confirmed by observing what Noah did with those animals.

(GEN. 8: 20) Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

He sacrificed them! They were clean for sacrifice. That is entirely ceremonial. And that is precisely their use throughout the Old Covenant.

For more, see our article "Clean and Unclean for Noah".

In Acts 10, God sends Peter the infamous Sheet Vision. God lets down a large sheet, filled with all sorts of unclean animals, and says, "Go, Peter, kill and eat." What did Peter take from that? Here was his conclusion:

(ACT. 10: 28) 28 Then he said to [Cornelius and his family], “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

There were a series of laws to keep the Jews separate from the Gentiles: meats laws, marriage laws, circumcision laws, and etc. God revealed a second purpose of the meats laws was to separate Jew from Gentile.
These are the two parts of meats laws: sacrifice and separation. Every separation in the church between Jew and Gentile is removed. Every animal sacrifice is removed. So why would meats laws remain? There is no purpose for it to remain.

For more, see our articles on the Sheet Vision.

God goes out of his way to get rid of meats laws and people cry, "No! No! I need to observe meats laws!" Why? It has been gutted. What purpose is left? Certainly not because they are moral laws. So why? I can't even repeat my "not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read" line here because meats have nothing to do with anything moral at all (MAR. 7: 18-23).

And before you say it - no, meats laws are not health issues, either. There is nothing in the Bible to substantiate that. There is nothing in the Bible about meats laws being about health or dirt or anything like that. The only thing you'll find are the two things I mentioned.

Do you want to know why Armstrongism teaches clean/unclean meats laws? The real reason? Its roots in Adventism. Ellen G. White was big on foods, and that came down to Herbert Armstrong. That is the reason. Traditions of men.

Can we get some form of consistency in here, please!

CONCLUSION

Today, we have seen the three divisions of the law, of which two are supposedly gone. Yet, we have seen several examples of ceremonial items that are not gone, according to Armstrongism. And so, we have asked -- is the ceremonial law removed or isn't it?

It seems the answer is no.
But why not?

In my experience, I have most often had people answer these questions with statements like, "Until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass from the law." But two complete sections have passed from the law. Or, "God changes not, therefore the law changes not". But the law has changed (HEB. 7: 12). Or, "Why would God initiate the law only to get rid of it?" But He did get rid of two full sections of it. Or, "The law will be written on our hearts." But which laws? The laws that are gone?

The point of those statements is to say the law will never be done away. But that offends reason and denies reality. Not a single person who says those things intends to keep the whole law. Every single person who says those things knows they are only referring to certain laws. So, those statements are absurd. Do those responses explain why one law is kept and another discarded? No. Do those responses explain why the examples we reviewed today are not ceremonial? No. Do you know what those statements will do? They show that we talked out both sides of our mouths.

Since those things we reviewed today are ceremonial, tell your Minister you're not going to do them anymore.
What? That makes you uncomfortable? Why? Are the ceremonial laws removed or aren't they?
Fine. Tell your minister the ceremonial laws are not removed.
What? That makes you uncomfortable?

There are more examples than this. I could go on about things like circumcision, the gateway to the law. But I think we've seen enough. I think the point is sufficiently made.

My point is really about the standard - the shifting standard -- the lack of standard. One standard is used here, another standard is used there. Keep this part of the law here, don't keep that part of the law there. Demand the law will never change here, demand the law has changed there. Say we don't like traditions of men here, keep traditions of men there.

Standards and ceremonies and traditions of men. It's a double-standard. And that has always bothered me.

I don't want to go without leaving you a solution to this dilemma. Dear reader, beloved by God, I pray God guides you to step into the New Covenant in faith.

p.s.
I suppose you could consider this part 1 in a series. Try out the next post: "Are the Ten Commandments Removed?"

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

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

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

Why Not Keep Biblical Days?

From all different corners of the world, and from people of various flavors of Protestantism, some version of this question has been popping up more and more lately:
Why do we keep made up holidays when the Bible gave us days we can keep?

It's a valid question that deserves an answer.

This is something we have hit on over and over again here at As Bereans Did since around 2010. We don't mind repeating ourselves (at some point we are going to want to stop, though, because frankly we've gone over this). Usually, the target audience is Armstrongists. Today, I am going to talk past the usual audience to address a more general population.

So, what is our response? Why not keep biblical days? I will start by answering the question with a question.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'KEEP'?

So, you're going to "keep" a day that you see in the Bible. How do you plan to do that, exactly?

--HOW/WHERE

What do you plan to do to "keep" the biblical day? Are you going to keep this biblical day according to the biblical instructions for it? So, for example, let's imagine it's Passover. You're going to do what exactly? Eat a Seder? Do you know the Seder as it is kept today by the Jews is not what is instructed in the Bible? The Bible doesn't say to have four cups of wine and a hard boiled egg and vegetables in salt water and gefilte fish. If you are going to keep a biblical day - stressing the idea that you got it from the Bible rather than some made up holiday - don't you think you should keep it the way the Bible says to, rather than, you know, making up ways to keep it?

Don't worry. We have you covered. Here's what you do --

First, you travel to Jerusalem. You can opt to travel to Jerusalem if you're female, but if you're male you are required to. Because that's the only place you are allowed to keep it (DEU. 16: 5-7). You're going to have to do this a little early, because you need to select a lamb or a goat without blemish then keep it with you for four days (EXO. 12: 3-5). So, get there by the 10th of Nissan. Then, at the very start of the 14th of Nissan, you go ahead and remove all leaven from your household (EXO. 12: 15). That means no yeast or baking soda or rising agents of any kind. And no already leavened bread, which includes dough starters, cereals, cookies, crumbs, and etc. Jews will remove grains as well, to make sure they aren't contaminated with microbes that might cause them to rise when cooked. (It's a valid concern as that was how risen bread was made in the ancient times.) The Jews also include any alcoholic drink made form grains. Anything with leavening in it has to go (DEU. 16: 4). Hint: you might want to check inside your toaster and under the seats of your car, too. (I know that from experience.) For seven days, the only bread you may eat must be unleavened (EXO. 16: 3). It's not just that you must avoid leavened bread, you must actively eat unleavened bread (EXO. 12: 20). Matzo is an easy option. Make sure it's Matzo rated for Passover, because not all Matzo is. (I know that from experience, too.) Removing leavening from your home will be difficult while you're in Jerusalem, we know. Perhaps you might want to divide the responsibilities, because as someone is at home removing the leaven, someone else is going to have to go to the Temple and sacrifice that lamb, or goat if you're bougie (EXO. 12: 6). Then, once the animal is properly sacrificed by the Temple Priests, you can go back to wherever you are staying in town and roast that lamb on its bones with some bitter herbs (EXO. 12: 8). Don't get fancy and try cooking it any other way, as that is not permitted (EXO. 12: 9). Goat burger with feta, arugula, and a mint aioli is verboten. Leftovers are also not allowed. Anything you can't finish eating that night will have to be burned up (EXO. 12: 10). No gyro for you tomorrow.

And while you're doing all that, the Temple Priests will be doing the offerings in Numbers 28: 19-24.

And that is the minimum requirement for how you keep a Passover! You are now ready to keep your first Biblical day.

You may have noticed an issue regarding the Temple and the animal sacrifices. Yes, that has been a thorny problem lo these past 1,900 years. It does have the unfortunate effect of making it nigh impossible to keep a biblical Passover. And that is a main reason why the early church didn't even try. So, how are you going to "keep" this biblical day, exactly, when you literally cannot keep it as the Bible says to? Make something up? The Jews did! It was the only reasonable thing they could do. So, they made up new traditions. Oh, we are not criticizing the Jews at all. Not one bit. They did what they had to do to continue observing ordinances given to them. It was either that or stop altogether. Can you blame them? We don't. But, that takes us right back to the initial problem, doesn't it? You've made up a holiday.

Oh, you can add in things that were done during the Last Supper, like foot washing - which was also made up, as there is no law for foot washing - but it might be good to bear in mind that Jesus did not have the Last Supper apart from its Jewish context. It was a Jewish Passover performed by Jews living during the final hours of the Old Covenant period. Jesus was doing the things we've reviewed and adding new elements. Adding Last Supper elements to your biblical Passover doesn't do anything to remove your obligation to also do what is required for your biblical day to be Biblical. Forgoing Passover elements and only going for Last Supper elements definitely turns Passover into Easter. It's what the first century church did. They got rid of Passover elements, only kept the bread and wine, and went forward calling it Passover. That would be the opposite of what you're going for, though. You're going for keeping a biblical day, not Easter. But isn't the Last Supper biblical? And you can't do the things required for your biblical day. There is no Temple, nor Priesthood, nor animal sacrifices. So I guess that leaves everyone in a difficult spot. The exact same spot as the first century church.

--WHEN

Now, when will you be enjoying this Passover?

The Bible says to observe it on the 14th day of the month of Nissan (aka Abib) (EXO. 12: 6). But when is that, precisely? Will you follow the Jews? Don't you know the modern Jewish calendar is not the same calendar used at the Temple in Jerusalem? After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and after the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem due to the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132 AD, the calendar used at the Temple no longer worked. So, Rabi Hillel II revamped the calendar in 359 AD. The calendar the Jews use today is based on but not the same as the one used at the Temple. In fact it's better. But better is still different. You are going to want a biblical calendar to go with your biblical day. What calendar did they use at the Temple? We aren't entirely sure. They kept the formula somewhat of a secret. What we know for certain is it's not exactly the one used today. Since we are on the topic of calendars, didn't you know the Jews had at least three "Hebrew" calendars in the first century (Essene, Galilean, and Judean/Babylonian)? And none of those three are exactly what Moses used. So, you need to decide which calendar you are going to follow. Don't choose a made up one!

What's more, when will you be enjoying this Passover meal?

You should know there is currently a timing dispute among people who attempt to "keep" this biblical day. Not calendar timing. This is different. The dispute is over when on the 14th the Passover rituals, like the Seder & etc., should be performed. Should it be on the evening at the start of the 14th or the evening at the end of the 14th? Hebrew days went from sunset to sunset, so each day technically had two evenings. Several verses say Passover rituals should be "at twilight" or "evening" on the 14th (EXO. 12: 18; LEV. 23: 5; NUM. 9: 3-5, 28: 16; JOS. 5: 10). But what does "at twilight" or "evening" or "between the evenings" mean, exactly? The first or the second? A casual reading could get you equally to either evening. I will spare you the details. Suffice it to say it gets complicated. Jesus kept His final Passover on the first evening, while the Jews kept it on the second. (There is nothing to indicate Jesus always kept Passover this way. It is reasonable to conclude He did not.) Who shall you follow? The one keeping the biblical day, or the one keeping the biblical day? In the end, we have two camps of people "keeping" the same biblical day on two different evenings. Which will you choose? And what will you say to the other camp, or about the other camp, when they question your decision? What will you do if they accuse you of heresy? The majority of non-Jews who "keep" biblical days aren't doing it because they find it fulfilling, they are doing it because they feel commanded to. They call them God's holy days. Any departure from their doctrine will threaten them and win you a negative response. You are a heretic in defiance of God in their eyes. And they will be happy to share that fact with you. You might want to be fully educated on why you chose what you did. But not for their sake. They are right and you are wrong and that is that. No, for your own sake. I suggest starting with a good understanding of the two Great Covenants.

--WHO

I am going to assume you are a Gentile since I cannot imagine any Jew would ever ask a question like this in the first place. So, Gentile, how do you plan on "keeping" Passover as a Gentile? Don't you know that according to the law of Passover, Gentiles were forbidden from observing Passover (EXO. 12: 43-49)? That's the law! That law likely includes Firstfruits and the Days of Unleavened Bread, since they were often lumped together under the term Passover. You must become a Jew in order to observe these days. Men, schedule your circumcision. Ladies, marry an Israelite. People like to say, "God gave us days to keep." But, did He? Because He didn't give them to us Gentiles at all. He gave them to the Jews, and Jews only. This is another main reason why the early church didn't even try to "keep" biblical days.

Jews can be some of the most welcoming people. Once they get to know you, they will invite people to share in their observance of Passover. They do so without expecting anything, including conversion. Conversion is generally not what they want at all. They just want to share who they are. I respect that, deeply. I would go without hesitation. However, it isn't exactly what the Bible prescribes. For a Jew to share their Passover is one thing. It's their day. It was given to them. They can share it if they want to. It's another thing entirely for a Gentile to take the day upon themselves. It's not our day. It wasn't given to us. If you are taking up this day when the Bible clearly says not to, are you doing the right thing, biblically speaking? The point is to be biblical, right?

I would imagine being prohibited from keeping a day we aren't sure when to keep and which we cannot keep as prescribed even if we wanted to is really going to complicate this plan to "keep" a biblical day.

So far, we have only gone over Passover. I haven't gone into the other biblical days, such as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Pentecost, Rosh Hashanah, Atonement, or Tabernacles. Not to mention Purim, which is in the Bible, so it's biblical, but it's also "made up" by the Jews (EST. 9: 22-27). Or Hanukkah, which is mentioned in the Gospels (JON. 10: 22-23), so it's biblical, but is detailed only in the Apocrypha, because it's "made up" by the Jews, too. Biblical and made up? Yes. It's enough to make a person think "made up" holidays are entirely permitted by the Bible. Because they are. In other words, it's biblical to make up days to honor God. The Bible allows that. How does that affect your decision?

But believe me, the other days come with just as much if not more detail as Passover. Do you even own a shofar? You'll need one. Will you side with the Pharisees or the Sadducees on when to observe Firstfruits? It matters. Are you going to have a last great day to your Tabernacles or not? Remember when I said you have to travel to Jerusalem to keep the Passover? You actually have to do that three times a year. Yeah. Please take the time to understand what you're getting yourself into before you start down this road of "keeping" biblical days.

Maybe you thought this was going to be a simple thing. Perhaps you thought you would just take a made up day out and put a biblical day in, like changing socks. The reality is it's not so simple in practice as it is in theory. This section has been about the days as they actually are. Using Passover as an example, we have shown you the law. In other words, the days as they actually are, not as they are reinvented, or romanticized, to be. Do you love the days as they are, as they actually are, or have you built up an idea in your mind about the days that changes them into something else?

DAYS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

What days are given in the New Testament to remember events of the New Testament? Answer: none.

Passover does nothing to recall His resurrection - the greatest single event in the history of the physical universe. Keeping biblical days does not take you back to the early church, it takes you back to Sinai.

What days are directly commanded in the New Testament? Answer: none.

There is nothing new commanded to remember events of the New Testament. The Apostles commanded no mandatory days of observance at all. The early church observed the Last Supper, but with newly made symbols and meanings of our Lord not with old symbols and meanings of Old Covenant law, and by tradition not command.

Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me," but He didn't exactly specify when (LUK. 22: 19). It does not say, "Do Passover in remembrance of Me every year." It says bread and wine "in remembrance of Me" (I COR. 11: 24-25), and that isn't really Passover. Yes, the bread is a Passover element, but it is one element out of many and hardly enough to constitute all of Passover. The wine is not commanded as a Passover element anywhere, and Jesus doesn't say anything at all about the rest of those things we went over in the last section. So, when do we remember Him with bread and wine? It doesn't say. Doing something is clearly assumed, but what, and when?

For the most part, the early church decided weekly and annually. Is that "made up"? Yes and no. Which will you go with, the 'yes' or the 'no'? Or both? People talk about "made up" days like there was some cut and dry system which most of the early church decided to ignore. That's simply not the case.

Paul said, "Let us keep the feast," apparently in reference to Passover, but then he went right on to change the imagery, saying, "not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth," (I COR. 5: 8). Some people say this is a command to keep Old Covenant holy days, but we disagree since the context cannot support such a far-reaching conclusion as that. Paul is using imagery to make a point about morality vs immorality. Goes well with what he said in Romans 7: 6.

So, what does the New Testament say about days? It says a couple things.

First off, it says the Jewish converts were "zealous for the law" (ACT. 21: 20-21). What this means is, the Jewish converts were fully permitted to continue in their Old Covenant traditions in the New Covenant era. That includes days. Those things are their culture. Those things were given to them (ROM. 3: 1-2; 9: 4-5). It's theirs to keep (ROM. 11: 29). They can both accept Jesus as their Messiah and keep the Old Covenant traditions of their forefathers. Jews were not required to become Gentiles in order to be Christians.

Second, conversely, it says Gentiles were under no obligation to observe Old Covenant traditions (ACT. 20: 25). How could they be obligated if they are in fact forbidden? They cannot. Acts 15 is all about how that decision was made. It was God Himself who revealed the Gentiles were under no such obligations (ACT. 15: 28-29). So, the Gentiles were not to be circumcised nor keep the whole law (ACT. 15: 5). That includes days. Almost the entire book of Galatians is a record of Paul dealing with this issue. Yet, even as Paul zealously defended the Gentiles from legalism, he never abandoned his own Jewishness (ACT. 21: 24). Gentiles do not need to become Jews in order to be Christians.

Third, Paul made it abundantly clear that there are no obligatory days in the New Covenant (ROM. 14: 5-7). There is no command from the Apostles in the New Covenant to observe any day. We know days were observed. The Lord's Day was definitely observed. I am not saying days were not observed. I am only saying days were not commanded to be observed. Observe days, don't observe days, it's all the same. Either way, what you choose to do, do it to the Lord. Now, the Quartodeciman Controversy taught us a good lesson about how this freedom affects unity, so take that lesson with you.

Fourth, Paul specifically expresses concern about it.

(GAL. 4: 10-11) 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

Paul is not talking about divination or paganism. If Galatians were doing those sorts of things, Paul would express more than just concern. Paul goes back to Genesis 1: 14 to get this phrase. The days and months and seasons and years he refers to are in reference Old Covenant law (EZE. 45: 17). You know, those biblical days you are thinking about keeping. If we follow the context of Galatians, we know Paul is specifically warning the Gentiles about taking up Old Covenant days. That is the overarching context of the book. It concerns him so much because if people start mixing law with grace, it can ruin their faith (GAL. 5: 1-4). That's why Paul says, "I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." That's some very serious stuff. Why do we not "keep" Old Covenant biblical days? Because it's not as great an idea as it sounds.

This is where it gets important to know your motivation.

KNOW YOUR MOTIVATION

This comes from introspection. There are many questions to ask yourself. Primarily, why would you want to do this in the first place?

Be honest with yourself and peal away the rhetorical buzz phrases like "made up" and "biblical" that are only there to manipulate. What is your true motivation? Are you bored? Are you disappointed? Do you feel there is a more genuine experience to be had in those days? Are you looking for more spirituality? Do you think the Old Covenant Pesach will bring you closer to Jesus than the New Covenant Pascha? Are you tired of secular encroachment on Christian holidays? (I am!) Do you think the Old Covenant days are commanded for Christians? Do you prefer days that remember events from the Old Testament versus days that remember events from the New Testament? I bet it's not that last one. I hope it's not this next one! Do you feel you will become more pure or holier than others if you "keep" these biblical days while they keep their "made up" days?

So, we ask, what is your motivation? Do you really love these biblical days as they actually are, or do you love the idea of these days that you (or someone else) have made up?

We also ask, why stop there? Why stop at annual days? Why not go on to weekly Sabbaths? The biblical rest day. And why stop there? Why not also have tithes? The biblical way to pay. And why stop there? Why not have clean/unclean meats laws, too? The biblical way to eat. And why stop there? Why not also prohibit mixing of fabrics? The biblical way to dress. And why stop there? Why not do everything according to the Jewish calendar (or whatever calendar you chose earlier)? The biblical way to tell time. And why stop there? Why not add various other laws? The biblical way to be. Why stop there....

It's a slippery slope! Be cautious! A little law leads to a little more. After all, what is so biblical about these days besides the command? Both "biblical" and "made up" days have their roots in the Bible, in worshipping the God of the Bible for things God did in the Bible. So what is the difference? The command. The law. (Even though that same law tells you not to.) Thousands before you have been tripped up over this. Your motivation will either make or break you on this point. This is precisely what worried Paul!

Don't think that could ever happen to you? Look at the original question. It sets up two options: biblical vs made up. You could see that as a wrote matter of cold fact. Sure. Or, you could see that as a rhetorical dichotomy. Words meant to set one idea up and pull another idea down. One is biblical. Godly. Yay! The other is made up. Worldly. Boo! Hiss! Therein lies the rub. The toe is already dipped into the pool of us vs. them before you even make a choice. Who would want to choose made up days? :-( Only people who don't obey God, am I right? So, off people go by the score, to "keep" a godly and holy biblical day ...that they make up. Only a few steps down that road, and "made up" day becomes "pagan" and "sinful" day. Oh, beloved by God, be so very careful about your motivations! The road to self righteousness lies before you. Again, I come back to Paul's worry.

CONCLUSION

Why do we keep "made up" holidays when the Bible gave us days we can keep?

• Because we can. There's nothing wrong with it. The book of Esther makes that clear enough.
• Because there's a lot more to it than taking Easter out and putting Passover in. Or any other biblical day. There is a whole lot more to it.
• Because unless you modify them, biblical days miss important parts of New Covenant events. Where is God's incarnation? Not in Trumpets. Where is Jesus' resurrection? Not in Passover.
• Because Gentiles are forbidden by law from keeping those days. When contemplating what days "the Bible gives us", it is a good idea to remember to whom the Bible actually gave those days. Hint: it's not us, the Gentiles.
• Because it's a matter of Covenants. They aren't the same! Know which one actually applies to you. Making the wrong choice will have far-reaching consequences.
• Because there is no command to observe Old Covenant days in the New Covenant. No day is commanded in the New. People want commands. Having none in the New, they go to the Old. Which brings us right back to knowing which covenant applies to you.
• Because it's not a safe option to mix law with grace. Be wary, lest you start seeing days as having some part to play in your salvation, as meriting you something, as obligatory, or as making you somehow better off than your fellow Christian. That's when Christ's righteousness in you by faith becomes self-righteousness by law, where "gift" becomes "merit", and you fall from grace.
• Because we can no longer "keep" biblical days as the Bible demands they should be kept. And if you aren't keeping them as the Bible says to, are you really keeping them at all? Are they really biblical? Or are they ... made up days? And if it's made up, then what's the point?

Be cautious! Mind your motivations. Know your covenants.

Hopefully this article goes over the highlights of the issue and helps you to get a better idea of what this decision really entails. As I said, there is a lot more to it. An informed decision is a better decision. We have many articles in our Categories page to help you.

We pray you make the right choice for your walk with God. Whatever choice you make, make it in faith, make it to the Lord, and stay humble. We hope for you God's guidance, grace, and blessings.

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

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

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

Firstfruits and the Beauty of God's Timing

Herbert Armstrong was absolutely right when he said,

"Few professing Christians have ever thought to question or to prove this "Good-Friday-Easter" tradition. Yet the Bible tells us to prove (test) all things."
-Herbert W Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday", 1972, p3

He lived in a time when average people generally did not have access to information. They didn't know anyone who questioned or proved, and didn't think to question or prove. When I tried to question Easter, I got garbage answers from people who were completely unprepared. I took their lack of ability to explain as evidence there was no good answer. For that mistake, I served a 26-year stint in Armstrongism.

These people had answers. I asked, and they PROVED! (Armstrong would always capitalize for emphasis.) But did they? Armstrongism was feeding me completely one-sided answers; the same few points over and over, which I was not allowed to question. I went from not knowing I should question, to knowing I should not question. I thought we were supposed to question and prove! No. Only enough to get you in the door. After that, it just gets you back out the door again.

Is confirmation bias and beating up on straw men really the same thing as proving? Was it really any different than when I questioned Easter at the outset? There are two sides to every story, but after all those years it dawned on me I had still only heard the testimony from one side. But if that was so, then I had never really PROVED either side of this. All this time I had been hearing only what I wanted to hear. This made me no different than the Easter-keepers who only heard what they wanted to hear. I didn't need to be coddled, I needed proof! But I didn't know Easter from Adam. Who was going to give me the answers I still needed? No one. I was going to have to get the answers myself. Thus began a 16-year journey here at As Bereans Did.

I made life-altering choices based on the information I had at the time. Now, dear reader, we have access to better information. Now we can finally PROVE as we should. As Bereans Did has several articles on Easter. Those articles do the heavy lifting on topics like "three days and three nights", the two Sabbaths of Matthew 28, the Quartodeciman Controversy, Constantine the Great, Eostra, Old Covenant vs New Covenant, and all the rest. See our Categories page for a list.

In my last post I promised another article. I did this because I have stumbled across something that I want to share with you. I was reading through the article "History of Easter - part I" when I was sidetracked reading about the Feast of Firstfruits. That led me to a little detail I thought was interesting enough to warrant its own article.

Today's post is going to be about the beauty and intricacy of God's timing. Specifically, the timing of Good Friday and Easter Sunday (the timing everybody loves to hate) and how it fits with the Feast of Firstfruits. But to get to that point, we need to learn about the Feast of Firstfruits.

FEAST OF FIRSTFRUITS

Firstfruits (Yom HaBikkurim = Day of Firsfruits) was an important ceremony within the timing of the Days of Unleavened Bread. We can read about it in Leviticus 23.

(LEV. 23: 9-11) 9 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted on your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12 And you shall offer on that day, when you wave the sheaf, a male lamb of the first year, without blemish, as a burnt offering to the Lord. 13 Its grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering made by fire to the Lord, for a sweet aroma; and its drink offering shall be of wine, one-fourth of a hin. 14 You shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain until the same day that you have brought an offering to your God; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

The Day of Firstfruits was the very day when the Wave Sheaf Offering was performed.
The Days of Unleavened Bread, which the Jews call Passover, was a harvest festival. Actually, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were all harvest festivals. Passover was the festival of the first harvest of the year - the barley harvest. Since the first and best of everything is dedicated to God, the barley harvest couldn't begin in earnest until after the Wave Sheaf Offering. And the Wave Sheaf Offering couldn't happen until the barley was ready to harvest. The ripening of the barley and the Spring Equinox keep Passover tied to its particular time of the year. The Day of Firstfruits also helped to tie Passover to Pentecost. The 50-day count to Pentecost starts on Firstfruits.
The Day of Firstfruits was actually pretty important.

Firstfruits wasn't emphasized by Herbert Armstrong, therefore it is mostly overlooked by the Church of God splinter groups. Oh, you'll get mention of it here and there from detail-oriented ministers, but most people glossed right over it. Here is where I would usually give my catch phrase "The law! The law! Just not THAT law!" and where Armstrongists would object that this was ceremonial so it was done away, then I would respond that if you keep Pentecost then it isn't ceremonial and keeping 2% of the law is not keeping the law. Yada yada. Round and round it goes. Today's article isn't meant to be so polemic as that.

There is a fairly interesting detail hidden in here which you probably glossed right over. I'll put it here again for you -
     "On the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it." (v.11)

Why is that important, you ask? Because, as fate would have it, that little word right there - Sabbath - caused issues that I think display the beauty and intricacy of God's timing.

WHICH SABBATH?

That's the big money question right there. Which Sabbath is verse 11 referring to? In my last article, I shared this quote from the UCG, "Two kinds of 'Sabbaths' leads to confusion." Not in Matthew 28, no, but in Leviticus 23 it really does. 

If you're here reading this blog, you already know there are two kinds of Sabbaths: weekly Sabbaths (Saturday) and annual holy days. In a multi-day festival like the Days of Unleavened Bread, you will always have at least one weekly Sabbath. By the nature of the DOUB, you will also have two annual Sabbaths - the first day and the last day. One feast, two kinds of Sabbaths.

When you have a thousand years to think on things, details like the word Sabbath can cause big disputes. By the time Jesus was born, that Sabbath in v.11 was interpreted in two very different ways. The Sadducees decided the regular weekly Sabbath was the one being spoken of. For them, the date didn't matter, only the day of the week - Sunday. The Pharisees, on the other hand, tied it to the annual Sabbath. Why tie the Wave Sheaf to a regular weekly Sabbath when you're reading a section of Torah detailing annual Sabbaths? For them, the day of the week didn't matter, only the date - the 16th. In any given year, there were two completely incompatible interpretations of the timing of the Day of Firstfruits.

You can read about this topic on any number of Jewish sources (e.g., Chabad).

Harder to find is information on when other Jewish sects observed the Wave Sheaf. From what I can find, Kenneth Strand (at the time of Andrews University) claims the Essenes sided with the Sadducees and observed after the weekly Sabbath.

We have mentioned in other articles the Church of God splinter groups disagree on when to keep Pentecost in years where the first day of Unleavened Bread falls on a Saturday. The nature of this debate is is why.

Which side was in the right? The Bible doesn't clarify elsewhere. If it were clear, there wouldn't be a debate. I am not going to attempt an answer. That is not the point of this article. I wish to show something quite different. I for one am amazed at something good that comes from these debates. I see God glorifying Himself in them.

I'll explain how in a bit! Don't rush me!

JESUS - FIRST OF THE FIRSTFRUITS

I said earlier that the Wave Sheaf is mentioned by the more detail-oriented ministers in Armstrongism. Some use it to dispute over the timing of Pentecost. The better sermons would explain how Jesus fulfills the symbolism of the Wave Sheaf offering. I like to give credit where credit is due - and these ministers deserve credit for being correct.
See? We at ABD always admit where people are right.

Christ is called Firstfruits in I Corinthians 15: 20 & 23. Christ is also indirectly called the Firstfruits in Romans 11: 16. The idea of associating Jesus with the firstfruits is an old one. Granted, Jesus isn't the only one associated with it. All Christians will eventually be associated. But that's for another article. Suffice it to say it is possible to demonstrate a tie between Jesus and Firstfruits.

Know that when Christ is called Firstfruits in I Corinthians, this is in reference to resurrection from the dead. The entire chapter is, overall, about resurrection.

(I COR. 20: 20-23) 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

God isn't interested in harvesting barley. Ultimately, we are the harvest God has planted. Jesus is the very first of the harvest. "The firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." Firstfruits and resurrection are linked so closely that, at least in Corinthians, Jesus' resurrection is the fulfillment of the Day of Firstfruits.

Taking what we've seen about Firstfruits, let's put that together with Passover.

Passover is fulfilled by Jesus' crucifixion, as He is our Passover lamb. The first day of Unleavened Bread is fulfilled by Jesus' death taking away our sin, as the leaven in the bread is representative of sin. And the Firstfruits is fulfilled by Jesus' resurrection, as He is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Three days that point directly to Christ.

Now that we've talked about imagery, let's talk about the beauty of how that played out.

GOD FULFILLS EVERYTHING

Remember how the Sadducees always put Firstfruits on a Sunday while the Pharisees always put it after the holy day? Imagine what a mess that must have been. The powerful and wealthy yet less numerous Sadducees, in control of the Temple, performing rituals according to their own views, versus the numerous and fastidious Pharisees, tithing to the last seed, wanting everything done according to their views. It had to have been a frustrating dynamic even on normal days. Yet, as providence would have it, in a Friday-Sunday scenario, both systems snap into alignment. But only in a Friday-Sunday crucifixion scenario.

I want to put a chart up for you so you can visualize what I just said:

	Nissan 13 Thursday	Nissan 13/14 Thu/Fri	Nissan 14 Friday	Nissan 14/15 Fri/Sat	Nissan 15 Saturday	Nissan 15/16 Sat/Sun	Nissan 16 Sunday
	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day
Traditional		Passover	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf
Pharisees		Passover	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf
Sadducees		Passover	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf

The "Traditional" row shows how the traditional Good Friday-Easter Sunday scenario fits. For the Pharisees (and modern Jews), Firstfruits could be on any day of the week but it was always on the 16th. For the Sadducees, it was always on the same day of the week, Sunday, but it could be on any date.

See how that lines up? Only in a Friday-Sunday scenario is everything aligned. I find this to be an absolutely wonderful testament to the intricacy and beaty of God's timing. When our God says "fullness of time" He really means it!

What would this look like in the Thursday-Sunday and Wednesday-Saturday timelines?

Thursday-Sunday

	Nissan 14 Thursday	Nissan 14/15 Thu/Fri	Nissan 15 Friday	Nissan 15/16 Fri/Sat	Nissan 16 Saturday	Nissan 16/17 Sat/Sun	Nissan 17 Sunday
	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day
Thu-Sun	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Sabbath / Firstfruits?	Sabbath / Wave Sheaf?	Firstfruits?	Wave Sheaf?
Pharisees	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Sabbath / Firstfruits	Sabbath / Firstfruits		Wave Sheaf?
Sadducees	Passover	First Day UB	First Day UB	Sabbath	Sabbath	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf

For the Thursday-Sunday scenario, you now have a choice for Firstfruits. Which will it be, the Saturday or the Sunday? That all depends on who is writing the article you read. For the Pharisees, Firstfruits moves to Saturday because it is the 16th and comes after the annual holy day on Friday. But now there is a problem. Usually, an homer of barley was cut immediately after sundown at the start of the Firstfruits, then the Wave Sheaf happened the next morning. With Firstfruits on a double-Sabbath, neither of those can happen. The Wave Sheaf would have to be postponed. Except, Exodus says not to delay this kind of ceremony.

(EXO. 22: 29a) You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices.

Whether they delayed or not is beside the point. The point here is, the perfect alignment is ruined. Look at the chaos in that chart.

Wednesday-Saturday

	Nissan 15 Thursday	Nissan 15/16 Thu/Fri	Nissan 16 Friday	Nissan 16/17 Fri/Sat	Nissan 17 Saturday	Nissan 17/18 Sat/Sun	Nissan 18 Sunday
	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day	Night	Day
Wed-Sat	First Day UB	Firstfruits?	Wave Sheaf?	Sabbath	Sabbath	Firstfruits?	Wave Sheaf?
Pharisees	First Day UB	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf	Sabbath	Sabbath
Sadducees	First Day UB			Sabbath	Sabbath	Firstfruits	Wave Sheaf

For the Wednesday-Saturday scenario, you again have a choice for Firstfruits. With whom will you side, the Pharisees or the Sadducees? Again, that depends on the opinion of who is writing what you are reading. For the Pharisees, Firstfruits moves to Friday, while nothing at all happens on Friday for the Sadducees. (Why didn't the women go to the tomb on Friday?) As you can see, this scenario completely ruins the beauty of the alignment.

A Friday Firstfruits complicates the symbolism of Jesus' resurrection fulfilling Firstfruits. Pharisees would never agree that He did. He was resurrected two days afterward. Alignment obliterated!

If you know what Armstrongism teaches about the Last Supper, then you know they claim Jesus was correcting the timing of the Jews. That means the slaughter of the lambs should be moved to Tuesday and Jesus was crucified a day later than He should have been. That wreaks havoc on the imagery of Jesus as our Passover Lamb. 
This time scenario ruins the imagery of Passover and Firstfruits. How does that fix the timing exactly?

Read our article "History of Easter - part I". In it we talk about whether Jesus was correcting the timing of Passover when He ate the Lord's Supper a day early.

Notice how the alignment gets uglier and more chaotic the farther away you go from the Traditional timing. Contrast that with the beauty of the traditional timing and the intricacy of the planning that must have gone into it on God's part. The alignment only happens in the traditional Friday-Sunday scenario. What a little detail, and easy to miss. Yet God did not miss it.

You will never see a chart like this in any Church of God splinter group's material. It would never occur to them to make one in the first place. The information is just as much in front of them as it is you, yet they cherry pick right past it. They don't concern themselves with things that don't support their desired outcomes. And they most definitely do not make charts that show there could be issues with their predetermined conclusions. Too much money is at stake.

It's about time we took Herbert Armstrong's advice to "prove (test) all things".

CONCLUSION

At the start of this article, I said, "I for one am utterly amazed at something good that comes from these debates. I see God glorifying Himself in them." I hope now you understand what I meant.

Is this some slam dunk of a point I'm making today? Standing on its own, no. But it is interesting! Good thing this point doesn't stand by itself. Taken with the evidence in our other articles we have written for you, it builds a decent case.

When we genuinely prove something, we look at all of the evidence, both for and against. Not like our friends in the Church of God splinter groups who only look at evidence for their claims, and hide everything else. If we refuse to accept any contrary evidence even exists, how are we proving? We here at As Bereans Did spent most of our lives in Armstrongism. We know what is said and what evidence is given. We don't deny it. What we realized we hadn't done was exactly what Herbert Armstrong said to do in the first place - really prove out the Friday-Sunday scenario. Well, against all expectations, turns out there is quite a bit to it when we let the Bible interpret the Bible, use the right definitions of words, count like a Hebrew, take into account extra-Biblical evidence, and genuinely try to poke holes in our own understanding in order to let the truth just be what it is.

God is a God of order, not chaos. He defeats chaos. Because of some points in the law that were not clarified, such as which Sabbath should mark the start of the Day of Firstfruits, the Jews fell into disagreement. The Jews debated timing and ended up with two incompatible timing scenarios. God, being wiser and more capable than all our greatest faults, found a way to satisfy everything. He patiently waited, and when the fullness of time had come, He acted. Truly, He was up to the challenge of whatever our confusion threw at Him. He practically wraps it all up in a pretty bow. Praise the Lord! Glory and laud and honor to the One who sits on the throne, surrounded by beauty and power, and who humbled Himself for us so we could be with Him.

And this alignment only happens in the traditional Friday-Sunday scenario.

God bless you, dear reader! You are why ABD exists. Thanks for reading.

If you have more questions about Easter and timing, please read our "Easter FAQ". I update it from time to time.

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

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

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

Our prayer for you this Feast of Tabernacles

Every year, As Bereans Did likes to offer some food for thought with regards to the fall holy days. This year, we spent some time in prayer trying to narrow things down, because we found several topics that sounded interesting to explore further. But we kept coming back to the same thought:

Anyone who's checking this site during the Feast of Tabernacles is probably not having the "best Feast ever." What you need is encouragement, not an argument.

We know that the Feast can be a challenging time for those who are questioning within the Church of God movement. We've been there. It feels like everyone around you is having the time of their lives. They are rejoicing amidst the sight-seeing adventures, snorkeling and winery tours. Meanwhile, the same canned, reheated sermons and polite lunchtime fellowship are leaving you feeling spiritually empty.

Maybe you're excited to see some old familiar faces - faces of acquaintances you haven't seen since the last split. Maybe they're back! Or maybe your Feast site was closer to home, or in a dream destination they've always wanted to visit. A principled choice, indeed, for folks who left a handful of years ago, saying they wondered if those who lead your organization had ever really been "called."

Or maybe the division within the COGs is hitting you in a different way this year. Your site is smaller than ever before, with friends you're missing noticeably absent. Maybe you're making plans to meet them for lunch when your respective services on the opposite sides of town get out. Or maybe you're praying not to run into them at all, as the friendship dissolved, tragically and painfully, during the last split.

How can this be in God's one true church? Celebrating God's true festivals? In His chosen place? There must be something wrong with you.

Oh yes. Something is wrong. But it's not with you.

We're so, so sorry that you're feeling this way. Truly. We've been there, and it's no fun.

But we're glad these questions are coming up. God often uses pain to wake us up and reach us. It's hard to get our attention when we're comfortable and content.

Trust Him. Listen and follow Him. His sheep hear His voice. And know that we are earnestly praying for you at this time. And that we're here for you, because of you. And that things will get better.





_____________________________________________________________________

But... for those who came here for some comic relief, or miss the usual level of snark ABD delivers, we're throwing in our top 5 Feast of Tabernacles ideas as a bonus:

• Beachfront resort towns seem like a counter-intuitive spot for God to place His name annually during the Atlantic hurricane season. Thanks to the late feast this year, most sites seem to have dodged the bullet – unless you had reservations in the Bahamas. (All joking aside, we pray for those in the Bahamas. If you have excess second tithe, consider donating it here to the disaster fund administered by the Grand Bahama Port Authority). But if the National Weather Service can predict paths with somewhat reliable accuracy several days out, surely the Lord can do even better. Maybe the Feast was never intended to be celebrated in the New World – or even after the fall of the Temple. 
• Speaking of Jerusalem – if you're not keeping the Feast there, you may be doing it wrong. Those who support celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles based on the claim that nothing from the Sinai Covenant has passed except the sacrifices need to explain why it's ok to celebrate the festival in locations like Panama City Beach. In a hotel, rather than a palm frond sukkot. (Wait, I know! Because they're not up to hurricane construction codes: see also previous point).
• If you subscribe to the view that the holy days were established at creation, then there's precedent for celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles elsewhere. However, we'd like to see hard evidence that He has placed His name somewhere besides Jerusalem, after the fall of the temple. Aside from Panama City Beach, that is, where as many as 11 Church of God groups keep the Feast in separate venues. After all, things did not go well for Israel after Jeroboam changed the date and location of the festival. (I am starting to notice a pattern. See both points 1 and 2).  
• That Paul's dogged determination to get to Jerusalem for ONE Pentecost celebration is not a mandate for the entire gentile world to celebrate the Hebrew festivals. Scripture doesn't clarify whether Paul went primarily to celebrate the festival or to publicly exonerate claims against him through fulfilling a Nazirite-like vow. What it does make clear, though, is that he spent two uninterrupted years at the School of Tyrannus in Ephesus, more than a thousand miles from Jerusalem. And that when he finally did make his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he didn't try to convince the Ephesian brethren they were obligated to join him. 
• That, despite recent claims from the United Church of God, you do not need to celebrate the Hebrew festivals to enter the Kingdom of God.  One recent Beyond Today article we find particularly annoying tries to link the Hebrews 10:25 admonition to assemble with meeting to celebrate the holy days. The author completely inserts this idea into the text, which primarily deals with not losing the faith and assembling to encourage and serve one another. Not to mention that the concept is in complete contradistinction to Acts 16: 30-34. Paul and Silas had the perfect chance to instruct the jailer – likely a Philippian gentile – on UCG's finer points of salvation. Alas, they did not. 

************
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 Feast: Celebrating the Coming Kingdom of Law

Last time I wrote, I said that I would talk about the biggest reason I believe that many who are struggling in Armstrongism might not feel like rejoicing at the Feast of Tabernacles. In that post, I poked fun at a handful of smaller annoyances that many experience. But I believe there is a bigger problem with the Feast - an underlying cause for the feelings of emptiness.


The Kingdom of Law

I noticed that, this year, COGWA created a shareable “Feast of Tabernacles” social media guide that the group encouraged its members to share with their friends.

It explains what the Feast is, includes references from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, tells how to choose a site, talks about meeting friends and celebrating a foretaste of God's Kingdom, and concludes by encouraging readers to go home, plan for next year and learn more about the holy days.

Anybody notice something missing? Something kinda important? Um, maybe something, ANYTHING, about the king who returns to rule this kingdom?

On this explicitly sharable, social-media ready statement to the world, we have little indication that this document came from a Christian organization. The only oblique reference to Jesus Christ comes in point 3 of 5:

“We look forward to the time when all who have not had an opportunity for salvation will be resurrected to physical life and have a chance to live life according to God's plan in the world created by Christ during His millennial rule. God will then judge all people by their actions.”

Sure, it's not exactly vintage Herbert W Armstrong:

“Then I stated with all the power God gave me that I was the representative of the Great God, and that I was there to warn them that the 6,000 years are just about up, and that God would very soon supernaturally INTERVENE, and send the Messiah, Christ, in supreme power and

glory to SET UP THAT WORLD-RULING GOVERNMENT, to rule with GOD'S GOVERNMENT – and His Laws that will CAUSE peace, happiness, and universal well-being, for the next thousand years on earth. That the nations would FIGHT against Him, but that God will FORCE a rebellious humanity to have PEACE, prosperity, and happiness. This, I said, is the Message of the Kingdom of God.” (HWA Co-worker letter, 11/26/73, courtesy of Banned by HWA). 

Rather, it's a kinder, gentler translation of HWA's words. COGWA's message may be carefully cloaked in millennial language and allusions to “Christ,” but the underlying message is the same. The Feast of Tabernacles - as celebrated by the COGWA and the other Armstrongist Churches of God – has the same basic theme as its other observances and messages - living by the Sinai Covent law of Israel; and being judged for salvation on how good of a job you do.

Thank I'm exaggerating? I took some time to listen to the featured Feast sermon on the United Church of God's member web site. Now, UCG is often criticized by more hardline Armstrongist groups for being the most evangelical splinter group to come out of the Worldwide Church of God. Can you guess upon which book the speaker, longtime pastor Jerold Aust, based this keynote Feast of Tabernacles sermon?

Nehemiah. Yup, some of the classic millennial, gospel-centered, forwarding-looking chapters of the Old Testament right there. (imagine sarcasm font here).

So, according to Aust, God sent Israel into captivity because they didn't celebrate His feasts. To be fair, that may have been a part of it. But Jeremiah 25 tells us specifically that God sent Judah into captivity because of their idolatry. Verses 5 and 6 tell us that the Jeremiah warned Judah: “saying, turn now, every one of you, from his evil way and evil deeds, and dwell upon the land that the Lord has given to you and your fathers from of old and forever. Do not go after other gods to serve and worship them, or provoke me to anger with the work of your hands. Then I will do you no harm.”

Judah did not listen to the prophets and continued to worship false gods, so the Lord used Nebuchadnezzar to defeat them and put them in captivity. But I digress.

Anyway, Aust noted that Ezra and Nehemiah read the book of the law to the Israelites, and then reminded them not to weep, because it was a feast day to the Lord and they were commanded to rejoice. And so instead, the people made booths and feasted, and the heads of the households came together to study the law. Happy Feast!

But rejoicing isn't just for the Old Testament! Aust then scripture-flips forward to Philippians 4:4, which reminds us to always rejoice in the Lord. Now, Philippians doesn't mention the Feast of Tabernacles or any millennial reign. In fact, it appears that Paul is writing from prison and spends his letter recounting many of his trials, exhorting his brothers in Christian living and talk about the fact that he has learned to rejoice and be content in any situation, including his current imprisonment. But...he says to REJOICE! So it must jive with Nehemiah and the Feast of Booths!

If that isn't enough evidence, Aust then turns to Romans 5:2, which breaks in mid-thought: “Through Him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”  

Now that MUST be millennial! Paul is rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God!

Yes and no. Mostly no, but a little bit yes. Paul has just finished a treatise on justification by grace through faith, and is talking about our standing before God in Jesus. We can have hope of being glorified because God promises it to those who place their faith in Jesus, according to the verse that immediately precedes it. Immediately after, Paul talks about rejoicing in our suffering because it builds character, and that character produces hope – a hope that is bolstered by God's love and the Holy Spirit.

But wait, Mr. Aust mentions the Holy Spirit, too! It is, after all, the down payment we receive on our eternal life. And if we are able to try hard enough to foot the rest of the bill, well, then, God will make good on His promise!

In fact, Aust says, it is our responsibility to do so, including keeping the Feast! After all, the Bible says God will shorten the tribulation for the sake of the elect. Then, once we have fulfilled our responsibility by qualifying through keeping the law, we can get back to rebuilding the earth and teaching the generations who are still alive and are resurrected how to keep the law. Which brings us full circle back to COGWA's social media campaign.

In summary: we keep the Feast of Tabernacles in order to obey the law. If we do a good enough job keeping the law, we will qualify to be in God's Kingdom, where we will teach others how to keep the law, so that they can also eventually be judged on their ability to keep the law.

But this isn't earning our salvation, the COGs tell us.


Veiled Hearts and Minds

This whole discussion reminds me of the spiritual blindness that mixing the covenants seems to promote in the COGs.  Specifically,  2 Corinthians 3. Here, I'll throw in a few for free.

Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? (v. 7-8).

Indeed this is the case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that has surpassed it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. (v. 10-11). 

But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day

 whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. (verses 14-16). 


In fact, many COG articles I've read spend so much ink demonstrating to us that Jesus kept the Feast that they barely have time or space to explain why Jesus really matters.

Let's get this straight. Yes, Mr. Aust is correct. The New Testament writers discuss topics like hope and joy quite a bit. And their hope and joy came from the fact that they stood justified before God through Jesus Christ's sacrifice, not in their keeping of the law. They were grateful that they no longer had to fear eternal punishment when they fell short of this law, the law which they themselves stated they were unable to keep:

“Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee, as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith...” Philippians 3:4-9.

Let's be clear, because I know many claim Paul is just talking about circumcision, just like they claim he is talking about circumcision alone in Acts 15. Not true. The use of the Greek conjunction “te” in Acts 15:5 indicates the Judaizers were stating Gentiles must both be circumcised AND keep the law of Moses, not be circumcised in keeping with the law of Moses. This same law which, as Peter states in verse 10, neither he nor his fathers could bear? Circumcision wasn't the yoke of bondage. The Law of Moses was the yoke of bondage.

Here are some other statements the New Testament writers - those guys whom Aust seems to think are all about rejoicing over the law - made about the law:

Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by Him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38-39). 

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law, there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring – not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the  father of us all.” (Romans 4:13-16). 

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions around by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:2-6). 

For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. Hebrews 8:7

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13). 

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and now by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16). 

In Galatians 3:2-3, Paul could just as easily be asking Jerold Aust, or Jim Franks, or Gerald Weston, or Stephen Flurry: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?


Mixing Wineskins

The Feast of Tabernacles, as taught and observed by the COGs, try to do just that: they celebrate a theology in which the “down payment” of the Holy Spirit is gained by repentance and confession of faith, then grasped onto for dear life by observing cherry-picked tenets of the law. If you hit an unquantifiable, unmeasurable threshold of obedience to that “law,” you qualify for eternal life in God's Kingdom, where you will teach survivors of Armageddon, and eventually the whole world, how to keep the law well enough to qualify for eternal life.

(I am not getting into an argument about the Great White Throne judgment in what is already a ridiculously long post. Suffice it to say that most Christians believe the book of Hebrews when it says that it is appointed for all men to die once and then be judged, and the book of Romans when it says that there is no condemnation in the judgment for those who are found in Christ).

However, the Bible describes things a little differently for those who accept grace through faith, but return to law-keeping to maintain their right standing with God.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:2-4). 

Again, I remind you, this is not just circumcision we are talking about. Acts 15 clearly tells us, unequivocally in the Greek, that Gentiles were being pressured to be circumcised AND keep the law. So, if you are keeping components of law in order to have right standing with God, then Galatians states that Christ's sacrifice does nothing for you.

You are probably asking, how do I know whether I am keeping the festivals in order to maintain my standing with God? Well, let me ask YOU a question: what do you think would happen to you if you stopped?

Do you believe you would be forfeiting your eternal life? If so, there's your answer.


So, that's why the Feast begins to feel hollow to those who see the cracks in Armstrongism. You are mixing wineskins. You are seeking the joy, fulfillment and peace of the New Covenant as described by Paul, Peter and John, but trying to grasp it - told you it is possible to obtain it – told you MUST qualify for it or else - through the practices of Israel. You are searching for light among the shadows.

If you are part of the bride of Christ, you can only be party to one covenant at a time – the Sinai Covenant or the New Covenant.  The Sinai Covenant can't help but leave you feeling empty. It was specifically designed to do so, in order to point to future fulfillment in Christ. Feeling that hollowness isn't an indication that there's something wrong with you. It's an indication that there's something right, and that God is calling you into that better covenant with better promises. You've learned the lesson. Maybe it's time to leave the tutor behind.

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